Can a large hemispherical planet be stable? [duplicate]What if the earth was physically split in half?Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?What scientific principles could be 'abused' to make the moon have physical phases?Creating a stable split earthWhat are the parameters of a planet having multiple moons?Largest possible man-made planet-like bodyLong lasting life on interstellar planets?Moving asteroids into a planet's orbit to increase rotation to produce a magnetic fieldIs this planet's atmosphere stable and reasonable, and anything to keep in mind for lifeforms living in it?Are Trojan Planets Possible? Are Habitable Trojan Planets Possible?How to make an Earth with 27 suns workBuilding a full-sized Lego Earth - what would it look like at various levels?Would life be possible on a planet that has an axis of rotation that always “pointed” directly at the sun?

Largest memory peripheral for Sinclair ZX81?

How to laser-level close to a surface

Why is Drogon so much better in battle than Rhaegal and Viserion?

Who is frowning in the sentence "Daisy looked at Tom frowning"?

Failing students when it might cause them economic ruin

FIFO data structure in pure C

Pedaling at different gear ratios on flat terrain: what's the point?

How do I balance a campaign consisting of four kobold PCs?

Former Employer just sent me an IP Agreement

Can a generation ship withstand its own oxygen and daily wear for many thousands of years?

Will this series of events work to drown a tarrasque?

Parse a C++14 integer literal

Cryptic crossword (printer's devilry edition)

Why are stats in Angband written as 18/** instead of 19, 20...?

Don't replace "|" with "(empty)" when generating slugs from title?

Combining two Lorentz boosts

Was Tyrion always a poor strategist?

Why does the setUID bit work inconsistently?

Hotel booking: Why is Agoda much cheaper than booking.com?

pwaS eht tirsf dna tasl setterl fo hace dorw

What color to choose as "danger" if the main color of my app is red

Why is the S-duct intake on the Tu-154 uniquely oblong?

on the truth quest vs in the quest for truth

How to customize the pie chart background in PowerPoint?



Can a large hemispherical planet be stable? [duplicate]


What if the earth was physically split in half?Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?What scientific principles could be 'abused' to make the moon have physical phases?Creating a stable split earthWhat are the parameters of a planet having multiple moons?Largest possible man-made planet-like bodyLong lasting life on interstellar planets?Moving asteroids into a planet's orbit to increase rotation to produce a magnetic fieldIs this planet's atmosphere stable and reasonable, and anything to keep in mind for lifeforms living in it?Are Trojan Planets Possible? Are Habitable Trojan Planets Possible?How to make an Earth with 27 suns workBuilding a full-sized Lego Earth - what would it look like at various levels?Would life be possible on a planet that has an axis of rotation that always “pointed” directly at the sun?













3












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?

    3 answers



  • What if the earth was physically split in half?

    6 answers



I had a vision of a planet twice the size of earth sliced in half like an apple by an invisible force, one half drifting away from the other into eternity.



Unlike the planet Earth, it did no longer have a molten core, but a solid one, as if the surface was all of equal solidity.



Could these ex-planets shaped like hemispheres be stable?



Stable as in "do they stay the way they physically are" stable.



Do let me know of your thoughts on this predicament.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Gary Walker, Morris The Cat, Cyn, Hoyle's ghost, Dewi Morgan 42 mins ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @knowads I imagine a planet living a happy life when one day it is simply split in half and each half drifts away. According to my understanding of gravity, there are now two centers of gravity and each rotates faster now that there is less mass. Is that right? It certainly isn't a gas giant, but it might have a small atmosphere.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @ALambentEye you're ignoring a whole bunch of physics here, mostly around gravity. It's not the earth's spin that keeps it from collapsing, it's the mass of the stuff underneath it being in hydrostatic equilibrium. Cutting the planet neatly in half removes that, and both halves would immediately collapse into smaller spheres. The only way this would work is if you're starting with something much smaller than we normally think of as a planet. The only astronomical bodies that are able to remain stable in a non-spherical shape are things less than ~50km across.
    $endgroup$
    – Morris The Cat
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MorrisTheCat I am not ignoring it, I am uninformed concerning it, which is why I write these ignorant questions. Do feel free to write an answer and elaborate on it as much as you'd like. I will be thankful.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related: Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?
    $endgroup$
    – Theraot
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Mods who delete comments without explanation need to be held to account here.
    $endgroup$
    – Hoyle's ghost
    53 mins ago















3












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?

    3 answers



  • What if the earth was physically split in half?

    6 answers



I had a vision of a planet twice the size of earth sliced in half like an apple by an invisible force, one half drifting away from the other into eternity.



Unlike the planet Earth, it did no longer have a molten core, but a solid one, as if the surface was all of equal solidity.



Could these ex-planets shaped like hemispheres be stable?



Stable as in "do they stay the way they physically are" stable.



Do let me know of your thoughts on this predicament.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Gary Walker, Morris The Cat, Cyn, Hoyle's ghost, Dewi Morgan 42 mins ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @knowads I imagine a planet living a happy life when one day it is simply split in half and each half drifts away. According to my understanding of gravity, there are now two centers of gravity and each rotates faster now that there is less mass. Is that right? It certainly isn't a gas giant, but it might have a small atmosphere.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @ALambentEye you're ignoring a whole bunch of physics here, mostly around gravity. It's not the earth's spin that keeps it from collapsing, it's the mass of the stuff underneath it being in hydrostatic equilibrium. Cutting the planet neatly in half removes that, and both halves would immediately collapse into smaller spheres. The only way this would work is if you're starting with something much smaller than we normally think of as a planet. The only astronomical bodies that are able to remain stable in a non-spherical shape are things less than ~50km across.
    $endgroup$
    – Morris The Cat
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MorrisTheCat I am not ignoring it, I am uninformed concerning it, which is why I write these ignorant questions. Do feel free to write an answer and elaborate on it as much as you'd like. I will be thankful.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related: Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?
    $endgroup$
    – Theraot
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Mods who delete comments without explanation need to be held to account here.
    $endgroup$
    – Hoyle's ghost
    53 mins ago













3












3








3


1



$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?

    3 answers



  • What if the earth was physically split in half?

    6 answers



I had a vision of a planet twice the size of earth sliced in half like an apple by an invisible force, one half drifting away from the other into eternity.



Unlike the planet Earth, it did no longer have a molten core, but a solid one, as if the surface was all of equal solidity.



Could these ex-planets shaped like hemispheres be stable?



Stable as in "do they stay the way they physically are" stable.



Do let me know of your thoughts on this predicament.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$





This question already has an answer here:



  • Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?

    3 answers



  • What if the earth was physically split in half?

    6 answers



I had a vision of a planet twice the size of earth sliced in half like an apple by an invisible force, one half drifting away from the other into eternity.



Unlike the planet Earth, it did no longer have a molten core, but a solid one, as if the surface was all of equal solidity.



Could these ex-planets shaped like hemispheres be stable?



Stable as in "do they stay the way they physically are" stable.



Do let me know of your thoughts on this predicament.





This question already has an answer here:



  • Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?

    3 answers



  • What if the earth was physically split in half?

    6 answers







reality-check planets gravity astrophysics nonspherical-worlds






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







A Lambent Eye

















asked 5 hours ago









A Lambent EyeA Lambent Eye

2,4931250




2,4931250




marked as duplicate by Gary Walker, Morris The Cat, Cyn, Hoyle's ghost, Dewi Morgan 42 mins ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by Gary Walker, Morris The Cat, Cyn, Hoyle's ghost, Dewi Morgan 42 mins ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @knowads I imagine a planet living a happy life when one day it is simply split in half and each half drifts away. According to my understanding of gravity, there are now two centers of gravity and each rotates faster now that there is less mass. Is that right? It certainly isn't a gas giant, but it might have a small atmosphere.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @ALambentEye you're ignoring a whole bunch of physics here, mostly around gravity. It's not the earth's spin that keeps it from collapsing, it's the mass of the stuff underneath it being in hydrostatic equilibrium. Cutting the planet neatly in half removes that, and both halves would immediately collapse into smaller spheres. The only way this would work is if you're starting with something much smaller than we normally think of as a planet. The only astronomical bodies that are able to remain stable in a non-spherical shape are things less than ~50km across.
    $endgroup$
    – Morris The Cat
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MorrisTheCat I am not ignoring it, I am uninformed concerning it, which is why I write these ignorant questions. Do feel free to write an answer and elaborate on it as much as you'd like. I will be thankful.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related: Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?
    $endgroup$
    – Theraot
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Mods who delete comments without explanation need to be held to account here.
    $endgroup$
    – Hoyle's ghost
    53 mins ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @knowads I imagine a planet living a happy life when one day it is simply split in half and each half drifts away. According to my understanding of gravity, there are now two centers of gravity and each rotates faster now that there is less mass. Is that right? It certainly isn't a gas giant, but it might have a small atmosphere.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @ALambentEye you're ignoring a whole bunch of physics here, mostly around gravity. It's not the earth's spin that keeps it from collapsing, it's the mass of the stuff underneath it being in hydrostatic equilibrium. Cutting the planet neatly in half removes that, and both halves would immediately collapse into smaller spheres. The only way this would work is if you're starting with something much smaller than we normally think of as a planet. The only astronomical bodies that are able to remain stable in a non-spherical shape are things less than ~50km across.
    $endgroup$
    – Morris The Cat
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MorrisTheCat I am not ignoring it, I am uninformed concerning it, which is why I write these ignorant questions. Do feel free to write an answer and elaborate on it as much as you'd like. I will be thankful.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related: Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?
    $endgroup$
    – Theraot
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Mods who delete comments without explanation need to be held to account here.
    $endgroup$
    – Hoyle's ghost
    53 mins ago







1




1




$begingroup$
@knowads I imagine a planet living a happy life when one day it is simply split in half and each half drifts away. According to my understanding of gravity, there are now two centers of gravity and each rotates faster now that there is less mass. Is that right? It certainly isn't a gas giant, but it might have a small atmosphere.
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@knowads I imagine a planet living a happy life when one day it is simply split in half and each half drifts away. According to my understanding of gravity, there are now two centers of gravity and each rotates faster now that there is less mass. Is that right? It certainly isn't a gas giant, but it might have a small atmosphere.
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
3 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
@ALambentEye you're ignoring a whole bunch of physics here, mostly around gravity. It's not the earth's spin that keeps it from collapsing, it's the mass of the stuff underneath it being in hydrostatic equilibrium. Cutting the planet neatly in half removes that, and both halves would immediately collapse into smaller spheres. The only way this would work is if you're starting with something much smaller than we normally think of as a planet. The only astronomical bodies that are able to remain stable in a non-spherical shape are things less than ~50km across.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@ALambentEye you're ignoring a whole bunch of physics here, mostly around gravity. It's not the earth's spin that keeps it from collapsing, it's the mass of the stuff underneath it being in hydrostatic equilibrium. Cutting the planet neatly in half removes that, and both halves would immediately collapse into smaller spheres. The only way this would work is if you're starting with something much smaller than we normally think of as a planet. The only astronomical bodies that are able to remain stable in a non-spherical shape are things less than ~50km across.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
3 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@MorrisTheCat I am not ignoring it, I am uninformed concerning it, which is why I write these ignorant questions. Do feel free to write an answer and elaborate on it as much as you'd like. I will be thankful.
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@MorrisTheCat I am not ignoring it, I am uninformed concerning it, which is why I write these ignorant questions. Do feel free to write an answer and elaborate on it as much as you'd like. I will be thankful.
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
3 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
Related: Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?
$endgroup$
– Theraot
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Related: Could you build a non-spherical structure that's >1000km long?
$endgroup$
– Theraot
3 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Mods who delete comments without explanation need to be held to account here.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
53 mins ago




$begingroup$
Mods who delete comments without explanation need to be held to account here.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
53 mins ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

It depends on the size of the planet. A key concern is whether the body is in hydrostatic equilibrium. An object in hydrostatic equilibrium is approximately spherical, although it may become oblate due to rapid rotation. The question, then, is whether the division of the planet places it below the critical size required for hydrostatic equilibrium.



It turns out that there's no straightforward formula for this, but as a rule of thumb, a body with dimensions of 1500 km or more will become rounded, and a body with dimensions of 400 km or less will not (although this is composition-dependent!). In between the two is a transition zone. It seems likely that if the remnant of the planet is less than 400 km across, it will be stable; if not, it's unlikely to keep its shape.



I'll go out on a limb and say that if the body was already stable, it will remain so; if it was already in hydrostatic equilibrium, on the other hand, it will probably remain in hydrostatic equilibrium and be pulled into a sphere. The reason for this is that the precise threshold is currently not well known. I cited 400 km as a lower limit, but some rocky bodies may instead become spherical at 600 km while icy bodies become spherical at 400 km. Some authors propose even lower thresholds like 200 km. Essentially, only objects in the transition region (say, 600 km to 1500 km) are likely to shift from hydrostatic equilibrium out of it, and that's a fairly narrow range.



Of course, now that you've specified that the planet was originally twice the size of Earth, it seems clear that the fragments will, indeed, also be stable planets, as they are easily massive enough to be rounded by hydrostatic equilibrium - and thus, as per the IAU's definition, they can be planets (assuming they clear their respective orbits, of course). They will certainly be planetary-mass objects.



Rotation



It's worth talking about the spin of the fragments before and after the split. Initially, the planet is spinning at some angular velocity $omega_o$ about an axis. It has a moment of inertia about that axis $I_p=frac25MR^2$, where $M$ and $R$ are its mass and radius. Then the angular momentum is
$$L_o=I_pomega_o=frac25MR^2omega_o$$
Angular momentum should be conserved after the collision. Say the split happens along the planet's equator (this is a simple case, really, but it preserves axial symmetry). Then each fragment also happens to have moment of inertia $I_f=frac25mR^2$, where $m$ is the mass of the fragment. By symmetry, the fragments should have the same angular speed $omega_f$ and total angular momentum
$$L_f=I_fomega_f+I_fomega_f=2I_fomega_f=frac45mR^2omega_f$$
However, $m=M/2$, so
$$L_f=frac25MR^2omega_f$$
and we can see that as $L_f=L_o$, $omega_f=omega_o$; that is, the rotation does not change.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your informed answer! How would the spin of the original planet effect the spin of the ex-planets? Would they appear to drift apart and then start spinning along their own center of gravity with the axis paralell to the original spin? Or does this work entirely differently?
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @ALambentEye I've edited in a simple case. For different ways of slicing the planets, you may get different results, but it's unlikely that the angular speeds would change very much in any scenario.
    $endgroup$
    – HDE 226868
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It hadn't, for some reason, occurred to me that the planet could be split along the equator. I was actually thinking of having it split from pole to pole.
    $endgroup$
    – A Lambent Eye
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If it's not large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it's by definition not a planet.
    $endgroup$
    – Gene
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    290 km is the limit is the limit I’m familiar with, adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995MNRAS.277...99H
    $endgroup$
    – RBarryYoung
    1 hour ago


















4












$begingroup$

This would be very hard to do, but you could make it work, maybe ... if you're not too strict.



Problems:



  1. Based on the IAU definition of a planet, your hemispherical planet no longer meets the classification of a planet due to its shape not being consistent with Hydrostatic equilibrium.

  2. Most planets are subject to the tendency toward hydrostatic equilibrium due to the fact that they either have molten cores, are gaseous, or that the solids making them up are easily crumbled.

  3. Planets would not naturally form this way.

Solutions:



  1. The IAU does not have to exist in your solar system, so their definition of a planet doesn't have to be the one that you use.

  2. The planet would have to be made of solid rock, and be very rigid. There would be a very steep precipice at the edge which would need to not cascade down the vertical slope.

  3. Planets are usually hot when they are formed and then cool off, so they would have been subject to hydrostatic equilibrium at one time. So you would have to actually have your planet form into a sphere, and then split into two after cooling in order for this to happen.

Other consequences.



  1. If some kid decides that it's fun to go throw things off the precipice, then whatever he throws will collect on the flat half of the hemisphere and eventually make a pile in the center making the planet not quite hemispherical. (Note that anything falling from the precipice has this problem, and that the kid in question isn't really necessary)

  2. The gravity on the planet would be uneven and the precipice would be similar to an unimaginably tall range of mountains in this regard.





share|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    Planets are such because they are in hydrostatic equilibrium. This means that if you would cut it in half, it would crumble under gravity to a spherical shape again.



    The orientation of the rotational axis has little to do with this.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



















      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      11












      $begingroup$

      It depends on the size of the planet. A key concern is whether the body is in hydrostatic equilibrium. An object in hydrostatic equilibrium is approximately spherical, although it may become oblate due to rapid rotation. The question, then, is whether the division of the planet places it below the critical size required for hydrostatic equilibrium.



      It turns out that there's no straightforward formula for this, but as a rule of thumb, a body with dimensions of 1500 km or more will become rounded, and a body with dimensions of 400 km or less will not (although this is composition-dependent!). In between the two is a transition zone. It seems likely that if the remnant of the planet is less than 400 km across, it will be stable; if not, it's unlikely to keep its shape.



      I'll go out on a limb and say that if the body was already stable, it will remain so; if it was already in hydrostatic equilibrium, on the other hand, it will probably remain in hydrostatic equilibrium and be pulled into a sphere. The reason for this is that the precise threshold is currently not well known. I cited 400 km as a lower limit, but some rocky bodies may instead become spherical at 600 km while icy bodies become spherical at 400 km. Some authors propose even lower thresholds like 200 km. Essentially, only objects in the transition region (say, 600 km to 1500 km) are likely to shift from hydrostatic equilibrium out of it, and that's a fairly narrow range.



      Of course, now that you've specified that the planet was originally twice the size of Earth, it seems clear that the fragments will, indeed, also be stable planets, as they are easily massive enough to be rounded by hydrostatic equilibrium - and thus, as per the IAU's definition, they can be planets (assuming they clear their respective orbits, of course). They will certainly be planetary-mass objects.



      Rotation



      It's worth talking about the spin of the fragments before and after the split. Initially, the planet is spinning at some angular velocity $omega_o$ about an axis. It has a moment of inertia about that axis $I_p=frac25MR^2$, where $M$ and $R$ are its mass and radius. Then the angular momentum is
      $$L_o=I_pomega_o=frac25MR^2omega_o$$
      Angular momentum should be conserved after the collision. Say the split happens along the planet's equator (this is a simple case, really, but it preserves axial symmetry). Then each fragment also happens to have moment of inertia $I_f=frac25mR^2$, where $m$ is the mass of the fragment. By symmetry, the fragments should have the same angular speed $omega_f$ and total angular momentum
      $$L_f=I_fomega_f+I_fomega_f=2I_fomega_f=frac45mR^2omega_f$$
      However, $m=M/2$, so
      $$L_f=frac25MR^2omega_f$$
      and we can see that as $L_f=L_o$, $omega_f=omega_o$; that is, the rotation does not change.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Thank you for your informed answer! How would the spin of the original planet effect the spin of the ex-planets? Would they appear to drift apart and then start spinning along their own center of gravity with the axis paralell to the original spin? Or does this work entirely differently?
        $endgroup$
        – A Lambent Eye
        3 hours ago







      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @ALambentEye I've edited in a simple case. For different ways of slicing the planets, you may get different results, but it's unlikely that the angular speeds would change very much in any scenario.
        $endgroup$
        – HDE 226868
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        It hadn't, for some reason, occurred to me that the planet could be split along the equator. I was actually thinking of having it split from pole to pole.
        $endgroup$
        – A Lambent Eye
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        If it's not large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it's by definition not a planet.
        $endgroup$
        – Gene
        1 hour ago










      • $begingroup$
        290 km is the limit is the limit I’m familiar with, adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995MNRAS.277...99H
        $endgroup$
        – RBarryYoung
        1 hour ago















      11












      $begingroup$

      It depends on the size of the planet. A key concern is whether the body is in hydrostatic equilibrium. An object in hydrostatic equilibrium is approximately spherical, although it may become oblate due to rapid rotation. The question, then, is whether the division of the planet places it below the critical size required for hydrostatic equilibrium.



      It turns out that there's no straightforward formula for this, but as a rule of thumb, a body with dimensions of 1500 km or more will become rounded, and a body with dimensions of 400 km or less will not (although this is composition-dependent!). In between the two is a transition zone. It seems likely that if the remnant of the planet is less than 400 km across, it will be stable; if not, it's unlikely to keep its shape.



      I'll go out on a limb and say that if the body was already stable, it will remain so; if it was already in hydrostatic equilibrium, on the other hand, it will probably remain in hydrostatic equilibrium and be pulled into a sphere. The reason for this is that the precise threshold is currently not well known. I cited 400 km as a lower limit, but some rocky bodies may instead become spherical at 600 km while icy bodies become spherical at 400 km. Some authors propose even lower thresholds like 200 km. Essentially, only objects in the transition region (say, 600 km to 1500 km) are likely to shift from hydrostatic equilibrium out of it, and that's a fairly narrow range.



      Of course, now that you've specified that the planet was originally twice the size of Earth, it seems clear that the fragments will, indeed, also be stable planets, as they are easily massive enough to be rounded by hydrostatic equilibrium - and thus, as per the IAU's definition, they can be planets (assuming they clear their respective orbits, of course). They will certainly be planetary-mass objects.



      Rotation



      It's worth talking about the spin of the fragments before and after the split. Initially, the planet is spinning at some angular velocity $omega_o$ about an axis. It has a moment of inertia about that axis $I_p=frac25MR^2$, where $M$ and $R$ are its mass and radius. Then the angular momentum is
      $$L_o=I_pomega_o=frac25MR^2omega_o$$
      Angular momentum should be conserved after the collision. Say the split happens along the planet's equator (this is a simple case, really, but it preserves axial symmetry). Then each fragment also happens to have moment of inertia $I_f=frac25mR^2$, where $m$ is the mass of the fragment. By symmetry, the fragments should have the same angular speed $omega_f$ and total angular momentum
      $$L_f=I_fomega_f+I_fomega_f=2I_fomega_f=frac45mR^2omega_f$$
      However, $m=M/2$, so
      $$L_f=frac25MR^2omega_f$$
      and we can see that as $L_f=L_o$, $omega_f=omega_o$; that is, the rotation does not change.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Thank you for your informed answer! How would the spin of the original planet effect the spin of the ex-planets? Would they appear to drift apart and then start spinning along their own center of gravity with the axis paralell to the original spin? Or does this work entirely differently?
        $endgroup$
        – A Lambent Eye
        3 hours ago







      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @ALambentEye I've edited in a simple case. For different ways of slicing the planets, you may get different results, but it's unlikely that the angular speeds would change very much in any scenario.
        $endgroup$
        – HDE 226868
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        It hadn't, for some reason, occurred to me that the planet could be split along the equator. I was actually thinking of having it split from pole to pole.
        $endgroup$
        – A Lambent Eye
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        If it's not large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it's by definition not a planet.
        $endgroup$
        – Gene
        1 hour ago










      • $begingroup$
        290 km is the limit is the limit I’m familiar with, adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995MNRAS.277...99H
        $endgroup$
        – RBarryYoung
        1 hour ago













      11












      11








      11





      $begingroup$

      It depends on the size of the planet. A key concern is whether the body is in hydrostatic equilibrium. An object in hydrostatic equilibrium is approximately spherical, although it may become oblate due to rapid rotation. The question, then, is whether the division of the planet places it below the critical size required for hydrostatic equilibrium.



      It turns out that there's no straightforward formula for this, but as a rule of thumb, a body with dimensions of 1500 km or more will become rounded, and a body with dimensions of 400 km or less will not (although this is composition-dependent!). In between the two is a transition zone. It seems likely that if the remnant of the planet is less than 400 km across, it will be stable; if not, it's unlikely to keep its shape.



      I'll go out on a limb and say that if the body was already stable, it will remain so; if it was already in hydrostatic equilibrium, on the other hand, it will probably remain in hydrostatic equilibrium and be pulled into a sphere. The reason for this is that the precise threshold is currently not well known. I cited 400 km as a lower limit, but some rocky bodies may instead become spherical at 600 km while icy bodies become spherical at 400 km. Some authors propose even lower thresholds like 200 km. Essentially, only objects in the transition region (say, 600 km to 1500 km) are likely to shift from hydrostatic equilibrium out of it, and that's a fairly narrow range.



      Of course, now that you've specified that the planet was originally twice the size of Earth, it seems clear that the fragments will, indeed, also be stable planets, as they are easily massive enough to be rounded by hydrostatic equilibrium - and thus, as per the IAU's definition, they can be planets (assuming they clear their respective orbits, of course). They will certainly be planetary-mass objects.



      Rotation



      It's worth talking about the spin of the fragments before and after the split. Initially, the planet is spinning at some angular velocity $omega_o$ about an axis. It has a moment of inertia about that axis $I_p=frac25MR^2$, where $M$ and $R$ are its mass and radius. Then the angular momentum is
      $$L_o=I_pomega_o=frac25MR^2omega_o$$
      Angular momentum should be conserved after the collision. Say the split happens along the planet's equator (this is a simple case, really, but it preserves axial symmetry). Then each fragment also happens to have moment of inertia $I_f=frac25mR^2$, where $m$ is the mass of the fragment. By symmetry, the fragments should have the same angular speed $omega_f$ and total angular momentum
      $$L_f=I_fomega_f+I_fomega_f=2I_fomega_f=frac45mR^2omega_f$$
      However, $m=M/2$, so
      $$L_f=frac25MR^2omega_f$$
      and we can see that as $L_f=L_o$, $omega_f=omega_o$; that is, the rotation does not change.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      It depends on the size of the planet. A key concern is whether the body is in hydrostatic equilibrium. An object in hydrostatic equilibrium is approximately spherical, although it may become oblate due to rapid rotation. The question, then, is whether the division of the planet places it below the critical size required for hydrostatic equilibrium.



      It turns out that there's no straightforward formula for this, but as a rule of thumb, a body with dimensions of 1500 km or more will become rounded, and a body with dimensions of 400 km or less will not (although this is composition-dependent!). In between the two is a transition zone. It seems likely that if the remnant of the planet is less than 400 km across, it will be stable; if not, it's unlikely to keep its shape.



      I'll go out on a limb and say that if the body was already stable, it will remain so; if it was already in hydrostatic equilibrium, on the other hand, it will probably remain in hydrostatic equilibrium and be pulled into a sphere. The reason for this is that the precise threshold is currently not well known. I cited 400 km as a lower limit, but some rocky bodies may instead become spherical at 600 km while icy bodies become spherical at 400 km. Some authors propose even lower thresholds like 200 km. Essentially, only objects in the transition region (say, 600 km to 1500 km) are likely to shift from hydrostatic equilibrium out of it, and that's a fairly narrow range.



      Of course, now that you've specified that the planet was originally twice the size of Earth, it seems clear that the fragments will, indeed, also be stable planets, as they are easily massive enough to be rounded by hydrostatic equilibrium - and thus, as per the IAU's definition, they can be planets (assuming they clear their respective orbits, of course). They will certainly be planetary-mass objects.



      Rotation



      It's worth talking about the spin of the fragments before and after the split. Initially, the planet is spinning at some angular velocity $omega_o$ about an axis. It has a moment of inertia about that axis $I_p=frac25MR^2$, where $M$ and $R$ are its mass and radius. Then the angular momentum is
      $$L_o=I_pomega_o=frac25MR^2omega_o$$
      Angular momentum should be conserved after the collision. Say the split happens along the planet's equator (this is a simple case, really, but it preserves axial symmetry). Then each fragment also happens to have moment of inertia $I_f=frac25mR^2$, where $m$ is the mass of the fragment. By symmetry, the fragments should have the same angular speed $omega_f$ and total angular momentum
      $$L_f=I_fomega_f+I_fomega_f=2I_fomega_f=frac45mR^2omega_f$$
      However, $m=M/2$, so
      $$L_f=frac25MR^2omega_f$$
      and we can see that as $L_f=L_o$, $omega_f=omega_o$; that is, the rotation does not change.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 1 hour ago

























      answered 4 hours ago









      HDE 226868HDE 226868

      67.5k15234437




      67.5k15234437











      • $begingroup$
        Thank you for your informed answer! How would the spin of the original planet effect the spin of the ex-planets? Would they appear to drift apart and then start spinning along their own center of gravity with the axis paralell to the original spin? Or does this work entirely differently?
        $endgroup$
        – A Lambent Eye
        3 hours ago







      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @ALambentEye I've edited in a simple case. For different ways of slicing the planets, you may get different results, but it's unlikely that the angular speeds would change very much in any scenario.
        $endgroup$
        – HDE 226868
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        It hadn't, for some reason, occurred to me that the planet could be split along the equator. I was actually thinking of having it split from pole to pole.
        $endgroup$
        – A Lambent Eye
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        If it's not large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it's by definition not a planet.
        $endgroup$
        – Gene
        1 hour ago










      • $begingroup$
        290 km is the limit is the limit I’m familiar with, adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995MNRAS.277...99H
        $endgroup$
        – RBarryYoung
        1 hour ago
















      • $begingroup$
        Thank you for your informed answer! How would the spin of the original planet effect the spin of the ex-planets? Would they appear to drift apart and then start spinning along their own center of gravity with the axis paralell to the original spin? Or does this work entirely differently?
        $endgroup$
        – A Lambent Eye
        3 hours ago







      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @ALambentEye I've edited in a simple case. For different ways of slicing the planets, you may get different results, but it's unlikely that the angular speeds would change very much in any scenario.
        $endgroup$
        – HDE 226868
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        It hadn't, for some reason, occurred to me that the planet could be split along the equator. I was actually thinking of having it split from pole to pole.
        $endgroup$
        – A Lambent Eye
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        If it's not large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it's by definition not a planet.
        $endgroup$
        – Gene
        1 hour ago










      • $begingroup$
        290 km is the limit is the limit I’m familiar with, adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995MNRAS.277...99H
        $endgroup$
        – RBarryYoung
        1 hour ago















      $begingroup$
      Thank you for your informed answer! How would the spin of the original planet effect the spin of the ex-planets? Would they appear to drift apart and then start spinning along their own center of gravity with the axis paralell to the original spin? Or does this work entirely differently?
      $endgroup$
      – A Lambent Eye
      3 hours ago





      $begingroup$
      Thank you for your informed answer! How would the spin of the original planet effect the spin of the ex-planets? Would they appear to drift apart and then start spinning along their own center of gravity with the axis paralell to the original spin? Or does this work entirely differently?
      $endgroup$
      – A Lambent Eye
      3 hours ago





      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      @ALambentEye I've edited in a simple case. For different ways of slicing the planets, you may get different results, but it's unlikely that the angular speeds would change very much in any scenario.
      $endgroup$
      – HDE 226868
      2 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @ALambentEye I've edited in a simple case. For different ways of slicing the planets, you may get different results, but it's unlikely that the angular speeds would change very much in any scenario.
      $endgroup$
      – HDE 226868
      2 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      It hadn't, for some reason, occurred to me that the planet could be split along the equator. I was actually thinking of having it split from pole to pole.
      $endgroup$
      – A Lambent Eye
      2 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      It hadn't, for some reason, occurred to me that the planet could be split along the equator. I was actually thinking of having it split from pole to pole.
      $endgroup$
      – A Lambent Eye
      2 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      If it's not large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it's by definition not a planet.
      $endgroup$
      – Gene
      1 hour ago




      $begingroup$
      If it's not large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it's by definition not a planet.
      $endgroup$
      – Gene
      1 hour ago












      $begingroup$
      290 km is the limit is the limit I’m familiar with, adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995MNRAS.277...99H
      $endgroup$
      – RBarryYoung
      1 hour ago




      $begingroup$
      290 km is the limit is the limit I’m familiar with, adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995MNRAS.277...99H
      $endgroup$
      – RBarryYoung
      1 hour ago











      4












      $begingroup$

      This would be very hard to do, but you could make it work, maybe ... if you're not too strict.



      Problems:



      1. Based on the IAU definition of a planet, your hemispherical planet no longer meets the classification of a planet due to its shape not being consistent with Hydrostatic equilibrium.

      2. Most planets are subject to the tendency toward hydrostatic equilibrium due to the fact that they either have molten cores, are gaseous, or that the solids making them up are easily crumbled.

      3. Planets would not naturally form this way.

      Solutions:



      1. The IAU does not have to exist in your solar system, so their definition of a planet doesn't have to be the one that you use.

      2. The planet would have to be made of solid rock, and be very rigid. There would be a very steep precipice at the edge which would need to not cascade down the vertical slope.

      3. Planets are usually hot when they are formed and then cool off, so they would have been subject to hydrostatic equilibrium at one time. So you would have to actually have your planet form into a sphere, and then split into two after cooling in order for this to happen.

      Other consequences.



      1. If some kid decides that it's fun to go throw things off the precipice, then whatever he throws will collect on the flat half of the hemisphere and eventually make a pile in the center making the planet not quite hemispherical. (Note that anything falling from the precipice has this problem, and that the kid in question isn't really necessary)

      2. The gravity on the planet would be uneven and the precipice would be similar to an unimaginably tall range of mountains in this regard.





      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        4












        $begingroup$

        This would be very hard to do, but you could make it work, maybe ... if you're not too strict.



        Problems:



        1. Based on the IAU definition of a planet, your hemispherical planet no longer meets the classification of a planet due to its shape not being consistent with Hydrostatic equilibrium.

        2. Most planets are subject to the tendency toward hydrostatic equilibrium due to the fact that they either have molten cores, are gaseous, or that the solids making them up are easily crumbled.

        3. Planets would not naturally form this way.

        Solutions:



        1. The IAU does not have to exist in your solar system, so their definition of a planet doesn't have to be the one that you use.

        2. The planet would have to be made of solid rock, and be very rigid. There would be a very steep precipice at the edge which would need to not cascade down the vertical slope.

        3. Planets are usually hot when they are formed and then cool off, so they would have been subject to hydrostatic equilibrium at one time. So you would have to actually have your planet form into a sphere, and then split into two after cooling in order for this to happen.

        Other consequences.



        1. If some kid decides that it's fun to go throw things off the precipice, then whatever he throws will collect on the flat half of the hemisphere and eventually make a pile in the center making the planet not quite hemispherical. (Note that anything falling from the precipice has this problem, and that the kid in question isn't really necessary)

        2. The gravity on the planet would be uneven and the precipice would be similar to an unimaginably tall range of mountains in this regard.





        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          This would be very hard to do, but you could make it work, maybe ... if you're not too strict.



          Problems:



          1. Based on the IAU definition of a planet, your hemispherical planet no longer meets the classification of a planet due to its shape not being consistent with Hydrostatic equilibrium.

          2. Most planets are subject to the tendency toward hydrostatic equilibrium due to the fact that they either have molten cores, are gaseous, or that the solids making them up are easily crumbled.

          3. Planets would not naturally form this way.

          Solutions:



          1. The IAU does not have to exist in your solar system, so their definition of a planet doesn't have to be the one that you use.

          2. The planet would have to be made of solid rock, and be very rigid. There would be a very steep precipice at the edge which would need to not cascade down the vertical slope.

          3. Planets are usually hot when they are formed and then cool off, so they would have been subject to hydrostatic equilibrium at one time. So you would have to actually have your planet form into a sphere, and then split into two after cooling in order for this to happen.

          Other consequences.



          1. If some kid decides that it's fun to go throw things off the precipice, then whatever he throws will collect on the flat half of the hemisphere and eventually make a pile in the center making the planet not quite hemispherical. (Note that anything falling from the precipice has this problem, and that the kid in question isn't really necessary)

          2. The gravity on the planet would be uneven and the precipice would be similar to an unimaginably tall range of mountains in this regard.





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          This would be very hard to do, but you could make it work, maybe ... if you're not too strict.



          Problems:



          1. Based on the IAU definition of a planet, your hemispherical planet no longer meets the classification of a planet due to its shape not being consistent with Hydrostatic equilibrium.

          2. Most planets are subject to the tendency toward hydrostatic equilibrium due to the fact that they either have molten cores, are gaseous, or that the solids making them up are easily crumbled.

          3. Planets would not naturally form this way.

          Solutions:



          1. The IAU does not have to exist in your solar system, so their definition of a planet doesn't have to be the one that you use.

          2. The planet would have to be made of solid rock, and be very rigid. There would be a very steep precipice at the edge which would need to not cascade down the vertical slope.

          3. Planets are usually hot when they are formed and then cool off, so they would have been subject to hydrostatic equilibrium at one time. So you would have to actually have your planet form into a sphere, and then split into two after cooling in order for this to happen.

          Other consequences.



          1. If some kid decides that it's fun to go throw things off the precipice, then whatever he throws will collect on the flat half of the hemisphere and eventually make a pile in the center making the planet not quite hemispherical. (Note that anything falling from the precipice has this problem, and that the kid in question isn't really necessary)

          2. The gravity on the planet would be uneven and the precipice would be similar to an unimaginably tall range of mountains in this regard.






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 3 hours ago









          Brythan

          21.8k84388




          21.8k84388










          answered 3 hours ago









          MathaddictMathaddict

          5,625635




          5,625635





















              1












              $begingroup$

              Planets are such because they are in hydrostatic equilibrium. This means that if you would cut it in half, it would crumble under gravity to a spherical shape again.



              The orientation of the rotational axis has little to do with this.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                Planets are such because they are in hydrostatic equilibrium. This means that if you would cut it in half, it would crumble under gravity to a spherical shape again.



                The orientation of the rotational axis has little to do with this.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Planets are such because they are in hydrostatic equilibrium. This means that if you would cut it in half, it would crumble under gravity to a spherical shape again.



                  The orientation of the rotational axis has little to do with this.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Planets are such because they are in hydrostatic equilibrium. This means that if you would cut it in half, it would crumble under gravity to a spherical shape again.



                  The orientation of the rotational axis has little to do with this.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  L.DutchL.Dutch

                  95.5k29223462




                  95.5k29223462













                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Siegen Nawigatsjuun

                      Log på Navigationsmenu

                      Log på Navigationsmenu