1 / 33

Ge/Ay133

What have radial velocity surveys told us about (exo)-planetary science?. Ge/Ay133. Discovery space for indirect methods:. Radial velocity. Astrometry. ( r =distance to the star). Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355. Udry, S. et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 26.

nellis
Download Presentation

Ge/Ay133

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What have radial velocity surveys told us about (exo)-planetary science? Ge/Ay133

  2. Discovery space for indirect methods: Radial velocity Astrometry (r=distance to the star)

  3. Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355

  4. Udry, S. et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 26

  5. Jovian planets througout the 0.05-5 AU region. And… Updated plots follow.

  6. No strong preference for orbital distances… …except for a “pile up” of hot Jupiters at P~3 days.

  7. Planetary characteristics? Some trend in M versus R (bias?), but beyond 0.05-0.1 AU, little preference for low eccentricities:

  8. Eccentricities. II. Short Period Circularization

  9. Even with incompleteness, strong preference for ~Jovian mass:

  10. Stars are different, turnover at low mass! “The brown dwarf desert”? Orion IMF Does this tell us that stars and planets form differently?

  11. Is there an eccentricity preference w/mass? Not really… Marcy, G. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0505003

  12. Is there an eccentricity preference w/mass? Not really, part II… ? Butler, R.P. et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 505

  13. Another clue as to formation: Planet formation efficiency correlates strongly with metallicity! Fischer, D.A. & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102

  14. What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass? Radial velocity surveys mostly focused on Sun-like stars. Why? Active Chromospheres Low-contrast Lines Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

  15. What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass? Clever idea for higher mass A stars: Look at older systems that have evolved off the main sequence. Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

  16. What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass? Two preliminary findings (that are being tested with larger surveys): 1. Planet formation efficiency increases w/mass. M4 – K7 K5 – F8 F5 - A5 2. The proportion of hot Jupiters decreases w/mass (not observational bias). Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

  17. What about planetary multiplicity? Complex doppler patterns:

  18. Summary of several of the known multiple planetary systems: Marcy, G. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0505003

  19. Rivera, E.J. et al. 2005, (see class web site) A super earth & GJ 876?

  20. GJ 876 orbits evolve with time (expected w/mutual perturbations)! What about other systems? Rivera, E.J. et al. 2005, (see class web site)

  21. A habitable super-Earth? The GJ 581(M3V) system: Vogt, S.S. et al. 2010, (arXiv:1009.5733v1)

  22. HD 168443 b: 7.2 Mj 58 days c: 17 Mj 1739 days =1/29.98 ?! 30:1?

  23. HD 12661 b: 2.3 Mj 263 days c: 1.6 Mj 1444 days =1/5.5 11:2?

  24. 47 U Ma b: 2.5 Mj 1089 days c: 0.76 Mj 2594 days =1/2.4

  25. Gleise 876 b: 1.89 Mj 61 days c: 0.56 Mj 30 days

  26. HD 37124 b: 0.75 Mj 152 d c: 1.2 Mj 1495 d

  27. ups And b: 0.69 Mj 4.6 d c: 1.9 Mj 241.5 d d: 3.75 Mj 1284 d

  28. HD 82943 b: 1.63 Mj 444 d c: 0.88 222 d

  29. 55 Cnc b: .84 Mj 14.6 d c: 0.21 Mj 44.3 d d: 4 Mj 5360 d 3:1!

  30. What we know: - ~1% of solar-type stars have Hot Jupiters • ~7% of solar-type stars have >Mj planets in the “terrestrial planet” region. Extrapolation of current • incompeteness suggests >12% w/planets @ <20 AU. - multiple planetary systems are ~common - planetary resonances are ~common What can explain these properties?

  31. Disk-star- and protoplanet interactions lead to migration while the gas is present. Core- accretion? Theory 1 AU at 140 pc subtends 0.’’007. Jupiter (5 AU): V_doppler = 13 m/s V_orbit = 13 km/s Simulation G. Bryden, JPL Thus, need to study objects in this phase…

  32. Core-accretion models can now be compared to observations: Data Planets versus metallicity: Observed in open circles. Ida, S. & Lin, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 567

  33. Early disk models held that eccentricities were DAMPED. Not so fast… Goldreich, P. & Sari, R. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1024 Goldreich & Sari 2005 Need an initial e~0.01.

More Related