Update: model suggests all 7 Trappist planets might have no significant atmosphere

[Halbhh]

3/29/24 Update: See new post #28 on 2nd page of posts

_------------

Earlier post:
Context (in blue) --

Context: in 2017 many popular science reports such as in newspapers and many websites use sensational headlines (jumping the gun in a big way) about the "7 Earth-like worlds" discovered around the red dwarf star Trappist-1.

Of course, not all media used the more sensational headline of "Earth-like", but instead many more carefully and correctly used the modifier "Earth sized".

But even some major news outlets that usually have good quality slipped up on that:

Scientists find 7 Earth-like planets orbiting nearby ultracool star​

Scientists find 7 Earth-like planets orbiting nearby ultracool star

Exoplanets are a dime a dozen these days, but the Trappist-1 exosolar system stands out by hosting seven Earth-like exoplanets, according to a new study.

www.pbs.org

" This dim star hosts seven Earth-like planets within its habitable zone, according to a study published today in the journal Nature. Exoplanets are a dime a dozen these days, but due to unique properties in this exosolar system, the new discovery may usher in a movement in the hunt for habitable worlds — one where astrophysicists can ascertain the presence of life without traveling across the cosmos."

That's just not fair to readers, to write or report that instead of being simply "Earth sized", these are thought "Earth-like". (maybe! but not so fast!)

"Earth like": Seven Earth-Like Planets Orbit One Nearby Star
"Wonderful": Wonderful potentially habitable worlds around TRAPPIST-1
"Earth like": 7 Earth-Like Worlds Orbit a Star So Cool, You Didn’t Know It Existed
etc.

So, in the popular imagination of many no doubt, 7 new planets a lot like Earth had been found. e.g. -- Perhaps 1 or more of them would be teeming with life and even mobile creatures or such?

I bet tens of millions had their hopes up, artificially pumped up. Will they still be interested in funding new telescopes if all 7 planets are a bust?....

Already, well before 2017, research had already been published calculating that red dwarf stars would likely degrade the atmospheres of small rocky planets (like Earth sized planets) near enough to the small cool red dwarf stars for a temperature range to allow liquid water. That would remove or sharply degrade the atmospheres of such small close planets at liquid water range temperatures...due to the intense stellar wind and flaring of the red dwarf stars on nearby planets (close enough for water to be liquid).

To manage to retain an atmosphere near a red dwarf star, a planet would need a strong magnetic field (and some good luck of other kinds also such as atmospheric renewal sources, etc.)....

There might be such a lucky planet around a red dwarf we can find soon...but that's a roll of the dice with lower odds.

There are stars thought to be more favorable than red dwarfs, and this isn't obscure or extremely hard to find information either.

Of course, I'm still interested in that low-odds chance of finding one of these 7 around Trappist-1 with an atmosphere and even a favorable atmosphere, but I'm objecting to the over-hyping of those worlds as 'Earth like' when we don't yet know....

That's what we are going to be determining soon....

It will be fascinating what we find, no matter what it is...

And results are in for the first one, the innermost planet of Trappist-1:

===========================================
It's got no atmosphere.

(in the manner of speaking like we'd say Mercury 'has no atmosphere', though of course it has a very slight, tenuous atmosphere that is constantly escaping)

And contrary to some reports, a lack of a significant atmosphere is not a surprise for at least some (or maybe a lot) of astronomers....

I'll also post in post #2 a nice video to fill in more detail from the basics about how these observations work, for general readers not familiar with those details.

"An international team of researchers has used the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope to measure the temperature of the rocky exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 b. The measurement is based on the planet's thermal emission: heat energy given off in the form of infrared light detected by Webb's Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI).

"The result indicates that the planet's dayside has a temperature of about 500 Kelvin (roughly 230°C), and suggests that it has no significant atmosphere. This is the first detection of any form of light emitted by an exoplanet as small and as cool as the rocky planets in our own solar system. The result marks an important step in determining whether planets orbiting small active stars like TRAPPIST-1 can sustain atmospheres needed to support life. It also bodes well for Webb's ability to characterize temperate, Earth-sized exoplanets using MIRI.

Webb space telescope measures the temperature of a rocky exoplanet

An international team of researchers has used the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope to measure the temperature of the rocky exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 b. The measurement is based on the planet's thermal emission: heat energy given off in the form of infrared light detected by Webb's Mid-Infrared...

phys.org

I've heard this observation of no atmosphere referred to as a 'surprise' (at The Atlantic), and a 'disappointment' in another place -- but it's not at all that way: those are odd reactions in my view. Why wouldn't many people know an inner rocky (small) planet near a red dwarf would be atmosphere free or nearly so?...

That's been in research reports for years...

When I posted that here in CF several times, about different reports, it was just another article, that anyone in the field could have read, by a quick search even...

So, it was expected (at least to many astronomers and those of us that read their research):

Crispy planet

In all, the observed flare was roughly 100 times more powerful than any similar flare seen from Earth's sun. [ -- yikes! -- ] Over time, such energy can strip away a planet's atmosphere and even expose life forms to deadly radiation.

That type of flare may not be a rare occurrence on Proxima Centauri. In addition to the big boom in May 2019, the researchers recorded many other flares during the 40 hours they spent watching the star.

"Proxima Centauri's planets are getting hit by something like this not once in a century, but at least once a day if not several times a day," MacGregor said.

or:
"Most planets in recent years thought to be in the 'habitable zone' or optimistically dubbed 'Earth like' aren't likely to be (since red dwarfs are the most common type of star). The actual magnetic field of the star itself can help strip the planetary atmosphere--

"These "Goldilocks" planets may enjoy temperatures and atmospheric pressures that allow life-giving water to exist, but likely orbit too close to their stars to escape the effects of the star's strong magnetic fields and the associated radiation."

Astronomy News

Here is a comparison between the mathematical process which remaps the pixel values in the image and using the camera software. Professional astronomers use FITS Liberator for processing images which I find does not enhance the faint detail as well as the mathematical process. Wow, that looks...

www.christianforums.com

And more (I think I posted it way back already in 2017 also, but the above is enough to illustrate.

 

[Halbhh]

How astronomers observed the innermost planet Trappist-1 b, and figured out it has no atmosphere.

While the title says " Disappointing" -- it's just not really... I'd not even be 'disappointed if even several of these planets are atmosphere free or nearly so...

But while terms like 'surprising' or 'disappointing' suggest an editor making a title didn't read much astronomy (or were too narrowly focused?), this is still a well done video to explain basics about how this finding has been observed.​

 

[Halbhh]

Also,

'hopes' should not be 'fading' either!

lol...

Even if we find out over time all 7 Trappist-1 planets are none of them Earth-like -- to me, that's not enough for "hopes" to be "fading"....

Any finding is encouraging that we are making progress in learning more about other star systems.

If you open your freezer, and there is no ice cream, would 'hopes' be 'fading'?
lol...

 

[SelfSim]

I've heard this observation of no atmosphere referred to as a 'surprise' (at The Atlantic), and a 'disappointment' in another place -- but it's not at all that way: those are odd reactions in my view. Why wouldn't many people know an inner rocky (small) planet near a red dwarf would be atmosphere free or nearly so?...

Try Googling: "red dwarf photosynthesis" for the scientific basis for reasons you seek.

Such examples of expectation setting papers are:
The potential of planets orbiting red dwarf stars to support oxygenic photosynthesis and complex life (2016)
and then;
Studying photosynthesis under simulated M-dwarf star light (2021).

 

[Halbhh]

Try Googling: "red dwarf photosynthesis" for the scientific basis for reasons you seek.

Such examples of expectation setting papers are:
The potential of planets orbiting red dwarf stars to support oxygenic photosynthesis and complex life (2016)
and then;
Studying photosynthesis under simulated M-dwarf star light (2021).

What? Better to read the articles I linked....actual research reports.

And I didn't 'seek' reasons, I simply reported the research findings.

So, read those.

Next, if you also wish to discuss the separate interesting questions about trying to model what me might look for also, sure, that is another topic of possible interest.

I'm not against that extra topic.

Meanwhile, the fact: the innermost planet doesn't have an atmosphere, and that's not a surprise, and merely follow my links above to see why (or ask me to link the articles if you prefer).

 

[SelfSim]

What? Better to read the articles I linked....actual research reports.

And I didn't 'seek' reasons, I simply reported the research findings.

So, read those.

Next, if you also wish to discuss the separate interesting questions about trying to model what me might look for also, sure, that is another topic of possible interest.

I'm not against that extra topic.

Meanwhile, the fact: the innermost planet doesn't have an atmosphere, and that's not a surprise, and merely follow my links above to see why (or ask me to link the articles if you prefer).

 

[Halbhh]

You and me both have trouble communicating at times I think, and it makes it worse when we try to communicate with each other. While I was not 'seeking' basic information like what we are hoping to find -- and a strong evidence of photosynthesis would be perhaps one of the greatest discoveries ever.... -- I was in this thread telling something far more interesting than only a model of what to look for -- but instead something which might be extremely interesting to you --> why red dwarf star systems are expected to be a poor place to look for such to begin with.... (implying we know what is a better place to look!)

I am of course very interested in finding a planet with any strong sign of life, even around a red dwarf.

 

[SelfSim]

-- I was in this thread telling something far more interesting than only a model of what to look for ...

The conclusion of Trappist 1-b of likely having no atmosphere is, itself, based on an Astrophysically based computer model, (supported by measurements of the Trappist-1 system):

"We compared the results to computer models showing what the temperature should be in different scenarios," explained Ducrot. "The results are almost perfectly consistent with a blackbody made of bare rock and no atmosphere to circulate the heat. We also didn't see any signs of light being absorbed by carbon dioxide, which would be apparent in these measurements."

--> why red dwarf star systems are expected to be a poor place to look for such to begin with.... (implying we know what is a better place to look!)

The notion that the flare issue you mention, sets expectations that RD systems are 'a poor place to look', is addressed in the 2016 Gale/Wandel paper:

Early considerations indicated that conditions on RD planets would be inimical to life, as their habitable zones would be so close to the host star as to make planets tidally locked. This was thought to cause an erratic climate and expose life forms to flares of ionizing radiation. Recent calculations show that these negative factors are less severe than originally thought.

Further, arguments in favour of the possibility of oxygen photosynthesis on RDs, (in general), are:

It has also been argued that the lesser photon energy of the radiation of the relatively cool RDs would not suffice for oxygenic photosynthesis (OP) and other related energy expending reactions. Numerous authors suggest that OP on RD planets may evolve to utilize photons in the infrared. We however argue, by analogy to the evolution of OP and the environmental physiology and distribution of land-based vegetation on Earth, that the evolutionary pressure to utilize infrared radiation would be small. This is because vegetation on RD planets could enjoy continuous illumination of moderate intensity, containing a significant component of photosynthetic 400–700 nm radiation. We conclude that conditions for OP could exist on RD planets and consequently the evolution of complex life might be possible. Furthermore, the huge number and the long lifetime of RDs make it more likely to find planets with photosynthesis and life around RDs than around Solar type stars.

The point here is that, just because there is now evidence for Trappist 1-b having an insufficient atmosphere, doesn't imply that RD oxygen photosynthesis can be ruled out for the overwhelmingly abundant, (in element count), superset of all Webb-observable RD systems.

Mere personal incredulity arguments fail miserably as a counter to the physical arguments coming from the 'Life in RD systems' encampment.

 

[Halbhh]

The conclusion of Trappist 1-b of likely having no atmosphere is, itself, based on an Astrophysically based computer model, (supported by measurements of the Trappist-1 system):

See post #2. In physics, "blackbody" radiation based on temperature is a basic simple thing long understood and of course long ago tested and confirmed and is known to be reliable. I learned about it as a freshman or sophomore in physics, as it's pretty elementary stuff.

The point here is that, just because there is now evidence for Trappist 1-b having an insufficient atmosphere, doesn't imply that RD oxygen photosynthesis can be ruled out for the overwhelmingly abundant, (in element count), superset of all Webb-observable RD systems.

Good grief! Of course!

Wow....

I think part of what happens with you in your posts to me is you assume I'm incredibly stupid and ignorant. So you point out the most obvious stuff to me, as if I don't know even the most obvious things that anyone could learn by merely following astronomy news....

Perhaps part of this whole problem is that I know far more about these topics than you, and you cannot imagine I might already know things you post to me... Not sure, but that would fit your odd posts to me that are very similar to saying 2+3=5.

I think you should avoid posting posts to me unless you can very radically change your attitude and behavior.

Here's a great example of why:

Mere personal incredulity arguments fail miserably as a counter to the physical arguments coming from the 'Life in RD systems' encampment.

Just stop making posts to me at all, unless you can radically and entirely change your attitude and become a more civil and reasonable person when you make a post to me, and can avoid all the personal attacks.

 

[SelfSim]

See post #2. In physics, "blackbody" radiation based on temperature is a basic simple thing long understood and of course long ago tested and confirmed and is known to be reliable. I learned about it as a freshman or sophomore in physics, as it's pretty elementary stuff.


Good grief! Of course!

Wow....

I think part of what happens with you in your posts to me is you assume I'm incredibly stupid and ignorant. So you point out the most obvious stuff to me, as if I don't know even the most obvious things that anyone could learn by merely following astronomy news....

Perhaps part of this whole problem is that I know far more about these topics than you, and you cannot imagine I might already know things you post to me... Not sure, but that would fit your odd posts to me that are very similar to saying 2+3=5.

I think you should avoid posting posts to me unless you can very radically change your attitude and behavior.

Here's a great example of why:


Just stop making posts to me at all, unless you can radically and entirely change your attitude and become a more civil and reasonable person when you make a post to me, and can avoid all the personal attacks.

Smokescreen diversion .. and wayy OT.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Smokescreen diversion .. and wayy OT.

What is the topic. I thought it would be about the non-atmosphere of Trappist-1b, but seems to be about science journalism instead.

 

[Halbhh]

What is the topic. I thought it would be about the non-atmosphere of Trappist-1b, but seems to be about science journalism instead.

Though it seems to me at times Self sim (bizarrely) thinks/imagines I lack understanding on science fields that I post about (viz: he often lectures me with (what at least for me is) very basic stuff as if I wouldn't know even the first thing about an area I'm posting about)....that might not be it.

It may be instead he just reads my posts too quickly and skims over or skips things, and then guesses at what I wrote about -- usually then having little idea what I wrote (due to my writing style not being amenable to that kind of reading) -- and then just reacts to what he is imaging I wrote. That is a commonplace thing. I've done my share of that especially when younger.

Any case, to make that poor reading harder to do, I added a Context Update at the beginning of the OP, to make it much harder to reimagine what I'm saying into some other thing than it is meant to be.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Though it seems to me at times Self sim thinks/imagines I lack basic understanding on science fields that I post about (viz: he often lectures me with (what at least for me is) very basic stuff as if I wouldn't know even the first thing about an area I'm posting about)....that might not be it.

It may be instead he just reads my posts too quickly and skims over or skips things, and then guesses at what I wrote about -- usually then having little idea what I wrote (due to my writing style not being amenable to that kind of reading) -- and then just reacts to what he is imaging I wrote. That is a commonplace thing. I've done my share of that especially when younger.

Any case, to make that poor reading harder to do, I added a Context Update at the beginning of the OP, to make it much harder to reimagine what I'm saying into some other thing than it is meant to be.

Which is why I didn't engage in this thread after reading the opening posts. Your addendum makes it fairly clear:

So, in the popular imagination of many no doubt, 7 new planets likely as not to be similar to Earth had been found. e.g. -- Perhaps 1 or more of them would be teeming with life and even mobile creatures or such?

I bet tens of millions had their hopes up, artificially pumped up. Will they still be interested in funding new telescopes if all 7 planets are a bust?....

It's mostly just a rant about science journalism using poor "Trappist-1b" as the example.

 

[Halbhh]

Here's a nice Nature editorial summary about the Nature article on this research on Trappist-1 b, which found it has little or no atmosphere.

JWST gets best view yet of planet in hotly pursued star system

Telescope didn’t spot an atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1b, but has kicked off a new era in understanding planetary evolution.

www.nature.com

 

[Halbhh]

Which is why I didn't engage in this thread after reading the opening posts. Your addendum makes it fairly clear:



It's mostly just a rant about science journalism using poor "Trappist-1b" as the example.

lol...true! Especially now with the addendum.

If any topic deserves a rant though, in my view this one is such.

Tens of millions were led to believe we'd found a bunch of new Earth's basically... (and I bet only like 3 or 4 people noticed my posts in 2017 pointing out these planets would be a lower-odds place to look for a Earth like world due to being near a red dwarf star.

It took a year or 2 before I noticed many popular science articles to begin to mention that it might not be such a sure thing to have Earth like worlds there because Trappist-1 is a red dwarf and that means __stellar wind, flares, CMEs____ etc.....

Maybe in a week or 2 I'll get satisfied on ranting on it.

I will try to highlight post #2 better tho -- that one isn't a rant...

 

[Hans Blaster]

lol...true! Especially now with the addendum.

If any topic deserves a rant though, in my view this one is such.

Tens of millions were led to believe we'd found a bunch of new Earth's basically... (and I bet only like 3 or 4 people noticed my posts in 2017 pointing out these planets would be a lower-odds place to look for a Earth like world due to being near a red dwarf star.

It took a year or 2 before I noticed many popular science articles to begin to mention that it might not be such a sure thing to have Earth like worlds there because Trappist-1 is a red dwarf and that means __stellar wind, flares, CMEs____ etc.....

Maybe in a week or 2 I'll get satisfied on ranting on it.

I will try to highlight post #2 better tho -- that one isn't a rant...

If you want to rant about science journalism, fine, but the title of the thread is seriously misleading for a journalism rant thread.

 

[Halbhh]

If you want to rant about science journalism, fine, but the title of the thread is seriously misleading for a journalism rant thread.

I think the thread title is truly perfect.

Even though the title is a bit of a rant also, it's quite factual. And if someone wants to learn more, they definitely can in post #1, for that matter: learning why this planet has no atmosphere isn't a triviality, but a very interesting science topic, and I covered that in the rant.

 

[SelfSim]

What is the topic. I thought it would be about the non-atmosphere of Trappist-1b, but seems to be about science journalism instead.

Journalists speak to various sub-groups of their audience. In this case, (RD plantery atmospheres), the issue runs deeper than just isolated journalistic musings. Obviously there are evidence based models being formed in the light of the objective uncertainty. More data is needed to solidify them and all of this should be obvious.
Personal incredulity about the reporting (ie: the rant) speaks more about the egos of those doing the ranting .. so there's the real thread topic .. right there.

 

[SelfSim]

I think the thread title is truly perfect.

(Note to self: .. nah .. no ego in that comment .. )

 

[Halbhh]

Now, if we can get back to the actual thread, here's what people ought to see:

Here's a nice Nature editorial summary about the Nature article on this research on Trappist-1 b, which found it has little or no atmosphere.

(this image is an artist's conception, so, it's what we are working to replace

JWST gets best view yet of planet in hotly pursued star system​

Telescope didn’t spot an atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1b, but has kicked off a new era in understanding planetary evolution.

www.nature.com