Question about universe
Well, my question starts off with a question, one from my 5 year old brother - why are stars circles? Well, I told him a simple answer - he knew the sun was a star, so I said that since the sun is a circle, so was the stars. But then that got me thinking - why are stars spheres? I knew that one too - matter tends to clump into spheres because it is the nature of gravity: it pulls equally in all directions from a given point, and an almost of equal ammount of matter tries to converge at this point. This is how everything works in space, I told myself. But then I realized it didn't - our solar system, I was led to believe, was flat - everything rotated the same direction, and on the same plane. The same thing with our galaxy - it isn't spherical either. So my question is why. Why does our solar system and galaxy not appear to be spherical?
And on a side note, I went to a childrens museum the other day, and they had this little side exhibet about the history of time - one fact was the discovery of antimatter - "matter that travels backwars in time." Is that, in fact, true?
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
- Login to post comments
Roll a lump of clay around.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Umm, will play-doh do?
I believe I heard this somewhere...
In regards to stars and planets anyway, they become spherical because they are large enough to have a strong enough gravity 'squash' or reshape the matter into a sphere.
That's why smaller bodies are not nearly so close to spherical.
Anybody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not sure about the shapes of galaxies or solar systems.
First, heavenly bodies appear to be circular because they are spheres. A sphere provides the greatest volume with the smallest surface area; thus, gases and molten materials will form them if provided opportunity without other forces acting upon them.
Smaller bodies tend to be misshapen because they form from solid materials or if formed while molten, have other forces (ie. gravity) acting upon them.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
interesting point xam.
most of us can understand why the planets are round but it is unknown to me why the solar system seems to be "flat" in a sense. the paths of the planets kind of wobble but they don't really stray away from a plane. i guess the same thing can be noticed about "rings" around saturn. they tend to be flat and not a thin layer covering around the planet.
when i was younger and first started to learn about atoms i thought they seemed familar to the solar system. the sun being the neutron and the planets being the protons and electrons that move around it. even a cell has similarities between planets.
it is amazing to think of how enormous everything is and how small we are. we have so much to learn.
i've read a little about antimatter on wikipedia but it would be nice if someone had some good quick description on what it is. what does it look like and can you touch it? can you put it in a box and carry it around? is it airy, fluid or a solid? dark matter and dark energy are also interesting subjects that i am curious about.
EDIT: changed nucleus to cell, nucleus is the core, cell is the body
May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.
Well, I'm sure BGH would be a much better person to answer this, but I'll give it my best layman's shot.
You've got basically the right idea about gravity forming spheres, and why planetary bodies tend to be essentially spherical. You should note, though, that gravity works against spheres, too. The moons of Jupiter, for instance, are constantly being pulled in various ways, so that they're not perfectly spherical. This accounts for the hot cores that would ordinarily have cooled given their size and age.
So, once you wrap around that, consider that gravity is not the only force at work in the solar system. First, and most important is motion. The reason everything doesn't collapse into the sun is that it's at a state near equilibrium, where each body's velocity nearly matches the pull of gravity from the sun. Each body, however, is a conglomeration of matter that formed as it was grabbed by the sun's gravity. It was yanked off of its trajectory, which, while it probably wasn't completely straight, was damn close. The pull of gravity was enough to literally turn the matter around, and get it going in a near-circular orbit. (Think of a vortex in water...)
Think about it this way. There are lots of variables in the universe: gravity, momentum, radiation, etc... For all of them to line up so that things would form perfect spheres or perfect circular orbits would be rather extraordinary. What we're seeing is an "imperfect" system, where matter and energy are tending toward spheres and circles, but are influenced by many outside forces that throw things slightly off perfection.
Hope that helps.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Ah, I hadn't really considered the disc part of the question... maybe I just didn't read the OP correctly.
I don't know the answer with authority, but it seems to me that the slightly imperfect sphere would help answer this question. Consider a single sphere orbiting another larger sphere. Each is pulling on the other slightly, such that the larger sphere has a little more mass on the plane of orbit. Perhaps this tiny difference is enough to continue the trend?
I dunno. This sounds like a question for a professional.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Here is a nice brief description of planetary formation I found on the web.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/planetform.html
I would also add that 'gravity' which hold these bodies together is actually a rather weak force. If a body is struck by another object the energy from such a collision can override the effect of gravity and tidal forces on it. Sometimes this will alter the rotation or location of the object. A good example of this is Uranus, which rotates on it's axis almost parallel to the plane of the elliptic whereas most of the other planets rotate perpendicular to the plane. It is a common theory that Uranus was struck by a fairly large body to knock it out of sync with the of the other planets.
Here is more info on Uranus from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus_(planet)
There are bodies in our solar system that orbit the sun outside of the planetary disc and it is also believed this is a result of other objects which knocked them out of the rotational disc.
The questions about antimatter are another story.
The fundemental particles that make up atoms are protons, electrons and neutrons, inversely there are complete opposite particles in the universe called antiparticles. When regualr matter and antimatter come in contact they annihilate each other. So, no you would not be able to hold it in your hand.
Here is a good article describing antimatter:
http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Antimatter.html
I'm also not a physicist, but I've seen a guy make a pizza crust.
If you take a spherical blob of pizza dough and spin it, centrifugal force causes the blob to flatten out and become disk-shaped. The mass of the dough out around the edge of the blob's equator (perpendicular to the axis of spin) hauls on the rest of the dough and stretches it out. The more and faster you spin it, the flatter it becomes.
So unless I'm overlooking something that I don't know about physics, it seems analagous that if you take any spherical blob of matter and spin it, it will tend to flatten out along a plane perpendicular to the direction of spin.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
For the shape of solar systems and galaxies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws
Kepler's laws.
For anti-matter, mathematically anti-particles are travelling backwards in time.
Congrats Textom, you've earned a place in my sig.
I understand that all things don't form to a sphere, mainly because of orbits, but I don't understand why seemingly all orbits go in the same direction. For example, why isn't there a planet orbiting our sun whose orbit is perpindicular to ours?
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
There are not any objects I am aware of that have an orbit perpencicular to the normal planetary orbital plane but there are a few objects farther out that are askew from the plane.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1003_021007_quaoar_2.html
Mainly the analogy of a pizza crust is a great one, as the nebulous cloud became compressed and began to rotate, it flattened out becoming what is called an accretion disc. The planets were formed in this material that was already in the 'pizza crust' formation. They continued in that same rotational orbital plane and would only be knocked askew if another rather large body struck them from an angle with enough energy to jar them from the plane.
Here is a good article that illustrates why some larger planets like to orbit closer to their stars. It does a good job of describing the gravitational and magnetic pull of the star and it's effect on the nearby planetary bodies.
Why some huge planets like to hug stars
By Ker Than, SPACE.com Stars form in cloudy nebulas and, shortly after genesis, consume most of the gas of their birthplace and use the surrounding dust and leftover gas to form planets, according to standard theory.The gas and dust collapse into a rotating "circumstellar" disk and are drawn toward the star. Planets are thought to sometimes migrate inward after birth, too. But scientists don't yet know what drives the inward spiraling motion.
A new model suggests magnetic instabilities in the disk cause gas to fall onto the star and also helps drag young planets into their final orbits.
"Astronomers observe gas crashing down upon the surfaces of young stars by virtue of the ultraviolet radiation they emit, but a way to transport this gas from the disk to the star has not been convincingly specified," said study team member Eugene Chiang at the University of California, Berkeley.
The new model, detailed online in the June 8 issue of the journal Nature Physics, could also help explain why some planets outside our solar system orbit so close to their parent stars.
The magnetic instability arises from the fact that gas in the circumstellar disk orbits at different speeds depending on its distance from the star. Radiating throughout the disk like spokes on a bicycle wheel are magnetic field lines.
Chiang likens the magnetic field lines to rubber bands binding the inner and outer gas rings together. Because the inner ring rotates faster than the outer one, the magnetic field "rubber bands" stretch in the direction of the rotation.
"What does that do? It pulls back on the inner ring and speeds up the outer one," Chiang told SPACE.com. This acts to slow down the inner ring, causing it to lose momentum and spiral inward to crash onto the star.
Chiang and coauthor Ruth Murray-Clay, also of UC Berkeley, say that recently observed "transitional disks"-gaps in the circumstellar disk that are free of dust-around young stars support their model.
The stellar wind of young stars blows dust out of the transitional disk regions, but has no effect on gas. The magnetic instability the researchers are hypothesizing only works if the spinning gas has sufficient electrical charge. Dust tends to absorb charges and reduce electrical conductivity.
Because the inflowing gas drags embedded objects, including young planets, along with it toward the star, the new model also has implications for planet formation. Hot Jupiters are giant gas planets that orbit closer to their parent stars than Mercury does to our sun and as a result have extremely high surface temperatures.
The new model suggests that planets riding the wave of inflowing gas toward the inner region of their solar systems can be halted by magnetic instabilities in the immediate vicinity of the star.
"Once disrupted, disk gas can no longer drag the planets inward," Chiang said.
Copyright 2007, SPACE.com Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.