1: % For ApJ submission -----------------------------------------
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\def\baselinestretch{1.3}
4:
5: \documentclass{emulateapj}
6: \usepackage{apjfonts}
7: \lefthead{HAN}
8: \righthead{Microlensing Exo-satellite Signals}
9:
10:
11: %==== CUSTOMIZED LATEX MACROS ========================================
12:
13: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\ensuremath{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}
14:
15:
16: % Equation align
17: \def\eqalign#1{\null\,\vcenter{\openup\jot
18: \ialign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
19: \displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil \crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
20:
21: %=======================================================================
22:
23: \lefthead{HAN}
24: \righthead{MICROLENSING MOONS}
25:
26: \begin{document}
27: \title{Microlensing Detections of Moons of Exoplanets}
28:
29:
30: \author{Cheongho Han}
31: \affil{Program of Brain Korea 21, Department of Physics,
32: Chungbuk National University, Chongju 361-763, Korea;\\
33: cheongho@astroph.chungbuk.ac.kr}
34:
35:
36:
37:
38: \submitted{Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We investigate the characteristic of microlensing signals of
42: Earth-like moons orbiting ice-giant planets. From this, we find
43: that non-negligible satellite signals occur when the planet-moon
44: separation is similar to or greater than the Einstein radius of
45: the planet. We find that the satellite signal does not diminish
46: with the increase of the planet-moon separation beyond the Einstein
47: radius of the planet unlike the planetary signal which vanishes
48: when the planet is located well beyond the Einstein radius of the
49: star. We also find that the satellite signal tends to have the
50: same sign as that of the planetary signal. These tendencies are
51: caused by the lensing effect of the star on the moon in addition
52: to the effect of the planet. We determine the range of satellite
53: separations where the microlensing technique is optimized for the
54: detections of moons. By setting an upper limit as the angle-average
55: of the projected Hill radius and a lower limit as the half of the
56: Einstein radius of the planet, we find that the microlensing method
57: would be sensitive to moons with projected separations from the
58: planet of $0.05\ {\rm AU} \lesssim d_{\rm p} \lesssim 0.24\ {\rm AU}$
59: for a Jupiter-mass planet, $0.03\ {\rm AU}\lesssim d_{\rm p} \lesssim
60: 0.17\ {\rm AU}$ for a Saturn-mass planet, and $0.01\ {\rm AU} \lesssim
61: d_{\rm p} \lesssim 0.08\ {\rm AU}$ for a Uranus-mass planet. We
62: compare the characteristics of the moons to be detected by the
63: microlensing and transit techniques.
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66:
67: \keywords{gravitational lensing}
68:
69: % ==================================================================
70:
71:
72: \section{Introduction}
73:
74: All planets in our solar system except Mercury and Venus have
75: moons. With the increasing number of discovered extrasolar
76: planets, the existence of moons and their characteristics in
77: these exoplanets emerge as new questions. Several methods to
78: answer these questions have been proposed. \citet{sartoretti99}
79: pointed out that high-precision photometry of stars during planet
80: transit can be used to detect extrasolar moons either by direct
81: satellite transit or perturbation in the timing of the planet
82: transit. \citet{brown01} applied this method to the transit
83: planet HD 209458b and placed upper limits on moons orbiting the
84: planet by using the transit light curve obtained from {\it Hubble
85: Space Telescope} observations.
86:
87:
88: In addition to the transit method, microlensing technique can also
89: be used for the detections of extrasolar moons. This possibility
90: was first mentioned by \citet{bennett02}. They claimed that
91: space-based lensing surveys with high precision and cadence would
92: be able to detect not only planets but also moons orbiting the
93: planets. From the investigation of satellite-induced lensing
94: signals, \citet{han02} pointed out that detections of Earth-Moon
95: like systems would be difficult because the satellite signal would
96: be seriously smeared out by severe finite source effect. However,
97: moons with large masses may exist. From detailed investigation
98: of the long-term dynamical stability of moons, \citet{barnes02}
99: pointed out that Earth-like moons of Jovian planets could have
100: stable orbits for long time scales. If such massive moons are
101: common, it will be possible to detect them by using the microlensing
102: technique.
103:
104:
105: In this paper, we investigate the characteristics of the lensing
106: signals of Earth-like moons orbiting ice-giant planets. We
107: investigate the variation of satellite signals depending on the
108: locations of satellites and masses and locations of host planets.
109: We also determine the range of satellite separations where the
110: microlensing technique is optimized for the detections of moons.
111:
112:
113:
114:
115:
116: \section{Basics of Lensing}
117:
118: For the description of the lensing behavior produced by satellite
119: systems, it is required to include at least three lens components
120: of the host star, planet, and moon. For a multiple-lens system,
121: the image mapping from the lens plane to the source plane is
122: expressed as
123: \begin{equation}
124: \zeta = z - \sum_{k=1}^N {m_k/M \over \bar{z}-\bar{z}_{L,k}},
125: \label{eq1}
126: \end{equation}
127: where $N$ is the number of the lens components, $\zeta=\xi + i\eta$,
128: $z_{L,k}=x_{L,k}+iy_{L,k}$, and $z=x+iy$ are the complex notations
129: of the source, lens, and image positions, respectively, $\bar{z}$
130: denotes the complex conjugate of $z$, $m_k$ are the masses of the
131: individual lens components, $M=\sum_k m_k$ is the total mass of
132: the system, and $m_k/M$ represent the mass fractions of the individual
133: lens components. Here all lengths are expressed in units of the
134: Einstein radius that is related to the lens mass and the distances
135: to the lens ($D_{\rm L}$) and source ($D_{\rm S}$) by
136: \begin{equation}
137: \eqalign{
138: \theta_{\rm E}=
139: & \left({4GM\over c^2}\right)^{1/2}
140: \left({1\over D_{\rm L}}-{1\over D_{\rm S}} \right)^{1/2} \cr
141: \sim & 0.55\ {\rm mas}\
142: \left( {M\over 0.3\ M_\odot}\right)^{1/2}
143: \left( {D_{\rm S}\over 8\ {\rm kpc}}\right)^{-1/2}
144: \left( {D_{\rm S}\over D_{\rm L}}-1\right)^{1/2}. \cr
145: }
146: \label{eq2}
147: \end{equation}
148: Due to lensing, the image of the source star is split into multiple
149: fragments and the individual images are distorted. The fragmentation
150: and distortion of the source image cause variation of the source
151: brightness. The lensing process conserves the source surface
152: brightness, and thus the magnification of each image corresponds
153: to the ratio between the areas of the image and source. For an
154: infinitesimally small source, the magnification of each image is
155: obtained by the Jacobian of the mapping equation, i.e.\
156: \begin{equation}
157: A_i = \left\vert \left( 1-{\partial\zeta\over\partial\bar{z}}
158: {\overline{\partial\zeta}\over\partial\bar{z}} \right)^{-1}
159: \right\vert.
160: \label{eq3}
161: \end{equation}
162: For Galactic lensing events, the typical separations between
163: images are of the order of 0.1 mas and thus the individual images
164: cannot be resolved. However, events can be noticed by the variation
165: of the source star flux where the total magnification corresponds
166: to the sum of the magnifications of the individual images, i.e.\
167: $A=\sum_i A_i$.
168:
169:
170: One important difficulty in describing the lensing behavior of
171: a multiple lens system is that the mapping equation is expressed
172: in terms of the source position as a function of the image and
173: lens positions. This implies that finding image positions for a
174: given source position requires inversion of the mapping equation
175: but the inversion is algebraically impossible for a multiple lens
176: system. One way to obtain the image positions is expressing the
177: mapping equation as a polynomial in $z$ and then numerically
178: solving the polynomial \citep{witt95}. The advantage of this
179: method is that it enables semi-analytic description of the lensing
180: behavior and saves computation time. However, the order of
181: polynomial increases as $N^2+1$ \citep{rhie97} and thus solving
182: the polynomial becomes difficult as the number of lens components
183: increases. In this case, one can still obtain the magnification
184: patterns by using the inverse ray-shooting technique \citep{schneider86,
185: kayser86, wambsganss90}. In this method, a large number of light
186: rays are uniformly shot from the observer plane through the lens
187: plane and then collected (binned) in the source plane. Then, the
188: magnification pattern is obtained by the ratio of the surface
189: brightness (i.e., the number of rays per unit area) on the source
190: plane to that on the observer plane. Once the magnification pattern
191: is constructed, the light curve resulting from a particular source
192: trajectory corresponds to the one-dimensional cut through the
193: constructed magnification pattern. Although this method requires
194: a large amount of computation time for the construction of detailed
195: magnification patterns, it has an important advantage that the
196: lensing behavior can be investigated regardless of the number
197: of lenses. In addition, one can easily incorporate the finite
198: source effect, which is important for the description of the
199: perturbations caused by low-mass objects such as planets and
200: moons \citep{bennett96}. Due to this reason, we use the
201: ray-shooting method for the investigation of magnification
202: patterns.
203:
204:
205: Due to the small mass ratio of the planet and even smaller mass
206: of the moon, the lensing light curve of an event produced by a
207: star having a planet with moons is well described by the
208: single-lens light curve produced by the host star for most of
209: the event duration. A short-duration perturbation occurs when
210: the planet happens to be at the location of one of the two images
211: of the source star produced by the host star \citep{gaudi97}.
212: Since the moon is close to the planet, the moon can also perturb
213: the image and produce an additional anomaly. The position of
214: the image-perturbing planet in the lens plane corresponds to
215: the position of caustic in the source plane. In other words,
216: perturbations occur when the source is located close to the
217: caustic. The caustic represents the set of positions in the
218: source plane at which the magnification of a point source event
219: is infinite. For the binary lens case composed of the star and
220: planet, there exist two sets of caustics. One is located very
221: close to the star (central caustic) and the other is located
222: away from the star (planetary caustic). Among the two perturbation
223: regions around the individual caustics, noticeable perturbations
224: induced by the moon are expected only in the region around the
225: planetary caustic. Two factors cause difficulties in finding
226: satellite signatures around the central caustic region. First,
227: the central perturbation produced by the moon occurs in a very
228: tiny region. As a result, the signature of the moon would be
229: significantly washed out by the finite source effect. Second,
230: the perturbation regions of the planet and the moon nearly
231: coincide. Then, the anomaly in the lensing light curve would
232: be dominated by that of the planet due to the overwhelming mass
233: of the planet compared to the mass of the moon, making it even
234: more difficult to identify the satellite signature. We therefore
235: focus on the perturbation region around the planetary caustic
236: throughout the paper.
237:
238:
239: The location of the planetary caustic is related to the star-planet
240: separation by
241: \begin{equation}
242: {\bf s}_{\rm c}={\bf s}_{\rm p}\left( 1- {1\over s_{\rm p}} \right)^2,
243: \label{eq4}
244: \end{equation}
245: where ${\bf s}_{\rm p}$ represents the position vector of the planet
246: from the star and its length is normalized by the Einstein radius of
247: the star. Then, the caustic is located on the planet side when the
248: planet is outside the Einstein ring ($s_{\rm p}>1.0$), while it is
249: located on the opposite side when the planet is inside the ring
250: ($s_{\rm p}<1.0$). The number of caustics also depends on the
251: planetary separation and it is one when $s_{\rm p}>1.0$ and two when
252: $s_{\rm p}<1.0$. The caustic is within the Einstein ring when the
253: planetary separation is within the range of $0.6\lesssim s_{\rm p}
254: \lesssim 1.6$. The caustic size, which is proportional to the
255: chance of planetary perturbation, is maximized when the planet is
256: in this region and thus this region is often called as `lensing zone'
257: \citep{gould92}. As the separation departs from the Einstein radius,
258: the caustic becomes smaller as $\propto s_{\rm p}^{-2}$ for $s_{\rm p}
259: \gg 1.0$ and $\propto s_{\rm p}^{2}$ for $s_{\rm p}\ll 1.0$. In
260: addition, the caustic size becomes smaller with the decrease of the
261: planet/star mass ratio as $\propto q_{\rm p}^{1/2}$ \citep{han06}.
262: When the perturbation is produced by a planet located outside of
263: the Einstein ring, the sign of the resulting anomaly in the lensing
264: light curve is positive, implying that the magnification during the
265: perturbation is higher than the corresponding magnification of the
266: single lens event. On the other hand, if the perturbation is
267: produced by a planet located outside of the ring, the sign of the
268: anomaly is negative \citep{han03}.
269:
270:
271:
272:
273: % Figure 1 ----------------------------------------------------
274: \begin{figure}[t]
275: \epsscale{1.18}
276: \plotone{fig1.eps}
277: \caption{\label{fig:one}
278: Magnification patterns of lens systems composed of a star, a
279: planet, and a moon. The masses of the individual lens components
280: are $0.3\ M_\odot$ for the star, $10\ M_{\rm E}$ for the planet,
281: and $1.0\ M_{\rm E}$ for the moon. Each map is centered at the
282: center of the planetary caustic produced by the planet. The moons
283: have a common position angle of $\phi=60^\circ$ with respect to
284: the star-planet axis, where the planet is located on the left.
285: See Figure~\ref{fig:two} for the geometry of the lens system.
286: The labels above and on the right side represent the projected
287: star-planet and planet-moon separations, respectively. The value
288: in the parenthesis $s_{\rm p}$ represents the star-planet separation
289: in units of the Einstein radius corresponding to the mass of the
290: host star, while $s_{\rm s}$ represents the planet-moon separation
291: normalized by the Einstein radius corresponding to the mass of the
292: planet. Grey-scale is drawn such that brighter tone represents
293: higher magnification. The panels blocked by thick solid lines
294: represent the cases where the planet-moon separation is greater
295: than the angle-average of the plant's Hill radius. The light
296: curves resulting from the source trajectories marked by straight
297: lines with arrows in the individual panels are presented in the
298: corresponding panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:three}.
299: }\end{figure}
300: % -------------------------------------------------------------
301:
302:
303:
304: \section{Magnification pattern}
305:
306: We investigate the microlensing signals of an Earth-like moon
307: around ice-giant planets. For this investigation, we construct
308: magnification patterns of lens systems with physical parameters
309: adopted from those of typical galactic microlensing events
310: currently being detected toward the galactic bulge direction
311: \citep{sumi03, udalski03}. We assume that the planet-hosting
312: star is located at a distance of $D_{\rm L}=6\ {\rm kpc}$ from
313: the observer and has a mass of $M_\star =0.3\ M_\odot$. We also
314: assume that the source star is located at $D_{\rm S} =8\ {\rm kpc}$,
315: that corresponds to the distance to the Galactic center. Then
316: the physical Einstein radius corresponding to the lens mass and
317: distance is $r_{\rm E}= D_{\rm L}\theta_{\rm E}=1.9$ AU. For the
318: star-planet and planet-moon separations, we test various combinations
319: keeping in mind that the planet-moon separation should have an upper
320: limit. This upper limit is usually set by the Hill radius which
321: approximates the gravitational sphere of influence of the planet in
322: the face of the perturbation from the host star. The Hill radius is
323: related to the semi-major axis, $a$, of the planet and the masses
324: of the star, $M_\star$, and planet, $m_{\rm p}$, by
325: \begin{equation}
326: r_{\rm H}=a\left( {m_{\rm p}\over 3 M_\star} \right)^{1/3}.
327: \label{eq5}
328: \end{equation}
329: Microlensing is only sensitive to the projected separation, while
330: the 3-dimensional separation is important for the orbital stability.
331: We, therefore, set the angle-average of the projected Hill radius,
332: i.e.\ $\sqrt{2/3} r_{\rm H}$, as the upper limit of the planet-moon
333: separation. Since the satellite signal is an additional perturbation
334: to the planet-induced perturbation, moons would be detected for
335: events where planets are detected. We, therefore, test planets
336: located within the lensing zone of the host star. In physical
337: units, this corresponds to $1.2\ {\rm AU} \lesssim d_{\rm p}\lesssim
338: 3.0\ {\rm AU}$, where $d_{\rm p}$ is the projected star-planet
339: separation.
340:
341:
342:
343: % Figure 2 ----------------------------------------------------
344: \begin{figure}[t]
345: \epsscale{1.18}
346: \plotone{fig2.eps}
347: \caption{\label{fig:two}
348: Geometry of the lens system composed of a star, a planet, and
349: a moon. The area in the box represents the region where the
350: magnification pattern is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:one}.
351: }\end{figure}
352: % -------------------------------------------------------------
353:
354:
355:
356:
357: In Figure~\ref{fig:one}, we present the magnification patterns
358: induced by a planet with moons of various projected separations
359: from the planet. The planet has a mass of $10\ M_{\rm E}$,
360: where $M_{\rm E}$ is the mass of the Earth. Each map is centered
361: at the center of the planetary caustic produced by the planet.
362: The moons have a common position angle of $\phi=60^\circ$ with
363: respect to the star-planet axis, where the planet is located on
364: the left. See Figure~\ref{fig:two} for the geometry of the lens
365: system. The labels above and on the right side of the maps
366: represent the projected star-planet and planet-moon separations,
367: respectively. The notations $d_{\rm s}$ and $s_{\rm s}$ represent
368: the projected planet-moon separations expressed in physical units
369: and in units of the Einstein radius corresponding to the mass of
370: the planet, $r_{\rm E,p}$, respectively. Grey-scale is drawn
371: such that brighter tone represents higher magnification. The
372: panels blocked by thick solid lines represent the cases where the
373: planet-moon separation is greater than the angle-average of the
374: projected Hill radius of the planet and thus moons are prohibited
375: to reside. The light curves resulting from the source trajectories
376: marked by straight lines with arrows in the individual panels are
377: presented in the corresponding panels of Figure~\ref{fig:three}.
378: For the construction of light curves, we take the finite-source
379: effect into consideration by assuming that the source star has
380: a radius of $1.0\ R_\odot$.
381:
382:
383:
384: From the magnification patterns and light curves, we find that
385: non-negligible satellite signals occur when the planet-moon
386: separation is similar to or greater than the Einstein radius of
387: the planet, i.e.\ $s_{\rm s}\gtrsim 1.0$. One thing to be noted
388: is that the satellite signal does not diminish with the increase
389: of the planet-moon separation beyond the Einstein radius of the
390: planet. This contrasts to the planetary signal that vanishes
391: when the planet is located well beyond the Einstein radius of the
392: star. This is because although the lensing effect of the planet
393: on the moon rapidly decreases with the increase of the planet-moon
394: separation beyond $r_{\rm E,p}$, the effect of the star on the
395: moon remains. When, the planet-moon separation is substantially
396: larger than the Einstein radius of the planet, the moon-induced
397: perturbation forms at a separate region from the planet-induced
398: perturbation region. In this case, the satellite signal on the
399: light curve appears as a separate anomaly and thus it would be
400: easily noticed. When $s_{\rm s}\sim 1.0$, the perturbations
401: induced by the planet and satellite interfere each other,
402: resulting in complex magnification patterns. Then, although it
403: would be still possible to notice the satellite signal, it would
404: be sometimes difficult to unambiguously identify the satellite
405: signal. When the separation is substantially smaller than the
406: planetary Einstein radius, the planet and moon behave as if they
407: are a single component. In this case, it would be difficult to
408: notice the satellite signal.
409:
410:
411: Another interesting trend of the satellite signal is that it tends
412: to have the same sign as that of the planetary signal. This trend
413: occurs because in most cases of identifiable moons with separations
414: from the planet of $s_{\rm p}\gtrsim 1.0$, the lensing effect of
415: the host star on the moon is bigger than the effect of the planet.
416: Then, the sign of the satellite perturbation is mostly determined
417: by the star-moon separation. The star-moon separation is similar
418: to the star-planet separation, and thus the sign of the planet-induced
419: perturbation is same as that of the planet-induced perturbation.
420:
421:
422: % Figure 3 ----------------------------------------------------
423: \begin{figure}[t]
424: \epsscale{1.18}
425: \plotone{fig3.eps}
426: \caption{\label{fig:three}
427: Light curves of lensing events produced by lens systems composed
428: of a star, a planet, and a moon. The lens system geometry and
429: source trajectories responsible for the individual events are
430: presented in the corresponding panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:one}.
431: In each panel, the thick and thin curves represent the light
432: curves resulting from lens systems with and without the moon,
433: respectively.
434: }\end{figure}
435: % -------------------------------------------------------------
436:
437:
438: We note that although the planet and moon often reveal themselves
439: as separate signals, characterizing them from the independent
440: analysis of the individual signals would be difficult. For some cases
441: of triple lensing where the effect of the second body on the third
442: body is negligible, it is possible to approximate the lensing behavior
443: of the triple-lens system as the superposition of the two binary lens
444: pairs composed of the first and second bodies and the first and third
445: bodies. An example is the multiple-planetary system, where the lensing
446: effect of a planet to another planet is negligible \citep{bozza99,
447: han01}. However, for the case of the star-planet-satellite system,
448: the effect of the planet on the moon is usually not negligible and
449: thus the approximation of binary superposition cannot be used for
450: the analysis of the satellite signal. This can be seen from the
451: comparison of the magnification patterns obtained by the exact
452: triple-lensing formalism in Figure~\ref{fig:one} and the patterns
453: obtained by using the binary superposition approximation in
454: Figure~\ref{fig:four}. As expected, it is found that the difference
455: in the magnification patterns becomes larger as the planet-moon
456: separation decreases.
457:
458:
459:
460: % Figure 4 ----------------------------------------------------
461: \begin{figure}[t]
462: \epsscale{1.18}
463: \plotone{fig4.eps}
464: \caption{\label{fig:four}
465: Magnification patterns of lens systems obtained by using the binary
466: superposition approximation. Notations are same as in
467: Fig.~\ref{fig:one}.
468: }\end{figure}
469: % -------------------------------------------------------------
470:
471:
472: Then, what will be the range of the satellite separation where the
473: microlensing technique is optimized for the detections of moons.
474: The lower limit of this range is set by the Einstein radius of the
475: planet because moons with separations substantially smaller than
476: $r_{\rm E,p}$ are hard to be detected. Since $r_{\rm E,p}$ depends
477: on the planet's mass, planets with different masses have different
478: lower limits. The upper limit is set by the Hill radius because
479: moons cannot reside beyond $r_{\rm H}$. The Hill radius depends
480: not only on the planet mass but also on the star-planet separation.
481: As a result, even planets with similar masses have different upper
482: limits depending on where they are located in the system.
483:
484:
485: In Figure~\ref{fig:five}, we present the optimal range of satellite
486: separations as a function of the star-planet separation for planets
487: with different masses. We note that the labels of the star-planet
488: separation on the bottom axis ($s_{\rm p}$) and the planet-moon
489: separation on the left axis ($s_{\rm s}$) are expressed in units of
490: the Einstein radii of the star and planet, respectively. The labels
491: are expressed also in physical units on the top and right axes,
492: respectively. The individual panels are for planets with masses of
493: $m_{\rm p}=300\ M_{\rm E}$, $100\ M_{\rm E}$, and $10\ M_{\rm E}$,
494: which roughly corresponds to the masses of Jupiter, Saturn, and
495: Uranus, respectively. In each panel, the light-shaded area represents
496: the region of detectable satellites. The dark-shaded area represents
497: the region where the planet-moon separation is larger than the
498: angle-average of the projected Hill radius and thus moons are prohibited
499: to reside. The hatched area represents the region where the planet-moon
500: separation is smaller than half of the Einstein radius of the planet
501: and thus the satellite signal is hard to be detected. Although the
502: range varies depending on the planet's position in the stellar system,
503: we find that the microlensing method would be sensitive to moons
504: with separations from the planet of $0.05\ {\rm AU}\lesssim d_{\rm p}
505: \lesssim 0.24\ {\rm AU}$ for a Jupiter-mass planet, $0.03\ {\rm AU}
506: \lesssim d_{\rm p} \lesssim 0.17\ {\rm AU}$ for a Saturn-mass planet,
507: and $0.01\ {\rm AU} \lesssim d_{\rm p}\lesssim 0.08\ {\rm AU}$ for
508: a Uranus-mass planet.
509:
510:
511:
512: % Figure 5 ----------------------------------------------------
513: \begin{figure}[t]
514: \epsscale{1.18}
515: \plotone{fig5.eps}
516: \caption{\label{fig:five}
517: The optimal ranges of satellite separations where microlensing
518: technique is sensitive to the detections of moons. The labels of
519: the star-planet separation on the bottom axis ($s_{\rm p}$) and
520: the planet-moon separation on the left axis ($s_{\rm s}$) are
521: expressed in units of the Einstein radii of the star and planet,
522: respectively. The labels on the top and right axes are expressed
523: in physical units. In each panel, the light-shaded area represents
524: the region of detectable satellites. The dark-shade area represents
525: the region where the planet-moon separation is larger than the
526: angle-average of the projected Hill radius of the planet and the
527: hatched area represents the region where the separation is smaller
528: than half of the planetary Einstein radius.
529: }\end{figure}
530: % -------------------------------------------------------------
531:
532:
533:
534:
535: % Figure 6 ----------------------------------------------------
536: \begin{figure}[t]
537: \epsscale{1.18}
538: \plotone{fig6.eps}
539: \caption{\label{fig:six}
540: The semi-major axis distributions of the moons of Jupiter, Saturn,
541: and Uranus. Note that the planet-moon separations are expressed in
542: units of the Hill radii of the individual planets. The inset in each
543: panel shows the distribution for close-in satellites to the planet.
544: The arrow represents the upper limit of the planet-satellite separation
545: for the detection of moons by using the transit method.
546: }\end{figure}
547: % -------------------------------------------------------------
548:
549:
550:
551:
552: \section{Comparison to Transit Method}
553:
554:
555: Due to the uniqueness of the microlensing method in detecting
556: planets and their moons, the characteristics of the moons to be
557: detected by the microlensing method will be different from those
558: to be discovered by the transit method. Below, we list some of
559: these differences.
560:
561:
562: First, while the transit method can be used to search for moons of
563: nearby stars, the microlensing method are sensitive to moons of
564: remote stars. To meet the precision of photometry that is required
565: to detect moons of extrasolar planets, the target stars of transit
566: searches should be bright and thus they are confined to the solar
567: neighborhood. By contrast, microlensing searches are sensitive to
568: stars anywhere along the line-of-sight toward the Galactic bulge.
569: Therefore, the microlensing method can provide a sample of extrasolar
570: moons distributed throughout the galaxy.
571:
572:
573: Second, while the transit method is most sensitive to moons of
574: close-in planets, the microlensing method is sensitive to moons of
575: planets in the region beyond the `snow line'. The snow line is
576: the point in the protoplanetary disk beyond which the temperature
577: is less than the condensation temperature of water \citep{lecar06}.
578: Enhanced surface density of solids helps the formation of cores of
579: giant planets and thus giant planets are thought to form in the
580: region immediately beyond the snow line. The giant planets in our
581: solar system, which are located in this region, have numerous moons;
582: 63 known moons for Jupiter, 59 for Saturn, and 27 for Uranus.
583: On the contrary, there might be few moons in close-in planets due
584: to the strong tidal effect of the host stars as suggested by the
585: two innermost planets of Mercury and Venus in our solar system.
586:
587:
588: Third, while the transit method is sensitive to moons located close
589: to their host planets, moons detectable by the microlensing method
590: will have wide separations from the planets. In order to produce
591: additional dips in transit light curves, moons should be located
592: very close to their planets with separations equivalent to or less
593: than the diameter of the host star. On the other hand, the sensitivity
594: of microlensing method extends up to the Hill radius. For the case
595: of giant planets in our solar system, the numbers of moons with
596: separations larger than $0.1 r_{\rm H}$ are 54 (85.7\% of the
597: all known moons), 38 (64.4\%), and 5 (18.5\%) for Jupiter, Saturn,
598: and Uranus, respectively. See the semi-major axis distributions
599: of the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus in Figure~\ref{fig:six}.
600: In these planets, there also exist close-in moons with separations
601: from the planets less than the diameter of the sun; 7 (11.1\%), 19
602: (32.2\%), and 17 (63.0\%) for Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, respectively.
603: However, it would be difficult to detect them by using the transit
604: method because the star-planet separation is large and thus the
605: probability of planet transit is very low.
606:
607:
608:
609: \section{Conclusion}
610:
611: We investigated the characteristic of microlensing signals of
612: Earth-like moons orbiting ice-giant planets. For this, we constructed
613: magnification patterns of lens systems with various star-planet
614: and planet-moon separations. From this investigation, we found
615: that non-negligible satellite signals occur when the planet-moon
616: separation is similar to or greater than the Einstein radius of
617: the planet. We found that the satellite signal does not diminish
618: with the increase of the planet-moon separation beyond the Einstein
619: radius of the planet unlike the planetary signal which vanishes
620: when the planet is located well beyond the Einstein radius of the
621: star. We also found that the satellite signal tends to have the
622: same sign as that of the planetary signal. These tendencies are
623: caused by the lensing effect of the star on the moon in addition
624: to the effect of the planet. We determined the range of satellite
625: separations where the microlensing technique is optimized for the
626: detections of moons. By setting an upper limit as the angle-average
627: of the projected Hill radius and a lower limit as half of the Einstein
628: radius of the planet, we found that the microlensing method would be
629: sensitive to moons with projected separations from the planet of
630: $0.05\ {\rm AU} \lesssim d_{\rm p} \lesssim 0.24\ {\rm AU}$ for
631: a Jupiter-mass planet, $0.03\ {\rm AU}\lesssim d_{\rm p} \lesssim
632: 0.17\ {\rm AU}$ for a Saturn-mass planet, and $0.01\ {\rm AU}
633: \lesssim d_{\rm p} \lesssim 0.08\ {\rm AU}$ for a Uranus-mass
634: planet. We compared the characteristics of the moons to be detected
635: by the microlensing and transit techniques.
636:
637:
638:
639:
640:
641:
642: \acknowledgments
643: This work was supported by the Astrophysical Research Center for the
644: Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) of Korea Science and
645: Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through Science Research Program (SRC)
646: program.
647:
648:
649:
650:
651: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
652: \frenchspacing
653:
654:
655: \bibitem[Barnes \& O'Brien(2002)]{barnes02}
656: Barnes, J.\ W., \& O'Brien, D.\ P.\ 2002, 575, 1087
657:
658: \bibitem[Bennett \& Rhie(1996)]{bennett96}
659: Bennett, D.\ P., \& Rhie, S.\ H.\ 1996, \apj, 472, 660
660:
661: \bibitem[Bennett \& Rhie(2002)]{bennett02}
662: Bennett, D.\ P., \& Rhie, S.\ H.\ 2002, \apj, 574, 985
663:
664: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{brown01}
665: Brown, T.\ M., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R.\ L., Noyes, R.\ W.,
666: \& Burrows, A.\ 2001, \apj, 552, 699
667:
668: \bibitem[Bozza(1999)]{bozza99}
669: Bozza, V., 1999, \aap, 348, 311
670:
671: \bibitem[Gaudi \& Gould(1997)]{gaudi97}
672: Gaudi, B.\ S., \& Gould, A.\ 1997, \apj, 486, 85
673:
674: \bibitem[Gould \& Loeb(1992)]{gould92}
675: Gould, A., \& Loeb, A.\ 1992, \apj, 486, 85
676:
677: \bibitem[Han(2006)]{han06}
678: Han, C.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 1080
679:
680: \bibitem[Han \& Chang(2003)]{han03}
681: Han, C., \& Chang, K.\ 2003, \apj, 597, 1070
682:
683: \bibitem[Han et al.(2001)]{han01}
684: Han, C., Chang, H.-Y., An, J. H., \& Chang, K. 2001, \mnras, 328, 986
685:
686: \bibitem[Han \& Han(2002)]{han02}
687: Han, C., \& Han, W.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 490
688:
689: \bibitem[Kayser, Refsdal \& Stabell(1986)]{kayser86}
690: Kayser, R., Refsdal, S., \& Stabell, R.\ 1986, \aap, 166, 36
691:
692: \bibitem[Lecar et al.(2006)]{lecar06}
693: Lecar, M., Podolak, M., Sasselov, D., \& Chiang, E.\ 2006, \apj, 640,1115
694:
695: \bibitem[Rhie (1997)]{rhie97}
696: Rhie, S.\ H.\ 1997, \apj, 484, 63
697:
698: \bibitem[Sartoretti \& Schneider(1999)]{sartoretti99}
699: Sartoretti, P., \& Scheneider, J.\ 1999, \aaps, 134, 553
700:
701: \bibitem[Schneider \& Weiss(1986)]{schneider86}
702: Schneider, P., \& Weiss, A.\ 1986, \aap, 164, 237
703:
704: \bibitem[Sumi et al.(2003)]{sumi03}
705: Sumi, T., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 591, 204
706:
707: \bibitem[Udalski(2003)]{udalski03}
708: Udalski, A.\ 2003, AcA, 53, 291
709:
710: \bibitem[Wambsganss, Paczy\'nski \& Schneider(1990)]{wambsganss90}
711: Wambsganss, J., Paczy\'nski, B., \& Schneider P.\ 1990, \apj, 358, L33
712:
713: \bibitem[Witt \& Mao(1995)]{witt95}
714: Witt, H.\ J., \& Mao, S.\ 1995, \apj, 447, L105
715:
716:
717:
718: \end{thebibliography}
719:
720: \end{document}
721: