protoplanetary disks throw out more material than gets turned into planets

Discuss Astrophysics.
Post Reply
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

protoplanetary disks throw out more material than gets turned into planets

#1

Post by notFritzArgelander »


https://phys.org/news/2021-09-protoplan ... anets.html

I guess Avi Loeb is giving up on Oumuamua being artificial, maybe?
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
seigell United States of America
Jupiter Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 4:59 pm
4
Location: Florida, USA
Status:
Offline

Re: protoplanetary disks throw out more material than gets turned into planets

#2

Post by seigell »


Perhaps "Wishful" should be added to "Preliminary".

This is quite the claim:
"Neither exo-Oort clouds nor protoplanetary disks are capable of filling the mass budget necessary to produce the inferred interstellar object population."

When what is used for the inference is: "the fact that we only really know about two interstellar objects: Oumuamua (estimated to be between 20 to 200 meters), and comet 2I/Borisov(estimated to be between 0.4 to 1 km)."
Add to that: 1) we don't know anything about exo-Oort Clouds (we still know exceedingly little about our local Oort Cloud); 2) we're only now getting past the shock stage regarding the frequency of exo-planets (there's a lot fewer 'lonely stars' than we previously thought); and 3) we are left to hear about estimates of individual compounding elements with ranges detailed in orders of magnitude.

What is the assumed interstellar "object and rogue planet" population?? In over 100 years of heavy observation of the central Solar System, we've found 2-3??
ES AR152 / ES 80ED Apo / Orion 8in F/3.9 / C9.25-SCT / C6-SCT / C10-NGT / AT6RC / ST-80 / AstroView 90 / Meade 6000 APO 115mm
CGEM (w HyperTune and ADM bling) / 2x CG5-AGT / Forest of Tripod legs / Star Adventurer / Orion EQ-G
550D (Modded-G.Honis) / 60D / 400D / NexImage / NexGuide / Mini 50 SSAG / ST-8300C / ASI120MM-S / ASI1600MM-Cool
Dark Skies in SW CO when I can get there, and badly light polluted backyard when I can't... (Currently Self-Exiled to Muggy Central Florida...)
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: protoplanetary disks throw out more material than gets turned into planets

#3

Post by notFritzArgelander »


seigell wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:28 pm Perhaps "Wishful" should be added to "Preliminary".

This is quite the claim:
"Neither exo-Oort clouds nor protoplanetary disks are capable of filling the mass budget necessary to produce the inferred interstellar object population."

When what is used for the inference is: "the fact that we only really know about two interstellar objects: Oumuamua (estimated to be between 20 to 200 meters), and comet 2I/Borisov(estimated to be between 0.4 to 1 km)."
Add to that: 1) we don't know anything about exo-Oort Clouds (we still know exceedingly little about our local Oort Cloud); 2) we're only now getting past the shock stage regarding the frequency of exo-planets (there's a lot fewer 'lonely stars' than we previously thought); and 3) we are left to hear about estimates of individual compounding elements with ranges detailed in orders of magnitude.

What is the assumed interstellar "object and rogue planet" population?? In over 100 years of heavy observation of the central Solar System, we've found 2-3??
Actually there are more candidate rogue planets. It seems that the Solar System produced one to explain current orbits. Here's a list of other possibles....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_pla ... ue_planets
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
seigell United States of America
Jupiter Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 4:59 pm
4
Location: Florida, USA
Status:
Offline

Re: protoplanetary disks throw out more material than gets turned into planets

#4

Post by seigell »


A lot of the members of that list are suspected (or known) Red Dwarfs or Brown Dwarfs that more likely would have been either the cast-off products of Binary Star Formation or else "nearly-failed" Star Formation.
Surely these weren't the basis for this Interstellar Object population, as they are as likely to have had their own proto-planetary discs as to have been the cast-off of one.
ES AR152 / ES 80ED Apo / Orion 8in F/3.9 / C9.25-SCT / C6-SCT / C10-NGT / AT6RC / ST-80 / AstroView 90 / Meade 6000 APO 115mm
CGEM (w HyperTune and ADM bling) / 2x CG5-AGT / Forest of Tripod legs / Star Adventurer / Orion EQ-G
550D (Modded-G.Honis) / 60D / 400D / NexImage / NexGuide / Mini 50 SSAG / ST-8300C / ASI120MM-S / ASI1600MM-Cool
Dark Skies in SW CO when I can get there, and badly light polluted backyard when I can't... (Currently Self-Exiled to Muggy Central Florida...)
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: protoplanetary disks throw out more material than gets turned into planets

#5

Post by notFritzArgelander »


seigell wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:02 pm A lot of the members of that list are suspected (or known) Red Dwarfs or Brown Dwarfs that more likely would have been either the cast-off products of Binary Star Formation or else "nearly-failed" Star Formation.
Surely these weren't the basis for this Interstellar Object population, as they are as likely to have had their own proto-planetary discs as to have been the cast-off of one.
And there's also a lot, about half, that are candidate or confirmed rogues. Unfortunately the paper reported on doesn't have detailed logic relating the observed numbers, such as they are, to their assumption of 5-10 rogues per star. The authors simply make that assumption while noting that others assume as few as 2 part star. I think that from the inferred dynamical history of our system that one per star might be possible.

It's always disappointing when folks just make assumptions without doing the work necessary to make links to data.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
seigell United States of America
Jupiter Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 4:59 pm
4
Location: Florida, USA
Status:
Offline

Re: protoplanetary disks throw out more material than gets turned into planets

#6

Post by seigell »


The lower estimates for ejected planets might be plausible in large planetary systems such as ours. Jupiter and Neptune might have ejected 1-2 smaller planets (and/or sent one into proto-Earth to generate the Moon). But for smaller systems, unless the remainder is simply a set of super-Jupiters, would one expect to see 3-4 (let alone 5-10) ejected??
And of the ejectees, this paper seems to expect all will be super-massive - Ice or Gas Giants - in order to exceed the remainder mass to make up the amounts contemplated in this study paper. (And I don't think Red and Brown Dwarfs count - they are the products of low-mass star-birth rather than proto-planetary disks).
ES AR152 / ES 80ED Apo / Orion 8in F/3.9 / C9.25-SCT / C6-SCT / C10-NGT / AT6RC / ST-80 / AstroView 90 / Meade 6000 APO 115mm
CGEM (w HyperTune and ADM bling) / 2x CG5-AGT / Forest of Tripod legs / Star Adventurer / Orion EQ-G
550D (Modded-G.Honis) / 60D / 400D / NexImage / NexGuide / Mini 50 SSAG / ST-8300C / ASI120MM-S / ASI1600MM-Cool
Dark Skies in SW CO when I can get there, and badly light polluted backyard when I can't... (Currently Self-Exiled to Muggy Central Florida...)
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: protoplanetary disks throw out more material than gets turned into planets

#7

Post by notFritzArgelander »


seigell wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:23 pm The lower estimates for ejected planets might be plausible in large planetary systems such as ours. Jupiter and Neptune might have ejected 1-2 smaller planets (and/or sent one into proto-Earth to generate the Moon). But for smaller systems, unless the remainder is simply a set of super-Jupiters, would one expect to see 3-4 (let alone 5-10) ejected??
And of the ejectees, this paper seems to expect all will be super-massive - Ice or Gas Giants - in order to exceed the remainder mass to make up the amounts contemplated in this study paper. (And I don't think Red and Brown Dwarfs count - they are the products of low-mass star-birth rather than proto-planetary disks).
Of course red/brown dwarfs shouldn’t count. The authors slide by that issue (hands never left the arms! :) ) when they made the assumption of 5-10 per system when they set up their 3 card monte swindle. I only presented the table to show that there’s more to this than 2 interstellar objects. It’s disappointing that there’s no attempt to link the observed confirmed and candidate objects to the assumptions. It’s not that hard. Maybe a simple estimate could even be done in a post?

For instance, take the volume of space in which the legitimate candidate objects are found, compare to the number of stars in that volume. That’s the lower limit. Then account for undetected candidates by a factors of 2 and 10 and see what you get is more reasonable than picking random numbers? I really doubt that there’s more than a factor of 10 missing in the volume sampled.

Another way to go about it is from gravitational microlensing surveys.

Maybe I’ll take a look after I get up and have breakfast. ;)

I’m not comfortable defending Avi Loeb btw. The present work is little more than evidence that he’s pulled back from the brink of wackiness, proposing Oumuamua as a spacecraft.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
Post Reply

Create an account or sign in to join the discussion

You need to be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute

Register

Sign in

Return to “Astrophysics”