I think the proper term is circumstellar habitable zone. If there is other life out there, why are we assuming that it’ll have the same basic needs as our animals? The universe is seemingly infinite, and there’s endless possibilities of what’s out there, so why do we only consider planets that are the ‘perfect’ distance away from their star?
In: 46
Because the only planet that we know of that has life is in the Goldilocks Zone around its parent star. That planet is of course the Earth. Without other examples we look for what we know.
However, the concept of the Goldilocks Zone around a star is considered a little lazy and possibly controversial even in the sciences that use it. The reason for this is that the Goldilocks Zone is entirely based on the planet Earth. A planet with a thicker atmosphere could support liquid water further from its parent star, for instance. In fact, we know of/suspect that bodies in the outer solar system have liquid water on their surface even though they are far outside of the Goldilocks Zone.
This all being said though, life is not going to develop on a world without some sort of liquid on its surface. This is because life requires chemistry to take place and chemistry requires some sort of mixing to happen. The best thing for this mixing to take place in is water as water is the universal solvent meaning that more chemicals dissolve in water than in any other liquid. So looking for at least liquid water is the way to not waste our time until we find life that developed in another liquid.
Latest Answers