Codex @codex  0

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]

Adopt circular orbits, negligible planetary masses, spherical bodies, uniform stellar brightness and no transit dilution. Interpret the measured duration as the total duration of a circular planetary transit, from first to fourth contact, $T_{14}$. These conventions matter especially for the off-centre crossing: finite planet size cannot automatically be ignored there. Unknown orbital eccentricity or limb darkening would require further information to infer unique stellar radii.

First convert the apparent magnitude difference into a fractional exoplanet transit depth, rather than treating a milli-magnitude as a part in a thousand:Both crossings are non-grazing because their transit impact parameters satisfy $b<1-k$, so the full projected planetary disc can block the star. Equal depths determine equal radius ratios, not equal absolute planet radii.

For orbital inclination $i$ measured from the sky plane, $b=(a/R_{\star })\cos i$. Choosing mid-transit as orbital phase zero, the projected separation obeysAt first and fourth contact, $z/R_{\star }=1+k$. The full crossing duration therefore isFor the numerical scale use solar radius $R_{\odot }=6.957\times 10^8\mathrm{m}$ and nominal solar mass parameter $(GM{)}_{\odot }=1.3271244\times 10^{20}{\mathrm{m}}^3{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, with one day equal to $86400\mathrm{s}$. These are stated conversion choices, not additional measurements of the two systems.^[ref]

Kepler's third law gives $a=[G{M}_{\star }{P}^2/(4{\pi }^2){]}^{1/3}$. For a solar-mass, solar-radius host, this gives $a/R_{\odot }=12.3051$ at five days and $6.68023$ at two days. Substitution in the contact formula yieldsThe transit duration of a small planet instead takes both $k\to 0$ and $R_{\star }/a\ll 1$, giving $T\simeq P{R}_{\star }\sqrt{1-b^2}/(\pi a)$. It predicts $3.10\mathrm{h}$ and $1.37\mathrm{h}$, respectively. The difference is appreciable for B because the fractional change in its crossing chord is larger. Durations defined by mid-ingress to mid-egress or by second to third contact should not be silently equated with $T_{14}$.

The original diagram uses a straight projected track to display the contact geometry; the duration formula above retains orbital curvature.

To infer the actual stellar radii, invert the contact formula before applying the supplied mass-radius scaling. Let $A=a/R_{\star }$ and $s=\sin (\pi T_{14}/P)$; thenThe measured durations imply $A_A=8.34661$ and $A_B=7.55743$. Normalize the stipulated constant mass-radius ratio to the Sun, so $M_{\star }/M_{\odot }=R_{\star }/R_{\odot }\equiv r_{\star }$. Kepler's third law then givesThus the stellar radius from transit duration and a linear mass-radius relation isThe same assumed scaling gives $M_A=1.79M_{\odot }$ and $M_B=0.831M_{\odot }$. A's longer crossing requires a lower mean stellar mass density, while B's shorter full-contact crossing requires a higher one. They are not both solar replicas under this model. Their planets have $R_{p,A}=0.1213R_{\odot }$ and $R_{p,B}=0.05633R_{\odot }$.

For a consistently applied point-planet approximation, the duration scales as $T\propto P^{1/3}{r}_{\star }^{2/3}\sqrt{1-b^2}$ and the inferred radii would instead be $R_A\simeq 1.98R_{\odot }$, $R_B\simeq 1.07R_{\odot }$. The latter is close to solar. Consequently the assertion of a substantial non-solar radius for B depends on which duration convention and finite-size approximation are intended. The contact-based values above use the measured depth rather than discarding it. If eccentric orbits are allowed, the transit speed introduces an additional factor depending on eccentricity and orientation, so the two durations alone cannot establish those radii uniquely.

For an outer coplanar planet around B, the common orbital inclination gives $b_2/b_B=a_2/a_B=(P_2/P_B{)}^{2/3}$. A point-planet centre must cross the stellar disc, requiring $b_2<1$. The usual coplanar transit limit is thereforeThis is a limiting value approached from below; a tangent path has no duration. For an outer planet of finite, unspecified radius ratio $k_2$, any overlap instead requires $b_2<1+k_2$, giving $P_2<P_B[(1+k_2)/b_B{]}^{3/2}$. If it had the same ratio $k_2=k$, that geometric limit would be $3.08$ days; requiring full overlap would give $2.52$ days. Because neither its radius nor a photometric detection threshold is supplied, no unique finite-size practical maximum period can be inferred beyond this conditional expression. The stellar radius cancels from the point-planet period-ratio bound.

For B's inner planet, a reflected-light planetary phase curve haswhere $A_g$ is geometric albedo and $\alpha$ is phase angle. Near exoplanet secondary eclipse the visible hemisphere is almost fully illuminated. Using the standard full-phase approximation and the contact-based $A_B$,The exact lost fraction of combined stellar and planetary light is $F_p/(F_{\star }+F_p)$, which changes the result negligibly at this contrast. The corresponding magnitude depth is about $0.0437$ milli-magnitudes. The circular orbit has the same impact distance at eclipse as at transit, and $b_B<1-k$, so the star can hide the entire planetary disc.

The inclination inferred for B is $83.92^{\circ }$, putting closest approach to full phase at $\alpha \simeq 6.08^{\circ }$. A fully precise prediction would therefore also require the reflected-light phase function, which the question does not specify; the boxed value uses $\Phi \simeq 1$. The consistent point-planet duration approximation yields about $56.7\mathrm{ppm}$ instead, through its different inferred $a/R_B$. It is important to keep the geometry used for the radius inference and the reflected-light calculation consistent.

Finally, the stellar radial-velocity semi-amplitude for a low-mass companion on a circular orbit isThe two stars' equal apparent magnitudes make a comparison at similar photon statistics plausible, though spectral-line widths, stellar variability and observing cadence can still differ. With the contact-based stellar estimates,If the planets have comparable mean densities, A is easier: their equal depth then gives $M_{p,A}/M_{p,B}\simeq (R_A/R_B{)}^3\simeq 9.99$, so $K_A/K_B\simeq 4.44$. The larger planetary mass outweighs A's longer orbital period and larger host mass. For equal planetary masses, B is easier by a factor $2.25$ in amplitude. The supplied transit data give planet radii, not masses, so the ranking is conditional on a planetary mass-radius assumption; a unique unconditional ranking would invent information.

Assume Kepler's third law, a negligible planet mass, and $M_{\star }/M_{\odot }=R_{\star }/R_{\odot }$. Define $A_{\odot }=[(GM{)}_{\odot }{P}^2/(4{\pi }^2){]}^{1/3}/R_{\odot }$. The total duration of a circular planetary transit determines $a/R_{\star }$, giving the displayed stellar radius. Unknown orbital eccentricity, transit dilution or a different stellar mass-radius calibration introduces additional uncertainty.