4.7 Article

LIMITS ON STELLAR COMPANIONS TO EXOPLANET HOST STARS WITH ECCENTRIC PLANETS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 785, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/93

关键词

planetary systems; stars: individual (HD 4203, HD 168443, HD 1690, HD 137759); techniques: high angular resolution; techniques: radial velocities

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  2. National Science Foundation [AST-1109662]
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1433543, 1211441] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Though there are now many hundreds of confirmed exoplanets known, the binarity of exoplanet host stars is not well understood. This is particularly true of host stars that harbor a giant planet in a highly eccentric orbit since these are more likely to have had a dramatic dynamical history that transferred angular momentum to the planet. Here we present observations of four exoplanet host stars that utilize the excellent resolving power of the Differential Speckle Survey Instrument on the Gemini North telescope. Two of the stars are giants and two are dwarfs. Each star is host to a giant planet with an orbital eccentricity >0.5 and whose radial velocity (RV) data contain a trend in the residuals to the Keplerian orbit fit. These observations rule out stellar companions 4-8 mag fainter than the host star at passbands of 692 nm and 880 nm. The resolution and field of view of the instrument result in exclusion radii of 0.'' 05-1.'' 4, which excludes stellar companions within several AU of the host star in most cases. We further provide new RVs for the HD 4203 system that confirm that the linear trend previously observed in the residuals is due to an additional planet. These results place dynamical constraints on the source of the planet's eccentricities, place constraints on additional planetary companions, and inform the known distribution of multiplicity amongst exoplanet host stars.

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