4 ms·

when you are looking that far away, you can't see any planets. They are not light source like stars. The only way to figure out whether star has any planets ar

by lubos 14y ago

when you are looking that far away, you can't see any planets. They are not light source like stars. The only way to figure out whether star has any planets around is to measure and interpret periodical gravitational vibrations.

thirdhaf 14y ago
Unless the planets happen to orbit very stable stars in the plane that sometimes puts them between earth and their star. With Kepler and some earth-bound telescopes you can discern the brightness dips from these and sometimes glean minimal spectroscopic information on the planet. Direct imaging is possible with interferometric methods and some more innovative approaches [1] but require funding. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Worlds_Mission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Worlds_Mission
robbiep 14y ago
You are of course right about 1 of the 3 methods of finding planets around distant stars but I feel droithomme was more commenting on the total disconnect between the post title and the actual discovery which is nothing like 'earth-like planet discovered around a star 12 light years away'. Apologies for being a pedant
- droithomme 14y ago
  Thanks, yes that's correct. The key detail from the quote pull was "suggest", I didn't intend to indicate that this general method is detection is invalid. The details in the article came down to they were pulling signal out from deep within noise in a way that other planet finders were skeptical of: "They're really digging deep into the noise here. The community is going to find it hard to accept planet discoveries from signals so deeply embedded in noise." Even the researchers themselves are quoted as saying they don't consider anything here proven, they are just seeing if anyone else wants to have a go at finding further confirmation or disproof: "We felt that the best thing to do was to put the result out there and see if somebody can either independently confirm it or shoot it down." The researchers themselves have not made the claim of finding an earth like planet around Tau Ceti at all. It's not been established or accepted by experts in the field that there are planets around this sun, what their orbits are, their composition, or that they are "earth-like" in a way that any non-specialist reader would interpret "earth-like". Even the authors don't make those claims. Maybe someday those things will be confirmed or disproved. Today is not that day. The journalist is aware of this too. At the end of the article he says "If the planets exist...", acknowledging it is not established at all, before then engaging in fanciful speculation that is unlikely to appear in a reputable science news source with a competent editor: "That may just explain why no one from Tau Ceti has ever contacted beings as primitive as us."

by lubos 14y ago

thirdhaf 14y ago

Unless the planets happen to orbit very stable stars in the plane that sometimes puts them between earth and their star. With Kepler and some earth-bound telescopes you can discern the brightness dips from these and sometimes glean minimal spectroscopic information on the planet. Direct imaging is possible with interferometric methods and some more innovative approaches [1] but require funding. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Worlds_Mission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Worlds_Mission

robbiep 14y ago

You are of course right about 1 of the 3 methods of finding planets around distant stars but I feel droithomme was more commenting on the total disconnect between the post title and the actual discovery which is nothing like 'earth-like planet discovered around a star 12 light years away'. Apologies for being a pedant

droithomme 14y ago
Thanks, yes that's correct. The key detail from the quote pull was "suggest", I didn't intend to indicate that this general method is detection is invalid. The details in the article came down to they were pulling signal out from deep within noise in a way that other planet finders were skeptical of: "They're really digging deep into the noise here. The community is going to find it hard to accept planet discoveries from signals so deeply embedded in noise." Even the researchers themselves are quoted as saying they don't consider anything here proven, they are just seeing if anyone else wants to have a go at finding further confirmation or disproof: "We felt that the best thing to do was to put the result out there and see if somebody can either independently confirm it or shoot it down." The researchers themselves have not made the claim of finding an earth like planet around Tau Ceti at all. It's not been established or accepted by experts in the field that there are planets around this sun, what their orbits are, their composition, or that they are "earth-like" in a way that any non-specialist reader would interpret "earth-like". Even the authors don't make those claims. Maybe someday those things will be confirmed or disproved. Today is not that day. The journalist is aware of this too. At the end of the article he says "If the planets exist...", acknowledging it is not established at all, before then engaging in fanciful speculation that is unlikely to appear in a reputable science news source with a competent editor: "That may just explain why no one from Tau Ceti has ever contacted beings as primitive as us."