Paper detail

Tides Alone Cannot Explain Kepler Planets Close to 2:1 MMR

A number of Kepler planet pairs lie just wide of first-order mean motion resonances (MMRs). Tides have been frequently proposed to explain these pileups, but it is still an ongoing discussion. We contribute to this discussion by calculating an optimistic theoretical estimate on the minimum initial eccentricity required by Kepler planets to explain the current observed spacing, and compliment these calculations with N-body simulations. In particular, we investigate 27 Kepler systems having planets within 6% of the 2:1 MMR, and find that the initial eccentricities required to explain the observed spacings are unreasonable from simple dynamical arguments. Furthermore, our numerical simulations reveal resonant tugging, an effect which conspires against the migration of resonant planets away from the 2:1 MMR, requiring even higher initial eccentricities in order to explain the current Kepler distribution. Overall, we find that tides alone cannot explain planets close to 2:1 MMR, and additional mechanisms are required to explain these systems.

preprint2015arXivOpen 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.