It is the second star at its distance from the Sun after the three stars Alpha Centauri, also around one of them - Proxima Centauri, a planet was discovered in 2016 by the same project, however, astronomers from around the world are conducting follow-up observations to rule out other phenomena that may pose as a planet
The only star closest to the solar system is surrounded by a planet with a mass 3.2 times greater than Earth and is therefore called a super-Earth.
The Red Dot Project is one of the largest observational operations to date of planets outside the solar system, using data from a wide range of telescopes, including the HARPS instrument of ESO (the European Southern Observatory in Chile), revealed the icy and dim world. The newly discovered planet is the second closest planet to Earth. Barnard's star is the fastest star in the night sky.
A candidate planet has been detected around Barnard's star, just six light-years from Earth. This breakthrough - published in the journal Nature - is the result of two projects: Red Dots and CARMENES, which search for local rocky planets. This operation has already revealed a new world orbiting our closest neighbor, Proxima Centauri. However, Proxima Centauri is a system containing three stars, apart from the planets that surround it.
The planet becomes the second closest planet to us. The data suggest that the planet may be a super-Earth, having a mass at least 3.2 times that of Earth. It orbits Barnard's star every 233 days or so.
Barnard's star, the planet's host star, is a red dwarf. A cool, low-mass star that only dimly illuminates the newly discovered world. Barnard's star provides his planet with only 2% of the energy that Earth receives from the Sun.
Despite being relatively close to its parent star - 0.4 astronomical units (an astronomical unit is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun) the planet is close to the snow line, the area where volatile compounds such as water can condense into solid ice. Temperatures on the surface of this icy, clear world can reach minus 170 degrees Celsius, making it hostile to life as we know it.
As mentioned, Barnard's star is the only star closest to the sun. While the star itself is ancient - probably twice the age of our sun - and is relatively inactive, it is the fastest star in the night sky.
Super-Earths are the most common type of planet that can form around low-mass stars such as Barnard's Star. Furthermore, current theories of star formation predict that the snowline is the ideal location where these planets may form.
Previous searches for a planet around Barnard's star yielded disappointing results. The latest breakthrough was only possible by combining measurements from several high-precision instruments attached to telescopes all over the world.
"After a very careful analysis, we are 99% sure that the planet is indeed there," said the group's chief scientist, Ignasi Ribas (Institute for Space Research of Catalonia and Institute for Space Sciences, in Spain). "However, we will continue to observe this fast star to rule out improbable natural variations in star brightness that could be masquerading as a planet.
Among the instruments that participated in the project, HARPS and UVES spectrographs. played a central role. We combined archival data from other teams with new and overlapping measurements of Barnard's star from different facilities," said Guillem Engelda Escoda (Queen Mary University of London), lead scientist on the team that discovered the planet. "The combination of these devices was the key that allowed us to check the findings we received."
The astronomers used the Doppler effect to find the candidate planet. . The planet's gravity causes the star to oscillate. As the planet moves away from Earth, its spectrum is red-shifted. That is, it moves towards longer wavelengths. Similarly, starlight is shifted toward shorter, bluer wavelengths when the planet is on the Earth-facing side of Barnard's Star.
Astronomers take advantage of this effect to measure the changes in stellar velocity resulting from the existence of planets, with incredible precision. HARPS can detect changes in speed of the order of 3.5 km/h - walking pace. This approach to discovering planets is known as the radial velocity method, and it has never been used to detect a planet orbiting its sun in such a large orbit."
"We used observations from seven different instruments, spanning 20 years of measurements, making this dataset one of the largest and richest datasets used to date for precise radial velocity studies," explained Reeves. "The combination of all the data led to a total of 771 measurements - a huge amount of information.
"We all worked very hard on this breakthrough," Engelda-Escoda concluded. "This discovery is the result of a large and organized collaboration within the framework of the red dots project, which included contributions from groups all over the world. Follow-up observations are already underway at telescopes around the world.
6 תגובות
If the goal of the studies is to accumulate knowledge in order to utilize it in the future for the benefit of humanity - this scientific effort is certainly welcome. But if the goal is to find "life" elsewhere in the universe - I'm afraid the effort is not worthwhile.
My reasoning is simple:
1. Any phenomenon of "life" elsewhere in the universe, must be either significantly older in relation to the age of life on Earth, or significantly younger in relation to the age of life on Earth. The likelihood that it will be more or less the same age as the phenomenon of life on Earth, given the age ranges and time gaps and development in the various places in the universe - is negligible.
Thus, the same phenomenon of life is older than the age of life on Earth, and in particular in relation to the age of humanity, it means - with a very high probability - that it carries a much more advanced culture than human culture. Therefore, if she hasn't discovered us yet, she will certainly be far ahead of us in discovering her. In that case, it is likely that all our efforts to discover it are simply unnecessary.
And so, if that phenomenon of life is younger than the age of life on Earth - then it is likely that it is at a low or even very low level of development, really primitive, to the extent that the discovery of that phenomenon of life will not bring any real benefit to humanity.
Since the phenomenon of life on Earth is relatively young compared to the age of the universe, and the age of intelligent humanity is really negligible compared to the age of the universe - the probability that another intelligent life phenomenon (if it even exists in the universe) will be much more advanced than humanity - is higher than the probability that you will find an undeveloped life phenomenon . But either way - the effort and investment in discovering other life in the universe - is simply unnecessary.
In my opinion, the above move is enough to negate the rationality and viability of the effort to discover other lives (as opposed to just an effort to accumulate knowledge, as I emphasized above).
But beyond that I would add that the thought process I described is based on the assumption that there is indeed the possibility of other life in the observable universe. But this assumption is itself quite speculative, and in fact extremely dubious, as I will explain below:
1. As far as life in the pattern known to us on Earth (organic) is concerned - in my opinion, the chance of this is quite small, even minimal, since the phenomenon of life - even at the level of the primary cell - is extremely complex, and requires threshold and continuing conditions, the combined possibility of which is almost zero. It is true that the observable universe is filled with an enormous number of stars (on the order of 10 to the 22nd power, at least, assuming that there are about two hundred billion galaxies, one of which has two hundred billion stars, on average, at least), and it is likely that some of these stars also have planets around them, and some of which includes life-supporting planets. But the order of magnitude of these, with all their magnitude, is many orders of magnitude smaller than the rarity of the conditions required for life at the primary cell level, including development, continuity and relative stability of life span and reproductive capacity. This means that the programming for other lives of the kind we are familiar with - is null and void in all practical respects. The fact that there is life on the speed ball is simply a miracle, and it does not matter if it is a natural or supernatural miracle.
2. If it is some alternative form of life - our knowledge about it does not exist, and hence we do not know how to estimate its probability. The effort to locate it without knowing what it might be in order to exist, if it exists at all - is such a wild gamble that it does not justify any investment.
If my position is correct, then the scientific effort in trying to find other life in the observable universe - seems even more unnecessary and lacking in rational justification, and in fact is fundamentally false. It seems that the only "benefits" that may grow from such an effort are completely illegitimate, from a scientific or cultural point of view. These "benefits" are:
A. The unnecessary funding of expensive scientific institutional systems that provide positions and positions for scientists, systems that would be better converted to more legitimate fields and subjects of research.
B. The artificial ideological cultivation of cultural attitudes, by placing a fantastic dream horizon about the future of a "new world", i.e. a kind of utopia of a perfect material-intellectual world through the fiction of a kind of science on the verge of fiction about "other lives". Unfortunately, any utopia had no place in real history, and it has no place in the real world. It is very possible that each of these two "benefits" is in a symbiotic relationship with the other... in terms of "not for nothing did a crow go to a starling".
His blood
Based on what you say that?
Tzachi, you are wrong.
In today's technological situation, the only thing worth doing is scientific research by robotic spacecraft.
Nowadays it is not worth even thinking about manned space travel. Space travel with today's technology will last hundreds and thousands of years.
There's no point in getting into it.
On the other hand, investment in large and expensive telescopes, robotic spaceships, automatic satellites... It's worth hundreds.
In this way, over the next decades and hundreds of years we will accumulate in-depth knowledge and prepare the ground for manned voyages in the distant future when the appropriate technology will be available.
It is also possible to learn from the experience of space exploration until today. Most of the achievements to date have been by unmanned spacecraft.
The farthest humans have been sent was to the moon, and that was also stopped 50 years ago.
One can even think of establishing entire industrial plants on the moon, Mars and any possible place in the solar system. If we try to do it with humans... well, it won't be economically justified.
It is obvious that you are not familiar with the material.
There is a constant development of speed, of means to serve food, and of technology as a whole.
First we will move forward and cross the bridge when we stand in front of it
Other lives are structured in a different way than ours so that we cannot feel and recognize them. In our universe only we exist.
As long as we don't have a spaceship that flies at the speed of light, you could preserve food for several years,
To be in a closed place for a month with long people - (if there will be an intermediate stop at a reasonable star).
These breakthroughs and investment are a waste of time