Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Hot jupiter — where it appears

A giant planet orbiting within a few days of its star, at a distance where it cannot have formed and must therefore have arrived from further out. About one solar-type star in two hundred has one, which is rare enough that they are not the ordinary outcome and common enough that the mechanism has to work reliably.

Named by 10 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A transit of a planet 0.103 of its star's radius. The star's brightness through one transit, computed by integrating the uniform stellar disc over the region the planet covers. The depth is 1.05%, which is exactly (Rp/R⋆)² = 0.01055. The four contact points are where the two discs are externally and internally tangent, at separations 1 ± 0.103 stellar radii.

A planet measured by the light it removes

A transit gives a depth, and the depth is a ratio of two radii rather than a size. Everything a transit says about a planet is said in units of a star nobody has visited either.

exoplanets · Transits The wobble of a star with a circular companion. The star's velocity along the line of sight, over two orbits, computed from the companion's orbit. A circular orbit gives a sine wave; an eccentric one gives a skewed curve whose shape encodes the eccentricity.

The star moves, and the mass is a lower bound

A planet is found by watching its star fall towards it. The wobble gives a mass multiplied by the sine of an angle nobody has measured — and the shortfall is not a rounding error.

exoplanets · Reflex velocity Mass against radius, and what lies between the curves. Planetary radius against mass on logarithmic axes, in Earth units, with composition curves computed from interior models rather than drawn through the points. The solid-planet curves are R ∝ M^(1/3.7) — flatter than a constant density because a heavier planet compresses itself — and the hydrogen curve turns over near three Jupiter masses, where degeneracy pressure takes over and adding mass makes the planet smaller. A mass alone or a radius alone places a planet on a line; only both together place it between two curves, and that is the whole argument for measuring a planet twice.

Two methods, and one density

A transit gives a radius. A wobble gives a mass. Neither says what a planet is made of, and the two together say it in one number — which is the only reason both are worth doing on the same object.

exoplanets · Planet composition What each method can see. Planet mass against orbital distance, both logarithmic, with the detection threshold of each method drawn as the boundary it actually is. Radial velocity at 1 m/s needs mass rising as √a; astrometry at 20 µas needs it falling as 1/a, which is the only method that gets easier further out; a 100 ppm transit is a threshold on radius and so a horizontal line at about 1.4 Earth masses, cut off at 1.21 AU by the need for three transits in 4 years; direct imaging begins outside the diffraction limit, 0.6 AU at 10 parsecs for a 39 m aperture at 10 µm. The solar system is drawn on top: for two decades every one of its planets except Jupiter lay outside every region, which is the whole of what the early census was measuring.

Every survey draws a different sky

The first exoplanets found were enormous and impossibly close to their stars. That was not a discovery about planets. It was a measurement of what a 10 m/s spectrograph watching for three years is able to see.

exoplanets · Detection bias Everything close in is circular, and nothing else has to be. Orbital eccentricity against period for fifteen real planets, with the tidal circularisation boundary computed from τ_e = (2/21)(Q′/n)(M_p/M⋆)(a/R_p)⁵ for a Jupiter with Q′ = 1e+6 and an age of 3 billion years. It falls at 4.5 days, and the reason it is a wall rather than a slope is the fifth power: at half the period the timescale is 91 times shorter. Nothing inside it has a measurable eccentricity, and outside it eccentricities run to 0.95 — which is the number to hold on to, because a planet on a 0.93 orbit at 111 days comes within 0.030 AU of its star at periastron, closer than Mercury, and is being circularised as it is observed.

A planet where one cannot form

A Jupiter at four days orbits inside a region that was too hot to hold ice and too small to hold the material. It did not form there — and the distribution of eccentricities says which of two journeys brought it in.

exoplanets · Planet migration Relativity switches the cycle off, halving its reach at a ratio of 0.80. The greatest eccentricity a Kozai–Lidov cycle reaches, against the strength of the orbit's own relativistic pericentre precession, measured in units of the cycle's own precession rate at zero eccentricity. The horizontal axis is logarithmic and spans three decades. At the left the relativistic term is negligible and the cycle reaches 0.838, which is the closed-form value for a start at 65 degrees and is what the integration is checked against. At the right it is gone. The mechanism depends on the pericentre staying put while the outer body pulls on the same side of the orbit for a whole cycle, and the relativistic precession is a competing rotation of that same pericentre; when it is faster, the pull averages away. The threshold sits near one by construction and the transition is sharp rather than gradual, with the reach halved at 0.80. What makes it matter is where the relativistic term is largest: it grows as the pericentre falls, so it strengthens exactly as the cycle drives the orbit inward, and it therefore sets a floor on the pericentre distance that this mechanism can deliver a body to.

The precession that switches the cycle off

A distant companion can trade an orbit's inclination for its eccentricity, over and over, and drive a pericentre almost onto the central body. General relativity's own precession competes with the mechanism for the same pericentre, and when it wins the cycle stops — sharply, at a ratio of one, which puts a floor on how close anything can be delivered.

orbits · Kozai–Lidov An edge where two torques balance, 21 kilometres from the shepherd. Two torques on the edge of a ring, against distance from a shepherding moon, both axes logarithmic and both scaled by the same combination of surface density, radius and orbital rate so that only their shapes are being compared. The flat line is the viscous torque, which comes from collisions between ring particles and does not care how far away anything is; it is drawn for a kinematic viscosity of 12 square centimetres a second, within the range ring seismology gives. The falling line is the moon's, summed over the first-order resonances that crowd together as the gap narrows, which makes it an inverse cube. A flat curve and an inverse cube cross once, and the crossing is where an edge can sit: closer in the moon wins and pushes the material back, further out viscosity wins and the ring spreads. For Daphnis and the Keeler gap the balance lands 20.8 kilometres out against a measured half-width of 21, which is agreement to well inside the uncertainty on the viscosity — and it is the only handle anybody has on that viscosity, since the quantity being inferred is the collision rate among particles a metre across, a billion kilometres away.

A torque that nearly cancels

A planet embedded in a gas disc pulls on the material inside its orbit and outside it, and the two torques are almost equal and opposite. What survives the subtraction is a per cent of either, and it is still enough to carry a planet from where it formed to its star in less time than the disc lasts.

exoplanets · Planet migration The inflation threshold at 2·10⁵ W m⁻², and the 0.69 R_J above it. Radius against the starlight received, for a population of Jupiter-mass planets. The horizontal line is what a structural model gives for a cold, old, Jupiter-mass ball of hydrogen and helium: 1.06 Jupiter radii, and it hardly depends on mass at all in this range, because degeneracy is beginning to set in and the mass–radius relation is flattening toward its turnover. Planets receiving less than about 2·10⁵ watts per square metre sit on that line, with a median of 1.06, which is the control the rest of the figure depends on: the models are not wrong in general. Above the threshold the radii climb, reaching a median of 1.75 — half again the size a cold planet of the same mass can be — and the onset is sharp enough to be called a threshold rather than a trend. Starlight by itself will not do this. Irradiation is absorbed high in the atmosphere and re-emitted from there; it slows the escape of heat from below, which delays contraction, but it cannot deposit energy beneath the radiative–convective boundary, and it is the interior entropy that sets the radius. So the excess is evidence for a mechanism that carries roughly half a per cent of the incident flux down to pressures of tens of bars — ohmic dissipation of currents driven through a partly ionised atmosphere, breaking gravity waves, and tidally forced turbulence are the candidates, and the threshold is the number each of them has to reproduce. The points are a synthetic population from a seeded generator, not a catalogue; what is real is the threshold, the size of the excess, and the fact that the un-irradiated planets sit exactly where they should.

A radius no cold planet is allowed

A Jupiter-mass ball of hydrogen has a maximum size, and it is about 1.06 Jupiter radii however old or young it is. Hundreds of hot Jupiters are half again that, and the excess switches on sharply above a threshold in the starlight they receive — which means something is putting energy in deep.

exoplanets · Planet composition The same orbit, realigned by one star and not by the other. The time an equilibrium tide takes to bring a planet's orbit into the plane of its star's equator, against orbital separation in stellar radii, for a planet of 1e-3 stellar masses. Both axes are logarithmic. The two curves differ only in how efficiently the star dissipates the tide, by a factor of 10⁴ — the contrast between a star with a convective envelope, where turbulence turns the tidal flow into heat, and one hotter than about 6,250 K, which has almost none. The lower curve is calibrated so that a Jupiter at 8 stellar radii realigns a cool star's orbit in 1 billion years, which is what the aligned systems require; the tidal quality factor of a star is not known from first principles and this is the honest way to say so. Everything else follows from the sixth power of the separation, which is measured off the drawn curve as 6.000. The two curves cross a Hubble time at 12.4 and 2.7 stellar radii, and their ratio is the sixth root of the dissipation contrast. Hot Jupiters sit between those two numbers. So the same arrival distribution of orbital tilts is erased around cool stars and preserved around hot ones, and a survey that finds cool hosts aligned and hot hosts scattered has measured the filter rather than the arrivals.

A misalignment only cool stars forget

A third of hot Jupiters orbit at a large angle to their star's equator, and some go round backwards. Sort the same planets by the temperature of their host and the picture changes — below about 6,250 kelvin almost all are aligned, and above it almost none are. The boundary is not about the planets.

exoplanets · Spin–orbit alignment A wall measures a ratio, and a ratio is a line. The tidal quality factor against the system's age, with each line the locus of one measured circularisation boundary. For a planet the eccentricity damping time τₑ goes as Q′P^(13/3), so the cut-off period goes as (age/Q′)^(3/13) and only the ratio of the two appears. A measured wall is therefore a straight line of slope exactly 1 in this plane and never a point on it: a 5-day boundary is consistent with Q′ = 2·10⁵ in a one-billion-year-old system and with Q′ = 2·10⁶ in a ten-billion-year-old one, and nothing in the light curve chooses. The stellar version of this measurement escapes because the cluster supplies the age, from a main-sequence turn-off that owes the tide nothing — which is why a cut-off period read off four clusters is a dissipation measurement and the same wall in the hot-Jupiter plane is not. The shaded band is what a field star's age is actually worth: known to a factor of 3, it leaves Q′ known to a factor of 3 and no better, against a quantity whose published values for giant planets span 10⁴ to 10⁹. What would break the degeneracy is a second measurement with a different power of P in it — an orbital decay rate, which goes as Q′⁻¹ with no age in it at all, and which has now been measured for one planet.

A wall measures a ratio, and a ratio is a line

The same circularisation boundary drawn for planets probes the dissipation inside the planet rather than inside the star. But the boundary depends only on age over Q′, so with no cluster to date the system the measurement is a line in a plane and never a point on it.

orbits · Circularisation

Named alongside it

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

Tidal circularisationDegeneracy pressureEccentricityEquilibrium tideHigh-eccentricity migrationInclinationInflated radiusKozai lidov mechanismMass radius relationPeriod distributionPlanet migrationProtoplanetary disc

All concepts