1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \include{graphicx}
3:
4: \def\lastrev{ Draft \today}
5: \def\mycite#1{\citeauthor{#1} \citeyear{#1}}
6: \def\deg{\hbox{$^\circ$}}
7: \def\eff {{\cal E}}
8: \def\msun{M_\odot}
9: \def\rsun{R_\odot}
10: \def\rate{\eta}
11: \def\exposure{{\it E}}
12: \def\Eft{{\rm E}_{52}}
13: \def\namefull{2MASS~J01542930+0053266}
14: \def\name{J0154}
15: %%\def\et{{\it et\thinspace al.}} %et al.%
16: \def\et{et~al.\ }
17:
18: \def\araa{ARA\&A}
19: \def\apjl{ApJ}
20: \def\aap{A\&A}
21: \def\apj{ApJ}
22: \def\apjs{ApJS}
23: \def\aj{AJ}
24: \def\pasp{PASP}
25: \def\aaps{A\&AS}
26: \def\mnras{MNRAS}
27: \def\apss{Ap\&SS}
28: \def\nat{Nature}
29: \def\prd{Phys.~Rev.~D}
30:
31: \def\myeps@scaling{.55}
32: \def\myplotone#1{\centering \leavevmode
33: \epsfxsize=\myeps@scaling\columnwidth \epsfbox{#1}}
34:
35: \begin{document}
36: \title[\namefull]{\namefull : A New Eclipsing M--dwarf Binary System}
37: \author[A.C.~Becker \et]{A.C.~Becker$^{1}$, % becker@astro.washington.edu
38: E.~Agol$^{1}$, % agol@astro.washington.edu
39: N.M.~Silvestri$^{1}$, % nms@astro.washington.edu
40: J.J.~Bochanski$^{1}$, % bochansk@astro.washington.edu
41: C.~Laws$^{1}$, % laws@astro.washington.edu
42: \newauthor
43: A.A.~West$^{1,2}$, % awest@astro.berkeley.edu\
44: G.~Basri$^{2}$, % basri@berkeley.edu
45: V.~Belokurov$^{3}$, % vasily@ast.cam.ac.uk
46: D.M.~Bramich$^{3,4}$, % dmb7@ast.cam.ac.uk
47: J.M.~Carpenter$^{5}$, % jmc@astro.caltech.edu
48: \newauthor
49: P.~Challis$^{6}$, % pchallis@cfa.harvard.edu
50: K.R.~Covey$^{6}$, % kcovey@cfa.harvard.edu
51: R.M.~Cutri$^{7}$, % roc@ipac.caltech.edu
52: N.W.~Evans$^{3}$, % nwe@ast.cam.ac.uk
53: M.~Fellhauer$^{3}$, % madf@ast.cam.ac.uk
54: \newauthor
55: A.~Garg$^{6}$, % artigarg@fas.harvard.edu
56: G.~Gilmore$^{3}$, % gil@ast.cam.ac.uk
57: P.~Hewett$^{3}$, % phewett@ast.cam.ac.uk
58: P.~Plavchan$^{7}$, % plavchan@ipac.caltech.edu
59: D.P.~Schneider$^{9}$, % dps@xl5.astro.psu.edu
60: \newauthor
61: C.L.~Slesnick$^{5}$,% cls@astro.caltech.edu
62: S.~Vidrih$^{3,8}$, % simon.vidrih@fmf.uni-lj.si
63: L.M.~Walkowicz$^{1}$, % lucianne@astro.washington.edu
64: and D.B.~Zucker$^{3}$ % zucker@ast.cam.ac.uk
65: \\
66: %-------------------- institutions and email ----------------------
67: $^1$ Astronomy Department, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 \\
68: $^2$ Astronomy Department, University of California, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3411 \\
69: $^3$ Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingly Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK \\
70: $^4$ Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, Apartado de Correos 321, E-38700 Santa Cruz de la Palma, Canary Islands, Spain \\
71: $^5$ Department of Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 105-24, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125 \\
72: $^6$ Physics Department, Harvard University, 17 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 \\
73: $^7$ Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, M/C 100-22, 770 S. Wilson Ave, Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125 \\
74: $^8$ Astronomisches Rechen-Institut/Zentrum f\"ur Astronomie der Universit\"at Heidelberg, M\"onchhofstrasse 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany \\
75: $^9$ Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, 525 Davey Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802, USA
76: }
77:
78: \maketitle
79: \begin{abstract}
80: We report on \namefull, a faint eclipsing system composed of two M
81: dwarfs. The variability of this system was originally discovered
82: during a pilot study of the 2MASS Calibration Point Source Working
83: Database. Additional photometry from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
84: yields an 8--passband lightcurve, from which we derive an orbital
85: period of $2.6390157 \pm 0.0000016$ days. Spectroscopic followup
86: confirms our photometric classification of the system, which is
87: likely composed of M0 and M1 dwarfs. Radial velocity measurements
88: allow us to derive the masses (M$_1 = 0.66 \pm 0.03 \msun$; M$_2 =
89: 0.62 \pm 0.03 \msun$) and radii (R$_1 = 0.64 \pm 0.08 \rsun$; R$_2 =
90: 0.61 \pm 0.09 \rsun$) of the components, which are consistent with
91: empirical mass--radius relationships for low--mass stars in binary
92: systems. We perform Monte Carlo simulations of the lightcurves which
93: allow us to uncover complicated degeneracies between the system
94: parameters. Both stars show evidence of H$\alpha$ emission,
95: something not common in early--type M dwarfs. This suggests that
96: binarity may influence the magnetic activity properties of low-mass
97: stars; activity in the binary may persist long after the dynamos in
98: their isolated counterparts have decayed, yielding a new potential
99: foreground of flaring activity for next generation variability
100: surveys.
101:
102: \end{abstract}
103: \begin{keywords}
104: binaries: eclipsing --- stars: individual (\namefull) --- stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs
105: \end{keywords}
106:
107: \section{Introduction}
108: \label{sec-intro}
109:
110: Low--mass dwarfs ($0.07\msun \leq$ M$_{\star} \leq 0.7\msun$) comprise
111: $\sim$ 75\% of all stars in the Milky Way, making them the most common
112: luminous objects in the Galaxy \citep{1995AJ....110.1838R}.
113: %
114: %Measuring the fundamental parameters, radiative processes, and the
115: %interior physics of stars on the lower main sequence is difficult due
116: %to their diminutive size, relative faintness, and complex atmospheric
117: %molecular compositions. A significant amount of theoretical work has
118: %been done to construct low-mass main sequence stellar models
119: %\citep[e.g.][]{1993ApJ...406..158B,1998A&A...337..403B,1999ApJ...512..377H,2000ARA&A..38..337C},
120: %but distinguishing between the various models is difficult without
121: %precise ($\sim 2\%$) empirical constraints
122: %\citep{2006Ap&SS.304...89R}. Double--lined eclipsing binaries with
123: %detached, low--mass components of similar spectral type offer the best
124: %opportunity for accurate and precise measurements of these fundamental
125: %properties.
126: % COVEY
127: A significant amount of theoretical work has been devoted to
128: constructing models that describe the physical processes in the
129: interiors and atmospheres of these low--mass stars
130: \citep[e.g.][]{1993ApJ...406..158B,1998A&A...337..403B,1999ApJ...512..377H,2000ARA&A..38..337C}.
131: Differences in the predictions of these models can be subtle, and
132: distinguishing between them requires precise empirical constraints on
133: fundamental stellar properties \citep[mass, radius, luminosity, and
134: effective temperature;][]{2006Ap&SS.304...89R}. As low--mass stars
135: are faint, small, and possess complex spectra dominated by strong
136: molecular bands, measuring these parameters is challenging.
137: Double--lined eclipsing binaries with detached, low--mass components
138: of similar spectral type offer the best opportunity for accurate and
139: precise measurements of these fundamental properties.
140:
141: Although binary systems are more common than single stars at high
142: stellar masses \citep[$>$ 1 M$_{\odot}$; eg.][]{Abt-83,Duquennoy-91},
143: binaries are not very common in low--mass stars
144: \citep{1997A&A...325..159L,1997AJ....113.2246R,2004ASPC..318..166D}.
145: In fact, the combination of low binary fraction and the sheer
146: dominance (by number) of low--mass stars suggests that most of the
147: stars in the Galaxy are actually single stars
148: \citep{2006ApJ...640L..63L}. Because of the low binary fractions and
149: the faintness of M dwarfs, relatively few low--mass main sequence
150: binaries have been studied \citep[e.g.][and references
151: therein]{Creevey-05,LopezM-05,Hebb-06,Ribas-03,2006Ap&SS.304...89R,Blake-07}.
152: Adding to the census of double--lined eclipsing binary systems is
153: critical because they provide highly accurate, direct measurements of
154: the masses and radii of the components, nearly independent of any model
155: assumptions. While the known number of eclipsing low--mass binaries
156: is small, next-generation variability
157: % (LSST, Pan-STARRS, and GAIA)
158: and planet hunting
159: % (Kepler, TrES, WASP)
160: surveys should increase the number of known systems.
161:
162: Measurements of the masses and radii of the individual components of
163: these low--mass systems have revealed potentially serious inadequacies
164: in stellar evolution models \citep{Ribas-03,2006Ap&SS.304...89R},
165: whereas measurements and models agree for stars over $ 1\msun$. These
166: discrepancies apparently extend down into the brown dwarf regime as
167: evidenced by the first L--dwarf binary \citep{Stassun-06,
168: 2007ApJ...664.1154S}. In particular, the mass-radius,
169: mass-temperature, and mass-luminosity relationships predicted by
170: stellar theory are inconsistent with a large fraction of observed M
171: dwarf components \citep[e.g.][]{Hebb-06}. Identifying and
172: characterizing new low--mass eclipsing binaries will provide stronger
173: constraints for theoretical models and help reveal the cause of the
174: current discrepancies between observed and predicted properties of
175: low--mass stars.
176:
177: In this manuscript, we present the discovery of a new double-lined
178: eclipsing binary system, \namefull. In \S 2, we outline the
179: photometric and spectroscopic observations of this binary system. Our
180: determination of physical parameters and spectral types are detailed
181: in \S 3. Discussion of the discrepancies between empirical and
182: theoretical mass-radius relations is outlined in \S 4, followed by our
183: conclusions in \S 5.
184:
185: \section{Observations}
186: \subsection{2MASS Photometry}
187: \label{sec-id}
188: The calibration observations of the Two Micron All Sky Survey
189: \citep[2MASS;][]{2006AJ....131.1163S} are a precursor to
190: next--generation survey efforts such as LSST
191: \citep{2002SPIE.4836...10T}. 2MASS observed the entire sky using
192: three--channel cameras that simultaneously imaged in the $J$ (1.25
193: $\mu$m), $H$ (1.65 $\mu$m), and $K_{\rm s}$ (2.17 $\mu$m) passbands.
194: To allow precision cross--calibration of the data, 35 $1\deg \times
195: 8.\arcmin 5$ calibration fields were defined. An available
196: calibration field was imaged approximately hourly over the duration of
197: the survey. The total number of epochs obtained for a given
198: calibration field ranges from 600 to 3700. The 2MASS Calibration
199: Point Source Working Database (Cal-PSWDB) has recently been released
200: as part of the 2MASS Extended Mission \citep{Cutri-2massExtended}, and
201: contains a wealth of information on temporal variability
202: \citep{plav-07,becker-cutri-08}.
203:
204: \namefull\footnote{For completeness, we note that the averaged
205: position of this object in the Calibration Point Source Working
206: Database is 01542929+0053272. Because the calibration source
207: astrometry has a slight bias relative to the survey, having been
208: derived from different astrometric standards, we use the designation
209: of the object from the 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog.}\
210: %
211: (hereafter \name) was first identified as a periodic variable in a
212: pilot study of objects in 2MASS calibration region 90004, which was
213: imaged 2977 times between July 1997 and November 2000. We extracted
214: lightcurves for 5770 individual objects from the ensemble of data by
215: clustering measurements taken at different epochs based on their
216: celestial coordinates. For a given lightcurve, we used the 2MASS
217: photometric quality flag $ph\_qual$ to reject poor--quality data
218: points ($ph\_qual$ = D, E, F, or X).
219: %Thus, most of our 2MASS photometric data has an uncertainty of $sim
220: %5\%$ \citep{Cutri-2massExtended}.
221: In total, 965 of these clipped lightcurves had more than 100 epochs.
222: We phased all clipped lightcurves using a modified version of the
223: Supersmoother algorithm \citep{Riemann-94}. For each object, the $J$,
224: $H$, and $K_{\rm s}$ passbands were phased independently, and the
225: best--fit periods were compared. The phasing of \name\
226: %
227: %at coordinates $\alpha$ = 01:54:29.30 $\delta$ = +00:53:27.27 (J2000),
228: %
229: yielded periods of $1.31951246$ days in all three passbands (we note
230: that Supersmoother converged upon an alias of the final period derived
231: for this system). The composite colours of the system ($J - H =
232: 0.66$, $H - K = 0.19$) suggest it consists of early--type dM stars
233: \citep{2007arXiv0707.4473C}.
234:
235:
236: % One $1\deg \times 8.5\arcmin$ calibration field was observed
237: %approximately every hour during the course of the 2MASS survey,
238: %yielding from 600 to 3700 total observations of a given field. The
239: %field where this system was detected, 2MASS calibration region 90004,
240: %was imaged 2977 times. We phased all J, H, and Ks-band lightcurves
241: %extracted from this region; this system provided the strongest signal
242: %of periodicity. We find a best-fit period of $2.639028 \pm 0.000004$
243: %days in a joint fit to all 2MASS data. The folded lightcurve is
244: %presented in Figure 1, and clearly represents an eclipsing system.
245: %The colours of both components are consistent with M-dwarfs, suggesting
246: %this is the eighth known M-dwarf+M-dwarf binary.
247:
248:
249: % unnecessary
250: %We re--calculated a period for this object using an alternate
251: %technique maximized for detecting single-dip eclipsing events in
252: %sparse photometric data. After removing points with photometric error
253: %bars larger than 3 sigma from the mean uncertainty, we assumed that
254: %remaining 19 points with photometry 4 sigma from the mean were
255: %observed while the system was transiting. These 19 points were
256: %checked for compatibility with periods between .2 and 10 days in 1
257: %second intervals, assuming random phase of first observation and a
258: %first-order transit time of 13 $\sqrt{a}$ hours, where $a$ is the
259: %semi--major axis of the system. The data were compatible with 53 of
260: %the $10^6$ periods checked. The photometric data were then convolved
261: %by these 53 ``possible periods'' and divided by a flat bottom transit
262: %fit, with the $\chi^{2}$ residuals yielding a best fit period of
263: %$1.31951 \pm 0.00009$ days.
264:
265: %After identification of this system from the 2MASS data, we were able
266: %to extract time--series photometry from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
267: %(SDSS). This yields an additional 5 passbands of photometric
268: %information on the system, although the coverage is considerably
269: %sparser than the 2MASS data.
270:
271: %To extract the mass and radius of the components from the observed
272: %lightcurves one needs relative radial velocities of the components,
273: %best obtained at the times of quadrature (maximal radial velocity) in
274: %the orbit. We have initiated a campaign of spectroscopic follow--up
275: %to resolve any line splitting in the composite spectrum due to the
276: %relative radial velocities of the components. However, due to the
277: %faintness of the system, it has proven very difficult to obtain the
278: %requisite S/N at high enough spectral resolution to resolve the
279: %spitting.
280:
281: \subsection{SDSS Photometry}
282: \label{subsec-obs:sdss}
283: \name\ lies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey's
284: \citep[SDSS;][]{1998AJ....116.3040G,2000AJ....120.1579Y,2002AJ....123..485S,2003AJ....125.1559P,2006AJ....131.2332G}
285: Stripe 82, a $\sim$ 300 sq. deg. equatorial region that has been
286: imaged repeatedly over the course of the SDSS. Stripe 82 is imaged by
287: the SDSS--II Supernova Survey every other night from September to
288: December, 2005--2007 \citep{2007arXiv0708.2749F}. The extensive
289: repeat imaging of this region of sky has enabled precise photometric
290: and astrometric calibration of this Stripe, yielding the Stripe 82
291: Light-Motion Curve Catalogue \cite[LMCC;][]{Bramich-LMCC}. We
292: extracted the light--motion curve for \name\ from the LMCC, which
293: consists of 32 $u,g,r,i$ and $z$--band
294: \citep{1996AJ....111.1748F,2002AJ....123.2121S} measurements of the
295: system, including SDSS--I observations as far back as Sept, 1998 and
296: up to the end of SDSS--II supernova survey observations in Dec, 2005.
297: The catalogue reports a proper motion vector for the system of
298: $\mu_{\alpha}$ = $0.88 \pm 2.25$ mas yr$^{-1}$ and $\mu_{\delta} =
299: -11.19 \pm 2.25$ mas yr$^{-1}$.
300:
301: Figure~\ref{fig-lc} displays the ensemble lightcurve, folded at the
302: best--fit period of 2.6390157 days. The lightcurves are ordered from
303: top to bottom and left to right $K_{\rm s}, H, J, z, i, r, g, u$. The
304: $J$, $H$, and $K_{\rm s}$ data are binned every 30 points. We note
305: that SDSS has no data during the secondary eclipse, resulting in
306: poorly constrained relative optical colours for each star. This
307: system is one of the faintest known eclipsing low--mass systems ($r =
308: 18.3$), meaning substantial telescope time is required to measure the
309: radial velocity curve to high precision.
310:
311: %We note for completeness that the times of all 2MASS and SDSS
312: %observations are corrected to the solar system barycenter.
313:
314: \begin{figure*}
315: % \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1.ps}
316: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1a.ps}
317: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1b.ps}
318: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1c.ps}
319: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1d.ps}
320: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1e.ps}
321: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1f.ps}
322: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1g.ps}
323: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1h.ps}
324: \caption{Lightcurve of \name\ folded at the best--fit period of
325: 2.6390157 days, with J, H and Ks binned every 30 points for clarity. }
326: % The lightcurves are ordered from top to bottom $K_{\rm s}, H, J, z, i, r, g$.}
327: \label{fig-lc}
328: \end{figure*}
329:
330: \subsection{Spectroscopy}
331: \subsubsection{Apache Point Observatory}
332: \label{subsec-obs:apo}
333: To confirm our M--dwarf classification, we obtained spectroscopic
334: observations of this system using the ARC 3.5-m telescope with the
335: Dual-Imaging Spectrograph (DIS-III) at Apache Point Observatory (APO)
336: on the nights of 2005 November 22,
337: %(1 exposure)
338: 2005 November 28,
339: %(12 exposures),
340: and 2005 December 04 UT.
341: %(15 exposures)
342: We used the HIGH resolution gratings (0.84\AA/pixel in the red;
343: 0.62\AA/pixel in the blue) and a $1.\arcsec 5$ slit centered at
344: 6800\AA\ (red) and 4600\AA\ (blue). The chips were binned 2$\times$1
345: to increase the signal-to-noise and windowed from their original size
346: of 2048k$\times$2048k to reduce the readout time between
347: exposures. The approximate wavelength coverage is $\sim 1000$\AA\ in
348: both the red and blue wavelength regions.
349: %
350: %We were unable to obtain useful spectra in the blue region of the
351: %spectrum due in part to the small total flux in this region and poor
352: %observing conditions on all three of the nights.
353:
354: The spectroscopic reductions were performed using standard
355: $IRAF$\footnote{$IRAF$ is written and supported by the $IRAF$
356: programming group at the National Optical Astronomy Observatories
357: (NOAO) in Tucson, AZ. NOAO is operated by the Association of
358: Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), Inc. under cooperative
359: agreement with the National Science Foundation.
360: http://iraf.noao.edu/} reduction procedures. The calibration images
361: (bias, flat, arc, flux) used to correct each of the individual spectra
362: were applied only to images taken on the same night. The bias, and
363: flat images were observed at the beginning or end of each night. A
364: He--Ne--Ar arc lamp spectrum was taken after each exposure on the
365: target star.
366: %
367: %Because the spectrograph is mounted at the Nasmyth focus and the
368: %flexure is negligible, this is not entirely necessary but was
369: %performed regardless.
370: %
371:
372:
373: %not sure this is important - AAW
374:
375: %The average of $\sim 10-15$ bias frames was subtracted from each of
376: %the individual target spectra. Each image was then normalized by the
377: %average of $\sim 5$ bright quartz lamp flat fields. One to two flux
378: %and M--dwarf radial velocity spectra were also observed each evening.
379:
380:
381: %
382: %It should be noted that due to the non-photometric observing
383: %conditions, the flux calibration represents a relative flux --- this
384: %is perfectly acceptable because we require only relative flux values
385: %between the various points in the stellar spectrum for our purposes.
386: %
387:
388: A representative spectrum of \name\ is displayed in Figure
389: \ref{DISspec}. These initial spectra clearly demonstrate the features
390: of an M--dwarf system. The presence of H$\alpha$ in emission at 6563
391: \AA\ indicates magnetic activity, although no obvious line splitting
392: is detected. The broad molecular bands of TiO ($\sim 7050$ \AA) are
393: also readily apparent.
394:
395: %With these data alone, it is uncertain if the H$\alpha$ emission is
396: %magnetically induced in one star or both, or a product of interaction.
397:
398: \begin{figure}
399: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2.eps}
400: \caption{Spectrum of \name\ obtained on the ARC 3.5-m telescope with
401: the DIS-III spectrograph (0.84\AA/pixel) on 2005 November 22 UT.
402: Note the H$\alpha$ emission near 6563 \AA, indicating chromospheric
403: activity.}
404: \label{DISspec}
405: \end{figure}
406:
407:
408: \subsubsection{Magellan}
409: \label{subsec-obs:mag}
410:
411: %We obtained two 600 second exposures with the Low Dispersion Survey
412: %Spectrograph 3 (LDSS3) on the Magellan II telescope on the night of
413: %December 29, 2005. The VPH Blue grating (0.682 \AA/pixel; R = 1900)
414: %and a $2\arcsec$ slit were used. The spectrum was processed like...
415: %subtracted a combined bias, applied overscan correction, flat-fielded
416: %with (quartz lamp?) flatfield, cleaned the image of cosmic rays,
417: %extracted a 20 pixel wide region centered on the target star, used a
418: %(quartz) lamp spectrum to derive the dispersion solution. The final
419: %spectrum has a wavelength range of $4500\AA - 7000\AA$
420:
421: Two 600 second exposures of \name\ were obtained with the Low
422: Dispersion Survey Spectrograph 3 (LDSS3) on the Magellan II/Clay
423: telescope on the night of December 29, 2005. The VPH Blue grating
424: (0.682 \AA/pixel; R = 1900) and a $2\arcsec$ slit were used. The
425: spectra were reduced and calibrated employing standard techniques,
426: which include subtracting a combined bias, subtracting the overscan
427: correction, flat-fielding with quartz lamp observations, cleaning the
428: image of cosmic rays, and extracting a region centered on the target
429: star. The dispersion solution was derived from an observation of a
430: He--Ne--Ar arc lamp.
431: %
432: %The final spectrum has a wavelength range of $XXXX\AA - XXXX\AA$.
433: %
434: Flux calibrations were derived from observations of spectrophotometric
435: standard stars from \cite{Oke-83}. The spectra were corrected for the
436: continuum atmospheric extinction using mean extinction curves.
437: Telluric lines were removed using a procedure similar to that of
438: \cite{Wade-88} and \cite{Bessell-99}. We use the Magellan spectra to
439: estimate the spectral types of the components in
440: Section~\ref{sec-templatematch}.
441:
442: %The resulting spectrum is a higher S/N than the ARC observations, and
443: %definitively show TiO bands at XXXX \AA.
444:
445: \subsubsection{Keck}
446: \label{subsec-obs:keck}
447: We were unable to resolve line splitting in either the APO or Magellan
448: spectra, and therefore made use of the HIRES spectrograph at Keck
449: during observing runs on 2006 October 13, 2006 December 12 and 2007
450: January 6. Over the 3 nights we obtained five spectra at
451: R$\sim$50,000 with exposure times ranging from 30-40 minutes each.
452:
453: The data were reduced using standard IDL routines that included order
454: extraction, sky subtraction, and cosmic ray removal. The resulting
455: S/N per pixel (0.06 \AA/pixel) ranged from 6-9. The detection of
456: H$\alpha$ emission lines in both stars due to magnetic activity
457: allowed measurement of their radial velocities (we were unable to use
458: cross correlation techniques on the lower resolution APO and Magellan
459: spectra). An illustrative example of the Keck data is shown in Figure
460: \ref{fig-keck}. The H$\alpha$ emission lines were fit to a double
461: Gaussian profile using Levenberg--Marquardt least--squares
462: minimization. Epochs and radial velocities for each of the 5
463: observations can be found in Table~\ref{tab-rvs}. The radial velocity
464: curve derived from these data is shown in Figure~\ref{fig-rv}.
465:
466: \begin{figure}
467: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3.eps}
468: \caption{Spectrum of \name\ obtained with HIRES (0.06 \AA/pixel) on
469: the Keck 10-m telescope on Oct 13, 2006. Note the line splitting
470: around H$\alpha$ at 6563 \AA, yielding emission peaks centered near
471: 6561.5 \AA\ and 6564.9 \AA.}
472: \label{fig-keck}
473: \end{figure}
474:
475: \begin{figure}
476: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f4.ps}
477: \caption{Radial velocity curve derived from the Keck data. The system
478: velocity is $19.1 \pm 1.3$ km s$^{-1}$. Velocities are relative to
479: the solar system barycenter.}
480: \label{fig-rv}
481: \end{figure}
482:
483: \section{Analysis}
484: \subsection{Modeling The System}\label{sec-model}
485: We corrected the times of all observations, as well as measured radial
486: velocities, to the solar system barycenter (TDB). We analyzed the lightcurve
487: of \name\ using the code of \cite{2002ApJ...580L.171M}. All of the orbital
488: elements of the binary were allowed to vary, and we allowed the masses
489: and radial velocity of the center of mass of the system to vary
490: simultaneously while fitting the parameters describing the lightcurve.
491: %Since \name\ is a double--lined spectroscopic binary, we were able to
492: %derive the masses, radii and fluxes of both stars independent of any
493: %stellar atmosphere model.
494: As both stars are well within their Roche radii and the centripetal
495: acceleration at the equator is three orders of magnitude smaller than
496: the surface gravity, we treated each star as a sphere (and hence
497: ignore gravity darkening). Also, the stars are sufficiently separated
498: that we can ignore reflected light. The one uncertainty in our models
499: is the limb-darkening, which should be modest in the infrared
500: \citep{1995A&AS..114..247C}. We find that the assumed limb-darkening
501: affects our results very little, so we fix the linear limb-darkening
502: coefficients for each star, $u_{1,2}$, at the values computed by
503: \citet{2000A&A...363.1081C,2004A&A...428.1001C} for model atmospheres
504: with $T_{eff}=3800$ and $3600$ for the primary and secondary,
505: respectively. We assume $log(g)=4.5$, $[M/H]=0$, and a microturbulent
506: velocity of $2$ km s$^{-1}$ for both, based on the {\it PHOENIX}
507: atmosphere models of \cite{1999ApJ...512..377H}. The limb-darkening
508: parameters are given in Table \ref{tab-pars1}.
509:
510: Our model contains 25 free parameters, starting with the five orbital
511: parameters\footnote{The longitude of the ascending node is
512: unconstrained since the reference plane is the sky plane and nothing
513: in our data constrains the position angle of the binary on the sky.}:
514: the eccentricity and longitude of pericenter combine to two
515: parameters, $e \cos{\omega}$ and $e \sin{\omega}$; the inclination,
516: $i$; the time of primary eclipse $T_0$ (which can be translated into a
517: time of periapse); and the period, $P$ (which can be translated into a
518: semi--major axis from the total mass of the system). Four parameters
519: describe the bulk stellar properties: $R_1$, $R_2$, $M_1$, and $M_2$.
520: The radial velocity of the center of mass of the system is $\gamma$
521: (in km s$^{-1}$). The fluxes are described by 15 parameters (we hold
522: the $u$-band flux of the second star fixed at zero as the best--fit
523: value is negative). For the model fitting, we transformed to the set
524: of parameters suggested by \citet{2006MNRAS.367.1521T} which have
525: weaker correlations between the transformed parameters. We found the
526: initial best--fit model using Levenberg--Marquardt least--squares
527: non--linear optimization giving a best-fit model with $\chi^2=11304.4$
528: for 9168 degrees of freedom. We found that the scatter of the data
529: outside of eclipse had a gaussian shape, but with a larger scatter
530: than the errors would warrant.
531: %, about 10\% larger in the infrared, and 50-200\% larger in the SDSS bands.
532: It is possible that this discrepancy is due to variability in the
533: stellar fluxes as the data were gathered over several years, or that
534: the error bars are simply underestimated, so we added a systematic
535: error in quadrature ($0.04, 0.03, 0.03, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.01, 0.26$
536: magnitudes in the $K_{\rm s}, H, J, z, i, r, g, u$--bands,
537: respectively) such that the reduced $\chi^2$ of the data outside of
538: eclipse in each band is equal to unity, and then refit the entire data
539: set. The resulting $\chi^2$ of 9253.2 has a formal probability
540: $P(\chi^2>9253.2)=$26\% for 9168 degrees of freedom. The best fit
541: parameters for the brightness of the system
542: are given in Table~\ref{tab-pars1} and
543: the orbital and physical parameters in Table~\ref{tab-pars2}.
544:
545: As the number of free parameters is large and the parameters can be
546: strongly correlated, we ran simulated data sets, adding gaussian noise
547: to the best-fit lightcurve and radial velocity model values. We ran
548: $10^5$ simulations, and for each simulation re-ran the fitting routine
549: to derive the best-fit parameters from the simulated data. We used
550: the $10^5$ sets of derived parameters simulations to compute the
551: 1-$\sigma$ errors on the best-fit model parameters, sorting each parameter
552: and choosing the 68.3\% confidence intervals, which are given in
553: Tables~\ref{tab-pars1} and \ref{tab-pars2}. We computed a 90\% confidence
554: upper limits on the $u$ band flux of Star 2 by increasing its value from zero,
555: while minimizing over the other system parameters, until the change in
556: chi-square was $\Delta \chi^2=2.71$. Our analysis yields asymmetric
557: error bars for all system parameters. We quote a single error bar
558: when the negative and positive uncertainties are the same to within
559: $10\%$.
560:
561: The best--fit lightcurve is shown in Figure~\ref{fig-lc}. The total
562: flux of the two stars is very well constrained due to the large number
563: of data points of high photometric quality. However, the individual
564: fluxes are more poorly constrained due to the small number of points
565: taken during the eclipses, so that uncertainties in the radius,
566: limb-darkening, and inclination lead to uncertainties in what fraction
567: of each total stellar flux is obscured during primary and secondary
568: eclipse. Thus the derived fluxes of each star are strongly
569: anti-correlated, which is why the errors on the individual fluxes are
570: much larger than the error on the total flux (Table~\ref{tab-pars1}).
571: The fit indicates that, in the infrared passbands, the eclipses are of
572: very similar depths (0.35 vs 0.31 magnitudes in the $Ks$--band), which
573: is the reason that the original Supersmoother fit converged on an
574: alias of half the period.
575:
576: \begin{figure*}
577: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f5a.ps}
578: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f5b.ps}
579: \caption{Mass--radius parameter space allowed by our data on \name.
580: The left figure is for the heavier (primary) object, while the right
581: figure is for the secondary. The shaded area correspond to the
582: probability distribution derived from the simulated data sets,
583: while the contours represent the 1-,2-, and 3-sigma
584: confidence regions.}
585: \label{fig-mr}
586: \end{figure*}
587:
588: The allowed mass--radius parameter space for each star is shown in
589: Figure~\ref{fig-mr}. Each panel shows the probability distribution of
590: the mass and radius of each star derived from the simulated data sets
591: in units of solar radius and mass. The contours are 1-,2-, and
592: 3-sigma confidence regions (68.3\%, 95.4\%, and 99.73\% of the $10^5$
593: parameter sets). We compare the derived values to the masses and
594: radii found for other low--mass stars in Section~\ref{sec-ana}.
595:
596: From our results, we can derive several auxiliary parameters for the
597: stars which have different error bars than if they are computed from
598: the parameters in Table~\ref{tab-pars2} due to covariance between
599: model parameters. We also list in Table~\ref{tab-pars2} (below the
600: horizontal line) : the mass-radius ratio for each star,
601: $M_{1,2}/R_{1,2}$; the ratio of the radii of the two stars, $R_1/R_2$;
602: the sum of the stellar radii, $R_1+R_2$; the ratios of the semi-major
603: axis to the stellar radii, $a/R_{1,2}$; the velocity semi-amplitudes,
604: $K_{1,2}$ and the total amplitude $K$; the surface gravities,
605: $log(g_{1,2})$; the stellar densities $\rho_{1,2}$; and the total mass
606: of the system, $M_1+M_2$, which can be used to derive a semi-major
607: axis of the system, $a$. At mid-eclipse, the projected separation of
608: the stellar centers on the sky is $b$. The fractional error on
609: $(R_1+R_2)/a$ is much smaller ($\sim 2$\%) than on $R_1$ or $R_2$
610: individually ($> 10$\%) due to strong correlations between $R_1/a$,
611: $R_2/a$ and $i$, as discussed by \citet{2006MNRAS.367.1521T}. Since
612: our derived fluxes of the stars cover the peak in their spectral
613: energy distributions, we have derived the bolometric flux ratio of the
614: stars by smoothly interpolating between the fluxes in the different
615: bands, and then taking the ratio of the two stars. Given the relative
616: sizes and fluxes of the stars, we derive the ratio of the effective
617: temperatures, $T_2/T_1$ (we cannot derive the absolute fluxes or
618: effective temperatures from the lightcurve and RV data as we do not
619: know the distance to this system to high precision).
620:
621: \subsection{Spectral Types and Temperature Estimates}
622: While the masses, radii and fluxes for each star are well-determined
623: by our modeling procedure, there are other quantities that can be
624: measured from our observations. The spectral types of each component,
625: total space velocity of the system and effective temperature estimates
626: can be determined from our assembled dataset.
627:
628: \subsubsection{Binary Spectral Template Matching}
629: \label{sec-templatematch}
630: In order to estimate the spectral types of this composite system, we
631: constructed a grid of binary spectral templates. The spectra employed
632: in synthesizing the binary templates were drawn from the low--mass
633: stellar templates of \cite{2007AJ....133..531B} and the K5 and K7
634: templates used in the HAMMER spectral analysis software package
635: \citep{2007arXiv0707.4473C}. Each template spectrum was scaled by its
636: bolometric luminosity \citep{rei05} and coadded with all other
637: templates. Relative velocity shifts were introduced for each spectral
638: type pair, ranging from -200 km s$^{-1}$ to 200 km s$^{-1}$ in steps
639: of 20 km s$^{-1}$. The final binary spectra grid consisted of 1638
640: templates. The templates were normalized to the Magellan observations
641: and residuals were computed from 4500 to 7000 \AA.
642: %\footnote{Residuals
643: %were computed as:
644: %\begin{equation}
645: %\chi^2 = \Sigma(flux_{\lambda Obs.} - flux_{\lambda Template})^2
646: %\end{equation}
647: %}.
648: The best fit binary pair for the Magellan spectra is an M0 primary and
649: M1 secondary, with an uncertainty of $\pm 1$ subtype for each
650: component. We did not use the velocity information as a constraint,
651: but rather included the relative shifts for completeness. We adopt
652: these subtypes for each component. The best fit composite spectrum is
653: shown in Figure~\ref{fig-magellan}, along with the Magellan data.
654:
655: \begin{figure}
656: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f6.ps}
657: \caption{Magellan spectra (0.682 \AA/pixel) of \name\ along with the
658: best fit binary spectral template. The best fit binary template is
659: composed of an M0 + M1.}
660: \label{fig-magellan}
661: \end{figure}
662:
663:
664: \subsubsection{Spectral Types From Optical--IR Colours}
665: Using the colour--spectral type relationships for $r-i$, $i-z$, and
666: $i-J$ derived by \cite{West05a} and \cite{2007AJ....133..531B}, we
667: estimate a spectral type of M0 ($\pm$ 1 subtype) for the primary and
668: M3 for the secondary. The intrinsic spread in colour at a given
669: spectral type and our measured errors permit a range of spectral types
670: between M0 and M4 for the secondary.
671: %
672: Because of this large uncertainty, we adopt the secondary subtype
673: derived from the spectral template analysis, and note that these
674: colour--based results are consistent with the spectroscopic results
675: derived in Section~\ref{sec-templatematch}.
676: %
677: %These spectral types are consistent with those derived from the
678: %spectra above.
679: %
680: We estimate a distance of $623 \pm 50$ pc from the $i$--band
681: photometric parallax \citep{West05a} of the primary star. At a
682: Galactic latitude of $b$ = $-58 \deg$, this binary has vertical
683: distance below the Disk of $\sim 530$ pc, consistent with being a
684: member of the Galactic thin disk.
685:
686: % COLOURS
687: %[$r-i; i-z; i-J$] colours of the stars we
688: %estimate spectral types for the primary star of
689: %% [0.89; 0.48; 1.60]
690: %[M1; M1; --] and for the secondary of
691: %% [1.08; 0.66; 2.24]
692: %[M2;M2--M3;M3--M4]. We adopt a spectral type of M1 for the primary,
693: %and of M3 for the secondary. These classifications yield distances of
694: %741 and 711 pc for the primary and secondary.
695:
696: % BRIGHTNESS
697: % J=band distance : 9.34 and 9.26 magnitudes = 5 log r - 5 = 741 and 711 pc for the primary and secondary.
698: %
699: % i-band for i-z=0.48; M_i = 7.18 + 3.14(i-z) +/- 0.08
700: % absolute mag = 8.6872; apparent mag = 17.66; dist mod = 8.9728 = 623 pc
701: % 8.9728 + sqrt(0.08**2 + 0.15**2) = 9.1428 = 673pc
702: % 8.9728 - sqrt(0.08**2 + 0.15**2) = 8.8028 = 576pc
703:
704: The thin disk membership of \name\ is strengthened by examining the
705: system's kinematics. The tangential velocity implied by the observed
706: proper motion ($11.2 \pm 3.2$ mas year$^{-1}$) and distance to the
707: system is $33.1 \pm 12.1$ km s$^{-1}$. Added in quadrature with the
708: system radial velocity from the binary fit, we find a space velocity
709: of $38.2 \pm 12.2$ km s$^{-1}$, again consistent with the thin disk
710: \citep{2007arXiv0708.0044B}.
711:
712: % 11.2 milliarcsec = 5.42991322843e-08 radians
713: % 1 year = 31557600.0 s
714: % 11.2 mas / yr = 1.72063567205e-15 rad/s
715: % 3.2 mas / yr = 4.91610192014e-16 rad/s
716:
717: % 623pc = 1.921955e16 km
718: % 50pc = 1.5425e+15
719:
720: % velocity = 33.0698433307 km/s +/- 12.1026071901
721:
722: \subsubsection{Metallicity and Temperature Estimates}
723: \label{subsec-spec:metal}
724: We measured the composite CaH2, CaH3, and TiO5 molecular indices in
725: our APO spectra of this system, and find CaH2 = $0.64 \pm 0.06$, CaH3
726: = $0.83 \pm 0.03$, and TiO5 = $0.64 \pm 0.04$. Using these values
727: along with the empirical formula from Figure~2 of \cite{WoolfWall06}
728: yields an effective temperature estimate for the primary of $T_{\rm
729: eff} = 3730 \pm 100K$, consistent with the M0 spectral type determined
730: from the full spectra. Further, when these measurements are compared
731: with the samples of \cite{2003ApJ...585L..69L}, \cite{WoolfWall06},
732: \cite{2006ApJ...645.1485B}, and \cite{West07a}, they suggest that the
733: composite system is of solar or slightly super--solar metallicity,
734: again consistent with thin disk membership\footnote{It should be noted
735: that there exist dMs in \cite{WoolfWall06} with similar CaH and TiO
736: indices to our targets, but with [Fe/H] values below $-0.3$}.
737:
738: % screw this; we need 2 colour transformations!
739: % SDSS -> Cousins
740: % 2MASS -> CIT
741: %
742: %The 2MASS magnitudes may be related to the Caltech (CIT) photometric
743: %system magnitudes through \cite{Carpenter-01}\footnote{Updated
744: %transformations are found at
745: %\url{http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~jmc/2mass/v3/transformations/}}.
746: %For the reason of checking mass ($\msun$) -- colour ($V - K$) relations
747: %from \cite{Delfosse-00}, who use Johnson--Cousins--CIT magnitudes.
748:
749:
750: \section{Discussion}
751:
752: Previous studies \citep[e.g.][and references
753: therein]{2006Ap&SS.304...89R}, have demonstrated that current models
754: underpredict the radii of low--mass stars at a given mass. The radii
755: derived for \name's components (R$_1 = 0.64 \pm 0.08 \rsun$ at M$_1 =
756: 0.66 \pm 0.03 \msun$, R$_2 = 0.61 \pm 0.09 \rsun$ at M$_2 = 0.62 \pm
757: 0.03 \msun$) lie in between different model predictions, and the
758: errors are currently large enough to not yet provide discrimination
759: between the models.
760: %
761: %Nearly the entire source of the uncertainties on the stellar radii is
762: %due to the large errors on the photometry due the faintness of this
763: %system.
764: %
765: The source of the uncertainties on the stellar radii is almost
766: entirely due to the large errors on the photometry given the faintness
767: of this system.
768: %
769: A severe banana-shaped degeneracy between the impact-parameter (or
770: inclination) and the ratio of the stellar radii occurs due to the
771: large photometric errors (Figure \ref{fig-banana}); this is why in
772: Table \ref{tab-pars2} the fractional error on $R_1+R_2$ ($\sim$ 3\%)
773: is much smaller than the fractional error on $R_2/R_1$ ($\sim$ 30\%).
774: Within the 68.3\% confidence limit, the deviation of the K-band
775: lightcurve from the best-fit lightcurve is only 0.6\%, which implies
776: that milli-magnitude precision would be required to derive the radius
777: ratio to high accuracy. Below, we discuss the implications of our
778: system with regards to current theoretical and empirical mass-radius
779: relations.
780:
781: \begin{figure}
782: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f6.5.ps}
783: \caption{Confidence limits on $b/(R_1+R_2)$ and $R_2/R_1$ from the
784: synthetic data sets. The shaded region shows the density of points
785: from the best-fit parameters to $10^5$ simulated data sets, while
786: the contours are 68.3\%, 95.4\%, and 99.73\% confidence regions.}
787: \label{fig-banana}
788: \end{figure}
789:
790: \subsection{The Empirical Mass--Radius Relationship}\label{sec-ana}
791: In Figure ~\ref{fig-mrdist}, the masses and radii of known low--mass
792: eclipsing binary systems
793: \citep{2007ApJ...660..732L,2006astro.ph.10225L,2007ASPC..362...26L}
794: are plotted along with current empirical \citep{2006ApJ...651.1155B}
795: and theoretical models
796: \citep{1998A&A...337..403B,2000A&A...358..593S}.
797: \cite{2006ApJ...651.1155B} have derived an empirical mass--radius
798: relationship for K and M dwarfs from known binaries that stretches up
799: to nearly $0.8 \msun$. We test this empirical mass-radius relation by
800: comparing their expected radii, given our mass measurements, to our
801: measured radii. Their analysis predicts $R_1 = 0.67 \pm 0.03 \rsun$
802: and $R_2 = 0.63 \pm 0.03 \rsun$, while we measure $R_1 = 0.64 \pm 0.08
803: \rsun$ and $R_2 = 0.61 \pm 0.09 \rsun$. Our objects are consistent
804: with the ensemble of eclipsing binary stars used to derive their
805: relationship, and fill in the gap at the high--mass, early--dM end of
806: the relationship. The dearth of data in Figure~\ref{fig-mrdist} and
807: the recent discovery of many of these systems reflects that this is an
808: emerging field, only recently enabled by large--scale photometric
809: surveys.
810:
811: Theoretical models predict mass-radius relations which are a strong
812: functions of both metallicity and age \citep{1996ApJ...461L..51B}.
813: The predictions of the \cite{1998A&A...337..403B} evolutionary models
814: for objects of solar metallicity and ages of $10^8-10^9$ years are
815: consistent with \name, yet disagree with other systems of similar
816: mass. The models tend to systematically underpredict the radii at a
817: given mass, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig-mrdist}. While the
818: uncertainties on the masses and radii of \name's components render
819: them an equally good fit to both the \cite{1998A&A...337..403B}
820: theoretical models and \cite{2006ApJ...651.1155B} empirical fit,
821: additional photometric and spectroscopic data should yield more
822: precise measurements of these attributes, and better discrimination
823: between models.
824:
825: For comparison, the models of \cite{2000A&A...358..593S} are also
826: shown in Figure~\ref{fig-mrdist}. The large differences between
827: models with similar inputs for metallicity and age highlight the
828: uncertainty that presently exists in this field. Hopefully this
829: situation will be remedied by more high-precision measurements of
830: fundamental stellar parameters in binary systems, along with updated
831: models.
832:
833: %Some puzzling discrepancies appear when comparing \name\ with other
834: %similar stars. The derived masses of \name\ are among the largest
835: %measured for known M--dwarf systems \citep{rei05}.
836: %\cite{2002ApJ...567.1140T} find masses of $0.5992\pm 0.0047 M_\odot$
837: %and radii of $0.6191 \pm 0.0057 R_\odot$ for both components of YY
838: %Gem, which they classify as an M1.0 Ve star. The primary star of
839: %\name\ has a similar spectral type as YY Gem, but its mass and radius
840: %are larger than those of YY Gem at the $2-\sigma$ level, while the
841: %secondary star of \name\ has a later spectral type than YY Gem, but
842: %its mass and radius are consistent with that of YY Gem at the
843: %$1-\sigma$ level. Additional photometry and radial velocity
844: %measurements of \name\ will be necessary to determine if these
845: %differences are statistically significant.
846:
847:
848: \begin{figure}
849: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f7.ps}
850: \caption{Distribution of mass vs. radius for known low--mass
851: double--lined eclipsing binary systems (open circles;
852: L{\'o}pez-Morales 2007; L{\'o}pez-Morales et~al. 2006;
853: L{\'o}pez-Morales \& Shaw 2007; Maxted et~al. 2004). The solid
854: line shows an empirical relationship derived by Bayless \& Orosz
855: (2006); the dotted line represents the Z=0.02, Y=0.275, T=1 Gyr
856: models of Baraffe et~al. (1998); the dashed line represents the
857: Z=0.02, Y=0.28, T=1 Gyr models of Siess et~al. (2000). The solid
858: dots correspond to the components of \name.}
859:
860: %double--lined eclipsing binary systems \citep[open
861: %circles;][]{2007ApJ...660..732L,2006astro.ph.10225L,2007ASPC..362...26L,2004MNRAS.355.1143M}.
862: %The solid line shows an empirical relationship derived by
863: %\cite{2006ApJ...651.1155B}; the dotted line represents the Z=0.02,
864: %Y=0.275, T=1 Gyr models of \cite{1998A&A...337..403B}; the dashed
865: %line represents the Z=0.02, Y=0.28, T=1 Gyr models of
866: %\cite{2000A&A...358..593S}. The solid dots correspond to the
867: %components of \name.}
868: \label{fig-mrdist}
869: \end{figure}
870:
871:
872: \subsection{Activity}
873: An interesting aspect of this system is the observed H$\alpha$
874: emission in both of the components. \cite{2004AJ....128..426W} find
875: that less than 5\% of isolated M0 and M1 stars show activity
876: (H$\alpha$ equivalent width of at least 1\AA). The activity in
877: early-type M dwarfs is also short lived \citep[$<$ 1
878: Gyr;][]{2000vlms.conf..109H,West07a}. It would be very unlikely to
879: randomly draw an active M0 and M1 star from the field population,
880: suggesting that some aspect of the interactions between the components
881: is inducing the observed magnetic activity. The improbability of the
882: stars being independently active is furthered when we consider the
883: distance that this pair is from the Galactic plane. It is likely that
884: M0 and M1 dwarfs that are several hundred pc from the Plane have been
885: dynamically heated for many Gyrs and have ceased being active
886: \citep{West07a}.
887:
888: A search through the Palomar/MSU Nearby Star Catalog of
889: \cite{2002AJ....123.3356G} shows that a large fraction (20/22) of
890: double--lined spectroscopic M--dwarf binaries have magnetically active
891: components (H$\alpha$ equivalent width of at least 1\AA). Other
892: empirical studies \citep[e.g.][]{2007ApJ...660..732L} have suggested
893: that the magnetic activity and metallicity of a star may affect its
894: radius, drawing an explicit connection between the enhanced activity
895: and large radii found in M--dwarfs in binary systems.
896: \cite{2007A&A...472L..17C} suggest that enhanced magnetic activity may
897: lead to inefficient thermal transport in stellar interiors. This
898: results in objects with larger radii and smaller effective
899: temperatures than stars where magnetic effects are negligible. Rapid
900: stellar rotation may similarly affect the interior convection. In
901: addition, enhanced surface spot coverage ($30-50\%$), due to strong
902: magnetic activity, may impact the stellar radius. Either of these
903: effects may be responsible for the empirical mass--radius
904: relationships found in low--mass binary stars; additional data are
905: required to constrain these theories.
906:
907: %\cite{2007A&A...472L..17C} suggest that the enhanced magnetic activity
908: %associated with stars in close binary systems may lead to inefficient
909: %thermal transport in the stellar interiors. This results in objects
910: %with larger radii and smaller effective temperatures than stars where
911: %magnetic effects are negligible. Rapid stellar rotation may similarly
912: %affect the interior convection. \cite{2007A&A...472L..17C} also
913: %indicate that enhanced surface spot coverage ($30-50\%$), due to
914: %strong magnetic activity, is also sufficient to explain the empirical
915: %trends.
916:
917: \section{Conclusions}
918: \label{sec-conclude}
919: We report the discovery and characterization of the double--lined
920: eclipsing binary system \namefull. Photometric and spectroscopic
921: evidence suggests that both components are M dwarfs, and we adopt
922: classifications of M0 and M1 as their subtypes. We resolve splitting
923: of the H$\alpha$ emission line with spectroscopic observations using
924: HIRES at Keck, leading to a radial velocity curve and estimates of the
925: masses and radii of each star. Simulated data sets created by
926: adding noise to the best fit provides uncertainties on and covariances
927: between the system
928: parameters. We emphasize that there exist complicated degeneracies
929: between parameters in eclipsing systems that can only be fully
930: explored with such detailed analyses.
931:
932: Our analysis is consistent with previous studies of double--lined
933: eclipsing M--dwarf systems. An empirical study by
934: \cite{2006ApJ...651.1155B} yields a quadratic mass--radius
935: relationship spanning the range of $0.2 - 0.8 \msun$ and spectral
936: types from late K to late M. This empirical relation accurately
937: predicts the radii of \name's components.
938:
939: %We are unable to measure the temperature of the system's components to
940: %high precision. However, there are well--known problems in
941: %establishing the temperatures of M--dwarfs, since M--dwarf spectra are
942: %poorly approximated by a blackbody curve. \cite{1992ApJ...392L..31B}
943: %establish a broadband ``blackbody equivalent temperature'', although
944: %the uncertainties in this measurement are equivalent to our
945: %uncertainties on the temperature derived from the CaH2 index
946: %\citep{WoolfWall06}. A more useful method would be to determine the
947: %absolute luminosity of the components, requiring an accurate parallax
948: %distance. At a distance of $\sim 600$pc, such observations would
949: %require 2 mas resolution, easily within reach of the next--generation
950: %astrometry satellite GAIA \citep{2001A&A...369..339P}.
951:
952: % (resolving
953: %orbital motion of the binaries would require resolution of 64
954: %$\mu$arcseconds, for which these objects are too faint).
955:
956: We observe H$\alpha$ emission from both components, an unlikely
957: scenario given their early--M spectral types and their distance from
958: the Galactic plane. If magnetic activity is enhanced in M dwarfs in
959: binary systems, the binary population including M--dwarfs components
960: may present an additional foreground of stellar flares for next
961: generation time domain surveys
962: \citep{2006ApJ...644L..63K,2004ApJ...611..418B}.
963:
964: \section*{Acknowledgments}
965: We thank M. Claire, S. Hawley, and M. Solontoi for useful discussions,
966: and H. Bouy for assistance with the Keck observations.
967: E. A. acknowledges support from NSF CAREER grant AST-0645416.
968: G. B. thanks the NSF for grant support through AST-0098468. This
969: paper includes data gathered with the 6.5 meter Magellan Telescopes
970: located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile. This publication also
971: makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which
972: is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared
973: Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology,
974: funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
975: National Science Foundation. This work is based on observations
976: obtained from the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a
977: scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology,
978: the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space
979: Administration.
980:
981: Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and SDSS-II has been
982: provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating
983: Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of
984: Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
985: Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society, and the Higher
986: Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web site is
987: http://www.sdss.org/.
988:
989: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for
990: the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
991: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
992: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve
993: University, The University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab,
994: the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The
995: Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear
996: Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and
997: Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences
998: (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for
999: Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New
1000: Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of
1001: Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United
1002: States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
1003:
1004: \bibliography{ms}
1005: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
1006:
1007: \begin{table}
1008: \caption{Radial Velocities}
1009: \label{tab-rvs}
1010: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcc}
1011: \hline
1012: {Date (TDB)} & {$v_1$ (km s$^{-1}$)} & {$v_2$ (km s$^{-1}$)} \\
1013: \hline
1014: % forgot 32.184s correction for TAI->TDT
1015: % 54021.37543 & $-55.49 \pm 2.75$ & $ 99.51 \pm 2.95$ \\
1016: % 54021.40398 & $-57.00 \pm 2.89$ & $100.90 \pm 3.25$ \\
1017: % 54081.21492 & $ 81.77 \pm 2.80$ & $-47.93 \pm 3.45$ \\
1018: % 54106.23977 & $-41.12 \pm 3.06$ & $ 91.28 \pm 3.74$ \\
1019: % 54106.27749 & $-46.12 \pm 3.12$ & $ 80.38 \pm 3.38$ \\
1020: 54021.3758 & $-55.49 \pm 2.75$ & $ 99.51 \pm 2.95$ \\
1021: 54021.4043 & $-57.00 \pm 2.89$ & $100.90 \pm 3.25$ \\
1022: 54081.2152 & $ 81.77 \pm 2.80$ & $-47.93 \pm 3.45$ \\
1023: 54106.2401 & $-41.12 \pm 3.06$ & $ 91.28 \pm 3.74$ \\
1024: 54106.2778 & $-46.12 \pm 3.12$ & $ 80.38 \pm 3.38$ \\
1025: \hline
1026: \end{tabular}
1027:
1028: Barycentric radial velocities measured from the Keck data on Oct 13,
1029: 2006, Dec 12, 2006 and Jan 6, 2007. The errors include a systematic
1030: error of 1.75 km s$^{-1}$ which has been added in quadrature to each
1031: of the measured velocity uncertainties. Dates are in Modified
1032: Julian Day (MJD) corrected to the solar system dynamic barycenter
1033: (TDB).
1034: \end{table}
1035:
1036: \begin{table*}
1037: \caption{Apparent brightness, colours, and limb-darkening of \name}
1038: \label{tab-pars1}
1039: \begin{tabular}{@{}lccccccc|cc}
1040: \hline
1041: {Filter} & {Star 1} & {Star 2} & {Total} & {$f_2/f_1$} & {$m_1-K_{\rm s,1}$} & {$m_2-K_{\rm s,2}$} & {$m_{tot}-K_{\rm s,tot}$} & {$u_1$} & {$u_2$} \\
1042: \hline
1043: $u$&$ 21.95 \pm 0.05$ & $> 22.74^a$ &$ 21.9477 \pm 0.0461$ & $< 0.95^a$ &$ 6.67^{+0.247}_{-0.323}$ & $> 7.2^a$ &$ 7.3047 \pm 0.0462$ &0.713&0.734\\
1044: $g$&$ 19.89^{+0.32}_{-0.23}$ &$ 21.26^{+1.22}_{-0.72}$ &$ 19.6159 \pm 0.0038$ &$ 0.2833^{+0.43}_{-0.25}$ & $ 4.61^{+0.072}_{-0.057}$ &$ 5.73^{+0.875}_{-0.419}$ &$ 4.9729 \pm 0.0043$ &0.829&0.814\\
1045: $r$&$ 18.59^{+0.32}_{-0.23}$ &$ 19.70^{+1.06}_{-0.59}$ &$ 18.2573 \pm 0.0039$ &$ 0.3581^{+0.46}_{-0.26}$ & $ 3.31 \pm 0.07$ &$ 4.18^{+0.670}_{-0.303}$ &$ 3.6143 \pm 0.0043$ &0.808&0.777\\
1046: $i$&$ 17.69^{+0.32}_{-0.23}$ &$ 18.66^{+0.91}_{-0.52}$ &$ 17.3164 \pm 0.0035$ &$ 0.4100^{+0.48}_{-0.27}$ & $ 2.41 \pm 0.07$ &$ 3.13^{+0.505}_{-0.238}$ &$ 2.6734 \pm 0.0041$ &0.696&0.672\\
1047: $z$&$ 17.22^{+0.31}_{-0.23}$ &$ 17.99^{+0.69}_{-0.44}$ &$ 16.7874 \pm 0.0032$ &$ 0.4943^{+0.50}_{-0.28}$ & $ 1.94 \pm 0.06$ &$ 2.46^{+0.298}_{-0.167}$ &$ 2.1444 \pm 0.0038$ &0.611&0.589\\
1048: $J$&$ 16.08^{+0.29}_{-0.22}$ &$ 16.47^{+0.42}_{-0.32}$ &$ 15.5019 \pm 0.0013$ &$ 0.6979^{+0.53}_{-0.31}$ & $ 0.80 \pm 0.05$ &$ 0.94 \pm 0.06$ &$ 0.8589 \pm 0.0024$ &0.481&0.428\\
1049: $H$&$ 15.46^{+0.31}_{-0.23}$ &$ 15.74^{+0.41}_{-0.30}$ &$ 14.8373 \pm 0.0015$ &$ 0.7672^{+0.58}_{-0.34}$ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.05$ &$ 0.22 \pm 0.06$ &$ 0.1943 \pm 0.0025$ &0.453&0.398\\
1050: $K_{\rm s}$&$ 15.28^{+0.31}_{-0.24}$ &$ 15.53^{+0.40}_{-0.30}$ &$ 14.6430 \pm 0.0020$ & $ 0.7971^{+0.60}_{-0.36}$ & -- & -- & -- &0.377&0.329\\
1051: \hline
1052: \end{tabular}
1053:
1054: a : In the $u$ band the best-fit flux for the second star is zero, so we report 90\% limits
1055: on the magnitude and colours of this star.\\
1056:
1057: The apparent brightnesses of each component of \name, as well as the
1058: composite system brightness, as derived from our global fit. We
1059: also list the adopted limb--darkening parameters $u_{1,2}$ for the
1060: components \citep{2000A&A...363.1081C,2004A&A...428.1001C}. The
1061: total system brightness is better constrained than those of the
1062: individual components because of the latter's covariance with the
1063: radii of the stars, as well as the inclination of the system. Due
1064: to the anticorrelation between the fluxes of the two stars, the flux
1065: ratio (column 5) has larger uncertainties. The colours have smaller
1066: errors than the magnitudes since the fluxes in each band are
1067: strongly correlated for each star. We quote a single error bar when
1068: the positive and negative uncertainties are the same to within 10\%.
1069:
1070: \end{table*}
1071:
1072: \begin{table*}
1073: \caption{Binary Fit Parameters}
1074: \label{tab-pars2}
1075: \begin{tabular}{@{}lc}
1076: \hline
1077: {Parameter} & {Value} \\
1078: \hline
1079: $e$ cos($\omega$) & $0.00142 \pm 0.00068$ \\
1080: $i$ (radians) & $1.51445_{-0.00109}^{+0.00839} $ \\
1081: $e$ sin($\omega$) & $-0.006 \pm 0.012$ \\
1082: $T_{\rm 0}$ (TDB) & $52244.82052 \pm 0.00058$ \\
1083: $P$ (days) & $2.6390157 \pm 0.0000016$ \\
1084: $R_1$($\rsun$) & $0.639_{-0.090}^{+0.076} $ \\
1085: $R_2$($\rsun$) & $0.610_{-0.102}^{+0.083} $ \\
1086: $M_1$($\msun$) & $0.659 \pm 0.031$ \\
1087: $M_2$($\msun$) & $0.619 \pm 0.028$ \\
1088: $\gamma$ (km s$^{-1}$) & $19.09 \pm 1.28$ \\
1089: \hline
1090: \hline
1091: $M_1/R_1$($M_\odot/R_\odot$) & $ 1.032^{+0.171}_{-0.112}$ \\
1092: $M_2/R_2$($M_\odot/R_\odot$) & $ 1.016^{+0.204}_{-0.124}$ \\
1093: $R_1+R_2$ ($\rsun$) & $ 1.248^{+0.021}_{-0.048}$ \\
1094: $R_2/R_1$ & $ 0.955^{+0.304}_{-0.244}$ \\
1095: $a/R_1 $ & $ 13.652^{+2.220}_{-1.455}$ \\
1096: $a/R_2 $ & $ 14.299^{+2.850}_{-1.707}$ \\
1097: $K_1$ (km s$^{-1}$) & $ 80.896\pm 1.811$ \\
1098: $K_2$ (km s$^{-1}$) & $ 76.062\pm 4.204$ \\
1099: $K $ (km s$^{-1}$) & $ 156.959\pm 5.901$ \\
1100: $log(g_1$ [cm s$^{-2}$]) & $ 4.646^{+0.131}_{-0.098}$ \\
1101: $log(g_2$ [cm s$^{-2}$]) & $ 4.659^{+0.158}_{-0.111}$ \\
1102: $\rho_1$ (g cm$^{-3}$) & $ 3.563^{+2.032}_{-1.023}$ \\
1103: $\rho_2$ (g cm$^{-3}$) & $ 3.849^{+2.790}_{-1.223}$ \\
1104: $M_1+M_2$ ($M_\odot$) & $ 1.278\pm 0.054$ \\
1105: $M_2/M_1$ & $ 0.940\pm 0.034$ \\
1106: $a$ ($\rsun$) & $ 8.718\pm 0.123$ \\
1107: $a$ (AU) & $ 0.041\pm 0.001$ \\
1108: $b$ ($R_\odot$) & $ 0.396^{+0.005}_{-0.050}$ \\
1109: $T_2/T_1$ & $ 0.947^{+.032}_{.016}$\\
1110: \hline
1111: \end{tabular}
1112:
1113: Best fit system and physical parameters of \name\ (above line) and
1114: derived parameters (below line). The fitting process is described in
1115: Section~\ref{sec-model}. Uncertainties in the parameters are derived
1116: from the distribution of best-fit values for the 10$^5$ synthetic
1117: light curves. We quote a single error bar when the positive and
1118: negative uncertainties are the same to within 10\%.
1119:
1120: \end{table*}
1121:
1122: % If we decide to include all the data...
1123: % \include{table1b}
1124:
1125: \label{lastpage}
1126:
1127: \end{document}
1128:
1129: