1 / 17

The Validation of Kepler planets

The Validation of Kepler planets. F. Fressin , G. Torres & the Kepler team. Planet or Blend?. Physically bound or Chance alignment. Transiting Planet. Eclipsing Binary . An observed periodic transit signal could be due to:. We use Blender , a light-curve fitting software

niyati
Download Presentation

The Validation of Kepler planets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Validation of Kepler planets F. Fressin, G. Torres & the Kepler team

  2. Planet or Blend? Physically bound or Chance alignment Transiting Planet Eclipsing Binary An observed periodic transit signal could be due to: We use Blender, a light-curve fitting software • It attempts to explain Kepler candidates assuming they are the result of a pair of eclipsing objects in the photometric aperture.

  3. Planet or Blend? An observed periodic transit signal could be due to: Physically bound or Chance alignment Transiting Planet Eclipsing Binary Primary Star Secondary Star(MS or not) Tertiary Star or planet We use Blender, a light-curve fitting software • It attempts to explain Kepler candidates assuming they are the result of a pair of eclipsing objects in the photometric aperture.

  4. Blender results : Example of Kepler-10c Period = 45.3 days Radius = 2.23 R⊕ Eclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal

  5. Blender results : Example of Kepler-10c Period = 45.3 days Radius = 2.23 R⊕ Eclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal

  6. Blender results : Example of Kepler-10c Period = 45.3 days Radius = 2.23 R⊕ Eclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal Blender results show that only a very small fraction can actually reproduce the exact transit shape

  7. Combining Follow-Up Observations • Kepler photometry • Precise host star characterization (Keplerasteroseismology) Blender Inputs • Speckleinterferometry (WIYN at Kitt Peak) • Adaptive optics imaging (PHARO at Palomar) • Centroid shift analysis (Kepler data) Separation vs. Magnitude • Spectroscopy (Hires at Keck) • Multi-color photometry (KIC, 2MASS) • Infrared transit observation (WarmSpitzer) Color vs. Magnitude

  8. Quantifying the blend probability Background star + star Background star + planet The planet hypothesis is 60,000 times more likely than a blend Physically bound star + planet • Blend frequency = (0.41 + 1.21) x 10-8 = 1.62 x 10-8 • Planet prior = 157 / 156,453 = 1.0 x 10-3

  9. Kepler-10b Kepler planet Other transiting planet Blender Validation Gj-436b Kepler-11g Gj-1214b Kepler-19b Kepler-10c 55 Cnce CoRoT-7b Kepler-9d

  10. Supporting the challenging Radial Velocity confirmations Kepler-10b shows a clear RV signal, but has inconclusive Bisector variations. Batalha et al. 2011 • M = 4.56 ± 1.29M⊕ Blender validates the transiting planet scenario. CoRoT-7b • Leger et al. 2009 strong support for validation • Queloz et al. 2009 confirmation M = 4.8 ± 0.8M⊕ • Hatzes et al. 2010 confirmation M = 6.9 ± 1.4M⊕ • Ferraz-Mello et al. 2011 confirmation M = 8.0 ± 1.2M⊕ • Pont et al. 2011 marginal detection M = 2.3 ± 1.5M⊕ • Boisse et al. 2011 marginal detection M = 5.7 ± 2.5M⊕ • Hatzes et al. 2011 confirmation M = 7.4 ± 1.2 M⊕

  11. Blender + Spitzer validation of CoRoT-7b In visible light InInfrared

  12. Validation of CoRoT-7b Background star + star Background star + planet The planet hypothesis is 3,500 times more likely than a blend • Blend frequency = 4.2 x 10-7 Physically bound star + planet • Planet prior = 231 / 156,453 =1.5 x 10-3

  13. Kepler-10b Kepler planet Other transiting planet Blender Validation Gj-436b Kepler-11g Gj-1214b Kepler-19b Kepler-10c 55 Cnce CoRoT-7b Kepler-9d

  14. The Blender Connections Further constraining the Blend Frequency Refining the planet prior • Improving Centroid shift results • S. Bryson • Target color using Spitzer • J.M. Desert* oral04.03 • Dynamical Constrains from • multiple systems • D. Fabricky, M.Holman • Kepler detection efficiency • C. Dressing* poster24.01 • Constrains from multiple systems • D. Ragozzine • (Co-planarity boost) • J. Lissauer*oral04.05 • (Multiplicity boost)

  15. Blender results strongly scale with the amount of data. • Sub-Earth-size Keplercandidate Allowed Eclipsing binaries using Q1 – Q5 • ... are divided by 3 • using Q1 – Q8 • Gathering more data won’t only provide more critical KOIs, • but also strongly help validating them (improved Centroid and Blender)

  16. By ESS3, • our goal will be to prove that Earth-size planets, • as hard to find as they may be, • are not • Extreme Solar Systems

More Related