Paper detail

Tidal Inflation Reconciles Low-Density Sub-Saturns with Core Accretion

While the Solar System contains no planets between the sizes of Uranus and Saturn, our current exoplanet census includes several dozen such planets with well-measured masses and radii. These sub-Saturns exhibit a diversity of bulk densities, ranging from ~$0.1-3\ \rm{g\ cm}^{-3}$. When modeled simply as hydrogen/helium envelopes atop rocky cores, this diversity in densities translates to a diversity in planetary envelope fractions, $f_\rm{env}=M_\rm{env}/M_p$ ranging from ~$10\%$ to ~$50\%$. Planets with $f_\rm{env}\sim50\%$ pose a challenge to traditional models of giant planet formation by core-nucleated accretion, which predict the onset of runaway gas accretion when $M_\rm{env}\sim M_\rm{core}$. Here we show that many of these apparent $f_\rm{env}\sim50\%$ planets are less envelope rich than they seem, after accounting for tidal heating. We present a new framework for modeling sub-Saturn interiors that incorporates envelope inflation due to tides, which are driven by the observed non-zero eccentricities, as well as potential obliquities. Consequently, when we apply our models to known sub-Saturns, we infer lower $f_\rm{env}$ than tides-free estimates. We present a case study of K2-19 b, a moderately eccentric sub-Saturn. Neglecting tides, K2-19 b appears to have $f_\rm{env}\sim50\%$, poised precariously near the runaway threshold; by including tides, we find $f_\rm{env}\sim10\%$, resolving the tension. Through a systematic analysis of $4-8\ R_{\oplus}$ planets, we find that most (but not all) of the similarly envelope-rich planets have more modest envelopes of $f_\rm{env}\sim10\%-20\%$. Thus, many sub-Saturns may be understood as sub-Neptunes that have undergone significant radius inflation, rather than a separate class of objects. Tidal radius inflation likely plays an important role in other size classes of planets including ultra-low-density Jupiter-size planets like WASP-107 b.

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.