Planet-Formation Model Indicates Earthlike Planets Might Be Common

http://www.cac.washington.edu/newsro...e/k121003.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FROM: Vince Stricherz
206-543-2580
University of Washington

DATE: Dec. 10, 2003

Planet-formation model indicates Earthlike planets might be common

Astrobiologists disagree about whether advanced life is common or rare in
our universe. But new research suggests that one thing is pretty certain -
if an Earthlike world with significant water is needed for advanced life to
evolve, there could be many candidates.

In 44 computer simulations of planet formation near a sun, astronomers found
that each simulation produced one to four Earthlike planets, including 11
so-called "habitable" planets about the same distance from their stars as
Earth is from our sun.

"Our simulations show a tremendous variety of planets. You can have planets
that are half the size of Earth and are very dry, like Mars, or you can have
planets like Earth, or you can have planets three times bigger than Earth,
with perhaps 10 times more water," said Sean Raymond, a University of
Washington doctoral student in astronomy.

Raymond is the lead author of a paper detailing the simulation results that
has been accepted for publication in Icarus, the journal of the American
Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences. Co-authors are
Thomas R. Quinn, a UW associate astronomy professor, and Jonathan Lunine, a
professor of planetary science and physics at the University of Arizona.

The simulations show that the amount of water on terrestrial, or Earthlike,
planets could be greatly influenced by outer gas giant planets like Jupiter.

"The more eccentric giant planet orbits result in drier terrestrial
planets," Raymond said. "Conversely, more circular giant planet orbits mean
wetter terrestrial planets."

In the case of our solar system, Jupiter's orbit is slightly elliptical,
which could explain why Earth is 80 percent covered by oceans rather than
being bone dry or completely covered in water miles deep.

The findings are significant because of the discovery in recent years of a
large number of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn orbiting other
suns. The presence, and orbits, of those planets can be inferred from their
gravitational interaction with their parent stars and their effect on light
from those stars as seen from Earth.

It currently is impossible to detect Earthlike planets around other stars.
However, if results from the models are correct, there could be planets such
as ours around a number of other suns relatively close to our solar system.
A significant number of those planets are likely to be in the "habitable
zone," the distance from a star at which the planet's temperature will
maintain liquid water on the surface. Liquid water is thought to be a
requirement for life, so planets in a star's habitable zone are ideal
candidates for life. It is unclear, however, whether those planets could
harbor more than simple microbial life.

The researchers note that their models represent the extremes of what is
possible in forming Earthlike planets rather than what is typical of planets
observed in our galaxy. For now, they said, it is unclear which approach is
more realistic.

Their goal is to understand what a system's terrestrial planets will look
like if the characteristics of a system's giant planets are known, Raymond
said.

Quinn noted that all of the giant planets detected so far have orbits that
carry them very close to their parent stars, so their orbits are completed
in a relatively short time and it is easier to observe them. The giant
planets observed close to their parent stars likely formed farther away and
then, because of gravitational forces, migrated closer.

But Quinn expects that giant planets will begin to be discovered farther
away from their suns as astronomers have more time to watch and are able to
observe gravitational effects during their longer orbits. He doubts such
planets will be found before they have completed whatever migration they
make toward their suns, because their orbits would be too irregular to
observe with any confidence.

"These simulations occur after their migration is over, after the orbits of
the gas giants have stabilized," he said.

The research is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Astrobiology Institute, its Planetary Atmospheres program,
and Intel Corp.

###

For more information, contact Raymond at or
(206) 543-9039; Quinn at or (206) 685-9009; or
Lunine at or (520) 621-2789.

On 10 Dec 2003 17:37:01 GMT, (Ron Baalke)
wrote:

"Our simulations show a tremendous variety of planets. You can have planets
that are half the size of Earth and are very dry, like Mars, or you can have
planets like Earth, or you can have planets three times bigger than Earth,
with perhaps 10 times more water," said Sean Raymond, a University of
Washington doctoral student in astronomy.

Solid planets three times Earth's diameter? i.e. with more than 27
times the mass? (Presumably considerably more than 27 times, since the
core would be pretty compressed at that stage.) Is that really
possible?

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

(Russell Wallace) wrote in message ...

Solid planets three times Earth's diameter? i.e. with more than 27
times the mass? (Presumably considerably more than 27 times, since the
core would be pretty compressed at that stage.)

Not all solid planets are as dense as Earth. Luna and Mars are about
60-70% Earth's density.

And those solids - silicates and metals - do not compress much (unlike
hydrogen in its many forms), so the diameter will be about 3x higher.

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

In article ,
Russell Wallace wrote:
On 10 Dec 2003 17:37:01 GMT, (Ron Baalke)
wrote:

"Our simulations show a tremendous variety of planets. You can have planets
that are half the size of Earth and are very dry, like Mars, or you can have
planets like Earth, or you can have planets three times bigger than Earth,
with perhaps 10 times more water," said Sean Raymond, a University of
Washington doctoral student in astronomy.

Solid planets three times Earth's diameter? i.e. with more than 27
times the mass? (Presumably considerably more than 27 times, since the
core would be pretty compressed at that stage.) Is that really
possible?

If the density is the same, gravity, which is proportional
to radius times density, would be three times as great.

On the other hand, if it is three times as massive with the
same density, the gravity would be less than 1.45 as great.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

"Russell Wallace" wrote in message
...
On 10 Dec 2003 17:37:01 GMT, (Ron Baalke)
wrote:

"Our simulations show a tremendous variety of planets. You can have
planets
that are half the size of Earth and are very dry, like Mars, or you can
have
planets like Earth, or you can have planets three times bigger than
Earth,
with perhaps 10 times more water," said Sean Raymond, a University of
Washington doctoral student in astronomy.

Solid planets three times Earth's diameter? i.e. with more than 27
times the mass? (Presumably considerably more than 27 times, since the
core would be pretty compressed at that stage.) Is that really
possible?

Where did you see the word diameter in the above quote.
Perhaps bigger in this context referred to volume or mass.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Russell Wallace wrote:
|Solid planets three times Earth's diameter? i.e. with more than 27
|times the mass? (Presumably considerably more than 27 times, since the
|core would be pretty compressed at that stage.) Is that really
|possible?

They probably wouldn't rotate as fast, would they?

On 13 Dec 2003 11:37:07 -0500, (Herman Rubin)
wrote:

In article ,
Russell Wallace wrote:
On 10 Dec 2003 17:37:01 GMT, (Ron Baalke)
wrote:

Solid planets three times Earth's diameter? i.e. with more than 27
times the mass? (Presumably considerably more than 27 times, since the
core would be pretty compressed at that stage.) Is that really
possible?

If the density is the same, gravity, which is proportional
to radius times density, would be three times as great.

*nods* 3G would be survivable to life forms adapted for it, of course
- but the problem I'm thinking of isn't the surface gravity, it's the
availability of 27 Earth masses of solid material?

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

On 13 Dec 2003 05:20:15 -0800, (Mike Miller) wrote:

(Russell Wallace) wrote in message ...

Solid planets three times Earth's diameter? i.e. with more than 27
times the mass? (Presumably considerably more than 27 times, since the
core would be pretty compressed at that stage.)

Not all solid planets are as dense as Earth. Luna and Mars are about
60-70% Earth's density.

You'd still be talking ~20 Earth masses, before taking compression
into account...

And those solids - silicates and metals - do not compress much (unlike
hydrogen in its many forms), so the diameter will be about 3x higher.

And silicates and metals do compress significantly at the pressure
encountered in Earth's core; that's why Earth is denser than Mercury,
despite having a lower percentage of metals.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:22:37 -0800, "Chosp" wrote:

Where did you see the word diameter in the above quote.

"Half the size of Earth... like Mars" seemed to me to imply he meant
diameter...

Perhaps bigger in this context referred to volume or mass.

But perhaps it did, that's why I'm asking. If it did, that would make
more sense - I could see how you might find 3 Earth masses of
silicates and metals, I have a lot more trouble seeing how you might
find 27.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

In order for life to evolve it needs billions of years of relative
stability.
Just being the right distance from the sun doesn't provide that.

Earth has stability because it has:
1. a very large moon acting as a stabaliser to the planetary wobble.
2. a very large object (Juptier) that acts as a vacuum cleaner to suck
up the majority of in-coming asteroids and comets.

What percentage of their simulations have that?

Also, since these simulations are based on data from our solar system,
and almost exclusively our solar system (since we know almost nothing
about other systems), OF COURSE it is going to predict systems similar
to ours.

Regards,

Philip