4.8 Article

Growth model interpretation of planet size distribution

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1812905116

关键词

exoplanets; bimodal distribution; ices; water worlds; planet formation

资金

  1. Simons Foundation [Simons Collaboration on the Origins of Life] [337090]
  2. Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean's Competitive Fund for Promising Scholarship
  3. Sandia Z Fundamental Science Program by the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA0001804, DE-NA0002937]
  4. Harvard University
  5. US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA-0003525]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The radii and orbital periods of 4,000+ confirmed/candidate exoplanets have been precisely measured by the Kepler mission. The radii show a bimodal distribution, with two peaks corresponding to smaller planets ( likely rocky) and larger intermediate-size planets, respectively. While only the masses of the planets orbiting the brightest stars can be determined by ground-based spectroscopic observations, these observations allow calculation of their average densities placing constraints on the bulk compositions and internal structures. However, an important question about the composition of planets ranging from 2 to 4 Earth radii (R-circle plus) still remains. They may either have a rocky core enveloped in a H-2-He gaseous envelope ( gas dwarfs) or contain a significant amount of multicomponent, H2O-dominated ices/fluids ( water worlds). Planets in the mass range of 10-15 M-circle plus, if half-ice and half-rock by mass, have radii of 2.5 R-circle plus, which exactly match the second peak of the exoplanet radius bimodal distribution. Any planet in the 2- to 4-R. range requires a gas envelope of at most a few mass percentage points, regardless of the core composition. To resolve the ambiguity of internal compositions, we use a growth model and conduct Monte Carlo simulations to demonstrate that many intermediate-size planets are water worlds.

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

4.8
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