4.7 Article

DETECTION OF A TEMPERATURE INVERSION IN THE BROADBAND INFRARED EMISSION SPECTRUM OF TrES-4

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 691, 期 1, 页码 866-874

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/866

关键词

eclipses; planetary systems; stars: individual: (TrES-4); techniques: photometric

资金

  1. NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech. [NNX07AG80, G1328902]
  2. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
  3. NASA Astrobiology Institute under Cooperative Agreement [CAN-02-OSS-02]
  4. Office of Space Science
  5. Goddard Space Flight Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We estimate the strength of the bandpass-integrated thermal emission from the extrasolar planet TrES-4 at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0 mu m using the Infrared Array Camera on the Spitzer Space Telescope. We find relative eclipse depths of 0.137% +/- 0.011%, 0.148% +/- 0.016%, 0.261% +/- 0.059%, and 0.318% +/- 0.044% in these four bandpasses, respectively. We also place a 2 sigma upper limit of 0.37% on the depth of the secondary eclipse in the 16 mu m IRS peak-up array. These eclipse depths reveal that TrES-4 has an emission spectrum similar to that of HD 209458b, which requires the presence of water emission bands created by a thermal inversion layer high in the atmosphere in order to explain the observed features. TrES-4 receives more radiation from its star than HD 209458b and has a correspondingly higher effective temperature, therefore the presence of a temperature inversion in this planet's atmosphere lends support to the idea that inversions might be correlated with the irradiance received by the planet. We find no evidence for any offset in the timing of the secondary eclipse, and place a 3 sigma upper limit of vertical bar e cos(omega)vertical bar < 0.0058, where e is the planet's orbital eccentricity and omega is the argument of pericenter. From this we conclude that tidal heating from ongoing orbital circularization is unlikely to be the explanation for TrES-4's inflated radius.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据