Detectability of orbital motion in stellar binary and planetary microlenses

A standard binary microlensing event light curve allows just two parameters of the lensing system to be measured: the mass ratio of the companion to its host and the projected separation of the components in units of the Einstein radius. However, other exotic effects can provide more information about the lensing system. Orbital motion in the lens is one such effect, which, if detected, can be used to constrain the physical properties of the lens. To determine the fraction of binary-lens light curves affected by orbital motion (the detection efficiency), we simulate light curves of orbiting binary star and star-planet (planetary) lenses and simulate the continuous, high-cadence photometric monitoring that will be conducted by the next generation of microlensing surveys that are beginning to enter operation. The effect of orbital motion is measured by fitting simulated light-curve data with standard static binary microlensing models; light curves that are poorly fitted by these models are considered to be detections of orbital motion. We correct for systematic false positive detections by also fitting the light curves of static binary lenses. For a continuous monitoring survey without intensive follow-up of high-magnification events, we find the orbital motion detection efficiency for planetary events with caustic crossings to be 0.061 � 0.010, consistent with observational results, and 0.0130 � 0.0055 for events without caustic crossings (smooth events). Similarly, for stellar binaries, the orbital motion detection efficiency is 0.098 � 0.011 for events with caustic crossings and is 0.048 � 0.006 for smooth events. These result in combined (caustic-crossing and smooth) orbital motion detection efficiencies of 0.029 � 0.005 for planetary lenses and 0.070 � 0.006 for stellar binary lenses. We also investigate how various microlensing parameters affect the orbital motion detectability. We find that the orbital motion detection efficiency increases as the binary mass ratio and event time-scale increase, and as the impact parameter and lens distance decrease. For planetary caustic-crossing events, the detection efficiency is highest at relatively large values of semimajor axis ?4 au, due to the large size of the resonant caustic at this orbital separation. Effects due to the orbital inclination are small and appear to significantly affect only smooth stellar binary events. We find that, as suggested by Gaudi, many of the events that show orbital motion can be classified into one of the following two classes. The first class, separational events, typically show large effects due to subtle changes in resonant caustics, caused by changes in the projected binary separation. The second class, rotational events, typically show much smaller effects, which are due to the magnification patterns of close lenses exhibiting large changes in angular orientation over the course of an event; these changes typically cause only subtle changes to the light curve.

[1]  B. Gaudi,et al.  MOA 2003-BLG-37: A Bulge Jerk-Parallax Microlens Degeneracy , 2004, astro-ph/0401250.

[2]  Identification of the OGLE-2003-BLG-235/MOA-2003-BLG-53 Planetary Host Star* , 2006, astro-ph/0606038.

[3]  B. Monard,et al.  A COLD NEPTUNE-MASS PLANET OGLE-2007-BLG-368Lb: Cold neptunes are common , 2009, 0912.1171.

[4]  S. Refsdal,et al.  On the Possibility of Determining the Distances and Masses of Stars from the Gravitational Lens Effect , 1966 .

[5]  A. Gould,et al.  Statistics of Microlensing Optical Depth , 1994, astro-ph/9410052.

[6]  M. Dominik,et al.  Planetary microlensing signals from the orbital motion of the source star around the common barycentre , 2008, 0810.3915.

[7]  O. Szewczyk,et al.  Discovery of a cool planet of 5.5 Earth masses through gravitational microlensing , 2006, Nature.

[8]  K. Ioka,et al.  Kepler Rotation Effects on the Binary-Lens Microlensing Events , 1999 .

[9]  K. Griest,et al.  Effect of binary sources on the search for massive astrophysical compact halo objects via microlensing , 1992 .

[10]  R. Nemiroff,et al.  Finite source sizes and the information content of macho-type lens search light curves , 1994, astro-ph/9401005.

[11]  B. Paczyński,et al.  Acceleration and parallax effects in gravitational microlensing , 2002, astro-ph/0210370.

[12]  M. Dominik,et al.  Detection of Rotation in a Binary Microlens: PLANET Photometry of MACHO 97-BLG-41* , 2000 .

[13]  K. Zebrun,et al.  OGLE 2003-BLG-235/MOA 2003-BLG-53: A Planetary Microlensing Event , 2004 .

[14]  C. H. Ling,et al.  A Low-Mass Planet with a Possible Sub-Stellar-Mass Host in Microlensing Event MOA-2007-BLG-192 , 2008, 0806.0025.

[15]  K. Masuda,et al.  MOA-cam3: a wide-field mosaic CCD camera for a gravitational microlensing survey in New Zealand , 2008 .

[16]  J. Beaulieu,et al.  OGLE-2009-BLG-092/MOA-2009-BLG-137: A DRAMATIC REPEATING EVENT WITH THE SECOND PERTURBATION PREDICTED BY REAL-TIME ANALYSIS , 2010, 1009.0338.

[17]  Extinction map of the Galactic centre: OGLE‐II Galactic bulge fields , 2003, astro-ph/0309206.

[18]  Silvano Tizzi,et al.  Numerical procedures for thermal problems of space antennae shells , 2004 .

[19]  Cheongho Han,et al.  Comparison of the Two Follow-up Observation Strategies for Gravitational Microlensing Planet Searches , 2000, astro-ph/0008332.

[20]  Neda Safizadeh,et al.  The Use of High-Magnification Microlensing Events in Discovering Extrasolar Planets , 1997 .

[21]  A. Cassan An alternative parameterisation for binary-lens caustic-crossing events , 2008, 0808.1527.

[22]  Jae Woo Lee,et al.  Technical specifications of the KMTNet observation system , 2010, Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation.

[23]  James Binney,et al.  Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition , 2008 .

[24]  Andrew Gould,et al.  Extending the MACHO Search to approximately 10 6 M sub sun , 1992 .

[25]  S. Mao,et al.  Can lensed stars be regarded as pointlike for microlensing by MACHOs , 1994 .

[26]  P. Wozniak,et al.  Blending in gravitational microlensing experiments: source confusion and related systematics , 2007, 0707.0550.

[27]  Cheongho Han,et al.  Properties of Planetary Caustics in Gravitational Microlensing , 2005, astro-ph/0510206.

[28]  M. Dominik,et al.  FIRST MICROLENS MASS MEASUREMENT: PLANET PHOTOMETRY OF EROS BLG-2000-5 , 2002 .

[29]  Andrew Gould,et al.  Proper Motions of MACHOs , 1994 .

[30]  Andrew Gould,et al.  Microlens Mass Measurement Using Triple-Peak Events , 2001 .

[31]  M. J. Lehner,et al.  First Observation of Parallax in a Gravitational Microlensing Event , 1995, astro-ph/9506114.

[32]  Planetary microlensing at high magnification , 2002, astro-ph/0204478.

[33]  J. Beaulieu,et al.  OGLE-2005-BLG-153: MICROLENSING DISCOVERY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF A VERY LOW MASS BINARY , 2010, 1009.0344.

[34]  R. A. Street,et al.  FREQUENCY OF SOLAR-LIKE SYSTEMS AND OF ICE AND GAS GIANTS BEYOND THE SNOW LINE FROM HIGH-MAGNIFICATION MICROLENSING EVENTS IN 2005–2008 , 2010, 1001.0572.

[35]  K. Ulaczyk,et al.  Discovery of a Jupiter/Saturn Analog with Gravitational Microlensing , 2008, Science.

[36]  The Luminosity Function and Initial Mass Function in the Galactic Bulge , 1998, astro-ph/9801321.

[37]  Bohdan Paczynski,et al.  Gravitational microlensing by the galactic halo , 1986 .

[38]  P. Wozniak,et al.  Microlensing Optical Depth toward the Galactic Bulge Using Bright Sources from OGLE-II , 2005, astro-ph/0502363.

[39]  C. H. Ling,et al.  MICROLENSING EVENT MOA-2007-BLG-400: EXHUMING THE BURIED SIGNATURE OF A COOL, JOVIAN-MASS PLANET , 2008, 0809.2997.

[40]  K. Ulaczyk,et al.  MASSES AND ORBITAL CONSTRAINTS FOR THE OGLE-2006-BLG-109Lb,c JUPITER/SATURN ANALOG PLANETARY SYSTEM , 2009, 0911.2706.

[41]  Howard Isaacson,et al.  Five Planets Orbiting 55 Cancri , 2007, 0712.3917.

[42]  R. Newcombe,et al.  Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[43]  P. Schechter,et al.  DOPHOT, A CCD PHOTOMETRY PROGRAM: DESCRIPTION AND TESTS , 1993 .

[44]  Full characterization of binary-lens event OGLE-2002-BLG-069 from PLANET observations , 2005, astro-ph/0502018.

[45]  B. Monard,et al.  SUB-SATURN PLANET MOA-2008-BLG-310Lb: LIKELY TO BE IN THE GALACTIC BULGE , 2009, 0908.0529.

[46]  A. Tomaney,et al.  MACHO Alert 95-30: First Real-Time Observation of Extended Source Effects in Gravitational Microlensing , 1997 .

[47]  Bohdan Paczynski,et al.  Gravitational microlensing by double stars and planetary systems , 1991 .

[48]  K. Ulaczyk,et al.  A Jovian-Mass Planet in Microlensing Event OGLE-2005-BLG-071 , 2005 .

[49]  A. Drake,et al.  Binary Microlensing Events from the MACHO Project , 2000 .

[50]  E. B. Wilson Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference , 1927 .

[51]  Andrew Gould,et al.  Discovering Planetary Systems through Gravitational Microlenses , 1992 .

[52]  Matts Roos,et al.  MINUIT-a system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlations , 1984 .

[53]  R. Newcombe Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[54]  A. Gould,et al.  The Mass Spectrum Of Machos From Parallax Measurements , 1994, astro-ph/9409036.

[55]  OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb, THE MOST MASSIVE M DWARF PLANETARY COMPANION? , 2008, 0804.1354.