(June 3, 2014 at 2:08 pm)max-greece Wrote: The reason it was thought that rocky planets couldn't exist so early in the universe isn't merely the availability of metals (heavier elements) but profundity. A lot of massive stars have to collapse for there to be a chance of sufficient amounts to be caught under gravitation to form a planet. Remember that when a star explodes it does so in all directions and at high speed. What you need is overlays of exploded metals from multiple stars to gather in a sufficiently small area to be caught up and combined into a planet.

That, was considered unlikely until now. Obviously somewhere along the line we got something wrong. That's why it is a surprise.

It may well be unlikely - we don't know how uncommon such planets are yet.

(June 3, 2014 at 2:08 pm)max-greece Wrote: The reason it was thought that rocky planets couldn't exist so early in the universe isn't merely the availability of metals (heavier elements) but profundity. A lot of massive stars have to collapse for there to be a chance of sufficient amounts to be caught under gravitation to form a planet. Remember that when a star explodes it does so in all directions and at high speed. What you need is overlays of exploded metals from multiple stars to gather in a sufficiently small area to be caught up and combined into a planet.

That, was considered unlikely until now. Obviously somewhere along the line we got something wrong. That's why it is a surprise.

But I believe the low metalicity of early universe hamper the formation of all but very large stars, so the proportion of massive stars amongst population III is much larger than in our current universe, and very large porportions of population III stars would have popped off as supernovas distributing elements up to iron into surrounding space.

This suggests the at least in the primordial star forming regions of early universe supernovas would occur at much higher frequency than now, and heavy elements would have been manufactured and liberated at mucg higher rate than would be the general case now.

(June 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(June 3, 2014 at 2:08 pm)max-greece Wrote: The reason it was thought that rocky planets couldn't exist so early in the universe isn't merely the availability of metals (heavier elements) but profundity. A lot of massive stars have to collapse for there to be a chance of sufficient amounts to be caught under gravitation to form a planet. Remember that when a star explodes it does so in all directions and at high speed. What you need is overlays of exploded metals from multiple stars to gather in a sufficiently small area to be caught up and combined into a planet.

That, was considered unlikely until now. Obviously somewhere along the line we got something wrong. That's why it is a surprise.

But I believe the low metalicity of early universe hamper the formation of all but very large stars, so the proportion of massive stars amongst population III is much larger than in our current universe, and very large porportions of population III stars would have popped off as supernovas distributing elements up to iron into surrounding space.

This suggests the at least in the primordial star forming regions of early universe supernovas would occur at much higher frequency than now, and heavy elements would have been manufactured and liberated at mucg higher rate than would be the general case now.

I'm at the disadvantage here that the evidence is now there that you might be right. I am just trying to explain why it was thought otherwise.

Remember that the low metalicity would also tend to lead to planets forming that were gas giants which takes us full circle as to why we were not expecting the formation of rocky planets.

That's all I have on this. Maybe it shouldn't have been a surprise - but it was, and not just to me. You'd have to ask a physicist for more.

(June 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm)Losty Wrote: I just discovered this guy today an this post seemed somewhat relevant

---

---

"Ken M" apparently has a room-temperature IQ.

Nuh-uh. I think he's a freakin' genius.

Seriously, no one could so consistently get it all wrong in such a hilarious manner by being a dim bulb.

(June 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm)Losty Wrote: I just discovered this guy today an this post seemed somewhat relevant

---

---

"Ken M" apparently has a room-temperature IQ.

I think you inadvertently paid him a compliment, room temperature is typically 293.15 to 298.15 K

(June 3, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Sejanus Wrote:

(June 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: "Ken M" apparently has a room-temperature IQ.

I think you inadvertently paid him a compliment, room temperature is typically 293.15 to 298.15 K

Funny, my thermostat reads 68.

I think you'd be dead if that were the case.

Lol yea it's 72 on my thermostat. Use Fahrenheit, this is muricah!!

(June 3, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Chuck Wrote:

---

(June 2, 2014 at 11:39 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: And then there is the Fermi paradox . . .

Fermi paradox could possibly be resolve if we assume much of those who possess technology even more advanced than that which seem like magic to us would for various reasons make themselves invisible to us, ie the window of opportunity in which a technological civilization could reveal itself to us and would chose to reveal itself to us is very slim next to the time span such a civilzation might exist. So only a tiny fraction of civilzations that has the capacity to make itself known to us would actually allow itself to be known to us.

---

(June 3, 2014 at 12:34 am)max-greece Wrote: Interestingly it is 11 billion years old apparently. That's much older than we thought rocky planets could be.

---

Wouldn't really think so. Most of the materials from which terresterial planets are made were created inside very large, short lived stars that go supernova at the end of their lives. These stars have life expectancies measured in millions, not billions of years.

Current view is Universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the first generation of stars were around by 13 billion years ago.

By the time this planet formed 11 billions ago, the universe already had 2 billion years, enough to go through several dozen of generations of stars that manufactured and distributed terresterial planet material, to prepare the scene for terresterial planet formation.

What makes you think that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old?

As far as giant terrestrial planets are concerned, their climate and weather patterns would be a real bear. They would be smoother than a cue ball. The larger the planet the flatter it becomes, based on comparisons between Earth and Mars.

Plot of measured distance to distant galaxies mapped in all direction in the sky, against their measured velocity as they move away from us, shows vast majority of them would be on top of us 13.7 billion years ago.

It is a good bet the universe in anyway similar to ours and able to form stars and planets begun around 13.7 billion years ago.