1: \documentclass[numberedappendix]{emulateapj}
2: \begin{document}
3:
4: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ: March 20, 2008}
5:
6: \title{A Resolved Molecular Gas Disk around the Nearby A Star 49 Ceti}
7:
8: \author{A. M. Hughes \altaffilmark{1},
9: D. J. Wilner \altaffilmark{1},
10: I. Kamp \altaffilmark{2},
11: M. R. Hogerheijde \altaffilmark{3}}
12:
13: \email{mhughes@cfa.harvard.edu}
14:
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
16: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
17: \altaffiltext{2}{Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen,
18: 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9513, 2300 RA,
20: Leiden, The Netherlands}
21:
22:
23: % document history
24: % 13aug07 amh draft
25: % 04sep07 ik model section revised
26: % 28oct07 amh revision
27: % 29oct07 ik edits
28: % 02nov07 ik CO chem section added
29: % 04nov07 amh edits
30: % 09nov07 ik new figures, paragraph on gas temp
31: % 12nov07 amh edits
32: % 13nov07 djw tweaks
33: % 13nov07 amh edits
34: % 27nov07 amh edits in response to Sean & Michiel's comments
35: % 03/07jan08 amh edits incorporating ik comments
36: % 08jan08 submitted to ApJ
37: % 03mar08 revisions
38:
39: \bibliographystyle{apj}
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42:
43: The A star 49 Ceti, at a distance of 61 pc, is unusual in retaining a
44: substantial quantity of molecular gas while exhibiting dust properties similar
45: to those of a debris disk. We present resolved observations of the disk
46: around 49 Ceti from the Submillimeter Array in the J=2-1 rotational transition
47: of CO with a resolution of 1.0$\times$1.2 arcsec. The observed emission
48: reveals an extended rotating structure viewed approximately edge-on and clear
49: of detectable CO emission out to a distance of $\sim 90$~AU from the star. No
50: 1.3 millimeter continuum emission is detected at a $3\sigma$ sensitivity of
51: 2.1 mJy/beam. Models of disk structure and chemistry indicate that the inner
52: disk is devoid of molecular gas, while the outer gas disk between 40 and 200 AU
53: from the star is dominated by photochemistry from stellar and interstellar
54: radiation. We determine parameters for a model that reproduces the basic
55: features of the spatially resolved CO J=2-1 emission, the spectral energy
56: distribution, and the unresolved CO J=3-2 spectrum. We investigate
57: variations in disk chemistry and observable properties for a range of
58: structural parameters. 49 Ceti appears to be a rare example of a system in a
59: late stage of transition between a gas-rich protoplanetary disk and a tenuous,
60: virtually gas-free debris disk.
61:
62: \keywords{astrochemistry --- circumstellar matter --- planetary systems:
63: protoplanetary disks --- stars:individual (49 Ceti)}
64:
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68:
69: A key to understanding the formation of planetary systems lies in
70: characterizing the transitional phase between the gas-rich primordial
71: disks found around young T Tauri stars and the tenuous, virtually
72: gas-free debris disks around their main-sequence counterparts. Unfortunately,
73: disks in this transitional phase are rare and difficult to identify.
74: Dust disks around young stars are commonly identified through the
75: ``Vega-excess'' phenomenon (first observed using the Infrared
76: Astronomical Satellite by \citealt{aum84}; see review by \citealt{zuc01}),
77: in which an infared excess over the stellar photosphere is attributed to
78: reprocessing of optical and ultraviolet
79: starlight by thermally emitting circumstellar dust grains.
80: 49 Ceti was first identified in this way by \citet{sad86}.
81: The quantity $\tau = L_{IR}/L_{bol}$ is often used as an indicator of the
82: ``optical depth'' of the dust disk, as it provides a rough estimate of the
83: quantity of optical/ultraviolet light intercepted and reemitted by the dust.
84: \citet{jur93} correlated the IRAS Point Source Catalog with the Yale Bright
85: Star Catalog \citep{hof91} and identified three A stars with
86: $\tau > 10^{-3}$, indicative of tenuous, optically thin circumstellar dust.
87: Two were the stars $\beta$ Pic and HR4796, which are now known to host
88: debris disks. The third was 49 Ceti, which unlike the other two defies
89: classification as a debris disk because it retains a substantial quantity of
90: molecular gas, first observed in the CO J=2-1 line \citep{zuc95} and
91: later confirmed in J=3-2 \citep{den05}. At a distance of only 61 pc
92: (Hipparcos), it is one of the closest known gas-rich circumstellar
93: disks, farther only than TW Hydrae \citep[51pc;][]{mam05}. Its outward
94: similarity to a debris disk, combined with the substantial quantity of
95: molecular gas still present in the system, suggest that the disk may be
96: in an unusual transitional evolutionary phase.
97:
98: All three high-$\tau$ A stars are young: HR 4796A has an age of $8 \pm 2$ Myr \citep{sta95}
99: and $\beta$ Pic has been placed at $\sim 20$ Myr by \citet{thi01a}, consistent
100: with the age determination of $20 \pm 10$ Myr by \citet{bar99}.
101: The age of 49 Ceti is uncertain due to its isolation; unlike $\beta$ Pic or
102: HR 4796A there are no known associated low-mass stars to provide a corroborating
103: age estimate. \citet{jur98} demonstrate that on an HR diagram, all three
104: stars exhibit a low luminosity for their color, which is likely attributable
105: to their young ages ($\sim 10$~Myr). Using the evolutionary tracks of
106: \citet{sie00}, \citet{thi01a} assign an age of 7.8~Myr to 49 Ceti based on
107: its position on the HR diagram.
108:
109: Few conclusive measurements have been made of the dust properties in the
110: 49 Ceti system. HST/NICMOS coronographic observations of 49 Ceti failed to
111: detect any scattered light in the near infrared at $r>1\farcs6$ \citep{wei99}.
112: Recent subarcsecond-scale imaging at mid-infrared wavelengths with Keck
113: \citep{wah07} revealed dust emission at 12.5 and 17.9 $\mu$m, extended along
114: a NW-SE axis and apparently inclined at an angle of $60^\circ$. Simple
115: models of the dust emission suggest a radial size segregation of
116: dust grains, with a population of very small grains ($a \sim 0.1\mu$m)
117: confined between 30 and 60 AU from the star, and a population of larger
118: grains ($a \sim 15 \mu$m) from 60 to 900 AU from the star.
119: However, the outer radius of this latter component is uncertain due to its
120: dependence on the millimeter flux, which is not well determined. There are two
121: contradictory single dish measurements of the millimeter dust emission, both
122: with modest signal-to-noise. \citet{boc94} report a IRAM 1.2~mm flux of
123: $12.7 \pm 2.3$ mJy, while \citet{son04} report a JCMT/SCUBA 850 $\mu$m flux of
124: $8.2 \pm 1.9$ mJy. These measurements are mutually inconsistent for either
125: a thermal spectrum ($F_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-2}$) or a typical optically
126: thin circumstellar disk spectrum ($F_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-3}$) in this
127: wavelength regime.
128:
129: If we accept the lower value of the 850 $\mu$m flux and make standard
130: assumptions about the dust opacity \citep[e.g.][]{bec91}, then the total mass
131: of the 49 Ceti dust disk is 0.1 M$_\earth$. If we compare this to other
132: nearby dusty disks at potentially similar stages of evolution, we find that
133: 49 Ceti, with an 850 $\mu$m flux of 8.2 mJy at a distance of 61 pc, has a
134: dust mass ($\propto F_{850\mu m} d^2$) approximately 80\% that of $\beta$
135: Pic \citep[104.3 mJy, 19.3 pc;][]{hol98} but only 0.3\% that of
136: the typical Herbig Ae star HD 169142 \citep[554 mJy, 145 pc;][]{syl96}.
137: Thus the 49 Ceti disk appears to have a tenuous dust disk more akin to that
138: of the debris disk around $\beta$ Pic than a gas-rich protoplanetary disk.
139:
140: Studies of the distribution of gas in the 49 Ceti system have been similarly
141: inconclusive, particularly since it is not obvious that a substantial
142: reservoir of molecular gas should persist in the strong UV field of an A star
143: at this apparently advanced stage. Attempts to detect pure rotational
144: transitions of the H$_2$ molecule have resulted in contradictory reports,
145: with \citet{thi01n} reporting a marginal detection using SWS/ISO, which
146: \citet{che06} did not confirm with Spitzer/IRS observations; nor did
147: \citet{car07} detect H$_2$ emission with VLT/CRIRES observations. Models of
148: the double-peaked JCMT CO J=3-2 line profile observed by \citet{den05}
149: indicated that the gas is likely distributed in either a very compact disk
150: with $\sim 16^\circ$ inclination or a more inclined ring of radius $\sim 50$ AU
151: and inclination $\sim 35^\circ$. The latter was deemed more consistent with
152: the dust distribution seen in the mid-infrared, although it fails to reproduce
153: the high-velocity wings that may be present in the CO J=3-2 line profile.
154:
155: In order to obtain spatially resolved information on the distribution of
156: material in the system, we observed 49 Ceti with the Submillimeter
157: Array\footnote{The Submillimeter Array is a joint project between the
158: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Academia Sinica Institute of
159: Astronomy and Astrophysics and is funded by the Smithsonian Institution and the
160: Academia Sinica.}
161: in the J=2-1 transition of CO and associated continuum. We detect a rotating
162: structure of much greater extent than predicted from the single-dish
163: measurements, with a large central region devoid of molecular gas emission.
164: We also model the disk emission using COSTAR
165: \citep{kam00,kam01}, a code that combines thin hydrostatic equilibrium
166: models of disks with a rich chemistry network and a detailed heating and
167: cooling balance to determine gas properties. The models provide some insight
168: into basic properties of the disk, including the region of photodissociation
169: of CO in the inner disk and the spatial extent of the emission.
170:
171: The observations are described in \S\ref{sec:obs}, and results presented
172: in \S\ref{sec:res}. In \S\ref{sec:mod} we discuss the process undertaken
173: to model the data, including the basic model structure, the initial conditions
174: for the chemistry, and the initial model adopted from the dust emission analysis
175: of \citet{wah07}, as well as adjustments to that fiducial model necessitated
176: by the new observations. The parameter space is explored in
177: \S\ref{sec:grid}, including an investigation of the varying influence of
178: chemistry across the model grid, and \S\ref{sec:SED} discusses the dust
179: properties in the context of the spectral energy distribution predicted from
180: the gas model. The best-fit model is discussed in \S\ref{sec:best}, including
181: an a posteriori comparison of the model prediction with the observed CO J=3-2
182: spectrum; inadequacies of the model are also noted. The results are discussed
183: in the broader context of disk evolution in \S\ref{sec:dis}, and a summary is
184: presented in \S\ref{sec:con}.
185:
186:
187: \section{Observations}
188: \label{sec:obs}
189:
190: We observed 49 Ceti with the SMA at 230 GHz during an 11-hour track on
191: the night of October 13, 2006. Atmospheric phase was extremely stable,
192: with typical phase changes of $<15^\circ$ between calibrator scans (every 25
193: minutes). Seven antennas were used in the ``extended'' configuration, with
194: projected baselines between 15 and 130 meters.
195: The primary flux calibrator was Uranus, and the passband calibrators were
196: the quasars 3C454.3 and J0530+135. Gain calibration was carried out using
197: the quasar J0132-169, located just 1.3$^\circ$ from 49 Ceti; the flux derived
198: for this quasar was 0.93 Jy. The nearby quasar J0006-063 was also included
199: to test the quality of the phase transfer from J0132-169.
200:
201: Two 2-GHz sidebands separated by 10 GHz were used, yielding a continuum
202: sensitivity of 0.7 mJy (1$\sigma$). Spectral resolution in the line was
203: 0.26 km/s, subsequently binned to 2.1 km/s, with rms sensitivity 0.030 Jy in a
204: single 2.1 km/s channel. The LSR velocities were converted to heliocentric
205: using an offset of -9.14 km/s. The synthesized naturally weighted beam in the
206: CO J=2-1 line was 1\farcs0$\times$1\farcs2, at a position angle of
207: -78.6$^\circ$.
208: Imaging was carried out using the MIRIAD software package.
209:
210: \begin{figure}
211: \centering
212: \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=90]{f1.eps}
213: \caption{A renzogram of SMA observations of 49 Ceti in the CO J=2-1 line.
214: The beam size is 1\farcs0$\times$1\farcs2, and the position angle is
215: $-79^\circ$. Contours are -3, 3, and 5 $\times$ 37 mJy/beam (the rms noise).
216: The position of 49 Ceti is marked with a star symbol, while the green line
217: indicates the position angle derived by \citet{wah07} from mid-IR imaging.
218: The contour colors indicate heliocentric line-of-sight velocity;
219: the four distinct velocities shown are 9.0, 11.1, 13.2, and 15.3 km/s, in the
220: %the four distinct velocities shown are -0.1, 2.0, 4.1, and 6.2 km/s, in the
221: order of bluest to reddest channel. No emission was detected outside this
222: velocity range.
223: }
224: \label{fig:map}
225: \end{figure}
226:
227: \section{Results and Analysis}
228: \label{sec:res}
229:
230: Figure \ref{fig:map} shows the observed line emission from the region around
231: 49 Ceti. Four velocity channels are shown, with the velocity indicated by
232: the color of the contour lines. The observations are centered on the J2000
233: coordinates of 49 Ceti; the star symbol indicates the position corrected
234: for the proper motion measured by {\em Hipparcos}. The maximum signal-to-noise
235: ratio in the line is 8. The CO J=2-1 emission appears to be in an extended
236: rotating structure of $>2$" radius, apparently viewed close to edge-on.
237: The symmetric distribution of the emission in the four velocity channels
238: implies a heliocentric velocity near 12.2 km/s, consistent with previous
239: determinations of the systemic velocity \citep[10.5 and 9.9 km/s for the disk
240: and the star, respectively; see][and references therein]{den05}.
241: No emission is detected outside the range of velocities shown.
242: The wide separation of the emission peaks, combined with a lack
243: of compact, high-velocity emission, suggests that the central regions are
244: clear of CO J=2-1 emission out to $\sim$90~AU radius ($\sim$1\farcs5),
245: twice that of the larger ring predicted from the CO J=3-2 single dish data.
246: %In addition, while the position angle of the inner velocity channels is
247: %consistent with that seen in the mid-infrared by \citet{wah07}, the
248: %outer velocity channels are misaligned from this axis, perhaps indicative of
249: %either a warp or a more complex geometry, such as an incomplete or ``broken''
250: %ring.
251: Table \ref{tab} lists the observed parameters of the system.
252:
253: \begin{table*}
254: \caption{Observational parameters for 49 Ceti}
255: \begin{center}
256: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
257: \hline
258: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Parameter} & $^{12}$CO(3-2)$^a$ & $^{12}$CO(2-1) & $^{13}$CO(2-1) & continuum \\
259: \hline
260: \hline
261: Rest frequency (GHz) & 345.796 & 230.538 & 220.399 & 230.5 (USB$^b$) \\
262: Channel width & 0.27 km s$^{-1}$ & 2.1 km s$^{-1}$ & 8.4 km s$^{-1}$ & 2$\times$2 GHz \\
263: Beam size (FWHM) & 14" & 1\farcs0$\times$1\farcs2 & 1\farcs0$\times$1\farcs2 & 1\farcs0$\times$1\farcs2 \\
264: ~~~PA & -- & -78.6$^\circ$ & -78.6$^\circ$ & -78.6$^\circ$ \\
265: rms noise (Jy beam$^{-1}$) & 0.22 & 0.030 & 0.017 & $7.0\times 10^{-4}$ \\
266: Dust flux (mJy) & -- & -- & -- & $<2.1$ \\
267: Peak brightness temperature (K) & 0.076$\pm$0.008 & 3.5$\pm$0.5 & $<0.8$ & -- \\
268: Integrated intensity (Jy km s$^{-1}$) & 9.5$\pm$1.9 & 2.0$\pm$0.3 & $<0.5$ & --
269: \\
270: \hline
271: \end{tabular}
272: \end{center}
273: \tablenotetext{a}{~\citet{den05}}
274: \tablenotetext{b}{~Upper sideband frequency; lower sideband is centered at
275: 220.5 GHz. Both sidebands have 2 GHz width.}
276: \label{tab}
277: \end{table*}
278:
279: Assuming optically thin lines and LTE, the total mass in CO probed by the
280: J=2-1 transition is given by
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: M=\frac{4 \pi}{h \nu_{21}} \frac{F_{21} m d^2}{A_{21} x_{2}}
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: where the subscript 21 refers to the CO(2-1) transition, $F$ is the
285: integrated flux in the line, $d$ is the distance to the source (61 pc;
286: Hipparcos), $m$ is the mass of the CO molecule, $\nu$ is the rest frequency
287: of the transition, $h$ is Planck's constant, and
288: $x_{2} \equiv \frac{N_2}{N_{tot}}$ where $N_2$ is the population in the
289: J=2 rotational level while $N_{tot}$ is the total CO population.
290: The CO mass calculated using this method is $2.2 \times 10^{-4}$ M$_\earth$.
291: Using the canonical CO/H$_2$ ratio of 10$^{-4}$ this yields a molecular
292: hydrogen mass of $2.2$ M$_\earth$, consistent with the value
293: of $6.3\times 10^{-3}$ M$_{Jup}$ = $2.0$ M$_\earth$ calculated by \citet{zuc95}.
294:
295: No continuum emission was detected at this combination of resolution and
296: sensitivity. This indicates one of two things: either the continuum flux is
297: concentrated at the center of the disk but the total flux is too low to be
298: detected, or the total flux may be larger but spread over many beams, so that
299: the brightness within each beam is below our detection threshold. These
300: observations were sensitive enough to detect the higher continuum flux
301: reported by \citet{boc94} if it were concentrated within a few synthesized
302: beams. However, an extrapolation of the \citet{son04} value for a typical
303: circumstellar dust spectrum predicts a lower flux by a factor of 6, which is
304: just below the detection threshold. The lack of an SMA continuum detection
305: at 230\,GHz is therefore inconclusive: if the \citet{son04} value is correct,
306: we would not expect to detect even centrally concentrated emission, and so we
307: cannot constrain the spatial extent of dust emission through the nondetection
308: at 230\,GHz.
309:
310: \section{Disk Modeling}
311: \label{sec:mod}
312:
313: In order to gain insight into the physical processes at work in the 49 Ceti
314: system, we carried out modeling of the disk with COSTAR \citep{kam00,kam01},
315: a code which solves the chemical equilibrium simultaneously with a detailed
316: heating and cooling balance to determine gas properties of circumstellar disks.
317: In the following, the salient features of these models are summarized.
318: The chemistry is modeled using a network of 48 different species covering the
319: elements H, He, C, O, S, Mg, Si, and Fe. The elemental abundances and key
320: parameters of these models, including the stellar mass, radius, effective
321: temperature, surface gravity, and ultraviolet flux, are summarized in
322: Table~\ref{models_par}. The 48 species are connected through 281 reactions,
323: including cosmic ray chemistry, photochemistry and the chemistry of excited
324: H$_2$. We compute equilibrium chemistry using a modified Newton-Raphson
325: algorithm. The solution then only depends on the element abundances and not
326: on initial conditions.
327:
328: We use the results of dust modeling by \citet{wah07} and assume large
329: $30~\mu$m black body grains with radiative efficiencies of $Q_\lambda = 2\pi
330: a/\lambda$ for $\lambda > 2\pi a$ and $Q_\lambda = 1$ otherwise. These
331: grains are efficient absorbers and inefficient emitters, thus achieving dust
332: radiative equilibrium temperatures of \begin{equation}
333: T_{\rm dust} = 324 \left(\frac{L_*}{L_\odot}\right)^{0.2} (a_{\rm \mu m})^{-0.2} (r_{\rm AU})^{-0.4}~~~{\rm K}\,\,\,.
334: \end{equation}
335: Here, $L_*$ and $L_\odot$ are the stellar and solar luminosity
336: respectively, $a_{\rm \mu m}$ is the grain size in micron and $r_{\rm AU}$ the
337: distance from the star in astronomical units. The gas temperature is derived
338: from a detailed energy balance including the most relevant heating and cooling
339: processes \citep{kam01}.
340:
341: \begin{table}[htdp]
342: \caption{Element abundances and parameters used in the disk models}
343: \begin{center}
344: \begin{tabular}{lc}
345: \hline
346: Parameter$^a$ & Value \\
347: \hline
348: \hline
349: $A_{\rm He}$ & $7.5 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
350: $A_{\rm C}$ & $1.3 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
351: $A_{\rm O}$ & $2.9 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
352: $A_{\rm Mg}$ & $4.2 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
353: $A_{\rm Si}$ & $8.0 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
354: $A_{\rm S}$ & $1.9 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
355: $A_{\rm Fe}$ & $4.3 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
356: T$_{\rm eff}$ & 10\,000~K \\
357: $\log g$ & 4.5 \\
358: R$_\ast$ & 1.7~R$_\odot$ \\
359: M$_\ast$ & 2.3~M$_\odot$ \\
360: $\sigma_{\rm UV}$ & $4.68\,10^{-24}~{\rm cm}^{-2}~{\rm H-atom}^{-1}$\\
361: \hline
362: \end{tabular}
363: \tablenotetext{a}{Gas-phase abundances ($A$) are relative to hydrogen.}
364: \end{center}
365: \label{models_par}
366: \end{table}
367:
368: The radiation field consists of both stellar and interstellar components.
369: The stellar properties are determined by a Kurucz model fit to photometric
370: points collected from the literature \citep{wah07,syl96,boc94,son04};
371: using T$_{\rm eff}$=10000~K and $\log g$ = 4.5,
372: consistent with the values quoted by \citet{che06}, the derived stellar
373: luminosity is $L_*=26.1 L_\sun$ and the radius is 1.7 R$_\sun$.
374: The spectral energy distribution and Kurucz model are plotted in Figure
375: \ref{fig:SED}, including dereddening according to extinction derived
376: by \citet{syl96} and using a \citet{car89} extinction law. The solid
377: line in the figure denotes the fit to the photometry of a Kurucz stellar
378: atmosphere model at the Hipparcos distance of 61 pc. The dashed line shows
379: the spectral energy distribution of the best-fit model of the outer disk as
380: described in \S\ref{sec:best}.
381: The interstellar radiation field in the ultraviolet is assumed to be
382: $1.2 \times 10^7$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ \citep{hab68}.
383:
384: A basic model of the dust disk was constructed according to the
385: Bayesian analysis of mid-infrared emission carried out by \citet{wah07}.
386: Their model consists of an inner disk extending from 30 to 60 AU, composed
387: primarily of small grains ($a \sim 0.1$ $\mu$m) with a surface density of
388: $5\times10^{-8}$ g/cm$^2$, and an outer disk extending from 60 to 900 AU
389: composed of larger grains ($a \sim 15$ $\mu$m) with a surface density of
390: $3 \times 10^{-6}$ g/cm$^2$. They derive a surface density distribution for
391: the outer disk that is constant with radius, yielding a total disk mass of
392: 0.35 M$_\earth$. From the mid-IR images, they also determine a position angle
393: of $125^\circ \pm 10^\circ$ (indicated in Figure \ref{fig:map}) and an
394: inclination of $60^\circ \pm 15^\circ$. We use this model as a starting
395: point for the disk structure, since it reflects the best available information
396: on the dust density distribution. However, since the molecular gas emission
397: provides better constraints on some aspects of disk structure, including the
398: vertical density distribution and the surface density structure of the outer
399: disk, we introduce refinements to this initial model where justified, as
400: described in \S\ref{sec:rad} and \S\ref{sec:grid} below. For the large grain
401: population, our model uses 30~$\mu$m grains instead of 15~$\mu$m grains,
402: although the grain size used in this simple model is highly degenerate with
403: other disk properties, as discussed in \S\ref{sec:SED}.
404:
405: To predict gas properties from this dust model, we make two
406: primary assumptions: (1) gas and dust are well-mixed, (2) the gas:dust mass
407: ratio is constant. We initially assume a constant scale height $H$=2\,AU,
408: since there is no information on disk scale height from the dust model of
409: \citet{wah07}; we also begin by retaining the inner and outer radii and
410: radially constant surface density structure from the \citet{wah07} model,
411: although these assumptions are modified in \S\ref{sec:rad} below.
412: Throughout the modeling process, we use the canonical gas:dust mass ratio of
413: 100 and assume that the disk is embedded in interstellar material of density
414: 10~cm$^{-3}$ to avoid model densities dropping to unrealistically low values
415: near the boundaries of the numerical grid.
416:
417: To compare our models with the SMA data, we use the radiative transfer
418: code RATRAN \citep{hog00} to generate a sky-projected image of the CO J=2-1
419: emission predicted for the physical model. We then use the MIRIAD task {\em
420: uvmodel} to sample the image with the combination of spatial frequencies
421: and visibility weights appropriate for our SMA data. We allow the inclination
422: and position angle of the system to vary in order to best match the data.
423:
424: \begin{center}
425: \begin{figure}[htp]
426: \centering
427: \includegraphics[scale=0.6,viewport=110 30 400 350]{f2.eps}
428: \caption{
429: Spectral energy distribution (de-reddened according to extinction derived
430: by \citealt{syl96} and \citealt{car89} extinction law) for 49 Ceti using
431: available optical, infrared, and submillimeter photometry. The solid line
432: denotes a Kurucz stellar atmosphere model fitted to the photometry using
433: the Hipparcos distance of 61 pc.
434: The dot-dashed line shows the SED for the best-fit model of the outer disk
435: see text of \S\ref{sec:SED} for details.
436: }
437: \label{fig:SED}
438: \end{figure}
439: \end{center}
440:
441: \subsubsection{Inner Disk}
442:
443: In the inner disk, inside 60 AU, composed primarily of small grains,
444: the stellar radiation field raises the dust temperature to 1000-2000 K and
445: dissociates most of the molecular gas. In this region, the dominant form of
446: carbon is C$^+$, and even hydrogen is predominantly atomic. We therefore
447: ignore the inner disk component in subsequent modeling and focus on
448: reproducing the observed CO emission with only the outer disk component.
449:
450: This lack of molecular gas in the inner disk is consistent with the
451: non-detection of warm H$_2$ by \citet{che06} and \citet{car07}, and with the
452: lack of high-velocity CO emission in Figure \ref{fig:map}.
453: The lack of CO emission more than 4.3 km/s from the stellar velocity is
454: consistent with an absence of CO within a radius of $\sim90$ AU,
455: for gas in Keplerian rotation around a star of 2.3~$M_{\sun}$.
456: %The agreement between the velocity structure of the data (Figure \ref{fig:map})
457: %and the model (Figure \ref{fig:model}) demonstrate that the velocity structure
458: %we observe in the 49 Ceti system is consistent with Keplerian rotation around a
459: %star of 2.3 $M_\sun$. The lack of emission more than 4.3 km/s from the
460: %velocity center therefore indicates a depletion of material within a distance
461: %of $\sim 90$~AU from the star.
462:
463: \subsubsection{Outer Disk}
464: \label{sec:rad}
465:
466: There are three primary features of the observed CO emission from the outer
467: disk that we attempted to reproduce with this modeling effort: (1) the
468: separation of the emission peaks in the outer channels ($\sim3$"), (2) the
469: spatial extent of the CO emission in all channels, and (3) the strength of the
470: emission. Reproducing these features of the observed CO emission requires
471: several modifications to the best-fit \citet{wah07} model of the outer
472: dust disk, including adjustments to the inner and outer radii and a departure
473: from the constant surface density prescription.
474:
475: At first glance, the inner radius of 60 AU derived by \citet{wah07} might
476: seem consistent with the lack of emission within 90 AU derived from the
477: missing high-velocity wings in our data; however, there is a large region at
478: the inner edge of the outer disk subject to photodissociation by stellar
479: radiation which therefore contributes little to the CO emission. In order to
480: reproduce the separation of the emission peaks, material is required
481: interior to this 60 AU radius. We therefore take the uncertainties in the
482: \citet{wah07} dust distribution into account and allow the inner disk radius to
483: vary. However, moving the inner radius closer than $\sim 40$ AU to the star
484: results in high-velocity emission that we do not observe in the data, while
485: still producing emission peaks wider than observed. We therefore set the
486: disk inner radius at 40 AU, and then adjust the gas densities to further
487: reduce the separation of the emission peaks.
488:
489: Increasing the total gas mass leads to an elongated morphology with an aspect
490: ratio larger than the observations, as the optical depth rises throughout the
491: disk. To meet the three criteria of (1) enough gas-phase CO near the inner
492: disk edge to reproduce the observed peak separation, (2) low enough optical
493: depth in the outer parts of the disk to keep the emission from becoming more
494: elongated than the data (through photodissociation by interstellar UV
495: photons), and (3) maintaining an inner radius large enough to avoid generating
496: high-velocity emission that is not present in the data, we must ``pile up''
497: material at the inner disk edge to enhance shielding and concentrate
498: emission. We therefore modify the initial assumption of constant surface
499: density as derived from the infrared analysis, instead adopting an
500: $r^{-\epsilon}$ density profile. We simultaneously relax the constant scale
501: height assumption, introducing a scale height $H$ that increases linearly
502: with radius $r$, with proportionality constant $h=H/r$. The full 2-D density
503: structure then becomes $n(r,z) = r^{-\epsilon} \exp{(-z^2/2 H^2)}$, where the
504: exponent $\epsilon$ and scale height constant $h$ are varied to obtain the
505: best fit to the CO data.
506:
507: The power-law surface density profile results in a much better match between
508: the model and the observed emission peak separation. It also curbs the
509: elongation of the emission to some extent, as the vertical column density of
510: the outer disk drops and the material far from the star becomes subject to
511: dissociation by interstellar radiation. However, even steep power law indices
512: for the surface density profile do not result in a completely photoevaporated
513: outer disk and consequently produce emission that is much more elongated than
514: observed. In a next step, we therefore reduce the outer radius from 900 to
515: 200~AU. While this is at the lower end of the range allowed by \citet{wah07},
516: their derived outer radius was based largely on the uncertain millimeter flux
517: measurement, and the gas geometry is likely a better probe of the disk extent.
518:
519: \subsection{Grid of Disk Models}
520: \label{sec:grid}
521:
522: After these initial studies of the outer disk, it became clear that several
523: model parameters were ill-constrained by previously existing data.
524: Specifically, the disk mass is constrained only by the weakly-detected and
525: contradictory millimeter flux measurements; similarly, the density power law
526: index $\epsilon$ is ill-determined by the infrared observations, which are
527: primarily sensitive to inner disk emission. The scale height $h$ is also
528: completely unconstrained by the continuum or single-dish measurements,
529: neither of which is sensitive to disk structure in the vertical direction.
530: The disk geometry (PA and inclination) quoted by \citet{wah07} is also
531: subject to large uncertainties, due to the irregular shape of the emission
532: observed in the infrared. We therefore attempt to better constrain these
533: disk parameters by using our resolved CO gas line observations. Gas lines
534: are generally more sensitive than dust emission to temperature and density
535: gradients, and can thus provide means to break model degeneracies. We
536: ran grids of models for the three structural parameters (disk mass,
537: density index, scale height) and two geometrical parameters (PA,
538: inclination), finding the best-fit values by calculating and minimizing
539: a $\chi^2$ value comparing the model to the observed emission from the disk.
540: Due to the computational intensity of the calculations necessary to
541: determine the chemistry and radiative transfer solutions for each model,
542: we ran only a sparsely sampled grid of models. In order to ensure that the
543: final model reflects all available observational constraints, we centered the
544: grid on the fiducial model of \S\ref{sec:mod} and adjusted the parameters only
545: as necessary to better reproduce the new CO(2-1) observations, moving from
546: coarse to fine grids to ensure adequate exploration of the parameter space.
547: We use the modeling primarily as a demonstration that the basic features of
548: the observed CO emission can be reproduced by a simple azimuthally symmetric
549: model of disk structure; the ``best-fit'' model should therefore be viewed
550: as representative of an initial understanding of the features of the
551: system rather than as a conclusive determination of the disk structural
552: parameters.
553:
554: \subsubsection{CO Chemistry Across the Model Grid}
555:
556: The CO chemistry is dominated by photodissociation in a number of UV bands
557: and thus the abundance of CO in each model is mostly dependent on the radial
558: and vertical column densities being able to shield the stellar and interstellar
559: UV radiation respectively. In the following we briefly discuss some basic
560: characteristics of the model grid.
561:
562: The surface density in the models is independent of the scale height and hence
563: the radial mass distribution in each model can be written as $M(R) \propto R^{-
564: \epsilon +3}$, where $M(R)$ denotes the mass inside a radius $R$. So, as we
565: increase the density power law exponent $\epsilon$, the inner region of the
566: outer disk harbors a larger fraction of the total mass. The densities in this
567: region of the disk become higher and hence it is easier to obtain the critical
568: column densities necessary for UV shielding in the radial direction. On the
569: other hand, a shallower gradient for the density distribution
570: translates into higher densities in the outer parts of the disk, thus
571: enhancing the vertical shielding in the outer disk compared to models with
572: high $\epsilon$. None of our models is optically thick in the dust continuum,
573: so the UV shielding is mainly H$_2$ shielding of the CO bands due to their
574: overlap in wavelengths; CO self-shielding also plays a role.
575:
576: With this basic picture, we can understand the CO chemistry displayed in Fig.~
577: \ref{COoverview1} as a function of disk mass (right column) and density
578: gradient $\epsilon$ (center column).
579: As the total disk mass is increased, CO first starts to build up in the radial
580: direction. It can still be dissociated by the vertically impinging
581: interstellar UV radiation field in the outer regions of the disk (150-200~AU)
582: until the disk reaches a mass of $\sim17$~M$_{\earth}$, at which point it
583: becomes opaque in the CO bands even in the vertical direction. A shallow
584: density gradient always leads to smaller radial column densities at the same
585: reference radius, thus pushing the C$^+$/C/CO transition further out in radial
586: distance. In our best-fit model of 13~M$_{\earth}$, a change in $\epsilon$
587: from 2.5 to 1.1 changes the radius for the C$^+$/C/CO front from close to
588: 40~AU to 190~AU.
589:
590: \begin{figure*}
591: \centering
592: \includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{f3.eps}
593: \caption{
594: Two-dimensional CO abundances in a subset of disk models. The center panel
595: shows the best-fit model ($M=13$M$_\earth$, $\epsilon = 2.5$, $h=0.02$), while
596: the rows of models above and below show the effects of incrementing and
597: decrementing, respectively, each of the three structural parameters that were
598: allowed to vary during the fitting process: $h$ {\em (left column)}, $\epsilon$
599: {\em (center column)}, and M$_{disk}$ {\em (right column)}. The values of the
600: parameters shown are $h= 0.01$, $0.03$; $\epsilon=1.1$, $3.5$; and $M=9$, $17$
601: M$_\earth$.
602: }
603: \label{COoverview1}
604: \end{figure*}
605:
606: The scale height $h$ of the models affects only the vertical density structure
607: in the models. However, since density and chemistry are closely intertwined, it
608: can strongly impact the overall radial and vertical structure of the CO
609: chemistry. From a comparison of the center panel with the bottom left panel in
610: Figure \ref{COoverview1}, we see that a factor 2 lower scale height with
611: respect to the best fit model ($h=0.02$), enhances the CO abundance in the disk
612: significantly, leading to radial and vertical column densities that are more
613: than a factor 10 higher with respect to the best fit model. The total CO mass
614: increases by a factor of 10 as well, with the integrated emission undergoing
615: a corresponding dramatic increase.
616:
617: Table~\ref{grid_CO_tab} displays some key results from a subset of grid models
618: such as characteristic radial and vertical CO column densities, CO masses and
619: total CO J=2-1 line emission. For all models in the table, the inner radius
620: is fixed at 40~AU and the outer radius at 200~AU.
621:
622: \begin{table*}[htdp]
623: \caption{Derived quantities from a subset of the 49 Ceti disk models}
624: \begin{center}
625: \begin{tabular}{rccrrrr}
626: \hline
627: $M_{\rm disk}^a$ & $\epsilon$ & $h$ & $N({\rm CO})_{\rm radial}^b$ & $N({\rm
628: CO})_{\rm vertical}^{\rm 100 AU,c}$ & $M_{\rm CO}^d$ & $I_{\rm CO}$(J=2-1)$^e$ \\
629: (M$_{\earth})$ & & &
630: ($10^{18}$\,cm$^{-2}$) &
631: ($10^ {15}$\,cm$^{-2}$)
632: & ($10^{-4}$\,M$_{\earth}$) & (Jy km s$^{-1}$) \\
633: \hline
634: \hline
635: 13 & 2.5 & 0.020 & 2.76 & 4.23 & 9.66 & 2.6 \\
636: 9 & 2.5 & 0.020 & 0.32 & 1.82 & 2.46 & 1.2 \\
637: 17 & 2.5 & 0.020 & 13.5 & 9.06 & 37.2 & 6.9 \\
638: 13 & 3.5 & 0.020 & 15.1 & 4.47 & 98.0 & 11.7 \\
639: 13 & 1.1 & 0.020 & 0.13 & 0.91 & 3.74 & 2.3 \\
640: 13 & 2.5 & 0.010 & 42.8 & 78.4 & 96.6 & 14.5 \\
641: 13 & 2.5 & 0.030 & 0.12 & 2.20 & 2.97 & 1.5 \\
642: \hline
643: \end{tabular}
644: \tablenotetext{a}{Total disk gas mass}
645: \tablenotetext{b}{Total radial CO column density through the midplane}
646: \tablenotetext{c}{CO vertical column density at 100 AU}
647: \tablenotetext{d}{Total CO mass in the disk}
648: \tablenotetext{e}{Integrated CO(J=2-1) line emission}
649: \end{center}
650: \label{grid_CO_tab}
651: \end{table*}
652:
653:
654: \subsubsection{From Chemistry to Observables}
655:
656: The predicted CO J=2-1 emission for the models in Figure~\ref{COoverview1}
657: is displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:model}; a comparison of these figures
658: illustrates the ways in which differences in chemical structure are manifested
659: in the observable properties of the CO emission. The CO emission is sampled
660: with the same spatial frequencies and visibility weights as the SMA data and
661: displayed in renzogram form with the same velocity structure as in
662: Figure~\ref{fig:map}. In order to emphasize the relative structural
663: differences between models, the contour levels are 15\% of the peak flux for
664: each model, with the absolute flux indicated by the thickness of the
665: contours, and also printed explicitly at the top of each panel.
666:
667: \begin{figure*}
668: \centering
669: \includegraphics[angle=90,totalheight=0.66\textheight]{f4.eps}
670: \caption{
671: CO J=2-1 emission predicted for the subset of models shown in Figure
672: \ref{COoverview1}, sampled with the same spatial frequencies and visibility
673: weights as the SMA data in Figure~\ref{fig:map}. The center panel shows the
674: best-fit model, while the rows of models above and below show the effects of
675: incrementing and decrementing, respectively, each of the three structural
676: parameters that we allowed to vary during the fitting process: $h$ {\em (left
677: column)}, $\epsilon$ {\em (center column)}, and M$_{disk}$
678: {\em (right column)}. The contour levels are displayed in the upper left
679: corner of each panel; they are set at 3 and 5 $\times$ 15\% of the peak flux
680: for each model. The thickness of the contours is proportional to the absolute
681: flux: thicker contours indicate that the source is brighter than the data,
682: while thinner contours indicate that it is fainter than the data. The contour
683: levels in the center panel are identical to those in Figure~\ref{fig:map}.
684: Table \ref{tab:best} gives the full list of parameters for the best-fit model.
685: }
686: \label{fig:model}
687: \end{figure*}
688:
689: The decreased shielding in the inner disk caused by reducing the density
690: gradient $\epsilon$ is visible as a lengthening of the emission in the central
691: channels and a widening of the emission peaks in the outer channels in the
692: low-epsilon model (bottom center panel). Increasing $\epsilon$ (top center
693: panel) leads to enhanced shielding at the disk inner edge, causing much higher
694: CO fluxes in the outer part of the disk and extremely high contrast between the
695: inner and outer velocity channels.
696:
697: The primary observable consequence of adjusting the mass (right panels, top
698: and bottom) is that the increased or decreased shielding from extra gas leads
699: to a corresponding increase or decrease in the total CO flux; changes to the
700: shape of the emission are minimal, and the primary difference between models
701: of different mass over the mass range under consideration is simply in the
702: relative brightness of the emission.
703:
704: Differences in the scale height of the disk similarly manifest as differences
705: in the flux scale; however, decreasing the scale height (bottom left panel)
706: also causes greater shielding at the inner disk edge, leading to greater
707: elongation of the outer velocity channels and causing the inner velocity
708: channels to draw together and overlap as the CO flux rises throughout the
709: inner areas of the disk. An increase in scale height (top left panel) leads
710: to a greater area in the front and back of the disk, projected along
711: our line of sight, which increases the flux in the central channels and leads
712: to a lower contrast between the inner and outer channels of the disk.
713:
714:
715: \subsection{Spectral Energy Distribution}
716: \label{sec:SED}
717:
718: After converging initially on a model that was able to reproduce the observed
719: CO J=2-1 emission, we used that model to predict the spectral energy
720: distribution. This serves as an {\em a posteriori} test of the consistency
721: between the gas and dust properties in the models and the available observables.
722:
723: We integrate over the disk volume to obtain the flux as a function of
724: wavelength
725: \begin{equation}
726: F_\lambda = (\pi a^2 / d^2) \int \int 2 \pi r \, B_\lambda(T_{dust}(r,z)) n_{dust}(r,z) \, Q(\lambda) \, dz \, dr\,\,\,,
727: \end{equation}
728: where $d$ is the distance to the source and $n_{dust}$ is the number density of
729: dust grains in cm$^{-3}$. We assume throughout a grain density of 2.5 g/cm$^3$.
730:
731: While the predicted shape of the spectral energy distribution matches the
732: observations well, the absolute fluxes are too high by a factor of $\sim 5$.
733: Adjusting the temperature of the dust grains alters the shape of the SED curve,
734: causing it to deviate from the observed shape; we were therefore required to
735: increase the gas:dust ratio from 100 to 500 in order to reproduce the observed
736: photometry. This unusually high ratio is likely an artifact of the simple
737: assumptions of the model, since little information is available about the dust
738: distribution in this system (and none at all from our data). For example, the
739: mass of the system is likely not all in 30 $\mu$m grains, and a significant
740: fraction of the mass may be in larger grains that contribute little to the
741: infrared emission. Another possibility is that the overall gas:dust ratio is
742: consistent with the standard value, but that gas and dust are not well-mixed:
743: for example, much of the excess emission may arise from the inner edge of the
744: disk, which will be directly illuminated and heated by the stellar radiation.
745: Resolved observations of the dust continuum emission would test this hypothesis
746: by placing constraints on the spatial distribution of the emitting region.
747: Including effects such as this would significantly complicate the model
748: presented here, as the H$_2$ formation rate would be affected by varying the
749: abundance of the dust on which it forms. In general, the dust size and
750: gas:dust mass ratio are strongly related by the total dust surface required
751: to maintain the observed quantity of molecular gas; these are in turn
752: dependent on the stellar properties determining dust grain temperatures. None
753: of these dust-dependent quantities are well constrained by available data.
754: Given the observations available and the extremely simplified dust model,
755: which not only neglects the size distribution but also the possibility of a
756: mixture of compositions and opacities, we use the simplest assumption of an
757: altered gas:dust ratio in order to conduct a consistency check of the
758: temperature and density structure of the gas model.
759:
760: Decreasing the total dust mass in the model to match the SED reduces the grain
761: surface area for H$_2$ formation. Thus molecular hydrogen begins to form at
762: larger radii and greater depth, compared to the initial model with the
763: canonical gas:dust ratio of 100. As a consequence of less effective UV
764: shielding, the total CO mass decreases. Hence the total mass of the best-fit
765: model has to be increased slightly to compensate for the lower molecular gas
766: fraction. As a secondary effect, the overall gas temperature of the
767: dust-depleted model also decreases due to the diminished photoelectric
768: heating in the disk. The corresponding SED predicted for these parameters
769: is indicated by the dashed line in Figure \ref{fig:SED}. The mid-infrared
770: flux points are underestimated by this model because we do not include the
771: inner disk component of \citet{wah07}; as our data provide no constraints
772: on the properties of the inner disk, we ignore this component and
773: concentrate on the fit to the outer disk. The flux predicted by the model
774: SED is consistent with our own continuum upper limit reported in
775: Table~\ref{tab}.
776:
777: \subsection{Best-Fit Disk Model}
778: \label{sec:best}
779:
780: The center panel of Figure~\ref{fig:model} shows the best-fit model from the
781: grid, with the minor modifications introduced by reproducing simultaneously the
782: spectral energy distribution. The structural and geometric parameters for this
783: model are listed in Table \ref{tab:best}. The errors given in the table are
784: the approximate 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty range interpolated from the $\chi^2$
785: grid.
786:
787: \begin{table}
788: \caption{Parameters for Best-Fit Disk Model}
789: \begin{center}
790: \begin{tabular}{lc}
791: \hline
792: $h$ & $0.020^{+0.015}_{-0.005}$ \\
793: $\epsilon$ & $2.5^{+0.5}_{-1.0}$ \\
794: $M_{gas}$ & $13 \pm 3$ M$_\earth$ \\
795: $M_{dust}$ & $0.02 \pm 0.01$ M$_\earth$ \\
796: $i$ & $90^\circ \pm 5^\circ$ \\
797: PA & $-70^\circ \pm 10^\circ$ \\
798: $R_{in}$ & 40 AU$^a$ \\
799: $R_{out}$ & 200 AU$^a$ \\
800: \hline
801: \end{tabular}
802: \end{center}
803: \tablenotetext{a}{For a description of the constraints on the inner and
804: outer radii, see \S\ref{sec:rad}}
805: \label{tab:best}
806: \end{table}
807:
808: This model reproduces the basic features of the CO J=2-1 emission well,
809: including the strength of the emission, the separation of the emission peaks,
810: and the spatial extent of the emission. There are still several important
811: differences between the model and the data, however, including (1) an inability
812: to reproduce the changes in position angle with radius evident in the data
813: (the ``wings'' of emission extending to the southeast and northwest of the
814: position angle axis), and (2) the separation of the innermost, low-velocity
815: channels. Both of these may be indicative of departures from azimuthal
816: symmetry in the disk structure, the former possibly indicating a warp in the
817: disk and the latter apparently pointing to a deficit of emission along the
818: minor axis of the disk. In none of our models were we able to reproduce the
819: wide separation between the inner channels; while the signal-to-noise ratio in
820: these channels is low, the observed CO morphology is difficult to reproduce in
821: detail with a simple, azimuthally symmetric disk model. The CO emission for
822: this best-fit model is optically thin in both the J=2-1 and J=3-2 transitions,
823: even for the edge-on disk orientation, and therefore traces the full column
824: density of disk material.
825:
826: The densities in the disk are too low for efficient gas-dust coupling and
827: thus the gas finds its own equilibrium temperature determined mainly by
828: photoelectric heating and line cooling. The most important cooling lines from
829: surface to midplane are [C\,{\sc ii}], [O\,{\sc i}], and H$_2$. CO abundances
830: are only high in a region between 45 and 70~AU (Fig.~\ref{COoverview1}).
831: Outside that region, CO cooling is less important for the energy balance.
832: Fig.~\ref{gastemp} summarizes the most important heating and cooling processes
833: and also shows the resulting gas temperature structure. The disk surface stays
834: well below 100~K due to efficient fine structure line cooling. The molecular
835: cooling is however less efficient in competing with the photoelectric heating
836: from the large silicate grains \citep{kam01}, leading to temperatures of a few
837: 100~K in the disk interior.
838:
839: \begin{figure}
840: \centering
841: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{f5.eps}
842: \caption{
843: Two-dimensional gas temperatures in the best fit disk model ($M_{\rm disk}
844: =13$~M$_\earth$,
845: $\epsilon= 2.5$, $h=0.02$. Shown are the most important heating (top panel)
846: and cooling (middle panel) processes as well as the gas temperature (bottom
847: panel). The dust temperature, which depends only on radius, is overlaid in
848: white
849: contour lines (steps of 10~K).
850: }
851: \label{gastemp}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854: In order to test the robustness of the best-fit model to the gas properties,
855: we used this model to predict the CO J=3-2 spectrum. It compares
856: favorably with the spectrum observed by \citet{den05}, reproduced in
857: Figure~\ref{fig:spec}. The heavy solid line shows the J=3-2 spectrum predicted
858: from the best-fit disk model, while the light solid line shows the
859: observed JCMT spectrum.
860: %The x-axis shows heliocentric velocity in km/s, while
861: %the y-axis gives the JCMT main beam brightness temperature, assuming a
862: %main beam efficiency of 0.62.
863: Although the observed spectrum is noisy and likely
864: subject to an absolute calibration uncertainty, the overall agreement is
865: within $\sim 30$\%, which is very good given that the CO J=3-2 spectrum was
866: not used {\em a priori} to determine these model parameters.
867:
868: \begin{figure}
869: \centering
870: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f6.eps}
871: \caption{
872: CO J=3-2 spectrum predicted for the model that provides the best fit to the
873: resolved J=2-1 emission (heavy solid line), compared with the \citet{den05}
874: JCMT CO J=3-2 spectrum (light solid line). The x-axis shows heliocentric
875: velocity while the y-axis gives the JCMT main beam brightness temperature.
876: }
877: \label{fig:spec}
878: \end{figure}
879:
880: \section{Discussion}
881: \label{sec:dis}
882:
883: The processes determining the amount and distribution of gas and dust in
884: transition disks like that around 49 Ceti are the same processes that shape
885: the features of emergent planetary systems around these young stars. Resolved
886: observations of individual disks in this phase are desirable to address such
887: basic questions as when in the lifetime of a star its disk disperses, whether
888: the gas clears before the dust, and whether the disk clears from the center or
889: in a radially invariant manner.
890:
891: In the 49 Ceti system, the infrared dust properties appear similar to those of
892: a debris disk \citep{wah07}. Yet observations presented here indicate that
893: a substantial quantity of molecular gas persists in the outer disk, between
894: radii of 40 and 200 AU, where photochemistry from stellar and interstellar
895: radiation dominates. The lack of molecular gas emission interior to this
896: radius as indicated by our observations, combined with the lack of dust emission
897: within a radius of 30 AU inferred by \citet{wah07}, implies that the 49 Ceti
898: system appears to be clearing its gas and dust from the center out.
899: The mechanism responsible for this central clearing is not
900: indicated; in general, the best-developed theories to explain this transitional
901: morphology are (1) central clearing through the influence of a massive planet
902: and (2) photoevaporation by radiation from the central star.
903:
904: The clearing of gaps and inner holes has long been predicted as a consequence
905: of the formation of massive planets in circumstellar disks
906: \citep[e.g.][]{lin86,bry99}. In the case of 49 Ceti, the formation of a
907: Jupiter-mass planet would be required at a distance of $\sim 40$ AU from the
908: star, roughly the inner radius of the observed hole in the gas distribution.
909: Such a scenario could also help to explain the size segregation of dust grains
910: observed by \citet{wah07}; a predicted consequence of inner disk clearing
911: by gravitational influence of a massive planet is a filtration of dust grains
912: by size, with only those below a certain threshold (typically 1-10 $\mu$m)
913: accreted across the gap along with a reduced amount of gas \citep{ric06}.
914: However, this scenario ultimately requires the accretion of substantial
915: amounts of gas into the inner disk, and searches for molecular gas in the
916: inner disk of 49 Ceti \citep{che06,car07} have not detected such a population.
917: Another indication that an inner hole is likely caused by a massive planet
918: in formation would be non-axisymmetric features resulting from its
919: gravitational influence, such as spiral waves. While the CO emission from
920: 49 Ceti does not appear asymmetric within the limits of the SMA observations,
921: more sensitive spatially resolved observations could address this hypothesis.
922:
923: The absence of gas in the inner disk is, however, consistent with a
924: photoevaporation scenario: as the photoevaporative wind produced by stellar
925: radiation becomes comparable to the accretion rate in the disk, material
926: within the gravitational radius $R_g = GM_\star / c_s^2$ will quickly drain
927: onto the star, leaving an evacuated inner hole free of gas and dust
928: \citep[e.g.][]{hol94,ale06}. The gravitational radius for 49 Ceti is roughly
929: 20 AU, which is comparable to the inferred inner radius of 40 AU
930: for the outer disk. The larger outer radius may in fact be consistent with
931: the later stages of photoevaporation, after the inner disk has become optically
932: thin to ultraviolet radiation and the inner disk radius slowly increases under
933: the influence of the photoevaporative wind \citep{ale06}.
934: \citet{ale07} propose a method of discriminating between inner holes caused
935: by photoevaporation and those caused by the formation of a giant planet,
936: involving a simple comparison between two observables: the disk mass and the
937: accretion rate. As there is no measured accretion rate for 49 Ceti, we cannot
938: apply the criteria presented by these authors; however, we note that the low
939: disk mass does indeed fall within the parameter space consistent with
940: a photoevaporative scenario. Further observations are necessary to determine
941: the origin of the inner hole; in particular, stringent limits on the accretion
942: rate could suggest a photoevaporative mechanism.
943:
944: There are few disks which appear to be in a similar evolutionary stage to that
945: of 49 Ceti; a rare example is the disk around the A star HD 141569. Like 49
946: Ceti, it hosts a disk composed primarily of sub$\mu$m-size grains with infrared
947: properties approaching those of a debris disk \citep{wah07,mar02}, while still
948: retaining a substantial quantity of molecular gas with central region clear of
949: gas emission, in this case out to a radius of $\sim11$ AU \citep{got06,bri07}.
950: It exhibits a transitional SED \citep{mer04}, and observations of the
951: rovibrational CO spectrum reveal gas with disparate rotational and vibrational
952: temperatures \citep[200 K and 5000 K respectively; ][]{bri07}, indicative of UV
953: fluorescence on the outer edges of an inner disk region cleared of gas and
954: dust. An analysis of the chemistry and gas properties of the system similar
955: to the one presented here for 49 Ceti was conducted by \citet{jon06}. While
956: the presence and extent of the inner hole are clearly indicated, the physical
957: origin of this clearing is less obvious. The Br$\gamma$ profile is indicative
958: of substantial accretion, and \citet{bri07} deem a photoevaporative clearing
959: mechanism unlikely due to the large column density outside the cleared region
960: and the lack of evidence for a photoevaporative wind in the FUV \citep{mar05}.
961: However, \citet{mer04} place a much lower limit of $10^{-11}$ M$_\sun$/yr on the
962: accretion rate, based on the assumed gas:dust ratio of 100 and the low optical
963: depth of the inner disk, which would be much more consistent with a
964: photoevaporation scenario. \citet{got06} note that the rough coincidence of
965: the inner rim of the disk with the gravitational radius suggests that
966: photoevaporation in concert with viscous accretion is a likely cause for the
967: inner disk clearing.
968:
969: Whatever the origin of their morphology, the observed gas and dust properties
970: indicate that the disks surrounding both 49 Ceti and HD 141569 appear to be in
971: a transitional state of evolution during which the dust properties are
972: beginning to appear more like those of a debris disk, while the gas is in the
973: process of being cleared from the disk from the center out.
974:
975: \section{Conclusions}
976: \label{sec:con}
977:
978: The SMA CO J=2-1 observations presented here provide the first spatially
979: resolved observations of molecular gas in the 49 Ceti system. The data reveal
980: a surprisingly extended and complex molecular gas distribution in rotation
981: about the central star, viewed approximately edge on and clear of molecular gas
982: emission in the central region of the disk. Modeling the disk structure and
983: chemistry in this system indicates that the inner disk is entirely devoid of
984: molecular gas due to irradiation by the central star, while a ring of molecular
985: gas persists between 40 and 200 AU, subject to photodissociation
986: at the inner edge by stellar radiation. The disk model presented here
987: reproduces well the observed properties of the system, including the resolved
988: CO J=2-1 emission, the CO J=3-2 spectrum, and the spectral energy distribution.
989: With dust properties similar to those of a debris disk and a substantial
990: reservoir of gas maintained in the outer disk, 49 Ceti appears to be a rare
991: example of a system in a late stage of transition between a gas-rich
992: protoplanetary disk and a tenuous, gas-free debris disk.
993:
994:
995: \acknowledgements
996: The authors would like to thank Bill Dent for providing the JCMT CO J=3-2
997: spectrum. Partial support for this work was provided by NASA Origins
998: of Solar Systems Program Grant NAG5-11777. A. M. H. acknowledges support
999: from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.
1000:
1001:
1002: \begin{thebibliography}{40}
1003:
1004: \bibitem[{{Alexander} \& {Armitage}(2007)}]{ale07}
1005: {Alexander}, R.~D. \& {Armitage}, P.~J. 2007, \mnras, 375, 500
1006:
1007: \bibitem[{{Alexander} {et~al.}(2006){Alexander}, {Clarke}, \&
1008: {Pringle}}]{ale06}
1009: {Alexander}, R.~D., {Clarke}, C.~J., \& {Pringle}, J.~E. 2006, \mnras, 369, 229
1010:
1011: \bibitem[{{Aumann} {et~al.}(1984){Aumann}, {Beichman}, {Gillett}, {de Jong},
1012: {Houck}, {Low}, {Neugebauer}, {Walker}, \& {Wesselius}}]{aum84}
1013: {Aumann}, H.~H., et~al. 1984, \apjl, 278, L23
1014:
1015: \bibitem[{{Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s} {et~al.}(1999){Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s},
1016: {Stauffer}, {Song}, \& {Caillault}}]{bar99}
1017: {Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s}, D., {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Song}, I., \& {Caillault},
1018: J.-P. 1999, \apjl, 520, L123
1019:
1020: \bibitem[{{Beckwith} \& {Sargent}(1991)}]{bec91}
1021: {Beckwith}, S.~V.~W. \& {Sargent}, A.~I. 1991, \apj, 381, 250
1022:
1023: \bibitem[{{Bockel{\'e}e-Morvan} {et~al.}(1994){Bockel{\'e}e-Morvan},
1024: {Andr{\'e}}, {Colom}, {Colas}, {Crovisier}, {Despois}, \& {Jorda}}]{boc94}
1025: {Bockel{\'e}e-Morvan}, D., {Andr{\'e}}, P., {Colom}, P., {Colas}, F.,
1026: {Crovisier}, J., {Despois}, D., \& {Jorda}, L. 1994, in Circumstellar Dust
1027: Disks and Planet Formation, ed. R.~{Ferlet} \& A.~{Vidal-Madjar}, 341--+
1028:
1029: \bibitem[{{Brittain} {et~al.}(2007){Brittain}, {Simon}, {Najita}, \&
1030: {Rettig}}]{bri07}
1031: {Brittain}, S.~D., {Simon}, T., {Najita}, J.~R., \& {Rettig}, T.~W. 2007, \apj,
1032: 659, 685
1033:
1034: \bibitem[{{Bryden} {et~al.}(1999){Bryden}, {Chen}, {Lin}, {Nelson}, \&
1035: {Papaloizou}}]{bry99}
1036: {Bryden}, G., {Chen}, X., {Lin}, D.~N.~C., {Nelson}, R.~P., \& {Papaloizou},
1037: J.~C.~B. 1999, \apj, 514, 344
1038:
1039: \bibitem[{{Cardelli} {et~al.}(1989){Cardelli}, {Clayton}, \& {Mathis}}]{car89}
1040: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Clayton}, G.~C., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
1041:
1042: \bibitem[{{Carmona} {et~al.}(2007){Carmona}, {van den Ancker}, {Henning},
1043: {Goto}, {Fedele}, \& {Stecklum}}]{car07}
1044: {Carmona}, A., {van den Ancker}, M.~E., {Henning}, T., {Goto}, M., {Fedele},
1045: D., \& {Stecklum}, B. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710
1046:
1047: \bibitem[{{Chen} {et~al.}(2006){Chen}, {Sargent}, {Bohac}, {Kim},
1048: {Leibensperger}, {Jura}, {Najita}, {Forrest}, {Watson}, {Sloan}, \&
1049: {Keller}}]{che06}
1050: {Chen}, C.~H., et~al. 2006, \apjs, 166, 351
1051:
1052: \bibitem[{{Dent} {et~al.}(2005){Dent}, {Greaves}, \& {Coulson}}]{den05}
1053: {Dent}, W.~R.~F., {Greaves}, J.~S., \& {Coulson}, I.~M. 2005, \mnras, 359, 663
1054:
1055: \bibitem[{{Goto} {et~al.}(2006){Goto}, {Usuda}, {Dullemond}, {Henning}, {Linz},
1056: {Stecklum}, \& {Suto}}]{got06}
1057: {Goto}, M., {Usuda}, T., {Dullemond}, C.~P., {Henning}, T., {Linz}, H.,
1058: {Stecklum}, B., \& {Suto}, H. 2006, \apj, 652, 758
1059:
1060: \bibitem[{{Habing}(1968)}]{hab68}
1061: {Habing}, H.~J. 1968, \bain, 19, 421
1062:
1063: \bibitem[{{Hoffleit} \& {Jaschek}(1991)}]{hof91}
1064: {Hoffleit}, D. \& {Jaschek}, C.~. 1991, {The Bright star catalogue} (New Haven,
1065: Conn.: Yale University Observatory, |c1991, 5th rev.ed., edited by Hoffleit,
1066: Dorrit; Jaschek, Carlos |v(coll.))
1067:
1068: \bibitem[{{Hogerheijde} \& {van der Tak}(2000)}]{hog00}
1069: {Hogerheijde}, M.~R. \& {van der Tak}, F.~F.~S. 2000, \aap, 362, 697
1070:
1071: \bibitem[{{Holland} {et~al.}(1998){Holland}, {Greaves}, {Zuckerman}, {Webb},
1072: {McCarthy}, {Coulson}, {Walther}, {Dent}, {Gear}, \& {Robson}}]{hol98}
1073: {Holland}, W.~S., et~al. 1998, \nat, 392, 788
1074:
1075: \bibitem[{{Hollenbach} {et~al.}(1994){Hollenbach}, {Johnstone}, {Lizano}, \&
1076: {Shu}}]{hol94}
1077: {Hollenbach}, D., {Johnstone}, D., {Lizano}, S., \& {Shu}, F. 1994, \apj, 428,
1078: 654
1079:
1080: \bibitem[{{Jonkheid} {et~al.}(2006){Jonkheid}, {Kamp}, {Augereau}, \& {van
1081: Dishoeck}}]{jon06}
1082: {Jonkheid}, B., {Kamp}, I., {Augereau}, J.-C., \& {van Dishoeck}, E.~F. 2006,
1083: \aap, 453, 163
1084:
1085: \bibitem[{{Jura} {et~al.}(1998){Jura}, {Malkan}, {White}, {Telesco}, {Pina}, \&
1086: {Fisher}}]{jur98}
1087: {Jura}, M., {Malkan}, M., {White}, R., {Telesco}, C., {Pina}, R., \& {Fisher},
1088: R.~S. 1998, \apj, 505, 897
1089:
1090: \bibitem[{{Jura} {et~al.}(1993){Jura}, {Zuckerman}, {Becklin}, \&
1091: {Smith}}]{jur93}
1092: {Jura}, M., {Zuckerman}, B., {Becklin}, E.~E., \& {Smith}, R.~C. 1993, \apjl,
1093: 418, L37+
1094:
1095: \bibitem[{{Kamp} \& {Bertoldi}(2000)}]{kam00}
1096: {Kamp}, I. \& {Bertoldi}, F. 2000, \aap, 353, 276
1097:
1098: \bibitem[{{Kamp} \& {van Zadelhoff}(2001)}]{kam01}
1099: {Kamp}, I. \& {van Zadelhoff}, G.-J. 2001, \aap, 373, 641
1100:
1101: \bibitem[{{Lin} \& {Papaloizou}(1986)}]{lin86}
1102: {Lin}, D.~N.~C. \& {Papaloizou}, J. 1986, \apj, 309, 846
1103:
1104: \bibitem[{{Mamajek}(2005)}]{mam05}
1105: {Mamajek}, E.~E. 2005, \apj, 634, 1385
1106:
1107: \bibitem[{{Marsh} {et~al.}(2002){Marsh}, {Silverstone}, {Becklin}, {Koerner},
1108: {Werner}, {Weinberger}, \& {Ressler}}]{mar02}
1109: {Marsh}, K.~A., {Silverstone}, M.~D., {Becklin}, E.~E., {Koerner}, D.~W.,
1110: {Werner}, M.~W., {Weinberger}, A.~J., \& {Ressler}, M.~E. 2002, \apj, 573,
1111: 425
1112:
1113: \bibitem[{{Martin-Za{\"i}di} {et~al.}(2005){Martin-Za{\"i}di}, {Deleuil},
1114: {Simon}, {Bouret}, {Roberge}, {Feldman}, {Lecavelier Des Etangs}, \&
1115: {Vidal-Madjar}}]{mar05}
1116: {Martin-Za{\"i}di}, C., {Deleuil}, M., {Simon}, T., {Bouret}, J.-C., {Roberge},
1117: A., {Feldman}, P.~D., {Lecavelier Des Etangs}, A., \& {Vidal-Madjar}, A.
1118: 2005, \aap, 440, 921
1119:
1120: \bibitem[{{Mer{\'{\i}}n} {et~al.}(2004){Mer{\'{\i}}n}, {Montesinos}, {Eiroa},
1121: {Solano}, {Mora}, {D'Alessio}, {Calvet}, {Oudmaijer}, {de Winter}, {Davies},
1122: {Harris}, {Cameron}, {Deeg}, {Ferlet}, {Garz{\'o}n}, {Grady}, {Horne},
1123: {Miranda}, {Palacios}, {Penny}, {Quirrenbach}, {Rauer}, {Schneider}, \&
1124: {Wesselius}}]{mer04}
1125: {Mer{\'{\i}}n}, B., et~al. 2004, \aap, 419, 301
1126:
1127: \bibitem[{{Rice} {et~al.}(2006){Rice}, {Armitage}, {Wood}, \& {Lodato}}]{ric06}
1128: {Rice}, W.~K.~M., {Armitage}, P.~J., {Wood}, K., \& {Lodato}, G. 2006, \mnras,
1129: 373, 1619
1130:
1131: \bibitem[{{Sadakane} \& {Nishida}(1986)}]{sad86}
1132: {Sadakane}, K. \& {Nishida}, M. 1986, \pasp, 98, 685
1133:
1134: \bibitem[{{Siess} {et~al.}(2000){Siess}, {Dufour}, \& {Forestini}}]{sie00}
1135: {Siess}, L., {Dufour}, E., \& {Forestini}, M. 2000, \aap, 358, 593
1136:
1137: \bibitem[{{Song} {et~al.}(2004){Song}, {Sandell}, \& {Friberg}}]{son04}
1138: {Song}, I., {Sandell}, G., \& {Friberg}, P. 2004, in ASP Conf. Ser. 324: Debris
1139: Disks and the Formation of Planets, ed. L.~{Caroff}, L.~J. {Moon},
1140: D.~{Backman}, \& E.~{Praton}, 250--+
1141:
1142: \bibitem[{{Stauffer} {et~al.}(1995){Stauffer}, {Hartmann}, \& {Barrado y
1143: Navascues}}]{sta95}
1144: {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Hartmann}, L.~W., \& {Barrado y Navascues}, D. 1995, \apj,
1145: 454, 910
1146:
1147: \bibitem[{{Sylvester} {et~al.}(1996){Sylvester}, {Skinner}, {Barlow}, \&
1148: {Mannings}}]{syl96}
1149: {Sylvester}, R.~J., {Skinner}, C.~J., {Barlow}, M.~J., \& {Mannings}, V. 1996,
1150: \mnras, 279, 915
1151:
1152: \bibitem[{{Thi} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{a}}){Thi}, {Blake}, {van Dishoeck},
1153: {van Zadelhoff}, {Horn}, {Becklin}, {Mannings}, {Sargent}, {van den Ancker},
1154: \& {Natta}}]{thi01n}
1155: {Thi}, W.~F., et~al. 2001{\natexlab{a}}, \nat, 409, 60
1156:
1157: \bibitem[{{Thi} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{b}}){Thi}, {van Dishoeck}, {Blake},
1158: {van Zadelhoff}, {Horn}, {Becklin}, {Mannings}, {Sargent}, {van den Ancker},
1159: {Natta}, \& {Kessler}}]{thi01a}
1160: {Thi}, W.~F., et~al. 2001{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 561, 1074
1161:
1162: \bibitem[{{Wahhaj} {et~al.}(2007){Wahhaj}, {Koerner}, \& {Sargent}}]{wah07}
1163: {Wahhaj}, Z., {Koerner}, D.~W., \& {Sargent}, A.~I. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics
1164: e-prints
1165:
1166: \bibitem[{{Weinberger} {et~al.}(1999){Weinberger}, {Becklin}, {Schneider},
1167: {Smith}, {Lowrance}, {Silverstone}, {Zuckerman}, \& {Terrile}}]{wei99}
1168: {Weinberger}, A.~J., {Becklin}, E.~E., {Schneider}, G., {Smith}, B.~A.,
1169: {Lowrance}, P.~J., {Silverstone}, M.~D., {Zuckerman}, B., \& {Terrile}, R.~J.
1170: 1999, \apjl, 525, L53
1171:
1172: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman}(2001)}]{zuc01}
1173: {Zuckerman}, B. 2001, \araa, 39, 549
1174:
1175: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} {et~al.}(1995){Zuckerman}, {Forveille}, \&
1176: {Kastner}}]{zuc95}
1177: {Zuckerman}, B., {Forveille}, T., \& {Kastner}, J.~H. 1995, \nat, 373, 494
1178:
1179: \end{thebibliography}
1180:
1181:
1182: \end{document}
1183:
1184: