Planetary Murphy's Law

[h2ouniverse]

This article in NewScientist.<br />A rewording of Murphy's law for planetary formation:<br />Any planet that can form, will.<br /><br />http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13167-wherever-a-planet-can-form-it-will-say-astronomers-.html

 

[weeman]

Hmmm, it's sort of the same basis as Murphy's Law, but I don't see it like that.<br /><br />Murphy's Law is an evil thing, because anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Planets are not a wrong doing, planets are a true gift in the universe, an amazing display of science working its magic! I see planets as some of the most amazing creations in the universe. They are all different, no two are exactly alike. In addition, they harbor life, which is by far one of the most amazing things ever to exist in the known universe! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"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.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Actually, a sensible article. Planetary systems over the long run seek stability, and do eject material, effect "preferred" orbital relationships swept clean of material.<br /><br />Of course, a wide range of other things can make the above to irrelevant - two sun relationships with orbiting planets over long periods, passage of the system through clouds of dust or material, perturbations of their Oort cloud, what have you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Weeman,<br /><br />Murphy's law is not that pessimistic imho: this migh also reflect the conviction that you shall never count on pure chance. The positive way of taking it into account is that you must proactively act to prevent things from going wrong. In other words, never give up.<br /><br />Being an optimist, my preferred version of Murphy's law is:<br />"If Murphy's law can go wrong, it will".<br /><br />As far as planets are concerned, this is reminder imho that "association mechanisms" in universe (in that case concentration of matter by gravity) shall never be underestimated, nor considered as exceptional.<br /><br />Please let me too distort another Murphy famous corollary as follows: "Any new exoplanet will be weirder than expected and beyond theory".<br />Although this might desperate planetologists, this is actually so much more exciting!<br /><br />Regards.

 

[JonClarke]

JBS Haldane said it in the 30's - "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine" (Haldane's law).<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> Please let me too distort another Murphy famous corollary as follows: "Any new exoplanet will be weirder than expected and beyond theory". <br /> </font><br /><br />So then could it be possible that lifeforms on other exoplanets could be much weirder than expected? <br /><br />If the "Murhpy's Law of Planets" is true, then it might mean that there are more stars in the universe with planetary neighbors than there are stars with no planets. <br /><br />Wouldn't this increase the chances of other life-bearing planets? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"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.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I suspect that planetary formation is a normal consequence of stellar formation. This does make possible habitats for life more common. Whether it increases the probability of life itself remains to be seen,<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>I suspect that planetary formation is a normal consequence of stellar formation.</i><br /><br />There is energy, there is matter, there is gravity, there is clumping and Van Der Waals forces present. Material moving around, interacting. How could planetisimals, planetary bodies <i>not</i> occur? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

<font color="yellow"> This does make possible habitats for life more common. Whether it increases the probability of life itself remains to be seen</font><br /><br />But if you increase the number of potential habitats, you also INCREASE the probability of life. For example, if it turned out that there were no extra-solar planets in the MW, the probality of life would be very low, requring life to exist on Europa, Mars, Titan, or somewhere else in our solar system. Conversely, if it was shown that 1 star in 100 had an earth type liquid water world, the probality of life would skyrocket. But just because the odds would increase, would not be proof that there is ET life, but it would be more likely.

 

[yevaud]

<i>But if you increase the number of potential habitats, you also INCREASE the probability of life.</i><br /><br />Depending on what you mean exactly by "life," It'd occur most likely on planets around K through F stars. M's and Brown Dwarfs are too inergetic to allow much more than pond scum, and anything over an F would be too energetic (well likely so), and make conditions too hot, too extreme for life to exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I may be expressing myself poorly, but it may be that the dominant prerequiste for life is not a planet in the habitable zone, but some other factor. There are just so many variables.<br /><br />For example, it may be that what is important is the presence of a single large satellite, or a crust of a particular composition, or a specific amount of water, the presence of a Jovian at a particular distance, or a particular class of star. If so, then planets in habitable zones may be common, but still lifeless. So if 90% of stars have planets in the habitable zone but only 0.01% of these have the required composition then the probability of life has not changed very much ompared to if only 45% have planets in the habitable zone.<br /><br />But it still encouraging for the possibility of life beyuond Earth to know that there are so many planets.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

in reply to----<br />It'd occur most likely on planets around K through F stars. M's and Brown Dwarfs are too inergetic to allow much more than pond scum, and anything over an F would be too energetic (well likely so), and make conditions too hot, too extreme for life to exist. -------<br /><br />I agree for life on sun-heated open-air surfaces. But you might have to consider:<br />* subsurface oceanic life (potentially applicable for Europa or Titan e.g.) on small bodies heated by tidal energy from a primary or companion<br />* life in open-air ever-dark oceans ("Pontic" planets e.g. 1 to 10 Earth masses, colder than Uranus/Neptune) heated by the internal energy of the planet <br />These latter two categories do not require the planet or moon to be close to the star (can even be free planets btw), and should be imho far more frequent than Earth-like worlds. And insensitive to star type.<br /><br />Best regards

 

[heyscottie]

JonClarke: I'd say you expressed yourself well enough! And I'd have to agree. To be sure, such a factor as you mention may not exist, but we certainly do not know enough to say so. Saying that having more planets in "habitable" zones makes life more likely seems like an obvious statement, but it is not quite correct. It is more accurate to say that it removes one known roadblock to the formation of life as we know it. There are other known and unknown roadblocks out there, too.

 

[JonClarke]

One road block removed is a good way to put it. Whether that roadblock is a bit of flagging or a concrete crash barrier remains to be seen <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

Yes, BUT every road block removed increases the POSSIBILITY of life, but it does NOT make life CERTAIN.

 

[JonClarke]

I agree.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>