The theory up to 1996
predicted ~1 Jupiter mass as a gap-opening mass
(in a standard solar nebula), and
identified it with the mass limit.
Gap formation was synonymous with the termination of planet growth.
The concept of an impermeable gap around the secondary component was also standard in disk-binary star interaction theory.
Much has changed since then in the disk-binary theory and observations:
Regarding the planets, Artymowicz & Lubow (1996) suggested that under favorable conditions mass may flow through circumplanetary gap in protoplanetary disks, to convert Jupiters into superplanets in some exoplanetary systems.
They pointed out (Artymowicz & Lubow 1997) that large planets are no less effective in accreting through the gap than huge secondaries (i.e. stars) because the gap is much wider and presumably not easier to cross in binary stars, compared with the planetary systems.
We have confirmed this hypothesis with a wide range of
numerical methods (Artymowicz, Lubow, and Kley 1998).
We use the following top-rated,
variable resolution
hydrodynamical methods to study the flows and disk-planet interaction:
The horizontal axis in this
plot covers the whole range of azimuthal
angle phi from 0 to 360 degrees.
The vertical axis is radius, in terms of planetary radius.
(The planets has 1 Jupiter mass and a circular orbit.)
Suface density is color-coded.
The gap was created by a planet (horizontal dark band) but there is
some gas crossing the gap, in a form of spiral shock waves reaching down
to the Lagrange points of the planet
(the vertically elongated object in the gap is the Roche lobe
being filled by gas).
The figure below, obtained at higher resolution by the same method,
was published in a recent Science magazine editorial
by J. Glanz (Science, 30 May 97, special issue on stellar astronomy).
The caption said "Feeding frenzy. Even after a newborn giant planet
tears a gap in a protoplanetary disk, material might stream
in and feed continued growth."
And by clicking
here
you can see a detailed version of a
zoom on the planet region with superimposed
flow field, simulated with monotonic transport code:
An accreting Jupiter (Roche lobe emptied during simulation)
in r-phi coordinate surface density plot:
In this simulation, Jupiter would double in mass in time equal to
5*104 P (orbital periods), i.e. 0.6 Myr, if the surrounding disk
has mass 0.01 Msun, despite a very wide gap extending to
1:2 and 2:1 orbital commensurabilities. (Realistic gap sizes
are expected to be somewhat smaller for Jupiter). This simulation
could thus produce a superplanet during the lifetime of a solar nebula.
The first JPEG picture below is a top view of
gas density distribution around the Jupiter-sized protoplanet (center)
that opened a gap in the solar nebula-type disk.
It will be published, among others,
in the proceedings of XIX Rencontres de Blois, "Planetary
systems: the long view" (Artymowicz, Lubow, and Kley 1997).
Disk properties are as above (e.g., viscosity parameter alpha=10-3
is used in Navier-Stokes viscous terms; z/r=0.05). The numerical
grid near the planet has resolution approximately 0.009 times
the star-planet distance. Thus, we begin to resolve the structure
in gas flowing into the
white oval, representing the sphere of
influence or Roche lobe of the planet. Spiral shocks bridge the
disk gap and supply the growing planet with gas
through the cusps on the Roche lobe (Lagrange points).
Most of the disk gas returns to disk after passing the shock, but
a small fraction hitting the shock near the L points falls inside
the Roche lobe. Additional rarefied gas streams directly from
the horeseshoe orbits in the gap.
The above picture appeared in a popular article on extrasolar planets by Geoff Marcy and Paul Butler (HTML).
Similar circumplanetary flows were also obtained in Zeus hydrocode and SPH-based runs.
All our results support the hypothesis that, contrary to
the common assumption,
the tidal gap opening
does not provide a principal limitation on planet growth in a disk.
In other words, there is always
some gas flow from inner and outer disk onto the planet; the only question is
whether in a particular disk it is efficient enough to trasform
a giant in to a 'supergiant' planet. Our simulations show that it is,
for many plausible disk models.
Therefore, reasons involving disk lifetime (the timing of disk
dispersal) and the availability of sufficient
amount of gas might determine the final (super)planet masses.
(Incidentally, this is not a new idea. Similar conclusions as to the masses of 3 out of 4 giant planets in the solar system (all except Jupiter) have been reached already in the standard theories from the 1980s.)
All this, together with the eccentricity excitation mechanism discussed earlier, provides a plausible and self-contained scenario for the origin of superplanets in some extrasolar systems, not necessarily typical, perhaps those which possessed long-lived, or massive, or unusually viscous, or hot disks.
The formation of brown dwarfs in some disks is entirely possible, though may be rare, mainly because of insufficient disk mass.