Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

Well, I did it. I hope you don't mind EMS, but it seemed the right thing to do. I've also shifted some refs and a nice image over from the "Sun" article to here. Serendipodous 10:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've copied and pasted a section from the Sun article on the faint young sun paradox; it probably should be reworded, but for now the information is here Serendipodous 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on second reading it doesn't have much to do with the nebula model itself. Dropped it. Serendipodous 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an awful lot of repetition in this article, so I deleted some paragraphs and moved others around to make the narrative smoother. Serendipodous 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no big objections to what you have done. The renaming works, and the consolidation of the content (and the removal of redundancies) was something that I has started yesterday but had no chence to work on today. I don't like the shortening of the lead, but it seems to work well with the article in its current state. So for now I will leave the lead alone, and see that as something to address in the future when this article is in better shape. --EMS | Talk 01:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move

Serendipodous - You did not do the move of this article properly! Each article has a "Move" tab. When you use the "Move" tab to change the name of an article, the article history will also be moved and (unless you explicitly choose not to do so) the talk page and its history will also follow, as well as a redirect being left behind. For a "young" article like this not much harm was done, but please in the future use the "Move" tab so that everything is moved and not just the article content. (It also does not help that you failed to put a "copied from" remark in the comments for the original version of this article.) --EMS | Talk 13:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I was afraid if I did that, that all the redirects I'd made would have to be redone. Serendipodous 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For previous redirects, you get double-redirects. They do need to be fixed, but that is an issue either way. --EMS | Talk 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question / Point / Suggestion / Whatever

While reading the section on the initial formation, specifically that part which deals with the inner planets and why we think that the inner planets are all rocky, while the outer planets are gas giants, and I wondered if this was still more or less unchallenged, in light of recent discoveries of extra-solar planets. Basically, I know that a lot of the extra-solar planets we've found tend to be both very large and very close to their stars. Now, I don't know that we know that these worlds are gas giants or not, but wouldn't seeing that cast doubt on the idea that the inner planets are all rocky because gas giants couldn't form there? Is there any published research on this idea, one way or another, or am I just walking into walls? :) In either case, just thought I'd put that thought forward in case anyone here knew, or has better means than I of finding out. And, no, I'm not saying that the section in question should, with all dispatch, be edited to reflect this idea, as it is only original research. Cheers. DAG 04:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good question, and has a generally agreed-upon answer: Planetary orbits can change, especially when interacting with a protoplanetary disk and/or something like the Kuiper Belt. So the hot Jupiters most likely formed much farther from their host stars (beyond the "frost line" alluded to in this article). Now when such a body forms, it is initially in the center of a gap cleared out by its formation. However, if the body is perturbed into an orbit that brings it close to the inner edge of the gap, it will then draw in material from that side of the gap. Since that material has less energy, the body will be pulled inwards. If the disk is dense enough, this process will keep pulling the body more and more inwards until the disk gives out near the star itself.

A body can also be pulled outwards in a similar manner (and that is how Uranus and Neptune got into their current orbits under the 2:1 Jupiter-Saturn resonance models). Note that the radial velocity observations, which are so good and finding hot Jupiters, will be especially terrible and finding "cold" Jupiters.

BTW - This is mentioned in the secion of the history of formation hypotheses. --EMS | Talk 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is mentioned down there. Perhaps I should have read a bit more thoroughly... ;) DAG 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving this thread some moew thought, and the hot Jupiters do count as a problem with the solar nebula hypothesis. So I will add a mention of it there. --EMS | Talk 21:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary/2ndary atmospheres??

The oldish theory of primary (primordial) atmospheres being replaced by secondary ones - for the terrestrials - is now somewhat obsolete. There are some arguments telling us that current atmospheres are direct derivatives from the primary atmospheres, without need of any novel secondary atmosphere formation. The most important argument is:

Earth [H²O:HDO] isotope signature says: the water comes from the vicinity of Earth's formation place, not from comets (who would be the source of the 2ndary atms).

Quaþ tomas.kindahl@comhem.se --83.250.61.193 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that I can only find sources for that info from the 70s. Might be worth removing. Serendipodous 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future dates

The article states that the sun will blow up 7.5 billion years from now, but I have always thought it was 5 billion years. Also, it is speculated that the Andromeda Galaxy could collide with the Milky Way about 4 billion years from now, so would that affect the Solar system? AstroHurricane001 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the first question, the Sun won't blow up per se, so much as puff up, and throw some itself into interstellar space. This will first begin to happen, as you have always thought and as far as we know, in about 5-6 billion years (the commonly quoted total lifetime of the Sun, 10 billion years, gives a figure of 5.5 billion years, given that the Sun [and the Earth] is about 4.5 billion years old). The Sun then spends a billion years or so puffing up before it gets a new lease on life in the form of helium fusion in the core, which will cause the Sun to settle down for a period. Of course, eventually, after say 100 million years, the helium in the core exhausts itself and the Sun puffs up again. This time it never really returns to normal, and the "puffing" throws out much of the outer layers of the Sun (this won't be explosive so much as it will be like a really strong solar wind), leaving the carbon/oxygen core of the Sun behind, a white dwarf. All told, the time between now and the point where the Sun is a white dwarf is about 7-7.5 billion years or so (e.g. after about 12 billion years or so since the Sun "turned on"). So, that's where the different numbers come from.

As to Andromeda, odds are that the Solar System won't be affected. Why, you ask? Well, space, as has been observed many times before, is big. REALLY big. So the odds of having another star, say, get close enough to us to disrupt the Solar System (none-the-less actually "hit" it) are very tiny (but not zero...). Of course, the galaxy as a whole would go to pot, but hey, we'd be fine. :) DAG 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Solar nebula?

These two articles cover a lot of the same material and essentially complete each other. I think they need to be merged. Serendipodous 01:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this. The Solar nebula article is about that hypothesis solely, and so is able to deal with it in more depth. This article is concerned with much more than that. If anything, we should cut down on the Solar nebula write-up here to make for a cleaner division of coverage between the two articles. --EMS | Talk 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied over at the other article's talk page; but I guess it would help to have everything in one place. To summarise: strip away everything from Solar Nebula concerned only with our solar system and move it here, and generalise that article to how planetary systems form, for which it seems to be halfway there already. Spiral Wave 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This can work if done properly. When I created this article, the intent was to show how the Solar System took on its current form, highlighting recent seminal work involving the 2:1 Jupiter-Saturn resonance. However, its scope and even its name has changed since then. I'm still not sure that I like this idea, but Wikipedia is a dynamic encyclopedia such that it makes little sense to keep things in one form because that is how it has been done up until now. --EMS | Talk 03:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That work on the resonance crossing seems even more of a reason to bring the Late Heavy Bombardment content over here; it's all part of the same thing. I think it's still staying within its original scope - the special knowledge we have of our system. The other article already has a skeleton of generic planet formation there, there are just a few gaps to fill in. Any way you look at it there's a lot of duplication and material going beyond the original scope of the other article, so I feel something should be done with it, and it seems a shame to waste it. Spiral Wave 11:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like where this is going; a partial merge rather than a complete merge, which would make this already long article unmanageable. (sorry about not responding to your post over at Solar Nebula btw; I forgot to put it on my watchlist). Serendipodous 15:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that related articles will necessarily have some overlap, so that a reader does not have to constantly flip between articles to get a reasonably clear and complete picture. That said, I do agree that talk about the late heavy bombardment belongs here instead of in the other article. I would have to check the history, but I do not recall that as having been in solar nebula when I started this article. So what you are proposing may just be some needed cleanup. --EMS | Talk 18:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it is cleanup to a large extent; plus some more material to replace what will be taken from Solar Nebula, to flesh out the formation process described (there are still some big gaps). The only other thing is a renaming of the article, to reflect it's no longer about the Solar nebula, but any protoplanetary nebula. Nebular theory already redirects there. Perhaps Solar Nebula could be the redirect, and this could become 'Nebular theory of planet formation' (or similar)? Spiral Wave 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Serendipodous 21:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect of solar nebula to nebular theory will work. If the only entry in the history of the redirect is the creation of the redirect, the move will be premitted. That is the case with nebular theory. (However, I wonder if a title like formation of planetary systems may not be a better idea.) --EMS | Talk 00:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer that sort of name, but I was trying not to get too far ahead of myself. The only other issues seem to be making sure the gravitational instability method gets a fair treatment - at present it's all core accretion; a planet formation article (also an existing redirect there) needs to at least mention both for NPOV - and deciding which article the historical/philosophical bits go in. Probably the other one, not here.

Is there anything else to decide on? Is there a set time it's considered 'fair' to leave a question open before making these sorts of changes? (I'm new) Spiral Wave 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it to you this way: There is a Wikipedia guideline called Be Bold. The gist of it is that if you see something that badly needs changing, then go ahead and change it. In less definite cases, including large scale edits, it is better to discuss your ideas first as you are doing here. If a poll was being done, there would be a need to wait, but in this case there is a consensus amongst the interested editors that you have a good idea here. So you are encouraged to proceed when you are ready as it is unlikely that anyone new with an objection will express it until they are hit in the face with your changes. If you want to play it safe, then you should post a note at talk:solar nebula about the results of this discussion and wait a day or two to see if anyone new comments before proceeding. --EMS | Talk 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, that seems fair enough. No-one has said anything to me or Serendipodous against my positive comments over there, so I guess we might as well get started whenever. If one of you two wants to start, please do, otherwise I'll have a go as soon I have a fair amount of time for it. Certainly I'll help beef up the other article. Seems smoothly integrating that content over here is the most sensible way to begin though. Spiral Wave 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I had my way, I'd shift the entire article over here. Since I'm not clear on which sections you want to keep and which sections you want to shift, perhaps it's best if I hold back and let you make the first move. Serendipodous 18:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy to see what you do first and work with it as needed. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get started on both sometime in the next few days. Spiral Wave 00:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. So much for the 'next few days'. Apologies for agreeing to do something, then doing nothing; real world interference, sorted now. I'll definitely make a big dent in this very soon. Spiral Wave 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipodous and EMS - I'm starting this today, apologies again for taking two months(!).

Short summary for anyone is wondering why big chunks are being removed and/or added: Overlap between this and Solar nebula is quite bad, though more conceptual than actual content. I'm moving Solar System-specific content from Solar Nebula to here, so that article can be generalised to planet formation (which already links here) without reference to our system in particular, and this one will have a few gaps filled. It will take a few days to iron the bugs out, so please discuss rather than reverting if anything looks out of place. Spiral Wave 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My main issue with the merge was that the late heavy bombardment wasn't mentioned here, and you've dealt with that really well. What this page needs now is more references. Serendipodous 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's plenty more to do yet. All reference to our own system needs removing from Solar nebula, there's plenty of gaps in there in the formation process, and I'd like to elaborate on the 2:1 crossing in the formation and evolution article, there's a lot of re-ordering to be done there to make the evolution process 'smooth'. I'll do a big chunk more tonight. Spiral Wave 18:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Solar Nebula having a mass of 0.1-0.001 solar Mass?

"One of these regions of collapsing gas (known as the solar nebula) would form what became the Sun. This region had a diameter of between 7000 and 20,000 AU[2][4] and a mass just over that of the Sun (by between 0.1 and 0.001 solar masses).[5] "

What the hell? How could a region containing 0.1 Solar Mass form a star of 1 solar mass?

Headbomb 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The crucial bit is 'just over that of the Sun'; i.e. 1.1 - 1.001 solar masses total, with the disc being the extra 0.1 - 0.001 (though that's a slight simplification, because the protosun was still accreting the disc and was a little less than 1 solar mass to begin with). Spiral Wave 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant passage reads: "One of these regions of collapsing gas (known as the pre-solar nebula)[7] would form what became the Sun. This region had a diameter of between 7000 and 20,000 AU[3][8] and a mass just over that of the Sun (between 1.001 and 1.1 solar masses).[9]"

I don't believe that it's possible to get three decimal places of accuracy in this context. Someone should revise this passage accordingly. Kevin Langdon 04:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting edits

See this diff for some edits relating to the angular momentum problem that I reverted. They did not impress me as being quite right, but I do want the feedback of other editors on this. --EMS | Talk 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those ideas seem taken from the Binary Research Institute webpage, which is basically a group of amateurs, boffins and outright cranks trying to make a case for a binary companion for the Sun. I have no idea whether to consider their opinions "legitimate", but regardless, unless the contributor sources his comments they are original research.Serendipodous 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The idea of a companion for the Sun is one that comes and goes over time, and while it's possibly worthy of a mention, without a reputable source it's simply OR. Spiral Wave 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Evolution

"In one billion years time, it will claim its first casualty: the Earth."

Well, apart from Mercury and Venus, unless I'm missing something fundamental in this rather overly dramatic phrase ... Daen 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could stand to be made clearer; whether it is overly dramatic is a matter of opinion. Serendipodous 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is because there's a difference between the Sun's expansion swallowing planets, and the increased heat destroying the necessary conditions for life. I've had a go at making the distinction explicit. Spiral Wave 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] however, due to the relative rarity of helium as opposed to hydrogen, the helium-fusing stage will only last about 100 million years"

How is helium rare, after the Sun has been creating it from hydrogen for billions of years ???

Because it takes 2 hydrogen atoms to make one helium atom, and then three helium atoms to make one carbon atom. This means that even if all the hydrogen in the core is transmuted into helium, the Sun only has a sixth the useful fuel it had initially. Serendipodous 14:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it takes four hydrogen ions (ie protons) to make a helium atom (see Proton-proton chain), so you can half your estimates again. But as the pressure at the core increases, from all the extra helium being dumped there, the resulting reactions speed up. It's all down at Stellar evolution#Mid-sized stars and Helium flash. Spiral Wave 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great links; added them to the article and clarified. Serendipodous 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified the clarification(!): for future edits, remember that the core is a plasma. Spiral Wave 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture theory reference near the end...

I'm not knowledgeable enough to edit this piece. But the end para struck me as a little odd. Firstly the Capture Theory is definitely not new, this I know - I remember it being mentioned at school in the 1960s (that dates me). As I understand it, it was dubious in the first place because the physical dynamics of such an encounter would not create a sufficiently massive and stable cloud of matter orbiting the Sun that could account for our entire system.

But more importantly, if this (or the exploding companion star hypothesis, which I suppose ought to be mentioned historically, it was well popular and even more unlikely) were true, then solar systems should be very very rare indeed - since the odds against such an encounter are, ahem, astronomically rare given interstellar distances. But the discovery of more and more exoplanets surely obviates this whole approach, even without a detailed critique of the dynamics - solar systems are very common indeed. So how can it be revived, or am I missing something? Tarquin Binary 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gottit. Interesting, actually...

[1]

However, while I do understand the difference here (tight cluster situations change the encounter probabilities a whole lot - dunno about the encounter dynamics myself, not qualified), I suspect that given my initial puzzlement as an educated layman, it might be helpful to distinguish this more plausible hypothesis from the earlier (discredited) one I mentioned above for the sake of others who have been taught older cosmogonies. Maybe there should be a section on older theories just for that sake? Tarquin Binary 05:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age

This article states: "The oldest rocks on Earth are approximately 3.9 billion years old."

However, Age of the Earth states:Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years

Which one is right? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They both are. The Earth is believed to have formed 4.567 billion years ago, and the oldest rocks on Earth are 3.9 billion years old. The Earth has very few rocks from its earliest formation periods, because of plate tectonics. The ultimate age of the Earth is determined by meteorites, which are older than the oldest Earth rocks. Serendipodous 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future of moon

The article currently states: "As it does so, conservation of angular momentum causes Earth's rotation to slow, making the days longer by roughly one second every 60,000 years. In roughly 2 billion years, the Moon's orbit will reach a point known as "spin-orbit resonance", and both the Earth and the Moon will become tidally locked." Now, if Earth's day is lengthening by 1 second ever 60,000 years, then in 2 billion years Earth's day will be a little over 33 hours long. How, then, can the Earth ever present only one side to the moon, if the moon completes an orbit in 28 days? Zelmerszoetrop 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to make it worse, the Moons orbital period will get longer as it receeds from the Earth. I took a look at the reference, and it is small paperback FAQ written by an amateur astronomer such that I would not consider it to be reliable source for predictions involving lunar dynamics. Therefore I have removed the section on the Moon. (Although maybe a section on how moons and their orbits will evolve in general is germane.) --EMS | Talk 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption on Saturn pic

The caption on the Saturn pic states:

(brightness has been exaggerated in this image)

This implies the brightness has been altered artificially, which is incorrect. The brightness comes from Saturn being infornt of the sun from this perpective. PseudoEdit ^(yak)_(track) 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy

At some point information (apparently found here: http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=1207&i=2) was edited (rather crudely) into the SaGDEG article which suggests that our Solar System was originally part of SaGDEG and that we're currently settling into the Milky Way (after circling it for 2 billion years) as the Milky Way, being a cannibalistic galaxy, is absorbing SaGDEG. i figure that if this theory holds any weight, it should probably be included in some part of the "Origin of our Solar System" article.69.215.235.20 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting speculation, but the source that you give for it is far from being a reliable source. If you can find articlea in scientific journals that supports this idea then it could be included. Otherwise there is no evidence that this is being taken seriously in the scientific community. --EMS | Talk 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

our Solar System's Fture

The future of our solar system actually goes by this:

In 1.1 Gyrs

Sun will get slightly bigger, all land life on Earth is gone Diameter: 5 current factors

In 3 Gyrs

Acually in 3 billion years our solar system will truly start to change, on Earth all oceans will boil,life known are completely impossible, and it's atmosphere will cause greenhouse effect. Sun's diameter will roughly be 60 times curretn factors. Only Mars surface will be flood of vast ocean levels, could possibly support marine lifes.

In 4 Gyrs

Sun is roughly 140 times current factor on diameter,it is about subgiant branch.

In 5 Gyrs

Sun's diameter reaches factor of 170, into RGB slightly past Venus orbit. However due to loss of sun's mass Earth and Venus' orbit will move further out to prevent it from being engulfed, However on Earth oceans and atmosphere will has been driven off into space, Earth is a scorch cinder. Even Venus will just be a molten wasteland with nothing on the surface. Mercury is certainly swallowed up. However Saturn's and Jupiter's moon-Europa and Titan when temperatures warm up beautiful ocean worlds can send some better atmospheres create for some descent life. Suns diameter: 170 current factors - roughly 0.79 AU

Venus moves to 1.0 AU - current orbit of Earth
Earth moves to 1.4 AU - almost as big as current Mars orbit
Mars moves to 2.0 AU - nearly to asteroid belts position

In 7.5 Gyrs

Sun reach Asympotic Giant Branch swells again. It almost reaches current Earth orbit. however Venus and Earth moves even further out again failing engulfments. Suns diameter reach 210 current factors - roughly 0.99 AU

Venus moves to 1.2 AU - two fifths between current Earth and Mars' orbit
Earth moves to 1.7 AU - two fifths between current Mars orbit and asteroid belt
Mars moves to 2.5 AU - orbit times 1.5

In 8 Gyrs

Sun forms planetary nebula and evolves rapidly into white dwarf sun Sun is over 10,000 times smaller after planetary nebula. Al the planets will move further out.

Venus reach 1.35 AU - between current Earth and Mars' orbits
Earth reaches 1.85 AU - between Mars and asteroid belt orbits
Mars reaches 2.8 AU - orbits nearly double— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewayguy (talk • contribs)

The information on the timescale for the Sun's future was taken from this source: [2]. It is quite possible there are other hypotheses out there. Perhaps they should be discussed for their relative merits. Serendipodous 08:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, sources, sources

I want to get this article included in the Solar System series. That means I have to get it up to GA, which means this article needs to fix its most glaring issue: Sources. This article's number of citations needs to double. I'd appreciate any help in tracking sources for this information down. Thank you. Serendipodous 06:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it bright or dim?

We currently say this:

Eventually, all that will remain of the Sun is a white dwarf, a hot, dim and extraordinarily dense object; half its original mass but only the size of the Earth. Were it viewed from Earth's surface, it would be a point of light the size of Venus with the brightness of a hundred current Suns.

So, is it dim, or will it have the brightness of a hundred suns? --P3d0 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The contents of the first sentence are well established. The second senstence is totally inconsistent with it. (White dwarves are not 100 times as bright as the Sun currently is to begin with, and the "size of Venus" is quite variable due to its changing distance from Earth.) I have resolved this isuse by removing the second sentence. --EMS | Talk 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent revision of the Future section for some reason deleted about five citations. I got that line from here.

Here on Earth, we'll feel the wind of the ejected gasses sweeping past, slowly at first (a mere 5 miles per second!), and then picking up speed as the spasms continue (eventuially to reach 1000 miles per second!!) The remnant Sun will rise as a dot of intense light, no larger than Venus, more brilliant than 100 present Suns, and an intensely hot blue-white color hotter than any welder's torch. Light from the fiendish blue "pinprick" will braise the Earth and tear apart its surface molecules and atoms. A new but very thin "atmosphere" of free electrons will form as the Earth's surface turns to dust. Serendi^podous 07:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]