Comments on: Three Neptunes http://oklo.org/2006/05/18/three-neptunes/ characterizing planetary systems Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:27:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: systemic - Worlds worlds worlds http://oklo.org/2006/05/18/three-neptunes/comment-page-1/#comment-4990 systemic - Worlds worlds worlds Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:18:13 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=89#comment-4990 [...] During the first few minutes, Lovis reviewed the current status of the published results. The Mu Arae planets (including the hot Neptune on the 9.6-day orbit, see here and here) are all present and accounted for. The HD 69830 triple-Neptune data set (see here, here and here) now contains twice as many velocities, with virtually no changes to the masses and orbits of the three known planets. Long-term scatter in the HD 69830 data set is at the ~90 cm/sec level, indicating either the effect of residual stellar jitter, or perhaps the presence of additional as-yet uncharacterized bodies. [...] [...] During the first few minutes, Lovis reviewed the current status of the published results. The Mu Arae planets (including the hot Neptune on the 9.6-day orbit, see here and here) are all present and accounted for. The HD 69830 triple-Neptune data set (see here, here and here) now contains twice as many velocities, with virtually no changes to the masses and orbits of the three known planets. Long-term scatter in the HD 69830 data set is at the ~90 cm/sec level, indicating either the effect of residual stellar jitter, or perhaps the presence of additional as-yet uncharacterized bodies. [...]

]]> By: systemic - Roll ‘em out… http://oklo.org/2006/05/18/three-neptunes/comment-page-1/#comment-749 systemic - Roll ‘em out… Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:13:39 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=89#comment-749 [...] Eugenio recently implemented the downloadable console’s F-test, which can provide help in evaluating whether an additional planet is warranted. The F-test is applied to two saved fits and returns a probability that the two fits are statistically identical. As an example, pull up the HD 69830 data set and obtain the best two planet fit that includes the 8.666-planets and 31-day planets. Save this fit to disk. Next, add the 200-day outer planet and save the resulting 3-planet fit to disk (using a separate name). Clicking on the console’s F-test button allows the F-test to be computed using the two saved fits: In the case of HD 69830, there’s a 1.7% probability that the 2-planet fit and the 3-planet fit are statistically identical. This low probability indicates that the third planet is providing a significant improvement to the characterization of the data. It’s likely really out there orbiting the star. [...] [...] Eugenio recently implemented the downloadable console’s F-test, which can provide help in evaluating whether an additional planet is warranted. The F-test is applied to two saved fits and returns a probability that the two fits are statistically identical. As an example, pull up the HD 69830 data set and obtain the best two planet fit that includes the 8.666-planets and 31-day planets. Save this fit to disk. Next, add the 200-day outer planet and save the resulting 3-planet fit to disk (using a separate name). Clicking on the console’s F-test button allows the F-test to be computed using the two saved fits: In the case of HD 69830, there’s a 1.7% probability that the 2-planet fit and the 3-planet fit are statistically identical. This low probability indicates that the third planet is providing a significant improvement to the characterization of the data. It’s likely really out there orbiting the star. [...]

]]> By: darin http://oklo.org/2006/05/18/three-neptunes/comment-page-1/#comment-148 darin Tue, 23 May 2006 17:16:44 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=89#comment-148 In reading the paper more closely, I noticed this caption to Table 1: "We checked that planet-planet interactions do not significantly influence the orbital parameters by also performing N-body fits to the data with various inclination angles. As expected, dynamical interactions are so weak that they can be neglected over the short time span of the data, and we therefore use the three-keplerian fit in this paper." I'm not surprised that 4-body effects are too small to see in this system. Even detecting the planets is near marginal... second-order effects on top of this are even more difficult. So, apparently, they did check for 4-body interactions. I don't know why this wasn't important enough to mention in the main text of the paper, but it still begs the question: how were these n-body fits performed? Are they like the self-consistent fits of the systemic console or did they start with their published solution and then add various inclinations? In reading the paper more closely, I noticed this caption to Table 1:

“We checked that planet-planet interactions do not significantly influence the orbital parameters by also performing N-body fits to the data with various inclination angles. As expected, dynamical interactions are so weak that they can be neglected over the short time span of the data, and we therefore use the three-keplerian fit in this paper.”

I’m not surprised that 4-body effects are too small to see in this system. Even detecting the planets is near marginal… second-order effects on top of this are even more difficult.

So, apparently, they did check for 4-body interactions. I don’t know why this wasn’t important enough to mention in the main text of the paper, but it still begs the question: how were these n-body fits performed? Are they like the self-consistent fits of the systemic console or did they start with their published solution and then add various inclinations?

]]> By: systemic - 20 centimeters per second http://oklo.org/2006/05/18/three-neptunes/comment-page-1/#comment-136 systemic - 20 centimeters per second Sun, 21 May 2006 06:56:27 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=89#comment-136 [...] In Thursday’s post, we gave an overview of the HD 69830 planetary system, which contains Neptune-mass planets in 8.67, 31.6, and 197 day orbits. Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this announcement is the tiny radial velocity amplitude of the 197 day planet in the model. This object induces a radial velocity amplitude of 2.2 meters per second, with a reported error of only twenty centimeters per second. That’s about the speed your finger moves if you trace it quickly across the title of the discovery paper. This detection required a very quiet star and an extraordinary technique. The Swiss seem to have broken through to the next level. [...] [...] In Thursday’s post, we gave an overview of the HD 69830 planetary system, which contains Neptune-mass planets in 8.67, 31.6, and 197 day orbits. Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this announcement is the tiny radial velocity amplitude of the 197 day planet in the model. This object induces a radial velocity amplitude of 2.2 meters per second, with a reported error of only twenty centimeters per second. That’s about the speed your finger moves if you trace it quickly across the title of the discovery paper. This detection required a very quiet star and an extraordinary technique. The Swiss seem to have broken through to the next level. [...]

]]> By: darin http://oklo.org/2006/05/18/three-neptunes/comment-page-1/#comment-130 darin Thu, 18 May 2006 19:00:29 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=89#comment-130 I agree with Greg... the Lovis, et al. paper is good, but leaves many interesting questions unaddressed. Many of these can be studied with the systemic console (although I haven't yet tried myself), such as: Can the presence or absence of 4-body effects in the RV data restrict the inclination of a co-planar system at HD69830? While Lovis, et al. check that the system is dynamically stable, even for low (face-on) inclinations, I don't know if they check the effect of inclination on the RV data. They only used purely Keplerian fits (i.e. not allowing for mutual interactions between the planets) and perhaps they already know that 4-body effects would not be detectable in this data... just detecting the planets required extra high precision. Even so, we can ask: when would 4-body effects be detectable? Note that this question depends strongly on the inclination of the system (since the inclination determines the true masses of the planets, which determines how strong their mutual graviational interactions are). These planets have low, but non-zero eccentricities (all about 0.1). I study dynamics and when systems have eccentricities, they almost always have mutual inclinations as well. Trying to determine the mutual inclinations of this system may be unreasonable, but it would be interesting to limit the possibilities. This would be very interesting for GJ 876, as well, although I haven't seen anyone give a non-co-planar analysis of this system. Greg didn't mention in the post that this star has been seen to have an infrared excess consistent with a (bright) asteroid belt... the spectrum looks just like comet Hale-Bopp! (C. Beichman, 2005) The Geneva team did do an analysis to see where an asteroid-like belt would be stable in the edge-on system, and finds some locations that are roughly consistent. This should also be done for other inclinations. Finally, the possiblity of transits (detectable as early as next week!) is also exciting. Checking on www.transitsearch.org, we find that the transit depth of these small objects would be hard to get with a small telescope, even though this is a bright obejct. That's enough from me. A very interesting new system to be studied with the console and otherwise. Darin Ragozzine Graduate Student in Planetary Science California Institute of Technology I agree with Greg… the Lovis, et al. paper is good, but leaves many interesting questions unaddressed. Many of these can be studied with the systemic console (although I haven’t yet tried myself), such as:

Can the presence or absence of 4-body effects in the RV data restrict the inclination of a co-planar system at HD69830? While Lovis, et al. check that the system is dynamically stable, even for low (face-on) inclinations, I don’t know if they check the effect of inclination on the RV data. They only used purely Keplerian fits (i.e. not allowing for mutual interactions between the planets) and perhaps they already know that 4-body effects would not be detectable in this data… just detecting the planets required extra high precision. Even so, we can ask: when would 4-body effects be detectable? Note that this question depends strongly on the inclination of the system (since the inclination determines the true masses of the planets, which determines how strong their mutual graviational interactions are).

These planets have low, but non-zero eccentricities (all about 0.1). I study dynamics and when systems have eccentricities, they almost always have mutual inclinations as well. Trying to determine the mutual inclinations of this system may be unreasonable, but it would be interesting to limit the possibilities. This would be very interesting for GJ 876, as well, although I haven’t seen anyone give a non-co-planar analysis of this system.

Greg didn’t mention in the post that this star has been seen to have an infrared excess consistent with a (bright) asteroid belt… the spectrum looks just like comet Hale-Bopp! (C. Beichman, 2005) The Geneva team did do an analysis to see where an asteroid-like belt would be stable in the edge-on system, and finds some locations that are roughly consistent. This should also be done for other inclinations.

Finally, the possiblity of transits (detectable as early as next week!) is also exciting. Checking on http://www.transitsearch.org, we find that the transit depth of these small objects would be hard to get with a small telescope, even though this is a bright obejct.

That’s enough from me. A very interesting new system to be studied with the console and otherwise.

Darin Ragozzine
Graduate Student in Planetary Science
California Institute of Technology

]]> By: Colony Worlds http://oklo.org/2006/05/18/three-neptunes/comment-page-1/#comment-129 Colony Worlds Thu, 18 May 2006 18:29:06 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=89#comment-129 That is awesome! It pangs me that we don't have the technology to view these worlds just a little bit closer (in other words, to see if they have moons or not). And it doesn't even seem that far away...space wise (about 41 light years). Hopefully in the next generation (or two) we can develop faster-than-light travel and be able to colonize worlds on multiple star systems. That is awesome! It pangs me that we don’t have the technology to view these worlds just a little bit closer (in other words, to see if they have moons or not).

And it doesn’t even seem that far away…space wise (about 41 light years).

Hopefully in the next generation (or two) we can develop faster-than-light travel and be able to colonize worlds on multiple star systems.

]]>