
Follow-up of Kepler data yields more than 100 confirmed exoplanets - Hooke
http://news.ucsc.edu/2016/07/kepler-planets.html
======
nonbel
Can anyone explain what they mean by the word "confirm"? I looked at the paper
to find out and ended up even more confused:

"HAT-P-56b (EPIC 202126852b) is a hot Jupiter confirmed by measuring the
planet’s mass with Doppler spectroscopy (Huang et al. 2015). Our analysis
indicates that the planetary hypothesis is the most probable explanation for
the signal detected, with the next-most-likely scenario being an eclipsing
binary (FPP=65%; see Table 9). However, the radial velocity measurements of
Huang et al. (2015) rule out the eclipsing binary scenario favored by vespa
and so confirm the planetary nature of this system."
[http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~ianc/docs/crossfield_K2s_new_pla...](http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~ianc/docs/crossfield_K2s_new_planets.pdf)

So this object was previously "confirmed", yet they are still considering that
it may not be a planet at all. Then they say some other measurements do
"confirm" it is a planet...

Either an object is confirmed to be a planet or not (presumably according to
some gold standard measurement method). I don't understand using that word
when they may waffle back and forth as to whether the object is a planet.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
There is no gold standard for confirming the existence of an exoplanet. Very
different techniques are used by different groups based on the type and source
of experimental data. Every method has its strengths and weaknesses,
therefore, often planets detected by one method are then reconfirmed using
another method applied to the same or new data. Here is a quote from Huang et
a. (2015) [https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01776](https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01776)

"This planet was originally identified as a HATNet (Bakos et al. 2004)
planetary candidate, was followed up by the TRES spectrograph on the FLWO 1.5
m telescope, and also by the KeplerCam imager on the FLWO 1.2 m telescope.
Encouraged by these initial results, all pointing toward a bona fide planet
orbiting the host star HAT-P-56, the target was proposed for K2 observations.
Indeed, the very high quality photometric observations of K2 confirmed the
transit, and also eliminated most of the possible blend scenarios."

~~~
nonbel
Then it sounds like these are not really 100 "confirmed" planets (for the
usual usage of confirmed), instead they are 100 "likely" planets.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
Yes. There is no notion of confirmation in physics (or science). All you can
do is perform different experiments till all explanations except one have been
falsified. The one has been "confirmed" is the lazy way of saying it. Somebody
could think of new theory tomorrow that explains the data just as well as the
theory that planets exist, and then the planets will be "deconfirmed" till
further experiments falsify one of the theories.

~~~
nonbel
Personally I wouldn't use "confirmed" or "proved" to discuss any hypothesis.
However, I think confirmed could be acceptable in some cases. Usually it would
be some kind of cheap screening test followed up by a more expensive (but more
reliable) gold standard test. Sure, the gold standard may still be wrong, but
at least everyone knows what you mean by confirmed. I find the use of
confirmed here to be highly misleading.

------
arkadiyt
Here's a good short 10 minute documentary on this:
[https://vimeo.com/174313049](https://vimeo.com/174313049)

~~~
jessriedel
Note: the bulk of this video is a scientific funding pitch for "Mission
Centaur", which is a small satellite proposal to look for planets around just
Alpha Centauri A and B. Nothing wrong with that, but this doesn't attempt to
be a dispassionate review of Kepler.

> Mission Centaur is a Silicon Valley-based nonprofit corporation dedicated to
> studying Alpha Centauri. We support investigations that advance the state of
> the art knowledge and technology for exoplanet exploration, the ultimate
> goal being the discovery and characterization of Earth-like planets around
> Alpha Centauri. We envision a new way of engaging with science where
> experts, institutions and the general public can be part of humankind’s most
> ambitious and transformational quest: the search for life beyond our solar
> system.

[http://missioncentaur.org/about/](http://missioncentaur.org/about/)

------
julienchastang
I recently went to a talk where the researcher was able to derive the location
and size of starspots (a.k.a sunspots here on the sun) from the Kepler data
[1]. It just amazes me the amount of information you can derive from a single
pixel of light dimming in and out.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7jsYA6oJ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7jsYA6oJ8)

------
monk_e_boy
Do you think mankind will ever reach one of them? Robots or humans?
Interstellar ark or von Neumann machines?

Or will these planets be simulated in VR?

~~~
api
I think humans will eventually visit a few planets and maybe live on the Moon
or Mars. To go further will require either radical bioengineering or AI /
brain upload. (The distinction gets blurry there.)

We are just too fragile and we don't live long enough for interstellar trips.
Even the outer solar system may be prohibitively hard for us.

~~~
monk_e_boy
I guess we could upload our personalities to a computer then fly around in
space for thousands of years. Then grow a body on whatever planet we feel
like.

