P u l l M y e F i n g e r
A p e n s i v e b l o g e x u d i n g o u t v a r i o u s o r i f i c e s



The Definition Of Earth-Like For Extrasolar Planets

← previous: HSC In Santa Clara New Phone Number Courtesy Of Google Voice :next →
this blog

most recent
rss feed
about me
archives
calendar
search

friends' blogs
life outside the box
the murky depths
more or less
faith and mika's mommy
all over the place

other blogs
systemic
centauri dreams

pictures
london
hungary
italy
holland
thailand
vietnam '05
hawaii '05
hawaii '06
vietnam '08
korea
mexico

mom's recipes
white cake
oatmeal raisin cookies
molasses cookies
texas bread sticks
caramel corn

news
ny times
la times

open source
cygwin
sourceforge
debian
suse
openoffice
wikipedia
winregsh

space
mars rovers
mars recon orbiter
mars express
cassini
phoenix

government
volunteer match

Topic(s): space,science
2009-12-16 23:14:01 US/Pacific

It seems like each week now a science team somewhere announces the discovery of a new extrasolar planet. The most recent announcement is GJ 1214b. I think the discovery is great. But what bothers me slightly is the description of GJ 1214b. It's described as Earth-like. Even though it weighs in at a hefty 6.6 times that of Earth, and even though its radius is 2.7 times that of Earth.

As I've been reading the news of extrasolar planets over the years I've noticed various authors using the term Earth-like and sometimes also the term Earth-twin in a -- if I may be non-technical here -- in a willy-nilly fashion.

I have yet to find a formal definition for either Earth-like or Earth-twin. Yet, It seems like with all the recent discoveries and with the Kepler Mission's potential next year to announce the discovery of thousands (literally!) of extrasolar planets, it seems like we really ought to have formal, mathematical definitions.

I earnestly searched for a scientific guide on what qualifies as Earth-like or Earth-twin. The closest I've found is a PDF copy of a book written in 1964 by the RAND Corporation, Habitable Planets For Man. After taking information from that book and performing some research and analysis, I've put together my formal definitions.

First, I've expanded on the two Earth categories. I've defined four categories which I'll formally define shortly:

1. Earth-like
2. Earth-similar
3. Earth-twin
4. Earth-habitable

Second, I've defined five criteria:

A. Mass - a candidate planet must be within 50% of Earth's mass (ME = 5.97 x 1024 kg).
B. Radius - a candidate planet must be within 50% of Earth's radius (RE = 6371 km).
C. Mean surface temperature - a candidate planet must be within 25% of Earth's mean surface temperature (TEmst = 287 K).
D. Breathable atmosphere - a candidate planet must have a breathable atmosphere.
E. Liquid water - a candidate planet must have accessible liquid water.

The formal definitions for the four categories listed above:

1. Earth-like - meets any two of the five criteria.
2. Earth-similar - meets any three or four of the five criteria.
3. Earth-twin - meets all five of the five criteria.
4. Earth-habitable - meets at least criteria C, D, and E but not necessarily A or B.

How does my guide work for the planets we know well? Mars meets criteria B and C. Venus meets criteria A and B. Thus, both Mars and Venus are Earth-like. If at some point liquid water (criterion E) is discovered on Mars, it would then be upgraded to Earth-similar.

GJ 1214b does not meet A or B, and we don't yet know if it meets C, D, or E. Thus it is wildly premature to call it Earth-like, although we cannot yet rule out the possibility.



Pulled eFingers:

ngan — 2009-12-17 22:43:13 US/Pacific —
I like your four categories. Easy for amateurs like me to understand. Can't wait 'til we find earth-twin. I wouldn't mind relocating.
mom — 2009-12-24 15:11:26 US/Pacific —
Scary...does this mean (1960's theory) twin people exist on the twin planet for each of us? What if we are a twin here? Quintuples?
Eric — 2009-12-25 23:36:59 US/Pacific —
Mom, I think the theory you're referring to must have been the child of scientists with both wild imaginations and illicit narcotics, because that's the only way it makes any sense. Not that the 1960s were the decade of sense in any stretch of the word. (Fortunately, science has come a long ways in 40+ years, Apollo Program withstanding.)
steve — 2010-01-01 00:22:24 US/Pacific —
Mom, I think you are referring to a parallel universe. Also, I think we need more categories:

Arch-Earth: If the planet was a rogue Earth-twin.

Bizarro-Earth: If the planet had opposite qualities, such as 1/3 water and 2/3 land.

Reath: If the planet was just like Earth, but spelled it's name slightly differently.

Good-Earth: If it turned out that we actually live on Bizarro-Earth.
Mom 2010-01-01 13:36:07 US/Pacific —
Hey! I first learned twin theory on TV, it was taught on the original Star Trek with James D. Kirk at the helm! It must be true---! I suppose next you will tell me there is not really a Spock or a Mr. Scott, or a Doc...all these years...! I really do need to go back to earn that Master's degree, don't I? So much has changed, and I have to keep up.
Dunk www.magnapool.com — 2010-01-12 05:43:44 US/Pacific —
I like your definitions. They show a lot of common sense.
It is entirely feasible yjay within a 1000 light years from earth,with maybe 5 billion star systems in that space to find 500 or so earthlike twins is statistically feasible.
Now to make a further assumption around 30 could have humanoid life ,with many more technologically ,socially and environmentally advanced.
it,s OK to speculate ,so i have



Exercise Your eFinger:

name:
email:
url:
response:
December 2009
 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 
        1  2  3  4  5 
  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 
 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 
 27 28 29 30 31