Talk:Nice 2 model

Dates, Relevance & Validity

When was the NICE 2 model proposed ?
Is it still relevant ?
How valid is the NICE 2 model compared to other recent models ? J mareeswaran (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2011
The resonant configuration is where the Grand Tack model ends, and where the Nice model begins.
In simulations the instability trigger has been approximated (to bypass a few hundred million years of simulation, saving computer time) by changing the location of one planet by 180 degrees to destabilize a resonant configuration, so they have been using it as a stating point.
I'm not really qualified to determine how valid it is compared to other models, but I haven't seen an alternative model that offers explanation for as much of the solar system as the Nice model, and it is what I see in review articles, for example page 11 of this arxiv.org/abs/1501.06204 Agmartin (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An update on this discussion. arxiv.org/abs/1501.06204 resolves to 2015aste.book..493M on the NASA ADS, which includes bibliometrics on the article. The most highly cited paper which references it is an AnnRev article, 2017AREPS..45..619B. Models similar to the Nice model are still alive but the details remain to be worked out. LexGary23 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

composite

One example among several potential stable quadruple resonance configurations is Jupiter and Saturn in a 3:2 resonance, Saturn and Uranus in a 3:2 resonance, and Uranus and Neptune in a 4:3 resonance.

Would it be misleading to say all four were in 9:6:4:3 resonance? —Antonissimo (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.