1 / 50

Detection and Characterization of Jovian Planets

Doug Lin:. Detection and Characterization of Jovian Planets. D.N.C. Lin University of California, Santa Cruz with. S. Ida, H. Li, S.L. Li, I. Dobbs-Dixon, J.L. Zhou, M. Nagasawa, P. Garaud, E. Thommes , R. Lange, G. Ogilvie, S.J. Aarseth, M. Evonuk.

overton
Download Presentation

Detection and Characterization of Jovian Planets

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. Doug Lin: Detection and Characterization of Jovian Planets D.N.C. Lin University of California, Santa Cruz with S. Ida, H. Li, S.L. Li, I. Dobbs-Dixon, J.L. Zhou, M. Nagasawa, P. Garaud, E. Thommes, R. Lange, G. Ogilvie, S.J. Aarseth, M. Evonuk Exo Planet Task Force National Science Foundation Feb 20th, 2007 48 slides

  2. Mass-period distribution A continuous logarithmic period distribution A pile-up near 3 days and another pile up near 2-3 years Does the mass function depend on the period? Is there an edge to the planetary systems? Does the mass function depend on the stellar mass or [Fe/H]? 2/48

  3. Dependence on the stellar [Fe/H] Santos, Fischer & Valenti Frequency of Jovian-mass planets increases rapidly with [Fe/H]. But, the ESP’s mass and period distribution are insensitive to [Fe/H]! Is there a correlation between [Fe/H] & hot Jupiters ? Do multiple systems tend to associated with stars with high [Fe/H]? 3/48

  4. Dependence on M* 1) hJ increases with M* 2) Mp and ap increase with M* Do eccentricity and multiplicity depend on M*? 4/48

  5. Multiple systems Diversity in mass distribution Resonant system with limited mass What fraction of Jovian mass planets reside in multiple systems? Is multiplicity more correlated with [Fe/H] or M* than single planets? 5/48

  6. Planetary interior:diverse structure & Fe/H HD149026b: 67 earth-mass core 6/48

  7. Avenues of planet formation 7/48

  8. Disk evolution Protostellar disks: Gas/dust = 100 Dabris disks: Gas/dust = 0.01 only external disk but accreting star Transitional disks 8/48

  9. Inner disks disappear ~ 10 Myr Hillenbrand & Meyer 2000 1.0 r Oph CrA N2024 0.8 N1333 Mon R2 Trap Taurus 0.6 LHa101 N7128 L1641y Fraction of disks L1641b ONC 0.4 Lupus IC 348 N2264 Cha 0.2 TW Hyd Pleiades Hyades 0.0 a Per Ursa Major 10 100 1 Gyr 1 0.1 Age (Myr) 9/48 Gas accretion rate

  10. Potential observational signatures Coexistence of gas and solid phase volatile ices Evolution of snow line 10/48

  11. Condensation sequence Meteorites: Dry, chondrules & CAI’s Icy moons 11/48

  12. Signs of Crystalline grains Apai Bouwman 12/48

  13. 13/48

  14. Chondritic meteorites • Limited size range, sm-cm, • Glass texture, flash heating, • Age difference with CAI’s, • Matrix glue & abundance, • Weak tensile strength. • Formation timescale 2-3 Myr 14/48

  15. From dust to planetesimals Retention of heavy elements: tgrowth~Sdust but tdecay ~ Sgas 15/48

  16. From planetesimals to embryos Feeding zones: D ~ 10 rHill Isolation mass: Misolation ~ S1.5a3 Initial growth: (runaway) 16/48

  17. Growth during gas depletion Rapid damping: many small residual embryos. Slow damping: large eccentricity Delicate balance: Kominami & Ida Separation of eccentricity Excitation and damping is Needed! 17/48

  18. Disk-planet tidal interactions type-I migration type-II migration Lin & Papaloizou (1985),.... Goldreich & Tremaine (1979), Ward (1986, 1997), Tanaka et al. (2002) planet’s perturbation viscous diffusion disk torque imbalance viscous disk accretion 18/48

  19. Competition: M growth & a decay 10 Myr 1 Myr 0.1 Myr Limiting isolation mass Hyper-solar nebula x30 Metal enhancement does not always help! need to slow down migration 19/48

  20. Embryos’ type I migration (10 Mearth) Cooler and invisic disks Warmer disks 20/48

  21. (Mass) growth vs (orbital) decay Embryos’ migration time scale Outer embryos are better preserved only after significant gas depletion Critical-mass core:Mp=5Mearth Loss due to Type I migration Jovian-mass ESP’s are rare around late-type stars 21/48

  22. Preferred cradles of gas giants: snow line Limited by: Isolation slow growth 22/48

  23. Accretion onto cores Pollack et al • Challenges: • Core growth: perturbation slow • down & planetesimal gaps (Ida) • Radiation transfer efficiency • grain survival & opacity (Podolak) • 3) Low global Sdust (Bryden) Korycansky Bodenheimer 23/48

  24. Giant impacts • Diversity in core mass • Spin orientation • Survival of satellites • Retention of atmosphere Late bombardment of planetesimals 24/48

  25. Flow into the Roche lobe H/a=0.07 Bondi radius (Rb=GMp /cs2) Hill’s radius (Rh=(Mp/3M* )1/3 a) Disk thickness (H=csa/Vk) Rb/ Rh =31/3(Mp /M*)2/3(a/H)2 decreases with M* H/a=0.04 25/48

  26. Effect of type I migration Habitable planets M/s accuracy 26/48

  27. The period distribution:Type II migration 27/48 Disk depletion versus migration

  28. short-period cutoff Stopping mechanisms: 1) magnetospheric cavity 2) stellar tidal barrier 3) protoplanetary consumption 4) planetary tidal disruption Ogilvie Prediction: 90% disruption of hot Jupiters Bimodal Q*: prevalence of 1-day planets Tidal inflation Bodenheimer 28/48

  29. Stellar metallicity, mass loss, & circularization of hot Jupiters • Early formation • Extensive migration • High mortality rate • Planetary mass loss • Tidal circularization • Signs of evolution?

  30. Transits: atmosphere & structure 29/48

  31. period cutoffs depletion vs growth time 30/48 Prediction: period fall-off Test: gravitational lense Ice giants: Collisions vs ejections

  32. The mass distribution Origin of desert: Runaway gas accretion Bryden 31/48

  33. Metallicity dependence [Fe/H] • Two determining factors for the slope: • Heavy element retention efficiency, growth vs accretion • Growth rate and isolation mass of embryos 32/48

  34. Stellar mass-metallicity More data needed for high and low-mass stars 33/48

  35. Multiple planets a) Induced formation of multiple giants b) Resonant planets c) Formation time scale comparable to migration Bryden 34/48

  36. Migration-free sweeping secular resonances Resonant secular perturbation Mdisk ~Mp (Ward, Ida, Nagasawa) Ups And Transitional disks 35/48

  37. Bode’s law: dynamically porous terrestrial planets orbits with low eccentricities with wide separation Dynamical shake up (Nagasawa, Thommes) 36/48

  38. Migration, Collisions, & damping • Clearing of the asteroid belt • Earlier formation of Mars • Sun ward planetesimals • Late formation (10-50 Myr) • Giant-embryo impacts • Low eccentricities, stable orbits 37/48

  39. Giant impact & lunar formation • Lunar material similar • to the Earth’s crust. • Formation after the • differentiation (30 Myr) • Mars-size impactor • Post impact circular orbit Formation after 60 Myr Formation on 30-60 Myr 38/48

  40. Sweeping clear of planetesimals Sweeping secular resonance & gas drag b Pic:Duncan, Nagasawa 39/48

  41. Last melting events of chondrules Flash heating: Large S : evaporation Medium S : melting Small S : preservation 40/48

  42. Sweeping secular resonance in ESP’s Triple system around Ups And Rotational flattening & precession Nagasawa, Mardling Excitation of e & tidal inflation in HD209458 & disruption in 55 Can Gu, Ogilvie, Bodenheimer, Laughlin 41/48

  43. Formation of warm Neptunes Jupiter-Saturn secular interaction & multiple extrasolar systems Relativistic detuning in m Arae 42/48

  44. Dynamical filling factor: e excitation & chaos Post Depletion Dynamical Stability Rayleigh distribution 43/48

  45. Mean motion resonance capture Migration of gas giants can lead To the formation of hot earth Implication for COROT Tidal decay out of mean motion resonance (Novak & Lai) Zhou Impact enlargement Rejuvenation of gas Giant. HD 209458b (Guillot) 44/48 Detection probability of hot EarthNarayan, Cumming

  46. A 2 Mearth “hot rock” planet in a 7-d orbit observed for 6 months with APF @ 1.3 m/s precision Easily detected! But this short-period planet is much too hot for habitability 45/48

  47. Frequency of Earth 46/48

  48. 1 Mearth planet in a 35-d habitable-zone orbit around a nearby M dwarf – observed for 6 months with a 9-telescope global array @ 2.0 m/s precision Easy detection! 47/48

  49. Damping & high S leads to rapid growth & large • isolation masses. Jupiter formed prior to the final • assemblage of terrestrial planets within a few Myrs. • 2) Emergence of the first gas giants after the disk mass was • reduced to that of the minimum nebula model. • 3) Planetary mobility promotes formation & destruction. • 4) The first gas giants induce formation of other siblings. • 5) Shakeup led to the dynamically • porous configuration • of the inner solar system & • the formation of the Moon. • 6) Earths are common and • detectable within a few yrs! Sequential accretion scenario summary 48/48

  50. Outstanding issues: • Frequence of planets for different stellar masses • Completeness of the mass-period distribution • Signs of dynamical evolution • Mass distribution of close-in planets: efficiency of migration • Halting mechanisms for close-in planets • Origin of planetary eccentricity • Formation and dynamical interaction of multiple planetary systems • Internal and atmospheric structure and dynamics of gas giants • Satellite formation • Low-mass terrestrial planets

More Related