New computer simulations show how special the solar system is
August 7, 2008Prevailing theoretical models attempting to explain the formation of the solar system have assumed it to be average in every way. Now a new study by Northwestern University astronomers, using recent data from the 300 exoplanets discovered orbiting other stars, turns that view on its head.
The solar system, it turns out, is pretty special indeed. The study illustrates that if early conditions had been just slightly different, very unpleasant things could have happened -- like planets being thrown into the sun or jettisoned into deep space.
Using large-scale computer simulations, the Northwestern researchers are the first to model the formation of planetary systems from beginning to end, starting with the generic disk of gas and dust that is left behind after the formation of the central star and ending with a full planetary system. Because of computing limitations, earlier models provided only brief glimpses of the process.
The researchers ran more than a hundred simulations, and the results show that the average planetary system's origin was full of violence and drama but that the formation of something like our solar system required conditions to be "just right."
The study, titled "Gas Disks to Gas Giants: Simulating the Birth of Planetary Systems," will be published in the Aug. 8 issue of the journal Science.
Before the discovery in the early 1990s of the first planets outside the solar system, our system's nine (now eight) planets were the only ones known to us. This limited the planetary formation models, and astronomers had no reason to think the solar system unusual.
"But we now know that these other planetary systems don't look like the solar system at all," said Frederic A. Rasio, a theoretical astrophysicist and professor of physics and astronomy in Northwestern's Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. He is senior author of the Science paper.
"The shapes of the exoplanets' orbits are elongated, not nice and circular. Planets are not where we expect them to be. Many giant planets similar to Jupiter, known as 'hot Jupiters,' are so close to the star they have orbits of mere days. Clearly we needed to start fresh in explaining planetary formation and this greater variety of planets we now see."
Using the wealth of exoplanet data collected during the last 15 years, Rasio and his colleagues have been working to understand planet formation in a much broader sense than was possible previously. Modeling an entire planetary system -- the varied physical phenomena associated with gas, gravity and grains of material, on such a variety of scales -- was a daunting challenge.
The work required very powerful computers. The researchers also had to judiciously decide what information was important and what was not, so as to speed up the calculations. They decided to follow the growth of planets, the gravitational interaction between planets, and the whole planetary system in its entire spatial extent. They chose not to follow the gas disk's fluid dynamics in fine detail, but rather more generally. As a result, they were able to run simulations spanning a planetary system's entire formation.
The simulations suggest that an average planetary system's origin is extremely dramatic. The gas disk that gives birth to the planets also pushes them mercilessly toward the central star, where they crowd together or are engulfed. Among the growing planets, there is cut-throat competition for gas, a chaotic process that produces a rich variety of planet masses.
Also, as the planets approach each other, they frequently lock into dynamical resonances that drive the orbits of all participants to be increasingly elongated. Such a gravitational embrace often results in a slingshot encounter that flings the planets elsewhere in the system; occasionally, one is ejected into deep space. Despite its best efforts to kill its offspring, the gas disk eventually is consumed and dissipates, and a young planetary system emerges.
"Such a turbulent history would seem to leave little room for the sedate solar system, and our simulations show exactly that," said Rasio. "Conditions must be just right for the solar system to emerge."
Too massive a gas disk, for example, and planet formation is an anarchic mess, producing "hot Jupiters" and noncircular orbits galore. Too low-mass a disk, and nothing bigger than Neptune -- an "ice giant" with only a small amount of gas -- will grow.
"We now better understand the process of planet formation and can explain the properties of the strange exoplanets we've observed," said Rasio. "We also know that the solar system is special and understand at some level what makes it special."
"The solar system had to be born under just the right conditions to become this quiet place we see. The vast majority of other planetary systems didn't have these special properties at birth and became something very different."
Source: Northwestern University
-
Tidal forces could squeeze out planetary water
50 minutes ago |
not rated yet |
0
-
When stars play planetary pinball
Feb 08, 2012 |
4 / 5 (1) |
0
-
High planetary tilt lowers odds for life?
Feb 06, 2012 |
4.8 / 5 (12) |
14
-
Radio stars: Caltech's astronomy professor searches for cosmic radio waves
Feb 03, 2012 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Elements of ExoPlanets
Feb 02, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (8) |
0
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (31) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
Titan's lack of impact craters
Feb 09, 2012
-
Real pictures of black hole eating a star?
Feb 08, 2012
-
Hypothetical way to travel faster than light, but not technically exceed lightspeed
Feb 06, 2012
-
How do scientists monitor the Sun's activity?
Feb 05, 2012
-
Search patterns in observational studies
Feb 05, 2012
-
Derivation of Pogson's law
Feb 03, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - General Astronomy
More news stories
Could Venus be shifting gear?
(PhysOrg.com) -- ESAs Venus Express spacecraft has discovered that our cloud-covered neighbour spins a little slower than previously measured. Peering through the dense atmosphere in the infrared, the ...
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
5 hours ago |
5 / 5 (5) |
7
|
Humans may have helped the decline of African rainforests 3000 years ago
(PhysOrg.com) -- Large areas of rainforests in Central Africa mysteriously disappeared over three thousand years ago, to be replaced by savannas. The prevailing theory has been that the cause was a change ...
Mars Science Laboratory computer issue resolved
(PhysOrg.com) -- Engineers have found the root cause of a computer reset that occurred two months ago on NASA's Mars Science Laboratory and have determined how to correct it.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
6 hours ago |
5 / 5 (5) |
3
|
Clam fields found at deep, low-temperature Mariana vents
(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have marveled at the unusual life forms thriving at high temperature hydrothermal vents of the deep ocean.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
5 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
Two new moons for Jupiter
Advances in technology have lead to the discovery of new planets outside of our Solar System, and now even new moons in our own backyard.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
5 hours ago |
not rated yet |
2
Putting the squeeze on planets outside our solar system
(PhysOrg.com) -- Using high-powered lasers, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and collaborators discovered that molten magnesium silicate undergoes a phase change in the liquid state, abruptly ...
Employers feel no love for unscrupulous practice of 'service sweethearting'
A new study led by two Florida State University marketing professors finds that some frontline service employees who are rewarded for hikes in customer loyalty and satisfaction also may engage in "service ...
US issues guidelines to avoid heparin contamination
Four years after US drug-maker Baxter International's blood thinner heparin was contaminated in China, causing dozens of deaths, US regulators on Friday issued draft guidelines for safe production.
Expat French get Internet vote for first time
French citizens will for the first time this year be able to vote in a parliamentary election over the Internet, an experiment that could be extended to other elections if successful.
"Twisted Metal" gamers get shot at real gunplay
Fans of "Twisted Metal" will get to welcome a long-awaited sequel of the car-battle videogame with a real-world bang by blasting an ice cream truck to bits with a machine gun.
The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males
A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (14)
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
I assume:
1. This was the formation of the entire solar system (including the sun).
2. It relies strictly on classical physics instead of quantum physics.
3. Electromagnetism played no role in the simulation.
4. They could tweak the simulation to produce the same amount of planets we have.
I'd like to know how the seeds of the planets were produced.
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 3 / 5 (3)
Even if we can only detect large planets we're detecting them in the wrong places...period. Most of what we're seeing out there is nothing like what we see here.
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (6)
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (6)
having your own theorys is fun
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
This is my view as well. The data we have on exoplanets is based on very specific types of planets that fall within our ability to detect. The assumption here seems to be that those planets (and the systems that harbor them) represent the majority of the planets in the universe, and I fail to see how that conclusion is anything but a guess at this point.
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
1
also, in chaotic system you can't decide that some information is irrelevant. with time you'll get extreme flaws
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Aug 07, 2008
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
Guess they played kind of God in this case deciding what is important or not - in my opinion every tiny bit was important to get just the right conditions and assuming that nearby stars and the overall galaxy gravitation also may have played a role together with the position of this 'flat gas disk' in correspondence to the up and down relative to the galactic plane I would guess it takes a long time for the human race till it really can be calculated.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (5)
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (6)
Such an intelligent bunch we are...
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
In simulations, it's always going to be easier to produce a choatic system, but that doesn't mean it will really be like that.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
Most other systems have highly elliptical orbits, our system doesn't. Again something should click for you right there. Now despite the fact that computer models are the least convincing argument here they represent our extrapolated knowledge and they're telling us that we're pretty rare, and so are our OBSERVATIONS.
So what if the Copernican principle fails one or two times, it was bound to be wrong about something at some point because rarely is anything COMPLETELY average and run of the mill. I don't know why a lot of you seem to be afraid to admit that despite all the evidence blaring in your face. Hey I might be wrong, but based on observation alone (despite the fact that our data is woefully incomplete) I really don't think I am.
Is it because it somehow threatens your scientific prejudice that we should not be special in any way, or that some of you are disappointed that the galaxy isn't going to be all Star Trek and brimming with intelligent life? I don't know how our being special would pose that kind of problem but if I'm honest I think that's EXACTLY what I see going on here...just a little bit of intellectual dishonesty.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
yeah. it's like saying: through my binoculars I can see people, but not ants. Therefore i conclude that there are no ants.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
I guess time travel *is* possible, because here I am in the middle of the Dark Ages.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
This does NOT mean we're at the center of the universe, nor even that we occupy any "special" place in it based on a purely scientific evaluation of the concept. What it DOES mean is that solar systems like ours are very likely quite rare...period.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
The COLD HARD FACTS however are beating down my hopes to almost nil. So what though? The universe is as it is...not as I wish it to be.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
Could it be easier to detect planets with highly elliptical orbits using current planet detection techniques? I raise but cannot answer the question.
My remark up page about conflating computer projection with data points still stands. Saying our own system is atypical in some way is a long way from implying a detailed undertanding of how it formed.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
That said we don't need perfect data to start drawing some rather gloomy pictures of how the rest of the star systems in the galaxy seem to tick. Who knows tho, it could be an anomaly of being in our particular spot of the galaxy, or the kind of galaxy we're in...but I'm leaning towards the fact that this is not the case.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Yes, absolutely. Exoplanets are detected by the gravitational wobble they cause on their host star. Much less massive rocky planets evade this technique.
Modernmystic, however, has apparently given up all hope of improving our detection techniques and has resigned us to a cold, empty Universe.
And Mystic, I know it you never made any reference to God, it was "Mr. Fred" who was implying an "intelligent designer." I was simply tying (what I consdier) to obscene ideas together with Latrosicarius that "there's a lot more to see than what we're seeing."
As much as some like to trumpet how "perfect" and "unusual" our spec of existence is (see yet another article on the front page), I know without a doubt in my mind that our solar system is just one of a million million pathetically common natural occurrences.
Our worldview is simply not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% complete.
Aug 08, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Not at all, but with the vast majority of systems having highly elliptically orbiting planets it hardly matters if we can detect small rocky ones or not...they're probably going to be borked for the purposes of supporting complex life.
Huh you lost me. On the one hand your SURE that our solar system is simply one of millions, yet then you say our worldview is a fraction of a fraction of 1% complete. I presume that you include your own worldview in that statement...
Moreover other than the Copernican principle/isotropic universe (which truth be told both have served us well so far) what hard DATA, if any, are you basing that assumption on?
Aug 09, 2008
Rank: not rated yet
That said, while I'm a big fan of computer simulations (working on my degree in applied math), I wouldn't trust this simulation further than I can throw the supercomputer that ran it. If they gave some quantitative matches to observation that would be great, like: average size of Jupiters, average orbit distance and eccentricity, etc. It's possible they have done extensive validation, I'd have to read the paper to know for sure.
Aug 09, 2008
Rank: not rated yet
Predict the unknown eh....
Aug 10, 2008
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 10, 2008
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Aug 10, 2008
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
That said, it's still possible that the simulation could be right. I'm skeptical, given that their fluid dynamics model was so coarsely grained; my own experience with writing physics simulations has demonstrated that the granularity level can have a profound impact on the final results, even at the most general level of description. And of course there's the wildcard of dark matter. But even if these guys are right, there are still over a sextillion other star systems out there, so there should still be plenty which are enough like ours to harbor similar life. Not to mention the possibility of dissimilar life.
Aug 10, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Patently false. Epsilon Eridani b is a 1.55 Jupiter mass planet that orbits at 3.39 AU. Epsilon Eridani c is far less massive and orbits at a whopping 40 AU. Go fish.
Aug 10, 2008
Rank: not rated yet
What we do see is not necessarily a complete picture of what we could see, should our vision be better.
That said we have seen a lot of examples of planets that are both quite large and quite close to the sun they orbit. Of those stars in between do we conclude anything at all at this stage.
I suggest, and it is only a suggestion that we try several scenarios.
1) That every single star we have seen so far that we cannot see any planets circling it - does in fact have smaller planets circling it. How many star systems is that by the way?
2) That we take a statistical sample of those stars we have looked at where we have found massive planets circling in close to the sun and compare that number of stars to those that we have not seen massive planets in close. This gives a statistical number that you can expect to find all over the galaxy with the simple assumption that what we have seen is a reasonable statistical sample.
Both above statements may lead to an incorrect view of the galaxy yet both may be correct and not in conflict with each other.
The in close massive planets may mean that habitable planets around those stars would be rare - then again maybe not. Sure a massive planet in close to the sun is nothing like ours and yes there is a good chance that these large planets have scrubbed clean the chances of small rocky planets staying in orbit around these stars if they could form at all. But the chance is NOT zero and there ARE plenty of other stars out there without massive planets orbiting them.
For a planet to sustain life it probably should not have been too close to a super novae within the last few millions of years either or it may have lost its atmosphere or been sterilized in other ways.
Aug 10, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Planets with highly elliptical orbits don't bode well for life, but more to the point (other than Mercury) do not jibe well at all with what we see in our own system.
Aug 11, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Papa here knows that the system is grown ,and music is the key just as your DOT works on the same process. Each planet provides part ofthe process,there re no big bangs that provided the system,just planet process men,that grew the planetoids,with simple science. Just simple science.