Astronomy News

Some argue planet Jupiter formed from pebbles

Spread the love
jupiter_1.jpg
Jupiter/NASA

From RealClearScience:

The pebble accretion model, as the idea is called, suggests that tiny objects first coalesce together due to drag then gravitationally collapse and form larger objects one hundred to one thousand kilometers in size. These larger objects, now referred to as planetesimals, than draw in all the remaining pebbles and become the cores of larger planets.

Simulations completed last year cast doubt on this interesting theory. They suggested that — in the context of our solar system — too many planetesimals would form — as many as one hundred objects the size of Earth! Since our Solar System only contains eight planets and five recognized dwarf planets, this theory was mostly ruled out.

However, a new simulation carried out primarily by researchers at the Southwest Research Institute and published to the journal Nature suggests that if these pebbles form slowly enough, fewer large planetesimals will emerge. More.

Well, if such contradictory theories (gas vs. pebbles) are both in play, it sure isn’t a time for dogma.

See also: “Behold, countless Earths sail the galaxies … that is, if you would only believe …

Don’t let Mars fool you. Those exoplanets teem with life!

and

How do we grapple with the idea that ET might not be out there?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Some argue planet Jupiter formed from pebbles

  1. 1
    Virgil Cain says:

    It wasn’t Pebbles, it was Bam-Bam

  2. 2
    mahuna says:

    It was ALWAYS started with pebbles. All that changes in the new simulation is the rate at which the pebbles accrete into boulders and the boulders into Mount Everest. And clearly you ALWAYS had to have a substantial mass for the core before you could attract stuff as light as hydrogen.

    So the real question is: why are Venus, Earth, and Mars NOT gas giants? I skip Mercury because Mercury is so viciously scoured by the Sun that it never had much hope of keep any atmosphere it managed to attract.

    But if the original disk of dust (i.e., clumps of elements that are solids at temperatures above -100 degrees F or something) was distributed in a smoothly decreasing concentration, then why aren’t all of the big planets closer in?

Leave a Reply