Gas Giant Protoplanet Formation: Disk Instability Models with Thermodynamics and Radiative Transfer

By A. Boss. 2001

184 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bca56565996cf6498dfc37b77b8921accf928851

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

Citations in the corpus

Possible Solutions to the Radius Anomalies of Transiting Giant Planets (2006, background): “Such a two-step process is suggested because nebular temperatures are estimated to be too high for the inferred disk areal mass densities to allow direct gravitational instability by the Toomre condition (Boss 1997, 2001), akin to the Jeans criterion for star formation.”
The Evolution of Gravitationally Unstable Protoplanetary Disks: Fragmentation and Possible Giant Planet Formation (2003, methodology): “2) and is similar to that used by Boss (1998, 2001).”
LkCa 15: A YOUNG EXOPLANET CAUGHT AT FORMATION? (2011, background): “…and outer planets will provide critical new tests of the formation and evolution of planetary systems, as the two competing models of planet formation (“core accretion” (Pollack et al. 1996) and “disk instability” (Boss 2001)) make very different claims about when and where planets should form.”
Extrasolar planet population synthesis - II. Statistical comparison with observations (2009, background): “This lead to the hypothesis that a faster formation mechanism is needed to form Jovian planets, namely the gravitational instability model (Boss 2001; Mayer et al. 2004).”
The evolution of the water distribution in a viscous protoplanetary disk (2005, result): “ water distribution. In Figures 1 through 4, the disk is assumed to have a mass of 0.2M⊙ 16 distributed out to 40 AU. This type of disk is assumed to be similar in structure to those disks studied by Boss (2001, and others by the same author). In Figures 5 and 6, the disk is assumed to have the same”
The Thermal Regulation of Gravitational Instabilities in Protoplanetary Disks (2003, methodology): “The models studied in Boss (2000, 2001, 2002) have a larger equatorial radius (20 AU) but also have an inner boundary located farther out in the disk (4 AU) and a lower disk mass (Mdisk ¼ 0:09M ).”
A comparative study of disc–planet interaction (2006, background): “1996) or gravitational instabilities in the disc (see e.g. Boss 1998, 2001).”
Possible planet-forming regions on submillimetre images (2011, background): “However, the current most accepted scenarios for giant planet formation, the core-accretion (Bodenheimer & Pollack 1986; Pollack et al. 1996) and the gravitational instability (Boss 2001, 2006) face problems forming and keeping giant planets at such a large distances.”
The effect of cooling on the global stability of self-gravitating protoplanetary discs (2002, background): “Boss (2001), however, has shown using an approximate treatment of the disc heating and cooling that there may be periods when the cooling time is comparable to the orbital period.”
TWO WIDE PLANETARY-MASS COMPANIONS TO SOLAR-TYPE STARS IN UPPER SCORPIUS (2010, methodology): “Some of the closer companions could potentially form on the gravitational instability timescale (e.g. Boss 2001), which can be very short at intermediate radii (10–100AU), but gravitational instability in disks has not been extensively modeled at &100 AU, much less at ∼300 AU.”
On the Mass-Period Correlation of the Extrasolar Planets (2002, background): “Planet formation via disk instability (Boss 1997a, 1998a, 2000, 2001) could also account for the mass-period correlation, in principle, if we assume an in situ formation for this model.”
Stellar Multiplicity (2013, background): “Their orbital radii are too large for a “planetary” formation model (i.e., from a protoplanetary disk; Boss 2001, Pollack et al. 1996), but their masses are extremely low for a “binary” formation model (falling near or below the opacity-limited minimum mass; Kratter Murray-Clay & Youdin2010)).”
The Gemini Deep Planet Survey (2007, background): “The two main models of giant planet formation are core accretion (Pollack et al. 1996) and gravitational instability (Boss 1997, 2001).”
Stellar rotation and variability in the Orion Nebula Cluster (2002, background): “Boss (2001) has recently addressed the issue of giant planet formation and proposed that gravitational instability may be required instead of the commonly invoked core-accretion mechanism in the event that the disk disruption time scales are as short as ∼1 My.”
THE ROLE OF MULTIPLICITY IN DISK EVOLUTION AND PLANET FORMATION (2011, background): “The two canonical modes proposed for gas giant formation are the assembly of a rockice core that can accrete and hold gas (“core accretion”; Pollack et al. 1996) and the direct fragmentation and collapse of material in a Toomre-unstable disk (“disk instability”; Toomre 1964; Boss 2001).”
The physics of star formation (2003, background): “…outcome is less clear, but recent simulations that include a detailed treatment of radiative cooling show that even in a disk of modest mass, fragmentation can occur and lead to the formation of a smaller companion object such as a massive planet or small star (Boss 2001, 2002; Rice et al 2003).”
Mapping the Shores of the Brown Dwarf Desert. I. Upper Scorpius (2007, background): “The two canonical giant planet formation theories of core accretion (Pollack et al. 1996) and disk instability (Boss 2001) predict different timescales.”