Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sign Of "Embryonic Planets" Forming In Nearby Stellar Systems

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the stork-and-the-supernova dept.

Astronomers are pointing to three nearby stars they say may hold "embryonic planets" -- a missing link in planet-formation theories. As scientists try to piece together how our own planet came to be, they look to the forming planets of other star systems for clues. But astronomers have been unable to find evidence for one of the key stages of planet development, a period early in the planet's formation when it is only as large as tiny Pluto.

6 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Next up..... by Samalie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Planned Planethood.

    Yeah, its a sad sad joke. Sue me.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  2. Re:"embryonic planets" by Gregb05 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally, we can harvest these embryonic planets for stem cells to repair Earth's environment!

    --
    --
  3. Early universe stages matter? by dada21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't it make more sense to consider the theories of the earlier universal structure (say, more independent gas and particle groups) that would bring the laws of gravity into the formation of both planetary masses and solar ones?

    I imagine that the formation of planets (say, from those independent gas and particle groups attracting each other to collapse into planets/suns) would be easier to understand in an earlier universal structure, and may be less evident as the universe progressed to clumping into planets, etc?

    Do we have a lot of evidence of areas of our own galaxy where there still might exist these independent gas and particle clouds, versus the chance that existing massive suns and planets are throwing off the chance for these clouds to exist?

  4. Re:Question about viewing far away planets by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, the stars in question would have to be several billion light years away in order for what you're describing to happen. Theres no way that astronomers can see an accretion disk around a single star from those kind of distances.

  5. An Earth a billion years younger. by iknownuttin · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think what the parent means is that since light takes time to travel, and if someone were a billion light years away; they would be seeing light that's a billion years old and therefore, the Earth a billion years ago.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:An Earth a billion years younger. by mangu · · Score: 3, Informative
      The Earth a billion years ago was long past the stage of the stars mentioned in the article, the time scale would be closer to five billion years.


      Unfortunately, TFA doesn't mention the distance to those stars, but I checked it and the one that's most distant is less than 70 light years away. So, the short answer is those three stars are from 70 million to 200 million times closer than the distance the sun should be to appear that young.