Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Spin–orbit alignment — where it appears

The angle between a planet's orbital plane and its star's equator. It is a fossil of how the planet arrived, and around cool stars it is erased by tides — so the observed distribution is an arrival distribution seen through a filter.

Named by 3 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A 27.5 m/s velocity the star does not have. Left: a rotating stellar disc, approaching on one side and receding on the other, with the chord a planet of 0.1 stellar radii takes across it at impact parameter 0.5 and a sky-projected obliquity of 0°. Right: the apparent radial velocity that results, computed by covering the disc cell by cell — the flux hidden at each phase and its mean line-of-sight velocity — rather than from a fitted formula. The star's centre of mass does not move at any point in this: the anomaly is entirely a statement about which parts of the line profile are missing. Its amplitude is 27.5 m/s at v sin i = 4.5 km/s, and the two numbers are related by the depth of the transit, since blocking a fraction f of light of mean velocity v shifts a flux-weighted centroid by f·v. The curve is antisymmetric about mid-transit to 0.00% of its own amplitude, which is what an aligned transit gives: equal time on the blue half and the red. Limb darkening is included at u = 0.6, and it matters: it weights the hidden light towards the centre of the disc, where the rotation velocity is smallest.

A velocity measured from a shape

A transiting planet hides part of a rotating disc, so the star's line profile loses a slice at one velocity and its fitted centroid moves. The star has not moved at all — and the lopsidedness of that motion is the whole measurement of whether the orbit lies in the star's own equatorial plane.

exoplanets · Spin–orbit alignment 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 What DI Herculis's orbit should do, and what it does. The rate at which the periastron of the eclipsing binary DI Herculis advances, in degrees per century. Top: the prediction for stars whose spins are aligned with the orbit — 2.34 from general relativity, computed from the masses (5.17 and 4.52 solar masses), the 10.550164-day period and the eccentricity of 0.489; and 1.93 from the stars' tidal and rotational distortion, as published stellar models give it, of which the rotational flattening is 1.50 and the tides 0.43. Total 4.27. Bottom: the observed rate, between about 0.6 and 1.4 degrees per century in the published timing analyses — a quarter to a seventh of the prediction. For a quarter of a century after the discrepancy was established it was cited as possible evidence against general relativity, which contributes more than half the predicted total by itself.

A precession slowed by stars lying on their sides

The eclipsing binary DI Herculis turns the long axis of its orbit at a quarter to a seventh of the rate relativity and the stars' own distortion predict, and for a quarter of a century that gap was offered as evidence against general relativity. The answer was in the stars: both spin nearly on their sides, and a flattened star tipped past 54.7 degrees drags the orbit's periastron backwards instead of forwards. Explained, the slow precession becomes a measurement of something no spectrum shows — how far the spins lean towards the Earth.

stars · Binary stars

Named alongside it

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

The Rossiter–McLaughlin effectApsidal constantApsidal motionConvective envelopeDisc migrationDoppler effectEclipsing binaryEquilibrium tideGeneral relativityHigh-eccentricity migrationHot jupiterKozai lidov mechanism

All concepts