About the SA Blog Network

Life, Unbounded

Life, Unbounded

Discussion and news about planets, exoplanets, and astrobiology
Life, Unbounded Home

Nomadic Planets May Make Pit Stops

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Nomadic world seeks friendly home (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

The notion of what constitutes a typical planetary system has undergone some serious revision in the past twenty years. Our own solar system, once seen as a timeless and almost mechanical entity, is now known to be on the margins of chaos. Long term modeling of its dynamical evolution suggests that orbits of an inner world like Mercury may evolve over billions of years into something unstable, eventually unleashing a dramatic revision of other planetary orbits, including those of the Earth and Mars.

Exoplanetary systems show signs of even more dynamical rearrangement, from migrated giant planets to violent dynamical ‘cooling’, in which young worlds can be ejected wholeheartedly into interstellar space. These rogue worlds, or ‘nomads’ really do exist, gravitational microlensing surveys have picked up the tell-tale brightening of distant stars that can only be produced by a population of small dark planetary bodies drifting around in the Galaxy. There are twice as many of these Jupiter-sized or larger objects than there are normal stars in the Milky Way. That is an awful lot of planets alone in the dark.

A stellar birth cluster, NGC 3603 (NASA/Hubble Space Telescope)

Except they don’t necessarily stay alone. A rather intriguing new paper by Perets & Kouwenhoven investigates the likelihood that planets ejected into interstellar space by their parent systems (again, as part of planet-planet gravitational interactions during early stages of system formation) might be captured later on by other stars, meekly taking up a place at the edge of the orbital table in these systems. This process is helped by the fact that most, if not all, stars tend to form in associations or clusters. Our own Sun is now generally thought to have formed among numerous sister stars, now long dispersed by their dynamical to-ings and fro-ings, and by the effects of Galactic scale gravitational tides as everything is conveyed around the galactic center. Measurements of radioisotope remains in our system support this hypothesis, by indicating the past presence of massive stars that once exploded as supernovae in our near vicinity some 5 billion years ago.

Allowing for this type of transient stellar clustering Perets & Kouwenhoven calculate that the odds of ejected, nomadic, planets being captured into large, long orbits on the outskirts of entirely different star systems are actually moderately good. If a lot of planets are ejected from their original systems then re-capture probabilities can be as high as 3 to 5%, which may not sound like much, but if the stellar cluster has 1000 members that’s a decent number, and if we extrapolate to the Galaxy as a whole that would mean a lot of ‘re-purposed’ planets lurking around the outskirts of stars – including binaries and stars with their own pre-existing planetary systems.

This can help explain some of the current direct imaging detections of planet-scale bodies in extremely large orbits (100 astronomical units, and further, from the star), which are otherwise quite a challenge to account for in standard planet formation models. It also makes an intriguing prediction that nomadic planets can be captured by stellar remnants – like white dwarfs, and particularly black holes, whose high mass increases the odds of planet capture.

Given the relatively weak binding of these nomads to their adoptive stars it also seems possible (in my opinion) that some of them might even end up being ejected yet again, drifting through interstellar space, and then once more taking up with another system along the way – at least during early times while the stellar grouping is denser.

So we may need to further loosen our conceptual picture of stars and planets as isolated islands. Planet formation is messy; youthful (and old) planetary systems can be touched by chaos, and stars – even black holes – may captain the ultimate in leaky boats with an unpredictable and motley press-ganged crew.



Caleb A. Scharf About the Author: Caleb Scharf is the director of Columbia University's multidisciplinary Astrobiology Center. He has worked in the fields of observational cosmology, X-ray astronomy, and more recently exoplanetary science. His books include Gravity's Engines (2012) and The Copernicus Complex (2014) (both from Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux.) Follow on Twitter @caleb_scharf.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 3 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. rloldershaw 9:23 pm 02/16/2012

    Perhaps stars gain and lose planets in exactly the same way an atomic nuclei gain and lose electrons in a reasonably high energy plasma.

    This is predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity [a further generalization of General Relativity] and the stellar/atomic self-similarity has been demonstrated qualitatively and quantitatively for neutron stars/ nuclei, variable stars/Rydberg atoms, etc., at the website linked below.

    Also, consider the following quotation from a Physical Review A paper [Kaslinski et al, 67, 032503, 2003].
    “We predict the existence of a self-sustained one-electron wave packet moving on a circular orbit in the helium atom. The wave packet is localized in space, but does not spread in time. This is a realization within quantum theory of a classical object that has been called a “Rutherford atom,” a localized planetary electron on an unquantized circular orbit under the influence of a massive charged core.”

    “[W]e provide the first demonstration of the existence of what has been called [14] a “Rutherford atom,” i.e., the wave function for a single electron moving on an unquantized stable and nonspreading planetary orbit about a massive charged core.”

    Time to question untested assumptions?
    Time for new ideas?


    Link to this
  2. 2. Gord Davison 9:16 am 02/17/2012

    Somewhat off topic, sorry but it seems the best place to post this question. Did anyone look at the crater shown in today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day (Feb. 17 2012): about the Aristarchus Crater. The crater has terraced walls, it is huge and comes with highly reflective boulders. Have a look at the picture and see what I mean. My question is: How do we explain the terraced effect on the walls of the creater?

    Link to this
  3. 3. caleb_scharf 9:31 am 02/17/2012

    Good question. Perhaps an impact expert out there can answer. My off-the-cuff and non-expert thought would be that possibilities are a) this reflects original layering in the lunar regolith b) it’s to do with ejecta slumping after the original impact c) it’s to do with material cascading down the slopes over time, e.g. after lunar quakes and/or secondary impacts.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article