Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Non Star Systems

  1. #1 Non Star Systems 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    I seems to me that there should be millions or even billions of systems in every galaxy that do NOT have a star as it's core. As systems begin there may have been millions of times when there was not enough matter in the "cloud" to create a central core large enough to cause nuclear fusion or in some instances the material available did not have the proper elements. By sheer laws of probability there may have been at least as many times a star was not formed as there was when one was. This would cause a Dark system with all the characteristics of a star system with planets orbiting a non nuclear central mass but be completely devoid of any observable radiation. Some may be quite small with their central body no larger than our moon and some may be very large with it's central mass on the verge of going nuclear and everything in between. Someone might say "well they would just be swallowed up by other stars" but are other star systems swallowed up by other stars? not very often. Others would say "it's not provable so it's not science and just speculation" but just about everything about our universe is just speculation. If you apply probability it is virtually certain that there untold numbers of these systems in every galaxy.

    Edited to take out the dogmatic "must"


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Non Star Systems 
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork
    I seems to me that there must be millions or even billions of systems in every galaxy that do NOT have a star as it's core. As systems begin there must have been millions of times when there was not enough matter in the "cloud" to create a central core large enough to cause nuclear fusion or in some instances the material avaiable did not have the proper elements. By sheer laws of probability there must have been at least as many times a star was not formed as there was when one was. This would cause a Dark system with all the characteristics of a star system with planets orbiting a non nuclear central mass but be completely devoid of any observable radiation. Some may be quite small with their central body no larger than our moon and some may be very large with it's central mass on the verge of going nuclear and everything in between. Someone might say "well they would just be swallowed up by other stars" but are other star systems swallowed up by other stars? not very often. Others would say "it's not provable so it's not science and just speculation" but just about everything about our universe is just speculation. If you apply probability it is virtually certain that there untold numbers of these systems in every galaxy.
    A good example of this, actually, is Jupiter. A central planet surrounded by at least 63 satellites, all orbiting around the fixed non-solar center. However, all systems like this would more than likely orbit a star. Everything in this galaxy orbits a black hole, because the center of the galaxy is a black hole, and everything orbits the center of the Galaxy.


    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Non Star Systems 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork
    I seems to me that there must be millions or even billions of systems in every galaxy that do NOT have a star as it's core.
    This is an interesting speculation, but I think you damage it by the use of the word must. That's an absolute position to take and in the absence of any clear evidence such absolutism seems wrong.

    We are, it seems, gaining a better understanding of how planetary systems form. Perhaps there are enough data there to tell if the role of a central star is essential to some crucial stage in the planetary formation process.

    Arcane's comments on Jupiter suggest this would not be the case. In passing, the reference to 63 satellites is misleading. The vast majority of these are captured asteroids and dead comets. Only the four Galilean satellites were likely formed in an analagous manner to the solar system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    A very good observation. Why is this under "Pseudoscience"? Here are a few remarks from my side:

    It is not possible to have a planetary system without a central object for many reasons. First, you need a gravitating central object to allow for stable orbits. The formation is another thing. Current formation theories - backed up by observations - indicate that the formation of a planetary system is more or less a natural by-product of the formation of a star. Planets are formed within a disc of gas and dust that forms during the collapse of the parental cloud core from which eventually the star evolves. So, you need at least something that may be a brown dwarf or something similar.

    The building blocks of stars are so called cloud cores which are dense regions inside molecular clouds that under certain conditions collapse under their own weight. There also stable cores without stars, and they will probably never form them; but then they will also not form planets. The current lower mass limit of objects that collapse from cores due to self-gravity are brown dwarves that at least are capable of fusing deuterium for a while. But it is of course possible that many planetary systems escape detection just because the central star/object is too faint to be detected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,085
    Would a brown dwarf be an acceptable-ish answer? Or at least heading in the right direction to meet the requirements of the OP?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    depending on how you define your celestial system, again, even something like Jupiter or Saturn, even Uranus and Neptune, would fulfill the requirements. If you get down to the nitty gritty, Earth and it's moon is technically a celestial system, it just happens to orbit within another system.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    The original post was can non star systems form INDEPENDANT of a star so anything orbiting a star would not be in that category. Maybe some day the gravity lens effect will reveal them if anyone seriously looks for them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by megadork
    there was not enough matter in the "cloud" to create a central core large enough to cause nuclear fusion
    Quote Originally Posted by megadork
    some may be very large with it's central mass on the verge of going nuclear and everything in between
    = Brown dwarf with planets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork
    The original post was can non star systems form INDEPENDANT of a star so anything orbiting a star would not be in that category. Maybe some day the gravity lens effect will reveal them if anyone seriously looks for them.
    Well, as I wrote before, you cannot form a planetary system without a central object, i.e. a star or brown dwarf at least. But there are reports of so called "free floating planets" that could be the low mass counterparts of brown dwarves not being able to fuse anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Out of curiosity, how much mass would jupiter have to gain to begin a nuclear fusion/fission process? Is it something it could obtain if it had the mass's of its largest moons added? or are we talking many times the planets size? or is there not enough of the right elements?
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    As a rule of thumb, the least massive brown dwarves have around 80 Jupiter masses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork
    The original post was can non star systems form INDEPENDANT of a star so anything orbiting a star would not be in that category. Maybe some day the gravity lens effect will reveal them if anyone seriously looks for them.
    Well, as I wrote before, you cannot form a planetary system without a central object, i.e. a star or brown dwarf at least. But there are reports of so called "free floating planets" that could be the low mass counterparts of brown dwarves not being able to fuse anything.
    You are making a statement of fact when there is no known physical law that backs you up. Not knowing of the existance of something does not mean it doesn't exist.
    As I heard somewhere "Anything that CAN exist DOES exist somewhere"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork
    You are making a statement of fact when there is no known physical law that backs you up. Not knowing of the existance of something does not mean it doesn't exist.
    As I heard somewhere "Anything that CAN exist DOES exist somewhere"
    The physical law I base this is on is classical gravitation. You need a body that produces a gravitational force in order to provide a centripetal force that balances out the centrifugal force of orbiting planets in order to maintain stable orbits.

    Your last sentence is highly unscientific. With that same argument you could postulate the existence of two-headed pink cows that have wings and breathe methane. If you propose the existence of a phenomenon you have to back it up with physics and/or observations or experiments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Really not pseudo, moving to Astronomy and Cosmology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster

    The physical law I base this is on is classical gravitation. You need a body that produces a gravitational force in order to provide a centripetal force that balances out the centrifugal force of orbiting planets in order to maintain stable orbits.

    Your last sentence is highly unscientific. With that same argument you could postulate the existence of two-headed pink cows that have wings and breathe methane. If you propose the existence of a phenomenon you have to back it up with physics and/or observations or experiments.
    Well that basic law applies to everything in space and does not rule out non star systems. A rock the size of a baseball can orbit an asteroid and that same law would apply.
    Also have you ever been to a methane planet and observed the life forms there? I didn't propose the theory I quoted it for emphasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 non-star systems 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5
    In order for planets to form, a gas cloud must first start rotating. It won't start rotating, unless most of the gas cloud collapses towards the center of the system similar in effect to a skater who draws arms inwards and spins faster. If such a system spins fast enough, it will break the electromagnetic field lines that normally holds the interstellar gas in a suspended, diffuse state. Naturally, there are many planetary systems out there that contain substitutes for central stars, such as the brown dwarfs, white dwarfs (first planets discovered outside the solar system were of such nature), neutron stars (usually formed from the accretion disks or debris after the original planets were obliterated) etc. Additionally, there are many free-floating planets that were slingshot from their systems after passing too close to other planets or when their star suddenly lost most of its mass as in transition from a red giant to a white dwarf.

    Hunter
    whitesands2010@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    Hunter thank you for a rational reply. However my proposal was that a smaller gas cloud than what we presently think to be the minimum to start a system could be much smaller. The laws of physics do not state that X is the minimum to start the formation process. We think that X is the minimum because everything we SEE is at least that minimum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork
    Hunter thank you for a rational reply. However my proposal was that a smaller gas cloud than what we presently think to be the minimum to start a system could be much smaller. The laws of physics do not state that X is the minimum to start the formation process. We think that X is the minimum because everything we SEE is at least that minimum.
    No, not true. We know that there is a mass minimum that is required to allow for the collapse of a cloud. This is the Jeans criterion. It depends on the density and temperature of the cloud material. The current theoretical and empirically confirmed lower density limit is around 1 g/cm³ of gas and dust. We see a lot of cloud clumps and cores that seem to be gravitationally stable and are not collapsing. The most famous example is B 68, a starless core with a total mass of 2.1 solar masses. Whether or not it will collapse in the future is not certain. If so, theory and observations predict that only a fraction of it will form a compact object - most probably a brown dwarf. The rest will be dispersed in a rotating disc and expelled by bipolar jets and outflows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    Thank you for the clarification Dishmaster. Something I wonder about; this being true what causes planets to form when the cloud would then not be massive enough to cause gravitational collapse. all the models of planet formation I have ever seen show disk formation just like star formation when according to this theory the gravity should not be great enough.
    Second, if there is a small dense cloud formation couldn't it then form a system on a smaller scale?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •