The moon and the planets

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 341–398 | Cite as

Origin of the solar system

I: Gravitational contraction of the turbulent protosun and the shedding of a concentric system of gaseous laplacian rings
  • A. J. R. Prentice


A theory for the origin of the solar system, which is based on ideas of supersonic turbulent convection and indicates the possibility that the original Laplacian hypothesis may by valid, is presented.

We suggest that the first stage of the Sun's formation consisted of the condensation of CNO ices (i.e. H2O, NH3, CH4,...) and later H2, including He as impurity atoms, at interstellar densities to from a cloud of solid grains. These grains then migrate under gravity to their common centre of mass giving up almost two orders of magnitude of angular momentum through resistive interaction with residual gases which are tied, via the ions, to the interstellar magnetic field. Grains rich in CNO rapidly dominate the centre of the cloud at this stage, both giving up almost all of their angular momentum and forming a central chemical inhomogeneity which may account for the present low solar neutrino flux (Prentice, 1976). The rest of the grain cloud, when sufficiently compressed to sweep up the residual gases and go into free fall, is not threatened by rotational disruption until its mean size has shrunk to about the orbit of Neptune.

When the central opacity rises sufficiently to halt the free collapse at central density near 10−13 g cm−3, corresponding to a mean cloud radius of 104R, we find that there is insufficient gravitational energy, for the vaporized cloud to acquire a complete hydrostatic equilibrium, even if a supersonic turbulent stress arising from the motions of convective elements becomes important, as Schatzman (1967) has proposed. Instead we suggest that the inner 3–4% of the cloud mass collapses freely all the way to stellar size to release sufficient energy to stabilize the rest of the infalling cloud. Our model of the early solar nebula thus consists of a small dense quasi-stellar core surrounded by a vast tenuous but opaque turbulent convective envelope.

Following an earlier paper (Prentice, 1973) we show how the supersonic turbulent stress\((\rho _t v_t ^2 ) = \beta \rho GM(r)/r\), where β is called the turbulence parameter, ρ is the gas density andM(r) the mass interior to radiusr causes the envelope to become very centrally condensed (i.e. drastically lowers its moment-of-inertia coefficientf) and leads to a very steep density inversion at its photosurface, as well as causing the interior to rotate like a solid body. As the nebula contracts conserving its angular momentum the ratio θ of centrifugal force to gravitational force at the equator steadily increases. In order to maintain pressure equilibrium at its photosurface, material is extruded outwards from the deep interior of the envelope to form a dense belt of non-turbulent gases at the equator which are free of turbulent viscosity. If the turbulence is sufficiently strong, we find that when θ→1 at equatorial radiusRe=R0, corresponding to the orbit of Neptune, the addition of any further mass to the equator causes the envelope to discontinuously withdraw to a new radiusRe>R0, leaving behind the circular belt of gas at the Kepler orbitR0. The protosun continues to contract inwards, again rotationally stabilizing itself by extruding fresh material to the equator, and eventually abandoning a second gaseous ring at radiusR1, and so on. If the collapse occurs homologously the sequence of orbital radiiRn of the system of gaseous Laplacian rings satisfy the geometric progression
$$R_n /R_{n + 1} = [1 + m/Mf]^2 = constant, n = 0, 1,2, \ldots ,$$
analogous to the Titius-Bode Law of planetary distances, wherem denotes the mass of the disposed ring andM the remaining mass of the envelope. Choosing a ratio of surface to central temperature for the envelope equal to about 10−3 and adjusting the turbulence parameter β∼~0.1 so thatRn/Rn+1 matches the observed mean ratio of 1.73, we typically findf=0.01 and that the rings of gas each have about the same mass, namely 1000M of the solar material. Detailed calculations which take into account non-homologous behaviour resulting from the changing mass fraction of dissociated H2 in the nebula during the collapse do not appreciably disturb this result. This model of the contracting protosun enables us to account for the observed physical structure and mass distribution of the planetary system, as well as the chemistry. In a later Paper II we shall examine in detail the condensation of the planets from the system of gaseous rings.


Solar Neutrino Solar Nebula Turbulence Parameter Neutrino Flux Gaseous Ring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alfvén, H. and Arrhenius, G.: 1973 ‘Structure and Evolutionary History of the Solar System, III’,Astrophys. Space Sci.21, 117–176Google Scholar
  2. Allen, C. W.: 1962Astrophysical Quantities, Athlone Press, London.Google Scholar
  3. Babinet, M.: 1861, ‘Note sur un point de la cosmogonie de Laplace’,Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris 52, 481–484.Google Scholar
  4. Bodenheimer, P. and Sweigart, A. V. 1968 ‘Dynamical Collapse of the Isothermal Sphere’,Astrophys. J. 152 515–522.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, A. C. W.: 1962, ‘The Formation of the Sun and the Planets’,Icarus 1, 13–69.Google Scholar
  6. Cox, J. P. and Guili, R. T.: 1968,Principles of Stellar Structure, Vols 1 and 2, Gordon and Breach, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Disney, M. J., McNally, D., and Wright, A. E.: 1969 ‘Collapse of Interstellar Gas Clouds—IV. Models of Collapse and a Theory of Star Formation’.Monthly Notices Roy. Astron Soc. 146, 123–160.Google Scholar
  8. Duley, W. W.: 1974, ‘Comparison of Grain Mantles in Interstellar Clouds’,Astrophys. Space Sci. 26, 199–205.Google Scholar
  9. Engvold, O. and Hauge, Ø.: 1974, ‘Elemental Abundances, Isotope Ratios and Molecular Compounds in the Solar Atmosphere’, Report No. 39, Institute of Theoretical Astrophys, Blindern-Oslo.Google Scholar
  10. Ezer, D. and Cameron, A. G. W.: 1965, ‘A Study of Solar Evolution’,Can. J. Phys.,43, 1497–1517.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, J. W.: 1978., ‘The Primordial Solar Magnetic Field’, inThe Origin of the Solar System S. F. Dermott, ed.), John wiley&Sons, London (in press).Google Scholar
  12. Grossman, L. and Larimer, J. W.: 1974, ‘Early Chemical History of the Solar System’,Revs. Geophys. Space Phys. 12, 71–101.Google Scholar
  13. Hayashi, C.: 1961, ‘Stellar Evolution in Early Phases of Gravitational Contraction’,Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 13, 450–452.Google Scholar
  14. Hollenbach, D. and Salpeter, E. E.: 1971, ‘Surface Recombination of Hydrogen Molecules’,Astrophys. J. 163, 155–164.Google Scholar
  15. Hoyle, F.: 1955,Frontiers of Astronomy, Heineman, London.Google Scholar
  16. Hoyle, F.: 1960, ‘On the Origin of the Solar Nebula’,Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 1, 28–55Google Scholar
  17. Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe, N. C.: 1968, ‘Condensation of the Planets’,Nature 217, 415–418.Google Scholar
  18. James, R.: 1964, ‘The Structure and Stability of Rotating Gas Masses’,Astrophys. J. 140, 552–582.Google Scholar
  19. Jeans, J. H.: 1928,Astronomy and Cosmogony, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Kuiper, G. P.: 1951, ‘On the Origin of the Solar System’, inAstrophysics (J. A. Hynek, ed.), pp.357–424. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Laplace, P. S. de: 1796,Exposition du Système de Monde, Courcier, Paris.Google Scholar
  22. Larson, R. B.: 1969, ‘Numerical Calculations of the Dynamics of a Collapsing Proto-Star’,Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 145, 271–295.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, J. S.: 1974, ‘The Temperature Gradient in the Solar Nebula’,Science,186, 440–443.Google Scholar
  24. Maxwell, J. C.: 1855, ‘On the Stability of the Motions of Saturn's Rings’, inScientific Papers of J. C. Maxwell (W. D. Niven, ed.), pp. 288–376, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Mestel, L.: 1965a, ‘Problems of Star Formation—I’,Quart, J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 6, 161–198.Google Scholar
  26. Mestel, L.: 1965b, ‘Problems of Star Formation—II’,Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 6, 265–298.Google Scholar
  27. Monaghan, J. J. and Roxburgh, I. W.: 1965, ‘The Structure of Rapidly Rotating Polytropes’,Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 131, 13–21.Google Scholar
  28. Nieto, M. M.: 1972,The Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Distances: Its History and Theory, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. Penston, M. V.: 1966, ‘Dynamics of Self-Gravitating Gaseous Spheres. I. The Collapse of an Isothermal Gaseous Sphere’,Roy. Obs. Bull., No. 117.Google Scholar
  30. Poincaré, H.: 1911,Leçons sur les Hypothèses Cosmogoniques, Herman, Paris.Google Scholar
  31. Prentice, A. J. R. and ter Haar, D.: 1971, ‘On the Angular Momentum Problem in Star Formation’,Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 151, 177–184.Google Scholar
  32. Prentice, A. J. R.: 1973, ‘On Turbulent Stress and the Structure of Young Convective Stars’,Astron. Astrophys. 27, 237–248.Google Scholar
  33. Prentice, A. J. R.: 1976, ‘Supersonic Turbulent Convection, Inhomogeneities of Chemical Composition, and the Solar Neutrino Problem’,Astron. Astrophys. 50, 59–70.Google Scholar
  34. Prentice, A. J. R.: 1977, ‘Formation of the Satellite Systems of the Major Planets’,Proc. Astron. Soc. Australia 3, 172–173.Google Scholar
  35. Reddish, V. C.: 1975, ‘Star Formation in Clouds of Molecular Hydrogen’,Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 170, 261–280.Google Scholar
  36. Reddish, V. C. and Wickramasinghe, N. C.: 1969,‘Star Formation in Clouds of Solid Hydrogen Grains’,Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 143, 189–208.Google Scholar
  37. Roxburgh, I. W.: 1966, ‘On the Fission Theory of the Origin of Binary Stars’,Astrophys. J. 143, 111–120.Google Scholar
  38. Schatzman, E.: 1949, ‘On Certain Paths of Stellar Evolution., I—Preliminary Remarks’,Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique 35, 1141–1152.Google Scholar
  39. Schatzman, E.: 1967, ‘Cosmogony of the Solar System and the Origin of Deuterium’,Ann. Astrophys. 30, 963–973.Google Scholar
  40. Schatzman, E.: 1971, inHighlights of Astronomy (C. de Jager, ed.), Vol. 2, p. 197, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  41. Schmidt, M.: 1965, ‘Rotation Parameters and Distribution of Mass in the Galaxy’, inStars and Stellar Systems (A. Blaauw and M. Schmidt, eds.), pp. 513–530, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  42. Spitzer, L.: 1968,Diffuse Matter in Space, Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
  43. ter Haar, D.: 1948, ‘Studies on the Origin of the Solar System’,Proc. Roy. Danish Acad. Sci. 25, No. 3.Google Scholar
  44. ter Haar, D.: 1950, ‘Further Studies on the Origin of the Solar System’,Astrophys. J. 111, 179–190.Google Scholar
  45. ter Haar, D.: 1967, ‘On the Origin of the Solar System’,Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 5, 267–278.Google Scholar
  46. ter Haar, D. and Cameron, A. G. W.: 1963, ‘Historical Review of Theories of the Origin of the Solar System’, inOrigin of the Solar System, (R. Jastrow and A. G. W. Cameron, eds.)., pp. 4–37, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Urey, H. C.: 1951, ‘The Origin and Development of the Earth and Other Terrestrial Planets’,Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1, 209–277.Google Scholar
  48. Weber, E. J. and Davis, L. Jr.: 1967, ‘The Angular Momentum of the Solar Wind’,Astrophys. J. 148, 217–227.Google Scholar
  49. Whipple, F. L.: 1972,Earth, Moon and Planets, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. R. Prentice
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of MathematicsMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations