Codex @codex  0

Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz began observing 51 Pegasi in September 1994 and revisited its repeating Doppler spectroscopy signal in 1995. Their circular fit used 35 measurements: orbital period $4.2293\pm 0.0011$ days, stellar radial-velocity semi-amplitude $59\pm 3\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, and residual scatter $13\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ after epoch-dependent velocity offsets. Apparently stable comparison stars checked the instrumental zero point. Low chromospheric stellar activity and an inferred roughly 30-day stellar rotation period argued against starspots; light curves and the spectral line bisector tested stellar pulsation. These checks favoured orbital motion but had finite sensitivity. The reported $M_p\sin i=0.47\pm 0.02$ Jupiter masses was not a true mass. Stronger upper bounds used stellar-spin information and assumed spin–orbit alignment, limiting a nearly face-on binary star interpretation conditionally.^[ref]

The hot Jupiter matters both for planetary migration and for how exoplanets are found. At fixed small companion mass, orbital inclination and orbital eccentricity, the stellar radial-velocity semi-amplitude scales as $K\propto P^{-1/3}$. Comparing chosen orbital periods of $4$ days and $12$ years gives an amplitude ratio of about $10.3$: a close companion can be much easier to detect and complete many orbits during one observing season. Finding a giant planet close to its star also asks how its present orbit relates to where it formed. Doppler spectroscopy supplies a dynamical constraint; it does not by itself establish a formation pathway or measure the exoplanet's radius.

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 $\gamma$.

Exoplanet transit photometry measures the decrease in a star's observed radiative flux during an exoplanet transit. Define $F_0$ as the unobscured star's observed radiative flux and $F(t)$ as the value at time $t$. For a dark, opaque exoplanet crossing a uniformly bright circular stellar disc, a fully superimposed planetary disc blocks exactly the fractionHere $R_p$ and $R_{\star }$ are the planet and star radii. This exoplanet transit depth determines a radius ratio, $R_p/R_{\star }=\sqrt{\delta }$; an absolute planet radius requires an independently estimated stellar radius. For $R_p/R_{\star }=0.10$, $\delta =0.010$: a one-percent dip, with $F_{\mathrm{full}}/F_0=0.990$. Halving the radius ratio to $0.05$ reduces the exoplanet transit depth to $0.0025$, a quarter as much.

For the central exoplanet transit illustrated below, the transit impact parameter is $b=0$. Write $k=R_p/R_{\star }<1$ and let $z$ be the projected centre-to-centre separation in units of $R_{\star }$. The light curve is $F/F_0=1-A(z)/\pi$, where $A(z)$ is the overlap area of circles of radii $1$ and $k$. There is no overlap when $z\ge 1+k$; the planetary disc is fully inside when $z\le 1-k$, giving $A=\pi k^2$. Between those limits, the overlap area grows or shrinks continuously. Thus even a uniform star has curved ingress and egress, with a flat bottom only during full overlap. The illustration uses approximately constant transverse velocity over the short crossing, so $z=|ut|/R_{\star }$ with mid-transit at $t=0$. Analytic models also handle limb darkening. ^[ref].

The simple exoplanet transit depth formula assumes constant stellar brightness, no limb darkening or starspots, negligible light from the exoplanet, and no transit dilution by other light. It describes full overlap in a non-grazing exoplanet transit, requiring $b<1-k$ for a full-overlap interval. A grazing exoplanet transit never hides the whole planetary disc against the star, and limb darkening weights different blocked areas differently. Repeating dips are valuable evidence, but eclipsing binary stars and starspots can imitate parts of the signal, so confirmation and joint modelling matter.

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.

A stable sinusoidal radial-velocity semi-amplitude can be stellar reflex motion caused by a companion on a nearly circular orbit. The amplitude is compatible with a giant planet; a low-mass star or brown dwarf viewed nearly face-on can mimic the same projected motion, but requires an increasingly unlikely orientation. Starspots and magnetically suppressed convection can produce a rotational stellar activity signal on a ten-day timescale; contemporaneous photometry, activity indicators and stellar spectral-line bisector and other profile changes distinguish these from a clean common Doppler shift. Solar-like stellar oscillations ordinarily have much shorter periods, so a coherent ten-day oscillation of an otherwise ordinary solar-type dwarf is less plausible. Instrumental drift, sampling aliases and blended spectra also need checking. A sinusoid alone does not establish a planetary origin, and the data do not assign numerical probabilities to these alternatives.

For the minimum companion mass from radial velocity, take a circular two-body orbit and initially $M_{\star }=M_{\odot }$. The exact relation and its low-mass limit areWith $\sin i=1$,Here $a=[G{M}_{\star }{P}^2/(4{\pi }^2){]}^{1/3}$ is the relative orbital semi-major axis. Nonzero orbital eccentricity multiplies the inferred $M_p\sin i$ by $\sqrt{1-e^2}$ at fixed measured $K,P$, but the sinusoidal model motivates $e=0$ here.

For the radial-velocity sensitivity limit at fixed planet mass, use $K=M_p\sin i\sqrt{G/(M_{\star }a)}$ and interpret the stated detection scale as a semi-amplitude threshold $K_{\min }$. The largest distance occurs for $\sin i=1$:For an inclination $i$, this boundary is smaller by ${\sin }^{2}i$. The result assumes adequate time coverage and neglects the stipulated stellar noise. If the detection scale instead denotes a full peak-to-peak excursion, set $K_{\min }$ to half that scale; $a_{\max }$ then increases fourfold.

The stellar-mass scaling of radial-velocity planet estimates changes these inferences because Kepler's third law and the stellar reflex response depend on the stellar mass. At fixed $K,P$, $M_p\sin i\propto M_{\star }^{2/3}$ and $a\propto M_{\star }^{1/3}$, whereas the fixed-mass detectability boundary scales as $M_{\star }^{-1}$. ThereforeThe observed period and amplitude are unchanged. The stellar radius does not enter these leading dynamical estimates, but is crucial for the exoplanet transit inference.

For the transiting companion, assume an opaque spherical planet, negligible transit dilution and negligible limb darkening. Its radius ratio is $k=R_p/R_{\star }=\sqrt{\delta }=0.03873$, henceUsing the revised stellar mass and a circular orbit gives $a=0.01850\mathrm{au}$ and $A=a/R_{\star }=7.957$. Interpret the duration as the total first-to-fourth-contact duration $T_{14}$. The impact parameter from total transit duration follows from the total duration of a circular planetary transit:This is noncentral but not grazing: $b<1-k$. The small-planet straight-chord approximation gives $b\simeq 0.845$; retaining finite $R_p$ and orbital curvature gives the stated value. A duration measured between other contacts needs the corresponding contact formula. Unknown orbital eccentricity and argument of periapsis change the transverse speed and prevent a unique unconstrained $b$; the numerical estimate is conditional on the stated circular model.^[ref]

Because the transit constrains $\sin i\simeq 0.994$, the RV nondetection now bounds the actual planetary mass, rather than only its projected mass. The bulk-density upper limit from a transit and an RV nondetection isThese bounds assume the instrumental threshold can be applied to a fitted signal at the transit period; no statistical confidence level is specified. Such a large radius at this low mass is inconsistent with an ordinary compact rock-and-iron body. A low-density volatile-rich planet, possibly with an extended H/He envelope, is indicated under the planetary interpretation. The observations do not uniquely determine interior composition, atmospheric abundance or formation history; blended eclipses and activity still require validation. There is no luminosity or effective temperature supplied for the host, so a numerical planetary equilibrium temperature cannot be inferred from these data alone.

The numerical conversions above use externally documented $(GM{)}_{\odot }=1.3271244\times 10^{20}{\mathrm{m}}^3{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, $R_{\odot }=6.957\times 10^8\mathrm{m}$, $M_{\oplus }=5.9722\times 10^{24}\mathrm{kg}$, $R_{\oplus }=6.371\times 10^6\mathrm{m}$, $M_J=1.89813\times 10^{27}\mathrm{kg}$, $G=6.67430\times 10^{-11}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ and $1\mathrm{au}=149597870700\mathrm{m}$. They are conversion constants, not additional measured system parameters.^[ref][ref]

Phase folding of a light curve maps timestamps onto a trial cycle of duration $P>0$. Given a reference time $t_0$, define the phase in cycles bywhere $\mathrm{frac}(x)=x-\lfloor x\rfloor$ is the fractional part, using the floor function also for negative $x$. Plot brightness against ${\varphi }_i$ rather than $t_i$; measurements separated by an integer multiple of $P$ occupy the same phase. For a periodic function $F(t+P)=F(t)$, this reveals the shared shape of many cycles. Folding changes coordinates; it neither averages samples nor chooses the correct $P$ by itself. Welsh et al.'s folded Kepler plot separates the exoplanet transit and orbital brightness modulation. ^[ref].

The second figure uses a completely synthetic trapezoidal dip: $P=3$ days, $t_0=1$ day, and the same $1\%$ depth and four-hour duration as the first figure. Different colours identify four successive cycles. Correct folding superimposes the dips; a wrong trial orbital period spreads them out. If $P^{\prime }=P+ϵ$, the centre of the $n$th repeated event shifts by approximately $-nϵ/P$ cycles when folded on $P^{\prime }$, for $|ϵ|\ll P$. With $P^{\prime }=3.03$ days, the fourth plotted event is displaced by $-3(0.03)/3.03\simeq -0.0297$ cycles. Transit-timing variations can also smear a constant-period fold, so retain the original timestamps and inspect individual events.

One may combine nearby phases with a weighted mean, but the uncertainty reduction requires assumptions. For $N$ independent measurements with common standard deviation $\sigma$ and effectively the same expected brightness within the bin, their arithmetic mean has standard deviation $\sigma /\sqrt{N}$. Thus sixteen independent $0.0006$-precision samples give $0.00015$ precision on that phase-bin mean. Shared calibration errors, changing starspots, and bins wide enough to mix ingress with out-of-transit brightness violate these assumptions. A folded plot can conceal changes between cycles. Gaussian process models can represent correlated variability and interpolate irregular samples, but their predictions and uncertainties depend on their assumed covariance function.

The bottom panels show the same model as relative brightness $f=F/F_0$ and as magnitude difference in one fixed photometric passband with a fixed magnitude zero point:A dip to $f=0.99$ gives $\Delta m\simeq +0.010912$ magnitudes: fainter means a larger apparent magnitude. The figure places larger magnitude differences lower on the page so the two dip shapes are easy to compare; reversing that plotting convention does not change the formula. For $f=1-\delta$ and small $\delta$, expansion of the logarithm gives $\Delta m\simeq (2.5/\ln 10)\delta \simeq 1.085736\delta$. The exact transform is nonlinear: transforming an exposure's mean brightness is generally different from averaging its instantaneous apparent magnitudes. The ordinary logarithm cannot be applied to a nonpositive background-subtracted measurement; keep such measurements and their uncertainties in brightness units for an appropriate statistical model.

A dark, opaque circular planet of radius $R_p$ blocks specific intensity over its overlap with the projected star. With $k=R_p/R_{\star }$ and no transit dilution, the instantaneous exoplanet transit depth is exactlyWhen $k\ll 1$, the entire planetary disk is inside the stellar disk, and specific intensity varies little across that disk, small-planet transit weighting reduces toHere $z$ is the projected centre separation divided by $R_{\star }$. The numerator samples the local specific intensity; the denominator normalizes by the whole star's mean specific intensity. The small-size argument and the distinction between full overlap and ingress are explicit in the original analytic treatment. ^[ref]

For a short approximately straight crossing at constant transverse velocity $v_{\perp }$, write $x=v_{\perp }t/R_{\star }$ with $t=0$ at mid-transit, and let $b$ be the transit impact parameter. Then $z^2=x^2+b^2$ and ${\mu }_p=\sqrt{1-b^2-x^2}$. With stipulated $u=0.6$ and $k=0.05$, a central crossing has mid-transit exoplanet transit depth approximately $0.003125$, whereas $b=0.8$ gives $0.002375$. A uniform disk would give $k^2=0.0025$ for either fully overlapping crossing. The brighter central chord produces a deeper dip and the off-centre chord a shorter crossing at the same $v_{\perp }$.

At fixed $z<1$ away from the edge, a two-dimensional Taylor's theorem expansion over the symmetric planetary disk cancels the first derivatives; the first correction to the blocked radiant flux is of order $k^4$ if the second derivatives remain bounded. This error estimate is not uniform at the edge, where the radial derivative of the linear limb-darkening law diverges. Ingress, egress, a grazing exoplanet transit, and a crossing of a starspot require the overlap integral or a suitable more complete model. Inferring $k=\sqrt{\delta }$ without the local-to-mean specific intensity ratio can bias the estimated planet radius.

A starspot is a relatively cool, dark region on a star's surface associated with a magnetic field. Starspots change the light curve as the star rotates. A planet crossing a starspot blocks less light than it would from an unspotted region, producing a local upward anomaly during an exoplanet transit; unocculted starspots can instead deepen the normalized exoplanet transit depth. They can also distort spectral lines and imitate a Doppler spectroscopy signal.