$30 off During Our Annual Pro Sale. View Details »

Better characterizing white dwarfs to illuminate planet occurrence around intermediate-mass stars

Better characterizing white dwarfs to illuminate planet occurrence around intermediate-mass stars

Conference presentation, 30 min. May 2019: KITP Conference: Planet-Star Connections in the Era of TESS and Gaia, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.

jjhermes

May 24, 2019
Tweet

More Decks by jjhermes

Other Decks in Science

Transcript

  1. http://jjherm.es
    @jotajotahermes
    J.J. Hermes
    Better characterizing white dwarfs to
    illuminate planet occurrence around
    intermediate-mass stars
    h/t Boris Gänsicke, Bart Dunlap,
    Dimitri Veras, EESS team

    View Slide

  2. • >30-50% of WDs descending from 1.5-3.5 solar-mass ZAMS
    progenitors reveal evidence for remnant planetary systems
    • But <10% of WDs coming from 4-6 solar-mass ZAMS
    progenitors show the same evidence
    • The question: Can we connect WD pollution fractions to
    planetary occurrence rates?
    Mark Garlick
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 2

    View Slide

  3. JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 3
    • >30-50% of WDs descending from 1.5-3.5 solar-mass ZAMS
    progenitors reveal evidence for remnant planetary systems
    • But <10% of WDs coming from 4-6 solar-mass ZAMS
    progenitors show the same evidence
    • The question: Can we connect WD pollution fractions to
    planetary occurrence rates?

    View Slide

  4. Today
    Boris Gänsicke

    View Slide

  5. 5 billion years
    from now
    Boris Gänsicke

    View Slide

  6. The life cycle of the Sun
    7 billion years
    from now
    Boris Gänsicke

    View Slide

  7. White Dwarfs Directly Probe Rocky Exoplanetary Material
    • WD debris is comparable to bulk Earth (mostly Fe, O, Si, Mg)
    • Some of this debris is water-rich!(Farihi et al. 2013; Raddi et al. 2015)
    • Rocks are volatile-depleted (low C/O ratio) (Wilson et al. 2016)
    Abundances of rocks
    falling on 10
    different white dwarfs:
    Xu et al. 2014
    Bulk Earth
    Comet Halley
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 7

    View Slide

  8. WD Metal Pollution Reflects Active Accretion of Rocks
    Wyatt et al. 2014, from Veras 2016 JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 8

    View Slide

  9. HST Snapshot Programs: Pollution Fraction Around WDs
    • 30%-50% of WDs are metal polluted (Koester, Gänsicke & Farihi 2014)
    Si II
    (ISM)
    C III
    Si detected, must be accreted
    Si detected, most likely from recent accretion
    No Si detected
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 9

    View Slide

  10. Does Metal Pollution Necessarily Reflect Remnant Planets?
    • Metal pollution always seen with IR
    excess (warm, dusty debris disks) as well
    as Ca II emission (co-located gaseous
    debris disks)
    • Rocks are scattered in at high-eand
    tidally disrupted (typical mass accretion
    rates suggest ~108 g/s, so ~1021 g or
    ~40-200 km asteroids)
    • If thermohaline mixing occurs, rates may
    be as high as 1013 g/s, corresponding to
    ~1026 g (~1 Moon mass)
    (Bauer & Bildsten 2019)
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 10 Mark Garlick
    See the reviews by Veras 2016 and
    Farihi 2016

    View Slide

  11. Does Metal Pollution Necessarily Reflect Remnant Planets?
    • WD pollution is likely a signature of:
    • A modest reservoir of asteroids,
    comets, moons and/or planetesimals
    • At least 1 surviving major planet
    • Unless you are in a binary (e.g., Veras et al. 2018)
    See the reviews by Veras 2016 and
    Farihi 2016 JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 11 Mark Garlick

    View Slide

  12. Drastic Difference in Metal Pollution for More Massive WDs
    • 30%-50% of 1.5-3.5 solar-mass ZAMS progenitors show evidence of remnant
    planetary systems (48/85 WDs)
    • <10% of 4-6 solar-mass
    ZAMS progenitors show
    the same evidence
    (1/12 WDs)
    Si detected, must be accreted
    Si detected, likely from recent accretion
    No Si detected
    Koester, Gänsicke & Farihi 2014 JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 12

    View Slide

  13. So How Do We Get a Progenitor Mass for a WD?
    Raddi et al. 2015
    An example:
    0.77(0.03) M¤
    WD in NGC 2527(630 Myr)
    185 Myr WD cooling age
    tprog
    = 445 Myr
    à Mprog
    = 3.1 M¤
    “IFMR” (initial-to-final-mass relation)
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 13
    Koester, Gänsicke &
    Farihi 2014
    Cummings et al. 2019

    View Slide

  14. Mark Garlick
    • >30-50% of WDs from 1.5-3.5 solar-mass ZAMS progenitors
    show remnant planetary systems
    • <10% of WDs from 4-6 solar-mass progenitors show the same
    evidence
    • Is this caused by: mergers or binarity?
    late-stage stellar violence?
    differences in planetary architectures?
    differences in planetary occurrence?
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 14

    View Slide

  15. Are Massive WDs Mostly Merger Byproducts?
    Dunlap & Clemens 2015
    • Hot (>15 kK) massive WDs descending from single stars were
    born <1 Gyr ago
    • They should thus have low velocity dispersions
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 15
    1.2 M¤
    WD
    Koester, Gänsicke &
    Farihi 2014

    View Slide

  16. Massive WDs Generally Evolved from Single Stars
    see also Wegg & Phinney 2012 JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 16
    • Hot (>15 kK) massive WDs descending from single stars were
    born <1 Gyr ago
    • They should thus have low velocity dispersions
    0.6 M¤
    0.9 M¤
    1.2 M¤

    View Slide

  17. Mark Garlick
    • >30-50% of WDs from 1.5-3.5 solar-mass ZAMS progenitors
    show remnant planetary systems
    • <10% of WDs from 4-6 solar-mass progenitors show the same
    evidence
    • Is this caused by: mergers or binarity?
    late-stage stellar violence?
    differences in planetary architectures?
    differences in planetary occurrence?
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 17

    View Slide

  18. Could Mass-Loss Destabilize Planets For Massive AGB Stars?
    • Most major planets inside 100 au survive mass loss
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 178
    Kalirai et al. 2008
    Veras et al. 2011

    View Slide

  19. Mark Garlick
    • >30-50% of WDs from 1.5-3.5 solar-mass ZAMS progenitors
    show remnant planetary systems
    • <10% of WDs from 4-6 solar-mass progenitors show the same
    evidence
    • Is this caused by: mergers or binarity?
    late-stage stellar violence?
    differences in planetary architectures?
    differences in planetary occurrence?
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 19

    View Slide

  20. Do Planetary Architecture Shares Some Blame?
    • Perhaps more massive
    stars have fewer
    reservoirs of asteroids,
    or those reservoirs more
    affected by RGB
    luminosities?
    (eg, YORP: Veras et al. 2014)
    Koester, Gänsicke &
    Farihi 2014
    Mustill & Villaver 2012 JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 20
    Jupiter Jupiter
    Earth Earth

    View Slide

  21. Do Massive Stars Simply Have Lower Planetary Occurrence?
    • Perhaps disk lifetimes too short, or are affected by stellar companions?
    Moe & Di Stefano 2017 JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 21
    Koester, Gänsicke &
    Farihi 2014

    View Slide

  22. • >30-50% of WDs from 1.5-3.5 solar-mass ZAMS progenitors
    show remnant planetary systems
    • <10% of WDs from 4-6 solar-mass progenitors show the same
    evidence (HST Cycle 25 program “EESS”, PI: Gänsicke)
    • Is this caused by:
    mergers or binarity?
    late-stage stellar violence?
    differences in planetary architectures?
    differences in planetary occurrence?
    JJ Hermes KITP-ExoStar 22
    Koester, Gänsicke &
    Farihi 2014

    View Slide