1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: %%\usepackage{graphicx}

3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

4: 

5: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

6: 

7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

8: 

9: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

10: 

11: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

12: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

13: %% the \begin{document} command.

14: %%

15: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

16: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

17: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

18: %% for information.

19: \def\dfrac{\frac}

20: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

21: \newcommand{\var}{\Omega}

22: \newcommand{\tha}{\theta}

23: \newcommand{\alp}{\alpha}

24: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

25: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

26: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{array}}

27: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{array}}

28: \newcommand{\dw}{\Delta \Omega}

29: 

30: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

31: 

32: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}

33: 

34: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

35: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

36: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

37: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

38: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.  Running heads

39: %% will not print in the manuscript style.

40: 

41: \shorttitle{Hot Jupiter} \shortauthors{Zhou et

42: al.}

43: 

44: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

45: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

46: 

47: \begin{document}

48: 

49: 

50: \title{Interaction of Close-in Planets with the Magnetosphere of their

51: Host Stars I: Diffusion, Ohmic Dissipation of Time Dependent Field, 

52: Planetary Inflation, and Mass Loss}

53: 

54: 

55: \author{Randy O. Laine\altaffilmark{1},  

56: Douglas N.C. Lin\altaffilmark{2,3}, \&

57: Shawfeng Dong\altaffilmark{2}}

58: \altaffiltext{1}{Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France, randy.laine@ens.fr}

59: \altaffiltext{2}{UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA lin@ucolick.org, dong@ucolick.org}

60: \altaffiltext{3}{Kavli Institute of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Peking University, Beijing,  China}

61: 

62: 

63: \begin{abstract} 

64: The unanticipated discovery of the first close-in planet around 51 Peg

65: has rekindled the notion that shortly after their formation outside

66: the snow line, some planets may have migrated to the proximity of

67: their host stars because of their tidal interaction with

68: their nascent disks. After a decade of discoveries, nearly 20 \% of

69: the 200 known planets have similar short periods. If these 

70: planets indeed migrated to their present-day location, their survival

71: would require a halting mechanism in the proximity of their host

72: stars. Here we consider the possibility that a magnetic coupling

73: between young stars and planets could quench the planet's orbital

74: evolution. Most T Tauri stars have magnetic fields of several thousand

75: gausses on their surface which can clear out a cavity in the

76: innermost regions of their circumstellar disks and impose

77: magnetic induction on the nearby young planets. After a brief

78: discussion of the complexity of the full problem, we focus our

79: discussion on evaluating the permeation and ohmic

80: dissipation of the time dependent component of the stellar magnetic

81: field in the planet's interior. Adopting a model first introduced by

82: Campbell for interacting binary stars, we determine the

83: modulation of the planetary response to the tilted magnetic field of a

84: non-synchronously spinning star. We first compute

85: the conductivity in the young planets, which indicates

86: that the stellar field can penetrate well into the planet's envelope in

87: a synodic period.  For various orbital configurations, we show that the

88: energy dissipation rate inside the planet is sufficient to induce

89: short-period planets to inflate. This process

90: results in mass loss via Roche lobe overflow and in the halting of the

91: planet's orbital migration.

92: \end{abstract}

93: 

94: \keywords{Planetary systems: formation, planetary disks: protoplanetary disks, stars: magnetic field, MHD, accretion disks, stars: individual (Peg 51b)}.

95: 

96: \section{Introduction}

97: Perhaps the most surprising finding in the search for extrasolar

98: planets is the discovery of short-period ($P < 1$ week) Jupiter-mass

99: ($M_J$) companions around Solar-type main sequence stars (Mayor \&

100: Queloz 1995, Marcy et al. 2000).  Among the inventory of $>$200

101: presently-known extrasolar planets, 20\% have $P = 1-7$ days. Nearly

102: 20 short-period planets have measured radii ($R_p$) that are comparable to or

103: larger than that of Jupiter ($R_J$). While these information may be

104: biazed because of observational selection effects, these planets are

105: most probably gas giants.

106: 

107: According to the conventional sequential-accretion scenario (Pollack

108: {\it et al.} 1996), the most likely birth place for gas giant planets

109: is just outside the snow line where volatile heavy elements can

110: condense and coagulate into large planet building blocks (Ida \& Lin

111: 2004). In protostellar disks with comparable surface density

112: ($\Sigma$), metallicity ([Fe/H]), and temperature ($T$) distributions

113: as those of minimum mass nebula model (Hayashi {\it et al.} 1985),

114: protoplanets with $M_p \sim M_J$ induce the formation of a gap near

115: their orbit as a consequence of their tidal torque on the nascent

116: disks (Goldreich \& Tremaine 1978, 1980, Lin \& Papaloizou 1980,

117: 1986a, 1993).  In relatively massive and fast evolving disks, the

118: outward transfer of angular momentum due to the disks' intrinsic

119: turbulence can lead to an inward mass flux ($\dot M_d$) and the

120: migration of the gas giant planets (Lin \& Papaloizou 1986b). This

121: process is commonly referred to as type II migration (Ward 1997).

122: 

123: This migration scenario was resurrected to account for the origin of

124: the first known short-period extra solar planet (Lin {\it et al.}

125: 1996).  Although type-II migration provides a natural avenue for

126: relocating some gas giants, a mechanism is needed to retain these

127: planets close to their host stars. Moreover, many stars are born with

128: rapid rotation (Stassun 2001). When young planets venture close to

129: their host stars, angular momentum would be transferred from the

130: stellar spin to the planet's orbit if the stellar spin frequency

131: $\omega_\ast$ is still larger than the planet's orbital frequency

132: ($\Omega_k$).  The rate of the star-to-planet angular momentum

133: transfer intensifies rapidly and may exceed that from the planet to

134: the disk.

135: 

136: Two basic physical effects were suggested as potential migration barriers.

137: The first one is tidal interaction between the host star and the planet. The

138: gravitational perturbation of the star and close-in planet leads to

139: responses in both the star and planet. For tidal frequencies smaller than twice the

140: spin frequency, inertial waves are excited in the convective envelope

141: of the host star and are dissipated there by turbulent viscosity

142: (Ogilvie \& Lin 2007).  But, the tide excited by a close-in gas giant

143: planet in a star, with a structure similar to that of the present Sun,

144: marginally fails to achieve nonlinearity so that their survival is

145: ensured. Nevertheless, during the formation epoch of solar-type stars,

146: conditions at the center of the star evolve, so that nonlinearity may

147: set in at a critical age, resulting in a relatively intense

148: star-planet tidal interaction.

149: 

150: The second effect suggested is based on the magnetic interaction 

151: between the host star and the planet. 

152: Young T Tauri stars also have radii ($R_\ast$) 2-3 times that of the

153: present-day Sun ($R_\odot$) and several thousand gausses fields

154: ($B_\ast$) on their surface (Johns-Krull 2007). The stellar magnetosphere

155: threads across the inner regions of the disk and clears a cavity out

156: to a critical radius ($R_c$) which is determined by both the magnitude

157: $B_\ast$ and $\dot M_d$ (Konigl 1991). The subsequent complex interplay

158: between accretion and outflow leads to angular momentum exchange which

159: induces $\omega_\ast$ to evolve toward $\Omega_k$ at $R_c$ (Shu 1994).

160: When the planet's orbital semi major axis ($a$) reduces well inside

161: $R_c$, its Lindblad resonances relocate inside the star's

162: magnetospheric cavity. In principle, the planet's migration would

163: stall due to its diminishing tidal torque on the disk.

164: 

165: However, if the star's magnetospheric interaction with the disk can

166: lead to $\omega_\ast = \Omega_k (R_c)$, the planet inside the

167: magnetospheric cavity would have $\Omega_k > \omega_\ast$.  In this

168: limit, the star-planet tidal interaction would induce a transfer of

169: angular momentum from the planet to the star. In addition, the

170: differential motion between the planet and the stellar spinning

171: magnetosphere induces an electromagnetic field with a potential to

172: generate a large current analogeous to the interaction between the Jovian

173: magnetosphere with its satellite Io (Goldreich \& Lynden-Bell 1969).

174: The associated Lorentz force drives an orbital evolution toward a

175: synchroneous state, in which case, angular momentum would be

176: transferred from the planets with $\Omega_k > \omega_\ast$ to their

177: host stars, and the planets would continue their orbital decay.

178: 

179: In order to determine the necessary condition for the retention of

180: close-in young planets, we examine, in this paper, their interaction

181: with the magnetosphere of their host T Tauri stars.  

182: In \S2, we briefly recapitulate the essential concepts and validity of previous

183: investigations on some related topics and give an overview of the key 

184: phenomena that will be discussed in this and later papers. In \S3, we

185: adopt an existing model in order to examine the interaction between a

186: planet and the magnetosphere of its host star. In \S4, we compute

187: precisely the planet's magnetic diffusivity for a specific set of

188: parameters, as well as the corresponding ohmic dissipation rate within

189: that planet. In \S5, we suggest that the ohmic dissipation can

190: generate sufficient heat to inflat the planet.  In \S6, we construct an idealized 

191: self-consistent model in which the polytropic and isothermal equations

192: of state are utilized.  These equations represent the expected outcome

193: of radiation transfer within the fully convective interior and the

194: isothermal surface of a close-in planet which is exposed to the

195: intense radiation from its host star.  This internal model allows us

196: to compute the magnetic diffusivity.  With these tools, we discuss in

197: \S7 the structural adjustment of the planet in response to this

198: heating source and we compute the ohmic dissipation and mass loss rate

199: for different set of parameters. Finally in \S8, we summarize our

200: results and discuss their implications.

201: 

202: \section{Planetary and astrophysical analogue}

203: 

204: Two previous analyses are directly relevant to the present study: 1) the

205: interaction of Io with the magnetosphere of Jupiter and 2) the spin-orbit

206: synchronization in binary stars containing a magnetized white dwarf

207: and its main sequence or white dwarf or planetary companion. 

208: 

209: \subsection{Unipolar Induction in Io}

210: Io orbits around Jupiter inside its magnetosphere once every 1.7 days

211: which is considerably longer than Jupiter's 10 hours spin period. This

212: relative motion imposes a periodic variation in Jupiter's decametric

213: emission (Duncan 1966).  A class of models that accounts for the

214: origin of this emission was developped based on the assumption that Io

215: has a sufficiently high conductivity. In Io's rest frame, the

216: electric field vanishes and the steady component of Jupiter's magnetic

217: field permeates in Io's interior over time. When a steady state is established, 

218: the tube of constant magnetic flux is firmly frozen into Io 

219: (Piddington and Drake 1968) due to its high conductivity. 

220: The flux tube carried by Io moves through the surrounding field lines (which

221: corotate with Jupiter) and slips through Jupiter's less conductive ionosopheric

222: surface. Plasma in Jupiter's ionosphere flows around the tube and

223: introduces a potential difference across it (Goldreich \& Lynden-Bell

224: 1969). The associated electric field drives a current which 

225: travels down one half of the flux tube from Io and is sent back to Io

226: along the other half. Within the flux tube connecting Io and Jupiter's

227: ionosphere and those across it on Io, the electric field vanishes as a

228: consequence of high conductivity. Thus, this DC circuit is closed by

229: Io as a unipolar inductor.

230: 

231: The magnitude of the electric current is primarily determined by the Pederson

232: conductivity at the foot of the flux tube {\it i.e.} on the ionosphere

233: of Jupiter. Finite conductivity also determines the magnitude of the

234: drag against the slipage of the flux tube through Jupiter.  This drag

235: results in energy dissipation on the surface of Jupiter and in a

236: torque on the orbital motion of Io, driving the system towards a state

237: of synchronization.  This configuration is justified by the assumption

238: that a constant flux tube is firmly anchored on and dragged along by

239: Io which requires the conductivity in Io to be much higher than that

240: in Jupiter's ionosphere. A 10$^o$ inclination between Jupiter's

241: magnetic dipole and rotation axis does introduce a periodic variation

242: (over a synodic period) in the field felt by Io. The permeation and

243: dissipation of this time-dependent AC field may be negligible in the

244: limit of high conductivity in Io.

245: 

246: The validity of the key assumption for the unipolar induction model

247: ({\it i.e.} conductivity on Io is larger than that in Jupiter's

248: ionosphere) has also been challenged by Dermott (1970).  A modest

249: resistence in Io would distort the field which may lead to field

250: slippage through Io.  In this case, the passage of Io through the

251: magnetosphere of Jupiter would lead to the generation of Alfven waves

252: along the flux tube (Drell {\it et al.}  1965, Neubauer 1980).  But,

253: due to the field displacement, the waves, partially reflected at the

254: foot of the flux tube on Jupiter's surface, may not be able to return

255: to Io, in which case the DC circuit would be broken and the motion of

256: Io would be decoupled from the that of the flux tube.  Nevertheless,

257: the Alfven waves are dissipated inside both Io and Jupiter, leading to

258: a torque which must depend on their penetration depth.

259: 

260: An alternative class of scenarios has been proposed based on the

261: assumption that the magnetosphere is everywhere anchored on Jupiter

262: and the flux tube moves freely through Io (Gurnett 1972).  This model

263: requires the conductivity in Jupiter's ionosphere to be larger than

264: that in Io.  It assumes that the presence of Io creates a plasma

265: sheath with an electric field to cancel the induced EMF associated

266: with the motion of Io relative to Jupiter's magnetosphere (Shawhan

267: 1976).  The simplifying approximations in the development of this

268: theory have been challenged by Piddington (1977) who questioned both

269: the validity of the sheath-creation mechanism and the self-consistency

270: of the internal and external field configurations, subjected to the

271: electric currents in and around Io.

272: 

273: On the observational side, UV emissions from Io's footprint on

274: Jupiter has been observed. But, it extends

275: well beyond the intersection between Io's flux tube and Jupiter's

276: ionosphere and the emssion downstream is protracted (Clarke {\it et

277: al.} 1996). These observations do not agree with the simple

278: interpretation of either the unipolar induction or the plasma sheath

279: scenarios.

280: 

281: \subsection{Magnetic Coupling in Interacting Binary Stars}

282: There are many close binary-star systems with a white dwarf as their

283: primary component.  These systems also contain main sequence stars and

284: other white dwarfs as secondary components in compact and circular

285: orbits around each other.  In some cases, mass is transferred from the

286: secondary to the primary.  In other cases, gravitational radiation may

287: play an important role in determining the evolution of these systems.

288: 

289: A sub class of such interacting binary stars, AM Her systems, is

290: composed of a magnetized white-dwarf primary and a lower-mass main

291: sequence star as its secondary in a fully synchroneous orbit despite

292: the ongoing mass transfer between them (Warner 1995).  This orbital

293: configuration is very similar to that of the Jupiter-Io system despite

294: the enormous difference between the mass ratio in the two cases. The

295: motivation for studying the impact of magnetic coupling between these

296: stellar components is to assess whether this synchronous state can be

297: achieved through the ohmic dissipation of the white dwarf's field in

298: the main sequence star's surface (Joss {\it et al.} 1979).  Toward

299: this goal, Campbell (1983, hereafter C83) adopted a novel approach by

300: considering the penetration and dissipation of a periodically variable

301: field, associated with an asynchronously spinning primary. 

302: 

303: Campbell's approach is fundamentally different from that of the

304: unipolar induction model.  In this analysis, Campbell focussed on the

305: flow in the envelope of the secondary and neglected the possibility of

306: current flowing through the flux tube between the secondary star/satellite

307: and the surface of the primary star/planet. This vacuum-surrounding

308: approximation is justifiable since conductivity on the primary is

309: likely to be much larger than that on the secondary and 

310: the stationary component of the field is

311: frozen in the white-dwarf primary but not in the main-sequence

312: secondary. Campbell analyzed the time dependent response of

313: the secondary, including the modification of the field by the induced

314: (AC) current in it (Campbell 2005), to the periodic modulation of the

315: field.  In contrast, the unipolar induction model depends on the

316: explicit assumption that the field is anchored on the secondary and

317: its distortion near the secondary must be small so that a complete

318: current loop can be established between the primary and the

319: secondary. Campbell determined the periodic diffusion of the field and

320: the ohmic dissipation of the induced AC current in the companion

321: whereas that of the induced DC current is assumed to occur in the

322: primary in the unipolar induction model.

323: 

324: In recent applications of the unipolar induction model in the context

325: of interaction between white dwarf binary stars, the current induced

326: by the unperturbed field has been computed but the induced field

327: generated by the current was neglected (Wu {\it et al.}  2002,

328: Dall'Osso {\it et al.}  2006). A tidal torque is computed at the

329: footprint of the flux tube, which is attached to the secondary white

330: dwarf, on the surface of the magnetized primary white dwarf.  A

331: totally self-consistent solution of this diffult and complex problem

332: remains outstanding.  In addition to the uncertain anchorage location

333: of the field, it is not clear whether the resulting misalignment of

334: the total (original plus induced) field and current may be

335: sufficiently large to break the circuit, in which case, Campbell's

336: model may be more appropriate.

337: 

338: \subsection{Mathematical approximations made by the two previous models}

339: In this subsection, we summarize the physical description of the two

340: models just presented (the unipolar inductor versus the periodic

341: diffusion) by explicating the mathematical approximations made in each

342: one of them.  The complete MHD induction equation can be expressed as

343: \begin{equation}

344: \frac{\partial \textbf{B}}{\partial t}=

345: \nabla \wedge (\upsilon\wedge 

346: \textbf{B})

347: -\nabla \wedge (\eta \nabla \wedge\textbf{B})

348: \label{complete mhd induction equation}

349: \end{equation} 

350: where the magnetic diffusivity $\eta=1/\mu_{0}\sigma$ and the

351: electrical conductivity $\sigma$ functions of position and $\mu_{0}$

352: is the permeability.  If $\eta$ is constant, the second term on the

353: right hand side becomes $-\nabla \wedge (\eta \nabla

354: \wedge\textbf{B})= \eta\ \nabla^{2} \textbf{B}$ which reduces to a

355: common expression of diffusion.  The two models (unipolar induction

356: versus periodic diffusion) consider two complementary approximations

357: of equation \ref{complete mhd induction equation}.  In the problem

358: where Io is treated as an unipolar inductor, its conductivity is

359: explicitly assumed to be large so that the second term on the right

360: hand (the diffusion term) is negligible compared to the first ({\it

361: i.e.} the induction term).  In this configuration, one can show that

362: the field lines of the steady component of the magnetic field are

363: moving with Io and appear to be "frozen" on Io (see appendix A).

364: Alternatively, in the model considered by Campbell, it is the first

365: term on the right hand side that is being neglected. Moreover, only

366: the diffusion of the time dependent component of the field is being

367: considered.  This approximation is valid if the two interacting bodies

368: are almost in corotation ({\it i.e.} the relative speed $\upsilon$

369: that appears in equation (\ref{complete mhd induction equation}) is

370: small), or if the conductivity in the secondary is small.

371: 

372: 

373: \subsection{Overview of the phenomena that will be discussed}

374: \label{subsection overview of our model}

375: The process under investigation in this paper is analogeous to both

376: the Jupiter-Io and the interacting binary star problems.  In fact, the

377: unipolar induction model has already been applied to study the orbital

378: evolution of terrestrial planets or the cores of gas giants around

379: white dwarfs (Li {\it et al.} 1998). There are even follow-up

380: determination of the radio flux densities from potential

381: white-dwarf/planet systems (Willes \& Wu 2005). In this analysis,

382: although the dissipation of the induced current due to the finite

383: conductivities in the white dwarf was considered, the feedback

384: modification of the field and the dissipation within the planet have

385: been neglected (Li {\it et al.} 1998).  As discussed above, it is not

386: clear whether a DC circuit can be closed to promote the unipolar

387: induction mechanism.

388: 

389: In light of these uncertainties, we consider both classes of models

390: for the interaction of close-in planets with their magnetized host

391: stars. In this paper, we focus our discussion on the

392: mechanism described by Campbell, 

393: and apply it to a hot-jupiter revolving around its star. We

394: will return to the unipolar induction problem in a later paper.

395: 

396: When young planets first arrive at the vicinity of their host stars,

397: they are unlikely to be in a totally synchronized state.  The stellar

398: magnetic field felt by the planet may be dominated by the periodic

399: modulation associated with the synodic (between the stellar spin and

400: the planet's orbit) motion. In addition, the temperature in the

401: planet's surface is expected to be $\sim 10^3$ K and the conductivity

402: there may be moderate.  In response to the modulation of the field,

403: the interior of the planet continually adjusts to the magnetization

404: effects so that the flux tube cannot be effectively frozen in the

405: planet.  All of these boundary condition suggest that at least over

406: some regions of the planet (especially on the night side where the

407: photo ionization due to the stellar flux is negligible), the

408: modulation of the field may lead to an induced current inside the

409: planet which does not contribute to the close circuit of a unipolar

410: inductor.

411: 

412: Following the geometry introduced by Campbell (C83), we consider a

413: close-in gas giant planet, with a finite conductivity, interacting

414: with a time-dependent magnetic field generated by the star. An induced

415: current is generated inside the planet, which is associated with an

416: ohmic dissipation rate. Our main contributions to the model used by

417: Campbell are: 1) the relevant diffusivity inside the gas giant

418: planets, 2) the effects of the ohmic dissipation on the planet's

419: internal structure, and 3) the resulting orbital evolution of the

420: planet. (Items 2 and 3 have negligible consequence in the interacting

421: binary star problem considered by Campbell). Since we are only

422: considering the dissipation in the planet's interior, the associated

423: torque applied on its orbit should be regarded as a lower limit.

424: 

425: In our scenario, we postulate that at sufficiently close proximity to

426: the host star, the stellar magnetic field is sufficiently intense that

427: the ohmic dissipation of the periodically diffused field inside the

428: planet is adequate to heat and to inflat the planet until it overflows

429: its Roche lobe. The hemisphere of the planet facing its host star is also exposed to

430: the intense flux of UV radiation during the stellar infancy. It is

431: possible for the planet to develop a substantial ionosphere regardless

432: the state of synchronization between the planet's orbit and spin (the

433: time scale for establishing local ionization equilibrium is much

434: faster than the planet's spin and orbital periods).  

435: 

436: We will separately study these two phenomena (angular momentum transfert due 

437: to mass loss and presence of a ionosphere) in the follow-up papers of this serie. 

438: We will show that the angular momentum transfer associated with the mass transfer can halt the

439: orbital evolution of the planet. We will also present an analysis on the conductivities in the planet's day-side

440: ionosphere and on the host stars surface. This will lead to an

441: analysis on the condition for the unipolar induction to effectively

442: operate and apply a significant slow-down torque on the planet's

443: orbit.

444: 

445: \section{Magnetic induction} 

446: \label{chapter magnetic induction}

447: 

448: In this section, we are going to derive the governing equations that

449: we use to compute the ohmic dissipation rate. Various equations are

450: presented here for the purpose of introducing the algorithm of the

451: numerical models to be presented in subsequent chapters.  Although we

452: follow closely the approach made in C83, for brevity, we do not

453: repeatedly cite this reference. But, wherever similarities occur,

454: referal of Campbell's earlier work is implicitly implied. Also, throughout the paper, we use SI units. 

455: 

456: \begin{figure}[htbp]

457: \begin{center}

458: \epsscale{0.5}

459: \plotone{f1}  

460: \end{center}

461: \caption{The geometry of the system. The star is on the left, at the center of the 

462: set of axies ($x_{0}$,$y_{0}$,$z_{0}$), and the planet is on the right, at the center of 

463: the set of axies (x,y,z).}

464: \end{figure}

465: 

466: 

467: We consider a protoplanetary system with a gas giant planet revolving

468: around a T Tauri star with an angular frequency $\Omega_p$. Well

469: beyond the planet's semi major axis, there is also a protoplanetary

470: disk. The host star has a dipolar moment $\textbf{m}$

471: tilted with an angle $\alpha$ with respect to its spinning axis (see figure 1). 

472: The angular frequency of the stellar spin is $\omega_\ast$.  The orbital

473: axis of the disk and the planet are parallel to the star's spinning

474: axis. The following analysis is applied to a frame of reference

475: centered on the star and rotating with the planet. 

476: 

477: In this frame, the planet is a fixed object (the planet's spin is

478: neglected) in a periodic magnetic field with a frequency $\omega =

479: \omega_\ast -\Omega_p$.  From Ohm's law 

480: $\textbf{J}=\sigma \textbf{E}$ 

481: and Maxwell's equations $\dfrac{\partial \textbf{B}}{\partial t} = 

482: -\nabla \wedge \textbf{E}$ and 

483: $\nabla \wedge \textbf{B} = 

484: \mu_{0} \textbf{J}$, 

485: the equation on the magnetic field becomes:

486: \begin{equation}

487: \dfrac{\partial\textbf{B}}{\partial t}

488: =- \nabla\wedge(\eta \nabla \wedge\textbf{B}) .

489: \label{B time dependent}

490: \end{equation}

491: 

492: It follows that in the mechanism considered by Campbell 

493: (as well as in this paper), it is the time dependent stellar 

494: magnetic field, diffusing inside the 

495: secondary (for Campbell) or the hot Jupiter (in our paper), 

496: as well as the planet's induced magnetic field, 

497: that generate the current inside the planet, following the equation 

498: $\nabla \wedge \textbf{B} = 

499: \mu_{0}\textbf{J}$.

500: The relative speed between the planet and the stellar magnetic 

501: field thus intervenes not through 

502: $\textbf{E} = 

503: -\upsilon \wedge \textbf{B}$ 

504: but through the time dependence in the stellar magnetic field that diffuses in the planet. 

505: 

506: Following C83, we only consider the poloidal component $\phi$ of the magnetic field: 

507: \begin{equation}

508: \textbf{B}\ =\  

509: \nabla\wedge(\nabla\wedge(\phi\ \mathbf{e_{r}}))

510: \label{definition poloidal scalar}\\

511: \end{equation}

512: where $\phi$ is a function of r, $\theta$, $\varphi$. and can be expanded 

513: in terms of the sperical harmonics

514: $Y_{l}^{m}(\theta,\varphi)$ (equation \ref{decomposition of

515: Phi}). Moreover the variation in time of the magnetic field felt by

516: the planet is periodic. In the limit where the field penetrates

517: quickly in the planet compared to the time scale on which the field

518: changes (so that the planet can respond ``adiabatically''), we can

519: account for the time dependence of $\phi$ by mutiplying its spatial

520: part by $e^{i\omega t}$:

521: \begin{eqnarray}

522: \phi(\textbf{r},t)

523: =\mu_{0}\left[\sum_{l,m}\ C_{l}^{m}\

524: G_{l}(r)\ Y_{l}^{m}(\theta,\varphi)\right]e^{i\omega t}

525: \label{decomposition of Phi} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (l \geqslant 0\ and\

526: -l\leqslant m\leqslant l)

527: \end{eqnarray}

528: where $C_{l}^{m}$ are constant coefficients and $G_{l}(r)$ is a

529: function of $r$ to be determined. We then replace \textbf{B} in 

530: the left hand of (2) by its expression in (3). After integration, we obtain 

531: \begin{equation}

532: \nabla\wedge\mathbf{B}\

533: =-\dfrac{i\omega}{\eta}\nabla\wedge

534: \left(\phi\ \mathbf{e_{r}}\right).

535: \label{rhs=lhs}

536: \end{equation}

537: We then replace \textbf{B} in the left hand side of this equation using (\ref{definition poloidal scalar}), and 

538: develop both sides of the equation. After identification, we obtain: 

539: \begin{equation}

540: \dfrac{d^{2}G_{l}}{dr^{2}}(r)-\left(\dfrac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}+

541: \dfrac{i\omega}{\eta}\right)G_{l}(r)=0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

542: {\rm inside} \ {\rm the} \ {\rm planet.} \label{first equation on G}

543: \end{equation}

544: This equation holds inside and outside the planet (same as eqs 16 and

545: 18 in C83). However, outside the planet, the conductivity is assumed

546: to be very low and, therefore, the magnetic diffusivity is extremely

547: high compared to the diffusivity inside the planet. In the limit where

548: the magnetic diffusivity outside tends to infinity (equivalent to a

549: vacuum surrounding), the equation (\ref{first equation on G}) becomes:

550: \begin{equation}

551: \dfrac{d^{2}G_{l}}{dr^{2}}(r)-\left(\dfrac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}\right)G_{l}(r)

552: =0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

553: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm outside} \ {\rm the} \ {\rm planet.} \label{second equation on G}

554: \end{equation}

555: 

556: We consider the radial part of the poloidal scalar outside the planet. Following C83,  

557: we introduce $\phi_{star}$ the radial part of the poloidal scalar outside the planet 

558: due to the star's magnetic field, and $\phi_{planet}$ the radial part of the poloidal scalar 

559: outside the planet due to the planet (cf C83 eqs 21-22): 

560: \begin{eqnarray}

561: \phi_{star}=\dfrac{\mu_{0}m {\rm \sin}\alpha}{8\pi d^{3}}r^{2} 

562: \left(2{\rm cos}\varphi\ {\rm \sin}\omega t+\ {\rm \sin}\varphi\ 

563: {\rm cos}\omega t\right)P_{1}^{1} 

564: + \dfrac{\mu_{0}m {\rm \sin}\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{4}}r^{3}\left[P_{2}^{0}

565: {\rm \sin}\omega t \right.   \nonumber \\

566: -\left. \left(\dfrac{1}{2} {\rm cos}2\varphi\ {\rm \sin}\omega t\ 

567: + \dfrac{1}{3}{\rm \sin} 2\varphi\ {\rm cos}\omega t\right)P_{2}^{2}\right] 

568: \label{phi_star outside}

569: \end{eqnarray}

570: 

571: \begin{eqnarray}

572: \phi_{planet}=\mu_{0}P_{1}^{1}\left[\dfrac{{\rm cos}\varphi}{r} 

573: (\alpha_{1}\ {\rm \sin}\omega t\ +\alpha_{2}\ {\rm cos}\omega t)

574: +\dfrac{ {\rm \sin}\varphi} {r}(\alpha_{3}\ {\rm \sin}\omega t\ 

575: +\alpha_{4}\ {\rm cos}\omega t)\right]\ 

576: \nonumber \\

577: +\ \dfrac{\mu_{0}P_{2}^{0}}{r^{2}}(\beta_{1}\ {\rm \sin}

578: \omega t\ +\ \beta_{2}\ {\rm cos}\omega t) 

579: +\mu_{0}P_{2}^{2}\left[\dfrac{ {\rm cos}2\varphi}

580: {r^{2}}(\gamma_{1}\ {\rm \sin}\omega

581: t\ +\ \gamma_{2}\ {\rm cos}\omega t)

582:  +\dfrac{{\rm \sin}2\varphi}{r^{2}}(\gamma_{3} {\rm \sin}\omega t\ 

583: +\ \gamma_{4}\ {\rm cos}\omega t)\right]

584: \label{phi_planet outside}

585: \end{eqnarray}

586: where $P_{1}^{1}=- {\rm \sin}\theta,\ P_{2}^{0}=\frac{1}{2}(3 {\rm cos}^{2}

587: \theta-1)$, and $P_{2}^{2}=3 {\rm \sin}^{2}\theta$ are the associated 

588: Legendre polynomials (our convention for $P_{1}^{1}$ has an opposite 

589: sign as that adopted by Campbell). In addition, $\phi_{planet}$ has the 

590: same time and angular dependence as $\phi_{star}$ because the field 

591: inside the planet is induced by the stellar's magnetic field. 

592: 

593: The sum $\phi_{outside}=\phi_{star}+\phi_{planet}$ is the total

594: poloidal scalar outside the planet, and

595: $\phi_{outside}$ (given by (\ref{phi_star outside}) and

596: (\ref{phi_planet outside})) is equal to $\phi_{inside}$ (given by

597: (\ref{decomposition of Phi})) at the surface of the planet

598: ($r=R_{p}$).

599: 

600: 

601: \subsection{Poloidal scalar inside the planet}

602: \label{subsection poloidal scalar inside}

603: In order to determine the poloidal scalar inside the planet, we first

604: numerically calculate the values of $G_{l}(r)$ (the radial part of

605: $\phi$, cf. equation \ref{decomposition of Phi}) and $G_{l}'(r)$

606: inside the planet by solving equation (\ref{first equation on G}). We

607: then calculate the coefficients $C_{l}^{m}$, which appears in the

608: decomposition of~$\phi$. They are determined by the boundary

609: conditions which connect the interior and exterior solutions.  In the

610: rest of this section (\S3), we assume that the conductivity profile is

611: known, and we describe the procedure used to compute the ohmic

612: dissipation rate inside the planet.  In the following sections, we

613: apply the method described in \S3 to compute the ohmic dissipation

614: rate inside the planet.

615: 

616: In the following sections, we compute the magnetic dissipation and

617: numerically obtain the value of the ohmic dissipation rate.

618: 

619: \subsubsection{Computation of G(r)}

620: If the diffusivity $\eta(r)$ is known, we can solve (\ref{first

621: equation on G}) numerically, for $l=1$ and $l=2$, with a two-point

622: boundary solver using the Newton-Raphson-Kantorovich method, and the

623: equations and boundary conditions are given below:

624: \begin{eqnarray}

625: \left\{

626: \begin{array}{l}

627: Y_{1}(r)=\mathcal{R}e(G(r))\\

628: Y_{2}(r)=\mathcal{I}m(G(r))

629: \end{array}

630: \right.

631: \left\{

632: \begin{array}{l}

633: {\rm Equations:} \\

634: Y'_{1}(r)=Y_{3}(r) \\

635: Y'_{2}(r)=Y_{4}(r) \\

636: Y'_{3}(r)=-\dfrac{\omega}{\eta(r)}Y_{2}(r)+\dfrac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}Y_{1}(r) \\

637: Y'_{4}(r)=\dfrac{\omega}{\eta(r)}Y_{1}(r)+\dfrac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}Y_{2}(r)

638: \end{array}

639: \right.

640: \left\{

641: \begin{array}{l}

642: {\rm Boundary} \ {\rm conditions} \ {\rm at} \ r=R_{p}\ \& \ 0 \\

643: G'_{l}(R_{p})+\dfrac{l}{R_{p}}G_{l}(R_{p})-(2l+1)R_{p}^{l}=0\\

644: G'_{l}(r\simeq 0)-\dfrac{l+1}{r}G_{l}(r\simeq 0)=0 \label{detailed equations}

645: \end{array}

646: \right.

647: \end{eqnarray}

648: 

649: \subsubsection{Computation of the C(l,m)}

650: The complex coefficients $C_{l}^{m}=\mu_{l}^{m}+i\nu_{l}^{m}$ have

651: real and imaginary parts $\mu_{l}^{m}=Re(C_{l}^{m})$ and

652: $\nu_{l}^{m}=Im(C_{l}^{m})$. We equate the real part of the

653: decomposition of the poloidal scalar inside the planet given in

654: (\ref{definition poloidal scalar}) at $r=R_{p}$ (radius of the planet)

655: with the expression of $\phi_{outside}=\phi_{star}+\phi_{planet}$

656: given in (\ref{phi_star outside}) and (\ref{phi_planet outside}) at

657: $r=R_{p}$.

658: 

659: Moreover, using the fact that ($P_{1}^{1}$,$P_{2}^{0},P_{2}^{2}$) and

660: then (${\rm cos} \omega t {\rm cos} \varphi$, ${\rm cos} \omega t {\rm \sin}

661: \varphi$, ${\rm \sin} \omega t {\rm cos}\varphi$, ${\rm \sin}\omega t

662: {\rm \sin}\varphi$) (${\rm cos} \omega t$,${\rm \sin}\omega t$),

663: (${\rm cos}\omega t {\rm cos} 2\varphi$, ${\rm cos} \omega t {\rm \sin}

664: 2\varphi$,${\rm \sin} \omega t {\rm cos} 2\varphi$, ${\rm \sin} \omega t

665: {\rm \sin} 2\varphi$) are a set of bases, we get a

666: set of linear equations which can be solved for

667: ($\mu_{1}^{1}$, $\mu_{1}^{-1}$, $\nu_{1}^{1}$, $\nu_{1}^{-1}$,

668: $\alpha_{1}$, $\alpha_{2}$,$\alpha_{3}$,$\alpha_{4}$), ($\mu_{2}^{0}$,

669: $\nu_{2}^{0}$, $\beta_{1}$,$\beta_{2}$), and ($\mu_{2}^{2}$,

670: $\mu_{2}^{-2}$, $\nu_{2}^{2}$, $\nu_{2}^{-2}$, $\gamma_{1}$,

671: $\gamma_{2}$, $\gamma_{3}$, $\gamma_{4}$) (the linear systems verified

672: by these unknowns are given in appendix B).

673: 

674: \subsection{Computation of the ohmic energy dissipation rate}

675: \label{computation of the ohmic dissipation rate}

676: The potential generates an electric field $\mathbf{E}$ which induces a

677: volumic current $\mathbf{J}$ inside the planet.  The associated ohmic

678: dissipation inside the planet is

679: $\mathcal{P}_{volumic}=Re(\mathbf{J})\ Re(\textbf{E})$.  Using

680: $\textbf{E}=\dfrac{1}{\sigma} \mathbf{J}$ and

681: $\mathbf{J}=\frac{1}{\mu_{0}} \nabla\wedge\textbf{B}$, we can write:

682: \begin{equation}

683: \mathcal{P}=\int_V \dfrac{1}{\sigma(r)} \left(\mathcal{R}e(\mathbf{J})

684: \right)^{2}dV=\int_V \dfrac{1}{\sigma(r)} \left[\mathcal{R}e

685: \left(\dfrac{\nabla\wedge\textbf{B}}{\mu_{0}}\right)\right]^{2}.  dV

686: \label{W provisoire}

687: \end{equation}

688: Moreover, using equation (\ref{rhs=lhs}), we can write

689: \begin{eqnarray}

690: \mathcal{P}=\dfrac{\omega^{2}}{\mu_{0}}\int

691: \dfrac{1}{\eta(r)}\left[\dfrac{1}{ {\rm \sin} \theta}\left(\dfrac{\partial

692: Im(\phi)}{\partial \varphi}(r, \theta,\varphi)\right)^{2} + {\rm \sin}

693: \theta\left(\dfrac{\partial Im(\phi)}{\partial \theta}(r, 

694: \theta\varphi)\right)^{2}\right]dr\ d\theta\

695: d\varphi. 

696: \label{dependence of P}

697: \end{eqnarray}

698: We use eq. (\ref{decomposition of Phi}) to express the real and

699: imaginary parts of $\Phi$.  After integrating over $\theta$ and

700: $\varphi$, we are left with:

701: \begin{equation}

702: \mathcal{P}= \int_r 

703: < \mathcal{P}_{volumic} > r^2 dr

704: \label{energy_integrand_expression}

705: \end{equation}

706: where the angle-integrated volumic power and  

707: \begin{footnotesize}

708: \begin{eqnarray}

709: < \mathcal{P}_{volumic} > =

710: \dfrac{\mu_{0} \omega^{2}}{\eta r^2 }\left\{ {\rm cos}^{2}\omega t

711: \left[\left(A_{11}^{2}+A_{12}^{2}\right)

712: +3\left(A_{17}^{2}+A_{18}^{2}\right)

713: +\dfrac{3}{\pi} A_{15}^{2}\right]

714: \right. \nonumber \\ \left.

715: +{\rm \sin}^{2}\omega t\left[\left(A_{13}^{2}

716: +A_{14}^{2}\right)+3\left(A_{19}^{2}

717: +A_{20}^{2}\right)+\dfrac{3}{\pi}A_{16}^{2}\right] \right. 

718: \nonumber \\ \left.

719: + {\sin \omega t} {\cos \omega t}

720: \left[\left(A_{12}A_{14}+

721: A_{11}A_{13}\right)+3

722: \left(A_{17}A_{19}+A_{18}A_{20}\right)+\dfrac{3}{\pi}

723: A_{15}A_{16}\right]\right\} \nonumber \label{energy integral}

724: \end{eqnarray}

725: \end{footnotesize}

726: where the expressions for $A_{ij}$ are given in Appendix C. 

727: 

728: \section{Conductivity profile and ohmic dissipation rate}

729: \label{shawfeng's conductivity}

730: The general setting of the problem and the basic equations have been

731: laid down. We have seen that once a conductivity profile is chosen,

732: one can solve (\ref{detailed equations}) and determine $G_{l}(r)$

733: inside the planet (the radial part of the poloidal scalar inside the

734: planet). Then, one can compute the $C(l,m)$, and finally obtain the

735: ohmic dissipation rate $\mathcal{P}$ inside the planet.

736: 

737: \subsection{Computation of $\mathcal{P}$ for one specific set of parameters} 

738: We compute the conductivity inside the planet with two parallel

739: approaches. In \S\S 5-7, we develop an idealized self-consistent internal

740: structure model to determine the response of the planet to the ohmic

741: dissipation of the induced current in it. But, in this section, we

742: first introduce a realistic, but non self consistent, model with the

743: following set of parameters:

744: \begin{flushleft}

745: \textbf{Planet's mass and radius:} $0.63 M_J$ 

746: \& $R_{p}=1.4\ R_{J}=10^{8}\ m$, \\

747: \textbf{Semi-major axis:} $a=0.04\ AU=6\times 10^{9}\ m$. \\

748: \end{flushleft}

749: These and other (such as mass and luminosity) stellar parameters are

750: appropriate for the short-period planet around HD209458 (Bodenheimer

751: {\it et al.} 2001).  We compute the internal conductivity due to the

752: ionization of the alkaline metals (see Appendix D for details).

753: Although the planet is heated on the day side, thermal circulation can

754: redistribute the heat and reduce the temperature gradient between

755: the two side of the planet (Burkert {\it et al.}  2005, Dobbs-Dixon \&

756: Lin 2007).  We adopt a spherically symmetric approximation for the

757: surface temperature of the planet to be 1,360K. Here, we neglect the

758: modification in the internal structure due to the ohmic dissipation

759: which will be considered with self-consistent models in the next

760: sections.  In Paper IV, we will also consider the conductivity on the

761: planet's upper atmosphere due to photoionization which only occurs on

762: the dayside of the planet.

763: 

764: Using this conductivity profile, we can approximate the magnetic

765: diffusivity $\eta(r)=1/{\mu_{0}\sigma(r)}$ by:

766: \begin{equation}

767: \eta(r) \simeq 10^{3} {\rm exp}

768: \left[25\left(\dfrac{r}{R_{p}}\right)^{2}\right]

769: \label{expression of eta}

770: \end{equation}

771: where the effects of the photoionization have been neglected in this

772: paper.

773: 

774: To apply the procedure described in \S3, we also need to specify: 

775: \begin{flushleft}

776: \textbf{Relative angular velocity:} $\omega=10^{-5}\ s^{-1}$, \\

777: \textbf{Star's magnetic dipole:} $m=4\times 10^{34}\ A\ m^{2}$, \\

778: \textbf{Value of the tilt of the magnetic dipole:} ${\rm \sin}(\alpha)=1$. \\

779: \end{flushleft}

780: We then obtain the following $\mathcal{P}$ (also see figure 2 for the

781: graphs of $G_{l}(r)$)

782: \begin{equation}

783: \mathcal{P}(t)=2.26\times 10^{21}cos^{2}\omega t+2.1\times 

784: 10^{21}\sin^{2}\omega t+1.3\times

785: 10^{21} {\sin \omega t} {\cos \omega t} \label{W}

786: \end{equation}

787: We then take the average in time over one synodic period and obtain

788: $\mathcal{P}\approx 2.18 \times 10^{21}\ Js^{-1}$ \\

789: 

790: \begin{figure}[htbp]

791: \begin{center}

792: \epsscale{1.3}

793: \plottwo{f2a}{f2b}  

794: \label{Graph of G}

795: \end{center}

796: \caption{$Re(G_{l=1})(r)$, $Im(G_{l=1})(r)$, $Re(G_{l=2})(r)$,

797: $Im(G_{l=2})(r)$, and their first derivatives, for $R_{p}=10^{8}m=1.4\

798: R_{J}$, $a=0.04\ AU$, and $\eta(r) \simeq 10^{3} {\rm exp}

799: \left[25\left(\dfrac{r}{R_{p}}\right)^{2}\right]$ The shape of $G_{l}$

800: for $l=1$ and $l=2$ are very close but the amplitudes for $l=2$ are

801: about $10^{8}=R_{p}$ higher than for $l=1$.  Indeed, the major

802: difference between $l=1$ and $l=2$ is found in the equations

803: describing the boundary conduitions (see equation \ref{detailed

804: equations} where a factor $10^{8}$ between $l=1$ and $l=2$ comes from

805: the term $R_{p}^{l}$). In addition, we found $|C(l,m)|$ for $l=1$ is

806: about $10^{10}$ times larger than for $l=2$. Therefore $|G_{l}

807: C(l,m)|$ for $l=1$ is much larger than for $l=2$, which allows us to

808: keep only the terms corresponding to $l=1$ and $l=2$ in the

809: decomposition of $\phi$ on spherical harmonics.}

810: \end{figure}

811: 

812: The conductivity profile we have obtained here is sensitive to the

813: planetary structure model.  At the epoch of planet formation, the gas

814: accretion and planetesimal bombardment history are stochastic (Zhou \&

815: Lin 2007).  The opacity in the accretion envelope of proto gas giant

816: planets may also be subjected to variations due to dust coagulation

817: (Iaroslavitz {\it et al.} 2007).  The thermal evolution of these planets

818: can be highly diverse.  There may, therefore, be a dispersion in the

819: magnitude of $\eta$.

820: 

821: \subsection{Comments on the skin depth and the dependence of the ohmic 

822: dissipation on the conductivity and on the sign of $\omega$}

823: \label{sec:skin}

824: Once the conductivity profile within the planet is determined, we are

825: able to compute the energy dissipation rate inside the planet of the

826: current induced by the star's magnetic field.  In light of the

827: possible uncertainties in the magnitude of $\eta$, we compute the

828: ohmic dissipation rate for different $\eta$ by artificially modifying

829: the above determined $\eta$ with a multiplicative factor. The

830: resulting magnitude of the time-averaged value of $\mathcal{P}$ is

831: listed below (table \ref{artificially modified eta}).

832: 

833: 

834: \begin{table}[htbp]

835: \begin{center}

836: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|}

837: \hline

838: $\eta(r)=10^{-3}\ {\rm exp} (25\ (\dfrac{r}{R_{p}})^{2})$ & $\mathcal{P}=1.26\times 10^{21}\ Js^{-1}$  \\

839: \hline

840: $\eta(r)=10^{0} {\rm exp} (25\ (\dfrac{r}{R_{p}})^{2})$ & $\mathcal{P}=2.7\times 10^{21}\ Js^{-1}$ \\

841: \hline

842: $\eta(r)=10^{3}\ {\rm exp} (25\ (\dfrac{r}{R_{p}})^{2})$ & $\mathcal{P}=2.18\times 10^{21}\ Js^{-1}$ \\

843: \hline

844: $\eta(r)=10^{5}\ {\rm exp} (25\ (\dfrac{r}{R_{p}})^{2})$ & $\mathcal{P}=1.71\times 10^{21}\ Js^{-1}$ \\

845: \hline

846: $\eta(r)=10^{7}\ {\rm exp} (25\ (\dfrac{r}{R_{p}})^{2})$ & $\mathcal{P}=1.12\times 10^{21}\ Js^{-1}$ \\

847: \hline

848: $\eta(r)=10^{9}\ {\rm exp} (25\ (\dfrac{r}{R_{p}})^{2})$ & $\mathcal{P}=2.33\times 10^{20}\ Js^{-1}$ \\

849: \hline

850: $\eta(r)=10^{10}\ {\rm exp} (25\ (\dfrac{r}{R_{p}})^{2})$ & $\mathcal{P}=2.5\times 10^{19}\ Js^{-1}$ \\

851: \hline

852: $\eta(r)=10^{12}\ {\rm exp} (25\ (\dfrac{r}{R_{p}})^{2})$ & $\mathcal{P}=2.5\times 10^{17}\ Js^{-1}$  \\

853: \hline

854: \end{tabular}

855: \end{center}

856: \caption{Table giving $\mathcal{P}$ as a function of $\eta$, where the

857: value of $\eta$ is artificially modified from the value

858: computed in section \S4}

859: \label{artificially modified eta}

860: \end{table}

861: 

862: 

863: These results indicate that the energy dissipation rate is insensitive

864: to a change in the amplitude of the conductivity by several orders of

865: magnitude (this conclusion is in agreement with a conjecture that

866: Campbell made (C83)). A high conductivity increases the energy

867: dissipation in a given volume, but it also tends to prevent the

868: magnetic field from penetrating inside the planet. On the other hand,

869: a lower conductivity corresponds to less dissipation per unit of

870: volume, but it also allows the field to penetrate deeper inside the

871: planet (and therefore increasing the volume where energy can be

872: dissipated).

873: 

874: The skin depth (for reasonable values of $\eta(r)$) is of order

875: $\delta=\sqrt{\dfrac{\eta}{\omega}}$.  For $\eta(r)=10^{3}{\rm

876: exp}\left[25\left( \dfrac{x}{R_{p}} \right)^{2} \right]$ and

877: $\omega=10^{-5}s^{-1}$, we have $\delta(r_{pn}) \approx 4\times

878: 10^{7}m$ (we define $r_{pn}$ to be the radius of penetration, or the

879: radius to which the magnetic field can diffuse inside the

880: planet). This estimate is consistent with the numerical values of

881: $G_{l}(r)$ inside the planet (see figure 2) in which

882: we find that $G_{1}(r)$ for $r< r_{pn} \simeq 6.5\times 10^{7}m$ is

883: negligibly small compared to its value elsewhere.

884: 

885: These considerations suggest that the total rate of energy dissipation

886: is well determined though the location where it occurs is less well

887: established due to the uncertainties in $\eta$. Moreover, with our

888: definition $\omega=\omega_{\star}-\Omega_{p}$, $\omega$ is positive

889: outside corrotation and negative inside corrotation. However the ohmic

890: dissipation rate inside the planet $\mathcal{P}$ only depends on the

891: absolute value of $\omega$.

892: 

893: \subsection{Energy source and direct influence on the planet's orbit.}

894: 

895: The induced current $\mathbf{J}$ deduced in

896: the previous section is due to the diffusion of a time dependent

897: magnetic field.  This time dependence comes from the relative motion

898: of the planet's orbit and the stellar magnetosphere. Thus, the ohmic

899: dissipation must be supplied by the orbital kinetic energy of the

900: planet and the rotational energy of the star.  Our stated goal in the

901: introduction is to consider whether the migration of some planets may

902: be halted by their magnetic coupling with their rapidly spinning

903: magnetized host stars.  In the case where $\omega_\ast > \Omega_p$,

904: the rotational energy of the star is transferred to the total orbital

905: energy of the planet and provides a supply for the ohmic

906: dissipation. The torque T associated with the ohmic dissipation  

907: is linked with the ohmic dissipation rate $\mathcal{P}$ and the relative angular velocity $\omega$ 

908: according to the following equation (cf. C83, eq. 55),

909: \begin{equation}

910: \mathcal{P}=-\omega |T|.     

911: \label{torque}

912: \end{equation}

913: 

914: Since the transfer of angular momentum requires the

915: torque associated with the ohmic dissipation, a similar fraction of

916: energy is being transfered to the planet's orbit and supplied to the

917: ohmic dissipation.  For this purpose, we qualitatively compare the

918: magnitude of $\mathcal{P}(t)$ with the rate of energy change needed

919: stall the migration of a protoplanet. A detailed computation on the

920: orbital evolution of the planet will be presented in Paper III.

921: 

922: For illustration purpose, we first consider the power associated with

923: the migration ($P_{mig}$) of a planet with a 0.63 Jupiter mass and a

924: 1.4 Jupiter radius toward a sun-like star.  At any semi major axis

925: $a$, the total energy of the Keplerian orbit is $|E| = G M_p M_s/2a$.

926: If its orbit decays on a characteristic planet-disk interaction time

927: scale ($\tau_{\rm mig}$) of about 3 million years, the torque needed

928: to halt the planet's migration would correspond to a power $P_{mig}$

929: such that

930: \begin{center}

931: $P_{mig} = |\dot E| \simeq \dfrac{\mathcal{G}

932: M_{p} M_{\star}}{2\ a\ \tau} \simeq 7.4\ \times 10^{22} Js^{-1} $.

933: \label{migration kinetic power}

934: \end{center}

935: Since this power is more than an order of magnitude larger than the

936: time average value of $\mathcal{P}$ (see Table 1), it seems,

937: therefore, not possible for the magnetic coupling to directly stall

938: the planet's migration at a 0.04 AU Keplerian orbit within a few

939: millions years, even in the limit of a positive $\omega$.  

940: 

941: However in the model we have considered here, $\mathcal{P}\propto B^2

942: \propto m^2 a^{-6}$.  The power needed to drive the planet to

943: migration with a specified speed is proportional to $a^{-2}$ (these

944: scalings are confirmed by numerical calculations that neglect any

945: changes in the relative frequencies $\omega$ and the planetary

946: internal structure). It means that there is a semi-major axis

947: $a_{stop} (\sim 0.01$AU) at which $\mathcal{P}$ and $P_{mig}$ are

948: comparable.  This distance is comparable to the radius of a typical T

949: Tauri stars.  Note that the requirement for $\omega_\ast > \Omega_p$

950: also implies that the planet must be outside the corotation

951: radius. This condition is satisfied only in a disk with a low gas

952: accretion rate around a rapidly spinning and weakly magnetized

953: stars. In paper II, we will consider such a model for the newly

954: discovered planet around TW Hyd (Setiawan {\it et al.} 2008).  Under

955: these circumstances, the planet-star magnetic interaction may also

956: be overwhelmed by their tidal interaction.  

957: 

958: \section{Planetary inflation and mass loss}

959: In this section, we propose that ohmic dissipation in the planet's

960: interior can indirectly halt its migration.  The main physical

961: mechanisms involve the heating of the planet's interior, its inflation

962: and mass loss through Roche lobe overflow, and angular momentum

963: transfer from the transferred material to the orbit of the planet.

964: 

965: Up to now, we have computed the planet's conductivity for one

966: particular set of parameters ($M_{p}$, $a$, etc.), and the corresponding ohmic energy

967: dissipation inside the planet due to the star's magnetic field.

968: Although, this dissipation rate for most close-in planets is generally

969: too small to directly provide the power needed to halt their migration

970: over the time scale of a few Myr, it can modify their internal

971: structure.

972: 

973: The ohmic dissipation is likely to increase the temperature, the ionization

974: fraction, and the conductivity around the region where most of the

975: dissipation occurs.  In principle, the extra energy source would

976: reduce the skin depth. However, the envelope of the young planet is

977: likely to be fully convective, similar to the low-mass main sequence

978: secondary in interacting binaries.  Campbell (C83) suggested that the

979: dominant diffusivity may be due to turbulence (Cowling 1981).  In

980: \S\ref{sec:skin}, we have already indicated that even though the skin

981: depth may be affected by the magnitude of the diffusivity, the total

982: energy dissipation rate in the planet's interior is not sensitively

983: determined by the profile of $\eta$.

984: 

985: Nevertheless, the heat released by the dissipation is comparable to

986: that associated with the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction during the early

987: stage of the planet's evolution (Bodenheimer, Lin, Mardling 2001 (BLM)).  In

988: the proximity of its host star, this extra energy source may cause a

989: planet to inflat beyond its Hill's radius and lose mass (Gu {\it et

990: al.} 2004).  

991: 

992: In the following sections (\S\S5-7), we adopt an idealized and

993: self-consistent model of the planet's internal structure.  This

994: approach allows us to compute the conductivity of the planet for

995: different sets of parameters. Considering the low dependence 

996: of the total ohmic dissipation $\mathcal{P}$ on $\eta$, an idealized but versatile

997: prescription is adequate for the computation of $\mathcal{P}$ and the

998: mass loss rate ($\dot M$) for different values of the important

999: parameters (the planet's mass and radius, the star's mass, luminosity,

1000: and dipolar magnetic field strength, the tilt between the magnetic 

1001: dipole and the stellar spinning axis, and the relative orbital period).  In

1002: \S5, we show how the mass loss rate $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ is

1003: related to the ohmic dissipation $\mathcal{P}$.  In \S6, we describe the

1004: model we used for the planet's interior and in \S7 we calculate $\mathcal{P}$

1005: and $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ for different sets of parameters.

1006: 

1007: \subsection{A qualitative description}

1008: The planet receives energy, at its surface, from the star's radiation

1009: and, in the interior, from the ohmic dissipation. The surface heating

1010: diffuses inwards until an isothermal structure is established in the

1011: planet's outer envelope. But, well below the surface region, the heat

1012: flux is generated by the planet's Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction and

1013: ohmic dissipation and transported by convection.  In the limit that

1014: convection is efficient, the envelope attains a constant entropy

1015: profile. For computational simplicity, we adopt an isothermal model

1016: near the surface of the planet and a polytrope model for its deep

1017: interior. 

1018: 

1019: There are two regions of interest. Very close to the host star, the

1020: ohmic dissipation rate is larger than that ($L_p= L_\ast (R_p/2a)^2$)

1021: due to the stellar irradiation ($L_\ast$) received by the planet. In

1022: this limit, the planet would rapidly expand beyond its Roche lobe and

1023: become tidally disrupted. In accordance with the results of the

1024: previous section, (in which the effect of $\mathcal{P}$ on the

1025: internal structure of the planet has been neglected), $\mathcal{P}

1026: \propto a^{-6}$ and $L_p \propto a^{-2}$.  Thus, the stellar heating

1027: dominates at larger semi major axis. In this section, we consider the

1028: effect of planet's inflation due to the ohmic dissipation and show

1029: that $\mathcal{P}$ also increases with the planetary radius $R_p$ at

1030: nearly the same rate as $L_p (\propto R_p^2)$. Thus, during the

1031: thermal expansion of the planet, the ratio of $L_p/\mathcal{P}$ does

1032: not change.  In the region where $L_p > \mathcal{P}$, the effective

1033: temperature at the planet's surface, with or without the contribution

1034: from the ohmic dissipation remains to be the equilibrium value $T_p$.

1035: But, the planet's radius for thermal equilibrium increases with

1036: $\mathcal{P}$ which adds to the energy generation in the planet's

1037: interior (BLM). If the new equilibrium $R_p$ is larger than the

1038: planet's Roche radius, $R_H$, mass would be lost gradually through

1039: Roche overflow.

1040: 

1041: \subsection{Mass loss rate} 

1042: \label{mass loss rate section}

1043: We now derive the equations that will allow us to calculate the mass

1044: loss rate $\dot M$ and angular momentum transfer rate as functions of

1045: $\mathcal{P}$. We are in the second region where the ohmic dissipation is less

1046: than the radiation flux from the star ($\mathcal{P} \leqslant  L_{p}$), and we set the Bond albedo to zero. 

1047: We therefore assume that the

1048: equilibrium temperature at the surface of the planet is fixed by the

1049: radiation from the star $T_{p}^{4}=\frac{L_{star}}{16\pi\ \sigma_{r}\

1050: a^{2}}$ ($L_{star}$ the total luminosity of the star, $\sigma_{r}~=~

1051: 5.67\times 10^{-8}~Js^{-1}m^{-2}T^{-4}$), and that the ohmic dissipation

1052: provides the additional energy to inflate the planet.

1053: 

1054: An irradiated short-period planet establishes an isothermal surface

1055: layer. The hot interior continues to transport heat to this region and

1056: then radiates to infinity with a luminosity $L_i$ despite the surface

1057: heating. Note that

1058: \begin{equation}

1059: L_i < <  L_p = 4 \pi \sigma_{r} T_p^4 R_p^2

1060: \end{equation}

1061: so that the modification to $T_p$ is negligible.  The magnitude of

1062: $L_i$ is a function of $R_p$, $M_p$, $T_p$, and the existence of the

1063: core.  We have previous computed an equilibrium model for the

1064: parameters for several short-period planets (BLM). 

1065: In the range [$10^{-8} L_\odot 10^{-5} L_\odot$],

1066: the numerical results of BLM can be approximated by 

1067: \begin{equation}

1068: {\rm log} {R_p \over R_\odot}  = A (M_p)

1069: + B(M_p) {\rm log} {L_i \over L_\odot} 

1070: + C(M_p) \left( {\rm log} {L_i \over L_\odot} \right)^2.

1071: \label{eq:req}

1072: \end{equation}

1073: For HD209458b (the $0.63 M_J$

1074: model we presented in the previous section), (A, B, C)= (3.11, 1.01,

1075: 0.0642).  BLM also determined the value of these coefficients for more

1076: massive planets around a solar type star (they are modified by the

1077: stellar irradiation so that they are also function of $M_\star$).  The

1078: planet's radius $R_p$ would contract unless there is an adequate energy

1079: source to replenish its loss of internal energy. If the ohmic

1080: dissipation can provide such a source, $R_p=R_e$ and $L_i = \mathcal{P}$ in a

1081: thermal equilibrium.

1082: 

1083: At a=0.04 AU, the Roche radius of the planet is 

1084: \begin{equation}

1085: R_H=a\left(\dfrac{M_{p}}{3M_{\star}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.

1086: \label{definition hill's radius}

1087: \end{equation}

1088: From equation(\ref{eq:req}), we find that the equilibrium $R_e \sim

1089: R_H$ if $L_i \sim 10^{-5} L_\odot$ which is approximately the value of

1090: $\mathcal{P} (\sim 10^{21}$ J s$^{-1})$ we have determined for HD209458b.  During

1091: the planet and star's infancy, this planet would inflate to fill its

1092: Roche lobe when it has migrated to this location.

1093: 

1094: Outside $\sim 0.04$ AU, $\mathcal{P}$ decreases rapidly with

1095: $a$. Consequently, $R_p$ reduces to the value which is essentially not

1096: modified by the ohmic heating. For the calculation presented in the

1097: previous section, we neglected the inflation of the planet. In the

1098: next section, we construct a self consistent model taking into account

1099: of the modification of the dissipation rate due to the internal

1100: structural changes.  For $a=0.04$ AU, the intense ohmic dissipation

1101: rate (with $L_i = \mathcal{P} \simeq 2 \times 10^{21}$J s$^{-1}$)

1102: modifies the planet's internal structure and inflates its radius to

1103: $R_e \sim 0.5 R_\odot$.  The inflation is more severe at $a < 0.04$ AU

1104: because $\mathcal{P}$ is a rapidly decreasing function of $a$.  If

1105: $R_e >R_H$ at this location, the planet would overflow its Roche lobe

1106: and loss mass.  For the rest of this paper, we assume that the we are

1107: in the case where the planet fills its Roche lobe, \textit{i.e.}

1108: $R_{p}=R_{H}$

1109: 

1110: Two remarks are appropriate here. Firstly, in order for the Roche lobe

1111: overflow to provide angular momentum, the actual shape of the Roche

1112: lobe should be taken into account. However, for computational

1113: simplicity, we adopt in this paper a spherically symmetric

1114: approximation (refer to Gu, Bodenheimer, Lin 2003 for a detailed study

1115: (GBL)). Secondly, we have only considered the contribution of ohmic

1116: dissipation $\mathcal{P}$ to the planetary inflation. The tidal

1117: (gravitational) interaction between the star and the planet can also

1118: significantly enhance the planet's inflation in some cases. More

1119: precisely, this tidal interaction can be strong for small semi-major

1120: axis (the tidal effect varies as $a^{-13/2}$) and for large radius

1121: (thus, the more inflated the planet, the stronger this effect

1122: becomes).

1123: 

1124: \subsection{The governing equations}

1125: Mass loss process is initiated when $R_{e} \geq R_{H}$. 

1126: In this limit, a contiuous flow would be

1127: established in which the inflation of the envelope's drives a steady

1128: supply of gas to the Roche lobe region.  Well inside the Roche lobe,

1129: the gravitational potential is primarily determined by the mass of the

1130: planet $M_{p}$: $\phi_{g}=-\frac{GM_{p}}{r}$, but near $R_H$, we need

1131: to take into account of both the planet and the star.  In a frame which 

1132: corotates with the planet, the gravitational potential U(r) 

1133: \begin{equation}

1134: U(r)=\dfrac{-GM_{\star}}{a}\left[\left(1-\dfrac{M_{p}}{M_{\star}}\right)\ 

1135: \left(\dfrac{a}{a-r}+\dfrac{(a-r)^{2}}{2a^{2}}\right)+\dfrac{M_{p}}

1136: {M_{\star}}\left(\dfrac{a}{r}+\dfrac{r^{2}}{2a^{2}}\right)\right]

1137: \label{expression of U}

1138: \end{equation}

1139: where $r$ is the distance to the center of the planet. The value of

1140: $R_H$ is determined from ${dU}/{dr}(R_H)=0$.

1141: 

1142: In principle, this potential introduces a complex multi-dimensional

1143: flow pattern, especially near the Roche lobe.  But the expansion of

1144: the envelope originates deep in the envelope where the ohmic

1145: dissipation occurs.  In this region, spherical symmetry is adequate.

1146: Near the Roche lobe, we adopt the results obtained by GBL. 

1147: For computational convenience, we neglect the planet's spin.

1148: 

1149: We consider a low-velocity quasi-hydrostatic expansion of the envelope.

1150: Under this gravitational potential in eq. (\ref{expression of U}), the

1151: radial component of the hydrodynamics momentum equation for a volume

1152: of gas is reduced to:

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: \upsilon\dfrac{d\upsilon}{dr}(r)+\dfrac{1}{\rho(r)}\dfrac{dP}{dr}(r)

1155: =-\dfrac{1}{\rho(r)}\dfrac{dU}{dr}(r)

1156: \label{momentum 1}

1157: \end{equation}

1158: where $v$ is the radial velocity.  The radial component of the

1159: equation of mass conservation: $\nabla (\rho (r) \upsilon(r))=0$ gives

1160: $r^{2}\rho (r)\upsilon(r)=Constant$, and then the mass loss rate

1161: $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ is constant:

1162: \begin{equation}

1163: \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}=4\pi\ r^{2}\rho (r)\upsilon(r)=Constant

1164: \label{definition mass loss rate}

1165: \end{equation}

1166: or equivalently,

1167: $\dfrac{1}{\rho}\dfrac{d\rho}{dr}=-\dfrac{1}{r^{2}\upsilon}

1168: \dfrac{dr^{2}\upsilon}{dr}$. Then using $\dfrac{dP}{dr} =\dfrac{dP}

1169: {d\rho}\dfrac{d\rho}{dr} =\dfrac{d\rho}{dr}c_{s}^{2}$ ($c_{s}^{2}(r)$

1170: is the sound speed), the momentum equation becomes:

1171: \begin{eqnarray}

1172: \left(1-\dfrac{c_{s}^{2}}{\upsilon^{2}}\right)\dfrac{d}{dr}

1173: \left(\dfrac{\upsilon^{2}}{2}\right)&=&-\dfrac{1}{\rho}

1174: \dfrac{dU}{dr}\left(1-\dfrac{2c_{s}^{2}\rho}{r}

1175: \dfrac{1}{\frac{dU}{dr}}\right) .

1176: \label{momentum equation}

1177: \end{eqnarray}

1178: At a (sonic) radius $r_{2}$ near the inner Langragian point, the flow

1179: velocity becomes comparable to the sound speed (GBL) {\i.e.}

1180: \begin{equation}

1181: \upsilon(r_{2})=c_{s}(r_{2}).

1182: \end{equation}

1183: where the magnitude of $r_{2}$ is the largest solution of

1184: $(r^{2}-rR_{H}+\frac{2c_{s}^{2}a^{3}}{LGM_{\star}})=0$, with

1185: \begin{equation} 

1186: L=\left(1-\dfrac{M_{p}}{M_{\star}}\right)\ \left(\dfrac{2a^{3}}{(a-R_{H})^{3}}+1\right) 

1187: + \dfrac{M_{p}}{M_{\star}}\left(2\left(\dfrac{a}{R_{H}}\right)^{3}+1\right)\simeq 9 \label{l}.

1188: \end{equation}

1189: 

1190: The expansion rate is determined by the rate of ohmic energy

1191: dissipation within the planet. In a steady state, the energy equation

1192: reduces to

1193: \begin{equation}

1194: \dfrac{1}{r^{2}}\dfrac{d}{dr}\left[r^{2}\rho(r)\upsilon(r)\left(

1195: \dfrac{\upsilon^{2}}{2}+h(r)+\phi_{g}(r)\right)\right]=\mathcal{P}_{vol}

1196: \label{energy equation}

1197: \end{equation}

1198: where $\mathcal{P}_{vol}$ is the volumic ohmic energy dissipation, and

1199: $\phi_{g}$ the gravitational potential (of the planet only or of both

1200: the planet and the star, depending on the location).  In this

1201: approximation, we assume that the distribution of enthalpy $h$ is

1202: determined by both efficient convective transport (in term of an

1203: abiabat) and radiative diffusion inside the planet.

1204: 

1205: Using equation (\ref{definition mass loss rate}), we replace 

1206: $r^{2}\rho(r)\upsilon(r)$ by $\dfrac{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}{4\pi}$ 

1207: in eq. \ref{energy equation}. We then can then integrate

1208: equation (\ref{energy equation}) between the radius $r_{pn}$

1209: (the radius at which the field can no longer penetrate into the

1210: planet) and $r_{2}$ so that

1211: \begin{equation}

1212: \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}\left(\dfrac{\upsilon^{2}}{2}(r_{2})-

1213: \dfrac{\upsilon^{2}}{2}(r_{pn})+h(r_{2})-h(r_{pn})

1214: +\phi_{g}(r_{2})-\phi_{g}(r_{pn})\right)=\int

1215: 4\pi r^{2}\mathcal{P}_{vol}(r)dr=\mathcal{P}.

1216: \label{eq:eofw}

1217: \end{equation}

1218: Within an order of magnitude, $\bigtriangleup(h)\approx-\dfrac{1}{3}

1219: \bigtriangleup(\phi_{g})$ and $\bigtriangleup(\dfrac{1}{2}v^{2})

1220: \approx\dfrac{1}{10} \bigtriangleup(\phi_{g})$ (this comes from calculating the order of magnitude of these 3 terms using an 

1221: order of magnitude for the temperature, for the sound speed, and for $r_{pn}$). In addition, the

1222: integrated energy equation is the result of an approximation as the

1223: total ohmic dissipation rate $\mathcal{P}$ should be the integral of

1224: $\mathcal{P}_{vol}$ between $r_{pn}$, and $R_{p}$ ($=R_{H}$ because we

1225: assumed that the planet fills its Roche lobe).  However, this

1226: approximation is reasonable since $h(R_{H}) =h(r_{2})$ (the surface

1227: region is approximately isothermal), $\upsilon^{2}(r_{2})\approx

1228: \upsilon^{2}(R_{H})$, and $\phi_{g}(r_{2})\approx \phi_{g}(R_{H}$

1229: because $r_{2}$ is very close to $R_{H}$).

1230: 

1231: We now can calculate $\rho(r_{2})$ and $P(r_{2})$. Equation

1232: (\ref{definition mass loss rate}) for $r=r_{2}$ with

1233: $\upsilon(r_{2})=c_{s}(r_{2})=10^{4}\sqrt{\dfrac{T}{10^{4}}}$ meters

1234: gives:

1235: \begin{eqnarray}

1236: \left\{

1237: \begin{array}{l}

1238: \rho(r_{2})=\dfrac{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}{4\pi r_{2}^{2}c_{s}(r_{2})}\\

1239: P(r_{2})=\alpha\ \rho(r_{2}) T(r_{2})\\

1240: \alpha=\dfrac{\mathcal{N}_{a}k_{B}}{\mu\mathcal{M}_{H}}\

1241: \label{values of P and volumic mass at r2}

1242: \end{array}

1243: \right.

1244: \label{P(r2)}

1245: \end{eqnarray}

1246: where $\mathcal{N}_{a}$ is the Avogadro constant, $k_{B}$ the

1247: Boltzmann constant, $\mathcal{M}_{H}$ is the hydrogen molar mass, 

1248: $\mu$ a coefficient which depend on the ionisation

1249: rate ($\mu=1$ for hydrogen atoms, and

1250: $\mu=0.5$ for fully ionized hydrogen gas, and we usually choose $\mu$ close to unity).

1251: 

1252: \section{Isothermal and polytropic model} 

1253: \label{isothermal and polytropic model}

1254: 

1255: In \S4, the permeation and dissipation of the time-dependent external

1256: field is analyzed by neglecting any resulting changes in the planet's

1257: interior.  In \S5, we show that the resulting ohmic dissipation can

1258: substantially modify the temperature and density distribution within

1259: the planet.  Increases in the ionization rate modify the skin depth

1260: and relocate the region of maximum ohmic dissipation. However, the

1261: expansion of the planet's envelope does not affect the rate of ohmic

1262: dissipation.  In this section, we present a set of approximately

1263: self-consistent calculations to analyze the feedback effect of ohmic

1264: dissipation on the planet's internal structure.

1265: 

1266: \subsection{A Roche-lobe filling structural Model}

1267: In principle, the structure of the planet should be solved numerically

1268: with the standard planetary structure equations (BLM).  However, a

1269: semi analytic model based on simplifying assumption may provide

1270: insight on the inter-dependent relation between various physical

1271: parameters.  Based on the BLM's numerical models, we approximate the

1272: internal structure of the planet with an idealized model in which the

1273: outer region is isothermal (due to the stellar irradiation) and the

1274: inner region is polytropic (due to an efficient mix of entropy by

1275: thermal convection).  In the computation of $\eta$, we only take into

1276: account the ionization of the hydrogen because the internal

1277: temperature distribution is mostly determined by heat transfer rather

1278: than heat dissipation and the rate of $\mathcal{P}$ is a relatively

1279: insensitive function of $\eta$. The advantage of this approximation is

1280: that its application for the self consistent analysis is relatively

1281: straightforward.

1282: 

1283: \begin{description}

1284: \item[The isothermal region:] it extends from the surface to a

1285: transition radius $r_{=}$ which is to be determined self consistently

1286: in \S \ref{subsection transition between the two models}.  In this

1287: region, the equation of state and the equation describing the

1288: hydrostatic equilibrium are:

1289: \begin{eqnarray}

1290: T(r)&=& {\rm Constant}, 

1291: \label{isothermal T} 

1292: \\ P(r)&=&\alpha\ \rho (r)\ T(r), \\ 

1293: \label{equation of state}

1294: \dfrac{dP}{dr}(r)&=&-\dfrac{GM_{int}(r)}{r^{2}}\rho (r), \

1295: \label{hydrostatic equilibrium}

1296: \end{eqnarray}

1297: where $\alpha=\dfrac{\mathcal{N}_{a}k_{B}}{\mu\mathcal{M}_{H}}$ and

1298: $M_{int}(r)$ is the planet's mass inside a sphere of radius r centered

1299: on the planet's center. For all practical purpose, $\rho$ is

1300: sufficiently low in the isothermal region that we can approximate

1301: $M_{int}(r) \simeq M_{planet}$ (one can verify, a posteriori, that the

1302: neglected mass is less than a few percent of the total mass). To

1303: calculate P(r), we integrate (\ref{hydrostatic equilibrium}) using

1304: (\ref{isothermal T}) and (\ref{equation of state}). We then can

1305: calculate $\rho(r)$ using (\ref{equation of state}):

1306: \begin{eqnarray}

1307: \left\{

1308: \begin{array}{l}

1309: P(r)=C\ {\rm exp} \left(\dfrac{GM_{planet}}{r}\ \dfrac{1}{\alpha

1310: T}\right) \\ 

1311: \label{P isothermal model} 

1312: \rho(r)=\dfrac{1}{\alpha T}\ C\ {\rm exp}\left(\dfrac{GM_{planet}}{r}\

1313: \dfrac{1}{\alpha T}\right)

1314: \label{volumic mass isothermal model}

1315: \end{array}

1316: \right.

1317: \label{P in isothermal region}

1318: \end{eqnarray}

1319: where $C$ is an integration constant, which value is obtained 

1320: by injecting $r_{2}$ in the previous equations. 

1321: 

1322: \item[Polytrope region:] it extends from the center of the planet to

1323: $r_{=}$.  In this region, we use the following equations:  

1324: \begin{eqnarray}

1325: P(r)&=&K\rho^{\gamma}(r), \label{polytrope equation of state} \\

1326: \dfrac{d\phi_{g}}{dr}(r)&=&\dfrac{G\ M_{int}(r)}{r^{2}}, \label{definition gravitational potential}\\

1327: \dfrac{dP}{dr}(r)&=&-\dfrac{GM_{int}(r)}{r^{2}}\rho (r) \label{polytrope hydrostatic equilibrium}\\

1328: \bigtriangleup\phi_{g}(r)&=&4\pi\ G\ \rho(r) \label{poisson equation}

1329: \end{eqnarray}

1330: where $\phi_{g}$ is the gravitational potential, and $\bigtriangleup$ 

1331: is the laplacian (in the Poisson equation). 

1332: Using equations (\ref{polytrope equation of state}) and (\ref{definition

1333: gravitational potential}), equation (\ref{polytrope hydrostatic equilibrium})

1334: becomes: $K\gamma \rho^{\gamma

1335: -1}(r)\dfrac{d\rho}{dr}(r)=-\rho(r) \dfrac{d\phi_{g}}{dr}$\\ And

1336: after integration:\ \ \ \ \ \ $\phi_{g}(r)=Constant\ -\

1337: \dfrac{K\gamma}{\gamma-1}\rho^{\gamma-1}(r)$\\ We then replace

1338: $\phi_{g}$ in the poisson equation (\ref{poisson equation}):

1339: \begin{equation}

1340: \bigtriangleup \rho^{\gamma-1}(r)=-\frac{\gamma -1}{K\ \gamma}\ 

1341: 4\pi G\rho(r)

1342: \end{equation}

1343: For the condition appropriate in the interior of planets, the equation

1344: of state is reasonably approximated by a $\gamma=2$ polytrope (de

1345: Pater \& Lissauer 2001). In spherical coordinates, the previous

1346: equation becomes:

1347: \begin{equation}

1348: \dfrac{1}{r^{2}}\dfrac{d}{dr}\left(r^{2}\dfrac{d}{dr}\rho(r)\right)

1349: =-\dfrac{2\pi G}{K}\rho(r) .

1350: \label{final poisson equation}

1351: \end{equation}

1352: This equation has an analytical solution (Ogilvie \& Lin

1353: 2004), and we can calculate $\rho(r)$, P(r) and T(r) in the region

1354: described by the polytropic equation of state:

1355: \begin{eqnarray}

1356: \left\{

1357: \begin{array}{l}

1358: \rho(r)=\rho_{0}\dfrac{\sin kr}{kr} \\ \label{volumic mass

1359: polytropic model}

1360: P(r)=K\rho^{2}(r)=K\rho_{0}^{2}\left(\dfrac{\sin kr}{kr}\right)^{2} \\

1361: \label{P polytropic model} 

1362: T(r)=\dfrac{P}{\alpha \rho}(r)=\dfrac{1}{\alpha} K\rho_{0}\dfrac{\sin kr}{kr}

1363: \\ \label{T polytropic model} k=\sqrt{\dfrac{2\pi G}{K}}.

1364: \label{relation k and K}

1365: \end{array}

1366: \right.

1367: \end{eqnarray}

1368: \end{description}

1369: 

1370: \subsection{Transition between the two models}

1371: \label{subsection transition between the two models}

1372: In principle, the transition between the two regions is determined by

1373: the onset of convection.  In the construction of hydrostatic

1374: equilibrium structure models (to be presented in Paper II), we will

1375: indeed use that condition to determine its photospheric radius.

1376: Qualitatively, we expect the transition radius which separates the two

1377: regions, $r_=$ to be larger than $r_{pn}$, because only in the

1378: region interior to $r_=$ do we expect the temperature, ionization

1379: fraction, and conductivity to be sufficiently large to halt the

1380: penetration of the field.  In a hydrostatic equilibrium, the actual

1381: value of $r_=$ is determined by the ratio of the ohmic dissipation

1382: rate in the convective region to the sum of the ohmic dissipation rate

1383: in the entire planet's interior and the stellar irradiative flux on

1384: the planet's surface.  A set of fully self-consistent solution

1385: requires the matching of the ohmic dissipation rate to be expected

1386: from the planetary structure and that which determines its density and

1387: temperature distribution (see paper II).

1388: 

1389: In the present context, we are considering the situation in which the

1390: planet's radius is constrained by its Roche lobe and the density and

1391: temperature of the outer boundary is determined by 

1392: equation(\ref{P(r2)}). In this configuration, heat is also transported

1393: by advection which modifies the location of $r_=$.  Moreover, the

1394: density ratio between the planet's center and the outer boundary is

1395: much larger than the temperature ratio.  Therefore, the polytropic

1396: region cannot fill the entire interior region.  Since the pressure

1397: scale height on the planet's surface is much smaller than its radius,

1398: the isothermal region also cannot occur in the entire planet's interior

1399: while containing all of its mass. Instead, the planet's interior

1400: adjusts to attain a balance between the requirement of mass loading

1401: and constraints set by hydrostatic equilibrium for appropriate

1402: equations of state.  

1403:  

1404: In order to construct such an equilibrium model, we now determine

1405: $\rho_{0}$ and k at $r_{=}$ where the transition between the two

1406: regions occur. There are three equations that constrain these parameters:

1407: $T_{isothermal}(r_{=}) =T_{polytropic}(r_{=})$, $P_{isothermal}(r_{=})

1408: =P_{polytropic}(r_{=})$, and the total mass is constant. The first two

1409: conditions also imply

1410: $\rho_{isothermal}(r_{=})=\rho_{polytropic}(r_{=})$.  Therefore, we

1411: solve the following equations for $\rho_{0}$, k, and $r_{=}$:

1412: \begin{eqnarray}

1413: \left\{

1414: \begin{array}{l}

1415: k^{2}=\dfrac{2\pi G\ C}{(\alpha T)^{2}} {\rm exp}\left(

1416: \dfrac{GM_{\rm planet}}{\alpha T\ r}\right)\\

1417: \rho_{0}=\dfrac{\alpha T}{2\pi G}\ k^{2}\

1418: \dfrac{kr_{=}}{\sin kr_{=}} \\ \int_0^a 4\pi

1419: r^{2}\rho_{\rm polytropic}(r)dr\ +\ \int_a^R 4\pi

1420: r^{2}\rho_{\rm isothermal}(r)dr=M_{p}.

1421: \end{array}

1422: \right.

1423: \label{3 unknowns}

1424: \end{eqnarray}

1425: 

1426: By assuming an isothermal structure in the outer envelope,

1427: we have neglected an outward heat flux.  This approximation is

1428: only adequate if the dissipation rate is above that which is

1429: need to inflat $R_{p}$ to the planet's Roche radius.  If this

1430: condition is not satisfied, the planet's radius would attain

1431: equilibrium values for which the surface cooling is balanced by the

1432: Ohmic dissipation and stellar irradiation. We will construct, in Paper II,

1433: the equivalent of equation 21 (for a 0.63 $M_{\odot}$ planet) which takes into

1434: account the effect of ohmic dissipation in the planetary interior.

1435: 

1436: Whereas the temperature on the planet's surface is determined by the

1437: stellar irradiation, the density at $r_2=R_H$ is determined by the

1438: magnitude of $\dot M$ (through equation \ref{P(r2)}) which in term is

1439: determined by the rate of ohmic energy dissipation $\mathcal{P}$ (see \S

1440: \ref{sec:selfcon}).

1441: 

1442: For very large values of $\mathcal{P}$, a set of fully self-consistent solutions

1443: also modifies the temperature at the disk surface as well as the

1444: thermal content of the outflowing gas. However, provided $\mathcal{P}$ is small

1445: compared with the stellar irradiative flux, a transition for

1446: convective stability occurs near $r_=$.  

1447: 

1448: \subsection{Calculation of the magnetic diffusivity}

1449: With these internal structure specified, we consider Saha's equation

1450: for the hydrogen atoms which gives the ionization

1451: fraction $x$ (Kippenhahn \& Weigertal, pages 107-111):

1452: \begin{equation}

1453: \dfrac{x^{2}}{1-x^{2}}=K_{H}=\dfrac{1}{P(r)}\dfrac{(2\pi m_{e})^{

1454: \frac{3}{2}}}{h^{3}}(kT)^{\frac{5}{2}}exp\left(-\frac{E}{kT}\right) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

1455:  \label{kh}

1456: \end{equation}

1457: where the ionization energy of hydrogen is $E=13.6eV$. We also

1458: neglect here the radiation pressure as we write $P_{gas}(r)=P(r)$.

1459: 

1460: If the ionization fraction $x$ is small, $x^{2}\approx K_{H}$ (this is typically the case 

1461: in the region where the ohmic dissipation occurs).  We use

1462: $\sigma=\dfrac{N_{e}e^{2}}{m_{e}\nu_{e}}$, with 

1463: $\nu_{e}=N_{n}10^{-19}(\dfrac{128kT}{9\pi m_{e}})^{\dfrac{1}{2}}$.  

1464: 

1465: The electric conductivity we would obtain 

1466: does not take into account higher ionization states or the ionization 

1467: of elements other than hydrogen atoms. We then use for the following 

1468: calculations an electric conductivity that is 10 times higher than 

1469: that we would obtain with the Saha equation (eq. (\ref{kh})) for the hydrogen atom only. 

1470: We saw in table 1 that the ohmic dissipation rate was quite insensitive to the 

1471: magnetic diffusivity $\eta(r)=(\mu_{0}\sigma(r))$, and we verified that this is also the case with 

1472: the internal model we used for the planet in sections 5 to 8  

1473: (for example, in this model, a uniform change in the magnetic diffusivity by a factor 10 changes 

1474: $\mathcal{P}$ and $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ by less than 20\%, and  

1475: a uniform change in the magnetic diffusivity by a factor 100 changes 

1476: $\mathcal{P}$ and $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ by less than 40\%).

1477: 

1478: We then obtain the following expression for the magnetic diffusivity inside

1479: the planet: 

1480: \begin{equation}

1481: \eta(r)=1.28\times 10^{-2}\frac{\sqrt{P(r)}}{T^{\frac{3}{4}}(r)}exp\left(\frac{78909}{T}\right). \label{eta}

1482: \end{equation}

1483: where T(r) and P(r) are the temperature and pressure of

1484: the isothermal or polytropic region, depending on the radius r.

1485: 

1486: \section{Ohmic dissipation rate and the mass loss rate for 

1487: different sets of parameters} 

1488: \label{sec:selfcon}

1489: With the above idealized prescription for the planet's internal

1490: structure, we now calcultate self-consistently the ohmic dissipation

1491: rate $\mathcal{P}$ inside the planet as well as the mass loss rate

1492: $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$.

1493: 

1494: \subsection{Parameters involved in the calculation}

1495: The model parameters involved in the calculation of the ohmic

1496: dissipation rate inside the planet are: 1) the planet's mass $M_{p}$,

1497: 2) semi-major axis $a$, 3) the relative angular velocity $\omega$ (the

1498: angular velocity of the field seen in a frame centered on the star and

1499: rotating with the planet), 4) the strength of the star's magnetic

1500: dipole moment $m$, and 5) the angle $\alpha$ between the spin axis of

1501: the star and the star's magnetic dipole.

1502: 

1503: We use the isothermal and polytropic prescription described in the

1504: previous section to model the planet's internal structure and

1505: calculate the conductivity profile inside the planet. To do so, we

1506: also need to specify 6) the mass of the star $M_{\star}$, and 7) the

1507: star's luminosity $\L_{\star}$.

1508: 

1509: \subsection{Methodology}

1510: The construction of a self-consistent model requires a loop of

1511: retroaction involving the determination of the internal structure of

1512: the planet and that of the ohmic energy dissipation.  For a specified

1513: internal structure of the planet, one can compute (following \S3) the

1514: conductivity profile and then the total ohmic dissipation rate

1515: $\mathcal{P}$. However, this energy dissipated inside the planet

1516: corresponds to an input of heat, which triggers an adjustment in the

1517: planet's internal parameters. Due to the efficient convection inside

1518: the planet, we assume that the adjustment of the internal parameters

1519: to this external heating is quick.  We consider that the

1520: characteristic time scale for the planet to evolve from one

1521: equilibrium state to another is small compared to the variation time

1522: scale of the seven parameters mentioned in the previous

1523: paragraph. Therefore, we do not need to follow the planet's dynamical

1524: evolution at all times. Instead, we can take a series of "snap shots"

1525: of the planet in its equilibrium state for different set of

1526: parameters.

1527: 

1528: Because of this feedback loop between the ohmic dissipation rate and

1529: the planet's internal parameters, we use an iterative method. For any

1530: chosen set of parameters, we start from an estimate for the ohmic

1531: dissipation rate $\mathcal{P}_{0}$ and internal structure $T_{0}(r)$,

1532: $P_{0}(r)$, and $\rho_{0}(r)$ corresponding to a magnetic diffusivity

1533: profile $\eta_{0}(r)$ (In our parametric analyses, we typically make

1534: small incremental changes in the model parameters from those for which

1535: we have already obtained equilibrium values).  We then compute the new

1536: internal structure $T_{1}(r)$, $P_{1}(r)$, and $\rho_{1}(r)$

1537: associated with $\mathcal{P}_{0}$. This enables us to compute the

1538: corresponding magnetic diffusivity $\eta_{1}(r)$. Finally, we use

1539: $\eta_{1}(r)$ to calculate the corresponding ohmic dissipation rate

1540: $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ and mass loss rate $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M_{1}}$.

1541: This process is iterated until convergence of $\mathcal{P}$,

1542: $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$, and of the internal parameters. Moreover,

1543: for some specific set of parameters $M_{p}$, $a$, $\omega$, $m$,

1544: $\sin(\alpha)$, $M_{\star}$, $L_{\star}$), we have started the

1545: iterative process from two different initial states in order to verify

1546: that they both converge to the same solution. Therefore, the iterative

1547: process does converge to a unique solution.

1548: 

1549: We consider the following fiducial model in which the mass of the planet and semi-major axis corresponds to 

1550: HD 209458 b, and in which the other parameters are reasonable ones for the type of systems considered. 

1551: An estimate of the order of magnitude for the strength of the magnetic dipole can be found in Johns-Krull 2007. 

1552: \begin{flushleft}

1553: \textbf{Mass of the planet:} $M_{p}=0.63\ M_{J}=1.26\times 10^{27}\

1554: kg$, \\ \textbf{Semi-major axis:} $a=0.04\ AU=6\times 10^{9}\ m$, \\

1555: \textbf{Relative angular velocity:} $\omega=10^{-5}\ s^{-1}$, \\

1556: \textbf{Star's magnetic dipole:} $m=4\times 10^{34}\ A\ m^{2}$, \\

1557: \textbf{Value of the tilt of the magnetic dipole:} $\sin(\alpha)=1$,

1558: \\ \textbf{Mass of the star:} $M_{\star}=M_{\odot}=2\times 10^{30}\

1559: kg$, \\ \textbf{Luminosity of the star:} $\L_{\star}=1.5\

1560: L_{\odot}=5.7\times 10^{26}$ W. \\

1561: \end{flushleft}

1562: 

1563: \subsection{Computation of $\mathcal{P}$ and $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$, 

1564: plots, and mathematical relations}

1565: 

1566: We present seven groups of plots (figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), one

1567: group for each parameter mentioned just above. For each group, we vary

1568: one parameter (x-axis), while keeping the others at the reference

1569: values mentioned above. On the y-axis, we plotted the ohmic

1570: dissipation rate $\mathcal{P}$, mass loss rate

1571: $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$, and characteristic time scale $\tau_M =

1572: \dfrac{M}{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}$. Note that the magnitude of 

1573: $\tau_M \sim$ for a Jupiter mass planet is about 1Myr. In addition, 

1574: the mass loss rate determined here is many orders of magnitude larger than

1575: that due to photo evaporation.  Only with such large mass loss rate, can we

1576: compensate for the angular momentum transfer due to the planet-disk

1577: and planet-star tidal interaction.

1578: 

1579: We emphasize once again that in the construction of these models, we

1580: assume that there is adequate energy dissipation to inflate the planet

1581: with $R_e > R_H$. In later papers that use the roche-filling model, we verify

1582: that $\mathcal{P} (R_H) > L_i (R_{H})$ before these results are

1583: applied.  If this condition is not satisfied, the planet would not

1584: fill its Roche lobe and not lose mass.

1585: 

1586: 

1587: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1588: \begin{center}

1589: \epsscale{0.65}

1590: \plotone{f3}  

1591: \end{center}

1592: \label{Varying mass of planet}

1593: \caption{Ohmic dissipation rate, mass loss rate, and time scale for

1594: different planetary masses}

1595: \end{figure} 

1596: 

1597: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1598: \begin{center}

1599: \epsscale{0.65}

1600: \plotone{f4}  

1601: \label{Varying semi-major axis of the planet}

1602: \end{center}

1603: \caption{Ohmic dissipation rate, mass loss rate, and 

1604: time scale for different semi-major axies}

1605: \end{figure} 

1606: 

1607: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1608: \begin{center}

1609: \epsscale{0.65}

1610: \plotone{f5}  

1611: \label{Varying the relative angular velocity}

1612: \end{center}

1613: \caption{Ohmic dissipation rate, mass loss rate, and 

1614: time scale for different relative angular velocities}

1615: \end{figure} 

1616: 

1617: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1618: \begin{center}

1619: \epsscale{0.65}

1620: \plotone{f6}  

1621: \label{Varying the star magnetic moment}

1622: \end{center}

1623: \caption{Ohmic dissipation rate, mass loss rate, 

1624: and time scale for different stellar magnetic moment}

1625: \end{figure}

1626: 

1627: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1628: \begin{center}

1629: \epsscale{0.65}

1630: \plotone{f7}  

1631: \end{center}

1632: \caption{Ohmic dissipation rate, mass loss rate, 

1633: and time scale for different tilt of the stellar magnetic dipole 

1634: with regard to the stellar spin axis}

1635: \label{Varying sin}

1636: \end{figure}

1637: 

1638: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1639: \begin{center}

1640: \epsscale{0.65}

1641: \plotone{f8}  

1642: \label{Varying the stellar mass}

1643: \end{center}

1644: \caption{Ohmic dissipation rate, mass loss rate, 

1645: and time scale for different stellar masses}

1646: \end{figure}

1647: 

1648: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1649: \begin{center}

1650: \epsscale{0.65}

1651: \plotone{f9}  

1652: \label{Varying the stellar total flux}

1653: \end{center}

1654: \caption{Ohmic dissipation rate, mass loss rate, and time scale 

1655: for different stellar total flux}

1656: \end{figure}

1657: 

1658: 

1659: From each group of plots, we obtain $\mathcal{P}$ and

1660: $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ as a function of the parameter that is

1661: being varied (all the others are kept constant at the value of the

1662: fiducial model given above).  These functions are given in the table

1663: below (table \ref{functions}).

1664: 

1665: 

1666: \begin{table}[htbp]

1667: \begin{center}

1668: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1669: \hline

1670: Ohmic dissipation rate $\mathcal{P}$ and mass loss rate $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ & Varying Parameter   \\

1671: \hline

1672: $\mathcal{P}_{1} = 3.3\times 10^{21}\ \left(\frac{M_{p}}{0.63\ M_{J}}\right)^{2.16}$ W&

1673: $0.25\ M_{J} \leq M_{p} \leq 1.7\ M_{J}$  \\

1674: $ \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}_{1} = 1.2\times 10^{13}\ \left(\frac{M_{p}}{0.63\ M_{J}}\right)^{2.4} {\rm kg \ s}^{-1}$  & \\

1675: \hline

1676:  $\mathcal{P}_{2} = 3.3\times 10^{21}\ \left(\frac{a}{0.04\ AU}\right)^{-4}$  W&

1677: $0.015\ AU \leq a \leq\ 0.08\ AU$ \\

1678: $ \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}_{2} = 1.2\times 10^{13}\ \left(\frac{a}{0.4\ AU}\right)^{-3.8} {\rm kg \ s}^{-1}$ & \\

1679: \hline

1680: $\mathcal{P}_{3} = 3.5\times 10^{21}\ \left(\frac{|\omega|}{10^{-5}}\right)-1.5\times 10^{20}$ W &

1681: $7\times 10^{-6}\ s^{-1} \leq |\omega| \leq\ 7.3\times 10^{-5}\ s^{-1}$ \\

1682: $ \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}_{3} = 1.4\times 10^{13}\ \left(\frac{|\omega|}{10^{-5}}\right)-1.3\times 10^{12} {\rm kg \ s}^{-1}$ & \\

1683: \hline

1684: $\mathcal{P}_{4} = 3.3\times 10^{21}\ \left(\frac{m}{4\times 10^{34}}\right)^{2.18}$ W & 

1685: $6\times 10^{33}\ Am^{2} \leq m \leq\ 4\times 10^{34}\ Am^{2}$ \\

1686: $ \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}_{4} = 1.2\times 10^{13}\ \left(\frac{m}{4\times 10^{34}}\right)^{2.3} {\rm kg \ s}^{-1}$ \\

1687: \hline

1688: $\mathcal{P}_{5}=3.3\times 10^{21} \sin^{2.17}(\alpha)$ W & 

1689: $0.3 \leq \sin(\alpha) \leq 1$ \\

1690: $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}_{5} = 1.2\times 10^{13}\sin^{2.28}(\alpha) {\rm kg \ s}^{-1} $&  \\

1691: \hline

1692: $\mathcal{P}_{6} = 3.3\times 10^{21}\ \left(\frac{M_{\star}}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{-0.53}$ W & 

1693: $0.5\ M_{\odot} \leq M_{\star} \leq\ 1.5\ M_{\odot}$ \\

1694: $ \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}_{6} = 1.2\times 10^{13}\ \left(\frac{M_{\star}}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{-0.5} {\rm kg \ s}^{-1}$& \\

1695: \hline

1696: $\mathcal{P}_{7} = 3.3\times 10^{21}\ \left(\frac{L_{\star}}{1.5\ L{\odot}}\right)^{-0.5} $W & 

1697: $0.5\ L_{\odot} \leq L_{\star} \leq\ 2.6\ L_{\odot}$ \\

1698: $ \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}_{7} = 1.2\times 10^{13}\ \left(\frac{L_{\star}}{1.5\ L_{\odot}}\right)^{-0.8} {\rm kg \ s}^{-1}$& \\

1699: $\mathcal{P}_{7} = 7.5\times 10^{19}\ \left(\frac{L_{\star}}{1.5\ L_{\odot}}\right)^{5.9} $W  & 

1700: $2.6\ L_{\odot} \leq L_{\star} \leq\ 5\ L_{\odot}$ \\

1701: $ \stackrel{\centerdot}{M}_{7} = 1.25\times 10^{11}\ \left(\frac{L_{\star}}{1.5\ L_{\odot}}\right)^{5.8} {\rm kg \ s}^{-1}$ & \\

1702: \hline

1703: \end{tabular}

1704: \end{center}

1705: \caption{Table giving $\mathcal{P}$ and $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ as  

1706: a function of the parameter that is being varied.}

1707: \label{functions}

1708: \end{table}

1709: 

1710: 

1711: \subsection{Model parameter dependence}

1712: \begin{enumerate}

1713: \item \textbf{Mass of the planet $\mathbf{M_{p}}$.}  The total ohmic

1714: dissipation is a volumic integral over the entire region where

1715: dissipation occurs.  Therefore, one might expect $\mathcal{P}$ to be

1716: proportional to the volume.  Since the planet fills its Roche lobe,

1717: the volume is detemined by the mass (cf. eq. \ref{definition hill's

1718: radius}).  However, $M_{p}$ also gives a constraint on the volumic

1719: mass at the center of the planet (cf. equation \ref{3 unknowns}),

1720: which makes $\mathcal{P}$ mostly proportional to $M^{2}$. There is

1721: also a minor correction due to $\mathcal{P}$'s weak dependence on

1722: $\eta$ which depends on $M_{p}$ through the calculation of the

1723: internal parameters $T$, $P$, $\rho$ (eqs. \ref{P isothermal model}

1724: and \ref{P polytropic model}).

1725: 

1726: \item \textbf{Semi major axis $\mathbf{a}$.}  In the model we adopted in \S4,

1727: or more generally, in a model that would not take into account the

1728: planet's internal adjustment to the ohmic dissipation (especially in a

1729: model in which the radius of the planet is independent of the

1730: semi-major axis), the ohmic dissipation rate would be related to the

1731: semi-major axis according to the following law: $\mathcal{P} \propto

1732: B^{2} \propto a^{-6}$.  In the self-consistent model we adopted here

1733: and in the limit where the planet fills its Roche lobe

1734: ($R_{p}=R_{H}$), the radius of the planet varies with the semi-major

1735: axis. For example, when a planet moves closer to its host star, its

1736: Roche radius decreases linearly with the radius

1737: (cf. eq. \ref{definition hill's radius}) and, therefore, $\mathcal{P}$

1738: increases less quickly than if the planet kept the same radius.

1739: Again, $\mathcal{P}$ also has a weak dependence on $\eta$ which is

1740: depends on the semi-major axis through the planet's surface

1741: temperature and through the dependence of $r_{2}$ on $a$.  From these

1742: arguments, we thus expect $\mathcal{P}$ the exponent in

1743: $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ to be greater than -6 and less than -3.

1744: 

1745: \item \textbf{Relative angular velocity $\mathbf{\omega}$.}  In equation

1746: (\ref{dependence of P)}, the multiplicative constant in front

1747: of the volumic integral comes comes from the induction by the time

1748: dependent stellar field (cf. eq. (\ref{rhs=lhs}) and eq. (\ref{W

1749: provisoire})) and gives to $\mathcal{P}$ a dependence on

1750: $\omega^{2}$. However, in addition, $\omega$ intervenes inside the

1751: volumic integral in eq. \ref{dependence of P} through the

1752: dependence of $G_{l}(r)$ on the $\delta^{-1}$, with

1753: $\delta=\sqrt{\frac{\eta}{\omega}}$, skin depth. Therefore, the

1754: volumic integral is proportional to $\omega^{-1}$ and 

1755: $\mathcal{P}$ is proportional to $\omega$.

1756: 

1757: 

1758: \item \textbf{Magnetic dipole $\mathbf{m}$ and tilt of the magnetic dipole

1759: $\alpha$.}  Without any adjustment of the planet's interior to the

1760: ohmic dissipation, we would expect $\mathcal{P}_{4}$ and

1761: $\mathcal{P}_{5}$ to vary respectively in $m^{2}$ and

1762: $\sin^{2}(\alpha)$. The fact that both exponents that have been

1763: computed numerically are slightly larger than 2 means, in the

1764: self-consistent model we adopted here, that the adjustment of the

1765: planet's interior tends to have a small positive retroaction on the

1766: amount of enegy that is deposited inside the planet through ohmic

1767: dissipation.

1768: 

1769: \item \textbf{Mass of the star $\mathbf{M_{\star}}$.}  The mass of the star

1770: intervenes in the computation of the Roche radius ($R_{H} \propto

1771: M_{\star}^{-1/3}$).  $\mathcal{P}$ being a volumic integral, one

1772: would, therefore, expect it to vary proportionally to

1773: $M_{\star}^{-1}$.  However, $M_{\star}$ also intervenes in the

1774: computation of $r_{2}$ ($r_{2}$ is the sonic point, or the largest

1775: solution of $(r^{2}-rR_{H}+\frac{2c_{s}^{2}a^{3}}{LGM_{\star}})=0$,

1776: see. eq \ref{l}), which brings a correction to the dependence of

1777: $\mathcal{P}$ on $M_{s}$. Indeed, $r_{2}$ is used to compute

1778: $P(r_{2})$ and $\rho(r_{2})$ (cf. eq. \ref{P(r2)}) which are the

1779: boundary conditions we adopted to calculate the pressure and volumic

1780: mass in the isothermal region (cf. eq. \ref{P in isothermal

1781: region}). As a side note, this dependence of $\mathcal{P}$ on $r_{2}$

1782: could also affect the dependence of $\mathcal{P}$ on $a$ and

1783: $M_{\star}$.)

1784: 

1785: 

1786: \item \textbf{Stellar total Luminosity $\mathbf{L_{\star}}$.}  From figure 9,

1787: one can see that $\L_{\star}=10^{27}\ W$ correponds to a minimum for

1788: $\mathcal{P}$ and that $\mathcal{P}$ varies slowly for $\L_{\star}\leq

1789: 10^{27}\ W$ and much faster for $\L_{\star} \geq 10^{27}\ W$.  In the

1790: model we adopted here, the stellar total luminosity fixes the planet's

1791: equilibrium surface temperature, which is also the temperature of the

1792: isothermal region (for $\L_{\star}=10^{27}\ W$, $T_{p}\simeq 1767 K.$).

1793: It in turns determines the temperature profile inside the planet (the

1794: surface temperature is used as a boundary condition) and influences

1795: the internal structure and magnetic diffusivity profile inside the

1796: planet $\eta(r)$.  $T_{p}$ varies proportionally to $L_{\star}^{1/4}$

1797: (for constant semi-major axis) and, therefore, $\eta$ is roughly

1798: proportional to $exp(\dfrac{78909}{L_{\star}^{1/4}})$. \\

1799: 

1800: We ploted the integrand of the ohmic dissipation ($< \mathcal{P}_{volumic} > r^{2}$ 

1801: in eq. \ref{energy_integrand_expression} ) as well as the

1802: magnetic diffusivity (see figures 10 and 11) for

1803: $L_{\star}=2\times 10^{26}$ W, $7\times 10^{26}$ W, $10^{27}$ W,

1804: $1.2\times 10^{27}$ W, $1.5\times 10^{27}$ W, 

1805: and $2\times 10^{27}$ W respectively.  One can notice two parts

1806: corresponding to the isothermal and the polytropic region.  In the

1807: isothermal region, the energy integrand decreases slowly from the

1808: surface to the center of the planet.  The transition between the two

1809: regions corresponds to a sharp increase in conductivity and,

1810: therefore, a quick increase in the ohmic dissipation. This accounts

1811: for the sharp increase in the integrand (around $1.5\times 10^8$

1812: meters), and most of the remaining magnetic energy is dissipated in

1813: this region.  Moreover, an increase in the stellar luminosity results

1814: in a decrease in the magnetic diffusivity as well as a deeper

1815: penetration and a deeper transition between the isothermal and the

1816: polytropic region.\\

1817: 

1818: When one increases $L_{\star}$ starting from low values

1819: ($L_{\star}=2\times 10^{26}$W), the energy integrand also

1820: increases in the isothermal region. Nevertheless, the extent and amplitude of the sharp

1821: increase at the transition between the isothermal and the polytropic

1822: region are also reduced.  Therefore, these two effects compensate each

1823: other, and for low stellar luminosity (e.g. $L_{\star}$ between

1824: $2\times 10^{26}$W and $10^{27}$W, the total ohmic dissipation in the

1825: planet increases slowly with the stellar luminosity). \\

1826: 

1827: On the other hand, for higher values of the stellar luminosity, the

1828: penetration depth as well as the transition depth saturates (when the coupling term in eq. (\ref{first equation on G})

1829: $\dfrac{\omega}{\eta(r)}$ between the real and imaginary parts of $G_{l}(r)$ 

1830: becomes comparable to the other term $(\dfrac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}})$).  One can

1831: see that an increase in the stellar luminosity results only in changes

1832: in the energy integrand that would increase the total ohmic

1833: dissipation. This result in a much sharper increase of the ohmic

1834: dissipation with the stellar luminosity.

1835: 

1836: 

1837: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1838: \begin{center}

1839: \epsscale{0.75}

1840: \plotone{f10}  

1841: \label{energy_integrand_plot}

1842: \end{center}

1843: \caption{Integrand of the ohmic dissipation (log scale) for different values of the stellar luminosity}

1844: \end{figure}

1845: 

1846: \begin{figure}[hbt]

1847: \begin{center}

1848: \epsscale{0.75}

1849: \plotone{f11}  

1850: \label{plot_of_eta}

1851: \end{center}

1852: \caption{Magnetic diffusivity (log scale) for different values of the stellar luminosity}

1853: \end{figure}

1854: 

1855: 

1856: \item \textbf{Attempts of generalized function.}

1857: We consider the generalized expression of the ohmic dissipation rate 

1858: and mass loss rate, in the case 

1859: where the variables are separable: 

1860: \begin{eqnarray}

1861: \mathcal{P}_{gen}=3.3\times 10^{21} W

1862: \left(\frac{M_{p}}{0.63\ M_{J}}\right)^{2.16} 

1863: \left(\frac{a}{0.04\ AU}\right)^{-4}

1864: \left[

1865: \left(\frac{|\omega|}{10^{-5} {\rm s}^{-1}}

1866: -0.045\right)\right]\nonumber \\

1867: \left(\frac{m}{4\times 10^{34} {\rm A \ m}^2 }\right)^{2.18}

1868: \left(\sin\ \alpha \right)^{2.17}

1869: \left(\frac{M_{\star}}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{-0.53}

1870: \left(\frac{L_{\star}}{1.5\ L{\odot}}\right)^{-0.5} 

1871: \label{generalized P}

1872: \end{eqnarray}

1873: 

1874: \begin{eqnarray}

1875: \mathcal{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}_{gen}=1.2\times 10^{13} {\rm kg \

1876: s}^{-1} \left(\frac{M_{p}}{0.63\ M_{J}}\right)^{2.4}

1877: \left(\frac{a}{0.04\ AU}\right)^{-3.8}

1878: \left[\left(\frac{|\omega|}{10^{-5} {\rm s}^{-1}} -0.1

1879: \right)\right]\nonumber \\ \left(\frac{m}{4\times 10^{34} {\rm A \

1880: m}^2 }\right)^{2.3} \left(\sin\ \alpha \right)^{2.28}

1881: \left(\frac{M_{\star}}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{-0.5}

1882: \left(\frac{L_{\star}}{1.5\ L{\odot}}\right)^{-0.8}. 

1883: \label{generalized Mdot}

1884: \end{eqnarray}

1885: 

1886: The previous formulas have been written for the first interval of 

1887: $\mathcal{P}_{7}$ in table 2, but one can write the corresponding formulas for 

1888: the second interval of by using the corresponding expression of $\mathcal{P}_{7}$. 

1889: We compute, using the iterative procedure described above (\S 7.2),

1890: the ohmic dissipation $\mathcal{P}$ and mass loss rate

1891: $\mathcal{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}$ for sets of parameters in which

1892: more than 2 parameters are different from the fiducial parameters.  We

1893: then compare these values with the value of $\mathcal{P}_{gen}$ and

1894: $\mathcal{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}_{gen}$ for these sets of

1895: parameters. This test enables us to determine if the hypothesis of

1896: separation of variable is accurate or not.  The first set of

1897: parameters that we consider is $M_{p}=1.5 M_{J}$ and $ a=0.03 AU$, all

1898: the other parameters being kept equal to the fiducial parameters. We

1899: get: $\mathcal{P}=4.2\times 10^{22}$W and

1900: $\mathcal{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}=1.5\times 10^{14} {\rm kg \

1901: s}^{-1}$.  However, using the formula of the ohmic dissipation rate

1902: and mass loss rate with the approximation of separation of variables,

1903: we get: $\mathcal{P}_{gen}=7\times 10^{22}$W and

1904: $\mathcal{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}=2.9\times 10^{14}{\rm kg \ s}^{-1}$.

1905: 

1906: We now consider a set of parameters in which all parameters are taken

1907: differnet from the fiducial value: $M_{p}=1.5M_{j},\ a=0.03AU,\

1908: \omega=2.9\times 10^{-5}s^{-1},\ m=2\times 10^{34}\ Am^{2},\ M_{\star}=1.5

1909: M_{\odot}, \L_{\star}=0.8 \L_{\odot}$ (this value of $\omega$

1910: corresponds, for example to a system in which the planet is at

1911: keplerian augular velocity and the star has a period of 4 days).  We

1912: get $\mathcal{P}=1.7\times 10^{22}$W and

1913: $\mathcal{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}=7\times 10^{13} {\rm kg \

1914: s}^{-1}$, and using the formula of the ohmic dissipation rate and mass

1915: loss rate with the approximation of separation of variables, we get

1916: $\mathcal{P}_{gen}=3.5\times 10^{22}$W and

1917: $\mathcal{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}=1.6\times 10^{14} {\rm kg \

1918: s}^{-1}$. \\

1919: 

1920: From these two tests, we deduce that the approximation of separation

1921: of variables gives a reasonable order of magnitude, but nevertheless,

1922: does not seem to be accurate. This results means that the exponents in

1923: the functions given in table 2 can themselves be a function of the

1924: parameters, and the generalized functions that describe the ohmic

1925: dissipation and mass loss rate as a function of all parameters can be

1926: fairly complicated.  Nevertheless, even if a generalized formula is

1927: still unknown, for a given set of parameters, one could still compute

1928: the mass loss rate and ohmic dissipation using the procedure described

1929: in \S\S 3-7.

1930: \end{enumerate}

1931: 

1932: \subsection{Mass loss and migration stalls}

1933: From equation (\ref{generalized Mdot}), we find

1934: \begin{eqnarray}

1935: \tau_m= \frac{M_p}{\mathcal{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}}_{gen}}

1936: \simeq 3 {\rm Myr} \left(\frac{0.63\ M_{J}}{M_{p}}\right)^{2.4}

1937: \left(\frac{a}{0.04\ AU}\right)^{3.8}

1938: \left[\left(\frac{|\omega|}{10^{-5} {\rm s}^{-1}} -0.1 \right)\right]^{-1}

1939: \left(\frac{m}{4\times 10^{34} {\rm A m}^2}\right)^{-2.3} \nonumber \\

1940: \left(\sin\ \alpha \right)^{-2.28}   

1941: \left(\frac{M_{\star}}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{0.5}

1942: \left(\frac{L_{\star}}{1.5\ L{\odot}}\right)^{0.8} \label{taum}

1943: \end{eqnarray}

1944: 

1945: The same mass loss provides angular momentum to the planet.  We

1946: neglect any variations in excentricity and assume that all the mass is

1947: accreted into the star.  Using (GBL eq. 96), we link the mass loss

1948: rate to a rate of change of semi-major axis,

1949: \begin{equation}

1950: \frac{\stackrel{\centerdot}{a}}{a}=-2

1951: \frac{\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}} {Mp} 

1952: \label{rate of semi-major axis change}

1953: \end{equation}

1954: Thus, $\tau_a \equiv \vert {\dot a} \vert /a = - 2 \tau_m$.

1955: 

1956: These relations indicate that, within $\sim 0.04$ AU, the Ohmic

1957: dissipation within the planet may indeed generate sufficient energy to

1958: inflat their radius beyond their Roche lobe.  The resulting mass

1959: transfer not only reduces the planets' mass but also stall their

1960: orbital migration.  The impact of this process on the mass-period 

1961: distribution of gas giants will be discussed in paper III.

1962: 

1963: \section{Summary}

1964: In this paper, we applied a model described by Campbell (in the

1965: context of interacting binary stars) to the situation of a planet in a

1966: protoplanetary disk interacting with the stellar periodic magnetic

1967: field.  In \S 3, we showed that with a well determined electrical

1968: conductivity profile inside the planet as well as the characteristic

1969: parameters of the system (such as the stellar magnetic field strength

1970: and angular velocity spin, planet radius and semi-major axis), one can

1971: compute the total ohmic dissipation rate $\mathcal{P}(t)$ inside the

1972: planet and its average value over one synodic period. This dissipation

1973: rate gives a good estimate of the strength of the Lorrentz torque

1974: exerted on the planet due to the interaction between the stellar

1975: magnetic field and the induced current inside the planet.  When the

1976: planet is outside corrotation, this torque will provide angular

1977: momentum to the planet from the star and slow down the planet's

1978: migration.  In \S4, we computed $\mathcal{P}$ for one specific set of

1979: parameters ($R_{p}=0.63\ R_{J}$, $a=0.04$ AU), and also showed that

1980: the conductivity profile (all the other parameters being kept

1981: constant) had some influence on the location of maximum dissipation,

1982: but fairly little influence on the total dissipate rate $\mathcal{P}$.

1983: We noted that this value of $\mathcal{P}$ seemed too low to directly

1984: provide an adequate rate of angular momentum transfert to the planet

1985: to stop its migration toward the host star. However, this energy input

1986: can inflat the planet's enveloppe and trigger mass loss

1987: $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ through Roche lobe overflow.  The mass that

1988: overflows toward the central star provides angular momentum to the

1989: planet (GBL). In order to estimate this mass loss rate, we first

1990: linked the ohmic dissipation rate to the mass loss rate (\S5).  Then

1991: we used an isotermal-polytropic model to describe the adjustment of

1992: the planet's interior to the heat deposited through ohmic dissipation

1993: (\S6).  Finally, we computed $\mathcal{P}$ and

1994: $\stackrel{\centerdot}{M}$ at equilibrium for several set of

1995: parameters (\S7). A detailed calculation on the orbital evolution of

1996: the planet due to this process will be presented in paper III.

1997: 

1998: 

1999: \acknowledgments

2000: 

2001: We thank Drs. P. Garaud, J.E. Pringle and F. Rasio for constructive

2002: discussions. This work is supported by NASA (NAGS5-11779, NNG04G-191G,

2003: NNG06-GH45G, NNX07AL13G, HST-AR-11267), JPL (1270927), and NSF(AST-0507424). 

2004: 

2005: 

2006: \appendix

2007: \section{Perfect conductor moving relative to a magnetic field}

2008: Let's consider the flux $\Phi$ of the magnetic field $\textbf{B}$ accross a surface $S(t)$ that 

2009: changes with time or moves in space. One can show that 

2010: \begin{eqnarray}

2011: \frac{d\Phi}{dt}\stackrel{def}{=}\frac{1}{dt}\left[\int_a \textbf{B}(\textbf{r},t+dt)\, d\mathbf{S} 

2012: -\int_b \mathbf{B}(\textbf{r},t)\, d\mathbf{S} \right]

2013: =\int_a \left[\frac{\partial\textbf{B}}{\partial t}-\nabla\wedge(\upsilon\wedge

2014: \textbf{B})\right]\, d\mathbf{S}

2015: \end{eqnarray}

2016: with $a=S(t+dt)$, and $b=S(t)$. Therefore, using the mhd induction equation 

2017: \begin{equation}

2018: \frac{\partial\textbf{B}}{\partial t}=

2019: \nabla\wedge(\upsilon\wedge

2020: \textbf{B})

2021: -\nabla\wedge(\dfrac{1}{\mu_{0}\sigma}\nabla\wedge\textbf{B}),

2022: \end{equation} 

2023: we get: 

2024: \begin{equation}

2025: \frac{d\Phi}{dt}=-\frac{1}{\sigma}\int_c \mathbf{J}(\textbf{r},t)\, d\mathbf{l}

2026: \end{equation} 

2027: which tends to zero when the electric conductivity is large (the previous integral is 

2028: a closed integral along a close curve). Therefore, the magnetic field's flux will be constant if $\sigma$ 

2029: is large enough that the second term in the right hand side 

2030: is negligible. In such a case, the field lines will move with the body and appear to be 'frozen.'

2031: 

2032: \section{Set of linear equations}

2033: \label{set of linear equations}

2034: We give below the linear set of equation that we solved for  

2035: ($\mu_{1}^{1}$, $\mu_{1}^{-1}$, $\nu_{1}^{1}$,

2036: $\nu_{1}^{-1}$, $\alpha_{1}$, $\alpha_{2}$,$\alpha_{3}$,$\alpha_{4}$),

2037: ($\mu_{2}^{0}$, $\nu_{2}^{0}$, $\beta_{1}$,$\beta_{2}$), and

2038: ($\mu_{2}^{2}$, $\mu_{2}^{-2}$, $\nu_{2}^{2}$, $\nu_{2}^{-2}$,

2039: $\gamma_{1}$, $\gamma_{2}$, $\gamma_{3}$, $\gamma_{4}$). 

2040: The values of $G_{l}(r)$ considered are for $r=R_{p}$ the radius of the planet. 

2041: 

2042: \begin{eqnarray}

2043: \left\{

2044: \begin{array}{l}

2045: (\mu_{1}^{1}-\mu_{1}^{-1})Re(G_{1})+(-\nu_{1}^{1}+\nu_{1}^{-1})Im(G_{1}) -\alpha_{2}\frac{1}{R_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}=0\\

2046: (-\nu_{1}^{1}-\nu_{1}^{-1})Re(G_{1})+(-\mu_{1}^{1}-\mu_{1}^{-1})Im(G_{1}) -\alpha_{4}\frac{1}{R_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}=\frac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{3}}R_{p}^{2}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}\\

2047: (-\nu_{1}^{1}+\nu_{1}^{-1})Re(G_{1})+(-\mu_{1}^{1}+\mu_{1}^{-1})Im(G_{1}) -\alpha_{1}\frac{1}{R_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}=2\frac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{3}}R_{p}^{2}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}\\

2048: (-\mu_{1}^{1}-\mu_{1}^{-1})Re(G_{1})+(\nu_{1}^{1}+\nu_{1}^{-1})Im(G_{1}) -\alpha_{3}\frac{1}{R_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}=0 \\

2049: (\mu_{1}^{1}-\mu_{1}^{-1})Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{1})+(-\nu_{1}^{1}+\nu_{1}^{-1})Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{1})+ \alpha_{2}\frac{1}{R^{2}_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}=\frac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{3}}2R_{p}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}\\

2050: (-\nu_{1}^{1}-\nu_{1}^{-1})Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{1})+(-\mu_{1}^{1}-\mu_{1}^{-1})Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{1})+ \alpha_{4}\frac{1}{R^{2}_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}=2\frac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{3}}2R_{p}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}\\

2051: (-\nu_{1}^{1}+\nu_{1}^{-1})Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{1})+(-\mu_{1}^{1}+\mu_{1}^{-1})Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{1})+ \alpha_{1}\frac{1}{R^{2}_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}=0 \\

2052: (-\mu_{1}^{1}-\mu_{1}^{-1})Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{1})+(\nu_{1}^{1}+\nu_{1}^{-1})Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{1})+ \alpha_{3}\frac{1}{R^{2}_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}=0\\

2053: \end{array}

2054: \right.

2055: \end{eqnarray}

2056: \begin{eqnarray}

2057: \left\{

2058: \begin{array}{l}

2059: (\mu_{2}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{-2})Re(G_{2}(R_{p}))+(-\nu_{2}^{2}-\nu_{2}^{-2})Im(G_{2}(R_{p})) -\gamma_{2}\frac{1}{R_{p}^{2}}12\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{15}}=0\\

2060: (-\nu_{2}^{2}+\nu_{2}^{-2})Re(G_{2}(R_{p}))+(-\mu_{2}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{-2})Im(G_{2}(R_{p})) -\gamma_{4}\frac{1}{R_{p}^{2}}12\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{15}}=-\frac{1}{3}\dfrac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{4}}R_{p}^{3}12\sqrt{\dfrac{2\pi}{15}}\\

2061: (-\nu_{2}^{2}-\nu_{2}^{-2})Re(G_{2}(R_{p}))+(-\mu_{2}^{2}-\mu_{2}^{-2})Im(G_{2}(R_{p})) -\gamma_{1}\frac{1}{R_{p}^{2}}12\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{15}}=-\frac{1}{2}\dfrac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{4}}R_{p}^{3}12\sqrt{\dfrac{2\pi}{15}}\\

2062: (-\mu_{2}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{-2})Re(G_{2}(R_{p}))+(\nu_{2}^{2}-\nu_{2}^{-2})Im(G_{2}(R_{p})) -\gamma_{3}\frac{1}{R_{p}^{2}}12\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{15}}=0\\

2063: (\mu_{2}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{-2})Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p}))+(-\nu_{2}^{2}-\nu_{2}^{-2})Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p})) +2\gamma_{2}\frac{1}{R_{p}^{3}}12\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{15}}=0\\

2064: (-\nu_{2}^{2}+\nu_{2}^{-2})Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p}))+(-\mu_{2}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{-2})Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p})) +2\gamma_{4}\frac{1}{R_{p}^{3}}12\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{15}}=-\dfrac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{4}}R_{p}^{2}12\sqrt{\dfrac{2\pi}{15}}\\

2065: (-\nu_{2}^{2}-\nu_{2}^{-2})Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p}))+(-\mu_{2}^{2}-\mu_{2}^{-2})Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p})) +2\gamma_{1}\frac{1}{R_{p}^{3}}12\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{15}}=-\frac{3}{2}\dfrac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{4}}R_{p}^{2}12\sqrt{\dfrac{2\pi}{15}}\\

2066: (-\mu_{2}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{-2})Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p}))+(\nu_{2}^{2}-\nu_{2}^{-2})Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p})) +2\gamma_{3}\frac{1}{R_{p}^{3}}12\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{15}}=0

2067: \end{array}

2068: \right.

2069: \end{eqnarray}

2070: \begin{eqnarray}

2071: \left\{

2072: \begin{array}{l}

2073: \mu_{2}^{0}Re(G_{2}(R_{p}))-\nu_{2}^{0}Im(G_{2}(R_{p})) -\beta_{2}\frac{1}{R_{P}^{2}}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}=0\\

2074: -\nu_{2}^{0}Re(G_{2}(R_{p}))-\mu_{2}^{0}Im(G_{2}(R_{p})) -\beta_{1}\frac{1}{R_{P}^{2}}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}=\sqrt{\dfrac{4\pi}{5}}\dfrac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{4}}R_{p}^{3} \\

2075: \mu_{2}^{0}Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p}))-\nu_{2}^{0}Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p})) +\beta_{2}\frac{2}{R_{P}^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}=0\\

2076: -\nu_{2}^{0}Re(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p}))-\mu_{2}^{0}Im(\stackrel{\centerdot}{G}_{2}(R_{p})) +\beta_{1}\frac{2}{R_{P}^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}=\sqrt{\dfrac{4\pi}{5}}\dfrac{m\ \sin\alpha}{8\pi\ d^{4}}3R_{p}^{2}

2077: \end{array}

2078: \right.

2079: \end{eqnarray}

2080: 

2081: \section{Coefficients intervening in the expression of the ohmic dissipation rate}

2082: \begin{eqnarray}

2083: \left\{

2084: \begin{array}{l}

2085: A_{11}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}(\nu_{1}^{1}-\nu_{1}^{-1})Re(G_{1}(r))+(\mu_{1}^{1}-\mu_{1}^{-1})Im(G_{1}(r)) \\

2086: A_{12}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}(\mu_{1}^{1}+\mu_{1}^{-1})Re(G_{1}(r))-(\nu_{1}^{1}+\nu_{1}^{-1})Im(G_{1}(r)) \\

2087: A_{13}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}(\mu_{1}^{1}-\mu_{1}^{-1})Re(G_{1}(r))-(\nu_{1}^{1}-\nu_{1}^{-1})Im(G_{1}(r)) \\

2088: A_{14}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}-(\nu_{1}^{1}+\nu_{1}^{-1})Re(G_{1}(r))-(\mu_{1}^{1}+\mu_{1}^{-1})Im(G_{1}(r)) \\

2089: A_{15}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}\nu_{2}^{0}Re(G_{2}(r))+\mu_{2}^{0}Im(G_{2}(r)) \\

2090: A_{16}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}\mu_{2}^{0}Re(G_{2}(r))-\nu_{2}^{0}Im(G_{2}(r)) \\

2091: A_{17}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}(\nu_{2}^{2}+\nu_{2}^{-2})Re(G_{2}(r))+(\mu_{2}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{-2})Im(G_{2}(r)) \\

2092: A_{18}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}(\mu_{2}^{2}-\mu_{2}^{-2})Re(G_{2}(r))+(-\nu_{2}^{2}+\nu_{2}^{-2})Im(G_{2}(r)) \\

2093: A_{19}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}(\mu_{2}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{-2})Re(G_{2}(r))-(\nu_{2}^{2}+\nu_{2}^{-2})Im(G_{2}(r)) \\

2094: A_{20}(r)\stackrel{def}{=}(-\nu_{2}^{2}+\nu_{2}^{-2})Re(G_{2}(r))-(\mu_{2}^{2}-\mu_{2}^{-2})Im(G_{2}(r)) 

2095: \end{array}

2096: \right.

2097: \end{eqnarray}

2098: 

2099: \section{Conductivity and resistance of short-period extrasolar planets}

2100: 

2101: We now calculate the conductivity and resistance (the reciprocal of

2102: conductivity) of short-period extrasolar planets.  The conductivity of

2103: the planet is determined by the density of charged particles.  

2104: We consider separately the contributiond from the collisional 

2105: ionization within the planet's interior and from the photoionization

2106: near its surface.  

2107: 

2108: \subsection{Ionization of the planet's interior}

2109: 

2110: The cores and the inner envelopes of Jovian planets are mostly

2111: ionized, they are shielded by cool, mostly neutral gaseous envelopes,

2112: where the ionization is dominated by elements with low ionization

2113: potentials, such as sodium and potassium.

2114: 

2115: The planetary model used in our calculation of ionization fraction is

2116: model A3 presented by Bodenheimer et al. (2001). It is a spherically

2117: symmetric model for the short-period planet around HD 209458. The

2118: following parameters are assumed: the planetary mass is 0.63 Jupiter

2119: masses ($M_J$); the equlibrium temperature at the surface of the

2120: planet due to irradiation from the star is $T_s = 1360$~K; there is a

2121: solid core with a density $\rho_c = 5.5\ 10^{3} \ \rm{kg \ m^{-3}}$ and a mass

2122: 0.139 $M_J$ ( $ = 44 M_{\oplus} = 0.22 M_p $ ) in the center. An

2123: energy source, uniformly distributed through the gaseous part of the

2124: planet, with an energy input rate $\dot{E}_d = 8.5 \times 10^{19} \

2125: \rm{J \ s^{-1}}$, is also imposed to take into account the effect

2126: of tidal dissipation of energy. Those model parameters result in an

2127: asymptotic radius of $1.41 R_J$ at $t = 4.5$~Gyr, which is consistent

2128: with the photometric occultation observations of HD 209458 (Henry et

2129: al. 2000b; Charbonneau et al. 2000)

2130: 

2131: The cores and the inner envelope of Jovian planets are mostly ionized

2132: by the pressure ionization effect, where the Saha equation breaks

2133: down.  We have to resort to various equations of state (EOS) tables,

2134: including the equation of state tables for hydrogen and helium by

2135: Saumon et al. (1995).  These tables are calculated using the free

2136: energy minimization methods, with a careful study of the nonideal

2137: interactions.  They cover temperatures in the range $2.10 < \log

2138: T({\rm K}) < 7.06$ and pressure in the range $5 < \log P ({\rm N \

2139: m^{-2}}) < 20$.  The calculations based on which these tables were

2140: constructed also include the treatments of partial dissociation and

2141: ionization caused by both pressure and temperature effects. Given the

2142: internal structure data of $\rho$, $T$ and $P$ for model A3, we use

2143: those EOS tables to calculate electron number density distribution for

2144: the inner part of the planet.  In this approximation, we bear in mind

2145: that the ionization fraction calculated from the free-energy

2146: minimization are of limited accuracy.  Moreover, in the interpolation

2147: regions of both the H and He equation of state, the data have very

2148: little physical basis but are reasonably well behaved by construction.

2149: 

2150: In the envelope, hydrogen and helium are mostly neutral, and free

2151: electrons are exclusively provided by thermal ionization of elements

2152: with low ionization potentials. Among them, potassium and sodium have

2153: highest concentrations with a relative abundance $\log (N_K / N_H)

2154: \simeq -6.88$ and $\log (N_{Na} / N_H) \simeq -5.67$ for the solar

2155: composition.  The lowest ionization potentials for these two elements

2156: are $\chi_{K} = 4.339 $~eV and $\chi_{Na} = 5.138 $~eV. We identify

2157: these two elements to be the sources of most of the free electrons in

2158: the planetary envelope.

2159: 

2160: We solve the Saha equations for ionization of Na \& K jointly

2161: (cf. Allen 1955)

2162: \begin{equation}

2163: \frac{N^1_{Na}}{N^0_{Na}}\ 10^{6}\times N_e = - \chi_{Na} \Theta - {\frac{3}{2}} \log

2164: \Theta + 20.9388

2165: \end{equation}

2166: and

2167: \begin{equation}

2168: \frac{N^1_{K}}{N^0_{K}}\ 10^{6}\times N_e = - \chi_{K} \Theta - {\frac{3}{2}} \log

2169: \Theta + 20.9388

2170: \end{equation}

2171: where $\Theta = 5040 K / T$, $N^1_{Na}$ and $N^0_{Na}$ are,

2172: respectively, the singly ionized and neutral number density of sodium (SI units),

2173: $N^1_{K}$ and $N^0_{K}$ are, respectively, the singly ionized and

2174: neutral number density of potassium, and $N_e$ is the electron

2175: density.

2176: 

2177: 

2178: 

2179: 

2180: \subsection{Conductivity and resistivity}

2181: 

2182: Using the electron number density profile, we then calculate the

2183: conductivity using the formulas given by Fejer (1965). Three kinds of

2184: conductivity are of interests here. The conductivity $\sigma_0$, which

2185: determines the current parallel to the magnetic lines of force, and

2186: which would exist for all direction in the absence of the magnetic

2187: field, is given by

2188: \begin{equation}

2189: \sigma_0 = \frac{N_e e }{B} \left(\frac{\omega_{i}}{\nu_{i}} 

2190: -\frac{\omega_{e}}{\nu_{e}} \right)

2191: \cong \frac{N_e e^2}{m_e \nu_{e}} 

2192: \label{eq:sigma0}

2193: \end{equation}

2194: where $e$ is the electron charge, $\omega_{e} = - \frac{e B}{m_{e}}$

2195: and $\omega_{i} = \frac{e B}{m_{i}}$ are the gyrofrequencies of

2196: electron and ion, respectively, while $\nu_{e}$ and $\nu_{i}$ are the

2197: collisional frequencies associated with the momentum transfer of

2198: electrons and ions. 

2199: 

2200: The Pedersen conductivity, which determines current parallel to the 

2201: electric field, is given by  

2202: \begin{equation}

2203: \sigma_p = \frac{N_e e }{B} \left( \frac{\nu_{i} \omega_{i}}{\nu_{i}^{2}+

2204: \omega_{i}^{2}}  - \frac{\nu_{e} \omega_{e}}{\nu_{e}^{2}+

2205: \omega_{e}^{2}} \right)

2206: \cong \frac{\sigma_0 }{1 + (\omega_e / \nu_e)^2}.

2207: \label{eq:sigmap}

2208: \end{equation}

2209: The Hall conductivity, which determines the current perpendicular to both the

2210: electric and magnetic fields, is given by

2211: \begin{equation}

2212: \sigma_h = \frac{N_e e }{B} \left( \frac{\omega_{e}^{2}}{\nu_{e}^{2}+

2213: \omega_{e}^{2}} - \frac{\omega_{i}^{2}}{\nu_{i}^{2}+

2214: \omega_{i}^{2}} \right) 

2215: \cong \frac{\sigma_0 (\omega_e / \nu_e) }{1 + (\omega_e / \nu_e)^2} .

2216: \label{eq:sigmah}

2217: \end{equation}

2218: 

2219: 

2220: In the limit of low ionization fraction, $\nu_{e}$ is closely related

2221: to the mean collisional frequencies of the electrons with molecules of

2222: the neutral gas such that (cf. Draine et al. 1983)

2223: \begin{equation}

2224: \nu_{e}^{(1)} = N_n <\sigma v>_{e-n}

2225: \simeq N_n  \times 10^{-19}

2226:        \left( \frac{128 k T}{9 \pi m_e} \right)^{1/2} .

2227: \label{eq:nue1}

2228: \end{equation}

2229: where $N_n$ is the number density of neutral particles, $<\sigma

2230: v>_{e-n}$ is the average product of collisional cross section and the

2231: relative speed between electrons and neutral particles.  In the other

2232: limit of a completely ionized gas, we take into account both

2233: electron-ion and electron-electron encounters.  The collisional

2234: frequency of the electrons is given by (cf. Sturrock 1994)

2235: \begin{equation}

2236: \nu_{e}^{(2)} \simeq 10^{8.0} N_e T^{-3/2}

2237: \label{eq:nue2}

2238: \end{equation}

2239: In the intermediate range, we use $\nu_{e} = \max (\nu_{e}^{(1)}, 

2240: \nu_{e}^{(2)})$. 

2241: 

2242: The resistance of the planet cannot be specified exactly because an

2243: unknown shape factor is involved. Following Dermott (1970), we use the

2244: following expression for the resistance:

2245: \begin{equation}

2246: R_p = \frac{f_R}{r_p^2} \int_0^{r_p} \frac{dr}{\sigma_p (r)} ,

2247: \label{eq:resis}

2248: \end{equation}

2249: where $f_R$ is a order-of-unity parameter for the geometry.  In the

2250: aligned geometry we consider here, the planet's resistance comes from

2251: Pedersen resistivity (conductivity). The core of the planet is assumed

2252: to be a perfect conductor. From Eq.~\ref{eq:resis}, we can see that it

2253: is the cold, mostly neutral envelope that gives rise to most of the

2254: resistance. 

2255: 

2256: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2257: \bibitem[Allen 1955]{2321} Allen, C. W. 1955, 

2258: {\it Astrophysical quantities} (London, University of London Press)

2259: \bibitem[Bodenheimer, Lin, and Mardling 2001]{2323} Bodenheimer, P., Lin, D. N. C., and Mardling, R. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 466

2260: \bibitem[Burkert, et al. 2005]{2324}  Burkert, A., Lin,D. N. C.; Bodenheimer, P. H., Jones, C. A., Yorke, H. W. 2005, ApJ, 618, 512

2261: \bibitem[Campbell, 1983]{2325} Campbell, C. G., 1983, MNRAS, 205, 1031

2262: \bibitem[Campbell 2005]{2326} Campbell, C. G. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 835

2263: \bibitem[ch2000]{2327} Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., Mayor, M. 2000, ApJ, 529, 45

2264: \bibitem[Clarke, et al. 1998]{2328}  Clarke, J. T. {\it et al} 1996, Sci, .274, 404

2265: \bibitem[Cowling 1981]{2329} Cowling, T. G. 1981, ARA\& A, 19, 115

2266: \bibitem[Dall'Osso, et al. 2005]{2330} Dall'Osso, S.,  Israel, G. L., Stella, L. 2006, A\& A, 447, 785

2267: \bibitem[Dermott 1970]{2331} Dermott, S. F. 1970, MNRAS, 149, 35

2268: \bibitem[Dobbs-Dixon, and Lin 2007]{2332} Dobbs Dixon, I. and Lin, D. N. C. 2008, ApJ, 673, 513 

2269: \bibitem[Draine 1983]{2333} Draine, B. T., Roberge, W. G., Dalgarno, A. 1983, ApJ, 264, 485

2270: \bibitem[Drell, et al. 1965]{2334} Drell, S. D., et al. 1965 JGR, 70, 3131

2271: \bibitem[Duncan 1966]{2335} Duncan, R. A. 1966, P\& SS, 14, 173

2272: \bibitem[Fejer 1965]{2336} Fejer, J. A. 1965, JGR, 70, 4972

2273: \bibitem[Goldreich, and Lynden-Bell 1969]{2337} Goldreich, P., and Lynden-Bell, D., 1969, ApJ, 156, 59

2274: \bibitem[Goldreich, and Tremaine 1978]{2338} Goldreich, P., and Tremaine, S. 1978, ApJ, 222, 850

2275: \bibitem[Goldreich, and Tremaine 1980]{gl80} Goldreich, P., and Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425

2276: \bibitem[Gu 2003]{2340} Gu, P-G., Bodenheimer, P., Lin, D. N. C. 2003, ApJ, 588, 509

2277: \bibitem[Gu 2004]{2341} Gu, P-G., Bodenheimer, P., Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 608, 1076

2278: \bibitem[Gurnett 1972]{2342} Gurnett, D. A. 1972, ApJ, 175, 525

2279: \bibitem[Hayashi, et al. 1985]{2343} Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K.,  and Nakagawa, Y. 1985

2280: {\it Protostars and Planets II}, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 1100

2281: \bibitem[henry2000]{2345} Henry, G. W., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S. 2000, ApJ, 529, 41

2282: \bibitem[Iaroslavitz, et al. 2007]{2366}  Iaroslavitz, E., Podolak, M. 2007, Icar, 187, 600 

2283: \bibitem[Ida, and Lin 2004]{2346} Ida, S., and Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 604, 388

2284: \bibitem[Johns-Krull  2007]{2347} Johns-Krull, C. M. 2007, ApJ, 664, 975

2285: \bibitem[Joss, Rappaport, and Katz. 1979]{2348} 	Joss, P. C., Rappaport, S. A., and Katz, J. I. 1979, ApJ, 230, 176

2286: \bibitem[Stellar struct]{2349} Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A. 1994, 

2287: {\it Stellar Structure and Evolution} (Germany: Springer-Verlag)

2288: \bibitem[konigl 1991]{2351} Konigl, A. 1991, ApJ, 370, 39

2289: \bibitem[Li, et al. 1998]{2352} Li, J., Ferrario, L., Wickramashinghe, D. 1998, ApJ, 503, 151

2290: \bibitem[Lin, and Papaloizou 1980]{lp80} Lin, D. N. C., and Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1980, MNRAS, 191, 37

2291: \bibitem[Lin, and Papaloizou 1986a]{lp86} Lin, D. N. C., and Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1986, ApJ, 307, 395

2292: \bibitem[Lin, and Papaloizou 1986b]{2355} Lin, D. N. C., and Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1986, ApJ, 309, 846

2293: \bibitem[Lin, and Papaloizou 1993]{lp93} Lin, D. N. C., and Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1993 

2294: {\it Protostars and Planets III}, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 749

2295: \bibitem[Lin, et al. 1996]{2358} Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., Richardson, D. C. 1996, Nature, 380, 606

2296: \bibitem[Marcy, et al. 2000]{m00} Marcy, G. W., Cochran, and W. D., Mayor, M . 2000 

2297: {\it Protostars and Planets IV}, eds. V. Mannings, A.P. Boss, S.S Russell, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 1285

2298: \bibitem[Mayor, and Queloz 1995]{mq95} Mayor, M., and Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355

2299: \bibitem[Neubauer 1980]{2362} Neubauer, F. M. 1980, JGR, 85, 1171

2300: \bibitem[Ogilvie and Lin 2004]{2300} Ogilvie, G. I., and Lin, D.N.C. 2004, ApJ, 610, 477

2301: \bibitem[Ogilvie, and Lin 2007]{2363} Ogilvie, G. I., and Lin, D. N. C. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1180

2302: \bibitem[de Pater]{2302} de Pater, I., and  Lissauer, J. 2001, Planetary Sciences, Cambridge University

2303: \bibitem[Piddington, and Drake]{2364} Piddington, J. H., and Drake, J. F., 1968, Nature, 217, 935

2304: \bibitem[Piddington 1977]{2365} Piddington, J. H. 1977, Moon, 17, 373

2305: \bibitem[Pollack, et al. 1996]{pol96} Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J. J., Podolak, M., Greenzweig, Y. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62

2306: \bibitem[Saumon 1995]{2368} Saumon, D., Chabrier, G, Van Horn, H. M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713

2307: \bibitem[Setiawan et al 2008]{2307} Setiawan, J., Henning, Th., Launhardt, R., Muller, A.; Weise, P., Kurster,

2308: M. 2008, Nature, 451, 38

2309: \bibitem[Shawhan 1976]{2369} Shawhan, S. D. 1976, JGR, 81, 3373

2310: \bibitem[Shu 1994]{2370} Shu, F. Najita, J., Ostriker, E., Wilkin, F., Ruden, S., Lizano, S. 1994, ApJ, 429, 781

2311: \bibitem[Stassun 2001]{2371} Stassum, K. G., Mathieu, R. D., Vrba, F. J., Mazeh, T., Henden, A. 2001, AJ, 121, 1003 

2312: \bibitem[Sturrock1994]{2372} Sturrock, P. A. 1994

2313: {\it Plasma Physics}, (Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press)

2314: \bibitem[Ward 1997]{2374}  Ward, W. R. 1997, ApJ, 482, 211

2315: \bibitem[Warner 1995]{2375} Warner, B. 1995, 

2316: {\it Cataclysmic Variable Stars}, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

2317: \bibitem[Willes, and Wu 2005]{2377} Willes, A. J., and Wu, K. 2005, A\& A, 432, 1091

2318: \bibitem[Wu, et al. 2002]{2378}  Wu, K., Cropper, M., Ramsay, G., Sekiguchi, K. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 221

2319: \bibitem[Zhou, and Lin 2007]{2379}   Zhou, J. L. and Lin, D. N. C. 2007, ApJ, 666, 447

2320: \end{thebibliography}

2321: \end{document}

2322: 

2323: