Planets Orbit Sun: Why Same Direction?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ezekiel.
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbits Sun
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the reasons why all the planets orbit the Sun in the same direction, exploring the formation processes of the solar system, including the roles of gas and dust coalescence, angular momentum, and gravitational interactions. It encompasses theoretical explanations and questions about specific planetary behaviors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that all planets orbit in the same direction due to their coalescence from a rotating disc of gas and dust, which maintained a consistent rotational direction.
  • Others argue that the conservation of angular momentum during the collapse of gas clouds amplifies any initial rotation, leading to a common orbital direction for the planets.
  • A participant raises questions about Venus's retrograde rotation and Uranus's axial tilt, suggesting these phenomena require further explanation.
  • Concerns are expressed regarding the slow rotation of the Sun despite the majority of solar system mass being concentrated there, questioning why it does not spin faster.
  • Some participants discuss the process of planet formation, noting that initial clumping of dust and subsequent gravitational growth involve collisions, but express uncertainty about how dust can stick together given its low gravitational attraction.
  • There is a mention of the role of low-velocity collisions and the potential influence of electrical charges in the sticking process of dust particles.
  • Questions are raised about the possibility of planets forming from portions of the original dust cloud collapsing under their own weight, particularly in the case of larger planets like Jupiter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the idea that the planets formed from a rotating disc of gas and dust, but there are multiple competing views regarding the specifics of planet formation, the behavior of individual planets, and the mechanisms behind dust aggregation. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, particularly regarding the details of these processes.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the nature of dust and its interactions, the specifics of gravitational effects during planet formation, and the dynamics of collisions at various scales. The discussion does not resolve the complexities involved in these processes.

Ezekiel.
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Why do all the planets orbit in the same direction around the sun?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Because they all coalesced from the same disc of gas and dust, which was originally all rotating the same direction.

The conservation of angular momentum implies that when any cloud of gas or dust is collapsing, any initial rotation, however small, will be amplified by the collapse. The same effect causes a figure skater to spin faster when she pulls her arms in toward her body, and slower when she spreads them out.

- Warren
 
Like chroot said.

When gas and dust coalesce together, the chance of them coming together precisely at the right motions to have no rotational motion is virtually nil. The dust cloud spins, flattens, and eventually clumps together in little balls. Most of the matter winds up in one big ball in the center, but all of the balls orbit and spin in the same direction the original cloud did.

Which means a tougher question would be:

What's wrong with Venus? It orbits the right direction, but it's spinning the wrong way.

What's wrong with Uranus? Why is it lying on its side?

Why does the Sun spin so slow? If almost all of the mass winds up in the middle (about 98% of the solar system's mass lies in the Sun) and the ball spins faster as the mass gets closer to the center, the Sun should be spinning really fast (it takes 27 days for the Sun to rotate).

You answer those questions and you'll be famous.
 
BobG said:
Like chroot said.

When gas and dust coalesce together, the chance of them coming together precisely at the right motions to have no rotational motion is virtually nil. The dust cloud spins, flattens, and eventually clumps together in little balls. Most of the matter winds up in one big ball in the center, but all of the balls orbit and spin in the same direction the original cloud did.

Which means a tougher question would be:

What's wrong with Venus? It orbits the right direction, but it's spinning the wrong way.

What's wrong with Uranus? Why is it lying on its side?

Why does the Sun spin so slow? If almost all of the mass winds up in the middle (about 98% of the solar system's mass lies in the Sun) and the ball spins faster as the mass gets closer to the center, the Sun should be spinning really fast (it takes 27 days for the Sun to rotate).

You answer those questions and you'll be famous.

Does the dust cloud collapse under it's own gravitational weight? I'm pretty sure it does for the Sun, but I'm not sure about the planets. I'm guessing that it has to. But I've heard that the planets form when pieces of dust collide with other pieces of dust to form larger pieces of dust and then pebbles, and then rocks, then bolders, then planeticimals, and then the largest planeticimal sucks up all the smaller ones.

But what I do not understand is how dust colliding into dust will form larger pieces of dust. A piece of dust has virtually zero gravity, and thus does not have the ability to gravitationally attract other dust. (Dusting my house would be a lot easier if the dust gravitationally clumped together :-p ). And even if they did collide by the chance that their orbits just happened to make them cross paths, I imagine they'd bounce off each other or bust up into smaller dust, as their approach velocities can be in the km/s range. If things that bashed together stuck together instead of fragmenting apart, then the beach would be full of boulders instead of sand. But if a large portion of the dust cloud collapsed on its combined gravity, things would be different. I just never hear it explained this way.
 
IIRC, there are two stages in the formation of planets - the initial clumping, then the gravitational growth (which includes lots of collisions). The first stage does rely upon 'dust' sticking together when it collides - how can this be? First, 'dust' is a little misleading, most of it is 'ices', water ice, ammonia ice, methane ice, dry ice, ... Second, a high proportion of the collisions are at very low relative speeds. Third, once an object does grow to only a quite modest size, it can attract more dust through its gravitational attraction (and while collisions will grow more energetic, they will - net - result in the object getting bigger and more massive).

Things are a little more complicated inside the 'snow line' - inside which the proto-Sun's heat will evaporate the ices ...
 
Nereid said:
The first stage does rely upon 'dust' sticking together when it collides - how can this be? First, 'dust' is a little misleading, most of it is 'ices', water ice, ammonia ice, methane ice, dry ice, ... Second, a high proportion of the collisions are at very low relative speeds.

I guess we're talking about very small particles traveling at very low velocities. Maybe like a snowflake forming in the atmosphere. But after they get bigger, like house-sized objects, they still have no significant gravity and I imagine they just bust each other up in their collisions. Unless their collisions were still at extremely low velocities. Maybe that's the case. Do these things have electrical charges that might help? And is it possible that a planet could form by an entire portion of the original clould collapsing under its own weight? Especially in the case of Jupiter?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K