DOCSLIB.ORG

Planet Formation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Planet Formation 3. Planet form ation Frontiers of A stronom y W orkshop/S chool Bibliotheca A lexandrina M arch-A pril 2006 Properties of planetary system s • all giant planets in the solar system have a > 5 A U w hile extrasolar giant planets have semi-major axes as small as a = 0.02 A U • planetary orbital angular momentum is close to direction of S un’s spin angular momentum (w ithin 7o) • 3 of 4 terrestrial planets and 3 of 4 giant planets have obliquities (angle betw een spin and orbital angular momentum) < 30o • interplanetary space is virtually empty, except for the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt • planets account for < 0.2% of mass of solar system but > 98% of angular momentum Properties of planetary system s • orbits of major planets in solar system are nearly circular (eMercury=0.206, ePluto=0.250); orbits of extrasolar planets are not (emedian=0.28) • probability of finding a planet is proportional to mass of metals in the star Properties of planetary system s • planets suffer no close encounters and are spaced fairly n regularly (Bode’s law : an=0.4 + 0.3×2 ) planet semimajor axis (A U ) n an (A U ) Mercury 0.39 −∞ 0.4 V enus 0.72 0 0.7 Earth 1.00 1 1.0 Mars 1.52 2 1.6 asteroids 2.77 (Ceres) 3 2.8 Jupiter 5.20 4 5.2 S aturn 9.56 5 10.0 U ranus 19.29 6 19.6 N eptune 30.27 7 38.8 Pluto 39.68 8 77.2 Properties of planetary system s • planets suffer no close encounters and are spaced fairly n regularly (Bode’s law : an=0.4 + 0.3×2 ) planet semimajor axis (A U ) n an (A U ) Mercury+ 0.39 −∞ 0.4 V enus 0.72 0 0.7 Earth 1.00 1 1.0 *predicted Mars 1.52 2 1.6 +exceptions asteroids* 2.77 (Ceres) 3 2.8 J+ upiter 5.20 4 5.2 S aturn 9.56 5 10.0 U ranus* 19.29 6 19.6 N eptune+ 30.27 7 38.8 Pluto+ 39.68 8 77.2 Properties of planetary system s • O ort cloud: – ~1012 comets of 1 km or larger – radii >104 A U – approximately spherical – source of long-period comets (P > 200 yr) and short- period comets (200 yr > P > 20 yr) • Kuiper belt – ~109 comets – radii > 35 A U – flattened disk – source of Jupiter-family comets (P < 20 yr) Properties of planetary system s • most planets have satellites planet number Mmax/Mplanet Earth 1 0.012 Mars 2 1.7×10-8 Jupiter 61 7.8×10-5 S aturn 31 2.4×10-4 U ranus 27 4.1×10-5 N eptune 13 2.1×10-4 Pluto 3 0.15 Properties of planetary system s • solid planetary and satellite surfaces are heavily cratered; cratering rate must have been far greater in first 109 yr of solar system history than it is now (“late heavy bombardment”) • age of solar system is 4.56 ± 0.02 × 109 yr • “terrestrial” planets (Mercury, V enus, Earth, Mars) are composed of rocky, refractory (high condensation temperature) material • “giant” planets (Jupiter, S aturn) composed mostly of H and H e but are enriched in metals and appear to have rock-ice core of 10-20 Earth masses • “intermediate” or “ice” planets (U ranus and N eptune) also have cores but are only 5-20% H and H e (not “terrestrial”) • gas disks around young stars dissipate in 106 – 107 yr W hat is a planet? V ersion 1: – main-sequence stars burn hydrogen (M>0.08 M=80 MJupiter) – brow n dw arfs have masses too low to burn hydrogen but large enough to burn deuterium (80 MJupiter<M<13 MJupiter) – planets have masses < 13 MJupiter – Good points: mass is easy to measure; maximum mass of close companions to stars is around 15 MJupiter (brow n- dw arf desert) – Bad points: deuterium burning has no fundamental relation to the formation or properties of a planet W hat is a planet? V ersion 2: – planets are objects similar to the planets in our ow n solar system – Bad points: is a Jupiter-mass object at a=0.02 A U a planet? is Pluto a planet? Is our solar system special? V ersion 3: – anything formed in a disk around a star is a planet – Bad points: figuring out how something is formed is really hard, and w hat do w e call them until w e do? 5row n et al. (2005) T he encounter hypothesis • Close encounter w ith a passing star rips material off the S un that spreads into a long filament and condenses into planets (Buffon 1745, Jeans 1928, Jeffreys 1929) • Problems: Prove! – very rare event: needs impact parameter < 2 R so only happens to 1 in 108 stars 1/2 1/2 – specific angular momentum of order (GMR) not (GMaJ) ; factor 30 too small (Russell 1935) (not a problem for some extrasolar planets!) – 1 Jupiter mass of material requires digging to R ~ 0.1 R w here temperature ~5 × 105 K and resulting blob w ill have positive energy, and cooling time ~ 1010 sec. B lob expands adiabatically and disperses (S pitzer 1939) – w here did Jupiter’s deuterium come from? T he brow n-dw arf hypothesis • extrasolar “planets” are simply very low -mass stars that form from collapse of multiple condensations in protostellar clouds • distribution of eccentricities and periods of extrasolar planets very similar to distributions for binary stars Cumulative distribution functions in period and eccentricity for extrasolar planets and low -mass companions of spectroscopic binaries period eccentricity from Z ucker & Mazeh (2001) T he brow n dw arf hypothesis • extrasolar “planets” are simply very low -mass stars that form from collapse of multiple condensations in protostellar clouds • distribution of eccentricities and periods of extrasolar planets very similar to distributions for binary stars • but: – w hy is there a brow n-dw arf desert? – how did planets in solar system get onto circular, coplanar orbits? – how do you make planets w ith solid cores, or terrestrial planets? T he nebular hypothesis • the S un and planets formed together out of a rotating cloud of gas (the “solar nebula”) • gravitational instabilities in the gas disk condense into planets (Kant 1755) • Good points: variations might w ork to form Jupiter, S aturn, extrasolar gas giants • Bad points: how do you make U ranus, N eptune, terrestrial planets? T he planetesim al (S afronov) hypothesis • forming S un is surrounded by a gas disk (like nebular hypothesis) • planets form by multi-stage process: 1. as the disk cools, rock and ice grains condense out and settle to the midplane of the disk – chemistry and gas drag are dominant processes 2. small solid bodies grow from the thin dust layer to form km- sized bodies (“planetesimals”) - gas drag, gravity and chemical bonding are dominant processes 3. planetesimals collide and grow – gravitational scattering and solar gravity are dominant processes. “Molecular chaos” applies and evolution is described by statistical mechanics T he planetesim al (S afronov) hypothesis planets form by multi-stage process: 1. rock and ice grains condense out and settle 2. formation of km-sized planetesimals 3. planetesimals collide and grow 4. a few planetesimals grow large enough to dominate evolution. O rbits become regular or w eakly chaotic and are described by celestial mechanics rather than statistical mechanics (“planetary embryos”) 5. on much slow er timescales, planetary embryos collide and grow into “planetary cores” 6. cores of intermediate and giant planets accrete gas envelopes requires grow th by 45 orders of magnitude in mass through ~6 different physical processes! M inim um solar nebula • add volatile elements to each planet to augment them to solar composition • spread each planet into an annulus reaching halfw ay to the next planet • smooth the resulting surface density: Σ(r) ≈ 3 × 103 g cm -2 (1 A U /r)1.5 Prove! M inim um solar nebula Σ(r) ≈ 3 × 103 g cm-2 (1 A U /r)1.5 • assume 0.5% metals and divide into r = 0.1 µ dust particles w ith density ρ = 3 g cm-3 • geometric optical depth is Prove! τ ≈ 4 × 105 (1 A U /r)1.5 i.e. disk is opaque to very large distances the “V ega phenomenon” (Z uckerman & S ong 2003) dust emission at 850 µ from S CU BA on JCMT . From Z uckerman (2001) • destruction mechanisms include radiation pressure, Poynting- Robertson drag, collisions, sublimation • likely destruction times short compared to age • “debris disks” (Z uckerman 2001) O rion nebula PR O toPLanetarY D iskS = “proplyds” Prove! Prove! S tability of the m inim um solar nebula Consider a disk w ith surface density Σ, angular speed Ω, and sound speed c, and examine a small patch of size L. – mass is M~Σ L2 2 2 3 – gravitational potential energy is EG ~ -GM /L ~ -GΣ L 2 2 4 – energy in rotational motion is ER ~ M(Ω L) ~ ΣΩ L 2 2 2 – internal energy is EP ~ Mc ~ Σ L c – stable if EG + ER + EP > 0 or -GΣ2L3 + ΣΩ2L4 + Σ L2c2 > 0, or -GΣ L + Ω2L2 + c2 > 0 for all L. T he quadratic function on the left reaches its minimum at L=Gσ/2Ω2, and this is positive if Prove! 2cΩ/GΣ > 1. A ccurate calculations show that gravitational stability requires that T oomre’s parameter T he nebular hypothesis revisited Por standard parameters at 1 A U , Q = 170 Prove! Minimum solar nebula is very stable! T his is a big problem for the nebular hypothesis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Planets of the Solar System
    Chapter Planets of the 27 Solar System Chapter OutlineOutline 1 ● Formation of the Solar System The Nebular Hypothesis Formation of the Planets Formation of Solid Earth Formation of Earth’s Atmosphere Formation of Earth’s Oceans 2 ● Models of the Solar System Early Models Kepler’s Laws Newton’s Explanation of Kepler’s Laws 3 ● The Inner Planets Mercury Venus Earth Mars 4 ● The Outer Planets Gas Giants Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Objects Beyond Neptune Why It Matters Exoplanets UnderstandingU d t di theth formationf ti and the characteristics of our solar system and its planets can help scientists plan missions to study planets and solar systems around other stars in the universe. 746 Chapter 27 hhq10sena_psscho.inddq10sena_psscho.indd 774646 PDF 88/15/08/15/08 88:43:46:43:46 AAMM Inquiry Lab Planetary Distances 20 min Turn to Appendix E and find the table entitled Question to Get You Started “Solar System Data.” Use the data from the How would the distance of a planet from the sun “semimajor axis” row of planetary distances to affect the time it takes for the planet to complete devise an appropriate scale to model the distances one orbit? between planets. Then find an indoor or outdoor space that will accommodate the farthest distance. Mark some index cards with the name of each planet, use a measuring tape to measure the distances according to your scale, and place each index card at its correct location. 747 hhq10sena_psscho.inddq10sena_psscho.indd 774747 22/26/09/26/09 111:42:301:42:30 AAMM These reading tools will help you learn the material in this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Meteorites and the Origin of the Solar System
    Meteorites and the origin of the solar system STEPHEN G. BRUSH University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract: During the past two centuries, theories of the origin of the solar system have been strongly influenced by observations and theories about meteorites. I review this history up to about 1985. During the 19th century the hypothesis that planets formed by accretion of small solid particles ('the meteoritic hypothesis') competed with the alternative 'nebular hypothesis' of Laplace, based on condensation from a hot gas. At the beginning of the 20th century Chamberlin and Moulton revived the meteoritic hypothesis as the 'planetesimal hypothesis' and joined it to the assumption that the solar system evolved from the encounter of the Sun with a passing star. Later, the encounter hypothesis was rejected and the planetesimal hypothesis was incorporated into new versions of the nebular hypothesis. In the 1950s, meteorites provided essential data for the establishment by Patterson and others of the pre- sently accepted 4500 Ma age of the Earth and the solar system. Analysis of the Allende meteorite, which fell in 1969, inspired the 'supernova trigger' theory of the origin of the solar system, and furnished useful constraints on theories of planetary formation developed by Urey, Ringwood, Anders and others. Many of these theories assumed condensation from a homogeneous hot gas, an assumption that was challenged by astrophysical calculations. The meteoritic-planetesimal theory of planet formation was developed in Russia by Schmidt and later by Safronov. Wetherill, in the United States, established it as the preferred theory for formation of terrestrial planets.
    [Show full text]
  • Allowed Planetary Orbits
    RELATIONSHIPS OF PARAMETERS OF PLANETARY ORBITS IN SOLAR---TYPE-TYPE SYSTEMS FACULTY OF SCIENCE, PALACKÝ UNIVERSITY, OLOMOUC RELATIONSHIPS OF PARAMETERS OF PLANETARY ORBITS IN SOLAR-TYPE SYSTEMS DOCTORAL THESIS PAVEL PINTR OLOMOUC 2013 VYJÁD ŘENÍ O PODÍLNICTVÍ Prohlašuji, že všichni auto ři se podíleli stejným dílem na níže uvedených článcích: Pintr P., Pe řinová V.: The Solar System from the quantization viewpoint. Acta Universitatis Palackianae, Physica, 42 - 43 , 2003 - 2004, 195 - 209. Pe řinová V., Lukš A., Pintr P.: Distribution of distances in the Solar System. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 34 , 2007, 669 - 676. Pintr P., Pe řinová V., Lukš A.: Allowed planetary orbits. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 36 , 2008, 1273 - 1282. Pe řinová V., Lukš A., Pintr P.: Regularities in systems of planets and moons. In: Solar System: Structure, Formation and Exploration . Editor: Matteo de Rossi, Nova Science Publishers, USA (2012), pp. 153-199. ISBN: 978-1-62100-057-0. Pintr P.: Závislost fotometrických parametr ů hv ězd na orbitálních parametrech exoplanet. Jemná Mechanika a Optika 11 - 12 , 2012, 317 - 319. Pintr P., Pe řinová V., Lukš A.: Areal velocities of planets and their comparison. In : Quantization and Discretization at Large Scales . Editors: Smarandache F., Christianto V., Pintr P., ZIP Publishing, Ohio, USA (2012), pp. 15 - 26. ISBN: 9781599732275. Pintr P., Pe řinová V., Lukš A., Pathak A.: Statistical and regression analyses of detected extrasolar systems. Planetary and Space Science 75 , 2013, 37 - 45. Pintr P., Pe řinová V., Lukš A., Pathak A.: Exoplanet habitability for stellar spectral classes F, G, K and M. 2013, v p říprav ě.
    [Show full text]
  • Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems
    Specialist Topics in Astrophysics: Lecture 2 Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems Ken Rice ([email protected]) FormationFormation ofof PlanetaryPlanetary SystemsSystems Lecture 2: Main topics • Solar System characteristics • Origin of the Solar System • Building the planets Most theories of planet formation have been carried out in the context of explaining our Solar System • Any theory must first explain the data/observables OriginOrigin ofof ourour SolarSolar SystemSystem To have a successful theory we must explain the following: • Planets revolve in mostly circular orbits in same direction as the Sun spins OriginOrigin ofof ourour SolarSolar SystemSystem • Planetary orbits nearly lie in a single plane (except Pluto [no longer a planet!!] and Mercury), close to the Sun’s equator • Planets are well spaced, and their orbits do not cross or come close to crossing (except Neptune/Pluto) OriginOrigin ofof ourour SolarSolar SystemSystem • All planets (probably) formed at roughly the same time • Meteorites suggest inner portions of the Solar System were heated to ~1500 K during meteorite/planet formation period OriginOrigin ofof ourour SolarSolar SystemSystem • Planet composition varies in a systematic way throughout the Solar System Terrestrial planets are rocky Outer planets are gaseous OriginOrigin ofof ourour SolarSolar SystemSystem • Jupiter/Saturn are dominated by H and He; Neptune/ Uranus have much less H and He (mainly ices, methane, carbon dioxide and ammonia) OriginOrigin ofof OurOur SolarSolar SystemSystem • Planetary satellites
    [Show full text]
  • How Do You Find an Exoplanet?
    October 27, 2015 Time: 09:41am chapter1.tex © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. 1 INTRODUCTION For as long as there been humans we have searched for our place in the cosmos. — Carl Sagan, 1980 1.1 My Brief History I am an astronomer, and as such my professional interest is focused on the study of light emitted by objects in the sky. However, unlike many astronomers, my interest in the night sky didn’t begin until later in my life, well into my college education. I don’t have childhood memories of stargazing, I never thought to ask for a telescope for Christmas, I didn’t have a moon-phase calendar on my wall, and I never owned a single book about astronomy until I was twenty-one years old. As a child, my closest approach to the subject of astronomy was a poster of the Space Shuttle that hung next to my bed, but my interest was piqued more by the intricate mechanical details of the spacecraft rather than where it traveled. Looking back, I suppose the primary reason for my ignorance of astronomy was because I grew up in a metropolitan area, in the North County of St. Louis, Missouri. The skies are often cloudy in the winter when the nights are longest, the evenings are bright with light For general queries, contact [email protected] October 27, 2015 Time: 09:41am chapter1.tex © Copyright, Princeton University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoughts on the Nebular Theory of Our Planetary System Formation
    Thoughts on the Nebular Theory of our Planetary System Formation Thierry De Mees e-mail: thierrydemees (at) telenet.be The Nebular Hypothesis For the protoplanetary disk, a large number of hypotheses follow subsequently to explain how the small dust would be The hypothesis of a Solar Nebula, also known as the Kant- clumping and form planets. Laplace hypothesis, is currently the most accepted explanation I enumerate here some of the keywords and key phrases that for the origin of the Solar System. are usually needed to explain that evolution: turbulence, viscosi- The theory was invented by Emanuel Swedenborg in 1734. ty, transport of the mass, gas drifting outwards, growth of both Immanuel Kant extended Swedenborg's theory further in 1755. the protostar and of the disk radius, mixing of materials, coagula- He thought that if nebulae and gas clouds rotate slowly, they tion, gravitational instability, migration to another orbit, frag- would slowly contract and flatten under their own gravitational mentation into clumps, some will collapse, stochastic growth, force, and eventually the central star and planets of the solar sys- nearly circular orbits, more eccentric orbits, oligarchic growth tem would be formed. A similar model was proposed in 1796 by stage, natural growth restriction, natural sphere of influence, Pierre-Simon Laplace. frost line, by the Solar wind all the gas from the protoplanetary According to the hypothesis a planetary system like the Solar disk is blown away, collisions between protoplanets, the System begins as a large, approximately spherical cloud of very protoplanets disrupt each other's orbits with their gravity, cold interstellar gas.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Formation of the Solar System Agenda • Announce: – Mercury Transit – Part 2 of Projects Due Next Thursday • Ch
    Chapter 8 Formation of the Solar System Agenda • Announce: – Mercury Transit – Part 2 of Projects due next Thursday • Ch. 8—Formation of the Solar System • Philip on The Physics of Star Trek • Radiometric Dating Lab What properties of our solar 8.1 The Search for Origins system must a formation theory explain? • What properties of our solar system must a 1. Patterns of motion of the large bodies formation theory explain? • Orbit in same direction and plane • What theory best explains the features of 2. Existence of two types of planets our solar system? • Terrestrial and Jovian 3. Existence of smaller bodies • Asteroids and comets 4. Notable exceptions to usual patterns • Rotation of Uranus, Earth’s moon, etc. What theory best explains the Close Encounter Hypothesis features of our solar system? • The nebular theory states that our solar system • A rival idea proposed that the planets formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant formed from debris torn off the Sun by a interstellar gas cloud—the solar nebula (Nebula is the Latin word for cloud) close encounter with another star. • Kant and Laplace proposed the nebular • That hypothesis could not explain hypothesis over two centuries ago observed motions and types of planets. • A large amount of evidence now supports this idea 1 Where did the solar system come 8.2 The Birth of the Solar System from? • Where did the solar system come from? • What caused the orderly patterns of motion in our solar system? Galactic Recycling Evidence from Other Gas Clouds • Elements that • We can see
    [Show full text]
  • Formation of the Solar System Chapter 8
    Formation of the Solar System Chapter 8 To understand the formation of the solar system one has to apply concepts such as: • Conservation of angular momentum • Conservation of energy The theory of the formation of the solar system need to explain: • The pattern of the sense of rotation of planets • The plane of the orbits of planets • The sense of rotation of satellites • The different composition of terrestrial, Jovian and dwarf planets Some of the patterns we can find in the solar system: • All planets orbit the Sun counterclockwise (as seen from the north pole) • Nearly all the planetary orbits lie in a plane • Almost all planets rotate in the same direction with their axes perpendicular to the orbital plane • Most satellites revolve around planets in the same direction that the planet rotates on its axis. But there are some exceptions • Venus rotates backwards (Rotational axis tilted close to 189 degrees) • Uranus rotates on its side (Rotational axis tilted close to 90 degrees) • Most small moons do not share the orbital plane of the planet • Triton (Satellite of Neptune) orbit the planet in opposite sense • Earth is the only terrestrial planet with a large moon A model for the formation of the solar system has to account for: • Different composition of planets (rocky, gaseous, icy) • Existence of many asteroids and comets Angular Momentum • Objects rotating around a point have angular momentum. • Simplest case ( a small sphere orbiting a larger mass) L = m x v x r L :angular momentum m: mass of small sphere v: velocity of the small sphere r :separation between the small sphere and the larger object • Conservation of angular momentum if r changes, v must change (ice skaters) But the value of L remains constant The nebular hypothesis (and the rejected collision theory) • The idea that the solar system was born from the collapse of a cloud of dust and gas for proposed by Immanuel Kant (1755) and by Pierre Simon Laplace 40 years later.
    [Show full text]
  • A Sound Nebula: the Origin of the Solar System in the Field of a Standing
    A sound nebula: the origin of the Solar System in the field of a standing sound wave S. Beck1, V. Beck1,* 1Alfa-Carbon R Beck, Berlin, Germany *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract According to the planetary origin conceptual model proposed in this paper, the protosun centre of the pre-solar nebula exploded, resulting in a shock wave that passed through it and then returned to the centre, generating a new explosion and shock wave. Recurrent explosions in the nebula resulted in a spherical standing sound wave, whose antinodes concentrated dust into rotating rings that transformed into planets. The extremely small angular momentum of the Sun and the tilt of its equatorial plane were caused by the asymmetry of the first, most powerful explosion. Differences between inner and outer planets are explained by the migration of solid matter, while the Oort cloud is explained by the division of the pre-solar nebula into a spherical internal nebula and an expanding spherical shell of gas. The proposed conceptual model can also explain the origin and evolution of exoplanetary systems and may be of use in searching for new planets. 1 Introduction The classical theory of the origin of the Solar System is based on the Kant { Laplace nebular hypothesis [1, 2] suggesting that the Sun and the planets condensed out of a spinning nebula of gas and dust. During the condensation process, the spin of the nebula accelerated (the 'pirouette' effect), and the resulting distribution of angular momentum caused it to form a disc. The center of the nebula evolved into a hot, highly compressed gas region { the protosun.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nebular Hypothesis and the Evolutionary Worldview
    Hist. Sci., xxv (1987) THE NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY WORLDVIEW Stephen G. Brush University ofMaryland at College Park 1. FROM NEWTON TO DARWIN? One of the most striking changes in our view of the world during the three centuries since Isaac Newton published his Philosophia naturalis principia mathematica is the replacement of Newton's assumption that the world was created by God in essentially its present form by the assumption that it has evolved by natural processes from a radically-different previous state. We usually associate this change with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (1859), and thus it is natural to look for its causes in the development ofbiology. Yet the question is occasionally raised: Was the idea of biological evolution itself inspired or at least encouraged by a line of theorizing in astronomy, which was in tum an outgrowth ofNewton's work? The suggestion that evolution was imported from astronomy into biology was made quite explicitly by the American astronomer F. R. Moulton in 1938. 1 Moulton claimed that the 'nebular hypothesis' for the origin ofthe solar system "accustomed scientists to thinking of change in long periods of time and thus prepared the way psychologically for the theory of organic evolu­ tion". This hypothesis, whose origin will be discussed below, explained the formation of planets by a combination of gravitational, rotational, and thermal effects, and thus is squarely in the historical tradition of Newtonian physics. More recently historian Philip Lawrence argued that the nebular hypothesis fostered theories of organic development in a more general way: On at least the philosophical level the "historical theme" of the nebular hypothesis caught the imaginations of almost all thinking men and strongly influenced the forms of scientificand historical explanations they were willing to entertain.
    [Show full text]
  • Nebular Hypothesis of Laplace
    French mathematician Laplace propounded his ‘Nebular Hypothesis’ in the year 1796. Laplace assumed certain axioms for the postulation of his nebular hypothesis to solve the riddle of the origin of the earth. (1) He assumed that there was a huge and hot gaseous nebula in the space. (2)From the very beginning huge and hot nebula was rotating (spinning) on its axis. (3)The nebulas was continuously cooling due to loss of heat from its outer surface through the process of radiation and thus it was continuously reducing in size due to contraction on cooling. Laplace maintained that there was a hot an rotating huge gaseous nebula in the space. There was gradual loss of heat from the outer surface of the nebula through radiation due to circular motion or rotation of the nebula. Thus, gradual loss of heat resulted into the cooling of the outer surface of the nebula. Gradual cooling caused= gradual contraction in the size of the nebula. These processes e.g. gradual cooling and contraction, resulted into continuous decreased in the size and volume of the nebula. Thus, reduction in the size and volume of the nebula increased the circular velocity (rotatory motion) of the nebula. AS the size of the nebula continued to decrease, the velocity of rotatory motion continued to increase. Thus, the nebula started spinning at very faster speed and consequently the centrifugal force became so great that it exceeded the centripetal force. When this stage was reached the materials at the equator of the nebula became weightless. Consequently, the outer layer was condensed due to excessive cooling arotate with the still cooling and contracting central nucleus of the nebula and thus the outer ring (layer) was separated from the remaining part of the nebula.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamics of Accretion Discs
    MATH3423 Project in Applied Mathematics The Dynamics of Accretion Discs Author: Supervisor: Milo Kerr (200489745) Dr. Evy Kersal´e May 1, 2013 Contents 1 General Introduction 3 2 Physical Preliminaries 4 2.1 Position, Velocity and Acceleration . 4 2.2 Cylindrical Polar Coordinates . 5 2.3 Newton’s Laws of Motion . 6 2.4 Linear and Angular Momentum . 7 2.5 Newton’s Law of Gravity and Gravitational Fields . 7 2.6 Equations of Energy . 8 3 The Motion of Particles in Space 8 3.1 TwoBodyProblem........................ 8 3.2 ReductiontoaOneBodyProblem . 10 3.3 MinimumEnergyState ..................... 10 4 Further Dissipation of Energy 12 4.1 Angular Momentum Transportation . 12 4.2 Mass Transportation . 13 4.3 Summary of Discrete Particle Analysis . 14 5 Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics Equations 15 5.1 IntroductiontoaFluidElement . 15 5.2 Lagrangian Description of Fluids . 16 5.3 Conservation of Mass . 16 5.4 ForcesonaFluid......................... 17 5.5 Equation of Motion . 21 6 Accretion Discs with Shear Stress 22 6.1 Conservation of Mass Analysis . 23 6.2 Equation of Motion Analysis . 24 6.3 Derivation of the Surface Density Di↵usion Equation . 26 6.4 Analysis of the Di↵usion Equation . 27 1 6.5 Discussion of Solution and Steady State Disc . 30 6.6 Keplerian Assumption Validation . 32 6.7 Accretion Rates and Luminosities of a Steady Disc . 35 6.8 Confrontation with Observations . 37 7 Magnetohydrodynamics Equations 38 7.1 IntroductiontoMHD ...................... 38 7.2 The Induction Equation . 39 7.3 Ideal MHD Equation of Motion . 40 7.4 Summary of Ideal MHD Equations . 42 8 Magnetised Accretion Disc 42 8.1 Linear Perturbation Analysis .
    [Show full text]