4.6 Article

Brown dwarfs and very low mass stars in the Hyades cluster: a dynamically evolved mass function

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 481, 期 3, 页码 661-U31

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079303

关键词

stars : luminosity function; mass function; Galaxy : open clusters and associations : individual : Hyades (Melotte 25); stars : low-mass; brown dwarfs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: We conducted a search for brown dwarfs (BDs) and very low mass (VLM) stars in the 625 Myr-old Hyades cluster in order to derive the cluster's mass function across the stellar-substellar boundary. Methods. We performed a deep (I = 23, z = 22.5) photometric survey over 16 deg(2) around the cluster center and followed up with K-band photometry to measure the proper motion of candidate members and with optical and near-IR spectroscopy of probable BD and VLM members. Results. We report the discovery of the first 2 BDs in the Hyades cluster. The 2 objects have a spectral type early-T and their optical and near-IR photometry as well as their proper motion are consistent with them being cluster members. According to models, their mass is 50 Jupiter masses at an age of 625 Myr. We also report the discovery of 3 new very low mass stellar members of the cluster and confirm the membership of 16 others. We combine these results with a list of previously known cluster members to build the present-day mass function (PDMF) of the Hyades cluster from 50 Jupiter masses to 3 M-circle dot. We find the Hyades PDMF to be strongly deficient in very low mass objects and BDs compared to the IMF of younger open clusters such as the Pleiades. We interpret this deficiency as the result of dynamical evolution over the past few 100 Myr, i.e., the preferential evaporation of low mass cluster members due to weak gravitational encounters. Conclusions. We thus estimate that the Hyades cluster currently hosts about 10-15 BDs, while its initial substellar population may have amounted to up to 150-200 members.

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

4.6
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