We all know that Kepler will dramatically increase the detected numbers of lower-mass Earth-like planets right? We can't see such planets now because the wobble they induce in their parent's star is simply too small for our ground based equipment to differentiate.
So I'm excited that Kepler will find lots of earth-like potentials. Obviously, many of the potentials it finds probably won't have the capability to support life. Some of the stars it looks at might not have any. Others are likely to have nothing but gas giants. But as ground based surveys are showing an awful lot of the stars Kepler looks at will turn out to have significant satellite populations.
So enough blah blah blah .... I'm thinking it will find more than 1000 potential earth-like planets over the next four years.
What's your guess?
I bet at least 1.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Apr 20 2009, 10:50 PM)
I bet at least 1.
But not willing to back that with an actual vote on the poll?
But not willing to back that with an actual vote on the poll?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 20 2009, 11:48 PM)
But not willing to back that with an actual vote on the poll?
I've heard some numbers crunched for Earth like planets in the universe. But other than that right now I don't have a figure, hence, "at least one" is earth inclusive.
I've heard some numbers crunched for Earth like planets in the universe. But other than that right now I don't have a figure, hence, "at least one" is earth inclusive.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Apr 21 2009, 12:30 AM)
I've heard some numbers crunched for Earth like planets in the universe. But other than that right now I don't have a figure, hence, "at least one" is earth inclusive.
LOL ... then "at least 1" it is for me too.
LOL ... then "at least 1" it is for me too.
I'm going to base my answer on that movie "the day the earth stood still" 
lol. I voted 10-50, only because we have yet to meet a more advanced civilization than our own to my knowledge. I guess this doesn't rule out they may not have found us, or that any habitable planets may not have as advanced lifeforms as us.
If you take all the possibilities of sun sizes and strengths combined with the chance a planet will be the precise distance from the sun with an atmosphere to have such a regulated climate such as ours, then there has got to be at least one other planet like earth out there . I don't have any statistics though, if anyone could enlighten me please i'd be very greatful. If our universe is as infinitely large as some say, then i don't see why not, whether or not a planet like this exists within detectable range is another thing, i don't know the % chance.
I'm hopeful though
!
lol. I voted 10-50, only because we have yet to meet a more advanced civilization than our own to my knowledge. I guess this doesn't rule out they may not have found us, or that any habitable planets may not have as advanced lifeforms as us.If you take all the possibilities of sun sizes and strengths combined with the chance a planet will be the precise distance from the sun with an atmosphere to have such a regulated climate such as ours, then there has got to be at least one other planet like earth out there . I don't have any statistics though, if anyone could enlighten me please i'd be very greatful. If our universe is as infinitely large as some say, then i don't see why not, whether or not a planet like this exists within detectable range is another thing, i don't know the % chance.
I'm hopeful though
!
QUOTE (Michael J+Apr 21 2009, 03:21 AM)
I'm going to base my answer on that movie "the day the earth stood still" lol. I voted 10-50, only because we have yet to meet a more advanced civilization than our own to my knowledge. I guess this doesn't rule out they may not have found us, or that any habitable planets may not have as advanced lifeforms as us.
If you take all the possibilities of sun sizes and strengths combined with the chance a planet will be the precise distance from the sun with an atmosphere to have such a regulated climate such as ours, then there has got to be at least one other planet like earth out there . I don't have any statistics though, if anyone could enlighten me please i'd be very greatful. If our universe is as infinitely large as some say, then i don't see why not, whether or not a planet like this exists within detectable range is another thing, i don't know the % chance.
I'm hopeful though!
Be glad to flesh it out a little for you.
Kepler is going to study 100,000 stars over a four year period. Many of it's targets are already known to have satellite(s). Our ground based observations are giving us some beginning of idea of the frequency of stars with orbiting planets.
Kepler will give us enough data to know whether other stars are more or less likely to have planets. It's fine resolution will also allow it to detect many more small planets ... currently the smallest planet we can detect is about 5-10 earth masses. Kepler will allow us to identify earth sized and smaller bodies and whether or not they are in the right orbit to support any kind of biogenesis. It will not be able to determine whether any of those has any life.
The poll is not whether we think any of those will have life much less intelligent life. The best tool you can use to answer the intelligent life question isDrake's Equation.
This poll question is more about the "fp" and "Ne" variables in that equation.
By the way ... Frank Drake reports that the "average" of people making guesses puts the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy around 10,000. Remember ... that's in the 100 billion stars that are in the Milky Way. Kepler will be looking at only 100,000 in a specific portion of the sky.
lol. I voted 10-50, only because we have yet to meet a more advanced civilization than our own to my knowledge. I guess this doesn't rule out they may not have found us, or that any habitable planets may not have as advanced lifeforms as us.If you take all the possibilities of sun sizes and strengths combined with the chance a planet will be the precise distance from the sun with an atmosphere to have such a regulated climate such as ours, then there has got to be at least one other planet like earth out there . I don't have any statistics though, if anyone could enlighten me please i'd be very greatful. If our universe is as infinitely large as some say, then i don't see why not, whether or not a planet like this exists within detectable range is another thing, i don't know the % chance.
I'm hopeful though
! Be glad to flesh it out a little for you.
Kepler is going to study 100,000 stars over a four year period. Many of it's targets are already known to have satellite(s). Our ground based observations are giving us some beginning of idea of the frequency of stars with orbiting planets.
Kepler will give us enough data to know whether other stars are more or less likely to have planets. It's fine resolution will also allow it to detect many more small planets ... currently the smallest planet we can detect is about 5-10 earth masses. Kepler will allow us to identify earth sized and smaller bodies and whether or not they are in the right orbit to support any kind of biogenesis. It will not be able to determine whether any of those has any life.
The poll is not whether we think any of those will have life much less intelligent life. The best tool you can use to answer the intelligent life question isDrake's Equation.
This poll question is more about the "fp" and "Ne" variables in that equation.
By the way ... Frank Drake reports that the "average" of people making guesses puts the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy around 10,000. Remember ... that's in the 100 billion stars that are in the Milky Way. Kepler will be looking at only 100,000 in a specific portion of the sky.
Cool thanks, i'll read up on both of them!
I'll stick with my totally random guess for now until i read more
.
edit: That drake equation is amusing to fool around with...
So if kepler is studying 100,000 stars and looking to find life-worthy planets (regardless if life exists on it or not), then i guess that ups the % a lot more. But i still think there are too many possibilities (with a certain tolerance) to get too many results. Based on what i have learned about orbits and gravity in class, that would still make a supportable planet somewhat of a fluke?
Do you know what the requirements of a planet are to be classified as able to support biogenesis? I'm not quite sure what type of planet would qualify. I'm guessing one with moderate climate highs and lows, and an atmosphere, solid land and not a gas giant? But what other variables are being considered in this observation?
I'll stick with my totally random guess for now until i read more
.edit: That drake equation is amusing to fool around with...
So if kepler is studying 100,000 stars and looking to find life-worthy planets (regardless if life exists on it or not), then i guess that ups the % a lot more. But i still think there are too many possibilities (with a certain tolerance) to get too many results. Based on what i have learned about orbits and gravity in class, that would still make a supportable planet somewhat of a fluke?
Do you know what the requirements of a planet are to be classified as able to support biogenesis? I'm not quite sure what type of planet would qualify. I'm guessing one with moderate climate highs and lows, and an atmosphere, solid land and not a gas giant? But what other variables are being considered in this observation?
QUOTE (Michael J+Apr 21 2009, 04:24 AM)
Cool thanks, i'll read up on both of them!
I'll stick with my totally random guess for now until i read more.
edit: That drake equation is amusing to fool around with...
So if kepler is studying 100,000 stars and looking to find life-worthy planets (regardless if life exists on it or not), then i guess that ups the % a lot more. But i still think there are too many possibilities (with a certain tolerance) to get too many results. Based on what i have learned about orbits and gravity in class, that would still make a supportable planet somewhat of a fluke?
Do you know what the requirements of a planet are to be classified as able to support biogenesis? I'm not quite sure what type of planet would qualify. I'm guessing one with moderate climate highs and lows, and an atmosphere, solid land and not a gas giant? But what other variables are being considered in this observation?
For biogenesis it would first be necessary for there to be liquid water. It is the #1 component. To have liquid water you've got to be in the "habitable zone" (think from Venus to Mars in general).
In a few years it's hoped that NASA can launch it's planet finding interferometer called SIM at which time we'll be able to spectroscopically determine the presence of water, oxygen and possibly even methane on the exoplanets that Kepler identifies as potentials.
Here is the NASA SIM website.
I'll stick with my totally random guess for now until i read more
.edit: That drake equation is amusing to fool around with...
So if kepler is studying 100,000 stars and looking to find life-worthy planets (regardless if life exists on it or not), then i guess that ups the % a lot more. But i still think there are too many possibilities (with a certain tolerance) to get too many results. Based on what i have learned about orbits and gravity in class, that would still make a supportable planet somewhat of a fluke?
Do you know what the requirements of a planet are to be classified as able to support biogenesis? I'm not quite sure what type of planet would qualify. I'm guessing one with moderate climate highs and lows, and an atmosphere, solid land and not a gas giant? But what other variables are being considered in this observation?
For biogenesis it would first be necessary for there to be liquid water. It is the #1 component. To have liquid water you've got to be in the "habitable zone" (think from Venus to Mars in general).
In a few years it's hoped that NASA can launch it's planet finding interferometer called SIM at which time we'll be able to spectroscopically determine the presence of water, oxygen and possibly even methane on the exoplanets that Kepler identifies as potentials.
Here is the NASA SIM website.
I think we are going to find planets are very common. Also that when we start finding intelligent life, we will find some that survives where we cannot. SF authors have been speculating about non-carbon based life for many decades now.
Had to go high end, just to skew the curve.
Cheers!
MM
Cheers!
MM
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 21 2009, 01:19 PM)
I think we are going to find planets are very common. Also that when we start finding intelligent life, we will find some that survives where we cannot. SF authors have been speculating about non-carbon based life for many decades now.
The variable for finding intelligent life is the number of years a technological communicating civilization can endure. Can a civilization last for 10 million years? More? Way less?
That is perhaps the most important (and highly speculative) term in the Drake equation.
I'm sure I'm just biased toward the carbon molecule but there are few other elements that have it's flexibility so I'm guessing we'll find lots of fairly familiar things. But I think the "Ewwww" factor will be pretty high as well.
Imagine what we'll think when we figure out how "they" reproduce?
What if they have really bad toilet habits?
What if they subsist entirely on the fecal matter of their planets largest herbivore?
That'll gross us all out eh?
The variable for finding intelligent life is the number of years a technological communicating civilization can endure. Can a civilization last for 10 million years? More? Way less?
That is perhaps the most important (and highly speculative) term in the Drake equation.
I'm sure I'm just biased toward the carbon molecule but there are few other elements that have it's flexibility so I'm guessing we'll find lots of fairly familiar things. But I think the "Ewwww" factor will be pretty high as well.
Imagine what we'll think when we figure out how "they" reproduce?
What if they have really bad toilet habits?
What if they subsist entirely on the fecal matter of their planets largest herbivore?
That'll gross us all out eh?
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Apr 21 2009, 03:06 PM)
Had to go high end, just to skew the curve.
Cheers!
MM
You might not be far off. That's really only saying that 10% of the stars surveyed will have 1 rocky type planet in the habitable zone.
Right now NASA says there are 344 recognized exoplanets.
So far there are two systems with rocky planets that we know of ... ours and Gilese 581 ... our solar system has 3 planets that we might detect as being in the habitable zone and Gilese has 2 it seems (the first candidates yet from from ground based observation)..
Here is a link to the astronomy and astrophysics article.
Interestingly Gilese is an M dwarf star with about one third the radius of our sun. The warm end of the habitable zone is a planet with a 12 day orbit and the cold end of the habitable zone is a planet with a 66 day orbit. The inner one is 5 earth masses and the outer is 7.7 earth masses.
Cheers!
MM
You might not be far off. That's really only saying that 10% of the stars surveyed will have 1 rocky type planet in the habitable zone.
Right now NASA says there are 344 recognized exoplanets.
So far there are two systems with rocky planets that we know of ... ours and Gilese 581 ... our solar system has 3 planets that we might detect as being in the habitable zone and Gilese has 2 it seems (the first candidates yet from from ground based observation)..
Here is a link to the astronomy and astrophysics article.
Interestingly Gilese is an M dwarf star with about one third the radius of our sun. The warm end of the habitable zone is a planet with a 12 day orbit and the cold end of the habitable zone is a planet with a 66 day orbit. The inner one is 5 earth masses and the outer is 7.7 earth masses.
I'm just bumping this in case anyone saw PBS's NovaScienceNow program last night. There was a 20+ minute profile of Kepler. It was a'ight but it included a lot of basic stuff about the history of planet searching etc ...
So ...
Bump ...
So ...
Bump ...
Yes it was a good show but i missed the last 2/3 of it.
In response to the topic, i predict there will be more than we can count. ie/ in excess of tens of thousands.
In response to the topic, i predict there will be more than we can count. ie/ in excess of tens of thousands.
I too think the number will be high. Hopefully, such findings will be exciting enough to everybody to fully fund the next generation telescope which I understand will be able to measure the spectra of each candidate planet that Kepler finds.
I certainly feel lucky to have been alive during this period in human history. I often look forward tot he future and am envious about some things that await us, but to have been alive when mankind's greatest accomplishment (walking on the Moon) occurred and looking forward to a definitive announcement of a true "Earth II" in my lifetime is pretty nice.
I certainly feel lucky to have been alive during this period in human history. I often look forward tot he future and am envious about some things that await us, but to have been alive when mankind's greatest accomplishment (walking on the Moon) occurred and looking forward to a definitive announcement of a true "Earth II" in my lifetime is pretty nice.
I said 100 to 500.
The reason for this is our own solar system has 1 planet that is in a habitable zone and 2 that are bordering that zone.
The orbits of planets tend to obey a harmonic sequence, so one would expect a planetoid in many stars "habitable zone". I figure most of these will be dwarf planets or gas giants, however.
In addition, finding 100 to 500 planets in "habitable zones' in now way implies life is on any of them. There's about a zillion other "variables" to determine whether they might have life.
The reason for this is our own solar system has 1 planet that is in a habitable zone and 2 that are bordering that zone.
The orbits of planets tend to obey a harmonic sequence, so one would expect a planetoid in many stars "habitable zone". I figure most of these will be dwarf planets or gas giants, however.
In addition, finding 100 to 500 planets in "habitable zones' in now way implies life is on any of them. There's about a zillion other "variables" to determine whether they might have life.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.