A day in the life: An artist's rendering of Gliese 581g.
Image: Ron Miller
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Astronomers have long searched for a planet that could harbor life outside our solar system. When reports came in earlier this fall of the not too hot, not too cold exoplanet Gliese 581g, it was like the answer to a dream. “If it’s confirmed, I think it’s definitely the planet we’ve been waiting for, for a long time,” says Rory Barnes, an astrobiologist at the University of Washington who wasn’t involved in the research.
The wait may continue for a while. Soon after University of California, Santa Cruz, astronomer Steven Vogt and his collaborators reported the “Goldilocks” exoplanet, a rival Swiss group said it could not find evidence for Gliese 581g in its own data set. Confirming the new find, based on 11 years of subtle and indirect telescope-based measurements, could require several more years.
The tantalizing data, though, have already galvanized astronomers to step up their research on the conditions necessary for extraterrestrial life. The possibility that Gliese 581g may exist, they say, has added a new urgency for more sophisticated supercomputer models of life on other Earth-size planets.
Scientists, theoretical astrophysicists among them, combine astronomical observations with what they know about life on Earth to build simulations of exoplanet environments. Amid a recent surge of detected planets, realistic models could provide critical guidance for future missions seeking out signs of life in the universe. Recently Gliese 581g has become a focal point for this research. Its nearly circular orbit around a red dwarf star would position it at the optimal distance for temperatures permitting liquid water on the surface—an essential feature for life. The red dwarf, though, emits only 1 percent of the light from our sun. Photosynthetic organisms on the planet would likely absorb as much of the weaker starlight as possible, making them appear black, according to modeling by Nancy Kiang of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and collaborators at the University of Washington–based Virtual Planetary Laboratory.
Preliminary calculations also support the idea that one side of Gliese 581g always faces its star and roasts in temperatures up to 64 degrees Celsius, whereas the planet’s dark side sees relentless North Pole–like winters. This positioning, still a matter of debate, might leave a more livable zone awash in a “perpetual sunset,” as Vogt calls it. If such a hypothesis proves correct, Kiang says the specific wavelengths of light reaching each longitude could even prompt a rainbowlike gradient of plant colors with pigments adapted to absorb the light streaming across the surface.
Beyond energizing theorists, Gliese 581g has whet astronomers’ appetites for what many expect to be hundreds of similar discoveries outside our solar system. “Either we’ve been very lucky and we won’t find another one again for a long time,” Vogt says, “or there’s a lot of them out there.”
This article was originally published with the title Black Plants and Twilight Zones.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentJust when did SA start publishing Science Fiction? There's more airy-fairy speculation in this than an H G Wells or Jules Verne novel. You might just as well posit that the planet, which may or may not exist, and may or may not be one of many that may or may not support life which may or may not be possible is made of green cheese!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell "curmudgeon", I believe they did say all of that. With, of course, the exception of green cheese. I think it's important to note that these speculations are very much a part of the scientific approach to extraterrestrial life being elsewhere in the universe. I suppose you were looking for pictures of Drew Barrymore and E.T. to be posted in this article? Or are you a person who believes that we are all alone in this inexplicably enormous universe of countless trillions of stars?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurmudgeon - What about this article don't you like? I am perplexed about your opinion. I think the article is full of information that sparks the imagination. There is a need to start with conjecture - plausibly derived conjecture. When I see the logic in their conjectures, I think they are not at all doing science fiction. Without using our imagination and all the conjecture that goes with those ideas that spring from our dreaming, we would never get anywhere. It's all about balancing the empiricism required by scientific investigation and the day dreams and conjectures born from our imagination. Cheers...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think it's worth research grants for people to say things like " “Either we’ve been very lucky and we won’t find another one again for a long time, or there’s a lot of them out there.” (either it will rain tomorrow or it won't) without any proof that they've even found ONE, then so be it. Personally I can't help feeling that the money would be better spent on the life that we know for certain exists on this planet than on speculating about life elsewhere in the Universe that we will never be able to prove the existence of. Whether or not I or anyone else believes that we are uniquely blessed with life on this planet is irrelevant in the face of the impossibility of ever proving otherwise. As long as 'warp speed' travel is denied us we are de facto alone in the Universe. Dreaming and conjecture is well enough handled by novelists and poets. Scientists should have better things to do in the face of that undeniable truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMrs Palin, is that you? Don't you have a tea party to go to, or something more important than looking at science which you clearly don't understand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@curmudgeon, it seems you do not understand science. It is about the quest for knowledge and not fulfilling your personal wish list. Science as a process starts with conjecture and works towards understanding. People like you start off in ignorance and insist on remaining there. My question is why someone so opposed to the fundamentals of science wastes his time on a science site. Why don't you spend your time in a place that celebrates ignorance, like your church. You will not be missed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscurmudgeon: I don't see the point of all this wild speculation in a "scientific" publication.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislandonthegr8: There's no clear evidence to show you, so wild speculation will have to suffice.
ConnieM87: Dreams and speculation are important too.
curmudgeon: I can't get on board with funding dreams and speculation.
Dimitris: You are so stupid, you must be Sara Palin, you know, 'cause Sarah Palin's real stupid.
robert schmidt: You are so stupid, you must go to church, you know, 'cause people who go to church are real stupid.
Feel free to comment on my new screen play.
Well, since when is it science fiction?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the "Angels" described in the Bible came in a Flying Saucer. The Atlantians came from the Orion Belt in a Space ship. There is still a more or less habitable planet there.
The Technology of the Flying Saucer I patented.
look into www.rexresearch.com/hiddink/hiddink.htm
I offered it to Nasa but Propulsion Engineers screwed up by not contacting me first like I had urged. They used the setting of an E-Bomb and caused a big black-out in the USA and Canada (2003). Then they advised Nasa Headquarters that the technology of the Flying Saucer was unsuitable for Space Travel.
With a fraction of the outlay that the Heavy Lifter is going to cost we still can have real space travel but Nasa is probably not the outfit that could do it.
I would am curious about:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.our earthling assumption that water is essential for life.
2.what we make of beasties being trained to live on arsenic and other earthling "poisons" -
Perhaps we are suffering from the hubris of looking for life in our image.
See my post for more at www.viewser.com
The stabilizing influences of our very large, single moon is a crucial factor in the development of complex life forms on Earth. Moreover, the extremely lucky collision that produced it and reengineered the Earth may have deposited the protomoon's heavy elements on the Earth, providing it with a double dose of an iron core producing our relatively powerful, protective magnetic field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese crucial factors should integrated in Drake's oversimplified rough approximation of the probability of developing life forms. I suspect this small additional factor will significantly reduce the resulting prospects...
@jtdwyer, the moon undoubtedly helped the earth sustain life by contributing to the stability of our environment, even given the numerous periodic extinctions we've had but it is hardly the only scenario that could provide such an environment. Jupiter has also likely made a significant contribution and from what we have seen so far, Jupiters are very common. It is kind of like saying that the chances of your parents ever having a child were extremely rare given all the things that needed to happen for you to be born.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@David Cota, agreed, but as I indicated there are a rather large number of scenarios that can create similar conditions, what's more they are consistent with our observations so far. A slightly larger terrestrial planet would have the same magnetic shield even with a smaller percentage of iron at the core. And we have found large terrestrial planets. But who is to say that our ratio of iron in our solar system is normal? The asteroid shield provided by the moon is also provided by Jupiter and the other Jovian planets. Again, large Jovian planets are common. I agree that we have great conditions for developing technologically advanced life. But I think it is a mistake to think our conditions are the only conditions that are hospitable to technologically advanced life. I certainly don't think alien civilizations are common but the variables you are looking at may not be the most variable. The one that may matter the most is the long term chances of survival of technologically advanced civilizations. If they only last a few hundred or a thousand years then the probability of two civilizations coexisting is very rare.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bacteria article was cool but I didn't read anywhere what those bacteria ate. If they need simple carbs then we are really not much better off than we are now. Also, hydrogen is great but it is difficult to store. We may be better off with bacteria that piss diesel.
Considering the number of moons in our own solar system, perhaps planets with moons are common. If so, the mass we detect for an extrasolar planet would be the combined mass of planet plus moon(s). The planet itself may be closer to Earth size in that case, and more likely to harbor life, following jtdwyer's train. Am I wrong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So Robert I ask you this even if life is prolific through out the universe why would it be intelligent, benevolent and inquisitive of us." Intelligence (technologically advanced) is not guaranteed. Even within our own species there are still hunter/gatherer societies. But even though time does not guaranty intelligence, intelligence requires time to form. Intelligence is very complex (intelligence is not a factor of brain size but of brain organization). Complexity and organization take time. So you need a stable planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is every reason to believe that an alien species would be as benevolent as we are. Terrifying! But our salvation is the limitations provided by the distances involved. We have nukes and it is safe to assume that so would they so the concept of MAD applies. It is a long way to travel to end up with nothing or worse, dead. If they want resources, they would do better finding a planet without techno-life. Statistically speaking there would likely be more of those.
What would make them curious about us would be the same thing that made them curious enough to create technology. I think curiosity would be fundamental to techno-species.
With a 1g acceleration it would take approx 48 years to get to the closest star. On the way, there would be space dust and rocks that would detonate like nuclear bombs when impacting the ship even at those velocities. Interstellar space travel is highly unlikely. The risks and costs are too great even for the most desperate. Consider that civilizations that would be so desperate as to leave their own systems would not likely have the resources to leave. If they had the resources they wouldn't need to leave (unless there was an approaching natural disaster). As we can see with our own issues with climate change and diminishing resources there are those that live in denial, and will do so right up until it is too late. But the best plan would still be to find a nice peaceful planet whose inhabitants will not fight back.
Contrary to what many have said, I think discovering intelligent life in our galaxy will be a lonely experience. It will likely be made very clear then how far away we are from each other. How impossible it is to carry on conversations. How vast our galaxy really is. Now we have ideas from star trek and star wars that you can fly to inhabited planets in the time it takes to go on a cruise. When and if it does happen that we make contact, we will realise how truly alone we are in our little part of the galaxy.
At first I didn't believe what I was reading. I said to myself "may be I am too sleepy at this time (past midnight) and I am not understanding what I am reading". But after reading your comment it is clear I understood well enough what I was reading. It is quite surprising it is still not clear if Gliese581g really exists.My bet is that it does exists and sooner or later we will find extraterrestrial life. We had better be prepared for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Robert if a creature made it here from another solar system our nukes would not be a viable threat." why not? For the aliens it would be a "come-as-you-are" war. There is no way for them to bring more resources from their home world to support their conflict with us. Some well placed nukes, and we have lots of those, would make life very difficult for them. The one thing the US has yet to learn is that in order to hold land you need boots on the ground. Aircraft, ships, drones, smart bombs and cruise missiles cannot take territory. Only soldiers can. I am certain that no matter what their technology is, they will have to walk the earth to conquer it. Remember we spent the last billion years here so we have a home field advantage. The other thing the US has yet to learn is that it is difficult for even a technologically advanced, well armed force to defeat a poorly armed, determined insurgency. Like I said, they would be much better off finding a planet in its pre-intelligence phase, building a few cottages, and relaxing. Who would want to come to earth and fight us psychopaths? And for what, our contaminated air, water and land? Why would aliens want to steal this landfill site from us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think our understanding of magnetic fields or chaotic inclinations are really strong enough, in a statistical sense, to make the strong claims you wish to make about the frequency of complex life in the Cosmos. As for "extremely lucky collision" of Theia with proto-Earth, depends on which statistical analysis you read. Robin Canup's studies produce Earth/Moon configurations in about 1/12 star systems which come together via oligarchic assembly, the most popular cosmogony of terrestrial planets. So "extremely lucky" isn't really so lucky - odds of 1/8 are pretty good in a Galaxy of 100 billion stars.
"Our germs and viruses would have a better chance of killing an alien life form but that is a two way street." I disagree, "war of the worlds" notwithstanding we find on earth viruses and bacteria having a hard time crossing species boundaries and we share more than half of our DNA with the Eukaryotic organisms on this planet. It is unlikely that any of our diseases would affect them and vice versa. And weapons are weapons, kinetic force, heat, blunt force trauma, radiation, caustic chemicals. These all work on basic physics and chemistry which would be the same for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn regards to the aliens having sci-fi level shielding, it is just that. We can make up any number of fantasy scenarios in which the aliens are virtually invincible, except...they always have an Achilles heel. Well I'm not talking about movies, I'm talking about reality and in reality, the aliens are limited to same laws of physics as we are. Still you haven't addressed my fundamental argument, why on earth would they come here when there are likely more easy picking elsewhere? David, you have seen too many movies. We are not an attractive takeover target. We are something to avoid on a galactic scale.
How interesting, how interesting! Arguments really worthwhile to read! We, after all, may be safe in our corner of the universe. If we have no enemies out there then let's keep our house as clean as we can. Let us strive, all the time, for a better world even when we may not reach that ideal situation we dream about. And any way we should be prepared even for the worst of scenarios, just in case. I did not have the time to read all the commentaries; but to say the least I learned a lot from the ones I did read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists should find out first how life originated on earth.The biggest forms of life followed small and simple ones,no much more than a molecule.I believe the forces that created life are still there,but as life invades every viable space each new form of life is killed instantly by existing life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be more logic to examine how life originated on earth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this