A dependence of binary and planetary system destruction on subtle variations in the substructure in young star-forming regions

Abstract

Simulations of the effects of stellar fly-bys on planetary systems in star-forming regions show a strong dependence on subtle variations in the initial spatial and kinematic substructure of the regions. For similar stellar densities, the more substructured star-forming regions disrupt up to a factor of two more planetary systems. We extend this work to look at the effects of substructure on stellar binary populations. We present N-body simulations of substructured, and non-substructured (smooth) star-forming regions in which we place different populations of stellar binaries. We find that for binary populations that are dominated by close (<100au) systems, a higher proportion are destroyed in substructured regions. However, for wider systems (>100au), a higher proportion are destroyed in smooth regions. The difference is likely due to the hard-soft, or fast-slow boundary for binary destruction. Hard (fast/close) binaries are more likely to be destroyed in environments with a small velocity dispersion (kinematically substructured regions), whereas soft (slow/wide) binaries are more likely to be destroyed in environments with higher velocity dispersions (non-kinematically substructured regions). Due to the vast range of stellar binary semimajor axes in star-forming regions (10-2 - 104au) these differences are small and hence unlikely to be observable. However, planetary systems have a much smaller initial semimajor axis range (likely 1 -- 100au for gas giants) and here the difference in the fraction of companions due to substructure could be observed if the star-forming regions that disrupt planetary systems formed with similar stellar densities.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…