Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Chondrule Formation by the Jovian Sweeping Secular Resonance

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Jovian sweeping secular resonance, moving inward as the disk depleted, drove 50-2000 km planetesimals to eccentricities above 0.6 and converted 4-9% of chondrule precursors between 1.5 and 3 AU into chondrules.

desk verdict The sweeping-secular-resonance excitation of 50–2000 km planetesimals is a real dynamical result and the paper's best contribution; the 4–9% chondrule yield is a model-conditioned estimate, not a measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09840 v1 pith:OGNWB57J submitted 2019-08-26 astro-ph.EP

Munan Gong , Xiaochen Zheng , Douglas N.C. Lin , Kedron Silsbee , Clement Baruteau , Shude Mao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords chondrulesJoviansweepingsecularresonanceplanetesimaleccentricityexcitationprotoplanetarydiskdepletionbowshockheatingasteroidbeltJupiterformationgasdrag
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the same event that drained the solar nebula also made chondrules. As the gas disk's surface density decayed, Jupiter's secular resonance swept inward through the asteroid belt, pumping the eccentricities of intermediate-size planetesimals and turning them into bow-shock heating sources. In the authors' fiducial model, planetesimals 50-2000 km across reach eccentricities above 0.6, and their shocks convert 4-9% of chondrule precursors between 1.5 and 3 AU into chondrules. If correct, this ties chondrule ages to disk dispersal: the spread of chondrule formation times implies a disk depletion timescale near 1 Myr, and Jupiter must already have formed, within about 0.7 Myr after the calcium-aluminum inclusions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Jovian sweeping secular resonance, the location in the disk where a planetesimal's apsidal precession rate matches Jupiter's, so that Jupiter's gravitational pull coherently stretches the orbit over many cycles; that location migrates inward as the disk surface density decays exponentially with timescale τdep. On either side of the resonance, gas drag acts as a size filter: aerodynamic drag dominates for planetesimals below about 50 km, tidal (Lindblad) drag dominates above about 2000 km, and the weakly coupled intermediate sizes are free to reach high eccentricity. The same drag laws set the speed of the sweep and the gas density during heating, and the probability calculation combines the bow-shock cross-section with a settled dust scale height to turn each high-eccentricity encounter into a chondrule-forming event.

What would settle it

Measure isotopic ages of the oldest chondrules and compare with the time Jupiter opened its gap: the model requires Jupiter to already be massive before the first chondrules, no later than about 0.7 Myr after the CAIs, and requires chondrule production to be spread over roughly 1-2 Myr as the resonance sweeps the belt. A chondrule dated earlier than Jupiter's gap opening, or an age spread much shorter than about 1 Myr, would rule the scenario out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a single causal chain. After Jupiter opens a gap, the location where Jupiter's apsidal precession rate matches a planetesimal's precession rate, the secular resonance called ν5, moves inward as the disk mass falls. Planetesimals in the 50-2000 km size range are weakly coupled to the gas: small ones are damped by aerodynamic drag, and larger ones migrate inward too fast under tidal drag, but this middle group can be excited to eccentricities above 0.6 before gas drag stops them. Their bow shocks then heat chondrule precursors; the model finds most heating occurs in high-velocity shocks (vrel ≈ 12-18 km/s), in gas depleted to 1-10% of the minimum-mass solar nebula, and inside about 2.5 AU, giving a 4-9% probability that a precursor between 1.5 and 3 AU becomes a chondrule. The same sweep implies the disk depleted on a timescale of about 1 Myr and that Jupiter formed before the chondrules, no more than 0.7 Myr after the CAIs.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the disk losing mass as a single global exponential decay of an MMSN-like surface density with a fixed gap around Jupiter, with no photoevaporation, radial transport, or gap evolution included.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 4-9% chondrule fraction matches the observationally estimated fraction of the present asteroid belt, so no separate heating mechanism is required once Jupiter formed.
  • Chondrule ages should trace the resonance sweep: production is spread over roughly 1-2 disk depletion timescales, with most chondrules forming 1-3 Myr after the CAIs.
  • Jupiter must have been massive enough to open a gap before the first chondrules, placing its formation no later than about 0.7 Myr after the CAIs.
  • The solar nebula's depletion timescale is about 1 Myr, consistent with inferred disk lifetimes around young stars.
  • Chondrule-producing planetesimals are confined to roughly 50-2000 km in radius; smaller and larger bodies are damped or migrate away before they can heat precursors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism is robust, the same resonance sweep that made chondrules should have also shaped the asteroid belt's dynamical structure and mass deficit, so a combined model of chondrule yield and belt clearing could sharpen the timing predictions.
  • A straightforward test is to rerun the sweep with photoevaporation-driven depletion instead of pure exponential decay; if the resonance then passes through the belt faster, the predicted chondrule fraction and age spread would change in ways that isotopic chronologies could check.
  • The model's concentration of heating inside about 2.5 AU predicts a radial gradient in chondrule flash-heating signatures, so chondrules from parent bodies that formed farther out should show weaker or absent chondrule textures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that, as the protoplanetary disk depletes exponentially, the Jovian sweeping secular resonance excites 50-2000 km planetesimals in the 1.5-3.5 AU region to eccentricities larger than 0.6. The authors argue that bow shocks driven by these highly eccentric planetesimals can heat chondrule precursors, and they compute an average chondrule formation probability of about 4-9% between 1.5 and 3.0 AU. The dynamical mechanism is developed with a semi-analytic secular model and N-body simulations (HERMIT4), including parameter variations in disk depletion timescale, tidal damping strength, Jupiter's eccentricity, and the presence of Saturn. From the model, the authors further infer that the disk depletion timescale was approximately 1 Myr and that Jupiter formed no more than 0.7 Myr after CAIs.

Significance. If the dynamical result holds, this is an attractive and physically motivated solution to the long-standing difficulty of exciting planetesimals to the high eccentricities required for bow-shock chondrule formation. The agreement between the semi-analytic secular treatment and the N-body simulations is a genuine strength, and the paper explicitly models size-dependent aerodynamic and tidal gas drag. The model also produces falsifiable predictions: the disk depletion timescale, the timing of Jupiter's formation, and the size range of the planetesimals responsible for chondrule heating. These are concrete, testable outcomes that go beyond a purely qualitative scenario. The principal weakness is that the headline 4-9% chondrule fraction rests on several adopted scalings that are not varied or propagated as uncertainties, so the quantitative claim is less robust than the dynamical mechanism itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (32), Table 2] The chondrule formation probability Pc is directly proportional to the assumed planetesimal surface density (fixed at 1% of the initial gas surface density in Section 3.3.1) and to the assumed shock cross-section σc = π(1.6rp)^2 applied to all planetesimal sizes. The paper itself notes that the Morris et al. (2012) calibration is for rp > 500 km and that σc should approach πrp^2 for smaller bodies. The WL2019 vs. MRN comparison in Table 2 already shows a factor-of-two sensitivity to the size distribution; combining a more standard MMSN solid-to-gas normalization of ~0.4% with a geometric cross-section for the dominant rp < 500 km population would reduce the fiducial WL2019 value from 8.1% to roughly 2%. This places the quoted range at the edge of, if not below, the observational constraints discussed in Section 3.3.3. The authors should either justify these choices with additional evidence or explicitly propagate their uncertainty into the quoted 4-9% range.
  2. [§3.3, Figure 4, Figure 7] The adopted WL2019 planetesimal size distribution is evaluated at 1 Myr, but in the fiducial model the chondrule-forming resonance sweep occurs at t/τdep ≈ 2.5-4.5 (Figure 7), i.e., at 2.5-4.5 Myr after t=0 for τdep=1 Myr. The planetesimal population can evolve through growth, collisional fragmentation, and dynamical depletion over this interval, so the size distribution at the actual epoch of chondrule formation may differ from the 1 Myr distribution used in Figure 4. The paper does not test this sensitivity; the WL2019/MRN comparison brackets only two static choices, not an evolutionary sequence. This uncertainty directly affects the headline yield and should be addressed with a time-dependent size distribution or a sensitivity test.
  3. [§2.1.1, Eqs. (6)-(7), §4] The inferred constraints τdep ≈ 1 Myr and 'Jupiter formed no more than 0.7 Myr after CAIs' rely on the assumption that the disk depletes as a global exponential decay with a fixed gap around Jupiter (Eqs. 6-7). While the paper appropriately labels this as an idealized prescription, it does not explore alternative depletion histories, such as inside-out clearing by photoevaporation or a time-variable gap width. Because the timing of the ν5 resonance sweep and the gas density at the time of heating are both consequences of this single depletion law, the quoted timing constraints are conditional on that law. The authors should either show that the main conclusions are robust to a broader class of depletion profiles or soften the statements in Section 4 and the abstract.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2 and abstract] The DEP0p5 model yields Pc,tot = 3.9% (WL2019) and 1.5% (MRN), both outside the 'about 4-9%' range quoted in the abstract and Section 5. Please qualify the range, for example '4-9% for τdep = 1-2 Myr,' or revise the abstract accordingly.
  2. [§3.3.3] The comparison between the model's Pc (fraction of precursors that are heated) and the observational constraints on the current abundance of chondrules in the asteroid belt and IDPs is not direct, because the observed abundance also depends on survival, transport, and dilution processes. Please clarify this relationship or soften the claim of consistency.
  3. [Eq. (13)] The phrase 'where the numerator is evaluated at time t = 0' is ambiguous, since dϖp,J/dt does not depend on the disk density and is constant in this formulation. Consider writing the equation with explicit time dependence to avoid confusion.
  4. [Figure 2] The curve labels 'with gap' and 'without gap' are clear, but the y-axis extends to 4 AU while the bulk of the asteroid belt lies inside 3.5 AU; a brief note that the resonance only reaches the belt at late times would aid the reader.
  5. [§2.1.2] The condition 'ep,η ≪ 1' should be written as 'ep ≪ 1 and η ≪ 1' to avoid the implication that ep and η appear as a product.
  6. [§4.2] The statement that 'the sweeping secular resonance seems to be hardly avoidable' is stronger than the idealized disk model warrants; consider softening it to reflect the dependence on the assumed depletion law.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Minor circularity in the 'τdep≈1 Myr' implication; the eccentricity-excitation mechanism and Pc calculation are otherwise self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 2.1.1 (Eq. 7); Section 4.1]
    "We set the parameter τdep = 1 Myr in our fiducial model, and explore the effect of varying τdep in Section 3.3. ... This is consistent with a disk depletion time of τdep≈ 1 Myr. ... Our model implies that the disk depletion timescale is τdep≈ 1 Myr."

    The abstract presents τdep≈1 Myr as a model implication, but τdep is a free parameter set to 1 Myr in the fiducial model. The model's chondrule age spread scales by construction with τdep: the ν5 resonance location depends only on t/τdep (Eq. 13), and Table 2 gives Δt/τdep ≈ 1.3. Therefore the observed age spread is used to recover the same input parameter that was adopted in the fiducial run—a consistency check with the assumed value, not an independent prediction from the sweeping-resonance dynamics.

full rationale

The central dynamical claim—that 50–2000 km planetesimals reach e>0.6 via the Jovian sweeping secular resonance—is supported by standard secular theory (Eqs. 4–5, 8–13) and checked against N-body integrations (Figures 5–6), so it is not circular. The chondrule formation probability Pc is computed from Eq. 32 with an assumed planetesimal surface density of 1% of the initial gas disk and adopted size distributions; while this makes the 4–9% yield assumption-sensitive (Table 2 shows roughly a factor-two change between the WL2019 and MRN size distributions), that is a model-assumption uncertainty rather than a derivation that reduces to its own output. Self-citations to Zheng et al. (2017) are methodological and not load-bearing; the key dynamics come from external references (Murray & Dermott; Ward 1981; Nagasawa et al. 2003) and independent N-body checks. The only mild circular step is the abstract's statement that the model implies τdep≈1 Myr, since τdep was set to 1 Myr in the fiducial model and the age spread is proportional to τdep by construction. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 4.1 that τdep need not be constant, further weakening the 'implies' phrasing.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model leans on a chain of standard disk and gas-drag physics plus several population assumptions. The central dynamical excitation rests mainly on standard secular theory and the exponential depletion model; the quantitative probability additionally depends on the hand-set planetesimal population and external shock-heating scalings.

free parameters (8)
  • Disk depletion timescale tau_dep = 1 Myr (fiducial); 0.5 and 2 Myr explored
    Sets the sweep speed of the secular resonance and the gas density evolution; the age spread of chondrules scales directly with it, so the Section 4.1 inference comes from this input.
  • Planetesimal surface density fraction = 0.01 (1% of initial gas surface density)
    Normalizes the number of bow-shock producers and therefore scales the chondrule probability linearly; no independent calibration is given.
  • Gap inner and outer radii = Rin=4.5 AU, Rout=6 AU
    Adopted from Bryden et al. (1999) hydro simulations; delays the resonance entry time and affects the epoch of excitation.
  • Chondrule precursor radius and density = a_d=1 mm, rho_d=1 g/cm^3
    Sets the stopping time and dust scale height; typical values chosen, but the Pc estimate depends on Hc.
  • Vertical turbulence diffusion coefficient alpha_z = 7.8e-4
    Taken from Xu et al. (2017) ambipolar-diffusion simulations; controls the dust scale height Hc and thus the precursor density encountered by shocks.
  • Bow shock cross-section factor = 1.6 (sigma_c = pi (1.6 rp)^2)
    Extrapolated from Morris et al. (2012) for >500 km bodies to all sizes; the authors note the exact size dependence is unknown.
  • Planetesimal internal density prescription = 1.0 g/cm^3 (rp<=18 km), rp/18 g/cm^3 (18-100 km), 50/9 g/cm^3 (>=100 km)
    Piecewise density law from Zheng et al. (2017) that sets the aerodynamic drag timescale for each body.
  • Planetesimal size distribution = WL2019 at 1 Myr; MRN dN/drp proportional to rp^-3.5 for comparison
    The fraction of small and intermediate planetesimals doubles the total probability between the two distributions, making Pc strongly dependent on this adopted input.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Secular perturbation theory with Laplace coefficients describes Jupiter's eccentricity forcing (Eqs. 4-5)
    Standard celestial mechanics result from Murray & Dermott 1999.
  • domain assumption Aerodynamic and tidal gas drag formulas of Adachi et al. 1976 and Kominami & Ida 2002 give the orbital damping rates (Eqs. 19-28)
    Established gas drag prescriptions for small eccentricities; the paper notes their validity limit at high e, where N-body is used.
  • domain assumption The disk precession rates follow Ward 1981 for a power-law disk with a gap (Eqs. 8-12)
    Adopted analytic disk gravity model; gap radii chosen from a specific hydro simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The gas disk evolves as a global exponential decay of an MMSN-like surface density with a fixed gap (Eqs. 6-7)
    Idealized depletion prescription; the paper acknowledges it neglects photoevaporation and radial transport.
  • domain assumption Jupiter formed before the depletion, at its present-day semi-major axis and eccentricity, and opened a gap
    Initial condition of the model; used to constrain Jupiter formation time.
  • domain assumption Planetesimals are initially on circular orbits in the 1.5-3.5 AU region
    Simplified initial condition; no pre-existing eccentricity is considered.
  • domain assumption Chondrule precursors are well-coupled to the gas and distributed with scale height Hc from Xu et al. 2017
    Required to compute the precursor mass flux through each bow shock; the paper notes Hc is uncertain and may be smaller in the inner disk.
  • domain assumption Shock heating and evaporation limits follow Iida et al. 2001 (their Eqs. 37-38)
    Adopted thermal criterion for chondrule formation; the whole probability calculation is conditioned on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chondrule Formation by the Jovian Sweeping Secular Resonance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGNWB57J

@misc{pith2026190809840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chondrule Formation by the Jovian Sweeping Secular Resonance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGNWB57J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09840}
}
abstract

Chondrules are silicate spheroids found in meteorites, serving as important fossil records of the early solar system. In order to form chondrules, chondrule precursors must be heated to temperatures much higher than the typical conditions in the current asteroid belt. One proposed mechanism for chondrule heating is the passage through bow shocks of highly eccentric planetesimals in the protoplanetary disk in the early solar system. However, it is difficult for planetesimals to gain and maintain such high eccentricities. In this paper, we present a new scenario in which planetesimals in the asteroid belt region are excited to high eccentricities by the Jovian sweeping secular resonance in a depleting disk, leading to efficient formation of chondrules. We study the orbital evolution of planetesimals in the disk using semi-analytic models and numerical simulations. We investigate the dependence of eccentricity excitation on the planetesimal's size as well as the physical environment, and calculate the probability for chondrule formation. We find that 50 - 2000 km planetesimals can obtain eccentricities larger than 0.6 and cause effective chondrule heating. Most chondrules form in high velocity shocks, in low density gas, and in the inner disk. The fraction of chondrule precursors which become chondrules is about 4 - 9 % between 1.5 - 3 AU. Our model implies that the disk depletion timescale is $\tau_\mathrm{dep}\approx 1~\mathrm{Myr}$, comparable to the age spread of chondrules; and that Jupiter formed before chondrules, no more than 0.7 Myr after the formation of the CAIs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic picture of our chondrule formation model. (a) Initial condition: Jupiter forms and opens a gap in the disk. The planetesimals are in circular orbits. (b) Chondrule formation: As the gas disk depletes over time, the sweeping secular resonance by Jupiter excites the eccentricities of planetesimals. Chondrules form in the bow shocks of highly eccentric planetesimals. (c) Late stage: The gas disk is almost ful… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Location of Jupiter’s secular resonance ν5 with a gap in the disk between 4.5 − 6 AU (solid) and without a gap (dashed). 2.1.2. Damping by the Gas Disk The gas in the disk damps the eccentricity and semi￾major axis of a planetesimal through aerodynamic and tidal effects. We follow Zhou & Lin (2007) to estimate the gas drag. The formulae only include the lowest order terms assuming ep, η 1 (η is a parameter related t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Timescales for semi-major axis decay τa = −ap/a˙ p (left panel) and eccentricity decay τe = −ep/e˙p (right panel) of planetesimals with radius rp = 0.1 − 104 km by aerodynamic or tidal gas drag. The planetesimals have semi-major axes ap = 2.5AU. The solid, dashed and dotted lines show the cases in which the eccentricities of the planetesimals are ep = 0.01, 0.1 and 0.5. with Saturn, the gap is larger, encompassing t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cumulative size distribution of planetesimals from the collisional growth simulations by WL2019 at 1 Myr in different disk radius ranges (see legends), and the standard MRN size distri￾bution of dN/drp ∝ r −3.5 p (Mathis et al. 1977). In the MRN dis￾trubtion, we se…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Semi-major axis (left) and eccentricity (right) evolution of planetesimals with radius from 10 to 2000 km (top to bottom). The black solid lines in the left panels show the location of the ν5 resonance, same as the black solid line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maximum eccentricities versus radii of planetesimals for semi-analytic models (crosses) and numerical simulations (cir￾cles). Each dot represents one planetesimal. Different colors rep￾resent planetesimals with different initial semi-major axes ap,0 = 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The total stacked histograms show the dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Planetesimals with ap,0 . 1.5 AU do not con￾tribute significantly to chondrule formation, because it is less likely for their orbits to cross the asteroid region of 1.5 − 3.0 AU, where we assume chondrules are formed. In principle, chondrules can form inside 1.5 AU and…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stacked histograms of the chondrule formation probability in the fiducial model. Left panel: The contribution to the total chondrule formation probability Pc made by planetesimals of different sizes at each initial semi-major axes bin (see figure legends). The planetes…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aarseth, S. J. 2003, Gravitational N-Body Simulations, 430

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756

    Adachi, I., Hayashi, C., & Nakazawa, K. 1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756

    1976

  3. [3]

    J., Clarke, C

    Armitage, P. J., Clarke, C. J., & Palla, F. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1139

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    1993, ApJ, 419, 166

    Artymowicz, P. 1993, ApJ, 419, 166

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 667

    Baruteau, C., Crida, A., Paardekooper, S.-J., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 667

    2014

  6. [6]

    Bryden, G., Chen, X., Lin, D. N. C., Nelson, R. P., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1999, ApJ, 514, 344

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    J., & Hood, L

    Ciesla, F. J., & Hood, L. L. 2002, Icarus, 158, 281

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    C., Desch, S

    Connolly, Jr., H. C., Desch, S. J., Ash, R. D., & Jones, R. H. 2006, Transient Heating Events in the Protoplanetary Nebula, ed. D. S. Lauretta & H. Y. McSween, 383–397

    work page 2006

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    J., Ciesla, F

    Desch, S. J., Ciesla, F. J., Hood, L. L., & Nakamoto, T. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 341, Chondrites and the Protoplanetary Disk, ed. A. N. Krot, E. R. D. Scott, & B. Reipurth, 849

    2005

  2. [10]

    J., Morris, M

    Desch, S. J., Morris, M. A., Connolly, H. C., & Boss, A. P. 2012, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 47, 1139

    2012

  3. [11]

    L., & Lin, D

    Dobbs-Dixon, I., Li, S. L., & Lin, D. N. C. 2007, ApJ, 660, 791

    2007

  4. [12]

    P., Stammler, S

    Dullemond, C. P., Stammler, S. M., & Johansen, A. 2014, ApJ, 794, 91 D¨ urmann, C., & Kley, W. 2015, A&A, 574, A52

    2014

  5. [13]

    Epstein, P. S. 1924, Phys. Rev., 23, 710

    1924

  6. [14]

    M., & Nelson, R

    Fendyke, S. M., & Nelson, R. P. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 96

    2014

  7. [15]

    E., Lada, E

    Haisch, Jr., K. E., Lada, E. A., & Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJ, 553, L153

    2001

  8. [16]

    1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

    Hayashi, C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

    1981

  9. [17]

    2001, Icarus, 153, 430

    Iida, A., Nakamoto, T., Susa, H., & Nakagawa, Y. 2001, Icarus, 153, 430

    2001

  10. [18]

    2002, Icarus, 157, 43

    Kominami, J., & Ida, S. 2002, Icarus, 157, 43

    2002

  11. [19]

    S., Burkhardt, C., Budde, G., & Kleine, T

    Kruijer, T. S., Burkhardt, C., Budde, G., & Kleine, T. 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114, 6712

    2017

  12. [20]

    S., Touboul, M., Fischer-G¨ odde, M., et al

    Kruijer, T. S., Touboul, M., Fischer-G¨ odde, M., et al. 2014, Science, 344, 1150

    2014

  13. [21]

    R., Boley, A

    Mann, C. R., Boley, A. C., & Morris, M. A. 2016, ApJ, 818, 103 13

    2016

  14. [22]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425

    1977

  15. [23]

    Meibom, A., & Clark, B. E. 1999, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 34, 7

    1999

  16. [24]

    A., Boley, A

    Morris, M. A., Boley, A. C., Desch, S. J., & Athanassiadou, T. 2012, ApJ, 752, 27

    2012

  17. [25]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics

    1999

  18. [26]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 37

    Muto, T., Takeuchi, T., & Ida, S. 2011, ApJ, 737, 37

    2011

  19. [27]

    Nagasawa, M., Lin, D. N. C., & Ida, S. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1374

    2003

  20. [28]

    Nagasawa, M., Lin, D. N. C., & Thommes, E. 2005, ApJ, 635, 578

    2005

  21. [29]

    K., Tanaka, H., et al

    Nagasawa, M., Tanaka, K. K., Tanaka, H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, L7

    2014

  22. [30]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 293

    Paardekooper, S.-J., Baruteau, C., & Kley, W. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 293

    2011

  23. [31]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Larwood, J. D. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 823 Ribas, ´A., Bouy, H., & Mer´ ın, B. 2015, A&A, 576, A52

    2000

  24. [32]

    Richert, A. J. W., Getman, K. V., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5191

    2018

  25. [33]

    Scott, E. R. D. 2007, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, 577

    2007

  26. [34]

    Sears, D. W. G. 1998, ApJ, 498, 773

    1998

  27. [35]

    Sears, D. W. G., & Dodd, R. T. 1988, Overview and classification of meteorites, ed. J. F. Kerridge & M. S. Matthews, 3–31

    1988

  28. [36]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  29. [37]

    H., Shang, H., Gounelle, M., Glassgold, A

    Shu, F. H., Shang, H., Gounelle, M., Glassgold, A. E., & Lee, T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 1029

    2001

  30. [38]

    Thommes, E., Nagasawa, M., & Lin, D. N. C. 2008, ApJ, 676, 728

    2008

  31. [39]

    C., & Craig, H

    Urey, H. C., & Craig, H. 1953, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 4, 36

    1953

  32. [40]

    J., & Levison, H

    Walsh, K. J., & Levison, H. F. 2019, Icarus, 329, 88

    2019

  33. [41]

    Ward, W. R. 1981, Icarus, 47, 234 —. 1988, Icarus, 73, 330

    1981

  34. [42]

    R., Colombo, G., & Franklin, F

    Ward, W. R., Colombo, G., & Franklin, F. A. 1976, Icarus, 28, 441

    1976

  35. [43]

    J., Marzari, F., & Hood, L

    Weidenschilling, S. J., Marzari, F., & Hood, L. L. 1998, Science, 279, 681

    1998

  36. [44]

    Whipple, F. L. 1972, in From Plasma to Planet, ed. A. Elvius, 211

    1972

  37. [45]

    Xu, Z., Bai, X.-N., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2017, ApJ, 847, 52

    2017

  38. [46]

    Zheng, X., Lin, D. N. C., & Kouwenhoven, M. B. N. 2017, ApJ, 836, 207

    2017

  39. [47]

    Zhou, J.-L., & Lin, D. N. C. 2007, ApJ, 666, 447

    2007

  40. [48]

    Zuckerman, B., Forveille, T., & Kastner, J. H. 1995, Nature, 373, 494

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.