Biases In A Magnitude Limited Versus A Distant Limited Planet Search

All methods utilized to conduct a search or survey inevitably have some built-in biases. These biases are often traced to some limitation of the instrument used or some inherent character of the signal being recorded. We address these limitations for various methods used or proposed for planet detection: spectroscopy, astrometry, interferometry, and photometry. For spectroscopy, the turbulence in the photosphere limits the minimum measurable dossier velocity to 3 m/s and hence the minimum planet to star mass ratio, thereby favoring massive close-in planets. Limited available observing time will necessarily introduce additional selection biases in the targets observed and telescope aperture will limit the faintest magnitude stars to be measured; For astrometry, the angular resolution of the instrument along with motions in the photometric center of the star limit the furthest distance for which giant planets can be detected to about 10 pc and favor massive outer orbit planets around low mass non-solar like stars; For imaging interferometry, the minimum angular size of the central null limits both the distance to the star and closeness of the planet to the host star to about 1 AU at 10 pc and thus to the very few solar-like stars within 10 pc. Solar and extra-solar zodiacal emission will limit the minimum size of the detectable planet. For photometry, the inherent variability of the star does not limit the minimum planet size until earth-sized or smaller planets are considered around solar-like stars. The telescope aperture limits the faintest stars that can be monitored. As with spectroscopy, there is no inherent distant limit to the method. After addressing the limiting factors of each method, an estimate is made of the number of planets of various sizes that could be found for each stellar type based on the detection probability and the number of stars that can be searched for planets.