1 / 16

Ground-based Exoplanet Atmospheres Characterization: Progress Since the 2009 Breakthrough

Ground-based Exoplanet Atmospheres Characterization: Progress Since the 2009 Breakthrough. Mercedes L ópez-Morales Carnegie Institution of Washington. Hubble Fellows Symposium 2010.

feleti
Download Presentation

Ground-based Exoplanet Atmospheres Characterization: Progress Since the 2009 Breakthrough

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ground-based Exoplanet Atmospheres Characterization: Progress Since the 2009 Breakthrough Mercedes López-Morales Carnegie Institution of Washington Hubble Fellows Symposium 2010 Collaborators: Daniel Apai (STScI), David Sing (Exeter, UK), Sara Seager (MIT), Justin Rogers (JHU/CIW), Adam Burrows (Princeton), Jeff Coughlin (NMSU), Michael Sterzik (ESO)

  2. Nov 1995: discovery of 51 Pegasi bby Mayor & Queloz; confirmed by Marcy & Butler on December 1995. March 2010: more than 400discovered. Finding Earth-mass planets Atmospheric characterization Star’s Spectral Type: G2V Mp sin i = 0.468 Mjup; P = 4.23077 day

  3. How can we measure an exoplanet’s atmosphere? • Direct Imaging Secondary Eclipse • Transits Secondary eclipse (< 0.1 - 0.2% of total light) Primary Eclipse Primary eclipse (~ 1% of total light) Real data for HD 189733b (Knutson et al. 2007)

  4. Primary Eclipses: Transmission Spectra (Tinetti et al. 2007) Exoplanet atmosphere’s spectrum Secondary Eclipses: Emission spectra ; Showman & Guillot 2002 López-Morales & Seager 2007

  5. First exoplanet atmosphere detections Sodium (HD 209458b) Secondary @ 24 μm (HD 209458b) (Charbonneau et al. 2002) (Deming et al. 2005) HST/STIS Spitzer/MIPS

  6. Results from the ground 8.0-m VLT 4.2-m WHT 3.5-m APO + HET, Subaru, IRTF 6.5-m Magellan

  7. Primary Eclipses: Transmission Spectra Ground-based detection of Sodium in HD 189733b (Redfield et al. 2008) > 3 detection Ground-based confirmation of Sodium in HD 209458b (Snellen et al. 2008)  = 3.0 Å Depth = 0.056%  = 0.75 Å Depth = 0.135% > 5 detection

  8. Secondary Eclipse: Thermal + Reflected Emission Ogle-TR-56b TrES-3b (Sing & López-Morales 2009) (de Mooij & Snellen 2009) 8-m VLT + 6.5-m Magellan z’-band (0.9 m) Depth = 0.036% (3.6) 4.5-m WHT K-band (2.2 m) Depth = 0.241% (~6) TK = 2040 ± 185 K AB ~ 0.0 (no-clouds) f ~ 2/3 (low winds) Tz’ = 2718 ± 120 K AB ~ 0.0 (no-clouds) f ~ 0.56 (low winds) Thermal Inversion Thermal Inversion

  9. Secondary Eclipse: Thermal + Reflected Emission CoRoT-1b (Gillon et al. 2009) (Rogers et al. 2009) 8-m VLT 3.5-m APO HJD (days) NB2090 (2.09 m) Depth = 0.278% (~5) Ks-band (2.2 m) Depth = 0.324% (7.7) Tz’ = 2460 (+80/-160) K AB ~ 0.00 (+0.08/-0.00) f ~ 0.52 (+0.07/-0.08) Flux Fν [ Jy ] Heat Redistribution Factor (f) Prominent dT between day and night sides Bond Albedo AB (Rogers et al. 2009) Bond Albedo AB

  10. Secondary Eclipse: Thermal + Reflected Emission • - Models for different f (Pn) and • extra-absorber opacities κe • The extra-absorber is at • Pheight = 1 mbar • - Models reproduce emission in the optical, but near-IR emission is twice larger than predicted. - Attempt to reproduce the near- IR emission using Pn = 0.1 and extra-absorber with κe = 0.05 cm2g-1 at Pheight = 10 mbar - Models still cannot reproduce near-IR emission. (Rogers et al. 2009) ** Atmospheric models generated by co-author A. Burrows

  11. Secondary Eclipse: Thermal + Reflected Emission WASP-12b (López-Morales et al. 2010) 3.5-m APO z’-band (0.9 m) Depth = 0.082% (5.4) Eclipse’s central phase = 0.5100 ± 0.0022 e |cosω| = 0.0156 ± 0.0035 e = 0.057 ± 0.013 (assuming ω = 74°) • The measured z’-band depth fits well BB models and atmospheric models with and w/o thermal inversions. Need more λ’s. (Hebb et al. 2009)

  12. Secondary Eclipse: Thermal + Reflected Emission WASP-19b (Anderson et al. 2010) (Gibson et al. 2010) 8-m VLT 8-m VLT H-band (1.62 m) Depth = 0.259% (~5.7) NB2090 (2.09 m) Depth = 0.366% (~5) • The hottest possible models cannot reproduce the H-band depth. • The 2.09 m atmosphere is slightly better reproduced, but still ~ 1-sigma brighter than the models.

  13. Secondary Eclipse: Spectro-photometry HD 189733b (Swain et al. 2010) • Day-side observations between 2.0 – 2.4 μm and 3.0 – 4.1 μm • Spectro-photometry with R= 470 Depth > 1.0%(>10) Eclipse depths agree when compared to available HST and Spitzer data.

  14. Secondary Eclipse: Spectrophotometry HD 189733b (Swain et al. 2010) Non-LTE? LTE models OK

  15. Conclusions • We have now observed the atmospheres of 7 Hot Jupiters from the ground: • transmission NaI D signals of 2 planets in 2008 • emission photometry of 5 planets in 2009-2010 • spectro-photometry of 1 exoplanet in 2010 • For CoRoT-1b we can now assure that AB ~ 0 and the planet • does have a much hotter day-side than night-side (thermal • inversion layer) • hints of the same behavior in other planets, but need • more color measurements • Previously untested models seem to have problems reproducing the emission of some hot Jupiters in the near-IR. Non-LTE?? • Observational improvements in the next few years will be aimed at studying the atmospheres of the first transiting exo-Earths

More Related