Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The contrast-curve generator

Contrast against separation, which is where direct imaging lives
Contrast against separation, which is where direct imaging lives. Planet-to-star brightness ratio against apparent separation, both logarithmic, for a system 10 parsecs away. The reflected-light curves are A_g(R_p/a)² and fall as the inverse square of the orbit; the thermal curve is the ratio of two Planck functions at 10 µm and does not, which is why every imaged planet so far is young and hot rather than merely large. The vertical lines are diffraction limits λ/D — nothing inside a telescope's own line is reachable by it at any contrast at all. An Earth at ten parsecs sits at 6.3e-10, which is 4 orders of magnitude below the faintest planet yet imaged. The four imaged planets are plotted at their measured near-infrared contrasts rather than at 10 µm, because the near infrared is the band they were found in — which is itself part of the argument, since a young planet is hot enough to be bright where its star is not.

Planet-to-star brightness ratio against apparent separation, both logarithmic, for a system 10 parsecs away. The reflected-light curves are A_g(R_p/a)² and fall as the inverse square of the orbit; the thermal curve is the ratio of two Planck functions at 10 µm and does not, which is why every imaged planet so far is young and hot rather than merely large. The vertical lines are diffraction limits λ/D — nothing inside a telescope's own line is reachable by it at any contrast at all. An Earth at ten parsecs sits at 6.3e-10, which is 4 orders of magnitude below the faintest planet yet imaged. The four imaged planets are plotted at their measured near-infrared contrasts rather than at 10 µm, because the near infrared is the band they were found in — which is itself part of the argument, since a young planet is hot enough to be bright where its star is not.

6 essays call contrast-curve. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

Contrast against separation, which is where direct imaging lives. Planet-to-star brightness ratio against apparent separation, both logarithmic, for a system 10 parsecs away. The reflected-light curves are A_g(R_p/a)² and fall as the inverse square of the orbit; the thermal curve is the ratio of two Planck functions at 10 µm and does not, which is why every imaged planet so far is young and hot rather than merely large. The vertical lines are diffraction limits λ/D — nothing inside a telescope's own line is reachable by it at any contrast at all. An Earth at ten parsecs sits at 6.3e-10, which is 4 orders of magnitude below the faintest planet yet imaged. The four imaged planets are plotted at their measured near-infrared contrasts rather than at 10 µm, because the near infrared is the band they were found in — which is itself part of the argument, since a young planet is hot enough to be bright where its star is not. Exoplanets

Nine orders of magnitude, half an arcsecond apart

Photographing a planet is not a resolution problem. It is a contrast problem, and the contrast is set by an inverse square that punishes exactly the planets a telescope can most easily separate.

 A planet that subtracts 73 per cent of itself at the inner working angle. The fraction of a planet's flux that survives an angular differential imaging subtraction, against its separation from the star in resolution elements, for a sequence covering 25 degrees of field rotation. The reference image is built from the target's own frames, so a planet that has not moved far between them is present in the reference and is removed along with the speckles. How far it moves is the arc length, which is proportional to the separation — so the self-subtraction is severe close in and negligible far out, and the half-throughput point is at 2.1 resolution elements here. The consequence for any contrast curve is that it is a statement about an algorithm as well as about an instrument: the depth reached has to be measured by injecting fake planets into the data and recovering them, because no calculation predicts what fraction of a real one survives. Exoplanets

A star subtracted using the star

Imaging a planet means removing a halo of scattered starlight a hundred million times brighter than the planet, and no model of that halo is good enough to subtract. So it is built from the star's own exposures — and since the planet is in those exposures too, it subtracts part of itself.

 Two references, failing in opposite places. The faintest companion each technique can detect, against separation in resolution elements, in units of the speckle noise a perfectly matched reference would leave. Angular differential imaging builds its reference from the target's own exposures, so the reference matches the instrument's state exactly and the residual speckle is small — and the companion is in every frame of it, so close in the companion subtracts most of itself and the achievable contrast collapses. Reference-star differential imaging builds the reference from archival exposures of other stars. The companion is in none of them, so the throughput is one at every separation and the curve is flat; what is lost is the match, because two stars observed at different times through different air with a differently flexed telescope have different speckles. The two cross, and where they cross depends on how large the library is: 1.1 resolution elements at 20 frames, 1.4 resolution elements at 200 frames, 1.8 resolution elements at 2000 frames. A library of thousands of archival exposures is therefore worth building, and the thing it buys is the inner working angle rather than the depth. Exoplanets

A reference built from other stars

Subtracting a star's halo using the star's own exposures removes part of the planet with it. Building the reference from a library of archival exposures of other stars removes none of the planet and matches the halo worse — so the two techniques fail in opposite places, and which one wins at a given separation depends on how many exposures somebody has kept.

 A fringe that is dark on the star and bright on the planet. The fraction of a point source's light an interferometric nuller transmits, against its angle from the star along the baseline, in milliarcseconds, for two telescopes 10.3 m apart observing at 10 μm — the baseline that puts the first bright fringe exactly on a planet 1 AU from a star 10 pc away, 100 milliarcseconds out. The solid curve is the two-telescope null, sin²: it is zero on the star and rises as the square of the angle. The dashed curve is a quartic null, sin⁴, made by combining four apertures: it is darker near the star and narrower at the planet. The shaded strip is the star itself, 0.93 milliarcseconds across. It looks negligible at this scale, but the null is not perfect across it, and what leaks from that strip is the quantity the whole technique has to beat. Exoplanets

A null filled in by the star itself

Two telescopes combined out of phase cancel a star on the axis and pass a planet beside it, and the cancellation rises only as the square of the angle away from the axis. A star is not a point, so its own edges sit off the axis — and for the Sun seen with the baseline that finds the Earth, they leak through at a hundred and fifty times the Earth's brightness, at every distance, because the leak depends only on the size of the star compared with the planet's orbit.

 What shares a resolution element with an Earth twin. Light collected in one resolution element around an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star, against the system's distance, both on logarithmic scales, for a 6 metre telescope at visible wavelengths, in units of the planet's own light at 10 parsecs. The planet and the leaked starlight both dim as the square of distance. The exozodiacal dust, at 3 times the Solar System's level, and the Solar System's own zodiacal light do not dim at all: each is a surface brightness, and a resolution element at a greater distance simply contains more dust. The exozodi equals the planet at 9.1 parsecs and is 11 times it at 30. Exoplanets

Dust that does not dim with distance

An Earth-like planet around a nearby star is seen against the glow of the dust in its own system, and the two behave differently with distance. The planet is a point, and it fades as the square of how far away it is. The dust is a surface, and a surface does not fade at all — a more distant system packs more dust into each resolution element in exactly the proportion its light is diluted. So the dust around a star, not the telescope's contrast, sets how far away an Earth can be found, and how many stars a search can reach.

 Where a ten-micron zodi comes from. How much each logarithmic interval of radius contributes to the ten-micron glow of a Sun-like star's exozodiacal dust, for blackbody grains in the Solar System's radial profile, seen face-on from 10 pc: with no instrument (dashed) and through a 14.4 m nulling interferometer whose fringes suppress the light near the star (solid, with the averaged transmission dotted). Without the null the glow is concentrated far inside the habitable zone at 1 AU (marked), because the grains' emission at ten microns rises steeply with their temperature: half of it comes from inside 0.34 AU. The null removes the innermost part and pushes the sensitivity outward, but half the nulled signal still comes from inside 0.69 AU, peaking at 0.74. A zodi level measured this way is a measurement of the dust between a few tenths of an AU and the habitable zone, extrapolated to the habitable zone with the Sun's profile. Exoplanets

A zodi measured in heat and needed in light

The dust around nearby stars that will limit the search for Earth-like planets in reflected light has been measured — but in its own glow at ten microns, by an interferometer whose fringes hide the dust nearest the star. Converting that measurement into the visible brightness at the habitable zone needs the dust's radial profile and its grains' albedo and temperature, none of which was measured. The same ten-micron zodi can mean a quarter or ten times the visible dust a coronagraph will see.

The whole library · All essays