Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The periodogram generator

A true peak at 0.3103 and a false one at 0.6897, from the same data
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.

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.

5 essays call periodogram. 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.

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. Starlight

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.

 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. Exoplanets

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.

 A period, a colour, and an age. Rotation period against colour for stars of 125, 625, 1000, 2500, 4570 million years, under the empirical relation P = t^0.5189 × 0.7725(B−V − 0.4)^0.601. The isochrones do not cross and are separated at every colour by exactly the age ratio raised to 0.5189, which is what allows a single measured period to be inverted for an age once the colour is known. The Sun, at B−V = 0.653 and 4570 million years, is placed by the relation at 26.8 days against the 25.4 days it is observed to have. Three clusters are marked at a common colour to show the spacing directly. The dashed boundary at the left is where the Rossby number — the period divided by the convective turnover time — passes 2 on the oldest isochrone, at B−V = 1.35: past that point the braking weakens and the relation is known to over-predict the age, which is the one place a rotation period stops being a clock. What the figure cannot show is the scatter, which is a few days at fixed colour and age and is the real error bar on any single star. Stars

The clock that starts by forgetting

An ordinary star tells nothing about its age. It sits on the main sequence for billions of years at almost fixed brightness and colour, and the one property that changes monotonically is how fast it turns — but only because the braking law destroys the initial condition first, and only until it stops.

 4000 lines averaged into one profile, and 2.3 m/s out of it. A cross-correlation function: the average absorption profile obtained by shifting a mask of 4000 line positions across a spectrum and summing what falls under it. The faint curves behind are individual lines, each with its own depth, its own width and its own small offset; the heavy curve is what averaging them produces. The velocity is the position of the peak, and its precision is the width divided by the contrast, the signal-to-noise and the square root of the number of lines — 2.3 metres a second here. Nothing about this construction is a measurement of any one line. It is a measurement of where a weighted average of thousands of them sits, and the weights are a choice: a mask built for one spectral type applied to another weights the disagreement between the lines differently, and moves the peak. Starlight

A velocity that is an average of lines that disagree

A radial velocity measured to a metre a second is not measured from a line. It is the position of the peak of a cross-correlation against a mask of thousands of lines, and those lines do not agree with each other by hundreds of metres a second — because each one forms at a different depth in an atmosphere that is boiling.

 A peak worth 10.8 in a narrow search is worth nothing in a wide one. The probability that noise alone produces a peak at least as tall as a given power, for searches over four different numbers of independent frequencies. A single frequency examined in isolation gives a one-per-cent chance at a power of 4.6; searching fifty thousand frequencies for the same one-per-cent chance requires 15.4. The threshold rises as the logarithm of the width of the search, which is why the penalty is survivable — but it is a penalty, it is often not applied, and the number of independent frequencies in an unevenly sampled time series is not the number of frequencies on the grid. Overestimating that count is conservative and underestimating it is not, which is the one asymmetry worth remembering. Starlight

The tallest peak in nothing at all

A periodogram of pure noise has peaks in it, and the tallest is not small. How tall it has to be before it means something depends on how many frequencies were searched and on what the noise actually is — and astronomical noise is almost never the white noise the standard formula assumes.

The whole library · All essays