Planet around cataclysmic variable QS Virginis?

I'd propose to merge this thread with

https://solar-flux.forumotion.com/extrasolar-news-and-discoveries-f2/planet-around-cataclysmic-variable-qs-virginis-t425.htm

Changing title in "Planet around QS Virginis?" for example.

Edasich wrote:

I'd propose to merge this thread...

Sure.

Anyone tried to see what happens if you run this system in Gravity Simulator (or similar)?

Lazarus wrote:

Anyone tried to see what happens if you run this system in Gravity Simulator (or similar)?

Not sure how it works but I could try.

Edit* It doesn't work on my computer

Tried it myself. Unstable. Not sure if there could be any way to stabilise it using resonances. The orientation of the two orbits are in opposite directions as well.

Have you tried with non coplanar orbits? Like this?

Wonder what enviroment non-gas giant planets would exhibit.

Not really related to the question as to the nature of the companions to QS Vir, but a paper about the system today on arXiv. It may be a pre-cataclysmic binary, instead of a hibernating CB.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5235

That changes things.

If it were a hibernating cataclysmic, and if it is possible to confirm the planet(s), that might imply that planetary systems could survive novae. This is not the case if it is still pre-cataclysmic.

Edasich wrote:

Have you tried with non coplanar orbits?

Doesn't look like that works either.

A Detailed Dynamical Investigation of the Proposed QS Virginis Planetary System
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7893

Quote :

...The two planets proposed to orbit QS Virginis would move on mutually crossing orbits - a situation that is almost invariably unstable on very short timescales. In this work, we present the results of a detailed dynamical study of the orbital evolution of the two proposed planets, revealing that they are dynamically unstable on timescales of less than one thousand years across the entire range of orbital elements that provide a plausible fit to the observational data, and regardless of their mutual orbital inclination. We conclude that the proposed planets around the cataclysmic variable QS Virginis simply cannot exist.

From that paper, it looks like there's an upcoming one that also does for NN Serpentis:

Quote :

However, recent work (Mustill et al., 2013) has shown that, while the planets proposed in that system move on orbits that would be dynamically stable at the current epoch, it is almost certain that the observed signal is not attributable to planets that formed around the youthful binary (in a protoplanetary disc), then survived the binary’s post-main sequence evolution whilst moving to their current orbits. Once again, a planetary explanation for the proposed planets does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Reference is

Mustill, A. J., Marshall, J. P., Villaver, E., Veras, D., Davis, P. J., Horner, J. & Wittenmyer, R. A., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, submitted

Here it comes again…

http://www.astronomiaargentina.org.ar/b63/2022BAAA...63...36R.pdf

…as a “super-eccentric” (e₃ = 0.918) brown dwarf companion (m₃ = 59.7 M_Jup) about 6.75 AUs away.

Unveiling hidden companions in post-common-envelope binaries: A robust strategy and uncertainty exploration
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14897

Again about QS Vir. The substellar third body model seems to be confirmed (once again) but I don’t know why authors regard it as “stellar companion” (?). 64 M_Jup as upper limit is not yet in “stellar domain”