Subscribe to New Scientist magazine
Solar System
ARTICLE

Solar system could go haywire before the Sun dies

  • 05:03 23 April 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • David Shiga
Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
 
A catastrophic collision with Mercury or Mars may be in Earth's future (Illustration: NASA/JPL-Caltech)
A catastrophic collision with Mercury or Mars may be in Earth's future (Illustration: NASA/JPL-Caltech)
 

How will life on Earth end? The answer, of course, is unknown, but two new studies suggest a collision with Mercury or Mars could doom life long before the Sun swells into a red giant and bakes the planet to a crisp in about 5 billion years.

The studies suggest that the solar system's planets will continue to orbit the Sun stably for at least 40 million years. But after that, they show there is a small but not insignificant chance that things could go terribly awry.

On human timescales, the solar system seems to move as regularly as clockwork. But Isaac Newton realised three centuries ago that the gravitational tugs the planets exert on each other can potentially nudge them out of their orbits over time.

Predicting what will happen is extremely challenging because so many bodies are involved. Even small errors in the observed positions of the planets today can translate into huge uncertainties in projections of the future. Because of this, astronomers can only say for sure that the solar system will remain stable for the next 40 million years.

Although no one can say for sure what will happen beyond that, new calculations are now providing a rough guide to the more distant future. These suggest that there is a 1 to 2% chance that Mercury's orbit will get seriously out of whack within the next 5 billion years.

This would tend to destabilise the whole inner solar system and could lead to a catastrophic collision between Earth and either Mercury or Mars, wiping out any life still present at that time.

In the case of a smash-up with Mars, for example, "all life gets extinguished immediately, and Earth glows at the temperature of a red giant star for about 1000 years", says Gregory Laughlin, a co-author of one of the studies at the University of California in Santa Cruz, US.

Highly eccentric

Jacques Laskar of the Observatoire de Paris in France authored the other study. He ran 1001 computer simulations of the solar system over time, each with slightly different starting conditions for the planets based on the range of uncertainties in the observations.

In 1 to 2% of the cases, Mercury's orbit became very elongated over time due to gravitational tugs by Jupiter. In these cases, its orbit reached an "eccentricity" of 0.6 or more (an eccentricity of 0 means the orbit is a perfect circle, while 1 is the maximum possible elongation).

Putting Mercury into such an elongated orbit increases the interactions between Mercury, Venus, Mars and Earth. Previous simulations by Laskar have suggested this can throw the whole solar system into disarray, a scenario confirmed in simulations by Laughlin and Konstantin Batygin, also of UCSC.

'All bets are off'

"Once Mercury's eccentricity gets up above about 0.6, then it's getting close to crossing Venus's orbit," Laughlin told New Scientist. "Once you get orbit crossings, you sort of transition from the orderly yet chaotic configuration that the solar system is in currently to a much more violently chaotic situation. Then all bets are off – a lot of bad things can happen."

Mercury and Mars tend to get thrown around the most when the solar system destabilises, because at 6 and 11% of Earth's mass, respectively, they are relatively easy to move. It is harder to budge Venus, on the other hand, because it has 82% of Earth's mass.

In one of Batygin and Laughlin's simulations, Mercury was thrown into the Sun 1.3 billion years from now. In another, Mars was flung out of the solar system after 820 million years, then 40 million years later Mercury and Venus collided.

Lava ocean

These were the disasters that happened to occur in the limited number of simulations that Batygin and Laughlin carried out. But Laughlin says there are many other ways for the solar system to unravel.

"You open yourself up to a huge number of possible disasters that can occur," he told New Scientist. "In each case, the gory details are completely different."

Direst for Earth is the possibility of a collision with a wayward Mercury or Mars.

A fair bit is known about what Mars could do to Earth. Many scientists think a Mars-sized object bashed into Earth in the early solar system, throwing out debris that eventually formed the Moon.

Earth was heated to thousands of degrees by the impact, with an ocean of lava covering its surface. A future replay of that event would be disastrous, Laughlin says.

But there is a 98 to 99% chance that the solar system will still be running like clockwork 5 billion years from now. Says Laughlin: "The glass is 98% full or 2% empty."

Journal references: Laskar, Icarus (in press); Batygin & Laughlin, Astrophysical Journal (in press)

 
Comment subject
Comment
No HTML except lower case italic tags or lower case bold tags, please:
<i> or <b>
Your name
Your email
 

We need your email in case we need to contact you about the comment. We will not use it for any other purpose.

 
 
There are 65 comments on 5 pages
1  | 
2  | 
3  | 
4  | 
5
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

That's A Long Long Time . . .

By James Johnson

Wed Apr 23 06:11:23 BST 2008

In 40 million years, mankind will have found a method to put propulsion on the planet earth itself, as well as an artificial atmosphere, and he will just sail around the universe discovering things.

Now isn't that a much brighter picture than the ones depicted in the article?

I absolute love the site and articles. Great job !

REPORT | REPLY

That's A Long Long Time . . .

By Ing Peter

Wed Apr 23 18:02:52 BST 2008

In contrast to 40 milion years

it only takes a madman to destroyearth in minutes

REPORT | REPLY

That's A Long Long Time . . .

By Jacques Blais

Fri Apr 25 06:34:01 BST 2008

You make a lot of sense, and that's exactly what I was thinking about. The life on earth can end right now.

REPORT | REPLY

That's A Long Long Time . . .

By Space Man Luke

Wed Apr 23 20:37:43 BST 2008

I think so as well ether erch will be wiped out by globol warming or nucler blast ww3 soon to happen eney time soon becouse of g bush the dum pr?ck lol if this does happen in 40 milleon years we may be able to travel the speed of light or go 100000 miles a second if this everer does happen mankind will be able to provent it i mean come on we allredey have nucler techno

REPORT | REPLY

That's A Long Long Time . . .

By Dann

Thu Apr 24 03:36:40 BST 2008

The earth may still be surviving, but it looks like grammar, spelling and punctuation are all on their last legs. :)

REPORT | REPLY

That's A Long Long Time . . .

By Brad

Thu Apr 24 19:43:19 BST 2008

Dan that was best comment i've seen all month. ...

1 more reply »

REPORT | REPLY

That's A Long Long Time . . .

By Ronnie

Thu Apr 24 11:20:44 BST 2008

Space man Luke!! What is erch, globol,nucler, etc.. I thought my spelling was back. Chill all you wack anti-american hating G. Bush bashing weirdos. Hes only arounf for 8 more months & then you will need a new whipping boy. BHO will be my target as he makes nice with terrorists. I have alot more faith in humans as we are not as fragile as the weak tea sucking tree huggers think. Good article. Not you Luke. Ronnie

REPORT | REPLY

Why Now?

By Charles

Wed Apr 23 06:50:48 BST 2008

After 5 billion years of relative stability, why would things go off at a tangent within a mere 40 million? That's less than 1% of the time the solar system has existed...

(Also, isn't Mercury's orbit inclined about 7 degrees to the ecliptic? So that would also have to change over the next 40 million years if we're expecting a collision. How likely is that?)

REPORT | REPLY

Why Now?

By Steve

Wed Apr 23 08:37:20 BST 2008

If it's inclined that means it crossed the plane of the ecliptic twice every orbit. And if it's orbit were being perturbed that could include altering the inclination.

REPORT | REPLY

Why Now?

By David Smith

Wed Apr 23 14:13:34 BST 2008

It might also indicate that it's come close to a collision already.

REPORT | REPLY

Why Now?

By David Mcculloch

Wed Apr 23 11:03:50 BST 2008

I'm sure it won't go haywire in 40 million years. No-one is predicting it will be that soon. All that can be said from the article it that it won't go haywire for at least 40 million years, but might in the much more distant future.

REPORT | REPLY

Why Now?

By Daniel

Wed Apr 23 20:38:54 BST 2008

How do we know that the past 5 billion years have been stable? Maybe at one point Mars was closer to the sun than it is now, and that's why there is evidence that there was liquid water in it's past. We've only been able to study the solar system for a couple hundred years, so why couldn't things change in a "mere" 40 million years?

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Jester

Wed Apr 23 07:55:34 BST 2008

We are all going to die! ! ! ! ! ! the bible is true, let us all prey to god to save us! ! ! !

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Harsh Kumar Verma

Wed Apr 23 08:22:09 BST 2008

This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been removed.

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Ronnie

Thu Apr 24 11:28:31 BST 2008

As soon as one scientist tells me where this universe came from I might think thats funny. No not one can explain the moment before big bang or explain how the matter to fill an entire universe was in that small space. Nor can they explain what was before. Intelligent design appears in all things. Neither side can prove God but the more I understand biology, etc... The more I can appreciate my creator. Ronnie

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Jonathan Hardgraves

Thu Apr 24 13:19:44 BST 2008

The problem is that the very concept of things requiring a 'beginning' is a man made concept. There is nothing to say that the universe hasn't always been in existence and always will.

The big bang theory suggests that the universe was 'formed' when a gigantic ball of compressed matter erupted and dispersed in to the pattern that we know- but why couldn't the universe be in a constant cycle of booms and busts- perpetually contracting then exploding every billion trillion years.

At first people said that they wouldn't believe that there was no God until someone explained how else the stars hung weightlessly in the sky. They then said that if God did not exist then why was earth the center of the universe?

There will always be questions for those who want to believe. The chance of their guess being right is as slim as any other random guess- but faith isn't supposed to be rational- and those who want to believe in the irrational will never be satisfied.

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By David Smith

Thu Apr 24 14:50:16 BST 2008

Assume for a moment that science could prove a hypothesis that explained the universe without the need for "intelligent design" and that you could understand the explanation. At that point, would you continue to cling to an unprovable myth, or would your faith in a creator transfer to faith in science? I’m just trying to assess the level of your delusion.

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Specialed

Thu Apr 24 22:13:54 BST 2008

Ah yes--the famous argument from ignorance.

Gawsh--I bet you can't explain how your "god" created the Big Bang or made "enough matter to fill the universe" either. Therefore you have to admit that your bible (the one with the stories about talking donkeys and the plants that were created before the sun and moon) is false.

And if you think that Intelligent Design demonstrates any truth about the universe you're quite misled and miseducated.

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Wendy Simmons

Wed Apr 23 17:59:17 BST 2008

LOL, that's funny!

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Dayne Salt

Thu Apr 24 10:50:43 BST 2008

I find that comment funny as well, but isn't that slightly offensive to anyone who believes in ID (intelligent design) and the bible?

This represents a different problem. Why do we as scientists and/or science enthusiasts feel superior to Christians? Is it because our ideas were laughed at and hidden by the church in the early days?

I believe (along with most of the people here i assume) that Science will win over religion. But as we can't disprove it at this time shouldn't we let it continue as one theory? as we do with other scientific theory's we shouldn't laugh at those with different theory's but instead try to disprove it.

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Specialed

Thu Apr 24 22:29:50 BST 2008

Scientists don't feel superior to christians; in fact about 80% of scientists in the US consider themselves christian. Scientists, as well as most people, feel that those fundamentalists and evangelicals who persist in claiming that their dogmatic religious beliefs are true and valid are at the least, silly and at the extreme seriously unhinged.

I would imagine that christians as a group are annoyed that fundamentalist and evangelicals represent themselves as credible and theologicaly valid parts of christianity instead of being a minor and deluded faction of christianity.

REPORT | REPLY

Oh My God!

By Dayne Salt

Fri Apr 25 13:32:37 BST 2008

Unfortunately for my ego (which was starting to get too big anyway) i have to concede on a few of your issues. I think a line has to be drawn between believers and fundamentalists of any religion. And i am not entirely sure that religion and science have to be in conflict - it depends on how you see religion. If you take every word the bible says as absolute truth and somehow believe the world is only a few thousand years old then science will disagree. But if religion is taken as a moral outline then it and science ...

1 more reply »

REPORT | REPLY

There are 65 comments on 5 pages
1  | 
2  | 
3  | 
4  | 
5
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Cover of latest issue of New Scientist magazine
  • For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition
  • For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see contents
  • Search all stories
  • Contact us about this story
  • Sign up for our free newsletter
 
PASSWORD LOGIN
username:
password:
 help
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe to New Scientist magazine