Rethinking Planetary and Solar System Creation Models and Theories

Since I was about the age of 10, I generally had a hard time with the "standard model" for solar system creation, or specifically the concept of core accretion. Now, with every new discovery of new solar systems, our long-held concepts are sinking fast. Through and by my own research and observations, we will first review the standard model, current theories, and finally propose a new explanation for the way that our solar system and extra-solar planets could have formed.

The old Standard Model

The long-held standard model theory goes like this:

Planets are formed from a protoplanetary disc of dust and gas that is orbiting a star. Gravity causes heavy elements such as metals and silica migrate towards the star due to their greater density, and lighter elements such as gasses to migrate towards the outer edges of the solar system.

Gravity then, over great periods of time, causes elements to condense into protoplanets, much like the dwarf planet Ceres and the asteroid Vesta, both of which are thought to possess a differential interior. As a result, rocky planets like Earth and Mars from closer to the star, gas planets like Jupiter and Saturn form farther from a star, and because all planets formed from the same disc, they all orbit their star in the same direction.

A ten-point breakdown of the standard model in basic layman terms can be found here.

This theory perfect explains how a solar system like ours could potentially come into existence. The only problem cane in the early 1990's when we discovered exosolar planets (planets outside of our solar system that orbit other stars), the vast majority of these solar systems contain planets as massive, (and even several times more massive), as Jupiter orbiting closer to their star than Mercury orbits to the sun. These types of planets are commonly referred to as "hot Jupiters" or "Super Jupiters."