1 / 38

Dynamics of Kuiper belt objects

Dynamics of Kuiper belt objects. Yeh, Lun-Wen 2007.11.8. Outline. Motivations Sun-Neptune-Eris-Particle system Numerical method Results Next Step. Motivations.

imani-warner
Télécharger la présentation

Dynamics of Kuiper belt objects

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. Dynamics of Kuiper belt objects Yeh, Lun-Wen 2007.11.8

  2. Outline • Motivations • Sun-Neptune-Eris-Particle system • Numerical method • Results • Next Step

  3. Motivations • Planet migration model is one most popular model for the formation of Kuiper belt. (Malhotra 1993,1995; Hahn & Malhotra1999, 2005; Gomes 2003, 2004; Levison & Morbidelli 2003; Tsiganis et al., 2005) • Sun + 4 giant planets + numerous particles. Because of the computing source the interaction between particles was usually neglected. • Considering the influence of larger planetesimals in the model is a way to approach the complete model.

  4. At present there are three dwarf planets by the definition of IAU. (Ceres: D~940km , Pluto: D~2300km, Eris: D~ 2400km) • Some papers have considered the effect of Pluto on the Plutinos. (Yu & Tremaine 1999; Nesvorny & Roig 2000) • We would like to know the gravitational influence of Eris on the Kuiper belt objects.

  5. a=67 AU, e=0.44, i=440. • T=557 years. • mass=0.0028 ME, diameter=2400 km.

  6. Although we don’t know where Eris was formed and how long Eris has stayed in the present orbit, but Eris should have some influence on the Kuiper belt. • The coagulation model (ex: Kenyon et al. 2007) implies that Eris-size objects were formed in a more massive disk (~30ME) with low e and i (e, i~10-3) planetesimals. • Under the planet migration model (ex: Hahn & Malhotra 2005), the scattered disk objects originated from low e, low i and smaller a orbitdue to Neptune’s migration. The migration timescale of Neptune is about 10 Myr. Therefore Eris-size objects may leave disk between 10 Myr to 4.5 Gyr.

  7. The mass of Eris to the total mass of KBOs is about 0.1 (0.0028/0.03; Soter 2007) hence Eris may still collide and scatter with many other KBOs.

  8. Hahn & Malhotra 2005

  9. Hahn & Malhotra 2005

  10. The main belt isnoteccentricity enough. • Absence of higher order resonance. (ex: 5:2) • High inclination KBOs are deficient. • Simulation: # of (3:2+2:1) / # of MB~2. Observation: # of (3:2+2:1) / # of MB~0.06.

  11. Hahn & Malhotra 2005

  12. Hahn & Malhotra 2005

  13. Hahn & Malhotra 2005

  14. Hahn & Malhotra 2005

  15. We consider the Sun-Neptune-Eris-particle system in the late stage of planet migration model (the last several hundreds Myrs) and assume Eris at present orbit.

  16. Sun-Neptune-Eris-Particle system N E S P

  17. P η E y x N nt S ξ

  18. For particles:

  19. For Eris:

  20. For particles:

  21. For Eris: Jacobi constant

  22. Numerical method • We used Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg method to solve the differential equations. This method combines 4th and 5th order Runge-Kutta method to choose a suitable step size for each step. • We did some modification in the step size determination in order to have a more significant criterion to choose the step size.

  23. y y = f(t,y) RK5 yi+1 RK4 yi t hi

  24. y y = f(t,y) ∆ RK4 yi+1 X RK4 □ yi t hi qhi R ≡ | ∆ | / (| X|+ | □ |) < TOL

  25. The initial conditions: Neptune: a=30.07AU (1); e=0.0; θ=0.0 Eris: a=67.73AU (2.252); e=0.44; ω=0.0; θ=0.0 50 test particles in 3:2 mean motion resonance: a=39.4 ± 0.3 AU (1.31 ± 0.01); e=0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4; randomly assign ω,θ. 50 test particles in 2:1 mean motion resonance: a=47.7 ± 0.3 AU (1.59 ± 0.01); e=0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4; randomly assign ω,θ. 50 test particles in main belt: a=40.3 – 46.8AU (1.34 – 1.56); e=0.0,0.1; randomly assign ω,θ.

  26. t0=0, tf=106TN (TN=165 yr) ∆tout=102TN ∆tmax=10-1TN, ∆tmin=10-20TN TOL=10-12 • The criterions for stopping the program: when r < 5AU or r > 1000AU when the particle collides with Neptune when the particle collides with Eris when t=tf

  27. Results

  28. a=1.30, e=0.0, curlypi=2.18, theta=6.23

  29. 3to2: TS=438 yr 2to1: TS=845 yr

  30. remaining total # / initial total # = 26/50

  31. remaining total # / initial total # = 42/50

  32. remaining total # / initial total # = 48/50

  33. There two reasons cause the number of surviving particles of 3 :2 smaller than that of 2:1. One is that the synodic period of 3:2 is smaller than that of 2:1. Another is that the q=30 AU line in the a-e diagram crosses more region in 3:2 than that in 2:1 mean motion resonance.

  34. remaining total # / initial total # = 116/150

  35. remaining total # / initial total # = 144/150

  36. # in 3to2: 13 # in MB: 57 # in 2to1: 21 (3to2+2to1)/MB = 0.6

  37. Next Step • Construct three dimensional model. • Run more particles to enhance the statistical significance. From estimation of Hahn 2005 there are ~ 105 KBOs in the Kuiper belt. How many particles I will use depends on the computing sources. • Consider more Eris-size objects. How many? How to choose initial conditions? I am still thinking…….. Thank you ^^….. Any comment or suggestion?

More Related