25 million yr old dust disk with no evidence of planetary formation

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17432

"Ray Vingnutte" wrote...
in message ...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17432

'Lo Ray --

First thing that comes to mind is why scientists would tend to
think that 25 million years is a long lifetime for a disk. They
may be right. That *is* a long time by some standards. But
how long is 25 million years in the multi-billion-year lifetime of
a star?

Also, this disk isn't around a star like our Sun, but orbits two
stars which are red dwarfs. The varying demands of gravity
on the disk by the two stars revolving around each other may
explain why the environment isn't a good one for planetary
formation?

And one more thing... from what i've read of existing theory
of solar system formation, aren't these disks only supposed to
exist around protostars? I was under the impression that,
once a protostar fuses and becomes a full-fledged star, the
stellar (solar) wind would blow away all but the largest bodies
in the disk. The disk itself would disappear while the smaller
bodies are blown to the outer edges of the solar system.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Ray Vingnutte wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17432


Perhaps these disks need "seed crystals" as it were to start the
planetary formation process. That is, maybe asteroids or comets need
to drift in from interstellar space to start attracting the dust and
gas and become the cores of future planets. This would be a probable,
but nonetheless chance process.

Double-A

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:59:04 GMT
"Painius" wrote:

"Ray Vingnutte" wrote...
in message ...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17432

'Lo Ray --

First thing that comes to mind is why scientists would tend to
think that 25 million years is a long lifetime for a disk. They
may be right. That *is* a long time by some standards. But
how long is 25 million years in the multi-billion-year lifetime of
a star?

Current models suggest that planets form very early on and to find a
disk that does not seem to have formed planets after 25 million yrs is a
bit of a surprise. I know that all I have read up till now suggests
planets form very quickly.


Also, this disk isn't around a star like our Sun, but orbits two
stars which are red dwarfs. The varying demands of gravity
on the disk by the two stars revolving around each other may
explain why the environment isn't a good one for planetary
formation?

I would like to think they have taken that into account ;-), but then
again.


And one more thing... from what i've read of existing theory
of solar system formation, aren't these disks only supposed to
exist around protostars? I was under the impression that,
once a protostar fuses and becomes a full-fledged star, the
stellar (solar) wind would blow away all but the largest bodies
in the disk. The disk itself would disappear while the smaller
bodies are blown to the outer edges of the solar system.

That would be about it yes, thats what I have always read till now.
Unless there is something else going on there which is still unknown
that is stopping planetary formation, another object or objects perhaps,
I don't know.


happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:59:04 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Ray Vingnutte" wrote...
in message ...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17432

'Lo Ray --

First thing that comes to mind is why scientists would tend to
think that 25 million years is a long lifetime for a disk. They
may be right. That *is* a long time by some standards. But
how long is 25 million years in the multi-billion-year lifetime of
a star?

Also, this disk isn't around a star like our Sun, but orbits two
stars which are red dwarfs. The varying demands of gravity
on the disk by the two stars revolving around each other may
explain why the environment isn't a good one for planetary
formation?

jeez... i would think that the Lagrangian points would have massive
loads of disk material, especially in a youthful system, rahter than a
smeared out disk like a solitary star woiuld develop.


And one more thing... from what i've read of existing theory
of solar system formation, aren't these disks only supposed to
exist around protostars? I was under the impression that,
once a protostar fuses and becomes a full-fledged star, the
stellar (solar) wind would blow away all but the largest bodies
in the disk. The disk itself would disappear while the smaller
bodies are blown to the outer edges of the solar system.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!