Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Argument of periastron — where it appears

The angle, measured in the orbital plane, from the ascending node to the point where a planet or companion passes closest to its star. With the eccentricity it fixes where on the orbit the body is fastest, and so how long a transit lasts.

Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Three biases against eccentricity, and they do not agree. Four quantities against orbital eccentricity, each relative to a circular orbit of the same semi-major axis, averaged over the argument of periastron. The transit probability rises as (1 − e²)⁻¹, because an eccentric planet spends part of its orbit inside its own semi-major axis: at e = 0.5 a transit is 1.33 times as likely. The transit duration falls as √(1 − e²), so the event carries less signal-to-noise, and the two together — probability times the square root of the time in transit — come to 1.24 at the same eccentricity. They very nearly cancel, and that is the surprise: a transit survey has almost no eccentricity bias at all. The radial-velocity curve is the one that does. A Keplerian of eccentricity e puts less of its variance in the fundamental and more into harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at — 68 per cent remains at e = 0.6 and 47 per cent at e = 0.8 — so a velocity survey loses amplitude exactly where a transit survey does not. What no figure here can show is which of these the measured eccentricity distribution is made of, because the correction depends on a detection pipeline rather than on geometry, and the two surveys have to be corrected separately before their answers can be compared.

Every method prefers a circle, and not for the same reason

A transit is more likely on an eccentric orbit and shorter when it happens, and the two very nearly cancel. A velocity curve loses amplitude to harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at, and that one does not cancel at all.

exoplanets · Detection bias Four transiting planets, one star, and a density that must agree. The stellar density implied by each of four transiting planets of one simulated star, each fitted as though its orbit were circular, relative to the star's true density, against orbital period, both logarithmic, with one-sigma errors of 8, 10, 14, 20 per cent from the transit fits. Three planets have eccentricities of a few hundredths and agree with one another and with the truth (dashed line: their weighted mean, 0.950). The planet at 15.9 days has e = 0.2 with its periastron 70° from the line of sight, which makes it cross the star faster than a circular orbit would, and its implied density is 2.10 times the star's — 5.2 standard deviations from the others. A single planet's density can be reconciled with any star by choosing its eccentricity; several planets must share one star, and the odd one out is caught.

Every planet of a star must agree on its density

A single transiting planet gives the density of its star only if its orbit is known to be circular, and an eccentric orbit can disguise almost any star as almost any other. A star with four transiting planets has four such measurements of one number. They must agree — and the way they disagree measures how eccentric the orbits are, catches the candidate that orbits some other star, and pins down the star better than its own spectrum does.

exoplanets · Transits Two eccentricity distributions for the planets that transit alone. Two hypotheses for the orbital eccentricities of planets that transit their stars alone, as probability densities on a logarithmic axis. Solid: a mixture of two populations, 70 per cent at σₑ = 0.04 and 30 per cent at σₑ = 0.25 — a cold majority like the planets in multi-planet systems and a hot minority. Dashed: a continuum, each planet's Rayleigh scale drawn evenly in its logarithm between 0.015 and 0.34, chosen as the continuum whose densities most resemble the mixture's. The two differ most between eccentricities of 0.1 and 0.15, where the mixture dips between its two populations and the continuum does not: 5.6 and 12.0 per cent of planets respectively. A trough there is what a separate hot population would leave, and it is the feature a measurement has to find.

A gap in eccentricity a density can only just see

Planets that transit alone have more eccentric orbits than planets with transiting siblings, and the excess can be fitted as a separate hot population or as a smooth spread with no gap. The two eccentricity distributions look plainly different. The stellar densities through which they are measured look almost the same, and how many planets it takes to tell them apart is set less by the star than by the transit.

exoplanets · Transits

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

AsteroseismologyEccentricityPhotoeccentric effectStellar densityTransitDetection thresholdFalse-positiveKepler's equationLikelihood ratioOrbital eccentricityPopulation inferenceRadial-velocity

All concepts