Published May 10, 2011 | Version v1
Journal article

A FIRST COMPARISON OF KEPLER PLANET CANDIDATES IN SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SYSTEMS

  • 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 (United States)
  • 2. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 (United States)
  • 3. Department of Physics and Astronomy, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192 (United States)
  • 4. Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope, Goleta, CA 93117 (United States)
  • 5. Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen University, DK-2100 Copenhagen (Denmark)
  • 6. SETI Institute/NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 (United States)
  • 7. NASA Exoplanet Science Institute/Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125 (United States)
  • 8. Department of Astronomy, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 (United States)
  • 9. Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 (United States)
  • 10. Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 (United States)
  • 11. Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32111 (United States)
  • 12. Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109 (United States)
  • 13. Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218 (United States)

Description

In this Letter, we present an overview of the rich population of systems with multiple candidate transiting planets found in the first four months of Kepler data. The census of multiples includes 115 targets that show two candidate planets, 45 with three, eight with four, and one each with five and six, for a total of 170 systems with 408 candidates. When compared to the 827 systems with only one candidate, the multiples account for 17% of the total number of systems, and one-third of all the planet candidates. We compare the characteristics of candidates found in multiples with those found in singles. False positives due to eclipsing binaries are much less common for the multiples, as expected. Singles and multiples are both dominated by planets smaller than Neptune; 69+2-3% for singles and 86+2-5% for multiples. This result, that systems with multiple transiting planets are less likely to include a transiting giant planet, suggests that close-in giant planets tend to disrupt the orbital inclinations of small planets in flat systems, or maybe even prevent the formation of such systems in the first place.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L24

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Astrophysical Journal Letters
Journal Volume
732
Journal Issue
2
Journal Page Range
[4 p.]
ISSN
2041-8205

INIS

Country of Publication
United States
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
43040404
Subject category
S79: ASTROPHYSICS, COSMOLOGY AND ASTRONOMY;
Descriptors DEI
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; INCLINATION; PLANETS
Descriptors DEC
EVALUATION