4.7 Article

Mapping the shores of the brown dwarf desert. I. Upper Scorpius

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 679, Issue 1, Pages 762-782

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/587435

Keywords

binaries : general; stars : low-mass, brown dwarfs; stars : pre-main-sequence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present the results of a survey for stellar and substellar companions to 82 young stars in the nearby OB association Upper Scorpius. This survey used nonredundant aperture mask interferometry to achieve typical contrast limits of Delta K similar to 5-6 at the diffraction limit, revealing 12 new binary companions that lay below the detection limits of traditional high-resolution imaging; we also summarize a complementary snapshot imaging survey that discovered seven directly resolved companions. The overall frequency of binary companions (similar to 35(-4)(+5)% at separations of 6-435 AU) appears to be equivalent to field stars of similar mass, but companions could be more common among lower mass stars than for the field. The companion mass function has statistically significant differences compared to several suggested mass functions for the field, and we suggest an alternate lognormal parameterization of the mass function. Our survey limits encompass the entire brown dwarf mass range, but we only detected a single companion that might be a brown dwarf; this deficit resembles the so-called brown dwarf desert that has been observed by radial velocity planet searches. Finally, our survey's deep detection limits extend into the top of the planetary mass function, reaching 8-12 M-Jup for half of our sample. We have not identified any planetary companions at high confidence (greater than or similar to 99.5%), but we have identified four candidate companions at lower confidence (greater than or similar to 97.5%) that merit additional follow-up to confirm or disprove their existence.

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