4.7 Article

White dwarfs in the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey Large Area Survey: the substellar companion fraction

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 416, Issue 4, Pages 2768-2791

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19225.x

Keywords

brown dwarfs; stars: low-mass; white dwarfs; infrared: stars

Funding

  1. RoPACs, a Marie Curie Initial Training Network
  2. European Commissions
  3. STFC
  4. STFC [ST/H001972/1, ST/H001786/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H001786/1, ST/H001972/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a near-infrared photometric search for unresolved substellar companions and debris discs around white dwarfs in the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) Large Area Survey. We cross-correlate the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR4 and McCook & Sion catalogues of white dwarfs with the UKIDSS DR8 producing 3109 and 163 unique matches, respectively. Cooling models are fitted to the optical photometry of a subsample of DA white dwarfs and extended to the near-infrared. A comparison is then made with the observed photometry to identify those stars with a near-infrared excess consistent with the presence of a cool companion or debris disc. Where present, we have estimated the approximate spectral type of any putative companion, or an upper limit on the temperature of a debris disc. In total we identify 14-16 new candidate white dwarf + very low mass stellar systems, 9-11 candidate white dwarf + brown dwarf systems, and three candidatewhite dwarf + debris discs. We place lower limits on the unresolved (<2 arcsec) companions to all DA white dwarfs and thus assess the sensitivity of UKIDSS to such objects. We use this result to estimate unresolved binary fractions of f(WD+dL) >= 0.4 +/- 0.3 per cent, f(WD+dT) >= 0.2 per cent and f(WD+BD) >= 0.5 +/- 0.3 per cent.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available