1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % yes Eclipsing binaries, young: open clusters, star-forming regions [Stassun] (11)
4: % yes Eclipsing binaries, old [Lopez-Morales] (11)
5: % yes The Fundamental Properties of M Dwarfs [Kraus] (7)
6: % no Interferometric measurements [Boden] (11)
7: %
8: % yes Atmosphere models: temperature, gravity and metallicity determination [Allard] (11)
9: %
10: % ?? Visual binaries: brown dwarfs [Liu] (11)
11: % yes The Young Tight Binary TWA 22AB: A New Benchmark for Evol Tracks at Young Ages [Bonnefoy] (7)
12: % yes Keck AO Monitoring of Ultracool Binaries: Dynamical Mass of a Substellar Benchmark [Dupuy] (7)
13: % ?? A comprehensive study of the nearest known brown dwarfs: Epsilon Indi Ba, Bb [King] (7)
14: %
15: % yes L Dwarf Radial Velocity Survey and the Field Spectroscopic Binary 2MASS 0320-04 [Blake] (7)
16: % yes Benchmark brown dwarfs as members of binary systems [Day-Jones] (7)
17: % yes Searching for Pulsation in Brown Dwarfs and Very Low Mass Stars [Cody] (7)
18: %
19: % no Implications for evolutionary models [Baraffe] (11)
20: %
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22:
23:
24:
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: %% Please remove the next line of code if you
27: %% are satisfied that your installation is
28: %% complete and working.
29: %%
30: %% It is only there to help you in detecting
31: %% potential problems.
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33: %\input{aipcheck}
34:
35:
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: %% SELECT THE LAYOUT
38: %%
39: %% The class supports further options.
40: %% See aipguide.pdf for details.
41: %%
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43: \documentclass[
44: ,final % use final for the camera ready runs
45: %% ,draft % use draft while you are working on the paper
46: %% ,numberedheadings % uncomment this option for numbered sections
47: %% , % add further options here if necessary
48: ]
49: {aipproc}
50: \layoutstyle{6x9}
51:
52:
53: \newcommand{\micron}{\mbox{$\mu{\rm m}$}}
54: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
55: \def\lesssim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{%
56: \lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
57: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{%
58: \lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
59: \def\wig#1{\mathrel{\hbox{\hbox to 0pt{ % usage: ``\wig<'' or ``\wig>''
60: \lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise.4ex\hbox{$#1$}}}}
61: \newcommand{\arcsec}{\mbox{$^{\prime \prime}$}}
62: \newcommand{\arcmin}{\mbox{$^{\prime}$}}
63: \newcommand{\degs}{\mbox{$^{\circ}$}}
64: \newcommand{\Lbol}{\mbox{$L_{bol}$}}
65: \newcommand{\Teff}{\mbox{$T_{\rm eff}$}}
66: \newcommand{\logg}{\mbox{$\log(g)$}}
67: \newcommand{\HST}{{\sl HST}}
68: \newcommand{\Spitzer}{{\sl Spitzer}}
69: \newcommand{\eg}{{e.g.}}
70: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.}
71: \newcommand{\cf}{cf.}
72: \newcommand{\Mjup}{\mbox{M$_{\rm Jup}$}}
73: \newcommand{\twomassbin}{\hbox{2MASS~J1534$-$2952AB}}
74: \newcommand{\hdbin}{\hbox{HD~130948BC}}
75: \newcommand{\hdprim}{\hbox{HD~130948A}}
76: \newcommand{\hdage}{\hbox{0.79$^{+0.22}_{-0.15}$~Gyr}}
77: \newcommand{\Msun}{\hbox{M$_{\odot}$}}
78:
79:
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81: %% FRONTMATTER
82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
83: \begin{document}
84:
85: \title{Fundamental Properties of Low-Mass Stars and Brown Dwarfs}
86:
87:
88: \author{Michael C. Liu}{
89: address={Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawai`i, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822}}
90:
91: \author{Keivan G. Stassun}{
92: address={Vanderbilt University, Physics \& Astronomy Department, Nashville, TN 37235 USA}}
93:
94: \author{France Allard}{
95: address={Centre de Recherche Astrophysique de Lyon, UMR 5574: CNRS, Universit\'{e} de Lyon, \'{E}cole Normale Sup\'{e}rieure de Lyon, 46 all\'{e}e d'Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07}}
96:
97: \author{Cullen H. Blake}{
98: address={Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138}}
99:
100: \author{M. Bonnefoy}{
101: address={Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Grenoble, BP 53, F-38041 GRENOBLE C\'{e}dex 9, France}}
102:
103: \author{Ann Marie Cody}{
104: address={California Institute of Technology, Department of Astrophysics,
105: Pasadena, CA 91125 USA}}
106:
107: \author{A. C. Day-Jones}{
108: address={Centre for Astrophysics Research, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK}}
109:
110: \author{Trent J. Dupuy}{
111: address={Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawai`i, 2680
112: Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822}}
113:
114: \author{Adam Kraus}{
115: address={California Institute of Technology, Department of Astrophysics,
116: Pasadena, CA 91125 USA}}
117:
118: \author{Mercedes L\'{o}pez-Morales}{
119: address={Carnegie Institution of Washington, Dept.\ of Terrestrial Magnetism,
120: Washington, DC 20015 USA}}
121:
122:
123:
124: \begin{abstract}
125: Precise measurements of the fundamental properties of low-mass stars
126: and brown dwarfs are key to understanding the physics underlying
127: their formation and evolution. While there has been great progress
128: over the last decade in studying the bulk spectrophotometric
129: properties of low-mass objects, direct determination of their
130: masses, radii, and temperatures have been very sparse. Thus,
131: theoretical predictions of low-mass evolution and ultracool
132: atmospheres remain to be rigorously tested. The situation is
133: alarming given that such models are widely used, from the
134: determination of the low-mass end of the initial mass function to
135: the characterization of exoplanets.
136:
137: An increasing number of mass, radius, and age determinations are
138: placing critical constraints on the physics of low-mass objects. A
139: wide variety of approaches are being pursued, including eclipsing
140: binary studies, astrometric-spectroscopic orbital solutions,
141: interferometry, and characterization of benchmark systems. In
142: parallel, many more systems suitable for concerted study are now
143: being found, thanks to new capabilities spanning both the very
144: widest (all-sky surveys) and very narrowest (diffraction-limited
145: adaptive optics) areas of the sky. This Cool Stars 15 splinter
146: session highlighted the current successes and limitations of this
147: rapidly growing area of precision astrophysics.
148:
149:
150: % This template file shows how to use the \texttt{aipproc} class to
151: % produce a paper with the correct layout for \emph{%
152: % AIP Conference Proceedings 6in x 9in single column}.
153: %
154: % A full description of the features supported by the \texttt{aipproc}
155: % class can be found in the \texttt{aipguide.pdf} document accompanying
156: % the distribution.
157: %
158: % Frequently asked questions can be found in the \texttt{FAQ.txt}
159: % document.
160:
161: \end{abstract}
162:
163:
164: \classification{97.21.+a, 95.85.Jq, 95.75.Fg, 95.75.Mn, 95.75.Qr,
165: 97.10.Cv, 97.10.Ex, 97.80.Di, 97.90.+j, 97.20.Rp, 97.82.Fs}
166: %{\bf choose from this list: \texttt{http://www.aip..org/pacs/index.html}}
167:
168: \keywords{Stars: fundamental parameters, low-mass, brown dwarfs, formation ---
169: Binary: general, close, eclipsing, visual --- Instrumentation: adaptive optics,
170: spectrographs}
171:
172: \maketitle
173:
174:
175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
176: %% MAINMATTER
177: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
178:
179: % \section{Introduction}
180:
181: % Precise measurements of the fundamental properties of low-mass stars
182: % and brown dwarfs are key to understanding the physics underlying their
183: % formation and evolution. While there has been great progress over the
184: % last decade in studying the bulk spectrophotometric properties of
185: % low-mass objects, direct determination of their masses, radii, and
186: % temperatures have been very sparse. Thus, theoretical predictions of
187: % low-mass stellar evolution and ultracool atmospheres remains to be
188: % rigorously tested. The situation is alarming given that such models
189: % are widely used, from the determination of the low-mass end of the
190: % initial mass function to the characterization of planetary mass
191: % objects.
192:
193: % Recently, an increasing number of accurate mass, radii, and age
194: % measurements is placing critical constraints on the physics of
195: % low-mass objects. A wide variety of techniques are being employed,
196: % including eclipsing binaries, astrometric-spectroscopic orbital
197: % solutions, interferometry, and characterization of benchmark systems.
198: % Similarly, discovery of more systems suitable for concerted study has
199: % blossomed, thanks to new capabilities over both the very widest
200: % (all-sky surveys) and very narrowest (diffraction-limited adaptive
201: % optics) areas of the sky. Our Cool Stars 15 splinter session
202: % highlighted the current successes and limitations of this rapidly
203: % growing area of precision astrophysics.
204:
205:
206:
207: % Indeed, with the growing sample of accurate masses, an important
208: % uncertainty for future studies is the measurement of other physical
209: % parameters. For instance, understanding of surface magnetic activity
210: % and accurate modeling of low-temperature atmospheres are increasingly
211: % central to accurate tests of theory.
212:
213:
214: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -%
215: \section{Visual Binaries}
216:
217: About 100~ultracool (spectral type M6 or later) visual binaries are
218: known, the product of several major high angular resolution imaging
219: surveys conducted by \HST\ and ground-based adaptive optics (AO)
220: imaging (e.g., \cite{2001AJ....121..489R, 2003AJ....126.1526B,
221: 2003ApJ...586..512B, 2003ApJ...587..407C, 2005astro.ph..8082L,
222: 2006astro.ph..5037L, 2008AJ....135..580R}). Most of these belong to
223: the field population, near enough to Earth to be well-resolved and
224: many have orbital periods amenable to dynamical mass determinations.
225: A fundamental characteristic of field objects is that they span a
226: range of (largely unknown) ages. This is a particularly important
227: issue for brown dwarfs, which continually cool in time and thus follow
228: a mass-luminosity-age relation. Despite this uncertainty, these
229: objects can strongly test theoretical models when analyzed
230: appropriately.
231:
232: Accurate masses from visual binaries require high quality astrometry,
233: radial velocities, and parallaxes (errors of $\sim$1~mas,
234: $\sim$1~km/s, $\sim$2\%, respectively). Also, to compare to models,
235: independent determinations of \Lbol\ to $\lesssim$10\% (a more
236: challenging measurement than appreciated at face value, e.g.,
237: \cite{gol04}) and \Teff\ are needed. Until this year, only three
238: objects had dynamical masses that placed them unambiguously below the
239: substellar limit: the M9 tertiary component of the hierarchical triple
240: Gl~569 \cite{2001ApJ...560..390L, 2004astro.ph..7334O,
241: 2006ApJ...644.1183S} and both components of the young M6.5+M6.5
242: eclipsing binary 2MASS~J05352184$-$0546085 in the Orion Nebula
243: \cite{2006Natur.440..311S}. Since many of the first binary surveys
244: were carried out nearly a decade ago, the next few years should see a
245: rapid increase in the number of dynamical mass determinations, thereby
246: extending the mass-magnitude relation by about a factor of 10 in mass
247: and a factor of 100 in luminosity (Figure~\ref{fig:mass-magnitude}).
248:
249:
250:
251: \begin{figure}
252: \hskip -0.3in
253: \includegraphics[height=.7\textheight, angle=90]{plot-mass-magnitude.ps}
254: \caption{Absolute $K$-band magnitude as a function of dynamical mass
255: for field M, L, and T~dwarfs, based on data from
256: \cite{2000A&A...364..217D, 2007ApJ...661..496M, gl802b-ireland,
257: liu08-2m1534orbit, 2008arXiv0807.2450D, 2004A&A...423..341B,
258: 2008A&A...484..429S, 2004astro.ph..7334O, 2007ApJ...665..736C}.
259: For binaries where only the total mass is measured, the masses of
260: the individual components are determined from the observed
261: $K$-band flux ratio and evolutionary models to determine the mass
262: ratio of the two components. The errors in the ordinate are
263: comparable or smaller than the plotting symbol. Evolutionary
264: models from \cite{2003A&A...402..701B,1998A&A...337..403B} are
265: overplotted, with each class of models (NextGen, DUSTY or COND)
266: plotted over the range of \Teff\ appropriate for each
267: model. \label{fig:mass-magnitude}}
268: \end{figure}
269:
270:
271:
272: Liu and collaborators have recently extended such measurements with
273: the first dynamical mass for a binary T dwarf, the T5+T5.5 system
274: \twomassbin\ \cite{liu08-2m1534orbit}.
275: %The multi-epoch data from the Keck laser guide star AO system achieve
276: %sub-milliarcsecond relative astrometry and combined with an extensive
277: %(re-)analysis of archival \HST\ imaging, the total dataset spans
278: %$\sim$50\% the orbital period.
279: With a total mass of only of $0.056\pm0.003 M_\odot$ ($59\pm3~
280: M_{Jup}$), this is the coolest and lowest mass binary with a dynamical
281: mass to date, as well as the first field binary for which both
282: components are confirmed to be substellar.
283: %The measured orbital period (15.1$_{-1.6}^{+3.1}$~yr) turns out to be
284: %notably longer than the original discovery epoch estimate (4~yr),
285: %indicating somewhat surprisingly low total mass for the system.
286: %
287: %With a flux ratio of nearly unity, the system provides concrete
288: %proof for the existence of free-floating objects as low in mass as
289: %$\approx$30~\Mjup.
290: %
291: The H-R diagram positions of the two components of \twomassbin\ are
292: discrepant with theoretical evolutionary tracks. While this could
293: stem from large systematic errors in the luminosities ($\sim$50\%
294: errors) and/or radii ($\sim$20\% errors) predicted by evolutionary
295: models, the likely cause is that temperatures of mid-T~dwarfs
296: determined with model atmospheres are too warm by $\approx$100~K.
297: % This highlights the need for continued improvements to the model
298: % atmospheres.
299: In fact, these model atmosphere uncertainties are the current limiting
300: factor in testing theory using the H-R diagram, not the accuracy of the
301: mass determinations.
302: Morever, the prediction of different evolutionary models (e.g., Tucson
303: and Lyon) are essentially indistinguishable on the H-R diagram.
304:
305: These limitations imposed by atmospheric models can instead be
306: circumvented, by using accurate mass and luminosity determinations in
307: concert with {\em evolutionary} models to very precisely infer
308: physical parameters for substellar binaries and assuming the systems
309: are coeval. In the case of \twomassbin, the formal uncertainties on
310: the age ($\pm$0.1~Gyr), temperature ($\pm$17~K) and surface gravity
311: ($\pm$0.04~dex) allow for strong points of comparison with other data.
312: For instance, this approach gives a relatively youthful age for the
313: system of 0.79$\pm$0.09~Gyr, consistent with its low tangential
314: velocity relative to other field T~dwarfs.
315: % The derived temperatures of the two components ($1028 \pm 17$~K and
316: % $978 \pm 17$~K) are in general accord with the \Teff\ values
317: % previously inferred for field T~dwarfs based on model atmospheres and
318: % with the ages of T~dwarfs predicted by Monte Carlo simulations of the
319: % solar neighborhood. However, upon closer scrutiny, there are two
320: % potential discrepancies with past studies. Both suggest that the
321: % temperatures of field T~dwarfs may be overestimated by $\approx$100~K,
322: % though we stress that the two discrepancies must arise from
323: % independent effects. (1)~The temperatures of 2MASS~J1534$-$2952A
324: % and~B appear to be cooler than field objects of comparable spectral
325: % type. (2) The temperatures of 2MASS~J1534$-$2952A and~B are slightly
326: % cooler than inferred for other mid-T~dwarfs from model atmospheres.
327: More generally, low-mass field binaries with dynamical mass
328: determinations (``mass benchmarks'') can serve as precise reference
329: points for testing \Teff\ and \logg\ measurements from ultracool
330: atmosphere models, as good as or even better than single brown dwarfs
331: with age estimates (``age benchmarks'').
332: % Specifically, attempts to directly test different evolutionary tracks
333: % by placing ultracool objects on the H-R diagram (the ``H-R Diagram
334: % Test'') will be challenging, given the similarity between the tracks
335: % and the difficulty in independently determining \Teff\ with model
336: % atmospheres. Instead, atmosphere models can be confronted against
337: % \logg\ and \Teff\ values for ultracool objects as derived from the
338: % evolutionary models, which can be exceptionally precise (the
339: % ``Benchmark Test''). This approach has previously been applied to
340: % single brown dwarfs that are companions to stars of known age (``age
341: % benchmarks''). We suggest that in an analogous fashion, field
342: % ultracool binaries with dynamical mass determinations (``mass
343: % benchmarks'') can test the model atmospheres.
344: In fact, given the plausible observational uncertainties, mass
345: benchmarks are likely to provide stronger constraints (by a factor of
346: $\approx$5) on \logg\ and \Teff\ than age benchmarks, since dynamical
347: masses can be determined far more accurately than ages for field
348: stars.
349:
350:
351: % \begin{verbatim}
352: % \small
353: % **Question \#1: are the predicted ages from evol models reasonable?**
354: % **Question \#2: do Teff's from evolutionary models agree with those from model atmospheres?**
355: % ** Gold standard are benchmark binaries: Lbol, age, and mass all independently measured**
356: % \end{verbatim}
357:
358:
359: \begin{figure}
360: \hskip 0.3in
361: \includegraphics[height=.5\textheight, angle=90]{make-figure-orbit-skyplot.labels2.fancy_color.1orbit.ps}
362: \hskip -1.3in
363: \includegraphics[height=.5\textheight, angle=90]{dupuy-make-figure-orbit-skyplot-nogem-col.ps}
364: %\includegraphics[height=.5\textheight, angle=90]{dupuy-130948.ps}
365: \caption{Recent orbit and dynamical mass determinations for field
366: brown dwarf binaries. The insets show imaging data at selected
367: epochs and are 1\arcsec\ on a side. {\em Left:} Orbit for the
368: binary T5.0+T5.5 dwarf 2MASS~J1534-2952AB, based on high angular
369: resolution monitoring using \HST\ and Keck laser guide star
370: adaptive optics \cite{liu08-2m1534orbit}. This is the coolest and
371: lowest mass visual binary to date with a direct mass
372: determination. {\em Right:} Orbit for the binary L4+L4 dwarf
373: HD~130948BC, based on \HST\ and natural guide star imaging from
374: Keck and Gemini \cite{2008arXiv0807.2450D}. This system also has
375: an independent age determination of \hdage, based on the rotation
376: and activity properties of its G2V~primary star, making it a thus
377: far unique benchmark system for testing theoretical models.}
378: \end{figure}
379:
380:
381:
382: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -%
383:
384: Finally, the most stringent tests of theory can come from binaries
385: with dynamical masses {\em and} independently determined ages, by
386: being members of star clusters/groups and/or as companions to stars of
387: known age. These systems represent the ``gold standard'' for testing
388: models, but they are very rare. The splinter session presented new
389: results for two objects:
390:
391: \medskip
392: \noindent $\bullet$ {\em The Young Low-Mass Binary TWA 22AB:}
393: %\item{\em The New Young Low-Mass Binary TWA22~AB:}
394: % Tight binaries discovered in young, nearby associations, with known
395: % distances, are ideal targets to provide dynamical mass
396: % measurements.
397: %Combined with independent estimations of temperature,
398: %gravity and luminosity, mass provides a precious benchmark for
399: %evolutionary models, which are currently not well calibrated at
400: %young ages and at very low masses.
401: % and thus test theoretical models at the youngest ages and masses.
402: %
403: In 2004, Bonnefoy and collaborators resolved the TW~Hydrae Association
404: member TWA22 as a tight ($\sim 1.8$~AU) binary with the VLT/NACO
405: instrument. Follow-up observations have monitored 80\% of the binary
406: orbit. Armed with the trigonometric parallax of the system, they find
407: a total dynamical mass (M=220 $\pm$ 21 $M_{Jup}$). Additional
408: observations with the VLT/SINFONI AO-assisted integral field
409: spectrometer have obtained medium resolution spectra ($R=1500-2000$)
410: of the primary and of the companion over the spectral range
411: $1.0-2.5~\micron$. Spectral indices, equivalent widths and
412: least-squares fitting were employed to compare the spectra to
413: empirical spectral libraries of field and young dwarfs, yielding a
414: M6V~$\pm$~1 spectral type for both components. Spectral templates were
415: also used to estimate the temperatures and surface gravities of
416: TWA22~A and B. Overall, the measured mass does not agree with 8-Myr
417: evolutionary tracks. This could mean that TWA22~AB is either older
418: than expected (and perhaps not a member of TWA) or that models
419: under-predict masses of young objects.
420:
421:
422: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -%
423: \medskip
424: \noindent $\bullet$ {\em The Field Substellar Benchmark Binary HD~130948BC:}
425: %\item{The Field Substellar Benchmark Binary HD~130948BC:}
426: Dupuy and collaborators have been using the Keck AO system to monitor
427: a large sample of ultracool field binaries to enable a much better
428: assessment of substellar theoretical models by obtaining many more
429: dynamical masses. They presented Keck AO imaging of the L4+L4 binary
430: \hdbin\ along with archival \HST\ and Gemini-North observations, which
431: together span $\approx$70\% of the binary's orbital period
432: \cite{2008arXiv0807.2450D}. From the relative orbit, they determine a
433: total dynamical mass of 0.109$\pm$0.002~\Msun\ (114$\pm$2~\Mjup). The
434: flux ratio of \hdbin\ is near unity, so both components are
435: unambiguously substellar for any plausible mass ratio. In addition, an
436: independent constraint on the age of the system is available from the
437: primary \hdprim\ (G2V, [M/H]~=~0.0). The ensemble of available
438: indicators suggests an age comparable to the Hyades, with the most
439: precise age being \hdage\ based on gyrochronology.
440:
441: As a result, \hdbin\ is now a unique benchmark among field L and
442: T~dwarfs: it is the only system with a well-determined mass,
443: luminosity, and age. Thus, the luminosity evolution of brown dwarfs
444: predicted by theoretical models is fully constrained by observations
445: for the first time, and the result is that the models disagree with
446: the data: (1) Both components of \hdbin\ appear to be overluminous by
447: a factor of $\approx$2--3$\times$ compared to evolutionary models. The
448: age of the system would have to be notably younger than the gyro age
449: to ameliorate the luminosity disagreement. (2) Effective temperatures
450: derived from evolutionary models for HD~130948B and C are inconsistent
451: with temperatures determined from spectral synthesis for objects of
452: similar spectral type. Overall, regardless of the adopted system age,
453: evolutionary and atmospheric models give inconsistent results, which
454: indicates systematic errors in at least one class of models, possibly
455: both. The masses of \hdbin\ happen to be very near the theoretical
456: mass limit for lithium burning, such that the Lyon and Tucson models
457: give drastically different predictions for the lithium depletion that
458: has occured in each component. Thus, measuring the differential
459: lithium depletion between B and C will provide a uniquely
460: discriminating test of theoretical models.
461:
462: The potential underestimate of luminosities by evolutionary models
463: would have wide-ranging implications since they are widely used for
464: characterizing low-mass stars, brown dwarfs, and planets. Therefore,
465: a more refined age estimate for \hdprim\ and measurements for more
466: such mass+age benchmarks are critically needed to determine the
467: magnitude of the luminosity discrepancy more precisely.
468:
469:
470: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
471: \section{Eclipsing Binaries}
472:
473: Eclipsing binary (EB) stars generally offer the most accurate means
474: for directly measuring stellar masses and radii. Of course, EBs are
475: rare, and thus the mass-radius relation of K and M dwarfs has
476: historically been poorly constrained.
477:
478: The situation has improved recently with the discovery of several new
479: detached EBs, particularly at very low masses and at young ages, as
480: described in presentations by Stassun, L\'opez-Morales, and Kraus.
481: For example, in the last few years the number of young ($<30$ Myr),
482: low-mass ($M<2 {\rm M}_\odot$) EBs has increased to 16 (see
483: \cite{2007prpl.conf..411M}). Highlights from this recent work
484: include: (1) The first EB of equal-mass (``identical twin'') stars
485: that exhibit striking differences in temperature and luminosity,
486: suggesting that non-coevality of $\sim 30$\% is possible in young
487: binaries \cite{2008Natur.453.1079S}, and (2) the first EB system of
488: two brown dwarfs \cite{2006Natur.440..311S, 2007ApJ...664.1154S} in
489: which strong magnetic activity is likely responsible for the
490: surprising reversal of temperatures in the system (the higher mass
491: brown dwarf is the cooler of the pair). Indeed, there is now growing
492: evidence that magnetic activity may be affecting the structure, and
493: thus the basic mass-luminosity relationship, of young, low-mass stars.
494:
495: Among field stars, the results from EBs combined with stellar radii of
496: single K and M dwarfs derived via interferometry (in which case the
497: stellar masses are derived from models) currently add up to over forty
498: radius measurements that can test stellar models. A graphical summary
499: is shown in Fig.\ 2, which plots all the available mass and radius
500: measurements for stars with $M < 1 M_{\odot}$ versus the best fitting
501: model from \cite{1998A&A...337..403B}. The figure clearly illustrates
502: that the radii of many of the stars are significantly larger than
503: predicted by the models for stars with $M > 0.35 M_{\odot}$, and there
504: also is significant scatter in the stellar radii. For stars with $M <
505: 0.35 M_{\odot}$, which coincides with stars becoming fully convective,
506: models and observations seem to agree (but see also below).
507:
508:
509: \begin{figure}
510: \includegraphics[height=.5\textheight, angle=0]{ebfig.ps}
511: \caption{Current observational mass-radius relation for stars below
512: $1 {\rm M}_\odot$. Top, all the data from low-mass secondaries to
513: eclipsing binaries with primaries more massive than $1 {\rm
514: M}_\odot$ (squares) and the components of eclipsing binaries
515: below $1 {\rm M}_\odot$ (circles); bottom, all the measurements
516: from single stars. The solid line in each panel represents the
517: theoretical isochrone model from \cite{1998A&A...337..403B}, for
518: an age of 1 Gyr, Z = 0.02, and mixing length $\alpha = 1.0$
519: (standard model). Figure reproduced from
520: \cite{2007ApJ...660..732L}.}
521: \end{figure}
522:
523:
524: The most plausible explanations for these trends are the magnetic
525: activity in the atmospheres of these stars, or their metallicity
526: (equation of state effects cannot currently be tested
527: observationally). Magnetic activity is clearly affecting the radii of
528: the stars, at least in the case of the most active components of
529: binaries (see Fig.\ 2 of \cite{2007ApJ...660..732L}). In the case of
530: single stars, this radius--magnetic activity correlation is not as
531: clear. However, we need to address that this conclusion might suffer
532: from an observational bias, as all the stars with $M < 0.35 M_{\odot}$
533: in the sample happen to have low activity levels. Metallicity seems to
534: also be having some effect in the radii of K and M dwarfs stars, with
535: more metal-rich objects apparently showing larger radii (see Fig.\ 4
536: of \cite{2007ApJ...660..732L}). However, the still weakly determined
537: metallicity scale of low-mass stars, and the scatter in the data,
538: might prove this last correlation spurious.
539:
540: More radius measurements of low-metallicity low-mass stars are
541: necesary. To that end, work is ongoing to increase the sample of
542: low-mass EBs further. M dwarfs in particular are ubiquitous in the
543: solar neighborhood, but their fundamental properties are not as well
544: understood as those of their more massive brethren. Only $\sim$12
545: M-dwarf EBs have been identified to date since low-mass stars are
546: intrinsically faint and shallow variability surveys have only
547: encompassed a very limited survey volume. Kraus and collaborators are
548: conducting a program to identify and characterize new M dwarf EBs from
549: a deep field variability survey (the 1st MOTESS-GNAT survey;
550: \cite{2007AJ....134.1488K}). Thus far, they have identified $\sim$25
551: new M dwarf EBs with spectral types as late as M4; this sample triples
552: the number of known systems. They have obtained radial velocity
553: curves for 18 of these systems with Palomar, Keck, and Hobby-Eberly,
554: more than doubling the number of precise mass measurements for M dwarf
555: EBs, and now they are pursuing an ongoing program to obtain multicolor
556: eclipse light curves in order to measure the component radii for each
557: system. When complete, this survey will allow for the first systematic
558: investigation of the fundamental properties of very low-mass stars.
559:
560:
561:
562: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
563: \section{Atmospheric Models}
564:
565: The atmospheres of very low-mass stars and brown dwarfs are governed
566: by the formation of molecules and dust grains in a relatively
567: high-temperature, high-gravity environment compared to laboratory
568: experiments. Over the past decades, it has been shown that these
569: opacities cover all wavelengths of the emerging spectrum, to the point
570: of locking the peak of the SED around 1.2~\micron\ as \Teff\ decreases
571: for metal-rich compositions.
572: %
573: The effect of reducing metallicity would therefore be to recover the
574: reddening of the SED with decreasing \Teff. However, double metals
575: deplete more rapidly and thus density-sensitive features such as
576: hydride absorption bands (MgH and CaH) and the very important
577: near-infrared collision-induced H$_2$ absorption are revealed and
578: shape the SED in enhanced-density atmospheres.
579: %
580: The effects of changing surface gravity are relatively more subtle and
581: consist of atmospheric density changes at constant composition, which
582: can be compensated by a \Teff\ change in M~dwarfs. There is therefore
583: a degeneracy of solutions in determining the gravity and \Teff, and
584: therefore age and mass, of very low-mass stars and brown dwarfs.
585:
586: Atomic line profile analysis is complicated by the uncertain molecular
587: pseudo-continuum background (oscillator strengths are often inaccurate
588: or missing). In addition, for T dwarfs an additional complication is
589: the lack of this pseudo-continuum background, causing the line wings
590: of atomic lines to shape the SED more than 2000~\AA\ from the line
591: center, i.e. beyond the validity of classical assumptions for the line
592: profile modeling (Lorentz profile with van der Waals collisional
593: broadening).
594:
595: Allard and collaborators have developed an online tool (web simulator)
596: for the determination of parameters based on observed colors by
597: chi-square fitting and also generating isochrones on any model grid,
598: filter set, and reddening. Among the challenges for modeling these
599: atmospheres and therefore improving the determination of their
600: parameters will be improvement of (1) the molecular opacities and line
601: broadening of alkali metals (and molecules), and (2) the modeling of
602: clouds and non-equilibrium chemistry, which both depend on
603: understanding of mixing induced by convection into the line formation
604: layers of these atmospheres.
605:
606:
607:
608: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
609: \section{Other Recent Developments}
610:
611: \noindent {\bf \em An L Dwarf Radial Velocity Survey:} Precise radial
612: velocities (RVs) of very low-mass stars and brown dwarfs can provide a
613: wealth of information about the fundamental physical properties of
614: these objects. Measurements of projected rotational velocities and
615: systemic velocities, when coupled with proper motions, provide insight
616: into the dynamical history of this population. In addition,
617: multi-epoch RV measurements can be used to search for single- and
618: double-lined binaries. Binaries provide an excellent opportunity to
619: directly measure the fundamental physical properties of stars and
620: brown dwarfs and to compare these measurements to theoretical models.
621:
622: Blake and collaborators have developed a technique for obtaining
623: precise RVs of low-mass stars and brown dwarfs in the near infrared
624: and are conducting a magnitude-limited survey of L~dwarfs with the
625: NIRSPEC spectrograph on the Keck telescope. The sample consists of 75
626: L dwarfs with observations spanning up to four years. With a typical
627: RV precision of 200 m s$^{-1}$, they are very sensitive to low-mass
628: binaries with orbital separations smaller than those probed by direct
629: imaging techniques. They have discovered one new single-lined L dwarf
630: binary, 2MASS 0320$-$04, likely comprised of a late-M and a T dwarf
631: (\cite{2008ApJ...678L.125B}; see also \cite{2008arXiv0803.0295B}). A
632: more detailed analysis of the RV data for this system may result in
633: the detection of the spectral lines of the fainter component. This
634: would provide a direct measurement of both the mass and luminosity
635: ratios of the binary components, allowing us to directly test
636: theoretical models of brown dwarfs.
637:
638:
639: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %
640: \bigskip
641: \noindent {\bf \em Searching for benchmark brown dwarfs as members of
642: binary systems:} For the majority of known brown dwarfs, properties
643: such as gravity and metallicity remain uncertain, and it is not yet
644: fully understood how factors these affect their spectra or change over
645: time. The complex nature of ultracool and brown dwarf atmospheres
646: leaves models incomplete or with large uncertainties on their
647: values. What is vitally needed are benchmark objects, where properties
648: can be determined independently.
649:
650: Day-Jones and collaborators are currently undertaking a search to find
651: such benchmarks as members of binary systems containing an
652: age-calibratable primary. White dwarf or subgiant primaries can
653: provide accurate ages, distances and, for subgiants, metallicity
654: constraints, which can then be applied (by association) to the brown
655: dwarf companions. They have searched for widely separated
656: ($\sim$20,000~AU) ultracool+white dwarf binaries in 2MASS and
657: SuperCOSMOS in the southern hemisphere and have to date discovered one
658: ultracool+white dwarf binary system \cite{2008MNRAS.388..838D}, which
659: is the widest separated M9 + WD binary known to date and has an age
660: constraint of $>$1.94~Gyrs. To find similar systems, they have also
661: mined the latest releases of SDSS (DR6) and UKIDSS Large-Area Survey
662: (DR3) and carried out a pilot imaging survey in the south; these have
663: yielded a good number of candidates that are currently being followed
664: up.
665:
666:
667: %\bibitem{dayjones2008}
668: % A.~C. Day-Jones, and D.~J Pinfield, and R. Napiwotzki, and
669: % B. Burningham, and J.~S. Jenkins, and H.~R.~A. Jones, and
670: % S.~L. Folkes, and D.~J. Weights, and J.~R.~A Clarke,
671: % \emph{Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society},
672: % 2008, 388, 838.
673:
674:
675: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %
676: \bigskip
677: \noindent{\bf \em Searching for Pulsation in Brown Dwarfs and Very Low
678: Mass Stars:} Censuses of young ($\sim$1-10 Myr) clusters over the
679: past decade have revealed substantial numbers of very low mass stars
680: and brown dwarfs.
681: % Theoretical models (e.g., Burrows et al.\ 1997; Baraffe et al.\
682: % 2003) are now successful in capturing the basic physics responsible
683: % for the observed properties of these objects, such as temperature,
684: % luminosity, and radius, but many inconsistencies remain.
685: In order to place more constraints on the physical properties of young
686: brown dwarfs, Cody and collaborators have begun a photometric campaign
687: that aims to uncover a pulsational instability on hour timescales in
688: those objects that are still burning deuterium
689: \cite{2005A&A...432L..57P}. The identification of pulsations would
690: provide a new probe of brown dwarf interiors through the physics of
691: seismology. The campaign is ongoing, with completed or planned
692: observations of some 80~brown dwarfs and very low mass stars in five
693: young star clusters, using telescopes at the Palomar and CTIO.
694: Preliminary results in the IC~348 and $\sigma$~Orionis clusters
695: include several brown dwarfs displaying variability with periods of a
696: few hours at the limit of detectability. High-resolution
697: spectroscopic followup is underway to determine whether rapid
698: rotational modulation of magnetic spots can explain the light curves,
699: or if the variability can indeed be attributed to a new class of
700: pulsation.
701:
702:
703:
704: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
705: %% The following lines show an example how to produce a bibliography
706: %% without the help of the BibTeX program. This could be used instead
707: %% of the above.
708: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
709: % \newcommand{\araa}[2]{{\em Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.}, {\bf #1}, #2}
710: % \newcommand{\aanda}[2]{{\em Astr. Astrophys.}, {\bf #1}, #2}
711: % \newcommand{\aj}[2]{{\em Astronom. J.}, {\bf #1}, #2}
712: % \newcommand{\apj}[2]{{\em Astrophys. J.}, {\bf #1}, #2}
713: % \newcommand{\apjl}[2]{{\em Astrophys. J.}, {\bf #1}, #2}
714: % \newcommand\aap{A\&A}%
715: % \newcommand{\apjs}[2]{{\em Astrophys. J. Supp.}, {\bf #1}, #2}
716: % \newcommand{\icar}[2]{{\em Icarus}, {\bf #1}, #2}
717: % \newcommand{\pasp}[2]{{\em Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific}, {\bf #1}, #2}
718: % \newcommand{\mnras}[2]{{\em Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc.}, {\bf #1}, #2}
719: % \newcommand{\nat}[2]{{\em Nature}, {\bf #1}, #2}
720:
721: \newcommand\aj{AJ}% % Astronomical Journal
722: \newcommand\araa{ARA\&A}% % Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys
723: \newcommand\apj{ApJ}% % Astrophysical Journal
724: \newcommand\apjl{ApJ}% % Astrophysical Journal, Letters
725: \newcommand\apjs{ApJS}% % Astrophysical Journal, Supplement
726: \newcommand\aap{A\&A}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics
727: \newcommand\aapr{A\&A~Rev.}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews
728: \newcommand\aaps{A\&AS}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics, Supplement
729: \newcommand\baas{BAAS}% % Bulletin of the AAS
730: \newcommand\mnras{MNRAS}% % Monthly Notices of the RAS
731: \newcommand\nat{Nature}% % Nature
732: \newcommand\pasp{PASP}% % Publications of the ASP
733:
734:
735:
736:
737: %\bibliography{/Users/mliu/tex/bibtex/mliu}
738: %\bibliographystyle{aipproc}
739:
740: \begin{thebibliography}{31}
741: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
742: \providecommand{\enquote}[1]{``#1''}
743: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
744: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
745: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
746: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
747:
748: \bibitem[Reid et~al.(2001)]{2001AJ....121..489R}
749: I.~N. Reid, J.~E. {Gizis}, J.~D. {Kirkpatrick}, and D.~W. {Koerner}, \emph{\aj}
750: \textbf{121}, 489--502 (2001).
751:
752: \bibitem[Bouy et~al.(2003)]{2003AJ....126.1526B}
753: H.~Bouy, W.~{Brandner}, E.~L. {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, X.~{Delfosse}, F.~{Allard}, and
754: G.~{Basri}, \emph{\aj} \textbf{126}, 1526--1554 (2003).
755:
756: \bibitem[Burgasser et~al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...586..512B}
757: A.~J. Burgasser, J.~D. {Kirkpatrick}, I.~N. {Reid}, M.~E. {Brown}, C.~L.
758: {Miskey}, and J.~E. {Gizis}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{586}, 512--526 (2003).
759:
760: \bibitem[Close et~al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...587..407C}
761: L.~M. Close, N.~{Siegler}, M.~{Freed}, and B.~{Biller}, \emph{\apj}
762: \textbf{587}, 407--422 (2003).
763:
764: \bibitem[Liu and {Leggett}(2005)]{2005astro.ph..8082L}
765: M.~C. Liu, and S.~K. {Leggett}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{634}, 616 (2005).
766:
767: \bibitem[Liu et~al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph..5037L}
768: M.~C. Liu, S.~K. {Leggett}, D.~A. {Golimowski}, K.~{Chiu}, X.~{Fan}, T.~R.
769: {Geballe}, D.~P. {Schneider}, and J.~{Brinkmann}, \emph{ApJ} \textbf{647},
770: 1393 (2006).
771:
772: \bibitem[Reid et~al.(2008)]{2008AJ....135..580R}
773: I.~N. Reid, K.~L. {Cruz}, A.~J. {Burgasser}, and M.~C. {Liu}, \emph{\aj}
774: \textbf{135}, 580--587 (2008).
775:
776: \bibitem[Golimowski et~al.(2004)]{gol04}
777: D.~A. Golimowski, et~al., \emph{\aj} \textbf{127}, 3516--3536 (2004).
778:
779: \bibitem[Lane et~al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...560..390L}
780: B.~F. Lane, M.~R. {Zapatero Osorio}, M.~C. {Britton}, E.~L. {Mart{\'{\i}}n},
781: and S.~R. {Kulkarni}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{560}, 390--399 (2001).
782:
783: \bibitem[Zapatero~Osorio et~al.(2004)]{2004astro.ph..7334O}
784: M.~R. Zapatero~Osorio, B.~F. {Lane}, Y.~{Pavlenko}, E.~L. {Mart{\'{\i}}n},
785: M.~{Britton}, and S.~R. {Kulkarni}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{615}, 958--971
786: (2004).
787:
788: \bibitem[Simon et~al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644.1183S}
789: M.~Simon, C.~{Bender}, and L.~{Prato}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{644}, 1183--1192
790: (2006).
791:
792: \bibitem[Stassun et~al.(2006)]{2006Natur.440..311S}
793: K.~G. Stassun, R.~D. {Mathieu}, and J.~A. {Valenti}, \emph{\nat} \textbf{440},
794: 311--314 (2006).
795:
796: \bibitem[Delfosse et~al.(2000)]{2000A&A...364..217D}
797: X.~Delfosse, T.~{Forveille}, D.~{S{\'e}gransan}, J.-L. {Beuzit}, S.~{Udry},
798: C.~{Perrier}, and M.~{Mayor}, \emph{\aap} \textbf{364}, 217--224 (2000).
799:
800: \bibitem[Martinache et~al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661..496M}
801: F.~Martinache, J.~P. {Lloyd}, M.~J. {Ireland}, R.~S. {Yamada}, and P.~G.
802: {Tuthill}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{661}, 496--501 (2007).
803:
804: \bibitem[Ireland et~al.(2008)]{gl802b-ireland}
805: M.~J. Ireland, A.~{Kraus}, F.~{Martinache}, J.~P. {Lloyd}, and P.~G. {Tuthill},
806: \emph{\apj} \textbf{678}, 463--471 (2008).
807:
808: \bibitem[Liu et~al.(2008)]{liu08-2m1534orbit}
809: M.~C. Liu, T.~J. {Dupuy}, and M.~J. {Ireland}, \emph{ApJ} (2008), in press
810: (astro-ph/0807.0238).
811:
812: \bibitem[Dupuy et~al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0807.2450D}
813: T.~J. Dupuy, M.~C. {Liu}, and M.~J. {Ireland}, \emph{\apj} (2008), in press
814: (astro-ph/0807.2450).
815:
816: \bibitem[Bouy et~al.(2004)]{2004A&A...423..341B}
817: H.~Bouy, et~al., \emph{\aap} \textbf{423}, 341--352 (2004).
818:
819: \bibitem[Seifahrt et~al.(2008)]{2008A&A...484..429S}
820: A.~Seifahrt, T.~{R{\"o}ll}, R.~{Neuh{\"a}user}, A.~{Reiners}, F.~{Kerber},
821: H.~U. {K{\"a}ufl}, R.~{Siebenmorgen}, and A.~{Smette}, \emph{\aap}
822: \textbf{484}, 429--434 (2008).
823:
824: \bibitem[Close et~al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...665..736C}
825: L.~M. Close, N.~{Thatte}, E.~L. {Nielsen}, R.~{Abuter}, F.~{Clarke}, and
826: M.~{Tecza}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{665}, 736--743 (2007).
827:
828: \bibitem[Baraffe et~al.(2003)]{2003A&A...402..701B}
829: I.~Baraffe, G.~{Chabrier}, T.~S. {Barman}, F.~{Allard}, and P.~H. {Hauschildt},
830: \emph{\aap} \textbf{402}, 701--712 (2003).
831:
832: \bibitem[Baraffe et~al.(1998)]{1998A&A...337..403B}
833: I.~Baraffe, G.~{Chabrier}, F.~{Allard}, and P.~H. {Hauschildt}, \emph{\aap}
834: \textbf{337}, 403--412 (1998).
835:
836: \bibitem[Mathieu et~al.(2007)]{2007prpl.conf..411M}
837: R.~D. Mathieu, I.~{Baraffe}, M.~{Simon}, K.~G. {Stassun}, and R.~{White},
838: \enquote{{Dynamical Mass Measurements of Pre-Main-Sequence Stars: Fundamental
839: Tests of the Physics of Young Stars},} in \emph{Protostars and Planets V},
840: edited by B.~{Reipurth}, D.~{Jewitt}, and K.~{Keil}, 2007, pp. 411--425.
841:
842: \bibitem[Stassun et~al.(2008)]{2008Natur.453.1079S}
843: K.~G. Stassun, R.~D. {Mathieu}, P.~A. {Cargile}, A.~N. {Aarnio}, E.~{Stempels},
844: and A.~{Geller}, \emph{\nat} \textbf{453}, 1079--1082 (2008).
845:
846: \bibitem[Stassun et~al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664.1154S}
847: K.~G. Stassun, R.~D. {Mathieu}, and J.~A. {Valenti}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{664},
848: 1154--1166 (2007).
849:
850: \bibitem[L{\'o}pez-Morales(2007)]{2007ApJ...660..732L}
851: M.~L{\'o}pez-Morales, \emph{\apj} \textbf{660}, 732--739 (2007).
852:
853: \bibitem[Kraus et~al.(2007)]{2007AJ....134.1488K}
854: A.~L. Kraus, E.~R. {Craine}, M.~S. {Giampapa}, W.~W.~G. {Scharlach}, and R.~A.
855: {Tucker}, \emph{\aj} \textbf{134}, 1488--1502 (2007).
856:
857: \bibitem[Blake et~al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...678L.125B}
858: C.~H. Blake, D.~{Charbonneau}, R.~J. {White}, G.~{Torres}, M.~S. {Marley}, and
859: D.~{Saumon}, \emph{\apjl} \textbf{678}, L125--L128 (2008).
860:
861: \bibitem[Burgasser et~al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0803.0295B}
862: A.~J. Burgasser, M.~C. {Liu}, M.~J. {Ireland}, K.~L. {Cruz}, and T.~J. {Dupuy},
863: \emph{\apj} \textbf{681}, 579--593 (2008).
864:
865: \bibitem[Day-Jones et~al.(2008)]{2008MNRAS.388..838D}
866: A.~C. Day-Jones, D.~J. {Pinfield}, R.~{Napiwotzki}, B.~{Burningham}, J.~S.
867: {Jenkins}, H.~R.~A. {Jones}, S.~L. {Folkes}, D.~J. {Weights}, and J.~R.~A.
868: {Clarke}, \emph{\mnras} \textbf{388}, 838--848 (2008).
869:
870: \bibitem[Palla and {Baraffe}(2005)]{2005A&A...432L..57P}
871: F.~Palla, and I.~{Baraffe}, \emph{\aap} \textbf{432}, L57--L60 (2005).
872:
873: \end{thebibliography}
874:
875:
876:
877:
878:
879: % \begin{thebibliography}{9}
880: %
881: % \bibitem{Brown2000}
882: % M.~P. Brown, and K.~Austin, \emph{The New Physique}, Publisher Name,
883: % Publisher City, 2000, pp. 212--213.
884: %
885: % \bibitem{BrownAustin:2000}
886: % M.~P. Brown, and K.~Austin, \emph{Appl. Phys. Letters} \textbf{85},
887: % 2503--2504 (2000).
888: %
889: % \bibitem{Wang}
890: % R.~Wang, ``Title of Chapter,'' in \emph{Classic Physiques}, edited by
891: % R.~B. Hamil, Publisher Name, Publisher City, 2000, pp. 212--213.
892: %
893: % \bibitem{SJ:1999}
894: % C.~D.~Smith and E.~F.~Jones, ``Load-Cycling in Cubic Press,'' in
895: % \emph{Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1999}, edited by M.~D.~F. et~al.,
896: % AIP Conference Proceedings 505, American Institute of Physics, New York,
897: % 1999, pp. 651--654.
898: %
899: % \end{thebibliography}
900:
901: %%
902: %% End of file `template-6s.tex'.
903:
904:
905:
906: \end{document}
907:
908: %%% Local Variables:
909: %%% mode: latex
910: %%% TeX-master: t
911: %%% End:
912: