Joel Ong
University of Sydney
Stars in Newcastle | November 21, 2025 | AEW 11

From Huber et al. 2013
Rapidly rotating: P_\text{rot} \sim 74\ \mathrm{d}
Multitransiting, Spin-Orbit Misaligned.
T_\text{eff} \sim 4840\ \mathrm{K}: Coolward of Kraft Break
\implies should not be (rapidly) rotating
\implies should not be spin-orbit misaligned
+ spin-orbit misalignment vs mutually aligned planets is exceedingly rare
From Wang, Wang & Ong, accepted to ApJL
Power spectra of MDI dopplergrams
Cool stars support p-modes (pressure waves).
Mode frequency measurements constrain
internal structure and rotation.
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptsize\text{Power}}\\ \big\uparrow \end{array}
\longrightarrow {\scriptsize\text{Frequency}}
Multiplet splittings give averaged rotation rates: \huge\left\langle\Omega\right\rangle_i = b_i\int K_i(r) \Omega(r) \mathrm d r
Pressure waves (p-modes)
propagate isotropically
in the envelope.
Buoyancy waves (g-modes)
propagate anisotropically
in the core.
\left\langle\Omega\right\rangle_g
\left\langle\Omega\right\rangle_p
from Li et al. 2024
Neglecting avoided-crossing effects means previous estimates of envelope rotation were likely significantly overestimated.
Systematic measurement error (sigmas)
(proxy for age \rightarrow)
from Ahlborn, Ong, et al. 2025
from Li et al. 2024
for \ell = 1,
\small\mathbf{J}_x \hat{=} {1 \over \sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}; \mathbf{J}_y \hat{=} {1 \over \sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}0 & i & 0 \\ -i & 0 & i \\ 0 & -i & 0\end{bmatrix}; \mathbf{J}_z \hat{=} \begin{bmatrix}-1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 &0 &0 \\ 0& 0 &1\end{bmatrix}.
\left(-\mathbf{\Omega}_0^2 + 2 \omega m \mathbf{R} + \omega^2 \mathbf{\Delta}\right)\mathbf{c} = 0
For fixed n (to leading order):
(-\omega_0^2 \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1} + 2 \omega \mathbf{J}_z R_{n,n} + \omega^2 \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1})\mathbf{y} = 0
\implies \left(-\mathbf{\Omega_0}^2 \otimes \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1} + 2 \omega \underbrace{\mathbf{R} \otimes \mathbf{J}_z}_{\tilde{\mathbf{R}}} + \omega^2 \mathbf{\Delta} \otimes \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1}\right)\mathbf{x} = 0
\small \begin{aligned} \mathbf{R}_{n\ell, n\ell} &= b_{n\ell}\int {\mathbf{d}^\ell}^\dagger(\beta(r)) \Omega(r) \mathbf{J}_z {\mathbf{d}^\ell}(\beta(r))\ K(r)\ \mathrm{d} r\\ &= b_{n\ell}\int \Omega(r) (\hat{\mathbf{n}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{J}})\ K(r)\ \mathrm{d} r\\ &= \boxed{b_{n\ell}\left(\int \vec{\mathbf{\Omega}}(r) K(r)\ \mathrm{d} r\right) \cdot \vec{\mathbf{J}}}. \end{aligned}
\implies For each mode, AM matrix
is
specified by usual vector addition.
\small \left(\begin{bmatrix} {\color{grey}\mathbf{L}_{\pi\pi}} & \mathbf{L}_{\pi\gamma} \\ \mathbf{L}_{\pi\gamma}^T & {\color{red}\mathbf{L}_{\gamma\gamma}} \end{bmatrix} \otimes \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1} + 2 \omega \begin{bmatrix} {\color{forestgreen}\tilde{\mathbf{R}}_\pi} & 0 \\ 0 & {\color{forestgreen}\tilde{\mathbf{R}}_\gamma}\end{bmatrix} + \omega^2 \begin{bmatrix} \mathbb{1} & \mathbf{D} \\ \mathbf{D}^T & \mathbb{1} \end{bmatrix} \otimes \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1} \right)\mathbf{x} = 0.
Mode visibilities are specified by \mathbf{x}^\dagger(\mathbb{1} \otimes \mathbf{P})\mathbf{x}, where \mathbf{P} is the projection matrix onto m=0 in the observer’s coordinate frame.
\vdots
(some assembly required)
From Huber et al. 2013
(most likely scenario given rapid obliquity damping)
Problems:
Problems:
For sake of argument:
what if spun up by tidal inspiral?
Even unphysically aggressive (low-Q)
inspiral
requires rapid rotation at TAMS:
incompatible with magnetic braking!
\implies tidal torques insufficient to supply present AM
(cf. Tokuno 2025 for alternative argument)
TAMS
Today
Engulfment?
As previously understood, Kepler-56
— rapidly rotating, misaligned, multitransiting —
should not exist.
Revisited asteroseismology resolves tension with obliquity damping,
but implied configuration still
cannot be explained by canonical stellar evolution.
Planetary engulfment is most likely
explanation.
(so far)
\mathrm{j}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}\cdot\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g}\ \text{@}\ \text{sydney}.\text{edu}.\text{au}
\forall \ell, \exists (2\ell + 1) \times
(2\ell + 1) matrices
\mathbf{J}_x^\ell, \mathbf{J}_y^\ell, \mathbf{J}_z^\ell satisfying commutation
relations
\left[\mathbf{J}_i, \mathbf{J}_j\right] =
-i\epsilon_{ijk}\mathbf{J}_k, with
\mathbf{J}_z \hat{=} \mathrm{diag}(-\ell,
-\ell + 1 \ldots \ell - 1, \ell).
\small\mathbf{J}_x \hat{=} {1 \over \sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}; \mathbf{J}_y \hat{=} {1 \over \sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}0 & i & 0 \\ -i & 0 & i \\ 0 & -i & 0\end{bmatrix}; \mathbf{J}_z \hat{=} \begin{bmatrix}-1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 &0 &0 \\ 0& 0 &1\end{bmatrix}.
For fixed m (to leading order):
\left(-\mathbf{\Omega}_0^2 + 2 \omega m \mathbf{R} + \omega^2 \mathbf{\Delta}\right)\mathbf{c} = 0
For fixed n (to leading order):
(-\omega_0^2 \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1} + 2 \omega \mathbf{J}_z R_{n,n} + \omega^2 \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1})\mathbf{y} = 0
\vec{\xi}_{n\ell m}(r, \theta, \varphi) = \vec{\xi}_{n\ell}(r) Y_\ell^m(\theta, \phi) \iff \underbrace{\tilde{R}_{n, n', m, m'} = R_{n,n'} J_{m,m'}}_{\text{this is a }\textbf{tensor product}!}
\implies \left(-\mathbf{\Omega_0}^2 \otimes \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1} + 2 \omega \underbrace{\mathbf{R} \otimes \mathbf{J}_z}_{\tilde{\mathbf{R}}} + \omega^2 \mathbf{\Delta} \otimes \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1}\right)\mathbf{x} = 0
Let’s associate with each mass shell at r both \Omega(r)
(as is customary), and also an axis \hat{\mathbf{n}}(r) =\sum_i n_i
\mathbf{e}_i.
\small \begin{aligned} \mathbf{R}_{n\ell, n\ell} &= b_{n\ell}\int {\mathbf{d}^\ell}^\dagger(\beta(r)) \Omega(r) \mathbf{J}_z {\mathbf{d}^\ell}(\beta(r))\ K(r)\ \mathrm{d} r\\ &= b_{n\ell}\int \Omega(r) (\hat{\mathbf{n}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{J}})\ K(r)\ \mathrm{d} r\\ &= \boxed{b_{n\ell}\left(\int \vec{\mathbf{\Omega}}(r) K(r)\ \mathrm{d} r\right) \cdot \vec{\mathbf{J}}}. \end{aligned}
\boxed{\tilde{\mathbf{R}} = \int \mathbf{K}\otimes\left(\Omega_\text{rot}(r)\ \hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot \vec{\mathbf{J}}\right)\ \mathrm{d}r}
\implies For each mode, AM matrix
is
specified by usual vector addition.
We only assume that the pure p- and g-mode
solutions
are separately amenable to separation of
variables;
the mixed-mode eigenfunctions need not be.
\small \left(\begin{bmatrix} {\color{grey}\mathbf{L}_{\pi\pi}} & \mathbf{L}_{\pi\gamma} \\ \mathbf{L}_{\pi\gamma}^T & {\color{red}\mathbf{L}_{\gamma\gamma}} \end{bmatrix} \otimes \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1} + 2 \omega \begin{bmatrix} {\color{forestgreen}\tilde{\mathbf{R}}_\pi} & 0 \\ 0 & {\color{forestgreen}\tilde{\mathbf{R}}_\gamma}\end{bmatrix} + \omega^2 \begin{bmatrix} \mathbb{1} & \mathbf{D} \\ \mathbf{D}^T & \mathbb{1} \end{bmatrix} \otimes \mathbb{1}_{2\ell+1} \right)\mathbf{x} = 0.
Mode mixing yields avoided crossings
between multiplet components of identical m
(cf. Mosser+ 2012, Ouazzani+ 2013, Deheuvels+ 2017)




\beta = 0
\beta = {\pi\over10}
\beta = {\pi\over2}
\beta = \pi