Talk:Jumping-Jupiter scenario

Archives

"The other two resonances"

In the section Solar System constraints there is a sentence saying: For the two other resonances the authors offered two alternatives.. However, it is not clear which resonances are discussed here. Could this be clarified, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those two resonance crossing resulted in the increase in the eccentricities of Mercury and Venus. Article edited to be specific Agmartin (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future topics

Some topics related to the jumping-Jupiter scenario which may eventually be covered.

Mentioned in conference abstracts and current papers: evolution of the asteroid belt following the Grand Tack, the inner planets, the possible presence of Hilda asteroids originating from the main belt, Uranian moons.

Not yet discussed in detail (my speculation in parentheses): Neptune trojans (jump captured?), other resonant objects (ratios determined by efficiency of jump capture and roughness of migration?), kuiper belt (objects from inner belt end with larger inclination?) scattered disk and Eris (extension of Neptune migration paper), Late Heavy Bombardment (larger delay between comets and asteroid impactors?).

potential issues and alternatives

I'm thinking about adding a section at the end listing potential issues with the Nice model, such as conflicts between its predictions and observations, ways they have been addressed, and alternative models that have been proposed.

I've heard of the 'comet problem' and a recently raised issue regarding the ratio of craters to impact basins on the moon.

Anyone know of others? Agmartin (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comet problem refers to the prediction of cometary impacts on the bodies of the inner solar system in the Nice model and the lack of evidence for them. For example: the estimated size distribution of the impactors (until recently thought to match that of the asteroid belt), the composition of the impactors (similar to asteroids), and the number of asteroid families (should be more formed by comets). Agmartin (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this explained as being due to comets disrupting as they enter the inner solar system and the evidence of remaining impacts being overwhelmed or covered by the later impacting asteroids. Agmartin (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the craters vs impact basins paper. Agmartin (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another with some more details on their alternative. Agmartin (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reproduces the ratio of crater vs impact basins using a model of the collisional evolution of the inner belt. Agmartin (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this one estimates the age of the Borealis impact as >4.43 Gyr. Agmartin (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new one discussing the number of spherule beds, too many to fit Nice model. Agmartin (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might be relevant, estimates crater are formed from smaller impactors than previously thought. Agmartin (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related, flux from asteroid belt may not be sufficient to form lunar basins. It doesn't appear to include Bottke's estimates that craters are formed from smaller impactors though he is a co-author. Agmartin (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also mentions a paper submitted to Nature that attributes impacts to leftover planetesimals. Agmartin (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paper estimating impact basins on Iapetus formed 4.36 Gyr ago. Agmartin (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in this review article, but as the earliest time the giant planet instability occurred. Also mentioned there is that the Oort cloud would be too tightly bound if instability occurred immediately after gas disk dispersed. Agmartin (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]