Solar System: Newest & Most Ancient Planets

Specialists in planetary science are at odds, fluctuating between a pair of leading concepts that detail the arrangement in which the planets of our solar system came into existence.(Image credit: MARK GARLICK/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY via Getty Images)

Roughly 4.6 billion years in the past, a cosmic mass of particles underwent a collapse, initiating the circumstances for the genesis of our solar system. Subsequently, a nebula exhibiting considerable gravitational influence materialized, instigating the origin of the sun. Nevertheless, following this event, particulars become less clear, leaving a greater margin for contention over which planets were the earliest to take shape.

Thus, what insights do we possess pertaining to the planets that arose in the early stages, and which ones evolved at a later time?

Notwithstanding sophisticated methods such as ascertaining the age of organic substances collected from the cosmos, undertaking numerous excursions to the moon, and dispatching robotic probes to the surface of Mars, experts in planetary science remain indecisive concerning the definitive sequence in which the planets of our solar system were birthed. Apart from the rudimentary establishment of the planets, there exist numerous rival propositions aiming to elucidate the arrangement in which the planets came to be.

You may like

At what point did the planets in our solar system come into being? Unearthing a minuscule meteorite could pose a challenge to the prevailing chronology
The Earth, Mars, Venus, and an additional planet that has vanished may have at one time executed a ‘waltz’ in ideal equilibrium around our sun
Astronomers take notice of a nascent planetary configuration materializing before their very eyes

“The subject is intricate, and unambiguous responses are absent when gauging duration in cosmic expanse,” Michael Meyer, the chairman of the astronomy division at the University of Michigan, disclosed to Live Science. “Within the sphere of astronomy, it stands as the most formidable undertaking.”

Register for our weekly Life’s Little Mysteries bulletin to gain entry to the most recent enigmas prior to their online presence.

The prevailing account for the manner in which the eight planets in our solar system materialized is termed accretion, which involves the clashing and adhesion of minuscule particles composed of gas and dust, thereby permitting them to build up their gravitational attraction and augment their size over the course of time.

One well-known hypothesis, predicated on the premise that accretion took place, posits that the expansive planets initiated their formation initially, at a considerable distance from the sun, as indicated by NASA. As their dimensions grew, they advanced outward, thereby establishing the conditions for the genesis of the terrestrial, rocky planets. Such transformations transpired nearer to the sun and transpired millions of years later, a period relatively brief when assessed on an astronomical dimension.

“To effectively shape a gas giant planet, an adequate quantity of gas to constitute a Jupiter-sized entity is indispensable, and this imposes a stringent threshold regarding the duration required to engender a gas giant,” Meyer stated. “Omission of the process’s rapid initiation, coupled with the dissipation of the gas, precludes the creation of a gas giant. It is on this account that we surmise that the gas giants were the vanguard in their formation.”

Nonetheless, a rival postulation, denoted as the streaming instability paradigm, furnishes an alternative delineation. Through the provision of means for planets to accumulate mass more impulsively, the aforementioned paradigm has the potential to precipitate an entirely distinct sequential arrangement.

“It is my contention that potentially the terrestrial planets were the first to materialize, with the jumbo planets simply ceasing their evolution once the gas reserves were exhausted,” Cauê Borlina, an assistant professor specializing in planetary science at Purdue University, communicated to Live Science. “Thereafter, the process devolves into a disorganized accumulation.”

Ascertaining a planet’s age

Scholars persist in their contention over the theory that most effectively explicates the genesis of the solar system. Nevertheless, even their mode of conceptualizing a planet’s age lacks straightforwardness.

You may like

At what point did the planets in our solar system come into being? Unearthing a minuscule meteorite could pose a challenge to the prevailing chronology
The Earth, Mars, Venus, and an additional planet that has vanished may have at one time executed a ‘waltz’ in ideal equilibrium around our sun
Astronomers take notice of a nascent planetary configuration materializing before their very eyes

“There exist a pair of divergent viewpoints pertaining to the epoch of a planet,” Gaia Stucky de Quay, a planetary expert situated at MIT, elucidated to Live Science. Rather than attributing a planet’s age to its derivation, certain scholars elect to concentrate their scrutinization on its superficial stratum.

“My personal conceptualization of age pivots more towards the temporal dimension of the outer stratum, given that surfaces are susceptible to being either notably ancient, akin to a preserved surface, or conspicuously young, given the persistence of dynamic phenomena” exemplified by active plate tectonics, Stucky de Quay explicated.

RELATED MYSTERIES

—Did illumination subsist during the cosmos’s inception?

—When shall the solar system reach its conclusion?

—Do other celestial bodies undergo cyclical seasonal variations?

A technique employed by scientists to gauge a planet’s age comprises the manual enumeration of depressions scarring its surface. From such a vantage, Earth might potentially be viewed as the most nascent planet, considering its continual alteration of its outer layer, with Venus and Mars tailing thereupon, as elucidated by her.

Lamentably, the confines intrinsic to current planetary age-determination procedures imply that scientists are only empowered to formulate approximate age estimations for individual planets. Furthermore, by virtue of the circumstance that even a diminutive disparity in exactitude is capable of translating into millions of years amidst the annals of the universe, researchers are tenaciously engaged in aggregating data with the ambition of coalescing a more exhaustive chronology.

“Should we ever pursue the endeavor of attaining a holistic perspective of the mechanics and timing behind planetary genesis, the procurement of samples emerges as a pivotal constituent,” Borlina affirmed. “Moreover, securing specimens from several locales poses a heightened echelon of complexity than ours, though we presently retain samples emplaced on Mars, awaiting retrieval.”

TOPICSLife’s Little MysteriesSolar System

Abby WilsonSocial Links NavigationLive Science Contributor

Abby Wilson functions as a London-based freelance journalist endowed with proficiency in composing content pertaining to the intersections linking technology, well-being, and the biosphere. Her compositions have graced platforms such as The Week, New York Daily News, Homes & Gardens, and Better Homes & Gardens, amongst sundry additional disseminators. She possesses a master’s level academic attainment in investigative journalism sourced from City St George’s, University of London, coupled with a bachelor’s level academic attainment in journalism emanating from New York University.

You must confirm your public display name before commenting

Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.

LogoutRead more