Solar system - birth

[David Levy]

The Milky Way was formedrelatively soon after the Big Bang – about 13.5 billion years ago. In contrast, the solar system was formed just about 4.5 billion years ago.

 

So, where the solar system was formed?

 

Suppose that it was formed at thesame location as it is today. In this situation, we would expect to see anactive star formation at various locations throughout the galaxy. But this isnot the case. A star forming activity had been found only near the galactic nucleus.

 

Wikipedia - "The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Arm connectsto the bar of the galaxy is rich in star-forming regions". "The current hypothes is isthat the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers".

 

In fact, there is no evidence for birth star activity other than near the nucleus of the galaxy.

 

Hence, the next question is as follow: Is it possible that thesolar system was formed near the nucleus or even outside the galaxy?

Edited June 3, 2012 by David Levy

[insane_alien]

the orion nebula is an area of star formation. it's only 1000 or so light years away. definitely not near the center of the galaxy.

 

so thats evidence of starbirth outside of the galactic core.

 

the sun likely formed in its current orbit around the galaxy.

[Xelloss]

In fact, there is no evidence for birth star activity other than near the nucleus of the galaxy.

 

There are several areas where stars are formed that are not located anywhere near the galactic center. For example, the Eagle Nebula (approx. 6500 light years; this nebula is where the "Pillars of Creation" are located) and the Orion Nebula.

 

Star formation also takes place in the spiral arms in general, which can extend all the way out to the edge of the galaxy.

Hence, the next question is as follow: Is it possible that thesolar system was formed near the nucleus or even outside the galaxy?

 

Probably not. There is no indication that the sun's orbit is spiraling outward by anywhere near the magnitude necessary for this to be possible. More likely, the sun formed in a nebula or in one of the arms (i.e. the Orion arm).

[David Levy]

Thanks

 

So let's assume that the solar systemwas formed at one of the nearby Nebula.

 

As the closest one is far way – over 1000light years, than it is clear that there was some kind of movement. (For the solar system or the nubile)

 

Hence, by definition the sun or the nubilehad moved.

 

Therefore, the following statement mustbe correct –

 

Some stars at the milky way galaxy are moving away from each other….

 

As an outcome - The solar system birth location might be different from the current location!!!

 

Do you agree???

 

 

Edited June 4, 2012 by David Levy

[Klaynos]

Stars appear to be flung out of star forming regions with some quite impressive relative speeds. On my phone currently so can't provide references.

[David Levy]

Thanks Klaynos

 

As we know, an object keeps themomentum in space.

 

Therefore if the solar system flung out of star forming regions with some quite impressive relative speeds, than itshould keep the momentum.

 

Hence, the solar system was at a different location in the past.... And… it'sstill moving out from the current location.

 

 

Do you agree?

 

[Ophiolite]

David, I am puzzled by your question. the sun is in orbit about the galaxy, so of course it is moving from its current location. If you try to defiine its current location relative to other stars then you are confornted with the fact that they all have different velocities and different galactic orbits, so once again current location doesn't mean very much.

 

It is generally thought that the sun would have formed in a star nursery, but that the memebers of the nursery would have drifted apart over time. Please note that - drifted - not flung out with impressive relative speeds. Also note that the star forming regions today will not be star forming regions in 20 million years time.

[David Levy]

Yes, fully agree with you about the drift.

 

Darwin had already stated that what we see is the outcome of a small drift.

 

The big ocean is an outcome of a small drift of land --- 2 cm. per year.

 

So, my question is : let's assume that there is a small drift…

 

Where was the sun 4 billion years ago?

 

Where it will be in the next 4 billion years?

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry, why are you introducing Darwin and references to genetic drift? Are you trolling?

 

The ocean is not the outcome of a small drift of land, but is a consequence of a limited maount of continental type crust and a specific amount of water.

 

4 billion years ago the Earth was about eighteen galactic orbits behind where it is now and 4 billion years in the future it will be about eighteen galactic orbits ahead.

 

Do you understand that location has little meaning when we are talking about the sun's position in this context?

[Klaynos]

Yes, fully agree with you about the drift.

 

Darwin had already stated that what we see is the outcome of a small drift.

 

The big ocean is an outcome of a small drift of land --- 2 cm. per year.

 

So, my question is : let's assume that there is a small drift…

 

Where was the sun 4 billion years ago?

 

Where it will be in the next 4 billion years?

 

 

 

Can you define against what you are measuring the position? You need some frame to set up a coordinate system...

 

http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people/mbate/Cluster/Cluster/Animations/ClusterComparison1_67ms.mp4

 

That is a model of a star forming region, you'll see the stars form and then disperse.

[Airbrush]

The Milky Way was formedrelatively soon after the Big Bang – about 13.5 billion years ago. In contrast, the solar system was formed just about 4.5 billion years ago.

 

So, where the solar system was formed?

 

Suppose that it was formed at thesame location as it is today. In this situation, we would expect to see anactive star formation at various locations throughout the galaxy. But this isnot the case. A star forming activity had been found only near the galactic nucleus.

 

Wikipedia - "The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Arm connectsto the bar of the galaxy is rich in star-forming regions". "The current hypothes is isthat the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers".

 

In fact, there is no evidence for birth star activity other than near the nucleus of the galaxy.

 

Hence, the next question is as follow: Is it possible that thesolar system was formed near the nucleus or even outside the galaxy?

 

Why do you often omit a space between words? And what's with the many font changes? No big deal, I was just curious.

 

According to Wiki the Milky Way revolves once every 250 Million years. So that is 4 revolutions per Billion years (over 16 times around the Milky Way since our solar system formed). The other stars that formed near our Sun could be scattered all around the galaxy already.

 

I heard a scientist say that the atoms in your left hand could have come from a different supernova than the atoms in your right hand. That is how mixed up galaxies become.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way

Edited June 4, 2012 by Airbrush