Transit timing analysis of the exoplanets TrES-1 and TrES-2

The aim of this work is a detailed analysis of transit light curves from TrES-1 and TrES-2, obtained over a period of three to four years, in order to search for variabilities in observed mid-transit times and to set limits for the presence of additional third bodies. Using the IAC 80cm telescope, we observed transits of TrES-1 and TrES-2 over several years. Based on these new data and previously published work, we studied the observed light curves and searched for variations in the difference between observed and calculated (based on a fixed ephemeris) transit times. To model possible transit timing variations, we used polynomials of different orders, simulated O-C diagrams corresponding to a perturbing third mass and sinusoidal fits. For each model we calculated the chi-squared residuals and the False Alarm Probability (FAP). For TrES-1 we can exclude planetary companions (>1 M_earth) in the 3:2 and 2:1 MMRs having high FAPs based on our transit observations from ground. Additionally, the presence of a light time effect caused by e. g. a 0.09 M_sun mass star at a distance of 7.8 AU is possible. As for TrES-2, we found a better ephemeris of Tc = 2,453,957.63512(28) + 2.4706101(18) x Epoch and a good fit for a sine function with a period of 0.2 days, compatible with a moon around TrES-2 and an amplitude of 57 s, but it was not a uniquely low chi-squared value that would indicate a clear signal. In both cases, TrES-1 and TrES-2, we were able to put upper limits on the presence of additional perturbers masses. We also conclude that any sinusoidal variations that might be indicative of exomoons need to be confirmed with higher statistical significance by further observations, noting that TrES-2 is in the field-of-view of the Kepler Space Telescope.

A cool starspot or a second transiting planet in the TrES-1 system?

We investigate the origin of a flux increase found during a transit of TrES-1, observed with the HST. This feature in the HST light curve cannot be attributed to noise and is supposedly a dark area on the stellar surface of the host star eclipsed by TrES-1 during its transit. We investigate the likeliness of two possible hypothesis for its origin: A starspot or a second transiting planet. We made use of several transit observations of TrES-1 from space with the HST and from ground with the IAC-80 telescope. On the basis of these observations we did a statistical study of flux variations in each of the observed events, to investigate if similar flux increases are present in other parts of the data set. The HST observation presents a single clear flux rise during a transit whereas the ground observations led to the detection of two such events but with low significance. In the case of having observed a starspot in the HST data, assuming a central impact between the spot and TrES-1, we would obtain a lower limit for the spot radius of 42000 km. For this radius the spot temperature would be 4690 K, 560 K lower then the stellar surface of 5250 K. For a putative second transiting planet we can set a lower limit for its radius at 0.37 R$_J$ and for periods of less than 10.5 days, we can set an upper limit at 0.72 R$_J$. Assuming a conventional interpretation, then this HST observation constitutes the detection of a starspot. Alternatively, this flux rise might also be caused by an additional transiting planet. The true nature of the origin can be revealed if a wavelength dependency of the flux rise can be shown or discarded with a higher certainty. Additionally, the presence of a second planet can also be detected by radial velocity measurements.

Limits to the planet candidate GJ 436c

We report on H-band, ground-based observations of a transit of the hot Neptune GJ 436b. Once combined to achieve sampling equivalent to archived observations taken with Spitzer, our measurements reach comparable precision levels. We analyze both sets of observations in a consistent way, and measure the rate of orbital inclination change to be of 0.02+/-0.04 degrees in the time span between the two observations (253.8 d, corresponding to 0.03+/-0.05 degrees/yr if extrapolated). This rate allows us to put limits on the relative inclination between the two planets by performing simulations of planetary systems, including a second planet, GJ 436c, whose presence has been recently suggested (Ribas et al. 2008). The allowed inclinations for a 5 M_E super-Earth GJ 436c in a 5.2 d orbit are within ~7 degrees of the one of GJ 436b; for larger differences the observed inclination change can be reproduced only during short sections (<50%) of the orbital evolution of the system. The measured times of three transit centers of the system do not show any departure from linear ephemeris, a result that is only reproduced in <1% of the simulated orbits. Put together, these results argue against the proposed planet candidate GJ 436c.