Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:39 PM Feb 2013

Question about asteroids being 'left over stuff from planet making'

I've heard this said multiple times on the teevee in the past 48 hours.

I've wondered about how that is inferred.

How do we know it's left over stuff from making planets and not stuff that remains from planetoids breaking apart?

Is it assumed that the asteroids are in a steady state where nothing about their mass is changing or is it assumed that they are in some sort of equilibrium between accumulating into bigger masses and breaking apart?







6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Question about asteroids being 'left over stuff from planet making' (Original Post) HereSince1628 Feb 2013 OP
Asteroid Formation and Evolution DreamGypsy Feb 2013 #1
Thanks. HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #2
They said it wrong... Moonwalk Feb 2013 #3
Either way, I do find it interesting that they are spoken of as "left-overs" HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #4
I agree--the process is certainly on-going--as asteroids can still clump together or hit planets... Moonwalk Feb 2013 #5
It's all leftovers Paulie Feb 2013 #6

DreamGypsy

(2,252 posts)
1. Asteroid Formation and Evolution
Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:17 PM
Feb 2013

I looked this up yesterday, prompted by a similar question. I found the answers to be interesting and thought provoking.

From Wikipedia - Asteroid Belt:

Formation

<snip>

Planetesimals within the region which would become the asteroid belt were too strongly perturbed by Jupiter's gravity to form a planet. Instead they continued to orbit the Sun as before, while occasionally colliding.[26] In regions where the average velocity of the collisions was too high, the shattering of planetesimals tended to dominate over accretion,[27] preventing the formation of planet-sized bodies. Orbital resonances occurred where the orbital period of an object in the belt formed an integer fraction of the orbital period of Jupiter, perturbing the object into a different orbit; the region lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter contains many such orbital resonances. As Jupiter migrated inward following its formation, these resonances would have swept across the asteroid belt, dynamically exciting the region's population and increasing their velocities relative to each other.[28]

During the early history of the Solar System, the asteroids melted to some degree, allowing elements within them to be partially or completely differentiated by mass. Some of the progenitor bodies may even have undergone periods of explosive volcanism and formed magma oceans. However, because of the relatively small size of the bodies, the period of melting was necessarily brief (compared to the much larger planets), and had generally ended about 4.5 billion years ago, in the first tens of millions of years of formation.[29] In August 2007, a study of zircon crystals in an Antarctic meteorite believed to have originated from 4 Vesta suggested that it, and by extension the rest of the asteroid belt, had formed rather quickly, within ten million years of the Solar System's origin.[30]



Evolution

The asteroids are not samples of the primordial Solar System. They have undergone considerable evolution since their formation, including internal heating (in the first few tens of millions of years), surface melting from impacts, space weathering from radiation, and bombardment by micrometeorites.[31] While some scientists refer to the asteroids as residual planetesimals,[32] other scientists consider them distinct.[33]

The current asteroid belt is believed to contain only a small fraction of the mass of the primordial belt. Computer simulations suggest that the original asteroid belt may have contained mass equivalent to the Earth. Primarily because of gravitational perturbations, most of the material was ejected from the belt within about a million years of formation, leaving behind less than 0.1% of the original mass.[26] Since their formation, the size distribution of the asteroid belt has remained relatively stable: there has been no significant increase or decrease in the typical dimensions of the main-belt asteroids.[34]

The 4:1 orbital resonance with Jupiter, at a radius 2.06 AU, can be considered the inner boundary of the asteroid belt. Perturbations by Jupiter send bodies straying there into unstable orbits. Most bodies formed inside the radius of this gap were swept up by Mars (which has an aphelion at 1.67 AU) or ejected by its gravitational perturbations in the early history of the Solar System.[35] The Hungaria asteroids lie closer to the Sun than the 4:1 resonance, but are protected from disruption by their high inclination.[36]

When the asteroid belt was first formed, the temperatures at a distance of 2.7 AU from the Sun formed a "snow line" below the freezing point of water. Planetesimals formed beyond this radius were able to accumulate ice.[37][38] In 2006 it was announced that a population of comets had been discovered within the asteroid belt beyond the snow line, which may have provided a source of water for Earth's oceans. According to some models, there was insufficient outgassing of water during the Earth's formative period to form the oceans, requiring an external source such as a cometary bombardment.[39]


I love learning stuff like this. Every day brings a new corner of science to light.

Moonwalk

(2,322 posts)
3. They said it wrong...
Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:34 PM
Feb 2013

While asteroids *can* be from planets that didn't work or broke apart--torn apart by bigger planets with strong gravity, or by larger planets smashing into them (our moon is one such instance of this--broken off from us), what they really are are the building blocks for planets. Gravity pulled together primordial particles, which, as they gained more mass had more gravity and gained more particles--more mass, more gravity....which drew and drew them to larger bodies, which then smashed into each other, etc.

These formed into planets...or not.

It's a bit difficult to know which asteroids came from smashed/ripped apart planets/planetoids (and thus are planet left-overs) and which ones were formed into rocks but never into a planet/planetoid and, thus, can't technically be planet "leftovers."

It would be more accurate to say that asteroids are the leftovers from the planet-making process of the solar system.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
4. Either way, I do find it interesting that they are spoken of as "left-overs"
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:38 AM
Feb 2013

Such a word suggests only past process...rather than something that involves contemporary dynamics.








Moonwalk

(2,322 posts)
5. I agree--the process is certainly on-going--as asteroids can still clump together or hit planets...
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:26 PM
Feb 2013

...however, I can give those who call them left-overs this: unlike in the early days of the solar system, there are now big planets out there which suck most asteroids into them rather than letting them clump or crash into smaller planets (lucky for us! Thank you Jupiter!). Thus, the time for planet building and the like really was earlier, and current arrivals are late to the party. So, in a way, they are "left-overs." Bits that didn't get incorporate and aren't likely to be incorporated (in any meaningful way that is--i.e. creating a planet). It isn't impossible for them, but it's much less likely.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Question about asteroids ...