Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

This is how Atlantic wire scientific columnists roll

  1. Jun 6, 2013 #1

    DHF

    User Avatar

    Last edited: Jun 6, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 6, 2013 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Apart from the distance, the weird size estimate and the mixture of "image exists <-> discovered via directing imaging", what is so wrong?
    I did not check the timescale of direct observations.
     
  4. Jun 6, 2013 #3

    Bobbywhy

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  5. Jun 6, 2013 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

  6. Jun 7, 2013 #5
    Well, 300 billion light years...

    That distance is 150 times further than the distance to the Andromeda galaxy, and since the observable universe has about a 45 billion light year radius, that distance is very well outside the observable universe.

    At that distance, for them to have received the light now, the planet would have needed to emit light from a time older than the universe, but they estimate the planet's star is only 10-17 million years old.
     
  7. Jun 7, 2013 #6

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Where does the number of 300 billion light years come from? The real value is 300 ly, and the first article has the wrong number of 300 million light years - way too far away for an image of a planet, but at least within the observable universe.
    I wonder how such an error gets created.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook