Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Gas Pressure Driven Screening Forces and Pebble Aggregation: A Pathway for Growth in Planet Formation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that gas-pressure screening between close pebbles can bind them into aggregates and grow centimeter pebbles to kilometer planetesimals in roughly 10^5 years.

desk verdict A plausible screening-force mechanism for pebble growth, but the headline 10^5 yr growth timescale is not supported by the calculation as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02570 v1 pith:YOD54BD7 submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.HEphysics.class-ph

Mukesh Kumar Vyas This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.HEphysics.class-ph
keywords screeningforcepebbleaggregationplanetesimalformationprotoplanetarydisksgasmeanfreepathbindingprobabilitydustgrowthstreaminginstability
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

The paper argues that two pebbles in a protoplanetary disk attract each other when their separation is smaller than the gas mean free path: each pebble shields the other from thermal gas molecules, creating a pressure imbalance that pulls them together. This screening force is proposed as a binding mechanism that does not depend on sticky surfaces, so it could bypass the fragmentation and bouncing barriers that normally block growth beyond centimeter sizes. If the argument is right, pebbles can grow from 1 cm to 10 km in about $10^5$ years in the middle disk region, roughly 0.3 to a few AU, faster than the disk lifetime, and the process stops naturally when particles smaller than the mean free path are used up. The claim matters because it would give planetesimal formation a route that operates under turbulent conditions and complements streaming instability and pressure traps, with a peak location that matches ALMA dust concentrations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the screening force, an attractive force between two bodies in a gas that arises from mutual shadowing of thermal molecular flux when their separation falls below the mean free path $\lambda$. The load-bearing identity is the force law $F = -\pi n k_B T R_1^2 R_2^2 / x^2$, which gives an inverse-square potential; equating the reduced-mass kinetic energy of an encounter with the work integral of this force defines the critical binding velocity $v_{\mathrm{crit}}$, and a Maxwellian distribution of turbulent relative velocities converts that threshold into a binding probability. Gas drag then sets the merging timescale, and the geometric condition $R_2 < \lambda$, derived both from the shadow length and from the collision-geometry probability $P_2$, terminates the growth sequence.

What would settle it

Recalculate the Section 3.2.2 growth track while explicitly counting the number of sub-mean-free-path particles consumed at each step; if the local reservoir is exhausted before the pebble reaches 1 km, the claimed $10^5$-year growth to 10 km is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a previously unaccounted attractive force between spherical pebbles in a gas. When the surface-to-surface separation $s$ satisfies $s \le \lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the local gas mean free path, the larger sphere blocks the thermal momentum flux reaching the smaller one over a solid angle, and the resulting anisotropic pressure gives $F = -\pi n k_B T R_1^2 R_2^2 / x^2$, an inverse-square attraction that strengthens with gas density and temperature and vanishes for point particles. Comparing the relative kinetic energy of an encounter with the work available from this force yields a critical velocity $v_{\mathrm{crit}}$; encounters slower than $v_{\mathrm{crit}}$ form bound pairs, gas drag then dissipates their relative motion and merges them, and iterative merging lets a 1 cm pebble at 1 AU grow to 10 km in about $10^5$ years. Growth is self-limiting because the shadow geometry requires the accreted projectile to satisfy $R_2 < \lambda$, so when the local reservoir of sub-mean-free-path particles is exhausted the process halts instead of running away.

Load-bearing premise

The $10^5$-year growth estimate assumes that small particles below the gas mean free path remain available at the local dust density throughout the sequence and that every bound pair merges via gas drag, so the growth track never waits for resupply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Planetesimal formation would no longer need surface adhesion: a purely pressure-based attraction can bind pebbles, with van der Waals forces only assisting at the final contact.
  • The most favorable window is the middle disk, roughly 0.3 to a few AU, where binding probabilities approach unity (peak near 0.7–0.8 AU for the fiducial disk), offering a physical explanation for enhanced dust concentrations seen by ALMA in such regions.
  • A 1 cm pebble at 1 AU can reach 10 km in about $10^5$ years, well below the typical disk lifetime, making the pathway dynamically competitive.
  • Growth stops when particles smaller than the local mean free path are depleted, so the mechanism cannot produce runaway accretion and instead allows several aggregates to grow in parallel.
  • The mechanism survives turbulence up to $\alpha = 10^{-2}$ and becomes more effective as streaming instability or pressure traps raise the local pebble density, so it reinforces existing planetesimal-formation routes rather than replacing them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the screening force should leave a measurable signature in grain-size distributions: a depletion of particles just above the local mean free path and an accumulation below it, which multi-wavelength ALMA and polarization maps could in principle test.
  • A natural testable extension is a laboratory experiment at the same ratio of particle separation to gas mean free path, where two suspended spheres should show an attractive force scaling with gas density and inverse separation squared even though disk-like conditions cannot be reproduced directly.
  • A direct extension not developed in the paper is a coagulation model with a screening collision kernel; such a model would show whether the $10^5$-year track survives when particle consumption and size-dependent resupply are tracked explicitly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a new attractive force between pebbles in a protoplanetary disk, arising from mutual shadowing of thermal gas molecules when the surface-to-surface separation is smaller than the gas mean free path. The authors derive an inverse-square force (Eq. 2), a critical velocity for bound encounters (Eq. 4), and a binding probability that combines collision rate, Maxwellian velocity distribution, and geometric shadowing (Eq. 18). Using a power-law disk model, they predict the binding probability peaks near 0.7-0.8 AU, and they present a growth track in Figure 4 in which a 1 cm pebble grows to 10 km in about 10^5 years. They argue the process terminates naturally when particles smaller than the mean free path are exhausted, and they discuss comparisons with ALMA ring observations and possible broader applications.

Significance. If the screening force exists with the strength claimed and the 10^5 yr growth timescale is correct, the paper would open a new, surface-adhesion-independent pathway for planetesimal formation and would provide a concrete mechanism for enhanced dust aggregation in the inner-to-mid disk. The analytical derivation is explicit and the paper is candid about its limitations in the Caution section. However, the central quantitative claim is not reproducible from the manuscript: the key number density in Eq. (14) is inconsistent with the adopted size distribution, Qs is unspecified for Figure 4, the iterative growth calculation is not described, and the depletion that is invoked as a termination mechanism is absent from the growth model. The physical force derivation also omits a treatment of molecular re-emission from the pebble surfaces. These are not cosmetic issues; they affect the headline timescale and the existence of the mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.2, Eq. (14), Fig. 4] The central growth timescale is not supported by the equations as written. Equation (14) sets n_peb = Qs Z ρ / M2, placing the entire dust mass density Zρ into monodisperse particles of the projectile mass M2. This contradicts the Dohnanyi size distribution N(R) ∝ R^{-3} adopted in §2.4 and the termination condition R2 < λ (Eq. 23). For the Figure 3 top-left parameters at 1 AU, λ ≈ 0.28 cm while the size distribution extends to Rmax = 10 cm, so only a fraction λ/Rmax ≈ 0.03 of the dust mass is in accretable projectiles. Using the differential size distribution raises t_coll (Eq. 19) by roughly a factor of 30, changing the 10^5 yr track to several Myr for Qs = 1, i.e., comparable to or longer than the disk lifetime. In addition, Figure 4 does not state the value of Qs, the projectile size/time step, or the iteration procedure, so the plotted curve cannot be reproduced from the manuscript. Because the abstract's headline claim is the 10^5 yr growth, this is a load-bearing deficiency.
  2. [§2.7, Eqs. (18)-(20)] The growth loop ignores the binding probability PB in the effective collision rate. Equation (20) uses t_coll = 1/(n_peb σ_coll v_rel), but if only a fraction PB of encounters results in a bound state, the average time per successful merger is t_coll/PB, not t_coll. The text asserts PB ≈ 1 in the middle disk regions, but the supporting Figure 3 is ambiguous: the caption says the solid line is for the smallest pair R1 = R2 = 10^-2 cm, while §3.1 says it is for R1 = 10 cm with R2 = 10^-2 cm. These two cases have very different v_crit (Eq. 7), so the figure does not establish PB ≈ 1 for the size ratios relevant to the Figure 4 growth track. If PB is 10^-2 or lower for part of the growth sequence, the integrated timescale increases correspondingly.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (2), Caution] Equation (2) is derived by integrating the ambient isotropic pressure over the unshadowed portion of the smaller sphere, treating the larger sphere as a perfect geometric blocker of the momentum flux. Real pebbles re-emit or reflect gas molecules, and molecules scattered from the facing surface can strike the other pebble, partially filling the shadow and reducing the net force. The magnitude of this effect depends on the accommodation coefficient and the scattering kernel, neither of which is specified. The Caution paragraph acknowledges oblique flux and a weak repulsive component but gives no quantitative estimate. Because the existence and sign of the screening force is the foundation of the paper, a free-molecular-flow calculation or particle simulation is needed before the derived timescales can be accepted.
  4. [§3.2.1-3.2.2] The growth model and the termination mechanism are mutually inconsistent. Section 3.2.1 states that growth halts when the local sub-λ particles are depleted, and that this avoids runaway accretion. Yet §3.2.2 and Figure 4 assume n_peb = Qs Z ρ / M2 (Eq. 14) is maintained throughout the entire merger sequence from 1 cm to 10 km; no depletion term or time-dependent size distribution is included. The 10^5 yr curve therefore uses an upper bound on the projectile supply and does not account for the finite reservoir of R2 < λ particles. A self-consistent calculation must integrate over the decreasing number of available projectiles, which will lengthen the growth time and is particularly important for the kilometer-size tail.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 and §3.1] The caption and the main text disagree on the solid-line curve: the caption states R1 = R2 = 10^-2 cm, while the text says R1 = 10 cm and R2 = 10^-2 cm; please reconcile because the two configurations have very different binding probabilities.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The parameter ya = 1.6 is introduced without a definition or a reference; the meaning of this parameter should be stated explicitly, and its relation to the Ormel & Cuzzi (2007) formulation should be clarified.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Lagragian' in §2.2 and 'Stocks regime' in §3.2.2; these should be corrected to 'Lagrangian' and 'Stokes regime'.
  4. [§3.1 and Conclusions] The favorable region for screening is described as both '0.3 to a few AU' and '0.3 to 10 AU' at different points; please use one consistent radial range and explain whether the outer boundary is determined by the 90% of peak criterion or by the disk model.
  5. [Conclusions] The conclusion that the screening force 'naturally emerges from the established physics of gas-rich disks' is stronger than the derivation supports, since the derivation assumes a step-function cutoff and perfect shadowing; a more cautious statement of assumptions would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the screening-force derivation is self-contained and its disk inputs are stated standard values rather than fitted targets.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The screening force (Eq. 2) follows from integrating the pressure anisotropy over a shadowed solid angle; the critical velocity (Eq. 4) follows from energy balance; the relative velocity (Eq. 8) is an adopted turbulent-drag prescription; and the binding probability (Eq. 18) is a product of geometric, Maxwellian, and collision-rate factors. The disk inputs (T0 = 200 K, Sigma0 = 10^4 g cm^-2, alpha = 10^-3, Z = 0.01) are stated as standard representative values and are not fitted to the predicted ring locations or the 10^5 yr growth timescale. The ALMA comparisons in Sections 1 and 4 are qualitative and do not feed back into the model. The 10^5 yr growth claim is an output of the stated collision and drag timescale calculation, not a quantity used to define any input. The main weaknesses are non-circular: Eq. (14) normalizes the projectile number density as if all dust mass were in the accreting size bin, which is inconsistent with the paper's own q_N = 3 size distribution, and Qs is unspecified for Figure 4, making the growth timescale non-reproducible as written. These are correctness, consistency, and reproducibility concerns, not equivalences between outputs and inputs. No self-citation chain is load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a derived force law whose quantitative strength depends on several adopted disk parameters and on the perfect-shadow assumption. The most consequential free parameter is Qs, because it multiplies the pebble collision rate and can change the claimed growth timescale by orders of magnitude, yet its value in the headline Figure 4 result is not stated. The physical core is a known kinetic shadow effect, not a new fundamental entity.

free parameters (10)
  • Sigma0 = 10^4 g cm^-2
    Surface density normalization at 1 AU; adopted from a young disk model and directly sets gas pressure and mean free path.
  • T0 = 200 K (100 K in a variant)
    Midplane temperature at 1 AU; adopted from disk models; enters the force amplitude and relative velocity.
  • qT = 0.5
    Temperature power-law index; adopted rather than derived, and controls the radial temperature profile.
  • alpha = 10^-3 (10^-2 in a variant)
    Turbulence parameter from Shakura-Sunyaev prescription; sets turbulent relative velocities through Eq. 8.
  • Z = 0.01
    Dust-to-gas mass ratio; standard value, directly controls pebble number density n_peb.
  • rho_p = 1 g cm^-3
    Intrinsic pebble density; adopted and used in the reduced mass and Stokes number.
  • Qs = not specified (presumably 1 in Figure 4)
    Density enhancement factor from streaming instability or pressure bumps; multiplies the collision rate and therefore directly sets the growth timescale, yet its value in the Figure 4 calculation is not stated.
  • qN = 3
    Power-law exponent for the pebble size distribution; adopted from Dohnanyi-Birnstiel type distributions.
  • pebble radius range = 0.01 to 10 cm
    Range used for the Monte Carlo sample; affects the spread of binding probabilities shown in Figure 3.
  • ya = 1.6
    Fitting constant inside the Ormel-Cuzzi relative velocity formula (Eq. 8); adopted without derivation.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Isotropic, noninteracting thermal gas with straight-line molecular trajectories between pebbles when s < lambda.
    Eq. 2 is obtained by integrating pressure over the unblocked hemisphere; if gas re-isotropizes between the pebbles, the attractive force is reduced.
  • ad hoc to paper Perfect shadow with zero transmitted flux and a step-function cutoff at s = lambda.
    Footnote 1 admits the cutoff is not abrupt and that a Yukawa-type decay would be more physical; the force magnitude and all derived probabilities scale directly with this assumption.
  • domain assumption Pebbles are smooth spheres.
    Section 4 acknowledges that random shapes would alter the force qualitatively.
  • domain assumption Two-body interaction only; multi-body shielding is neglected.
    Section 4 states multi-body interactions would enhance the effective force.
  • domain assumption Relative pebble velocities follow a Maxwellian distribution with dispersion vrel/sqrt(3), where vrel comes from Eq. 8.
    Eqs. 15-16; the binding probability P(v < vcrit) is sensitive to this distributional choice.
  • domain assumption Every bound pair merges via gas drag.
    Section 2.3; no model for bouncing, restructuring, or fragmentation of bound aggregates is included.
  • ad hoc to paper Small particles with R2 < lambda are continuously available at density n_peb = Qs Z rho / M2.
    Eq. 14 and Section 3.2.2; the growth timescale depends on this supply and on Qs, whose value is never specified in the Figure 4 calculation.
  • domain assumption Gas temperature and density follow the adopted Shakura-Sunyaev power-law disk with vertical stratification.
    Section 2.4; the radial peak near 0.8 AU is a property of these adopted profiles, not an independent prediction.
invented entities (1)
  • Screening (shadow) force in neutral gas
    purpose: Attractive binding between pebbles when their separation is smaller than the gas mean free path; the central interaction of the paper.
    The paper presents only an analytic derivation and order-of-magnitude estimates. It states the force has not been observed experimentally and proposes future PIC simulations, so there is no independent falsifiable handle outside the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gas Pressure Driven Screening Forces and Pebble Aggregation: A Pathway for Growth in Planet Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YOD54BD7

@misc{pith2026250702570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gas Pressure Driven Screening Forces and Pebble Aggregation: A Pathway for Growth in Planet Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YOD54BD7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02570}
}
abstract

The formation of planetesimals from cm-sized pebbles in protoplanetary disks faces significant barriers, including fragmentation and radial drift. We identify a previously unaccounted screening force, arising from mutual shielding of thermal gas particles between pebbles when their separation falls below the gas mean free path. This force facilitates pebble binding, overcoming key growth barriers under turbulent disk conditions. Unlike conventional mechanisms, screening forces operate independently of surface adhesion and complement streaming instability and pressure traps by enhancing aggregation in high-density regions. Our analysis predicts that screening interactions are most effective in the {middle disk regions ($ \sim 0.3$ to few AU),} consistent with ALMA observations (e.g., TW Hya) of enhanced dust concentrations. {Furthermore, we find that screening-induced pebble growth from centimeter to kilometer scales can occur on timescales significantly shorter than the disk lifetime ($\sim 10^5$ years). Importantly, this growth naturally terminates when particles smaller than the local gas mean free path are depleted, thereby avoiding runaway accretion.} Beyond planetary science, the screening forces have {potential} implications for high-energy astrophysics, dusty plasmas, confined particle suspensions and other relevant areas, suggesting a broader fundamental significance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Visual representation of screening forces as a re￾sult if screened thermal particles from opposite sides. The screened region between the spheres causes an attractive force due to the im￾balance in gas pressure. Bottom: Illustration of screening force be￾tween two spheres in a gas. A nearby larger sphere with radius R1 blocks the angular region θ0 ≤ θ ≤ π on smaller sphere with radius R2, resulting in a net for… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Geometry of scattering between two pebbles. Top: no bound state if s > λ or vrel > vcrit, middle: bound state forms for opposite case followed by in-spiral due to gas drag leading to merg￾ing, bottom: fragmentation due to direct collision if l < 0, dominant process in the inner disc region where binding probability drops. 2.2. Binding energy of pebbles via screening forces and critical velocities We now analyze the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Binding probability of pebble pairs to form a bound state upon scattering in the protoplanetary disk within dynamical timescale of the disk rotation t at given r For parameters - top left panel: Σ0 = 104 gcm−2 , T0 = 200 K, and α = 10−3 ; top right panel: Σ0 = 104 gcm−2 , T0 = 100 K, α = 10−3 ; bottom left panel: Σ0 = 103 gcm−2 , T0 = 200 K, α = 10−3 and bottom right panel Σ0 = 104 gcm−2 , T0 = 200 K, and α = 10−2 .… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Growth of a pebble of size R1 = 1cm to 10 km with time (years) through successive coagulation of particles of sizes R2 < λ. The parameters are same as top left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Wilner, D

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., Hughes, A. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/162

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/2/162 2012

  2. [2]

    M., Wilner, D

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., Zhu, Z., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L40

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/l40 2016

  3. [3]

    Armitage, P. J. 2020, Astrophysics of planet formation, Second Edition

    2020

  4. [4]

    2018, A&A, 609, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732034

    Banzatti, A., Garufi, A., Kama, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732034

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732034 2018

  5. [5]

    1995, A&A, 295, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9501050

    Barge, P., & Sommeria, J. 1995, A&A, 295, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9501050

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9501050 1995

  6. [6]

    2016, SSRv, 205, 41, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0256-1

    Birnstiel, T., Fang, M., & Johansen, A. 2016, SSRv, 205, 41, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0256-1

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0256-1 2016

  7. [7]

    2012, A&A, 539, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    Birnstiel, T., Klahr, H., & Ercolano, B. 2012, A&A, 539, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 2012

  8. [8]

    W., & Dullemond, C

    Birnstiel, T., Ormel, C. W., & Dullemond, C. P. 2011, A&A, 525, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015228

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015228 2011

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    2015, A&A, 582, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526463

    Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., & Johansen, A. 2015, A&A, 582, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526463

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2008, ARA&A, 46, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152 Carrasco-Gonz´alez, C., Henning, T., Chandler, C

    Blum, J., & Wurm, G. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152 Carrasco-Gonz´alez, C., Henning, T., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2016, ApJL, 821, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L16 Carrasco-Gonz´alez, C., Sierra, A., Flock, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 71, d...

    2008

  3. [11]

    Chamberlin, T. C. 1916, JRASC, 10, 473

    1916

  4. [12]

    Chapman, S., & Cowling, T. G. 1970, The mathematical theory of non-uniform gases. an account of the kinetic theory of viscosity, thermal conduction and diffusion in gases

    1970

  5. [13]

    Chatterjee, S., & Tan, J. C. 2014, ApJ, 780, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/53 —. 2015, ApJL, 798, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L32

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Dohnanyi, J. S. 1969, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 2531, doi: 10.1029/JB074i010p02531

    1969 doi

  7. [15]

    1949, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21, 367, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.21.367

    Gamow, G. 1949, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21, 367, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.21.367

    1949 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Zhu, Z., et al

    Hu, X., Tan, J. C., Zhu, Z., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad08

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    C., & Chatterjee, S

    Hu, X., Zhu, Zhaohuan an d Tan, J. C., & Chatterjee, S. 2016, ApJ, 816, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/19

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Hogerheijde, M. R. 2011, ApJ, 727, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/85

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Ignatov, A. M. 1996, Plasma Physics Reports, 22, 585

    1996

  12. [20]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    Johansen, A., & Lacerda, P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    2010

  13. [21]

    2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 359, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    Johansen, A., & Lambrechts, M. 2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 359, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al

    Johansen, A., Oishi, J. S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al. 2007, Nature, 448, 1022, doi: 10.1038/nature06086

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    2007, ApJ, 662, 627, doi: 10.1086/516730

    Johansen, A., & Youdin, A. 2007, ApJ, 662, 627, doi: 10.1086/516730

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    2009, ApJL, 704, L75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L75

    Johansen, A., Youdin, A., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2009, ApJL, 704, L75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L75

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    2009, PhRvL, 103, 215502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.215502

    Kelling, T., & Wurm, G. 2009, PhRvL, 103, 215502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.215502

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/110 Le Sage, G

    Kruss, M., Demirci, T., Koester, M., Kelling, T., & Wurm, G. 2016, ApJ, 827, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/110 Le Sage, G. 1782, Nouveaux M´emoires de L’Acad´emie Royale des Sciences et Belles Lettres, Berlin Le Sage, G.-L. 2022, The Le Sage theory of gravitation (DigiCat)

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Lissauer, J. J. 1987, Icarus, 69, 249, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90104-7 —. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 129, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.001021

    1987

  20. [28]

    J., et al

    Long, F., Pinilla, P., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e1

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/17

    Lyra, W., & Lin, M.-K. 2013, ApJ, 775, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/17

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544, doi: 10.1143/PTP.64.544

    Mizuno, H. 1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544, doi: 10.1143/PTP.64.544

    1980 doi

  23. [31]

    W., & Cuzzi, J

    Ormel, C. W., & Cuzzi, J. N. 2007, A&A, 466, 413, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066899

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    B., & Murray-Clay, R

    Perets, H. B., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2011, ApJ, 733, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/56

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  26. [34]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  27. [35]

    1941, ApJ, 94, 232, doi: 10.1086/144328 12

    Spitzer, Jr., L. 1941, ApJ, 94, 232, doi: 10.1086/144328 12

    1941 doi

  28. [36]

    S., & Wilner, D

    Testi, L., Natta, A., Shepherd, D. S., & Wilner, D. J. 2003, A&A, 403, 323, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030362

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 57, doi: 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 —. 2000, SSRv, 92, 295, doi: 10.1023/A:1005259615299

    1977 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Millholland, S

    Weiss, L. M., Millholland, S. C., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 863, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10076

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2005, ApJL, 626, L109, doi: 10.1086/431757

    Hartmann, L. 2005, ApJL, 626, L109, doi: 10.1086/431757

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 405, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00312-7

    Wurm, G., & Teiser, J. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 405, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00312-7

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    N., & Goodman, J

    Youdin, A. N., & Goodman, J. 2005, ApJ, 620, 459, doi: 10.1086/426895

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    N., & Lithwick, Y

    Youdin, A. N., & Lithwick, Y . 2007, Icarus, 192, 588, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Booth, R

    Zagaria, F., Clarke, C. J., Booth, R. A., Facchini, S., & Rosotti, G. P. 2023, ApJL, 959, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0c54

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    W., G¨uttler, C., Blum, J., & Dullemond, C

    Zsom, A., Ormel, C. W., G¨uttler, C., Blum, J., & Dullemond, C. P. 2010, A&A, 513, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912976

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.