Building Terrestrial Planets: Why Results of Perfect-merging Simulations Are Not Quantitatively Reliable Approximations to Accurate Modeling of Terrestrial Planet Formation

Although it is accepted that perfect-merging is not a realistic outcome of collisions, some researchers state that perfect-merging simulations can still be considered as quantitatively reliable representations of the final stage of terrestrial planet formation. Citing the work of Kokubo & Genda, they argue that the differences between the final planets in simulations with perfect-merging and those where collisions are resolved accurately are small, and it is justified to use perfect-merging results as an acceptable approximation to realistic simulations. In this paper, we show that this argument does not stand. We demonstrate that when the mass lost during collisions is taken into account, the final masses of the planets will be so different from those obtained from perfect-merging that the latter cannot be used as an approximation. We carried out a large number of smooth particle hydrodynamics simulations of embryo-embryo collisions and determined the amount of the mass and water lost in each impact. We applied the results to collisions in a typical perfect-merging simulation and showed that even when the mass loss in each collision is as small as 10%, perfect-merging can, on average, overestimate the masses of the final planets by similar to 35% and their water content by more than 18%. Our analysis demonstrates that, while perfect-merging simulations are still a powerful tool in proving concepts, they cannot be used to make predictions, draw quantitative conclusions (especially about the past history of a planetary system), or serve as a valid approximation to the simulations in which collisions are resolved accurately.