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

Dana Berry/Kepler Mission/NASA;

The Kepler-11 system, which was announced last week, sounds like something out of a science fiction paperback. All six of these planets are huddled quite close to their star. Five of the six even have orbits smaller than Mercury’s, the closest planet to our sun—making it the most densely packed solar system ever discovered. Unlike the eight major planets in our solar system, which circle the sun along slightly tilted paths, the Kepler-11 planets’ orbits are surprisingly flat and circular: “flatter than a CD case,” according to Lissauer.

These six small planets are packed so snugly together that they actually drag each other back and forth, causing their orbits (which range from 10 to 47 days for the five inner planets) to vary by as much as 20 minutes, Seager says. Earth’s year, by comparison, “doesn’t even vary by a nanosecond.” That strange dance was a boon to scientists, who—by measuring each planet’s gravitational tug on its neighbours—could calculate their masses. Once they had each planet’s radius (which the Kepler telescope finds by checking how much light it blocks as it passes a star), they could then figure out density, which hints at whether the planet is made up of gas, rock, ice, or some exotic combination.

That’s how we know the planets that orbit Kepler-11 are formed mostly of gases, with rock and maybe some iron, too. These planets might even have some water in their makeup, but it’s hard to imagine life thriving there (or life as we know it, anyway). If there is rock at the centre of one of these planets, it’s “below a massive atmosphere,” says Daniel Fabrycky, a Hubble fellow at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “If you lived on the surface, there would be crushing pressure, like living at the bottom of the ocean. And you’d not see the sun.”

The fact that scientists could confirm there were planets orbiting the Kepler-11 star, using Kepler data alone, is a huge leap forward. Confirming planets with ground-based observations can be a long and difficult task: in September, U.S. astronomers announced they’d found the first potentially habitable planet outside our solar system, Gliese-581g. Astronomers believe there could be six planets orbiting that same red dwarf star, and they’ve been observing it for 11 years. But even then, it seems, something was off. Excitement about Gliese-581g was quickly dampened after other scientists looked over the data and said they doubted the planet even existed. A distant star’s winks and wobbles might suggest it’s hosting a planet, but confirming it is “very time consuming,” says Batalha, a professor of physics and astronomy at San Jose State University, “and telescope time is hard to come by.”

Confirming all 1,235 of the possible planets Kepler has found will be a monumental job, but experts estimate that over 80 per cent of these candidates will turn out to be real planets. For William Borucki, Kepler team leader, one of the most exciting tasks will be checking out the five potential planets that are close in size to Earth, and orbit in the habitable zone of stars that are smaller and cooler than our sun. “In the coming year, we expect to go through them, and determine which we can confirm,” he says.

Some of the 54 candidates in the habitable zone might even have moons with liquid water, he suggests. As the Kepler mission progresses, “we’ll start discovering planets with longer orbital periods,” he says: planets that travel around their suns in 100 days, then 200 days. And, eventually, maybe some that take about 365 days to orbit their own sun—just like Earth. “Very importantly,” Sasselov adds, “Kepler is not finished yet.” To find an Earth-size planet orbiting a star like our sun in a one-year orbit would take three years, since three different sightings are needed to confirm it isn’t a fluke. Their signals are incredibly faint. But Kepler, these scientists believe, can find them.

It might seem myopic to hunt for other forms of life by seeking out planets that look exactly like our own. After all, we still don’t understand how life sprung up here on Earth, and we’re just beginning to learn all the surprising forms it can take on our own home planet. “We don’t have a good definition for life,” Sasselov says. “How do we search for something we cannot properly define?”

And how can we hope to understand what life might look like on planets so far away? “We can’t even begin to imagine what the possibilities are out there in the universe. But we have earthling eyes,” Batalha says. “We look around here on Earth and ask ourselves the question, ‘Where does life exist?’ It exists in every nook and cranny, but they all require liquid water.” So we’ll continue hunting for planets that could support water, like Earth, and maybe even life.

As the Kepler mission is showing us, it’s impossible to predict what we could find. This space telescope is just watching 156,000 stars “out of a couple hundred billion in the Milky Way galaxy,” Jayawardhana says. How many galaxies are out there? “Many billions and billions.”

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