back to article Astroboffins say our Solar System is a dark, violent, cosmic weirdo

Our solar system may be a cosmic misfit, say astroboffins who've analysed systems where we've spotted exoplanets. A team of astrophysicists suggested we live in a weird neighborhood after analyzing the radius and semimajor axis of 909 planets in 355 multi-planet systems spied by the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii. The …

  1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    The authors suggested the complex gravitational interactions between Jupiter and Saturn are to blame.

    Which makes the argument somewhat self-defeating because Jupiter and Saturn didn't just appear one day in the solar system: they are an integral part of it. So the question really is: why did we get Jupiter and Saturn?

    It's also a bit early to be claiming that we have enough data on planetary systems to be drawing conclusions.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      But we can reasonably say that it looks like our system is unusual.

      Of course I don't actually know how many small, rocky exoplanet containing systems we know - as opposed to those where we know about gas giants close to the parent star.

      Is our current detection technology only picking up those systems where a gas giant formed 'close' and then dominated proceedings rather than forming further out and creating a system like ours.

      I have *NO* data on any of the above, the astroboffins almost certainly do, and I imagine that since they are probably rather smart they have looked at such possible observation causality.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        But we can reasonably say that it looks like our system is unusual.

        Why? How many systems are there out there? And how many have we studied in detail? And how many of them have sun-sized stars at the centre?

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          >> "But we can reasonably say that it looks like our system is unusual."

          > "Why?"

          Because it *looks* unusual in that it not the same as any of the other systems we've observed.

          When that number was one ours looked typical.

          Now that that number is somewhat larger - we look very unusual.

          It might be observational bias that makes us look unusual, but I'm pretty sure I went over that before...

          1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

            Because it *looks* unusual in that it not the same as any of the other systems we've observed.

            Yes, but as others have noted: we can't expect to observe similar systems with our current technology. We couldn't be sure the moon isn't made of cheese until we got there.

            1. John Robson Silver badge

              >>Because it *looks* unusual in that it not the same as any of the other systems we've observed.

              >>It might be observational bias that makes us look unusual, but I'm pretty sure I went over that before...

              >Yes, but as others have noted: we can't expect to observe similar systems with our current technology.

              Would those mysterious 'others' you mention actually be me (in the very first reply on this thread, and mentioned in the post you selectively quoted)?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I don't think we can. We have reasonably complete information about a single solar system - ours. Given that we may have a Planet X roaming around out there, we don't even have a complete understanding of our OWN solar system. We don't even know what's orbiting around the nearest handful of stars to us.

        I disagree with the notion that a few hundred observations of the tiny proportion of systems whose planets cross their star when viewed from earth is sufficient data for the researchers to make this claim.

    2. Crisp

      Why did we get Jupiter and Saturn?

      Early anniversary present?

      1. Florida1920
        Angel

        Re: Why did we get Jupiter and Saturn?

        Cosmic inspiration for the best parts of Holst's Planets Suite.

    3. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Jupiter: blink and you miss it.

      Figure 1 in the preprint is brilliant: it's shows exactly how much of an outlier sol is. It also shows the problem with using that as a basis for saying we're unusual: there's maybe a dozen systems with planets as far out as Mercury.

      And it's not hard to understand why: Kepler would need to observe us 11.9 years to guarantee it'd see Jupiter transit once. With three detections required for certainty, you're looking at thirty years continuous observing to spot Jupiter. Smart maths might cut that down a bit and let you get away with two detections, but systems like ours are not going to be represented in the Kepler cohort.

      1. annodomini2

        Re: Jupiter: blink and you miss it.

        @Brewsters's Angle Grinder, yes, in addition, Kepler has only observed a very small area of the Sky.

        So currently we only have a small dataset on which to base these conclusions.

    4. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      Which makes the argument somewhat self-defeating because Jupiter and Saturn didn't just appear one day in the solar system: they are an integral part of it. So the question really is: why did we get Jupiter and Saturn?

      Which is how science works. Every time you answer a question you end up with one or more equally interesting questions.

      @Brewster's Angle Grinder

      Nicely spotted. Raises the question: Who's been stealing our inner planets?

    5. Muscleguy
      Boffin

      I read about a model which addressed the question of why, unlike so many of the exo solar systems we see our gas giants are not close in hot Jupiters. This found that originally Jupiter did begin to head inwards, this disrupted the orbit around Mars, robbed it of much mass and instead created the asteroid belt. Then Saturn did indeed begin to form or more probably accrete enough mass that it hauled Jupiter back.

      If Jupiter had continued its inward spiral then all of the rocky planets would likely either have been ejected, crash into Jupiter or become a moon of a hot Jupiter.

      I also wonder if the dataset is biased by our exoplanet detection methods which tend to make large planets much easier to detect, whether we use occlusion or solar wobble. I expect the paper did make that point though and in science it is often worthwhile to report results even when the dataset is known to be perhaps biased.

  2. Stoneshop
    Windows

    a dark, violent, cosmic weirdo

    I saw someone like that Monday afternoon.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: a dark, violent, cosmic weirdo

      I dated someone like that in college.

      1. Dr. G. Freeman

        Re: a dark, violent, cosmic weirdo

        Think I married her.

    2. Chris G

      Re: a dark, violent, cosmic weirdo

      Hmm, I'm fairly sure I stayed in the house Monday afternoon.

    3. Admiral Grace Hopper

      Re: a dark, violent, cosmic weirdo

      I used to work in Telford.

    4. Blofeld's Cat

      Re: a dark, violent, cosmic weirdo

      "I saw someone like that Monday afternoon."

      Violent? I'll have you know that I was merely walking the zlaag, and only transmogrified your dog because I feared it would attack me.

      1. Aladdin Sane

        Re: a dark, violent, cosmic weirdo

        I must've died and gone to heaven

        'Cause it was a quarter past eleven

        On a Saturday in 1999

        Right across from where I'm standing

        On the dance floor she was landing

        It was clear that she was from another time

        Like some baby Barbarella

        With the stars as her umbrella

        She asked me if I'd like to magnetize

        Do I have to go star-trekking

        'Cause it's you I should be checking

        So she laser beamed me with her cosmic eyes

  3. Potemkine! Silver badge

    If anyone had a doubt we live in a weirdo world...

    ... just watch everyday news.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If anyone had a doubt we live in a weirdo world...

      No, watch the people watching the news.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: If anyone had a doubt we live in a weirdo world...

        But the news is supposed to be entertainment. That's what sells commercials. Instead, for a look at the everyday weirdness of the world, simply go shop for groceries.

        1. Rich 11

          Re: If anyone had a doubt we live in a weirdo world...

          simply go shop for groceries.

          Good idea. I'm out of bread. I knew I'd find an answer if I read enough comments here today.

        2. The Nazz

          Re: If anyone had a doubt we live in a weirdo world...

          Trust a woman.

          Every time i go out for groceries, i swear i see ample evidence that the world (the people in it) are getting weirder by the hour.

          Then the SO chips in with "Ever thought it could be you?"

          Can't recall the artist but i'm sure i have a song entitled "I Don't Think She Loves Me Anymore".

          1. jake Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: If anyone had a doubt we live in a weirdo world...

            Reminds me of an anecdote I heard/read somewhere back in the mists of time[0]: "I was at a party and heard some people laughing at the stupid drunk, so I jumped up on a table and looked around ... and everyone but me was drunk!"

            Not casting aspersions. Beer?

            [0] Spider Robinson?

  4. tiggity Silver badge

    Assumptions

    This assumes exoplanet analysis is finding all planets in other solar systems analysed and size results are accurate.

    It also assumes the other solar systems inspected are representative.

    Are they solar systems with similar G type star? No point comparing a red giant based system as expansion stage will have trashed inner planets & caused a lot of other perturbation.

    I would guess that main criteria for choosing systems to observe (for any vague chance of accurate observation of transits) would be relatively close stars

    Anyone with expertise in this area know if that's the case?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Assumptions

      I'm not certain, but I think the closer the planet to the star and the bigger it is, the easier to detect it. If true, this biases the available planetary data somewhat.

      1. Not also known as SC

        Re: Assumptions

        Exoplanets are detected by various methods.

        When they are all combined then you can detect a reasonable number of exoplanets - for instance direct detection will help locate planets as massive as Jupiter but nothing much smaller. Radial velocity will detect planets as small as 0.005 Jupiter masses as long as their orbital period is less than 10 years as will the transit method etc. According to https://www.universetoday.com/22710/jupiter-compared-to-earth/ Jupiter is 318 times heavier than the Earth, so any exoplanet around 1.5 times heavier than Earth should be detectable.

        I'm assuming that the research hasn't found many (if any) systems where there is a large discrepancy between the mass of one exoplanet and all the others hence the conclusion. However the dataset does seem small - only 909 planets in 355 systems which is only an average of 2.5 planets per system. From an outsider's perspective that doesn't seem enough data to extrapolate from, because most of our solar system would be undetectable and we know that our solar system contains well in excess of 2.5 planets and also shows a wide range of masses.

  5. deadlockvictim

    Bad neighbourhood

    Great. We live in a bad neighbourhood. Our bigger neighbours have a violent past of wantonly scattering others around the place. Us with our life-infested planet.

    Is it a wonder that no-one comes to visit?

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. hammarbtyp

    Just shows how special we all are...

    The more we study the universe, the more we find that our solar system is almost unique in the galaxy

    1. Rocky planet in the habitable zone (i.e liquid water can exist)

    2. Size and therefore gravity large enough to retain atmosphere

    3. Relatively stable sun (Allows the development of complex life)

    4. Large moon (So ensuring molten core and plate tectonics plus magnetic field protection against cosmic rays)

    5. Larger outer gas giants that help ensure that large asteroids and comets are swept up before impacting us

    If we factor these into the Drake equation (plus the likelihood of eukaryotic cells being created), it seems clear that the chances of complex life appearing twice in our galaxy at the same point in its history is incredible unlikely (That is not to say simple life could not occur or that complex life does not exist elsewhere in the universe)

    It just reinforces how incredible rare and precious all life here is.

    or as Carl Sagan put it

    1. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: Just shows how special we all are...

      I thought the Drake Equation was more about "how to" estimate likelihood of life rather than actually generating 'accurate' estimates of likelihood.

      1. hammarbtyp

        Re: Just shows how special we all are...

        I thought the Drake Equation was more about "how to" estimate likelihood of life rather than actually generating 'accurate' estimates of likelihood.

        True, its just informed speculation, but it can produce upper and lower limits of probability

    2. AS1

      Re: Just shows how special we all are...

      Alternatively, the LGM Empire hasn't bothered visiting yet because their AI looked at the data and decided that such an unusual system couldn't support a habitable planet, let alone higher lifeforms.

      1. Mark 85

        Re: Just shows how special we all are...

        Alternatively, the LGM Empire hasn't bothered visiting yet because their AI looked at the data and decided that such an unusual system couldn't support a habitable planet, let alone higher lifeforms.

        It could just be that we haven't evolved enough to be of interest or able to threaten them yet.

    3. ibmalone

      Re: Just shows how special we all are...

      On the one hand, yes the various probabilities may be quite small, on the other N is really really big. So nothing is clear because we don't have a good handle on many of the variables.

      > plus the likelihood of eukaryotic cells being created

      This one in particular, we don't know if it's actually inevitable given time and the right conditions (or even if complex life has to take that particular path). If it turns out there's primitive life on Europa or Enceladus then odds are good it's elsewhere.

      1. hammarbtyp

        Re: Just shows how special we all are...

        On the one hand, yes the various probabilities may be quite small, on the other N is really really big. So nothing is clear because we don't have a good handle on many of the variables.

        True, its only speculation., but the likelihood seems to go down as we learn more about lifes biology and our local cluster. Also I am talking about the likelihood of complex life being around within our time frame which increases the odds

        > plus the likelihood of eukaryotic cells being created

        This one in particular, we don't know if it's actually inevitable given time and the right conditions (or even if complex life has to take that particular path). If it turns out there's primitive life on Europa or Enceladus then odds are good it's elsewhere.

        What we do know is that it appears to of happened once during the time life has been on Earth, which seems to indicate that it is very rare. of course there may be ways that complex life could occur without that event, but that is speculation.

        I believe that simple life is common, but complex life that we can interact with? Seems very unlikely considering the odds

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: Just shows how special we all are...

          What we do know is that it appears to of happened once during the time life has been on Earth, which seems to indicate that it is very rare.

          More reductivism. We suspect there is no complex life in the solar system but are still prepared to send a probe to look in the oceans.

          It is, however, reasonable to assume that energy is key to the development of life for things like food chains which might explain why the older anaerobic life forms round the vents on the ocean floor have remained as simple as they have.

          1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

            Re: Just shows how special we all are...

            We do not know that eukaryotes happened only once. Only that if there were others they left no descendants.

    4. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Just shows how special we all are...

      About 11 billion planets in this galaxy meet the first four of your conditions. Add in red dwarfs and we are up to 40 billion. I do not even have a figure for moons of gas giants with a reasonable chance of having had surface water for billions of years.

      Multiply that by at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and life becomes something we should expect (although possibly too far apart to stand a reasonable chance of contact).

      We have a limited supply of planets for counting large moons, but if you look at trans-Neptunian objects, large moons are quite popular.

      1. hammarbtyp

        Re: Just shows how special we all are...

        About 11 billion planets in this galaxy meet the first four of your conditions. Add in red dwarfs and we are up to 40 billion. I do not even have a figure for moons of gas giants with a reasonable chance of having had surface water for billions of years.

        Multiply that by at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and life becomes something we should expect (although possibly too far apart to stand a reasonable chance of contact).

        We have a limited supply of planets for counting large moons, but if you look at trans-Neptunian objects, large moons are quite popular.

        Sure there a lot of planets, but if you filter out those that are to larger/small, wrong location, do not have molton cores or the parent suns are to violent, that number comes down a lot.

        Is a red dwarf a good candidate for complex life? Firstly the habitable zone would be a lot closer so the planets would be tidally locked, meaning an atmosphere is unlikely to survive. Also Dwarfs tend to be highly variable in output

        Is a large gas giant moon suitable for complex life? They tend to suffer from bombardment of other bodies due to the pull of the main body and again get tidally locked.

        I have no doubt that there is simple life somewhere else in our galaxy and complex life somewhere else in the universe. However the chances of complex life being around in our galaxy, at this point in time, never mind being detectable seems highly improbable

        1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          Re: Just shows how special we all are...

          Sure there a lot of planets, but if you filter out those that are to larger/small, wrong location, do not have molton cores or the parent suns are to violent, that number comes down a lot.

          Put that number all the way back up because it included sensible size, right location (near star and in galaxy) and stable stars. Molten core is related to size and large moon: Nests and eggs are not that common on Earth but that does not make finding the two together extremely unlikely.

          I kept the red dwarfs separate because of the reasons you gave.

          Moons of gas giants are a possibility. We have some in this solar system that are possibilities for life (and others that aren't). We have gas giant moons with a thicker atmosphere than Earth that will burn up meteors. Tidally locked to the gas giant means not tidally locked to the star. Moons of gas giants would be worth counting if we had the technology to do it for exoplanets.

    5. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Just shows how special we all are...

      The argument cherry picks items to lead to an almost inevitable conclusion. While there is no doubt that life on earth is pretty spectacular and unlikely, we also have a terribly poor understanding for just how big our galaxy is. I thought that some of the results from the probes to Jupiter and Saturn indicated that many of the factors that we think are so unique also exist there and that Venus and Mars are both "near misses" when it comes to being viable for life, ie. life itself is less spectacular than we used to think.

      The chances might be small but on a galactic scale that still leaves an awful lot of possibilities. What hasn't changed is that complex life really struggles outside of protective bubble because space is hazardous.

  8. Alan J. Wylie

    Titius–Bode law

    Any hint in the data as to whether the planets in other solar systems obey the Titius–Bode law?

    1. cray74

      Re: Titius–Bode law

      Any hint in the data as to whether the planets in other solar systems obey the Titius–Bode law?

      A 2014 analysis of Kepler data says, "No," and other attempts to say this or that system follows a Titius-Bode pattern have been "controversial."

      https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/442/1/674/1253671

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lots of conjecture without actually being there.

    Wake me up when we've built a USS Enterprise and been around the galaxy a bit, meanwhile all bets are on.

    Massive Stars Are Common

    There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.’

  10. Aladdin Sane

    To quote Douglas Adams

    “Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.”

    1. wheelbearing

      Re: To quote Douglas Adams

      Digital watches are a pretty neat idea.. still remember the first time I held one, those glowing red numerals burning into my eyes.. what's not like?

    2. annodomini2
      Gimp

      Re: To quote Douglas Adams

      and 'Mostly Harmless'

  11. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

    Behold! Pluto hath returned from Hades!

    This is from the preprint:

    It is difficult to calculate the significance of the similarity because the solar system has only 9 planets.

    From which I deduce planet-number is strongly conserved amongst astrophysicists.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Behold! Pluto hath returned from Hades!

      But if Pluto is a planet then Ceres is as well… so maybe it's Jupiter that's been disqualified instead? ;-)

      1. nugge

        Re: Behold! Pluto hath returned from Hades!

        Well, Jupiter does not orbit the sun, but Sol/Jupiter orbits a common point in space outside the surface of the objects themselves. So, if "planet" is an object that orbits a star, then Jupiter is not a planet.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Behold! Pluto hath returned from Hades!

          Well, Jupiter does not orbit the sun, but Sol/Jupiter orbits a common point in space outside the surface of the objects themselves.

          I think this is yours… ;-)

          So, if "planet" is an object that orbits a star, then Jupiter is not a planet.

          I don't think that's the current favoured defintion. I think it's more to do with the strength of the planet's gravity and it's ability to form itself and dominate it's local orbit, like wot Pluto don't.

          1. nugge

            Re: Behold! Pluto hath returned from Hades!

            From Wikipedia as for IAU definition of a planet:

            "A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that

            is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity,

            is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and

            has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals"

            Not that I am a huge advocate for keeping Pluto as a planet, but rather to get Quaoar and 2002 MS4 :).

        2. Wulfhaven

          Re: Behold! Pluto hath returned from Hades!

          That is how gravity works. For all the planets. Jupiter is just massive enough to move the common point of movement with Sol more than the other planets. To confound it even further, all the planets have varying effects on eachothers celestial dance as well.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh dear atheists - sounds like it was designed. Just like error correcting code in DNA, the utter failure of science to make a 'simple' cell from inorganic chemicals, or the obvious conclusion from the fine tuning of a big bang that a creator was at work outside the confines of space and time.

    1. Spacedinvader
      WTF?

      Firstly, yer talking utter shite. No wonder AC.

      Secondly, http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/scientists-create-simple-artificial-cell-capable-spontaneous-movement/

      We're getting there.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      "Intelligent Design" was debunked years ago and is now little more than a thought experiment in introductory philosophy. Not that it stops the god-botherers from wheeling it out again and again.

      Notwithstanding that none of the claims about the universe made by any of the various religious texts stands up to scientific scrutiny, there is also the problem of trying to reconcile what one group holds for divine truth with what all the others do.

      But it is all by the by. Even if there is a supreme being then why would that stop us investigating the rules that they have laid down? There might be the small matter of reconciling a self-contained universe with some kind of external control, but why not?

      OTOH continuing to peddle myth of humanity's exceptionalism not only gets harder to do convicingly (not that true believers care) but more worringly leads to faith-based policy including indoctrination, discriminaton and war.

  13. TVU Silver badge

    This is just yet more "Oooh, we're unique in the galaxy" anthropocentrism and I up deeply unimpressed because space and ground telescopes have only just begun to scratch the surface in terms of the huge number of solar systems that are really out there in this galaxy, i.e. what we've seen so far in terms of exoplanet solar systems is not statistically representative.

    1. Long John Brass
      Alien

      The truly scary thing is...

      We might just be the first Intelligent life in our local cluster...

      Ponder that for a second; That means if we fuck this up there might not be anybody along for quite a while to try again! The universe is give ot take ~13B years old and we are only about ~0.1% of the projected star forming period. Earth formed ~4B years ago and yet "intelligent" life has only been around ~1M years.

      Maybe life is common as pond scum, but if there were ancient civilisations banging around we would have seen signs of their interstellar civilisations by now; Just from the waste heat.

      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > there is also the problem of trying to reconcile what one group holds for divine truth with what all the others do.

    That's easy. One of them is right, the others are wrong. Their followers need to be converted (by force if necessary)

  15. This post has been deleted by its author

  16. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Skewed data, obviously...

    Astroboffins cannot yet detect the full range of exoplanet sizes in distant systems. Or, at least, it's a function of distance. The recent Kepler date certainly helped to partially un-skew the distribution a bit, but I suspect that the distribution is still very skewed towards the larger exoplanets.

  17. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    https://xkcd.com/384/

  18. Lucasjkr

    How can we tell what's normal?

    Just because of limits of technology, aren't we extremely limited in what sorts of systems we can even discover? Like unless a star is extremely close, we can only spot planets if they pass inbetween us and their sun. ANd therefore, very close, with very fast orbits.

    Put another way, if we were situated in any of the solar systems we're observing, would we be able to detect ANY of the planets here? You'd have to stare at the sun for a year to see the slight twinkle earth would cause when passing in front of it, another year for confirmation. Now, start trying to spot Jupiter (which is all we can really spot from too far away), and you might have to stare at the same start for nearly 12 years to see it the first time, and another 12 for the second glimmer.

    It just seems like our technology is far too limited to be able to make any extrapolations about the rest of the galaxy. Maybe we can extrapolate about one particular type of solar system, but we don't know how many types there even are at this point...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like