# Is the sum of mass of all planets in our solar system is 40% the mass of the Sun? [closed]

According to Chandrasekhar Limit,the mass of an object can not exceed than 1.4 times the mass of the sun.But according to some other theories,the sun was very large at former times and earth and other planets of our solar system are part of the sun separated from it because of it getting overmassed and (earth and other planets) cooled down to gain a form as they are today and leaving the sun to become as it is.Then on relating both the points (first two lines) we get that the sum of mass of all planets in our solar system should be the 40% of the mass of the sun.So I want to ask if really the sum of mass of all planets in our solar system is equal to the 40% of the mass of the sun?

• Why don't you look up the masses yourself and add them to find out? Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 12:44
• I tried but i did not get the statstics of the masses Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 12:49
• Typing "mass of pluto" or "mass of neptune" or any other planet into Google gives you the masses without even having to click any link! Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 12:51
• Google the question. Its simple enough. The sum of their masses would be quite lesser than even 1%. (Typing 'the percentage of mass of the sun in the solar system' gives you the answer without having to click links.) Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 12:51
• Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 14:26

I can see that this question has been downvoted but I think it still deserves a proper answer.

First, it is the Chandrasekhar (one word) limit, named after the Indian-American astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.

Second, the Chandrasekhar limit does not mean that an object cannot be more massive than 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. There are plenty of objects (stars) that are a heck of a lot more massive than that. For instance, right here in our relative neighborhood ("only" some 600 light years from here) is the star Betelgeuse, which weighs almost 8 solar masses.

The Chandrasekhar limit is about stars that have exhausted their nuclear fuel collapsing into neutron stars under their own gravity. If they weigh less than 1.4 times the Sun, this collapse does not happen as the pressure is not large enough to compress ordinary matter into neutrons.

As to the sum of the masses of all planets in the solar system, the biggest of them, Jupiter, has about 0.1% of the mass of the Sun. Saturn, just over half as much. Uranus and Neptune, one tenth of that. So never mind 40%, the total doesn't even come close to 1%.

• The Chandrasekhar limit... paragraph is all wrong. The Chandrasekhar limit is the maximum mass of a stable white dwarf; above this limit the electron degeneracy pressure cannot withstand the gravitational force & it collapses further into a neutron star (though normally a Type Ia detonation occurs before this could happen). Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 14:48
• That's exactly what I said. Above $1.4 M_\odot$, neutron star. Below $1.4 M_\odot$, no neutron star. (Of course if the star blows up and the remnant is below $1.4 M_\odot$, then no neutron star either.) Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 16:00
• The implication of what the Chandrasekhar limit is what is wrong, it's simply the maximum mass of a stable white dwarf (non-rotating at that). Your paragraph says that it's about collapsing into a NS, which is only marginally true. Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 16:18
• Trying to figure out what your point is. Here is Hyperphysics: "For stellar masses less than about 1.44 solar masses, the energy from the gravitational collapse is not sufficient to produce the neutrons of a neutron star, so the collapse is halted by electron degeneracy to form white dwarfs. This maximum mass for a white dwarf is called the Chandrasekhar limit." And Wikipedia: "white dwarfs with masses greater than the limit would be [...] evolving into a different type of stellar remnant, such as a neutron star or black hole". Are these wrong? Or am I inadvertently saying something different? Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 22:33
• It is subtle, but the way you've phrased it makes it look like the CL is about forming neutron stars when it's really a limit of stability for (non-rotating) WD stars. There's not even a mention of WD in your answer... Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 23:57