Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Starlight Measurements to Size Up a Planet 23

Posted by michael from the about-the-size-of-my-thumb dept.
Overcoat writes "NASA scientists have used a technique called 'astrometry' to determine the size of a planet orbiting Gliese 876, a star 15 light years away from our solar system. By measuring tiny changes in the 'tilt' of light emitted from the star, changes which were caused by the force exterted by the orbiting planet known as Gliese 876b, the scientists were able to determine that the planet is the size of a golfball. Just kidding: the planet's a whopper, coming in at between 1.89 and 2.4 times the size of Jupiter. This marks the first time astrometry, usually used to measure the distance between stars, has been used to measure a planet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Starlight Measurements to Size Up a Planet More

Starlight Measurements to Size Up a Planet

Comments Filter:

  • Astronomy (Score:3, Funny)

    by rastachops ( 543268 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @01:29PM (#4811198)
    hah was I the only one to read it and think you being sarcastic:

    NASA scientists have used a technique called 'astronomy'

  • Density? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @01:37PM (#4811263)
    Wouldnt these measurements be more effected by the planet's Density than its actual size?

    • Re:Density? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Henry V .009 ( 518000 )
      You mean mass. The scientists are able to find the mass by these measurements. Of course, since it's a gas giant, the density (and therefore size) is fairly standard.
    • Read the article. They are making determinations of mass, not volume. Sheesh, e=mc^2, f=ma, f=gMm/(r^2)... All those Newtonian/relativistic formula thingys have mass in them, not volume.

      • Re:Density? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Spock the Baptist ( 455355 )
        "f=ma"

        Only if mass is constant.
        Newton actually said: F = dp/dt.
        Recall that p = m*v, thus
        d/dt (m*v) = m * dv/dt + dm/dt * v.

        Now if mass is constant, then dm/dt => 0,
        & the second term goes to 0 as well; leaving only the first term: m*a,
        ergo for constant mass, & only for constant mass does F = m*a.

        My two minutes are up...

  • More information here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Simon Field ( 563434 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @01:37PM (#4811271) Homepage


    Some other astrometry uses of the Fine Guidance Sensors can be found here: HST Astrometry Science Team [utexas.edu].

    I was looking for something a little less lame, something that didn't talk about the "tilt" of the light. Are they measuring polarization? Refraction? Diffraction?

    Does anyone have a pointer to the article that UPI has so badly dumbed-down?

    • I believe that they mean they are measuring the star's wobble. If so, this is old news--although they may be using some new techniques to get more accuracy this time around.
      • Measuring the star's wobble via doppler shift can tell you the mass of the planet, and its period of revolution. The calculations pretty much treat the planet as a point mass, because it's roughly spherical. There's no information from dopplar shift that I'm aware of which can give you information on teh size of the planet.

        They are talking about measuring the "tilt" of the light, presumedly polarization.

        This is something that to my knowlege has never been done before, almost all extrasolar objects which are measured via astrometry are very large (with the notable exception of neutron stars, they are very small, but massive and bright). This is very cool and cutting-edge stuff, it's rather amazing IMHO.
        Cheers,
        Justin
        • Hmmm, I checked the article a little more carefully, and it said they used "astrometery." A google search gave me the HST Astrometery Home Page [utexas.edu]. If the article and this site are describing the same thing, what they are doing could be a very accurate form of parallex.

          The article talks about splitting the light "by prisms," which might be newspeak for polarization measurements. I don't know--I'll look around for a better article before I make too many more guesses.
      • I need to RTFA more often... apparently it *WAS* only a mass measurement. Heh. I suppose then what I said didn't make much sense, tehy were simply tracking the movement of the star very precisely (probably dopplar, there's no mention of a transit).

        Sorry about that :)
    • The original article can be found here [mcdonaldobservatory.org]:
      http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/news/releases/2002/ 1203.html

      That particular article seems to be almost as light on details, but at least it's from the horse's mouth.

      For another interesting read, try this article [mcdonaldobservatory.org] about a grad student there who believes they caught a black hole consuming an entire star. Pretty cool stuff.

      I would assume the "tilt" of the light would be polarization. Diffraction doesn't really make much sense in this context (diffraction is really only measurable if the size of the object is within a few orders of magnitude of the size of the radiation, which is not the case here) Refraction doesnt' make sense, because that would be gravitational lensing which really doesn't tell you anything except the mass of the object. The planet's atmosphere wouldn't be big enough to cause a measurable refraction from our perspective, so I think we're pretty much left with the idea that it must be polarization. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm studying the theoretical aspects of astrophysics, not the observational aspects).

      Cheers,
      Justin
      • Ah, I need to RTFA more often... apparently it *WAS* only a mass measurement. Heh. I suppose then what I said didn't make much sense, tehy were simply tracking the movement of the star very precisely (probably dopplar, there's no mention of a transit).

        Sorry about that :)


      • Thanks!

        In reading the article, it looks like the "tilt" thay are talking about is not the "tilt" of light, but of the orbit of the planet relative to the line of sight to earth.

        They knew the orbital period from the radial velocity measurements done earlier. Now that they know the orbit is nearly edge-on to earth, they can determine the mass of the planet.

    • Does anyone have a pointer to the article that UPI has so badly dumbed-down?

      Check out NASA's Space Interferometry Mission [nasa.gov] site, especially their page on Planet Detection [nasa.gov]

      There's much more information on that site that should sate your curiousity. HTH!

    • Science Daily has a better article (as always) here [sciencedaily.com]

      The mention of the "tilt" is a mangled reference to the tilt or angle of the orbital plane with respect to our view point. The planet eclipses the star (changing it the apparent magnitude ("brightness") of the star -- that's what they observed) so you know the orbit is edge on to us. Combine that info with the previously measured radial velocity and you can get the actual mass of the planet not just the minimum mass of the planet.

      Article follows:

      Hubble Makes Precise Measure Of Extrasolar World's True Mass

      NASA Hubble Space Telescope's crisp view has allowed an international team of astronomers to apply a previously unproven technique (astrometry) for making a precise measurement of the mass of a planet outside our solar system. The Hubble results place the planet at 1.89 to 2.4 times the mass of Jupiter, our solar system's largest world. Previous estimates, about which there are some uncertainties, place the planet's mass between 1.9 and 100 times that of Jupiter's.

      A Hubble set of instruments called Fine Guidance Sensors (FGSs), which are also used to point and stabilize the free-flying observatory, measured a small "side-to-side" wobble of the red dwarf star Gliese 876. This is due to the tug of an unseen companion object, designated Gliese 876b (Gl 876b) and first discovered in 1998 with ground-based telescopes.

      Gl 876b is only the second extrasolar planet (after HD 209458) for which a precise mass has been determined, and it is the first whose mass has been confirmed by using the astrometry technique.

      Now that this technique has been proven viable for space-based observatory planet confirmations, it will be used in the future to nail down uncertainties in the masses of dozens of extrasolar planets discovered so far.

      The observations were made by George F. Benedict and Barbara McArthur (University of Texas at Austin), members of the international observing team led by Thierry Forveille (Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Corporation, Hawaii and Grenoble Observatory, France). The results are being published in the December 20 issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters.

      Benedict had to observe the star's yo-yo motion for over two years, using a total of 27 orbits worth of Hubble Space Telescope observations. "Making these kinds of measurements of a star's movement on the sky is quite difficult," Benedict emphasizes. "We're measuring angles (.5 milliarcsecond) equivalent to the size of a quarter seen from 3,000 miles away.

      The target planet, Gl 876b, is the more distant of two planets orbiting Gliese 876. It was originally discovered by two groups, led by Xavier Delfosse (Geneva/Grenoble Observatory) and Geoffrey Marcy (U.C. Berkeley and San Francisco State University). Marcy's group discovered a smaller planet closer to Gliese 876 a year later, in 1999. These initial discoveries were made by measuring the star's subtle "to-and-fro" speed. This is called the radial velocity technique.

      Benedict and McArthur combined the astrometric information with the radial velocity measurements (made in the planet's discovery) to determine the planet's mass by deducing its orbital inclination. If astronomers don't know how the planet's orbit is tilted with respect to Earth, they can only estimate a minimum mass for the planet. But without knowing more, the mass could be significantly larger if the orbit was tilted to a nearly face-on orientation to Earth. The star would still move towards and away from us slightly, even though it had a massive companion. "You can't hide massive companions from the Hubble Space Telescope," says McArthur. "The planet's orbit turns out to be tilted nearly edge-on to Earth. This verifies it is a low-mass object."

      "There are a few more stars where we can do this kind of research with Hubble," Benedict says. "Most candidate stars are too distant. Astronomers can look forward to doing these kinds of studies on literally hundreds of stars with the planned NASA Space Interferometry Mission, called SIM, which will be far more precise than Hubble.

      "Knowing the mass of extrasolar planets accurately is going to help theorists answer lots of questions about how planets form," Benedict adds. "When we get hundreds of these mass determinations for planets around all types of stars, we're going to see what types of stars form certain types of planets. Do big stars form big planets and small stars form small planets?"

      Measuring stellar wobbles on the sky has been used to search for planets for decades. But extremely high precision and telescope optical stability are required. The Hubble FGSs are the first astrometric tool to accomplish this ultra-precise kind of measurement for an extrasolar planet.

      The gas giant plant orbiting the sunlike star HD 209458 is the very first planet to have its mass verified by using transit and radial velocity data. This was only possible because the planet was discovered to be passing in front of the star every four days, slightly dimming the star's light. This is proof the orbit is edge-on, yielding a mass that agrees with the lower limit estimate of .7 Jupiter masses.

      Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here [stsci.edu].

  • Hubble is Big Brother! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tsar ( 536185 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @03:51PM (#4812553) Homepage Journal
    "If you were in San Francisco and there was a quarter lying on the ground in New York and someone moved the coin an inch, we'd be able to tell," said George Benedict, an astronomer with the McDonald Observatory at the University of Texas in Austin, who is among an international team of scientists using the Hubble Space for astrometry research.

    Seems like an odd use of the telescope, but not as scary as this one:

    "You can't hide massive companions from the Hubble Space Telescope," said Barbara McArthur...

    What if we don't go out, and just hang out at her place and watch pay-per-view?
  • The article says
    A Hubble set of instruments called Fine Guidance Sensors (FGSs), which are also used to point and stabilize the free-flying observatory ...
    But it would really be more accurate to say that they are the pointing sensors, which here are being used as an instrument. This is the really cool thing about this measurement, it was done with Hubble's star guiders, not the astronomical instruments.
  • And in other news...

    Scientists have found the composition of an unknown substance using a technique called "chemistry"

    Microsoft has developed the latest version of windows with a technique called "software engineering"

  • What's going on (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jason T. Wright ( 114371 ) on Thursday December 05, 2002 @03:33AM (#4816967)
    Most extrasolar planets [exoplanets.org] are found by the precision radial velocity technique. The orbiting planet induces a reflex motion in the star (like in track & field when the hammer thrower leans back and revolves about the center of mass a little while the hammer moves a lot). We can detect this reflex motion as a change in the star's radial velocity. These velocities have magnitudes of hundreds or even tens of meters per second.

    A limitation of this technique is that if a planet orbits its star in the plane of the sky, there will be no radial component to the star's reflex velocity, so we won't detect it. Further, unless the planet orbits with an inclination such that it passes nearly in front of the star, we will measure only a fraction of the total reflex motion.

    This means that when we detect a planet, we can only put lower limits on the mass of the planet, since the signal could be from a massive planet in a nearly face-on orbit, or a tiny planet in an edge-on orbit. This ambiguity is proportional to the sine of the inclination (the "tilt"), so what we measure to be the mass of the planet is actually M*sin(i), where M is the true mass of the planet.

    What these folks have done is use an instrument on HST to make extremely accurate measurements of the position on the sky of a star known to have planets, and used these measurements to measue the path of the star in the plane of the sky as it wobbles under the influence of the orbiting planet. This measures the missing tangential component of the reflex velocity, resolving the sin(i) ambiguity, and determining M itself. This is only the second time [exoplanets.org] anyone has precisely determined the inclination of one of these planets.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close