Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Transit — where it appears

The passage of a smaller body across the face of a larger one as seen by the observer. It is distinct from an eclipse, in which a body enters a shadow, and from an occultation, in which the smaller body is hidden.

Named by 6 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 A transit of a planet 0.103 of its star's radius. The star's brightness through one transit, computed by integrating the limb-darkened stellar disc over the region the planet covers. The depth is 1.26%, deeper than (Rp/R⋆)² = 0.01055 because the planet crosses a limb-darkened disc whose centre is brighter than its average. The four contact points are where the two discs are externally and internally tangent, at separations 1 ± 0.103 stellar radii.

Four contact points, and what they fix

The depth of a transit gives a radius ratio. The shape gives the impact parameter, and then — through nothing but Kepler's third law — the mean density of the star being crossed.

exoplanets · Transits A transit depth of 1.200 per cent for a planet of area 1.000 per cent. Three transits of the same planet across the same star, differing only in how the star's brightness falls toward its edge. A planet of radius ratio 0.1 covers 1.000 per cent of the stellar disc's area, and if the disc were uniformly bright that would be the depth. It is not uniformly bright: a sight line near the limb leaves the photosphere at a shallow angle and therefore from a cooler layer, so the edge is dimmer than the centre, and a planet crossing near the middle blocks light that is brighter than average. The transit drawn with realistic coefficients is 1.200 per cent deep — 20 per cent deeper than the area — and it is also rounder, because the covered brightness changes through the crossing instead of staying flat. The consequence is stated in the numbers beside the curves. Each is a least-squares fit of the radius ratio to the realistic curve, performed with a different assumed limb-darkening law, and the recovered radius moves by up to 3.6 per cent depending on which law is assumed. Fitting with the law the curve was made from returns the input to five figures, which is the control: the bias is the mis-specification and not the fitter. Since the coefficients come from a model atmosphere rather than from the light curve, every published planetary radius carries a systematic from stellar physics that no amount of photometric precision removes — and it is the dominant one for the best-measured planets. The picture holds the impact parameter fixed; a grazing transit is worse, because it samples only the limb, where the disagreement between laws is largest.

The depth is not the area

A planet covering one per cent of its star's disc does not make a transit one per cent deep. The star is brighter in the middle, so a planet crossing the middle blocks more than its share — and the correction depends on coefficients that come from a stellar atmosphere model rather than from the light curve.

starlight · Limb darkening Four transiting planets, one star, and a density that must agree. The stellar density implied by each of four transiting planets of one simulated star, each fitted as though its orbit were circular, relative to the star's true density, against orbital period, both logarithmic, with one-sigma errors of 8, 10, 14, 20 per cent from the transit fits. Three planets have eccentricities of a few hundredths and agree with one another and with the truth (dashed line: their weighted mean, 0.950). The planet at 15.9 days has e = 0.2 with its periastron 70° from the line of sight, which makes it cross the star faster than a circular orbit would, and its implied density is 2.10 times the star's — 5.2 standard deviations from the others. A single planet's density can be reconciled with any star by choosing its eccentricity; several planets must share one star, and the odd one out is caught.

Every planet of a star must agree on its density

A single transiting planet gives the density of its star only if its orbit is known to be circular, and an eccentric orbit can disguise almost any star as almost any other. A star with four transiting planets has four such measurements of one number. They must agree — and the way they disagree measures how eccentric the orbits are, catches the candidate that orbits some other star, and pins down the star better than its own spectrum does.

exoplanets · Transits Two eccentricity distributions for the planets that transit alone. Two hypotheses for the orbital eccentricities of planets that transit their stars alone, as probability densities on a logarithmic axis. Solid: a mixture of two populations, 70 per cent at σₑ = 0.04 and 30 per cent at σₑ = 0.25 — a cold majority like the planets in multi-planet systems and a hot minority. Dashed: a continuum, each planet's Rayleigh scale drawn evenly in its logarithm between 0.015 and 0.34, chosen as the continuum whose densities most resemble the mixture's. The two differ most between eccentricities of 0.1 and 0.15, where the mixture dips between its two populations and the continuum does not: 5.6 and 12.0 per cent of planets respectively. A trough there is what a separate hot population would leave, and it is the feature a measurement has to find.

A gap in eccentricity a density can only just see

Planets that transit alone have more eccentric orbits than planets with transiting siblings, and the excess can be fitted as a separate hot population or as a smooth spread with no gap. The two eccentricity distributions look plainly different. The stellar densities through which they are measured look almost the same, and how many planets it takes to tell them apart is set less by the star than by the transit.

exoplanets · Transits The bands of sky from which each planet would be seen to transit. Ecliptic latitude against ecliptic longitude, with the vertical scale stretched 11 times: the band from which each of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter would be seen to cross the Sun's disc. The Earth's band lies along the ecliptic, ±0.266° wide. Mercury's is the widest, ±0.69°, and tilted by its 7° inclination; the giants' are narrow, ±0.051° for Jupiter. Each crosses the Earth's at the two nodes of its orbit, and only near those crossings can an observer see two planets transit. From nowhere on the sky can more than 3 be seen.

The stars that could catch the Earth in transit

The geometry that lets one Earth twin in two hundred be seen crossing its star works in reverse: the Earth crosses the Sun for observers in a band of sky half a degree wide, under half a per cent of the sky. About two thousand stars within a hundred parsecs sit in it. The band is fixed to the Earth's orbit and the stars are not, so the list changes on the timescale of recorded history — and from no direction can more than three of the eight planets be seen transiting at once.

exoplanets · Detection bias

Named alongside it

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

AsteroseismologyEccentricityImpact parameterLimb darkeningRadius ratioStellar densityArgument of periastronPhotoeccentric effectPhotometryTransit depthTransit probabilityDegeneracy

All concepts