Tilted planetary system throws planet-formation theories for a loop

Scientists have identified a system of exoplanets that are arranged at a tilt to their home star in a find that upends planet formation theories.

Daniel Huber/NASA/Ames Research Center
The Kepler-56 planetary system features two inner planets orbiting at a severe tilt to their host star -- even though there's no "hot Jupiter" in the system.

Scientists have found a multi-planet system in which the planets are arranged at a tilt to their home star. The finding, based on Kepler telescope data, offers an unusual level of precise detail about a system of worlds thousands of light years afield from our own, while also highlighting just how much is still unknown about how planetary systems form.

“As we discover more planetary systems, we're learning about the variety of 'architectures' that they display,” says Steven Kawaler, the leader of the Kepler Asteroseismic Investigation and an author on the paper, published in the journal Science.

“Every system has a different story to tell,” he said.

The new system is orbiting Kepler-56, a red giant that is four times the mass of the sun and some 3,000 light years afield from Earth. Two of the star’s planets are in close orbit around it. Another, larger object is orbiting the star farther out – that object could be a planet, too, but scientists aren’t yet sure.

The Kepler-56 system, one of hundreds so far discovered in our galaxy, is normal so far as exoplanet systems go – which is to say that it is “normal” in that, like most of these systems, it is unfolding to look little like what it had been expected it to look like and to upend what we thought we knew about the universe.

In this system, the perplexing detail that has thrown astronomers for a loop is its off-kilter arrangement: the star’s equatorial plane is at a 45-degree tilt to the three objects’ orbits. Though tilted orbits have been found before, they have appeared just in single planet systems where a hot Jupiter – an enormous planet similar in size to our Jupiter but orbiting near to its star and piping hot – was the lone companion to a star. Based on prevailing evidence, scientists had though that this tilt-a-whirl architecture must be unique to systems with a “hot Jupiter.” 

And that had made sense, since, unless a traumatic event pulls things out of whack, planets tend to develop in neat alignment with their star, forming out of the thin disk of dust and gas swirling around the central star. In our own solar system, the eight planets all orbit the sun at no more than about a seven-degree tilt from the plane of the sun’s equator.

Put a hot Jupiter into that system, though, and everything rearranges. That’s because the formation of a hot Jupiter is believed to be a traumatic event in itself. It’s not possible to make a Brobdignagian planet close to a host star, since sufficient cold is required for enough ice and gas to fuse together to build an enormous planet. So, much as our Jupiter formed, hot Jupiters must begin in space’s cold, dark reaches, far out from a star’s warmth.

But, unlike our Jupiter, these grown-big planets end up in orbit near to their star, after gravitational interactions with nearby objects push them inward. There, the giant planet will become a “hot” Jupiter in the sizzling glow of its star.  It will also, in all likelihood, have an unusual alignment.

“This process is like a complicated 3-D billiard shot, often resulting in an orbit well out of the original plane of formation of the planet,” says Dr. Kawaler.

It now appears, though, that tilted planetary orbits are possible in systems that don't have a hot Jupiter. That’s a find that could revise the basics of planet formation theory, suggesting that it’s possible that other, intervening forces must be accounted for in how systems develop. In this case, the researchers propose that the gravitational force of the third outer object is responsible for the tilt, pulling the two inner planets in line with its own tilt. Just what that object is, though, is still under investigation, the team reported.

“The final configuration of a planetary system tells the story of the formation process,” says Kawaler.

“If all systems form through a quiet accretion process, then all systems should have planar orbits around their host stars,” he said. “Systems with tilted orbits – and the degree to which such systems are rare or common – tell us that the planet formation process itself is highly variable.”

The Kepler telescope’s hunt for exoplanets has been hobbled since one of its reaction wheels was declared un-repairable this summer. But astronomers still have heaps of data from the telescope’s four-year-long gaze at the solar systems beyond our own. On Wednesday, NASA added eight new exoplanets to its catalogue of far-flung worlds, four of them dug out of Kepler data.

To date, Kepler has helped astronomers find some 3,589 confirmed exoplanets and exoplanet candidates. As of this week, NASA has confirmed the existence of 919 exoplanets.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.