How massive is Our Solar System?

[AmateurScientist]

Big.

OK, with that out of the way, I'm merely curious as to a relatively precise measurement. Surely someone has done this calcuation or run across it.

In terms of mass, not volume, how many kg of matter comprises our sun?

(ETA: OK, looked it up easily. It's about 1.99 x 10^30 kg)

All 9 (10 now?) of our planets and their moons?

All the asteroids and comets?

All other nebulous matter such as solar wind and neutrinos, etc.?

How does all the non-solar matter combined compare in mass to the sun's mass, quantitatively?

Just curious, if anyone knows or cares to do the figuring.

AS

[Earthborn]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system) is, as usual, your friend.

The principal component of the solar system is the Sun (astronomical symbol ☉); a main sequence G2 star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally. Its two largest orbiting bodies, Jupiter and Saturn, together account for more than 90% of the system's remaining mass.

All 9 (10 now?)Depends on how you define "planet". Some astronomers prefer to demote Pluto and claim that there are 8 planets, others prefer a definition that includes Pluto and claim that there are about 20 planets. It's a pretty controversial issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5099292.stm?ls).

[Jimbo07]

Start here:

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/solarsys.htm

with this:

The following table is a list of the mass distribution within our Solar System.
Sun: 99.85%
Planets: 0.135%
Comets: 0.01% ?
Satellites: 0.00005%
Minor Planets: 0.0000002% ?
Meteoroids: 0.0000001% ?
Interplanetary Medium: 0.0000001% ?

From the 'Sun' link on the page, the mass of the sun is: 1.989e+30kg.

Solar System mass estimate, 1.989e+30/0.9985 = 1.992e+30 kg.

Anyone wanna add anything regarding 'dark matter,' 'miniature black holes,'
etc.?

[tsg]

Depends on how you define "planet". Some astronomers prefer to demote Pluto and claim that there are 8 planets, others prefer a definition that includes Pluto and claim that there are about 20 planets. It's a pretty controversial issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5099292.stm?ls).

Whether or not it's a planet, it still has mass.

[Earthborn]

Whether or not it's a planet, it still has mass.Yes, but he asked whether there are 10 planets now.

For the total mass of the Solar System it is not really relevant what Pluto's and the other minor planets' mass is. Compared to the rest it is so incredibly small that you can forget about it. If you stand on the scale to weigh yourself, you don't worry about the mass of a hair either.

[AmateurScientist]

Thanks for your replies.

Jimbo, your link provided what I was actually asking. Thanks. I found the table that placed everything in units of earth masses to be the best to digest conceptually. I was actually quite surprised to learn how the sun's mass dwarfs all other mass in the solar system. I expected it to be larger than everything else combined, but not that much larger.

Earthborn, thanks for your reply as well. Actually, my question mark beside 10 was a reference to the discovery just last year of what many astronomers regard as a 10th planet, in what is the Kuiper Belt.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm

I'm aware of the sometimes controversial topic of whether Pluto qualifies as a planet, but I think the conventional view is that it is one. For purposes of this topic, it doesn't really matter. My ? was merely an aside.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Here's an outdated (from 1999) link that discusses the minor controversy about Pluto's status as a planet, and about the 35,000 or so large bodies in the Kuiper Belt.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast17feb99_1.htm

AS

[Alphaba]

I was actually quite surprised to learn how the sun's mass dwarfs all other mass in the solar system. I expected it to be larger than everything else combined, but not that much larger.
I had the same reaction: all non-star objects forming the solar system amounting to less than 0.15% of its total mass? Wow! It then made me realize I never figured correctly the relative sizes, i.e. that the Sun is so frigin BIG compared to the planets, even the giant ones.

Thanks for the creation of this educational thread AmateurScientist, and thanks for the nice link and answer Jimbo07.

[AmateurScientist]

Did you notice the table that refers to the planets' densities as well? I never really thought about it, but apparently Earth is the most dense body in the solar system. It makes sense, but I never really considered it. After all, the three inner planets are the rocky planets, and the gaseous giant Jovian planets are obviously less dense. Mars is somewhere in between, and Pluto is mostly ice and thus less dense than Mars.

AS

[Mercutio]

I never really thought about it, but apparently Earth is the most dense body in the solar system.

AS
A very nice straight line. Too many responses to pick just one...

[kalen]

Big.

OK, with that out of the way, I'm merely curious as to a relatively precise measurement. Surely someone has done this calcuation or run across it.


How precise do you want? As was already pointed out, the Sun is 99.85% of the mass. The extra 0.15% is everything else with the planets being the biggest fraction of that (99%, say). Adding in anything else (comets,eg) would just start changing your answer at the around the 5th and 6th decimal place at least. So, it's a pretty useless exercise since I doubt we know the mass of even the big stuff to one part in 10^5.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How massive is Our Solar System?

Massive, dude. Massive.

Lizard.

[RandFan]

Re: How many atoms are there in the 'world', solar system, & universe? (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may98/892502124.Ph.q.html)

Object Mass (kg) Number of Atoms (assuming all Hydrogen)

Hydrogen atom 1.67E-27 1
1

Earth 6.42E+23 3.8E+50
384,359,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000

Sun 1.99E+30 1.2E+57
1,191,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00

Solar System 1.99E+30 1.2E+57
1,192,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00

Universe 1.99E+52 1.2E+79
12,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[AmateurScientist]

A very nice straight line. Too many responses to pick just one...

Well, you should have at least tried.

I'm much better as a straight man, especially an unintentional one. My unintentional humor is sometimes hilarious, but otherwise, not so much.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Re: How many atoms are there in the 'world', solar system, & universe? (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may98/892502124.Ph.q.html)

Object Mass (kg) Number of Atoms (assuming all Hydrogen)

Hydrogen atom 1.67E-27 1
1

Earth 6.42E+23 3.8E+50
384,359,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000

Sun 1.99E+30 1.2E+57
1,191,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00

Solar System 1.99E+30 1.2E+57
1,192,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00

Universe 1.99E+52 1.2E+79
12,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Thanks, RandFan. Great info, even more than I asked for. I love this kind of stuff. Did you notice that a 6-year old asked that question?

AS

[AmateurScientist]

How precise do you want? As was already pointed out, the Sun is 99.85% of the mass. The extra 0.15% is everything else with the planets being the biggest fraction of that (99%, say). Adding in anything else (comets,eg) would just start changing your answer at the around the 5th and 6th decimal place at least. So, it's a pretty useless exercise since I doubt we know the mass of even the big stuff to one part in 10^5.

I already said I'm satisfied with Jimbo's response, but thanks anyway. It was hardly a useless exercise. I think you misunderstood what I was asking.

AS

[rjh01]

Another unusual question. Where is the rotational energy in the solar system?

It is mostly in the giant gas planets because they orbit the sun so far away.

[Beausoleil]

Did you notice the table that refers to the planets' densities as well? I never really thought about it, but apparently Earth is the most dense body in the solar system. It makes sense, but I never really considered it. After all, the three inner planets are the rocky planets, and the gaseous giant Jovian planets are obviously less dense. Mars is somewhere in between, and Pluto is mostly ice and thus less dense than Mars.

AS

Terrestrial planets are dense because they are mixtures of silicate and metal and because they have high internal pressures that squeeze materials. Take away the internal pressures using a likely model of internal strucutre and you are left with "uncompressed density" - the quantity often discussed by planetary scientists. Mercury has the highest uncompressed density of the terrestrial planets, reflecting a large core.

Mars is a terrestrial planet just like the Earth - it's not "somewhere in between" though there is evidence it is slightly more volatile rich than the Earth.

[PopeTom]

I had the same reaction: all non-star objects forming the solar system amounting to less than 0.15% of its total mass? Wow! It then made me realize I never figured correctly the relative sizes, i.e. that the Sun is so frigin BIG compared to the planets, even the giant ones.

Thanks for the creation of this educational thread AmateurScientist, and thanks for the nice link and answer Jimbo07.

How about this (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/solar/sizes2.html#c1) and this (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/solar/sizes.html#c2) as an idea for relative sizes for major bodies in the solar system?

-PopeTom

[kalen]

I think you misunderstood what I was asking.

OK, with that out of the way, I'm merely curious as to a relatively precise measurement.

I misunderstood what?

[AmateurScientist]

I misunderstood what?

OK. Sorry, I think maybe I misunderstood you. Now I think you meant merely that beyond considering the sun and the planets, taking any other mass in the solar system into account is pointless, as the degree of precision at that scale is too small to make any difference within our error tolerance and ability to measure.

Until I saw Jimbo's answer, I didn't realize this would be pointless, but afterwards I got it. With that in mind, my original set of questions made a little more sense.

No offense intended, man. I wasn't looking for an argument. I was just curious.

AS

[kalen]

No offense taken. Glad to see you got my point.

Myself, I like to save the arguing for the "Politics and Current Events" section.

[Supercell Hunters]

AmateurScientist, how does the telescope can see through in massive distance such as 10 light years away? I was thinking last minute that wasn't true?

[AmateurScientist]

AmateurScientist, how does the telescope can see through in massive distance such as 10 light years away? I was thinking last minute that wasn't true?

I don't think I understand your question, Supercell. Care to elaborate?

I really like cosmology, and our solar system is our neighborhood within the larger universe, so this kind of stuff interests me. Usually, I limit my interest to larger scales, but I happened to wonder the other day how mass was distributed within our local solar system, so I asked.

Please feel free to clarify what you mean.

AS

[Supercell Hunters]

I mean how the telescope can see in massive distance out in space?

[AmateurScientist]

I mean how the telescope can see in massive distance out in space?

Do you mean large distances, as in large values for x light years away from the earth?

If so, it depends on what kind of telescope you are wondering about. For optical telescopes, we simply rely on light from distant stars and galaxies and nebulae to reach us from their source. In the case of stars or galaxies 6 billion light years away, for instance, the light reaching us now originated from those sources 6 billion years ago, but it took those photons that long to reach us just now. In the case of radiotelescopes tuned to non-visible frequencies of the spectrum of electronmagnetic radiation, we are doing exactly the same, only looking for non-visible radiation (not light, but other radio frequencies, whether in the range of x-rays, or audible frequencies, or gamma rays, for example. The principle is the same. All electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light.

We cannot "see" massive objects that no longer emit electromagnetic radiation, such as neutron stars or black holes which used to be stars. We can detect them indirectly, however, by noticing how their gravity bends the light (or other, non-visible electromagnetic radiation) from nearby stars or galaxies. Also, such dark matter may affect the gravity and hence orbits of other nearby stars. Binary stars, pairs of them rotating around each other, are actually more common than single stars without mates. We often see such binary stars causing a visible effect on the orbit of the other, so that they have interactive elliptical orbits around each other.

Dark stars and black holes can cause the same effects on nearby massive bodies, and if those bodies are luminous, then we indirectly detect the nearby dark star or black hole because we notice the bizarre orbit of the luminous stars. It's pretty cool.

Using that method, astronomers have in only the last 7 or 8 years discovered that supermassive black holes appear to reside near the center of every galaxy we have examined closely, including our own Milky Way. This suggests that perhaps black holes are necessary for the formation of galaxies, or that they are an inevitable byproduct of galaxy formation.

Time will tell.

AS

[Supercell Hunters]

Thank you, sounds like you are my scientist:)

[wollery]

snip....... non-visible radiation (not light, but other radio frequencies, whether in the range of x-rays, or audible frequencies, or gamma rays, for example... snip .....Ummm, could you please enlighten me as to which particular part of the EM spectrum is audible?

[AmateurScientist]

Ummm, could you please enlighten me as to which particular part of the EM spectrum is audible?

Heh. Serves me right for posting late at night when I'm punch drunk. Radio frequencies, not audible. 3Hz to 300 GHz. Audible after being picked up by a radio and converted to sound energy.

I was thinking of the audible static of the cosmic background radiation as heard in documentaries about the accidental discovery of it and its place in confirming the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe.

Thanks.

AS

[rjh01]

Another way for black holes to be detected is that matter is going into the black hole. When this happens a lot of X-rays are emitted, because the gas gets so hot. We cannot see the black hole itself, but there are a number of x-ray sources and this is the simplest explanation for them.

An isolated black hole is almost undetectable. It could be detected only by the lensing effect.

Brown holes are very small black holes (size of a few protons across) that radiates energy. They were created at the beginning of the universe. None have been detected. Ref Stephen Hawking.