The frequency of earthlike planets

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
31,116
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Interesting new study published recently with relevancy to the Drake equation.

How many Earth-like planets are around sun-like stars?

Date: August 14, 2019
Source: Penn State
Summary: A new study provides the most accurate estimate of the frequency that planets that are similar to Earth in size and in distance from their host star occur around stars similar to our Sun.
Click to expand...

So this study is billed as the best estimate to date of the number of "earth-like" planets in orbit around "sun-like" stars.

If you are wondering how those terms are defined for purposes of the research, a sun-like star is an FGK star (link) and an earth-like planet is a planet "from three-quarters to one-and-a-half times the size of earth, with orbital periods ranging from 237 to 500 days". So basically a planet roughly the size of the earth, roughly in a similar orbit to the earth, around a star roughly the size of our own sun.

So their middle estimate is one in four, with one in two at the high end of the range and one in 33 at the low end. So that seems pretty common.

Obviously, to be sure, those parameters do not mean that all or even most of those hypothetical planets would be hospitable to life as we know it. Many are probably closer to Venus or to Mars. But if as a wild guess, 1 in 10 is more like earth than Mars or Venus? What would that imply about the frequency of planets where life is possible?

Never mind intelligent life. If anything, I think it would be cool if the first planet we discover with extraterrestrial life doesn't have an intelligent species like us. That way it wouldn't be a threat and if we could somehow get people there (I know, not easy) we could be the dominant species and just think of all the scientific things we could learn.
 
How many of these planets could be life bearing is really hard to estimate, mainly due to the fact that we only have one data point to go on for what life bearing planets are like.

There are a ton of unanswered questions, most of which won't get answers until we can reliably measure the atmospheric constituents of some of these planets. It's something that researchers have been working on for several years now, but it ain't easy.
 
wollery said:
How many of these planets could be life bearing is really hard to estimate, mainly due to the fact that we only have one data point to go on for what life bearing planets are like.

There are a ton of unanswered questions, most of which won't get answers until we can reliably measure the atmospheric constituents of some of these planets. It's something that researchers have been working on for several years now, but it ain't easy.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly that should get a lot easier with some of the new telescopes that should be coming online in the next decade or so, right? James Webb? But also several others?
 
My assumption is that, for life, an earth sized planet in the right zone is required. Additionally, I believe that the planet requires a moon in almost exactly the same spot as ours is, carved off in exactly the same way as ours, in a large impact that peeled off a load of planet to make a moon.

I believe that life can only exist toughly this far out from galactic centre and absolutely requires at least two gas giants sharing the orbit to protect the poor little rock from asteroid collision.

I believe that all of these things and many more are required for life to even be a possibility and that the earth is all but unique in producing life.
 
Roboramma said:
If I understand correctly that should get a lot easier with some of the new telescopes that should be coming online in the next decade or so, right? James Webb? But also several others?
Click to expand...
Yes, the various 30m ones.

But perhaps more important will be the new instruments attached to the telescopes (not just the new ones, also existing ones like the VLT) ... various adaptive optics gadgets will feed really spiffy spectrometers, for example.
 
3point14 said:
My assumption is that, for life, an earth sized planet in the right zone is required. Additionally, I believe that the planet requires a moon in almost exactly the same spot as ours is, carved off in exactly the same way as ours, in a large impact that peeled off a load of planet to make a moon.

I believe that life can only exist toughly this far out from galactic centre and absolutely requires at least two gas giants sharing the orbit to protect the poor little rock from asteroid collision.

I believe that all of these things and many more are required for life to even be a possibility and that the earth is all but unique in producing life.
Click to expand...
If we find fossils on Mars, even if only of something like bacteria; if we find life in the Europan ocean, or in whatever liquid water there is under the surface of Enceladus; if ... we will learn that life my arise in many different environments, several homeworlds of which, outside our own solar system, will be hard to detect, let alone assess for life.
 
JeanTate said:
If we find fossils on Mars, even if only of something like bacteria; if we find life in the Europan ocean, or in whatever liquid water there is under the surface of Enceladus; if ... we will learn that life my arise in many different environments, several homeworlds of which, outside our own solar system, will be hard to detect, let alone assess for life.
Click to expand...



I appreciate that. I hold my position mostly out of contrariness.

Every time someone postulates that life is likely to be prevalent throughout the universe I like to point out that we have one data point which, by itself, is statistically insignificant - it is literally impossible to draw any conclusions from a single data point.

The bottom line is we have no clue, unless and until we find what you describe above we have zero method of accurately predicting how often life appears in the universe. We're guessing.

Because everyone seems to like to guess that it's everywhere, I like to guess that it's almost nowhere. Just to be contrary.
 
3point14 said:
I appreciate that. I hold my position mostly out of contrariness.

Every time someone postulates that life is likely to be prevalent throughout the universe I like to point out that we have one data point which, by itself, is statistically insignificant - it is literally impossible to draw any conclusions from a single data point.

The bottom line is we have no clue, unless and until we find what you describe above we have zero method of accurately predicting how often life appears in the universe. We're guessing.

Because everyone seems to like to guess that it's everywhere, I like to guess that it's almost nowhere. Just to be contrary.
Click to expand...

Some of us really hope that you're right:

https://nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf
But I hope that our Mars probes will discover nothing. It would be good news if we find Mars to be completely sterile. Dead rocks and lifeless sands would lift my spirit.

Conversely, if we discovered traces of some simple extinct life form—some bacteria, some algae—it would be bad news. If we found fossils of something more advanced, perhaps something looking like the remnants of a trilobite or even the skeleton of a small mammal, it would be very bad news. The more complex the life we found, the more depressing the news of its existence would be. Scientifically interesting, certainly, but a bad omen for the future of the human race.
Click to expand...
 
Roboramma said:
Some of us really hope that you're right:

https://nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf
Click to expand...

I wholly disagree with the author. First of all, we know the sun's going out in a few billion years so unless we A) survive to that point and B) get the hell out of here, the future is already grim. Also, that one planet saw the end of its ecosystem has nothing to do with us. Plenty of planets, I'm sure, are now lifeless that used to not be.
 
3point14 said:
I appreciate that. I hold my position mostly out of contrariness.

Every time someone postulates that life is likely to be prevalent throughout the universe I like to point out that we have one data point which, by itself, is statistically insignificant - it is literally impossible to draw any conclusions from a single data point.

The bottom line is we have no clue, unless and until we find what you describe above we have zero method of accurately predicting how often life appears in the universe. We're guessing.

Because everyone seems to like to guess that it's everywhere, I like to guess that it's almost nowhere. Just to be contrary.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Note that, if there is, or once was, life under the surface of Enceladus - a small moon of a gas giant - it will likely be centuries before we could even detect such moons orbiting an exoplanet, and millennia before we could put realistic constraints on the likelihood of life. However, getting an answer as to whether there is life on/in Enceladus may take mere decades (“was” will be harder to answer, but still more likely decades than centuries).
 
It'd be rather funny if we eventually find that eighteen of the solar system's planets or moons have harbored or are harboring some sort of life.

That would sure change our outlook of where it could be found.
 
3point14 said:
My assumption is that, for life, an earth sized planet in the right zone is required. Additionally, I believe that the planet requires a moon in almost exactly the same spot as ours is, carved off in exactly the same way as ours, in a large impact that peeled off a load of planet to make a moon.

I believe that life can only exist toughly this far out from galactic centre and absolutely requires at least two gas giants sharing the orbit to protect the poor little rock from asteroid collision.

I believe that all of these things and many more are required for life to even be a possibility and that the earth is all but unique in producing life.
Click to expand...

As, when life emerged, the moon was nowhere near where it now is, I think that assumption is mistaken.
 
An arXiv article up today (dated tomorrow) is intriguing ... it is a proposal to send a mission to Ceres. Among other aims, to look for evidence of past (even current) environments conducive to life.

I’ll post a link later.
 
3point14 said:
My assumption is that, for life, an earth sized planet in the right zone is required. Additionally, I believe that the planet requires a moon in almost exactly the same spot as ours is, carved off in exactly the same way as ours, in a large impact that peeled off a load of planet to make a moon.

I believe that life can only exist toughly this far out from galactic centre and absolutely requires at least two gas giants sharing the orbit to protect the poor little rock from asteroid collision.

I believe that all of these things and many more are required for life to even be a possibility and that the earth is all but unique in producing life.
Click to expand...


Seconded. I'd also like to point out that the Milky Way Galaxy is ours for the taking!!
 
Belz... said:
I wholly disagree with the author. First of all, we know the sun's going out in a few billion years so unless we A) survive to that point and B) get the hell out of here, the future is already grim.
Click to expand...

Sure, but some of us are optimists. The point is that the lack of evidence of alien life out there in the galaxy should quell that optimism about the likelihood of "get[ting] the hell our of here", unless we've already passed whatever the improbable step is on the way to that.

If you already think that getting the hell out of here is unlikely, well, there's not much more to worry about.

Also, that one planet saw the end of its ecosystem has nothing to do with us. Plenty of planets, I'm sure, are now lifeless that used to not be.
Click to expand...

If intelligent life has arisen many times but never spread throughout the galaxy, then it's very unlikely that we will spread throughout the galaxy. If, on the other hand, intelligent life hasn't arisen before then the fact that it hasn't spread throughout the galaxy doesn't give us any information about the how likely we are to spread throughout the galaxy.

If you are optimistic about the likelihood that we will spread throughout the galaxy, then finding life elsewhere can dim that optimism, for this reason.

Further, if intelligent life arose many times but didn't spread, there should be some explanation for it's not spreading. It may be something banal, like that interstellar travel/colonisation is simply too difficult (I don't think), or uneconomical (maybe), but another possibility is that intelligent life just doesn't tend to last long enough to start that process.
 
My personal belief, is an extreme take on the "Rare Earth Hypothesis" and in turn, that life of the humanoid sentient type exists ONLY on earth ... and there are no other life forms like us.
 
There is a whole range of life, from very simple life forms to very complex animals. I think if we explore the galaxy we will find simple life forms to be common, but the more complex forms of life to be much more rare as better conditions need to exist for them to evolve.
 
Roboramma said:
If intelligent life has arisen many times but never spread throughout the galaxy, then it's very unlikely that we will spread throughout the galaxy.
Click to expand...

Right, I meant life in general.

If you are optimistic about the likelihood that we will spread throughout the galaxy, then finding life elsewhere can dim that optimism, for this reason.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm somewhat optimistic about it, but the possibility you mention doesn't dampen it at all.

Further, if intelligent life arose many times but didn't spread, there should be some explanation for it's not spreading.
Click to expand...

Internet. It's the stupid internet they all come up with. They become stuck in the virtual world, stop innovating and die out plugged to their machines.
 
Roboramma said:
Further, if intelligent life arose many times but didn't spread, there should be some explanation for it's not spreading. It may be something banal, like that interstellar travel/colonisation is simply too difficult (I don't think), or uneconomical (maybe), but another possibility is that intelligent life just doesn't tend to last long enough to start that process.
Click to expand...


My guess is that, if there is any other life out there (doubtful) then it mostly arises on planets that are too dense for things to leave from.
 
Belz... said:
Right, I meant life in general.



Well, I'm somewhat optimistic about it, but the possibility you mention doesn't dampen it at all.
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me whether or not you follow the logic from the link. Do you think you could explain what he said in your own words? I think that would help the conversation.



Internet. It's the stupid internet they all come up with. They become stuck in the virtual world, stop innovating and die out plugged to their machines.
Click to expand...

Jokes aside I actually think that's a pretty strong possibility. :boxedin:
 
Roboramma said:
Further, if intelligent life arose many times but didn't spread, there should be some explanation for it's not spreading. It may be something banal, like that interstellar travel/colonisation is simply too difficult (I don't think), or uneconomical (maybe), but another possibility is that intelligent life just doesn't tend to last long enough to start that process.
Click to expand...

I personally think that the difficulty of interstellar travel is probably a huge bottleneck. I practically despair when I think of all the difficulties involved. 20 light years may as well be a billion light years. Physically transporting living people in a spaceship across such distances that is.
 
Puppycow said:
I personally think that the difficulty of interstellar travel is probably a huge bottleneck. I practically despair when I think of all the difficulties involved. 20 light years may as well be a billion light years. Physically transporting living people in a spaceship across such distances that is.
Click to expand...

You might be right. On the other hand: we usually think about this problem with certain constraints in mind, for instance a human lifespan. But there's no reason that lifespans couldn't be extended indefinitely. I also don't really think there's much reason to send manned interstellar missions. We haven't had a manned mission further than the moon, but we've had probes to every planet, and our robotic technology will only improve.

Also, I recently read Project Orion by George Dyson, and the idea of nuclear pulse propulsion has a lot more going for it than I had realised.

Finally, to some extent the difficulties of interstellar travel can be overcome by just extending your time scale. The stars are all already moving relative to one another. Rather than travelling to another star, why not just wait for it to come to you?
 
Roboramma said:
It's not clear to me whether or not you follow the logic from the link. Do you think you could explain what he said in your own words? I think that would help the conversation.
Click to expand...

I'm following the logic that you posted. If we discover dead lifeforms everywhere somehow it makes out odds of expanding outside of Earth more grim. I don't agree, especially in the general case. If we find traces of dead civilisations it might be more indicative.

Jokes aside I actually think that's a pretty strong possibility. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

I was actually serious.
 
Belz... said:
I'm following the logic that you posted. If we discover dead lifeforms everywhere somehow it makes out odds of expanding outside of Earth more grim. I don't agree, especially in the general case. If we find traces of dead civilisations it might be more indicative.
Click to expand...
Right, I'm asking if you can express why Bostrom thinks finding life everywhere would make the odds of expanding outside earth more grim.



I was actually serious.
Click to expand...

Well, in that case we agree. :)
 
3point14 said:
I appreciate that. I hold my position mostly out of contrariness.

Every time someone postulates that life is likely to be prevalent throughout the universe I like to point out that we have one data point which, by itself, is statistically insignificant - it is literally impossible to draw any conclusions from a single data point.

The bottom line is we have no clue, unless and until we find what you describe above we have zero method of accurately predicting how often life appears in the universe. We're guessing.

Because everyone seems to like to guess that it's everywhere, I like to guess that it's almost nowhere. Just to be contrary.
Click to expand...

Yeah dat. I don't know how "the most accurate estimate" is defined. Because The Amazing Kreskin says so?
 
Arthur C Clarke? "there's billions of planets out there. Perhaps only one in a million has life? Either way it is astounding."
 
wollery said:
How many of these planets could be life bearing is really hard to estimate, mainly due to the fact that we only have one data point to go on for what life bearing planets are like.

There are a ton of unanswered questions, most of which won't get answers until we can reliably measure the atmospheric constituents of some of these planets. It's something that researchers have been working on for several years now, but it ain't easy.
Click to expand...
One known planet with life, but we know a lot from this planet besides Life: Y/N?

1) Life formed almost as soon as conditions emerged that life could exist in.
If abiogenesis were the result of some rare coincidence of the right things coming together, one would not expect to see life developing so soon geologically speaking.​

2) Life exists and has adapted to incredibly diverse extremes all over the planet.

Our one example contains a wealth of information.
 
3point14 said:
My assumption is that, for life, an earth sized planet in the right zone is required. Additionally, I believe that the planet requires a moon in almost exactly the same spot as ours is, carved off in exactly the same way as ours, in a large impact that peeled off a load of planet to make a moon.

I believe that life can only exist toughly this far out from galactic centre and absolutely requires at least two gas giants sharing the orbit to protect the poor little rock from asteroid collision.

I believe that all of these things and many more are required for life to even be a possibility and that the earth is all but unique in producing life.
Click to expand...

Sure, "common" is relative. I agree, not only should we be looking for planets in the Goldilocks Zone relative to their star, but also relative to the location within the galaxy and probably a planet with water and tides, though I'm not positive that the tides are crucial.

As for almost nowhere though, have you seen the Hubble Deep Field? If there was only one planet with life per 100 galaxies, there would still be billions of planets with life.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
One known planet with life, but we know a lot from this planet besides Life: Y/N?

1) Life formed almost as soon as conditions emerged that life could exist in.
If abiogenesis were the result of some rare coincidence of the right things coming together, one would not expect to see life developing so soon geologically speaking.​

2) Life exists and has adapted to incredibly diverse extremes all over the planet.

Our one example contains a wealth of information.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It's certainly true that one planet is only one planet, but I think we can infer a few things from our own planet. One of those things is probably that so-called intelligent life, if we define that as a technological species like ourselves, it probably relatively rare, even on planets that support life. Because it takes a long time to evolve to that point and the planet has to maintain the conditions that allow life to exist for billions of years to maybe get one "intelligent" species.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
One known planet with life, but we know a lot from this planet besides Life: Y/N?

1) Life formed almost as soon as conditions emerged that life could exist in.
If abiogenesis were the result of some rare coincidence of the right things coming together, one would not expect to see life developing so soon geologically speaking.​

2) Life exists and has adapted to incredibly diverse extremes all over the planet.

Our one example contains a wealth of information.
Click to expand...
This is why I'm virtually certain that there is life elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom