1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% HD 146361 ORBIT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6: \newcommand\arcpt{${{\lower3pt\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}}\atop{\raise4pt\hbox{.}}}$}
7: \newcommand\msun{$M_\odot$}
8: \newcommand\rsun{$R_\odot$}
9: \newcommand\sdeg{$^\circ$}
10: \def\kms{\ifmmode{\rm km\thinspace s^{-1}}\else km\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}
11:
12:
13: %\received{}
14: %\accepted{}
15: %\journalid{}{}
16: %\articleid{}{}
17:
18: \slugcomment{to appear in the {\it Astrophysical Journal}}
19:
20: \shorttitle{$\sigma^2$~CrB visual orbit}
21: \shortauthors{Raghavan et al.}
22:
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \title{The Visual Orbit of the 1.1-day Spectroscopic Binary $\sigma^2$
28: Coronae Borealis from Interferometry at the CHARA Array}
29:
30: \author{Deepak Raghavan\altaffilmark{1,2},
31: Harold A. McAlister\altaffilmark{1},
32: Guillermo Torres\altaffilmark{3},
33: David W. Latham\altaffilmark{3},
34: Brian D. Mason\altaffilmark{4},
35: Tabetha S. Boyajian\altaffilmark{1},
36: Ellyn K. Baines\altaffilmark{1},
37: Stephen J. Williams\altaffilmark{1},
38: Theo A. ten Brummelaar\altaffilmark{5},
39: Chris D. Farrington\altaffilmark{5},
40: Stephen T. Ridgway\altaffilmark{6},
41: Laszlo Sturmann\altaffilmark{5},
42: Judit Sturmann\altaffilmark{5},
43: Nils H. Turner\altaffilmark{5}}
44:
45: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy, Georgia
46: State University, P.O. Box 3969, Atlanta, GA 30302-3969}
47:
48: \altaffiltext{2}{raghavan@chara.gsu.edu}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{3}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden
51: Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
52:
53: \altaffiltext{4}{US Naval Observatory, 3450 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
54: Washington DC 20392-5420}
55:
56: \altaffiltext{5}{The CHARA Array, Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson,
57: CA 91023}
58:
59: \altaffiltext{6}{National Optical Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box 26732,
60: Tucson, AZ 85726-6732}
61:
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63: \begin{abstract}
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65:
66: We present an updated spectroscopic orbit and a new visual orbit for
67: the double-lined spectroscopic binary $\sigma^2$ Coronae Borealis
68: based on radial velocity measurements at the Oak Ridge Observatory in
69: Harvard, Massachusetts and interferometric visibility measurements at
70: the CHARA Array on Mount Wilson. $\sigma^2$~CrB is composed of two
71: Sun-like stars of roughly equal mass in a circularized orbit with a
72: period of 1.14 days. The long baselines of the CHARA Array have
73: allowed us to resolve the visual orbit for this pair, the shortest
74: period binary yet resolved interferometrically, enabling us to
75: determine component masses of 1.137 $\pm$ 0.037 \msun~and 1.090 $\pm$
76: 0.036 \msun. We have also estimated absolute $V$-band magnitudes of
77: $M_{\rm V}{\rm (primary)} = 4.35 \pm 0.02$ and $M_{\rm V}{\rm
78: (secondary)} = 4.74 \pm 0.02$. A comparison with stellar evolution
79: models indicates a relatively young age of 1--3 Gyr, consistent with
80: the high Li abundance measured previously. This pair is the central
81: component of a quintuple system, along with another similar-mass star,
82: $\sigma^1$~CrB, in a $\sim$ 730-year visual orbit, and a distant
83: M-dwarf binary, $\sigma$~CrB~C, at a projected separation of $\sim$
84: 10$\arcmin$. We also present differential proper motion evidence to
85: show that components C~\&~D (ADS 9979C~\&~D) listed for this system in
86: the Washington Double Star Catalog are optical alignments that are not
87: gravitationally bound to the $\sigma$~CrB system.
88:
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: \keywords{binaries: spectroscopic - stars: fundamental parameters -
92: stars: individual ($\sigma^2$ Coronae Borealis) - techniques:
93: interferometric}
94:
95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
96: \section{Introduction}
97: \label{sec:introduction}
98: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
99:
100: $\sigma$~CrB is a hierarchical multiple system 22 pc away. Its
101: primary components, $\sigma^1$~CrB (HR 6064; HD 146362) and
102: $\sigma^2$~CrB (HR 6063; HD 146361), are in a visual orbit with a
103: preliminary period of $\sim$ 900 years \citep{Sca1979}, of which the
104: latter is an RS CVn binary with a circularized and synchronized orbit
105: of 1.139-day period \citep[][ SR03 hereafter]{Str2003}. In addition
106: to these three solar-type stars, the Washington Double Star
107: Catalog\footnote{$http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/$} (WDS) lists three
108: additional components for this system. WDS components C and D were
109: resolved 18$\arcsec$ away at 103\sdeg~in 1984 \citep{Pop1986} and
110: 88$\arcsec$ away at 82\sdeg~in 1996 \citep{Cou1996}, respectively. We
111: will show in \S\,\ref{sec:Opt} that both these components are optical
112: alignments that are not gravitationally bound to the $\sigma$~CrB
113: system. Finally, WDS component E ($\sigma$~CrB~C, HIP 79551) which
114: was resolved 635$\arcsec$ away at 241\sdeg~in 1991 by
115: \textit{Hipparcos} \citep{HIP1997}, was identified as a
116: photocentric-motion binary by \citet{Hei1990}. The parallax and
117: proper motion listed for this star in \citet{van2007}, the improved
118: \textit{Hipparcos} results based on a new reduction of the raw data,
119: match the corresponding measures for $\sigma^2$~CrB within the errors,
120: confirming a physical association.
121:
122: SR03 presented photometric evidence in support of a rotation period of
123: 1.157 $\pm$ 0.002 days for both components of $\sigma^2$~CrB, the
124: central pair of this system. They explained the 0.017-day difference
125: between the rotation and orbital periods as differential surface
126: rotation. \citet{Bak1984} estimated an orbital inclination of 28\sdeg,
127: assuming component masses of 1.2 \msun~based on spectral types. SR03
128: subsequently adopted this inclination to obtain component masses of
129: 1.108 $\pm$ 0.004 \msun~and 1.080 $\pm$ 0.004 \msun, but these masses
130: are based on circular reasoning, and the errors are underestimated as
131: they ignore the uncertainty in inclination. Several spectroscopic
132: orbits have been published for this pair (\citealt{Har1925};
133: \citealt{Bak1984}; \citealt{Duq1991}; SR03), enabling the
134: spectroscopic orbital elements to be well-constrained. We present an
135: updated spectroscopic solution based on these prior data and our own
136: radial velocity measurements (\S\,\ref{sec:historical},
137: \S\,\ref{sec:SpecOrb}). Our visual orbit leverages these
138: spectroscopic solutions and derives all orbital elements for this
139: binary (\S\,\ref{sec:visualorbit}), leading to accurate component
140: masses (\S\,\ref{sec:massest}).
141:
142: This work utilizes a very precise parallax measure for this
143: radio-emitting binary obtained by \citet{Les1999} using Very Long
144: Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). Their parallax of 43.93 $\pm$ 0.10
145: mas is about 10 times more precise than the \textit{Hipparcos} catalog
146: value of 46.11 $\pm$ 0.98 mas and 12 times more precise than the
147: \citet{van2007} measure of 47.35 $\pm$ 1.20 mas. The
148: \citeauthor{Les1999} value is 2.2-$\sigma$ and 2.9-$\sigma$ lower than
149: the \textit{Hipparcos} and \citeauthor{van2007} measures,
150: respectively. To check for systematic offsets, we compared the
151: parallaxes for all overlapping stars in these three sources. While
152: the difference in parallax is most significant for $\sigma^2$~CrB, we
153: found no systematic differences. Moreover, \citeauthor{Les1999}
154: performed statistical checks to verify the accuracy of their measure,
155: so we adopt their parallax to derive the physical parameters of the
156: component stars (\S\,\ref{sec:PhyPar}).
157:
158: The Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) Array's
159: unique capabilities, facilitated by the world's longest optical
160: interferometric baselines, have enabled a variety of astrophysical
161: studies \citep[e.g.,][]{McA2005, Bai2007, Mon2007}. This work
162: utilizes the Array's longest baselines to resolve the 1.14-day
163: spectroscopic binary, the shortest period system yet resolved. While
164: this is the first visual orbit determined using interferometric
165: visibilities measured with the CHARA Array, the technique described
166: here has regularly been employed for longer-period binaries using
167: other long-baseline interferometers \citep[e.g.,][]{Hum1993, Bod1999}.
168: The $\sigma^2$~CrB binary has a projected angular separation of about
169: 1.1 mas in the sky, making it easily resolvable for the CHARA Array,
170: which has angular resolution capabilities in the $K'$ band down to
171: about 0.4 mas for binaries.
172:
173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
174: \section{Spectroscopic Measurements}
175: \label{sec:spectroscopy}
176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
177:
178: Spectroscopic observations of $\sigma^2$~CrB were conducted at the
179: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) with an echelle
180: spectrograph on the 1.5m Wyeth reflector at the Oak Ridge Observatory
181: in the town of Harvard, Massachusetts. A total of 46 usable spectra
182: were gathered from 1992 May to 1999 July, each of which covers a
183: single echelle order (45~\AA) centered at 5188.5~\AA\ and was recorded
184: using an intensified photon-counting Reticon detector
185: \citep[see][]{Lat1992}. The strongest lines in this window are those
186: of the \ion{Mg}{1}~b triplet. The resolving power of these
187: observations is $\lambda/\Delta\lambda \approx 35,\!000$, and the
188: nominal signal-to-noise ratios range from 21 to 94 per resolution
189: element of 8.5~\kms.
190:
191: Radial velocities were obtained using the two-dimensional
192: cross-correlation algorithm TODCOR \citep{Zuc1994}. Templates for the
193: cross correlations were selected from an extensive library of
194: calculated spectra based on model atmospheres by R.\ L.\
195: Kurucz\footnote{Available at {\tt http://cfaku5.cfa.harvard.edu}.}
196: \citep[see also][]{Nor1994, Lat2002}. These calculated spectra cover a
197: wide range of effective temperatures ($T_{\rm eff}$), rotational
198: velocities ($v \sin i$ when seen in projection), surface gravities
199: ($\log g$), and metallicities. Experience has shown that radial
200: velocities are largely insensitive to the surface gravity and
201: metallicity adopted for the templates. Consequently, the optimum
202: template for each star was determined from extensive grids of
203: cross-correlations varying the temperature and rotational velocity,
204: seeking to maximize the average correlation weighted by the strength
205: of each exposure. The results we obtain, adopting $\log g = 4.5$ and
206: solar metallicity\footnote{SR03 have reported a metallicity for
207: $\sigma^2$~CrB of [Fe/H] $= -0.37$ with an uncertainty no smaller than
208: 0.1 dex, and \citet{Nor2004} reported the value [Fe/H] $= -0.24$ based
209: on Str\"omgren photometry. Metallicity determinations for
210: double-lined spectroscopic binaries are particularly difficult, and
211: both of these estimates are likely to be affected at some level by the
212: double-lined nature of the system. However, the visual companion
213: ($\sigma^1$~CrB) is apparently a single star, and has an accurate
214: spectroscopic abundance determination by \citet{Val2005} giving [Fe/H]
215: $= -0.06 \pm 0.03$, and another by \citet{Fuh2004} giving [Fe/H] $=
216: -0.064 \pm 0.068$. The near-solar metallicity from these
217: determinations is considered here to be more
218: reliable.\label{foot:metal}} for both stars, are $T_{\rm eff} =
219: 6050$~K and $v \sin i = 26$~\kms\ for the primary, and $T_{\rm eff} =
220: 5870$~K and $v \sin i = 26$~\kms\ for the secondary. Estimated
221: uncertainties are 150~K and 1~\kms\ for the temperatures and projected
222: rotational velocities, respectively. Template parameters near these
223: values were selected for deriving the radial velocities. Typical
224: uncertainties for the velocities are 1~\kms\ for both stars.
225:
226: The stability of the zero-point of our velocity system was monitored
227: by means of exposures of the dusk and dawn sky, and small run-to-run
228: corrections were applied in the manner described by \citet{Lat1992}.
229: Additional corrections for systematics were applied to the velocities
230: as described by \citet{Lat1996} and \citet{Tor1997} to account for
231: residual blending effects. These corrections are based on simulations
232: with artificial composite spectra processed with TODCOR in the same
233: way as the real spectra. The final heliocentric velocities and their
234: 1-$\sigma$ errors are listed in Table~\ref{tab:cfaRVs}, along with the
235: corresponding epochs of observation, $O\!-\!C$ residuals, and orbital
236: phase.
237:
238: The light ratio between the components was estimated directly from the
239: spectra following \citet{Zuc1994}. After corrections for systematics
240: analogous to those described above, we obtain $\ell_{\rm s}/\ell_{\rm
241: p} = 0.67 \pm 0.02$ at the mean wavelength of our observations
242: (5188.5~\AA). Given that the stars have slightly different
243: temperatures, a small correction to the visual band was determined
244: from synthetic spectra integrated over the $V$ passband and the
245: spectral window of our observations. The corrected value is
246: ($\ell_{\rm s}/\ell_{\rm p})_V = 0.70 \pm 0.02$.
247:
248: The visual companion $\sigma^1$~CrB was also observed
249: spectroscopically at the CfA with the same instrumental setup. We
250: obtained 18 observations between 1996 June and 2004 August. The
251: stellar parameters were determined with a procedure similar to that
252: used for $\sigma^2$~CrB, and yielded $T_{\rm eff} = 5950 \pm 100$~K
253: and $v \sin i = 3 \pm 2$~\kms, for an adopted $\log g = 4.5$ and solar
254: metallicity (see Footnote~\ref{foot:metal}). Radial velocities were
255: obtained with standard cross-correlation techniques using a template
256: selected according to the above parameters. These measurements give an
257: average velocity of $-14.70 \pm 0.11$~\kms, with no significant
258: variation within the observational errors. We use this radial
259: velocity to unambiguously determine the longitude of the ascending
260: node for the wider $\sigma^1\!-\!\sigma^2$~CrB visual orbit
261: (\S\,\ref{sec:outerVB}).
262:
263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
264: \subsection{Historical Data Sets}
265: \label{sec:historical}
266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
267:
268: In addition to our own, four other radial-velocity data sets have been
269: published in the literature (\citealt{Har1925}; \citealt{Bak1984};
270: \citealt{Duq1991}; SR03). Except for the more recent one, the older
271: data are generally of lower quality and contribute little to the mass
272: determinations, but they do extend the time coverage considerably (to
273: nearly 86 years, or $27,\!500$ orbital cycles) and can be used to
274: improve the orbital period. Because of our concerns over possible
275: systematic differences among different data sets, particularly in the
276: velocity semi-amplitudes but also in the velocity zero points, we did
277: not simply merge all these observations together indiscriminately, but
278: instead we proceeded as follows. We considered all observations
279: simultaneously in a single least-squares orbital fit, imposing a
280: common period and epoch of maximum primary velocity in a circular
281: orbit, but we allowed each data set to have its own velocity
282: semi-amplitudes ($K_{\rm p}$, $K_{\rm s}$) as well as its own
283: systematic velocity zero-point offset relative to the reference frame
284: defined by the CfA observations. Additionally, we included one more
285: adjustable parameter per set to account for possible systematic
286: differences between the primary and secondary velocities in each
287: group. These were statistically significant only in the observations
288: by SR03. Relative weights for each data set were determined by
289: iterations from the RMS residual of the fit, separately for the
290: primary and secondary velocities. The resulting orbital period is $P =
291: 1.139791423 \pm 0.000000080$ days, and the time of maximum primary
292: velocity nearest to the average date of the CfA observations is $T =
293: 2,\!450,\!127.61845 \pm 0.00020$ (HJD). We adopt this
294: ephemeris for the remainder of the paper.
295:
296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
297: \section {Interferometric Measurements}
298: \label{sec:Interferometry}
299: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
300:
301: Interferometric visibilities for $\sigma^2$~CrB were measured during
302: 2007 May$-$July at the CHARA Array's six-element long-baseline
303: interferometer located on Mount Wilson, California \citep{ten2005}.
304: The Array uses the visible wavelengths 480--800 nm for tracking and
305: tip/tilt corrections, and the near-infrared $K'$ (2.13 $\mu$m) and $H$
306: (1.67 $\mu$m) bands for fringe detection. The 26 visibility
307: measurements used in the final orbit determination, listed in
308: Table~\ref{tab:Visib}, were obtained in the $K'$ band on the S1-E1 and
309: S1-E2 two-telescope baselines spanning projected baselines of 268--331
310: meters. The interference fringes were obtained using the pupil-plane
311: ``CHARA Classic'' beam combiner. While some of the data were obtained
312: via on-site observing at Mount Wilson, the bulk of the data were
313: gathered at the Arrington Remote Operations Center
314: \citep[AROC,][]{Fal2003} located at the Georgia State University
315: campus in Atlanta, Georgia. Following the standard practice of
316: time-bracketed observations, we interleaved each target visibility
317: measurement with those of a calibrator star (HD 152598) in order to
318: remove instrumental and atmospheric effects. For further details on
319: the observing practice and the data reduction process, refer to
320: \citet{McA2005}.
321:
322: We selected HR 6279 (HD 152598), an F0V star offset from
323: $\sigma^2$~CrB by 8\fdg3, as the calibrator based on its small
324: estimated angular diameter and its apparent lack of any close
325: companions. We obtained photometric measurements for this star in the
326: Johnson $UBV$ bands from \citet{Gre1985} and \citet{HIP1997}, and
327: $JHK_S$ bands from the Two Micron All Sky Survey\footnote{\tt
328: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass} (2MASS) and transformed them to
329: calibrated flux measurements using the methods described in
330: \citet{Col1996} and \citet{Coh2003}. We then fitted these fluxes to
331: spectral energy distribution models\footnote{The model fluxes were
332: interpolated from the grid of models from R. L. Kurucz, available at
333: {\tt http://cfaku5.cfa.harvard.edu}}, yielding an angular diameter of
334: 0.467 $\pm$ 0.013 mas for HD 152598, corresponding to $T_{\rm eff} =
335: 7150$ K and $\log g = 4.3$. This diameter estimate results in a
336: predicted calibrator visibility of $V_{\rm cal} = 0.858 \pm 0.008$ at
337: our longest baseline of 330 m, contributing roughly 1\% error to the
338: calibrated visibilities. This error is included in our roughly 10\%
339: total visibility errors listed in Table~\ref{tab:Visib}, along with
340: the epoch of observation (at mid-exposure), the target star's
341: calibrated visibility, the predicted visibility for the best-fit
342: orbit, the $O\!-\!C$ visibility residual, the baseline projections
343: along East-West ($u$) and North-South ($v$) directions, and the hour
344: angle of the target.
345:
346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
347: \section {Determination of the Orbit}
348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
349:
350: Consistent with prior evidence of a synchronized orbit (SR03), we
351: adopt a circular orbit ($e$ $\equiv$ 0, $\omega$ $\equiv$ 0) with the
352: orbital period ($P$) and epoch of nodal passage ($T$) from
353: \S\,\ref{sec:historical} for the spectroscopic and visual orbit
354: solutions presented below.
355:
356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
357: \subsection {Spectroscopic Orbital Solutions}
358: \label{sec:SpecOrb}
359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
360:
361: Our measured radial velocities enable us to derive the three remaining
362: spectroscopic orbital elements, namely, the center-of-mass velocity
363: ($\gamma$) and the radial velocity semi-amplitudes of the primary and
364: secondary ($K_{\rm p}$ and $K_{\rm s}$, respectively). To check for
365: consistency with prior efforts, we used the velocities published in
366: SR03 to derive a second orbital solution. The calculated radial
367: velocities for the derived orbits are shown in
368: Figures~\ref{fig:cfa_orb} and~\ref{fig:str_orb} (solid and dashed
369: curves for the primary and secondary, respectively) along with the
370: measured radial velocities and residuals for the primary (filled
371: circles) and secondary (open circles). The corresponding orbital
372: solutions are presented in Table~\ref{tab:SBele} along with the
373: related derived quantities. For comparison purposes, we have also
374: included the values presented in SR03, which are consistent with our
375: orbit generated using their velocities. However, the orbit obtained
376: using our velocities is statistically different from the one obtained
377: using SR03 velocities. While the primary's velocity semi-amplitude
378: matches within the errors between these two solutions, the secondary's
379: differs by over 5-$\sigma$, resulting in a 4-$\sigma$ difference in
380: the mass ratios.
381:
382: One possible explanation of the difference in the orbital solutions
383: could be the velocity residuals for the orbit using SR03 data
384: (Figure~\ref{fig:str_orb}), which show an obvious pattern for both
385: components. Those observations were obtained on four nights over a
386: five-day period. To further examine these patterns, we display the
387: residuals for each of the four nights in Figure~\ref{fig:str_resid},
388: as a function of time. Clear trends are seen on each night, which are
389: different for the primary and secondary components and have
390: peak-to-peak excursions reaching 4~\kms\ in some cases, significantly
391: larger than the velocity errors of 0.1--1.2~\kms\ (SR03). On some but
392: not all nights, there appears to be a periodicity of roughly
393: 0.20--0.25 days. The nature of these trends is unclear, particularly
394: because this periodicity is much shorter than either the orbital or the
395: rotational periods. Instrumental effects seem unlikely, but an
396: explanation in terms of the considerable spottedness of both stars is
397: certainly a distinct possibility. The Doppler imaging maps produced by
398: SR03 show that both components display a very patchy distribution of
399: surface features covering the polar regions. Individual features
400: coming in and out of view as the stars rotate could easily be the
401: cause of the systematic effects observed in the radial velocities, and
402: the effects would not necessarily have to be the same on both stars,
403: just as observed. Slight changes in the spots from one night to the
404: next could account for the different patterns seen in
405: Figure~\ref{fig:str_resid}. The relatively large amplitude of the
406: residual variations raises the concern that they may be affecting the
407: velocity semi-amplitudes of the orbit, depending on the phase at which
408: they occur. We do not see such trends in the CfA data, perhaps
409: because our observations span a much longer time (more than 7 years,
410: and $\sim$2200 rotational cycles), allowing for spots to change and
411: average out these effects. We therefore proceed on the assumption that
412: possible systematic effects of this nature on $K_{\rm p}$ and $K_{\rm
413: s}$ are lessened in the CfA data.
414:
415: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
416: \section {The Visual Orbit Solution}
417: \label{sec:visualorbit}
418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
419:
420: The basic measured quantity from an interferometric observation is
421: \textit{visibility}, which evaluates the contrast in the fringe
422: pattern obtained by combining starlight wave fronts from multiple
423: apertures, filtered through a finite bandwidth. For a single star of
424: angular diameter $\theta$, the interferometric visibility $V$ for a
425: uniform disk model is given by,
426: \begin{equation}
427: V = {2 J_1 (\pi B \theta / \lambda) \over \pi B \theta / \lambda},
428: \label{eq:Vsgl}
429: \end{equation}
430: where $J_1$ is the first-order Bessel function, $B$ is the projected
431: baseline length as seen by the star, and $\lambda$ is the observed
432: bandpass central wavelength. The interferometric visibility for a
433: binary, where the individual stars have visibilities $V_{\rm p}$
434: (primary) and $V_{\rm s}$ (secondary) per equation (\ref{eq:Vsgl})
435: above, is given by
436: \begin{equation}
437: V = {\sqrt{(\beta^2 V_p^2 + V_s^2 + 2\beta V_pV_s \cos((2\pi /
438: \lambda)\bf{B\cdot s}) )} \over 1+\beta},
439: \label{eq:Vbin}
440: \end{equation}
441: where $\beta$ is the primary to secondary flux ratio, \textbf{B} is
442: the projected baseline vector as seen by the binary, and \textbf{s} is
443: the binary's angular separation vector in the plane of the sky.
444:
445: Using our measured interferometric visibilities and the above
446: equations, we are able to augment the spectroscopic orbital solutions
447: to derive a visual orbit for $\sigma^2$~CrB. Adopting the period and
448: epoch of nodal passage from \S\,\ref{sec:historical}, we now derive
449: the parameters that can only be determined astrometrically: angular
450: semimajor axis ($\alpha$); inclination ($i$); and, longitude of the
451: ascending node ($\Omega$). We also treat the $K'$-band magnitude
452: difference as a free parameter in order to test evolutionary models.
453:
454: For a circular orbit, the epoch of periastron passage ($T_{\rm 0}$) is
455: replaced by the epoch of ascending nodal passage ($T_{\rm node}$),
456: defined as the epoch of fastest secondary recession, in the visual
457: orbit equations \citep{Hei1978}. Accordingly, we translate the $T$
458: value listed in \S\,\ref{sec:historical} by one-half of the orbital
459: period to determine the epoch of the ascending nodal passage as $T_{\rm
460: node} = 2,\!450,\!127.04855 \pm 0.00020$ (HJD) for use in our visual
461: orbit solution. The 1-$\sigma$ errors of this and other adopted
462: parameters listed in Table~\ref{tab:VBele} have been propagated to our
463: error estimates for the derived parameters.
464:
465: The angular diameters of the components are too small to be resolved
466: by our $K'$-band observations. We therefore estimate these based on
467: the components' absolute magnitudes and temperatures as described
468: below. We first estimate the Johnson $V$-band magnitude of
469: $\sigma^2$~CrB using its Tycho-2 magnitudes of $B_{\rm T} = 6.262 \pm
470: 0.014$ and $V_{\rm T} = 5.620 \pm 0.009$ and the relation $V_{\rm J} =
471: V_{\rm T} - 0.090(B_{\rm T} - V_{\rm T})$ from the Guide to the
472: Tycho-2 Catalog. Then, using the $V$-band flux ratio from
473: \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy} and the \citet{Les1999} parallax, we obtain
474: absolute magnitudes of $M_{\rm V} = 4.35 \pm 0.02$ for the primary and
475: $M_{\rm V} = 4.74 \pm 0.02$ for the secondary. These magnitudes lead
476: to linear radius estimates of 1.2\rsun~for the primary and 1.1\rsun~
477: for the secondary using the tabulation of stellar physical parameters
478: in \citet{Pop1980} and \citet{And1991}. Finally, using the
479: \citet{Les1999} parallax, we adopt component angular diameters of
480: $\theta_{\rm p} = 0.50$ mas and $\theta_{\rm s} = 0.45$ mas,
481: propagating a 0.05 mas uncertainty in these values for deriving the
482: uncertainty of our orbital elements. Diameter estimates using the
483: temperatures of the components from \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy} are
484: consistent with these values.
485:
486: We conduct an exhaustive search of the parameter space for the unknown
487: parameters mentioned, namely, $\alpha$, $i$, $\Omega$, and $\Delta
488: K'$. The orbital inclination is constrained by the $a \sin i$ from
489: spectroscopy, the free-parameter $\alpha$, and the \citet{Les1999}
490: parallax. We impose this constraint during our exploration of the
491: parameter space along with its associated 1-$\sigma$ error. We
492: explore the unknown parameters over many iterations, by randomly
493: selecting them between broad limits and using equation (\ref{eq:Vbin})
494: to evaluate the predicted binary visibility for the baseline and
495: binary positions at each observational epoch. The orbital solution
496: presented here represents the parameter set with the minimum $\chi^2$
497: value when comparing the predicted and measured visibilities.
498:
499: Figure~\ref{fig:Vfit} shows the measured visibilities (plus signs)
500: with vertical error bars for each of the 26 observations, along with
501: the computed model visibilities (diamonds), and Table~\ref{tab:Visib}
502: lists the corresponding numerical values of the observed and model
503: visibilities along with the residuals of the fit.
504: Table~\ref{tab:VBele} summarizes the visual orbit parameters for
505: $\sigma^2$~CrB from our solution and Figure~\ref{fig:OrbPlot} plots
506: the visual orbit in the plane of the sky. As seen in
507: Figure~\ref{fig:OrbPlot}, we have a reasonably good phase coverage
508: from our observations.
509:
510: As mentioned in \S\,\ref{sec:SpecOrb}, star spots can create
511: systematic effects in the data obtained on this binary. These effects
512: are especially significant for data obtained over a short time
513: baseline, as seen for the SR03 spectroscopic solution. While our
514: interferometric data span 73 days, allowing for some averaging of
515: these effects, the bulk of the data used were obtained over 12 days,
516: justifying an exploration of this effect. Specifically, the
517: separation between the stars derived from our visibility data would
518: represent the separation of the centers of light rather than that of
519: mass. As discussed in \citet{Hum1994}, heavily-spotted stars will
520: incur a systematic shift in the center of light from rotational and
521: orbital motions, perhaps inducing an additional uncertainty in the
522: orbital elements derived. We assume a spot-induced change in the
523: angular semimajor axis of 2\% of the primary's diameter, or 0.01
524: mas. This is less that the uncertainty of our derived semimajor axis,
525: and at our baselines of 270--330 meters, translates to a 0.005--0.011
526: change in the visibility. While the uncertainties of our measured
527: visibilities are an order of magnitude larger than this, we ran a test
528: orbital fit by adding a 0.010 uncertainty to the visibility errors as
529: a root-sum-squared. While, as expected, the $\chi^2$ of the fit
530: improved, the values and uncertainties of the derived parameters
531: remained unchanged, leading us to conclude that this effect, while
532: real, is too small to affect our results.
533:
534: We determine the 1, 2, and 3-$\sigma$ uncertainties of each visual
535: orbit parameter using a Monte Carlo simulation approach. We compute
536: the orbital fit for $100,\!000$ iterations, where for each iteration, we
537: randomly select the adopted parameters within their respective
538: 1-$\sigma$ intervals and the model parameters around their
539: corresponding best-fit solution, generating a multi-dimensional
540: $\chi^2$ ``surface''. Then, we project this surface along each
541: parameter axis, resulting in the plots shown in Figures~\ref{fig:aerr}
542: to~\ref{fig:dkerr}. The figures show the $\chi^2$ distribution around
543: the best-fit orbit and enable estimation of 1, 2, and 3-$\sigma$
544: errors for each parameter based on a $\chi^2$ deviation of 1, 4, and 9
545: units, respectively, from its minimum value. The horizontal dashed
546: lines in the figures from bottom to top mark the minimum $\chi^2$
547: value and those corresponding to 1, 2, and 3-$\sigma$ errors, and
548: Table~\ref{tab:VBele} lists the corresponding numerical 1-$\sigma$
549: errors of the model parameters.
550:
551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
552: \section {Physical Parameters}
553: \label{sec:PhyPar}
554: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
555:
556: \subsection{Component Mass Estimates}
557: \label{sec:massest}
558:
559: Our angular semimajor axis obtained from interferometry translates
560: to 0.0279 $\pm$ 0.0003 AU or 5.99 $\pm$ 0.07 \rsun~using the
561: \citet{Les1999} parallax. Newton's generalization of Kepler's Third
562: Law then yields a mass-sum of 2.227 $\pm$ 0.073 \msun~for the pair,
563: and using the mass ratio from our spectroscopic solution of 0.9586
564: $\pm$ 0.0047, we get individual component masses of 1.137 $\pm$ 0.037
565: \msun~and 1.090 $\pm$ 0.036 \msun~for the primary and secondary,
566: respectively. As noted in \S\,\ref{sec:SpecOrb}, the SR03 velocities
567: yield a significantly different mass ratio of 0.9746 $\pm$ 0.0016, but
568: this 4-$\sigma$ difference is not enough to influence the mass
569: estimates significantly. The uncertainty in our masses is dominated
570: by the cubed semimajor axis factor in estimating the mass sum,
571: resulting in about a 3\% uncertainty in mass-sum corresponding to a
572: 1\% uncertainty in the semimajor axis. The high precision of the mass
573: ratio from the spectroscopic solution results in final masses of 3\%
574: uncertainty as well. Component mass estimates using the SR03
575: velocities are 1.128 $\pm$ 0.037 and 1.099 $\pm$ 0.036, in excellent
576: agreement with the masses using our velocities. These masses along
577: with other physical parameters derived are listed in
578: Table~\ref{tab:PhyPar}.
579:
580: \subsection{Radii of the Components}
581:
582: Assuming synchronous and co-aligned rotation of spherical components,
583: reasonable given the short orbital period and evidence from SR03 of
584: unevolved stars contained within their Roche limits, we can estimate
585: the component radii from the measured spectroscopic $v \sin i$. As
586: mentioned in \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}, our spectra yield $v \sin i =
587: 26 \pm 1$ \kms\ for both the primary and secondary. These values and
588: uncertainties are identical to those in SR03. Using the inclination
589: from our visual orbit, and adopting the orbital period from
590: spectroscopy as the rotational period, we get identical component
591: radii of 1.244 $\pm$ 0.050 \rsun~for the primary and secondary. This
592: translates to an angular diameter of 0.509 $\pm$ 0.020 mas for each
593: component using the \citet{Les1999} parallax, in excellent agreement
594: with our adopted diameter for the primary and a 1-$\sigma$ variance
595: for the secondary, given our associated 0.05-mas errors for these
596: values. These radii estimates, along with the effective temperatures
597: from \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy} and the relation $L~\propto\ R^2\
598: T_{\rm eff}^4$, lead to a luminosity ratio of 0.89 $\pm$ 0.16.
599: Alternatively, using bolometric corrections from \citet{Flo1996} of
600: $BC_{\rm p} = -0.038 \pm 0.017$ and $BC_{\rm s} = -0.064 \pm 0.020$
601: corresponding to the components' effective temperatures, the $V$-band
602: flux ratio of 0.70 $\pm$ 0.02 from spectroscopy translates to a total
603: luminosity ratio of 0.68 $\pm$ 0.20, a 1-$\sigma$ variance from the
604: estimate above. Conversely, our estimates of effective temperature
605: and luminosity ratio require a radius ratio of 0.88 $\pm$ 0.14, again
606: at a 1-$\sigma$ variance from the 1.00 $\pm$ 0.06 estimate from the
607: identical $v \sin i$ values of the components.
608:
609: \subsection{Absolute Magnitudes and Ages}
610:
611: We allowed the $K'$-band magnitude difference to be a free parameter
612: for our visual orbit fit, obtaining $\Delta K' = 0.19 \pm 0.19$,
613: consistent with the 0.18 estimate from the mass-luminosity relations
614: of \citet{Hen1993}\footnote{The relations from \citeauthor{Hen1993}
615: are for 0.5 \msun~$\le$ Mass $\le$ 1.0 ~\msun. We consider it safe to
616: extrapolate out to our estimated masses of slightly larger than 1.0
617: \msun.}. The uncertainty in $\Delta K'$ is large because visibility
618: measurements of nearly equal mass, and hence nearly equal brightness,
619: pairs are relatively insensitive to the magnitude difference of the
620: components \citep{Hum1998, Bod1999}. Using equation (\ref{eq:Vbin}),
621: we have verified that a 10\% change in $\Delta K'$ for $\sigma^2$~CrB
622: results in only 0.1\% change in visibility. This, along with the poor
623: quality $K$ magnitude listed in 2MASS (for $\sigma^2$~CrB, $K = 4.052
624: \pm 0.036$, but flagged as a very poor fit), thwart any attempts to
625: use these magnitudes for checking stellar evolution models. However,
626: we can revert to $V$-band photometry to explore this topic.
627:
628: In \S\,\ref{sec:visualorbit}, we derived the absolute $V$-band
629: magnitudes of the components of $\sigma^2$~CrB as $M_{\rm V} = 4.35
630: \pm 0.02$ for the primary and $M_{\rm V} = 4.74 \pm 0.02$ for the
631: secondary. For $\sigma^1$~CrB, we similarly use the Tycho-2
632: magnitudes and the \citet{Les1999} parallax to obtain $M_{\rm V} =
633: 4.64 \pm 0.01$. SR03 had a smaller magnitude difference for the
634: components of $\sigma^2$~CrB, and the corresponding results using
635: their spectroscopy are also included in Table~\ref{tab:PhyPar} along
636: with the values from their paper. Figure~\ref{fig:HRplot} plots these
637: three stars on an H-R diagram using our magnitude and temperature
638: estimates, along with isochrones for 0.5, 1.5, 3.0, and 5.0 Gyr ages
639: (left to right) from the Yonsei-Yale isochrones
640: \citep[dotted,][]{Yi2001} and the Victoria-Regina stellar evolution
641: models \citep[dashed,][]{Van2006} for solar metallicity (see
642: Footnote~\ref{foot:metal}).
643:
644: \citet{Wri2004} estimate an age of 1.8 Gyr for $\sigma^1$~CrB based on
645: chromospheric activity, and \citet{Val2005} estimate an age of 5.0 Gyr
646: from spectroscopy with limits of 2.9--7.8 Gyr based on 1-$\sigma$
647: changes to log$L$. SR03 identify a much lower age, of a few times
648: 10$^{\rm 7}$ years, by matching pre-main-sequence evolutionary tracks
649: and point to their higher Li abundance as supporting evidence. While
650: abundance determinations in double-lined spectroscopic binaries are
651: particularly difficult and more prone to errors, the high Li abundance
652: of 2.60 $\pm$ 0.03 (SR03) for the slow-rotating single-lined companion
653: $\sigma^1$~CrB does argue for a young system. Each point along the
654: isochrones plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:HRplot} corresponds to a
655: particular mass, allowing us to use our mass estimates for the
656: components of $\sigma^2$~CrB to further constrain the system's age.
657: Our mass, luminosity, and temperature estimates indicate an age for
658: this system of 0.5--1.5 Gyr, with a range of 0.1--3 Gyr permissible
659: within 1-$\sigma$ errors.
660:
661: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
662: \subsection {Mass Estimate of $\sigma^1$~CrB}
663: \label{sec:outerVB}
664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
665:
666: Our mass estimates for the components of $\sigma^2$~CrB allow us to
667: constrain the mass of the wider visual companion $\sigma^1$~CrB as
668: well. \citet{Sca1979} presented an improved visual orbit for the AB
669: pair based on 886 observations spanning almost 200 years of
670: observation, yielding $P = 889$ years, $a = 5\farcs9$, $i = 31\fdg8$,
671: $e =0.76$, and $\Omega = 16\fdg9$. However, he did not publish
672: uncertainties for these parameters, and given the long period, his
673: less than one-third phase coverage leads to only a preliminary orbital
674: solution, albeit one that convincingly shows orbital motion of the
675: pair. He further uses parallaxes available to him to derive a
676: mass-sum for the AB system of 3.2 \msun. We used all current WDS
677: observations, adding almost 200 observations since \citet{Sca1979}, to
678: update this orbit and obtain uncertainties for the parameters. Our
679: visual orbit is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:VBOab}, along with the
680: \citeauthor{Sca1979} orbit for comparison, and Table~\ref{tab:WideVis}
681: lists the derived orbital elements. Adopting the \citet{Les1999}
682: parallax of the A component, we estimate a mass-sum of 3.2 $\pm$ 0.9
683: \msun, resulting in a B-component mass estimate of 1.0 \msun,
684: consistent with its spectral type of G1 V \citep{Gra2003}.
685: \citet{Val2005} estimate a mass of 0.77 $\pm$ 0.21 \msun\ based on
686: high-resolution spectroscopy, but we believe that they systematically
687: underestimate their uncertainty by overlooking the $\log e$ factor in
688: converting from uncertainty in $\log L$ to uncertainty in $L$. Using
689: the $\log e$ factor, we followed their methods to obtain a mass
690: estimate of 0.77 $\pm$ 0.44 \msun. The mass-error is dominated by the
691: uncertainty of the \citet{Gli1991} parallax used by \citet{Val2005}.
692: Adopting the higher precision \citet{Les1999} parallax of the primary,
693: we follow their method, and using the $\log e$ factor, get a mass
694: estimate of 0.78 $\pm$ 0.11 \msun. This mass is too low for the
695: spectral type (as well as our own estimate of the effective
696: temperature; see \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}) and the expectation from
697: the visual orbit. A possible contamination of the secondary's
698: spectral type from the 7$\arcsec$ distant primary is unlikely, as
699: determined by Richard Gray at our request from new spectroscopic
700: observations (R.\ Gray 2008, private communication).
701:
702: The inclination and longitude of the ascending node for this visual
703: orbit are similar to those of the inner ($\sigma^2$~CrB) orbit,
704: suggesting coplanarity. For the outer visual orbit, we can use our
705: radial velocity estimate for $\sigma^1$~CrB, our derived systemic
706: velocity for $\sigma^2$~CrB, and the speckle observations to
707: unambiguously determine the longitude of the ascending node as $\Omega
708: = 28\fdg0 \pm 0\fdg5$. Using the equation for the relative
709: inclination of the two orbits ($\phi$) from \citet{Fek1981}, we get
710: $\phi = 4\fdg7$ or 60\fdg3, given the 180\sdeg~ambiguity in $\Omega$
711: for the inner orbit, confirming coplanarity as a possibility.
712:
713: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
714: \section {The Wide Components: Optical or Physical?}
715: \label{sec:Opt}
716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
717:
718: In addition to the three solar-type stars, the WDS lists three
719: additional components for $\sigma$~CrB. We present evidence to show
720: that WDS components C and D are optical alignments, while component E,
721: itself a binary, is a physical association. WDS component C (ADS
722: 9979C), measured 18$\arcsec$ away at 103\sdeg~in 1984 \citep{Pop1986}
723: has a proper motion of $\mu_\alpha = -0\farcs016$ yr$^{-1}$ and
724: $\mu_\delta = -0\farcs015$ yr$^{-1}$ \citep{Jef1963}, significantly
725: different from that of $\sigma^2$~CrB of $\mu_\alpha = -0\farcs26364
726: \pm 0\farcs00091$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\mu_\delta = -0\farcs09259 \pm
727: 0\farcs00129$ yr$^{-1}$ from \citet{van2007}. Similarly, component D,
728: measured 88$\arcsec$ away at 82\sdeg~in 1996 \citep{Cou1996} and
729: clearly seen by us as a field star by blinking the multi-epoch STScI
730: Digitized Sky Survey\footnote{\tt
731: http://stdatu.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss\_$\!$ form} (DSS) images, has a
732: proper motion of $\mu_\alpha = +0\farcs004$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\mu_\delta
733: = -0\farcs017$ yr$^{-1}$ \citep{Jef1963}, again significantly
734: different from that of $\sigma^2$~CrB. As a confirmation of the
735: optical alignment, we compare in Figures~\ref{fig:LinFitC}
736: and~\ref{fig:LinFitD} the observed separations of components C and D,
737: respectively, from the primary with the corresponding expected values
738: based on their proper motions. The solid line is a linear fit to the
739: published measurements from the WDS and the dashed line is the
740: expected separation based on differential proper motion. The
741: excellent agreement between the two lines for both components confirms
742: them as field stars.
743:
744: WDS component E ($\sigma$~CrB~C, HIP 79551) is widely separated from
745: the primary at 635$\arcsec$, translating to a minimum physical
746: separation of over $14,\!000$ AU using the \citet{Les1999} parallax.
747: Despite its wide separation, this component appears to be physically
748: associated with $\sigma$~CrB based on its matching parallax of $\pi =
749: 45.40 \pm 3.71$ mas and proper motion of $\mu_\alpha = -0\farcs26592
750: \pm 0\farcs00299$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\mu_\delta = -0\farcs08363 \pm
751: 0\farcs00368$ yr$^{-1}$ \citep{van2007}. While seemingly extreme for
752: gravitationally bound systems, physical association has been
753: demonstrated for pairs with separations out to $20,\!000$ AU
754: \citep[e.g.,][]{Lat1991, Pov1994}. $\sigma$~CrB~C has a spectral
755: classification of M2.5V \citep{Rei1995}, apparent magnitude of $V =
756: 12.24$ \citep{Bid1985}, and has itself been identified as a
757: photocentric-motion binary with an unseen companion of 0.1 \msun~in a
758: 52-year orbit \citep{Hei1990}. \citet{HIP1997} also identifies this
759: star as a binary of type `X' or stochastic solution, implying a
760: photocenter wobble for an unresolved star, but for which the
761: \textit{Hipparcos} data are not sufficient to derive an orbit.
762:
763: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
764: \section {Conclusion}
765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
766:
767: Augmenting our radial velocity measurements with published values, we
768: obtain a coverage of nearly 86 years or $27,\!500$ orbital cycles,
769: resulting in a very precise ephemeris of $P = 1.139791423 \pm
770: 0.000000080$ days and $T = 2,\!450,\!127.61845 \pm 0.00020$ (HJD) and
771: a robust spectroscopic orbit for $\sigma^2$~CrB. Using the CHARA
772: Array, we have resolved this 1.14-day spectroscopic binary, the
773: shortest period system yet resolved, and derived its visual orbit.
774: The resulting component masses are 1.137 $\pm$ 0.037 \msun~and 1.090
775: $\pm$ 0.036 \msun~for the primary and secondary, respectively. Our
776: spectroscopy supports prior efforts in estimating the same $v \sin i$
777: values for both components, which assuming a synchronized, co-aligned
778: rotation, results in equal radii of 1.244 $\pm$ 0.050 \rsun~for both
779: components. The corresponding radius ratio is consistent within
780: 1-$\sigma$ with its estimate using the components' temperatures and
781: flux ratio from spectroscopy. We have also shown that this binary
782: resides in a hierarchical quintuple system, composed of three close
783: Sun-like stars and a wide M-dwarf binary. The wider visual orbit
784: companion, $\sigma^1$~CrB, is about 7$\arcsec$ away in a 726-year
785: visual orbit with $i = 32\fdg3$, which appears to be coplanar with the
786: inner orbit. A comparison of the mass and absolute magnitude
787: estimates of $\sigma^1$~CrB and $\sigma^2$~CrB with current stellar
788: evolution models indicates a young age for the system of 1--3 Gyr,
789: consistent with the relatively high Li abundance previously measured.
790: Finally, the widest member of this system is an M-dwarf binary,
791: $\sigma$~CrB~C, at a minimum separation of $14,\!000$ AU.
792: Figure~\ref{fig:MobDia} depicts the system's hierarchy in a pictorial
793: form.
794:
795: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
796: \acknowledgments
797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
798:
799: We thank Andy Boden and Doug Gies for their many useful suggestions
800: that improved the quality of this work, and Richard Gray for making
801: new observations at our request to confirm the spectral typing of the
802: components. The CfA spectroscopic observations of $\sigma^1$~CrB and
803: $\sigma^2$~CrB used in this paper were obtained with the help of J.\
804: Caruso, R.\ P.\ Stefanik, and J.\ Zajac. We also thank the CHARA
805: Array operator P. J. Goldfinger for obtaining some of the data used
806: here and for her able assistance of remote operations of the Array
807: from AROC. Research at the CHARA Array is supported by the College of
808: Arts and Sciences at Georgia State University and by the National
809: Science Foundation through NSF grant AST-0606958. GT acknowledges
810: partial support for this work from NSF grant AST-0708229 and NASA's
811: MASSIF SIM Key Project (BLF57-04). This research has made use of the
812: SIMBAD literature database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and
813: of NASA's Astrophysics Data System. This effort used multi-epoch
814: images from the Digitized Sky Survey, which was produced at the Space
815: Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166.
816: This publication also made use of data products from the Two Micron
817: All Sky Survey (2MASS), which is a joint project of the University of
818: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis
819: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
820: Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
821: Foundation.
822:
823: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
824:
825: \begin{thebibliography}{}
826:
827: \bibitem[Andersen(1991)]{And1991} Andersen, J.\ 1991, \aapr, 3, 91
828:
829: \bibitem[Baines et al.(2007)]{Bai2007} Baines, E.~K., van Belle,
830: G.~T., ten Brummelaar, T.~A., McAlister, H.~A., Swain, M., Turner,
831: N.~H., Sturmann, L., \& Sturmann, J.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L195
832:
833: \bibitem[Bakos(1984)]{Bak1984} Bakos, G.~A.\ 1984, \aj, 89, 1740
834:
835: \bibitem[Bidelman(1985)]{Bid1985} Bidelman, W.~P.\ 1985, \apjs,
836: 59, 197
837:
838: \bibitem[Boden et al.(1999)]{Bod1999} Boden, A.~F., et al.\ 1999,
839: \apj, 527, 360
840:
841: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2003)]{Coh2003} Cohen, M., Wheaton,
842: W.~A., \& Megeath, S.~T.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 1090
843:
844: \bibitem[Colina et al.(1996)]{Col1996} Colina, L., Bohlin,
845: R.~C., \& Castelli, F.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 307
846:
847: \bibitem[Courtot(1996)]{Cou1996} Courtot, J.-F.\ 1996, Observations et
848: Travaux, 47, 47
849:
850: \bibitem[Duquennoy \& Mayor(1991)]{Duq1991} Duquennoy, A., \& Mayor,
851: M.\ 1991, \aap, 248, 485
852:
853: \bibitem[Fallon et al.(2003)]{Fal2003} Fallon, T., McAlister,
854: H.~A., \& ten Brummelaar, T.~A.\ 2003, \procspie, 4838, 1193
855:
856: \bibitem[Fekel(1981)]{Fek1981} Fekel, F.~C., Jr.\ 1981, \apj,
857: 246, 879
858:
859: \bibitem[Flower(1996)]{Flo1996} Flower, P.~J.\ 1996, \apj, 469,
860: 355
861:
862: \bibitem[Fuhrmann(2004)]{Fuh2004} Fuhrmann, K. 2004, AN, 325, 3
863:
864: \bibitem[Gliese \& Jahrei{\ss}(1991)]{Gli1991} Gliese, W., \&
865: Jahrei{\ss}, H.\ 1991, On: The Astronomical Data Center CD-ROM:
866: Selected Astronomical Catalogs, Vol.~I; L.E.~Brotzmann, S.E.~Gesser
867: (eds.), NASA/Astronomical Data Center, Goddard Space Flight Center,
868: Greenbelt, MD
869:
870: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2003)]{Gra2003} Gray, R.~O., Corbally, C.~J.,
871: Garrison, R.~F., McFadden, M.~T., \& Robinson, P.~E.\ 2003, \aj, 126,
872: 2048
873:
874: \bibitem[Grenier et al.(1985)]{Gre1985} Grenier, S., Gomez,
875: A.~E., Jaschek, C., Jaschek, M., \& Heck, A.\ 1985, \aap, 145, 331
876:
877: \bibitem[Harper(1925)]{Har1925} Harper, W.~E.\ 1925, Publications of
878: the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria, 3, 225
879:
880: \bibitem[Heintz(1978)]{Hei1978} Heintz, W.~D. \ 1978, Double Stars
881: (Reidel: Dordrecht), p.32
882:
883: \bibitem[Heintz(1990)]{Hei1990} Heintz, W.~D.\ 1990, \aj, 99, 420
884:
885: \bibitem[Henry \& McCarthy(1993)]{Hen1993} Henry, T.~J., \&
886: McCarthy, D.~W., Jr.\ 1993, \aj, 106, 773
887:
888: \bibitem[Hummel et al.(1993)]{Hum1993} Hummel, C.~A., Armstrong,
889: J.~T., Quirrenbach, A., Buscher, D.~F., Mozurkewich, D., Simon, R.~S.,
890: \& Johnston, K.~J.\ 1993, \aj, 106, 2486
891:
892: \bibitem[Hummel et al.(1994)]{Hum1994} Hummel, C.~A., Armstrong,
893: J.~T., Quirrenbach, A., Buscher, D.~F., Mozurkewich, D., Elias, N.~M.,
894: II, \& Wilson, R.~E.\ 1994, \aj, 107, 1859
895:
896: \bibitem[Hummel et al.(1998)]{Hum1998} Hummel, C.~A.,
897: Mozurkewich, D., Armstrong, J.~T., Hajian, A.~R., Elias, N.~M., II,
898: \& Hutter, D.~J.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 2536
899:
900: \bibitem[Jeffers et al.(1963)]{Jef1963} Jeffers, H.~M., van
901: den Bos, W.~H., \& Greeby, F.~M.\ 1963, Publications of the Lick
902: Observatory, Mount Hamilton: University of California, Lick
903: Observatory
904:
905: \bibitem[Latham et al.(1991)]{Lat1991} Latham, D.~W., Davis, R.~J.,
906: Stefanik, R.~P., Mazeh, T., \& Abt, H.~A.\ 1991, \aj, 101, 625
907:
908: \bibitem[Latham(1992)]{Lat1992} Latham, D.\ W. 1992, in IAU Coll.\
909: 135, Complementary Approaches to Double and Multiple Star Research,
910: ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 32, eds.\ H.\ A.\ McAlister \& W.\ I.\ Hartkopf (San
911: Francisco: ASP), 110
912:
913: \bibitem[Latham et al.(1996)]{Lat1996} Latham, D.\ W., Nordstr\"om,
914: B., Andersen, J., Torres, G., Stefanik, R.\ P., Thaller, M., \&
915: Bester, M. 1996, \aap, 314, 864
916:
917: \bibitem[Latham et al.(2002)]{Lat2002} Latham, D.\ W., Stefanik, R.\
918: P., Torres, G., Davis, R.\ J., Mazeh, T., Carney, B.\ W., Laird, J.\
919: B., \& Morse, J.\ A. 2002, \aj, 124, 1144
920:
921: \bibitem[Lestrade et al.(1999)]{Les1999} Lestrade, J.-F., Preston,
922: R.~A., Jones, D.~L., Phillips, R.~B., Rogers, A.~E.~E., Titus, M.~A.,
923: Rioja, M.~J., \& Gabuzda, D.~C.\ 1999, \aap, 344, 1014
924:
925: \bibitem[McAlister et al.(2005)]{McA2005} McAlister, H.~A., et al.\
926: 2005, \apj, 628, 439
927:
928: \bibitem[Monnier et al.(2007)]{Mon2007} Monnier, J.~D., et al.\ 2007,
929: Science, 317, 342
930:
931: \bibitem[Nordstr\"om et al.(1994)]{Nor1994} Nordstr\"om, B.,
932: Latham, D.\ W., Morse, J.\ A., Milone, A.\ A.\ E., Kurucz, R.\ L.,
933: Andersen, J., \& Stefanik, R.\ P. 1994, \aap, 287, 338
934:
935: \bibitem[Nordstr\"om et al.(2004)]{Nor2004} Nordstr\"om, B.,
936: Mayor, M., Andersen, J., Holmberg, J., Pont, F., J{\o}rgensen, B.\ R.,
937: Olsen, E.\ H., Udry, S., \& Mowlavi, N. 2004, \aap, 418, 989
938:
939: \bibitem[Perryman \& ESA(1997)]{HIP1997} Perryman, M.~A.~C., \& ESA
940: 1997, ESA Special Publication, 1200 (Noordwijk: ESA)
941:
942: \bibitem[Popovi{\'c}(1986)]{Pop1986} Popovi{\'c}, G.~M.\ 1986,
943: Bulletin de l'Observatoire Astronomique de Belgrade, 136, 84
944:
945: \bibitem[Popper(1980)]{Pop1980} Popper, D.~M.\ 1980, \araa, 18, 115
946:
947: \bibitem[Poveda et al.(1994)]{Pov1994} Poveda, A., Herrera, M.~A.,
948: Allen, C., Cordero, G., \& Lavalley, C.\ 1994, Revista Mexicana de
949: Astronomia y Astrofisica, 28, 43
950:
951: \bibitem[Reid et al.(1995)]{Rei1995} Reid, I.~N., Hawley,
952: S.~L., \& Gizis, J.~E.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 1838
953:
954: \bibitem[Scardia(1979)]{Sca1979} Scardia, M.\ 1979, Astronomische
955: Nachrichten, 300, 307
956:
957: \bibitem[Strassmeier \& Rice(2003)]{Str2003} Strassmeier, K.~G., \&
958: Rice, J.~B.\ 2003, \aap, 399, 315, (SR03)
959:
960: \bibitem[ten Brummelaar et al.(2005)]{ten2005} ten Brummelaar, T.~A.,
961: et al.\ 2005, \apj, 628, 453
962:
963: \bibitem[Torres et al.(1997)]{Tor1997} Torres, G., Stefanik, R.\ P.,
964: Andersen, J., Nordstr\"om, B., Latham, D.\ W., \& Clausen, J.\
965: V. 1997, \aj, 114, 2764
966:
967: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{Val2005} Valenti, J.~A., \&
968: Fischer, D.~A.\ 2005, \apjs, 159, 141
969:
970: \bibitem[VandenBerg et al.(2006)]{Van2006} VandenBerg, D.~A.,
971: Bergbusch, P.~A., \& Dowler, P.~D.\ 2006, \apjs, 162, 375
972:
973: \bibitem[van Leeuwen(2007)]{van2007} van Leeuwen, F. \ 2007,
974: Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data (Springer Dordrecht)
975:
976: \bibitem[Wright et al.(2004)]{Wri2004} Wright, J.~T., Marcy,
977: G.~W., Butler, R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2004, \apjs, 152, 261
978:
979: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{Yi2001} Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C.,
980: Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.~H., Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S.\ 2001, \apjs, 136,
981: 417
982:
983: \bibitem[Zucker \& Mazeh(1994)]{Zuc1994} Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.
984: 1994, \apj, 420, 806
985:
986: \end{thebibliography}
987: \clearpage
988:
989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE: CfA Radial Velocities%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
990:
991: %\voffset30pt{}
992: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
993: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
994: \tablecaption{Radial Velocities of $\sigma^2$~CrB
995: \label{tab:cfaRVs}}
996: \tablewidth{0pt}
997:
998: \tablehead{%\vspace{-25pt} \\
999: \colhead{HJD}&
1000: \colhead{$RV_{\rm p}$}&
1001: \colhead{$RV_{\rm s}$}&
1002: \colhead{$\sigma_{RV_{\rm p}}$}&
1003: \colhead{$\sigma_{RV_{\rm s}}$}&
1004: \colhead{$(O-C)_{\rm p}$}&
1005: \colhead{$(O-C)_{\rm s}$}&
1006: \colhead{Orbital} \\
1007:
1008: \colhead{($2,\!400,\!000$+)}&
1009: \colhead{(\kms)}&
1010: \colhead{(\kms)}&
1011: \colhead{(\kms)}&
1012: \colhead{(\kms)}&
1013: \colhead{(\kms)}&
1014: \colhead{(\kms)}&
1015: \colhead{Phase}}
1016:
1017: \startdata
1018:
1019: 48764.6474 & \phs\phn6.88 & $-$36.45 & 2.68 & 2.84 & $-$1.72 & $-$0.87 & 0.193 \\
1020: 48781.6495 & \phs35.46 & $-$64.08 & 2.99 & 3.16 & \phs1.15 & $-$1.68 & 0.109 \\
1021: 48810.6618 & $-$69.00 & \phs46.22 & 1.16 & 1.23 & \phs0.47 & \phs0.37 & 0.564 \\
1022: 48813.6236 & \phs18.25 & $-$46.52 & 1.19 & 1.26 & $-$0.89 & \phs0.06 & 0.162 \\
1023: 48820.6185 & $-$31.35 & \phs\phn5.07 & 1.61 & 1.71 & \phs0.24 & $-$1.27 & 0.299 \\
1024: 48822.6494 & \phs41.46 & $-$69.41 & 1.32 & 1.40 & \phs0.97 & $-$0.55 & 0.081 \\
1025: 48826.5581 & $-$74.53 & \phs52.87 & 1.19 & 1.26 & $-$0.38 & \phs2.13 & 0.510 \\
1026: 48828.6849 & $-$56.96 & \phs31.25 & 1.37 & 1.45 & $-$0.33 & $-$1.21 & 0.376 \\
1027: 48838.5942 & \phs43.01 & $-$71.62 & 1.15 & 1.22 & \phs0.62 & $-$0.79 & 0.070 \\
1028: 50258.6759 & \phs48.63 & $-$75.42 & 1.43 & 1.51 & \phs0.73 & \phs1.17 & 0.984 \\
1029: 50260.6371 & $-$31.00 & \phs\phn4.33 & 0.85 & 0.90 & $-$0.66 & $-$0.71 & 0.704 \\
1030: 50263.6316 & $-$42.68 & \phs17.76 & 0.83 & 0.88 & \phs0.40 & $-$0.56 & 0.332 \\
1031: 50266.6225 & \phs46.61 & $-$73.03 & 0.99 & 1.04 & \phs0.74 & \phs1.43 & 0.956 \\
1032: 50269.7633 & $-$27.25 & \phs\phn2.84 & 0.99 & 1.05 & \phs0.53 & \phs0.47 & 0.711 \\
1033: 50271.6269 & $-$46.41 & \phs23.01 & 0.95 & 1.01 & \phs1.46 & $-$0.31 & 0.346 \\
1034: 50275.6464 & \phs29.47 & $-$57.26 & 0.97 & 1.03 & $-$0.22 & \phs0.33 & 0.873 \\
1035: 50285.6440 & $-$49.95 & \phs26.91 & 0.90 & 0.95 & \phs0.84 & \phs0.54 & 0.644 \\
1036: 50287.6352 & $-$60.98 & \phs37.03 & 0.89 & 0.94 & $-$0.45 & \phs0.51 & 0.391 \\
1037: 50292.5697 & $-$23.39 & \phn$-$1.49 & 1.02 & 1.08 & \phs0.90 & $-$0.22 & 0.721 \\
1038: 50295.6335 & $-$65.17 & \phs39.49 & 0.79 & 0.83 & $-$0.72 & $-$1.13 & 0.409 \\
1039: 50298.5502 & \phs46.99 & $-$75.36 & 0.71 & 0.75 & \phs0.03 & \phs0.24 & 0.968 \\
1040: 50300.5553 & $-$22.15 & \phn$-$4.43 & 0.80 & 0.85 & $-$0.21 & $-$0.70 & 0.727 \\
1041: 50302.6499 & $-$69.55 & \phs44.72 & 0.84 & 0.89 & $-$0.23 & $-$0.98 & 0.565 \\
1042: 50346.5051 & \phs46.86 & $-$76.63 & 0.92 & 0.97 & \phs0.65 & $-$1.81 & 0.041 \\
1043: 50348.5107 & \phs\phn4.35 & $-$29.89 & 0.99 & 1.04 & $-$1.77 & \phs3.10 & 0.801 \\
1044: 50350.5649 & $-$63.76 & \phs38.37 & 0.81 & 0.86 & $-$1.83 & \phs0.39 & 0.603 \\
1045: 50352.4779 & $-$24.23 & \phn $-$1.41 & 0.79 & 0.84 & \phs0.74 & $-$0.84 & 0.281 \\
1046: 50356.4742 & \phn$-$0.04 & $-$26.85 & 0.79 & 0.84 & $-$1.27 & \phs1.05 & 0.787 \\
1047: 50358.4740 & $-$72.84 & \phs50.15 & 0.77 & 0.81 & $-$0.68 & \phs1.49 & 0.542 \\
1048: 50361.4826 & \phs13.31 & $-$40.12 & 0.80 & 0.85 & \phs0.79 & $-$0.45 & 0.182 \\
1049: 50364.4624 & \phs\phn1.84 & $-$29.15 & 0.86 & 0.91 & $-$2.54 & \phs2.04 & 0.796 \\
1050: 50374.4574 & $-$70.50 & \phs44.94 & 0.85 & 0.90 & $-$1.26 & $-$0.67 & 0.565 \\
1051: 50379.4665 & \phs45.29 & $-$73.75 & 0.82 & 0.87 & $-$0.99 & \phs1.14 & 0.960 \\
1052: 50383.4500 & $-$70.47 & \phs48.43 & 0.84 & 0.89 & \phs1.34 & \phs0.13 & 0.455 \\
1053: 50385.4760 & \phn$-$6.74 & $-$19.80 & 0.81 & 0.86 & $-$0.54 & \phs0.35 & 0.232 \\
1054: 50388.4407 & \phs15.96 & $-$44.52 & 0.92 & 0.97 & $-$1.63 & \phs0.45 & 0.833 \\
1055: 50391.4280 & $-$71.44 & \phs49.52 & 0.81 & 0.86 & \phs0.32 & \phs1.28 & 0.454 \\
1056: 50590.7488 & $-$41.53 & \phs17.65 & 0.98 & 1.04 & \phs0.68 & \phs0.24 & 0.329 \\
1057: 50619.6791 & $-$26.78 & \phs\phn3.14 & 1.05 & 1.11 & \phs1.06 & \phs0.72 & 0.711 \\
1058: 50846.9255 & \phs39.45 & $-$68.48 & 0.90 & 0.95 & \phs0.06 & $-$0.78 & 0.087 \\
1059: 51216.9001 & $-$35.81 & \phs12.55 & 1.98 & 2.09 & \phs1.52 & \phs0.23 & 0.685 \\
1060: 51246.7808 & \phs36.69 & $-$66.52 & 2.01 & 2.13 & $-$0.06 & $-$1.57 & 0.901 \\
1061: 51279.6859 & \phn$-$5.90 & $-$19.52 & 2.51 & 2.65 & $-$0.71 & \phs1.68 & 0.770 \\
1062: 51341.7199 & \phs\phn6.97 & $-$33.48 & 1.77 & 1.87 & $-$0.33 & \phs0.75 & 0.196 \\
1063: 51374.6086 & \phs44.93 & $-$73.34 & 2.01 & 2.12 & $-$0.16 & \phs0.31 & 0.051 \\
1064: 51374.6112 & \phs45.14 & $-$74.26 & 3.08 & 3.26 & \phs0.34 & $-$0.91 & 0.054 \\
1065:
1066: \enddata
1067:
1068: \end{deluxetable}
1069:
1070: \clearpage
1071:
1072:
1073: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE: Observed & Model Visib %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1074:
1075: %\voffset30pt{}
1076: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
1077: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1078: \tablecaption{Interferometric Visibilities for $\sigma^2$~CrB
1079: \label{tab:Visib}}
1080: \tablewidth{0pt}
1081:
1082: \tablehead{%\vspace{-25pt} \\
1083: \colhead{HJD}&
1084: \colhead{}&
1085: \colhead{}&
1086: \colhead{}&
1087: \colhead{}&
1088: \colhead{$u$}&
1089: \colhead{$v$}&
1090: \colhead{Hour Angle} \\
1091:
1092: \colhead{($2,\!400,\!000$+)}&
1093: \colhead{Measured $V$}&
1094: \colhead{$\sigma_{V}$}&
1095: \colhead{Model $V$}&
1096: \colhead{$(O\!-\!C)_{V}$}&
1097: \colhead{(m)}&
1098: \colhead{(m)}&
1099: \colhead{(h)}}
1100:
1101: \startdata
1102:
1103: 54237.763 & 0.864 & 0.086 & 0.783 & \phs0.081 & \phs202.4 & 250.7& $-$2.24 \\
1104: 54237.774 & 0.909 & 0.107 & 0.775 & \phs0.134 & \phs196.7 & 258.2 & $-$1.99 \\
1105: 54237.784 & 0.736 & 0.062 & 0.759 & $-$0.022 & \phs190.3 & 265.2 & $-$1.74 \\
1106: 54237.796 & 0.702 & 0.063 & 0.729 & $-$0.027 & \phs182.4 & 272.6 & $-$1.46 \\
1107: 54237.806 & 0.585 & 0.058 & 0.688 & $-$0.103 & \phs174.6 & 278.9 & $-$1.22 \\
1108: 54237.816 & 0.652 & 0.076 & 0.625 & \phs0.027 & \phs165.6 & 285.3 & $-$0.97 \\
1109: 54237.833 & 0.468 & 0.053 & 0.474 & $-$0.006 & \phs149.7 & 294.7 & $-$0.56 \\
1110: 54237.932 & 0.833 & 0.049 & 0.833 & \phs0.001 & \phs\phn30.4 & 326.9 & \phs1.82 \\
1111: 54237.942 & 0.775 & 0.059 & 0.791 & $-$0.017 & \phs\phn17.1 & 327.7 & \phs2.05 \\
1112: 54237.954 & 0.672 & 0.038 & 0.672 & \phs0.001 & \phs\phn\phn0.5 & 328.1 & \phs2.34 \\
1113: 54237.980 & 0.244 & 0.015 & 0.247 & $-$0.004 & \phn$-$35.3 & 326.5 & \phs2.98 \\
1114: 54247.701 & 0.858 & 0.113 & 0.887 & $-$0.029 & \phs159.9 & 214.9 & $-$3.08 \\
1115: 54247.716 & 0.888 & 0.080 & 0.863 & \phs0.025 & \phs154.1 & 223.0 & $-$2.73 \\
1116: 54247.729 & 0.824 & 0.083 & 0.785 & \phs0.040 & \phs147.5 & 230.2 & $-$2.40 \\
1117: 54247.744 & 0.669 & 0.093 & 0.644 & \phs0.025 & \phs139.1 & 237.6 & $-$2.05 \\
1118: 54247.761 & 0.435 & 0.058 & 0.430 & \phs0.005 & \phs128.1 & 245.6 & $-$1.64 \\
1119: 54249.714 & 0.589 & 0.053 & 0.621 & $-$0.032 & \phs152.1 & 225.3 & $-$2.63 \\
1120: 54249.726 & 0.570 & 0.054 & 0.609 & $-$0.039 & \phs146.6 & 231.1 & $-$2.36 \\
1121: 54249.739 & 0.575 & 0.064 & 0.573 & \phs0.002 & \phs138.6 & 238.1 & $-$2.03 \\
1122: 54249.751 & 0.594 & 0.063 & 0.524 & \phs0.070 & \phs131.3 & 243.5 & $-$1.75 \\
1123: 54249.772 & 0.391 & 0.059 & 0.376 & \phs0.015 & \phs115.7 & 252.8 & $-$1.24 \\
1124: 54310.716 & 0.616 & 0.062 & 0.526 & \phs0.090 & \phs\phn48.7 & 325.0 & \phs1.49 \\
1125: 54310.726 & 0.405 & 0.050 & 0.410 & $-$0.005 & \phs\phn35.8 & 326.4 & \phs1.72 \\
1126: 54310.776 & 0.477 & 0.050 & 0.454 & \phs0.023 & \phn$-$31.5 & 326.8 & \phs2.91 \\
1127: 54310.786 & 0.558 & 0.054 & 0.619 & $-$0.061 & \phn$-$45.5 & 325.4 & \phs3.16 \\
1128: 54310.797 & 0.870 & 0.100 & 0.745 & \phs0.125 & \phn$-$59.5 & 323.5 & \phs3.42 \\
1129:
1130: \enddata
1131:
1132: \end{deluxetable}
1133:
1134: \clearpage
1135:
1136: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE: SB Orbital Elements %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1137:
1138: %\voffset30pt{}
1139: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1140: \rotate
1141: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1142: \tablecaption{Spectroscopic Orbital Solutions for $\sigma^2$~CrB
1143: \label{tab:SBele}}
1144: \tablewidth{0pt}
1145:
1146: \tablehead{%\vspace{-25pt} \\
1147: \colhead{Element}&
1148: \colhead{This Work}&
1149: \colhead{SR03 Velocities\tablenotemark{a}}&
1150: \colhead{SR03 Results}}
1151:
1152: \startdata
1153:
1154: \multicolumn{4}{l}{Orbital Elements:} \\
1155: \phn\phn $P$ (days) & 1.139791423 $\pm$ 0.000000080\tablenotemark{b} & 1.139791423 $\pm$ 0.000000080\tablenotemark{b} & 1.1397912 (adopted) \\
1156: \phn\phn $T$ (HJD-$2,\!400,\!000$)\tablenotemark{c} & $50,\!127.61845 \pm 0.00020$\tablenotemark{b}\phs\phs & $50,\!127.61845 \pm 0.00020$\tablenotemark{b}\phs\phs & $50,\!127.6248$\tablenotemark{d}\phn \\
1157: \phn\phn $e$ & 0.0\tablenotemark{e} & 0.0\tablenotemark{e} & 0.0\tablenotemark{e} \\
1158: \phn\phn $\omega$ (deg) & 0.0\tablenotemark{e} & 0.0\tablenotemark{e} & 0.0\tablenotemark{e} \\
1159: \phn\phn $\gamma$ (\kms) & $-$13.03 $\pm$ 0.11\phn\phs & $-$12.58 $\pm$ 0.05\phn\phs & $-$12.3 $\pm$ 0.06\phs \\
1160: \phn\phn $K_{\rm p}$ (\kms) & 61.25 $\pm$ 0.21\phn & 61.31 $\pm$ 0.06\phn & 61.34 $\pm$ 0.06\phn \\
1161: \phn\phn $K_{\rm s}$ (\kms) & 63.89 $\pm$ 0.22\phn & 62.90 $\pm$ 0.08\phn & 62.91 $\pm$ 0.08\phn \\
1162: \multicolumn{4}{l}{Derived quantities:} \\
1163: \phn\phn $M_{\rm p}\sin^3 i$ (\msun) & 0.11818 $\pm$ 0.00092 & 0.11461 $\pm$ 0.00032 & \phn\phn\phn0.1147 \\
1164: \phn\phn $M_{\rm s}\sin^3 i$ (\msun) & 0.11329 $\pm$ 0.00086 & 0.11170 $\pm$ 0.00027 & \phn\phn\phn0.1118 \\
1165: \phn\phn $q \equiv M_{\rm s}/M_{\rm p}$ & 0.9586 $\pm$ 0.0047 & 0.9746 $\pm$ 0.0016 & 0.975 $\pm$ 0.002 \\
1166: \phn\phn $a_{\rm p}\sin i$ (10$^6$ km) & 0.9600 $\pm$ 0.0033 & 0.96085 $\pm$ 0.00097 & 0.96138 $\pm$ 0.00093 \\
1167: \phn\phn $a_{\rm s}\sin i$ (10$^6$ km) & 1.0014 $\pm$ 0.0035 & 0.98592 $\pm$ 0.00126 & 0.9861 $\pm$ 0.0012 \\
1168: \phn\phn $a\sin i$ (\rsun) & 2.8181 $\pm$ 0.0068 & 2.7971 $\pm$ 0.0023 & 2.798 $\pm$ 0.002 \\
1169: \multicolumn{4}{l}{Other quantities pertaining to the fit:} \\
1170: \phn\phn $N_{\rm obs}$ & 46 & 217 & 217 \\
1171: \phn\phn Time span (days) & 2610 & 5.4 & 5.4 \\
1172: \phn\phn $\sigma_{\rm p}$ (\kms)\tablenotemark{f} & 1.04 & \phn0.74 & \phn0.71 \\
1173: \phn\phn $\sigma_{\rm s}$ (\kms)\tablenotemark{f} & 1.10 & \phn0.97 & \ldots \\
1174:
1175: \enddata
1176:
1177: \tablenotetext{a}{Our orbital solution using SR03 velocities.}
1178: \tablenotetext{b}{Determined using all published velocities (see \S\,\ref{sec:historical})}
1179: \tablenotetext{c}{$T$ is the epoch of maximum primary velocity.}
1180: \tablenotetext{d}{The value from SR03 has been shifted by an integer
1181: number of cycles to the epoch derived in this work, for comparison
1182: purposes.}
1183: \tablenotetext{e}{Circular orbit adopted.}
1184: \tablenotetext{f}{RMS residual from the fit.}
1185:
1186: \end{deluxetable}
1187:
1188: \clearpage
1189:
1190:
1191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE: Visual Orbit Elements %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1192:
1193: %\voffset30pt{}
1194: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}
1195: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1196: \tablecaption{Visual Orbit Solution for $\sigma^2$~CrB
1197: \label{tab:VBele}}
1198: \tablewidth{0pt}
1199:
1200: \tablehead{%\vspace{-25pt} \\
1201: \colhead{Orbital Parameter\phn\phn\phn\phn\phn}&
1202: \colhead{Value}}
1203:
1204: \startdata
1205:
1206: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Adopted values:} \\
1207: \phn\phn Period (days) & 1.139791423 $\pm$ 0.000000080\tablenotemark{a} \\
1208: \phn\phn $T_{\rm node}$ (HJD-$2,\!400,\!000$)\tablenotemark{b} & $50,\!127.04855 \pm 0.00020$\phs\phs\phs \\
1209: \phn\phn $e$ & 0.0\tablenotemark{c} \\
1210: \phn\phn $\omega$ (deg) & 0.0\tablenotemark{c} \\
1211: \phn\phn $\theta_{\rm p}$ (mas) & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.05\tablenotemark{d} \\
1212: \phn\phn $\theta_{\rm s}$ (mas) & 0.45 $\pm$ 0.05\tablenotemark{d} \\
1213: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Visual orbit parameters:} \\
1214: \phn\phn $\alpha$ (mas) & 1.225 $\pm$ 0.013 \\
1215: \phn\phn $i$ (deg) & 28.08 $\pm$ 0.34\phn \\
1216: \phn\phn $\Omega$ (deg) & 207.93 $\pm$ 0.67\tablenotemark{e}\phn \\
1217: \phn\phn $\Delta K'$ & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.19 \\
1218: \phn\phn Reduced $\chi^2$ & \phn0.61\tablenotemark{f} \\
1219: \enddata
1220:
1221: \tablenotetext{a}{See \S\,\ref{sec:historical}.}
1222: \tablenotetext{b}{This is the epoch of the ascending node, defined as
1223: the epoch of maximum secondary velocity, and accordingly is one-half
1224: period less than the value in Table~\ref{tab:SBele} (see
1225: \S\,\ref{sec:visualorbit}).}
1226: \tablenotetext{c}{Circular orbit adopted.}
1227: \tablenotetext{d}{See \S\,\ref{sec:visualorbit}.}
1228: \tablenotetext{e}{This value suffers from a 180\sdeg~ambiguity due to
1229: the cosine term in Equation (\ref{eq:Vbin}).}
1230: \tablenotetext{f}{The low $\chi^2$ indicates that our error estimates
1231: for visibility are conservative.}
1232: \end{deluxetable}
1233:
1234: \clearpage
1235:
1236:
1237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE: Physical Parameters %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1238:
1239: %\voffset30pt{}
1240: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
1241: \rotate
1242: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1243: \tablecaption{Physical parameters for $\sigma^2$~CrB
1244: \label{tab:PhyPar}}
1245: \tablewidth{0pt}
1246:
1247: \tablehead{%\vspace{-25pt} \\
1248: \colhead{}&
1249: \multicolumn{2}{c}{This Work}&
1250: \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR03 Spectroscopy\tablenotemark{a}}&
1251: \multicolumn{2}{c}{SR03 Results} \\
1252:
1253: \colhead{Physical Parameter}&
1254: \colhead{Primary}&
1255: \colhead{Secondary}&
1256: \colhead{Primary}&
1257: \colhead{Secondary}&
1258: \colhead{Primary}&
1259: \colhead{Secondary}}
1260:
1261: \startdata
1262:
1263: $a$ (\rsun) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{5.99 $\pm$ 0.07} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{5.99 $\pm$ 0.07} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\ldots} \\
1264: Mass (\msun) & 1.137 $\pm$ 0.037 & 1.090 $\pm$ 0.036 & 1.128 $\pm$ 0.037 & 1.099 $\pm$ 0.036 & 1.108 $\pm$ 0.004\tablenotemark{b} & 1.080 $\pm$ 0.004\tablenotemark{b} \\
1265: Radius (\rsun) & 1.244 $\pm$ 0.050 & 1.244 $\pm$ 0.050 & 1.244 $\pm$ 0.050 & 1.244 $\pm$ 0.050 & 1.14 $\pm$ 0.04 & 1.14 $\pm$ 0.04 \\
1266: $T_{\rm eff}$ (K) & 6050 $\pm$ 150\phn & 5870 $\pm$ 150\phn & 6000 $\pm$ 50\phn\phn & 5900 $\pm$ 50\phn\phn & 6000 $\pm$ 50\phn\phn & 5900 $\pm$ 50\phn\phn \\
1267: $M_{\rm V}$ (mag) & 4.35 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4.74 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4.45 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4.61 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4.61 $\pm$ 0.07 & 4.76 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
1268: $M_{\rm K}$ (mag) & 2.93 $\pm$ 0.09 & 3.12 $\pm$ 0.11 & \ldots & \dots & \ldots & \ldots \\
1269:
1270: \enddata
1271:
1272: \tablenotetext{a}{These parameters use the SR03 spectroscopic results
1273: such as flux ratio, rotational velocities, and radial velocities, but
1274: use the \citet{Les1999} parallax, Tycho-2 magnitudes, and our
1275: visual orbit.}
1276: \tablenotetext{b}{As noted in \S\,\ref{sec:introduction}, these
1277: uncertainties are unrealistically small.}
1278:
1279: \end{deluxetable}
1280:
1281: \clearpage
1282:
1283:
1284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE: Wide Visual Orbit (AB) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1285:
1286: %\voffset30pt{}
1287: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}
1288: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1289: \tablecaption{Visual Orbit Solution for $\sigma^1\!-\!\sigma^2$~CrB
1290: \label{tab:WideVis}}
1291: \tablewidth{0pt}
1292:
1293: \tablehead{%\vspace{-25pt} \\
1294: \colhead{Orbital Parameter}&
1295: \colhead{Value}}
1296:
1297: \startdata
1298:
1299: $P$ (years) & 726 $\pm$ 62\phn \\
1300: $T_{\rm 0}$ (BY) & $1,\!825.2 \pm 1.5$\phn\phn\phn \\
1301: $e$ & 0.72 $\pm$ 0.01 \\
1302: $\omega$ (deg) & 237.3 $\pm$ 6.8\phn\phn \\
1303: $\alpha$ (arcsec) & 5.26 $\pm$ 0.35 \\
1304: $i$ (deg) & 32.3 $\pm$ 4.1\phn \\
1305: $\Omega$ (deg) & 28.0 $\pm$ 0.5\phn \\
1306:
1307: \enddata
1308:
1309: \end{deluxetable}
1310:
1311: \clearpage
1312:
1313:
1314: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1315:
1316: \begin{figure}
1317: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f1.eps}
1318: \figcaption{Our radial velocities and the orbital fit for
1319: $\sigma^2$~CrB (top panel) and the primary and secondary residuals
1320: (bottom panels). Filled circles represent the primary and open
1321: circles represent the secondary component. The corresponding orbital
1322: elements are listed in Table~\ref{tab:SBele}.
1323: \label{fig:cfa_orb}}
1324: \end{figure}
1325: \clearpage
1326:
1327: \begin{figure}
1328: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f2.eps}
1329: \figcaption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:cfa_orb} but based on SR03 radial
1330: velocities.
1331: \label{fig:str_orb}}
1332: \end{figure}
1333: \clearpage
1334:
1335: \begin{figure}
1336: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f3.eps}
1337: \figcaption{Residuals for the individual nights' velocities from SR03.
1338: \label{fig:str_resid}}
1339: \end{figure}
1340: \clearpage
1341:
1342: \begin{figure}
1343: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f4.eps}
1344: \figcaption{Calibrated visibility measurements for $\sigma^2$~CrB
1345: versus the projected baseline. The plus signs are the calibrated
1346: visibilities with vertical error bars, and the diamonds are the
1347: calculated visibilities for the best-fit orbit. Table~\ref{tab:Visib}
1348: lists the numeric values corresponding to this plot.
1349: \label{fig:Vfit}}
1350: \end{figure}
1351: \clearpage
1352:
1353: \begin{figure}
1354: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f5.eps}
1355: \figcaption{The visual orbit of $\sigma^2$~CrB. Open circles mark the
1356: positions of the two components at the epoch of ascending nodal
1357: passage, and the X marks identify the secondary's calculated positions
1358: at the epochs of visibility measurement.
1359: \label{fig:OrbPlot}}
1360: \end{figure}
1361: \clearpage
1362:
1363: \begin{figure}
1364: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f6.eps}
1365: \figcaption{$\chi^2$ distribution around the best-fit solution for the
1366: angular semimajor axis ($\alpha$). The bottom dashed line
1367: corresponds to the minimum $\chi^2$ value, and the others mark a
1368: deviation of 1, 4, and 9 units above the minimum, corresponding to 1,
1369: 2, and 3-$\sigma$ errors.
1370: \label{fig:aerr}}
1371: \end{figure}
1372: \clearpage
1373:
1374: \begin{figure}
1375: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f7.eps}
1376: \figcaption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:aerr}, but for the orbital
1377: inclination ($i$).
1378: \label{fig:ierr}}
1379: \end{figure}
1380: \clearpage
1381:
1382: \begin{figure}
1383: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f8.eps}
1384: \figcaption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:aerr}, but for the longitude of
1385: the ascending node ($\Omega$).
1386: \label{fig:oerr}}
1387: \end{figure}
1388: \clearpage
1389:
1390: \begin{figure}
1391: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f9.eps}
1392: \figcaption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:aerr}, but for the $K'$-band
1393: magnitude difference ($\Delta K'$).
1394: \label{fig:dkerr}}
1395: \end{figure}
1396: \clearpage
1397:
1398: \begin{figure}
1399: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f10.eps}
1400: \figcaption{The position of the Sun-like components of $\sigma$~CrB on
1401: the H-R diagram. The points from top to bottom are $\sigma^2$~CrB
1402: primary, $\sigma^1$~CrB, and $\sigma^2$~CrB secondary. The isochrones
1403: are from the Yonsei-Yale (dotted) and Victoria-Regina (dashed models)
1404: for 0.5, 1.5, 3.0, and 5.0 Gyr ages (left to right) for solar
1405: metallicity stars.
1406: \label{fig:HRplot}}
1407: \end{figure}
1408: \clearpage
1409:
1410: \begin{figure}
1411: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f11.eps}
1412: \figcaption{The visual orbit of the wider
1413: $\sigma^1\!-\!\sigma^2$~CrB~(AB) system based on all measures in
1414: the WDS. Plus signs indicate micrometric observations, asterisks
1415: indicate photographic measures, open circles indicate eyepiece
1416: interferometry, and filled circles represent speckle interferometry.
1417: The solid curve is our orbit fit and the dashed curve is the
1418: \citet{Sca1979} orbit. $O\!-\!C$ lines connect each measure to its
1419: predicted position along the orbit. The big plus at the origin
1420: indicates the position of the primary and the dot-dash line through it
1421: is the line of nodes. Scales are in arcseconds, and the curved arrow
1422: at the lower right corner by the north and east direction indicators
1423: shows the direction of orbital motion.
1424: \label{fig:VBOab}}
1425: \end{figure}
1426: \clearpage
1427:
1428: \begin{figure}
1429: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f12.eps}
1430: \figcaption{Relative separation between $\sigma^2$~CrB and ADS 9979C
1431: based on 10 resolutions of the pair from 1832 to 1984. Plus signs
1432: indicate micrometric observations. $O\!-\!C$ lines connect each
1433: measure to its predicted position along the linear fit (thick solid
1434: line). The thick dashed line is the predicted movement based on the
1435: differential proper motions. The long dashed line connected to the
1436: origin indicates the predicted closest apparent position. The scale
1437: is in seconds of arc. An arrow in the lower right corner by the north
1438: and east direction indicators shows the direction of motion of the
1439: star.
1440: \label{fig:LinFitC}}
1441: \end{figure}
1442: \clearpage
1443:
1444: \begin{figure}
1445: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f13.eps}
1446: \figcaption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:LinFitC}, but for ADS 9979D based
1447: on 106 resolutions of the pair from 1825 to 1996. Asterisks indicate
1448: photographic measures and filled circles represent Tycho measures.
1449: \label{fig:LinFitD}}
1450: \end{figure}
1451: \clearpage
1452:
1453: \begin{figure}
1454: \epsscale{1.0}\plotone{f14.eps}
1455: \figcaption{Mobile diagram of $\sigma$~CrB and some of its properties.
1456: The Ca-Cb pair is WDS component E, while WDS components C~\&~D are not
1457: gravitationally bound to the $\sigma$~CrB system (see Figures
1458: ~\ref{fig:LinFitC} and \ref{fig:LinFitD}, and text in
1459: \S\,\ref{sec:Opt}). $a_p$ for the Ca-Cb pair is the photocentric
1460: semimajor axis.
1461: \label{fig:MobDia}}
1462: \end{figure}
1463: \clearpage
1464:
1465: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% THE END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1468: \end{document}
1469: