Oldest ever: 5 planets found orbiting an 11.2-billion-year-old sun

[n2doc]

An artist's conception of Kepler-444 -- one of the oldest known planetary systems in the universe. (Tiago Campante/Peter Devine)



The oldest planetary system ever found has been spotted by astronomers. The ancient star and five small, Earth-like planets are about 11.2 billion years old.

Until now, scientists weren’t certain that rocky planets could have formed so long ago, when the universe was five times younger than it is today. Now they know for sure that they did, according to a new study in the Astrophysical Journal.

The discovery also suggests that ancient life in our universe is more likely than was previously thought, scientists say.

more

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-found-5-small-planets-orbiting-an-112-billion-year-old-sun-20150126-story.html

[Johnny Rash]

1. This is GREAT NEWS!

Wow! 11.2 billion light years away from us, that is definitely not around the corner of our Solar System.

Thanks for posting!

[phantom power]

2. it is only 117 light-years from Earth

[Johnny Rash]

14. So it is located inside one of the Closest Galaxy next to us, right?

It will only take me 117 years to get there, at the speed of light.

Now, if only I could remember where did I parked my SPACESHIP?

[Jim Lane]

17. No, it's in our own galaxy, and very close at that.

Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is about 100,000 light-years in diameter. This star, only 117 light-years away, is practically our next-door neighbor.

The closest spiral galaxy to us (which means ignoring dwarf galaxies, satellites of the Milky Way, globular clusters, and other such second-tier entities) is Andromeda, which is about 2.5 million light-years away. So the star system described in the OP is nowhere near far away enough to be in the closest galaxy to us.

None of this will help you remember where you parked your spaceship, but at least it might help you pilot the craft correctly.

[Johnny Rash]

19. I was using an Astrological Map, but I guess that's only good for a Daily Horoscope?

I guess that explains a lot! But, just how old is our galaxy? The Universe itself is about 15 billion yrs old.

The following link says 11 billion years old:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-milky-way-galaxy-01552.html

Good news! I'm told my spaceship might be hidden in a SECRET PLACE called Area 51!

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. The star is 11.2 billion years old.

not that far away.

[jimlup]

3. I've held for some time that life probably didn't actually orginate on the Earth

This would help give me some additional possiblities even if remote ... I still just can't wrap my head around the organic soup in the accient tidal pools of new Earth model.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. "the organic soup in the accient tidal pools of new Earth model"

So, if life started somewhere else ... it wasn't in soup?

How does a different location change the situation?

[SheilaT]

6. Life had to evolve somewhere.

Why not on Earth?

I honestly think that supposing our life originated outside our solar system is less feasible than here on Earth itself. As I recall, back in the 1950's or so experiments were done attempting to duplicate the early conditions here, and long organic molecules formed quite readily. I know I'm getting some of the details wrong.

It's also thought that our moon is hugely important in the development of life, that those tidal pools were instrumental in creating the conditions needed. It's possible that a planet without a similar moon might not evolve live quite so readily.

[jimlup]

8. Actually the Miller-Urey experiment is a bit misleading

The results are not that impressive. I'm not a biologist but I'm currently reading a book on the orgin of life written by Robert Shapiro. His take is that the experiment only produces trace amounts of amino acids that really are not nearly as impressive when their concentrations are considered. Further the assumptions about the enviroment of the early Earth don't fit that well with the actual suspected conditions. You kind of have to imagine the "best case senario" and since the asseblage of life is so improbable already it seems to me to be a streetch. The "organic soup" model has problems. There are others, like the clay model, but these also leave me feeling they are inadequate. (Richard Dawkins happens to like the clay model - I personally don't.)


I'm not up to date on the current science but Shapiro's book which is circa late '80's indicates that all of the Earth based models have serious problems. So do the space or exo-planet models and they are also significantly more complex. My problem is that I'd like more time and increased odds by widening the available locations and time period. The 1 billion years or so in the early Earth just don't seem that realistic to me and all of the so called explainations leave me wanting.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I know - it is just a hunch. But I do have some experience in the sciences and the Earth based explainations seem to me to fall significantly short. Perhaps if we discover significant evidence of accient life on Mars then more interesting questions would be raised.

As I've said above, the early Earth just isn't as great as the Organic Soup paradim would have you believe.

[SheilaT]

18. Keep in mind that those experiments

didn't go on for millions of years. Getting the organic molecules every single time immediately does strike me as impressive. We clearly have different ideas about what's impressive and what isn't.

It's also, in my simple opinion, a better application of Occam's Razor, the simplest solution, for life to evolve here on earth rather than be wandering through the vast reaches of space, and only just by the most bizarre of chances land here and take hold. Interstellar distances are vast in a way we can't begin to appreciate, and just a couple of molecules landing on the surface of this planet hardly strikes me as having very much chance of eventually leading to all life as we know it. But the primordial soup getting started so easily? Makes sense to me.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. The organic soup model works on the theory that if life can appear hear it an appear anywhere

conditions are right, perhaps it is even inevitable.

Panspermia. generally comes from the notion that life is exceedingly rare and propagates by spores or other microorganisms hitch hiking rides.

I tend to hold with the idea that life is common.

[jimlup]

10. Actually panspermia doesn't require that life be rare ...

just that it didn't necessarily start on the Earth. Maybe it has spread throughout the Galaxy and is quite common but has a common origin.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. I hold more to the idea that if life can exist it will.

that it has many origins. That doesn't mean that panspermia is not a factor.

[jimlup]

13. Yes I understand this view

I believe one of my favorite science fiction writers - Arthur Clark held this view. I am skeptical of this view. "It seems too good to be true" to me. Which doesn't mean I'm right. I mean I can't explain the origin of life anymore than anyone else and it bugs me a bit. Still I hold that it is a rare occurance. Just seems unlikely that so much complexity would be inate in matter.

[FiveGoodMen]

15. That still does nothing to explain how life could develop elsewhere but not here

[jimlup]

16. Sure I understand

but for me the appeal of elsewhere is it just gives more space and time for the compexity that is life to arise. It just seems more appealing to me as a conjecture but it is just that - a conjecture.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Interstellar Radio Message Recieved: Scientists translating deeply encoded mathematical pulses

message as follows

GREETINGS EARTH CREATURES HELLO FROM KEPLER 444

STOP TWERKING FIND YOURSELVES A NICE GIRL AND SETTLE DOWN

I'D SAY WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE SWING BY AND HELP US PROGRAM THIS VCR BUT YOU NEVER CALL EXCEPT TO ASK FOR MONEY

AND GET OFF OUR LAWN

STOP

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. We have only been here for a blink in cosmic time.