Did the terrestrial planets of the Solar System form by pebble accretion?

TL;DR

This paper compares two main theories for how terrestrial planets formed, concluding that the classic planetesimal collision scenario aligns better with current compositional, dynamical, and chronological constraints than the pebble accretion model.

Contribution

The study provides a comprehensive evaluation of formation scenarios, demonstrating that pebble accretion cannot self-consistently explain the observed properties of terrestrial planets.

Findings

Pebble accretion fails to match compositional constraints.

Classic scenario aligns with dynamical and chronological data.

Pebble accretion cannot self-consistently explain terrestrial planet formation.

Abstract

The dominant accretion process leading to the formation of the terrestrial planets of the Solar System is a subject of intense scientific debate. Two radically different scenarios have been proposed. The classic scenario starts from a disk of planetesimals which, by mutual collisions, produce a set of Moon to Mars-mass planetary embryos. After the removal of gas from the disk, the embryos experience mutual giant impacts which, together with the accretion of additional planetesimals, lead to the formation of the terrestrial planets on a timescale of tens of millions of years. In the alternative, pebble accretion scenario, the terrestrial planets grow by accreting sunward-drifting mm-cm sized particles from the outer disk. The planets all form within the lifetime of the disk, with the sole exception of Earth, which undergoes a single post-disk giant impact with Theia (a fifth protoplanet formed by pebble accretion itself) to form the Moon. To distinguish between these two scenarios, we revisit all available constraints: compositional (in terms of nucleosynthetic isotope anomalies and chemical composition), dynamical and chronological. We find that the pebble accretion scenario is unable to match these constraints in a self-consistent manner, unlike the classic scenario.