Skip to main content

Full text of "The Planetary System of Upsilon Andromedae"

See other formats


The Planetary System of Upsilon Andromedae 



Ing-Guey Jiang & Wing-Huen Ip 
Academia Sinica, Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Taipei, Taiwan 
National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan 

Received ; accepted 



- 2 - 
ABSTRACT 

The bright F8 V solar-type star upsilon Andromedae has recently been 
reported to have a system of three planets of Jovian masses. In order to 
investigate the orbital stability and mutual gravitational interactions among 
these extrasolar planets, both forward and backward integrations from the latest 
observed orbital elements for all three planets' orbits have been performed under 
the coplanar assumption. We reconfirm that the middle and the outer planet 
have strong interaction leading to large time variations in the eccentricities of 
these planets, which was shown by the previous studies. However, we discuss the 
validity of the ignorance of the innermost planet. We argue that this planetary 
system is likely to be stable and oscillate around current orbital elements since 
it was formed. 

We suggest that one possible way to produce these orbital elements: the 
innermost planet has very low eccentricity but the outermost planet has high 
eccentricity could be the interaction with the protostellar disc. 

Subject headings: celestial mechanics - stellar dynamics - planetary system 



- 3 - 



1. Introduction 

As a result of recent observational efforts, the number of known extrasolar planets 
increased dramatically. Among these newly discovered planetary systems, upsilon 
Andromedae system appears to be the most interesting one because of the presence of three 
planetary members (Butler et al. 1999). 

Since the discovery of the planetary system of upsilon Andromedae, the dynamics of 
this multiple planetary system with intriguing orbital configuration has drawn a lot of 
attention. Table 1 is the latest (as of 21st August, 2000) orbital elements obtained by the 
Marcy's group ( [littp: / / exoplanets.org/ esp/upsandb/upsandb.html|) . It would be interesting 
to understand the origin of the orbital configurations of these three extrasolar planets and 
their mutual interactions. 

Table 1: The Orbital Elements 

Planet Msim/Mj a/AU e u (deg) 

B 0.69 0.059 0.01 316.4 

C 2.06 0.827 0.23 247.2 

D 4.10 2.56 0.35 250.6 

It is a remarkable fact that the eccentricities of the companion planets increase from 
0.01 for the innermost member to a value as large as 0.35 for the outermost member. 
An interesting question is therefore if orbital evolution leads to this configuration. This 
question is related to whether these planets interacted strongly in the past. 

Without studying the past history, several groups have investigated this system by 
forward orbital integration from the observed orbital elements. Laughlin & Adams (1999) 
simplified the model computation by ignoring the innermost planet. They found that the 



-4- 



upsilon Andromedae system should experience chaotic evolution for all parameters derived 
from present observations. In spite of the large amplitudes of the eccentricities of the middle 
and outer planets, this system could remain non-crossing over a time interval of 2-3 Gyr for 
a significant number of the cases studies. 

Rivera & Lissauer (2000) did many extensive calculations for both nearly coplanar 
systems and mutually inclined orbits. For coplanar systems, they found that the nominal 
Lick data systems are more stable than the system with the nominal Advanced Fiber Optic 
Echellc (AFOE) parameters. They also explore different values of the overall mass factor 
ruf — (sini)~^ and found that the systems with smaller m/ are more stable for both Lick 
data systems and AFOE data systems. 

Rivera & Lissauer (2000) also ignored the innermost planet for some calculations and 
they found that two-planet systems with AFOE parameters typically last much longer than 
their three-planet analogs. 

In this paper, we focus on the most stable configuration in Rivera & Lissauer (2000), 
i.e. the coplanar Lick data system with ruf = 1. First of all, we study the orbital interaction 
between three planets by an forward integration of 10^ yrs. We analyze the interaction by 
comparing the numerical result to the analytical equations. The main goal of this analysis 
is to understand the validity of ignoring the innermost planet. 

In order to study the past history and origin of the orbital elements, we perform 
the backward integration, which was not done in the previous work. In order to test the 
correctness of our calculations, we also do forward integration and check if the results are 
consistent with the results of Rivera & Lissauer (2000). We therefore do both forward and 
backward integrations of three-planet system for 10^ yrs. We also do both forward and 
backward integrations of two-planet system for 10^ yrs. 



- 5 - 



Prom these calculations, we found that it is a good approximation to ignore the 
innermost planet of the coplanar Lick data system with ruf = 1 for a long term integration. 
This was already shown in Rivera & Lissauer's results of coplanar Lick data systems 
(Their three-planet system survived at least 10^ yrs and two-planet system survived at 
least 10^ yrs.) What is new here is that we show that the results of backward integration 
behave similarly to the forward integration and therefore the system is likely to oscillate 
around current orbital elements since its formation. The origin of these orbital elements is 
complicated but we use one simple calculation of disc-planet interaction to argue that the 
protostellar disc might be important in causing these orbital elements. 

In Section 2, we describe the simulation model. We analyze the planet-planet 
interaction for a time scale of 10^ in Section 3. In Section 4, we investigate the dynamical 
origin of the orbital elements. We provide the conclusions in Section 5. 

2. The Simulation Models 

2.1. The Orbital Integration 

We use mixed variable symplectic (MVS) integrator in the SWIFT package (Levison 
& Duncan 1994) to integrate the orbit for the planetary system of upsilon Andromedae. 
The initial condition was from Table 1, which is the latest orbital elements determined by 
Marcy's group. We modified MVS integrator to be able to do backward integration. This 
can be done because of the integrator's symplectic property. We follow Rivera & Lissauer 
(2000) to use 0.23 days as our timestep for both forward and backward integration when all 
three planets are included. We also follow Rivera & Lissauer (2000) to use 2.42 days as our 
timestep for both forward and backward integration of two-planet system. 



-6- 



2.2. The Planet-Disc Interaction 

In the calculation of planet-disc interaction, we assume both the mass of the central 
star and the gravitational constant G to be unity. The masses of the planets are set to be 
zero, so there is no interaction between different planets. 

We include a disc into the Hermit integrator developed by Sverre Aarseth (Markino & 
Aarseth 1992, Aarseth, Lin & Palmer 1993) The disc has density profile as: 

r < e 

(1) 

c r '^^'^exp(— t/r) r > e. 
We choose e = 0.01, c = 0.001 and r = 30 so that the mass of the disc would be about 0.1 
and the disc would be depleted in a time scale of 30. 



p(r, t) 



3. The Planet-Planet Interactions 

The numerical integration of the three-planet system is expensive because the period of 
the innermost planet is only 4.617 days. Therefore, the innermost planet is usually ignored 
when one wishes to study long-term stability. 

In order to see if the omission of the innermost planet is a good approximation, we 
analyze the interaction between three planets by comparing the numerical result of 10^ yrs 
to the analytic equations in this section. 

The initial condition of the numerical integration was from Table 1. The time 
variations of the semi- major axises and eccentricities are given in Figure 1. Rather 
significant variations in eccentricities are found which can be understood in terms of 
planet-planet interaction. As usually encountered in celestial mechanics, the semi-major 
axes remain nearly invariant while the eccentricities could follow rapid variations of large 
amplitudes as a consequence of angular momentum exchange. 



- 7- 



We can understand the details of this interaction from the results in Figure 1 with the 
help of equation (2.144) and equation (2.147) in Murry & Dermott (1999): 

C, = (2) 

where Cj is the energy, //j = G{M^ + Mj), is the semi-major axis. The index i can be m 
for the middle planet and o for the outer planet. Therefore, Mm is the mass of the middle 
planet and is the mass of the central star. 

9 = ^[2/i.A. + a/a], (3) 

where is the eccentricity and hi is the angular momentum. 

The main result from the numerical simulation is that the semi-major axis of the 
middle planet does not change much but the eccentricity change quickly between 0.125 and 
0.225 . This tells us that Cm is small from Equation (2). Thus, from Equation (3), we 
know that all the quick eccentricity variation is due to the angular momentum variation. 
Bottom panel of Figure 1 showed that the frequencies of the eccentricity variations of the 
middle and outer planet are very close and thus the angular momentum change of the 
middle planet must be due to the forcing from the outer planet. The semi-major axis of the 
outer planet also has certain variation and this should be from the energy exchange with 
the middle planet because Equation (2) tells us that the time derivative of semi-major axis 
is related to the time derivative of energy. The reason why the variation of semi-major axis 
of the middle planet looks so small is due to the form of Equation (2): For the same Cj, di 
is smaller for smaller a^. The reason why the variation of for the outer planet is smaller 
is partially because (e? — l)/(2ei) for the outer is about 1.05 but 2.4 for the middle planet 
in Equation (3). Therefore, the outer and middle planets are indeed interacting strongly. 

On the other hand, from the bottom panel of Figure 1, we see that the frequency of 



-8- 



eccentricity variation of the innermost planet is very different from the other two planets and 
the semi-major axis is almost constant. The innermost planet does not involve that much 
of the dynamics of the middle and outer planets. Therefore, it is a good approximation to 
ignore the innermost planet when one needs to do it for a long-term integration. 

4. The Origin of Orbital Elements 

The planetary system of upsilon Andromedae is interesting not only because of the 
presence of multiple planets but also because of the orbital configuration. 

It is therefore important to investigate if orbital evolution leads to this current 
configuration: the innermost planet has very low eccentricity but the outermost planet has 
much higher eccentricity. 

There are two obvious ways to lead to the current orbital elements of the exoplanets 
of upsilon Andromedae. One way is that even all of these three planets had similarly small 
eccentricities when they were form, the long-term orbital evolution can cause the outer two 
planets to have higher eccentricities. Another way is that, these orbital configuration was 
originally due to the disc-planet interaction when the system was formed. After that, the 
orbital elements are kept to be similar but oscillate around the current values. 

We can investigate the first possibility by doing backward integrations. In order to 
check if our numerical code can produce the results which are consistent with the results of 
Rivera & Lissauer (2000), we also do the usual forward integrations. 

Figure 2 are the results of both backward and forward integrations for 10^ yrs. The 
semi-major axises of three planets are almost constant all the time except the small 
fluctuations for the outermost planet. However, the eccentricities of all three planets 
oscillate in very large amplitudes: The innermost planet oscillate between and 0.15, the 



-9- 



middle planet oscillate between 0.125 and 0.225, the outermost planet oscillate between 
0.33 and 0.35 . Therefore the orbital elements remain unchanged but just oscillate around 
the current observed values for both backward and forward integrations. 

To check if this is still the case for a longer time scale, we integrate 100 times longer, i.e. 
10® yrs. We ignore the innermost planet in this case because the long-term integrations are 
far more expensive and from the last section we know that the ignorance of the innermost 
planet is a good approximation. 

Figure 3 are the results of both backward and forward integrations for 10^ yrs. The 
results are just the extension of the results in Figure 2, so the orbital elements still oscillate 
around the current observed values for both backward and forward integrations of 10® yrs. 
From Figure 3, we can see that it is already impossible to see the lines in the figure. We 
also integrate for a longer time scale (order of Gyr) . The result remains to be the same and 
it is not necessary to provide this figure in the paper because it looks almost the same as 
Figure 3. 

From the above calculations of forward integrations, it is encouraging that we can 
produce the results which are consistent with those of Rivera & Lissauer (2000). From the 
calculations of backward integrations, we know that the long-term orbital evolution might 
not be able to produce the current orbital configuration because the orbital elements do 
not really change but just oscillate around the current values. Thus, we should test if the 
orbital configuration was originally due to the planet-disc interaction when the system was 
formed. After the formation process, the orbital elements keep to be similar but oscillate 
around the current values. 

We use the model we described in Section 2.2 to simulate the planet-disc interaction. 
We assume the inner planet is at r = 0.8 and the outer planet is at r = 2.5 and both of 
them have eccentricity e = 0.2 initially. Figure 4 is the result for time evolution of both 



-10- 



semi-major axis and the eccentricity. 

Because of the interaction with the disc, both eccentricities increase and oscillate. 
The existence of the disc makes the gravitational force experienced by the planets more 
complicated and increase the eccentricities. (If there were energy dissipation during the 
planet-disc interaction, the eccentricities of both planets should decrease.) However, the 
outer planet's eccentricity is pumped to a higher value. During the depletion of the disc, the 
eccentricities of both planets gradually settle down to a stable value and stop oscillation. 
The final eccentricity of the outer planet is higher than the final eccentricity of the inner 
planet. Further, the final semi-major axes of both planets are about the same as initial 
values. Therefore, we have produced a orbital configuration that the outer planet has higher 
eccentricity than the inner planet by the interaction with the disc. 

We found that the results are qualitatively about the same when we explore different 
values of parameters. Though we make the value of r to be very small to save our 
computational time, it would not affect the final values of eccentricities. 

5. Conclusions 

The dynamics of extrasolar planetary systems continues to be a fascinating and 
important subject. One of the very intriguing aspects for the extrasolar planets is the 
existence of orbits of high eccentricities. The dynamical cause of high eccentricities is 
unknown but should be related to the early history of planetary formation or stellar 
encounters. 

Among these discovered extrasolar planetary systems, the upsilon Andromedae 
planetary system appears to be one of the most interesting one because of the presence 
of multiple planets and also the orbital configuration. Even though the cause of the high 



- 11 - 



eccentricity of the outer planet of the upsilon Andromedae planetary system is not clear 
yet, our computation showed that the gravitational interaction of the four-body system is 
potentially very complex and the eccentricity of the middle planet oscillate between 0.125 
and 0.225 over the time interval of orbital integration. The middle and the outer planets 
are indeed interacting strongly and the ignorance of the innermost planet can be a good 
approximation for the long-term integrations. 

On the other hand, one general observational fact is that extrasolar planets with high 
eccentricities usually have larger semi-major axes than those with small eccentricities. The 
upsilon Andromedae planetary system follows this observational trend. 

We investigate the origin of the current observed orbital elements of the upsilon 
Andromedae planetary system. Our long-term backward integration (order of Gyr) shows 
that the current orbital configuration was not caused by the orbital evolution because the 
orbital elements do not really change during the backward integration but just oscillate 
around the current values. 

Our results show that the interaction between the exoplanets and the protostellar disc 
might lead to the current orbital configuration. It is possible that the model will be even 
more pertinent if there is energy dissipation when the planets interact with the disc. This 
energy dissipation might make the eccentricity of the inner planet decrease more than the 
outer planet would because there could be more dissipation around the inner disc. In this 
case, the eccentricity difference between two planets might be even larger. We hope to come 
back to this issue in the future. 



- 12 - 



Acknowledgements 

Ing-Guey Jiang wishes to take this opportunity to acknowledge James Binney's 
supervision on Dynamics during his study at Oxford and also the hospitality of Doug Lin 
and Martin Duncan during his visits at both UC Santa Cruz and Queen's University. 

REFERENCES 

Aarseth, S.J., Lin, D.N.C. & Palmer, P.L., 1993, ApJ, 403, 351 

Butler et al., 1999, ApJ, 526, 916. 

Laughlin, G. & Adams, F.C., 1999, ApJ, 526, 881. 

Levison, H. F. & Duncan, M. J., 1994, Icarus, 108, 18 

Makino, J. & Aarseth, S.J., 1992, PASJ, 44, 141 

Murray, C. D. & Dermott, S. F., 1999, Solar System Dynamics, Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge. 

Rivera, E. J. & Lissauer, J. J., 2000, ApJ, 530, 454. 




Fig. 1. — The semi-major axes (top panel) and the eccentricities (bottom panel) of all 
planets as function of time, where the solid line is for the inner planet, the dotted line is for 
the middle planet and the dashed line is for the outer planet. 



-14- 



< 



X 

o 



CO 



T 1 1 r 



T 1 1 r 





-1x106 



I I I I 



dz 



I I I I 



-5x105 
Time [Year] 



0.6 



>> 0.4 



I 0.2 



T 1 1 r 



T 



T 1 1 r 






-1X106 




-5x105 
Time [Year] 



'>< 

< 

o 



0) 







0.6 



T 1 r 



"1 1 1 r 



I I I I 



dz 



I I I I 



5x105 
Time [Year] 



106 



0.4 

• I— I 
Si 

<v 

I 0.2 



T 1 r 



T 



"1 1 1 r 




5x105 
Time [Year] 



Fig. 2. — The semi-major axes (top panels) and the eccentricities (bottom panels) of 
all planets as function of time for both backward (left panels) and forward (right panels) 
integrations, where the solid line is for the inner planet, the dotted line is for the middle 
planet and the dashed line is for the outer planet. 



- 15 - 




Fig. 3. — The semi-major axes (top panels) and the eccentricities (bottom panels) of planets 
as function of time for both backward (left panels) and forward (right panels) integrations, 
where the solid hne is for the middle planet, the dotted line is for the outer planet. 



-16- 




Fig. 4. — The semi-major axes (top panel) and the eccentricities (bottom panel) of planets 
(under the interaction with the disc) as function of time, where the solid line is for the inner 
planet, the dotted hne is for the outer planet.