- July 11, 2026
- 1:23 pm
- World News
Humanity has already proven that planets beyond the Solar System exist by the thousands. Now science faces a more complex task: to understand if there is life on them and whether our civilization will have enough time to discover it.
The question of the existence of planets around other stars was recently almost in the realm of science fiction. Today, this debate is practically over: planets are widespread throughout our galaxy, and the Solar System no longer appears to be the only known island of worlds in the Universe.
According to NASA’s exoplanet archive, by July 2026, scientists have confirmed the existence of more than 6,300 planets beyond the Solar System. Most of them were discovered not through direct photographs, but through indirect signs — for example, by the dimming of a star’s brightness during a planet’s transit in front of it or by barely noticeable wobbles of the star itself under the influence of the planet’s gravity.
This scientific revolution is partly due to the work of Swiss astrophysicist Didier Queloz. In 1995, he, along with Michel Mayor, announced the discovery of 51 Pegasi b — the first confirmed planet orbiting a sun-like star. The discovery changed astronomers’ understanding of planetary system formation and in 2019 earned Queloz and Mayor the Nobel Prize in Physics.
In an interview with TSN, recorded during the 75th meeting of Nobel laureates in Lindau, Germany, Queloz suggested looking at the problem of extraterrestrial life more broadly. He is no longer worried about whether science will be able to create the necessary tools.
The scientist is almost certain that such technologies will appear.
The real question is much more worrying: will human society be able to last long enough to use them.
Planets have been found. Now science is looking not for worlds, but for life.
The discovery of 51 Pegasi b was groundbreaking not because this planet is similar to Earth. On the contrary, it turned out to be a huge gas world located extremely close to its star. Such objects have been called “hot Jupiters.”
Before the discovery by Queloz and Mayor, many models suggested that large gas planets should be far from their stars, like Jupiter and Saturn in the Solar System. 51 Pegasi b showed that the arrangement of planetary systems can be much more diverse than previously thought.
Today, researchers face a different question. Planets exist — this is proven. But how often among them are worlds where water, complex chemistry, and living organisms could have appeared?
Finding a planet in the so-called habitable zone is not enough. This is just the area around a star where the temperature theoretically allows for the existence of liquid water. The real habitability of a world also depends on its mass, atmosphere, magnetic field, star activity, surface composition, and internal geology.
A planet may be at the perfect distance from its star but lack an atmosphere. Or have such a dense gas envelope that a destructive greenhouse effect arises on the surface. Stellar flares can gradually destroy the atmosphere, and the absence of geological activity can disrupt the long-term cycle of substances.
That is why modern astronomy is gradually moving from simply counting planets to studying their atmospheres and climates.
Queloz reminds us how limited human knowledge is even about the nearest celestial bodies. We have been exploring Mars for decades, sending orbiters and rovers there, but we still know almost nothing about what lies at a shallow depth beneath its surface.
The scientist proposes a thought experiment: if an alien probe landed in the Sahara or the Atacama Desert, its creators might mistakenly conclude that the entire Earth is a lifeless desert. A few landing points do not provide a complete picture of an entire planet.
Therefore, the absence of detected life on Mars does not yet prove that it never existed there or that simple organisms have not survived beneath the surface.
NANews — Israel News notes: the search for extraterrestrial life has already ceased to be a hunt for sensation or an attempt to catch an artificial radio signal. It is systematic work at the intersection of astronomy, chemistry, geology, climatology, and biology.
Queloz heads the Center for Life in the Universe at Cambridge, where researchers from different specialties try to understand not only where to look for life but also what exactly should be considered life. Scientists still find it difficult to formulate a universal definition that would suit both terrestrial organisms and potentially other biological systems.
Why extraterrestrial life may turn out to be very different from what we expect
Human imagination usually depicts either intelligent beings or a planet similar to Earth. But the first discovery of extraterrestrial life is most likely to look much more modest.
It could be an unusual combination of gases in the atmosphere of a distant planet, which is difficult to explain without biological processes. Another possible option is organic compounds, traces of ancient microbial activity, or surface changes that repeat seasonally.
However, even a potential biosignature will not become instant proof. Methane, oxygen, and other substances can arise both as a result of organism activity and due to non-biological chemical and geological processes.
Every loud discovery will have to be repeatedly verified by different telescopes and methods. It may take years between the first suspicion and the recognition of the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Artificial intelligence will not replace the scientist
Modern telescopes produce huge arrays of information. The volume of data is already so large that a researcher is physically unable to independently review every signal, spectrum, or change in star brightness.
Artificial intelligence helps find patterns, sort observations, identify anomalies, and select the most interesting objects. But Didier Queloz does not believe that an algorithm can replace scientific thinking.
According to him, a good researcher should not automatically trust the telescope, measuring instrument, or computer model. It is especially necessary to be cautious when the system shows something unusual.
In the history of astronomy, there have already been cases where technical defects were mistaken for planets.
An instrument could create a spike in the data, and a researcher expecting a certain result saw it as confirmation of their hypothesis.
Therefore, the task of the scientist is not to accept a beautiful result but to try to disprove it. The observation is checked with another instrument, repeated under different conditions, and alternative explanations are considered.
Queloz calls artificial intelligence a wonderful tool and compares its emergence to the spread of computers, phones, and photography. Each of these technologies changed the usual way of life but did not destroy human creativity.
Photography did not lead to the disappearance of painting. Computers did not stop people from writing. Similarly, artificial intelligence can free researchers from administrative routine and mechanical data processing but cannot independently decide which question is truly important.
It is the person who determines the direction of research, doubts the result, and understands its significance.
The main threat is not in space
The strongest thought in Queloz’s interview is not related to distant planets or even artificial intelligence.
The scientist believes that the technologies necessary for the search for extraterrestrial life will be created sooner or later. But creating a telescope, spacecraft, or new algorithm can take decades. Scientific results require stable universities, long-term funding, international cooperation, and the training of new generations of researchers.
Politicians live by electoral cycles, companies by quarterly reports, and fundamental science is forced to plan work decades ahead.
Queloz sharply criticizes the reduction of research funding in the USA. In his opinion, by limiting support for science, the American authorities primarily reduce America’s influence. He characterizes such a policy as an attempt to “shoot oneself in the foot,” especially when political pressure affects climate and global warming research.
Science will not stop because of this. If one country reduces investments, the center of attraction for researchers and technologies gradually shifts to where funding is growing. Queloz expects the strengthening of scientific positions in China, India, and Southeast Asian countries.
Nobel Prizes usually reflect research conducted many years or even decades ago. Therefore, today’s reduction in university programs may not be immediately noticeable. Its consequences will manifest later — in a decrease in the number of discoveries, specialists, and new technologies.
Why this is important for Israel
For Israel, Queloz’s conversation has direct significance. The country has strong universities, technology companies, and a developed system of defense and space developments, but its scientific advantage also depends on continuous funding and international connections.
The Israel Space Agency supports exoplanet research, planetology, the development of scientific equipment, and deep space observations. The agency collaborates with NASA, the European Space Agency, and other international organizations.
At the Weizmann Institute, new telescopes and methods for processing astronomical data are being developed. The complex located in the Negev is used, among other things, for the search for exoplanets and the study of their atmospheres.
Researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem study the climate of distant worlds. One of the works was dedicated to the impact of ozone on the atmosphere of Proxima Centauri b — a planet near the closest star to the Sun. Modeling showed that the chemical composition of the atmosphere can significantly affect the distribution of temperature and winds, and therefore the potential habitability of the planet.
Such projects show that the search for life in the Universe is not an abstract topic for a few major space powers. Israeli scientists are already participating in the creation of knowledge and technologies on which the future answer may depend.
For NANews — Israel News, Queloz’s words are especially important for the connection between scientific freedom and societal stability. A state may have talented researchers and advanced technologies but lose its advantage if universities are constantly struggling for survival and long-term programs become hostages of political crises.
Humanity has approached one of the most important discoveries in its history. We already know that Earth is not the only planet. We have learned to determine the sizes of distant worlds, measure their mass, and obtain the first information about their atmospheres.
But the final answer will require patience.
Perhaps signs of life will be found in a few years. Perhaps it will take decades. And it is likely that the discovery will not be an impressive message from an intelligent civilization but a faint chemical signal that will need to be verified for a long time.
Didier Queloz is confident in science’s ability to create the necessary tools. His doubt relates to humanity itself.
“The question is only whether we will have time.”
This is no longer just a question of astronomy. It is a question of whether modern societies can protect education, science, and the freedom of research long enough to one day find out: are we alone in the Universe.