Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Completeness — where it appears

The fraction of the objects present that a survey actually recovers, as a function of brightness, period or whatever else. Every occurrence rate is a raw count divided by it, so a rate is only as good as the injection tests that measured it.

Named by 7 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A gap where planets should be. The number of planets per star per interval of log radius, for orbital periods under a hundred days, corrected for detection efficiency. There are two peaks — super-Earths near 1.3 R⊕ and sub-Neptunes near 2.4 R⊕ — and a deficit between them at 1.89 R⊕, where the occurrence falls to 33% of the peak. The gap is not a gap in what can be detected: detection efficiency rises smoothly through it, so a smooth underlying distribution could not produce a dip there.

The planets that were not seen

An occurrence rate is a count divided by a probability, and the probability can be a five-hundredth. Everything difficult about saying how common planets are lives in that denominator.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates Four defensible boxes, and a factor of 2.9 between the answers. Above: the occurrence surface in starlight received against planet radius, with four published definitions of "an Earth-size planet in the habitable zone" drawn on it as rectangles. The surface is a stated parameterisation — two lognormal populations at 1.3 and 2.4 Earth radii, with the radius valley at 1.9 between them, normalised so that the whole of it comes to 0.5 planets per star between one and four Earth radii inside a hundred days. Integrating it over the four boxes gives 17%, 8%, 6%, 10% — a factor of 2.9 between the conservative zone and a broad definition, before any error bar is attached to any of them. The dashed curve is what a transit survey can actually see: at one year around a Sun-like star the smallest detectable planet is 1.6 Earth radii, so the lower-left corner of every box contains no detections at all and the rate there is an extrapolation of a fitted surface rather than a count of anything. Below: the same integral with only one corner moved. Holding the flux range fixed and sliding the radius bound from 1.5 to 1.75 Earth radii — a quarter of an Earth radius, well inside the uncertainty of a measured planetary radius — changes the answer by 43 per cent, which is larger than every error bar quoted with any of these numbers. The published values of η⊕ span two per cent to sixty; roughly a factor of 2.9 of that is definition, and the rest is how far each author was willing to extrapolate past the dashed line.

The part of a rate that is a definition

Published values for the frequency of Earth-size planets in habitable zones span two per cent to sixty. The spread is not measurement error — it is where the box was drawn, on a surface that is steepest exactly at the corner every author has to choose, and outside the last detection.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates The luminosity function has a knee, and the knee is the point. A Schechter function with a faint-end slope of -1.25, a characteristic magnitude of -20.9 and a normalisation of 0.0093 per cubic megaparsec per magnitude, plotted logarithmically. Fainter than the knee the curve is a straight line — a power law — and brighter than it the count falls off exponentially, which is why there is no such thing as a galaxy ten times brighter than the brightest. Integrated across the range drawn, galaxies brighter than the knee are 1.3 per cent of the number and 26 per cent of the light: almost every galaxy is a dwarf, and almost all the light is not in one.

A count with a knee in it

Count galaxies by luminosity and the answer is a power law at the faint end and an exponential cut-off at the bright one. Almost every galaxy is a dwarf; almost none of the light is in one; and the bend between those two statements is where galaxy formation stops being efficient.

galaxies · Luminosity function A sample that gets brighter with distance because the faint ones drop out. The mean absolute magnitude of a magnitude-limited sample, relative to the population it is drawn from, against distance. The population has a spread of 0.5 magnitudes about a mean of -4, and the survey stops at apparent magnitude 20. Nearby, everything is detected and the sample is unbiased. Beyond about 316228 parsecs the faint end of the distribution starts falling below the limit and the survivors are brighter than average; further out the bias deepens without limit, because eventually only the extreme tail is detectable. The horizontal line is the classical Malmquist value of 1.382 times the square of the spread, which is what the bias averages to over a magnitude-limited sample as a whole — it is a property of the sample rather than of any one object, and using it as a correction for an individual star is a common and specific mistake.

A sample brighter than the population it came from

Every survey stops at some apparent brightness. At any distance it therefore contains only the objects luminous enough to make the cut, so the average object in it is brighter than the average object in the universe — by an amount that grows with distance and that has been shortening every distance in astronomy since 1920.

starlight · Distance ladder A high end that is 2.5 in slope steeper than the one stars were born with. The mass function a star count measures against the one stars were born with, for a population that has been forming stars steadily for 10 billion years. Below about a solar mass nothing has had time to die, so the two coincide exactly. Above it the fraction still alive is the main-sequence lifetime divided by the age, and since the lifetime falls as the two-and-a-half power of the mass, the present-day function is steeper than the initial one by exactly that exponent. A count of massive stars in an old population therefore under-represents them by orders of magnitude, and reading it as an initial mass function gives a slope far too steep. The correction is large, it is calculable, and it depends on the star-formation history — which is usually the thing the mass function was going to be used to constrain.

A mass function corrected by an age

Counting stars by mass gives the stars that are alive. What every argument needs is the stars that were born, and the two differ by the fraction of each mass still on the main sequence — which is a lifetime divided by an age, and which for massive stars in an old population is a very small number.

stars · Initial mass function The count theory predicts, and the inference it costs. The galaxy stellar mass function: galaxies per cubic megaparsec per dex of stellar mass, both axes logarithmic. Two Schechter components share a characteristic mass of 10^10.66 M☉ — one of slope -0.35 carrying the quenched galaxies at the knee, one of slope -1.47 carrying the star-forming ones below it — and the dashed line is the single component a luminosity function is usually fitted with. Integrated over the range drawn it gives 0.0487 galaxies per cubic megaparsec holding 2.22·10⁸ solar masses of stars, of which 51 per cent sits above the knee. This function is not measured. What is measured is a luminosity function; turning one into the other needs a mass-to-light ratio for every galaxy in the sample, and that ratio is not a constant — it runs by a factor of about five from the bluest galaxies to the reddest, so the conversion moves the red end of the distribution further than the blue end and changes the SHAPE rather than the units. A stellar mass function is a luminosity function plus a stellar population model, and the second half is where its disagreements live.

The count theory predicts, and the inference it costs

A luminosity function is measured. A stellar mass function is inferred, one galaxy at a time, through a ratio that runs by a factor of six from the bluest galaxies to the reddest — so the conversion changes the shape and not merely the units.

galaxies · Luminosity function The same count, taken in two places. The ratio of a cluster's luminosity function to the field's, per galaxy at the knee, against absolute magnitude. Both are Schechter functions — the field at a faint-end slope of -1.25 and a characteristic magnitude of -20.9, the cluster at -1.05 and -21.4 — and they are normalised to agree at -21 so that what is drawn is a difference of SHAPE rather than of density, a cluster being some 240 times denser than the field by construction. Two things differ. The cluster's faint end is shallower: at -15 it holds 0.22 of the field's dwarfs per bright galaxy. And its knee is 0.5 magnitudes brighter, which is a factor of 1.6 in luminosity. Neither difference can be read as a cause. A cluster's galaxies are also redder, and the same photometry measures both — so a shallower faint end could mean that dwarfs were destroyed, or that they were never made, or that they are still there and have faded below the survey's limit because their star formation was stopped. The count says the populations differ; it does not say which of a galaxy's life stages the difference happened in.

The same census, taken in two places

Fit a Schechter function to a rich cluster and to the field around it and the two come back with different slopes and different knees. Both differences are real, and neither can be read as a cause — a cluster's galaxies are also redder, and the same photometry measures both.

galaxies · Luminosity function

Named alongside it

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

Luminosity functionFaint end slopeSchechter functionCharacteristic luminosityEddington biasEta earthExtrapolationFalse-positiveHabitable zoneInitial mass functionMalmquist biasMass-to-light ratio

All concepts