At Least 100 Billion Planets

Message boards : SETI@home Science : At Least 100 Billion Planets
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1184787 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 18:04:29 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jan 2012, 18:11:53 UTC

Put this into your view of the Drake equation:


NASA: Study Shows Our Galaxy Has at Least 100 Billion Planets

Our Milky Way galaxy contains a minimum of 100 billion planets, according to a detailed statistical study based on the detection of three planets located outside our solar system, called exoplanets. ...

... The survey results show that our galaxy contains, on average, a minimum of one planet for every star. This means that it's likely there is a minimum of 1,500 planets within just 50 light-years of Earth.

The study is based on observations taken over six years by the PLANET (Probing Lensing Anomalies NETwork) collaboration, using a technique called microlensing to survey the galaxy for planets. ...



I suspect that the upcoming Kepler results will explode that number to something much greater...

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1184787 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1184790 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 18:53:53 UTC

Troppa grazia, Sant'Antonio. is an old Italian proverb. How can we monitor billions of planets?
Tullio
ID: 1184790 · Report as offensive
Profile SciManStev Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 6651
Credit: 121,090,076
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1184792 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 19:03:19 UTC

As there are only 63 stars within 50 light years of earth, 1500 planets would mean some stars would have a lot of them.

Steve
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website
ID: 1184792 · Report as offensive
Profile Len
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 10
Posts: 52
Credit: 11,725,173
RAC: 86
United Kingdom
Message 1184811 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 20:30:12 UTC - in response to Message 1184792.  

As there are only 63 stars within 50 light years of earth, 1500 planets would mean some stars would have a lot of them.

Steve

Are we really sure about the low figure of 63?

Having not spent any time counting them myself, I am loathe to state anything as fact; but a quick search of previous counts and estimates from scientific sources places the 1500 figure on the conservative side. 1600 to over 2000 being the predominant range that I found.

Len
I think I am. Therefore I am. I think.
ID: 1184811 · Report as offensive
Profile SciManStev Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 6651
Credit: 121,090,076
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1184820 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 21:02:52 UTC - in response to Message 1184811.  

As there are only 63 stars within 50 light years of earth, 1500 planets would mean some stars would have a lot of them.

Steve

Are we really sure about the low figure of 63?

Having not spent any time counting them myself, I am loathe to state anything as fact; but a quick search of previous counts and estimates from scientific sources places the 1500 figure on the conservative side. 1600 to over 2000 being the predominant range that I found.

Len


I have this.
http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm

Steve
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website
ID: 1184820 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1184828 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 21:53:30 UTC - in response to Message 1184820.  

The discrepancy is probably due to stating the number of Sun-Like stars which are Main sequence stars that are non binary. At one time I thought that there was a count of only 600 such stars out to 1000 light years
ID: 1184828 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1184881 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 2:42:56 UTC
Last modified: 13 Jan 2012, 3:27:03 UTC

If a thought signal of extraterrestrial origin is supposed to be able to reach 300 light years out into space from its starting point, how many stars of type G, especially main sequence stars, would then lie within such a sphere?

Could the Drake equation be adjusted for specific types of stars within a given distance, or is the spectral class for a given star enough? Our sun is spectral class G2 V, in comparison.

Some stars getting old are evolving into subgiants and giants, changing their spectral types during this process and making possible existing life less likely near these objects. Procyon, having spectral class F5 IV-V is such an example.

An even more evolved star, Arcturus, is a Population 2 star. Its spectral class is K1.5IIIFe-0.5, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcturus .

In between, we of course find Aldebaran (Alpha Tau) having a spectral class of K5III / M2V (meaning it has a red dwarf companion). This star I may guess is still a Population 1 star in comparison.

Stars like Sirius are main sequence stars of type A. A1 V to be exact when it comes to Sirius. They are hotter, bluer and more luminous than our own sun, but maybe not totally unsuitable for life forms given possible planets with atmospheres and liquid oceans orbiting such types of stars.

Also I came across the following web-page tonight: http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/sowlist.html .
ID: 1184881 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1184991 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 17:23:13 UTC
Last modified: 13 Jan 2012, 17:25:02 UTC

100 billion planets, that really is a massive number. You have to really think about that number to get your head around it.

How many of those planets have trees, and birds that fly in the Sky's, and flowing streams and rivers, and dinosaurs roaming freely across the plains. And great civilisations of people living out their lives.

I bet hundreds of thousands of them have life on them just like here on Earth.

John.
ID: 1184991 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1185015 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 18:39:05 UTC - in response to Message 1185004.  

While you have an interesting argument against intelligent life the shear numbers say that it's more likely than not. I'd hate to think that we are the only self aware beings in this galaxy let alone the universe


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1185015 · Report as offensive
Profile john3760
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Feb 11
Posts: 334
Credit: 3,400,979
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1185024 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 20:01:42 UTC - in response to Message 1184991.  

The number of planets with birds,dinosaurs or any other type of life we recognise on earth ,is definately a lot rarer than planets(which we
havent even discovered yet) that can contain even the most basic
forms of life.
Another planet with dinosaurs is theoretically probable,but almost certainly
non existant.

john3760
ID: 1185024 · Report as offensive
Profile Len
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 10
Posts: 52
Credit: 11,725,173
RAC: 86
United Kingdom
Message 1185102 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 0:55:48 UTC - in response to Message 1185041.  
Last modified: 14 Jan 2012, 0:56:18 UTC

A planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massive enough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit. If we were to substitute "the sun" with "its star", I think we have a working definition of planet, surely?
I think I am. Therefore I am. I think.
ID: 1185102 · Report as offensive
Profile Len
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 10
Posts: 52
Credit: 11,725,173
RAC: 86
United Kingdom
Message 1185109 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 1:14:29 UTC - in response to Message 1184820.  

As there are only 63 stars within 50 light years of earth, 1500 planets would mean some stars would have a lot of them.

Steve

Are we really sure about the low figure of 63?

Having not spent any time counting them myself, I am loathe to state anything as fact; but a quick search of previous counts and estimates from scientific sources places the 1500 figure on the conservative side. 1600 to over 2000 being the predominant range that I found.

Len


I have this.
http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm

Steve


Hmm. I have three apples and four oranges. However there are seven pieces of fruit. If one were to re-define fruit as "non-citrus fruit", then my statement that I had seven fruits would be wrong by the new definition of fruit, but where would that leave apples? Are they no longer fruit?.

The original poster mentioned "stars". Not spectral type "G" stars. Of those there appears to be 64, granted. But the limit as to a specific spectral type was never given by the original poster.
I think I am. Therefore I am. I think.
ID: 1185109 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1185119 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 2:06:15 UTC - in response to Message 1185109.  
Last modified: 14 Jan 2012, 2:08:11 UTC

The point is that sheer numbers do not guarantee anything. The Drake equation ignores perhaps two dozen requirements for the evolution of intelligent life similar to ours (in terms of being able to compare with homo sapiens in it's current state of evolution.. These are things like temperature, stable orbits, non crushing gravity, a magnetic field, tides, a moon to tidally lock and stabilize spin, an outer gas giant to protect from excessive asteroid/comet hits. sufficient water, dry land, non-poisoness atmosphere, an ozone layer, etc. Perhaps not all of these are absolutely essential and there are probably a dozen more that I or others don't even know about.

if there were say only a dozen of these parameters and they were each only 20% likely then there would perhaps be a few hundred likely planets in our galaxy. On average they would be too far away to ever know if life existed. I think that there may be only a handful of such planets in our galaxy.

I could believe that life such as ours exists somewhere in the universe-I also believe that it is likely that we will never know.

The fact that recent searches may prove me wrong in my assumptions keeps me interested in the ongoing search.

If the numbers predicted by Frank Drake and others were valid the Galaxy would be colonized by now and we would be enjoying the chatter rather than listening to a bunch of thermal noise.

We would have been visited long ago.
ID: 1185119 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1185120 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 2:11:14 UTC - in response to Message 1185109.  

Hmm. I have three apples and four oranges.


If you wanted to make an apple pie you would have exactly three apples.
ID: 1185120 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3387
Credit: 4,182,900
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1185146 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 5:06:07 UTC

What I wonder is, will it make any difference in the long run. The possibility exists that travel back and forth between the stars will never be realized and therefore we may never make contact with our neighbors even assuming they are there.

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1185146 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1185354 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 23:54:26 UTC - in response to Message 1185119.  
Last modified: 14 Jan 2012, 23:56:09 UTC

The point is that sheer numbers do not guarantee anything. The Drake equation ignores perhaps two dozen requirements for the evolution of intelligent life similar to ours...

The observations and numbers continue to reinforce the view that our solar system is nothing 'special'... The development of our form of life here might be peculiar and 'rare', but the circumstances are nothing special. Note also that life might be widespread in various forms...

I could believe that life such as ours exists somewhere in the universe-I also believe that it is likely that we will never know.

The fact that recent searches may prove me wrong in my assumptions keeps me interested in the ongoing search.

If the numbers predicted by Frank Drake and others were valid the Galaxy would be colonized by now and we would be enjoying the chatter rather than listening to a bunch of thermal noise.

We would have been visited long ago.

At the moment, we are playing a game of numbers and possibilities, That is what the Drake equation attempts to add up.


If there is already life in the universe that multiplies and travels, then to quote a famous phrase from Carl Sagan: "Where are they?"

The observation that we haven't seen anything yet, might suggest that we might be the first at least for our galaxy...


Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1185354 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1185397 - Posted: 15 Jan 2012, 3:22:03 UTC - in response to Message 1185354.  
Last modified: 15 Jan 2012, 3:34:59 UTC

it was Enrico Fermi who said ."where are they"

We have a somewhat average star but nobody can claim that the conditions on Earth are replicated anywhere else. Some think that this is abundantly likely. I feel that there is a very sparse sprinkling of such planets in our Galaxy. Time will tell. right now these are all opinions.

The uncertainty in the Drake equation and my musing that there are maybe a dozen or so necessary parameters for intelligent life that are possibly only 20% likely is infinite. Can intelligent life survive without Ozone, a tidally locked moon, a magnetosphere, a near circular orbit etc ?. I don't think so and the Drake equation does not address them.

As we investigate more planets these percentages may become more exact. The reason for my hot air on the subject is to caution against the "Billions and Billions of planets teeming with life" given by Professor Drake and Carl Sagan. Perhaps there are Billions in the entire Universe but I doubt any big numbers in our Galaxy.
ID: 1185397 · Report as offensive
ahj

Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 02
Posts: 11
Credit: 110,418
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1185647 - Posted: 16 Jan 2012, 10:45:31 UTC - in response to Message 1185041.  

But more than likely we are being ignored until we have the capability of FTL speed, or at least until we have spacecraft that have the ability to take off and land on their own.


I think Mr. Einstein would like a word with you
ID: 1185647 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1185658 - Posted: 16 Jan 2012, 11:28:33 UTC - in response to Message 1185656.  
Last modified: 16 Jan 2012, 11:28:47 UTC

It is in fact information that cannot travel faster than light. Try to explain how you could send a message using quantum entanglement and you will see what I mean.
ID: 1185658 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1185838 - Posted: 16 Jan 2012, 23:20:26 UTC - in response to Message 1185734.  
Last modified: 16 Jan 2012, 23:22:56 UTC

it is the distance between objects that is accelerating.

A photon has no rest mass. it has energy given by e= plank's constant times it's frequency.
It has this mass equivalency but no rest mass as it is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field in free space.

Remember, a wave has energy but nothing actually travels longitudinally; only up and down.
ID: 1185838 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : At Least 100 Billion Planets


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.