chaotic case studies: sensitive dependence on initial conditions in star/planet formation fred c....

Post on 28-Dec-2015

220 Views

Category:

Documents

2 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

Chaotic Case Studies:Sensitive dependence on initial

conditions in star/planet formation

Fred C. AdamsPhysics Department

University of Michigan

With: E. David, M. Fatuzzo, G. Laughlin, E. Quintana

Outline

• Turbulent fluctuations in the formation of cloud cores through ambipolar diffusion

• Terrestrial planet formation in binaries• Giant planet migration through disk torques

and planet-planet scattering events • Solar system scattering in the solar birth

aggregate• Long term stability of Earth-like planets in binary star systems

None of these problems actually has an answer!

None of these problems actually has an answer!

Instead, each of these problems has a full DISTRIBUTION OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES

Star Formation takes place in molecular cloud cores that form via ambipolar diffusion

Problem: Observations of the

number of starless cores and molecular clouds

cores with stars indicate that the theoretically predicted ambipolar diffusion rates are

too slow

ˆ z

B

Ambipolar diffusion in a gaseous slab

g

g

(Shu 1983, 1992)

∂∂t

B(1+ ξ )

ρ (1+ η )

⎣ ⎢

⎦ ⎥=

1

1+ η

∂σD

∂σ

⎧ ⎨ ⎩

B(1+ ξ )[ ]

D =B2(1+ ξ )2

4πγCρ1/ 2(1+ η )3 / 2

}

where

Nonlinear Diffusion Equation

B → B(1+ ξ ),ρ → ρ(1+ η )let

Fatuzzo and Adams, 2002, ApJ, 570, 210

Diffusion time vs fluctuation amplitude

Amplitude expected from observed line-width

Distribution of Ambipolar Diffusion Times

Shu 1983solution

10,000 simulations

Simulations of Planet Formation

• Mercury code (J. Chambers 1999) • Late stages of planetessimal

accumulation: from 100s of bodies to a few large bodies

• Initially circular orbits w/ a = 0.36 - 2.05 AU

• Evolution time of 100 Myr(PhD Thesis for E. Quintana)

Planet position as a function of binary periastron

}Notice the wide range of values

Distribution for the number of terrestrial planets

(30 realizations)

WORK IN PROGRESS

STAY TUNED…

Observed planets: California and Carnegie Planet Search

Observed planets: California and Carnegie Planet Search

MIGRATION

Disk Torques Planet Scattering

MIGRATION with multiple planets and disk torques

Good for aPoor for e

Good for ePoor for a

the disk is present other planets are present

10 Planet Scattering Simulations

Place 10 planets on initially circular orbits within the radial range a = 5 - 30 AU (one solar mass central star)

Use 4 different planetary mass functions:(1) equal mass planets with (2) equal mass planets with (3) planet masses with random distribution(4) planet mass with log-random distribution

mP =1mJ

mP = 2mJ

Mercury code: Chambers 1999, MNRAS, 304, 793

Half-life for 10 planet solar systems

Half-life for 10 planet solar systems

Ejection time is not a well-defined quantity but the half-life is well determined

Distributions of final-state orbital elements

(Log-random planet mass distribution)

Distributions of orbital elements for the innermost planet (at end of simulation)

Final orbital elements for migrating planets with planet-planet scattering only

Final orbital elements for migrating planets with planet-planet scattering only

Giant planetdesert

Maximally Efficient Scattering Disk

E0 = −GM∗mP

2a0

ΔE = −GM∗μ

2r

Starting energy:

Scattering changes energy:

a1 = a0(1+ μ /mP )−1, an = a0(1+ μ /mP )−n

fn = a0 /an = (1+MS /mP

n)n

n →∞lim fn = exp[MS /mP ]

MMES = mP ln[a0 /a f ]

Surface density distribution

σ(r) =μ

2πrk=1

n

∑ δ(r − ak )

n → ∞, μ → 0, nμ → const

σ MES (r) →mP

2πr2

(in discrete form)

in the limit:

2 Planet simulations with disk torques and

scattering• B-S code • Starting periods out of resonance:

• Random planet masses:• Viscous evolution time = 0.3 Myr• Allow planetary collisions• Relativistic corrections• Tidal interactions with the central star• Random disk lifetime = 0 - 1 Myr• Eccentricity damping time = 1 - 3 Myr

P1 =1900d,P2 = P1 × 3.736...

mP = 0 − 5mJ

rP = 2rJ

Final Orbital Elements for Migrating Planets with disk torques and planet scattering

a (AU)

ecc

en

tric

ity

Adams and Laughlin 2003, Icarus, 163, 290

Solar Birth Aggregate

Supernova enrichment requires large N

M∗ > 25Mo

Well ordered solar system requires small N

FSN = 0.000485

ε(Neptune) < 0.1

ΔΘ j < 3.5o

Probability of Supernovae

PSN (N) =1− fnotN =1− (1− FSN )N

Probability of Scattering Event

Γ=n σvScattering rate:

Survival probability:

Psurvive ∝ exp − Γdt∫[ ]

Known results provide n, v, t as function of N (e.g. BT87) need to calculate the interaction cross sections

σ

Basic Cluster Considerations

Velocity:

v ≈1 km /s

Density and time:

n ≈ N /4R3

tR ≈ (R /v) N /(10lnN)

(nvt)0 ≈ N 2 /40R2 lnN ∝N μ

Monte Carlo Experiments

• Jupiter only, v = 1 km/s, N=40,000 realizations• 4 giant planets, v = 1 km/s, N=50,000

realizations• KB Objects, v = 1 km/s, N=30,000 realizations • Earth only, v = 40 km/s, N=100,000

realizations • 4 giant planets, v = 40 km/s, N=100,000

realizations

Red Dwarf saves Earth

sun

red dwarf

earth

Red dwarf captures the Earth

Sun exits with one red dwarf as a binary companion

Earth exits with the other red dwarfSun and Earth encounter

binary pair of red dwarfs

9000 year interaction

Ecc

en

t ric

ity

e

Semi-major axis aJupiter

Saturn UranusNeptune

Scattering results for our solar system

Cross Section for Solar System Disruption

σ ≈(400AU)2

Stellar number N

Pro

babili

ty P

(N)

Expected Size of the Stellar Birth Aggregate

survivalsupernova

Adams and Laughlin, 2001, Icarus, 150, 151

Cumulative Distribution: Fraction of stars that form in stellar aggregates with N < N as function of N

CharliePhil

Median point: N=300

Constraints on the Solar Birth Aggregate

N ≈ 2000 ±1100

P ≈ 0.0085 (1 out of 120)

Probability as function of system size N

Adams and Myers 2001, ApJ, 553, 744

The Case for Extra-solar Terrestrial Planets

• Our solar system has terrestrial planets and no instances of astronomical creation are unique

• Our solar system has made large numbers of moons, asteroids, and other rocky bodies

• Terrestrial planets discovered in orbit around the Pulsar PSR 1257+ 12 (Wolszczan & Frail 1992)

Earth-like planet in a binary system

(MC ,ab,εb ,ibE )Variables:

Distribution of Ejection Times €

Distribution of Ejection Times

Δτ ej /τ ej < 0.01⇔ N > 2625

Planet survival time for companion mass

M∗ = 0.1Mo

Ejection Time versus Binary Periastron

€ €

Ejection Time versus Binary Periastron

τ SS

(4.6Gyr)

Conservative Estimate:

Need binary periastron p > 7 AUfor the long term stability of and Earth-like planet

What fraction of the observed binarypopulation has periastron p > 7 AU?

David et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 825

Observed Distributions

dPa = f (lna)d ln a =1

2πσexp −

(x − x0)2

2σ 2

⎣ ⎢

⎦ ⎥

dPε = 2εdε, dPμ = w(μ)dμ

e.g., Duqunenoy & Mayor 1991, A&A, 248, 485

Fraction of binaries with periastron less than given value p

Ffit ( p) = 0.711exp −(0.101ξ + 0.0287ξ 2)[ ]

ξ =ln p[ ]

Conclusions• Turbulent fluctuations increase the rate of ambipolar

diffusion and replace a single time scale with a distribution of time scales

• Binary companions limit the region of terrestrial planet formation, lead to distributions of a & N

• Planet scattering -> e (not a) Disk torques -> a (not e)

Planetary migration with both disk torques and planet scattering can explain observed a-e plane

• Determination of scattering cross sections For external enrichment scenario, Sun forms in

stellar aggregate with N = 2000 • 50 percent of binary systems allow for Earth-like

planet to remain stable for the age of solar system

σ

Bibliography

• M. Fatuzzo and F. C. Adams, 2002, ApJ, 570, 210

• E. Quintana and F. C. Adams, 2003, in preparation

• F. C. Adams and G. Laughlin, 2003, Icarus, 163, 290

• F. C. Adams and G. Laughlin, 2001, Icarus, 150, 151

• E. David, F. C. Adams, et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 825

• F. C. Adams and P. C. Myers, 2001, ApJ, 553, 744

Chaotic Case StudiesSensitive dependence on initial

conditions in star and planet formation

Fred C. Adams

Physics Department

University of Michigan

top related