Searching for Alien Worlds with Anjali Tripathi

It's time for Cyber Monday, Dell Technologies biggest sale of the year. Enjoy the lowest prices of the year on select PCs like the Dell 16 Plus featuring Intel Core Ultra processors.

And with built-in advanced features, it's the PC that helps you do more faster. They also have huge deals on accessories that pair perfectly with your Dell PC.

Plus, earn Dell rewards and enjoy many other benefits like free shipping, price match guarantee and expert support. Shop now at dell.com slash deals.

You might have some travel coming up. You know, it is the holiday season, and maybe you're visiting family and heading abroad or even a dream trip for the new year.

Imagine feeling very confident about that new place that you're going because you can speak to them in their own language.

Or imagine being at the holiday table and not letting anyone know that you study the language with Rosetta Stone so you actually know what they're saying and you know that they're talking about you.

Because that's what I use Rosetta Stone for.

I love improving my pronunciation with their true accent feature, which allows you to not sound like you're from Alabama, but you're trying to speak Espanol. No offense to anybody from Alabama.

I just randomly picked you. Don't wait.
Unlock your language learning potential now. Star Talk Radio listeners can grab Rosetta Stone's lifetime membership for 50% off.
That's right.

For the rest of your life,

half off. That's unlimited access to 25 language courses for life.

Visit rosettastone.com slash star talk to get started and claim your 50% off today.

Give a gift that keeps giving to you.

Go to rosettastone.com/slash star talk

and start learning today. Jasla order, migente.
So, Matt, are you Generation Xoplanet? I don't know. Am I?

Tune in and find out all the latest updates on exoplanets in the cosmos coming up on Star Talk.

Welcome to Star Talk,

your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide.

Star Talk begins right now.

This is Star Talk. Neil deGrasse Tyson, your personal astrophysicist.
I got with me Matt Kirschin. Matt, welcome back to Star Talk.
Thank you so much. It's nice to be back.
You're in New York.

I am in New York City. You're an LA guy.
Right now. I've made the trip.

I walked across the country. It took many days.

We lost a lot of people.

We were attacked along the way, but we made it. So we'll find you on Matt Kirschin.com.
Yes, please. Yeah,

I always love it when Star Talk listeners and viewers come out to see the show. That's great.
Excellent. Excellent.
So, today we're doing a Cosmic Queries on exoplanets.

It's been a while since we've dipped into that ocean.

I love hearing about this because my understanding, and I'm sure both you and our expert will talk significantly more about this, but this is a very new branch of science.

This is a, we knew almost nothing about this fairly recently in the science center.

That's a true fact. Yep.
A true fact.

And my depths of knowledge of exoplanets stops at just what's the latest number of them right so it's like one of those sort of charity how much we've raised to go just on thermometer bulb that goes i'm good for that yep uh so of course we found an expert who works at the jet propulsion labs in pasadena california coming in over video unjali tropothy Unjali, welcome to Star Talk.

Thanks, Neil. Great to see you again.
And nice to meet you, Matt. Nice to meet you, too.
So let me get your titles correct here. You're science science ambassador.

So, there's like a United Nations and things, and you

resolve conflicts. Science ambassador for NASA's exoplanet exploration program.
If someone gets arrested on another planet, then you step in and help smooth the way exactly.

You need the ambassadors all

we don't speak about that outside of official facilities. I'm sure that's so diplomatic.
I will say the last time I was in the city was to be at the UN last year, Neil. So,

love it. Also, a science communicator.

And if someone is labeled that in NASA, since so many people at NASA are really good at science communicating, if someone actually has that designation, that's we're talking real.

So we have high expectations of you for this conversation. No pressure.
No pressure.

And I love this the most, a former White House fellow. And this would have been a science fellow.
Is that correct?

It was everything.

So I was the only scientist in my cohort. There were 16 of us.
The others, one of them's a one-star general. One's one of the first Congress people who's Native American.
So all strikes.

If I remember correctly, these fellows represent all different ways you could advise the president that the president might not otherwise know natively. Is that a correct way to think about it?

It's usually one advisor per cabinet agency. So I took on the agriculture department and the science and technology policy office of the White House.
And that was back

about eight years ago. I love it.
So can you update us on on exoplanets? There's been so many other things in the news.

Meanwhile, you and your research cohort domestically and around the world have been busy at this activity, finding exoplanets, studying them further. So could you just catch us up?

What should we be thinking about today?

Yeah, the last time I was on the show, Neil, it was a couple years ago, and we were still, you know, fresh off of being at about 5,000 exoplanets.

And as of today, you know, Matt, you were asking, we're at at 5,921. So within about a month, probably by the time this airs, even, we'll be at 6,000 in flashing lights, which is pretty cool.

And, you know, when you think about the fact that when I was born, I think when everybody on screen was born, we didn't know about any of those. That's a pretty big deal.

But it's just going and going because within a couple of years, once we've got the Nancy Grace-Roman Space Telescope up, taking observations from space, we're going to get tens of thousands of exoplanets counting.

So then 6,000 will just be a drop in the bucket. So remind us who Nancy Grace Roman is.
Was she the first NASA chief scientist? Is that right?

She was the first chief of astronomy in the Office of Space Science at NASA. And she, you know, some people call her the mother of Hubble, right? She helped architect some of these big missions.

And so we're really delighted to have this next flagship named after her. And just to be clear, she's not going to be up there operating the telescope.

I couldn't tell you that, but that's not currently the plan. We've got some redundancy if she's not up there doing something.

I mean, they think of everything at JPL. Her spirit energy will be there.

So the general habit is to name telescopes after dead people.

Oh, so yeah. So she's not, there was one exception to that, but all the rest, that's been the case.
Oh, so she, so she'd be no use up there right now. That's correct.

Totally no use. So, and also, give us a reminder what it means for a telescope in orbit to be a flagship mission.
So, at NASA, we have lots of telescopes of different sizes and lots of satellites.

We've got things down to CubeSats that, you know, universities can build up to these things that cost billions of dollars.

And so, this flagship observatory is going to do lots of great science for dark energy and dark matter.

It's going to map all of the structure that we can see in detail so we can understand all kinds of cosmological questions. All sorts of queries are going to be answered there.

But I'm really excited that it's not only going to, as it's staring at all of the mass out there, look for tiny changes in light that can tell us about thousands of planets using micro lensing, right?

How gravity is distorting light.

But then it's also got this whole tech demonstration, a chronographic instrument that can actually block out light so that you can see things that are about 10 million times fainter than the stars that you're looking at.

So this flagship means that it can do all kinds of science. It's not just focused on one specific question.
And it probably sounds like flagship is also defined by price.

Like the expense of telescopes would be flagship.

I mean, they're the things that we're most proud of.

Not that you play favorites, but

this is your most special child. Neil is everyone's personal astrophysicist here at NASA's Exoplanet Exploration Program Office.
We are the nation's, you know, exoplanet purveyors. So we'll take it.

We're good. I'm good with that.
So you mentioned this coronagraphic capability. So right now, we don't actually look at planets, exoplanets.
We're looking at their effect on the host star.

So you're going to be able to directly image exoplanets with this telescope. Is that correct? That's going to be how we're going to see some of them.

Right now, you can get a handful of these with the James Webb Space Telescope. We've also directly imaged some planets from the ground with really big telescopes like the Keck telescopes in Hawaii.

But this is going to be the first time that we actually fly a demonstration that can get us down to these fainter things because, you know, something big like Jupiter is a lot easier to see than Earth.

And so we're going to push on that a little bit, getting ready for some of our future flagship missions. So our catalog is overrepresented by Jupiters, would you say?

Those have been easier to find with some of these early techniques.

But, you know, we actually find a lot of different types of exoplanets that are also smaller. So it's quite the range.
Okay, very good. So tell me also about the Habitable Worlds Observatory.

Yeah, so this is one of these missions that we're really excited to be working on.

So the idea is that we now know that there are so many exoplanets out there that we think there should be enough nearby around stars that you could just go out and look and take a picture of them.

And what you really want to do is not just take a picture of an exoplanet, but you really want to get a sense of what's in its atmosphere.

So hopefully you can actually take a picture using ultraviolet, infrared, visible light, and this whole wavelength range to get spectra and look for biosignatures.

So biosignatures, like on Earth, that would be oxygen, I guess, right? Right now, that would be oxygen, but it's funny because if you look at Earth's past, the biosignatures actually change over time.

So way in the past, you know, when we were four billion years ago, up until about two and a half billion years ago, if you had looked at Earth's atmosphere, you would have mainly seen methane.

And that was the metabolism of the earliest organisms.

But then over time oxygen built up and then when you went into the proterozoic you would actually get from then two and a half to about 500 million years ago you would actually see lots of ozone um as the thing to look for in the atmosphere and it's only when you get to the modern era then you get the oxygen all of this coming from photosynthesis and signs of life

okay three planets one

And you don't know when in the planet's evolution you're peeking in upon it. Exactly.

So you want to design a telescope that can cover all of those possibilities because we want to be sure that we're looking for life in as many options as we can.

Even presumably, you don't know that it would evolve in similar ways and produce similar

gases. It could go a whole other direction.
Might there be chemical signatures that could be signatures of life as we don't know it, and therefore you're not looking for it?

You know, there's all kinds of things that if they produce life, we might miss it because we don't know how to look for things that aren't familiar to us.

But there are lots of interesting signatures of life that we can look for that go beyond oxygen and ozone and methane, right? You can look for nitrogen dioxide, which is an industrial pollutant.

You can look for some of these other, you know, like looking for what's in your hairspray, all kinds of things out there to look for life like we know it. The chlorofluorocarbons in the hairspray?

Is that still in the hairspray? Do they still do that? I thought they took it. I don't know, but.

Yeah. But what you're saying is you you could look for alien pollution.
That's what you're telling us. We're looking for aliens that have flyaway hair that needs controlling.

Like if they have unmanageable hair and or toilets that need

I've never seen an alien in a movie that had hair. Yeah.
They're always bald. Let alone just having bad hair days.
They never seem to have bad hair days. They must.
Or bad tentacle days.

I don't know what. Bad tentacles.

But they sometimes need controlling and sometimes the things they use to control them have damaging effects on their atmosphere. That would be great for us to see, right?

Because we want to see those signs of pollution, of hairspray. I mean, even looking for the satellites that they've got going around their planets or, you know, looking for their city lights at night.

All of those are things that we could hope to look for with this telescope and to look for signs of life. So it's not just the oxygen.

Are you also looking in binary star systems where the planet orbit might be a little unstable? So we'll look at some binary star systems.

But so one of the tricks, though, about the Habitable Worlds Observatory is to find something actually like Earth, it's actually got to look at something that's 10 billion times fainter than the star, right?

So this is like a bird flying near the sun. So if you're trying to look at Icarus, right, before bad things happen.
It's kind of hard. You'll need some sunglasses.

And so this telescope will also have a coronagraph instrument or a high contrast instrument that'll be able to dim that down.

And so once you can actually do that, then it becomes possible to look for planets like Earth and to see all of the sort of variations in what might be there.

So tell me about the formation of exoplanets. So in my

day, in my professional days, I remembered the very first images of a protoplanetary disk where it's a disk of gas around a star that hasn't made a planet yet.

And is that big-time industry now within your community? So I'm very biased, Neil.

You know, my PhD thesis was on protoplanetary disks, except back, you know, 10 years ago or so when I did this, you were basically looking at blobs. It was the science of blobology.

And we've come a long way since then, because now you can actually use radio telescopes like the ALMA telescope in Chile to look at, you know, these radio wavelengths of the dust and these beautiful spiral structures.

You can see gaps and rings. There's a lot of beautiful science that's coming out of it.

So I don't know if it's as big time as looking for alien life, but it's something that's definitely advancing quickly.

And I just love talking about disks because everyone gets really excited about planets. But I think that in the same way that you think like, oh, yeah, I'm going to be an astronaut.

I'm going to go to space and I can see this beautiful picture of Earth. We'll see these beautiful pictures of Earth.

But, you know, you might want the 23andMe of the astronomy world of, you know, where did we come from? What else is out there?

And you can get all that information from disks, because if you look at a protoplanetary disk, all of that material goes into forming planets.

It's, you know, left over from forming a star when the gas and dust collapse. And, you know, most of it goes into the star, but, you know, about 1% or so goes into forming planets.

And then long after that gas has dissipated and you formed your planets, you have some leftover material, right? In the solar system, we have the zodiacal dust where the planets are.

And then further out, we've got the Kuiper belt, which we know is your favorite for giving Pluto a hard time time there, Neil.

And one other thing about the disks,

only 1% goes into planets. Where does the rest of the gas go? So most of the mass, right, from that gas cloud is going into forming the star, right?

And then you've got a lot going into forming the planets. So a lot of this is going to dissipate in time, right? The star has UV radiation that's going to interact with the material there.

Some of it's going to blow away. Oh, wait, wait.
So maybe I misunderstood. So the 1%

number you gave, is that 1% of the disk mass or 1% of the cloud, the total cloud mass, the proto-cloud? Right. Okay.
Sorry. So I complained to two things there.

So of the protostellar nebula, you have about 95% of that mass goes into the star and the rest goes into the disk. And of what's in the disk, about 1% is solid material, right?

So it's the little dust and grains, and the other 99% is gas. Got it.
Got it. And so you've got these couple stages of disks.
You've got that protoplanetary disk early on.

And later on, after that gas goes away, and you're left with the planets, you have things fighting each other and colliding.

And that's what gives you debris disks like the Kuiper Belt and the zodiacalite here in the solar system.

Go from skeptic to electric in the new Toyota BZ.

Hesitant about going all electric? One drive can change your mind.

With up to an EPA estimated 314 mile range rating for front-wheel drive models and available all-wheel drive models with 338 horsepower, the Toyota BZ is built for confidence.

Conveniently charge at home or on the go with access to a wide range of compatible public charging networks including Tesla superchargers.

Inside, enjoy a 14-inch touchscreen with an available panoramic view moonroof. Learn more at toyota.com slash bz.
The new all-electric BZ. Toyota.
Let's go places.

With masterclass, learning from the world's best fits right into your life.

Explore thousands of bite-sized lessons across 13 categories, from cooking and writing to business and entrepreneurship, all taught by people who have mastered their class.

Hey, maybe you want a personal masterclass from, I don't know, say Neil deGrasse Tyson. Well, guess what? It's there.

And memberships start at just $10 a month and come with a 30-day money-back guarantee. And it works.

83% of members have applied something they've learned, and most say it had a positive impact on their lives. With Masterclass, you can learn anytime, anywhere, from the best in the world.

Right now, I'm learning more about generative AI, and it is fascinating stuff and a little scary. This holiday season, why don't you give the gift of learning to someone else or yourself?

Masterclass always has great offerings during the holidays, sometimes as much as 50% off. Head over to masterclass.com/slash star talk for the current offer.

That's up to 50% off at masterclass.com/slash star talk. Masterclass.com/slash star talk.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus, auto customers qualify for an average of seven discounts.

Quote now at progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12-month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023.

Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.

This is Ken the Nerdneck Zabara from Michigan and I support Star Talk on Patreon. This is Star Talk Radio with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

So now update me on the latest from JWST because that's been going like gangbusters. It's so cool what we can finally see from space.

So they were actually able to use the near-infrared superpowers of JWST to actually see water ice and crystalline form in this debris disk around a star called HD 181327.

And this is really exciting that you can actually see water ice in a debris disk because in the Kuiper belt, we've got all of these dirty snowballs, right?

We've got the comets, all kinds of icy material. And there's been hints of this from the ground before, but we've never actually been able to see it.

So when they took a look at the light scattering off of this disk and compared it to what we see in the Kuiper belt, it looked pretty similar. You've got these dirty snowballs.

And so what this tells us is that Kuiper belts are not just something that we only see in the solar system. They might be kind of common.
So you found a Kuiper belt in an exoplanetary system. Exactly.

Very cool. All right.
That's with JWST. That's right.
And so it means that there's all kinds of icy material material out there just waiting to form planets.

So water might be more common in the early solar system. So that somewhere out there there's another Neil deGrasse Tyson dismissing another Pluto.

Because there's a Kuiper belt waiting for that to happen in there. No, I'm not, I was an accessory to the demotion.

I didn't pull the trigger on that. So this is fundamentally a Cosmic Queries edition.
It is. And we solicited questions from our Patreon fan base.
They've sent in a fantastic assortment of questions.

On this subject, well, let's bring it on. Go.
Well, I always like to start with, I think it's always fun when there is a young fan.

So Hugo Dart from Rio de Janeiro says, with my seven-year-old daughter, Olivia, who is also a big fan of Star Talk, here is our question.

What do you find most surprising or humbling about the current state of knowledge of exoplanets compared to when you first entered the field?

Good one. So obviously there's so many more exoplanets now than when I started, you know, 20 years ago.

But I think what's really humbling is the fact that we keep finding new worlds in places where we've looked. We thought, oh, we've already found what's there, but then you find another one.

For example, James Webb recently found some planets in a system where they're puffy planets. This is Kepler-51.
And suddenly they said, oh, there's one more that we missed.

The Kepler spacecraft was up a while ago. And we're still analyzing that data and finding new information.
And the fact that we can find worlds that are so different from our own, right?

There are these ocean worlds, there were these lava worlds. It's all just so spectacular that it's really exciting, but also kind of humbling to find that diversity of planets.
It's like a zoo.

Did you not expect that diversity? I think for so long, we assumed everything looked like the solar system and Earth, right? Because it was all we knew.

And in the solar system, we don't have worlds covered in lava. So the fact that that can be out there, that's great.

Well, while we're talking about different types of worlds and things that look different, Adrian Martinez from Houston says, my question is, is it possible for a planet to naturally form in a doughnut shape, like a torus?

And if not, what are the weirdest or most unusual planet shapes we've discovered in the universe so far? Do we even, do we even know?

Do we even know the shapes of a lot of these planets? Because a lot of the time you're just going on mass, aren't you? Or can you see a shape even? I don't know. So that's a good question, Adrian.

I don't think it's possible to form a donut planet. You know, Neil, correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems hard with gravity concentrating everything.

And, you know, the easiest shape to be is round because it pulls everything in nicely.

I wrote an essay back when we opened the Rose Center for Earth and Space because in the middle of this facility is a round thing.

There's a sphere. So I wrote an essay called On Being Round.

And it was all about how nature just wants to make things round. And when it's not round, there's a really interesting reason why it's not round.

But I don't think we ever get anything a donut because the gravity wants to put it all in one place. And it wants to put it in the middle.
In the middle. Exactly.

I was just going to say, though, there is, though, a really cool planet called WASP-12B, though, that's sort of egg-shaped, right? So I think that's pretty cool because it's really hot.

It goes around its star almost, you know, once a day. And because it's so hot, it's actually tidally locked and it's getting stretched.

So not only do you have this planet that's like an egg, it's not perfectly spherical anymore, but it's actually giving off mass.

And so we often find that planets can actually disintegrate a little bit and leave a torus of material from where they were.

So you don't get a torus-shaped planet, but you have the leftovers in a torus, which is pretty cool.

And what about the, was it a comet or an asteroid that looked like it was two spherical pieces stuck together? It looked like a dumbbell, like there were two.

So you can get that, but it didn't form that way. So it formed as two round things and then it sort of made it.
I think that's the understanding of.

Well, so you can get all kinds of weird shapes in asteroids and these smaller bodies, because it's one that you get up to being a planet when you have so much mass, then you're becoming around and forced to sort of circularize.

Oh, because the smaller things have less mass? Yeah, they have less mass and gravity. Right.
And so the rocks win. Whatever the rock is doing, it stays that way.

Well, I've got a couple of, there's a couple of questions here about habitability that I... I like to combine questions sometimes if they're on similar topics.

So William Warren from Abingdon, Maryland says, what exactly defines a planet as potentially habitable?

Is it just being in the habitable zone where liquid water could exist, or should we consider atmospheric composition, magnetic fields, plate tectonics, and more? Love it.

And then also, Sean Browning from Hood River, Oregon, when our star inevitably expands and consumes the inner solar system, what effects would that have on the remaining planets and what planets would fall into the new habitable zone?

Or would the expansion of the sun change the remaining planets' orbits, or would the mass not change, therefore leaving the planets in the current orbit?

So what makes a planet habitable and how will that change as the sun starts to

swallow our worlds? No, that's such a good question.

I mean, right now we use the term habitable zone, but really that should, you know, the long, you know, the asterisk, read the fine print should really be region around a star where liquid water may be possible and seen on the surface.

So just because a planet is in the habitable zone, that just means it's the right distance from the star where liquid water could hopefully persist on the surface.

So sometimes people talk about the distance from Venus to Mars because, you know, in the past, these looked different. But people use different definitions.

And part of how we think about habitability on a planet is involving liquid water, right? Because that's what we know life on Earth uses today.

But there's so many other factors, right? So you need water, you need energy. So starlight, all that UV radiation is good stuff, right? Makes the crops grow, but too much and that's a problem.

So if you've got, you know, the stellar wind and all kinds of stellar flares from your star coming and beating down on you. That's bad news.
So you want just the right amount of energy.

And then you, of course, need nutrients to make everything happen. So I think there were some questions in there about

what happens as our star changes, right? And our relationship with our world is not the same.

And I think, you know, where the habitable zone is in the solar system today is not where it was in the past and it's not where it'll be in the future because it used to be a little closer into the sun.

That's why Venus used to be wetter than it is today. You had more Earth-like conditions.
And then, of course, you had this runaway greenhouse effect. And now it looks kind of hellish.

And so in the future, we expect as the sun gets brighter and expands out, Mercury and Venus are actually going to be sucked into it and eaten up. But we should be okay.

But out by Saturn is going to look pretty good for habitability.

So maybe Titan, you know, the moon around Saturn could have a good day because it's got a lot of methane in its atmosphere, kind of like early Earth.

I heard this, and I didn't believe it until I did the calculation, that when the sun becomes a red giant and Earth is long gone, so is Mercury and Venus, and Mars becomes uninhabitable as a hot zone, Pluto becomes a habitable place.

Right. I heard this, and I double-checked it, and it checks out.

The numbers crunched correctly. They crunched correctly to make Pluto a place where we might all have to escape to survive.
There'll probably be a picture of me at the immigration. No interest.

You get taken into the second room. Aren't you going to be reconsidering your life choices at that point?

We've found some things you've said, and we'd like to

ask you some more questions. Speaking of more questions, Ben Grund from Detroit, Michigan says, I hear it's sometimes said that our solar system is pretty atypical in its constituency.

Is every solar system a snowflake or are there some common themes to their layouts? Well, I like that. Well, I mean, we were just talking about the debris disk with water ice.

So, we do have some snowflakes out there in other systems, quite literally.

But I think the thing that we originally thought was that everything was like the solar system, and then we found all these big planets like Jupiter, close into their star, hot Jupiters, because they were easy to find.

We discovered that actually they're nothing like the solar system. But over time, we're finding more elements that are pretty similar.

So, I think that we can say that we are not, you know, totally unique, but totally dissimilar.

So I like the snowflake analogy because I actually think that there's enough similarities and differences for it to work for us. Also, people just tell me I'm a special snowflake.

I love the fact that you have exoplanets discovered all over the world, right? It's not just telescopes in one place.

And say you have WASP, right, this wide-angle search for planets that found exoplanets in its early days, and then they've souped up versions. There's super wasp now.

So I think there's even a super wasp telescope in South Africa. They're all over the place.
And this is just one of many. Many of them have awesome names, by the way, right?

There's the Trappist ones that come out of Belgium that are making these great discoveries. And then we can keep studying them both from the ground and in space.

God, scientists love a contrived acronym.

Nothing makes scientists happier than finding some acronym.

When I was in college, there was some computer scientists, this is early days, before that was even a title there was some program we were all using and its acronym was magic

okay what does that stand for what he says mnemonics are generally idiotic constructions

so ever since then i've not over overdone my mnemonics so what else you got all right so ryan gorenz from pittsburgh pennsylvania says there are many different types of telescopes with a variety of sizes but none of them have the resolution to actually see exoplanets So my question is, how big would a telescope have to be to have the resolution to actually see a nearby exoplanet?

Could we align multiple telescopes on Earth to make a telescope effectively as large as one of our planet's hemispheres? And would that even be big enough? Doesn't he,

I'm betting, because we do have images of planets. I think this questioner wants to see continents and oceans and cities.
What do you think?

I mean, because I'm right there with you, Neil, that we've seen exoplanets already, right?

Again, they don't look like Earth so far and we just get a couple of pixels although you know as carl sagan's famous moniker of the pale blue dot from voyager one spacecraft and it's you know out at the edge of the solar system looking back at earth you just see a pale blue dot so we're not yet at the level of continents and oceans but actually one really cool thing about the habitable worlds observatory you might actually be able to get a sense of oceans because of how the light you would have the glint coming off of the water.

So to get to the stage of continents is pretty far off. I haven't done the math on what you would need to do that.

It seems hard, but certainly we can take pictures of exoplanets now from the ground that are big like Jupiter.

And again, with HWO, in the future, we'll be able to see the planet itself without that level of detail. So not to diss Pluto even more,

but when you describe this pale blue dot image taken by the Voyager 1, prompted by the efforts of Carl Sagan when Voyager 1 exited the solar system, that picture was taken when Vorgi 1 passed Neptune.

That's the edge of the solar system.

Wow.

It was well inside of the orbit of Pluto.

So the idea was aliens would come upon our solar system and they'd see the first planet and that would be Neptune.

And that's when they take a picture of all

inside. So I didn't want people to think the edge of the solar system, that they were way out there.
No, it was relatively nearby, right? Yeah, relatively nearby, exactly.

Because we draw a picture of the family portrait, right? It was taken on Valentine's Day in 1990, right? It's showing the love, right? The love of a couple of pixels here and there. Yeah, yeah.

Time for a few more, I think. Yeah, absolutely.
So Jay Starks from Waco, Texas says, here and reporting for Cosmic Query Duty.

I've been thinking a lot about how planets in our solar system are impacted differently by the distance from the sun, such as temperatures and the number of days it takes each planet to orbit our helios.

Do do all exoplanets follow this pattern with their stars too regarding distance i'm curious if this is a universal truth for all exoplanets in outer space interesting i think he's asking are the laws of physics that describe orbits does it change from one planetary system to another I mean, the beautiful thing about physics is you don't have to have a great memory.

The same rules apply over and over again. You just have to learn at once.
But I think it's kind of interesting to think about the solar system because you know Bode's law, right, Neil, right?

How back in the day when people were looking for, you know, Uranus and Neptune and things, they would look at the distance from the star, from the sun, and say, like, ah, there's a planet at these geometric distances.

And so then they found the planet and they went, yep, that checks off. And then they said, oh, yeah, we found Ceres because back then, Ceres, dwarf planet, was viewed as a planet.

And then they said, oh, yeah, there's these other things. And then it didn't quite work.
And so we stopped.

But the notion of distances from the star having planets is one that people have thought a lot about over history.

And I think it's actually pretty cool that when we look out at these exoplanet systems, what we see looks nothing like the Earth and the solar system.

And that's partly because they're different systems. But also even within our own solar system, everything moved around.
You know, Jupiter and Earth didn't just form exactly where they are today.

They did a little dance to get there. So planet migration.
Yeah. What's going on there? Yeah.

So I'm reminded that when Isaac Newton first wrote down his gravity equation and it worked for Earth and the moon, it worked for the sun and earth it also worked for Jupiter and its moons so it wasn't just like a sun thing

it was oh my gosh and so that we correctly though audaciously said it's a universal law of gravitation

that's kind of bold but I mean why not

we're egocentric as humans right

well while we're talking about moons there's a moon question from Fred Dogg that's a patron fred dog I don't know if you're from the Westchester Fred Dogs, any relation? But Fred Dogs.

It was once thought that habitable worlds had to exist within the habitable zone and would require a magnetic field to protect itself from harmful solar wind particles.

However, this has since been determined to not necessarily be the case as our understanding of habitability continues to grow.

Now moons like Enceladus and Europa have become candidates for housing possible life, but fortunately, they also happen to be protected by the magnetospheres of their respective planets.

My question, how has the inclusion of moons further complicated the search for life beyond our solar system? I love that. And I'm going to add to it,

will there come a day where we just abandon this concept of habitable zone?

Because

if the conditions are ripe somewhere else and it's not in the zone, it could have life. So maybe the habitable zone concept is

constricting our creative thoughts of how, when, and where we might find life.

Yeah. So, I mean, it's great that Fred Doug mentions these moons, right?

Europa and Celadus, where you might have this thick layer of ice and you've got all this heating that makes a nice cozy ocean underneath.

So one of the things about the habitable zone, like I said, that fine print, long liquid water may be found on the surface here, right?

If there is life under the ice, you won't be able to see it from the atmosphere as we know of now, right?

So when we talk about the habitable zone, it's about where could we actually look at our telescope and say maybe there's a biosignature for life here.

So it's not saying that moons are out of the question. People are definitely looking at moons.
I think David Kipping, who you frequently have on the show, you're

down the street there in New York, he's always thinking about exo-moons. And so up the street.
He's up the street. Excuse me, my

friend. Keeping him very specific about direction.
Yeah, yeah. Get my New York straight here.
No, yeah, he's up at Columbia, and we're delighted when he's on the program.

So, you know, I don't know if we can detect the signatures of life from a moon yet, but it's one of the things that we want to look for. And actually, the question of does it complicate things? Yes.

Because if you want to get the signature of a moon, now you have to get rid of all the information about the planet. You can't just say, oh, I'm only seeing the moon there.

In the same way that when we study exoplanets, we have to get rid of the star to study the planet. So there's a different level of complexity.

And to your point, Neil, of maybe it's time for a new definition.

I think it's just, you know, you need something without the asterisk and the fine print of, you know, liquid water and the surface here. And let me me tell you how old I am.

So when I was in graduate school, the Voyager mission was doing its grand tour and everyone was in high anticipation of what it would discover about the planets.

And when it started imaging the planet moons, oh my gosh, the moons became more interesting than the planets themselves. And now people don't care about the planets.

Jupiter's moons are way more interesting than Jupiter by far.

I don't know. I'm speaking out of turn turn here.
Tell me, would you,

you got to agree with at least some of that sentiment here? I think that moons are spectacular, right?

I mean, I think the fact that, you know, you can look around Saturn and see hundreds of moons, and they all, you know, you've got ones that look like the Death Star, right? Yes.

It's got this big crater in it. It looks like the Death Star bit that would send out the ray.
Yeah.

Don't you guys call it the Death Star moon? I think we normally call it Mimus, but you know,

we can have different names, sure. When no one's listening

behind closed doors, when you're just for a few points, exactly.

So, there's all kinds of beautiful things there, but I wouldn't count, you know, how awesome Jupiter and Saturn and the solar system planets are because there are things we don't understand.

Like, why does Saturn have a hexagon at its pole? And, you know, why do all of these outer planets have rings, right?

Saturn gets all the credit for, you know, the hula hoops that shine, but, you know, all of these giant planets do, Neptune, Uranus.

so I think there's a lot going on there and I can't wait to see this for other systems

Meet Song his fantasy lineup not so great a no-name QB and an injured rookie running back but you know what is great getting a single line unlimited plan for $35 a month and a free Samsung Galaxy a15 at Cricket Wireless.

No injuries, just reliable service. Cricket may temporarily sold beta speeds if the network is busy.
Must bring your number to Cricket on Select Unlimited Plan. Pay $40 first month, new lines only.

First month service charge and tax due at sale. Cricket 5G is not available everywhere.
Fees, terms, and restrictions apply. See CricketWireless.com for details.

The holidays are back at Starbucks, so share the season with a peppermint mocha.

Starbucks signature espresso, velvety mocha, and cool peppermint notes, topped with whipped cream and dark chocolate curls. Together is the best place to be at Starbucks.

You know, starting your own business is a dream lots of us share, but too many of us let it remain just a dream.

Don't hold yourself back thinking, what if I don't have the skills or what if I can't do it alone? Turn those what-ifs into why-nots with Shopify by your side.

Shopify is the e-commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, from household names to brands just getting started.

What if I I can't design a website? Shopify has got you from the get-go with beautiful, ready-to-go templates to match your brand style. What if I need a hand?

Well, get help with everyday tasks like enhancing product images, writing product descriptions, or generating discount codes with Shopify's AI tools created for commerce.

Turn those dreams into dollars and give them the best shot of success with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com/slash Star Talk.

Go to Shopify.com/slash Star Talk. Shopify.com slash Star Talk.

There's a nice question here from Andy L, who lives just up the road from Anjali and me in Thousand Oaks, California.

My understanding of the two main exoplanet search methods, periodic stellar dimming and stellar Doppler wobble, is that they both rely on their star's ecliptic being in line with our line of sight.

Does this mean that if a distant star's ecliptic plane is angled off our sight line, neither of these methods would work? Could that explain why some stars don't seem to have planets?

Don't our people ask good questions? Your people ask great questions, Neil. I mean, and that's one of the best parts of getting to hang out with all of you is it's just the most fun.

You know, people say like, ah, it's a secret. I don't want to tell anyone.
I want everyone to know how cool exoplanets are.

oh yeah answers to the questions like once we find life you know you were joking earlier matt like i can't tell anybody in my ambassador role but no i want everybody to know you know call your senators call everybody tell them it's amazing we have two methods for finding exoplanets that andyielle mentions and it's exactly right that the transit method right where the planet is lined up just right to block out the starlight every time it goes around you do need that geometry to be pretty close to at an angle We call this sort of edge on.

If it was so-called face-on, 90 degrees off, you wouldn't actually be able to see that starlight getting blocked.

And in the same way, the radial velocity or Doppler wobble method is where the mass of the planet tugs on the star and we go back and forth.

And this only works, of course, if that star is moving back and forth from the telescope. So both of these don't work if it's at exactly 90 degrees or face on as we call it.

But if it's even a little bit off, we can actually see components there.

And this actually tells us some interesting facts about the mass of the planet because there's a famous system that was early on detected as a possible planet in the early days of exoplanets.

And it turned out that they had that angle totally wrong.

Later, when they had astrometry, where they were actually able to look at the positions of the planets, then and look at the position, sorry, of the stars, they could see it was actually the other way around and this was actually a brown dwarf actually even a little bit bigger than that so the angle matters but we can get there as long as it's not exactly 90 degrees and there's another piece of this where we know the statistics if these systems are randomly oriented to our field of view then we will know precisely how many systems we're missing so i think just because you don't see a planet because that it's tipped out of the field of view, we have a way of arithmetically compensating for that.

So in fact, we have this number of planets in our catalog, but again, like Andy L said, if it's not lined up, we don't see a planet, even if there is a planet there.

So statistically, presumably we know this, and we can scale up the number of planets we detect as if we would have seen all planets around all stars. So do you have a latest planet count for that?

I don't have the exact numbers, Neil, but I'm totally on the same page as you and Andy L that just because we don't see it today doesn't mean that there couldn't be planets in the system.

And that's actually one of the really cool things that the Roman Space Telescope is going to do.

Because it's going to be finding planets through micro lensing, it doesn't care about the geometry, right?

So it can actually look for planets that are farther away than what we do with the transit where it's nearby and we have to see it regularly.

And so we expect we're going to see planets and systems where we thought, oh, didn't see that there, but okay, I guess I could have seen that cutting.

Just to be clear, what was what you were saying a second ago, Neil, you can sort of just assume that planets' orbital plane is evenly distributed in all angles.

So you can go like, we can see these angles and these angles. So you can then calculate, well, these ones must also exist.
Exactly. You extrapolate.

You extrapolate into the galaxies that don't, where you didn't see

any planets at all.

Once you know what fraction of stars have planets that you've detected, and there's all these other planets that don't, then you just look at the statistics of the orientations and you can fill in those missing numbers if it's randomly distributed out there while we're talking about that kind of detection and validation of things that are a distance away Alan G says hello greater mystic diviners of the cosmos

how accurate do we believe these remote measurements and determination of atmospheres and life conditions are when we have no way of validating something 50,000 light years away oh those are fighting words

no way of validating show your work

What does he want to say? Go there and get a beaker of sample. Like, no

question, though. Indicted your whole community right there.

But I love this question because this gets at the very heart of what it means to do science, right? Because, of course, we test the heck out of our equipment so that we know what to expect.

And so we can say that maybe we trust what's coming out of it. But the beautiful thing about science is you can make predictions, right? Like that you know when that solar eclipse is coming.

So you can be the kid in King Arthur's court. And so even though we can't go there and see it up close, you can make predictions about other things you expect to see.

Like maybe when that planet goes to another part of its orbit, what might you see?

And so I think the fact that you can make predictions and then you can test and then you can get more data, that's like, that's magic. I mean, imagine that you could predict the stock market.
So.

I think that's great. I'm not worried about not being able to go there and visit, although I would love to do that.

I mean, I just have to wait for pieces of the solar system to fall to Earth and then we can see them. So I think it

might have been 1840s, somewhere around there, before spectra became a tool to understand the chemistry of something from afar, there was a philosopher who, in his thesis, first he

asserted there will never be more than the seven known planets. He just asserted that, okay? And then quickly thereafter, we discovered more planets.

But he also said that the stars in their beauty in the sky, we will know their colors and their locations, but we will never know what they're made of because they're just too far away.

That's what your man here sounds like. Right.

And within a few years, we turned spectroscopes to the stars and we know exactly what they're made of. Right.

So I'm not ever going to say we will never know because I don't know that we'll never know. If you look at these drawings of the solar system from long ago, right?

And, you know, they're still drawing, you know, Saturn is the furthest we know about because, you know, up until the time that America was a country, that was the furthest planet we had known about.

But there are some people who draw all of these different orbits and saying there might be other worlds. And you might think it's kind of fantastical, but some people had that imagination.

And of course, the data bore us out. So I don't know.
I get excited about seeing planets, about seeing disks.

Like I said, when they fall to Earth, you know, as long as i'm not a dinosaur i'm cool with that but meteorites are great i mean did you ever hang out with the meteorite at the white house neil the little one that's there

where was that

so in one of the rooms in the white house there is on loan from the smithsonian a piece of the allende meteorite um i've not seen it Okay, I called up a friend yesterday to check.

They said, oh, yeah, the Smithsonian just came and cleaned it, but it's still here at the White House. Not all of us just hang out in all the rooms of the White House.
Just let the record show.

I was just staff, right? You're, uh you know a fancy

distinguished guest

i did spend a little bit of time at the white house yes i know bits and pieces the way i don't know all the white house no no it's it's just cool though because people look at this and they go that's just an ugly rock right because it's like a little black rock with white dots and i used to go and explain to people like no this is amazing this is older than the earth right you've got more than four and a half billion years here and this is like if you were baking a cake right and you were messy and you got flour everywhere you bake the cake you eat the the cake.

Okay, in this case, the cake are the planets. But, you know, you've got like a little soft line

of flour in this meteorite, you know, and it's here that we can study on Earth and sort of observe at the White House because it's something that that meteorite landed here around the time when we were getting ready to analyze lunar rock samples.

And in the end, the meteorite ended up being cooler than moon rocks. So I'm just saying I'm here for planets in all their forms,

as long as I'm not a dinosaur.

By the way, we might still be dinosaurs because we don't have a way to deflect an asteroid.

And we'll be, if we go extinct from an asteroid, we'd be the laughingstock of intelligent life in the galaxy for going extinct, even though we had a space program.

See, the dinosaurs didn't have a space program. That we know of.

We just don't know if the dinosaurs called their congresspeople to say, hey, make sure you put more funding into that.

they had the beginnings of it, and it was going well, but then it got into trouble. It got into committees, and then they got bogged down with red tape, and you know how things go.

Fake news, you know. Yeah, and then money got redistributed, and somehow.

Matt, we got time for one more question. It better be a kick-ass question.
All right, well,

I like this question. Hello, Doctors TNT.
Oh,

this is Nancy from Hell's Kitchen NYC.

All right. Are we up or down or across the road from that? Which direction are we? They're down from us.
They're down from us. Okay.
So Nancy is down from us right now.

And Nancy is wondering, have you ever had a simulation give you a result so strange you thought either this is a bug or the universe is trying to tell me something?

So I will first of all say lots of bugs, no chat GPT in my coding, so have seen plenty of those.

But I actually don't think I've ever had the moment of thinking, oh, that's so weird, but instead, oh, that's so beautiful.

Because I always think it's amazing that we can just code the laws of gravity into our simulations. And then you can watch stars and gas form into galaxies.

And you can look at these pictures, these simulations that are, you know, cosmological in scale, and then compare them to real observations. And they look the same.

So I think the universe is telling us, you're doing great. You can do a little better on that subgrid physics.
But, you know, the big scales, you got it going on.

And it's just amazing that we can see it on the computer.

Because if you go back, have you ever seen those two ray simulations from the 70s where they actually use different characters like the letter Q and the number seven as their particles in these really early computer graphics of galaxies coming together?

It's so primitive compared to what we have now, but even then it was right. So I feel like at that point, you would have been like, my computer is telling me something.
Well, except.

When generally when you have a simulation, when you are simulating something, I like Anjali's point about the fact that that you get to put laws of physics into your code. But if you've done that,

the code is not going to show you something that is based on some new undiscovered law of physics because you put the laws of physics in it. All right.
And so

for me, the most

interesting part of a simulation is if I simulate something with my best understanding of all the laws of physics and it still doesn't match.

That means something else is happening in the universe that I have not reckoned in my models.

Would you agree that you're more likely to not match the real world because the real world has something more interesting going on in it than your simulation.

And now you got to go back to the drawing board of your simulation and figure out what's going on. I think there's always so much complexity in nature and we always start from the ground up.

And so you always think, oh, there's that more detail I could add. Just like when I draw, I'm not a great artist.

I start with a stick figure and you go, okay, I can add some eyelashes and some more things, but it needs some color. It needs a little bit more.
It's just the same way with our simulations.

So oftentimes you can think about what's missing here and how do we add that little chef's kiss of color. Yeah, she mentioned this experiment by Tomray.
He's a very famous astronomer of the day.

And we saw these galaxies out there that were very disturbed looking and we didn't know why. There was even a catalog of disturbed galaxies, okay? The Atlas of peculiar galaxies.

And why do they look peculiar? But we look perfect. We have two arms, spirals, and

are they a different kind of galaxy? And so we had to figure out that these are the products of colliding galaxies. And that all the gravity, they distort.

because they all feel different parts of the gravity at all different times. And Anjali, do you remember how he figured that out? How he did

the experiment?

I mean, I just, I have the visual in my mind, right, of the Tomb Ray and Tomb Ray because it was Alar and his brother, right, who were doing

the simulation.

Was it he the one or was it someone before him? Because how do you simulate? You don't really have a computer yet to do it full-blown. Oh, no, no.
It was someone before him.

Before him, I forgot who it was. First, figure out the mergers.

Even before Tombray's first computer simulations of this as anjali describes eric holmberg another galaxy guy he figured out how to do it with light because gravity drops off as one over the distance squared okay

one over the distance squared now if you don't have a computer how are you going to simulate that on a table how are you going to do that You can like move everything every moment and then calculate everything, but that's too much effort.

So what he did, he had light bulbs and light meters

because light drops off as one over distance squared, the intensity of light. That makes sense.
And so, the light bulbs were the parts of galaxies.

And he took light readings at what the intensity of the light was, and that was proxy for the intensity of the gravity.

And you got to see the distortions in the spiral arms of the galaxy, and you could recreate all the messy galaxies that look like puppy vomit on the sky.

Galaxies are beautiful, right? I mean, cute too. So maybe you think anything that comes out of a puppy is cute, but yeah, puppy vomit can be can be beautifully autistic.

Okay, that's pretty clever, right? You think? I mean, it's amazing what people do in all sort of senses, right? It's not just looking at it on a screen.

We did that actually this past year where we actually had a museum exhibit and we tried to make it multi-sensory for exoplanets. So I worked with a perfumer and a sound engineer.

So we had the sounds and smells to get you in that world. We didn't do any experiments with it, but it helped bring people in with different ways, which was pretty cool.

So presumably some of these planets might have hydrogen sulfide.

We did not poison anybody, Neil. That's what I forgot to say.

No, actually, the most interesting part of working with a perfume artist is when you said, oh, we wanted to get towards habitability and life.

She brought me lots of smells of manure because she said there is nothing more lifelike than manure. So we didn't have the puppy vomit smells, but we had some other smells there that were very

nice. Perfumer brought you manure.
No, no, smells of manure.

Aren't you glad you can't work at NASA with me smelling?

Thank you for clarifying. No, just the little munio scent that you can just dab on your wrist and behind your ears.
Remind me not to buy that person's perfume.

No, the rest of it, though, was incredible because what we ended up doing is we had smells like rose garden and horse stables and things like GNT on a Saturday night.

It wasn't the TNT drink that we apparently need to come out with, but you know, things that people would recognize.

And then the other wall had these smells of, you know, what does lightning on Saturn smell like or interstellar space or a rock garden on Mars or a clean spaceship, getting you imagining that one day in the future, those smells could be just as realistic and familiar to us as the rose garden where you don't have to read the plaque.

And so going from there to then being immersed in the sound bath where the distances of these exoplanets were represented by pauses and then music. It just sort of brought it together.

And even though some of the smells maybe were not what you would choose for, you know, going out on a Friday night,

I think was still pretty cool. Well, thank you, Anjali, for participating in our Cosmic Queries.
It's so good to be here. And when you pass 6,000, give us a call.
6,000 exoplanets.

I honestly suspect it'll pass 6,000 by the time this airs. Oh, okay.
And you know what I do at every one of my public talks?

I ask everyone to stand who was born since 1995 because that was the first exoplanet discovered. And that's just a lot of people.
A lot of people, yeah, a lot of people.

And because they only known life with exoplanets in the catalog, right? Okay.

So they're all standing up, and I say, raise your right hand. And they raise their right hand.
And I say,

I declare all of you to be Generation X so planet.

And then they sit down. I love that new.
But again, that just hammers home how absurdly new this entire branch of science is. That's how you began the whole conversation.
Yeah. Yes.

Well, I tell all my friends at JPL I said hi. We'll do.
We'll do. Matt, we'll see you on your website.
Yeah, I'm on tour and on probably science. We will get you back very soon.
Probably,

that's your podcast. That is my podcast.
Probably science. Okay.
We're very happy to steal you five. I've been on it only once, apparently.
We're making it happen again. We're making it happen again.

Near my phone the whole time.

You're a busy man. We need to pick up moments.

All right. This has been another installment of Cosmicquaries.
This would be the Exoplanet Edition. I thank my guests, Anjali Chapothy and Matt Kirshan.
Until next time, I bid you to keep looking up.

This episode of Star Talk is brought to you by McDonald's. There's always somebody who wants to ruin the holidays.
Turns out the Grinch has taken over McDonald's with a meal full of mischief.

Even the fries aren't safe. He hits them with the dill pickle Grinch salt, the collectible socks, marked property of the Grinch, and the Grinch mealbox, gift-wrapped with pure mischief.

So if you're ready to let the Grinch ruin your season, grab a Grinch meal for yourself before he heads back to Mount Crumpet.

Only at McDonald's at participating McDonald's for a limited time while supplies last. Hey, Fidelity.

What's it cost to invest with the Fidelity app?

Start with as little as $1 with no account fees or trade commissions on U.S. stocks and ETFs.
Hmm. That's music to my ears.
I can only talk.

Investing involved risk, including risk of loss. Zero account fees apply to retail brokerage accounts only.
Sell Sell order assessment fee not included.

A limited number of ETFs are subject to a transaction-based service fee of $100. See full list at fidelity.com/slash commissions.
Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC member NYSE SIPC.