4.7 Article

ARCHITECTURE OF PLANETARY SYSTEMS BASED ON KEPLER DATA: NUMBER OF PLANETS AND COPLANARITY

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 761, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/92

Keywords

methods: statistical; planetary systems; planets and satellites: detection; planets and satellites: general

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the underlying architecture of planetary systems by deriving the distribution of planet multiplicity (number of planets) and the distribution of orbital inclinations based on the sample of planet candidates discovered by the Kepler mission. The scope of our study included solar-like stars and planets with orbital periods less than 200 days and with radii between 1.5 and 30 Earth radii, and was based on Kepler planet candidates detected during Quarters 1-6. We created models of planetary systems with different distributions of planet multiplicity and inclinations, simulated observations of these systems by Kepler, and compared the properties of the transits of detectable objects to actual Kepler planet detections. Specifically, we compared with both the Kepler sample's transit numbers and normalized transit duration ratios in order to determine each model's goodness of fit. We did not include any constraints from radial velocity surveys. Based on our best-fit models, 75%-80% of planetary systems have one or two planets with orbital periods less than 200 days. In addition, over 85% of planets have orbital inclinations less than 3 degrees (relative to a common reference plane). This high degree of coplanarity is comparable to that seen in our solar system. These results have implications for planet formation and evolution theories. Low inclinations are consistent with planets forming in a protoplanetary disk, followed by evolution without significant and lasting perturbations from other bodies capable of increasing inclinations.

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