Paper detail

Planet formation in post-common-envelope binaries

To understand the evolution of planetary systems, it is important to investigate planets in highly evolved stellar systems, and to explore the implications of their observed properties with respect to potential formation scenarios. Observations suggest the presence of giant planets in post-common-envelope binaries (PCEBs). A particularly well-studied system with planetary masses of 1.7 M_J and 7.0 M_J is NN Ser. We show here that a pure first-generation scenario where the planets form before the common envelope (CE) phase and the orbits evolve due to the changes in the gravitational potential is inconsistent with the current data. We propose a second-generation scenario where the planets are formed from the material that is ejected during the CE, which may naturally explain the observed planetary masses. In addition, hybrid scenarios where the planets form before the CE and evolve due to the accretion of the ejected gas appear as a realistic possibility.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.