More realistic planetesimal masses alter Kuiper belt formation models and add stochasticity

Kaib, Nathan A.; Parsells, Alex; Grimm, Simon; Quarles, Billy; Clement, Matthew S.

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116057

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, overall predictions for distant resonance populations from planet migration simulations could be very sensitive to how close Neptune and Uranus approach their mutual 2:1 resonance, with distant resonance capture probabilities likely dropping to near zero if the two planets spend significant time too close to that resonance. A recent exploration of more realistic planet migration modeling by Kaib et al (2024) found many simulations in which Neptune and Uranus crossed their mutual 2:1; they note that this crossing is unlikely to have happened in the real solar system, but these simulations highlight the expectation that the N:U period ratio during migration can be quite variable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…TNOs in Neptune's resonances can either be objects captured onto resonant orbits that are stable for a gigayear or longer during the epoch of giant planet migration, or they can be objects that have temporarily "stuck" to resonances while evolving in semimajor axis due to perturbations from the giant planets (see, e.g., review by Malhotra 2019). In either case, to understand the significance of the observed resonant TNO populations, we need improved models of both the emplacement of dynamically excited TNOs onto their present-day orbits (see, e.g., recent works by Huang et al 2022;Bottke et al 2023;Nesvorný et al 2023;Kaib et al 2024 and reviews by Morbidelli & Nesvorný 2020;Gladman & Volk 2021) and the dynamical extent of Neptuneʼs resonances in the distant solar system. Volk & Malhotra (2022) recently showed that, in the current solar system, Neptune's resonances remain strong out to surprisingly large semimajor axes of several hundred au in the high-perihelion population of distant TNOs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uranus’s Influence on Neptune’s Exterior Mean-motion Resonances

Graham,

Volk

2024

Planet. Sci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neptune’s external mean-motion resonances play an important role in sculpting the observed population of trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs). The population of scattering TNOs is known to “stick” to Neptune's resonances while evolving in semimajor axis (a), though simulations show that resonance sticking is less prevalent at a ≳ 200–250 au. Here we present an extensive numerical exploration of the strengths of Neptune's resonances for scattering TNOs with perihelion distances q = 33 au. We show that the drop-off in resonance sticking for the large a scattering TNOs is not a generic feature of scattering dynamics but can instead be attributed to the specific configuration of Neptune and Uranus in our solar system. In simulations with just Uranus removed from the giant planet system, Neptune's resonances are strong in the scattering population out to at least ∼300 au. Uranus and Neptune are near a 2:1 period ratio, and the variations in Neptune's orbit resulting from this near-resonance are responsible for destabilizing Neptune's resonances for high-e TNO orbits beyond the ∼20:1 resonance at a ≈ 220 au. Direct interactions between Uranus and the scattering population are responsible for slightly weakening Neptune's closer-in resonances. In simulations where Neptune and Uranus are placed in their mutual 2:1 resonance, we see almost no stable libration of scattering particles in Neptune's external resonances. Our results have important implications for how the strengths of Neptune's distant resonances varied during the epoch of planet migration when the Neptune–Uranus period ratio was evolving. These strength variations likely affected the distant scattering, resonant, and detached TNO populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uranus’s Influence on Neptune’s Exterior Mean-motion Resonances

Graham,

Volk

2024

Planet. Sci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Randomness and retention: using weak mean motion resonances to constrain Neptune’s late-stage migration

Hermosillo Ruiz,

Lau,

Murray-Clay

2024

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planet-planetesimal interactions cause a planet to migrate, manifesting as a random walk in semi-major axis. In models for Neptune’s migration involving a gravitational upheaval, this planetesimal-driven migration is a side-effect of the dynamical friction required to damp Neptune’s orbital eccentricity. This migration is noisy, potentially causing Trans Neptunian Objects (TNOs) in mean motion resonance to be lost. With Nbody simulations, we validate a previously-derived analytic model for resonance retention and determine unknown coefficients. We identify the impact of random-walk (noisy) migration on resonance retention for resonances up to fourth order lying between 39 au and 75 au. Using a population estimate for the weak 7:3 resonance from the well-characterized Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS), we rule out two cases: (1) a planetesimal disk distributed between 13.3 and 39.9 au with ≳ 30 Earth masses in today’s size distribution and Tmig ≳ 40Myr and (2) a top-heavy size distribution with ≳2000 Pluto-sized TNOs and Tmig ≳10Myr, where Tmig is Neptune’s migration timescale. We find that low-eccentricity TNOs in the heavily populated 5:2 resonance are easily lost due to noisy migration. Improved observations of the low-eccentricity region of the 5:2 resonance and of weak mean motion resonances with Rubin Observatory’s Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) will provide better population estimates, allowing for comparison with our model’s retention fractions and providing strong evidence for or against Neptune’s random interactions with planetesimals.

show abstract

More realistic planetesimal masses alter Kuiper belt formation models and add stochasticity

Cited by 2 publications

References 56 publications

Uranus’s Influence on Neptune’s Exterior Mean-motion Resonances

Uranus’s Influence on Neptune’s Exterior Mean-motion Resonances

Randomness and retention: using weak mean motion resonances to constrain Neptune’s late-stage migration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About