A Hypothesis To Observe The Formation Of Earth

In summary, astronomers today have the technology to detect objects that are so far away that their light has taken around 10 billion years to reach us. However, at this distance, the Earth would appear too small to be resolved with a telescope. In theory, an alien civilization could observe the formation of Earth, but it would require a telescope with an aperture of around 30 light years across. However, due to the expansion of the Universe, the object would now be further away than its original distance of 4.5 billion light years. Additionally, observing one's own past light emissions violates the fundamental rule of relativity. While it is possible to observe accretion discs and potentially planetary formation around other stars, it would require advanced technology
  • #1
asesena
"Today's astronomers detect objects so far away that their light has taken perhaps 10 billion years to reach us."

-NatGeo May 1974 page 595

If there was a planet and the light that has been reflected from Earth was reaching there 4.5 billion year later (that means it would be 42.75 trilliard kilometers away from Earth ,according to my basic maths knowledge) Could observers there observe the formation of earth?

That would be so cool if you could light me up [emoji68]‍[emoji436]
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
In principle, yes. However, the Earth itself is too small to be resolved at that distance with a reasonably sized telescope. What we are generally looking at at that distance are much much larger objects.
 
  • Like
Likes asesena
  • #3
Orodruin said:
In principle, yes. However, the Earth itself is too small to be resolved at that distance with a reasonably sized telescope. What we are generally looking at at that distance are much much larger objects.
Thank you and one more thing

The light travels 9.5 trillion km per year so in 4.5 billion years it would basically travel 42.75 trilliard km, but do you think it would get slower by time or travel steady?
 
  • #4
Hypothetically... Hell yeah! Now for the sake of the argument let's say that we are aliens far far way to make our lives a little bit easier. Now let's assume that we luckily managed to point our telescope directly at the Earth and light wasn't bent by gravity and there was no obstructions. Now using a telescope with aperture which would be probable around 30 light years across, we might be able to make out few pixels from the photons that we catch.

Now there are a lot smarter people than me on here which probably know of a more clever way of going about this :)
 
  • Like
Likes asesena
  • #5
asesena said:
Thank you and one more thing

The light travels 9.5 trillion km per year so in 4.5 billion years it would basically travel 42.75 trilliard km, but do you think it would get slower by time or travel steady?

The speed of light is constant (it is actually a matter of definition) so yes, the light traveled ##4.5 \cdot 10^9## light years. (I strongly suggest not using km for astronomical distances and using scientific notation instead of words such as "trilliard")
However, if we see a 4.5 billion year old object today, it is now further away than ##4.5 \cdot 10^9## light years due to the expansion of the Universe and it was much closer to us than ##4.5 \cdot 10^9## light years when the light was emitted.
 
  • Like
Likes asesena
  • #6
Orodruin said:
The speed of light is constant (it is actually a matter of definition) so yes, the light traveled ##4.5 \cdot 10^9## light years. (I strongly suggest not using km for astronomical distances and using scientific notation instead of words such as "trilliard")
However, if we see a 4.5 billion year old object today, it is now further away than ##4.5 \cdot 10^9## light years due to the expansion of the Universe and it was much closer to us than ##4.5 \cdot 10^9## light years when the light was emitted.
Thanks for the suggestion and the answer, have a nice day!
 
  • #7
Tracey3 said:
Hypothetically... Hell yeah! Now for the sake of the argument let's say that we are aliens far far way to make our lives a little bit easier. Now let's assume that we luckily managed to point our telescope directly at the Earth and light wasn't bent by gravity and there was no obstructions. Now using a telescope with aperture which would be probable around 30 light years across, we might be able to make out few pixels from the photons that we catch.

Now there are a lot smarter people than me on here which probably know of a more clever way of going about this :)
Hahahaha thanks for the cute answer tracey, have a nice day [emoji177]
 
  • #8
Tracey3 said:
Now using a telescope with aperture which would be probable around 30 light years across, we might be able to make out few pixels from the photons that we catch.
How did you get this number? Assuming the Earth reflects a large portion of the Sunlight, I get that about one photon per second would be captured by an aperture of ##5\cdot 10^7## m. The diffraction limit would be significantly worse and require a diameter of the same order as Pluto's orbit. Either way, it is clearly not feasible.
 
  • #9
Orodruin said:
How did you get this number?

I personally didn't derive this number, however, someone asked exactly same question at one of the talks held by Michio Kaku years ago. I remembered the number being 30ly then. I tried to fetch the video since yesterday in order to provide more details and post it here.
 
  • #10
While anyone can observe light emitted in the past, no one can view their own past light emissions without violating the most fundamental rule of relativity - you cannot even keep up with, much less outrun your own light cone.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #11
Chronos said:
While anyone can observe light emitted in the past, no one can view their own past light emissions without violating the most fundamental rule of relativity - you cannot even keep up with, much less outrun your own light cone.
I cannot see that anyone has suggested that we observe ourselves in this thread. The OP's question was regarding whether or not an alien civilisation today theoretically could see the Earth forming.
 
  • Like
Likes asesena
  • #12
We are already observing accretion discs around other stars. It is likely only a matter of time - and technology advances - before we can witness planetary formation around some of them. The problem then will be that the formation of planets is spread over many tens of thousands of years, or more. A need for time-lapse photogrpahy par excellence.
 
  • #13
Ophiolite said:
We are already observing accretion discs around other stars. It is likely only a matter of time - and technology advances - before we can witness planetary formation around some of them. The problem then will be that the formation of planets is spread over many tens of thousands of years, or more. A need for time-lapse photogrpahy par excellence.

Would you see a planet forming? I suspect you might just see the disc. Clumpiness in the disc.

We could flip that around. Meteors can be seen showering Earth today. So Earth is still "forming" unless by "forming" you mean someplace that did not have a planet becomes a planet while you watch.

It gets worse if you use the international astronomical union's definition of a "planet". The object would form into a crusty sphere but then only become a planet millions of years later after all the small objects leave the orbital neighborhood.
 

1. What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon or observation that can be tested through further research and experimentation.

2. What is the hypothesis for observing the formation of Earth?

The hypothesis is that Earth was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago through the process of accretion, where smaller particles collided and stuck together to form larger bodies.

3. How can the hypothesis be tested?

The hypothesis can be tested through various methods, such as analyzing rocks and minerals on Earth to determine their age and composition, studying the geological features of other planets and moons, and conducting simulations and experiments to recreate the conditions of early Earth.

4. What evidence supports the hypothesis?

There are several pieces of evidence that support the hypothesis of Earth's formation through accretion. These include the age and composition of rocks on Earth, the presence of similar geological features on other planets and moons, and the results of experiments and simulations that show how accretion could have occurred.

5. Are there any alternative hypotheses for the formation of Earth?

Yes, there are alternative hypotheses for the formation of Earth, such as the theory of giant impact, which suggests that Earth was formed from the collision of a Mars-sized protoplanet with the early Earth. However, the accretion hypothesis is currently the most widely accepted explanation for Earth's formation due to the abundance of evidence supporting it.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
702
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
966
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top