4.7 Article

NEPTUNE'S ORBITAL MIGRATION WAS GRAINY, NOT SMOOTH

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 825, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/94

关键词

Kuiper Belt: general; planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability

资金

  1. NASA's Outer Planet Research (OPR) program
  2. Czech Grant Agency [GA13-01308S]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Kuiper Belt is a population of icy bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune. The complex orbital structure of the Kuiper Belt, including several categories of objects inside and outside of resonances with Neptune, emerged as a result of Neptune's migration into an outer planetesimal disk. An outstanding problem with the existing migration models is that they invariably predict excessively large resonant populations, while observations show that the non-resonant orbits are in fact common (e.g., the main belt population is similar or equal to 2-4 times larger than Plutinos in the 3:2 resonance). Here we show that this problem can be resolved if it is assumed that Neptune's migration was grainy, as expected from scattering encounters of Neptune with massive planetesimals. The grainy migration acts to destabilize resonant bodies with large libration amplitudes, a fraction of which ends up on stable non-resonant orbits. Thus, the non-resonant-to-resonant ratio obtained with the grainy migration is higher, up to similar to 10 times higher for the range of parameters investigated here, than in a model with smooth migration. In addition, the grainy migration leads to a narrower distribution of the libration amplitudes in the 3:2 resonance. The best fit to observations is obtained when it is assumed that the outer planetesimal disk below 30 au contained 1000-4000 Plutos. We estimate that the combined mass of Pluto-class objects in the original disk represented 10%-40% of the estimated disk mass (M-disk similar or equal to 20 M-Earth). This constraint can be used to better understand the accretion processes in the outer solar system.

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