Paper detail

Three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of the upper atmosphere of $π$ Men c: comparison with Ly$α$ transit observations

Aims: We aim at constraining the conditions of the wind and high-energy emission of the host star reproducing the non-detection of Ly$α$ planetary absorption. Methods: We model the escaping planetary atmosphere, the stellar wind, and their interaction employing a multi-fluid, three-dimensional hydrodynamic code. We assume a planetary atmosphere composed of hydrogen and helium. We run models varying the stellar high-energy emission and stellar mass-loss rate, further computing for each case the Ly$α$ synthetic planetary atmospheric absorption and comparing it with the observations. Results: We find that a non-detection of Ly$α$ in absorption employing the stellar high-energy emission estimated from far-ultraviolet and X-ray data requires a stellar wind with a stellar mass-loss rate about six times lower than solar. This result is a consequence of the fact that, for $π$ Men c, detectable Ly$α$ absorption can be caused exclusively by energetic neutral atoms, which become more abundant with increasing the velocity and/or the density of the stellar wind. By considering, instead, that the star has a solar-like wind, the non-detection requires a stellar ionising radiation about four times higher than estimated. This is because, despite the fact that a stronger stellar high-energy emission ionises hydrogen more rapidly, it also increases the upper atmosphere heating and expansion, pushing the interaction region with the stellar wind farther away from the planet, where the planet atmospheric density that remains neutral becomes smaller and the production of energetic neutral atoms less efficient. Conclusions: Comparing the results of our grid of models with what is expected and estimated for the stellar wind and high-energy emission, respectively, we support the idea that the atmosphere of $π$ Men c is likely not hydrogen-dominated.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 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.