A low-density planet in the habitable zone?
An M-dwarf star of 0.80 M☉ and 0.75 R☉ (Teff 4800 K) shows a periodic 1.20% dimming every 12.30 days. The transit lasts 3.1 hours and has a flat bottom. Radial-velocity measurements give a semi-amplitude K = 8.0 ± 0.6 m/s. No secondary eclipse is detected to a limit of 30 ppm; odd–even transit differences are <5 ppm; the transit centroid shift is <0.1 pixel. The star rotates every 18 days with 1.5% photometric variability. Assuming the signal is a planet, its radius is 8.9 R⊕ and its mass is 25 M⊕. The calculated equilibrium temperature is about 590 K for an albedo of 0.3. A colleague claims this is a rocky planet in the habitable zone.
1. Assess whether the transit signal is most likely a planet, an eclipsing binary, or a blended background eclipsing binary. Use the RV, odd–even, centroid and secondary-eclipse evidence.
Read the worked answer
Most likely a planet. The RV signal at the transit period with K = 8 m/s is direct evidence of a companion mass; an eclipsing binary would normally produce a much larger RV amplitude and a deep secondary eclipse. The flat-bottomed transit, the absence of odd–even differences (<5 ppm), and the tiny centroid shift (<0.1 pixel) argue against a blended background eclipsing binary. The 30 ppm secondary-eclipse limit is consistent with a planet that is not self-luminous; a stellar companion would produce a much larger secondary. Stellar rotation is 18 days, far from 12.3 days, and the 1.5% variability is not phased with the transit, so starspots are unlikely to be the cause. A planet is the best explanation, though a diluted binary cannot be fully excluded without high-resolution imaging.
2. Calculate the planet's mean density and evaluate whether a rocky composition is possible. What does the density imply about its envelope?
Read the worked answer
Density scales as mass divided by radius cubed. Relative to Earth: ρ/ρ⊕ = (M/M⊕)/(R/R⊕)^3 = 25 / 8.9^3 = 25/705 ≈ 0.0355. With ρ⊕ = 5.51 g/cm3, the mean density is about 0.20 g/cm3. That is far below rock (~3–5 g/cm3) and even below water (1 g/cm3); it is comparable to a very low-density gas envelope. A 25 M⊕ body with radius 8.9 R⊕ cannot be rocky: a rocky planet of that mass would be roughly 1.8 R⊕. The radius requires a thick H/He envelope or a very volatile-rich interior, so this is a mini-Neptune or sub-Saturn, not a rocky planet. Radius uncertainty matters, but even a 20% smaller radius would leave the density below about 0.4 g/cm3.
3. The colleague calls it 'a rocky planet in the habitable zone'. Critically evaluate that claim, including the equilibrium temperature and the prospects for life.
Read the worked answer
The claim is wrong on two counts. First, the density shows no solid surface; it is a gas-enveloped planet. Second, an equilibrium temperature of about 590 K is too hot for liquid water at the surface even before greenhouse warming, and the planet orbits well inside the conservative habitable zone for a 4800 K star. A hydrogen-rich atmosphere could have a deep hot interior and no habitable surface. The planet may be useful for atmospheric studies because its large scale height gives a strong transmission signal, but it is not a rocky habitable-zone planet. Any claim of habitability would require a measured mass, radius, atmospheric composition, and evidence of a solid surface or moons; none is established.