This is according to a discovery published by NASA this evening. Avi Shaforer, an Israeli astronomer at the University of California in Santa Barbara, and a member of the scientific team of the Kepler space telescope, is involved in the discovery.
The process of forming planets the size of the Earth is considered to be a process that takes place only near stars rich in heavy elements such as iron and tin. Ground-based observations, combined with data collected by NASA's Kepler space telescope, now demonstrate that small planets form around stars with a variety of heavy element abundances and, therefore, may be more common in our galaxy than astronomers previously thought.
Astronomers refer to elements heavier than hydrogen as "metals". They measure the metal content of a star using our Sun as a baseline. Stars with a high concentration of heavy elements compared to our sun are considered rich in metals. A star with a concentration of heavy elements lower than our Sun is considered poor in metals.
A team of researchers led by Lars Buchhave, an atropphysicist at the Niels Bohr Institute and the StartPlan interdisciplinary research center at the University of Copenhagen, studied the composition of the elements in more than 150 stars surrounded by 226 candidates for planets smaller than Neptune. The ground-based spectroscopic observations were made at the Nordic Telescope at La Palma in the Canary Islands, the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory at Mount Hopkins in Arizona, the McDonald Observatory at the University of Texas at Austin, and the Keck Observatory in Hawaii.
"We wanted to investigate whether small planets require certain conditions to form, like the giant gas planets" says Buchheiv. "The study shows that small planets do not discriminate and form around stars with a variety of heavy metal contents, including stars with 25% of the metal level of the Sun."
"Planets are stardust. They form in the eddies of compressed gas and dust around newborn stars. In the protoplanetary disk, the remnants crystallize and form planetesimals that collide and grow and eventually form planets.
Rocky cores must grow large enough to gravitationally trap gas from the disk before it escapes out of the system. When there is an abundance of heavy metals, the globules can grow quickly and attract a large mass of gas to them before the gas disappears, thus forming the gas giants such as Jupiter in our solar system.
In metal-poor discs, the cores cannot form fast enough and the gas capture phase is missed. The result is systems where the large planets do not evolve beyond the size of Neptune-Rahab.
Large planets close to the Sun can form around stars with a high content of heavy elements, but small planets do not require special environments to form. The result is reflected in recent studies showing that minor planets may be quite common. The findings are described in the current issue of the journal Nature.
"Kepler identified thousands of candidate planets, which allowed us to investigate big-picture questions such as the one proposed by Lars: does nature require special environments to create Earth-sized planets," says a Kepler mission scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California. "The data lead to the hypothesis that planets are formed around stars with a variety of metal content, meaning that nature is opportunistic and abundant, and finds ways that we thought until now were difficult to impossible."
Avi Shaforer, an Israeli astronomer at the University of California in Santa Barbara, and a member of Kepler's scientific team, is involved in the discovery. In an interview with the Hidan website, Porer says, "In the last two decades, we have witnessed many discoveries in the field of the study of planets outside the solar system, which indicate that planets can form in a wide variety of conditions, which are different from what we know in the solar system." In conclusion, Shaforer explains: "Kepler's latest discovery focuses on small planets, and shows that they can form under an even wider variety of conditions."
8 תגובות
1. In principle, like all the other planets in the solar system, the sun does not absorb mass.
What's more, sometimes it is hit by meteorites (what seems to us like a "falling star") and rarely by meteors. On the face of it, the rate at which this happens is very low, that is, until the end of his life, the amount of mass he will add as a result of such processes is negligible, just as the amount of mass he loses due to the departure of spaceships into space is negligible (for now...). Note that the rate in this cannot increase significantly because there is almost no free matter in the solar system.
2. Kedah is losing its atmosphere - it used to be denser and today it is thinner and this process continues all the time. The moon, for example, has lost the gases surrounding it, and Mars has almost no gases left. But again, in the case of DHA, the rate is very slow and DHA will end its life long before the density of the atmosphere changes significantly. Therefore, the answer is that, in principle, molecules rarely leave the DNA - but the rate is very slow.
Hello deer,
I would appreciate it if you could answer me some questions from your knowledge to help me in my research.
1. Does the earth absorb any substances? Cosmic dust, hydrogen emitted from the sun or any other way known to you?
If so, in what amount every year, and what will happen to the mass of the earth if this process continues for another billion years?
2. Can particles from the earth's atmosphere reach the moon. For example water molecules?
If so, in what quantity?
As my father already said, the paper and the keyboard tolerate everything.
flint,
That Gurdjieff's claim might have been nice before they knew anything - but they knew and therefore it can be clearly said that it is nonsense. The Earth will never become Jupiter because there is no gas to absorb it, and Jupiter will not become the Sun because it is not massive enough. The sun also will not develop into a larger and more massive body but on the contrary - it will turn into a small and dense dwarf after losing part of its mass.
Regarding your second comment,
It is understood that this is only a theory and no one even thinks that it is complete - that is why the subject of the planets and their formation is such a hot field of research - because there are still many unknown things. What is clear is that today's science has many tools to deal with these kinds of questions and thus, very incorrect models (like the one proposed by Gurdjieff) can already be ruled out today.
In the framework of this discussion, it has a little less to do with entering into the question of life on other planets or the role that the pyramids served, but what both of them and this discussion have in common is that they are questions for which we still do not have a clear answer.
One of the things missing in the current article is to make it clear that the way the planets develop that the article presents is just a theory. We have never seen how a planet develops (because our lifetime is short compared to the processes of the cosmic bodies), and I would be happy if anyone has other information to share.
We have current photographs of large celestial bodies (suns, super novae, dwarfs, etc.) in various states, from which we created a theory about their development processes. That still doesn't mean the theory is correct. It may be that the order in which we arranged the relationship between the different stages is different. Regarding planets, the situation is even more complex, because apart from our solar system, we have almost no observations of planets in other solar systems, and certainly not in smaller states of planet formation.
For the questionnaire - the paper and the keyboard tolerate everything.
It's a bit hard to compare because Gurdjieff was talking about levels of refinement of material as it is
More subtle it belongs to larger astronomical bodies that feed smaller bodies
in their environment.
DA he also said that there used to be life on Mars and there are still remnants of telescopes
that today's viewing instruments are toys compared to those telescopes, as well as the pyramids
Built here were astronomical observatories similar to those on Mars…..interesting.
Philosopher and mystic GA Gurdjieff claimed that the heavenly bodies are evolving bodies. That our moon is growing and one day it will become a planet, that the earth is growing and one day it will become the sun. that the planet Jupiter, for example, is a more developed planet than the Earth, therefore it is more similar to the Sun, in its volume, state of clustering as well as the number of its satellites.
This fits the finding of many small planets around the Suns, as they start out as satellites (similar to Pluto).
what do you think?