4.7 Article

Fingerprints of giant planets in the composition of solar twins

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa578

关键词

Sun: abundances; planets and satellites: formation; planet-disc interactions; protoplanetary discs

资金

  1. STFC consolidated grant [ST/S000623/1]
  2. Royal Society University Research Fellowship
  3. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Staff Exchange programme [823823]
  4. STFC [ST/S000623/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Sun shows a similar to 10 per cent depletion in refractory elements relative to nearby solar twins. It has been suggested that this depletion is a signpost of planet formation. The exoplanet statistics are now good enough to show that the origin of this depletion does not arise from the sequestration of refractory material inside the planets themselves. This conclusion arises because most sun-like stars host close-in planetary systems that are on average more massive than the Sun's. Using evolutionary models for the protoplanetary discs that surrounded the young Sun and solar twins, we demonstrate that the origin of the depletion likely arises due to the trapping of dust exterior to the orbit of a forming giant planet. In this scenario, a forming giant planet opens a gap in the gas disc, creating a pressure trap. If the planet forms early enough, while the disc is still massive, the planet can trap greater than or similar to 100 M-circle plus of dust exterior to its orbit, preventing the dust from accreting on to the star in contrast to the gas. Forming giant planets can create refractory depletions of similar to 5-15 per cent, with the larger values occurring for initial conditions that favour giant planet formation (e.g. more massive discs that live longer). The incidence of solar twins that show refractory depletion matches both the occurrence of giant planets discovered in exoplanet surveys and 'transition' discs that show similar depletion patterns in the material that is accreting on to the star.

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