You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I have just come to realize something very fascinating.
In every image that I have ever seen from deep space nebulaes, I have not ever seen one with a planetoid or other form of solid object inhabiting the same locale. Any theories on why this would occure?
Offline
Several reasons.
Nebulae are the remnants of a supernova, and planets tend to get blown apart by supernovas. It's like asking why there's nothing but dust and ashes in ground zero.
Nebulae are accretion disks, and planets have not coalesced yet.
So depending on whether a nebula is the "birth" or a "death" of a solar system, the planets might not have formed yet, or might have been blown apart.
Of course, these are not the only possibilities. There are many nebulae that do house stars. (These are often called "stellar nurseries".) It's entirely possible that if a star has coalesced, planets might have as well.
Even if there are planets within nebulae, they'll be orders of magnitude more difficult to detect than the stars within nebulae. It could simply be that they are too difficult to detect.
Offline
Thanks for the reply.
Why would a planet be difficult to detect? Wouldn't the nebula give off certain characteristics that would be different from a planet the size of Jupiter or Saturn? Would the gravitational variations be noticeable since the nebula functions one way and a planet another way.
Offline
By mass and luminosity, planets, even Jupiter sized planets, are a mere fraction of stars.
Kind of it like asteroids are harder to detect than planets. People were able to track Venus as long as humans have been looking up, but tracking Pallas and Vesta was much harder.
We're pretty much in the infancy of detecting extrasolar planets. Throwing in the monkeywrench of them being in a nebula would only be an added complication and most likely would make it harder, not easier.
Wouldn't the nebula give off certain characteristics that would be different from a planet the size of Jupiter or Saturn?
Yes, visual appearance the most obvious one of course. A nebula will look very different from a planet.
Would the gravitational variations be noticeable since the nebula functions one way and a planet another way.
I'm not sure how massive the average nebula is. But there would definitely be a different distribution of the gravity, as the mass of a nebula is widely spread out while a planet's is tightly concentrated in space. I suppose between a planet and nebula of equivalent mass, the difference might not be substantial for an outside observer, but to someone traveling inside the nebula, I have to wonder if they'd experience any significant gravity.
Offline
A very old topic but maybe worth looking at again
Planets beyond our Solar system have been known for a while with the first 'Pulsar Planets' and then found around Stars 51 Pegasi in year 1995
In Year 2001 Masses and Orbital Characteristics of over 50 Extrasolar Planets were discovered
In 2005 over 136 planets were known outside our Solar System
By 2007 we had 212 Exoplanets
Today NASA and other Space Agency and Observatories have found 5,500 + exoplanets and 10,000 + Candidate Planets
Not only have we found planets in Nebula but Twin-Jupiter sized planets free floating and orbiting each other
James Webb telescope makes 'JuMBO' discovery of planet-like objects in Orion
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66974738
We even find planets around double stars, for a while we thought it impossible but now we see Planetary systems can exist in binary star systems. Unusual findings of Nebulae or accretion disks or clouds of dust around stars or planets will become more common, we might even find over a Million Extra Solar Planets
Astronomers detect first extragalactic circumstellar disk around a massive young star outside of the Milky Way
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-astronome … ssive.html
Using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, in which the European Southern Observatory (ESO) is a partner, researchers observed motions in gas around a young stellar object in the Large Magellanic Cloud consistent with a Keplerian accretion disk—the kind that feeds the growth of stars through infalling material.
The team's findings have been published in the journal Nature.
As matter is pulled towards a growing star, it cannot fall directly onto it; instead, it flattens into a spinning disk around the star. Closer to the center, the disk rotates faster, and this difference in speed is the smoking gun that shows astronomers an accretion disk is present.
Astronomy, Physics and Cosmology and Planet Science has moved on since this thread was first posted, we also have new instruments like JWST rewriting the books
some other speculation
Moreover on interstellar planemos
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7487
TNOs planetforming - coalescing the OO and KB mass
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=407
High-contrast JWST-MIRI spectroscopy of planet-forming disks for the JDISC Survey
https://jwstfeed.com/PostView/FeedPost? … 1.17020v1a
The fluffy atmosphere of the exoplanet WASP-107b
https://www.mpg.de/21091930/jwst-peers- … -exoplanet
Data of the James Webb Space Telescope contain signatures of water vapour, sulfur dioxide and sand clouds
Archive
https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-11-29 20:04:24)
Offline
Pages: 1