0% found this document useful (0 votes)
86 views27 pages

Encounter Hypothesis

Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 27

Encounter hypothesis

5 BILLION YEARS AGO


THE FORMATION OF PLANETS: A
COSMIC MYSTERY

-The vastness of the space is filled


with countless celestial bodies,
each with its own story to tell.
Among these are planets, the
building blocks of stars systems,
and the potential cradles of life
DEFINITION OF ENCOUNTER HYPOTHESIS

One of the earliest theories for the formation of the


planets.

In this scenario, a rogue star passes close to the sun


about 5 billion years ago.

Material, in the form of hot gas, is tidally stripped


from the Sun and the rogue star.
A stellar collision
Propose that our solar system formed as a
result of a close encounter between our Sun
and another star. This encounter, while
incredibly rare, would have had a profound
impact on the sun, leading to the formations
of planets.
Here’s how the encounter hypothesis unfolds:
1. Close Encounter:
- Imagine our Sun, a young star cruising the vast
expanse of space.

2. Tidal stripping:
- The gravitational pull of the passing star would
have been so strong that it would have, ripped material,
primarily hot gas, from the Sun’s surface.
Here’s how the encounter hypothesis unfolds

3. Fragmentation:
- The ejected materials, how a vast cloud of hot
gas, would have been unstapable and would have
fragmented into smaller clumps.

4. Planet Formation:
- As the hot gas cooled and condensed, these
fragments would have coalesced into larger bodies,
eventually forming the planets we see today.
Historical background
The Encounter Hypothesis, while not the
prevailing theory for planetary formation
today, has a rich history tracing back to
the 18th century.
“SEVERAL KEY
FIGURES
CONTRIBUTED TO ITS
DEVELOPMENT”
SEVERAL KEY FIGURES CONTRIBUTE
TO ITS DEVELOPMENT:
1. GEORGE - LOUISE LECLERC, COMTE
DE BUFFON (1749)
 A renowned French naturalist, was one of the first to
propose a non-biblical explanation for the origin of
the Earth and the Solar System. In his monumental
work, Histoire Naturelle, he suggested that a comet
colliding with the Sun debris that eventually coalesced
into planets.
2. t.c chamberlin (1904)
 These American astronomer, building on Buffon’s
ideas, proposed the Planetesimal Hypothesis. He
suggested that a passing star would have disrupted the
Sun, pulling out a stream hot gas.
3. James jeans (1917)
 A British physicist and astronomers defined the
Encounter Hypothesis with a more detailed
mathematical model. He proposed that a close
encounter with another star would have created a tidal
bulge of the Sun, eventually leading to the ejection of
a filament of gas.
Supporting evidence
1. Planetary Rotation and the Same Direction

 Observation: All planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun in the
same direction. This is not coincidence, and it suggest a common origin for
the planets.

 Encounter Hypothesis Explanation: The Encounter Hypothesis suggested


that the encounter geometry would have imparted this common direction of
motion to the ejected material, causing the planets to form with a shared
rotational direction.
Supporting evidence
1. Density Differences Between Inner and Outer Planets

 Observation: The inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) are denser
than the outer planets ( Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune). This suggest
differences in the materials that formed this planets.

 Encounter Hypothesis Explanation: The encounter hypothesis propose


that the inner planets, being closer to the sun, would have been subjected to
higher temperatures, leading to denser materials.
CRISTISMS AND CHALLENGES
o While the encounter hypothesis offered an intriguing explanation for planetary
formation, it faced several significant challenges that ultimately led to its decline.

1. RARITY OF STELLER ENCOUNTERS


- Statistical Improbability: The probability of a star passing
close enough to another star to cause tidal stripping is
extremely low.

- Cosmic odds: The vast distances between stars make close


encounters highly improbable. The odds of such an event
occurring within lifetime of our solar system are
astronomically small.
3. Lack of observational evidence
- Direct Observational Impossible: The events proposed
by the Encounter Hypothesis are extremely rare and
would have occurred billions of years ago.

- No Supporting Evidence: There is no direct


observational evidence to support the Encounter
Hypothesis. While some feature’s of our solar system, like
the planet’s common direction of rotation, can be
explained by the Encounter Hypothesis, they can also be
explained by other theories such as the nebular
hypothesis.
2. Time constraints for planet formation
- Formation Timeline: Planets would have formed from
the ejected material relatively quickly. However, the time
required for this process, based on current understanding
of physics and the cooling and condensation of gas,
exceeds the estimated age of our solar system.

- Inconsistency with Age: The time constraints of the


encounter hypothesis conflict with the age of the solar
system, making it difficult to reconcile with the observed
timeline of planetary formation.
conclusion
 The Encounter Hypothesis, while initially
captivating, faced significant challenges in
explaining the formation of our solar
system. The rarity of stellar encounter, the
time constraints for planet formation, and
the lack of observational evidence
ultimately led to its decline as the
dominant theory.
Alternative theories
Refers to different perspectives or
models that attempt to explain the
nature of human inter action and
the ways in which individuals
persuive and interpret their
encounter with other.
some of this alternative theories include:
1. Attachment Theory:
 Developed by John Bowbly and Mary Ainsworth,
attachment Theory posits that humans have an
innate need to form attachments with other, and
that these attachments play a crucial role in
shaping our behavior, emotions, and relationships.

2. Social Exchange Theory:


 This Theory, proposed by sociologists Peter Blau
and George Homans, suggests that individuals
engage in social interactions in order to maximize
and minimize costs.
3. Symbolic Interactionism:
 Developed by sociologist Herbert Blumer
and George Herbert Mead, symbolic
interactionism posits that individuals
construct their understanding of the
world through the use of language and
symbols.
Breakdown of potential applications of
encounter hypothesis principles:
1. Ecology and Conservation
 Wildlife – vehicle collisions: The Encounter
Hypothesis can be apply model than the risk of collisions
between wildlife and vehicles, especially in areas with
high traffic density and vulnerable wildlife population.

 Predator – Prey Interaction: Encounter between


predators and prey can be modeled using principles of the
Encounter Hypothesis.
2. Social Sciences
 Social Networks and Deffusion of Ideas: Can be
applied to model the spread of ideas, information and
influence with in social networks.
 Conflict Resolution

3. Engineering and Technology


 Collision Avoidance System
 Robotics and Artificial Intelligence
Key points
 Stellar Encounter: A passing star would have
ripped material from the sun through tidal
stripping.

 Fragmentation: The ejected material would


have fragmented into smaller clumps.

 Condensation: This clumps would have cooled


and condensed to form planets.
strengths
 Planetary Rotations: The Encounter Hypothesis
offered explanation for the common direction of rotation
of planets in our solar system.

 Density Differences: It provided potential explanation


for the density differences between inner and outer
planets.
weaknesses
 Rarity of Encounters: The probability of such a
close stellar encounter is extremely low.

 Time Contraints: The time required for planets


formation through this process exceeds the estimated age
of our solar system.

 Lack of Evidence: There is no direct observational


evidence to support the Encounters Hypothesis.
AND THAT’S ALL

THANK YOU!
GROUPRED 5
CAWAS, SHARINA
MOSING, SHALYLLE MAE
OLLASAG, DISAN
…

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy