At least in the first millions of years of their lives. This is due to the fact that young planets stay hot longer than previously thought, which may make them easier to detect.
Young hot planets may be easier to spot because they stay that way for longer than astronomers previously thought, according to new research by Linda Elkins-Tanton, a planetary scientist at MIT.
For several million years after their formation, planets like Earth can retain hot, rocky, molten surfaces that can glow brightly enough to stand out as they orbit their sun. Linda Elkins-Tanton, professor of geology in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, says that the "magma ocean" phase for Earth-sized planets can last several million years, a much longer period than previously estimated. "This means that we will actually be able to see planets far away from here, as our detection systems advance," she says.
Elkins-Tanton presented her new findings at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society held this week in Ithaca, New York. The study shows that even after the magma on the surface hardens, after about 5 million years, it can remain hot enough to glow very brightly at the frequency of infrared light for tens of millions of years, providing a relatively wide time window for detection.
The main problem for astronomers hoping to find planets orbiting other stars is the large difference in brightness between the star and the planet, which shines only by reflecting light from its parent star. But the difference in brightness when measured at infrared wavelengths for a liquid and glowing planetary surface will be smaller, thus allowing the planet to be easily located.
The long period of the liquid soil phase is the result of a two-step process, Elkins-Tanton explains. The initial heating produced by the combination of radioactivity inside the planet and the heat produced by the collision of millions of pieces of rock crashing into each other to form the planet actually ends quite quickly: the surface of the planet is expected to solidify (become solid) quickly, over several hundred thousand years, as who thought until today. But then the second phase begins where heavy materials rich in iron that have solidified on the surface begin to sink towards the core, causing other hot materials to rise to the surface.
This "overturning" process, as she discovered, causes the surface of the planet to remain in a liquid state for a longer time - several million years. Because the Earth's crust is dynamic, there is no material left from this ancient era that can be studied and the model tested, she says, but on other planets such as Mars or Mercury, there may be remains of ancient rocks that can be examined. The study also leads to a conclusive conclusion about the composition of the surface of the planets, so that the detection of certain minerals on the planet Mercury, for example, which the Messenger spacecraft will be able to collect when it begins examining the planet in 2011, may support the theory.
In addition to this, the detection of young and hot planets that are in orbit around other stars (outside the solar system) may become possible during the next few years. This can provide another layer of confirmation and support for the research conclusion, she says.
to the notice of the researchers
On the same topic on the science website
24 תגובות
Yael:
As long as you agree that what you called tremors is the result of the Doppler effect, then everything is fine.
I am not saying that an explanation in simple words is not necessary, but it is advisable to elaborate a little more for those who really want to understand.
It seems to me that although it is difficult for you to admit it, you also learned from my comment.
Michael and Yehuda,
First, Michael, this is indeed a scientific site, but the variety of types of readers here is wide, from children to adults, from amateurs to experts. Therefore it is not so absurd to explain in simple words so that even people who are not at your level can understand.
Second, if we're talking about "accuracy", then what I said is that planets orbiting stars leave traces. The stars move in small deviations from their normal orbit, and this is how we can detect their existence. When I said "wobbles" I meant that the star physically deviated from its straight path. I did not talk about the form of measurement, how it is done and what we do in order to absorb it. There are several tools, and there are more tools in development.
And thirdly, to be precise about the Doppler effect and spectroscopy in the use of astronomy, then it is a whole spectrum analysis of the light emitted by the star, it is not as simple as the Doppler effect for a train approaching you or moving away from you.
When it comes to vast and distant masses whose chemical composition is not homogeneous and whose light emission is also not always homogeneous, it is a little more complicated.
This research raises an interesting hypothesis about how many terrestrial planets exist out there. In any case, it is better that the "Kepler" mission is carried out, which will indeed provide comprehensive information about terrestrial planets directly:
http://kepler.nasa.gov/index.html
And I have a suggestion for the editor of "Hidan":
I think it's worth opening a section where you can do puzzles, and leave the comments area for comments on the articles themselves.
There is no doubt that the research is interesting, but the research is focused on identifying young planets.
Aren't there advancements in the technologies to identify "older" planets, especially those that interest us in terms of possibilities for them to be potentially inhabited by life?
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Regarding a new puzzle - if you want, you are welcome to deal with the ones I have already posted here before. There is the puzzle/challenge that I gave to Airwax and there are several others that I gave on different occasions.
I told you that I don't want to waste them but there is still a lot to do with the ones I have already given.
Yehuda:
First of all - the fact that the maximum is 100 seconds is really proven in this way and we have already said this before, but it does not belong to the problem of the algorithm.
According to your words about your attempt to solve the problem, I get the impression that you don't remember it or you didn't understand what it was. It's not a fault. Maybe my wording was too laconic. It's just too bad for me to tell the solution before I'm sure you've thought of the right problem.
I'll get back to you here just to be sure.
If you tell me that this is what you understood in the first place - I will present the solution.
If not - I guess you yourself would prefer to keep thinking about her.
I emphasize - this is a different problem from the original problem.
Here you know exactly where each ant is and in which direction it is going.
What is required here is not to answer the question "How long will it take until the rod is free of ants?" but to find an efficient method that will calculate, for each and every one of the ants, the distance traveled.
An ineffective method for calculating these distances is to do a "simulation" of the problem and calculate when the various collisions took place and summarize what the ants did between them, but I am asking, as mentioned, for an effective method.
Regarding the rolls - keep thinking that you are wrong.
Regarding spreading false claims about me - what can I say except that we were already in this movie and every time I delude myself into thinking that now it's finally over for you?
Or give a new riddle!
To Michael
I understood that it was so, but I told you that it doesn't work for me
The result should be T=L/V where T is equal to the maximum time. L is equal to the length of the stick and in addition V is equal to the speed of the ant, the number of ants and their position and direction are not important. So I know what should be at the end but I don't know how to get there. So please show it because if not I will spread in the galaxy that you are just doing chores.
In addition, I still haven't forgotten the tax puzzle of the X inside the circle. I have come back to her from time to time and I have not come up with a solution and I don't think you know the solution either. I'm almost certain that the intersecting rolls are not the solution.
So stop being shy and show everyone from here to the Pleiades the solutions.
Come on Michael honey, speak up.
good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I don't want to waste puzzles.
The algorithm puzzle is very beautiful and there is no reason to abandon it (what is more, it is a puzzle that I invented myself - that is - after I received and solved the original puzzle with the ants, I saw that this question could also be solved as a follow-up question).
What deters you from the word algorithm?
It's not that you need to run an algorithm to solve the puzzle - you need to invent an algorithm that will be a solution - in fact, every time we find a general way to solve a certain type of problem we invent an algorithm.
To Michael
As I always say, sometimes you are right.
Is there a puzzle for the weekend?, one that can be solved with the help of common sense and without an algorithm??
Have a good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
This is not a reason to worry
Yael
Explain yourself because I'm afraid that Michael is right here and it's a Doppler effect that results from small back and forth oscillations of the mother star.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
No
This is not what is meant by jitters
Yael:
On a site like this it is allowed to write that the vibrations are actually a change in the wavelength of the star's light.
The Doppler effect means that when the star approaches us (or moves away less quickly than the average) the wavelength shortens and when it moves away from us (moves away faster than the average) the wavelength becomes longer.
Identifying these changes in the wavelength makes it possible to identify the speed of the star's movement around the center of gravity of the system consisting of it and its planets.
Ben-Ner,
There are currently several methods for finding planets (both hot and cold).
There is the transit method - when the planet rotates in its orbit around its mother star, a situation can arise where it is exactly between us and the mother star, and then we see a black circle on the surface of the illuminated disk of the mother star (as in an eclipse) or we perceive a dimming of the light sent from the star.
Another method - there are precise instruments that can pick up small shifts in the movement of the mother star, a type of tremors, and this is due to the (relatively weak) gravitational forces of the planet surrounding it.
Note - these methods were used to find planets larger than the Earth.
At the same time, there is still the problem of discovering life.
We still expect life to exist on planets
"Cold".
What remains now, is to see if it is indeed possible to discover, through observations, hot planets.
The magma below the ground hardens
It could be swallowed into the black hole
which is coated with a liquid planetary surface
Before the lava erupts in a massive super nova?
Naughty children!
You saw a beautiful girl so you forgot about the article?
Did you notice that none of you, but none of you, commented on the subject of the article!
This is a scientific site, do you understand?!
Yael, with your permission I will respond to the topic of the article.
Even a few million years is a very tiny period in the life history of an Earth-like planet whose life lasted two billion years. That is, the method of the "liquid planet" will allow us to see only one promil of all the Earth-like planets!.
I would prefer a method that would show us a planet in more interesting stages and in a more comprehensive way..
Good night everyone
And to you too, Yael, and remember that I am the most mature child in kindergarten
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nimrod:
You are right, and it is good that there is also an antithesis here for those who identified themselves as a "scientist" and the "understander"
Women in the field of science is a blessed thing, yes there will be many.
Ya'er Yael, for the articles and the factual responses.
Good night everyone.
Thank you Yair 🙂
I don't want to sound rude, vulgar, shallow or however I can sound... but Yael... you are stunning. Too bad there aren't many like you.