4.7 Article

Close-in Super-Earths: The first and the last stages of planet formation in an MRI-accreting disc

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz004

关键词

planets and satellites: formation; protoplanetary discs

资金

  1. Imperial College London
  2. Royal Society University Research Fellowship
  3. STFC [ST/N000838/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We explore in situ formation and subsequent evolution of close-in super-Earths and mini-Neptunes. We adopt a steady-state inner protoplanetary gas disc structure that arises from viscous accretion due to the magneto-rotational instability (MRI). We consider the evolution of dust in the inner disc, including growth, radial drift, and fragmentation, and find that dust particles that radially drift into the inner disc fragment severely due to the MRI-induced turbulence. This result has two consequences: (1) radial drift of grains within the inner disc is quenched, leading to an enhancement of dust in the inner regions that scales as dust-togas-mass-flux-ratio at similar to 1 au; (2) however, despite this enhancement, planetesimal formation is impeded by the small grain size. Nevertheless, assuming that planetary cores are present in the inner disc, we then investigate the accretion of atmospheres on to cores and their subsequent photoevaporation. We then compare our results to the observed exoplanet mass- radius relationship. We find that (1) the low gas surface densities and high temperatures in the inner disc reduce gas accretion on to cores compared to the minimum mass solar nebula, preventing the cores from growing into hot Jupiters, in agreement with the data; (2) however, our predicted envelope masses are still typically larger than observed ones. Finally, we sketch a qualitative picture of how grains may grow and planetesimals form in the inner disc if grain effects on the ionization levels and the MRI and the back reaction of the dust on the gas (both neglected in our calculations) are accounted for.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据