Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The transit-curve generator

A transit of a planet 0.1 of its star's radius
A transit of a planet 0.1 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%, which is exactly (Rp/R⋆)² = 0.01. The four contact points are where the two discs are externally and internally tangent, at separations 1 ± 0.1 stellar radii.

The star's brightness through one transit, computed by integrating the uniform stellar disc over the region the planet covers. The depth is 1%, which is exactly (Rp/R⋆)² = 0.01. The four contact points are where the two discs are externally and internally tangent, at separations 1 ± 0.1 stellar radii.

9 essays call transit-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.

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. Exoplanets

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.

 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. Exoplanets

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.

 Mass against radius, and what lies between the curves. Planetary radius against mass on logarithmic axes, in Earth units, with composition curves computed from interior models rather than drawn through the points. The solid-planet curves are R ∝ M^(1/3.7) — flatter than a constant density because a heavier planet compresses itself — and the hydrogen curve turns over near three Jupiter masses, where degeneracy pressure takes over and adding mass makes the planet smaller. A mass alone or a radius alone places a planet on a line; only both together place it between two curves, and that is the whole argument for measuring a planet twice. Exoplanets

Two methods, and one density

A transit gives a radius. A wobble gives a mass. Neither says what a planet is made of, and the two together say it in one number — which is the only reason both are worth doing on the same object.

 A transit that will not keep time. Transit times of a planet of 8 Earth masses on a 3-day orbit, minus the best straight line through them, from a three-body integration in which the second planet at 4.62 days is the only thing perturbing it. The residual swings by ±1.7 minutes and repeats over 58 days — the super-period 1/|3/P₂ − 2/P₁|, which is long precisely because the pair is near the 3:2 resonance and gets longer the nearer it is. The amplitude is proportional to the perturbing planet's mass, so fitting this curve weighs a planet that may never transit at all. The short jagged component is not noise: it is the chopping signal, one kick per conjunction at the 8.6-day synodic period, sampled once every 3 days by the transits themselves and so barely above the rate at which it can be followed. The integration conserved energy to 1.6e-10. Exoplanets

Planets found by a transit running late

A planet on a fixed orbit transits like a clock. A second planet pulling on it makes the clock run fast and slow by minutes — and fitting that wander weighs a planet that may never cross the star at all.

 One whole orbit. The system's total brightness through one orbit: the transit at phase 0, the slow rise and fall of the planet's illuminated hemisphere between, and the secondary eclipse at phase 0.5 where the planet's own light is removed. The transit is 1.05%; the secondary eclipse is 1800 ppm, about 6 times shallower. Exoplanets

The planet is seen when it disappears

Half an orbit after the transit the planet passes behind its star, and the light that vanishes is the planet's own. Subtracting two brightnesses taken hours apart isolates a body nothing has ever resolved.

 A 27.5 m/s velocity the star does not have. Left: a rotating stellar disc, approaching on one side and receding on the other, with the chord a planet of 0.1 stellar radii takes across it at impact parameter 0.5 and a sky-projected obliquity of 0°. Right: the apparent radial velocity that results, computed by covering the disc cell by cell — the flux hidden at each phase and its mean line-of-sight velocity — rather than from a fitted formula. The star's centre of mass does not move at any point in this: the anomaly is entirely a statement about which parts of the line profile are missing. Its amplitude is 27.5 m/s at v sin i = 4.5 km/s, and the two numbers are related by the depth of the transit, since blocking a fraction f of light of mean velocity v shifts a flux-weighted centroid by f·v. The curve is antisymmetric about mid-transit to 0.00% of its own amplitude, which is what an aligned transit gives: equal time on the blue half and the red. Limb darkening is included at u = 0.6, and it matters: it weights the hidden light towards the centre of the disc, where the rotation velocity is smallest. Exoplanets

A velocity measured from a shape

A transiting planet hides part of a rotating disc, so the star's line profile loses a slice at one velocity and its fitted centroid moves. The star has not moved at all — and the lopsidedness of that motion is the whole measurement of whether the orbit lies in the star's own equatorial plane.

 Two objects, the same 1.055 per cent, and only one of them a planet. A planet of 0.1027 stellar radii transiting at impact parameter 0.3, and a background eclipsing binary of radius ratio 0.62 whose 38 per cent eclipse is diluted by the target's light to 1.055 per cent — the same depth to nine decimal places, because the dilution was chosen to make it so. A blend contributing 2.7 per cent of the light in the aperture can manufacture any planetary depth at all, so the depth is not evidence about what produced it. Two things in the same photometry are. The ingress occupies 20.4 per cent of the planet's transit and 80.3 per cent of the blend's, a factor of 3.9: the shape of the shoulders is set by the radius ratio of whatever is actually eclipsing, and dilution scales a curve without changing its shape. And the duration with the period gives the mean density of the star being crossed — 1.41 g/cm³ here against 0.15, a factor of 9 — so a blend usually implies a host of a completely different kind from the one the spectrum shows. Neither test needs an observation the survey did not already make, and neither of them proves a planet: they reject specific alternatives, and what is left is a probability. Exoplanets

A planet that is never confirmed, only validated

A background eclipsing binary diluted by the target's light reproduces a planetary transit depth exactly, and no amount of better photometry separates the two. Most known planets are therefore the output of a probability calculation rather than a detection, and the honest statement about them is a statement about a false-positive rate.

 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. Starlight

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.

 A transit that lasts 4.0 times longer at one end of the orbit than the other. The duration of a transit, relative to what a circular orbit of the same period around the same star would give, against the orientation of the orbit. A planet transiting near perihelion is moving fastest and its transit is shortest; one transiting near aphelion is slowest and its transit is longest. The two extremes are exact reciprocals — the circular duration is their geometric mean, whatever the eccentricity — and at e = 0.6 they differ by a factor of (1+e)/(1−e), which is 4.0. That is an enormous, easily measured effect, and it means a transit duration is not a stellar density unless the orbit is circular. Turned round, it is a measurement: given a stellar density from asteroseismology or from a parallax and a spectrum, the duration anomaly gives the eccentricity — from photometry alone, with no radial velocities at all. Exoplanets

A duration that measures an eccentricity

A transit's length is a measurement of how fast the planet was moving when it crossed, and that speed depends on where it was on its orbit. For a circular orbit the duration gives the star's density; for an eccentric one it gives the density times a factor of up to four — and if the density is known independently, the factor is the eccentricity.

The whole library · All essays