1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34:
35: % \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
36: % \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
37:
38: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
39:
40: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ Letters}
41:
42: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
43: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
44: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
45: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
46: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
47: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
48:
49: \shorttitle{Transit and Eclipse of GJ\,436b}
50: \shortauthors{Deming et al.}
51:
52: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
53: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
54:
55: \begin{document}
56: %% \setlength\topmargin{0.5in}
57: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
58: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
59: %% you desire.
60:
61: \title{{\it Spitzer} Transit and Secondary Eclipse Photometry of GJ\,436b}
62:
63: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
64: %% author and affiliation information.
65: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
66: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
67: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
68: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
69:
70: \author{Drake Deming}
71: \affil{Planetary Systems Laboratory\\
72: Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 693, Greenbelt MD 20771}
73: %% \email{ddeming@pop600.gsfc.nasa.gov}
74:
75: \author{Joseph Harrington}
76: \affil{Department of Physics,\\ Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816}
77: %% \email{jharring@physics.ucf.edu}
78:
79: \author{Gregory Laughlin}
80: \affil{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,\\
81: Univ. of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA 95064}
82:
83: \author{Sara Seager}
84: \affil{Department of Physics, and Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences,\\
85: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA 02159}
86:
87: \author{Sarah B. Navarro \& William C. Bowman}
88: \affil{Department of Physics,\\ Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816}
89:
90: \and
91:
92: \author{Karen Horning}
93: \affil{Department of Physics \& Space Sciences,\\
94: Florida Inst. of Technology, Melbourne FL 32901}
95:
96: %% \altaffiltext{1}{Patron, Fred's Arena Bar and Grill}
97:
98: \begin{abstract}
99:
100: We report the results of infrared ($8\,\mu$m) transit and secondary
101: eclipse photometry of the hot Neptune exoplanet, GJ\,436b using {\it
102: Spitzer}. The nearly photon-limited precision of these data allow us
103: to measure an improved radius for the planet, and to detect the
104: secondary eclipse. The transit (centered at $HJD =
105: 2454280.78149\pm0.00016$) shows the flat-bottomed shape typical of
106: infrared transits, and it precisely defines the planet-to-star radius
107: ratio ($0.0839 \pm 0.0005$), independent of the stellar properties.
108: However, we obtain the planetary radius, as well as the stellar mass
109: and radius, by fitting to the transit curve simultaneously with an
110: empirical mass-radius relation for M-dwarfs ($M=R$). We find
111: $R_{*}=M_{*}=0.47\pm0.02$ in solar units, and $R_{p}=27,600\pm1170$ km
112: ($4.33\pm0.18$ Earth radii). This radius significantly exceeds the
113: radius of a naked ocean planet, and requires a gaseous
114: hydrogen-helium envelope. The secondary eclipse occurs at phase
115: $0.587\pm0.005$, proving a significant orbital eccentricity
116: ($e=0.150\pm0.012$). The amplitude of the eclipse ($5.7\pm0.8 \times
117: 10^{-4}$) indicates a brightness temperature for the planet of
118: $T=712\pm 36$K. If this is indicative of the planet's physical
119: temperature, it suggests the occurrence of tidal heating in the
120: planet. An uncharacterized second planet likely provides
121: ongoing gravitational perturbations that maintain GJ\,436b's orbit
122: eccentricity over long time scales.
123:
124: \end{abstract}
125:
126: \keywords{Planetary systems - stars: individual (GJ\,436) - stars: low
127: mass - stars: fundamental parameters - infrared: stars - eclipses}
128:
129: \section{Introduction}
130:
131: The transit and secondary eclipse of an extrasolar planet allow us to
132: deduce its physical properties to a degree that is not possible in
133: other observing geometries \citep{charb_ppv}. GJ\,436b \citep{butler}
134: was recently discovered to be the first transiting Neptune-sized
135: planet \citep{gillon}, opening new parameter space for exoplanet
136: studies. It orbits an M-dwarf star lying 10 pc from our solar system
137: \citep{maness}. In order to constrain the bulk composition and
138: internal structure of transiting planets \citep{seager, fortney},
139: precise radii and temperature measurements are needed. The relatively
140: small size of GJ\,436A ($\sim 0.4$ solar radii) enhances the
141: planet-to-star contrast during transit and eclipse. Nevertheless, the
142: shallow depth of the GJ\,436b transit ($0.006$) is a challenge for
143: ground-based photometry. Although ground-based observers are
144: achieving impressive levels of precision \citep{winn}, photometry from
145: space-borne platforms remains the preferred observational technique
146: for the highest-precision transit measurements. This is especially
147: true for secondary eclipse, where {\it Spitzer} measurements have been
148: dominant \citep{charb, deming1, deming2, harrington, knutson}.
149:
150: %% GJ\,436b is well suited for observation using {\it Spitzer}, for
151: %% several reasons. {\it Spitzer's} position in heliocentric orbit
152: %% allows a very high level of photometric stability \citep{harrington,
153: %% knutson}, and also permits long intervals of continuous observation.
154: %% Stars have minimal limb-darkening at {\it Spitzer's} infrared (IR)
155: %% wavelengths, and the resultant very box-like IR transit curve
156: %% \citep{richardson, knutson} is particularly valuable for near-grazing
157: %% transits. The small size of the star increases the contrast of the
158: %% secondary eclipse, which should be detectable for this IR-bright system.
159:
160: In this Letter, we report {\it Spitzer} 8~$\mu$m transit and eclipse
161: observations of GJ\,436b, and we use these data to refine estimates of
162: the planet's radius, temperature, and internal structure.
163:
164: \section{Observations}
165:
166: The announcement of GJ\,436b transits \citep{gillon} was fortuitously
167: concurrent with a window of observability using {\it Spitzer}.
168: Accordingly, we immediately scheduled observations of one transit, and
169: one secondary eclipse, under our GO-3 Target of Opportunity (ToO)
170: Program (J.~Harrington, P.I.). Since the precision required for
171: measurements of this type is daunting, observations must be carefully
172: designed to limit instrumental systematics
173: \citep{harrington}. Moreover, the reported eccentricity of the
174: GJ\,436b orbit \citep{maness} adds significant uncertainty to the
175: timing of the secondary eclipse observations. Our community ToO
176: program thus works with cooperating teams to design observations and
177: analyze data in line with the best practices gleaned from
178: experience. We solict collaborations from cooperating teams that
179: discover suitable targets.
180:
181: Both observational sequences for GJ\,436 used the IRAC instrument
182: \citep{irac} in subarray mode, at 8~$\mu$m only. The transit sequence
183: consisted of 0.4-second exposures in blocks of 64, obtaining 445
184: blocks (204 minutes). The secondary eclipse sequence was the same, but
185: used 780 blocks (356 minutes). We planned the eclipse observations
186: based on $10^{4}$ bootstrap trial fits to the Doppler data
187: \citep{maness}, to define the probability distribution of eclipse
188: time. Because of the well known ramp-up in the sensitivity of the IRAC
189: 8~$\mu$m detector during long observing sequences \citep{knutson,
190: harrington}, we offset the transit observations to begin $\sim2$ hours
191: before transit center.
192:
193: \section{Data Analysis}
194:
195: \subsection{Photometry}
196:
197: Because GJ\,436 is bright at 8~$\mu$m, and the zodiacal background is
198: weak in comparison, simple aperture photometery attains nearly
199: photon-limited precision. Our photometry first applies the calibration
200: information contained in the FITS headers, to convert the signal
201: levels to electrons. Within each 64-frame block, we drop the first
202: frame and the 58th frame, due to known instrumental effects
203: \citep{harrington, knutson}. We examine the time variation of signal
204: level for each pixel in the remaining 62 frames, and correct pixels in
205: frames that are discrepant by $>4\sigma$ to the median value for that
206: pixel (this removes energetic particle hits). We sum the intensity in
207: an 8- by 8-pixel square aperture centered on the star in each frame,
208: including fractional pixels, and sum again over the 62 frames in the
209: block. We varied the aperture size to verify that an 8-pixel box
210: produced the lowest noise, but this dependence is not strong. We fit
211: a Gaussian to the peak in a histogram of pixel intensities for each
212: block to determine, and subtract, the average background level. We
213: used the same background value for all 62 frames in a block.
214:
215: We calculated the expected noise level for the photometry, based on
216: the Poisson electron counting noise (dominant), and read noise
217: (small). Comparing the aperture photometry for the 62 frames within
218: each block, we find that these photometry errors are distributed as
219: Gaussian noise, with a dispersion merely $3.5\%$ greater than
220: predicted. The intensities for the 445 transit blocks are illustrated
221: in Figure~1, top panel. We examined the block-to-block variation in
222: intensity for these points after removing the best transit fit, and we
223: find a Gaussian distribution, with a standard deviation of $7 \times
224: 10^{-4}$. Since we detect $\sim 3.1 \times 10^{6}$ electrons per
225: block (Figure~1), we expect a photon-limited precision of $5.7 \times
226: 10^{-4}$. We thus attain about $80\%$ of photon-limited S/N,
227: consistent with previous {\it Spitzer} photometry at this wavelength
228: \citep{knutson, harrington}.
229:
230: IRAC photometry at 8~$\mu$m is known to exhibit a gradually increasing
231: ramp-up in sensitivity, due to filling of charge traps in the
232: detectors \citep{knutson, harrington}. This ramp is visible in the
233: top panel of Figure~1, but is weaker than usual for the transit data
234: (the ramp varies due to prior usage of the detector). We removed it by
235: masking out the data near transit, and fitting a parabola to the
236: out-of-transit points. We have considerable experience in fitting to
237: this ramp, via our monitoring of GJ\,876 (program 30498). Even strong
238: ramps can be fit by the sum of a linear plus logarithmic function,
239: using linear regression. We applied this more elaborate procedure to
240: the GJ\,436 transit ramp, but found no significant difference with the
241: simple parabola fit. In the case of the secondary eclipse (Figure~2),
242: the ramp is stronger, but is still well removed by our full linear +
243: logarithmic fit. We conclude that this ramp is properly reproduced in
244: both cases, and does not contribute significantly to our errors.
245:
246: \subsection{Transit Parameters}
247:
248: A feature of IR transit measurements is the virtual lack of stellar limb
249: darkening. Not only does this produce a simple box-like shape for the
250: transit, but \citet{richardson} suggest that it can increase the radius
251: precision for a given level of photometric precision. Our analysis
252: adopts the (small) limb darkening for GJ\,436A based on a Kurucz model
253: atmosphere for 3500/5.0/0.0 in Teff/log(g)/[M/H]. We verified that
254: changing the stellar temperature, gravity, or metallicity within the
255: errors \citep{maness, bean} has negligible effect, because the limb
256: darkening remains small over the plausible range. We integrated the stellar
257: center-to-limb intensities in the Kurucz model over the bandpass of
258: the IRAC 8~$\mu$m filter to obtain the limb darkening appropriate to
259: this IR transit. Since this small IR limb darkening is not included
260: in the \citet{claret} prescriptions, we generate theoretical transit
261: curves numerically.
262:
263: We compute theoretical transit curves by tiling the star in a
264: latitude-longitude grid with zone spacing of $0.18$ degrees, and
265: applying the IRAC 8~$\mu$m limb darkening. We pass the planet across
266: the numerical star in steps of 0.01 stellar radii, with the planet
267: radius and impact parameter specified in units of the stellar
268: radius. To increase precision, stellar zones at the edge of the planet
269: are adaptively sub-sampled in a $10 \times 10$ finer grid. We
270: verified the code's precision (better than $10^{-6}$) by comparing to
271: the \citet{mandel} analytic non-linear limb darkening cases, and by
272: comparing the depth of synthetic transits to the planet-to-star area
273: ratio (${R_p}^2/{R_*}^2$), for the case when limb darkening is
274: identically zero.
275:
276: Fitting to high precision transit photometry requires a determination,
277: or assumption, of the stellar mass \citep{brown}. \citet{gillon}
278: adopted $0.44$ solar masses for GJ\,436A, based on the observed
279: luminosity, and they cited the empirical M-dwarf mass-radius relation
280: from \citet{ribas} ($R=M$ in solar units), to justify $0.44$ solar
281: radii for the stellar size. Our fit procedure is somewhat different.
282: Given the lack of limb darkening, we can immediately determine the
283: ratio of planet to stellar radius as $0.0839 \pm 0.0005$ from the
284: depth of the transit (Figure~1). With this value fixed, we generate a
285: grid of transit curves for a range of impact parameters. At each
286: impact parameter, we vary the adopted stellar mass, and compute the
287: transverse velocity of the planet across the star. This computation
288: uses the orbital elements from a fit to the Doppler data
289: \citep{maness}, constrained by the secondary eclipse time (see
290: below). We vary the stellar radius to convert the radius increments on
291: the abscissa of the synthetic transit curve to orbit phase, using the
292: calculated transverse velocity. We include a shift in phase for the
293: synthetic transit curve, to allow for imprecision in the
294: \citet{gillon} ephemeris. In this manner, we find the best fit stellar
295: radius versus stellar mass, and a revised transit time. We estimate
296: the stellar radius precision from the variation in ${\chi}^2$ at a
297: given mass.
298:
299: We intersect the radius versus mass relation ($R \sim M^{0.33}$) from
300: the fitting procedure with the empirical mass-radius relation $R=M$
301: \citep{ribas} to find the best stellar mass and radius, and planet
302: radius, at each impact parameter. Repeating this over a grid of
303: impact parameters, we adopt the best fit from the global minimum
304: ${\chi}^2$. We determine the error range from $\delta{\chi}^2$, and
305: from visually inspecting the quality of the fits, paying particular
306: attention to ingress/egress. Our fitting always uses the unbinned
307: data (Figure~1, top), but we bin the data for the lower panel of
308: Figure~1, to better illustrate the quality of the fit. The
309: derived time of transit center is $HJD = 2454280.78149\pm0.00016$.
310:
311: \subsection{Secondary Eclipse}
312:
313: The secondary eclipse is shown in Figure~2. The top panel plots the
314: bulk of the data (omitting some points at the outset); the eclipse
315: occurs near the end of the observational sequence, at phase
316: $0.587\pm0.005$, with amplitude $5.7\pm0.8 \times 10^{-4}$ in units of
317: the stellar intensity. Like the transit, all of our fits to this
318: event were made on the original, unbinned data. However, for clarity,
319: the lower panel of Figure~2 shows binned data, expands the phase
320: scale, and overplots the best fit eclipse curve. Our fit constrains
321: the duration of eclipse to equal the duration of transit, finding only
322: the amplitude and central phase.
323:
324: Table~1 summarizes our results for transit and secondary eclipse.
325:
326: \section{Results and Discussion}
327:
328: Our result for the stellar mass and radius is $M=R=0.47\pm0.02$ in
329: solar units. We are encouraged that these are close to values ($0.44$)
330: constrained by independent data \citep{maness}. Our derived planet
331: radius is $R_{p}=27,600\pm1170$ km ($4.33\pm0.18$ Earth radii). We
332: conclude that this planet is larger than originally indicated by
333: ground-based photometry \citep{gillon}. Since this radius is
334: significantly larger than all planets of exclusively solid composition
335: \citep{seager, fortney}, GJ\,436b must have a significant, gaseous,
336: hydrogen-helium envelope. After our transit analysis was complete, we
337: became aware of an independent analysis of the transit data (but not
338: the eclipse data) by \citet{gillon2}. These authors do not vary the
339: stellar mass in their fit, but they obtain a very similar radius for this
340: planet, and arrive at essentially the same conclusion.
341:
342: The observed phase of the secondary eclipse, $\phi=0.587\pm 0.005$
343: indicates that the orbit of GJ\,436b is significantly
344: eccentric. Assuming a longitude of pericenter $\varpi=0$, the
345: magnitude of the observed timing offset indicates a minimum orbital
346: eccentricity, $e_{\rm min}=0.137 \pm 0.007$.
347:
348: Using the constraints provided by the observed times of central
349: transit, $T_{c}=2454222.616$ HJD \citep{gillon}, our
350: $T_{c}=2454280.78149$ HJD, and the observed secondary eclipse at
351: $T_{s}=2454282.33 \pm 0.01$ HJD, we obtained a set of single-planet
352: Keplerian fits to the radial velocity data published by
353: \citet{maness}. A straightforward bootstrap resampling procedure
354: \citep{press} yields $e=0.150\pm 0.012$, $\varpi=343\pm14^{\circ}$,
355: and $M=0.070 \pm 0.003\, M_{\rm Jup}$.
356:
357: As a consequence of its non-zero orbital eccentricity, GJ\,436b is
358: likely experiencing asynchronous rotation. \citet{hut} gives an
359: expression for the spin period of a zero-obliquity spin pseudo-synchronized planet:
360: \begin{equation}
361: P_{\rm spin}={ (1+3e^2 + {3\over{8}}e^4)(1-e^2)^{3/2} \over
362: {1 + {15\over{2}} e^2+ {45\over{8}}e^4+ {5\over{16}}e^6}} P_{\rm orbit}
363: \end{equation}
364: For GJ\,436b, we find $P_{\rm spin}=2.32 \, {\rm d}$, which yields a
365: 19-day synodic period for the star as viewed from a fixed longitude on
366: the planet. The large orbital eccentricity also indicates that a
367: significant amount of tidal heating must be occurring. To second order
368: in eccentricity, the tidal luminosity of a spin-synchronous planet
369: \citep{peale, mardling} is given by:
370: \begin{equation}
371: {dE\over{dt}}={21\over{2}}{k_{2}\over{Q}}{GM_{\star}^{2} n {R_{\rm
372: p}^{5}}e^{2} \over{a^6}}
373: \end{equation}
374: where $k_2$ is the planetary potential Love number of degree 2, $n$ is
375: the orbital mean motion, $a$ is the orbital semimajor axis, and $Q$ is
376: the planet's effective tidal dissipation parameter. The analysis of
377: \citet{levrard} indicates that the tidal luminosity of an
378: asynchronously rotating planet with $e\sim0.15$ will exceed the value
379: implied by the above expression by a small amount.
380:
381: If we adopt $T_{\rm eff}=3350 K$ for GJ\,436A, take a zero albedo for
382: the planet, and assume a uniform re-radiation of heat from the entire
383: planetary surface, we obtain a planetary $T_{eq}=642\,{\rm K}$. The
384: somewhat higher temperature ($T=712\pm 36$K) implied by the secondary
385: eclipse depth could arise from inefficient transport of heat to the
386: night side of the planet, from a non-blackbody planetary emission
387: spectrum, from tidal luminosity, or from a combination of the three.
388:
389: We can estimate $Q$ by assuming $A=0$, uniform re-radiation, and a
390: blackbody planetary SED to find a fiducial tidal luminosity of
391: $4.7\times10^{26} \, {\rm ergs sec^{-1}}$, and
392: ${Q\over{k_2}}=2.1\times10^{4}$. Assuming $k_2=0.34$ (the Jovian
393: value), gives $Q=7140$. This value is in rough accord with the
394: $Q$-values measured for Uranus and Neptune. Banfield and Murray
395: (1992) derive $1.2\times10^{4}<Q_{N}<3.3\times10^{5}$ for Neptune,
396: whereas Tittemore and Wisdom (1989) employ the Uranian satellites to
397: derive $Q_{U}<3.9\times10^{4}$. If the planet has maintained
398: $e\sim0.15$ for billions of years, $Q\sim7000$ indicates that the
399: planet has radiated tidal energy comparable to the orbital energy and
400: in excess of 100 times its own gravitational binding
401: energy.
402:
403: Furthermore, $Q\sim7000$ implies a circularization timescale
404: ${e\over{{de/dt}}}\sim3.0\times10^{7}$\,yr. Indeed for any range of
405: $Q$ - which is uncertain even for solar system bodies - the
406: circularization timescale is $<10^{8}$ years. It is thus
407: highly likely that an as-yet uncharacterized second planet is
408: providing ongoing gravitational perturbations that allow GJ\,436b's
409: eccentricity to be maintained over long timescales.
410:
411: %% The timing of the secondary eclipse, delayed by $5.5$ hours from the
412: %% mid-point between transits, proves that the orbit is significantly
413: %% eccentric. Fitting to the Doppler data \citep{maness} with this
414: %% constraint on secondary eclipse time, yields an orbit eccentricity of
415: %% $0.15\pm 0.012$. An eccentricity this large can potentially produce significant
416: %% tidal heating in the planet. The brightness temperature implied by
417: %% the eclipse ($T=712\pm36$K), if interpreted as the planet's physical
418: %% temperature, is consistent with the luminosity expected from tidal
419: %% heating. However, within the observational errors, and considering
420: %% that the planet's albedo and circulation are unknown, we cannot prove
421: %% the tidal heating hypothesis from these data alone. We plan additional
422: %% {\it Spitzer} observations to refine the planet's temperature
423: %% estimate, and to define the spectrum of the planet's thermal emission.
424:
425: \acknowledgments
426:
427: We are grateful to the staff at the Spitzer Science Center for their
428: prompt and efficient scheduling of our observations.
429:
430: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
431: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
432: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
433: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
434: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
435: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
436: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
437: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
438:
439: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
440: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
441: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
442: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
443: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
444:
445: {\it Facilities:} \facility{Spitzer}.
446:
447: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
448: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
449: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
450:
451: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
452: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
453: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
454:
455: \begin{thebibliography}{}
456:
457: % \bibitem[Adams et al.(2007)]{adams} Adams,~E.~R., Seager,~S.,
458: % \& Elkins-Tanton,~L. 2007, preprint.
459:
460: \bibitem[Banfield \& Murray(1992)]{bandfield} Banfield,~D., \&
461: Murray,~N.\ 1992, Icarus, 99, 390.
462:
463: \bibitem[Bean et al.(2006)]{bean} Bean,~J.~L., Benedict,~G.~F.,
464: \& Endl,~M. 2006, ApJ 653, L65.
465:
466: % \bibitem[Bodenheimer et al.(2003)]{bodenheimer} Bodenheimer,~P.,
467: % Laughlin,~G., \& Lin,~D.~N.~C. 2003, \apj, 592, 555.
468:
469: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{brown} Brown,~T.~M., Charbonneau,~D.,
470: Gilliland,~R.~L., Noyes,~R.~W., \& Burrows,~A. 2001, ApJ 552, 699.
471:
472: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2004)]{butler} Butler,~R.~P., Vogt,~S.~S., Marcy,~G.~W.,
473: Fischer,~D.~A., Wright,~J.~T., Henry,~G.~W., Laughlin,~G. \& Lissauer,~J.~J.
474: 2004, ApJ 617, 580.
475:
476: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2005)]{charb} Charbonneau,~D., Allen,~L.~E., Megeath,~S.~T.,
477: Torres,~G., Alonso,~R., Brown,~T.~M., Gilliland,~R.~L., Latham,~D.~W., Mandushev,~G.,
478: O'Donovan,~F., \& Sozetti,~A. 2005, ApJ 626, 523.
479:
480: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2007)]{charb_ppv} Charbonneau,~D., Brown,~T.~M.,
481: Burrows,~A., \& Laughlin,~G. 2007, in {\it Protostars and Planets V},
482: eds. D.~Jewitt and B.~Reipurth, Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press, p. 701.
483:
484: \bibitem[Claret (2000)]{claret} Claret,~A. 2000, A\&A 363, 1081.
485:
486: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2005)]{deming1} Deming,~D., Seager,~S., Richardson,~L.~J.,
487: \& Harrington,~D. 2005, Nature 434, 740.
488:
489: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2006)]{deming2} Deming,~D., Harrington,~J., Seager,~S.,
490: \& Richardson,~L.~J. 2006, ApJ 644, 560.
491:
492: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(2004)]{irac} Fazio,~G.~G., and 64 co-authors. 2004,
493: ApJ(Suppl), 154, 10.
494:
495: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2007)]{fortney} Fortney,~J.~J., Marley,~M.~S.,
496: \& Barnes,~J.~W. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1661.
497:
498: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007a)]{gillon} Gillon,~M.,
499: Pont,~F., Demory,~B.-O., Mallmann,~F., Mayor,~M., Mazeh,~T.,
500: Queloz,~D., Shporer,~A., Udry,~S. \& Vuissoz,~C. 2007,
501: A\&A Letters, in press, astro-ph/0705.2219
502:
503: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007b)]{gillon2} Gillon,~M., Demory,~B.-O.,
504: Barman,~T., Bonfils,~X., Mazeh,~T., Udry~S., Mayor~M., \& Queloz,~D.,
505: 2007, A\&A Letters, submitted, astro-ph/0707.2261
506:
507: \bibitem[Harrington et al.(2007)]{harrington} Harrington,~J., Luszcz,~S., Seager,~S.,
508: Richardson,~J.~L., \& Deming,~D. 2007, Nature 447, 691.
509:
510: \bibitem[Hut(1981)]{hut} Hut,~P.\ 1981, \aap, 99, 126.
511:
512: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2007)]{knutson} Knutson,~H.~A., Charbonneau,~D., Allen,~L.~E.,
513: Fortney,~J.~J., Agol,~E., Cowan,~N.~B., Showman,~A.~P., Cooper,~C.~S. \& Megeath,~T.
514: 2007, Nature 447, 183.
515:
516: \bibitem[Levrard et al.(2007)]{levrard} Levrard,~B., Correia,~A.~C.~M.,
517: Chabrier,~G., Baraffe,~I., Selsis,~F., \& Laskar,~J.\ 2007, \aap, 462, L5.
518:
519: \bibitem[Mandel and Agol(2002)]{mandel} Mandel,~K. \& Agol,~E. 2002, ApJ 580, L171.
520:
521: \bibitem[Maness et al.(2007)]{maness} Maness,~H.~L., Marcy,~G.~W.,
522: Ford,~E.~B., \& Hauschildt,~P.~H. 2007, PASP, 119, 90.
523:
524: \bibitem[Mardling(2007)]{mardling} Mardling,~R.~A.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706, arXiv:0706.0224
525:
526: \bibitem[Peale \& Cassen(1978)]{peale} Peale,~S.~J., \& Cassen,~P.\ 1978, Icarus, 36, 245
527:
528: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{press} Press,~W.~H., Teukolsky,~S.~A., Vetterling,~W.~T.,
529: \& Flannery~B.~P. 1992, {\it Numerical Recipes}, Cambridge University Press.
530:
531: \bibitem[Ribas(2006)]{ribas} Ribas,~I. 2006, Astr.Sp.Sci. 304, 89.
532:
533: \bibitem[Richardson et al.(2006)]{richardson} Richardson,~L.~J., Harrington,~J.,
534: Seager,~S., \& Deming,~D. 2006, ApJ, 649, 1043.
535:
536: \bibitem[Seager et al.(2007)]{seager} Seager,~S., Kuchner,~M.,
537: Hier-Majumder,~C.~A. \& Militzer,~B. 2007, ApJ, in press.
538:
539: % \bibitem[Seager and Mallen-Ornelas (2005)]{seager2} Seager,~S.,
540: % \& Mallen-Ornelas,~G. 2005, in {\it Scientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets},
541: % ASP Conf. Ser 294, eds. D.~Deming and S.~Seager, p. 417.
542:
543: \bibitem[Tittemore \& Wisdom(1989)]{tittemore} Tittemore,~W.~C.,
544: \& Wisdom,~J.\ 1989, Icarus, 78, 63.
545:
546: % \bibitem[Werner et al.(2004)]{werner} Werner,~M.~W., and 25 co-authors. 2004,
547: % ApJ(Suppl), 154, 1.
548:
549: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007)]{winn} Winn,~J.~N., Holman,~M.~J., Henry,~G.~W., Roussanova,~A.,
550: Enya,~K., Yoshii,~Y., Shporer,~A., Mazeh,~T., Johnson,~J.~A., Narita,~N. \& Suto,~J.
551: 2004, ApJ 617, 580.
552:
553: % \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007)]{winn} Winn,~J.~N., \& 10 co-authors 2004, ApJ 617, 580.
554:
555: \end{thebibliography}
556:
557: %% \clearpage
558:
559: \begin{figure}
560: \epsscale{0.6}
561: \plotone{f1.eps}
562: \caption{Spitzer photometry of the GJ\,436b transit with fitted
563: transit curves. Top: photometry before baseline correction. The
564: dashed line is the adopted baseline. Bottom: Baseline-corrected data,
565: binned to approximately 2-minute time resolution ($137$ sec), with the
566: best fit transit curve. Note the flat bottom that proves a non-grazing transit.
567: \label{fig1}}
568: \end{figure}
569:
570: \clearpage
571:
572: \begin{figure}
573: \epsscale{0.6}
574: \plotone{f2.eps}
575: \caption{Secondary eclipse photometry of GJ\,436b. Top: photometry
576: showing the ramp in intensity, with the eclipse marked at phase
577: $0.587$. The dashed line is the adopted baseline for points with phase
578: $>0.52$. Bottom: Binned data ($102$-sec time resolution) shown in
579: comparison to the best fit secondary-eclipse curve, whose amplitude is
580: $5.7 \pm 0.8 \times 10^{-4}$.}
581: \end{figure}
582:
583: \clearpage
584:
585: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}
586: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
587: %% \rotate
588: \tablecaption{Derived parameters for GJ\,436.}
589: \tablewidth{0pt}
590: \tablehead{
591: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value}
592: }
593: \startdata
594: Stellar radius\tablenotemark{a} & $0.47\pm 0.02$ \\
595: Stellar mass & $0.47\pm 0.02$ \\
596: Planet radius & $27,600\pm1170$~km \\
597: Impact parameter & $0.85^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ \\
598: Transit time & $HJD=2454280.78149\pm0.00016$ \\
599: Orbit semi-major axis & $0.0291\pm 0.0004$ AU \\
600: Orbit eccentricity & $0.150\pm 0.012$ \\
601: $a/R_{*}$ & $13.2\pm 0.6$ \\
602: Secondary eclipse phase & $0.587\pm0.005$ \\
603: Secondary eclipse amplitude & $5.7\pm0.8 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
604: Planet brightness temperature & $712\pm36$\,K \\
605: Planet mass & $0.070 \pm 0.003\, M_{\rm Jup}$ \\
606: \enddata
607: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before
608: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark
609: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.
610: %% \tablecomments{Table \ref{tbl-1} is published in its entirety in the
611: %% electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is
612: %% shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
613: \tablenotetext{a}{Radius constrained to equal mass, in solar units.}
614: %% \tablenotetext{b}{Another sample footnote for table~\ref{tbl-1}}
615: \end{deluxetable}
616:
617: \end{document}
618:
619: %%
620: %%
621: