1. Ge/Ay133 What have radial velocity surveys told us about (exo)-planetary science?

2. Discovery space for indirect methods: Radial velocity Astrometry (r=distance to the star)

3. Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355

4. Udry, S. et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 26

5. Jovian planets througout the 0.05-5 AU region. And… Updated plots follow.

6. No strong preference for orbital distances… …except for a “pile up” of hot Jupiters at P~3 days.

7. Planetary characteristics? Some trend in M versus R (bias?), but beyond 0.05-0.1 AU, little preference for low eccentricities:

8. Eccentricities. II. Short Period Circularization

9. Even with incompleteness, strong preference for ~Jovian mass:

10. Stars are different, turnover at low mass! “The brown dwarf desert”? Does this tell us that stars and planets form differently? Orion IMF

11. Is there an eccentricity preference w/mass? Not really… Marcy, G. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0505003

12. Is there an eccentricity preference w/mass? Not really, part II… Butler, R.P. et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 505 ?

13. Another clue as to formation: Planet formation efficiency correlates strongly with metallicity! Fischer, D.A. & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102

14. What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass? Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785 Radial velocity surveys mostly focused on Sun-like stars. Why? Active Chromospheres Low-contrast Lines

15. What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass? Clever idea for higher mass A stars: Look at older systems that have evolved off the main sequence. Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

16. What about planet formation efficiency & stellar mass? Two preliminary findings (that are being tested with larger surveys): 1. Planet formation efficiency increases w/mass. 2. The proportion of hot Jupiters decreases w/mass (not observational bias). M4 – K7 K5 – F8 F5 - A5

17. What about planetary multiplicity? Complex doppler patterns:

18. Summary of several of the known multiple planetary systems: Marcy, G. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0505003

19. A super earth & GJ 876? Rivera, E.J. et al. 2005, (see class web site)

20. GJ 876 orbits evolve with time (expected w/mutual perturbations)! What about other systems? Rivera, E.J. et al. 2005, (see class web site)

21. A habitable super-Earth? The GJ 581(M3V) system: Vogt, S.S. et al. 2010, (arXiv:1009.5733v1)

22. HD 168443 b: 7.2 Mj 58 days c: 17 Mj 1739 days =1/29.98 ?! 30:1?

23. HD 12661 b: 2.3 Mj 263 days c: 1.6 Mj 1444 days =1/5.5 11:2?

24. 47 U Ma b: 2.5 Mj 1089 days c: 0.76 Mj 2594 days =1/2.4

25. Gleise 876 b: 1.89 Mj 61 days c: 0.56 Mj 30 days

26. HD 37124 b: 0.75 Mj 152 d c: 1.2 Mj 1495 d

27. ups And b: 0.69 Mj 4.6 d c: 1.9 Mj 241.5 d d: 3.75 Mj 1284 d

28. HD 82943 b: 1.63 Mj 444 d c: 0.88 222 d

29. 55 Cnc b:.84 Mj 14.6 d c: 0.21 Mj 44.3 d d: 4 Mj 5360 d 3:1!

30. What we know: - ~1% of solar-type stars have Hot Jupiters -~7% of solar-type stars have >Mj planets in the “terrestrial planet” region. Extrapolation of current incompeteness suggests >12% w/planets @ <20 AU. - multiple planetary systems are ~common - planetary resonances are ~common What can explain these properties?

31. Disk-star- and protoplanet interactions lead to migration while the gas is present. Core- accretion? Theory 1 AU at 140 pc subtends 0.’’007. Jupiter (5 AU): V_doppler = 13 m/s V_orbit = 13 km/s Simulation G. Bryden, JPL Thus, need to study objects in this phase…

32. Core-accretion models can now be compared to observations: Planets versus metallicity: Data Observed in open circles. Ida, S. & Lin, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 567

33. Early disk models held that eccentricities were DAMPED. Not so fast… Goldreich & Sari 2005 Need an initial e~0.01. Goldreich, P. & Sari, R. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1024