Paper detail

Origin of apparent period variations in eclipsing post-common-envelope binaries

Apparent period variations detected in several eclipsing, close-compact binaries are frequently interpreted as being caused by circumbinary giant planets. This interpretation raises the question of the origin of the potential planets that must have either formed in the primordial circumbinary disk, together with the host binary star, and survived its evolution into a close-compact binary or formed in a post-common-envelope circumbinary disk that remained bound to the post-common-envelope binary (PCEB). Here we combine current knowledge of planet formation and the statistics of giant planets around primordial and evolved binary stars with the theory of close-compact binary star evolution aiming to derive new constraints on possible formation scenarios. We compiled a comprehensive list of observed eclipsing PCEBs, estimated the fraction of systems showing apparent period variations, reconstructed the evolutionary history of the PCEBs, and performed binary population models of PCEBs to characterize their main sequence binary progenitors. We reviewed the currently available constraints on the fraction of PCEB progenitors that host circumbinary giant planets. We find that the progenitors of PCEBs are very unlikely to be frequent hosts of giant planets (<~10 per cent), while the frequency of PCEBs with observed apparent period variations is very high (~90 per cent). The variations in eclipse timings measured in eclipsing PCEBs are probably not caused by first-generation planets that survived common-envelope evolution. The remaining options for explaining the observed period variations are second-generation planet formation or perhaps variations in the shape of a magnetically active secondary star. We suggest observational tests for both options.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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.