Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System

NPOV Dispute

The purpose of wikipedia according to the NPOV articles is for the articles to maintain as close as NPOV as possible. "Evolution" is not NPOV as it endorses a biased hypothesis on how the universe was formed and is progressing and has not been concretely proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even evolutionary biologist disagree on the origins and "evolution" of life and the universe. I am not suggesting to change the terms to Creationist (equally POV), but to put the terms into such terminology that would bring the article into NPOV rather than leave it in POV.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, discussion regarding this should be centralized at Talk:Solar System#NPOV Dispute as they are related. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag added by confused? editor - was going to refer him to that discussion. Vsmith (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

50 billion

Is it a typo? In about 50 billion years, if the two worlds survive the Sun's expansion, they will become tidally locked to each other; each will be visible from only one hemisphere of the other.[75] 50 billion years or 5 billion? I guess after 50 billion years, the Milky Way Galaxy would have already merged with the Andromeda (if my memory is correct). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.214.5.22 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't a typo. Tidal locking is expected to occur between the Earth and the Moon in 50 billion years. The Sun will be a white dwarf by then, but the Solar System will still exist. The Andromeda/Milky Way collision is expected to occur at about the time the Sun begins to move off the main sequence in 5 billion years time. Serendi^podous 11:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronology Piece

The time frame of the Solar System's formation has been determined using radiometric dating. How? Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.160.124.40 (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place to explain how dating methods work, as it requires a very in-depth explanation that would overshadow and confuse the article at hand, nor is it directly related to the physical processes of formation. For that information, you should head over to Radiometric_dating

Forgot to sign Chardansearavitriol (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Chardansearavitriol's note notwithstanding, a brief note would illustrate the dependence of current theory on certain kinds of dating. The main dating methods involve either a ratio of isotopes (like Potassium-Argon) or a ratio of ratios (like Uranium-Lead isochrons). Such a paragraph would be appropriate for several reasons. First, it would highlight the extremely high accuracy of some results (the Pb-Pb isochrons from meteorites) compared to others. Second, that accuracy bears on the great precision assigned to some early events.

The oldest meteorite measurement I am aware of is from Bouvier and Wadhwa's result published in Nature Geoscience; "... a calcium–aluminium-rich inclusion from the Northwest Africa 2364 CV3-group chondritic meteorite, which indicate that the inclusion formed 4,568.2 million years ago ... the oldest age obtained for any Solar System object so far". Typical errors for similar samples are, for example, "4,567.11 ± 0.16 Myr" and "4,568.5 ± 0.5 Myr". Think about the implications of such precision of that result for a moment. It permits special statistical inferences which underpin some of the modern models of formation. --203.89.168.149 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That article is apparently downloadable - I found a PDF at http://haroldconnolly.com/EES%20716%20Fall%2009%20Reading/ngeo941.pdf. --Sdoradus (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Sun's origin

I'd like to suggest adding something to the text about the mass and dimensions of the cluster in which the Sun was likely formed and about the effect upon the inner Oort cloud of a close encounter with another star during the first 100 Myr. (This was mentioned in a SciAm article this month, which also gave estimates for the cluster dimensions and distance of nearest approach.)

• Portegies Zwart, Simon F. (May 2009). "The Lost Siblings of the Sun". The Astrophysical Journal Letters 696 (1): L13–L16. Bibcode 2009ApJ...696L..13P. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L13. 
• Kaib, Nathan A.; Quinn, Thomas (September 2008). "The formation of the Oort cloud in open cluster environments". Icarus 197 (1): 221–238. Bibcode 2008Icar..197..221K. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.03.020. 

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Added. Do you think more discussion of the Oort cloud is warrented? Serendi^podous 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How Earth Survived Birth

Here's an interesting article about a new simulation of the protoplanetary disk:

Staff (January 12, 2010). "How Earth Survived Birth". Astrobiology Magazine. http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3370/how-earth-survived-birth. Retrieved 2010-01-12. 

RJH (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated a summary of this into the article. Please improve the edit if you see a need. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First recorded use of the term Solar System

The article cites the Webster dictionary, which says that the term "Solar System" is from 1704. However, is it really the date of the first recorded use of the term in general, or just in English? And who and where used it? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources that say otherwise you can add them to the article. Ruslik_Zero 08:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not that I have a source saying something different. The problem is that the given source does not say this. It is only a dictionary of the English language, so it does not give general information of using the term "Solar System", it gives only the information about its use in the English language. I would change it in the article, but before doing so I just thought I should ask first, whether somebody has info about the real first use of the term. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the source doesn't say whether it's only in English or not. And since I'm unlikely to find a source that goes beyond English (since I speak English), I don't really see how I can solve your problem. Serendi^podous 09:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the information is so much unclear, I suggest leaving it out. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the source is reasonable, though a better one is always welcome. Before Galileo's time talking about the Sun as if it was the center of the Universe was simply a good way to get hung. -- Kheider (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture that Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Ptolemaic and Copernican" from 1632 is a place to start for the etymology. It establishes that a "world system" in the cosmic sense was the collection of planets, and there were several kinds, the two main contenders being Ptolemaic (Earth-centred) and Copernican (Sol-centred). From there to describing a particular world system (e.g. Copernican) focused on the Sun is a short step. --Sdoradus (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(Fragment of) molecular cloud

The article says that The nebular hypothesis maintains that the Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a fragment of a giant molecular cloud that likely was several light-years across.

• Does the sentence mean that the fragment was several light years across, or that the whole molecular cloud was that big?
• The given source states that the whole cloud collapsed, not only its small fragment. If the source is wrong, a different one should probably be used. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  It says that an overdensity collapsed, not all cloud. Ruslik_Zero 09:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

  I see, sorry, I did not read it well. Thank you for the answer. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Clumps of dust

Although it seems that nobody takes care of this article, I will try to ask one more question. In the section Formation of planets it is written that dust grains formed into clumps between one and ten kilometres in diameter. I cannot imagine a clump of dust several kilometres big. May be the unit is wrong. There is also written that these clumps (of up to 10 km) collided and formed larger bodies (of about 5 km!). Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's accurate. Keep in mind that "dust" to an astronomer is little pieces of rock, not like the dust in your house. thx1138 (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It also helps to keep in mind that there is a very large amount of space, and the events that birth a star (and its planets) create quite a lot of stuff in a rather small area. Things on the most macro and micro of scales can get a bit confusing, since its incredibly difficult for a human mind to practically envision things of such scopes. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Scattering the early Kuiper belt

It is written in the article: "This resonance created a gravitational push against the outer planets, causing Neptune to surge past Uranus and plough into the ancient Kuiper belt. The planets scattered the majority of the small icy bodies inwards, while themselves moving outwards. These planetesimals then scattered off the next planet they encountered in a similar manner, moving the planets' orbits outwards while they moved inwards."

However, the given source does not say anything of this kind. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It is in ref 29. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding and changing the refs. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Supernovae influence

The article reads: "The evolution of the outer Solar System appears to have been influenced by nearby supernovae and possibly also passage through interstellar clouds."

However, the given source does not give any information about any influence of supernovae on the outer Solar System. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised. Serendi^podous 15:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Added latest date estimate of 4.5682 Ga. (No error ranges--can they really date to within a 100 000 years?)

Yes, they can. We can measure time on a scale as small as 10⁻⁴³ seconds after the start of the universe (See: planck_epoch) and can theoretically measure dates of such insane heights as 10³⁰⁰⁰ and beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See my note in 'Chronology Piece' above, where I provided a reference with examples of the extreme precision available from isochron dating. What matters is not so much the range over which measurement can be made, though that is tremendous, but rather the great accuracy possible. This precision has a direct bearing on the ability to make detailed models of Solar System beginnings. For those not familiar with radiological dating methods, I might add that the essential feature of isochron methods which allows such precision is this; you don't need to know the initial concentration of the parent isotope, a problem which constantly confounds other radiometric dating methods. --Sdoradus (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading that nanodiamonds have been found, which are thought to have formed in the supernova that triggered the collapse of the Solar nebula. Have they been dated? That would more neatly bracket the formation; I'm not clear on how well the formation of Ca-Al inclusions dates the 'beginning' of the Solar System, or even what the beginning would be--the ignition of Sol, maybe? — kwami (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The nanodiamonds are new to me, and I was once qualified in the field. Can you provide a reference? --Sdoradus (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. diamonds being pure carbon, the only radiological method possible would be Carbon 14 dating, which depends on atmospheric generation so can't be used for cosmic objects. Besides, a rule of thumb used to be that the limit of measurement topped out at 32,000 years. I see from the Radiocarbon dating article that ~60,000 radiocarbon years is the current limit of the technique; diamonds of great antiquity yield radiocarbon dates of 60-80,000 years BP. --Sdoradus (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

PPS the reason a reference would be good is that maybe there are inclusions of some other material, like zircon, within the nanodiamonds. --Sdoradus (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

600 B.C.

As it is, the wording of the text implies that Aristarchos of Samos spoke in 600 B.C. Actually, he had not been born then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I think that was a "fossil" from an earlier removed edit that wasn't properly cleared. Serendi^podous 11:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The article here appears to reject receiving new elements

Is it agreed that any alternative to solar nebular hypothesis is not accepted at this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roufeng 2011 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Logic dictates that the consensus of the mainstream cosmologists outweighs the opinions of the alternative few – or the one crank! IVAN3MAN (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi! I'm traslating this articule into portuguese and now I have a doubt. In the beginning of the text, in introduction, 2nd paragraph there is that: "Since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s and the discovery of extrasolar planets in the 1990s, the models have been both challenged and refined to account for new observations." What are the two models? I just read one, I think (nebular hypothesis). The other is the protoplanetary disk? Is that a teory or model? Thanks! Sarilho1 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it should say "the model has been"... Serendi^podous 18:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I wasn't really sure. I think that the "both" is also out no? But thanks, you help me a lot. Sarilho1 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand it "both challenged and refined", i.e. challenged and also refined, not "both models". Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know! Now I urderstant and now I can build a correct sentence and put right information, because the languages are diferent. Anyway, you should put the sentence to all understand (when I say all I'm referring to english speaking people, because foreign should know if they what to translate), if all english speakers understand, sorry, the error was mine. Sarilho1 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Both" refers to "challenged and refined", not the models. It depends how broadly you define "model" as to whether it's singular or plural -- there are many "models" to describe the formation and evolution of the Solar System, but all the ones that are supported by modern data broadly fit within the nebular hypothesis model. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)