1: % iaus2esa.tex -- sample pages for Proceedings IAU Symposium document class
2: % (based on v1.0 cca2esam.tex)
3: % v1.04 released 17 May 2004 by TechBooks
4: %% small changes and additions made by KAvdH/IAU 4 June 2004
5: % Copyright (2004) International Astronomical Union
6:
7: \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}
8:
9: \documentclass{iaus}
10: \usepackage{graphicx}
11:
12: \title[IAU 253.~~Transiting planets] %% give here short title %%
13: {Measuring accurate transit parameters}
14:
15: \author[Joshua N.\ Winn] %% give here short author list %%
16: {Joshua N.\ Winn}
17:
18: \affiliation{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute
19: for Astrophysics \& Space Research \\
20: Massachusetts Institute of Technology \\
21: 77 Massachusetts Avenue \\
22: Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 \\
23: email: {\tt jwinn@mit.edu}}
24:
25: \pubyear{2008}
26: \volume{253} %% insert here IAU Symposium No.
27: \pagerange{XXX--YYY}
28: % \date{?? and in revised form ??}
29: \setcounter{page}{1}
30: \jname{Transiting Planets}
31: \editors{eds.~F.~Pont et al.}
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \maketitle
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: By observing the transits of exoplanets, one may determine many
38: fundamental system parameters. I review current techniques and
39: results for the parameters that can be measured with the greatest
40: precision, specifically, the transit times, the planetary mass and
41: radius, and the projected spin-orbit angle.
42: \keywords{planetary systems ---
43: eclipses --- occultations --- methods: data analysis}
44: %% add here a maximum of 10 keywords, to be taken form the file <Keywords.txt>
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \firstsection % if your document starts with a section,
48: % remove some space above using this command.
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: Henry Norris Russell~(1948) once delivered a lecture here in Cambridge
52: entitled ``The royal road of eclipses,'' about the determination of
53: accurate parameters for eclipsing binary stars, and the promise that
54: such systems held for progress in stellar astrophysics. Given the
55: rapid progress on display at this meeting, it is clear that
56: exoplanetary science too has its royal road: the royal road of
57: transits. Figure~1 illustrates the happy situation in which the
58: planet's orbit is viewed nearly edge-on, and the planet undergoes
59: transits and occultations.
60:
61: \begin{figure}[b]
62: % \vspace*{-2.0 cm}
63: \begin{center}
64: \includegraphics[width=29pc]{Pedagogical.eps}
65: % \vspace*{-1.0 cm}
66: \caption{Illustration of transits and occultations. During a transit,
67: the planet blocks a fraction of the starlight. Afterwards, the
68: planet's brighter dayside comes into view and the total flux
69: rises. The total flux drops again when the planet is occulted by
70: the star.}
71: \label{fig1}
72: \end{center}
73: \end{figure}
74:
75: \begin{table}
76: % \begin{center}
77: \caption{Properties that have been measured, or that might be
78: measured in the future, through precise observations of transiting
79: planets.}
80: \label{tab1}
81: \begin{tabular}{lclc}\hline
82: {\bf Property} & {\bf Refs.} & ~~~~~~~{\bf Property} & {\bf Refs.} \\ \hline
83: Orbital period & 1,2 & ~~~~~~~Planet-planet interactions (short-term) & 19,20 \\
84: Orbital inclination & 1,2 & ~~~~~~~Planet-planet interactions (long-term) & 21,22 \\
85: Planetary mass & 1,2 & ~~~~~~~Mutual orbital inclinations & 20,23 \\
86: Planetary radius & 1,2 & ~~~~~~~Planetary rings & 24,25 \\
87: Stellar obliquity & 3,4 & ~~~~~~~Satellites & 9,24 \\
88: Orbital eccentricity & 5,6 & ~~~~~~~Relativistic precession & 26,27 \\
89: Stellar limb darkening & 7 & ~~~~~~~Parallax effects & 28, 29 \\
90: Star spots & 8,9 & ~~~~~~~Apsidal motion constant & 30 \\
91: Thermal emission & 5,10 & ~~~~~~~Stellar differential rotation & 31 \\
92: Absorption spectrum & 11,12 & ~~~~~~~Oblateness and obliquity & 32,33 \\
93: Albedo & 13,14 & ~~~~~~~Variations in stellar radius & 34 \\
94: Phase function & 15 & ~~~~~~~Yarkovsky effect & 35 \\
95: Effective radiative time constant & 16 & ~~~~~~~Planetary wind speed & 36 \\
96: Trojan companions & 17,18 & ~~~~~~~Artificial planet-sized objects & 37 \\
97: \hline
98: \end{tabular}
99:
100: % \end{center}
101: % \vspace{1mm}
102: {\it Non-exhaustive list of references:}
103: (1) Charbonneau et al.~(2000). (2) Henry et al.~(2000).
104: (3) Queloz et al.~(2000). (4) Winn et al.~(2005).
105: (5) Charbonneau et al.~(2005). (6) Bakos et al.~(2007).
106: (7) Knutson et al.~(2007a).
107: (8) Silva~(2003). (9) Pont et al.~(2007).
108: (10) Deming et al.~(2005).
109: (11) Charbonneau et al.~(2002). (12) Vidal-Madjar et al.~(2003).
110: (13) Rowe et al.~(2006). (14) Winn et al.~(2008a).
111: (15) Knutson et al.~(2007b).
112: (16) Langton \& Laughlin~(2008).
113: (17) Ford \& Gaudi~(2006), (18) Madhusudhan \& Winn (2008).
114: (19) Holman \& Murray~(2005). (20) Agol et al.~(2005).
115: (21) Miralda-Escud\'e (2002). (22) Heyl \& Gladman~(2007).
116: (23) Fabrycky, D., these proceedings.
117: (24) Brown et al.~(2001). (25) Barnes \& Fortney~(2004).
118: (26) P\'al \& Kocsis~(2008). (27) Jordan \& Bakos (2008).
119: (28) Scharf~(2007). (29) Rafikov~(2008).
120: (30) Ragozzine \& Wolf~(2008).
121: (31) Gaudi \& Winn~(2007).
122: (32) Seager \& Hui~(2002), (33) Barnes \& Fortney~(2003).
123: (34) Loeb~(2008).
124: (35) Fabrycky~(2008).
125: (36) Spiegel et al.~(2007).
126: (37) Arnold~(2005).
127: \end{table}
128:
129: Table~1 summarizes the information that has been obtained---or that is
130: obtainable in principle---through precise observations of transits and
131: occultations. This table is surely incomplete. Every few months, a new
132: and creative application of transit observations is proposed. I was
133: asked to discuss some of the measurements that can be made with the
134: highest signal-to-noise ratio. In the best cases, we can measure
135: orbital periods with 8 significant digits; transit times to within a
136: fraction of a minute; the planetary mass and radius to within a few
137: per cent; and the stellar obliquity (or at least its sky projection)
138: to within a few degrees.
139:
140: \section{Transit light curve parameters}
141:
142: In any discussion of measuring accurate transit parameters, the first
143: question should be: what are those parameters? Ignoring limb darkening
144: for the moment, the 4 basic observables are (with reference to Fig.~1)
145: the mid-transit time $t_c$, the depth $\delta$, the total duration
146: $T$, and the partial duration $\tau$. These observables can be
147: translated into 3 dimensionless parameters describing the physical
148: properties of the system:
149: \begin{eqnarray}
150: {\rm Radius~ratio}~& R_p/R_s & \approx~\sqrt{\delta}, \\
151: {\rm Impact~parameter}~& b & \approx~1 - \sqrt{\delta}\frac{T}{\tau}, \\
152: {\rm Scaled~stellar~radius}~& R_s/a &
153: \approx~\frac{\pi\sqrt{T\tau}}{\delta^{1/4}P}
154: \left( \frac{1+e\sin\omega}{\sqrt{1-e^2}} \right),
155: \end{eqnarray}
156: where $R_p$ and $R_s$ are the planetary and stellar radii; $b$ is the
157: impact parameter; $P$ is the orbital period; and $e$ and $\omega$ are
158: the orbital eccentricity and argument of pericenter, which can be
159: measured from the Doppler data. The approximations given here are
160: valid for small values of $\delta$, $\tau/T$, and $T/P$, and they
161: neglect limb darkening. Some useful references are Seager \&
162: Mallen-Ornelas~(2003), who give the exact correspondences for a
163: circular orbit, and Carter et al.~(2008), who derive analytic
164: expressions for the errors in these quantities. Mandel \& Agol~(2002)
165: and Gimenez~(2006) provide codes for calculating realistic light
166: curves including limb darkening.
167:
168: The dimensionless parameters of Eqns.~(2.1-2.3) are useful, but
169: oftentimes one is more interested in dimensionful parameters such as
170: the planetary mass in Jovian masses, or the semimajor axis in AU. For
171: those, the light curve analysis must be supplemented with some
172: external information, such as an estimate of the stellar mass and/or
173: radius based on the stellar parallax, spectrum, angular diameter, and
174: any other available data. Interestingly, though, if one is willing to
175: trust Kepler's Law, then the transit observables may be combined into
176: two quantities with dimensions (Seager \& Mallen-Ornelas 2003,
177: Southworth et al.~2007):
178: \begin{eqnarray}
179: {\rm Stellar~mean~density}~& \rho_s & \approx~\frac{3P}{\pi^2 G}
180: \left( \frac{\sqrt{\delta}}{T\tau} \right)^{3/2}
181: \left[ \frac{1-e^2}{(1+e\sin\omega)^2} \right]^{3/2} \\
182: {\rm Planetary~surface~gravity}~& g_p & \approx~\frac{2\pi K_s}{P}
183: \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{\delta(R_s/a)^2 \sin i},
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: where $K_s$ is the velocity semi-amplitude of the stellar
186: radial-velocity signal, and $i$ is the orbital inclination. The
187: inclination can be written in terms of observables using
188: \begin{equation}
189: b = \frac{a\cos i}{R_s} \left( \frac{1-e^2}{1+e\sin\omega} \right).
190: \end{equation}
191: Knowledge of the stellar mean density is helpful for pinning down the
192: stellar properties. The photometrically-determined $\rho_s$ is
193: superior as a gravity indicator than the traditional $\log g$ that is
194: based on the widths of pressure-sensitive absorption lines (see, e.g.,
195: Sozzetti et al.~2007, Winn et al.~2008b). Recently, Torres et
196: al.~(2008) put this technique into practice for 23 transiting
197: exoplanets, in the most homogeneous and complete analysis of transit
198: data to date. A similar effort is underway by Southworth~(2008). The
199: relative immunity of $g_p$ to systematic errors in the stellar
200: properties suggests that when testing theoretical models of planetary
201: structure, it would be wiser to compare theoretical and observed
202: surface gravities, rather than the traditional comparison between
203: theoretical and observed radii.
204:
205: \begin{figure}[t]
206: % \vspace*{-2.0 cm}
207: \begin{center}
208: \includegraphics[width=32pc]{tlc_space.eps}
209: % \vspace*{-1.0 cm}
210: \caption{A gallery of transit light curves based on observations
211: with spaceborne instruments. The upper 3 panels show optical data
212: from the {\it Hubble Space Telescope}\, and the lower 3 panels
213: show infrared data from the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope}.}
214: \label{fig2}
215: \end{center}
216: \end{figure}
217:
218: This field has been blessed with spectacular data from the space
219: observatories, some of which are shown in Fig.~2. Everyone remembers
220: exactly where they were when they first saw the {\it Hubble
221: Space Telescope}\, ({\it HST}\,) light curve of HD~209458 by Brown
222: et al.~(2001), with a cadence of 80~s and a precision of $1.1\times
223: 10^{-4}$. This group established the protocol of most subsequent {\it
224: HST}\, observations: schedule several ``visits'' to achieve complete
225: phase coverage of the event; disperse the starlight over many pixels
226: to average over sensitivity variations and achieve a high duty cycle;
227: sum all of the detected photons; and correct for instabilities due to
228: the spacecraft orbit and detector.
229:
230: With the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope}\, the count rates are generally
231: lower, but there are compensatory advantages: there is little
232: limb-darkening at at mid-infrared wavelengths, and uninterrupted views
233: of entire events are possible because the satellite is not in a
234: low-earth orbit. A few noteworthy Spitzer results are the transit of
235: GJ~436 (Gillon et al.~2007, Deming et al.~2007), the Neptune-sized
236: planet about which we heard so much this week, and a recent light
237: curve by Nutzman et al.~(2008) of the very challenging target
238: HD~149026, for which the transit depth is only a quarter of a
239: percent.
240:
241: Ground-based photometry still plays an important role. With a large
242: claim on a small telescope, one can observe many more events than is
243: feasible from space, build a large library of transit times, and
244: respond more quickly to new discoveries. Furthermore, in many cases it
245: has been possible with ground-based photometry to reach the regime in
246: which the contribution to the parameter uncertainties due to
247: photometric errors is comparable to the systematic errors arising from
248: uncertainties in the stellar properties. Beyond this point, improved
249: photometric precision gives steeply diminishing returns. The following
250: discussion is informed by my experience with the Transit Light Curve
251: project, which Matt Holman and I have undertaken (see Fig.~3). It
252: should be emphasized, however, that spectacular ground-based
253: photometry has been achieved by several other groups (see, e.g.,
254: Alonso et al.~2008, or Gillon,~M.\ in these proceedings).
255:
256: \begin{figure}[t]
257: % \vspace*{-2.0 cm}
258: \begin{center}
259: \includegraphics[width=32pc]{tlc_ground.eps}
260: % \vspace*{-1.0 cm}
261: \caption{A gallery of transit light curves, based on observations
262: with small ground-based telescopes. Each panel shows a
263: time-averaged (100~s), composite light curve based on observations
264: of multiple transits. The number of observed transits ranges from 2
265: (XO-1) to 11 (GJ~436).}
266: \label{fig3}
267: \end{center}
268: \end{figure}
269:
270: The aspiring ground-based transit observer is well-advised to consult
271: some of the classic papers on CCD differential ensemble photometry,
272: including Gilliland \& Brown~(1988), Kjeldsen \& Frandsen~(1992), and
273: Everett \& Howell~(2001). Some lessons from these authors, as applied
274: to transit observations, are to ensure that calibration frames have
275: negligible photon-counting noise; keep the pointing stable to within a
276: few pixels to minimize the effects of pixel-to-pixel gain variations;
277: and strive to observe at least 10 comparison stars bracketing the
278: target star in brightness and color. Each instrument will have a sweet
279: spot, a magnitude range for which a 1~min exposure gives $\sim$10 good
280: comparison stars within the field of view. For TLC observations,
281: employing the 1.2m telescope at the Fred L.~Whipple Observatory and
282: the Keplercam $23'$ detector, this occurs at 11-12th magnitude. For
283: brighter targets, defocusing is helpful to draw out the maximum
284: exposure time (and thereby increase the duty cycle) and to hedge
285: against pixel-to-pixel variations and seeing variations.
286:
287: It is often advisable to use a long-wavelength bandpass, where
288: extinction variations are smaller and the effects of stellar limb
289: darkening are reduced. Smaller limb darkening leads to light curves
290: with sharper corners and flatter bottoms, providing more statistical
291: leverage on the parameters $t_c$, $R_p/R_s$, $b$, and $R_s/a$. To be
292: concrete, Fig.~4 shows the results of calculations by P\'al~(2008),
293: comparing the statistical error in those parameters as a function of
294: the observing bandpass. All other things being equal, observing in $K$
295: as opposed to $u$ reduces the statistical error in $t_c$ by
296: $\sim$15\%, in $R_s/a$ or $b$ by $\sim$40\%, and $R_p/R_s$ by
297: $\sim$80\%. Of course, there are other factors that affect the choice
298: of bandpass, such as the count rate; the purpose of Fig.~4 is to
299: isolate the effect of limb darkening.
300:
301: \begin{figure}[b]
302: \vspace*{-0.5 cm}
303: \begin{center}
304: \includegraphics[width=32pc]{ldark.eps}
305: \vspace*{-1.0 cm}
306: \caption{ The effect of limb-darkening on parameter errors, based on
307: calculations by P\'al ~(2008). Imagine a planet with $R_p/R_s=R_s/a
308: = 0.1$ transits a Sun-like star with impact parameter $b$, and a
309: light curve is obtained with $1.3\times 10^{-3}$ precision and 10~s
310: cadence. Shown here is the relative error in the parameters
311: $R_p/R_s$ (solid), $b$ (dashed), $a/R_s$ (dash-dotted), and $t_c$
312: (dotted), as a function of the observing bandpass. For redder
313: bandpasses (to the right), the effect of limb-darkening is smaller
314: and the parameter errors are decreased. }
315: \label{fig4}
316: \end{center}
317: \end{figure}
318:
319: A primary goal of high-precision transit observations is to
320: characterize the mass and radius of the planet. Figure~5 shows results
321: from the current ensemble. When possible, the results were taken from
322: the homogeneous analysis of Torres et al.~(2008) mentioned previously,
323: and otherwise from the most recent literature. Almost all of the
324: planets seem to be gas giants, with radii 10-50\% larger than that of
325: Jupiter. A persistent theme in this field is that at least a few
326: planets have radii that are ``too large'' by the standards of
327: theoretical models of H-He giant planets, even after accounting for
328: the intense stellar heating and selection effects (see Burrows et
329: al.~2007 for a recent discussion). In the left panel, with logarithmic
330: axes, one may appreciate that the Neptune-sized planet GJ~436 is
331: ``halfway'' from the gas giants to Earthlike planets.
332:
333: \begin{figure}[bh]
334: % \vspace*{-2.0 cm}
335: \begin{center}
336: \includegraphics[width=32pc]{Mass_Radius.eps}
337: % \vspace*{-1.0 cm}
338: \caption{Masses and radii of transiting planets. The dotted lines are
339: loci of constant mean density. Values for Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune,
340: and Earth are also plotted, for comparison.}
341: \label{fig5}
342: \end{center}
343: \end{figure}
344:
345: Another reason to observe transits is to measure precise mid-transit
346: times. These data can be used to detect additional planets using the
347: method of Holman \& Murray~(2005) and Agol et al.~(2005):
348: planet-planet gravitational forces cause slight modifications in the
349: orbit of the transiting planet, which are revealed by a pattern of
350: anomalies in a sequence of transit times. This technique is especially
351: sensitive to planets in mean-motion resonance with the transiting
352: planet. The acquisition of transit times is being pursued by a large
353: number of groups, many of whom have presented results at this meeting.
354: Dynamical analyses by Agol \& Steffen~(2007), Miller-Ricci et
355: al.~(2008), and others have not yet resulted in any secure detections,
356: but in the best cases they have ruled out terrestrial-mass planets in
357: the lowest-order resonances.
358:
359: As another illustration of the extreme sensitivity to resonant orbits,
360: consider GJ~436. Circumstantial evidence for a super-Earth in the 2:1
361: resonance with the transiting planet was presented by Ribas et
362: al.~(2008). Figure~6, produced by D.~Fabrycky, shows some recently
363: measured transit times for GJ~436 along with the timing variations
364: that one expects from a 5~$M_\oplus$ planet in the 2:1 resonance
365: (solid lines). The amplitude of the theoretical timing variations are
366: $\sim$$10^4$~s, far out of the plotting range, and are strongly
367: excluded by the data. The largest allowed body in that particular
368: orbit is about 0.05~$M_\oplus$, or 4 Lunar masses (dotted lines).
369:
370: One may also search for planets in 1:1 resonance: Trojan planets,
371: residing at the L4/L5 points of the planet's orbit. Ford \&
372: Gaudi~(2006) showed that Trojans can be detected by seeking a
373: difference between the observed transit time and the calculated
374: transit time based only on the radial-velocity data. This technique
375: was recently applied to 25 transiting systems, and did not result in
376: any secure detections, although for GJ~436 it was possible to rule out
377: Trojans of mass 2.5~$M_\oplus$ or larger (Madhusudhan \& Winn~2008).
378:
379: \begin{figure}[t]
380: % \vspace*{-2.0 cm}
381: \begin{center}
382: \includegraphics[width=28pc]{ttv2.eps}
383: % \vspace*{-1.0 cm}
384: \caption{Transit timing residuals (observed~$-$~calculated) for
385: GJ~436, along with theoretical variations that would be expected
386: due to a second planet in a 2:1 resonance, with a mass of
387: 5~$M_\oplus$ (solid line) and 0.05~$M_\oplus$ (dotted line).
388: Calculations and figure by D.~Fabrycky.}
389: \label{fig6}
390: \end{center}
391: \end{figure}
392:
393: \section{The Rossiter-McLaughlin effect}
394:
395: The last parameter I will discuss is the stellar obliquity, or
396: spin-orbit angle, defined as the angle between the angular momentum
397: vectors of the rotating star and of the planetary orbit. The
398: spin-orbit angle is a fundamental geometric property, and for this
399: reason alone, it is worth seeking empirical constraints on $\psi$
400: whenever possible. In addition, it has recently been recognized that
401: $\psi$ is a possible diagnostic of theories of planet migration.
402: Migration via tidal interactions with a protoplanetary disk would
403: probably result in a close spin-orbit alignment. Migration due to
404: planet-planet scattering events, or Kozai cycles accompanied by tidal
405: friction, would produce at least occasionally large misalignments
406: (see, e.g., Fabrycky \& Tremaine 2007, Wu et al.~2007, Chatterjee et
407: al.~2008, Nagasawa et al.~2008, Juric \& Tremaine 2008). Independently
408: of the interpretation, one may regard $\psi$ to be on a par with the
409: semimajor axis and the eccentricity: all are basic geometric
410: parameters, for which accurate and systematic measurements can lead to
411: revealing discoveries and statistical constraints on exoplanetary
412: system architectures.
413:
414: Alas, the spin-orbit angle is not generally measurable. However, by
415: monitoring the apparent Doppler shift of the host star throughout a
416: transit (in addition to the loss of light) one may determine the angle
417: between the {\it sky projections}\, of the two angular momentum
418: vectors, which is denoted $\lambda$ and referred to as the projected
419: spin-orbit angle. It is then possible to derive a lower limit on
420: $\psi$ for an individual system, and to derive statistical constraints
421: on $\psi$ from an ensemble of results.
422:
423: The sensitivity to $\lambda$ arises from a spectroscopic phenomenon
424: described by Rossiter (1924) and McLaughlin (1924) for the case of
425: eclipsing binaries, and known today as the RM effect. During a
426: transit, the planet blocks a portion of the rotating stellar surface,
427: thereby hiding some of the velocity components that ordinarily
428: contribute to the stellar line broadening. The result is a distorted
429: line profile that is usually manifested as an ``anomalous'' Doppler
430: shift. When the planet is projected in front of the approaching
431: (blueshifted) half of the star, the net starlight appears slightly
432: redshifted, and vice versa. Figure~7 shows three trajectories of a
433: transiting planet that have the same impact parameter---and hence
434: produce identical light curves---but that have different orientations
435: relative to the stellar spin axis, and hence produce different RM
436: signals. The signal for a well-aligned planet is antisymmetric about
437: the midtransit time (left panels), whereas a strongly misaligned
438: planet that spends all its time in front of the receding half of the
439: star will produce only an anomalous blueshift (right panels).
440:
441: \begin{figure}[t]
442: \vspace*{-0.75 cm}
443: \begin{center}
444: \includegraphics[width=32pc]{trajectories_annotated.eps}
445: % \vspace*{-1.0 cm}
446: \caption{ The Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) effect as an ``anomalous''
447: Doppler shift. Top: three possible transit geometries that produce
448: identical light curves, but differ in spin-orbit alignment.
449: Bottom: The corresponding radial-velocity signals. Dotted lines
450: are for the idealized case of no limb darkening; solid lines
451: include limb darkening. }
452: \label{fig7}
453: \end{center}
454: \end{figure}
455:
456: \begin{table}
457: \begin{center}
458: \caption{Results for the projected spin-orbit angle, $\lambda$.}
459: \label{tab2}
460: \begin{tabular}{lcc}\hline
461: {\bf System} & $\lambda$~[deg] & {\bf Refs.} \\ \hline
462: HD~189733 & $-1.4\pm 1.1$ & 1 \\
463: HD~209458 & $-4.4\pm 1.4$ & 2,3$^\star$ \\
464: HAT-P-1 & $+3.6\pm 2.0$ & 4 \\
465: CoRoT-Exo-2 & $+7.2\pm 4.5$ & 5 \\
466: HD~17156 & $+9.4\pm 9.3$ & 6,7$^\star$ \\
467: TrES-2 & $-9\pm 12$ & 8 \\
468: HAT-P-2 & $+1\pm 13$ & 9$^\star$,10 \\
469: HD~149026 & $-12\pm 15$ & 11 \\
470: XO-3 & $+70\pm 15$ & 12 \\
471: WASP-14 & $-14\pm 17$ & 13 \\
472: TrES-1 & $+30\pm 21$ & 14 \\
473: \hline
474: \end{tabular}
475: \end{center}
476: \vspace{1mm}
477: {\it References:}
478: (1) Winn et al.~(2006).
479: (2) Queloz et al.~(2000). (3) Winn et al.~(2005).
480: (4) Johnson et al.~(2008).
481: (5) Bouchy et al.~(2008).
482: (6) Narita et al.~(2008). (7) Cochran et al.~(2008).
483: (8) Winn et al.~(2008c).
484: (9) Winn et al.~(2007d). (10) Loeillet et al.~(2008).
485: (11) Wolf et al.~(2007).
486: (12) Hebrard et al.~(2008).
487: (13) Joshi et al.~(2008).
488: (14) Narita et al.~(2007).
489: Note: where more than one reference is listed, the value in
490: column 2 is taken from the starred reference.
491: \end{table}
492:
493: To date, RM observations have been reported for 11 different
494: exoplanetary systems, since the pioneering detections by Queloz et
495: al.~(2000) and Bundy \& Marcy~(2000). This field is at the transition
496: point between a mere handful of results to a large enough sample for
497: meaningful general conclusions to be drawn and for rare surprises to
498: emerge. The results are summarized in Table~2, which is organized in
499: order of measurement precision, with the most precise result listed
500: first. Figure~8 shows some more recent data for HD~189733 and HAT-P-2,
501: both of which display the antisymmetric waveform indicative of a
502: well-aligned spin and orbit (at least in projection). Both stars have
503: candidate stellar companions, naturally raising the possibility of
504: Kozai cycles, but in both cases the projected spin-orbit angle is
505: consistent with zero.
506:
507: \begin{figure}[t]
508: % \vspace*{-2.0 cm}
509: \begin{center}
510: \includegraphics[width=32pc]{Rossiter_data.eps}
511: % \vspace*{-1.0 cm}
512: \caption{ Examples of RM data. The top panels show transit
513: photometry, and the bottom panels show the corresponding
514: radial-velocity waveform. The out-of-transit gradient in the
515: radial velocity is due to the orbital motion of the star. The
516: in-transit ``blip'' is the RM effect. }
517: \label{fig8}
518: \end{center}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521: In almost all cases, the results are consistent with good alignment,
522: with measurement precisions ranging from $1^\circ$ to $21^\circ$.
523: There are two possible exceptions. The first is HD~17156, for which
524: Narita et al.~(2008) reported $\lambda = 62^\circ \pm 25^\circ$.
525: However, shortly after this meeting, Cochran et al.~(2008) presented
526: new data giving $9.4^\circ \pm 9.3^\circ$. The reason for the
527: apparently significant disagreement between the data sets is not yet
528: clear. The other possible exception is XO-3, for which H\'ebrard et
529: al.~(2008) found $\lambda = 70^\circ \pm 15^\circ$~deg, i.e., a
530: transverse RM effect in which only an anomalous blueshift was seen.
531: Those authors expressed some caution about the result due to possible
532: systematic errors. Further observations of both of these systems are
533: warranted.
534:
535: Broadly speaking, the results show that large spin-orbit misalignments
536: are fairly rare. The time is now ripe for a statistical analysis of
537: the ensemble results. This would not only overcome the sky-projection
538: limitation that is inherent in individual results, but could
539: ultimately place constraints on the fraction of systems that have
540: migrated via different channels. A possible confounding factor is
541: tidal coplanarization: even if the migration process resulted in a
542: large value of $\psi$, could the system have been eventually realigned
543: by star-planet tidal interactions? The simple and widely-used model of
544: tidal interactions, in which the equilibrium tidal bulge is shifted by
545: a constant time lag, suggests that the timescale for inclination
546: damping is much longer than the timescale for eccentricity damping,
547: and that tidal spin-orbit realignment can be neglected (Winn et
548: al.~2005). However, more theoretical work is needed to go beyond this
549: order-of-magnitude argument and define the scope for more complicated
550: tidal and evolutionary models to affect the interpretation of the RM
551: results. It is possible, for example, that tidal dynamics were more
552: important when the system was younger, or that the coplanarization
553: timescale is shorter than expected (Mazeh 2008).
554:
555: \acknowledgements Special thanks are due to D.~Fabrycky for producing
556: Fig.~6, to A.~P\'al for providing the numerical results in Fig.~4
557: (which are more complete than the results I showed in my
558: presentation), and to K.~de~Kleer for help in producing Fig.~3. I have
559: enjoyed and benefited from collaborations with M.~Holman, J.~Johnson,
560: G.~Marcy, N.~Narita, Y.~Suto, D.~Fabrycky, E.~Turner, S.~Gaudi,
561: T.~Mazeh, J.~Carter, M.~Nikku, and others too numerous to mention, on
562: the topics presented here. I am grateful to the SOC for the
563: opportunity to speak at the Woodstock of transiting planets.
564:
565: \begin{thebibliography}{}
566:
567: \bibitem[Agol et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.359..567A} Agol, E., Steffen,
568: J., Sari, R., \& Clarkson, W.\ 2005, \textit{MNRAS}, 359, 567
569:
570: \bibitem[Agol \& Steffen(2007)]{2007MNRAS.374..941A} Agol, E., \&
571: Steffen, J.~H.\ 2007, \textit{MNRAS}, 374, 941
572:
573: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0804.3030A} Alonso, R.,
574: Barbieri, M., Rabus, M., Deeg, H.~J., Belmonte, J.~A., \& Almenara,
575: J.~M.\ 2008, arXiv:0804.3030
576:
577: \bibitem[Arnold(2005)]{2005ApJ...627..534A} Arnold, L.~F.~A.\ 2005,
578: \textit{ApJ}, 627, 534
579:
580: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...670..826B} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et
581: al.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 670, 826 % HAT-2 discovery
582:
583: \bibitem[Barnes \& Fortney(2003)]{2003ApJ...588..545B} Barnes, J.~W.,
584: \& Fortney, J.~J.\ 2003, \textit{ApJ}, 588, 545 % oblateness
585:
586: \bibitem[Barnes \& Fortney(2004)]{2004ApJ...616.1193B} Barnes, J.~W.,
587: \& Fortney, J.~J.\ 2004, \textit{ApJ}, 616, 1193 % rings
588:
589: \bibitem[Bouchy et al.(2008)]{2008A&A...482L..25B} Bouchy, F., et al.\
590: 2008, \textit{A\&A}, 482, L25
591:
592: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...552..699B} Brown, T.~M.,
593: Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R.~L., Noyes, R.~W., \& Burrows, A.\
594: 2001, \textit{ApJ}, 552, 699
595:
596: \bibitem[Bundy \& Marcy(2000)]{2000PASP..112.1421B} Bundy, K.~A., \&
597: Marcy, G.~W.\ 2000, \textit{PASP}, 112, 1421
598:
599: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661..502B} Burrows, A.,
600: Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., \& Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 661, 502
601:
602: \bibitem[Carter et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0805.0238C} Carter, J.~A., Yee,
603: J.~C., Eastman, J., Gaudi, B.~S., \& Winn, J.~N.\ 2008,
604: arXiv:0805.0238
605:
606: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...529L..45C} Charbonneau,
607: D., Brown, T.~M., Latham, D.~W., \& Mayor, M.\ 2000, \textit{ApJ}, 529, L45
608:
609: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...568..377C} Charbonneau,
610: D., Brown, T.~M., Noyes, R.~W., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 2002, \textit{ApJ},
611: 568, 377 % Na absorption
612:
613: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...626..523C} Charbonneau,
614: D., et al.\ 2005, \textit{ApJ}, 626, 523 % thermal emission
615:
616: \bibitem[Chatterjee et al.(2007)]{2007astro.ph..3166C} Chatterjee, S.,
617: Ford, E.~B., Matsumura, S., \& Rasio, F.~A.\ 2007,
618: arXiv:astro-ph/0703166
619:
620: \bibitem[Cochran et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0806.4142C} Cochran, W.~D.,
621: Redfield, S., Endl, M., \& Cochran, A.~L.\ 2008, arXiv:0806.4142
622:
623: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2005)]{2005Natur.434..740D} Deming, D., Seager,
624: S., Richardson, L.~J., \& Harrington, J.\ 2005, \textit{Nature}, 434, 740
625: % thermal emission
626:
627: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...667L.199D} Deming, D.,
628: Harrington, J., Laughlin, G., Seager, S., Navarro, S.~B., Bowman,
629: W.~C., \& Horning, K.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 667, L199
630: % GJ 436 Spitzer
631:
632: \bibitem[Everett \& Howell(2001)]{2001PASP..113.1428E} Everett, M.~E.,
633: \& Howell, S.~B.\ 2001, \textit{PASP}, 113, 1428
634:
635: \bibitem[Fabrycky \& Tremaine(2007)]{2007ApJ...669.1298F} Fabrycky,
636: D., \& Tremaine, S.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 669, 1298
637:
638: \bibitem[Fabrycky(2008)]{2008ApJ...677L.117F} Fabrycky, D.\ 2008,
639: \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 677, L117
640:
641: \bibitem[Ford \& Gaudi(2006)]{2006ApJ...652L.137F} Ford, E.~B., \&
642: Gaudi, B.~S.\ 2006, \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 652, L137
643:
644: \bibitem[Gaudi \& Winn(2007)]{2007ApJ...655..550G} Gaudi, B.~S., \&
645: Winn, J.~N.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 655, 550
646:
647: \bibitem[Gilliland \& Brown(1988)]{1988PASP..100..754G} Gilliland,
648: R.~L., \& Brown, T.~M.\ 1988, \textit{PASP}, 100, 754
649:
650: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...471L..51G} Gillon, M., et al.\
651: 2007, \textit{A\&A}, 471, L51
652:
653: \bibitem[Gim{\'e}nez(2007)]{2007A&A...474.1049G} Gim{\'e}nez, A.\
654: 2007, \textit{A\&A}, 474, 1049
655:
656: \bibitem[Hebrard et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0806.0719H} Hebrard, G., et
657: al.\ 2008, arXiv:0806.0719
658:
659: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...529L..41H} Henry, G.~W., Marcy,
660: G.~W., Butler, R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2000, \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 529, L41
661:
662: \bibitem[Heyl \& Gladman(2007)]{2007MNRAS.377.1511H} Heyl, J.~S., \&
663: Gladman, B.~J.\ 2007, \textit{MNRAS}, 377, 1511
664:
665: \bibitem[Holman \& Murray(2005)]{2005Sci...307.1288H} Holman, M.~J.,
666: \& Murray, N.~W.\ 2005, Science, 307, 1288
667:
668: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652.1715H} Holman, M.~J., et
669: al.\ 2006, \textit{ApJ}, 652, 1715 % TLC XO-1
670:
671: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664.1185H} Holman, M.~J., et
672: al.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 664, 1185 % TLC TRES-2
673:
674: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0806.1734J} Johnson, J.~A., et
675: al.\ 2008, arXiv:0806.1734
676:
677: \bibitem[Jordan \& Bakos(2008)]{2008arXiv0806.0630J} Jordan, A., \&
678: Bakos, G.~A.\ 2008, arXiv:0806.0630
679:
680: \bibitem[Joshi et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0806.1478J} Joshi, Y.~C., et
681: al.\ 2008, arXiv:0806.1478
682:
683: \bibitem[Juric \& Tremaine(2007)]{2007astro.ph..3160J} Juric, M., \&
684: Tremaine, S.\ 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0703160
685:
686: \bibitem[Kjeldsen \& Frandsen(1992)]{1992PASP..104..413K} Kjeldsen,
687: H., \& Frandsen, S.\ 1992, \textit{PASP}, 104, 413
688:
689: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2007a)]{2007ApJ...655..564K} Knutson, H.~A.,
690: Charbonneau, D., Noyes, R.~W., et al., 2007a, \textit{ApJ}, 655, 564
691:
692: \bibitem[Knutson et al.(2007b)]{2007Natur.447..183K} Knutson, H.~A., et
693: al.\ 2007b, \textit{Nature}, 447, 183 % HD 189 phase function
694:
695: \bibitem[Langton \& Laughlin(2008)]{2008ApJ...674.1106L} Langton, J.,
696: \& Laughlin, G.\ 2008, \textit{ApJ}, 674, 1106
697:
698: \bibitem[Loeb(2008)]{2008arXiv0807.0835L} Loeb, A.\ 2008,
699: arXiv:0807.0835
700:
701: \bibitem[Loeillet et al.(2008)]{2008A&A...481..529L} Loeillet, B., et
702: al.\ 2008, \textit{A\&A}, 481, 529
703:
704: \bibitem[Madhusudhan \& Winn(2008)]{mw08} Madhusudhan, N. \& Winn, J.\
705: 2008, \textit{ApJ}, submitted
706:
707: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{2002ApJ...580L.171M} Mandel, K., \&
708: Agol, E.\ 2002, \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 580, L171
709:
710: \bibitem[Mazeh(2008)]{2008EAS....29....1M} Mazeh, T.\ 2008, EAS
711: Publications Series, 29, 1
712:
713: \bibitem[McLaughlin(1924)]{1924ApJ....60...22M} McLaughlin, D.~B.\
714: 1924, \textit{ApJ}, 60, 22
715:
716: \bibitem[Miller-Ricci et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0802.0718M} Miller-Ricci,
717: E., et al.\ 2008, arXiv:0802.0718
718:
719: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud{\'e}(2002)]{2002ApJ...564.1019M}
720: Miralda-Escud{\'e}, J.\ 2002, \textit{ApJ}, 564, 1019
721:
722: \bibitem[Nagasawa et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...678..498N} Nagasawa, M.,
723: Ida, S., \& Bessho, T.\ 2008, \textit{ApJ}, 678, 498
724:
725: \bibitem[Narita et al.(2007)]{2007PASJ...59..763N} Narita, N., et al.\
726: 2007, \textit{PASJ}, 59, 763
727:
728: \bibitem[Narita et al.(2008)]{2008PASJ...60L...1N} Narita, N., Sato,
729: B., Ohshima, O., \& Winn, J.~N.\ 2008, \textit{PASJ}, 60, L1
730:
731: \bibitem[Nutzman et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0807.1318N} Nutzman, P.,
732: Charbonneau, D., Winn, J.~N., Knutson, H.~A., Fortney, J.~J.,
733: Holman, M.~J., \& Agol, E.\ 2008, arXiv:0807.1318
734:
735: \bibitem[P{\'a}l(2008)]{2008arXiv0805.2157P} P{\'a}l, A.\ 2008,
736: arXiv:0805.2157
737:
738: \bibitem[P{\'a}l \& Kocsis(2008)]{2008arXiv0806.0629P} P{\'a}l, A., \&
739: Kocsis, B.\ 2008, arXiv:0806.0629
740:
741: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...476.1347P} Pont, F., et al.\
742: 2007, \textit{A\&A}, 476, 1347 % HD 189 HST
743:
744: \bibitem[Queloz et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...359L..13Q} Queloz, D.,
745: Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Beuzit, J.~L., Naef, D.,
746: Sivan, J.~P., \& Udry, S.\ 2000, \textit{A\&A}, 359, L13
747:
748: \bibitem[Rafikov(2008)]{2008arXiv0807.0008R} Rafikov, R.~R.\ 2008,
749: arXiv:0807.0008
750:
751: \bibitem[Ragozzine \& Wolf(2008)]{2008arXiv0807.2856R} Ragozzine, D.,
752: \& Wolf, A.~S.\ 2008, arXiv:0807.2856
753:
754: \bibitem[Ribas et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...677L..59R} Ribas, I.,
755: Font-Ribera, A., \& Beaulieu, J.-P.\ 2008, \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 677, L59
756:
757: \bibitem[Rossiter(1924)]{1924ApJ....60...15R} Rossiter, R.~A.\ 1924,
758: \textit{ApJ}, 60, 15
759:
760: \bibitem[Rowe et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646.1241R} Rowe, J.~F., et al.\
761: 2006, \textit{ApJ}, 646, 1241
762:
763: \bibitem[Russell (1948)]{Russell_48} {Russell, H.} 1948,
764: \textit{Harvard Coll.~Obs.~Monograph}, 7, 181
765:
766: \bibitem[Scharf(2007)]{2007ApJ...661.1218S} Scharf, C.~A.\ 2007,
767: \textit{ApJ}, 661, 1218
768:
769: \bibitem[Silva(2003)]{2003ApJ...585L.147S} Silva, A.~V.~R.\ 2003,
770: \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 585, L147
771:
772: \bibitem[Seager \& Hui(2002)]{2002ApJ...574.1004S} Seager, S., \& Hui,
773: L.\ 2002, \textit{ApJ}, 574, 1004
774:
775: \bibitem[Seager \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas(2003)]{2003ApJ...585.1038S}
776: Seager, S., \& Mall{\'e}n-Ornelas, G.\ 2003, \textit{ApJ}, 585, 1038
777:
778: \bibitem[Southworth et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.379L..11S} Southworth, J.,
779: Wheatley, P.~J., \& Sams, G.\ 2007, \textit{MNRAS}, 379, L11 % surf grav
780:
781: \bibitem[Southworth(2008)]{2008MNRAS.386.1644S} Southworth, J.\ 2008,
782: \textit{MNRAS}, 386, 1644 % light curve analysis
783:
784: \bibitem[Sozzetti et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664.1190S} Sozzetti, A.,
785: Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., et al., 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 664, 1190
786:
787: \bibitem[Spiegel et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...669.1324S} Spiegel, D.~S.,
788: Haiman, Z., \& Gaudi, B.~S.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 669, 1324
789:
790: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...677.1324T} Torres, G., Winn,
791: J.~N., \& Holman, M.~J.\ 2008, \textit{ApJ}, 677, 1324
792:
793: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar et al.(2003)]{2003Natur.422..143V} Vidal-Madjar,
794: A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D{\'e}sert, J.-M., et al., 2003,
795: \textit{Nature}, 422, 143
796:
797: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631.1215W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
798: 2005, \textit{ApJ}, 631, 1215 % HD 209 RM
799:
800: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...653L..69W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
801: 2006, \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 653, L69 % HD 189 RM
802:
803: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007a)]{2007ApJ...657.1098W} Winn, J.~N., Holman,
804: M.~J., \& Roussanova, A.\ 2007a, \textit{ApJ}, 657, 1098 % TLC TRES-1
805:
806: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007b)]{2007AJ....134.1707W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
807: 2007b, \textit{AJ}, 134, 1707 % TLC HAT1
808:
809: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007c)]{2007AJ....133.1828W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
810: 2007c, \textit{AJ}, 133, 1828 % HD 189 TLC
811:
812: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2007d)]{2007ApJ...665L.167W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
813: 2007d, \textit{ApJ} (Letters), 665, L167 % HAT2 RM
814:
815: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2008a)]{2008AJ....136..267W} Winn, J.~N., Holman,
816: M.~J., Shporer, A., et al., 2008a, \textit{AJ}, 136, 267 % TrES-3 albedo
817:
818: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2008b)]{2008arXiv0804.4475W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
819: 2008b, \textit{ApJ}, 683, 1076 % TLC XO-3
820:
821: \bibitem[Winn et al.(2008c)]{2008arXiv0804.2259W} Winn, J.~N., et al.\
822: 2008c, \textit{ApJ}, 682, 1283 % RM TRES-2
823:
824: \bibitem[Wolf et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...667..549W} Wolf, A.~S.,
825: Laughlin, G., Henry, G.~W., Fischer, D.~A., Marcy, G., Butler, P.,
826: \& Vogt, S.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 667, 549
827:
828: \bibitem[Wu et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...670..820W} Wu, Y., Murray, N.~W.,
829: \& Ramsahai, J.~M.\ 2007, \textit{ApJ}, 670, 820
830:
831: \end{thebibliography}
832:
833: \end{document}
834: