DOCSLIB.ORG

11/17/2011 1 Ch. 27 Notes: Nebular Hypothesis the Nebular Hypothesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
11/17/2011 1 Ch. 27 Notes: Nebular Hypothesis the Nebular Hypothesis 11/17/2011 Ch. 27 Notes: Nebular Hypothesis • Objective: – To examine the evidence of the origin of our solar system. – Use reasoning skills to determine how the formation occurred. The Nebular Hypothesis • A rotating cloud of gas and dust condensed to form the sun and surrounding planets. • Solar Nebula: Rotating cloud of gas and dust that formed the solar system. http://www.networlddirectory.com/images/blogs/crab-nebula-552300.jpg • What caused the nebula in the first place? – The material from an old supernova (star explosion) gathers in a very large area in space. 1 11/17/2011 Steps to the Nebular Hypothesis • Step 1: Nebula starts to collapse – What causes the collapse? • Gravity within the nebula is just strong enough to keep the gases and dust hanging around. • A nearby supernova explosion sends shockwaves through the nebula. • Material is starting to collide and mass increases in areas of the nebula. • One area grows in mass and gravity the fastest pulling surrounding material toward it. Becomes the central point of gravitation focus. The Nebular Hypothesis • Step 2: Nebula develops a center point of rotating material and flattens like a disc. • Why is material revolving around a center point? – Increase in gravity at center pulls in more nebula material. • More material collides creating heat. • Material is packed tight (dense) creating pressure. • Why does the nebula flatten like a disc? – Force of rotation in the center moves all material in line with the center, moving like the center rotation. The Nebular Hypothesis • Compounding heat and pressure causes reactions with hydrogen gases. • Electromagnetic energy is released and a star is born. 2 11/17/2011 The Nebular Hypothesis • Step 3 (Formation of a Planetesimal): Chunks of smaller rocky material collide (irregular shape). – How does gravity change? • Step 4 (Growth of a Planetesimal): Gravity increases with size, attracting the surrounding smaller rocks, gases and dust. http://api.ning.com/files/IN49ap-JavmN3V8mtFNRHb5Znc53pK9HKcT9Rflu9MzkTLJggeRayi41mXI2nAZQ1a99XWzd-QzW52L1RpAUcG0aH1A-XBdI/SolarNebula.jpg The Nebular Hypothesis • Step 5 (Formation of a Protoplanet): Planetesimals begin to collide and join together through gravity becoming Protoplanets. (continually growing, but with a more regular, spherical shape). – How can the spherical shape maintain with these huge collision? The Nebular Hypothesis • Step 6 (Formation of a Planet): How is it different from the protoplanet? – The planet no longer deals with massive collisions. – Gravity is able to pull the material together tighter (more dense), which causes the size to shrink slightly smaller. – A smaller, but more organized and developed planet is formed. http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/01/070108093817.jpg http://eps.berkeley.edu/cig/depaolo/eps102/lecture_images/Early_Earth.jpg 3 11/17/2011 The Nebular Hypothesis Model 4 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Multifaceted Planetesimal Formation Process
    The Multifaceted Planetesimal Formation Process Anders Johansen Lund University Jurgen¨ Blum Technische Universitat¨ Braunschweig Hidekazu Tanaka Hokkaido University Chris Ormel University of California, Berkeley Martin Bizzarro Copenhagen University Hans Rickman Uppsala University Polish Academy of Sciences Space Research Center, Warsaw Accumulation of dust and ice particles into planetesimals is an important step in the planet formation process. Planetesimals are the seeds of both terrestrial planets and the solid cores of gas and ice giants forming by core accretion. Left-over planetesimals in the form of asteroids, trans-Neptunian objects and comets provide a unique record of the physical conditions in the solar nebula. Debris from planetesimal collisions around other stars signposts that the planetesimal formation process, and hence planet formation, is ubiquitous in the Galaxy. The planetesimal formation stage extends from micrometer-sized dust and ice to bodies which can undergo run-away accretion. The latter ranges in size from 1 km to 1000 km, dependent on the planetesimal eccentricity excited by turbulent gas density fluctuations. Particles face many barriers during this growth, arising mainly from inefficient sticking, fragmentation and radial drift. Two promising growth pathways are mass transfer, where small aggregates transfer up to 50% of their mass in high-speed collisions with much larger targets, and fluffy growth, where aggregate cross sections and sticking probabilities are enhanced by a low internal density. A wide range of particle sizes, from mm to 10 m, concentrate in the turbulent gas flow. Overdense filaments fragment gravitationally into bound particle clumps, with most mass entering planetesimals of contracted radii from 100 to 500 km, depending on local disc properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Formation of the Solar System (Chapter 8)
    Formation of the Solar System (Chapter 8) Based on Chapter 8 • This material will be useful for understanding Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 on “Formation of the solar system”, “Planetary geology”, “Planetary atmospheres”, “Jovian planet systems”, “Remnants of ice and rock”, “Extrasolar planets” and “The Sun: Our Star” • Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 7 on “The orbits of the planets”, “Why does Earth go around the Sun?”, “Momentum, energy, and matter”, and “Our planetary system” will be useful for understanding this chapter Goals for Learning • Where did the solar system come from? • How did planetesimals form? • How did planets form? Patterns in the Solar System • Patterns of motion (orbits and rotations) • Two types of planets: Small, rocky inner planets and large, gas outer planets • Many small asteroids and comets whose orbits and compositions are similar • Exceptions to these patterns, such as Earth’s large moon and Uranus’s sideways tilt Help from Other Stars • Use observations of the formation of other stars to improve our theory for the formation of our solar system • Use this theory to make predictions about the formation of other planetary systems Nebular Theory of Solar System Formation • A cloud of gas, the “solar nebula”, collapses inwards under its own weight • Cloud heats up, spins faster, gets flatter (disk) as a central star forms • Gas cools and some materials condense as solid particles that collide, stick together, and grow larger Where does a cloud of gas come from? • Big Bang -> Hydrogen and Helium • First stars use this
    [Show full text]
  • The Subsurface Habitability of Small, Icy Exomoons J
    A&A 636, A50 (2020) Astronomy https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201937035 & © ESO 2020 Astrophysics The subsurface habitability of small, icy exomoons J. N. K. Y. Tjoa1,?, M. Mueller1,2,3, and F. F. S. van der Tak1,2 1 Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, Landleven 12, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] 2 SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Landleven 12, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands 3 Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 2, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Received 1 November 2019 / Accepted 8 March 2020 ABSTRACT Context. Assuming our Solar System as typical, exomoons may outnumber exoplanets. If their habitability fraction is similar, they would thus constitute the largest portion of habitable real estate in the Universe. Icy moons in our Solar System, such as Europa and Enceladus, have already been shown to possess liquid water, a prerequisite for life on Earth. Aims. We intend to investigate under what thermal and orbital circumstances small, icy moons may sustain subsurface oceans and thus be “subsurface habitable”. We pay specific attention to tidal heating, which may keep a moon liquid far beyond the conservative habitable zone. Methods. We made use of a phenomenological approach to tidal heating. We computed the orbit averaged flux from both stellar and planetary (both thermal and reflected stellar) illumination. We then calculated subsurface temperatures depending on illumination and thermal conduction to the surface through the ice shell and an insulating layer of regolith. We adopted a conduction only model, ignoring volcanism and ice shell convection as an outlet for internal heat.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9: the Origin and Evolution of the Moon and Planets
    Chapter 9 THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE MOON AND PLANETS 9.1 In the Beginning The age of the universe, as it is perceived at present, is perhaps as old as 20 aeons so that the formation of the solar system at about 4.5 aeons is a comparatively youthful event in this stupendous extent of time [I]. Thevisible portion of the universe consists principally of about 10" galaxies, which show local marked irregularities in distribution (e.g., Virgo cluster). The expansion rate (Hubble Constant) has values currently estimated to lie between 50 and 75 km/sec/MPC [2]. The reciprocal of the constant gives ages ranging between 13 and 20 aeons but there is uncertainty due to the local perturbing effects of the Virgo cluster of galaxies on our measurement of the Hubble parameter [I]. The age of the solar system (4.56 aeons), the ages of old star clusters (>10" years) and the production rates of elements all suggest ages for the galaxy and the observable universe well in excess of 10" years (10 aeons). The origin of the presently observable universe is usually ascribed, in current cosmologies, to a "big bang," and the 3OK background radiation is often accepted as proof of the correctness of the hypothesis. Nevertheless, there are some discrepancies. The observed ratio of hydrogen to helium which should be about 0.25 in a "big-bang" scenario may be too high. The distribution of galaxies shows much clumping, which would indicate an initial chaotic state [3], and there are variations in the spectrum of the 3OK radiation which are not predicted by the theory.
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Monday, November 13, 2017 WHAT DOES IT MEAN to BE HABITABLE? 8:15 A.M. MHRGC Salons ABCD 8:15 A.M. Jang-Condell H. * Welcome C
    Monday, November 13, 2017 WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HABITABLE? 8:15 a.m. MHRGC Salons ABCD 8:15 a.m. Jang-Condell H. * Welcome Chair: Stephen Kane 8:30 a.m. Forget F. * Turbet M. Selsis F. Leconte J. Definition and Characterization of the Habitable Zone [#4057] We review the concept of habitable zone (HZ), why it is useful, and how to characterize it. The HZ could be nicknamed the “Hunting Zone” because its primary objective is now to help astronomers plan observations. This has interesting consequences. 9:00 a.m. Rushby A. J. Johnson M. Mills B. J. W. Watson A. J. Claire M. W. Long Term Planetary Habitability and the Carbonate-Silicate Cycle [#4026] We develop a coupled carbonate-silicate and stellar evolution model to investigate the effect of planet size on the operation of the long-term carbon cycle, and determine that larger planets are generally warmer for a given incident flux. 9:20 a.m. Dong C. F. * Huang Z. G. Jin M. Lingam M. Ma Y. J. Toth G. van der Holst B. Airapetian V. Cohen O. Gombosi T. Are “Habitable” Exoplanets Really Habitable? A Perspective from Atmospheric Loss [#4021] We will discuss the impact of exoplanetary space weather on the climate and habitability, which offers fresh insights concerning the habitability of exoplanets, especially those orbiting M-dwarfs, such as Proxima b and the TRAPPIST-1 system. 9:40 a.m. Fisher T. M. * Walker S. I. Desch S. J. Hartnett H. E. Glaser S. Limitations of Primary Productivity on “Aqua Planets:” Implications for Detectability [#4109] While ocean-covered planets have been considered a strong candidate for the search for life, the lack of surface weathering may lead to phosphorus scarcity and low primary productivity, making aqua planet biospheres difficult to detect.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovering the Growth Histories of Exoplanets: the Saturn Analog HD 149026B
    Discovering the Growth Histories of Exoplanets: The Saturn Analog HD 149026b Short title: The growth of HD 149026b Sarah E. Dodson-Robinson1 NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, California Institute of Technology 770 S. Wilson Ave, Pasadena, CA 91125 [email protected] Peter Bodenheimer UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California at Santa Cruz 1156 High St., Santa Cruz, CA 95064 1 Formerly Sarah E. Robinson ABSTRACT The transiting “hot Saturn” HD 149026b, which has the highest mean density of any confirmed planet in the Neptune-Jupiter mass range, has challenged theories of planet formation since its discovery in 2005. Previous investigations could not explain the origin of the planet’s 45-110 Earth-mass solid core without invoking catastrophes such as gas giant collisions or heavy planetesimal bombardment launched by neighboring planets. Here we show that HD 149026b’s large core can be successfully explained by the standard core accretion theory of planet formation. The keys to our reconstruction of HD 149026b are (1) applying a model of the solar nebula to describe the protoplanet nursery; (2) placing the planet initially on a long-period orbit at Saturn’s heliocentric distance of 9.5 AU; and (3) adjusting the solid mass in the HD 149026 disk to twice that of the solar nebula in accordance with the star’s heavy element enrichment. We show that the planet’s migration into its current orbit at 0.042 AU is consistent with our formation model. Our study of HD 149026b demonstrates that it is possible to discover the growth history of any planet with a well-defined core mass that orbits a solar-type star.
    [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]
  • Download This Article in PDF Format
    A&A 631, A7 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935922 Astronomy & © ESO 2019 Astrophysics Pebbles versus planetesimals: the case of Trappist-1 G. A. L. Coleman, A. Leleu?, Y. Alibert, and W. Benz Physikalisches Institut, Universität Bern, Gesellschaftsstr. 6, 3012 Bern, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] Received 20 May 2019 / Accepted 11 August 2019 ABSTRACT We present a study into the formation of planetary systems around low mass stars similar to Trappist-1, through the accretion of either planetesimals or pebbles. The aim is to determine if the currently observed systems around low mass stars could favour one scenario over the other. To determine these differences, we ran numerous N-body simulations, coupled to a thermally evolving viscous 1D disc model, and including prescriptions for planet migration, photoevaporation, and pebble and planetesimal dynamics. We mainly examine the differences between the pebble and planetesimal accretion scenarios, but we also look at the influences of disc mass, size of planetesimals, and the percentage of solids locked up within pebbles. When comparing the resulting planetary systems to Trappist-1, we find that a wide range of initial conditions for both the pebble and planetesimal accretion scenarios can form planetary systems similar to Trappist-1, in terms of planet mass, periods, and resonant configurations. Typically these planets formed exterior to the water iceline and migrated in resonant convoys into the inner region close to the central star. When comparing the planetary systems formed through pebble accretion to those formed through planetesimal accretion, we find a large number of similarities, including average planet masses, eccentricities, inclinations, and period ratios.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Porter , Will Grundy
    Post-Capture Evolution of Potentially Habitable Exomoons Simon Porter1,2, Will Grundy1 1Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona 2School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University [email protected] and spin vector were initially pointed at random di- Table 1: Relative fraction of end states for fully Abstract !"# $%& " '(" !"# $%& # '(# rections on the sky. The exoplanets had a ran- evolved exomoon systems dom obliquity < 5 deg and was at a stellarcentric The satellites of extrasolar planets (exomoons) Star Planet Moon Survived Retrograde Separated Impacted distance such that the equilibrium temperature was have been recently proposed as astrobiological tar- Earth 43% 52% 21% 35% equal to Earth. The simulations were run until they Jupiter Mars 44% 45% 18% 37% gets. Triton has been proposed to have been cap- 5 either reached an eccentricity below 10 or the pe- Titan 42% 47% 21% 36% tured through a momentum-exchange reaction [1], − Sun Earth 52% 44% 17% 30% riapse went below the Roche limit (impact) or the and it is possible that a similar event could allow Neptune Mars 44% 45% 18% 36% apoapse exceeded the Hill radius. Stars used were Titan 45% 47% 19% 35% a giant planet to capture a formerly binary terres- Earth 65% 47% 3% 31% the Sun (G2), a main-sequence F0 (1.7 MSun), trial planet or planetesimal. We therefore attempt to Jupiter Mars 59% 46% 4% 35% and a main-sequence M0 (0.47 MSun). Exoplan- Titan 61% 48% 3% 34% model the dynamical evolution of a terrestrial planet !"# $%& " !"# $%& " ' F0 ets used had the mass of either Jupiter or Neptune, Earth 77% 44% 4% 18% captured into orbit around a giant planet in the hab- and exomoons with the mass of Earth, Mars, and Neptune Mars 67% 44% 4% 28% itable zone of a star.
    [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]