Half of Kepler's giant exoplanet candidates are false positives

December 3, 2015
This artist’s view shows the hot Jupiter exoplanet 51 Pegasi b orbits a star about 50 light years from Earth in the constellation of Pegasus (The Winged Horse). Discovered in 1995, this was the first exoplanet detection around a normal star. Twenty years later, this object was also the first exoplanet to be be directly detected spectroscopically in visible light.

An international team led by Alexandre Santerne from Instituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço (IA), made a 5-year radial velocity campaign of Kepler's giant exoplanet candidates, using the SOPHIE spectrograph (Observatory of Haute-Provence, France), and found that 52.3 percent were actually eclipsing binaries, while 2.3 percent were brown dwarfs.

Santerne, first author of this paper commented: "It was thought that the reliability of the Kepler exoplanets detection was very good – between 10 and 20 percent of them were not . Our extensive spectroscopic survey of the largest exoplanets discovered by Kepler shows that this percentage is much higher, even above 50 percent. This has strong implications in our understanding of the exoplanet population in the Kepler field."

One of the team members, Vardan Adibekyan added, "Detecting and characterizing planets is usually a very subtle and difficult task. In this work, we showed that even big, easy-to-detect planets are also difficult to deal with. In particular, it was shown that less than half of the detected big transiting planet candidates are actually there. The rest are , due to different kinds of astrophysical light sources or noise."

Giant transiting exoplanets are easily mimicked by false positives, so spectroscopic follow-up observations are needed to establish the planetary nature of the transit detections, and easily reveal blended multiple stellar systems.

Selected population of planet candidates detected by the Kepler Space Telescope. Their transit depth is displayed here as a function of their orbital period. The size of the marker is relative to the magnitude of the host.

Susana Barros, another EXOEarths team member said, "Kepler found a large number of transiting planets down to the size of the Earth. However, radial velocity follow-up of the candidates, which is one of the competencies of IA's Origin and Evolution of Stars and Planets group, is crucial to understanding those planetary systems."

The research, conducted between July 2010 and July 2015, started with all 8826 objects on the list of Kepler objects of interest (KOI). The sample number was progressively reduced to 129 KOIs on 125 target stars, by removing already known false positives, stars too faint to be observed by SOPHIE, and candidates with orbits of more than 400 days, to insure that at least 3 transits could be observed.

Santerne adds, "After 20 years of exploring planets as big as Jupiter around other suns, we still have a lot of open questions. For instance, we don't understand the physical mechanism that forms Jupiter-like planets with orbital periods as little as a few days. It is as if our annual rotation around the Sun would last only a few days— imagine your age! We also don't understand why some of these giant planets are so puffy".

The radius of depends on its atmosphere and interior giant zone, with the irradiation from the star heating its atmosphere, inflating it like a hot air balloon. But the inflation of some giant, highly irradiated planets could not be modeled with reasonable physical processes.

Artist's conception of a brown dwarf. Brown dwarfs are more massive and hotter than giant gas planets, but lack the mass required to become sizzling stars. Their atmospheres can be similar to the giant planet Jupiter's.

This spectroscopic survey provided mass constraints, which, combined with the radius measured by Kepler transits, allowed the calculation of the bulk density of these giant exoplanets. The team also found a hint of connection between the density of these planets and the metallicity of the host stars, but this needs more confirmation.

The researchers also found that moderately irradiated giant planets are not inflated. Detailed characterization of the internal structure of these planets should shed new light on planet formation and evolution theories.

The results were announced today at the Extreme Solar Systems III conference in Hawaii, celebrating the 20 years of discovery of the first exoplanet around a Sun-like star.

Explore further: Detection of two new exoplanets with Kepler, SOPHIE and HARPS-N

More information: J. H. C. Martins et al. Evidence for a spectroscopic direct detection of reflected light from 51 Pegasi b, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2015). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425298

Related Stories

First detection of a predicted unseen exoplanet

December 17, 2013

A team of European astronomers, including EXOEarths member Alexandre Santerne (CAUP), used the SOPHIE spectrograph at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence (France), to confirm the presence of Kepler-88 c, an unseen planet that ...

A curious family of giant exoplanets

May 25, 2015

There are 565 exoplanets currently known that are as massive as Jupiter or bigger, about one third of the total known, confirmed exoplanet population. About one quarter of the massive population orbits very close to its star, ...

The latest Kepler Orrery video

November 7, 2013

If you've ever wanted to know what 3,538 exoplanets look like spinning around their stars, here you go!

Recommended for you

Hubble catches a transformation in the Virgo constellation

December 9, 2016

The constellation of Virgo (The Virgin) is especially rich in galaxies, due in part to the presence of a massive and gravitationally-bound collection of over 1300 galaxies called the Virgo Cluster. One particular member of ...

Khatyrka meteorite found to have third quasicrystal

December 9, 2016

(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers from the U.S. and Italy has found evidence of a naturally formed quasicrystal in a sample obtained from the Khatyrka meteorite. In their paper published in the journal Scientific Reports, ...

Scientists sweep stodgy stature from Saturn's C ring

December 9, 2016

As a cosmic dust magnet, Saturn's C ring gives away its youth. Once thought formed in an older, primordial era, the ring may be but a mere babe – less than 100 million years old, according to Cornell-led astronomers in ...

4 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
not rated yet Dec 03, 2015
The reference article has nothing to do with Kepler's efficiency (other than indirectly), so it seems the conference result hasn't been peer reviewed published. On th e other hand the article in questionwas published already 2013, or at least the same result from the same authors. [ http://www.aanda....-13.html ]

Frankly it looks more like a fishing expedition to revisit a result that wasn't accepted by the astrophysical community.
bschott
not rated yet Dec 03, 2015
The reference article has nothing to do with Kepler's efficiency (other than indirectly), so it seems the conference result hasn't been peer reviewed published. On th e other hand the article in questionwas published already 2013, or at least the same result from the same authors. [ http://www.aanda....-13.html ]

Frankly it looks more like a fishing expedition to revisit a result that wasn't accepted by the astrophysical community.


I remember when my sister told me there was no Santa.

All stars have cyclic variances in brightness, to assume a transitting planet when this is detected was clearly a mistake.
EnsignFlandry
not rated yet Dec 04, 2015
All that is being said here is the incidence of false positives is higher than had been previously calculated. Astronomers are well aware of the problems in detecting an exoplanet, such as variable brightness. A cyclic variation can be removed from the light curve mathematically.
In any case, there are still thousands of exoplanets.
Exoplaneten
not rated yet Dec 12, 2015
I like your site and this article is very interesting. However, the method of citing information here is highly confusing. The links under "Explore further" and "More Information" have nothing to do with the article. I have to open Google Scholar and search for the author names mentioned here in order to find the preprint paper. This can still be improved.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.