Migrating Hot Jupiters

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

Since I don't have the background for this, Argent told me to put any of my unscientific speculations in Speculations -- in the form of questions.

 

Big bunches of "Hot Jupiters" have been detected in this new century. (?)

 

My understanding is that they were formed at a great distance from their stars and migrated, um, "down" (starward) because the protoplanetary disk was a drag on them in their orbits. Um, Question.

 

Does the remaining protoplanetary disk bring forth replacement giant planets?

 

Do they migrate back "up" when the protoplanetary disk has dissipated?

 

These are not trick questions. I am an old man and these issues were never brought up in my youth.

 

 

[swansont]

Since I don't have the background for this, Argent told me to put any of my unscientific speculations in Speculations -- in the form of questions.

 

Big bunches of "Hot Jupiters" have been detected in this new century. (?)

 

My understanding is that they were formed at a great distance from their stars and migrated, um, "down" (starward) because the protoplanetary disk was a drag on them in their orbits. Um, Question.

 

Does the remaining protoplanetary disk bring forth replacement giant planets?

 

Do they migrate back "up" when the protoplanetary disk has dissipated?

 

These are not trick questions. I am an old man and these issues were never brought up in my youth.

 

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

No need for posting speculations if these are questions about mainstream science (vs making assertions contrary to that science)

[Mordred]

Yes typically hot Jupiter planets tend to migrate inward. Though not on every case example being our own Solar system. No they will not migrate back outward unless they somehow gain additional escape velocity.

 

The drag causes a loss of escape velocity hence the inward migration.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

Swansont, Actually, I had better stick these questions in Speculations, because I plan to shortly bring up Flat Earth, Phlogistine, Aether, NIburu and other neat topics.

 

Mordred, Thank you for a straight answer.

 

Does the wreckage in the inner Solar System indicate that a Hot Jupiter (or something heavy) has long since migrated "down" thru here and been absorbed by the sun?

 

Seeing that most all those sky-thingies in the protoplanetary disk are orbiting at the same approximate velocity as a migrating Hot Jupiter (at the same distance from the sun) how do they produce drag?

 

Do the rocky planets migrate, too?

[Argent]

Since I don't have the background for this, Argent told me to put any of my unscientific speculations in Speculations -- in the form of questions.

No I didn't. I think a moderator proposed that and maybe even moved your other thread. I have neither the authority nor the inclination to offer such advice.

 

Does the remaining protoplanetary disk bring forth replacement giant planets?

Generally not. The lifespan of the disc is short in astronomical terms.

 

Giant planets are generally thought to form through the collapse of gas and ices onto a rocky core. The window of opportunity for this to happen is small. The core must form and it must attract gas from the disc in large quantities before the protostar enters the T-Tauri stage where strong stellar winds disperse the disc.

Do they migrate back "up" when the protoplanetary disk has dissipated?

 

Only if they are still evolving towards a stable situation and moving through gravitational interactions.

Does the wreckage in the inner Solar System indicate that a Hot Jupiter (or something heavy) has long since migrated "down" thru here and been absorbed by the sun?

 

Seeing that most all those sky-thingies in the protoplanetary disk are orbiting at the same approximate velocity as a migrating Hot Jupiter (at the same distance from the sun) how do they produce drag?

 

Do the rocky planets migrate, too?

I already answered the first question and the last question for you on the other thread. May I assume you don't believe me? Scepticism is good, but it can be taken too far.

[swansont]

Swansont, Actually, I had better stick these questions in Speculations, because I plan to shortly bring up Flat Earth, Phlogistine, Aether, NIburu and other neat topics.

!

Moderator Note

If you are going to advocate for them, please do that in a separate thread in speculations.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

Whoops! My bad. I thought it was Argent who locked my thread of a month or so ago and moved me to Speculations.

(Just as well. I wanted to speculate and that was the right place for it.)

 

And I thought I had started this thread in Speculations in the first place to forestall that. Am I in Speculations now?

 

If not, I'm going to have to behave.

 

Here's a funny story a chemistry professor told us all about three generations ago:

 

"An old-time chemist (studying Phlogistine) very carefully burned some alcohol in a device in which he could trap the products of combustion. Of course, the "products" weighed more than the original alcohol. That proved to him that Phlogistine was real and that it had a negative mass, just as he had supposed. For further proof, he did the same experiment three more times and took an average to find a more precise value . . ."

 

[see, the supposition was that fire distilled the phlogistine out of fuels.]

 

Ha ha ha!

 

In those bygone days, when the results of a lab exercise were not close enough to the calculated results, we pretended to blame the discrepancy on an excess of atmospheric phlogistine.

 

 

About that same time, the asteroid question came up (not in a chemistry class) and we were plainly told that the asteroids were positively NOT from a former planet because (A) there were not enough of them in all to make up even a tiny planet, and because (B) there was no force in all the universe that could "blow up" a planet.

 

Now, in this new century someone showed me the astounding fact that tidal forces could take apart a planet, and that newly discovered exo-planets indicated that some very heavy planets migrated toward their stars. I made a real jerk of myself trying to get Argent to put two and two together to make five. My apologies.

 

Now, in case this thread IS in Speculations (as I intended) let me tell you some proofs of a Flat Earth. And if we AREN'T in Speculations, all that Flat Earth stuff was just liven up this conversation.

Edited April 19, 2017 by frankglennjacobs@gmail.com

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

"The moon is getting farther away from the earth because of tidal effects." At least that's what I thought someone said.

 

Something about the tidal bulge leads the moon and therefore pulls it on. Na-a-a-a-a-a-h! I must have it all wrong.

 

To form that into a question, izzat SO?

 

 

The next question is, Do the regular planets make tidal bulges on the sun and cause them to migrate to higher orbits?

 

Then there is the one about drag. How does the protoplanetary disk drag at planets? Everything in a given area would seem to be going the same direction and velocity, since all the little sky-thingies are orbiting. ?No?

 

These are serious questions. Only, due to my immense lack of background I cannot even phrase them seriously.

 

One more. How do I put my picture in that blank space?

Edited April 20, 2017 by frankglennjacobs@gmail.com

[Mordred]

The moon is moving further away due to having sufficient escape velocity to slowly migrate to a higher orbit. It is tidally locked which keeps the same facing to the Earth.

[Argent]

The moon is moving further away due to having sufficient escape velocity to slowly migrate to a higher orbit.

That's just wrong. It moves further away because tidal effects transfer angular momentum from the Earth (which slows it rotation) to the moon.

 

It is tidally locked which keeps the same facing to the Earth.

 

That's more or less right.

[Mordred]

Always willing to be shown wrong can you supply a reference?

 

Edit looks like your right 2 cm/year due to tidal bulging.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1025&ved=0ahUKEwiNvPK1lbLTAhVY9WMKHfDgCKgQFgiMATAZ&usg=AFQjCNGcYRBHea6fFVEJUjQaPju57P0csw&sig2=fSsYxcwEcfisHcEgBXDV2g

 

Wouldn't have thought of that

Edited April 20, 2017 by Mordred

[David Levy]

The moon is moving further away due to having sufficient escape velocity to slowly migrate to a higher orbit. It is tidally locked which keeps the same facing to the Earth.

 

Hello Mordred

Why is it so important to verify the cause for that outwards orbit migration?

 

Do we have any real evidence about even one moon or planet in the whole universe which has an inwards orbit migration?

 

(unless it is a broken moon or Asteroid)

[swansont]

Now, in case this thread IS in Speculations (as I intended) let me tell you some proofs of a Flat Earth. And if we AREN'T in Speculations, all that Flat Earth stuff was just liven up this conversation.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

It's not. It's in Sciences/Physics/Astronomy and Cosmology as you can tell at the bottom of the page.

 

If you want to talk about anything other than planetary migration, you need to open a new thread. If you are going to post about a flat earth, it needs to go in speculations and you'd better bring the evidence sooner rather than later.

 

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

Technical stuff:

 

I had really INTENDED for this to be in Speculations, because I don't know enough real science to keep it between the lines.

 

I put it right next to my previous Thread, which had been moved to Speculations, in a section called Speculations.

 

And that sentence about Flat Earth was only for humor, not to convince anyone of anything.

 

When I came looking up this Thread to see if anyone had said anything on it, I asked for Speculations, and there it was in a section marked Speculations right alongside my Speculative Thread on some possible speculative effects of Roche's Limit.

 

Now I just came from someone else's Speculative Thread on Aether, where I wrote considerable humorous speculations on that subject.

I still want to know how to put my picture in the blank for putting pictures in.

[Argent]

 

 

Hello Mordred

Why is it so important to verify the cause for that outwards orbit migration?

 

Do we have any real evidence about even one moon or planet in the whole universe which has an inwards orbit migration?

 

(unless it is a broken moon or Asteroid)

Why is it important to understand any mechanism in nature? It may reveal principles that have practical applications. It will always addresses our inherent desire to understand.

 

We do not require evidence. We know the circumstances in which inward migration can occur. Why not try a google search?

[Mordred]

Took me less than a minute of google search to realize I was wrong and Argent was correct

[swansont]

Technical stuff:

 

I had really INTENDED for this to be in Speculations, because I don't know enough real science to keep it between the lines.

 

!

Moderator Note

As long as you're asking questions, that's not an issue. Filling in gaps in one's knowledge is the point of asking.

 

Posting assertions where you don't have much science is going to get locked down. Speculations has guidelines attached to it. WAGs are not welcome. In any event questions and speculations should be in separate threads.

 

[Janus]

 

 

Hello Mordred

Why is it so important to verify the cause for that outwards orbit migration?

 

Do we have any real evidence about even one moon or planet in the whole universe which has an inwards orbit migration?

 

(unless it is a broken moon or Asteroid)

 

Phobos. The Martian moon orbits Mars faster than Mars rotates. As a result, the tidal interaction is slowly pulling Phobos into a lower and lower orbit around Mars.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

The Hot Jupiters must be in declining orbits. There are no indications that they could have formed down close to their stars, but there they are. They must have been formed far up in the cooler regions, away from their stars, and migrated downward.

 

In the early history of a star, the protoplanetary disk is loaded with, um, "stuff" -- which forms a drag on the orbits of the planets and slowly brings them down.

 

Only, since everything is in orbit, it is not clear how it could cause a drag. Everything in a given area would be orbiting the same direction and the same velocity.

 

That's the question I asked when I started this Thread. It's been a lot of fun, but nobody has answered it.

[Mordred]

A valid question the answer is rather surprisingly detailed under density wsve theory.

 

If you google this you will also find the same theory applies to Saturns rings, Galaxy spiral arms as well as protoplanetary formation.

 

Here is one such article

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.05139&ved=0ahUKEwim94iR7rbTAhVHx2MKHXT6BAgQFggfMAA&usg=AFQjCNH46cy9-xC1JU5G0X5D2gNZp-tKmw&sig2=DbzAhUJ0G940ZWr4AoqzRQ

 

Probably the easiest way to explain the gist of the theory is to consider f=ma. It takes more force gravitational or otherwise to move objects of higher mass. This means the elements will also distribute accordingly to their mass. Lighter elements further out as they will have a higher escape velocity.

 

So your hot Jupitors will form in the outer regions with heavier element rich planets forming closer to their star.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Mordred

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

I was confused by the term escape velocity, as fifty years go we used it to mean the speed an object would be going in order to escape from the gravity of another object. No. That's not quite right. It meant, in those days, the speed Flash Gordon would have to get his rocket up to in order to coast away from Mogron and never be hauled back by its gravity.

 

Now you are using it to mean whatever velocity an object has away, relative to another object. Got it.

 

The lighter elements would naturally boil away and distill out farther away from the sun -- so planets formed way out there would naturally be less dense -- having less proportion of the heavy elements. Likely the giant planets have iron cores, too, little-bitty ones.

 

The question I keep asking is how the material in the protoplanetary disk "drags" at planets, causing them to lose energy and therefore "lose altitude" and migrate star-ward.

 

At any given location in the protoplanetary disk, everything is in orbit. Everything in the neighborhood is going the same direction and at the same velocity. A planet is not plowing thru this stuff like an airplane plows thru the air. It "goes with the flow".

 

Now, it's a good thing we are in "Speculations" here, because I'm going to speculate. (Herewith a "SWEG": Scientific Wild-Eyed Guess):

 

All the dust and gas and gravel and planetoids and planetissimos and planetessimals that happen to be orbiting close to each othe are NOT going in EXACTLY the same direction, because they are not in the same plane. Each fragment of whatever is in its own private orbital plane, at random, only in more-or-less the same average plane as the rest. Now you has drag. (Satchmo, in High Society: "Now you has jazz!") Even if all the fragments are within a fragment of one degree of the average orbital plane, every piece creates drag on every other piece because they bang into one another. Moreover, because their gravity fields pull and tug at one another as they move past one another, and the energy to do that has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the kinetic energy of all the participating pieces. It's a real DRAG, man!

Edited April 22, 2017 by frankglennjacobs@gmail.com

[Mordred]

Actually your not in speculations. However the interparticle interactions you described are involved in drag but there is also drag due to the spin of our sun coupled with gravity. You essentially however accurately described a main part of what is involved in drag.

 

A large factor to consider is how much velocity each particle gains for the amount of force acting upon it. This is all included in the density wave paper I linked though understandably it will take time to fully understand. The drag is described as density waves in the density wave theory.

 

The mathematics are in essence hydrodynamic fluid equations that work for the low densities involved above. Remember a cloud of plasma also has an effective mass. You included the interparticle gravity contributions already which is accurate.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Mordred

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

f=ma. At last a math thingie that I can understand. Force equals Mass times Acceleration. If you push twice as hard (or twice as long) on an object suspended frictionlessly, it will accelerate twice as much. Of course, if the object is your car stuck in the mud, it likely won't move at all until you go borrow a tractor. But it seems to work for objects in space.

 

Density waves? Why would there be density waves? Isn't density Mass divided by Volume? It just sits there being that big and that heavy. Where do density waves come in?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

You are not in speculations.

If you wish to post some conjecture, do so in a separate thread in speculations. I will not remind you again.

Also, don't respond to this modnote in the thread

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

Mordred,

 

I see. At the same time every particle in the protoplanetatry disk is being dragged down starward by every other particle, there is a tidal effect turning the energy tied up in the rotation of the sun into a lifting energy, just as the moon moves away from the earth.

 

So when the protoplanetary disk has faded to a mere shadow, then the tidal thing, which is always there, is stronger than the drag, and the migrating planets which before had been going to orbits with smaller semi-major axes begin to get bigger ones.

 

And the migrating planets which had been migrating starward now migrate back out.

 

Is this migration on the order of magnitude of an Astronomical Unit? Or does it depend on how large the planet was? Or how wide its semi-major axis? Or its mass?

Edited April 24, 2017 by frankglennjacobs@gmail.com