My last question leads me to this one, age of the solar system and origin of the rocky planets?

Question

You have to forgive all these questions, whenever I get a answer it opens up another question.
The fact that extra solar plants seem to hint that the gas giants formed close to the sun early in the solar system's history.
But what does this suggest about the age of our own solar system?
The fact that our gas giants are farther out from the sun seems to tell us that our system has been around long enough for the gas giants to migrate out.
The agreed age of the solar system is roughly 4.6 billion years BUT radiometric dating has found some rocks here on Earth to be about 4.3 billion it is possible the Earth is older since Earth being geologically active older rocks have long vanished.
We know the gas giants cannot be older that the solar system itself,so it is safe to say it is at least 4.6 billion years old.
How could Jupiter form in the same vicinity as the Earth at roughly the same time?
We have found planets in some of the most unusual places the most unusual being a pulsar, there is no way a planet could form around the pulsar or survive the super nova of the original star,so at least the way I see it could mean a planet could some how be thrown out of it's system,wonder space freely till it is captured by another body with strong enough gravity.
That being said, because it would be hard for a small rocky planet forming in the same area as a gas giant would it be possible if (this is only a theory) if one or more of the rocky planets were actually formed out side the solar system and migrated to it later on?
I know we barley scratched the surface when it comes to discovering new star systems but what we have found so far seems to suggest our solar system is not a average star system.

Answer 1

I was listening to an interview last night about this indeed, from NYC's great syndicated radio host John Batchelor.

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/



Please refer to (19:20 through 30:00) in the following podcast to hear it.

http://wabcradio.com/getpodcast.aspx?sid=33447&lid=5145&id=2216558&source=1&url=http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=10803xhttp://podfuse-dl.andomedia.com/800185/podfuse-origin.andomedia.com/citadel_origin/pods/WABC/WABC-Batchelor/jbs_061711c.mp3







The general conclusion of this interview is the interaction of Saturn and Jupiter, having a 3:2 orbital resonance. This is what prevents Jupiter and Saturn from migrating to the inner solar system, and also helps drive the collision between the inner solar system debris to form the terrestrial planets.





You do also need to keep in mind that the survey of exoplanets is LIMITED and BIASED. It is most easy to discover "hot jupiters" than any other kind of exoplanet, for two reasons. Reason 1 is the mass of the larger planet makes for greater amplitude of the doppler shift variation cycle. Reason 2 is that an inner planet causes a higher frequency of the doppler shift variation cycle, such that we don't need to wait ten years to discover them.

Answer 2

I have heard this theory before the thing that is wrong with it along with the answers is that the bottom line is there is no answer yet.

I can appreciate the creativeness and it is always good to have an open mind cause most of the time when we think the obvious we get surprised when we learn the truth.

The age of celestial bodies tend to change every time we make a scientific break through or out technology becomes more advanced which allows us to get more accurate answers.

We cant even agree on the earths origin let alone the entire history of the solar system.

Answer 3

In order to use radiometric dating techniques, a rock has to crystallize first. It takes time for newly formed planets to have their crusts cool down enough for rocks to crystallize and incorporate the radioactive isotopes into the crystal lattices of the minerals in the rock. There ARE radioactive isotopes with half-lives longer than the age of the Universe.



Even though planetary scientists have made computer models that indicate Jupiter and Saturn may have formed closer to the Sun and then migrated outward to their current orbits, I'm suspicious of a great many of those computer models. Some one got her Ph.D. because she created a computer model that showed that when the Moon was created by a body with the mass of Mars impacted Earth, the impact also flipped Earth's rotational axis to close to it's current orientation. There's a HUGE problem with that model. I'm SHOCKED that her Ph.D. committee didn't realize that the model violates the conservation of angular momentum. Her model is a GIGO computer model, Garbage In Garbage Out, yet she was granted her Ph.D. YES, I can name her. She works for the the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder CO now.



The proof that Jupiter formed where it currently is is the asteroid belt. A planet DID form with an orbit where the asteroid belt is now, but that planet was ripped apart by Jupiter once Jupiter gained enough mass as it was forming. The core of that planet is the dwarf planet Ceres. Yes, I know there isn't enough mass in the entire asteroid belt NOW to form a decent sized planet. That's because the gravitational influences of the Jovian planets over billions of years have changed the orbits of many asteroids so that those asteroids have been "kicked out" of the Solar System since the end of the late Bombardment period 3.8 billion years ago.



Exo-planetary systems ARE NOT being discussed in this question.

Answer 4

I think this is your problem:

"The fact that extra solar plants seem to hint that the gas giants formed close to the sun.."

Our primary search method, (gravitational 'star-wiggle'), makes it a lot easier to find

large masses in close to the primary, and so our data is biased in favor of that condition.

If you look at the mechanics of planets 'condensing' out of a gas cloud about a newly ignited

star, you would have to allow for the stars heat and 'solar wind' driving the volatiles outward

into our system's 'gas giant' territory.

It's far more likely that those 'close' giants we observe migrated inward at a later date.

Answer 5

easily Jupiter interior the beginning of our photograph voltaic gadget is in basic terms approximately slightly closer in being a celebrity - it have been given the the perfect option temperature, suitable mass, and suitable length. It did no longer made it with the aid of because of the fact the sunlight governs it truly is orbit, and Jupiter's gravity isn't yet sufficient to assist its own planets. gas planets have rocky cores, wherein for some reason have been given the inability of having good remember of their planet, that's gravity. while the photograph voltaic gadget advance into born, each and every thing advance into crammed with gases and different components, and a huge cloud of stuff and variety of remember advance into there, then the sunlight took potential, became a celebrity, and those stuff encircled the sunlight until they made shape, specific, you're suitable, the heavier components went to the interior planets because of the fact those heavier components have been pulled close to the sunlight, leaving the gaseous stuff exterior the forged stuff. So, the different photograph voltaic structures have been given gas planets because of the fact while their photograph voltaic gadget advance into born, the main important cloud that advance into the backside of their photograph voltaic gadget's beginning is made out of especially gas. a sprint volume of heavy stuff, and extra and extra gas. The heavy stuff equipped the gas planets' middle, and the gas made it truly is way because of the fact the planets' composition.

Answer 6

Look to the chondrites. They would have accreted early in the Solar System's history, and are unmodified by any re-melting or differentiation.