The biggest story in the universe

The discoveries are coming so fast—1,235 new planets—that the universe as we knew it is history

by Kate Lunau on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:21am - 27 Comments
Tracking down other Earths

Tim Pyle/NASA

Just one generation ago, the thought of finding a planet that might support life was the stuff of science fiction. Last week, NASA scientists announced they’d discovered a whopping 1,235 potential planets orbiting faraway stars, using the Kepler space telescope. If confirmed, this would almost triple the number of known planets outside of our solar system (called “exoplanets”), which currently stands at just over 500. “What we’re anxious to learn is whether there’s other life in our galaxy,” says Kepler co-investigator Natalie Batalha. She and other members of the team are trying to learn whether planets like our own are abundant or rare. “The answer will drive all future missions,” she says.

Among Kepler’s haul were 54 possible planets in the habitable zone, where temperatures could allow for liquid water at the surface, which is necessary to support all life as we know it. Five are close in size to Earth, and orbit in the habitable zone of stars that are smaller and cooler than our sun. The rest range in size from so-called “super-Earths” (up to twice the size of our planet) to ones bigger than our solar system’s kingpin, Jupiter. Most of Kepler’s findings still need to be confirmed as actual planets, but it’s almost certain the vast majority of them will be.

The mission’s goal is to find other planets like Earth, but along the way, we’re finding all sorts of things we didn’t expect: like a system of six confirmed planets orbiting a sun-like star called Kepler-11, packed so tightly together that, according to Jack Lissauer of NASA Ames Research Center, who led the work on Kepler-11, “we didn’t know such systems could even exist.” It’s becoming clear that the universe is much more diverse, and more prolific, than we ever imagined.

Launched in March 2009, the Kepler space telescope orbits our sun and stares unblinkingly at some 156,000 stars—which range from a few hundred to a few thousand light years away—searching for the telltale winking of light that might signal a planet passing in front, like a moth flying by a porch light. It’s taking a sample from one neck of the Milky Way galaxy, from which planet hunters hope to discover whether Earth twins are statistically common or not. “We ultimately want to look for life,” says Kepler co-investigator Dimitar Sasselov, who leads Harvard University’s Origins of Life Initiative. “This is how we get to that point.”

Kepler is only looking at one-400th of the sky, a small sliver of the Milky Way—which, in turn, is one of countless galaxies in the universe. All these possible planets were found in that one area within just the first six months of its mission (from May to September 2009), which is slated to last 3½ years at least. With so many planets being found so fast, and with 54 of these possibilities in the habitable zone, it looks almost certain that there are more planets like our own out there. And we’ve only just begun to look. One can’t help but feel that our view of the universe—and whether or not we’re alone—is different today than it was just one week ago, before NASA announced Kepler’s findings.

“It’s a golden age for astronomers,” says Jaymie Matthews, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of British Columbia. “I’m personally convinced that 400 years from now, people will look back at this era—even this past decade—in the same way we look back at the times of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. We’re the first generation in the history of our species capable of searching for another Earth. And we’ve only had that capability for a few years.”

Imagine looking out at the Empire State building at night, with all its window shades open and the windows lit up from the inside. Now, imagine the dip in brightness that would occur if one person stood at one of those windows, and pulled down one window shade by just seven centimetres. “Kepler was designed to measure light variations to that level in a bright star,” Matthews says, “and even smaller.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Stewart_Smith

    Great article. I expect we will find definitive signs of intelligent life in this century. It is kinda a shame it wont be on Earth.

    • Ariadne

      If they are looking for earth like planets, intelligence or the lack thereof is just as usual.

  • MDA

    Getting the population ready for disclosure?

    [youtube b63XMWTtXdM&feature=player_profilepage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b63XMWTtXdM&feature=player_profilepage youtube]

    • SirJohn_Eh

      Amazing crop circles, but I think the video creator is making it what he wants it to be. Why would anything try to contact us hide their message this way? I'm not sure any crop circle is extraterrestrially made, but damn are they ever intriguing.

  • noob_goldberg

    No matter what happens in this world, it always seems so incredibly petty when compared to the possibilities that exist in exploring our universe.

    I read stories like this, and then head outside to stare up at the stars, and wonder "why in the world are we not focusing our communal eyes on that prize?"

    Because, in all seriousness, the investments made by the USA and Russia in the 1950's and 60's pulled a little slice of the 21st century into the 20th, and jump-started entire technical revolutions in computing, materials science, food safety, information technology, etc etc. I would put forward the proposition that the entire information revolution was a direct result of space-exploration funding in the 1960's and 1970's.

    So, given the state of our world now, what's stopping us from heading down that same direction?

    • Emily

      A variety of reasons….Luddism, flat-earthers, short-sightededness, superstition, the 'Christopher Columbus' crowd, religion, obstinate ignorance….

      • noob_goldberg

        Perhaps there are a few in the minority that don't see the value in such undertakings, but I think that exploration is one of the most non-partisan activities a government can undertake. The thrill of exploration transcends political boundaries.

        • Emily

          If that were true, they wouldn't keep cutting NASA's budget.

  • newworldprophet

    Come on folks! This is obviously a hoax! NASA is a very creative movie studio. Remember Orson Welles and his War of the Worlds broadcast? People believed that too, and it was just the beginning of all of this space nonsense. It is nothing more than a feeble attempt of a feeble government to take our minds off the real problems that face us. We have got to put aside all of this nonsense and return to the facts. The earth is the centre of everything and the sun revolves around us. It is so obvious. I challenge anyone to come up with first hand personal experience – not just something you read somewhere or saw on a movie or TV screen – but firm proof that I am wrong.

    • noob_goldberg

      I've watched a few NASA broadcasts, and they're not that particularly creative.

      But I think that the real problem facing you is that you've become immune to your current dosage, and your meds need to be upped.

      • Stewart_Smith

        congrats new, you have truly succeeded in stealth sarcasm.

  • A Scribe Somewhere

    Reading about deep space is simply fascinating, for it is truly a window into the unknown, and a step into the realm of the awesome (in the classic acceptation of the word). The distances involved are so large they are beyond human understanding. Believers would say it is a proof of God's existence, I would simply say it is a reminder of our smallness.

    And, as Kate Lunau, I'd tremendously like to know what other generations will think of all actual prevailing theories. I'd pay for time-travel just to know what discoveries the future holds. Ultimately, all science is precisely about that: sheer curiosity.

    • noob_goldberg

      "Believers would say it is a proof of God's existence, I would simply say it is a reminder of our smallness."

      I'd say it's both, simultaneously. There is nothing preventing a truly religious person from pursuing answers in the cosmos as fervently as the most agnostic astronomer. Indeed, I firmly believe that religious people have an even greater calling toward the sciences in that regard.

      If you give your son a Lego set for Christmas, do you not expect him to rip off the wrapping, tear open the box, and spend countless ages building and rebuilding different models? Would you not be terribly disappointed if they opened it with wonder in their eyes, looked over and said "Thanks Dad", and then promptly put the box on the shelf and never played with it? It's the same with God, humans, and the Universe, as far as I'm concerned.

      • Marc

        Fundamentalists do not ascribe to your position.

        • noob_goldberg

          It wouldn't be the first time that I came to the conclusion that fundamentalists are completely missing the point of life.

          By avoiding deep analysis of the universe as it stands, fundamentalists implicitly state that they believe God is so small as to be incapable of creating a universe of such complexity that humans can explore it forever without ever running out of things to learn. I fervently disagree with that view.

          • Stewart_Smith

            Marc, fundamentalists don't understand their own religions… so there is no particular reason they would be expected to get science.

  • Leo

    As a big fan of Elon Musk, my bets are on Spacex getting us there.
    http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/12/spacex-drago…
    http://www.spacex.com/

  • Ariadne

    It is very exciting news and frightening as well. If there are humanoids in these planets, would it follow that they are as warlike and greedy as many of us are?

  • DifferentGuest

    So dang cool.

  • http://www.all-career.com/ shujaat meer

    this is a nice article about planets because there are many planet in the universe, and scientists are searching new plants ,they want to know that how could be long human life and safe on the earth.

  • Ed

    Great article about exciting new research. However, I think the paragraph with the inane comparison to the brightness of Empire State Building adds absolutely nothing to the story. It could have been replaced with something like, “Kepler is an extremely sensitive instrument that can measure the extremely small changes in brightness that occur when a distant planet passes between us and its star.” It sounds like it was the astronomer interviewed who proposed this outrageous analogy which is a shame. Really, does anyone reading this actually know how bright the Empire State Building is at night? You may as well say that the brightness change is equivalent to the dimming of a whale oil lamp at a distance of 10 kilometres caused by a passing mosquito.

    Also note that Kepler can only see changes in those systems where the plane of planet’s orbit is nearly perpendicular to the line between us and that stellar system. Planets whose orbits don’t allow them to cross in front of their star from our point of view remain hidden using this technique. That means that there are even more extra-solar planets out there to find with other methods.

    • Jaymie Matthews

      Hi, Ed, I'm the astronomer who gave that analogy. People do have a sense of how bright are skyscrapers at night, even if only through photos. The important aspect of the analogy is not the brightness of the Empire State Building, but how little you have to change its light output to equal the photometric precision of Kepler and MOST. Even astronomers have a hard time relating to a change in brightness as small as 0.0001% (1 part per million) and believe me, members of the public do too. I've spoken to thousands of people of all ages since the MOST mission was first proposed, and I've received good feedback (and thanks) for that analogy.

      It's ironic that, in criticising my analogy, you make the joke about the mosquito and the whale oil lamp. The ability to see the dimming in light when a planet passes behind a nearby star is about the same as being able to see the dimming in light when a mosquito passes behind a city streetlamp, but seen at a distance of 1000 km. Even members of the Kepler team have adopted my analogy (calculated for MOST) to explain this sensitivity of Kepler.

      I appreciate your desire to keep things basic and understandable. But please appreciate that MOST and Kepler represent a quantum leap in our ability to measure light changes in stars, and just saying "extremely sensitive" doesn't do justice to the technological or scientific achievements behind that statement.

      You're right about the need for the orbital alignment to detect exoplanetary transits, and the larger number of systems out there. This weekend, the Kepler team addressed that issue and you can see a report on it on the CBC News site.

      A fellow curious human,

      Jaymie

      Prof. Jaymie Matthews

  • gottabesaid

    “Kepler is the exoplanet equivalent of a long-form census,” he says. “It’s doing the demographics of 150,000 citizens of our galactic city.”

    I'm sorry, but shouldn't the 150,000 citizens of our galactic city get a say into whether or not we're peering into their lives in such an intrusive manner?

    For shame, NASA, for shame.

    • noob_goldberg

      Before we've even had our first official extra-terrestrial contact we'll have the reputation of being galactic voyeurs.

      I just know we're going to be labelled as the 'creepy' race that lives in the Orion Arm.

    • Jaymie Matthews

      Hi,

      The "150,000 citizens of our Galactic city" are 150,000 stars in our Milky Way Galaxy. The light from stars, including our Sun, radiate in all directions in space and are observed by human astronomers. If there are alien astronomers (and I hope there are), they are also collecting and analysing the light from the stars in our Galaxy, to better understand our Universe.

      It's not really 'cosmic voyeurism' when you see the change in brightness of a star as a planet passes in front of it. It will be at least decades before we have the ability to get a resolved image of an Earth-like exoplanet (a picture that would be maybe 10 pixels by 10 pixels), that might reveal the presence of continents and oceans if they exist on that surface. It will be much longer before we could have detailed images even approaching images of the Earth from orbit above it. And even longer before we can hope to visit any of these worlds.

      Don't think of this an an invasion of privacy, because we are talking about emission of light by stars and reflection and emission (at infrared wavelengths) of light by planets that occurs naturally. Think of it as an attempt to understand our own Sun and home world better by studying the nature of other suns and other planets.

      • gottabesaid

        Sorry, I was trying to make a long-form census joke… I've got NO problems with Kepler.

  • briguyhfx

    Great story! Thanks to Kate Lunau and Maclean's for this. Oh, and NASA! :)

From Macleans