Gap Opening by Extremely Low-Mass Planets in a Viscous Disk
Open accessAbstract
By numerically integrating the compressible Navier–Stokes equations in two dimensions, we calculate the criterion for gap formation by a very low mass ( q ∼ 10 −4 ) protoplanet on a fixed orbit in a thin viscous disk. In contrast with some previously proposed gap-opening criteria, we find that a planet can open a gap even if the Hill radius is smaller than the disk scale height. Moreover, in the low-viscosity limit, we find no minimum mass necessary to open a gap for a planet held on a fixed orbit. In particular, a Neptune-mass planet will open a gap in a minimum mass solar nebula with suitably low viscosity (α ≲ 10 −4 ). We find that the mass threshold scales as the square root of viscosity in the low mass regime. This is because the gap width for critical planet masses in this regime is a fixed multiple of the scale height, not of the Hill radius of the planet.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Protoplanets in a circumstellar disk show a similar gap width relationship with their mass.
“Although more complicated, protoplanets in a circumstellar disk show a similar gap width relationship with their mass.”
From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Duffell and MacFadyen 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mass Constraint for a Planet in a Protoplanetary Disk from the gap Width
Kanagawa, K. D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., Tanigawa, T., Takeuchi, T., Tsukagoshi, T., & Momose, M. (2016) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan · doi:10.1093/pasj/psw037 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation
Sutton, P. J., Albery, B., & Muff, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences · doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.819933 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“It is also dependent on disk properties (Duffell and MacFadyen 2013; Fung and Chiang 2016; Kanagawa et al., 2016) but further strengthens the hypothesis of the mass being the key driver in gap width.”
Background
- Authors
- Duffell, P. C., & MacFadyen, A. I.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2013-05-03
- Volume
- 769
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2026852029
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 6.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astro and Planetary Science
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
- Keywords
- protoplanetary disks, gap opening, low-mass planets, Hill radius, disk scale height, viscosity, mass threshold, Neptune-mass planets, solar nebula, Navier-Stokes equations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review