backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 177 comment(s) - last by icanhascpu.. on Nov 23 at 10:28 PM


This image was snapped by Hubble of one of the four planets, which orbits the star Fomalhaut 25 light-years from Earth.  (Source: NASA)

A second image of three planets orbitting the star HR 8799 was taken by the Gemini Observatory in Hawaii, which consists of two large 8-m reflecting telescopes (note HR8799d is not in image shown).  (Source: NASA/Gemini Observatory)

This artist rendition represents how the HR 8799 worlds might look when viewed up close.  (Source: Gemini Observatory)
Beautiful new images reveal our first visual glimpse that other solar systems share planets just like ours does

One of the central themes both to science fiction and to real-life space progress was the drive to find and eventually travel to extrasolar plants.  In recent years, constantly improving computer processing and better imaging technology have allowed scientists to at last confirm what many have long fantasized -- there's a wealth of planets outside our solar system.

From water bearing planets to ultra-hot ones, and even with a few that resembled larger versions of Earth, extrasolar planets thus far have shown great variety.  Most of these planets were detected using Doppler, or "wobble," technique to locate stars which were tugged at by the gravity of orbiting planets, leading to a wobble.  Thus far, infrared images from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope and spectral analysis of composition had provided us of our clearest picture of these worlds.  However, the public has never seen a picture of an extrasolar planet -- until now.

The new images, developed by NASA and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are the first-ever pictures taken from the visible spectrum, glimpsed by the Gemini North and Keck telescopes on the Mauna Kea mountaintop in Hawaii.  British and American researchers snapped the first ever visible-light pictures of three extrasolar planets orbiting the star HR8799.  HR8799 is about 1.5 times the size of the sun, located 130 light-years away in the Pegasus constellation.  Observers can probably see this star through binoculars, scientists said.

To identify the planets, researchers compared images of the system, known to contain planets HF8799b, HF8799c, and HF8799d.  In each image faint objects were detected, and by comparing images from over the years, it was confirmed that these were the planets in their expected positions and that they orbit their star in a counterclockwise direction.

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope at about the same time picked up images of a fourth planet, somewhat unexpectedly.  The new planet, Fomalhaut b orbits the bright southern star Fomalhaut, part of the constellation Piscis Australis (Southern Fish) and is relatively massive -- about three times the size of Jupiter.  The planet orbits 10.7 billion miles from its home star and is approximately 25 light-years from Earth. 

Hubble astronomer Paul Kalas describes the challenge of obtaining the images, stating, "Our Hubble observations were incredibly demanding. Fomalhaut b is 1 billion times fainter than the star.  We began this program in 2001, and our persistence finally paid off."

NASA and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s use of direct-imaging to "see" planets marks a new era in astronomy.  Says Bruce Macintosh of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, "After all these years, it's amazing to have a picture showing not one but three planets.  The discovery of the HR 8799 system is a crucial step on the road to the ultimate detection of another Earth."

While none of the planets were even remotely habitable, they are an important step towards imaging habitable worlds.  Their discovery brings the total of known extrasolar planets to 326.

The photographs were published in two research studies in the American Association for the Advancement of Science's journal Science Express.  They can be viewed here [1] [2].



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Awesome...but...
By nomagic on 11/16/2008 10:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
How long would it take to send a probe there?




RE: Awesome...but...
By eickst on 11/16/2008 10:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming we had the ability to send a probe at the speed of light, 25 years. Seeing how that isn't possible, I doubt you'll see a probe travel there in your lifetime.


RE: Awesome...but...
By quiksilvr on 11/16/2008 10:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
We just need the Large Hadron Collider to be fixed so that we can make two black holes to stretch the fabric of the space time continuum and jump to other galaxies.


RE: Awesome...but...
By StevoLincolnite on 11/16/2008 11:21:53 AM , Rating: 5
Or just simply buy a StarGate off Ebay.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Tsuwamono on 11/16/2008 6:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
But then you might have to simply rent it... And if that happens they may just take it back...


RE: Awesome...but...
By mbeenon on 11/17/2008 7:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
But the need for space travel will be eliminated, simply by a small leap in computer technology . A super computer could make calculations of what exactly is out there, right to the nanometer , thus providing the information required to generate an image, or even a replica of the environment from a different planet, no matter how many light-years away it is.

Then we can just browse around, take samples, even smell the gas from a different planets atmosphere thanks to our handy little computer that probably will exist in the next era of technology.


RE: Awesome...but...
By DJMiggy on 11/18/2008 12:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
The Matrix has you.


RE: Awesome...but...
By kzrssk on 11/18/2008 1:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that, though, is that we still need to colonize other planets in case our solar system encounters some sort of cataclysmic event which destroys it. So having a tour from our own backyard is fine and dandy, but we need to perpetuate our race. Especially if we're going to have to war with aliens... Or robots that we've created that make themselves look like us.


RE: Awesome...but...
By AlexWade on 11/16/2008 9:32:53 PM , Rating: 3
So I said "super collider, I just met her. And then they built the super collider."


RE: Awesome...but...
By ceisman on 11/16/2008 11:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
a light year is 5,865,696,000,000 miles (9,460,800,000,000 kilometers). Even if a probe could travel at the speed of light it would take 25 years to reach this part of space. It is currently impossible because a typical space shuttle travels 17,500 miles per hour (in the range or orbit, some travel at 25,000 mph, therefor devide the numbers roughly in half), meaning that it would take 335,198,228.57 hours or 38,264.64 years to travel ONE light year. It is compounded by the fact that the Shuttles would not be able to hold enought supercold liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to fuel the journey, with the proper amount of fuel it may travel the speed of Lance Armstrong riding a bike, if it would move at all.


RE: Awesome...but...
By retrospooty on 11/16/2008 11:14:33 AM , Rating: 3
Suffice to say its impossible with our current tech. It would take a massive new discovery of yet unknown science for us to ever travel to other stars.


RE: Awesome...but...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2008 2:04:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"It is compounded by the fact that the Shuttles would not be able to hold enought supercold liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to fuel the journey, with the proper amount of fuel it may travel the speed of Lance Armstrong riding a bike..."
Eh? Once in motion, objects in space move forever: Newton's First Law. A constant expenditure of fuel is only required to accelerate or decelerate...not simply to keep moving.

The space shuttle could in theory make such a trip, as long as it has enough fuel to exceed Earth's escape velocity, it can in theory reach any point in the Universe -- after enough millions of years.

With current technology, though, our best bet for an interstellar probe isn't a rocket, though, but rather a light sail. Build a large reflector out of ultralight materials, unfurl it near the sun, and light pressure will quickly accelerate it to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.


RE: Awesome...but...
By JonnyDough on 11/16/2008 3:06:21 PM , Rating: 4
I would think some fuel would still be required to steer clear of gravitational fields. It probably isn't a direct line through the void to get to a place that far away. There is likely to be some gravitational field somewhere along the route that would draw a tiny ship towards it, and would probably set it slightly off course.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Cogman on 11/16/2008 3:10:59 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, it is a direct shot. How do I know this? Because we can see the star and the planet. Light follows the gravitational fields, so will the ship. If the ship is aimed straight at the star, then it will get there eventually.


RE: Awesome...but...
By pxavierperez on 11/16/2008 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 3
maybe i'm imagining this but didn't Voyager 1 probe used the gravity of the sun to catapult it to deep space? also i think V1 left our solar system already.


RE: Awesome...but...
By ikkeman on 11/16/2008 4:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
debatable - it's not beyond the oord cloud yet

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.htm...
bottom of the page


RE: Awesome...but...
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it's not beyond the Oort Cloud... the Oort Cloud's existence is based on a few non-verifiable premises and exists as a hypothetical construct in the minds of astronomers (and of course, the public).


RE: Awesome...but...
By Samus on 11/17/2008 3:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be willing to bet we'll be able to launch probes at near-light-speed in our lifetime.

In space, velocity is constant as their is no resistance, so the only requirement to achieving light speed is getting it up to that speed. You just turn the 'engine' off from there and count the years...

Magnetic ion, magma drive and many other propulstion technologies in the works are very promising for this task. Unfortunately, even if we were to achieve light speed one day, sending a human being on a 25-year one-way mission is highly unlikely, especially with the weak amount of available light for growing food, producing heat and generating electricity once they exit our solar system making the trip uninhabitable :(


RE: Awesome...but...
By MrBungle123 on 11/17/2008 10:54:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
sending a human being on a 25-year one-way mission is highly unlikely, especially with the weak amount of available light for growing food, producing heat and generating electricity once they exit our solar system making the trip uninhabitable :(


The voyager missions use a nuclear power source and have been going since 1977. Generating enough power to go for 25 years is the easy part.


RE: Awesome...but...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2008 4:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "but didn't Voyager 1 probe used the gravity of the sun to catapult it to deep space? "

Not the sun, but rather the outer planets, via the so-called 'gravitational slingshot'. The dV obtainable through such a maneuver is, however, limited.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Spivonious on 11/17/2008 10:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
Star Trek IV?


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
Outer planets, not sun.
Also don't forget that the probe has a huge velocity even before it's been built.
Slingshotting is as much about changing direction as changing speed.

Luke


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
That would only hold for something traveling at the same speed as light.
A slow craft would follow a more curved path, the way a slow aircraft has its heading more altered by crosswind than a fast aircraft.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Iketh on 11/17/2008 1:47:39 AM , Rating: 3
too bad when you're aiming at that star, you're looking at it 25 years in the past... so as you approach it, the star will appear to move at a faster pace than when you observed its movement before you left on the trip, so as to catch up to its actual location...


RE: Awesome...but...
By rcc on 11/17/2008 10:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
Bad plan. If you aim at it, you are headed toward where it was 25 years ago. You'd be flying a loooong pursuit curve.

When you corrected half way, you'd still be aiming at where it was 12.5 years ago. And, while the distance may not stack up much vs. 25 light years, it's enough to ruin the passengers year.


RE: Awesome...but...
By pingu125 on 11/17/2008 4:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
You dont know what youre talking about. You know how i know this? The fact that we can see the star means that we are seeing light generated from that star however many X odd lightyears away it is from us. Therefore we are observing where the star and planets WERE 25 years ago not where they are now. It is even possible the star may not even exist. Light takes "time" to travel so therefore there is a "delay". Please refine your basic understanding of physics before posting. This goes for the moron who said something about Newtons first law too.


RE: Awesome...but...
By icanhascpu on 11/23/2008 8:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just becuse you can see it, doesnt mean there is nothing between us and it. Farmers logic you got.


RE: Awesome...but...
By ikkeman on 11/16/2008 4:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
c'mon masher, a lightsail would be pointless even at a small distance from the sun, a lightsail would be without a source of propulsion. And the mass required for any sail that imparts a significant deltaV to any payload would have to be so massively large, pound for pound there are many more attractive propulsion methods - the voyager method still being one of the forerunners.

Though it would be quite a sight to behold.


RE: Awesome...but...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2008 4:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "at a small distance from the sun, a lightsail would be without a source of propulsion...the voyager method still being one of the forerunners."

With current technology, ALL types of probes are without propulsion except for a very brief period after launch. Do you think Voyager ever had a means of propulsion? After being released from its launch rocket (a simple Titan 3), the only velocity it's gained is from slingshots past Jupiter and Saturn.

A lightsail is, at present, the only feasible method we have of reaching an appreciable percentage of the speed of light. The challenge there is in providing a light enough payload...a few grams is the entire budget, which means only a few ultra-miniaturized ICs, in sleep mode when not exposed to direct sunlight.


RE: Awesome...but...
By ikkeman2 on 11/17/2008 4:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lightsail is, at present, the only feasible method we have of reaching an appreciable percentage of the speed of light


not quite. any particle collider accellerates particles upto significant %c. The point is - an EM accellerator in orbit could be used to impart velocity to a probe, leaving the whole engine behind. Ofcourse - the only breakes you could use would be the target - either through direct impact or gravity assist.

a lightsail big enough to impart a usefull V to any probe would be thousands of times more massive than it's payload. It's immense surface area would also make it more vulnerable to anything that populates the near vacuum of space.


RE: Awesome...but...
By juserbogus on 11/17/2008 5:47:55 PM , Rating: 3
Pulsed nuclear propulsion is far more feasible and capable.


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
The light sail has the huge advantage that the propulsive mass is not carried by the craft, meaning the mass of craft can be orders of magnitude less, meaning the acceleration can be orders of magnitude higher.

Another advantage is you could use the destination star to decelerate by turning the sail around. Of course, you'd need your Casio scientific calculator in one hand and your Advanced Origami for the Autistic Gentleman book in the other.

Luke


RE: Awesome...but...
By ikkeman2 on 11/17/2008 7:02:46 AM , Rating: 2
The benifit of propulsive mass is that the final bit of fuel doesn't need to accellerate the first bit of fuel - your system becomes more efficient over time - with a light sail you need to carry the Huge & Massive sail along everywhere. and since it's thrust is dependent on the solar wind intensity - it diminishes rapidly when you move away from sol...


RE: Awesome...but...
By JediJeb on 11/17/2008 4:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
You would also have to find a way to fold and store the sail once you pass the boundry between our solar system and interstellar space, or you would be blow off course by the interstellar wind. Unless you learn to sail it through the interstellar wind but I doubt it would have a current headed directly to the star you are shooting for. Also you would need to correct at certain intervals for the drift caused by the interstellar wind pushing on your craft. It would be a very small thrust, but any at all would add up over 25 lightyears travel.


RE: Awesome...but...
By rudolphna on 11/16/2008 7:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
good example. voyager will keep travelling for untold billions of years, long after humans are gone.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Iketh on 11/17/2008 1:51:56 AM , Rating: 4
too bad it's just gonna end up as a shooting star in the atmosphere of another planet


RE: Awesome...but...
By MrBungle123 on 11/17/2008 11:04:41 AM , Rating: 2
maybe the cylons will pick it up on the way here and we can put it in the smithsonian... :/


RE: Awesome...but...
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 9:13:05 PM , Rating: 3
"The space shuttle could in theory make such a trip, as long as it has enough fuel to exceed Earth's escape velocity, it can in theory reach any point in the Universe -- after enough millions of years."

There's also this thing called the Sun that has gravity which is no picnic to get away from. Without the slingshot effect, we wouldn't be able to get past Jupiter, even with the best Russian rockets: http://books.google.com/books?id=iEZNXvYwyNwC&pg=P...

If you're going to quote Newton, you ought to remember that - Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. How else do you suppose the Sun keeps things such as comets and planets in orbit? Moving on, do you suppose that the center of the galaxy exerts no attraction which any object would need to escape from?


RE: Awesome...but...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/17/2008 12:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Escape velocity is the velocity required to leave the surface of the planet, assuming there is no more power after the initial shot. Since the launch vehicle continues to deliver power through the flight, escape velocity is a moot point. As long as enough power is achieved to keep the space ship moving, the space ship will escape the gravitational field of the earth under slower speeds. 1 MPH, for example, as long as the ship can keep powering at that speed. Escape velocity lessens as the ship gains altitude, you see.

Orbital speed is a different issue, which is why we orbit at higher speeds.

The escape velocity of the solar system is more than 93,000 mph, so that should be figured in your calculations as well.


RE: Awesome...but...
By icanhascpu on 11/23/2008 8:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The space shuttle could in theory make such a trip, as long as it has enough fuel to exceed Earth's escape velocity, it can in theory reach any point in the Universe -- after enough millions of years.


I think you mean billions. Even so, that may be impossible still, as the univerce may be expanding faster than light, let alone a sub lightspeed object.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Cogman on 11/16/2008 2:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be forgetting the fact that there is basically 0 friction/resistive forces in space. Once the shuttle breaks the earths atmosphere it can travel the 25,000 mph indefinitely. It would actually require less fuel because stopping wouldn't be a major concern for the shuttle. (the O2 would have completely leaked out by the time it gets there no matter what so why stop at all?)

The next and probably bigger problem is this, How do we send a message from that distance? It's hard enough to send data from mars or even pluto, but when you are talking a distance of 25 light years, you had better hope that the ship has some sort of AI that allows it to do exactly what we would have it do, taking pictures where we want them to be taken.


RE: Awesome...but...
By JonnyDough on 11/16/2008 6:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oxygen won't leak out of tanks with better nanotech. :-P


RE: Awesome...but...
By 16nm on 11/17/2008 5:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's right. Let's say we manage to get a probe there in 25 light years, it will take another 25 to transmit the probe's data back to earth. I'm afraid the best we have is this artist's rendition which is no better than watching Star Treque.


RE: Awesome...but...
By SeeManRun on 11/16/2008 6:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Good thing you don't need to keep the rockets on the whole time! Just get up to speed and drift.


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
Space shuttle is a supertanker compared to the sort of probe you'd send though.
By using multi-stage rockets you could get a lightweight probe a hell of a lot faster than the shuttle, and using ionic propulsion you could gradually keep accelerating for years.
You would almost certainly overshoot when you got there though, just time for a quick glance around and a squirt of radio back to earth.
Also the probe would need to make all its own decisions, as a request/response would approach 50 years as the probe approached its target.

Luke


RE: Awesome...but...
By mbeenon on 11/17/2008 7:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
But the need for space travel will be eliminated, simply by a small leap in computer technology . A super computer could make calculations of what exactly is out there, right to the nanometer , thus providing the information required to generate an image, or even a replica of the environment from a different planet, no matter how many light-years away it is.

Then we can just browse around, take samples, even smell the gas from a different planets atmosphere thanks to our handy little computer that probably will exist in the next era of technology.


RE: Awesome...but...
By amanojaku on 11/16/2008 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 3
Advertisers seem to be everywhere, so I'll put money down and say they're in space already. There's probably a billboard floating near some rock saying "McDonald's next left. Over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^1,000 sold."


RE: Awesome...but...
By 16nm on 11/17/2008 5:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
And Warren Buffet was hoping for a number closer to 1,000^1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


RE: Awesome...but...
By Yaysoda on 11/17/2008 12:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well.....If we were able to get something to get a boost equal to the speed of light for less than a the smallest fraction of a second in the next 60 years (which I doubt will happen) then according to laws of physics it could travel through space to reach the destination always going the speed of light, it could get there. Again I doubt this will happen in my lifetime, but there's always hope because in the time of wright brothers when they invented the airplane everyone thought it wasn't real, but look at it now...just a thought.


RE: Awesome...but...
By theapparition on 11/17/2008 8:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
because in the time of wright brothers when they invented the airplane everyone thought it wasn't real

These analogies are always flawed. Be it "man can't fly", or that "man can't go faster than the speed of sound", both are compared to light speed travel. Unfortunately, why both were being postulated, there were real world examples showing that it was possible. Birds were flying. It just took an understanding of aerodynamics to make it happen. Bullets and other objects exceeded the speed of sound. Just took an understanding of compressive aerodynamics to make it happen.

Unfortunately, we've never witnessed anything that can violate our current knowledge of light. The day that happens is the day I'll start being optimistic. I'd like to believe that anything is possible, but doubt it in my lifetime.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Murst on 11/20/2008 1:29:05 AM , Rating: 2
Your hopes may come true with the LHC, although it may require an even more powerful tool to observe stuff like this. For example, according to some theories, Tachyons are subatomic particles that travel faster than the speed of light.

Other "things" probably move faster than light also (in fact, they may be instantaneous) - quantum entanglement comes to mind. So does gravity ( btw, I'm not really saying that entanglement or gravity are actual things that move, but who knows... I'd love to actually learn what gravity really is in my lifetime).

There's just so little we know about how the universe works. Would you really be surprised if tomorrow a researcher published a paper that explained how light-speed travel is possible? It is pretty much impossible to prove a theory, but disproving it just requires a single example...


RE: Awesome...but...
By cmatrix4761 on 11/17/2008 1:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
The fastest rocket I've been able to find in my research is the X-I5, which was recorded at 3600 miles per hour. At a distance of 25 light years (or 146,864,728,800,000 miles), it would require 4,657,050 years for the X-I5 to travel there.

-- CM


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's for aircraft, but space craft can go much faster.

Luke


RE: Awesome...but...
By theapparition on 11/17/2008 8:39:22 AM , Rating: 3
The fastest intersteller man-made object so far is Voyager 1 which exited the solar system at a speed of ~38,600mph. However, the Voyager's missions were never for max speed. The Helios probes achieved a max speed of ~150,000mph (.02% speed of light) on route to the sun.

I think with a concerted effort to send a probe, 1%c is obtainable, which would equate to a speed of approximately 6.7million mph.

At present rate of speed, Voyager 1 would take approximately 434336 years, Helios 2 would take 111,769 years, and a probe managing 1%c would only take 2500 years.


RE: Awesome...but...
By 16nm on 11/17/2008 5:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm, right? Even @ .1c it would be too long of a time to work with.


RE: Awesome...but...
By JohnnyFlash on 11/17/2008 12:13:24 PM , Rating: 3
It wouldn't take that long. As you know, several probes have already reached Uranus.


RE: Awesome...but...
By MicahK on 11/17/2008 3:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well assuming a probe going as fast as the fastest spacecraft, thats the Helios probes which are on highly elliptical orbits around the sun, approach speeds of 250000 km\h at closest approach to the sun:

It would still take over 100 000 years... so not likely unless we can get near light speed propulsion. Even then it would take about 25 years to get there, and another 25 years to get a signal back from the probe...


RE: Awesome...but...
By MicahK on 11/17/2008 3:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
And because of time dilation, if you sent a human travelling at 0.9999% the speed of light, they would see 25 years pass on the journey, while approximately 1800 years has passed on earth... pretty messed up


RE: Awesome...but...
By charles ponzi on 11/17/2008 9:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe, that if a human was on the spaceship travelling at almost the speed of light, and that spaceship had to travel 25 lightyears, it would take 25 years from the Earth's frame of reference - and a great deal less to the person on the spaceship. Mere seconds, from the traveller's perspective, if the speed were close enough to the speed of light.

Mind you, it would take 50 years for someone on Earth to "see" the arrival - as it would take another 25 years for "evidence" of the arrival to return to Earth.


RE: Awesome...but...
By NIKSTLITSELPMUR on 11/18/2008 12:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
Is there any chance that black holes rotate, and could the speed of the rotation be more than 670,000,000 mph.


RE: Awesome...but...
By charles ponzi on 11/18/2008 8:59:59 AM , Rating: 2
I would imagine so. Stars rotate. Black holes are formed from stars that collapse. As the stars collapse, they would spin faster and faster like a figure skater pulling in their arms. As for how fast a black hole might rotate, are you speaking of the event horizon, or the singularity itself? It's no easy task to speculate on what goes on within the event horizon. Everything we know about time starts to fall apart as you approach the event horizon. Were you to actually reach the event horizon, you would witness the entire future of the universe in the blink of an eye. Hence the name, "event horizon". The singularity is somewhere beyond the event horizon. Hard to say much of anything, in this day and age, about what may be going on beyond that.


Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/16/2008 9:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
According to the most recent research in astrophysics, the probability of one earth-like planet in the entire universe happening by random chance is 1 out of 10 with 400 zeroes after it!! There are only about 1 out of 10 with 79 zeroes after it protons and neutrons in the entire universe. So, you can see the probability of one planet by random chance is impossible.

There are about 300 finely tuned parameters needed to get one earth-like planet capable of supporting life (not to get life, just a planet capable of supporting it). For example, the dark energy space ratio is fine tuned to an accuracy of 1 out of 10 with 120 zeroes after it...this is like saying: multiply our own universe by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion...take all of that and if you remove one electron or proton from it during the time just after the singularity of the Big Bang, you would have no possibility of getting even one earth-like planet.

Where do I get these figures? Based on many sources from established astrophysical literature. For example, the one out of 10 with 120 zeroes after it is a very well-known figure among astrophysicists.




RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 9:40:08 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think you're alone in thinking this. Somewhere, out there in the galaxy on a distant planet, is probably another group of people who believe the same thing.


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/16/2008 9:55:19 PM , Rating: 1
While life on other planets is a "romantic" and fun idea, the realities of what it takes to get an earth-like planet are against it; the general public has no idea of the latest findings of astrophysics. With that said, if God wishes to create life on other planets - fine, but if one utilizes a "naturalistic" paradigm of reality, then it is not going to happen according to the discoveries of physics of the last couple of decades.


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 11:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if God wishes to create life on other planets


You know, in my initial response, before I edited it out, was something to effect that there would be other Christian scientists out there on another planet saying how they're alone in the universe. That kind of thinking is ... amazing. On the one hand, take a book of fables and use that to declare that we're the center of the universe is far more 'romantic.' On the other... let's just say that there's no way that reason or logic can declare that the universe is home to just a single planet wherein life has sprung.

I think a common theme amongst Christians is that we have no proof that life exists on other planets. This, though we lack the ability to find out. The ideas of a flat earth, 5,000 or so years since the earth was created, and laws that put people in jail for saying otherwise has discredited Christianity or the Bible as a trustworthy source of information. That would be like watching Star Trek and believing in Klingons, or Star Wars and believing in Jedi.

It's unrealistic to assume that earth is the only planet wherein there is life. There are more likely 1,000s of other planets in our own galaxy that have civilizations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/18/extr...

It's not about being 'fun', it's about getting our heads out of are behinds to realize that there's nothing special about us, that we are the creators of the mythology of God, and not God who created us.


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:23:51 AM , Rating: 1
It's sad when people claim to be scientific but ignore or don't bother to comprehend the mathematics behind probabilities.

For one, imagine a plane that has a 1-in-10-followed-by-40-zeros chance of reaching its destination. If every cell on earth had such a plane of its own and took its own journey, all life on earth would be extinct.

It is also sad when people base their romantic notions of life in outer space on fictional literature and media similarly fantasised by other romantics in the past century or so. And everybody holds a certain worldview that is almost certainly held up by a cursory acknowledgement of the Miller-Urey experiment which proves that life can be created from non-life under laborat... no I mean, early Earth conditions. If "tar" (which is carcinogenic) can be called life, sure.

When people actually do an in-depth study of that famous experiment, it may rock their worldview. But hey, if people want to entertain romantic notions, let them.

I believe that hobbits exist.


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 3:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
I wish I could recall the article I'd read. From what I remember, there's an organism that's capable of living in places nothing else does. It 'breathes' iron oxide, or eats it... something like that, and then defecates iron. It doesn't need oxygen. It can survive in intense heat and pressure.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/ironeat.html

Anyways, we found signs of life on Mars in the form of fossils, and there's evidence that there's active life on Venus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#P...
Of course, until we land a man on Venus and actually catch one of those buggers, they won't exist in the minds of those closed-minded to the idea of extra-terrestrial life. When it's found - if we're intelligent and technologically advanced enough to get the evidence - they'll then say that there's no chance of other intelligent life on other planets.

Why don't we tell George Bush that there's a hundred trillion barrels of oil on Mars left over from a few billion years ago? Surely NASA would have gotten more funding!


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 7:25:18 AM , Rating: 3
The iron article you linked said that the hyperthermophiles ingested iron oxide and excreted magnetite. According to Wikipedia, magnetite is Fe3O4, another form of iron oxide. The organisms do not feed on iron metal. If you notice, these organisms are anaerobic, so making magnetite (Fe3O4) out of iron metal is out of the question.

You couldn't land a man on Venus. Pressure and temperature too high. Again, if you read the article you linked, it mentioned that any possible organisms can only live in the clouds, which are cool enough. The toughest hyperthermophiles on Earth can only survive up till 122 degrees Celsius.

Where's the article about fossils on Mars?

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/opportunity_s...
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-report...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4480097/

Make what you will of the articles. Fossils => catastrophe => non-uniformitarian geological processes. I frankly find it easier to believe that the Twin Towers collapse was a conspiracy. =)


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 9:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The iron article you linked said that the hyperthermophiles ingested iron oxide and excreted magnetite. According to Wikipedia, magnetite is Fe3O4, another form of iron oxide. The organisms do not feed on iron metal. If you notice, these organisms are anaerobic, so making magnetite (Fe3O4) out of iron metal is out of the question.


Well, since you can get iron out of magnetite, and I already said that they ate iron oxide (rust). I guess the distinction I didn't make before is that it is non-magnetic, and I don't know if you can turn it back into iron. But with the magnetite you can make iron out of it.

Right now, I agree that we can't land on Venus. But I think that's what it will take for religious folks to believe that there is life on other planets, including those in our own solar system. Then, they'll claim that we're the only 'intelligent' life form until we manage to travel a few hundred lightyears in a few hours.

As to fossils being found on Mars, it's debatable - here's a summation of the debate: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsfo...


RE: Exoplanets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 3:13:46 AM , Rating: 2
But isn't it equally improbable that our own earth is here?


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 6:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But isn't it equally improbable that our own earth is here?


Is that yours, or did you pick it up somewhere? Deserves a 6.


RE: Exoplanets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 10:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks! it's all me baby...


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 7:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. Natural causes are governed by statistics. Supernatural causes aren't. =)


RE: Exoplanets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 10:15:38 AM , Rating: 2
I should know better than to argue science against religion ;-)

Science can never win, because religion comes with a free magic wand that can make anything happen 'just by magic'.

On the flipside, if you're religious then why join a science argument if you are just gonna pull the ripcord at the end.

Aaarrghh
Luke


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 9:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the flipside, if you're religious then why join a science argument if you are just gonna pull the ripcord at the end.


Christian science is like military intelligence, or going to war for peace. It starts on the premise that a book compiled thousands of years ago is correct, and their purpose is to bend science in order for it to substantiate their beliefs.


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 10:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
You stated, "It's sad when people claim to be scientific but ignore or don't bother to comprehend the mathematics behind probabilities."

I could take hours to discuss this. However, let it be said that it is documented that many solid-thinking scientists, because of these fine tuning/statistical numbers, acknowledge design and therefore the need for a designer. And these very analytical people fully understand the significance of such numbers showing the fine tuning/design of the universe.


RE: Exoplanets
By General Disturbance on 11/17/2008 10:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
What is sad when people have blind faith in mathematical probabilities which no one on this planet fully understands.

For example: imagine the Big Bang. Now imagine all the hot gas and photons created in the Big Bang just floating around bouncing off each other, and then all of the sudden there YOU are writing this article on DailyTech.
Of course, such a scenario is so ludicrously improbable it is not worth even considering.

Yet....it happened.

Math is not the answer, just a part of it, and by itself is almost always wrong.


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 8:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
From the highly emotional, negative tone of your message, I doubt if I could carry on a calm, analytical conversation with you. So, I am not really going to try. However, a couple of very brief points: one, the Bible never claims a flat earth; in fact it says that the earth is a sphere which hangs on nothing. Second, the "days" of Genesis 1 can very easily be interpreted literally to mean long periods of time...and based on a careful reading of the text one can see that the Bible intends on the days of Genesis 1 to be long periods of time.

Your statements of about people being put into jail, etc., etc. is way off the topic, and shows a real anger problem on this subject matter. Yes, sometimes things have been done in the name of Christianity that are not good...but those things are contrary to the teachings of Scripture. So, do not the Bible for what some hypocrites may do.

Lastly, my statistical information, etc. is based on many statements in the scientific literature, not religious. A number of established scientists are wondering if we are the only inhabited planet....it is not just a "religious person" who is considering that very real possibility. In spite of your caustic attitude, I truly wish you the very best, and hope you come to know the love of Jesus Christ someday. By the way, I work for NASA (although I am not representing them in this post).


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 9:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
One typographical correction to my previous post...2nd paragraph, last sentence, should read "So, do not BLAME the Bible for what some hypocrites may do." Thank you.


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 10:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
I never believed in Santa, nor do I believe in God. What irks me about religions is their attacks on freedom and people. Heaven as is described by Christians is a dictatorship and is more repressive than the society in Orwell's 1984. They then want to make Heaven on earth. One nation under God, etc. Why wouldn't I be upset about that?


RE: Exoplanets
By Redback on 11/16/2008 10:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but that sounds like complete rubbish.

Can you please provide links to your source?

Exactly what are the factors that limit the formation of Earth-class planets and therefore make our little world such a rarity?

In the absence of credible scientific sources to substantiate your statements, I call bogus.

If your sources are of the religious and/or pseudo-scientific variety, my suspicions will be confirmed...


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
When their conclusions don't agree with yours, they have to provide their sources.

Ever heard of the problem of spontaneous de-amination of cytosine?


RE: Exoplanets
By Redback on 11/17/2008 5:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, - when outlandish claims of dubious scientific validity are made, it is surely the obligation of the claimant to substantiate such statements with evidence. (If he or she doesn’t wish to be considered a moron or a crackpot.)

Yes again, - I am aware of spontaneous deamination of cytosine, but what exactly that has to do with the formation of Earth-class planets, I’m not sure. Perhaps it has relevance to the sustainability of DNA-based life in environments subjected to high levels of radiation and therefore to the evolution of life (as we know it) but nothing to do with planetary formation (the crux of my request). I’m sorry, but I'm really not sure what point you're attempting to make…


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 10:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
I could provide many sources, but I do not have the hours to spend on this in this particular forum. However, reference the web site "reasons.org" The President is an astrophysicist from Caltech. There are many sources of literature there. For example, Dr. Hugh Ross's books, "Creator and the Cosmos," "Creation as Science," etc., etc. When I did some writing on this some time ago, I counted the sources - over 180. (NOTE: he believes, as I do and many others, that the literal interpretation of the "days" of Genesis are long periods of time, so do not confuse all of this with the six 24 hr. day "creationists").

I know Dr. Ross, have known him for over 20 years. He is a very well respected, and knowledgeable, astrophysicist.


RE: Exoplanets
By Redback on 11/18/2008 1:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
Religious and quasi-religious sites hardly constitute recognised or reputable sources for scientific information. As for Dr Ross, - I'm sure he is well meaning and probably a very nice chap, but so is Bozo the clown (only Bozo has more credibility). Basically, Hugh has formed his own "ministry" to teach his version of religion, - a desperate attempt to reconcile his intellectually and emotionally feeble attachment to the concept of God with the real facts he has observed as an Astrophysicist.

His statistical work (he is not a statistician) has been taken to task by real statisticians and physicists (those who can be bothered) and his beliefs are considered to be those of a fringe loony within the serious scientific community.

180 “sources” and that’s the best your extensive reading has uncovered? Stick to cereal boxes, - you’ll learn more.


RE: Exoplanets
By cmatrix4761 on 11/17/2008 1:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
Your assumptions are problematic, here. That kind of math takes into account the current state of the entire system, not the initial state of the system (one of the hotly debated issues in chaotics). If, instead, you assume the deviation of the initial system toward the current state (and therefore only take into account the probability of the state of the initial system as required to deviate toward the current), the chances of habitable planets and intelligent life are extremely likely.


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
His assumptions are surely not problematic. He simply assumed uniformitarianism. =)


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 9:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your response. The fine tuning numbers I have utilized are based on several factors; some of them are just after the singularity of the Big Bang, and therefore ARE at the "initial state of the system." (for example, expansion rate of the universe at this point [1 out of 10 to the 57th power], the ratio of the gravity force compared to electromagnetism [1 out of 10 to the 40th power], the space-mass density ratio [1 out of 10 to the 60 power], and the dark energy-space density ratio [1 out of 10 to the 120th power]. These numbers are well established in the scientific literature. If any of them were off by the amounts described, no life would be possible anywhere in the universe.

However, we have about 300 more finely tuned parameters to talk about...but not here.


RE: Exoplanets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 3:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the most recent research in astrophysics, the probability of one earth-like planet in the entire universe happening by random chance is 1 out of 10 with 400 zeroes after it!! There are only about 1 out of 10 with 79 zeroes after it protons and neutrons in the entire universe


How can it be impossible? It's actually happened. We are living on it.

quote:
Where do I get these figures?

Usually from religious pamphlets.
I know it's a snide remark, but before you get your hackles up answer me this: are you a member of a church that believes in creation?

The problem with using improbability to suggest something can't happen is everything that has happened was also improbable.

What are the odds that all the things in your house are there? In their exact positions, to the micron, and at their exact angles, with that exact number of dust specs, with that exact intensity of light coming in through the window with that exact refractive index, and those exact imperfections.
Just because something is infinitely unlikely doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Luke


RE: Exoplanets
By freeagle on 11/17/2008 10:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
A triangle has 3 edges. Let's assume they can have length of only <1, 10> in N centimeters. That leaves us with 10^3 triangles... whoops, it does not, because very large portion of these "triangles" would not be triangles at all. Because, as we all know, sum of any two edges of a triangle must be more than than the length of the 3rd. That being said, even if those 300 variables were scientifically correct, I do believe that huge amount of these "planets" wouldn't actually be planets at all.


RE: Exoplanets