4.7 Article

OBLIQUITIES OF HOT JUPITER HOST STARS: EVIDENCE FOR TIDAL INTERACTIONS AND PRIMORDIAL MISALIGNMENTS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 757, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/18

关键词

planetary systems; planets and satellites: formation; planet-star interactions; stars: rotation; techniques: spectroscopic

资金

  1. NASA [NNX09AB33G, NNX09AB29G]
  2. NSF [1108595, AST-1108686]
  3. Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) [DC1: 22-5935]
  4. W. M. Keck Foundation
  5. NASA [120926, NNX09AB29G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  6. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1108686] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1108595] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  10. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [10J05935] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We provide evidence that the obliquities of stars with close-in giant planets were initially nearly random, and that the low obliquities that are often observed are a consequence of star-planet tidal interactions. The evidence is based on 14 new measurements of the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect (for the systems HAT-P-6, HAT-P-7, HAT-P-16, HAT-P-24, HAT-P-32, HAT-P-34, WASP-12, WASP-16, WASP-18, WASP-19, WASP-26, WASP-31, Gl 436, and Kepler-8), as well as a critical review of previous observations. The low-obliquity (well-aligned) systems are those for which the expected tidal timescale is short, and likewise the high-obliquity (misaligned and retrograde) systems are those for which the expected timescale is long. At face value, this finding indicates that the origin of hot Jupiters involves dynamical interactions like planet-planet interactions or the Kozai effect that tilt their orbits rather than inspiraling due to interaction with a protoplanetary disk. We discuss the status of this hypothesis and the observations that are needed for a more definitive conclusion.

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