Methods to find exoplanets more easily

[Gitirana]

When I watched the story about the difficulties to find an object around other stars I started to think in alterinatives that could exist to make the object larger.

The presented alternatives will reduce the amount of objects that can be found but can help to find more easy some planets.

Below I will list in descending order of size:

1) If the planet has a magnetosphere then this is a giant gas planet or if is rocky planet that have an active nucleus (The Jupiter Magnetosphere is almost the same size of sun).

Collisions between the star wind and the planet's magnetosphere will create distortions in the solar disc represented by variation in the star wind temperature. The most critical would be: what is the best range of infrared to look? And the instruments that have sensitivity for picking up the distortions in the halo temperature.

2) In the case to search for planets with Ionosphere of exoplanet the biggest problem would be our planet, because it reflects the biggest portion of HF signal in the range of 20 to 30 Mhz, then how could we receive a signal in this bandwith reflected by a planet from a distant star?

Only if our antena is in orbit above our ionosphere may be a good idea. Or if we have a excelent Antena on ground to capture some signal that is not filtered by our ionosphere. There is another key point will be necessary a computer program that must save all data (from 6-15 minutes FIFO data according to kind of star) and compare if this signal was reflected by planet from its star or if this an event in the planet atmosphere that can produce signals in this bandwith.

3) In the case to search planets by UV reflection this is more specific and we are looking for planets with a possible ozone layer, the alternative would be to compare with the absorption of infrared. But by using only one recpetor in the UV bandwidth may be an option if we compare the difference between UV -A and UV-B. If the atmosphere has an oxygen-ozone cycle, UV-B range would absorbed by process when compared with UV-A.

All these alternatives are limiting the search for exoplanets but if we find some of them via one of these methods would be incredible because:

- If the planet has Magnetosphere, its core is active.
- If he has a Ionosphere, it has a complex amosfera.
- If it reflects UV-A whilie absorbing UV-B it is posible existence of an oxigen - ozone cycle.
- If it absorbs more infrared and reflects the UV-A then it has a greenhouse effect with a possible cycle of oxygen-oxonio. (Something very interesting).

What do you think about?

 

[phinds]

What do you think about?

I think that there are numerous professional physicists that have given a LOT of thought to finding exoplanets and I find it fairly unlikely that you or I will come up with something that has not occurred to them and been explored to the extent possible if it shows any promise.

 

[mfb]

The presented alternatives will reduce the amount of objects that can be found but can help to find more easy some planets.

No they will not.

The challenge of direct imaging is often not the brightness of the planet - many planets would be bright enough to see them in telescopes. The problem is the star that is orders of magnitude brighter and very close. It is like spotting a grain of dust directly next to the disk of the sun.
None of your suggested methods would help with that problem, they just make it worse by using frequencies where the resolution or the brightness difference is even worse compared to infrared (where a few direct images exist).

Also, see phinds: do you really think scientists would miss promising methods? A few methods are widely used, many more were tested, and even more were considered and discarded because they don't work with current telescopes.

If you have questions about finding exoplanets, feel free to ask them, but "here is something I just thought of, and it will revolutionize the way astronomy is done" does not work.

 

[Gitirana]

"I think that there are numerous professional physicists that have given a LOT of thought to finding exoplanets and I find it fairly unlikely that you or I will come up with something that has not occurred to them and been explored to the extent possible if it shows any promise."

I think that your point of view is strange our development.

We suppose the many persons are doing his job but we forget that we are human.
We forget that current level requires more than the human brain can support.
We need start to learn to think as a collective group leaving our prejudices and ego aside.

It seems to be a negative point of view where we tend to attack or reject instead trying to figure out what can be availed.
Many great discoveries arise of improbable things.

This item is part of an e-mail that I exchanged with a scientist that already discovered some exoplanets using the transition method or star shaking movement.

Interesting was that the scientist liked of some of this suggestions and will check how can be implemented since it have some technological challenges.

Of course, in a world with 7 billion people many already have thought that magnetosphere would be easier way to finding a planet instead of via visible light since it is much large.

The question is how?

I understand that to see the magnetic field is not something so easy to do but I also realize that the magnetic field interferes with the stellar wind that will produce the stellar halo distortion that may be observable in infrared or tera hertz bandwith.

In the case of Tera hertz bandwith our technology is limited, any suggestion?

I already study some projects composed by meta material that can increase a received bandwith. If we convert Tera Hertz in infrared probably this distortion can become visible.

My target is to share and contribute in order to check if any thing relevant can be used.

Thanks you for your contribution.

 

[Gitirana]

No they will not.

The challenge of direct imaging is often not the brightness of the planet - many planets would be bright enough to see them in telescopes. The problem is the star that is orders of magnitude brighter and very close. It is like spotting a grain of dust directly next to the disk of the sun.
None of your suggested methods would help with that problem, they just make it worse by using frequencies where the resolution or the brightness difference is even worse compared to infrared (where a few direct images exist).

Also, see phinds: do you really think scientists would miss promising methods? A few methods are widely used, many more were tested, and even more were considered and discarded because they don't work with current telescopes.

If you have questions about finding exoplanets, feel free to ask them, but "here is something I just thought of, and it will revolutionize the way astronomy is done" does not work.

As I mentioned before this is not the common sense. A person that already discovered some exoplanets is analysing how can apply some of this methods.
The idea will be how to "increase" the size of planet or how to reduce the bright of star.

We already have technology to produce diferencial sensors. For example if we subtract UV-A from UV-B in the sensor probably the star will become dark only the bodies that reflect UV A while absorb UV-B will bright. The same relation of UV with infrared.

We are blind by the brightness of the stars but we should not let this cloud over our minds because there are bandwidth that can be better observable.

Visible light is not the best way.

 

[mfb]

This item is part of an e-mail that I exchanged with a scientist that already discovered some exoplanets using the transition method or star shaking movement.

Then I suggest you continue there. This is (part of) the way science is done - not via internet forums.
We had a forum for theory development a while ago - it got flooded by crackpots quickly. This type of discussion just does not work on internet forums, sorry.