Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Astronomers see more planets than stars in galaxy

Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:38 PM EST
science, us, sci, planets, plentiful
Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>This handout illustration provided by San Diego State University, shows a newly discovered planet, called Kepler 35, that circles not one but two stars. Scientists thought this type of two-sun system — made famous as the home planet of the fictional Luke Skywalker —  is too unstable to support planets. But so far they’ve found three of these planets with two suns, showing that planets seem to be everywhere. The study is in this week’s journal Nature.  (AP Photo/Lynette R. Cook, San Diego State University)</p>

This handout illustration provided by San Diego State University, shows a newly discovered planet, called Kepler 35, that circles not one but two stars. Scientists thought this type of two-sun system — made famous as the home planet of the fictional Luke Skywalker — is too unstable to support planets. But so far they’ve found three of these planets with two suns, showing that planets seem to be everywhere. The study is in this week’s journal Nature. (AP Photo/Lynette R. Cook, San Diego State University)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The more astronomers look for other worlds, the more they find that it's a crowded and crazy cosmos. They think planets easily outnumber stars in our galaxy and they're even finding them in the strangest of places.

And they've only begun to count.

Three studies released Wednesday, in the journal Nature and at the American Astronomical Society's conference in Austin, Texas, demonstrate an extrasolar real estate boom. One study shows that in our Milky Way, most stars have planets. And since there are a lot of stars in our galaxy — about 100 billion — that means a lot of planets.

"We're finding an exciting potpourri of things we didn't even think could exist," said Harvard University astronomer Lisa Kaltenegger, including planets that mirror "Star Wars" Luke Skywalker's home planet with twin suns and a mini-star system with a dwarf sun and shrunken planets.

"We're awash in planets where 17 years ago we weren't even sure there were planets" outside our solar system, said Kaltenegger, who wasn't involved in the new research.

Astronomers are finding other worlds using three different techniques and peering through telescopes in space and on the ground.

Confirmed planets outside our solar system — called exoplanets — now number well over 700, still-to-be-confirmed ones are in the thousands.

NASA's new Kepler planet-hunting telescope in space is discovering exoplanets that are in a zone friendly to life and detecting planets as small as Earth or even tinier. That's moving the field of looking for some kind of life outside Earth from science fiction toward just plain science.

One study in Nature this week figures that the Milky Way averages at least 1.6 large planets per star. And that is likely a dramatic underestimate.

That study is based on only one intricate and time-consuming method of planet hunting that uses several South American, African and Australian telescopes. Astronomers look for increases in brightness of distant stars that indicate planets between Earth and that pulsating star. That technique usually finds only bigger planets and is good at finding those further away from their stars, sort of like our Saturn or Uranus.

Kepler and a different ground-based telescope technique are finding planets closer to their stars. Putting those methods together, the number of worlds in our galaxy is probably much closer to two or more planets per star, said the Nature study author Arnaud Cassan of the Astrophysical Institute in Paris.

Dan Werthimer, chief scientist at the University of California Berkeley's search for extraterrestrial intelligence program and who wasn't part of the studies, was thrilled: "It's great to know that there are planets out there that we can point our telescopes at."

Kepler also found three rocky planets — tinier than Earth — that are circling a dwarf star that itself is only a bit bigger than Jupiter. They are so close to their small star that they are too hot for life.

"It's like you took your shrink ray gun and you set it to seven times smaller and zap the planetary system," said California Institute of Technology astronomer John Johnson, co-author of the study presented Wednesday at the astronomy conference.

Because it is so hard to see these size planets, they must be pretty plentiful, Johnson said. "It's kind of like cockroaches. If you see one, then there are dozens hiding."

It's not just the number or size of planets, but where they are found. Scientists once thought systems with two stars were just too chaotic to have planets nearby. But so far, astronomers have found three different systems where planets have two suns, something that a few years ago seemed like purely "Star Wars" movie magic.

"Nature must like to form planets because it's forming them in places that are kind of difficult to do," said San Diego State University astronomy professor William Welsh, who wrote a study about planets with two stars that's also published in the journal Nature.

The gravity of two stars makes the area near them unstable, Welsh said. So astronomers thought that if a planet formed in that area, it would be torn apart.

Late last year, Kepler telescope found one system with two stars. It was considered a freak. Then Welsh used Kepler to find two more. Now Welsh figures such planetary systems, while not common, are not rare either.

"It just feels like it's inevitable that Kepler is going to come up with a habitable Earth-sized planet in the next couple of years," Caltech's Johnson said.

___

Online:

Nature: http:// www.nature.com/nature

American Astronomical Society: http://www.aas.org

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Seth Borenstein's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (16)
Chirmly

I realize that, earlier, before we had evidence for exoplanets, they had to be conservative... but the law of uniqueness rather indicates that unless we have a reason to think otherwise, what we see locally is likely a decent example of the average (in other words, we ain't special).

It stood to reason that most stars have planets.

  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:13 PM EST
DancingSpiderman

I gree, Chumly... I do not want to call it "common sense", yet... knowing what basic astronomy we've all been exposed to, I cannot imagine too many stars that DO NOT have planets. How could there be? The star birthing process spews out molten chunks, which become oblate spherical solidified conglomerations of elements above Helium on the Periodical Chart Of Elements; Planets.

Kudos to all the scientits working on learning new astronomical facts, and also kudos to those groups who provide funding for current scientific activity. I hope a lot more funding occurs in order to maintain vigorously active astronomical study.

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:37 PM EST
Walt42

Great that astronomers are finding lots of stars with planets orbiting. BUT, lets not forget that several circumstances are needed, although not necessary peculiar to Earth:

1. Life on Earth evolved slowly, and needed CARBON to begin with.

2. A higher life form, in order to develop higher intelligence would need ENERGY.

3. In order to develop higher intelligence, organisms must evolve over millions of years AND have adequate and proper pressures to reward intelligence with continuance, not ending.

There are properties, which MAY be peculiar to Earth that may prove necessary for evolution, whether intelligent, or not. This Earth spent a great part of the Cambrian creating and storing hydrocarbons. While doing this, photosynthesis created an atmosphere, that has adequate amount of oxygen-a necessity for higher life forms. These criteria may really be needed for sentient life forms.

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:49 PM EST
Chirmly

Walt, true. But the claim is just that there are more planets than stars. It's not that there is life.

  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:43 PM EST
MarkD-555

Life also likely requires elements heavier than iron. That means at least a second generation star that is formed from the remnants of a super nova.

The last estimate I have heard is that we are a 2ns or 3rd gen star since the big bang. We may be early risers.

  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:27 AM EST
Stumpjumper

These criteria may really be needed for sentient life forms.

That we know of. We only know of carbon based life forms we find on earth. It is quite possible that there could be life out there based on something other than carbon. Who's to say until we come across it sometime in the future.

  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:09 AM EST
Walt42

IMHO, our main reason for seeking out new planets is to determine whether we humans are the highest life form in the universe. We have to know.

That other non-carbon life forms may exist is something that only chemistry could predict. As far as I can tell, physics and chemical laws obtain through the universe the same. That might strongly suggest alternate life forms are highly unlikely. We humans will continue to investigate our home, there is no limit to our need for knowledge.

  • 2 votes
#1.6 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:15 PM EST
cjcold

I suspect that one of my cats may be silicon based.

  • 1 vote
#1.7 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:42 AM EST
Reply
ivorybill

Sometimes/ah!...to be more honest to you/to myself....I wished I could have been born in 1851, instead of 1951. I wanted to see what Nature looked like before we got more intrusively involved...too heavily/Yew no?.....But our science gives me hope to see ahead/and not cry as much of whats behind.

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:22 PM EST
cjcold

I would have been a gunslinger risking life and limb for the fair maiden.

  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:00 PM EST
Reply
Viewer01

Please remember that Kepler can only spot planets when looking at a solar system edge on. And only approx. 0.5% or 1 of 200 stars are edge on within it's sight. And Kepler is only looking at a little over 100 thousand stars in a galaxy with possibly over 200 billion stars. At risk of a trollish comment of being over optimistic regarding the chances, I have to state again. Earth like planets are out there, and I for one find it hard to believe we are alone.

  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:38 PM EST
WatchTheOtherHand

I think they are going somewhat overboard with their predictions in this case. Its a very common problem now in sensationalist science. You can't take a small sample of very localized area and then extrapolate that across the entire galaxy.

Not all stars are equal. To have planets, it almost has to be a second generation star. This eliminates a great quantity of the stars out there. Secondly, the vast bulk of stars in our galaxy are located near the very center of the galaxy. Its probably hard for us to imagine, but the instability of that area of a galaxy would make planet building difficult and actually having life develop on any planet that might form nearly impossible.

While its encouraging that we are finding so many planets in close proximity to us, you can't then extrapolate that number across the entire number of stars in the galaxy equally. We are dealing with very large numbers though and even if their margin of error is 90%, its still a staggering number.

  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:38 AM EST
Chirmly

I don't think that's the issue here.

In this case, they've analysed a large number of stars. Of the stars imaged, the number which would statistically be viable candidates for the kinds of analysis required, they found the majority had probable fluctuations consistent with planetary presence.

In other words, in order for Kepler to detect a planet, the plane of the ecliptic of the star would have to bring planets directly between it and us. That's statistically low, so out of 100,000 stars, you'd expect, maybe 3000 stars or so (for example).

Well, we find that about that many stars are turning out to show the signals that indicate they have planets.

I would think a number over 1000, in various directions would be a good enough sample size.

  • 2 votes
#4.1 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:31 PM EST
MarkD-555

To have planets, it almost has to be a second generation star.

Wait, what? Why exactly? Let me know if you have a reason.

On a 1st gen star the planets (if they exist) would likely only have iron and lighter elements, but I haven't heard any reason for it to not have *any* planets. (well, never mind on the conjecturing for this one, see below)

To have planets, it almost has to be a second generation star. This eliminates a great quantity of the stars out there.

I actually just looked this up because of your comment. I couldn't help it because it's an interesting subject.

(pic of star generation locations after link)

It looks like those light element only first generation stars (Population III) have never been spotted, and are still hypothetical.

There are Population II stars (second gen, nearly as old as the universe) that have little heavy elements around our galactic halo;

But the majority of the stars in our galaxy both on the arms and core are Population I with an abundance of heavy elements, like our own Sun.

  • 3 votes
#4.2 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:37 AM EST
Reply
fredegrar

The more planets, the better. Less of a reason for aliens to attack us if there billions of other planets to choose from.

  • 1 vote
Reply#5 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:13 PM EST
Big Brother Commission

I believe they've only included less than ten percent of the actual amount of planets in our galaxy in this census.

  • 2 votes
Reply#6 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:50 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
FUN STUFF:
  • Leaderboard |
  • E-Mail Alerts |
  • Top of the Vine |
  • Newsvine Live |
  • Newsvine Archives |
  • The Greenhouse |
COMPANY STUFF:
  • Code of Honor |
  • Company Info |
  • Contact Us |
  • Jobs |
  • User Agreement |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • About our ads
LEGAL STUFF:
  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com