Spin of planets, bigger means faster?


by valdar
Tags: bigger, faster, means, planets, spin
valdar
valdar is offline
#1
Apr30-09, 04:35 PM
P: 19
Quick question, do bigger planet spin faster?
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on Phys.org
A star's early chemistry shapes life-friendly atmospheres
Unique pair of supermassive black holes in an ordinary galaxy discovered
Red stars and big bulges: How black holes shape galaxies
Dadface
Dadface is offline
#2
Apr30-09, 05:51 PM
PF Gold
Dadface's Avatar
P: 2,004
Look up the data.
Nabeshin
Nabeshin is offline
#3
Apr30-09, 10:16 PM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,194
Quote Quote by valdar View Post
Quick question, do bigger planet spin faster?
In general, I don't think there's any relation.

Chronos
Chronos is offline
#4
May1-09, 12:00 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,185

Spin of planets, bigger means faster?


You must look at planet formation to understand this issue. The short answer is yes.
Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde is offline
#5
May1-09, 04:25 PM
P: 78
I always thought that the smaller planets would rotate more rapidly than larger ones, under identical conditions of course. Much like a figure skater draws in his or her figure and seemingly rotates faster. However, I may be (and more than likely) am wrong. If someone could address this I would be interested to learn
mgb_phys
mgb_phys is offline
#6
May1-09, 04:33 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961
Planet Speed at equator (km/h)
Mercury 10.9
Venus 6.5
Earth 1670
Mars 867
Jupiter 45600
Saturn 37000
Uranus 10900
Neptune 8460
Pluto 47

You would expect small planets to spin faster - from conservation of angular momentum

But larger planets were formed from larger clouds of stuff.
As stuff contracted, then because of conservation of angular momentum it speeded up, the bigger/faster the original cloud the faster it ended up. Of course if you took the existing planets and made each of them smaller - they would speed up even more.

Then there are effects that have happened since. Mercury's rotation is slowed by tidal friction with the sun so has a very slow speed (long day), the Earth's is slowed a little by friction with the moon.
Uranus probably got hit by something in the past - which is why it has a weird axis tilt.
Mars might also have been affected by whatever caused the asteroid belt.
Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde is offline
#7
May1-09, 04:38 PM
P: 78
Quote Quote by mgb_phys View Post
Planet Speed at equator (km/h)
Mercury 10.9
Venus 6.5
Earth 1670
Mars 867
Jupiter 45600
Saturn 37000
Uranus 10900
Neptune 8460
Pluto 47

You would expect small planets to spin faster - from conservation of angular momentum

But larger planets were formed from larger clouds of stuff.
As stuff contracted, then because of conservation of angular momentum it speeded up, the bigger/faster the original cloud the faster it ended up. Of course if you took the existing planets and made each of them smaller - they would speed up even more.

Then there are effects that have happened since. Mercury's rotation is slowed by tidal friction with the sun so has a very slow speed (long day), the Earth's is slowed a little by friction with the moon.
Uranus probably got hit by something in the past - which is why it has a weird axis tilt.
Mars might also have been affected by whatever caused the asteroid belt.

Very interesting. Thank you for providing this
stevebd1
stevebd1 is offline
#8
May2-09, 02:49 AM
P: 604
A good way of comparing spin in stars is to compare angular momentum and mass in geometric units where-

[tex]a=J/mc[/tex]

[tex]M=Gm/c^2[/tex]

where

[tex]J=vmr\,k[/tex]

where [itex]a[/itex] is the spin parameter in metres, v is the equatorial rotation velocity, m is mass, r is the equatorial radius and k is the moment of inertia coefficient (0.4 for an idealized sphere of uniform density).

a/M produces a unitless figure between 0 and 1, the higher the number, the higher the spin. For the Sun (k=0.06), a/M=~0.188, for a 2.2 sol neutron star with a frequency of 1500 Hz (k=0.35), a/M=~0.488.

This doesn't appear so straightforward with planets as M works out considerably smaller than [itex]a[/itex] but there should still be a way of comparing spin geometrically.


EDIT:
In the case of planets, you could probably get away with just considering the results of [itex]a[/itex] which is considered to be the amount of angular momentum per unit of mass (sometimes expressed as J/M). In this case, Jupiter is the clear winner and Mercury has the least 'spin' per unit of mass.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
why the universe is expanding faster and faster Cosmology 49
Bigger wheels accelarate faster? Classical Physics 5
Does the middle of the Earth spin faster than the outer part? Introductory Physics Homework 1
Why do the planets spin ? General Physics 0
Why do the planets spin ? General Astronomy 4