Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-rkzlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T14:51:17.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spin-orbit angle in compact planetary systems perturbed by an inclined companion. Application to the 55 Cancri system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2015

Gwenaël Boué  and
Daniel C. Fabrycky
Gwenaël Boué
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 8028, ASD-IMCCE, Observatoire de Paris, F-75014 Paris, France email: boue@imcce.fr
Daniel C. Fabrycky
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA email: fabrycky@uchicago.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The stellar spin orientation relative to the orbital planes of multiplanet systems are becoming accessible to observations. For example, 55 Cancri is a system composed of 5 planets orbiting a member of a stellar binary for which a projected obliquity of 72±12 ° relative to the orbit of the innermost planet has been reported (Bourrier & Hébrard 2014). This large obliquity has been attributed to the perturbation induced by the binary. Here we describe the secular evolution of similar systems and we discuss the case of the 55 Cancri system more deeply. We provide two different orbital configurations compatible with the currently available observations.

Keywords

celestial mechanicsmethods: analyticalstars: planetary systemsstars: rotationstars: binaries: general

Information

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 9 , Issue S310: Complex Planetary Systems , July 2014 , pp. 62 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2014 

References

Boué, G. & Fabrycky, D. C. 2014, ApJ, 789, 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boué, G. & Laskar, J. 2006, Icarus, 185, 312Google Scholar
Boué, G. & Laskar, J. 2009, Icarus, 201, 750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourrier, V. & Hébrard, G. 2014, A&A, 569, A65Google Scholar
Innanen, K. A., Zheng, J. Q., Mikkola, S., & Valtonen, M. J. 1997, AJ, 113, 1915Google Scholar
Kaib, N. A., Raymond, S. N., & Duncan, M. J. 2011, ApJ, 742, L24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Morales, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Rodler, F., Dumusque, X., Buchhave, L. A., Harutyunyan, A., Hoyer, S., Alonso, R., Gillon, M., Kaib, N. A., Latham, D. W., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Raymond, S. N., Segransan, D., Waldmann, I. P., & Udry, S. 2014, ApJ, 792, L31Google Scholar
McArthur, B. E., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., Benedict, G. F., Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Naef, D., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Udry, S., & Harrison, T. E. 2004, ApJ, 614, L81Google Scholar
Nelson, B. E., Ford, E. B., Wright, J. T., Fischer, D. A., von Braun, K., Howard, A. W., Payne, M. J., & Dindar, S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 442Google Scholar
Rein, H. 2012, ArXiv, e-print:1211.7121Google Scholar
Winn, J. N., Matthews, J. M., Dawson, R. I., Fabrycky, D., Holman, M. J., Kallinger, T., Kuschnig, R., Sasselov, D., Dragomir, D., Guenther, D. B., Moffat, A. F. J., Rowe, J. F., Rucinski, S., & Weiss, W. W. 2011, ApJ, 737, L18CrossRefGoogle Scholar