1 / 22

PLANETARY MIGRATION in protoplanetary discs and OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

Aurélien CRIDA 1 , A. MORBIDELLI, K. TSIGANIS H. LEVISON, R. GOMES ( 1 Institüt für Astronomie und Astrophysik, Universität Tübingen, GERMANY). PLANETARY MIGRATION in protoplanetary discs and OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE. Introduction :. Proto-planetary disks :

cuddy
Télécharger la présentation

PLANETARY MIGRATION in protoplanetary discs and OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aurélien CRIDA1, A. MORBIDELLI, K. TSIGANIS H. LEVISON, R. GOMES ( 1 Institüt für Astronomie und Astrophysik, Universität Tübingen, GERMANY) PLANETARY MIGRATION in protoplanetary discsand OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

  2. Introduction : Proto-planetary disks : Planets form in it. Size : several 100s A.U. Life time : ~ 3-5 106 years. Aspect Ratio : H/r ~ 0.05 + flaring Viscosity : n = acs H (10-3<a<10-1) Mass : < M* / 10 A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 2 / 21

  3. Planet-disk interactions : Wake formation : A planet on a fixed circular orbit launches a spiral wake by gravitational perturbation Angular Momentum exchanges : Positive torque exerted by the planet on the outer disk. Negative torque on the inner disk. Net result for the planet : differential Lindblad torque (negative), typeI migration. (Ward, 1986, 1997 ) Migration rate ~ planet mass. Migration time scale : ≈ 105 years for 10 M at 5 AU. ≈ disk life time / 100. ( Animation by Frédéric Masset (C.E.A), using FARGO (Masset 2000a,b) ) A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 3 / 21

  4. Planet-disk interactions : The planet repels the inner disk inward, and the outer disk outward. If the planet is massive enough : Gap opening. Gap formation : Condition 1 : Planetary torque < viscous torque :q = Mp/M* > 40n / rp²Ωp Condition 2 : Angular momentum not taken away by the wave : RHill > H Unified criterion : 3/4 H/RH + 50n / qrp²Ωp < 1( Crida et al, 2006 ) ( Frédéric Masset again, corotating frame ) A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 4 / 21

  5. Planet-disk interactions : Inner disk Outer disk star TypeII migration : After gap opening : The planet is no longer inside the gas disk, it cannot drift with respect to the disk. Locked in the gap, the planet follows the disk viscous evolution(accretion onto the central star and spreading, Lynden-Bell & Pringle, 1974)Migration rate α viscosity n ; Migration time scale <~ disk life time. The disk global evolution is the key.It drives the giant planet close to the central star. A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 5 / 21

  6. Questions and Summary Type II migration explainsthe hot Jupiters,but not Jupiter ! In the Solar System, no giant planet passedthrough the Main Asteroid Belt or the Kuiper Belt.Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune didn’t migrate significantly. How to explain this ? SUMMARY : 1) Migration of a pair of giant planets (+ 2 ice giants) 2) The « Nice model » 3) The « Nice model », revisited in agreement with 1 A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 6 / 21

  7. 1) Migration of Jupiter & Saturn Inner disk Outer disk star Two planets in their own gaps migrate in parallel. Inner disk Outer disk star Two planets in a same gap approach each other → MMR. If the planets have different masses, the pair of planets is not in equilibrium. → gas passes the gap ; decoupling from disk evolution. Migration of a pair of planets ≠ migration of one planet.Lighter outer planet → outward migration.(Masset & Snellgrove, 2001, MNRAS) A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 7 / 21

  8. 1) Migration of Jupiter & Saturn Dependence onviscosity n : Start with aSaturn = 1.4 aJupiter,fixed planets (for gap opening). At t ≈ 500, release the planets. n<10-5(black, red) : They approach,lock in MMR at t ≈ 1000,and then migrate together. Low n :outward migration rate increases with n :- Jupiter feels a stronger positive torque (αn),- corotation torque increases. • = 2.10-5 : Saturn migrates outward (strong corotation torque), then parallel migration in separated gaps : Mechanism broken. A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 8 / 21

  9. 1) Migration of Jupiter & Saturn Dependence onaspect ratio H/r : Start with aSaturn = 1.4 aJupiter,n = 10 -5.5, fixed planets (for gap opening). At t ≈ 500, release the planets. They approach,lock in MMR at t ≈ 1000,and then migrate together. H/r = 0.05 : stationary solution. The smaller H/r, the deeper Saturn’s gap, the more Jupiter pushed outward. (Morbidelli & Crida, 2007) A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 9 / 21

  10. 1) Migration of Jupiter & Saturn Dependence onthe masses : Jupiter and Saturn :stationary solution. Planets of same mass :slowed down inward migration. More massive outer planet : accelerated migration. 3 times more massive planets :perturbations, scattering, then 2:1 MMR and migration stopped. (Morbidelli & Crida, 2007) A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 10 / 21

  11. 1) Migration of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune Add Uranus below Saturn orbit : Uranus migrates inward (type I), and is caught in MMR with Saturn (3:2 or 4:3). Add Neptune : After inward migration, Neptune is caught in 3:2, 4:3, or 5:4 MMR with Uranus. The 4 planets in this resonant configuration avoid migration in the disc. (Morbidelli et al, 2007) Add Neptune : After inward migration, Neptune is caught in 3:2, 4:3, or 5:4 MMR with Uranus. The 4 planets in this resonant configuration avoid migration in the disc. A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 11 / 21

  12. 1) Migration of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune In this model, the 4 giant planets of the Solar System avoid migration in a disc with reasonable parameters. → no perturbation of the inner Solar System nor the MAB. BUT: This configuration has nothing to do with the present one: the outer Solar System is fully resonant and too compact. → An other model requires a compact configuration of the outer SS after de gas disk phase : the “Nice model”… A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 12 / 21

  13. 2) The “Nice model” Questions : ~650 Myr after Solar System birth, a spike of asteroïd bombardment occured, creating the moon bassins (Late Heavy Bombardment). The four giant planets, particularly Jupiter and Saturn, have a non negligible eccentricity, while planet formation in a gas disk should lead to circular orbits. Idea : A late instability in the planets dynamics excited the planets eccentricities and destabilized a reservoir a of small bodies, leading to the LHB. A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 13 / 21

  14. 2) The “Nice model” The Nice model (Tsiganis et al, Gomes et al, 2005) : After the gas disk disappearance, the four giant planets were initially- on circular orbits- in a compact configuration (within 17 A.U., with J & S inside their 2:1 MMR)- surrounded by a disk of planetesimals (ancestor of the Kuiper Belt). (a) Planetesimals scattering makes Neptune, Uranus Saturn move slowly outward, and Jupiter inward (b). At some point, the 1J:2S is reached, which increases their eccentricity and destabilises the whole system, leading to the LHB (c). It clears the planetesimal disc and causes a major change of the planets orbits (d). A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 14 / 21

  15. 2) The “Nice model” During the instability,- the planets have close encounters,- migration through planetesimal scattering runs away,- eccentricities are damped by dynamical friction. Finally, the planets reach their present orbits, while the quantity of small bodies crossing the terrestrial orbit is in good agreement with estimates of the LHB. This model also explains :- the capture of the Jupiter trojans on inclined orbits (Morbidelli et al 2005),- the orbital distribution of the irregular satellites of Saturn, Uranus, Neptune (Nesvorny et al 2007),- the main properties of the Kuiper Belt models (Levison et al 2007). A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 15 / 21

  16. 2) The “Nice model” Conclusion on the Nice model : It explains a lot of characteristics of our Solar System,thanks to a late instability in the outer planets dynamics, with crossing of the 1J:2S MMR. It relies on : a compact configuration, stable over hundreds of millions of years in the absence of perturbation, that can lead to instability if perturbed. The initial condition assumed in the original Nice model is arbitrary and somehow ad hoc. Can the planets form in the disc in this configuration ? Our goal : bridge the gap between disc phase and early dynamics of the SS (Nice model). A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 16 / 21

  17. 3) The “Nice model”, revisited Through planet-disc simulations, six resonant configurations of the 4 giant planets can be achieved, that prevent migration : 2J:3S - 2S:3U - 2U:3N, 3U:4N, 4U:5N. 2J:3S - 3S:4U - 2U:3N, 3U:4N, 4U:5N. Test their stability on long term with N-body simulations, after having smoothly removed the disc. Only two are stable over several hundreds of millions of years : 2J:3S - 2S:3U - 2U:3N2J:3S - 2S:3U - 3U:4N (figure) (Morbidelli et al 2007) A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 17 / 21

  18. 3) The “Nice model”, revisited A first attempt : Take 2J:3S - 2S:3U - 3U:4N. Add a random small inclination, and a planetesimal disc close beyond Neptune (50 or 65 M) → 24 Initial Conditions. → 13 yield to a new stable configuration that resembles closely to the one of the outer planets of the Solar System. Here, the instability is triggered by the 3J:5S MMR. Then, everything goes like in the Nice model. In particular, Jupiter and Saturn cross their 1:2 MMR, which gives them their present eccentricities. (Morbidelli et al 2007) A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 18 / 21

  19. 3) The “Nice model”, revisited A late instability is required : Changing the initial setup of the planetesimal disc (that was artificially close to Neptune), the instability can be delayed by 200 million years. At 140 My, Neptune leaves the 3U:4N. At 190 My, crossing of the 5U:7N. Then, crossing of the 3J:5S and global instability. (Tsiganis et al, in prep.) A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 19 / 21

  20. 3) The “Nice model”, revisited Some work is still needed to improve the statistics on the final outcome about a, e, the close encounters between Saturn (or even Jupiter) and the ice giants… Check if al the properties of the Nice model are kept. (Tsiganis et al, in prep.) Note that Thommes et al 2007 also studied fully resonant configurations, but with Jupiter and Saturn in the 1:2 (and without hydro simulations). Fully resonant configurations may be a frequent outcome of the disc phase, and a global instability may be a step of the evolution of many planetary systems. A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 20 / 21

  21. CONCLUSION Planets migrate in gaseous discs, and then interact→ They not necessarily formed where they orbit now. 1) To prevent type II migration : use a pair of planets in MMR, with the lighter one out (ex: Jupiter & Saturn). 2) From a compact configuration, slowly perturbed by an outer planetesimal disc, a global instability can arise, explaining the Late Heavy Bombardment, the eccentricities of the giant planets… (Nice model) 3) From a fully resonant configuration, compatible with the gas disc phase also. A. Crida et al Europlanet 2007 21 / 21

  22. THE END Thank you for your attention. ENDE Danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit. FIN Merci de votre attention.

More Related