Paper detail

Density and Eccentricity of Kepler Planets

We analyze the transit timing variations obtained by the Kepler mission for 22 sub-jovian planet pairs (17 published, 5 new) that lie close to mean motion resonances. We find that the TTV phases for most of these pairs lie close to zero, consistent with an eccentricity distribution that has a very low RMS value of e ~ 0.01; but about a quarter of the pairs possess much higher eccentricities, up to 0.1 - 0.4. For the low-eccentricity pairs, we are able to statistically remove the effect of eccentricity to obtain planet masses from TTV data. These masses, together with those measured by radial velocity, yield a best fit mass-radius relation M~3 M_E (R/R_E). This corresponds to a constant surface escape velocity of 20km/s. We separate the planets into two distinct groups, "mid-sized" (those greater than 3 R_E), and "compact" (those smaller). All mid-sized planets are found to be less dense than water and therefore contain extensive H/He envelopes, likely comparable in mass to that of their cores. We argue that these planets have been significantly sculpted by photoevaporation. Surprisingly, mid-sized planets are discovered exclusively around stars more massive than 0.8 M_sun. The compact planets, on the other hand, are often denser than water. Combining our density measurements with those from radial velocity studies, we find that hotter compact planets tend to be denser, with the hottest ones reaching rock density. Moreover, hotter planets tend to be smaller in sizes. These results can be explained if the compact planets are made of rocky cores overlaid with a small amount of hydrogen, < 1% in mass, with water contributing little to their masses or sizes. Photoevaporation has exposed bare rocky cores in cases of the hottest planets. Our conclusion that these planets are likely not water-worlds contrasts with some previous studies.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.