Kepler 22b
Koruyo
AUT Join Date: 2009-06-06 Member: 67724Members, Reinforced - Shadow
AUT Join Date: 2009-06-06 Member: 67724Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">First planet in habitable Zone and not a gas planet?!</div><center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/en5OObU0ryU"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/en5OObU0ryU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-22b" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-22b</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-22b" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-22b</a>
Comments
The find of Kepler 22b is just the first among many, exciting times.
And Nasa is gonna build a new telescope by 2018, that is 100 times more efficient than Hubble!
I assume you're talking about the James Webb Space Telescope. They'll be lucky to complete it by 2018, if ever. Its budget is constantly threatened by cuts.
It's like getting on a boat, sailing to a random spot in the ocean, casting out a line and lure, and landing half a dozen fish on the first cast.
Even finding one planet per search would be pretty amazing, honestly.
I couldn't help but find that quote so bad I laughed.
What? It's pretty accurate.
They said the point of the study is to get a sort of statistical makeup of the planets in the galaxy, the findings suggest that it's pretty easy to find potentially habitable planets, which is great for deep space exploration.
I mean, people have said for ages that life outside of earth seems incredibly unlikely, finding earthlike planets this easily suggests it's far less unlikely.
It's cool that our technology is advancing enough to detect these smaller planets, but this is definitely a case of counting your chickens before they're hatched. The media got a hold of this story and now probably has everyone convinced that we found intelligent life and they're already coming to destroy us.
It was recently given a full go ahead and funding.
<a href="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-nasa-vows-bn-space-telescope.html" target="_blank">http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-nasa-v...-telescope.html</a>
And the Nasa press conference on the Kepler discoveries so far. The data so far is impressive to say the least, and the results are just gonna keep running in.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/en5OObU0ryU"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/en5OObU0ryU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
<!--quoteo(post=1889238:date=Dec 8 2011, 02:02 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 8 2011, 02:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889238"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's cool that our technology is advancing enough to detect these smaller planets, but this is definitely a case of counting your chickens before they're hatched. The media got a hold of this story and now probably has everyone convinced that we found intelligent life and they're already coming to destroy us.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't forget that "Intelligent" life is allied with Al Qaeda and we need to invade them first.
Although, it still confuses me how the faintest glimmer of light can tell me there's a rocky planet of around 22c temperature out there but hey, it got lots of people excited.
It's basic extragalactic astronomy used in conjunction with relative quantum mechanics, specifically, in relation to quasars.
Heh, pretty basic really.
For now. Call me a cynic (please do, it's true), but a lot can happen between now and 2018.
Well the idea is that the model we use to come to these conclusion can be tested and seen in a laboratory, albeit on a much smaller scale. We assume that we can then scale it up with no loss of accuracy. Ofcourse this assumption is the basis of science as we know it, so hopefully it's a legitimate thing to do.
Earth-sized, possibly. Until relatively recently we've only been able to see lots of gas giants, it wasn't until some years ago that technology allowed for easily spotting iron planets (like Earth is). Turns out they're more common than previously thought.
This is the first one in the Goldilocks zone, though.
Heh, pretty basic really.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? They just measure the light curve of a star and when they see a dip they get excited. D: I'm not sure what tangent your going off on.
Well, take spectrometry for example, which is how they figure out the elemental composition of a star.
You can figure out what colours correspond to what elements in very small scale lab conditions, you can then look at the light from a star to figure out what elements it's composed of.
You combine this with things like stellar theory, which is the idea of how stars work, which predicts their elemental composition, looking at your spectral analysis combined with your predicted composition gives you two bits of evidence that line up perfectly, and that being purely down to chance is unlikely.
Science is kinda like having lots of the bits of a jigsaw puzzle, you can figure out what the missing bits look like even if you don't actually have them on hand.
Fundimentally, you've got it right, but also wrong. They look for a traversal by watching for dips in intensity of the star, yes, but they also do spectral analysis on the light, to check the absorption/emission spectra of the intersecting body. That's how they work out the atmosphere of very distant bodies. They also watch for a wobble in the star itself to get another factor on the mass/distance calculation.
Or sometimes they just <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/21025/hubble-take-first-visible-light-image-of-extrasolar-planet/" target="_blank">image</a> them <a href="http://www.space.com/835-exclusive-confirmed-picture-planet-solar-system.html" target="_blank">directly.</a>
--Scythe--
Say it in normal terms rather than uber smart science terms please.
You aren't the physics nerd, are you?
Spectrometry:
Imagine a rainbow with all colors in place. Now take some iron. Put it at the source of the rainbow and suddenly all the red light vanishes. Now you know that iron absorbs red light. Just repeat until you have all atoms covered.
Stellar Theory:
This basically predicts what a star is made out off. All stars are just a giant blob of hydrogen. Now, if you have enough hydrogen, gravity will start to fuse hydrogen to helium. Then helium to carbon etc. This will either stop because there was not enough hydrogen to keep it going or it will keep going till the star starts to fuse really heavy elements. After it burned all hydrogen the star will explode.
This is obviously really simplified but basically not wrong. If you add some other things we know of, (gravitational wobbles etc.) you can start to understand how they can find these far away planets.
Er, that is normal language. I can't make it much simpler than a jigsaw analogy.
Wikipedia does however offer simple english articles:
<a href="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy" target="_blank">http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy</a>
It does still use quite a lot of proper nouns however, science is quite technical by its nature, so you kind of have to use them.
Wikipedia does however offer simple english articles:
<a href="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy" target="_blank">http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy</a>
It does still use quite a lot of proper nouns however, science is quite technical by its nature, so you kind of have to use them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's okay. I got a good basic answer already. Thanks btw panigg.
I seem to have a knack for teaching... I can see myself ending up as a teacher one day... better learn how to tie a noose properly ahead of time. :/
This is now the law. Compliance is mandatory.
What's 'it' in this context?
A quick google threw this up from the article above,
"Scientists cannot tell for sure yet whether Kepler-22b is a rocky world, a ball of gas or even a liquid object."