In the search for extrasolar planets that could support life. Scientists state the planet must be in the 'Goldilocks' zone - i.e. not to near and not to far from the planet's sun. So the temperature of the surface of the planet is in the correct range to allow for the presence of liquid water (one of the main requirements for life).
My question is what are all of the other requirements that have to be in the 'Goldilocks' zone to allow for the development of life. Such as Gravity, Oxygen levels etc etc.etc. and what are the chances of this occuring?
2007-10-29 22:52:06 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
The chances of there being a planet like earth that supports life is very small: There has to be a planet of just the right size, orbiing a star of just the right size at just the right distance, and at just the right time in that star's own evolution.
However, there is an often quoted argument that goes something like this (I don't know the precise numbers):
"Say the odds of there being a star of just the right size are one in a million. Say for those stars, the odds of there being a planet at just the right distance is one in a million. Say the odds of there being conditions suitable for life to have formed on such a planet are one in a billion. That's odds of one in a billion billion. But the number of stars in the visible universe is vast (say, a trillion billion). This still leaves over a billion suitable 'candidates' for life to be 'out there'."
However, on this argument, there are still odds of only one in a billion billion of finding such a planet - vanishingly small odds.
In addition, most stars in the visible universe are in other galaxies; which are millions or billions of light years away, and we see them as they were millions or billions of years ago.
Therefore, to be realistically likely to find life elsewhere, we are limited to a small portion of our own galaxy. If the 'odds' of finding life in our own galaxy are calculated on a similar basis; the number of likely candidates can be diturbingly close to one!
2007-10-30 01:58:05 · answer #1 · answered by AndrewG 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Very low, but we're talking trillions upon trillions of stars, most with some sized rock planets orbiting them. Pick your odds, there'll still be some out there. Figure out your definition of life though.... like humans or are we talking simple lipid compounds here?
Apparently there's something called the M-Scale. This is a very basic consideration of everything necessary to have and sustain life, given in a number value 1-5. Each planet, as it is discovered (and unfortunately they're EXTREMELY hard to discover), is tested for this M value. So far, no luck. Maybe one day though...
Wayne
2007-10-29 22:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by Wayne 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I'd say pretty good 100% after all it's a large Universe out there, after all other planets have been found once technology improves for this type of exploration and research I'm sure it will not take long at all to find a viable planet. but getting us there is a totally different story.
2007-10-29 22:58:48 · answer #3 · answered by lord_he_aint_right_nda_head 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the chance of finging a planet that could support life is possible without a doubt. if you think about it logically how come are there so many planets in the universe, there has to be millions of planets out there that can support life. but then again youll have to think of it in another way and that might be that other planets do support life just not for humans
2007-10-29 22:58:59 · answer #4 · answered by pioneer 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You also have to have the right star. If the star is bluer, the amount of ultraviolet radiation will be higher, the bluer the star the higher its high frequency electromagnetic output, which still be dangerous for carbon-based life, even if the planet is located some distance from the star, where the temperature is just right.
2007-10-29 22:58:03 · answer #5 · answered by seed of eternity 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i believe the chances are pretty good if we last long enough to explore other galaxies. plus in the future we may have the ability to create conditions like this. if you believe we can get to planets lightyears away, then why can't we transform planets into livable places. maybe we could find a way to move a planet closer to or further from its star. then we could take planets with ice close enough for them to melt, but far enough that it doesn't evaporate. anything is possible.
2007-10-29 22:55:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no no no no no....
if i understand your question... what are OUR chances of finding a planet... etc... then i vote:
no.
unless we get some really great new technology (a possiblity), while an Earth-like planet very likely exists SOMEWHERE, i sincerely doubt we will ever find one.
2007-10-29 23:44:49 · answer #7 · answered by Faesson 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we have an infinite universe, and that is the commonly held view, then all possible conditions must exist somewhere, including those that can sustain life.
2007-10-29 22:55:14 · answer #8 · answered by M-O 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋