We review the prevailing theories for the formation of the jovian planets and comment that they do not provide a natural explanation for the oft-noted subdivision into two separate classes: the gas-rich giants, Jupiter and Saturn, and the gas-poor giants, Uranus and Neptune. To account for the obser
Formation of the giant planets
โ Scribed by D.J. Stevenson
- Publisher
- Elsevier Science
- Year
- 1982
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 1014 KB
- Volume
- 30
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0032-0633
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
boundary, which depends on the planet's total mass. The overall evolutionary time scale is generally determined by the length New numerical simulations of the formation of the giant of the second phase. planets are presented, in which for the first time both the gas and The actual rates at which th
We present numerical simulations of the formation of the planetary companions to 47 UMa, ฯ CrB, and 51 Peg. They are assumed to have formed in situ according to the basic model that a core formed first by accretion of solid particles, then later it captured substantial amounts of gas from the protop
We investigate the orbital evolution of 10 13 -to 10 25 -g planetesimals near 1 AU and in the asteroid belt (near 2.6 AU) prior to the stage of evolution when the mutual perturbations between the planetesimals become important. We include nebular gas drag and the effects of Jupiter and Saturn at the
The existence of Uranus and Neptune presents severe difficulties for the core accretion model for the formation of ice giant planets. We suggest an alternative mechanism, namely disk instability leading to the formation of gas giant protoplanets, coagulation and settling of dust grains to form ice-r