How to weigh a star using a moon

How to weigh a star using a moon
This is an artist's concept of an exoplanet and its moon transiting a sun-like star. Such a system could be used to directly weigh the star. Credit: David A. Aguilar (CfA)

How do astronomers weigh a star that's trillions of miles away and way too big to fit on a bathroom scale? In most cases they can't, although they can get a best estimate using computer models of stellar structure.

New work by astrophysicist David Kipping says that in special cases, we can weigh a star directly. If the star has a planet, and that planet has a , and both of them cross in front of their star, then we can measure their sizes and orbits to learn about the star.

"I often get asked how astronomers weigh . We've just added a new technique to our toolbox for that purpose," said Kipping, a predoctoral fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Astronomers have found more than 90 that cross in front of, or transit, their stars. By measuring the amount of starlight that's blocked, they can calculate how big the planet is relative to the star. But they can't know exactly how big the planet is unless they know the actual size of the star. Computer models give a very good estimate but in science, real measurements are best.

Kipping realized that if a transiting planet has a moon big enough for us to see (by also blocking starlight), then the planet-moon-star system could be measured in a way that lets us calculate exactly how large and massive all three bodies are.

"Basically, we measure the orbits of the planet around the star and the moon around the planet. Then through Kepler's Laws of Motion, it's possible to calculate the mass of the star," explained Kipping.

The process isn't easy and requires several steps. By measuring how the star's light dims when planet and moon transit, astronomers learn three key numbers: 1) the orbital periods of the moon and planet, 2) the size of their orbits relative to the star, and 3) the size of planet and moon relative to the star.

Plugging those numbers into Kepler's Third Law yields the density of the star and planet. Since density is mass divided by volume, the relative densities and relative sizes gives the relative masses. Finally, scientists measure the star's wobble due to the planet's gravitational tug, known as the radial velocity. Combining the measured velocity with the relative masses, they can calculate the mass of the star directly.

"If there was no moon, this whole exercise would be impossible," stated Kipping. "No moon means we can't work out the density of the planet, so the whole thing grinds to a halt."

Kipping hasn't put his method into practice yet, since no star is known to have both a planet and moon that transit. However, NASA's Kepler spacecraft should discover several such systems.

"When they're found, we'll be ready to weigh them," said Kipping.


Explore further

Wobbly planets could reveal Earth-like moons

Citation: How to weigh a star using a moon (2010, October 15) retrieved 21 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2010-10-star-moon.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 15, 2010
How have we determined the masses of stars in the past? And what would it mean to our current theories if Kipping's method produced significantly different results than what we already assume is correct?

Oct 15, 2010
How have we determined the masses of stars in the past?
Mostly, by measuring the spectrum of the star's light, as well as its brightness and distance, and then comparing against the established "stellar sequence" theory:

http://en.wikiped...sequence

Additionally, in the case of Type 1A supernovae, their masses are pretty well-constrained due to the unique mechanism driving the supernova.
if Kipping's method produced significantly different results than what we already assume is correct?
That would mean we're missing some major physics in regard to the structure and internal dynamics of stars.

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