Proto-Earth was ~230 Earth Masses

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Widdekind
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the mass of the proto-Earth and its composition, particularly focusing on the implications of iron content and the mass of the solar nebula. Participants explore the relationship between the Earth's mass and the materials available in the early solar system, considering various elements and their ratios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates that if the proto-Earth retained all its iron, the mass of the solar nebula would need to be approximately 230 Earth masses based on the iron content of terrestrial worlds.
  • Another participant challenges the reliance on iron alone, suggesting that different elements yield different mass estimates and that the Earth has lost many volatiles.
  • A subsequent reply asserts that even with the loss of volatiles, the proto-Earth's sub-nebula must have originally contained around 200 Earth masses, contingent on the retention of iron.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of using tungsten and rhenium to illustrate variability in estimates due to differences in volatility.
  • Discussion includes the Earth's composition of iron and nickel, with a participant stating that the Earth's sub-nebula once contained about 230 Earth masses based on the nickel-to-iron ratio.
  • One participant raises a concern about the assumption that the proto-Earth had the same composition as the solar nebula, referencing models that suggest otherwise.
  • A later reply seeks clarification on the implications of the Snow Line and gas giant accretion on Earth's formation, questioning the relevance of the referenced article.
  • Another participant speculates on the formation of the Earth-Moon system, suggesting that the presence of gas and dust could have facilitated the Moon's capture by Earth.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumptions regarding the composition of the proto-Earth and the implications of various elemental ratios. There is no consensus on the exact mass of the proto-Earth or the validity of the assumptions made regarding its formation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on specific elemental ratios and the assumption that the proto-Earth's composition mirrored that of the solar nebula, which some participants challenge. The discussion also touches on the complexities of volatile loss and the dynamics of early solar system formation.

Widdekind
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
Terrestrial worlds are 28% iron by mass*. The Solar nebula was 0.11-0.13% iron by mass**. Assuming that the early Earth kept all of its iron:
Msub-nebula x 0.0012 = Mearth x 0.28

Thus:
Msub-nebula = Mearth x 230

There are ~2.0 Earth-masses of rocky bodies in the Inner Solar System. Thus, those ~2.0 Earth masses of rock condensed out of ~460 Earth-masses of sub-nebular gases. This is comparable to the combined masses of Jupiter & Saturn. So, perhaps Jupiter & Saturn accumulated their material from the Inner Solar System. This also suggests that Jupiter's rocky core is only about 1.5 Earth-masses, that Saturn's rocky core is only about 0.5 Earth-masses, while those of Uranus & Neptune are more like Mars in size.

X = 0.735
Y = 0.248
Z = 0.017​

S.F. Green, et al. An Introduction to the Sun and Stars, pg. 46.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
If you pick some other element, you get a different number. I don't think this tells you anything except the Earth has a lot of iron in it.
 
True, but picking other elements (eg. Carbon & Oxygen) is inappropriate, b/c Earth lost many of its volatiles. Conversely, I assumed that Earth retained all of its Iron.

For example, the mass-ratio of Carbon-to-Iron is ~2, while the mass-ratio of Oxygen-to-Iron is ~5. Meanwhile, ~0.3 of the Earth is Iron. Thus, all of the C, O, & Fe which were originally present amounted to ~2 Mearth (!). So, the Earth lost at least ~1 Mearth of C & O to space.

Even if the Earth only retained 80-90% of its Iron, the above figure is still accurate to w/in 10-20%. So, the proto-Earth's sub-nebula must have originally contained ~200 Mearth.

However, if you can show that the numbers work out (significantly) differently for, say, Nickel (which must have been lost / retained at substantially the same rate as Iron), that would undermine my assertion. How much mass of Nickel does the Earth contain?
 
Fine. Pick, say tungsten and rhenium, two elements right next to each other so volatility is not an issue. The Earth is tungsten-rich and rhenium-poor, so your protocloud gets two different values.
 
The Earth is, or merely the Earth's Crust ?

Rhenium is denser than Tungsten, by about ~10% (21.02 : 19.25). Denser materials preferentially sink down towards the core, leaving a "deficit" up in the crust.

What about Nickel? Iron & Nickel always seem to go "hand-in-hand", as far as I've read. What is Earth's mass fraction of Nickel?
 
You are making a very big assumption here: That the proto-Earth had the exact same composition as the solar nebula. There is no justification for this assumption, and in fact modelers of the development of solar systems assume just the opposite. See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602217.
 
Thank you very much for the reference!

However, that article's abstract discusses the Snow Line, and Gas Giant accretion in the "Ice Zone" beyond ~2 AU. How does that affect the formation of the Earth, inside of the Snow Line, in the "Water Zone" ? If necessary, would you please quote the actual article (?), as I cannot access it.

According to Carroll & Ostlie, Jupiter & Saturn show essentially Solar Abundances. All I'm saying is, Earth would too, if it had kept its massive envelope of Volatiles.

Certainly, Earth accumulated from ~230 Mearth of proto-Solar-nebular material. And, the other terrestrial planets amount to about another Mearth of rock. Thus, the rocky worlds of the Inner Solar System condensed out of ~460 Mearth of proto-Solar-nebular material.

What happened to those ~460 Mearth ? Did the Sun accrete all that gas, ripping it away from the planets ?
 
Last edited:
200 Mearth would have been a rather big proto-planetary sub-nebula. With all that gas & dust swirling around, if one proto-planetary core condensed (Earth), why not two such cores (Earth & Moon)?

Moreover, even if the Moon strayed in from another orbit, all that gas & dust could have acted as a "Third Body", to absorb all the energy/angular momentum necessary to trap the Moon in the Earth's gravity-well.

So, assuming that the Earth-Moon system formed sufficiently early on, when all that gas / dust was still present, then the Earth could have trapped the Moon, w/ all the excess energy / momentum "slack" being siphoned off by the gaseous sub-nebula.

More generally, if there were other (sufficiently large?) gravitating bodies in the area, they too could have helped the Earth capture the Moon. If the Earth-Moon system formed early enough, when the region was still "busy" w/ "traffic" of all kinds of impactors, perhaps they could have been flung off for the Moon to fall into orbit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
9K