What have radial velocity surveys told
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 33

Ge/Ay133 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 128 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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


Jovian planets

througout the

0.05-5 AU region.

And…

Updated plots follow.


No strong preference

for orbital distances…

…except for a

“pile up” of hot

Jupiters at P~3 days.


Planetary characteristics? Some trend in M versus R (bias?), but

beyond 0.05-0.1 AU, little preference for low eccentricities:


Eccentricities. II. Short Period Circularization


Even with incompleteness, strong preference for ~Jovian mass:


Stars are different, turnover at low mass!

“The brown dwarf

desert”?

Orion IMF

Does this tell us

that stars and

planets form

differently?


Is there an eccentricity preference w/mass? Not really…

Marcy, G. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0505003


Is there an eccentricity preference w/mass? Not really, part II…

?

Butler, R.P. et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 505


Another clue as to formation: Planet formation efficiency

correlates strongly with metallicity!

Fischer, D.A. & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102


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


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


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


What about planetary multiplicity? Complex doppler patterns:


Summary of several of the known multiple planetary systems:

Marcy, G. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0505003


Rivera, E.J. et al. 2005,

(see class web site)

A super earth & GJ 876?


GJ 876 orbits

evolve with time

(expected w/mutual

perturbations)!

What about

other systems?

Rivera, E.J. et al. 2005,

(see class web site)


A habitable super-Earth? The GJ 581(M3V) system:

Vogt, S.S. et al. 2010,

(arXiv:1009.5733v1)


HD 168443

b: 7.2 Mj 58 days

c: 17 Mj 1739 days

=1/29.98 ?!

30:1?


HD 12661

b: 2.3 Mj 263 days

c: 1.6 Mj 1444 days

=1/5.5

11:2?


47 U Ma

b: 2.5 Mj 1089 days

c: 0.76 Mj 2594 days

=1/2.4


Gleise 876

b: 1.89 Mj 61 days

c: 0.56 Mj 30 days


HD 37124

b: 0.75 Mj 152 d

c: 1.2 Mj 1495 d


ups And

b: 0.69 Mj 4.6 d

c: 1.9 Mj 241.5 d

d: 3.75 Mj 1284 d


HD 82943

b: 1.63 Mj 444 d

c: 0.88 222 d


55 Cnc

b: .84 Mj 14.6 d

c: 0.21 Mj 44.3 d

d: 4 Mj 5360 d

3:1!


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?


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…


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


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.


  • Login