Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Window function — where it appears

The pattern of times at which a series was actually sampled, which multiplies the signal and therefore convolves its spectrum. Nightly gaps and annual interruptions put structure into any periodogram or correlation computed from ground-based data.

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

A true peak at 0.3103 and a false one at 0.6897, from the same data. The Lomb–Scargle periodogram of 162 simulated observations taken over 419 nights from one site, of a star carrying a 4.2-unit sinusoid at 0.3103 cycles per day under 3 units of Gaussian noise per point. The injected signal is recovered at 0.3103 cycles per day, within the 0.0024 resolution element the baseline allows. The second peak, at 0.6899, is 87 per cent as tall and corresponds to nothing: it is 1 − f, the signal reflected in the one-cycle-per-day spike of the sampling. Neither peak is more real than the other in this picture — deciding between them needs a second site at a different longitude, or a run long enough for the seasonal window to separate them. The dashed line is the power a pure-noise series would exceed once in 1000 trials, computed from 586 independent frequencies rather than from the 4691 grid points searched; using the grid count instead would put the line 2.08 higher and reject a real detection.

A period found in the gaps

Astronomical time series are sampled when the sky is dark and clear and the target is up, which is a schedule with a spectrum of its own. That spectrum is convolved with the real one, so a single sinusoid produces several peaks — and the tallest is not always the true one.

starlight · Periodograms A 6.2 m s⁻¹ signal at the rotation period, made by no planet at all. Above: the apparent radial velocity of a star carrying one dark spot over 0.4 per cent of its disc, rotating with an equatorial velocity of 3.2 km s⁻¹, over 3 rotations — and beside it a circular-orbit planet of the same period fitted to the same amplitude, 6.2 metres a second. That amplitude is several times the precision of a modern spectrograph and squarely inside the range in which warm sub-Neptunes are claimed, so the two are competing on equal terms. The spot signal is not a sinusoid: the spot is in view for half the rotation and hidden for the other half, so the curve is truncated, and its power at half the period is 1.16 of its power at the period. A Keplerian orbit at the same period has none there at all. Below: the diagnostic that actually settles it. A planet moves the whole spectrum bodily, so every line keeps its shape and the bisector — the locus of midpoints up a line profile — does not move; a spot removes light from one side of the profile, so the bisector tilts in step with the velocity and against it. The two clouds correlate at -0.92 and 0.14. What the picture cannot show is why this took so long to become routine: measuring a bisector to a few metres a second needs a signal-to-noise ratio of several hundred per spectrum, so for two decades the diagnostic existed and could not be applied to the faint stars the interesting claims were about.

A planet that was the star's own rotation

A dark spot rotating across a star removes light from the approaching limb and then the receding one, and the line centroid moves. That is several metres a second at the rotation period, from no planet at all — and two of the most celebrated nearby planets were withdrawn on exactly this evidence.

exoplanets · Reflex velocity Four defensible boxes, and a factor of 2.9 between the answers. Above: the occurrence surface in starlight received against planet radius, with four published definitions of "an Earth-size planet in the habitable zone" drawn on it as rectangles. The surface is a stated parameterisation — two lognormal populations at 1.3 and 2.4 Earth radii, with the radius valley at 1.9 between them, normalised so that the whole of it comes to 0.5 planets per star between one and four Earth radii inside a hundred days. Integrating it over the four boxes gives 17%, 8%, 6%, 10% — a factor of 2.9 between the conservative zone and a broad definition, before any error bar is attached to any of them. The dashed curve is what a transit survey can actually see: at one year around a Sun-like star the smallest detectable planet is 1.6 Earth radii, so the lower-left corner of every box contains no detections at all and the rate there is an extrapolation of a fitted surface rather than a count of anything. Below: the same integral with only one corner moved. Holding the flux range fixed and sliding the radius bound from 1.5 to 1.75 Earth radii — a quarter of an Earth radius, well inside the uncertainty of a measured planetary radius — changes the answer by 43 per cent, which is larger than every error bar quoted with any of these numbers. The published values of η⊕ span two per cent to sixty; roughly a factor of 2.9 of that is definition, and the rest is how far each author was willing to extrapolate past the dashed line.

The part of a rate that is a definition

Published values for the frequency of Earth-size planets in habitable zones span two per cent to sixty. The spread is not measurement error — it is where the box was drawn, on a surface that is steepest exactly at the corner every author has to choose, and outside the last detection.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates

Named alongside it

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

False-positiveActivity indicatorAliasBox least squaresCompletenessConvective blueshiftDefinitional uncertaintyDetection thresholdEta earthExtrapolationFalse-alarm probabilityHabitable zone

All concepts