Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Youngest Planet Discovered

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the just-a-two-thousand-year-old-baby dept.

qazsedcft writes "BBC is reporting that Astronomers have discovered what appears to be the youngest planet, being less than 2000 years old. If this proves to be true it could challenge our models of solar system formation."

44 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. I'm not that impressed by evolvearth · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's about a thousand year's shy of being middle aged. After all, the earth is approximately 6000 years old.

    1. Re:I'm not that impressed by Otter · · Score: 3, Funny
      I'd been thinking "For once, an astronomy story where we won't be subjected to a stream of 'But the earth is 6000 years old!' comments!"

      I underestimated you guys -- it'd be like anything Google-related not having ten "Steve Balmer through another chair!" posts.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    2. Re:I'm not that impressed by Tesen · · Score: 5, Funny

      In a related story, Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer threw multiple chairs after he heard of the newly discovered "young" planet. Steve was quoted as saying, "I bet freaking google has already tried to map the fucker! ".

    3. Re:I'm not that impressed by sorak · · Score: 2

      It's about a thousand year's shy of being middle aged. After all, the earth is approximately 6000 years old.

      Yeah, but it's a "young earth". In another 6000 years, it's going to buy a trans-am and start flirting with 6000 year-old planets.

    4. Re:I'm not that impressed by capnchicken · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's what Earth loves about these gaseous planetary clouds. Earth gets older, they stay the same age.

      --
      A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
    5. Re:I'm not that impressed by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdotters will quit with the 6000-year-old earth comments just as soon as the hordes of Bible thumpers stop trying to convince everyone that that is really true.

      Since the Bible thumpers are actually growing in number, don't expect that to happen any time soon.

    6. Re:I'm not that impressed by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Funny

      All to test our faith.

      "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."

      "I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. You believe that?"

      "Uh huh."

      Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God might be fuckin' with our heads? Anyone have trouble sleeping restfully with that thought in their heads? God's running around, burying fossils: "Huh huh ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA. I'm a prankster god. I am killing me. Ho ho ho ho."

      You know, you die, you go to St. Peter, "Did you you believe in dinosaurs?"

      "Well, you know, there was fossils everywhere."

      "What are you, an idiot? God was FUCKING with you! Giant flying lizards? You moron! That's one of God's easiest jokes!"

      "It seemed so plausible! Aieeeeeeeee!" Bound for the lake of fire. . . .

      ---quoth the prophet Bill Hicks

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    7. Re:I'm not that impressed by binpajama · · Score: 5, Funny

      Won't it be getting close to the Flood for those poor folks? Maybe we could bundle our tele-evangelists into a spaceship and send them there to spread salvation. The horrors of Earth must not be repeated elsewhere.

    8. Re:I'm not that impressed by Rycross · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I kinda figure that if God has enough of a sense of humor to prank us by burying dinosaur fossils, he's probably not going to be that uptight about the requirements for getting into heaven.

      Well, that is if I believed in biblical literalism. Or God.

    9. Re:I'm not that impressed by arminw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ....But the earth is 6000 years old!' comments!".....

      If a planet can form out there somewhere in only 2000 or less years, might it then not be possible to get one done in three times as long?

      --
      All theory is gray
    10. Re:I'm not that impressed by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FYI... I grew up in creationist circles, seeing creationist videos, reading websites, etc. I've never actually encountered anyone who thought that fossils are fakes.

      You might find such people in the back hills somewhere...But that kind of thing has nothing to do with the kind of creationism you're likely to encounter.

  2. Magratheans by JeepFanatic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe it's just the Magrathean's hard at work? Are there any white holes nearby for the collection of raw materials?

    1. Re:Magratheans by JeepFanatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm still trying to figure out how this got modded insightful.

    2. Re:Magratheans by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't you know, Adams was a prophet! That makes the grandparent insightful! Where's your faith man??? 42 is all you need to know.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Magratheans by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Informative

      You get no karma bonus for being modded funny. Knowing this, some moderators choose to mod insightful/interesting instead of funny so people are rewarded for their humour.

  3. "Challenge our models"? by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the submission on slashdot:

    If this proves to be true it could challenge our models of solar system formation. In the article it states that the [computer] models seem to be such a good fit to what they're seeing, that it "may actually be what happens in nature" [my paraphrase]. OK, fine. How is this any different that what's been thought for the last 30 years? Disk of swirling stuff: check. Some small inhomogeneities which get gravitationally amplified: check. Perturbing, passing massive things: check. What challenge?
    1. Re:"Challenge our models"? by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Informative

      The submitter was referring to time frame, I believe. Usually the disc is millions of years old before planets form (as far as we know). This one is thought to be less than 100,000 years old. However, another start flying by 1600 years ago might be an extenuating circumstance.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    2. Re:"Challenge our models"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There really is an open controversy in the field regarding whether the gravitational instability model or the core accretion model is appropriate for large planets. Instability occurs very quickly and tends to produce big planets (the disc just clumps); accretion takes a long time and tends to build smaller planets (things have to hit and stick).

      Most astronomers believe that core accretion is correct, but there's a significant numerical astrophysics community who believes the instability model. Arguments tend to be about how cold the disc needs to be for the mechanism to work.

      The discovery of large early planets strengthens the evidence for the instability model.

      However, if I'm reading right, the 1600 yr timescale is mostly could-it-be speculation. Haven't read the underlying paper yet though.

      IANA.. oh, wait. I actually am a planetary astrophysicist.

  4. Won't somebody think of the children... by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Funny

    This astronomy child porn has to stop! Before you know it, these 'astronomers' will be cruising the galaxy trying to probe every new planet they find!

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    1. Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by pshumate · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great, now Chris Hansen's going to host "To Catch An Astronomer."

    2. Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by AioKits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great, now Chris Hansen's going to host "To Catch An Astronomer." Shouldn't be too hard. Just look for telescopes. If you want the 'big' offenders, look for the bigger telescopes!
      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
  5. Change our thinking? by Mr.Fork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the article submitter/BBC has it wrong about changes to theories. Science is about discovery. How about this discovery introduces new wonders of our universe? Imagine - being able to even detect a plant and then determine that is even 2000 years old - that is the real story!

    --
    Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
    1. Re:Change our thinking? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Imagine - being able to even detect a plant"

      I'm always trying to do this, but I just end up stepping on them first.

  6. Headline Correction by joeflies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Youngest KNOWN Planet Discovered

    1. Re:Headline Correction by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Informative

      Youngest KNOWN Planet Discovered That's implied by the word... DISCOVERED.
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  7. Perhaps it won't wind up being a planet... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From TFA (emphasis mine):

    But there is an intriguing suggestion that the gas giant, which is some 14 times the size of our Jupiter, could be even younger.

    And this celestial body is still in the process of formation. It's possible that it will pick up enough extra mass to push it over the approximately 75 Jupiter-masses threshold and initiate fusion, becoming a star in its own right. We may be witnessing the birth of a binary star system.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Perhaps it won't wind up being a planet... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny
      Gas giant planets contain heavy elements which - if you try to fuse them - will take more heat than they release. I can't see how you'd ever reach either ignition or self-sustaining conditions. Now, there ARE gas supergiant planets that are larger than small stars. Some were accused of being mis-identified brown dwarfs*. I think this find makes it very likely supergiant planets do indeed exist.

      (Brown dwarfs are easy to mis-identify, unlike white dwarfs, which carry warhammer adverts.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Perhaps it won't wind up being a planet... by swimsaturn · · Score: 2, Informative

      But there is an intriguing suggestion that the gas giant, which is some 14 times the size of our Jupiter, could be even younger. That is a very good point. 14 Jupiter masses is very close to the lower mass limit for temporary deuterium fusion. It will end up being a brown dwarf, not a planet. The 75 Jupiter mass threshold is for sustained hydrogen fusion (a star).
  8. From TFA... by SimonGhent · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to one model, planets form from the bottom up

    So that would be turtle first, then elephants, then the flat bit.

    Makes sense.

    (apologies for reading TFA, I'm new here)
    --
    simon
    1. Re:From TFA... by Speare · · Score: 3, Funny

      So that would be turtle first, then elephants, then the flat bit.

      No, it's turtles all the way down.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  9. Planet is 100,000 years old, not 2,000 by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the article, the proto-planet is 100,000 years old. It MIGHT be around 2,000 years old but there is no way to confirm that. It is more likely that the age of the proto-planet is more in line with the age of the star at 100,000 years. Space.com also reports that this planet is 100,000 years old. -- "The group, led by Jane Greaves of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, found the 100,000-year-old fetal planet about 520 light-years away in the constellation Taurus "The new object, designated HL Tau b, is the youngest planetary object ever seen," said Anita Richards, an astronomer at the U.K. Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics. Richards, who worked with Greaves' team to describe the infant planet, said it's just 1 percent as old as the young planet found in orbit around the star TW Hydrae last year."

  10. only 18 years old by whtmarker · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think Captain Planet is the youngest planet alive. source

  11. Re:Pass out the cigars... by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Flowers, my ass! When you have a baby you're supposed to hand out cigars. Where's my cigar, dammit?

    In related news, they've discovered the smallest black hole yet with a mass of only 3.8 times the sun's mass, and a diameter of only 24 km (that's about fifteen miles).

    So is this black ho the baby planet's momma?

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  12. Re:Maybe not by maroberts · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not much chance of becoming a non-planet like Pluto - it's 14 times the mass of Jupiter, so it would have to break up into lots of smaller planets for that to happen.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  13. Re:Pass out the cigars... by Chapter80 · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you have a baby you're supposed to hand out cigars.
    Not in my town. Cigars for a boy, donuts for a girl.

    Yeah, that's right, the ones with a hole in them...

  14. Re:Pass out the cigars... by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sometimes a planet is just a planet.

    rj

  15. Whippersnapper! by spike2131 · · Score: 2, Funny

    That planet better get off my lawn!

    <shakes-fist/>

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
  16. Re:But who's the father? by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    I asked Asterix. He heard something about it being By Jupiter.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  17. Re:is this really the youngest plannet. by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to take into account how many light years away it is, for all I know it could be older than the earth it just looks younger. I'm going to assume (maybe erroneously) that only the second half of your post was a joke.

    As to the quote portion above, if Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and they see this as 2000 years old, then it's going to have to be 4.5+ billion light years away to actually BE older than Earth. That's significantly outside of the galaxy so no way we'd pick it up.
    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  18. Re:Youngest Planet by Stanistani · · Score: 2, Funny

    Darn right. Everyone knows the Earth isn't young, it's flat.

    --
    You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
  19. Best part about young planets by mcmonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    Every year you get older, they stay the same age.

  20. It says right there in TFA: by denzacar · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the TFA:

    Intriguingly, another young star in the same region called XZ Tau may have made a close pass of HL Tau about 1,600 years ago. Apparently, the pass XZ Tau made was more than just "close".
    He was last seen fleeing through the constellation of Taurus at the speed of light in order to avoid paying alimony.
    Apparently... HZ Tau is also already married.
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  21. Re:Pass out the cigars... by severoon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Huh. If that black hole is the planet's mama, then we should definitely get that planet that one t-shirt that says I tore mommy a new one!

    --
    but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  22. 75 Jupiter masses? by Corf · · Score: 2, Funny

    That seems like such an arbitrary unit of measurement.

    Let's go with SI units here, people. We are looking at no fewer than 1.6953x10^27 Volkswagen Beetles.

    --
    The pain was excruciating and the scarring is likely permanent, but that just means it's working.