the validation of kepler planets
DESCRIPTION
The Validation of Kepler planets. F. Fressin , G. Torres & the Kepler team. Planet or Blend?. Physically bound or Chance alignment. Transiting Planet. Eclipsing Binary . An observed periodic transit signal could be due to:. We use Blender , a light-curve fitting software - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
The Validation of Kepler planetsF. Fressin, G. Torres & the Kepler team
![Page 2: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Planet or Blend?An observed periodic transit signal could be due to:
Transiting Planet Eclipsing Binary Physically bound or Chance alignment
We use Blender, a light-curve fitting software• It attempts to explain Kepler candidates assuming they are the
result of a pair of eclipsing objects in the photometric aperture.
![Page 3: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Planet or Blend?
We use Blender, a light-curve fitting software• It attempts to explain Kepler candidates assuming they are the
result of a pair of eclipsing objects in the photometric aperture.
Transiting Planet Eclipsing Binary Physically bound or Chance alignment
Primary Star
Secondary Star (MS or not)
Tertiary Star or planet
An observed periodic transit signal could be due to:
![Page 4: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Blender results : Example of Kepler-10cEclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal
Period = 45.3 daysRadius = 2.23 R⊕
![Page 5: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Blender results : Example of Kepler-10cEclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal
Period = 45.3 daysRadius = 2.23 R⊕
![Page 6: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Blender results : Example of Kepler-10c
Blender results show that only a very small fraction can actually reproduce the exact transit shape
Eclipsing Binary Stars can mimic a transiting planet signal
Period = 45.3 daysRadius = 2.23 R⊕
![Page 7: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
•Speckle interferometry (WIYN at Kitt Peak)
•Adaptive optics imaging (PHARO at Palomar)
•Centroid shift analysis (Kepler data)
Blender Inputs
Separation vs. Magnitude
Color vs. Magnitude
Combining Follow-Up Observations
• Kepler photometry
• Precise host star characterization (Kepler asteroseismology)
• Spectroscopy (Hires at Keck)• Multi-color photometry (KIC, 2MASS)
• Infrared transit observation (WarmSpitzer)
![Page 8: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Background star + star Background star + planet
Physically bound star + planet
Quantifying the blend probability
• Blend frequency = (0.41 + 1.21) x 10-8
= 1.62 x 10-8
• Planet prior = 157 / 156,453 = 1.0 x 10-3
The planet hypothesis is 60,000 times more likely than a blend
![Page 9: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
![Page 10: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Kepler-10bKepler-9d
Kepler-10c
Kepler-11g
Kepler-19b
CoRoT-7b
Gj-1214b
55 Cnc e
Gj-436b
Kepler planet
Blender Validation
Other transiting planet
![Page 11: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Supporting the challenging Radial Velocity confirmations
Kepler-10b shows a clear RV signal, but has inconclusive Bisector variations.
Blender validates the transiting planet scenario.
CoRoT-7b• Leger et al. 2009 strong support for validation• Queloz et al. 2009 confirmation M = 4.8 ± 0.8M⊕• Hatzes et al. 2010 confirmation M = 6.9 ± 1.4M⊕• Ferraz-Mello et al. 2011 confirmation M = 8.0 ± 1.2M⊕• Pont et al. 2011 marginal detection M = 2.3 ± 1.5M⊕• Boisse et al. 2011 marginal detection M = 5.7 ± 2.5M⊕• Hatzes et al. 2011 confirmation M = 7.4 ± 1.2 M⊕
Batalha et al. 2011M = 4.56 ± 1.29M⊕
![Page 12: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Blender + Spitzer validation of CoRoT-7b
In visible light
In Infrared
![Page 13: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Background star + star Background star + planet
Physically bound star + planet
Validation of CoRoT-7b
• Blend frequency = 4.2 x 10-7
• Planet prior = 231 / 156,453= 1.5 x 10-3
The planet hypothesis is 3,500 times more likely than a blend
![Page 14: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Kepler-10bKepler-9d
Kepler-10c
Kepler-11g
Kepler-19b
CoRoT-7b
Gj-1214b
55 Cnc e
Gj-436b
Kepler planet
Blender Validation
Other transiting planet
![Page 15: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
• Improving Centroid shift resultsS. Bryson
• Target color using SpitzerJ.M. Desert* oral04.03
• Dynamical Constrains from multiple systemsD. Fabricky, M.Holman
• Kepler detection efficiencyC. Dressing* poster24.01
• Constrains from multiple systemsD. Ragozzine (Co-planarity boost)J. Lissauer* oral04.05(Multiplicity boost)
The Blender Connections
Further constraining the Blend Frequency Refining the planet prior
![Page 16: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Blender results strongly scale with the amount of data.
Allowed Eclipsing binaries using Q1 – Q5
... are divided by 3 using Q1 – Q8
Sub-Earth-size Kepler candidate
Gathering more data won’t only provide more critical KOIs, but also strongly help validating them (improved Centroid and Blender)
![Page 17: The Validation of Kepler planets](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816760550346895ddc352c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
By ESS3,our goal will be to prove that Earth-size planets, as hard to find as they may be, are not Extreme Solar Systems