7
$\begingroup$

On July 21 at 10 am, Seti Talks will be discussing the topic of "Could Rogue Planets Harbor Life". Supposedly there are 50 billion such planets in the Milky Way. I would think that the answer was obvious: no. So what is there to discuss?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I wouldn't rule out life anywhere in the universe. $\endgroup$
    – PeterH
    Jul 15 at 14:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Life doesn't have to take a form in any way similar to what we've previously been exposed to in this world. When we look at things like the need for water, carbon-based chemistry, etc., these types of natural characteristics are simply based on past experience, not proven laws of the universe. $\endgroup$ Jul 15 at 20:05
  • 26
    $\begingroup$ Somewhere on a rogue planet - "Could star-bound planets harbor life? Seems unlikely, all that radiation." $\endgroup$ Jul 15 at 20:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Life, uh, finds a way. $\endgroup$
    – AnoE
    Jul 16 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Panzercrisis: It's hard to imagine any form of life that doesn't require an external energy source though. $\endgroup$ Jul 16 at 23:05
20
$\begingroup$

There's also the possibility that a rogue giant planet may have a moon with a subsurface ocean of liquid water due to tidal heating in an orbit close enough to its parent planet. E.g. if Jupiter was a rogue planet its moon Europa could still harbor life because of tidal heating.

Around five percent of Earth-sized ejected planets with Moon-sized natural satellites would retain their satellites after ejection. A large satellite would be a source of significant geological tidal heating26.

26. Debes, John H.; Steinn Sigurðsson (20 October 2007). "The Survival Rate of Ejected Terrestrial Planets with Moons". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 668 (2): L167–L170. arXiv:0709.0945

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Pureferret Why would you think rogue planets can't have satellites? $\endgroup$
    – John
    Jul 15 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ I thought if a planet was knocked out of orbit, that the moon would be almost certainly knocked away? Is that wrong? $\endgroup$
    – Pureferret
    Jul 15 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Pureferret From Wikipedia "Around five percent of Earth-sized ejected planets with Moon-sized natural satellites would retain their satellites after ejection. A large satellite would be a source of significant geological tidal heating.[26]" $\endgroup$ Jul 15 at 18:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A rogue planet could also pick up moons after being ejected. $\endgroup$ Jul 15 at 20:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Pureferret An ejected planet can retain its moon, see my answer here: astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/41832/… $\endgroup$
    – Connor Garcia
    Jul 15 at 22:20
13
$\begingroup$

In short, if a rogue planet has enough internal heat and retains enough of that internal heat by a thick atmosphere or within a miles-deep ice crust, it could be warm enough for liquid water and thus possibly for Earth-like lifeforms.

here is a link to an article on the subject:

https://futurism.com/life-could-exist-on-rogue-planets-that-dont-have-stars

And an advanced civlization capable of building artifical habitats on lifeless worlds or in outer space could settle a rogue planet, providing their own energy source from nuclear fusion.

$\endgroup$
1
3
$\begingroup$

The discussion will focus on

  • the term rogue planet is an oxymoron, as it's missing the principle defining feature of a planet.

  • a Jupiter-sized body without a sun will be warmer than you would have thought. And they could be even larger, up to being brown dwarfs.

  • moons of such a body can be heated by tidal forces, without regard to whether there's a sun or not.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.