How did Jupiter and Saturn disrupt our solar system

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences in formation and characteristics of exoplanetary systems compared to our solar system, particularly focusing on the roles of Jupiter and Saturn in disrupting the solar system's structure. Participants explore theories such as the Nice model and raise questions about the uniformity of exoplanet sizes and their orbital stability.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference an article suggesting that exoplanets tend to have similar sizes and regular orbital spacing, implying a different formation history than the solar system.
  • The disruption caused by Jupiter and Saturn entering a 2:1 resonance is mentioned in relation to the Nice model.
  • Questions are raised about why exoplanets are relatively uniform in size and maintain stable orbits, with one participant expressing uncertainty about this phenomenon.
  • Observational biases in detecting exoplanets are discussed, including the limitations of Doppler detection and transit methods, which may skew the data towards certain types of planets.
  • A participant reflects on past solar system formation simulations that did not replicate the solar system's structure, suggesting a variety of possible configurations in other systems.
  • Another participant notes that the solar system's inner planets exhibit a pattern where larger planets are typically found outside smaller ones, with specific ratios highlighted.
  • The rocky planets of the TRAPPIST-1 system are compared to the inner solar system, noting similarities in size and spacing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the formation and characteristics of exoplanetary systems compared to the solar system. There is no consensus on the reasons behind the observed uniformity in exoplanet sizes or the implications of the Nice model.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential biases in observational methods, the dependency on specific definitions of planetary characteristics, and unresolved questions regarding the implications of the Nice model on solar system dynamics.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in astrophysics, planetary formation theories, and the comparative study of exoplanetary systems may find this discussion relevant.

wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
551
This article suggests that exoplanets are the same size and have equal orbital spacing ,so what is different from our solar system.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180109141918.htm

An international research team led by Université de Montréal astrophysicist Lauren Weiss has discovered that exoplanets orbiting the same star tend to have similar sizes and a regular orbital spacing. This pattern, revealed by new W. M. Keck Observatory observations of planetary systems discovered by the Kepler Telescope, could suggest that most planetary systems have a different formation history than the solar system.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The disruption caused by Jupiter and Saturn getting into a 2:1 resonance is described by the Nice model.
 
Thanks physguy, a second question, why are the exoplanets all relatively the same size and in stable orbits?
 
wolram said:
Thanks physguy, a second question, why are the exoplanets all relatively the same size and in stable orbits?

I have no idea.
 
Observational bias ?

Doppler detection is biased towards finding 'hot Jupiters', and 'transit' method is restricted to the ~ 10% of systems with orbital plane serendipitously aligned...

Okay, as Doppler sensitivity continues to improve, more, smaller and/or further planets show up as-is or in the 'residuals'. Although 'transit' sensitivity improves, too, a progressively smaller percentage are sufficiently planar to flag outer planets...

Early days, yet !

FWIW, long ago, I read an early report on solar system formation simulations in Icarus. The results were a bit embarrassing as *none* came out looking like ours. Instead, a zoo. Large close, small far, wild mix common etc etc. With hindsight, they'd done better than they knew...
 
wolram said:
This article suggests that exoplanets are the same size and have equal orbital spacing ,so what is different from our solar system.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180109141918.htm

An international research team led by Université de Montréal astrophysicist Lauren Weiss has discovered that exoplanets orbiting the same star tend to have similar sizes and a regular orbital spacing. This pattern, revealed by new W. M. Keck Observatory observations of planetary systems discovered by the Kepler Telescope, could suggest that most planetary systems have a different formation history than the solar system.

arxive article
My impression from your article was that they were saying the solar system pattern is normal. What they do not find is something like Venus-Jupiter-Earth-Saturn. Systems with alternating giants small planets.

Earth and Venus have very similar size. Kepler would have only seen the 4 inner planets. The ratios follow the general statistical pattern of larger planet outside of smaller. There are 3 ratios and Mars/Earth is the only one with smaller planet outside. So 67% of our inner planets follow the pattern unless you take earth/venus as rounded to equal in which case the solar system is 50%.
When planets in a real system are not the same size, the inner planet is usually the smaller planet (in 65±6%of pairs)

The rocky planets of trappist 1 have similar size range as Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars:
b = 0.79±0.27 M
c= 1.63±0.63 M
d= 0.33±0.15 M
e= 0.24+0.56−0.24 M
f = 0.36±0.12 M
g = 0.566±0.038 M
h = 0.086±0.084 M

The spacing of the inner solar system is also very close to 1.5. Except for venus/mercury.
 
Thank you Nik1223 and stephan r for your elucidation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K