Title

A new, mainly dynamical, two-stage scenario for

forming the Sun’s planetary system and its relation to

exoplanet findings

Miles Osmastonmiles@osmaston.demon.co.uk

http://osmaston.org.uk

1To see notes below the slides, please open in ppt ‘normal view’

Two starting points1. Repeatedly, but virtually unavailingly, Jeans 1919,

Lyttleton 1941, Gold 1984 and Woolfson 1960+ have stressed that the material in the Sun and in our planetary system must have had dynamically separate origins, NOT the common origin implied by the Single Contracting Solar Nebula (SCSN) model of Kant-Laplace. Yet studies of all kinds are usually still based on it.

2. My work, since 1959, on the fundamental nature of the gravitational cohesion process between particles leads me to expect (!!!!) that a radial electric (“gravity-electric” - G-E) field is simultaneously generated around all such assemblages, and cannot be annulled.

This paper is a test case; does (2) help with (1)? 2

The 5 main dynamical problems1. 6deg tilt of the planetary dynamical plane w.r.t. the Sun’s

equator. If Sun and planets were made in the same event, how do you tilt one without the other? Precession?

2. Mean specific angular momentum of planetary material is 137,500 X that in the Sun. Together with the a.m. of the >10-fold more mass they were formed from, all this a.m. could NEVER have been in the Sun. Where did the a.m. come from? Could the G-E Field have done it?

3. In the presence of nebular gas, protoplanetary bodies would spiral into the Sun in far less time than it takes to build a planet. How do you prevent that?

4. Planetary spins are almost exclusively prograde, but vorticity in a Keplerian disc is retrograde. Where did they nucleate and get their spins?

5. Solar System satellites are almost exclusively prograde w.r.t. spin of their planet. Why? 3

The new 2-stage scenario for building the Sun's planetary system

The proto-Sun formed in one dust cloud, and became an already-dense H-burning star. Later it flew into another cloud, with high dust-opacity, from which the planets were formed and the outer 2.5% of the Sun’s mass (above the tachocline) was added to and not mixed in, so its composition appears to match. The second cloud (initial temp. ~10K or even lower) had a different dynamical axis.

(and others)

ionization establishes G-E Field action

(driven by G-E Field)

4

Creation of angular momentuma.m. = Tangential velocity (V) x Orbit radius (R)

So if you apply a strictly radial push, as the gravity-electric (G-E) field does, you increase R, but V stays the same.

That’s possible in a dense gas-controlled disc (non-Keplerian)

So you double the a.m. every time you double the distance from the Sun’s axis.

If magnetic coupling to the inner disc also slowed the Sun 5-fold, this a.m. creation can provide the 137,500-fold greater a.m. of the planetary material. Q.E.D!

Yes, it’s possible! Here’s how.

But it does specify that the planets were (entirely?) built by accreting material that also had the high a.m. provided by the G-E Field-driven wind – i.e. nebula still present 5

Where are all the retrograde satellites?1. For the giant planets this means that late planetary growth

was by tidal capture, so retrograde captures spiralled in, but prograde ones stayed in orbit (McCord 1968 JGR; Counselman 1973 ApJ). Capture requires nebula present.

2. Tidal drag requires hot-viscous silicate planets, so only the 5-15 Me silicate ‘cores’ had been built (so Jupiter’s timescale problem is removed and metallic-H Jovian interior is untenable).

3. Tidal action cannot have provided their gas and ice envelopes, so these must be later gravitational captures.

4. This was when the Sun flew out of the second cloud. The Sun lost its dust jacket and the Protoplanetary Disk Wind cleared the disc from the inner solar system, taking with it the watery atmospheres (from core formation – see later) of the terrestrial planets. 6

Late giant impacts?Safronov-type impact accretion expects giant

impacts at a late stage. But our feedstock provision by the disk wind does not. So were there any?

Mercury – YES – 7deg tilted and very eccentric orbit, loss of two-thirds of its mantle. Post-nebula and out-of-plane impactor.

Moon – NO – Earth orbit preserves its gas-drag-ensured circular orbit, conforming to the planetary dynamical plane; out-of-plane impact would have destroyed those.

Uranus – NO – its axis must have been tilted early; its closely equatorial satellite system shows it grew a lot after that.

7

Making the Earth’s core Noting that the mantle had never equilibrated with Fe, A.E. Ringwood had long favoured - 1960, 1966, 1975 - making the core by:- cool nebula (<600K) – positive fO2 construction of Earth – reduce hot erupted FeO at Earth surface – subduct Fe…..BUT in 1979 “Origin of the Earth and Moon” he had to abandon this because he saw no way of getting rid of the dense watery atmosphere that would result.

The G-E Field-driven disk wind will now do that and it fits well with nebula-present dynamics and construction of the planets. This result rules out the substantial post-

nebula accretion assumed by the current time-demanding iron-percolation models.

So let’s return to Ringwood’s idea.

8

Forming the Earth’s core, and others – Ringwood model

Opacity of dusty nebula makes distance from the Sun immaterial. Heat for convection onset is accretion and radiogenic

9

ExoplanetsObservations on the 319 exoplanets detected by late Oct. 2008

(http://exoplanet.eu/) offered a good database against which to check the validity of our new scenario. Of these, 32 are multiple (mostly two-planet) systems but 3 are 3-planet, one is 4-planet and one, 55 Cancri, has five.

1. The close-in nucleation of planets (see next slide). Unless shielded from it by nebular dust, stellar radiation would inhibit nucleation or induce evaporation thereafter. So we must be seeing these systems not long after they have moved out of their planetogenic cloud.

2. The two-stage scenario. Despite its close-in position (0.052 AU), the planet of 51 Pegasi, an early discovery, belongs to a star ~8 Ga old; it could not possibly have been there that long. Many similar cases are known.

10

Close-in positions of exoplanets needs an explanation

Plot restricted to exoplanets with a < 0.4 AUTotal number in table at 10/01/09 = 334

Therefore 73 = 22% of the total detected so far

Mercury

Our new scenario can do it if they are young

But what happens to them when the PDW has ceased to move them outward?11

Exoplanet eccentricities

3. High eccentricities. These are a marked feature of exoplanetary orbits, contrasting with the very low ones in the Solar System. In the new scenario, magnetic coupling constrains the disk wind plane to a fairly low tilt w.r.t. the stellar equator. But the direction of the infall column(s) will depend on the dynamics of the star’s passage through the cloud, relative to its axis. Infall that deviates markedly from polar will be much closer to the disk wind plane on one side than on the other, so will also yield a major asymmetry in the flow into the disk wind. This will ‘puff’ an orbiting planet additionally every time it passes on that side, building up the eccentricity as its orbit size (and a.m.!) grows. Analysis of the database shows that many do indeed show that the outer planet or planets show a greater or progressively increasing eccentricity. All the 4 planets of HD160691 show this progression.

12

Brown dwarfs and binariesThe CT scenario may be able to yield a

continuous link from small planets to brown dwarfs to disparate-aged binary stars, provided that the cloud is dense enough, or the transit fast enough, to generate the mass flow. The capture of one star by another to form a binary (of which there are very many) has long presented a problem in Newtonian dynamics. To build one, as here, by building it up from a nucleus already in an orbital relationship is an attractive solution. But can’t apply to binary twins.

13

General Conclusions 11. Star formation and planet formation are wholly

distinct in timing, dynamics and sources, so old stars can acquire young planets (as observed).

2. Action of the gravity-electric (G-E) field yields a new scenario in which planets nucleate close to their star while shielded from it by a dust jacket acquired from a second cloud, and are successively moved out to greater distance.

3. Planetary nucleation was gravitational, followed by growth by tidal capture, with impact accretion confined to the growth of the feedstock bodies.

4. The new disk has low mean temperature and high density, yielding iron core formation and water production while it is present. 14

General Conclusions 24. In the Solar System the G-E field played a pivotal

role in setting up the disk outflow pattern and establishing many aspects of the observed dynamics, including growth of angular momentum and the gas giants’ late capture of their envelopes, expelled from the inner Solar System.

5. The new scenario is supported by many features of the exoplanet findings, further validating the G-E Field.

OVERALL ANSWER TO THE INITIAL QUESTION

YES; THE G-E FIELD SEEMS TO MAKE THE JOB DYNAMICALLY POSSIBLE, AT LAST.

With chemical benefits too. 15

Basic logic of the G-E Field

The G-E Field is the product of my implementing, functionally, for the first time, the elastic aether specified by JC Maxwell’s equations (1865) for the existence of transverse electromagnetic waves, but which was illogically wholly discarded by Einstein in promoting Relativity, though he needed the waves.

16