1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: \newcommand{\pmra}{$\mu_{\alpha *}$}
5: \newcommand{\pmdec}{$\mu_{\delta}$}
6: \newcommand{\masyr}{mas\,yr$^{-1}$}
7: \newcommand{\kms}{km\,s$^{-1}$}
8: \newcommand{\vtan}{$V_{tan}$}
9: \newcommand{\teff}{${\rm T_{eff}}$}
10: \newcommand{\rjup}{${\rm R_{Jup}}$}
11: \newcommand{\mearth}{${\rm M_{\earth}}$}
12: \newcommand{\mjup}{${\rm M_{Jup}}$}
13: \newcommand{\rearth}{${\rm R}_{\earth}$}
14: \newcommand{\gcc}{g\,cm$^{-3}$}
15: \newcommand{\gcmsq}{g\,cm$^{-2}$}
16: \newcommand{\cmss}{cm\,s$^{-2}$}
17: \newcommand{\logl}{log(L/L$_{\odot}$)}
18: \newcommand{\logg}{log($g$)}
19: \newcommand{\jh}{($J$-$H$)}
20: \newcommand{\av}{A$_V$}
21: \newcommand{\ak}{A$_K$}
22: \newcommand{\bck}{BC$_K$}
23:
24: \slugcomment{Accepted to ApJ Letters, 4 September 2007}
25: \shorttitle{2M1207B}
26: \shortauthors{Mamajek \& Meyer}
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \title{An Improbable Solution to the Underluminosity of 2M1207B:\\
30: A Hot Protoplanet Collision Afterglow}
31:
32: \author{Eric E. Mamajek}
33: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, 02138}
34:
35: \and
36:
37: \author{Michael R. Meyer}
38: \affil{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721}
39:
40: \begin{abstract} We introduce an alternative hypothesis to explain the
41: very low luminosity of the cool (L-type) companion to the $\sim$25
42: M$_{Jup}$ $\sim$8~Myr-old brown dwarf 2M1207A. Recently, Mohanty et
43: al. (2007) found that effective temperature estimates for 2M1207B
44: (1600\,$\pm$\,100 K) are grossly inconsistent with its lying on the
45: same isochrone as the primary, being a factor of $\sim$10
46: underluminous at all bands between $I$ (0.8\,$\mu$m) and $L'$
47: (3.6\,$\mu$m). Mohanty et al. explain this discrepency by suggesting
48: that 2M1207B is an 8 M$_{Jup}$ object surrounded by an edge-on disk
49: comprised of large dust grains producing 2.5$^m$ of achromatic
50: extinction. We offer an alternative explanation: the apparent flux
51: reflects the actual source luminosity. Given the temperature, we
52: infer a small radius ($\sim$49,000 km), and for a range of plausible
53: densities, we estimate a mass $<$ M$_{Jup}$. We suggest that 2M1207B
54: is a hot protoplanet collision afterglow and show that the radiative
55: timescale for such an object is $>$ $\sim$1\%\ the age of the
56: system. If our hypothesis is correct, the surface gravity of 2M1207B
57: should be an order of magnitude lower than predicted by Mohanty et
58: al. (2007).
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \keywords{
62: circumstellar matter ---
63: planetary systems : formation ---
64: planetary systems : protoplanetary disks ---
65: stars: individual (\objectname{2MASSW J1207334-393254}) ---
66: stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs ---
67: stars: pre-main-sequence
68: }
69:
70: \section{Introduction}
71:
72: While radial velocity surveys and other techniques have yielded over
73: 200 extrasolar planets, there are to date no convincing images of an
74: extrasolar planet around a star. A few candidate ``planetary mass
75: objects'' have been identified co-moving with pre-main sequence stars
76: and young brown dwarfs \citep[e.g. GQ Lup, Oph 162225-240515, etc.;
77: e.g.][]{Neuhauser05,Jayawardhana06}. However further observations
78: have shown these objects to be higher mass \citep[e.g.][]{Luhman07a}.
79: A possible exception is the companion to 2M1207A \citep[][2MASSW
80: J1207334-393254 = TWA 26]{Chauvin04}, for which mass estimates have
81: ranged between $\sim$3-8 \mjup. Although its mass inferred from
82: evolutionary models is well below the deuterium--burning limit, it is
83: unlikely that the object could have formed through classical core
84: accretion in a circumstellar disk. Given its estimated mass ratio
85: ($\sim$ 0.2--0.3), and separation ($\sim$ 50 AU) it is thought to have
86: formed via gravitational fragmentation, similar to a binary star
87: system \citep{Lodato05}.
88:
89: The properties of the 2M1207 system are discussed in detail in
90: \citet{Mohanty07}. The most striking result from that study is that
91: while both the colors and near-IR spectrum of 2M1207B are consistent
92: with models of an unreddened $\sim$1600\,K object, the inferred
93: luminosity for the object is $\sim$2.5 mag (factor of $\sim$10) below
94: that expected for a $\sim$5-10 Myr object at all wavelengths. Even
95: more remarkable, the object is slightly fainter than the observed
96: sequence of K and L' absolute magnitudes for older field objects with
97: \teff\, $\simeq$ 1600\,K \citep{Golimowski04}. \citet{Mohanty07} rule
98: out a handful of simple resolutions to explain the apparent
99: underluminosity of 2M1207B, and ultimately settle for an unlikely but
100: testable hypothesis: that the object is obscured by an edge-on disk of
101: large circumstellar dust grains producing 2.5$^m$ of gray extinction.
102: In this contribution, we propose an alternative explanation for the
103: low luminosity of 2M1207B: namely that it has a small radius. In this
104: scenario 2M1207B is the hot, long-lived afterglow of a recent
105: collision between two protoplanets \citep[cf.][]{Stevenson87}. The
106: observational consequences of protoplanet collisions have been
107: discussed elsewhere
108: \citep{Stern94,Zhang03,Anic07}. Here we review the problem of 2M1207B,
109: introduce a new hypothesis, discuss its merits and deficiencies, and
110: offer an observational test that can rule it out.
111:
112: \section{The Luminosity of 2M1207B}
113:
114: We first review some observational properties of the 2M1207 system.
115: 2M1207A is classified as M8 with emission--line activity
116: characteristic of T Tauri stars \citep{Gizis02}. The system appears
117: to harbor a circumstellar accretion disk as evidenced by broad
118: H$\alpha$ emission \citep{Mohanty03}, mid-IR excess \citep{Sterzik04},
119: and outflow activity \citep{Whelan07}. The motion of 2M1207A is
120: consistent with membership in the TW Hya Association (TWA), a loose
121: group of $\sim$20 stars with mean age $\sim$8-Myr-old situated at a
122: mean distance of $\sim$50\,pc \citep{Webb99,Mamajek05}. The
123: optical/near-IR colors of 2M1207A are consistent with no reddening
124: given its spectral type. Comparison of its position in the H--R
125: diagram with theoretical models suggests a mass of $\sim$25\,\mjup\,
126: and age consistent with its membership in the TWA \citep{Mohanty07}.
127:
128: 2M1207B shares common proper motion and parallax with 2M1207A within
129: the astrometric uncertainties \citep[milliarcsecond-level measurements
130: over a few years;][]{Chauvin04,Chauvin05,Song06,Mohanty07}. The idea
131: that B could be a foreground or background field L dwarf has been
132: ruled out. At a distance\footnote{Our adopted distance to 2M1207 via
133: the cluster parallax method has increased by 2$\sigma$ compared to
134: \citet[][53\,$\pm$\,6 pc]{Mamajek05} due to the effects of a improved
135: proper motion for 2M1207 \citep{Song06}, and a revised estimate of the
136: TWA group velocity (22.4\,$\pm$\,1 \kms; which follows Mamajek 2005,
137: but omits the deviant parallax for TWA 9). The updated velocity
138: increases the distances to the other TWA members in \citet{Mamajek05}
139: by 7\%.} of 66\,$\pm$\,5 pc, the companion is at a projected
140: separation of 51\,$\pm$\,4 AU from the primary. \citet{Mohanty07}
141: concentrate their analysis of the temperature for 2M1207B on
142: comparison of data to the Lyon group model atmospheres. From the
143: available H-- and K--band spectra, they determine the best fit model
144: atmosphere has \teff\, =\, 1600 $\pm$ 100 K from the DUSTY grid of
145: \citet{Allard01}. A range of surface gravity from \logg\, =
146: [3.5--4.5] was explored, but the value is poorly constrained. They
147: also compare the available photometry of 2M1207B from 0.9--4.0 $\mu$m
148: with predictions from the DUSTY models, and conclude that they are
149: consistent with this temperature estimate. While \citet{Leggett01}
150: demonstrate that DUSTY models are a somewhat poor fit for old late
151: L-type field dwarfs, \citet{Mohanty07} have shown that they produce
152: adequate spectral fits for the young objects 2M1207B and AB Pic B.
153: 2M1207B is significantly redder and dustier than typical L dwarfs, as
154: predicted for low surface gravity objects.
155:
156: We explore a complementary approach, comparing the spectra published
157: in \citet{Mohanty07} as well as the available photometry with template
158: objects drawn from wide field surveys (predominantly older objects).
159: The low resolution H and K--band spectrum available at
160: signal--to--noise ratio of 3--10 is morphologically similar to other L
161: dwarfs suspected of having low gravity: 2MASS J01415823-4633574
162: \citep[2M J0141;][]{Kirkpatrick06}, 2MASS J22244381-0158521
163: \citep[][]{Cushing05}, and SDSS J22443167+2043433 \citep[SDSS
164: J2244;][]{Knapp04}. All of these objects exhibit weak metal resonance
165: lines \citep[e.g.][]{Allers07,Gorlova03}, stronger than expected CO
166: for their spectral type \citep{Cushing05,McLean03}, and unusual
167: pseudo--continua in the H--band spectra attributed to collision
168: induced molecular hydrogen absorption \citep[e.g.][]{Borysow97}, all
169: indications of low surface gravity. Given the morphological
170: correspondence between the spectrophotometry of 2M1207B and these
171: other low gravity L dwarfs, it is reasonable to assume that 2M1207B
172: has a similar nature. Further, the spectrum of 2M1207B shows no signs
173: of CH$_4$ absorption which would indicate \teff\, below 1400 K.
174:
175: The colors of 2M1207B are very red compared to observed sequences of
176: field L dwarfs \citep[e.g.][]{Knapp04,Golimowski04}. The anomalous L
177: dwarfs listed above also exhibit this behavior which can be attributed
178: to low gravity \citep[e.g.][]{Burrows06,Allard01}. Taking the
179: observed \jh\, colors of 2M1207B and several plausible intrinsic
180: colors matches, we searched for reddening solutions that would fit the
181: SED of 2M1207B. Adopting the colors of 2M J0141 \citep{Kirkpatrick06}
182: as a low gravity early L template, we derived \av\, $\simeq$ 9 mag,
183: which matches the $JHK$ photometry well. However, 2M J0141 has \teff\,
184: =\, 2000\,K \citep{Kirkpatrick06}, and \av\, $\simeq$ 9 mag implies
185: \ak\, $\simeq$ 1 mag, which would be insufficient to move 2M1207B
186: above the old dwarf sequence for that \teff. Alternatively, adopting
187: the colors of SDSS J2244 \citep{Knapp04} as a late-L low-gravity
188: template, we arrive at \av\, $\simeq$ 3.7, again reproducing the
189: colors of 2M1207B within the (rather large) errors from
190: $\sim$1-4\,$\mu$m. However, the required reddening (\ak\, $\simeq$ 0.4
191: mag) is insufficient to solve the underluminosity of 2M1207B. If we
192: assume that 2M1207B has the \jh\, colors of a late--type M dwarf, we
193: derive \av\, $\simeq$ 11 mag, but cannot reconcile the observed colors
194: without invoking excess emission in the K and L--bands. In the limit
195: of zero extinction, one can find models of extremely low gravity that
196: fit the SED \citep[e.g.][]{Mohanty07}, so we take that as the simplest
197: assumption consistent with the observed properties of known L dwarfs
198: and informed by model atmospheres.
199:
200: In order to estimate the bolometric luminosity of 2M1207B, we must
201: also estimate an appropriate bolometric correction to apply to the
202: observed absolute magnitude. Given the distance to the source, the
203: lack of evidence for interstellar reddening, the available photometry,
204: and the temperature estimate discussed above, we can apply a
205: bolometric correction to any flux estimate from 0.9--4.0
206: $\mu$m. \citet{Golimowski04} demonstrates that BC$_K$ varies little as
207: a function of spectral type for L dwarfs, so we apply the $K$-band BC
208: to 2M1207B to minimize the uncertainties in the estimate of M$_{bol}$
209: \citep[\bck\, = 3.25\,$\pm$\,0.14 mag; same as in ][]{Mamajek05}. This
210: results in a luminosity estimate of \logl\, = --4.54\,$\pm$\,0.10 dex.
211: For \teff\, = 1600\,$\pm$\,100 K, the DUSTY models predict BC$_K$ =
212: 3.56\, $\pm$\, 0.07 mag, and a luminosity of \logl\, = --4.66\,
213: $\pm$\, 0.08 dex. The difference between adopting the empirical or
214: theoretical BC values is within the errors, so we conservatively adopt
215: the empirically derived \logl\, as an upper limit. Given its
216: luminosity, 2M1207B lies 4--7 times below where expected for an age
217: range of 5--10 Myr given its inferred temperature range of 1500--1700
218: K. \citet{Metchev06} derive an effective temperature for the young
219: ($\sim$0.3 Gyr) L/T transition object HD 203030B that is considerably
220: lower (by $\sim$230 K) than predicted for its spectral type (L7.5).
221: If 2M1207B were in fact a late-L spectral type with a temperature of
222: 1100 K, we could reconcile its position in the H-R diagram given its
223: age. However, this is {\it $\sim$500 K} cooler than the \teff\,
224: derived from spectral synthesis models according to \citet{Mohanty07}.
225: \citet{Burrows06} suggest that the temperature of L-T transition
226: objects should only weakly depend on temperature. Exploring this
227: solution to the 2M1207B problem requires higher SNR spectra and
228: further study.
229:
230: Can the theoretical evolutionary tracks be wrong in luminosity by such
231: a large factor? As pointed out by \citet{Mohanty07}, another
232: well-studied young, low-mass binary (AB Pic) exhibits HRD positions
233: consistent with the age of the group (Tuc-Hor; $\sim$30 Myr).
234: \citet{Marley07} have argued that the luminosities of young planets
235: formed through core--accretion are likely to be over-predicted in
236: models that initially start objects in high entropy states. However,
237: this argument does not apply if the object formed through
238: gravitational fragmentation, as has been suggested
239: \citep{Lodato05}. The \citet{Marley07} models predict that for ages
240: $>$Myr after accretion has ceased, all planets that formed through
241: core-accretion with masses of $<$10\,\mjup\, will be colder than
242: \teff\, $\simeq$ 800\,K and with \logl\, $<$ --5.2 dex. Hence, while
243: 2M1207B is vastly underluminous for its \teff\, compared to the
244: ``hot-start'' evolutionary models of \citet{Chabrier00,Baraffe03}, it
245: is overluminous and too hot for the fiducial ``cold-start'' core
246: accretion models for $<$10\,\mjup\, from
247: \citet{Marley07}. Observationally, there seems to be no trend that
248: would suggest an error in the evolutionary tracks that could account
249: for the HRD position of 2M1207B.
250:
251: As pointed out in \citet{Mohanty07} one cannot reconcile the observed
252: spectrum and SED of 2M1207B with its apparent low luminosity given the
253: available models. Here we take a different approach, adopting the
254: derived temperature of 1600 K, and postulate that the observed source
255: flux is a reflection of its actual luminosity.
256:
257: \section{A Planet-Collision Theory for 2M1207B}
258:
259: We hypothesize that 2M1207B is the result of a recent collision of two
260: protoplanets \citep[cf.][]{Stern94}. Adopting the temperature and
261: luminosity in \S2, one derives a radius of 48,700\, $\pm$\, 8,800 km
262: (= 0.68\,$\pm$\,0.12 \rjup, 7.6\,$\pm$\,1.4 \rearth). For a range of
263: densities, the inferred mass and gravity are given in Table
264: \ref{tab:pred}.
265:
266: We hypothesize that the object is a hot protoplanet of density $\sim$1
267: g\,cm$^{-3}$. With this radius and density\footnote{The giant planets
268: in our solar system have bulk densities of $\sim$0.7-1.4 \gcc, and the
269: known transiting hot Jupiters have densities of $\sim$0.3-1.3 \gcc\,
270: \citep{Bakos07}. The post-accretion evolutionary track of a 1 \mjup\,
271: object by \citet{Marley07} has density $\sim$0.5-0.6 \gcc\, in its
272: first 10 Myr.}, the fiducial planet would have a mass of $M_B$ = 81
273: M$_{\earth}$ (0.85 M$_{Saturn}$ = 4.7 M$_{Neptune}$). Throughout this
274: discussion we will refer to hypothetical protoplanets $B_1$ and $B_2$
275: which merged to produce body $B$ (2M1207B). In our solar system, the
276: largest planetesimals to impact the planets during the late stages of
277: accretion appear to have had mass ratios of order $\gamma$ =
278: $M_{B2}$/$M_{B1}$ $\sim$ 0.1, including the bodies responsible for
279: producing the obliquities of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune
280: \citep{Lissauer91}. Thus we assume that our $\sim$81 \mearth\, object
281: was the product of a collision between protoplanets with masses
282: $M_{B1}$ = $(1 + \gamma)^{-1}M_B$ and $M_{B2}$ = $\gamma(1 +
283: \gamma)^{-1}M_B$, or $M_{B1}$ = 74\,\mearth\, and $M_{B2}$ = 7
284: \mearth. Following \citet{Wetherill80}, the {\it minimum} impact
285: velocity for two planets will be their mutual escape velocity, defined
286: as:
287: \begin{equation}
288: v_{mut}^2 = \frac{2\,G\,(M_{B1} + M_{B2})}{R_{B1} + R_{B2}}
289: \end{equation}
290: In the simplified case of identical densities $\rho$ for bodies $B_1$,
291: $B_2$, and $B$, one can simplify this equation in terms of mass and
292: radius of the final planet $B$:
293: \begin{equation}
294: v_{mut} = 11.2\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}} \left( \frac{M_{B}}{M_{\earth}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \left( \frac{R_B}{R_{\earth}} \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \frac{(1 + \gamma)^{\frac{1}{6}}}{(1 + \gamma^{\frac{1}{3}})^\frac{1}{2}}
295: \end{equation}
296: where the last factor is within $<$15\% of unity for all $\gamma$
297: $\leq$ 10$^{-1}$. In our fiducial model, the radii of the fiducial
298: impactors are 3.0 and 6.4 \rearth, respectively. This leads to a
299: fiducial impact velocity $>$ 30.6\, \kms. Following \citet{Stern94},
300: one can calculate the radiative timescale of a long-lived afterglow
301: from the collision of bodies $B_1$ and $B_2$:
302: \begin{equation}
303: \tau_{rad}\, \sim\, 0.33\, {\rm Myr}
304: \left(\frac{{\rm M_{B2}}}{{\rm M_{\oplus}}}\right)\,
305: \left(\frac{{\rm R_B}}{{\rm R_{\oplus}}}\right)^{-2}\,
306: {\rm T_{1000}^{-4}}\, v^2_{10}
307: \end{equation}
308: where $v_{10}$ is the impact velocity of the impactor in units of 10
309: km\,s$^{-1}$. $R_B$ is the radius of the planet after collision, and
310: $R_{\oplus}$ is the radius of Earth. $T_{1000}$ is the temperature of
311: the emitting photosphere in units of 1000\,K. We can rewrite the
312: radiative timescale in terms of the impactor mass ratio
313: $\gamma$, the properties of the final body $B$, and assuming impact
314: velocity equals $v_{mut}$:
315: \begin{equation}
316: \tau_{rad}\, \sim\, 0.41\, {\rm Myr}
317: \left(\frac{{\rm M_{B}}}{{\rm M_{\oplus}}}\right)^2
318: \left(\frac{R_B}{R_{\earth}}\right)^{-3}\,
319: {\rm T_{1000}^{-4}}\, f
320: \end{equation}
321: where $f$ = $\gamma (1 + \gamma)^{-\frac{2}{3}} (1 +
322: \gamma^\frac{1}{3})^{-1}$. For $\gamma$ $\ll$ 1, $f$ $\sim$ $\gamma$
323: (to within $<$40\%\, accuracy for $\gamma$ $<$ 10$^{-1}$). For our
324: fiducial model, $\tau_{rad}$ $>$ 59\, kyr or $\sim$1\%\, the age of
325: the TW Hya association. These radiative timescales are not negligible,
326: and suggest that a hot afterglow could be visible for an appreciable
327: fraction of the system lifetime. In modeling the collision of a
328: Jupiter and an Earth-like protoplanet, \citet{Zhang03} estimate that
329: less than 1\%\, of the impact energy is radiated away in the initial
330: prompt flash. They further argue that most of the collision-deposited
331: energy is locked up deep in the post-collision planet, and radiated
332: over a long timescale as an afterglow that peaks in the IR. We
333: propose that 2M1207B is such a long-lived afterglow.
334:
335: Could a plausible circum(sub)stellar disk form a planetary system with
336: the required properties? The formation and collision of two such
337: large planetesimals at radii $>$ 10 AU in a protoplanetary disk
338: surrounding a brown dwarf is very unlikely given the mass surface
339: density and orbital timescales expected \citep{Goldreich04}. Perhaps
340: 2M1207B formed at smaller radii as the ice--line in the disk of
341: 2M1207A swept through a large range of inner radii from 10 to 0.1 AU
342: \citep[cf.][]{Kennedy06} as the young brown dwarf evolved \citep[see
343: ][for an alternate scenario]{Boss06}. If we consider a primordial
344: disk surrounding 2M1207A that is marginally gravitationally stable
345: ($\frac{M_{disk}}{M_A}$ $\sim$ 0.1) it would have a total gas+dust
346: mass of 2--3 \mjup. Adopting the protoplanetary core mass scenario of
347: \citet[][ see also Lodato et al. 2005]{Ida04}, the time evolution of
348: the mass of a planet accreting 10$^{18}$ g planetesimals is:
349: \begin{eqnarray}
350: \nonumber M_{\rm p}(t)\, \approx\, 8 M_{\oplus}
351: \left(\frac{t}{10^6\,\mbox{yr}}\right)^3
352: \left(\frac{\Sigma_{\rm d}}{10~ \mbox{g cm}^{-2}}\right)^{21/5}\\
353: \left(\frac{a}{1\,\mbox{AU}}\right)^{-9/5}
354: \left(\frac{M_{A}}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/2}
355: \label{eq:coreacc}
356: \end{eqnarray}
357: Where $t$ is time, $\Sigma_d$ is disk surface density of solids, $a$
358: is the orbital distance, and $M_A$ is the mass of 2M1207A. Assuming a
359: disk with the above mass, mass surface density profile $\Sigma$
360: $\propto$ $a^{-1}$, and an outer radius of 15 AU, the total disk mass
361: surface density at 3 AU is 250 \gcmsq. If we consider a gas to
362: dust+plus ice ratio of 25 (100/4), we arrive at a mass surface density
363: in solids of 10 \gcmsq\, at 3 AU. Using the above equation for a
364: brown dwarf of mass 0.025 M${\odot}$, we estimate that a core of 5-10
365: \mearth\, can form within $\sim$3 Myr at this radius. In 10 Myr, a
366: similar mass core could form at a distance of 5 AU from the brown
367: dwarf. Assuming the above disk model parameters, roughly half of the
368: total disk mass (solid and gas) resides inside of 7.5 AU and half
369: outside. It is at least plausible that 2--4 cores of 5--10 \mearth\,
370: could form between 1--10 AU within 3--10 Myr in this system utilizing
371: the bulk of available solids in the system. If two of those cores
372: accreted enough gas to form Neptune-to-Saturn mass protoplanets, we
373: can envision a scenario where: a) failed cores of 5--10 \mearth\,
374: could collide with a successfully formed gas/ice giant protoplanet,
375: creating the observed hot collisional afterglow; and b) another gas/ice
376: giant, along with the presence of the remnant primordial disk, could
377: eject 2M1207B to its observed orbital radius of 50 AU. Motivated by
378: evidence for gas giants at large separations having created observed
379: structure in debris disks, \citet{Veras04} have investigated gas giant
380: migration/ejection scenarios in disks. \citet{Thommes03} have also
381: proposed that Neptune and Uranus formed closer to the Sun (between
382: Jupiter and Saturn) and were ejected to larger orbital radii through
383: dynamical processes. We note that the remnant disk surrounding
384: 2M1207A has a mass comparable to that we propose for the ejected
385: 2M1207B \citep{Riaz07} though its outer radius is unconstrained from
386: current observations. This is, of course, a highly improbable series
387: of events.
388:
389: \section{Predictions}
390:
391: The hypotheses of whether or not 2M1207B is a hot protoplanet
392: collision afterglow or is obscured by a dense disk of large dust grains
393: can be tested. In the scenario proposed here, 2M1207B is actually a
394: $\sim$80\,\mearth\, object with radius $\sim$49,000\,km. The surface
395: gravity of such an object in cgs units would be log($g$) $\sim$ 3
396: (Table 1). This is significantly lower than than for 5-10 Myr-old
397: 3--8 \mjup\, objects which have \logg\, $\approx$ 4 \citep{Mohanty07}.
398: If 2M1207B possesses an edge-on disk exhibiting grey extinction, then
399: spatially resolved ground-based observations should reveal: a) an
400: infrared excess at $\lambda$ $>$ 4 $\mu$m from the disk; b) a 10
401: $\mu$m silicate absorption feature consistent with the disk being
402: edge-on; c) polarized emission from scattered light at shorter
403: wavelengths; and/or d) resolved scattered light emission consistent
404: with an edge-on dust disk system \citep[cf.][]{Luhman07b}.
405:
406: If 2M1207B is actually a physically smaller (and therefore lower mass)
407: companion, it should exhibit near-infrared spectra: a) consistent with
408: the 1600 K temperature advocated by \citet{Mohanty07}; and b) low
409: surface gravity (log(g) $\sim$ 3) in high S/N spectra. As mentioned
410: above, surface gravity affects the spectra of very cool objects in
411: ways that can be observed through analysis of atomic and molecular
412: features. \citet[][ see also Kirkpatrick et al. 2006]{Gorlova03}
413: suggest that \logg\, can be estimated to within 0.3-0.5 dex from high
414: S/N near-infrared spectra of M and L dwarfs. \citet{Allers07}
415: specifically investigate the gravity dependence of the \ion{Na}{1}
416: feature at 1.14 \micron\, while Gorlova et al. provide a preliminary
417: calibration of the surface gravity effects of \ion{K}{1} at 1.25
418: \micron\, \citep[see also][]{McGovern04}. These effects should be
419: clear in modest S/N spectra (20-30) easily distinguishing between the
420: \logg\, $\sim$ 4 model of \citet{Mohanty07} and the \logg\, $\sim$ 3
421: model proposed here. Further, we anticipate that our protoplanetary
422: collision remnant would be metal-rich compared to the primary. Models
423: from \citet{Burrows06} as well as \citet{Fortney06} demonstrate the
424: significant differences in brown dwarf and gas giant planet
425: atmospheric models by varying the metallicity. Such effects would be
426: easily observable in S/N $\sim$ 20--30 spectra, obtainable in 1-2
427: nights of observing time on a 6-10 meter telescope equipped with
428: adaptive optics. Perhaps future surveys will uncover additional hot
429: protoplanet collision afterglow candidates with even smaller inferred
430: masses.
431:
432: \acknowledgments
433:
434: EEM is supported through a Clay Postdoctoral Fellowship from the
435: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. MRM is supported by LAPLACE.
436: We thank Phil Hinz, Scott Kenyon, Matt Kenworthy, Stan Metchev, Subu
437: Mohanty, and Steve Strom for discussions. We thank Adam Burrows for
438: bringing the \citet{Stern94} paper to our attention, Kevin Zahnle for
439: an inspiring colloquium regarding the Earth-Moon impact, and the
440: anonymous referee for a thoughtful review.
441:
442: \begin{thebibliography}{}
443: \bibitem[Allard et al.(2001)]{Allard01} Allard, F., et al.\ 2001,
444: \apj, 556, 357
445: \bibitem[Allers et al.(2007)]{Allers07} Allers, K.~N., et al.\ 2007,
446: \apj, 657, 511
447: \bibitem[Anic et al.(2007)]{Anic07} Anic, A., Alibert, Y., \&
448: Benz, W.\ 2007, \aap, 466, 717
449: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2007)]{Bakos07} Bakos, G.~{\'A}., et al.\ 2007,
450: \apj, 656, 552
451: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2003)]{Baraffe03} Baraffe, I., et al.\ 2003,
452: \aap, 402, 701
453: \bibitem[Borysow et al.(1997)]{Borysow97} Borysow, A., Jorgensen,
454: U.~G., \& Zheng, C.\ 1997, \aap, 324, 185
455: \bibitem[Boss(2006)]{Boss06} Boss, A.~P.\ 2006, \apjl, 637, L137
456: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2006)]{Burrows06} Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D.,
457: \& Hubeny, I.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 1063
458: \bibitem[Chabrier et al.(2000)]{Chabrier00} Chabrier, G., et al.\
459: 2000, \apj, 542, 464
460: \bibitem[Chauvin et al.(2004)]{Chauvin04} Chauvin, G., et al.\ 2004,
461: \aap, 425, L29
462: \bibitem[Chauvin et al.(2005)]{Chauvin05} Chauvin, G., et al.\ 2005,
463: \aap, 438, L25
464: \bibitem[Cushing et al.(2005)]{Cushing05} Cushing, M.~C., Rayner,
465: J.~T., \& Vacca, W.~D.\ 2005, \apj, 623, 1115
466: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2006)]{Fortney06} Fortney, J.~J., et al.\
467: 2006, \apj, 642, 495
468: \bibitem[Gizis(2002)]{Gizis02} Gizis, J.~E.\ 2002, \apj, 575, 484
469: \bibitem[Goldreich et al.(2004)]{Goldreich04} Goldreich, P., Lithwick,
470: Y., \& Sari, R.\ 2004, \apj, 614, 497
471: \bibitem[Golimowski et al.(2004)]{Golimowski04} Golimowski, D.~A., et
472: al.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3516
473: \bibitem[Gorlova et al.(2003)]{Gorlova03} Gorlova, N.~I., et al.\
474: 2003, \apj, 593, 1074
475: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2004)]{Ida04} Ida, S., \& Lin, D.~N., 2004, \apj,
476: 604, 388
477: \bibitem[Jayawardhana \& Ivanov(2006)]{Jayawardhana06} Jayawardhana,
478: R. \& Ivanov, V.~D., 2006, Science, 313, 1279
479: \bibitem[Kennedy, Kenyon, \& Bromley(2006)]{Kennedy06} Kennedy, G.~M.,
480: Kenyon, S.~J., \& Bromley, B.~C., 2006, \apj, 650, L139
481: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick et al.(2006)]{Kirkpatrick06} Kirkpatrick, J.~D.,
482: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 1120
483: \bibitem[Knapp et al.(2004)]{Knapp04} Knapp, G.~R., et al.\ 2004, \aj,
484: 127, 3553
485: \bibitem[Leggett et al.(2001)]{Leggett01} Leggett, S.~K., et al.\
486: 2001, \apj, 548, 908
487: \bibitem[Lissauer \& Safronov(1991)]{Lissauer91} Lissauer, J.~J., \&
488: Safronov, V.~S.\ 1991, Icarus, 93, 288
489: \bibitem[Lodato et al.(2005)]{Lodato05} Lodato, G., Delgado-Donate,
490: E., \& Clarke, C.~J.\ 2005, \mnras, 364, L91
491: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2007a)]{Luhman07a} Luhman, K.~L., et al.\ 2007,
492: \apj, 659, 1629
493: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2007b)]{Luhman07b} Luhman, K.~L., et al.\ 2007,
494: \apj, in press (arXiv:0706.0279v1)
495: \bibitem[Mamajek(2005)]{Mamajek05} Mamajek, E.~E.\ 2005, \apj, 634,
496: 1385
497: \bibitem[Marley et al.(2007)]{Marley07} Marley, M.~S., et al.\ 2007,
498: \apj, 655, 541
499: \bibitem[McGovern et al.(2004)]{McGovern04} McGovern, M.~R., et al.\
500: 2004, \apj, 600, 1020
501: \bibitem[McLean et al.(2003)]{McLean03} McLean, I.~S., et al.\ 2003,
502: \apj, 596, 561
503: \bibitem[Metchev \& Hillenbrand(2006)]{Metchev06} Metchev, S.~A.,
504: \& Hillenbrand, L.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 1166
505: \bibitem[Mohanty et al.(2003)]{Mohanty03} Mohanty, S., Jayawardhana,
506: R., \& Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s, D.\ 2003, \apjl, 593, L109
507: \bibitem[Mohanty et al.(2007)]{Mohanty07} Mohanty, S., et al.\ 2007,
508: \apj, 657, 1064
509: \bibitem[Neuh{\"a}user et al.(2005)]{Neuhauser05} Neuh{\"a}user, R.,
510: et al.\ 2005, \aap, 435, L13
511: \bibitem[Riaz \& Gizis(2007)]{Riaz07} Riaz, B., \& Gizis, J.~E.\ 2007,
512: \apj, 661, 354
513: \bibitem[Song et al.(2006)]{Song06} Song, I., et al., 2006, \apj, 652,
514: 724
515: \bibitem[Stevenson(1987)]{Stevenson87} Stevenson, D.~J.\ 1987,
516: Ann. Rev. Earth and Planet. Sci., 15, 271
517: \bibitem[Stern(1994)]{Stern94} Stern, S.~A.\ 1994, \aj, 108, 2312
518: \bibitem[Sterzik et al.(2004)]{Sterzik04} Sterzik, M.~F., et al.\
519: 2004, \aap, 427, 245
520: \bibitem[Thommes et al.(2003)]{Thommes03} Thommes, E.~W., Duncan, M.~J.,
521: \& Levison, H.~F.\ 2003, Icarus, 161, 431
522: \bibitem[Veras \& Armitage(2004)]{Veras04} Veras, D., \& Armitage,
523: P.~J.\ 2004, Icarus, 172, 349
524: \bibitem[Vrba et al.(2004)]{Vrba04} Vrba, F.~J., et al.\ 2004,
525: \aj, 127, 2948
526: \bibitem[Webb et al.(1999)]{Webb99} Webb, R.~A., et al.\ 1999, \apjl,
527: 512, L63
528: \bibitem[Wetherill(1980)]{Wetherill80} Wetherill, G.~W.\ 1980, \araa,
529: 18, 77
530: \bibitem[Whelan et al.(2007)]{Whelan07} Whelan, E.~T., et al.\ 2007,
531: \apjl, 659, L45
532: \bibitem[Zhang \& Sigurdsson(2003)]{Zhang03} Zhang, B., \&
533: Sigurdsson, S.\ 2003, \apjl, 596, L95
534: \end{thebibliography}
535:
536: %% PLACE TABLE 1 HERE
537:
538: \begin{deluxetable}{crcc}
539: \tablecolumns{4}
540: \tablewidth{0pc}
541: \tablecaption{Predicted Quantities for 2M1207B \label{tab:pred}}
542: \tablehead{
543: \colhead{$\rho$} & \colhead{Mass} & \colhead{Mass} & \colhead{\logg}\\
544: \colhead{(\gcc)} & \colhead{(\mearth)} & \colhead{(\mjup)} & \colhead{(\cmss)}}
545: \startdata
546: 0.5 & 40.5 & 0.13 & 2.83\\
547: 1.0 & 81.0 & 0.25 & 3.13\\
548: 1.5 & 121.5 & 0.38 & 3.31\\
549: 2.0 & 162.0 & 0.51 & 3.43
550: \enddata
551: \end{deluxetable}
552:
553: \end{document}
554: