Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ASuarezMascareno t1_j1acr6x wrote

>I think we are looking for some of the wrong things,

I'll bite. What do you mean?

5

Mission-Editor-4297 t1_j1agygg wrote

Well, less that we are looking for the wrong things, and more that I think we arent looking for all the right things. I see a focus on habitable zones and liquid water for instance, and those certainly seem like critical components for life to exist. But that is not by far the only anomaly in our solar system.

I'll try to be as clear as possible because people here actually work in the science. Some of what I say might be easily debunked by something in the community Im unaware of. Im actually excited about the prospect. But also, people here might actually see value in what Im saying, and possess the tools necessary to implement it.

It seems to me that almost just as important as liquid water would be the presence of a magnetosphere. Without one, the planet cannot protect against cosmic rays which shred DNA before life can proliferate. But in our solar system there are two planets with magnetospheres: Earth and Jupiter. I hypothesize that the existence of a large gas giant with a magnetosphere on the outer part of a system would be much more likely exist in a system that can sustain life. Or at least another terrestrial planet with an iron core. The problem here is I dont think magnetics are easy to detect at these distances. At the same time: gas giants are easier to detect than small terrestrial worlds.

We also know that Iron is a critical component to life, and that iron is formed in certain stages of star development and death. Our solar system exists in a "stellar nursery" where older stars have died leaving iron to be plentiful in the local matter. We should look primarily in similar places if we want to find life

I dont think the presence of the asteroid belt is incidental. It's possible that this is evidence of some event which malformed a planet, planetary destruction, or a result of Jupiter's magnetic influence, (or any of dozens of possibilities). Anything which could cause it could also be integral to life developing.

Tldr: I know science is about eliminating as many variables as possible, but I think we should be looking for more than just planets with water in the habitable zone. We should be looking for whole systems which resemble our own.

5

ASuarezMascareno t1_j1ajds1 wrote

Most of the things you say are fairly correct, but those things absolutely undetectable with current technology. There are projects looking for all the things you say. There's not much to report yet, and no real timeline to find anything.

There's no way to detect the magnetosphere of small planets. Only a few hints in giant planets close to their stars. There's no idea on the table to fix this.

Iron content is probably fine. That's not an issue. Most stars that we can study are nearby and have similar compositions. So far, all transiting planets with RVs (so with radius and mass) have densities consistent with iron cores. The problem is most planets in habitable zones don't transit so we can't really be sure.

The existence of the planet and position within the system is one of the few things we can detect. And only within certain constraints.

Just to make an example. If we had observe the solar system since ~2000 with RVs, we would probably think it is a 1 planet system (Jupiter), or maybe not even that because its possible to mistake Jupiter's signal for the signal of the stellar cycle. It would be difficult to convince the community that it is not a false positive caused by stellar activity.

8

Mission-Editor-4297 t1_j1ao1wz wrote

Damn. I was hoping you werent going to say that. That was the major limitation I saw: these distinctions are just too hard to detect.

Nonetheless: Thank you for the response! Very cool!

6

Gengar88 t1_j1t4i6y wrote

Lots of questions I’m too lazy to ask my school’s astronomy/space physics departments were answered here. Thanks

2