Planets May Form in Hundreds, Not Millions, of Years

Seanasy writes "Recent simulations on the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center's Terascale Computing System suggest that planet formation may take a lot less time than previously thought. The results were published in SCIENCE."

Comments

Correction: gas giants & abstract

[MacAndrew]

The study actually looked at gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn. My understanding is that these planets formed by scooping up gas as they orbited the sun. The interior rocky planets of the inner disk probably took longer to achieve final shape, though their materials would have been the first to cool into solid form.

Neat stuff.

Here's the Science abstract:

A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns
Richard A. Kerr

On page 1756, a group of astrophysicists presents computer simulations of the nascent solar system that suggest a possible mechanism for the formation of the gas giant planets: runaway fluctuations in the density of the protoplanetary disk. In their model, gas giants of about the right size, number, and orbit condense from a disk of gas to look like very young Jupiters. The trick was to simulate the process in fine detail so that the gas's own gravity could take over.

Full Text

More abstract

[MacAndrew]

Odd, they have a different abstract from the summary. Sorry, I don't have a full subscription to Science.... not that I would blow their copyright and post it here. :)

To wit:

Formation of Giant Planets by Fragmentation of Protoplanetary Disks

Lucio Mayer,1*dagger Thomas Quinn,1* James Wadsley,2 Joachim Stadel3dagger

The evolution of gravitationally unstable protoplanetary gaseous disks has been studied with the use of three-dimensional smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations with unprecedented resolution. We have considered disks with initial masses and temperature profiles consistent with those inferred for the protosolar nebula and for other protoplanetary disks. We show that long-lasting, self-gravitating protoplanets arise after a few disk orbital periods if cooling is efficient enough to maintain the temperature close to 50 K. The resulting bodies have masses and orbital eccentricities similar to those of detected extrasolar planets.

1 Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
2 Department of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4M1, Canada.
3 University of Victoria, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 3800 Finnerty Road, Elliot Building, Victoria, BC V8W 3PG, Canada.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lucio@physik.unizh.ch, trq@astro.washington.edu

dagger Present address: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland.

PSC

[Hadean]

Here's a direct link to PSC's article, which does -not- require registration (bah).

As mentioned by another post, we're talking about "Jupiter-like" gas giants, not Earths. The reason it can't take millions of years: "The problem with [the current model], however, is that if the formation process takes too long, nearby stars will, in effect, boil off the gas envelope."

Re:PSC

[Hadean]

Oops, for some reason I didn't realize there already was a direct link... Ah well, here's a copy of it in case it gets Slashdotted (gotta have a real reason to reply, right?):

"Planets May Form Faster than Scientists Thought"

Simulations at Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center show that planets can form in hundreds of years.

PITTSBURGH, December 11, 2002 -- Taking advantage of the computing capability of LeMieux, the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center's terascale system, scientists have determined that large, Jupiter-like planets -- similar to those observed outside Earth's solar system -- can form in dramatically shorter periods of time than previously thought.

The findings, published in SCIENCE (Nov. 29), challenge accepted thinking that it takes millions of years for such planets to form from the pancake-shaped nebula of gas and dust swirling around young stars.

"We used a new model of planet formation," said University of Washington astrophysicist Thomas Quinn, who led the research team, "that couldn't adequately be tested without this kind of computing power, and we found that these giant planets can form in hundreds of years, rather than the millions that the standard model predicts."

Using LeMieux, the most powerful system in the United States committed to public research, the researchers carried out a series of planet formation simulations. Because of LeMieux, the researchers were able to include roughly ten times more detail than previous similar work, and this increased resolution led directly to the new findings.

Nearly 100 extrasolar planets have been detected within the past decade, with masses that range from roughly the size of Jupiter to ten times larger. These discoveries prompted thinking about how large planets, similar to Jupiter and Saturn, form. Called gas giant planets, these planets have most of their mass in a gaseous envelope that surrounds the solid core.

The standard model holds that a core of solid matter congeals from the swirling disk -- called a protoplanetary disk -- around young stars, a process thought to take a million years or so, with another million to ten million years to accumulate the gaseous envelope. The problem with this model, however, is that if the formation process takes too long, nearby stars will, in effect, boil off the gas envelope. "If a gas giant planet can't form quickly," said Quinn, "it probably won't form at all."

An alternative model holds that giant planets form directly from instabilities in the protoplanetary gas, without the need for a solid-matter core. Until the recent simulations, this model hadn't produced convincing results. "The main criticism," said Quinn, "was that this model wasn't ready. Nobody was making predictions with it. But that's because they didn't have enough computational horsepower."

The recent simulations -- using 30,000 processor hours on LeMieux -- produced a distribution of masses and orbits comparable to observed extrasolar planets. According to the astronomical findings since the mid-1990s, these gas giant planets appear to be fairly common. "If these planets can't form quickly," says Quinn, "they should be a relatively rare phenomenon, and if they form according to this mechanism they should be relatively common."

Authors of the research, besides Quinn, are Lucio Mayer, a former University of Washington post-doctoral researcher who recently joined the University of Zurich, James Wadsley of McMaster University, Ontario, Canada and Joachim Stadel at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Established with an August 2000 grant from the National Science Foundation, LeMieux comprises over 3,000 Compaq Alpha EV68 processors, providing over six teraflops (six trillion calculations a second) of computational capability to U.S. engineers and scientists.

The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center is a joint effort of Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh together with the Westinghouse Electric Company. It was established in 1986 and is supported by several federal agencies, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and private industry.

Re:30,000 processor hours

[Seanasy]

Seti@Home couldn't handle this type of problem. This is parallel processing -- where nodes work on different parts of the problem at the same time. The catch is that the work done by each node affects other nodes so that super-fast connections between nodes is a must. Otherwise, nodes sit idle waiting for data. Doing this in a disributed manner on the Internet isn't even feasible.

About that syllogism...

[MacAndrew]

I'll try to wrap up one tiny detail....

The syllogism and its little brother the enthymeme date back to ancient Greece and are styles of argument. The reason the syllogism gets criticized to the point of being deprecatory is that it is easily abused.

Here:

Major premise: The universe is older than 6,000 years if some of its components took longer than 6,000 years to form.

Minor premise: The gas giants took less than 6,000 years to form.

Conclusion: The universe probably (more so than yesterday) took less than 6,000 years to form.

To me, there are several logical flaws there, and this has not a thing to do with religion. The main one is that the major premise is false; the theories concerning the age of the universe are not based on the sum of series of events. You may be making this false assumption because (to my understanding) the 6,000-year version of creationism is derived from how long various individuals lived, added to their descendants, and so on.

So the gas giants might never have formed, the estimates for the age of the universe would not change because they are indifferent to gas giants. Really, the formation of the planets is a bit trivia in the view of the universe, and the difference in formation time proposed here, mere millions of years, are the 0.01% insignificant blink of an eye to a universe thought to be over 10 thousand million (billion) years of age, and a solar system of a sprightly 4.5 billion (again with a "b").

Another trivial bit of semantics is that you misuse the word "hypothesis." Science really doesn't use hypothesis in this way, and when scientists speak of theories they don't mean educated guess, but a framework to explain a fact. So the age of the universe is a fact to a very high degree of certainty; it is older than 6,000 years by billions; and various theories strive to explain the nature of or refine the fact. But whether a theory of good or bad does not alter the fact, and the age of the universe is something so well established that it is inconceivable it will someday turn out to be 6,000 years. Besides the huge difference between the estimates, there's enough evidence on earth -- even the weathering of a mountain takes millions of years -- the pyramids haven't weathered much in that time -- and I won't even bring up the fossil record.

But again, even if these events happened faster than we can imagine, the age of the universe is judged by independent data.

The only remaining hope for a doctrinaire 6,000-year view would be that the universe and earth were created pre-aged, but I doubt the Bible supports that view. I don't care how many people believe it, the majority has erred often enough before, is the name of many causes. You acknowledge that truth isn't determined democratically anyway -- then turn around and say "I am being persecuted for what are mainstream beliefs in much of the US." No, you are being criticized (persecuted? that's a little much) not for relating "popular" beliefs but for your faulty logic concerning astrophysics, and science generally. Don't take refuge in "mainstream." And I am not claiming that God lies, just that falliable humans don't get the message right sometimes.

I would think it obvious that the Bible makes heavy use of metaphor, and that things like the 6 days of creation may not be at all literal. Of course I'm not the first to wonder about this. But I think more and more people will eventually accept that the Earth is old and move on to that evolution debate, or something else. The truth of the Bible is hardly imperiled.