Jupiter as a Brown Dwarf...?

majornature · Mar 18, 2008

I've learned some interesting things about Jupiter.  It generates more heat than what it recieves and it's just as massive as the sun(10x or 100x less).  And it's mainly hydrogen.  Couldn't it be assume that jupiter is perhaps a "failed star" or a brown drawf? And if thermonucleo fusion did happened on jupiter, will jupiter take the place of our current star?  What would happen to the gas giants if this occured? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

qso1 · Mar 18, 2008

Once we know more about what a failed star or brown dwarf actually is...Jupiter would probably fit one of those categories. Right now I'm favoring failed star because Jupiter emits no detectable light of its own while brown dwarves are hot enough to emit light.If Jupiter became a star, it would depend on how much like a star it becomes. As a sunlike star for example, Jupiter would shine in our night skys brilliantly and probably cause lighting conditions on earth similar to a full moon on a clear night. Saturn is so far from Jupiter that the effects on it would likely be negligeble and of course, the other gas giants are further yet. If Jupiter exploded into a much larger star then all bets are off.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

weeman · Mar 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've learned some interesting things about Jupiter.  It generates more heat than what it recieves and it's just as massive as the sun(10x or 100x less).  And it's mainly hydrogen.  Couldn't it be assume that jupiter is perhaps a "failed star" or a brown drawf? And if thermonucleo fusion did happened on jupiter, will jupiter take the place of our current star?  What would happen to the gas giants if this occured? Posted by majornature</DIV> It could have been close to a failed star early on in the solar system's formation. Although, gas giants seem to be common throughout the cosmos, at least in the MW. The majority of the planets we've found around other stars appear to be gas giants. Many of which are even much larger than Jupiter!And I doubt that each and every one of these could be classified as a failed star. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

qso1 · Mar 18, 2008

Current theory has it that a gas giant has to be approximately 80 Jupiter masses to meet the conditions necessary to become a star. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Current theory has it that a gas giant has to be approximately 80 Jupiter masses to meet the conditions necessary to become a star. Posted by qso1</DIV>And, 13 times the mass of Jupiter to become a brown dwarf, IIRC.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

silylene old · Mar 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And, 13 times the mass of Jupiter to become a brown dwarf, IIRC.. Posted by meteorwayne</DIV>That said, the core of Jupiter is thought to contain a significant amount of degenerate matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

qso1 · Mar 18, 2008

Thanks, I forgot to mention the Brown Dwarf mass number. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

doubletruncation · Mar 19, 2008

There are two different competing ways that people distinguish between planets and brown dwarfs/stars. As others have mentioned, the simplest is really in terms of mass. A solar composition object that is larger than about 80 jupiter masses will, as it collapses, reach a point where hydrogen fusion ignites in its core preventing further collapse - such an object is called a star. An object that is smaller than this but larger than about 13 jupiter masses will reach a point where deuterium fusion ignites in its core, but the deuterium burns out very quickly and the object will then continue to collapse until the core becomes degenerate and supports it from further collapse - it never achieves hydrogen ignition, however. Such an object is called a brown dwarf. If the object is less than 13 jupiter masses it will be held up by degeneracy pressure (or static coulomb forces in the case of small planets) and never even achieve deuterium fusion. Such an object is deemed a planet. So for this nomenclature Jupiter is a planets (it would be a failed star by a factor of ~80 and a failed brown dwarf by a factor of ~13). Note that the deuterium burning only has a fairly minor effect on the life of a brown dwarf - it keeps it hot and shining for a little while longer than you would naively expect. In simplest terms a brown dwarf is just a bigger, hotter version of jupiter (though the word "just" sweeps under the rug all the neat differences in the atmospheres that come into play as the temperature changes).  The other way that's been proposed to classify objects is based on how they're formed. This method is quite a bit more speculative at present than the one described above, but it may in time prove to be a very useful way to think about things. In this scheme, stars/brown dwarfs are objects that form from direct gravitational collapse out of the interstellar medium. Planets are objects that coallesce in the debris disks that form around baby stars. Jupiter would definitely be a planet since it presumably was born in the disk that existed around the pre-main sequence sun. You may, however, have free floating Jupiter-sized objects that formed as stars (direct graviational collapse) but never got very big - these would be considered failed stars rather than planets. There may also be objects larger than 13 jupiter masses that formed in stellar disks and would thus be considered planets rather than brown dwarfs or failed stars (despite the fact that they'd be large enough for deuterium fusion). The mass function, though, appears to drop off precipitously toward higher masses for planets orbiting close to their stars (ones that seem likely to have formed in stellar disks), and so we know these brown-dwarf massed planets are quite rare (at least for sun-like stars, for larger stars it's harder to say because we don't have a very good census of planets around A-type and hotter stars). This method is speculative since it's not all that clear how gas planets form - the most popular model is that they form first by accreting a core out of the debris in the disk, and then capturing a massive gas atmosphere - but they may very well form by direct gravitational collapse of the gas in the disk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by doubletruncation</DIV> Thanx a bunch for that well spoken summary!!Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

majornature · Mar 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Thanx a bunch for that well spoken summary!!Wayne Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>Yes it was very well stated.  But I do have another question.   Does Jupiter has the same amount of Hydrogen gas like the sun? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

billslugg · Mar 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes it was very well stated.  But I do have another question.   Does Jupiter has the same amount of Hydrogen gas like the sun? Posted by majornature</DIV>majornatureGood to see you back!! We missed you. I am also gratified to see that you survived Mardi Gras. Flash Me! OH - I am sorry. Did I say that??Anyway, it is probable that Jupiter has roughly the same constituents as the Sun. Probably not quite as much hydrogen as the Sun, since it is not as heavy, but  fairly close. Any excess heat from Jupiter is likely due to radioactive decay.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Mar 26, 2008

The composition of jupiter is nearly identical to the sun actually, and the heat generated is due primarily to gravitational contraction. That's right, Jupiter is still contracting, and producing heat in exchange. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

neilsox · Mar 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The composition of jupiter is nearly identical to the sun actually, and the heat generated is due primarily to gravitational contraction. That's right, Jupiter is still contracting, and producing heat in exchange. Posted by Saiph</DIV> The current theories make Jupiter much different from a failed star, but I suppose our thinking could change. I don't think we have measured the shrinkage of Jupiter nor any of the planets, so they may be getting bigger and/or hotter core minutely in recent centuries.   Neil

Saiph · Mar 30, 2008

Oh, jupiter's structure and dynamics are far different from a star, I'll agree with that.  But it's overall composition is still nearly 75/25 h/he. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

majornature · Mar 31, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>majornatureGood to see you back!! We missed you. I am also gratified to see that you survived Mardi Gras. Flash Me! OH - I am sorry. Did I say that??Anyway, it is probable that Jupiter has roughly the same constituents as the Sun. Probably not quite as much hydrogen as the Sun, since it is not as heavy, but  fairly close. Any excess heat from Jupiter is likely due to radioactive decay.  Posted by billslugg</DIV>Thanx bill.  It's good to be back.  Mardi Gras was same as it always been...to me...I  will virtually flash you...(o) (o)...LOL<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

majornature · Mar 31, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The composition of jupiter is nearly identical to the sun actually, and the heat generated is due primarily to gravitational contraction. That's right, Jupiter is still contracting, and producing heat in exchange. Posted by Saiph</DIV> Well is it possible that Jupiter will one day trigger thermonuclear fusion and become a star? It seems like I'm asking the same question. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 31, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Well is it possible that Jupiter will one day trigger thermonuclear fusion and become a star? It seems like I'm asking the same question. Posted by majornature</DIV>NO, it is not possible. Jupiter is WAY too small. BTW, sure would be nice if you shrunk the size of your picture in your sigline.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

neilsox · Mar 31, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NO, it is not possible. Jupiter is WAY too small. BTW, sure would be nice if you shrunk the size of your picture in your sigline.... Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> I agree with MeteorWayne, except it may possibly to force Jupiter to look like the Sun. Jupiter however averages about 3 times farther from Earth (than the Sun) and has only about 1.2% of the sun's disk area, so a Jupiter "sun" would not appear much brighter than Venus.   Neil

qso1 · Mar 31, 2008

I agree with MeteorWayne, except it may possibly to force Jupiter to look like the Sun. Jupiter however averages about 3 times farther from Earth (than the Sun) and has only about 1.2% of the sun's disk area, so a Jupiter "sun" would not appear much brighter than Venus.   Neil Posted by neilsoxGood point, I often recall the double sunset in star wars and wonder how many folks thing all binary star systems are like this. When I did my research on Alpha Centauri two decades ago. I quickly realized that in that system, if earth orbited the "A" or main star, the "B" star at its closest approach would appear as an extremely bright star.Brighter than Venus and able to light the night up to a level not unlike a full moon but probably lower. Jupiter igniting to become a star would produce similar results as you mentioned.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 31, 2008

Come to think of it, I just happen to have an image I made years ago: <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/5/b5aa73db-9642-4375-a514-3ca2dca5db3c.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> Alpha Centauri "A" (Brighter star) and "B" as seen if Earth orbited them instead of the Sun. Alpha "B" as it would likely appear at its closest approach (Near the horizon in this image below).  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree with MeteorWayne, except it may possibly to force Jupiter to look like the Sun. Jupiter however averages about 3 times farther from Earth (than the Sun) and has only about 1.2% of the sun's disk area, so a Jupiter "sun" would not appear much brighter than Venus.   Neil Posted by neilsox</DIV> Actually, Jupiter's orbit is ~ 5 AU, so it would vary from about 4 to 6 times the distance of the sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

majornature · Apr 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree with MeteorWayne, except it may possibly to force Jupiter to look like the Sun. Jupiter however averages about 3 times farther from Earth (than the Sun) and has only about 1.2% of the sun's disk area, so a Jupiter "sun" would not appear much brighter than Venus.   Neil Posted by neilsox</DIV> The image cannot be shrunk.  I will have to change my pic.  I will do this for you.  But, I will have to go home and do it.  I'm gonna miss my michael Jackson pic... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

Jupiter as a Brown Dwarf...?

majornature

Guest

qso1

Guest

weeman

Guest

qso1

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

silylene old

Guest

qso1

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

majornature

Guest

billslugg

Guest

Saiph

Guest

neilsox

Guest

Saiph

Guest

majornature

Guest

majornature

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

neilsox

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

majornature

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page