New Study Shows Solar System Is Uncommon 290
Iddo Genuth writes "Research conducted by a team of North American scientists shows our solar system is special, contrary to the accepted theory that it is an average planetary system. Using computer simulations to follow the development of planets, it was shown that very specific conditions are needed for a proto-stellar disk to evolve into a solar system-like planetary system. The simulations show that in most cases either no planets are created, or planets are formed and then migrate towards the disk center and acquire highly elliptical orbits." The research was published in Science magazine; here's the paper on ArXiv (PDF).
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't read it like that
Space is still the big unknown. If this "shows' anything, it seems more probable that this 'shows' that the simulations aren't complete enough yet.
If they would deduce this from actual statistical data, it would show something, but deducing this from simulation seems a a bit to trustful to the current state of science if you ask me
What is rare? (Score:5, Insightful)
If even one thousandth of one percent of stars form solar systems similar to this one, that would still be quite significant.
ok. (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you every programmed a gravity sim? (Score:1, Insightful)
And just tried to have a bunch of objects follow nearly circular orbits? Those orbits don't grow on trees, for sure.
It's almost amazing that we have so many planets in our solar system with nearly circular orbits. I would think that, if your orbit is too elliptical, it would make life much more difficult to form.
If the earth's winter took it out past mars and the summer in towards mercury, our oceans would boil and then rain down on us again and freeze, every year. That would suck, for sure.
probabilties (Score:1, Insightful)
Under which model? (Score:5, Insightful)
special. (Score:2, Insightful)
The question isn't whether it is special, but HOW special. And TFS failed to even give a fake number to calm us data freaks down.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Basing conclusions off simulation models is risky, mainly considered how in the domain of planetary simulations, well established models get entirely questioned every once in a while.
And at this point even actual statistical data is hard to use to conclude anything about our solar system, because of our limited observation capabilities, what we know has a heavy statistical bias.
Climate Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Have you every programmed a gravity sim? (Score:2, Insightful)
Special one (Score:5, Insightful)
Research conducted by a team of North American scientist shows our solar system is special
... therefore, God created this solar system specially for man, which is the center of the Universe.
I love this based-on-new-studies "science".
Just because we can't see (yet) any other kinds of solar systems, doesn't necessarily mean ours is "special" !
Re:What is rare? (Score:3, Insightful)
1/1000th of 0.01%
I think that statistic is a bit hopeful. My current understanding of how the "earth" came to be a hospitable place, is due to a cosmic collision on such a scale that it changed the entire ecosystem of earth. The impact was so massive that it made the event that caused the dino's to be wiped out to look like a pin prick.
I'm sure cosmic collisions of that size occur all the time (speaking astronomically), but what are the chances that "large objects" (earth sized), at the right distance from their host start, made up of earth like (at that time) materials get smacked by a large sized object with those type materials, and finally end up with the type atmosphere that is conducive to life (as we know it)? Earth isnt an evolutionary phenomena (from the current explanation) but was created by an accidental collision, and then evolved into what it is today (though I'm sure other series of cosmic impacts also shaped earth to what it is today, but I digress).
So considering how truly random earth is... just try and keep that in mind and now put TIME into the equation. What if impacts like this only happen once every... dunno... say 500 million years? Life could have "come and gone" and dozens of remote planets BEFORE THE EARTH WAS MADE (earth age, 4.6 billion, Universe, 13.7 billion, life on earth, 500 million).
Lets not even get started on how random the chances are for the creation of life. Mix that with how random the chances are that you get an earth... and we are talking random. More random than 1/1000th of 0.01%. Albiet, Time and Space are vast, our observation capabilities are extremely limited, and our understanding of origins is also very limited....
Re:Climate Science (Score:5, Insightful)
And you'll need to stop confusing climatologists with meteorologists.
Re:Great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just me, or does this change every 2 months, (Score:3, Insightful)
... currently?
It's just "educated guessing", nothing more.
Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Add to that a lot of speculation about planetary formation and who can have any degree of certainty about where our solar system sits in the scheme of things.
We need to observe many more planetary systems before we have a clue.
Given the limits of our technology... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the limits of our technology to detect extrasolar planets, how are "they" able to make this conclusion, especially when it is based on simulation? We are able to detect Jupiter-sized planets right now, yes? How about we wait for some better technology that can detect Earth-sized planets more accurately before we go rushing to the idea that we are "special". While the that idea intrigues me, it would certainly make the galaxy a more boring place.
Not that special really (Score:2, Insightful)
They performed 100 simulations and got a result compatible with our solar system. If only 1% of solar systems ended up similar to ours with planets, there would still be tremendous number of similar solar systems out there. I don't think this is anything to be worried about.
Re:Special one (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to have some sort of bias. Nowhere in the paper, or even the article, is there any mention of GodDidIt.
The paper doesn't use the word "special" anywhere, though the article does. However, "special" itself doesn't mean goddidit either. One of the dictionary definitions of "special" is "distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual" which pretty much means the same thing as "uncommon".
Yes, there are those people that would use the idea that our solar system is uncommon as "proof" that goddidit, but that doesn't mean that our solar system CAN'T be uncommon. Based on what we've observed (though our observations are limited by technology) it may very well be that we are in an uncommon solar system. This doesn't require any deity intervention, it would merely be explained by the anthropic principle.
As others have pointed out, even if we are uncommon, given the sheer numbers of stars/galaxies out there it doesn't mean unique.
Re:Have you every programmed a gravity sim? (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, the earth and the moon. The moon at one point had a certain rotational speed (on its own axis) and another speed for its orbit around the earth. The two are now exactly (AFAIK, or very close) the same.
I believe your argument, if applied, would say that the chances of the day-length matching the year-length would be very small, that it was the "special case" and that the longer you leave it, the more likely it would be that the orbits would not be synchronous.
However, due to "tidal locking" (see wikipedia) the moon would indeed eventually tend to have a synchronous orbit.
All I'm saying is, perhaps there is some affect such as this in effect when it comes to near-circular orbits etc.
Re:Have you every programmed a gravity sim? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try modelling tidal effects in your simulation. These tend to drive orbits towards the circular over time.
Re:Climate Science (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes-- but our climate "experts" were claiming in the 1970's that we were destined for an ice age.. All due to the "soot particles" that would block sunlight and plunge us into destruction... Unless we radically changed our economy-- empower government, and ultimately live life the way they want us to.
Now, some of the same scientists are saying the opposite, but with more acceptance. We are now getting warmer, not due to soot, but due to "carbon" and we'll be plunged into destruction... Unless we radically cahnge our economy-- empower government, and ultimately live life the way they want us to.
Instead of running their models on a Commodore Pet, they're running them on linux clusters.
Fortunately, the "debate" is over. Sorry, no more analysis is required. Just do what we say now.
I swear, for all the people around here who get up in arms when the FISA court taps overseas phone lines, you certainly have no problem trusting the same big brother to run your lives when it comes to what you want to believe in, even when the same folks said the opposite 30 years ago (with the same goal).
Very poor summarization and implied conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary != TFA. Surprise!
"Due to the complexity of the developing system, which includes the disk-planet and planet-planet interactions described, the simulations resulted in random systems. Nevertheless, two dominant cases were detected.
In a disk with low mass and high viscosity, the gas in the disk is removed before a planet can form, resulting in a system that has only rocky, icy bodies. At the other end, in a disk with high mass and low viscosity, planets are formed but are pulled towards the center of the system and acquire highly elliptical orbits around the star.
In the intermediate case, planets form but undergo only modest migration towards the star and their orbits don't become as elliptical. This seems to be the case of the solar system. The simulation showed that this case is realized in a small number of systems, meaning the solar system does not resemble most planetary systems. "
The report is saying that along a spectrum of possibilities, there are a number which produce results different than our system.
1) It says nothing about the real life DISTRIBUTION of these alternatives. If only a narrow band of X values produce the results you want, this isn't necessarily a problem if you're in the high point of a steep bell curve. Look at a H-R diagram - there are clearly 'sweet spots' in stellar development across the range of possibilities. Nothing says planetary development is any different.
2) This of course means little. There is no evidence either way to suggest that life (which is the point of looking for solar systems - I don't think we just have some weird fetish for similar solar systems) can or can't develop on those alternate results. Hell, we may find that solar systems with nearly circular orbits are rare but that's good because they produce the Galaxy's retarded civilizations, and everyone ELSE out there is laughing/pitying us.
FWIW run your own particle/gravity simulation, and find the same results yourself: http://www.spore.com/comm/prototypes [spore.com]. It's awesome, and finally a use for that uber-mega-cpu you just bought.
Re:Special one (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, because of current findings, our solar system is quite special.
When we find other similar solar/planetary systems, ours will lose the special status.
Sort of like if you have a "special" child in a classroom. Once this child is removed from regular school and placed into a "special" school where all kids are "special", he is no longer "special".
P.S. What a way to get mod points - mention "God", and it all falls into pseudoscience, right? Not sure if you are picking this particular study with "I love this based-on-new-studies 'science'", but if you are, then it's time to wake up - this is a rather complete science as it exists at present. This is the pharma industry, this is the corporate industry (based on new studies, pirates impact revenue by _____ million $), and so on.
Re:Special one (Score:3, Insightful)
Another scientific fact: Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence. Especially when we haven't even been looking for evidence yet.
Re:Climate Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Which will not give you anything resembling exact temperatures. Which you would actually need to plot "data" points.
big assumptions (Score:1, Insightful)
This new modeling method uses some new shorthand tricks to do it's thing. So the fact that it produces results that don't seem to jibe with what has been previously theorized doesn't mean that it is correct. It very probably means that the simulation is generating a false result.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying until there's something to back it up, we have to assume that it's generating an incorrect result. (yeah yeah, shut up about assume, all science uses assumptions, you just have to state them.)
I know of a gravity/orbital simulation program that does a lot of things that can't and don't happen in reality simply because of the method used to calculate results. (He tuned it to work with less powerful machines, pcs, and these started showing up.)
So don't suddenly start taking any new model for gospel if it's faster, but starts throwing out radically different results than expected. Instead, you should pick up that bottle of salt and slap on a skeptic hat...
Re:Special one (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but they share the common ground in that neither is a sound foundation for a positive assertion.
"Unique" is a bad word for many people in reference to Earth and its system, but its currently just as likely we are unique as we aren't. We keep hearing about how common Sol-like systems "must" be because of the sheer number of stars in the Universe, but we have yet to find even one. So, that assertion is far from obvious.
The only credible answer to the question right now is not unique or common, its: "insufficient data". The rest are just assumptions.
A lot of scientists would like life to be common. I personally would find it interesting, but I'm more interested in what the reality is, no matter whose world view it suits. I'm certainly not going to groan about someone's research because it might challenge mine.