Talk:Doppler spectroscopy

This page was part of the 1013 Project. It was originally created or significantly expanded by members of an introductory composition class at the University of Minnesota. Our work on this article ended on May 9, 2007, and we invite all Wikipedians to jump in with further expansion and revision. Be as BOLD in editing this article as you would any other Wikipedia article, but please be good about communicating your changes through edit summaries and talk pages. Students will check back on these articles in the coming months, and we can learn from the changes you make. For more information on the project, visit the project archive.

Discussion: Andy

Hey Dan. So this is where I'm going to communicate to you about the changes that I'm making to your Footnotes and References sections. (I probably will work on your See Also and External Links sections as well.) If you have questions on the changes that I make, ask them here below, or if you have any questions in general. I will pose questions here as well if I end up having them. Also, I will report my progress on this page as well (i.e. I will tell you what I've done/completed/updated.) 1013-andy 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and references

• Things I've changed: All of your footnotes and references looked great! I just added the external links to the footnotes and reformatted them so that they read 1. ^abcd... instead of just 1.^ 2.^ 3. ^ The reason for this is to link the same source so one doesn't have to write out the footnote twice. Check it out if you're still confused about what I did. 1013-andy 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Questions: I noticed you didn't have anything under the See Also section. In that section you may want to include links to other Wikipedia files (internal links) and other external links that you see as relevant to the article, but shouldn't be in your bibliography. For example, if the article is about Jaws, you'd want to make a See Also section with links to Steven Spielberg if you didn't use the Steven Spielberg link in your article. Confusing? Let me know. 1013-andy 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan, wow. Nice job with the image at the top of the article. It looks very cool and it really brings the article to a new level. I've rechecked your references and footnotes and you're in good shape, buddy. Way to go! Good luck with your final edits. 1013-andy 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Kate

Hey Dan, wow I feel so smart reading your article! I like that you have the mathmatical equations on there it shows us the process of finding new planets or at least a part of it. One thing I would add is a sections on some of the planets they have found and when they were found (obviously you can't do all of them but just a handfull would be nice) to show what doppler spectroscopy has done and prove that it's not just a big long name for looking through a telescope ;) But overall I like your article and I love your topic! 1013-kate 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan! I found a cool article if you want to take my suggestion about adding something about what planets have been found here's the link: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104243 1013-kate 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Precious

Hey Dan, i went over your article and i changed a couple of grammar errors, but overall you are on a good start. I like the graphs and math equations you used, i think it goes well with your topic. I never heard about this topic but from reading it sounds interesting and you organized the information well. I think if you can find a little more information, that would be great for your article. I plan to stop by your page to see if you have added anything so i can contribute.1013-precious 03:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan, I just stopped by your page again to read your article over and check for grammar but while reading i noticed that adding like an actual section on someone who did doppler spectorscopy or used it recently could help your article. Or even talking about currents uses, something in that nature to make it seem prevalent to today. Just a suggestion, and i will look around and see if i see anything.1013-precious 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)\

Hey Dan,

I was looking around and found a file that has a lot of math equations and graphs that you might be interested in. hers the site http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/alex/astro497_2.pdf.1013-precious 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Other Wikipedians

Radial velocity

Hi Dan. I don't know if you've already seen this, but this topic is more briefly covered in Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets#Radial_velocity. When you're finished, you can link your article from that one. You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Space. Good luck. Winklethorpe (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

exoplanet candidiates

"Since that date, over 160 exoplanet candidiates have been identified, and most have been detected by Doppler search programs..." The current total is up to 189. [1] This number changes frequently. For instance, see the edit history of List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets which shows the exoplanet totals updated nearly every week or so. You also may want to link here from Extrasolar_planet#Detection_methods.--mikeu 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

crappy image

The ESO image shows the planet and star orbiting in the same direction. This is clearly wrong through conservation of momentum. The planet should be orbiting in the other direction from the star. Love, MB

Merge proposal involving Bayesian Kepler periodogram

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus -- Icalanise (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Bayesian Kepler periodogram appears from references in the article to be the output of a new algorithmic treatment of precision radial velocity data. The text of the article is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of the content of the manuscripts that are cited, and I have noted this at Talk:Bayesian Kepler periodogram. Nonetheless, the topic would seem to appropriately sit within this article, until such time as consensus indicates a stand-alone article may be warranted. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in the area to do justice to the merge; so I would ask that a regular contributor to articles in this topic area review and, if agreed, conduct the merger. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a separate article on Bayesian analysis as applied to radial velocities? I'd vote delete myself. Icalanise (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsuitability for discovering Earth-like planets

...but planets like the Earth remain undetectable with current instruments.

Is this statement true any more? Isn't Gliese 581 g a counter example? Kingping (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Depends what you mean by "like the Earth". Despite the hype, pretty much everything about Gliese 581 g apart from it's relative insolation (and that's debatable) is nothing like Earth. A 1 Earth-mass planet in the habitable zone of a G-type star like our own cannot currently be detected by Doppler spectroscopy, that will likely have to wait until instruments like ESPRESSO on the Very Large Telescope or CODEX on the European_Extremely_Large_Telescope. That sentence should be more specific though. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The existence of Gliese 581 g is highly disputed. I have modified this article to make clear which spectrographs are capable of detecting what, and how. For context, I have added a discussion of which planets a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer could observe in the Solar System using these instruments and methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.193.65 (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)