1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{color}
3: \usepackage{natbib,graphicx,latexsym}
4:
5: \newcommand{\Msini}{\mbox{$M \sin i$}}
6: \newcommand{\SIRTF}{{\sl SIRTF}}
7: \newcommand{\Spitzer}{{\sl Spitzer}}
8: \newcommand{\Hipparcos}{{\sl Hipparcos}}
9: \newcommand{\ISO}{{\sl ISO}}
10: \newcommand{\HST}{{\sl HST}}
11: \newcommand{\IUE}{{\sl IUE}}
12: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mbox{M$_{\sun}$}}
13: \newcommand{\Mearth}{\mbox{M$_{\oplus}$}}
14: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\mbox{L$_{\sun}$}}
15: \newcommand{\Rsun}{\mbox{R$_{\sun}$}}
16: \newcommand{\Mjup}{\mbox{M$_{\rm Jup}$}}
17: \newcommand{\Rjup}{\mbox{R$_{\rm Jup}$}}
18: \newcommand{\degree}{\mbox{$^{\circ}$}}
19: \newcommand{\perone}{\mbox{$^{-1}$}}
20: \newcommand{\pertwo}{\mbox{$^{-2}$}}
21: \newcommand{\perthree}{\mbox{$^{-3}$}}
22: \newcommand{\ea}{et al.}
23: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
24: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.}
25: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.}
26: \newcommand{\cf}{cf.}
27: \newcommand{\IRAS}{{\sl IRAS}}
28: \newcommand{\ROSAT}{{\sl ROSAT}}
29: \newcommand{\hf}{\mbox{$h_{50}$}}
30: \newcommand{\hfperone}{\mbox{$h_{50}^{-1}$}}
31: \newcommand{\msyr}{\hbox{m~s$^{-1}$~yr$^{-1}$}}
32: \newcommand{\kms}{\hbox{km~s$^{-1}$}}
33: \newcommand{\rchisq}{\mbox{$\tilde\chi^2$}}
34: \newcommand{\Ho}{\mbox{$H_0$}}
35: \newcommand{\Zsun}{\mbox{$Z_{\odot}$}}
36: \newcommand{\htwoo}{{\hbox{H$_2$O}}} % H20
37: \newcommand{\htwo}{{\hbox{H$_2$}}} % H2
38: \newcommand{\meth}{{\hbox{CH$_4$}}} % CH4
39: \newcommand{\Kp}{\mbox{$K^{\prime}$}}
40: \newcommand{\Ks}{\mbox{$K_S$}}
41: \newcommand{\Kcont}{\mbox{$K_{cont}$}}
42: \newcommand{\degs}{\mbox{$^{\circ}$}}
43: \newcommand{\Lbol}{\mbox{$L_{\rm bol}$}}
44: \newcommand{\Mbol}{\mbox{$M_{\rm bol}$}}
45: \newcommand{\Teff}{\mbox{$T_{\rm eff}$}}
46: \newcommand{\logg}{\mbox{$\log(g)$}}
47: \newcommand{\Rc}{\mbox{${R}$}}
48: \newcommand{\Ic}{\mbox{${I}$}}
49: \newcommand{\zp}{\mbox{${z^\prime}$}}
50: \newcommand{\Lp}{\mbox{${L^\prime}$}}
51: \newcommand{\Mp}{\mbox{${M^\prime}$}}
52: \newcommand{\KmLp}{\mbox{${\Ks\!-\!L^\prime}$}}
53: \newcommand{\JHK}{\mbox{$J\!H\!K$}}
54: \newcommand{\JHKs}{\mbox{$J\!H\!\Ks$}}
55: \newcommand{\JHKL}{\mbox{$J\!H\!K\!L$}}
56: \newcommand{\JHKLp}{\mbox{$J\!H\!K\!\Lp$}}
57: \newcommand{\JHKsLp}{\mbox{$J\!H\!\Ks\Lp$}}
58:
59: \newcommand{\MKs}{\mbox{$M_{K_S}$}}
60: \newcommand{\Rstar}{\mbox{$R_{\star}$}}
61: \newcommand{\Mstar}{\mbox{$M_{\star}$}}
62: \newcommand{\KmLpo}{\mbox{${(\Ks\!-\!L^\prime)_0}$}}
63: \newcommand{\EKmLp}{\mbox{${E(\Ks\!-\!L^\prime)_0}$}}
64: \newcommand{\cEKmLp}{\mbox{${{\cal E}(\Ks\!-\!L^\prime)_0}$}}
65:
66: \newcommand{\eInd}{\hbox{$\epsilon$~Ind}}
67: \newcommand{\glbin}{\hbox{Gl~337CD}}
68: \newcommand{\hdobject}{\hbox{HD~3651B}}
69: \newcommand{\globject}{\hbox{Gl~570D}}
70: \newcommand{\sdssbin}{\hbox{SDSS~J1534+1615AB}}
71: \newcommand{\twomassbin}{\hbox{2MASS~J1534$-$2952AB}}
72: \newcommand{\hdbin}{\hbox{HD~130948BC}}
73: \newcommand{\hdprim}{\hbox{HD~130948A}}
74: \newcommand{\hdage}{\hbox{0.79$^{+0.22}_{-0.15}$~Gyr}}
75: \newcommand{\orbit}{\hbox{\tt ORBIT}}
76:
77: \slugcomment{ApJ, in press}
78: %\shorttitle{Dynamical Mass of HD 130948BC}
79: %\shortauthors{Dupuy \etal}
80:
81:
82: \begin{document}
83:
84: \title{Dynamical Mass of the Substellar Benchmark Binary HD~130948BC
85: \altaffilmark{1,2,3}}
86:
87: \author{Trent J. Dupuy,\altaffilmark{4}
88: Michael C. Liu,\altaffilmark{4,5}
89: Michael J. Ireland\altaffilmark{6}}
90:
91: \altaffiltext{1}{Most of the data presented herein were obtained
92: at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a
93: scientific partnership among the California Institute of
94: Technology, the University of California, and the National
95: Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made
96: possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck
97: Foundation.}
98:
99: \altaffiltext{2}{Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA
100: {\sl Hubble Space Telescope}, obtained from the data archive
101: at the Space Telescope Institute. STScI is operated by the
102: association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
103: Inc. under the NASA contract NAS 5-26555.}
104:
105: \altaffiltext{3}{Based on observations obtained at the Gemini
106: Observatory, which is operated by the Association of
107: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a
108: cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini
109: partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States),
110: the Science and Technology Facilities Council (United
111: Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT
112: (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia),
113: Minist\'{e}rio da Ci\^{e}ncia e Tecnologia (Brazil) and SECYT
114: (Argentina).}
115:
116: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawai`i,
117: 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822;
118: tdupuy@ifa.hawaii.edu}
119:
120: \altaffiltext{5}{Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow}
121:
122: \altaffiltext{6}{School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW
123: 2006, Australia}
124:
125: \begin{abstract}
126:
127: We present Keck adaptive optics imaging of the L4+L4 binary \hdbin\
128: along with archival \HST\ and Gemini-North observations, which
129: together span $\approx$70\% of the binary's orbital period. From
130: the relative orbit, we determine a total dynamical mass of
131: 0.109$\pm$0.002~\Msun\ (114$\pm$2~\Mjup). The flux ratio of \hdbin\
132: is near unity, so both components are unambiguously substellar for
133: any plausible mass ratio. An independent constraint on the age of
134: the system is available from the primary \hdprim\ (G2V,
135: [M/H]~=~0.0). The ensemble of available indicators suggests an age
136: comparable to the Hyades, with the most precise age being \hdage\
137: based on gyrochronology. Therefore, \hdbin\ is now a unique
138: benchmark among field L and T~dwarfs, with a well-determined mass,
139: luminosity, and age. We find that substellar theoretical models
140: disagree with our observations. (1) Both components of \hdbin\
141: appear to be overluminous by a factor of $\approx$2--3$\times$
142: compared to evolutionary models. The age of the system would have
143: to be notably younger than the gyro age to ameliorate the luminosity
144: disagreement. (2) Effective temperatures derived from evolutionary
145: models for HD~130948B and C are inconsistent with temperatures
146: determined from spectral synthesis for objects of similar spectral
147: type. Overall, regardless of the adopted age, evolutionary and
148: atmospheric models give inconsistent results, which indicates
149: systematic errors in at least one class of models, possibly both.
150: The masses of \hdbin\ happen to be very near the theoretical mass
151: limit for lithium burning, and thus measuring the differential
152: lithium depletion between B and C will provide a uniquely
153: discriminating test of theoretical models. The potential
154: underestimate of luminosities by evolutionary models would have
155: wide-ranging implications; therefore, a more refined age estimate
156: for \hdprim\ is critically needed.
157:
158: \end{abstract}
159:
160: \keywords{binaries: general, close --- stars: brown dwarfs ---
161: infrared: stars --- techniques: high angular resolution}
162:
163:
164: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
165:
166:
167: \section{Introduction}
168:
169: More than a decade after their discovery, brown dwarfs continue to
170: offer key insights into the astrophysics governing of some of the
171: lowest temperature products of star formation. Brown dwarfs in the
172: field are particularly useful as probes of very cold atmospheres. For
173: instance, the atmospheres of extrasolar planets are very difficult to
174: study directly due to their intrinsic faintness and proximity to very
175: bright stars. However, brown dwarfs are typically found in relative
176: isolation, and their atmospheres are subject to the same processes
177: (e.g., dust formation and sedimentation, and non-equilibrium molecular
178: chemistry) that are at work in their much less massive plantary
179: counterparts.
180:
181: Despite the broad relevance of brown dwarfs, their fundamental
182: properties remain poorly constrained by observations. In particular,
183: very few direct mass measurements are available for brown dwarfs. To
184: date, a total of six objects have been identified as unambiguously
185: substellar \citep[$M<0.072$~\Msun\ at solar
186: metallicity;][]{2000ARA&A..38..337C} via dynamical mass measurements
187: with precisions ranging from 6--9\%: both components of the T5.0+T5.5
188: binary 2MASS~J15344984$-$2952274AB \citep{2008arXiv0807.0238L}, both
189: components of the young M6.5+M6.5 eclipsing binary
190: 2MASS~J05352184$-$0546085 in the Orion Nebula
191: \citep{2006Natur.440..311S}, and two tertiary components of
192: hierarchical triples in which the primaries are M stars, GJ~802B
193: \citep{gl802b-ireland} and Gl~569Bb \citep{2001ApJ...560..390L,
194: 2004astro.ph..7334O, 2006ApJ...644.1183S}. Direct mass measurements
195: of brown dwarfs are critical for empirically constraining substellar
196: evolutionary models. Since brown dwarfs have no sustainable source of
197: internal energy, they follow a mass--luminosity--age relation, rather
198: than the simpler mass--luminosity relation for main-sequence stars.
199: Thus, mass measurements alone cannot fully constrain theoretical
200: models, although mass and luminosity measurements of brown dwarfs in
201: coeval binary systems can offer stringent tests of theoretical models
202: \citep[e.g.,][]{2008arXiv0807.0238L}. To fully constrain evolutionary
203: models, systems with independent measurements of the mass, age, and
204: \Lbol\ (or one of the much less observationally accessible quanities
205: \Teff\ or $R$) are required. Such systems are quite rare, but they
206: represent the gold standard among ``benchmark'' brown dwarfs.
207:
208: \citet{2002ApJ...567L.133P} discovered the L~dwarf binary \hdbin\ in a
209: hierarchical triple configuration with the young solar analog \hdprim\
210: (G2V) using the curvature adaptive optics (AO) system Hokupa`a on the
211: Gemini North Telescope on 2001 February 24 UT. The L~dwarfs are
212: separated from each other by $\lesssim$0$\farcs$13, and they lie
213: 2$\farcs$6 from the primary G star. \hdbin\ has been the target of
214: AO-fed slit spectroscopy with NIRSPEC on the Keck II Telescope
215: (1.15--1.35~\micron) and IRCS on the Subaru Telescope
216: (1.5--1.8~\micron, 1.95--2.4~\micron). \citet{2002ApJ...567L..59G}
217: used the latter spectra to determine the spectral types of the B and C
218: components, both L4$\pm$1, via spectral template matching. These are
219: consistent with the less precise NIRSPEC $J$-band spectral types of
220: dL2$\pm$2, which are on the \citet{1999AJ....118.2466M} system, found
221: by \citet{2002ApJ...567L.133P} for both HD~130948B and C.
222:
223: We present here a dynamical mass measurement for \hdbin\ based on Keck
224: natural guide star adaptive optics (NGS AO) imaging of \hdbin, as well
225: as an analysis of {\sl Hubble Space Telescope} (\HST) and Gemini
226: archival images. In addition to an independent age estimate (\hdage,
227: see \S \ref{sec:age}), the primary star provides a wealth of
228: information about the system. \citet{2005ApJS..159..141V} measured a
229: solar metallicity for \hdprim\ ([M/H]~=~0.00, [Fe/H]~=~0.05), which is
230: important since metallicity can play a significant role in shaping the
231: spectra of brown dwarfs
232: \citep[e.g.,][]{2005astro.ph..9066B,2006liu-hd3651b}. Most
233: importantly, the distance to \hdprim\ has been measured very precisely
234: by \Hipparcos, with a revised parallax of 55.01$\pm$0.24~mas
235: \citep{2007hnrr.book.....V}, corresponding to a distance of
236: $d$~=~18.18$\pm$0.08~pc. Thus, the distance is measured to an
237: exquisite precision of 0.44\%, which is invaluable since the error in
238: the dynamical mass scales as 3$\times$ the distance error (i.e., the
239: 0.44\% error in distance translates into a 1.3\% error in mass).
240:
241:
242: HD~130948BC can thus serve as both an ``age benchmark'' and ``mass
243: benchmark'' system in studying brown dwarfs. In the literature, the
244: term benchmark is often applied to any readily observable unique or
245: extreme objects, but here we specifically use the term to refer to
246: systems for which fundamental properties may be directly determined.
247: \citet{2006MNRAS.368.1281P} highlighted the value of systems where the
248: age and composition of substellar objects can be independently
249: determined, e.g., from a stellar or white dwarf companion, and
250: \citet{2008arXiv0807.0238L} described an equivalent use of systems
251: with dynamical mass measurements. Essentially, since brown dwarfs
252: follow a mass--luminosity--age relation, the measurement of either
253: mass or age in addition to the measured luminosity allows any other
254: quantity to be fully specified using evolutionary models. This
255: approach can be extremely useful, for example, by offering precise
256: determinations of \Teff\ and \logg, which can then be compared
257: directly to atmospheric models. Of course, the measurement of mass,
258: age, {\em and} luminosity offers a direct test of evolutionary models,
259: which is possible with \hdbin.
260:
261:
262: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
263:
264:
265: \section{Observations \label{sec:obs}}
266:
267: \subsection{\HST/ACS-HRC Coronagraph \label{sec:hst}}
268:
269: We retrieved {\sl Hubble Space Telescope}\ (\HST) archival images of
270: \hdbin\ obtained with the ACS High Resolution Camera (HRC) coronagraph
271: (1$\farcs$8 spot) on 2002 September 6 and 2005 February 23 UT. These
272: data were taken as part of engineering programs to test the stability
273: of the PSF of an occulted star between orbits (ENG/ACS-10445, PI Cox)
274: and to measure the coronagraphic PSF as a function of wavelength
275: (CAL/ACS-9668, PI Krist). Fortunately, the scientifically interesting
276: bright star \hdprim\ was selected to perform these tests. At both
277: epochs, \hdbin\ is tight enough that the PSFs of the two components
278: are significantly blended with each other. Therefore, to determine
279: the relative astrometry we fit all six parameters ($x$, $y$, and flux
280: for both components) simultaneously with an iterative,
281: $\chi^2$-minimum-finding approach. Similar to our previous work
282: \citep{2008arXiv0807.0238L}, we used TinyTim
283: \citep{1995ASPC...77..349K} to model the off-spot PSFs of the binary
284: components and the \texttt{amoeba} algorithm
285: \citep[e.g.,][]{1992nrca.book.....P} for minimum finding in the
286: six-dimensional parameter space.
287:
288: One challenge in obtaining precision astrometry for \hdbin\ is the
289: removal of background light from the primary, which is only 2$\farcs$6
290: away. Though most of the light from \hdprim\ is occulted by the
291: 1$\farcs$8 coronagraph spot, the remaining light reaching the detector
292: is highly structured and wavelength-dependent. The most effective
293: technique for removal of the light from the occulted primary star is
294: to use an image taken at the same epoch but at a different telescope
295: roll angle. This way, the background due to the bright primary
296: remains more or less unchanged while any other objects in the field
297: move to a different part of the image. As part of the 2005
298: engineering tests, images were taken at two different roll angles, so
299: the background subtraction for these data is straightforward.
300: However, all of the engineering data from 2002 were taken at the same
301: roll angle, so data from a different epoch but the same filter must be
302: used for the background subtraction. For the 2002 $F850LP$ data, we
303: were able to use the PSF of \hdprim\ itself because the 2005
304: engineering data were taken in this filter. However, the remainder of
305: the 2002 data were taken with the linear ramp filter $FR914M$, and
306: \hdprim\ was never imaged in this filter on any other occasion. Due
307: to the wavelength dependence of the background, we must use an
308: occulted star of similar spectral type to subtract the background.
309: Although very few $FR914M$ coronagraph data are available in the
310: archive, one star of identical spectral type, $\alpha$~Cen~A (G2V),
311: has been observed in $FR914M$. The $\alpha$~Cen ramp filter data were
312: not taken at exactly the same nearly-monochromatic wavelengths as our
313: science images, so we used the two $\alpha$~Cen images which bracketed
314: our science data to create two different background-subtracted images
315: of \hdbin\ in $FR914M$. Though the resulting background subtractions
316: were not very different, in the end, we only used the subtraction that
317: yielded a lower $\chi^2$ in the PSF-fitting of \hdbin. When
318: performing any background subtraction, the images were first optimally
319: shifted and scaled to the nearest 1~pixel and 1\% in normalization by
320: minimizing the RMS of the subtraction residual of the central
321: 200$\times$200-pixel region of the detector (this region excludes
322: \hdbin). The final background-subtracted images of \hdbin\ are shown
323: in Figure~\ref{fig:images}. The lack of visible structure in the
324: background demonstrates that the PSF from \hdprim\ was adequately
325: subtracted.
326:
327: For PSF-fitting of the background-subtracted images, TinyTim PSF
328: models were generated to the specifications of the data. PSFs were
329: created for detector locations within the nearest pixel of \hdbin\
330: (this is important because of the field dependence of the geometric
331: distortion that shapes the PSF). We used the optical spectrum of the
332: L4 dwarf 2MASS~J0036+1821 from \citet{2001AJ....121.1710R} as the
333: spectral template for PSF generation. We included different amounts
334: of telescope jitter (0 to 20 mas in 5 mas steps) and telescope defocus
335: ($-$20 to $+$20 \micron\ in 4 \micron\ steps) to simulate the effect
336: of ``breathing'' on the PSF.\footnote{``Breathing'' is the term which
337: has come to be used to describe the change in telescope focus due to
338: thermal effects, especially within one pointing. TinyTim
339: parameterizes this as the offset between the secondary and primary
340: mirrors of the telescope relative to the nominal in \micron.
341: TinyTim also allows for different amounts of Gaussian telescope
342: jitter due to guiding.} We generated finely sampled PSFs at
343: 5$\times$ the native pixel scale so that we could accurately
344: interpolate them to a fraction of a pixel. We used the distortion
345: solution of \citet{ACS..ISR..2004-15} to correct the best-fit
346: positions for the severe geometric distortion of the ACS, and we used
347: their measured ACS pixel scale, which was derived by comparing
348: commanded (\texttt{POSTARG}) offsets of \HST\ in arcseconds to the
349: resulting pixel offsets. They derived two such pixel scales for two
350: epochs of observations of 47~Tuc, and we adopt the mean and standard
351: deviation of these two: 28.273$\pm$0.006~mas/pix.
352:
353: Rather than simply use the scatter of individual measurements to
354: estimate the astrometric uncertainty, we performed Monte Carlo
355: simulations in order to quantify potential systematic errors in our
356: PSF-fitting routine. Typically, the most important source of
357: systematic error would be the imperfect modeling of the PSF, but for
358: \hdbin\ the imperfect subtraction of the background light due to
359: \hdprim\ may also be significant. This is because the structured
360: background light will change even within a single orbit due to thermal
361: changes which affect the telescope optics (e.g., the well-known
362: ``breathing'' phenomenon). Also, the coronagraphic occulting spot
363: must be stowed when not in use, and each time it is deployed it will
364: be in a slightly different position, which will change the background
365: slightly, but noticeably. It is easy to imagine how lumps in the
366: residual background structure resulting from an imperfect subtraction
367: could confuse measurement of both the astrometry and the flux ratio.
368: In Appendix~\ref{app:hst}, we describe in detail our Monte Carlo
369: simulations, from which we derived measurement offsets and
370: uncertainties in our PSF-fitting procedure for \HST/ACS images. The
371: offsets ranged in amplitude from 0.1--0.8~mas in separation,
372: 0.1--0.7\degs\ in PA, and 0.01--0.05~mag in flux ratio. The offsets
373: are comparable in size to the uncertainties predicted by the Monte
374: Carlo simulations, which are also comparable in size to the RMS
375: scatter among the individual measurements. The simulations showed
376: that systematic errors (i.e., imperfect PSF-modeling) dominate the
377: predicted uncertainties. The best-fit positions and flux ratios from
378: both epochs, with offsets applied and uncertainties adopted from the
379: Monte Carlo simulations, are given in Table~\ref{tbl:hst}.
380:
381: \subsection{Keck NGS AO \label{sec:keck}}
382:
383: On 2007 January 26 UT, we began monitoring \hdbin\ using natural guide
384: star adaptive optics (NGS AO) at the Keck~II Telescope on Mauna Kea,
385: Hawaii. The seeing conditions on that night were relatively poor;
386: however, at five subsequent epochs we obtained superior NGS AO imaging
387: data. We used the facility IR camera NIRC2 with its narrow
388: field-of-view camera, which produces 10$\farcs$2$\times$10$\farcs$2
389: images. The primary star \hdprim\
390: \citep[$R$~=~5.5~mag;][]{2003AJ....125..984M} located 2$\farcs$6 away
391: from \hdbin\ provided the reference for the AO correction.
392: Table~\ref{tbl:keck} summarizes our Keck NGS observations, and typical
393: images are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:images}.
394:
395: At each epoch, \hdbin\ was imaged in one of the filters covering the
396: standard atmospheric windows from the Mauna Kea Observatories (MKO)
397: filter consortium \citep{mkofilters1,mkofilters2}. We initially
398: obtained data in the $K$-band filter, though we subsequently took data
399: in $J$-, $H$-, $K_S$-, and $K_{cont}$-band
400: ($\lambda_c$~=~2.271~\micron, $\Delta\lambda$~=~0.030~\micron).
401:
402: On each observing run, we obtained dithered images, offsetting the
403: telescope by a few arcseconds between every 1--3 images. There was no
404: need to exclude any of the images at any epoch on the basis of poor
405: image quality. The images were reduced in a standard fashion. We
406: constructed flat fields from the differences of images of the
407: telescope dome interior with and without continuum lamp illumination.
408: Images were registered and stacked to form a final mosaic, though all
409: the results described here were based on analysis of the individual
410: images.
411:
412: For the 2008 March and April epochs, we also obtained unsaturated
413: images of the primary \hdprim\ interlaced with deep exposures in which
414: it was saturated but \hdbin\ was measured at high $S/N$. The minimum
415: integration time of NIRC2 is set by the sampling mode (e.g., single or
416: correlated double sampling) and how much of the array is read out, so
417: by using a very restricted subarray we achieved exposures of 4.372~ms
418: (512$\times$32) and 2.968~ms (384$\times$24).
419:
420: We used the unsaturated images of the primary to estimate the Strehl
421: ratio and FWHM of images from the 2008 March and April epochs. Since
422: no field stars were available to obtain a simultaneous measurement of
423: the Strehl ratio and FWHM in images from other epochs, we used images
424: of \hdbin\ itself. The FWHM was determined by a Gaussian fit to the
425: core of the PSF of HD~130948B. The quantities needed to calculate the
426: Strehl ratio were obtained as follows: (1) the peak flux of the
427: science PSF was determined by a Gaussian fit to the core of the PSF of
428: HD~130948B after removing contaminating flux from HD~130948C by
429: subtracting the science image from itself after being rotated by
430: 180\degs\ about HD~130948C; (2) the total flux of HD~130948B was
431: measured using aperture photometry of \hdbin, then correcting for
432: binarity using the measured flux ratio for that epoch and filter; (3)
433: the peak-to-total flux ratio of the theoretically perfect PSF was
434: determined using the publicly available IDL routine
435: \texttt{NIRC2STREHL}\footnote{\url{http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/optics/lgsao/software/nirc2strehl.pro}}
436: using the same aperture size as was used for the science image. We
437: report the mean and standard deviation of the Strehl ratio and FWHM
438: measured for each set of dithered images at each epoch in
439: Table~\ref{tbl:keck}.
440:
441: We computed the expected relative shift of the two components of
442: \hdbin\ at each epoch due to differential chromatic refraction (DCR).
443: Even though B and C have nearly identical spectral types based on
444: resolved spectroscopy, small color differences can change the extent
445: to which the atmosphere refracts their light, thus changing their
446: relative position as a function of airmass. We used the prescription
447: of \citet{1992AJ....103..638M} for the effect of DCR, and we used the
448: prescription of \citet{1984A&A...138..275S} for the index of
449: refraction of dry air as a function of wavelength. Thus, given the
450: effective wavelength of each component and details of the observations
451: (coordinates of \hdbin, time observed, and observatory latitude), we
452: calculated the expected shift due to DCR. We computed the effective
453: wavelengths of B and C using template spectra of an L3 object
454: \citep[2MASS~J1146+2230AB;][]{2005ApJ...623.1115C} and an L5 object
455: \citep[SDSS~J0539-0059;][]{2005ApJ...623.1115C} to represent the
456: extremes of the possible spectral difference between the two
457: components of \hdbin\ (each is L4$\pm$1). The resulting effective
458: wavelengths for $K$-band were 2.1976 \micron\ and 2.1939 \micron\ for
459: L3 and L5, respectively. Even given this large allowance for spectral
460: differences between the two components of \hdbin, the DCR offset is
461: typically an order of magnitude smaller than the error at any given
462: epoch. (The largest estimated offset is 0.5$\sigma$ for the 2008
463: April observations taken at airmass 1.6.) Therefore, we are justified
464: in ignoring the effects of DCR in the relative astrometry.
465:
466: To determine the relative positions and fluxes of \hdbin, we used a
467: simple analytic representation of the PSF to deblend the two
468: components. The model was the sum of three elliptical Gaussians in
469: which each Gaussian component was allowed to have a different FWHM and
470: normalization, but all components had the same ellipticity and
471: semimajor axis PA. In the vicinity of \hdbin\ there is a significant
472: contribution of both sky background and light from the bright primary
473: \hdprim. Therefore, we also simultaneously fitted a sloped, flat
474: surface to account for the flux not due to \hdbin. In all, we fitted
475: simultaneously for 16 parameters: 6 parameters for the positions and
476: fluxes of \hdbin, 7 parameters for the three-component elliptical
477: Gaussian model, and 3 parameters for background light due to \hdprim\
478: and the sky. The best-fit parameters were found by a
479: Levenberg-Marquardt least-squares minimization in which all pixels
480: were weighted equally. Our fitting procedure yielded a set of
481: measurements of the projected separation, PA, and flux ratio for
482: \hdbin. We applied the distortion correction developed by B. Cameron
483: (priv. comm.) to the astrometry, which changed the results well below
484: the 1$\sigma$ level.
485:
486: The internal scatter of the measurements at each epoch was very small,
487: but this does not include systematic errors due both to the imperfect
488: modeling of the PSF and to the temporally varying and spatially
489: structured background light. To quantify these systematic errors, we
490: conducted extensive Monte Carlo simulations designed to replicate the
491: observations at each epoch. These simulations are described in detail
492: in Appendix~\ref{app:keck}. By comparing the input to fitted
493: parameters for 10$^3$ simulated images, we determined the offset and
494: uncertainty appropriate for each epoch. The offsets ranged in
495: amplitude from 0.1--0.7~mas in separation, 0.03--0.20\degs\ in PA, and
496: 0.001--0.1~mag in flux ratio. We applied these offsets and although
497: they could be up to 1--3$\sigma$, their application only changed the
498: resulting total mass of \hdbin\ by only 0.2$\sigma$. It also improved
499: the reduced $\chi^2$ of the best-fit orbit significantly, from a
500: reduced $\chi^2$ of 1.8 to a reduced $\chi^2$ of 1.1. The
501: uncertainties predicted by the simulations were up to 3$\times$ larger
502: than the RMS scatter among individual measurements at each epoch.
503:
504: For the 2008 March and April epochs, we used the interlaced
505: unsaturated images of the primary \hdprim\ in a different approach for
506: measuring the relative astrometry and flux ratio of \hdbin. We
507: extracted 40$\times$80-pixel cut-outs of \hdprim\ from the short
508: exposures and \hdbin\ from the deeper exposures. We then stitched
509: together these cut-outs, pairing an image of \hdbin\ with each of the
510: images of \hdprim\ taken immediately before and after it. We employed
511: the StarFinder software package \citep{2000A&AS..147..335D} to
512: iteratively solve for the PSF, positions, and fluxes of the three
513: components in these combined images. Unfortunately, the Keck AO
514: system did not keep \hdprim\ sufficiently fixed on the NIRC2 array (it
515: drifted up to $\sim$10~mas between deep exposures) to enable the
516: measurement of the positions of B and C relative to A from our data.
517: Since we used every available independent PSF contemporaneous with the
518: observations in measuring the system properties, we did not verify
519: this empirical PSF-fitting approach directly by testing StarFinder on
520: simulated binary images. However, at the 2008 April epoch, we
521: obtained standard full-frame (1024$\times$1024) images, which we have
522: analyzed and simulated in the same fashion as data from the previous
523: epochs using our simple analytic model of the PSF. The measured
524: relative astrometry and flux ratio are consistent using both
525: approaches. In fact, the separation measured using our simple
526: analytic PSF model, which is more likely to be affected by systematic
527: errors, would be 3$\sigma$ discrepant with the StarFinder empirical
528: PSF results if the offset derived from simulated binary images was not
529: applied. This suggests that our Monte Carlo simulations accurately
530: predict measurement offsets for the analytic PSF approach, and that
531: the StarFinder empirical PSF-fitting approach does not harbor any
532: significant systematic errors.
533:
534: By interlacing short and deep exposures, we were able to measure the
535: photometric stability during each data set, thus enabling the
536: measurement of the absolute photometry of \hdbin\ by finding the
537: fluxes of B and C relative to A. Photometry of \hdprim\ is contained
538: in the 2MASS Point Source Catalog \citep{2mass}, and we neglect the
539: small terms needed to convert the 2MASS photometry to the MKO system
540: for a G2 star ($\sim$0.003~mag). Because \hdprim\ is very bright with
541: blue $JHK$ colors, it is unsaturated only in short 2MASS exposures
542: (51~ms) taken in $K$-band, thus, the quality of the 2MASS photometry
543: is best in $K$-band (0.02~mag uncertainty) and very poor in $J$- and
544: $H$-band (0.2~mag uncertainty). To eliminate the need to rely on
545: 2MASS $J$- and $H$-band photometry, we used $J-K$ and $H-K$ colors to
546: tie our $J$- and $H$-band photometry to the higher quality $K$-band
547: 2MASS photometry. We computed synthetic photometric colors of
548: $J-K$~=~0.339$\pm$0.010~mag and $H-K$~=~0.057$\pm$0.010~mag from a
549: low-resolution spectrum of \hdprim\ which we obtained using the IRTF
550: spectrograph SpeX \citep{1998SPIE.3354..468R} on
551: 2008~May~16~UT\footnote{The spectrum of HD~76151 (G2V; Rayner,
552: Cushing, \& Vacca 2007, in prep.) publicly available in the IRTF
553: Spectral Library
554: (\url{http://irtfweb.ifa.hawaii.edu/~spex/WebLibrary/}) yielded
555: consistent synthetic colors.}. The spectra were reduced using the
556: SpeXtool software package
557: \citep{2003PASP..115..389V,2004PASP..116..362C}. Our adopted
558: uncertainties in the synthetic colors are the typical error in
559: determining the continuum slopes of FGK stars from $J$- to $K$-band
560: using SpeX (Rayner, Cushing, \& Vacca 2007, in prep.). To determine
561: the uncertainty in the photometry of \hdbin, we added in quadrature:
562: (1) the error in the $K$-band 2MASS photometry of \hdprim; (2) the
563: error in the synthesized $J-K$ or $H-K$ color of \hdprim; (3) the
564: standard error of the mean relative flux measured in the
565: stitched-together images (i.e., the RMS scatter divided by $\sqrt{N}$,
566: where $N$ is the number of deep exposures given in
567: Table~\ref{tbl:keck}), which is dominated by the uncertainty in
568: deblending the B and C components; and (4) the RMS scatter in the
569: measured flux of \hdprim\ from our NIRC2 image sequence (a direct
570: measure of the photometric stability over the entire data set). Our
571: photometry is consistent with that previously reported by
572: \citet{2002ApJ...567L.133P} but with much smaller errors in $J$- and
573: $K$-band.
574:
575: In Table~\ref{tbl:keck}, we present the mean of the relative
576: astrometric and photometric measurements at each epoch as determined
577: from the two PSF-fitting procedures described above. For cases in
578: which the analytic model of the PSF was used (prior to 2008 March),
579: offsets have been applied and uncertainties adopted from our Monte
580: Carlo simulations. For the remaining cases, in which StarFinder
581: empirical PSF-fitting was used, the quoted uncertainty is the RMS
582: scatter of the measurements for individual images. In
583: Table~\ref{tbl:phot}, we present our photometry for all three
584: components of HD~130948ABC.
585:
586:
587: \subsection{Gemini Hokupa`a AO \label{sec:gemini}}
588:
589: As described by \citet{2002ApJ...567L.133P}, the discovery images of
590: \hdbin\ were obtained using the Hokupa`a curvature AO system on the
591: Gemini North Telescope, on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Hokupa`a observations
592: were carried out over a period of approximately 14 months beginning on
593: 2001~February~24~UT. We retrieved all available raw data from the
594: CADC Archive (GN-2001A-DD-2, GN-2001A-C-24, GN-2001B-DD-1,
595: GN-2002A-DD-1). This included four epochs of dual-beam imaging, which
596: employed a Wollaston prism to simultaneously obtain orthogonally
597: polarized images, as well as two epochs of normal imaging in which the
598: Wollaston prism was not employed. The Wollaston prism data were
599: originally used to search for circumstellar material around \hdprim\
600: using simultaneous difference imaging. The nominal instrument
601: platescale, with or without the Wollaston prism, is
602: 19.98$\pm$0.08~mas/pix.
603:
604: We used the same PSF-fitting procedure as described for the Keck NGS
605: images on the Gemini data, which we registered and cosmic-ray
606: rejected. As judged from the FWHM of the best-fit PSF model, the
607: image quality was best on 2001~February~24 and 2001~June~28~UT.
608: Simultaneous dual-beam images from 2001~February~24 yielded
609: inconsistent astrometry at the 2$\sigma$ level (0.7~mas) in separation
610: and the 6$\sigma$ level (1.2\degs) in PA, where these confidence
611: limits correspond to the internal scatter of the set of measurements
612: taken in each beam. This inconsistency suggests that there are
613: significant systematic errors that affect the PSF, platescale, and/or
614: optical distortion of each orthogonally polarized beam differently.
615: As there is no way to effectively quantify these systematic errors, we
616: favor the use of the 2001~June~28 epoch images, which did not use the
617: Wollaston prism and are of comparable image quality
618: (FWHM~$\approx$~75~mas in $H$-band) to the 2001~February~24 data. On
619: 2001~June~28, the separation and PA measured by our PSF-fitting
620: procedure were 129.0$\pm$1.3~mas and 318.6$\pm$0.5\degs, respectively.
621: We refer to this as the ``measured'' astrometry hereinafter. This
622: astrometry is consistent with the 134$\pm$5~mas separation and
623: 317$\pm$1\degs\ PA reported by \citet{2002ApJ...567L.133P} as the
624: \textit{``average''} astrometry for the time period of
625: 2001~February~24 to 2001~September~20~UT.
626:
627: As an additional check, we also extracted the astrometry presented by
628: \citet{2003IAUS..211..265P} in their Figure 3. (The raw astrometry was
629: not published in that conference proceedings.) They presented four
630: epochs spanning 2001~February~24 to 2002~April~23~UT, over which the
631: separation changes from 130.9 to 107.7~mas and the PA changes from
632: 313.5 to 307.7\degs. We refer to this as the ``extracted'' astrometry
633: hereinafter. The separation range is consistent with what we measured
634: from the archival data, but the PA range is clearly inconsistent with
635: the PA we measured directly from the archival data (and the PA
636: reported by \citealp{2002ApJ...567L.133P}). The $\approx$5\degs\
637: discrepancy in the PA could be explained if the orientation of the
638: detector on the sky was not correctly recorded in the header of the
639: archival data. Indeed, this seems likely to be the case because all
640: archival data we retrieved record the same value for the orientation
641: of the detector (i.e., zero) even when the rotator had obviously been
642: changed by $\approx$90\degs\ for images taken at the same epoch.
643: However, this explanation fails to account for the inconsistency
644: between the PAs reported by
645: \citet{2002ApJ...567L.133P,2003IAUS..211..265P}.
646:
647: Archival images of the binary Gl~569Bab taken on 2001~February~24~UT
648: using the same instrumental setup as the contemporaneous \hdbin\ data
649: (i.e., dual-beam Wollaston prism mode) offer strong evidence for the
650: sky orientation not being stored correctly in the header. We measured
651: a PA of 70$\pm$3\degs\ for Gl~569Bab, whereas the ephemeris of
652: \citet{2006ApJ...644.1183S} predicts a PA of 314\degs\ at that epoch
653: (a 116\degs\ systematic offset!). We also measured the separation of
654: Gl~569Bab to be 88$\pm$2~mas, which is discrepant with the ephemeris
655: prediction of 84~mas by 2$\sigma$. This supports our suspicion of a
656: systematic error in the platescale of the instrument in Wollaston
657: prism mode that motivated us to use non-Wollaston images for our
658: ``measured'' astrometry.
659:
660: In the next section, we will consider both possible sets of Gemini
661: astrometry, ``extracted'' versus ``measured'', when determining the
662: orbit of \hdbin. However, our default orbit solution uses only the
663: \HST\ and Keck astrometry.
664:
665:
666: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
667:
668:
669: \section{Dynamical Mass Determination \label{sec:orbit}}
670:
671: \subsection{Orbit Fitting using Markov Chain Monte Carlo}
672:
673: The orbit of \hdbin\ is quite well constrained as our observations
674: cover $\sim$70\% of the orbital period. However, in order to search
675: for the influence of parameter degeneracies in our orbit fit and
676: determine robust confidence limits on the orbital parameters, we used
677: a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique
678: \citep[e.g.,][]{bremaud99:markov_chain} for orbit fitting, in addition
679: to a gradient descent technique. In short, the MCMC method constructs
680: a series of steps through the model parameter space such that the
681: resulting set of values (the ``chain'') is asymptotically equivalent
682: to the posterior probability distribution of the parameters being
683: sought. The code that performed the MCMC fit is described in detail
684: in the study of \twomassbin\ by \citet{2008arXiv0807.0238L}. Chains
685: all had lengths of 2$\times$10$^8$, and the correlation length of our
686: most correlated chain, as defined by \citet{2004PhRvD..69j3501T}, was
687: 4.2$\times$10$^4$ for the orbital period, with equal or smaller
688: correlation lengths for other orbital parameters. This gives an
689: effective length of the chain of 6.5$\times$10$^3$, which in turn
690: gives statistical uncertainties in the parameter errors of about
691: $1/\sqrt{6.5\times10^3}$~=~1.2\%, i.e., negligible. We used uniform
692: priors in period ($P$), semimajor axis ($a$), PA of the ascending node
693: ($\Omega$), argument of periastron ($\omega$), and time of periastron
694: passage ($T_0$). We used a prior in inclination proportional to
695: $\sin(i)$ (i.e., random orbital orientation) and an eccentricity prior
696: of $f(e)$~=~2$e$ \citep[e.g., see][]{1991A&A...248..485D}.
697:
698: As an independent verification of our MCMC results, we also fit the
699: orbit of \hdbin\ using the linearized least-squares routine \orbit\
700: \citep[described in][]{1999A&A...351..619F}. We give the resulting
701: orbital parameters and their linearized uncertainties in
702: Table~\ref{tbl:orbit}. All of the orbital parameters are consistent
703: between the \orbit\ and MCMC results. In fact, they are all
704: consistent to much better than 1$\sigma$, which is expected since both
705: orbit-fitters should find the same $\chi^2$ minimum in parameter space
706: (i.e., the two methods are applied to the same dataset). The reduced
707: $\chi^2$ of the \orbit\ solution was 1.14 (identical to the MCMC
708: solution), and the total mass was 0.108$\pm$0.002 \Msun, which
709: includes the error in the parallax and is also consistent with the
710: MCMC-derived mass.
711:
712: \subsection{Fitting Results}
713:
714: Figure~\ref{fig:orbit-parms} shows the resulting MCMC probability
715: distributions for the seven orbital parameters of \hdbin, most of
716: which are somewhat non-Gaussian. The two distributions that are most
717: nearly Gaussian and particularly well-constrained are the inclination
718: and the PA of the ascending node ($\Omega$), the latter of which along
719: with $\omega$ actually have a 180\degs\ ambiguity without radial
720: velocity information. The best-fit parameters and their confidence
721: limits are given in Table~\ref{tbl:orbit}, and the best-fit orbit is
722: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:orbit-skyplot}. The reduced $\chi^2$ of the
723: orbital solution is 1.14.
724:
725: Applying Kepler's Third Law to the period and semimajor axis
726: distributions gives the posterior probability distribution for the
727: total mass of \hdbin, with a median of 0.1085~\Msun, a standard
728: deviation of 0.0018~\Msun, and 68(95)\% confidence limits of
729: $^{+0.0019}_{-0.0017}$($^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$)~\Msun\
730: (Figure~\ref{fig:orbit-mass}). The MCMC probability distribution of
731: the total mass does not include the uncertainty in the parallax
732: (0.44\%), which by propagation of errors contributes an additional
733: 1.3\% uncertainty in mass. Since the MCMC-derived mass distribution
734: is asymmetric, we account for this additional error by randomly
735: drawing a normally distributed parallax value for each step in the
736: chain, which we then used to compute the distance and total mass. The
737: resulting mass distribution is indistinguishable from Gaussian
738: (Figure~\ref{fig:orbit-mass}). Our final determination of the total
739: mass is 0.109$\pm$0.002($^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$)~\Msun\ at 68(95)\%
740: confidence. Thus, the total mass of this system is determined to 2\%
741: precision.
742:
743: The total mass is determined to a much higher precision than would be
744: calculated directly from the uncertainties in the orbital period and
745: semimajor axis because these two orbital parameters are strongly
746: correlated (Figure~\ref{fig:orbit-p_a}). This is essentially a
747: consequence of encoding Kepler's Second Law (equal area per unit time)
748: in the orbit fitter, so that it naturally determines the ratio $a^2/P$
749: quite well. Thus, the correlation between $a$ and $P$ roughly follows
750: lines of constant mass since $M_{tot}$ is just $(a^2/P)^2/a$. This
751: property of orbit determination is well-known and has often been
752: utilized to measure dynamical masses even when the orbital parameters
753: are not well-constrained \citep[e.g.,][]{2003AJ....126.1971S}.
754:
755: \subsection{Including Gemini Astrometry}
756:
757: Our default best-fit orbit presented above includes only the \HST\ and
758: Keck measurements of \hdbin. In section \S \ref{sec:gemini}, we
759: discussed the different Gemini measurements of \hdbin\ and their
760: inconsistencies. The Gemini measurements have the potential to
761: improve the orbit determination by extending the observational time
762: baseline, so we explored the effect of adding each of these two
763: different measurements by running two additional MCMC chains. One
764: chain uses the Gemini astrometry we extracted from
765: \citet{2003IAUS..211..265P} for the 2001~February~24~UT epoch, and the
766: other chain uses the Gemini astrometry we measured directly from
767: archival images at the 2001~June~28~UT epoch \citep[this astrometry is
768: consistent with that presented by][]{2002ApJ...567L.133P}. For our
769: ``extracted'' measurement, we estimated uncertainties of 2~mas in
770: separation and 1\degs\ in PA. The MCMC chain with the addition of our
771: ``extracted'' meaurement yielded a similar reduced $\chi^2$ (1.05) to
772: our default chain, and the orbital parameters were generally better
773: constrained (e.g., Figure~\ref{fig:compare-masses} shows that the
774: posterior mass distribution was somewhat tighter). But the MCMC chain
775: with the addition of our ``measured'' Gemini astrometry had an
776: unacceptably large reduced $\chi^2$ (14.7), and the resulting orbital
777: parameters were generally inconsistent with our default chain. The PA
778: of the ``measured'' Gemini point is grossly inconsistent with any
779: best-fit orbit: for instance, the binary must revolve backwards (with
780: respect to the Keck and \HST\ data) to be consistent with the
781: ``measured'' Gemini point (Figure~\ref{fig:orbit-sep-pa}). In other
782: words, the ``measured'' Gemini astrometry is inconsistent with any
783: physically plausible orbit that is also consistent with the \HST\ and
784: Keck astrometry. Thus the inconsistencies between the ``extracted''
785: and ``measured'' astrometry discussed in \S \ref{sec:gemini} seem to
786: be due to a large systematic error in the PA of the ``measured''
787: Gemini astrometry (e.g., due to an incorrectly recorded orientation of
788: the detector). While our ``extracted'' astrometry seems to improve
789: the orbit determination, we conservatively exclude it from our default
790: orbital solution as we have no way to accurately quantify its
791: astrometric uncertainties.
792:
793:
794: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
795:
796:
797: \section{Age of the Primary \hdprim \label{sec:age}}
798:
799: Age determinations for individual main-sequence field stars are
800: challenging and imperfect. Estimates generally rely on the slowing of
801: the stellar rotation period as stars grow older
802: \citep{1972ApJ...171..565S}. Stars spin down as they age because
803: stellar winds carry away angular momentum; the slower rotation periods
804: then lead to a decline in stellar activity due to the underlying
805: stellar dynamo.
806:
807: \citet{1998PASP..110.1259G} assigned an age range of 0.2--0.8~Gyr to
808: characterize his young solar-analog sample, of which \hdprim\ is a
809: member. Given the importance of the system's age in interpreting our
810: mass measurement of the brown dwarf binary, we examine here the
811: specific properties of \hdprim\ to refine the age estimate.
812:
813: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %
814:
815: \subsection{Chromospheric Activity \label{sec:age-rhk}}
816:
817: For solar-type stars, chromospheric activity as traced by
818: \ion{Ca}{2}~HK emission provides one method to estimate ages.
819: \citet{don93, 1998csss...10.1235D} provide a calibration for this
820: index:
821: \begin{equation}
822: \log(t) = 10.725 - 1.334R_5 + 0.4085R_5^2 - 0.0522R_5^3
823: \end{equation}
824: where $t$ is the age in years and $R_5 = 10^5 R\arcmin_{HK}$, valid
825: for $\log(R\arcmin_{HK}) $ = $-$4.25 to $-$5.2.
826: \citet{1996AJ....111..439H} and \citet{2004ApJS..152..261W} measure
827: $\log(R\arcmin_{HK})$~=~$-$4.45 and $-$4.50 for \hdprim, respectively,
828: which translate into ages of 0.6 and 0.9~Gyr. A clear error estimate
829: is not available for this relation.
830:
831: \citet{mam08-ages} have updated this relation, incorporating new
832: samples of \ion{Ca}{2}~HK data, revised ages and membership lists for
833: nearby open clusters, and corrections for trends in activity with
834: stellar color (mass). Their relation differs most notably from the
835: Donahue one at the youngest ages ($\lesssim$0.1~Gyr). They find:
836: \begin{equation}
837: \log(t) = -38.053 - 17.912\log(R\arcmin_{HK}) - 1.6675\log(R\arcmin_{HK})^2.
838: \end{equation}
839: The resulting implied ages for \hdprim\ are 0.4 and 0.6~Gyr for the
840: aforementioned $\log(R\arcmin_{HK})$ values. \citet{mam08-ages}
841: estimate errors of $\approx$0.25~dex in the age ($\approx$60\%), based
842: on the dispersion produced by their relation when applied to binary
843: stars and star clusters. We adopt an age from this method of
844: 0.5$\pm$0.3~Gyr.
845:
846: Direct comparison to the open cluster data used by \citet{mam08-ages}
847: provides useful reference points. The Hyades
848: \citep[625~Myr;][]{1998A&A...331...81P} provides the most populous
849: sample for comparison; the cluster's median
850: $\log(R\arcmin_{HK})$~=~$-$4.47$\pm$0.09 (68\% confidence range) is
851: very well-matched to \hdprim. The slightly younger UMa
852: \citep[500~Myr;][]{2003AJ....125.1980K} and Coma Ber
853: \citep[600~Myr;][]{2005PASP..117..911K} clusters also have comparable
854: values of $-$4.48$\pm$0.09 and $-$4.43 (no confidence limits given),
855: respectively, though with much smaller samples of stars.\footnote{Note
856: that the ages for these latter two clusters are older than adopted
857: in the Donahue analysis. Combined with the larger sample of young
858: clusters, the behavior of the activity--age relation from
859: \citet{mam08-ages} produces the somewhat younger age for \hdprim\
860: compared to \citep{1998csss...10.1235D}.} The data for \hdprim\ are
861: clearly inconsistent with older clusters NGC~752
862: \citep[2~Gyr;][]{1995AJ....109.2090D} and M~67
863: \citep[4~Gyr;][]{1999AJ....118.2894S, 2004PASP..116..997V} that have
864: $\log(R\arcmin_{HK})$ values of $-$4.70 and $-$4.84$\pm$0.11,
865: respectively. However, the activity data for \hdprim\ are still
866: formally consistent with ages as young as the Pleiades
867: ($-$4.33$\pm$0.24), given the large scatter in the sample for that
868: cluster.
869:
870: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %
871:
872: \subsection{X-Ray Emission \label{sec:age-xray}}
873:
874: X-ray emission of solar-type stars also declines with age.
875: \citet{1999A&AS..135..319H} measure $\log(L_X)$~=~29.0~dex (cgs) for
876: \hdprim\ with a 7\% uncertainty. \citet{1998PASP..110.1259G} provides
877: an age calibration based on scaling relations for stellar activity:
878: \begin{equation}
879: \log(L_X/L_{\rm bol}) = -6.38 - 2.6\alpha\log(t_9/4.6) + \log[1 + 0.4(1-t_9/4.6)]
880: \end{equation}
881: where $t_9$ is the age in Gyr and $\alpha$ is the coefficient that
882: relates rotation period to stellar age, either $\alpha$~=~0.5
883: \citep{1972ApJ...171..565S} or $\alpha~=~1/\exp$ \citep{wal91}.
884: Following \citet{wils01}, we adopt the zero-point of $-$6.38 based on
885: the X-ray luminosity of the Sun from \citet{1987ApJ...315..687M}.
886: Adopting the \Lbol/\Lsun = 1.21 from \citet{1998PASP..110.1259G} gives
887: $\log(L_X/L_{\rm bol})$~=~$-$4.70 for \hdprim, which corresponds to an
888: estimated age of 0.1--0.3~Gyr, depending on the value of $\alpha$.
889:
890: \citet{mam08-ages} find that X-ray emission is strongly correlated
891: with $\log(R\arcmin_{HK})$, and they derive a relation between X-ray
892: activity and age from this correlation and their relation between
893: chromospheric activity and age:
894: \begin{equation}
895: \log(t) = 1.20 - 2.307\log(L_X/L_{\rm bol}) - 0.1512\log(L_X/L_{\rm bol})^2
896: \end{equation}
897: where $t$ is the age in years. This relation gives an age of 0.5~Gyr
898: for \hdprim, which perhaps not surprisingly is in agreement with the
899: age estimate from their chromospheric activity relation
900: (Equation~2). This agreement indicates that \hdprim\ shows typical
901: X-ray emission given its chromospheric activity level.
902:
903: As a more direct point of reference, the X-ray luminosity of \hdprim\
904: in excellent agreement with single G~stars in the Pleiades and Hyades,
905: where the average values are 28.9--29.0 \citep{1995ApJ...448..683S,
906: 2001A&A...377..538S}. Unfortunately, there is only a modest
907: difference in the distribution of X-ray luminosities for G~stars in
908: these two clusters \citep[e.g.,][]{2005ApJS..160..390P}. Similarly,
909: \citet{2003ApJ...585..878K} have noted that the character of stellar
910: X-ray emission changes with age, with older stars having softer
911: \ROSAT\ X-ray emission. The \ROSAT\ X-ray hardness ratios $HR1$ and
912: $HR2$ for \hdprim\ are $-$0.34$\pm$0.07 and $-$0.08$\pm$0.012,
913: respectively \citep{1999A&A...349..389V}, values which are in good
914: agreement with G~stars in the Hyades and largely distinct from young
915: moving group members ($\approx$10--30~Myr) and nearby (old) stars.
916: Overall, the X-ray data for \hdprim\ support an age around the
917: Pleiades and Hyades clusters (i.e., 125--625~Myr) but do not provide a
918: more definitive age estimate.
919:
920: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %
921:
922: \subsection{ Rotation/Gyrochronology \label{sec:age-gyro}}
923:
924: \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B} proposed a method for determining the ages
925: of solar-type main-sequence stars based on stellar rotation
926: (``gyrochronology''). This technique is potentially the most direct
927: and precise method for estimating stellar ages. Over a star's
928: lifetime, stellar winds carry away angular momentum, so the star
929: rotates more slowly as it ages. The functional form of the spin-down
930: was found by \citet{1972ApJ...171..565S} to be proportional to
931: $\sqrt{t}$. \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B} adds a separable color
932: dependence, which translates to a mass dependence, to the spin-down.
933: This is empirically motivated and suggests a mass dependence on the
934: angular momentum loss, and thus on the strength of the stellar dynamo.
935: In fact, his empirical relation cannot be used for all stars, but only
936: those which share a common dynamo mechanism, one that is presumed to
937: originate at the interface between convective and radiative zones in
938: the stellar interior. Fully convective stars are expected to have a
939: different dynamo mechanism that is weaker and prevents efficient
940: spin-down, leading these stars to rotate rapidly
941: ($P$~$\lesssim$~2~days). This interpretation is empirically motivated
942: by stellar rotation data which show two sequences of stars, with some
943: stars in transition between the two states. If a main-sequence star
944: can be shown to be part of the ``interface sequence'' (as almost all
945: stars older than about 200~Myr seem to be), then its rotation period
946: and $B-V$ color can be used to determine its age to a precision of
947: 15--20\% using the empirical gyro relation of
948: \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B}.
949:
950: \citet{2000AJ....120.1006G} measured rotational modulation of \hdprim\
951: from photoelectric time series photometry spanning 188~days. He found
952: two distinct but similar periods of 7.69~days and 7.99~days, so we
953: adopt the mean and standard deviation as the rotation period for
954: \hdprim\ and its uncertainty ($P$~=~7.84$\pm$0.21~days). For the
955: $B-V$ color, we adopt 0.576$\pm$0.016~mag from the \Hipparcos\ catalog
956: \citep{1997A&A...323L..49P}.
957:
958: First, we show that we are justified in applying the
959: \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B} relation to \hdprim\ because it seems to
960: have an interface dynamo. We have verified this in two independent
961: ways: (1) its age-normalized rotation period ($P/\sqrt{t}$, where $t$
962: is 0.2--0.8~Gyr, the age estimated from stellar activity indicators)
963: and $B-V$ color place it within the ``interface sequence'' of stars in
964: open clusters \citep[see Figure 1 of][]{2007ApJ...669.1167B}; and (2)
965: its X-ray flux ($\log{L_X/L_{\rm bol}}$~=~-4.70 from \S
966: \ref{sec:age-xray}) and Rossby number (defined as $P/\tau_c$~=~0.29,
967: where $\tau_c$ is the convective turnover timescale of \hdprim,
968: estimated to be 27~days according to \citealp{1996ApJ...457..340K})
969: clearly place it among other X-ray active stars with interface dynamos
970: \citep[see Figure 1 of][]{2003ApJ...586L.145B}.
971:
972: The functional form of the \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B}
973: gyrochronological age relation is:
974: \begin{equation}
975: \log(t) = \frac{1}{n}[\log(P) - \log(a) - b\log(B-V-c)]
976: \end{equation}
977: where $t$ is the age in years, $P$ is the rotation period in days, $n$
978: is the power-law exponent of the spin-down, and $a$, $b$, and $c$ are
979: empirical coefficients. By fitting rotation periods and colors for
980: stars in open clusters of known ages, \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B}
981: found coefficients of $a$~=~0.7725$\pm$0.011, $b$~=~0.601$\pm$0.024,
982: $c$~=~0.4 (not free to vary), and $n$~=~0.5189$\pm$0.0070. We have
983: employed the gyro relation in a Monte Carlo fashion, drawing the
984: observational inputs and functional coefficients from normal
985: distributions consistent with their quoted errors. This approach
986: yields a standard deviation in the resulting age distribution
987: consistent with the error one would obtain by propagation of errors
988: \citep[i.e., Equation 11 of][]{2007ApJ...669.1167B}, but it preserves
989: asymmetries in the resulting confidence limits. We thereby find a
990: gyro age of 0.65$^{+0.13(0.28)}_{-0.10(0.18)}$~Gyr for \hdprim\
991: (68(95)\% confidence limits).
992:
993: \citet{mam08-ages} have derived new coefficients for the gyro relation
994: that improve its agreement with observations of the Hyades, Pleiades,
995: and the Sun: $a$~=~0.407$\pm$0.021, $b$~=~0.325$\pm$0.024,
996: $c$~=~0.495$\pm$0.010, and $n$~=~0.566$\pm$0.008. Using these, we
997: find a gyro age of 0.79$^{+0.22(0.53)}_{-0.15(0.26)}$~Gyr for \hdprim\
998: (68(95)\% confidence limits). This is the age we adopt as the
999: gyrochronological age of \hdprim, despite its somewhat larger
1000: uncertainties, which stem from the larger uncertainties in the
1001: coefficients determined by \citet{mam08-ages}. The age estimates
1002: derived using the different sets of coefficients are consistent with
1003: each other, though the improved coefficients give a slightly older
1004: age. Because of the scarcity of rotation period data for clusters, no
1005: stars older than the Hyades except the Sun were used in either
1006: calibration of the gyrochronology relation.
1007:
1008: Comparison of \hdprim's properties to the stellar rotation data
1009: presented by \citet{mam08-ages} offers a direct assessment of its
1010: gyrochronolgical age. For an object of its color, it appears to be in
1011: good agreement with members of the Hyades
1012: \citep[625~Myr;][]{1998A&A...331...81P}. In fact, its rotation period
1013: is slightly slower than the mean Hyades rotation period. This implies
1014: an age slightly older than, but marginally consistent with, the
1015: Hyades, which supports our adopting the gyro age of \hdage.
1016:
1017: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %
1018:
1019: \subsection{Other Age Indicators \label{sec:age-other}}
1020:
1021: The location on the H-R diagram relative to stellar evolutionary
1022: isochrones provides another age estimate, though for main-sequence
1023: stars this is limited since stellar luminosity changes gradually with
1024: age. Using high resolution spectroscopic data combined with
1025: bolometric magnitudes and isochrones, \citet{2005ApJS..159..141V}
1026: derive an age estimate of 1.8~Gyr with a possible range of
1027: 0.4---3.2~Gyr. From the same data and with more detailed analysis,
1028: \citet{2006astro.ph..7235T} infer a median age of 0.72~Gyr with a 95\%
1029: confidence range of 0.32--2.48~Gyr.
1030:
1031: For solar-type stars, photospheric lithium is depleted with age, as
1032: indicated from \ion{Li}{1}~$\lambda$6708 measurements for stars in
1033: open clusters, with modest changes for $\lesssim$100~Myr and then more
1034: rapid depletion with age. However, even within a given cluster,
1035: lithium abundances show a substantial scatter for stars of a given
1036: color (mass), and thus we consider the Li data only as a qualitative
1037: check. Measurements by \citet{1981ApJ...248..651D},
1038: \citet{1985ApJ...290..284H}, and \citet{2001A&A...371..943C} give
1039: \ion{Li}{1}~$\lambda$6708 equivalent widths of 95$\pm$14, 96$\pm$3,
1040: and 103.1$\pm$3~m\AA, respectively, for \hdprim. Compared to stars of
1041: similar $B-V$~=~0.58, these values are slightly lower than the mean
1042: for the Pleiades and slightly higher than for UMa and the Hyades,
1043: though consistent with the scatter in each cluster's measurements
1044: \citep{1993AJ....106.1080S, 1993AJ....106.1059S, 1993AJ....105.2299S}.
1045:
1046: \citet{2000AJ....120.1006G} examined the space motions of his young
1047: solar analog sample and did not associate \hdprim\ with any of the
1048: known moving groups. Using his space motions, we confirm that
1049: \hdprim\ does not belong to any moving groups that were identified
1050: after his analysis \citep{2004ARA&A..42..685Z, 2006ApJ...649L.115Z,
1051: 2006ApJ...643.1160L}. Thus, the space motion of \hdprim\ offers no
1052: constraint on its age.
1053:
1054: Overall, the isochrone analysis and lithium abundances are consistent
1055: with the activity-derived ages, albeit with lower precision.
1056:
1057: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %
1058:
1059: \subsection{Age Summary \label{sec:age-summ}}
1060:
1061: The age estimates for \hdprim\ are summarized in
1062: Table~\ref{tbl:age}. The most precise estimates are derived from the
1063: connection between stellar rotation (thus activity) and age. Using
1064: gyrochronology, we have estimated the age of \hdprim\ from its
1065: rotation period to be \hdage. This is consistent with the
1066: 0.5$\pm$0.3~Gyr age derived from the most up-to-date relation between
1067: chromospheric activity and age \citep{mam08-ages}. The larger
1068: uncertainty in the activity age ($\approx$60\%) compared to the gyro
1069: age ($\approx$25\%) makes it somewhat less attractive, although it is
1070: better calibrated at ages intermediate between the Hyades the Sun.
1071: Less precise estimates are available from X-ray activity, lithium
1072: depletion, and stellar evolutionary isochrones, and these are all
1073: consistent with the more precise gyro age estimate.
1074:
1075: It is important to note that the rotation data for \hdprim\ are
1076: generally inconsistent with ages younger than the Hyades, so we find
1077: it unlikely that \hdprim\ is much younger than $\approx$0.6~Gyr
1078: \citep[see Figure~10 of][]{mam08-ages}. This assertion is free from
1079: the uncertainties in the calibration of the gyro relation at older
1080: ages, thus our 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) lower limits on the gyro age of
1081: 0.64~Gyr (0.53~Gyr) are expected to be reasonable. Additionally, the
1082: chromospheric activity of \hdprim\ is inconsistent with stars in
1083: clusters much older than the Hyades \citep[see Figure~4
1084: of][]{mam08-ages}. Thus, the ensemble of data can be made fully
1085: consistent for an age of \hdprim\ that is roughly the same as the
1086: Hyades.
1087:
1088: In the analysis that follows, we adopt the \hdage\ age estimate from
1089: gyrochronology for \hdprim, not only because it provides the best
1090: precision, but also because it is the most fundamental age indicator
1091: available. It directly probes stellar angular momentum loss, whereas
1092: activity indicators indirectly probe the change in stellar rotation
1093: through its impact on the stellar dynamo. However, we are reluctant
1094: we caution that the gyro age still has at least two potential
1095: uncertainties: (1) the rotation period was measured over only one
1096: season and so is not completely irreproachable;\footnote{The rotation
1097: period measured from photometric modulation due to star spots can be
1098: affected by the latitude of the spots since there is likely to be
1099: some amount of differential rotation. The fact that
1100: \citet{2000AJ....120.1006G} measured two similar but distinct
1101: rotation periods for \hdprim\ highlights the difficulties in
1102: deriving a robust rotation period from time series photometry.} (2)
1103: the gyrochronological age relation is not well-calibrated at ages
1104: older than the Hyades, as the only age datum $\gtrsim$0.6~Gyr is the
1105: Sun. For these reasons, we will also consider the activity age of
1106: 0.5$\pm$0.3~Gyr, which is less precise but is somewhat better
1107: calibrated at ages $\gtrsim$0.6~Gyr. Future asteroseismology
1108: measurements that probe the interior structure of \hdprim\ could
1109: provide an even more fundamental and precise age estimate. However,
1110: such measurements have only been obtained for a handful of very bright
1111: stars to date \citep{2002A&A...394L...5F, 2004A&A...417..235E,
1112: 2004A&A...418..295M, 2005A&A...434.1085C, 2005A&A...440..609B,
1113: 2006A&A...449..293E}.
1114:
1115:
1116: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
1117:
1118:
1119: \section{Discussion}
1120:
1121: The direct measurement of the masses and/or ages of ultracool dwarfs
1122: is one of the few avenues by which theoretical models describing these
1123: objects can be tested. \hdbin\ is unique among ultracool dwarf
1124: binaries with dynamical mass determinations to date because the
1125: primary \hdprim\ offers an independent age and metallicity constraint,
1126: under the conservative assumption that all three components are coeval
1127: and have the same composition. The metallicity of \hdprim\ is
1128: [M/H]~=~0.00 \citep{2005ApJS..159..141V}, so the publicly available
1129: solar-metallicity models are well-suited to our analysis. Because the
1130: age of \hdprim\ is constrained to a lower precision ($\approx$25\%)
1131: than the total mass of \hdbin\ (2\%), we have conducted the model
1132: comparisons discussed here with minimal dependence on the measured age
1133: of \hdprim\ so that future improvements in the age measurement can be
1134: readily applied to our results.
1135:
1136: In the following analysis, we utilized all available measurements of
1137: \hdbin: the total mass from this work; the Keck $JHK$ photometry; the
1138: \Hipparcos-measured distance; and the individual spectral types. We
1139: randomly drew the measured properties of \hdbin\ from appropriate
1140: distributions, carefully accounting for the covariance between the
1141: different quantities. For example, $M_{tot}$ and \Lbol\ are
1142: correlated through the distance (this has a small effect on our
1143: analysis), and the luminosities of the two components are correlated
1144: because the flux ratio is measured to higher accuracy than the total
1145: flux.
1146:
1147: We have deliberately chosen to use \Lbol\ rather than \Teff\ as the
1148: basis of our model comparisons because values of \Teff\ in the
1149: literature are invariably tied to either evolutionary or atmospheric
1150: theoretical models in some way. By using \Lbol, which only depends on
1151: direct measurements of SEDs and distances, we have avoided such
1152: circular comparisons. In the following, we consider two independent
1153: sets of evolutionary models: the Tucson models
1154: \citep{1997ApJ...491..856B} and the Lyon DUSTY models
1155: \citep{2000ApJ...542..464C}, which are appropriate for mid-L dwarfs
1156: such as \hdbin\ with significant amounts of dust in their
1157: photospheres.
1158:
1159: \subsection{Spectral Types \label{sec:spt}}
1160:
1161: \citet{2002ApJ...567L.133P} originally used resolved $J$-band spectra
1162: to find spectral types of dL2$\pm$2, which are on the
1163: \citet{1999AJ....118.2466M} system, for both components of \hdbin. In
1164: addition to large quoted uncertainties, this measurement suffers from
1165: systematic errors inherent to AO-fed slit spectroscopy. The quality
1166: of the AO correction is wavelength dependent, and this ultimately
1167: leads to a modification of the shape of the continuum. Since spectral
1168: typing of brown dwarfs is largely based on matching the continuum to
1169: spectral standards, this modification must be corrected first, which
1170: \citet{2002ApJ...567L.133P} did not do.
1171:
1172: \citet{2002ApJ...567L..59G} determined that the spectral types of
1173: HD~130948B and C are indistinguishable by matching the $H$- and
1174: $K$-band resolved spectra with spectral templates. Before matching
1175: the spectra, they first applied an empirical correction to the
1176: continuum shape. The near-infrared spectral type of their best
1177: matching template spectrum (2MASS~J0036+1821) is L4$\pm$1
1178: \citep{2004AJ....127.3553K}, and its optical spectral type is L3.5
1179: \citep{2000AJ....120..447K}. Since the template matching was done in
1180: the near-infrared, we follow \citet{2002ApJ...567L..59G} in adopting
1181: spectral types of L4 for both components of \hdbin.
1182:
1183: In principle, the spectral template matching technique employed by
1184: \citet{2002ApJ...567L..59G} had relative precision of 0.5 subclasses,
1185: since they compared template spectra at each integer subclass.
1186: However, we adopt an uncertainty in the spectral type of $\pm$1 since
1187: their method relies on a non-standard technique, and the spectra were
1188: matched in the near-infrared where the best-fitting template
1189: (2MASS~J0036+1821) has a spectral type uncertainty of $\pm$1. In the
1190: following analysis, we treat the errors in the spectral types of the
1191: two components as independent, such that $\Delta$SpT~=~0.0$\pm$1.4.
1192:
1193: \subsection{Bolometric Luminosities \label{sec:lbol}}
1194:
1195: We calculated the individual bolometric luminosities of \hdbin\ by
1196: using $K$-band bolometric corrections from the BC$_K$--SpT relation of
1197: \citet{gol04} and our $K$-band absolute magnitudes. We added in
1198: quadrature the error in $M_K$ (0.03~mag), the error resulting from the
1199: $\pm$1 subtype uncertainty in spectral classification (0.015~mag), and
1200: the RMS scatter in the BC$_K$--SpT polynomial relation (0.13~mag).
1201: Thus, our derived values of \Lbol\ for \hdbin\ have uncertainties of
1202: 0.05~dex (Table~\ref{tbl:meas}). These uncertainties may be improved
1203: by future direct measurements of the resolved SEDs of \hdbin, since
1204: the RMS scatter in the BC$_K$--SpT relation dominates the errors.
1205:
1206: The ratio of the bolometric luminosities of \hdbin\ is known more
1207: precisely than the individual values. This is because the error in
1208: the luminosity ratio does not include the error in distance and
1209: intrinsic scatter in the BC$_K$--SpT relation that are common to both
1210: components. We therefore combined the weighted average of our
1211: measured $K$-band flux ratios ($\Delta{K}$~=~0.197$\pm$0.008~mag) with
1212: the expected difference in bolometric correction ($\Delta{{\rm
1213: BC}_K}$~=~0.00$\pm$0.02~mag; where the uncertainty is due to the
1214: independent error on the spectral type of each component) to derive a
1215: luminosity ratio of $\Delta\log$(\Lbol)~=~0.079$\pm$0.008~dex. In the
1216: following analysis, we treat the individual luminosities of \hdbin\ as
1217: correlated, in order to preserve the precision in the luminosity
1218: ratio. Thus, we are able to determine relative quantities (e.g., the
1219: mass ratio and $\Delta\Teff$) to much higher precision than if we
1220: incorrectly treated the 0.05~dex uncertainties in \Lbol\ as
1221: independent.
1222:
1223: \subsection{Model-Inferred Age \label{sec:modelage}}
1224:
1225: Brown dwarf model cooling sequences are usually thought of as
1226: predicting an observable quantity (\Teff, \Lbol, etc.) from the pair
1227: of fundamental parameters mass and age. Here we have measured the
1228: total mass and individual luminosities, so we instead use these two
1229: quantities to infer the third: age. In other words, brown dwarf
1230: cooling sequences define a mass--luminosity--age relation, so the
1231: measurement of any two of these specifies the third. As suggested by
1232: \citet{2008arXiv0807.0238L}, ``mass benchmarks'' like \hdbin\ can
1233: offer even tighter constraints on model-inferred properties than ``age
1234: benchmarks'' that are more often considered in the literature.
1235:
1236: At each model age, the individual luminosities we have measured fully
1237: determine the model-predicted individual masses. Thus, we use the
1238: evolutionary models to calculate model masses $M_{\rm B}$ and $M_{\rm
1239: C}$ as a function of age, and this yields the model-predicted
1240: $M_{tot}$ as a function of age. We then impose the constraint of the
1241: observed $M_{tot}$, which uniquely determines the model age. We
1242: perform this calculation many times using randomly drawn total masses
1243: and individual luminosities to simulate the observational
1244: uncertainties while accounting for the covariance due to the distance
1245: error. The median and standard deviation of the resulting age
1246: distribution is given in Table~\ref{tbl:model}. Given the very precise
1247: mass measurement (2\%), the $\approx$13\% error on the luminosity
1248: dominates the resulting uncertainty in the model-inferred age. This
1249: procedure for inferring the age of \hdbin\ from evolutionary models is
1250: depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:mtot-age}.
1251:
1252: The age inferred from Tucson models, 0.41$^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$~Gyr, is
1253: slightly younger than inferred from the Lyon models,
1254: 0.45$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$~Gyr, though both model-inferred ages agree
1255: within the errors. The combination of theoretical models with
1256: measurements of the total mass and luminosities of \hdbin\ yields
1257: extremely small uncertainties ($\lesssim$10\%) in the age of the
1258: HD~130948 system. The Lyon and Tucson model-inferred ages are
1259: 2.4$\sigma$ and 2.2$\sigma$ discrepant, respectively, with the \hdage\
1260: age estimate for \hdprim. Since the model-inferred age was derived
1261: from the observed total mass and individual luminosities of \hdbin,
1262: this disagreement is essentially a statement of how well (or not)
1263: models predict the luminosity evolution of objects with the masses of
1264: \hdbin. We discuss this discrepancy further in \S
1265: \ref{sec:lbol-evol} and \S \ref{sec:teff-hr}.
1266:
1267: \subsubsection{Comparison to L~Dwarfs in Clusters and Moving Groups \label{sec:jameson}}
1268:
1269: \citet{2008MNRAS.tmp..282J} have proposed a method for estimating the
1270: ages of young ($\lesssim$0.7~Gyr) L~dwarfs for which the $J-K$ color
1271: and $K$-band absolute magnitude ($M_K$) are known. Their empirical
1272: relation is calibrated by L~dwarfs in clusters and moving groups,
1273: whose ages have been determined in the literature from model stellar
1274: isochrones. Applying their empirical relation and accounting for the
1275: error in the absolute magnitudes and colors, we derive a median age
1276: and 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) confidence limits of
1277: 0.25$^{+0.06(0.12)}_{-0.06(0.11)}$~Gyr for both components of \hdbin.
1278: It is worth noting that the empirical relation gives identical results
1279: for the two components even though the measured colors and absolute
1280: magnitudes of the two components are essentially independent.
1281:
1282: The age derived from the \citet{2008MNRAS.tmp..282J} empirical
1283: relation is systematically younger by about 0.2~Gyr than the
1284: model-inferred age of \hdbin. This 2--3$\sigma$ disagreement is
1285: perhaps not surprising since for ages older than that of the Pleiades
1286: ($>$~125~Myr), the empirical relation is constrained by only 3
1287: L~dwarfs in the Hyades (625~Myr) and 2 L~dwarfs in the Ursa Major
1288: moving group, for which they adopt an age of 400~Myr. As discussed by
1289: \citet{2008MNRAS.tmp..282J}, the age estimate of the Ursa Major moving
1290: group varies in the literature from 0.3--0.6~Gyr.\footnote{For
1291: example, \citet{mam08-ages} adopt an age of 500~Myr for this
1292: association. Therefore, in \S \ref{sec:age-rhk} we have also
1293: implictly adopted this age.} We speculate that if an older age had
1294: been adopted for the Ursa Major moving group, instead of 0.4~Gyr, the
1295: empirical age relation would likely yield an older age more consistent
1296: with that inferred from evolutionary models. However, the estimated
1297: age of \hdprim\ (\hdage) is even older than that inferred from
1298: evolutionary models. This creates a much larger discrepancy
1299: ($>$3$\sigma$) with the 0.25~Gyr age derived from the
1300: \citet{2008MNRAS.tmp..282J} empirical relation.
1301:
1302: If \hdprim, and thus \hdbin, is indeed this old, then the empirical
1303: relation would not be applicable to this system. Direct examination
1304: of the color-magnitude diagram of their sample \citep[Figure~1
1305: of][]{2008MNRAS.tmp..282J} shows that the region populated by Hyades
1306: and Ursa Major L~dwarfs also contains many field L~dwarfs. These
1307: objects could indeed be young, or they could be older field dwarfs
1308: whose color-magnitude evolution has brought them into that region of
1309: the diagram. In fact, {\em all} field L~dwarfs
1310: ($M_K$~$\gtrsim$~13~mag) seem to lie in a region of the
1311: color-magnitude diagram that would imply ages intermediate between the
1312: Pleiades and Hyades. This fact and the inconsistency between our
1313: derived age and that of \hdprim\ seem to highlight the danger of using
1314: this empirical age relation for L~dwarfs older than its stated
1315: applicable range ($<$0.7~Gyr). Examination of L~dwarfs with
1316: independent age estimates $>$0.7~Gyr would verify whether spuriously
1317: young ages can be derived for L~dwarfs that are, in fact, older.
1318:
1319: \subsection{Mass Ratio and Substellarity \label{sec:qratio}}
1320:
1321: By measuring the relative orbit of \hdbin, we have determined its
1322: total mass very precisely. In order to calculate individual masses, we
1323: must infer the mass ratio ($q$~$\equiv$~$M_{\rm C}/M_{\rm B}$) from
1324: evolutionary models. Fortunately, the inferred mass ratio is very
1325: weakly dependent on theoretical models given the near-unity flux ratio
1326: of \hdbin\ (Figure~\ref{fig:mass-ratio}). We calculate the mass ratio
1327: and its uncertainty from the range of model-inferred ages and the
1328: luminosity ratio. Because the ratio of \Lbol\ is known to an
1329: uncertainty of 0.008~dex, theoretical models make very precise
1330: predictions of the mass ratio. The Tucson models give
1331: $q$~=~0.962$\pm$0.003, and the Lyon models give $q$~=~0.948$\pm$0.005.
1332: These model-inferred mass ratios are formally 2.4$\sigma$ discrepant,
1333: but the resulting individual masses of \hdbin\ are completely
1334: consistent because the 2\% error in the total mass dominates over the
1335: 0.3--0.5\% error in the mass ratio (Table~\ref{tbl:model}). If we
1336: were instead to use the age of \hdprim\ (\hdage) and luminosity ratio
1337: of \hdbin\ to compute the mass ratio from the Tucson (Lyon)
1338: evolutionary models, the result would differ by 1.2$^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$\%
1339: (1.1$^{+0.9}_{-0.5}$\%). Again, the error in the total mass dominates
1340: over such small differences in mass ratio.
1341:
1342: In principle, the mass ratio of \hdbin\ can be measured directly by
1343: future resolved observations of the radial velocities of the two
1344: components ($\Delta{v_{max}}$~=~6.4~\kms). Such measurements will be
1345: extremely valuable as they will test the model-predicted mass ratios,
1346: which could harbor systematic errors. However, given the attainable
1347: radial velocity precision for L~dwarfs
1348: \citep[0.1--0.3~\kms;][]{2007ApJ...666.1198B}, a future direct
1349: measurement of the mass ratio to 2--5\% is unlikely to be precise
1350: enough to discriminate between the two sets of evolutionary models, as
1351: 0.6\% errors in the mass ratio are needed to discriminate between the
1352: model-inferred mass ratios at 90\% confidence level.
1353:
1354: The individual masses of \hdbin\ inferred from theoretical models are
1355: well below the substellar boundary of 0.072~\Msun\
1356: \citep{2000ARA&A..38..337C}. The Tucson models give masses of $M_{\rm
1357: B}$~=~0.0554$^{+0.0012}_{-0.0013}$~\Msun\ and $M_{\rm
1358: C}$~=~0.0532$^{+0.0012}_{-0.0011}$~\Msun, and the Lyon models give
1359: $M_{\rm B}$~=~0.0558$^{+0.0012}_{-0.0012}$~\Msun\ and $M_{\rm
1360: C}$~=~0.0528$^{+0.0012}_{-0.0012}$~\Msun. An extremely implausible
1361: mass ratio of $\lesssim$0.5 would be required for HD~130948B to be a
1362: star at the bottom of the main-sequence. This scenario, as well as
1363: the possibility that one component is an unresolved double, is
1364: incompatible with the near-unity flux ratio and very similar
1365: optical--near-infrared colors of the two components. Thus, both
1366: components of \hdbin\ are bona fide brown dwarfs.
1367:
1368: \subsection{Luminosity Evolution \label{sec:lbol-evol}}
1369:
1370: With well-determined masses and luminosities for \hdbin\ and an
1371: independent age estimate from the primary star, we are able to
1372: directly test one of the most fundamental predictions of substellar
1373: theoretical models: the evolution of luminosity over
1374: time. Figure~\ref{fig:lbol-age} shows the evolutionary model tracks
1375: for objects with the individual masses of \hdbin\ compared to the
1376: observations. The Tucson and Lyon evolutionary models agree very well
1377: with each other, which is one reason why they have become trusted to
1378: estimate the bulk properties of brown dwarfs. However, both sets of
1379: models seem to disagree with the data.
1380:
1381: Given the estimated age of \hdage, the Lyon models underpredict the
1382: luminosity of both components of \hdbin\ by a factor of 2.3
1383: (1.6--3.4$\times$, 1$\sigma$), and the Tucson models underpredict the
1384: luminosities by a factor of 3.0 (2.1--4.3$\times$). There are two
1385: possible sources for the observed discrepancy in luminosity evolution.
1386: The model radii could be at fault, in which case they would have to be
1387: underpredicted by 20--45\% (30--50\%) by the Lyon (Tucson) models to
1388: resolve the entire discrepancy. Alternatively, the models may
1389: correctly predict the radii of brown dwarfs but underpredict their
1390: energy output. As we will see in \S \ref{sec:teff-hr}, if the
1391: evolutionary models indeed underpredict the luminosities of \hdbin\,
1392: this has important implications for effective temperatures derived
1393: from atmospheric models.
1394:
1395: The severe disagreement between model-predicted and observed
1396: luminosities is surprising, and we caution that it could be
1397: ameliorated by a younger estimated age. A younger age could be
1398: accommodated by most of the age indicators (Table~\ref{tbl:age}), and
1399: given the challenges in estimating ages of field main-sequence stars
1400: this possibility cannot be ignored. For example, the gyro age is not
1401: beyond reproach (see \S \ref{sec:age-summ}), and the less precise
1402: activity age (0.5$\pm$0.3~Gyr) allows for better agreement between the
1403: models and the data. However, as discussed in \S \ref{sec:age-summ}
1404: our lower limit on the gyro age is expected to be robust, and \hdprim\
1405: generally appears to be very consistent with the age of the Hyades.
1406: At this age, both components of \hdbin\ would still be more luminous
1407: than predicted by evolutionary models, though the discrepancy would be
1408: on the lower end of the ranges given above. We note that
1409: \citet{gl802b-ireland} has observed a similar effect for GJ~802B, a
1410: substellar ($M$~=~0.063$\pm$0.005~\Msun) companion to a kinematically
1411: old star ($\sim$10~Gyr), for which the evolutionary models predict an
1412: age of $\sim$2~Gyr given its mass and luminosity.
1413:
1414: \subsection{Color-Magnitude Diagrams \label{sec:cmd}}
1415:
1416: The Lyon evolutionary models provide predictions of the fluxes in
1417: various observational bandpasses for each model mass and age.
1418: Figure~\ref{fig:jhk-age} shows how the predicted evolution of the
1419: near-infrared flux of \hdbin\ compares to the observations. Given the
1420: age of \hdprim\ (\hdage), the evolutionary models underpredict the
1421: flux in every bandpass. This is simply a reflection of the fact that
1422: Lyon evolutionary models underpredict the luminosity for both
1423: components of \hdbin\ for the age of \hdprim. However, if ages were
1424: actually inferred from the Lyon models using the observed $J$-, $H$-,
1425: and $K$-band photometry, Figure~\ref{fig:jhk-age} shows these ages
1426: would not be self-consistent. Thus model-predicted near-infrared
1427: magnitudes are internally inconsistent with the data.
1428:
1429: In Figure~\ref{fig:jhk-cmd} we show the predicted $JHK$ colors of both
1430: components of \hdbin\ compared to the observations. The $J-K$ and
1431: $H-K$ colors are both significantly discrepant for any assumed age,
1432: while the $J-H$ colors seem to agree with the models at an age younger
1433: than we have estimated for \hdprim. (We do not place significant
1434: weight on this agreement as the $J-H$ color measurement has the
1435: largest uncertainty.) The general disagreement between models and
1436: data we observe on the color-magnitude diagram is not surprising since
1437: it is well-known that theoretical models do not reproduce the
1438: near-infrared colors of field L and T~dwarfs very well
1439: \citep[e.g.,][]{2004AJ....127.3553K,2005astro.ph..9066B}.
1440:
1441: It is interesting to note that if we were to infer the ages and masses
1442: of the components of \hdbin\ from the model $J-K$ or $H-K$
1443: color-magnitude diagrams, we would derive masses that are
1444: $\approx$20--30\% smaller and ages $\approx$2$\times$ younger than
1445: observed. Thus, masses and ages inferred for L~dwarfs from
1446: evolutionary models and near-infrared photometry should be treated
1447: with caution.
1448:
1449: \subsection{Temperatures and Surface Gravities \label{sec:teff-logg}}
1450:
1451: Without radii measurements for \hdbin, we must rely on evolutionary
1452: models to derive effective temperatures and surface gravities. We
1453: have several independent measurements of the fundamental properties of
1454: \hdbin\ at our disposal to use with models to find \Teff\ and \logg:
1455: (1) the total mass of the system; (2) the individual luminosities of
1456: the two components; (3) the luminosity ratio; and (4) an independent
1457: age estimate from the primary \hdprim\ (\hdage). We use the total
1458: mass (1) and individual luminosities (2) to derive \Teff\ and \logg\
1459: from the evolutionary models (Table~\ref{tbl:model}). This is
1460: conceptually equivalent to using the individual masses (\S
1461: \ref{sec:qratio}) and model-inferred age (\S \ref{sec:modelage}) to
1462: derive \Teff\ and \logg. Unlike previous sections, it now matters
1463: significantly whether we use the model-inferred ages or the
1464: independent age from \hdprim\ (\hdage) to derive the quantities of
1465: interest. We will describe the resulting differences later in this
1466: section.
1467:
1468: The Lyon models give effective temperatures for B and C of
1469: 1990$\pm$50~K and 1900$\pm$50~K, while the Tucson models give
1470: systematically hotter but formally consistent temperatures of
1471: 2040$\pm$50~K and 1950$\pm$50~K. Since brown dwarfs cool over time, it
1472: is essentially the small range of model-inferred ages which allows the
1473: effective temperature to be predicted to a precision of 50~K. The
1474: Lyon models give surface gravities for B and C of
1475: \logg~=~5.143$\pm$0.019 and 5.122$\pm$0.019 (cgs), while the Tucson
1476: models give systematically higher and formally inconsistent gravities
1477: of \logg~=~5.196$\pm$0.017 and 5.183$\pm$0.017 (cgs). The precision in
1478: model-inferred surface gravity is driven by the precision in the
1479: measured total mass and near-unity mass ratio, since the radii of
1480: brown dwarfs remain nearly constant after 0.3~Gyr. Thus, the
1481: difference between the two sets of model-inferred surface gravities
1482: arises from small differences ($\approx$6\%) in their predictions for
1483: the radii (Table~\ref{tbl:model}).
1484:
1485: \subsubsection{Comparison to Field L~Dwarfs \label{sec:teff-field}}
1486:
1487: The effective temperatures we derive from evolutionary models can be
1488: compared to those which have been determined for other objects of
1489: \hdbin's spectral type. L3--L5 dwarfs in the field with \Lbol\
1490: measurements have estimated effective temperatures of
1491: 1650--2050~K. These estimates utilize the nearly flat mass-radius
1492: relationship predicted by theoretical models for brown dwarfs,
1493: adopting either a typical age \citep[3~Gyr;][]{gol04} or radius
1494: \citep[0.90$\pm$0.15~\Rsun;][]{2004AJ....127.2948V} for field objects.
1495: It has been suggested that the ages of field objects are overestimated
1496: \citep[e.g.,][]{2006ApJ...651.1166M,2008arXiv0807.0238L}; however the
1497: broad range of \Teff\ estimated for field L3--L5 dwarfs is consistent
1498: with our model-inferred effective temperatures. Since both estimates
1499: are based on evolutionary models, this only means that field L3--L5
1500: dwarfs from previous studies encompass objects of the same mass/age as
1501: \hdbin.
1502:
1503: \subsubsection{Comparison to Atmospheric Models \label{sec:teff-atm}}
1504:
1505: For a more interesting comparison, we consider effective temperatures
1506: derived from spectral synthesis using state-of-the-art atmospheric
1507: models. \citet{2008ApJ...678.1372C} have performed the most thorough
1508: spectral synthesis analysis of L and T dwarfs to date, and four of the
1509: objects in their study have near-infrared spectral types of L3--L5
1510: (including 2MASS~J0036+1821, the best matching spectral template from
1511: \citealp{2002ApJ...567L..59G}). Their fits to the 0.95--14.5~\micron\
1512: spectra of L3--L5 dwarfs yield effective temperatures of 1700--1800~K,
1513: which are significantly cooler (150--300~K) than the evolutionary
1514: model-inferred temperatures for \hdbin. Adopting 1750$\pm$100~K as
1515: the atmospheric model \Teff\ for the B and C components, we find the
1516: significance of the discrepancy with the Lyon (Tucson) model-inferred
1517: temperature is 2.6$\sigma$ (2.1$\sigma$) for the B component and
1518: 1.8$\sigma$ (1.3$\sigma$) for C. This discrepancy cannot simply be
1519: due to our adopted mass ratio because, for example, if the mass ratio
1520: were tuned so that the C component was lower mass (thus cooler) the B
1521: component would become more massive (thus hotter) and even more
1522: discrepant with the effective temperatures from spectral synthesis.
1523:
1524: \citet{2008ApJ...678.1372C} also derive surface gravities for the four
1525: L3--L5 dwarfs in their study. They do so both by direct model fitting
1526: (4.5--5.5) and by using evolutionary sequences
1527: (4.9--5.5),\footnote{\citet{2008ApJ...678.1372C} fit for \Teff, \logg,
1528: and a normalization constant $(R/d)^2$. Thus, for the three of the
1529: four L3--L5 dwarfs with parallax measurements, they also have radius
1530: estimates. By using evolutionary models, \Teff\ and $R$ uniquely
1531: determine \logg. } and these ranges are consistent with our
1532: model-inferred values of \logg\ for \hdbin.
1533:
1534: \subsubsection{Using the Age of \hdprim \label{sec:teff-primage}}
1535:
1536: The effective temperatures we derive for \hdbin\ from the Lyon and
1537: Tucson evolutionary models depend greatly on whether we use the
1538: model-inferred ages (0.45$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$~Gyr and
1539: 0.41$^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$~Gyr, respectively) or the independent age
1540: estimate from \hdprim\ (\hdage). Using the age of \hdprim, combined
1541: with the masses of \hdbin, the Lyon (Tucson) models give effective
1542: temperatures of 1670$^{+120}_{-110}$~K and 1600$^{+100}_{-110}$~K
1543: (1590$^{+110}_{-100}$~K and 1550$^{+90}_{-90}$~K) for the B and C
1544: components, respectively. These temperatures are 300--450~K cooler
1545: than those derived using the model-inferred age because the masses are
1546: the same, but the age used is significantly older. This disagreement
1547: is just a restatement that the model-inferred age and gyro age do not
1548: agree.
1549:
1550: The values of \Teff\ derived using the age of \hdprim\ also disagree
1551: with those determined for L3--L5 dwarfs by spectral synthesis fitting
1552: \citep{2008ApJ...678.1372C}. They are 100--150~K cooler than the
1553: atmospheric model temperatures.
1554:
1555: We note that all these different sets of effective temperatures imply
1556: different radii for \hdbin, since the luminosities of the two
1557: components are well-determined. We consider the interplay between
1558: \Lbol\ and \Teff\ in more detail in \S \ref{sec:teff-hr}.
1559:
1560: \subsubsection{$\Delta$\Teff\ Compared to $\Delta$SpT \label{sec:teff-dteff}}
1561:
1562: Despite the fact that the components of \hdbin\ are nearly twins in
1563: mass and spectral type, evolutionary models predict rather large
1564: differences in the effective temperatures of the two components
1565: (90$\pm$7~K and 85$\pm$7~K for the Tucson and Lyon models,
1566: respectively).\footnote{Note that the error on the temperature
1567: difference is determined by the precision in the luminosity ratio,
1568: so it is much smaller than the 50~K uncertainties in individual
1569: values of \Teff.} This is computed directly from evolutionary
1570: models using the model-inferred age and measured luminosity ratio.
1571: Such a large effective temperature difference may be discernable in
1572: future spectral synthesis modeling of the resolved SED of \hdbin\
1573: using integral field spectroscopy, which is not subject to the same
1574: difficulties as AO-fed slit spectroscopy.
1575:
1576: We could estimate a 90~K difference in \Teff\ even without using
1577: models given the luminosity ratio and an assumption that the radii of
1578: the two components are roughly equal (i.e.,
1579: $\Delta\Teff/\Teff$~$\propto$~$(\Delta\Lbol/\Lbol)^{1/4}$). However,
1580: this value of $\Delta$\Teff\ is perhaps somewhat surprising since
1581: \citet{2002ApJ...567L..59G} found that the two components are nearly
1582: twins in spectral type, and any AO-related modifications to the
1583: continuum shape should affect both components equally. According to
1584: the SpT--\Teff\ relation of \citet{gol04}, model-inferred temperatures
1585: of \hdbin\ give a difference in spectral type of $\approx$1 subtype.
1586: This lack of an apparent change in spectral type with \Teff\ may be
1587: indicative of other atmospheric processes, such as condensate cloud
1588: formation and sedimentation, playing a role that is at least as
1589: important as temperature in shaping the emergent spectra of mid-L
1590: dwarfs. In other words, this is suggestive that spectral type may not
1591: have a one-to-one correspondence with effective temperature for mid-L
1592: dwarfs \citep[see][]{kirk05}.
1593:
1594: \subsection{H-R Diagram \label{sec:teff-hr}}
1595:
1596: In the previous section, we have determined various effective
1597: temperatures for \hdbin\ from evolutionary and atmospheric models
1598: given the available observational constraints. We now combine these
1599: temperatures with the observed luminosities of \hdbin\ to place both
1600: components on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram
1601: (Figure~\ref{fig:hr-diagram}). The H-R diagram shows substantial
1602: discrepancies between evolutionary models, atmospheric models, and the
1603: observations. Namely, both components of \hdbin\ are more luminous
1604: than predicted by evolutionary models for objects of their masses and
1605: effective temperatures, where \Teff\ is independently adopted from
1606: atmospheric models. Alternatively, the discrepancy in
1607: Figure~\ref{fig:hr-diagram} may be stated as both components of
1608: \hdbin\ being cooler than predicted by evolutionary models given their
1609: masses and luminosities.
1610:
1611: The age is the least precisely determined fundamental parameter for
1612: \hdbin\ ($\approx$25\%), since the masses and luminosities are
1613: accurate to 2\% and 13\%, respectively. Thus, we can consider whether
1614: changing the adopted age of the system can resolve the discrepancies
1615: between the data and models revealed in the H-R diagram. There are 3
1616: plausible scenarios:
1617:
1618: \begin{itemize}
1619:
1620: \item If our preferred \hdage\ age for \hdprim\ is correct, then
1621: evolutionary models underpredict the luminosities of \hdbin\ by a
1622: factor of $\approx$2--3 (\S \ref{sec:lbol-evol}), and atmospheric
1623: models predict temperatures that are 100-150~K warmer than
1624: evolutionary models (\S \ref{sec:teff-primage}).
1625:
1626: \item If the system has a slightly younger age of $\approx$0.6~Gyr,
1627: then the effective temperatures predicted by evolutionary and
1628: atmospheric models would agree. However, the evolutionary models
1629: would still underpredict the luminosities of \hdbin\ by a factor of
1630: $\approx$1.5--2. The age in this scenario is consistent with all
1631: available age indicators (see \S \ref{sec:age-summ}).
1632:
1633: \item If the system is as young as $\approx$0.4~Gyr, then the
1634: evolutionary models would predict the correct luminosities.
1635: However, atmospheric models would then indicate temperatures
1636: 150--300~K cooler than predicted by evolutionary models (\S
1637: \ref{sec:teff-atm}). In other words, if the actual age was
1638: consistent with the model-inferred ages of
1639: 0.45$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$~Gyr and 0.41$^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$~Gyr, then the
1640: predicted and observed luminosities would agree by construction.
1641: However, the age in this scenario is significantly discrepant
1642: ($>$2$\sigma$) with the gyro age.
1643:
1644: \end{itemize}
1645:
1646: {\em Thus, no scenario exists in which both evolutionary and
1647: atmospheric models agree with the data.} In \S \ref{sec:lbol-evol}
1648: we have already discussed the possible sources of systematic errors in
1649: evolutionary models. A number of causes might be responsible for
1650: systematic errors in the atmospheric models, including insufficient
1651: treatment of dust in the photosphere, incomplete line lists, and/or a
1652: metallicity bias in the \citet{2008ApJ...678.1372C} sample.
1653:
1654: A refined age estimate for \hdprim\ will be essential in discerning
1655: the source of disagreement between models and data. Another important
1656: step will be obtaining resolved spectroscopy of \hdbin\ suitable for
1657: direct atmospheric model fitting, which will reduce the uncertainties
1658: in \Teff. The published AO-fed slit spectroscopy is not sufficient
1659: for this task (see \S \ref{sec:spt}), but ground-based AO integral
1660: field spectroscopy in the near-infrared and space-borne spectroscopy
1661: in the optical would be ideal once \hdbin\ is resolvable again in
1662: 2010.
1663:
1664: \subsection{Lithium Depletion \label{sec:lithium}}
1665:
1666: Structural models used in the prediction of brown dwarf cooling
1667: sequences make direct predictions of the amount of lithium depletion
1668: that has occurred for an object of a given mass and age. Because brown
1669: dwarfs are fully convective objects, the depletion of lithium
1670: throughout the entire object is readily detectable from observations
1671: of photospheric absorption lines, the strongest of which is the
1672: doublet at 6708~\AA. Both the Tucson and Lyon models predict that
1673: objects less massive than $\approx$0.06~\Msun\ never reach internal
1674: temperatures high enough to destroy significant amounts of their
1675: primordial lithium \citep{bur01,2000ApJ...542..464C}. Since higher
1676: mass objects deplete lithium faster, \citet{2005astro.ph..8082L}
1677: proposed that ultracool binary systems caught at just the right point
1678: in their evolution would enable a very precise age estimate if the
1679: less massive component was found to possess lithium and the more
1680: massive component was lithium-depleted. Therefore, L dwarf binaries
1681: displaying lithium in their unresolved spectra \citep[6 are known to
1682: date; see list in][]{2005astro.ph..8082L} are potentially powerful
1683: systems for constraining theoretical models of brown dwarfs, since
1684: they are amenable to this ``binary lithium test''.
1685:
1686: There is no optical spectroscopy (resolved or unresolved) available
1687: for \hdbin\ to assess the presence of lithium in the system. However,
1688: the individual masses of \hdbin\ are very close to, perhaps
1689: straddling, the theoretical lithium-burning limit
1690: (Figure~\ref{fig:lithium}). We have determined the model-predicted
1691: lithium abundance for each component from the model-inferred age and
1692: individual masses. The Tucson models predict very little lithium
1693: depletion for both objects, with the C component having only slightly
1694: higher lithium abundance than the B component by a factor of
1695: 1.049$^{+0.011}_{-0.014}$. (The error in the relative lithium
1696: abundance is dominated by the uncertainty in the model-inferred age.)
1697: On the other hand, the Lyon models predict that B is massive enough
1698: that it has depleted most of its primordial lithium
1699: (Li/Li$_0$~=~0.50$^{+0.18}_{-0.23}$) while C has retained most of its
1700: lithium (Li/Li$_0$~=~0.83$^{+0.08}_{-0.13}$). In fact, lithium burning
1701: occurs so quickly that even over the small range of Lyon
1702: model-inferred ages (0.45$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ Gyr) the amount of
1703: relative lithium depletion between B and C is quite uncertain (i.e., C
1704: is predicted to be richer than B by a factor of 1.6$^{+1.0}_{-0.3}$).
1705:
1706: The individual masses of \hdbin\ are such that the presence or absence
1707: of lithium in their resolved spectra would provide significant
1708: discrimation between the Tucson and Lyon models. Future resolved
1709: optical spectroscopy of \hdbin\ will provide a very sensitive, direct
1710: test of the lithium-burning limit for brown dwarfs. Given the
1711: independent age constraint from \hdprim, the theoretical timescale for
1712: lithium burning can also be directly tested if one or both components
1713: of \hdbin\ show evidence of lithium depletion. Such direct tests of
1714: theoretical predictions for lithium burning would provide the only
1715: empirical calibration to date of often used theoretical predictions of
1716: lithium burning in brown dwarfs. These predictions have provided the
1717: basis of the ``binary lithium test'', as well as the more widely known
1718: ``cluster lithium test'' \citep[e.g.,][]{1998bdep.conf..394B} used to
1719: identify substellar objects among associations of a known age.
1720:
1721:
1722: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
1723:
1724:
1725: \section{Conclusions}
1726:
1727: We have determined the orbit of the young L4+L4 binary \hdbin\ using
1728: relative astrometry of the system spanning 7 years of its 10-year
1729: orbital period. The astrometric measurements and their uncertainties
1730: were extensively tested through Monte Carlo simulations. The fitted
1731: orbital parameters and revised \Hipparcos\ parallax give a total
1732: dynamical mass of 0.109$\pm$0.002~\Msun. The precision in mass is
1733: 2\%, with nearly equal contributions to the uncertainty from the 1.7\%
1734: error in the best-fit orbit and the 1.3\% error in mass from the
1735: \Hipparcos\ parallax error. For any plausible mass ratio, both
1736: components of \hdbin\ are unambiguously substellar. \hdbin\ has the
1737: most precise mass determination for a brown dwarf binary to date.
1738:
1739: The primary star \hdprim\ offers an independent constraint on the age
1740: of the system from various indicators: rotation, chromospheric
1741: activity, isochrone fitting, X-ray emission, and lithium depletion.
1742: The ensemble of all available age indicators is consistent with an age
1743: for \hdprim\ similar the Hyades (625~Myr). For example, its rotation
1744: period is inconsistent with ages much younger than the Hyades and its
1745: chromospheric activity is inconsistent with ages much older than the
1746: Hyades. Our preferred age estimate is \hdage, derived from the
1747: gyrochronology formalism of \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B} and
1748: \citet{mam08-ages}.
1749:
1750: With a measured mass, luminosity, and age, \hdbin\ provides the first
1751: direct test of the luminosity evolution predicted by theoretical
1752: models for substellar field dwarfs. Both the Tucson models
1753: \citep{1997ApJ...491..856B} and Lyon models
1754: \citep[DUSTY;][]{2000ApJ...542..464C} underpredict the luminosities of
1755: HD~130948B and C given their masses and age. The discrepancy is quite
1756: large, about a factor of 2 for the Lyon models and a factor of 3 for
1757: the Tucson models. In order to explain this discrepancy entirely,
1758: model radii would have to be underpredicted by 30--40\%. The age of
1759: \hdprim\ would need to be $\approx$0.4~Gyr younger than we have
1760: estimated in order to resolve this discrepancy. This is inconsistent
1761: with the preferred gyro age but can be accommodated by other age
1762: indicators; a more refined age estimate for \hdprim\ is critically
1763: needed.
1764:
1765: Since the mass of \hdbin\ is more precisely determined than its age,
1766: we have used the mass with the individual bolometric luminosities to
1767: infer all other properties (age, \Teff, etc.) from evolutionary
1768: models. We use a Monte Carlo approach to compute model-inferred
1769: quantities, and we are careful to account for covariance between the
1770: observational errors, the most notable of which is the correlation of
1771: the luminosities of the two components through their measured flux
1772: ratio. Because we use mass and \Lbol\ to derive model-inferred
1773: properties, any potential systematic errors in luminosity evolution
1774: will be reflected in the model-inferred quantities. For example, the
1775: very precise model-inferred ages for \hdbin\
1776: (0.41$^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$~Gyr from Tucson models;
1777: 0.45$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$~Gyr from Lyon models) are self-consistent, but
1778: they are inconsistent with the independent age estimate for \hdprim\
1779: (\hdage).
1780:
1781: Lacking measured radii for \hdbin, we have used evolutionary models to
1782: derive effective temperatures. Given the mass and luminosity of each
1783: component, evolutionary models predict effective temperatures of
1784: $\approx$1900--2000~K. Alternatively, given the mass of each
1785: component and age of the primary star, evolutionary models predict
1786: effective temperatures of $\approx$1600--1700~K. (The disagreement
1787: between these two temperature ranges is just a reflection of the
1788: systematic errors in luminosity evolution.) Spectral synthesis using
1789: atmospheric models gives temperatures of 1700--1800~K for objects of
1790: similar spectral type to \hdbin\
1791: \citep[L3--L5;][]{2008ApJ...678.1372C}. Using evolutionary models and
1792: the measured luminosity ratio gives $\Delta$\Teff~=~90~K. Resolved
1793: spectroscopy of HD~130948B and C has previously shown that they have
1794: indistinguishable spectral types, so this rather large temperature
1795: difference may indicate that spectral type does not hold a one-to-one
1796: correspondence with \Teff\ mid-L~dwarfs, even for two coeval objects.
1797: Better spectral types for the two components of \hdbin\ are needed to
1798: address this apparent discrepancy.
1799:
1800: Comparing the different effective temperature determinations for
1801: \hdbin\ on the H-R diagram shows that the evolutionary models,
1802: atmospheric models, and observational data cannot be simultaneously
1803: brought into consistency with each other, regardless of the adopted
1804: age of the system. Thus, systematic errors in some combination of the
1805: atmospheric and/or evolutionary models are needed to explain the
1806: observed discrepancy. The best current age estimate indicates that
1807: both evolutionary and atmospheric models harbor systematic errors.
1808: Further evaluation of the disagreement between models and the data
1809: requires a refined age estimate for \hdprim. Resolved multi-band
1810: spectroscopy of \hdbin\ is also needed to reduce the uncertainties in
1811: the atmospheric model effective temperatures by direct spectral
1812: synthesis fitting.
1813:
1814: We also find large discrepancies when comparing the observed
1815: near-infrared colors of \hdbin\ to the Lyon models. This suggests
1816: that using color-magnitude diagrams to infer the properties of field
1817: L~dwarfs from evolutionary models will lead to large errors in the
1818: resulting quantities (e.g., mass and/or age). For example, if we
1819: inferred the ages and masses of the components of \hdbin\ from the
1820: model $J-K$ or $H-K$ color-magnitude diagrams, we would derive masses
1821: that are $\approx$20--30\% smaller than observed and ages
1822: $\approx$2$\times$ younger than the age of the primary star (\hdage).
1823:
1824: One novel aspect of using \hdbin\ to constrain theoretical models is
1825: the application of the ``binary lithium test'', originally proposed by
1826: \citet{2005astro.ph..8082L}. This is made possible by the fortuitous
1827: circumstance that the components of \hdbin\ are very near the mass
1828: limit for lithium burning. As a consequence, the Lyon and Tucson
1829: evolutionary models, which are almost indistinguishable in their
1830: predictions of substellar bulk properties, give very different
1831: predictions for the amount of primordial lithium remaining in the B
1832: and C components. Thus, resolved optical spectroscopy to detect the
1833: lithium doublet at 6708~\AA\ would provide a very discriminating test
1834: of the evolutionary models. Such a constraint is significant in that
1835: it directly tests the properties of fully convective substellar
1836: interiors (e.g., the core temperature) and/or the lithium reaction
1837: rates. \hdbin\ is the only system currently known for which such an
1838: empirical calibration of lithium burning is possible.
1839:
1840: Substellar theoretical models are in sore need of empirical validation
1841: as they have been employed for more than a decade to interpret
1842: observations of field dwarfs. Given the independent constraints on
1843: the age and composition provided by a stellar companion, dynamical
1844: mass measurements for triple systems like HD~130948ABC provide the
1845: most challenging tests of substellar theoretical models. However,
1846: substellar companions to stars are quite rare
1847: \citep[$\approx$1$\pm$1\%, e.g.,][]{2001AJ....121.2189O,
1848: 2004AJ....127.2871M, 2005AJ....130.1845L, 2007ApJS..173..143B,
1849: 2007ApJ...670.1367L}, and even more rare are substellar binary
1850: companions that yield dynamical mass measurements in a reasonable time
1851: frame. When the stellar companion is a bright star like \hdprim, a
1852: wealth of additional information is available, the most important of
1853: which is a very precise \Hipparcos\ distance measurement since this is
1854: the limiting factor in the precision of the dynamical mass. Stars
1855: bright enough to enable seismological measurements can yield the most
1856: stringent (10--20\%) age determinations possible
1857: \citep[e.g.,][]{2005A&A...434.1085C,2008ApJ...673.1093B}. Thus,
1858: \hdbin\ represents a rare class of benchmark systems for which the
1859: most precise mass and age determinations are possible.
1860:
1861: Our observations of \hdbin\ indicate that substellar models currently
1862: harbor significant systematic errors. The potential underestimation
1863: of \Lbol\ by evolutionary models has far-reaching implications. For
1864: example, such models have been used to determine the low-mass end of
1865: the intial mass function and to predict the radii of extrasolar
1866: planets. Obtaining measurements for more systems like \hdbin\ over a
1867: broad range of mass, luminosity, and age will be critical in
1868: understanding and resolving the discrepancies that have been revealed
1869: between observations and theoretical models.
1870:
1871:
1872: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
1873:
1874:
1875: \acknowledgments
1876:
1877: We thank Colin Cox and John Krist for their scientific foresight in
1878: selecting \hdprim\ as the target for \HST\ engineering and calibration
1879: observations. We also thank John Krist for assistance with the
1880: TinyTim software. We gratefully acknowledge the Keck AO team for
1881: their exceptional efforts in bringing the AO system to fruition. It
1882: is a pleasure to thank Antonin Bouchez, David LeMignant, Marcos van
1883: Dam, Randy Campbell, Al Conrad, Jim Lyke, Hien Tran, Joel Aycock,
1884: Julie Rivera, Cindy Wilburn, Jason McIlroy, and Gary Punawai and the
1885: Keck Observatory staff for assistance with the observations. We are
1886: grateful to Brian Cameron for making available his NIRC2 distortion
1887: solution, Lynne Hillenbrand for providing an advance copy of the
1888: manuscript relating chromospheric activity and age, and Adam Burrows
1889: and Isabelle Baraffe for providing finely gridded evolutionary models.
1890: We have benefitted from discussions with Michael Cushing about
1891: theoretical models, Brian Cameron about astrometry with NIRC2, Jay
1892: Anderson about astrometry with \HST, Thierry Forveille about orbit
1893: fitting, and Hai Fu about data analysis and plotting. We also thank
1894: Zahed Wahhaj for his help with the 2007 July observations and Michael
1895: Cushing for providing us with the reduced IRTF/SpeX spectrum of
1896: HD~130948A.
1897: %
1898: Our research has employed the 2MASS data products; NASA's
1899: Astrophysical Data System; the SIMBAD database operated at CDS,
1900: Strasbourg, France; and the M, L, and T~dwarf compendium housed at
1901: DwarfArchives.org and maintained by Chris Gelino, Davy Kirkpatrick,
1902: and Adam Burgasser \citep{2003IAUS..211..189K, 2004AAS...205.1113G}.
1903: %
1904: TJD and MCL acknowledge support for this work from NSF grant
1905: AST-0507833, and MCL acknowledges support from an Alfred P. Sloan
1906: Research Fellowship.
1907: %
1908: Finally, the authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very
1909: significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has
1910: always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most
1911: fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this
1912: mountain.
1913:
1914: {\it Facilities:} \facility{Keck II Telescope (NGS AO, NIRC2)},
1915: \facility{\HST/ACS}, \facility{Gemini-North Telescope}
1916:
1917: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
1918:
1919:
1920:
1921: %\bibliography{/Users/tdupuy/tex/bibtex/tdupuy}
1922: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
1923:
1924: \begin{thebibliography}{107}
1925: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1926:
1927: \bibitem[{Anderson \& {King}(2004)}]{ACS..ISR..2004-15}
1928: Anderson, J., \& {King}, I.~R. 2004, in Instrument Science Report ACS 2004-15,
1929: 1
1930:
1931: \bibitem[{Barnes(2003)}]{2003ApJ...586L.145B}
1932: Barnes, S.~A. 2003, \apjl, 586, L145
1933:
1934: \bibitem[{Barnes(2007)}]{2007ApJ...669.1167B}
1935: ---. 2007, \apj, 669, 1167
1936:
1937: \bibitem[{Basri(1998)}]{1998bdep.conf..394B}
1938: Basri, G. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. 134: Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, 394
1939:
1940: \bibitem[{Bi {et~al.}(2008)Bi, {Basu}, \& {Li}}]{2008ApJ...673.1093B}
1941: Bi, S.-L., {Basu}, S., \& {Li}, L.-H. 2008, \apj, 673, 1093
1942:
1943: \bibitem[{Biller {et~al.}(2007)Biller, {Close}, {Masciadri}, {Nielsen},
1944: {Lenzen}, {Brandner}, {McCarthy}, {Hartung}, {Kellner}, {Mamajek}, {Henning},
1945: {Miller}, {Kenworthy}, \& {Kulesa}}]{2007ApJS..173..143B}
1946: Biller, B.~A., {Close}, L.~M., {Masciadri}, E., {Nielsen}, E., {Lenzen}, R.,
1947: {Brandner}, W., {McCarthy}, D., {Hartung}, M., {Kellner}, S., {Mamajek}, E.,
1948: {Henning}, T., {Miller}, D., {Kenworthy}, M., \& {Kulesa}, C. 2007, \apjs,
1949: 173, 143
1950:
1951: \bibitem[{Blake {et~al.}(2007)Blake, {Charbonneau}, {White}, {Marley}, \&
1952: {Saumon}}]{2007ApJ...666.1198B}
1953: Blake, C.~H., {Charbonneau}, D., {White}, R.~J., {Marley}, M.~S., \& {Saumon},
1954: D. 2007, \apj, 666, 1198
1955:
1956: \bibitem[{Bouchy {et~al.}(2005)Bouchy, {Bazot}, {Santos}, {Vauclair}, \&
1957: {Sosnowska}}]{2005A&A...440..609B}
1958: Bouchy, F., {Bazot}, M., {Santos}, N.~C., {Vauclair}, S., \& {Sosnowska}, D.
1959: 2005, \aap, 440, 609
1960:
1961: \bibitem[{Bremaud(1999)}]{bremaud99:markov_chain}
1962: Bremaud, P. 1999, Markov Chains: Gibbs Fields, Monte Carlo Simulation, and
1963: Queues (Springer-Verlag New York Inc.)
1964:
1965: \bibitem[{Burrows {et~al.}(2001)Burrows, {Hubbard}, {Lunine}, \&
1966: {Liebert}}]{bur01}
1967: Burrows, A., {Hubbard}, W.~B., {Lunine}, J.~I., \& {Liebert}, J. 2001, Reviews
1968: of Modern Physics, 73, 719
1969:
1970: \bibitem[{Burrows {et~al.}(1997)Burrows, {Marley}, {Hubbard}, {Lunine},
1971: {Guillot}, {Saumon}, {Freedman}, {Sudarsky}, \&
1972: {Sharp}}]{1997ApJ...491..856B}
1973: Burrows, A., {Marley}, M., {Hubbard}, W.~B., {Lunine}, J.~I., {Guillot}, T.,
1974: {Saumon}, D., {Freedman}, R., {Sudarsky}, D., \& {Sharp}, C. 1997, \apj, 491,
1975: 856
1976:
1977: \bibitem[{Burrows {et~al.}(2006)Burrows, {Sudarsky}, \&
1978: {Hubeny}}]{2005astro.ph..9066B}
1979: Burrows, A., {Sudarsky}, D., \& {Hubeny}, I. 2006, \apj, 640, 1063
1980:
1981: \bibitem[{Carrier {et~al.}(2005)Carrier, {Eggenberger}, \&
1982: {Bouchy}}]{2005A&A...434.1085C}
1983: Carrier, F., {Eggenberger}, P., \& {Bouchy}, F. 2005, \aap, 434, 1085
1984:
1985: \bibitem[{Chabrier \& {Baraffe}(2000)}]{2000ARA&A..38..337C}
1986: Chabrier, G., \& {Baraffe}, I. 2000, \araa, 38, 337
1987:
1988: \bibitem[{Chabrier {et~al.}(2000)Chabrier, {Baraffe}, {Allard}, \&
1989: {Hauschildt}}]{2000ApJ...542..464C}
1990: Chabrier, G., {Baraffe}, I., {Allard}, F., \& {Hauschildt}, P. 2000, \apj, 542,
1991: 464
1992:
1993: \bibitem[{Chen {et~al.}(2001)Chen, {Nissen}, {Benoni}, \&
1994: {Zhao}}]{2001A&A...371..943C}
1995: Chen, Y.~Q., {Nissen}, P.~E., {Benoni}, T., \& {Zhao}, G. 2001, \aap, 371, 943
1996:
1997: \bibitem[{Cushing {et~al.}(2008)Cushing, {Marley}, {Saumon}, {Kelly}, {Vacca},
1998: {Rayner}, {Freedman}, {Lodders}, \& {Roellig}}]{2008ApJ...678.1372C}
1999: Cushing, M.~C., {Marley}, M.~S., {Saumon}, D., {Kelly}, B.~C., {Vacca}, W.~D.,
2000: {Rayner}, J.~T., {Freedman}, R.~S., {Lodders}, K., \& {Roellig}, T.~L. 2008,
2001: \apj, 678, 1372
2002:
2003: \bibitem[{Cushing {et~al.}(2005)Cushing, {Rayner}, \&
2004: {Vacca}}]{2005ApJ...623.1115C}
2005: Cushing, M.~C., {Rayner}, J.~T., \& {Vacca}, W.~D. 2005, \apj, 623, 1115
2006:
2007: \bibitem[{Cushing {et~al.}(2004)Cushing, {Vacca}, \&
2008: {Rayner}}]{2004PASP..116..362C}
2009: Cushing, M.~C., {Vacca}, W.~D., \& {Rayner}, J.~T. 2004, \pasp, 116, 362
2010:
2011: \bibitem[{Cutri {et~al.}(2003)Cutri, {Skrutskie}, {van Dyk}, {Beichman},
2012: {Carpenter}, {Chester}, {Cambresy}, {Evans}, {Fowler}, {Gizis}, {Howard},
2013: {Huchra}, {Jarrett}, {Kopan}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Light}, {Marsh}, {McCallon},
2014: {Schneider}, {Stiening}, {Sykes}, {Weinberg}, {Wheaton}, {Wheelock}, \&
2015: {Zacarias}}]{2mass}
2016: Cutri, R.~M., {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {van Dyk}, S., {Beichman}, C.~A.,
2017: {Carpenter}, J.~M., {Chester}, T., {Cambresy}, L., {Evans}, T., {Fowler}, J.,
2018: {Gizis}, J., {Howard}, E., {Huchra}, J., {Jarrett}, T., {Kopan}, E.~L.,
2019: {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., {Light}, R.~M., {Marsh}, K.~A., {McCallon}, H.,
2020: {Schneider}, S., {Stiening}, R., {Sykes}, M., {Weinberg}, M., {Wheaton},
2021: W.~A., {Wheelock}, S., \& {Zacarias}, N. 2003, {2MASS All Sky Catalog of
2022: point sources.} (The IRSA 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog, NASA/IPAC
2023: Infrared Science Archive.~http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Gator/)
2024:
2025: \bibitem[{Cutri {et~al.}(2000)}]{2mass-2}
2026: Cutri, R.~M., {et~al.} 2000, Explanatory Supplement to the 2MASS Second
2027: Incremental Data Release
2028:
2029: \bibitem[{Dinescu {et~al.}(1995)Dinescu, {Demarque}, {Guenther}, \&
2030: {Pinsonneault}}]{1995AJ....109.2090D}
2031: Dinescu, D.~I., {Demarque}, P., {Guenther}, D.~B., \& {Pinsonneault}, M.~H.
2032: 1995, \aj, 109, 2090
2033:
2034: \bibitem[{Diolaiti {et~al.}(2000)Diolaiti, {Bendinelli}, {Bonaccini}, {Close},
2035: {Currie}, \& {Parmeggiani}}]{2000A&AS..147..335D}
2036: Diolaiti, E., {Bendinelli}, O., {Bonaccini}, D., {Close}, L., {Currie}, D., \&
2037: {Parmeggiani}, G. 2000, \aaps, 147, 335
2038:
2039: \bibitem[{Donahue(1993)}]{don93}
2040: Donahue, R.~A. 1993, PhD thesis, New Mexico State University
2041:
2042: \bibitem[{Donahue(1998)}]{1998csss...10.1235D}
2043: Donahue, R.~A. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. 154: Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and
2044: the Sun, Vol.~10, 1235
2045:
2046: \bibitem[{Duncan(1981)}]{1981ApJ...248..651D}
2047: Duncan, D.~K. 1981, \apj, 248, 651
2048:
2049: \bibitem[{Duquennoy \& {Mayor}(1991)}]{1991A&A...248..485D}
2050: Duquennoy, A., \& {Mayor}, M. 1991, \aap, 248, 485
2051:
2052: \bibitem[{Eggenberger \& {Carrier}(2006)}]{2006A&A...449..293E}
2053: Eggenberger, P., \& {Carrier}, F. 2006, \aap, 449, 293
2054:
2055: \bibitem[{Eggenberger {et~al.}(2004)Eggenberger, {Charbonnel}, {Talon},
2056: {Meynet}, {Maeder}, {Carrier}, \& {Bourban}}]{2004A&A...417..235E}
2057: Eggenberger, P., {Charbonnel}, C., {Talon}, S., {Meynet}, G., {Maeder}, A.,
2058: {Carrier}, F., \& {Bourban}, G. 2004, \aap, 417, 235
2059:
2060: \bibitem[{Forveille {et~al.}(1999)Forveille, {Beuzit}, {Delfosse}, {Segransan},
2061: {Beck}, {Mayor}, {Perrier}, {Tokovinin}, \& {Udry}}]{1999A&A...351..619F}
2062: Forveille, T., {Beuzit}, J.-L., {Delfosse}, X., {Segransan}, D., {Beck}, F.,
2063: {Mayor}, M., {Perrier}, C., {Tokovinin}, A., \& {Udry}, S. 1999, \aap, 351,
2064: 619
2065:
2066: \bibitem[{Frandsen {et~al.}(2002)Frandsen, {Carrier}, {Aerts}, {Stello},
2067: {Maas}, {Burnet}, {Bruntt}, {Teixeira}, {de Medeiros}, {Bouchy}, {Kjeldsen},
2068: {Pijpers}, \& {Christensen-Dalsgaard}}]{2002A&A...394L...5F}
2069: Frandsen, S., {Carrier}, F., {Aerts}, C., {Stello}, D., {Maas}, T., {Burnet},
2070: M., {Bruntt}, H., {Teixeira}, T.~C., {de Medeiros}, J.~R., {Bouchy}, F.,
2071: {Kjeldsen}, H., {Pijpers}, F., \& {Christensen-Dalsgaard}, J. 2002, \aap,
2072: 394, L5
2073:
2074: \bibitem[{Gaidos(1998)}]{1998PASP..110.1259G}
2075: Gaidos, E.~J. 1998, \pasp, 110, 1259
2076:
2077: \bibitem[{Gaidos {et~al.}(2000)Gaidos, {Henry}, \&
2078: {Henry}}]{2000AJ....120.1006G}
2079: Gaidos, E.~J., {Henry}, G.~W., \& {Henry}, S.~M. 2000, \aj, 120, 1006
2080:
2081: \bibitem[{Gelino {et~al.}(2004)Gelino, {Kirkpatrick}, \&
2082: {Burgasser}}]{2004AAS...205.1113G}
2083: Gelino, C.~R., {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., \& {Burgasser}, A.~J. 2004, \baas, 205
2084:
2085: \bibitem[{Golimowski {et~al.}(2004)}]{gol04}
2086: Golimowski, D.~A., {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 3516
2087:
2088: \bibitem[{Goto {et~al.}(2002)Goto, {Kobayashi}, {Terada}, {Gaessler},
2089: {Kanzawa}, {Takami}, {Takato}, {Hayano}, {Kamata}, {Iye}, {Saint-Jacques},
2090: {Tokunaga}, {Potter}, \& {Cushing}}]{2002ApJ...567L..59G}
2091: Goto, M., {Kobayashi}, N., {Terada}, H., {Gaessler}, W., {Kanzawa}, T.,
2092: {Takami}, H., {Takato}, N., {Hayano}, Y., {Kamata}, Y., {Iye}, M.,
2093: {Saint-Jacques}, D.~J., {Tokunaga}, A.~T., {Potter}, D., \& {Cushing}, M.
2094: 2002, \apjl, 567, L59
2095:
2096: \bibitem[{Henry {et~al.}(1996)Henry, {Soderblom}, {Donahue}, \&
2097: {Baliunas}}]{1996AJ....111..439H}
2098: Henry, T.~J., {Soderblom}, D.~R., {Donahue}, R.~A., \& {Baliunas}, S.~L. 1996,
2099: \aj, 111, 439
2100:
2101: \bibitem[{Hobbs(1985)}]{1985ApJ...290..284H}
2102: Hobbs, L.~M. 1985, \apj, 290, 284
2103:
2104: \bibitem[{H{\"u}nsch {et~al.}(1999)H{\"u}nsch, {Schmitt}, {Sterzik}, \&
2105: {Voges}}]{1999A&AS..135..319H}
2106: H{\"u}nsch, M., {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., {Sterzik}, M.~F., \& {Voges}, W. 1999,
2107: \aaps, 135, 319
2108:
2109: \bibitem[{Ireland {et~al.}(2008)Ireland, {Kraus}, {Martinache}, {Lloyd}, \&
2110: {Tuthill}}]{gl802b-ireland}
2111: Ireland, M.~J., {Kraus}, A., {Martinache}, F., {Lloyd}, J.~P., \& {Tuthill},
2112: P.~G. 2008, \apj, 678, 463
2113:
2114: \bibitem[{Jameson {et~al.}(2008)Jameson, {Lodieu}, {Casewell}, {Bannister}, \&
2115: {Dobbie}}]{2008MNRAS.tmp..282J}
2116: Jameson, R.~F., {Lodieu}, N., {Casewell}, S.~L., {Bannister}, N.~P., \&
2117: {Dobbie}, P.~D. 2008, \mnras, 282
2118:
2119: \bibitem[{Kastner {et~al.}(2003)Kastner, {Crigger}, {Rich}, \&
2120: {Weintraub}}]{2003ApJ...585..878K}
2121: Kastner, J.~H., {Crigger}, L., {Rich}, M., \& {Weintraub}, D.~A. 2003, \apj,
2122: 585, 878
2123:
2124: \bibitem[{Kim \& {Demarque}(1996)}]{1996ApJ...457..340K}
2125: Kim, Y.-C., \& {Demarque}, P. 1996, \apj, 457, 340
2126:
2127: \bibitem[{King(1983)}]{1983PASP...95..163K}
2128: King, I.~R. 1983, \pasp, 95, 163
2129:
2130: \bibitem[{King \& {Schuler}(2005)}]{2005PASP..117..911K}
2131: King, J.~R., \& {Schuler}, S.~C. 2005, \pasp, 117, 911
2132:
2133: \bibitem[{King {et~al.}(2003)King, {Villarreal}, {Soderblom}, {Gulliver}, \&
2134: {Adelman}}]{2003AJ....125.1980K}
2135: King, J.~R., {Villarreal}, A.~R., {Soderblom}, D.~R., {Gulliver}, A.~F., \&
2136: {Adelman}, S.~J. 2003, \aj, 125, 1980
2137:
2138: \bibitem[{Kirkpatrick(2003)}]{2003IAUS..211..189K}
2139: Kirkpatrick, J.~D. 2003, in Proceedings of IAU Symposium 211: Brown Dwarfs, ed.
2140: E.~Martin, 189
2141:
2142: \bibitem[{Kirkpatrick(2005)}]{kirk05}
2143: Kirkpatrick, J.~D. 2005, \araa, 43, 195
2144:
2145: \bibitem[{Kirkpatrick {et~al.}(2000)Kirkpatrick, {Reid}, {Liebert}, {Gizis},
2146: {Burgasser}, {Monet}, {Dahn}, {Nelson}, \& {Williams}}]{2000AJ....120..447K}
2147: Kirkpatrick, J.~D., {Reid}, I.~N., {Liebert}, J., {Gizis}, J.~E., {Burgasser},
2148: A.~J., {Monet}, D.~G., {Dahn}, C.~C., {Nelson}, B., \& {Williams}, R.~J.
2149: 2000, \aj, 120, 447
2150:
2151: \bibitem[{Knapp {et~al.}(2004)}]{2004AJ....127.3553K}
2152: Knapp, G.~R., {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 3553
2153:
2154: \bibitem[{Krist(1995)}]{1995ASPC...77..349K}
2155: Krist, J. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series,
2156: Vol.~77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R.~A.
2157: {Shaw}, H.~E. {Payne}, \& J.~J.~E. {Hayes}, 349
2158:
2159: \bibitem[{Lafreni{\`e}re {et~al.}(2007)Lafreni{\`e}re, {Doyon}, {Marois},
2160: {Nadeau}, {Oppenheimer}, {Roche}, {Rigaut}, {Graham}, {Jayawardhana},
2161: {Johnstone}, {Kalas}, {Macintosh}, \& {Racine}}]{2007ApJ...670.1367L}
2162: Lafreni{\`e}re, D., {Doyon}, R., {Marois}, C., {Nadeau}, D., {Oppenheimer},
2163: B.~R., {Roche}, P.~F., {Rigaut}, F., {Graham}, J.~R., {Jayawardhana}, R.,
2164: {Johnstone}, D., {Kalas}, P.~G., {Macintosh}, B., \& {Racine}, R. 2007, \apj,
2165: 670, 1367
2166:
2167: \bibitem[{Lane {et~al.}(2001)Lane, {Zapatero Osorio}, {Britton},
2168: {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, \& {Kulkarni}}]{2001ApJ...560..390L}
2169: Lane, B.~F., {Zapatero Osorio}, M.~R., {Britton}, M.~C., {Mart{\'{\i}}n},
2170: E.~L., \& {Kulkarni}, S.~R. 2001, \apj, 560, 390
2171:
2172: \bibitem[{Liu {et~al.}(2008)Liu, {Dupuy}, \& {Ireland}}]{2008arXiv0807.0238L}
2173: Liu, M.~C., {Dupuy}, T.~J., \& {Ireland}, M.~J. 2008, ApJ, in press
2174: (astro-ph/0807.0238)
2175:
2176: \bibitem[{Liu \& {Leggett}(2005)}]{2005astro.ph..8082L}
2177: Liu, M.~C., \& {Leggett}, S.~K. 2005, \apj, 634, 616
2178:
2179: \bibitem[{Liu {et~al.}(2007)Liu, {Leggett}, \& {Chiu}}]{2006liu-hd3651b}
2180: Liu, M.~C., {Leggett}, S.~K., \& {Chiu}, K. 2007, \apj, 660, 1507
2181:
2182: \bibitem[{L{\'o}pez-Santiago {et~al.}(2006)L{\'o}pez-Santiago, {Montes},
2183: {Crespo-Chac{\'o}n}, \& {Fern{\'a}ndez-Figueroa}}]{2006ApJ...643.1160L}
2184: L{\'o}pez-Santiago, J., {Montes}, D., {Crespo-Chac{\'o}n}, I., \&
2185: {Fern{\'a}ndez-Figueroa}, M.~J. 2006, \apj, 643, 1160
2186:
2187: \bibitem[{Lowrance {et~al.}(2005)Lowrance, {Becklin}, {Schneider},
2188: {Kirkpatrick}, {Weinberger}, {Zuckerman}, {Dumas}, {Beuzit}, {Plait},
2189: {Malumuth}, {Heap}, {Terrile}, \& {Hines}}]{2005AJ....130.1845L}
2190: Lowrance, P.~J., {Becklin}, E.~E., {Schneider}, G., {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D.,
2191: {Weinberger}, A.~J., {Zuckerman}, B., {Dumas}, C., {Beuzit}, J.-L., {Plait},
2192: P., {Malumuth}, E., {Heap}, S., {Terrile}, R.~J., \& {Hines}, D.~C. 2005,
2193: \aj, 130, 1845
2194:
2195: \bibitem[{Maggio {et~al.}(1987)Maggio, {Sciortino}, {Vaiana}, {Majer},
2196: {Bookbinder}, {Golub}, {Harnden}, \& {Rosner}}]{1987ApJ...315..687M}
2197: Maggio, A., {Sciortino}, S., {Vaiana}, G.~S., {Majer}, P., {Bookbinder}, J.,
2198: {Golub}, L., {Harnden}, F.~R., \& {Rosner}, R. 1987, \apj, 315, 687
2199:
2200: \bibitem[{Mamajek \& Hillenbrand(2008)}]{mam08-ages}
2201: Mamajek, E., \& Hillenbrand, L. 2008, \apj, accepted
2202:
2203: \bibitem[{Marti{\'c} {et~al.}(2004)Marti{\'c}, {Lebrun}, {Appourchaux}, \&
2204: {Korzennik}}]{2004A&A...418..295M}
2205: Marti{\'c}, M., {Lebrun}, J.-C., {Appourchaux}, T., \& {Korzennik}, S.~G. 2004,
2206: \aap, 418, 295
2207:
2208: \bibitem[{Mart{\'{\i}}n {et~al.}(1999)Mart{\'{\i}}n, {Delfosse}, {Basri},
2209: {Goldman}, {Forveille}, \& {Zapatero Osorio}}]{1999AJ....118.2466M}
2210: Mart{\'{\i}}n, E.~L., {Delfosse}, X., {Basri}, G., {Goldman}, B., {Forveille},
2211: T., \& {Zapatero Osorio}, M.~R. 1999, \aj, 118, 2466
2212:
2213: \bibitem[{McCarthy \& {Zuckerman}(2004)}]{2004AJ....127.2871M}
2214: McCarthy, C., \& {Zuckerman}, B. 2004, \aj, 127, 2871
2215:
2216: \bibitem[{Metchev \& {Hillenbrand}(2006)}]{2006ApJ...651.1166M}
2217: Metchev, S.~A., \& {Hillenbrand}, L.~A. 2006, \apj, 651, 1166
2218:
2219: \bibitem[{Monet {et~al.}(1992)Monet, {Dahn}, {Vrba}, {Harris}, {Pier},
2220: {Luginbuhl}, \& {Ables}}]{1992AJ....103..638M}
2221: Monet, D.~G., {Dahn}, C.~C., {Vrba}, F.~J., {Harris}, H.~C., {Pier}, J.~R.,
2222: {Luginbuhl}, C.~B., \& {Ables}, H.~D. 1992, \aj, 103, 638
2223:
2224: \bibitem[{Monet {et~al.}(2003)}]{2003AJ....125..984M}
2225: Monet, D.~G., {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 984
2226:
2227: \bibitem[{Oppenheimer {et~al.}(2001)Oppenheimer, {Golimowski}, {Kulkarni},
2228: {Matthews}, {Nakajima}, {Creech-Eakman}, \& {Durrance}}]{2001AJ....121.2189O}
2229: Oppenheimer, B.~R., {Golimowski}, D.~A., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., {Matthews}, K.,
2230: {Nakajima}, T., {Creech-Eakman}, M., \& {Durrance}, S.~T. 2001, \aj, 121,
2231: 2189
2232:
2233: \bibitem[{Perryman {et~al.}(1998)Perryman, {Brown}, {Lebreton}, {Gomez},
2234: {Turon}, {de Strobel}, {Mermilliod}, {Robichon}, {Kovalevsky}, \&
2235: {Crifo}}]{1998A&A...331...81P}
2236: Perryman, M.~A.~C., {Brown}, A.~G.~A., {Lebreton}, Y., {Gomez}, A., {Turon},
2237: C., {de Strobel}, G.~C., {Mermilliod}, J.~C., {Robichon}, N., {Kovalevsky},
2238: J., \& {Crifo}, F. 1998, \aap, 331, 81
2239:
2240: \bibitem[{Perryman {et~al.}(1997)}]{1997A&A...323L..49P}
2241: Perryman, M.~A.~C., {et~al.} 1997, \aap, 323, L49
2242:
2243: \bibitem[{Pinfield {et~al.}(2006)Pinfield, {Jones}, {Lucas}, {Kendall},
2244: {Folkes}, {Day-Jones}, {Chappelle}, \& {Steele}}]{2006MNRAS.368.1281P}
2245: Pinfield, D.~J., {Jones}, H.~R.~A., {Lucas}, P.~W., {Kendall}, T.~R., {Folkes},
2246: S.~L., {Day-Jones}, A.~C., {Chappelle}, R.~J., \& {Steele}, I.~A. 2006,
2247: \mnras, 368, 1281
2248:
2249: \bibitem[{Potter {et~al.}(2002)Potter, {Mart{\' i}n}, {Cushing}, {Baudoz},
2250: {Brandner}, {Guyon}, \& {Neuh{\" a}user}}]{2002ApJ...567L.133P}
2251: Potter, D., {Mart{\' i}n}, E.~L., {Cushing}, M.~C., {Baudoz}, P., {Brandner},
2252: W., {Guyon}, O., \& {Neuh{\" a}user}, R. 2002, \apjl, 567, L133
2253:
2254: \bibitem[{Potter {et~al.}(2003)Potter, {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, \&
2255: {Cushing}}]{2003IAUS..211..265P}
2256: Potter, D.~E., {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, E.~L., \& {Cushing}, M.~C. 2003, in IAU
2257: Symposium, Vol. 211, Brown Dwarfs, ed. E.~{Mart{\'{\i}}n}, 265
2258:
2259: \bibitem[{Pravdo {et~al.}(2006)Pravdo, {Shaklan}, {Wiktorowicz}, {Kulkarni},
2260: {Lloyd}, {Martinache}, {Tuthill}, \& {Ireland}}]{2006ApJ...649..389P}
2261: Pravdo, S.~H., {Shaklan}, S.~B., {Wiktorowicz}, S.~J., {Kulkarni}, S., {Lloyd},
2262: J.~P., {Martinache}, F., {Tuthill}, P.~G., \& {Ireland}, M.~J. 2006, \apj,
2263: 649, 389
2264:
2265: \bibitem[{Preibisch \& {Feigelson}(2005)}]{2005ApJS..160..390P}
2266: Preibisch, T., \& {Feigelson}, E.~D. 2005, \apjs, 160, 390
2267:
2268: \bibitem[{Press {et~al.}(1992)Press, {Teukolsky}, {Vetterling}, \&
2269: {Flannery}}]{1992nrca.book.....P}
2270: Press, W.~H., {Teukolsky}, S.~A., {Vetterling}, W.~T., \& {Flannery}, B.~P.
2271: 1992, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge:
2272: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed.)
2273:
2274: \bibitem[{Rayner {et~al.}(1998)Rayner, {Toomey}, {Onaka}, {Denault},
2275: {Stahlberger}, {Watanabe}, \& {Wang}}]{1998SPIE.3354..468R}
2276: Rayner, J.~T., {Toomey}, D.~W., {Onaka}, P.~M., {Denault}, A.~J.,
2277: {Stahlberger}, W.~E., {Watanabe}, D.~Y., \& {Wang}, S. 1998, in Proc. SPIE:
2278: Infrared Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. A.~M. {Fowler}, Vol. 3354,
2279: 468--479
2280:
2281: \bibitem[{Reid {et~al.}(2001)Reid, {Burgasser}, {Cruz}, {Kirkpatrick}, \&
2282: {Gizis}}]{2001AJ....121.1710R}
2283: Reid, I.~N., {Burgasser}, A.~J., {Cruz}, K.~L., {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., \&
2284: {Gizis}, J.~E. 2001, \aj, 121, 1710
2285:
2286: \bibitem[{Sarajedini {et~al.}(1999)Sarajedini, {von Hippel},
2287: {Kozhurina-Platais}, \& {Demarque}}]{1999AJ....118.2894S}
2288: Sarajedini, A., {von Hippel}, T., {Kozhurina-Platais}, V., \& {Demarque}, P.
2289: 1999, \aj, 118, 2894
2290:
2291: \bibitem[{Schaefer {et~al.}(2003)Schaefer, {Simon}, {Nelan}, \&
2292: {Holfeltz}}]{2003AJ....126.1971S}
2293: Schaefer, G.~H., {Simon}, M., {Nelan}, E., \& {Holfeltz}, S.~T. 2003, \aj, 126,
2294: 1971
2295:
2296: \bibitem[{Simon {et~al.}(2006)Simon, {Bender}, \&
2297: {Prato}}]{2006ApJ...644.1183S}
2298: Simon, M., {Bender}, C., \& {Prato}, L. 2006, \apj, 644, 1183
2299:
2300: \bibitem[{Simons \& {Tokunaga}(2002)}]{mkofilters1}
2301: Simons, D.~A., \& {Tokunaga}, A. 2002, \pasp, 114, 169
2302:
2303: \bibitem[{Skumanich(1972)}]{1972ApJ...171..565S}
2304: Skumanich, A. 1972, \apj, 171, 565
2305:
2306: \bibitem[{Soderblom {et~al.}(1993{\natexlab{a}})Soderblom, {Fedele}, {Jones},
2307: {Stauffer}, \& {Prosser}}]{1993AJ....106.1080S}
2308: Soderblom, D.~R., {Fedele}, S.~B., {Jones}, B.~F., {Stauffer}, J.~R., \&
2309: {Prosser}, C.~F. 1993{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 106, 1080
2310:
2311: \bibitem[{Soderblom {et~al.}(1993{\natexlab{b}})Soderblom, {Jones},
2312: {Balachandran}, {Stauffer}, {Duncan}, {Fedele}, \&
2313: {Hudon}}]{1993AJ....106.1059S}
2314: Soderblom, D.~R., {Jones}, B.~F., {Balachandran}, S., {Stauffer}, J.~R.,
2315: {Duncan}, D.~K., {Fedele}, S.~B., \& {Hudon}, J.~D. 1993{\natexlab{b}}, \aj,
2316: 106, 1059
2317:
2318: \bibitem[{Soderblom {et~al.}(1993{\natexlab{c}})Soderblom, {Pilachowski},
2319: {Fedele}, \& {Jones}}]{1993AJ....105.2299S}
2320: Soderblom, D.~R., {Pilachowski}, C.~A., {Fedele}, S.~B., \& {Jones}, B.~F.
2321: 1993{\natexlab{c}}, \aj, 105, 2299
2322:
2323: \bibitem[{Stassun {et~al.}(2006)Stassun, {Mathieu}, \&
2324: {Valenti}}]{2006Natur.440..311S}
2325: Stassun, K.~G., {Mathieu}, R.~D., \& {Valenti}, J.~A. 2006, \nat, 440, 311
2326:
2327: \bibitem[{Stelzer \& {Neuh{\"a}user}(2001)}]{2001A&A...377..538S}
2328: Stelzer, B., \& {Neuh{\"a}user}, R. 2001, \aap, 377, 538
2329:
2330: \bibitem[{Stephens \& {Leggett}(2004)}]{2004PASP..116....9S}
2331: Stephens, D.~C., \& {Leggett}, S.~K. 2004, \pasp, 116, 9
2332:
2333: \bibitem[{Stern {et~al.}(1995)Stern, {Schmitt}, \&
2334: {Kahabka}}]{1995ApJ...448..683S}
2335: Stern, R.~A., {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., \& {Kahabka}, P.~T. 1995, \apj, 448, 683
2336:
2337: \bibitem[{Stone(1984)}]{1984A&A...138..275S}
2338: Stone, R.~C. 1984, \aap, 138, 275
2339:
2340: \bibitem[{Takeda {et~al.}(2007)Takeda, {Ford}, {Sills}, {Rasio}, {Fischer}, \&
2341: {Valenti}}]{2006astro.ph..7235T}
2342: Takeda, G., {Ford}, E.~B., {Sills}, A., {Rasio}, F.~A., {Fischer}, D.~A., \&
2343: {Valenti}, J.~A. 2007, \apjs, 168, 297
2344:
2345: \bibitem[{Tegmark {et~al.}(2004)}]{2004PhRvD..69j3501T}
2346: Tegmark, M., {et~al.} 2004, \prd, 69, 103501
2347:
2348: \bibitem[{Tokunaga {et~al.}(2002)Tokunaga, {Simons}, \& {Vacca}}]{mkofilters2}
2349: Tokunaga, A.~T., {Simons}, D.~A., \& {Vacca}, W.~D. 2002, \pasp, 114, 180
2350:
2351: \bibitem[{Vacca {et~al.}(2003)Vacca, {Cushing}, \&
2352: {Rayner}}]{2003PASP..115..389V}
2353: Vacca, W.~D., {Cushing}, M.~C., \& {Rayner}, J.~T. 2003, \pasp, 115, 389
2354:
2355: \bibitem[{Valenti \& {Fischer}(2005)}]{2005ApJS..159..141V}
2356: Valenti, J.~A., \& {Fischer}, D.~A. 2005, \apjs, 159, 141
2357:
2358: \bibitem[{van Leeuwen(2007)}]{2007hnrr.book.....V}
2359: van Leeuwen, F. 2007, {Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data}
2360: (Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data.~By Floor van Leeuwen,
2361: Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK Series:
2362: Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol.~ 350 20 Springer Dordrecht)
2363:
2364: \bibitem[{VandenBerg \& {Stetson}(2004)}]{2004PASP..116..997V}
2365: VandenBerg, D.~A., \& {Stetson}, P.~B. 2004, \pasp, 116, 997
2366:
2367: \bibitem[{Voges {et~al.}(1999)}]{1999A&A...349..389V}
2368: Voges, W., {et~al.} 1999, \aap, 349, 389
2369:
2370: \bibitem[{Vrba {et~al.}(2004)}]{2004AJ....127.2948V}
2371: Vrba, F.~J., {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 2948
2372:
2373: \bibitem[{Walter \& Berry(1991)}]{wal91}
2374: Walter, F.~M., \& Berry, D.~C. 1991, in The Sun in Time, ed. C.~P. Sonett,
2375: M.~S. Giampapa, \& M.~S. Matthews (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 653
2376:
2377: \bibitem[{Wilson {et~al.}(2001)Wilson, Kirkpatrick, Gizis, Skrutskie, Monet, \&
2378: Houck}]{wils01}
2379: Wilson, J.~C., Kirkpatrick, J.~D., Gizis, J.~E., Skrutskie, M.~F., Monet,
2380: D.~G., \& Houck, J.~R. 2001, \aj, 122, 1989
2381:
2382: \bibitem[{Wizinowich {et~al.}(2006)Wizinowich, {Chin}, {Johansson}, {Kellner},
2383: {Lafon}, {Le Mignant}, {Neyman}, {Stomski}, {Summers}, {Sumner}, \& {van
2384: Dam}}]{2006SPIE.6272E...7W}
2385: Wizinowich, P.~L., {Chin}, J., {Johansson}, E., {Kellner}, S., {Lafon}, R., {Le
2386: Mignant}, D., {Neyman}, C., {Stomski}, P., {Summers}, D., {Sumner}, R., \&
2387: {van Dam}, M. 2006, in Presented at the Society of Photo-Optical
2388: Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference, Vol. 6272, Advances in Adaptive
2389: Optics II. Edited by Ellerbroek, Brent L.; Bonaccini Calia, Domenico.
2390: Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 6272, pp. 627209 (2006).
2391:
2392: \bibitem[{Wright {et~al.}(2004)Wright, {Marcy}, {Butler}, \&
2393: {Vogt}}]{2004ApJS..152..261W}
2394: Wright, J.~T., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Butler}, R.~P., \& {Vogt}, S.~S. 2004, \apjs,
2395: 152, 261
2396:
2397: \bibitem[{Zapatero~Osorio {et~al.}(2004)Zapatero~Osorio, {Lane}, {Pavlenko},
2398: {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, {Britton}, \& {Kulkarni}}]{2004astro.ph..7334O}
2399: Zapatero~Osorio, M.~R., {Lane}, B.~F., {Pavlenko}, Y., {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, E.~L.,
2400: {Britton}, M., \& {Kulkarni}, S.~R. 2004, \apj, 615, 958
2401:
2402: \bibitem[{Zuckerman {et~al.}(2006)Zuckerman, {Bessell}, {Song}, \&
2403: {Kim}}]{2006ApJ...649L.115Z}
2404: Zuckerman, B., {Bessell}, M.~S., {Song}, I., \& {Kim}, S. 2006, \apjl, 649,
2405: L115
2406:
2407: \bibitem[{Zuckerman \& {Song}(2004)}]{2004ARA&A..42..685Z}
2408: Zuckerman, B., \& {Song}, I. 2004, \araa, 42, 685
2409:
2410: \end{thebibliography}
2411:
2412: %======================================================================%
2413:
2414: \appendix
2415:
2416: \section{Monte Carlo Simulations of \hdbin\ in \HST/ACS Coronagraph Images \label{app:hst}}
2417:
2418: In order to robustly determine the systematic and random uncertainties
2419: in our PSF-fitting measurements of \hdbin\ in the 2002 and 2005
2420: \HST/ACS coronagraph data, we fit an array of simulated binary images
2421: constructed from images of single stars. No suitable single stars
2422: were present in any archival coronagraph images taken in the same
2423: filters as \hdbin\ ($F850LP$ and $FR914M$). Therefore, we turned to
2424: the much richer archive of $F814W$ coronagraph data, in which we found
2425: numerous suitable single stars. We selected three of the highest
2426: $S/N$ stars in the archive, all of which come from a 2003 March 25 UT
2427: observation of HD~163296 (GTO/ACS-9295, PI Ford). These two
2428: $\approx$2000 sec exposures were taken at two different roll angles,
2429: providing optimal subtraction of the background light due to the
2430: bright occulted star, and we used the second image (14:15~UT) to
2431: subtract the background from the first (11:07~UT). The locations of
2432: the three stars we selected sample very different subpixel locations,
2433: which is a potential source of systematic error for the fitting of the
2434: slightly undersampled ACS PSF. In the end, we found that no matter
2435: which single star we used, the resulting astrometry did not change
2436: significantly, so all results we quote from our Monte Carlo
2437: simulations refer to the highest $S/N$ star. This star was scaled
2438: down by 3.3--5.7 mag to match the $S/N$ of the science data, depending
2439: on the epoch and bandpass.
2440:
2441: We created simulated binary images at the integer pixel separations
2442: that most closely approximated \hdbin\ at each epoch and telescope
2443: roll angle. Subpixel-shifted binary images are impossible to
2444: accurately create from one image of a single star because the ACS-HRC
2445: PSF is slightly undersampled, inhibiting accurate interpolation to a
2446: fraction of a pixel. For the 2002 epoch, we used an equal number of
2447: simulated binaries with integer separations of
2448: $(\Delta{x},\Delta{y})=(-3, 3)$ and $(\Delta{x},\Delta{y})=(-2, 3)$ to
2449: approximate \hdbin\ which had a measured separation of
2450: $(\Delta{x},\Delta{y})\approx(-2.5, 3.0)$. For the 2005 epoch, we
2451: used simulated binaries at integer pixel separations of
2452: $(\Delta{x},\Delta{y})=(-2, 1)$ and $(\Delta{x},\Delta{y})=(-1, 2)$.
2453: Each corresponds to a different roll angle in the science data, for
2454: which the actual best-fit separations were
2455: $(\Delta{x},\Delta{y})\approx(-1.8, 1.2)$ and
2456: $(\Delta{x},\Delta{y})\approx(-1.4, 1.8)$.
2457:
2458: We scaled down the simulated binary images to match the peak counts of
2459: the science data then added photon noise assuming a gain of
2460: 2.2~e$^-$/DN (from the \texttt{ATODGAIN} header keyword). We used a
2461: flux ratio of 0.25~mag, consistent with the flux ratio measured in the
2462: 2005 $F850LP$ data, when creating all simulated binary images. Since
2463: \hdbin\ itself is always located in the exact part of the residual
2464: background in which we would like to inject our simulated binaries in
2465: any given image, we instead injected them at a location
2466: 180\degs-symmetric to the location of \hdbin. This is motivated by
2467: the fact that the background light is visibly 180\degs-symmetric even
2468: on scales as small as a few pixels. (Note that this symmetry is not
2469: so perfect that rotated self-subtraction is preferred over roll
2470: subtraction for the removal of background light to the bright occulted
2471: star.) To account for some uncertainty in the exact
2472: 180\degs-symmetric point, we injected the simulated binary images at
2473: each location in a 3$\times$3 pixel box centered on our best guess of
2474: the 180\degs-symmetric location. This also served to sample different
2475: realizations of the noise being added to the simulated binary images.
2476: We found that using a larger box size (e.g., 5$\times$5) did not
2477: significantly change the results.
2478:
2479: We then applied our PSF-fitting routine in an identical manner to the
2480: simulated binary images as to the science data, with one exception.
2481: Because the single star used to generate the simulated binary images
2482: is actually taken from an $F814W$ image, we used the appropriate
2483: $F814W$ TinyTim models in the simulations. By comparing the input
2484: separations, position angles (PAs, measured in degrees east from
2485: north), and flux ratios of the simulated binaries to the fitted
2486: values, we determined the random error and any significant systematic
2487: offsets inherent in PSF-fitting routine.
2488:
2489: We also investigated the effects of telescope defocus (e.g., due to
2490: breathing) and jitter on our PSF-fitting. In our analysis of
2491: \HST/WFPC2 images of \twomassbin\ \citep{2008arXiv0807.0238L}, we
2492: found that allowing these as free parameters in the PSF significantly
2493: improved the residuals, producing slightly improved astrometric
2494: precision. For the 2002 observations of \hdbin, the best-fit defocus
2495: and jitter of the science data reached unrealistic values
2496: ($>20$~\micron; $>20$~mas) when allowed as a free parameter, thus we
2497: fixed telescope defocus and jitter to zero for both the science data
2498: and the simulations of the 2002 epoch. For the 2005 epoch, we found a
2499: degeneracy between telescope defocus and the measured binary
2500: separation, in the sense that tighter binaries could be equally well
2501: fit if the amplitude of the defocus was allowed to be rather large
2502: ($+12$~\micron). This may be intuitively understood since defocus
2503: essentially increases the extent of the PSF, so for a given binary
2504: footprint in a science image tighter separations can only be fit by
2505: increasing the defocus. The effect on the astrometry is indeed small
2506: (0.05--0.08~pix, 1--2~mas) but significant. Through the use of our
2507: Monte Carlo simulations, in which we know the true separation of our
2508: simulated binary images, we were able to break the degeneracy:
2509: allowing defocus as a free parameter artificially decreased the
2510: measured separation. Only values of the defocus larger than are
2511: typically observed ($\pm$10~\micron) produced this degeneracy.
2512: Therefore we fixed defocus and jitter to zero for both the science
2513: images and simulations of the 2005 epoch.
2514:
2515: First, we consider the results for the 2002 epoch, where the science
2516: data come from four different bandpasses: $F850LP$, $FR914M$
2517: (8626~\AA), $FR914M$ (9402~\AA), and $FR914M$ (10248~\AA). The
2518: separation of \hdbin\ at this epoch is $\sim$2$\times$ larger than at
2519: the 2005 epoch, but the $S/N$ is lower (see Figure~\ref{fig:images}),
2520: so it is not clear that the astrometric precision should be better.
2521: We found that the scatter among measurements taken in different
2522: bandpasses was consistent with the random error predicted by the
2523: simulations. In Table~\ref{tbl:hst}, we quote the individual
2524: measurements taken in different bandpasses with their respective
2525: offsets applied and with uncertainties given from the Monte Carlo
2526: simulations. The systematic offsets were small compared to the
2527: uncertainties (0.1--1.2$\sigma$). To understand how to combine these
2528: measurements, we investigated the nature of the uncertainties through
2529: simulations where the $S/N$ was varied over the equivalent of 0.0--7.5
2530: mag of noise degradation. Since the $S/N$ of the single star used to
2531: generate the simulated binaries is very high, this allows us to see
2532: what the error would be if the $S/N$ were much higher or lower than
2533: the science data. If the astrometric uncertainties were truly
2534: independent with respect to our PSF-fitting routine, they should
2535: improve linearly with $S/N$ \citep{1983PASP...95..163K}. We found
2536: that at low $S/N$ the error in the 2002 epoch astrometry improved
2537: slightly less than linearly, which implies a significant systematic
2538: component to the error that cannot be reduced by averaging over
2539: multiple measurements. At high $S/N$, the error was constant over a
2540: wide range of $S/N$, implying a systematic noise floor. The $S/N$ of
2541: the science data is near the boundary between these two error regimes,
2542: thus the uncertainty of the science data is dominated by the
2543: systematic component, and we cannot combine the individual
2544: measurements in different bandpasses assuming they are independent.
2545: Therefore, for the 2002 epoch, we use the single bandpass with the
2546: smallest error in both separation and PA, $FR914M$ (9402~\AA), which
2547: is also the bandpass with the cleanest background subtraction, highest
2548: $S/N$, and lowest $\chi^2$ from PSF-fitting.
2549:
2550: Given the higher $S/N$ of the 2005 data, our simulations show that our
2551: astrometric uncertainty is better than for the 2002 epoch, even though
2552: the binary is much tighter in the 2005 data. All of the systematic
2553: offsets predicted by our simulations were smaller than the predicted
2554: random errors. In Table~\ref{tbl:hst}, we quote the individual
2555: measurements after applying all systematic offsets and give the
2556: uncertainties determined from our simulations. To understand how to
2557: combine these measurements, we investigated the nature of the errors
2558: through simulations where the $S/N$ was varied as described above for
2559: the 2002 epoch. We found that for all three 2005 measurements, the
2560: science data fall almost exactly between two regimes: (1) at high
2561: $S/N$ the errors improve slightly less than linearly implying both
2562: random and systematic errors are significant; (2) at low $S/N$ the
2563: errors improve linearly implying this regime is dominated by random
2564: noise. If our science data were in the noise-dominated regime, we
2565: could hope to reduce the errors by $\sqrt{3}$ by averaging the three
2566: measurements and adopting the standard error on the mean. However,
2567: since the data are in the high $S/N$ regime, no further reduction of
2568: the uncertainty is possible due to a significant contribution from
2569: non-independent systematic errors. Therefore, we use the mean of the
2570: three 2005 \HST\ measurements, with the typical (median) random error
2571: predicted by the Monte Carlo simulations as its uncertainty.
2572:
2573: \section{Monte Carlo Simulations of \hdbin\ in Keck NGS AO Images \label{app:keck}}
2574:
2575: For each epoch of Keck observations, we conducted simulations to
2576: determine the systematic and random errors inherent to our PSF-fitting
2577: routine. We created simulated binary images using the best available
2578: empirical Keck NGS AO PSF. The separation, PA, and flux ratio of each
2579: simulated binary were randomly drawn to be within 0.3 pixels, 3\degs,
2580: and 0.2 mag, respectively, of the measured values at that epoch. We
2581: used bilinear interpolation with cubic convolution to create a shifted
2582: but otherwise identical PSF image. The original and shifted PSFs were
2583: each scaled to match the typical peak fluxes of \hdbin\ at the given
2584: epoch. Because the empirical PSF image used to construct the
2585: simulated binary images was always of a higher $S/N$ than the science
2586: data, random noise was added to the simulated binary images assuming
2587: Poisson statistics for the science data and infinite $S/N$ for the
2588: empirical input PSF.
2589:
2590:
2591: The empirical input PSFs for the 2007 January epoch simulations were
2592: images of the primary star \hdprim\ taken in $K_{cont}$-band directly
2593: after obtaining $K$-band images of \hdbin. The Strehl ratio and FWHM
2594: of the images of \hdprim\ were 0.10$\pm$0.02 and 65.2$\pm$4.1 mas,
2595: respectively. In February 2007, the next generation wavefront
2596: controller (NGWFC) was installed on Keck~II
2597: \citep{2006SPIE.6272E...7W}. Thus, for the remaining $K_S$- and
2598: $K_{cont}$-band epochs, we used the NGWFC bright star $K$-band PSFs
2599: ($R=7.5$, 12.6, 13.6 mag) available on the Keck NGS AO
2600: webpage\footnote{http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/optics/ngsao/}. We
2601: measured the Strehl ratio and FWHM of this set of three PSFs to be
2602: 0.51$\pm$0.02 and 46.8$\pm$0.9 mas. There is not a stark drop in
2603: Strehl or FWHM with NGS brightness because the Keck NGS AO system
2604: delivers similar on-axis image quality when the NGS is brighter than
2605: $R$~$\approx$~13~mag. This PSF stability is also what enables our use
2606: of non-contemporaneous PSFs, which is further justified by the fact
2607: that the systematic offsets derived from these empirical PSFs improves
2608: the orbit fit (see \S \ref{sec:keck}). Finally, we used Keck NGS
2609: images of the bright star Gl~569A \citep[$R=9.4$
2610: mag;][]{2003AJ....125..984M} taken in $H_{cont}$-band
2611: ($\lambda_c$~=~1.580~\micron, $\Delta\lambda$~=~0.023~\micron) on 2008
2612: January 16 as the empirical input PSF for the 2007 July epoch
2613: simulations. The Strehl ratio and FWHM of these $H$-band PSFs were
2614: 0.29$\pm$0.04 and 37.9$\pm$0.6 mas, respectively. In summary, while
2615: the FWHM of the single PSFs we use in our simulations are comparable
2616: to the FWHM of the science images, the Strehl ratios are consistently
2617: somewhat worse than the science data (Table~\ref{tbl:keck}).
2618: Therefore, we expect that the uncertainties from our Monte Carlo
2619: simulations of the Keck astrometry may be slightly overestimated (this
2620: is consistent with our best fit orbit, which has reduced $\chi^2<1$).
2621:
2622: Background light due to the primary star \hdprim\ was added to the
2623: simulated binary images in order to accurately replicate our science
2624: images. To accomplish this, we utilized the 60\degs-symmetric nature
2625: of the hexagonal Keck PSF. We extracted subregions from each dithered
2626: image at 60\degs-symmetric locations relative to the location of
2627: \hdprim. Though the central pixels of \hdprim\ are saturated in these
2628: images, its location can be deduced (typically to better than
2629: $\approx$1 pixel) from the intersection of the 6 diffraction spikes.
2630: The extracted subregions were appropriately rotated to match the
2631: background at the location of \hdbin. This yielded a number of
2632: independent images of the background up to five times the number of
2633: dithered images at a given epoch. Some of the symmetric locations
2634: fell off the array, but there was always at least one symmetric
2635: location available for each dithered image. For each epoch, 10$^3$
2636: simulated science images were constructed by random pairing of the
2637: extracted background images with the simulated binary images described
2638: above.
2639:
2640: The hexagonal Keck Airy pattern is clearly visible in all science
2641: images, so care was taken to appropriately rotate the empirical input
2642: PSFs to match the rotation in the science images. This is important
2643: because the overlap of the first hexagonal Airy ring of one component
2644: with the core of the other is likely one of the major sources of
2645: systematic error in our PSF-fitting technique. The image rotator of
2646: the Keck AO system changes to keep the PA of the sky fixed with
2647: respect to NIRC2 during a set of observations. Thus, the telescope
2648: optics and resulting Airy pattern rotate with respect to NIRC2, and
2649: these angles were measured directly from the header of each science
2650: image. For instance, the 2007 March 25 observations were conducted
2651: over $\approx$8 minutes near transit, when the rotator is changing
2652: fastest, so the PSF rotated by $\approx$7\degs\ with respect to the
2653: sky during that time.
2654:
2655:
2656: %======================================================================%
2657: \clearpage
2658: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2659: % FIGURE 1 - THE DATA
2660: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2661: \begin{figure}
2662: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.5in,angle=0]{f1.ps}}
2663:
2664: \caption{ \normalsize \HST\ and Keck images of \hdbin\ at all epochs
2665: and bandpasses, shown chronologically by column. Unsaturated images
2666: of \hdprim\ are shown alongside the \hdbin\ images for the last two
2667: epochs. For the most recent Keck epochs, interlaced short-exposure
2668: images of \hdprim\ are also shown. For \HST\ images, the background
2669: light due to the occulted primary has been optimally subtracted as
2670: described in the text. \HST\ images are in either $F850LP$ or the
2671: $FR914M$ ramp filter, which produces nearly-monochromatic images,
2672: and we have labeled the images with the wavelength (\texttt{LRFWAVE}
2673: header keyword). We do not rotate the \HST\ data so that north is
2674: up in order to preserve the somewhat undersampled nature of the
2675: data. Note that severe geometric distortion makes the cardinal
2676: directions in ACS-HRC images non-orthogonal. In the Keck images,
2677: light from the PSF halo and/or the diffraction spikes of the primary
2678: are typically visible. With the exception of the 2007 Jan epoch,
2679: during which seeing conditions were poor, the hexagonal Airy ring of
2680: the Keck PSF is visible in all the images. Both \HST\ and Keck
2681: images are shown on the same scale, 1$\farcs$0 on a side, with a
2682: square-root stretch for the grayscale images. Contours are drawn at
2683: 0.50, 0.25, 0.13, 0.06, and 0.03 of the peak pixel. For lower $S/N$
2684: images (i.e., all \HST\ images and the 2007 Jan image) the two
2685: lowest contours are not drawn. \label{fig:images}}
2686:
2687: \end{figure}
2688:
2689:
2690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2691: % FIGURE 2 - HD130948BC ORBITAL PARAMETERS
2692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2693: \begin{figure}
2694: \vskip -1in
2695: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=7.5in,angle=90]{f2a.ps}}
2696: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=7.5in,angle=90]{f2b.ps}}
2697:
2698: \caption{\normalsize Probability distributions of all orbital
2699: parameters derived from the MCMC analysis: semimajor axis ($a$),
2700: orbital period ($P$), eccentricity ($e$), inclination ($i$), epoch
2701: of periastron ($T_0$), PA of the ascending node ($\Omega$), and
2702: argument of periastron ($\omega$). Each histogram is shaded to
2703: indicate the 68.3\% and 95.5\% confidence regions, which correspond
2704: to 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ for a normal distribution, and the solid
2705: vertical lines represent the median values. Note that $T_0$ is shown
2706: in days since 2008 Jul 16 12:00 UT for
2707: clarity. \label{fig:orbit-parms}}
2708:
2709: \end{figure}
2710:
2711:
2712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2713: % FIGURE 3 - HD130948BC PERIOD VS. SEMIMAJOR AXIS
2714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2715: \begin{figure}
2716: \vskip -1in
2717: \hskip -0.3in
2718: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=7.5in,angle=90]{f3.ps}}
2719: \vskip -2ex
2720:
2721: \caption{\normalsize Results from the MCMC determination of the
2722: orbital period and semimajor axis for \hdbin. The central plot
2723: shows all the values in the MCMC chain. The locus illustrates the
2724: degeneracy between determining the orbital period and semimajor
2725: axis. Lines of constant mass are drawn in the central plot to show
2726: that the resulting mass precision is much better than simply adding
2727: the uncertainties in $P$ and $a$ in quadrature. The top and side
2728: plots show the resulting probability distributions of $P$ and $a$.
2729: Each histogram is shaded to indicate the 68.3\% and 95.5\%
2730: confidence limits, which correspond to 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ for a
2731: normal distribution, and the dashed vertical lines represent the
2732: median values. \label{fig:orbit-p_a}}
2733:
2734: \end{figure}
2735:
2736:
2737: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2738: % FIGURE 4 - HD130948BC MASS DISTRIBUTION
2739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2740: \begin{figure}
2741: \vskip -1in
2742: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=7.5in,angle=90]{f4.ps}}
2743: \vskip 2ex
2744:
2745: \caption{\normalsize Probability distribution of the total mass of
2746: \hdbin\ resulting from our MCMC analysis. The histogram is shaded
2747: to indicate the 68.3\%, 95.5\%, and 99.7\% confidence regions, which
2748: correspond to 1$\sigma$, 2$\sigma$, and 3$\sigma$ for a normal
2749: distribution. The dashed line represents the median value of
2750: 0.1085~\Msun. The standard deviation of the distribution is
2751: 0.0018~\Msun. The dotted unshaded curve shows the final mass
2752: distribution after accounting for the additional 1.3\% error due to
2753: the uncertainty in the \Hipparcos\ parallax of \hdprim; the result
2754: is essentially Gaussian. The confidence limits for both
2755: distributions are given in
2756: Table~\ref{tbl:orbit}. \label{fig:orbit-mass}}
2757:
2758: \end{figure}
2759:
2760:
2761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2762: % FIGURE 5 - HD130948BC BEST-FIT ORBIT ON SKY
2763: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2764: \begin{figure}
2765: \vskip -1in
2766: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=7.5in,angle=90]{f5.ps}}
2767:
2768: \caption{\normalsize Keck (red), \HST\ (blue), and Gemini (gold)
2769: relative astrometry for \hdbin\ along with the best-fit orbit using
2770: only the \HST\ and Keck data. The empty circles are the predicted
2771: location of HD~130948C for this object in 2009 and 2010. The Gemini
2772: point from 2001.15 was extracted from \citet{2003IAUS..211..265P}
2773: and seems to follow the best-fit orbit well. The Gemini point
2774: measured directly from archival data \citep[and consistent with the
2775: published values in][]{2002ApJ...567L.133P} is labeled in
2776: parentheses and is clearly discrepant from the best-fit
2777: orbit. \label{fig:orbit-skyplot}}
2778:
2779: \end{figure}
2780:
2781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2782: % FIGURE 6 - HD130948BC BEST-FIT ORBIT: SEP & PA
2783: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2784: \begin{figure}
2785: \vskip -1in
2786: \hskip -0.75in \includegraphics[height=4.5in,angle=90]{f6a.ps}
2787: \hskip -0.75in \includegraphics[height=4.5in,angle=90]{f6b.ps}
2788:
2789: \caption{\normalsize Keck (red), \HST\ (blue), and Gemini (gold)
2790: measurements of the separation ({\em left}) and PA ({\em right}) of
2791: \hdbin. The best-fit orbit is shown: as a solid line for \HST\ and
2792: Keck data only (our default solution); as a dashed line for \HST\
2793: and Keck data with the ``extracted'' Gemini data (2001.15 epoch);
2794: and as a dotted line for \HST\ and Keck data with the ``measured''
2795: Gemini data (2001.49 epoch). The bottom panels show the observed
2796: minus predicted separation and PA with observational error
2797: bars. This highlights the extreme discrepancy in the
2798: measured/published Gemini point in PA, even for the orbit in which
2799: it was included as a constraint (dotted). This shows that no
2800: physically plausible orbit can fit both the \HST+Keck data and the
2801: measured/published Gemini point, indicating a systematic error in
2802: the PA of the Gemini point. There is a smaller discrepancy between
2803: the best-fit orbit and our ``extracted'' Gemini separation, possibly
2804: due to a systematic error in the instrument platescale in
2805: Wollaston-prism mode; however, the significance of the discrepancy
2806: is difficult to quantify because we cannot accurately assess the
2807: astrometric errors of the extracted data (we estimate 2~mas for the
2808: error in separation). \label{fig:orbit-sep-pa}}
2809:
2810: \end{figure}
2811:
2812: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2813: % FIGURE 7 - HD130948BC MASS DISTRIBUTION
2814: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2815: \begin{figure}
2816: \vskip -1in
2817: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=7.5in,angle=90]{f7.ps}}
2818: \vskip -4ex
2819:
2820: \caption{\normalsize Total mass distribution from the MCMC analysis by
2821: fitting three different sets of astrometry: \HST\ and Keck data only
2822: (our default solution, {\em red}); \HST\ and Keck data with the
2823: ``extracted'' Gemini data ({\em gray}); \HST\ and Keck data with the
2824: ``measured'' Gemini data ({\em black}). The filled circles indicate
2825: the median of the distributions, and the large (small) error bars
2826: indicate the 68.3\% (95.5\%) confidence limits, which correspond to
2827: 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) for a normal distribution. Adding the
2828: ``extracted'' Gemini astrometry to the \HST\ and Keck data yields
2829: essentially the same dynamical mass but with a higher precision
2830: since it extends the time baseline of the observations. Adding the
2831: ``measured'' Gemini astrometry also improves the nominal precision,
2832: but introduces a more significant systematic offset. See
2833: \S~\ref{sec:gemini} for a discussion of the inconsistencies between
2834: the two Gemini measurements that cause this
2835: offset. \label{fig:compare-masses}}
2836:
2837: \end{figure}
2838:
2839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2840: % FIGURE 8 - HOW-TO INFER MODEL AGES
2841: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2842: \begin{figure}
2843: \includegraphics[height=6.5in,angle=90]{f8.ps}
2844:
2845: \caption{ \normalsize Total mass of \hdbin\ as a function of the age
2846: of the system that is predicted by evolutionary models, given the
2847: observed luminosities of the two components. By applying the
2848: measured total mass ($M_{tot}$), we inferred the age of \hdbin\ from
2849: evolutionary models (see \S \ref{sec:modelage}). The colored shaded
2850: regions indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ ranges in $M_{tot}$
2851: corresponding to the luminosity uncertainties. At older ages, model
2852: substellar objects must be more massive in order to match the
2853: imposed luminosity constraint. At the oldest ages, the measured
2854: luminosities of \hdbin\ would correspond to a star at the bottom of
2855: the main-sequence, which causes the flattening of the $M_{tot}$--age
2856: curves. The horizontal gray bars show our 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$
2857: constraints on the total mass. The intersection of the measured
2858: $M_{tot}$ with the model-predicted $M_{tot}$ is shown by the solid
2859: (dotted) lines and corresponds to our 1$\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) derived
2860: age range. Note that the model tracks shown here correspond only to
2861: objects with the same individual luminosities as HD~130948B and C
2862: and are not generally applicable to other
2863: binaries. \label{fig:mtot-age}}
2864:
2865: \end{figure}
2866:
2867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2868: % FIGURE 9 - MASS RATIO
2869: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2870: \begin{figure}
2871: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.5in,angle=0]{f9.ps}}
2872:
2873: \caption{ \normalsize The model-predicted mass ratio for \hdbin\ as a
2874: function of the observed luminosity ratio. The colored regions are
2875: the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ ranges of possible mass ratios that
2876: correspond to the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ uncertainties in the
2877: luminosity of HD~130948B at the model-inferred age. The thin gray
2878: box shows the 1$\sigma$ range of the measured luminosity ratio of
2879: \hdbin. A second set of colored regions shows the model-inferred
2880: mass ratios for an age of 3~Gyr, which illustrates the weak
2881: dependence of the assumed age on the mass ratio at near-unity flux
2882: ratios. Since the inferred mass ratio of a nearly equal-magnitude
2883: binary such as \hdbin\ is very insensitive both to the age of the
2884: system and to the evolutionary models used, the individual masses of
2885: \hdbin\ can be determined robustly. Note that these curves are not
2886: generally applicable to other binaries, since they are drawn for a
2887: small range in primary component \Lbol\ and system
2888: age. \label{fig:mass-ratio}}
2889:
2890: \end{figure}
2891:
2892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2893: % FIGURE 10 - LBOL VS AGE
2894: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2895: \begin{figure}
2896: \includegraphics[height=6.5in,angle=90]{f10.ps}
2897:
2898: \caption{ \normalsize Isomass lines for evolutionary models with the
2899: individual masses of \hdbin. The colored line thicknesses encompass
2900: the 1$\sigma$ errors in the individual masses. The hatched boxes
2901: indicate the constraints from the measured luminosities of
2902: HD~130948B and C and the age of \hdprim\ using gyrochronology and
2903: chromospheric activity. The gyro age (\hdage) is inconsistent with
2904: the evolutionary models, implying that the models underpredict the
2905: luminosities of \hdbin\ by a factor of
2906: $\approx$2--3$\times$. \label{fig:lbol-age}}
2907:
2908: \end{figure}
2909:
2910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2911: % FIGURE 11 - HR DIAGRAM
2912: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2913: \begin{figure}
2914: \includegraphics[height=6.5in,angle=90]{f11.ps}
2915:
2916: \caption{ \normalsize The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram showing isomass
2917: lines from evolutionary models corresponding to the individual
2918: masses of \hdbin. The plotted line thicknesses of these tracks
2919: encompass the 1$\sigma$ errors in the individual masses. The red
2920: and blue colored regions correspond to the gyro age for \hdprim\
2921: (\hdage). The gray shaded regions correspond to the less precise
2922: chromospheric activity age (0.5$\pm$0.3~Gyr). The Lyon and Tucson
2923: evolutionary models are nearly indistinguishable in their predicted
2924: \Teff\ and \Lbol\ at these ages. The effective temperature
2925: determined for field L3--L5 dwarfs from spectral synthesis
2926: (1750$\pm$100~K) is shown as a filled circle at the measured
2927: luminosities of HD~130948B and C. The numerous discrepancies
2928: between the models and the data seen here are discussed in \S
2929: \ref{sec:teff-hr}. \label{fig:hr-diagram}}
2930:
2931: \end{figure}
2932:
2933: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2934: % FIGURE 12 - JHK VS AGE
2935: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2936: \begin{figure}
2937: \includegraphics[height=5.5in,angle=90]{f12.ps}
2938:
2939: \caption{ \normalsize Isomass lines showing the evolution of $J$-,
2940: $H$-, and $K$-band absolute magnitudes for Lyon models with the
2941: individual masses of \hdbin. The colored line thicknesses encompass
2942: the 1$\sigma$ errors in the individual masses. The hatched boxes
2943: indicate the constraints from the age of \hdprim\ and the measured
2944: photometry of HD~130948B and C. The photometry shown here is on the
2945: CIT system, where we have converted our measured photometry of
2946: \hdbin\ from the MKO system using the relations of
2947: \citet{2004PASP..116....9S}. The gyro age (\hdage) is inconsistent
2948: with the predicted fluxes, which is a reflection of the
2949: underpredicted bolometric luminosities of \hdbin\
2950: (Figure~\ref{fig:lbol-age}). The model tracks intersect the
2951: measured photometry at different ages for different filters, which
2952: indicates inconsistencies in the model-predicted near-infrared
2953: colors (see Figure~\ref{fig:jhk-cmd}). \label{fig:jhk-age}}
2954:
2955: \end{figure}
2956:
2957: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2958: % FIGURE 13 - CMD DIAGRAMS
2959: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2960: \begin{figure}
2961: \includegraphics[height=6.5in,angle=90]{f13.ps}
2962:
2963: \caption{ \normalsize Color-magnitude diagrams showing the measured
2964: properties of \hdbin\ compared to Lyon evolutionary tracks for the
2965: masses of B and C. The plotted line thicknesses encompass the
2966: 1$\sigma$ errors in the individual masses. The red colored regions
2967: correspond to the gyro age for \hdprim\ (\hdage). The gray shaded
2968: regions correspond to the less precise activity age
2969: (0.5$\pm$0.3~Gyr). In general, the measured colors are discrepant
2970: from that predicted by evolutionary models. Thus, evolutionary
2971: models will generally not yield accurate mass and/or age estimates
2972: for field L~dwarfs from techniques using color-magnitude diagrams
2973: alone. \label{fig:jhk-cmd}}
2974:
2975: \end{figure}
2976:
2977: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2978: % FIGURE 14 - LITHIUM DEPLETION
2979: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2980: \begin{figure}
2981: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.0in,angle=0]{f14.ps}}
2982:
2983: \caption{ \normalsize Lithium depletion as a function of age as
2984: predicted by evolutionary models. The solid lines correspond to the
2985: individual masses of the B and C components of \hdbin\ (C has a
2986: higher lithium fraction). These lines are bracketed by dotted lines
2987: that correspond to the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties in the individual
2988: masses. The ordinate is the fraction of primordial lithium
2989: remaining. The hatched black (gray) box indicates the constraint
2990: from the age of \hdprim\ estimated from gyrochronology
2991: (chromospheric activity). The Lyon models predict that all objects
2992: more massive than $\gtrsim$0.055~\Msun\ eventually deplete most of
2993: their primoridal lithium, while the Tucson models predict that this
2994: occurs only for objects more massive than $\gtrsim$0.062~\Msun. For
2995: the Lyon models, the components of \hdbin\ straddle the
2996: lithium-burning limit, while for the Tucson models neither component
2997: is expected to have depleted a significant amount of lithium. Thus,
2998: the age and individual masses of \hdbin\ are ideal for
2999: discriminating between these two sets of models with resolved
3000: optical spectroscopy designed to detect lithium absorption at
3001: 6708~\AA. This would provide the only direct empirical constraint
3002: to date on the theoretical timescale and mass limit of
3003: lithium-burning in brown dwarfs, which are the basis for the
3004: ``cluster lithium test'' \citep[e.g.,][]{1998bdep.conf..394B} and
3005: the proposed ``binary lithium test''
3006: \citep{2005astro.ph..8082L}. \label{fig:lithium}}
3007:
3008: \end{figure}
3009:
3010: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3011: % TABLE 1 - HD130948BC ASTROMETRY (HST)
3012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3013: \clearpage
3014: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
3015: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3016: \rotate
3017: \tablewidth{0pt}
3018: \tablecaption{
3019: \HST/ACS-HRC Coronagraph (1$\farcs$8 Spot) Observations \label{tbl:hst}}
3020: \tablehead{
3021: \colhead{Date/Start Time (UT)} &
3022: \colhead{$t_{exp}$ (s)} &
3023: \colhead{$\rho$ (mas)} &
3024: \colhead{PA (\degs)} &
3025: \colhead{$\Delta{f}$ (mag)} &
3026: \colhead{Filter} &
3027: \colhead{Note}}
3028: \startdata
3029: 2002 Sep 6/05:15 & 30 & 97.8$\pm$1.7 & 307.0$\pm$1.4 & 0.47$\pm$0.05 & $F850LP$ & 1 \\
3030: 2002 Sep 6/04:51 & 200 & 99.3$\pm$1.1 & 307.9$\pm$1.1 & 0.72$\pm$0.05 & $FR914M$ (8626~\AA) & 2 \\
3031: 2002 Sep 6/04:56 & 200 & 94.6$\pm$1.1 & 306.9$\pm$1.0 & 0.41$\pm$0.04 & $FR914M$ (9402~\AA) & 3 \\
3032: 2002 Sep 6/05:01 & 200 & 96.1$\pm$1.7 & 308.9$\pm$1.6 & 0.38$\pm$0.08 & $FR914M$ (10248~\AA) & 4 \\
3033: \tableline
3034: \textbf{2002 Sep 6} & & \textbf{94.6$\pm$1.1} & \textbf{306.9$\pm$1.0} & \nodata & & \\
3035: \tableline
3036: 2005 Feb 23/15:39 & 300 & 56.8$\pm$0.6 & 144.9$\pm$0.5 & 0.19$\pm$0.03 & $F850LP$ & 1 \\
3037: 2005 Feb 23/17:15 & 300 & 56.4$\pm$0.9 & 146.4$\pm$0.6 & 0.24$\pm$0.06 & $F850LP$ & 1 \\
3038: 2005 Feb 23/18:46 & 300 & 57.3$\pm$0.6 & 148.6$\pm$0.6 & 0.30$\pm$0.05 & $F850LP$ & 1 \\
3039: \tableline
3040: \textbf{2005 Feb 23} & & \textbf{56.8$\pm$0.6} & \textbf{146.6$\pm$0.6} & \textbf{0.24$\pm$0.05} & \textbf{$F850LP$} & \\
3041: \enddata
3042:
3043: \tablecomments{Source of image used for background subtraction:
3044: (1)---\hdprim, $F850LP$, 2005 Feb 23 UT;
3045: (2)---$\alpha$ Cen A, $FR914M$ (8495~\AA), 2004 Aug 7 UT;
3046: (3)---$\alpha$ Cen A, $FR914M$ (9282~\AA), 2004 Aug 7 UT;
3047: (4)---$\alpha$ Cen A, $FR914M$ (10500~\AA), 2003 Sep 12 UT.}
3048:
3049: \end{deluxetable}
3050:
3051: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3052: % TABLE 2 - HD130948BC ASTROMETRY (Keck)
3053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3054: %\clearpage
3055: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
3056: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3057: \rotate
3058: \tablewidth{0pt}
3059: \tablecaption{Keck NGS AO Observations \label{tbl:keck}}
3060: \tablehead{
3061: \colhead{Date/Start Time (UT)} &
3062: \colhead{Filter\tablenotemark{a}} &
3063: \colhead{$N \times t_{exp}$ (s)\tablenotemark{b}} &
3064: \colhead{Airmass} &
3065: \colhead{FWHM (mas)\tablenotemark{c}} &
3066: \colhead{Strehl ratio\tablenotemark{c}} &
3067: \colhead{$\rho$ (mas)\tablenotemark{d}} &
3068: \colhead{P.A. (\degs)\tablenotemark{d}} &
3069: \colhead{$\Delta{f}$ (mag)}}
3070: \startdata
3071: 2007 Jan 26/14:03 & $K$ & 10$\times$36 & 1.28 & 57.0$\pm$4.0 & 0.26$\pm$0.11 & 111.7$\pm$0.8 & 132.6 $\pm$0.4 & 0.25 $\pm$0.03 \\
3072: 2007 Mar 25/12:41 & \Kcont & 6$\times$30 & 1.01 & 47.8$\pm$0.1 & 0.64$\pm$0.02 & 109.1$\pm$0.4 & 132.28$\pm$0.13 & 0.19 $\pm$0.02 \\
3073: 2007 Jul 25/05:41 & $H$ & 9$\times$30 & 1.01 & 35.7$\pm$0.6 & 0.42$\pm$0.09 & 97.9$\pm$0.3 & 130.73$\pm$0.17 & 0.19 $\pm$0.05 \\
3074: 2008 Jan 15/16:37 & \Ks & 12$\times$30 & 1.03 & 48.0$\pm$0.7 & 0.58$\pm$0.07 & 72.2$\pm$0.2 & 127.6 $\pm$0.3 & 0.15 $\pm$0.03 \\
3075: 2008 Mar 29/13:38 & $K$ & 14$\times$30 & 1.03 & 49.1$\pm$0.3 & 0.65$\pm$0.02 & 57.4$\pm$0.2 & 124.7 $\pm$0.4 & 0.197$\pm$0.003 \\
3076: 2008 Mar 29/14:09 & $J$ & 8$\times$60 & 1.07 & 32.4$\pm$0.8 & 0.28$\pm$0.02 & 57.3$\pm$0.6 & 124.6 $\pm$0.6 & 0.305$\pm$0.014 \\
3077: 2008 Mar 29/15:46 & $H$ & 6$\times$30 & 1.36 & 41.8$\pm$1.1 & 0.35$\pm$0.03 & 58.4$\pm$0.6 & 124.1 $\pm$0.7 & 0.29 $\pm$0.02 \\
3078: 2008 Apr 27/14:32 & \Ks & 3$\times$30 & 1.61 & 48.5$\pm$0.5 & 0.63$\pm$0.03 & 51.7$\pm$0.3 & 123.9 $\pm$0.5 & 0.199$\pm$0.005 \\
3079: \enddata
3080:
3081: \tablenotetext{a}{All photometry on the MKO system.}
3082:
3083: \tablenotetext{b}{ $N$ is the number of dithered images, each of
3084: exposure time $t_{exp}$, taken at that epoch. }
3085:
3086: \tablenotetext{c}{Computed as described in the text using a
3087: 0$\farcs$75 aperture, except for the 2007 Jan 26 epoch which
3088: required a smaller aperture (0$\farcs$5) because poor image quality
3089: led to increased flux contamination from \hdprim. The quoted value
3090: and its error correspond to the mean and RMS of the set of dithered
3091: images.}
3092:
3093: \tablenotetext{d}{The tabulated errors are computed by adding in
3094: quadrature the uncertainty in the NIRC2 pixel scale and orientation
3095: and the uncertainty that is predicted for each epoch from the Monte
3096: Carlo simulations described in the text. We used a weighted average
3097: of the astrometric calibration from \citet{2006ApJ...649..389P},
3098: with a pixel scale of 9.963$\pm$0.011 mas/pixel and an orientation
3099: for the detector's $+y$-axis of $-$0.13$\pm$0.07 east of north.}
3100: \end{deluxetable}
3101:
3102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3103: % TABLE 3 - HD130948BC PHOTOMETRY
3104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3105: %\clearpage
3106: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
3107: \tabletypesize{\small}
3108: %\rotate
3109: \tablewidth{0pt}
3110: \tablecaption{Near-infrared MKO Photometry of HD~130948ABC \label{tbl:phot}}
3111: \tablehead{
3112: \colhead{Property} &
3113: \colhead{HD~130948A} &
3114: \colhead{HD~130948B} &
3115: \colhead{HD~130948C} &
3116: \colhead{Reference}}
3117: \startdata
3118: $J$ (mag) & 4.797$\pm$0.022 & 13.81$\pm$0.06 & 14.12$\pm$0.06 & 1,2 \\
3119: $H$ (mag) & 4.515$\pm$0.022 & 13.04$\pm$0.10 & 13.33$\pm$0.11 & 1,2 \\
3120: $K$ (mag) & 4.458$\pm$0.020 & 12.26$\pm$0.03 & 12.46$\pm$0.03 & 1,2 \\
3121: \enddata
3122:
3123: \tablerefs{(1) This work; (2) \citet{2mass-2}.}
3124: \end{deluxetable}
3125:
3126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3127: % TABLE 4 - HD130948BC ORBITAL PARAMETERS
3128: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3129: %\clearpage
3130: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
3131: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3132: \rotate
3133: \tablewidth{0pt}
3134: \tablecaption{Derived Orbital Parameters for \hdbin \label{tbl:orbit}}
3135: \tablehead{
3136: \colhead{} &
3137: \multicolumn{3}{c}{MCMC} &
3138: \colhead{\orbit\tablenotemark{\dag}} \\
3139: \cline{2-4}
3140: \colhead{Parameter} &
3141: \colhead{Median} &
3142: \colhead{68.3\% c.l.} &
3143: \colhead{95.5\% c.l.} &
3144: \colhead{} }
3145:
3146: \startdata
3147: Semimajor axis $a$ (mas) & 121 & $-$6, 6 & $-$10, 14 & 121$\pm$7 \\
3148: Orbital period $P$ (yr) & 9.9 & $-$0.6, 0.7 & $-$1.1, 1.6 & 9.9$\pm$0.8 \\
3149: Eccentricity $e$ & 0.167 & $-$0.015, 0.020 & $-$0.03, 0.05 & 0.163$\pm$0.019 \\
3150: Inclination\tablenotemark{a} $i$ (\degs) & 95.7 & $-$0.2, 0.3 & $-$0.5, 0.5 & 95.8$\pm$0.3 \\
3151: Time of periastron passage $T_0-2454664.0$\tablenotemark{b} (JD) & 0 & $-$110, 110 & $-$200, 200 & 14$\pm$130 \\
3152: PA of the ascending node $\Omega$ (\degs) & 133.15 & $-$0.16, 0.15 & $-$0.3, 0.3 & 133.14$\pm$0.15 \\
3153: Argument of periastron $\omega$ (\degs) & 71 & $-$14, 15 & $-$30, 30 & 73$\pm$18 \\
3154: Total mass (\Msun): fitted\tablenotemark{c} & 0.1085 & $-$0.0017, 0.0019 & $-$0.003, 0.004 & 0.1083$\pm$0.0019 \\
3155: Total mass (\Msun): final\tablenotemark{d} & 0.109 & $-$0.002, 0.002 & $-$0.004, 0.005 & 0.108$\pm$0.002 \\
3156: Reduced $\chi^2$ & 1.14 & \nodata & \nodata & 1.14 \\
3157: \enddata
3158:
3159: \tablenotetext{\dag}{The orbital parameters determined by \orbit\ are
3160: listed along with their linearized 1$\sigma$ errors.}
3161:
3162: \tablenotetext{a}{By convention, $i$~$>$~90\degs\ denotes that the sky
3163: PA is decreasing over time (clockwise motion), rather than
3164: increasing (counterclockwise).}
3165:
3166: \tablenotetext{b}{2008 Jul 16 12:00:00.0 UT}
3167:
3168: \tablenotetext{c}{The ``fitted'' total mass represents the direct
3169: results from fitting the observed orbital motion of the two
3170: components. For the linearized \orbit\ error, the covariance
3171: between $P$ and $a$ is taken into account.}
3172:
3173: \tablenotetext{d}{The ``final'' total mass includes the additional
3174: 1.3\% error in the mass from the \Hipparcos\ parallax of \hdprim.
3175: This final mass distribution is essentially Gaussian.}
3176:
3177: \end{deluxetable}
3178:
3179: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3180: % TABLE 5 - AGE ESTIMATES FOR HD 130948A
3181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3182: %\clearpage
3183: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
3184: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3185: \tablewidth{0pt}
3186: \tablecaption{Age Estimates for \hdprim \label{tbl:age}}
3187: \tablehead{
3188: \colhead{} &
3189: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Age (Gyr)} &
3190: \colhead{} \\
3191: \cline{2-5}
3192: \colhead{Age indicator} &
3193: \colhead{Estimate} &
3194: \colhead{68.3\% c.l.} &
3195: \colhead{95.5\% c.l.} &
3196: \colhead{Precision (1$\sigma$)} &
3197: \colhead{Ref.} }
3198: \startdata
3199: Stellar rotation (``gyrochronology'') & 0.79 & 0.64--1.01 & 0.53--1.32 & $\approx$25\% & 1 \\
3200: & 0.65 & 0.55--0.78 & 0.47--0.93 & $\approx$20\% & 2 \\
3201: Chromospheric activity (\ion{Ca}{2}~HK emission) & 0.5 & 0.2--0.8 & \nodata & $\approx$60\% & 1 \\
3202: Stellar isochrones & 0.72 & \nodata & 0.32--2.48 & $\approx$2$\times$ & 3 \\
3203: X-ray activity\tablenotemark{\dag} & \nodata & 0.1--0.6 & \nodata & \nodata & 1,4,5,6 \\
3204: Lithium depletion\tablenotemark{\dag} & \nodata & 0.1--0.6 & \nodata & \nodata & 7 \\
3205: \enddata
3206: \tablenotetext{\dag}{These indicators do not give quantifiable age
3207: estimates or corresponding uncertainties. They do show that the age
3208: of \hdprim\ is generally consistent with stars in the Hyades and
3209: Pleiades, thus we adopt these clusters' ages as the 1$\sigma$
3210: range.} \tablerefs{(1) \citet{mam08-ages}; (2)
3211: \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B}; (3) \citet{2006astro.ph..7235T}; (4)
3212: \citet{1995ApJ...448..683S}; (5) \citet{1998PASP..110.1259G}; (6)
3213: \citet{2001A&A...377..538S}; (7) \citet{1993AJ....106.1080S,
3214: 1993AJ....106.1059S, 1993AJ....105.2299S}.}
3215: \end{deluxetable}
3216:
3217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3218: % TABLE 6 - HD130948BC MEASURED PROPERTIES
3219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3220: %\clearpage
3221: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
3222: %\tabletypesize{\small}
3223: %\rotate
3224: \tablewidth{0pt}
3225: \tablecaption{Measured Properties of \hdbin \label{tbl:meas}}
3226: \tablehead{
3227: \colhead{Property} &
3228: \colhead{HD~130948B} &
3229: \colhead{HD~130948C} &
3230: \colhead{Note} }
3231: \startdata
3232: $M_{tot}$ (\Msun) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 0.109$\pm$0.002 } & 1 \\
3233: $d$ (pc) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 18.18$\pm$0.08 } & 2 \\
3234: Spectral Type & L4$\pm$1 & L4$\pm$1 & 3 \\
3235: BC$_K$ (mag) & 3.33$\pm$0.13 & 3.34$\pm$0.13 & 1,4 \\
3236: $\Delta{{\rm BC}_K}$ (mag) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 0.00$\pm$0.02 } & 1,4 \\
3237: $J-H$ (mag) & 0.77$\pm$0.12 & 0.79$\pm$0.13 & 1 \\
3238: $H-K$ (mag) & 0.78$\pm$0.10 & 0.87$\pm$0.11 & 1 \\
3239: $J-K$ (mag) & 1.55$\pm$0.07 & 1.66$\pm$0.07 & 1 \\
3240: $M_J$ (mag) & 12.51$\pm$0.06 & 12.82$\pm$0.06 & 1 \\
3241: $M_H$ (mag) & 11.74$\pm$0.10 & 12.03$\pm$0.11 & 1 \\
3242: $M_K$ (mag) & 10.96$\pm$0.03 & 11.16$\pm$0.03 & 1 \\
3243: $\Delta{K}$ (mag) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 0.197$\pm$0.008 } & 1 \\
3244: $\log$(\Lbol/\Lsun) & $-$3.82$\pm$0.05 & $-$3.90$\pm$0.05 & 1 \\
3245: $\Delta\log$(\Lbol) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 0.079$\pm$0.008 } & 1 \\
3246: \enddata
3247: \tablerefs{(1) This work; (2) \citet{2007hnrr.book.....V}; (3)
3248: \citet{2002ApJ...567L..59G}; (4) \citet{gol04}.}
3249: \end{deluxetable}
3250:
3251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3252: % TABLE 7 - HD130948BC MODEL-INFERRED PROPERTIES
3253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3254: %\clearpage
3255: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
3256: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
3257: %\rotate
3258: \tablewidth{0pt}
3259: \tablecaption{Evolutionary Model Inferred Properties of \hdbin \label{tbl:model}}
3260: \tablehead{
3261: \colhead{Property} &
3262: \colhead{Median} &
3263: \colhead{68.3\% c.l.} &
3264: \colhead{95.5\% c.l.} }
3265: \startdata
3266: \multicolumn{4}{c}{\bf Tucson Models \citep{1997ApJ...491..856B}} \\
3267: \cline{1-4}
3268: \multicolumn{4}{c}{System} \\
3269: \cline{1-4}
3270: Age (Gyr) & 0.41 & $- 0.03, 0.04 $ & $- 0.06, 0.08 $ \\
3271: $q$ ($M_{\rm C}/M_{\rm B}$) & 0.962 & $- 0.003, 0.003 $ & $- 0.009, 0.009 $ \\
3272: $\Delta$\Teff\ (K) & 90 & $- 8, 7 $ & $- 22, 22 $ \\
3273: Li$_{\rm C}$/Li$_{\rm B}$\tablenotemark{\dag} & 1.049 & $- 0.014, 0.011 $ & $- 0.02, 0.03 $ \\
3274: \cline{1-4}
3275: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Component B} \\
3276: \cline{1-4}
3277: $M_{\rm B}$ (\Msun) & 0.0554 & $- 0.0013, 0.0012 $ & $- 0.002, 0.002 $ \\
3278: $T_{\rm eff,B}$ (K) & 2040 & $- 50, 50 $ & $- 110, 110 $ \\
3279: $\log(g_{\rm B})$ (cgs) & 5.196 & $- 0.017, 0.017 $ & $- 0.03, 0.03 $ \\
3280: $R_{\rm B}$ (\Rsun) & 0.0983 & $- 0.0011, 0.0011 $ & $- 0.002, 0.002 $ \\
3281: Li$_{\rm B}$/Li$_0$ & 0.91 & $- 0.03, 0.03 $ & $- 0.07, 0.05 $ \\
3282: \cline{1-4}
3283: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Component C} \\
3284: \cline{1-4}
3285: $M_{\rm C}$ (\Msun) & 0.0532 & $- 0.0011, 0.0012 $ & $- 0.002, 0.002 $ \\
3286: $T_{\rm eff,C}$ (K) & 1950 & $- 50, 50 $ & $- 110, 110 $ \\
3287: $\log(g_{\rm C})$ (cgs) & 5.179 & $- 0.017, 0.017 $ & $- 0.03, 0.03 $ \\
3288: $R_{\rm C}$ (\Rsun) & 0.0983 & $- 0.0010, 0.0010 $ & $- 0.002, 0.002 $ \\
3289: Li$_{\rm C}$/Li$_0$ & 0.96 & $- 0.02, 0.02 $ & $- 0.05, 0.03 $ \\
3290: \cline{1-4}
3291: \multicolumn{4}{c}{} \\
3292: \multicolumn{4}{c}{\bf Lyon Models \citep[DUSTY;][]{2000ApJ...542..464C}} \\
3293: \cline{1-4}
3294: \multicolumn{4}{c}{System} \\
3295: \cline{1-4}
3296: Age (Gyr) & 0.45 & $- 0.04, 0.05 $ & $- 0.08, 0.10 $ \\
3297: $q$ ($M_{\rm C}/M_{\rm B}$) & 0.948 & $- 0.005, 0.005 $ & $- 0.013, 0.012 $ \\
3298: $\Delta$\Teff\ (K) & 85 & $- 7, 7 $ & $- 21, 21 $ \\
3299: Li$_{\rm C}$/Li$_{\rm B}$\tablenotemark{\dag} & 1.6 & $- 0.3, 1.0 $ & $- 0.5, 3.5 $ \\
3300: \cline{1-4}
3301: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Component B} \\
3302: \cline{1-4}
3303: $M_{\rm B}$ (\Msun) & 0.0558 & $- 0.0012, 0.0012 $ & $- 0.002, 0.002 $ \\
3304: $T_{\rm eff,B}$ (K) & 1990 & $- 50, 50 $ & $- 100, 90 $ \\
3305: $\log(g_{\rm B})$ (cgs) & 5.143 & $- 0.019, 0.019 $ & $- 0.04, 0.04 $ \\
3306: $R_{\rm B}$ (\Rsun) & 0.1048 & $- 0.0016, 0.0017 $ & $- 0.003, 0.004 $ \\
3307: Li$_{\rm B}$/Li$_0$ & 0.50 & $- 0.23, 0.18 $ & $- 0.4, 0.3 $ \\
3308: \cline{1-4}
3309: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Component C} \\
3310: \cline{1-4}
3311: $M_{\rm C}$ (\Msun) & 0.0528 & $- 0.0012, 0.0012 $ & $- 0.002, 0.002 $ \\
3312: $T_{\rm eff,C}$ (K) & 1900 & $- 50, 50 $ & $- 100, 90 $ \\
3313: $\log(g_{\rm C})$ (cgs) & 5.122 & $- 0.019, 0.019 $ & $- 0.04, 0.04 $ \\
3314: $R_{\rm C}$ (\Rsun) & 0.1045 & $- 0.0015, 0.0016 $ & $- 0.003, 0.003 $ \\
3315: Li$_{\rm C}$/Li$_0$ & 0.83 & $- 0.13, 0.08 $ & $- 0.31, 0.12 $ \\
3316: \enddata
3317: \tablenotetext{\dag}{Ratio of the lithium abundance of the two
3318: components.}
3319: \end{deluxetable}
3320:
3321: \end{document}
3322: