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."

I'm not that impressed

[evolvearth (1187169)]

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 (3800)]

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 (858022)]

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:

[arminw (717974)]

....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?

Re:

[sorak (246725)]

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.

Best part about young planets

[mcmonkey (96054)]

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

Re:I'm not that impressed

[binpajama (1213342)]

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

[QRDeNameland (873957)]

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:

[Rycross (836649)]

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.

Re:I'm not that impressed

[JeanPaulBob (585149)]

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 (993244)]

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

Re:

[JeepFanatic (993244)]

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

Re:Magratheans

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

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 (512791)]

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 (249536)]

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:

[mcvos (645701)]

What challenge?

It might challenge our models of solar system formation. Or it might not. Depending on what scientists find out if they examine this thing a bit more.

Re:

[simcop2387 (703011)]

if they can build a replica, what the hell do they need the original for? if they are that advanced they've got far more resources than earth could provide (unless they need slaves)

Re:"Challenge our models"?

[by 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.

Re:

[DaveV1.0 (203135)]

Apparently, the challenge is in writing a decent summary of the article. Of course, it is possible the submitter didn't even bother to RTFA.

Of course, it could be just sensationalism running wild. That could *never* happen on /., right?

But who's the father?

[the_humeister (922869)]

Inquiring minds really want to know. And so does Planet Weekly magazine.

Re:

[garett_spencley (193892)]

It's not me. I swear!

Re:

[jd (1658)]

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

It says right there in TFA:

[denzacar (181829)]

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. [stsci.edu]

Won't somebody think of the children...

[zappepcs (820751)]

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 (1004477)]

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

Change our thinking?

[Mr.Fork (633378)]

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!

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

"Imagine - being able to even detect a plant"

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

Headline Correction

[joeflies (529536)]

Youngest KNOWN Planet Discovered

Re:

[geekoid (135745)]

NO Shit.

Re:Headline Correction

[MobileTatsu-NJG (946591)]

Youngest KNOWN Planet Discovered

That's implied by the word... DISCOVERED.

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

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

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.

Re:

[jd (1658)]

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.)

75 Jupiter masses?

[Corf (145778)]

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.

From TFA...

[SimonGhent (57578)]

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 (84249)]

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

No, it's turtles all the way down [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[notnAP (846325)]

"I'm new here" != UID 57578

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

No, young man, it's turtles all the way down! [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[geekoid (135745)]

Reading the TFA and the flagrant lie abut being new will be excused only because of the Diskworld reference.

But we're watching you...

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

[AbsoluteXyro (1048620)]

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 [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 (1060730)]

I think Captain Planet is the youngest planet alive. source [wikipedia.org]

From the article

[EriktheGreen (660160)]

"The ball of dust and gas, which is in the process of turning into a Jupiter-like giant, was detected around the star HL Tau, by a UK team." Well, then... it's obvious the planet is being formed for The Greater Good through advanced technology. We can disregard the data, it's not a natural planetary formation.

is this really the youngest plannet.

[oliverthered (187439)]

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. Maybe I can sell a new beauty product for women, all they have to do is move so many light years away that they actually look younger than they really are, I'm sure someone will buy it.

Re:

[MBGMorden (803437)]

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.

Whippersnapper!

[spike2131 (468840)]

That planet better get off my lawn!

<shakes-fist/>

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

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 [newscientist.com] 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?

Re:Pass out the cigars...

[Chapter80 (926879)]

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...

Re:

[Deadstick (535032)]

Sometimes a planet is just a planet.

rj

Re:

[severoon (536737)]

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!

Re:Maybe not

[maroberts (15852)]

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:

[Stanistani (808333)]

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