Page 1 of 1

New "impossible" planetary find

PostPosted: Thu 18 Oct 2018 20:24
by Cralis
CI Tau is a 2 million year old star inside of a stellar nursery, but it has 4 large gas giants... one of which is a "hot Jupiter" and the other is further out then thought possible for the age of the star. Even better, the planets are still surrounded by a planetary disk. Current models say that this formation isn't possible!

How cool is that?

Bonus: there is a really neat image of HL Tauri's planetary disk...one of the better images of a planetary disk I've seen.

https://www.universetoday.com/140280/su ... oung-star/

Re: New "impossible" planetary find

PostPosted: Fri 19 Oct 2018 04:56
by Vandervecken
Very interesting find, saw it first on the physics.org website. The picture is a beauty, indeed.


This is my go to place for Astronomy news - https://phys.org/space-news/

A little lighter is Space(dot)com - https://www.space.com/

These two sites are pinned to my favorites list (as is Starfire)

Re: New "impossible" planetary find

PostPosted: Fri 19 Oct 2018 10:02
by Cralis
I have phys.org and space.com, as well as universetoday.com. And a couple dozen other sites. I have them plugged into RSS so I can see what they are all posting at a glance.

Re: New "impossible" planetary find

PostPosted: Mon 22 Oct 2018 23:21
by southwestforests
This universe is fascinating, amazing, wondrous, and beautiful.

Re: New "impossible" planetary find

PostPosted: Sun 28 Oct 2018 12:50
by szurkey
Cralis wrote:CI Tau is a 2 million year old star inside of a stellar nursery, but it has 4 large gas giants... one of which is a "hot Jupiter" and the other is further out then thought possible for the age of the star. Even better, the planets are still surrounded by a planetary disk. Current models say that this formation isn't possible!

How cool is that?

Bonus: there is a really neat image of HL Tauri's planetary disk...one of the better images of a planetary disk I've seen.

https://www.universetoday.com/140280/su ... oung-star/

Actually, the standard model for planetary formation is fundamentally flawed. It cannot explain how planetismals go from softball size to basketball size. I've known about this for 20+ years. I used to argue on other forms, that the accretion model of planet formation is nonsense because of this, and that the simplest solution is that the cloud collapses into many parts, the most successful are stars, the next gas giants, then planets, and then asteroids and other rocks. They can still keep accreting material after the star ignites by the accretion theory, but they get their start long before.