Which exoplanet was the first comfirmed discovery?

AI Thread Summary
The first confirmed discovery of an exoplanet is debated between two candidates: the planet around the pulsar PSR B1257+12, discovered in 1992, and the planet orbiting Pegasi 51, found in 1995 by Michel Mayor and his team. The controversy stems from the nature of the pulsar's planets, which may have formed from a proto-planetary disk after the pulsar's creation, raising questions about their classification as exoplanets. Recent discussions suggest these pulsar planets could be original survivors from the star's life cycle, complicating their relevance to models of planetary formation. The distinction between planets orbiting dead stars versus living stars contributes to the ongoing debate in the scientific community. Understanding these differences is crucial for advancing theories of planetary development.
kop442000
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone.

I am trying to find out which is the first comfirmed discovery of an exoplanet. When I look on the web, I find some sources telling me it was the one found around peg51 by Michel Mayor and team in 1995, but others saying it was the one found around pulsar PSR B1257+12 in 1992.

Does anyone know for sure? Or know why there is disagreement?

Many thanks for any replies posted.
Kop442000
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Their parent star being a binary pulsar invites debate over the origin of the planets. They are believed to have formed from a proto-planetary disk formed after the pulsar was created (Banit, M. et. Al., Astrophysical Journal, 415, pp 779-796, 1993.). More recently a third planet was discovered round the pulsar and the suggestion that they are second generation planets has been cast into doubt. Now there is the suggestion they could be the original planets that survived the death of their parent star (Wolszczan, A. et. Al., Astrophysical Journal, 540, pp 41, 2000.), in which case they are very interesting in terms of extrapolating current theories beyond the life of the more massive stars.

But essentially the fact that they are objects orbiting a dead star is the source of the debate. Its debatable how useful it is in helping design models of planetary formation in young stars.
 
thank you for you reply!
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top