Slashdot Mirror
New Study Shows Solar System Is Uncommon
Iddo Genuth writes "Research conducted by a team of North American scientists shows our solar system is special, contrary to the accepted theory that it is an average planetary system. Using computer simulations to follow the development of planets, it was shown that very specific conditions are needed for a proto-stellar disk to evolve into a solar system-like planetary system. The simulations show that in most cases either no planets are created, or planets are formed and then migrate towards the disk center and acquire highly elliptical orbits." The research was published in Science magazine; here's the paper on ArXiv (PDF).
Ever since mothers were allowed into academia, all their research has been telling us is that we are SPECIAL.
Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
If even one thousandth of one percent of stars form solar systems similar to this one, that would still be quite significant.
but keep looking, please.
And just tried to have a bunch of objects follow nearly circular orbits? Those orbits don't grow on trees, for sure.
It's almost amazing that we have so many planets in our solar system with nearly circular orbits. I would think that, if your orbit is too elliptical, it would make life much more difficult to form.
If the earth's winter took it out past mars and the summer in towards mercury, our oceans would boil and then rain down on us again and freeze, every year. That would suck, for sure.
This is my sig.
well luckily the universe is big enough that we dont really need it to be a very common occurrence
I have to ask: Under which solar formation model was this conclusion drawn? Because from what I understand, there are a number of competing theories, none of which have come anywhere near being conclusively proven. I actually studied under the creator of one of the models, Andrew Prentice, and was in a position to watch as the predictions of various hypotheses were proven true or false. We've got a long way to go in the field, from what I understand.
The question isn't whether it is special, but HOW special. And TFS failed to even give a fake number to calm us data freaks down.
The question isn't whether it is special, but HOW special.
Exactly. What's the probability of forming a "solar system like" planetary system ? 1:10? 1:1000? 1:1000000? 1:1000000000? The first two would still give us "lots" of hits inside our galaxy, while still being "uncommon".
Dangit, get some more planet-finding telescopes out there, on the double! We need data to back up the hypothesis.
As there are 10 million to 10 trillion stars in one galaxy and probably over 100 billion galaxies, it doesn't have to be that common and yet there would/could be millions of solar systems similar as our. Of course finding one close to our planet could be bit harder then expected before.
I dislike pointing this out, but that's an interesting parallel with climate science. I remember hearing recently (on Slashdot?) that climate models primarily base their data on one or two sources that, if altered slightly, would throw the simulations pretty severely, one way *or* the other.
... then what chances do we have of finding a solar system populated entirely by hot large-perky-breasted nymphomaniac supermodels that love nerds?
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
Just what are the odds that every alien encounter will be with bipeds that have vocal communication!
for every time someone has put up a hypothesis about whether our solar system/planet is special or not! As long as we're not "out there", and with our very limited methods of observation, there are just too many and too big unknowns to take any hypothesis in this area seriously. Generally, estimations range between one and a few million (or billion) similar solar systems / other intelligent civilizations in the universe.
Maybe you should instead have said "well luckily the universe is big enough that even if it is a fairly common occurrence we'd still be relatively safe"?
Solar Systems Like Ours Are Likely To Be Rare
KentuckyFC writes
"Astronomers have discovered some 250 planetary systems beyond our own, many of them with curious properties. In particular, our theories of planet formation are challenged by 'hot Jupiters,' gas giants that orbit close to their parent stars. Current thinking is that gas giants can only form far away from stars because gas and dust simply gets blown away from the inner regions. Now astronomers have used computer simulations of the way planetary systems form to understand what is going on (abstract). It looks as if gas giants often form a long way from stars and then migrate inwards. That has implications for us: a migrating gas giant sweeps away all in its path, including rocky planets in the habitable zone. And that means that solar systems like ours are likely to be rare."
Better known as 318230.
The article linked to also seems to have been written with Creationist bias, because it suggests our solar system is "unique". The authors don't claim that, and if they did it would be junk, not science.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Modelling has indicated that the solar-system isn't as common as previously thought. Scientists estimate that only 2^2340987890 similar solar systems exist in the local group.
POKE 36879,8
Research conducted by a team of North American scientist shows our solar system is special
... therefore, God created this solar system specially for man, which is the center of the Universe.
I love this based-on-new-studies "science".
Just because we can't see (yet) any other kinds of solar systems, doesn't necessarily mean ours is "special" !
Personally I'd have a another close look at my simulation before passing judgment over all the stars in the universe and concluding that we're "special".
From what I've read here: http://exoplanets.org/aasjune07s/pr_280507.htm there have been some 236 exoplanets detected to date. I believe that they have the ability to see if these exoplanets are in highly eliptical orbits or not - so how does this simulation tie with the observed reality?
The description of Gliese 436 for example seems to also be an exception to this simulation model - so if out of 236 finds we are already finding systems similar to sol - then this simulation model must be at fault or?
and bee's can't fly
Ever wonder why all the planets have such different composition? The moon could not have come from the same lump as Earth, nor could the other planets. This is a divine hint: "I'm here, are you listening?"
Only uncommon. I would have thought our solar system is at least rare, if not epic. Maybe even legendary!
... currently?
It's just "educated guessing", nothing more.
The article says that for a wide range of parameters protoplanetar disks produce a solar system-like outcome relatively rarely.
The research says nothing about the distribution of parameters in real situations, i.e. is the range of considered parameters realistic?
This is nice research but only preliminary.
How'd you simulate Uranus?
:-)
contrary to the accepted theory that it is an average planetary system.
IIRC, ours is considered typical only because no data existed to show it wasn't. That doesn't make the idea into a 'theory'. Discoveries of extrasolar planets and improved models on more powerful supercomputers are bound to evolve this "Unintelligently Defined Theory" into a better creation story.
;)
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
...but slashdot articles about it aren't.
Given the limits of our technology to detect extrasolar planets, how are "they" able to make this conclusion, especially when it is based on simulation? We are able to detect Jupiter-sized planets right now, yes? How about we wait for some better technology that can detect Earth-sized planets more accurately before we go rushing to the idea that we are "special". While the that idea intrigues me, it would certainly make the galaxy a more boring place.
Bearded Dragon
They performed 100 simulations and got a result compatible with our solar system. If only 1% of solar systems ended up similar to ours with planets, there would still be tremendous number of similar solar systems out there. I don't think this is anything to be worried about.
our solar system isn't special, it's orbitally challenged.
Do not trust this signature.
This sounds (in concept) like the anthropic principle, but on a smaller scale. I suspect much the same could be said about Earth too.
the law of entropy...
all matter in the universe tends to chaos...
same as humans do in the wake of natural disasters
order in mater is caused by an intelligent force imposing its will on that matter when it stops the matter goes back into slow decline.
see Gustaf phishing Scheme post
In Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, our solar system was special. In it, humans were the only sentient life forms in the galaxy. It had a "scientist" (who only did book research) discussing the "owigin question" of where humanity started ("...some say sol, oah Alpha Centuri...").
In (IIRC, it's been a while since I read the books) Foundation's edge the story had Earth, where humanity started, a radioactive wasteland, and it was revealed that having two gas giants in the center orbits and our giant moon were responsible for our uniqueness and for the creation of life.
He coined the word "robotics" and kinda sorta foretold the internet with his "multivac".
So, YOU MOMMA! Don't dis the late doctor A!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I can just imagine the groans of intelligent life on the elliptical orbit: "Oh boy, here comes the HOT season again!"
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
the only real data we have on planet development to use in a simulation comes from our planets.
therefore, we can't know about other solar systems until we visit them.
I'm sure that in the trillions of star systems out there, ours is special. It's special to us. However, I think it's quite common.
They're using their grammar skills there.
But do you want an alien biting off your genitals just to say hello: "what do you mean you can't regrow genitals at will, uh sorry!"
The summary != TFA. Surprise!
"Due to the complexity of the developing system, which includes the disk-planet and planet-planet interactions described, the simulations resulted in random systems. Nevertheless, two dominant cases were detected.
In a disk with low mass and high viscosity, the gas in the disk is removed before a planet can form, resulting in a system that has only rocky, icy bodies. At the other end, in a disk with high mass and low viscosity, planets are formed but are pulled towards the center of the system and acquire highly elliptical orbits around the star.
In the intermediate case, planets form but undergo only modest migration towards the star and their orbits don't become as elliptical. This seems to be the case of the solar system. The simulation showed that this case is realized in a small number of systems, meaning the solar system does not resemble most planetary systems. "
The report is saying that along a spectrum of possibilities, there are a number which produce results different than our system.
1) It says nothing about the real life DISTRIBUTION of these alternatives. If only a narrow band of X values produce the results you want, this isn't necessarily a problem if you're in the high point of a steep bell curve. Look at a H-R diagram - there are clearly 'sweet spots' in stellar development across the range of possibilities. Nothing says planetary development is any different.
2) This of course means little. There is no evidence either way to suggest that life (which is the point of looking for solar systems - I don't think we just have some weird fetish for similar solar systems) can or can't develop on those alternate results. Hell, we may find that solar systems with nearly circular orbits are rare but that's good because they produce the Galaxy's retarded civilizations, and everyone ELSE out there is laughing/pitying us.
FWIW run your own particle/gravity simulation, and find the same results yourself: http://www.spore.com/comm/prototypes. It's awesome, and finally a use for that uber-mega-cpu you just bought.
-Styopa
How sophisticated was your simulation? Your problems with circular orbits may be artifacts.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
You mean accidentally reaching a circular orbit again after the orbit had already become elliptical? I think that'd be extremely unlikely. When various objects act on one another (as they invariably do), they're most likely to become more elliptical, not less.
Is that right? You might want to tell that to Henry Spencer, since he's been saying the opposite for years.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Yes but in a localised close system entropy goes out the window. See "tidal locking" for an example of what I'm talking about.
I was once one of the believers. I was sure that Star Trek like civilizations were out there just waiting to shake my hand one day. Then I heard about the Fermi Paradox and the missing link hit me. All of those people who point at the Drake equation are only seeing half of the story. The Drake equation tells us that because of the incredible size of the galaxy, even if the probability of intelligent life is very small, there would still be millions of smart planets. What it fails to address is that not only is the galaxy very big, it is also very old. Assuming that there are lots of intelligent planets out there, and that given our own technology level we could colonize the entire galaxy in about 50 million years if we put our minds to it, we should have seen evidence of some colonization effort from some other civilization by now. Try reading "Rare Earth" to see the long list of things that had to happen to make intelligent life on Earth possible. The basic premise of that text is that basic life (bacteria etc) is common but complex life (plants and up) is either very rare or we are it. There is no paradox. They are not there. We are special.
The world must call upon Australia to dismantle its butterflies of mass destruction! Our top scientists are telling us that it's no coincidence that New Orleans keeps getting hit by hurricanes! If Australia does not dismantle its butterfly-based weapons programs, we'll have no choice but to invade!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I knew it, our solar system was an inside job!
Scientists cannot even predict if it is going to rain much less universal occurances. Why don't these people put their brain and computer power to use curing cancer or Aids or something useful? We waste so much time with BS that really makes not difference. Who really cares if we are unique in the universe? Not I. Do something to help man kind and stop playing with models.
And that comment is a troll because you don't agree with it?
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
modded the parent flamebait so you wouldn't see it.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
who's special?
You're special!
This new modeling method uses some new shorthand tricks to do it's thing. So the fact that it produces results that don't seem to jibe with what has been previously theorized doesn't mean that it is correct. It very probably means that the simulation is generating a false result.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying until there's something to back it up, we have to assume that it's generating an incorrect result. (yeah yeah, shut up about assume, all science uses assumptions, you just have to state them.)
I know of a gravity/orbital simulation program that does a lot of things that can't and don't happen in reality simply because of the method used to calculate results. (He tuned it to work with less powerful machines, pcs, and these started showing up.)
So don't suddenly start taking any new model for gospel if it's faster, but starts throwing out radically different results than expected. Instead, you should pick up that bottle of salt and slap on a skeptic hat...
Just remember, this is the universe we are talking about, where 1 in 1,000,000 times 60 sextillion visible stars still = a crapload.
The bar for "showing" something is pretty high in science, and this study doesn't meet it.
This study at best "provides indications" that solar systems like ours may be rare. The next level up would be that it "suggests" something, but I don't think it meets even that.
Ah ha, trick example! I said density, not pressure, as it is the amount of atmosphere that matters, not the pressure it produces. It does not retain enough heat from the sun, nor produce enough convection from the equator to keep the CO2 at poles from freezing.
The fact that the max is also -5C, giving us a spread of 82 vs the Earth with a spread of 116 degrees tends to make me think that an atmosphere unable to retain heat isn't that big of a cause - the temperature does actually stay within a pretty stable range.
Claiming that an eccentric orbit taking us inside that of Mercury would make this planet unlivable is about as insightful a comment as sticking ones hand a fire and calling it hot. But an eccentric orbit that remains in the habitable zone, even taking us out to Mars orbit, wouldn't necessarily preclude the possibility of life.
True, however we already have temperature ranges from -72F to 136F(-57.8 to 57.8*). In either case, life is not very prevalent at those extremes, and they don't happen at the same spot.
The question of whether a more eccentric orbit would outrule life depends, like you said, on how eccentric the orbit is, what the orbital period is, etc... An orbit that gets mercury close while still being in the habitable zone on average would absolutely scorch the planet during the close pass, not to mention having a good chance of blowing away the atmosphere. On the far side you'd experience Mars level freezes - CO2 precipitating out of the atmosphere. Unless the star was small and the orbital period fast enough that the thermal mass of the planet could moderate stuff.
The habitable zone would most likely shrink, but there should be good regions for quite a ways.
*That's an interesting coincidence...
I don't read AC A human right
Just because specific conditions are necessary does NOT mean that those conditions are rare. Until we actually start looking up and have efficient methods of detecting planets we won't know either way. Talk about an abusive interpretation of COMPUTER SIMULATION results.
There is little doubt in my mind that the Universe itself is endless, with no beginning and no end. Every conceivable idea exists somewhere, somehow. The realm of philosophy is just now beating again at the door of science. Our understanding of the Quantum nature of our existence shows truth in this statement. Not all things can be measured in a test tube, not all things can be plotted on a map. There are an endless supply of Solar Systems exactly like ours, all the way down to where only one quark is out of place. I believe the real question, the important one, isn't how common our setup is, but how many are near us, in this region and arm of the Milky Way. There is little doubt the Universe is teeming with everything the minds conceives, what we really want to know is how far away and can we go there (or can they come here). Given time our physicists will stop looking at things through eyes clouded by the forth dimension and will realize the past, present and future combine to make the fifth measurement that defines the object. When our math is adjusted correctly to compensate for the speed at which all mass is shrinking and then factored into the fifth dimensional view of the object we'll arrive at a better understanding of how to manipulate space and matter around us. You guys still reading this? I would have stopped at the philosophy part and gone back to the thread about Google Chrome (which rocks btw, using it now), you're a trooper if you made it this far.
ed duval the very last person
The weather is never "the same as it used to be" and never has been. There is no homeostatic state to which the climate tends on any scale of less than about 100,000 years or so - the Milankovitch Cycle. Enough of those cycles and you might argue for an average state that the climate tends to cycle within - a temperature range between about 2 degrees C warmer than the present and about 8 degrees C colder. Shorter random oscillations also occur and superimposed on those are even shorter oscillations that also appear random. This is visible in the younger portions of the Vostok ice core data and the EPICA ice data for instance. (You can find the comparative chart of Vostok and EPICA delta O18 for the last 3,000 years on Wikipedia). The more pronounced short term oscillations would be termed Dansgaard/Oeschger events. The present - as of 1998 - slight warming does not even come up to more than a slight bit of noise in that data.
There are all kinds of really good reasons to clean up the atmosphere from better health to better astronomy. Climate "trends" is not one of them.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.