Talk:Methods of detecting exoplanets
|WikiProject Astronomy||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 very few
- 2 Planet-star interactions
- 3 Fair use rationale for Image:GQLupi b.jpg
- 4 "The phase function of the giant planet may be constrained, which will lead to constraints on the actual particle size distribution of its atmospheric particles."
- 5 Solar System Barycenter diagram
- 6 "Perryman tree"
- 7 new method
- 8 Need further explanation in directly observed section
- 9 Eclipsing binary minima timing
- 10 Table
- 11 Orbital phase reflected light variations
"only a very few extrasolar planets have been observed directly" I don't think it is fair to say very few eoplanets have been observed directly. 11 have now been directly observed (out of a total 430 odd in total that have been detected). few maybe, but not very few. Georgeryall (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- 11? Whatever the number is though, you're right: we should probably just cite that rather than using a vague phrase like "very few", as long as it's emphasized that the bulk of what we know about extrasolar planets has been gathered using indirect methods (since that addresses what seems to be a popular misconception about the state of our knowledge about them). — Aldaron • T/C 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Although initial test were not successful, it may prove possible to detect star-planet interaction due to tidal effects or magnetic interactions from close-in (giant) planets.
Ref: S. H. Saar, M. Cuntz (2001). "A Search for Ca II Emission Enhancement in Stars resulting from Nearby Giant Planets". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 325 (1): 55–59.
Fair use rationale for Image:GQLupi b.jpg
Image:GQLupi b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
"The phase function of the giant planet may be constrained, which will lead to constraints on the actual particle size distribution of its atmospheric particles."
- I rewrote most of that paragraph. Let me know if it makes sense as it is now. James McBride (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Solar System Barycenter diagram
While reviewing this article, I noticed that the diagram "Motion of Barycenter of solar system relative to the Sun" was a relatively poor quality gif file, the source URL was to a PhotoBucket account that is now disabled, and it was for the years 1945-1996. Therefore I created two new diagrams and uploaded them to Wikimedia for you: 1) File:Solar System Barycenter 1944-1997.png is a complete recreation of the diagram in the article with the same years and path to verify validity of my algorithms, and 2) File:Solar System Barycenter 2000-2050.png which is a more "current" diagram for the years 2000-2050. Feel free to use one or both of these public domain png files if you want to replace the older diagram. Larry McNish, Calgary Centre of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_System_Barycenter_1944-1997.png 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It might be informative if this article contained a representation of the so-called "Perryman tree" showing the planetary detection methods. See page 9 of Perryman 2000. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Need further explanation in directly observed section
It currently says that exoplanets cannot be directly observed because they're too faint. As a simpleton, I don't fully understand this. Is it due to a limitation in current-day optics? (We simply don't have telescopes big enough?) Or is it some other reason: no matter how big the telescopes are, we just can't observe because there isn't enough light photons coming our way? --Zybez (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Eclipsing binary minima timing
Can this method be moved to "Established methods" section yet or are planets around DP Leonis and NN Serpentis to be dynamically unstable like proposed planets around HW Virginis, NSVS 1425 and HU Aquarii? --Artman40 (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I created a table to show what planetary attributes can easily be determined by different detection methods assuming that it's the only planet in the system and the system itself is a single-star system.
|Attribute||Radial velocity||Transit||Microlensing||Direct imaging||Pulsar timing||Astrometry||Orbital phase reflected light variations|
|Semi-major axis||Yes||Yes||Loose constraints||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Orbital eccentricity||Yes||With secondary eclipse||No||Yes||Yes||Yes||No|
|Orbital inclination||No||Yes||No||Yes||No||Yes||Loose constraints|
|Mass||Minimum mass||No||Loose constraints||No||Yes||Yes||No|
Orbital phase reflected light variations
Should this section be renamed "Orbital phase light variations", "Orbital light variations" or "Direct detection" as it does not just encompass reflected light but also emitted light by high temperature? --Artman40 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)