An intriguing star system
Another super-Earth that orbits much closer to GJ 667C was previously detected in 2010, but the finding was never published, Vogt added. This planet, called GJ 667Cb, takes 7.2 days to circle the star but its location makes it far too hot to sustain liquid water on its surface.
"It's basically glowing cinders, or a well-lit charcoal," Vogt said. "We know about a lot of these, but they're thousands of degrees and not places where you could live."
But, the newly detected GJ 667Cc planet is a much more intriguing candidate, he said.
"When a planet gets bigger than about 10 times the size of the Earth, there's a runaway process that happens, where it begins to eat up all the gas and ice in the disk that it's forming out of and swells quickly into something like Uranus, Jupiter or Saturn," Vogt explained. "When you have a surface and the right temperature, if there's water around, there's a good chance that it could be in liquid form. This planet is right in that sweet spot in the habitable zone, so we've got the right temperature and the right mass range."
Preliminary observations also suggest that more planets could exist in this system, including a gas giant planet and another super-Earth that takes about 75 days to circle the star. More research will be needed to confirm these planetary candidates, as well as to glean additional details about the potentially habitable super-Earth, the scientists said.
Finding nearby alien planets
To make their discovery, the researchers used public data from the European Southern Observatory combined with observations from the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and the new Carnegie Planet Finder Spectrograph at the Magellan II Telescope in Chile.
Follow-up analyses were also made using a planet-hunting technique that measures the small dips, or wobbles, in a star's motion caused by the gravitational tug of a planet.
"With the advent of a new generation of instruments, researchers will be able to survey many M dwarf stars for similar planets and eventually look for spectroscopic signatures of life in one of these worlds," Anglada-Escudé said in a statement. Anglada-Escudé was with the Carnegie Institution for Science when he conducted the research, but has since moved on to the University of Gottingen in Germany.
With the GJ 667C system being relatively nearby, it also opens exciting possibilities for probing potentially habitable alien worlds in the future, Vogt said, which can't easily be done with the planets that are being found by NASA's prolific Kepler spacecraft.
"The planets coming out of Kepler are typically thousands of light-years away and we could never send a space probe out there," Vogt said. "We've been explicitly focusing on very nearby stars, because with today's technology, we could send a robotic probe out there, and within a few hundred years, it could be sending back picture postcards."
- Gallery: The Smallest Alien Planets
- Kepler Reveals Lots of Planets: Some Habitable?
- A Galaxy Full of Alien Planets (Infographic)
© 2011 TechMediaNetwork.com. All rights reserved.
See what we're tweeting about
37 Comments
Add CommentSend a probe out there then! Maybe it is the inhabitants of that planet that has been sending probes to our drunk rednecks on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an interesting find but life as we know it maybe not. I think the astronomers have it right to consider a habitable zone around a star but for life on earth, I would think the mass of earth and the gravity it has are as much a factor as a habitable zone for life as we know it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo lets hope someone checks for life as we dont know it on that planet as well as life as we know it.
Even if it doesn't have life as-we-know-it, it is still usefull to know about if it can support life as-we-know-it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the significance is- if we find one sorta-habitable so close- there may be some that are even closer just further out.
Not sure why the mass and gravity would make a whole lot of difference. If life starts out in the oceans as microbial life, and becomes multicellular in the oceans, then it wouldn't matter whether the planet was the same mass as earth or many times more massive. The only difficulty would be for large organisms on land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit takes more than a habitable zone for liquid water to form on a planet's surface let alone life - air pressure anyone? until we can make reasonable measurements remotely as to a planet's atmospheric conditions it is perhaps premature to announce "sister earth" every time a new blip shows up via planet detection techniques.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to your PS: False
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether immortal souls exist or not, people who don't want to believe one side or the other will devise ways of explaining away any evidence contrary to their preconceptions.
The most massive objects in our solar system to lack an appreciable atmosphere are Mercury, Ganymede, and Callisto. So we can be pretty sure anything more massive than the earth will have an atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefinitely! If we have life at 10000m in our oceans, with five times the gravity, that would be at 2000m there. The question about life or not is more about the conditions needed for it to start than about under which conditions it eventually may exist. And nobody really know the answer to that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome rather banal remarks above...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink about how Cosmology has radically changed "reality" in the past few hundred years... and over the past 10-15 years as it became evident that the initial "Eureka" over so-called exoplanets is now the predictably steady drip... drip... drip of "discovering" the absolutely common place.
OF COURSE there are billions and billions of planets... with some significant percentage in the "habitable zone". The notion that we are somehow a "special case" or worse, a "special creation" is merely stale but persistent folklore.
Unless and until there fundamental technologies discovered and proven for INTERSTELLAR travel... all of this is moot and we best become far better stewards of this "pale blue dot", lest we find ourselves a sad, ugly chapter in the story of human evolution... with the distinction of despoiling this wonderful planet to hasten our own demise.
Cheers... and think/act... sus-tain-ably!
If we have life at 10000m in our oceans, with five times the gravity, that would be at 2000m there. The question about life or not is more about the conditions needed for it to start than about under which conditions it eventually may exist. And nobody really know the answer to that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisliquid water requires 1 Standard Atmospheric Pressure. it does not help to have a super earth if it has the atmosphere of Titan or Jupiter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince someone else raised the notion of an "immortal soul" on this thread (i know not why)... here are my questions for those harboring such delusions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Since nothing in the Universe is "immortal", is it not beyond arrogant to claim this status for a absurdly transient, frail C-based life-form?
2. Exactly when in the evolution of hominids did "ensoulment" occur?
3. Exactly when does ensoulment occur in the developmental process of a human embryo... and why not other mammals or animals? Further... when an early embryo splits to form twins... does this soul-thingy split... or does a fresh one arrive in the nick o' time?
4. Exactly how does this ephemeral, unknown entity supervene upon our physical brains... which neuroscience is convincingly demonstating as the complete basis of our "minds" (no souls need apply)?
5. Where exactly does this bizarre entity originate... and when the body is not living... where does it go? (ref. Cotton-Eyed Joe!)
I could go on... but let's just leave it there... oh, except for one thing... please describe exactly what this/your immortal soul would do... for... an... eternity... ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?
Hi Micky, it's actually fairly simple to determine the possible ranges for air pressure if you have a good idea of the mass and temperature of a given body. Water can exist in a liquid form at fairly low temperatures under high pressure as well, and will continue to exist as a liquid at higher pressures until temperature becomes an issue or pressure increases to massive levels (at which point you get a form of ice, though not the kind of ice we are used to encountering on earth). Essentially, if you know that gravity falls within a certain range for a body, and that its temperature falls within a certain range, you can calculate the expected atmospheric pressure fairly accurately - certainly accurately enough to speculate as to the existence of liquid water. If you're interested, you can research the barometric formula for an example of how this works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If people possess immortal souls, it should be possible to logically deduce this by objective analysis of their actions." The best answer is brief: No! A counterquestion is what is meant by an objective analysis. There is no such thing, as the concept of an objective analysis is undefined. Besides the question is irrelevant, but you were probably being ironical, in which case you have my support. The planets they find so far are not very Earthlike. But to find such a little thing is harder than finding larger, stranger planets. And I agree that the probability of Earthlike planets in the cosmos as well as in this galaxy increase. Will we find a universe full os mosscovered worlds?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was one thought persistently running through my mind while I read the article. Exploitation. My worry would be we discover these planets, make interstellar travel a reality and repeat the same steps on some other "virgin soil".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember that 4.5 as massive does not equal a surface gravity of 4.5g. It is more massive, but you are also further from the centroid of the planet, decreasing the g you experience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we assume the planet is about the same density as Earth (based on the article, if anything the planet is less dense) then the volume is 4.5 times that of Earth, solving for the radius gives us about 10,530 km.
At that radius, the local acceleration is about 1.65g. It wouldn't be that comfortable for us, but we could walk there. If it is less dense, obviously that would go down further.
Someone check my math (this is back of the envelope stuff) but I think that is correct.
You did good on the back of that envelope. I've seen that same number on two other blogs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou never saw the experiments in the space station on what the heck happens to plants growing in Zero gravity. Imagine what size muscles all humans would have if gravity were only twice what it was. And last time I checked gravity affects things in oceans too, water doesnt create a gravity free zone. The water pressure would be 4 times more than here. To say gravity has no or minimal effects on life as we know it is arrogant. Though, I suppose after decades of global warmist "science" people are getting used to partial data and ignoring all possible factors in how something could be working.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was not saying any specific gravity, the planet could be 10 times more massive in volume and less dense too. It doesn't change the fact that even at 1.6 times earth's gravity it would have a potentially drastic change on evolution of that planet's life, including creating life we would not necessarily recognize. If earth had 1.6 times its own gravity and life evolved in that environment, assuming it was basically the same life, most of us humans would probably be all muscle bound people. Maybe still 5.8 on average but who knows, that much gravity could cause everyone to be 3 ft tall or maybe the evolution would have favored taller people, who knows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is arrogant beyond reason to assume that only life as we know it could exist.
And to rule out gravity having an affect on life or evolution is shortsighted or at least incomplete in considering what it takes to make and evolve life. Could we even survive in an atmosphere created with twice the gravity? Would the distribution of oxygen in such a planets atmosphere work in a way to allow oxygen breathing life to exist?
so yeah we could walk on the planet with minimal effort but evolve on that planet and still be humans as we know it? unlikely.
The habitable zone around red dwarfs might be bigger than expected:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27280/
This is because water ice and snow albedo is wavelength dependent and this may allow liquid water to persist further away from red dwarfs as previously thought. Since ice and snow would absorb more energy from a red dwarf, it is more difficult to have runaway snowball events on planets that orbit them. This, in conjunction with higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, may also explain the Faint Young Sun Paradox, since a dimmer sun would give off more of the IR that ice would absorb, keeping the oceans liquid.
When i read this text in my mind i imagine the life in this new planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI and my peers spoke about this.
I think, the nasa and others organizations have many secrets.
About this, in my opinion, if this planet have conditions for exist life probably have!
But nobody Know!
The earth isn t the planet who have life!
unfortunately the men is the big obstacle to the future!
Yes, i know we haven t technology to study this but i belive the space give us more suprise!
A rocky planet (possibly 2) in a solar system that "shouldn't" be producing anything other than gas giants and comets. Another non-La Placian solar system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's hope our scientifically-illiterate politicians don't cut more funding, so we can actually understand what we "see".
Interesting how Pimm Modeling seems to apply to more than just biodiversity.
Has anyone wondered why nearly ALL of these exoplanets seem to have such high orbital velocities?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy calculation wasn't directed to you. I was only pointing out that 4.5 as massive does not mean 4.5g. Of course, as far as we know, there is nothing that would prevent life evolving, should conditions be right. Even evolution on Earth could have taken a very different path at a number of points (the Cambrian explosion, for example) since evolution has no "direction" or purpose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering that we're talking about a dwarf star, what's the relative mass of the three stars in the system? Which is dominant? Could there actually be three stages of orbits, with the "planet" as a sub-moon? What is the diameter, therefore the true surface gravity of the planet? How long would it take us to get there, and park, at 1G acceleration, with a photonic sail or otherwise?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, it's not our "next-door neighbor", more like a city block, of apparently vacant houses, away. "In the constellation Scorpius"? Why not give it's coordinates?
Yes, let's also look for life-not-as-we-know-it. Wouldn't it be boring to find another planet also over-populated with people just like us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk. Send the Mormon church to check it out. I am unsure any Mormons qualify for Godhead status though. Only these are anointed to bear the plates of Gold to alien converts. You can bet your Moroni baloni, they are probably already there swearing in kids who PROMISE to guard the secret of the height of the flag pole in Temple Square. Yup, cheezecake for your secrets. Real cheezecake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthanks johndean, i will
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis so true One day aliens are going to come 2 our planet and mate with us then eat our brains! but they won't do that to me cause I'm really smart!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA planet around GJ 667C is exciting. That the planet is in the habitable zone is also great, but the critical question is, does the new planet have a magnetic core and sufficiently strong magnetic field to ward off cosmic rays that will prevent the destruction of an atmosphere and water?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople will jump to the conclusion that we (earthlings) could migrate to that planet and survive. I hardly think so if the weight of a 160 pound adult would weigh (in the vicinity Of) 700 pounds. Am I, making an erroneous calculation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, your supposition appears reasonable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe numbers in the story don't make sense. The planet is 4.5x the mass of earth, inside the habitable zone, yet it orbits the star in only 28 days. How massive is the star? That would make it awfully close to the star - not exactly inside the habitable zone, unless it's a very cool star, but massive enough to keep the planet in such a close orbit. It doesn't make sense. Perhaps a revolution every 28 days?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main reason most planets that have been discovered so far have such rapid orbital periods is due to the method of discovery. It's very difficult to monitor a star continuously for many years without interruptions in the data set. Spotting something that occurs every 20-100 days is relatively easy in comparison.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, if you are watching for the "wobble" of the sun (using the redshift) a planet that is taking many years to orbit the star will hardly cause any detectable wobble to the level our instruments are yet able to achieve. We aren't talking about a few percent different; we'e talking a few billionths of 1% difference.
Red dwarf stars are extremely cool. Therefore the habitable zone will be much closer in toward the surface of the star.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoving in closer to the star will increase the orbital period of the planet tremendously.
Why do we suppose that a planet that has water actually has land too? Perhaps most water planets are so deep with water that they don't have any land at all. If that were so, on Earth, what evolutionary opportunities would there be for human intelligence, or the development of technology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe search for planets mostly finds Hot Jupiters. As our ability to spot planets has improved, it still seems to only spot rare cases, the ones where planets pass in front of their stars. If you were looking on life in our system, you would have to be almost in the plane of our planets' orbits to see anything pass in front of our sun. So what chance would you have?
If we sent a probe to another star system at any appreciable fraction of the speed of light, we would have to be very careful to ensure that it slows down on approach. I am sure we would not like to have our planet accidentally wiped out by thousands of tonnes of space probe, sent by admirably-curious and well-meaning aliens, hitting it at relativistic speeds. (Something they never seem to have a problem with on Star Trek.)
The theory about the creation of the heavy elements involving conventional explosive supernovae fusion came before the discovery of so many exo-planets. These planets now known to be very abundant are all made out of heavy elements and are literally everywhere. Should this theory not now be revised with this new information? How many supernovae could there have been?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this