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

2. Discovery space for indirect methods: Astrometry Radial velocity
(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 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”?
Orion IMF
Does this tell us
that stars and
planets form
differently?

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

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?
Radial velocity surveys mostly focused on Sun-like stars. Why?
Active
Chromospheres
Low-contrast
Lines
Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

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.
M4 – K K5 – F F5 - A5
2. The proportion of hot Jupiters decreases w/mass (not observational bias).
Johnson, J.A et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785

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/

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: v1)

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

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

24. 47 U Ma
b: 2.5 Mj 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 d
c: 1.2 Mj d

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

28. HD 82943
b: 1.63 Mj d
c: d

29. 55 Cnc
b: .84 Mj d
c: 0.21 Mj d
d: 4 Mj 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% <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:
Data
Planets
versus
metallicity:
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, P. & Sari, R. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1024
Goldreich
& Sari 2005
Need an
initial
e~0.01.