Concept

Stellar inclination — where it appears

The angle between a star's rotation axis and the line of sight, which no single measurement fixes directly. It is needed to turn a measured projected rotation speed into a true one, and to compare a star's spin with the orbits of its planets.

Named by 4 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The true obliquity a projected angle allows, against the tilt of the star. The true angle ψ between a transiting planet's orbit and its star's spin axis, against the inclination of that spin axis to the line of sight, for projected angles λ of 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 130° — from cos ψ = sin i★ cos λ for an orbit seen edge-on. At i★ = 90°, a star seen equator-on, the projection loses nothing and ψ = λ. As the star tips towards pole-on the true angle moves towards 90° from whichever side it started, so every curve ends at 90° when i★ = 0. Two things follow exactly. The projected angle is a lower bound for an aligned-looking system and an upper bound for a retrograde-looking one — ψ always lies between λ and 90°. And λ = 90° needs no inclination at all: a planet whose projected orbit crosses the stellar equator at right angles is on a polar orbit whatever the tilt, which is why the pile-up of polar orbits could be seen in projected angles alone.

An angle hidden by the tilt of the star

The line profile of a transited star gives the angle between orbit and spin as projected on the sky. The true angle needs the tilt of the star's spin axis, and every way of measuring that tilt is blind in the same place — a star seen equator-on, which is exactly where an aligned system sits.

exoplanets · Spin–orbit alignment
A nearly aligned population, seen in projection and in three dimensions. 60,000 transiting systems whose stars are tilted from their planets' orbits by a small random amount: each of the tilt's two components is Gaussian with a width of 5°, and its direction around the orbit normal is random. Orange: the true obliquity ψ, which is never negative and is almost never near zero — its median is 5.9°, because a tilt with two components is small only when both of them are small at once. Blue: the projected angle λ the line profile measures, which is symmetric about zero and peaked there. The projected angles look better aligned than the true ones, and they are not hiding anything: for small tilts λ is one component of a two-component tilt, so the rms true angle, 7.04°, is √2 times the rms projected angle, 5.01°, with no knowledge of any star's inclination.

A spread the projection does not hide

A single projected spin–orbit angle says little about the true one, because the star's tilt is unknown. A population of nearly aligned systems is different: for small tilts the projected angle is one component of a two-component vector, so the rms true obliquity is exactly √2 times the rms projected angle — no star's inclination needed.

exoplanets · Spin–orbit alignment
A star brighter at its poles, and three paths a planet might take across it. A star rotating at 0.6 of its critical angular velocity, seen with its spin axis tipped 30° towards the observer from the plane of the sky, drawn with that axis vertical. Its outline is the Roche surface, 1.05 times as wide as it is tall in projection. The contours are the surface brightness, from von Zeipel's law with exponent 0.2 and a linear limb darkening: gravity at the equator is weaker, so the equator is cooler and its intensity there is 81 per cent of the pole's before limb darkening. Three transit chords at the same impact parameter, 0.3 polar radii, cross at projected spin–orbit angles of 0°, 45°, 90°. Only the first is symmetric about the star's axis; the others run from bright regions to dark ones or the reverse, and the light curve records which.

A transit that runs differently backwards

A star spinning near break-up is brighter at its poles than its equator, so a planet crossing it at an angle covers bright surface on the way in and dim surface on the way out. The light curve stops being symmetric in time, and the part that differs forwards and backwards measures the true spin–orbit angle from photometry alone — on exactly the stars where the line-profile method struggles.

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 effectStellar obliquityProjected obliquityApsidal constantApsidal motionAsteroseismologyDegeneracyEclipsing binaryGeneral relativityGravity darkeningHot jupiterKraft break

All concepts