Challenges of Life on Extra-Solar Planets: A Review of Latest Findings

  • Thread starter Thread starter nautica
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Review
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights that the first detected extra-solar planets are unlikely candidates for life primarily because they orbit pulsars, which emit intense radiation. Participants note that extra-solar planetary systems differ from our solar system, particularly with giant planets being located closer to their central stars. There is a debate about the criteria for life, with some arguing that life could exist in forms not familiar to us, challenging traditional definitions. The conversation also touches on the historical context of the discovery of these planets and the potential for life in extreme environments. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the complexity of identifying life beyond Earth and the need for broader definitions of what constitutes life.
nautica
The first extra-solar planets detect are not likely canidates for life b/c

a) the planets are too small
b) their surface temp is too low for liquid water
c) they orbit pulsars, which emit too much powerful radiation
d) they are too distant from the star they orbit.

I believe the answer is c) they orbit pulsars, ect..


So far, it appears that extra-solar planetary systmes differ from our solar system in that

a) stars in the center of these systems are all much more massive than our sun
b) theplanetary systems are typically larger than our solar system
c) these planetary systems have no Oort cloud
d) giant planets are located closer to the central star
e) they are found around B stars

I think the answer is d.

thanks
nautica
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
In the first line, should that read "detected" instead of "detect"? If so, then I suppose (c) is the answer. However, perhaps someone can refresh my memory...wasn't the announcement of the first extrasolar planets ever found (supposedly around a pulsar) later retracted as an error?

Agree, (d) on #2.
 
nautica said:
The first extra-solar planets detect are not likely canidates for life b/c

a) the planets are too small
b) their surface temp is too low for liquid water
c) they orbit pulsars, which emit too much powerful radiation
d) they are too distant from the star they orbit.

I believe the answer is c) they orbit pulsars, ect..


So far, it appears that extra-solar planetary systmes differ from our solar system in that

a) stars in the center of these systems are all much more massive than our sun
b) theplanetary systems are typically larger than our solar system
c) these planetary systems have no Oort cloud
d) giant planets are located closer to the central star
e) they are found around B stars

I think the answer is d.

thanks
nautica
All of a, b, c and d would not restrict any for being a candidate for "life". Too many use that term, and thought, to mean life familiar to us. 25 years ago, any marine biologist would have told you that life is impossible around the undersea volcanic vents where the temperature is too high and methane and hydrogen sulfide are predominant. But, a lot of new creatures have been found there, just not your ordinary fish.

We can't think that life only means life like us, the possibilities of unbelievable variety are out there. The answer shouls be f): None of the above.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...

Similar threads

Back
Top