4.7 Article

Ophiuchus 1622-2405: Not a planetary-mass binary

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 659, 期 2, 页码 1629-1636

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/512539

关键词

binaries : visual; infrared : stars; stars : evolution; stars : formation; stars : low-mass, brown dwarfs; stars : pre-main-sequence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present an analysis of the mass and age of the young low-mass binary Oph 1622-2405. Using resolved optical spectroscopy of the binary, we measure spectral types of M7.25 +/- 0.25 and M8.75 +/- 0.25 for the A and B components, respectively. We show that our spectra are inconsistent with the spectral types of M9 and M9.5-L0 from Jayawardhana & Ivanov and M9 +/- 0.5 and M9.5 +/- 0.5 from Close and coworkers. Based on our spectral types and the theoretical evolutionary models of Chabrier and Baraffe, we estimate masses of similar to 0.055 and similar to 0.019 M-circle dot for Oph 1622-2405A and B, which are significantly higher than the values of 0.013 and 0.007 M-circle dot derived by Jayawardhana & Ivanov and above the range of masses observed for extrasolar planets (M less than or similar to 0.015 M-circle dot). Planet-like mass estimates are further contradicted by our demonstration that Oph 1622-2405A is only slightly later (by 0.5 subclass) than the composite of the young eclipsing binary brown dwarf 2M 0535-0546, whose components have dynamical masses of 0.034 and 0.054 M-circle dot. To constrain the age of Oph 1622-2405, we compare the strengths of gravity-sensitive absorption lines in optical and near-infrared spectra of the primary to lines in field dwarfs (tau > 1 Gyr) and members of Taurus (tau similar to 1 Myr) and Upper Scorpius (tau similar to 5 Myr). The line strengths for Oph 1622-2405A are inconsistent with membership in Ophiuchus (tau < 1 Myr) and instead indicate an age similar to that of Upper Sco, which is in agreement with a similar analysis performed by Close and coworkers. We conclude that Oph 1622-2405 is part of an older population in Sco-Cen, perhaps Upper Sco itself.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据