Youngest Planet Discovered

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."

Comments

I'm not that impressed

[evolvearth]

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

Re:I'm not that impressed

[Otter]

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.

Re:I'm not that impressed

[Tesen]

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! ".

Re:I'm not that impressed

[QRDeNameland]

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

Re:I'm not that impressed

[binpajama]

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.

Re:I'm not that impressed

[JeanPaulBob]

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.

Magratheans

[JeepFanatic]

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

Re:Magratheans

[Archangel Michael]

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.

"Challenge our models"?

[gardyloo]

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?

Re:"Challenge our models"?

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:"Challenge our models"?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Won't somebody think of the children...

[zappepcs]

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!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children...

[pshumate]

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

Headline Correction

[joeflies]

Youngest KNOWN Planet Discovered

Re:Headline Correction

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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

Perhaps it won't wind up being a planet...

[TripMaster Monkey]

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.

From TFA...

[SimonGhent]

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)

Re:From TFA...

[Speare]

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

No, it's turtles all the way down.

Planet is 100,000 years old, not 2,000

[AbsoluteXyro]

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."

only 18 years old

[whtmarker]

I think Captain Planet is the youngest planet alive. source

Re:Maybe not

[maroberts]

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.

Re:Pass out the cigars...

[Chapter80]

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...

Best part about young planets

[mcmonkey]

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

It says right there in TFA:

[denzacar]

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.