Nebular hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star formation
LH 95.jpg
Object classes
Interstellar medium
Molecular cloud
Bok globule
Dark nebula
Young stellar object
Protostar
T Tauri star
Herbig Ae/Be star
HerbigHaro object
Theoretical concepts
Initial mass function
Jeans instability
KelvinHelmholtz mechanism
Nebular hypothesis
Planetary migration
Portal Star portal
v t e
In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explainin
g the formation and evolution of the Solar System, which suggests that the Solar
System formed from nebulous material in space. There is evidence that it was fi
rst proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg.[1][2][3] Originally applied only to
our own Solar System, this method of planetary system formation is now thought t
o be at work throughout the universe.[4] The widely accepted modern variant of t
he nebular hypothesis is the solar nebular disk model (SNDM) or simply solar neb
ular model.[5] This nebular hypothesis offered explanations for a variety of pro
perties of the Solar System, including the nearly circular and coplanar orbits o
f the planets, and their motion in the same direction as the Sun's rotation. Som
e elements of the nebular hypothesis are echoed in modern theories of planetary
formation, but most have been superseded.
According to the nebular hypothesis, stars form in massive and dense clouds of m
olecular hydrogengiant molecular clouds (GMC). They are gravitationally unstable,
and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within, which then proceed to bot
h rotate and collapse and form stars. Star formation is a complex process, which
always produces a gaseous protoplanetary disk around the young star. This may g
ive birth to planets in certain circumstances, which are not well known. Thus th
e formation of planetary systems is thought to be a natural result of star forma
tion. A sun-like star usually takes around 100 million years to form.[4]
The protoplanetary disk is an accretion disk which proceeds to feed the central
star. Initially very hot, the disk later cools in what is known as the T tauri s
tar stage; here, formation of small dust grains made of rocks and ices is possib
le. The grains may eventually coagulate into kilometer-sized planetesimals. If t
he disk is massive enough the runaway accretions begin, resulting in the rapid100
,000 to 300,000 yearsformation of Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos. Near the
star, the planetary embryos go through a stage of violent mergers, producing a
few terrestrial planets. The last stage takes around 100 million to a billion ye
ars.[4]
The formation of giant planets is a more complicated process. It is thought to o
ccur beyond the so-called frost line, where planetary embryos are mainly made of
various ices. As a result they are several times more massive than in the inner
part of the protoplanetary disk. What follows after the embryo formation is not
completely clear. However, some embryos appear to continue to grow and eventual
ly reach 510 Earth massesthe threshold value, which is necessary to begin accretio
n of the hydrogenhelium gas from the disk. The accumulation of gas by the core is
initially a slow process, which continues for several million years, but after
the forming protoplanet reaches about 30 Earth masses it accelerates and proceed
s in a runaway manner. The Jupiter and Saturnlike planets are thought to accumula
te the bulk of their mass during only 10,000 years. The accretion stops when the
gas is exhausted. The formed planets can migrate over long distances during or
after their formation. The ice giants like Uranus and Neptune are thought to be
failed cores, which formed too late when the disk had almost disappeared.[4]
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Solar nebular model: achievements and problems
2.1 Achievements
2.2 Problems and criticism
3 Formation of stars and protoplanetary disks
3.1 Protostars
3.2 Protoplanetary disks
4 Formation of planets
4.1 Rocky planets
4.2 Giant planets
5 Meaning of accretion
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links
History[edit]
Main article: History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses
There is evidence that the nebular hypothesis was first proposed in 1734 by Eman
uel Swedenborg.[1][2] Immanuel Kant, who was familiar with Swedenborg's work, de
veloped the theory further in 1755, when Kant published his Universal Natural Hi
story and Theory of the Heavens, wherein he argued that gaseous cloudsnebulae, wh
ich slowly rotate, gradually collapse and flatten due to gravity and eventually
form stars and planets. [5]
A similar model was developed independently and proposed in 1796 by Pierre-Simon
Laplace.[5] in his Exposition du systeme du monde. He envisioned that the Sun o
riginally had an extended hot atmosphere throughout the volume of the Solar Syst
em. His theory featured a contracting and cooling protosolar cloudthe protosolar
nebula. As this cooled and contracted, it flattened and spun more rapidly, throw
ing off (or shedding) a series of gaseous rings of material; and according to hi
m, the planets condensed from this material. His model was similar to Kant's, ex
cept more detailed and on a smaller scale.[5] While the Laplacian nebular model
dominated in the 19th century, it encountered a number of difficulties. The main
problem was angular momentum distribution between the Sun and planets. The plan
ets have 99% of the angular momentum, and this fact could not be explained by th
e nebular model.[5] As a result this theory of planet formation was largely aban
doned at the beginning of the 20th century.
The fall of the Laplacian model stimulated scientists to find a replacement for
it. During the 20th century many theories were proposed including the planetesim
al theory of Thomas Chamberlin and Forest Moulton (1901), tidal model of Jeans (
1917), accretion model of Otto Schmidt (1944), protoplanet theory of William McC
rea (1960) and finally capture theory of Michael Woolfson.[5] In 1978 Andrew Pre
ntice resurrected the initial Laplacian ideas about planet formation and develop
ed the modern Laplacian theory.[5] None of these attempts was completely success
ful and many of the proposed theories were descriptive.
The birth of the modern widely accepted theory of planetary formationthe solar ne
bular disk model (SNDM)can be traced to the works of Soviet astronomer Victor Saf
ronov.[6] His book Evolution of the protoplanetary cloud and formation of the Ea
rth and the planets,[7] which was translated to English in 1972, had a long last
ing effect on the way scientists think about the formation of the planets.[8] In
this book almost all major problems of the planetary formation process were for
mulated and some of them solved. Safronov's ideas were further developed in the
works of George Wetherill, who discovered runaway accretion.[5] While originally
applied only to our own Solar System, the SNDM was subsequently thought by theo
rists to be at work throughout the universe; as of 1 September 2014, 1821 extras
olar planets have since been discovered in our galaxy.[9]
Solar nebular model: achievements and problems[edit]
Achievements[edit]
The star formation process naturally results in the appearance of accretion disk
s around young stellar objects.[10] At the age of about 1 million years, 100% of
stars may have such disks.[11] This conclusion is supported by the discovery of
the gaseous and dusty disks around protostars and T Tauri stars as well as by t
heoretical considerations.[12] Observations of these disks show that the dust gr
ains inside them grow in size on short (thousand-year) time scales, producing 1
centimeter sized particles.[13]
The accretion process, by which 1 km planetesimals grow into 1,000 km sized bodi
es, is well understood now.[14] This process develops inside any disk where the
number density of planetesimals is sufficiently high, and proceeds in a runaway
manner. Growth later slows and continues as oligarchic accretion. The end result
is formation of planetary embryos of varying sizes, which depend on the distanc
e from the star.[14] Various simulations have demonstrated that the merger of em
bryos in the inner part of the protoplanetary disk leads to the formation of a f
ew Earth-sized bodies. Thus the origin of terrestrial planets is now considered
to be an almost solved problem.[15]
Problems and criticism[edit]