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

So..

[hookedup]

Did the sim come with built in monsters/disasters?

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

[Scarblac]

We have not seen an electron. Just traces of things that theory tells us are caused by electrons.

Similar to how we've seen lines for water in spectra that have been construed to be water on exoplanets.

"using" this sim

[RevAaron]

you love sims like this? I find it pretty doubtful you've ever used a sim like this in any "home version." this isn't simfarm. it like doesn't have any snazzy openGL renderings of planets being born, one star system at a time, making a picture of the galaxy you can zoom around in by holding down the control- and meta-keys as modifiers of axis. It's a big and ugly number crunching beast that spits out some probabilities. fun, if you know what the numbers mean, but mostly worthless to an outsider.

though i suppose someone could write a GUI front end that just takes the probability matrix it spits out and generate a random solar system based on the numbers, along with total mass, etc etc. But I could do that now with some guesses at the numbers and it wouldn't be much different...

Re:Impossible to detect Earthlike planets?

[posa]

They look at the movement if the star then looking for planets. A "earthlike" planet is to small to move the star a detectable distance.

Like islands in the ocean

[Jesrad]

Reading the article I can't help but think of all the stellar systems around as archipels of islands spread in a huge ocean. The other islands near ours might be inhabited, too ? That's one more reason to start sending "smoke signals". Or perhaps the current electromagnetic madness we emit permanently might suffice ?

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: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.

Qlbthrx, look at what my sims are doing!

[sam_handelman]

Glbsnoop: On this one simulated planet, these "humans" have created a simulator to see how likely earthlike planets are to form! Isn't that rich?

Qlbthrx: Very amusing, Glb. Now turn off the computer and take out the trash.

Glbsnoop: Fine. CLICK