Simulations of the solar system’s early dynamical evolution with a self-gravitating planetesimal disk
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Over the course of the last decade, the Nice model has dramatically changed our view of the solar system’s formation and early evolution. Within the context of this model, a transient period of planet–planet scattering is triggered by gravitational interactions between the giant planets and a massive primordial planetesimal disk, leading to a successful reproduction of the solar system’s present-day architecture. In typical realizations of the Nice model, self-gravity of the planetesimal disk is routinely neglected, as it poses a computational bottleneck to the calculations. Recent analyses have shown, however, that a self-gravitating disk can exhibit behavior that is dynamically distinct, and this disparity may have significant implications for the solar system’s evolutionary path. In this work, we explore this discrepancy utilizing a large suite of Nice model simulations with and without a self-gravitating planetesimal disk, taking advantage of the inherently parallel nature of graphic processing units. Our simulations demonstrate that self-consistent modeling of particle interactions does not lead to significantly different final planetary orbits from those obtained within conventional simulations. Moreover, self-gravitating calculations show similar planetesimal evolution to non-self-gravitating numerical experiments after dynamical instability is triggered, suggesting that the orbital clustering observed in the distant Kuiper Belt is unlikely to have a self-gravitational origin.
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 inclination instability does not naturally manifest in numerical simulations of Kuiper belt emplacement that self-consistently account for self-gravity of the planetesimal disk, calling into question the specificity of initial conditions required for this model to operate.
“Moreover, the inclination instability does not naturally manifest in numerical simulations of Kuiper belt emplacement that self-consistently account for self-gravity of the planetesimal disk, calling into question the specificity of initial conditions required for this model to operate (Fan and Batygin, 2017).”
From The planet nine hypothesis (2019) · cites this paper as Fan and Batygin, 2017
Cites
Origin of the orbital architecture of the giant planets of the Solar System
Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03539 · Cited by 1,476 · see citing works
Evidence for a Distant Giant Planet in the Solar System
Batygin, K., & Brown, M. E. (2016) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22 · Cited by 432 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…of arguments of perihelion that accompanies the aforementioned eccentricity-inclination cycles of particle orbits has been invoked to explain the observed clustering of arguments among a>150 au KBOs (Trujillo & Sheppard 2014), as an alternative to the Planet Nine hypothesis1 (Batygin & Brown 2016).”
Self-citationA Sedna-like body with a perihelion of 80 astronomical units
Trujillo, C. A., & Sheppard, S. S. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13156 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Batygin, K., Brown, M. E., & Fraser, W. C. (2011) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/13 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Self-citationINTERACTION CROSS SECTIONS AND SURVIVAL RATES FOR PROPOSED SOLAR SYSTEM MEMBER PLANET NINE
Li, G., & Adams, F. C. (2016) · The Astrophysical Journal Letters · doi:10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/l3 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Batygin, K., Adams, F. C., Brown, M. E., & Becker, J. C. (2019) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.01.009 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
“Moreover, the inclination instability does not naturally manifest in numerical simulations of Kuiper belt emplacement that self-consistently account for self-gravity of the planetesimal disk, calling into question the specificity of initial conditions required for this model to operate (Fan and Batygin, 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
- Authors
- Fan, S., & Batygin, K.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fan, Siteng
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal Letters
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2017-12-18
- Volume
- 851
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- L37
- ISSN
- 2041-8205 (ISSN-L)
- 2041-8213
- OpenAlex
- W2779626617
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astrophysical Journal Letters (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- Nice model, planet-planet scattering, giant planet migration, solar system formation, orbital clustering, Kuiper belt, dynamical instability, GPU parallel computing
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