It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Birth of new solar system? 14-billion-mile-wide disc shows young star 'pulling' planets into place

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
• Astronomers investigating whether young planets might be shaping disc
• Vision of 'early years' of young solar system
• Gas disc forming round SINGLE star



A 14-billion-mile-wide gas cloud is offering an incredible vision of the early years of a young solar system.

The star is 400 light years away from Earth, in the constellation Lupus, the wolf.

The young star, known as SAO 206462, is surrounded by a disc of gas 14billion miles across - and its gravitational pull has arranged the disc into two spiral arms.

The spiral arms forming has led astronomers to investigate whether young planets might be 'shaping' the disc of gas around the star.

The unprecedented phenomenon could suggest that gas and debris are being formed into planets orbiting the star.

The image was captured by the Subaru telescope, and eight-metre instrument perched on the summit of Mauna Kea, a volcano in Hawaii.

Daily Mail


Swirl: The disk of gas and debris around this star may be in the process of becoming a system of planets


Researcher John Wisniewski: 'What we're finding is that once these systems reach ages of a few million years — that’s young for a star - their discs begin to show all kinds of interesting shapes.

'We’ve seen rings, divots, gaps - and now spiral features. Many of these structures could be caused by planets moving within the discs.'

Daily Mail


A Nasa diagram showing the structure of the unusual spiral arms round the star





edit on 8-5-2012 by ollncasino because: fix title




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
This makes me think of something I have been wondering for a long time. Are the orbits of planets and the planets mass and contents predetermined by the mass and energy of the star they orbit? Like in a forming system such as in the article, are the planets to be formed properties, such as mass and orbit determinable by the new stars properties, or is it random? If the star in its forming also forms the planet, would it not to be expected to find patterns in how they form? If this is given, then isn't it kind of a striking similarity to how electron shells form around the nuclei in atoms, such as in the consistency of their orbits, and the supposed planks length. If there is a parallel, it may grant important insight into the nature of physics. Pretty interesting article none the less.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by halfmask
 

A star for asking an interesting question. However, the idea that atoms look like miniature solar systems is incorrect. The analogy is useful for some purposes but has no actual basis in reality. In fact, we have no idea what atoms and electrons look like. We don't even know if they possess anything that we could call a visible appearance.


edit on 9/5/12 by Astyanax because: of second thoughts.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
wow...its a galaxy on its own!!

what an amazing photo to start the day with!!

thanks for sharing



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I know atoms don't look like miniature solar systems, and I also know the clean solar orbits shown for the solar system are also false.

My point is that atoms with a set internal properties, such as their # of protons, and # of neutrons, correlate with the energy shells of electrons they attract(or allow to potential orbit them).

What I am wondering is that a star/forming star, given the parameters of its properties, can you predict the potential orbits for planets? I.E. are they determinable? If the planets do not enter into orbit, and are formed as the star forms, what I am asking is, will the forms and orbits of the planets be predictable? If so it would imply that potentially the rules or forces governing the shells in atoms may be related to how larger bodies form. This is also related to how super novas seem to exhibit geometric form and symmetry.

If given the determinably of planets orbits around new stars in them forming combined with the geometry of supernovas, all this implies that the supposed discrepancy between relativistic physics at a large scale and the supposed quantum mechanics, may in fact be that there is something really wrong with both of them because if a common pattern or mechanics is shared between both scales, the small and the large, then we missed something fundamental in our current physics models.
edit on 9-5-2012 by halfmask because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2012 by halfmask because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by halfmask
 


If the planets do not enter into orbit, and are formed as the star forms, what I am asking is, will the forms and orbits of the planets be predictable?

The other systems which have been identified would indicate not. Astrophysicists seem to be doing a lot of head scratching about how odd things seem to be when compared to what we see here at home. Apparently there is a lot of room for random factors to muck up the works. Call it chaos.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by halfmask
 


If the planets do not enter into orbit, and are formed as the star forms, what I am asking is, will the forms and orbits of the planets be predictable?

The other systems which have been identified would indicate not. Astrophysicists seem to be doing a lot of head scratching about how odd things seem to be when compared to what we see here at home. Apparently there is a lot of room for random factors to muck up the works. Call it chaos.




I hate to say it but I agree with phage lol.... I actually agree with phage a lot as it seems we both think on a logical level. But phage is wrong at times and I can prove it just because I said so lol! Jk jk

Good post OP



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfmask
This makes me think of something I have been wondering for a long time. Are the orbits of planets and the planets mass and contents predetermined by the mass and energy of the star they orbit? Like in a forming system such as in the article, are the planets to be formed properties, such as mass and orbit determinable by the new stars properties, or is it random? If the star in its forming also forms the planet, would it not to be expected to find patterns in how they form? If this is given, then isn't it kind of a striking similarity to how electron shells form around the nuclei in atoms, such as in the consistency of their orbits, and the supposed planks length. If there is a parallel, it may grant important insight into the nature of physics. Pretty interesting article none the less.

I think there would be a lot of factors, and probably a large degree of randomness and chaos as well. A major factor is the metallicity of a star, and thus how much stuff besides hydrogen and helium the star and its system contains. Planets like Jupiter and Saturn are mostly hydrogen, like the Sun, so metallicity doesn't matter for forming gas giants. But it does matter for forming rocky planets like the Earth or Mars, which require high levels of metallicity for there to be enough extra material for them to be built from. Some solar systems have very low metallicity and so are unlikely to form many, if any, good sized rocky planets.

We also know that planets can migrate in their orbits. Exactly how and why this happens is unknown, but a solar system's eventual make-up after a billion years of planet migration can look very different than how it formed and it can be hard to know exactly how it once looked. We think that in some cases gas giants might form in the farther reaches and then migrate inwards, often gobbling up smaller planets on the way. (Good thing Jupiter never did this to us!) Also, very close in planets can fall into their stars. We think this might have happened in our own solar system's history as our sun has high levels of elements in its outer shell that it shouldn't have. The best explanation for this is that a planet fell into it (a big one) and contributed to the Sun's makeup.
edit on 5/9/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7

log in

join