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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American