1: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \documentclass{emulateapj}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \def\etal{et al.\ \rm}
11:
12: \title{Stellar proper motion and the timing of planetary transits}
13:
14: \author{Roman R. Rafikov\altaffilmark{1,2}}
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences,
16: Princeton University, Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540;
17: rrr@astro.princeton.edu}
18: \altaffiltext{2}{Sloan Fellow}
19:
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: Duration and period of transits in extrasolar planetary systems
24: can exhibit long-term variations for a variety of reasons.
25: Here we investigate how systemic proper motion, which steadily
26: re-orients planetary orbit with respect to our line of sight, affects
27: the timing of transits. We find that in a typical system with a
28: period of several days proper motion at the level of 100 mas yr$^{-1}$
29: makes transit duration vary at a rate $\sim 10-100$ ms
30: yr$^{-1}$. In some isolated systems this variation is at
31: the measurable level (can be as high as $0.6$
32: s yr$^{-1}$ for GJ436) and may exceed all other transit timing
33: contributions (due to the general relativity, stellar quadrupole, etc.).
34: In addition, proper motion causes evolution of the observed
35: orbital period via the Shklovskii effect at a rate
36: $\gtrsim 10$ $\mu$s yr$^{-1}$ for the nearby transiting systems
37: ($0.26$ ms yr$^{-1}$ in GJ436), which in some cases
38: exceeds all other contributions to $\dot P$. Earth's motion
39: around the Sun gives rise to additional periodic timing signal
40: (even for systems with zero intrinsic proper motion) allowing
41: a full determination of the spatial orientation of the planetary
42: orbit.
43: Unlike most other timing effects the proper motion signatures
44: persist even in systems with zero eccentricity and get
45: stronger as the planetary period increases. They should be
46: the dominant cause of transit timing
47: variations in isolated wide separation (periods
48: of months) systems that will be sought by {\it Kepler}.
49: \end{abstract}
50: \keywords{astrometry --- celestial mechanics --- planetary systems ---
51: eclipses}
52:
53:
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56:
57: \section{Introduction.}
58: \label{sect:intro0}
59:
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61:
62: Planetary transits
63: have provided us with a unique opportunity to get a handle on the
64: physical properties of the extrasolar planets such as their radii
65: and densities. Recently it has
66: been suggested (Miralda-Escud\'e 2002; Heyl \& Gladman 2007)
67: that precision timing of the moments at which transits occur
68: can give us additional information about the transiting systems.
69: Various physical effects cause orbit of the planet
70: precess in space leading to the changes in transit geometry, which
71: can be measured through the timing of transits. Among these effects
72: are the general
73: relativistic precession of the orbit, gravitational influence of other planets
74: in the system or companion stars, torques due to the spin-induced
75: quadrupole moment of the star and due to the tidal deformations
76: of both the star and the planet (Miralda-Escud\'e 2002;
77: Heyl \& Gladman 2007; Ribas \etal 2008; P\'al \& Kocsis 2008;
78: Jord\'an \& Bakos 2008).
79:
80: Another obvious reason for the re-orientation of the planetary
81: orbit with respect to observer at Earth is the proper motion of the
82: exoplanetary system with respect to the Solar System. Stars in the Solar
83: neighborhood move at velocities of tens of km s$^{-1}$ and some
84: of them exhibit proper motion at the level of $1$ mas
85: yr$^{-1}$. Also, the distance to stars constantly changes as a result of
86: their relative motion with respect to the Sun and this affects
87: transit timing because of the finite speed of light. At some level
88: proper motion is a characteristic of any star, including those with
89: transiting exoplanets, and it is thus important to understand its
90: implications for transit timing.
91:
92: Proper motion is well known to be important in the timing of
93: isolated and binary radio pulsars (Shklovskii 1970;
94: Kopeikin 1996). In these systems proper motion affects the pulsar spin
95: and orbital periods through the so-called Shklovskii effect (Shklovskii 1970)
96: while the re-orientation of the binary orbit can be (and has been) measured
97: via the variation of the projected size of the orbit (Kopeikin 1996; Arzoumanian
98: \etal 1996). Pulsar acceleration in external gravitational field can also
99: be important especially for pulsars in globular clusters
100: (Edwards \etal 2006).
101:
102: Of course, there are significant differences between the timing of pulsars
103: and of planetary transits: accuracy with which some millisecond pulsars
104: can be timed is at the $\mu$s level (Manchester 2008) while a single
105: planetary transit can only be timed to several seconds at
106: best (Knutson \etal 2007).
107: Also, the whole idea of timing is different in the two cases: for binary
108: pulsars one is usually able to trace the whole orbit of
109: the neutron star in time domain while in the case of planetary
110: transits only two narrow time windows --- primary and secondary
111: transits --- are available to play with. Nevertheless, some of the
112: ideas developed in pulsar timing may be applied to the timing of
113: planetary transits.
114:
115: Previously, Kopeikin
116: \& Ozernoy (1999) have utilized a post-newtonian relativistic
117: approach for the precision Doppler measurements of the binary star
118: orbits and discussed some of the relevant effects of the proper motion. Here
119: we aim at investigating the role of the proper motion in timing of
120: planetary transit duration and period in extrasolar planetary systems.
121: We lay out the basics of the orbital element evolution
122: due to the proper motion in \S \ref{sect:intro} . We discuss the evolution
123: of the transit duration in \S \ref{sect:transit} and the evolution of
124: the period between transits in \S \ref{sect:period}. Comparison with
125: other transit timing effects and application to real systems can be
126: found in \S \ref{sect:disc}.
127:
128:
129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
130: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
131:
132: \section{Effect of proper motion.}
133: \label{sect:intro}
134:
135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
136:
137: To quantitatively evaluate the effect of stellar proper motion
138: on the timing of planetary transits let us consider a planet
139: in orbit around a star with period $P$, semimajor axis $a$,
140: and eccentricity $e$. We introduce a unit
141: vector ${\bf n}$ pointing from the observer at Earth to
142: the barycenter of the transiting system. Vector ${\bf n}$
143: varies in time because of the linear motion of the binary:
144: \ba
145: \frac{d{\bf n}}{dt}={\bf \mu},
146: \label{eq:dndt}
147: \ea
148: where ${\bf \mu}$ is the proper motion in the plane of the sky.
149: Orientation of
150: the binary in space is fully determined by the unit vector
151: ${\bf l}$ parallel to the orbital angular momentum
152: ${\bf L}$ of the binary (i.e. ${\bf l}$ is perpendicular to the orbital
153: plane) and the unit vector ${\bf g}$ pointing from the prime
154: focus of the planetary orbit towards its pericenter.
155: We assume ${\bf L}$ to be constant thus neglecting
156: possibility of tidal coupling between ${\bf L}$ and planetary
157: and stellar spins, and gravitational effects of
158: any companions. We also assume that orientation of the orbital
159: ellipse in space is fixed, i.e. ${\bf g}$ is constant too.
160: In doing this we disregard precession of
161: the planetary orbit caused by the general relativity, stellar
162: oblateness, and so on. We can do this because
163: observed changes of the orbital configuration caused by
164: different physical mechanisms add up linearly and here
165: we want to concentrate on just one of them.
166:
167: Orbital plane crosses the plane of the sky
168: along the line of nodes and we introduce vector
169: ${\bf m}=({\bf l}\times{\bf n})/\sin i$ along this line
170: ($|{\bf m}|=1$), where $i$ is the observed inclination
171: of the planetary orbit given by $\sin i=|{\bf n}\times{\bf l}|$.
172: If $\omega$ is the angle
173: between ${\bf m}$ and ${\bf g}$ in the direction of planetary
174: motion --- the argument of pericentre --- then at any moment of time
175: \ba
176: {\bf g}=\frac{\cos\omega}{\sin i}({\bf l}\times{\bf n})-
177: \frac{\sin\omega}{\sin i}[{\bf n}-{\bf l}({\bf n}\cdot{\bf l})].
178: \label{eq:p_vector}
179: \ea
180:
181: Differentiating relation $\cos i=({\bf n}\cdot{\bf l})$ with
182: respect to time we find using equation (\ref{eq:dndt})
183: \ba
184: \dot i_\mu=-\frac{({\bf \mu}\cdot{\bf l})}{\sin i}=
185: -\mu\cos\beta,
186: \label{eq:didt}
187: \ea
188: where $\mu=|{\bf \mu}|$ and $\beta$ is the angle in the plane
189: of the sky between ${\bf \mu}$ and vector
190: ${\bf l}-{\bf n}({\bf l}\cdot{\bf n})$ --- the projection of ${\bf l}$
191: on the sky plane.
192: Differentiating with respect to time relation
193: $\cos \omega = ({\bf g}\cdot{\bf m})=({\bf g}
194: \cdot({\bf l}\times{\bf n}))/\sin i$ and using equations
195: (\ref{eq:dndt}), (\ref{eq:p_vector}), and (\ref{eq:didt}) we
196: find (Kopeikin 1996)
197: \ba
198: \dot \omega_\mu = -\frac{({\bf \mu}\cdot({\bf l}\times {\bf n}))}
199: {\sin^2 i}=-\frac{\mu\sin\beta}{\sin i}.
200: \label{eq:domegadt}
201: \ea
202: Equations (\ref{eq:didt}) and (\ref{eq:domegadt}) fully determine
203: evolution of the observed orientation of planetary orbit in space
204: caused by the stellar proper motion.
205:
206:
207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
209:
210: \section{Variation of the transit duration.}
211: \label{sect:transit}
212:
213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
214:
215: Planet transit is characterized by an impact parameter
216: $p=r_{tr}\cos i/R_\star$ --- minimum separation
217: between the planetary trajectory and the stellar disk center projected
218: onto the plane of the sky, in units of stellar radius $R_\star$.
219: Here $r_{tr}$ is the value of the
220: spatial separation $r$ between the planet and the center of the star
221: at transit midpoint --- moment of time when the projected separation
222: between the planet and the center of the stellar disk is minimized.
223: In general
224: \ba
225: r=\frac{a(1-e^2)}{1+e\cos f},
226: \label{eq:r}
227: \ea
228: where $f$ is the true anomaly counted from the line of apsides.
229: Transit midpoint occurs at $f=\pi/2-\omega$, so that
230: \ba
231: p=\frac{a}{R_\star}\frac{\cos i(1-e^2)}{1+e\sin \omega}.
232: \label{eq:p}
233: \ea
234: Clearly, for the transit to occur one needs $p<1+R_p/R_\star$, where
235: $R_p$ is the planetary radius, which translates
236: into
237: \ba
238: \cos i < \frac{R_\star+R_p}{a}\frac{1+e\sin \omega}{(1-e^2)}.
239: \label{eq:constr}
240: \ea
241:
242: Transit duration calculated as the time between the crossings of the
243: edge of the stellar disk by the center\footnote{This definition differs
244: from that usually adopted in the literature (which assumes that transit
245: lasts while stellar and planetary disks have at least some overlap) but this
246: does not affect our results significantly.} of the planetary disk is
247: (see e.g. Tingley \& Sackett 2005)
248: \ba
249: T_{tr}=2\frac{R_\star(1-p^2)^{1/2}}{v_{\varphi,tr}}=
250: \frac{2}{n}\frac{(1-e^2)^{1/2}}{1+e\sin \omega}
251: \frac{R_\star(1-p^2)^{1/2}}{a},
252: \label{eq:T_tr}
253: \ea
254: where $v_{\varphi,tr}=na(1+e\sin \omega)/(1-e^2)^{1/2}$ is the value
255: of the azimuthal (transverse) component of planetary velocity at
256: the transit midpoint and $n=2\pi/P$ is the planetary mean motion.
257: In deriving equation (\ref{eq:T_tr}) we have neglected the curvature
258: of projected planetary trajectory and the variation of planetary speed
259: during the transit --- this introduces only a small error.
260:
261: Given that $p$ and $\omega$ in equation (\ref{eq:T_tr}) evolve as a
262: result of stellar proper motion it is obvious that
263: $T_{tr}$ would not remain constant. Differentiating expression
264: (\ref{eq:T_tr}) with respect to time one finds
265: \ba
266: && \dot T_{tr}=-\frac{T_{tr}}{1+e\sin \omega}\nonumber\\
267: && \times\left[e\dot\omega\cos\omega-
268: g\left(
269: \dot i\sin i+\dot
270: \omega\cos i\frac{e\cos\omega}{1+e\sin \omega}\right)\right],
271: \label{eq:dTtrdt}
272: \ea
273: where
274: \ba
275: g\left(\frac{R_\star}{a},p\right)
276: =\frac{a}{R_\star}\frac{p}{1-p^2}.
277: \label{eq:g}
278: \ea
279: In equation (\ref{eq:dTtrdt}) the first term in brackets describes the
280: variation of $T_{tr}$ caused by the change of $v_{\varphi,tr}$ due to
281: the precession of the orbital ellipse while the second and the third terms
282: embody the variation of transit geometry (change of impact parameter $p$)
283: caused by the change of the inclination of the orbital plane and the precession
284: of the orbital ellipse respectively.
285: Third term is normally much smaller than the second one because
286: $\cos i\ll 1$ in transiting systems.
287: Note that $\dot \omega$ affects $T_{tr}$ only if the planetary
288: orbit is eccentric, while $\dot i$ causes variation of $T_{tr}$
289: even for circular orbits.
290:
291: Expression for $\dot T_{tr}$ caused by the proper motion
292: can be written with the aid of equations (\ref{eq:didt}),
293: (\ref{eq:domegadt}), and (\ref{eq:dTtrdt}) as
294: \ba
295: && \dot T_{tr,\mu}=\frac{T_{tr}\mu\sin\beta}{1+e\sin \omega}\nonumber\\
296: && \times\left[\frac{e\cos\omega}{\sin i}-
297: g\left(
298: \frac{\sin i}{\tan\beta}+\frac{\cos i}{\sin i}\frac{e\cos\omega}
299: {1+e\sin \omega}\right)\right].
300: \label{eq:dTtrdt1}
301: \ea
302: This equation explicitly shows how $T_{tr}$ varies as a function of
303: the absolute value of the stellar proper motion $\mu$ and the
304: orientation of ${\bf \mu}$ with respect to the
305: projection of the orbital angular momentum onto the plane of
306: the sky --- angle $\beta$.
307:
308:
309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
311:
312: \section{Variation of the orbital period.}
313: \label{sect:period}
314:
315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
316:
317: Precession of planetary orbit makes observed orbital period
318: of the planet $P_{obs}$ different from the true orbital
319: period $P$. Indeed, suppose that we try to determine the
320: period of transiting planet by measuring the time between
321: the successive inferior conjunctions of the planet. Every
322: orbital period precession at a uniform rate $\dot\omega$
323: turns the orbit by an angle
324: $\Delta \varphi=P\dot\omega$ with respect to our line of
325: sight which gets reflected in the length of the time interval
326: between successive conjunctions. The extra time it takes a planet to
327: cover this additional angle is
328: $\Delta P_\omega=\Delta\varphi/\dot\varphi$, where $\dot\varphi=
329: v_{\varphi,tr}/r_{tr}$ is the angular frequency of the planet
330: at the point of conjunction. Using equation (\ref{eq:r}) and
331: expression for $v_{\varphi,tr}$ we can write the deviation of
332: observed planetary period from the true one as
333: \ba
334: \frac{\Delta P_\omega}{P}=-\frac{\dot\omega}{n}\frac{(1-e^2)^{3/2}}
335: {(1+e\sin\omega)^2}.
336: \label{eq:dPmu}
337: \ea
338: Note that $\Delta P_\omega$ is nonzero even in the case of circular
339: orbits in agreement\footnote{By contrast expressions for
340: $\Delta P_\omega$ derived in Miralda-Escud\'e (2002) and
341: P\'al \& Kocsis (2008) vanish in the limit $e\to 0$.}
342: with Kopeikin (1996) and Heyl \& Gladman (2007).
343: In general $\dot\omega$ in equation (\ref{eq:dPmu}) is
344: given by
345: \ba
346: \dot\omega=\dot\omega_\mu+\dot\omega_{GR}+\dot\omega_S,
347: \label{eq:dot_omega}
348: \ea
349: where different terms on the right hand side represent apparent orbital
350: precession caused by the systemic proper motion, general relativity
351: and the quadrupole moment of the central star correspondingly (other
352: sources of orbital precession, e.g. tidal deformations of star and
353: planet (Jord\'an \& Bakos 2008) have been
354: neglected here for simplicity). As a result,
355: $\Delta P_\omega=\Delta P_{\omega,\mu}+\Delta P_{\omega,GR}+
356: \Delta P_{\omega,S}$, where $\Delta P_{\omega,\mu}$, $\Delta P_{\omega,GR}$
357: and $\Delta P_{\omega,S}$ are found by substituting $\dot\omega_\mu$,
358: $\dot\omega_{GR}$, and $\dot\omega_S$ for $\dot\omega$ in equation
359: (\ref{eq:dPmu}).
360:
361: Apart from $\Delta P_\omega$ which owes its existence to the
362: apparent {\it re-orientation} of the planetary orbit there
363: is another contribution to $P_{obs}$ related to the systemic motion:
364: the {\it distance} to the planetary system changes, which because of the finite
365: speed of light gives rise to a special relativistic contribution
366: $\Delta P_{rel}$ given by
367: \ba
368: \frac{\Delta P_{rel}}{P}=\frac{v_r}{c},
369: \label{eq:DeltaP_SR}
370: \ea
371: where $v_r$ is the line-of-sight velocity of the system (positive for
372: systems moving away from us). Thus, in general
373: \ba
374: P_{obs}=P+\Delta P_\omega+\Delta P_{rel}.
375: \label{eq:dPobs}
376: \ea
377:
378: One cannot, of course, measure $\Delta P$ directly since the true orbital
379: period of the system is not known a priori. However, one might try to
380: measure the {\it variation} of $P$ over an extended period of time. With
381: equations (\ref{eq:dPmu}), (\ref{eq:DeltaP_SR}), and (\ref{eq:dPobs})
382: one can easily show that
383: \ba
384: \dot P=\dot P_\omega+\dot P_{Shk},
385: \label{eq:dotP}
386: \ea
387: where
388: \ba
389: && \dot P_\omega=-\frac{2\pi}{n^2}
390: \frac{(1-e^2)^{3/2}}{(1+e\sin \omega)^2}
391: \left[\ddot\omega-2(\dot\omega)^2\frac{e\cos\omega}
392: {1+e\sin\omega}\right],
393: \label{eq:dotPomega}\\
394: && \dot P_{Shk}=\dot P_{rel}=\frac{Pv_t^2}{c D}=\frac{P\mu^2 D}{c},
395: \label{eq:dotPrel}
396: \ea
397: with $D$ being the distance to the planetary system and $v_t=\mu D$
398: being its transverse velocity.
399: The timing contribution $\dot P_{Shk}$, which to the best of our knowledge
400: has never been highlighted in the context of planetary transit timing, is
401: identical to the so-called Shklovskii effect well known from pulsar timing
402: (Shklovskii 1970): radial motion of the system changes the observed orbital
403: period via the Doppler effect but the radial component of the velocity (and the
404: Doppler factor) varies if there is a non zero transverse component of
405: the systemic velocity, leading to non zero $\dot P$. This contribution to
406: $\dot P$ is always positive since spatial motion of the planetary system
407: always increases $v_r$. In \S \ref{sect:disc} we demonstrate that in
408: many transiting systems Shklovskii effect dominates $\dot P$.
409:
410: Equation (\ref{eq:dotPomega}) generalizes expressions for $\dot P_\omega$
411: obtained by Heyl \& Gladman (2007) and P\'al \& Kocsis (2008) by including
412: the term proportional to $\ddot\omega$. One expects $\ddot\omega\ll
413: (\dot\omega)^2$ for precession caused by the general relativity and the stellar
414: quadrupole in which case equation (\ref{eq:dotPomega}) reduces to the
415: expression derived by other authors. However, in the case of apparent precession
416: caused by the systemic motion one can easily show using results of
417: \S \ref{sect:intro} that $\ddot\omega_\mu\sim
418: \mu^2\sim (\dot\omega_\mu)^2$, so that all terms in equation (\ref{eq:dotPomega})
419: for $\dot P_{\omega,\mu}$ must be retained. In general, $\dot P_\omega
420: \ll\dot T_{tr}$ because $\dot T_{tr}$ is a linear function of the small
421: parameter $P\dot\omega$ while $\dot P_\omega$ is quadratic.
422:
423:
424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
426:
427: \section{Discussion.}
428: \label{sect:disc}
429:
430: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
431:
432: Here we compare the effects caused by the proper motion with
433: other timing contributions and discuss their observability in
434: different types of systems.
435:
436: As a fiducial system we will take a star located 100 pc away
437: from the Sun and moving with transverse velocity $30$ km s$^{-1}$.
438: Such a system has proper motion $\mu\approx 60$ mas yr$^{-1}$ resulting
439: in $\dot i_\mu,\dot\omega_\mu\approx
440: 2\times 10^{-7}$ yr$^{-1}$ for $\beta=45^\circ$ and $i=90^\circ$. Timescale
441: on which planetary orbit changes its orientation is $\sim \mu^{-1}\sim
442: 5\times 10^{6}$ yrs. We can compare $\dot\omega_\mu$ to the general
443: relativistic periastron precession rate
444: \ba
445: \dot \omega_{GR}& = &\frac{3n}{1-e^2}\left(\frac{na}{c}\right)^2
446: \label{eq:dotomegaGR}\\
447: & = &
448: \frac{3.7\times 10^{-4}}{1-e^2}
449: \left(\frac{10R_\odot}{a}\right)^{5/2}\mbox{yr}^{-1},\nonumber
450: \ea
451: and to the rate of precession due to the rotation-induced
452: stellar quadrupole (Miralda-Escud\' e 2002)
453: \ba
454: \dot\omega_S\approx n\frac{3 J_2 R_\star^2}{2 a^2}\approx
455: 9\times 10^{-6}\frac{J_2}{10^{-6}}
456: \left(\frac{10R_\odot}{a}\right)^{7/2}\mbox{yr}^{-1}
457: \label{eq:dotomegaS}
458: \ea
459: where $J_2$ is the dimensionless measure of the stellar quadrupole moment
460: (its typical value for the Solar type stars is $J_2\sim 10^{-6}$) and
461: we took $M_\star=M_\odot$ and $R_\star=R_\odot$.
462:
463: These estimates clearly indicate that for Solar type stars with short
464: period ($P=3-4$ days) planets $\dot \omega_{GR}\gg\dot \omega_S\gg
465: \dot i_\mu,\dot \omega_\mu$. Plugging expression (\ref{eq:dotomegaGR})
466: into equation (\ref{eq:dotPomega}) we find that a planetary system with
467: $M_\star=M_\odot$, $e=0.1$ and $\omega=45^\circ$ should exhibit
468: \ba
469: \dot P_{\omega,GR}&=&-\frac{36\pi e\cos\omega}{(1-e^2)^{1/2}
470: (1+e\sin\omega)^3}\left(\frac{na}{c}\right)^4
471: \label{eq:dotPomegaGR}\\
472: &=& 8.8
473: \left(\frac{10R_\odot}{a}\right)^{2}\mu\mbox{s yr}^{-1}.\nonumber
474: \ea
475: Given that $\dot \omega_\mu\ll \dot \omega_{GR}$ it is clear that
476: $\dot P_{\omega,\mu}\ll\dot P_{\omega,GR}$ so that
477: the re-orientation of the planetary orbit caused by the stellar proper motion does
478: not noticeably affect $\dot P_\omega$ (the same is true for the
479: precession caused by the stellar quadrupole since
480: $\dot \omega_S\ll\dot \omega_{GR}$).
481:
482: However, this does not mean that one can just ignore the effect of the
483: proper motion on $\dot P$: proper motion also affects $\dot P$
484: via the Shklovskii effect and the magnitude of this contribution
485: \ba
486: \dot P_{Shk}&=& 9.6\left(\frac{v_t}{30~\mbox{km s}^{-1}}\right)^2
487: \frac{100~\mbox{pc}}{D}\left(\frac{a}{10R_\odot}\right)^{3/2}
488: \mu\mbox{s yr}^{-1}\nonumber\\
489: &=& 20\left(\frac{\mu}{100~\mbox{mas yr}^{-1}}\right)^2
490: \frac{D}{100~\mbox{pc}}\frac{P}{3~\mbox{d}}
491: ~\mu\mbox{s yr}^{-1}
492: \label{eq:dotPrel_num}
493: \ea
494: may be comparable to $\dot P_{\omega,GR}$. Clearly, $\dot P_{Shk}$
495: can be quite important even for tight, eccentric systems for which
496: one would normally expect $\dot P_{\omega,GR}$ to dominate.
497:
498: One also has to keep in mind that the majority
499: of short period transiting systems have eccentricities consistent
500: with zero. In such systems with circular orbits $\dot P_{\omega,GR}$ and
501: $\dot P_{\omega,S}$ vanish (remember that $\ddot \omega_{GR},
502: \ddot \omega_S\approx 0$) leaving Shklovskii effect as the only
503: source of non zero $\dot P_\omega$
504: at the level of tens of $\mu$s per year. In Table \ref{table} we have
505: summarized the properties of observed transiting systems
506: (supplemented with two artificial systems Sys-1 and Sys-2 with the goal
507: of illustrating transit timing effects in long period systems) in which
508: proper motion effects are particularly pronounced
509: (namely, max$|\dot T_{tr,\mu}|>10$
510: ms yr$^{-1}$), while in Table \ref{table2} we display the values
511: of various timing contributions in these systems,
512: including $\dot P_{\omega,GR}$ and $\dot P_{Shk}$. From
513: Table \ref{table2} one can see that in some nearby
514: high-proper motion systems like GJ436 $\dot P_{Shk}$ is a good fraction of
515: ms yr$^{-1}$. Such high rate of period change significantly
516: exceeds $\dot P_{\omega,GR}$ and may in principle be measurable on
517: a time scale of tens of years assuming observing parameters typical for the
518: {\it Kepler} photometric mission (Miralda-Escud\'e 2002; Jord\'an \&
519: Bakos 2008).
520:
521: Variation of the transit duration $T_{tr}$ presents another
522: way of detecting proper motion effects in isolated star-planet
523: systems, as described in \S \ref{sect:transit}. Assuming that all angle
524: dependent factors in equation (\ref{eq:dTtrdt1}) are of order unity one
525: finds
526: \ba
527: \dot T_{tr,\mu} & \sim & g T_{tr}\mu
528: \label{eq:dTtrdt_num}\\
529: & \approx & 50\frac{\mu}{100~\mbox{mas yr}^{-1}}
530: \frac{a/R_\star}{10}\frac{T_{tr}}{4~\mbox{hr}}~\mbox{ms yr}^{-1},
531: \nonumber
532: \ea
533: where in evaluating $g$ we have assumed $p=0.5R_\star$. Thus, a typical
534: nearby exoplanetary system indeed exhibits $\dot T_{tr,\mu}\gg\dot P$.
535: A specific value of $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ for a particular exoplanetary
536: system depends not only on $\mu$ but also (sinusoidally) on the angle
537: $\beta$ between ${\bf \mu}$ and the line of nodes. The maximum possible
538: value of $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ for several
539: representative systems can be found in Table \ref{table2}.
540:
541: At the same time, for $M_\star=M_\odot$, $e=0.1$ and $\omega=45^\circ$
542: one finds from equation (\ref{eq:dTtrdt}) the following value of
543: $\dot T_{tr}$ due to the general relativity:
544: \ba
545: \dot T_{tr,GR}\approx 240\left(\frac{10R_\odot}{a}\right)^{5/2}
546: \frac{T_{tr}}{4~\mbox{hr}}
547: ~\mbox{ms yr}^{-1}.
548: \label{eq:dTtrdt_GR}
549: \ea
550: This is not much larger than $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ and in some high proper
551: motion systems $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ may even dominate. The best example
552: is GJ436: because system is very compact general relativity
553: provides $\dot T_{tr,GR}\approx -0.2$ s yr$^{-1}$ but the very high proper
554: motion of the system ($\mu\approx 1.2$ mas yr$^{-1}$) gives rise to
555: max$|\dot T_{tr,\mu}|\approx 0.6$ s yr$^{-1}$.
556: Thus, in general one cannot simply ascribe all $\dot T_{tr}$ measured in
557: eccentric systems to the general relativity --- some fraction of $\dot T_{tr}$ can
558: also be contributed by the proper motion. In systems with circular orbits
559: $\dot T_{tr,GR}=0$.
560:
561: Given that $\dot\omega_\mu\ll\dot\omega_{GR}$ the magnitude of the
562: effect of the proper motion on $\dot T_{tr}$ may seem
563: disproportionately large compared to $\dot T_{tr,GR}$. The reason
564: for this lies in the amplifying
565: factor $g$ in equation (\ref{eq:dTtrdt}) which propagates into
566: $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$, see equation (\ref{eq:dTtrdt1}). According to the equation
567: (\ref{eq:p}) the magnitude of $g$
568: is determined by the transit impact parameter $p$ and the ratio
569: $a/R_\star$ which is usually quite large, $\sim 10$ even for rather
570: short period ($P=3-4$ d) systems. For grazing transits (such as those
571: occurring in GJ436, see Table \ref{table2}), when $1-p\ll 1$,
572: $g$ gets additionally boosted up\footnote{Thus, monitoring systems with
573: large $p$ tends to increase the chances of measuring $\dot T_{tr}$.}
574: because then $T_{tr}$ becomes a very sensitive function of $p$ and $i$,
575: see Ribas \etal (2008). At the same time factor $g\gg 1$ does not greatly
576: affect $\dot T_{tr,GR}$ since for precession induced by the
577: general relativity $\dot i=0$ and $g$ enters the expression for $\dot T_{tr,GR}$
578: only in combination $g\cos i$ while $\cos i\ll 1$ in transiting
579: systems ($\cos i\lesssim R_\star/a$ so that $g\cos i\sim 1$, see equations
580: (\ref{eq:p}) and (\ref{eq:g})). This explains why
581: $\dot T_{tr,GR}\sim\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ even though $\dot \omega_{GR}\gg
582: \dot \omega_\mu$.
583:
584: Inclination of the planetary orbit with respect to our line of sight
585: may change also because of the spin induced quadrupole if the stellar spin
586: axis is misaligned with the orbital angular momentum vector. The spin
587: induced $\dot T_{tr,S}$ is amplified by factor $g$ in a way
588: analogous to the amplification of $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$. Given that in some
589: systems $\dot\omega_S$ can be 1-2 orders of magnitude larger than
590: $\dot\omega_\mu$ (see Table \ref{table2} where $\dot\omega_S$ is computed
591: for $J_2=10^{-6}$) one may expect
592: $\dot T_{tr,S}\gg\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ in these systems. However, in reality
593: it will often be the case that
594: $\dot i_S\ll\dot\omega_S$ since it can be
595: demonstrated that $\dot i_S=C\dot\omega_S\sin\lambda$ (Lai \etal 1995),
596: where $C\sim 1$ is the angle-dependent
597: factor and $\lambda$ is the angle between the stellar spin axis and the
598: orbital angular momentum vector. Misalignment angle $\lambda$ has been
599: measured in several systems via the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect
600: (Rossiter 1924; McLaughlin 1924) and in the majority of measured cases
601: $\lambda$ is close to zero, as expected from the planet formation
602: theories. Among the systems in Table \ref{table} for which $\lambda$
603: has been measured this angle was found to be small in HD189733
604: ($\lambda=1.4^\circ\pm 1.1^\circ$, Winn \etal 2006) and HAT-P-1
605: ($\lambda=3.7^\circ\pm 2.1^\circ$, Johnson \etal 2008) while
606: in HD17156 misalignment may be significant ($\lambda=62^\circ\pm 25^\circ$,
607: Narita \etal 2008), although Cochran \etal (2008) have found
608: $\lambda=9.4^\circ\pm 9.3^\circ$ in this system.
609: In HD189733 $\dot i_S$ end up being $\ll\dot i_\mu$
610: so that $\dot T_{tr,S}$ likely makes negligible contribution to
611: $\dot T_{tr}$ which should be dominated by the proper motion.
612: In HAT-P-1 we find $\dot i_S\sim \dot i_\mu$ and $\dot T_{tr,S}\sim\max
613: |\dot T_{tr,\mu}|$ with $\dot T_{tr,GR}$ providing a non-negligible contribution.
614: Finally, in HD17156, if we adopt a larger value of $\lambda$ found by
615: Narita \etal (2008), $\sin\lambda\sim 1$ but $\dot i_S$
616: is still comparable to $\dot i_\mu$ because the semimajor axis of the system
617: is quite large which greatly reduces $\dot\omega_S$. As a result,
618: $\dot T_{tr,S}\sim \max|\dot T_{tr,\mu}|$ in this
619: system and both are somewhat smaller than $\dot T_{tr,GR}$.
620: Thus, at least in the systems presented in Table \ref{table} the spin-induced
621: quadrupole orbital precession does not strongly exceed the proper motion
622: effects in timing of transit duration.
623:
624: Note that the tidal deformations induced on the star and the planet by
625: each other affect $\dot T_{tr}$ in a way different from
626: that of the spin induced quadrupole --- similar to the general relativity
627: the tidal bulges do not generate non zero $\dot i$.
628: Given that tidal $\dot \omega$ is typically smaller
629: than $\dot\omega_{GR}$ (Jord\'an \& Bakos 2008) we may conclude that
630: tidally induced $\dot T_{tr}$ is lower than $\dot T_{tr,GR}$ and is thus
631: $\lesssim \dot T_{tr,\mu}$.
632:
633: It is obvious from the preceding discussion that the proper motion can
634: have an appreciable (if not dominant in some cases) effect on transit
635: timing in the short period
636: systems. This statement becomes much more robust when we go to systems with
637: wider separations. It is obvious from equations (\ref{eq:dotomegaGR}),
638: (\ref{eq:dotomegaS}), (\ref{eq:dotPomegaGR}), and (\ref{eq:dTtrdt_GR})
639: that $\dot\omega_{GR}$, $\dot\omega_S$, and all contributions to $\dot P$
640: and $\dot T_{tr}$ caused by the effects of the general relativity,
641: stellar quadrupole and tidal deformations are rapidly decreasing functions
642: of $a$. At the same time, $\dot\omega_\mu,\dot i_\mu$ are independent of $a$ while
643: both $\dot P_{Shk}$ and $\dot T_{tr}$ increase quite rapidly with $a$,
644: see equations (\ref{eq:dotPrel_num}) and (\ref{eq:dTtrdt_num}). This means
645: that the proper motion should completely dominate transit timing
646: variations in isolated (i.e. containing no other planets) wide
647: separation systems. For example, a
648: transiting planet in a 30 d orbit around a Solar type star would
649: exhibit
650: $\dot P_{\omega,GR}\approx 0.6$ $\mu$s yr$^{-1}$ and
651: $\dot T_{tr,GR}\approx 7.5$ ms yr$^{-1}$ if $e=0.1$ and $T_{tr}=4$ hr.
652: If this system is located 100 pc away from the Sun and has proper motion
653: $\mu=100$ mas yr$^{-1}$ then one finds $\dot P_{Shk}\approx 200$
654: $\mu$s yr$^{-1}$ and $\dot T_{tr,\mu}\approx 200$ ms yr$^{-1}$, so
655: that both $\dot P_{\omega,GR}\ll\dot P_{Shk}$ and
656: $\dot T_{tr,GR}\ll\dot T_{tr,\mu}$. To additionally illustrate the
657: importance of proper motion for wide separation systems we introduce
658: two artificial systems (Sys-1 and Sys-2) in Table \ref{table} and calculate
659: their timing
660: parameters in Table \ref{table2}. Such wide separation systems
661: are one of the primary goals of photometric missions like {\it Kepler}.
662: It is clear that if such systems are found to
663: exhibit transit timing variations then these variations
664: must be caused by the systemic proper motion, provided that the influence
665: of possible additional companions is proven to be negligible. In this case
666: according to equation (\ref{eq:dTtrdt1}) the measurement of $\dot T_{tr}$
667: would serve as a measurement of angle $\beta$ giving us information on
668: the full three dimensional orientation of the transiting system.
669: However,
670: one must remember that if additional planets in external orbits are present
671: in these systems then their influence may not be disregarded (Ribas \etal
672: 2008) since
673: their effect on transit timing grows with $a$ faster than
674: $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ and $\dot P_{Shk}$ do.
675:
676: Note that the rapid increase of $\dot P_{Shk}$ and $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$
677: with $a$ does not immediately imply that their actual
678: detection is facilitated as $P$ increases. Even though the timing signal
679: increases with $P$, the number of transits, which determines the timing
680: error, decreases as $P^{-1}$ for a given time interval over
681: which the system is being monitored. Using the results of Ford \etal (2008)
682: and Heyl \& Gladman (2007) on transit timing precision we
683: find that the time $\Pi_P$ one needs to monitor the transiting system to detect
684: $\dot P$ induced by the proper motion scales as\footnote{This
685: dependence is found by equating $\dot P_{Shk}\Pi_P$ to $\sigma_D/N$ where
686: $N=\Pi_P/P$ is the number of observed transits and $\sigma_D$ is the
687: uncertainty in measurement of $T_{tr}$, which is
688: given by eq. (6) of Ford \etal (2008).} $\Pi_P\propto P^{4/15}$, i.e. it
689: increases with $P$ but not very rapidly: it takes $3.6$ times longer for
690: $P=1$ yr system to get the same S/N for $\dot P_{Shk}$ due to proper motion as
691: for the 3 d system. The uncertainty in $T_{tr}$ decreases with the
692: number of observed transits slower than the uncertainty in $\dot P$. As a
693: result, the time $\Pi_{tr}$ one needs to monitor the transiting system to detect
694: $\dot T_{tr}$ caused by the proper motion decreases with $P$ as\footnote{This
695: follows from equating $\dot T_{tr,\mu}\Pi_{tr}$ to $\sigma_D$
696: given by eq. (6) of Ford
697: \etal (2008).}
698: $\Pi_{tr}\propto P^{-2/9}$. Thus, it is easier to measure
699: $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ in wide separation transiting systems.
700:
701: Based on the results of Ford \etal (2008) it was estimated by Jord\'an
702: \& Bakos (2008) that the {\it Kepler} mission should be able to
703: achieve a timing precision of $\sim 1.5$ s in 1 yr observation of a 12th
704: magnitude Solar type star transited by a Jupiter-like planet
705: with $P=5$ d. One can easily deduce from this that a $3\sigma$ detection
706: of $\dot T_{tr,\mu}=100$ ms yr$^{-1}$ (which is not unreasonable for proper
707: motion) should take $\Pi_{tr}\approx 10$ yr of observations.
708: Measurement error of $\dot P$
709: drops very rapidly with time but it would still take $\Pi_{P}\approx 70$ yr
710: to achieve
711: a $3\sigma$ detection of $\dot P=100$ $\mu$s yr$^{-1}$ caused by the Shklovskii
712: effect. Thus, while one might hope to measure $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ in some
713: nearby, high-proper motion systems (like GJ436) on timescale of $\sim 10$ yr,
714: the measurement of $\dot P$ would likely require next generation facilities with
715: photometric precision much higher than that of the {\it Kepler} mission.
716:
717: In systems with low proper motion $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ can be viewed as
718: an irreducible
719: systematic uncertainty to which quantities like $\dot T_{tr,GR}$ can be
720: measured. This is because even if $\mu$ is known precisely one still does not know
721: a priori the angle $\beta$ (but see below) which determines $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$.
722: Thus, proper motion limits to some extent our ability to interpret the
723: measurement of
724: $\dot T_{tr}$ in terms of the physical parameters of the system (e.g. $J_2$,
725: etc.). Measurement of $\dot P$ does not suffer from this uncertainty
726: since $\dot P_{Shk}$ is independent of $\beta$ and can thus be fully
727: accounted for once $\mu$ is known from astrometric measurements.
728:
729: Previous discussion has implicitly assumed that a
730: transiting system moves at a constant
731: speed with respect to observer. In reality observer is located
732: at Earth, which orbits the Sun. This to some extent
733: complicates the analysis of the transit timing data since the relative velocity
734: between the observed system and the Earth is a function of time with a 1 yr
735: period. But given that the Earth-Sun motion is {\it known}
736: its effect on transit timing can be easily accounted for: terrestrial
737: orbital motion generates periodic apparent proper motion of any
738: transiting system (even if it has no intrinsic proper motion) with respect
739: to observer at Earth. The maximum amplitude of this apparent proper motion is
740: $\mu_E\sim v_E/D\approx 60$ mas yr$^{-1}$, where $v_E\approx 30$ km s$^{-1}$.
741: According to equations (\ref{eq:dTtrdt1}) and (\ref{eq:dTtrdt_num})
742: $\mu_E$ gives rise to periodically
743: varying $\dot T_{tr,\mu}$ with an amplitude dependent on the orientation of the
744: orbital plane of the transiting system with respect to the ecliptic, potentially
745: providing a method of measuring angle $\beta$. The maximum possible value of such
746: timing signal is about
747: \ba
748: \dot T_{tr,E} \approx 30\frac{\mu}{100~\mbox{mas yr}^{-1}}
749: \frac{a/R_\star}{10}\frac{T_{tr}}{4~\mbox{hr}}~\mbox{ms yr}^{-1}.
750: \label{eq:Ttr_E}
751: \ea
752: It is also obvious that terrestrial orbital motion produces a periodic
753: contribution to $\dot P$, even if the transiting system has zero intrinsic
754: proper motion.
755:
756: Such annual variations in $\dot T_{tr}$ and $\dot P$ can arise
757: only as a result of the proper motion effects. One can hope to measure them
758: by properly combining the data on transit duration measured at different orbital
759: phases of the Earth. If such variations are
760: detected then this periodic part of the timing signal can be used to constrain
761: angle $\beta$ allowing one to remove the aforementioned systematic uncertainty in
762: measuring other timing contributions.
763:
764:
765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
766: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
767:
768: \section{Conclusions.}
769: \label{sect:concl}
770:
771: We investigated the effect of the proper motion on timing of transiting
772: exoplanetary systems in which the gravitational effect of other possible
773: companions can be neglected. Proper motion re-orients planetary orbit with
774: respect to our line of sight and changes the distance to the system.
775: Short period transiting systems having proper motion at the level of
776: $100$ mas yr$^{-1}$ should exhibit variation of the transit duration
777: at the level of $\sim 100$ ms yr$^{-1}$, which may be comparable to or
778: exceed the timing signatures produced by the general relativity or
779: stellar quadrupole and which should not be hard to detect. Proper motion
780: also causes variation of the observed orbital period through the Shklovskii
781: effect which dominates $\dot P$ for high proper motion systems.
782: Orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun gives rise to periodically
783: varying transit timing signal even in systems having zero intrinsic
784: proper motion.
785: Timing effects induced by the proper motion become especially
786: important in systems with zero eccentricity and in wide separation systems
787: with periods longer than a month which should be discovered by {\it Kepler}.
788:
789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
790:
791: \acknowledgements
792:
793: I am grateful to Ed Turner for
794: %careful reading of the manuscript and
795: %many useful suggestion
796: useful discussions.
797: This work made use of the data available through the SIMBAD
798: Astronomical Database.
799: The financial support for this work is provided
800: by the Sloan Foundation.
801:
802:
803: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
804:
805:
806: \begin{thebibliography}{}
807:
808: \harvarditem{}{}{}
809: Arzoumanian, Z., Joshi, K., Rasio, F. A., \& Thorsett, S. E. 1996, in Pulsars: problems and progress; Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 105; edited by Johnston, S., Walker, M. A., \& Bailes, M.; p.525
810:
811: \harvarditem{}{}{}
812: Cochran, W. D., Redfield, S., Endl, M., \& Cochran, A. L. 2008, astro-ph/0806.4142
813:
814: \harvarditem{}{}{}
815: Edwards, R. T., Hobbs, G. B., \& Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1549
816:
817: \harvarditem{}{}{}
818: Ford, E. B., Quinn, S. N., Veras, D. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1407
819:
820: \harvarditem{}{}{}
821: Heyl, J. S. \& Gladman, B. J. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1511
822:
823: \harvarditem{}{}{}
824: Johnson, J. A. \etal. 2008, astro-ph/0806.1734
825:
826: \harvarditem{}{}{}
827: Jord\'an, A. \& Bakos, G. \'A. 2008, accepted to ApJ, astro-ph/0806.0630
828:
829: \harvarditem{}{}{}
830: Knutson, H. A., Charbonneau, D., Noyes, R. W., Brown, T. M., \& Gilliland, R. L. 2007, ApJ, 655, 564
831:
832: \harvarditem{}{}{}
833: Kopeikin, S. M. 1996, ApJL, 467, L93
834:
835: \harvarditem{}{}{}
836: Kopeikin, S. M. \& Ozernoy, L. M. 1999, ApJ, 523, 771
837:
838: \harvarditem{}{}{}
839: Lai, D., Bildsten, L., \& Kaspi, V. M. 1995, ApJ, 452, 819
840:
841: \harvarditem{}{}{}
842: Manchester, R. N. 2008, in 40 years of pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More; AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 983, 584
843:
844: \harvarditem{}{}{}
845: McLaughlin, D. B. 1924, ApJ, 60, 22
846:
847: \harvarditem{}{}{}
848: Miralda-Escud\'e, J. 2002, ApJ, 564, 1019
849:
850: \harvarditem{}{}{}
851: Narita, N., Sato, B., Ohshima, O., \& Winn, J. N. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1
852:
853: \harvarditem{}{}{}
854: P\'al, A. \& Kocsis, B. 2008, submitted to MNRAS, astro-ph/0806.0629
855:
856: \harvarditem{}{}{}
857: Ribas, I., Font-Ribera, A., \& Beaulieu, J.-P. 2008, ApJL, 677, L59
858:
859: \harvarditem{}{}{}
860: Rossiter, R. A. 1924, ApJ, 60, 15
861:
862: \harvarditem{}{}{}
863: Shklovskii, I. S. 1970, Soviet Astron.-AJ, 13, 562
864:
865: \harvarditem{}{}{}
866: Tingley, B. \& Sackett, P. D. 2005, ApJ, 627, 1011
867:
868: \harvarditem{}{}{}
869: Winn, J. N., \etal 2006, ApJL, 653, L69
870:
871:
872: \end{thebibliography}
873:
874:
875: \begin{center}
876: \begin{deluxetable}{ l r r r r r r r r r r}
877: \tablewidth{0pc}
878: \tablecaption{Parameters of systems with transiting planets
879: \label{table}}
880: \tablehead{
881: \colhead{System}&
882: \colhead{$\mu_\alpha$}&
883: \colhead{$\mu_\delta$}&
884: \colhead{$D$}&
885: \colhead{$P$}&
886: \colhead{$a$}&
887: \colhead{$e$}&
888: \colhead{$\omega$}&
889: \colhead{$i$}&
890: \colhead{$R_\star$}&
891: \colhead{$M_\star$\\}
892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
893: \colhead{}&
894: \colhead{(mas yr$^{-1}$)}&
895: \colhead{(mas yr$^{-1}$)}&
896: \colhead{(pc)}&
897: \colhead{(d)}&
898: \colhead{(AU)}&
899: \colhead{}&
900: \colhead{($^\circ$)}&
901: \colhead{($^\circ$)}&
902: \colhead{($R_\odot$)}&
903: \colhead{($M_\odot$)}
904: }
905: \startdata
906: HD149026 & -77.12 & 53.34 & $74.4\pm 7.2$ & 2.87588 & 0.0432 & 0 & - & 85.3 & 1.368 & 1.294 \\
907: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
908: HD189733 & -2.49 & -250.81 & $19.7\pm 1.0$ & 2.21857 & 0.0312 & 0 & - & 85.58 & 0.756 & 0.806 \\
909: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
910: HD17156 & 91 & -32.45 & $78.24$ & 21.21725 & 0.1594 & 0.6717 & 121.23 & 88.23 & 1.47 & 1.2 \\
911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
912: GJ436 & 896.34 & -813.7 & $10.2\pm 0.2$ & 2.64385 & 0.02872 & 0.15 & 351 & 86.5 & 0.464 & 0.452 \\
913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
914: TrES-4 & -8.1 & -33.0 & $485\pm 31$ & 3.55394 & 0.0488 & 0 & - & 82.81 & 1.816 & 1.394 \\
915: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
916: XO-5 & -32.4 & -24.4 & $270\pm 25$ & 4.187732 & 0.0508 & 0 & - & 86.8 & 1.11 & 1.0 \\
917: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
918: HAT-P-1 & 29.3 & -51.0 & $155\pm 15$ & 4.46529 & 0.0551 & 0.09 & 80.7 & 86.11 & 1.135 & 1.133 \\
919: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
920: WASP-2 & 3.0 & -53.1 & $157\pm 4$ & 2.152226 & 0.0307 & 0 & - & 84.81 & 0.84 & 0.89 \\
921: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
922: Sys-1 & 7.1 & 7.1 & $300$ & 100 & 0.4218 & 0.5 & 45 & 89.5 & 1.0 & 1.0 \\
923: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
924: Sys-2 & 7.1 & 7.1 & $300$ & 365 & 1.0 & 0.5 & 45 & 89.8 & 1.0 & 1.0 \\
925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
926: \enddata
927: \end{deluxetable}
928: \end{center}
929:
930:
931:
932: \begin{center}
933: \begin{deluxetable}{ l r r r r r r r r }
934: \tablewidth{0pc}
935: \tablecaption{Timing signatures in transiting systems
936: \label{table2}}
937: \tablehead{
938: \colhead{System}&
939: \colhead{$g$}&
940: \colhead{max $\dot\omega_\mu$}&
941: \colhead{$\dot\omega_{GR}$}&
942: \colhead{$\dot\omega_S$}&
943: \colhead{max $|\dot T_{tr,\mu}|$}&
944: \colhead{$\dot T_{tr,GR}$}&
945: \colhead{$\dot P_{Shk}$}&
946: \colhead{$\dot P_{\omega,GR}$\\}
947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
948: \colhead{}&
949: \colhead{}&
950: \colhead{($10^{-7}$ yr$^{-1}$)}&
951: \colhead{($10^{-4}$ yr$^{-1}$)}&
952: \colhead{($10^{-7}$ yr$^{-1}$)}&
953: \colhead{(ms yr$^{-1}$)}&
954: \colhead{(ms yr$^{-1}$)}&
955: \colhead{($\mu$s yr$^{-1}$)}&
956: \colhead{($\mu$s yr$^{-1}$)}
957: }
958: \startdata
959: HD149026 & 5.5 & 4.5 & 7.1 & 114.8 & 24.0 & 0 & 12.46 & 0 \\
960: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
961: HD189733 & 11.4 & 12.2 & 7.8 & 23.4 & 69.3 & 0 & 18.2 & 0 \\
962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
963: HD17156 & 6.2 & 4.7 & 0.44 & 1.8 & 21.2 & -97.2 & 102.6 & -2.4 \\
964: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
965: GJ436 & 31.9 & 58.7 & 4.1 & 3.6 & 616.6 & -201.1 & 261.8 & 13.85 \\
966: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
967: TrES-4 & 8.7 & 1.6 & 5.8 & 297.6 & 16.7 & 0 & 13.2 & 0 \\
968: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
969: XO-5 & 7.7 & 2.0 & 3.2 & 26.1 & 14.9 & 0 & 12.3 & 0 \\
970: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
971: HAT-P-1 & 11.5 & 2.9 & 3.2 & 20.6 & 24.8 & 9.8 & 15.9 & 1.7 \\
972: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
973: WASP-2 & 11.3 & 2.6 & 9.5 & 39.9 & 15.4 & 0 & 6.3 & 0 \\
974: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
975: Sys-1 & 49.2 & 0.48 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 30.7 & 6.7 & 19.9 & 0.3 \\
976: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
977: Sys-2 & 108 & 0.48 & $0.002$ & $0.002$ & 105.1 & $0.7$ & 72.5 & $0.05$ \\
978: \enddata
979: \end{deluxetable}
980: \end{center}
981:
982:
983:
984: \end{document}
985:
986:
987:
988:
989:
990:
991:
992:
993:
994:
995:
996:
997:
998:
999:
1000:
1001:
1002:
1003: