substellar objects (brown dwarfs)

I spent the day at the NSBP / NSHP meeting in San José. My favorite session of the day was the morning astro session, which was entirely about brown dwarfs. I learned a lot in a very short time. Caprice Phillips (UCSC) introduced the session with an introduction to the scientific and technical questions in play. She put a lot of emphasis on using binaries and clusters to put detailed abundance ratios onto substellar objects. This was what I expected: I thought (walking in to this session) that all known abundance ratios for brown dwarfs were from such kinds of studies. I learned different (keep reading).

Gabriel Munoz Zarazua (SFSU) followed by showing spectra from M-dwarfs, brown dwarfs, and Jupiter. It definitely looks like a sequence. He does spectral fitting (what they call, in this business, retrievals). It looks like he is getting very good, somewhat precise, abundance ratios for the photospheres of substellar objects! I asked more about this in the question period, and apparently I am way behind the times (Emily Rauscher, Michigan, helpfully pointed this out to me): Now brown-dwarf photosphere models are so good, they can be used to measure abundances, and pretty well.

I also learned in this session (maybe from Jorge Sanchez, ASU, or maybe from Efrain Alvarado, SFSU) that there is a very strong mass–abundance relation in the Solar System. That is, we don't expect, if brown dwarfs form the way planets do, that the detailed abundances of the brown dwarfs will match exactly the detailed abundances of the primary stars. But now we are really in a position to test that. Sanchez showed that we can get, from even photometry, abundances for substellar objects in the Milky Way halo. Again, totally new to me! And he finds metallicities at or below −3. Alvarado showed data on an amazing system J1416, which is an L–T binary with no stellar companion. Apparently it is the only known completely substellar binary.

young stars in SDSS-V

Over the last two weeks, I built a new robust dimensionality-reduction method called Robust-HMF. This method is a hammer, looking for a nail. This week, Hans-Walter Rix (MPIA) suggested that I use the method on young stellar objects observed in SDSS-V BOSS spectra. I did that, and I found hundreds of young stars with narrow H-alpha emission lines. It turns out that the Robust-HMF method does really well on these data; it can fit all the absorption lines in the stars, plus all the wacky continuum shapes generated by a combination of instrumental effects and dust attenuation. That is, I can run the method on more-or-less raw data, provided that it has been shifted to rest frame (and the raw SDSS-V pipelines do that pretty well on stars like these).

Anyway, I don't know what to say about my results quantitatively yet, but I find hundreds of emission-line stars, and my equivalent-width sensitivity is excellent. Who wants this sample?

possible Trojan planet?

In group meeting last week, Stefan Rankovic (NYU undergrad) presented results on a very low-amplitude possible transit in the lightcurve of a candidate long-period eclipsing binary system found in the NASA Kepler data. The weird thing is that (even though the period is very long) the transit of the possible planet looks just like the transit of the secondary star in the eclipsing binary. Like just like it, only lower in amplitude (smaller in radius).

If the transit looks identical, only lower in amplitude, it suggests that it is taking an extremely similar chord across the primary star, at the same speed, with no difference in inclination. How could that be? Well if they are moving at the same speed on the same path, maybe we have a 1:1 resonance, like a Trojan? If so, there are so many cool things about this system. It was an exciting group meeting, to be sure.

double periodogram

Cole Johnston (Leuven) is in New York this week. We discussed the problem of finding oscillation modes in the photometry of stars in the presence of a large, binary-induced periodicity. What he kind-of wants is a simultaneous fitting of a flexible periodic function plus a periodogram. We did some experiments (very promising!) and discussed the elements that will come together to make this all happen. The final method will look like a double fourier transform, in which one frequency grid gets the periodic part, and the other grid gets the rest of the modes and noise.

is a periodic signal in a time series statistically significant?

I had conversations with Nora Eisner (Flatiron) and Abby Shaum (CUNY) today about how we report the significance of a signal we find in a time series. In particular a periodic signal. It's an old, unsolved problem, with a lot of literature. And various hacks that are popular in the exoplanet community (and binary-star community!). My position is very simple: Since all methods for determining significance are flawed, and since when you fit a signal you have to estimate also an uncertainty on that signal's parameters, the simplest and most basic test of significance is the significance with which you measure the amplitude of the proposed signal. That is, if the amplitude is well measured, the signal is real. Of course there are adversarial data sets I can make where this isn't true! But that's just a restatement of the point that this is an unsolved problem. For deep reasons!

O-minus-C inanity

In the exoplanet (and, before that, eclipsing-binary) communities, transit-timing variations are described in terms of a quantity called O−C (pronounced “oh minus sea”), which is the difference between the observed transit time and the “computed” transit time. Right now, Abby Shaum (CUNY) and I are using this terminology in our manuscript about phase variations in coherent pulsators with companions, at the behest of Keaton Bell (CUNY). Okay fine! But O−C has this terrible property, which is that the C part depends on the period or frequency you assume. You can completely change the appearance or morphology of an O−C plot just by slightly tweaking the period. And there is no true period of course! There is just whatever estimates you can make. Which are, in turn, affected by what you use to model the O−C. So it is absolutely awful in every way. Not a stable observable, people! Not even identifiable.

Phi-M radio

I worked today with Abby Shaum (CUNY) on her paper about her phase-demodulator to find exoplanet and substellar companions to stars by the timing of asteroseismic modes. I suggested that we highlight the incredible simplicity of her project by writing the method as an algorithm of just a few lines.

extreme infrared excesses

Gaby Contardo (SISSA) showed up in Heidelberg today to make progress on our project on infrared excesses in normal, non-young FGK stars. Because we are using NASA WISE data (along with ESA Gaia and NASA 2MASS), we are only sensitive to bright, hot infrared excesses, much hotter and brighter than typical debris disks around old stars. We have some candidates, which range in temperature from 300 to 1500 K and are reprocessing maybe one percent or a fraction of a percent of the stellar light. (Warning: I haven't calculated this; this is just a guesstimate based on looking at plots.) What are those things? Today we figured out that they can't be warm substellar companions, so they have to be dust (I guess??).

a likelihood for our Phi-M radio

There are AM radios and FM radios and (if you are a nerd) PCM radios. But Abby Shaum (CUNY) and I have built a Phi-M radio, which demodulates phase variations in a carrier signal. We (with Keaton Bell, CUNY) are using it to find binary companions and planets around stars that show coherent pulsation modes in their photometry. Today I wrote down a noise model for the output of our demodulator. It isn't completely trivial. But it's good, because we can make a likelihood function for fitting our companions. Our model will end up being a limit of the more general model called Maelstrom by Dan Hey (Hawai'i).

a well-posed problem in gastrophysics

Magda Siwek (Harvard) gave an execellent NYU Astrophysics Seminar today, about evolution of binary systems when the binary is accreting from a circumbinary disk. She sets a few (just a few) disk parameters, and then sets the mass ratio and eccentricity of the binary, and seeks steady-state (low disk-mass or low accretion-rate) solutions. By ignoring electromagnetic fields and various bits of microphysics, she can create a setup that is completely scale-free, so it applies (approximately) from all scales from exoplanets to super-massive black holes. That's brilliant. She finds that the eccentricities are in general driven to non-zero steady-state values, which depend (strongly) on mass ratio and (maybe weakly) on disk parameters. That's a nice problem, and observationally relevant to projects we are doing right now.

Are there young, alpha-rich stars?

I asked this question in Data Group meeting: With Emily Jo Griffith (Colorado) and I have a data-driven nucleosynthetic story for essentially every red-giant-branch star in the SDSS-IV APOGEE survey. Since the parameters of this model relate to the build-up of elements over time, they might be used to indicate age. We matched to the NASA Kepler asteroseismic sample and indeed, our nucleosynthetic parameters do a very good job of predicting ages.

On the RGB, age is mass, and the asteroseismology gives you masses, not ages. There are some funny outliers: Stars with large masses, which means young ages, but with abundances that strongly indicate old ages. Are they young or old? I am betting that they are old, but they’ve undergone mass transfer, accretion, or mergers. If I’m right, what should we look for? The Data Group (plus visitors) suggest looking for binarity, for vertical action (indicating age), for ultraviolet excess (indicating white dwarf companion), for abundance anomalies, and Gaia RUWE. Will do! My money is that all these stars are actually old.

First Science Results from JWST, day two

Today was day two of the First Science Results from JWST meeting at STScI. Once again, it was a blast of results from all different fields. Some things I'll think about more going forward include: Something like 3 percent of white dwarf stars show an infrared excess that is consistent with them having a Saturn-like ring system? How did I not know this previously? It makes me want to find a WD with a transiting exoplanet to map the rings and maybe even ring gaps! There is a huge class of red luminous outbursts that appear to be the result of mergers of binary stars (maybe often when one of the binary pair starts to go off the main sequence and engulf its partner). Some of these, for energetic and other reasons, look like they are created not by binary-star systems but instead by star–planet systems. I wonder if the populations can be connected to the population of stars with weird lithium and refractory abundances?

phase and frequency variations

If a star has a (relatively) coherent oscillation mode, and you can monitor it over a long period of time, then orbital motion of the star can be seen as either phase or frequency variations of that mode. I've been working on this in different collaborations, with Dan Hey, with Simon J Murphy, with Abby Shaum (CUNY), and recently with Nora Eisner (Flatiron). Right now, Shaum, Eisner, and I are looking at signal-processing approaches that look like demodulators. What I'm interested in—at least in terms of me learning about signal processing—is how can we make a demodulator that demodulates both phase and frequency simultaneously. There must be hybrid and combined approaches. I'm also interested in what we can measure from incoherent oscillators.

simulating data for phase and frequency modulation

Abby Shaum (CUNY) and I have been working on phase demodulation for binary detection and characterization, using coherent oscillation modes in stellar light curves. We are taking a pure signal-processing approach, which is lightweight and fast, such that we could automatically apply it to everything in Kepler or TESS. We also want to do frequency modulation for incoherent modes (which somehow our people think won't work; won't it?).

Today we discussed how to build fake data to fully test our systems. In the coherent case, this is easy! In the incoherent case this is harder. We discussed simulating it by drawing from a Gaussian Process. And we discussed simulating it by forward modeling a stochastically forced, damped harmonic oscillator.

parameters and nuisance parameters

Long ago, Adrian Price-Whelan (Flatiron) and I and others built The Joker, which is a Monte Carlo method (but not a MCMC method) for dealing with the Kepler problem. It exploits the fact that some parameters are linear, and some are nonlinear. This week, Lawrence Peirson (Stanford) is visiting Flatiron to generalize this point. Peirson's point is that the trick we use for linear parameters can be used for any parameters that have smooth, unimodal-ish posteriors. We just have to add some linearization and some optimization. So we are working on writing that down. And coding it up.

Along the way, Peirson found another linear parameter in The Joker, so we can now make it way, way faster. That's awesome!

SDSS-V Science Festival, day 1

Today was the first day of the SDSS-V Collaboration Meeting in Toronto. We talked about the state of the survey and the survey mission, shared values, and operating principles. This was great; it is the first full in-person meeting since survey start. Much of the day was open working and break-out time.

Late in the day, Adam Wheeler (OSU) made a great plot comparing SDSS-IV velocities (Doppler shifts) to ESA Gaia velocities, as a function of APOGEE fiber. It looks like there are substantial differences, and systematic with fiber. If this is real, fixing it will have a big impact on work I've done on spectroscopic binaries in the sample.

signal processing vs forward modeling

Abby Shaum (CUNY) and I are trying to write up a paper about our work treating oscillating stars as something like FM radios: We use the oscillation modes as carrier frequencies and find any orbital companions through phase or frequency variations of that carrier signal. Today we discussed the difference between doing that and forward modeling the signal. The former is signal processing. The latter is a generative model. Very different! And in many senses forward modeling is more principled. But I still think (and hope) that signal processing has a place in astronomy.

Hekker group visit

Today I visited the group of Saskia Hekker (HITS). We discussed many things asteroseismological! We discussed:

• the ESA Plato observing strategy
• is the asteroseismic signal a Gaussian process to any degree of accuracy?
• using asteroseismic information to improve and inform open-cluster membership
• synchronization of orbital periods with primary-star rotation periods
• are two distributions different?

and much, much more. I had a lovely day at HITS.

SDSS-V MWM target selection

Today Jennifer Johnson (OSU) crashed the weekly Manhattan-area SDSS-V discussion meeting to give us the current state of Milky Way Mapper (a component of SDSS-V) target selection. It was a great discussion, because there are many, many target categories, and many of them are interesting to Manhattan-area locals. For me the most impressive thing about the meeting was that Johnson could answer almost any question from anyone on any of the literally dozens of target categories! It was a tour de force as they say. And we learned a lot. One of my goals with this meeting (which was started and is operated by Katie Breivik, Flatiron) is to increase excitement in Manhattan for SDSS-V and Johnson did that admirably.

re-parameterizing Kepler orbits

As many exoplaneteers know, parameterizing eccentric gravitational two-body orbits (ellipses or Kepler orbits) for inferences (MCMC sampling or, alternatively, likelihood optimizations) is not trivial. One non-triviality is that there are combinations of parameters that are very-nearly degenerate for certain kinds of observations. Another is that when the eccentricity gets near zero (as it does for many real systems), some of the orientation parameters become unconstrained (or unidentifiable or really non-existent). Today Adrian Price-Whelan (Flatiron) was hacking on this with the thought that the time or phase of maximum radial velocity (with respect to the observer) and the time or phase of minimum radial velocity could be used as a pair of parameters that give stable, well-defined combinations of phase, eccentricity, and ellipse orientation (when that exists). We spent an inordinate amount of time in the company of trig identities.