Exploring the Diversity of Exoplanets

The search for extrasolar planets had been ongoing for many years when Mayorand Queloz discovered 51 Pegasi b in 1995. It was a giant gas planet similar to Jupiter, but with a larger radius and of only half of Jupiter’s mass. Theso called Hot Jupiter was observed to orbit its host star 7 times closer thanMercury is orbiting the Sun. Theoretical models at the time stated that gasgiants could not form in such a short distance to the host star. Thus, thisdiscovery was completely unexpected. It was the beginning of a new field ofresearch where the diversity of exoplanets is the most remarkable discovery, challenging theoretical models. Thanks to the Kepler space telescope and anew generation of space missions such as TESS, thousands of exoplanets havebeen discovered and thousands of planet candidates await confirmation. In this thesis I have studied all confirmed exoplanets to this date, which havebeen discovered by the radial velocity and/or the transit method. The planetparameters and their stellar hosts are available on NASA’s Exoplanet Archive.For all planets < 100 M⊕, I have assessed and updated the parameters for eachplanet in particular when several solutions exist. There are several types ofplanets, but the focus of this work are small planets which come in two sizes: Rocky super-Earths, and the slightly larger and lower density sub-Neptune. Different types of planets have different radii and mass ranges, which togetherwith composition and interior structure are separating the types from each other. These mass and radii ranges are however not universally defined, and in thisreport the super-Earth and sub-Neptune ranges are discussed together with their typical characteristics. The radii and mass ranges of the two different classes of small planets are overlapping and are often difficult to classify. In particularfor planets in between 2 R⊕ and 3 R⊕, there is an ambiguity of structure and composition. This report will also investigate how planet properties depend on the stellarhost properties and on the orbital distances to the stars. One of my mainresults is that sub-Neptunes are common orbiting host stars with low metallicity, in contrast to super-Earths which are common orbiting host stars with highmetallicity. Other parameters, such as stellar effective temperature, seem to have no influence on planet properties. Super-Earth’s are found at a wide range of orbital distances while the sub-Neptunes cluster in a narrow range of orbital distances to their host star. Sub-Neptunes have an atmosphere, and are orbiting at distances where the atmosphere does not evaporate from intense host star radiation. If an atmospheree vaporates, only the rocky core of the planet is left. Thus, some super-Earths might have been sub-Neptunes that have lost their atmospheres. My second main result is that planets with characteristics of sub-Neptunes (with respect to density and interior structure) of 10 M⊕ to 15 M⊕ have radiibetween 2 R⊕ and 4.5 R⊕. Sub-Neptunes in the upper mass limit, between 15M⊕ to 17 M⊕, have radii from 2.6 R⊕ to 7.5 R⊕. And finally, my third result is the relation between planet density and equilibrium temperature. The density of all planets with masses < 15 M⊕ is Earth-like for equilibrium temperatures > 1400 K. For lower equilibrium temperatures corresponding to longer orbital periods, or lower-mass and cooler stars, planetswith masses < 15 M⊕ have a larger spread in densities. However, it never fallsbelow a diagonal linear trend in the density against equilibrium temperature diagram described by ρ = 2.6 × log10(Teq) − 7.46