Did the terrestrial planets of the solar system form by pebble accretion?

• We analyze compositional, dynamical and chronological constraints on the formation of terrestrial planets of the Solar System. • We find that the pebble accretion scenario is unable to match these constraints in a self-consistent manner. • The classic model of terrestrial planet formation by mutual collisions among planetary embryos and planetesimals easily accounts for these constraints. • The accretion of pebbles formed in the inner Solar System might have contributed to the formation of planetary embryos in a very low turbulent disk. • All evidences point to the existence of a barrier against the drift of outer Solar System pebbles into the inner part of the disk. 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.