If it turns out that all the candidates are indeed planets, this will more than double the number of planets known today outside the solar system, which currently stands at 461
That's a huge amount of planet candidates accumulated from data taken over a very short period of time, even so, Borocki adds that predictions believe only 50% of the candidates will turn out to be true planets. Some of them could be binary stars during an eclipse, and some could just be aberrations in the information. But even half that amount would constitute the largest group of exoplanets ever discovered.
The exciting part is that 706 of the targets in the initial data may be small Earth-sized or Jupiter-sized exoplanets. The team says most of them have a radius smaller than that of Jupiter.
Kepler scientists have found such a large number of candidates that they are willing to share the information. For confirmation, they will continue to observe and follow 400 of the candidates with the help of other telescopes. Two days ago the team published 350 more candidates, with 5 of them possibly being planetary systems (similar to the solar system).
However, some astronomers argue that Kepler's team should publish all findings immediately after the discovery process, as NASA does with information it discovers.
Kepler was launched on March 6, 2009, and since then it has been on a frantic search for exoplanets. Of course, the holy grail is to find an Earth-like or Earth-sized planet, especially those that are in habitable regions of the stars, where there is flowing water and possibly life forms. In the spring of 2009, the Kepler satellite took high-precision photometry images (which measure the intensity of light received) of nearly 156,000 stars in order to locate the frequency and characteristics of several exoplanets. Kepler studied a region in the Cygnus constellation, looking for small changes in light that could indicate the passage of a planet across its parent star.
But it takes time to confirm candidates and find whether they are really exoplanets. Usually, confirmation of a "transit" (eclipse) of a planet over a star requires observations from 3 cycles of such transits. While NASA regulations require astronomers to publish information received by NASA instruments within a year, Kepler's team signed an agreement with the space agency so that they can keep a certain percentage of the information until they can confirm the data regarding exoplanets.
The team did not have the observing time needed to test all the candidates, due to a number of reasons, such as delays in the launch of other telescopes, cloudy nights that interfered with ground-based telescopes, and the fact that they could only observe this particular region of the sky from April to September. The deadline extension gives Kepler's team time to go through the data and find any dummy candidates and other errors in the data.
Dennis Overbey from the New York Times wrote about the controversy that arose whether to publish all the information or not - "What is private information and what is public information? For both parties the question is difficult: scientists who have devoted many years of their lives to the development of the spacecraft should be given the necessary time to confirm the information. But others feel that science should be open and accessible, in any case an agreement is an agreement: there is a deadline for releasing the information."
What's more, all parties agree that the amount of information is impressive and exciting. Kepler still has two full years of observation and research left.
5 תגובות
never say never.
sympathetic,
I agree with you!
I actually agree with everything.
I just want to draw your attention to the fact that in this particular case as well as in almost all other cases, science works on money received from grants. It is true that the scientist works hard to write the grant and is in heavy competition with others, etc. Therefore the initial information received is with him and he publishes it (hopefully). The grants are given by various public bodies. Everything you said is true and right when it comes to private studies that are funded commercially for a profit. There are also some, but a. Not the case here and in These are negligible compared to academic studies for the most part.
Whether it's practical or not, it's not a practical matter. What is impractical is for one group to do scientific work that can provide work for dozens of groups for many years. It's not practical. The question of practice, in my opinion, is wrong and it is converted into a question of standards and an acceptable situation. It is customary that when you find something you publish it and if it is clear to you that you yourself cannot take control of all the information and submit it to other people - open it.
Moreover, let's remember what we are talking about here: a scientific industry of very distant planets from which it is not possible to extract resources except for the spiritual resource. It's not like they found oil and are asking you to give it to everyone. You found a star that you can never reach and will forever remain as a pixel on your old photo. That's where it starts and ends.
With the blessing of Shabbat Shalom,
Ami Bachar
Ehud, I think whoever donated the money would like to see results and not egocentric fights over credit.
The purpose of science is the advancement of human knowledge, not the private enjoyment of this or that researcher.
(That's why I'm in science, and so are my friends)
Ami
Communist ideas failed during the twentieth century. The ideas that science is for everyone and that knowledge should be distributed freely are beautiful on paper. Science is like any other human activity. There is competition in science. Those who paid money for research want to enjoy the results and publish articles about them. In the kibbutz analogy, those who worked hard thought they deserved more than others. I am short of describing the number of times science has progressed through competition between groups and immediate concealment. I can't even write about the number of times that scientific ideas have been stolen and no credit has been given. The idea of science for everyone is beautiful but impractical.
The amounts of knowledge collected in science are enormous and, for the most part, ideas are not the limiting factor for progress (with the exception of extremely large and extremely rare ideas). The limiting factor is financial and human resources.
Therefore, information sharing should be encouraged when it can contribute to the development of the field and in any case can provide work material for dozens if not hundreds of scientists. Spread the information as much as possible and send your message across the water. If someone finds something thanks to you, you will be part of the profiteers. Science is done for everyone.
Best regards,
Ami Bachar