Historical and Modern Theories of the Solar System

Written by:  • Edited by: RC Davison
Updated May 15, 2010
• Related Guides: Sun | Solar System

The Sun is just a normal star somewhere in this gigantic universe. What makes it special is that it has evolved in a way that fosters life. The formation of the solar system has been a mystery since it has been discovered. Let us look at some of these theories.

Major Observations Included in Every Theory

Every solar system formation theory has to explain some facts we know about our solar system. Listed below are some of the major observations.

1. More than 99 percent of the mass of the entire solar system, consisting of the Sun, planets, moons, meteors, asteroids, comets etc. is contained inside the Sun. However, the Sun only contains about 0.5 percent of the angular momentum.

2. The presence of huge amounts of light metals on Earth like beryllium, boron, etc., points out that this matter could not have come from the core of an exploded star.

3. The solar system is extremely flat, i.e the orbits of most planets lie in the same plane. However, the orbits of Mercury and Pluto (not a planet anymore) deviate from this plane considerably.

4. There is a clear demarcation between the terrestrial and giant planets.

5. The Sun's rotation axis has a tilt of 6o.

Famous Historical Theories

1. Laplace's nebula theory (1796): This was a monistic theory - i.e. it involved a single system. The theory states that it all began from a huge

Pierre-Simon Laplace
click to enlarge
cloud of gas which was spinning slowly. This cloud collapsed under gravity. As it collapsed, it started spinning more quickly and began to flatten to conserve angular momentum. Laplace also proposed that planets were formed by the condensation of annular rings around the Sun which was one of the major drawbacks of this theory.

(Right: Pierre-Simon Laplace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre-Simon_Laplace.jpg)

2. Schmidt-Lyttleton accretion theory (1944): This was a dualistic theory - i.e. it involved interaction of two systems. Schmidt proposed that the Sun passed through a huge cloud of gas and acquired matter to form planets. However, for his theory to be consistent, he postulated the presence of third body in the vicinity when the Sun passed through this cloud. However, the need for the third body's presence was removed when Lyttleton gave his modification of the theory involving line accretion. In this form of accretion, mathematically described by Bondi and Hoyle (1944), the material from the cloud get focussed gravitationally. The velocity of the material perpendicular to its orbital axis around the central object get destroyed and it is left with less than escape speed.

There were many other theories during those times like Chamberlin and Moulton's planetesimal theory, Jeans' tidal theory, Von Weizsacker's vortex theory etc. which were all more or less rejected.

Modern Theories

There are four major theories that are still considered as plausible for the formation of the solar system.

1. Proto-planet Theory: McCrea, in 1960, gave a monistic theory trying to explain simultaneously the formation of Sun and the planets. He started with a cloud of dust and gas in a state of hypersonic turbulence. Thus, rapid internal collisions took place. This resulted in aggregation of masses at various places. He experimented with parameters like mass and radius of cloud to explain the current state of the solar system. He gave a revised theory in 1988.

2. Capture Theory: The theory, given by Woolfson in 1964, considers an interaction between a condensed solar mass star (SUN) and a protostar of lesser mass. The protostar entered the Roche limit and was disintegrated to form bodies like planets. This would give a planar structure but highly elliptical orbits.

3. The Solar Nebula Theory: This theory, given by Cameron in 1973, begins with a slowly rotating nebula very similar to the Laplacian theory. The planet formation starts with a disc of 0.01 to 0.1 solar masses. This is also a monistic theory dealing with mass and angular momentum distribution.

4. The Modern Laplacian Theory: This theory is also derived from the Laplacian theory and was given by Prentice in 1974. He started with a cool gas cloud which condensed in such a way that the angular momentum of the central body was only 1 percent of the system. His contribution was mainly giving a mathematical explanation of the process of formation. The theory also explains formation of planets in concentric rings.

References

1. The origin and evolution of the Solar System - M. M. Woolfson

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system

4. Solar System Evolution - Stuart Ross Taylor


Comments

Showing all 14 comments
 
Ciarra Mae Saquing Jan 6, 2012 4:04 AM
RE: Historical and Modern Theories of the Solar System
this is the assignment that i very had!!!!<br>
ocoee middle in florida Nov 2, 2011 2:43 PM
RE: Historical and Modern Theories of the Solar System
this helped me and my group on a project thanks.
idk Nov 1, 2011 1:59 PM
RE: Historical and Modern Theories of the Solar System
this guys haves a crazy minds....
Angelo Sep 1, 2011 7:54 PM
accretion of solar system
Here are some of the unanswered accretion questions: (1) The laws of physics clearly state gas is molecularly structured to expand indefinitely. How can gas be attracted by gravity or condense into solid particles? (2) Why weren’t the ‘rotating discs’ thrown out into space instead of accreting? (3) How could Venus’s and the moon’s surfaces have been formed all at the same time 4.5 billion years ago? (4) Why do Venus, Uranus, and one-third of the moon spin in a direction opposite to the others? (5) What useful information is available on the specific solid-state processes at work in the accretion phase? (6) How was the planetary matter separated from the solar gases? (7) How did the collapsing cloud cross the thermal, angular, and momentum barriers? (8) What were the mechanics of condensation and accretion? (9) Where did our water and atmosphere come from? (10) Where did the gravity originate in the first place to start the accretion process? (11) Objects move very slowly as they get further from the Sun, the Kuiper belt, and beyond would take longer than 4.5 billion years to accrete. How is that explained? (12) Why couldn’t Uranus and Neptune, or beyond, be formed by using the latest computer simulations for accretion? These questions and many other quantum gravity and accretion issues have never successfully been proven or addressed.

Sincerely, Angelo Pettolino
Sherain Bacar Jose Aug 25, 2011 10:13 PM
Theory of Solar System
Thanks
HAUSOFAJ Apr 6, 2011 1:01 PM
thanks
this just got me an easy A!
Kristen Feb 2, 2011 6:24 PM
Theory
How can the Solarsystem be really flat if the Sun is in it and the sun isn't extreamly flat? How can 99 percent of the solarsystem's mass be in the Sun if there is so much room that can fit hundrends of suns in the solar system? You can ignore my previous question. Can black hole really slow time down or make it faster? Is it rue that if something can tracvel faster than light then it can time travel? Is it possible for all the planets to line up like the ones the phots show us? What is all the planets lining up called? When will the solar eclipes happen?
phil Nov 11, 2010 5:36 AM
solar system theory
Could it be possible that the over millions of years the planets are spiraling into the sun and as they get closer they change forms as if they were on a conveyor belt?
A. Pettolino Aug 1, 2010 7:22 PM
accretion
Dear Colleague; Air Liquid, one of the world’s largest gas producers, has inadvertently disproven the Accretion Theory in publishing: Gas Encyclopedia: The Book, By: Air Liquid, Edward Elsevier. The book states “Earth’s gravitation is too weak to hold (attract) Hydrogen (Helium, Freon, Lithium, Boron Etc.) gas down” (to Earth) and as proof, their state of the art GC/MS readings found 0.0000% Hydrogen in Earth’s atmosphere. GC/MS analyzers can not separate to more than 4 places beyond the decimal. The book directly contradicts the Accretion theory, which states all objects with mass density and molecular, atomic, or volumetric weight can be attracted by (Earth’s) gravity, but these statements are simply not correct. How can gravitation attract and mould gas and dust into our Solar System, when gas expands indefinitely and is not attracted by gravitation? Why were all the computer simulations using the Accretion Model unsuccessful in every attempt to duplicate the formation of water or our Solar System, even after trying every possible combination? These questions further undermined the credibility of the Accretion Theory and of those teaching it. Without one successful experiment to prove gravitation can attract and hold gas, it is still being indoctrinated. This overwhelming evidence leaves the improvable Accretion Theory with few allies. A new historical accounting of the formation of the solar system and Heliocentric Model is www.aptheory.info and explains where water, atmosphere, gravity and the planets originated and predicts a hemisphere made up of gas lighter than Hydrogen holding our atmosphere down. It discards the discredited quantum “multi gravity theory” for a provable energy source, the Solar Winds. Comments welcome. Sincerely, Angelo Pettolino Author: www.aptheory.info
rl dwyer Jul 1, 2010 8:46 AM
accretion theory
Why is the accretion theory still persisting today? It has never been able to be explained in detail, a sun or a planet or a moon forming out of a cloud of gas and dust. That's why a new theory was needed. Anyone wishing serious discussion, contact dwyersuncreation@aol.com. It's time for new thinking.
penelope Jun 28, 2010 5:57 AM
RE: Historical and Modern Theories of the Solar System
this is some good stuff maaaan!
penelope Jun 28, 2010 5:56 AM
sience
this is great stuff maaaaan !!!
rl dwyer Jun 26, 2010 6:51 PM
Sun Creation Theory of 2008-2009
Suns are the most prevalent entity in the Universe. When a Sun reaches its maximum unsustainable size, it has no choice but to birth/create/shed a portion of itself. Suns birth Suns ad infinitum. This simple sequence of events is logical and replaces the "accretion theory" which still today cannot be explained in detail -- because it doesn't happen that way. This theory needs to be evaluated by physicists for either admission or rejection. R.L. Dwyer
mark adrian Jan 30, 2010 1:35 AM
nebular theory(7stages)
7stages of nebular theory
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Email to a friend