1: \def\etal{{\it et al.\thinspace}}
2: \def\mearth{{\rm\,M_\oplus}}
3: \def\msun{{\rm\,M_\odot}}
4:
5: \topmargin -0.5in
6:
7: \documentclass[12pt,preprint,psfig]{aastex}
8: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig,apjfonts]{article}
9: %\documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
10:
11:
12: \received{}
13: \accepted{}
14: %\journalid{}{}
15: %\articleid{}{}
16:
17: \lefthead{}
18: \righthead{}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: \shorttitle{Additional Planets in 55 Cancri}
23: \shortauthors{Raymond, Barnes, \& Gorelick}
24:
25: \title{A dynamical perspective on additional planets in 55 Cancri}
26:
27: \author{Sean N. Raymond\altaffilmark{1,2}, Rory Barnes\altaffilmark{3} \& Noel
28: Gorelick\altaffilmark{4}}
29:
30: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy,
31: University of Colorado, UCB 389, Boulder CO
32: 80309-0389; raymond@lasp.colorado.edu}
33: \altaffiltext{2}{NASA Postdoctoral Program Fellow.}
34: \altaffiltext{3}{Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ }
35: \altaffiltext{4}{Google, Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: Five planets are known to orbit the star 55 Cancri. The recently-discovered
39: planet {\it f} at 0.78 AU (Fischer \etal 2008) is located at the inner edge of
40: a previously-identified stable zone that separates the three close-in
41: planets from planet {\it d} at 5.9 AU. Here we map the stability of the
42: orbital space between planets {\it f} and {\it d} using a suite of n-body
43: integrations that include an additional, yet-to-be-discovered planet $g$
44: with a radial velocity amplitude of 5 $m \, s^{-1}$ (planet mass = 0.5-1.2
45: Saturn masses). We find a large stable zone extending from 0.9 to 3.8 AU at
46: eccentricities below 0.4. For each system we quantify the probability of
47: detecting planets $b-f$ on their current orbits given perturbations from
48: hypothetical planet $g$, in order to further constrain the mass and orbit of
49: an additional planet. We find that large perturbations are associated with
50: specific mean motion resonances (MMRs) with planets $f$ and $d$. We show
51: that two MMRs, 3f:1g (the 1:3 MMR between planets $g$ and $f$) and 4g:1d
52: cannot contain a planet $g$. The 2f:1g MMR is unlikely to contain a planet
53: more massive than $\sim 20 \mearth$. The 3g:1d and 5g:2d MMRs could contain a
54: resonant planet but the resonant location is strongly confined. The 3f:2g,
55: 2g:1d and 3g:2d MMRs exert a stabilizing influence and could contain a
56: resonant planet. Furthermore, we show that the stable zone may in fact
57: contain 2-3 additional planets, if they are $\sim 50 \mearth$ each. Finally,
58: we show that any planets exterior to planet {\it d} must reside beyond 10 AU.
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \keywords{stars: planetary systems --- methods: n-body simulations ---
62: methods: statistical}
63:
64: \section{Introduction}
65:
66: In a remarkable study, Fischer \etal (2008) have measured the orbits of five
67: planets orbiting the the star 55 Cancri, the most planets of any exoplanet
68: system to date. The system contains two strongly-interacting, near-resonant
69: giant planets at 0.115 and 0.24 AU (Butler \etal 1997; Marcy \etal 2002), a
70: 'hot Neptune' at 0.038 AU (McArthur \etal 2004), a Jupiter analog at 5.9 AU
71: (Marcy \etal 2002) and a newly-discovered sub-Saturn-mass planet at 0.78 AU
72: (Fischer \etal 2008). Table 1 lists Fischer \etal's self-consistent dynamical
73: fit of the orbits of the five known planets in 55 Cancri.
74:
75: The fast-paced nature of exoplanet discoveries can lead to interesting
76: interactions between theory and observation. Prior to the discovery of planet
77: 55 Cancri {\it f}, several groups had mapped out the region between planets
78: $c$ and $d$ to determine the most likely location of additional planets. Most
79: studies used massless test particles to probe the stable zone (Barnes \&
80: Raymond 2004 -- hereafter BR04; Jones, Underwood \& Sleep 2005; Rivera \&
81: Haghighipour 2007). Test particles are good proxies for small, Earth-sized
82: planets because they simply react to the ambient gravitational field.
83: However, they are not good substitutes for fully-interacting, real planets.
84: Thus, Raymond \& Barnes (2005; hereafter RB05) mapped out this zone using
85: Saturn-mass test planets. The stable zone from BR04 and RB05 extended from
86: 0.7 AU to 3.2-3.4 AU, a region that includes the star's habitable zone
87: (Raymond, Barnes \& Kaib 2006). The planet 55 Cnc $f$ was discovered by
88: Fischer \etal at the inner edge of that stable zone.
89:
90: %In a third paper, we showed that if the stable region were populated with
91: %planetary embryos, they could accrete into Earth-sized planets (Raymond,
92: %Barnes \& Kaib 2006).
93:
94: The ``Packed Planetary Systems'' (PPS) hypothesis asserts that if a zone
95: exists in which massive planets are dynamically stable, then that zone is
96: likely to contain a massive planet (BR04, RB05, Raymond \etal 2006; Barnes,
97: Godziewski \& Raymond 2008). Although the idea behind the PPS hypothesis is
98: not new (see, for instance, Laskar 1996), the large number of planetary
99: systems being discovered around other stars allows PPS to be tested directly.
100: Indeed, the $\sim$ 1.4 Saturn mass planet HD 74156 $d$ recently discovered by
101: Bean \etal (2008) was located in the stable zone mapped out in BR04 and RB05,
102: and with the approximate mass predicted by RB05 (Barnes \etal 2008). In
103: addition, most of the first-discovered planetary systems are now known to be
104: packed (Barnes \etal 2008), as well as $\sim$85\% of the known two-planet
105: systems (Barnes \& Greenberg 2007). The fact that 55 Cancri $f$ lies within
106: the stable zone identified in previous work (BR04; RB05) also supports PPS,
107: especially since planets $e$ through $c$ are packed, i.e. no additional
108: planets could exist between them. Several other planet predictions have been
109: made and remain to be confirmed or refuted (see Barnes \etal 2008) -- the most
110: concrete outstanding prediction is for the system HD 38529 (see RB05).
111:
112: Mean motion resonances (MMRs) are of great interest because they constrain
113: theories of planet formation. Models of convergent migration in gaseous
114: protoplanetary disks predict that planets should almost always be found in
115: low-order MMRs and with low-amplitude resonant libration (Snellgrove \etal
116: 2001; Lee \& Peale 2002). This may even have been the case for the giant
117: planets in our Solar System (Morbidelli \etal 2007). On the other hand,
118: planet-planet scattering can produce pairs of resonant planets in $\sim 5\%$
119: of unstable systems, but with large-amplitude libration and often in
120: higher-order MMRs (Raymond \etal 2008). Thus, understanding the frequency and
121: character of MMRs in planetary systems is central to planet formation theory.
122:
123: In the context of PPS, 55 Cancri is an important system as it contains many
124: planets, but still appears to have a gap large enough to support more
125: planets. Therefore, PPS makes a clear prediction that another planet must
126: exist between known planets $f$ and $d$. In this paper we add massive
127: hypothetical planets to the system identified by Fischer \etal (2008) to
128: determine which physical and orbital properties could still permit a stable
129: planetary system. We focus our search on the ``new'' stable zone between
130: planets $f$ and $d$. We also show that certain dynamically stable
131: configurations are unlikely to contain a planet because the large eccentricity
132: oscillations induced in the known planets significantly reduce the probability
133: of Fischer \etal having detected the known planets on their identified orbits,
134: to within the observational errors. The orbital regions that perturb the
135: known planets most strongly correlate with specific dynamical resonances, such
136: that we can put meaningful constraints on the masses of planets in those
137: resonances. Finally, we also use test particle simulations to map out the
138: region of stability for additional planets beyond planet $d$, in the distant
139: reaches of the planetary system.
140:
141: \section{Methods}
142:
143: Our analysis consists of four parts; the methods used for each are described
144: in this section. First, we map the stable zone between planets $f$ and $d$
145: using massive test planets -- note that we use the term ``test planets'' to
146: refer to massive, fully-interacting planets. Our numerical methods are
147: described in $\S$ 2.1.1. Second, we use massless test particles to map the
148: stability of orbits exterior to planet $d$, as described in $\S$ 2.1.2.
149: Third, we use the same technique to map several mean motion resonances in the
150: stable region. A simple overview of resonant theory is presented in $\S$2.2.
151: Finally, we use a quantity called the FTD -- defined in $\S$ 2.3 -- to
152: evaluate the probability of detecting stable test planets.
153:
154: \subsection{Numerical Methods}
155:
156: \subsubsection{Massive test planets}
157: We performed 2622 6-planet integrations of the 55 Cancri planetary system
158: which include an additional hypothetical planet $g$ located between known
159: planets $f$ and $d$. In each case, the known planets began on orbits from
160: Table 1 including randomly-assigned mutual inclinations of less than 1
161: degree. Planet $g$ was placed from 0.85 to 5.0 AU in increments of 0.03 AU
162: and with eccentricity between 0.0 and 0.6 in increments of 0.033. The mass
163: of planet $g$ was chosen to induce a reflex velocity of 5 $m\, s^{-1}$ in
164: the 0.92 $\msun$ host star (Valenti \& Fischer 2005): its mass was varied
165: continuously from $\sim 50 \mearth$ inside 1 AU to 120 $\mearth$ at 5 AU.
166: Orbital angles of the planets $g$ were chosen at random. The system was
167: integrated for 10 Myr using the symplectic integrator {\tt Mercury}
168: (Chambers 1999), based on the Wisdom-Holman mapping (Wisdom \& Holman 1991)
169: We used a 0.1 day timestep and all simulations conserved energy to better
170: than 1 part in 10$^6$. Integrations were stopped when they either reached
171: 10 Myr or if a close encounter occurred between any two planets such that
172: their Hill radii overlapped.
173:
174: Although 10 Myr is much less than the typical ages of extrasolar
175: planetary systems ($\sim$ Gyr), for a survey of this magnitude it is
176: impractical to simulate each case for Gyrs. Previous N-body
177: integrations of extrasolar planets have shown that $10^6$ orbits is
178: sufficient to identify $\sim 99\% $ of unstable configurations (Barnes
179: \& Quinn 2004). Moreover, N-body models of stability boundaries
180: are consistent with alternative methods, such as the Mean Exponential Growth
181: of Nearby Orbits (MEGNO; Cincotta \& Simo 2000) or Fast Lyapunov Indicators
182: (Froschl\'e \etal 1998; S\'andor et al. 2007). For example, 1 Myr N-body
183: integrations of the 2:1 resonant pair in HD 82943 (Barnes \& Quinn 2004)
184: identified a stability boundary that is very close to that of a MEGNO
185: calculation (Go\'zdziewski \& Maciejewski 2001). More recently, Barnes \&
186: Greenberg (2006a), using 1 Myr N-body integrations, derived a quantitative
187: relationship between the Hill and Lagrange stability boundaries for the
188: non-resonant planets in HD 12661 that is nearly identical to a MEGNO study (\v
189: Sidlichovsk\'y \& Gerlach 2008). Therefore, for both resonant and non-resonant
190: cases, $10^7$ year integrations provide a realistic measurement of stability
191: boundaries.
192:
193: In Section 4, we performed several thousand additional integrations but with
194: hypothetical planet $g$ in or near specific mean motion resonances (MMRs) with
195: planet $f$ or $d$. In each case we aligned planet $g$'s longitude of
196: pericenter $\varpi$ and time of perihelion with either planet $f$ or $d$
197: unless otherwise noted. Small mutual inclinations ($<$ 1 deg) between the two
198: planets were included, with random nodal angles. Each set of simulations
199: focused on a given MMR and included test planets of fixed mass with a range of
200: orbital parameters designed to cover the MMR. The number of simulations
201: ranged from 30 (4g:1d) to $>$1100 (2g:1d) simulations per set. Planet $g$'s
202: mass was constant in each set of simulations but varied by a factor of 2-3
203: between sets from the maximum value (RV = 5 $m \, s^{-1}$) down to 10-40
204: $\mearth$. We performed 2-3 sets for each MMR.
205:
206: Our results are clearly sensitive to the assumed ``true'' orbits and masses of
207: planets $b-f$. For this work we have adopted Fischer \etal's (2008)
208: self-consistent dynamical fit, but the observational uncertainties remain
209: large. However, the locations of the MMRs in question scale simply with the
210: semimajor axis of planet $d$ or $f$. The strength of these MMRs depends on
211: the mass and eccentricity of planets $d$ or $f$ (e.g., Murray \& Dermott
212: 1999). The eccentricity of planet $d$ is relatively well-known, while that of
213: planet $f$ is weakly constrained. Thus, the system parameters that could
214: affect our results are $e_f$, $M_d$ and $M_f$. Since we assumed a small value
215: of $e_f$, any increase would affect the strength of the 3f:2g, 2f:1g, and
216: 3f:1g MMRs. If $M_f$ and $M_d$ increase due to a determination of the
217: system's observed inclination, then all the resonances we studied will
218: increase in strength. This will tend to destabilize planets and also increase
219: the size of chaotic zones. Thus, our results are likely to be ``lower
220: limits'' in terms of the strength of resonances. Despite these potential
221: issues, our simulations provide a realistic picture of the (in)stability of
222: each MMR.
223:
224: \subsubsection{Massless Test Particles}
225:
226: To give a more complete view of the planetary system, we also tested the
227: stability of planets exterior to planet $d$ (5.9 AU). We used massless test
228: particles for these simulations because of their smaller computational
229: expense. Test particles were spaced by 0.01 AU from 6 to 30 AU (2401 total
230: particles), and were given zero eccentricity, zero inclination orbits. All
231: five known planets were included with orbits from Table 1, including randomly
232: assigned inclinations of less than 1 degree. As in previous runs, we used the
233: {\tt Mercury} hybrid integrator (Chambers 1999) with a 0.1 day timestep and
234: integrated the system for 10 Myr.
235:
236: \subsection{Theory of Mean Motion Resonances (MMRs)}
237:
238: For mean motion resonance p+q : p, the resonant arguments $\theta_i$ (also
239: called ``resonant angles'') are of the form
240: \begin{equation}
241: \theta_{1,2} = (p+q) \lambda_1 - p \lambda_2 -q \varpi_{1,2} \\
242: \end{equation}
243: \noindent where $\lambda$ are mean longitudes, $\varpi$ are longitudes
244: of pericenter, and subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the inner and outer planet,
245: respectively (e.g., Murray \& Dermott 1999). Resonant arguments effectively
246: measure the angle between the two planets at the conjunction point -- if any
247: argument librates rather than circulates, then the planets are in mean motion
248: resonance. In fact, the bulk of resonant configurations are characterized by
249: only one librating resonant argument (Michtchenko \etal 2008). In general,
250: libration occurs around equilibrium angles of zero or 180$^\circ$ but any
251: angle can serve as the equilibrium. Different resonances have different
252: quantities of resonant arguments, involving various permutations of the final
253: terms in Eq. 1. For example, the 2:1 MMR (q=1, p=1) has two resonant
254: arguments, and the 3:1 MMR (q=2, p=1) has three arguments:
255: \begin{equation}
256: \theta_{1} = 3 \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 - 2 \varpi_{1}, \hskip .2in
257: \theta_{2} = 3 \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 - 2 \varpi_{2}, \hskip .1in {\rm and } \hskip .2in
258: \theta_{3} = 3 \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 - (\varpi_{1}+\varpi_2).
259: \end{equation}
260:
261: In Section 4, we focus on the possibility of a hypothetical planet $g$
262: existing in several MMRs in the stable zone between planets $f$ and $d$. We
263: measure the behavior of planets in and near resonance using the appropriate
264: resonant arguments, as well as the relative apsidal orientation, i.e.,
265: $\varpi_g - \varpi_{d,f}$.
266:
267: \subsection{The FTD value (``Fraction of Time on Detected orbits'')}
268:
269: We have developed a simple quantity to constrain the location of hypothetical
270: planet $g$ beyond a simple stability criterion. To do this, we consider the
271: observational constraints on the orbits of known planets $b$ - $f$ (1-sigma
272: error bars from Fischer \etal (2008) are listed in Table 1). A stable test
273: planet can induce large oscillations in the eccentricities of the observed
274: planets. Systems undergoing large eccentricity oscillations can be stable
275: indefinitely as long as their orbits remain sufficiently separated (Marchal \&
276: Bozis 1982; Gladman 1993; Barnes \& Greenberg 2006a, 2007). However,
277: systems
with large eccentricity oscillations are less likely to be observed
278: in a
specific eccentricity range, especially with all planets having
279: relatively
small eccentricities, as is the case for 55 Cancri. The
280: probability that a hypothetical planet $g$ can exist on a given orbit is
281: related to the fraction of time that known planets $b-f$ are on their current
282: orbits, to within the observational error bars. We call this quantity the FTD
283: (``Fraction of Time on Detected orbits''). If the FTD is small, then it is
284: unlikely for planet $g$ to exist on that orbit, because perturbations from
285: planet $g$ have decreased the probability of the {\it
286: already-made}-detection
of planets $b-f$. However, if the FTD is close to 1
287: then planet $g$ does not
significantly affect the likelihood of detecting
288: the other planets and
therefore hypothetical planet could exist on the given
289: orbit. We have
calibrated the FTD to have a value of unity for the known
290: five-planet system
(with no planet $g$). To perform this calibration, we
291: artificially increased
the observational error of planet $c$ from 0.008 to
292: 0.013. This was necessary simply because the evolution of the five known
293: planets causes planet $c$'s eccentricity to oscillate with an amplitude that
294: is larger than its
observational uncertainty, such that the FTD of the
295: 5-planet system is $\sim
0.65$. Thus, we calibrate by artificially
296: increasing the uncertainty to roughly match the oscillation amplitude. As the
297: region of interest lies between planets $f$ and $d$, low FTD values are
298: virtually always due to increases in the eccentricities of planets $f$ or $d$.
299: The small change we made to the error of planet $c$ does not affect our
300: results, and different methods for calibrating the FTD yield similar values.
301: The FTD value therefore represents a quantity that measures the perturbations
302: of a hypothetical planet $g$ on the detectability of observed planets $b-f$,
303: normalized to the amplitude of the self-induced perturbations of planets
304: $b-f$.
305:
306: To summarize, regions of high FTD (white in upcoming figures) represent orbits
307: of planet $g$ which are consistent with current observations of the
308: system. Regions of low FTD (blue or black) represent orbits which
309: significantly decrease the probability of detecting planets $b-f$ on their
310: observed orbits. Thus, we do not expect an additional planet to exist in
311: regions with low FTD. Our confidence in this assertion scales with the FTD
312: value itself (see color bar in upcoming figures). We a low FTD value to be
313: below 50\%, although this choice is arbitrary and much of the dynamical
314: structure of the stable region is revealed at FTD values above 0.5. Note that
315: all regions that have an FTD value are dynamically stable for our 10 Myr
316: integration.
317:
318: %Our analysis relies heavily on the FTD (``Fraction of Time on Detected
319: %orbits'') value. The FTD value effectively measures the probability of
320: %detecting planet $b-f$ on their current orbits under dynamical perturbations
321: %from a hypothetical planet $g$. For very small values of the FTD, the
322: %probability of detecting planets $b$-$f$ is so small that planet $g$ simply
323: %could not exist on those orbits. For values near 1, planet $g$ does not
324: %noticeably affect the detectability of the known planets so planet $g$ could
325: %exist on that orbit. For intermediate values the situation is less clear:
326: %below what value of the FTD can we say that a planet is not found on a given
327: %orbit? We see no clear answer to this question. In fact, as observational
328: %uncertainties improve, the FTD for the best-fit case will decrease, because
329: %the errors on the eccentricity can drop below the typical oscillation
330: %amplitude, as is indeed already the case for planet $b$. Thus, the FTD is
331: %useful only in a relative sense: if there exist two regions with vastly
332: %different FTDs, then an additional planet is more likely to reside in the
333: %region with higher FTD.
334:
335: %In our case, a vast swath of orbital parameter space exists with FTD near 1
336: %(Fig~\ref{fig:ae}), but only a few specific regions have low FTD. We consider
337: %these regions to be truly less likely to harbor a hypothetical planet $g$.
338: %However, a more detailed investigation of these regions shows that there is
339: %often substructure within a given zone. In many cases, there exist islands
340: %within these low-FTD zones where planets may exist. In addition, the low-FTD
341: %zones are often, but not always, associated with chaotic behavior which may be
342: %unstable on timescales longer than our 10 Myr integrations. Thus, it is
343: %difficult to make general statements regarding the properties of a given zone
344: %based only on the FTD value. Nonetheless, when combined with dynamical
345: %information, the FTD is a valuable tool for constraining the location of
346: %additional planets in known exoplanet systems.
347:
348: \section{The stable zone between planets $f$ and $d$}
349:
350: Figure~\ref{fig:ae} shows the stable zone between planets $f$ and $d$: 984 of
351: the 2622 simulations were stable (37.5\%). Hatched areas indicate unstable
352: regions, white and grey/blue indicate stable zones. The inner edge of the
353: stable zone is defined by orbits that approach within a critical distance of
354: planet $f$ (the dashed line denotes orbits that cross those of planets $f$ or
355: $d$). The outer regions of the stable zone are carved by resonances with the
356: $\sim$ 4 Jupiter-mass planet $d$. Virtually no stable regions exist exterior
357: to the 2:1 mean motion resonance (MMR) with planet $d$ at 3.7 AU, except for
358: the 3:2 MMR at $\sim$ 4.5 AU (not all test planets at 4.5 AU in
359: Fig~\ref{fig:ae} are in resonance because angles were chosen randomly).
360: Note that the outer boundary of the stable zone is more distant than the one
361: mapped in RB04 and BR05 -- this is due to a decrease in the best-fit
362: eccentricity of planet $d$, reducing the strength of its secular and resonant
363: perturbations. For a given semimajor axis and eccentricity of test planet $g$,
364: the bluescale of Fig~\ref{fig:ae} represents the FTD, i.e. the probability of
365: detecting known planets $b-f$ on their current orbits (see color bar). The
366: dark observationally unlikely areas do not fall at random, but are associated
367: with specific dynamical structures within the stable zone. The wide, dark
368: band from 1.3-2 AU with $e \sim 0.2-0.4$ are orbits for which secular
369: perturbations from planet $g$ increase the eccentricity of planet $f$ above
370: 0.2. The wide dark dip from 2-2.4 AU at smaller eccentricities is associated
371: with a secular resonance between planets $f$ and $g$ which also increases the
372: eccentricity of planet $f$ above its observational limit. All other
373: observationally unlikely (i.e., low FTD, dark) regions are caused by MMRs
374: with
planets $f$ or $d$, although some are not clearly resolved in
375: Fig.~\ref{fig:ae} because the resonance is narrow. There is clearly room in
376: between planets $f$ and $c$ for an additional planet; in $\S$ 5 we explore
377: the
possibility that multiple companions might lie in this zone.
378:
379: \section {Mean motion resonances (MMRs)}
380:
381: We performed extensive additional simulations to test the stability of
382: parameter space in the vicinity of eight resonances in the stable zone --
383: 2g:3f (the 2:3 MMR between planets $g$ and $f$), 1g:2f, 1g:3f, 4g:1d, 3g:1d,
384: 5g:2d, 2g:1d and 3g:2d. The location of these resonances is shown in
385: Fig.~\ref{fig:ae} and listed in Table 2. Based on our results, we divide the
386: eight MMRs into three categories: stable, unstable, and neutral resonances. A
387: stable MMR effectively stabilizes a given region against secular perturbations
388: (i.e., long-term gravitational perturbations far from resonance; see
389: e.g. Murray \& Dermott 1999). For example, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae},
390: there are locations associated with the 3g:2d MMR at $\sim$ 4.5 AU that,
391: although they cross planet $d$'s orbit, are stable for long timescales.
392: Conversely, an unstable resonance destabilizes a region that would be stable
393: under just secular perturbations. For example, the region at 2.8-3.0 AU is
394: well-shielded from secular perturbations, but the 3g:1d MMR at 2.88 AU causes
395: a large swath of nearby orbits to be unstable. A neutral resonance is one
396: where a region would be stable under secular perturbations, and remains stable
397: with the resonance. Although the stability of test planets is not strongly
398: affected by these MMRs, FTD values can be strongly affected, which in turn
399: affect the likelihood of detecting a planet in a neutral resonance.
400:
401: We see general similarities between different resonances. In many cases there
402: exists a small region that can undergo resonant libration -- that region is
403: usually confined in $a_g$, $e_g$, and $M_g$ (the mass of planet g) space.
404: Planets in this region undergo regular eccentricity oscillations such that
405: their FTD values are usually quite high, i.e. a planet can exist in that
406: zone. Just outside a resonant region there often exists a chaotic zone in
407: which planets may undergo temporary capture into the resonance. These zones
408: are characterized by large irregular eccentricity variations that can
409: eventually lead to close encounters and dynamical instability. The
410: instability timescale is shorter for smaller $M_g$ such that these chaotic
411: zones are more populated for large $M_g$. However, given the relatively short
412: 10 Myr duration of our integrations, we suspect that these chaotic zones would
413: be cleared out in the system lifetime. We also found that stable zones with
414: apsidal libration often exist close to the resonance.
415:
416: \subsection{Stable Resonances -- 3f:2g, 2g:1d, and 3g:2d}
417:
418: \subsubsection{The 3f:2g MMR}
419:
420: The 3f:2g MMR is located from 1.02-1.04 AU. Figure~\ref{fig:resf23} shows the
421: outcome of 136 simulations with planet $g$ in the resonant region, formatted
422: as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}. Two stable peaks extend above the collision line
423: with planet $f$, at 1.024 and 1.034-1.039 AU. To avoid a close encounter and
424: maintain dynamical stability, these planets must be in the 3:2 MMR. Indeed,
425: the resonance provides a protection mechanism to maintain stability despite
426: crossing orbits. The resonant dynamics prevents close encounters from
427: happening by phasing orbital angles in various ways (see section 3 of Marzari
428: \etal 2006) -- this is also the case for the 2g:1d and 3gL2d MMRs. As
429: expected, we find that all planets on the two peaks above the collision line
430: undergo resonant libration of $\theta_1 = 3 \lambda_g - 2
431: \lambda_f -\varpi_g$ about 180$^\circ$. In the peak at 1.034 AU, resonant
432: orbits extend down to zero eccentricity. However, the resonance associated
433: with the peak at 1.024 AU extends down to $e_g \sim 0.05$. Below that limit
434: and for the rest of the nearby, low-eccentricity stable zone, test planets are
435: not in resonance with planet $f$
436:
437: Figure~\ref{fig:evolf23} shows the evolution of a simulation above the
438: collision line with planet $f$. Libration of $\theta_1$ about 180$^\circ$ is
439: apparent. In contrast, $\varpi_g - \varpi_f$ and $\theta_2$ are
440: preferentially found near 0$^\circ$ but they do occasionally circulate. If
441: all three angles were librating then the system would be in apsidal corotation
442: resonance; Michtchenko \& Beauge 2003; Ferraz-Mello, Michtchenko \& Beauge
443: 2003). The eccentricities of planets $g$ and $f$ oscillate out of phase with
444: amplitudes of $\sim 0.3$. Note that $e_f$ therefore exceeds the limits of its
445: observational uncertainty, since its nominal current value is $\sim 0$ with an
446: uncertainty of 0.2. Thus, this simulation has a low FTD value of 0.335.
447:
448: FTD values for test planets above the collision line are smaller for larger
449: values of $M_g$. However, more than half of resonant configurations have very
450: high FTD values. Therefore, a planet as massive as $54 \mearth$ could reside
451: in the 3f:2g MMR, but only at low eccentricity ($e_g \lesssim 0.2$).
452:
453: \subsubsection{The 2g:1d MMR}
454:
455: The 2:1 MMR with planet $d$ (2g:1d) is a wide, stable resonance located from
456: 3.6-3.85 AU, and in some cases extending above the collision line with planet
457: $d$. Figure~\ref{fig:resd21} shows the outcomes of our integrations near the
458: resonance. There is a peak of stability from 3.6-3.9 AU, and a sharp cliff of
459: instability for $a_g > 3.9$ AU. The height of the peak depends on $M_g$: the
460: stable region extends to higher $e$ for more massive planets. The majority of
461: the stable region in Fig.~\ref{fig:resd21} participates in the 2g:1d MMR,
462: i.e. at least one resonant argument librates. However, the behavior of
463: different resonant arguments varies with $M_g$ Figure~\ref{fig:libd21} shows
464: the stable zone from Fig.~\ref{fig:resd21} color-coded by which angle is
465: librating ($\theta_1 = 2 \lambda_d - \lambda_g \varpi_g$ and $\theta_2 = 2
466: \lambda_d - \lambda_g - \varpi_d$). The libration of $\theta_1$ is widespread
467: and covers a large area. In contrast, $\theta_2$ librates only in cases with
468: $M_g = 100 \mearth$, at the center of the resonance, right on the collision
469: line with planet $d$. In cases where $\theta_2$ librates, $\theta_1$ and
470: $\varpi_g-\varpi_d$ also librate in a configuration known as an apsidal
471: corotation resonance. For lower $M_g$, the apsidal corotation resonance is
472: apparent only in a few cases for $M_g = 50
473: \mearth$. It is interesting that the small island of $\theta_2$ libration for
474: $M_g = 100 \mearth$ has very high FTD values, while surrounding areas, while
475: still in the resonance, have far lower FTD values (Fig.~\ref{fig:resd21}).
476: These high FTD areas are shifted to slightly higher $e_g$ for $M_g = 50
477: \mearth$ and are in fact unstable for $M_g = 20 \mearth$.
478: If a planet $g$ exists in the 2g:1d MMR, then it must be localized in both
479: mass and orbital parameter space. For large $M_g$, the planet could be either
480: right on the collision line with planet $d$ at $a_g \sim 3.73$ AU and $e_g
481: \sim 0.5$, or in the surrounding region of high FTD that extends from 2.6-2.85
482: AU with $e_g$ from 0.1-0.4. The lower-FTD belt that separates these two
483: regions has FTD $\sim$ 0.7, so we cannot firmly exclude planets from that
484: region. For smaller $M_g$, only the second region is available, although it
485: reaches slightly higher $e_g$.
486:
487: \subsubsection{The 3g:2d MMR}
488:
489: The 3g:2d MMR is the most dramatic example of a stabilizing resonance. The
490: entire resonant region is unstable to secular perturbations (See
491: Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}). Nonetheless, Figure~\ref{fig:resd32} shows that there does
492: exist a contiguous stable region here. Moreover, more than half of the
493: resonant region has orbits that cross that of planet $d$. We find that all
494: orbits across the collision line with planet $d$ exhibit regular libration of
495: the resonant angle $\theta_1 = 3 \lambda_d - 2 \lambda_g -\varpi_g$ about
496: 0$^\circ$, although none undergo apsidal libration. For the majority of cases
497: below the collision line there is a preferential alignment of $\theta_1$,
498: $theta_2$, and $\varpi_g - \varpi_d$, but circulation does occur. The
499: situation is similar for the three different values of $M_g$, although a
500: larger fraction of systems exhibited stable resonant libration for lower
501: $M_g$.
502:
503: FTD values above the collision line are 0.5-0.8 for $M_g = 113
504: \mearth$, 0.8-1 for $M_g = 50 \mearth$, and 1 for $M_g = 20 \mearth$. This
505: suggests that the 3g:2d MMR is unlikely to contain a planet more massive than
506: $\sim 50 \mearth$ above the collision line. However, just below the collision
507: line FTD values are large for all masses so we cannot constrain $M_g$ beyond
508: the stability boundaries.
509:
510: It is interesting that low-eccentricity test planets are unstable in this
511: region. This appears to be due to short-term dynamical forcing from planet
512: $d$, as the low-$e_g$ region does not participate in the 3g:2d MMR. Planet
513: $d$'s Hill sphere is very large, $\sim$0.65 AU, such that any body exterior to
514: 4.88 AU will cross planet $d$'s orbit unless a favorable alignment (i.e., a
515: resonance) prevents this. For a test planet starting at 4.5 AU, an
516: eccentricity greater than 0.07 will bring the planet into the orbit-crossing
517: region. Secular forcing from planet $d$ is very strong in the region of the
518: 3g:2d MMR, so any planet not participating in the resonance will be quickly
519: destabilized. For low-$e_g$ orbits near, but not in, the 3g:2d MMR,
520: encounters between planets $g$ and $d$ can occur in less than two orbital
521: periods of planet $d$.
522:
523: \subsection{Unstable Resonances -- 3g:1d and 4g:1d}
524:
525: \subsubsection{The 3g:1d MMR}
526:
527: The 3g:1d MMR is not truly an unstable resonance, although
528: Figure~\ref{fig:resd31} shows that a large region of parameter space centered
529: on the resonance (at $\sim$ 2.88 AU)\footnote{The location of the resonance is
530: shifted slightly from its nominal value of 2.83 AU by secular effects.} is
531: destabilized. However, a small range of test planets does show evidence of
532: long-term stable libration of one of the three resonant arguments for the 3:1
533: MMR (see Eq. 2). This region is located at $a_g$ = 2.86-2.89 AU and $e_g \leq
534: 0.06$ (i.e., $e_g < e_d$). In these cases only one argument, $\theta_3$,
535: librates, whereas $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$, and $\varpi_g - \varpi_d$ all
536: circulate. The eccentricities of planets $g$ and $d$ oscillate regularly
537: within narrow ranges such that the FTD value of these resonant cases
is low.
538: In other words, a configuration with planet $g$ in 3:1 resonance with
planet
539: $d$ is observationally allowed, although the resonant region is narrow
and
540: restricted to very low eccentricities.
541:
542: Figure~\ref{fig:evold31} shows the evolution of two simulations, one in stable
543: resonant libration and the other undergoing chaotic evolution including a time
544: spent in resonance. In the stable case, the apses of planets $d$ and $g$ are
545: circulating but $\theta_3$ librates consistently with an amplitude of
546: 60$^\circ$. In contrast, the chaotic (and ultimately unstable) case undergoes
547: resonant libration of $\theta_1$ for 1.5 Myr, during which $e_g$ remained
548: confined in a relatively narrow band and $\varpi_g - \varpi_d$ librated about
549: anti-alignment (see below). Once the resonance was broken, $e_g$ ranged from
550: close to zero to above 0.5. At 3.2 Myr, planets $g$ and $d$ underwent a close
551: encounter and the integration was stopped.
552:
553: There exists a small ``island'' near the resonance at $a_g$ = 2.85-2.88 AU
554: with $e_g = 0.15-0.2$ which is stable for long timescales. This island is
555: small but apparent for all three test planet masses and in all cases the
556: island has high FTD values, i.e., test planets in this region do not strongly
557: perturb the orbits of planets $b-f$. In this island, the longitudes of
558: pericenter of planets $d$ and $g$ librate with low amplitude and
559: eccentricities of both planets also oscillate with relatively low amplitudes.
560: Thus, this island of low-amplitude apsidal libration has very
high FTD
561: values. There is another region in Fig.~\ref{fig:resd31} which exhibits
562: low-amplitude apsidal libration, with $a > 2.88$ AU and $e \sim 0.06$ (note
563: that $e_d = 0.063$). This region is not distinct from surrounding orbits in
564: terms of the FTD value; nonetheless it is strongly localized. It is
565: interesting that this libration is so strong on one side of the resonance
566: (i.e., at orbital period ratios with planet $d$ of less than 3:1) and
567: nonexistent on the other side of the resonance.
568:
569: Test planets near the resonant region ($a_g = 2.86-2.89$ AU, $e_g \leq 0.06$)
570: or apsidal-libration island ($a_g = 2.85-2.88$ AU, $e_g = 0.15-0.2$) may
571: undergo temporary capture into the 3g:1d resonance, i.e. temporary libration
572: of one or more resonant arguments. However, in these cases the evolution of
573: the system is typically chaotic such that resonant libration does not last for
574: long times. The majority of these cases are unstable on the 10 Myr
575: integration period, especially for smaller test planet masses $M_g$. For
576: larger $M_g$, stable cases have small FTD values and so are observationally
577: unlikely. In addition, we expect such cases to be unstable on longer
578: timescales given the chaotic evolution of the system.
579:
580: FTD values at large $e_g$ are a function of $M_g$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:resd31}),
581: as a more massive eccentric planet will impart larger perturbations on the
582: other planets in the system. Note that these regions do not undergo resonant
583: or apsidal libration.
584:
585: We reran the same cases with the apses of planets $g$ and $d$ anti-aligned
586: rather than aligned; Figure~\ref{fig:resd31anti} summarizes the outcome. For
587: anti-aligned apses we see the same instability of planets in the resonant
588: region, but no island of apsidal libration was apparent. There also existed a
589: few cases undergoing stable resonant libration of $\theta_3$ in the same
590: region as the aligned case ($a_g$ = 2.86-2.89 AU), but only for initial $e_g =
591: 0$. The only other test planets that underwent resonant libration were for
592: $M_g = 90\mearth$ at higher eccentricities. As before, these cases evolve
593: chaotically and have high FTD values. Such orbits are unstable for smaller
594: $M_g$ and likely unstable on longer timescales for $M_g = 90\mearth$.
595:
596: The stability limits far from resonance differ between the aligned and
597: anti-aligned simulations. In particular, the edges of the resonance occur at
598: lower eccentricities for the anti-aligned case (at $e_g = 0.3-0.35$ rather
599: than 0.45-0.5). This appears to be due to stronger secular forcing for the
600: cases which are initially anti-aligned. In other words, anti-aligned test
601: planets start the simulations in a phase of eccentricity growth and aligned
602: planets start in a phase of eccentricity decline. Thus, the long-term median
603: eccentricity of planet $g$ in an anti-aligned configuration with planet $d$ is
604: significantly larger than the eccentricity of planet $g$ starting in an
605: aligned configuration. Higher eccentricities lead to closer encounters with
606: other planets, which is the key factor in determining the stability of a
607: planetary system (e.g., Marchal \& Bozis 1982; Gladman 1993; Barnes \&
608: Greenberg 2006a, 2007). Therefore, for a given starting eccentricity, a
609: planet in an anti-aligned configuration will have a higher average
610: eccentricity than for an aligned configuration -- this higher eccentricity
611: will bring the anti-aligned case closer to instability. So, although the
612: stability limit for aligned and anti-aligned cases has the same time-averaged
613: eccentricity, this limit occurs for smaller {\it starting} eccentricities for
614: the anti-aligned configuration. It is therefore important to note that the
615: initial eccentricity is not necessarily a good measure of the typical
616: eccentricity during an integration, especially when comparing systematically
617: different orbital angles.
618:
619: \subsubsection{The 4g:1d MMR}
620:
621: The 4:1 MMR with planet $d$ is strongly dependent on $M_g$ (see
622: Figure~\ref{fig:resd41}). For both $M_g = 80 \mearth$ and $40 \mearth$, the
623: outskirts of the resonance at high-FTD values show the same structure.
624: However, the heart of the resonance, at 2.35-2.36 AU, is populated with
625: lower-FTD planets for $M_g = 80 \mearth$ and is empty for $M_g = 40 \mearth$.
626: Planets in this region undergo chaotic and temporary capture into resonant
627: libration. However, the resonance never persists for more than a few Myr.
628: For $M_g = 40 \mearth$ we see the same phenomenon but the timescale for such
629: planets to become dynamically unstable is shorter, such that very few survive
630: for 10 Myr. We suspect that this chaotic region will be cleared out for $M_g
631: = 80 \mearth$ on timescales that are somewhat longer, but still short compared
632: with the lifetime of the system. Thus, we do not expect any planets to exist
633: in the 4g:1d MMR.
634:
635: \subsection{Neutral Resonances -- 2f:1g, 3f:1g, and 5g:2d}
636:
637: \subsubsection{The 2f:1g MMR}
638:
639: The 2f:1g MMR is located at $\sim$ 1.24 AU. Figure~\ref{fig:resf12} shows a
640: lot of substructure within the resonance, with significant variations in FTD
641: and stability between neighboring test planets. We believe these variations
642: are caused by a combination of secular effects and sparse sampling.
643: Nonetheless, we see a clear trend of higher FTD and greater stability for
644: lower $M_g$.
645:
646: For $M_g > 10 \mearth$ only a very limited sample of test planets show
647: evidence for libration of 2f:1g resonant angles. Indeed, for $M_g = 30
648: \mearth$ and $60 \mearth$ the only region which exhibits resonant libration
649: is at $a_g$ = 1.24 and 1.25 AU, and $e_g$ = 0.26-0.30. In this region
650: libration of $\theta_2 = 2 \lambda_g - \lambda_f - \varpi_f$ occurs but with
651: varying amplitudes and in a chaotic fashion with occasional circulation.
652: However, the median FTD value of these resonant planets is only 0.1 ($M_g =
653: 60\mearth$) and 0.37 ($M_g = 30 \mearth$). A large range of parameter space
654: exhibits temporary libration of resonance angles but no long-term resonance.
655: This region is centered at 1.24-1.25 with somewhat smaller eccentricities, and
656: has small FTD values. In contrast, for $M_g = 10 \mearth$, several regions
657: exhibit stable resonant libration. Resonant orbits tend to correlate with
658: high FTD values in the 'V'-shaped region and tend to lie at the edges at $a_g$
659: = 1.24 and 1.26 AU.
660:
661: Figure~\ref{fig:f12evol} shows the evolution of resonant angles $\theta_1$ and
662: $\theta_2$ for two simulations, both starting with $a_g = 1.251$ AU and $e_g$
663: = 0.282, but with $M_g$ = 60 $\mearth$ and 10 $\mearth$. For $M_g = 60
664: \mearth$, $\theta_2$ librates about 0$^\circ$ in irregular fashion with
665: occasional circulation, and $\theta_2$ circulates. For $M_g=10\mearth$ the
666: situation is quite different: $\theta_1$ librates steadily about 75$^\circ$
667: with an amplitude of 30$^\circ$, and $\theta_2$ librates about 315$^\circ$
668: with an amplitude of $\sim 90^\circ$ but with occasional
669: circulation.\footnote{It is uncommon for resonant angles to librate about
670: values other than 0$^\circ$ or 180$^\circ$ but can happen in some
671: circumstances (e.g., Zhou \& Sun 2003).} The contrast between the two cases
672: is remarkable and leads us to the conclusion that it is very unlikely for a
673: planet with $M_g \gtrsim 20 \mearth$ to exist in the 2f:1g MMR.
674:
675: \subsubsection{The 3f:1g MMR}
676:
677: The 3f:1g MMR lies at 1.63 AU. Figure~\ref{fig:resf13} shows a clear trend
678: between lower FTD in this region and larger $M_g$. Thus, the 3f:1g MMR is
679: unlikely to contain a planet more massive than $\sim 30 \mearth$. The mean
680: [median] values of the FTD for simulations with $a_g$ = 1.633 AU are 0.49
681: [0.59] for $M_g = 68 \mearth$, 0.69 [0.80] for $M_g = 30 \mearth$, and 0.97
682: [0.98] for $M_g = 10 \mearth$.
683:
684: None of the planets with $a_g$ = 1.633 AU in Fig.~\ref{fig:resf13} (the
685: central ``column'' of $a_g$ values) stay in resonance for long timescales.
686: Resonant angles librate temporarily in many cases before switching to
687: circulation, and sometimes back to libration in irregular fashion. Despite
688: this chaotic behavior, most of these cases appear to be stable for 10 Myr,
689: without undergoing close approaches with planet $f$. Many of the simulations
690: with $a_g$ = 1.628 and 1.638 AU in Fig.~\ref{fig:resf13} exhibited a period of
691: apsidal libration between planets $f$ and $g$. As for the resonant cases,
692: periods of circulation and libration were often chaotically interspersed, but
693: the simulations were nonetheless stable and with high FTD values. For smaller
694: $M_g$, there exist fewer planets which exhibit temporary resonant libration,
695: but the region of temporary apsidal libration is expanded. For the most part,
696: regions of low FTD correspond to chaotic zones and high FTD correspond to
697: temporary apsidal libration.
698:
699: \subsubsection{The 5g:2d MMR}
700:
701: Figure~\ref{fig:resd52} shows the stability and FTD of planet $g$ in and near
702: the 5:2 resonance with planet $d$. The structure of the phase space is quite
703: simple in this case and can be broken into four regions. The first region,
704: represented as high-FTD areas at $e_g < 0.07$, undergoes regular apsidal
705: libration but is not in resonance. The second, smaller region also has high
706: FTD values and is located at $a_g \approx 3.20-3.225$ AU and $e_g = 0.25-0.4$.
707: This region is wider for $M_g = 50 \mearth$ than for 95 $\mearth$ but the
708: characteristics are the same for the two values of $M_g$: this zone undergoes
709: stable libration of all four resonant arguments, as well as apsidal libration.
710: This region is therefore in the apsidal corotation resonance, also seen for
711: large $M_g$ in the 2g:1d MMR. The third region comprises the low-FTD region
712: centered on the resonant region, at slightly smaller $a_g$ and $e_g$. This
713: chaotic region is where test planets may be temporarily captured into
714: resonance or apsidal libration but the evolution is chaotic and the resonance
715: is short-lived. The fourth and final region includes the high-FTD areas at
716: the edges of our sampled zone, at $e_g \gtrsim 0.1$. This region does not
717: participate in the resonance or apsidal libration.
718:
719: For planet $g$ to be located in the 5g:2d MMR, it must be localized in both
720: $a_g$ and $e_g$. It must reside at $a_g \sim 3.21$ AU with $e_g \sim 0.3$;
721: this resonant region is wider for lower $M_g$. The surrounding region is
722: unlikely to host a massive planet given the low FTD values. But for low
723: $e_g$, the entire region is allowed and apsidal libration is preferred.
724:
725: \subsection{The 3c:1b MMR}
726:
727: Planets $b$ and $c$ lie very close to the 3:1 MMR (Marcy \etal 2002; Ji et al
728: 2003), but Fischer \etal (2008) note that the resonant arguments are
729: circulating rather than librating. In other words, planets $b$ and $c$ are
730: not in resonance. Since an additional planet $g$ can affect the mean motions
731: of other planets in the system, we calculated resonant angles of planets $b$
732: and $c$ for all of our stable 6-planet simulations. We find that, for our
733: chosen configuration of known planets $b-f$, there are no cases in which
734: planet $g$ causes the resonant angles of planets $b$ and $c$ to librate.
735: Thus, we conclude that the only way for planets $b$ and $c$ to truly be in a
736: resonance is if our assumed orbital parameters for planets $b-f$ are
737: incorrect, which is certainly possible given the observational uncertainties.
738:
739: \section{Multiple Planets in the Stable Zone}
740:
741: Given the width of the stable zone between planets $f$ and $d$, more than one
742: additional planet could exist in the region. We ran additional simulations
743: including multiple planets in the stable zone. For simplicity, we chose a
744: fixed mass of 50 $\mearth$ for all additional planets. Planets were spaced
745: such that their closest approach distances (perihelion $q_1$ vs. aphelion
746: $Q_2$) were separated by a fixed number $\Delta$ of mutual Hill radii $R_H$,
747: where $R_H = 0.5 (a_1 + a_2) [(M_1 + M_2)/3 M_\star]^{1/3}$ (Chambers,
748: Wetherill \& Boss (1996) and subscripts 1 and 2 refer to adjacent planets. We
749: ran simulations with planets spaced by $\Delta = 5-14.5 R_H$ in increments of
750: 0.5 $R_H$, with five simulations for each separation with eccentricities
751: chosen randomly to be less than 0.05, for a total of 100 simulations. The
752: number of additional planets varied with the planet spacing, from five planets
753: in the stable zone for $\Delta = 5$ to two for $\Delta = 14.5$. No cases with
754: five extra planets was stable, and only one case with four extra planets
755: survived for 10 Myr and the evolution of that case was chaotic. However,
756: roughly 40\% (11/28) of cases with three additional planets survived. Typical
757: configurations for stable simulations with three planets contained planets at
758: 1.1-1.2 AU, 1.6-1.9 AU, and 2.5-2.9 AU. The vast majority (43/45 = 96\%) of
759: systems with two extra planets were stable for 10 Myr. These contained
760: additional planets at 1.3-1.6 AU and 2.2-3.3 AU. All stable cases had very
761: high FTD values ($>$97\%).
762:
763: \section{Planets Exterior to Planet $d$}
764:
765: Figure~\ref{fig:tp} shows the survival time of test particles beyond planet
766: $d$ as a function of their semimajor axis. As expected, there is a several
767: AU-wide region just beyond planet $d$ in which low-mass planets are unstable.
768: In this region particles' eccentricities are quickly excited to values that
769: cause them to cross the orbit of planet $d$, resulting in close encounters and
770: ejections. Farther out, there exists a narrow contiguous region of stability
771: from 8.6 to 9 AU, which is roughly bounded by the 4:7 and 1:2 MMRs with planet
772: $d$. This stable region is the only difference between our results and those
773: of Rivera \& Haghighipour (2007), who also mapped this outer region using test
774: particles. The difference arises from the significant decrease in the
775: best-fit eccentricity of planet $d$, from 0.244 to 0.063.
776:
777: A plateau of stability starts at 9.7 AU and extends continuously to 30 AU,
778: except for a very narrow region of instability at the 3:1 MMR with planet $d$
779: at 12.3 AU. Thus, the innermost planet beyond planet $d$ is likely to be
780: located at 10 AU or beyond, although it could inhabit the stable zone at 8.6-9
781: AU.
782:
783: \section{Conclusions}
784:
785: We have mapped out the region in 55 Cancri where an additional planet $g$
786: might exist. There is a broad region of stability between known planets $f$
787: and $d$ that could contain a $\sim$Saturn-mass planet (Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}).
788: Since observations rule out a very massive planet, our simulations suggest
789: that the region could easily support two or possibly even three additional
790: planets. In addition, one or more outer planets could be present in the
791: system beyond about 10 AU. However, such distant planets would not be
792: detectable for many years.
793:
794: We examined eight mean motion resonances in detail (see Table 2). For two of
795: these, 3f:1g (i.e., the 1:3 MMR between planet $f$ and hypothetical planet
796: $g$) and 4g:1d, there was no stable region that exhibited regular libration of
797: resonant arguments. Therefore, these resonances can not contain planets in
798: the mass range that we explored. Given the very low FTD values, the 2f:1g MMR
799: is unlikely to contain a resonant planet more massive than $\sim 20 \mearth$.
800: Two other MMRs, 3g:1d and 5g:2d, may contain a stable, high-FTD resonant
801: planet but the location of the MMRs is constrained to a very small region of
802: ($a_g,e_g$) space which is surrounded by a chaotic region. Finally, three
803: MMRs, 3f:2g, 2g:1d, and 3g:2d, have a stabilizing influence and may contain
804: planets near or even across the collision line with planet $f$ or $d$. Each
805: of these MMRs contains broad regions of stable libration of resonant angles,
806: although the locations of low-FTD libration can vary with $M_g$. We can
807: therefore only weakly constrain the presence of an additional planet in one of
808: these resonances.
809:
810: The region between planets $f$ and $d$ contains many MMRs which display a wide
811: range of behavior. In addition to stable and unstable resonances, the behavior
812: of resonant arguments is also diverse. In some regions we would expect all
813: resonant angles to librate regularly, but in others only some librate. In two
814: instances, planet $g$ could be in the apsidal corotation resonance
815: (Michtchenko \& Beauge 2003; Ferraz-Mello \etal 2003): for large $M_g$ in the
816: 2g:1d MMR at the $g-d$ collision line (see Fig.~\ref{fig:libd21}), or in 5g:2d
817: MMR (Fig.~\ref{fig:resd52}). Moreover, we also see cases of ``asymmetric''
818: libration in which the equilibrium angle is neither 0$^\circ$ or 180$^\circ$
819: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:evold31}). Even if there are no additional planets in the
820: $f-d$ gap, there could be an asteroid belt in which this diverse and exotic
821: dynamical behavior is on display.
822:
823: 55 Cancri is a critical test of the ``Packed Planetary Systems'' (PPS)
824: hypothesis, which asserts that any large contiguous stable region should
825: contain a planet (BR04; RB05; Raymond \etal 2006; Barnes \etal 2008). To
826: date, two planets have been discovered in the three stable zones mapped out by
827: BR04 and RB05 (in HD 74156 and 55 Cnc). Given the width of the stable zone
828: between planets $f$ and $d$, PPS indicates that at least one, and possibly two
829: or three, more planet(s) should exist in 55 Cancri. We look forward to
830: further observations of the system that may find such planets, or perhaps show
831: evidence of their absence. Our results may be used to guide observers
832: searching for planet $g$ and beyond.
833:
834: \section{Acknowledgments}
835:
836: We are indebted to Google for allowing us to run these simulations on their
837: machines. We thank the anonymous referee for pointing out several important
838: issues that improved the paper. S.N.R. was supported by an appointment to the
839: NASA Postdoctoral Program at the University of Colorado Astrobiology Center,
840: administered by Oak Ridge Associated Universities through a contract with
841: NASA. R.B. acknowledges support from NASA's PG\&G grant NNG05GH65G and NASA
842: Terrestrial Planet Finder Foundation Science grant 811073.02.07.01.15.
843:
844: \newpage
845: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
846:
847: \bibitem[Barnes et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...680L..57B} Barnes, R.,
848: Go{\'z}dziewski, K., \& Raymond, S.~N.\ 2008, \apjl, 680, L57
849:
850:
851: \bibitem[Barnes
852: \& Greenberg(2007)]{2007ApJ...665L..67B} Barnes, R., \& Greenberg, R.\ 2007, \apjl, 665, L67
853:
854:
855: \bibitem[Barnes
856: \& Greenberg(2006)]{2006ApJ...652L..53B} Barnes, R., \& Greenberg, R.\ 2006, \apjl, 652, L53
857:
858:
859: \bibitem[Barnes
860: \& Greenberg(2006)]{2006ApJ...647L.163B} Barnes, R., \& Greenberg, R.\ 2006, \apjl, 647, L163
861:
862:
863: \bibitem[Barnes
864: \& Quinn(2004)]{2004ApJ...611..494B} Barnes, R., \& Quinn, T.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 494
865:
866:
867: \bibitem[Barnes
868: \& Raymond(2004)]{2004ApJ...617..569B} Barnes, R., \& Raymond, S.~N.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 569
869:
870:
871: \bibitem[Bean et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...672.1202B} Bean, J.~L., McArthur,
872: B.~E., Benedict, G.~F., \& Armstrong, A.\ 2008, \apj, 672, 1202
873:
874:
875: \bibitem[Beaug{\'e}
876: \& Michtchenko(2003)]{2003MNRAS.341..760B} Beaug{\'e}, C., \& Michtchenko, T.~A.\ 2003, \mnras, 341, 760
877:
878:
879: \bibitem[Butler et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...474L.115B} Butler, R.~P., Marcy,
880: G.~W., Williams, E., Hauser, H., \& Shirts, P.\ 1997, \apjl, 474, L115
881:
882:
883: \bibitem[Chambers(1999)]{1999MNRAS.304..793C} Chambers, J.~E.\ 1999,
884: \mnras, 304, 793
885:
886:
887: \bibitem[Chambers et al.(1996)]{1996Icar..119..261C} Chambers, J.~E.,
888: Wetherill, G.~W., \& Boss, A.~P.\ 1996, Icarus, 119, 261
889:
890:
891: \bibitem[Cincotta
892: \& Sim{\'o}(2000)]{2000A&AS..147..205C} Cincotta, P.~M., \& Sim{\'o}, C.\ 2000, \aaps, 147, 205
893:
894:
895: \bibitem[Ferraz-Mello et al.(2003)]{2003CeMDA..87...99F} Ferraz-Mello, S.,
896: Beaug{\'e}, C.,
897: \& Michtchenko, T.~A.\ 2003, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 87, 99
898:
899:
900: \bibitem[Fischer et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...675..790F} Fischer, D.~A., et al.\
901: 2008, \apj, 675, 790
902:
903:
904: \bibitem[Froeschl{\'e} et al.(1997)]{1997CeMDA..67...41F} Froeschl{\'e},
905: C., Lega, E.,
906: \& Gonczi, R.\ 1997, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 67, 41
907:
908:
909: \bibitem[Gladman(1993)]{1993Icar..106..247G} Gladman, B.\ 1993, Icarus,
910: 106, 247
911:
912:
913: \bibitem[Ji et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...585L.139J} Ji, J., Kinoshita, H., Liu,
914: L., \& Li, G.\ 2003, \apjl, 585, L139
915:
916:
917: \bibitem[Jones et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...622.1091J} Jones, B.~W., Underwood,
918: D.~R., \& Sleep, P.~N.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 1091
919:
920:
921: \bibitem[Laskar(1996)]{1996CeMDA..64..115L} Laskar, J.\ 1996, Celestial
922: Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 64, 115
923:
924:
925: \bibitem[Lee
926: \& Peale(2002)]{2002ApJ...567..596L} Lee, M.~H., \& Peale, S.~J.\ 2002, \apj, 567, 596
927:
928:
929: \bibitem[Marcy et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...581.1375M} Marcy, G.~W., Butler,
930: R.~P., Fischer, D.~A., Laughlin, G., Vogt, S.~S., Henry, G.~W.,
931: \& Pourbaix, D.\ 2002, \apj, 581, 1375
932:
933:
934: \bibitem[Marzari et
935: al.(2006)]{2006A&A...453..341M} Marzari, F., Scholl, H., \& Tricarico, P.\ 2006, \aap, 453, 341
936:
937:
938: \bibitem[Marzari
939: \& Weidenschilling(2002)]{2002Icar..156..570M} Marzari, F., \& Weidenschilling, S.~J.\ 2002, Icarus, 156, 570
940:
941:
942: \bibitem[McArthur et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...614L..81M} McArthur, B.~E., et
943: al.\ 2004, \apjl, 614, L81
944:
945:
946: \bibitem[]{} Michtchenko, T.~A., Beaug{\'e}, C., \& Ferraz-Mello, S., 2008, \mnras, in press
947:
948:
949: \bibitem[Morbidelli et al.(2007)]{2007AJ....134.1790M} Morbidelli, A.,
950: Tsiganis, K., Crida, A., Levison, H.~F., \& Gomes, R.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 1790
951:
952:
953: \bibitem[]{} Raymond, S.~N., Barnes, R., Armitage, P.~J., \& Gorelick,
954: N. 2008, ApJL, submitted.
955:
956:
957: \bibitem[Raymond
958: \& Barnes(2005)]{2005ApJ...619..549R} Raymond, S.~N., \& Barnes, R.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 549
959:
960:
961: \bibitem[Raymond et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644.1223R} Raymond, S.~N., Barnes,
962: R., \& Kaib, N.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 1223
963:
964:
965: \bibitem[Rivera
966: \& Haghighipour(2007)]{2007MNRAS.374..599R} Rivera, E., \& Haghighipour, N.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 599
967:
968:
969: \bibitem[S{\'a}ndor
970: \& Kley(2006)]{2006A&A...451L..31S} S{\'a}ndor, Z., \& Kley, W.\ 2006, \aap, 451, L31
971:
972:
973: \bibitem[S{\'a}ndor et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.375.1495S} S{\'a}ndor, Z.,
974: S{\"u}li, {\'A}., {\'E}rdi, B., Pilat-Lohinger, E.,
975: \& Dvorak, R.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 1495
976:
977:
978: \bibitem[{\v S}idlichovsk{\'y}
979: \& Gerlach(2008)]{2008IAUS..249..479S} {\v S}idlichovsk{\'y}, M., \& Gerlach, E.\ 2008, IAU Symposium, 249, 479
980:
981:
982: \bibitem[Snellgrove et
983: al.(2001)]{2001A&A...374.1092S} Snellgrove, M.~D., Papaloizou, J.~C.~B., \& Nelson, R.~P.\ 2001, \aap, 374, 1092
984:
985:
986: \bibitem[Valenti
987: \& Fischer(2005)]{2005ApJS..159..141V} Valenti, J.~A., \& Fischer, D.~A.\ 2005, \apjs, 159, 141
988:
989:
990: \bibitem[Wisdom
991: \& Holman(1991)]{1991AJ....102.1528W} Wisdom, J., \& Holman, M.\ 1991, \aj, 102, 1528
992:
993:
994: \bibitem[Zhou
995: \& Sun(2003)]{2003ApJ...598.1290Z} Zhou, J.-L., \& Sun, Y.-S.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 1290
996:
997: \end{thebibliography}
998:
999: \newpage
1000: \scriptsize
1001: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
1002: \tablewidth{0pt}
1003: \tablecaption{Self-Consistent Dynamical Fit of 55 Cancri (Fischer \etal 2008)}
1004: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.6}
1005: \tablehead{
1006: \\
1007: \colhead{Planet} &
1008: \colhead{M sin i ($M_J$)} &
1009: \colhead{$a$ (AU)} &
1010: \colhead{$e$}&
1011: \colhead{$\pm$}&
1012: \colhead{$\varpi$}&
1013: \colhead{T$_{peri}$ (JD-2440000)}}
1014: \startdata
1015: e & 0.024 & 0.038 & 0.263 & 0.06 & 156.5 & 7578.2159\\
1016: b & 0.84 & 0.115 & 0.016 & 0.01 & 164.0 & 7572.0307\\
1017: c & 0.17 & 0.241 & 0.053 & 0.052 & 57.4 & 7547.525\\
1018: f & 0.14 & 0.785 & 0.0002 & 0.2 & 205.6 & 7488.0149\\
1019: d & 3.92 & 5.9 & 0.063 & 0.03 & 162.7 & 6862.3081
1020: \enddata
1021: \end{deluxetable}
1022:
1023: %\scriptsize
1024: %\begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1025: %\tablewidth{0pt}
1026: %\tablecaption{Upper mass limits for resonant and near-resonant planets}
1027: %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.6}
1028: %\tablehead{
1029: %\\
1030: %\colhead{Resonance} &
1031: %\colhead{Location (AU)} &
1032: %\colhead{Mass ($<$ 75\%)\tablenotemark{1}} &
1033: %\colhead{Mass ($<$ 50\%)}}
1034: %\startdata
1035: %2f:3g & 1.03 \\
1036: %1f:2g & 1.24 & 10 $\mearth$ & 30 $\mearth$ \\
1037: %1f:3g & 1.63 & 10 $\mearth$ & 30 $\mearth$ \\
1038: %4g:1d & 2.35 & 80 $\mearth$ & 80 $\mearth$\\
1039: %3g:1d & 2.88 \\
1040: %3g:1d anti\tablenotemark{2} & 2.88 \\
1041: %5g:2d & 3.20 \\
1042: %2g:1d & 3.7-3.8 \\
1043: %3g:2d & 4.4-4.6 \\
1044: %\enddata
1045: %\tablenotetext{1}{Masses where the fraction of time spent by planets $b$-$f$
1046: %on their assumed orbits drops below 75\%.}
1047: %\tablenotetext{2}{3:1 MMR with planet $d$ with anti-aligned longitudes of
1048: %pericenter.}
1049: %\end{deluxetable}
1050:
1051: \newpage
1052: \scriptsize
1053: \begin{deluxetable}{c|c|p{10cm}}
1054: \tablewidth{0pt}
1055: \tablecaption{Constraints on resonant planets}
1056: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.6}
1057: \tablehead{
1058: \\
1059: \colhead{Resonance} &
1060: \colhead{Location (AU)} &
1061: \colhead{Comments}}
1062: \startdata
1063: \\
1064: 2f:3g & 1.02-1.04 & Resonant fingers at 1.024 and 1.034-1.039 AU. High-FTD in
1065: fingers at $e_g \lesssim 0.2$.
1066: \\ \\ \hline \\
1067: 1f:2g & 1.23-1.26 & For $M_g = 30 \, {\rm or} \, 60 \mearth$ resonance is
1068: limited to tiny region with very small FTD. Upper limit on resonant planet is
1069: $\sim 20 \mearth$.
1070: \\ \\ \hline \\
1071: 1f:3g & 1.63 & No stable planets show resonant libration.
1072: \\ \\ \hline \\
1073: 4g:1d & 2.35 & No stable planets show resonant libration.
1074: \\ \\ \hline \\
1075: 3g:1d & 2.85-2.89 & High-FTD resonant island exists at $a_g = 2.86-2.89$ AU
1076: and $e_g \leq 0.06$. Island of apsidal libration at $a_g = 2.85-2.88$ AU
1077: and $e_g = 0.15-0.2$.
1078: \\ \\ \hline \\
1079: 3g:1d anti\tablenotemark{1} & 2.85-2.89 & High-FTD resonant island exists at
1080: $a_g = 2.86-2.89$ AU and $e_g \leq 0.01$. No island of apsidal libration.
1081: \\ \\ \hline \\
1082: 5g:2d & 3.20 & High-FTD resonant island at $a_g = 3.20-3.225$ AU and $e_g =
1083: 0.25-0.4$.
1084: \\ \\ \hline \\
1085: 2g:1d & 3.7-3.8 & Resonant island at $a_g = 3.6-3.85$ AU and $e_g \lesssim
1086: 0.6$.
1087: \\ \\ \hline \\
1088: 3g:2d & 4.4-4.6 & Resonant island $a_g = 4.4-4.6$ AU and $e_g = 0.1-0.4$.
1089: \\
1090: \enddata
1091: \tablenotetext{1}{3:1 MMR with planet $d$ with anti-aligned longitudes of
1092: pericenter.}
1093: \end{deluxetable}
1094:
1095: \newpage
1096: \begin{figure}
1097: \centerline{\epsscale{1.2}\plotone{f1.eps}}
1098: \caption{The stable zone between planets $f$ and $d$. White regions represent
1099: the orbital elements of simulations with an additional test planet that were
1100: stable for 10 Myr. Black regions were unstable. Grey regions were stable but
1101: are unlikely to contain an additional planet because perturbations of the
1102: other planets' orbits were too strong (see text for discussion). Planets $b$
1103: through $f$ are labeled.}
1104: \label{fig:ae}
1105: \end{figure}
1106:
1107: \begin{figure}
1108: \centerline{\plotone{f2.eps}}
1109: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 2:3 MMR with planet
1110: $f$ (also called $2f:3g$), labeled by the test planet mass. The dashed line
1111: represents the collision line with planet $f$. Formatted as in
1112: Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1113: \label{fig:resf23}
1114: \end{figure}
1115:
1116: \begin{figure}
1117: \centerline{\plotone{f3.eps}}
1118: \caption{Evolution of a stable simulation in the 3f:2g MMR, with planet $g$
1119: starting at 1.033 AU with $e_g = 0.3$. {\bf Top:} Eccentricities of planets
1120: $g$ (black) and $f$ (grey) for a 50,000 period of the simulation. {\bf
1121: Bottom:} Evolution of resonant argument $\theta_1$.}
1122: \label{fig:evolf23}
1123: \end{figure}
1124:
1125: \begin{figure}
1126: \centerline{\plotone{f4.eps}}
1127: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 2:1 MMR with planet
1128: $d$ (also called $2g:1d$), labeled by the test planet mass. The dashed line
1129: is the collision line with planet $d$. Formatted as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1130: \label{fig:resd21}
1131: \end{figure}
1132:
1133: \begin{figure}
1134: \centerline{\plotone{f5.eps}}
1135: \caption{The stable zone of the $2g:1d$ MMR, with colors that correspond to
1136: which resonant angles are librating. White indicates no resonant libration
1137: dark grey indicates libration of $\theta_2$ and light grey libration of
1138: $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ and $\varpi_g-\varpi_d$ -- this configuration is calle
1139: the apsidal corotation resonance (ACR). Blac
1140: areas are unstable. The dashed line is the collision line with planet $d$.}
1141: \label{fig:libd21}
1142: \end{figure}
1143:
1144: \begin{figure}
1145: \centerline{\plotone{f6.eps}}
1146: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 3:2 MMR with planet
1147: $d$ (also called $3g:2d$), labeled by the test planet mass. The dashed line
1148: is the collision line with planet $d$. Formatted as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1149: \label{fig:resd32}
1150: \end{figure}
1151:
1152: \begin{figure}
1153: \centerline{\epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f7.eps}}
1154: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 3:1 MMR with planet
1155: $d$ (also called $3g:1d$), labeled by the test planet mass in Earth masses.
1156: Formatted as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1157: \label{fig:resd31}
1158: \end{figure}
1159:
1160: \begin{figure}
1161: \centerline{
1162: \epsscale{0.5}
1163: \plotone{f8a.eps}
1164: \plotone{f8b.eps}
1165: \epsscale{1.0}}
1166: \caption{Evolution of two simulations for the 3g:1d MMR, both with $M_g = 90
1167: \mearth$. {\bf Left:} Evolution of $\theta_3$ (see Eqn. 2) and eccentricities
1168: $e_g$ and $e_d$ for a stable resonant planet ($e_d$ shifted up by 0.05 for
1169: clarity). {\bf Right:} Evolution of $\theta_1$ and $e_g$, $e_d$ for a
1170: chaotically-evolving system in the resonant region. In this case, $\varpi_g$
1171: and $\varpi_d$ started in an anti-aligned configuration and librated about
1172: 180$^\circ$ for the first $\sim$ 1.5 Myr, while the system remained in
1173: resonance. This system went unstable after 3.2 Myr.}
1174: \label{fig:evold31}
1175: \end{figure}
1176:
1177: \begin{figure}
1178: \centerline{\plotone{f9.eps}}
1179: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 3:1 MMR with planet
1180: $d$ (also called $3g:1d$), but with the longitudes of pericenter of planets
1181: $g$ and $d$ originally in anti-alignment (in Fig.~\ref{fig:resd31} the apses
1182: are aligned). Again, panels are labeled by the test planet mass in Earth
1183: masses, and formatted as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1184: \label{fig:resd31anti}
1185: \end{figure}
1186:
1187: \begin{figure}
1188: \centerline{\plotone{f10.eps}}
1189: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 4:1 MMR with planet
1190: $d$ (also called $4g:1d$), labeled by the test planet mass. Formatted as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1191: \label{fig:resd41}
1192: \end{figure}
1193:
1194: \begin{figure}
1195: \centerline{\plotone{f11.eps}}
1196: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 1:2 MMR with planet
1197: $f$ (also called $1f:2g$), labeled by the test planet mass. Formatted as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1198: \label{fig:resf12}
1199: \end{figure}
1200:
1201: \newpage
1202: \begin{figure}
1203: \epsscale{0.6}
1204: \centerline{\plotone{f12a.eps}}
1205: \centerline{\plotone{f12b.eps}}
1206: \epsscale{1}
1207: \caption{Evolution of resonant argument $\theta_1$ for two simulations of the
1208: 2f:1g MMR. For the top panel, $M_g = 60 \mearth$ and for the bottom panel
1209: $M_g = 10 \mearth$. }
1210: \label{fig:f12evol}
1211: \end{figure}
1212:
1213: \begin{figure}
1214: \centerline{\plotone{f13.eps}}
1215: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 1:3 MMR with planet
1216: $f$ (also called $1f:3g$), labeled by the test planet mass. Formatted as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1217: \label{fig:resf13}
1218: \end{figure}
1219:
1220: \begin{figure}
1221: \centerline{\plotone{f14.eps}}
1222: \caption{Stability and FTD of test planets in and near the 5:2 MMR with planet
1223: $d$ (also called $5g:2d$), labeled by the test planet mass. Formatted as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae}.}
1224: \label{fig:resd52}
1225: \end{figure}
1226:
1227: \begin{figure}
1228: \centerline{\plotone{f15.eps}}
1229: \caption{Survival time of test particles exterior to planet $d$ at 5.9 AU
1230: (shown with black circle). Test particles extended to 30 AU; all past 15 AU
1231: were stable.}
1232: \label{fig:tp}
1233: \end{figure}
1234:
1235:
1236: \end{document}
1237:
1238: