4.7 Article

Double-ringed debris discs could be the work of eccentric planets: explaining the strange morphology of HD 107146

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv1847

关键词

planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability; planet-disc interactions; circumstellar matter; stars: individual: HD 107146

资金

  1. STFC
  2. European Union through ERC [279973]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the general interaction between an eccentric planet and a coplanar debris disc of the same mass, using analytical theory and N-body simulations. Such an interaction could result from a planet-planet scattering or merging event. We show that when the planet mass is comparable to that of the disc, the former is often circularized with little change to its semimajor axis. The secular effect of such a planet can cause debris to apsidally anti-align with the planet's orbit (the opposite of what may be naively expected), leading to the counter-intuitive result that a low-mass planet may clear a larger region of debris than a higher mass body would. The interaction generally results in a double-ringed debris disc, which is comparable to those observed in HD 107146 and HD 92945. As an example we apply our results to HD 107146, and show that the disc's morphology and surface brightness profile can be well reproduced if the disc is interacting with an eccentric planet of comparable mass (similar to 10-100 Earth masses). This hypothetical planet had a pre-interaction semimajor axis of 30 or 40 au (similar to its present-day value) and an eccentricity of 0.4 or 0.5 (which would since have reduced to similar to 0.1). Thus the planet (if it exists) presently resides near the inner edge of the disc, rather than between the two debris peaks as may otherwise be expected. Finally, we show that disc self-gravity can be important in this mass regime and, whilst it would not affect these results significantly, it should be considered when probing the interaction between a debris disc and a planet.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据