Different Planetary Eccentricity-Period (PEP) Distributions of Small- and Giant-Planets
We used the database of $1040$ short-period ($1 \leq P < 200$ days) exoplanets radial-velocity (RV) orbits to study the planetary eccentricity-period (PEP) distribution. We first divided the sample into low- and high-mass exoplanet sub-samples based on the distribution of the (minimum) planetary...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | We used the database of $1040$ short-period ($1 \leq P < 200$ days)
exoplanets radial-velocity (RV) orbits to study the planetary
eccentricity-period (PEP) distribution. We first divided the sample into low-
and high-mass exoplanet sub-samples based on the distribution of the (minimum)
planetary masses, which displays a clear two-Gaussian distribution, separated
at $0.165M_J$. We then selected $216$ orbits, low- and high-mass alike, with
eccentricities significantly distinct from circular orbits. The $131$
giant-planet eccentric orbits display a clear upper envelope, which we model
quantitatively, rises monotonically from zero eccentricity and reaches an
eccentricity of $0.8$ at $P \sim 100$ days. Conversely, the $85$ low-mass
planetary orbits display a flat eccentricity distribution between $0.1$ and
$0.5$, with almost no dependence on the orbital period. We show that the
striking difference between the two PEP distributions is not a result of the
detection technique used. The upper envelope of the high-mass planets, also
seen in short-period binary stars, is a clear signature of tidal
circularization, which probably took place inside the planets, while the
small-planet PEP distribution suggests that the circularization was not
effective, probably due to dynamical interactions with neighboring planets. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.2406.09337 |