Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Science

Extra-Galactic Planet Discovered In Milky Way 111

Posted by timothy
from the just-visiting dept.
astroengine writes "Between six to nine billion years ago, the Milky Way collided with another galaxy. As you'd expect, this caused quite a mess; stars, dust and gas being ripped from the intergalactic interloper. In fact, to this day, the dust hasn't quite settled and astronomers have spotted an odd-looking exoplanet orbiting a metal-poor star 2,000 light-years from Earth. Through a careful process of elimination, the extrasolar planet (known as HIP 13044b) actually works out to be an extragalactic planet, a surviving relic of the massive collision eons ago."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Extra-Galactic Planet Discovered In Milky Way

Comments Filter:
  • by Quill_28 (553921)

    How old in the galaxy again, I get confused.

    • Re:Old (Score:5, Funny)

      by jappleng (1805148) on Friday November 19, 2010 @09:11AM (#34280570) Homepage Journal
      She said she was 18...
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by magpie (3270)
      six thousand years old of-course.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by stjobe (78285)

      From wikipedia:

      In 2007, a star in the Galactic halo, HE 1523-0901, was estimated to be about 13.2 billion years old, nearly as old as the Universe. As the oldest known object in the Milky Way at that time, it placed a lower limit on the age of the Milky Way

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Between six to nine billion years ago, the Milky Way collided with another galaxy. ... In fact, to this day, the dust hasn't quite settled

      Damn lawyers tying up the courts for six billion years over a traffic accident. Bastards.

  • Fornax (Score:3, Informative)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Friday November 19, 2010 @09:35AM (#34280722)
    This new planet was found in the constellation Fornax:
    Fornax [wikipedia.org] was identified by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in 1756. He originally called it Fornax Chemica ("chemical furnace"), representing a small solid fuel heater used for heating chemical experiments.
    • The Hubble Ultra Deep Field is located within Fornax, and the Fornax Cluster, a small cluster of galaxies, lies primarily within Fornax.
      There are 40 unknown "dwarf" galaxies in this constellation and has ultra compact dwarfs are much smaller than previously known dwarf galaxies, about 120 light-years across
      NGC 1316 is a notably bright elliptical galaxy within the Fornax Cluster. The galaxy is also one of the brightest radio sources in the sky.
      UDFy-38135539, a galaxy which was identified as the most distant object in the universe from Earth as of October 2010, is located in Fornax. It was detected using the Hubble UDF image.
  • by pedantic bore (740196) on Friday November 19, 2010 @09:39AM (#34280748)

    ... new legislation in Arizona is already being written to address the issues of extragalactic planets mixing and mingling with our stars, taking orbits that could be used for native planets.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tumbleweed (3706)

      ... new legislation in Arizona is already being written to address the issues of extragalactic planets mixing and mingling with our stars, taking orbits that could be used for native planets.

      Yeah, we don't want any 'anchor planets'!

  • It obviously doesn't belong here. Someone needs to find the galaxy that this planet belongs to and send it back.

  • by Speare (84249) on Friday November 19, 2010 @09:53AM (#34280894) Homepage Journal

    When I first read the headlines elsewhere, I wondered how we could have advanced sensitivity by a few orders of magnitude to distinguish individual stars in another galaxy, nevermind planets. Slashdot's headline is nonsensical. I find it kind of hard to think of a star that's "in the Milky Way galaxy" as being extragalactic. I'll even trust that the astronomers' science is right on: they're able to detect if a star matches indicators for originating in this galaxy or that galaxy. Maybe it used to be a part of a different galaxy pre-collision, but I would say it's in this galaxy now, so it's not an extragalactic star system. This article itself occasionally uses the phrase "of extragalactic origin" and I'm okay with that, but simplifying it further actually makes it more confusing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sockatume (732728)

      You could call it the distinction between saying you're reading an amazing book from the store across the street, and you're reading an amazing book that's in the store across the street.

    • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:52AM (#34281446) Journal

      I find it kind of hard to think of a star that's "in the Milky Way galaxy" as being extragalactic.

      Why not? The Immigration and Naturalization service considers many people in the United States of America to be aliens! Heck, they called me an alien first, then a resident alien before finally succumbing to my relentless pursuit of citizenship and agreed to call me a naturalized citizen, as though I was somehow not natural before Sep 21, 1999.

    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:59AM (#34281518) Homepage Journal

      I find it kind of hard to think of a star that's "in the Milky Way galaxy" as being extragalactic.

      It's extragalactic because it came from another galaxy. If a space alien visited Earth, it would still be extraterrestrial even when it was on Earth.

    • by Myopic (18616)

      I agree. Similarly, if you divorce your wife and marry your mistress, then it's no longer extra-marital sex.

      • by Belial6 (794905)
        It is if your still having three ways with the two of them...

        Oh, wait... What were we talking about again???
    • by Chris Burke (6130)

      I find it kind of hard to think of a star that's "in the Milky Way galaxy" as being extragalactic.

      Which is exactly the clue that, combined with another half second of thought, makes the meaning of the headline clear. "How can it be extragalactic if it's in the Milky Way? Oh, it's in the Milky Way now, and must have come from another galaxy. Got it." Rushing off to post a Slashdot-headlines-suck post is fine too, though. :)

      I mean it's perfectly fair to discuss whether "extragalactic" is a good term to de

    • Sooooo, exextragalactic?
    • by mdielmann (514750)

      Just think of it as a Mexican border-jumping into the United States. It could have happened when he was 10, and he's 95 now, but he's still an illegal alien*. Right?

      *This may not be the legal case in the U.S.A., and doesn't reflect my opinions on the matter, but it probably reflects the opinion of a significant number of Americans.

    • The reason why the origin of the star is so important is that it came with a planet. This means that we are not the only galaxy to contain planets. This isn't that surprising, but now we have at least one example to prove we're not just a strange one-off galaxy. So yes, it's a part of our galaxy now, and aside from it's odd orbit, it's a pretty standard star. However, its taught us we're not special, which is a very good thing.
    • by sznupi (719324)

      Possible planet in the Andromeda galaxy [exoplanet.eu]

      There's also slight possibility of observation of a planet that's around 3.7 billion light years away. [wikipedia.org]

      (we very much distinguish individual stars in some of the nearest galaxies...)

  • by itsdapead (734413) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:13AM (#34281058)

    "Hip 13044b" is a waste of a perfectly good excuse to name it Eddore [wikipedia.org].

    OK, so its extra-galactic rather than extra-dimensional, but that's the closest we're likely to get, and Doc Smith had colliding galaxies, too.

  • ... they come, they stay and there goes the neighborhood.
  • Is it an antimatter planet traveling at a peculiarly high velocity?

    • We should go visit it! I just got a new General Products hull for my spaceship and I'm itching to try it out!
      • by tibman (623933)

        ah, um.. it appears the life-time guarantee on your GP hull has been voided in a terrible paperwork accident. We apologize for the inconvenience and hope you enjoy using our nearly indestructable hull while we sort this problem out.

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:57AM (#34282152)

    Now, you're all experts in astronomical nomenclature? Have any of you even heard the term "extragalactic" before this article? People are whining like the planet has to come screaming out of the void from the edge of the universe to be "extragalactic". You don't like the definition, get your PhD in astrophysics and make up a new one.

    • You don't like the definition, get your PhD in astrophysics and make up a new one.

      Bzzt. The IAU doesn't define this as a planet, let alone an extragalactic one.

      • by sznupi (719324)

        The IAU doesn't define this as a planet in our system, what the definition is about...

        • They don't have any formal definition of planets outside our system, what my post was about...

          • by sznupi (719324)

            Your post was implying that IAU doesn't consider this object as an extrasolar planet; which is not the case / has nothing to do with any vendettas against definition talking just about planets of our system.

  • Though who knows how bad the TSA will be about mass relay travel...

  • Finally we have where he's been hiding. Send in the Silver Surfer!!! Um ... let's hope we send the right Silver Surfer!!!

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg

Working...