NBI: Planets in the Habitable Zone Around Most Stars

[bystander]

Planets in the Habitable Zone Around Most Stars
Niels Bohr Institute | University of Copenhagen | 2015 Mar 18

The illustration shows the habitable zone for different types of stars. The
distance to the habitable zone is dependent on how big and bright the star is.
(Credit: NASA/Kepler/Dana Berry)

---

Astronomers have discovered thousands of exoplanets in our galaxy, the Milky Way, using the Kepler satellite and many of them have multiple planets orbiting the host star. By analysing these planetary systems, researchers from the Australian National University and the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen have calculated the probability for the number of stars in the Milky Way that might have planets in the habitable zone. The calculations show that billions of the stars in the Milky Way will have one to three planets in the habitable zone, where there is the potential for liquid water and where life could exist.

Using NASA’s Kepler satellite, astronomers have found about 1,000 planets around stars in the Milky Way and they have also found about 3,000 other potential planets. Many of the stars have planetary systems with 2-6 planets, but the stars could very well have more planets than those observable with the Kepler satellite, which is best suited for finding large planets that orbit relatively close to their stars.

Planets that orbit close to their stars would be too scorching hot to have life, so to find out if such planetary systems might also have planets in the habitable zone with the potential for liquid water and life, a group of researchers from the Australian National University and the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen made calculations based on a new version of a 250-year-old method called the Titius-Bode law. ...

Using the Inclinations of Kepler Systems to Prioritize New
Titius-Bode-Based Exoplanet Predictions - T. Bovaird, C.H. Lineweaver, S.K. Jacobsen

• Monthly Notices of the RAS 448(4) 3608 (2015 Mar 17) DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv221
  arXiv.org > astro-ph > arXiv:1412.6230 > 19 Dec 2014 (v1), 31 Jan 2015 (v3)

[BDanielMayfield]

Planets that orbit close to their stars would be too scorching hot to have life, so to find out if such planetary systems might also have planets in the habitable zone with the potential for liquid water and life, a group of researchers from the Australian National University and the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen made calculations based on a new version of a 250-year-old method called the Titius-Bode law. ...

Using the Inclinations of Kepler Systems to Prioritize New Titius-Bode-Based Exoplanet Predictions - T. Bovaird, C.H. Lineweaver, S.K. Jacobsen

How ironic that the presently distained Titius-Bode "law" is resurrected to help find new planets. This observation that the solar system's planets exhibit an orderly distribution out from the Sun was made back in time when it was still ok to express belief in a divine origin of the cosmos.

I realize that Titius-Bode planetary arrangements have plenty of exceptions, so much so that calling this a "Law" is problematic. But observing that such planetary configurations are very common, perhaps even the norm, should come as no surprise, especially to those who are still open minded about questions of origin.

Bruce

[Chris Peterson]

How ironic that the presently distained Titius-Bode "law" is resurrected to help find new planets.

It isn't dismissed or disdained at all. If it exists, it is more of a statistical rule than a law, of course, but there are plausible mechanisms based on orbital resonance that could explain ordered relationships in planetary distances.

I realize that Titius-Bode planetary arrangements have plenty of exceptions, so much so that calling this a "Law" is problematic. But observing that such planetary configurations are very common, perhaps even the norm, should come as no surprise, especially to those who are still open minded about questions of origin.

Order is the norm in nature, not the exception. That we find it in other star systems comes as no surprise to me at all. I'd expect it based on my understanding of natural law.

[BDanielMayfield]

How ironic that the presently distained Titius-Bode "law" is resurrected to help find new planets.

It isn't dismissed or disdained at all.

Oh really? If that's so, what about this, quoted from the Wikipedia article on Titius-Bode:

There is no solid theoretical explanation of the Titius–Bode law, but if there is one it is possibly a combination of orbital resonance and shortage of degrees of freedom: any stable planetary system has a high probability of satisfying a Titius–Bode-type relationship. Since it may simply be a mathematical coincidence rather than a "law of nature", it is sometimes referred to as a rule instead of "law".[5] However, astrophysicist Alan Boss states that it is just a coincidence, and the planetary science journal Icarus no longer accepts papers attempting to provide improved versions of the law.[4]

If it exists, it is more of a statistical rule than a law, of course, but there are plausible mechanisms based on orbital resonance that could explain ordered relationships in planetary distances.

Order is the norm in nature, not the exception. That we find it in other star systems comes as no surprise to me at all. I'd expect it based on my understanding of natural law.

None of which I disagree with. I'm just convinced that the presence of natural law implies the presence of a law giver.

Bruce

[Chris Peterson]

How ironic that the presently distained Titius-Bode "law" is resurrected to help find new planets.

It isn't dismissed or disdained at all.

Oh really? If that's so, what about this, quoted from the Wikipedia article on Titius-Bode:

There is no solid theoretical explanation of the Titius–Bode law, but if there is one it is possibly a combination of orbital resonance and shortage of degrees of freedom: any stable planetary system has a high probability of satisfying a Titius–Bode-type relationship. Since it may simply be a mathematical coincidence rather than a "law of nature", it is sometimes referred to as a rule instead of "law".[5] However, astrophysicist Alan Boss states that it is just a coincidence, and the planetary science journal Icarus no longer accepts papers attempting to provide improved versions of the law.[4]

That says what I said. There are plausible explanations for Titius-Bode relationships. And I can guarantee you that Icarus would accept for review a paper from a credible source offering a rigorous explanation! They just pre-filter for what has probably been an annoying number of low-quality attempts.

Order is the norm in nature, not the exception. That we find it in other star systems comes as no surprise to me at all. I'd expect it based on my understanding of natural law.

None of which I disagree with. I'm just convinced that the presence of natural law implies the presence of a law giver.

Whatever works for you. I prefer simple explanations. They're usually the correct ones.

[neufer]

How ironic that the presently disdained Titius-Bode "law" is resurrected to help find new planets.

It isn't dismissed or disdained at all. If it exists, it is more of a statistical rule than a law, of course, but there are plausible mechanisms based on orbital resonance that could explain ordered relationships in planetary distances.

I realize that Titius-Bode planetary arrangements have plenty of exceptions, so much so that calling this a "Law" is problematic. But observing that such planetary configurations are very common, perhaps even the norm, should come as no surprise, especially to those who are still open minded about questions of origin.

Order is the norm in nature, not the exception. That we find it in other star systems comes as no surprise to me at all. I'd expect it based on my understanding of natural law.

That we might find a modified form of Titius-Bode "law" (i.e, a quasi exponential distribution*)
in other planetary systems would come as no surprise to me, either.

• However, it is far from clear that anyone has found it thus far.

*Note: Quasi exponential satellite distributions:

• 1) Solar system planets moving out to Uranus approach a orbital radius growth rate with a factor of 2.
  2) Jupiter's Galilean moons moving in to Io approach a orbital frequency growth rate with a factor of 2.

[BDanielMayfield]

So, no one should be surprised by this, based on our tiny sampling of three people.

On a less controversial note, I just love the overall implications of this work: liquid water bearing exoplanets could be more numerous than stars

Bruce

[neufer]

So, no one should be surprised by this, based on our tiny sampling of three people.

• • The Taming of the Shrew Prologue, Scene 2
  Lord: We'll show thee Io as she was a maid,
  • And how she was beguiled and surprised.
  • Love's Labour's Lost Act 5, Scene 2
  BOYET: Armed in arguments; you'll be surprised:
  • Muster your wits; stand in your own defence;
    Or hide your heads like cowards, and fly hence.

On a less controversial note, I just love the overall implications of this work:
liquid water bearing exoplanets could be more numerous than stars

• • Don't believe the headline!
  Billions of Milky Way planets in the habitable zone.
  vs. Hundreds of billions stars in the Milky Way.

Planets in the habitable zone around most stars [sic], calculate researchers

<<The calculations show that billions of the stars in the Milky Way will have one to three planets in the habitable zone, where there is the potential for liquid water and where life could exist.>>