Paper detail

Magnitude and timing of the giant planet instability: A reassessment from the perspective of the asteroid belt

It is generally accepted today that our solar system has undergone a phase during which the orbits of the giant planets became very unstable. In recent years, many studies have identified traces of this event and have provided reasonable justification for this occurrence. The magnitude (in terms of orbital variation) and the timing of the instability though (early or late with respect to the dispersal of the gas disk) still remains an open debate. The terrestrial planets seem to set a strict constraint: either the giant planet instability happened early, while the terrestrial planets were still forming, or the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn had to separate from each other impulsively, with a large enough `jump' in semimajor axis (Brasser et al. 2009; Kaib and Chambers 2016) for the terrestrial planets to remain stable. Because a large orbital jump is a low probability event, the early instability hypothesis seems to be favored. However, the asteroid belt would also evolve in a different way, assuming different instability amplitudes. These two constraints need to match each other in order to favor one scenario over the other. Considering an initially dynamically cold disk of asteroids, Morbidelli et al. (2010) concluded that a comparably large jump is needed to reconstruct the current asteroid belt. Here we confirm the same conclusion, but considering an asteroid population already strongly excited in eccentricity, such as that produced in the Grand Tack scenario (Walsh et al. 2011). Because the asteroids existed since the time of removal of the gas disk, unlike the terrestrial planets, this constraint on the width of the giant planet jump is valid regardless of whether the instability happened early or late. Hence, at this stage, assuming an early instability does not appear to provide any advantage in terms of the probabilistic reconstruction of the solar system structure.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.