1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

3: \usepackage{apjfonts}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{mathrsfs}

7: 

8: % math commands

9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}

10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}

11: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

12: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

13: \def\simless{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox

14:       {$\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'074$}}\mathchar"7218$}}}

15: \def\simgreat{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox

16:       {$\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'076$}}\mathchar"7218$}}} %> or of order

17: 

18: % variables

19: %\renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $\displaystyle #1$}}

20: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}

21: \newcommand{\xivec}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}}

22: 

23: \newcommand{\grad}{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}

24: \newcommand{\yr}{\,{\rm yr}}

25: \newcommand{\myr}{\,{\rm Myr}}

26: \newcommand{\gyr}{\,{\rm Gyr}}

27: \newcommand{\cm}{\,{\rm cm}}

28: \newcommand{\km}{\,{\rm km}}

29: \newcommand{\pc}{\,{\rm pc}}

30: \newcommand{\kpc}{\,{\rm kpc}}	

31: \newcommand{\kev}{\,{\rm keV}}

32: \newcommand{\ev}{\,{\rm eV}}

33: \newcommand{\ergs}{\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}}

34: \newcommand{\s}{\,{\rm s}}

35: \newcommand{\msun}{\,M_\odot}

36: \newcommand{\rsun}{\,R_\odot}

37: \newcommand{\lsun}{\,L_{\rm \odot}}

38: \newcommand{\lx}{L_{\rm X}}

39: \newcommand{\fx}{F_{\rm X}}

40: \newcommand{\mdot}{\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}}

41: 

42: \newcommand{\fdisk}{\mathscr{F}}

43: \newcommand{\pert}{\varepsilon}

44: 

45: % -----------------------------------------------------------

46: % -----------------------------------------------------------

47: 

48: \begin{document}

49: 

50: % -----------------------------------------------------------

51: % -----------------------------------------------------------

52: 

53: \shorttitle{ELLIPSOIDAL OSCILLATIONS}

54: \shortauthors{PFAHL, ARRAS, \& PAXTON}

55: 

56: % -----------------------------------------------------------

57: % -----------------------------------------------------------

58: 

59: \title{Ellipsoidal Oscillations Induced by Substellar Companions: \\

60: A Prospect for the {\em Kepler} Mission}

61: 

62: \author{Eric Pfahl\altaffilmark{1}, Phil Arras\altaffilmark{1,2}, 

63:   and Bill Paxton\altaffilmark{1}}

64: 

65: \altaffiltext{1}{Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University

66: of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; pfahl@kitp.ucsb.edu,

67: paxton@kitp.ucsb.edu}

68: 

69: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia,

70: P.O. Box 400325, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4325; arras@virginia.edu}

71: 

72: % -----------------------------------------------------------

73: % -----------------------------------------------------------

74: 

75: \begin{abstract}

76: 

77:   Hundreds of substellar companions to solar-type stars will be

78:   discovered with the {\em Kepler} satellite.  {\em Kepler}'s extreme

79:   photometric precision gives access to low-amplitude stellar

80:   variability contributed by a variety of physical processes.  We

81:   discuss in detail the periodic flux modulations arising from the

82:   tidal force on the star due to a substellar companion.  An analytic

83:   expression for the variability is derived in the equilibrium-tide

84:   approximation.  We demonstrate analytically and through numerical

85:   solutions of the linear, nonadiabatic stellar oscillation equations

86:   that the equilibrium-tide formula works extremely well for stars of

87:   mass $<$$1.4\msun$ with thick surface convection zones.  More

88:   massive stars with largely radiative envelopes do not conform to the

89:   equilibrium-tide approximation and can exhibit flux variations

90:   $\ga$10 times larger than naive estimates.  Over the full range of

91:   stellar masses considered, we treat the oscillatory response of the

92:   convection zone by adapting a prescription that A. J. Brickhill

93:   developed for pulsating white dwarfs.  Compared to other sources of

94:   periodic variability, the ellipsoidal lightcurve has a distinct

95:   dependence on time and system parameters.  We suggest that

96:   ellipsoidal oscillations induced by giant planets may be detectable

97:   from as many as $\sim$100 of the $10^5$ {\em Kepler} target stars.

98:   For the subset of these stars that show transits and have

99:   radial-velocity measurements, all system parameters are well

100:   constrained, and measurement of ellipsoidal variation provides a

101:   consistency check, as well as a test of the theory of forced stellar

102:   oscillations in a challenging regime.

103:     

104: \end{abstract}

105: 

106: \keywords{planetary systems --- stars: oscillations --- 

107: techniques: photometric}

108: 

109: % -----------------------------------------------------------

110: % -----------------------------------------------------------

111: 

112: \section{INTRODUCTION}

113: \label{sec:intro}

114: 

115: The upcoming {\em Kepler}\footnote{\url{http://kepler.nasa.gov}}

116: satellite will continuously monitor $\sim$$10^5$ main-sequence stars

117: of mass $\simeq$0.5--$1.5\msun$ over 4--6 years with fractional

118: photometric precisions of $\sim$$10^{-5}$.  Such high sensitivity,

119: which is unattainable from the ground, will allow for the robust

120: detection of Earth-size planets that transit their host stars, and the

121: measurement of asteroseismic oscillations as a probe of stellar

122: structure \citep[e.g.,][]{Borucki2004,Basri2005}.  These missions will

123: also discover hundreds of ``hot Jupiters'' with orbital periods of

124: $<$10 days, revealed by their transits or reflected starlight

125: \citep[e.g.,][]{Jenkins2003}.  Continuous observations of these

126: systems are likely to show a myriad of novel physical effects,

127: including Doppler flux variability of the host stars \citep{Loeb2003},

128: photometric dips due to moons or rings around the planets

129: \citep{Sartoretti1999,Brown2001}, and the impact of additional

130: perturbing planets on transit timing

131: \citep{Miralda-Escude2002,Agol2005,Holman2005}.  The same ideas apply

132: if the companion is a more massive brown dwarf, but these are rarely

133: found in close orbits around solar-type stars

134: \citep[e.g.,][]{Grether2006}.

135: 

136: Here we scrutinize another mechanism for generating periodic

137: variability of a star closely orbited by a giant planet or brown

138: dwarf. A star subject to the tidal gravity of a binary companion has a

139: nonspherical shape and surface-brightness distribution.  In the

140: simplest approximation, the stellar surface is a prolate ellipsoid

141: with its long axis on the line connecting the two objects.  As the

142: tidal bulge tracks the orbital motion, differing amounts of light

143: reach the observer.  For a solar-type star orbited by a perturbing

144: companion of mass $M_p$ with period $P_{\rm orb}$, the expected

145: fractional amplitude of this ellipsoidal variability is

146: $\sim$$10^{-2}(M_p/M_\odot)(1\,{\rm day}/P_{\rm orb})^2$.  This effect

147: has a long history in the study of eclipsing binary stars \citep[see

148: the review by][]{Wilson1994}, but was mentioned only recently in the

149: exoplanet context.

150: 

151: \citet{Udalski2002}, \citet{Drake2003}, and \citet{Sirko2003} noted

152: that if ellipsoidal light variations are detected from the ground,

153: where the fractional photometric precision is $\ga$$10^{-3}$, then the

154: perturber must be fairly massive (e.g., $\ga$$0.1\msun$).  They

155: offered this idea as a test to distinguish between planetary transits

156: and eclipses by low-mass stars.  The superior sensitivity of {\em

157:   Kepler} offers the possibility of measuring ellipsoidal variability

158: induced by giant planets ($M_p \sim 10^{-3}$--$10^{-2}\msun$) with 

159: orbital periods of $\la$10\,days. 

160: 

161: \citet{Loeb2003} compare the ellipsoidal variability induced by a

162: planetary companion to flux modulations arising from reflected

163: starlight and the Doppler effect. The three amplitudes are similar

164: when the companion has an orbital period of $\la$3 days and an optical

165: albedo of $\la$0.1.  In a sufficiently long observation it should be

166: possible to separately extract each of the signals, since their

167: Fourier decompositions are distinct.  Precise physical modeling of the

168: ellipsoidal lightcurve could provide an independent constraint on the

169: mass of the companion, as well as important clues regarding stellar

170: tidal interactions.

171: 

172: Ellipsoidal variability is typically modeled under the assumption that

173: the distorted star maintains hydrostatic balance and precisely fills a

174: level surface of an appropriate potential (e.g., the Roche potential).

175: The measured flux is then just an integral of the intensity over the

176: visible stellar surface, where the intensity includes the effects of

177: limb darkening and gravity darkening \citep[e.g.,][]{Kopal1942}.  This

178: approach is strictly valid only when the orbit is circular and the

179: star rotates at the orbital frequency, so that a stationary

180: configuration exists in the coorbital frame.  These conditions may not

181: be satisfied when the companion has a low mass or long period, because

182: of the weak tidal interaction.  In fact, a state of tidal equilibrium

183: may not be attainable in the case of a planetary companion

184: \citep[e.g.,][]{Rasio1996}.  Equilibrium models of ellipsoidal

185: lightcurves do have a realm of validity for noncircular orbits and

186: asynchronously rototating stars, and have been applied successfully to

187: somewhat eccentric binaries \citep[e.g.,][]{Soszynski2004}.  However,

188: by construction, such models ignore fluid inertia and the possibility

189: exciting normal modes of oscillation, effects that may be of critical

190: importance in a wide range of observationally relevant circumstances.

191: Here we apply the machinery of linear stellar oscillation theory to

192: the weak tidal forcing of stars by substellar companions.

193: Conceptually, our investigation bridges {\em Kepler}'s planetary and

194: astroseismology programs.

195: 

196: Section~2 describes the geometry of the problem, provides quantitative

197: measures for the strength of the tidal interaction, discusses our

198: simplifying assumptions, and presents the mathematical framework for

199: calculating ellipsoidal variability. In \S~\ref{sec:eqtide}, we

200: consider the equilibrium-tide approximation and derive an analytic

201: expression for the ellipsoidal lightcurve.  A brief review of von

202: Zeipel's theorem and its limitations is given in

203: \S~\ref{sec:vonzeipel}.  Tidally forced, nonadiabatic stellar

204: oscillations are addressed in \S~\ref{sec:nonad}, where we argue for a

205: simple treatment of perturbed surface convection zones, use this

206: prescription to calculate the ellipsoidal variability of deeply

207: convective stars, estimate analytically the surface flux perturbation

208: in mainly radiative stars, and show select numerical results.  Our

209: main conclusions are summarized in \S~\ref{sec:summary}.  We conclude

210: in \S~\ref{sec:detection} with remarks on the measurement of

211: ellipsoidal oscillations in the presence of other sources of periodic

212: variability.

213: 

214: % -----------------------------------------------------------

215: 

216: \section{PRELIMINARIES}

217: \label{sec:prelim}

218: 

219: Consider a star of mass $M$ and radius $R$ is orbited by a substellar

220: companion of mass $M_p$ and radius $R_p$.  We work in spherical

221: coordinates $(r, \theta, \phi)$ with the origin at the star's center

222: and the pole direction ($\theta = 0$) parallel to the orbital angular

223: momentum vector.  The orbit is then described by $(d,

224: \pi/2, \phi_p)$, where $d$ and $\phi_p$ are, respectively, the

225: time-dependent orbital separation and true anomaly; $\phi_p = 0$ marks

226: the phase of periastron.  We assume that the orbit is strictly

227: Keplerian with fixed semimajor axis $a$ and eccentricity $e$, such

228: that $d = a(1 - e^2)/(1 + e\cos \phi_p)$.  The direction to the

229: observer from the center of the star is $(\theta_o, \phi_o)$, so that

230: the conventional orbital inclination is $I = \pi - \theta_o$.

231: 

232: We imagine that the gravity of the companion raises nearly symmetrical

233: tidal bulges on opposite sides of the star that rotate at the orbital

234: frequency.  A rough measure of both the height of the tides relative

235: to the unperturbed stellar radius and the fractional amplitude of the

236: ellipsoidal variability is given by the ratio of the tidal

237: acceleration to the star's surface gravity:

238: %

239: \be\label{eq:tidescale}

240: \pert \equiv \frac{M_p}{M}\left( \frac{R}{a} \right)^3 \sim

241: 10^{-5}\, \frac{M_p}{M_J} \frac{M_\odot}{M}

242: \left( \frac{P_*}{2.8\ {\rm hr}}\frac{1\ {\rm day}}{P_{\rm orb}} \right)^2 

243: ~,

244: \ee

245: %

246: where $M_J \simeq 10^{-3}\msun$ is the mass of Jupiter,

247: $P_*=2\pi(R^3/GM)^{1/2}=2.8\,[(R/R_\odot)^{3}(M_\odot/M)]^{1/2}\,{\rm

248:   hr}$ is the dynamical time of the star.  For main-sequence stars

249: with $R/R_\odot \simeq M/M_\odot$, we see that $\pert \propto M_p M

250: P_{\rm orb}^{-2}$.  The maximum value of $\pert$ is attained when the

251: companion fills its Roche lobe at an orbital separation of $a \simeq 2

252: R_p(M/M_p)^{1/3}$, which gives

253: %

254: \be

255: \pert_{\rm max} &\simeq&

256: \left(\frac{M_p}{M}\right)^2

257: \left(\frac{R}{2R_p}\right)^3 \nonumber \\

258: &\simeq&

259: 10^{-4}\,\left(\frac{M_p}{M_J}\right)^2

260: \frac{M}{M_\odot}

261: \left(\frac{0.1\rsun}{R_p}\right)^3

262: ~,

263: \ee

264: %

265: where we have applied a fixed value of $R_p = 0.1\rsun$, appropriate

266: for both giant planets and old brown dwarfs.  Note that $\pert_{\rm

267:   max}\sim 1$ for massive brown dwarfs ($M_p/M_J \sim 80$).

268: Hereafter, we consider only cases with $\pert \ll 1$.

269: 

270: For orbital periods as short as $\simeq$1 day, tidal torques on the

271: star from a planetary companion are rather ineffective at altering the

272: stellar rotation rate \citep[e.g.,][]{Rasio1996}.  Therefore, as

273: already mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, we should not generally

274: expect the star to rotate synchronously with the orbit, and so there

275: is no frame in which the star appears static.  This holds when the

276: orbit is circular, and is obviously true when the there is a finite

277: eccentricity.  In fact, $\simeq$30\% of the known

278: exoplanets\footnote{\url{http://vo.obspm.fr/exoplanetes/encyclo/encycl.html}}

279: with $P_{\rm orb} < 10$\,days have eccentricities of $>$0.1. Small

280: variable distortions of the star from its equilibrium state, due to a

281: combination of asynchronous rotation and orbital eccentricity, should

282: be viewed as waves excited by the tidal force of the companion.  Our

283: task is to study such tidally forced stellar oscillations in the

284: linear domain in order to understand the corresponding lightcurves.

285: 

286: In order to greatly simplify the mathematical description of the

287: stellar oscillations, we assume that the star is nonrotating in the

288: inertial frame.  When the stellar rotation frequency is nonzero, but

289: much smaller than the tidal forcing frequency, the effect of rotation

290: is to introduce fine structure into the oscillation frequency

291: spectrum, and cause the oscillation eigenfunctions to be slightly

292: modified as a result of the Coriolis force \citep[for a 

293: discussion, see][]{Unno1989}.  Tidal pumping of a slowly rotating star

294: by an orbiting companion has a dominant period of $P_{\rm orb}/2$---a

295: few days in the cases of interest. By contrast, single solar-type

296: stars with ages $>$1\,Gyr tend to have rotation periods of $>$10 days

297: \citep[e.g.,][]{Skumanich1972,Pace2004}; the Sun has an equatorial

298: rotation period of $\simeq$25 days.  Slowly rotating stars with masses

299: of $\simeq$$1\msun$ are prime targets for {\em Kepler}, since they

300: exhibit low intrinsic variability. Based on this selection effect, and

301: the inability of tidal torques to spin up the star, our assumption of

302: vanishing stellar rotation seems generally justified.

303: 

304: The general framework for calculating the measurable flux modulations

305: associated with ellipsoidal stellar oscillations is as follows.  We

306: consider small perturbations to a spherical, nonrotating background

307: stellar model, such that fluid elements at equilibrium position

308: $\vec{x}$ are displaced in a Lagrangian fashion to position $\vec{x} +

309: \xivec$.  Variations in the measured flux from an oscillating star

310: arise from two physically distinct contributions

311: \citep[e.g.,][]{Dziembowski1977}: (1) changes in the shape of the star

312: due to radial fluid displacements $\xi_r=\xivec\cdot \vec{e}_r$, where

313: $\vec{e}_r$ is the radial unit vector, and (2) hot and cold spots

314: generated by local Lagrangian perturbations $\Delta F$ to the heat

315: flux.  Our main task in \S\S~\ref{sec:eqtide} and \ref{sec:nonad} is

316: to compute $\xi_r$ and $\Delta F$ according to the relevant physics.

317: 

318: Given the dependences of $\xi_r$ and $\Delta F$ on $(r,\theta,\phi)$,

319: it is straightforward to compute the time varying component of the

320: measured flux.  The flux\footnote{Our calculations concern the

321:   bolometric flux, although is relatively straightforward to modify

322:   the analysis for narrow-band measurements.} received from a star at

323: distance $D$ is \citep[e.g.,][]{Robinson1982}

324: %

325: \be

326: \fdisk & = &  

327: \frac{1}{D^2} \int dS\ 

328: \vec{n} \cdot \vec{n}_o \ F \ h(\vec{n} \cdot \vec{n}_o)

329: \ee

330: %

331: where $dS$ is an area element at the stellar photosphere, $F$ is the

332: net flux of radiation out of the surface element, $h$ is the

333: limb-darkening function, $\vec{n}$ and $\vec{n}_o$ are unit vectors

334: normal to the surface and toward the observer, respectively, and the

335: integration is over the visible stellar disk.  Vertical displacement

336: at the surface yields changes in $\fdisk$ through changes in surface

337: area and $\vec{n}\cdot \vec{n}_o$.  Following \citet{Dziembowski1977},

338: we expand $\xi_r$ and $\Delta F$ in spherical harmonics,

339: %

340: \be

341: \xi_r(r,\theta,\phi,t) & = & \sum_{\ell = 0}^\infty \sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell 

342: \xi_{r, \ell m}(r,t) Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi)~, \\

343: \Delta F(r,\theta,\phi,t) & = & \sum_{\ell = 0}^\infty \sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell

344: \Delta F_{\ell m}(r,t) Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi)~,

345: \ee

346: %

347: and carry out the appropriate linear expansions to obtain the

348: fractional variability

349: %

350: \be\label{eq:fdiskgen}

351: \frac{\delta\fdisk}{\fdisk} =

352: \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty

353: \left[ (2b_\ell - c_\ell) \frac{\xi_{r,\ell}^o}{R} + 

354: b_\ell \frac{\Delta F_\ell^o}{F}  \right]~.

355: \label{eq:dflux}

356: \ee

357: %

358: Here $\xi_{r, \ell}^o$ and $\Delta F_\ell^o$ are components evaluated

359: at the surface ($r = R$) and in the direction of the observer:

360: %

361: \be\label{eq:xirdelf_obs}

362: \frac{\xi_{r, \ell}^o}{R} & = &

363: \sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell \frac{\xi_{r, \ell m}(R,t)}{R} 

364: Y_{\ell m}(\theta_o,\phi_o)~, \\

365: \frac{\Delta F_\ell^o}{F} & = & 

366: \sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell \frac{\Delta F_{\ell m}(R,t)}{F} 

367: Y_{\ell m}(\theta_o,\phi_o)~.

368: \ee

369: %

370: The terms $b_\ell$ and $c_\ell$ are given by

371: %

372: \be

373: b_\ell =

374: \int_0^1 d\mu \mu\, P_\ell\, h~,~~

375: c_\ell = 

376: \int_0^1 d\mu (1-\mu^2)\frac{dP_\ell}{d\mu}

377: \left( h + \mu \frac{dh}{d\mu} \right)\ ,

378: \ee

379: % 

380: where $\mu = \vec{n}\cdot\vec{n}_o$, the $P_\ell(\mu)$ are ordinary

381: Legendre polynomials, and $h(\mu)$ is normalized such that $\int_0^1

382: d\mu \mu\,h = 1$.  The linear limb-darkening function is

383: %

384: \be\label{eq:limbdark}

385: h(\mu) = \frac{6}{(3-\gamma)}\big[ 1 - \gamma(1 - \mu)\big] ~;

386: \ee

387: %

388: more general nonlinear functions of $\mu$ \citep[e.g.,][]{Claret2000}

389: will not be considered here.  The classical Eddington limb-darkening

390: function is $h = 1 + 3\mu/2$ \citep[$\gamma = 3/5$;

391: e.g.,][]{Mihalas1970}.  Table~\ref{tab:ldterms} shows shows functional

392: forms and particular values of $b_\ell$ and $c_\ell$ for $\ell = 2$

393: and 3.

394: 

395: % -----------------------------------------------------------

396: 

397: \section{EQUILIBRIUM TIDE}

398: \label{sec:eqtide}

399: 

400: Vertical displacement of the stellar surface is often accurately

401: modeled by assuming that the tidally perturbed fluid remains in

402: hydrostatic balance. The cause and magnitude of the surface flux

403: perturbation is a more complicated affair.  In this section, we apply

404: a simple parameterization of the flux perturbation and obtain a

405: complete set of formulae for computing the ellipsoidal lightcurve.

406: Subsequent sections provide more detailed calculations.  In

407: particular, we show in \S~\ref{sec:thickconv} that stars with deep

408: convective envelopes (the majority of {\em Kepler} targets) have

409: surface flux variations that conform to the equilibrium-tide

410: approximation.

411:  

412: %

413: \input{tab1.tex}

414: % 

415:  

416: When the tidal forces on the stellar fluid change sufficiently slowly,

417: the star can stay very nearly in hydrostatic equilibrium.  If the net

418: acceleration required to balance the pressure gradient is derivable

419: from a potential, then equilibrium implies that a fluid element

420: remains on an equipotential surface.  Since we neglect stellar

421: rotation, there is no centrifugal force, and the total potential is

422: the sum of the gravitational potential $\varphi$ from the spherical

423: background stellar model and the perturbing tidal potential $U \sim

424: \pert\varphi \ll \varphi$.  For our analytic work, we neglect the

425: modification of $\varphi$ due to the tide.  In general, the Eulerian

426: variation $\delta\varphi$ should be added to $U$, as we do in our

427: numerical models (see \S~\ref{sec:numerical} and the Appendix); we

428: find that $|\delta\varphi|/|U| \sim 10^{-2}$.

429: 

430: In the absence of tidal forces, a given fluid element sits at

431: equilibrium position $\vec{x}$ with total potential

432: $\varphi(\vec{x})$.  Gentle inclusion of the tidal potential causes

433: the fluid element to move to position $\vec{x} + \xivec$ while

434: preserving the value of the total potential. This is expressed

435: mathematically by

436: %

437: \be

438: \varphi({\vec{x}})  & = & 

439: \varphi(\vec{x} + \xivec) + U(\vec{x} + \xivec,t) \nonumber \\

440: & = & \varphi(\vec{x}) + \xivec\cdot\grad\varphi + U(\vec{x},t) +

441: {\cal O}(\xi^2, \xi U)~.  \ee

442: %

443: We see that $\xivec\cdot\grad\varphi = \xi_r g$, where $g = GM_r/r^2$

444: is the background gravitational acceleration at mass coordinate $M_r$.

445: To first order, the radial displacement of the equilibrium tide is

446: \citep[see also][]{Goldreich1989}

447: %

448: \be\label{eq:eqtide}

449: \xi_r(\vec{x},t) & \simeq & - U(\vec{x},t)/g~,

450: \ee

451: %

452: which tells us the geometry of the star as a function of time.

453: 

454: The tidal potential within the star can be expanded as 

455: %

456: \be\label{eq:U}

457: U(r,\theta,\phi,t) = - \frac{GM_p}{d}

458: \sum_{\ell = 2}^\infty 

459: \left(\frac{r}{d}\right)^{\ell} P_\ell(\cos\psi)~,

460: \ee

461: %

462: where $\cos\psi = \sin\theta \cos(\phi_p-\phi)$.  There is no $\ell =

463: 1$ term, since this would give the acceleration of the star's center

464: of mass, which is already incorporated into the orbital dynamics.  The

465: angular expansion of $\xi_r$ follows immediately from

466: eq.~(\ref{eq:eqtide}):

467: %

468: \be\label{eq:xireqtide}

469: \frac{\xi_r(r,\theta,\phi,t)}{r} = \frac{M_p}{M_r}

470: \sum_{\ell = 2}^\infty 

471: \left(\frac{r}{d}\right)^{\ell+1} P_\ell(\cos\psi)~.

472: \ee

473: % 

474: In order to express $U$ and $\xi_r$ in spherical harmonics, we utilize

475: the addition theorem,

476: %

477: \be\label{eq:legendre}

478: P_\ell(\cos\psi) = 

479: \frac{4\pi}{2\ell+1}

480: \sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell 

481: Y_{\ell m}^*(\pi/2,\phi_p)\

482: Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi)~,

483: \ee

484: %

485: where ``$*$'' denotes the complex conjugate. Note that $Y_{\ell

486:   m}(\pi/2,\phi_p)$ is nonzero only when $\ell -m$ is even.  For the

487: dominant $\ell = 2$ components of $U$ and $\xi_r$, the surface values

488: of $U/\varphi$ and $\xi_r/R$ are $\sim$$\pert$, as expected.

489: 

490: From eqs.~(\ref{eq:xirdelf_obs}), (\ref{eq:xireqtide}), and

491: (\ref{eq:legendre}), the components $\xi_{r,\ell}^o/R$ of the surface

492: radial displacement toward the observer are immediately apparent.  As

493: we will see in \S~\ref{sec:nonad}, the computation of $\Delta F/F$ is,

494: in general, rather technical.  However, in the special case where the

495: stellar fluid responds adiabatically to a slowly varying tidal

496: potential, $\Delta F_\ell/F$ varies in phase with and in proportion to

497: $\xi_{r,\ell}/r$ in the linear approximation of the equilibrium tide.

498: Making this assumption, we write $\Delta F_\ell/F= -\lambda_\ell

499: \xi_{r,\ell}/R$ at the surface, where the $\lambda_\ell$ are real

500: constants that depend on the stellar structure (see

501: \S~\ref{sec:conv}).  We will see in \S~\ref{sec:vonzeipel} that

502: $\lambda_\ell = \ell + 2$ is a good first guess for radiative stars,

503: and so we might generally expect $\lambda_\ell$ to be positive and

504: ${\cal O}(\ell)$.

505: 

506: We now have the ingredients for the fractional variability

507: (eq.~[\ref{eq:fdiskgen}]), and we obtain

508: %

509: \be\label{eq:fdiskeq}

510: \frac{\delta \fdisk}{\fdisk} = 

511: \pert \sum_{\ell = 2}^\infty

512: \Bigg(\frac{R}{a}\Bigg)^{\ell - 2}

513: \Bigg(\frac{a}{d}\Bigg)^{\ell + 1}

514: f_\ell \ P_\ell (\cos\psi_o)~,

515: \ee

516: %

517: where $f_\ell = (2-\lambda_\ell)b_\ell - c_\ell$, and $\cos\psi_o =

518: \sin\theta_o\cos(\phi_p - \phi_o)$.  The $\ell = 2$ and 3 Legendre

519: polynomials can be expanded as

520: %

521: \begin{multline}\label{eq:P2}

522: P_2(\cos\psi_o) = 

523: \frac{1}{4}

524: \big[

525: -(3\cos^2 I - 1) \\

526: + 3\sin^2 I\ \cos 2(\phi_p - \phi_o)

527: \big]~,

528: \end{multline}

529: %

530: %

531: \begin{multline}\label{eq:P3}

532: P_3(\cos\psi_o) = 

533: \frac{1}{8}\sin I

534: \big[

535: -3(5\cos^2 I - 1)\cos (\phi_p - \phi_o) \\

536: + 5\sin^2 I\ \cos 3(\phi_p - \phi_o)

537: \big]~,

538: \end{multline}

539: %

540: where we have substituted $\theta_o = \pi - I$.  The Eddington

541: limb-darkening formula gives (see Table~\ref{tab:ldterms})

542: %

543: \be

544: f_2 = -\frac{13}{10}\left(1 + \frac{\lambda_2}{4}\right)~,~~

545: f_3 = -\frac{5}{8}\left(1 + \frac{\lambda_3}{10}\right)~.

546: \ee

547: %

548: It is important to note that $f_2<0$ when $\lambda_2 \geq 0$ (see

549: below).

550: 

551: In eq.~(\ref{eq:fdiskeq}), the orbital dynamics are described by the

552: evolution of $d$ and $\phi_p$ (see \S~\ref{sec:prelim}).  For a

553: circular orbit, we have $d = a$ and $\phi_p = \Omega t$, where $\Omega

554: = 2\pi/P_{\rm orb}$, and $t$ is the time since periastron (modulo

555: $P_{\rm orb}$).  Example lightcurves with $e = 0$, $\gamma = 3/5$,

556: $\lambda_\ell=0$, and $I = \pi/2$ are shown in

557: Fig.~\ref{fig:eqtide_shape} for $a/R = \{2, 4, 8, 16\}$.  When $R/a

558: \ll 1$, the $\ell = 2$ piece of $\delta\fdisk/\fdisk$ is a good

559: approximation, and the temporal flux variation approaches a pure

560: cosine with angular frequency $2\Omega$ (see eq.~[\ref{eq:P2}]).

561: Because $f_2 < 0$, the dominant $\ell = 2$ component of the

562: ellipsoidal variability has {\em minimum} light when tidal bulge is

563: aligned with the direction to the observer.  As $R/a$ increases, so

564: does the importance of $\ell >2$ terms and their extra harmonic

565: content, as seen in eq.~(\ref{eq:P3}) and Fig.~\ref{fig:eqtide_shape}.

566: 

567: Additional harmonics in $\delta\fdisk/\fdisk$ also result from a

568: finite eccentricity.  At the ${\cal O}(e)$ level, signals with

569: frequencies $\Omega$ and $3\Omega$, and amplitudes of $\sim$$\pert e$,

570: are present in the $\ell = 2$ component of $\delta\fdisk/\fdisk$,

571: which compete with the $\ell = 3$ piece when $e \sim R/a$.  Notice

572: that when $e > 0$ the flux is variable even when the orbit is viewed

573: face-on ($I = 0$ or $\pi$), by virtue of changes in $d^{-3} = 1+3

574: e\cos\Omega t + {\cal O}(e^2)$.  For $I = 0$, we see that

575: $P_3(\cos\psi_o)$ vanishes, leaving the largest contribution

576: $\delta\fdisk/\fdisk \simeq -1.5 \pert e f_2\cos(\Omega t)$.

577: 

578: 

579: %

580: \begin{figure}

581: \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig1.eps,angle = 0,width = \linewidth}}

582: \caption{ Disk-averaged flux variation (eq.~[\ref{eq:fdiskeq}]) for an

583:   edge-on circular orbit under the equilibrium-tide approximation

584:   (eqs.~[\ref{eq:dflux}] and [\ref{eq:xireqtide}]) with $\Delta F/F =

585:   0$ at the surface. The four curves correspond to $a/R=2$ (black),

586:   $4$ (red), $8$ (blue) and $16$ (green). In order to compare the

587:   shapes of the curves, $\delta\fdisk/\fdisk$ has been multiplied by

588:   $(a/R)^3(M/M_p)$.  As $a/R$ increases, higher harmonics decrease in

589:   strength and the lightcurve approaches a pure cosine with frequency

590:   $2/P_{\rm orb}$.  The tidal bulge closest to the companion points

591:   toward the observer at integer values of $t/P_{\rm orb}$.}

592:   \label{fig:eqtide_shape} 

593: \end{figure}

594: %

595: 

596: % -----------------------------------------------------------

597: 

598: \section{An Aside on von Zeipel's Theorem}

599: \label{sec:vonzeipel}

600: 

601: Our equilibrium calculation in the last section used the simple

602: prescription $\Delta F_\ell/F = - \lambda_\ell \xi_{r,\ell}/R$.  There

603: remains the question of what physics determines $\Delta F/F$.  A

604: common practice in empirical studies of close eclipsing

605: binaries---systems that tend to be nearly in tidal equilibrium---is to

606: use some variant of the \citet{vonZeipel1924} theorem, which was

607: originally formulated for purely radiative, strictly hydrostatic

608: stars.  In equilibrium, all the thermodynamic variables depend only on

609: the local value of the total potential $\Phi$.  Thus, the radiative

610: flux can be written as \citep[e.g.,][]{Hansen1994}

611: %

612: \be\label{eq:vonzeipel}

613: \vec{F} & \propto & - \frac{1}{\kappa \rho} \frac{dT^4}{d\Phi}

614: \grad \Phi~,

615: \ee

616: %

617: where $\rho$ is the mass density, $T$ is the effective temperature,

618: and $\kappa(\rho, T)$ is the opacity.  Equation~(\ref{eq:vonzeipel})

619: is the essence of von Zeipel's theorem, which says that the magnitude

620: $F$ of the radiative flux is proportional to the magnitude of the net

621: acceleration $A = |\grad\Phi|$.  When $\Phi = \varphi + U$ (see

622: \S~\ref{sec:eqtide}), we obtain  $A = g + \partial U/\partial r + 

623: {\cal O}(\xi^2)$, so that the Lagrangian flux

624: perturbation about equilibrium is

625: %

626: \be\label{eq:fluxvar}

627: \frac{\Delta F}{F} = \frac{\Delta A}{g} = 

628: \frac{\Delta g}{g} + \frac{1}{g}\frac{\partial U}{\partial r}~,

629: \ee

630: % 

631: where $\Delta g/g = -2\xi_r/r$, due to the change in radius at

632: approximately constant enclosed mass.  Substituting the

633: equilibrium-tide result $U = -\xi_r g$ into eq.~(\ref{eq:fluxvar}), we

634: obtain the compact expression $\Delta F/F = -\partial \xi_r/\partial

635: r$.  Using eq.~(\ref{eq:xireqtide}), we find

636: %

637: \be\label{eq:fluxvar2}

638: \frac{\Delta F_\ell}{F} = -(\ell + 2) \frac{\xi_{r,\ell}}{r}~,

639: \ee

640: %           

641: from which we identify $\lambda_\ell = \ell + 2$. 

642: 

643: Although the application of von Zeipel's theorem is instructive, the

644: underlying physical assumptions are inaccurate for slowly rotating 

645: main-sequence stars of mass 1.0--$1.6\msun$ with tidal forcing 

646: periods of days.  We are now led to investigate the general problem 

647: of forced nonadiabatic stellar oscillations.

648: 

649: % -----------------------------------------------------------

650: 

651: \section{FORCED NONADIABATIC OSCILLATIONS}

652: \label{sec:nonad}

653: 

654: % -----------------------------------------------------------

655: 

656: %

657: \begin{figure}

658: \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig2.eps,angle = 0,width = \linewidth}}

659: \caption{Important oscillations frequencies and time scales as a

660:   function of pressure for a $1\msun$ main-sequence star.  The four

661:   curves show the Brunt-V\"ais\"all\"a frequency $N$ (black), Lamb

662:   frequency $S_l$ (red; $\ell = 2$ is shown), inverse thermal time

663:   $t_{\rm th}^{-1}$ (blue), and inverse eddy turnover time

664:   $t^{-1}_{\rm ed}$ (green).  Large, real values of $N$ occur in the

665:   radiative core and very near the photosphere, while $N^2<0$ in the

666:   convective envelope.  Gravity waves propagate only where the angular

667:   frequency is below both $N$ and $L_\ell$.  The two horizontal lines

668:   delimit the range of tidal forcing frequencies of interest here.}

669:   \label{fig:prop_1.0msun}

670: \end{figure}

671: %

672: 

673: 

674: The equilibrium analysis ignores fluid inertia and the excitation of

675: the star's natural oscillation modes.  While this assumption may be

676: valid near the surface of the star, it does not hold deeper in the

677: interior.  Gravity waves ($g$-modes; restored by buoyancy) can

678: propagate in the radiative interiors of Sun-like stars with a range of

679: oscillation periods that includes the tidal forcing periods of

680: interest ($\la$3 days).  Tidal forcing of radiative regions may

681: produce substantial deviations from hydrostatic balance, as well as

682: large surface amplitudes of $\Delta F/F$, in particular if resonant

683: oscillations are excited.  This is especially relevant for

684: main-sequence stars of mass $M \ga 1.4$--$1.5\msun$ with mainly

685: radiative envelopes.  Less massive stars ($M \la 1.3$--$1.4\msun$)

686: have rather deep convective envelopes that can block information about

687: the dynamic interior from being conveyed to the surface.  Here we

688: investigate each of these regimes with both analytic estimates and

689: numerical models of oscillating stars.

690: 

691: Our calculations employ realistic models of 0.9--$1.6\msun$

692: main-sequence stars, constructed with the EZ stellar evolution code

693: \citep{Paxton2004}, a distilled and rewritten version of the program

694: originally created by Peter Eggleton.  We adopt Solar metallicity and

695: a convective mixing length of 1.6 times the pressure scale height.

696: All stars are evolved to an age when the core hydrogen abundance has

697: the Solar value of $X_H=0.35$.  Models with 199 radial grid points are

698: interpolated to yield $\ga$$10^4$ points in which the $g$-mode radial

699: wavelength is well resolved in the core.

700: 

701: %

702: \begin{figure}

703: \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig3.eps,angle = 0,width = \linewidth}}

704: \caption{ Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:prop_1.0msun}, but for a $1.6M_\odot$

705:   main-sequence star. Note two geometrically thin, relatively

706:   inefficient ($t_{\rm th} \sim t_{\rm ed}$) convection zones near the

707:   surface. The spike in $N$ near the center is at the edge of the

708:   convective core, and signals a steep gradient in the mean molecular

709:   weight.}

710:   \label{fig:prop_1.6msun}

711: \end{figure}

712: %

713: 

714: 

715: Figures~\ref{fig:prop_1.0msun} and \ref{fig:prop_1.6msun} illustrate

716: some of the differences between $1\msun$ and $1.6\msun$ stars, and

717: serve to introduce several important physical quantities used in the

718: remainder of this section.  The Lamb frequency,

719: %

720: \be\label{eq:Lamb}

721: S_\ell = [\ell(\ell + 1)]^{1/2}\frac{c_s}{r}~,

722: \ee

723: %

724: is the inverse of the horizontal sound-crossing time scale, where $c_s$ 

725: is the sound speed, and $[\ell(\ell + 1)]^{1/2}/r \equiv k_h$ is the 

726: horizontal wavenumber of the oscillation.  For fixed chemical 

727: composition, the squared Brunt-V\"ais\"all\"a frequency is

728: %

729: \be\label{eq:Brunt}

730: N^2 \simeq \frac{g}{H_p}(\nabla _{\rm ad} - \nabla)~,

731: \ee

732: %  

733: where $H_p = -(d\ln p/dr)^{-1} = p/(\rho g)$ is the pressure scale height,

734: and $\nabla = d\ln T/d \ln p$ is the temperature gradient\footnote{Do

735:   not confuse the temperature gradient $\nabla$ with the spatial

736:   gradient $\grad$ used in \S~\ref{sec:eqtide}.}  ($\nabla_{\rm ad}$

737: is the adiabatic value).  Radiative regions have $\nabla_{\rm ad} - \nabla 

738: > 0$ ($N^2 > 0$), and $N$ represents the frequency of buoyancy

739: oscillations.  In convection zones, $\nabla_{\rm ad} - \nabla < 0$ and

740: $N^2 < 0$, indicating that $g$-modes are evanescent.  When $N^2 < 0$,

741: the time scale

742: %

743: \be\label{eq:teddy} 

744: t_{\rm ed} \sim  |N|^{-1}~, 

745: \ee

746: % 

747: approximates the turnover time of convective motions (for details and

748: modifications for radiative losses, see, e.g., Kippenhahn \& Weigert

749: 1990).  A shell of radius $r$, thickness $H_p$ (size of the largest

750: convective eddies), and radiative luminosity $L$ cools on the thermal

751: time scale

752: %

753: \be\label{eq:tth}

754: t_{\rm th} = \frac{4\pi r^2 H_p \rho C_p T}{L}~,

755: \ee

756: %

757: where $C_p$ is the specific heat at constant pressure.     

758: 

759: The $1\msun$ model (Fig.~\ref{fig:prop_1.0msun}) has one deep

760: convection zone with $t_{\rm ed} \ll t_{\rm th}$ over most of the

761: region, indicating that convection very efficiently transports energy

762: and causes the zone to be essentially isentropic.  By consrast, the

763: $1.6\msun$ star (Fig.~\ref{fig:prop_1.6msun}) has two thin surface

764: convection zones with $t_{\rm ed} \sim t_{\rm th}$, and thus the

765: radiative and convective fluxes are comparable.  Gravity waves with

766: frequency $\omega$ propagate only in radiative regions where $\omega <

767: N$ and $\omega < S_\ell$.  For the $1\msun$ star, heat and entropy

768: generated by $g$-modes in the radiative interior may be strongly

769: mitigated owing to the long thermal time at the base of the deep

770: convection zone.  On the other hand, $g$-modes in a $1.6\msun$ star

771: can propagate very near the surface, producing qualitatively different

772: results.

773: 

774: We now go on to elucidate the physics of the flux perturbations.  All

775: the analytic and numerical work that follows assumes that the tidal

776: potential has the generic form $U \propto r^\ell Y_{\ell m}(\theta,

777: \phi) \exp (-i\omega t)$ with forcing frequency $\omega$.

778: 

779: %

780: \begin{figure}

781: \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig4.eps,angle = 0,width = \linewidth}}

782: \caption{Eddy turnover time at base of the convective envelope versus

783:   stellar age for a range of stellar masses.}

784: \label{fig:ted_vs_age}

785: \end{figure}

786: %

787: 

788: % -----------------------------------------------------------

789: 

790: \subsection{ Heat Transfer in a Convective Envelope }

791: \label{sec:conv}

792: 

793: Calculation of the perturbed convective flux in oscillating stars is a

794: thorny issue.  For the purposes of our study, we argue for an

795: especially simple treatment that draws from previous work on this

796: subject.  Specifically, we modify the prescription of Brickhill (1983,

797: 1990; see also Goldreich \& Wu 1999a,b), which was originally applied

798: to white-dwarf pulsations, into a form appropriate for the tidal flow

799: problem.

800: 

801: In the mixing-length theory of convection, heat is transported by

802: eddies with a spectrum of sizes $l\la H_p$, speeds $v_l$, and turnover

803: times $t_{\rm ed}(l) = l/v_l$.  The Kolmogorov scalings for turbulent

804: motions give $v_l \propto l^{1/3}$, $t_{\rm ed} \propto l^{2/3}$, and

805: an energy density per unit mixing length interval $\propto$$l^{-1/3}$.

806: We see that in the unperturbed star most of the convective energy flux

807: ($\propto$$v_l^3$ at scale $l$) is carried by the largest eddies ($l

808: \sim H_p$).  Convection efficiently transports energy when the

809: radiative thermal time scale associated with the dominant eddies is

810: much longer than $t_{\rm ed}$.  Alternatively, efficient convection

811: implies that the gradient of the specific entropy $s$ is small; i.e.,

812: $d\ln s/d \ln p \ll 1$.  If all the convective energy flux $F$ is

813: carried by eddies with mixing length $l$, the flux and entropy

814: gradient are related by \citep[e.g.,][]{Kippenhahn1990}

815: %

816: \be\label{eq:dsdlnp}

817: \frac{1}{C_p}\frac{ds}{d\ln p}(l) & = & \left( \nabla -

818:   \nabla_{\rm ad} \right) \sim \left[ \frac{F}{p c_s} \left(

819:     \frac{H_p}{l} \right)^2 \right]^{2/3}~.

820: \ee

821: %       

822: Efficient convection enforces $\nabla - \nabla_{\rm ad}\ll 1$, which

823: implies $d\ln s/d \ln p \ll 1$, since $s \ga C_p$ in the convective

824: regions of our background models.

825: 

826: %

827: \begin{figure}

828:  \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig5.eps,angle = 0,width = \linewidth}}

829:  \caption{Thermal time at the base of the convection envelope versus

830:    stellar age for a range of stellar masses.}

831:  \label{fig:tth_vs_age}

832: \end{figure}

833: %

834: 

835: Gravity waves with the tidal forcing frequency $\omega$ are excited in

836: the radiative region below the convection zone.  Convective eddies can

837: transport heat during a forcing period only if $t_{\rm ed}< 2\pi/\omega$

838: \citep[e.g.,][]{Brickhill1990,Goldreich1999b}.  Inspection of Fig.~

839: \ref{fig:prop_1.0msun} shows that in the $1\msun$ model, the largest

840: eddies have $t_{\rm ed} \simeq 20 (p/p_{\rm bcz})^{0.5}$\,days, where

841: $p_{\rm bcz} \simeq 10^{13.5}\ {\rm dyne\ cm^{-2}}$ is the pressure at

842: the base of convection zone.  Using the Kolmogorov scaling, the

843: ``resonant'' length $l_{\rm res}$ for which $\omega t_{\rm ed}/2\pi =

844: 1$ is

845: %

846: \be\label{eq:lres}

847: \frac{l_{\rm res}}{H_p} &

848: \sim & 10^{-2}\ \left( \frac{2\pi/\omega}{1\ {\rm day}} \right)^{3/2}

849: \left( \frac{p_{\rm bcz}}{p} \right)^{3/4}~,

850: \ee 

851: %

852: which is $>$1 for all periods $2\pi/\omega > 1$\,day when $p \la

853: 10^{12} \ {\rm dyne\ cm^{-2}}$, which still encompasses much of the

854: convection zone.  Now imagine the situation where all the

855: convective flux is carried by eddies of size $\la$$l_{\rm res}$.  The

856: entropy gradient for this range of mixing lengths is

857: %

858: \be\label{eq:entropyres}

859:  \frac{1}{C_p} \frac{ds}{d\ln p}(l_{\rm res})

860: & \sim & 10^{-3} 

861: \left(\frac{2\pi/\omega}{1\ {\rm day}}\right)^{-1}

862:  \left( \frac{p}{p_{\rm bcz}} \right)~,

863: \ee 

864: %

865: where we have adopted $F/pc_s \sim 10^{-8}$ at the base of the

866: convection zone, as indicated by our $1\msun$ stellar model.

867: 

868: These arguments suggest that convection is efficient in a $1\msun$

869: star at the forcing periods of interest even if small ``resonant''

870: eddies carry all the energy flux near the base of the convection zone.

871: At larger radii, but not too near the photosphere, convection is both

872: efficient and rapid ($\omega t_{\rm ed}/2\pi < 1$) over the full

873: spectrum of eddies.  Rapid convection on all scales $l \la H_p$

874: enforces isentropy in the convection zone, such that $s$ and its

875: Lagrangian perturbation $\Delta s$ are nearly constant, as in the

876: \citet{Brickhill1983,Brickhill1990} picture.  While convection at the

877: base is rapid only on small scales, it is still highly efficient,

878: which yields $s \simeq \textrm{constant}$ and further indicates that

879: $\Delta s/C_p$ is small in magnitude, as we demonstrate in

880: \S~\ref{sec:thickconv}.

881: 

882: As the stellar mass increases, the convection zone thins and

883: $t_{\rm ed}$ at the base decreases (see Figs.~\ref{fig:prop_1.6msun}

884: and \ref{fig:ted_vs_age}).  Rapid convection holds over the

885: bulk of the convection zone for masses

886: $\ga$$1\msun$.  However, the assumption that the convection is

887: efficient starts to break down at 1.4--$1.5\msun$, since $t_{\rm th}

888: \sim t_{\rm ed}$ at the base (see

889: Figs.~\ref{fig:prop_1.6msun} and \ref{fig:tth_vs_age}).  For the full

890: range of stellar masses considered here, we assume that $s$ and

891: $\Delta s$ are constant in convection zones.  

892: 

893: % -----------------------------------------------------------

894: 

895: \subsection{Analytic Result for Thick Convection Zones}

896: \label{sec:thickconv}

897: 

898: In a fully convective star, the emergent luminosity is determined

899: entirely by the surface boundary conditions.  Under our assumption

900: that $\Delta s$ is constant in the convection zone, the perturbed

901: luminosity is likewise a function only of the boundary conditions.

902: Stars of mass $\la$1.3--$1.4\msun$ have long thermal times ($\omega

903: t_{\rm th} \gg 1$) at the top of the interior radiative region (see

904: Fig. \ref{fig:tth_vs_age}), so that the flux perturbation $\Delta F$

905: is approximately the ``quasi-adiabatic'' value, derived by ignoring

906: $\Delta s \propto (\omega t_{\rm th})^{-1}$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:y5}).  We

907: assume efficient convection continues to just below the photosphere.

908: 

909: At the photosphere, we adopt the usual Stefan-Boltzmann relation, $F =

910: \sigma T^4$, and the hydrostatic condition, $p\kappa/A=2/3$, where $A$

911: is the total acceleration defined in \S~\ref{sec:vonzeipel}, and 2/3

912: is the photospheric optical depth.  Taking the photosphere to define

913: the stellar surface, we compute the Lagrangian perturbations,

914: %

915: \be\label{eq:dphotf}

916: \frac{\Delta F}{F} = 4\frac{\Delta T}{T}~,

917: \ee

918: %

919: and 

920: %

921: \be\label{eq:dphotp} 

922: \frac{\Delta p}{p} - \frac{\Delta A}{g} + \frac{\Delta \kappa}{\kappa} = 0~.

923: \ee

924: %

925: Using $s$ and $p$ as our independent thermodynamic variables, we write

926: $\Delta \kappa/\kappa=\kappa_{\rm ad}\Delta p/p + \kappa_s \Delta

927: s/C_p$ and $\Delta T/T=\Delta s/C_p + \nabla_{\rm ad}\Delta p/p$.

928: In our numerical work (see \S~\ref{sec:numerical}), we self-consistently compute the perturbation $\Delta A$ to the effective surface gravity, in order to follow resonant oscillations, where the equilibrium-tide result fails.  However, we are now addressing non-resonant forcing, for which 

929: we use the equilibrium-tide approximation at the surface, giving

930: $\Delta A/g=-\partial \xi_r/\partial r$ (see \S~\ref{sec:vonzeipel}).

931: We now have

932: %

933: \be

934: \frac{\Delta p}{p} & = & - \left(\frac{\kappa_s \Delta s/C_p + 

935: \partial\xi_r/\partial r}{1+\kappa_{\rm ad}} \right)~,

936: \ee

937: %

938: and upon substitution, 

939: %

940: \be\label{eq:surfacedf}

941: \frac{\Delta F}{F} = 

942:  4 \left( \frac{1 + \kappa_{\rm ad}- \nabla_{\rm ad} \kappa_s}{1 + \kappa_{\rm ad}} \right)

943:   \frac{\Delta s}{C_p}

944: - \frac{4\nabla_{\rm ad}}{1 + \kappa_{\rm ad}} \frac{\partial\xi_r}{\partial r}~.

945: \ee

946: %

947: Equation (\ref{eq:surfacedf}) differs from \citet{Goldreich1999a} in

948: that we retain the gravity perturbation in eq.~(\ref{eq:dphotp}),

949: whereas they consider a constant-gravity atmosphere (and no tidal

950: perturbation).  For $g$-modes in white dwarfs, the interesting region

951: is near the surface and the motion is mainly horizontal, so that

952: $\Delta A = \Delta g = 0$ is a good approximation. Since the

953: equilibrium tide has large vertical motions, the $\Delta A$ term must

954: be retained.

955: 

956: The luminosity change across the convection zone is derived from the

957: entropy equation (eq.~[\ref{eq:y6}]).  If we ignore horizontal flux

958: perturbations (set $\ell = 0$ in eq.~[\ref{eq:y6}]) and energy

959: generation, the equation for the luminosity perturbation $\Delta

960: L/L=2\xi_r/r + \Delta F/F$ is

961: %

962: \be\label{eq:entropy}

963: \frac{d(\Delta L/L)}{dM_r} & = & i\omega T \Delta s/L~.

964: \ee

965: %

966: Integrating over the convection zone with constant $\Delta s$, we

967: obtain

968: %

969: \be\label{eq:ldiff}

970: \frac{\Delta L_{\rm ph}}{L} - \frac{\Delta L_{\rm bcz}}{L} = 

971: i\omega \Delta s \int_{\rm cz} dM_r T/L~, 

972: \ee

973: %

974: where the subscript ``ph'' refers to the photosphere.  We define

975: $t_{\rm cz} = C_{p,{\rm ph}} \int_{\rm cz} dM_r T/L$ to be the mean

976: thermal time of the convection zone, so that the right-hand side of

977: eq.~(\ref{eq:ldiff}) is $i\omega t_{\rm cz} \Delta s/C_{p,{\rm ph}}$.

978: 

979: Figure~\ref{fig:tth_vs_age} shows that the thermal time at the base of

980: the convection zone (of order $t_{\rm cz}$) for $M \la 1.3\msun$ is

981: orders of magnitude longer than the forcing periods of 1--10\,days.

982: Insofar as $|\Delta L|/L \sim |\xi_r|/r$ at any location in the star

983: (i.e., if resonances are neglected), we see that

984: $(|\xi_r|/r)^{-1}|\Delta s|/C_p \sim (\omega t_{\rm cz})^{-1} \ll 1$

985: in stars with deep convective envelopes.  In this limit,

986: eq.~(\ref{eq:surfacedf}) becomes

987: %

988: \be\label{eq:simplesurfacedf}

989: \frac{\Delta F}{F} \simeq

990: - \frac{4\nabla_{\rm ad}}{1 + \kappa_{\rm ad}} 

991: \frac{\partial\xi_r}{\partial r}~.

992: \ee

993: %

994: If we had set $\Delta A = 0$, the amplitude of the photospheric flux

995: perturbation would have been $\sim$$|\Delta s|/C_p$ rather than the

996: much larger value $\sim$$|\xi_r|/R$.

997: 

998: Photospheric flux perturbations in tidally forced solar-type stars

999: with thick convective envelopes arise mainly from changes in the local

1000: effective gravity.  This statement is reminiscent of, but physically

1001: distinct from, von Zeipel's theorem (eqs.~[\ref{eq:fluxvar}] and

1002: [\ref{eq:fluxvar2}]).  We have recovered our equilibrium-tide scaling,

1003: $\Delta F_\ell/F = -\lambda_\ell \xi_{r,\ell}/R$, where

1004: eq.~(\ref{eq:simplesurfacedf}) gives

1005: %

1006: \be\label{eq:lambda}

1007: \lambda_\ell = 4(\ell + 2) 

1008: \frac{\nabla_{\rm ad}}{1 + \kappa_{\rm ad}}~.

1009: \ee

1010: %       

1011: For $M = 1.0$--$1.4\msun$, we find $\lambda_2 \simeq 1.9$--1.1.  These

1012: estimates neglect resonant excitation of $g$-modes, a point

1013: addressed in \S~\ref{sec:numerical}.

1014:  

1015: % -----------------------------------------------------------

1016: 

1017: \subsection{ Analytic Result for Radiative Envelopes }

1018: \label{sec:radiative}

1019: 

1020: As the stellar mass increases beyond $1.4\msun$, the outer convective

1021: region thins and sits close to the surface, where $t_{\rm ed} \sim

1022: t_{\rm th}$.  Figure~\ref{fig:prop_1.6msun} shows that the $1.6\msun$

1023: model has two thin, inefficient surface convection zones, as well as a

1024: convective core.  Radiative energy transport is important throughout

1025: the envelopes of these more massive stars.  We now consider the

1026: idealized case of a completely radiative envelope, and obtain an

1027: analytic approximation for $\Delta L/L$ at the surface.

1028: 

1029: Near the surface of a radiative star, we have $H_p/r \ll 1$, $4\pi r^3

1030: \rho /M_r \ll 1$, and $\omega^2 r/g \ll 1$ for $2\pi/\omega =

1031: 1$--10\,days.  Under these conditions, the quasi-adiabatic luminosity

1032: perturbation becomes \citep[e.g.,][]{Unno1989}

1033: %

1034: \be

1035: \frac{\Delta L_{\rm qad}}{L} \simeq 

1036: - \zeta \frac{\Delta p}{p} 

1037:  + \frac{gk_h^2H_p}{\omega^2} 

1038:  \left( \frac{\nabla_{\rm ad}}{\nabla} - 1 \right)

1039:  \left( \frac{\Delta p}{p}+ 

1040: \frac{\xi_r-\xi_{r,\rm eq}}{H_p} \right) \nonumber \\

1041: \label{eq:qaddl}

1042: \ee

1043: %

1044: where 

1045: %

1046: \be

1047: \zeta=\kappa_{\rm ad} - 4\nabla_{\rm ad} + \frac{\nabla_{\rm ad}}{\nabla}

1048: - \frac{d\nabla_{\rm ad}}{d\ln T}~,

1049: \ee

1050: %

1051: and $\xi_{r,\rm eq}$ is the equilibrium-tide radial displacement

1052: (eq.~[\ref{eq:eqtide}]).  Nonzero values of $\Delta p/p$ and $(\xi_r -

1053: \xi_{r,{\rm eq}})/H_p$ indicate deviations from hydrostatic

1054: equilibrium.  Care must be taken with these terms, because the

1055: denominators $p$ and $H_p$ become very small close to the surface.

1056: 

1057: With the help of the Appendix, we define the variables

1058: %

1059: \be

1060: \alpha & = & y_1-y_2+y_3=

1061: -\frac{H_p}{r}\frac{\Delta p}{p}~, \\

1062: \beta & = & y_2+\frac{U}{gr}=

1063: \frac{H_p}{r}\frac{\Delta p}{p} + \frac{\xi_r-\xi_{r,\rm eq}}{r}~,

1064: \ee

1065: %

1066: which satisfy the differential equations

1067: %

1068: \be\label{eq:dalphadr}

1069: \frac{d\alpha}{d r} & \simeq & - \frac{d\ln \rho}{d r} \alpha

1070: + \frac{gk_h^2}{\omega^2} \beta + (\ell+4)\frac{U}{gr^2}~, \\

1071: \frac{d\beta}{d r} & = & - \frac{N^2}{g} \alpha + \frac{\beta}{r}~.

1072: \ee

1073: %

1074: When $\omega^2 \ll gk_h^2 H_p$, these equations produce the $g$-mode

1075: dispersion relation $k_r^2=k_h^2N^2/\omega^2$ (in the limit

1076: $k_r^2/k_h^2 \ll 1$) for radial wavenumber $k_r$. For these

1077: propagating waves, the surface amplitudes of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are

1078: determined at the core radiative-convective boundary, where $g$-modes

1079: are driven \citep[e.g.,][]{Goldreich1989}.  On the other hand, when

1080: $\omega^2 \gg g k_h^2 H_p$, the $g$-modes are evanescent

1081: \citep[see][]{Unno1989} and we neglect the term $gk_h^2\beta/\omega^2$

1082: in eq.~(\ref{eq:dalphadr}).  This limit yields the approximate

1083: solution $\alpha \simeq - (\ell+4)(H_p U/gR^2)$, or $\Delta p/p \simeq

1084: (4+\ell)U/gR$.  In this case, $\Delta p/p$ is not small compared to

1085: the fractional fluid displacement, and thus the equilibrium-tide

1086: approximation loses validity.

1087: 

1088: From our stellar models, we find that the evanescent regime

1089: corresponds to forcing periods of $\la$4--8\,days for $M =

1090: 1$--$1.6\msun$, most of the range of interest.  The high-frequency

1091: limit of eq.~(\ref{eq:qaddl}) is

1092: %

1093: \be\label{eq:dlqadapprox}

1094: \frac{\Delta L_{\rm qad}}{L} \simeq -\zeta (\ell+ 4)\ \frac{U}{gR}~.

1095: \ee

1096: %

1097: This relation should be evaluated at the layer where $\omega t_{\rm

1098:   th} \simeq 1$, above which the luminosity effectively ``freezes

1099: out.''  Figure \ref{fig:radiativeflux} shows the quasi-adiabic flux

1100: perturbation $\Delta F_{\rm qad}/F=\Delta L_{\rm qad}/L-2\xi_r/R$,

1101: evaluated where $\omega t_{\rm th}=1$, for a range of forcing periods

1102: and $M = 1.5$--$1.7\msun$. Note that $|\Delta F/F|$ can be an order of

1103: magnitude larger than $|U|/gR$, because of the rather large values of

1104: $|\zeta|(\ell + 4)$ for $\ell \geq 2$.  Much larger perturbations are

1105: possible when $g$-modes are resonantly excited in a radiative star, as

1106: we discuss in the next section.

1107: 

1108: We must point out that the quasi-adiabatic approximation is

1109: technically inappropriate when $\omega t_{\rm th} \sim 1$.

1110: Equation~(\ref{eq:dlqadapprox}) should be viewed as an estimate of the

1111: modulus of the luminosity perturbation at the surface.  If, for

1112: instance, $|\Delta s|/C_p \ga |U|/gR$ where $\omega t_{\rm th} \sim

1113: 1$, then $\Delta L/L$ at the surface will have a substantial imaginary

1114: part (see eq.~[\ref{eq:entropy}]).  This is what we find in the

1115: numerical calculations summarized in the next section.

1116: 

1117: %

1118: \begin{figure}

1119: \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig6.eps,angle = 0,width = \linewidth}}

1120: \caption{ Ratio of surface Lagrangian flux perturbation $\Delta F/F$

1121:   to equilibrium-tide displacement $-U/gR$ for a range of forcing

1122:   periods in the limit where surface $g$-modes are evanescent.  The

1123:   flux is evaluated at the location where $\omega t_{\rm th} = 1$.

1124:   Dashed, solid, and dotted curves correspond to $M=1.5$, 1.6, and

1125:   $1.7\msun$, respectively.} \label{fig:radiativeflux}

1126: \end{figure}

1127: %

1128: 

1129: % -----------------------------------------------------------

1130: 

1131: \subsection{ Numerical Examples }

1132: \label{sec:numerical}

1133: 

1134: %

1135: \begin{figure*}

1136: \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig7.eps,angle = 0,width = 1.\linewidth}}

1137: \caption{Responses of tidally forced $1\msun$ and $1.6\msun$

1138:   main-sequence stars.  Black, red, blue, and green curves denote,

1139:   respectively, the logarithms of $\xi_r/r$, $(\delta p+\rho \delta

1140:   \varphi)/\rho g r$, $\Delta s/C_p$, and $\Delta L/L$.  Solid

1141:   (dashed) curves show the real (imaginary) parts.  The tidal

1142:   potential has been scaled so that $\xi_r/R = 1$ corresponds to the

1143:   equilibrium-tide value.  The four panels show the following: (a)

1144:   non-resonant response of a $1\msun$ star tidally forced at a period

1145:   of $2\pi/\omega \simeq 2.91\,{\rm day}$; (b) resonant response of a

1146:   $1\msun$ star with $2\pi/\omega \simeq 1.00\,{\rm day}$; (c)

1147:   non-resonant response of a $1.6\msun$ star with $2\pi/\omega \simeq

1148:   3.00\,{\rm day}$; (d) resonant response of a $1.6\msun$ star with

1149:   $2\pi/\omega \simeq 1.02\,{\rm day}$}

1150:   \label{fig:allvsdepth}

1151: \end{figure*}

1152: %

1153: 

1154: 

1155: Here we show solutions of the perturbed mass, momentum, and energy

1156: equations that describe linear, nonadiabatic oscillations of a star

1157: subject to a varying tidal force.  The equations listed in the

1158: Appendix are the same as in \citet{Unno1989} for radiative

1159: regions, but augmented to include the tidal acceleration.  

1160: In convection zones, we apply the prescription $\Delta s =

1161: \textrm{constant}$ based on our conclusions in \S~\ref{sec:conv}.

1162: Figure~\ref{fig:allvsdepth} summarizes how the interiors of $1\msun$

1163: and $1.6\msun$ stars respond to resonant and non-resonant tidal

1164: forcing.  The tidal potential has been scaled so that $\xi_r/R = 1$

1165: corresponds to the equilibrium-tide surface displacement.

1166: 

1167: For our $1\msun$ model, the non-resonant response to a forcing period

1168: of $\simeq$3\,days is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}a.  We see

1169: that $\xi_r/R$ matches the equilibrium-tide result at the surface; the

1170: imaginary piece is completely negligible.  We also find that our

1171: approximation for $\Delta F/F$ at the surface

1172: (eq.~[\ref{eq:simplesurfacedf}]) works very well.  A factor of

1173: $\sim$10 decay in $|\Delta L|/L$ occurred in order for $|\Delta F|/F

1174: \sim \xi_r/R$ at the surface.  Variation of $\Delta s/C_p$ in the

1175: convection zone ($\log [p/(GM^2/R^4)] > -2.5$) is due to changes in

1176: $C_p$.  In the radiative interior, the oscillations are caused by most

1177: nearly resonant $g$-modes, whose amplitudes rise rapidly as the core

1178: is approached, due to conservation of wave luminosity.  We have

1179: checked that the quasi-adiabatic approximation of $\Delta L/L$ is

1180: valid in the radiative region; the ratio of the real and imaginary

1181: parts is found to be roughly constant for the ingoing gravity-wave

1182: \citep[see also][]{Zahn1977}.

1183: 

1184: In order to model the resonant response of a $1\msun$ star, we tuned

1185: the forcing period to $\simeq$1\,day (see Figs.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}b

1186: and \ref{fig:xirdf_magphase_env_1.0msun}).  At the surface, both

1187: $\xi_r$ and $\Delta L$ have dominant imaginary parts, due to the short

1188: radial wavelength of the $g$-mode compared to the equilibrium-tide

1189: fluid displacement.  The entropy at the base of the convection zone is

1190: very strongly perturbed in comparison to the non-resonant case, but

1191: $\Delta L$ is still damped by orders of magnitude as the surface is

1192: approached.

1193: 

1194: Figure \ref{fig:xirdf_magphase_env_1.0msun} shows the surface values

1195: of the complex modulus and phase of $\xi_r/R$ and $\Delta F/F$ versus

1196: forcing period.  The phase is $\tan^{-1}(\textrm{Imaginary/Real}) \in

1197: (-\pi, \pi)$.  Solid lines connect points halfway between $g$-mode

1198: resonant periods.  We find that the equilibrium-tide approximation

1199: given by eqs.~(\ref{eq:eqtide}) and (\ref{eq:simplesurfacedf}) is

1200: excellent for non-resonant forcing.  Dashed curves give the maximum

1201: and minimum values that occur on resonance.  One example of a

1202: resonance is shown in the insets.  Resonant forcing at periods of

1203: $<$2\,days yields surface values of $\xi_r/R$ and $\Delta F/F$ that

1204: differ substantially from the equilibrium-tide results.  However, the

1205: ratio of resonance width to the spacing between adjacent resonances is

1206: $\sim$$10^{-4}$, making resonant forcing very unlikely.  It is

1207: noteworthy that at forcing periods of $>$2\,days, the equilibrium-tide

1208: result holds extremely well even when precisely on a resonance.  As

1209: explained by Zahn (1975), the resonant response can be considered as

1210: the sum of the equilibrium tide and the most nearly resonant wave.  As

1211: the period increases, the $g$-mode radial wavelength decreases,

1212: resulting in a reduction of the overlap integral for the mode and the

1213: tidal force, which in turn gives a decreased amplitude of the wave

1214: component relative to the equilibrium tide.

1215: 

1216: The non-resonant response of the $1.6\msun$ star is shown in

1217: Fig.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}c.  We see that the equilibrium-tide result

1218: provides a good match to $\xi_r/R$.  Our estimate for the modulus of

1219: the radiative luminosity perturbation in the evanescent limit

1220: (eq.~[\ref{eq:dlqadapprox}]) agrees reasonably well with what is in

1221: Fig.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}c.  We also see that $\Delta L/L$ does

1222: roughly ``freeze-out'' when $\omega t_{\rm th} \simeq 1$, just below

1223: the base of the convection zone at $\log p/(GM^2/R^4) \simeq -9$ (see

1224: Fig.~\ref{fig:prop_1.6msun}).  Our expectations in

1225: \S~\ref{sec:radiative} regarding the imaginary part of $\Delta L/L$

1226: are borne out in Fig.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}c

1227: 

1228: A resonantly excited $1.6\msun$ star exhibits huge surface flux

1229: perturbations, radial displacements, and phase lags, as seen in

1230: Fig.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}d.  In

1231: Fig.~\ref{fig:xirdf_mag_point_1.6msun}, surface values of $|\xi_r|/R$

1232: and $|\Delta F|/F$ are plotted as a function of forcing period, where

1233: we have taken care to resolve resonances.  Resonant amplitudes vary

1234: non-monotonically with period, in contrast to the smooth behavior of

1235: the $1\msun$ star (Fig.~\ref{fig:xirdf_magphase_env_1.0msun}).

1236: Although we do not show the results here, similar plots for masses

1237: between $1\msun$ and $1.6\msun$ show progressively more structure as

1238: the mass increases.  The cause of this irregularity is not clear, but

1239: may have to do with the two thin surface convection zones changing the

1240: overlap of successive $g$-modes with the tidal force.

1241: 

1242: %

1243: \begin{figure}

1244: \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig8.eps,angle = 0,width = \linewidth}}

1245: \caption{ Surface radial displacement and Lagrangian flux perturbation

1246:   versus forcing period for a $1.0M_\odot$ star. Solid lines connect

1247:   points halfway between resonant $g$-mode periods, while dashed

1248:   curves give the maximum and minimum values found on resonance.  The

1249:   equilibrium-tide approximation is extremely good, except when the

1250:   forcing period is $<$2\,days and resonant.}

1251: \label{fig:xirdf_magphase_env_1.0msun}

1252: \end{figure}

1253: %

1254: 

1255: % -----------------------------------------------------------

1256: 

1257: \section{SUMMARY}

1258: \label{sec:summary}

1259: 

1260: We have investigated in detail the ellipsoidal oscillations of

1261: 0.9--$1.6\msun$ main-sequence stars induced by substellar companions.

1262: Classical models of ellipsoidal variability

1263: \citep[e.g.,][]{Wilson1994} are built on the assumption of hydrostatic

1264: balance in a frame corotating with the binary orbit.  This approach is

1265: justified in the context of short-period ($P_{\rm orb} \la 10$\,days)

1266: binaries containing two stars of comparable mass, where tidal

1267: dissipation circularizes the orbits and synchronizes the stellar spins

1268: with the orbital frequency.  However, when the companion has a very

1269: low mass, we cannot assume that the binary is in complete tidal

1270: equilibrium; in fact, this state may be unattainable (see

1271: \S~\ref{sec:prelim}).  In this case, one must, in general, appeal to a

1272: dynamical description of the tidal interaction.  A substellar

1273: companion with $P_{\rm orb} \ga 1$\,day raises tides on the star that

1274: are a small fraction of the stellar radius (see

1275: eq.~[\ref{eq:tidescale}]), permitting a linear analysis of the stellar

1276: oscillations.

1277: 

1278: While the root of our study is a dynamical treatment of stellar tidal

1279: perturbations, the equilibrium-tide approximation does have an

1280: important realm of validity (see below).  For this reason, we derived

1281: in \S~\ref{sec:eqtide} a general expression (eq.~[\ref{eq:fdiskeq}])

1282: for the measurable flux variation of a star that remains in

1283: hydrostatic equilibrium under the influence of a small external tidal

1284: force.  This formula (1) assumes that the local perturbation to the

1285: energy flux at the stellar surface is proportional to and in phase

1286: with the equilibrium-tide radial fluid displacement at each angular

1287: order $\ell$ (eq.~[\ref{eq:eqtide}]), (2) neglects stellar rotation,

1288: and (3) applies to inclined and eccentric orbits.  As expected, the

1289: fractional amplitude of the modulation is $\sim$$\pert \equiv

1290: (M_p/M)(R/a)^3$ for small eccentricities and $I = 90^\circ$, or

1291: $\sim$$10^{-5} (M_p/M_J)(P_{\rm orb}/1\,{\rm day})^{-2}$ for a star

1292: like the Sun (see \S~\ref{sec:prelim}).

1293: 

1294: %

1295: \begin{figure}

1296: \centerline{\epsfig{file = fig9.eps,angle = 0,width = \linewidth}}

1297: \caption{ Surface radial displacement and Lagrangian flux perturbation

1298:   versus forcing period for a $1.6M_\odot$ star.  Curves connect

1299:   evenly spaced points away from resonances, with finer spacing near

1300:   resonance periods.}

1301: \label{fig:xirdf_mag_point_1.6msun}

1302: \end{figure}

1303: %

1304: 

1305: A common practice is to use von Zeipel's theorem when computing the

1306: surface radiative flux from a tidally distorted star (see

1307: \S~\ref{sec:vonzeipel}).  The theorem assumes that the star is in

1308: hydrostatic equilibrium and that the energy transport in the outer

1309: layers is purely by radiative diffusion.  As already mentioned, the

1310: hydrostatic assumption is technically unjustified for substellar

1311: perturbers.  Moreover, the majority of {\em Kepler} targets will be

1312: main-sequence stars with masses of $<$$1.4\msun$, which have

1313: substantial surface convection zones.  Evidently, von Zeipel's theorem

1314: is an inappropriate starting point for the conditions of interest.

1315: 

1316: Section~\ref{sec:conv} discusses heat transport in perturbed stars

1317: with convective envelopes.  Heuristic arguments are used to develop a

1318: simple treatment of the perturbed convection zone in main-sequence

1319: stars of mass $<$$1.6\msun$ with forcing periods of 1--10\,days.  We

1320: suggest that both the specific entropy $s$ and its Lagrangian

1321: perturbation $\Delta s$ are spatially constant in convective regions,

1322: a model partly inspired by the ideas of

1323: \citet{Brickhill1983,Brickhill1990}.

1324: 

1325: %

1326: \input{tab2.tex}

1327: %

1328: 

1329: Using this prescription, we analytically compute in

1330: \S~\ref{sec:thickconv} the perturbed flux at the photosphere of deeply

1331: convective stars ($M\la 1.4\msun$), where the thermal time scale at

1332: the base of the convection zone is much longer than the forcing

1333: period.  We find that $\Delta s/C_p$ is negligible near the top of the

1334: convection zone, and that the photospheric flux perturbation is

1335: proportional to changes in the effective surface gravity.  Thus, we

1336: recover the equilibrium-tide result, $\Delta F/F = -\lambda_\ell

1337: \xi_r/R$, at the surface, where $\lambda_\ell$ depends on the

1338: adiabatic derivatives of opacity and temperature with respect to

1339: pressure (see eq.~[\ref{eq:lambda}]).  Numerical solutions of the

1340: equations of linear, nonadiabatic stellar oscillations (see

1341: \S~\ref{sec:numerical} and Fig.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}a) corroborate our

1342: analytic estimates in the non-resonant regime.  Resonant excitations

1343: of $g$-modes in the radiative stellar interior cause large departures

1344: from the equilibrium-tide approximation when the forcing period is

1345: $<$2\,days (Figs.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}b and

1346: \ref{fig:xirdf_magphase_env_1.0msun}).  However, the likelihood of

1347: being on a resonance is small, and at periods of $>$2\,day the

1348: equilibrium-tide result holds for $M \simeq 1\msun$ even with resonant

1349: forcing.

1350: 

1351: Stars of mass $\ga$$1.4\msun$ have thin, relatively inefficient

1352: surface convection zones.  Thus, $g$-modes can propagate very close to

1353: the surface and produce large flux perturbations and fluid

1354: displacements.  Analytic arguments in \S~\ref{sec:radiative} indicate

1355: that the surface flux perturbations in these stars have non-resonant

1356: amplitudes of $\sim$$10\pert$ (eq.~[\ref{eq:dlqadapprox}] and

1357: Fig.~\ref{fig:radiativeflux}), in rough agreement with our numerical

1358: calculations (Fig.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}c).  As seen in

1359: Figs.~\ref{fig:allvsdepth}d and \ref{fig:xirdf_mag_point_1.6msun}, a

1360: resonantly forced $1.6\msun$ star can exhibit flux perturbation

1361: amplitudes of $>$$100\pert$ at forcing periods of $\simeq$1\,day.

1362: While the amplitudes are not as extreme at longer periods, their

1363: dependence on period is rather erratic

1364: (Fig.~\ref{fig:xirdf_mag_point_1.6msun}), an issue that deserves

1365: further study.  It will be difficult to derive physical

1366: interpretations from the ellipsoidal variability of these more massive

1367: stars.

1368: 

1369: % -----------------------------------------------------------

1370: 

1371: \section{DETECTION PROSPECTS}

1372: \label{sec:detection}

1373: 

1374: The dominant sources of periodic variability of a star with a

1375: substellar companion are transit occultations (when $|\cos I| <

1376: [R+R_p]/a$), Doppler flux modulations, reflection of starlight from

1377: the companion, and ellipsoidal oscillations.  For each of these

1378: signals, Table ~\ref{tab:fluxmod} lists the characteristic amplitude,

1379: period with the largest power in the Fourier spectrum, and orbital

1380: phase(s) at which the light is a maximum or minimum.  The transit

1381: contribution is included for completeness, but its duration is

1382: sufficiently short---a fraction $\simeq$$(R+R_p)/(\pi a)$ of $P_{\rm

1383:   orb}$---that it should often be possible to excise it from the data

1384: \citep[see][]{Sirko2003}.  Of the remaining signals, the Doppler

1385: variability is the simplest, being purely sinusoidal with period

1386: $P_{\rm orb}$ when the orbit is circular.  The dominant $\ell = 2$

1387: piece of the equilibrium-tide approximation to the ellipsoidal

1388: variability (see eqs.~[\ref{eq:fdiskeq}] and [\ref{eq:P2}]) is also

1389: sinusoidal when $e = 0$, but with period $P_{\rm orb}/2$.  Reflection

1390: is more problematic, as its time dependence is generally not

1391: sinusoidal and not known a priori.

1392: 

1393: If the companion scatters light as a Lambert sphere

1394: \citep[e.g.,][]{Seager2000}, the Fourier spectrum of the reflection

1395: variability has finite amplitude at all harmonics of the orbital

1396: frequency $\Omega$, but the amplitude at $2\Omega$ is roughly 1/5 of

1397: the amplitude at $\Omega$.  Therefore, the reflection and ellipsoidal

1398: variability amplitudes may be similar at a frequency of $2\Omega$ when

1399: $\alpha = 0.1$, $M_p \sim M_J$, and $P_{\rm orb} \simeq 1$\,day.

1400: Also, the orbital phase at which the reflected light is a maximum is

1401: distinct from both the Doppler and ellipsoidal cases, further

1402: distinguishing the signals.  However, Lambert scattering is probably

1403: never appropriate in real planetary atmospheres.  Infrared reemission

1404: of absorbed optical light, multiple photon scattering, and anisotropic

1405: scattering typically conspire to narrow the peak in the reflection

1406: lightcurve and lower the albedo, decreasing the prominence of the

1407: reflection signal.  These issues are sensitive to the atmospheric

1408: chemistry and the uncertain details in models of irradiated giant

1409: planets.  For reasonable choices regarding the atmospheric

1410: composition, calculated optical albedos of Jovian planets range from

1411: $<$0.01 to $\simeq$0.5 \citep{Seager2000,Sudarsky2000}.  Recent

1412: photometric observations of HD~209458, the star hosting the

1413: first-detected transiting giant planet ($P_{\rm orb} \simeq

1414: 3.5$\,days), constrain the planetary albedo to be $<$0.25

1415: \citep{Rowe2006}.

1416: 

1417: Detailed lightcurve simulations will be required to say how well the

1418: different periodic signals can be extracted from the data.  This is

1419: beyond the scope of the current study.  We now do the simpler exercise

1420: of isolating the ellipsoidal modulations and assessing when this

1421: effect alone should be detectable.  For a star of apparent visual

1422: magnitude $V$ and an integration time of $T = 6\,{\rm hr}$, {\em

1423:   Kepler}'s photon shot noise is\footnote{An integration time of $T =

1424:   6$\,hr is chosen for convenience; {\em Kepler}'s nominal exposure

1425:   time is 30\,min.  Here we use the $V$-band flux as a reference, but,

1426:   in fact, the {\em Kepler} bandpass is 430--890\,nm, which spans $B$,

1427:   $V$, and $R$ colors.}

1428: %

1429: \be

1430: \left(\frac{\delta \fdisk}{\fdisk}\right)_{\rm shot}

1431: \sim 10^{-5} 10^{0.2(V - 12)}

1432: \left(\frac{T}{6\,{\rm hr}}\right)^{-1/2}~.

1433: \ee

1434: %

1435: Instrumental noise should contribute at a similar level

1436: \citep[e.g.,][]{Koch2006}.  If the data is folded at the orbital

1437: period and binned in time intervals $T \ll P_{\rm orb}$, the shot

1438: noise is suppressed by a factor of $\sim$$n_{\rm orb}^{-1/2}$, where

1439: $n_{\rm orb}$ is the number of folded cycles.  After folding 1 year of

1440: continuous photometric data using $T = 6$\,hr, a star with $V <12$

1441: orbited by a giant planet with $P_{\rm orb} \la 3$\,days may have a

1442: fractional shot noise per time bin of $\la$$10^{-6}$.  This is less

1443: than the ellipsoidal amplitude, $(\delta\fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm ell}$,

1444: when $I$ is not too small.

1445: 

1446: The actual situation is not so simple when the data spans of weeks or

1447: months, because the intrinsic stochastic variability of the star will

1448: not have a white-noise power spectrum.  Over times of $\la$1\,day, the

1449: Sun shows variability of $(\delta \fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm int} \sim

1450: 10^{-5}$, but the amplitude rises steeply between $\sim$1 and 10 days

1451: to $\sim$$10^{-3}$.  Intrinsic variability tends to be large near the

1452: rotation period of the star, due mainly to starspots.  Low-frequency

1453: variability may not too damaging for the study of ellipsoidal

1454: oscillations induced by planets with $P_{\rm orb} \la 3$\,days, but

1455: more study is needed.

1456: 

1457: {\em Kepler}'s target list will contain $\simeq$$10^5$ main-sequence

1458: FGK stars with $V = 8$--14.  The statistics of known exoplanets

1459: indicate that 1--2\% of all such stars host a giant planet ($M_p \ga

1460: M_J$) with $P_{\rm orb} < 10$\,days \citep[e.g.,][]{Marcy2005}. Of

1461: these ``hot Jupiters,'' $\simeq$30\% have $P_{\rm orb} =1$--3\,days.

1462: It seems that a maximum of $\sim$$10^3$ {\em Kepler} stars will have

1463: detectable ellipsoidal modulations.  If we neglect intrinsic stellar

1464: variability and consider only shot noise, then many systems with

1465: $P_{\rm orb} \la 3$\,days and $V < 14$ will have signal-to-noise $S/N

1466: > 1$ after $\sim$100 cycles are monitored; this may amount to $>$100

1467: stars.  Obviously, the number drops when we place higher demands on

1468: $S/N$ and include the intrinsic variability.  The results depend

1469: critically on the distributions of $M_p$ and $P_{\rm orb}$.

1470: 

1471: In order to better estimate the number of stars with potentially

1472: detectable ellipsoidal oscillation, we perform a simple population

1473: synthesis calculation.  Denote the set of star-planet system

1474: parameters by $\vec{P} = \{ M, M_p, P_{\rm orb}, I\}$, and let

1475: $f(\vec{P})d\vec{P}$ be the probability of having a system in the

1476: 4-dimensional volume $d\vec{P}$.  We assume that the planetary orbits

1477: are circular and obtain $(\delta\fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm ell}$ from the

1478: equilibrium-tide estimate in Table~\ref{tab:fluxmod}.  Given the mass

1479: of the star, we compute its absolute $V$ magnitude on the

1480: main-sequence using the approximation \citep[see also][]{Henry1993}

1481: %

1482: \be

1483: \mathscr{M}_V = 4.8 - 10.3 \log (M/M_\odot) ~,

1484: \ee

1485: % 

1486: which is in accord with the usual mass-luminosity relation

1487: $\log(L/L_\odot) \simeq 4 \log(M/M_\odot)$ for $M \simeq 1\msun$.

1488: With a maximum apparent magnitude of $V_{\rm max} = 14$ for the {\em

1489:   Kepler} targets, the maximum distance of the star is

1490: %

1491: \be

1492: D_{\rm max} = 10^{1 + 0.2(14 - \mathscr{M}_V)}\pc ~.

1493: \ee

1494: %      

1495: With a certain signal-to-noise threshold $(S/N)_{\rm min}$, there is a

1496: maximum distance $D_d < D_{\rm max}$ to which the ellipsoidal

1497: variability is detectable.  For a spatially uniform population, the

1498: detectable fraction of systems is $(D_d/D_{\rm max})^3$.  Thus, the

1499: net detectable fraction among all systems is

1500: %

1501: \be

1502: \mathscr{E} = \int d\vec{P} f(\vec{P}) 

1503: \left(\frac{D_d}{D_{\rm max}}\right)^3~,

1504: \ee

1505: %

1506: an integral over all relevant $\vec{P}$ space.

1507: 

1508: When the only noise is intrinsic to the star, $N =

1509: (\delta\fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm int}$ and $S/N$ is independent of distance,

1510: so that $D_{d,{\rm int}} = D_{\rm max}$ when $S/N > (S/N)_{\rm min}$,

1511: and $D_{d,{\rm int}} = 0$ otherwise.  In the case of pure shot noise,

1512: there is a maximum magnitude $V_d$ for which the ellipsoidal

1513: oscillations are detectable:

1514: %

1515: \be\label{eq:detfrac}

1516: V_d = 5\log \left[\frac{(\delta\fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm ell}}{\chi\ (S/N)_{\rm min} }\right]~,

1517: \ee

1518: %

1519: where $\chi \sim 10^{-8.4}(T_6 n_{100})^{-1/2}$ is the value of

1520: $(\delta\fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm shot}$ for $V = 0$, $T = 6 T_6\,{\rm hr}$,

1521: and $n_{\rm orb} = 100n_{100}$.  The corresponding distance is given

1522: by $\log [D_{d,{\rm shot}}/10\pc] = 0.2(V_d - \mathscr{M}_V)$ if $V_d

1523: < V_{\rm max}$, and is $D_{d,{\rm shot}} = D_{\rm max}$ when $V_d >

1524: V_{\rm max}$.  We take the maximum detectable distance to be $D_d =

1525: \min\{D_{d,{\rm int}}, D_{d,{\rm shot}}\}$.

1526: 

1527: %

1528: \input{tab3.tex}

1529: %

1530: 

1531: At this point the simplest approach is to assume that the parameters

1532: $\{ M, M_p, P_{\rm orb}, I\}$ are statistically independent and carry

1533: out a Monte Carlo integration to obtain $\mathscr{E}$.  To this end,

1534: we draw $M$ from the \citet{Kroupa1993} initial mass function in the

1535: range of 0.5--$1.5\msun$.  The planetary mass is chosen from the

1536: distribution $f(M_p)\propto M_p^{-x}$ for $M_p = 1$--$10M_J$.

1537: \citet{Marcy2005} find that $x \simeq 1$ when considering all detected

1538: planets; the shape of $f(M_p)$ is not well constrained at $P_{\rm orb}

1539: < 10$\,days.  We let $x = 1$ and 2.  We adopt $f(P_{\rm orb}) \propto

1540: P_{\rm orb}^{-y}$ over 1--10\,days.  Multiplying the resulting value

1541: of $\mathscr{E}$ by 1000 provides a crude estimate of the actual

1542: number of {\em Kepler} targets with detectable ellipsoidal

1543: variability.  No single value of $y$ is consistent with the data, and

1544: so we consider the reasonable range $y = -1$, 0, and $+1$.

1545: Inclinations are chosen under the assumption that the orbits are

1546: randomly oriented, such that $f(\cos I) = 1/2$ for $I\in (0,\pi)$.

1547: Our calculations use fixed values of $(\delta\fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm int}

1548: = 10^{-5}$ and $T_6 = n_{100} = 1$.

1549: 

1550: Results of our Monte Carlo integrations are shown in

1551: Table~\ref{tab:detnum} as actual numbers of {\em Kepler} targets.  The

1552: largest number of detectable systems is obtained when $x = y = 1$,

1553: parameters that yield the largest proportions short periods and

1554: massive planets.  We expect that $\sim$10--100 {\em Kepler} stars may

1555: exhibit ellipsoidal oscillations with $S/N \ga 5$.  A handful of

1556: systems might have $S/N \ga 10$.  Higher harmonics from the $\ell = 3$

1557: components of eq.~(\ref{eq:fdiskeq}) or modest eccentricities might be

1558: accessible for at most a few stars.

1559: 

1560: Our integrations also check for cases where the planet is transiting.

1561: As $(S/N)_{\rm min}$ increases from 1 to 5, the fraction of systems in

1562: Table~\ref{tab:detnum} with $|\cos I| < (R+R_p)/a$ runs from

1563: $\simeq$30\% to $\simeq$50\%, with a weak dependence on $x$ and $y$.

1564: Such significant fractions stand to reason, since systems with the

1565: shortest periods have the highest ellipsoidal amplitudes and transit

1566: probabilities.  Transit measurements directly give $P_{\rm orb}$,

1567: $\sin I \ga 0.95$ (for $P_{\rm orb} \ga 1$\,day), and $(R_p/R)^2$.

1568: The planet mass $M_p$ can be determined with the addition of

1569: spectroscopic radial velocity measurements, which should be possible

1570: for most of the {\em Kepler} targets with detectable ellipsoidal

1571: oscillations.  The ellipsoidal amplitude then depends on the

1572: unmeasured stellar mass and radius via $\pert \propto R^3/M^2$

1573: (eq.~[\ref{eq:tidescale}]), as well as the stellar photospheric

1574: conditions (eq.~[\ref{eq:simplesurfacedf}]).  If $M$ and $R$ are

1575: obtained from stellar models, ellipsoidal variability may provide an

1576: interesting consistency check on all the system parameters, as well as

1577: test the theory of forced stellar oscillations.

1578:  

1579: As a last point, we emphasize that stars of mass $\ga$$1.4\msun$ may

1580: have typical ellipsoidal amplitudes of $\sim$$10\pert$.  However, such

1581: stars will also be younger than most {\em Kepler} targets and probably

1582: have intrinsic variability $\gg$$10^{-5}$.  We carried out Monte Carlo

1583: integrations with $M = 1.4$--$1.6\msun$, $(\delta\fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm

1584:   ell} = 10\pert\sin^2 I$, and $x = y = 1$.  As we vary

1585: $(\delta\fdisk/\fdisk)_{\rm int}$ from $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-4}$,

1586: $\mathscr{E}$ decreases from large values of $\simeq$0.4 to a small

1587: fraction of $\simeq$0.03 for $(S/N)_{\rm min} = 10$.  Unfortunately,

1588: we do not know how many such stars will be included in the {\em

1589:   Kepler} target list.  Also, there has not yet been a discovery of a

1590: giant planet with $P_{\rm orb} < 10$\,days around a star of mass

1591: $\geq$$1.4\msun$, but exoplanet surveys tend to exclude these more

1592: massive stars.

1593: 

1594: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1595: 

1596: \acknowledgements 

1597: 

1598: We thank Tim Brown for general discussions and addressing {\em Kepler}

1599: questions, J{\o}rgen Christensen-Dalsgaard for guidance on stellar

1600: luminosity perturbations, and Mike Muno for advice on signal

1601: processing.  This work was supported by NSF grant PHY05-51164.

1602: 

1603: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1604: 

1605: \appendix

1606: 

1607: \section{OSCILLATION EQUATIONS}

1608: \label{sec:equations}

1609: 

1610: Here we list the nonadiabatic, linearized fluid equations that we

1611: solve numerically.  The reader is referred to \cite{Unno1989} for a

1612: complete discussion.  Scalar and vector quantities are expanded in

1613: spherical harmonics $Y_{\ell m}$ and poloidal vector harmonics,

1614: respectively. The momentum, mass, and energy equations are written in

1615: terms of the dimensionless variables $y_1=\xi_r/r$, $y_2=(\delta

1616: p/\rho+\delta \varphi)/gr$, $y_3=\delta \varphi/gr$, $y_4=g^{-1}

1617: d\delta \varphi/dr$, $y_5=\Delta s/C_p$, and $y_6=\Delta L/L$.  Here

1618: $L$ is the total (radiative plus convective) luminosity. The radial

1619: flux perturbation is $\Delta F/F=\Delta L/L-2\xi_r/r$.  In radiative

1620: zones, the nonadiabatic equations are

1621: %

1622: \be

1623: \frac{dy_1}{d\ln r}  & = &  y_1 \left( \frac{gr}{c_s^2}-3 \right)

1624: + y_2 \left( \frac{gk_h^2r}{\omega^2} - \frac{gr}{c_s^2} \right)

1625: + y_3 \frac{gr}{c_s^2} - y_5 \rho_s + \frac{k_h^2}{\omega^2} U ~,

1626: \\

1627: \frac{dy_2}{d\ln r}  & = &  y_1 \left(\frac{\omega^2-N^2}{g/r} \right)

1628: + y_2 \left( 1-\eta + \frac{N^2}{g/r} \right)

1629: - y_3 \frac{N^2}{g/r} - \rho_s y_5 - \frac{1}{g} \frac{dU}{dr} ~,

1630: \\

1631: \frac{dy_3}{d \ln r} & = &  y_3 \left( 1 - \eta \right)

1632: + y_4 ~,

1633: \\

1634: \frac{dy_4}{d \ln r} & = & y_1 \eta \frac{N^2}{g/r}

1635: + y_2 \eta \frac{gr}{c_s^2}

1636: + y_3 \left[ \ell(\ell+1) - \eta \frac{gr}{c_s^2} \right]

1637: - y_4 \eta + y_5 \rho_s \eta ~,

1638: \\

1639: \frac{dy_5}{d\ln r}  & = &  y_1 \frac{r}{H_p} 

1640: \left[

1641: \nabla_{\rm ad} \left( \eta - \frac{\omega^2}{g/r} \right)  

1642: + 4 \left( \nabla - \nabla_{\rm ad} \right) + c_2

1643: \right]

1644: + y_2  \frac{r}{H_p} 

1645: \left[

1646: \left( \nabla_{\rm ad} - \nabla \right) \frac{gk_h^2r}{\omega^2} - c_2

1647: \right]

1648: \nonumber \\

1649: && + y_3 \frac{r}{H_p} c_2

1650: + y_4 \frac{r}{H_p} \nabla_{\rm ad}

1651: + y_5 \frac{r}{H_p} \nabla \left( 4 - \kappa_s \right)

1652: - y_6 \frac{r}{H_p} \nabla

1653: + \frac{r}{H_p}

1654: \left[

1655: \nabla_{\rm ad} \left( \frac{dU/dr}{g} + \frac{k_h^2}{\omega^2} U \right)

1656: - \nabla \frac{k_h^2}{\omega^2} U

1657: \right] ~,

1658: \label{eq:y5}

1659: \\

1660: \frac{dy_6}{d\ln r} & = &

1661: y_1  \ell(\ell+1)\left(\frac{\nabla_{\rm ad}}{\nabla} - 1 \right)

1662: - y_2 \ell(\ell+1)\frac{\nabla_{\rm ad}}{\nabla}

1663: + y_3  \ell(\ell+1)\frac{\nabla_{\rm ad}}{\nabla}

1664: + y_5 \left[

1665: i\omega \frac{4\pi r^3 \rho C_p T}{L}  - \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{\nabla}\frac{H_p}{r}

1666: \right] ~,

1667: \label{eq:y6}

1668: \ee

1669: %

1670: where $c_s$ is the sound speed, $\eta = d\ln M_r/d\ln r$,

1671: $c_2=(r/H_p)\nabla (\kappa_{\rm ad}-4\nabla_{\rm ad})+\nabla_{\rm

1672:   ad}(d\ln \nabla_{\rm ad}/d\ln r + r/H_p)$, and we have ignored

1673: energy generation terms.  Note that the tidal acceleration $-\grad U$

1674: has been added to the momentum equations. In convection zones, we

1675: ignore turbulent viscosity effects and replace the radiative diffusion

1676: equation (eq.~[\ref{eq:y5}]) with the prescription $\Delta s =

1677: \textrm{constant}$ (see \S~\ref{sec:conv}), or more precisely

1678: %

1679: \be

1680: \frac{d}{dr} \left( y_5 C_p \right) =  0~.

1681: \ee

1682: %

1683: Equation~(\ref{eq:y6}) still involves the total (convective plus

1684: radiative) luminosity. We ignore energy generation and horizontal flux

1685: perturbation terms, i.e. we ignore all terms with spherical harmonic

1686: index $\ell$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:y6}) in convection zones.

1687: 

1688: At the center of the star, we require the solutions to be finite, and

1689: also set $\Delta s=0$. At the surface, we set $\delta p=\rho g \xi_r$

1690: and we require $\delta \varphi$ to decrease outward.  This boundary

1691: condition is only approximate, as $g$-modes may propagate above the

1692: convection zone for wave periods of $\ga$$4\, {\rm days}$ in our

1693: $1M_\odot$ model. The final surface boundary condition is given by

1694: eq.~(\ref{eq:dphotp}).  Care must be used in the radiative zone just

1695: below the photosphere, since the entropy perturbation is far from the

1696: quasi-adiabatic value.  If we solve the radiative diffusion equation

1697: in this region, we find that the entropy increases by $\sim$10 orders

1698: of magnitude in just a few grid points.  However, we regard this

1699: behavior as unphysical, because the region at the top of the

1700: convection zone is optically thin. To eliminate this unphysical

1701: behavior, we set $\Delta s$ to a constant at such low optical depths.

1702: 

1703: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1704: 

1705: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1706: 

1707: \bibitem[Agol et al.(2005)]{Agol2005} Agol, E., Steffen, J., 

1708:   Sari, R., \& Clarkson, W.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 567 

1709: 

1710: \bibitem[Basri et al.(2005)]{Basri2005} Basri, G., Borucki, 

1711:   W.~J., \& Koch, D.\ 2005, New Astronomy Review, 49, 478 

1712: 

1713: %\bibitem[Bord{\'e} et al.(2003)]{Borde2003} Bord{\'e}, P., Rouan, D.,

1714: %  \& L{\'e}ger, A.\ 2003, \aap, 405, 1137

1715: 

1716: \bibitem[Borucki et al.(2004)]{Borucki2004} Borucki, W., et al.\ 2004,

1717:   ESA SP-538: Stellar Structure and Habitable Planet Finding, 177

1718: 

1719: \bibitem[Brickhill(1983)]{Brickhill1983} Brickhill, A.~J.\ 1983,

1720:   \mnras, 204, 537

1721: 

1722: \bibitem[Brickhill(1990)]{Brickhill1990} Brickhill, A.~J.\ 1990, 

1723: \mnras, 246, 510 

1724: 

1725: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{Brown2001} Brown, T.~M., Charbonneau, D.,

1726:   Gilliland, R.~L., Noyes, R.~W., \& Burrows, A.\ 2001, \apj, 552, 699

1727: 

1728: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{Claret2000} Claret, A.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 

1729: 1081 

1730: 

1731: %\bibitem[Clayton(1983)]{Clayton1983} Clayton, D.~D.\ 1983, Chicago: 

1732: %  University of Chicago Press, 1983, 

1733: 

1734: %\bibitem[Cowling(1941)]{Cowling1941} Cowling, T.~G.\ 1941, \mnras, 

1735: %101, 367 

1736: 

1737: \bibitem[Drake(2003)]{Drake2003} Drake, A.~J.\ 2003, \apj, 589, 1020

1738: 

1739: \bibitem[Dziembowski(1977)]{Dziembowski1977} Dziembowski, W.\ 1977, 

1740:   Acta Astronomica, 27, 203 

1741: 

1742: \bibitem[Goldreich \& Nicholson(1989)]{Goldreich1989} Goldreich, P., 

1743:   \& Nicholson, P.~D.\ 1989, \apj, 342, 1079 

1744: 

1745: \bibitem[Goldreich \& Wu(1999a)]{Goldreich1999a} Goldreich, P., \& Wu, 

1746:   Y.\ 1999, \apj, 511, 904 

1747: 

1748: \bibitem[Goldreich \& Wu(1999b)]{Goldreich1999b} Goldreich, P., \& Wu, 

1749: Y.\ 1999, \apj, 523, 805 

1750: 

1751: %\bibitem[Goodman \& Dickson(1998)]{Goodman1998} Goodman, J., \& 

1752: %  Dickson, E.~S.\ 1998, \apj, 507, 938 

1753: 

1754: \bibitem[Grether \& Lineweaver(2006)]{Grether2006} Grether, D., \&

1755:   Lineweaver, C.~H.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 1051

1756: 

1757: \bibitem[Hansen \& Kawaler(1994)]{Hansen1994} Hansen, C. J., \& Kawaler, S. D. 1994, Stellar Interiors: Principles, Structure, and Evolution, ( New York: Springer) 

1758: 

1759: \bibitem[Henry \& McCarthy(1993)]{Henry1993} Henry, T.~J., \& 

1760: McCarthy, D.~W., Jr.\ 1993, \aj, 106, 773 

1761: 

1762: \bibitem[Holman \& Murray(2005)]{Holman2005} Holman, M.~J., \& 

1763:   Murray, N.~W.\ 2005, Science, 307, 1288 

1764: 

1765: \bibitem[Jenkins \& Doyle(2003)]{Jenkins2003} Jenkins, J.~M., \& 

1766:   Doyle, L.~R.\ 2003, \apj, 595, 429 

1767: 

1768: \bibitem[Kippenhahn \& Weigert(1990)]{Kippenhahn1990} 

1769: Kippenhahn, R., \& Weigert, A. 1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin: Springer) 

1770: 

1771: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2006)]{Koch2006} Koch, D., et al.\ 2006, 

1772: \apss, 304, 391 

1773: 

1774: %\bibitem[Kopal(1941)]{Kopal1941} Kopal, Z.\ 1941, \apj, 94, 159 

1775: 

1776: \bibitem[Kopal(1942)]{Kopal1942} Kopal, Z.\ 1942, \apj, 96, 20 

1777: 

1778: %\bibitem[Kopal(1959)]{Kopal1959} Kopal, Z.\ 1959, Close Binary Systems

1779: %  (New York: Wiley)

1780: 

1781: \bibitem[Kroupa et al.(1993)]{Kroupa1993} Kroupa, P., Tout, C.~A., 

1782: \& Gilmore, G.\ 1993, \mnras, 262, 545 

1783: 

1784: \bibitem[Loeb \& Gaudi(2003)]{Loeb2003} Loeb, A., \& Gaudi, 

1785:   B.~S.\ 2003, \apjl, 588, L117 

1786: 

1787: %\bibitem[Loeb(2005)]{Loeb2005} Loeb, A.\ 2005, \apjl, 623, L45 

1788: 

1789: %\bibitem[Lucy(1967)]{Lucy1967} Lucy, L.~B.\ 1967, Zeitschrift 

1790: %  fur Astrophysik, 65, 89 

1791: 

1792: \bibitem[{{Marcy} {et~al.}(2005){Marcy}, {Butler}, {Fischer}, {Vogt}, {Wright},

1793:   {Tinney}, \& {Jones}}]{Marcy2005}

1794: {Marcy}, G., {Butler}, R.~P., {Fischer}, D., {Vogt}, S., {Wright}, J.~T.,

1795:   {Tinney}, C.~G., \& {Jones}, H.~R.~A. 2005, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp., 158, 24

1796: 

1797: \bibitem[Mihalas(1970)]{Mihalas1970} Mihalas, D. 1970, Stellar Atmospheres (San Francisco: Freeman) 

1798: 

1799: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud{\'e}(2002)]{Miralda-Escude2002}

1800:   Miralda-Escud{\'e}, J.\ 2002, \apj, 564, 1019

1801: 

1802: \bibitem[Pace \& Pasquini(2004)]{Pace2004} Pace, G., \& 

1803: Pasquini, L.\ 2004, \aap, 426, 1021 

1804: 

1805: \bibitem[Paxton(2004)]{Paxton2004} Paxton, B.\ 2004, \pasp, 116, 

1806: 699 

1807: 

1808: %\bibitem[Pols et al.(1995)]{Pols1995} Pols, O.~R., Tout, C.~A., 

1809: %Eggleton, P.~P., \& Han, Z.\ 1995, \mnras, 274, 964 

1810: 

1811: \bibitem[Rasio et al.(1996)]{Rasio1996} Rasio, F.~A., Tout, 

1812: C.~A., Lubow, S.~H., \& Livio, M.\ 1996, \apj, 470, 1187 

1813: 

1814: \bibitem[Robinson et al.(1982)]{Robinson1982} Robinson, E.~L., 

1815: Kepler, S.~O., \& Nather, R.~E.\ 1982, \apj, 259, 219 

1816: 

1817: \bibitem[Rowe et al.(2006)]{Rowe2006} Rowe, J.~F., et al.\ 2006, 

1818: \apj, 646, 1241 

1819: 

1820: %\bibitem[Russell \& Shapley(1912)]{Russell1912} Russell, H.~N., \& 

1821: %  Shapley, H.\ 1912, \apj, 36, 385 

1822: 

1823: \bibitem[Sartoretti \& Schneider(1999)]{Sartoretti1999} Sartoretti, 

1824:   P., \& Schneider, J.\ 1999, \aaps, 134, 553 

1825: 

1826: \bibitem[Seager et al.(2000)]{Seager2000} Seager, S., Whitney, 

1827: B.~A., \& Sasselov, D.~D.\ 2000, \apj, 540, 504 

1828: 

1829: %\bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{Seager2003} Seager, 

1830: %S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1038 

1831: 

1832: \bibitem[Sirko \& Paczy{\'n}ski(2003)]{Sirko2003} Sirko, E., \&

1833:   Paczy{\'n}ski, B.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 1217

1834: 

1835: \bibitem[Skumanich(1972)]{Skumanich1972} Skumanich, A.\ 1972, \apj,171, 565

1836: 

1837: \bibitem[Soszynski et al.(2004)]{Soszynski2004} Soszynski, I.,

1838:   Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., Szymanski, M.~K., Pietrzynski, G., Zebrun,

1839:   K., Wyrzykowski, O.~S.~L., \& Dziembowski, W.~A.\ 2004, Acta

1840:   Astronomica, 54, 347

1841: 

1842: \bibitem[Sudarsky et al.(2000)]{Sudarsky2000} Sudarsky, D., Burrows, 

1843: A., \& Pinto, P.\ 2000, \apj, 538, 885 

1844: 

1845: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2002)]{Udalski2002} Udalski, A., et al.\ 

1846:   2002, Acta Astron., 52, 1 

1847: 

1848: \bibitem[Unno et al.(1989)]{Unno1989} Unno, W., Osaki, Y.,

1849:   Ando, H., Saio, H., \& Shibahashi, H.\ 1989, Nonradial Oscillations

1850:   of Stars, Second 

1851: Edition (Tokyo: Univ. Tokyo Press) 

1852: 

1853: 

1854: \bibitem[von Zeipel(1924)]{vonZeipel1924} von Zeipel, H.\ 1924, 

1855:   \mnras, 84, 665 

1856: 

1857: \bibitem[Wilson(1994)]{Wilson1994} Wilson, R.~E.\ 1994, \pasp, 

1858:   106, 921 

1859: 

1860: \bibitem[Zahn(1975)]{Zahn1977} Zahn, J.-P.\ 1975, \aap, 41, 329 

1861: 

1862: \end{thebibliography}

1863: 

1864: \end{document}

1865: 

1866: 

1867: