Habitable exoplanet claim gets another challenge

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Don't pack your bags just yet for Gliese 581 g, the potentially habitable extrasolar planet that was announced in September.

No sooner had a team of American astronomers, led by veteran planet hunters Paul Butler and Steven Vogt, announced their discovery than competing groups and independent researchers dove into data sets both public and proprietary to see if they, too, could find the signature of the newfound world. A new such analysis has come up empty in verifying the existence of Gliese 581 g. Only time will tell if it is really there.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


If it exists, the planet is a smallish world some three times the mass of Earth and orbits Gliese 581, a dim star about 20 light-years from the sun. Hundreds of worlds are now known that populate solar systems other than our own, but Gliese 581 g made waves because its orbit would place it squarely in its star's habitable zone—the right distance from the star so that liquid water could exist on the planet's surface.

A competing European team reported just weeks after the planet's unveiling that their data, including some that had not yet been published, did not offer any corroboration of Gliese 581 g. And now, Philip Gregory of the University of British Columbia, analyzing data from Butler and Vogt's team as well as the European competitors, has come to an even more dismissive conclusion. His work has been submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Vogt and Butler combined their own 11-year set of observations with 4.3 years of published data from the Europeans and found evidence for six planets in the Gliese 581 system, including the potentially life-enabling Gliese 581 g. (Four of the planets were already known.) But Gregory, applying a statistical analysis to the same data from both the Americans and Europeans, scored a reliable detection of only two planets, or four with a little tweaking. By isolating the European data set, he found the signal of five planets orbiting the star—none of which fits the description of Gliese 581 g. (It is possible that measurement errors in the Americans' data may be underestimated, Gregory speculated.) The six-planet system interpretation of Vogt and Butler is almost certainly flawed, according to the new paper—Gregory calculated that the six-planet detection had a 99.9978 percent chance of being false.

So, Vogt and Butler's analysis suggests one thing, and Gregory's analysis suggests quite another, but the fact remains that both studies rest on the same observational data. The existence (or not) of Gliese 581 g probably won't be resolved until more data become available, starting with the next batch of observations from the Europeans. And by the time the dust settles, which could take years, many more potentially habitable worlds may have been discovered—scientists associated with NASA's Kepler mission are currently racing to do just that.

Artist's depiction of Gliese 581 planetary system: Lynette Cook

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe