Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2017 / iii / Paper 315 / 4

Three complementary methods available in the setting of this 2017 paper are:

Transmission probes the limb, eclipses probe the dayside, and direct imaging isolates spatially resolved planetary light. Radial velocities alone measure orbital motion rather than atmospheric composition; high-resolution planetary Doppler spectroscopy can instead detect atmospheric spectral lines if planetary light is isolated statistically.

Take an unresolved spherical planet at Euclidean distance $d\gg R$, with uniform surface temperature $T$, stationary isotropic emission, and no intervening extinction. Isothermality does not by itself imply blackbody radiation; first derive the geometric result for a uniform emergent specific intensity $I_{\lambda }$.

The observer sees the projected disc with apparent solid angle ${\Omega }_p\simeq \pi R^2/d^2$. Integrating its specific intensity over that angle gives the observed spectral radiative fluxwhere ${\theta }_{\mathrm{obs}}$ is the small angle to the detector normal. For a blackbody, $I_{\lambda }=B_{\lambda }(T)$, and the Stefan–Boltzmann law gives ${\int }_0^{\infty }\pi B_{\lambda }(T)d\lambda ={\sigma }_{\mathrm{SB}}{T}^4$. HenceEquivalently, the surface radiative flux is ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{SB}}{T}^4$ and the luminosity of a spherical blackbody is $L=4\pi R^2{\sigma }_{\mathrm{SB}}{T}^4$, leading to the same result by inverse-square dilution. A uniform wavelength-dependent emissivity ${ϵ}_{\lambda }$ multiplies the spectral formula; an atmospheric spectrum can require a full angular radiative transfer integral rather than a single Planck function.

Consider a narrow bundle of rays between two surface elements $d{A}_1,d{A}_2$ separated by $s$ in a transparent, stationary Euclidean vacuum. Let the ray make angles ${\theta }_1,{\theta }_2$ to the respective surface normals. The receiving element subtends solid angle $d{\Omega }_1=\cos {\theta }_{2}d{A}_2/s^2$ at the emitter. By the definition of specific intensity, the beam power in frequency interval $d\nu$ isAt the receiving end the source subtends $d{\Omega }_2=\cos {\theta }_{1}d{A}_1/s^2$, so the identical power isIn the absence of absorption, emission or frequency shifts, conservation of energy equates these expressions:This vacuum conservation of specific intensity also follows directly from the radiative transfer equation $d{I}_{\nu }/ds=0$. The apparent solid angle of an unresolved source shrinks as $s^{-2}$, so its integrated observed radiative flux still follows the inverse-square law. Specific intensity and unresolved flux are different quantities.

The vacuum and frequency assumptions are essential: absorption and emission change specific intensity, and gravitational or cosmological redshift conserves $I_{\nu }/{\nu }^3$ along a ray instead of $I_{\nu }$ itself. A fixed telescope aperture observing an unresolved object also cannot infer constant total received power from intensity conservation.

Let an isothermal non-scattering atmospheric layer of temperature $T_a$ lie above an optically thick continuum source with brightness temperature $T_b$. Assume local thermodynamic equilibrium, so the layer emits with Planck function $B_{\lambda }(T_a)$. Its vertical optical depth is ${\tau }_{\lambda }$; a ray with direction cosine $\mu$ has slant depth $t_{\lambda }={\tau }_{\lambda }/\mu$.

The formal solution of the radiative transfer equation givesThe two terms are attenuated background and layer emission. Compare a line and nearby continuum at the same wavelength to adequate approximation, with $t_{\mathrm{line}}>t_{\mathrm{cont}}$. The one-layer spectral contrast isThe second bracket is positive, and $B_{\lambda }(T)$ increases with temperature. Therefore a cooler upper layer produces absorption, a hotter upper layer produces emission, and an isothermal source-plus-layer produces no line contrast:This is why higher opacity sampling a cooler altitude creates absorption in an outward-cooling atmosphere, whereas an atmospheric thermal inversion can create emission. If both line and continuum are very optically thick in the same layer, their contrast tends to vanish even with a different deeper temperature. Scattering, non-LTE excitation, and nonuniform layers require a more general radiative transfer treatment.

The three parameter groups are local temperature, local pressure, and elemental composition. The elemental composition includes both atmospheric metallicity of a giant planet and atmospheric carbon-to-oxygen ratio; these are independent compositional controls, so a specification by $T$ and $P$ alone is incomplete. Given these inputs, thermochemical equilibrium minimizes Gibbs free energy with element conservation.

Three useful chemical observables in a hydrogen-rich hot Jupiter are:

CO/CH4, H2O, and CO2 bands provide complementary temperature and elemental-abundance diagnostics, but their observed strengths also depend on the atmospheric pressure-temperature profile, exoplanet clouds and observing geometry. A spectral feature is not by itself a direct equilibrium abundance.

Three routes away from local thermochemical equilibrium are:

Vertical mixing, horizontal advection, and photochemistry supply three mechanisms and examples in both exoplanets and Solar-System atmospheres. A photochemical steady state balances production and loss; it is different from a Gibbs free energy minimum. These examples describe mechanisms and model expectations rather than asserting unique observational attribution for every planet.

One approach uses exoplanet transmission spectra. Three aerosol signatures are:

A second approach uses the dayside spectrum and brightness obtained with exoplanet secondary eclipses, optionally supported by orbital phase variations. Its three useful aerosol signatures are:

Transmission measures aerosol extinction along the limb; eclipse/reflection measurements test dayside scattering and emission. No single flattened feature proves clouds: small atmospheric scale height, low molecular abundances, stellar heterogeneity and thermal-gradient degeneracies must be considered. Joint wavelength coverage and geometries make the inference stronger.

Hot-Jupiter radius inflation is the excess radius of many irradiated gas giants relative to standard cooling models of the same mass, composition and age. A young gas giant starts with high entropy and a large radius, but ordinarily contracts through Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction. An old inflated object must either retain that thermal reservoir unusually well or receive power that affects the deep interior.

The first class is delayed cooling of an inflated giant planet. Two specific mechanisms are increased atmospheric opacity, which makes internal radiation escape less readily, and inhibited interior convection caused by composition gradients, potentially with layered transport. Both slow entropy loss. Stellar irradiation can also maintain an outer radiative blanket, but an appropriate irradiated boundary is already included in many baseline models and does not alone explain every extreme radius.

The second class is heating of an inflated giant planet. Two mechanisms are tidal heating from eccentricity, obliquity or other time-dependent tidal forcing, and Joule heating from wind-driven electric currents in an ionized atmosphere coupled to the magnetic field. Mechanical energy carried inward from atmospheric circulation is another candidate. Heating must be deposited sufficiently deeply and with sufficient power; superficial absorption that is promptly reradiated is not equivalent to deep interior heating. A circular synchronized isolated orbit does not automatically provide a persistent tidal source.

The classes can coexist and are tested through radius-age-irradiation trends, orbital properties and the required energy budget. Merely changing an observed transit altitude by a few atmospheric scale heights is generally distinct from inflating the bulk giant-planet interior.

At fixed mass, three broad controls of a super-Earth-sized body's observed radius are:

Bulk composition, envelope fraction/composition, and thermal/irradiation history are three independent controls. If mass is not fixed, the mass itself is an additional major variable. The label super-Earth does not ensure a rocky composition or an Earth-like atmosphere, and a radius alone does not determine which of these effects dominates.

Three research directions natural in the 2017 setting are:

Small-planet atmospheres, formation through composition, and atmospheric dynamics/variability provide three concrete emerging directions. The examples describe research aims as of the paper's date, rather than treating later discoveries or later operating missions as established in 2017.