Spin-orbit evolution of Mercury revisited

TL;DR

This paper revisits Mercury's spin-orbit evolution using a physics-based tidal model, revealing faster capture into the 3:2 resonance and challenging previous hypotheses about Mercury's early spin states.

Contribution

It demonstrates that Mercury's capture into the 3:2 resonance occurred faster and more definitively with a realistic tidal model, contrasting with earlier constant lag models.

Findings

Mercury's 3:2 resonance capture is most probable after a single encounter.

Capture into resonance is final, preventing multiple crossings.

The trapping process occurs within 10-20 million years.

Abstract

While it is accepted that the eccentricity of Mercury (0.206) favours entrapment into the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, open is the question how and when the capture took place. A recent work by Makarov (2012) has demonstrated that trapping into this resonance is certain if the eccentricity is larger than 0.2, provided that we use a realistic tidal model, the one which is based on the Darwin-Kaula expansion of the tidal torque. The physics-based tidal model changes dramatically the statistics of the possible final spin states. First, we discover that after only one encounter with the spin-orbit 3:2 resonance this resonance becomes the most probable end-state. Second, if a capture into this (or any other) resonance takes place, the capture becomes final, several crossings of the same state being forbidden by our model. Third, within our model the trapping of Mercury happens much faster than previously believed: for most histories, 10 - 20 Myr are sufficient. Fourth, even a weak laminar friction between the solid mantle and a molten core would most likely result in a capture in the 2:1 or even higher resonance. So the principal novelty of our paper is that the 3:2 end-state is more ancient than the same end-state obtained when the constant time lag model is employed. The swift capture justifies our treatment of Mercury as a homogeneous, unstratified body whose liquid core had not yet formed by the time of trapping. We also provide a critical analysis of the hypothesis by Wieczorek et al. (2012) that the early Mercury might had been retrograde, whereafter it synchronised its spin and then accelerated it to the 3:2 resonance. Accurate processing of the available data on cratering does not support that hypothesis, while the employment of a realistic rheology invalidates a key element of the hypothesis, an intermediate pseudosynchronous state needed to spin-up to the 3:2 resonance.