The view on how astronomers once thought that the planets in universe formed is beginning to change. Astronomers once thought the guest giant plants formed slowly. Gravity pulled debris together to form rocky cores several times a mass of the Earth, the largest of these sweeping up vast amounts of gas becoming huge giants. It is thought that roughly one billion years was needed to make these planets by the core-accretion process. Recent computer modeling in discoveries of extra solar planets suggest differently.
Recent discoveries in modeling suggest that Jupiter size planets are lucky survivors of a much faster process. Survival is almost rare as these would be Jupiter's and Saturn's have only a few million years to grab all they can and many Jupiter like planets either bounce out of the solar system or plunge into the parents sons because of complex gravitation
This theory, created in 1951 by Gerard Kuiper, and refined by Al Cameron in 1970, suggested gas in a merely uniformed disk would abruptly become unstable and contract rapidly compressing into clumps forming spheres. "The disk-instability model fell into complete disrepute," says Boss as no one could reconcile rocky cores with a collapsing clump of gases. In the mid-80s astronomers found that young stars lose their discs after only a few million years. In its simplest form core-accretion could take billions of years.
These findings prompted many astronomers to think that core accretion might not be the correct way to go. However, disk instability models cannot rule out core accretion. Neither is mutually exclusive and one or both could be true. The one thing everyone does agree on is there is a need for more data and surveys of clusters of young stars. There'
All papers and essays are for research and reference purposes only!
Copyright 2002-2009
Direct Essays , LLC. All Rights Reserved. DMCA Webmasters make $$$$