Hubble Reinforces Planet Formation Theory

eldavojohn writes "Physorg is running an interesting article on the most recent of Hubble's accomplishments. It has provided us evidence supporting that which Emmanuel Kant proposed over 200 years ago — that planets do indeed form from disks of gas and dust that surround stars. The trick, apparently, was observing many cases where a star's planet forms on the exact same circumstellar disk as the dust and gas. Hubble also aided the researchers in determining the weight of many extrasolar planets. Some had contended that these were not planets but rather brown dwarf stars — which is determined by measuring their weight." Update: 10/12 23:08 GMT by T : That's not the only theory Hubble's recent observation's have supported: read on below for a bit more. somegeekynick writes "Hubble has spotted a bunch of little galaxies, nicknamed Spiderweb, over 10 billion light-years away in the process of merging. This observation supports the so-called 'bottom-up' theory of galaxy formation, according to which smaller clumps of matter collided and merged with each other to form larger galaxies during early stages of the universe's evolution."

Comments

Mass != Weight

[Daniel_Staal]

The article means mass, not weight: A star's weight is effetively zero, as it is in a microgravity environment. It's mass is trillions of kilograms.

Sorry, just needed to be pendantic for a moment.

Re:Mass != Weight

[cplusplus]

The article discussed mass measurements, and the word weight appears nowhere in the text. I think the submitter made a classic Physics 101 mistake, not the article.

Re:Mass != Weight

[balsy2001]

You are many orders of magnitude off on the mass of a star. The mass of the earth is 5^24 kilograms, so use that as a reference point The sun is ~ 1 billion times the mass of the earth.

Re:Mass != Weight

[balsy2001]

So I should have checked my facts BEFORE submitting. The mass of the sun ~ 333000 times the mass of the earth.

juxtaposition != causation

[prgrmr]

from TFA:

has at last confirmed what Kant and scientists have long predicted: that planets form from debris disks around stars.

Again, "modern" scientists jumping to unsupported conclusions. Simply observing a dust cloud and a planet in the same orbital plain around the same star doesn't prove the planet formation theory. Until they find a dust cloud containing a proto-planet in the process of condensing, the theory is still unproven.

Re:juxtaposition != causation

[peragrin]

of course do you really know that the planet they found wasn't a proto planet, in the process of being formed?

The onyl way to be certian is to go visit the planet.

Now where's my hyperspace drive.

Re:juxtaposition != causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, "modern" scientists jumping to unsupported conclusions.

Nobody did that, you just have no idea what you're talking about.

The theory had a major loophole in it because nobody had ever before been able to observe a planet formation on the same plane as it's sun's disk of dust and gas. This find goes a long way toward closing that loophole and, when combined with all prior evidence for the theory, also goes a long way to validating it's accuracy to the point of virtual certainty.

I have no idea why you felt the need to take a glib stab at "modern" scientists like that, but maybe in the future you should make sure you have at least a tiny clue what you're talking about before you make yourself look like an idiot in the process of trying to make other people appear that way.

Question for the science folks out there

[WndrBr3d]

So does this article back up the claim that Pluto isn't a planet, but more a free floating dwarf planet that was captured by our suns gravitational pull? I had read an article that supported the theory because it stated that Pluto was the only "planet" that didn't orbit on the same circumstellar disk as the rest of our solar systems planets.

Re:Question for the science folks out there

[Red Flayer]

This claim doesnt need backing up, its entirely obvious when you look at the orbit parameters.

Just as the sun orbits the earth, which is entirely obvious if you observe its track through the sky.

I happen to agree that it's most likely that Pluto is a captured object, but another theory out there is that Pluto formed the same as the first eight planets, but then was knocked out of a normal planetary orbit by collision with another object (like its moon).

In science, the term entirely obvious is a very bad one -- it limits the drive to seek alternate explanations, which may end up being the correct ones.

Replacement?

[From A Far Away Land]

In a move all to familiar to environmentalists in Canada [see Conservatives "green approach"], a national government has canceled a scientifically motivated project [Hubble] for which they have no replacement yet. When will governments realize that redundant-capable science projects [Internet] work better than canceling a project and leaving us blind for a measure of years?

I suppose worldly wastes just get a higher priority than figuring out how the Universe is put together, and thus learning to better manage and predict it...

Re:Replacement?

[iamlucky13]

FYI (my apologies for the gratuitous use of wikipedia)

Hubble Space Telescope
Spitzer Infrared Space Telescope
Chandra X-ray Observatory
Infrared Space Observatory
Corot Space Telescope
MOST Telescope
Astro-F Space Telescope
Swift Gamma Ray Telescope
Kepler Space Telescope
SOHO

These are some of the more interesting ones currently operating or scheduled to come online before 2010. As you see, the different space agencies actually operate quite a few space-based observatories, each with different capabilities and goals. When any one of them is decommissioned, they lose a little bit of their overall capability, but that's life. Nobody made as much fuss, for example, when the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory was deorbited, despite its significant contributions to cosmology.

Also, the astronomers who were upset about the idea of Hubble being abandoned were almost universally agreed that if push comes to shove, they would much rather give up the Hubble than have any more features cut from the JWST.

Re:Hear Here

[inviolet]

Yes! And then a big nose! Will we really have to wait 1000 years for somebody to invent a Smelloscope?

Re:Hear Here

[Ruie]

Yes! And then a big nose! Will we really have to wait 1000 years for somebody to invent a Smelloscope?

Actually, this has been done in a number of ways. Nose is just an instrument to analyze chemical composition of substances. An incomplete list of existing techniques:

• Original Mars landers had chemical tests on board (in particular to test for presence of life)
• Comet dust gathering probes
• Radiation-based chemical composition testing (Mossbauer spectrometer)
• spectrometers: X-ray, radio (hydrogen line, ammonia line, etc - though, afaik these are mostly Earth based), optical

This is just off the top of head, I am sure I am forgetting some - and don't know about many others.

Proposterous

[kernel_pat]

Planets are made by god, your theory is ludicrous, I'm sueing you for not acknowledging my alternative theory.

You have a competing theory?

[mmell]

And evidence to support your theory? Evidence which negates the currently accepted theory? Evidence which can be readily reproduced by scientists skeptical about your theory?

I thought not.

Not all scientists accept Kant's theories regarding planetary evolution as correct. Even the scientists who do accepts Kant's theories as correct (and they are the overwhelming majority) will be the first to admit that they are theories. That's the nature of science.

Yes, the theory is still unproven - but it is well-supported, and this data from the HST provides even more support. Scientists haven't "jumped to unsupported conclusions" - they've (quite correctly) described this data as supporting an existing theory, not as proof or evidence of a fact.

Yes, TFA describes these things as facts, rather than theory. Blame the journalists, not the scientists.

So difficult

[HotBBQ]

[insert William Shatner voice]

Must-resist-urge-to-make-lame-"Brown Dwarf"-comment.

[/insert William Shatner voice]