Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
5 Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum für Astronomie, University of Heidelberg, Mönchhofstrasse 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Accepted 2017 June 9. Received 2017 June 7; in original form 2016 September 27
ABSTRACT
Most stars form in star clusters and stellar associated. However, only about ∼ 1%
of the presently known exoplanets are found in these environments. To understand
the roles of star cluster environments in shaping the dynamical evolution of planetary
systems, we carry out direct N-body simulations of four planetary systems models in
three different star cluster environments with respectively N = 2k, 8k and 32k stars.
In each cluster, an ensemble of initially identical planetary systems are assigned to
solar-type stars with ∼ 1M and evolved for 50 Myr. We found that following the de-
pletion of protoplanetary disks, external perturbations and planet-planet interactions
are two driving mechanisms responsible for the destabilization of planetary systems.
The planet survival rate varies from ∼ 95% in the N = 2k cluster to ∼ 60% in the
N = 32k cluster, which suggests that most planetary systems can indeed survive in
low-mass clusters, except in the central regions. We also find that planet ejections
through stellar encounters are cumulative processes, as only ∼ 3% of encounters are
strong enough to excite the eccentricity by ∆e ≥ 0.5. Short-period planets can be
perturbed through orbit crossings with long-period planets. When taking into account
planet-planet interactions, the planet ejection rate nearly doubles, and therefore multi-
plicity contributes to the vulnerability of planetary systems. In each ensemble, ∼ 0.2%
of planetary orbits become retrograde due to random directions of stellar encoun-
ters. Our results predict that young low-mass star clusters are promising sites for
next-generation planet surveys, yet low planet detection rates are expected in dense
globular clusters such as 47 Tuc. Nevertheless, planets in denser stellar environments
are likely to have shorter orbital periods, which enhances their detectability.
Key words: planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability – galaxies: star
clusters: general – methods: numerical
Table 1. List of exoplanet detections in star clusters. DM: detection method; TS: transit; RV: radial velocity; TM: timing; Nep: Neptune-
sized; MS : Stellar mass in solar units M ; mp : planet mass in Jupiter units MJ ; P: orbital period in days.
cretion scenario (e.g., Mizuno 1980; Bodenheimer & Pollack of planetary systems depends on the hosting stellar environ-
1986) and the disk-fragmentation scenario (e.g., Boss 1997), ments. Galaxies and star clusters are distinctively different
were inspired by the Nebular Hypothesis proposed indepen- stellar environments, in the sense that the they have very
dently by Immanuel Kant and Pierre-Simon Laplace. Ac- different relaxation timescales (Binney & Tremaine 2008).
cording to these theories, planets form in the protoplane- The relaxation time in a typical galaxy of N ∼ 1011 stars
tary disks, are essentially byproducts of the star formation is well over a Hubble time, and therefore close encounters
process. Consequently, planets are may be common around are unimportant (except for the galactic center); exoplanets
main sequence stars. The recent discoveries of many exoplan- around stars in the galactic field rarely experience external
ets indeed have confirmed the high frequencies of exoplanets. perturbation due to stellar encounters. In contrast, the cor-
Moreover, observational studies suggest that most stars responding relaxation time in open clusters is of the order of
form in groups and/or clusters following the collapse of gi- ∼ Myr. Should there be any planetary systems in star clus-
ant molecular clouds (e.g., Clarke et al. 2000; Lada & Lada ters, they are likely to experience external perturbations.
2003; Porras et al. 2003). Naturally, one would expect that This motivates Portegies Zwart & Jı́lková (2015) to define
planets also form in star clusters. Indeed, isotope analysis the “parking zone” of planetary systems: a range of orbital
of meteorites suggests that even our own Solar system may separations around any star within which the planets native
have formed in a star cluster (see, e.g., Adams & Laugh- to that star may have been perturbed by close encounters
lin 2001; Portegies Zwart 2009; Pfalzner 2013; Parker et al. of external perturbers, but are unlikely to be affected by
2014; Pfalzner et al. 2015, and references therein). Direct external perturbations once the star becomes a member of
imaging surveys have revealed protoplanetary disks in the galactic field population. A number of recent numerical stud-
Trapezium cluster, which is embedded in the Orion Neb- ies have shown that frequent close encounters that can be
ula (McCaughrean & O’dell 1996; Bally et al. 2000). These destructive for planetary systems (e.g., Spurzem et al. 2009;
disks are likely the precursors of planetary systems. The or- Malmberg et al. 2011; Hao et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2013; Li &
bits of outer solar system bodies such as Sedna may also Adams 2015; Zheng et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015b; Shara
be explained as a consequence of close encounters, (Adams et al. 2016). Therefore, it would be insightful to carry out
2010; Jı́lková et al. 2015). If planetary systems are formed an exploratory study to understand the role of dynamical
in star clusters, their dynamical evolution will then be in- stellar environment on the evolution of planetary systems.
fluenced not only by internal processes (e.g. Voyatzis et al. Due to the chaotic nature of N-body systems with
2013; Zhang et al. 2013; Li et al. 2015, 2016) but also by N ≥ 3, the research on analytical formulations of generic
the dynamical evolution of their host star clusters. The or- multiplanetary systems remains extremely challenging. We
bital architectures of the planetary systems discovered in the therefore carry out the investigation with gravitational di-
Galactic field can be thus used to constrain the properties rect N-body simulations. However, given the enormous spa-
of the star clusters in which they were formed. tial and temporal differences between the dynamics of star
As of May 2017, only 1% of the known exoplanets are clusters and planetary systems, numerical investigation of
in star clusters (as listed in Table 1). This apparent low planetary systems in star clusters is non-trivial, as it leads to
frequency of exoplanets in star clusters can partially be at- a highly hierarchical and chaotic many-body systems. Sub-
tributed to observational selection effects. Nevertheless, the- stantial progress was made over the years with studies of
oretical studies indicate that external perturbations due to single-planet systems in star clusters. Using direct N-body
stellar flybys play a role in the evolution of planetary sys- simulations, Hurley & Shara (2002) investigate the fate of
tems (e.g., Heggie & Rasio 1996; Laughlin & Adams 1998; free-floating planets, and find that planets in star clusters,
Davies & Sigurdsson 2001; Bonnell et al. 2001). Naturally, an after being liberated by stellar encounters, can remain bound
immediate question arises on how the dynamical evolution in open clusters for a half-mass relaxation time scale of the
Ü P (R)| = d 2 ΦP (R) GM(b2 − 2R2 ) 2 In principle, the Galactic tide acting on the host star cluster
|Φ = , (8) is also acting on its planetary systems. In practice, however, we
dR2 (b2 + R2 )5/2
consider the Galactic tide in the solar neighborhood negligible for
which reaches the maximum at the cluster center (i.e. R = the evolution of planetary systems.
Model II 100 10−3 5 [1, 2.5, 6.3, 15.9, 39.7] 50 50 200 compact multiple-Earths
Model III 10 1 5 [5.2, 13.04, 32.7, 82.2, 206.2] 50 50 200 wide multiple-Jupiters
Model IV 100 10−3 5 [5.2, 13.04, 32.7, 82.2, 206.2] 50 50 200 wide multiple-Earths
Table 2. Initial conditions of the planetary system models. The host stars are chosen from solar-type stars in the cluster. Model I and
Model II are “compact” models, with the inner edge comparable to the Earth’s orbit, and the outer edge comparable to Pluto’s orbit.
Model III and Model IV are the “wide” models, with the inner edge comparable to Jupiter’s orbit, and the outer edge of ∼ 200 AU
comparable to ∼ 40% of Sedna’s orbital semi-major axis. Model I and Model III are multiple-Jupiter models where planet-planet
interactions are important; Model II and Model IV are multiple-Earth model where where the gravitational interactions among planets
can be safely ignored most of the time. The number of planetary systems in each ensemble are listed in the 2k, 8k, 32k columns,
respectively. In total, there are 1200 individual planetary system simulations, and each simulation is carried out for 50 Myr.
roughly a half of relaxation time. Therefore, planetary sys- parabolic regime is more destructive to the targeted plane-
tems within the star cluster will have experienced substan- tary systems – binary systems are formed between the per-
tial number of encounters, depending on the neighbor den- turber and the host star, with the possibility of triggering
sity in the vicinity10 . Inspired by the approach of modeling Kozai-Lidov oscillations (Naoz et al. 2011; Hamers & Porte-
the encounter between the host star and a external perturber gies Zwart 2016). The cumulative frequency distribution of
with a two-body problem (e.g., Spurzem et al. 2009; Heggie log K is shown in Figure 3. The cumulative frequency spec-
2006), we carry out our analysis with such a model, and tra shift leftward with the increment of N, showing that the
quantify the strength of each encounter with dimensionless average strengths of encounters increases in dense stellar en-
parameters Vinf and K. The quantity Vinf is the relative speed vironments.
of the perturber with respect to the host star, scaled to the We will see below, that the hyperbolic regime, albeit
average orbital speed of the outermost planet. The parame- weak, affects the planetary systems cumulatively by series of
ter K is the ratio of the perturbation timescale to the planet subsequent relatively weak to moderate encounters (K < 50).
orbital timescale, defined as Stars in their clusters experience Coulomb-like scattering –
s the contributions of rare and strong encounters are compa-
2Ms r p 3 rable to the contributions of the cumulative effect of a series
K= , (12)
Ms + Mp a of frequent and weak encounters.
where Ms = mstar + mpl is the total mass of the perturbed
planetary system, Mp is the mass of the perturber, r p is
the pericenter distance of the perturber with respect to the 4.2 Perturbed Planetary Systems
planetary system center of mass, and a is the semi-major
Multiplanetary systems are fragile when experiencing stellar
axis of the perturbed planetary orbit.
encounters in the star cluster environments (e.g., Portegies
Figure 2 shows the distances (scaled to the semi-major
Zwart & Jı́lková 2015; Hao et al. 2013). The planet survival
axes of the outermost planet) and the velocities (scaled to
rates depend on the frequency of close stellar encounters,
the velocity at infinity of the perturber) of three ensembles of
which in turn depends on the stellar density. Planetary sys-
stellar encounters in the N = 2k, 8k and 32k clusters during
tems close to the dense cluster center are more frequently
the 50 Myr timespan of simulations whenever a perturber
perturbed than those in the cluster outskirts.
reaches the periapsis.
Figures (4 - 7) depict the “microscopic” behaviors of
The frequencies of encounters (including nearly
four perturbed planetary systems. The first planetary sys-
parabolic, hyperbolic, impulsive, tidal encounters; separated
tem, shown in Figure 4, is a Model I multiple-Jupiter sys-
by the grey curves in the figure) increase as N increases,
tem in the N = 8k host cluster, and its evolution is sig-
indicating that more frequent encounters are expected in
nificantly affected by a perturbation at T ∼ 2.2 Myr. The
denser cluster environments. Indeed, as all our modeled clus-
outermost planet P5 is immediately ejected, and the second
ters have identical Rv = 1 pc initially, a larger N results
outermost planet undergoes substantial eccentricity excita-
in higher stellar density, and consequently smaller K since
tion and semi-major axis expansion. As such, the perturber
K ∝ (r p /a)3/2 (see Eq. 12). The strengths of encounters are
exchanges energy and angular momentum with this plan-
indicated with the five dashed vertical lines in each panel,
etary system, leading P4 into a retrograde orbit, and P1-
in which smaller K values are associated with stronger en-
P3 tightly coupled as a whole in the inner region of the
counters. As compared with hyperbolic encounters, the near
system (as shown at the bottom panel in particular). For
comparison, Figure 5 presents the behavior of a Model II
10 In this paper, we define an encounter as the time span since multiple-Earth planetary system orbiting exactly the same
a perturber becomes the closest star to the targeted planetary host star in the same cluster of Figure 4. The same close en-
system, until it is replaced by another star even closer to the counter at T ∼ 2.2 Myr liberates P4 and P5 simultaneously.
planetary system. In other words, each change of neighbor star is However, the system does not exhibit apparent pattern of
considered as an encounter, regardless of its strength or duration. planet-planet interaction as seen in Figure 4. Rather, planet
3 27 3 3
225 4500
24 200 4000
2 2 2
21 175
Number of encounters
3500
1 18 1 150 1 3000
log 10 (Vinf )
15 125 2500
0 12 0 100 0 2000
9 75 1500
1 6 1 50 1 1000
3 25 500
2 2 2
1 0 1 2 3 4 1 0 1 2 3 4 1 0 1 2 3 4
log 10 (rp /a) log 10 (rp /a) log 10 (rp /a)
Figure 2. Ensembles of stellar encounter parameters at the periapsis for the N = 2k, 8k and 32k star clusters (from left to right). The
vertical gray line coincides with rp = a, where a is the semi-major axes of the outermost planets (∼ 40 AU). If rp a, the encounter is
tidal. The diagonal grey line coincides with the hyperbolic eccentricity e0 = 1. Above this line encounters are hyperbolic, below the line
they are nearly parabolic. The grey curve separates the regime of adiabatic encounters (Vp vcir,a , where vcir,a is the circular velocity at
a) and impulsive encounters (Vp vcir,a ). The five blue vertical dashed lines from left to right correspond to K = 10, 102, 103, 104 and
K = 105 , respectively (assuming that the perturber mass is M p = 1M⊕ , and the mass of the host star is Mstar = 1.0M⊕ according to the
initial conditions). The colors of dots in each panel correspond to the counts of encounters. The encounter parameters are collected when
the perturber reaches rp .
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
10 2 3.5
3.0
10 1 2.5
RSC [pc]
2.0
a [AU]
10 0 1.5
1.0
0.5
10 -1 0 0.0
1.0 10 20 30 40 505.0
0.8 T [Myr] 4.5
log(rp ) [AU]
0.6 4.0
0.4 3.5
e
3.0
0.2 2.5
0.0 2.0
1600 10 20 30 40 50
140
120
100
i [deg]
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
T [Myr]
Figure 4. Orbital element evolution of a Model I planetary system in the N = 8k cluster. The system has 5 planets initially, which are
initially on circular and coplanar orbits. In the top panel, the semi-major axis of each planet is plotted in colored curved as a function
of time (in log-scale), while the thick gray curve indicates the distance from the host star to the cluster center (axis on the right, in
parsec); in the middle panel, the evolution of the eccentricity of each planet is plotted as a function of time, and the thick gray curve is
the distance of the perturber to the host star (in AU, log-scale); at the bottom panel the inclination of each planet with respect to the
initial orbital plane is plotted, and the thick gray curve is the acceleration due to the perturber (log-scale, normalized to the acceleration
due to the host star). In this particular planetary system, a close encounter encounter occurs at about T = 2.2 Myr, which ejects the
outermost planet (P5) immediately, and excites P4 to e ∼ 0.2. This close encounter results in a prograde orbit (i > 90◦ ) of P4, and also
strengthens the planet-planet scattering among the remaining planets.
vulnerable to external perturbations, they may not neces- etary system tends to reach an equipartition of AMD (Wu
sarily be the first ones to get ejected, because the excitation & Lithwick 2011). Inner planets with small semi-major axis
process is complicated by planet-planet interactions and or- have relatively small orbital angular momentum, and there-
bital phases. fore it only contribute to a small fraction of the total AMD.
Moderate encounters (10 < r p /a < 30), albeit weak, As a consequence of the AMD equipartition, the inner planet
can still leave marks on the targeted planetary systems (see is “forced” to contribute as much AMD as possible, which in
especially Figure 6). Each encounter results in a small δe turn be driven to extreme orbits. It is worthy to point out
and δa, causing the orbit to gradually depart from its ini- that absorbing AMD takes time, and therefore if an inner
tial circular and coplanar state, a state corresponding to the planet is indirectly ejected because it is perturbed by an
maximum possible orbital angular momentum. The orbital outer orbits, the ejection may happen well after the per-
angular momentum is partially taken away during the onset turber departs from the periapsis. Additionally, an inner
of an encounter, and therefore results in the growth of angu- planet may be ejected earlier than the outer planets, be-
lar momentum deficit (AMD) (see, Laskar 1997). The AMD cause it has lower AMD capacity. Eventually, all planets in
of outer planets is partially absorbed by inner planets, conse- the system obtain high eccentricities, which results in the
quently causing the inner planets to develop eccentric orbits loss of stability of the entire system.
(Davies et al. 2014). As such, eccentricities are propagated
from outer planets to inner planets. Due to the Coulomb-like
random scattering among stars in the cluster, the frequency We conclude that planets can be liberated immediately
of moderate encounters (as seen in Figure 2) much higher through very strong encounters (k < 10). An alternative
than strong encounters (r p /a < 10), especially in denser channel to eject planets is through the cumulative effect of
clusters. These encounters are able to gradually pump up multiple moderate encounters (10 < r p /a < 30). Distance en-
the AMD of a targeted planetary system by repeatedly per- counters (r p /a > 50) have no direct implication to stability.
turbing the outermost planet. The value of AMD limits the Furthermore, planet-planet interactions are the catalysts of
maximum eccentricity and inclination an individual planet the destruction of a secularly interacting planetary system,
can attain. When the AMD is sufficiently large, the plan- such as in our multiple-Jupiter models.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
10 2 3.5
3.0
2.5
RSC [pc]
2.0
a [AU]
10 1 1.5
1.0
0.5
10 0 0 0.0
1.0 10 20 30 40 505.0
0.8 T [Myr] 4.5
log(rp ) [AU]
0.6 4.0
0.4 3.5
e
3.0
0.2 2.5
0.0 2.0
90 0 10 20 30 40 50
80
70
60
i [deg]
50
40
30
20
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
T [Myr]
Figure 5. The same host star in the same cluster as in Figure 4, but for a Model II planetary system. P4 and P5 are ejected immediately.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
10 3 8
7
10 2 6
5
RSC [pc]
a [AU]
4
10 1 3
2
1
10 0 0 0
1.0 10 20 30 40 506.0
0.8 T [Myr] 5.5
5.0
log(rp ) [AU]
0.6 4.5
0.4 4.0
e
0.2 3.5
3.0
0.0 2.5
200 10 20 30 40 50
15
i [deg]
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
T [Myr]
Figure 6. Same as Fig. 5, but for a Model III planetary system in the N = 8k cluster. The planetary system orbits around the cluster
center in approximately eccentric orbits. As it dives into the cluster center, the frequency of perturbations increases significantly. Likewise,
the planetary system remains roughly unperturbed when in the outskirts of the cluster. Consequently, excitation are more likely to occur
during around the dense cluster center.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
10 3 8
7
10 2 6
5
RSC [pc]
a [AU]
4
10 1 3
2
1
10 0 0 0
1.0 10 20 30 40 506.0
0.8 T [Myr] 5.5
5.0
log(rp ) [AU]
0.6 4.5
0.4 4.0
e
0.2 3.5
3.0
0.0 2.5
18 0 10 20 30 40 50
16
14
12
i [deg]
108
64
20
0 10 20 30 40 50
T [Myr]
Figure 7. Same as Fig. 6, but for a Model IV planetary system in an N = 8k cluster.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Overall
1.00
0.98
0.96
Survival rates
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.86 2k, Model III 2k, Model IV
0.84
T [Myr] T [Myr]
1.00
0.95
0.90
Survival rates
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70 8k, Model III 8k, Model IV
0.65
T [Myr] T [Myr]
1.0
0.9
0.8
Survival rates
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 32k, Model III 32k, Model IV
0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
T [Myr] T [Myr]
Figure 8. Survival rates as a function of time for planetary systems in N = 2k (top row), N = 8k (middle row), and N = 32kk clusters.
The three panels on the left column are Model III planetary systems, and the three panels on the right column are Model IV planetary
systems. Different planets are distinguished with different colors, and the thick black curve is the overall survival rates, defined as the
ratio between the total number of ejected planets at the current time T and the total number of of planets at T = 0.
We follow the changes in the orbital eccentricities ∆e ≡ ∆e, except for a few very strong encounters that ionize the
|enew − eold | as a consequence of each stellar encounters. As planets immediately. These findings are consistent with the
shown in Figure 12, very strong encounters are rare. Among results in Spurzem et al. 2009 and Hao et al. 2013.
all models, only ∼ 3% of encounters are sufficiently strong to
cause excitations of ∆e ≥ 0.5. This suggests that planet ejec- Hot Jupiters (HJs) can be produced with the combined
tions is a cumulative process – planets are gradually excited effects of stellar encounters and planet-planet interactions.
by a number of subsequent encounters with relative small In the N = 32k cluster, ∼ 0.2% of Model I planets have de-
veloped orbital features of rp ≤ 0.1 AU and a ≤ 1 AU. Tidal
0.8 Model II
observation suggest that planets are common, but only very
few exoplanets have been discovered in star clusters. To bet-
0.6 Model III ter understand this apparent dichotomy, we carry out this
exploratory study with a grid of simulations to test the dy-
Model IV namical stability of multiplanetary systems in intermediate-
f
0.4 mass open clusters. We simulate three host star cluster en-
vironments with N = 2k, 8k and 32k Plummer models. Each
of these models has the same virial radius Rv = 1 pc. The
0.2 mass spectra of these clusters are sampled with a Kroupa
(2001) initial mass function. For each star cluster model,
0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5
we distribute an ensemble of an ensemble of equal-mass and
equally separated (in terms of mutual Hill radii) planetary
Nsurv systems around solar-type stars. Each planetary system has
either five MJ (multiple-Jupiter model) or five M ⊕ (multiple-
Figure 9. Fractions of planetary systems f as a function of the Earth model) planets distributed in initially circular and
number of surviving planets in each system Nsurv at T = 50 Myr. coplanar orbits. The star clusters are integrated using the
The data is from Table 4. Circles: multiple-Jupiter models; trian- direct N-body code NBODY6++GPU (Wang et al. 2015a, 2016;
gles: multiple-Earth models; green: compact models; blue: wide Spurzem 1999), while the planetary systems are evolved with
models. rebound (Rein & Liu 2012) using the IAS15 integrator (Rein
& Spiegel 2015). The star cluster data is stored in the Block
Time Step storage scheme (Cai et al. 2015). After perform-
circularization can be efficient when these planets are around ing interpolation on the GPU, the perturbation information
their orbital periapsis, which in turn provides a mechanism is passed to rebound within the AMUSE (Portegies Zwart et
to produce HJs. The HJs rate predicted in (Shara et al. 2016) al. 2009, 2013; McMillan et al. 2012; Pelupessy et al. 2013)
is ∼ 1%, higher than our results. However, we note that our framework. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows.
simulations (50 Myr) are much shorter than the simulations
in (Shara et al. 2016) (1 Gyr). We therefore suspect that if (i) We quantify the strength of each stellar encounter with
we were not restricted by the computational costs, our re- the dimensionless parameters K and Vinf , where K is essen-
sults will be more consistent with (Shara et al. 2016) if we tially the ratio between the perturbation timescale and the
carry out our simulations for longer time. orbital timescale, and Vinf is the speed of the perturber at in-
All planets are initially coplanar, and external torques finity. The peak frequency distribution of K shifts to a lower
outside the orbital plane are exerted by perturbers from values in denser clusters, indicating that the encounters are
arbitrary directions. Mutual inclinations form as a natural on average stronger in denser clusters. Moreover, stellar en-
2k/Model III
1
2
log 10 (e)
3
4
5
0
8k/Model III
1
2
log 10 (e)
3
4
5
0
3
4
5
0
1
2
log 10 (e)
3
4
5
0
1
2
log 10 (e)
3
4
5
0
1
2
log 10 (e)
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
log 10 (a) [AU] log 10 (a) [AU] log 10 (a) [AU] log 10 (a) [AU]
Figure 10. Time frames of the a − e space at T = 1 Myr (col.1), 5 Myr (col.2), 10 Myr (col.3) and 50 Myr (col.4). The 1-3 rows are for
the Model III wide multiple-Jupiter planetary systems with hosting cluster of N = 2k, 8k, and 32k, respectively. The 4-6 rows are for the
Model IV wide multiple-Earth models in N = 2k, 8k, and 32k clusters, respectively.
2k/Model III
0.8
0.6
0.4
f
0.2
0.0
1.0
8k/Model III
0.8
0.6
0.4
f
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
f
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
f
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
f
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
e e e e
Figure 11. Same with Figure 10, but for the distribution of eccentricities.
2k
(v) The excitation process is cumulative and gradually
results in planet ejections. While very strong encounters can
0.6 8k cause instantaneous ejection of planets, they are rare: only
32k about 3% of the encounters are strong enough to cause an
0.50.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
eccentricity excitation of ∆e ≥ 0.5. In most cases planets are
excited gradually by a series of moderate or weak encounters.
∆e (vi) One direct consequence of stellar encounters is that
they change both the magnitudes and the directions of or-
Figure 12. The cumulative frequency of encounters that lead to bital angular momenta. The changes in angular momenta are
a given change of eccentricity ≤ ∆e. Only ∆e ≥ 0.01 are plotted. primarily caused by perturbers with offsets of the orbital
The three curves correspond to three Model IV ensembles in planets, which is usually the case. In the EMS model for
N = 2k, 8k and 32k clusters, respectively. Weak encounters with planetary systems we distribute planets initially on copla-
small ∆e dominant the frequency spectra for all models. Very nar circular orbits.
strong encounter causing ∆e ≥ 0.5 are rare. Due to the small √ As such, the orbital angular momenta are
proportional to a, where a is the semi-major axis. However,
number of close encounter events, the N = 2k result is different
outer planets lose their angular momenta quickly though
from the the N = 8k and N = 32k results.
the rapid eccentricity excitations, and therefore they tend
to have a higher inclinations than the inner planets. We
counters are more frequent in denser and more massive clus- observe on average 1 − 2 planets (0.1% − 0.2%) with retro-
ters. grade orbits in each multiple-Jupiter ensemble, and 2 − 4 in
(ii) The dynamical evolution of planetary systems is sen- the multiple-Earth ensembles. The frequency of planets with
sitive to external perturbations. Consequently, the planet retrograde orbits increases in denser stellar environments.
survival rate declines in denser clusters: for clusters with When planets with highly eccentric orbits approach the host
N = 2k, 8k and 32k, the planet survival rates of the com- stars, their eccentricities could be damped near the periap-
pact multiple-Jupiter systems (Model I) are 98.4%, 94% and sis through the tidal damping effect, resulting to very small
83.4%, respectively, and the survival rates for wide multiple- orbits (e.g. hot Jupiters). The tidal damping effect does not
Jupiter systems (Model III) are 92%, 79.2% and 55%, re- affect their induced inclinations. We speculate that this may
spectively. Similarly, when evolving the compact multiple- produce an alternative channel of producing large spin-orbit
Earth systems (Model II) in the N = 2k, 8k and 32k clusters, misalignments (as opposed to the Kozai-Lidov mechanism),
the corresponding survival rates are 98.8%, 98.6% and 91.6%, which is observed among many extrasolar planetary systems
respectively, and for wide multiple-Earth systems (Model through e.g., the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect.
IV) 96.8%, 90% and 77.1%, respectively. In terms of the num-
ber of planets survived in each planetary system, 84% of wide Not all star clusters are as compact as our models. As
multiple-Jupiter systems and 90% of wide multiple-Earth such, our results provides an upper limit of planet ejection
systems are able to keep all their planets N = 2k cluster. rates in such environments.
This fraction drops to 26.5% and 43% in the N = 32k denser It is worthwhile to point out that the background clus-
cluster. Therefore, we believe that young low-mass star clus- ter potential may have implications to planetary system sta-
ters will be prominent sites for next generation planet detec- bility. For an isolated planetary system, the perturber and
tion surveys, but the likelihood of detecting planets in dense the host stars are interacting in the Keplerian potential,
globular clusters such as 47 Tuc would be low. and the total energy is conserved. In the star cluster en-
(iii) External perturbations constrain the maximum sizes vironments (especially in the cluster center), however, stars
of planetary systems. The wider a planet’s orbit is, the more are being scattered randomly, exhibiting Brownian motion
vulnerable it is to external perturbations. In all star clus- in the background cluster potential. Therefore, our simula-
ters environments used in our simulations, the survival rates tions of perturbing planetary systems in star clusters cannot
of the wide models (Model III and Model IV) are much be simplified as isolated planetary systems being perturbed
lower than the corresponding compact models (Model I and by a series of Keplerian stellar encounters. The background
Model II), even though they evolve in exactly the same host cluster potential affects the planet stability by affecting the
star in the same cluster. As such, we predict that planets in trajectories of the perturber. Nevertheless, a quantitative
denser star clusters will have smaller orbits, which actually analysis of this effect is beyond the scope of this paper.
allow them to be detected relatively easily. This study has been limited to pure dynamical interac-
(iv) Planet-planet interactions are the catalysts of plane- tion between member stars in star clusters and multiplane-
tary system disruptions. We compare the dynamical evolu- tary systems. Planets are assumed to be of equal mass, ar-
tion of the multiple-Jupiter systems and multiple-Earth sys- ranged in initially coplanar circular orbits with equal separa-
2k/Model III
1
0
1
2
8k/Model III
1
0
1
2
Figure 13. Same with Figure 10, but for the a − i space. Each panel is divided into two regimes by the blue horizontal dashed line:
prograde orbits (0◦ ≤ i < 90◦ ) and retrograde orbits (90◦ ≤ i < 180◦ ).