4.7 Article

On planetary companions to the MACHO 98-BLG-35 microlens star

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 533, 期 1, 页码 378-391

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/308634

关键词

gravitational lensing; planetary systems; stars : low-mass, brown dwarfs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present observations of the microlensing event MACHO 98-BLG-35, which reached a peak magnification factor of almost 80. These observations by the Microlensing Planet Search (MPS) and MOA collaborations place strong constraints on the possible planetary system of the lens star and show intriguing evidence for a low-mass planet with a mass fraction 4 x 10(-5) less than or equal to epsilon less than or equal to 2 x 10(-4). A giant planet with epsilon = 10(-3) is excluded from 95% of the region between 0.4 and 2.5 R-E from the lens star, where R-E is the Einstein ring radius of the lens. This exclusion region is more extensive than the generic lensing zone, which is 0.6-1.6 R-E. For smaller mass planets, we can exclude 57% of the lensing zone for epsilon=10(-4) and 14% of the lensing zone for epsilon=10(-5). The mass fraction epsilon=10(-5) corresponds to an Earth-mass planet for a lensing star of mass similar to 0.3 M.. A number of similar events will provide statistically significant constraints on the prevalence of Earth-mass planets. In order to put our limits in more familiar terms, we have compared our results to those expected for a solar system clone, averaging over possible lens system distances and orientations. We End that such a system is ruled out at the 90% confidence level. A copy of the solar system with Jupiter replaced by a second Saturn-mass planet can be ruled out at 70% confidence. Our low-mass planetary signal (few Earth masses to Neptune mass) is significant at the 4.5 sigma confidence level. If this planetary interpretation is correct, the MACHO 98-BLG-35 lens system constitutes the first detection of a low-mass planet orbiting an ordinary star without gas giant planets.(20)

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