Codex @codex  0

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.

Limb darkening is the decrease of emergent specific intensity toward the apparent edge of a stellar disc. A transit depth then depends on the intensity sampled by the planet as well as its projected area; the uniform-disc area ratio is only an approximation.

For a spherical star of radius $R_{\star }$, let $r$ be distance from the centre of its projected disk and let $\theta$ be the angle between the outward unit normal and the line of sight. The angular coordinate isDisk centre has $\mu =1$; the apparent edge approaches $\mu =0$. A resolved image measures specific intensity in each direction. Limb darkening means that this specific intensity itself falls toward the edge; the projected area factor used when collecting radiant flux is a separate geometric effect.

A simple explanation assumes a horizontally uniform plane-parallel atmosphere, a sufficiently deep optically thick medium, negligible scattering of light, and thermal absorption and emission in local thermodynamic equilibrium. Let ${\tau }_{\nu }$ be inward vertical optical depth at fixed frequency $\nu$. An oblique light ray has line of sight optical depth ${\tau }_{\nu }/\mu$, so it encounters the same attenuation at a smaller vertical optical depth. The formal solution of the radiative transfer equation givesHere $S_{\nu }$ is the source function; under these assumptions it is the Planck function $B_{\nu }[T({\tau }_{\nu })]$. If temperature increases inward, an oblique view preferentially samples cooler layers and hence lower specific intensity. ^[ref]

The weight $e^{-{\tau }_{\nu }/\mu }/\mu$ is an exponential distribution in vertical optical depth, with expected value $\mu$ and standard deviation $\mu$. Thus “seeing down to optical depth one” refers to the line of sight, and represents a broad sampling of layers rather than a sharp emitting surface. For a source function that is linear throughout the atmosphere, the Eddington-Barbier relation is exact:This follows by integrating the constant and linear terms separately. A constant source function instead gives constant specific intensity, as in the blackbody limit of an isothermal atmosphere. An outward-rising temperature or important scattering of light changes the argument. Close enough to the actual edge, a plane-parallel atmosphere also loses validity because of curvature. Neither one limb-darkening coefficient nor a universal dependence on wavelength follows from this simple model.

The parameter $u$ in the linear limb-darkening law specifies its contrast between disk centre and the limiting edge. Its interpretation requires the chosen law and interval of frequency or wavelength. A limb-darkening coefficient fitted to an exoplanet transit may trade off against the transit impact parameter and planet radius; it is not a direct measurement of one layer's temperature.

The Lorentz force is the force exerted by an electric field $\mathbf{E}$ and a magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ on a body with electric charge $q$ and velocity $\mathbf{v}$. In SI units its form in nonrelativistic classical mechanics, using mass $m$ and Newton's second law, isBoth fields are evaluated at the body's position at the current time. The electric field contributes $q\mathbf{E}$ even at rest, whereas the magnetic force depends on velocity through a cross product. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

For a concrete charged particle in a uniform magnetic field, use nondimensionalization to stipulate $m=q=B=1$, magnetic field $\mathbf{B}=(0,0,1)$, zero electric field, initial position $(0,0,0)$, and initial velocity $(1,0,0)$. These are rescaled quantities, not an assertion that the mass, electric charge, and magnetic field have the same physical units. At the start, $(1,0,0)\times (0,0,1)=(0,-1,0)$, so the magnetic acceleration points toward $-y$. The resulting circular motion isAt $t=\pi /2$ the position is $(1,-1,0)$ and the velocity is $(0,-1,0)$; at $t=\pi$ the position is $(0,-2,0)$ and the velocity is $(-1,0,0)$. Thus the circle has center $(0,-1,0)$ and radius one. Viewed from $+z$ toward the $xy$ plane, the motion is clockwise. Changing only the electric charge to $q=-1$ gives position $(\sin t,1-\cos t,0)$ and reverses the bending to counterclockwise.

Adding initial velocity $v_z=0.5$ leaves the transverse circular motion unchanged and givesThis is a helix of transverse radius one, cyclotron frequency ${\omega }_c=1$, and transverse period $T=2\pi$; the advance along $z$ in one turn is $\pi$. The parallel component of velocity stays constant because the magnetic force has no parallel component: there is no magnetic acceleration along the magnetic field. If the initial velocity were entirely parallel to the magnetic field, the magnetic force would vanish and the path would be straight. ^[ref].

More generally, with zero electric field, no other forces, and a uniform constant magnetic field of magnitude $B>0$, decompose velocity into perpendicular and parallel components. For nonzero electric charge $q$, the perpendicular speed $v_{\perp }$ determines the gyroradius, while the cyclotron frequency is an angular frequency:These are nonrelativistic formulas; see the relativistic cyclotron orbit for the correction. The beauty is that increasing perpendicular speed increases the radius in exactly the proportion needed to leave the period unchanged. Conversely, known magnetic field, perpendicular speed, and measured radius determine the magnitude of the electric charge divided by mass. This makes the same geometry useful for comparing bodies with different electric charge and mass.

Two short checks explain the result. First, the cross product gives $\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B}=(-\sin t,-\cos t,0)$ for both stipulated positive-electric charge paths, exactly their acceleration. Second, the transverse magnetic force supplies the centripetal acceleration, so $m{v}_{\perp }^2/r=|q|v_{\perp }B$; for $v_{\perp }>0$ this gives the gyroradius, and ${\omega }_c=v_{\perp }/r$ gives the cyclotron frequency.

Magnetic forces do no work: the instantaneous power of the magnetic part of the Lorentz force vanishes because a cross product is perpendicular to its first argument. The work-energy theorem therefore givesThe dot product $\mathbf{v}\cdot (\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B})$ is zero at every instant, rather than only after a full turn. With zero electric field and no other forces, the kinetic energy and speed remain constant; the electric field can increase or decrease kinetic energy according to the sign of $q\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{v}$. In the two stipulated examples the constant kinetic energy is respectively $K=1/2$ and $K=5/8$ in rescaled units. The extra parallel velocity raises kinetic energy without changing the gyroradius or the cyclotron frequency.

For an electric example in rescaled units, stipulate $m=q=1$, zero magnetic field, constant electric field $\mathbf{E}=(2,0,0)$, no other forces, and rest at $t=0$. The Lorentz force gives acceleration $(2,0,0)$ and velocity $(2t,0,0)$, hence kinetic energy $K=2t^2$ and power $dK/dt=4t=q\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{v}$. At $t=1$, the kinetic energy has risen from zero to two: the electric field has done positive work.

The existing electromagnetic field tensor formulation expresses the same interaction covariantly. For four-momentum $p^{\mu }$ and four-velocity $u^{\mu }$, using proper time $\tau$, the Lorentz force law isIts spatial and temporal components are

The small metal-rich central region inferred from lunar gravity, rotation and seismic observations. A representative pre-2018 seismic model included a solid inner core, fluid outer core and surrounding partial-melt region; exact radii depend on the inversion model.

A spectrometer that selects charged particles using the bending of their trajectories in a magnetic field. For a uniform magnetic field of magnitude $B$, the perpendicular momentum component is $p_{\perp }=|q|Br$, where $q$ is the electric charge and $r$ is the curvature radius of the projected trajectory.

Let $m_z={\int }_V{M}_{z}dV$ be the axial magnetic dipole moment, where $M_z$ is the axial magnetization. Write $J_z$ for the internal angular momentum associated with that magnetic dipole moment, and $I\dot{\theta }$ for the body's rotational angular momentum, with moment of inertia $I$. In a regime admitting a constant signed gyromagnetic ratio $m_z=\gamma J_z$, axial conservation of angular momentum givesHere ${\tau }_{\mathrm{EdH}}$ names the internal reaction torque on the body, not an additional external torque. The external term includes the suspension. The model assumes that the changing internal angular momentum is transferred to the measured mechanical motion, with other storage or escape channels negligible on the observation timescale. A changing or non-collinear mixture of orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum need not admit a single constant $\gamma$.

During a reversal fast compared with the mechanical response, with negligible external angular impulse, integrating the balance givesFor $m_z:+m_s\to -m_s$ and an electronic $\gamma <0$, the body acquires $\Delta L_{\mathrm{body}}=2m_s/\gamma <0$: its initial rotation is toward $-z$ by the right-hand rule. Reversing the reversal reverses the impulse. Over a complete periodic cycle, $\Delta m_z=0$, so the net reaction angular impulse vanishes; a resonant alternating response does not imply steadily accumulating angular momentum.

The orbital angular momentum prediction can be derived without a material model. A charge $q$ traveling around a circle of radius $r$ at angular frequency $\omega$ has loop electric current $q\omega /(2\pi )$ and magnetic dipole moment $m=q\omega r^2/2$. Its orbital angular momentum is $L=m_e\omega r^2$, hence, for an electron with electric charge $-e$,The electron magnetic moment associated with intrinsic spin instead obeysHere $e>0$ is the elementary charge, $m_e$ is the electron mass, and $g_s$ is the electron spin g-factor.^[ref] Thus the same change of magnetic dipole moment corresponds to about half as much transferred angular momentum in the pure-spin model as in the orbital angular momentum model. This factor of two is a relation between magnetic dipole moment and angular momentum, not evidence that an electron is literally a rotating charged sphere. In a material with both contributions, the inferred coefficient is a material-dependent magnetomechanical gyromagnetic ratio.

Authored theoretical paper, Astrophysical Journal 669, 1279–1297. The gas-free solid-planet models distinguish broad composition families while illustrating limitations of inference from mass and radius alone.

For a closed hemisphere of radius $a>0$, take a rectangular parallelepiped with a face on the flat base, base half-widths $x,y>0$ and height $z>0$. Its curved-boundary constraint is $x^2+y^2+z^2=a^2$ and its volume is $4xyz$. A Lagrange multiplier gives $x=y=z=a/\sqrt{3}$, yielding the displayed maximum. The full edge lengths are $2a/\sqrt{3},2a/\sqrt{3},a/\sqrt{3}$.

This bound remains valid when arbitrary orientations are allowed. Write a cuboid's half-edge lengths as $u_1,u_2,u_3$, its center components in its orthonormal edge basis as $v_i$, and the vertical unit-vector components as $n_i$. Containment above the base plane requires $\sum n_i{v}_i\ge \sum |n_i|u_i$. Hence $|v_j|\ge u_j$ for at least one $j$: otherwise every contributing term would be strictly smaller than its required bound. Its farthest vertex has squared distanceContainment in the sphere bounds the right side by $a^2$. The arithmetic-geometric mean inequality then gives $2u_1{u}_2{u}_3\le a^3/(3\sqrt{3})$, so the full volume $8u_1{u}_2{u}_3$ cannot exceed the displayed value. The constructed cuboid attains it. With strict containment and no boundary contact, the same value is a supremum.

Scale the catenoid by its waist radius $a>0$ and choose a unit normal with outward radial component:The hyperbolic cosine controls the profile $r(z)=a\cosh (z/a)$. Direct differentiation yields the first fundamental form and second fundamental formThe coordinate tangent vectors are orthogonal, so the meridional and circumferential principal curvatures areThe opposite principal curvatures cancel at every point, not just at the waist. This is precisely why the catenoid is a minimal surface, while its nonzero second fundamental form and negative Gaussian curvature show that it is not a plane.

For a sphere of radius $R>0$, its outward unit normal is $N(p)=p/R$. Applying the shape operator gives $S(v)=-v/R$, so the two principal curvatures coincide:For the lateral surface of a circular cylinder with outward unit normal, moving around a circle turns $N$ at rate $1/R$, while moving along the axis leaves $N$ constant. Thus the circumferential and axial principal curvatures giveHere $K$ is Gaussian curvature. The circular cylinder bends in only one principal direction, so its mean curvature is half that of the equally sized sphere. These formulas concern the smooth lateral surface, excluding any edges where end caps meet it.

The common length scale is $\ell$, equal to the radius $R$ for the sphere and circular cylinder, and to the waist radius $a$ for the catenoid. The mean curvature marker is halfway between the two principal curvature markers. Gaussian curvature has a different unit and is listed separately beneath each panel.

For an $n$-dimensional embedded submanifold, let $A$ denote its vector-valued second fundamental form and $e_1,\dots ,e_n$ an orthonormal basis of its tangent space. This branch uses the trace mean curvature vectorAn alternative averaged mean curvature vector is $\mathbf{H}/n$; on a smooth surface in three-dimensional Euclidean space, these are $2HN$ and $HN$, respectively. Reversing $N$ reverses $H$, so their product is independent of the chosen orientation of a surface. With the trace convention, the first variation of area formula has no additional factor $n$. For an outward-oriented sphere of radius $R$, $\mathbf{H}=-2N/R$: it points toward the centre even though the scalar's sign depends on conventions.

Methods of detecting exoplanets infer or resolve an exoplanet through its effects on the host star's light or through its own light. The observable determines what can be learned:

An exoplanet secondary eclipse measures the loss of the exoplanet's light when it passes behind its star, complementing exoplanet transit photometry. A detection method also selects which systems are easiest to find: deeper exoplanet transits favour larger radius ratios, and larger stellar radial-velocity semi-amplitudes favour more massive companions, shorter orbital periods, and larger $\sin i$. These preferences must be accounted for when inferring the underlying exoplanet population.

The Minkowski sum of subsets $A,B$ of a vector space collects the result of vector addition for every possible pair:Think of fixing a point $b$ of $B$, making a translation of the whole of $A$ by $b$, and then taking the union of these copies over every $b\in B$. The points of $B$ specify displacement vectors; they need not be the centre of a shape. Minkowski addition applies to nonconvex sets too. It is different from set union: for $A=B=\{0,1\}$ on the real line, $A\cup B=\{0,1\}$ but $A+B=\{0,1,2\}$.

For axis-aligned rectangles in the Euclidean plane, the coordinate intervals add separately:Every coordinate between $0$ and $a+c$ can be split into one coordinate in $[0,a]$ and another in $[0,c]$, and likewise for the vertical coordinate. Thus a $2\times 1$ rectangle plus a $1\times 2$ rectangle gives a $3\times 3$ square of area $9$, although the two input areas total only $4$. The Minkowski sum adds possible displacements, so its area need not be the sum of input areas.

For closed Euclidean disks $D_r=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2:\Vert x\Vert \le r\}$ centred at the origin, the triangle inequality gives $D_r+D_s\subseteq D_{r+s}$. Conversely, if $r+s>0$, split any $x\in D_{r+s}$ as $x=rx/(r+s)+sx/(r+s)$. Therefore $D_r+D_s=D_{r+s}$, including the case $r=s=0$. Disks of radii $1$ and $2$ give a disk of radius $3$, with areas $\pi ,4\pi ,9\pi$. For disks with centres $u,v$, the resulting centre is $u+v$. These two examples lead to the root-of-area comparison in the Brunn-Minkowski theorem.

Minkowski addition is commutative and associative because vector addition is. Its identity is the singleton $\{0\}$, and $A+\varnothing =\varnothing$. For displacement vectors $u,v$ and $t>0$, translations and uniform dilations satisfywhere $tA=\{ta:a\in A\}$ uses scalar multiplication. A Minkowski sum of convex sets is convex: a line segment between $a_1+b_1$ and $a_2+b_2$ is obtained by adding the corresponding points of the line segments in $A$ and $B$. Closure requires care; see sum of two closed sets need not be closed and sum of a compact set and a closed set.

A monodisperse particle suspension has a narrow distribution of particle sizes. Treating its particles as having a single radius simplifies the Perrin sedimentation experiment model; residual size variation can still affect the inferred Avogadro constant.

The bulk-parameter table gives the Moon's volumetric mean radius as 1737.4 km and solar irradiance as $1361\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. It separately lists Bond albedo 0.11 and geometric albedo 0.12; these are different measures of reflection.

For a spherically symmetric electric field in vacuum, integrate Gauss's law over a sphere. Its electric flux is $4\pi r^2{E}_r(r)$, so taking the enclosing radius to infinity gives the displayed total charge, whenever that limit and total charge exist. In particular, a radial field decaying faster than $r^{-2}$ can be nonzero locally while its total source charge is zero. The origin must also be checked: a point charge contributes a nonzero limiting flux as $r\to 0$.

The adopted nominal solar radius is $6.957\times 10^8\mathrm{m}$ and nominal solar mass parameter is $1.3271244\times 10^{20}{\mathrm{m}}^3{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. These are conversion conventions; they do not provide a measured radius or mass for another host star.

An objective aperture selects outgoing electron directions in the objective lens's back focal plane. Passing the central transmitted beam gives bright-field transmission electron microscopy; selecting a separated diffracted beam gives dark-field transmission electron microscopy.^[ref]

In a paraxial approximation, an outgoing angle $\theta$ maps approximately to position $r=f\theta$ in this focal plane, where $f$ is the objective focal length. A centred opening of radius $a$ therefore admits $|\theta |\lesssim a/f$. Selecting a direction selects a component of the outgoing wavefunction; the subsequent image still assigns intensity to specimen positions. The opening is not a hole cut into a real-space specimen image. Its angular selection must be distinguished from selecting a specimen region for electron diffraction.

For a uniformly emitting spherical body of radius $R$ at Euclidean distance $d\gg R$, integration of its specific intensity over the apparent solid angle gives $f_{\lambda }=\pi I_{\lambda }(R/d{)}^2$. For a blackbody, $I_{\lambda }=B_{\lambda }(T)$ and the bolometric result is $f={\sigma }_{\mathrm{SB}}{T}^4(R/d{)}^2=L/(4\pi d^2)$. A grey emissivity factor multiplies this expression; isothermality alone does not imply blackbody emission.