1 / 21

Neptune Mass Exoplanets Jeff Valenti

Neptune Mass Exoplanets Jeff Valenti. M Jupiter / 19 = M Neptune = 17 M Earth. Key Points. Core-Accretion planet formation scenario Metal-rich stars have more Jupiter mass planets Msini sensitivity has steadily improved Largest Msini in a system constrains models

idola-schmidt
Download Presentation

Neptune Mass Exoplanets Jeff Valenti

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. Neptune Mass ExoplanetsJeff Valenti MJupiter/19 = MNeptune = 17MEarth

  2. Key Points • Core-Accretion planet formation scenario • Metal-rich stars have more Jupiter mass planets • Msini sensitivity has steadily improved • Largest Msini in a system constrains models • Measuring [Fe/H] for M dwarfs is hard • Known systems with Msini < MNep are metal poor • Core-Accretion predicts “planet desert” below MNep • Set limits on Msini of undetected planets • Extrapolating mass function to super-Earths • Radial velocities affected by “jitter” • Improving velocity precision with “grand solution” Host metallicity Mass function

  3. Core Accretion Planet Formation Early Phase Sticking and Coagulation Middle Phase Gravitational Attraction Late Phase Gas Sweeping

  4. Synthetic Spectrum Fits 6223 K 5770 K 5277 K 4744 K Valenti & Fischer (2005, ApJ, 159, 141)

  5. Metal rich stars have more Jupiter-mass planets Core-Accretion!

  6. Msini sensitivity has steadily improved exoplanets.org Lowest Mass in FV (2005) [K<30 m/s] Mass of Neptune

  7. [Fe/H] of host star vs. lowest Msini in system

  8. [Fe/H] of host star vs. highest Msini in system

  9. G+M binaries constrain photometric [Fe/H] for M dwarfs [Fe/H] +0.24 +0.45 +0.28 Johnson & Apps (2009, ApJ, 699, 933) +0.31 +0.21 Binaries +0.21 Jupiters Neptunes IR: Barbara Rojas-Ayala

  10. Improve [Fe/H] for M dwarfs

  11. Known systems with Msini < MNep are metal poor Mean [Fe/H] is -0.13 Still need to evaluate sample bias Mass of Neptune

  12. Current models predict a “planet desert” Mordasini, Alibert, Benz (2009, A&A, 501, 1139) Gas Giants Ice Giants Mass of Neptune Snow Line

  13. Set Limits on Mass of Undetected Planets Bad Case, N=22 Good Case, N=131

  14. Howard et al. (2010, Science, 330, 653) Occurrence and Mass Distribution of Close-in Super-Earths, Neptunes, and Jupiters Planets Detections Candidates FAP < 0.05

  15. Observations Disprove Current Models

  16. Planetary Mass Function (P < 50 days) Howard et al. (2010, Science, 330, 653) Power law extrapolation Msini=0.5-2.0, P<50 d ηEarth = 23+16-10%

  17. HD 179079 – Apparent Uncertainties Error bars = stddev(vseg-vmean)/√Nseg Msini = 27.5MEarth

  18. Radial velocities affected by “jitter” Valenti et al. (2009, ApJ, 702, 989) • Analysis component • Stellar component

  19. Plenty of Constraints for Grand Solution

  20. Radial Velocities for GJ 412a

  21. Key Points • Core-Accretion planet formation scenario • Metal-rich stars have more Jupiter mass planets • Msini sensitivity has steadily improved • Largest Msini in a system constrains models • Measuring [Fe/H] for M dwarfs is hard • Known systems with Msini < MNep are metal poor • Core-Accretion predicts “planet desert” below MNep • Set limits on Msini of undetected planets • Extrapolating mass function to super-Earths • Radial velocities affected by “jitter” • Improving velocity precision with “grand solution” Host metallicity Mass function

More Related