Is Gliese 581d a Goldilocks planet?

  • Thread starter narrator
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Planet
In summary, this article talks about a new way of finding planets that have the potential to have life. The new method is based on the wobble effect that a planet has on its star. The article says that this method was recently proven wrong with the discovery of a new planet but that this new method is still being developed. The article says that this new method is based on two things- the gravity effect of the planet on its star and when it's lucky enough to see one cross the face of the star. It is unclear to me how accurate the "wobble" method could be and the article mentions that other aspects besides these two are necessary for finding a planet with potential life. I have difficulty comprehending how accurate the "w
  • #36
Nik_2213 said:
"...with so many planets in our system."

My guess is it would simplify to 'Jupiter plus error-bars' as our inner planets are too small and even Saturn is too small and too far out to have much effect. More importantly, their slow orbits (12 yr & 30 yr) mean it would take a long, long time to spot, then quantify their cyclic Doppler effects...

Uh, Google found ~13 m/s due Jupiter and ~3 m/s due Saturn.

FWIW...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581 for intro. (YMMV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy may not be up to date.

Great info and links. I love the graphics in that first link. It also prompted me to wonder the effects of centrifugal force. 581d may be in the habitable zone, but its centrifugal force may throw off atmosphere or have some other counterproductive effect, making it less viable. Is my thinking right there?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #37
narrator said:
One cell does not a case make. I'm guessing that all life on Earth developed from a single cell. And so all species on this planet inherit the nature of evolution "as we know it" from that single cell.

I am not so sure about that, because of the arsenic life forms.

Tanelorn said:
I fully agree with helios. I don't know why everyone is looking for weird alien life biological designs.

I can explain that. If we narrow our search too much we could end up not looking at places that have life. As a side note if there is a planet with life on it, it most likley does not have Oxygen in its sky. The only reason why Earth's sky is the way it is, is because plants make that way and there is no hard fast rule that says plants have to evolve. Remember proabilty is an important component of evolution.
 
  • #38
Negeng said:
I am not so sure about that, because of the arsenic life forms.

If you are referring to the GFAJ-1 bacteria reported by NASA that was a massive cock up on behalf of their press office. They had no evidence that arsenic had been included into any part of the cell, let alone replacing the phosphate in DNA as their press office's video implied!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Criticism
 
  • #39
Negeng said:
I am not so sure about that, because of the arsenic life forms.

Yes, that is blown way out of proportion. There aren't really "arsenic-based life forms". It's muuuch more suble than that.


Negeng said:
I can explain that. If we narrow our search too much we could end up not looking at places that have life.
Yes but if we're roaming across the American Midwest in search of horses, does it really make sense to expend resources looking for a zebra?

Negeng said:
As a side note if there is a planet with life on it, it most likley does not have Oxygen in its sky. The only reason why Earth's sky is the way it is, is because plants make that way and there is no hard fast rule that says plants have to evolve. Remember proabilty is an important component of evolution.
Which is why we look harder for methane than for oxygen.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
"... but its centrifugal force may throw off atmosphere..."

Uh, no. Earth had an estimated 6-hr day length just after the mega-impact that sloughed what became the Moon. It took a long time for tidal drag to slow the spin which, IIRC, can be followed by counting growth lines in fossilised stromatolites etc. There had to have been an extensive atmosphere at that point...
 
  • #41
Nik_2213 said:
"... but its centrifugal force may throw off atmosphere..."

Uh, no. Earth had an estimated 6-hr day length just after the mega-impact that sloughed what became the Moon. It took a long time for tidal drag to slow the spin which, IIRC, can be followed by counting growth lines in fossilised stromatolites etc. There had to have been an extensive atmosphere at that point...

No, I mean the centrifugal force of a 66 day year, such a tight circle around its sun. I guess it wouldn't throw off atmosphere (just as Venus doesn't) but I'm thinking it could have other negative effects.
 
  • #42
Just in case anyone is interested in reading about the actual method and assumptions for this Gliese 581d analysis employed by the french team, the paper can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1031
 
  • #43
Woohoo! Thanks Filip.. downloaded the pdf :)
 
  • #44
"...the centrifugal force of a 66 day year"

IMHO, compared to the effect of a solar flare or absence of a magnetosphere, the orbital velocity hardly counts if planet is in temperate zone...
 
  • #45
why should we look for Earth like planets to find life? whos to say that life cannot exist on a planet with liqiud methane or sulfur atmosphere, we are limiting the possibiltiy of life else where in the universe to our own genetic standards of what's livable
 
  • #46
andiamaj1431 said:
why should we look for Earth like planets to find life? whos to say that life cannot exist on a planet with liqiud methane or sulfur atmosphere, we are limiting the possibiltiy of life else where in the universe to our own genetic standards of what's livable

Our methods of detection right now are in their infancy. We have only a few ways to determine - at multi-light year distances - life from non-life (eg presence of atmospheric oxygen). It is hard enough to do for the metabolic processes of life we know. It will be impossible to do for metabolic processes we can't even conceive of. How would you even know if it's life you're detecting?
 
  • #47
narrator said:
No, I mean the centrifugal force of a 66 day year, such a tight circle around its sun.
There is no centrifugal force.
 
  • #48
Hurkyl said:
There is no centrifugal force.
This thread has been resurrected after ~6 months. Only the last post before mine is much use.

However, as for centrifugal force, what he's really thinking of is tides, he just doesn't know it.

As the planet whizzes around its parent, its oceans/surface/atmo will indeed rise up on the dark side of the planet - just like they will on the sunward side.
 
  • #49
DaveC426913 said:
However, as for centrifugal force, what he's really thinking of is tides, he just doesn't know it.

As the planet whizzes around its parent, its oceans/surface/atmo will indeed rise up on the dark side of the planet - just like they will on the sunward side.

Thanks Dave, yes indeedy, tides and other gravitational effects.

I've been away from the forums for a while, but I did see a report that suggested Dune-like planets (like the sci-fi) could be more likely for prospects of life. They mentioned Mars and how such planets typically have water at their poles. They suggested that blue planets are rarer and Dune-like planets could be more common.

As an aside, it reminded me of the idea that life on Earth may have originated on Mars and brought to Earth via meteors.
 
  • #50
DaveC426913 said:
Our methods of detection right now are in their infancy. We have only a few ways to determine - at multi-light year distances - life from non-life (eg presence of atmospheric oxygen). It is hard enough to do for the metabolic processes of life we know. It will be impossible to do for metabolic processes we can't even conceive of. How would you even know if it's life you're detecting?
im not sure, but did they use the detection method on Earth to see if it could detect life? was it accurate?
 
  • #51
andiamaj1431 said:
im not sure, but did they use the detection method on Earth to see if it could detect life? was it accurate?
Hang on, I'll be back in a minute...
 
  • #52
Yep. There's atmospheric oxygen out there!
 
  • #53
The presence of oxygen in an exoplanet atmosphere would be very exciting. It would be very difficult to explain without biogenic replenishment over long periods of time. Actually, ozone is what they look for. It is easier to detect spectroscopically than oxygen, and ozone without oxygen would be improbable. From a chemistry standpoint, carbon is the logical building block for life. An incredible array of molecules can be formed with carbon bonds, and carbon is abundant in the universe. It makes sense to base any search for ET on a proven winner on earth. There is no known non-carbon based life form on Earth to my knowledge.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
66
Views
17K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
10K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Back
Top