4.6 Article

Architectures of Compact Super-Earth Systems Shaped by Instabilities

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 163, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5961

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compact nonresonant systems of sub-Jovian planets exhibit both internal uniformity and overall diversity. N-body simulations show that disrupting resonances can replicate observed exoplanet system architectures, and collisions modify the mass uniformity. In addition, the observed uniformity in orbital period spacing can be naturally generated through primordial mass uniformity and dynamical sculpting.
Compact nonresonant systems of sub-Jovian planets are the most common outcome of the planet formation process. Despite exhibiting broad overall diversity, these planets also display dramatic signatures of intrasystem uniformity in their masses, radii, and orbital spacings. Although the details of their formation and early evolution are poorly known, sub-Jovian planets are expected to emerge from their natal nebulae as multiresonant chains, owing to planet-disk interactions. Within the context of this scenario, the architectures of observed exoplanet systems can be broadly replicated if resonances are disrupted through postnebular dynamical instabilities. Here, we generate an ad hoc sample of resonant chains and use a suite of N-body simulations to show that instabilities can not only reproduce the observed period ratio distribution, but that the resulting collisions also modify the mass uniformity in a way that is consistent with the data. Furthermore, we demonstrate that primordial mass uniformity, motivated by the sample of resonant chains coupled with dynamical sculpting, naturally generates uniformity in orbital period spacing similar to what is observed. Finally, we find that almost all collisions lead to perfect mergers, but some form of postinstability damping is likely needed to fully account for the present-day dynamically cold architectures of sub-Jovian exoplanets.

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

4.6
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