1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{graphics}
3:
4: \def\gtorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu
5: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
6: \def\ltorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu
7: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
8:
9:
10:
11: \shorttitle{Spitzer Search of DAZs}
12: \shortauthors{Debes et al.}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15: \title{Cool Customers in the Stellar Graveyard IV: Spitzer Search for Mid-IR excesses Around Five DAs\footnote{Based in part on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with program \#10560}}
16: \author{John H. Debes\altaffilmark{1}, Steinn Sigurdsson\altaffilmark{2}, Brad Hansen\altaffilmark{3}}
17:
18: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. 20015}
19: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State
20: University, University Park, PA 16802}
21: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 91125}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: Hydrogen atmosphere white dwarfs with metal lines, so-called DAZs,
25: require external accretion of material to explain the presence of weak metal
26: line absorption in their photospheres. The source of this material is currently unknown, but could
27: come from the interstellar medium, unseen companions, or relic planetesimals
28: from asteroid belt or Kuiper belt analogues. Accurate mid-infrared photometry
29: of these white dwarfs provide additional information to solve the mystery of
30: this accretion and to look for evidence of planetary systems that have
31: survived post main sequence evolution. We present {\em Spitzer} IRAC
32: photometry accurate to $\sim$3\% for four DAZs and one DA with circumstellar
33: absorption lines in the UV. We search for excesses due to unseen companions or
34: circumstellar dust disks. We use {\em Hubble Space Telescope} NICMOS
35: imaging of
36: these white dwarfs to gauge the level of background contamination to our
37: targets as well as rule out common proper motion companions to WD 1620-391.
38: All of our targets
39: show no excesses
40: due to companions $>$20 M$_{J}$, ruling out all but very low mass companions
41: to these white dwarfs at all separations. No excesses due
42: to circumstellar disks are observed, and we place limits on what types
43: of disks may still be present.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \keywords{circumstellar matter--planetary systems--white dwarfs}
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49: White dwarfs have long been used to probe the low mass end of the IMF to look
50: for low mass stellar and brown dwarf companions \citep{probst82,zuckerman92,farihi05}. With
51: the advent of more sensitive ground- and space-based imaging at longer wavelengths, the direct detection of substellar objects and planets with a few times
52: Jupiter's mass around white dwarfs is now possible \citep{ignace01,burleigh02,friedrich05,farihi05,debes05b,debes05a}.
53:
54: Searching a subset of white dwarfs that harbor markers for
55: substellar objects can maximize the return of such a survey. Nearby hydrogen
56: white dwarfs with metal line absorption (DAZs) may fit this criterion. Three
57: hypotheses have been put forth to explain the presence of DAZs: interstellar
58: matter (ISM) accretion \citep{dupuis92,dupuis93a,dupuis93b,koester06},
59: unseen companion wind accretion \citep{zuckerman03},
60: and accretion of
61: volatile poor planetesimals \citep{alcock86,debes02,jura03}.
62:
63: ISM accretion
64: has a wealth of problems in predicting many aspects of DAZs such as the large
65: accretion rates required for some objects and the distribution of these objects
66: with respect to known clouds of dense material \citep{aannestad93,
67: zuckerman98,zuckerman03,kilic07}. The quick atmospheric
68: settling times of hydrogen atmospheres imply that the white dwarfs are
69: in close proximity with accretionary material.
70:
71: There are roughly 40 cool DAZs known \citep{zuckerman03,koester06}. Of them,
72: seven have dM companions, supporting the argument that
73: DAZs could have unseen companions that place material onto the
74: WD surface through winds \citep{zuckerman03,debes06b}. In order to accrete enough material,
75: companions must be in extremely
76: close orbits (P$\ltorder$1 day), bringing into question why these objects have yet to be discovered
77: through radial velocity surveys of compact objects or
78: observable excesses in near-IR flux. In most cases
79: the reflex motion from such objects would be easily detectable, on the order
80: of a few to tens of km/s
81: \citep{zuckerman92, maxted06}.
82: The idea of the presence of unseen companions
83: also cannot explain objects like G 29-38 and 4 other white dwarfs which
84: have infrared
85: excesses due to dust disks within their host white dwarf's
86: tidal disruption radius \citep{graham90, patterson91,jura03,zuckerman05,reach05,
87: kilic06b}.
88: The disks around G 29-38 and GD 362 show an amorphous silicate emission feature at
89: $\sim$10\micron\, implying a small grain size within the disk
90: and possibly warped geometries \citep{reach05,jura07}.
91: Furthermore, companions $>$ 13 M$_{J}$ are ruled out for a wide range of
92: orbital separations around G 29-38 \citep{debes05a}.
93:
94: The invocation of cometary or asteroidal material as a method of polluting WD
95: atmospheres was developed to explain photospheric absorption lines due to metals in
96: the DAZ WD 0208+395 (G~74-7) \citep{alcock86}. However, the rates
97: predicted by these original studies could not
98: satisfactorily explain the highest accretion rates inferred for some objects
99: and could not easily reproduce the distribution of DAZs based on their
100: effective temperatures \citep{zuckerman03}.
101: However,
102: mixing length theory predicts a drop-off of observability for
103: accretion as a function of effective temperature which may swamp out
104: the earlier prediction of \citet{alcock86} \citep{althaus98}.
105: Also unclear is the
106: effect non-axisymmetric mass
107: loss could have on the fraction of comet clouds lost by their hosts during
108: post main sequence evolution
109: \citep{parriott98}.
110: By hypothesis, cometary clouds are the result of
111: planet formation, so the long term evolution of planetary systems and their
112: interaction with these comet clouds needs to be investigated
113: \citep{tremaine92}.
114:
115: The loss of a star's outer envelope during post main sequence evolution
116: specifically affects the stability of planetary
117: systems, and can rescue the scenario proposed by \citet{alcock86}.
118: The
119: Hill stability criterion against close approaches for two comparable mass
120: planets qualitatively describes what happens to a planetary system.
121: The stability criterion in this case is
122: $\Delta_c=(a_1-a_2)/a_1=3\mu^{1/3}$, where
123: $a$ is the semi-major axis, $\mu$ is the mass ratio of the planets to
124: the host star, and $\Delta_c$ represents the critical separation at which
125: the two planets become unstable to close approaches \citep{hill86,
126: gladman95}. During adiabatic mass loss, companions expand their orbits
127: in
128: a homologous way, increasing their orbital semi-major axes
129: by a factor M$_i$/M$_f$ \citep{jeans24}.
130: The critical
131: separation grows as the relative separation of the two planets stays the
132: same, resulting in marginally stable systems being tipped over the edge of
133: stability. This instability can lead to orbital rearrangements,
134: the ejection of one planet, and collisions \citep{ford01}.
135: These three events dramatically change the dynamical state
136: of the planetary system. A fraction of unstable systems will perturb
137: a surviving Oort cloud or Kuiper belt analogue and send a shower of comets into the inner system
138: where they tidally disrupt, cause dust disks, and slowly settle onto the
139: WD surface. This modification of the comet impact model can explain the
140: accretion rates needed for the highest abundances of Ca observed and
141: the presence of infrared excesses around WDs \citep{debes02}.
142:
143: The model of \citet{debes02} can be extended to asteroidal material closer to
144: the star. As the central star's mass changes, the basic resonances associated
145: with any planets will change and bring fresh material into unstable orbits.
146: The amount of pollution will depend on the different timescales for comets and
147: asteroids to be perturbed toward the white dwarf as well as the ratio of
148: objects in either asteroidal or cometary orbits. Asteroids
149: should be perturbed relatively quickly, on timescales of 10$^8$ yr, while
150: comets can take up to an order of magnitude longer to be perturbed. Without
151: a more detailed model, however, it is hard to say which population is responsible for DAZ pollution.
152:
153: Nine DAZs have already been searched for substellar companions at intermediate orbital separations (10~AU $<$ a $<$ 50-100~AU) with NICMOS high contrast imaging
154: and AO imaging \citep{kuchner98,debes05b,debes05a,debes06}. No planets
155: $>$10 M$_J$ were detected for four, and no brown dwarfs $>$29 M$_J$ were detected for the other five. Additionally, no unresolved companions were detected
156: down to substellar limits, following a general finding for a dearth of
157: substellar objects around white dwarfs \citep{farihi04,dobbie05,farihi05}.
158:
159: With the launch of {\em Spitzer} an unprecedented sensitivity is now possible
160: to further constrain the presence of companions in close orbits, as well as
161: the presence of dusty disks. A large interest in infrared excesses
162: around white dwarfs in general is evidenced by the many surveys of white
163: dwarfs with {\em Spitzer} \citep{hansen06,kilic06,mullally06,vonhippel07,jura07,jura07b}.
164:
165: In this paper we present results of our search of four nearby DAZs and
166: a DA with circumstellar absorption that have
167: no known excesses for companions and circumstellar disks. In \S \ref{sec:IRAC}
168: we detail our {\em Spitzer} IRAC photometry and results, while in \S \ref{sec:NICMOS} we present second epoch NICMOS images of WD 1620-391 to look for
169: common proper motion companions to the white dwarf. Finally in \S \ref{sec:conc} we present our conclusions.
170:
171: \section{Spitzer Photometry}
172: \label{sec:IRAC}
173: \subsection{Observations}
174: Table \ref{tab:targs} shows our target DAZs, complete with known T$_{eff}$, log g, distances, and ages. Cooling ages were taken from the literature and
175: initial masses and main sequence lifetimes were calculated by the equations
176: of \citet{wood92}:
177:
178: \begin{eqnarray}
179: \label{eqn:mass}
180: M_i & = & 10.4\ln{\frac{M_{WD}}{0.49 M_\odot}} \\
181: t_{MS}& =& 10 M_i(M_\odot)^{-2.5} Gyr.
182: \end{eqnarray}
183: Each target was observed with the four IRAC channels, with nominal
184: wavelengths of $\sim$3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0~\micron\ \citep{fazio04}. The observations were
185: carried out in the mapping mode, with 30 random point dithers for each pair of
186: channels. At each dither point, the camera integrated for 100~s,
187: for a total of 3000~s in each band. The exception to this was
188: WD 1620-391, which is a much brighter source. The images
189: had exposure times of 30~s
190: per dither with 75 dithers for a total integration of 2250~s. Table
191: \ref{tab:obs} summarizes our observations.
192:
193: In order to obtain {\em Spitzer} IRAC
194: photometry with an accuracy of $\sim$3\%, we followed
195: the prescription laid out in \citet{reach05b}.
196: We took the BCD files from the latest {\em Spitzer} pipeline
197: calibrations for each target (S14.0) and created a final, mosaicked
198: image using the
199: MOPEX package \citep{makovoz05}. Some caution for point source photometry with
200: IRAC is warranted. Post-BCD pipeline calibrated mosaics are not of a high enough fidelity for accurate photometry of stellar point sources. We routinely found that PBCD images returned photometry systematically 2-4\% higher than when
201: we used MOPEX. We performed
202: overlap correction with a default overlap correction namelist, and mosaicking
203: with the default namelist given in the IRAC data handbook. For brighter
204: point sources,
205: the outlier rejection schemes of MOPEX can spuriously reject good pixels as
206: cosmic rays due to photon noise larger than the background variation.
207: A typical symptom of this is a coverage map file that shows that
208: many images were thrown out at the position of the target source. We experienced good results by choosing an UPPER\_ and LOWER\_THRESHOLD parameter of 15 for the MOSAICIN module, as well as using the keyword REFINE\_OUTLIER to ensure bright
209: sources were treated with a threshold closer to 20. The thresholds refer to
210: the number of sigma above the mean background. As a final check we visually inspected the resulting coverage maps to ensure that most images were used by
211: the mosaicking program.
212:
213: Since each of our images had several dither
214: positions, we did not make any array-location or pixel phase corrections. We estimate that these effects are at the level of 1\% and not a significant
215: error source, but we include them in our total error. We
216: performed aperture photometry with a 3 pixel radius ($\sim$3.6\arcsec), and
217: used a 4-pixel wide annulus starting just outside the source aperture for
218: background subtraction, to ensure as accurate estimate of the background as possible.
219: Aperture corrections appropriate for this size
220: source radius and background annulus were applied, as well as calibration
221: factors, flux conversions and a
222: color correction in each band assuming a $\nu^2$ spectral slope as mentioned in \citet{reach05b}.
223: The consistency of both aperture corrections and the photometry with different
224: sized apertures was checked by recalculating the photometry with 5 pixel
225: radius apertures with background annuli with 5-pixel radii starting just outside the source aperture, and 3-pixel source apertures with 10-pixel wide annuli starting at a radius of 10 pixels. We avoided a 2-pixel source aperture as that
226: appeared to consistently give photometry lower by $\sim$2-5\%. For channels 1 and 2, differences between the three choices were
227: never more than 1\% except in the case of WD 0245+541, which has several nearby sources within 4-10 pixels. Channels 3 and 4 often had larger changes for
228: the 5 pixel radius aperture, up to $\sim$10\% but typically closer to 2\%.
229: We attribute these systematic
230: changes primarily to residual structure in the background and to
231: coincident sources. Both of these sources of systematic error are lessened
232: by the small aperture and small background annulus. We estimate that on
233: average there is a 1\% error from sytematic uncertainties in aperture photometry based on our specific choice of aperture and background annulus.
234:
235: No obvious interstellar cirrus was noted
236: for any of our targets in the 8\micron\ channel. Figures \ref{fig:wd02}-
237: \ref{fig:wd16} show PSF subtracted NICMOS images
238: of the DAZs from \citet{debes05b}, with contours from the final IRAC channel
239: 2 images
240: overlaid. The contour lines correspond to 0.1\%, 1\%, and 10\%
241: of the total measured flux
242: respectively to demonstrate the absence of contaminating
243: objects in the source and background photometric apertures. The target WD in
244: each image is located at the point (0,0), and appears as a speckled area
245: since it is behind the coronagraph and the residual PSF has been subtracted off.
246:
247: For the observations of WD 0208+396, the IRAC detector was struck by a large
248: number of solar protons, degrading the images with cosmic ray hits.
249: The looser constraints on outlier rejection can give higher counts at
250: the level of 10\%. These hits were worse for the 5.8\micron\ channel but
251: we used a more stringent threshold for the MOPEX outlier
252: routines of 3 for channels 3 and 4 instead of 15.
253: Inspection of the coverage maps for the channels
254: show that most of the images could still be used, with the most images being
255: rejected for the 5.8\micron\ channel. We verified that we got consistent
256: photometry by visually inspecting individual BCD images and combining only
257: the files without obvious cosmic ray strikes.
258:
259: The estimated photometric errors for each channel are quite small due to the large S/N achieved. In addition to the standard errors in photometry, we added
260: a 3.3$\%$ factor to account for the overall uncertainty in the flux calibrations
261: quoted by \citet{reach05b} as well as the contributions from uncertainties mentioned above.
262:
263: \subsection{Comparison of Photometry to WD models}
264: In order to detect a bona fide excess, one must compare the observed flux with
265: an expected flux. We compared our observations with models
266: of \citet{bergeron95} as well as the $BVRIJHK$ photometry of \citet{bergeron01}
267: for four of the five targets. WD 1620-391 was not part of \citet{bergeron01}'s
268: survey and so we used a combination of USNOB, Hipparcos, and 2MASS photometry. Fluxes in the mid-infrared were kindly provided (P.E. Tremblay,private communication), using updated models
269: from \citet{tremblay06} and without any knowledge of the measured mid-IR fluxes. We further normalized these flux densities to a median of the visible and Near-IR flux densities to account for any slight offsets between the observed
270: data and the models. This approach differs from previous work reported, where
271: blackbody extrapolations of the WDs' K flux density
272: were compared with our {\em Spitzer} data \citep{debes07}.
273:
274: For the level of photometric accuracy we have achieved, white dwarfs with
275: effective temperature of $\sim$5000-7000~K depart from true black bodies,
276: mainly due to H$^{-}$ bound-free and free-free opacity, with the free-free
277: opacity being most important for the near- and mid-infrared (P.E. Tremblay,
278: private communication). Free-free absorption can be calculated precisely at
279: long wavelengths and is incorporated in WD models \citep[see][for example]
280: {john88}
281:
282: Figure \ref{fig:74graph} shows a representative comparison between
283: the model fluxes and the
284: measured fluxes for WD~0208+396, as well as the residuals.
285: The full list of predicted and observed IRAC
286: fluxes for
287: all of our targets is in Table \ref{tab:fluxes}, while Figures \ref{fig:panel1}
288: and \ref{fig:panel2} show the SEDs of the remaining targets. We required that a significant excess (deficit) be
289: $>$ three times the photometric error above (below) the
290: calculated model flux in at least one channel. We find that for the exception
291: of WD 1257+278, the model fluxes and photometry agree to within 1-2 $\sigma$.
292:
293: Figure \ref{fig:panel2} shows the SED of WD 1257+278 compared to the model. There isexactly a 3$\sigma$ deficit in the 4.5 band, to a depth of 10\%. The mosaic coverage maps show no images being thrown out where
294: the photometric aperture is located. A slight mismatch between the model effective temperature and the true effective temperatrue
295: could present an artificial deficit or excess, but the errors in the derived
296: effective temperature are on the order of $\sim$2\%, which would correspond to
297: errors in the predicted fluxes of 3-4\%, much less than the observed deficit
298: (P.E. Tremblay, private communication).
299: Despite matching our criteria for selection as a significant deficit, we believe it is tentative at best, based on a detailed analysis of the match between
300: our photometry and the models.
301:
302: Because of the deficit with WD 1257+278 we wished to get
303: an empirical sense of how well the data matched the predicted model fluxes.
304: To that end, we took the standard deviation of $\Delta F_\nu/F_{\nu,p}$ in all
305: the channels where $\Delta F_\nu$ is the difference between the observed
306: flux density and the predicted flux density ($F_{\nu,p}$), as well as the mean
307: $\Delta F_\nu/F_{\nu,p}$ for each channel. We find that the standard deviation of the sample is $\sim$3.7\%, while the mean for each channel is -1\%,-5\%,0.09\%, and -3\%. These results indicate that the predicted
308: fluxes match the observed fluxes to within the absolute calibration errors we
309: assume. We note that the 4.5\micron\ channel appears to have a barely marginal
310: ($\sim$1.4$\sigma$) mean deficit, with four of the five targets possessing $\sim$
311: 5\% or greater
312: deficits, WD 1257+278 being one of these objects. WD 0208-396 is the only object with no deficit at 4.5\micron.
313:
314: As another test, we divided the IRAC photometry of our target DAZs by WD 1620-391, the brightest WD in our sample with the highest signal-to-noise. In this case, we are limited by photon noise and the stability of the IRAC detectors,
315: which is on the level of $\sim$2\%. We compared the relative photometry
316: of WD 1620-391 and WD 1257+278 to the model fluxes in Figure \ref{fig:comparison}. Within the estimated errors, the observed flux ratios match the expected
317: ratios. We repeated this test with the other white dwarfs and found similar
318: agreement. The consistency of the flux ratios suggests that the depression of
319: flux at 4.5 micron may be due to a systematic error in the aperture correction,
320: color correction, or calibration factors for that channel.
321:
322: Observed deficits for a white dwarf
323: may be evidence for circumstellar material raining
324: down on its surface. If such a situation were confirmed at 4.5 or 8\micron,
325: we predict that non-LTE absorption by SiO gas may be present, with
326: possibly some contribution from CO.
327: Absorption due to fundamental and overtone rotational-vibrational bands of SiO and CO in late type stars is well known \cite{cohen}.
328: The dissociation temperature of SiO and CO are high enough that these species
329: could persist at the temperatures of cooler white dwarfs.
330:
331: The absorption could be boosted if SiO is formed above the white dwarf photosphere through photodissociation of SiO$_2$ (and any CO present is similarly
332: formed through photodissociation of carbonates) from refractory dust which sublimates as it is brought down to the the white dwarf surface
333: through photon drag.
334: The resulting SiO is formed at low densities just above the photosphere, and is far from local thermodynamic equilibrium, with much larger absorption
335: strengths than inferred from photospheric LTE. This absorption would show up
336: most strongly around 4-5\micron\ and $\sim$8-10\micron\, where SiO has
337: fundamental and first overtone bands at 8.0 and 4.1\micron, respectively.
338: CO would show up primarily in the second channel with its fundamental band
339: at 4.7\micron \citep{cohen}. The details of this scenario need to be studied
340: further to determine the feasibility of observing absorption due to SiO or CO
341: gas.
342:
343: \subsection{Limits to Companions}
344: For IRAC, very cool substellar objects can be detected as excesses, especially
345: due to a ``bump'' of flux for brown dwarfs and planets at $\sim$4.5\micron.
346: While theoretical models predict the 4.5\micron\ flux to be large, observations
347: of cool brown dwarfs suggest that the spectral models overestimate this flux
348: by a factor of $\sim$2 \citep{golimowski04,patten06}.
349:
350: In order to place upper limits on the types of unresolved
351: companions present around our targets, we compared predicted IRAC fluxes for
352: cool brown dwarfs and planets
353: by convolving the IRAC filters with the models of \citet{bsl03} appropriate for the particular age of each target DAZ and its distance.
354: For the 4.5\micron\ channel we assumed that the resultant flux was a
355: factor of two smaller than predicted. We then compared our 4.5\micron\
356: 3$\sigma$ limits to those models in order to determine a mass limit. These
357: results are presented in Table \ref{tab:limits}. In all cases we improve the
358: unresolved companion limits to these objects over \citet{debes05b} by a factor
359: of 2-4. For WD 0243-026 and WD 1620-391 we rule all companions $>$14 M$_J$
360: objects for separations $<$76 and 46~AU respectively.
361:
362: \subsection{Limits to Dusty Disks}
363:
364: We can determine limits to two types of dusty disks, either geometrically
365: flat, optically thick disks, such as that modeled for G~29-38 or GD~362,
366: or diffuse, optically thin disks. Both GD~362 and G~29-38 can be well
367: modeled by disks not unlike Saturn's rings, within the tidal radius of the
368: white dwarf with an interior edge at the dust sublimation radius \citep{jura03,zuckerman05,jura07,vonhippel07}.
369:
370: \subsubsection{Optically Thick Disks}
371: If we assume an optically thick disk, the emission of the grains can be
372: modeled following \citet{adams87}:
373: \begin{equation}
374: \label{eqn:fnu}
375: F_{\nu}=\frac{2\pi\cos(i)}{d^2}\int^{R_{out}}_{R_{in}} B_{\nu}(T)r dr
376: \end{equation}
377:
378: with T as a function of R:
379:
380: \begin{equation}
381: T=\left(\frac{2}{3\pi}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{R_\star}{r}\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}T_\star
382: \end{equation}
383:
384: This assumes that the inner radius corresponds to a dust
385: sublimation radius of 1200~K. In Table \ref{tab:limits}, we show the upper limits to $i$ based on our
386: lack of 3$\sigma$ detections in our 8.0\micron\ channel data. In most cases, excess
387: emission would have been significantly detected at shorter wavelengths as well.
388: If this type of disk is present around these DAZs, the inner edge of the
389: disks must be at $\gtorder0.4$ R$_{\odot}$, or all of them are close to edge-on. We can quantify the probability of observing 5 systems with inclinations
390: determined by our upper limits out of a random sample of disk inclinations. For any one disk, this is $\sim$1-$\cos{i}$, and for all five targets the probability is negligible. Most optically thick dust disks observed seem to have
391: exterior radii of $<$0.6 R$_\odot$ \citep{vonhippel07}.
392:
393: Given the $10^3$-$10^4$ year settling timescales ($t_D$, See Table \ref{tab:targs})
394: for our targets, the lack of a disk does not necessarily imply that
395: the DAZs cannot accrete material in this manner. As \citet{hansen06} has
396: pointed out, the timescale for removal
397: of dust grains within the tidal disruption radius of a white dwarf due
398: to Poynting-Robertson drag is short:
399:
400: \begin{equation}
401: \label{eq:tpr}
402: T_{PR} = \left(\frac{s}{1\mu \mbox{m}}\right)\left(\frac{\rho_s}{3 \mbox{g cm}^{-3}}
403: \right)\left(\frac{r}{10^{10} \mbox{cm}}\right)^2 \left(\frac{L_\star}{10^{-3} L_\odot}\right) \mbox{yr}
404: \end{equation}
405:
406: where $s$ and $\rho_s$ are the average grain size and density respectively,
407: and
408: $r$ is the distance from the star, ranging from $\sim10^{10}-10^{11}$ cm.
409: If an incoming comet or asteroid
410: is disrupted and all of the material is removed before
411: another arrives, then some fraction of the time a DAZ will have this type of
412: disk and
413: at other times it won't while still retaining a detectable
414: metal line signature. The metal line will remain detectable as long as the
415: metal settling time is roughly longer than the time to the next replenishing
416: collision.
417: Cooler dust from collisions may still
418: be detectable at longer wavelengths, or slowly drift inwards from further away. Using Equation \ref{eq:tpr}, one can determine the rough orbital separation
419: from which dust would spiral in over 1 Gyr, or a typical cooling time
420: for a white dwarf. Assuming the typical values in Equation \ref{eq:tpr}, dust could spiral in from as far as $\sim$20~AU.
421:
422: \subsubsection{Optically Thin Disks}
423: If we expect an optically thin disk, we see the emission from every emitter.
424: If one assumes a particular size (and therefore a particular mass) per emitter
425: and the number of emitters per unit area, one can determine the total mass
426: in an optically thin dust disk based on the observed flux.
427: We focus in particular on the limit to dust
428: between the tidal radius of the white dwarf and the dust sublimation radius,
429: since this region is of most interest for explaining DAZ metal accretion.
430:
431: For the sake of simplicity, we assume that a constant number density of 1~\micron\ dust particles reside in a flat optically thin
432: disk between the dust sublimation radius
433: $R_{sub}$ and the approximate tidal disruption radius, $R_{tidal}\sim\left(\bar{\rho}_{WD}/\rho_{obj}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}R_\star$ of the DAZ, assuming a $\rho_{obj}$=3 g~cm$^{-3}$ for the parent bodies to the dust. In this case the flux is given by
434: a modification of Equation \ref{eqn:fnu}:
435: \begin{equation}
436: F_{\nu}=\frac{2\pi s^2\cos(i)}{d^2}\int^{R_{tidal}}_{R_{sub}} n(r)B_{\nu}(T)r dr
437: \end{equation}
438: where we have utilized the models of \citet{laor93} to calculate the spherical
439: 1\micron\
440: grain temperature of each dust particle given each DAZs luminosity \citep{bergeron01,bragaglia95}. For each WD we normalize $n(r)$ such
441: that the resultant dust disk spectrum returns the 3$\sigma$ flux limit when
442: convolved with the IRAC 8 \micron\ channel filter response. Table \ref{tab:limits}
443: shows the resulting upper limits for dust disk mass. For WD~1620-391, its radius at which dust sublimates exceeds the tidal disruption radius,
444: and so we expect no dust to be
445: present in this region. Similarly hot white dwarfs would not have dusty disks
446: around them like G~29-38 or GD~362. They may have gaseous disks around them,
447: as evidenced by the discovery of a gaseous, metal-rich disk around a hot DA
448: white dwarf \citep{gansicke06}.
449:
450: If there are dust disks,
451: then dust accretion could conceivably occur for longer then the DAZ atmospheric
452: settling times in our sample. However, the PR drag timescale at the tidal
453: disruption radius for each DAZ is $\ltorder$ $M_{disk}/\dot{M}$. This implies
454: that accretion is not driven by PR drag of a present disk.
455:
456:
457: \section{NICMOS imaging}
458: \label{sec:NICMOS}
459:
460: NICMOS coronagraphic images of these five white dwarfs were presented in \citet{debes05b},
461: with accompanying limits to companions at 1.1\micron, as well as 1.6\micron\
462: for WD 1620-391. High spatial resolution NIR images are particularly useful
463: for discriminating against potential sources of background contamination which
464: could bias the mid-IR photometry to spurious excesses,
465: given the IRAC camera's spatial resolution of 1.2\arcsec/pixel. While it may be
466: rare to find coincident sources that may contaminate the photometry of the target, two of the five targets have visual companions within 4\arcsec\ of the
467: target star.
468:
469: WD 1620-391, one of the targets with a large number of visual companions,
470: is close to the galactic plane. This interesting object is not technically a
471: DAZ. It a DA with no optical metal absorption lines that is a large separation common proper motion companion to a planet bearing star \citep{mayor04}. In the UV it possesses metallic circumstellar absorption lines \citep{holberg95,wolff01}. The planet bearing star is separated by 5\farcm 75 (4451~AU), and is well off the field-of-view for NICMOS.
472: Even expecting a large number of coincident
473: sources due to its galactic latitude, it possessed an overdensity over that
474: expected
475: \citep{debes05b}.
476: Motivated by this overdensity, a second epoch image of
477: WD 1620-391 was obtained in March 2006, two years after the first image was
478: taken to search for any common proper motion companions. The new image was
479: reduced following the basic prescription laid out in \citet{debes05b},
480: where the white dwarf was imaged at two separate spacecraft roll orientations
481: and each roll image was subtracted from the other and combined to produce a
482: high contrast final image. The other objects in the field were masked out in the
483: image that was used as a PSF reference, since the field of view was moderately
484: crowded and subtraction residuals would hamper the detection of faint sources.
485:
486: We aligned both epochs on the pixel position of WD~1620-391 and rotated the
487: images so that North was in the positive vertical direction of the images,
488: using pixel centers and orientations as header keywords from the STScI pipeline. We then shifted the second epoch image
489: by the measured proper motion of WD 1620-391 of 97.49$\pm$3.28 mas/yr ($\mu\cos{\delta}$=75.52 mas/yr) in right ascension and 0.05$\pm$1.74 mas/yr in declination \citep{hip} to align the shifted background stars. We measured the centroids
490: of $\sim$70 observed objects common in both fields using the IDL ASTROLIB routine GCNTRD and measured the difference in centroid position from one epoch to
491: another. With this procedure, any object co-moving with WD 1620-391 would
492: have a position shift of 2.58 NICMOS pixels, or 0\farcs19.
493:
494: Figure \ref{fig:wd1620prop} shows the resulting differences between the measured
495: centroids in the two NICMOS image epochs. The solid circle represents the 3-$\sigma$ limit as empirically measured by the entire sample of observed sources
496: in the field, with 1$\sigma$ being 14 mas/yr and median proper motions
497: of the sample of -17 mas/yr and -8 mas/yr. There is a slight offset in the
498: median change in right ascension of the group of sources from the expected zero value, though it is a $\sim$1$\sigma$ difference in RA. This could be because of a bulk proper motion
499: of the background sources, since WD 1620-391 is at a low galactic latitude,
500: or a sub pixel mismatch between the reported pixel centers of WD 1620-391.
501: The magnitude of centroiding errors on HST acquisitions, however, is closer
502: to 7~mas and is smaller than the offset seen here. In any case, there
503: appears to be no co-moving sources, thus completely ruling out any companions
504: down to 6M$_J$ at separations $>$ 13~AU \citep{debes05b}.
505:
506: \section{Conclusions}
507: \label{sec:conc}
508: We can place stringent limits on the types of disks
509: and unresolved companions present for all of our targets. For two of
510: our targets, only planetary mass objects (M$<$14 M$_J$) can be present at all separations,
511: and for the rest,
512: only very low mass brown dwarfs (M$<$ 20 M$_J$)
513: can be present at separations $<$ 1\arcsec
514: or orbital separations of between 13 and 35~AU.
515:
516: The explanation that all apparently single DAZs can be caused by the winds of unseen companions
517: does not fit our results unless the companions are very low mass brown dwarfs
518: or high mass planets.
519: One would expect to see large amounts of dust present if tidally disrupted
520: planetesimals or ISM accretion were the source of metals for DAZs.
521: Our targets show no evidence of such dust down to $\sim$ 10$^{20}$ g if there
522: are optically thin disks present, and out to separations of $\sim$0.4 R$_\odot$
523: if there are optically thick disks present. We effectively
524: rule out optically thick disks like those seen around G~29-38 for our targets.
525: We cannot rule out dust that is further away from the white dwarf and consequently much cooler. Sensitive studies at longer wavelengths may yet detect dust
526: around these white dwarfs.
527:
528: Instead,
529: optically thick
530: dusty disks around DAZs seem to be somewhat rare with only 5 such known and no
531: optically thin disks yet reported\citep{zuckerman87,
532: farihi05,kilic05,kilic06b,kilic07,farihi06}. A lack of optically thick
533: dust can be explained for cooler DAZs by infrequent encounters with
534: large planetesimals that create short lived disks that disappear quickly
535: while still allowing detectable metal lines. For that reason dusty
536: disks should primarily be around hotter DAs, whose shorter settling times
537: require a quicker replenishment of dust and thus should have long lived
538: disks. DAs that are too hot vaporize material well before it is tidally disrupted. If the disks are instead optically thin, then weaker emission may be
539: present, though currently undetectable.
540: The upper limits for dust disk masses imply that for many DAZs the amount
541: of material close to the white dwarf is sufficient to be detectable
542: spectroscopically, but more difficult to detect in the mid-IR.
543:
544:
545: \acknowledgements
546: The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for useful suggestions
547: in improving this paper. We would like to thank Pierre Bergeron and Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay for helpful
548: discussions on model white dwarf atmospheres and for graciously providing model
549: flux densities.
550: This work is based in part on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. Support for this work was provided by NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech. Support for program \#10560 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
551:
552: %\bibliography{g29bib}
553: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
554:
555: \begin{thebibliography}{62}
556: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
557:
558: \bibitem[{{Aannestad} {et~al.}(1993){Aannestad}, {Kenyon}, {Hammond}, \&
559: {Sion}}]{aannestad93}
560: {Aannestad}, P.~A., {Kenyon}, S.~J., {Hammond}, G.~L., \& {Sion}, E.~M. 1993,
561: \aj, 105, 1033
562:
563: \bibitem[Adams et al.(1987)]{adams87} Adams, F.~C., Lada,
C.~J., \& Shu, F.~H.\ 1987, \apj, 312, 788
564:
565: \bibitem[{{Alcock} {et~al.}(1986){Alcock}, {Fristrom}, \&
566: {Siegelman}}]{alcock86}
567: {Alcock}, C., {Fristrom}, C.~C., \& {Siegelman}, R. 1986, \apj, 302, 462
568:
569: \bibitem[{{Althaus} \& {Benvenuto}(1998)}]{althaus98}
570: {Althaus}, L.~G. \& {Benvenuto}, O.~G. 1998, \mnras, 296, 206
571:
572: \bibitem[{{Becklin} {et~al.}(2005){Becklin}, {Farihi}, {Jura}, {Song},
573: {Weinberger}, \& {Zuckerman}}]{zuckerman05}
574: {Becklin}, E.~E., {Farihi}, J., {Jura}, M., {Song}, I., {Weinberger}, A.~J., \&
575: {Zuckerman}, B. 2005, \apjl, 632, L119
576:
577: \bibitem[{{Bergeron} {et~al.}(2001){Bergeron}, {Leggett}, \&
578: {Ruiz}}]{bergeron01}
579: {Bergeron}, P., {Leggett}, S.~K., \& {Ruiz}, M.~T. 2001, \apjs, 133, 413
580:
581: \bibitem[{{Bergeron} {et~al.}(1995){Bergeron}, {Wesemael}, {Lamontagne},
582: {Fontaine}, {Saffer}, \& {Allard}}]{bergeron95}
583: {Bergeron}, P., {Wesemael}, F., {Lamontagne}, R., {Fontaine}, G., {Saffer},
584: R.~A., \& {Allard}, N.~F. 1995, \apj, 449, 258
585:
586: \bibitem[{{Bragaglia} {et~al.}(1995){Bragaglia}, {Renzini}, \&
587: {Bergeron}}]{bragaglia95}
588: {Bragaglia}, A., {Renzini}, A., \& {Bergeron}, P. 1995, \apj, 443, 735
589:
590: \bibitem[{{Burleigh} {et~al.}(2002){Burleigh}, {Clarke}, \&
591: {Hodgkin}}]{burleigh02}
592: {Burleigh}, M.~R., {Clarke}, F.~J., \& {Hodgkin}, S.~T. 2002, \mnras, 331, L41
593:
594: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2003){Burrows}, {Sudarsky}, \& {Lunine}}]{bsl03}
595: {Burrows}, A., {Sudarsky}, D., \& {Lunine}, J.~I. 2003, \apj, 596, 587
596:
597: \bibitem[{{Cohen} {et~al.}(1992){Cohen}, {Witteborn}, {Carbon}, {Augason},
598: {Wooden}, {Bregman}, \& {Goorvitch}}]{cohen}
599: {Cohen}, M., {Witteborn}, F.~C., {Carbon}, D.~F., {Augason}, G., {Wooden}, D.,
600: {Bregman}, J., \& {Goorvitch}, D. 1992, \aj, 104, 2045
601:
602: \bibitem[{{Debes}(2006)}]{debes06b}
603: {Debes}, J.~H. 2006, \apj, 652, 636
604:
605: \bibitem[{{Debes} {et~al.}(2006){Debes}, {Ge}, \& {Ftaclas}}]{debes06}
606: {Debes}, J.~H., {Ge}, J., \& {Ftaclas}, C. 2006, \aj, 131, 640
607:
608: \bibitem[{{Debes} \& {Sigurdsson}(2002)}]{debes02}
609: {Debes}, J.~H. \& {Sigurdsson}, S. 2002, \apj, 572, 556
610:
611: \bibitem[{{Debes} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Debes}, {Sigurdsson}, \&
612: {Woodgate}}]{debes05a}
613: {Debes}, J.~H., {Sigurdsson}, S., \& {Woodgate}, B.~E. 2005{\natexlab{a}},
614: \apj, 633, 1168
615:
616: \bibitem[{{Debes} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Debes}, {Sigurdsson}, \&
617: {Woodgate}}]{debes05b}
618: ---. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 130, 1221
619:
620: \bibitem[Debes \& Sigurdsson(2007)]{debes07} Debes, J.~H., \&
Sigurdsson, S.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0703448
621:
622: \bibitem[{{Dobbie} {et~al.}(2005){Dobbie}, {Burleigh}, {Levan}, {Barstow},
623: {Napiwotzki}, {Holberg}, {Hubeny}, \& {Howell}}]{dobbie05}
624: {Dobbie}, P.~D., {Burleigh}, M.~R., {Levan}, A.~J., {Barstow}, M.~A.,
625: {Napiwotzki}, R., {Holberg}, J.~B., {Hubeny}, I., \& {Howell}, S.~B. 2005,
626: \mnras, 357, 1049
627:
628: \bibitem[{{Dupuis} {et~al.}(1992){Dupuis}, {Fontaine}, {Pelletier}, \&
629: {Wesemael}}]{dupuis92}
630: {Dupuis}, J., {Fontaine}, G., {Pelletier}, C., \& {Wesemael}, F. 1992, \apjs,
631: 82, 505
632:
633: \bibitem[{{Dupuis} {et~al.}(1993{\natexlab{a}}){Dupuis}, {Fontaine},
634: {Pelletier}, \& {Wesemael}}]{dupuis93a}
635: ---. 1993{\natexlab{a}}, \apjs, 84, 73
636:
637: \bibitem[{{Dupuis} {et~al.}(1993{\natexlab{b}}){Dupuis}, {Fontaine}, \&
638: {Wesemael}}]{dupuis93b}
639: {Dupuis}, J., {Fontaine}, G., \& {Wesemael}, F. 1993{\natexlab{b}}, \apjs, 87,
640: 345
641:
642: \bibitem[{{Farihi} {et~al.}(2005){Farihi}, {Becklin}, \&
643: {Zuckerman}}]{farihi05}
644: {Farihi}, J., {Becklin}, E.~E., \& {Zuckerman}, B. 2005, \apjs, 161, 394
645:
646: \bibitem[{{Farihi} \& {Christopher}(2004)}]{farihi04}
647: {Farihi}, J. \& {Christopher}, M. 2004, \aj, 128, 1868
648:
649: \bibitem[{{Farihi} {et~al.}(2006){Farihi}, {Zuckerman}, {Becklin}, \&
650: {Jura}}]{farihi06}
651: {Farihi}, J., {Zuckerman}, B., {Becklin}, E.~E., \& {Jura}, M. 2006, ArXiv
652: Astrophysics e-prints
653:
654: \bibitem[{{Fazio} {et~al.}(2004){Fazio}, {Hora}, {Allen}, {Ashby}, {Barmby},
655: {Deutsch}, {Huang}, {Kleiner}, {Marengo}, {Megeath}, {Melnick}, {Pahre},
656: {Patten}, {Polizotti}, {Smith}, {Taylor}, {Wang}, {Willner}, {Hoffmann},
657: {Pipher}, {Forrest}, {McMurty}, {McCreight}, {McKelvey}, {McMurray}, {Koch},
658: {Moseley}, {Arendt}, {Mentzell}, {Marx}, {Losch}, {Mayman}, {Eichhorn},
659: {Krebs}, {Jhabvala}, {Gezari}, {Fixsen}, {Flores}, {Shakoorzadeh}, {Jungo},
660: {Hakun}, {Workman}, {Karpati}, {Kichak}, {Whitley}, {Mann}, {Tollestrup},
661: {Eisenhardt}, {Stern}, {Gorjian}, {Bhattacharya}, {Carey}, {Nelson},
662: {Glaccum}, {Lacy}, {Lowrance}, {Laine}, {Reach}, {Stauffer}, {Surace},
663: {Wilson}, {Wright}, {Hoffman}, {Domingo}, \& {Cohen}}]{fazio04}
664: {Fazio}, G.~G., {et~al.} 2004, \apjs, 154, 10
665:
666: \bibitem[{{Ford} {et~al.}(2001){Ford}, {Havlickova}, \& {Rasio}}]{ford01}
667: {Ford}, E.~B., {Havlickova}, M., \& {Rasio}, F.~A. 2001, Icarus, 150, 303
668:
669: \bibitem[{{Friedrich} {et~al.}(2005){Friedrich}, {Zinnecker}, {Brandner},
670: {Correia}, \& {McCaughrean}}]{friedrich05}
671: {Friedrich}, S., {Zinnecker}, H., {Brandner}, W., {Correia}, S., \&
672: {McCaughrean}, M. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 334: 14th European Workshop on
673: White Dwarfs, 431--+
674:
675: \bibitem[{{G{\"a}nsicke} {et~al.}(2006){G{\"a}nsicke}, {Marsh}, {Southworth},
676: \& {Rebassa-Mansergas}}]{gansicke06}
677: {G{\"a}nsicke}, B.~T., {Marsh}, T.~R., {Southworth}, J., \&
678: {Rebassa-Mansergas}, A. 2006, Science, 314, 1908
679:
680: \bibitem[{{Gladman}(1993)}]{gladman95}
681: {Gladman}, B. 1993, Icarus, 106, 247
682:
683: \bibitem[{{Golimowski} {et~al.}(2004){Golimowski}, {Leggett}, {Marley}, {Fan},
684: {Geballe}, {Knapp}, {Vrba}, {Henden}, {Luginbuhl}, {Guetter}, {Munn},
685: {Canzian}, {Zheng}, {Tsvetanov}, {Chiu}, {Glazebrook}, {Hoversten},
686: {Schneider}, \& {Brinkmann}}]{golimowski04}
687: {Golimowski}, D.~A., {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 3516
688:
689: \bibitem[{{Graham} {et~al.}(1990){Graham}, {Matthews}, {Neugebauer}, \&
690: {Soifer}}]{graham90}
691: {Graham}, J.~R., {Matthews}, K., {Neugebauer}, G., \& {Soifer}, B.~T. 1990,
692: \apj, 357, 216
693:
694: \bibitem[{{Hansen} {et~al.}(2006){Hansen}, {Kulkarni}, \&
695: {Wiktorowicz}}]{hansen06}
696: {Hansen}, B.~M.~S., {Kulkarni}, S., \& {Wiktorowicz}, S. 2006, \aj, 131, 1106
697:
698: \bibitem[{{Hill}(1886)}]{hill86}
699: {Hill}, G.~W. 1886, Acta Mathematica, 8, 1
700:
701: \bibitem[{{Holberg} {et~al.}(1995){Holberg}, {Bruhweiler}, \&
702: {Andersen}}]{holberg95}
703: {Holberg}, J.~B., {Bruhweiler}, F.~C., \& {Andersen}, J. 1995, \apj, 443, 753
704:
705: \bibitem[{{Ignace}(2001)}]{ignace01}
706: {Ignace}, R. 2001, \pasp, 113, 1227
707:
708: \bibitem[{{Jeans}(1924)}]{jeans24}
709: {Jeans}, J.~H. 1924, \mnras, 85, 2
710:
711: \bibitem[John(1988)]{john88} John, T.~L.\ 1988, \aap, 193, 189
712:
713: \bibitem[{{Jura}(2003)}]{jura03}
714: {Jura}, M. 2003, \apj, 584, L91
715:
716: \bibitem[{{Jura} {et~al.}(2007){Jura}, {Farihi}, {Zuckerman}, \&
717: {Becklin}}]{jura07}
718: {Jura}, M., {Farihi}, J., {Zuckerman}, B., \& {Becklin}, E.~E. 2007, ArXiv
719: Astrophysics e-prints
720:
721: \bibitem[Jura et al.(2007)]{jura07b} Jura, M., Farihi, J., \&
Zuckerman, B.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.1170
722:
723: \bibitem[{{Kilic} \& {Redfield}(2007)}]{kilic07}
724: {Kilic}, M. \& {Redfield}, S. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
725:
726: \bibitem[{{Kilic} {et~al.}(2005){Kilic}, {von Hippel}, {Leggett}, \&
727: {Winget}}]{kilic05}
728: {Kilic}, M., {von Hippel}, T., {Leggett}, S.~K., \& {Winget}, D.~E. 2005,
729: \apjl, 632, L115
730:
731: \bibitem[{{Kilic} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Kilic}, {von Hippel}, {Leggett},
732: \& {Winget}}]{kilic06b}
733: ---. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 646, 474
734:
735: \bibitem[{{Kilic} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Kilic}, {von Hippel},
736: {Mullally}, {Reach}, {Kuchner}, {Winget}, \& {Burrows}}]{kilic06}
737: {Kilic}, M., {von Hippel}, T., {Mullally}, F., {Reach}, W.~T., {Kuchner},
738: M.~J., {Winget}, D.~E., \& {Burrows}, A. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 642, 1051
739:
740: \bibitem[{{Koester} \& {Wilken}(2006)}]{koester06}
741: {Koester}, D. \& {Wilken}, D. 2006, \aap, 453, 1051
742:
743: \bibitem[Kuchner et al.(1998)]{kuchner98} Kuchner, M.~J.,
Koresko, C.~D., \& Brown, M.~E.\ 1998, \apjl, 508, L81
744:
745: \bibitem[{{Laor} \& {Draine}(1993)}]{laor93}
746: {Laor}, A. \& {Draine}, B.~T. 1993, \apj, 402, 441
747:
748: \bibitem[{{Makovoz} \& {Marleau}(2005)}]{makovoz05}
749: {Makovoz}, D. \& {Marleau}, F.~R. 2005, \pasp, 117, 1113
750:
751: \bibitem[{{Maxted} {et~al.}(2006){Maxted}, {Napiwotzki}, {Dobbie}, \&
752: {Burleigh}}]{maxted06}
753: {Maxted}, P.~F.~L., {Napiwotzki}, R., {Dobbie}, P.~D., \& {Burleigh}, M.~R.
754: 2006, \nat, 442, 543
755:
756: \bibitem[{{Mayor} {et~al.}(2004){Mayor}, {Udry}, {Naef}, {Pepe}, {Queloz},
757: {Santos}, \& {Burnet}}]{mayor04}
758: {Mayor}, M., {Udry}, S., {Naef}, D., {Pepe}, F., {Queloz}, D., {Santos}, N.~C.,
759: \& {Burnet}, M. 2004, \aap, 415, 391
760:
761: \bibitem[{{Mullally} {et~al.}(2006){Mullally}, {Kilic}, {Reach}, {Kuchner},
762: {von Hippel}, {Burrows}, \& {Winget}}]{mullally06}
763: {Mullally}, F., {Kilic}, M., {Reach}, W.~T., {Kuchner}, M.~J., {von Hippel},
764: T., {Burrows}, A., \& {Winget}, D.~E. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
765:
766: \bibitem[{{Parriott} \& {Alcock}(1998)}]{parriott98}
767: {Parriott}, J. \& {Alcock}, C. 1998, \apj, 501, 357
768:
769: \bibitem[{{Patten} {et~al.}(2006){Patten}, {Stauffer}, {Burrows}, {Marengo},
770: {Hora}, {Luhman}, {Sonnett}, {Henry}, {Raghavan}, {Megeath}, {Liebert}, \&
771: {Fazio}}]{patten06}
772: {Patten}, B.~M., {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 651, 502
773:
774: \bibitem[{{Patterson} {et~al.}(1991){Patterson}, {Zuckerman}, {Becklin},
775: {Tholen}, \& {Hawarden}}]{patterson91}
776: {Patterson}, J., {Zuckerman}, B., {Becklin}, E.~E., {Tholen}, D.~J., \&
777: {Hawarden}, T. 1991, \apj, 374, 330
778:
779: \bibitem[{{Perryman} {et~al.}(1997){Perryman}, {Lindegren}, {Kovalevsky},
780: {Hoeg}, {Bastian}, {Bernacca}, {Cr{\' e}z{\' e}}, {Donati}, {Grenon}, {van
781: Leeuwen}, {van der Marel}, {Mignard}, {Murray}, {Le Poole}, {Schrijver},
782: {Turon}, {Arenou}, {Froeschl{\' e}}, \& {Petersen}}]{hip}
783: {Perryman}, M.~A.~C., {et~al.} 1997, \aap, 323, L49
784:
785: \bibitem[{{Probst} \& {Oconnell}(1982)}]{probst82}
786: {Probst}, R.~G. \& {Oconnell}, R.~W. 1982, \apjl, 252, L69
787:
788: \bibitem[{{Reach} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Reach}, {Kuchner}, {von Hippel},
789: {Burrows}, {Mullally}, {Kilic}, \& {Winget}}]{reach05b}
790: {Reach}, W.~T., {Kuchner}, M.~J., {von Hippel}, T., {Burrows}, A., {Mullally},
791: F., {Kilic}, M., \& {Winget}, D.~E. 2005{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 635, L161
792:
793: \bibitem[{{Reach} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Reach}, {Megeath}, {Cohen},
794: {Hora}, {Carey}, {Surace}, {Willner}, {Barmby}, {Wilson}, {Glaccum},
795: {Lowrance}, {Marengo}, \& {Fazio}}]{reach05}
796: {Reach}, W.~T., {et~al.} 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \pasp,
797: 117, 978
798:
799: \bibitem[{{Tremaine}(1993)}]{tremaine92}
800: {Tremaine}, S. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 36: Planets Around Pulsars, 335--344
801:
802: \bibitem[{{Tremblay} \& {Bergeron}(2006)}]{tremblay06}
803: {Tremblayn}, P.~. \& {Bergeron}, P. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
804:
805: \bibitem[{{van Altena} {et~al.}(2001){van Altena}, {Lee}, \&
806: {Hoffleit}}]{vanaltena95}
807: {van Altena}, W.~F., {Lee}, J.~T., \& {Hoffleit}, E.~D. 2001, VizieR Online
808: Data Catalog, 1238, 0
809:
810: \bibitem[von Hippel et al.(2007)]{vonhippel07} von Hippel, T.,
Kuchner, M.~J., Kilic, M., Mullally, F., \& Reach, W.~T.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0703473
811:
812: \bibitem[{{Wolff} {et~al.}(2001){Wolff}, {Kruk}, {Koester}, {Allard}, {Ferlet},
813: \& {Vidal-Madjar}}]{wolff01}
814: {Wolff}, B., {Kruk}, J.~W., {Koester}, D., {Allard}, N.~F., {Ferlet}, R., \&
815: {Vidal-Madjar}, A. 2001, \aap, 373, 674
816:
817: \bibitem[{{Wood}(1992)}]{wood92}
818: {Wood}, M.~A. 1992, \apj, 386, 539
819:
820: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} \& {Becklin}(1987)}]{zuckerman87}
821: {Zuckerman}, B. \& {Becklin}, E.~E. 1987, Nature, 330, 138
822:
823: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} \& {Becklin}(1992)}]{zuckerman92}
824: ---. 1992, \apj, 386, 260
825:
826: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} {et~al.}(2003){Zuckerman}, {Koester}, {Reid}, \& {H{\"
827: u}nsch}}]{zuckerman03}
828: {Zuckerman}, B., {Koester}, D., {Reid}, I.~N., \& {H{\" u}nsch}, M. 2003, \apj,
829: 596, 477
830:
831: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} \& {Reid}(1998)}]{zuckerman98}
832: {Zuckerman}, B. \& {Reid}, I.~N. 1998, \apjl, 505, L143
833:
834: \end{thebibliography}
835:
836: \clearpage
837:
838: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccccccc}
839: %table of targets with age, mass, effective temperature
840: \tablecolumns{9}
841: \tablewidth{0pc}
842: \tablecaption{\label{tab:targs} Properties of the Target White Dwarfs}
843: \tablehead{
844: \colhead{WD} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{M$_f$} & \colhead{T$_{eff}$} & \colhead{t$_{cool}$} & \colhead{D} & \colhead{M$_i$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{t$_{cool}$+t$_{MS}$} & $\tau_D$ & \colhead{References} \\
845: & & \colhead{(M$_\odot$)} & \colhead{(K)} & \colhead{(Gyr)} & \colhead{(pc)} & \colhead{(M$_\odot$)} & \colhead{(Gyr)} & log (yr) & }
846: \startdata
847: 0208+396 & G 74-7 & 0.60 & 7310 & 1.4 & 17 & 2.1 & 3.2 & 3.78 & 1,4 \\
848: 0243-026 & G 75-39 & 0.70 & 6820 & 2.3 & 21 & 3.2 & 2.8 & 3.39 & 1,4 \\
849: 0245+541 & G 174-14 & 0.76 & 5280 & 6.9 & 10 & 4.6 & 7.2 & 4.47 & 1,4 \\
850: 1257+278 & G 149-28 & 0.58 & 8540 & 0.9 & 34 & 1.7 & 3.3 & 3.26 & 1,4 \\
851: 1620-391 & CD-38$^\circ$10980 & 0.66 & 24406 & 0.1 & 12 & 3.1 & 0.7 & & 2,3 \\
852: \enddata
853: \tablenotetext{a}{See Equation \ref{eqn:mass} for the calculation of
854: M$_i$ and the WDs' total ages.}
855: \tablerefs{(1) \citet{bergeron01} (2) \citet{bragaglia95} (3) \citet{vanaltena95} (4) \citet{koester06}}
856: \end{deluxetable}
857:
858: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
859: \tablecolumns{6}
860: \tablewidth{0pc}
861: \tablecaption{\label{tab:obs} Observations}
862: \tablehead{
863: \colhead{WD} & \colhead{AOR Key} & \colhead{Exposure Time} & \colhead{Dither Points} & \colhead{Date} & \colhead{Start Time} \\
864: & & \colhead{(s)} & & & \colhead{(UT)}
865: }
866: \startdata
867: 0208+396 & 11389184 & 100 & 30 & 2005-01-17 & 20:35:48 \\
868: 0243-026 & 11389440 & 100 & 30 & 2005-01-16 & 15:44:34 \\
869: 0245+541 & 11389696 & 100 & 30 & 2005-02-19 & 03:34:52 \\
870: 1257+278 & 11389952 & 100 & 30 & 2005-06-13 & 03:18:19 \\
871: 1620-391 & 11390208 & 30 & 75 & 2005-03-30 & 10:12:15 \\
872: \enddata
873: \end{deluxetable}
874:
875: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
876: \tablewidth{0pc}
877: \tablecolumns{9}
878: \tablecaption{\label{tab:fluxes}Predicted and Observed Fluxes in $\mu$Jy}
879: \tablehead{
880: \colhead{WD} & \colhead{[3.6]$_p$} & \colhead{[3.6]$_o$} & \colhead{[4.5]$_p$} & \colhead{[4.5]$_o$} & \colhead{[5.8]$_p$} & \colhead{[5.8]$_o$} & \colhead{[8.0]$_p$} & \colhead{[8.0]$_o$} \\
881: }
882: \startdata
883: 0208+396 & 1039 & 1063$\pm$35 & 669 & 676$\pm$22 & 426 & 442$\pm$16 & 238 & 231$\pm$11 \\
884: 0243-026 & 472 & 479$\pm$16 & 307 & 294$\pm$10 & 196 & 198$\pm$7 & 110 & 102$\pm$5 \\
885: 0245+541 & 1333 & 1305$\pm$43 & 894 & 848$\pm$28 & 587 & 583$\pm$20 & 336 & 332$\pm$12 \\
886: 1257+278 & 300 & 290$\pm$10 & 192 & 175$\pm$6 & 122 & 124$\pm$5 & 68 & 71$\pm$4 \\
887: 1620-391 & 5100 & 5162$\pm$170 & 3204 & 3050$\pm$90 & 2006 & 2008$\pm$67 & 1097 & 1050$\pm$35\\
888: \enddata
889: \end{deluxetable}
890:
891: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
892: \tablewidth{0pc}
893: \tablecaption{\label{tab:limits} Excess Limits}
894: \tablehead{
895: \colhead{WD} & \colhead{Companion Limit} & \colhead{$i$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$R_{in}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Dust Mass\tablenotemark{c}} \\
896: & \colhead{M$_J$} & \colhead{$i$} & \colhead{R$_\odot$} & \colhead{g}
897: }
898: \startdata
899: 0208+396 & 20 & 2.9$^\circ$ & 0.7 & 2$\times$10$^{20}$ \\
900: 0243-026 & 14 & 4.7$^\circ$ & 0.5 & 2$\times$10$^{20}$ \\
901: 0245+541 & 20 & 1.6$^\circ$ & 0.4 & 1$\times$10$^{20}$ \\
902: 1257+278 & 20 & 10.7$^\circ$ & 0.7 & 8$\times$10$^{20}$ \\
903: 1620-391 & 13 & 0.1$^\circ$ & 5.0 & - \\
904: \enddata
905: \tablenotetext{a}{Upper inclination limit for optically thick disk to avoid
906: detection.}
907: \tablenotetext{b}{Lower limit for inner radius of optically thick disk.}
908: \tablenotetext{c}{Upper mass limit of dust for optically thin disk.}
909: \end{deluxetable}
910:
911: \clearpage
912:
913: \begin{figure}
914: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
915: \caption{\label{fig:wd02} NICMOS F110W images of
916: WD 0208+396 (left) and WD 0243-026 (right). The contours are from IRAC channel
917: two images where the levels correspond to 0.1\%, 1\%, and 10\% of the total
918: observed flux from the white dwarf.}
919: \end{figure}
920: \begin{figure}
921: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
922: \caption{\label{fig:wd541} NICMOS F110W images of
923: WD 0245+541 (left) and WD 1257+271 (right). The contours are from IRAC channel
924: two images where the levels correspond to 0.1\%, 1\%, and 10\% of the total
925: observed flux from the white dwarf.}
926: \end{figure}
927: \begin{figure}
928: \plotone{f3.eps}
929: \caption{\label{fig:wd16} NICMOS F160W image of
930: WD 1620-391. The contours are from IRAC channel
931: two images where the levels correspond to 0.1\%, 1\%, and 10\% of the total
932: observed flux from the white dwarf.}
933: \end{figure}
934:
935: \begin{figure}
936: \plotone{f4.eps}
937: \caption{\label{fig:74graph} Comparison of observed fluxes for WD 0208+396
938: (diamonds) and predicted fluxes (solid line) based on the models of \citet{bergeron01}. The bottom panel shows a close-up of the residuals in the IRAC channels as well as the differences compared to a pure blackbody SED (dashed line).}
939: \end{figure}
940:
941: \begin{figure}
942: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
943: \caption{\label{fig:panel1} Same as \ref{fig:74graph}, but for WD 0243-026 (left) and WD 0245+541 (right).}
944: \end{figure}
945:
946: \begin{figure}
947: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
948: \caption{\label{fig:panel2} Same as \ref{fig:74graph}, but for WD 1257+278 (left) and WD 1620-391 (right).}
949: \end{figure}
950:
951: \begin{figure}
952: \plotone{f7.eps}
953: \caption{\label{fig:comparison} Comparison between the measured flux ratio
954: of WD 1257+278 to WD 1620-391 (squares) and that predicted by white dwarf models (dashed line). WD 1257+278 shows a significant deficit in its absolute photometry which is not reproduced relative to WD 1620-391.}
955: \end{figure}
956:
957: \begin{figure}
958: \plotone{f8.eps}
959: \caption{\label{fig:wd1620prop} Measured proper motion in declination vs. proper motion in right ascension for observed sources close to WD 1620-391. The
960: solid circle represents the 3$\sigma$ scatter of the observed objects, while
961: the square denotes where an object co-moving with WD 1620-391 would lie.}
962: \end{figure}
963:
964:
965:
966: \end{document}
967: