Astrometric detection of substellar companions in binary systems

The PHASES Differential Astrometry Data Archive. V. Candidate Substellar Companions to Binary Systems
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4048

Quote :

The Palomar High-precision Astrometric Search for Exoplanet Systems monitored 51 subarcsecond binary systems to evaluate whether tertiary companions as small as Jovian planets orbited either the primary or secondary stars, perturbing their otherwise smooth Keplerian motions. Six binaries are presented that show evidence of substellar companions orbiting either the primary or secondary star. Of these six systems, the likelihoods of two of the detected perturbations to represent real objects are considered to be "high confidence", while the remaining four systems are less certain and will require continued observations for confirmation.

A planet is reported at HD 176051 and a brown dwarf at 72 Peg, with some lower confidence companions around others.
A betting pool will start to see who guesses when this planet will be disproven.

Well there's no particular reason for astrometry not to work as a discovery method, it is just very difficult. Kind of weird to be able to say that there's a planet but it isn't clear which of the two stars in the system it orbits, but it does make sense when you think about it.

72 Peg might present some quite impressive views: a brown dwarf in a system of two K-giant stars.

Lazarus wrote:

Well there's no particular reason for astrometry not to work as a discovery method, it is just very difficult.

Oh I agree, I was merely teasing you.

The introduction to the paper has quite an amusing part where they speculate as to whether it is going to turn out to be the latest entry in a "tragic history" of astrometric planet detection.

Incidentally that proposed proper name for HD 176051 is very suspicious. Take a close look at the author list...

(The paper does include a bit about Beta Delphini as well, so you can't say this is not traditional!)

Lazarus wrote:

Incidentally that proposed proper name for HD 176051 is very suspicious. Take a close look at the author list...

Oh! I completely failed to notice that! Great catch!

May anyone explain what Inrakluk is for?

It's the reverse of the last name of one of the authors of the paper, specifically S. R. Kulkarni.

Read the bit about Beta Delphini (HD 196524), you'll see why it is appropriate...

Nicely done, I hope it makes it into the published paper.

Why do they propose this proper name for that star? :?

Sualocin (α Del) and Rotanev (β Del) were named after the backwards name of Niccolò Cacciatore (Latinsed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Cacciatore#Sualocin_and_Rotanev

They're suggesting naming the star after the backwards name of Kulkarni.

Sirius_Alpha wrote:

Sualocin (α Del) and Rotanev (β Del) were named after the backwards name of Niccolò Cacciatore (Latinsed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Cacciatore#Sualocin_and_Rotanev

They're suggesting naming the star after the backwards name of Kulkarni.

A bit silly thing.

It's really quite well done actually. The paper does cover the detection of a possible substellar companion to Beta Delphini, which was given the proper name Rotanev as part of a reversal of the Latinised name of Niccolò Cacciatore (which becomes Nicolaus Venator in Latin), and the history behind this is actually described in the paper. They then do exactly the same thing for HD 176051. All the information is there for how the name Inrakluk originated, and it feels very appropriate given the historical precedent.

If so, it's equally well done the choice of my own to name the secondary star of Eta Cassiopeiae "Drihca" (as the opposite of Achird) in a sci-fi comics of mine.