Producing distant planets by mutual scattering of planetary embryos
Open accessAbstract
It is likely that multiple bodies with masses between those of Mars and Earth (“planetary embryos”) formed in the outer planetesimal disk of the solar system. Some of these were likely scattered by the giant planets into orbits with semimajor axes of hundreds of au. Mutual torques between these embryos may lift the perihelia of some of them beyond the orbit of Neptune, where they are no longer perturbed by the giant planets, so their semimajor axes are frozen in place. We conduct N-body simulations of this process and its effect on smaller planetesimals in the region of the giant planets and the Kuiper Belt. We find that (i) there is a significant possibility that one sub-Earth mass embryo, or possibly more, is still present in the outer solar system; (ii) the orbit of the surviving embryo(s) typically has perihelion of 40–70 au, semimajor axis less than 200 au, and inclination less than 30°; (iii) it is likely that any surviving embryos could be detected by current or planned optical surveys or have a significant effect on solar system ephemerides; (iv) whether or not an embryo has survived to the present day, its dynamical influence earlier in the history of the solar system can explain the properties of the detached disk (defined in this paper as containing objects with perihelia >38 au and semimajor axes between 80 and 500 au).
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?
The bound on additional planets from the orbits of known giant planets scales as m/r^3.
“As a result, the bound on additional planets from the orbits of known giant planets scales as m = r 3 (see the discussion of Silsbee and Tremaine 2018).”
From The planet nine hypothesis (2019) · cites this paper as Silsbee and Tremaine 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 40
- Authors
- Silsbee, K., & Tremaine, S.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Institute for Advanced Study (US)
- Venue
- The Astronomical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2018-01-19
- Volume
- 155
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 75
- ISSN
- 0004-6256 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-3881
- OpenAlex
- W2774508606
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 2.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astronomical Journal (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
- Keywords
- planetary embryos, Kuiper belt, N-body simulations, orbital dynamics, solar system ephemerides, optical surveys, planetesimal disk
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