0809.4546/ms.tex
1: %%
2: %% This is file `template-6s.tex',
3: %% generated with the docstrip utility.
4: %%
5: %% The original source files were:
6: %%
7: %% template.raw  (with options: `6s')
8: %% 
9: %% Template for the LaTeX class aipproc.
10: %% 
11: %% (C) 1998,2000,2001 American Institute of Physics and Frank Mittelbach
12: %% All rights reserved
13: %% 
14: %%
15: %% $Id: template.raw,v 1.12 2005/07/06 19:22:14 frank Exp $
16: %%
17: 
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %% Please remove the next line of code if you
20: %% are satisfied that your installation is
21: %% complete and working.
22: %%
23: %% It is only there to help you in detecting
24: %% potential problems.
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: 
27: %\input{aipcheck}
28: 
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: %% SELECT THE LAYOUT
31: %%
32: %% The class supports further options.
33: %% See aipguide.pdf for details.
34: %%
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: 
37: \documentclass[
38:     ,final            % use final for the camera ready runs
39: %%  ,draft            % use draft while you are working on the paper
40: %%  ,numberedheadings % uncomment this option for numbered sections
41: %%  ,                 % add further options here if necessary
42:   ]
43:   {aipproc}
44: 
45: \layoutstyle{6x9}
46: 
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: %% FRONTMATTER
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50: 
51: \begin{document}
52: 
53: \title{The rotation-magnetic field relation}
54: 
55: \classification{97.10.Jb, 97.10.Kc, 97.20.Jg}
56: \keywords      {stars:activity, stars:rotation, stars:magnetic fields}
57: 
58: 
59: %organizers
60: \author{Ansgar Reiners}{
61:   address={Universit\"at G\"ottingen}
62: }
63: 
64: \author{Alexander Scholz}{
65:   address={University of St Andrews}
66: }
67: 
68: \author{Jochen Eisl\"offel}{
69:   address={Th\"uringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg}
70: }
71: 
72: \author{Gregg Hallinan}{
73:   address={National University of Ireland Galway}
74: }
75: 
76: 
77: %speakers
78: \author{Edo Berger}{
79:   address={Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics} 
80: }
81: 
82: \author{Matthew Browning}{
83:   address={University of California at Berkeley}
84:   ,altaddress={The University of Chicago} % additional visiting address
85: }
86: 
87: \author{Jonathan Irwin}{
88:   address={Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics}
89: }
90: 
91: \author{Manfred K\"uker}{
92:   address={Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam}
93: }
94: 
95: \author{Sean Matt}{
96:   address={The University of Virginia; Currently at NASA Ames Research Center}
97: }
98: 
99: 
100: 
101: 
102: \begin{abstract}
103:   Today, the generation of magnetic fields in solar-type stars and its
104:   relation to activity and rotation can coherently be explained,
105:   although it is certainly not understood in its entirety.  Rotation
106:   facilitates the generation of magnetic flux that couples to the
107:   stellar wind, slowing down the star.  There are still many open
108:   questions, particularly at early phases (young age), and at very low
109:   mass.  It is vexing that rotational braking becomes inefficient at
110:   the threshold to fully convective interiors, although no threshold
111:   in magnetic activity is seen, and the generation of large scale
112:   magnetic fields is still possible for fully convective stars.  This
113:   article briefly outlines our current understanding of the
114:   rotation-magnetic field relation.
115: \end{abstract}
116: 
117: \maketitle
118: 
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
120: %% MAINMATTER
121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
122: 
123: \section{Introduction}
124: 
125: The rotational evolution of stars is the result of the complex
126: interaction of several fundamental processes. First, the molecular
127: cloud contracts conserving initial angular momentum spinning up the
128: central object. Angular momentum can be stored in a disc, which may
129: brake the rotation of the central object. After the disc is
130: dissipated, the star can contract reaching the highest rotation rate
131: after several ten million years of lifetime. Solar-type stars, i.e.,
132: stars with convective envelopes, start generating magnetic fields that
133: couple to the stellar wind. The interaction between charged particles
134: in the wind and the magnetic field generates a torque braking the
135: star's rotation. In the case of the Sun, braking has led to a rotation
136: rate of about 1 revolution every month.
137: 
138: According to the rotation-activity relation, rapidly rotating stars
139: produce strong magnetic fields generating a strong magnetic torque
140: that brakes the star. This leads to slower rotation, which in turn
141: weakens the magnetic field production and braking is weakening, too.
142: At young ages in open clusters, we observe rapidly rotating, very
143: active stars, while the (single) field stars generally are slowly
144: rotating and only weakly active. This means that in principle rotation
145: and activity can tell about the age of a star
146: \citep[e.g.,][]{Barnes03, Barnes07}.
147: 
148: The connection between rotation, stellar wind, magnetic fields, and
149: magnetic activity is reviewed in this splinter session summary. First,
150: we give an overview about the current picture on rotation in both
151: clusters and the field, i.e., in young and old stars. Next, we discuss
152: results from direct and indirect magnetic field measurements and their
153: connection to stellar wind theory. In the last part, we give a summary
154: on the theoretical work on magnetic field generation through stellar
155: dynamos. Low-mass stars and in particular the regime where stars
156: become completely convective currently present a rather puzzling
157: picture of the connection between magnetism, activity, and rotation.
158: Thus, low-mass stars are in the focus of our summary.
159: 
160: 
161: 
162: 
163: \section{Rotation}
164: 
165: \subsection{Young objects}
166: 
167: 
168: The net effect of early stellar evolution and disc-coupling is that a
169: star has approximately constant angular velocity for the first few Myr
170: while it is still coupled the disc. Then it spins up rapidly once the
171: disc dissipates, reaching maximum rotational velocity close to when it
172: arrives on the zero age main sequence, followed by a gradual decay due
173: to the stellar wind, lasting for the remainder of the main sequence
174: lifetime.
175: 
176: Rotational evolution has traditionally been constrained by using
177: measurements in open clusters to provide ``snapshots'' during the
178: evolution.  Large samples of these are now available covering $\sim
179: 1-650\ {\rm Myr}$ (see Fig.~\ref{period-mass-comp}).  It is becoming
180: increasingly clear that the evolution is strongly mass and rotation
181: rate dependent, and this has important consequences for the nature of
182: the mechanisms governing the angular momentum losses.
183: 
184: In particular, unlike solar-type dwarfs, low-mass dwarfs spin up much
185: more rapidly, appear to experience no significant angular momentum
186: losses on the pre main sequence, and much weaker losses due to winds
187: on the main sequence.
188: 
189: \begin{figure}
190: \includegraphics[height=\textwidth,angle=270]{period-mass-comp.ps}
191: \caption{Compilation of $\sim 3000$ rotation period and $v\,\sin{i}$
192:   measurements for open clusters at ages $1-650$\,Myr and masses $<
193:   1.2$M$_{\odot}$. Masses were derived assuming cluster ages given in
194:   each panel. Distance and reddening are from the literature using
195:   $I$-band absolute magnitudes and NextGen stellar models of
196:   \citet{bcah98}.  For the (numerous) appropriate references, please
197:   see \citet{i2007}.}
198: \label{period-mass-comp}
199: \end{figure}
200: 
201: 
202: \subsection{Field stars}
203: 
204: Early stars with no relevant convective envelopes cannot generate
205: surface magnetic fields, they rotate rapidly during their entire
206: lifetime. Solar-type stars with convective envelopes are strongly
207: braked as seen above. This is consistent with observations of coronal
208: emission, chromospheric emission, and latitudinal differential
209: rotation, which set in exactly where stars are believed to form
210: convective envelopes, i.e., around spectral type A7--F0. Wind braking
211: becomes very efficient around late-F type stars, and the Sun for
212: example has slowed down to less than 2\,km\,s$^{-1}$ during its
213: lifetime.
214: 
215: Field stars of spectral type K and early-M typically rotate very
216: slowly as well, although in their youth braking was probably somewhat
217: weaker (see above). Virtually all single field K and M dwarfs,
218: including early-M classes M0--M3, are rotating at velocities slower
219: than about 3\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Around spectral type M3.5, however, a
220: dramatic increase in rotation rate is observed. This threshold
221: coincides with the mass range where stars become fully convective. It
222: appears that for some reason rotational braking becomes weaker at this
223: boundary.
224: 
225: \begin{figure}
226:   \includegraphics[height=0.245\textheight]{f10a.eps}
227:   \includegraphics[height=0.245\textheight,bbllx=80,bblly=-16,bburx=478,bbury=450]{f10b.eps}
228:   \caption{\label{fig:fieldvsini}\emph{Left:} Rotational velocities of
229:     M--T type objects.  Circles are from \citet{RB07, RB08,
230:       Delfosse98, Mohanty03} (blue: kinematically young, red:
231:     kinematically old); triangles from \citet{Zapatero06}.  Magenta
232:     stars indicate the three members of LHS~1070 \citep{RS07}, filled
233:     green squares the two subdwarfs 2MASS~0532$+$8246 and
234:     LSR~1610$-$0040 \citep{RB06a}. Solid lines mark evolutionary
235:     tracks for objects of 0.1, 0.09, 0.08, and 0.07\,M$_{\odot}$,
236:     dashed lines mark ages of 1 and 10\,Gyrs (from upper left to lower
237:     right).  \emph{Right:} Scaling of the magnetic wind-braking with
238:     temperature in Eq.\ref{eq:windbrake}. }
239: \end{figure}
240: 
241: Fig.\,\ref{fig:fieldvsini} shows a compilation of (projected)
242: rotational velocities $v\,\sin{i}$ in objects of spectral classes M--T.
243: The sudden increase of rotation rate is evident at spectral type
244: $\sim$M3.5.  Another important result is that braking does not
245: completely vanish at least until spectral class L0. In the figure,
246: members of the (statistically) young population are shown in blue and
247: old stars in red, and the two subdwarfs shown with green squares are
248: probably \emph{very} old. Young objects are found predominantly in the
249: upper part of the plot while the old sample shows slower rotation.
250: This indicates that rotational braking still works in ultra-cool
251: dwarfs.  Solid lines in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fieldvsini} show evolutionary
252: tracks according to a modified braking law of the form
253: 
254: \begin{equation}
255:   \label{eq:windbrake}
256:   \frac{dJ}{dt} = -K \omega_{\rm crit}^2 \omega \left(\frac{R}{R_\odot}\right)^{0.5} \left(\frac{M}{M_\odot}\right)^{-0.5}.
257: \end{equation}
258: 
259: Here, $K \omega_{\rm crit}^2$ was scaled according to the right panel
260: in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fieldvsini}; braking is weaker at lower temperature
261: \citep[see][]{RB08}.  A viable explanation for this may be the weaker
262: coupling of magnetic field lines (which still exist) to the atmosphere
263: that is becoming more and more neutral. Rotational braking in fully
264: convective field stars and brown dwarfs appears to be so weak that
265: after a few billion years the distribution of rotational velocities
266: can tell a lot about their angular momentum evolution and the
267: underlying processes, magnetic fields and (sub)stellar winds.
268: 
269: 
270: \section{Magnetic Fields}
271: 
272: 
273: %% modified input from Edo Berger
274: { The discovery of X-ray emission from the brown dwarf LP944-20
275:   \citep{Rutledge00} provided the first direct demonstration of
276:   magnetic activity in the substellar regime.  Subsequent X-ray,
277:   H$\alpha$, and radio observations revealed that low-mass stars and
278:   even brown dwarfs ubiquitously generate magnetic activity. No break
279:   is observed at the boundary to full convection, but chromospheric
280:   activity weakens after spectral type about M7 \citep{Mohanty03,
281:     West04, Schmidt07, RB08}, an effect that may be due to decreasing
282:   fractional ionization \citep{Mohanty02}. Quiescent activity and
283:   flaring are still observed in even cooler objects
284:   \citep[e.g.,][]{Hall02, Liebert03, RB08, Robrade08}. About 10\% of
285:   ultracool dwarfs in the range M7--L4 produce both quiescent and
286:   flaring radio emission, with inferred field strengths of 0.1--3 kG
287:   and covering fractions of order unity \citep{Berger06}, and it
288:   likely correlates with rotation velocity \citep{Berger08b}.  At the
289:   same time, the tight radio/X-ray correlation that exists in a wide
290:   range of stars (including the Sun) is strongly violated beyond M7,
291:   roughly the same regime where chromospheric and coronal emission
292:   become weaker.  Equally important, several ultracool dwarfs have
293:   been observed to produce periodic radio emission and H$\alpha$
294:   emission.  This emission may carry information about the field
295:   topology.  In general, radio observations suggest that a low
296:   multipole, large-scale field configuration is the best explanation
297:   for the observed variability \citep{Berger08a, Hallinan08}.  }
298: 
299: Activity indicators like X-ray, H$\alpha$, and radio emission provide
300: strong constraints on the magnetic flux depending on the mechanism
301: that generates the observed emission. Direct measurements of magnetic
302: fields in M dwarfs through Zeeman splitting of atomic lines were
303: carried out by \citet{JKV96}, results from a re-analysis with a
304: multi-component fit are given in \citet{JKV00}. In late-M dwarfs,
305: however, atomic lines become rare and more and more blended so that
306: molecular Zeeman diagnostics would be useful, and \citet{Valenti01}
307: suggested that FeH could be a good indicator of magnetic flux.
308: \citet{RB06b, RB07} developed a method to measure magnetic flux
309: through FeH and did so in a sample of M3--M9 dwarfs. They found that
310: the relation between magnetic fields and (chromospheric) activity is
311: intact through the entire M spectral range; the most active M stars
312: exhibit magnetic fields on the order of a few kG. Thus, the lack of
313: rotational braking in mid- to late-M dwarfs cannot be a consequence of
314: weaker magnetic fields. Fully convective stars obviously find a way to
315: efficiently generate magnetic fields.
316: 
317: %% Input from Sean Matt
318: {
319:   \section{Magnetic Fields and Wind Braking}
320:   
321:   How does the magnetic field connect to rotation?  When a rotating
322:   star drives an outflow that is well-coupled to the stellar magnetic
323:   field, the wind and magnetic field conspire to extract angular
324:   momentum from the star.  This happens because, as wind material
325:   leaves the stellar surface and tries to conserve its own angular
326:   momentum, it lags behind the star in a rotational sense.  Thus, the
327:   magnetic field connecting the stellar surface to the outflowing wind
328:   is bent backwards with respect to the stellar rotation.  This
329:   imparts a torque, which acts to give "extra" specific angular
330:   momentum to the wind, removing it from the star.
331: 
332:   A method for calculating this stellar wind torque dates back to
333:   \citet{Weber67} and \citet{Mestel68}, and magnetic stellar wind
334:   theory is still an active research topic.  A generic result is that
335:   the torque can be written $\tau = \dot M_{\rm w} \Omega_* r_{\rm
336:     A}^2$, where $\dot M_{\rm w}$ is the mass loss rate in the wind,
337:   $\Omega_*$ is the angular spin rate of the star, and $r_{\rm A}$ is
338:   sometimes called the ``magnetic lever arm'' in the flow.  In a
339:   one-dimensional flow, $r_{\rm A}$ is the Alfv\'en radius, the radial
340:   location where the wind flow speed equals the magnetic Alfv\'en wave
341:   speed.
342: 
343:   We can quantify the efficiency of angular momentum extraction by
344:   dividing the stellar angular momentum by $\tau$, which gives a
345:   characteristic spin-down time
346:   \begin{equation}
347:     \label{eqn_tsd}
348:     \\
349:     t_{\rm sd} = k^2 \left({R_* \over r_{\rm A}}\right)^2
350:     \left({M_* \over \dot M_{\rm w}}\right),
351:     \\
352:   \end{equation}
353:   where $k$ is the ``mean radius of gyration'' (in main sequence
354:   stars, typically $k^2 \sim 0.1$) and $R_*$ and $M_*$ are the stellar
355:   radius and mass.  Note that the first two terms on the
356:   right-hand-side are dimensionless.  The last term has the units of
357:   time and represents the mass loss time for the star.  In the solar
358:   wind, for example, $r_{\rm A} / R_* \sim 10$ \citep[e.g.,][]{Li99}.
359:   Thus the angular momentum loss in magnetic stellar winds can be very
360:   efficient in a sense that the spin-down time can be much shorter
361:   than the mass loss time.
362: 
363:   This is an elegant result, but the difficulty lies in calculating
364:   the effective $r_{\rm A}$ for an arbitrary star and a realistic
365:   (3-dimensional) wind.  Our understanding of the observed evolution
366:   of stellar spins depends on this calculation of the torque.  Recent
367:   work by \citet[][and see contribution in these proceedings]{Matt08}
368:   emphasizes that, while there is still no adequate theory for
369:   predicting how the wind torque depends on stellar mass and age,
370:   significant progress can be made with the use of numerical
371:   simulations.  }
372: 
373: \section{Stellar Dynamos}
374: 
375: \subsection{Overview}
376: 
377: %% Input from Manfred Küker
378: { The solar activity cycle is believed to be the result of a dynamo
379:   process either in the convection zone or the stably stratified layer
380:   beneath it. The original model was an {$\alpha \Omega$}\ dynamo in
381:   the convection zone generating a predominantly toroidal and
382:   axisymmetric magnetic field. Problems with flux storage and the
383:   internal rotation pattern found by helioseismology led to a revised
384:   model where the dynamo is located at the bottom of the convection
385:   zone. That sort of dynamo, however, produces too many toroidal field
386:   belts and too short cycle periods. The advection-dominated dynamo is
387:   an extension of the {$\alpha \Omega$}\ dynamo where a large-scale
388:   meridional flow advects the magnetic field towards the poles at the
389:   surface and towards the equator at the bottom of the convection
390:   zone. The butterfly diagram is now the result of the meridional flow
391:   rather than a dynamo wave and the cycle time depends on the flow as
392:   much as on the dynamo number.
393: 
394:   \begin{figure}
395:     \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{s1_surfmap.eps}
396:     \caption{Radial component of a magnetic field of geometry type S1.}
397:   \end{figure}
398: 
399:   For stars there is no clear picture yet. One would expect stars
400:   similar to the Sun to show the same type of activity but Doppler
401:   imaging frequently finds large spots at high latitudes and both
402:   solar-type and anti-solar cycles have been found in stellar
403:   butterfly diagrams from photometry. Large polar spots can be
404:   explained as the consequence of flux tube instability in the
405:   tachocline while anti-solar butterfly diagrams could indicate a
406:   meridional flow pattern opposite to that of the Sun.
407: 
408:   Main sequence stars with masses below $\sim0.3$\,M$_\odot$ are fully
409:   convective, ruling out any dynamo mechanism involving the
410:   tachocline, but some sort of dynamo must still be at work. The
411:   $\alpha^2$ dynamo, where the $\alpha$ effect alone generates the
412:   field, is a possible mechanism. It generates completely
413:   non-axisymmetric fields that do not oscillate, so that monitoring of
414:   active low-mass stars will provide an important step towards
415:   understanding of the dynamo in these stars. At the moment,
416:   observations support neither the {$\alpha \Omega$}\ nor the
417:   $\alpha^2$ dynamo: AB~Dor shows pronouced differential rotation but
418:   a strongly non-axisymmetric surface field while V374~Peg has an
419:   axisymmetric dipole geometry despite nearly rigid surface rotation
420:   \citep{Donati06}. }
421: 
422: \subsection{Fully convective stars}
423: 
424: %% Input from Matt Browning
425: { Particularly puzzling for dynamo theorists has been the finding that
426:   fully convective M dwarfs can host \emph{large-scale} magnetic
427:   fields, even in the absence of any apparent differential rotation.
428:   \citet{Browning08} discussed 3-D simulations of convection and
429:   dynamo action in fully convective stars, with an eye toward
430:   answering two main questions: first, how large-scale fields might be
431:   generated without a "tachocline" of shear, and second, whether
432:   differential rotation is always absent in such stars or might be
433:   maintained in certain circumstances.  In this model
434:   \citep{Browning08}, convection acted effectively as a dynamo,
435:   quickly building magnetic fields that (in stars rotating at the
436:   solar angular velocity) were approximately in equipartition with the
437:   turbulent velocity field.  More rapidly rotating stars built
438:   somewhat stronger fields, whereas slower rotators hosted weaker
439:   fields.  Although differential rotation was established in
440:   hydrodynamic simulations, the strong magnetic fields realized in
441:   most MHD cases acted to strongly quench those angular velocity
442:   contrasts.  Despite the absence of any significant shear, the
443:   magnetic fields realized in the simulations had structure on a broad
444:   range of spatial scales, and included a substantial large-scale
445:   component.  The large-scale field generation is attributed partly to
446:   the strong influence of rotation upon the slowly overturning flows
447:   realized in M-stars.
448: %  It is argued that only very slowly rotating
449: %  M-stars might show surface differential rotation, together with
450: %  weaker, less axisymmetric magnetic fields.  
451: }
452: 
453: \section{Summary}
454: 
455: Our current picture of magnetic field generation, rotation, and
456: stellar activity may be summarized as follows:
457: 
458: \begin{enumerate}
459: \item Rotation rates are available for a wide range of masses and
460:   ages.  Measurements of \emph{projected} rotation velocities extend
461:   far into the brown dwarf regime, but direct measurements of
462:   rotational periods are lacking at very low masses.
463: \item We observe a sharp break in rotation around the threshold where
464:   stars become fully convective.  This probably indicates a breakdown
465:   of wind braking.
466: \item Magnetic field measurements as well as activity tracers like
467:   X-rays, H$\alpha$, and radio emission show now obvious break at the
468:   convection boundary.  However, around spectral type M7 normalized
469:   activity strongly weakens and the relation between radio and X-ray
470:   emission breaks down.
471: \item Apparently, very low mass stars can have strong large-scale
472:   magnetic fields yet only little wind braking. This remains an
473:   unresolved problem.
474: \item A key for understanding spindown is a theoretical understanding
475:   of wind braking.  However, it is still a challenge for magnetic
476:   stellar wind theory to reliably calculate the wind torque for a
477:   range of stellar parameters.  Furthermore, the wind torque is
478:   affected by the mass loss rate, so it is very important that we get
479:   measurements of mass loss rates and continue to improve mass loss
480:   theory.
481: \item Efforts to theoretically understand magnetic field generation
482:   evolved from the solar dynamo to the larger class of stellar
483:   dynamos, in particular to fully convective ones in absence of a
484:   tachocline.  First models successfully reproduce magnetic field
485:   generation, but it certainly is still a long way to understanding
486:   magnetic dynamos in very cool stars.
487: \end{enumerate}
488: 
489: 
490: 
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492: %% BACKMATTER
493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
494: 
495: \begin{theacknowledgments}
496:   We thank the organizers of CS15 for giving us the opportunity to
497:   hold this session.
498: \end{theacknowledgments}
499: 
500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
501: %% The bibliography can be prepared using the BibTeX program or
502: %% manually.
503: %%
504: %% The code below assumes that BibTeX is used.  If the bibliography is
505: %% produced without BibTeX comment out the following lines and see the
506: %% aipguide.pdf for further information.
507: %%
508: %% For your convenience a manually coded example is appended
509: %% after the \end{document}
510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
511: 
512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
513: %% You may have to change the BibTeX style below, depending on your
514: %% setup or preferences.
515: %%
516: %%
517: %% For The AIP proceedings layouts use either
518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
519: 
520: %\bibliographystyle{aipproc}   % if natbib is available
521: %\bibliographystyle{aipprocl} % if natbib is missing
522: 
523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
524: %% You probably want to use your own bibtex database here
525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526: %\bibliography{sample}
527: 
528: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
529: %% Just a reminder that you may have to run bibtex
530: %% All of it up to \end{document} can be removed
531: %% if you don't like the warning.
532: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
533: %\IfFileExists{\jobname.bbl}{}
534: % {\typeout{}
535: %  \typeout{******************************************}
536: %  \typeout{** Please run "bibtex \jobname" to optain}
537: %  \typeout{** the bibliography and then re-run LaTeX}
538: %  \typeout{** twice to fix the references!}
539: %  \typeout{******************************************}
540: %  \typeout{}
541: % }
542: 
543: 
544: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
545: %% The following lines show an example how to produce a bibliography
546: %% without the help of the BibTeX program. This could be used instead
547: %% of the above.
548: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
549: 
550: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
551: 
552: 
553: 
554: %[4] Berger, E., et al.  2005, ApJ, 627, 960
555: %[5] Hallinan, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, L25
556: %[6] Berger, E., et al.  2008, astro-ph/0809.0001
557: 
558: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(1998)]{bcah98}{Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G.,
559:     Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H.} 1998, \textit{A\&A}, 337, 403
560: 
561: \bibitem[Barnes, 2003]{Barnes03}Barnes, S.A., 2003, ApJ, 586, 464
562: 
563: \bibitem[Barnes, 2007]{Barnes07}Barnes, S.A., 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167
564: 
565: \bibitem[Berger et al., 2001]{Berger01} Berger, E., et al.  2001, Nature, 410, 338
566: 
567: \bibitem[Berger, 2006]{Berger06} Berger, E.  2006, ApJ, 648, 629
568: 
569: \bibitem[Berger et al., 2008a]{Berger08a} Berger, E., et al.  2008a, ApJ, 673, 1080
570: 
571: \bibitem[Berger et al., 2008b]{Berger08b} Berger, E., et al.  2008b, ApJ, 676, 1307
572: 
573: \bibitem[Browning, 2008]{Browning08}Browning, M., 2008, ApJ, 676, 1262
574: 
575: \bibitem[Delfosse et al., 1998]{Delfosse98}Delfosse, X., Forveille,
576:   T., Perrier, C., \& Mayor, M., 1998, A\&A, 331, 581
577: 
578: \bibitem[Donati et al., 2006]{Donati06}Donati, J.F., Forveille, T.,
579:   Cameron, A.C., Barnes, J.R., Delfosse, X., Jardine, M.M., Valenti,
580:   J.A., 2006, Science, 311, 633
581: 
582: \bibitem[Hall, 2002]{Hall02}Hall, P.B., 2002, ApJ, 564, L89
583: 
584: \bibitem[Hallinan, 2008]{Hallinan08} Hallinan, G., et al.  2008, ApJ, 684, 644
585: 
586: \bibitem[Irwin, 2007]{i2007}{Irwin, J. M.} 2007, Ph.D. thesis,
587:   University of Cambridge
588: 
589: \bibitem[Johns-Krull \& Valenti, 1996]{JKV96} Johns-Krull, C.M., \&
590:   Valenti, J.A., 1996, ApJ, 459, L95
591: 
592: \bibitem[Johns-Krull \& Valenti, 2000]{JKV00} Johns-Krull, C.M., \&
593:   Valenti, J.A., 2000, ASP Conf.Ser., 198, 371
594: 
595: \bibitem[Li, 1999]{Li99}{{Li}, J.}, 1999, MNRAS, 302, 203
596: 
597: \bibitem[Liebert et al., 2003]{Liebert03}Liebert, J., Kirkpatrick,
598:   J.D., Cruz, K.L., Reild, I.N., Burgasser, A., Tinney, C.G., \&
599:   Gizis, J.E., 2003, AJ, 125, 343
600: 
601: \bibitem[Matt \& Pudritz, 2008]{Matt08}Matt, S. and {Pudritz}, R.~E.,
602:   2008, ApJ, 678, 1109
603: 
604: \bibitem[Mestel, 1968]{Mestel68}{{Mestel}, L.}, 1968, MNRAS, 138, 359
605: 
606: \bibitem[Mohanty et al., 2002]{Mohanty02}Mohanty, S., Basri, G., Shu,
607:   F., Allard, F., \& Chabrier, G. 2002, ApJ, 571, 469
608: 
609: \bibitem[Mohanty \& Basri, 2003]{Mohanty03}Mohanty, S., \& Basri, G.,
610:   2003, ApJ, 583, 451
611: 
612: \bibitem[Reiners \& Basri, 2006a]{RB06a}Reiners, A., \& Basri, G.,
613:   2006a, AJ, 131, 1806
614: 
615: \bibitem[Reiners \& Basri, 2006b]{RB06b}Reiners, A., \& Basri, G.,
616:   2006b, ApJ, 644, 497
617: 
618: \bibitem[Reiners \& Basri, 2007]{RB07}Reiners, A., \& Basri, G., 2007,
619:   ApJ, 656, 1121
620: 
621: \bibitem[Reiners \& Basri, 2008]{RB08}Reiners, A., \& Basri, G., 2008,
622:   ApJ, 684, 1390
623: 
624: \bibitem[Reiners et al., 2007a]{RS07}Reiners, A., Seifahrt, A.,
625:   Siebenmorgen, R., K\"aufl, H.U., \& Smette, Al., 2007, A\&A, 471, L5
626: 
627: \bibitem[Robrade \& Schmitt, 2008]{Robrade08}Robrade, J., Schmitt, J.
628:   H. M. M., 2008, A\&A, 487, 1139
629: 
630: \bibitem[Rutledge et al., 2000]{Rutledge00}Rutledge, R.E., Basri, G.,
631:   Mart\'in, E.L., Bildsten, L., 2000, ApJ, 538, L141
632: 
633: \bibitem[Schmidt et al., 2007]{Schmidt07}Schmidt, S.J., Cruz, K.L.,
634:   Bongiorno, B.J., Liebert, J., \& Reid, I.N., 2007, AJ, 133, 2248
635: 
636: \bibitem[Valenti \& Johns-Krull, 2001]{Valenti01}Valenti, J.A., \&
637:   Johns-Krull, C.M., 2001, ASP Conf.  Ser., 248, 179
638: 
639: \bibitem[Weber \& Davis, 1967]{Weber67}{{Weber}, E.~J. and {Davis},
640:     L.~J.}, 1967, ApJ, 148, 217
641: 
642: \bibitem[West et al., 2004]{West04}West, A.A., Hawley, S.L.,
643:   Walkowicz, L.M., Covey, K.R., Silvestri, N.M., and 6 authors 2004,
644:   AJ, 128, 426
645: 
646: \bibitem[Zapatero Osorio et al., 2006]{Zapatero06}Zapatero Osorio,
647:   M.R., Mart\'in, E.L., Bouy, H., Tata, R., Deshpande, R., \&
648:   Wainscoat, R.J., 2006, ApJ, 647, 1405
649: 
650: \end{thebibliography}
651: 
652: \end{document}
653: 
654: \endinput
655: %%
656: %% End of file `template-6s.tex'.
657: