Must a Hot Jupiter be relatively young?

AI Thread Summary
Hot Jupiters, large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars, may face significant orbital decay due to friction with the star's coronal envelope and tidal forces from their host. This raises questions about their longevity and the mechanisms behind their formation, whether through genesis, ejection, or capture. Observational data suggests a cutoff around 0.05 AU, indicating that planets closer than this may spiral into their stars too quickly to be observed. The interaction between the magnetic fields of the star and the planet within the coronal medium could also play a significant role, potentially overshadowing gravitational effects. Further research is needed to explore these electrodynamic interactions and their implications for exoplanet studies.
jscroft
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Must a "Hot Jupiter" be relatively young?

A large proportion of exoplanets so far discovered are "hot Jupiters," large gas giants orbiting very close (< 0.1 AU) to their primaries.

It seems to me that a gas giant orbiting at such a close distance ought to experience significant friction as it passes through its primary's coronal envelope. I also imagine that any orbital eccentricity on the part of the planet or wobble on the part of the primary would generate significant tidal pumping within the body of the planet, damping these motions by converting their energy to heat, which would cause the planet's gas envelope to expand and add to its drag coefficient.

Finally, I suppose that the plasma composition of the coronal medium—being electrically active—would also facilitate energy transport, although I'm not sure in which direction.

The upshot is that I wonder whether such a planet could orbit its primary for very long before orbital decay removed it from observation? And, if not, what might that say about (a) the mechanism of hot Jupiter genesis—formation? ejection? capture?—and (b) the likelihood of same.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
jscroft said:
I wonder whether such a planet could orbit its primary for very long before orbital decay removed it from observation?
This is an open question in exoplanet research. Conventional wisdom quickly suggests (as you describe) that there are numerous things dissipating the orbital energy of the planet---tending to both tear apart the planet, and have it inspiral into its host. Observationally there seems to be a cutoff at about 0.05 AU, within which there aren't any planets.
The question is whether this is perfectly consistent with in-spiral (i.e. closer in planets merge with the star so quickly they are rarely seen), or whether there is a mechanism preventing planets from moving closer in. Most of the evidence seems to go along with the former, but the latter still has a good backing.

Some papers that might be intersting:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1352v1"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698.1357J"
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Thanks for the references.

I note that neither addresses the question of the electrically active coronal medium. If both the primary and the exoplanet have significant magnetic fields—as do our own Sun and gas giants—then it seems that the interaction of these fields within and across the coronal medium would create effects of a magnitude that might actually dwarf those generated by gravitational interaction.

I realize that I'm evoking Velikovsky here, but whatever you think of his ideas of the origin of Venus etc., the hot-Jupiter scenario DOES seem to lend itself particularly well to analysis from the electrodynamic perspective.

Are you aware of any exoplanet-related work along these lines?
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top