2020A&A...640A..21B -
Astronomy and Astrophysics, volume 640A, 21-21 (2020/8-1)
Pebbles versus planetesimals. The outcomes of population synthesis models.
BRUGGER N., BURN R., COLEMAN G.A.L., ALIBERT Y. and BENZ W.
Abstract (from CDS):
Context. In the core accretion scenario of giant planet formation, a massive core forms first and then accretes a gaseous envelope. In the discussion of how this core forms, some divergences appear. The first scenarios of planet formation predict the accretion of kilometre-sized bodies called planetesimals, while more recent works suggest growth by the accretion of pebbles, which are centimetre-sized objects. Aims. These two accretion models are often discussed separately and our aim here is to compare the outcomes of the two models with identical initial conditions. Methods. The comparison is done using two distinct codes, one that computes the planetesimal accretion and the other the pebble accretion. All the other components of the simulated planet growth are computed identically in the two models: the disc, the accretion of gas, and the migration. Using a population synthesis approach, we compare planet simulations and study the impact of the two solid accretion models, focusing on the formation of single planets. Results. We find that the outcomes of the populations are strongly influenced by the accretion model. The planetesimal model predicts the formation of more giant planets, while the pebble accretion model forms more super-Earth-mass planets. This is due to the pebble isolation mass (Miso) concept, which prevents planets formed by pebble accretion to accrete gas efficiently before reaching Miso. This translates into a population of planets that are not heavy enough to accrete a consequent envelope, but that are in a mass range where type I migration is very efficient. We also find higher gas mass fractions for a given core mass for the pebble model compared to the planetesimal model, caused by luminosity differences. This also implies planets with lower densities, which could be confirmed observationally. Conclusions. We conclude that the two models produce different outputs. Focusing on giant planets, the sensitivity of their formation differs: for the pebble accretion model, the time at which the embryos are formed and the period over which solids are accreted strongly impact the results, while the population of giant planets formed by planetesimal accretion depends on the planetesimal size and on the splitting in the amount of solids available to form planetesimals.
(Ref) Object type as listed in the reference "Ref"
(acronym) Object type linked to the acronym according to the original reference
() Anterior to 2007, before we can link the objet type to a reference, or given by the CDS team in some particular cases
Other object types:
*
(2017AJ,AP,...),
IR
(2MASSI,2MASSW),
LM*
(2000AJ),
PM*
(2006AJ),
NIR
(2MASS),
MIR
(WISEA)
Syntax of coordinates is : "ra dec (wtype) [error ellipse] quality bibcode" :
ra dec : right ascension and declination (unit and frame defined according to your Output Options)
Grey values are increasing the original precision due to the computation of frame transformations
(wtype) : wavelength class for the origin of the coordinates (Rad, mm, IR, Optical, UV, Xray, Gam)
[error ellipse] : measurement uncertainty, on (ra,dec) if the positional angle is 90 degrees, on (majaxis,minaxis) otherwise (in mas at defined epoch in the original catalogue),
position angle (in degrees North celestial pole to East)
Syntax of coordinates is : "ra dec (wtype) [error ellipse] quality bibcode" :
ra dec : right ascension and declination (unit and frame defined according to your Output Options)
Grey values are increasing the original precision due to the computation of frame transformations
(wtype) : wavelength class for the origin of the coordinates (Rad, mm, IR, Optical, UV, Xray, Gam)
[error ellipse] : measurement uncertainty, on (ra,dec) if the positional angle is 90 degrees, on (majaxis,minaxis) otherwise (in mas at defined epoch in the original catalogue),
position angle (in degrees North celestial pole to East)
Syntax of coordinates is : "ra dec (wtype) [error ellipse] quality bibcode" :
ra dec : right ascension and declination (unit and frame defined according to your Output Options)
Grey values are increasing the original precision due to the computation of frame transformations
(wtype) : wavelength class for the origin of the coordinates (Rad, mm, IR, Optical, UV, Xray, Gam)
[error ellipse] : measurement uncertainty, on (ra,dec) if the positional angle is 90 degrees, on (majaxis,minaxis) otherwise (in mas at defined epoch in the original catalogue),
position angle (in degrees North celestial pole to East)
Syntax of radial velocity (or/and redshift) is : "value [error] (wavelength) quality bibcode"
value : radial velocity or/and redshift (Heliocentric frame) according to your Output Options
(redshift may be not displayed if the data value is <0 and the database inside value is a radial velocity)
[error] : error of the corresponding value displayed before
(wavelength) : wavelength range of the measurement : Rad, mm, IR, Opt, UV, Xray, Gam or '∼'(unknown)
quality : flag of quality ( A=best quality -> E=worst quality, ∼=unknown quality)
References (988 between 1850 and 2024) (Total 988)
Simbad bibliographic survey began in 1850 for stars (at least bright stars) and in 1983 for all other objects (outside the solar system).
Follow
new references on this object
Annotations :
Annotations allow a user to add a note or report an error concerning the astronomical object and its data. It requires registration to post a note. See description . Please, have a look at Best practices. The list of all annotations to SIMBAD objects can be found here .
To bookmark this query, right click on this link: simbad:objects in 2020A&A...640A..21B and select 'bookmark this link' or equivalent in the popup menu