Slashdot Mirror


Oldest Planet Ever Discovered

crymeph0 writes "NASA has found the oldest known planet in a globular star cluster in the constellation Scorpius. At 13.7 billion years old, it's just slighly (~1 billion years) younger than the universe itself. Get more info from HubbleSite"

9 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. A planet younger than the universe? by pilybaby · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that IS impressive!

  2. Heavy elements by ramk13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What struck me the most from reading about it is that enough heavy elements (Fe, Si, etc) were around at the time to form the planet. That was one of the main reasons it was thought that planets couldn't have formed that early - you only had light gases around. So apparently it doesn't take a few billions years of fusion to get enough solid material for a planet. I wonder what other changes this will bring about in terms of the search-for-life campaign. The window just got a little bigger.

  3. I understand now... by borgdows · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA has found the oldest known planet in a globular star cluster in the constellation SCOrpius.

    Go back to your planet Darl!

  4. Re:Having taken one semester of astrophysics... by Jarlsberg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yup. Here's info from Hubblesite: The story of this planet's discovery began in 1988, when the pulsar, called PSR B1620-26, was discovered in M4. It is a neutron star spinning just under 100 times per second and emitting regular radio pulses like a lighthouse beam. The white dwarf was quickly found through its effect on the clock-like pulsar, as the two stars orbited each other twice per year. Sometime later, astronomers noticed further irregularities in the pulsar that implied that a third object was orbiting the others. This new object was suspected to be a planet, but it could also be a brown dwarf or a low-mass star. Debate over its true identity continued through the 1990s.

  5. Re:In case of slashdotting - full text of report by ramk13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure the *New York Times* runs for cover everytime /. links one of it's stories. I heard they just upgraded from 128k DSL to 384k cable, so maybe they can handle it this time. If they can't you have them covered, don't you?

  6. Detecting planets. by asciimonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a pity that we still have to detect planets by there gravitational pull on the suns they orbit. This will only alow us to "see" gaseous giants (like jupiter) who have lotsa mass. The earth-like planet have much too little mass to ever see with this method.

    I know people are tring to detect the reflection of the stars (of it's sun) light, but that's pretty hard since you have to filter it out from the light directly recieved from that star. But if we would really try and be lucky, could we see the planet directly when another planet is blocking our view of the star?

    Just my $0.02. $0.04 with inflation correction and VAT.

  7. Planet or Brown Dwarf by patch-rustem · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the article:
    Was it a planet or a brown dwarf? Hubble's analysis shows that the object is 2.5 times the mass of Jupiter, confirming that it is in fact a very large gnome.
    --
    Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
  8. Cosmic Microwave Background by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 5, Informative

    The most accurate estimation of the age of the universe has been recently carried out by the WMAP mission, which measured the cosmic microwave background with 35 times the resolution of the previous COBE mission. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus 200 million years.

  9. Re:Heavy elements and eating into the timeframe by nimblebrain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, they're begging the question somewhat, but it seems true that globular clusters metal deficient. Jupiter's atmosphere is 82% hydrogen, 14% helium and only a trace of heavier elements. Who knows what goes on at the core, but that would seem to indicate that planets don't need rock to form.

    That said, if we found some moons around it somehow at some point in the future, there would be a lot of questions that need answering.

    Is it worrying anyone else, though, how thoroughly we're cutting in to the upper estimate of the age of the universe according to Big Bang Theory? Prior guesses on the age of the universe in BBT were in the 9-12 billion range.

    Invoking tweaks on inflation theory and 'anti-gravity' via the cosmological constant, the upper limit has been moved up to 15 billion years. Now here we are with a planet... a close planet (all things considered, 7200 light years isn't that far away on a grand scale :), that's 13 billion years old plus star and cluster formation time, and some of the other observations from the furthest visible reaches coming back from ye olde Hubble... how much further can we cut into this without jeopardizing the 15 billion year estimate?

    Something to consider...

    --
    Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)