4.6 Review

THE PALOMAR/KECK ADAPTIVE OPTICS SURVEY OF YOUNG SOLAR ANALOGS: EVIDENCE FOR A UNIVERSAL COMPANION MASS FUNCTION

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES
卷 181, 期 1, 页码 62-109

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/1/62

关键词

binaries: visual; stars: imaging; stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs; stars: luminosity function, mass function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present results from an adaptive optics survey for substellar and stellar companions to Sun-like stars. The survey targeted 266 F5-K5 stars in the 3 Myr-3 Gyr age range with distances of 10-190 pc. Results from the survey include the discovery of two brown dwarf companions (HD 49197B and HD 203030B), 24 new stellar binaries, and a triple system. We infer that the frequency of 0.012-0.072M(circle dot) brown dwarfs in 28-1590AU orbits around young solar analogs is 3.2(-2.7)(+3.1)% (2 sigma limits). The result demonstrates that the deficiency of substellar companions at wide orbital separations from Sun-like stars is less pronounced than in the radial velocity brown dwarf desert. We infer that the mass distribution of companions in 28-1590AU orbits around solar-mass stars follows a continuous dN/dM(2) proportional to M-2(0.4) 2 relation over the 0.01-1.0M(circle dot) secondary mass range. While this functional form is similar to that for isolated objects less than 0.1M(circle dot), over the entire 0.01-1.0M(circle dot) range, the mass functions of companions and of isolated objects differ significantly. Based on this conclusion and on similar results from other direct imaging and radial velocity companion surveys in the literature, we argue that the companion mass function follows the same universal form over the entire range between 0 and 1590AU in orbital semimajor axis and approximate to 0.01-20M(circle dot) in companion mass. In this context, the relative dearth of substellar versus stellar secondaries at all orbital separations arises naturally from the inferred form of the companion mass function.

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