Paper detail

Normalized angular momentum deficit: A tool for comparing the violence of the dynamical histories of planetary systems

Population studies of the orbital characteristics of exoplanets in multi-planet systems have highlighted the existence of an anticorrelation between the average orbital eccentricity of planets and the number of planets of their host system, that is, its multiplicity. This effect was proposed to reflect the varying levels of violence in the dynamical evolution of planetary systems. Previous work suggested that the relative violence of the dynamical evolution of planetary systems with similar orbital architectures can be compared through the computation of their angular momentum deficit (AMD). We investigated the possibility of using a more general metric to perform analogous comparisons between planetary systems with different orbital architectures. We considered a modified version of the AMD, the normalized angular momentum deficit (NAMD), and used it to study a sample of 99 multi-planet systems containing both the currently best-characterized extrasolar systems and the solar system, that is, planetary systems with both compact and wide orbital architectures. We verified that the NAMD allows us to compare the violence of the dynamical histories of multi-planet systems with different orbital architectures. We identified an anticorrelation between the NAMD and the multiplicity of the planetary systems, of which the previously observed eccentricity-multiplicity anticorrelation is a reflection. Our results seem to indicate that phases of dynamical instabilities and chaotic evolution are not uncommon among planetary systems. They also suggest that the efficiency of the planetary formation process in producing high-multiplicity systems is likely to be higher than that suggested by their currently known population.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.