Twin Planets: The Same, But Very Different

A newly discovered pair of worlds can reveal a lot about the odds of finding another Earth

  • Share
  • Read Later

Artist rendition of the Kepler space telescope.

It’s often said—we said it again ourselves just last week, in fact—that our own Solar System isn’t as typical as scientists once imagined. We’ve got four small, close-in, rocky planets (Mercury through Mars) and four big, gassy ones, starting with Jupiter and proceeding out to Neptune. But the very first exoplanets ever found, back in the mid-1990’s, didn’t fit the mold at all: they were big and gaseous like Jupiter and Saturn, but orbiting so close to their stars that they were hotter than Mercury. More recently, astronomers have been finding something else we don’t have: so-called super-Earths, bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune—and planetary theorists are pondering how these worlds might have formed and what they’re made of.

The goal, of course, is to find a mirror Earth, a planet with a diameter and mass similar to our own, orbiting a sun like our own, in a thermally comfortable spot where water could exist in a liquid state. That hasn’t happened yet, but astronomers are edging closer and closer, and with each new world they discover, they’re developing a better understanding of how different species of planets form and, by implication, our odds of actually finding an Earth 2.0. A brand new exoplanet discovery represents one more step in that direction.

(VIDEO: Martian Rover ‘Spirit’ Turns 10)

Speaking at the American Astronomical Society’s winter meeting just outside of Washington, DC, Harvard astrophysicist David Kipping has confirmed the existence of two worlds, both of them about 1.6 times the diameter of Earth, orbiting a red dwarf star known as Kepler 301. The mass of one of the planets is almost exactly the same as Earth’s, while the other is about three times heavier. Those vital stats reveal a lot. Although the planets are the same size, says Kipling,“one is clearly rocky, while the other is gaseous.” The gaseous planet, he adds, “is almost like a miniature Neptune.”

Understanding how a pair of twins could be at once so similar and yet so different is one reason this discovery could prove so important. “There’s been a big effort recently to find the dividing line in size between rocky and gaseous planets,” says Kipping. “But it may be there is no dividing line.” Planets, like people, may simply exist on a continuum of sizes and make-ups—and a lot can influence where they fall. It’s possible, for example, that the more massive of the two new planets was once  much larger, but its atmosphere was stripped away by the star’s X-ray emissions. At this point, nobody can say for sure.

(MORE: Earthrise on Christmas Eve: The Picture That Changed The World)

The new study is important too for the methods the researchers used. The physical size of the planets was determined in a straightforward enough way: just is it has for more than 3,000 candidate worlds so far, the Kepler space probe measured the fractional dimming of starlight that occurred as each planet passed in front of (or transited) its parent star.

But Kipping and his colleagues figured out the planets’ masses, and thus their densities, with a technique nobody even imagined was possible just a few years ago. As the planets whip around Kepler 301—the heavier once every 14 days, the lighter once every 23—they tug on each other gravitationally, forcing the other to speed up or slow down a tiny bit and pass in front of the star a few seconds earlier or a few second later than it should.

These changes are known as transit-timing variations (or TTVs), and by measuring them precisely, astronomers can figure out the gravitational pull of the planets doing the tugging. When you know gravity, you can determine mass.  The technique was developed by Harvard astronomer Matt Holman, who first used it in 2010 (although a much cruder version was employed as long ago as 1846 to predict the existence and location of the planet Neptune, based on anomalies in the orbit of Uranus).

(MORE: Very Sad Planet Orbits Very Sad Star)

The more conventional way of weighing a planet—by measuring the subtle changes in starlight as an orbiting world tugs its star back and forth—works only with very bright or very nearby planetary systems. Most of the candidate planets identified by Kepler are relatively distant. But the TTV technique can measure a planet’s mass hundreds of light-years away from Earth. “What we’re doing here,” says Kipping, “is showcasing the full power of the TTV method.”

They’re also showcasing yet again that a major assumption astronomers were making as recently as 1995—that other solar systems would more or less resemble ours—was completely misguided. “Nature,” says Kipping, “continues to surprise us.” By now, that should hardly be a surprise.

(MORE: Fifty Years of Pictures From Space)


This is Planet Q and the reflection from this twin Earth is likely to come into more focus over the next two weeks, It will look very close, but will in fact be quite a distance away.


I think you meant to say Kepler Object of Interest 314 or KOI 314 not Kepler 301 


> But the very first exoplanets ever found, back in the

> mid-1990’s, didn’t fit the mold at all: they were big

> and gaseous like Jupiter and Saturn, but orbiting so

> close to their stars that they were hotter than

> Mercury.

That was to be expected from the start. The search method looks for a pattern of perturbations in the starlight caused by planets passing in front of the star. Planets close to a star have short periods so a pattern to the light data become apparent more quickly than a planet which takes earth-years to orbit; likewise larger planets leave a bigger perturbation each time they pass.


Then, isn't there fossils or living beings elsewhere? Is the emergence and maintenance of life a process of radical contingency? That is, is a unique and unrepeatable past totally necessary? Or does life emerge through space like mushrooms when some conditions are present? So, how many conditions are necessary: three, four, trillions, infinite? Only one, water-planet or any sort of God? Is God the word that means infinite conditions, absolute necessity? Anyway, how did the life that emerge in a given conditions resist when switching to a different  moment? How does life resist time itself, entropy? But, is it possible for human beings to recognise a simpler life than their own brain only? On the other hand, beyond likeness, is it possible to recognise a complex life than their brain, is this the alien life that some people are searching unsuccessfully? However, is there an origin of life or would it be as finding a cut in the material history of the universe, an infinite void that human language patches now? Is it the same cut between life and death?  Along these lines, there is a  book, a short preview in Just another suggestion, far away from dogmas or axioms.


You need to get on your medications, my friend.