What would the consequences be of a high number of solar systems being within close proximity to one another?Do different star systems experience time differently?How to avoid objects when traveling at greater than .75 light speed. or How Not to Go SPLAT?Modelling a multi-star system with numerous planets and moonsConditions for human life in a Jupiter-like systemTiny galaxies with exoplanetsHow close could another solar system be without adversely affecting our own?If the Earth was part of an ultimate solar system, what would the sky look like?A pair of similar celestial bodies coming near each other
Alternatives to boxes
18-month-old kicked out of church nursery
Define macros by using `foreach` of TikZ
Was this “caterpillar” strategy a good way to advance my pawns?
Colleague used admin access to view my private employee order
Why is macOS limited to 1064 processes?
Does no-one standing against the speaker of the house in UK lead to the local electorate being disenfranchised?
Should i show Hotel reservation when entering Schengen zone?
Translation of 見れば
Impeachment jury tampering
Can a stolen Android phone with USB debugging enabled have screen lock bypassed?
Can only rich people become president?
Designing society for happiness
Create a program that prints the amount of characters it has, in words
Features of a Coda section
Reviewer wants me to do massive amount of work, the result would be a different article. Should I tell that to the editor?
Allow all users to create files in a directory, but only the owner can delete
Question about Literary Genre
How can I find the weakness of our "Quality Assurance Process"?
How is warfare affected when armor has (temporarily) outpaced guns? How can guns compete?
Creating Variable Distance Buffers using QGIS
How to make a long equation small to fit in LaTeX?
Why combine commands on a single line in a Bash script?
Finding big cacti between Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles
What would the consequences be of a high number of solar systems being within close proximity to one another?
Do different star systems experience time differently?How to avoid objects when traveling at greater than .75 light speed. or How Not to Go SPLAT?Modelling a multi-star system with numerous planets and moonsConditions for human life in a Jupiter-like systemTiny galaxies with exoplanetsHow close could another solar system be without adversely affecting our own?If the Earth was part of an ultimate solar system, what would the sky look like?A pair of similar celestial bodies coming near each other
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
$begingroup$
What would the consequences be of a high number of solar systems being within close proximity to one another? I'm mainly interested in the consequences for life on multiple planets. When I say 'close proximity' I mean the stars all being between 1000-100,000 AU apart from one another, and roughly all being G-category stars?
I'm trying to create a setting where the distances between other exo-planets is not as vast as our own relative position in the galaxy, due to the issues limiting light-speed space travel.
The effects I am taking note of are:
- Gravitational effects (how much the stars will be attracting one another, and how it will affect planetary orbits)
- Stars heating planets
- The amount of light being received by close stars
Would habitable planets be able to survive with such a dense amount of stars nearby? If so, what are other variables to consider that would change the planets features?
planets physics space astronomy habitability
edited Jun 10 at 18:39
HDE 226868♦
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
asked Jun 10 at 17:52
SezaiiSezaii
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
What would the consequences be of a high number of solar systems being within close proximity to one another? I'm mainly interested in the consequences for life on multiple planets. When I say 'close proximity' I mean the stars all being between 1000-100,000 AU apart from one another, and roughly all being G-category stars?
I'm trying to create a setting where the distances between other exo-planets is not as vast as our own relative position in the galaxy, due to the issues limiting light-speed space travel.
The effects I am taking note of are:
- Gravitational effects (how much the stars will be attracting one another, and how it will affect planetary orbits)
- Stars heating planets
- The amount of light being received by close stars
Would habitable planets be able to survive with such a dense amount of stars nearby? If so, what are other variables to consider that would change the planets features?
planets physics space astronomy habitability
edited Jun 10 at 18:39
HDE 226868♦
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
asked Jun 10 at 17:52
SezaiiSezaii
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
What would the consequences be of a high number of solar systems being within close proximity to one another? I'm mainly interested in the consequences for life on multiple planets. When I say 'close proximity' I mean the stars all being between 1000-100,000 AU apart from one another, and roughly all being G-category stars?
I'm trying to create a setting where the distances between other exo-planets is not as vast as our own relative position in the galaxy, due to the issues limiting light-speed space travel.
The effects I am taking note of are:
- Gravitational effects (how much the stars will be attracting one another, and how it will affect planetary orbits)
- Stars heating planets
- The amount of light being received by close stars
Would habitable planets be able to survive with such a dense amount of stars nearby? If so, what are other variables to consider that would change the planets features?
planets physics space astronomy habitability
edited Jun 10 at 18:39
HDE 226868♦
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
asked Jun 10 at 17:52
SezaiiSezaii
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
$endgroup$
What would the consequences be of a high number of solar systems being within close proximity to one another? I'm mainly interested in the consequences for life on multiple planets. When I say 'close proximity' I mean the stars all being between 1000-100,000 AU apart from one another, and roughly all being G-category stars?
I'm trying to create a setting where the distances between other exo-planets is not as vast as our own relative position in the galaxy, due to the issues limiting light-speed space travel.
The effects I am taking note of are:
- Gravitational effects (how much the stars will be attracting one another, and how it will affect planetary orbits)
- Stars heating planets
- The amount of light being received by close stars
Would habitable planets be able to survive with such a dense amount of stars nearby? If so, what are other variables to consider that would change the planets features?
planets physics space astronomy habitability
planets physics space astronomy habitability
edited Jun 10 at 18:39
HDE 226868♦
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
asked Jun 10 at 17:52
SezaiiSezaii
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
edited Jun 10 at 18:39
HDE 226868♦
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
asked Jun 10 at 17:52
SezaiiSezaii
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
edited Jun 10 at 18:39
HDE 226868♦
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
edited Jun 10 at 18:39
HDE 226868♦
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
edited Jun 10 at 18:39
HDE 226868♦
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
asked Jun 10 at 17:52
SezaiiSezaii
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
asked Jun 10 at 17:52
SezaiiSezaii
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
asked Jun 10 at 17:52
SezaiiSezaii
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
1231 silver badge8 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your environment is quite similar to that in a globular cluster. At its densest, a globular cluster may see peak stellar number densities of $sim1000$ stars per cubic parsec, which implies a mean separation of about 20,000 AU. This leads us to conclude that many, if not most, planets will be stripped away through encounters with other stars, leading to a large population of free-floating planets.
Your systems will experience the same problems. However, $N$-body simulations have revealed some characteristics of the planetary systems that will survive intact:
- Planets will likely have orbits close to their parent stars. For instance, planets around pulsars would likely have semi-major axes of $sim0.1text-1.0$ AU.
- Moreover, systems with large numbers of planets are quite unlikely, given that multi-planet systems are even more susceptible instabilities after experiencing these encounters.
With mean distances of a few tens of thousands of AU, light from other stars will not affect habitability, thanks to the inverse-square law. A star 20,000 AU away should contribute a bit more than one billionth the flux of the Sun, if the Sun was 1 AU away.
answered Jun 10 at 18:11
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Given the high density of stars in the question would flares and CMEs cross between systems? If so could such events adversely effect habitability?
$endgroup$
– Ash
Jun 10 at 18:19
1
$begingroup$
@Ash I would be extremely surprised if that was an issue. While some Sun-like stars do exhibit superflares, separations of thousands of AU should be enough to greatly reduce the flux at a nearby star of energy or particles from such an event.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Ash you'd probably have more to worry about with ageing neighbours turning into novae or supernovae; that's the sort of thing that would hit the reset switch on the evolution of local life.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 19:08
1
$begingroup$
But on a related note, how plausible is the existence of a mostly G (or smaller and cooler) cluster with sufficient metallicity to be worth colonising, or to have produced its own life? All those interesting elements have to come from somewhere, and those grandparent-generation stars may still be around in one for or another, right?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 20:34
3
$begingroup$
Regarding cluster metallicity: The stars that produce those heavy elements are quite massive, and likely only live for a few tens of millions of years (maybe a hundred million years if we're being generous) at the most. By the time life arises, they'll be long gone.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 20:37
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
I'd say that the central stars would have lifeless small rocks as the planets would lose their original orbits. The inner most stars would get hotter from the output of the ones surrounding them. The central region would be high in radioactivity from all the solar winds streaming in. The perimeter stars would be richer in planets from having captured the wanderers.
Starlight intensity would not vary much given the nearest star is 200 times as distant as Pluto is from the sun.
No comets. They can't survive even a single pass without falling into one star or another.
Life's chances for any peripheral system that's more than a few thousand AU's from nearest neighbor are pretty much the same as on singleton systems.
answered Jun 11 at 10:33
Hussain AkbarHussain Akbar
291 bronze badge
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Do you have any references to support this? These comments sound more like guesses than factual statements. You state that starlight intensity wouldn't vary much, but also state that stars would be hotter from output of the surrounding stars. These statements seem to directly contradict eachother. Moreover, why should perimeter stars preferentially capture wandering planets? The orbital mechanics of capturing free-floating planets is very unlikely under many circumstances, IMO, and I see no reason why the outer stars would preferentially capture them. Also, solar winds aren't radioactive.
$endgroup$
– conman
Jun 11 at 13:05
$begingroup$
Why no comets? What do you mean by "pass"? Is that a comet's orbit or is it two stars passing close by each other (how close?)? Or something else?
$endgroup$
– 8bittree
Jun 11 at 15:34
$begingroup$
I agree with what @conman says, and Hussain, I definitely think you should edit your answer to address those concerns. That said, I do agree that some comets - in particular extreme long-period comets, given the extent of the Oort Cloud - will likely be perturbed by passing stars. The Oort Cloud's outer radius is certainly much larger than the mean stellar distances we're talking about here, so I think you're right about this disruption.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 11 at 23:02
$begingroup$
The Oort cloud theoretically ranges from 2000AU to 200,000AU. Given the OP's parameters, the orbits of the comets would overlap multiple systems. Any comets formed therein wouldn't be able to complete a handful of orbits before being captured in close orbit and melting and falling into a gravity well.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 4:46
$begingroup$
@conman You're completely correct, it's not. Would the density increase cause higher temperatures? One would imagine so. With the Oort cloud being theoretically 2000AU to 200,000AU no comet would be able to complete more than a few orbits without falling into a gravity well. In this N-body system, larger planets would either not form, or escape inner orbits to fall into outer ones. Or, would they? My brain aches trying to visualize this cluster.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 5:45
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148683%2fwhat-would-the-consequences-be-of-a-high-number-of-solar-systems-being-within-cl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your environment is quite similar to that in a globular cluster. At its densest, a globular cluster may see peak stellar number densities of $sim1000$ stars per cubic parsec, which implies a mean separation of about 20,000 AU. This leads us to conclude that many, if not most, planets will be stripped away through encounters with other stars, leading to a large population of free-floating planets.
Your systems will experience the same problems. However, $N$-body simulations have revealed some characteristics of the planetary systems that will survive intact:
- Planets will likely have orbits close to their parent stars. For instance, planets around pulsars would likely have semi-major axes of $sim0.1text-1.0$ AU.
- Moreover, systems with large numbers of planets are quite unlikely, given that multi-planet systems are even more susceptible instabilities after experiencing these encounters.
With mean distances of a few tens of thousands of AU, light from other stars will not affect habitability, thanks to the inverse-square law. A star 20,000 AU away should contribute a bit more than one billionth the flux of the Sun, if the Sun was 1 AU away.
answered Jun 10 at 18:11
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Given the high density of stars in the question would flares and CMEs cross between systems? If so could such events adversely effect habitability?
$endgroup$
– Ash
Jun 10 at 18:19
1
$begingroup$
@Ash I would be extremely surprised if that was an issue. While some Sun-like stars do exhibit superflares, separations of thousands of AU should be enough to greatly reduce the flux at a nearby star of energy or particles from such an event.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Ash you'd probably have more to worry about with ageing neighbours turning into novae or supernovae; that's the sort of thing that would hit the reset switch on the evolution of local life.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 19:08
1
$begingroup$
But on a related note, how plausible is the existence of a mostly G (or smaller and cooler) cluster with sufficient metallicity to be worth colonising, or to have produced its own life? All those interesting elements have to come from somewhere, and those grandparent-generation stars may still be around in one for or another, right?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 20:34
3
$begingroup$
Regarding cluster metallicity: The stars that produce those heavy elements are quite massive, and likely only live for a few tens of millions of years (maybe a hundred million years if we're being generous) at the most. By the time life arises, they'll be long gone.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 20:37
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Your environment is quite similar to that in a globular cluster. At its densest, a globular cluster may see peak stellar number densities of $sim1000$ stars per cubic parsec, which implies a mean separation of about 20,000 AU. This leads us to conclude that many, if not most, planets will be stripped away through encounters with other stars, leading to a large population of free-floating planets.
Your systems will experience the same problems. However, $N$-body simulations have revealed some characteristics of the planetary systems that will survive intact:
- Planets will likely have orbits close to their parent stars. For instance, planets around pulsars would likely have semi-major axes of $sim0.1text-1.0$ AU.
- Moreover, systems with large numbers of planets are quite unlikely, given that multi-planet systems are even more susceptible instabilities after experiencing these encounters.
With mean distances of a few tens of thousands of AU, light from other stars will not affect habitability, thanks to the inverse-square law. A star 20,000 AU away should contribute a bit more than one billionth the flux of the Sun, if the Sun was 1 AU away.
answered Jun 10 at 18:11
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Given the high density of stars in the question would flares and CMEs cross between systems? If so could such events adversely effect habitability?
$endgroup$
– Ash
Jun 10 at 18:19
1
$begingroup$
@Ash I would be extremely surprised if that was an issue. While some Sun-like stars do exhibit superflares, separations of thousands of AU should be enough to greatly reduce the flux at a nearby star of energy or particles from such an event.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Ash you'd probably have more to worry about with ageing neighbours turning into novae or supernovae; that's the sort of thing that would hit the reset switch on the evolution of local life.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 19:08
1
$begingroup$
But on a related note, how plausible is the existence of a mostly G (or smaller and cooler) cluster with sufficient metallicity to be worth colonising, or to have produced its own life? All those interesting elements have to come from somewhere, and those grandparent-generation stars may still be around in one for or another, right?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 20:34
3
$begingroup$
Regarding cluster metallicity: The stars that produce those heavy elements are quite massive, and likely only live for a few tens of millions of years (maybe a hundred million years if we're being generous) at the most. By the time life arises, they'll be long gone.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 20:37
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Your environment is quite similar to that in a globular cluster. At its densest, a globular cluster may see peak stellar number densities of $sim1000$ stars per cubic parsec, which implies a mean separation of about 20,000 AU. This leads us to conclude that many, if not most, planets will be stripped away through encounters with other stars, leading to a large population of free-floating planets.
Your systems will experience the same problems. However, $N$-body simulations have revealed some characteristics of the planetary systems that will survive intact:
- Planets will likely have orbits close to their parent stars. For instance, planets around pulsars would likely have semi-major axes of $sim0.1text-1.0$ AU.
- Moreover, systems with large numbers of planets are quite unlikely, given that multi-planet systems are even more susceptible instabilities after experiencing these encounters.
With mean distances of a few tens of thousands of AU, light from other stars will not affect habitability, thanks to the inverse-square law. A star 20,000 AU away should contribute a bit more than one billionth the flux of the Sun, if the Sun was 1 AU away.
answered Jun 10 at 18:11
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Your environment is quite similar to that in a globular cluster. At its densest, a globular cluster may see peak stellar number densities of $sim1000$ stars per cubic parsec, which implies a mean separation of about 20,000 AU. This leads us to conclude that many, if not most, planets will be stripped away through encounters with other stars, leading to a large population of free-floating planets.
Your systems will experience the same problems. However, $N$-body simulations have revealed some characteristics of the planetary systems that will survive intact:
- Planets will likely have orbits close to their parent stars. For instance, planets around pulsars would likely have semi-major axes of $sim0.1text-1.0$ AU.
- Moreover, systems with large numbers of planets are quite unlikely, given that multi-planet systems are even more susceptible instabilities after experiencing these encounters.
With mean distances of a few tens of thousands of AU, light from other stars will not affect habitability, thanks to the inverse-square law. A star 20,000 AU away should contribute a bit more than one billionth the flux of the Sun, if the Sun was 1 AU away.
answered Jun 10 at 18:11
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
answered Jun 10 at 18:11
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
answered Jun 10 at 18:11
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
answered Jun 10 at 18:11
HDE 226868♦HDE 226868
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
70k18 gold badges249 silver badges451 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
Given the high density of stars in the question would flares and CMEs cross between systems? If so could such events adversely effect habitability?
$endgroup$
– Ash
Jun 10 at 18:19
1
$begingroup$
@Ash I would be extremely surprised if that was an issue. While some Sun-like stars do exhibit superflares, separations of thousands of AU should be enough to greatly reduce the flux at a nearby star of energy or particles from such an event.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Ash you'd probably have more to worry about with ageing neighbours turning into novae or supernovae; that's the sort of thing that would hit the reset switch on the evolution of local life.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 19:08
1
$begingroup$
But on a related note, how plausible is the existence of a mostly G (or smaller and cooler) cluster with sufficient metallicity to be worth colonising, or to have produced its own life? All those interesting elements have to come from somewhere, and those grandparent-generation stars may still be around in one for or another, right?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 20:34
3
$begingroup$
Regarding cluster metallicity: The stars that produce those heavy elements are quite massive, and likely only live for a few tens of millions of years (maybe a hundred million years if we're being generous) at the most. By the time life arises, they'll be long gone.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 20:37
|
show 6 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Given the high density of stars in the question would flares and CMEs cross between systems? If so could such events adversely effect habitability?
$endgroup$
– Ash
Jun 10 at 18:19
1
$begingroup$
@Ash I would be extremely surprised if that was an issue. While some Sun-like stars do exhibit superflares, separations of thousands of AU should be enough to greatly reduce the flux at a nearby star of energy or particles from such an event.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Ash you'd probably have more to worry about with ageing neighbours turning into novae or supernovae; that's the sort of thing that would hit the reset switch on the evolution of local life.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 19:08
1
$begingroup$
But on a related note, how plausible is the existence of a mostly G (or smaller and cooler) cluster with sufficient metallicity to be worth colonising, or to have produced its own life? All those interesting elements have to come from somewhere, and those grandparent-generation stars may still be around in one for or another, right?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 20:34
3
$begingroup$
Regarding cluster metallicity: The stars that produce those heavy elements are quite massive, and likely only live for a few tens of millions of years (maybe a hundred million years if we're being generous) at the most. By the time life arises, they'll be long gone.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 20:37
1
1
$begingroup$
Given the high density of stars in the question would flares and CMEs cross between systems? If so could such events adversely effect habitability?
$endgroup$
– Ash
Jun 10 at 18:19
$begingroup$
Given the high density of stars in the question would flares and CMEs cross between systems? If so could such events adversely effect habitability?
$endgroup$
– Ash
Jun 10 at 18:19
1
1
$begingroup$
@Ash I would be extremely surprised if that was an issue. While some Sun-like stars do exhibit superflares, separations of thousands of AU should be enough to greatly reduce the flux at a nearby star of energy or particles from such an event.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 18:25
$begingroup$
@Ash I would be extremely surprised if that was an issue. While some Sun-like stars do exhibit superflares, separations of thousands of AU should be enough to greatly reduce the flux at a nearby star of energy or particles from such an event.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 18:25
2
2
$begingroup$
@Ash you'd probably have more to worry about with ageing neighbours turning into novae or supernovae; that's the sort of thing that would hit the reset switch on the evolution of local life.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 19:08
$begingroup$
@Ash you'd probably have more to worry about with ageing neighbours turning into novae or supernovae; that's the sort of thing that would hit the reset switch on the evolution of local life.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 19:08
1
1
$begingroup$
But on a related note, how plausible is the existence of a mostly G (or smaller and cooler) cluster with sufficient metallicity to be worth colonising, or to have produced its own life? All those interesting elements have to come from somewhere, and those grandparent-generation stars may still be around in one for or another, right?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 20:34
$begingroup$
But on a related note, how plausible is the existence of a mostly G (or smaller and cooler) cluster with sufficient metallicity to be worth colonising, or to have produced its own life? All those interesting elements have to come from somewhere, and those grandparent-generation stars may still be around in one for or another, right?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
Jun 10 at 20:34
3
3
$begingroup$
Regarding cluster metallicity: The stars that produce those heavy elements are quite massive, and likely only live for a few tens of millions of years (maybe a hundred million years if we're being generous) at the most. By the time life arises, they'll be long gone.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 20:37
$begingroup$
Regarding cluster metallicity: The stars that produce those heavy elements are quite massive, and likely only live for a few tens of millions of years (maybe a hundred million years if we're being generous) at the most. By the time life arises, they'll be long gone.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 10 at 20:37
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
I'd say that the central stars would have lifeless small rocks as the planets would lose their original orbits. The inner most stars would get hotter from the output of the ones surrounding them. The central region would be high in radioactivity from all the solar winds streaming in. The perimeter stars would be richer in planets from having captured the wanderers.
Starlight intensity would not vary much given the nearest star is 200 times as distant as Pluto is from the sun.
No comets. They can't survive even a single pass without falling into one star or another.
Life's chances for any peripheral system that's more than a few thousand AU's from nearest neighbor are pretty much the same as on singleton systems.
answered Jun 11 at 10:33
Hussain AkbarHussain Akbar
291 bronze badge
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Do you have any references to support this? These comments sound more like guesses than factual statements. You state that starlight intensity wouldn't vary much, but also state that stars would be hotter from output of the surrounding stars. These statements seem to directly contradict eachother. Moreover, why should perimeter stars preferentially capture wandering planets? The orbital mechanics of capturing free-floating planets is very unlikely under many circumstances, IMO, and I see no reason why the outer stars would preferentially capture them. Also, solar winds aren't radioactive.
$endgroup$
– conman
Jun 11 at 13:05
$begingroup$
Why no comets? What do you mean by "pass"? Is that a comet's orbit or is it two stars passing close by each other (how close?)? Or something else?
$endgroup$
– 8bittree
Jun 11 at 15:34
$begingroup$
I agree with what @conman says, and Hussain, I definitely think you should edit your answer to address those concerns. That said, I do agree that some comets - in particular extreme long-period comets, given the extent of the Oort Cloud - will likely be perturbed by passing stars. The Oort Cloud's outer radius is certainly much larger than the mean stellar distances we're talking about here, so I think you're right about this disruption.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 11 at 23:02
$begingroup$
The Oort cloud theoretically ranges from 2000AU to 200,000AU. Given the OP's parameters, the orbits of the comets would overlap multiple systems. Any comets formed therein wouldn't be able to complete a handful of orbits before being captured in close orbit and melting and falling into a gravity well.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 4:46
$begingroup$
@conman You're completely correct, it's not. Would the density increase cause higher temperatures? One would imagine so. With the Oort cloud being theoretically 2000AU to 200,000AU no comet would be able to complete more than a few orbits without falling into a gravity well. In this N-body system, larger planets would either not form, or escape inner orbits to fall into outer ones. Or, would they? My brain aches trying to visualize this cluster.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 5:45
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I'd say that the central stars would have lifeless small rocks as the planets would lose their original orbits. The inner most stars would get hotter from the output of the ones surrounding them. The central region would be high in radioactivity from all the solar winds streaming in. The perimeter stars would be richer in planets from having captured the wanderers.
Starlight intensity would not vary much given the nearest star is 200 times as distant as Pluto is from the sun.
No comets. They can't survive even a single pass without falling into one star or another.
Life's chances for any peripheral system that's more than a few thousand AU's from nearest neighbor are pretty much the same as on singleton systems.
answered Jun 11 at 10:33
Hussain AkbarHussain Akbar
291 bronze badge
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Do you have any references to support this? These comments sound more like guesses than factual statements. You state that starlight intensity wouldn't vary much, but also state that stars would be hotter from output of the surrounding stars. These statements seem to directly contradict eachother. Moreover, why should perimeter stars preferentially capture wandering planets? The orbital mechanics of capturing free-floating planets is very unlikely under many circumstances, IMO, and I see no reason why the outer stars would preferentially capture them. Also, solar winds aren't radioactive.
$endgroup$
– conman
Jun 11 at 13:05
$begingroup$
Why no comets? What do you mean by "pass"? Is that a comet's orbit or is it two stars passing close by each other (how close?)? Or something else?
$endgroup$
– 8bittree
Jun 11 at 15:34
$begingroup$
I agree with what @conman says, and Hussain, I definitely think you should edit your answer to address those concerns. That said, I do agree that some comets - in particular extreme long-period comets, given the extent of the Oort Cloud - will likely be perturbed by passing stars. The Oort Cloud's outer radius is certainly much larger than the mean stellar distances we're talking about here, so I think you're right about this disruption.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 11 at 23:02
$begingroup$
The Oort cloud theoretically ranges from 2000AU to 200,000AU. Given the OP's parameters, the orbits of the comets would overlap multiple systems. Any comets formed therein wouldn't be able to complete a handful of orbits before being captured in close orbit and melting and falling into a gravity well.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 4:46
$begingroup$
@conman You're completely correct, it's not. Would the density increase cause higher temperatures? One would imagine so. With the Oort cloud being theoretically 2000AU to 200,000AU no comet would be able to complete more than a few orbits without falling into a gravity well. In this N-body system, larger planets would either not form, or escape inner orbits to fall into outer ones. Or, would they? My brain aches trying to visualize this cluster.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 5:45
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I'd say that the central stars would have lifeless small rocks as the planets would lose their original orbits. The inner most stars would get hotter from the output of the ones surrounding them. The central region would be high in radioactivity from all the solar winds streaming in. The perimeter stars would be richer in planets from having captured the wanderers.
Starlight intensity would not vary much given the nearest star is 200 times as distant as Pluto is from the sun.
No comets. They can't survive even a single pass without falling into one star or another.
Life's chances for any peripheral system that's more than a few thousand AU's from nearest neighbor are pretty much the same as on singleton systems.
answered Jun 11 at 10:33
Hussain AkbarHussain Akbar
291 bronze badge
$endgroup$
I'd say that the central stars would have lifeless small rocks as the planets would lose their original orbits. The inner most stars would get hotter from the output of the ones surrounding them. The central region would be high in radioactivity from all the solar winds streaming in. The perimeter stars would be richer in planets from having captured the wanderers.
Starlight intensity would not vary much given the nearest star is 200 times as distant as Pluto is from the sun.
No comets. They can't survive even a single pass without falling into one star or another.
Life's chances for any peripheral system that's more than a few thousand AU's from nearest neighbor are pretty much the same as on singleton systems.
answered Jun 11 at 10:33
Hussain AkbarHussain Akbar
291 bronze badge
answered Jun 11 at 10:33
Hussain AkbarHussain Akbar
291 bronze badge
answered Jun 11 at 10:33
Hussain AkbarHussain Akbar
291 bronze badge
answered Jun 11 at 10:33
Hussain AkbarHussain Akbar
291 bronze badge
291 bronze badge
5
$begingroup$
Do you have any references to support this? These comments sound more like guesses than factual statements. You state that starlight intensity wouldn't vary much, but also state that stars would be hotter from output of the surrounding stars. These statements seem to directly contradict eachother. Moreover, why should perimeter stars preferentially capture wandering planets? The orbital mechanics of capturing free-floating planets is very unlikely under many circumstances, IMO, and I see no reason why the outer stars would preferentially capture them. Also, solar winds aren't radioactive.
$endgroup$
– conman
Jun 11 at 13:05
$begingroup$
Why no comets? What do you mean by "pass"? Is that a comet's orbit or is it two stars passing close by each other (how close?)? Or something else?
$endgroup$
– 8bittree
Jun 11 at 15:34
$begingroup$
I agree with what @conman says, and Hussain, I definitely think you should edit your answer to address those concerns. That said, I do agree that some comets - in particular extreme long-period comets, given the extent of the Oort Cloud - will likely be perturbed by passing stars. The Oort Cloud's outer radius is certainly much larger than the mean stellar distances we're talking about here, so I think you're right about this disruption.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 11 at 23:02
$begingroup$
The Oort cloud theoretically ranges from 2000AU to 200,000AU. Given the OP's parameters, the orbits of the comets would overlap multiple systems. Any comets formed therein wouldn't be able to complete a handful of orbits before being captured in close orbit and melting and falling into a gravity well.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 4:46
$begingroup$
@conman You're completely correct, it's not. Would the density increase cause higher temperatures? One would imagine so. With the Oort cloud being theoretically 2000AU to 200,000AU no comet would be able to complete more than a few orbits without falling into a gravity well. In this N-body system, larger planets would either not form, or escape inner orbits to fall into outer ones. Or, would they? My brain aches trying to visualize this cluster.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 5:45
|
show 3 more comments
5
$begingroup$
Do you have any references to support this? These comments sound more like guesses than factual statements. You state that starlight intensity wouldn't vary much, but also state that stars would be hotter from output of the surrounding stars. These statements seem to directly contradict eachother. Moreover, why should perimeter stars preferentially capture wandering planets? The orbital mechanics of capturing free-floating planets is very unlikely under many circumstances, IMO, and I see no reason why the outer stars would preferentially capture them. Also, solar winds aren't radioactive.
$endgroup$
– conman
Jun 11 at 13:05
$begingroup$
Why no comets? What do you mean by "pass"? Is that a comet's orbit or is it two stars passing close by each other (how close?)? Or something else?
$endgroup$
– 8bittree
Jun 11 at 15:34
$begingroup$
I agree with what @conman says, and Hussain, I definitely think you should edit your answer to address those concerns. That said, I do agree that some comets - in particular extreme long-period comets, given the extent of the Oort Cloud - will likely be perturbed by passing stars. The Oort Cloud's outer radius is certainly much larger than the mean stellar distances we're talking about here, so I think you're right about this disruption.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 11 at 23:02
$begingroup$
The Oort cloud theoretically ranges from 2000AU to 200,000AU. Given the OP's parameters, the orbits of the comets would overlap multiple systems. Any comets formed therein wouldn't be able to complete a handful of orbits before being captured in close orbit and melting and falling into a gravity well.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 4:46
$begingroup$
@conman You're completely correct, it's not. Would the density increase cause higher temperatures? One would imagine so. With the Oort cloud being theoretically 2000AU to 200,000AU no comet would be able to complete more than a few orbits without falling into a gravity well. In this N-body system, larger planets would either not form, or escape inner orbits to fall into outer ones. Or, would they? My brain aches trying to visualize this cluster.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 5:45
5
5
$begingroup$
Do you have any references to support this? These comments sound more like guesses than factual statements. You state that starlight intensity wouldn't vary much, but also state that stars would be hotter from output of the surrounding stars. These statements seem to directly contradict eachother. Moreover, why should perimeter stars preferentially capture wandering planets? The orbital mechanics of capturing free-floating planets is very unlikely under many circumstances, IMO, and I see no reason why the outer stars would preferentially capture them. Also, solar winds aren't radioactive.
$endgroup$
– conman
Jun 11 at 13:05
$begingroup$
Do you have any references to support this? These comments sound more like guesses than factual statements. You state that starlight intensity wouldn't vary much, but also state that stars would be hotter from output of the surrounding stars. These statements seem to directly contradict eachother. Moreover, why should perimeter stars preferentially capture wandering planets? The orbital mechanics of capturing free-floating planets is very unlikely under many circumstances, IMO, and I see no reason why the outer stars would preferentially capture them. Also, solar winds aren't radioactive.
$endgroup$
– conman
Jun 11 at 13:05
$begingroup$
Why no comets? What do you mean by "pass"? Is that a comet's orbit or is it two stars passing close by each other (how close?)? Or something else?
$endgroup$
– 8bittree
Jun 11 at 15:34
$begingroup$
Why no comets? What do you mean by "pass"? Is that a comet's orbit or is it two stars passing close by each other (how close?)? Or something else?
$endgroup$
– 8bittree
Jun 11 at 15:34
$begingroup$
I agree with what @conman says, and Hussain, I definitely think you should edit your answer to address those concerns. That said, I do agree that some comets - in particular extreme long-period comets, given the extent of the Oort Cloud - will likely be perturbed by passing stars. The Oort Cloud's outer radius is certainly much larger than the mean stellar distances we're talking about here, so I think you're right about this disruption.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 11 at 23:02
$begingroup$
I agree with what @conman says, and Hussain, I definitely think you should edit your answer to address those concerns. That said, I do agree that some comets - in particular extreme long-period comets, given the extent of the Oort Cloud - will likely be perturbed by passing stars. The Oort Cloud's outer radius is certainly much larger than the mean stellar distances we're talking about here, so I think you're right about this disruption.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868♦
Jun 11 at 23:02
$begingroup$
The Oort cloud theoretically ranges from 2000AU to 200,000AU. Given the OP's parameters, the orbits of the comets would overlap multiple systems. Any comets formed therein wouldn't be able to complete a handful of orbits before being captured in close orbit and melting and falling into a gravity well.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 4:46
$begingroup$
The Oort cloud theoretically ranges from 2000AU to 200,000AU. Given the OP's parameters, the orbits of the comets would overlap multiple systems. Any comets formed therein wouldn't be able to complete a handful of orbits before being captured in close orbit and melting and falling into a gravity well.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 4:46
$begingroup$
@conman You're completely correct, it's not. Would the density increase cause higher temperatures? One would imagine so. With the Oort cloud being theoretically 2000AU to 200,000AU no comet would be able to complete more than a few orbits without falling into a gravity well. In this N-body system, larger planets would either not form, or escape inner orbits to fall into outer ones. Or, would they? My brain aches trying to visualize this cluster.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 5:45
$begingroup$
@conman You're completely correct, it's not. Would the density increase cause higher temperatures? One would imagine so. With the Oort cloud being theoretically 2000AU to 200,000AU no comet would be able to complete more than a few orbits without falling into a gravity well. In this N-body system, larger planets would either not form, or escape inner orbits to fall into outer ones. Or, would they? My brain aches trying to visualize this cluster.
$endgroup$
– Hussain Akbar
Jun 12 at 5:45
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148683%2fwhat-would-the-consequences-be-of-a-high-number-of-solar-systems-being-within-cl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
