Kepler News and Results (Thread 2)

I found 6 of the « new » planets on arXiv :

8 Planets in 4 Multi-planet Systems via TTVs in 1350 Days(august 2013)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0996.pdf

Kepler-279 c,d = KOI-1236.01 & KOI-1236.03
Kepler-305 b,c = KOI-1563.01 & KOI-1563.02
Kepler-396 b,c = KOI-2672.02 & KOI-2672.01

In fact, the 30 « new planets » are here :

TRANSIT TIMING VARIATION OF NEAR-RESONANCE PLANETARY PAIRS.
II. CONFIRMATION OF 30 PLANETS IN 15 MULTIPLE PLANET SYSTEMS

http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.2329

Kepler-92 b,c KOI-285.01 & 02
Kepler-114 c, d KOI-156.01 & 03
Kepler-128 b,c KOI-274.01 & 02
Kepler-145 b,c KOI-370.02 & 01
Kepler-177 b,c KOI-523.02 & 01
Kepler-238 e,f KOI-834.01 & 05
Kepler-276 c,d KOI-1203.01 & 03
Kepler-277 b,c KOI-1215.01 & 02
Kepler-279 c,d KOI-1236.01 & 03
Kepler-282 d,e KOI-1278.01 & 02
Kepler-305 b,c KOI-1563.01 & 02
Kepler-307 b,c KOI-1576.01 & 02
Kepler-328 b,c KOI-1873.02 & 01
Kepler-350 c,d KOI-2025.01 & 02
Kepler-396 b,c KOI-2672.02 & 01

tommi59 wrote:

They are not in kepler confirmed planets?

Sure they are ;p

http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/

So I guess the "missing" b designations in systems like Kepler-114 are reserved for additional candidates which were not included in the TTV analysis? Or what?

NASA Kepler Provides Insight About Enigmatic But Ubiquitous Planets, Five New Rocky Planets

http://www.nasa.gov/ames/kepler/nasa-kepler-provides-insight-about-enigmatic-but-ubiquitous-planets-five-new-rocky-planets/#.UsuxZvRDuyU

THE HUNT FOR EXOMOONS WITH KEPLER (HEK):
IV. A SEARCH FOR MOONS AROUND EIGHT M-DWARFS

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/HEK/HEK_IV.pdf

Quote :

With their smaller radii and high cosmic abundance, transiting planets around cool stars hold a unique appeal. As part of our on-going project to measure the occurrence rate of extrasolar moons, we here present results from a survey focussing on eight Kepler planetary candidates associated with M-dwarfs. Using photodynamical modeling and Bayesian multimodal nested sampling, we find no compelling evidence for an exomoon in these eight systems. Upper limits on the presence of such bodies probe down to ∼ 0.4 M⊕ in the best case. For KOI-314, we are able to confirm the planetary nature of two out of the three known transiting candidates using transit timing variations. Of particular interest is KOI-314c, which is found to have a mass of 1.0 +0.4 −0.3 M⊕, making it the lowest mass transiting planet discovered to date. With a radius of 1.61+0.16 −0.15 R⊕, this Earth-mass world is likely enveloped by a significant gaseous envelope comprising ≥ 17+12 −13% of the planet by radius. We find evidence to support the planetary nature of KOI-784 too via transit timing, but we advocate further observations to verify the signals. In both systems, we infer that the inner planet has a higher density than the outer world, which may be indicative of photo-evaporation. These results highlight both the ability of Kepler to search for sub-Earth mass moons and the exciting ancillary science which often results from such efforts

So, that's two planets with the same radii and the same error bars on those radii in the same system but with rather different masses. Who'd have guessed?

Science is not about guessing

Well masses of planets in KOI 314 system are not very precisely determined but 314 c looks like freak.Planets do not get high irradiation as they are around m dwarf  I would however bet for deep waterworld for koi 314 c

Interesting that they write that KOI-314.03 is closest to the 5:4 resonance with b, but the actual period ratio is 1.336347 ± 0.000024, so it they are closest to the 4:3 resonance. .03's 434-day TTV is likely due to interaction with b, but as the former is ~Mars-sized the mass ratio between .03 and b should be about 1:40, so .03's TTV on b must be too small to detect.

Such a low-density Earth-mass planet is bizarre. How could it obtain such a large amount of low-density material and maintain it? Since b and c are in resonance, at least some amount of migration must have occurred in the system's formation, but it seems infeasible for the planet to have migrated in from beyond the gas depletion zone - if it formed at a point where that existed - even if it is around an M-dwarf. At least the less dense planet is in the wider orbit; otherwise, this would be quite entirely unexpected.

Measurements of Stellar Inclinations for Kepler Planet Candidates II: Candidate Spin-Orbit Misalignments in Single and Multiple-Transiting Systems
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1229

Quote :

We present a test for spin-orbit alignment for the host stars of 25 candidate planetary systems detected by the {\it Kepler} spacecraft. The inclination angle of each star's rotation axis was estimated from its rotation period, rotational line broadening, and radius. The rotation periods were determined using the {\it Kepler} photometric time series. The rotational line broadening was determined from high-resolution optical spectra with Subaru/HDS. Those same spectra were used to determine the star's photospheric parameters (effective temperature, surface gravity, metallicity) which were then interpreted with stellar-evolutionary models to determine stellar radii. We combine the new sample with the 7 stars from our previous work on this subject, finding that the stars show a statistical tendency to have inclinations near 90$^\circ$, in alignment with the planetary orbits. Possible spin-orbit misalignments are seen in several systems, including three multiple-planet systems (KOI-304, 988, 2261). Ideally these systems should be scrutinized with complementary techniques---such as the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, starspot-crossing anomalies or asteroseismology---but the measurements will be difficult owing to the relatively faint apparent magnitudes and small transit signals in these systems.

http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/

Confirmed planets update : 42 more ! (199 to 241)

k-93 b,c
k-94 b,c
k-95 b
k-96 b
k-97 b,c
k-98 b
k-99 b
k-100 b,c,d
k-102 b,c,d,e,f
k-103 b,c
k-106 b,c,d,e
k-109 b,c
k-113 b,c
k-131 b,c
k-406 b,c
k-407 b,c
k-408 b
k-409 b

I find 38 : 6 missing…

A High False Positive Rate for Kepler Planetary Candidates of Giant Stars using Asterodensity Profiling
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1207

Quote :

Asterodensity Profiling (AP) is a relatively new technique for studying transit light curves. By comparing the mean stellar density derived from the transit light curve to that found through some independent method, AP provides information on several useful properties such as orbital eccentricity and blended light. We present an AP survey of 40 Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs), with a single transiting candidate, for which the target star's mean stellar density has been measured using asteroseismology. The ensemble distribution of the AP measurements for the 30 dwarf stars in our sample shows excellent agreement with the spread expected if the KOIs were genuine and have realistic eccentricities. In contrast, the same test for the 10 giants in our sample reveals significant incompatibility at 4$\sigma$ confidence. Whilst extreme eccentricities could be invoked, this hypothesis requires four of the KOIs to contact their host star at periastron passage, including the recently claimed confirmation of Kepler-91b. After carefully examining several hypotheses, we conclude that the most plausible explanation is that the transiting objects orbit a different star to that measured with asteroseismology - cases we define as false-positives. Based on the AP distribution, we estimate a false positive rate for Kepler's giant stars with a single transiting object of FPR$\simeq70\pm30$%.

More confirmed Kepler planets (I mean with "Kepler" designation replacing KOI label) at NASA Exoplanet Archive website frontpage:

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~gmarcy/22kois.pdf

Kepler-99 and 406 included. Planet count updated at NASA Kepler website too.

Kepler-93, Kepler-97, Kepler-407 are something "solar system like" with a gas giant on a relatively wide orbit and a low mass planet on a tight orbit.

KOI-299.10 (Kepler-98 "c"?), KOI-153.10 (Kepler-113 "d"?), KOI-321.10 (Kepler-406 "d"?) from Marcy's conference are not in the list. From the same presentation, KOI-148 and KOI-246 are Kepler-48 and Kepler-68.

Also, KOI-148.03 and .10 became Kepler-48 d and e. There is a new planet in the Kepler-68 system (d=KOI-246.20) with the same period as KOI-246.10 from Marcy's presentation but different mass, I dont know how to deal with this one.

Coughlin et al. "Contamination in the Kepler Field. Identification of 685 KOIs as False Positives Via Ephemeris Matching Based On Q1-Q12 Data"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1240

Main finding

Quote :

We find that 685 Kepler Objects of Interest — 12% of all those analyzed — are false positives as a result of contamination, due to 409 unique parent sources. Of these, 118 have not previously been identified by other methods. We estimate that ~35% of KOIs are false positives due to contamination, when performing a first-order correction for observational bias. Comparing single-planet candidate KOIs to multi-planet candidate KOIs, we find an observed false positive fraction due to contamination of 16% and 2.4% respectively, bolstering the existing evidence that multi-planet KOIs are significantly less likely to be false positives.

Kepler  51  system is big <kitten> joke 3 planets have densities 0.03  ,0.03 and 0.046 g/cm3    http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.2885

Caveat is that they did not take starspots into account, and the planet-planet eclipse-like anomaly may indicate that this is necessary. As they note, taking account of starspots could push the densities up to something slightly less extreme.

Or may be... this star is young and so yhe atmospheres are not erroded yet?

What ever, we need to find a new word to describe this "hydrogen rich low mass planets", because there are three "super-mini-neptunes" and it doesnt make sens.  

This star is young and so the atmospheres are not erroded yet? I think planets are too big and especially too far from host to lose atmospheres

New Kepler designations for Kepler Objects of Interest from NASA Exoplanet Archive:

KOI-115 = Kepler-105
KOI-282 = Kepler-130
KOI-1781 = Kepler-411

I find it,It's talk specially about the Updating the M Dwarf planet occurrence Rate on the Q1-Q12 and the Earth-size planet occurrence in M dwarf HZ increase of 15% to 26% which I think is a good news!   

http://exep.jpl.nasa.gov/exopag/exopag8/agenda/dressing_exopag8.pdf

Kepler-412 (KOI-202), inflated hot Jupiter confirmed with SOPHIE.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6811

KIC 12351927 = Kepler-413

Kepler-413b: a slightly misaligned, Neptune-size transiting circumbinary planet
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7275

With all of these new Kepler circumbinary planets detected by transit observation I wonder if similar planetary objects have been overlooked in CoRoT, OGLE, HATNet and WASP surveys, which have certainly detected eclipsing binary stars as false positives but perhaps not specifically observed them with the aim of further search for additional companions of substellar/planetary nature.