Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Sub neptune — where it appears

A planet between about 1.8 and 4 Earth radii, common around other stars and absent from the solar system. It requires a gaseous envelope of a few per cent by mass, and the gap separating it from the smaller rocky planets is where photoevaporation has stripped that envelope.

Named by 6 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Mass against radius, and what lies between the curves. Planetary radius against mass on logarithmic axes, in Earth units, with composition curves computed from interior models rather than drawn through the points. The solid-planet curves are R ∝ M^(1/3.7) — flatter than a constant density because a heavier planet compresses itself — and the hydrogen curve turns over near three Jupiter masses, where degeneracy pressure takes over and adding mass makes the planet smaller. A mass alone or a radius alone places a planet on a line; only both together place it between two curves, and that is the whole argument for measuring a planet twice.

Two methods, and one density

A transit gives a radius. A wobble gives a mass. Neither says what a planet is made of, and the two together say it in one number — which is the only reason both are worth doing on the same object.

exoplanets · Planet composition A gap where planets should be. The number of planets per star per interval of log radius, for orbital periods under a hundred days, corrected for detection efficiency. There are two peaks — super-Earths near 1.3 R⊕ and sub-Neptunes near 2.4 R⊕ — and a deficit between them at 1.89 R⊕, where the occurrence falls to 33% of the peak. The gap is not a gap in what can be detected: detection efficiency rises smoothly through it, so a smooth underlying distribution could not produce a dip there.

A gap in a histogram that says how planets are built

Between the super-Earths and the sub-Neptunes there is a radius at which planets are markedly rarer. The gap is not a gap in what can be detected, and its slope with orbital period names the process that made it.

exoplanets · Radius valley One mass and one radius, and every composition that gives them. A planet of 5 Earth masses and 1.6 Earth radii, and the compositions consistent with it. The horizontal axis is the fraction of the planet's mass in an iron core and the vertical axis the fraction in a water layer outside the rock; the heavy curve is every pair that reproduces the measurement exactly, and the band around it is what the 0.05 Earth-radius uncertainty allows. The answer is a curve, not a point, and that is not a failure of precision. Two numbers cannot determine three components: a planet can be made denser by adding iron or lighter by adding water, and along this locus the two changes cancel exactly. The ends of it are not small variations on one planet. At the left is a body with no iron at all and 0 per cent of its mass in water; at the right, one with an iron core like Mercury's and 23 per cent water. Those have different formation histories, different interiors, different everything, and the same mass and radius to the precision anybody can measure them. Breaking the degeneracy needs an observation that is neither a mass nor a radius. The usual one is a transmission spectrum, which measures the atmosphere's scale height and so its mean molecular weight — a hydrogen envelope and a steam envelope differ by a factor of nine in that, and the corresponding factor in the size of the spectral features. What the picture assumes is that the planet is differentiated into clean layers, which is the standard assumption and is false in detail: water dissolves into silicate melt at these pressures, and a mixed interior sits at neither end of this curve.

One density, and every planet that has it

A mass and a radius are two numbers, and a differentiated planet has at least three components. The set of compositions matching a measurement is therefore a curve rather than a point — and its two ends are a body with no iron and half its mass in water, and a body with a Mercury-like core.

exoplanets · Planet composition How long a planet's hydrogen lasts, against how much of it there is. The time a young Sun-like star's saturated X-ray and ultraviolet output would take to remove a planet's whole hydrogen envelope, at 100 times the Earth's insolation, against the envelope's share of the planet's mass, for cores of 3, 5, 8 Earth masses. It is computed with energy-limited escape and an interior fit for the envelope's thickness, and it is not monotonic. A heavy envelope takes long to remove because there is a lot of it. A very light one takes long because the planet is small and intercepts little light. In between the time peaks, and it peaks where the envelope has swollen the planet most for its mass: 3 Earth masses at an envelope of 1.9 per cent, 129 Myr, where the envelope is 1.31 times as thick as the core's radius; 5 Earth masses at an envelope of 2.8 per cent, 364 Myr, where the envelope is 1.30 times as thick as the core's radius; 8 Earth masses at an envelope of 4.0 per cent, 946 Myr, where the envelope is 1.30 times as thick as the core's radius. The peak is what makes a valley. A planet above it losing gas moves up the curve, its remaining envelope lasting longer and longer, and settles; a planet below it moves down, lasting less and less, and loses everything. The horizontal lines are the saturated phase, 100 Myr, and the 300 Myr of saturated-equivalent exposure the whole history delivers: a core whose peak lies below the second line cannot keep any envelope at all.

The envelope that doubles a planet lasts longest

The gap in the radii of small planets is not merely a place where planets are rare — it is nearly empty, and the reason is a peak. The time a young star needs to strip a planet's hydrogen is longest for the envelope that swells the planet to a little over twice its core's size. Anything thinner runs away to nothing, and anything thicker settles back towards the peak.

exoplanets · Radius valley When the stripping happens, in a model population. For the same 3,000 model planets, the share that have lost their whole envelope by each age, scaled to the share bare at 5.0 Gyr (35 per cent of the population), beside the share of the star's lifetime XUV energy delivered by then. Half of all the stripping in this model is finished by 72 Myr and nine tenths by 457 Myr, while the star has delivered 27 and 76 per cent of its XUV energy. That is the clock photoevaporation keeps: the valley is essentially finished within the first few hundred million years, because the planets near the boundary are the ones that run away, and they run away early. A mechanism powered instead by the slow cooling of the planets' own cores would keep moving planets across the valley for billions of years. The difference is in when, not where, and it is why the ages of the stars hosting planets on either side of the valley are the measurement that can separate the two.

The stripping runs ahead of the starlight that drives it

If young stars carve the radius valley with their X-ray light, the valley should be finished early — half of it before the star has delivered a third of that light, and nine tenths of it within a few hundred million years. If the planets' own cooling cores carve it instead, planets should still be crossing it billions of years later. The two accounts put the valley in the same place, and they are separated by the one thing a histogram cannot show — when.

exoplanets · Radius valley Where photoevaporation puts the valley, round stars of different mass. The radius of the largest core stripped bare, against orbital period, round stars of 0.5 M☉, 0.75 M☉, 1 M☉, 1.25 M☉, in the same energy-limited model, with each star's luminosity taken as its mass to the fourth power and its saturated phase lengthened for smaller stars as the mass to the −1.5, 100 Myr for the Sun. At ten days the valley is at 1.22 Earth radii round the 0.5 M☉ star, 1.38 Earth radii round the 0.75 M☉ star, 1.50 Earth radii round the 1 M☉ star, 1.60 Earth radii round the 1.25 M☉ star, and every one of them tilts as the −0.176 power of the orbital period, because the tilt comes from the exponents of the escape law and the interior fit, which do not depend on the star. A lower-mass star is far fainter, so at a given period its planets receive much less light, and even its longer active phase does not make up the difference: this model puts the valley at smaller radii round smaller stars while keeping the same sign of tilt. The stellar scalings are rough, and they are the least certain part of the calculation; what is robust is that photoevaporation ties the valley to the XUV energy a planet received, which falls with the star's mass at fixed period, and a mechanism tied to something else would tie it differently.

A smaller star puts the valley lower

Round stars of half the Sun's mass, the gap between bare rocky cores and sub-Neptunes should sit at a smaller radius than round the Sun, because at the same orbital period their planets receive a tenth of the light. Their stars also stay young and active far longer, which pushes the other way. Photoevaporation weighs those two against each other in a definite proportion, and the answer is a valley that scales as the star's mass to about the power three tenths.

exoplanets · Radius valley

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Super-EarthPhotoevaporationRadius valleyXUV fluxCore-powered mass lossBulk densityCore mass fractionEnergy-limited escapeEnvelope fractionMass radius relationSaturationScale height

All concepts