Can a microscopic solar system exist?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A microscopic solar system, while theoretically stable under Newtonian physics, is highly improbable due to the universe's complexity and the gravitational limitations of small masses. A miniature sun, defined as approximately 10% of the Sun's mass, could exist but would not support life as we know it, which relies on photosynthesis and liquid water. The discussion highlights that gravitational force diminishes with mass, making stable orbits unfeasible for smaller celestial bodies. Additionally, while life can exist in extreme conditions, such as on rogue planets, it ultimately depends on energy sources, which are not provided by miniature suns.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian physics and gravitational forces
  • Knowledge of stellar formation and nuclear fusion processes
  • Familiarity with the concept of autotrophs and ecosystems
  • Awareness of extreme life forms, such as chemolithoautotrophs
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the conditions required for nuclear fusion in stars
  • Explore the concept of rogue planets and their potential for hosting life
  • Investigate the role of chemolithoautotrophs in extreme environments
  • Study the gravitational dynamics of small celestial bodies
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, biologists studying extremophiles, and anyone interested in the viability of life in unconventional environments.

SpikeVoyager
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Can I microscopic solar system exist out in space somewhere? Can a miniature sun exist? Can there be life on it if it exists?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums SpikeVoyager!

If there were nothing else in the universe, a system of cold bodies in the same mass ratios as the Sun and 8 planets, scaled down by many OOM (orders of magnitude) would likely be stable, gravitationally, over billions of years (assuming a Newtonian, not GR, universe). Of course, the orbits would be rather different in size - would you like to do a rough calculation to see how much different?

However, the universe is full of things other than our imaginary minature (cold) solar system, so I rather doubt there could be one. Interesting question though ... at various size scales, what would be the dominant physical processes that would disrupt a tiny solar system? Care to think this one through?

A 'sun' shines by nuclear fusion in its core ... there is a minimum mass for this, approx 0.08 that of our Sun. So if 'minature' means ~10% of ours, then there could be one, but not smaller.

And that pretty much answers the life question too ... while autotrophs may be quite common, 'life' as we usually think of it depends on photosynthesis, which requires a nice source of light. Looks like the answer to your general question is 'no'. :cry:
 
i don't think so...coz the gravitaional force which in turn provides centripetal foce around the orbit wud be too SMALLL!

remeber that grav. forc is directly proportinal to the product of the mass of two bodies...if mass is small then so is the grav. force.

if grav force is small then so is (mv2)/r.....so the planets wud not b able to maintain a circular orbit
 
Nereid said:
Welcome to Physics Forums SpikeVoyager!
And that pretty much answers the life question too ... while autotrophs may be quite common, 'life' as we usually think of it depends on photosynthesis, which requires a nice source of light. Looks like the answer to your general question is 'no'. :cry:
I don't think that's true. Life (as we know it) needs liquid water, light is not needed. In caves and at the bottom of the ocean there are a lot of living creatures, and they don't get any light.
So in theory live could exist on a rogue planet. As long as it has a hot core, for pockets of liquid water under the surface.
 
JV said:
I don't think that's true. Life (as we know it) needs liquid water, light is not needed. In caves and at the bottom of the ocean there are a lot of living creatures, and they don't get any light.
So in theory live could exist on a rogue planet. As long as it has a hot core, for pockets of liquid water under the surface.
Clarification: 'autotroph' is a general term, and includes plants; what I was thinking of is chemolithoautotrophs, what the 'red tubey things' found near undersea black smokers use as a source of energy, for example. AFAIK, all eukaryotes which live in caves are part of an ecosystem which ultimately depends upon plants and sunlight; those near black smokers ultimately depend either on the Sun or chemolithoautotrophic bacteria. Whether the latter alone can support a complex web of life is an open question today.
 
Last edited:
JV said:
I don't think that's true. Life (as we know it) needs liquid water, light is not needed.

Yes, it is needed. Water is not a source of energy for lifeforms (unless you can think of a lifeform that metabolizes by nuclear fusion).
 
vent life

Yes, it is needed.
No Tom, all that is needed is a usable form of energy.

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1996/3/lifewithoutlight.cfm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can forget about the miniature suns. Physics forbids self gravitating hydrogen fusion unless the mass of the candidate star is at least 20x the mass of Jupiter. The rest of your argument is, therefore, irrelevant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 122 ·
5
Replies
122
Views
9K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K