Birth of Planetary Systems: Starless Possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TShock
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Solar Systems
AI Thread Summary
Planetary systems without a central star are considered unlikely to form, as traditional models of planetary formation rely on the gravitational collapse of gas clouds that create a star at the center. Stars, including low-mass ones like brown dwarfs, are essential for providing the gravitational force needed to hold planets in orbit. Without a star, there is insufficient mass to facilitate the accretion of material necessary for planet formation. The existence of isolated planetary bodies is acknowledged, but they do not constitute a true planetary system. Overall, the consensus is that starless planetary systems are improbable compared to those with stars.
TShock
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
does anyone know if it is possible for planetary systems to form with no star, just planets? and if so how likely they would form compared to systems with stars? Kind of a ratio of planetary systems to solar systems.
 
Space news on Phys.org
I'd say no, it is not possible for such a system to form. We think that planetary systems form from the gravitational collapse of giant clouds. At the centre of mass a star is formed, the planets are then made by accretion of matter onto objects which are orbitting the central star.

I don't see how this would work if there was no star in the centre of the system.
 
When stars form from a collapsing cloud of material, they are produced in a whole range of masses. At the very lowest end of the mass function the stars are barely heavy enough to cause nuclear fusion. Stars that are just at or below this cusp are known as 'brown dwarves'. There may well be stars that are even smaller, somewhere between the mass of a very small star and a large planet like Jupiter. They would be hot due to the energy released in the gravitational collapse but they wouldn't burn any fuel in fusion reactions. We don't really know much about the lower end of the stellar mass function, since we can't see these kind of objects due to them not emitting much light.

You couldn't really call these 'planetary systems' though, since they would be an isolated object. As cristo explained, it takes the large central mass of a star to allow planets to form orbits around the star. A very low mass star/Big Jupiter wouldn't accrete the required material to form any companion planets, or be able to hold them in orbit.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Back
Top