Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Stellar obliquity — where it appears

The angle between a star's spin axis and the orbital axis of a planet around it, zero for an aligned system like the Solar System. Many hot Jupiters are tilted, and the distribution of obliquities records how their orbits formed and evolved.

Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 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 How much of a population is driven how close. The fraction of an isotropic population of inner orbits whose Kozai–Lidov cycling brings 1 − e below a given value within 150 secular timescales, against that value, both logarithmic, for octupole strengths ε = 0, 0.01, 0.03; each curve is 128 integrated orbits with random pericentres and nodes. The thin line is the quadrupole closed form, √((3/5)(1 − (1 − q)²)), which the ε = 0 population follows. At 1 − e = 0.01 the fractions are 9.4, 20.3, 40.6 per cent; at 0.001, 3.1, 18.0, 38.3. The octupole matters most where the quadrupole is weakest — at the extreme closeness a planet needs to be captured by tides, or a pair of compact objects needs to merge — because it adds orbits whose quadrupole cycle stopped far short of it.

Eleven in a hundred by geometry, and the rest by waiting

A distant companion drives an inner orbit through cycles of eccentricity, and whether a given system reaches a dangerously close approach depends on its inclination. Counted over a population with random orientations, the answer at quadrupole order is pure geometry — about eleven per cent reach one per cent of their semi-major axis, all at the same inclination. An eccentric outer orbit multiplies that share, spreads the inclinations, and makes the count depend on how long the systems have been waiting.

orbits · Kozai–Lidov 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

Named alongside it

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

Hot jupiterProjected obliquityStellar inclinationKraft breakThe Rossiter–McLaughlin effectAsteroseismologyConvective envelopeDegeneracyDisc migrationEquilibrium tideGravity darkeningHierarchical triple

All concepts