On 15 Mar 2006 at 18:12, Peter Gray wrote:
> What is more disturbing is the implication it has for planetology. Astronomers have been puzzling
> over the existence of "hot jupiters" with impossibly close orbits to their primary suns, as it
> defies the conventional theories on planetary accretion.
Not really. They had relatively minor modifications to the models
that'd create "hot Jupiters" within weeks of the discovery.
For that matter, the modifications consisted of taking *out* code
that'd prevented such "impossible" planets from forming.
> This new discovery may indicate that ALL terrestrial planets could,
> under the right circumstances, become the core of a gas giant, or
> accumulate rocky material to the degree they become hostile to life.
Not all. Note that Mars is likely so small *because* of Jupiter being
there. And the best explanation for hot jupiters has them starting in
the outer system and moving inward.
If the planet doesn't achieve a certain mass *before* getting to the
inner system, it *can't* accumulate gas faster than heating drives it
off.
> That could explain partially Fermi's paradox, as it would indicate
> that planetary accretion has a "goldilocks" threshold where a
> potential earth-like planet would need to stop growing in order to
> support life.
So our solar system isn't as typical as we thought. But we don't know
*how* atypical it is.
Remember, the current detection methods select for large, close
planets. That rocky/icy planet was detectable because of a very rare
situation.
Untill we have more and larger scopes in space, we won't really know
what typical systems are like.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS