Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:20:42.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Planetary Orbital Period Ratio Distribution In Multiple Planet Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2014

Ji-Wei Xie
Ji-Wei Xie*
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy & Key Laboratory of Modern Astronomy and Astrophysics in Ministry of Education, Nanjing University, 210093, China Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3H4, Canada email: [email protected]
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.

Many multiple planet systems have been found by both radial velocity (RV) and transit surveys, such as the Kepler mission. Period ratio distribution of these planet candidates show that they do not prefer to be in or near Mean Motion Resonance (MMR). Nevertheless, there are small but significant excesses of candidate pairs both spaced slightly exterior to exact resonance, particular near the first order of MMR, such as 2:1 and 3:2. Here, we first review recent observational constraints on these multiple transiting systems and theoretical models, which attempt to understand their period ratio distributions. Then we identify a statistical effect based on an intrinsic asymmetry associated with MMR, and find it play an important role in shaping the period ratio distribution near MMR. Last but least, we also find such an intrinsic asymmetry is existing in asteroids of our solar system.

Keywords

celestial mechanics – planets and satellites: general
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 8 , Symposium S293: Formation, Detection, and Characterization of Extrasolar Habitable Planets , August 2012 , pp. 110 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2014 

References

Batalha, N. M., Rowe, J. F., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2013, ApJS 204 article id. 24Google Scholar
Batygin, K. & Morbidelli, A. 2013, AJ 145 article id.1Google Scholar
Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., Basri, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delisle, J.-B., Laskar, J., Correia, A. C. M., & Boué, G. 2012, A&A 546 id.A71Google Scholar
Fabrycky, D. C., Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., et al. 2012, arXiv:1202.6328Google Scholar
Fang, J. & Margot, J.-L. 2012, ApJ 761 article id. 92Google Scholar
Figueira, P., Marmier, M., Boué, G., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A139Google Scholar
Kane, S. R., Ciardi, D. R., Gelino, D. M., & von Braun, K. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lithwick, Y. & Wu, Y. 2012, ApJL, 756, L11Google Scholar
Lithwick, Y., Xie, J., & Wu, Y. 2012, ApJ 761 article id. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moons, M. 1996, CeMDA, 65, 175Google Scholar
Moorhead, A. V., Ford, E. B., Morehead, R. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. D. & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
Plavchan, P., Bilinski, C., & Currie, T. 2014, PASP, 126, 34Google Scholar
Rein, H. 2012, MNRAS, 427, L21Google Scholar
Scholl, H. 1979, Dynamics of the Solar System, 81, 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terquem, C. & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2007, ApJ, 654, 1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veras, D. & Ford, E. B. 2012, MNRAS, 420, L23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, J.-W. 2013a, ApJS 208 article id.22Google Scholar
Xie, J.-W. 2014, ApJS 210 article id. 25Google Scholar