Transcript PPT - osmaston.org.uk

Title
A new, mainly dynamical, twostage scenario for
forming the Sun’s planetary
system and its relation to
exoplanet findings
Miles Osmaston
[email protected]
http://osmaston.org.uk
To see notes below the slides, please open in ppt ‘normal view’
1
Two starting points
1. Repeatedly, but virtually unavailingly, Jeans 1919,
Lyttleton 1941, Gold 1984 and Woolfson 1960+ have
stressed that the material in the Sun and in our
planetary system must have had dynamically
separate origins, NOT the common origin implied by
the Single Contracting Solar Nebula (SCSN) model of
Kant-Laplace. Yet studies of all kinds are usually still
based on it.
2. My work, since 1959, on the fundamental nature of
the gravitational cohesion process between particles
leads me to expect (!!!!) that a radial electric (“gravityelectric” - G-E) field is simultaneously generated
around all such assemblages, and cannot be
annulled.
This paper is a test case; does (2) help with (1)?
2
The 5 main dynamical problems
1. 6deg tilt of the planetary dynamical plane w.r.t. the Sun’s
equator. If Sun and planets were made in the same event,
how do you tilt one without the other? Precession?
2. Mean specific angular momentum of planetary material is
137,500 X that in the Sun. Together with the a.m. of the
>10-fold more mass they were formed from, all this a.m.
could NEVER have been in the Sun.
Where did the a.m.
come from? Could the G-E Field have done it?
3. In the presence of nebular gas, protoplanetary bodies
would spiral into the Sun in far less time than it takes to
build a planet. How do you prevent that?
4. Planetary spins are almost exclusively prograde, but
vorticity in a Keplerian disc is retrograde. Where did they
nucleate and get their spins?
5. Solar System satellites are almost exclusively prograde
w.r.t. spin of their planet. Why?
3
The new 2-stage scenario for building the
Sun's planetary system (and others)
The proto-Sun formed in one dust cloud, and became an alreadydense H-burning star. Later it flew into another cloud, with high dustopacity, from which the planets were formed and the outer 2.5% of the
Sun’s mass (above the tachocline) was added to and not mixed in, so
its composition appears to match. The second cloud (initial temp.
~10K or even lower) had a different dynamical axis.
ionization establishes G-E Field action
(driven by G-E Field)
4
Creation of angular momentum
Yes, it’s possible! Here’s how.
a.m. = Tangential velocity (V) x Orbit radius (R)
So if you apply a strictly radial push, as the gravity-electric
(G-E) field does, you increase R, but V stays the same.
That’s possible in a dense gas-controlled disc (non-Keplerian)
So you double the a.m. every time you double the distance
from the Sun’s axis.
If magnetic coupling to the inner disc also slowed the Sun 5fold, this a.m. creation can provide the 137,500-fold greater
a.m. of the planetary material. Q.E.D!
But it does specify that the planets were (entirely?) built
by accreting material that also had the high a.m. provided
by the G-E Field-driven wind – i.e. nebula still present
5
Where are all the retrograde satellites?
1. For the giant planets this means that late planetary growth
was by tidal capture, so retrograde captures spiralled in,
but prograde ones stayed in orbit (McCord 1968 JGR;
Counselman 1973 ApJ). Capture requires nebula present.
2. Tidal drag requires hot-viscous silicate planets, so only
the 5-15 Me silicate ‘cores’ had been built (so Jupiter’s
timescale problem is removed and metallic-H Jovian
interior is untenable).
3. Tidal action cannot have provided their gas and ice
envelopes, so these must be later gravitational captures.
4. This was when the Sun flew out of the second cloud. The
Sun lost its dust jacket and the Protoplanetary Disk Wind
cleared the disc from the inner solar system, taking with it
the watery atmospheres (from core formation – see later)
6
of the terrestrial planets.
Late giant impacts?
Safronov-type impact accretion expects giant
impacts at a late stage. But our feedstock provision
by the disk wind does not. So were there any?
Mercury – YES – 7deg tilted and very eccentric orbit, loss
of two-thirds of its mantle. Post-nebula and out-of-plane
impactor.
Moon – NO – Earth orbit preserves its gas-drag-ensured
circular orbit, conforming to the planetary dynamical plane;
out-of-plane impact would have destroyed those.
Uranus – NO – its axis must have been tilted early; its
closely equatorial satellite system shows it grew a lot after
that.
7
Making the Earth’s core
Noting that the mantle had never equilibrated with Fe,
A.E. Ringwood had long favoured - 1960, 1966, 1975 making the core by:- cool nebula (<600K) – positive fO2
construction of Earth – reduce hot erupted FeO at Earth
surface – subduct Fe…..BUT in 1979 “Origin of the Earth
and Moon” he had to abandon this because he saw no way of
getting rid of the dense watery atmosphere that would result.
The G-E Field-driven disk wind will now do that and it fits
well with nebula-present dynamics and construction of
the planets. This result rules out the substantial postnebula accretion assumed by the current time-demanding
iron-percolation models.
So let’s return to Ringwood’s idea.
8
Forming the Earth’s core, and others – Ringwood model
Opacity of dusty
nebula makes
distance from the
Sun immaterial.
Heat for convection
onset is accretion
and radiogenic
9
Exoplanets
Observations on the 319 exoplanets detected by late Oct. 2008
(http://exoplanet.eu/) offered a good database against which to check
the validity of our new scenario. Of these, 32 are multiple (mostly twoplanet) systems but 3 are 3-planet, one is 4-planet and one, 55 Cancri,
has five.
1. The close-in nucleation of planets (see next slide).
Unless shielded from it by nebular dust, stellar radiation
would inhibit nucleation or induce evaporation thereafter.
So we must be seeing these systems not long after they
have moved out of their planetogenic cloud.
2. The two-stage scenario. Despite its close-in position
(0.052 AU), the planet of 51 Pegasi, an early discovery,
belongs to a star ~8 Ga old; it could not possibly have
been there that long. Many similar cases are known.
10
Close-in positions of exoplanets needs
an explanation
Our new scenario can do it if they are young
Plot restricted to exoplanets with a < 0.4 AU
Total number in table at 10/01/09 = 334
Therefore 73 = 22% of the total detected so far
Mercury
But what happens to them when the PDW has ceased to move them outward?
11
Exoplanet eccentricities
3. High eccentricities. These are a marked feature of
exoplanetary orbits, contrasting with the very low ones in the
Solar System. In the new scenario, magnetic coupling
constrains the disk wind plane to a fairly low tilt w.r.t. the
stellar equator. But the direction of the infall column(s) will
depend on the dynamics of the star’s passage through the
cloud, relative to its axis. Infall that deviates markedly from
polar will be much closer to the disk wind plane on one side
than on the other, so will also yield a major asymmetry in the
flow into the disk wind. This will ‘puff’ an orbiting planet
additionally every time it passes on that side, building up the
eccentricity as its orbit size (and a.m.!) grows. Analysis of
the database shows that many do indeed show that the outer
planet or planets show a greater or progressively increasing
eccentricity. All the 4 planets of HD160691 show this
progression.
12
Brown dwarfs and binaries
The CT scenario may be able to yield a
continuous link from small planets to brown dwarfs to
disparate-aged binary stars, provided that the
cloud is dense enough, or the transit fast
enough, to generate the mass flow. The capture
of one star by another to form a binary (of which
there are very many) has long presented a problem
in Newtonian dynamics. To build one, as here, by
building it up from a nucleus already in an orbital
relationship is an attractive solution. But can’t apply
to binary twins.
13
General Conclusions 1
1. Star formation and planet formation are wholly
distinct in timing, dynamics and sources, so old
stars can acquire young planets (as observed).
2. Action of the gravity-electric (G-E) field yields a
new scenario in which planets nucleate close to
their star while shielded from it by a dust jacket
acquired from a second cloud, and are
successively moved out to greater distance.
3. Planetary nucleation was gravitational, followed
by growth by tidal capture, with impact accretion
confined to the growth of the feedstock bodies.
4. The new disk has low mean temperature and high
density, yielding iron core formation and water
production while it is present.
14
General Conclusions 2
4. In the Solar System the G-E field played a pivotal
role in setting up the disk outflow pattern and
establishing many aspects of the observed
dynamics, including growth of angular momentum
and the gas giants’ late capture of their envelopes,
expelled from the inner Solar System.
5. The new scenario is supported by many features of
the exoplanet findings, further validating the G-E
Field.
OVERALL ANSWER TO THE INITIAL QUESTION
YES; THE G-E FIELD SEEMS TO MAKE THE JOB
DYNAMICALLY POSSIBLE, AT LAST.
With chemical benefits too.
15
Basic logic of the G-E Field
The G-E Field is the product of my
implementing, functionally, for the first time,
the elastic aether specified by JC Maxwell’s
equations (1865) for the existence of
transverse electromagnetic waves, but
which was illogically wholly discarded by
Einstein in promoting Relativity, though he
needed the waves.
16