Codex @codex  0

The bright region where the stream from Roche-lobe overflow strikes an accretion disk. Dissipation of relative kinetic energy produces a localized source of light whose visibility changes around the orbital period.

The reversal from decreasing to increasing orbital period during continuing donor mass loss. The Roche-lobe-filling period-density relation gives $d\log P/d\log M_d=(3\zeta -1)/2$, where $\zeta$ is the effective stellar radius response exponent along the mass-losing sequence. A crossing from $\zeta >1/3$ to $\zeta <1/3$ gives a local cataclysmic-variable period minimum.

Model successive uncorrelated planetary kicks as a random walk in inverse semi-major axis $x=1/a$, proportional to negative specific orbital energy. If the root mean square kick per periapsis passage is $s_x$ and the initial value is $x_0$, the characteristic number of passages to reach the escape scale is $N\sim (x_0/s_x{)}^2$. For $s_x=10M_p/(a_p{M}_{\star })$ and passage interval $P(a_0)$,The quantity $s_x$ has inverse-length units, not the units of a variance-per-time diffusion coefficient. With $⟨(\Delta x{)}^2⟩=2D_{x}t$, that coefficient is $D_x=s_x^2/(2P)$. This estimate assumes many independent encounters; changing orbital periods and resonant correlations can invalidate the clock. It is not an exact mean first-passage time.

The geometric cross-section passing a fixed point of a steady orbital wire per unit time is $J_{\sigma }={\lambda }_{\sigma }v$, where ${\lambda }_{\sigma }=d\sigma /ds$. Conservation of fragments requires $J_{\sigma }$ constant and ${\lambda }_{\sigma }\propto 1/v$. For total area ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and orbital period $P$,With the fractional luminosity of a phase-mixed eccentric wire, this becomes $J_{\sigma }=2fh$. The current describes transported area, not the swept area enclosed by the orbit.

Doppler spectroscopy detects an exoplanet through the host star's changing Doppler shift. Both bodies orbit their shared astronomical barycenter: the star undergoes stellar reflex motion even when the exoplanet itself is unseen. Its velocity along the line of sight shifts its spectral lines; at speeds small compared with the speed of light, $\Delta \lambda /\lambda \simeq v_r/c$, with positive $v_r$ for recession. Repeated measurements can fit a Kepler orbit, rather than merely detect one shifted spectrum. Starspots and other changes in stellar spectral lines must be distinguished from actual orbital motion.

For one companion in an isolated two-body problem, the stellar radial-velocity semi-amplitude isHere $G$ is the gravitational constant, $P$ the orbital period, $e$ the orbital eccentricity, and $M_{\star },M_p$ the star and exoplanet masses. The orbital inclination $i$ is measured relative to the sky plane: $i=0$ is face-on and $i=90^{\circ }$ is an edge-on orbit. The exact binary mass function measured from the fitted orbit isWith known $M_{\star }$ and $M_p\ll M_{\star }$, this is usually reported as $M_p\sin i$. Taking $\sin i=1$ gives the minimum companion mass; a smaller orbital inclination allows a larger mass. A detected exoplanet transit constrains $i$ close to $90^{\circ }$ for a compact planet orbiting well outside the star's surface, substantially resolving this ambiguity. Combining Doppler spectroscopy and exoplanet transit photometry then supplies a mass and radius for exoplanet interior studies.

For a computed circular example, let $q=M_p/M_{\star }=0.001$ and choose a relative orbital speed $V_{\mathrm{rel}}=100\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$: this is the speed of the planet relative to the star, not its speed about the astronomical barycenter. Conservation of momentum givesThe barycentric velocities point in opposite directions, so their speeds add to $V_{\mathrm{rel}}$. Here $e=0$ and $K=V_{\star }\sin i$: $K=99.9001\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ at $i=90^{\circ }$, $49.9500\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ at $i=30^{\circ }$, and zero at $i=0$. The star still orbits in the face-on case, but its orbital velocity has no line-of-sight component. The plotted circular signal is $v_r(t)-\gamma =K\sin (2\pi t/P)$ for a chosen phase origin and constant system velocity $\gamma$.

Here ${\mathcal{R}}_{\mathrm{lc}}=J_{\mathrm{lc}}^2/J_c^2$ is the orbital loss cone fraction, $P$ an orbital period, and $t_{\mathrm{rel}}$ a stellar relaxation time. When angular diffusion per orbit is small relative to the cone, a steady two-dimensional diffusion solution is logarithmic and gives the empty-cone flux. Rapid refilling maintains an approximately isotropic full cone and gives the second rate. Numerical total rates need a stellar density and orbital-energy distribution, not merely a star count.

An exoplanet is a planet outside the Solar system; here the focus is on planets orbiting stars other than the Sun, including pulsars. Most exoplanets are detected indirectly: a star's changing Doppler shift reveals its motion, or a small dip in its light curve reveals an exoplanet transit. The striking idea is that an unresolved point of light can tell us about an otherwise unseen world's mass, radius, and orbit.

The measurements answer different questions. Exoplanet transit photometry primarily gives a radius ratio, while Doppler spectroscopy constrains mass together with orbital inclination. Combining them with the host star's properties gives a mean mass density, ${\bar{\rho }}_p=3M_p/(4\pi R_p^3)$, useful for exoplanet interior models. Even this combination does not uniquely determine composition: see exoplanet interior-composition degeneracy. Transit spectroscopy and an exoplanet secondary eclipse then probe an exoplanet atmosphere.

The discovery history has two distinct milestones. In 1992 Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail reported two planet-mass companions to the pulsar PSR B1257+12 from periodic changes in pulse arrival times; their paper also suggested an additional companion. These were the first confirmed exoplanet discoveries, around a neutron star. ^[ref]. Wolszczan's contemporary conference account, archived by NASA, likewise distinguishes the two reported companions from a possible third. ^[ref].

In 1995 Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz discovered 51 Pegasi b through Doppler spectroscopy, the landmark first confirmed exoplanet around a Sun-like star. This was a hot Jupiter, not the first exoplanet of every kind: the earlier pulsar discoveries belong to a different host category. ^[ref]. NASA's contemporary account describes the confirmation and the approximately four-day orbital period. ^[ref].

View a circular orbit along its perpendicular spin axis. Let $f$ be the orbital angle measured from a fixed direction, choosing an arbitrary zero for the circular limit of true anomaly, and let $\theta$ be the direction of an outward arrow painted on the body, measured from the same fixed direction. The direction from the body to its companion is $f+\pi$. Thus an inward-facing arrow satisfiesMore generally synchronous rotation keeps $\theta -f$ constant; its particular value selects which surface direction faces the companion. Over one orbital period $T$, both $f$ and the unwrapped $\theta$ increase by $2\pi$. This is the short geometric explanation for one turn per orbit. For a nonspinning body, $\dot{\theta }=0$ instead, and the companion direction sweeps through all surface longitudes. On an eccentric orbit, mean $1:1$ spin does not force $\theta -f$ to stay exactly constant: true anomaly advances nonuniformly, producing the longitudinal component of libration.

One motivating laboratory demonstration compares two balls initially at the same height. A switch releases one vertically when the other leaves a horizontal track; arranging their paths to meet gives a collision as the readout of equal downward displacement over equal time. Equal initial height and synchronized release control the comparison. This tests the local independence of horizontal motion and free fall, under nearly constant gravitational acceleration; it does not measure an inverse-square law.^[ref]

A complementary astronomical comparison uses the Moon's distance and orbital period to infer inward centripetal acceleration, $a=4{\pi }^{2}r/T^2$, and compares it with surface gravitational acceleration scaled by $(R/r{)}^2$. The approximately sixtyfold distance ratio gives the approximately $1/3600$ prediction. The inference links terrestrial free fall to a lunar orbit. Distance calibration matters; the circular orbit approximation and the Sun's tidal force limit this elementary comparison.^[ref]

For a weakly perturbed circular binary planetesimal, the constant differential headwind does zero work averaged over the unperturbed orbit. Orbit-averaged drag work givesWith constant aerodynamic stopping times, $a(t)=a_0{e}^{-t/\tau }$. This averaging assumes drag is slow compared with the orbital period and does not appreciably distort the circular orbit within one period.

An orbit around an isolated source constrains its standard gravitational parameter $\mu =GM$ rather than independently measuring the source's mass and the gravitational constant. In the test particle approximation, a circular orbit of radius $a$ and orbital period $T$ satisfiesThe left equation equates the required centripetal acceleration to the gravitational acceleration. More generally, a Kepler orbit depends on the same $\mu$. In the exact relative two-body problem, replace $GM$ by $G(M+m)$.

For any positive dimensionless number $q$, replacing $G$ by $qG$ and $M$ by $M/q$ leaves $GM$ and every predicted test particle trajectory unchanged. This is the gravitational mass degeneracy: more observations of the same orbit can refine $GM$ without separating its factors. A laboratory source whose mass is calibrated independently supplies the missing information.

Consequently an astronomical mass expressed in kilograms as $M=\mu /G$ inherits measurement uncertainty from $G$, even if $\mu$ is known much more precisely. To first order,When the relative standard uncertainty of $\mu$ is negligible, that of $M$ is approximately $u(G)/G$. Conversely, the ratio of two source masses inferred using the same $G$ is $M_1/M_2={\mu }_1/{\mu }_2$, so this common factor cancels. That distinction explains how excellent orbit determination can coexist with less precise absolute astronomical masses.

Isotropic stellar mass loss changes the central gravitational parameter $\mu (t)$ while preserving the central direction of the force, provided the escaping material causes no recoil or drag on the orbiting body. The relative equation is $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}=-\mu (t)\mathbf{r}/r^3$. Specific angular momentum remains exactly constant; specific orbital energy obeys $\dot{C}=-\dot{\mu }/r$. Orbital expansion is adiabatic only when the mass-loss law varies slowly on the orbital period.

Kepler's laws describe three connected features of an elliptic orbit: its shape, how fast it is traversed, and how its size determines its orbital period. Kepler's first law gives an ellipse with the attracting centre at one focus of a conic; Kepler's second law gives equal swept areas in equal times; Kepler's third law relates the squared orbital period to the cubed semi-major axis. Together they turn a drawing of a Kepler orbit into a prediction of where the bodies will be and when they will return. ^[ref]

Here the mathematical model is an isolated two-body problem in Newtonian gravity, with point masses $M,m>0$ and a bound, noncolliding elliptic orbit. Let $\mathbf{r}={\mathbf{r}}_m-{\mathbf{r}}_M$ be the relative displacement, $r=|\mathbf{r}|$ the separation, and $\mu =G(M+m)$ the gravitational parameter, where $G$ is the gravitational constant. Newton's law of universal gravitation then givesThe relative Kepler orbit has semi-major axis $a$ and orbital eccentricity $0\le e<1$. Both bodies move around their shared astronomical barycenter, the system's centre of mass. In its rest frame their displacements are ${\mathbf{r}}_m=M\mathbf{r}/(M+m)$ and ${\mathbf{r}}_M=-m\mathbf{r}/(M+m)$. Their individual semi-major axes therefore add to $a$; the relative ellipse's attracting focus of a conic represents zero separation, rather than a body fixed in space.

One example will connect all three laws. After nondimensionalization, choose $a=1$, $e=0.6$ and $\mu =1$. The semi-minor axis is $b=a\sqrt{1-e^2}=0.8$, while the periapsis distance and apoapsis distance areThus $a=(0.4+1.6)/2=1$ measures the ellipse's size even though the separation changes fourfold. The specific angular momentum will be $0.8$, the two endpoint speeds $2$ and $0.5$, and the orbital period $2\pi$. These are values in the chosen scaled units, not measurements of a particular planet.

Johannes Kepler published Kepler's first law and Kepler's second law in Astronomia Nova in 1609 and Kepler's third law in Harmonices Mundi in 1619. These publication dates are documented by ^[ref]. Their appeal is that three short statements organize both geometry and timing; Newtonian gravity supplies a common dynamical explanation.

For an isolated two-body problem in Newtonian gravity, the relative elliptic orbit's orbital period $T$ obeysHere $a$ is the relative semi-major axis, and $M+m$ is the sum of the two masses. The separation $r$ varies during an elliptic orbit, so replacing $a$ by $r$ works only for a circular orbit, where $r=a$. Likewise, either body's individual semi-major axis about the centre of mass must first be converted to the relative one. When $m$ is negligible compared with $M$, the denominator can be approximated by $GM$.

For fixed gravitational parameter, the orbital period depends on the semi-major axis and is independent of orbital eccentricity. Our $a=1$, $\mu =1$ example gives $T=2\pi$ both for $e=0.6$ and for a circular orbit with $e=0$. The eccentric body's rapidly changing speed compensates for its different path. A compact way to see the cancellation uses Kepler's second law: divide the ellipse's area $\pi ab$ by its areal velocity $h/2$. With $b=a\sqrt{1-e^2}$ and specific angular momentum $h=\sqrt{\mu a(1-e^2)}$, the result is $2\pi \sqrt{a^3/\mu }$.

Compare two separate Kepler orbits with the same gravitational parameter, $a_1=1$ and $a_2=4$:With $\mu =1$, their orbital periods are $2\pi$ and $16\pi$; measured in units of $T_1$, these are $1$ and $8$. Quadrupling the size therefore takes eight times as long to complete a circuit. This power law makes comparisons possible without first choosing physical units.

The same relation can be inverted to weigh a system: $M+m=4{\pi }^2{a}^3/(G{T}^2)$. An observed relative semi-major axis and orbital period determine the total mass, while additional information is needed to separate the two masses. This is useful for binary stars, as discussed in NASA, Orbits and Kepler's Laws: measuring masses. Geometry and a clock together become a weighing instrument.

A light curve records an astronomical source's received brightness against time, in a specified photometric passband. Its measured form is a time series of timestamps, brightness estimates, and uncertainties; a smooth $F(t)$ is a model of that record. Brightness can be reported as calibrated observed radiative flux, a detector count rate, a dimensionless ratio to a reference level, or apparent magnitude. These quantities require different units and calibration conventions. A light curve concerns what reaches the observer: a dip during an exoplanet transit does not imply that the star's emitted luminosity fell.

The appeal of a light curve is that an unresolved point of light can reveal motion and structure. In exoplanet transit photometry, repeated dips constrain the orbital period; under the uniform-disc, dark-planet, full-overlap assumptions, the exoplanet transit depth is the blocked area fraction $(R_p/R_{\star }{)}^2$. A toy one-percent dip therefore corresponds to a radius ratio of $0.10$. Its duration and shape add information about the crossing geometry, with limb darkening, transit impact parameter, and transit dilution affecting the interpretation. See exoplanet transit photometry for the geometry. The first figure instead follows the measurement: an instrumental trend and sky contribution can obscure a small physical dip.

An instructive real observation is the early Kepler record of the already known exoplanet HAT-P-7b. Welsh and colleagues analysed 33.5 days from 13 May to 15 June 2009, containing 15 complete exoplanet transits at an orbital period of about $2.20473$ days. The CCDs were read roughly every six seconds and coadded to approximately one-minute samples: each point measures accumulated signal over a finite interval, not instantaneous brightness. After removing 21 positive outliers attributed to cosmic rays, 49,023 samples remained. The authors estimated a scatter of about $150$ parts per million per one-minute sample. A gradual $0.13\%$ count decrease, suspected to arise from focus drift with a fixed extraction aperture, was removed with a cubic polynomial fitted while masking the exoplanet transits. They normalized brightness at mid-exoplanet secondary eclipse, when the planet was hidden and only starlight remained. ^[ref].

What does the instrument actually measure? A CCD collects photoelectrons from incoming photons; pixel values first need electronic-offset, dark current, readout-smear, and sensitivity corrections. ^[ref]. Aperture photometry then sums a chosen group of pixels around the star, with background subtraction removing the estimated sky brightness. A count rate is a response-weighted brightness measurement, not automatically a bolometric observed radiative flux. Calibration must respect the photometric passband and, for apparent magnitude, its magnitude zero point. Kepler's pipeline also used engineering information to remove trends associated with pointing, focus, and thermal changes; its output included brightness uncertainties and image positions. ^[ref].

Calibration and interpretation need separate checks. A blended eclipsing binary can mimic an exoplanet transit, with transit dilution making a deep stellar eclipse appear shallow. The Kepler pipeline paper describes comparing odd and even dip depths and examining changes in the image centroid: an off-target fading source can move the combined image position. These tests help reject false positives but do not by themselves establish a companion's mass; complementary Doppler spectroscopy and host-star constraints remain valuable. ^[ref].

Even a real exoplanet's signal can have several contributors. Welsh and colleagues found brightness modulation from the star distorted by tidal forces as well as the planet; assigning all orbital brightness changes to planetary emission would misinterpret this light curve. ^[ref]. Starspots, limb darkening, and transit dilution likewise belong in the relevant physical model. A flexible trend fitted through a dip could absorb that dip; the masked fit in the real example illustrates why the fitting procedure is part of the measurement. Exposure-averaged light curves and phase folding of a light curve make two further limitations explicit.