Kepler's Recent Results in Contradiction to Standard Planet Formation Theory

In the 1960ies and 70ies the theory of Kant, Laplace, von
Weizsäcker of the formation of the Solar system out of a
gas disk surrounding the protostellarad been refined and it
was thought that even details of the formation process had
been well understodd. In the inner Solar system the less
volatile elements like silicon condensed to grains that
later on coagulated in collisions to the rocky planetesimals
that finally formed the terrestrial planets. In the cooller
outer region beyond the water ice limit the volatiles like
hydrogen or water molecules could condense to supply the
matter for the gas giants.

Certainly it was expected that our Solar system would be a
standard for any extrasolar planetary system that might be
discovered in the future. But the observations did not agree
with these expectations. A lot of so-called Hot Jupiters was
detected that - of Jupiter-size or even larger - orbit their
parent star in very small distances in days or hours.
Presently it appears that our Solar system is rather an
exception than a standard. And to make things worse: Kepler
has added five new Hot Jupiters to the list of objects that
according to our understanding of the Solar system simply
are not allowed to exist.

Of course theorists have seen this problem, and as the Hot
Jupiter must have been formed far outside as a Cold Jupiter
and then it must have migrated somehow to the present
location . This is extremely convincing, inparticular as
none of the previous extensive computer simulations ever
indicated the possibility of a Hot Jupiter. To me these
theorists appear to me like people holding a Lehman
certificate and waiting for it to regain its value sometime
in the future.

All the best Jurgen

In article , Juergen Barsuhn
writes:

In the 1960ies and 70ies the theory of Kant, Laplace, von
Weizsäcker of the formation of the Solar system out of a
gas disk surrounding the protostellarad been refined and it
was thought that even details of the formation process had
been well understodd. In the inner Solar system the less
volatile elements like silicon condensed to grains that
later on coagulated in collisions to the rocky planetesimals
that finally formed the terrestrial planets. In the cooller
outer region beyond the water ice limit the volatiles like
hydrogen or water molecules could condense to supply the
matter for the gas giants.

Certainly it was expected that our Solar system would be a
standard for any extrasolar planetary system that might be
discovered in the future. But the observations did not agree
with these expectations. A lot of so-called Hot Jupiters was
detected that - of Jupiter-size or even larger - orbit their
parent star in very small distances in days or hours.
Presently it appears that our Solar system is rather an
exception than a standard. And to make things worse: Kepler
has added five new Hot Jupiters to the list of objects that
according to our understanding of the Solar system simply
are not allowed to exist.

Of course, there is a huge selection effect at work here. One detects
the easiest planets. Which are the easiest to detect? Those which are
a) massive and b) close to the star they orbit.

(Even if our solar system were not typical, that doesn't have to be a
surprise, since it might be typical of a life-supporting solar system.
Assuming (and that's a big assumption) that an Earth-like planet is
necessary for life (or at least for developing astronomy), then that
would be possible only in a solar system where giant planets, if any, do
not occupy the habitable zone.)

Sorry,
in my first sentence I dropped several letters. Here is the
corrected sentence:

In the 1960ies and 70ies the theory of Kant, Laplace, von
Weizsäcker of the formation of the Solar system out of a
gas disk surrounding the protostellar Sun had been refined
and it was thought that even details of the formation
process had been well understodd.

Thus spake Juergen Barsuhn
In the 1960ies and 70ies the theory of Kant, Laplace, von
Weizsäcker of the formation of the Solar system out of a
gas disk surrounding the protostellarad been refined and it
was thought that even details of the formation process had
been well understodd. In the inner Solar system the less
volatile elements like silicon condensed to grains that
later on coagulated in collisions to the rocky planetesimals
that finally formed the terrestrial planets. In the cooller
outer region beyond the water ice limit the volatiles like
hydrogen or water molecules could condense to supply the
matter for the gas giants.

Certainly it was expected that our Solar system would be a
standard for any extrasolar planetary system that might be
discovered in the future. But the observations did not agree
with these expectations. A lot of so-called Hot Jupiters was
detected that - of Jupiter-size or even larger - orbit their
parent star in very small distances in days or hours.
Presently it appears that our Solar system is rather an
exception than a standard. And to make things worse: Kepler
has added five new Hot Jupiters to the list of objects that
according to our understanding of the Solar system simply
are not allowed to exist.

There are at least two major factors which we would expect to affect the
formation of solar systems, the net initial angular momentum and the
metalicity of the initial gas cloud. We do know that the sun has a
rather higher metalicity than the majority. There is no particular
reason to think other solar systems started with identical net rotation.
You should recognise that the observation of hot jupiters could actually
be a prediction of the standard theory, given different initial
conditions, not a contradiction of it.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

On Jan 10, 11:08*am, Oh No wrote:

You should recognise that the observation of hot jupiters could actually
be a prediction of the standard theory, given different initial
conditions, not a contradiction of it.

Charles Francis


No! That would be an ad hoc rationalization that might qualify as a
useful retrodiction if were shown to be a sufficiently unique
rationalization.

Science, please.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Jan 10, 11:08*am, Oh No wrote:

You should recognise that the observation of hot jupiters could actually
be a prediction of the standard theory, given different initial
conditions, not a contradiction of it.

Charles Francis


No! That would be an ad hoc rationalization that might qualify as a
useful retrodiction if were shown to be a sufficiently unique
rationalization.

Science, please.

Were there any PREDICTIONS, based on Real Science, that we should expect
solar systems similar to our own, or was this just an unjustified
expectation---in other words, people shouldn't have been surprised by
the results, especially considering the selection effects?

In other words, if person A makes some unjustified "prediction", and
person B makes other observations, and person C points out that A's
arguments were never valid, then one can't accuse C of an ad-hoc
retrodiction to save appearances and keep out alternative theories by
supporting traditional science in any case, but rather of just pointing
out mistake.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply schrieb:
In article , Juergen Barsuhn
writes:
......snipped ....

Of course, there is a huge selection effect at work here. One detects
the easiest planets. Which are the easiest to detect? Those which are
a) massive and b) close to the star they orbit.

(Even if our solar system were not typical, that doesn't have to be a
surprise, since it might be typical of a life-supporting solar system.
Assuming (and that's a big assumption) that an Earth-like planet is
necessary for life (or at least for developing astronomy), then that
would be possible only in a solar system where giant planets, if any, do
not occupy the habitable zone.)

I agree to the selection effect and it may be that the
statistics for Solor-system-like systems wil be improved
after the completion of the Kepler mission. Perhaps the Hot
Jupiters are not very stable and may be "evaporated" within
e.g. a billion years, at least in some cases leaving a
"standard" planetary system. To play a little bit with
fantasies: Could it be that our Solar system once
incorporated a Hot Jupiter that has been extinguished
billions of years ago. Should it have left any signatures
for which we could look today?

To return to solid grounds: I think the recent findings
would justify a careful reanalysis of the established theory
of the formation of the Solar system, not just an ad-hoc
updating patch.

All the best Jurgen

Thus spake Robert L. Oldershaw
On Jan 10, 11:08*am, Oh No wrote:

You should recognise that the observation of hot jupiters could actually
be a prediction of the standard theory, given different initial
conditions, not a contradiction of it.

Charles Francis


No! That would be an ad hoc rationalization that might qualify as a
useful retrodiction if were shown to be a sufficiently unique
rationalization.


No. It is a request that people take the trouble to ascertain what the
actual predictions of a theory are, before criticising it on the basis
of absurd popularisation.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

On Jan 12, 4:55*am, Juergen Barsuhn wrote:

Nowadays these computations could be "easily" redone with a
variety of parameters. *If Oh No is right, then in some
computations Hot Jupiters should show up.


But Juergen, we want more than computer models that can reproduce the
empirical results.

That is called "model-building" and the Ptolemaic Model of the Solar
System was surprisingly good at it. Reproducing the phenomena
analytically is NOT necessarily the same as understanding the
phenomena. This is a crucial point for science, but it has been given
only lip-service for decades. And look at what we get: stellar theory
that cannot predict anything beyond the data it was made to fit.

What the scientist wants is a "theory of principle" that explains what
nature is actually doing [see work of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein,
etc.], i.e., how nature actually works.

Theories of principle can make Definitive Predictions, and can be
verified/falsified definitively [Einstein said if the eclipse
experiment came out in Newton's favor then General Relativity was
fundamentally flawed].

I do not want to reject model-building completely since it can produce
useful first steps [e.g., quantum mechanics and very reasonable
explanations for many phenomena in stellar astrophysics]. However, we
deceive ourselves and do a disservice to science when we settle for ad
hoc model-building instead of theories of principle, as a final goal.

The scientist does not treat effectively untestable models as anything
more than pseudoscientific speculation.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu~rloldershaw

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

That is called "model-building" and the Ptolemaic Model of the Solar
System was surprisingly good at it.

Actually, better than the original Copernican model, yet we regard the
latter as "more true".

With our better observational techniques today (like being able to
measure the distances to the planets), we CAN rule out the Ptolemaic
model.