Methods to find exoplanets more easily

  • Thread starter Gitirana
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Exoplanets
In summary: No, it's a way of viewing the world that can be useful in some cases.In summary, it seems that you think that the people who are working on finding exoplanets are not doing a good job.
  • #1
21
0
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?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Gitirana said:
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.
 
  • #3
Gitirana said:
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.
 
  • #4
"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.
 
  • #5
mfb said:
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.
 
  • #6
Gitirana said:
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.
 

1. How do astronomers currently find exoplanets?

Astronomers currently use a variety of methods to find exoplanets, including the transit method, radial velocity method, direct imaging, and microlensing. These methods involve observing changes in a star's brightness, movement, and/or gravitational lensing caused by the presence of an orbiting exoplanet.

2. What are the limitations of current exoplanet detection methods?

One major limitation is that current methods are limited in their ability to detect smaller, Earth-sized exoplanets. These methods also require precise and continuous observations, making it difficult to detect exoplanets with longer orbital periods or those that are farther away from their host star.

3. How can we improve current methods to find exoplanets more easily?

One potential improvement is the use of new technologies, such as space-based telescopes with advanced imaging capabilities. Another approach is to combine multiple detection methods to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of exoplanet detection.

4. Are there any new methods being developed to find exoplanets?

Yes, scientists are constantly developing new methods to find exoplanets more easily. Some examples include the use of gravitational microlensing to detect low-mass exoplanets, and the analysis of the chemical composition of a star's atmosphere to indirectly detect the presence of exoplanets.

5. How important is it to find exoplanets more easily?

Finding exoplanets more easily is crucial for advancing our understanding of the universe and potentially finding habitable worlds outside of our solar system. With easier detection methods, we can expand our knowledge of exoplanet populations and potentially discover new Earth-like planets that may harbor life.

Suggested for: Methods to find exoplanets more easily

Replies
9
Views
998
Replies
4
Views
917
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top