Was The Earth Always at 1 AU?

Was The Earth always
at 1 AU?
(and was the Sun always 1 Solar Mass?)

David Minton
Purdue University
Collaborators
Renu Malhotra (U. of Arizona/LPL)
Hal Levison (SwRI)
Bill Bottke (SwRI)
David Nesvorn (SwRI)
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Alessandro Morbidelli (OCA)

David Vokrouhlick (Charles)
Bruce Simonson (Oberlin)
Was The Earth always

at 1 AU?
(and was the Sun always 1 Solar Mass?)

David Minton
Purdue University
Collaborators
Renu Malhotra (U. of Arizona/LPL)
Hal Levison (SwRI)
Bill Bottke (SwRI)
David Nesvorn (SwRI)
Alessandro Morbidelli (OCA)

David Vokrouhlick (Charles)
Bruce Simonson (Oberlin)
The FYSP solved 3 ways
1. Mass-losing Sun
2. Jumping Earth
3. Archean Bombardment
The problem
1-D radiative balance:
(Pollack 1979)
Time varying solar luminosity:
(Gough 1981)
How to keep this line
Above this line
Solving the FYSP by fiddling with basic

solar system parameters



Whitmire (1995)

Whitmire (1995)


Orbital adiabatic invariant

Conserved

Conserved More massive early Earth?

...not considered here.

Conserved

Conserved

Conserved
Simple: Change
the gravitational
constant of the
universe.

Conserved

Conserved

Increasing mass also decreases a

Conserved
So lets try this first...
Minton & Malhotra (2007)

Present-day mass loss

~30% due to solar wind
~70% due to E=mc2

Present-day mass loss

~30% due to solar wind
~70% due to E=mc2


2.5%? That doesnt sound so bad!


2.5% Msun=26 Jupiters


2.5% Msun=26 Jupiters
Sustained mass loss

Based on measurements of stellar winds from Wood et al. (2005)

Mass-losing Sun
A mass-losing Sun could in principle solve the FYSP
But you need sustained high rates
of mass loss over ~2 Gy
Required mass loss rates are at odds with inferred
stellar wind mass loss rates of Sun-like stars
What about just semimajor axis?
Ways of changing semimajor axis
Type 1 & II migration (Goldreich & Tremaine 1979; Lin, and

Papaloizou)
Type II is only effective for very massive bodies.
Planetesimal-driven migration (Fernandez & Ip 1984; Kirsh et

al. 2009; Minton & Levison 2012)
Requires gas: T<10 My
Requires massive planetesimal disk - Gone from the terrestrial

planet region within first 100 My
Planet-planet scattering (Rasio & Ford 1996; Malhotra 2002)
Requires an extra terrestrial planet

T<??
Ways of changing semimajor axis
Type 1 & II migration (Goldreich & Tremaine 1979; Lin, and

Papaloizou)
Type II is only effective for very massive bodies.
Planetesimal-driven migration (Fernandez & Ip 1984; Kirsh et

al. 2009; Minton & Levison 2012)
Requires gas: T<10 My
Requires massive planetesimal disk - Gone from the terrestrial

planet region within first 100 My
Planet-planet scattering (Rasio & Ford 1996; Malhotra 2002)
Requires an extra terrestrial planet

T<?? Timescale can be arbitrarily long
Planet-Planet Scattering
...and Planet-Planet Collisions
Terrestrial planet system with

an extra planet near Mars can
stay stable for as long as ~1 Gy
before losing the extra planet
(Chambers 2007)
~1 % of simulations of our solar

system lose Mercury within 5
Gy. In 1 out of ~2500
simulations ALL terrestrial
planets went unstable 3 Gy into
the future
(Laskar & Gastineau 2009)
Video from Fred Rasio

Credit: Trent Schindler, National Science Foundation
Laskar & Gastineau 2009
s
p
Fla
s
g
n
wi
Do
esn
1 year later
t fl
ap
w
i ng
s
3 Gy later
s
p
Fla
s
g
n
wi
Do
esn
1 year later
t fl
ap
w
i ng
s
3 Gy later
Planet-planet scattering
Earth
0.75 Venus
0.25 Venus
Earth
Venus
Earth
Venus
Earth
Venus
Jumping Earth
Could Earth have

moved 2 Gy ago?
Planet-planet scattering could, in principle,
solve the FYSP
Late-stage accretion simulations rarely have such large
mergers beyond ~100 My
Maybe standard late-stage initial conditions are not
quite right? (stay tuned for Minton & Levison 2012!)
How can we test this?

Venus didnt finish accreting until ~2.5 Gy ago, and
Hypothesis: proto-Venus scattered Earth outward to 1 AU
prior to the final giant impact.

Is there evidence of relatively recent

catastrophic resurfacing on Venus?


Yes!




Does Venus have some unusual differentiation
history (Hf-W)?
How much debris does this impact generate,
and is it consistent with inner solar system
cratering?
Science
Science Fiction
This idea
Science
Science Fiction
This idea
Solving the Faint Young Sun Paradox is possible by

invoking a more massive Sun, but requires
sustained high solar rates of mass loss for ~2 Gy
that may not be observed in solar analogue stars.
Solving the Faint Young Sun Paradox is possible by
invoking planet-planet scattering of proto-Venuses
(Venii?) 2.5 Gy ago, but this may not be compelling
in the face of minimal constraints.
(Dont stop trying to solve it with atmospheric chemistry)
A funny thing happened on the way to

understanding some details in the modeling of the
Late Heavy Bombardment...
The asteroid belt looks like the source of

the LHB impactors (Strom et al. 2005; Richardson
2009; Head et al. 2010)
But if the LHB was caused by giant planet

migration & associated resonances
sweeping across the main belt and exciting/
depleting asteroids, it doesnt look like it
lost more than ~50% of its mass (Minton &
Malhotra 2009; 2011; Morbidelli et al. 2010)
Thats not enough mass to make all the

craters!
The dynamical structure of the asteroid belt
The E-Belt
We placed bodies on main belt-
Hungaria Asteroids
like orbits in gap.
6 Resonance
Pre-LHB: -600 My to 0 My
Jovian planets in circular orbits
between 5-12 AU.

Mars started on a low-e orbit
Mars
Mars-Crossing
Boundary
Hungaria Asteroids
Mars
E-Belt and the Hungaria Asteroids

E-belt survivors after 4 Gy
Observed Hungarias (H < 14)
Mars
Mars
Our model E-belt objects after 4
Gy compared to the known H < 14

Hungarias.
The E-belt makes

Hungarias!
Depletion of E-Belt Population
LHB
Pre-LHB
Hungaria
Population Today
Using observed Hungaria population, we predict

Initial E-belt had population density similar to pre-LHB main belt.
It produced ~9-10 lunar basins, with ~2-3 Imbrium/Orientale-sized.
Basin Formation on the Earth and Moon

Earth
Moon
Archean
Proterozoic
If the E-belt produced ~9 lunar basins:
Normalize using youngest basin Orientale with age of 3.7-3.8 Ga.

This predicts LHB starts at ~4.1-4.2 Ga and lasts ~400 My on Moon.
Basin Formation on the Earth and Moon

LHB
Orientale (~3.7-3.8 Ga)
Earth
~900 km diameter
Moon
Archean
Proterozoic
If the E-belt produced ~9 lunar basins:
Normalize using youngest basin Orientale with age of 3.7-3.8 Ga.

This predicts LHB starts at ~4.1-4.2 Ga and lasts ~400 My on Moon.
The E-Belt
The LHB doesnt really end on Earth until the late Archean/early
Proterozoic (~ 2 Gy ago)
Could the high impact rate be related to climate and

biochemistry changes on Earth?
Supported by spherule layer abundances
i.e. Providing a pathway for phosphorous reduction? (Pasek

et al. 2007)
Can impacts be a factor in the oxidation of the atmosphere?
An Archean Heavy Bombardment From a Destabilized Extension of the Asteroid Belt

by Bottke, Vokrouhlick, Minton, Nesvorn, Morbidelli, Brasser, Simonson, & Levison
Hot off the presses, April 26, 2012 in Nature
(also check out the companion paper on impact spherules by Johnson & Melosh)

Was The Earth Always at 1 AU?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Was The Earth Always at 1 AU?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Was The Earth Always at 1 AU?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Was The Earth always

(and was the Sun always 1 Solar Mass?)

Alessandro Morbidelli (OCA)