Paper detail

The Role of Core Mass in Controlling Evaporation: the Kepler Radius Distribution and the Kepler-36 Density Dichotomy

We use models of coupled thermal evolution and photo-evaporative mass loss to understand the formation and evolution of the Kepler-36 system. We show that the large contrast in mean planetary density observed by Carter et al. (2012) can be explained as a natural consequence of photo-evaporation from planets that formed with similar initial compositions. However, rather than being due to differences in XUV irradiation between the planets, we find that this contrast is due to the difference in the masses of the planets' rock/iron cores and the impact that this has on mass loss evolution. We explore in detail how our coupled models depend on irradiation, mass, age, composition, and the efficiency of mass loss. Based on fits to large numbers of coupled evolution and mass loss runs, we provide analytic fits to understand threshold XUV fluxes for significant atmospheric loss, as a function of core mass and mass loss efficiency. Finally we discuss these results in the context of recent studies of the radius distribution of Kepler candidates. Using our parameter study, we make testable predictions for the frequency of sub-Neptune sized planets. We show that 1.8-4.0 R_earth planets should become significantly less common on orbits within 10 days and discuss the possibility of a narrow "occurrence valley" in the radius-flux distribution. Moreover, we describe how photo-evaporation provides a natural explanation for the recent observations of Ciardi et al. (2013) that inner planets are preferentially smaller within the systems.

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.