1 / 18

Luminosity and Spectra of Young Jupiters Jonathan J. Fortney University of California, Santa Cruz

Mark Marley (NASA Ames) Olenka Hubickyj (NASA Ames) Peter Bodenheimer (UC Santa Cruz) Jack Lissauer (NASA Ames) Didier Saumon (Los Alamos Nat’l Lab) GPI NYC May 24, 2010. Luminosity and Spectra of Young Jupiters Jonathan J. Fortney University of California, Santa Cruz. Talk Outline.

clark-benjamin
Download Presentation

Luminosity and Spectra of Young Jupiters Jonathan J. Fortney University of California, Santa Cruz

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mark Marley (NASA Ames) • Olenka Hubickyj (NASA Ames) • Peter Bodenheimer (UC Santa Cruz) • Jack Lissauer (NASA Ames) • Didier Saumon (Los Alamos Nat’l Lab) • GPI NYC • May 24, 2010 Luminosity and Spectra of Young Jupiters Jonathan J. Fortney University of California, Santa Cruz

  2. Talk Outline • Jupiter and Saturn • Nucleated collapse models (Core accretion – Gas capture) • Alternate early evolution • Limits of applicability of the core accretion-start models • When can models be trusted? • Can initial conditions be improved? • Spectra of young giant planets • Effects of Enhanced Metallicity • Effects of Nonequilibrium chemistry

  3. Observations of Jupiter & Saturn • Composition is not like the Sun • Structure models show enhancement of “heavy elements” (atoms heavier than helium -- ice and rock) • Jupiter: 1.5 - 6 X solar • Saturn: 6 - 14 X solar • Heavy element cores • Jupiter: 0-11 M • Saturn: 9 - 22 M • Atmospheres show similar enrichment • Jupiter: 2 - 4 X solar • Saturn: 4 - 10 X solar • Appears most consistent with the core-accretion formation mechanism (Pollack et al., 1996, Alibert et al., 2005) Saumon & Guillot (2004)

  4. “Hot Start” Models Standard cooling models for giant planets (and brown dwarfs) make simplifying assumptions: • Planets begin evolution fully formed • Planets are adiabatic at all ages • Initially arbitrarily large and hot • Initial model is unimportant as long as it is quite hot (tKH is very short at large L and R), and models are only plotted for t >1 Myr

  5. Saumon et al. (1996) “Although all these calculations may reliably represent the degenerate cooling phase, they cannot be expected to provide accurate information on the first 105-108 years of evolution because of the artificiality of an initially adiabatic, homologously contracting state. --Stevenson (1982)

  6. Stahler et al. (1980a) Hubickyj, Bodenheimer, & Lissauer implementation of the core-accretion model • Planetesimals→core • Gas accretion rate grows and surpasses solid accretion rate • Runaway gas accretion • Limiting gas accretion→how fast can nebular gas be supplied? Gas arrives at a shock interface. • Accretion terminates→ isolation stage (cooling & contraction)

  7. Post-Formation Entropy • Internal specific entropy 1 Myr after formation • Entropy monotonically decreases with age • Low post-formation entropy → small radii & low luminosity • Quite dependent on the treatment of the accretion shock! • At higher masses, a higher % of mass has passed through shock Marley, Fortney, et al. (2007)

  8. Core-accretion planets are formed with significantly smaller entropy and radii • tKH 1/LR  e-2.8S, meaning evolution is initially much slower for the core-accretion planets • Initial conditions are not forgotten in “a few million years,” but rather, 10 million to 1 billion. • Initial Teff values cluster around 600-800 K

  9. A Tiny Bit of Progress

  10. Energetics of Accretion: Hard SPH radiation hydrodynamics Must look at gas accretion for a few million years—lots of computing time Ayliffe & Bate (2009)

  11. Spectra of “Planets” vs. Low Mass Brown Dwarfs • Effects of increased metallicity are somewhat subtle • Brightening in K band is clearest signature • Opacity of CH4 and H2O scale with metallicity, but H2 collision-induced absorption (CIA) does not • K band (strongly affected by H2 opacity) is relatively more transparent at high metallicity • Redder J-K and H-K colors may indicate enhanced metallicity • CO2 opacity may also become important, because its abundance scales quadratically with metallicity (cloud free) Fortney, Marley, et al. (2008)

  12. Redder NIR Colors Due to Enhanced Metallicity At higher metallicity: H-K redder by 0.5-1.5 J-K redder by 0.7-1.0 Fortney, Marley, et al. (2008)

  13. Metallicity Expectations? Carbon X solar Are super Jupiters metal enriched? Does this vary with orbital distance? Planet Mass (MJ)

  14. Cold L Dwarfs?

  15. L-to-T Transition: Clouds hang around later at lower gravity? 1200 K Burrows et al. (2006) Fortney, Marley, et al. (2008) Around L-T transition, low-gravity objects are more CO-rich, at a given Teff

  16. Next Year or Two • New core-accretion thermal evolution models from 1-15 MJ, including D-fusion where appropriate (w/ Bodenheimer & Lissauer) • Grids of Teff/gravity/metallicity/clouds in preparation for GPI planets: • Some additions to Fortney et al. (2008): • CO2 – band at ~2μm in K-band • Finer metallicity grid • Clouds at higher T (silicates) • Clouds at lower T (water)

  17. Nonequilibrium Chemistry: HR8799

More Related