Coupling the Angular Momentum of Stars With

Home , HD 17156, HD 219134, HD 2638, HD 97658

© Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 Germany. México. Gto., col- Guanajuato, the to, following pro- planets, universal of the one formation adopt only the we is for there cess question, that a view such disk simplest stating proto-planetary a By in (PPD). triggered be mi- could of scale question gration large natural conditions hoc the what raises ad under it understanding happen an System, not Solar did in the this Since including in planets migration. by of scale stars large formation way to mass us the low forced for has around model HJs) or our Jupiter, reconsider (hot stars close very their rotating to planets giant gas of discovery The https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 © Astrof´ısica Astronom´ıa y de Mexicana Revista 2 1 01 nttt eAtooá nvria ainlAtooad México Autónoma de Nacional Astronom´ıa, Universidad de Instituto 2021: abre trwre nvri¨tHmug Hamburg, Universität Hamburg, Sternwarte, Hamburger Guanajua- de Astronom´ıa, Universidad de Departamento OPIGTEAGLRMMNU FSASWT THE WITH STARS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR THE COUPLING ONCIGTEFRAINO TR N LNT.II: PLANETS. AND STARS OF FORMATION THE CONNECTING .M Flor-Torres M. L. fiine ndspre oet nua essplanetas. sus Words: de Key angular momento discos rotación el forman alta disipar con en más masivas eficientes estrellas más además son que las rápido, y también mas cual perdieron másque rotan el masivos protoplanetarios que congruentes en las y son modelo LMEs que resultados un las También Nuestros migración. encontramos con las que su y más alto que durante orbital LMEs. masa angular angular encontramos alta más con momento momento (HME); con un estrellas estrellas tienen masa las HMEs de alta rotación que alrededor de mayor preferentemente y rotan con albergan los HMEs (LME) que formación de con estrellas masa de estrellas dos: baja en proceso muestra de el nuestra Separamos formaciónexoplanetas y orbitan. de las proceso que planetas su conexión entre una de the from momentum angular and the of disk massive extraction protoplanetarys the its more was through was the efficient massive planets. momentum that more more the the angular view rotation, and the more its rotation, with higher lost consistent the have and are star to results angular to orbital and These higher and have LMEs massive to migration. HMEs more the the be found than also to We momentum former latter. the (HMEs) the than found exoplanets around faster we high-mass rotate rotating hosting (LMEs), planets stars exoplanets the two, low-mass into of and sample formation our the Separating and them. process formation their between .INTRODUCTION 1. n usr e4 srla u legneolntss s aal búsqueda la para usa se exoplanetas albergan que estrellas 46 de muestra Una connection a for search to used is exoplanets, of host stars, 46 of sample A NUA OETMO PLANETS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR lntr ytm tr:frain—sas udmna parame- fundamental rotation stars: — stars: formation — ters stars: — systems planetary eevdFbur 00 cetdJnay72021 7 January accepted 2020; 6 February Received 1 .Coziol R. , 1 .P Schröder K.-P. , , 57 ABSTRACT RESUMEN 1–3 (2021) 217–231 , hri) hc rpssta lntlssisor- its loses planet a that references proposes and which 2020, (e.g., Armitage therein), migration 2014; disk al. is et first Baruteau The Raymond 2020). 2018; Morbidelli Johnson & & (Dawson HJs for favored & Pater de 2011; 2020) Morbidelli Sari & & Raymond Klahr 2015; Hilke 1997; Lissauer Blum 2006; 1989; & Brandner Poppe W. & 1996; & Blumm Wetherill & 1969; Sys- Wurm Solar (Safronov the standard formed how (the details tem in scenario developed explains collapse which well core a model), which in the one, migration like specific include model we more do a how to This is: problem 2019). the Champion reduces 2011; & Draine (McKee cloud 2007; molecular a Ostriker in regions dense of lapse 1 .Jack D. , nteltrtr,tomgainmcaim are mechanisms migration two literature, the In 1 n .H .M Schmitt M. M. H. J. and , 2 217 © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 hsi biu hnoecmae o atteSun the fast stars. how compares of one formation when the obvious is during This conserved not is tum is involved understood. are physics fully answers the not The that still considering of migration? trivial, masses their not the and influence initial this planets the Does the to PPD? compared what the this of 10), does mass when factor how PPD and a the formed by of it momentum least angular initial (at the planets was momen- the angular large of of Since loss tum a stars? represents the coupled migration of PPD scale momentum the angular of the momentum example, to angular For the stars. is their the how of of formation the formation to the planets connecting test orbital scenarios to the systems different use exoplanetary could in one momentum then rotation planets, the to passes the was what so case occurs, the difference? migration not scale in obviously large conserved is when this been However, have might planets. mo- the PPD angular in the initial located of the an- is mentum that the System suggesting of Solar planets, 99% the the that is of clue momentum lost Another gular formation has the planets. PPD after the mass System of its the Solar of amount of the important the mass implies an of mass total This the Raymond the 0.1% Sun. is in only represents One discussion which and planets, 2020). 2 Morbidelli (and Figure observations & followed see direct System PPD; to Solar of compared the difficulties of strong which PPD determine to the us help path could which clues few 0.5 are above be- mass mass a a with with 0.02 to model, 0.01 tween PPD mass the minimum whether the is this higher follows counts model a what standard that of the suggest formation planets would Within the the planets. favor of of or number interactions disks in- their of either with intensity PPDs massive the So- more crease the because in System, happened AL. what lar ET level to FLOR-TORRES the compared amplified migration somehow of disks massive that sug- In might gest mechanisms two circularization). these migration, as of tidal terms know by equilibrium process reaches it (a it brings interactions where which star its eccentricity, to higher other close with a interacting gains planet planets Nesvorný a Beaugé & that 2008; suggests al. 2012), et Nagasawa et 2008; Chatterjee al. 2002; Weidenschilling Marzari & & Marzari Weidenschilling 1996; 1996; Ford migration & high-eccentricity Rasio second, (e.g., the the while with interactions PPD, tidal by momentum angular bit 218 npriua,w nwta h nua momen- angular the that know we particular, In PPD the of momentum angular initial the If M

rtemxmmms model mass maximum the or , M

Amtg 00.There 2010). (Armitage ≈ momentum, angular the effective 2017), Alexander Sun by quite notes but course problem, see basic instructive; (a Ac- math conserved. the was working collapsing formed tually, the it where of been cloud have momentum molecular should angular rotation the its assuming fast how with rotates hsmcaimi ucett xli h ra in break the explain whether to the However, sufficient is ones. mechanism stars massive low-mass this how from is differ This would stars. convective these the of to (Schatzman envelopes related wind is which stellar 1968), is Mestel 1962; one probable most considered. The are mechanisms different momentum, lar a be led could two. which the there between that planets, link speculate and to PPDs researchers form are some goes stars that low-mass mass those that is their also interesting as is What momentum down. angular of law, amount power steeper (1967) I). a Kraft J Paper suggested (1965), (1987) in Kawaler 6 McNally and go- Figure spin stars, their low-mass (cf. law, For this exponentially follow down not stars, ing do mass lower A5, that than now clear compli- later To is it 2003). matter, al. the et God cate Car- lowski 1982; to 1980; al. get Brosche et masses 1979; rasco (Wesson different unexplained this with is universal stars it, how how However, and “law”is point. A5 breaking to their O5 type ical law, spectral power a with angular traces stars the stars, general, of fact, no In in momentum then form. that, to true, revealed able not observations be would were mass, that their Os- whatever If & (McKee 2007). gravity triker than stronger becomes force point, breaking 10 also is mle htteaceinds o P)sascon- stays PPD) (or also disk This accretion the 2007). that Ostriker its implies & forming star (McKee the field to magnetic disk mat- accretion the the follows col- through field to ter diluted cloud a the Consequently, allowing to lapse. flux, charges) magnetic positive the diffusion and reduce negative ambipolar of allows separation This (the permeable fields. thus and magnetic neutral, in to rays not matter is cosmic the cloud stars, by molecular ambient a bombarded from Being radiation UV 2002). and Uzden- al. 2000; et into Tassoul sky takes 1997; Simon model & braking (Wolff magnetic Pinzónaccount 2004). the & Reza what of la is de formation This see (the crucial; PPD seems PPD the a of influence possible the ∝ 10 oepanhwlwms tr oeterangu- their lose stars low-mass how explain To J J 6 ∗ − M ie oe hnepce.Intriguingly, expected. than lower times austa r xcl e ie oe than lower times ten exactly are that values M 5 . 3 7 hc mle htte oea extra an lose they that implies which , eaini o biu,bcuei ignores it because obvious, not is relation oe hnteaglrmmnu fits of momentum angular the than lower j b h on hr h centripetal the where point the , J ∝ M α with , j α

≈ = ,wt typ- with 2, J

is , j

© Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 a pn ewe h tradteds tadis- a at disk the R and star disk-locking, the tance between of opens model gap the a to and According formation brief planet although migration. of that phase period complete a long the over as includes is, field that magnetic exists, its it through as star the to nected nta apeo 6bih tr using stars bright 46 of sample initial charac- ex- physical the we ( teristics manner I effec- homogeneous an paper and in Ob- determining tive In Luz in succeeded La we how Mexico). the plained central is at (in which exoplanets department TIGRE, servatory of our telescope stars near robotic host installed m observe 1.2 the to using project new a 2008; still Fleck is 2004; 2019). Pudritz hand, & Champion other (Matt the question on open an migrations, 2012). their plan- and the (Ray influence ets T-Tauris could coupling weak magnetic this the How than rotate mechanism T-Tauris slowly classic this more the angu- why particular, the explain to In transports shown was that poles out. jet the momentum a to lar creating field star magnetic the the of follows that equals star), PPD the the of of rate rotation angular plerian icinbtenhg asadlwms exoplanet mass below). low explained dis- and (as two the mass last high and between The method tinction detection known. the not identify columns is mean could eccentricity zero actual of eccentricity (Col- the an eccentricity that Note and 9). 8) umn 7), (Column (Column semi-axis mass period 6), major Database: (Column Orbit radius I. exoplanet 5), Paper (Column the planets of in the 1 of reported properties Table as main in the the by of followed appeared is distance they This 3 and as Column magnitude stars In the washost stars. repeat their which we identify iden- 4 1) to and is (Column I Paper number system in same stellar used the each by in tified 2) Exo- (Column the planet in Database Orbit exoplanets of revised planet confirmed hosts the of from stars selected 46 compendium were of which exoplanets, consists 59 sample observed Our planets. of their formation and the new stars between gain connection to a order about in insight physical planets, the their and of stars phys- characteristics 46 the these between of links characteristics possible ical the explore article, now accompanying we this In 2019). 2014, Cuaresma t 3 n h aiso corotation, of radius the and oivsiaefrhrteepolm,w started we problems, these further investigate To http://exoplanets.org/. R t .SML FEXOPLANETS OF SAMPLE 2. rmtesa,admte aln between falling matter and star, the from T eff log , OPIGTEAGLRMMNU FSASADPAES219 PLANETS AND STARS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR THE COUPLING g MH,[eH,and [Fe/H], [M/H], , 3 nTbe1tedominant the 1 Table In . R co weeteKe- the (where iSpec V sin (Blanco- i fa of ) aisrlto feolnt hw rn o ex- for trend a 1 shows above exoplanets oplanets of relation radius column. last the is in classification 1 Table This in included (LMEs). 23 our exoplanets and separated (HMEs) mass exoplanets we low mass limit high 22 this into Using sample demonstration A). see Appendix 2016, in al. et (Padmanab- Flor-Torres 1993; interactions han electromagnetic the stronger becomes phys-than planet a a has in self-gravity that which 1 limit above mass choose we a mass use meaning the To ical to star. related host is its exoplanet of the test of our to mass For order the in how masses. important their is distinction on this based analysis, exoplan- groups, of two sample into our ets separate sam- however present can our we with ple, addressed be cannot oplanets analysis. present our can- in Tr, thoroughly vs. explored RV be methods, introduced not bias detection any different that the implies by This Sun. the from ieadtu r ahrwr hnht n one and hot, ice than the warm Exo- to rather the 3 close are in with are thus obvious Two and is line it Database). as Orbit (and observed planet as literature exoplanets, the Tr farther the in located than be stars to exoplanets their trend 14 from the Tr the show RV the of by by planets three detected determine only the to Curiously, of easier to is radius method. due which the known, probably required be most we to exoplan- is 14 that only This fact have RV. the we by that detected fact the ets is 1 Table in statistical our in stars “exoplanet” host its of analysis. include sample not our did in we Hn-Peg the kept al- Consequently, from we differ though exoplanets. can other exoplanets the limit of of BD sample, formation formation the our above the of masses how size AU, with small assess 0.05 the cannot at to as we star, Due classification its its exoplanet. accepting but near in an b), difficulty very (XO-3 no 31 is located there # only is is of it BDs mass for since a limit mass with lower but the stars, b, it 115383 from 4 HD AU 34, 43.5 other is (the at imaging exoplanets by 8) of detected (Column than BDs exoplanet star of host 11), typical its more Column from is in distance huge Im de- its as was and (identified b imaging Hn-Peg by that tected Note 2008). Burgasser 2011; e ) a on ohv asaoetebrown 13 the of above mass limit a lower have (BD) to dwarf found was b), Peg M codn oFrnye l 20)temass- the (2007) al. et Fortney to According ex- of characteristics the of variety the Although nte on fiprac htcnb noted be can that importance of point Another mn u ape n xpae,#3 (Hn- 39 # exoplanet, one sample, our Among Jup . 86 .Aohreolntwoems scoeto close is mass whose exoplanet Another ). M Jup . sa h aedsac sJupiter as distance same the at is 0 M Jup . 2 ohv osatradius constant a have to M Jup M hc stemass the is which , Jup Sigle al. et (Spiegel © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 eain hr h aissat odces instead decrease to mass-radius starts of radius the the in models where point fact, 2003, relation, inflection 1998, In an al. predict et 2008) 2010). Baraffe (e.g., al. structures et exoplanet Fortney also (see AL. ET FLOR-TORRES 220 n*i rn ftenm ftepae dnie utpepaeaysystems. planetary multiple identifies planet the of name the of front in * An d tradMgiueDistance Magnitude and Star # Id. 6HTP8b1. 1. .415 .800 .0T HME HME LME LME Tr HME LME Tr HME 0.00 Tr Tr LME 0.04 0.00 Tr Tr 0.00 Tr 0.00 0.04 HME 3.08 0.06 0.06 0.44 Tr LME 0.00 2.31 0.31 HME 1.50 0.07 0.05 4.47 3.95 RV 0.08 1.44 LME 0 Tr 1.34 5.45 3.87 RV 1.32 HME LME 1.72 8.16 0.08 1.85 0.03 1.11 1.06 212.8 HME 0.05 RV 0.53 0.03 0.45 0 1.04 HME Tr 1.81 RV 1.10 300.5 5.45 3.31 3.33 0.26 0.05 0.01 159.7 LME LME 2.24 212.5 10.4 Tr 1.83 4867.0 LME 0.46 16.00 0.26 Tr 1.06 0.05 251.1 50.0 3.85 10.3 90.2 2.74 0.17 0.05 HME 0.92 0.68 18.1 9.9 Tr Tr 10.1 4.23 5.84 HME RV 1.33 0 b 18.18 HAT-P-8 HME 0.96 0.16 3.19 3.86 10.4 195.3 b 9.9 WASP-111 1.90 0.04 RV HME 9.9 15.7 b 1.06 0.99 0 0.04 HME 46 0.04 21.22 A WASP-94 6.0 1.22 4.00 Tr 12.6 0.05 45 b HME HAT-P-1 Tr 0.47 0.04 HME 0.29 2.71 1.10 0.05 44 b 0.33 9.5 277.5 HAT-P-34 11.79 Tr 17.5 LME 4.32 43 b 0.03 Tr LME WASP-69 4.5 0.07 3.44 15.5 0.52 4.35 1.67 42 b 3.20 Tr WASP-8 6.0 90.1 214.3 0.08 Tr 1.22 b 41 0.09 Hn-Peg 6.13 10.5 0.07 1.04 1.37 Tr 40 0 b LME 1.24 LME LME WASP-76 5.2 Tr 78.3 6.87 0.04 0.10 b 120136 39 0.59 HD 5.63 5.5 1.05 LME 9.9 0.48 d 0 8.0 75732 38 0.04 0.49 0.06 *HD 0.08 277.8 2.24 1.08 37 b RV HAT-P-6 0 0.95 Tr Tr 132.6 2.14 HME b 0.04 8.2 0.08 2.73 115383 36 55.0 4.63 HD 229.0 HME 1.28 Tr b 2.71 217014 35 HD 0.03 0.01 8.74 10.1 2.20 b 92.5 0.01 9.49 33283 34 1.53 1.20 HD 0 LME RV 10.3 7.34 0.05 b 33 136.8 XO-3 2.22 0.05 9.4 10.4 0 Tr b 1.43 128.2 0.20 17156 32 1.29 HD 2.20 0.04 0.06 3.49 31 162.8 b WASP-82 3.52 8.1 1.14 Tr 0.04 1.74 30 b 0.19 0.02 9.4 WASP-34 2.88 0.04 137.2 224.1 1.03 8.7 29 b WASP-13 1.38 1.14 2.14 0.05 b 0.02 2638 28 9.7 344.5 HD 2.00 0.72 21.6 b 118203 27 0.46 HD 0.04 0.69 4.11 1.56 8.5 10.0 19.8 26 b WASP-38 1.08 0.36 25 b HAT-P-2 10.5 2.79 84.6 1.31 0.97 48.4 7.7 24 b WASP-14 1.50 76.0 23 b HAT-P-14 7.6 0.15 1.49 22 b 149.8 KELT-7 104.2 10.0 21 b HAT-P-7 7.6 0.02 b 97658 20 134.6 HD 8.1 b 189733 19 9.8 HD b 8.7 108.9 3166 18 BD-10 b 209458 17 8.7 HD b 149026 16 HD 15 8.3 b WASP-74 b 14 HD86081 13 b KELT-2A b 12 KEPLER-21 11 10 ET3b9821314 .327 .40T HME LME Tr HME LME LME 0 LME Tr RV RV LME 0.04 RV 0.04 0.01 RV LME 0.08 2.70 0.04 0.05 0.02 HME 0.05 Tr 0.05 0.05 1.33 2.81 4.07 RV 3.42 0.04 RV 3.51 0 1.34 1.42 1.05 0.37 3.02 1.00 0.10 1.03 0.21 3.06 0.71 1.33 211.3 1.02 0.30 2.39 13.37 2198.0 0.47 215.3 73.4 1276.0 0.23 0.80 73.8 0.03 9.8 29.1 2.68 29.6 0.28 0.01 10.4 7.9 3.71 8.0 6.5 6.4 64.0 b KELT-3 7.8 b 242.4 HAT-P-30 b 149143 9 HD b 88133 8 HD 9.8 5.6 b 75289 7 HD 10.3 b 46375 6 HD b 5 *KEPLER-37 h 219134 4 *HD c 3 *KELT-6 2 1 lnt()(c (M (pc) (V) Planet HSCLPRMTR H LNT NORSAMPLE OUR IN PLANETS THE PARAMETERS PHYSICAL AL 1 TABLE M jup p (R ) swa eosrei rw wrs(D) Physi- near located (BDs). be 1 should dwarfs this inflection brown Actually, this in therefore, cally observe increases. we mass what the is as increasing of R . jup 2 p M dy)(U)Mto type Method ) (AU (days) ) Jup Period hr efgaiybcmssrne than stronger becomes self-gravity where , − − 350I HME Im 0 43.5 9 mBD Im 0 795 a p e p eeto Planetary Detection © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 iuliseto ti o la o osprt the separate to how on clear Based not is Database. it Orbit inspection exoplan- Exoplanet visual 346 the of relation from mass-radius ets the 1 Figure in rapidly). more the circularize is possibility they (one obvious that migration less is on although radius are inflated stars, they of their since effect LMEs, to the close in so radii pos- inflated the Wit migration consider of de also different sibility might by to we studied Likewise, possibly HME leading behaviors. a 2016), b, al. 80606 et fits HD (this of stars case host nearby the and PPD inter- the their the with affect actions than could consequently, fields which, magnetic , higher LMEs have might to would HMEs possibil- expected exoplanets the the be these since in hand, importance, envelopes other some LMH have the massive On of according ity anal- exoplanets masses. our of their in sample limit to our mass separate contro- the to still use ysis is only we however, and possibility, et versial, This Flor-Torres 2016; 2016). al. al. al. et Hubbard et in Dalladay-Simpson found 1997; be can prediction to in- ver- this observations radius being ifying and the state (models masses of liquid higher collapse the slightly (at the to gravity due pushing et while), resist compressible, Adriani a might 2018; al. for al. structures et least et their Iess Guillot 2018), 2018; JUNO; al. al. by et observed Kaspi suggested than 2018; (as envelopes (LMH) Jupiter massive hydrogen in more How- metallic have BDs). liquid HJs of of case massive the if is ever, (which collapse to object the starts where and interaction electromagnetic the 13 BDs, the vertical for other limit separate The mass lower to HMEs. the used is and lime we 1 LMEs in criterion at exoplanets line mass the vertical the The to corresponds Database. Orbit The planet 1. Fig. R(RJup)

ots ute u itnto nms,w trace we mass, in distinction our further test To 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.00 2.00 e0 e0 e0 e0 e0 1e+02 1e+01 1e+00 1e−01 1e−02 1e−03 M - R OPIGTEAGLRMMNU FSASADPAES221 PLANETS AND STARS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR THE COUPLING iga o xpaesi h Exo- the in exoplanets for diagram LMEs M(M Jup )

1.2MJup HMEs M 13MJup Jup . 2 BD . M Jup oe yHte ae 05.Froranalysis, our For 2015). previously Rauer (as different & these mass in Hatzes decade by a noted over fully region is extend- this point, therefore, ing inflection the mass, near HJs of with consistent range coef- This weak very correlation. a correlation, and slope of nil ficient almost an has which l,oecudsgetta Msaeese odetect to easier exam- are For HMEs that is bias. suggest observational could result one an this ple, to whether due check or to in physical need stars we of number sample, to small our than the HMEs stars Considering the rotator LMEs. faster for the and trend hotter around clear found a be observe We and LMEs HMEs. hosting stars between distinguishing time velocity rotational the T star, that a verified we of I, Paper In to close limit 2011). al. a et uses Sousa which is lit- study ours the only in used the been erature; never that has (note criterion physical HMEs this and LMEs between separation our ln the relation: defining the limits obtain mass we two HMEs, these Fi- between collapse). in gravitational core nally, of their effect in the fusion avoid ignite self-gravity cannot to where (BDs mass mass. enough repulsion having objects electromagnetic the not the for with than decrease expected stronger is to as radius is the This for is trend coeffi- correlation weaker of a cient and slope negative a with ln relation: the limit find mass lower we the BDs Above for (2017). and Kipping (2006) & al. Chen et what Valencia with by consistent the reported fully previously with also was is increases relation continually This masses mass. of range this h lp spstv n h orlto offiin is coefficient correlation the high, and positive is slope The find ln we limit this Below relation: HMEs. the traced form we LMEs 1, guish Figure In relation. three mass-radius criterion quantitative the One is radii. inflated to due HJs, eff R R R .CNETN H TR OTHEIR TO STARS THE CONNECTING 3. HME BD LME nFgr ,w erdc hsgahc u this but graphic, this reproduce we 2, Figure In . r M 2 ( = r 0 = - 2 R =( (0 = 0 = V − − . eain,aotn 1 adopting relations, 5 hc mle htterdu within radius the that implies which 75, 0 sin 0 . . . 496 117 M . 8 u ucett niaeta the that indicate to sufficient but 18, 044 i erae ihtetemperature, the with decreases , - R ± ± ± 0 0 eain r ucett justify to sufficient are relations 0 . . 1)ln 018) . PLANETS r 1)ln 111) 030)ln 2 0 = M M . M 2 ossetwt no with consistent 02, HME LME BD . 2 +(0 +(0 +(0 M Jup . . 455 . 229 407 odistin- to ± ± ± 0 0 0 . . . 404) 031) 034) (2) (1) (3) , , . © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16

ac ees(o,* eim *adhg,** and ***) high, signifi- a and ** the at medium, 7, tests *, Column the (low, in levels of 95%, cance p-values of the confidence give of we level 6 tests). normality Column different In fact 3 data the running our for by by distributions (established normal justified find not is did results we tests that the non-parametric give of we The use 2 tests. (MW) Table Mann-Whitney hosting the In non-parametric, stars for of the LMEs. trend in than clear higher that HMEs a be those shows to with 4a velocity HMEs rotational Figure host that LMEs. stars host the of istics massive more around rotate exo- sample massive stars. our more the in that planets main Con- suggests the this difference. on sequence, physical relation real mass-temperature the a method sidering is the but on depend detection, rotator not faster of does and LMEs hotter the than the around stars found the for be trend of to the independent HMEs Consequently, is are this they method. stars and because detection the out, is why farther luminous reason more located the are that Fig- HMEs show in with also However, we p- 2008). 3b a (Dalgaard ure with 0.0007 test of Mann-Whitney value confirmed is non-parametric lumi- This a more LMEs. by be hosting find to stars do HMEs the We than hosting nous stars HMEs. the and for trend LMEs a hosting magnitude V stars absolute the Fig- the for in of distributions first To the trace 3a we stars. ure biases, rotator observational faster for and check around massive) method Tr (more than RV hotter the through LMEs than as BD a with star the as well of as position The included, companion. sepa- is LMEs. temperature, Sun and HMEs the vs. hosting velocity stars rotational rating Star 2. Fig. AL. ET FLOR-TORRES V sin i (km/s) 222

nFgr ecmaetepyia character- physical the compare we 4 Figure In 0 10 20 30 40 50 5060 505000 5500 6000 6500 T eff (K) Sun BD LMEs HMEs i.3 )Aslt antd in magnitude Absolute a) 3. Fig. s01 e,wt tnaddvaino .4dex. 0.24 the in of reported deviation those to standard comparable mean a are values the with These and dex dex, is 0.07 0.12 is test me- is sample MW The our for the 0.05. [Fe/H] than of dian higher Ta- p-value much the in being different, unequivocal, reported look metallicity. means 2 the and ble find of medians we distribution the hand, the other Although massive in the more On difference are no LMEs. level HMEs with highest with stars the than Stars at test confidence. MW of the by confirmed and 2. Table we in 4b median in Figure difference for In significant trend same uncertainties). considered the large not see were their 36 to of and level due 33 high 22, relatively (stars a the at confidence medians not of medians, difference of the the case around the In data the means. of compares ranks test differences non-parametric the the a of that not Note or acceptance observed. the 8 Column in and medians the to correspond bars ranges. RV, interquartile The also velocity, Tr. stars radial transit, the method, or of detection Distance the by b) separated LMEs; and HMEs hosting .

2489/513;/61 /08 nFgr ctedffrnei asi obvious, is mass in difference the 4c Figure In "!! #!! $!! %!! # % & ' ! 0 / .)( .*( 7)( -7/*+( -7/)+( ,./*+( ,./)+( + *+( )+( V T sin eff i h Wts confirms test MW the , naeae lowt a with also average, on V eaaeyfrstars for separately © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 ofimdi al ,adteei oeiec that evidence no a is follow there stars and and the 4 2, Figure Table in in a encountered ex- confirmed is differences HMEs, the There and for LMEs theoretical cept the (1965). the between host below distinction McNally clear the well by all fall proposed of sample relation momenta our angular in The stars HMEs LMEs. hosting and momentum stars between angular distinguishing masses, specific stars, the the trace of we (2010), dif- the does of exoplanets? how process ferent migration then, the is, affect difference question an- this higher The with PPDs momentum. massive massive gular more more that in form hypothesis planets the support in to difference seems exoplanets, the the of Considering momentum angular LMEs. the momen- rotator than the faster angular stars and that massive confirms the more test around for statistical rotate HMEs the I star, Paper the of in tum 2 Eq. sidering pt en oemsieta uie,vr e of few very Jupiter, than massive more being spite to contribution higher naturally a masses have by higher since, having systems, expected HMEs is the the this definition, But for HMEs. and LMEs momentum with angular the j 5b ure for (like rela- confidence a of at level also differences high these tively having confirmed 2 HMEs MW Table The in the tests LMEs. the and than momentum LMEs, angular higher with stars than momentum stars the angular the higher distributions, having the HMEs with in differences 2012). obvious al. et Buchhave 2011; al. et (Sousa exoplan- HJ ets massive harboring systems for literature h nt n cl ausfrtemdasadmasaetoeo iue4. Figure of those are means and medians the for values scale and units The sys aaee einMa einMa p-value Mean Median Mean Median Parameter nFgr a olwn egt&Durrance & Berget following 5a, Figure In nteohrhn,we ecmaei Fig- in compare we when hand, other the On distinguish we again once 4f, and 4d Figures In = [ V e/H F T M J J j eff sin ∗ p ∗ ∗ + i 0 ] j p ed e ieec ewe systems between difference a see do we , j ∗ OPIGTEAGLRMMNU FSASADPAES223 PLANETS AND STARS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR THE COUPLING = j − 1665 715800 5771 6158 6186 4 8 1 7 J . . . . . 10 21 74 14 17 1 83 10 22 47 M ∗ /M relation. M M WSg.Diff. Sign. MW LME HME ∗ safnto ftheir of function a as , j sys oee,adde- and However, . . . . . 90 19 31 1 93 21 . 44 94 4 3 J V p sin hsresult this , TTSIA TESTS STATISTICAL i .Con- ). AL 2 TABLE . . . . . 50 15 41 7 04 1 17 4 11 11 ihtesraegaiyi h Ms hr sa an- an is there HMEs, the in gravity surface temperature the the with of correlations no are there although rotation. its faster the star between the I massive Paper in the determined V with we consistent are relation results general these that momen- angular Note the thus tum. and with rotation of temperature velocity the the of strong systems the both therefore, in and correlations explains, mass This the in increase. increases, that, radius temperature suggests the which as systems, general, mass both the in with radius temperature and the of correlations vious p-values). the of matrix the in marked in correlations, bold coefficient significant correlation the Pearson only the (keeping for matrix alpha the (with by p-values ma- the the first with Since showing trix each, of 4. include diagonal Table we lower the and symmetrical only are 3 The Table matrices LMEs. in correlation the and found HMEs be with can results systems the Dalgaard for in explained 2008) (also matrices correlation son between coupling a planets, expect and to and stars difficult be the might of the it momentum Considering angular enormous. of the are loss for losses 86% Those to compared LMEs. momentum, 89% initial average on in their lost of positions have would the HMEs with the 5b, distance Comparing Figure AU). same (5 the as- Jupiter at had as formed “initial” have exoplanets could possible the the system suming 5c the Figure momentum in angular traced this the illustrate we of To point, because suffered. they is migration this scale Obviously, large System. Solar of value the a have systems HME the sin n ieec ewe h w ytm sthat, is systems two the between difference One ob- are there LMEs, with HMEs the Comparing Pear- the calculated have we test, final a As J . . . . . i 60 16 30 09 0 33 05 62 ∗ , ree a even or T eff n log and j − < < < g M hssget httemore the that suggests This . . . . 0 0 0 80n no ns 6810 06* yes ** yes 0096 ** 0048 . . . 01**yes *** 0001 01**yes *** 0001 01**yes *** 0001 relation. j sys ≈ 0 oprbeto comparable . 5,followed 05), J p © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 and anti the explain with log could correlations of which ordered, behavior more the becomes that suggesting tighter, comes bi-exponential of the relation that implies which temperatures, ef,smtigntse nteHE.I iue2 Figure In of dispersion HMEs. the the that in see wee seen not not something (but the self), momentum radius, angular the the with log and correlated mass that dif- well also this note is of we LMEs sense the However, make of to smallness physically. difficult the ference is to it dominant Due samples, the our of LMEs. orbit the the in of ticorrelation of momentum mass angular the c) the graph temperature, f) each effective star, In b) the velocity, LMEs. of rotational and momentum a) HMEs angular hosting the data. planet) e) the planet. metallicity, (and over d) stars drawn star, the are the of ranges characteristics interquartile physical and the medians Comparing 4. Fig. AL. ET FLOR-TORRES 224 R ∗ adtu lowith also thus (and V sin

i )&, ' "& 5,B=@,=,0>?$B T 3 ,03 safnto of function a as 0!,C,&% 0><,? ,B ! ! eff &% '% (% )% *% % '% )% +% %#+ %#, &#% &#' &#) &#+ % 6 6 n h orltoswith correlations the and : : 8 3 23- /3- J 3 23- /3- 3 23- /3- V ∗ ). sin T i eff erae tlow at decreases n log and V sin g g i M be- it- in g ∗

)', ' "& 0 ,C,&% 0><,? ,B .:$/ 4:;;,01 "%#) "%#' n h aaeeso h tr ms biu nthe in obvious (most stars the of parameters planets the the of and absence parameters complete) the between (almost correlations the of is analysis this of sult why with explain lated also might This LMEs. and are systems although that both in stars, correlations between the For obvious planets. most ei- the or the parameters, stars other the to the related of ther any with correlated not A *%%% **%% +%%% +*%% %#% %#' %#) %#+ &% % ' ) + , ti eakbeta [ that remarkable is It ntecs ftepaes h otipratre- important most the planets, the of case the In R 7 7 9 9 ; ∗ nteHE ti orltdwith correlated is it HMEs the in M 3 23- /3- 3 23- /3- 3 23- /3- J ∗ ∗ and nteHE,wiei si h LMEs. the in is it while HMEs, the in V sin R ∗ i or , hw ocreainwith correlation no shows V e/H F sin i nbt ytm is systems both in ] and R J ∗ ∗ oealso Note . sntcorre- not is M ∗ nthe in M ∗ © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 h pno h tr ihteaglrmmnu of momentum compare angular we the with When stars the stars. of spin massive the less rotating and than brighter) (thus faster stars, hotter massive being more stars around these form massive connec- to a stars: tend their find exoplanets and do exoplanets we the between small, tion is sample our Although to planets. and stars the the of of migrations angular formation of the losses during important momentum to due two. the is between probably, coupling This, dynamical suggest no could is which there and that 5, Figure correlation in observed no havior is is there HMEs that the between is of second radius The the that constant. fact the that with is sistent first to The correlated only important. might Two seem This also circularization. HMEs. of results the terms in in difference planets a the semi-axis, suggests of the orbit is the parameters of corre- star some the and shows with that G0) lation (b) parameter to system; Sun; only Solar A5 the The the represents types LMEs). AU. representing triangle (spectral 5 black triangle at stars 2. black The formed Figure inverted low-mass planets stars. in the for the massive as with assuming (1965) for are systems, momentum symbols suggested planetary angular The relation McNally original the the masses. (c) by for their of momentum of proposed extension angular function the relation as specific is the stars line host is dotted the line the of black momentum angular solid Specific The (a) In 5. Fig. J p and log (J /M ) [m²/s] 10 ***** * J OPIGTEAGLRMMNU FSASADPAES225 PLANETS AND STARS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR THE COUPLING 0400020.4 0.2 0.0 −0.4 .DISCUSSION 4. 10 11 12 13 14 ∗ M hc scnitn ihtebe- the with consistent is which , p ni h Ms hc scon- is which HMEs, the in in log . G0 * 10 (M)[M F0 F5 O ] A5 (a) A0

log10 (Jsystem Msystem) [m²/s]

0400020.4 0.2 0.0 −0.4 10 11 12 13 14 R p a p is log , . G0 * 10 (M)[M n n hi irto ttesm itnefrom distance same the systems) at their migration same in their the line at end ice less and the or than more (farther form distance all they that ends, quently masses migration their their on depend when planets, momenta the For angular than final values). their initial (higher possible migrations their their of 10 80% during of planets factor the a (by of the formation of momentum their due angular during probably of stars is losses This important the two. to the between coupling cal between such correlation J a follows angular is 5b) there the Furthermore, (Figure that relation. systems or the (1965), of momentum McNally by they suggested that evidence no a find we follow 5a) (Figure faster. stars the rotate of to also found are PPDs the these form- in planets with ing the PPDs, why consistent massive explaining faster, is more rotate formed which This stars massive that systems. idea LME than faster the rotate planets HME in and the stars in that the find both we systems exoplanets, the of orbits the p F0 F5 and hnw opr h ffcieaglrmomenta angular effective the compare we When O ] A5 (b) J A0 j ∗ hc ugssta hr sn dynami- no is there that suggests which , −

M log10 (Jsystem_5AU Msystem) [m²/s]

0400020.4 0.2 0.0 −0.4 10 11 12 13 14 eain npriua,lk h one the like particular, in relation, log . G0 * 10 (M)[M a F0 p F5 suig conse- Assuming, . O ] A5 (c) A0 6 and ) © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 nFgr ) h Mswudhv otaslightly a lost LMEs. have the show than would momentum we angular HMEs as of amount the case, larger the 6), be Figure to in seems (which stars their AL. ET FLOR-TORRES 226 [ [ [ [ V V V V e/H F e/H F e/H F e/H F HME LME log log log log M M M M M M M M R R R R R R R R J J J J J J J J a a a a e e e e sin sin sin sin p p p p p p p p p p p p ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ p p p p ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ p p p p ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ g g g g i i i i ] 0.2153 0.3461 ] ] 0.1519 0.6794 ] < < < -0.6992 043 .01-.27-.560.5544 -0.5546 -0.5267 0.5021 -0.4539 .31017 .29026 .00037 0.1022 0.3170 0.4060 0.2168 0.7299 0.1979 0.2301 .62033 .61026 .99038 .99004 .380.2426 0.0348 0.0645 0.3979 0.3681 0.5929 0.2266 0.3691 0.3735 0.2682 .48055 .06095 .24047 .51000 0.2162 0.0303 0.8521 0.4570 0.4294 0.9258 0.5036 0.5652 0.4458 .80-.39091 .480.6327 0.5408 0.9407 0.9312 0.5081 -0.6319 -0.8577 0.5840 0.9036 0.1880 0.0012 0.0034 0.5064 0.8662 0.9857 0.6736 0.8402 0.1961 0.7412 0.0006 .59-0.9084 0.3683 -0.4537 0.1802 0.7509 0.3008 0.5506 0.3259 0.5022 0.1672 0.0658 0.0761 0.0389 0.0097 0.0002 0.7779 0.4925 0.1892 0.5909 0.0577 0.3785 0.3401 0.7356 0.8734 0.8087 0.9143 0.4121 0.0785 0.6052 0.0199 0.0048 0.2918 .85008 .10078 .88010 0.9893 0.1902 0.1878 0.7583 0.5140 0.0681 0.1825 0.7913 0.5697 0.1323 0.0455 0.8397 0.1460 0.5536 0.2122 0.4496 0.4193 0.9065 0.4358 0.2527 0.4608 0.3861 .45045 .28096 .26017 .91007 .480.0122 0.0418 0.1050 0.0073 0.0074 0.8931 0.3824 0.1871 0.0074 0.4266 0.0118 0.9864 0.9447 0.8288 0.6018 0.4758 0.0173 0.6455 0.0339 0.0001 0.1242 0.4889 0.0884 0.0001 0.0001 T T eff eff < < ERO ORLTO ARXFRTEHESYSTEMS HME THE FOR MATRIX CORRELATION PEARSON ERO ORLTO ARXFRTELESYSTEMS LME THE FOR MATRIX CORRELATION PEARSON log .01001 0.0187 0.0618 0.0001 .01027 0.1499 0.2374 0.0001 log g g [ e/H F [ e/H F ] ] < V .01024 0.0162 0.2345 0.0001 < sin V .01007 0.0012 0.0077 0.0001 R i sin R i < 040 .33077 0.4811 0.7272 0.9393 -0.4305 0.0001 AL 3 TABLE AL 4 TABLE < 0.0001 ∗ ∗ etta oemsiePD r oeecetin planets. efficient their more of momentum are angular PPDs the massive dissipating more sug- that might this gest above, suggested scenario the Within M ∗ M ∗ J ∗ J ∗ < .50-.330.5243 -0.4373 0.5550 .010.2679 0.0001 < < M -0.4521 .72 0.5927 0.67921 0.7468 .01002 .170.4335 0.7167 0.0029 0.0001 0.0001 p M p R -0.4418 p R p < .010.0234 0.0001 a p a p e e p p © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 h aevlct stesa.Btde hsim- this does high- than at But probable migration? rotates more tidal is disk star. eccentricity migration the the disk that as where ply velocity PPD radius, same the co-rotation the of the to region their close the end sample be that our could in show migration planets which the calculations where some radius Ap- the do In we the braking. B during magnetic pendix by momentum is, angular that phase, how their T-Tauri explains lose believe structure stars authors same many the the that using PPD the problem of it the because solve interesting to particularly model tries is The (2008) therein). Fleck references of and explanations 2008, physical Fleck different some (see and propose migra- physical, did be about could authors review this their that in suggested tion (2018) ground- Daw- Johnson of However, & effects 2005). son selection (Gaudi to surveys due transit based artifact than an supposed more be is slightly which to orbits), to Kepler equivalent assuming three-days AU, is 0.04 the with days called consistent (3 phenomenon is pile-up known AU per- we 0.05 well accumulation and the mas- the 0.04 less 6 between the Figure ceive as In stars exactly their LMEs?. almost sive from at distance migration same their the end they did migration, why and their during massive momentum more angular For more are lost HMEs stars. that Considering their ever. from distances their to respect signs. gray with light sample as shown our also in are sample exoplanets initial the our of in exoplanets momentum the Angular comparison, 6. Fig. n hn em icl oudrtn,how- understand, to difficult seems thing One OPIGTEAGLRMMNU FSASADPAES227 PLANETS AND STARS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR THE COUPLING

2 Jp (kg m /s) 1e+40 1e+41 1e+42 1e+43 1e+44 .100 .501 .005 .020 5.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 Only Dominantplanet a (AU) hr sawa ieec,wt ein(en of (mean) median a with difference, weak distributions. a and their is 7 HMEs There Figure (15 in compare eccentricities remaining we eccentricity. zero LMEs) the 13 zero For non have with marginal. (43%) the planets seems 10 in difference 23, while we The eccentricity, of exoplanets zero out 22 with on LMEs (32%) sample, of 7 absence HME an count the (meaning For not eccentric- or an physical data). if is certain zero not of ity are possibly we is because eccentricity LMEs difficult, and in HMEs distributions the that zero similar whether Note have to test 2014). to close al. data all et our be Remus using to 2011; al. LMEs et and (Bolmont HMEs eccentrici- the the for expect ties tidal would same we the timescale, assuming evolution Therefore, star. with interactions central the tidal the through in circu- orbit the the migration of is larization planet model the migration eccen- tidal stops their high-eccentricity What comparing dif- expected no tricities. be thus and would timescale, ference evolution have tidal LMEs same and the HMEs the same since the that implies This ia vlto iecl ntefia oaino the of planets, location the the final of of the orbit dependence on timescale strong evolution a tidal expects one migration, codn oteter fhg-cetiiytidal high-eccentricity of theory the to According a final LME −Thiswork HME −Thiswork LME −exoplanet.org HME −exoplanet.org ≈ 0 a a ˙ . 4A hysol lohave also should they AU 04 final ∝ a final 8 eg,Egeo 1998): Eggleton (e.g., . (4) © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 e sample, our in exoplanets LMEs. and the HMEs of between Eccentricities distinguishing 7. Fig. AL. ET FLOR-TORRES 228 e sdet h neatoso h lnt ihtheir with planets the of interactions migration the of process to the masses, due that their is views dis- of the same irrespective favor the stars, might at their migration from their tance stop planets the sample all our that fact in The two. the phenomenon ex- between correlations a pected any planets), erased the possibly have of could have more case which (by planets the momentum in their angular 80% and of than amount stars huge the a both lost momentum, that angular terms find orbit in planet we However, and spins stars. stellar ro- of their planets around massive faster more tating ex- formed momentum, they more why angular had plaining higher stars Massive with low-mass PPDs than massive PPDs. faster their rotating by stars our passes are which Here exoplanets, stars. host their there and conclusions. whether planets momentum check angular the the their to of between is and coupling a goal stars be main could the Our of connec- formation the planets. understand the better between ob- using to tion stars analysed project 46 a and of started TIGRE sample with homogeneous served an on Based larger suggest- their 2016). 2016), al. to et al. due (Flor-Torres et structures masses Wit different (de possibly circulariza- LMEs ing to the The slowly than on more have LMEs. tion reacted to the HMEs possibly than the eccentricity HMEs for higher trend a a average be to Therefore, seems level. a there significance suggests lowest which the 0.0257, at = difference p-value a yields test MW p p () 0 = 0 = hr sacneto ewe h tr n their and stars the between connection a is There %&% %& %&! %&" %&# . . 4( 04 9( 19 e e p p 0 = 0 = .CONCLUSIONS 5. ' &'$ %'$ . . 0 o h MsadLE.A LMEs. and HMEs the for 10) 2 o h Mscmae,to compared, HMEs the for 22) iSpec we rtn,w get: we protons, gravity, involves forces, tromagnetic, two sizes between and balance masses a different of with formation the structures (1993) Padmanabhan to According the System. and Data 2011) Astro-physics al. NASA’s et al. (Schneider et the exoplanets.eu Han Database, 2014), (exoplanets.org Orbit Explorer research Exoplanet Data the This Exoplanet of use made Guanajuato). has Campus confer- collaborations and for international (DAIP, Guanajuato and of participation support University for ence the as well by as given 278156), and 207772, projects Conacyt-DFG 192334, (bilateral support 555458) travel (CVU grant and scholar Blanco-Cuaresma with a S. for support CONACyT thanks thanks improve com- and T. to F. for discussions M. us and for L. helped results work. that our our suggestions of and revision ments careful a for more them made circularization. differ- which to have resilient LMEs, might than HMEs structures Consistent conclusion, ent last PPDs. this mass lower with angu- than more momentum dissipate PPDs lar massive that and PPDs, ih aet owt h ore ftefre,in forces, the of sources the with reason do The to than extreme. have such stronger why might in physics be force in gravitational should the consensus force no electromagnetic is the there problem: cal gravity for equivalent the is term α the second on the constant term structure and fine first the the is physics), right in constant con- portant Plank reduced mathe- ¯ the stant same Introducing the exactly form). have matical laws and (the proton) sources a the of mass the inlcntns htfi h nest fteforces, the of intensity the e fix that constants, tional where .CLUAIGTESELF-GRAVITATING THE CALCULATING A. G and ewudlk otaka nnmu referee anonymous an thank to like would We hsrslslast h elkonhierarchi- well-known the to leads results This F ≈ F g e h 5 m κ = . e 88 = p and Gm κ h hre n assitrcig( interacting masses and charges the h/ × e e 10 2 2 p 2 G F π /r /r e − r h lcrmgei n gravita- and electromagnetic the are o h neato ewe two between interaction the For . n h eoiyo light of velocity the and 39 2 2 α α APPENDICES G hsipisthat: implies This . = ASLIMIT MASS ≈ Gm κ e 1 e . 2 24 p 2 = × r 10 h itnebetween distance the κ 36 ¯hc e e . 2 α iSpec ≈ F 7 Gm h also She . . g 29 c ¯hc n elec- and toim- (two p 2 × 10 m (A6) (A5) , p − 3 is , © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 o ono 21)camdta h distribution the that claimed Daw- (2018) planets, Johnson of & migration son the about review their In unstable becomes be object could self-gravity. an under exoplanets where observe point of we critical relation the point mass-radius inflection the the in that suggests This atoms, of number ( maximum a to yields This equilibrium have: In thus weight. would own we its under collapse under would form to object is stable gravity a for condition the Now, electron an for energy escape the is: Since poten- gravitational energy. its with tial structure a of ligation of planet. giant gas a comparable of be mass to the out formation turned to mass planet critical for this that importance is of electromagnetic point the The than force. a important is more there becomes that mass, calculated phys- critical Padmanabhan this on fact, Based gravity. ical by dominated struc- domi- are large be tures while force, to the electromagnetic tend the with by structures increase nated small to Therefore, field gravitational mass. the grav- for in is trend charge, same ity the total neutral, the being reduces object massive min- energy to potential trend the while the imize for that interaction electromagnetic is consequence the structures important in large-scale The of only formation is mass. the there of while type interacting, one charge are of there types electromagnetic two in that fact the particular, e4 be be would mass its ligation of of energy formed body spherical a steBh ais rmti eddc htits that deduce we this From be woud radius. radius Bohr the is potential: α/α M E c oraieta,i ucst opr h energy the compare to suffices it that, realize To G / = G 3 ' πR ) N 3 .A HTDSAC STHE IS DISTANCE WHAT AT B. / GM max 2 3 R E E ≈ = OOAINRADIUS, COROTATION N 0 2 1 × N ≥ ≈ 5 M . ' / 38 m × 3 α E c R N OPIGTEAGLRMMNU FSASADPAES229 PLANETS AND STARS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR THE COUPLING α bv hc h oc fgravity of force the which above , 4 p 2 × G E G / m M 5 ≈ ≈ hl for while , 3 / m 10 e = 3 πa 2 c = e Gm N 54 2 . αc N 31 0 3 a 1 ' Nm n rtclmass: critical a and , where , 0 / 2 × p 2 × 3 4 = a N . = E 10 0 p 35 n t gravitational its and , Nα 0 n t ouewould volume its and N 27 tm ol aean have would atoms nteohrhand, other the On . × E < E a 5 kg 2 0 / 10 m 3 ' α ≈ − e G c 18 5 1 2 m . R G . . 30 J 2 e CO , M αc × h object the J 10 2 N . . − max (A10) 11 (A8) (A9) (A7) m, ≈ antcfil erae stecb ftedistance, the of cube get, the we as decreases field magnetic evap-wind, starts star at formed pressure PPD, newly the a of orating wind the when h aum hsyed that: yields star, This and the vacuum. star, of the the surface of the radius at the field magnetic the be- is, of that value region, the this over pile-up tween to planets the oe sta h upn ol nywr pt a to up work mi- only its would this dumping of distance stopping the aspect that planet important is the One model to 2008). (Fleck star momen- gration the angular transfer from would tum torques approaches these planet a the fore, As restore disk. the the to between and star act torques conveying would configuration forces dipole These forces. mag- triggering netic rotation, differential by azimuthally n ikrtt tdffrn nua pesexcept speeds angular different ex- star at at the and rotate model, 3 disk this Figure and Following their stop- therein). (see in planations migration contribute this planet could of ping aspects that (2004), specific structure Pudritz some magnetic & discussed Matt authors by PPD. presented the its model to the star In the consistent connecting is structure magnetic stars radius, host co-rotation the their with around exoplanets of suigeult at equality Assuming of terms in expressed be matter, of can flux then the the by load transported This mass of wind. amount the is, that load, where “Ram for expression the pressure”: used we pressure gas the For hc o trlk h u ( Sun the like star a M for which ˙ ≈ R n a odtrieti au st suethat assume to is value this determine to way One co 2 P R . hr h antcfil eoe twisted becomes field magnetic the where , v 00 B B out R stevlct ftewn and wind the of velocity the is × = out ≈ R and 10 R P co B g co ≈ − s suigta h nest fthe of intensity the that Assuming . P aacstegspesr u othe to due pressure gas the balances ? 14 R R 1 B R ∗ 3 . M co 6 R /r M nm co 4 = R

˙ h usinte swa is what is then question The . P out 3 co as: , = / g r where , 2 B rand yr = n hsoewudexpect would one thus and , µ = = 2 µ 2 −→ 0 π 0 4 nmv R = πr µ B M co R Mv 0 ˙ s 2 R 2 B 2 ˙ co eget: we , v R stepreblt of permeability the is B 2 µ v co s 2 hc spr fthe of part is which , 0 . ∗ 6 2 = s R r , n h magnetic the and ∗ 6 6 steitniyof intensity the is B . . 15 s × ≈ R 10 nm co 10 − there- , 3 − (B13) (B12) (B11) (B14) R sits is m/s) 4 ∗ T, is © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 eWt . ei,N . ago,J,e l 06 ApJ, 2016, al. et J., Langton, K., N. Sciences Lewis, Planetary J., 2015, Wit, J. de J. Lissauer, 1812 128, & AJ, 175 I. 2004, 56, Pinzón, Pater, G. ARA&A, & de 2018, R. A., Reza, J. la Johnson, de & I. E. R. Gregoryanz, Dawson, & T., R. Howie, P., (New Dalladay-Simpson, R with 17 statistics 834, Introductory ApJ, 2008, 2017, P. D. Dalgaard, Kipping, F. & Rasio, J. & Chen, S., Matsumura, B., E. Ford, Toulouse Univertité S., de Thesis, Chatterjee, PhD 106, 2019, A&A, J. 1982, Champion, A. Serrano, & M., 70 Roth, 61, al. L., PhT, Carrasco, et 2008, A., J. A. Johansen, Burgasser, W., D. Latham, A., L. ed. Buchhave, Gravitation, and Cosmology in 1980, P. A&A, Brosche, 2011, J. Leconte, & N., S. Raymond, 2075 E., 486, Bolmont, MNRAS, 2019, S. Jofré,Blanco-Cuaresma, & U., Heiter, the C., of Soubiran, S., Journal Blanco-Cuaresma, 2010, T. S. Durrance, & J. D. 119 751, Berget, ApJ, 2012, Nesvorný, D. & Beaugé, C. 2014, al. et S.-J., Paardekooper, A., Crida, C., 482, Baruteau, A&A, 2008, T. & Barman, & F., G., Allard, Chabrier, I., S., Baraffe, T. Barman, G., Chabrier, I., H. P. Baraffe, Hauschildt, & F., Allard, G., Chabrier, I., Baraffe, 2009, P. Scott, & A.J., Sauval, N., Grevesse, M., Asplund, Formation AL. Planet ET of FLOR-TORRES Astrophysics 2010, J. P. Armitage yields 230 elpl po xpaesidpneto their of between independent momentum) angular exoplanets of 0 of see losses to up (and expect masses pile could we real therefore, a model, this to ing lxne .21,Lcue2:Poolntr discs, Protoplanetary : 2 Lecture 2017, R. 555, Natur, Alexander 2018, al. et G., Orton, A., Mura, A., Adriani, . 04 2,33 820, CUP) ed.; (2nd 63 529, Natur, 2016, doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79054-1 Springer) NY: York, 580 686, ApJ, 2008, A. 89 375 486, Natur, 2012, CUP) UK: (Cambridge, https://www.astro.le.ac.uk/rda5/planets 216 .G egan&V eSbaa(otn MA: (Boston, Sabbata De V. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3123-0 & 375, Springer), Bergmann G. P. 1 535, 111 569, A&A, 2014, P. 32 Astronomy, 3, in Research for Association Southeastern (Tuczon, S. Henning R. T. Beuther, 667 & H. UAP), Dullemond, AZ: ed. P. C. VI, Klessen, Planets and Protostars 315 701 402, A&A, 2003, H. P. Hauschildt, 403 337, A&A, 1998, 481 47, ARA&A, CUP) UK: Cambridge, ed.; − 0 R . 7A,wihnal tteobservations. the fit neatly which AU, 07 co 00 srpyiso lntFrain(2nd Formation Planet of Astrophysics 2020, . ≈ 6 . 77 REFERENCES × 10 9 r0 or m . 4 U Accord- AU. 045 2017.html 17 os,S . ats .C,Irein . ao,M,& M., Mayor, G., Israelian, C., N. Santos, G., & S. R., Savalle, Sousa, P., Sidaner, Le C., Dedieu, 18 J., 25, Schneider, 979 AnAp, 23, 1962, Astrophys., E. Ann. Schatzman, 1969, S. V. Safronov, 2014, V. Lainey, & J.-P., Zahn, S., e-prints, Mathis, arXiv F., 2020, Remus, A. Morbidelli, & 954 N. 274, S. 19 Sci, 53, Raymond, 1996, A&G, B. 2012, E. 1595 T. Ford, Ray, 20, & AdSpR, A. 1997, F. J. Rasio, Blum, & T. Poppe, Uni- 498 the 678, in ApJ, Formation 2008, Structure T. 1993, T. Bessho, Padmanabhan, & 565 S., 45, Ida, 359 ARA&A, M., 138, Nagasawa, 2007, MNRAS, C. 1968, E. L. Ostriker, Mestel, & F. 43 166 C. 607, 85, McKee, ApJ, Obs, 2004, 1965, E. 570 D. R. 156, McNally, Pudritz, Icar, & 2002, S. J. S. Matt, Weidenschilling, 551 & 150, F. ApJ, Marzari, 1967, P. R. Kraft, The- Formation: Planet 2006, 2018, W. Brandner, al. 1322 & H. 99, et PASP, Klahr, 1987, B., D. S. W. Kawaler, Hubbard, E., Galanti, Y., Natur, 2018, Kaspi, al. et D., 1997, Durante, al. M., et W. Folkner, I., L., J. Iess, Lunine, 68 T., 728, Guillot, ApJ, B., 2011, 25 R. W. 810, Sari, Hubbard, ApJL, & 2015, S. H. E. PASP, Rauer, Hilke, 2014, & al. P. A. et Hatzes, T., J. Wright, X., S. Natur, Wang, 2018, E., al. Han, et B., Militzer, Y., Miguel, T., Biernacka,Guillot, & P., Flin, 73 M., Szyd 628, Exo- lowski, W., ApJ, in God 2005, lowski, 2010, S. B. B. Gaudi, Militzer, & I., Baraffe, J., ApJ, J. 2007, Fortney, W. J. Barnes, & S., M. Marley, J., J. Fortney, D. K.-P., Jack, & Schröeder, K.-P., Schröeder, R., Coziol, L., Flor-Torres, R., Coziol, L., Torres, 351 313, ApJ, Ap&SS, Flor 1998, 2008, P. C. Hut, R. Fleck, & G., L. Kiseleva, P., P. Inter- and Eggleton, Interstellar the of Physics 2011, T. B. Draine, dy .21,AA 3,141 533, A&A, 2011, S. Udry, 79 532, A&A, 2011, I. Zolotukhin, 362 CUP), NY: Haghigh- York, N. (New ed. ipour Planets, Habitable Characteriza- Extrasolar and of tion Detection, Formation, 293, IAUS arXiv:2002.05756 CUP) NY: York, (New verse UK: CUP) (Cambridge, Experiments and Observations ory, 223 555, Natur, 220 555, 2011 4, PhPl, 827 126, 227 555, 907 35, GReGr, 2003, M. 397 UAP), AZ: (Tuczon, Seager S. ed. planets, 1-5 1661 pp 659, 2016, press D. in 2020, doi:10.5281/zenodo.58717, Jack, & http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07922 A., (arXiv:1607.07922), C. Caretta, 853 499, PUP) MA: (Princeton, Medium galactic © Copyright 2021: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.16 .Czo,L .Fo-ors .Jc,adK-.Sh¨dr eatmnod srnmı,Uiesddde Germany. Astronom´ıa, Universidad Hamburg, Universität de Hamburg, Sternwarte, Schröder: Departamento Hamburger K.-P. Schmitt: M. and M. Jack, H. J. D. Flor-Torres, M. L. Coziol, R. Icar, 2006, D. Sasselov, ApJ, & 2002, J., R. C. O’Connell, Litwin, D., Valencia, & A., Konigl, A., NY: D. York, Uzdensky, (New Rotation, Stellar ApJ, 2000, 2011, J.-L. A. Tassoul, J. Milsom, & A., Burrows, S., D. Spiegel, 8,545 181, 1191 565, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511546044 CUP), 57 727, unjao unjao t. México. Gto., Guanajuato, Guanajuato, OPIGTEAGLRMMNU FSASADPAES231 PLANETS AND STARS OF MOMENTUM ANGULAR THE COUPLING um .&Bu,J 96 A/iiinfrPlanetary for AAS/Division 759 1996, 109, J. PASP, Blum, 1997, & T. G. Simon, Wurm, & C. S. Wolff, evolution and formation The in 1989, W. 296 G. 80, Wetherill, A&A, 1979, S. P. 619 384, Wesson, Natur, 1996, F. Marzari, & J. S. Weidenschilling, etn btat,2,p 11.02 p. 28, Abstracts, Meeting 24 Danly, p. L. Discussion, & 1-24, Weaver p. A. CUP), H. UK: (Cambridge, ed. systems, planetary of