Supernova May Explain How Planets are Formed 54
ExE122 writes "A young pulsar that formed from a supernova which happened about 100,000 years ago and is sitting 13,000 light years away may solve some questions about the origins of Earth. From the article: 'Scientists think they have solved the mystery of how planets form around a star born in a violent supernova explosion, saying they have detected for the first time a swirling disk of debris from which planets can rise. The discovery is surprising because the dusty disk orbiting the pulsar, or dead star, resembles the cloud of gas and dust from which Earth emerged. Scientists say the latest finding should shed light on how planetary systems form.'"
Does this change what we think the earth's age is? (Score:5, Interesting)
Chakrabarty said the debris disk most likely formed from metal-rich material that failed to escape the supernova. The disk resembled that seen around sun-like stars, leading researchers to conclude it might spawn a new planetary system.
Radiometric dating points to the earth's inception being ~4.6 billion years ago. I want to know if the U238 that exists today was created as a result of the supernova that blew apart the solar system that provided all the matter for this one. All the U238 that we've found in this solar system so far points to our entire system being ~4.6 billion years. If the U238 was in fact created by this supernova, then we can't say that the earth as a planet is ~4.6 billion years old.
I really hope no creationists read this, I don't mean to give them any fodder.
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
It's a legitimate question that can be asked, though I think that the radiometric measurement takes the thought into account already (admittedly I don't remember the detail of such measurement).
That's the theory I've heard. (Score:1)
Re:That's the theory I've heard. (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks. (Score:2)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:5, Informative)
The explosion in the article happened 13,000 light years away. That's a measure of distance. This has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with our solar system. Our solar system was formed as the result of a supernova *more* than 5 Billion years ago. The U238 on our planet is the remnant from *that* supernova, not from one that happened 100,000 years ago.
Sheesh.
On the other hand, if your rather confused grammar is trying to say that the precursor star to the sun (or many precursor stars as supernovas often occur in groups -- being formed from groups of super-giant blue-white stars [see Pleides]) created all the U238 4.6BYA and that the Earth must therefore be less than 4.6BY old. If that's the case, then yeah, maybe the Earth itself is less than 4.6BY old. So what? It just means that the rock it formed from took a little while to condense into its current shape. It's not like the Earth formed, oceans, mountains, and all on Tuesday the 13th of July, 4,600,000,000 BC. It takes tens of millions of years for the matter to acrete into a planet.
If you're wondering in general did all the U238 come from a supernova, then the answer is simple. Yes. So did every element heavier than iron on the periodic table. A supernova is the only place those elements can be formed in nature (at least in any quantity.)
Iron is the energy dead end. When a star runs out of hydrogen, it starts "burning" Helium, when it's out of Helium it starts "burning" boron, and carbon, and oxygen into heavier elements. But when it hits iron, that's the end of the road. There's simply no more energy to get out by fission or fusion. The star is effectively dead. The trick is, if a star can actually reach the silicon "burning" stage where iron is the byproduct, then it's so massive, it's going to go supernova anyway. Part of the energy of the supernova goes into fusing Iron and other leftover bits to produce elements higher on the periodic table. This *costs* energy, so the only place it can happen is a supernova. Thus every element higher than iron (Silver, gold, platinum, lead, mercury, uranium, praseodimium, lanthanum, radium, etc.) had to be formed in a supernova.
Welcome to the universe. You are made of exploded stars. If there had been no Phase I (metal-poor) stars, there would be no planets, no humans, no nothing, because everything else is made of their exploded corpses.
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
I don't feel a lot of need to be polite to ignorance, and I've often found that a good wake-up call is best delivered with a figurative slap-in-the-face.
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
This begs the question; which elements heavier than iron (#26) are essential components of the human body?
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], we contain trace amounts of cobalt(27, part of vitamin B12), copper(29), zinc(30), selenium(34), bromine(35), strontium(38), molybdenum(42), iodine(53), and lead(82). All of these (except strontium, it seems) can cause medical problems if absent. (yes, even lead [innvista.com]!)
You also may contain traces of arsenic(33, if you p
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:1, Informative)
No, it doesn't. [wikipedia.org]
Neutron Star Collisions (Score:2)
Re:Neutron Star Collisions (Score:1)
It makes me cringe, and English isn't even my native language...
Re:Neutron Star Collisions (Score:2)
People then write down what they have repeatedly wrongly been saying without being corrected because of the current belief that "self-esteem is more im
Re:Neutron Star Collisions (Score:2)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
However, yes, there are more than the few steps I listed in the reactions that go towards a supernova. And several of them probably take place at the same time. As
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:3, Informative)
That 100,000 year figure has nothing to do with the 4.6 billion year estimate - two different supernovas.
And... Yes, the extant U238 was most likely created by the supernova that created our solar system.
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:4, Funny)
Radiometric dating.. I guess that's the first stage in how planets make other planets.
How did parent get modded up? (Score:1)
Funny maybe - but certainly not interesting.
TFA talks about the observed disk providing evidence that planetary disks are more stable than previously thought - NOT that the supernova involved in the creation of THAT specific disk also created our solar system.
FTFA:
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:2)
The U238 was definitely formed in a supernova. Basically all heavy elements were.
It should be noted, however, that this implies that the solar system is at least 4.5 billion years old. It can't be less.
This is what's stated by radiometric dating, anyway. They can only d
Re:Does this change what we think the earth's age (Score:3, Insightful)
Accretion Formula - New & Improved! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How can it explain when it has no voice? (Score:2)
Simple! After suprnova exploded out of existence in a cataclismic B-RIAA-kdown, its remains were
See?
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever heard of Zodiacal light?
Any cloud of gas would have been blown out of the system at the early stage of the Sun's evolution (T-Tauri phase), but some dust remains in the solar system. We see that today, too.
They're planets, Jim, but not as we know them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're planets, Jim, but not as we know them.. (Score:2)
Birds and the bees. Voyeurs in the trees. (Score:2, Funny)
Huh? And here I thought it was when a mommy planet and a daddy planet got together. Although how they get anything done with all those astronomers looking on is a complete mystery.
Re:Birds and the bees. Voyeurs in the trees. (Score:1)
Re:Birds and the bees. Voyeurs in the trees. (Score:1)
Re:Birds and the bees. Voyeurs in the trees. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not habitable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why couldn't you have radiation-tolerant species [wikipedia.org]?
If they went on to have multicellular descendants, then intelligent ones, those descendants could build cheap nuclear spacecraft including Orion-class vehicles and operate them without fear of radiation poisoning.
Re:Not habitable? (Score:2)
Good question.
Because maybe non-radiation tolerant species are more probable in the universe (you know... Anthropic Principle [wikipedia.org] and what not...)
And that we came about first because life (or at least carbon life) has to evolve by radiation mixing up dna to create random evolution over time with favorable mutations taking over while the unfavorable mutations die out.
Too much reaction to radiation over mutates us and kills us.
Too little reaction, makes us not evol
Re:Not habitable? (Score:3, Informative)
new planets radioactive (Score:2)
Yes and no, mostly no. The initial material is pretty radioactive, but that doesn't last long. Most of the radioactive isotopes have very short half-lives. Half-lives in the millions of years is rare.
This means that a planet formed from the debris of a star that went supernova 100 million years earlier will not be that much more radioactive than Earth.
So for all pr
Not just planets, but Post-Supernova Planets! (Score:4, Informative)
This is the missing link which explains why we've found planets around pulsars, because any planets formed earlier in the star's lifetime would have been destroyed in the supernova.
Re:Not just planets, but Post-Supernova Planets! (Score:2)
Another missing link! That's three in one week! (hominids, crocodiles, and solar systems).
Frickin' Awesome.
SuprNova shut down (Score:3, Funny)
I am too old for this . . . (Score:2)
They will ley us know for sure in a million years or so.
The Original Article on Arxiv (Score:2, Informative)
Technically this is whining (Score:1, Troll)
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/04/05/planets-