Since the Sun is losing mass, can a planet's orbit change be measured?

AI Thread Summary
The Sun loses approximately 4 million tons of mass each second through nuclear fusion, which theoretically could cause planets to gradually spiral outward due to the decreasing gravitational pull. However, this mass loss over 4.5 billion years equates to an increase in Earth's orbit of only about 7,000 miles, a negligible change compared to its current distance of 93 million miles. Additionally, the Sun gains a minimal amount of mass from interstellar debris, which does not significantly offset the losses from fusion. Tidal drag from the Sun also has a minor impact on Earth's orbit. Overall, the effects of the Sun's mass loss on planetary orbits are insignificant and not measurable with current instruments.
BarnRat
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Since the Sun is changing 4M tons of matter into energy every second and that energy eventually makes its way to the surface and is emitted as an outbound sphere of EM radiation, then the planets' orbits would change over time due to the less massive Sun at the solar system's core. It would seem that there would be a slow outward spiral of each planet. But is this not perceptible by our instruments? Are other factors countering this effect? Does the Sun gain enough mass from interstellar debris that its gravity sucks into make up for the difference in matter-energy change due to the thermonuclear processes at its heart?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Solar mass loss due to hydrogen fusion amounts to about an Earth mass over the past 4.5 billion years. Theoretically, this would cause an increase in Earth orbit of about 7000 miles - as compared to the ~93 million miles we currently enjoy. The effect is obviously insignificant. The sun accretes only a tiny fraction of mass compared to fusion losses so that effect can be essentially ignored. Earth orbit is also affected by tidal drag from the sun. That effect is also relatively miniscule.
 
Thank you for the response.
 
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...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...
Back
Top