Planets Like Earth May Be the Rule, Not the Exception based on new research

a reply to: Ultralight

Yes to both for me.

I can't imagine telling my 1st grade teacher in the 80's that a craft like Kepler would shrink our corner of the universe down for all of us to see.

If you really like this sort of thing, you can go to Planet Hunters and classify exoplanet transits yourself - straight from Kepler. I've done almost 6000 of them. It's very interesting stuff indeed.

a reply to: DuckforcoveR

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Still we have not heard anything (that we the public know of) by way of alien radio wave communications, maybe something happed in the local neighbourhood a long time ago and it is silent for a reason?.

Or maybe even if life is very common, intelligent life may be less common, and technological civilizations may be even less common yet.

We also need to remember that "our neighborhood" doesn't only exist in a place, but exists in a time as well. Even if (as I mentioned above) that technological civilizations may be uncommon, it could be argued that there still would be several in our neighborhood over, say, the past 200 million years (as an arbitrary length of time). However, those few may not be a viable technological civilization anymore (i.e., they died out).

200 million years is not that long ago in cosmological time -- the planets that are habitable today were also habitable 200 million years ago. However, that's seems to be a long time in the history of a species, and there could have been dozens of technological civilizations that have already come and gone in our neighborhood since the time of the dinosaurs, and there may be dozens more in or neighborhood over the next 200 million years. But there may not be that may (if any) in our neighborhood right now.

So yeah -- maybe even technological civilizations could be a common thing over a given length of time. But "right now" is only a blink of an eye compared to the possible timeframes that other civilizations may have existed.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Correct and we don't know if a nearby neutron star swept this area of space in the distant past, I also believe it is possible that the earth or even the solar system may have played host to another ancient sentient race long before the man we know today but that is another line of though to this.

To illustrate why the research described in the article in the original post is so potentially game changing it helps to look at what is the current accepted view on the prevalence of other Earths.

Before the Titus-Bode exoplanet research detailed in the OP, the most conservative estimates the frequency of habitable planets were based on a 22% figure or 0.22 of all stars like our Sun having a rocky terrestrial planet orbiting in the temperate/habitable/"goldilocks" zone:


Above image was from this story from NASA/JPL: Odds are on oodles of Earths


That 22% figure was based on data gathered by Kepler about the frequency of habitable planets around Sunlike (F,G,K type) stars. It excluded the most common stars in our galaxy as well as our local neighborhood, small red dwarf M-type stars.

These smaller stars account for about 80% of the stars nearby and in the galaxy in general.

A separate study also using Kepler data took a look at the frequency of planets orbiting these smaller stars and found roughly half (48%) of them would have a planet orbiting within its habitable zone. It predicts that the closest of these would have a 94% probability of being within 10 light years of the Earth and our Solar System:



Doin' the math...


Since last Saturday was pi day I thought I'd do some estimates which use pi to get some interesting numbers based on the two studies above as well as the one in the original post.

I used math to calculate just how many stars within are within 33 light years of the Earth (our immediate neighborhood) as well as within 100 light years of the Earth (our extended neighborhood) of the Earth may have such a planet.

To do so I used two simple, commonly used formulas in astronomy and exoplanet research.

Formula A - Estimates the number of star systems within a spherical volume of space based on the stellar density in our region of the Milky Way galaxy like this: Start with the density of stars in our region (0.120 stars/cubic parsec) convert that number into light years (1 parsec = 3.26 light years) times Volume so..

Parsecs(pc) = Lightyears (ly) / 3.26

Number of total star systems (tss) = density * volume - which means...

tss = 0.120 stars/cubic parsec * 4/3 pi (pc)^3


Formula B - Estimates how many of those star systems contain a planet in its habitable zone like this: Habitable Zone Planets (hzp) = Total Stars Systems (tss) multiplied by the fraction of star systems thought to have an Earthlike habitable zone planet (ηe) so...

hzp = tss * ηe

Within 33 Light Years of Earth

Ignoring red dwarfs and just going with the conservative 22% (ηe=0.22) number our local neighborhood sphere out to 33 light years should contain around around 521 star systems, which should contain 115 terrestrial type habitable zone planets perhaps similar to our Earth.

Showing my work...

33 lightyears / 3.26 = 9.82 parsecs

0.120 stars/cubic parsec * 4/3 pi (9.82 parsecs)^3 = 521 total star systems (tss)

521 * 0.22 = 115

If we include nearby red dwarfs we get a conservative 40% (ηe=0.40) number. With this figure that 33 light year sphere should contain around 521 star systems, which should contain 208 terrestrial type habitable zone planets perhaps similar to our Earth.

521 * 0.40 = 208

Within 100 Light Years of Earth

Ignoring red dwarfs and just going with the conservative 22% (ηe=0.22) number our extended local neighborhood sphere out to 100 light years should contain around around 14,508 star systems, which should contain 3,191 terrestrial type habitable zone planets perhaps similar to our Earth.

Showing my work...

100 lightyears / 3.26 = 30.67 parsecs

0.120 stars/cubic parsec * 4/3 pi (30.67 parsecs)^3 = 14,508 total star systems (tss)

14,508 * 0.22 = 3,191

If we include nearby red dwarfs we get a conservative 40% (ηe=0.40) number. With this figure that 100 light year sphere should contain around 14,508 star systems, which should contain 5,803 terrestrial type habitable zone planets perhaps similar to our Earth.

14,508 * 0.40 = 5,803


That's the current thinking previous to the research using the Titus-Bode Law presented in the original article in my original post.

If that research is confirmed the numbers of nearby habitable terrestrial planets skyrocket because instead of ηe equalling 0.22 or 0.40 it now equals 2.0 so.....

Within 33 Light Years of Earth

Going with the two habitable planets per star system number (ηe=2.0) our local neighborhood sphere out to 33 light years should contain around around 521 star systems, which should contain a total of 1,042 terrestrial type habitable zone planets perhaps similar to our Earth.

Showing my work...

33 lightyears / 3.26 = 9.82 parsecs

0.120 stars/cubic parsec * 4/3 pi (9.82 parsecs)^3 = 521 total star systems (tss)

521 * 2.0 = 1,042

Within 100 Light Years of Earth

Going with the two habitable planets per star system number (ηe=2.0) our local neighborhood sphere out to 100 light years should contain around around 14,508 star systems, which should contain a total of 29,016 terrestrial type habitable zone planets perhaps similar to our Earth.

Showing my work...

100 lightyears / 3.26 = 30.67 parsecs

0.120 stars/cubic parsec * 4/3 pi (30.67 parsecs)^3 = 14,508 total star systems (tss)

14,508 * 2.0 = 29,016


So, in conclusion if the researchers are right then the amount of nearby potentially Earthlike habitable worlds jumps from 115 within 33 light years to over potentially 1,000 within the same distance. A 10 fold increase. That's MASSIVE!

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: JadeStar

Can they detect whether these planets in the Goldilocks zone, have a metal core and magnetic shielding against radiation?

Not yet but soon.

They have developed techniques to detect the magnetic fields of large (Jupiter) sized planets through analysis of their atmospheres but these terrestrial sized planets are too small to do that with them yet. It -may- be possible to do it for "SuperEarths" (planets 1.2-2.0 times the size of Earth) with the James Webb Space Telescope which is scheduled for launch in 2018 if one orbits a nearby star.

If the research in the OP is correct then this becomes more likely.

Here's a story on the first exoplanet magnetic field detected using the Hubble Space Telescope:

How to estimate the magnetic field of an exoplanet

To do this reliably with planets the size of the Earth will require a much larger optical space telescope (the James Webb Space Telescope is an infrared telescope). As of today there is nothing in the NASA budget to fund a larger version of Hubble though they are studying various designs for an 8 to 16 meter optical space telescope which would be a direct replacement and upgrade of the 2.4 meter Hubble but it wouldn't fly until the late 2020s/early 2030s at the earliest unless something changes dramatically.

That said, this field is rapidly progressing and things thought impossible just a year or two ago are becoming practical as new techniques and technologies are developed for both space telescopes and the massive ground based telescopes being constructed around the world for operations beginning in the early 2020s.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Earth has a moon and Plate Tectonincs. Possibly none of those other planets have the same.

And current research shows a large moon is probably not needed for a planet to develop life.

a reply to: JadeStar

I have pondered that question for a long while. ( couldn't find anything that acknowledge they couldn't) thank you for the information and let's hope for improvements in technology.

BTW very well written informative thread thanks again.

The only publicly acknowledged warp drive related research by Eagle Works at NASA is on hiatus because of research priority, funding and personnel allocation. i correspond with an engineer on his team so this is from first order sources. They are on a deadline to improve the EM drive thrust signal so that it can be replicated at Glenn Research Center at GSR's testing sensitivity threshold.

That said the research will continue. Though, we really don't need warp drive right away. The level of detail at which we can scan and surveil distant planets is growing rapidly. This may eliminate the need to travel to many stars and also tell us which stars need further investigation with probes.

In addition; despite the naysayers we are not that far off from 10 percent c propulsion capabilities. At that level there are three stars we could probe within a 42.6 year mission time (plus mission time on target.) There are several stars within a 50 to 60 year mission travel time and a dozen or so within a 100 year mission travel time. Lack of warp drive will not stop us if that is our destiny.

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: JadeStar

makes asking if anyone is out their a redundant question really

now what's the probability of some interstellar goo , finding a really hot cup of tea, and making the leap ?

any ideas ?

funbox

Lol, none -at- -all-.

a reply to: JadeStar

smart girl like you, with subtle, humorous sub-references like that, you need to be careful you don't get lynched

funbox

a reply to: JadeStar

My question would then be: what specifically prevented science 20 or 30 years ago from allowing itself to acknowledge the now realized probability that countless billions of Earths exist in this galaxy alone? Why was it assumed that conditions here are so unique? Simple stubborn arrogance and near-sightedness?

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: JadeStar

My question would then be: what specifically prevented science 20 or 30 years ago from allowing itself to acknowledge the now realized probability that countless billions of Earths exist in this galaxy alone? Why was it assumed that conditions here are so unique? Simple stubborn arrogance and near-sightedness?

Science has to go with evidence. and at the time we hadn't really seen much evidence. the drake equation was what is called in the art a SWAG or Scientific Wild Assed Guess. As knowledge increased so did the accuracy of the equation because we had better values for some of the many variables.

a reply to: Urantia1111

and what happens when you up the numbers to beyond the galaxy , weve all seen the picture, how many galaxy's in that tiny spot up in the sky ?

may as well show me to the t.p.v now

funbox

a reply to: stormbringer1701

but as has been pointed out with Kepler, it has known shortcomings of capability. it simply cannot see all the planets. does science assume even now that they likely dont exist? what about life? today we have zero proof it exists elsewhere, yet in light of this latest news, only a fool would assume we're alone. and thats only considering life "as we know it". the scientists of the 80s knew they lacked the tech to detect other Earths. why extrapolate and tell us theyre not there at all?

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: stormbringer1701

but as has been pointed out with Kepler, it has known shortcomings of capability. it simply cannot see all the planets. does science assume even now that they likely dont exist? what about life? today we have zero proof it exists elsewhere, yet in light of this latest news, only a fool would assume we're alone. and thats only considering life "as we know it". the scientists of the 80s knew they lacked the tech to detect other Earths. why extrapolate and tell us theyre not there at all?

the upshot of that is we will face a future of ever improving odds. You can say we think there are more. You can say there are probably more. like drake you can even guestimate when appropriate. but no scientist should state plainly something is real when it is not in evidence.

a reply to: JadeStar

This kind of ties in with my theory that the Universe exists so that life can exist. And planets with premier resources and are very habitable allow for simple life to evolve into conscious and technological life, a universal test of what life can live the closest to the universal principles that govern everything. Those will survive and continue to floursih as long as the universe allows life to flourish.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
The only publicly acknowledged warp drive related research by Eagle Works at NASA is on hiatus because of research priority, funding and personnel allocation. i correspond with an engineer on his team so this is from first order sources. They are on a deadline to improve the EM drive thrust signal so that it can be replicated at Glenn Research Center at GSR's testing sensitivity threshold.

That said the research will continue. Though, we really don't need warp drive right away. The level of detail at which we can scan and surveil distant planets is growing rapidly. This may eliminate the need to travel to many stars and also tell us which stars need further investigation with probes.

In addition; despite the naysayers we are not that far off from 10 percent c propulsion capabilities. At that level there are three stars we could probe within a 42.6 year mission time (plus mission time on target.) There are several stars within a 50 to 60 year mission travel time and a dozen or so within a 100 year mission travel time. Lack of warp drive will not stop us if that is our destiny.

look; i quoted me! aren't I special?

Addendum: Dr Woodward's work does not count as publicly acknowledged warp drive research because he has thus far constrained himself to the EM drive implications of the Sciama wheeler Feynman formulation of Mach's principle. He talks theoretically of the wormhole side of the equation; but has not to my knowledge did any public research on that part of it.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

agreed, however, my point is that science historically always seems to be cautiously erring on the side of "we're pretty darn sure we're alone in the universe so get a grip you bunch of sci-fi kooks". just lately that beloved stance is beginning to make them look silly.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: stormbringer1701

agreed, however, my point is that science historically always seems to be cautiously erring on the side of "we're pretty darn sure we're alone in the universe so get a grip you bunch of sci-fi kooks". just lately that beloved stance is beginning to make them look silly.

i don't think its as strong as that anymore. Scientists openly discuss ways to detect bio-signatures or other evidence of life on exoplanets now. that's mostly because of developments in detection of exoplanets and so forth.