Alien Planets Older than Our Milky Way Galaxy --Challenge Accepted Theories
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« Titan's Eerie Mystery: The Lakes of Saturn's Moon are Oddly Smooth with No Waves Ever Detected | Main | Comment of the Day: "A Hugely Older Universe?" --Unexplained Anomalies »

July 27, 2013

Alien Planets Older than Our Milky Way Galaxy --Challenge Accepted Theories

 

            6a00d8341bf7f753ef0167644b6177970b-500wi

 

 Two huge Jupiter-sized planets found in 2012 orbiting a star 375 light-years away  that will soon transform into a red giant (image above), are among  the oldest alien worlds yet discovered according to scientists at the Max-Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany. "The Milky Way itself was not completely formed yet," said Johny Setiawan. During a  survey using radial velocity, in which astronomers watch for periodic wobbles in a star's light due to the gravitational tugs of orbiting worlds, Setiawan and colleagues found the signatures of the two planets orbiting the star, dubbed HIP 11952.

At an estimated age of 12.8 billion years, the host star—and thus the planets—most likely formed at the dawn of the universe, less than a billion years after the big bang. Based on the team's calculations, one alien planet is almost as massive as Jupiter and completes an orbit in roughly seven days. The other exo planet is nearly three times Jupiter's mass and has an orbital period of nine and a half months.

"Usually planets form just shortly after the star formation," Setiawan said. "Second-generation planets might also form after a star has died, but this is still under debate."

The discovery indicates that planet formation in the early universe was possible despite the fact that stars in existence back then were lacking in elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, which runs counter to a widely accepted theory called the accretion model, which says that heavy elements are needed to form planets. In the case of HIP 11952, "its iron abundance is only about one percent that of our sun," Setiawan said.

The accretion theory has so far been backed up by observations: Most of the planet-harboring stars discovered to date are relatively young and have moderate to high amounts of metals, but Setiawan says that "astronomers may think the accretion model is correct because planet hunters using Kepler Mission data have been targeting mostly young, sunlike stars."

"To verify this issue, it is necessary to do a planet-search survey around [older] metal-poor stars," Setiawan said.

The Daily Galaxy via Astronomy & Astrophysics

Image credit: lcse.umn.edu

Comments

Can someone explain me why the universe can't be older than 13.2 billion years?

Very interesting stuff!

Not a Structure; the "accepted" age is 13.8 billion, but I read a few days ago that new observations indicate that the universe is a bit older (@ 14+ billion). IIRC this figure is calculated using redshift data, microwave background data, and observations of the earliest objects. I'm not a cosmologist, but I view all these claims as a sort of best guess. There are those who doubt the entire Big Bang theory, and I speak of astronomers (admittedly on the fringe), not educated laymen. I believe you still have proponents of Steady State Theory, although they keep a very low profile.

We are not alone. The gov needs to just come clean with we the people of this great NATION.

If you backtrack the trajectories of all galaxies, they seem to meet at the origin point where big bang took place. Based on the distance of most farther away galaxies, the point of big bang is about 13-15billion years back.

All this is theory - its hard to replicate and test this kind of theory obviously.. but most new data seems to adhere to this theory.

We can always fantasize that time had a different meaning towards the origin of big bang or that the laws of quantum mechanics were different. Possible.. but at this point this would be pure speculation.

HTH,
minidodo.

So these Jupiter size planets were spun off their star when there was only helium and hydrogen so the planets are gas balls? Will observations be able to tell the metal content of the planets? If so, and there is more metal than in the sun, then we would have a new theory of how the sun kicks out metals as the basis for planet?


Post a comment

« Titan's Eerie Mystery: The Lakes of Saturn's Moon are Oddly Smooth with No Waves Ever Detected | Main | Comment of the Day: "A Hugely Older Universe?" --Unexplained Anomalies »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E