"Earth-like Planets May Have Formed Early in Milky Way's History" --With Implications for Advanced Life
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« Alien Planet's Atmosphere --Best 'Snapshot' Ever Obtained | Main | Moore's Law Applied Back in Time --Hints We May be 1st Intelligent Species in the Universe »

April 18, 2013

"Earth-like Planets May Have Formed Early in Milky Way's History" --With Implications for Advanced Life

 

 

          Another_Earth_Like_PLanet_by_Fragile_stock

Building a terrestrial planet requires raw materials that weren't available in the early history of the universe. The Big Bang filled space with hydrogen and helium. Chemical elements like silicon and oxygen - key components of rocks - had to be cooked up over time by stars. But how long did that take? How many of such heavy elements do you need to form planets?

Earlier studies have shown that Jupiter-sized gas giants tend to form around stars containing more heavy elements than the Sun. However, research by a team of astronomers found that planets smaller than Neptune are located around a wide variety of stars, including those with fewer heavy elements than the Sun. As a result, rocky worlds like Earth could have formed earlier than expected in the universe's history.

"This work suggests that terrestrial worlds could form at almost any time in our galaxy's history," said Smithsonian astronomer David Latham (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics). "You don't need many earlier generations of stars."* Latham played a lead role in the study, which was led by Lars A. Buchhave from the University of Copenhagen.* Astronomers call chemical elements heavier than hydrogen and helium "metals."

They measure the metal content, or metallicities, of other stars using the Sun as a benchmark. Stars with more heavy elements are considered metal-rich while stars with fewer heavy elements are considered metal-poor.

In 2012, Latham and his colleagues examined more than 150 stars known to have planets, based on data from NASA's Kepler spacecraft. They measured the stars' metallicities and correlated that with the sizes of the associated planets. Large planets tended to orbit stars with solar metallicities or higher. Smaller worlds, though, were found around metal-rich and metal-poor stars alike.* "Giant planets prefer metal-rich stars. Little ones don't," explained Latham.

They found that terrestrial planets form at a wide range of metallicities, including systems with only one-quarter of the Sun's metal content. * Their discovery supports the "core accretion" model of planet formation. In this model, primordial dust accumulates into mile-sized planetesimals that then coalesce into full-fledged planets. The largest, weighing 10 times Earth, can then gather surrounding hydrogen and become a gas giant.

A gas giant's core must form quickly since hydrogen in the protoplanetary disk dissipates rapidly, swept away by stellar winds in just a few million years. Higher metallicities might support the formation of large cores, explaining why we're more likely to find a gas giant orbiting a metal-rich star."This result fits with the core accretion model of planet formation in a natural way," said Latham.

The Daily Galaxy via Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Image credit: With thanks, http://deviously-buzzkilled.deviantart.com

Comments

Wow i never knew such info about such star systems in our galaxy

THE INCONSISTANT AND ANOMALEOUS FORMATION MODEL

Quote:
"This work suggests that terrestrial worlds could form at almost any time in our galaxy's history," said Smithsonian astronomer David Latham (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics). "You don't need many earlier generations of stars."* Latham played a lead role in the study, which was led by Lars A. Buchhave from the University of Copenhagen".

AD: This doesn´t really supports the standing explanation of formation, does it?

Quote:
"They found that terrestrial planets form at a wide range of metallicities, including systems with only one-quarter of the Sun's metal content".

AD: That is really: Planets forms clearly independently of stars and not by the standing model of solar fusion, explosion and a following accretion of planets and their moons etc.

- When reading this otherwise very interesting article, it is very clear that all kind of theoretical and cosmological exceptions plays a great and significant role.

The standard scientists don’t really have any clues how formation in general takes place. They are stuck in old thoughts of gravitational thinking and in the strange ideas of Big Bang. They need to read something about the electromagnetic driven formation:

Galactic magnetic fields - http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields#The_Origin_of_Galactic_Magnetic_Fields

What Causes a Galaxy's Magnetism? - http://www.icr.org/article/6722/

Electric Universe: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php

NB: As I´ve stated numerous times before: Our Solar System was created in the very centre of our Milky Way Galaxy and it is floating around in the magnetic field circuit in the galaxy.

Ivar Nielsen
Natural Philosopher

All these so called scientific theories and speculations only point to the fact that we know almost nothing about the workings of our galaxy and the universe. The knowledge is so far from fact.

Wow Ivar.

Inconsistent and Anomalous!

Couldn't have misspelt it better myslef sorry myself.

@E Fermi,

With your formidable spell checking skills, I´m sure you fully understood my points of views?

Or didn´t you?

Boy, Ivar, you EU guys crop up everywhere. Like a bad smell. Natural philosopher...yep, I'll grant you that. It befits your level of actual scientific knowledge that you should use such a name because your level of understanding would fit right in with what they knew back in the 16th and 17th Centuries. You might be able to bamboozle "Mr Joe Public" with your nonsense, but someone with a decent education in science will see right through the snake oil you lot peddle. Please, go and get a proper science education, do an uni course, read real textbooks, learn off actual scientists who have years of research behind them to back up their science. The stuff you go on with is less than "c" grade pulp science fiction and I'd suggest you forget about it before it really does your reputation as an intelligent person any more damage than what it already has. You have no idea at all about what science is or how it's done, otherwise you'd have never had posted what you have.


Post a comment

« Alien Planet's Atmosphere --Best 'Snapshot' Ever Obtained | Main | Moore's Law Applied Back in Time --Hints We May be 1st Intelligent Species in the Universe »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E