Ge/Ay133

What have radial velocity surveys told us about (exo)-planetary science?

Discovery space for indirect methods:

Radial velocity

Astrometry

(r=distance to the star)

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

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

Jovian planetsthrougout the0.05-5 AU region.

And…

Updated plots follow.

No strong preference for orbital distances…

…except for a“pile up” of hotJupiters at P~3 days.

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

Eccentricities. II. Short Period Circularization

Even with incompleteness, strong preference for ~Jovian mass:

Stars are different, turnover at low mass!

“The brown dwarf desert”?

Does this tell usthat stars and planets formdifferently?

Orion IMF

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

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

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

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

?

Another clue as to formation: Planet formation efficiency correlates strongly with metallicity!

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

What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass?

Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

Radial velocity surveys mostly focused on Sun-like stars. Why?

ActiveChromospheres

Low-contrastLines

What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass?

Clever idea for highermass A stars:

Look at older systemsthat have evolvedoff the main sequence.

Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass?

Two preliminary findings (that are being tested with larger surveys):

1. Planet formation efficiency increases w/mass.

2. The proportion of hot Jupiters decreases w/mass (not observational bias).

M4 – K7 K5 – F8 F5 - A5

What about planetary multiplicity? Complex doppler patterns:

Summary of several of the known multiple planetary systems:

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

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

GJ 876 orbitsevolve with time (expected w/mutual perturbations)!

What about other systems?

Rivera, E.J. et al. 2005, (see class web site)

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

Vogt, S.S. et al. 2010, (arXiv:1009.5733v1)

HD 168443b: 7.2 Mj 58 daysc: 17 Mj 1739 days

=1/29.98 ?!30:1?

HD 12661b: 2.3 Mj 263 daysc: 1.6 Mj 1444 days

=1/5.511:2?

47 U Mab: 2.5 Mj 1089 daysc: 0.76 Mj 2594 days

=1/2.4

Gleise 876b: 1.89 Mj 61 daysc: 0.56 Mj 30 days

HD 37124b: 0.75 Mj 152 dc: 1.2 Mj 1495 d

ups Andb: 0.69 Mj 4.6 dc: 1.9 Mj 241.5 dd: 3.75 Mj 1284 d

HD 82943b: 1.63 Mj 444 dc: 0.88 222 d

55 Cncb: .84 Mj 14.6 dc: 0.21 Mj 44.3 dd: 4 Mj 5360 d

3:1!

What we know:- ~1% of solar-type stars have Hot Jupiters

-~7% of solar-type stars have >Mj planets in the “terrestrial planet” region. Extrapolation of currentincompeteness suggests >12% w/planets @ <20 AU.- multiple planetary systems are ~common

- planetary resonances are ~common

What can explain these properties?

Disk-star- and protoplanet interactions lead to migration while the gas is present. Core- accretion?

Theory

1 AU at 140 pc subtends 0.’’007.

Jupiter (5 AU):V_doppler = 13 m/sV_orbit = 13 km/sSimulation G. Bryden, JPL

Thus, need to study objects in this phase…

Core-accretion models can now be compared to observations:

Planetsversusmetallicity:

Data

Observedin opencircles.

Ida, S. & Lin, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 567

Early disk models held that eccentricities were DAMPED. Not so fast…

Goldreich & Sari 2005

Need aninitiale~0.01.

Goldreich, P. & Sari, R. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1024