Planetary Formation Sim Suggests Many Water Worlds

StefanJ writes "Researchers at the University of Washington -- supported by the NASA's Astrobiology Institute, its Planetary Atmospheres program, and Intel -- have come up with a new simulation of planetary formation that suggests that not only are terrestrial planets (small, rocky worlds, as opposed to gas giants) are common, but that water worlds (the subset of terrestrials that have sufficient water to support Life As We Know It) may be plentiful as well. A key factor as to how 'wet' a planetary system's terrestrial worlds get: The eccentricity of the orbits of the system's jovian worlds. It will be a while before we have telescopes good enough to actually see terrestrial planets and spec out their atmospheric composition, allowing us to reality-check these simulations. But it's still cool to play with sims like this. I can't wait for the home version! (Emergency backup link to Science Daily article based on the press release.)"

Comments

Accuracy

[Slick_Snake]

Given that we only have a small sample size to base simulations of world formations how accurate could this be. We have never seen an actual formation of planets and can only infer what happens. It amazes me how pompous we humans are in thinking we know everything. At one point we were sure the world was flat, that everything was made of four elements, and that lightning was thrown by a large man wearing a toga.

Albert Einstein -
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Re:Accuracy

[Scarblac]

- He said, on a web page that he connected to using a super-fast computer, built with loads of exotic materials like plastics we refine from dead dinosaurs, over a huge network of copper wires and glass fiber, etc etc. That you can post here is absolutely incredible.

And yet we haven't seen a single electron. Ever. How accurate can our simulations be? This "electricity" thing can never work.

Re:Accuracy

[RevAaron]

What more do you have in science than inference from known data? What more do scientists have than making a conclusion from the data, having that conclusion challenged with new data and then forming something new?

Sorry, but some of us aren't willing to just sit on our hands, isolating ourselves from the universe or our natural surroundings.

Plenty of humanity is pompous, yes- including a lot of non-scientists. A real scientist may be pompous in his personal life, but in his view of science, no. Any scientist that thinks she knows everything isn't a scientist but some sort of goofball who thinks she is.

Astronomers, astrophysicists and other scientists have a lot of data on what makes up the universe. They take this and plug it into a simulation. It's far from perfect, but how else are we going to get answers other than plugging away, putting forth some ideas, and then refining them?

Note usage of the word "suggests" in literature like this. That is what they mean. So often people with non-scientific brains can't think along the lines of uncertainy, seeing their world as a composite of blacks and whites. When they see that a simulation "suggests" that water worlds are relatively common they take it to mean that some bunch of know-it-all whitecoats are proclaiming to the world that we'll find one earth-like world in every solar system.

Re:Accuracy

[Slick_Snake]

There is one thing you are overlooking we can test our theories on electrons and refine them. When is the last time you went to a remote star to check and see if their number crunching predicted what is really there. Lots of data and lots of processing doesn't me squat unless the data is good and the theories are sound. I can take lots of numbers and manipulate them on 400 computers and conclude that "Barney the Purple Dinosaur" is really Osama Bin Ladin, but that doesn't mean that its true. Verification is what separates the jackasses from real scientists.

Re:Accuracy

[NanoGator]

"This whole thing is one expensive guess, nothing more nothing less."

If it's wrong, it's wrong. BFD. It's still an interpreted collection of data, and over time it'll improve. It's called science, and it's the basis of a lot of things you take for granted.

Chill. Give the people working on it a little credit instead of trying to shoot it down because it's early in development.

Re:Water rich planets not very nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...you do realise that the Earth is a water-rich planet of the type they're talking about, right?

Chicken-Egg Problem

[jazman_777]

It will be a while before we have telescopes good enough to actually see terrestrial planets and spec out their atmospheric composition, allowing us to reality-check these simulations.

So, this is not based in reality _quite yet_. There is only one data point!

Relative Balance of H, O, and C

[G4from128k]

The formation of water worlds would seem to hinge on the relative abundances of H, O, and C as well as the ability of other heavier elements to bind these crucial light elements. The inner system of a forming star seems like a hostile place for hydrogen. Between the hot accreting planets, their low gravitiation pull, and stellar winds, I'd bet that its too easy for a small rocky inner world to lose all its hydrogen and other volatiles.

Assuming that hydrogen is retained (locked up in the rocks), it then becomes a matter of the C-O balance. If carbon is too prevalent, it will scavenge all the oxygen from the atmosphere and lead to a CO2/hydrocarbon atmosphere (other things, like FE also scavenge oxygen). Only if there is enough oxygen will you get water.

I wonder how accurately the sim modelled the balance of elements and chemical reaction cycles.

Re:Planetary Sim results I'd like to see...

[no reason to be here]

An interesting thought, but, damn, there are a lot of variables. Apart from the ones you named, you could also play with varying the amounts of other important for life elements and chemical (oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc.), change the kind of star our sun is, varying the amounts of life-affecting compounds (like methane). It's really mind boggling. I suppose we could just limit the things one could vary in the simulation. It would still be an interesting exercise in trying to determine the upper and lower bounds of what might constitute a "class M" world.

Re:exploration

[NanoGator]

"We have 2/3's of a watery planet right here, that we are yet to explore in great detail."

I hate comments like this. As if astronomers can just take up deep sea diving and marine biology.

Let's settle this once and for all: Diversification is a GOOD thing. We do not gain anything by 'focusing' on what YOU think is important. I'm a 3d artist. Do you think that somehow qualifies me to do cancer research?

So knock it off. We do a little bit of everything on this planet. Over-focus on one thing, and you neglect other areas of research that benefit man-kind. You're not being insightful here.