DOCSLIB.ORG

Was Jupiter Born Beyond the Current Orbits of Neptune and Pluto?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Was Jupiter Born Beyond the Current Orbits of Neptune and Pluto? INNER WORKINGS Was Jupiter born beyond the current orbits of Neptune and Pluto? INNER WORKINGS Ken Croswell, Science Writer Ancient people named the planet Jupiter well. Both gravity stunted the growth of newborn Mars, sculpts its brilliance and its slow, regal movement across the the asteroid belt today, and may even help protect sky evoked a king among gods. Today we know much Earth from catastrophic comet impacts. more about the influence of Jupiter, a planet boasting But how did such a behemoth arise? Conventional more than twice as much mass as the solar system’s theory says that Jupiter formed more or less where it other planets put together. Jupiter’stremendous is now, about five times farther from the Sun than A new theory suggests that Jupiter formed its core far from the Sun, then moved inward. Image credit: Hubble Space Telescope – NASA, ESA, and Amy Simon (NASA Goddard). Published under the PNAS license. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2011609117 PNAS Latest Articles | 1of4 Downloaded by guest on October 4, 2021 condense and make planets, whereas at larger dis- tances water molecules, formed from plentiful hydrogen and oxygen, freeze and help create much bigger worlds. Thus, astronomers suspected that the strange close-in giant planet developed farther from its star and then, through interaction with the gas and dust in the disk, spiraled inward. Scientists later applied this idea of planetary mi- gration to our solar system. In the Nice model, named for a city in France where the theory came together, the Sun’s giant planets were once so close together that their gravitational pulls tugged on one another and hurled Uranus and Neptune away from the Sun until they reached their present distances (3). The new theory doesn’t change the Nice model, but it does propose that, while still an infant, Jupiter made a much greater excursion across the solar sys- tem. Moreover, whereas the Nice model was silent on Jupiter’s origin, the new theory attacks that issue head on, focusing on a peculiarity in the planet’s atmo- sphere: It’s rich in nitrogen. “It’s actually something that started bothering me a few years ago,” Öberg says. “I can’t think of any way to explain it if Jupiter formed where it currently is sitting.” Molecular nitrogen is normally a gas, and most gases don’t glom onto planets in large amounts; only Nascent giant planets cut dark circular gaps in the protoplanetary disk around solids—or gases in their frozen state—do. But nitro- the newborn star HL Tauri. In this image from ALMA, the yellow disk’s edge, gen freezes at temperatures far colder than those that ’ located inside the second dark gap, is about the size of Neptune s orbit. The giant prevailed in the protoplanetary disk at Jupiter’s pre- planets sculpting dark gaps in the orange-red region are much farther out from the ’ star than Pluto is from the Sun. Image credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO). sent position, which means the planet shouldn t have much of the element. Indeed, to find nitrogen as an ice, you have to travel to places such as Neptune’smoon Earth is. At that distance, the disk of gas and dust that Triton or far-off Pluto. In 1995, however, the Galileo swirled around the young Sun was dense enough to probe dove into the Jovian atmosphere and measured give birth to the planetary goliath. a nitrogen-to-hydrogen ratio three to four times higher In 2019, however, two groups of researchers un- than the Sun’s. The larger ratio suggested that Jupiter aware of each other’s work—one in America (1), the had somehow acquired nitrogen in solid form. other in Europe (2)—proposed a literally far-out alter- In both America and Europe, this was the starting native: Jupiter got its start in the solar system’s hinter- point for the new theory. In each case its conception lands, probably beyond the current orbits of Neptune arose from a conversation. Öberg regularly visits with and Pluto, and then moved inward. Harvard planetary scientist Robin Wordsworth. “I “It’s the most fun I’ve had with a paper for some expressed my frustration with not being able to form time,” says Karin Öberg, an astronomer at the Harvard- Jupiter where it currently is,” Öberg recalls. Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, MA, Meanwhile, a similar discussion was unfolding in The and one of the theory’s originators. “You can explain it to Netherlands. “We started thinking: Well, OK, how can almost anyone in a couple of minutes.” The theory may we get that extra nitrogen into Jupiter?” says Arthur be straightforward, but its consequences are profound: If Bosman, an astrochemist then at Leiden University in it’s right, the solar system’sbiggestplanetwasborn The Netherlands and now at the University of Michigan some 10 times farther from the Sun than it now is, which at Ann Arbor. He and his officemate, Alex Cridland, had means that some of the other giant worlds in our solar both noticed the planet’s high nitrogen level. system and beyond likely arose at vast distances from And it’s not just nitrogen. Argon, a noble gas, also their stars and then moved to their current locations. freezes at frigid temperatures, and it too is abnormally abundant on Jupiter. Ditto for two other noble gases, Nitrogen Provides a Solid Clue krypton and xenon. The idea that planets can rove from far to near was itself once radical. But in 1995, this notion became Ahead of Its Time standard thinking after the shocking discovery of a In a 1999 article, other researchers had noted these giant planet closer to its sun than Mercury is to ours. oddities, proposing possible explanations, including Planets form in so-called protoplanetary disks, pancake- one which suggested that Jupiter migrated to its shaped gatherings of gas and dust that revolve around present position from beyond Neptune’s current orbit newborn stars. Near the star, the protoplanetary disk is (4). But the idea was ahead of its time. For one thing, hot, so only rock and heavy elements such as iron can conventional theory then said planets built up from 2of4 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2011609117 Croswell Downloaded by guest on October 4, 2021 dust grains that slowly grew larger, eventually leading David Stevenson, a planetary scientist at the Cal- to asteroid-sized bodies which later merged; but this ifornia Institute of Technology in Pasadena, is more process was slow in the tenuous outskirts of the pro- skeptical. “It’s not that difficult to come up with a va- toplanetary disk, so a planet as large as Jupiter riety of stories, given our lack of understanding,” he wouldn’t have had enough time to arise there before says. Furthermore, even if Jupiter’s core arose far from the disk of gas and dust vanished. the Sun and thus acquired high levels of nitrogen and Since then, however, two new developments have made the bold idea more plausible. First, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio “It’s such a paradigm shift that I was really happy to see telescope started operating in Chile and began imag- that someone else was thinking the same way.“ ing protoplanetary disks around newborn stars. The first — such image, of a young star named HL Tauri, came out Arthur Bosman in late 2014. The picture was revolutionary. “It was difficult to argon, he says it’s hard to get those elements up to the believe that was a real image and not an artist’s im- planet’s atmosphere, where the Galileo probe detected pression,” Öberg says. It showed a disk of gas and dust them; after all, the core constitutes only a small fraction of with dark circular grooves. The grooves were pre- the planet. To solve this problem, Öberg and Wordsworth sumably cut by unseen giant planets orbiting the star. invoke a giant impact on Jupiter to lift the elements from Moreover, some of the grooves were much farther out the core to the atmosphere (7). “Well,” Stevenson says, than Neptune and Pluto are from the Sun, a sign that gas “you can use a giant impact to do anything.” giants such as Jupiter can form even in remote regions. The second advance was theoretical. In recent Et Tu, Saturn? years, researchers have formulated a new idea of Still, the theory for Jupiter’s distant birthplace does planet formation called pebble accretion, which posits make testable predictions. The first concerns oxygen. ’ — that a giant planet s core builds up as small objects In the protoplanetary disk, oxygen became part of sili- — pebbles flow past a budding core and stick to it (5, cates and water. These substances solidified closer to “ ” 6). This process is orders of magnitudes faster than the Sun than nitrogen and argon did and also existed at the conventional scenario, Bosman says. As a result, a greater distances, where the temperature was even ’ giant planet s core can spring forth even in the sparse colder. Thus, if Jupiter’s core formed beyond Pluto’s outer reaches of a protoplanetary disk. Then, when the current orbit, the giant planet incorporated all of these core grows massive enough, its gravitational pull attracts elements as solids and should have similar overabun- a topping of hydrogen and helium, which were the two dances of them all with respect to the Sun. Both articles main gases in the protoplanetary disk and are the two therefore predict that Jupiter’s oxygen-to-hydrogen dominant elements composing Jupiter today.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Formation of TRAPPIST-1
    EPSC Abstracts Vol. 11, EPSC2017-265, 2017 European Planetary Science Congress 2017 EEuropeaPn PlanetarSy Science CCongress c Author(s) 2017 Formation of TRAPPIST-1 C.W Ormel, B. Liu and D. Schoonenberg University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands ([email protected]) Abstract start to drift by aerodynamical drag. However, this growth+drift occurs in an inside-out fashion, which We present a model for the formation of the recently- does not result in strong particle pileups needed to discovered TRAPPIST-1 planetary system. In our sce- trigger planetesimal formation by, e.g., the streaming nario planets form in the interior regions, by accre- instability [3]. (a) We propose that the H2O iceline (r 0.1 au for TRAPPIST-1) is the place where tion of mm to cm-size particles (pebbles) that drifted ice ≈ the local solids-to-gas ratio can reach 1, either by from the outer disk. This scenario has several ad- ∼ vantages: it connects to the observation that disks are condensation of the vapor [9] or by pileup of ice-free made up of pebbles, it is efficient, it explains why the (silicate) grains [2, 8]. Under these conditions plan- TRAPPIST-1 planets are Earth mass, and it provides etary embryos can form. (b) Due to type I migration, ∼ a rationale for the system’s architecture. embryos cross the iceline and enter the ice-free region. (c) There, silicate pebbles are smaller because of col- lisional fragmentation. Nevertheless, pebble accretion 1. Introduction remains efficient and growth is fast [6]. (d) At approx- TRAPPIST-1 is an M8 main-sequence star located at a imately Earth masses embryos reach their pebble iso- distance of 12 pc.
    [Show full text]
  • News Feature: the Mars Anomaly
    NEWS FEATURE NEWS FEATURE The Mars anomaly The red planet’s size is at the heart of a rift of ideas among researchers modeling the solar system’s formation. Stephen Ornes, Science Writer The presence of water isn’t the only Mars mystery sci- debate, data, and computer simulations, until re- entists are keen to probe. Another centers around a cently most models predicted that Mars should be seemingly trivial characteristic of the Red Planet: its many times its observed size. Getting Mars to form size. Classic models of solar system formation predict attherightplacewiththerightsizeisacrucialpartof that the girth of rocky worlds should grow with their any coherent explanation of the solar system’sevo- distance from the sun. Venus and Earth, for example, lution from a disk of gas and dust to its current con- should exceed Mercury, which they do. Mars should at figuration. In trying to do so, researchers have been — least match Earth, which it doesn’t. The diameter of the forced to devise models that are more detailed and — RedPlanetislittlemorethanhalfthatofEarth(1,2). even wilder than any seen before. “We still don’t understand why Mars is so small,” Nebulous Notions says astronomer Anders Johansen, who builds com- The solar system began as an immense cloud of dust putational models of planet formation at Lund Univer- and gas called a nebula. The idea of a nebular origin sity in Sweden. “It’s a really compelling question that dates back nearly 300 years. In 1734, Swedish scientist drives a lot of new theories.” and mystic Emanuel Swedenborg—whoalsoclaimed Understanding the planet’s diminutive size is key that Martian spirits had communed with him—posited to knowing how the entire solar system formed.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing the Secular Architecture of the Solar System I: the Giant Planets
    Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. secular c ESO 2018 May 29, 2018 Constructing the secular architecture of the solar system I: The giant planets A. Morbidelli1, R. Brasser1, K. Tsiganis2, R. Gomes3, and H. F. Levison4 1 Dep. Cassiopee, University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis, CNRS, Observatoire de la Cˆote d’Azur; Nice, France 2 Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; Thessaloniki, Greece 3 Observat´orio Nacional; Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil 4 Southwest Research Institute; Boulder, CO, USA submitted: 13 July 2009; accepted: 31 August 2009 ABSTRACT Using numerical simulations, we show that smooth migration of the giant planets through a planetesimal disk leads to an orbital architecture that is inconsistent with the current one: the resulting eccentricities and inclinations of their orbits are too small. The crossing of mutual mean motion resonances by the planets would excite their orbital eccentricities but not their orbital inclinations. Moreover, the amplitudes of the eigenmodes characterising the current secular evolution of the eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn would not be reproduced correctly; only one eigenmode is excited by resonance-crossing. We show that, at the very least, encounters between Saturn and one of the ice giants (Uranus or Neptune) need to have occurred, in order to reproduce the current secular properties of the giant planets, in particular the amplitude of the two strongest eigenmodes in the eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn. Key words. Solar System: formation 1. Introduction Snellgrove (2001). The top panel shows the evolution of the semi major axes, where Saturn’ semi-major axis is depicted The formation and evolution of the solar system is a longstand- by the upper curve and that of Jupiter is the lower trajectory.
    [Show full text]
  • Setting the Stage: Planet Formation and Volatile Delivery
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Setting the Stage: Planet formation and Volatile Delivery Julia Venturini1 · Maria Paula Ronco2;3 · Octavio Miguel Guilera4;2;3 Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract The diversity in mass and composition of planetary atmospheres stems from the different building blocks present in protoplanetary discs and from the different physical and chemical processes that these experience during the planetary assembly and evolution. This review aims to summarise, in a nutshell, the key concepts and processes operating during planet formation, with a focus on the delivery of volatiles to the inner regions of the planetary system. 1 Protoplanetary discs: the birthplaces of planets Planets are formed as a byproduct of star formation. In star forming regions like the Orion Nebula or the Taurus Molecular Cloud, many discs are observed around young stars (Isella et al, 2009; Andrews et al, 2010, 2018a; Cieza et al, 2019). Discs form around new born stars as a natural consequence of the collapse of the molecular cloud, to conserve angular momentum. As in the interstellar medium, it is generally assumed that they contain typically 1% of their mass in the form of rocky or icy grains, known as dust; and 99% in the form of gas, which is basically H2 and He (see, e.g., Armitage, 2010). However, the dust-to-gas ratios are usually higher in discs (Ansdell et al, 2016). There is strong observational evidence supporting the fact that planets form within those discs (Bae et al, 2017; Dong et al, 2018; Teague et al, 2018; Pérez et al, 2019), which are accordingly called protoplanetary discs.
    [Show full text]
  • Trans-Neptunian Objects a Brief History, Dynamical Structure, and Characteristics of Its Inhabitants
    Trans-Neptunian Objects A Brief history, Dynamical Structure, and Characteristics of its Inhabitants John Stansberry Space Telescope Science Institute IAC Winter School 2016 IAC Winter School 2016 -- Kuiper Belt Overview -- J. Stansberry 1 The Solar System beyond Neptune: History • 1930: Pluto discovered – Photographic survey for Planet X • Directed by Percival Lowell (Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona) • Efforts from 1905 – 1929 were fruitless • discovered by Clyde Tombaugh, Feb. 1930 (33 cm refractor) – Survey continued into 1943 • Kuiper, or Edgeworth-Kuiper, Belt? – 1950’s: Pluto represented (K.E.), or had scattered (G.K.) a primordial, population of small bodies – thus KBOs or EKBOs – J. Fernandez (1980, MNRAS 192) did pretty clearly predict something similar to the trans-Neptunian belt of objects – Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), trans-Neptunian region best? – See http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/kb/gerard.html IAC Winter School 2016 -- Kuiper Belt Overview -- J. Stansberry 2 The Solar System beyond Neptune: History • 1978: Pluto’s moon, Charon, discovered – Photographic astrometry survey • 61” (155 cm) reflector • James Christy (Naval Observatory, Flagstaff) – Technologically, discovery was possible decades earlier • Saturation of Pluto images masked the presence of Charon • 1988: Discovery of Pluto’s atmosphere – Stellar occultation • Kuiper airborne observatory (KAO: 90 cm) + 7 sites • Measured atmospheric refractivity vs. height • Spectroscopy suggested N2 would dominate P(z), T(z) • 1992: Pluto’s orbit explained • Outward migration by Neptune results in capture into 3:2 resonance • Pluto’s inclination implies Neptune migrated outward ~5 AU IAC Winter School 2016 -- Kuiper Belt Overview -- J. Stansberry 3 The Solar System beyond Neptune: History • 1992: Discovery of 2nd TNO • 1976 – 92: Multiple dedicated surveys for small (mV > 20) TNOs • Fall 1992: Jewitt and Luu discover 1992 QB1 – Orbit confirmed as ~circular, trans-Neptunian in 1993 • 1993 – 4: 5 more TNOs discovered • c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Formation of Jupiter by Hybrid Pebble-Planetesimal Accretion
    The formation of Jupiter by hybrid pebble-planetesimal accretion Author: Yann Alibert1, Julia Venturini2, Ravit Helled2, Sareh Ataiee1, Remo Burn1, Luc Senecal1, Willy Benz1, Lucio Mayer2, Christoph Mordasini1, Sascha P. Quanz3, Maria Schönbächler4 Affiliations: 1Physikalisches Institut & Center for Space and Habitability, Universität Bern, Gesellschaftsstrasse 6, 3012 Bern, Switzerland 2Institut for Computational Sciences, Universität Zürich, Winterthurstrasse 190, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland 3 Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 27, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland 4Institute of Geochemistry and Petrology, ETH Zürich, Clausiusstrasse 25, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland The standard model for giant planet formation is based on the accretion of solids by a growing planetary embryo, followed by rapid gas accretion once the planet exceeds a so- called critical mass1. The dominant size of the accreted solids (cm-size particles named pebbles or km to hundred km-size bodies named planetesimals) is, however, unknown1,2. Recently, high-precision measurements of isotopes in meteorites provided evidence for the existence of two reservoirs in the early Solar System3. These reservoirs remained separated from ~1 until ~ 3 Myr after the beginning of the Solar System's formation. This separation | downloaded: 6.1.2020 is interpreted as resulting from Jupiter growing and becoming a barrier for material transport. In this framework, Jupiter reached ~20 Earth masses (M⊕) within ~1 Myr and 3 slowly grew to ~50 M⊕ in the subsequent 2 Myr before reaching its present-day mass . The evidence that Jupiter slowed down its growth after reaching 20 M⊕ for at least 2 Myr is puzzling because a planet of this mass is expected to trigger fast runaway gas accretion4,5.
    [Show full text]
  • Planet Formation by Pebble Accretion in Ringed Disks A
    A&A 638, A1 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202037983 Astronomy & © A. Morbidelli 2020 Astrophysics Planet formation by pebble accretion in ringed disks A. Morbidelli Département Lagrange, University of Nice – Sophia Antipolis, CNRS, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Nice, France e-mail: [email protected] Received 19 March 2020 / Accepted 9 April 2020 ABSTRACT Context. Pebble accretion is expected to be the dominant process for the formation of massive solid planets, such as the cores of giant planets and super-Earths. So far, this process has been studied under the assumption that dust coagulates and drifts throughout the full protoplanetary disk. However, observations show that many disks are structured in rings that may be due to pressure maxima, preventing the global radial drift of the dust. Aims. We aim to study how the pebble-accretion paradigm changes if the dust is confined in a ring. Methods. Our approach is mostly analytic. We derived a formula that provides an upper bound to the growth of a planet as a function of time. We also numerically implemented the analytic formulæ to compute the growth of a planet located in a typical ring observed in the DSHARP survey, as well as in a putative ring rescaled at 5 AU. Results. Planet Type I migration is stopped in a ring, but not necessarily at its center. If the entropy-driven corotation torque is desaturated, the planet is located in a region with low dust density, which severely limits its accretion rate. If the planet is instead near the ring’s center, its accretion rate can be similar to the one it would have in a classic (ringless) disk of equivalent dust density.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamical Evolution of Planetary Systems
    Dynamical Evolution of Planetary Systems Alessandro Morbidelli Abstract Planetary systems can evolve dynamically even after the full growth of the planets themselves. There is actually circumstantial evidence that most plane- tary systems become unstable after the disappearance of gas from the protoplanetary disk. These instabilities can be due to the original system being too crowded and too closely packed or to external perturbations such as tides, planetesimal scattering, or torques from distant stellar companions. The Solar System was not exceptional in this sense. In its inner part, a crowded system of planetary embryos became un- stable, leading to a series of mutual impacts that built the terrestrial planets on a timescale of ∼ 100My. In its outer part, the giant planets became temporarily unsta- ble and their orbital configuration expanded under the effect of mutual encounters. A planet might have been ejected in this phase. Thus, the orbital distributions of planetary systems that we observe today, both solar and extrasolar ones, can be dif- ferent from the those emerging from the formation process and it is important to consider possible long-term evolutionary effects to connect the two. Introduction This chapter concerns the dynamical evolution of planetary systems after the re- moval of gas from the proto-planetary disk. Most massive planets are expected to form within the lifetime of the gas component of protoplanetary disks (see chapters by D’Angelo and Lissauer for the giant planets and by Schlichting for Super-Earths) and, while they form, they are expected to evolve dynamically due to gravitational interactions with the gas (see chapter by Nelson on planet migration).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 on the Origin of the Pluto System Robin M. Canup Southwest Research Institute Kaitlin M. Kratter University of Arizona Marc Ne
    On the Origin of the Pluto System Robin M. Canup Southwest Research Institute Kaitlin M. Kratter University of Arizona Marc Neveu NASA Goddard Space Flight Center / University of Maryland The goal of this chapter is to review hypotheses for the origin of the Pluto system in light of observational constraints that have been considerably refined over the 85-year interval between the discovery of Pluto and its exploration by spacecraft. We focus on the giant impact hypothesis currently understood as the likeliest origin for the Pluto-Charon binary, and devote particular attention to new models of planet formation and migration in the outer Solar System. We discuss the origins conundrum posed by the system’s four small moons. We also elaborate on implications of these scenarios for the dynamical environment of the early transneptunian disk, the likelihood of finding a Pluto collisional family, and the origin of other binary systems in the Kuiper belt. Finally, we highlight outstanding open issues regarding the origin of the Pluto system and suggest areas of future progress. 1. INTRODUCTION For six decades following its discovery, Pluto was the only known Sun-orbiting world in the dynamical vicinity of Neptune. An early origin concept postulated that Neptune originally had two large moons – Pluto and Neptune’s current moon, Triton – and that a dynamical event had both reversed the sense of Triton’s orbit relative to Neptune’s rotation and ejected Pluto onto its current heliocentric orbit (Lyttleton, 1936). This scenario remained in contention following the discovery of Charon, as it was then established that Pluto’s mass was similar to that of a large giant planet moon (Christy and Harrington, 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence from the Asteroid Belt for a Violent Past Evolution of Jupiter's Orbit
    Evidence from the asteroid belt for a violent past evolution of Jupiter's orbit Alessandro Morbidelli Departement Cassiop´ee: Universite de Nice - Sophia Antipolis, Observatoire de la Cˆote d’Azur, CNRS 4, 06304 Nice, France Ramon Brasser Departement Cassiop´ee: Universite de Nice - Sophia Antipolis, Observatoire de la Cˆote d’Azur, CNRS 4, 06304 Nice, France Rodney Gomes Observatrio Nacional, Rua General Jos Cristino 77, CEP 20921-400, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Harold F. Levison Southwest Research Institute, 1050 Walnut St, Suite 300, Boulder, CO 80302, USA and Kleomenis Tsiganis Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54 124 Thessaloniki, Greece Received by AJ, on may 24, 2010; accepted by AJ, on Sept 8, 2010 arXiv:1009.1521v1 [astro-ph.EP] 8 Sep 2010 –2– ABSTRACT We use the current orbital structure of large (> 50 km) asteroids in the main as- teroid belt to constrain the evolution of the giant planets when they migrated from their primordial orbits to their current ones. Minton & Malhotra (2009) showed that the orbital distribution of large asteroids in the main belt can be reproduced by an exponentially-decaying migration of the giant planets on a time scale of τ ∼ 0.5 My. However, self-consistent numerical simulations show that the planetesimal-driven mi- gration of the giant planets is inconsistent with an exponential change in their semi major axes on such a short time scale (Hahn & Malhotra, 1999). In fact, the typical time scale is τ ≥ 5 My. When giant planet migration on this time scale is appliedto the asteroid belt, the resulting orbital distribution is incompatible with the observed one.
    [Show full text]
  • Sean Raymond Laboratoire D’Astrophysique De Bordeaux Planetplanet.Net with A
    Models of Solar System formation Sean Raymond Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Bordeaux planetplanet.net with A. Izidoro, A. Morbidelli, A. Pierens, M. Clement, K. Walsh, S. Jacobson, N. Kaib, B. Bitsch Mudpuppy puzzles, ages 5-9 Two recent (ridiculously long) reviews: Raymond et al (2018); Raymond & Morbidelli (2020) gas disk Johansen, Klahr & Henning (2011) Planetesimals: Johansen, Klahr & Henning (2011) ~100 km Review of planetesimal formation: Johansen et al (2014, PP6) Pebble accretion Slide courtesy M. Lambrechts Johansen & Lacerda 2010; Ormel & Klahr 2010; Lambrechts & Johansen 2012, 2014; Morbidelli & Nesvorny 2012, Bitsch et al 2015, 2018; Levison et al 2015a,b; Johansen & Lambrechts 2017; Ormel 2017; Brouwers et al 2019; Liu et al 2019, … Pebble accretion (“Bondi regime”) Pebbles Planetesimal GM r = c B ∆v2 Pebble accretion Slide courtesy M. Lambrechts Johansen & Lacerda 2010; Ormel & Klahr 2010; Lambrechts & Johansen 2012, 2014; Morbidelli & Nesvorny 2012, Bitsch et al 2015, 2018; Levison et al 2015a,b; Johansen & Lambrechts 2017; Ormel 2017; Brouwers et al 2019; Liu et al 2019, … Pebble accretion (“Bondi regime”) Pebbles Planetesimal GM r = c B ∆v2 Planetesimals “snow line” rocky 50% rock, 50% ice Planetesimals “snow line” inward-drifting pebbles rocky 50% rock, 50% ice Planetary embryos inward-drifting pebbles ~Mars-mass (10% MEarth) 5-10 MEarth Pebble accretion is far more efficient past the snowline (Lambrechts et al 2014; Morbidelli et al 2015; Ormel et al 2017) Age distributions of carbonaceous and non-carbonaceous meteorites
    [Show full text]
  • Capture of Irregular Satellites During Planetary Encounters
    The Astronomical Journal, 133:1962Y1976, 2007 May # 2007. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. CAPTURE OF IRREGULAR SATELLITES DURING PLANETARY ENCOUNTERS David Nesvorny´,1 David Vokrouhlicky´,1,2 and Alessandro Morbidelli3 Received 2006 November 23; accepted 2007 January 17 ABSTRACT More than 90 irregular moons of the Jovian planets have recently been discovered. These moons are an enig- matic part of the solar system inventory. Their origin, which is intimately linked with the origin of the planets them- selves, has yet to be adequately explained. Here we investigate the possibility that the irregular moons were captured from the circumsolar planetesimal disk by three-body gravitational reactions. These reactions may have been a fre- quent occurrence during the time when the outer planets migrated within the planetesimal disk. We propose a new model for the origin of irregular satellites in which these objects are captured from the planetesimal disk during en- counters between the outer planets themselves in the model for outer planet migration advocated by Tsiganis and collaborators. Through a series of numerical simulations we show that nearby planetesimals can be deflected into planet-bound orbits during close encounters between planets, and that the overall efficiency of this capture process is large enough to produce populations of observed irregular satellites at Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The orbits of captured objects are broadly similar to those of known distant satellites. Jupiter, which typically does not have close encounters with other planets in the model of Tsiganis and coworkers, must have acquired its irregular satellites by a different mechanism.
    [Show full text]