4.7 Article

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE 0.94-DAY PERIOD TRANSITING PLANETARY SYSTEM WASP-18

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 707, Issue 1, Pages 167-172

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/167

Keywords

planetary systems; stars: individual (WASP-18)

Funding

  1. STFC
  2. Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  3. Communaute francaise de Belgique-Actions de recherche concertees-Academie Wallonie-Europe
  4. STFC [PP/F000057/1, PP/F000065/1, PP/D000955/1, ST/G002355/1, PP/D000890/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/F000065/1, PP/F000057/1, PP/D000955/1, ST/G002355/1, PP/D000890/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present high-precision photometry of five consecutive transits of WASP-18, an extrasolar planetary system with one of the shortest orbital periods known. Through the use of telescope defocusing we achieve a photometric precision of 0.47-0.83 mmag per observation over complete transit events. The data are analyzed using the JKTEBOP code and three different sets of stellar evolutionary models. We find the mass and radius of the planet to be M-b = 10.43 +/- 0.30 +/- 0.24 M-Jup and R-b = 1.165 +/- 0.055 +/- 0.014 R-Jup (statistical and systematic errors), respectively. The systematic errors in the orbital separation and the stellar and planetary masses, arising from the use of theoretical predictions, are of a similar size to the statistical errors and set a limit on our understanding of the WASP-18 system. We point out that seven of the nine known massive transiting planets (M-b > 3M(Jup)) have eccentric orbits, whereas significant orbital eccentricity has been detected for only four of the 46 less-massive planets. This may indicate that there are two different populations of transiting planets, but could also be explained by observational biases. Further radial velocity observations of low-mass planets will make it possible to choose between these two scenarios.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available