1:
2: %\include{graphicsx}
3:
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6:
7: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
8: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
9:
10: %% allow the output to be in ApJ Lett format
11: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
12:
13: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
14: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
15: %% the \begin{document} command.
16: %%
17: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
18: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
19: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.0 Author Guide
20: %% for information.
21:
22: \newcommand{\myemail}{bbiller@as.arizona.edu}
23:
24: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
25:
26: \slugcomment{}
27:
28: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
29: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
30: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
31: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
32: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
33: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
34:
35: \shorttitle{The First Distance to an Extrasolar Planet}
36:
37: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
38: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
39:
40: \begin{document}
41:
42: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
43: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
44: %% you desire.
45:
46: \title{The First Direct Distance and Luminosity
47: Determination for a Self-Luminous
48: Giant Exoplanet: The Trigonometric Parallax to 2MASSW J1207334-393254Ab}
49:
50:
51: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
52: %% author and affiliation information.
53: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
54: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
55: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
56: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
57:
58: \author{B.A. Biller$^1$ $\&$ L.M. Close$^1$}
59:
60: \email{bbiller@as.arizona.edu}
61:
62: \affil{$^1$Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
63:
64: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
65: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
66: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
67: %% affiliation.
68:
69: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
70: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
71: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
72: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
73: %% editorial office after submission.
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: We present the first trigonometric parallax and distance for a young
77: planetary mass object. A likely TW Hya cluster member,
78: 2MASSW J1207334-393254Ab (hereafter 2M1207Ab) is
79: an M8 brown dwarf with a mid to late L type
80: planetary mass companion. Recent observations of spectral
81: variability have uncovered clear signs
82: of disk accretion and outflow,
83: constraining the age of the system to $<$10 Myr. Because
84: of its late spectral type and the clearly youthful nature of the
85: system, 2M1207b is very likely a planetary mass object.
86: We have measured the first accurate distance and
87: luminosity for a self-luminous planetary mass object.
88: Our parallax measurements are accurate to $<$2 mas (1$\sigma$)
89: for 2M1207Ab.
90: With 11 total epochs of data taken from January 2006 through April 2
91: 007 (475 images for 2M1207Ab), we determine
92: a distance of 58.8$\pm$7.0 pc (17.0$^{+2.3}_{-1.8}$ mas, 1.28$\sigma$)
93: to 2M1207Ab and a calculated luminosity of
94: 0.68-2.2$\times$10$^{-5}$ L$_{\odot}$ for 2M1207b.
95: Hence 2M1207Ab is a clear member of the TW Hya cluster in terms of
96: its distance, proper motions, and youthful nature. However, as
97: previously noted by Mohanty and co-workers, 2M1207b's luminosity
98: appears low compared to its temperature according to evolutionary models.
99: \end{abstract}
100:
101: \keywords{binaries: brown dwarfs, extrasolar planets}
102:
103: \section {Introduction}
104: A very likely member of the $\sim$8 Myr TW
105: Hydrae association (at distances of 35-70 pc, Mohanty et al. 2003, Mamajek
106: 2005), 2MASSW J1207334-393254A (hereafter 2M1207A)
107: is a young M8 brown dwarf with a late L companion (2M1207b, Chauvin et
108: al. 2004, spectral type from Mohanty et al. 2007). Recent
109: observations of spectral variability (Scholz and Jayawardhana 2006)
110: have revealed accretion and jet-like
111: features, constraining the age of the system
112: to $<$10 Myr; with such a young age and low temperature,
113: 2M1207b is very likely a planetary mass object.
114:
115: Interestingly,
116: previous distance estimates for this object have produced somewhat conflicting
117: results. Using the measured K band magnitudes and extrapolating a K
118: band absolute magnitude for a 8 Myr brown dwarf (from trends in Song
119: et al. 2003), Chauvin et al. (2004) estimated a photometric
120: distance of $\sim$70 pc at the outer edge of TW Hya from their
121: extrapolated distance modulus. At this age and distance, the models of
122: Baraffe et al. (2001) predict that the M8 dwarf should have a mass of
123: 25 M$_{Jup}$ and the companion should have a mass of $\sim$5
124: M$_{Jup}$. Mamajek (2005) estimates a theoretical moving cluster distance to
125: 2M1207 of 53$\pm$6 pc and infers masses for 2M1207A and b (with an
126: age of 8 Myr) of $\sim$21 M$_{Jup}$ and $\sim$3-4 M$_{Jup}$
127: respectively. From precision HST proper motions,
128: Song et al. (2006)
129: also estimate a similar moving cluster
130: distance -- 59$\pm$7 pc, and hence similar masses.
131: However, using these closer distance estimates, 2M1207A becomes
132: underluminous and falls nearer the locus of the (120 Myr) Pleiades on a
133: color-magnitude diagram (Fig. 1) -- which is inconsistent with an
134: object age of $<$10 Myr at $\sim$50 pc.
135: Recently, Mamajek and Meyer (2007) have revised the estimated
136: theoretical moving cluster distance to 2M1207 to 66$\pm$5 pc.
137: Thus, a direct distance measurement via parallax would help clarify this
138: situation and additionally would constrain a number of
139: important properties for this object. Since the youth ($<$10 Myr)
140: and hence low mass nature (M$<$13 M$_{Jup}$) of 2M1207b has recently been
141: confirmed, we have also measured the first accurate luminosity for a
142: self-luminous planetary mass object.
143:
144: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
145:
146: We have acquired 11 epochs of data stretching from January 2006
147: to April 2007 with ANDICAM at the SMARTS 1.3 m telescope on Cerro Tololo.
148: Both 2M1207 and the standard object LHS 2397a (an M8 dwarf with
149: an L7.5 brown dwarf companion with a well known parallax of
150: 62.3$\pm$4.0 mas -- Tinney (1996)) were observed for
151: 40 minutes over transit. Observations
152: were repeated over multiple nights bracketing the new moon each month.
153: Over the entire observing period, 475 I band data frames with per frame
154: exposure time of 300 s were acquired for 2M
155: 1207 and 491 I band data frames were acquired for LHS 2397a.
156:
157: The M8 primary of 2M1207
158: has I=15.8 (Scholz et al. 2005) so
159: parallax can be determined in the visible. The
160: L5-9.5 secondary of 2M1207 has K=16.9 (Chauvin et al. 2004), is
161: even fainter in the visible (I$>$19), and lies within 0.8" of its
162: primary, thus it is essentially invisible to the 1.3m in the optical (and
163: is not apparent in our images). Its presence does not affect our
164: attainable astrometric precision. LHS 2397a is comparably bright as
165: 2M1207 and was chosen as a standard object due to the fact that
166: both are late M dwarf + mid to late L dwarf binaries (Freed et al. 2003).
167: Our measurement of the parallax of LHS 2397a (previously found to be
168: 62.3$\pm$4.0 mas, Tinney (1996)) serves as
169: a test of our observational and data reduction procedures.
170: Each target object was always placed at
171: 82 pix E and 148 pix N of the center of the chip at pixel
172: (330, 660). A number of bright stars lie right outside the LHS 2397a field;
173: we chose to place our target objects in the upper left quadrant of the chip
174: as opposed to the center of the chip in order to keep these bright stars
175: and their saturation bleeds off of the CCD.
176:
177: A dedicated parallax data analysis pipeline was used to reduce these data.
178: This pipeline aligns each data frame to a master frame, removes cosmic
179: rays, and performs PSF fitting
180: photometry for 139 stars per frame using the DAOphot allstar task
181: (Stetson 1987). The ANDICAM optical detector is a Fairchild 447
182: 2048$\times$2048 CCD and was used in 2$\times$2 binning mode
183: yielding a nominal
184: platescale of 0.369 arcsec/pixel (ANDICAM website). Five bright stars
185: in different parts of the field
186: were used to calibrate x and y plate scale changes on the CCD. The
187: separations between the 5 platescale calibration stars were measured for
188: each data frame and then normalized to the average value over all frames.
189: These normalized values were used as frame by frame platescale corrections.
190: We found platescale variations of
191: less than 0.06$\%$ over the $\sim$1.5 year time baseline of our observations''
192:
193: The position of 2M1207 and LHS 2397a in RA and DEC as a function of
194: time is shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:parallax}.
195: Many reference stars as bright or brighter than the target
196: are available
197: in both the 2M1207 and LHS 2397a fields; thus, we have a good
198: distribution of baselines around both objects from which to calculate
199: parallax. The position of 2M1207 and LHS
200: 2397a were measured relative to 40 and 15 reference stars
201: respectively.
202:
203: To correct for a slightly variable x and y
204: ``pincushion'' distortion (first derivative of the x and
205: y platescale) on the chip, we measured the apparent motion
206: on the sky for the 5 stars nearest 2M1207 on the chip.
207: These stars are faint and likely significantly behind 2M1207
208: and thus presumed background so the motion observed for these
209: should calibrate the local distortion of the chip near our target.
210: Two of these stars showed
211: apparent space motions of their own and were thus discarded.
212: The motions from the remaining three stars were then averaged together
213: to create a first derivative platescale correction curve.
214: This correction curve was then
215: subtracted from the measured parallax curve for 2M1207. A similar
216: correction was also performed for the LHS 2397a data.
217:
218: To determine the trigonometric
219: parallax to 2M1207 and LHS 2397a, we fit (least
220: squares fit) our measured parallax data to a parallax and
221: proper motion model for each dataset.
222: Precise HST proper motions for 2M1207
223: of $\mu_{\alpha}$ = -60.2$\pm$4.9 mas/yr and $\mu_{\delta}$ =
224: -25.0$\pm$4.9 mas/yr were adopted from Song et al. (2006).
225: Proper motions for LHS 2397a of $\mu_{\alpha}$ = -508.0$\pm$20.0
226: mas/yr and $\mu_{\delta}$ = -80.0$\pm$20.0 mas/yr
227: were adopted from Salim $\&$ Gould (2003).
228: Fits were performed both holding proper motion fixed and also fitting
229: to proper motion; for both 2M1207 and LHS 2397a we retrieve the
230: published proper motions to within the published errors.
231: We find that the error in published proper motion is negligible
232: compared to per frame measurement errors.
233: Error in each nightly parallax measurement was calculated from the rms
234: of measurements taken over that night.
235: Measurements from late 2006
236: (2006.9 -- 2007.1 epoch) were discarded since these
237: data were taken off transit and
238: thus suffer considerably from Differential Color Refraction
239: (DCR, see, e.g. Dahn et al. 2002).
240:
241: In order to estimate the error in our trigonometric
242: parallax measurement, a Monte-Carlo
243: ensemble of 10000 datasets was simulated by multiplying
244: our measured position errors by a random number distribution pulled from
245: a Gaussian distribution, then adding that random error to the measured
246: position. An error-free trigonometric parallax model was then fitted and
247: chi-square minimized to each of these simulated observations. The adopted
248: distance is the mean of this 10000 simulated observation distribution of fits
249: and the adopted error is the 1.28$\times$ the
250: standard deviation of this distribution, corresponding to an 80$\%$
251: confidence interval.
252: Histograms of the distributions of observation fits are presented in
253: Fig.~\ref{fig:hist}.
254:
255: We estimate a correction from relative
256: to absolute parallax of 1.2$\pm$0.9 mas, based on
257: I band photometry of 40 reference stars for 2M1207 and 15 reference
258: stars for LHS 2397a. This correction was obtained by
259: adopting an average spectral type of M0 for our relatively faint field
260: reference stars (I = 15 - 18 mag), calculating photometric parallaxes
261: for each reference star and then
262: employing the median photometric parallax of the reference stars
263: as the estimated correction.
264:
265: \section{Results and Discussion}
266:
267: For 2M1207Ab, we acquired a best fit relative parallax of
268: 15.8$^{+2.1}_{-1.6}$ mas, corresponding to an
269: absolute parallax of 17.0$^{+2.3}_{-1.8}$ mas and a
270: best fit distance of 58.8$\pm$7.0 pc (all 1.28$\sigma$ errors). For our
271: standard LHS 2397a, we acquired a best fit relative parallax of
272: 66.7$^{+5.2}_{-4.6}$ mas, corresponding to an absolute parallax of
273: 67.9$^{+5.3}_{-4.7}$ mas (similar to the previous result of 62.6$\pm$4.0 mas,
274: Tinney 1996) and a best fit distance of 14.7$\pm$1.0 pc.
275: Fewer reference stars were available for the LHS 2397a
276: standard object than for 2M1207, leading to a lower precision result.
277: Parallax results are presented in Table 1. Absolute magnitudes derived
278: using our measured distance are presented in Table 2.
279:
280: Adopting an apparent J magnitude of 13.00$\pm$0.03
281: (Mohanty et al. 2007) and BC$_J$=2.0 for a M8 (Dahn et al. 2002),
282: we estimate a total
283: luminosity for 2M1207A of 2.7$\times$10$^{-3}$ L$_{\odot}$.
284: Adopting an apparent J magnitude of 20.00$\pm$0.02
285: (Mohanty et al. 2007) and BC$_J$=1.5 for a late L dwarf
286: (Dahn et al. 2002), we estimate a total luminosity for 2M1207b
287: of 6.8$\times$10$^{-6}$ L$_{\odot}$.
288: We repeated this calculation in the Ks band: adopting m$_{Ks}$=11.95$\pm$0.03
289: (Chauvin et al. 2004)
290: and BC$_K$=3.2 (Golimowski et al. 2004)
291: for 2M1207A and converting m$_{Ks}$ to m$_K$ using the
292: transformations from Carpenter (2001), we estimate a total luminosity of
293: 2.4$\times$10$^{-3}$ L$_{\odot}$, consistent with the J band estimate.
294: However, adopting m$_{Ks}$=16.93$\pm$0.11 (Chauvin et al. 2004)
295: and BC$_K$=3.3-3.4 (Golimowski et al. 2004) for 2M1207b and converting
296: m$_{Ks}$ to m$_K$ using the transformations from Stephens \& Leggett (2004),
297: we estimate
298: a total luminosity of 2.0-2.2$\times$10$^{-5}$ L$_{\odot}$ -- 3$\times$
299: brighter than
300: the J band estimate. The culprit here is likely the bolometric corrections
301: used -- which, while appropriate for older field objects are not entirely
302: appropriate for this very young, very cool object.
303: Accordingly, we do not assign error
304: bars to our luminosity estimates because of the uncertainties in the
305: bolometric corrections. 2M1207b is somewhat redder (J-K)
306: than field objects of the same spectral types. Thus, BC$_K$ is especially
307: suspect, since the K band flux of 2M1207b represents a larger portion of
308: its total bolometric flux than is true for comparable spectral type field
309: objects. Estimated luminosities are
310: presented in Table 2.
311:
312: We estimated mass and effective temperatures for 2M1207Ab using only
313: our derived absolute magnitudes and the
314: DUSTY models of Chabrier et al. (2000) and Baraffe et al. (2001).
315: Adopting an isochronal age for the
316: TWA Hydra cluster of $\sim$8$^{+4}_{-3}$ Myr (Song et al. 2003;
317: Zuckerman \& Song 2004; Chauvin et al. 2004), we compared the absolute
318: J, H, K$_s$,
319: and L$^{\prime}$ colors (after converting from 2MASS to CIT magnitudes)
320: to the 5 and 10 Myr isochrones. 2M1207A
321: is consistent in color and luminosity with the 20-30 M$_{Jup}$ models.
322: 2M1207b is roughly consistent in luminosity
323: with the 3-7 M$_{Jup}$ models (early T spectral types) --
324: however, it possesses much redder colors than these models,
325: consistent with mid-to-late L dwarfs (6-10 M$_{Jup}$ models). This
326: color/luminosity mismatch has been previously noted by Mohanty et al. (2007)
327: among others -- 2M1207b possesses a mid-late L spectrum and colors,
328: but is underluminous for its age, possessing the luminosity expected of
329: an early T, yet no methane absorption is observed.
330: From spectral fitting, T$_{eff}$$\sim$1600 K for 2M1207b
331: (Mohanty et al. 2007), yet we derive
332: an incorrect model T$_{eff}$ of only 1260-1430 K. Put in other words,
333: according to the models 2M1207b is 10$\times$ too faint for its
334: spectral type and age. A comparison of model to observed properties is
335: presented in Table 3.
336:
337: At a distance of $\sim$50 pc, both 2M1207A and b are somewhat
338: underluminous for their respective spectral types (see Fig.~1).
339: Increasing the distance to 59 pc and adopting T$_{eff}$=2550$\pm$150 pc
340: (Mohanty et al. 2007) and age=5-10 Myr solves the underluminosity issue for
341: 2M1207A, which becomes consistent with the 30 M$_{Jup}$, 10 Myr DUSTY
342: models to within 0.2 mag.
343: However, adopting T$_{eff}$=1600$\pm$100 K (Mohanty et al. 2007) and
344: age=5-10 Myr, at a distance of 59 pc,
345: 2M1207b is still underluminous compared to the models by 2-3 mag in
346: JHK$_{s}$L$^{\prime}$. Thus, our increase in distance does not resolve
347: the issue of 2M1207b's underluminosity.
348:
349: A number of reasons for the lower than expected luminosity of 2M1207b
350: have been suggested.
351: Mohanty et al. 2007 suggest that an edge-on disk around 2M1207b produces
352: $\sim$2.5 mag of gray extinction (over JHK$_s$L$^{\prime}$)
353: and hence, the observed low luminosity.
354: Mamajek and Meyer (2007) suggest that 2M1207b may be a hot protoplanet
355: collision remnant. Additionally, while equally unlikely, 2M1207b may not
356: be coeval with 2M1207A and may indeed be an older, smaller
357: hence less luminous captured L dwarf (or rather, 2M1207A was captured
358: by an old $\sim$60 M$_{Jup}$ L dwarf). Indeed, the
359: measured colors, absolute magnitudes (JHK$_s$L$^{\prime}$), and luminosity
360: of 2M1207b
361: are consistent with that of a 10 Gyr 67 M$_{Jup}$ object with L spectral type
362: and T$_{eff}$=1500.
363:
364: The culprit could simply be the initial conditions of the evolutionary
365: models used to derive physical properties.
366: Marley et al. (2007) have noted that the ``hot-start'' evolutionary models
367: for planets and brown dwarfs such as those from both the Lyon and
368: Tucson groups (Baraffe et al. 2003, Burrows et al. 2003) possess very high
369: initial entropies and predict considerably
370: brighter luminosities for young high mass
371: planets than models which start with lower
372: entropy initial conditions (which may be more appropriate for planets which
373: form via core accretion). For 4-10 M$_{Jup}$ objects,
374: the Marley et al. (2007) models converge
375: with the standard evolutionary models by 100 Myr.
376: While 2M1207b most likely formed via fragmentation from a cloud core
377: rather than core accretion or gravitational collapse within 2M1207A's
378: small disk, the initial entropy conditions of its formation might
379: have been considerably lower than those utilized by
380: standard evolutionary models,
381: producing a lower luminosity for each spectral type than expected at
382: very young ages. In particular, inside a binary system, the initial
383: entropy conditions may have been different, presumably lower,
384: for a forming 8 M$_{Jup}$ object
385: interacting with a 30 M$_{Jup}$ ``primary'' than for a 8 M$_{Jup}$
386: object forming individually.
387: Mohanty
388: et al. (2007) claim that the models are not the culprit for 2M1207b's
389: underluminous nature, comparing it with the young, low mass brown dwarf
390: AB Pic B, whose colors, T$_{eff}$, and luminosity agree well with the models.
391: However, AB Pic is somewhat older than 2M1207Ab (30 Myr
392: vs. $<$10 Myr) and has a much wider separation between components
393: (250 AU vs. 50 AU), so it may have already converged to the
394: standard evolutionary model tracks.
395:
396: \section{Conclusions}
397:
398: We measured a distance of 58.8$\pm$7.0 pc (17.0$^{+2.3}_{-1.8}$ mas)
399: to 2M1207Ab and a luminosity of
400: 0.68-2.2$\times$10$^{-5}$ L$_{\odot}$ for 2M1207b,
401: making 2M1207Ab a clear member of the TW Hya cluster. While
402: 2M1207A now agrees well with evolutionary models, 2M1207b is still
403: 2-3 mag underluminous in JHK$_{s}$L$^{\prime}$
404: for its suggested T$_{eff}$ of 1600$\pm$100 K
405: (Mohanty et al. 2007) and age of $\sim$8$^{+4}_{-3}$ Myr
406: (for the TW Hya cluster, Song et al. 2003).
407:
408: \acknowledgements
409:
410: This publication is based on observations made with the NOAO 1.3m telescope
411: operated by the SMARTS consortium. We acknowledge the excellent telescope
412: queue support through the SMARTS consortium and would especially like to thank
413: Jenica Nelan, Charles Bailyn, Juan Espinoza, David Gonzalez, and
414: Alberto Pasten. We thank Matt Kenworthy for the suggestion of the
415: Monte Carlo observation fits and Eric Mamajek for useful suggestions.
416: BAB was supported by the NASA GSRP grant
417: NNG04GN95H and NASA Origins grant NNG05GL71G. LMC is supported by an NSF
418: CAREER award and the NASA Origins of the Solar System program.
419:
420:
421:
422: \begin{thebibliography}{}
423: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2001)]{bar01} Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.H. 2001, A\&A, 382, 563
424: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2003)]{bar03} Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T.S., Allard, F., $\&$ Hauschildt, P.H. 2003, A$\&$A 402, 701
425: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2003)]{bur03} Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D. \& Lunine, J. 2003, ApJ 596, 587
426: \bibitem[Carpenter(2001)]{car01} Carpenter, , J.~M.\ 2001, \aj,
427: 121, 2851
428: \bibitem[Chabrier et al.(2000)]{cha00} Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.H. 2000, ApJ,542, 464
429: \bibitem[Chauvin et al.(2004)]{cha04} Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.-L., \& Lowrance, P. 2004, A\&A, 425, L29
430: \bibitem[Dahn et al.(2002)]{dah02} Dahn, C. et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1170
431: \bibitem[Freed et al.(2003)]{fre03} Freed, M., Close, L.~M.,
432: \& Siegler, N.\ 2003, \apj, 584, 453
433: \bibitem[Golimowski et al.(2004)]{gol04} Golimowski, D., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 3516
434: \bibitem[Mamajek(2005)]{mam05} Mamajek, E. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1385
435: \bibitem[Mamajek \& Meyer(2007)]{mam07} Mamajek \& Meyer, in press.
436: \bibitem[Marley et al.(2007)]{mar07} Marley, M.~S., Fortney,
437: J.~J., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., \& Lissauer, J.~J.\ 2007, \apj, 655,
438: 541
439: \bibitem[Mart{\'{\i}}n et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...543..299M} Mart{\'{\i}}n,
440: E.~L., Brandner, W., Bouvier, J., Luhman, K.~L., Stauffer, J., Basri, G.,
441: Zapatero Osorio, M.~R., \& Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s, D.\ 2000, \apj, 543,
442: 299
443: \bibitem[Mohanty et al.(2003)]{moh03} Mohanty, S., Jayawardhana, R., \& Barrado y Navascu\'es, D. 2003, ApJ, 593, L109
444: \bibitem[Mohanty et al.(2007)]{moh07} Mohanty, S., Jayawardhana, R., Hu\'elamo, N., \& Mamajek, E. 2007, ApJ, 657, 1064
445: \bibitem[Salim \& Gould(2003)]{sal03} Salim, S., \& Gould, A.\ 2003, \apj, 582, 1011
446: \bibitem[Scholz et al.(2005)]{sch05} Scholz, A., Jayawardhana, R., \& Brandeker, A. 2005, ApJ, 629, L41
447: \bibitem[Scholz \& Jayawardhana(2006)]{sch06} Scholz, A., \& Jayawardhana, R. 2006, ApJ, 638, 1056
448: \bibitem[Song et al.(2003)]{son03} Song, I., Zuckerman, B., \& Bessell, M. 2003, ApJ, 599, 342
449: \bibitem[Song et al.(2006)]{son06} Song, I., Schneider, G., Zuckerman, B., Farihi, J., Becklin, E. E., Bessell, M. S., Lowrance, P., \& Macintosh, B. A. 2006, ApJ, 652, 724
450: \bibitem[Stephens \& Leggett(2004)]{ste04} Stephens, D., \& Leggett, S. 2004, PASP, 116, 9
451: \bibitem[Stetson(1987)]{ste87} Stetson, P.~B.\ 1987, \pasp,
452: 99, 191
453: \bibitem[Tinney(1996)]{tin96} Tinney, C.~G.\ 1996, \mnras,
454: 281, 644
455: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Song(2004)]{zuc04} Zuckerman, B., \& Song, I. 2004, ARA\&A, 42, 685
456: \end{thebibliography}
457:
458: \clearpage
459:
460: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
461: \tablecolumns{5}
462: \tablewidth{0pc}
463: \tablecaption{Parallax Results}
464: \tablehead{
465: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{DEC} & \colhead{$\pi$(relative)} &
466: \colhead{$\pi$(absolute)} & \colhead{Distance} }
467: \startdata
468: 2M1207Ab & 12 07 33.4 & -39 32 54.0 & 15.8$^{+2.1}_{-1.6}$ mas & 17.0$^{+2.3}_{-1.8}$ mas & 58.8$\pm$7.0 pc \\
469: LHS 2397a & 11 21 49.2 & -13 13 08.4 & 66.7$^{+4.8}_{-4.2}$ mas & 67.9$^{+5.3}_{-4.7}$ mas & 14.7$\pm$1.0 pc \\
470: \enddata
471: \end{deluxetable}
472:
473:
474: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
475: %\rotate
476: \tablecolumns{6}
477: \tablewidth{0pc}
478: \tablecaption{Properties of 2M1207Ab}
479: \tablehead{
480: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{M$_J$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{M$_H$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{M$_{Ks}$\tablenotemark{b}}& \colhead{M$_{L}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Luminosity (L$_{obs}$)}}
481: \startdata
482: 2M1207A & 9.15$^{+0.28}_{-0.24}$ & 8.54$^{+0.28}_{-0.24}$ & 8.10$^{+0.28}_{-0.24}$ & 7.53$^{+0.29}_{-0.24}$ & 2.4-2.7$\times$10$^{-3}$ \\
483: 2M1207b & 16.15$^{+0.34}_{-0.31}$ & 14.24$^{+0.35}_{-0.32}$ & 13.08$^{+0.30}_{-0.26}$ & 11.43$^{+0.31}_{-0.28}$ & 0.68-2.2$\times$10$^{-5}$ \\
484: \enddata
485: \tablenotetext{a}{Apparent magnitude from Mohanty et al. 2007}
486: \tablenotetext{b}{Apparent magnitude from Chauvin et al. 2004}
487: \end{deluxetable}
488:
489: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
490: \tablecolumns{5}
491: \tablewidth{0pc}
492: \tablecaption{Comparison of Measured to Model Properties (5-10 Myr DUSTY models)}
493: \tablehead{
494: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{T$_{effobs}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{T$_{effmodel}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Mass from L$_{obs}$} & \colhead{Mass from T$_{effobs}$\tablenotemark{a}}}
495: \startdata
496: 2M1207A & 2550$\pm$150 K & 2500-2700 K & 20-30 M$_{Jup}$ & 20-30 M$_{Jup}$ \\
497: 2M1207b & 1600$\pm$100 K & 1260-1430 K & 3-7 M$_{Jup}$ & 6-10 M$_{Jup}$ \\
498: \enddata
499: \tablenotetext{a}{from Mohanty et al. 2007}
500: \tablenotetext{b}{T$_{eff}$ derived from age and luminosity (L$_{obs}$).}
501: \end{deluxetable}
502:
503: \clearpage
504:
505: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
506: %% each one.
507:
508: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
509: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
510: %%
511:
512: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
513: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
514:
515:
516: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
517: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
518: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
519: %% inside the \tablecaption.
520:
521: \begin{figure}
522: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f1.eps}
523: \caption{M$_{K}$ vs. J-K HR diagram.
524: Previous distance estimates for 2M1207A have led to a number of
525: inconsistencies. J and K magnitudes are taken from the 2MASS survey.
526: Triangle points are non-binary Pleiades members
527: from Mart\'in et al. (2000). At the Mamajek (2005)
528: moving cluster distance of 53 pc, 2M1207A falls very close to the locus of
529: the Pleiades (120 Myr). This is inconsistent with the age of $<10$
530: Myr for this object unless this object is extincted by circumstellar
531: dust. At a distance of 59 pc, 2M1207A is considerably above the
532: locus of the Pleiades, consistent with an age of $<10$ Myr.}
533: \label{fig:HR}
534: \end{figure}
535:
536: \begin{figure}
537: \begin{center}
538: \begin{tabular}{cc}
539: \includegraphics[width=3.in]{f2a.eps} &
540: \includegraphics[width=3.in]{f2b.eps} \\
541: \includegraphics[width=3.in]{f2c.eps} &
542: \includegraphics[width=3.in]{f2d.eps} \\
543: \end{tabular}
544: \end{center}
545: \caption{Histograms of the distributions of Monte-Carlo simulation
546: observation fits before absolute parallax correction.
547: Upper left: fits to the RA component of 2M1207.
548: Upper right: fits to the DEC component of 2M1207. Lower left: fits to the
549: RA component of LHS 2397a.
550: Lower right: fits to the DEC component of LHS 2397a.
551: The solid line marks the mean of each distribution and the dashed lines mark
552: 1$\sigma$ from the mean.}
553: \label{fig:hist}
554: \end{figure}
555:
556: \begin{figure}
557: \begin{center}
558: \begin{tabular}{cc}
559: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f3a.eps} &
560: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{f3b.eps} \\
561: \end{tabular}
562: \end{center}
563: \caption{RA and DEC measured relative motion curves (before absolute
564: parallax correction) for 2M1207A (left) and
565: LHS 2397a (right). The dashed
566: lines represent the 15.8 mas / 63 pc
567: relative parallax best fit model for 2M1207A and
568: the 66.7 mas / 15 pc relative parallax best fit model for LHS 2397a.
569: Correcting for absolute parallax, we find an
570: absolute parallax of 17.0$^{+2.3}_{-1.8}$ mas and a
571: best fit distance of 58.8$\pm$7.0 pc (all 1.28$\sigma$ errors) for
572: 2M1207A and an absolute parallax of
573: 67.9$^{+5.3}_{-4.7}$ mas (similar to the previous result of 62.6$\pm$4.0 mas,
574: Tinney 1996) and a best fit distance of 14.7$\pm$1.0 pc for our
575: standard LHS 2397a.}
576: \label{fig:parallax}
577: \end{figure}
578:
579:
580: %% The following command ends yourmanuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
581: %% that appears after it.
582: \end{document}
583:
584:
585:
586:
587:
588:
589:
590:
591:
592:
593:
594:
595:
596:
597:
598:
599:
600:
601:
602:
603:
604:
605:
606:
607:
608:
609:
610:
611:
612: