Rapid Formation of the Moon: Insights from Theia Impact

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nobbstradamus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formation Moon
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the rapid formation of the Moon following the Theia impact, with some sources suggesting it could have occurred in less than a year or even a month. Participants express skepticism about the feasibility of such a quick formation, noting that while the Giant Impact Hypothesis aligns with existing evidence, the timeline seems improbable. The conversation also touches on the accretion process, highlighting that the dense material in the early solar system facilitated faster assembly of planetary bodies compared to the sparse distribution of objects in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. Additionally, the energetic aftermath of the impact may have influenced the proto-lunar disc's dynamics for about a century. Overall, the rapid accretion rates during the solar system's formation are acknowledged as a key factor in the Moon's development.
Nobbstradamus
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
From what I've seen on shows like how the universe works and the Wikipedia article on Theia, they are saying that the moon was formed in less than a year after the impact.
My question is, how did that happen so quickly?

I am simply a fan of watching shows like that or reading articles about space. I have no degree or schooling related to this field, but I do find it quite fascinating!

Thank you in advance.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
There are other plausible explanations for the existence of our Moon, but this idea of collision of protoplanets does fit well with what evidence exists, (Moon rocks largely)
I took a look at the wiki article and nothing is stated there about how long the Moon took to form following such a collision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia_(planet)
My intuition agrees with yours though, that less than a year for the debris to assemble into what now is our Moon seems unlikely.
 
Ok. I was reading this article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis#Theia

This one actually says it could have formed in less than a month!

However, I first heard this in an episode of how the universe works. In that episode, they state that it could have formed in less than a year.
 
Unfortunately that page won't load on my phone, so I will have to check it out when I have a chance to dust off and boot up the old laptop. Thank you though!

I have another question regarding accretion and gravity now that I'm thinking about it. Not sure if I should start a new thread though.

What prevents items from either the Kuiper Belt or the Oort cloud from forming larger bodies? The shows make it sound like these structures are leftovers from the formation of our planetary bodies and are doomed to be alone.
 
The same paper also discusses the energetic aftermath hypothesis where the proto-lunar disc would have endured for about a century. It is, however, true that accretion can progress fairly rapidly. We know, for example, the planets of the solar system are approximately the same age as the sun. It is safe to assume the accretion rate had to be pretty high to assemble some of the larger planets in such a short time frame. KB and Oort cloud objects are very widely dispersed so gravitational accretion would be strongly inhibited. The abundance of matter within the planetary orbits was obviously much greater facilitating more efficient gravitational accretion.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
4K
Back
Top