Average value of sin(i) in radial velocities (exoplanets)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of true planet masses from radial velocity measurements, specifically the use of m*sin(i) where i is the orbital inclination. A commonly referenced factor of 1.33 for adjusting m*sin(i) values is questioned, with an alternative suggestion of using π/2 (approximately 1.57) based on the assumption of a uniform distribution of inclinations. The discrepancy may arise from the potential weighting of inclination angles, as certain angles are more likely to be observed than others. Additionally, the impact of a face-on orientation (i = 0 or π) is noted, as it results in no measurable radial velocity component. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurate mass estimation of exoplanets.
cahill8
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
When a stars radial velocity is measured in search for a planet, the planet imparts a radial velocity shift proportional to m\sin i\text{ where }i is the orbital inclination of the planet with respect to our line of sight and m is the planet mass. I've heard that even though the inclinations are generally unknown, the true masses can be approximated for a large sample by multiplying m\sin i values by 1.33. I'm wondering where this value comes from?

Assuming a uniform distribution of i, \int^\pi_0 \sin i di/\pi gives a value of 2/\pi implying that the m\sin i should be multiplied by \pi/2 (1.57, opposed to the 1.33 I've seen). Does anyone have a derivation or reference for this number?

Thanks
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I don't have a derivation for this number, but it seems like your phrase, "Assuming a uniform distribution of i" is where the discrepancy might come about. It could very well be that the i values are weighted in some way, to take into account that some inclination angles are observationally more likely than others.

I mean, for one thing, if i = 0 (or is it pi -- whichever one corresponds to the system being face-on), then there IS no radial component to the planet's velocity.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top