Model shows how gas giants could have survived and spun away from their star

April 2, 2015 by Bob Yirka report
This is Jupiter's Great Red Spot in 2000 as seen by NASA's Cassini orbiter. Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

(Phys.org)—A new model developed by a team of researchers with member affiliations in Argentina, France and Mexico, depicts a possible scenario to explain why gas giants do not migrate into the star they are orbiting during their early stages. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the researchers note that prior efforts to build a model that could explain gas giant growth and behavior did not take tidal effects into account and thus could not show why they survived. Martin Duncan of Queen's University offers a News & Views piece on the work done by the team in the same journal issue.

Gas giants, such as Jupiter and Saturn, exist today because of certain processes that went on during their early development—but until now, no one had come up with a reasonable model to explain those processes—most showed the gas giants migrating into their star during their early stages, rather than spinning away from it.

In this new model, the researchers believe tidal effects are the key. It all starts, they note, with a material disk surrounding a nearly born star. Material in that disk crashes into other material and some of it sticks—as that happens over and over more accretion takes place until the evolving planet grows large enough to start capturing gas in its atmosphere. Once that happens, the researchers say something interesting happens—as new material falls through the gas into the solid core of the planet, heat is released. That heat is then transferred back to the surrounding gas, and because the planet is spinning, parts of the gas, ahead of and behind the planet, expand—more so on the trailing side. That results, the researchers claim, in what they call a heating torque that actually pushes the still evolving planet away from its star. The model also suggests that the distance the planet is pushed from its star depends on the material that was in the original disk which made its way to the core of the new planet. Heavier elements would naturally offer more torque, but a planet's eventual resting place would also depend on the size of the planet that formed.

The is just a first step in a new direction in trying to explain how came to be and where—research will continue both by the team with this new idea and of course by many others in the field.

Explore further: Rocky planets may orbit many double stars

More information: Planet heating prevents inward migration of planetary cores, Nature 520, 63–65 (02 April 2015) DOI: 10.1038/nature14277

Abstract
Planetary systems are born in the disks of gas, dust and rocky fragments that surround newly formed stars. Solid content assembles into ever-larger rocky fragments that eventually become planetary embryos. These then continue their growth by accreting leftover material in the disk. Concurrently, tidal effects in the disk cause a radial drift in the embryo orbits, a process known as migration. Fast inward migration is predicted by theory for embryos smaller than three to five Earth masses. With only inward migration, these embryos can only rarely become giant planets located at Earth's distance from the Sun and beyond, in contrast with observations. Here we report that asymmetries in the temperature rise associated with accreting infalling material produce a force (which gives rise to an effect that we call 'heating torque') that counteracts inward migration. This provides a channel for the formation of giant planets and also explains the strong planet–metallicity correlation found between the incidence of giant planets and the heavy-element abundance of the host stars.

Related Stories

Rocky planets may orbit many double stars

March 30, 2015

Luke Skywalker's home in "Star Wars" is the desert planet Tatooine, with twin sunsets because it orbits two stars. So far, only uninhabitable gas-giant planets have been identified circling such binary stars, and many researchers ...

Modeling Jupiter and Saturn's possible origins

March 5, 2013

New theoretical modeling by Carnegie's Alan Boss provides clues to how the gas giant planets in our solar system—Jupiter and Saturn—might have formed and evolved. His work was published recently by the Astrophysical Journal.

Rocky planets could have been born as gas giants

September 16, 2011

When NASA announced the discovery of over 1,200 new potential planets spotted by the Kepler Space Telescope, almost a quarter of them were thought to be Super-Earths. Now, new research suggests that these massive rocky planets ...

Planet-forming lifeline discovered in a binary star system

October 29, 2014

Scientists using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have detected a streamer of dust and gas flowing from a massive outer disk toward the inner reaches of a binary star system. This never-before-seen ...

'Neapolitan' exoplanets come in three flavors

June 2, 2014

(Phys.org) —The planets of our solar system come in two basic flavors, like vanilla and chocolate ice cream. We have small, rocky terrestrials like Earth and Mars, and large gas giants like Neptune and Jupiter. We're missing ...

Newly discovered celestial object defies categories

January 8, 2014

An object discovered by astrophysicists at the University of Toronto (U of T) nearly 500 light years away from the Sun may challenge traditional understandings about how planets and stars form.

Recommended for you

Ageing star blows off smoky bubble

September 20, 2017

Astronomers have used ALMA to capture a strikingly beautiful view of a delicate bubble of expelled material around the exotic red star U Antliae. These observations will help astronomers to better understand how stars evolve ...

New quasar discovered by astronomers

September 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of astronomers led by Jacob M. Robertson of the Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee has detected a new quasi-stellar object (QSO). They found the new quasar, designated SDSS J022155.26-064916.6, ...

The cosmic water trail uncovered by Herschel

September 19, 2017

During almost four years of observing the cosmos, the Herschel Space Observatory traced out the presence of water. With its unprecedented sensitivity and spectral resolution at key wavelengths, Herschel revealed this crucial ...

What do we need to know to mine an asteroid?

September 19, 2017

The mining of resources contained in asteroids, for use as propellant, building materials or in life-support systems, has the potential to revolutionise exploration of our Solar System. To make this concept a reality, we ...

A day in the life of NASA's Voyagers

September 19, 2017

At more than 10 billion miles away from Earth, there is no day and night. Time and space are fathomless and our Sun is a distant point of starlight—a faint reminder of the home NASA's twin Voyagers, humanity's farthest ...

15 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Stevepidge
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2015
That results, the researchers claim, in what they call a heating torque that actually pushes the still evolving planet away from its star.


expanding gas pushing against what? Heating Torque? You guys are just making crap up.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2015
@stevepidge: It is blatantly obvious that it is you who makes crap up, since you confused a post about science with what the paper actually says.

"Here we report that asymmetries in the temperature rise associated with accreting infalling material produce a force (which gives rise to an effect that we call 'heating torque') that counteracts inward migration."

If you want to know how the force, that has been observed in their model tests*, work, you should read the paper.

* And no matter how much crap you make up about scientists 'making crap up', they published it in peer review so it makes sense to their peers and the paper demonstrates the existence of the force in lab (computer) experiments.
Stevepidge
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2015
@stevepidge: It is blatantly obvious that it is you who makes crap up, since you confused a post about science with what the paper actually says.

"Here we report that asymmetries in the temperature rise associated with accreting infalling material produce a force (which gives rise to an effect that we call 'heating torque') that counteracts inward migration."

If you want to know how the force, that has been observed in their model tests*, work, you should read the paper.

* And no matter how much crap you make up about scientists 'making crap up', they published it in peer review so it makes sense to their peers and the paper demonstrates the existence of the force in lab (computer) experiments.


SHow me the observations, not the MODELS based on models based on more models.
chardo137
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2015
Since we are not yet at the technological level to be able to actually build a solar system from scratch, computer modeling is the only technique we have of obtaining data. There is also the consideration of time, since the process in question takes many millions of years to accomplish. Accretion disc dynamics are one of the least understood processes in the universe. It is obvious that a collapsing self-gravitating system does form an accretion disc, we have the observations for that. Yes, they are making stuff up, that is the whole point. It is the stuff they make up that fits actual observations that is the subject here. Since we do not fully understand the dynamics involved, we try many things to see what works. The things that work get incorporated into the next generation of theories. This is the method through which science progresses.
Stevepidge
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2015
Since we are not yet at the technological level to be able to actually build a solar system from scratch, computer modeling is the only technique we have of obtaining data. There is also the consideration of time, since the process in question takes many millions of years to accomplish.
Millions of years? This is speculation at best based on uniformitarianism

Accretion disc dynamics are one of the least understood processes in the universe.


poorly understood when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer (gravity)

It is obvious that a collapsing self-gravitating system does form an accretion disc, we have the observations for that.


The formation of planets follows the path of electric currents running through the sun's rotating magnetic field and the solar wind ( Parker spiral). The electrical forces involved will coalesce matter into planets.

http://helios.gsf...mag.html
Stevepidge
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2015
Further, the observed electrical energy released in so called "magnetic re connection" occurs on the path of the rotating magnetic field. These energies are sufficient to create tremendous attraction between matter where it is available in areas of substantial mass. This is how planets are formed, in a cosmic discharge almost instantly.
Stevepidge
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2015
Further, the observed electrical energy released in so called "magnetic re connection" occurs on the path of the rotating magnetic field. These energies are sufficient to create tremendous attraction between matter where it is available in substantial mass. This is how planets are formed, in a cosmic discharge almost instantly.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2015
observed electrical energy released in so called "magnetic re connection"
@steve
so you are also an electric universe acolyte?
really?

not surprising considering your other pseudoscience proclamations
before opening your mouth and proving to the world how stupid you can be, why not research the issue?
http://www.pppl.g...nnection

Magnetic reconnection is not "so called" nor is it pseudoscience...
it IS, however OBSERVED as well as EMPIRICAL as well as PLASMA PHYSICS that is well known as well as well documented

Just because you refuse to accept knowledge doesn't mean we are all as stupid or incapable of reading

DeliriousNeuron
Apr 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ian_miller
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
In my model, the planet orbits at near Keplerian velocity while the gas is slower and is falling starwards. Accordingly the pressure is highest on the leading face, the gas is dragged starwards and the planet begins spinning as if rolling. Once gravity is sufficient, the planet drags the gas in front around underneath it, where it encounters gas in the orbital direction, and two flows in the opposite direction cancel. The planet now takes the angular momentum of the gas, and this slows/stops it falling starwards.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
Stevepidge stated
Further, the observed electrical energy released in so called "magnetic re connection" occurs on the path of the rotating magnetic field
You seem to be under the impression you 'can' rotate a magnetic field - around what axis precisely ?

Have you heard of the Faraday paradox ?

Stevepidge claimed
These energies are sufficient to create tremendous attraction between matter where it is available in areas of substantial mass. This is how planets are formed, in a cosmic discharge almost instantly.
Highly unlikely as ElectroMagnetic Fields (EMF) sums locally primarily BECAUSE there are no monopoles ie. N <-> S have direct polarisation...!

This is just why, despite Sol's field being immense it CANNOT be measured at Earth's surface and just why gravity - with no polarisation always wins out immensely over astronomical distances !

Stevepidge, models r based on physics, well proven, try to understand physics & error bars please !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
Stevepidge claimed
Millions of years? This is speculation at best based on uniformitarianism
Sorry you missed education in Physics, because if you had you wouldn't make such claims, oh that includes education in limit theorems as pre-requisite to calculus and just WHY these time frames are fine :-)

Stevepidge claimed
.. formation of planets follows the path of electric currents running through the sun's rotating magnetic field & the solar wind...
No. A rotating magnetic field is subject to Faraday paradox - get physics education & not robotically follow vague EU idea.
https://en.wikipe..._paradox

NB. Solar wind is mostly neutral, if it wasn't we would be in for almost regular MASSIVE lightning bolts across the solar plane vapourising differential charge points (ie planets). Please get an education in Electrodynamics !

Stevepidge claimed
The electrical forces involved will coalesce matter into planets
No. EMF weak, gravity is fine !
CodyAldenRizzolo
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2015
Stevepidge is correct in my opinion because he accounts for the electromagnetic force. It's obvious to anyone who has studied the standard model of galaxy formation and star formation, that there is missing evidence for the theory as a whole and that in order to make the equation work there must be so called dark matter. Yet in this model, it incorporates the force of gravity as understood by Einsteinian and Newtonian physics, while completely disregarding the electromagnetic force as a whole. This means that the orthodox view of how galaxies and their components are structured, is searching for something which is unsubstantiated, unobserved, completely theoretical, and entirely unnecessary if simply replaced with what was omitted in the first place. Swap dark matter and dark energy for a re-introduction of the EM principle, and there you have it, a model that doesn't require a search for missing matter. Holoscience.com
CodyAldenRizzolo
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2015
Furthermore, pertaining to your criticism of Stevepidge, I would ask you all to please suspend your disbelief for long enough to take a look at what some of the contemporaries to the Electric Universe model have brought forth through their research. Hannes Alfven, and Christian Birkelland, and Ralf Jurgens, and Halton Arp, have earned their place in history as well respected physicists and engineers, and they have all demonstrated in one way or another, that there is a misunderstanding on the part of mainstream science about how the Universe and our own Sun work. Please search for a video on youtube called "The Myths of Settled Science", if you are interested in what sort of premises the EU crowd are basing their conclusions from. If we start with a faulty premise, then the best logic in the world won't help us arrive at the right conclusions. We must have a sound premise, use good logic, and objective reasoning, if we hope to draw the right conclusions.
CodyAldenRizzolo
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2015
And lastly, I would simply like to remind us all, that we should at the very least, consider what we are arguing about, and weigh it out in the scales of what is, and what isn't, established as fact. Theoretical assumptions about our universe abound and are tossed into these articles with little or no qualification as to what is or isn't based on facts. Black holes, and the big bang, are theoretical assumptions. You can't say that they aren't theoretical assumptions, okay, because that's exactly what they are. First there was nothing, then there was an explosion and everything came about? Does that sound logical? Or can we logically make a case for being able to squeeze a near infinite amount of matter into a smaller area can possibly contain it, such as a black hole? I don't think that makes very good sense, and neither does the idea that we can divide by zero. Question all theoretical assumptions. Thunderbolts Project has videos on youtube which might inspire you. Good Day.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.