Earth-like planet may exist in a nearby star system

Earth-like planet may exist in a nearby star system
Artistic representation of the potentially habitable super-Earth Gliese 832c against a stellar nebula background. Credit: PHL @ UPR Arecibo, NASA Hubble, Stellarium.

(Phys.org)—An Earth-like planet may be lurking in a star system located just 16 light years away, according to a new research. The star, named Gliese 832, was recently investigated by a team of astronomers searching for additional exoplanets that may be residing between the two currently known alien worlds in this system. A paper detailing the finding was published online on Apr. 15 in the arXiv journal.

Gliese 832 is a red dwarf and has just under half the and radius of our sun. The star is orbited by a giant Jupiter-like exoplanet designated Gliese 832b and by a super-Earth mass planet Gliese 832c. The gas giant, with a mass of 0.64 Jupiter masses, is orbiting the star at a distance of 3.53 AU, while the other planet is potentially a rocky world, around five times more massive than the Earth, residing very close its host star—about 0.16 AU.

Now, a team of astronomers, led by Suman Satyal of the University of Texas at Arlington, has reanalyzed the available data on this nearby planetary system hoping to find more extrasolar worlds that may be located in a vast space between the two known . The researchers have conducted numerical simulations to check the possibility of existence of other celestial bodies around the red dwarf.

Gliese 832b and Gliese 832c were discovered by the , from which the scientists extracted the orbital parameters by using the best-fit solutions. These parameters were used as the initial conditions for starting their simulations.

"We also used the integrated data from the time evolution of orbital parameters to generate the synthetic radial velocity curves of the known and the Earth-like planets in the system. Moreover, based on the maximum amplitude of the radial velocity curve obtained from the observation of the inner planet, the approximate mass and distance from the star for the Earth-like planet were computed using the radial velocity signature of the Keplerian motion," the researchers wrote in the paper.

The team's computations revealed that an additional Earth-like planet with a dynamically stable configuration may be residing at a distance ranging from 0.25 to 2.0 AU from the star. According to the measurements, this hypothetical alien world would probably be more massive than our planet with a mass between one to 15 Earth's masses.

"We obtained several radial velocity curves for varying masses and distances for the middle planet," the astronomers noted.

For instance, if the planet is located around one AU from the star, it has an upper mass limit of ten Earth masses and a generated radial velocity signal of 1.4 m/s. A planet with about the mass of the Earth at the same location would have radial velocity signal of only 0.14 m/s, thus much smaller.

In general, the existence of this possible planet is supported by long-term orbital stability of the system, orbital dynamics and the synthetic radial velocity signal analysis.

The scientists emphasized that their main goal was to provide a general idea to the observers of where and what to look for in this system. They concluded that a significantly large number of radial velocity observations, transit method studies, as well as the direct imaging are still needed to confirm the presence of possible new planets in the Gliese 832 system.


Explore further

Nearby super-Earth is best habitable candidate so far, astronomers say

More information: An Earth-Like Planet in GJ 832 System, arXiv:1604.04544 [astro-ph.EP] arxiv.org/abs/1604.04544

Abstract
Stability of planetary orbits around GJ 832 star system, which contains inner (GJ 832c) and outer (GJ 832b) planets, is investigated numerically and the detailed phase-space analysis are performed. The stability of the system is defined in terms of its lifetime, which is its survival time during the orbital integration period, and the maximum eccentricity, emax attained by the orbits during the evolution processes. A special emphasis is given to the existence of stable orbits for an Earth-like planet that is injected between the inner and outer planets. Thus, numerical simulations are performed for three and four bodies in elliptical orbits (or circular for special cases), and a large number of initial conditions that covers the whole phase-space of the existing bodies are used. The results presented in the phase-space maps for GJ 832c indicates the least deviation of the eccentricity from its nominal value, which is then used to determine its inclination regime. Also, the Earth-like planet displays stable orbital configurations for at least one billion years. Then, the radial velocity curves based on the signature from the Keplerian motion are generated for the Earth-like planet to estimate its distance from the star and its mass-limit. The synthetic RV signal suggests that an additional planet (1M? ? mass ? 15M?) with dynamically stable configuration may be residing between 0.25 - 2.0 AU from the star. We have provided an estimated number of RV observations for the additional planet for further observational verification.

Journal information: arXiv

© 2016 Phys.org

Citation: Earth-like planet may exist in a nearby star system (2016, April 19) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-earth-like-planet-nearby-star.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
4556 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 19, 2016
instead of trying to kill of the planet and each other.. we should be exploring FTL travel so we can go and have a look instead of guessing..

Apr 19, 2016
instead of trying to kill of the planet and each other.. we should be exploring FTL travel so we can go and have a look instead of guessing..

Let me remind you that space exploration progress went way faster when it was driven by arms race between USA and USSR. Sad, but true.

Apr 20, 2016
Let me remind you that space exploration progress went way faster when it was driven by arms race

Yeah, but when you consider that one of the ideas was to detonate nukes on the moon to show the other who has the bigger d...

...then I'd rather take "slow" and steady peacful development, thankyouverymuch.

instead of trying to kill of the planet and each other.. we should be exploring FTL travel

We should be doing any number of things instead of killing each other and the planet.

Actually, I can't think of a single thing we should NOT be doing instead of that.

Apr 20, 2016
instead of trying to kill of the planet and each other.. we should be exploring FTL travel so we can go and have a look instead of guessing..


There is so much wrong in that sentence, it would take pages to correct.

TL;DR: Even with AGW we are not trying to kill the planet and each other; spaceflight wouldn't change much of the risks for any one society (but admittedly increase survival of life at large); FTL is impossible.*

*Easy to see; if FTL was possible, we could construct computers that solve any problem, That would mean physics, which complexity is tied to computability by computer science, is simple at its core. But it is not. Hence FTL is impossible. QED

There is also deeper constraints, such that FTL destabilizes gauge theories, and gauge theories describe current physics. Same test applies.

Apr 20, 2016
*Easy to see; if FTL was possible, we could construct computers that solve any problem,

Erm...whut? How does that follow? Just because something can crunch numbers fast doesn't make it omniscient/omnipotent. Without the correct algorithm any computer is just a space heater.

There is also deeper constraints, such that FTL destabilizes gauge theories, and gauge theories describe current physics.

Gauge theories are perfectly fine with Alcubierre type FTL or wormholes (though Alcubierre drives aren't really FTL, as technically nothing moves faster than light...but the effect is what counts)

Apr 20, 2016
we should be exploring FTL travel so we can go and have a look instead of guessing..


Go to youtube and search:
What if We Never Travel Faster Than Light?
From Sharkee.

Apr 20, 2016
What if We Never Travel Faster Than Light?

The alternative is always to engineer ourselves to live longer (or move our consciousness to a robust/easily maintainable substrate). In that case it doesn't matter if we 'crawl' to the next solar system.

Apr 20, 2016
The alternative is always to engineer ourselves to live longer (or move our consciousness to a robust/easily maintainable substrate). In that case it doesn't matter if we 'crawl' to the next solar system
Consciousness? You mean our brains?? Why install a ball of goo in a machine when a computer designed for the purpose would be much more appropriate?

Apr 20, 2016
Why install a ball of goo in a machine when a computer designed for the purpose would be much more appropriate?

I didn't say "move brains". I said "move consciousness".

Apr 20, 2016
So what is it that you presume to be moving exactly? Some sort of software? An electromagnetic field of some sort? A database named Dieter perhaps?

Do you share Noumenons opinion that 'consciousness' is the most obvious thing there is, even though no one can explain it and it in turn can't be used to explain anything?

Apr 20, 2016
So what is it that you presume to be moving exactly? Some sort of software?


It's pretty clear that the exact nature of consciousness is yet to be discovered. To mention the possibility of shifting it to a different substrate, as antalias is suggesting, is really not worthy of ridicule. Just because we can't do something now doesn't mean we never will.

Apr 20, 2016
*Easy to see; if FTL was possible, we could construct computers that solve any problem,

Erm...whut? How does that follow? Just because something can crunch numbers fast doesn't make it omniscient/omnipotent. Without the correct algorithm any computer is just a space heater.


tbl appears to be endorsing an estimation of a future similarity between that of a progression toward FTL and the progression toward an "all-knowing" computer program as its equivalency.

There is also deeper constraints, such that FTL destabilizes gauge theories, and gauge theories describe current physics.

Gauge theories are perfectly fine with Alcubierre type FTL or wormholes (though Alcubierre drives aren't really FTL, as technically nothing moves faster than light...but the effect is what counts)


Constraints in the progression of science? Are you a Luddite?

Apr 21, 2016
So what is it that you presume to be moving exactly?


Here's some variants:

- a functional copy to a hardened substrate
- a simulated copy within a virtual environment
- a slowly migrated original by hardware (via slow replacement of brain with hardened, but functionally identical components. Like the Ship of Theseus of brains)
- a slowly migrated original by software (via slow interface/combined learning until the vast majority of a personality resides inside software which is in effect then the individual even after the biological brain dies)
- if biological then a vastly redundant structure that can heal faster than interstellar spaceflight can damage it

...there must be a lot of other ways to do this, but these are just the first few that I can come up with on the spur of the moment.

The definition of consciousness isn't really needed. As long as the end product thinks its conscious (i.e. can formulate "I am" without prompting) that's good enough for me.

Apr 21, 2016
It's pretty clear that the exact nature of consciousness is yet to be discovered
And what is it exactly that makes you think there is something there that can be moved?
a functional copy to a hardened substrate
My question is obvious... copy of what?
The definition of consciousness isn't really needed
Of course it is. You're implying that it's existence is a given, so all we have to do is figure out how to move it.

I and many others say that consciousness is an illusion. Theres nothing there to move. Prove me wrong.

Apr 21, 2016
Dan Dennett TED talk
https://youtu.be/fjbWr3ODbAo

-He demonstrates that at least some of what you think you are 'conscious' of is an illusion.

Apr 21, 2016
can formulate "I am" without prompting) that's good enough for me
Of course you know that you can program a computer to say 'I am' with conviction, and there's no way to prove that that machine is not being sincere.

Consider that there were some way of transferring the thing you consider your consciousness into that same computer, and it says 'I am'. How could you tell the difference? There would still be you and it.

Could you rely on it to make the same decisions as you would in its place? Would that be the point of the exercise?

Of course it wouldn't. You can't even rely on yourself to consistently make the same decisions depending on your mood, your physical and emotional states, the time of day, etc.

You would probably want it to be more consistent and would design it to be so. But then it wouldn't be you.

It would never be you.

Apr 21, 2016
Star trek tng explored a similar situation.
https://youtu.be/geMGo2P94j4

-My favorite episode. Riker is inadvertently duplicated and his twin spends years marooned on a planet, before being reunited. It deals with the question 'what would it have been like if I had done things differently?'

Two identical people who turned out to be entirely different.

Apr 21, 2016
can formulate "I am" without prompting) that's good enough for me
Of course you know that you can program a computer to say 'I am' with conviction, and there's no way to prove that that machine is not being sincere.
wouldn't the act of programming be "prompting"??

IMHO - not sure if you can move "consciousness" without the brain...
*if*
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.
*Then*
what is consciousness without the ability to observe/measure (IOW- be aware of)
this is an ability that all "living" creatures have, isn't it?


Apr 21, 2016
Ghost, re Dennett, as a counter example, Pluto was just an artistic blob that looked like a planet. We sent New Horizons there expecting to see detail. We were not disappointed. The artwork of reality can appear illusory or uncertain but that doesn't change the physical reality. There's only one thing that can physically change the reality: consciousness. That may sound philosophical, but it's just physics.

Apr 21, 2016
My question is obvious... copy of what?

If you want to go overboard then an atomically exact copy (i.e. either to something that acts like the atom or to a software that can simulate atoms). But I don't think we need to go that far. A functional copy of neurons is probably enough...probably even a very abstract functional copy of neurons.

you can program a computer to say 'I am' with conviction

Conviction? Really? Wow. When did we manage to program emotions? (/sarcasm)

Programming is prompting (it's the ultimate form of prompting)

Two identical people who turned out to be entirely different.

So? The copy was still alive/conscious AND it believed itself to be the orignal. In the story it isn't even clear which one is the original (actually by the story both are the original).

Apr 21, 2016
Wow! 16 light years! As we all know, one human year is 7 light years, so it's exciting to know we'll be seeing this planet in less than 3 years... isn't space fascinating?

Apr 21, 2016
There's only one thing that can physically change the reality: consciousness. That may sound philosophical, but it's just physics
No, sorry, it sounds like nonsense.A functional copy of neurons is probably enough...probably even a very abstract functional copy of neurons IOW a ball of goo. Or if not, then some sort of digital analogue of a ball of good.

But it would still be hooked up to artificial sensors and processors that would be providing it info in completely different ways. It would no longer be distracted by things like hunger or pain or the need to survive to reproduce. It wouldn't need to sleep or eat or eliminate waste.

It might use your name and have your memories but it would access those memories for different reasons and would be creating entirely new ones with which to understand its new environment. It would have no need for emotions.

It would have none of the priorities or desires or feelings that you now have. It wouldn't be you.

Apr 21, 2016
The copy was still alive/conscious AND it believed itself to be the orignal... by the story both are the original
Neither are the original. The original only existed in their memories which were colored by intervening experiences.

As dennett hinted at, our memories are very faulty. We remember very little of what we experience and these memories are altered to fit our current conception of ourselves.

The 2 rikers were entirely different people. The marooned Riker was still in love with Deanna troy and she was his first priority when he got back. Further he couldn't understand why the other Riker didn't feel this way, why his twin didn't experience the loss that was obvious to him. They didn't even part as friends.

Yeah it was a story but entirely believable. Sometimes I get flashes of my old 25yo self and I have no idea of who that person was.

I would be kidding myself if I were to think that some defining 'thing' called consciousness inhabited both of us.

Apr 21, 2016
And sorry, the first part of the previous post should've looked like this;
There's only one thing that can physically change the reality: consciousness. That may sound philosophical, but it's just physics
No, sorry, it sounds like nonsense.
A functional copy of neurons is probably enough...probably even a very abstract functional copy of neurons
-IOW a ball of goo. Or if not, then some sort of digital analogue of a ball of goo.

And etc.

Apr 21, 2016
Nonsense Ghost? But you agree the specificity of a physical substrate is irrelevant provided it has some specialized structure commensurate with the task. So don't let your "goo" do all your thinking for you. You should've learned that during adolescence.

Apr 22, 2016
You're suggesting that something you can't define and that probably doesn't exist, can change reality. You're saying that your brain can make you fly like superman? Or does it only make you think you can fly like superman?
specificity of a physical substrate is irrelevant provided it has some specialized structure commensurate with the task
... and I'm sorry but linguistical eruditionisms dont refute nonsense.

Apr 22, 2016
If there is any truth in the Bible, then people visited the home of the gods and lived to be 900 years or so. If you were designing the ideal spaceship for humans, it would accelerate at 32/ft/sec/sec (i.e. gravity) so that humans would survive long-term. Assume it accelerates for approx 200 years, decelerates for 200 years, turns round and comes back after spending 50 years at the destination, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out which star hosts the home of the gods. Obviously it is
(t.b.c.)

Apr 22, 2016
You're suggesting that something you can't define and that probably doesn't exist, can change reality.
I'm saying that reality, when unaffected by consciousness, has basic outcomes predicted by basic rules of physics, and that consciousness is the only thing that is sufficiently aware of the rules and predictions to be able to change a basic outcome to something far less easy to predict. It's still physics, and rules for predicting conscious actions certainly aren't nonexistent.
You're saying that your brain can make you fly like superman? Or does it only make you think you can fly like superman?
I said nothing of the sort. I will say the reality of Mars is still unchanged for the most part, aside from a few rocks with holes that look like some superhero used x-ray laser vision on them. Unpredictable, those superheros. Without a measure of their intelligence, that is.

Apr 23, 2016
reality, when unaffected by consciousness, has basic outcomes predicted by basic rules of physics
Chaos and indeterminacy are also physical laws which say that basic outcomes are sometimes unpredictable.

Self-awareness tells the fox that it's time to hunt, and that he can trick a squirrel into being caught because he's done it before.

Self-awareness tells the bank vault that someone is trying to break into it and it needs to set off the alarm. Are you saying that if it had 'consciousness' it might decide not to do this? Are you saying that if the fox had consciousness he might decide to starve?

The vault has specific senses which tell it it is being breached. We have similar senses which tell us that our skin is being punctured by a sharp object. But we have no idea when it is being penetrated by x-rays.

We can say that in that respect we are less self-aware than a system with an x-ray detector. But trying to use the word consciousness to explain it is pointless.

Apr 23, 2016
I read somewhere that while a habitable planer around a red dwarf star sounds ideal due to the much greater lifespan of a red dwarf, it's unlikely to occur. The reason stated was that the 'Goldilocks zone' around a red dwarf is much closer to the star for obvious reasons. However, red dwarf stars are pretty turbulent and as such would sterilize such planets due to their solar wind since such planets would have to be very close to the star.

Is there any truth to that?

Apr 23, 2016
You know, one of these days we're gonna spot a spectroscopic signature from chlorophyll.

Wonder what lie the Babble thumpers will come up with to explain that one.

Apr 23, 2016
Do you share Noumenons opinion that 'consciousness' is the most obvious thing there is, even though no one can explain it and it in turn can't be used to explain anything?


Well, I didn't say that. I said, that 'consciousness' is literally the most immediate experience possible.

It's pretty clear that the exact nature of consciousness is yet to be discovered. To mention the possibility of shifting it to a different substrate, as antalias is suggesting, is really not worthy of ridicule. Just because we can't do something now doesn't mean we never will.


True, however, the presumption that the physical natural of the substrate is not relevant to the phenomenon of consciousness,…. is open to ridicule,… because it is not based on a prerequisite understanding of how it manifests in the brain.

Apr 23, 2016
We can say that in that respect we are less self-aware than a system with an x-ray detector.
What can you say about the consciousness of an entity that designs and operates a system with an x-ray detector? The term "awareness" overflows with meaning.
But trying to use the word consciousness to explain it is pointless.
In a logical sense,
consciousness = data + intelligence
data = awareness + experience
intelligence = F = T∇Sτ (eq is link to reference)

You're insisting that all of it be condensed into a single term, "awareness." But "awareness" is a subset of data. And consciousness is a force, per the entropic nature of intelligence. If the maths/physics are incorrect, show your better maths.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more