1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
3: %\usepackage{natbib}
4: %\citestyle{aa}
5: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
6: \newcommand{\etal}{\mbox{\rm et al.~}}
7: \newcommand{\ms}{\mbox{m s$^{-1}~$}}
8: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}~$}}
9: \newcommand{\kmse}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}$}}
10: \newcommand{\ks}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}~$}}
11: \newcommand{\kse}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}$}}
12: \newcommand{\mse}{\mbox{m s$^{-1}$}}
13: \newcommand{\msy}{\mbox{m s$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}~$}}
14: \newcommand{\msye}{\mbox{m s$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$}}
15: \newcommand{\msun}{M$_{\odot}~$}
16: \newcommand{\msune}{M$_{\odot}$}
17: \newcommand{\rsun}{R$_{\odot}~$}
18: \newcommand{\rsune}{R$_{\odot}$}
19: \newcommand{\lsun}{L$_{\odot}~$}
20: \newcommand{\lsune}{L$_{\odot}$}
21: \newcommand{\mjup}{M$_{\rm Jup}~$}
22: \newcommand{\mjupe}{M$_{\rm Jup}$}
23: \newcommand{\msat}{M$_{\rm Sat}~$}
24: \newcommand{\msate}{M$_{\rm Sat}$}
25: \newcommand{\mnep}{M$_{\rm Nep}~$}
26: \newcommand{\mnepe}{M$_{\rm Nep}$}
27: \newcommand{\mearth}{M$_{\rm Earth}~$}
28: \newcommand{\mearthe}{M$_{\rm Earth}$}
29: \newcommand{\rjup}{R$_{\rm Jup}~$}
30: \newcommand{\rjupe}{R$_{\rm Jup}$}
31: \newcommand{\msini}{$M \sin i~$}
32: \newcommand{\msinie}{$M \sin i$}
33: \newcommand{\vsini}{$v \sin i~$}
34: \newcommand{\vsinie}{$v \sin i$}
35: \newcommand{\mbsini}{$M_b \sin i~$}
36: \newcommand{\mcsini}{$M_c \sin i~$}
37: \newcommand{\mdsini}{$M_d \sin i~$}
38: \newcommand{\chisq}{$\chi_{\nu}^2~$}
39: \newcommand{\chisqe}{$\chi_{\nu}^2$}
40: \newcommand{\cs}{$\sqrt{\chi^2_{\nu}}~$}
41: \newcommand{\cse}{$\sqrt{\chi^2_{\nu}}$}
42: \newcommand{\arel}{$a_{\rm rel}$}
43: \newcommand{\teff}{${\rm T_{eff}}$}
44: \newcommand{\feh}{\ensuremath{[\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}]}}
45: \newcommand{\rphk}{\ensuremath{R'_{\mbox{\scriptsize HK}}}}
46: \newcommand{\lrphk}{\ensuremath{\log{\rphk}}}
47: \newcommand{\caii}{\ion{Ca}{2} H \& K~}
48: \newcommand{\mv}{\ensuremath{M_{\mbox{\scriptsize V}}}}
49: \newcommand{\myemail}{fischer@stars.sfsu.edu}
50:
51: \textwidth 6.5in
52: %\hoffset=-0.2in %
53: %\voffset=-0.4in % This
54: %\def\baselinestretch{0.96}
55:
56: \received{}
57: \accepted{}
58:
59: \slugcomment{ }
60:
61: \shortauthors{Fischer {\it et~al.\/}}
62: \shorttitle{Five Extrasolar Planets}
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: %Modest Titles are Better
66: \title{Five Planets Orbiting 55 Cancri$^{1}$}
67: \author{Debra A. Fischer\altaffilmark{2},
68: Geoffrey W. Marcy\altaffilmark{3},
69: R. Paul Butler\altaffilmark{4},
70: Steven S. Vogt\altaffilmark{5},
71: Greg Laughlin\altaffilmark{5},
72: Gregory W. Henry\altaffilmark{6},
73: David Abouav\altaffilmark{2},
74: Kathryn M. G. Peek\altaffilmark{3},
75: Jason T. Wright\altaffilmark{3},
76: John A. Johnson\altaffilmark{3},
77: Chris McCarthy\altaffilmark{2},
78: Howard Isaacson\altaffilmark{2}
79: }
80:
81: \email{fischer@stars.sfsu.edu}
82:
83: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations obtained at
84: the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated jointly
85: by the University of California and the California
86: Institute of Technology. Keck time has been granted by
87: both NASA and the University of California.}
88:
89: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
90: San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA 94132}
91:
92: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
93: Berkeley, CA USA 94720-3411}
94:
95: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of
96: Washington, 5241 Broad Branch Rd NW, Washington DC, USA 20015-1305}
97:
98: \altaffiltext{5}{UCO/Lick Observatory,
99: University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA 95064}
100:
101: \altaffiltext{6}{Center of Excellence in Information Systems,
102: Tennessee State University, 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd, Box 9501,
103: Nashville, TN 37209}
104:
105: \begin{abstract}
106: We report 18 years of Doppler shift measurements of a nearby star, 55
107: Cancri, that exhibit strong evidence for five orbiting planets. The
108: four previously reported planets are strongly confirmed here. A
109: fifth planet is presented, with an apparent orbital period of
110: 260 days, placing it 0.78 AU from the star in the large empty zone
111: between two other planets. The velocity wobble amplitude of 4.9 \ms
112: implies a minimum planet mass \msini = 45.7 \mearthe. The orbital
113: eccentricity is consistent with a circular orbit, but modest
114: eccentricity solutions give similar \chisq fits.
115: All five planets reside in
116: low eccentricity orbits, four having eccentricities under 0.1. The
117: outermost planet orbits 5.8 AU from the star and has a minimum mass,
118: \msini = 3.8 \mjupe, making it more massive than the
119: inner four planets combined. Its orbital distance is the largest for
120: an exoplanet with a well defined orbit. The innermost planet has a
121: semi-major axis of only 0.038 AU and has a minimum mass, \msinie, of
122: only 10.8 \mearthe, one of the lowest mass exoplanets known.
123: The five known planets within 6 AU define
124: a {\em minimum mass protoplanetary nebula} to compare with the
125: classical minimum mass solar nebula. Numerical N-body simulations
126: show this system of five planets to be dynamically stable and show that the
127: planets with periods of 14.65 and 44.3 d are not in a mean-motion resonance.
128: Millimagnitude photometry during 11 years reveals no
129: brightness variations at any of the radial velocity periods,
130: providing support for their interpretation as planetary.
131:
132: \end{abstract}
133:
134: \keywords{planetary systems -- stars: individual (HD 75732, $\rho^1$
135: Cancri, 55 Cancri)}
136:
137: %\clearpage
138:
139: \section{Introduction}
140: \label{intro}
141:
142: One of the first few detected exoplanets was
143: a planetary companion to 55 Cnc \citep{Butler97}.
144: At the time, eight years of Doppler measurements
145: from Lick Observatory revealed a 14.6-day wobble in 55 Cnc as it was
146: gravitationally perturbed by a Jupiter-mass planet. Superimposed
147: on this 14.6-day Doppler periodicity was an additional trend
148: showing clear curvature and indicating that 55 Cancri was host to a second
149: orbiting body, likely of planetary mass.
150:
151: Additional Doppler measurements through 2002 uncovered the full
152: Doppler cycle with a period of $\sim$14 yr, caused by a planet with a
153: minimum mass \msini = 4 \mjup orbiting $\sim$5.5 AU from 55 Cnc
154: \citep{Marcy_55cnc}. This was the first giant planet found
155: with an orbital radius similar to the giant planets in our solar system. A third Doppler
156: periodicity of 44.3 days was also apparent in those data, indicating a
157: third Jupiter-mass planet in the system, this one orbiting 0.25 AU
158: from the star \citep{Marcy_55cnc}. This was the second planetary
159: system found to have three planets, the first being that around
160: $\upsilon$ Andromedae \citep{Butler_upsand}.
161:
162: By combining these velocities from Lick Observatory with over
163: 100 precise Doppler measurements obtained in one year at the
164: Hobby-Eberly Telescope, along with measurements from the ``Elodie''
165: spectrometer at Haute Provence, \citet{McArthur04} identified a fourth
166: planet having a small minimum mass of \msini = 14 \mearth with an
167: orbital period of 2.8 d. This planet was one of the first three
168: Neptune-mass planets discovered, along with the planets orbiting
169: GJ~436 \citep{Butler04, Maness07} and $\mu$ Arae \citep{Santos04b}.
170: The detection of this Neptune-mass planet made 55 Cancri
171: the first system known to contain four planets. \citet{McArthur04}
172: also used the Fine Guidance Sensor on the Hubble Space Telescope to
173: carry out astrometry of 55 Cnc, and estimated the inclination of the
174: orbital plane of the outer planet to be $i = 53 \pm 6.8$ deg.
175:
176: This four-planet system left a large, dynamically empty gap between
177: 0.25 and 6 AU. Numerical simulations suggested that hypothetical
178: planets in this gap would be dynamically stable, including the
179: interesting possibility of terrestrial mass planets in the habitable
180: zone between 0.5 and $\sim$2 AU \citep{Marcy_55cnc, Raymond06a}.
181:
182: In 2004, we noticed modest peaks in the periodogram at 260 and 470 d,
183: indicating possible planets at those periods that motivated our
184: continued intense Doppler observations.
185: \citet{Wisdom05a} carried out an independent analysis of the combined
186: published Doppler measurements and identified a 260 d periodicity, implying a new planet
187: with a minimum mass of 1.8 \mnep = 31 \mearthe. It is not uncommon
188: for modest peaks in the periodogram to fluctuate in their confidence level
189: with the addition of new data, especially for cases where the radial velocity amplitudes
190: are comparable to the precision of Doppler measurements, so we intensified
191: our observations of this star.
192: Here, we add 115 additional radial velocity measurements
193: from Lick Observatory and 70 radial velocity measurements
194: from Keck Observatory to our previous data set and find that
195: the false alarm probability for a 260-d signal has strengthened
196: and is present in data sets from both Observatories independently.
197:
198: A stellar companion orbits 55 Cancri as well. It is a 13th magnitude
199: M dwarf located roughly 1000 AU away, certainly bound to 55 Cancri A
200: as the radial velocities are nearly the same. The occurrence,
201: dynamics, and final properties of planetary systems may well be
202: affected by such stellar companions, as indicated in observational
203: studies by \citet{Eggenberger04} and \citet{Raghavan06}. Thus 55
204: Cancri offers a test of the effects of binary
205: companions on the architecture of complex planetary systems.
206:
207: Spitzer Space Telescope results for 55 Cnc by \citet{Bryden06}
208: show that the observed 24 and 70 micron flux densities are comparable
209: to the predicted brightness of the stellar photosphere, indicating no
210: infrared excess above the errors. The corresponding upper limit
211: to the fractional infrared luminosity is 8$\times10^{-6}$, or about 80
212: zodis. A detectable scattered light disk was also ruled out by its
213: non-detection in HST NICMOS data by \citet{Schneider01}.
214:
215: Here we provide Doppler measurements from both Lick and Keck
216: Observatories that significantly augment the 2002 set from Lick
217: Observatory alone. These measurements span a longer time
218: baseline and contain higher Doppler precision with the addition of new
219: Keck velocities, offering a chance to reassess all of the planets
220: around 55 Cancri.
221:
222:
223: \section{Properties of 55 Cancri}
224:
225: 55 Cnc (=HD 75732=$\rho^1$ Cnc A = HR3522=HIP 43587) has an apparent
226: brightness $V = 5.96$ and Hipparcos parallax of $79.8 \pm 0.84$ mas
227: \citep{ESA97}, implying a distance of $12.5 \pm 0.13$ parsecs and
228: absolute visual magnitude $M_V = 5.47$. Using spectra from the
229: California \& Carnegie Planet Search, \citet{Valenti05} derived
230: $T_{eff} = 5234 \pm 30$K, $\log g = 4.45 \pm 0.08$, $v \sin i = 2.4
231: \pm 0.5$\kms, and [Fe/H]$ = +0.31 \pm 0.04$. Indeed, 55 Cnc is so
232: metal-rich as to be in the fifth metallicity percentile of stars
233: within 25 pc \citep{Valenti05}. Using a bolometric correction that
234: accounts for the high metallicity \citep{VandenBerg03}, we calculate a
235: stellar luminosity of 0.6 \lsune. The effective temperature,
236: spectroscopic surface gravity and intrinsic luminosity are all
237: consistent with a spectral classification of this star as K0/G8V. The
238: star is chromospherically inactive, with a Mt.~Wilson $S$-value of
239: 0.22 (averaged during the past seven years of our measurements)
240: implying $\log{\rphk} = -4.84$, indicating a modest age of 2-8 Gyr
241: where 2 Gyr is a strong lower limit on age. The rotation period,
242: calibrated to this chromospheric activity, is estimated to be 39 days
243: \citep{Noyes84, Wright04a}. However, for metal-rich stars,
244: chromospheric emission at the \caii lines remain poorly calibrated as
245: a diagnostic of rotation and age. A more complete discussion of the
246: chromospheric activity and implied stellar properties are given by
247: \citet{Marcy_55cnc}.
248:
249: The mass of 55 Cnc is best determined by associating its measured
250: effective temperature, luminosity, and metallicity with models of
251: stellar interiors. Using the well known ``Yale models,'' \citep{Yi04},
252: \citet{Valenti05} found a stellar mass of $0.92 \pm 0.05$ \msune.
253: \citet{Takeda07} have also derived modified stellar evolutionary
254: models using the Yale Stellar Evolution Code to match the observed
255: spectroscopic parameters from {\citet{Valenti05}. They derive a
256: stellar mass for 55 Cnc of $0.96 \pm 0.05$ \msun with the uncertainty
257: corresponding to the 99.7\% credibility intervals of the Bayesian
258: posterior probability distributions. Here we simply adopt the average
259: of these two estimates, giving $M = 0.94 \pm 0.05$ \msun for the mass
260: of 55 Cnc. We note that the adopted uncertainty in stellar mass
261: implies fractional errors in the derived planetary masses of 8 percent
262: in addition to errors in the orbital parameters.
263:
264: \section{Doppler--Shift Measurements}
265:
266: We have obtained 636 observations of the G8 main-sequence star
267: 55 Cnc over the past 18 years. We generally obtain two or three
268: consecutive observations and bin them to increase the velocity
269: precision and accuracy. Here, we present
270: 250 binned velocity measurements made at Lick Observatory from 1989-2007, and 70
271: binned velocity measurements made at the Keck Observatory from 2002--2007. The Lick
272: spectra were obtained using both the 3-meter telescope and the
273: Coud\'{e} Auxiliary Telescope, which both feed the Hamilton optical
274: echelle spectrometer \citep{Vogt87}. A detailed description of the
275: setup of the Hamilton spectrometer, its calibrating iodine absorption
276: cell, and the method of extracting Doppler measurements for 55 Cnc are
277: given in \citet{Butler96b} and in \citet{Marcy_55cnc}. The Keck
278: spectra were obtained with the HIRES spectrometer \citep{Vogt94}, and
279: a description of that setup and Doppler measurements are given in
280: \citet{Butler06}.
281:
282: At both telescopes, we place a cylindrical, pyrex cell filled with
283: molecular iodine gas in the light path of the telescope, just before
284: the spectrometer slit, to superimpose sharp absorption lines of known
285: wavelength on the stellar spectrum. The iodine lines provide
286: calibration of both wavelength and the spectrometer PSF (Butler et al
287: 1996). While twenty percent of the starlight is absorbed by iodine, the
288: cell's inclusion is worthwhile because the dense
289: iodine absorption lines provide a permanent record of the wavelength
290: scale and behavior of the spectrometer at the instant of each
291: observation, producing long-term Doppler precision free of systematic
292: errors to the level of 1 \mse.
293:
294: The velocity measurements are listed in Table 1 (the full Table is
295: available in the electronic version of this paper only) and shown in Figure
296: \ref{fig1} with different symbols for measurements made at Lick and
297: Keck. We carried out a preliminary five-Keplerian fit to the combined velocities
298: from both telescopes, allowing one extra parameter to be the
299: difference in the velocity zero-point from the two spectrometers,
300: found to be $28.8 \pm 0.5$ \mse. Once established, we applied the +28.8 \ms
301: correction to the Keck data, putting the two spectrometers'
302: measurements on the same velocity scale before showing them in Figure
303: \ref{fig1} and listing them in Table 1. The first 14 Doppler
304: measurements made between 1989 and November 1994 typically have
305: uncertainties of 8--10 \mse, worse than most of the subsequent
306: observations due to the unrepaired optics of the Hamilton
307: spectrometer. Observations made at Lick since December 1994 have
308: typical uncertainties of 3--5 \mse. At Keck, between 1999 and 2004,
309: the typical Doppler uncertainty is 3 \mse. In August 2004 the optics
310: and CCD detector for HIRES were upgraded, reducing the Doppler errors.
311: In November 2004 we began making three consecutive observations (and
312: sometimes five) of 55 Cnc to average over stellar p-mode
313: oscillations that can add 1 \ms velocity noise to G8V main sequence
314: stars \citep{Kjeldsen05}. The resulting Doppler precision at Keck since August
315: 2004 has been 1.0--1.5 \mse.
316:
317:
318: \section{Keplerian Fits to Doppler Measurements}
319: \label{sec_kepfits}
320:
321: The Doppler measurements of 55 Cnc were fit with a series of
322: Keplerian models, each model having an increasing number
323: of planets, beginning with the two well established
324: periods of 14.65 d and 14.7 yr \citep{Marcy_55cnc}. We polished all
325: models with a Marquardt minimization of \chisq to establish the
326: best-fit model. The weights assigned to each Doppler measurement are
327: the inverse square of each measurement's uncertainty, which are
328: approximated as the quadrature sum of the internal uncertainty in the
329: Doppler measurement and the ``jitter'' that stems from photospheric
330: motions and instrumental errors \citep{Wright05}. Experience with
331: similar G8 main-sequence stars suggests that the combined
332: astrophysical and instrumental jitter is 3 \ms at Lick and 1.5 \ms at
333: Keck, both values being uncertain by 50 percent. The jitter prediction
334: is complicated by the high metallicity of 55 Cnc, [Fe/H] = +0.3. The
335: radiative transfer of \caii in 55 Cnc will be different from that in
336: solar metallicity stars, because of higher line and continuous
337: opacities, rendering the calibration of emission with stellar age, rotation,
338: and jitter even more uncertain. However, the estimated rotation
339: period of 39 d from periodicities in the \caii emission
340: and the star's low rotational \vsini of 2.5 \kms confirm that
341: the star has, at most, a modest level of magnetic activity, indicating
342: correspondingly modest jitter with an upper limit of 4 \mse. For this
343: analysis, we adopt a jitter value of 1.5 \ms and 3.0 \ms for Keck and
344: Lick, respectively.
345:
346: After fitting a model with the two well established planets, we
347: assessed the statistical significance of any periodicities remaining
348: in the residuals to motivate addition of another planet to the model,
349: as described in detail below. We determine false alarm probabilities
350: for peaks in the periodogram attributed to any additional planets by
351: testing the null hypothesis that the current velocity residuals are
352: merely incoherent noise. In such tests, the velocity residuals to our
353: best-fit model are scrambled and their periodograms computed to assess
354: the fraction of trials with scrambled residuals that have a stronger
355: peaks. This FAP assessment makes few assumptions about the width or
356: shape of the distribution of noise.
357:
358: \subsection{The Three-Planet Model}
359:
360: Our initial model consisted of the sum of two Keplerian orbits (no
361: gravitational interactions) for the two planets
362: having secure orbital periods of 14.65 d and $\sim$14.7 yr, both
363: strongly supported by all of our past Doppler analyses of this star
364: \citep{Marcy_55cnc}. A two-planet fit yields periods of 14.65 d and
365: 14.7 yr and eccentricities of 0.002 and 0.06 for the two planets,
366: respectively. The residuals have an RMS of 11.28 \ms and \cs of 3.42.
367: An accurate model would have an RMS on the order of the errors in the
368: data plus ``jitter'' ($\sim$5 \ms) and \cs near 1. These large values
369: of RMS and \cs
370: indicate that the model is inadequate. The periodogram of the
371: residuals (Figure \ref{fig2}) exhibits a tall peak at a period of 44.3
372: d and power of 55, clearly significant above the noise. This period
373: corresponds to the orbit of the planet suspected in
374: \citet{Marcy_55cnc}. This 44.3 d period is most likely caused by a
375: third planet as the only other explanation would be rotational
376: variation from surface inhomogeneities. Such rotational explanations
377: are ruled out both by the shorter stellar rotational period, 42.7 d,
378: found in the photometry as shown in \S 6, and by the large velocity
379: amplitude of 10.6 \mse, which is never
380: seen in such chromospherically quiet stars. Furthermore, photospheric
381: features generally only survive for a few rotation periods of the
382: star. It seems unlikely that surface inhomogeneities would persist
383: for more than a decade and maintain rotational phase coherence.
384:
385: A Levenberg-Marquardt minimization was used to find the best-fit
386: orbital parameters for a three-planet Keplerian model with periods
387: near 14.65 d, 44.34 d, and 14.7 yr. The best fit yielded residuals
388: with an RMS scatter of 8.62 \mse and \cs = 2.50. This result
389: represents an improved fit to the two-planet model, but is still
390: clearly inadequate, not surprising as the model did not include a
391: periodicity near 2.8 d as found by \citet{McArthur04}. Indeed, the
392: periodogram of the residuals to the three-planet fit, shown in Figure
393: \ref{fig3}, reveals two additional strong peaks near 2.8 d and 260 d.
394:
395: \subsection{The Four-Planet Model}
396:
397: We proceeded to test a 4-planet model by including a fourth planet with a
398: period near 2.8 d \citep{McArthur04}. The best-fit 4-planet model
399: gave periods of 2.81 d, 14.65184 d, 44.32 d, 14.4 yr, all with
400: eccentricities less than 0.3. The residuals have RMS of 7.87 \ms and
401: \cs = 2.12, both representing a significant improvement over the
402: 3-planet model. (In computing both the RMS and \chisqe, the
403: denominator was appropriately diminished by the greater number of free
404: parameters, i.e., five per planet.) Thus both the periodogram in
405: Figure \ref{fig3} and the superior fit with four planets offer support
406: for the existence of the planet with 2.81 d, corresponding to the
407: planet with $P$ = 2.808 $\pm$ 0.002 d in \citet{McArthur04}.
408:
409: However this 4-planet model remains inadequate for two reasons. The
410: residuals reveal a poor fit with \cs = 2.12 and an RMS of 7.87 \mse,
411: larger than explainable by the Doppler errors and jitter.
412: Also, a periodogram of the residuals reveals a peak at a
413: period of 260.1 d, as shown in Figure \ref{fig4}, and some additional
414: smaller peaks.
415:
416: \subsection{Assessing the Periodicity near 260 d}
417: \label{sec_260d}
418:
419: The periodogram peak near 260 d (Figure 4) in the residuals to the
420: 4-planet model could be spurious, caused by fluctuations arising from
421: photon-limited Doppler errors in the spectra or by aliases in the
422: window function of the sampling times. The CCD detector at Lick
423: Observatory has been upgraded four times in the past eighteen years,
424: which could produce discontinuities of 1--2 \ms in their zero points
425: and even create an alias. Such abrupt, one-time instrumental changes should not
426: produce periodicities. Nonetheless, to check for such effects, the four-planet
427: Keplerian model was fit separately to the Lick and Keck velocities.
428:
429: The 250 velocities from Lick against only 70 from Keck cause the
430: periodogram in Figure 4 to be heavily weighted toward the Lick
431: measurements. The prominent period at 260 d certainly reflects the
432: Lick velocities more than those from Keck, leaving open the question
433: of independent confirmation of the 260 d period in the Keck data. We
434: fit a 4-planet model to the 70 Keck velocities alone. The Keck
435: velocities offer higher precision ($\sim$1.5 \ms) than those from Lick
436: but carry the disadvantage of a duration of only 5 1/2 years.
437:
438: The four-planet fit to the Keck velocities alone yielded residuals
439: with RMS = 4.3 \ms and \cs = 2.59. The periodogram of the residuals
440: is shown in Figure \ref{fig5}, and it reveals a peak at a period of 266 d
441: with a power of 7.7. There is no significant power at any other
442: periods. The power in the 266 d peak is higher than all peaks for
443: periods between 1-3000 d. Importantly, the peak at 266 d is roughly
444: twice as high as the noise peaks. Although this peak is not
445: overwhelming by itself, the independent occurrence of a periodicity
446: near 265 d in the Keck velocities along with the similar period found
447: in the Lick velocities, supports the reality of that period and argues
448: against systematic errors as the cause.
449:
450: One might be concerned that the Keck velocities yielded such a modest
451: peak at $\sim$266 d (Figure \ref{fig5}) as compared to the relatively
452: strong peak in the Lick data (Figure \ref{fig4}). We addressed this
453: concern by augmenting the Keck velocities with artificial velocities
454: corresponding to a planet having a period of 260 d in a Keplerian
455: orbit that causes a semiamplitude of $K = 4.4$ \mse. The idea is
456: that if the power in the periodogram doubles, then the modest peak
457: in Figure 5 is probably reasonable. We performed a
458: four-planet fit and computed the periodogram of the residuals. A peak
459: at $P = 261$ d was seen with a power of 13, roughly double the power
460: of the peak that emerged from the original velocities. Thus, the 266 d peak
461: in the periodogram from the original Keck velocities (Figure 5) constitutes a
462: confirmation of the $\sim$265 d planet seen in Figure 4 having that
463: period and amplitude. Of course, the Lick velocities alone also
464: exhibit the 260 d peak indepedently.
465:
466: We also checked to see if the 260 d signal might be an alias of
467: the possible 470 d peak seen in Figure 4. We fit the combined
468: Lick and Keck velocities with a five-planet model having a fifth planet
469: with a period near 470 d instead of near 260 d. The periodogram of
470: the residuals to this five-planet model still has a strong peak with
471: period near 263 d, with a power of 19. Apparently the period at
472: 260 d does not vanish by including a 470 d period in the model
473: and thus is not an alias of it.
474:
475: We assessed the probability that the 260 d signal was caused by
476: chance fluctuations in the velocities by performing a conservative
477: false alarm probability test. We fit the combined velocities with only
478: a four-planet model and tested the null hypothesis that no periodicity
479: near 260 d actually exists in the residuals, implying that the
480: peak is due merely to noise. We scrambled the residuals to the
481: four-planet fit but kept the times of observation the same, and
482: recomputed the periodogram for each of 500 trials. We recorded the
483: power of the tallest peak in the periodogram from each of 500 trials.
484: The histogram of those peak powers is shown in Figure \ref{fig6}. The
485: typical peaks from the scrambled residuals have powers of 7--13, with
486: the tallest being 16. In contrast, the periodogram of the original
487: residuals had a peak height of 31.5, shown both in \ref{fig4} and as
488: the vertical dashed line in \ref{fig6}. Thus, the null hypothesis
489: (that the residuals have no coherence) is unlikely and the associated
490: false alarm probability of the peak at 260 d is less than 0.002,
491: indicating that the periodicity is real.
492:
493: The analysis above strongly supports the existence of a planet with a
494: period of 260 d. The period of 260 d does not correspond to any known
495: time scale of stellar interiors or atmospheres, nor to the rotation
496: period of the star which is 42.7 d (see below). Thus, a plausible
497: interpretation is a planet with a period near $P = 260$ d, making it
498: the fifth planet in the 55 Cnc system.
499:
500:
501: \subsection{The Five-Planet Model with a 260-day Planet}
502:
503: We constructed a Keplerian model that included a fifth planet having a
504: period near 260 d. A best-fit model to the combined Lick and Keck
505: velocities was found easily, yielding five periods of 14.65162 d,
506: 44.344 d, 5218 d, 2.817 d, and 260.0 d (see Table 2). The residuals
507: have RMS = 6.74 \ms and \cs = 1.67 (including the jitter in the
508: expected variance), and a periodogram of them is shown in Figure 7.
509: The values of the RMS and \cs are 15\% and 20\%
510: lower, respectively, than the corresponding diagnostics of the
511: four-planet model. Table 3 gives the RMS and \cs for all multi-planet
512: models considered in this paper, showing the significant improvement
513: with each additional planet. This major improvement in the quality of
514: the fit of 320 measurements, coming from a fifth planet with its five
515: additional free parameters, indicates that the new model has
516: considerable merit. The five-planet model containing the 260 d
517: planet is clearly superior to the four-planet model.
518: The period agrees with
519: that found by \citet{Wisdom05a} from a periodogram analysis of our
520: earlier, published velocities from Lick Observatory.
521:
522: As this model contains a proposed planet with $P = 260$ d, we
523: present in Table 2 all of the orbital parameters for all five planets
524: self-consistently computed with a Levenberg-Marquardt least squares
525: algorithm. Considerable trial and error with various starting guesses
526: for the 26 free parameters was carried out to ensure that the least
527: squares search began near the deepest minimum.
528: The \chisq fit was virtually unchanged for orbital eccentricites between
529: 0.0 to 0.4 for the 260 d planet. This is not surprising since the
530: amplitude of the planet is comparable to the single measurement
531: precision for most of our data. Although the orbit is consistent
532: with circular, we adopted an intermediate eccentricity of $0.2 \pm 0.2$
533: to indicate the indistinguishable range of eccentricity. The best-fit
534: parameters for the 260 d planet are $e$ = 0.2 $\pm$ 0.2, $K$ = 4.879 $\pm$
535: 0.6 \mse, implying \msini = 0.144 $\pm$ 0.04 \mjupe.
536:
537: The innermost planet has $P$ = 2.81705 $\pm$ 0.0001 d, $e$ = 0.07
538: $\pm$ 0.06, $K$ = 5.07 $\pm$ 0.53 \mse, and \msini = 0.034 \mjup =
539: 10.8 \mearthe. In comparison, \citet{McArthur04} found the inner
540: planet to have a period, $P$ = 2.808 $\pm$ 0.002 d, $e$ = 0.174 $\pm$
541: 0.127, $K$ = 6.67 \mse, and \msini = 0.045 \mjup = 14.2 \mearthe.
542:
543: There is no question that the planet with $P$=2.817 d is the planet previously identified
544: as having a period of 2.808 d \citep{McArthur04}. The new minimum mass \msini =
545: 10.8 \mearth is lower than the 14.2 \mearth previously reported in
546: McArthur et al.. These differences are not surprising as some of the
547: excess velocity variation previously left to be absorbed by the four
548: known planets is now accounted for by the fifth planet.
549:
550: The phase-folded velocities for the 260-day planet are shown in Figure
551: 8 after subtracting the sum of the computed velocities of the other
552: four planets from the measured velocities. The orbital eccentricity has
553: been fixed to 0.2. The resulting residual velocities
554: are plotted versus orbital phase and shown in Figure 8. The residuals
555: reveal the 260 d period that had been detected in the periodogram and
556: the Keplerian model is overplotted. The scatter has an RMS of 6.74 \mse. The
557: error bars shown in Figure \ref{fig8} include the quadrature sum of
558: the internal errors (typically 2 \ms for Keck and 4 \ms for Lick) and
559: the ``jitter'' (1.5 \ms for Keck and 3 \ms for Lick). Thus,
560: the scatter of 6.74 \ms is only slightly larger than the
561: known internal errors and expected jitter (astrophysical and
562: instrumental).
563:
564: \section{Residual Planets}
565:
566: Several explanations for the modest 6.74 \ms scatter in the residuals
567: are possible. Perhaps we are underestimating our internal errors.
568: Perhaps the jitter for this metal-rich star is somewhat higher than
569: the average for G8 main-sequence stars. Or perhaps there are other
570: planets that cause a sufficiently low signal that they are not apparent
571: in the periodograms but nonetheless add a few \ms of ``noise'' to the
572: velocities.
573:
574: We assessed the detectability of a hypothetical 6th planet by adding
575: the velocities that would be induced by it to the observed velocities.
576: We fit a 5-planet model to these augmented velocities, allowing all 26
577: parameters to float. We searched the periodogram of the residuals for
578: peaks that loom above those arising in the 5-planet fit of the actual
579: velocities (Figure 7). Such peaks would have been identified as a candidate 6th
580: planet. We considered orbital periods from 300 d - 4000 d and
581: determined the minimum \msini that produced a peak 50\% above any of
582: the peaks in the actual periodogram (i.e. above a power of 15).
583:
584: The minimum detectable mass of a hypothetical 6th planet is a
585: sensitive function of its period and phase as those parameters
586: determine how easily the signal can be absorbed
587: in the 5-planet model, avoiding detection.
588: Neighboring periods differing by a mere
589: few percent can produce periodogram peaks differing by a factor of two
590: simply due to differing commensurability with the 5 existing
591: planets. A 6th planet in a mean motion resonance is particularly
592: capable of avoiding detection in the face of the five existing
593: planets. Such fine structure aside, the simulations can be
594: characterized as follows. For orbital periods of 300 - 850 d,
595: a 6th planet with Msini below 50 \mearth
596: would have eluded detection as the periodogram peaks
597: would not have loomed even 50\% above the noise. For periods 850 d
598: - 1500 d, a 6th
599: planet could avoid detection by having \msini below 100 \mearthe.
600: For periods 1750 - 4000 d, planets below 250 \mearth would elude
601: detection. Thus such planets could exist around 55 Cnc and yet have
602: avoided
603: detection by our current 18 years of Doppler measurements. Indeed
604: several such planets could exist in the large gap between periods of
605: 260 d and 13 yr and probably maintain dynamical stability.
606:
607:
608:
609: \section{Dynamical Simulations of the Multi-Planet System}
610:
611: The models in this paper are based on the approximation that the
612: planetary orbits are Keplerian ellipses. In actuality, the radial
613: velocity variation of the parent star over nearly two decades of
614: observation is also affected by the mutual gravitational perturbations
615: between the planets. As a concrete example, one can interpret the
616: 5-planet fit in Table 2 as describing a set of osculating orbital
617: elements at the epoch JD 2447578.730 of the first radial velocity
618: observation. By making a choice of epoch, one creates a unique
619: initial condition for a six-body integration of Newton's equations of
620: motion. When this integration is carried out, one finds radial velocity
621: deviations of $\Delta V >$ 25 \ms in comparing Keplerian and
622: Newtonian models at epochs near JD 2454000.
623:
624: These deviations arise primarily from the orbital precessions of
625: planets b, c, and d that occur in the Newtonian model that are absent
626: from the Keplerian model. Because the orbits are nearly circular,
627: a Keplerian 5-planet fit can, however, compensate for nearly all
628: of the precession through small adjustments to the orbital periods.
629:
630: It is likely that one can obtain an improved chi-square by adopting a
631: self-consistent N-body model for the stellar reflex velocity (e.g.
632: Rivera et al. 2005). In addition to lowering the RMS of the fit, a
633: definitive model of this type allows for the correct characterization
634: of the possible 3:1 resonant relationship between planets b and c, and
635: can therefore give important clues to the formation history of the
636: system. Adopting the Keplerian fit in Table 2 as an intial guess, we
637: used Levenberg-Marquardt minimization to obtain a self-consistent
638: 5-planet dynamical fit to the radial velocity data sets. The resulting
639: orbital parameters of our dynamical fit are all quite similar to their
640: corresponding values in the Keplerian model, and are listed in Table
641: 4. Our dynamical fit has $\sqrt{\chi^2}$=2.012 (without including any
642: jitter), and RMS=7.712 \ms. A more computationally expensive search
643: should be able to find orbital parameters that provide a slight
644: improvement to these values. We leave such an analysis to future work.
645:
646: In order to assess the dynamical stability of our five-planet model,
647: we adopt the self-consistent orbital elements in Table 4 and integrate
648: the system forward for one million years from epoch JD 2447578.730. We
649: used a Bulirsch-Stoer integrator (Press et al. 1992). The system
650: remained stable throughout a one million year integration. The
651: evolution of the five planetary eccentricities during a representative
652: $2.5\times10^{4}$ year interval are shown in Figure \ref{fig10}. As is
653: true throughout the $10^6$ year integration, the eccentricity
654: variations experienced by all five planets are quite modest, and the
655: system appears likely to be dynamically stable for long periods.
656:
657: It is interesting to note that during the course of the numerical
658: integration, the 3:1 resonant arguments for planets b and c are all
659: circulating. This indicates that planets "b" and "c" do not currently
660: participate in a low-order mean motion resonance, despite the near
661: commensurability of their orbital periods.
662:
663: We have computed the eccentricity variations that result when the
664: system is modeled using a secular perturbation theory that includes
665: terms up to second order in eccentricity (see, e.g., Murray \& Dermott
666: 1999), and which includes the leading-order effects of general
667: relativity as outlined by Adams \& Laughlin (2006). The results are
668: quite similar to those in Figure \ref{fig10}. This indicates that the
669: bulk of the planet-planet interactions in the system can be accounted
670: for with a simple second-order theory, thus improving the likelihood
671: that the configuration of planets can remain dynamically stable for
672: the lifetime of the star.
673:
674: \section{Photometry of 55 Cancri}
675:
676: We have used the T8 0.8~m automatic photometric telescope (APT) at
677: Fairborn Observatory to obtain high-precision photometry of 55 Cnc
678: during 11 observing seasons between 1996 November and 2007 April. The
679: T8 APT is one of several automated telescopes at Fairborn dedicated to
680: observing long-term, low-amplitude brightness variations in solar-type
681: stars associated with stellar magnetic cycles as well as to measuring
682: short-term, low-amplitude variations caused by rotational modulation
683: in the visibility of surface magnetic features \citep{h99}. APT
684: photometry of planetary candidate stars helps to establish whether
685: observed radial velocity variations are caused by stellar activity or
686: planetary-reflex motion, and direct measures
687: of stellar rotation periods provide good age estimates of the
688: planetary systems \citep[e.g.,][]{hetal00a}. \citet{qetal01} and
689: \citet{petal04} have published several examples of periodic radial
690: velocity variations in solar-type stars caused by photospheric spots
691: and plages. The APT observations are also useful to search for
692: transits of the planetary companions. The rare transiting systems
693: allow direct determination of basic planetary parameters such as mass,
694: radius, and mean density and so provide observational constraints on
695: models of planetary composition and internal structure
696: \citep[e.g.,][]{setal05}. Bright transiting systems enable detailed
697: follow-up studies of exoplanet atmospheres \citep[e.g.,][]{retal07}.
698: Finally, monitoring a planetary host star's long-term luminosity
699: variations provides a measure of the star's climate forcing ability
700: on its system of planets \citep[e.g.,][]{hhl07}.
701:
702: The T8 APT is equipped with a
703: two-channel precision photometer employing two EMI 9124QB bi-alkali
704: photomultiplier tubes to make simultaneous measurements in the
705: Str\"omgren $b$ and $y$ pass bands. The APT measures the difference
706: in brightness between a program star and one or more nearby constant
707: comparison star(s); the primary comparison star used for 55~Cnc is
708: HD~76572 ($V=6.28$, $B-V = 0.42$, F6~IV-V). The Str\"omgren $b$ and
709: $y$ differential magnitudes are corrected for differential
710: extinction with nightly extinction coefficients and transformed to
711: the Str\"omgren system with yearly mean transformation coefficients.
712: Finally, the $\Delta b$ and $\Delta y$ observations are combined
713: into a single $\Delta(b+y)/2$ pass band to increase the photometric
714: precision. The external precision of a single differential
715: magnitude is typically around 0.0015 mag for the T8 APT, as
716: determined from pairs of constant stars. Further details on the
717: telescope, photometer, observing procedures, and data reduction
718: techniques can be found in \citet{h99}.
719:
720: The complete 11-yr set of differential magnitudes computed with the
721: primary comparison star is plotted in the top panel of Figure~11.
722: Intercomparison of the primary comparison star with two secondary
723: comparisons (HD~77190, $V=6.07$, $B-V = 0.24$, A8Vn; HD~79929,
724: $V=6.77$, $B-V = 0.41$, F6V) revealed that the annual means of the
725: primary comparison vary over a range of 0.003 mag from year to year.
726: Rather than switch to one of the more stable secondary comparison
727: stars, we have instead normalized the 11 seasons with the primary
728: comparison so they all have the same annual mean. This was done
729: because the secondary comparison stars have been used only
for the
730: past seven years. The normalization removes any long-term variation
731: in the primary comparison star as well as in 55~Cnc, but this
732: improves the sensitivity of our transit search described below for
733: orbital periods under one year. After normalization, outliers
734: exceeding three standard deviations were removed. The final data
735: set in the top panel of Figure~11 contains 1349 nightly
736: observations; the standard deviation of an individual observation
737: from the normalized mean is 0.0017 mag.
738:
739: The 0.0017 mag standard deviation of the full data set is only
740: slightly greater than the nominal measurement precision of 0.0015
741: mag but suggests that low-amplitude, short-term intrinsic
742: variability might be present at times in 55~Cnc. (Long-term
743: variability has been removed by the normalization). We searched
744: each annual set of measurements for evidence of coherent,
745: low-amplitude variability that might be the result of rotational
746: modulation in the visibility of starspots. The middle panel of
747: Figure~11, which shows photometry from a portion of the 9th
748: observing season, exhibits the clearest example of coherent
749: variability in the data set. Two cycles of brightness variation are
750: visible with an amplitude of approximately 0.006 mag. We interpret
751: this as evidence for a small starspot region (covering less than 1\%
752: of the star's visible surface) that has survived for two rotation
753: cycles of the star. A power spectrum of the observations in the
754: middle panel is computed with the method of \citet{v71} and shown in
755: the bottom panel of Figure~11. This gives a period of 42.7 $\pm$
756: 2.5 days, which we interpret to be the stellar rotation period.
757: This confirms the rotation period of 55~Cnc reported by
758: \citet{hetal00a}, who used rotational modulation of the Ca II H \& K
759: flux measured by the HK Project at Mount Wilson Observatory
760: \citep{betal98}.
761:
762: We searched the photometric data for evidence of
763: transits of the four inner planets; the results are summarized in
764: Table~4 and plotted in Figure~12. We first computed the
765: semi-amplitudes of the light curves (column~3) with least-squares
766: sine fits of the complete data set phased to the four shortest
767: radial velocity periods. The resulting amplitudes are all extremely
768: small and consistent with zero. These very tight limits on
769: photometric variability on the radial velocity periods clearly
770: support planetary-reflex motion as the cause of the radial velocity
771: variations. While our measured 42.7 day rotation period is
772: consistent with the 44.35 day radial velocity period because of the
773: relatively large uncertainty of 2.5 days in the rotation period, the
774: absence of any photometric variability on the more accurate 44.35
775: day radial velocity period is strong support for the existence of
776: 55~Cnc c.
777:
778: In Figure~12, we have plotted light curves of the
779: photometric data phased with the orbital periods of the inner four
780: planetary companions. Zero phase in each panel represents the
781: predicted phase of mid transit for each of the companions. Only
782: phases from 0.94 to 0.06 are plotted to improve visibility of any
783: possible transits. The solid curve in each panel approximates the
784: predicted transit light curve, assuming a planetary orbital
785: inclination of 90\arcdeg (central transits). The out-of-transit
786: light level corresponds to the mean (normalized) brightness of the
787: observations. The transit durations are calculated from the orbital
788: elements, while the transit depths are derived from the estimated
789: stellar radii and the planetary radii computed with the models of
790: \citet{bll03}. The horizontal error bar below each predicted
791: transit curve represents the approximate $\pm 1 \sigma$ uncertainty
792: in the time of mid transit, based on Monte Carlo simulations and the
793: uncertainties in the orbital elements. The vertical error bar
794: represents the typical $\pm 0.0015$ mag uncertainty of a single
795: observation.
796:
797: Column~4 of Table~5 lists the geometric probability of
798: transits for each of the five companions, computed from equation 1 of
799: \citet{setal03} and assuming random orbital inclinations. The
800: predicted transit depths for each planet determined as described
801: above are given in Column~5, and the ``observed transit depths'' are
802: recorded in column~6. The observed depths are computed as the
803: difference in the mean light levels between observations that fall
804: inside and outside of the transit windows plotted in Figure~12; a
805: positive depth indicates a brightness drop in the transit
806: window.
807:
808: Unfortunately, we see no evidence for transits of the inner,
809: low-mass companion 55~Cnc~e; the mean of the 51 observations within
810: its predicted transit window agree with the out-of-transit
811: observations within 0.00029$\pm$0.0002 mag, a result consistent with
812: the absence of 0.00065 mag transits but still allowing a small
813: possibility for their existence. Since the uncertainty in the time
814: of mid transit is rather large compared to the transit duration, we
815: searched for shallow transits over the full range of phases and over
816: orbital periods between 2.70--2.90 days with null results. The
817: secure detection of transits of such a small body would require
818: reducing the uncertainty of the in-transit brightness mean by a
819: factor of about two, which would require a factor of four more
820: observations. This could be accomplished with the APT over the next
821: observing season or two by concentrating brightness measurements
822: around the times of predicted transits. We are forced to leave our
823: non-detection of transits of 55~Cnc~e as an uncertain result, as
824: indicated by the colon in column~7 of Table~5.
825:
826:
827: Table~5 and Figure~12 demonstrate that transits with the expected depths of
828: 55~Cnc~b and 55~Cnc~c do not occur. The observed transit depths are
829: both consistent with zero. Figure~12 shows that we have no
830: photometric observations during the predicted time of transit
831: of 55~Cnc~f. However, given the uncertainty in the transit timing
832: and the density of observations within the uncertainty range, we
833: conclude that transits of planet f probably do not occur. We have
834: insufficient radial velocities to predict accurate transit times of
835: the outermost planet 55~Cnc~d, so we can say nothing about their
836: occurrence. We note that our non-detection of transits is consistent
837: with the likely inclinations of the planetary orbits as discussed in
838: \S{7} (below).
839:
840: Finally, we comment on the long-term variability
841: of the host star 55~Cnc. Although our normalization of the light
842: curve has removed any such variation from the present analysis, an
843: examination of the light curves computed with the secondary
844: comparison stars mentioned above show that 55 Cnc clearly exhibits
845: year-to-year variations in mean brightness with an amplitude of 0.001
846: mag over a time scale of several years or more (Henry et al.,in
847: preparation). Thus, long- and short-term brightness variations in
848: 55~Cnc are very similar to irradiance variations in our Sun
849: \citep[.e.g.,][]{w77}.
850:
851:
852:
853: \section{Minimum Mass Protoplanetary Nebula}
854:
855: Planet formation in the protoplanetary disk around 55 Cnc was
856: apparently extraordinarily efficient, yielding at least five planets.
857: Our extensive radial velocity data set, with its 18-year baseline,
858: gives no indication that additional Jupiter-mass companions exist
859: beyond 6 AU, although Saturn-mass or smaller planets would easily go
860: undetected. If, as a thought experiment, we grind up the currently
861: known planets, we may infer the properties of the protoplanetary disk
862: around 55 Cnc.
863:
864: We first assume an edge-on, co-planar geometry with $i=90^{\circ}$,
865: and {\it in situ} formation of the planets directly from the disk gas,
866: e.g. \citet{Boss97}. In this case, the masses of planets total $\sim
867: 5.3 M_{\rm Jup}$ and together imply a lower limit of 410 g cm$^{-2}$
868: for the average surface density of the disk interior to 6 AU. For a
869: gas-to-dust ratio of 100, this implies an average surface density in
870: solids of 4 g cm$^{-2}$. If the radial surface density profile of 55
871: Cancri's protostellar disk declined as $\sigma(r)\propto r^{-3/2}$,
872: this implies a solid surface density of 1.4 g cm$^{-2}$ at 5 AU, which
873: is approximately half the value of the minimum-mass solar nebula at
874: Jupiter's current position.
875:
876: In all likelihood, however, the surface density of solids in 55
877: Cancri's protostellar disk was higher than in the solar nebula. If we
878: assume that the planets formed via the core accretion mechanism, as
879: described, for example, by \citet{Hubickyj05} we estimate that they
880: contain at least 150 \mearth of heavy elements. Here we include
881: the high metallicity of the host star, 55 Cnc, with its [Fe/H]=+0.3 as
882: representative of the planet's interior. Reconstituting this mass of
883: solids to recover 55 Cancri's metallicity implies an original
884: protostellar disk mass of $\sim 0.025 M_{\odot}$ within 6 AU.
885: Assuming that the nascent disk extended to 30 AU with a $r^{-3/2}$
886: surface density profile, the total mass would have been $\sim 0.06
887: M_{\odot}$, and the surface mass density in solids at 5 AU would have
888: been 7 g cm$^{-2}$.
889:
890: Adopting the reported orbital inclination of 53 deg for the outer
891: planet \cite{McArthur04} and assuming the orbits to be co-planar
892: augments all masses by 1/$\sin i$ = 1.25. The resulting simplistic
893: minimum mass protoplanetary nebula has 510 g cm$^{-2}$ for the average
894: surface mass density of the combined gas and dust within 6 AU.
895: Adopting a nominal gas to dust ratio of 100 yields a dust surface mass
896: density of 5 g cm$^{-2}$.
897:
898: But again considering the likely enrichment of solids within giant
899: planets, and the associated H and He, yields an original mass within 6
900: AU of at least 0.031 \msune. Extending this disk to 30 AU gives a
901: total mass of 0.075 \msune. The estimated surface mass density of
902: solids in the disk at 5 AU would have been 8.7 g cm$^{-2}$.
903:
904: For expected equilibrium disk temperatures, this minimum mass disk is
905: below the threshold required for the development of non-axisymmetric
906: gravitational instabilities \citep{Laughlin96}, but likely high enough
907: to support the formation of planets via core accretion
908: \citep{Robinson06}. In the context of this disk-profile scenario, the
909: core accretion theory suggests that additional objects with masses
910: ranging from Neptune to Saturn mass should be present beyond the
911: frontier marked by the orbit of planet d, i.e. beyond 6 AU.
912: If the outer planet migrated during or after its formation, the
913: estimated disk properties computed here would be affected.
914:
915: \section{Discussion}
916:
917: Our eighteen year campaign of Doppler measurements of 55 Cnc at the
918: Lick and Keck Observatories has gradually revealed additional
919: superimposed wobbles, each best interpreted as due to another orbiting
920: planet. The previously identified four planets revealed a large gap
921: between 0.24 and 5.8 AU raising questions about unseen planets there
922: and the planet formation history in the protoplanetary disk. The
923: velocities presented here reveal a fifth periodicity with $P = 260$ d,
924: consistent with Keplerian motion for which the most reasonable
925: interpretation is another orbiting planet. The five-planet model
926: suggests the new planet has a minimum mass of 45 \mearth in a nearly
927: circular orbit with a semimajor axis of $a = 0.781$AU. Thus, 55 Cnc
928: is the first quintuple-planet system known.
929:
930: This fifth planet apparently resides in the previously identified gap
931: between 0.24-5.8 AU, and it remains between
932: 0.73 AU (periastron) and 0.84 AU (apastron), preventing orbit
933: crossings with both the next inner planet, ``c'', whose apastron is at
934: 0.26 AU and the outer planet, ``d'', whose periastron is at 5.5 AU,
935: ensuring dynamical stability that is demonstrated numerically by
936: N-body simulations. As the star's luminosity is $L = 0.60$
937: \lsun (from its effective temperature and radius), this fifth planet
938: resides within the classical habitable zone. With a minimum mass of
939: 45 \mearthe, we speculate that it contains a substantial
940: amount of hydrogen and helium, not unlike Saturn ($M = 95$ \mearthe)
941: in the solar system.
942:
943: The four previously published planets around 55 Cancri now have
944: revised orbital parameters and masses because the fifth planet had
945: been contaminating the Doppler signal but was not taken into account.
946: The orbital semimajor axes and masses of all five planets (moving
947: outward from the central star) are $a = 0.038$ AU and \msini = 10.8
948: \mearthe; 0.115 AU and 0.824 \mjupe; 0.24 AU and 0.169 \mjupe; 0.781
949: AU and 0.144 \mjupe; and 5.77 AU and 3.83 \mjupe. All quoted minimum
950: masses are uncertain by $\sim$5\% due to the uncertain mass of the
951: host star 55 Cnc. The planets in this system all have nearly
952: circular orbits, with the caveat that the orbital eccentricity for
953: the 260 d planet is poorly constrained by radial velocity data.
954:
955: The inclination of the orbital plane of the outer planet has been
956: estimated from the apparent astrometric motion of the star, as
957: measured with the Fine Guidance Sensor of the Hubble Space Telescope
958: \citep{McArthur04}. The derived orbital inclination is $i = 53 \pm
959: 6.8$ deg (37 deg from edge-on) for that outer planet, implying that
960: its actual mass is 4.9 \mjupe. Assuming coplanarity for the other
961: four planets, their actual masses (proceeding outward) are $M_e =
962: 13.5$ \mearth (nearly one Uranus mass), $M_b = 1.03$ \mjupe, $M_c =
963: 0.21$ \mjup = 66.7 \mearthe, and $M_f = 0.18$ \mjup = 57
964: \mearthe. Normally, co-planarity should not be a foregone conclusion,
965: as the eccentricities of many exoplanets imply a dynamically
966: perturbative history. But for the 55 Cnc system with its five planets
967: so vulnerable to instabilities, such an active past
968: seems unlikely. Any great perturbations would have ejected the
969: smaller planets. Thus the planetary orbits in 55 Cnc are likely to
970: reside in a flattened plane, analogous to the ecliptic, coinciding
971: with the original protoplanetary disk out of which the planets
972: presumably formed.
973:
974: If 55 Cnc did have a quiescent past, the star's spin
975: axis should be nearly coincident with the normal of the system's
976: orbital plane. The inclination of the spin axis can be determined
977: from the spectroscopically measured rotational \vsini = 2.46 \kms and
978: the photometrically determined spin period of 42.7 d for the star, along
979: with its radius of 0.93 \rsune. The 42.7 d spin period implies an
980: equatorial velocity of only 1.24 \kmse, which is lower than \vsinie,
981: an impossibility. Either the measured \vsini is too high by a
982: factor of two (quite possible given the many line broadening sources)
983: or the spin period is much shorter (not likely, given the low
984: chromospheric activity). As is common, the inclination of the spin
985: axis of a nearby star, as attempted here, carries uncertainties so
986: large as to be of little value. Nonetheless the crude interpretation
987: would be that the star is not viewed pole-on. Indeed, if the orbits
988: were viewed nearly pole-on the implied planetary masses would be so
989: large as to render the system dynamically unstable. We conclude that
990: the orbital plane of 55 Cnc is not being viewed nearly pole-on,
991: consistent with the astrometric value of $i$=53 deg.
992:
993: As the 55 Cnc system has more planets than any previously discovered
994: system, its overall structure, including its planet mass distribution,
995: its density of orbits, and its orbital eccentricities, offers direct
996: constraints about its protoplanetary disk and subsequent planetary
997: dynamics.
998: The 55 Cnc system may initially be sketched as having one
999: massive planet, likely a hydrogen-helium gas giant, in a nearly
1000: circular orbit at 5.8 AU. Inward are four less massive
1001: planets, the innermost being roughly Uranus mass, the next outward
1002: having roughly Jupiter mass and likely gaseous, and the next two
1003: having somewhat sub-Saturn masses, also probably gaseous. The outer
1004: planet has an orbital angular momentum quickly shown to be at least
1005: 8.2$\times$10$^{43}$ kg m$^2$ s$^{-1}$, certainly 100 times greater
1006: than the star's {\it spin} angular momentum, 6.1$\times$10$^{41}$ kg
1007: m$^2$ s$^{-1}$ (from its 42.7 d spin period).
1008:
1009: Thus, 55 Cnc contains a dominant outer planet at 5.8 AU of roughly 5
1010: \mjup and four lower mass planets, all five in nearly circular orbits
1011: (though two orbits appear to be somewhat more eccentric than found for
1012: the more massive planets in our solar system). The large eccentricities
1013: found in the majority of
1014: exoplanets \citep{Marcy_Japan_05, Butler06} are not seen in 55 Cnc.
1015: The five orbits in 55 Cnc are probably nearly co-planar, as discussed
1016: above, lest some planet masses be too large to allow stability. Thus,
1017: 55 Cnc system has some basic structural attributes found in our solar
1018: system: nearly coplanar, circular orbits, with a dominant gas giant
1019: between 5-6 AU. This similarity suggests that such solar system
1020: architectures are not extremely rare.
1021:
1022:
1023: The formation of multi-planet systems with outer, dominant planets may
1024: occasionally form such that they persist for billions of years without
1025: disruptive gravitational perturbations that cause large eccentricities
1026: and eject planets. Because nested, coplanar, circular orbits could
1027: hardly be obtained unless they began that way, the 55 Cnc system, along
1028: with the solar system, supports the hypothesis that planets form in
1029: viscous protoplanetary disks, as has long been predicted by standard
1030: planet formation theory, e.g., \citet{Lissauer95}.
1031:
1032: One puzzle is whether the 55 Cnc planets suffered significant
1033: migration. The 44.35 d and 14.65 d have a period ratio of
1034: 3.027:1.000, thus leaving open the possibility of a mean motion
1035: resonance identified previously \citep{Marcy_55cnc}. As planets have
1036: no reason to form with integer period ratios, any resonance suggests
1037: that some differential migration occurred, allowing the two planets to
1038: capture each other. However the 3:1 mean motion resonance was found
1039: to be absent in the current N-body model as none of the relevant
1040: resonant arguments are librating.
1041:
1042: However, if migration occurred, we wonder what prevented the outer
1043: planet, and indeed all of the planets, from migrating inward. Perhaps
1044: the disk dissipated just as this last crop of five planets formed, as
1045: suggested in some migrational models \citep{Lin00, Trilling02,
1046: Armitage02, Armitage03, Ida04a, Ida05, Narayan05}. Indeed, the
1047: proximity of the three inner planets to the host star, especially the
1048: Jupiter-mass planet at 0.115 AU ($P = 14.65$ d), suggests that they
1049: migrated inward to their present locations, assuming they did not form
1050: in situ. If so, protoplanetary disk material likely orbited outside
1051: 0.24 AU, exerting an inward torque on those planets and carrying away
1052: orbital angular momentum in the system. During the migration period,
1053: the implied disk material would have had a mass comparable to (or
1054: exceeding) the Jovian-mass planets, from which the most recently
1055: identified planet at 0.78 AU could have formed.
1056:
1057: It is interesting that the third and fourth planets (at 0.24 and
1058: 0.78 AU) have small minimum masses, under 0.2 \mjupe, but are
1059: surrounded by much larger giant planets with minimum masses of 0.824
1060: and 3.8 \mjupe. One wonders why the acquisition of material was
1061: apparently so different among these four planets.
1062:
1063: One also wonders why this particular star ended up with five planets
1064: while 90 percent of stars on Doppler surveys do not have any
1065: detected giant planets. A statistical analysis
1066: of the planet detectability and observational incompleteness has been
1067: carried out by Cumming \etal 2007. Perhaps the high metallicity
1068: of 55 Cnc ([Fe/H] = +0.30) played a role in the efficient planet
1069: formation. Fischer \& Valenti (2005) find a correlation not only
1070: between stellar metallicity and the occurrence of planets, but also
1071: between high metallicity and multi-planet systems. But we doubt
1072: that a mere factor of two enhancement in
1073: heavy elements could account entirely for the five planets in this
1074: system. Some stochasticity in planet formation and subsequent
1075: stability must play a role.
1076:
1077: The outer planet at 5.8 AU is angularly separated from the star
1078: ($d = 12.5$ pc}) by 0.47 arcseconds making it a good target for
1079: next-generation adaptive optics systems. The Space Interferometry
1080: Mission, ``SIM PlanetQuest'', operating in narrow angle mode with
1081: astrometric precision of 1 $\mu$as could measure the astrometric wobble
1082: caused by all four outer planets, providing definitive masses and
1083: orbital inclinations for them. A spaceborn coronagraph or a spaceborn
1084: interferometer might be capable of imaging the outer planet and taking
1085: spectra of it. NASA and ESA have a wonderful opportunity to fund such
1086: an imaging telescope, thereby detecting and spectroscopically
1087: assessing a mature extrasolar planet. Moreover, as 55 Cancri is
1088: metal-rich, the planets may also be abundant in heavy elements,
1089: offering an opportunity to study rich atmospheric chemistry, clouds,
1090: and weather, if spectra could be obtained. Transits, if any occur,
1091: would provide planet radii offering information about potential rocky
1092: cores.
1093:
1094: This rich planetary system portends a fruitful future for the Doppler
1095: technique of studying exoplanets. It shows that extending the time
1096: baseline of Doppler measurements can reveal multiple planets,
1097: the existence or absence of which provides information about the
1098: formation, structure, and evolution of planetary systems.
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102: \acknowledgements
1103:
1104: We gratefully acknowledge
1105: the efforts and dedication of the Lick and Keck Observatory staff.
1106: We thank Karl Stapelfeldt for helpful comments. We thank the
1107: anonymous referee for comments that improved the manuscript. We
1108: appreciate support by NASA grant NAG5-75005 and by NSF grant
1109: AST-0307493 (to SSV); support by NSF grant AST-9988087, by NASA grant
1110: NAG5-12182 and travel support from the Carnegie Institution of
1111: Washington (to RPB). GWH acknowledges support from NASA grant NCC5-511
1112: and NSF grant HRD-9706268. We are also grateful for support by Sun
1113: Microsystems. We thank the NASA and UC Telescope assignment
1114: committees for allocations of telescope time toward the planet search
1115: around M dwarfs. This research has made use of the Simbad database,
1116: operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. The authors wish to extend
1117: special thanks to those of Hawaiian ancestry on whose sacred mountain
1118: of Mauna Kea we are privileged to be guests. Without their generous
1119: hospitality, the Keck observations presented herein would not have
1120: been possible.
1121:
1122:
1123: %\bibliography{references}
1124: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1125:
1126:
1127: \bibitem[{Adams} \& {Laughlin}(2006){Adams} and {Laughlin}]{Adams06}
1128: {Adams}, F.~C., \& {Laughlin}, G. 2006, \apj, 649, 1004--1009
1129:
1130: %\bibitem[Adams (2007)]{ada07}
1131: %Adams, F. C., \& Laughlin, G. 2007, ApJ, 649, 1004
1132:
1133: \bibitem[{Armitage} {et~al.}(2002){Armitage}, {Livio}, {Lubow}, and
1134: {Pringle}]{Armitage02}
1135: {Armitage}, P.~J., {Livio}, M., {Lubow}, S.~H., \& {Pringle}, J.~E. 2002,
1136: \mnras, 334, 248--256
1137:
1138: \bibitem[{Armitage}, {Clarke}, \& {Palla}(2003){Armitage}, {Clarke}, and
1139: {Palla}]{Armitage03}
1140: {Armitage}, P.~J., {Clarke}, C.~J., \& {Palla}, F. 2003, \mnras, 342,
1141: 1139--1146
1142:
1143: \bibitem[{Baliunas} {et~al.}(1998){Baliunas}, {Donahue}, {Soon}, and
1144: {Henry}]{betal98}
1145: {Baliunas}, S.~L., {Donahue}, R.~A., {Soon}, W., \& {Henry}, G.~W. 1998, In
1146: Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, R.~A. {Donahue} and J.~A.
1147: {Bookbinder}, eds., volume 154 of {\em Astronomical Society of the Pacific
1148: Conference Series\/}, pp. 153--+
1149:
1150: \bibitem[{Bodenheimer}, {Laughlin}, \& {Lin}(2003){Bodenheimer}, {Laughlin},
1151: and {Lin}]{bll03}
1152: {Bodenheimer}, P., {Laughlin}, G., \& {Lin}, D.~N.~C. 2003, \apj, 592, 555--563
1153:
1154: \bibitem[{Boss}(1997){Boss}]{Boss97}
1155: {Boss}, A.~P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836--1839
1156:
1157: \bibitem[{Bryden} {et~al.}(2006){Bryden}, {Beichman}, {Trilling}, {Rieke},
1158: {Holmes}, {Lawler}, {Stapelfeldt}, {Werner}, {Gautier}, {Blaylock}, {Gordon},
1159: {Stansberry}, and {Su}]{Bryden06}
1160: {Bryden}, G., {Beichman}, C.~A., {Trilling}, D.~E., {Rieke}, G.~H., {Holmes},
1161: E.~K., {Lawler}, S.~M., {Stapelfeldt}, K.~R., {Werner}, M.~W., {Gautier},
1162: T.~N., {Blaylock}, M., {Gordon}, K.~D., {Stansberry}, J.~A., \& {Su},
1163: K.~Y.~L. 2006, \apj, 636, 1098--1113
1164:
1165: \bibitem[{Butler} {et~al.}(1996){Butler}, {Marcy}, {Williams}, {McCarthy},
1166: {Dosanjh}, and {Vogt}]{Butler96b}
1167: {Butler}, R.~P., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Williams}, E., {McCarthy}, C., {Dosanjh}, P.,
1168: \& {Vogt}, S.~S. 1996, \pasp, 108, 500
1169:
1170: \bibitem[{Butler} {et~al.}(1997){Butler}, {Marcy}, {Williams}, {Hauser}, and
1171: {Shirts}]{Butler97}
1172: {Butler}, R.~P., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Williams}, E., {Hauser}, H., \& {Shirts}, P.
1173: 1997, \apjl, 474, L115+
1174:
1175: \bibitem[{Butler} {et~al.}(1999){Butler}, {Marcy}, {Fischer}, {Brown},
1176: {Contos}, {Korzennik}, {Nisenson}, and {Noyes}]{Butler_upsand}
1177: {Butler}, R.~P., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Brown}, T.~M., {Contos},
1178: A.~R., {Korzennik}, S.~G., {Nisenson}, P., \& {Noyes}, R.~W. 1999, \apj, 526,
1179: 916--927
1180:
1181: \bibitem[{Butler} {et~al.}(2004){Butler}, {Vogt}, {Marcy}, {Fischer}, {Wright},
1182: {Henry}, {Laughlin}, and {Lissauer}]{Butler04}
1183: {Butler}, R.~P., {Vogt}, S.~S., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Wright},
1184: J.~T., {Henry}, G.~W., {Laughlin}, G., \& {Lissauer}, J.~J. 2004, \apj, 617,
1185: 580--588
1186:
1187: \bibitem[{Butler} {et~al.}(2006){Butler}, {Wright}, {Marcy}, {Fischer}, {Vogt},
1188: {Tinney}, {Jones}, {Carter}, {Johnson}, {McCarthy}, and {Penny}]{Butler06}
1189: {Butler}, R.~P., {Wright}, J.~T., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Vogt},
1190: S.~S., {Tinney}, C.~G., {Jones}, H.~R.~A., {Carter}, B.~D., {Johnson}, J.~A.,
1191: {McCarthy}, C., \& {Penny}, A.~J. 2006, \apj, 646, 505--522
1192:
1193: \bibitem[{Eggenberger}, {Udry}, \& {Mayor}(2004){Eggenberger}, {Udry}, and
1194: {Mayor}]{Eggenberger04}
1195: {Eggenberger}, A., {Udry}, S., \& {Mayor}, M. 2004, \aap, 417, 353--360
1196:
1197: \bibitem[{ESA}(1997){ESA}]{ESA97}
1198: {ESA}, . 1997, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1239, 0--+
1199:
1200: \bibitem[{Fischer} \& {Valenti} (2007){Fischer} and {Valenti}]{Fischer05}
1201: {Fischer}, D.~A. \& {Valenti}, J.~A. 2005, \apj, 632, 1102--1117
1202:
1203: \bibitem[{Froehlich} {et~al.}(1998){Froehlich}, {Anklin}, {Crommelynck},
1204: {Finsterle}, and {Willson}]{Froehlich98}
1205: {Froehlich}, C., {Anklin}, M., {Crommelynck}, D., {Finsterle}, W., \&
1206: {Willson}, R.~C. 1998, In New Eyes to See Inside the Sun and Stars, F.-L.
1207: {Deubner}, J.~{Christensen-Dalsgaard}, and D.~{Kurtz}, eds., volume 185 of
1208: {\em IAU Symposium\/}, pp. 89--+
1209:
1210: \bibitem[{Grillmair} {et~al.}(2007){Grillmair}, {Charbonneau}, {Burrows},
1211: {Armus}, {Stauffer}, {Meadows}, {Van Cleve}, and {Levine}]{Grillmair07}
1212: {Grillmair}, C.~J., {Charbonneau}, D., {Burrows}, A., {Armus}, L., {Stauffer},
1213: J., {Meadows}, V., {Van Cleve}, J., \& {Levine}, D. 2007, \apjl, 658,
1214: L115--L118
1215:
1216: \bibitem[{Hall}, {Henry}, \& {Lockwood}(2007){Hall}, {Henry}, and
1217: {Lockwood}]{hhl07}
1218: {Hall}, J.~C., {Henry}, G.~W., \& {Lockwood}, G.~W. 2007, \aj, 133, 2206--2208
1219:
1220: \bibitem[{Henry}(1999){Henry}]{h99}
1221: {Henry}, G.~W. 1999, \pasp, 111, 845--860
1222:
1223: \bibitem[{Henry} {et~al.}(2000){Henry}, {Baliunas}, {Donahue}, {Fekel}, and
1224: {Soon}]{hetal00a}
1225: {Henry}, G.~W., {Baliunas}, S.~L., {Donahue}, R.~A., {Fekel}, F.~C., \& {Soon},
1226: W. 2000, \apj, 531, 415--437
1227:
1228: \bibitem[{Hubickyj}, {Bodenheimer}, \& {Lissauer}(2005){Hubickyj},
1229: {Bodenheimer}, and {Lissauer}]{Hubickyj05}
1230: {Hubickyj}, O., {Bodenheimer}, P., \& {Lissauer}, J.~J. 2005, Icarus, 179,
1231: 415--431
1232:
1233: \bibitem[{Ida} \& {Lin}(2004){Ida} and {Lin}]{Ida04a}
1234: {Ida}, S., \& {Lin}, D.~N.~C. 2004, \apj, 604, 388--413
1235:
1236: \bibitem[{Ida} \& {Lin}(2005){Ida} and {Lin}]{Ida05}
1237: {Ida}, S., \& {Lin}, D.~N.~C. 2005, \apj, 626, 1045--1060
1238:
1239: \bibitem[Kjeldsen et al.(2005)]{Kjeldsen05} Kjeldsen, H., et al.\
1240: 2005, \apj, 635, 1281
1241:
1242: \bibitem[{Laughlin} \& {Rozyczka}(1996){Laughlin} and {Rozyczka}]{Laughlin96}
1243: {Laughlin}, G., \& {Rozyczka}, M. 1996, \apj, 456, 279--+
1244:
1245: \bibitem[{Lin} {et~al.}(2000){Lin}, {Papaloizou}, {Terquem}, {Bryden}, and
1246: {Ida}]{Lin00}
1247: {Lin}, D.~N.~C., {Papaloizou}, J.~C.~B., {Terquem}, C., {Bryden}, G., \& {Ida},
1248: S. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, pp. 1111--+
1249:
1250: \bibitem[{Lissauer}(1995){Lissauer}]{Lissauer95}
1251: {Lissauer}, J.~J. 1995, Icarus, 114, 217--236
1252:
1253: \bibitem[{Maness} {et~al.}(2007){Maness}, {Marcy}, {Ford}, {Hauschildt},
1254: {Shreve}, {Basri}, {Butler}, and {Vogt}]{Maness07}
1255: {Maness}, H.~L., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Ford}, E.~B., {Hauschildt}, P.~H., {Shreve},
1256: A.~T., {Basri}, G.~B., {Butler}, R.~P., \& {Vogt}, S.~S. 2007, \pasp, 119,
1257: 90--101
1258:
1259: \bibitem[{Marcy} {et~al.}(2005){Marcy}, {Butler}, {Fischer}, {Vogt}, {Wright},
1260: {Tinney}, and {Jones}]{Marcy_Japan_05}
1261: {Marcy}, G., {Butler}, R.~P., {Fischer}, D., {Vogt}, S., {Wright}, J.~T.,
1262: {Tinney}, C.~G., \& {Jones}, H.~R.~A. 2005, Progress of Theoretical Physics
1263: Supplement, 158, 24--42
1264:
1265: \bibitem[{Marcy} {et~al.}(2002){Marcy}, {Butler}, {Fischer}, {Laughlin},
1266: {Vogt}, {Henry}, and {Pourbaix}]{Marcy_55cnc}
1267: {Marcy}, G.~W., {Butler}, R.~P., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Laughlin}, G., {Vogt},
1268: S.~S., {Henry}, G.~W., \& {Pourbaix}, D. 2002, \apj, 581, 1375--1388
1269:
1270: \bibitem[{McArthur} {et~al.}(2004){McArthur}, {Endl}, {Cochran}, {Benedict},
1271: {Fischer}, {Marcy}, {Butler}, {Naef}, {Mayor}, {Queloz}, {Udry}, and
1272: {Harrison}]{McArthur04}
1273: {McArthur}, B.~E., {Endl}, M., {Cochran}, W.~D., {Benedict}, G.~F., {Fischer},
1274: D.~A., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Butler}, R.~P., {Naef}, D., {Mayor}, M., {Queloz},
1275: D., {Udry}, S., \& {Harrison}, T.~E. 2004, \apjl, 614, L81--L84
1276:
1277: \bibitem[{Murray} \& {Dermott}(1999){Murray} and {Dermott}]{Murray99}
1278: {Murray}, C.~D., \& {Dermott}, S.~F. 1999.
1279: \newblock {Solar system dynamics}, Solar system dynamics by Murray, C.~D., 1999
1280: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
1281:
1282:
1283:
1284: \bibitem[{Narayan}, {Cumming}, \& {Lin}(2005){Narayan}, {Cumming}, and
1285: {Lin}]{Narayan05}
1286: {Narayan}, R., {Cumming}, A., \& {Lin}, D.~N.~C. 2005, \apj, 620, 1002--1009
1287:
1288: \bibitem[{Noyes} {et~al.}(1984){Noyes}, {Hartmann}, {Baliunas}, {Duncan}, and
1289: {Vaughan}]{Noyes84}
1290: {Noyes}, R.~W., {Hartmann}, L.~W., {Baliunas}, S.~L., {Duncan}, D.~K., \&
1291: {Vaughan}, A.~H. 1984, \apj, 279, 763--777
1292:
1293: \bibitem[{Paulson} {et~al.}(2004){Paulson}, {Saar}, {Cochran}, and
1294: {Henry}]{petal04}
1295: {Paulson}, D.~B., {Saar}, S.~H., {Cochran}, W.~D., \& {Henry}, G.~W. 2004, \aj,
1296: 127, 1644--1652
1297:
1298: \bibitem[{Press} {et~al.}(1992){Press}, {Teukolsky}, {Vetterling}, and
1299: {Flannery}]{Press92}
1300: {Press}, W.~H., {Teukolsky}, S.~A., {Vetterling}, W.~T., \& {Flannery}, B.~P.
1301: 1992.
1302: \newblock {Numerical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing},
1303: Cambridge: University Press, |c1992, 2nd ed.
1304:
1305: \bibitem[{Queloz} {et~al.}(2001){Queloz}, {Henry}, {Sivan}, {Baliunas},
1306: {Beuzit}, {Donahue}, {Mayor}, {Naef}, {Perrier}, and {Udry}]{qetal01}
1307: {Queloz}, D., {Henry}, G.~W., {Sivan}, J.~P., {Baliunas}, S.~L., {Beuzit},
1308: J.~L., {Donahue}, R.~A., {Mayor}, M., {Naef}, D., {Perrier}, C., \& {Udry},
1309: S. 2001, \aap, 379, 279--287
1310:
1311: \bibitem[{Raghavan} {et~al.}(2006){Raghavan}, {Henry}, {Mason}, {Subasavage},
1312: {Jao}, {Beaulieu}, and {Hambly}]{Raghavan06}
1313: {Raghavan}, D., {Henry}, T.~J., {Mason}, B.~D., {Subasavage}, J.~P., {Jao},
1314: W.-C., {Beaulieu}, T.~D., \& {Hambly}, N.~C. 2006, \apj, 646, 523--542
1315:
1316: \bibitem[{Raymond}, {Barnes}, \& {Kaib}(2006){Raymond}, {Barnes}, and
1317: {Kaib}]{Raymond06a}
1318: {Raymond}, S.~N., {Barnes}, R., \& {Kaib}, N.~A. 2006, \apj, 644, 1223--1231
1319:
1320: \bibitem[{Richardson} {et~al.}(2007){Richardson}, {Deming}, {Horning},
1321: {Seager}, and {Harrington}]{retal07}
1322: {Richardson}, L.~J., {Deming}, D., {Horning}, K., {Seager}, S., \&
1323: {Harrington}, J. 2007, \nat, 445, 892--895
1324:
1325: \bibitem[{Rivera} {et~al.}(2005){Rivera}, {Lissauer}, {Butler}, {Marcy},
1326: {Vogt}, {Fischer}, {Brown}, {Laughlin}, and {Henry}]{Rivera05}
1327: {Rivera}, E.~J., {Lissauer}, J.~J., {Butler}, R.~P., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Vogt},
1328: S.~S., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Brown}, T.~M., {Laughlin}, G., \& {Henry}, G.~W.
1329: 2005, \apj, 634, 625--640
1330:
1331: \bibitem[{Robinson} {et~al.}(2006){Robinson}, {Laughlin}, {Bodenheimer}, and
1332: {Fischer}]{Robinson06}
1333: {Robinson}, S.~E., {Laughlin}, G., {Bodenheimer}, P., \& {Fischer}, D. 2006,
1334: \apj, 643, 484--500
1335:
1336: \bibitem[{Santos} {et~al.}(2004){Santos}, {Bouchy}, {Mayor}, {Pepe}, {Queloz},
1337: {Udry}, {Lovis}, {Bazot}, {Benz}, {Bertaux}, {Lo Curto}, {Delfosse},
1338: {Mordasini}, {Naef}, {Sivan}, and {Vauclair}]{Santos04b}
1339: {Santos}, N.~C., {Bouchy}, F., {Mayor}, M., {Pepe}, F., {Queloz}, D., {Udry},
1340: S., {Lovis}, C., {Bazot}, M., {Benz}, W., {Bertaux}, J.-L., {Lo Curto}, G.,
1341: {Delfosse}, X., {Mordasini}, C., {Naef}, D., {Sivan}, J.-P., \& {Vauclair},
1342: S. 2004, \aap, 426, L19--L23
1343:
1344: \bibitem[{Sato} {et~al.}(2005){Sato}, {Fischer}, {Henry}, {Laughlin}, {Butler},
1345: {Marcy}, {Vogt}, {Bodenheimer}, {Ida}, {Toyota}, {Wolf}, {Valenti}, {Boyd},
1346: {Johnson}, {Wright}, {Ammons}, {Robinson}, {Strader}, {McCarthy}, {Tah}, and
1347: {Minniti}]{setal05}
1348: {Sato}, B., {Fischer}, D.~A., {Henry}, G.~W., {Laughlin}, G., {Butler}, R.~P.,
1349: {Marcy}, G.~W., {Vogt}, S.~S., {Bodenheimer}, P., {Ida}, S., {Toyota}, E.,
1350: {Wolf}, A., {Valenti}, J.~A., {Boyd}, L.~J., {Johnson}, J.~A., {Wright},
1351: J.~T., {Ammons}, M., {Robinson}, S., {Strader}, J., {McCarthy}, C., {Tah},
1352: K.~L., \& {Minniti}, D. 2005, \apj, 633, 465--473
1353:
1354: \bibitem[{Schneider} {et~al.}(2001){Schneider}, {Becklin}, {Smith},
1355: {Weinberger}, {Silverstone}, and {Hines}]{Schneider01}
1356: {Schneider}, G., {Becklin}, E.~E., {Smith}, B.~A., {Weinberger}, A.~J.,
1357: {Silverstone}, M., \& {Hines}, D.~C. 2001, \aj, 121, 525--537
1358:
1359: \bibitem[{Seagroves} {et~al.}(2003){Seagroves}, {Harker}, {Laughlin}, {Lacy},
1360: and {Castellano}]{setal03}
1361: {Seagroves}, S., {Harker}, J., {Laughlin}, G., {Lacy}, J., \& {Castellano}, T.
1362: 2003, \pasp, 115, 1355--1362
1363:
1364: \bibitem[{Takeda} {et~al.}(2007){Takeda}, {Ford}, {Sills}, {Rasio}, {Fischer},
1365: and {Valenti}]{Takeda07}
1366: {Takeda}, G., {Ford}, E.~B., {Sills}, A., {Rasio}, F.~A., {Fischer}, D.~A., \&
1367: {Valenti}, J.~A. 2007, \apjs, 168, 297--318
1368:
1369: \bibitem[{Trilling}, {Lunine}, \& {Benz}(2002){Trilling}, {Lunine}, and
1370: {Benz}]{Trilling02}
1371: {Trilling}, D.~E., {Lunine}, J.~I., \& {Benz}, W. 2002, \aap, 394, 241--251
1372:
1373: \bibitem[{Valenti} \& {Fischer}(2005){Valenti} and {Fischer}]{Valenti05}
1374: {Valenti}, J.~A., \& {Fischer}, D.~A. 2005, \apjs, 159, 141--166
1375:
1376: \bibitem[{VandenBerg} \& {Clem}(2003){VandenBerg} and {Clem}]{VandenBerg03}
1377: {VandenBerg}, D.~A., \& {Clem}, J.~L. 2003, \aj, 126, 778--802
1378:
1379: \bibitem[{Van{\'{\i}}{\v c}ek}(1971){Van{\'{\i}}{\v c}ek}]{v71}
1380: {Van{\'{\i}}{\v c}ek}, P. 1971, \apss, 12, 10--+
1381:
1382: \bibitem[{Vogt}(1987){Vogt}]{Vogt87}
1383: {Vogt}, S.~S. 1987, \pasp, 99, 1214--1228
1384:
1385: \bibitem[{Vogt} {et~al.}(1994){Vogt}, {Allen}, {Bigelow}, {Bresee}, {Brown},
1386: {Cantrall}, {Conrad}, {Couture}, {Delaney}, {Epps}, {Hilyard}, {Hilyard},
1387: {Horn}, {Jern}, {Kanto}, {Keane}, {Kibrick}, {Lewis}, {Osborne},
1388: {Pardeilhan}, {Pfister}, {Ricketts}, {Robinson}, {Stover}, {Tucker}, {Ward},
1389: and {Wei}]{Vogt94}
1390: {Vogt}, S.~S., {Allen}, S.~L., {Bigelow}, B.~C., {Bresee}, L., {Brown}, B.,
1391: {Cantrall}, T., {Conrad}, A., {Couture}, M., {Delaney}, C., {Epps}, H.~W.,
1392: {Hilyard}, D., {Hilyard}, D.~F., {Horn}, E., {Jern}, N., {Kanto}, D.,
1393: {Keane}, M.~J., {Kibrick}, R.~I., {Lewis}, J.~W., {Osborne}, J.,
1394: {Pardeilhan}, G.~H., {Pfister}, T., {Ricketts}, T., {Robinson}, L.~B.,
1395: {Stover}, R.~J., {Tucker}, D., {Ward}, J., \& {Wei}, M.~Z. 1994, In Proc.
1396: SPIE Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, David L. Crawford; Eric R. Craine;
1397: Eds., Volume 2198, p. 362, pp. 362--+
1398:
1399: \bibitem[Willson(1977)]{w77} Willson, R. C. 1977, Science, 277, 1963
1400:
1401: \bibitem[{Wisdom}(2005){Wisdom}]{Wisdom05a}
1402: Wisdom, J. 2005. "A Neptune-sized Planet in the rho 1 Cancri System."
1403: DDA meeting 36, 05.08; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
1404: Vol. 37, 525
1405:
1406: \bibitem[{Wright}(2005){Wright}]{Wright05}
1407: {Wright}, J.~T. 2005, \pasp, 117, 657--664
1408:
1409: \bibitem[{Wright} {et~al.}(2004){Wright}, {Marcy}, {Butler}, and
1410: {Vogt}]{Wright04a}
1411: {Wright}, J.~T., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Butler}, R.~P., \& {Vogt}, S.~S. 2004, \apjs,
1412: 152, 261--295
1413:
1414: \bibitem[{Yi}, {Demarque}, \& {Kim}(2004){Yi}, {Demarque}, and {Kim}]{Yi04}
1415: {Yi}, S.~K., {Demarque}, P., \& {Kim}, Y.-C. 2004, \apss, 291, 261--262
1416:
1417: \end{thebibliography}
1418:
1419:
1420: \clearpage
1421:
1422: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrr}
1423: \tablenum{1}
1424: \tablecaption{Velocities for 55 Cancri: Lick \& Keck}
1425: \label{}
1426: \tablewidth{0pt}
1427: \tablehead{
1428: \colhead{JD} & \colhead{Vel.} & \colhead{Unc.} & \colhead{Tele.} \\
1429: \colhead{-2440000} & \colhead{(\ms)} & \colhead{(\ms)} & \colhead{} }
1430: \startdata
1431: 7578.730 & 25.67 & 9.7 & L \\
1432: 7847.044 & 3.91 & 8.4 & L \\
1433: 8017.688 & 31.45 & 7.5 & L \\
1434: 8375.669 & -31.38 & 8.8 & L \\
1435: \enddata
1436: \tablecomments{Table 1 is presented in its entirety in the electronic edition
1437: of the Astrophysical Journal. A portion is shown here for guidance regarding
1438: its form and content.}
1439: \end{deluxetable}
1440:
1441: \clearpage
1442:
1443: \thispagestyle{empty}
1444: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrrrr}
1445: \tablenum{2}
1446: \rotate
1447: \tablecaption{Orbital Parameters for the Five-Planet Model}
1448: \label{candid}
1449: \tablewidth{0pt}
1450: \tablehead{
1451: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{Period} & \colhead{$T_p$} & \colhead{$e$} & \colhead{$\omega$} & \colhead{$K$} & \colhead{M$\sin i$} & \colhead{$a$} \\
1452: \colhead{ } & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{ } & \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(\mse)} & \colhead{(M$_{Jup}$)} & \colhead{(AU)}
1453: }
1454: \startdata
1455: \tablenotemark{1}
1456: Planet e & 2.81705 & 2449999.83643 & 0.07 & 248.9 & 5.07 & 0.034 & 0.038 \\
1457: $\pm$ & 0.0001 & 0.0001 & 0.06 & 38 & 0.53 & 0.0036 & 1.0$\times10^{-6}$ \\
1458: Planet b & 14.65162 & 2450002.94749 & 0.014 & 131.94 & 71.32 & 0.824 & 0.115 \\
1459: $\pm$ & 0.0007 & 1.2 & 0.008 & 30 & 0.41 & 0.007 & 1.1$\times10^{-6}$ \\
1460: Planet c & 44.3446 & 2449989.3385 & 0.086 & 77.9 & 10.18 & 0.169 & 0.240 \\
1461: $\pm$ & 0.007 & 3.3 & 0.052 & 29 & 0.43 & 0.008 & 4.5$\times 10^{-5}$ \\
1462: Planet f & 260.00 & 2450080.9108 & 0.2(f) & 181.1 & 4.879 & 0.144 & 0.781 \\
1463: $\pm$ & 1.1 & 1.1 & 0.2 & 60. & 0.6 & 0.04 & 0.007 \\
1464: Planet d & 5218 & 2452500.6 & 0.025 & 181.3 & 46.85 & 3.835 & 5.77 \\
1465: $\pm$ & 230 & 230 & 0.03 & 32 & 1.8 & 0.08 & 0.11 \\
1466: \enddata
1467: \tablenotetext{1}{Planets are listed in order of increasing orbital period,
1468: however the planet designations, b-f, correspond to the chronological order of their discovery.}
1469: \tablenotetext{f}{ecc. fixed}
1470: \end{deluxetable}
1471:
1472:
1473: \clearpage
1474:
1475: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
1476: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1477: \tablenum{3}
1478: \tablewidth{0pt}
1479: \tablecaption{Summary of improvments in RMS and \chisq fits}
1480: \tablehead{
1481: \colhead{Planet} & \colhead{RMS [\mse]} & \colhead{\cse} }
1482: \startdata
1483: b,c & 11.28 & 3.42 \\
1484: b,c,d & 8.62 & 2.50 \\
1485: b,c,d,e & 7.87 & 2.12 \\
1486: b,c,d,e,f & 6.74 & 1.67 \\
1487: \enddata
1488: \end{deluxetable}
1489:
1490: \clearpage
1491:
1492: \begin{deluxetable}{rlllllllll}
1493: \tablenum{4}
1494: \rotate
1495: \tablecaption{Orbital Parameters from Self-Consistent Dynamical fit}
1496: \label{selfconfit}
1497: \tablewidth{0pt}
1498: \tablehead{
1499: \colhead{Planet} & \colhead{Period} & \colhead{$T_p$} & \colhead{$e$} & \colhead{$\omega$} & \colhead{$K$} & \colhead{M$\sin i$} & \colhead{$a$} \\
1500: \colhead{} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{(JD-2440000)}& \colhead{ } & \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(\mse)} & \colhead{(M$_{Jup}$)} & {(AU)}
1501: }
1502: \startdata
1503: 55~Cancri b \tablenotemark{a} & 14.651262 & 7572.0307 & 0.0159 & 164.001 & 71.84 & 0.8358 & 0.115 \\
1504: 55~Cancri c & 44.378710 & 7547.5250 & 0.0530 & 57.405 & 10.06 & 0.1691 & 0.241 \\
1505: 55~Cancri d & 5371.8207 & 6862.3081 & 0.0633 & 162.658 & 47.20 & 3.9231 & 5.901 \\
1506: 55~Cancri e & 2.796744 & 7578.2159 & 0.2637 & 156.500 & 3.73 & 0.0241 & 0.038 \\
1507: 55~Cancri f & 260.6694 & 7488.0149 & 0.0002 & 205.566 & 4.75 & 0.1444 & 0.785 \\
1508: \enddata
1509: \tablenotetext{a}{Epoch= JD 2447578.730, $\sqrt{\chi^{2}}=2.012$
1510: (without jitter included), RMS=7.71 ${\rm m s^{-1}}$. }
1511: \end{deluxetable}
1512:
1513: \clearpage
1514:
1515: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
1516: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1517: \tablenum{5}
1518: \tablewidth{0pt}
1519: \tablecaption{Results of Photometric Transit Search}
1520: \tablehead{
1521: \colhead{} & \colhead{Planetary} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Transit} & \colhead{Predicted} & \colhead{Observed} & \colhead{} \\
1522: \colhead{} & \colhead{Period} & \colhead{Semi-Amplitude} & \colhead{Probability} & \colhead{Transit Depth} & \colhead{Transit Depth} & \colhead{} \\
1523: \colhead{Planet} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(\%)}& \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{Transits}
1524: }
1525: \startdata
1526: e & 2.79565 & 0.00004 $\pm$ 0.00006 & 9.7 & $+$0.00065 & $+$0.00029$\pm$0.00020 & No? \\
1527: b & 14.65165 & 0.00006 $\pm$ 0.00006 & 4.1 & $+$0.0143 & $+$0.0007$\pm$0.0005 & No \\
1528: c & 44.3401 & 0.00008 $\pm$ 0.00006 & 2.0 & $+$0.0086 & $-$0.0003$\pm$0.0006 & No \\
1529: f & 260.81 & 0.00008 $\pm$ 0.00006 & 0.8 & $+$0.0090 & \nodata\tablenotemark{a} & No: \\
1530: d & 5223 & \nodata\tablenotemark{b} & 0.1 & $+$0.0155 & \nodata\tablenotemark{c} & ? \\
1531: \enddata
1532: \tablenotetext{a}{No observations in predicted 12-hr transit window but many observations within the one sigma uncertainty interval.}
1533: \tablenotetext{b}{Duration of the photometric record is less than the
1534: planetary orbital period.}
1535: \tablenotetext{c}{Poorly constrained orbit and insufficient photometric phase coverage.}
1536: \end{deluxetable}
1537:
1538:
1539: \clearpage
1540:
1541: \begin{figure}[t!]
1542: %\epsscale{0.8}
1543: %\plotone{hk.ps}
1544: \plotone{f1.eps}
1545: \caption{Measured velocities for 55 Cancri from Lick and Keck obtained from
1546: 1989.1 to 2007.4. Data from Lick (filled dots) had errors of
1547: $\sim$10 \ms prior to 1994 and 3--5 \ms thereafter. Data from Keck
1548: (open diamonds) had errors of $\sim$3 \ms prior to 2004 August, and
1549: 1.0--1.5 \ms thereafter. The 14-year period from the outer planet
1550: and the short timescale variations from the 14.6-day planet are
1551: apparent to the eye.}
1552: \label{fig1}
1553: \end{figure}
1554: \clearpage
1555:
1556: \begin{figure}
1557: \plotone{f2.eps}
1558: \caption{Periodogram of the residuals to a Keplerian model that
1559: contains only the two well established planets with periods of 14.65 d and
1560: 5200 d. The tall peak at P = 44.3 d
1561: confirms the previously suspected planet with that period.}
1562: \label{fig2}
1563: \end{figure}
1564: \clearpage
1565:
1566: \begin{figure}
1567: \plotone{f3.eps}
1568: \caption{Periodogram of the residuals to a Keplerian model that
1569: contains three known planets with periods of 14.6 d, 44.3 d, and
1570: 5200 d. The tallest peaks are at 2.81 d and 260 d suggesting the
1571: existence of real periodicities in the velocities.
1572: The peak at $\sim$1.5 d is an alias of the 2.8 d peak, and the peak at 460
1573: d is an alias of that at 260 d that disappears after modeling all five planets.}
1574: \label{fig3}
1575: \end{figure}
1576: \clearpage
1577:
1578: \begin{figure}
1579: \plotone{f4.eps}
1580: \caption{Periodogram of the residuals to a Keplerian model that
1581: contains the four previously suspected planets with periods near 2.817 d, 14.65
1582: d, 44.3 d, and 5200 d. The periodogram exhibits a peak
1583: at 260.0 d, caused by the prospective fifth planet in the system.
1584: The smaller peak to its right at 460 d is an alias.}
1585: \label{fig4}
1586: \end{figure}
1587: \clearpage
1588:
1589: \begin{figure}
1590: \plotone{f5.eps}
1591: \caption{Periodogram of the residuals to a 4-planet Keplerian model,
1592: as in Figure 4, but fit to the Keck velocities only. The tallest peak is
1593: at a period of 265.6 d, nearly the same as that emerging from the Lick
1594: data. The modest peak power of only 7.7 is consistent with the
1595: limited time sampling and duration of the Keck observations. No other
1596: period is compelling between periods of 1 and 3000 d.}
1597: \label{fig5}
1598: \end{figure}
1599: \clearpage
1600:
1601: \begin{figure}
1602: \plotone{f6.eps}
1603: \caption{A test of the False Alarm Probability of the 260 d periodicity
1604: seen in the combined velocities from both Lick and Keck (Figure 4).
1605: The residuals to a 4-planet model were scrambled 500 times,
1606: yielding a histogram of the highest power in the periodograms.
1607: The power of 31.5 from the original residuals (Figure 4) is greater
1608: than that from all 500 trials, implying an FAP for the 260 d period
1609: of less than 0.002, suggesting that it is real.}
1610: \label{fig6}
1611: \end{figure}
1612: \clearpage
1613:
1614: \begin{figure}
1615: \plotone{f7.eps}
1616: \caption{Periodogram of the velocity residuals to a Keplerian model
1617: that contains five planets including the prospective new planet at $P
1618: \approx$ 260 d.
1619: Velocities from both Lick and Keck are included.
1620: The peak that had been apparent at 260 d in the residuals
1621: to a 4-planet model (Figures 4 and 5) has vanished due to
1622: its inclusion in the 5-planet model. No other compelling
1623: periods are apparent.}
1624: \label{fig7}
1625: \end{figure}
1626: \clearpage
1627:
1628:
1629: \begin{figure}
1630: \plotone{f8.eps}
1631: \caption{Residual velocities vs orbital phase (for P = 260 d)
1632: after the velocities induced by the four other planets are
1633: subtracted. The orbital parameters were established with a
1634: simultaneous 5-planet Keplerian fit to all Doppler measurements.
1635: The residual velocities reveal the periodic variation
1636: associated with the new planet. The solid line shows the Keplerian
1637: curve of the 260 d planet alone, with eccentricity frozen to 0.2.
1638: The planet's minimum mass is
1639: 45 \mearth and the semimajor axis is 0.78 AU.}
1640: \label{fig8}
1641: \end{figure}
1642: \clearpage
1643:
1644: \begin{figure}
1645: \plotone{f9.eps}
1646: \caption{Velocity of the new planet vs. orbital phase, as with Figure 8,
1647: but for Keck velocities only. The periodicity near 260 d is apparent
1648: independently in the Keck velocities. The best-fit to the Keck
1649: velocities yields an eccentricity of $e$=0.16, only
1650: marginally significant.}
1651: \label{fig9}
1652: \end{figure}
1653: \clearpage
1654:
1655: \begin{figure}
1656: \epsscale{1.0}
1657: \plotone{f10.eps}
1658: \caption{
1659: Eccentricity variations arising from an N-body numerical integration of the five-planet
1660: model listed in Table 2.
1661: \label{fig10}}
1662: \end{figure}
1663: \clearpage
1664:
1665: \begin{figure}[t!]
1666: \epsscale{0.85}
1667: \plotone{f11.eps}
1668: \caption{The 11-yr Str\"omgren photometric data set of 55~Cnc ({\it top
1669: panel}). The data have been normalized so that the annual means are
1670: identical. A portion of the ninth observing season ({\it middle panel})
1671: shows coherent photometric variability in 55~Cnc due to rotational
1672: modulation in the visibility of starspots. The power spectrum of the
1673: data in the middle panel ({\it bottom panel}) reveals the star's
1674: rotation period of 42.7 $\pm$ 2.5 days.}
1675: \label{fig11}
1676: \end{figure}
1677:
1678: \begin{figure}[t!]
1679: \epsscale{0.7}
1680: \plotone{f12.eps}
1681: \caption{Photometric observations of 55~Cnc plotted vs. orbital
1682: phase for the inner four planetary companions, all plotted to the same
1683: scale. The solid line in each panel approximates the predicted
1684: transit light curve, including the depth, duration, and timing of the
1685: transits. The arrows in the top panel indicate the beginning and end
1686: of the very shallow predicted transits of the inner planet. The
1687: horizontal error bar beneath each transit box indicates the
1688: uncertainty in the time of transit, while the vertical error bar shows
1689: the nominal precision of a single data point. The phase-folded
1690: photometry does not detect transits for any of the four inner
1691: planets. }
1692: \label{fig12}
1693: \end{figure}
1694:
1695: \end{document}
1696:
1697:
1698: