Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:55:55.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Constraining Planetary Migration Mechanisms in Systems of Giant Planets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2014

Rebekah I. Dawson
Affiliation:
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden St, MS-10, Cambridge, MA 02138
Ruth A. Murray-Clay
Affiliation:
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden St, MS-10, Cambridge, MA 02138
John Asher Johnson
Affiliation:
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden St, MS-10, Cambridge, MA 02138
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It was once widely believed that planets formed peacefully in situ in their proto-planetary disks and subsequently remain in place. Instead, growing evidence suggests that many giant planets undergo dynamical rearrangement that results in planets migrating inward in the disk, far from their birthplaces. However, it remains debated whether this migration is caused by smooth planet-disk interactions or violent multi-body interactions. Both classes of model can produce Jupiter-mass planets orbiting within 0.1 AU of their host stars, also known as hot Jupiters. In the latter class of model, another planet or star in the system perturbs the Jupiter onto a highly eccentric orbit, which tidal dissipation subsequently shrinks and circularizes during close passages to the star. We assess the prevalence of smooth vs. violent migration through two studies. First, motivated by the predictions of Socrates et al. (2012), we search for super-eccentric hot Jupiter progenitors by using the “photoeccentric effect” to measure the eccentricities of Kepler giant planet candidates from their transit light curves. We find a significant lack of super- eccentric proto-hot Jupiters compared to the number expected, allowing us to place an upper limit on the fraction of hot Jupiters created by stellar binaries. Second, if both planet-disk and multi-body interactions commonly cause giant planet migration, physical properties of the proto-planetary environment may determine which is triggered. We identify three trends in which giant planets orbiting metal rich stars show signatures of planet-planet interactions: (1) gas giants orbiting within 1 AU of metal-rich stars have a range of eccentricities, whereas those orbiting metal- poor stars are restricted to lower eccentricities; (2) metal-rich stars host most eccentric proto-hot Jupiters undergoing tidal circularization; and (3) the pile-up of short-period giant planets, missing in the Kepler sample, is a feature of metal-rich stars and is largely recovered for giants orbiting metal-rich Kepler host stars. These two studies suggest that both disk migration and planet-planet interactions may be widespread, with the latter occurring primarily in metal-rich planetary systems where multiple giant planets can form. Funded by NSF-GRFP DGE-1144152.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013 

References

Batalha, , Rowe, , Bryson, , et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, R. I. & Johnson, J. A. 2012, ApJ, 756, 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, R. I., Johnson, J. A., Morton, , et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 163Google Scholar
Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2013, Ap. Lett., 767, L24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, R. I., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Johnson, J. A. 2013, ArXiv e-prints 1211.0554Google Scholar
Goldreich, P. & Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lin, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 74Google Scholar
Naoz, S., Farr, W. M., Lithwick, Y., et al. 2011, Nature, 473, 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasio, F. A. & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Socrates, A., Katz, B., Dong, S., & Tremaine, S. 2012, ApJ, 750, 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffen, J. H., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2012, Proceedings of the NAS, 109, 7982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. F. 2012, arXiv:1211.1984Google Scholar
Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Howard, A. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 160Google Scholar
Wu, Y. & Lithwick, Y. 2011, ApJ, 735, 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y. & Murray, N. 2003, ApJ, 589, 605CrossRefGoogle Scholar