DOCSLIB.ORG

The Stability of Observed Multiple-Planet Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Stability of Observed Multiple-Planet Systems The Stability of Observed Multiple-Planet Systems Karl W Jansson Lund Observatory Lund University 2012-EXA60 Degree project of 60 higher education credits (for a degree of Master) May 2012 Lund Observatory Box 43 SE-221 00 Lund Sweden The Stability of Observed Multiple-Planet Systems Karl W Jansson June 4, 2012 1 Abstract According to theories of planet formation, jovian planets are formed on relatively circular, non-inclined, wide orbits. Despite this, many observed jovian planets are found on tight eccentric orbits. This problem could possibly be solved with multiple-planet systems. A planet in a multiple-planet system is not only affected by the host star but also by the other planets. The interactions express themselves in that the planets transfer angular momentum between each other and the eccentricities and inclination of their orbits will oscillate. I have investigated if these planet-planet interactions can perturb a `circular' system enough to eject one planet and leave the rest of the system more tightly bound with orbits that have higher eccentricities and hence explain the observed exoplanets. I have studied the evolution of both the observed multiple-planet systems and systems I have generated myself both analytically with perturbation theory and numerically with N-body simulations. I have investigated how the stability of those systems depend on different parameters of the systems such as semi-major axes, inclinations and masses. My conclusions are that the stability of a multiple-planet system is a very sensitive function of the initial separations between the planets but also that the time between the first scattering event and disruption of the system (collision or ejection) is independent of the initial separations. I also find that multiple-planet systems are very chaotic in the sense that small changes in initial conditions lead to huge differences in the outcome. 2 3 Popul¨arvetenskaplig sammanfattning p˚asvenska Solen ¨arinte den enda stj¨arnanmed planeter i universum. Sedan 1995, d˚aden f¨orsta extra-sol¨araplaneten uppt¨acktes, har 770 exoplaneter observerats och fler uppt¨acks hela tiden. Enligt teorier om hur planeter formas f¨odsgasj¨attarmed cirkul¨ara,vida banor l˚angtfr˚ansin stj¨arnaprecis som planeterna i solsystemet. Trots detta har m˚angaav de observerade exoplaneterna v¨aldigtelliptiska (excentriska) banor som dessutom ¨araldeles f¨orn¨arastj¨arnan.F¨oratt l¨osadet h¨arproblemet har det, i litteraturen, f¨oreslagitsflera teorier. En ¨aratt en andra stj¨arnaflyger f¨orbiplanetsystemet och ¨andrarplaneternas banor. En annan ¨aratt man har planetsystem med mer ¨anen planet. I ett s˚adant fler- planetsystem p˚averkas planeterna inte bara av stj¨arnan utan av varandra ocks˚a.De h¨ar planet-planetinteraktionerna skulle d˚akunna ¨andraplaneternas banor s˚aatt planeterna kommer n¨armare varandra. Om tv˚aplaneter kommer riktigt n¨aravarandra kommer gravitationen mellan dem att ¨andraderas banorna ¨annu mer och efter att detta har up- prepats ett antal g˚angerkommer en av dem kastas ut ur planetsystemet. Resultatet av detta skulle vara att de kvarvarande planeterna f˚arbanor som ¨armer excentriska och ligger n¨armarestj¨arnan. Jag har, i det h¨arprojektet, unders¨okthuruvida teorin med flerplanetsystem skulle kunna fungera. Jag har unders¨okthur ett flerplanetsystem utvecklas med tiden b˚ademed analytiska approximationer och numeriska simuleringar. Mina resultat visar att tiden det tar f¨ortv˚aplaneter att komma inom ett visst avst˚andfr˚anvarandra ¨arv¨aldigtberoende p˚adet ursprungliga avst˚andetmellan dem. Mer ¨overaskande ¨aratt tiden mellan f¨orsta g˚angenplaneterna kommer riktigt n¨aravarandra och det att en planet blir utkastad ¨ar konstant, oberoende av den ursprungliga separationen mellan planeterna. Slutsatsen man kan dra av detta ¨aratt efter det att tv˚aplaneter i ett planetsystem har st¨ottp˚avarandra en g˚angser utvecklingen v¨asentligen likadan ut f¨oralla planetsystem. 4 5 Acknowledgements I first of all want to thank my supervisor Melvyn B. Davies for providing me with such an interesting project and for all inspiration and help he has given me. When I started with the thesis I had the idea that it would be a project slightly larger than my Bachelor's project. Oh so wrong I was. At times my motivation dropped and I thought I got nowhere just in time to have a meeting with Melvyn, who removed some of my question marks, got me super inspired and I was able to dive right back into work again. I think I now have started to realize what science really is: find a mediocre solution to your question only to discover two new questions you could investigate. Melvyn, you and Ross are also the reason I went from studying theoretical physics to astronomy. Thank you so much! I also want to thank everyone at the Astronomy Department. To me, we are one giant family. I love that if you have a question for someone you can just go to that person's office and knock on the door. I especially want to thank the other Master's students and the PhD students for making it so easy to crawl out of bed every morning, put on my clothes and sleep walk up S¨olvegatan to Astro. Hiva, you have been a great office mate and I am sorry for all the times I have interrupted you in your work to discuss mine. Thanks also goes to my friends at Theoretical Physics without which I would never have come this far. I just say: Go Teoretisk Elit! Finally I also want to thank my family and then especially my grandmother for all the support they have given me during all my studies. 6 CONTENTS 7 Contents 1 Introduction to exoplanets 9 1.1 What is an exoplanet? . 9 1.2 Multiple-planet systems . 9 2 Planetary systems 11 2.1 Derivation of the two-body problem . 11 2.2 Orbital parameters . 11 2.3 Properties of multiple-planet systems . 13 2.3.1 Mutual inclination, ∆I ........................ 13 2.3.2 Mutual Hill radius, rmH ....................... 14 2.3.3 Mean motion resonance . 14 3 Analytic approach for two-planet systems 15 3.1 Derivation of the secular oscillation equations . 15 3.2 Secular oscillations in the Solar System . 17 3.3 Comparison with N-body simulations . 20 3.3.1 The true Jupiter-Saturn system . 20 3.3.2 Jupiter and Saturn in mean motion resonance . 22 3.3.3 Jupiter and Saturn far from resonance . 24 3.4 Investigation of the dependence on properties of the two-planet system . 25 3.4.1 Fixed mass . 26 3.4.2 Separation between the planets . 27 3.4.3 Stellar mass . 29 3.4.4 Equal-mass planets . 31 4 Simulation setup 34 4.1 MERCURY6 ................................... 34 4.2 How to decide initial conditions . 35 4.3 Fitting method . 35 5 Three-planet systems with equal separations, ∆12 = ∆23 37 5.1 Simulation setup . 37 5.2 Timescales . 37 5.3 Planets involved in close encounters and ejections . 41 5.4 Evolution of the structure of the systems . 43 5.5 Conclusions . 46 6 Instability mechanisms 48 6.1 Stages in the evolution of a multiple-planet system . 48 6.2 Planet-planet interactions . 49 6.3 Fly-by stars . 50 6.4 Kozai mechanism . 50 7 The observed multiple-planet systems 52 7.1 Observation methods . 52 7.2 The observed systems . 53 7.3 Simulations . 54 CONTENTS 8 7.3.1 The Solar System . 54 7.3.2 HD 181433 . 57 7.3.3 HD 125612 . 58 7.3.4 HD 202206 . 60 7.4 Conclusions . 62 8 Three-planet systems with unequal separations, ∆12 6= ∆23 64 8.1 Simulation setup . 64 8.2 Close encounter timescale . 64 8.2.1 Spine-and-Ribs model . 65 8.2.2 Minimum-∆ model . 67 9 Low-mass planets in a protoplanetary disk 70 9.1 Description of the problem . 70 9.2 Simulations . 71 9.2.1 Close encounter timescales . 71 9.2.2 After the first close encounter . 74 10 Possible future extensions 78 References 80 A Derivation of orbital parameters for one planet 81 A.1 The two-body problem in two dimensions . 81 A.2 The position as a function of time . 86 A.3 The two-body problem in three dimensions . 88 B Derivation of the secular oscillation equations 89 9 1 Introduction to exoplanets 1.1 What is an exoplanet? A planet is, by definition by the International Astronomical Union, a celestial body that is orbiting a star or a stellar remnant (white dwarf, neutron star or black hole). It has to be massive enough that its self-gravity has made it round. It is not massive enough to start nuclear fusion and it must have cleared its neighborhood from other planetesimals. An exoplanet is a planet which orbits a star that is not the Sun. The first exoplanet orbiting a main-sequence star was detected in 1995 (Mayor & Queloz 1995) on a four day orbit around the Sun-like star 51 Pegasi. To date over 750 exoplanets have been detected and confirmed in the exoplanet database (exoplanet.eu, Schneider et al. (2011)). According to theories of planet formation, jovian planets (gas giants) are formed on relatively circular, non-inclined, wide orbits. Despite this, many observed exoplanets are found on tight eccentric orbits. 1 Observed exoplanets Solar System 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Eccentricity 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Semi-major axis (AU) Figure 1.1: Plot of the eccentricity and semi-major axis of all exoplanets (red crosses) in the exoplanet database (exoplanet.eu, Schneider et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Naming the Extrasolar Planets
    Naming the extrasolar planets W. Lyra Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K¨onigstuhl 17, 69177, Heidelberg, Germany [email protected] Abstract and OGLE-TR-182 b, which does not help educators convey the message that these planets are quite similar to Jupiter. Extrasolar planets are not named and are referred to only In stark contrast, the sentence“planet Apollo is a gas giant by their assigned scientific designation. The reason given like Jupiter” is heavily - yet invisibly - coated with Coper- by the IAU to not name the planets is that it is consid- nicanism. ered impractical as planets are expected to be common. I One reason given by the IAU for not considering naming advance some reasons as to why this logic is flawed, and sug- the extrasolar planets is that it is a task deemed impractical. gest names for the 403 extrasolar planet candidates known One source is quoted as having said “if planets are found to as of Oct 2009. The names follow a scheme of association occur very frequently in the Universe, a system of individual with the constellation that the host star pertains to, and names for planets might well rapidly be found equally im- therefore are mostly drawn from Roman-Greek mythology. practicable as it is for stars, as planet discoveries progress.” Other mythologies may also be used given that a suitable 1. This leads to a second argument. It is indeed impractical association is established. to name all stars. But some stars are named nonetheless. In fact, all other classes of astronomical bodies are named.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:0809.1275V2
    How eccentric orbital solutions can hide planetary systems in 2:1 resonant orbits Guillem Anglada-Escud´e1, Mercedes L´opez-Morales1,2, John E. Chambers1 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT The Doppler technique measures the reflex radial motion of a star induced by the presence of companions and is the most successful method to detect ex- oplanets. If several planets are present, their signals will appear combined in the radial motion of the star, leading to potential misinterpretations of the data. Specifically, two planets in 2:1 resonant orbits can mimic the signal of a sin- gle planet in an eccentric orbit. We quantify the implications of this statistical degeneracy for a representative sample of the reported single exoplanets with available datasets, finding that 1) around 35% percent of the published eccentric one-planet solutions are statistically indistinguishible from planetary systems in 2:1 orbital resonance, 2) another 40% cannot be statistically distinguished from a circular orbital solution and 3) planets with masses comparable to Earth could be hidden in known orbital solutions of eccentric super-Earths and Neptune mass planets. Subject headings: Exoplanets – Orbital dynamics – Planet detection – Doppler method arXiv:0809.1275v2 [astro-ph] 25 Nov 2009 Introduction Most of the +300 exoplanets found to date have been discovered using the Doppler tech- nique, which measures the reflex motion of the host star induced by the planets (Mayor & Queloz 1995; Marcy & Butler 1996). The diverse characteristics of these exoplanets are somewhat surprising. Many of them are similar in mass to Jupiter, but orbit much closer to their 1Carnegie Institution of Washington, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, 5241 Broad Branch Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Exoplanet.Eu Catalog Page 1 # Name Mass Star Name
    exoplanet.eu_catalog # name mass star_name star_distance star_mass OGLE-2016-BLG-1469L b 13.6 OGLE-2016-BLG-1469L 4500.0 0.048 11 Com b 19.4 11 Com 110.6 2.7 11 Oph b 21 11 Oph 145.0 0.0162 11 UMi b 10.5 11 UMi 119.5 1.8 14 And b 5.33 14 And 76.4 2.2 14 Her b 4.64 14 Her 18.1 0.9 16 Cyg B b 1.68 16 Cyg B 21.4 1.01 18 Del b 10.3 18 Del 73.1 2.3 1RXS 1609 b 14 1RXS1609 145.0 0.73 1SWASP J1407 b 20 1SWASP J1407 133.0 0.9 24 Sex b 1.99 24 Sex 74.8 1.54 24 Sex c 0.86 24 Sex 74.8 1.54 2M 0103-55 (AB) b 13 2M 0103-55 (AB) 47.2 0.4 2M 0122-24 b 20 2M 0122-24 36.0 0.4 2M 0219-39 b 13.9 2M 0219-39 39.4 0.11 2M 0441+23 b 7.5 2M 0441+23 140.0 0.02 2M 0746+20 b 30 2M 0746+20 12.2 0.12 2M 1207-39 24 2M 1207-39 52.4 0.025 2M 1207-39 b 4 2M 1207-39 52.4 0.025 2M 1938+46 b 1.9 2M 1938+46 0.6 2M 2140+16 b 20 2M 2140+16 25.0 0.08 2M 2206-20 b 30 2M 2206-20 26.7 0.13 2M 2236+4751 b 12.5 2M 2236+4751 63.0 0.6 2M J2126-81 b 13.3 TYC 9486-927-1 24.8 0.4 2MASS J11193254 AB 3.7 2MASS J11193254 AB 2MASS J1450-7841 A 40 2MASS J1450-7841 A 75.0 0.04 2MASS J1450-7841 B 40 2MASS J1450-7841 B 75.0 0.04 2MASS J2250+2325 b 30 2MASS J2250+2325 41.5 30 Ari B b 9.88 30 Ari B 39.4 1.22 38 Vir b 4.51 38 Vir 1.18 4 Uma b 7.1 4 Uma 78.5 1.234 42 Dra b 3.88 42 Dra 97.3 0.98 47 Uma b 2.53 47 Uma 14.0 1.03 47 Uma c 0.54 47 Uma 14.0 1.03 47 Uma d 1.64 47 Uma 14.0 1.03 51 Eri b 9.1 51 Eri 29.4 1.75 51 Peg b 0.47 51 Peg 14.7 1.11 55 Cnc b 0.84 55 Cnc 12.3 0.905 55 Cnc c 0.1784 55 Cnc 12.3 0.905 55 Cnc d 3.86 55 Cnc 12.3 0.905 55 Cnc e 0.02547 55 Cnc 12.3 0.905 55 Cnc f 0.1479 55
    [Show full text]
  • The Spitzer Search for the Transits of HARPS Low-Mass Planets II
    A&A 601, A117 (2017) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629270 & c ESO 2017 Astrophysics The Spitzer search for the transits of HARPS low-mass planets II. Null results for 19 planets? M. Gillon1, B.-O. Demory2; 3, C. Lovis4, D. Deming5, D. Ehrenreich4, G. Lo Curto6, M. Mayor4, F. Pepe4, D. Queloz3; 4, S. Seager7, D. Ségransan4, and S. Udry4 1 Space sciences, Technologies and Astrophysics Research (STAR) Institute, Université de Liège, Allée du 6 Août 17, Bat. B5C, 4000 Liège, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] 2 University of Bern, Center for Space and Habitability, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland 3 Cavendish Laboratory, J. J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK 4 Observatoire de Genève, Université de Genève, 51 Chemin des Maillettes, 1290 Sauverny, Switzerland 5 Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-2421, USA 6 European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, 85478 Garching bei München, Germany 7 Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Received 8 July 2016 / Accepted 15 December 2016 ABSTRACT Short-period super-Earths and Neptunes are now known to be very frequent around solar-type stars. Improving our understanding of these mysterious planets requires the detection of a significant sample of objects suitable for detailed characterization. Searching for the transits of the low-mass planets detected by Doppler surveys is a straightforward way to achieve this goal. Indeed, Doppler surveys target the most nearby main-sequence stars, they regularly detect close-in low-mass planets with significant transit probability, and their radial velocity data constrain strongly the ephemeris of possible transits.
    [Show full text]
  • New Low-Mass Stellar Companions of the Exoplanet Host Stars HD 125612 and HD 212301 M
    A&A 494, 373–378 (2009) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810639 & c ESO 2009 Astrophysics The multiplicity of exoplanet host stars New low-mass stellar companions of the exoplanet host stars HD 125612 and HD 212301 M. Mugrauer and R. Neuhäuser Astrophysikalisches Institut und Universitäts-Sternwarte Jena, Schillergäßchen 2-3, 07745 Jena, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Received 18 July 2008 / Accepted 31 October 2008 ABSTRACT Aims. We present new results from our ongoing multiplicity study of exoplanet host stars, carried out with SofI/NTT. We provide the most recent list of confirmed binary and triple star systems that harbor exoplanets. Methods. We use direct imaging to identify wide stellar and substellar companions as co-moving objects to the observed exoplanet host stars, whose masses and spectral types are determined with follow-up photometry and spectroscopy. Results. We found two new co-moving companions of the exoplanet host stars HD 125612 and HD 212301. HD 125612 B is a wide M 4 dwarf (0.18 M) companion of the exoplanet host star HD 125612, located about 1.5 arcmin (∼4750 AU of projected separation) south-east of its primary. In contrast, HD 212301 B is a close M 3 dwarf (0.35 M), which is found about 4.4 arcsec (∼230 AU of projected separation) north-west of its primary. Conclusions. The binaries HD 125612 AB and HD 212301 AB are new members in the continuously growing list of exoplanet host star systems of which 43 are presently known. Hence, the multiplicity rate of exoplanet host stars is about 17%.
    [Show full text]
  • Mètodes De Detecció I Anàlisi D'exoplanetes
    MÈTODES DE DETECCIÓ I ANÀLISI D’EXOPLANETES Rubén Soussé Villa 2n de Batxillerat Tutora: Dolors Romero IES XXV Olimpíada 13/1/2011 Mètodes de detecció i anàlisi d’exoplanetes . Índex - Introducció ............................................................................................. 5 [ Marc Teòric ] 1. L’Univers ............................................................................................... 6 1.1 Les estrelles .................................................................................. 6 1.1.1 Vida de les estrelles .............................................................. 7 1.1.2 Classes espectrals .................................................................9 1.1.3 Magnitud ........................................................................... 9 1.2 Sistemes planetaris: El Sistema Solar .............................................. 10 1.2.1 Formació ......................................................................... 11 1.2.2 Planetes .......................................................................... 13 2. Planetes extrasolars ............................................................................ 19 2.1 Denominació .............................................................................. 19 2.2 Història dels exoplanetes .............................................................. 20 2.3 Mètodes per detectar-los i saber-ne les característiques ..................... 26 2.3.1 Oscil·lació Doppler ........................................................... 27 2.3.2 Trànsits
    [Show full text]
  • AMD-Stability and the Classification of Planetary Systems
    A&A 605, A72 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630022 Astronomy c ESO 2017 Astrophysics& AMD-stability and the classification of planetary systems? J. Laskar and A. C. Petit ASD/IMCCE, CNRS-UMR 8028, Observatoire de Paris, PSL, UPMC, 77 Avenue Denfert-Rochereau, 75014 Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] Received 7 November 2016 / Accepted 23 January 2017 ABSTRACT We present here in full detail the evolution of the angular momentum deficit (AMD) during collisions as it was described in Laskar (2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 3240). Since then, the AMD has been revealed to be a key parameter for the understanding of the outcome of planetary formation models. We define here the AMD-stability criterion that can be easily verified on a newly discovered planetary system. We show how AMD-stability can be used to establish a classification of the multiplanet systems in order to exhibit the planetary systems that are long-term stable because they are AMD-stable, and those that are AMD-unstable which then require some additional dynamical studies to conclude on their stability. The AMD-stability classification is applied to the 131 multiplanet systems from The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia database for which the orbital elements are sufficiently well known. Key words. chaos – celestial mechanics – planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability – planets and satellites: formation – planets and satellites: general 1. Introduction motion resonances (MMR, Wisdom 1980; Deck et al. 2013; Ramos et al. 2015) could justify the Hill-type criteria, but the The increasing number of planetary systems has made it nec- results on the overlap of the MMR island are valid only for close essary to search for a possible classification of these planetary orbits and for short-term stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Exoplanet.Eu Catalog Page 1 Star Distance Star Name Star Mass
    exoplanet.eu_catalog star_distance star_name star_mass Planet name mass 1.3 Proxima Centauri 0.120 Proxima Cen b 0.004 1.3 alpha Cen B 0.934 alf Cen B b 0.004 2.3 WISE 0855-0714 WISE 0855-0714 6.000 2.6 Lalande 21185 0.460 Lalande 21185 b 0.012 3.2 eps Eridani 0.830 eps Eridani b 3.090 3.4 Ross 128 0.168 Ross 128 b 0.004 3.6 GJ 15 A 0.375 GJ 15 A b 0.017 3.6 YZ Cet 0.130 YZ Cet d 0.004 3.6 YZ Cet 0.130 YZ Cet c 0.003 3.6 YZ Cet 0.130 YZ Cet b 0.002 3.6 eps Ind A 0.762 eps Ind A b 2.710 3.7 tau Cet 0.783 tau Cet e 0.012 3.7 tau Cet 0.783 tau Cet f 0.012 3.7 tau Cet 0.783 tau Cet h 0.006 3.7 tau Cet 0.783 tau Cet g 0.006 3.8 GJ 273 0.290 GJ 273 b 0.009 3.8 GJ 273 0.290 GJ 273 c 0.004 3.9 Kapteyn's 0.281 Kapteyn's c 0.022 3.9 Kapteyn's 0.281 Kapteyn's b 0.015 4.3 Wolf 1061 0.250 Wolf 1061 d 0.024 4.3 Wolf 1061 0.250 Wolf 1061 c 0.011 4.3 Wolf 1061 0.250 Wolf 1061 b 0.006 4.5 GJ 687 0.413 GJ 687 b 0.058 4.5 GJ 674 0.350 GJ 674 b 0.040 4.7 GJ 876 0.334 GJ 876 b 1.938 4.7 GJ 876 0.334 GJ 876 c 0.856 4.7 GJ 876 0.334 GJ 876 e 0.045 4.7 GJ 876 0.334 GJ 876 d 0.022 4.9 GJ 832 0.450 GJ 832 b 0.689 4.9 GJ 832 0.450 GJ 832 c 0.016 5.9 GJ 570 ABC 0.802 GJ 570 D 42.500 6.0 SIMP0136+0933 SIMP0136+0933 12.700 6.1 HD 20794 0.813 HD 20794 e 0.015 6.1 HD 20794 0.813 HD 20794 d 0.011 6.1 HD 20794 0.813 HD 20794 b 0.009 6.2 GJ 581 0.310 GJ 581 b 0.050 6.2 GJ 581 0.310 GJ 581 c 0.017 6.2 GJ 581 0.310 GJ 581 e 0.006 6.5 GJ 625 0.300 GJ 625 b 0.010 6.6 HD 219134 HD 219134 h 0.280 6.6 HD 219134 HD 219134 e 0.200 6.6 HD 219134 HD 219134 d 0.067 6.6 HD 219134 HD
    [Show full text]
  • Density Estimation for Projected Exoplanet Quantities
    Density Estimation for Projected Exoplanet Quantities Robert A. Brown Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218 [email protected] ABSTRACT Exoplanet searches using radial velocity (RV) and microlensing (ML) produce samples of “projected” mass and orbital radius, respectively. We present a new method for estimating the probability density distribution (density) of the un- projected quantity from such samples. For a sample of n data values, the method involves solving n simultaneous linear equations to determine the weights of delta functions for the raw, unsmoothed density of the unprojected quantity that cause the associated cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the projected quantity to exactly reproduce the empirical CDF of the sample at the locations of the n data values. We smooth the raw density using nonparametric kernel density estimation with a normal kernel of bandwidth σ. We calibrate the dependence of σ on n by Monte Carlo experiments performed on samples drawn from a the- oretical density, in which the integrated square error is minimized. We scale this calibration to the ranges of real RV samples using the Normal Reference Rule. The resolution and amplitude accuracy of the estimated density improve with n. For typical RV and ML samples, we expect the fractional noise at the PDF peak to be approximately 80 n− log 2. For illustrations, we apply the new method to 67 RV values given a similar treatment by Jorissen et al. in 2001, and to the 308 RV values listed at exoplanets.org on 20 October 2010. In addition to an- alyzing observational results, our methods can be used to develop measurement arXiv:1011.3991v3 [astro-ph.IM] 21 Mar 2011 requirements—particularly on the minimum sample size n—for future programs, such as the microlensing survey of Earth-like exoplanets recommended by the Astro 2010 committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Kepler-16 Circumbinary System Validates Quantum Celestial Mechanics
    Volume 1 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS January, 2012 Kepler-16 Circumbinary System Validates Quantum Celestial Mechanics Franklin Potter∗ and Howard G. Prestony ∗Sciencegems.com, 8642 Marvale Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646, USA. E-mail: [email protected] y15 Vista del Sol, Laguna Beach, CA 92651, USA. We report the application of quantum celestial mechanics (QCM) to the Kepler-16 cir- cumbinary system which has a single planet orbiting binary stars with the important system parameters known to within one percent. Other gravitationally bound systems such as the Solar System of planets and the Jovian satellite systems have large uncertain- ties in their total angular momentum. Therefore, Kepler-16 allows us for the first time to determine whether the QCM predicted angular momentum per mass quantization is valid. 1 Introduction but the application of the Schwarzschild metric is question- We report a precision test of quantum celestial mechanics able in systems for which a reduced mass must be used. In (QCM) in the Kepler-16 circumbinary system that has planet- addition, there is not another orbiting body for prediction pur- b orbiting its two central stars at a distance of 0.70 AU from poses. ff the barycenter. QCM, proposed in 2003 by H.G. Preston The Mars-Phobos-Deimos system o ers a test of the an- = and F. Potter [1] as an extension of Einstein’s general the- gular momentum condition. We find that m 61 for Phobos = ory of relativity, predicts angular momentum per mass quan- and m 97 for Deimos, with uncertainties less than about 4%. tization states for bodies orbiting a central mass in all grav- The Schwarzschild metric is a good approximation here but itationally bound systems with the defining equation in the the integers are very large and therefore somewhat unsatisfac- Schwarzschild metric being tory for a definitive test.
    [Show full text]
  • Doctor of Philosophy
    Study of Sun-like G Stars and Their Exoplanets Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Mr. SHASHANKA R. GURUMATH May, 2019 ABSTRACT By employing exoplanetary physical and orbital characteristics, aim of this study is to understand the genesis, dynamics, chemical abundance and magnetic field structure of Sun-like G stars and relationship with their planets. With reasonable constraints on selection of exoplanetary physical characteristics, and by making corrections for stellar rate of mass loss, a power law relationship between initial stellar mass and their exo- planetary mass is obtained that suggests massive stars harbor massive planets. Such a power law relationship is exploited to estimate the initial mass (1.060±0.006) M of the Sun for possible solution of “Faint young Sun paradox” which indeed indicates slightly higher mass compared to present mass. Another unsolved puzzle of solar system is angular momentum problem, viz., compare to Sun most of the angular momentum is concentrated in the solar system planets. By analyzing the exoplanetary data, this study shows that orbital angular momentum of Solar system planets is higher compared to orbital angular momentum of exoplanets. This study also supports the results of Nice and Grand Tack models that propose the idea of outward migration of Jovian planets during early history of Solar system formation. Furthermore, we have examined the influence of stellar metallicity on the host stars mass and exoplanetary physical and orbital characteristics that shows a non-linear relationship. Another important result is most of the planets in single planetary stellar systems are captured from the space and/or inward migration of planets might have played a dominant role in the final architecture of single planetary stellar systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Extrasolar Planets in Stellar Multiple Systems
    Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. exoplanets˙binaries˙final˙rn © ESO 2012 April 24, 2012 Extrasolar planets in stellar multiple systems T. Roell1, R. Neuh¨auser1, A. Seifahrt1,2,3, and M. Mugrauer1 1 Astrophysical Institute and University Observatory Jena, Schillerg¨aßchen 2, 07745 Jena, Germany e-mail: [email protected] 2 Physics Department, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA 3 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, IL 60637, USA Received ...; accepted ... ABSTRACT Aims. Analyzing exoplanets detected by radial velocity (RV) or transit observations, we determine the multiplicity of exoplanet host stars in order to study the influence of a stellar companion on the properties of planet candidates. Methods. Matching the host stars of exoplanet candidates detected by radial velocity or transit observations with online multiplicity catalogs in addition to a literature search, 57 exoplanet host stars are identified having a stellar companion. Results. The resulting multiplicity rate of at least 12 % for exoplanet host stars is about four times smaller than the multiplicity of solar like stars in general. The mass and the number of planets in stellar multiple systems depend on the separation between their host star and its nearest stellar companion, e.g. the planetary mass decreases with an increasing stellar separation. We present an updated overview of exoplanet candidates in stellar multiple systems, including 15 new systems (compared to the latest summary from 2009). Key words. extrasolar planets – stellar multiple systems – planet formation 1. Introduction in Mugrauer & Neuh¨auser (2009), these studies found 44 stel- lar companions around stars previously not known to be mul- More than 700 extrasolar planet (exoplanet) candidates were dis- tiple, which results in a multiplicity rate of about 17 %, while covered so far (Schneider et al.
    [Show full text]