Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We've Never Found Anything Like Our Solar System. Is It a Freak in Space?
Science Alert ^ | 03 January 2024 | MICHELLE STARR

Posted on 01/03/2024 10:51:26 AM PST by Red Badger

Since the landmark discovery in 1992 of two planets orbiting a star outside of our Solar System, thousands of new worlds have been added to a rapidly growing list of 'exoplanets' in the Milky Way galaxy.

We've learnt many things from this vast catalogue of alien worlds orbiting alien stars. But one small detail stands out like a sore thumb. We've found nothing else out there like our own Solar System.

This has led some to conclude that our home star and its brood could be outliers in some way – perhaps the only planetary system of its kind.

By extension, this could mean life itself is an outlier; that the conditions that formed Earth and its veneer of self-replicating chemistry are difficult to replicate.

If you're just looking at the numbers, the outlook is grim. By a large margin, the most numerous exoplanets we've identified to date are of a type not known to be conducive to life: giants and subgiants, of the gas and maybe ice variety.

Most exoplanets we've seen so far orbit their stars very closely, practically hugging them; so close that their sizzling temperatures would be much higher than the known habitability range.

Artist's impression of an ultra-hot Jupiter transiting its star. (ESO/M. Kornmesser)

It's possible that as we continue searching, the statistics will balance out and we'll see more places that remind us of our own backyard. But the issue is much more complex than just looking at numbers. Exoplanet science is limited by the capabilities of our technology. More than that, our impression of the true variety of alien worlds risks being limited by our own imagination.

What's really out there in the Milky Way galaxy, and beyond, may be very different from what we actually see.

Expectations, and how to thwart them Exoplanet science has a history of subverting expectations, right from the very beginning.

"If you go back to that world I grew up in when I was a kid, we only knew of one planetary system," planetary scientist Jonti Horner of the University of Southern Queensland told ScienceAlert in 2022.

"And so that was this kind of implicit assumption, and sometimes the explicit assumption, that all planetary systems would be like this. You know, you'd have rocky planets near the star that were quite small, you'd have gas giants a long way from the star that were quite big. And that's how planetary systems would be."

For this reason, it took scientists a while to identify an exoplanet orbiting a main sequence star, like our Sun. Assuming other solar systems were like ours, the tell-tale signs of heavyweight planets tugging on their stars would take years to observe, just as it takes our own gas giants years to complete an orbit.

Based on such lengthy periods of a single measurement, it didn't seem worth the trouble to sift through a relatively short history of observations for many stars to conclusively sift out a fellow main-sequence solar system.

When they finally did look, the exoplanet they found was nothing like what they were expecting: a gas giant half the mass (and twice the size) of Jupiter orbiting so close to its host star, its year equals 4.2 days, and its atmosphere scorches at temperatures of around 1,000 degrees Celsius (1800 degrees Fahrenheit).

Since then, we've learnt these 'Hot Jupiter' type planets aren't oddities at all. If anything, they seem relatively common.

We know now that there's a lot more variety out there in the galaxy than what we see in our home system. However, it's important not to assume that what we can currently detect is all that the Milky Way has to offer. If there's anything out there like our own Solar System, it's very possibly beyond our detection capabilities.

"Things like the Solar System are very hard for us to find, they're a bit beyond us technologically at the minute," Horner said.

"The terrestrial planets would be very unlikely to be picked up from any of the surveys we've done so far. You're very unlikely to be able to find a Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars around a star like the Sun."

How to find a planet Let's be perfectly clear: the methods we use to detect exoplanets are incredibly clever. There are currently two that are the workhorses of the exoplanet detection toolkit: the transit method, and the radial velocity method.

In both cases, you need a telescope sensitive to very minute changes in the light of a star. The signals each are looking for, however, couldn't be more different.

For the transit method you'll need a telescope that can keep a star fixed in its view for a sustained period of time. That's why instruments such as NASA's space-based Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) is such a powerhouse, capable of locking onto a segment of the sky for over 27 days without being interrupted by Earth's rotation.

VIDEO AT LINK............

The aim for these kinds of telescopes is to spot the signal of a transit – when an exoplanet passes between us and its host star, like a tiny cloud blotting out a few rays of sunshine.

These dips in light are tiny, as you can imagine. And one blip is insufficient to confidently infer the presence of an exoplanet; there are many things that can dim a star's light, many of which are one-off events. Multiple transits, especially ones that exhibit regular periodicity, are the gold standard.

Therefore, larger exoplanets that are on short orbital periods, closer to their stars than Mercury is to the Sun (some much, much closer, on orbits of less than one Earth week), are favored in the data.

VIDEO AT LINK.............

The radial velocity method detects the wobble of a star caused by the gravitational pull of the exoplanet as it swings around in its orbit. A planetary system, you see, doesn't really orbit a star, so much as dance in a coordinated shuffle. The star and the planets orbit a mutual center of gravity, known as the barycenter.

For the Solar System, that's a point very, very close to the surface of the Sun, or just outside it, primarily due to the influence of Jupiter, which is more than twice the mass of all the rest of the planets combined.

Unlike a transit's blink-and-you-miss-it event, the shift in the star's position is an ongoing change that doesn't require constant monitoring to notice. We can detect the motion of distant stars orbiting their barycenters because that motion changes their light due to something called the Doppler effect.

As the star moves towards us, the waves of light coming in our direction are squished slightly, towards the bluer end of the spectrum; as it moves away, the waves stretch towards the redder end. A regular 'wobble' in the star's light suggests the presence of an orbital companion.

Again, the data tends to favor larger planets that exert a stronger gravitational influence, on shorter, closer orbits to their star.

Aside from these two prominent methods, it's possible on occasion to directly image an exoplanet as it orbits its star. Though an extremely difficult thing to do, it may become more common in the JWST era.

According to astronomer Daniel Bayliss of the University of Warwick in the UK, this approach would uncover an almost opposite class of exoplanet to the short-orbit variety.

In order to see an exoplanet without it being swamped by the glare of its parent star, the two bodies need to have a very wide separation. This means the direct imaging approach favors planets on relatively long orbits.

However, larger exoplanets would still be spotted more easily through this method, for obvious reasons.

"Each of the discovery methods has its own biases," Bayliss explained.

Earth with its year-long loop around the Sun sits between the orbital extremes favored by different detection techniques, he added, so "to find planets with a one year orbit is still very, very difficult."

What's out there?

By far, the most numerous group of exoplanets is a class that isn't even represented in the Solar System. That's the mini-Neptune – gas-enveloped exoplanets that are smaller than Neptune and larger than Earth in size.

Rocky planet surrounded by purple haze and a star in the distance on the left

Illustration of the mini-Neptune TOI 560.01, orbiting its solitary star. (W. M. Keck Observatory/Adam Makarenko)

Most of the confirmed exoplanets are on much shorter orbits than Earth; in fact, more than half have orbits of less than 20 days.

Most of the exoplanets we've found orbit solitary stars, much like our Sun. Fewer than 10 percent are in multi-star systems. Yet most of the stars in the Milky Way are members of a multi-star systems, with estimates as high as 80 percent seen in a partnership orbiting at least one other star.

Think about that for a moment, though. Does that mean that exoplanets are more common around single stars – or that exoplanets are harder to detect around multiple stars?

The presence of more than one source of light can distort or obscure the very similar (but much smaller) signals we're trying to detect from exoplanets, but it might also be reasoned that multi-star systems complicate planet formation in some way.

And this brings us back home again, back to our Solar System. As odd as home seems in the context of everything we've found, it might not be uncommon at all.

"I think it is fair enough to say that there's actually some very common types of planets that are missing from our Solar System," said Bayliss.

"Super Earths that look a little bit like Earth but have double the radius, we don't have anything like that. We don't have these mini-Neptunes. So I think it is fair enough to say that there are some very common planets that we don't see in our own Solar System.

"Now, whether that makes our Solar System rare or not, I think I wouldn't go that far. Because there could be a lot of other stars that have a Solar System-type set of planets that we just don't see yet."

An artist's illustration of many planets and stars in the Milky Way.

This artist's illustration gives an impression of how common planets are around the stars in the Milky Way. (ESO/M. Kornmesser)

On the brink of discovery

The first exoplanets were discovered just 32 years ago orbiting a pulsar, a star completely unlike our own. Since then, the technology has improved out of sight. Now that scientists know what to look for, they can devise better and better ways to find them around a greater diversity of stars.

And, as the technology advances, so too will our ability to find smaller and smaller worlds.

This means that exoplanet science could be on the brink of discovering thousands of worlds hidden from our current view. As Horner points out, in astronomy, there are way more small things than big things.

Red dwarf stars are a perfect example. They're the most common type of star in the Milky Way – and they're tiny, up to about half the mass of the Sun. They're so small and dim that we can't see them with the naked eye, yet they account for up to 75 percent of all stars in the galaxy.

Right now, when it comes to statistically understanding exoplanets, we're operating with incomplete information, because there are types of worlds we just can't see.

That is bound to change.

"I just have this nagging feeling that if you come back in 20 years time, you'll look at those statements that mini-Neptunes are the most common kind of planets with about as much skepticism as you'd look back at statements from the early 1990s that said you'd only get rocky planets next to the star," Horner told ScienceAlert.

"Now, I could well be proved wrong. This is how science works. But my thinking is that when we get to the point that we can discover things that are Earth-sized and smaller, we'll find that there are more things that are Earth-sized and smaller than there are things that are Neptune-sized."

And maybe we'll find that our oddball little planetary system, in all its quirks and wonders, isn't so alone in the cosmos after all.

An earlier version of this article was published in December 2022.


TOPICS: Astronomy; History; Outdoors; Science; Travel
KEYWORDS: astronomy; exoplanet; science; solarsystem; xoplanet; xplanets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 last
To: Red Badger

I think it would be fascinating to discover that God made one planet with sentient beings and life per galaxy. It gives each one a big back yard without ever coming in contact with another one.


101 posted on 01/03/2024 1:33:33 PM PST by cuban leaf (It is easier to fool a man than to convince him he's being fooled. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jamestown1630

I forget where I watched it. The only place that I can find now is VUDU. Each season costs $18.00. If you are still thinking about it, there are some snippets on Youtube.com.


102 posted on 01/03/2024 2:08:53 PM PST by ChessExpert (Required for informed consent: "We have a new, experimental vaccine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

Thanks.


103 posted on 01/03/2024 3:07:43 PM PST by Jamestown1630 ("A Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
What was here before the Big Bang?

Friends, Cheers, How i met your father.... etc

104 posted on 01/03/2024 3:14:49 PM PST by al baby (I know its the way the measure the cooling capability )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Karliner

There was a video going around awhile back that delved into the circumstances needed to make life on Earth possible as we know it.

The is no evidence to prove that we are not alone.


105 posted on 01/03/2024 4:04:14 PM PST by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again," )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: al baby

I prefer to ask, ‘What went bang?’


106 posted on 01/03/2024 4:05:36 PM PST by Jamestown1630 ("A Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: fella

I’d say so. I like the quantum view of a multiverse in differing dimensions but I loved Chronicles of Narnia too much when a child and later in college never got far in physics and math but enough to see on conceptual level there’s much more here but we can’t see too well living in three dimensions + partial time


107 posted on 01/03/2024 4:35:17 PM PST by Karliner (Heb 4:12 Rom 8:28 Rev 3, "...This is the end of the beginning." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

The one money comment in the whole article:

“However, it’s important not to assume that what we can currently detect is all that the Milky Way has to offer. If there’s anything out there like our own Solar System, it’s very possibly beyond our detection capabilities.”

Beyond our CURRENT detection capabilities. Whether there are or are not solar systems similar to ours is not known right now. Humanity will have to wait until our explorations of the universe are much greater than there are now.


108 posted on 01/03/2024 5:58:39 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Recommend watching The Priviledge Planet DVD. Various Astronomers talk about the uniqueness of our sun, planet, solar system, position in our galaxy, our moon, our orbit, our tilt, our molten iron core and magnetic field and on and on.

Very revealing, you cant come away thinking it was not designed to be a place for us.


109 posted on 01/03/2024 5:58:59 PM PST by reviled downesdad (Some of the lost will never believe the Truth and will hate you for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reviled downesdad

“you cant come away thinking it was not designed to be a place for us.”

Agreed—but the explanation may be one that is outside the comfort zone of a lot of folks around here.

Hint: Fishtanks were made for fish.


110 posted on 01/03/2024 6:09:37 PM PST by cgbg ("Our democracy" = Their Kleptocracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

Are you one of those who think we were created and ‘planted’ here by a superior extraterrestrial race?


111 posted on 01/03/2024 7:28:09 PM PST by Jamestown1630 ("A Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: PIF

How would/does planet alignment affect the barycenter? Seems it would throw everything out of wack like clay on a pottery wheel that gets out of balance and goes flying.


112 posted on 01/05/2024 7:34:50 AM PST by Farmerbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

I go with “Schrödinger’s E.T.” theory. We are both alone and in a galactic metropolis at the same time.


113 posted on 01/05/2024 7:39:26 AM PST by Farmerbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Farmerbob

How would/does planet alignment affect the barycenter?

Model it mathematically and physical to and find out


114 posted on 01/05/2024 7:59:56 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now its your turn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: PIF

115 posted on 01/05/2024 8:23:10 AM PST by Deaf and Discerning
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Longest unknowing garbage clickbait extra-planetary article ever.

There isn't going to be an Earth equivalent, a waterworld that goes snowball and back again over and over but that does not preclude a multitude of 'rocky' ur-Earths where the carbon-based bipedal humanoid refinement took a similar path, but maybe a bit longer.

That latter point is a concern -- did that rocky ur-Earth 'refinement' take up the entirety of the 5B (earth) year gap available to competing carbon-based systems (we are a bit late on the scene regarding our emergence as sentient in relation to the age of the Universe crossed against M-class star systams), which means we have all come 'of age' at the same time and have not thusly conquered interstellar space yet? That would be a miserable but not non-zero possibility...

116 posted on 01/12/2024 3:45:11 PM PST by StAnDeliver (TrumpII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

What if we are the first?

Somebody has to be.....................


117 posted on 01/12/2024 3:50:51 PM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegal aliens are put up in hotels.....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson