Printer Friendly

Origin of planetary systems due to dichotomous division of the ejected superheat mass.


The initial thesis of this original hypothesis is that a star is able to eject a part of its mass at the earliest stage of evolution, on reaching culmination of the inner nonequilibrium. The initial ejected into outer space protoplanetary mass is very unstable and a further chain of catastrophic division follows. According to the model of solar system formation, the triple cycle of dichotomous (into two components) division had led to the origin of eight main planets. The ejected smaller clots of matter formed satellites, asteroids, comets and meteorites. It has been considered how the dichotomous conception explains main regularities of the solar system structure including angular momentum distribution, position of the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and opposite rotation of Venus and Uranus around their axes.

I. Introduction

The author's conception explaining the formation of solar planets and satellites by means of successive dichotomous (i.e., to two components) division of hot protoplanetary mass ejected from the sun was first suggested in 1993. (1) The conception is based on the initial thesis that a star is able to eject a part of its mass at the earliest stage of evolution (i.e., able to divide under certain conditions), due to the nonequilibrium inner processes. At the beginning of the 1990's, the thesis represented only assumption. But the dichotomous conception on which it was based, nevertheless, allowed scientists to overcome some obstacles in the understanding of solar system construction (angular momentum distribution, position of the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, opposite rotation of Venus and Uranus around their axes, etc.). For the last several years, it has become evident that ejection of plasma phenomenon is widespread in the Universe, as well as accretion phenomenon. (2) Given here is a remarkable example of the ejection event (as shown in Figure 1). In particular, non-relativistic jets with terminal velocities are in the order of few hundred to a few thousand km s -1 and are now known to emanate from very young stars. (3) In fact, ejection of a star represents its division into two non-equal, or equal components. The search for a cause of the division allowed further elaboration on the dichotomous conception. (4) Another great event in astronomy was the discovery of the extrasolar planets (more than 100 by now) beginning in 1995. (5,6) All these new data were taken into consideration in the advanced version of the conception presented in this article. It joins the dichotomous hypothesis of stars division and the dichotomous conception of the formation of planetary systems.


II. Dichotomous Hypothesis of Stars Division


According to common opinion, a star is a ball of hot gas at the equilibrium state. In a functioning star, gravitational forces directed to its contraction, and heat pressure of gas directed to its expansion, are at equilibrium. The equilibrium between these two forces imparts high stability to a star, which is reflected in constancy of its characteristics (radius, luminosity, radiation spectrum, surface temperature, etc.).

At the same time, the stellar equilibrium is not rigidly determined, but prone to more or less regular fluctuations. Variable stars whose luminosity is non-stationary are widespread. But even stationary stars, as solar observations show, are characterized by certain variations in luminosity. This suggests that along with the mechanism that maintains the equilibrium, there is a certain "nonequilibrium-generating" mechanism. The latter is of most interest in analyzing the intrinsic causes that are responsible for ejection events, i.e., for division of a star.

Variations in stellar luminosity are commonly associated with the radius change (contraction--expansion). The surface temperature also changes. The luminosity-radius relationship indicates that the "nonequilibrium-generating" mechanism is connected with the changes in the interaction between the two principal forces that determine the functioning of a star, i.e., gravitation and heat pressure. Let us consider two idealised models--spherical systems identical in shape to a star, with the aim of recognizing how these forces interact in a functioning star. In the first model, we will examine how mass is distributed in the spherical system (including the position of mass center with the respect to geometric center of the system) under the condition that only the gravitational force acts in the system, whereas the opposing force brought about by heat pressure is absent. In the second model, we will consider the distribution of temperature in the system heated up relative to the surrounding medium (and the position of the point of maximum temperature with the respect to geometric centre of the system), under the condition that these regularities are not distorted by gravitational forces. The intent of these models is to theoretically examine the action of forces generated by gravitation, on the one hand, and heat pressure, on the other, in the abstract spherical system.

Idealised model 1. Shown in Figure 2A is a spherical system consisting of irregularly distributed particles of varying densities. As the initial assumption, particles freely move relative to each other (friction forces are absent), i.e., the system can evolve to the equilibrium state. Ultimately, particles in such a system will be arranged in such a fashion that the mass center will be at the geometric center of the figure (ideal sphere). The terrestrial globe, where the gravitational compression prevails over much of the heat expansion, is an evident analogue for the model of this kind. Its global differentiation during the early period of liquid state had led to the disposal of the mass center approximately in the geometric center of the sphere. Correspondingly, heavy elements concentrate in the core.


Idealised model 2. We have a spherical system that is heated up with respect to the surroundings. It can consist of any homogeneous matter (Figure 2B). Such a system will be irreversibly cooled off as the heat flow is directed outward. The heat flow is initiated by the temperature gradient between the point of maximum temperature, which is located in the central part of the system, and peripheral zone of minimum temperature. Under given ideal conditions, the center (point) of maximum temperature will occupy the geometric center of the figure (ideal sphere). Such, its situation is the most advantageous from the energy standpoint. The maximum temperature point will hold the geometric center till the system gets cold and the temperature gradient disappears. For example, we can take a ball filled with water, and put it into a refrigerator. The water will begin to freeze and to transform into ice; the last reservoir of liquid water will be in the center of the ball.

From the above, it appears that both the mass center and the maximum temperature center occupy the geometric center of the figure in idealised spherical systems. But in the idealised models, we agreed to omit from our consideration the opposing interaction between forces generated by gravity and heat pressure; whereas in a real spherical system (i.e., a star), they are inexorably associated with and counteract each other. The foregoing shows that the following situation should exist in a star: Two centers at once are striving to occupy the geometric center of the figure.

For the maximum temperature center in this case, there must be an abundance of hydrogen and other light elements at the geometric center of the figure. Their transformation in the course of thermonuclear reactions brings about a rise in temperature.

These two scenarios of the 'filling in' of the stellar geometric center with matter are mutually exclusive. This suggests that the mass center and that of a maximum temperature must constantly compete with each other throughout the lifetime of the star to occupy its geometric center. Early in the stellar evolution, when synthesized heavy elements are few in number and hydrogen (the most efficient nuclear fuel) is abundant, the geometric center must be taken up by the area where vigorously proceeding thermonuclear processes yield a maximum of energy. Late in the stellar evolution when the ratio between hydrogen and synthesised heavier elements changes in favour of the latter, the geometric center will be taken up by the mass center--the core essentially made up of nucleosynthesis products. Then a stellar cycle--from its origin to its collapse--can be considered as a gradual transition from one dominant (forces generated by heat pressure) to the other (gravitational force). The competition between the centers of mass and maximum temperature for a position at the geometric center of the figure imparts a hidden inner nonequilibrium to a star. The resultant of the two center's interaction, in its turn, controls the processes in other parts of a star. It follows that an internal nonequilibrium state can be considered as an integral feature of a star.

The principal question is whether or not internal nonequilibrium of a star can attain a critical value, leading to radical change of its structure (i.e., bifurcation). Since stellar stability is maintained by the balance between gravitation and heat pressure, it is apparent that a sweeping transformation of its structure (bifurcation) is related to the disturbance of equilibrium between these opposite forces. Two types of stellar bifurcation are possible.

1. An abrupt shift of equilibrium towards gravitation produces the first type of bifurcation--a collapse. It takes place in the closing stages of the stellar evolution when heat pressure of gas cannot counterbalance the gravitational contraction. This is a well-known process in the death of stars.

2. An abrupt shift of equilibrium towards heat pressure produces the second type of bifurcation--an ejection event, i.e., a stellar division. The best opportunity for this type of bifurcation occurs at the earliest stages of a star's life when hydrogen in the stellar core is still copious and heavy elements are still not accumulated. Hence, heat expansion stands a good chance for dominating the gravitational contraction. However, a rapid increase in inner temperature, due to the beginning of more energy-generating thermonuclear reaction, gives a chance for division, or at least, for blowing off outer layers of a star later in its life. As considered above, existence of the ejection events in cosmos was recently confirmed. It can be supposed that a star is able to divide until it possesses significant internal instability.

General scheme of the origin of stellar associations. 4 Potential ability of very young stars for division allows us to outline the dichotomous hypothesis of the origin of stellar associations. Unlike the existing theory of stellar associations' origin, the dichotomous hypothesis supposes that all stars in the association appear due to the division of a single (or few) stars-forming seat. In fact, the hypothesis represents only a sketch, which needs to be worked out in detail. But it is supported by some facts, which are given at the end of the chapter. In the general case, formation of a stellar association can be conditionally divided into the following stages:

* Gravitational contraction of hydrogen cloud accompanied by an increase in temperature in the center of this system.

* Start of the first thermonuclear reactions (helium synthesis from hydrogen); balancing of the gravitational contraction in the star-forming center through heat expansion. An exceptionally massive seat is responsible for an extremely high temperature in its interior, profound alterations of matter, and extremely high rate of nucleosynthesis.

* A spontaneous increase in the intensity of thermonuclear reactions and temperature in the star-forming seat; the predominance of heat pressure over gravitational contraction; the onset of the matter outflow from the system. The zone of maximum temperature where hydrogen is abundant and thermonuclear reactions are intense is located at the geometric center of the star-forming seat.

* The accumulation of elements heavier than hydrogen as a result of thermonuclear reactions, which makes the system more opaque and augments its gravitational contraction. An initial core of the system, which contains abundant end products of reactions, i.e., heavy and light elements, is being formed. The core makes an effort to occupy the geometric center of the system and to force out the zone of a maximum temperature. The opposition between the heavy core (mass center) and the zone of a maximum intensity of thermonuclear reactions (maximum temperature center) builds up.

* Since the temperature in the seat increases rapidly and end products of nucleosynthesis are really not abundant, the dominating center of a maximum temperature forces out the competing mass center (heavy core) from the system. An excess of heat energy is converted into mechanical work to eject a fraction of mass from the system. The interior of a star is broken up into two components, each attracting a fraction of the system mass. Division of the initial protostellar seat is going on in such a manner so that the center of mass forms one component that generally is more massive, while the center of a maximum temperature forms the other, which is hotter.

* The fragmentation of the system and augmentation of its total surface result in an intense 'cooling off' of the near-surface parts of these components. This leads to an increase in the temperature gradient between their outer and inner parts, a build up of the force generated by heat pressure, which dominates the gravitational contraction in this span of time. A repeat division of both components occurs in a similar fashion. A chain reaction of fragmentation continues till excessive heat, converted to mechanical work, is fully used in fragmenting the primeval star-forming mass into discrete stars. Upon completion of the fragmentation cycle, the two forces (i.e., gravitational contraction and heat extension of gas) are balanced and the stars that appear transform into functioning systems of a higher stability.

The suggested schematic reconstruction rests upon the following facts.

1. Young stars appear from gas clouds always in associations.

2. The ejection of single stars from star-forming seats is observed periodically. This event can naturally be explained by the fact that these stars obtain a large store of kinetic energy through the division.

3. Divisible (pair) stellar systems are extremely widespread. They comprise as much as half the main sequence stars.

4. In binary stellar systems, as a rule, one of the components is more massive, while the other is hotter as it follows from the proposed hypothesis.

5. Stars in binary systems rotate around the common center of mass. According to the hypothesis, the common is the geometric center of the former single maternal star.

So, the proposed hypothesis suggests that populations of young stars form through the chain reaction of division of a single (in the general case) star-forming seat. Spacious hydrogen clouds, involved in the star-forming seat, provide extremely intense thermonuclear reactions and yield enough energy to form huge stellar cluster.

III. Dichotomous Formation of Planetary Systems

(On example of the Solar system)

1. Ejection of the Protoplanetary Mass from the Sun and its Initial Division

About 4.5-5 billion years ago, the Sun was a very young star. From the point of view of the dichotomous conception, a characteristic feature of very young stars implies that heat expansion often dominates over gravitational contraction. This is supported by observations of young T Tauri stars. Violent convection processes operate in them, which can be interpreted as a reflection of tense competition between the center of mass and that of a maximum temperature to occupy the geometric center of the star. The fact that a significant amount of matter outflows from their surface emphasizes a dominating role of heat pressure.

Early in the development, the young Sun was mainly comprised of hydrogen, as well as minor amounts of heavy elements--silicon, magnesium, calcium, iron, etc. The area of a maximum temperature where thermonuclear synthesis proceeded in the most vigorous manner (presumably) occupied its geometric center. As the light elements, primarily hydrogen, were burning away and the end products of reactions were accumulating, the star was turning more opaque, and its core, where a major portion of heavy elements concentrated, was growing. This caused the gravitational contraction to build up, and the core to shift to the geometric center of the Sun. Hence, the competition between the center of maximum temperature and that of mass to occupy the center of the system gathered momentum. In such a situation, the process can take one of the two paths: gradual replacement of the stellar center by the heavy core in the course of burning away of hydrogen and other light elements; sharp discharging of tension, i.e., bifurcation--the ejection of the heavy core (mass center) from the star by the competing center of maximum temperature. In the latter case, stars must have a store of free energy, which is enough to separate two bodies in the outer space.

The fact that the Sun has a planetary system historically suggests that the second scenario worked. The heavy core was ejected, which by the force of its gravity, pulled on a fraction of the Sun mass (Figure 3). The mechanical work to perform division of two bodies in the outer space was done by the heat and kinetic energy of the Sun. The subsequent cycle of breaking up governed the formation of all the bodies from the ejected mass in the solar system.


A clot of the protoplanetary mass was ejected from the central part of the infant Sun, where temperature can be arbitrary assessed at some million degrees. As a result of the ejection, the clot of the protoplanetary mass passed into a different medium--outer space, where the temperature was near the absolute zero. It triggered the following chain of catastrophic consequences: An extremely rapid cooling of the outer parts in the newly formed system; A sharp temperature gradient formed between its inner and outer parts; The force generated by heat pressure increased in a spasmodic manner; The ejection of the heavy core was accompanied by the division of the system into two components (Figure 3); A high proportion of silicon, magnesium, calcium, iron, and other elements that were disseminated throughout the protoplanetary mass and kept the system opaque, were also ejected ("filtered out"); The luminosity of both main divided components abruptly increased.

By and large, it was a chaotic process accompanied by an energetic transfer of matter by convection, and was sustained by the energy that was present in the system in large excess. A division of the protoplanetary mass into two components was accompanied by a chaotic ejection of abundant small-sized clots of matter that formed as disseminated heavy elements were forced out by the heat pressure (Figure 4). The great bulk of these clots (protoasteroids, protocomets, protometeorites) entered the gravity field of one of the components and eventually fell into it; only bodies in the zone of equal gravitational pull of both components remained independent (Figure 5). Abundance of the small bodies in the Solar system allows us to suppose availability of smaller centers of mass (temperature, as well) inside the young Sun that appeared as a result of intensive convection and sharp heterogeneity before the ejection event. Since breaking up of the protoplanetary mass occurred in the gravitational pull of the Sun, the component with higher density, i.e., the ejected core, occupied the inner orbit.


The proposed reconstruction conforms to the following fundamental regularities in the solar system structure.

1. The solar system is characterized by the following mass and angular momentum distribution: more than 99% of the mass is within the Sun, while 98% of angular momentum in the orbital movement of planets (formed in a course of the subsequent breakups of the protoplanetary mass). According to the dichotomous conception, at the instant of ejection, the energy of the Sun rotation transfers into the forward movement of the protoplanetary mass due to the repulsion between the centers breaking apart. The protoplanetary mass gained acceleration required to overcome the gravitational pull of the Sun, whereas its rotation slowed down.

2. Planets of the solar system are divided into two groups: low-density outer and high-density inner planets. According to the proposed reconstruction, this is due to the existence of inner and outer protoplanetary masses of contrasting densities that later on were subjected to further break up. The inner protoplanetary mass was a heavy core ejected from the primeval system whose discrete fragments (inner planets) were of high density. The outer solar system's planets are discrete fragments of the outer component, which ejected the core and disseminated heavy elements (as small clots) and hence was originally depleted in them. Being of high kinetic energy and weakly pulled to the Sun due to its low density, it moved to a much longer distance from the Sun. The Trans-Neptunian (Kuiper) comet belt, consisting of the lightest small bodies, is situated behind the orbit of Neptune. (7)

3. The asteroid belt is between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, i.e., between the outer and the inner solar system planets. In the context of the proposed reconstruction, asteroids in the belt are congealed droplets of matter ejected during the break up of the initial protoplanetary mass. But their own independent existence was saved due to their location in the zone of gravitational equilibrium between the outer protoplanetary components and the Sun (with the small gravitational input of the inner components) (Figure 5). The asteroids, as well as comets, which possessed unstable orbits, fell to the planets and satellites during the period of heavy bombardment (4.6-3.8 billion years ago) and formed plentiful craters on their surfaces.

4. Asteroids and meteorites with unstable orbits and captured with time by larger bodies were responsible for numerous craters on planetary surfaces of the various solar system's bodies.

5. Asteroids and meteorites are made up of the matter where heavy elements dominate. This fact supports the conclusion about the ejection of disseminated heavy elements that kept the system opaque and "blocked in" its radiation.

6. Chondritic texture is typical of many meteorites. This lends support to the view that matter originally was in a molten state. Commonly occurring "chondrulein-chondrule" texture is indicative of multiple liquation layering of matter and its intense chaotic mixing (convection).

2. Formation of the Planets of the Solar System

Inner and outer components of the broken-up initial protoplanetary mass are unstable systems. An increase of their total surface as a result of breaking up causes the rate of cooling to increase that keeps heat pressure at a high level. Being small in size, both components cannot maintain the same intensity of thermonuclear reactions in their interiors and irreversibly cool off. Using qualitative assessments as the base, both components, though small in size, may be considered as possessing a great store of free energy (i.e., part of inner energy that can be converted into work) that was received from the Sun. Systems of this kind are capable of further division due to weak gravitational contraction forces and high values of heat/ radiation pressure. Excess free energy fuels this process.

Following the break up, a new cycle of competition between the center of mass and that of a maximum temperature commences in each detached mass. Although each mass is not large enough to provide thermonuclear fusion, the heat pressure is maintained due to the huge store of heat energy and exceptionally high thermal gradient between their internal and external parts. Partial energy losses from the dissipation and break up cause the gravitational contraction to increase, as well as heavy cores in the interior, displacing towards the geometric center of the system to detach. As a result, the struggle between the consolidating heavy core (center of mass) and the center of a maximum temperature is enhanced. A similar cycle of break up occurs as both components remain unstable and possess high energetic potential. The following reconstruction is most satisfied by the peculiarities of the solar system's structure: The inner component divided into two systems--proto-Mercury + proto-Venus and proto-Earth + proto-Mars, and the outer component into proto-Jupiter + proto-Saturn and proto-Uranus + proto-Neptune. In the subsequent cycle, all the eight protoplanets become separated (Figures 6 and 7). From several points of view (in particular, compositional), Mars is closer to Earth than to other inner planets. The same concerns apply to the pairs Jupiter and Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. In addition, such reconstruction allows suggesting an explanation to the back rotation of Venus and Uranus (see below). It should be specially considered in the future why proto-Mercury + proto-Venus are closer to the Sun, in spite of smaller mass in comparison to another pair component. Maybe these protoplanets received less kinetic energy during the division process, or the position of the rotating inner component in respect to the Sun and a much more massive outer component promoted such distribution of the protoplanets in space. The formation of proto-Pluto will be considered in the next section. It may well be that these break up cycles were also accompanied by the ejection (spewing out) of molten material (proto- asteroids, comets, meteorites).


This reconstruction of the processes is supported by the following facts.

1. The orbits of the eight planets are almost circular and lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun (maximum angle for Mercury is 7[degrees]). They move in their orbits in the same direction as the Sun. In the context of the proposed reconstruction, the most probable spot for the ejection of the protoplanetary mass from the Sun is its equator. Parameters of planetary rotations locate the ejection spot in the equatorial plane of the Sun in the direction of its rotation.

2. The planetary rotation axes, as a rule, are not perpendicular to the ecliptic. It means that the planets formed through a complex chaotic process. The fact in question provides support for an important role of the chaotic processes in division of the protoplanetary mass that took place due to excessive free energy in the primordial protoplanetary system.

3. Venus and Uranus rotate around their axes in the opposite direction compared with the other planets. As noted above in the theoretical section, the breaking up process is maintained by means of the repulsive forces. The presence of these forces, in particular, explains angular momentum transfer from the Sun to the protoplanetary mass: the former slowed down its rotation, whereas the latter sped up, which allowed it to enter the orbit around the Sun. That is, the components being in equilibrium at a certain point curved in different direction as they repel each other. A similar process occurred when the planets were formed. The inner protoplanetary mass was broken up in such a manner that the rotation of the proto-Earth + proto-Mars system sped up (these planets rotate fast), while the rotation of the proto-Mercury + proto-Venus system slowed down (these planets rotate slowly). A repeat break up of proto-Mercury and proto-Venus triggered curving of the latter in the opposite direction. Evidently, a similar process in the course of the break up of the outer protoplanetary mass triggered curving of Uranus in the opposite direction.

4. The planets Earth and probably Venus are geologically active with vigorous endogenous processes (volcanism, tectonics). The endogenous activity on Mars almost ceased; on Mercury, there is no evidence whatsoever of it. The proposed reconstruction interprets it thus: From the intrinsic causes, it follows that the two resulting components receive different amounts of energy--the system with the ejected heavy core at the center receives a minimum. The protoplanets that receive minor amounts of heat energy cool off fast and the endogenous activity in them ceases. The protoplanets that receive a great deal of heat energy upon their coming into existence cool off slowly and gradually, and their geological evolution sustained by the energy potential preserved in the interior.

3. Formation of the Planetary Satellites

The formation of planetary satellites is associated with further progression of the chain reaction of the protoplanetary mass break-up. Newly formed protoplanets retain their ability to divide. Combination of the rapid cooling of their surfaces and superheat internal part supports exceptionally high thermal gradient and, as a result, intensive heat flow outside. According to the Onsager theorem, which is in a basis of the irreversible thermodynamics, there appear irreversible processes of heat conductivity, diffusion, and chemical reactions in the system where gradients of temperature, concentrations and chemical potentials exist. (8) It follows that heat flow in a melt or solution inevitably initiates flow of component(s) concentration(s), and visa versa. In the general case, the more intensive the heat flow--the more intensive the flow of concentration(s). So, an outflow of matter from protoplanets seems as usual a phenomenon as outflow of heat energy. A catastrophic loss of the energy could generate a catastrophic ejection of matter. In the context of this theoretically formulated thesis, protosatellites were ejected from the protoplanets in the manner described above. A heavy core that shifts toward the geometric center becomes separated. Later on, the process took somewhat different paths in the inner and outer protoplanets.

In proto-Mercury, proto-Venus and proto-Mars, judging by the absence of large excess of heat energy, the heavy core, evidently, occupies the geometric centre of the body where no thermonuclear reactions occur upon cooling. The proto-Earth preserved enough heat energy to eject the Moon. The outer protoplanets form satellite systems around themselves due to their large mass and a significant store of heat energy. Through heat pressure, the consolidating heavy core (or its part) and disseminated heavy elements were violently ejected from the interiors. The ejected protoplanetary cores underwent further fragmentation and resulted in protosatellites formation. Normally, the kinetic energy was only enough for protosatellites to go into orbit around the planets. There is one exception--Pluto. In compliance with the proposed reconstruction, Pluto, being by origin a satellite of Neptune received enough kinetic energy to defeat Neptune's gravity and go into orbit around the Sun.

As an example, let us consider the formation of the Jupiter satellites' system. Their physical parameters are given in Table 1.

As the table suggests, all the satellites can be classed into four groups of four objects each. Satellites in each group have comparable dimensions (Amalthea is somewhat different) and rotate in closely spaced orbits. Orbits of some pairs of satellites are very close (Lysithea and Elara; Anake and Sinope), while Andrasthea and Methis have co-planar orbits. Distances between groups of satellites are significantly greater than those between orbits of satellites in the groups. In the context of the concept in the developing stages, these regularities suggest that satellites in each group formed through double division of a single protosatellite. In principal, four primeval protosatellites could have been formed by several processes, but most likely were formed through double division of the initial protosatellite mass ejected by Jupiter. One can further elaborate this issue while refining the reconstruction.

Thus, the formation of satellites is associated with further division of protoplanets, i.e., planets whose matter is still in a molten state. The following facts are in evidence of this statement.

1. Satellites of planets-giants are heavier and are of the terrestrial type. As noted above, this is related to the fact that the cores ejected by thermal pressure, as well as disseminated heavy elements, cause the gravitational contraction to increase, and are in opposition to the thermal pressure.

2. The arrangement of the Galilean satellites around Jupiter is governed by the same regularity as the arrangement of planets around the Sun, i.e., the closer they are to the planet, the higher their densities are. This is related to the break up of the ejected protosatellites mass in Jupiter's gravitational field with the result that denser objects are closer to Jupiter.

3. Among Galilean satellites of Jupiter, Io and Callisto are antipodes. Io is a geologically active body where volcanic and tectonic processes occur. There is practically no evidence of the impact craters' presence on its surface. The surface of Callisto is severely cratered by impacts with objects, and there is no evidence of tectonic activity. As already noted, the components that become separated receive different amounts of heat energy. In this connection, Io can be considered as the body, which received a maximum of energy during the formation of the Galilean satellites. It has not cooled off yet and the evidence of impacts by asteroids and meteorites in the early solar system formation has been eroded through geologic processes. Besides, tidal forces from Jupiter could contribute to its geological activity, too. Callisto received a minimum of energy; its surface solidified rapidly, and impact craters appear to be preserved on the surface.

4. Pluto differs from the other planets by its elliptical orbit and its larger inclination to the ecliptic plane (17,2[degrees]). This fact, as well as the intersection of its orbit by the Neptune orbit, suggests that it is derivative of this planet that received a great deal of energy in the course of ejection.

5. It is not strictly that Earth orbits the Sun, but, rather the mass-center of Earth-Moon system, which is in the mantle of our planet at 4 700 km from its geometric center. This allows the supposition that in the past, the Earth and the Moon were a single body orbiting the Sun. Future exploration of compositional correlation between celestial and terrestrial basalts, as well as their comparison with basalts from Mars and Venus, would be helpful in obtaining additional facts to clarify this question.

4 Global Liquation Differentiation of Planets and their Further Evolution

The following episode of the protoplanetary division is of a merely intrinsic nature. Due to cooling, heat energy of protoplanets is not enough to eject a fraction of mass from them. A process of global liquation of protoplanetary matter occurs to form interface between immiscible phases. Marakushev and Bezmen, who considered this process in the context of their model for the hot origin of the solar system planets, recognized two major episodes in protoplanetary layering. (10) The inner pallasite (iron-rich) and the outer achondritic (silicon-rich) layers are formed in the course of the first episode of initial layering. The pallasite layer, thereafter, becomes separated into an iron core and a lower mantle of the iron-olivine norm. The outer achondritic zone undergoes basite-ultrabasite differentiation to form the upper ultrabasic mantle and the basic crust. Obviously, contrast liquation processes proceed vigorously in the earlier stages of the protoplanetary mass break-up, too (it was fixed by abundant liquation events in meteorites).

Cooling of the planets and satellites proceeds by now. The bodies, which received minor amounts of heat energy at their formation (Mercury, Moon, Callisto, etc.), cool off fast. While solidifying, their surfaces are bombarded by debris thrown into unstable orbits in the course of the solar system formation. A record of it--impact craters--can be observed. The planets, which acquired a great deal of heat energy at their formation (Venus, Earth, and Io), cool off slowly. Athick crystalline cover preserves their molten cores from rapid cooling. The surplus of free energy is spent on a working of the system: displacement of tectonic blocks, volcanic eruptions, high-temperature mineral alterations, etc. Partially, the energy is dissipated into outer space. The continuous transformation of surfaces of the geologically active planets results in erosion of impact craters that formed after their solidification. Of course, the trapped heat energy is not the only source of energy for the Earth. One can approximately calculate its contribution by taking into account the proposed reconstruction of the solar system's origin.

Following are the facts that are in favor of the theoretical constructions.

1. According to various geophysical models, there are distinct interfaces in the Earth's interior with abrupt transitions from one layer to another. These constructions correlate well with data on meteorites' material. Models for other planets' inner structure are also indicative of their layering.

2. Mega-cycles on all planets commenced with an outburst of the tectonic-magmatic activity simultaneously in all hemispheres. (11) These outbursts in compliance with the proposed reconstruction, are gradually weakening pulsations of the system whose initial impetus was preceding processes of the division and global layering of planets. Their synchronism supports the conclusion about the correlation between energy processes in the system that can actually be co-ordinated only by the central global magmatic system that is located in the core and preserves the energy potential received at the formation.

3. The Earth irreversibly evolves. The continuous differentiation of magmatic and ore formations takes place in the course of the Earth's crust evolution. (12)

4. In studies of meteorites (ancient rocks of the Moon and the Earth), there were no records of progressive mineral alterations accompanied by an increase in temperature that could suggest warming-up of the Earth following cold accretion. All alterations are of a regressive nature, which is indicative of a continuous cooling of the originally molten matter. (10)

5 Other Planetary Systems

The latest achievements in the exploration of extra-solar planets show us that the principal scheme of the solar system formation described above could be more or less common for other planetary systems formation. Based on the described model, it is possible to expect the following characteristic features of young protoplanetary disks: Flat shape (due to ejection of the initial mass from the equatorial zone of the star); Complex inner structure including a great number of small bodies, which hide some big ones; Fast transition from bright to dark coloring due to rapid hardening of the external small bodies (first of all, comets of the Kuiper belt, in the case of the solar system). Besides, the close proximity of most of the extra-solar planetary companions to their central star is consistent with the behavior of binary stars. Moreover, the orbital properties such as eccentricity of all the companions are consistent with the orbital properties of binary stars. Some of planetary companions are in elliptical orbits smaller than that of Mercury around the Sun.

Many scientists argue that the mechanism of collapse due to the gravitational fragmentation of interstellar clouds- thought to be responsible for the formation of stars and brown dwarfs- could not make objects this small. (13) It follows from the elaborated conception that the Jupiter-like planets (consisting of light elements) should revolve on more distant orbits than the Earthlike planets. So the planetary systems where giant planets revolve closely to their stars are not very suitable for life search. In this case, we should expect that the orbits of small rocky planets would be situated between the giant planets and the star where it is too hot for life existence. Nevertheless, the example of Pluto shows us that a small planet can possess more distant orbit from the star in comparison to the maternal planet (Neptune). The planetary systems possessing remote giant planets (like 16 CygB, 47 UMa) seem to be much more appropriate for the search for extraterrestrial life. In these systems, the Earth-like orbits, which are the most optimal for life due to possible availability of liquid water, are located between the star and giant planets.


(1.) Kompanichenko, V. N. (1993). Nonequilibrium of Stars and the Origin of the Solar System. Khabarovsk: DC AEN (In Russian).

(2.) Mirabel, I. F. and Rodriguez, L. F. (1999). "Sources of Relativistic Jets in the Galaxy." Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys, 37, 409-443.

(3.) Reipurth, B. and Bertout, C. (1997). "Herbig-Haro Flows and the Birth of Stars." IAU Symposium, No 182. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

(4.) Kompanichenko, V. N. (2002). Nonequilibrium of Stars and Dichotomous Origin of Planetary Systems. Khabarovsk: DC AEN.

(5.) Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Udry, S., Halbwachs, J-L. (1997). "From Brown Dwarfs to Planets." Astronomical and Biochemical Origins and the Search for life in the Universe. Italy: Editrice Cospositori, 313-330.

(6.) Marcy, G. W., Butler, P. R., Fisher, D. A., Vogt, S. S. (2000). "Extrasolar Planets around Main Sequence Stars." A New Era in Bioastronomy. San Francisco: ASP Conference Series, 213, 85-94.

(7.) Luu, J. (2001). "The Kuiper Belt." Cosmic Horizons. New York: The New Press, 26-30.

(8.) Onsager, L. (1931). "Reciprocal Relations in Irreversible Processes." Physical Review, 38, N12, 2265.

(9.) Whipple, F. L. (1981). Orbiting the Sun. Mass.: Harvard University Press.

(10.) Marakushev, A. A., Bezmen, N. I. (1983). Evolution of Meteoritic Substance, Planets and Magmatic Series. Moscow: Nauka (In Russian).

(11.) Milanovskiy, E. E., Nikishin, A. M. (1985). "The Character of the Megacycles of Earth, Mars and Moon." Doklady Earth Science, 280, N5, 1204-1209.

(12.) Rundkwist, D. V. (1982). "Using of Regularities of Mineral Deposits' Evolution in Time in Metallogenic Research." Zapiski of Russian mineralogical society, 3, N4, 407-421 (In Russian).

(13.) Black, D. C. (2001). "Detecting Extra-Solar Planets." Cosmic Horizons. New York: The New Press, 34-39.

Vladimir Kompanichenko

Institute for Complex Analysis, ITIG, 65 Kim Yu Chen St., Khabarovsk 680000, Russia

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064. Email:
Table 1. Main characteristics of Jupiter's satellites. (9)

 Radius, Satellite
Satellite [10.sup.3]km Radius, km

14 Andrasthea 128 20 [+ or -] 5
16 Methis 128 20 [+ or -] 5
15 Phiva 181 135 x 85 x 75
1 Io 221 40 [+ or -] 5
2 Europa 422 1815 [+ or -] 5
3 Ganymede 671 1569 [+ or -] 10
4 Callisto 1070 2631 [+ or -] 10
13 Lede 1880 2400 [+ or -] 10
6 Himalia 11110 5
10 Lysithea 11470 90 [+ or -] 10
7 Elara 11710 10
12 Anake 11740 40 [+ or -] 5
11 Carme 21700 10
8 Anake 22350 15
5 Amalthea 23300 20

 Mass, Density,
Satellite [10.sup.23]g g/[cm.sup.3]

14 Andrasthea -- --
16 Methis -- --
15 Phiva -- --
1 Io -- --
2 Europa 892 355
3 Ganymede 487 304
4 Callisto 1490 193
13 Lede 1075 183
6 Himalia -- --
10 Lysithea -- --
7 Elara -- --
12 Anake -- --
11 Carme -- --
8 Anake -- --
5 Amalthea -- --
COPYRIGHT 2005 Temple University - of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, through its Center for Frontier Sciences
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Kompanichenko, Vladimir
Publication:Frontier Perspectives
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2005
Previous Article:Order, structure, physical organization and biological organization.
Next Article:Implicit, incoherent and inconsistent knowledge.

Related Articles
Plutos galore: ice dwarfs may dominate the solar system's planetary population.
Glimpses of Gaspra's past.
Kuiper belt comets not so pristine?
One way into the hot seat.
New crowd at the solar system's edge.
Space rocks' demo job: asteroids, not comets, pummeled early Earth.
Dusty disks may reveal hidden worlds; on the trail of extrasolar planets.
Solar system replica?
Roaming giants: did migrating planets shape the solar system?
Origin of planetary systems, planetary satellites and planetary lives on earth.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters