1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{lscape}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \def\esc{{\rm esc}}
7: \def\cut{{\rm cut}}
8: \def\tot{{\rm tot}}
9: \def\thresh{{\rm thresh}}
10:
11: \newcommand{\kms}{\, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}}
12: \newcommand{\cm}{\, {\rm cm}}
13: \newcommand{\gm}{\, {\rm g}}
14: \newcommand{\erg}{\, {\rm erg}}
15: \newcommand{\kel}{\, {\rm K}}
16: \newcommand{\kpc}{\, {\rm kpc}}
17: \newcommand{\mpc}{\, {\rm Mpc}}
18: \newcommand{\seg}{\, {\rm s}}
19: \newcommand{\kev}{\, {\rm keV}}
20: \newcommand{\hz}{\, {\rm Hz}}
21: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.\ }
22: \newcommand{\yr}{\, {\rm yr}}
23: \newcommand{\mpyr}{{\rm mas}\, {\rm yr}^{-1}}
24: \newcommand{\msun}{\rm M_{\odot}}
25: \newcommand{\gyr}{\, {\rm Gyr}}
26: \newcommand{\eq}{eq.\ }
27:
28:
29: \title{Old-Population Hypervelocity Stars from the Galactic Center: Limits from the SDSS}
30: \author{Juna A. Kollmeier\altaffilmark{1}, Andrew Gould\altaffilmark{2}, Gillian Knapp\altaffilmark{3}, and Timothy C. Beers\altaffilmark{4}}
31:
32: \altaffiltext{1}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
33: 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101}
34: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 4051 McPherson Laboratory, Columbus, OH, 43210}
35: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University,
36: Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544}
37: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy; CSCE:Center for the Sudy of Cosmic Evolution and JINA: Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 USA}
38: \begin{abstract}
39: We present limits on the ejection of old-population HVS from a
40: sample of over 290,000 stars selected from the SDSS. We derive the
41: speed at the solar circle from the measured positions and radial
42: velocities by assuming a radial orbit and adopting a simple
43: isothermal model of the Galactic halo, which enables us to identify candidate bound and
44: unbound ejectees. We find 4 candidate bound F-stars from this
45: sample, all with negative Galactocentric radial velocity
46: (i.e., returning toward the GC). We additionally find 2 candidate
47: unbound stars (one F and one G), however, existing proper motion
48: measurements make these unlikely to be emerging from the GC. These
49: data place an upper limit on the rate of ejection of old-population
50: stars from the GC of $\sim 45\, {\rm Myr}^{-1}$. Comparing to the rate for
51: more massive B-star ejectees of $\sim 0.5\, {\rm Myr}^{-1}$, our limit
52: on the rate of ejection of old-population HVS shows that the mass
53: function at the GC is not bottom-heavy and is consistent with being
54: normal. Future targeted surveys of old-population HVS could
55: determine if it is indeed top-heavy.
56: \end{abstract}
57: \section{Introduction}
58: The search for hypervelocity stars (HVS) in the stellar halo was
59: originally proposed in order to indirectly probe the Galactic Center
60: (GC) at optical wavelengths \citep{hills88}. These stars, having been
61: ejected from the GC via binary-exchange collisions with a putative
62: supermassive black hole at speeds in excess of Galactic escape would
63: provide the dynamical ``smoking gun'' evidence for such an object at a
64: time when direct detection seemed remote. Despite the tremendous
65: advances in infrared instrumentation in the intervening two decades
66: (and the associated confirmation of the supermassive black hole at the
67: GC), it remains extraordinarily difficult to see any but the
68: brightest, youngest stars at the center of the Galaxy
69: \citep[e.g.][]{genzel97,ghez98, ghez00, schoedel02}. The existence of
70: these young stars is a major mystery since one would naively expect
71: that the conditions near a supermassive black hole are sufficiently
72: hostile to prevent in situ star formation of any kind. A key question
73: is whether or not these stars represent the ``tip of the iceberg'' in
74: an otherwise normal star forming region or whether star formation is
75: fundamentally different at the GC. Because HVS are relatively rare,
76: it was previously not feasible to amass sufficiently large numbers of
77: such stars to go beyond the ``smoking-gun'' prediction that there
78: should be young, blue stars in the halo. In the era of deep,
79: wide-field spectroscopic surveys, it is now conceivable to use Hills'
80: original idea to exploit HVS in the Galactic halo to obtain,
81: among other things, detailed information about star formation at the
82: GC, which is otherwise obscured from direct view, to at least a factor
83: of 2.5 lower in mass than the young population currently being probed \citep{brown05,brown08}.
84:
85:
86: The Sloan Digitial Sky Survey (SDSS) provides an exceptional database
87: to search for HVS that would otherwise be missed from targeted
88: surveys. The SDSS has obtained over 300,000 stellar spectra since it
89: began operations \citep{york00, gunn98, gunn06}. The data are reduced
90: by an automated pipeline that produces reliable spectral
91: classifications and radial velocities (RVs). The SEGUE Stellar
92: Parameter Pipeline (hereafter, SSPP) further processes the wavelength-
93: and flux-calibrated spectra generated by the standard SDSS
94: spectroscopic reduction pipeline \citep{stoughton02}, obtains
95: equivalent widths and/or line indices for 82 atomic or molecular
96: absorption lines, and estimates $T_{\rm eff}$, log $g$, and [Fe/H]
97: through the application of a number of approaches \citep{lee08a,
98: lee08b, allendeprieto08}. With this enormous database of stellar
99: spectra it is already possible to detect HVS among a broad class of
100: stars. In particular, the size of the SDSS stellar library makes SDSS
101: sensitive to F and G type HVS which require a substantially different
102: search strategy than their O and B counterparts
103: \citep{kandg07}. In contrast to the photometric survey, the SDSS RV
104: catalog is not complete in any dimension. In this work, we examine a
105: large sample of high-velocity stars in order to place limits on the
106: ejection of F/G stars from the GC.
107:
108: In \S~\ref{sec:sdss} we will summarize the stellar spectra and the
109: sample selection for stars that will be used for this analysis. In
110: \S~\ref{sec:ejectees} we present limits on the ejecton of
111: old-population HVS. We compare this limit with young-population HVS in
112: \S~\ref{sec:comp_b_stars}. We present our discussion and conclusions
113: in \S~\ref{sec:disc}.
114:
115: \section{{The Sample}
116: \label{sec:sdss}}
117:
118: The sample used here is part of an ongoing study to find high-velocity
119: stars within the SDSS (Knapp et al. 2009, in preparation). All RVs
120: for stars aquired by the SDSS as of 15 January 2007 were extracted
121: from the SDSS database. Selected objects were required to have RV errors
122: not exceeding 100 $\kms$ and required to be free of pipeline flags
123: indicating likely problems in the automated velocity determination.
124: This yielded a sample of 291,111 objects. Velocities were converted
125: to Galactocentric velocity assuming that the local rotation speed is
126: 220$\kms$ and that the Sun moves at (+9,+12,+7)$\kms$ relative to the
127: local standard of rest in the direction of the GC, Galactic rotation
128: and the north Galactic pole respectively. All objects with
129: Galactocentric RVs in excess of $\vert V_G \vert \geq 350 \kms$ were
130: examined to ensure the sample was free of catastrophic velocity
131: errors. This process yielded a total sample of 33 objects with
132: Galactocentric RVs exceeding $\pm 400 \kms$, which we analyze in detail
133: below.
134:
135: \section{{F and G Star Ejectees}
136: \label{sec:ejectees}}
137:
138: \citet{kandg07} argued that large RV samples, such as SDSS, could
139: probe an as yet undiscovered old population of stars ejected from the
140: GC and would be most sensitive to stars near the
141: main-sequence turnoff within this population. Moreover, they argued
142: that such surveys would be more sensitive to the bound rather than
143: unbound members of this population, simply because the bound stars
144: accumulate over the lifetime of the Galaxy and can be seen still
145: orbiting, while the unbound stars can only be viewed during their
146: exit. In this section, we analyze the sensitivity of SDSS to both
147: classes of ejectees, and we tabulate the candidates derived from this
148: database.
149:
150:
151: \subsection{{Selection Criteria for Bound Ejectees} \label{sec:boundcand}}
152:
153:
154: We begin by asking what the sensitivity of the SDSS
155: survey is to bound turnoff stars and whether any such candidates
156: are in the sample. Of course, this requires that we establish
157: selection criteria that remove the vast majority of contaminants
158: but still retain significant sensitivity to bound ejectees.
159: We adopt the following two criteria:
160: \begin{equation}
161: v_{r,G}> v_\cut= 400\,\kms,\qquad v_{\odot\rm -circle} < v_\esc,
162: \label{eqn:sel_crit}
163: \end{equation}
164: where $v_{r,G}$ is the observed RV converted to the
165: Galactic frame, $v_{\odot\rm -circle}$ is the velocity that
166: the star has when it crosses the solar circle, and $v_\esc$ is
167: the Galactic escape velocity, again measured at the solar circle.
168:
169: The first criterion is purely observational (apart from the implied
170: assumption of solar motion) and is self-contained. The threshold
171: $v_\cut$ is established empirically from the observed velocity
172: distribution (Knapp et al. 2009, in prep). The second criterion
173: requires that we specify both a model of the Galaxy (to determine the
174: value of $v_\esc$) and a model of the photometric properties of the
175: target population (ejectees), so that we can estimate $v_{\odot\rm
176: -circle}$ from its observed $v_{r,G}$ and from the observed fluxes
177: in several bands.
178:
179: For the Galactic model, we adopt an isothermal sphere characterized
180: by a rotation speed $v_c=220\,\kms$, truncated at a Galactocentric
181: radius $R_b$. For this model $R_b = R_0\exp[(v_\esc/v_c)^2/2-1]$.
182: We will adopt $v_\esc = 550\,\kms$, which implies $R_b = 8.37\,R_0$,
183: as a default, but will also consider other values.
184: We will consider two classes of stars,' ``F stars'', defined observationally
185: as $0.3<(g-i)_0\leq 0.5$, and ``G stars'', defined as $0.5<(g-i)_0\leq 0.75$.
186: We adopt for these absolute magnitudes $M_g=3.5$ and $M_g=5.5$, respectively.
187: It is important to keep in mind that these assumptions apply only
188: to the putative ejectee population: the photometric properties
189: of non-ejectee stars, which obviously dominate the SDSS sample overall,
190: are completely irrelevant.
191:
192: From the observed dereddened magnitude $g_0$ of the star, we
193: can then infer its distance, $r=10^{(g_o-M_g)/5 - 2}\,$kpc,
194: and hence (from its position on the sky), infer the angle
195: $\phi$ between the Sun and the GC, as seen from the star.
196: Then, since the ejectee is assumed to be on a radial orbit, its full
197: 3-D velocity is $v=|v_{r,G}\sec\phi|$, and hence its velocity
198: at the solar circle (assuming, as is always the case for F stars
199: in SDSS, that $R<R_b$) is
200: \begin{equation}
201: v_{\odot\rm-circle} = \sqrt{(v_{r,G}\sec\phi)^2 + 2v_c^2\ln(R/R_0)}.
202: \label{eqn:sol_circ}
203: \end{equation}
204: It is immediately obvious that this equation places strong constraints
205: on the observational parameter space in which the search can be
206: conducted. For instance, if the star is fairly bright, so that
207: $r\ll R_0$, then $\cos\phi>v_\cut/v_\esc$. Since, for this geometry,
208: $\cos\phi\sim -\cos l\cos b$, this constraint eliminates the roughly
209: $v_\cut/v_\esc= 73\%$ of the sky that is not sufficiently close to
210: the Galactocentric (or anticentric) directions. At the opposite
211: extreme, a bound star at $R>R_0\exp[(v_\esc/v_\cut)^2/2]\sim 2.57\,R_0$
212: cannot be probed in any direction because its velocity (and hence
213: RV) will fall below the threshold. At intermediate distances,
214: these two effects combine with different relative weights.
215:
216: \subsection{{Candidate Bound Ejectees}
217: \label{sec:bound_candidates}}
218:
219: Of the stars in the Knapp et al. (2009) sample, four F stars (and no G
220: stars) survive as candidate bound ejectees (see Table~\ref{tbl-1}).
221: It is a curious fact that all four are coming toward us, however there
222: is a 1/8 random probability that all four would be going in the same
223: direction, which is too high to warrant further analysis. It is also
224: interesting that these stars are all measured to be metal poor. These
225: candidates could either be members of a metal-poor population ejected from
226: the GC or simply halo stars. Obtaining proper motion measurements for
227: the candidates would discriminate between the two scenarios.
228:
229:
230:
231: \subsection{{General Formulae for Bound-Ejectee Sensitivity}
232: \label{sec:bound_sensitivity}}
233:
234: Initially, consider a spectroscopic survey that obtains RVs of
235: all stars in a small angular area $\Omega$ over a narrow magnitude
236: range $g_0\pm \Delta g_0/2$, and over a specified narrow range
237: of colors. Consider a star in this sample that is ejected
238: from the GC, with current Galactocentric RV $v_r$, and
239: assume that it has an absolute magnitude (estimated from its color)
240: $M_g$. The star then has distance from us $r= 10^{(g_0-M_g)/5 - 2}\,$kpc,
241: so the volume of such a survey is
242: \begin{equation}
243: \Delta V = {\ln 10\over 5}\Delta g_0\Omega r^3.
244: \label{eqn:delta_vol}
245: \end{equation}
246: As mentioned above it has a 3-D Galactocentric velocity $v = v_r\sec\phi$,
247: where $\phi$ is the angle between us and the GC, as seen from the
248: star.
249:
250: As seen from the GC, the probed volume covers an
251: area $\Delta A$ and has a thickness $\Delta w$. Of course,
252: $\Delta V = \Delta A\Delta w$. A fraction $\Delta A/4\pi R^2$
253: of all ejected stars will pass through this volume at some time
254: (assuming isotropic ejection),
255: where $R$ is the star's Galactocentric distance, and it will
256: spend a fraction $2\Delta w/vP$ of its time in this volume,
257: where $P$ is the orbital period.
258: Hence, observations of this volume will probe a fraction
259: \begin{equation}
260: f_{\rm vol}={\Delta A\over 4\pi R^2}{2\Delta w\over vP}
261: = {\ln 10\over 2.5}{\Delta g_0\Omega r^3\over 4\pi R^2 vP}
262: \label{eqn:f_full}
263: \end{equation}
264: of all ejected stars. Now consider that we do not observe all stars in this volume,
265: but only one. Clearly, the fraction of ejected stars that
266: we probe falls by a factor $N_{\rm vol}$, where $N_{\rm vol}$ is
267: the number of stars that satify our detection criteria. That
268: is, $N_{\rm vol} = n\Omega\Delta g_0$, where $n$ is the number density
269: of stars per sterradian, per magnitude, and satisfying the color
270: criteria. Hence, the fraction of all ejected stars probed by this
271: single observation of the $i$th star is
272: \begin{equation}
273: f_i= {\ln 10\over 2.5}{ r_i^3\over 4\pi R_i^2 v P_i n_i}.
274: \label{eqn:f_i}
275: \end{equation}
276:
277: To determine the period, we apply our adopted Galactic model, first
278: finding that the apocenter of the orbit $R_m$ will be
279: \begin{equation}
280: R_m = R_*,\quad (R_*\leq R_b);\qquad
281: R_m = {R_b\over 1 + \ln(R_b/R) - (v/v_c)^2/2} \quad (R_*>R_b)
282: \label{eqn:apocenter}
283: \end{equation}
284: where
285: \begin{equation}
286: R_* \equiv R\exp{(v/v_c)^2\over 2}.
287: \label{eqn:isothermal_apocenter}
288: \end{equation}
289: The velocity $v'$ at any point in the orbit $R'$ will be given by
290: \begin{equation}
291: {1\over 2}\biggl({v'\over v_c}\biggr)^2 = \ln{R_*\over R'},
292: \quad (R'\leq R_b);\qquad
293: {1\over 2}\biggl({v'\over v_c}\biggr)^2 = {R_b\over R'}- {R_b\over R_m},
294: \quad (R'> R_b).
295: \label{eqn:v_of_R}
296: \end{equation}
297: Integrating the equation $d t = d R'/v'(R')$ over one full period yields
298: \begin{equation}
299: P = \sqrt{2\pi}{R_*\over v_c},\qquad (R_*\leq R_b),
300: \label{eqn:period1}
301: \end{equation}
302: \begin{equation}
303: P = \sqrt{2\pi}{R_*\over v_c}{\rm erfc}\,[\sqrt{\ln(R_*/R_b)}]
304: +\sqrt{2}{R_m\over v_c}
305: \biggl[\sqrt{1-x} + {\arccos\sqrt{x}\over \sqrt{x}} \biggr]
306: ,\qquad (R_*>R_b)
307: \label{eqn:period2}
308: \end{equation}
309: where $x\equiv R_b/R_m$.
310:
311: The total sensitivity of the survey is then simply the sum $f_\tot
312: \equiv \sum_i f_i$ over all stars. If there are $N_\tot$ bound stars
313: orbiting, then the expected number of detections will simply be
314: $N_{\rm exp} = f_\tot N_\tot$. It will prove useful later on to
315: express the same result as
316: \begin{equation}
317: \Gamma_\thresh^{-1} =\tau_{\rm MW}\sum_i f_i,
318: \label{eqn:gamma_thresh}
319: \end{equation}
320: where $\tau_{\rm MW}=10\,$Gyr is the lifetime of the Milky Way.
321: In this formulation, $N_{\rm exp} = \Gamma/\Gamma_{\rm thresh}$,
322: where $\Gamma$ is the mean bound-ejection rate averaged over
323: the lifetime of the Galaxy.
324:
325: To understand the basic properties of $f_i$, let us initially restrict
326: attention to the first case, $R_*\leq R_b$. Then
327: \begin{equation}
328: f_i= {\ln 10\over 5}(2\pi)^{-3/2}
329: \biggr({r_i\over R_i}\biggr)^3{\exp(-z^2/2)\over z n_i},
330: \qquad z\equiv {v\over v_c}
331: \label{eqn:f_i_simple}
332: \end{equation}
333: If we consider some typical values for relatively faint turnoff stars in
334: SDSS ($g_0\sim 18.5$),
335: $r\sim 10\,$kpc, $R\sim 16\,$kpc,
336: $z=2$, and $n=100\,\rm deg^{-2}$, then $f_i\sim 1.5\times 10^{-9}$.
337: Hence, by obtaining RVs for about $10^4$ stars, one could probe
338: a bound population of F stars ejected from the GC provided it
339: had at least $10^5$ members. This corresponds to
340: $\Gamma_\thresh= 10\,\rm Myr^{-1}$.
341:
342: \subsection{{Bound-Ejectee Sensitivity of SDSS}
343: \label{sec:bound_sensitivity_sdss}}
344:
345: To determine the sensitivity of the SDSS spectroscopic survey, we
346: first evaluate $n_i$ for our two classes of stars as a function of
347: magnitude and position on the sky using the SDSS photometric catalog.
348: This was done using 20 individual patches of sky, each with area 1
349: square degree, and interpolating these values to obtain $n_i$ for
350: other parts of the sky. We then sum equation (\ref{eqn:f_i}) over all
351: stars in the SDSS spectroscopic catalog that meet our color criteria.
352: Figure \ref{fig:sens} shows the result for several cases. The three
353: bold curves (blue) are for F stars under the assumption of
354: $v_\esc=550\,\kms$ and for three different thresholds, $v_\cut = 400,$
355: 410, and 420. The solid (red) curve is for F stars with
356: $v_\cut=400\,\kms$, $v_\esc=520\,\kms$, while the dashed (green) curve
357: is for G stars with $v_\cut=400\,\kms$, $v_\esc=550\,\kms$. The two
358: other curves will be explained later.
359:
360: Several features are apparent from this figure. First, sensitivity is
361: peaked quite close to the escape velocity. This may seem surprising
362: in view of equation (\ref{eqn:f_i_simple}), which exponentially
363: declines with the square of the velocity for $R_*<R_b$, and then even
364: more steeply. However, at low $v$, distant (i.e., faint) stars do not
365: contribute because their declining speeds at large $R$ bring them
366: below the first selection cut in equation (\ref{eqn:sel_crit}). Most
367: distant stars gain by $r^3$ in equation (\ref{eqn:f_i_simple}), at
368: least for $r<R_0$. Second, sensitivity falls quite steeply with
369: increasing $v_\cut$, approximately a factor 2 for each $10\,\kms$.
370: This is basically a consequence of the same volume effect just
371: analyzed. The same effect also accounts for the dramatic falloff in
372: sensitivity if the escape velocity proves lower than our default
373: $v_\esc=550\,\kms$. Finally, senstivity to bound G-star ejectees is
374: about 1/3 that of F stars.
375:
376: Let us initially adopt the extremely simple model
377: that the number of bound F-star ejectees is uniform as a function
378: of $v_{\odot -\rm circle}$. Under this assumption, we can make
379: one test of the plausibility of the candidate population by
380: ploting their cumulative distribution, which is shown in
381: Figure \ref{fig:cum}. The match is extremely good.
382:
383: Let us then tentatively assume that the candidates are really
384: bound ejectees. Integrating under the entire (upper-blue) curve in Figure \ref{fig:sens}
385: yields $\int d v\Gamma_\thresh^{-1} = 4.0\,\rm Myr$-$\kms$. However, from
386: Figure \ref{fig:sens} and especially Figure \ref{fig:cum}, it is clear
387: that about 75\% of this sensitivity comes from the roughtly
388: $35\,\kms$ interval in which the four candidates are detected.
389: Therefore, if these candidates are accepted as real, we can
390: infer an ejection rate
391: \begin{equation}
392: \Gamma \sim {4\over
393: \langle\Gamma_{\rm thresh}^{-1}\rangle} =
394: 4{35\,{\rm \kms}\over 0.75 \times 4\,{\rm Myr}^{-1}{\rm-}\kms}\sim 45\,\rm Myr^{-1}
395: \qquad (505\,\kms < v_{\odot\rm-circle}<540\,\kms)
396: \label{eqn:gamma_eval}
397: \end{equation}
398: Of course, if some or all of the candidates are later vetted and found
399: wanting, the smaller number of detections would then yield an
400: analagous upper limit.
401:
402: Since the G-star sensitivity is smaller and we find no candidates, the
403: G stars are consistent with a similar rate, but with weaker
404: statistics.
405:
406: \subsection{{Unbound Ejectees}
407: \label{sec:unbound_ejectees}}
408:
409: We select candidate unbound ejected stars with exactly the criterion as
410: bound stars (eq.~[\ref{eqn:sel_crit}]), except reversing the
411: sign on the second condition, $v_{\odot\rm -circle}\geq v_\esc$, and
412: of course demanding that they be exiting rather than entering the Galaxy.
413: Then, following a very similar derivation to the one given for
414: equations (\ref{eqn:f_i}) and (\ref{eqn:gamma_thresh}),
415: we immediately derive their analogs for the unbound case,
416: \begin{equation}
417: \Gamma_\thresh^{-1} = \sum_i t_i
418: \qquad
419: t_i= {\ln 10\over 5}{ r_i^3\over 4\pi R_i^2 v n_i}.
420: \label{eqn:t_i}
421: \end{equation}
422: This quantity is shown in Figure \ref{fig:sens}
423: as a function of $v_{\odot\rm -circle}$ for F stars
424: (bold dashed, magenta) and G stars (dotted, cyan) for
425: the case $v_\esc = 550\,\kms$, $v_\cut = 400\,\kms$.
426: Nothing prevents us from evaluating equation (\ref{eqn:t_i})
427: even below $v_\esc$, and we display the extensions of these
428: curves in Figure \ref{fig:sens}. Their physical meaning is that
429: it is possible to detect bound ejectees during their first orbit,
430: and for orbital times of order or longer than $\tau_{\rm MW}$,
431: this is actually a more accurate representation of the detection
432: rate than averaging over a full orbits. Thus,
433: the bound rate is really the maxium of the bound curve and
434: extension of the unbound curve.
435:
436: There is one F star candidate that survives our selection criteria and
437: one G star. The proper motions for both of these stars are
438: inconsistent with a Galactocentric origin as we now show. Were it
439: ejected from the GC, based on its current position, a star should
440: exhibit a proper motion in the direction
441: \begin{equation}
442: {\rm tan}(\theta) = {\rm tan}(l){\rm sin}(b)
443: \end{equation}
444: where $\theta$ is measured from Galactic north through east. The F
445: star candidate has a measured proper motion from SDSS \citep{pier03,munn04}
446: of $34\,{\rm mas\, yr^{-1}}$ at $55^\circ$ (with small errors) ---
447: significantly in conflict with the predicted value $\theta=330^\circ$.
448:
449: Unlike the F star, the G star candidate cannot be discarded based on
450: the its proper-motion direction alone. The measured proper motion of
451: $6\,{\rm mas\, yr^{-1}}$ is sufficiently small that the measured
452: direction of $183^{\circ}$ is poorly determined given the errors. We
453: therefore compare the predicted and observed {\it vector} proper
454: motions, which (unlike the case of the F star) require a distance
455: estimate. From its $g_0$ magnitude we estimate a distance of
456: $7.8\kpc$, and it is therefore expected to be moving at 14$\,{\rm
457: mas\, yr^{-1}}$ at $244^{\circ}$. The magnitude of the vector
458: difference of the expected and observed proper motions is $12\,{\rm
459: mas\, yr^{-1}}$, which is to be compared to the typical errors of
460: $\sim 4\,{\rm mas\, yr^{-1}}$ \citep{munn04}, making it unlikely that
461: this star is an unbound ejectee.
462:
463: Since $\Gamma_\thresh$ is essentially constant in the unbound regime
464: at (0.05 Myr)$^{-1}$ for F stars and (0.01 Myr)$^{-1}$ for G stars,
465: this lack of detections places an upper limit on the ejection of
466: unbound F and G stars of
467: \begin{equation}
468: \Gamma^F_{\rm unbound} < 60\,\rm Myr^{-1},\qquad
469: \Gamma^G_{\rm unbound} < 300\,\rm Myr^{-1},
470: \label{eqn:unbound_f_g}
471: \end{equation}
472: at 95\% confidence.
473:
474: Equation (\ref{eqn:unbound_f_g}) is broadly consistent with equation
475: (\ref{eqn:gamma_eval}).
476:
477: \section{{Comparison with B stars}
478: \label{sec:comp_b_stars}}
479:
480: The Brown et al. (2007) survey in essence covered an entire volume
481: of Galaxy rather than a scattering of targets within the Galaxy,
482: like SDSS. Thus, to calculate $\Gamma_\thresh$ one should
483: perform a volume integral. An argument similar to the one
484: given in \S~\ref{sec:bound_sensitivity} leads to the equation
485: \begin{equation}
486: \Gamma_\thresh^{-1} = \int_{\rm area-covered} {d\sin b d l\over 4\pi}
487: \int_{r_{\rm min}}^{r_{\rm max}}
488: {d r\,r^2\over [R(r,l,b)]^2[v^2 - 2v_c^2\ln(R/R_0)]^{1/2}}
489: \label{gamma_brown}
490: \end{equation}
491: where we have for convenience assumed the form of the Galactic potential
492: within $R<R_b$. We esitmate this expression for the
493: Brown et al. (2007) survey by noting that it covered an area
494: $\Delta\Omega=5000\,\rm deg^{2}$ and that most of the sensitivity
495: was in regions where $R\sim r$, by adopting an average value
496: for the velocity in the denominator of $\langle v\rangle = 600\,\kms$,
497: and approximating $\Delta r = r_{\rm max} - r_{\rm min}= 40\,$kpc.
498: We then obtain
499: $\Gamma_\thresh^{-1} = (\Delta\Omega/4\pi)(\Delta r/\langle v\rangle) =
500: 8\,\rm Myr$. Hence the four detections imply
501: $\Gamma^B_{\rm unbound} = 4\Gamma_\thresh = 0.5\,\rm Myr^{-1}$.
502:
503: Thus, the upper limit given by equation (\ref{eqn:unbound_f_g})
504: shows that F-star ejectees are no more than 100 times more common
505: than B-star ejectees. Since F stars themselves are about 100 times
506: more common than B stars in the Galaxy as a whole, this result
507: is already of some interest. Nevertheless, it would certainly
508: be better to achieve at least a few times better sensitivity.
509:
510:
511: \section{Discussion \label{sec:disc}}
512:
513: We have presented the first limit on old-population ejectees from the
514: Galactic Center based on data obtained with the SDSS. We have shown
515: that the ejection of F/G stars is no more than 100 times more common
516: than O/B star ejectees. We note that this limit is obtained simply
517: from analyzing the stellar spectra obtained by SDSS as part of its
518: main projects, {\it not} via a survey designed to preferentially
519: select these objects. Already, this limit suggests that the mass
520: function at the Galactic center is not weighted toward low mass star
521: formation --- a fact impossible to determine by direct imaging of the
522: GC alone. Because these candidates are all found to be metal poor
523: (see Table~\ref{tbl-1}), they may be part of the metal-poor halo in
524: which case, this limit is even stronger. Proper motion measurements
525: would determine whether they are indeed ejectees from the GC and
526: thereby make this limit more stringent. Ongoing surveys, such as the
527: second epoch of the Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and
528: Exploration (SEGUE-II), will determine conclusively if star-formation
529: at the GC is indeed weighted heavily toward young, massive stars.
530:
531:
532: \acknowledgements
533:
534: We thank Warren Brown for helpful comments on this manuscript. JAK
535: was supported by Hubble Fellowship HF-01197 and by a
536: Carnegie-Princeton Fellowship during this work. AG was supported by
537: NSF grant AST-0757888. JAK and AG acknowledge the support of the Kavli
538: Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara during the
539: completion of this work. T.C.B. acknowledges partial funding of this
540: work from grants PHY 02-16783 and PHY 08-22648: Phyiscs Frontiers
541: Center/Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophics (JINA), awarded by the
542: U.S. National Science Foundation. This research has made use of
543: NASA's Astrophysics Data System, of the SIMBAD data base operated at
544: CDS, Strasbourg, France, and of the plotting and analysis package SM,
545: written by Robert Lupton and Patricia Monger. Funding for the
546: creation and distribution of the SDSS-I and SDSS-II Archives has been
547: provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating
548: Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
549: National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the
550: Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher
551: Education Funding Council of the United Kingdom. The SDSS Web site is
552: http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical
553: Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. The
554: Participating Institutions are The American Museum of Natural History,
555: Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, Cambridge
556: University, Case Western Reserve University, The University of
557: Chicago, The Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Drexel University,
558: Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation
559: Group, The Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear
560: Astrophysics, The Kavli Institute for Particle Physics and Cosmology,
561: the Korean Scientist Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
562: Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute
563: for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, The Ohio State
564: University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth,
565: Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the
566: University of Washington.
567:
568:
569: \begin{thebibliography}{}
570:
571: \bibitem[Allende-Prieto et al.(2008)]{allendeprieto08}
572: Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2008, \aj, 136, 2070
573:
574: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2005)]{brown05}
575: Brown, W.~R., Geller, M.~J., Kenyon, S.~J., Kurtz, M.~J., \& Bromley, B.~C.\
576: 2005, \apj,
577:
578: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2007)]{brown07}
579: Brown, W.~R., Geller, M.~J., Kenyon, S.~J., Kurtz, M.~J., \& Bromley, B.~C.\
580: 2007, \apj, 660, 311
581:
582: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2008)]{brown08}
583: Brown, W.~R., Geller, M.~J., Kenyon, S.~J., 2008, \apj, in press
584:
585: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(1998)]{ghez98}
586: Ghez, A.~M., Klein, B.~L., Morris, M., \& Becklin, E.~E.\ 1998, \apj, 509, 678
587:
588: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(2000)]{ghez00}
589: Ghez, A. M., Morris, M., Becklin, E. E., Tanner, A., Kremenek, T., 2000, Nature, 407, 349
590:
591: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(1997)]{genzel97}
592: Genzel, R., Eckart, A., Ott, T., \& Eisenhauer, F.\ 1997, \mnras, 291, 219
593:
594: \bibitem[Gunn et al. (1998)]{gunn98}
595: Gunn, J.E., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 3040
596:
597: \bibitem[Gunn et al. (2006)]{gunn06}
598: Gunn, J.E., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332
599:
600:
601: \bibitem[Hills(1988)]{hills88}
602: Hills, J.~G.\ 1988, \nat, 331, 687
603:
604: \bibitem[Knapp et al. (2009)]{knapp09}
605: Knapp, G.K., Javiv, L., Gould, A., Kollmeier, J.A., et al. 2009 in preparation
606:
607: \bibitem[Kollmeier \& Gould(2007)]{kandg07}
608: Kollmeier, J.A., Gould, A., 2007, \apj, 664, 343)
609:
610: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2008a)]{lee08a}
611: Lee, Y. S., et al. 2008a, \aj, 136, 2022
612:
613: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2008b)]{lee08b}
614: Lee, Y. S., et al. 2008b, \aj, 136, 2050
615:
616: \bibitem[Munn et al.(2004)]{munn04}
617: Munn, J.A., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 3034
618:
619: \bibitem[Pier et al. (2003)]{pier03}
620: Pier, J.R., Munn, J.A., Hindsley, R.B., Hennessy, G.S., Kent, S.M., Lupton, R.H., and Ivezic, Z. 2003, AJ, 125, 1559
621:
622: \bibitem[Sch\H{o}del et al.(2002)]{schoedel02}
623: Sch\H{o}del, R. et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 694
624:
625: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{stoughton02}
626: Stoughton, C., et al. 2002, \aj, 123, 485
627:
628: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{york00}
629: York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
630:
631:
632: \end{thebibliography}
633: \clearpage
634: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccccll}
635: %\rotate
636: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
637: \tablenum{1}
638: \tablecolumns{9}
639: \tablecaption{Candidate Ejectees Satisfying Velocity Criteria \label{tbl-1}}
640: \tablehead{
641: \colhead{Name}&
642: \colhead{$V_G$~(km/sec)}&
643: \colhead{Type}&
644: \colhead{$g_0$}&
645: \colhead{$(g-i)_0$}&
646: \colhead{${\rm T_{eff}~(K)}$}&
647: \colhead{log(g)}&
648: \colhead{[Fe/H]}&
649: \colhead{Plate/Fiber/MJD}&\\
650: }
651: \startdata
652:
653: SDSSJ061118.63+642618.5& -412.3$\pm$5.5& F& 18.39& 0.45 & 6143 & 4.08 & -1.27 & 2299/488/53711 & \\
654: SDSSJ074557.31+181246.7& -409.0$\pm$5.9& F& 18.96& 0.34 & 6235 & 3.51 & -1.73 & 2074/113/53437 & \\
655: SDSSJ224052.56+011332.1& -407.1$\pm$16.3& F& 19.30& 0.49 & 6168 & 4.02 & -1.37 & 1101/561/52621 & \\
656: SDSSJ211321.02+103456.7& -404.4$\pm$17.2& F& 20.07& 0.35 & 6069 & 4.10 & -1.91 & 1891/423/53238 & \\
657: SDSSJ111107.85+585357.2& +425.4$\pm$3.1& F& 16.16& 0.36 & 6514 & 3.58 & -1.77 & 950/554/52378 &\\
658: SDSSJ224740.09-004451.6& +401.8$\pm$13.1& G& 19.97& 0.72 & 5518 & 4.17 & -1.22 & 1901/7/53261 &\\
659:
660: \enddata
661:
662: \end{deluxetable}
663: \clearpage
664:
665:
666: \begin{figure}
667: \plotone{f1.eps}
668: \caption{\label{fig:sens} Sensitiviy of SDSS to old-star ejectees as a
669: function of type and Galactic model. Bold, blue curves show the
670: sensitivity for bound F stars assuming $v_\esc=550\,\kms$ and for
671: three different thresholds, $v_\cut = 400,$ 410, and 420 from bottom
672: to top. Solid red curve shows the case for bound F stars with
673: $v_\cut=400\,\kms$, $v_\esc=520\,\kms$, while the dashed (green)
674: curve is for bound G stars with $v_\cut=400\,\kms$,
675: $v_\esc=550\,\kms$. The sensitivity to unbound F stars (bold
676: dashed, magenta) and unbound G stars (dotted, cyan) for the case
677: $v_\esc = 550\,\kms$, $v_\cut = 400\,\kms$ are also shown. }\end{figure}
678:
679: \begin{figure}
680: \plotone{f2.eps}
681: \caption{Cumulative distribution of velocities of candidate bound F-star HVS population (red histogram). A simple model in which the number of bound F-star ejectees is a uniform function of $v_{\odot \rm-circle}$ is shown in black for comparison. \label{fig:cum}
682: }\end{figure}
683:
684:
685:
686:
687: \end{document}
688:
689: