Ideas about Early Solar System Development May Need Revision

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Image: NASA

A new analysis of the mineral composition of meteorites suggests that theories concerning the development of the early solar system may need revision. Announcing their results today in the journal Science, researchers conclude that it took the earth only 20 million years to form from material floating around the early sun. Previous estimates, in contrast, had placed that figure at around 50 million years. The findings also re-open the debate over which types of supernovae could have produced our solar system.

Measuring the amounts of an isotope of the element niobium (niobium-92) and its daughter isotope zirconium-92 in two meteorite samples provided the researchers with a kind of radioactive chronometer capable of estimating the timing of events in the early solar system. The earlier calculation of 50 million years for the formation of the earth was obtained using the same technique. But this time, the experimenters made sure to avoid contamination of their samples. By paying greater attention to maintaining the purity of the samples, says study co-author Brigitte Zanda-Hewins of Rutgers University, the team was able to produce a more accurate estimate. Additionally, the new, lower figures for the abundance of niobium-92 (which is generated by supernovae) in the early solar system, Zanda-Hewins says, loosen the constraints on the types of supernovae that could have spawned the solar system. The floor is once again open for candidates.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American