![]() | ![]() |
Astron. Astrophys. 356, 1089-1111 (2000) 3. Stochastic motion of a particle in a vortex3.1. The diffusion equationDue to small-scale turbulence, the motion of a particle in a vortex is not deterministic but stochastic . Turbulent fluctuations produce some kicks which progressively deviate the particle from its unperturbed trajectory. This is similar to what happens to a colloidal particle in suspension in a liquid (Brownian motion). An individual fluctuation has a minute effect on the motion of the particle, but the repeated action of these fluctuations gives rise to a macroscopic process of diffusion. The effect of turbulence on the sedimentation of dust particles in the protoplanetary nebula has been considered in detail by Dubrulle et al. (1995). We use a similar approach to study the effect of turbulence on the capture of dust by large-scale vortices. The transport equation governing the evolution of the dust surface density inside a vortex can be written: where where The first term in the right hand side is a pure diffusion due to small-scale turbulence and the second term is a drift toward the vortex center due to the combined effect of the Coriolis force and the vortex (anticyclonic) rotation. Eq. (59) illustrates the bimodal nature of turbulence: the diffusion is due to small-scale fluctuations hardly affected by the rotation of the disk (3D turbulence) and the trapping process is a consequence of the Coriolis force and the existence of coherent structures in the disk (2D turbulence). Since we are mainly interested in orders of magnitude and in order to avoid unnecessary mathematical complications, we shall consider from now on that the vortices are circular with typical radius R. In this approximation, we can restrict ourselves to axisymmetric solutions for which the advection term in Eq. (59) cancels out. We are led therefore to study the Fokker-Planck equation: For an initial condition consisting of a Dirac function centered at
where M is the total mass of particles contained in the
vortex. This formula shows that the relaxation time is equal to the
capture time The equilibrium solution of the Fokker-Planck Eq. (60) satisfies the condition: expressing the balance between the diffusion and the drift. It corresponds to a Gaussian density profile of the form: This is also the solution of Eq. (61) for
3.2. Vertical sedimentationEq. (60) is similar to the diffusion equation used by Dubrulle et al. (1995) to describe the sedimentation of the
dust particles and determine the sub-disk scale height (see also
Weidenschilling 1980). The drift toward the vortex center is replaced
in their study by the drift It is relatively straightforward to include the vertical
sedimentation of particles in our study, although we shall specialize
in the following on their horizontal accumulation in vortices.
Introducing the volume density where 3.3. Diffusivity of dust particlesIt remains now to specify the value of the diffusion coefficient
appearing in Eq. (60). In general, the turbulent viscosity of the
gas is written in the form According to Dubrulle et al. (1995), the diffusivity of the particles can be written: is a function of the friction parameter. The reduction factor of Völk et al. (1980): depends on the size This result is expectable since light particles mainly follow the
streamlines of the gas. Consequently, their diffusivity tends to the
gas turbulent viscosity For Substituting Eqs. (33)(34) and (71)(72) in Eq. (64), the concentration length can be written explicitly: As expected, the concentration is optimum for
the drift is negligible and there is no concentration
( 3.4. Application to the solar nebulaWe now apply these results to the case of the solar nebula and show how the vortex scenario can make possible the formation of planetesimals at certain preferred locations of the disk. It is generally beleived that planetesimals formed by the gravitational instability of the particle sublayer (Safronov 1969, Goldreich & Ward 1973). The dispersion relation for an infinite uniformly rotating sheet of gas is (see, e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1987): where Once instability is triggered, the system crumbles into numerous planetesimals of order 10 km in size. Moreover, the growth time of density perturbation is predicted to be short, of the order of an orbital period. In addition, the instability criterion gives the impression that its operation does not require any sticking mechanism. Goldreich & Ward (1973) state that "...the fate of planetary accretion no longer appears to hinge on the stickiness of the surface of dust particles". This is very attractive because sticking mechanisms are relatively ad hoc and ill-understood. For these reasons (and also for a lack of alternatives), the Safronov-Goldreich-Ward scenario was nearly universaly accepted as the key mechanism for forming planetesimals. Therefore, a swarm of bodies of a few km in diameter was a common starting point for numerical simulations of planetary formation. However, Weidenschilling (1980), followed by Cuzzi et al. (1993)
and Dubrulle et al. (1995), realized that this simplisitic picture was
ruled out if the primordial nebula was turbulent. Indeed, turbulence
reduces considerably the vertical sedimentation of the dust particles
and prevents gravitational instability. According to Eqs. (41)
and (42), the velocity threshold imposed by the instability criterion
(78) is of order There is therefore a major problem to form planetesimals by
gravitational instability in a turbulent disk. As suggested by Barge
& Sommeria (1995), the presence of vortices in the disk can solve
this problem. Indeed, by capturing and concentrating the particles,
the vortices can increase locally the surface density of the dust
sublayer and initiate the gravitational instability. Let us first
discuss the concentration effect. Inside a vortex, an initial
mass of order The amplification is maximum for On Table 1, we report, as a function of the heliocentric distance, the minimum size of the particles which satisfy this criterion (see also Figs. 5 and 9). These results indicate that particles must have grown up to some centimeters to trigger the gravitational instability. Therefore, sticking processes are needed to reach this range of sizes (recall that this was claimed to be not necessary in the initial Safronov-Goldreich-Ward scenario).
In conclusion, by allowing a local enhancement of the particle surface density, the vortices can favour the formation of planetesimals by gravitational instability. This rehabilitates the Safronov-Goldreich-Ward theory at certain preferred locations of the disk (i.e. inside the vortices) and for sufficiently large (decimetric) particles. A sufficient enhancement is achieved simply by the horizontal concentration of the dust layer in the vortex (a process similar to the vertical sedimentation). However, this mechanism alone is not sufficient to produce enough planetesimals to form the planets. The vortices must also capture the surrounding mass. This is another source for density enhancement. Returning to Eq. (38), we find that the average surface density of the particles collected by a vortex during its lifetime is with See also Table 1 and Figs. 5, 10 for the same criterion expressed in terms of the size of the particles.
If we now take into account both the concentration effect and the capture process, we obtain an amplification with a maximum value but, even in this optimistic situation, the particles must have reached relatively large sizes to trigger the gravitational instability (see Table 1). Of course, if the vortex lifetime is increased, smaller particles have the possibility to collapse since the vortex captures more mass. In fact, this is not completely correct because the previous results assume that the escape of particles due to turbulent fluctuations can be neglected. This is not always the case (in particular for small particles) and this problem is now considered in detail. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() © European Southern Observatory (ESO) 2000 Online publication: April 17, 2000 ![]() |