How was Mercury formed?
Answers
Although planets surround stars in the galaxy, how they form remains a subject of debate. Despite the wealth of worlds in our own solar system, scientists still aren't certain how planets are built. Currently, two theories are duking it out for the role of champion.
The first and most widely accepted theory, core accretion, works well with the formation of the terrestrial planets like Mercury but has problems with giant planets. The second, the disk instability method, may account for the creation of these giant planets.
Scientists are continuing to study planets in and out of the solar system in an effort to better understand which of these methods is most accurate.
in short, Theories of Mercury’s formation have been developed to explain its unusually large metal-to-silicate ratio compared to Venus, Earth, and Mars. These theories generally fall into one of two categories; physical removal of silicates, or differences in the composition material from which Mercury formed compared with other solar system bodies. Two of the physical models invoke one or more giant impacts (left) or the vaporization of surface by a hot solar nebula to remove the planet’s original crust and outer mantle. Chemical models describe the material from which Mercury formed, for example, refractory condensates or primitive precursory material (right). The abundances of potassium, thorium, and uranium on the surface of Mercury measured by the MESSENGER Gamma-Ray Spectrometer rule out the giant impact, vaporization, and refractory condensation models. Formation from primitive material, similar to some forms of chondritic meteorites, is consistent with the GRS measurements.