New Theory About Earth Formation Differs from Prior Suggested Models

A new theory of earth formation is suggested by a study that deviates from previous suggestions. The problem is no one knows the process proto-earth came to be, but somehow scientists are trudging along. It is so arcane and one of the great unknowns of how the planet came to be.

Models of Planet Formation

One of the accepted models that explain how earth formed is via the built-up of the asteroid through accretion, but it has some questions that are left unanswered, reported Science Alert.

A new study that includes experimentation with modeling shows a possible explanation that fits the planet's unique characteristics.

According to planetologist Paolo Sossi of ETH Zurich in Switzerland; the most widely accepted idea in astrophysics and cosmochemistry is that the earth was formed from chondritic asteroids. These little, simple rock and metal blocks originated early in the Solar System.

He added the problem with this idea is that no combination of these chondrites can explain the earth's exact composition, which is far lower in light, volatile elements like hydrogen and helium than we might have predicted, noted News NCR.

New Theory of How the Earth Formed

How the planet formed is a big mystery with too many questions, although scientists have connected the dots. For example, a star develops from dense matter clumps inside a molecular cloud composed of dust and gas in interstellar space.

Later gas and dust will settle into a swirling maelstrom of proto-matter that spins and spools as gravity pulls everything in to become a protean star.

Within the accretion disk is more than cosmic dust and gas, smaller clumps form as it gets colder. Now, these smaller particles form by the collision caused by electrostatic, the gravitational forces pulling a massive amount of the star stuff until a planet is born from the chaos. It is proof that accretion is part of the process.

Should it be chondrites as the majority of planetary material where the lighter elements end up during the formation?

Ideas to come up with a good reason why light elements do exist in chaotic creation is that extreme heat burnt up all these less dense elementals.

There are some bugs in the assumptions that don't add up; for example, when vaporized elemental isotopes have fewer neutrons based on a lab experiment by Sossi. On earth, the ratio of lighter elements is the same in chondrites.

If the chondrites are not the answer, then the rocks forming to build up the planet in nearby space are actually 'planetesimals' that are bigger. These larger bodies are planet seeds, big enough to have a core.

Sossi determined how planets form in the Solar System via models, and these planetesimals came from grains that built up over a long time. Gravity pulls in the material over millions of years, which also applies to other planets.

The planetesimals formed in varying differences from an ancient sun; hence, these planet seeds are created with varying chemical compositions.

This new theory explains earth formation via planetesimals, not accretion, which has loose ends that are not clear enough, and models bear out this outcome, per Nature Astronomy.