Eccentric planet versus 2:1 resonance

Apparently several of the eccentric planets in the current lists of exoplanets may actually be systems with 2:1 resonant orbits in disguise. (Similar to the discovery of Gliese 876c)

arXiv: How eccentric orbital solutions can hide planetary systems in 2:1 resonant orbits

Quote :

We find that a significant fraction of the published eccentric one-planet solutions might instead be multiple planet systems in near circular orbits, and that several planets with masses comparable to Earth could have already been detected.

(emphasis mine)

I've noticed the presence of WASP-10 in planetary table at page 8.
May even that one hide additional (low mass) planets? Who knows...
I should try a Systemic Console simulation.

This is interesting and potentially both creepy even if it does happen allt he time "aka we got the data wrong and I've been modlin the wrong planets" but it also makes the potentail systems even more intresting.

I certainly hope this is a common scenario... there are a lot of eccentric jovians that have been detected.

Something to ponder. Someone is saying that at least half of the currently detected planets could actually be two smaller planets in a 1:2 orbital resonance.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926755.600-have-we-already-found-a-planet-like-earth.html

(this post no longer necessary now threads have been merged)

That does actually make a lot of sense. There are some planets who's mass is not pinpointed exactly. I always assumed that may be the affect of a double planet, but this could be a good hypothesis

I think we should merge the threads about this...

Good idea; merged.

Hmm....now to see peoples redo the numbers....which I really hope doesn't take a loooong time.

I wonder how much equipment one need to do these things....make it soooooo much easier if a well versed amateur with some money could do so....((Hurray impatience.))

It's a matter of gathering more, precise RV data.

Thing is this is a so-called degeneracy: you can't tell the difference between the two situations until planet-planet interactions cause the system to evolve (so redoing the numbers with existing data isn't really going to prove anything). Depending on the masses and orbital periods, it might be some time before this becomes apparent, so long-term monitoring of these systems is important.

Long term eh?

Exactley HOW long term are we talking here?

Depends really on the system. If the planet-planet interactions are stronger, and thus the orbits of the planets evolve faster, then it'll be sooner than if the planet-planet interactions are barely detectable. I'd say it would typically be decades of collecting data for the average (stable) system though.