Draft version February 1, 2008 A Preprint typeset using L TEX style emulateapj v. 11/12/01 MASS-RADIUS RELATIONSHIPS FOR SOLID EXOPLANETS S. Seager1,2, M. Kuchner3, C. A. Hier-Majumder1, B. Militzer4 Draft version February 1, 2008 ABSTRACT We use new interior models of cold planets to investigate the mass-radius relationships of solid exoplan- ets, considering planets made primarily of iron, silicates, water, and carbon compounds. We find that the mass-radius relationships for cold terrestrial-mass planets of all compositions we considered follow a k3 generic functional form that is not a simple power law: log10 Rs = k1 +1/3log10(Ms) − k2Ms for up to Mp ≈ 20M⊕, where Ms and Rs are scaled mass and radius values. This functional form arises because the common building blocks of solid planets all have equations of state that are well approximated by a n modified polytrope of the form ρ = ρ0 + cP . We find that highly detailed planet interior models, including temperature structure and phase changes, are not necessary to derive solid exoplanet bulk composition from mass and radius measurements. For solid exoplanets with no substantial atmosphere we have also found that: with 5% fractional uncertainty in planet mass and radius it is possible to distinguish among planets composed predominantly of iron or silicates or water ice but not more detailed compositions; with ∼ 5% uncertainty water ice planets with & 25% water by mass may be identified; the minimum plausible planet size for a given mass is that of a pure iron planet; and carbon planet mass-radius relationships overlap with those of silicate and water planets due to similar zero-pressure densities and equations of state. We propose a definition of “super Earths” based on the clear distinction in radii between planets with significant gas envelopes and those without. Subject headings: extrasolar planets 1. introduction ner edge of its host star’s habitable zone (Udry et al. The growing number and unexpected diversity of re- 2007). Microlensing surveys have discovered two low-mass ∼ ∼ cently discovered extrasolar planets has motivated us to planets, 5.5M⊕ (Beaulieu et al. 2006) and 13M⊕ (Gould et al. 2006) at ∼ 2.5 AU from their parent stars, study the mass-radius relationship of solid exoplanets. The central question we pose is what can we determine suggesting that Neptune-mass planets are common. In one about an exoplanet’s composition from its mass and ra- planetary system, the Neptune-mass planet is the most massive planet in the system (Gould et al. 2006). dius? The answer to this question requires numerical mod- Space-based missions provide us with further motiva- els of planet interiors as well as an understanding of the 5 current limitations and future prospects of the precision of tion for our study. COROT (CNES; launched 27 De- cember 2006) and Kepler6 (NASA; launch date 2008) will planet mass and radius observations. search for low-mass exoplanets that transit their host star. The growing number of exoplanets includes some with 7 interesting radii. The planet HD 149026 b has such a small GAIA (ESA; launch date 2011) will measure stellar dis- tances (and hence their radii) precisely, removing a limit- radius for its measured mass that the planet must have a ing factor in deriving a precise planetary radius. Ground- core with a mass of 60–70 M⊕, or 2/3 of the planet’s to- based radial velocity techniques are pushing to higher pre- tal mass (Sato et al. 2005). Another planet, GJ 436b, is arXiv:0707.2895v1 [astro-ph] 19 Jul 2007 cision, and will enable mass measurements of many of the a Neptune-mass planet (Butler et al. 2004) that was re- cently discovered to show transits (Gillon et al. 2007) and COROT and Kepler planets. To examine what can we determine about an exoplanet’s to have a Neptune-like radius (M = 22.6 ± 1.9M⊕ and p composition from measurements of its mass and radius, Rp =3.95 ± 0.35R⊕). The unexpected diversity of exoplanets includes four- we derive theoretical mass-radius relationships for a wide range of exoplanet masses. To explore a wide range of teen exoplanets with M sin i< 21M⊕ (Butler et al. 2004; p masses and compositions, we make a major simplification: McArthur et al. 2004; Santos et al. 2004; Rivera et al. 2005; Bonfils et al. 2005; Vogt et al. 2005; Lovis et al. we make the approximation that the planet is at a uniform low temperature. This approximation of uniform low tem- 2006; Udry et al. 2006; Bonfils et al. 2007; Melo et al. perature serves as a practical simplification because the 2007), including one with M = 7.5M⊕ (Rivera et al. p equations of state (EOSs) are relatively well described at 2005) and another with Mp = 5M⊕ orbiting at the in- 1 Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5241 Broad Branch Rd. NW, Washington, DC 20015 2 Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 54-1626, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA, 01742 3 Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics Laboratory, Code 667, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 4 Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5251 Broad Branch Rd. NW, Washington, DC 20015 5 http://smsc.cnes.fr/COROT/ 6 http://kepler.nasa.gov/ 7 http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=26 1 2 zero-temperature or at 300 K for a wide variety of materi- and the equation of state (EOS) als below 200 GPa. The full temperature-dependent EOSs P (r)= f(ρ(r),T (r)), (3) for the materials of interest are either unknown or highly uncertain at the temperatures massive solid planets can where f is a unique function for a given material. Dif- reach in their interiors and in the pressure range beyond ferent approximations to the EOS have been derived and the reach of static compression experiments (. 200 GPa) we describe our choice in detail in §3. For the majority and the analytical high pressure laws of plasma physics of the calculations for solid materials presented here, we (& 104 GPa). neglect the temperature dependence of the EOS and use We adopt our approach from the foundational work experimental data obtained at room temperature. The of Zapolsky & Salpeter (1969) who computed mass-radius importance of thermal contributions to the pressure are relationships for homogeneous zero-temperature spheres of discussed in §4.2.2. single elements. We improve upon Zapolsky & Salpeter We numerically integrate equations (1) and (2) starting (1969) by using a more accurate EOS at pressures P . at the planet’s center (r = 0) using the inner boundary 1000 GPa. We further expand upon Zapolsky & Salpeter condition M(0) = 0 and P (0) = Pcentral, where Pcentral is (1969) by: considering more realistic planetary materials; a chosen central pressure. For the outer boundary condi- considering differentiated planets; by exploring the effects tion we use P (Rp) = 0. The choice of Pcentral at the inner of temperature on the planet mass and radius; and by in- boundary and the outer boundary condition P (Rp)= 0de- vestigating potential observational uncertainties on planet fines the planetary radius Rp and total mass Mp = m(Rp). mass and radius. Integrating equations (1) and (2) over and over for a range This work complements the highly focused physical of Pcentral provides the mass-radius relationship for a given models of low-mass exoplanets offered by other authors. EOS. A detailed study by L´eger et al. (2004) focused on water For differentiated planets containing more than one kind planets, and provided a detailed model of the interior and of material, we specify the desired fractional mass of the atmosphere of a 6 M⊕ planet with an interior composi- core and of each shell. We then integrate equations (1) and tion of: 3 M⊕ of water, 2 M⊕ of a silicate mantle and (2) as specified above, given a Pcentral and outer bound- 1 M⊕ iron and nickel core (see also Kuchner (2003) for ary condition. We switch from one material to the next a description of a water planet.) Valencia et al. (2006) where the desired fractional mass is reached, using a guess calculated the mass-radius relationship for “super Earths” of the total planet mass. Since we do not know the total and “super Mercuries” (defined in their paper to be 1–10 mass that a given integration will yield ahead of time, we M⊕ and similar composition to Earth and 1–10 Mercury generally need to iterate a few times in order to produce masses and similar composition to Mercury, respectively). a model with the desired distribution of material. Valencia et al. (2006) explore different mineral composi- We tested our code by trying to duplicate the mass- tions of the mantle and core, and investigate whether the radius curves in Zapolsky & Salpeter (1969), using their planets have solid or liquid cores and apply their model EOS (Salpeter & Zapolsky 1967). Our mass-radius curves to Gl 876d in Valencia et al. (2007b) and to degeneracies agreed with those in Zapolsky & Salpeter (1969) to within of planet interior composition in Valencia et al. (2007a). a few percent. Ehrenreich et al. (2006) model small cold exoplanets to study the microlensing planet OGLE 2005-BLG-390Lb 3. equations of state (Beaulieu et al. 2006). In the past Stevenson (1982) and An equation of state (EOS) describes the relationship more recently Fortney et al. (2007) and Sotin et al. (2007) between density, pressure, and temperature for a given have also investigated mass-radius relationships of rocky material in thermodynamic equilibrium. Because we com- and icy exoplanets.