Paper detail

Comparing HARPS and Kepler surveys: The alignment of multiple-planet systems

Aims. We study a subset of the planetary population characterized both by HARPS and Kepler surveys. We compare the statistical properties of planets in systems with m.sin i >5-10 M_Earth and R>2 R_Earth. If we assume that the underlying population has the same characteristics, the different detection sensitivity to the orbital inclination relative to the line of sight allows us to probe the planets' mutual inclination. Methods. We considered the frequency of systems with one, two and three planets as dictated by HARPS data. We used Kepler's planetary period and host mass and radii distributions (corrected from detection bias) to model planetary systems in a simple yet physically plausible way. We then varied the mutual inclination between planets in a system according to different prescriptions (completely aligned, Rayleigh distributions and isotropic) and compared the transit frequencies with one, two or three planets with those measured by Kepler. Results. The results show that the two datasets are compatible, a remarkable result especially because there are no tunable knobs other than the assumed inclination distribution. For m.sin i cutoffs of 7-10 M_Earth, which are those expected to correspond to the radius cutoff of 2 R_Earth, we conclude that the results are better described by a Rayleigh distribution with mode of 1 deg or smaller. We show that the best-fit scenario only becomes a Rayleigh distribution with mode of 5 deg if we assume a rather extreme mass-radius relationship for the planetary population. Conclusions. These results have important consequences for our understanding of the role of several proposed formation and evolution mechanisms. They confirm that planets are likely to have been formed in a disk and show that most planetary systems evolve quietly without strong angular momentum exchanges (abridged).

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.