4.7 Article

WARM JUPITERS ARE LESS LONELY THAN HOT JUPITERS: CLOSE NEIGHBORS

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 825, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/98

Keywords

methods: statistical; planets and satellites: general

Funding

  1. University of Toronto
  2. NASA Science Mission directorate
  3. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  4. NASA Office of Space Science [NNX09AF08G]
  5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exploiting the Kepler transit data, we uncover a dramatic distinction in the prevalence of sub-Jovian companions between systems that contain hot Jupiters (HJs) (periods inward of 10 days) and those that host warm Jupiters (WJs) (periods between 10 and 200 days). HJs, with the singular exception of WASP-47b, do not have any detectable inner or outer planetary companions (with periods inward of 50 days and sizes down to 2 R-Earth). Restricting ourselves to inner companions, our limits reach down to 1 R-Earth. In stark contrast, half of the WJs are closely flanked by small companions. Statistically, the companion fractions for hot and WJs are mutually exclusive, particularly in regard to inner companions. The high companion fraction of WJs also yields clues to their formation. The WJs that have close-by siblings should have low orbital eccentricities and low mutual inclinations. The orbital configurations of these systems are reminiscent of those of the low-mass close-in planetary systems abundantly discovered by the Kepler mission. This, and other arguments, lead us to propose that these WJs are formed in situ. There are indications that there may be a second population of WJs with different characteristics. In this picture, WASP-47b could be regarded as the extending tail of the in situ WJs into the HJ region and does not represent the generic formation route for HJs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available