1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3:
4: \def\kms{\ifmmode{\rm km\thinspace s^{-1}}\else km\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}
5: \def\ms{\ifmmode{\rm m\thinspace s^{-1}}\else m\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}
6:
7: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{New Data and Improved Parameters for the Transiting Planet
12: OGLE-TR-56b}
13:
14: \author{Guillermo Torres\altaffilmark{1}, Maciej Konacki\altaffilmark{2},
15: Dimitar D. Sasselov\altaffilmark{3} and Saurabh Jha\altaffilmark{4}}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St.,
18: Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; e-mail: gtorres@cfa.harvard.edu}
19: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California
20: Institute of Technology, MS 150-21, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA;
21: Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, Polish Academy of Sciences,
22: Rabia\'nska 8, 87-100 Toru\'n, Poland; e-mail: maciej@gps.caltech.edu}
23: \altaffiltext{3}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St.,
24: Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; e-mail: dsasselov@cfa.harvard.edu}
25: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
26: Berkeley, CA 94720, USA; e-mail: saurabh@astron.berkeley.edu}
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29:
30: We report new spectroscopic observations of the recently discovered
31: transiting planet OGLE-TR-56b with the Keck/HIRES instrument. Our
32: radial velocity measurements with errors of $\sim$100~$\ms$ show clear
33: variations that are in excellent agreement with the phasing (period
34: and epoch) derived from the OGLE transit photometry, confirming the
35: planetary nature of the companion. The new data combined with
36: measurements from the previous season allow an improved determination
37: of the mass of the planet, $M_p = 1.45 \pm 0.23~M_{\rm Jup}$. All
38: available OGLE photometry, including new measurements made this
39: season, have also been analyzed to derive an improved value for the
40: planetary radius of $R_p = 1.23 \pm 0.16~R_{\rm Jup}$. We discuss the
41: implications of these results for the theory of extrasolar planets.
42:
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \keywords{techniques: radial velocities --- binaries: eclipsing ---
46: stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs --- planetary systems}
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49: \label{sec:introduction}
50:
51: Most extrasolar planets to date have been discovered with the
52: high-precision radial velocity technique, which provides only a lower
53: limit to the mass of the companion because the inclination angle
54: cannot be determined from spectroscopy alone. Systems for which the
55: orbit happens to be nearly edge-on, so that the planet transits across
56: the disk of the star once every orbital period, show a photometric
57: transit and allow the absolute mass of the planet to be determined.
58: Transiting systems are valuable in many other ways, providing the
59: planet's absolute radius, as well as allowing a variety of different
60: follow-up studies \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Brown:02, Charbonneau:02,
61: Vidal:03, Fortney:03, Richardson:03, Moutou:03}. Transits are also a
62: viable planet discovery technique: our recent follow-up in 2002 of
63: candidates from the OGLE-III sample toward the bulge of the Galaxy
64: \citep{Udalski:02a,Udalski:02b} resulted in the spectroscopic
65: confirmation of a planet around the star OGLE-TR-56 ($V = 16.6$), with
66: a period of 1.2~days. This is the first case originally discovered
67: from its photometric signature rather than its Doppler signature
68: \citep{Konacki:03a}.
69:
70: The limited amount of spectroscopic data we obtained during our 2002
71: season only allowed for a relatively uncertain estimate of the mass of
72: OGLE-TR-56b. A combined orbital solution using our velocities and the
73: OGLE-III light curve yielded $M_p = 0.9 \pm 0.3$~M$_{\rm Jup}$
74: \citep{Konacki:03a}. In this Letter we report new radial velocity
75: measurements that allow us to improve the accuracy of the mass
76: determination and to better characterize its uncertainty, as well as
77: to strengthen the case against any false-positive scenarios. In
78: addition, we present an updated transit light curve solution based on
79: improvements in the OGLE photometry.
80:
81: \section{Observations and reductions}
82: \label{sec:observations}
83:
84: OGLE-TR-56 was observed spectroscopically on 5 nights in August 2003
85: with the Keck~I telescope and the HIRES instrument \citep{Vogt:94}. We
86: obtained a total of 8 new spectra of the object, with exposure times
87: ranging from 30 to 50 minutes. The setup allowed us to record 35
88: usable echelle orders covering the spectral range from 3850~\AA\ to
89: 6200~\AA\ at a resolving power of $R \simeq 65,\!000$. Typical
90: signal-to-noise ratios are in the range of 10--20 per pixel for a
91: single exposure. Our main wavelength reference was provided by a
92: hollow-cathode Thorium-Argon lamp, of which we obtained short
93: exposures immediately preceding and following each stellar exposure.
94:
95: In addition to our program star we obtained frequent observations of
96: two brighter stars (HD~209458 and HD~179949) that have known
97: low-amplitude velocity variations at the level of about 200~$\ms$
98: (peak to peak) due to orbiting substellar companions \citep{Henry:00,
99: Charbonneau:00, Tinney:01}, and which we used as ``standards''. These
100: stars were observed with the iodine gas absorption cell
101: \citep{Marcy:92}. All HIRES spectra were bias-subtracted,
102: flat-fielded, cleaned of cosmic rays, and extracted using the MAKEE
103: reduction package written by Tim Barlow \citeyearpar{Barlow:02}.
104: Compared to the procedures followed in \cite{Konacki:03a}, a number of
105: details in the reductions were fine-tuned for the new observations and
106: led to slightly improved noise levels and better velocities. We
107: therefore re-reduced the original 2002 spectra along with the new ones
108: for uniformity. Wavelength solutions based on the Th-Ar exposures
109: were carried out with standard tasks in IRAF\footnote{IRAF is
110: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is
111: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
112: Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation.}.
113:
114: Radial velocities for OGLE-TR-56 and for the standards stars were
115: derived by cross-correlation against a synthetic template computed
116: specifically for the parameters of each star as detailed by
117: \cite{Konacki:03b}. For the cross-correlations we used the IRAF task
118: XCSAO \citep{Kurtz:98}. The final velocities are the weighted average
119: of all echelle orders in each spectrum (only orders not affected by
120: the iodine were used for the standards). Formal errors were derived
121: from the scatter of the velocities determined from the different
122: orders. These are typically well under $\sim$100~$\ms$, and do not
123: include systematic components, which we have previously estimated to
124: be no larger than about 100~$\ms$ for this instrumentation
125: \citep[see][]{Konacki:03b}. The radial velocities in the frame of the
126: solar system barycenter from all of the spectra (2002 and 2003) along
127: with their final errors are listed in Table~\ref{tab:rvs}.
128:
129: \section{Spectroscopic orbital solution}
130: \label{sec:orbit}
131:
132: The new radial velocities for OGLE-TR-56 show clear changes with
133: orbital phase. The latter is well known from the photometric
134: observations that yield a very accurate period and transit epoch (see
135: below). However, there is also a systematic shift compared to the 2002
136: velocity measurements of about 200~$\ms$. A similar shift is observed
137: in the standards, indicating it is a real effect. Such offsets from
138: run to run are common in radial-velocity work, and can be due to a
139: number of reasons including temperature changes and other instrumental
140: effects beyond the control of the observer. In order to optimally
141: remove this shift using all of the available information, we developed
142: a procedure by which we fit for the orbits of the three stars
143: simultaneously. We solve for the shift at same time as the rest of the
144: orbital elements and assume that the offset is identical for the three
145: stars. The phase and velocity amplitudes of the circular orbits for
146: HD~209458 and HD~179949 are known from high-precision velocity work
147: \citep{Mazeh:00, Tinney:01}, and were held fixed. Therefore, the five
148: free parameters in the least-squares problem are the semi-amplitude of
149: the velocity curve of OGLE-TR-56, the center-of-mass velocity for each
150: star, and the common offset between the 2002 and 2003 seasons. The
151: ephemeris for OGLE-TR-56 is also fixed, as mentioned above, to the
152: value determined in our light curve analysis described in
153: \S\ref{sec:lightcurve}.
154:
155: The solution, based on a total of 28 observations (11 of our target, 9
156: of HD~179949, and 8 of HD~209458), gives a velocity semi-amplitude for
157: OGLE-TR-56 of $K = 265 \pm 38$~$\ms$. The offset between the two
158: observing seasons is determined to be $\Delta_{2003-2002} = +192 \pm
159: 47$~$\ms$, and the overall RMS residual from the fit for OGLE-TR-56 is
160: 114 $\ms$. The minimum mass for the planet in orbit around our target
161: is $M_p \sin i = 1.33 \pm 0.21 \times 10^{-3} \times
162: (M_s+M_p)^{2/3}$~M$_{\sun}$, where $M_s$ is the mass of the primary
163: star. The observations for OGLE-TR-56 along with the orbital fit are
164: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:orbit}. The measurements listed in
165: Table~\ref{tab:rvs} include the offset $\Delta_{2003-2002}$, so that
166: all measurements are referred to the 2002 frame.
167:
168: The center-of-mass velocities derived for the three stars are $-24.579
169: \pm 0.045~\kms$ (HD~179949), $-14.577 \pm 0.048~\kms$ (HD~209458), and
170: $-48.317 \pm 0.045~\kms$ (OGLE-TR-56). For the latter object the
171: difference compared to the value of $-49.49~\kms$ by
172: \cite{Konacki:03a} is due to differences in the reduction of the
173: spectra (\S\ref{sec:observations}) and the increased number of
174: observations in the present solution. The above center-of-mass
175: velocities are on the reference frame of the templates used for the
176: cross-correlations, which are calculated spectra. The errors given are
177: strictly internal, and do not include contributions from uncertainties
178: in the instrumental zero point (of the kind that lead to
179: $\Delta_{2003-2002}$), or in the wavelength scale or other details of
180: the model atmospheres that go into the calculation of the templates.
181: The absolute accuracy of these velocities may be in error by several
182: hundred $\ms$. Nevertheless, it may be of interest for future studies
183: to refer the center-of-mass velocity of OGLE-TR-56 to some
184: well-defined frame of reference. A comparison of our values for the
185: two standards against the results by \cite{Nidever:02} gives
186: systematic differences of $0.083~\kms$ (HD~179949) and $0.182~\kms$
187: (HD~209458), in the sense that our velocities are larger in both
188: cases. The average offset is $0.132~\kms$. Applying this correction to
189: OGLE-TR-56 gives the value $-48.449~\kms$ for its center-of-mass
190: velocity, on the same scale as \cite{Nidever:02}, with an estimated
191: total uncertainty of approximately 100~$\ms$.
192:
193: \section{Spectral line bisectors}
194: \label{sec:bisectors}
195:
196: Following \cite{Konacki:03b} we used our new spectroscopic
197: observations to re-examine the possibility that the velocity
198: variations we measured for OGLE-TR-56 are not produced by a planet
199: orbiting the star, but are instead the result of a blend scenario. In
200: this case, small asymmetries in the spectral lines due to the presence
201: of another star (e.g., the primary of an eclipsing binary in the
202: background) can lead to spurious velocities as the second set of lines
203: moves back and forth in phase with the photometric period. We
204: investigated this for each of our spectra by computing the line
205: bisectors directly from the correlation functions (co-added over all
206: orders), which are representative of the average line profile for the
207: star. We then calculated the ``bisector span'' as the velocity
208: difference between the bisectors at two different correlation levels.
209: This can be used as a measure of the asymmetry of the lines
210: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Santos:02}.
211:
212: In Figure~\ref{fig:bisectors} we show the bisector span for each of
213: our spectra as a function of orbital phase. There is no significant
214: correlation with phase, supporting the conclusion that the velocity
215: variations we measured for the star are real.
216:
217: \section{Analysis of the light curve}
218: \label{sec:lightcurve}
219:
220: Photometric observations of OGLE-TR-56 by the OGLE team have continued
221: after its discovery in 2001, and now include 3 observing seasons (1113
222: measurements covering more than 600 cycles of the orbit). A total of
223: 13 transits have been recorded. Additionally, small corrections for
224: systematic errors in the photometry have recently been applied that
225: improve the errors slightly\footnote{See \tt
226: http://bulge.princeton.edu/$\sim$ogle/ogle3/transits/ogle56.html.\label{foot:1}}.
227: We have used these new data to update the ephemeris and the light
228: curve solution.
229:
230: The re-analysis of the transit light curve was carried out with the
231: tools developed by \cite{Mandel:02}. The stellar parameters (mass and
232: radius) and the limb darkening coefficient in the $I$ band, $u_I$,
233: were adopted from \cite{Konacki:03a} and \cite{Sasselov:03}: $M_s =
234: 1.04 \pm 0.05$~M$_{\sun}$, $R_s = 1.10 \pm 0.10$~R$_{\sun}$, $u_I =
235: 0.56 \pm 0.06$. We solved for 5 parameters: the period, transit epoch,
236: inclination angle, planet radius, and mean magnitude level. The number
237: of degrees of freedom is 1108. Figure~\ref{fig:chi2} shows a section
238: of the $\chi^2$ surface in the vicinity of the minimum, in the plane
239: of planet radius vs.\ inclination angle. The best fit values are given
240: in Table~\ref{tab:results}, and the RMS residual of the fit is
241: 0.005~mag. Final errors in the derived parameters include the
242: contribution from uncertainties in the adopted quantities for the
243: star, as well as the mass of the planet. These were estimated from
244: Monte Carlo simulations, and added quadratically to the statistical
245: errors. The new ephemeris we derive, $T~{\rm (HJD)} =
246: 2,\!452,\!075.1046(17) + 1.2119189(59)\times n$ (where $n$ is the
247: number of cycles since the transit epoch), is consistent with that
248: given in footnote~\ref{foot:1}. The fit to the OGLE-III photometry is
249: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lightcurve}.
250:
251: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
252:
253: Our new radial velocity measurements for OGLE-TR-56 confirm the
254: variations reported by \cite{Konacki:03a}, and are consistent with the
255: photometric ephemeris that was held fixed in the orbital solution.
256: The semi-amplitude we derive using all the data available, $K =
257: 265$~$\ms$, is approximately 60\% larger than the original discovery
258: estimate ($K = 167$~$\ms$), which was based on only 3 observations
259: (with two free parameters). The significance of the determination is
260: now much greater, as can be seen visually in Figure~\ref{fig:orbit},
261: and the errors are better characterized because of the increased
262: number of observations. Consequently, the mass we derive is also
263: larger: $M_p = 1.45 \pm 0.23$~M$_{\rm Jup}$. The radius, $R_p = 1.23
264: \pm 0.16$~R$_{\rm Jup}$, is similar to the initial determination. The
265: reality of the velocity variations is confirmed from the lack of any
266: significant correlation between the spectral line asymmetries
267: (bisector spans) and orbital phase.
268:
269: OGLE-TR-56b is roughly twice as massive as HD~209458b, and marginally
270: smaller \citep[$M_p = 0.69 \pm 0.02$~M$_{\rm Jup}$, $R_p =
271: 1.42^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$~R$_{\rm Jup}$;][]{Cody:02}. Both planets appear
272: to have radii that are larger than expected from theoretical cooling
273: models that include a consistent treatment of irradiation by the
274: parent star (see Figure~\ref{fig:baraffe}). Given the uncertainties
275: OGLE-TR-56b does not settle the issue, however, and calculations for
276: the exact conditions of the planet are required
277: \citep[e.g.,][]{Baraffe:03,Burrows:03}. Despite the difference in
278: quality between the OGLE-III light curve for OGLE-TR-56 and the
279: remarkable HST light curve for HD~209458 \citep{Brown:01}, the error
280: in our radius determination is not much worse than that of
281: \cite{Cody:02}. The reason for this is that the dominant contribution
282: in both cases is the uncertainty in the stellar parameters, which are
283: at the same level in both cases. Multicolor HST photometry for both
284: HD~209458 and OGLE-TR-56 should improve the situation considerably.
285:
286: \acknowledgments
287:
288: We are grateful to A.\ Udalski and the OGLE team for their many
289: generous contributions to this project. We also thank S. Kulkarni for
290: support and K.\ Stanek for continuous encouragement. The data
291: presented herein were obtained at the W.\ M.\ Keck Observatory, which
292: is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute
293: of Technology, the University of California and the National
294: Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made
295: possible by the generous financial support of the W.\ M.\ Keck
296: Foundation. G.T.\ acknowledges support from NASA's Kepler
297: mission. M.K.\ gratefully acknowledges the support of NASA through the
298: Michelson fellowship program and partial support by the Polish
299: Committee for Scientific Research, Grant No.~2P03D~001~22., and S.J.\
300: thanks the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science at UC
301: Berkeley for support through a research fellowship. This research has
302: made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France,
303: and of NASA's Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.
304:
305: \begin{thebibliography}{}
306:
307: %% \\bibitem[%\3m%(y)]%{R} %\50l %\Y,%\```%\t%\''',%\j,%\V,%\p\n
308:
309: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2003)]{Baraffe:03}
310: Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T.\ S., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt,
311: P.\ H. 2003, \aap, 402, 701
312:
313: \bibitem[Barlow(2002)]{Barlow:02} Barlow, T. 2002, MAKEE, MAuna Kea
314: Echelle Extraction,\hfill\break {\tt
315: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/tab/makee/}
316:
317: \bibitem[Brown, Libbrecht \& Charbonneau(2002)]{Brown:02}
318: Brown, T.\ M., Libbrecht, K.\ G., \& Charbonneau, D. 2002, \pasp,
319: 114, 826
320:
321: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{Brown:01}
322: Brown, T.\ M., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R.\ L., Noyes, R.\ W., \&
323: Burrows, A. 2001, \apj, 552, 699
324:
325: \bibitem[Burrows, Sudarsky \& Hubbard(2003)]{Burrows:03}
326: Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., \& Hubbard, W.\ B. 2003, \apj, 594, 545
327:
328: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2000)]{Charbonneau:00}
329: Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.~M., Latham, D.~W., \& Mayor, M.\ 2000,
330: \apjl, 529, L45
331:
332: \bibitem[Charbonneau et al.(2002)]{Charbonneau:02} Charbonneau, D.,
333: Brown, T.~M., Noyes, R.~W., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 377
334:
335: \bibitem[Cody \& Sasselov(2002)]{Cody:02} Cody, A.~M., \& Sasselov,
336: D.~D.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 451
337:
338: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2003)]{Fortney:03}
339: Fortney, J.\ J., Sudarsky, D., Hubeny, I., Cooper, C.\ S., Hubbard,
340: W.\ B., Burrows, A., \& Lunine, J.\ I. 2003, \apj, 589, 615
341:
342: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2000)]{Henry:00}
343: Henry, G.~W., Marcy, G.~W., Butler, R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S. 2000,
344: \apjl, 529, L4
345:
346: \bibitem[Konacki et al.(2003a)]{Konacki:03a}
347: Konacki, M., Torres, G., Jha, S., \& Sasselov, D.\ D. 2003a, \nat,
348: 421, 507
349:
350: \bibitem[Konacki et al.(2003b)]{Konacki:03b}
351: Konacki, M., Torres, G., Sasselov, D.\ D., \& Jha, S. 2003b, \apj, in
352: press, astro-ph/0306542
353:
354: \bibitem[Kurtz \& Mink(1998)]{Kurtz:98} Kurtz, M.~J., \& Mink, D.~J.
355: 1998, \pasp, 110, 934
356:
357: \bibitem[Mandel \& Agol(2002)]{Mandel:02}
358: Mandel, K., \& Agol, E. 2002, \apj, 580, L171
359:
360: \bibitem[Marcy \& Butler(1992)]{Marcy:92}
361: Marcy, G.\ W., \& Butler, R.\ P. 1992, \pasp, 104, 270
362:
363: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(2000)]{Mazeh:00}
364: Mazeh, T., Naef, D., Torres, G., Latham, D.~W., Mayor, M., Beuzit,
365: J., Brown, T.~M., Buchhave, L., Burnet, M., Carney, B.~W.,
366: Charbonneau, D., Drukier, G.~A., Laird, J.~B., Pepe, F., Perrier, C.,
367: Queloz, D., Santos, N.~C., Sivan, J., Udry, S., \& Zucker, S.\ 2000,
368: \apjl, 532, L55
369:
370: \bibitem[Moutou et al.(2003)]{Moutou:03}
371: Moutou, C., Coustenis, A., Schneider, J., Queloz, D., \& Mayor, M.
372: 2003, \aap, 404, 715
373:
374: \bibitem[Nidever et al.(2002)]{Nidever:02}
375: Nidever, D.\ L., Marcy, G.\ W., Butler, R.\ P., Fischer, D.\ A., \&
376: Vogt, S.\ S. 2002, \apjs, 141, 503
377:
378: \bibitem[Richardson et al.(2003)]{Richardson:03}
379: Richardson, L.\ J., Deming, D., Wiedemann, G., Goukenleuque, C.,
380: Steyert, D., Harrington, J., \& Esposito, L.\ W. 2003, \apj, 584, 1053
381:
382: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2002)]{Santos:02}
383: Santos, N.\ C., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Udry, S.,
384: Burnet, M., Clausen, J.\ V., Helt, B.\ E., Olsen, E.\ H., \&
385: Pritchard, J.\ D. 2002, \aap, 392, 215
386:
387: \bibitem[Sasselov(2003)]{Sasselov:03}
388: Sasselov, D.~D. 2003, \apjl, in press, astro-ph/0303403
389:
390: \bibitem[Tinney et al.(2001)]{Tinney:01}
391: Tinney, C.~G., Butler, R.~P., Marcy, G.~W., Jones, H.~R.~A., Penny,
392: A.~J., Vogt, S.~S., Apps, K., \& Henry, G.~W. 2001, \apj, 551, 507
393:
394: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2002c)]{Udalski:02c}
395: Udalski, A., Szewczyk, O., \.Zebru\'n, K., Pietrzy\'nski, G.,
396: Szyma\'nski, M., Kubiak, M., Soszy\'nski, I., \& Wyrzykowski, \L.
397: 2002c, Acta Astronomica, 52, 317
398:
399: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2002a)]{Udalski:02a}
400: Udalski, A., Paczy\'nski, B., \.Zebru\'n, K., Szyma\'nski, M.,
401: Kubiak, M., Soszy\'nski, I., Szewczyk, O., Wyrzykowski, \L., \&
402: Pietrzy\'nski, G.\ 2002a, Acta Astronomica, 52, 1
403:
404: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2003)]{Udalski:03}
405: Udalski, A., Pietrzy\'nski, G., Szyma\'nski, M., Kubiak, M.,
406: \.Zebru\'n, K., Soszy\'nski, I., Szewczyk, O., \& Wyrzykowski, \L.
407: 2003, astro-ph/0306444
408:
409: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2002b)]{Udalski:02b}
410: Udalski, A., \.Zebru\'n, K., Szyma\'nski, M., Kubiak, M.,
411: Soszy\'nski, I., Szewczyk, O., Wyrzykowski, \L., \& Pietrzy\'nski, G.\
412: 2002b, Acta Astronomica, 52, 115
413:
414: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar et al.(2003)]{Vidal:03} Vidal-Madjar, A., des
415: Etangs, A.~L., D{\' e}sert, J.-M., Ballester, G.~E., Ferlet, R., H{\'
416: e}brard, G., \& Mayor, M.\ 2003, \nat, 422, 143
417:
418: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1994)]{Vogt:94}
419: Vogt, S.\ S.\ et al.\ 1994, \procspie, 2198, 362
420:
421: \end{thebibliography}
422:
423: \clearpage
424:
425: %
426: %Figure 1:
427: %
428:
429: \begin{figure}
430: \figurenum{1}
431: \hskip 0.5in \includegraphics[scale=0.75]{f1.eps}
432: \caption{Radial velocity observations and fitted velocity curve for
433: OGLE-TR-56, as a function of orbital phase (ephemeris from
434: \S\ref{sec:lightcurve}).\label{fig:orbit}}
435: \end{figure}
436:
437: \clearpage
438:
439: %
440: %Figure 2:
441: %
442:
443: \begin{figure}
444: \figurenum{2}
445: \hskip 0.2in \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f2.eps}
446: \vskip -0.5in \caption{Bisector span used as a proxy for line asymmetry for each of
447: our spectra of OGLE-TR-56, as a function of orbital phase (see text).
448: Over-plotted for reference is the velocity curve from
449: Fig.~\ref{fig:orbit}, which shows that there is no correlation of the
450: asymmetries with phase.\label{fig:bisectors}}
451: \end{figure}
452:
453: \clearpage
454:
455: %
456: %Figure 3:
457: %
458:
459: \begin{figure}
460: \figurenum{3}
461: \hskip 0.1in \includegraphics[scale=1.3]{f3.eps}
462: \caption{$\chi^2$ surface corresponding to the light curve solution
463: for OGLE-TR-56, in the plane of planet radius vs.\ orbital
464: inclination. The number of degrees of freedom in the fit is 1108.
465: \label{fig:chi2}}
466: \end{figure}
467:
468: \clearpage
469:
470: %
471: %Figure 4:
472: %
473:
474: \begin{figure}
475: \figurenum{4}
476: \hskip -0.1in \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f4.eps}
477: \caption{OGLE-III photometry for OGLE-TR-56, and our best fit transit
478: light curve.\label{fig:lightcurve}}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481: \clearpage
482:
483: %
484: %Figure 5:
485: %
486:
487: \begin{figure}
488: \figurenum{5}
489: \hskip 0.1in \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f5.eps}
490: \caption{Mass-radius relation by \cite{Baraffe:03} for close-in giant
491: planets, including the effect of heating by irradiation from the
492: central star. The observed values for HD~209458b \citep{Cody:02} and
493: OGLE-TR-56b (this paper) would appear to be inconsistent with these
494: models at the 3--5 Gyr ages inferred for the two planets. However,
495: given the uncertainties, OGLE-TR-56 is only moderately inconsistent.
496: Note also that the models shown (computed specifically for HD~209458b)
497: have less irradiation than needed for OGLE-TR-56b, which is twice as
498: close to its parent star.\label{fig:baraffe}}
499: \end{figure}
500:
501: \clearpage
502:
503: %
504: % TABLE 1
505: %
506:
507: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
508: \tablenum{1}
509: \tablewidth{245pt}
510: \tablecaption{Radial velocities measurements for OGLE-TR-56, in the
511: barycentric frame.\label{tab:rvs}}
512: \tablehead{
513: \colhead{HJD} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Velocity\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Error\tablenotemark{b}} \\
514: \colhead{(2,400,000+)} & \colhead{Phase} & \colhead{($\kms$)} & \colhead{($\kms$)} }
515: \startdata
516: 52480.9239 & 0.8570 & $-$48.062 & 0.278 \\
517: 52481.9095 & 0.6702 & $-$48.177 & 0.067 \\
518: 52483.9068 & 0.3182 & $-$48.506 & 0.082 \\
519: 52853.7474 & 0.4866 & $-$48.408 & 0.087 \\
520: 52853.8960 & 0.6092 & $-$48.133 & 0.085 \\
521: 52854.8062 & 0.3602 & $-$48.287 & 0.163 \\
522: 52855.7863 & 0.1689 & $-$48.548 & 0.091 \\
523: 52855.8772 & 0.2439 & $-$48.654 & 0.074 \\
524: 52863.7802 & 0.7650 & $-$48.053 & 0.093 \\
525: 52864.7497 & 0.5649 & $-$48.188 & 0.074 \\
526: 52864.8389 & 0.6386 & $-$47.863 & 0.114 \\
527: \enddata
528: \tablenotetext{a}{Includes a correction of $-192$ $\ms$ to place the
529: 2003 velocities on the same scale as the 2002 measurements (see
530: text).}
531: \tablenotetext{b}{Internal errors have been scaled to provide a
532: reduced $\chi^2$ of unity in the orbital solution (see text).}
533: \end{deluxetable}
534:
535: \clearpage
536:
537: %
538: % TABLE 2
539: %
540:
541: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}
542: \tablenum{2}
543: \tablewidth{32pc}
544: %\tabletypesize{\large}
545: %\small
546: \tablecaption{Parameters for OGLE-TR-56b.\label{tab:results}}
547: \tablehead{
548: \colhead{\hfil ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{Value} }
549: %\tableheadone
550: \startdata
551: \vspace{2pt}
552: ~~~Orbital period (days)\dotfill & 1.2119189~$\pm$~0.0000059 \\
553: ~~~Transit epoch (HJD$-$2,400,000)\dotfill & 52075.1046~$\pm$~0.0017\phm{2222} \\
554: ~~~Center-of-mass velocity (km~s$^{-1}$)\dotfill & $-$48.317~$\pm$~0.045\phm{$-4$} \\
555: ~~~Eccentricity (fixed)\dotfill & 0 \\
556: ~~~Velocity semi-amplitude (m~s$^{-1}$)\dotfill & 265~$\pm$~38\phn \\
557: \vspace{10pt}
558: ~~~Inclination angle (deg)\dotfill & 81.0~$\pm$~2.2\phn \\
559: ~~~Stellar mass (M$_{\sun}$) (adopted) \dotfill & 1.04~$\pm$~0.05 \\
560: ~~~Stellar radius (R$_{\sun}$) (adopted) \dotfill & 1.10~$\pm$~0.10 \\
561: \vspace{10pt}
562: ~~~Limb darkening coefficient ($I$ band)\dotfill & 0.56~$\pm$~0.06 \\
563: ~~~{\bf Planet mass (M$_{\rm Jup}$)}\dotfill & {\bf 1.45~$\pm$~0.23} \\
564: ~~~{\bf Planet radius (R$_{\rm Jup}$)}\dotfill & {\bf 1.23~$\pm$~0.16} \\
565: ~~~{\bf Planet density (g~cm$^{-3}$)}\dotfill & {\bf 1.0~$\pm$~0.3} \\
566: ~~~Semi-major axis (AU)\dotfill & 0.0225~$\pm$~0.0004 \\
567: \enddata
568: \end{deluxetable}
569:
570: \end{document}
571:
572: