1: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
2:
3: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
4:
5: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
9: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
10: %% use the longabstract style option.
11:
12: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
13:
14:
15: \newcommand{\bleo}{$\beta$~Leo}
16: \newcommand{\dleo}{$\delta$~Leo}
17: \newcommand{\zlep}{$\zeta$~Lep}
18:
19: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal}
20:
21: \shorttitle{Inner regions of debris disks}
22: \shortauthors{Akeson et al.}
23:
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \title{Dust in the inner regions of debris disks around A stars}
28:
29: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
30: %% author and affiliation information.
31: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
32: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
33: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
34: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
35:
36: \author{R.L. Akeson\altaffilmark{1},
37: D.R. Ciardi\altaffilmark{1},
38: R. Millan-Gabet\altaffilmark{1},
39: A. Merand\altaffilmark{2,3},
40: E. Di Folco\altaffilmark{4},
41: J.D. Monnier\altaffilmark{5},
42: C.A. Beichman\altaffilmark{1},
43: O. Absil\altaffilmark{6},
44: J. Aufdenberg\altaffilmark{7},
45: H. McAlister\altaffilmark{2}, T. ten Brummelaar\altaffilmark{2},
46: J. Sturmann\altaffilmark{2}, L. Sturmann\altaffilmark{2},
47: N. Turner\altaffilmark{2}}
48:
49: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
50: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
51: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
52: %% affiliation.
53:
54: \altaffiltext{1}{Michelson Science Center, Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125}
55: \altaffiltext{2}{Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302}
56: \altaffiltext{3}{current address: European Southern Observatory, Alonso de Cordova 3107, Casilla 19001, Vitacura, Santiago 19, Chile}
57: \altaffiltext{4}{Observatoire de Geneve, Universite de Geneve, Chemin
58: des Maillettes 51, 1290 Sauverny, Switzerland}
59: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI48109}
60: \altaffiltext{6}{LAOG, CNRS and Universite Joseph Fourier, BP 53, F-38041, Grenoble, France}
61: \altaffiltext{7}{Physical Sciences Department, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114}
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64:
65: We present infrared interferometric observations of the inner regions
66: of two A-star debris disks, \bleo\ and \zlep, using the FLUOR
67: instrument at the CHARA interferometer on both short (30 m) and long ($>$200 m)
68: baselines. For the target stars, the short baseline visibilities are
69: lower than expected for the stellar photosphere alone, while those of
70: a check star, \dleo, are not. We interpret this visibility offset of
71: a few percent as a near-infrared excess arising from dust grains
72: which, due to the instrumental field of view, must be located within
73: several AU of the central star. For \bleo, the near-infrared excess
74: producing grains are spatially distinct from the dust which produces
75: the previously known mid-infrared excess. For \zlep, the
76: near-infrared excess may be spatially associated with the mid-infrared
77: excess producing material. We present simple geometric models which
78: are consistent with the near and mid-infrared excess and show that for
79: both objects, the near-infrared producing material is most consistent
80: with a thin ring of dust near the sublimation radius with typical
81: grain sizes smaller than the nominal radiation pressure blowout
82: radius. Finally, we discuss possible origins of the near-infrared
83: emitting dust in the context of debris disk evolution models.
84:
85: \end{abstract}
86:
87:
88: \keywords{circumstellar matter --- stars: individual(beta Leo, zeta Lep)}
89:
90: \section{Introduction}
91:
92: The list of main sequence stars known to have circumstellar material
93: in the form of debris disks has been greatly expanded over the last few
94: years by surveys at longer wavelengths and most recently from
95: Spitzer observations \citep[see e.g., the review by][]{mey07}.
96: Given the size and distribution of dust in these disks, the grains are
97: expected to have short lifetimes. Therefore, it is
98: generally believed that the dust is not remnant from the star
99: formation process, but is generated through collisions of
100: larger bodies.
101: The majority of known debris disks have cold ($<$100 K) material
102: located tens of AU from the central star in an analog of our
103: own Kuiper belt. In some cases, this material extends to
104: 1000 AU. A small fraction \citep{rie05,bei06} have warmer dust
105: located within 10 AU of the central star.
106:
107: The distribution of material in a debris disk is a balance of
108: collisions, radiation pressure, Poynting-Robertson (PR) drag and the
109: dynamical influence of any large bodies in the system. In order to
110: constrain models of these systems, the dust spatial extent and grain size
111: distribution must be measured. Observations of optical and
112: near-infrared scattered light have provided the most detailed overall
113: picture of the dust distribution. However, these
114: scattered light observations do not have sufficient resolution to
115: characterize the material closest to the star, and this is where
116: infrared interferometry can provide a unique constraint.
117:
118: Although many of these sources do not show a clear near-infrared
119: excess in their spectral energy distribution (SED), limits set by spatially
120: unresolved broadband photometry are generally not better than a few to
121: several percent. A small, warm dust
122: component could be present if dust generated by collisions migrated
123: close to the star or was produced by bodies in close orbits. If
124: located within a few AU of the central star, this dust would be at
125: temperatures which would produce near-infrared emission and small
126: grains would produce scattered light. Detection of (or stringent
127: limits on) warm dust will characterize the inner portions of these
128: debris disks. The spatial resolution of infrared interferometry can
129: be exploited to probe for warm dust in these systems. On long
130: baselines ($>$ 100 meters) the central star is resolved and the
131: visibility is primarily a measure of the stellar photospheric size.
132: On shorter baselines ($<$ 50 meters) the photosphere is mostly
133: unresolved and if the measured visibilities have high accuracy,
134: other emission components can be detected
135: by looking for deviations from the visibility
136: expected for the stellar photosphere. Any resolved or incoherent
137: emission will {\em decrease} the measured visibility from the stellar
138: value.
139:
140: Teams using the Palomar Testbed Interferometer \citep{cia01} and the Center
141: for High Angular Resolution Array \citep{abs06,dif07a,abs08} have detected
142: near-infrared extended emission around known debris disk systems,
143: including Vega, the prototype debris disk. While a near-infrared excess
144: was not known through broadband spectral modeling, the
145: interferometrically detected near-infrared excess was
146: consistent with the photometric uncertainties. Observations
147: of other debris disk sources revealed a small near-infrared excess
148: flux around $\tau$ Ceti and $\zeta$ Aql \citep{dif07a,abs08}.
149: In all these systems, the near-infrared excess is consistent
150: with emission from an inner, hot dust component, although
151: for $\zeta$ Aql, a binary companion is also a likely origin.
152:
153: In this paper we present infrared interferometry observations of
154: two known debris disk systems, the A-type stars, \bleo\ and \zlep.
155: The interferometry observations, including
156: determination of the stellar angular diameter, and
157: mid-infrared imaging for \bleo\
158: are presented in \S \ref{obs}. Possible origins for the observed
159: visibility deficit are discussed in \S \ref{vis}. In \S \ref{discuss},
160: we discuss the distribution of the excess producing grains and
161: in \S 5 the origin of these grains. Our conclusions are
162: given in \S 6.
163:
164: \section{Observations and data analysis}
165: \label{obs}
166:
167: \subsection{Targets}
168:
169: The targets were chosen from the sample of known debris disk systems
170: with the V and K brightness as the primary selection criteria.
171: Table \ref{tab:prop} lists the target and check star stellar properties.
172:
173:
174: \begin{table*}[ht!]
175: \begin{center}
176: \begin{tabular}{lrrr} \tableline
177: Parameter & $\beta$ Leo & $\delta$ Leo & $\zeta$ Lep \\ \tableline
178: HD number & 102647 & 97603 & 38678 \\
179: Spectral type\tablenotemark{1} & A3Va & A5IVn & A2Vann \\
180: Distance\tablenotemark{2} (pc) & 11.1 $\pm$0.11 & 17.7$\pm$ 0.26 & 21.5 $\pm$0.32 \\
181: Radius\tablenotemark{3} (R$_{\odot}$) & 1.58 $\pm$ 0.018 & 2.17 $\pm$ 0.073 & 1.60 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
182: T$_{\rm eff}$ & 9020\tablenotemark{4} & 8296\tablenotemark{1} & 9910\tablenotemark{1}\\
183: Luminosity\tablenotemark{5} (L$_{\odot}$) & 11.5 $\pm$ 1.1 & 15.5 $\pm$ 1.8 & 17.0 $\pm$ 2.3 \\
184: v sin i (km/sec) & 110\tablenotemark{4} & 173\tablenotemark{6} & 245\tablenotemark{4} \\
185: \tableline
186: \end{tabular}
187: \tablenotetext{1}{NASA Stars and Exoplanet database: http://nsted.ipac.caltech.edu}
188: \tablenotetext{2}{Distances taken from Hipparcos \citep{per97}; we note a more
189: recent reduction of Hipparocs data \citep{van07} has yielded new distances which
190: are within 1 $\sigma$ of those listed here. We use the older values for
191: consistency with previous work.}
192: \tablenotetext{3}{this work}
193: \tablenotetext{4}{\citet{che06}}
194: \tablenotetext{5}{calculated from the radius and effective temperature}
195: \tablenotetext{6}{\citet{rie05}}
196: \caption{Stellar properties of the sources
197: \label{tab:prop}}
198: \end{center}
199: \end{table*}
200:
201:
202: \bleo\ was identified as having an infrared excess from IRAS
203: observations \citep{aum91}. Mid-infrared imaging has not resolved the
204: disk \citep[][\S \ref{michelle}]{jay01} although differences between the IRAS and ISO
205: fluxes led \citet{lau02} to suggest that the disk emission may be
206: somewhat extended in the ISO beam (52\arcsec\ aperture).
207: \citet{che06} obtained Spitzer IRS spectra of \bleo\ and found a
208: featureless continuum spectra consistent with dust at $\sim$120~K located 19
209: AU from the central star.
210:
211: \zlep\ was also identified as a debris disk by \citet{aum91} and
212: has an unusually high dust temperature ($>$300~K) \citep{aum91,che01}.
213: Recent work by \citet{moe07} resolved the excess at 18~$\mu$m and
214: their model comprises two dust bands extending from 2 to 8 AU.
215: As with \bleo, the Spitzer IRS spectrum for \zlep\ is featureless \citep{che06}.
216:
217:
218: \subsection{CHARA Observations}
219:
220: Observations were conducted with the FLUOR fiber-optics beam
221: combiner at the Center for High Angular Resolution Array (CHARA)
222: operated by Georgia State University. CHARA is a long-baseline,
223: six-element interferometer with direct detection instruments that work
224: at optical to near-infrared wavelengths \citep{ten05}. These FLUOR
225: observations were taken in the K' band and have an effective central
226: wavelength of 2.14 microns. The FLUOR beam combiner produces high
227: precision visibilities by interfering the inputs from two telescopes
228: after spatial filtering through single-mode fibers \citep{cou03}. In
229: this design, wavefront aberrations are converted to photometric fluctuations
230: which are corrected by simultaneous measurement of the fringe and
231: photometric signals from each telescope.
232:
233: \bleo\ and a check star \dleo\ were observed on 3 nights in 2006 May
234: and \zlep\ on 2 nights in 2006 October and November. A check star for
235: \zlep\ was observed but due to its lower K band flux, these data were
236: not useful and are not included here. Observations of the targets and
237: check star were interleaved with calibration observations to determine
238: the instrument response function, also called the system visibility. The
239: check star is an additional target with roughly the same
240: properties as the main target, but no known excess emission at any
241: wavelength. Observations of the check star are processed in the same
242: way and with the same calibrators as the main target and serve as a measure of
243: systematic effects in the data. The calibrators used, along with
244: their adopted diameters are given in Table \ref{tab:calib}.
245:
246:
247: \begin{table*}[ht!]
248: \begin{center}
249: \begin{tabular}{llll} \tableline
250: Calibrator & Diameter (mas) & Target & Diameter reference\\ \tableline
251: 70 Leo & 0.770 $\pm$ 0.015 & \bleo, \dleo & SB relation, \citet{ker04b} \\
252: $\zeta$ Vir & 0.760 $\pm$ 0.015 & \bleo, \dleo & SB relation, \citet{ker04b} \\
253: IRC 10069 & 1.342 $\pm$ 0.07 & \zlep & \citet{mer05} \\
254: $\eta$ Lep & 0.940 $\pm$ 0.020 & \zlep & SB relation, \citet{ker04b} \\
255: HR 1965 & 1.272 $\pm$ 0.017 & \zlep & \citet{mer05} \\
256: HR 1232 & 0.920 $\pm$ 0.020 & \zlep & SB relation, \citet{ker04b} \\ \tableline
257: \end{tabular}
258: \caption{The calibrators used for the CHARA observations. The calibrator
259: sizes are derived using optical and infrared photometry and the
260: surface brightness (SB) relation from \citet{ker04b} or taken
261: from \citet{mer05}.
262: \label{tab:calib}}
263: \end{center}
264: \end{table*}
265:
266:
267: The FLUOR data consist of temporally modulated fringes over an optical
268: path difference (OPD) of 170 microns, centered around the zero
269: OPD. The coherence length (fringe packet size) in the K' band is of
270: order 11 fringes, or approximately 25 microns. In addition to
271: the fringe signal, FLUOR records simultaneous photometric channels, in
272: order to allow the correction of scintillation noise and coupling
273: variations in the input single mode fibers. The photometric correction
274: and flux normalization were done using the numerical methods described
275: in \citet{cou97}. Once the fringe signal was
276: recovered, we estimated the squared visibilities of individual frames
277: as the integrated power in the frequency domain.
278:
279: To estimate the fringe power, we used a time/frequency transform, a
280: Morlet wavelets transform, instead of the classical Fourier approach
281: \citep{cou97}. The classical Fourier method extrapolates the power
282: under the fringe peak using data collected at frequencies outside the
283: fringe peak \citep{mer06}. This approach works well if the readout noise is white.
284: The wavelets approach isolates the fringe signal in the OPD and in the
285: frequency domains \citep[as described in][]{ker04}, allowing a measure
286: of the off-fringe power at all frequencies and therefore a direct measurement of
287: the background noise for each scan. The isolation of the fringe
288: signal in OPD is possible because the modulation length used (170
289: microns) is much larger than the coherence length (approximately 25
290: microns) and the background noise is measured using the portion of the
291: scan situated more than 50 microns on each side of the fringe packet
292: (i.e. four times the coherence length).
293:
294: The background noise arises from 3 components: the
295: photometric variation residuals (after photometric correction), the
296: photon shot noise and the detector readout noise. The first component
297: is only present at very low frequencies, since fringes are acquired at a
298: frequency (100Hz) higher than the scintillation and coupling variations
299: (typically 25Hz at CHARA) and because the photometric correction is
300: very efficient. The second component (photon shot noise) is white
301: noise. The third component, readout noise, is less predictable and can
302: have transients or peaks at discrete frequencies (electronic noise).
303: As the wavelet approach directly measures the background component
304: from the data, there are fewer residuals than in the Fourier method
305: where the noise estimate is approximate. For the FLUOR data, the
306: wavelet method improved the consistency of the results, although
307: the basic results are the same between the two methods.
308:
309: Finally, the final squared visibility estimate and the one sigma uncertainty
310: for a given batch of frames are obtained by the average and
311: standard deviation of the bootstrapped average, as described in
312: \citet{ker04}. The calibrated target data obtained using this reduction method
313: are given in Table \ref{tab:obs}.
314:
315:
316: \begin{table*}[ht!]
317: \begin{center}
318: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrr}\tableline
319: Object & MJD & Baseline(m) & Pos Angle (deg) & V$^2$ & $\sigma$ \\ \tableline
320: $\beta$ Leo & 53856.226 & 32.531 & -12.980 & 0.9487 & 0.0219 \\
321: & 53856.270 & 33.234 & -21.034 & 0.9001 & 0.0269 \\
322: & 53856.309 & 33.801 & -26.735 & 0.9285 & 0.0204 \\
323: & 53864.185 & 313.083 & 74.485 & 0.0679 & 0.0079 \\
324: & 53865.185 & 312.858 & 74.288 & 0.0503 & 0.0040 \\
325: & 53865.236 & 293.126 & 68.316 & 0.0897 & 0.0032 \\ \tableline
326: $\delta$ Leo & 53856.248 & 33.823 & -20.956 & 0.9726 & 0.0393 \\
327: & 53856.290 & 34.069 & -27.244 & 1.0025 & 0.0173 \\
328: & 53856.328 & 33.940 & -31.660 & 1.0356 & 0.0482 \\
329: & 53864.233 & 286.055 & 62.950 & 0.2206 & 0.0253 \\
330: & 53865.215 & 295.815 & 65.870 & 0.1790 & 0.0088 \\ \tableline
331: $\zeta$ Lep & 54040.479 & 218.336 & -57.363 & 0.7543 & 0.0713 \\
332: & 54040.487 & 223.077 & -57.415 & 0.9403 & 0.1002 \\
333: & 54040.506 & 232.879 & -57.237 & 0.5783 & 0.0772 \\
334: & 54045.475 & 24.739 & -22.258 & 0.9742 & 0.0209 \\
335: & 54045.498 & 26.062 & -26.679 & 0.9524 & 0.0235 \\
336: & 54045.518 & 27.252 & -29.651 & 0.9696 & 0.0272 \\ \tableline
337: \end{tabular}
338: \caption{The calibrated visibility observations from CHARA.
339: \label{tab:obs}}
340: \end{center}
341: \end{table*}
342:
343:
344: \subsection{Stellar size and visibility deficit}
345: \label{visdef}
346:
347: If the measured visibilities were due entirely to a resolved stellar
348: disk, both the short and long baseline data would be well-fit with a
349: single uniform disk. However, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:vis}, the
350: visibility measured on the short baseline for \bleo\ and \zlep\ is
351: lower than expected from the stellar size fit on the long baseline.
352: Fitting a single stellar size to both baselines yields a very poor fit
353: as measured by $\chi^2_r$ in comparison to the single-baseline only fits
354: for the target stars, while the single-component fit to both baselines for
355: the check star, \dleo,
356: is good (Table \ref{tab:UDfit}). Any additional flux component
357: within the field of view will decrease the measured visibility and
358: will therefore make the model more
359: consistent with the short-baseline data. A partially
360: resolved emission component will increase the discrepancy between
361: the long and short baseline visibilities as it would be more resolved,
362: and therefore have lower visibility, on the long baselines. An over
363: resolved, i.e. incoherent, source of emission will produce the same
364: fractional decrease in visibility for all baselines. For the simple
365: case of a star and an incoherent component, the measured visibility, $V_{\rm meas}$, is
366: \begin{equation}
367: V_{\rm meas}^2 = \left(\frac{V_{\rm star}*f_{\rm star}}{f_{\rm star}
368: + f_{\rm incoh}}\right)^2
369: \end{equation}
370: where $V_{\rm star}$ is the visibility of the stellar photosphere and
371: $f_{\rm star}$ and $f_{\rm incoh}$ are the fractional stellar and incoherent
372: component fluxes. The visibility used here is a normalized quantity
373: such that an unresolved source has $V=1$ while an incoherent
374: (i.e. completely resolved) source has $V=0$. We fit a single uniform
375: diameter plus an incoherent emission contribution to both baselines,
376: which gives a lower $\chi^2_r$ for \bleo\ and \zlep\ than the uniform
377: disk by itself. The visibility deficit for \zlep\ is a tentative
378: detection as the V$^2$ predicted from the stellar size, 0.996$\pm$0.001,
379: is only 2.3 $\sigma$ from the average measured visibility,
380: 0.966 $\pm$ 0.013 and the stellar size uncertainty is much larger as the
381: star is smaller and fainter than the other targets. We note that the
382: stellar size for \zlep\ from data reduced using the classical Fourier
383: approach is the same as for the wavelets approach, despite the
384: scatter in the long baseline data.
385: Further observations are needed for confirmation of the visibility
386: deficit of \zlep. The best-fit incoherent component corresponds to an excess flux of
387: 2.7 $\pm$ 1.4 Jy for \bleo\ and 0.47 $\pm$ 0.41 Jy for
388: \zlep.
389: For \dleo\ the uniform disk fit is adequate,
390: suggesting no visibility deficit on the check star and no substantial
391: systematics in the observing or data reduction process.
392:
393: \begin{table*}[ht!]
394: \begin{center}
395: \footnotesize
396: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}\tableline
397: Object & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Uniform disk} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Uniform disk} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Uniform disk} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Uniform disk + incoherent flux}\\
398: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{all data} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{long baselines} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{short baselines} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{all data}\\
399: & Diam.(mas) & $\chi^2_r$ & Diam.(mas) & $\chi^2_r$ & Diam.(mas) & $\chi^2_r$ & Diam.(mas) & Inc. flux & $\chi^2_r$ \\ \tableline
400: $\beta$ Leo & 1.332 $\pm$ 0.014 & 3.8 & 1.332 $\pm$ 0.009 & 2.1 & 2.289 $\pm$ 0.31 & 0.9 & 1.323 $\pm$ 0.013 & 0.024$\pm$0.013 & 1.6 \\
401: $\delta$ Leo & 1.148$\pm$0.025 & 0.8 & 1.149 $\pm$0.012 & 0.5 & 0.0 $\pm$ 1.17 & 0.5 & 1.149$\pm$0.022 & 0.0$\pm$0.006 & 1.0 \\
402: $\zeta$ Lep & 0.70$\pm$0.15 & 2.5 & 0.69 $\pm$0.09 & 3.7 & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.65 & 0.2 & 0.66 $\pm$0.14 & 0.015$\pm$0.013 & 2.0 \\ \tableline
403: \end{tabular}
404: \caption{Uniform diameter and incoherent flux fit to data
405: \label{tab:UDfit}}
406: \end{center}
407: \end{table*}
408:
409:
410: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
411: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.5]{f1a_color.ps}
412: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.5]{f1b_color.ps}
413: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.5]{f1c_color.ps}
414: \caption{The measured visibilities and errors (points) for
415: \bleo\ (top, left), \dleo\ (top, right) and \zlep (bottom, left).
416: For each object, the
417: visibility curves for a uniform disk fit only to the long
418: baseline data (solid line with dotted line errors) and
419: for a uniform disk plus an incoherent flux component fit to all the data
420: (dashed
421: line with dot-dash line errors) are shown.
422: \label{fig:vis}}
423: \end{figure*}
424:
425:
426: From the uniform disk fit, we can calculate a limb-darkened angular
427: and physical diameter for these stars using the
428: formula from \citet{han74}
429: \begin{equation}
430: \frac{\theta_{\rm LD}}{\theta_{\rm UD}} = \left(\frac{1-\mu_{\lambda}/3}
431: {1-7\mu_{\lambda}/15}\right)^{1/2},
432: \end{equation}
433: where the coefficient $\mu$ depends on the effective temperature and
434: is taken from \citet{cla95}. The difference between
435: the limb darkened and uniform
436: disk diameters is less than 2\% for our stars, with ratio values ranging
437: from 1.011 to 1.014. The uniform disk and limb-darkened diameters and the
438: derived stellar radii are given in Table \ref{tab:size}, where the uniform
439: diameter is taken from the stellar + incoherent component model.
440: These limb-darkened diameters agree with values calculated
441: from the surface-brightness relation of \citet{ker04}
442: of 1.35, 1.17 and 0.73 mas for \bleo, \dleo, and \zlep\
443: respectively.
444:
445: We note that these limb-darkening parameters are appropriate for
446: slowly rotating stars, which is violated by the values for $v \sin i$
447: given in Table \ref{tab:prop}. \citet{auf06} find limb-darkening
448: corrections 2.5 times higher for Vega, an A0 star rotating at 275
449: km/sec. As our data are insufficient to separately derive the
450: limb-darkening or rotational velocity, we use the low rotation rate
451: coefficients to allow for comparison to other works, but note that
452: even at 2.5 times higher, the limb darkening corrections would be 4\%,
453: still much too small to explain the difference between the short and
454: long baseline sizes given in Table \ref{tab:UDfit}.
455:
456: \begin{table*}[ht!]
457: \begin{center}
458: \begin{tabular}{lcccc} \tableline
459: Object & Uniform disk diam. & LD coeff & Limb darkened diam. & Stellar radius \\
460: & (mas) & & (mas) & (R$_{\odot}$) \\ \tableline
461: \bleo\ & 1.323 $\pm$ 0.013 & 1.012 & 1.339 $\pm$ 0.013 & 1.54 $\pm$ 0.021 \\
462: \dleo\ & 1.149 $\pm$ 0.022 & 1.014 & 1.165 $\pm$ 0.022 & 2.14 $\pm$ 0.040 \\
463: \zlep\ & 0.66 $\pm$ 0.14 & 1.011 & 0.67 $\pm$ 0.14 & 1.50 $\pm$ 0.31 \\
464: \tableline
465: \end{tabular}
466: \caption{Measured uniform disk and limb-darkened diameters
467: \label{tab:size}
468: }
469: \end{center}
470: \end{table*}
471:
472:
473: The diameter of \bleo\ has been previously measured with
474: interferometry observations. \citet{han74} obtained a limb-darkened
475: diameter of 1.33 $\pm$ 0.1 mas at a wavelength of 4430 \AA\ with the
476: Narrabri intensity interferometer,
477: while \citet{dif04} measured 1.449 $\pm$ 0.027 mas at 2.17 $\mu$m with
478: the VLTI, which is inconsistent with our diameter at the 3.7$\sigma$ level.
479: However, the \citet{dif04} fit did not include an
480: incoherent component. If we include the \citet{dif04} data in our
481: two component fit, both the stellar diameter and incoherent flux level
482: change by less than 0.2 $\sigma$, thus the VLTI and CHARA data are
483: consistent.
484:
485: \subsection{Mid-infrared imaging}
486: \label{michelle}
487:
488: Mid-infrared imaging observations of $\beta$~Leo were made on 2006 March
489: 8 (UT) using the Mid-Infrared Echelle Spectrometer \citep[MICHELLE;
490: ][]{glasse93} on the Gemini North 8-meter telescope. MICHELLE utilizes a
491: $320 \times 240$ pixel Si:As blocked impurity band detector, with a
492: spatial scale of $0\farcs1$ pixel$^{-1}$. Imaging was obtained in the
493: Qa filter ($\lambda_c = 18.1$\micron, $\Delta\lambda = 1.9$\micron) with
494: a standard off-chip 15\arcsec\ ABBA chop-nod sequence and a chop
495: position angle of $30\deg$ E of N. Two image sequences of $\beta$~Leo
496: were taken with 30 ms frametimes and a total on-source integration time
497: of 325 s per image. Prior to and following the $\beta$~Leo
498: observations, HD109511 (K0, $F_{18\mu\rm{m}} \approx 1.4$ Jy) was
499: observed with the same observing sequence to serve as a point spread
500: function and flux density calibrator. The data were reduced with
501: custom-written IDL routines for the MICHELLE data format.
502:
503: \bleo\ appears unresolved in comparison to the calibrator. At 18.5
504: \micron, the excess for $\beta$~Leo is $\sim 0.3$ Jy
505: \citep{che06} and at 19 AU from the star, the radius inferred by
506: \citet{che06} for the mid-infrared emitting material, we measured
507: an rms dispersion of the background in the $\beta$~Leo images of $\sim
508: 0.55$ mJy pixel$^{-1}$. In \S \ref{geom}, we will use this limit to
509: constrain the radial extent of the mid-infrared emitting material.
510:
511: \section{Origin of the visibility deficit}
512: \label{vis}
513:
514: In this section we discuss the possible origins of the
515: visibility deficit.
516:
517: \subsection{Companion}
518:
519: A companion anywhere within the 0\farcs8 (FWHM) field-of-view (FOV)
520: will lower the measured visibility. A companion within the fringe
521: envelope (roughly 25 milliarcsec for these observations) will produce
522: a visibility modulation which is a function of the binary flux ratio
523: and separation and the projected baseline length and position angle.
524: A companion outside this separation range but within the field-of-view
525: will contribute incoherent flux and the visibility decrease will be
526: the same fraction on all baselines. The flux ratio of a companion
527: which would produce the measured visibility is the incoherent fraction
528: listed in Table \ref{tab:UDfit}, which corresponds to $\Delta$K = 4.0
529: $\pm$ 0.9 for \bleo\ and $\Delta$K = 4.5 $\pm$ 1.4 for \zlep. These
530: flux differences would be produced by a main sequence star of spectral
531: type M0 for \bleo\ and M2 for \zlep.
532:
533:
534: Neither star has a known companion within a few arcsec of the primary
535: star. The Washington Double Star (WDS) catalog lists 3 companions for
536: \bleo, located from 40\arcsec\ to 240\arcsec\ from the primary (far
537: outside the FOV) with V magnitude differences of 6.3 to 13
538: \citep{wor97}. None of these stars could affect the interferometry
539: observations due to the large angular separation. \zlep\ has no
540: listed companions in the WDS. Both objects have been imaged in the
541: mid-infrared \citep[][\S \ref{michelle}]{jay01,moe07} with no
542: companion detected. In our MICHELLE/GEMINI data, the Q-band magnitude
543: difference for a point source which can be ruled out is 2.5 mag within
544: 0\farcs5 and 4 mag from 0\farcs5 to 0\farcs8. These data are
545: sufficient to detect a possible companion between 0\farcs5
546: to 0\farcs8 around \bleo\ for the
547: derived companion spectral type of M0.
548:
549: The strongest constraints on close ($<$1\arcsec) companions come from
550: the {\it Hipparcos} measurements. \bleo\ was observed 64 times over
551: 3.0 yrs with final positional uncertainties of 0.99 mas (RA) and
552: 0.52 mas (dec), and \zlep\ was observed 117 times over 3.1 yrs with
553: uncertainties of 0.51 mas (RA) and 0.41 mas (dec) \citep{per97}. As
554: neither source was detected to have any astrometric motion by {\it
555: Hipparcos}, these uncertainties can be used to place limits on any
556: stellar companions. Using the secondary stellar types inferred from
557: the flux ratios, the companion stellar masses would be approximately
558: 0.5 M$_{\odot}$ for \bleo\ and 0.4 M$_{\odot}$ for \zlep. As the
559: astrometric signature increases with orbital distance, the astrometric
560: uncertainty from the {\it Hipparcos} data sets a lower limit to the excluded
561: periods, while the sampling duration sets the limit for longer-period
562: companions. To estimate the shortest period companion which the {\it
563: Hipparcos} data could detect, we assumed a mass for each primary of 2.0
564: M$_{\odot}$ and quadratically combined the positional uncertainties to
565: obtain astrometric uncertainties of 1.12 mas for \bleo\ and 0.65 mas
566: for \zlep. Setting a threshold of 5$\sigma$ to account for the
567: uneven time sampling, the minimum detectable separations are 0.25 AU
568: (\bleo) and 0.34 AU (\zlep), which correspond to periods of 32 days
569: and 51 days respectively.
570:
571: The detection of longer-period companions is limited by the overall
572: time span of the {\it Hipparcos} data. The orbital period and astrometric
573: signature of a companion located at the edge of the FOV would be 5.5
574: yrs and 250 mas for \bleo\ and 14.5 yrs and 200 mas for \zlep. For
575: \bleo, the {\it Hipparcos} data samples half a period and would be
576: sufficient to detect such a companion. For \zlep, the {\it Hipparcos}
577: data would sample 20\% of the orbital period. For a circular orbit, the
578: deviation of this arc from a best-fit straight line would be 12 mas,
579: detectable with the 0.65 mas uncertainty, but detecting some phases of
580: an elliptical orbit would be more difficult. A very long period
581: companion with the relevant magnitude difference could have escaped
582: detection if the orbit is inclined on the sky such that companion is
583: currently too close to the primary (within 0\farcs5) for detection by
584: imaging. One probe of such a very long period orbit is the proper motion as
585: a function of time. \citet{gon01} combined proper motion data from
586: ground-based catalogs starting in the 1930's with the {\it Hipparcos}
587: data. For \bleo\ and \zlep, the combined proper motions were within
588: the uncertainties of the {\it Hipparcos} proper motions, and both
589: stars were classified as having no companions within 10\arcsec.
590:
591: Any companion closer than the short-period limit derived above would
592: produce a substantial radial velocity signature. Using the
593: inclination angles derived in \S \ref{oblate}, a companion at the
594: short period limits above would produce a radial velocity of 8
595: km/sec for \bleo\ and 12 km/sec for \zlep. \citet{gal05} made
596: measurements of \bleo\ with an uncertainty of 137 m/s, more than sufficient to
597: detection such a large signature, however, the time sampling covered
598: only a few hours and is not sufficient to rule out companion periods
599: of tens of days. Observations of \zlep\ \citep[][e.g.]{gre99} have
600: also been made with sufficient precision, but not sufficient
601: time sampling to find a companion with a period of a many days.
602:
603: In summary, neither target star has a known companion within the CHARA
604: FOV and {\it Hipparcos} measurements rule out companions with
605: periods from tens of days to several years. A very close companion
606: (periods less than tens of days, separations less than 0.35 AU) can
607: not be ruled out in either case, but would produce an easily
608: detectable ($>$ 5 km/sec) radial velocity signature. Although we can
609: not definitively rule out a companion as the source of the flux
610: decrement, it is unlikely given the above constraints on period and
611: magnitude difference. A less massive companion would produce a smaller
612: flux decrement, which would require another flux component in the
613: system. Given the small phase space remaining for an undetected companion
614: and the fact that the two mid-infrared excess sources (\bleo\ and \zlep)
615: have a near-infrared visibility decrement, while \dleo\ with no mid-infrared
616: excess does not, we proceed with the hypothesis that the flux
617: decrement does not arise from a companion.
618:
619:
620: \subsection{Stellar rotational oblateness}
621: \label{oblate}
622:
623: Our analysis of the visibility deficit on the short baseline relies on
624: knowledge of the stellar size from the longer baselines. If the
625: star is oblate due to rotation, the predicted size on the
626: short baseline may be incorrect as the short and long baselines
627: are nearly orthogonal (Table \ref{tab:obs}). We
628: can calculate the maximum possible effect by assuming the
629: short stellar axis is aligned with the longer baseline, which would place
630: the longer axis along
631: the short baseline, producing lower visibilities.
632: We calculate the ratio of stellar radii, $X_R$ from
633: \begin{equation}
634: X_R = \frac{R_{\rm pol}}{R_{\rm eq}} = \left(1+\frac{v_{\rm eq}^2 R_{\rm eq}}{2GM}\right)^{-1}
635: \end{equation}
636: where $R_{\rm pol}$ and $R_{\rm eq}$ are the polar and equatorial radii, $v_{\rm eq}$
637: is the equatorial velocity, $G$ is the gravitational constant and $M$ is the
638: stellar mass \citep{des02}. For the most conservative calculation,
639: we take $v_{\rm eq}$ to be the maximum equatorial velocity inferred by
640: \citet{roy07} of a survey of A stars, which are grouped by sub-class.
641: These velocities are 300 km sec$^{-1}$ for \bleo\ and \zlep\ and 280 km sec$^{-1}$
642: for \dleo. The resulting oblateness is corrected for viewing
643: angle by deriving $i$ from the measured $v \sin i$ and the assumed
644: $v_{\rm eq}$ and approximating the stellar shape as an ellipsoid (Table \ref{tab:oblate}).
645: The observed stellar radii ratio $X_{\rm obs}$ is then given by
646: \begin{equation}
647: X_{\rm obs} = \frac{X_R}{(1-(1-X_R^2)\cos^2 i)^{1/2}}
648: \end{equation}
649:
650: Starting with the derived stellar size on the long baseline
651: ($\theta_{\rm long}$, see Table \ref{tab:UDfit}),
652: we calculated the V$^2$ that would be measured on the
653: short baseline (V$^2(\theta_{\rm long})$).
654: We then applied
655: the observed oblateness factor, $X_{\rm obs}$ to find
656: the maximum possible angular diameter, $\theta_{\rm long}/X_{\rm obs}$,
657: and recalculated
658: the V$^2$ for the short baseline (V$^2(\theta_{\rm long}/X_{\rm obs}))$.
659: Because these angular sizes are at best marginally
660: resolved on the short baseline, the change in visibility
661: is less than 1\% in all cases, even if the apparent angular size
662: changes by 20\%, as predicted for \zlep.
663: For comparison, we also list the short baseline size, $\theta_{\rm short}$
664: from Table \ref{tab:UDfit}.
665: The measured visibility on the short baseline, V$^2_{\rm measured}$
666: is significantly lower than either V$^2(\theta_{\rm long})$ or
667: V$^2(\theta_{\rm long}/X_{\rm obs})$ for
668: both \bleo\ and \zlep\ but not for the check star
669: \dleo\ and thus stellar oblateness can not account for
670: the measured visibility deficit. We note
671: that if rotational axis of the star is aligned such that the
672: short stellar axis is along the
673: short baseline, then the true visibility decrement is actually
674: slightly larger than measured.
675:
676: As these stars are rotating rapidly, they are also subject to
677: gravity darkening, which produces a decrease in the effective
678: temperature from the pole to the equator. Since the limb-darkening
679: depends on the effective temperature, this effect is also
680: linked to the apparent oblateness. However, this effect
681: is very small compared to the oblateness derived above.
682: Using the effective temperature difference found
683: by \citet{auf06} for Vega, an A0 star, of 2250~K, the
684: limb-darkenening correction for the pole is 0.3\% larger than
685: correction at the equator. This factor goes against the
686: rotational oblateness which makes the equatorial radius
687: larger and even with the factor of 2.5 for a fast
688: rotating star, is insufficient to explain the
689: ratios between diameters fit to the long and
690: short baselines of 1.72 $\pm$ 0.23 for \bleo\ and
691: 2.9 $\pm$ 1.0 for \zlep.
692:
693: \begin{table*}[ht!]
694: \begin{center}
695: \begin{tabular}{llll} \tableline
696: & \bleo & \dleo & \zlep \\ \tableline
697: $v \sin i$ (km sec$^{-1}$) & 110 & 173 & 245 \\
698: assumed $v_{\rm eq}$ (km sec$^{-1}$) & 300 & 280 & 300 \\
699: i (deg) & 21.5 & 38.1 & 54.7 \\
700: R$_{\rm eq}$ (R$_{\odot}$) & 1.54 & 2.14 & 1.5 \\
701: X$_R$ & 0.74 & 0.70 & 0.74\\
702: X$_{\rm obs}$ & 0.95 & 0.84 & 0.80 \\
703: $\theta_{\rm long}$ (mas) (Table \ref{tab:UDfit}) & 1.332$\pm$0.009 & 1.149$\pm$0.012 & 0.69$\pm$0.09 \\
704: $\theta_{\rm long}/X_{\rm obs}$ (mas) & 1.401$\pm$0.009 & 1.368$\pm$0.014 & 0.826$\pm$0.11 \\
705: $\theta_{\rm short}$ & 2.289 $\pm$ 0.31 & 0.0 $\pm$1.17 & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.65 \\
706: V$^2$ on short baseline: \\
707: \quad V$^2(\theta_{\rm long})$ & 0.976$\pm$0.0003 & 0.981$\pm$0.0004 & 0.996$\pm$0.001 \\
708: \quad V$^2(\theta_{\rm long}/X_{\rm obs})$ & 0.973$\pm$0.0003 & 0.973$\pm$0.0006 & 0.994$\pm$0.002 \\
709: \quad V$^2_{\rm measured}$ & 0.938$\pm$0.015 & 1.001 $\pm$ 0.015 & 0.966 $\pm$ 0.013 \\
710: \tableline
711: \end{tabular}
712: \caption{The calculated maximum visibility change due to rotational oblateness.
713: The uncertainties in $\theta_{\rm long}/X_{\rm obs}$, V$^2(\theta_{\rm long})$,
714: and V$^2(\theta_{\rm long}/X_{\rm obs})$ include the uncertainty in the
715: measured value of $\theta_{\rm long}$ but not the uncertainty in X$_{\rm obs}$,
716: which is unknown.
717: \label{tab:oblate}}
718: \end{center}
719: \end{table*}
720:
721: \subsection{Emission and scattering from dust}
722: \label{dust}
723:
724: Dust grains within the field of view will produce a near-infrared
725: excess through thermal emission and scattering. We assume
726: that there is no gas in these debris disks and therefore
727: the inner radial limit for the debris disk is the dust
728: sublimation radius. For a sublimation temperature of
729: 1600~K and assuming large grains in thermal equilibrium emitting as blackbodies,
730: the sublimation radius is 0.12 AU for \bleo\
731: and 0.14~AU for \zlep. The 2 $\mu$m emission will be maximized
732: for dust at the sublimation temperature, so a lower limit
733: to the excess luminosity can be estimated following \citet{bry06}
734: \begin{equation}
735: \frac{L_{\rm dust}}{L_{*}} = \frac{F_{\rm dust}}{F_{*}}\frac{kT_{\rm dust}^4 (e^{h\nu/kT}-1)
736: }{h\nu T_{*}^3}.
737: \end{equation}
738: where $h$ and $k$ are the Planck and Boltzmann constants.
739: For a temperature of 1600~K, the fractional dust luminosity is
740: $2.0 \pm 1.1 \times 10^{-3}$ for \bleo\ and
741: $9.8 \pm 8.5 \times 10^{-4}$ for \zlep. For comparison, \citet{che06}
742: calculated mid-infrared dust luminosities of $2.7 \times 10^{-5}$ and $6.7 \times
743: 10^{-5}$ for \bleo\ and \zlep\ respectively.
744: However, the much larger near-infrared luminosity does not require substantially
745: more mass than implied by the mid-infrared excess since, as the
746: fractional dust luminosity represents
747: the fraction of the star as seen by the dust, the calculated
748: fractional luminosities are highly sensitive to the dust location.
749: An estimate of the minimum mass of near-infrared emitting grains can
750: be calculated using the fractional luminosity and
751: assuming efficiently emitting grains \citep{jur95},
752: \begin{equation}
753: M_{\rm dust} \geq \frac{16 \pi}{3} \frac{L_{\rm dust}}{L_{\ast}} \rho a r^2
754: \end{equation}
755: where $\rho$ is the density, $a$ is the grain radius and $r$ is
756: the distance from the star. A minimum mass can be calculated
757: by using the $L_{\rm dust}$ values calculated above for
758: small dust grains located near the sublimation radius.
759: For a grain radius of $a = 1 \mu$m, $r$ at the dust
760: sublimation radius and $\rho \sim 2$ gm~cm$^{-3}$, the
761: minimum mass of the near-infrared emitting material is
762: $5 \times 10^{-9}$ M$_{\oplus}$ for \bleo\ and
763: $2 \times 10^{-9}$ M$_{\oplus}$ for \zlep . \citet{che06}
764: derived a mass for the small grains in the mid-infrared
765: producing material of $4.2 \times 10^{-6}$ for \bleo\ and
766: $5.6 \times 10^{-6}$ for \zlep. So although the near-infrared
767: excess represents a higher fractional dust luminosity,
768: this can be produced by a much smaller mass than the mid-infrared
769: ring.
770:
771: A ring of hot dust near the sublimation radius is not incompatible
772: with the incoherent flux model fit in \S \ref{visdef}, as the sublimation
773: radius is large enough to be resolved on even the short baseline.
774: Given the relative uncertainty in the
775: incoherent flux component fit, a component with V$^2 < 0.2$ would fit
776: within the uncertainty.
777: For \bleo, the sublimation radius corresponds to 11
778: mas and a ring of any width at this radius has a V$^2 < 0.2$ on all
779: baselines in our observations. For \zlep, the sublimation radius is at 7 mas
780: and any ring wider than 1 mas (0.02 AU) produces V$^2 < 0.2$ on
781: all baselines. If the inclination angles are close to the values
782: inferred in Table \ref{oblate}, these approximations are sufficient.
783: Thus, thermal emission from hot dust near the sublimation radius could
784: produce the measured visibility deficit.
785:
786:
787:
788:
789: At larger angular scales than have
790: been investigated with the interferometer $(\gtrsim 1\arcsec - 10\arcsec)$,
791: debris disks are often
792: detected in scattered light at optical and near-infrared wavelengths
793: \citep[e.g., AU Mic and Fomalhaut;][]{kal04, kal05} and scattering
794: from within the field of view of the interferometer ($\lesssim$
795: 0\farcs8) could also produce the observed visibility deficit.
796: Scattering in the near-infrared will dominate emission for grains at
797: several hundred degrees, depending on the grain size and composition.
798: To investigate the scattering from warm dust, we used the debris disk
799: simulator\footnote{http://aida28.mpia-hd.mpg.de/$\sim$swolf/dds/}
800: described by \citet{wol06} which calculates the thermal
801: emission and scattering given the dust size, composition and
802: distribution. For example, small grains uniformly distributed from
803: 1.0 to 4.6 AU (the \bleo\ FOV radius) will produce the observed near-infrared excess given
804: a total mass of small grains of $1-7 \times 10^{-5}$~M$_{\oplus}$,
805: depending on the exact size and composition. This is
806: more than 1000 times larger than the minimum mass
807: needed to produce the excess from
808: hot grain emission.
809:
810: As there is no known evidence for a companion, we contend that thermal
811: emission and scattering from dust grains is the most likely origin of
812: the near-infrared excess. This is also consistent
813: with our finding that the two sources with a measured visibility deficit have
814: mid-infrared excess emission while the control star, which has
815: no known excess does not have a visibility deficit.
816: In the next section, we explore the
817: constraints on these grains and discuss possible mechanisms for their
818: origin.
819:
820: \section{Dust distribution and small grain origin}
821: \label{discuss}
822:
823: \subsection{Dust grain sizes}
824:
825: Both \bleo\ and \zlep\ have a substantial mid-infrared excess which
826: has a characteristic temperature much lower than dust which would
827: produce a near-infrared thermal excess and is therefore further from
828: the central star. Many authors \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]
829: {dom03,wya05} have studied the dynamics of
830: debris disks similar to our targets and have found that collisions are
831: dominant over PR drag, i.e grains collide and become smaller before PR
832: drag significantly decreases the size of their orbits. Radiation
833: pressure also plays a role as small grains are subject to removal from
834: the system. However, clearing of small grains may not be absolute.
835: \citet{kri00} modeled the $\beta$ Pic disk, which has a similar
836: spectral type (A6V) and optical depth to the systems discussed here and
837: found that although grains at and below the canonical blowout
838: radius are depleted compared to a purely collisional system, a
839: population of small grains persists in their model. For our target stars,
840: the radiation pressure size limit is $\sim$2~$\mu$m, the PR drag
841: timescale at 1 AU is 1000 yrs for 10 $\mu$m radius grains and the
842: collisional timescale for these same grains is 80 years \citep[following
843: the formula of][]{bac93}.
844:
845: A second constraint on the dust size is the lack of a significant
846: silicate feature in the IRS spectrum for either source
847: \citep[][see Figure 2]{che06},
848: although the excess for \bleo\ is not strong enough at 10$\mu$m to
849: provide as strong a constraint as for \zlep, which has excess emission
850: at shorter wavelengths. The lack of a silicate emission feature
851: requires the grain population to have radii larger than a few microns if
852: composed of silicates or to be primarily non-silicate.
853:
854: \subsection{Modeling approach}
855: \label{modeling}
856:
857: As the interferometer data provide only an upper limit to the
858: visibility and therefore a lower limit to the size of the
859: near-infrared flux region, the strongest spatial constraint from the
860: interferometry data is that the dust must be within the FOV. However,
861: there is another strong constraint from the measured mid-infrared
862: excess of these sources. The dust producing the near-infrared excess
863: will also produce mid-infrared excess, with the exact flux depending of
864: course on the dust temperature and opacity.
865:
866: We now begin to explore various specific models for the
867: distribution of dust in these systems, and examine whether these
868: models fit within the constraints provided by the near and
869: mid-infrared data. In all models, we assume optically thin
870: emission for the near and mid-infrared emission. In this
871: section, we consider the relative contributions of scattering
872: and emission to the near and mid-infrared excess flux.
873: For the scattering, we have used the
874: debris disk models
875: of \citet{wol06} to calculate the emission and scattered light flux for
876: various grain radius and radial distributions and two
877: example grain compositions. We have chosen grain compositions which
878: will produce the featureless mid-infrared spectrum seen in the IRS
879: data and have substantially different emissivity ratios between the
880: near and mid-infrared. These two populations are silicate grains
881: with radii between 3 and 10 $\mu$m and graphite grains with radii
882: from 0.1 to 100 $\mu$m. In both cases, we use a distribution
883: of grain radii, $n(a) \propto a^{-3.5}$ appropriate for collisionally
884: dominated disks.
885: For these toy models, we
886: concentrated on illustrative cases of dust
887: radial distributions and did not modify the grain radius distribution
888: for the effects of radiation pressure. The possible
889: presence of small grains is discussed in more detail in \S \ref{geom}.
890: For each case, the disk mass
891: was determined by scaling to match the observed near-infrared excess.
892: These masses are significantly higher than the minimum mass
893: derived in \S \ref{dust} as that estimate assumes the flux comes only from
894: small, hot grains which produce much more near-infrared emission
895: for the same mass than a distribution of grain sizes and
896: temperatures can.
897: In Table \ref{tab:flux} we present the results for the two
898: grain populations over
899: several radial distributions, listing the
900: ratio of emission to scattering at 2 $\mu$m, the excess flux at 10 and 24
901: $\mu$m and the mass in small grains. All models have radial
902: density profiles of $n(r) \propto r^{-1.5}$.
903:
904: \begin{table*}[ht!]
905: \begin{center}
906: \begin{tabular}{|ll|llll|llll|}\tableline
907: & & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\bleo} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\zlep}\\ \tableline
908: Radial & Grain & $F_{\rm em}/F_{\rm sc}$ & $F_{10\mu m}$ & $F_{24\mu m}$ & M$_{\rm small gr}$ & $F_{\rm em}/F_{\rm sc}$ & $F_{10\mu m}$& $F_{24\mu m}$ & M$_{\rm small gr}$ \\
909: distribution & type & & (Jy) & (Jy) & M$_{\oplus}$ & & (Jy) & (Jy) & M$_{\oplus}$ \\ \tableline
910: R$_{\rm sub}$-FOV & silicate & 6.1 & 1.7 & 1.2 & $1\times 10^{-5}$ & 8.5 & 18 & 16 & $1\times 10^{-4}$ \\
911: & graphite & 8.6 & 5.4 & 2.8 & $2\times 10^{-6}$ & 10 & 6.7 & 4.6 & $2\times 10^{-5}$ \\
912: 1.0 AU-FOV & silicate & 0.019 & 231 & 254 & $4\times 10^{-4}$ & 0.02 & 261 & 400 & $4 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
913: & graphite & 4.9 & 2.0 & 1.8 & $2 \times 10^{-5}$ & 4.1 & 32 & 35 & $2 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
914: R$_{\rm sub}$-1.0 AU & silicate & 8.6 & 10 & 3.9 & $1\times 10^{-6}$ & 8.8 & 10.5 & 4.0 & $5 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
915: & graphite & 9.2 & 4.7 & 2.0 & $1\times 10^{-6}$ & 12 & 4.7 & 2.1 & $ 5\times 10^{-6}$ \\ \tableline
916: \end{tabular}
917: \caption{The ratio of emission to scattering flux at 2 $\mu$m, the mass in
918: small grains necessary to reproduce the observed near-infrared excess and
919: the 10 and 24 $\mu$m flux for several disk models. The radius of the
920: FOV
921: corresponds to 4.6 AU for \bleo\ and 8.6 AU for \zlep.
922: \label{tab:flux}
923: }
924: \end{center}
925: \end{table*}
926:
927: As expected, emission dominates for grains close to the central star
928: ($<$1~AU), while scattering dominates for grains farther away. The
929: mass in small dust grains necessary to produce the near-infrared
930: excess flux is higher for scattering-dominated disks than for
931: emission-dominated
932: disks. The scattering-dominated cases produce too much mid-infrared
933: flux, in some cases by more than an order of magnitude. The 24 $\mu$m
934: excesses measured by \citet{su06} are 0.46$\pm$0.01 Jy for \bleo\ and
935: 0.53$\pm$0.02 Jy for \zlep\ and the 10 $\mu$m excess from the IRS
936: spectra are 0.002$\pm$0.004 Jy for \bleo\ and 0.18$\pm$0.01 Jy for
937: \zlep\ from \citet{che06}. The emission-dominated disks also produce
938: too much mid-infrared flux, but not by as large a factor. As the
939: models which have substantial near-infrared emission have mid-infrared
940: fluxes close to the observed values, we assume that emission is the
941: primary mechanism for producing near-infrared flux. In the following
942: sections, we will explore other density distributions and models to
943: fit both the near-infrared and mid-infrared excesses in detail.
944:
945:
946: \subsection{Dust grain distributions}
947:
948: For both stars, we first considered the hypothesis that the grains producing
949: the near-infrared excess were generated by collisions between larger
950: bodies in the belt which produces the mid-infrared excess. These
951: grains can then be dragged towards the central star via PR drag and
952: become sufficiently heated to emit at near-infrared wavelengths.
953: For a specific theoretical description
954: of a disk in which grains
955: created in collisions in the planetesimal belt migrate inward, we
956: used the model of \citet{wya05}, who calculated the steady-state
957: optical depth as a
958: function of radius. In this model, the disks are
959: collisionally dominated, but a small fraction of the dust
960: created by collisions
961: in the planetesimal belt migrates inwards due to PR drag and
962: is subject to collisions as it migrates.
963: Assuming a single grain size, \citet{wya05} found the optical
964: depth as a function of radius to be
965: \begin{equation}
966: \tau_{\rm eff}(r) =
967: \frac{\tau_{\rm eff}(r_0)}{1 + 4 \eta_0(1-\sqrt{r/r_0})}
968: \label{eq:tau}
969: \end{equation}
970: where $\tau_{\rm eff}(r_0)$ is the optical depth of the
971: planetesimal belt at $r_0$, the radius of the planetesimal belt and
972: $\eta_0$ is a parameter balancing collisions and PR drag, which had a
973: value of 2.4 for \bleo\ and 6.7 for \zlep. For $\eta_0 = 1$ the
974: collisional lifetime equals the time it takes a grain to migrate to
975: the star. We assume optically thin, blackbody grains
976: distributed with the optical depth given by eq. \ref{eq:tau} and
977: starting at the sublimation radius. The value of $\tau_{\rm eff}(r_o)$ is
978: iterated until the optical depth within the CHARA FOV produces the
979: observed near-infrared excess. We then calculate how much
980: mid-infrared flux would be produced and compare to the measured mid-infrared excess.
981:
982: For \bleo, the mid-infrared excess spectra is well fit by a grain
983: temperature T $\approx$120~K, which implies a distance from the star of 19 AU
984: \citep{che06}, well outside
985: the FOV of our observations (4.6 AU). Applying the model in
986: eq. \ref{eq:tau} with $r_0 = 19$~AU and assuming an
987: emissivity wavelength dependence of $\lambda^{-2}$ (\S \ref{geom}) produces a 2/10 $\mu$m flux
988: ratio of 1.6, while the observed ratio, using our detection
989: and the IRS data of \citet{che06} is $> 140$.
990: A shallower grain emissivity function with wavelength will produce an even
991: larger discrepancy between this model and the data.
992: Thus, the grains which produce
993: the near-infrared excess can not come from a smoothly distributed
994: population generated by collisions in the mid-infrared belt.
995:
996:
997: \citet{moe07} resolved the 18~$\mu$m emission from \zlep\ and modeled
998: the distribution as arising from two rings with stellar distances
999: from 2-4 and 4-8
1000: AU, which is contained within the CHARA FOV of 8.6 AU.
1001: Using a radius of 4~AU in eq. \ref{eq:tau} produces a
1002: 2/6 $\mu$m excess of 0.8, while the observed excess from
1003: our data and \citet{che06} is 18. Thus this model is
1004: not a good fit for \zlep\ either.
1005: We note that \citet{moe07} did not resolve
1006: the excess emission from \zlep\ at 10 $\mu$m and concluded that the
1007: dust producing this excess is interior to the resolved 18 $\mu$m rings.
1008: They surmise that the 10~$\mu$m emitting dust is migrating inward by
1009: PR drag from the belts resolved at 18~$\mu$m.
1010:
1011:
1012: \subsection{Geometric models}
1013: \label{geom}
1014:
1015: To further examine the constraints which the near-infrared and
1016: mid-infrared excess place on the dust distribution, we use a geometric
1017: model of the dust distribution. The data are compared to the models
1018: in a Bayesian approach designed to constrain the range
1019: of valid model parameters, rather than finding a single best-fit model.
1020: The input
1021: data are: 1) the near-infrared excess within the interferometer FOV
1022: and the visibility limits for this excess, 2) the IRS data from
1023: \citet{che06} and 3) the spectral energy distribution from 2 to 100
1024: $\mu$m from the literature, including a 70 $\mu$m Spitzer-MIPS
1025: measurement (K. Stapelfeldt, private communication). We have
1026: constructed an SED for each star using photometry from SIMBAD in order
1027: to determine the excess flux.
1028: The stellar template was determined by fitting the optical and
1029: near-infrared photometry to a grid of Kurucz-Lejeune models
1030: \citep{lej97} covering the range of effective temperature and surface
1031: gravity values
1032: appropriate for the main sequence stellar types of the target
1033: stars. Both stars are nearby and have photospheric colors consistent
1034: with $A_V = 0$ \citep{che06}.
1035:
1036: The basic disk model is an optically thin ring of dust.
1037: To simplify the calculations, we consider the dust to be geometrically
1038: thin; however, we note that to intercept $\sim$1\% of the starlight,
1039: the dust will need to have a finite vertical height. At a radial
1040: distance of 0.1 AU, this corresponds to a height $h$ with
1041: $h/r = 0.02$. Such a vertical height is smaller
1042: than a flared primordial disk at this radius \citep[$h/r=0.09$]{chi97}
1043: and smaller than the value $h/r \sim 0.05$ derived for the $\beta$ Pic
1044: dust disk at larger (r $>$ 15 AU) radii and thus is plausible.
1045:
1046: The excess flux ratio between 2.2 $\mu$m and the shortest IRS
1047: wavelength can be used to set a limit on the wavelength dependence of
1048: the grain emissivity. For \bleo, F(2.2 $\mu$m)/F(10 $\mu$m) $>140$,
1049: implying an emissivity decreasing at least as fast as $\lambda^{-1.3}$ if the
1050: emission is from a hot blackbody. For \zlep, F(2.2 $\mu$m)/F(6
1051: $\mu$m) $\sim$ 18, implying emissivity proportional to at least
1052: $\lambda^{-0.9}$ for hot dust.
1053: As we wish to examine the range of disk physical
1054: parameters, including the grain size and composition,
1055: which can reproduce the near and mid-infrared excess
1056: emission, we adopt a analytic approximation for the grain properties
1057: to keep the calculation manageable yet self-consistent.
1058: We have therefore chosen a power-law representation of the radiative
1059: efficiency $\epsilon$, following work on $\beta$ Pic by \citet{bac92}
1060: and \citet{bac93}. For a given grain radius $a$, the absorption and
1061: emission efficiency is
1062: roughly constant, $\epsilon \simeq 1 - \rm{albedo}$, for radiation
1063: at wavelengths shorter than a critical
1064: wavelength $\lambda_o$ and decreases for wavelengths longer than
1065: $\lambda_o$ \citep{bac93}. The relation between the grain radius $a$ and
1066: the critical wavelength depends on the grain composition and shape and
1067: varies from $\lambda_o/a \sim 2 \pi$ for strongly absorbing grains to
1068: $\lambda_o/a \sim 1/2 \pi$ for weakly absorbing grains \citep{bac93}.
1069:
1070: We assume that the disk is optically thin to its own radiation,
1071: therefore the stellar radiation is the only input. Radiation from
1072: the early A spectral types observed here (T$_{\rm eff} \ge 9000$~K) is
1073: dominated by wavelengths $<1 \mu$m.
1074: Our input data are at 2.2 $\mu$m and longer, therefore we can not
1075: constrain the value of the critical wavelength below 2 $\mu$m.
1076: The grain emission
1077: efficiency decreases at wavelengths much larger than the
1078: grain radius and given our wavelength constraints,
1079: we assume that the excess is dominated by
1080: grains with a critical wavelength of $\ge 1 \mu$m and
1081: therefore that the absorbing efficiency is essentially constant.
1082: The emission efficiency is assumed
1083: to follow a power-law such that
1084: $\epsilon_e = \epsilon_o (\lambda_o/\lambda)^q$. This
1085: formulation of the efficiency does not account for spectral features, but
1086: as neither object has such features, the approximation is
1087: appropriate. We
1088: investigate two values of $q$: $q=1$ which is appropriate
1089: for absorbing dielectrics and amphorous materials
1090: such as silicate and roughly matches the silicate population
1091: considered in \S \ref{modeling}
1092: and $q=2$ which is appropriate for
1093: conductive substances such as pure graphite or crystallines and represents
1094: the graphite population in \S \ref{modeling}.
1095: We then derived the temperature
1096: of the grains as a function of radius from the star,
1097: following \citet{bac93},
1098: \begin{eqnarray}
1099: T(r) = 468\ \rm{L}_{\ast}^{1/5} \lambda_o^{-1/5} r^{-2/5}\ \rm{K} \quad q=1 \\
1100: T(r) = 685\ \rm{L}_{\ast}^{1/6} \lambda_o^{-1/3} r^{-1/3}\ \rm{K} \quad q=2 \\
1101: \end{eqnarray}
1102: where L$_{\ast}$ is in L$_{\odot}$, $\lambda_o$ is in microns and $r$, the
1103: distance to the star is in AU. Assuming a power
1104: law for the radial distribution, the flux in an ring is then \citep{koe98}
1105: \begin{equation}
1106: F(r,\lambda) = \tau_{r_o} \left( \frac{r}{r_o} \right) ^\alpha \epsilon_o \left( \frac{\lambda_o}{\lambda} \right)^q B(T) \frac{2 \pi r\, dr}{D^2}
1107: \label{flux}
1108: \end{equation}
1109: where $\tau_{r_o}$ is the optical depth and $D$ is the
1110: distance to the star from earth. The input parameters to
1111: our models are the inner disk radius $r_{in}$, the disk radial
1112: extent $\Delta r$,
1113: the optical depth, $\tau_{r_o}$, the optical depth radial exponent,
1114: $\alpha$ and the grain characteristic wavelength $\lambda_o$.
1115: Unless the grain composition varies with disk radius, the values of $\tau_{r_o}$ and
1116: $\epsilon_o$ are degenerate. We set $\epsilon_o$ = 1, thus
1117: $\tau_{r_o}$ here represents the emission optical depth and is
1118: only equal to the geometric optical depth if the grains have an
1119: albedo of 0.
1120:
1121: For \bleo\ and \zlep\, we were unable to fit both the
1122: near-infrared and mid-infrared excess with a single ring of dust.
1123: This is not surprising as the 2 $\mu$m excess is higher than
1124: the excess flux at the shortest IRS wavelengths, requiring a
1125: decrease in emissivity at some intermediate radii. The
1126: next level of sophistication is to add a second ring of dust, with each ring
1127: following the physical description given above.
1128:
1129: For each object, a grid of millions of models was calculated and
1130: compared to the input data. The results for each object are a range of
1131: parameters consistent with the data, given all possible
1132: values for the other parameters. We found that some parameters were
1133: not well constrained by the data and others were degenerate, such
1134: as the optical depth and the disk radial extent. We
1135: initially assumed that the inner and outer rings had the same radial
1136: power-law $\alpha$ and the same characteristic grain size, $\lambda_o$.
1137: We were
1138: unable to fit both the near-infrared and mid-infrared data with a two
1139: ring model if the characteristic grain size was the same in each ring.
1140: Fitting for two values of $\alpha$ and $\lambda_o$ within a single
1141: grid is computationally very expensive, so we fit just the IRS data to
1142: a single ring to constrain the values of $\alpha$ and
1143: $\lambda_o$ for the outer ring. For \bleo, the value of $\alpha_{\rm outer}$
1144: is not well constrained, and we assume a value of
1145: -3/2 as predicted for collisionally dominated disks \citep[e.g.][]{ken05}.
1146:
1147: For each star, we tried to match all the input data with the
1148: emissivity power-laws of $\delta = 1$ or 2. For \bleo,
1149: the data can not be matched with $\delta = 1$, not surprising
1150: given the flux ratio between 2 and 10 $\mu$m discussed above.
1151: For \zlep, models
1152: with $\delta=1$ can match both the near-infrared and mid-infrared
1153: data, but these models require that the outer ring extend over
1154: 20 AU, which is much larger than the extent derived by \citet{moe07}
1155: in their imaging. We therefore place a prior constraint of
1156: $\Delta r_{\rm outer} < 15$ AU. With this constraint, only
1157: $\delta = 2$ models provide adequate fits.
1158:
1159:
1160: The range of parameter values which falls within a 67\% probability
1161: range (corresponding to $\pm 1\sigma$ for a normal distribution) is
1162: given for each target in Table \ref{tab:param}. An example model for
1163: each object is shown with the SED and IRS data in Figure
1164: \ref{fig:SED}. For \bleo, the outer ring $r_{\rm in}$ values of
1165: 7.5-15 AU are smaller than the 19 AU found by \citet{che06} due to the
1166: different temperature law we used,
1167: but the inner and outer ring are clearly separated by a gap of several
1168: AU. For \zlep, the inner and outer ring are at similar radii ($<$ few
1169: AU) and although the inner ring must have significantly higher opacity
1170: to produce the near-infrared flux, it is possible to fit the data with
1171: models in which the inner and outer ring overlap. Interestingly,
1172: \citet{moe07} also required a higher flux ratio in their inner ring
1173: (2-4 AU) as compared to the outer ring (4-8 AU).
1174:
1175: The optical depth and radial extent of the inner dust ring in these
1176: models are degenerate parameters as the constraining data are the 2
1177: $\mu$m flux and the lack of strong mid-infrared flux. We have
1178: deliberately limited these models to be optically thin,
1179: but we note that the near-infrared flux could also arise
1180: from a ring with a very small radial extent which was vertically
1181: optically thick.
1182: The strongest test of the radial extent for the
1183: inner ring would be to resolve it interferometrically, which requires
1184: observations on shorter baselines than the data presented here.
1185: For example, a ring around \bleo\ at
1186: 0.12 AU with a radial extent $r/4$, would have V$_{\rm ring}^2 >
1187: 0.5$ at 2 $\mu$m on baselines shorter than 13 meters and
1188: V$_{\rm ring}^2 < 0.1$ on the 30 meter baseline we used.
1189: High precision measurements would still be necessary given
1190: the small flux contribution from the ring.
1191:
1192: The relationship between the characteristic grain size and the
1193: physical grain radius depends on the grain composition and the
1194: distribution of sizes. One specific example of a grain material which
1195: could be approximated by our $\delta = 2 $ emissivity model is
1196: graphite, which is strongly absorbing for grain radii $>$ 0.1 $\mu$m
1197: \citep{dra84}. To compute the physical grain size for graphite we
1198: take $\lambda_o/a \sim 2\pi$. The other factor is the distribution
1199: of grain radii. Following \citet{bac92}, one method of tying
1200: $\lambda_o$ to the physical radii is to find the radius which divides
1201: the grain population into two equal halves of surface area. For a
1202: distribution of $n(a) \propto a^{-3.5}$, this radius is 4 times the
1203: minimum radius, $a \sim 4 a_{\rm min}$. Putting these two factors
1204: together, we have $a_{\rm min} \sim \lambda_o/8 \pi$. For our upper
1205: limit on the characteristic size in the inner ring $\lambda_o < 2
1206: \mu$m, this corresponds to $a_{\rm min} < 0.08 \mu$m.
1207:
1208: Grains that small are below the nominal radiation blowout radius for
1209: these stars. However, radiation pressure may not completely clear all
1210: the grains from debris disks like these. \citet{kri00} modeled the
1211: $\beta$ Pic debris disk, which has a similar spectral type (A6 V) and
1212: mid-infrared excess to our targets. In their model, small grains are
1213: constantly created through collisions, particularly between particles
1214: on stable orbits and those being blown out of the system. They found
1215: that grains smaller than a few microns were depleted compared to the
1216: $a^{-3.5}$ distribution of a collisionally dominated disk, but that a
1217: significant population remained. The resulting overall grain
1218: population could be approximated by a more shallow slope in the
1219: distribution, for example, fitting the resulting grain radii
1220: distribution with a single power-law between 0.1 and 100 $\mu$m,
1221: results in $n(a) \sim a^{-2.8}$. Thus the inner rings may contain
1222: grains smaller than 1 $\mu$m, the nominal blowout radius.
1223:
1224: Our model for both targets includes a much larger characteristic grain
1225: size in the outer ring, $\lambda_o \sim 35-50 \mu$m, which corresponds
1226: to a minimum size of $\sim 1-2 \mu$m for graphite grains. This is
1227: roughly the radiation blowout size. The conclusion from our models
1228: that the inner ring contains substantially smaller grain sizes than
1229: the outer ring should be confirmed with more detailed grain models,
1230: but as discussed more below, may suggest either different origins for
1231: the grains or different dynamics.
1232:
1233: The dust sublimation temperature of 1600~K used in these models may be
1234: plausible for amorphous grains such as those represented by the
1235: $\delta = 1$ model, but is higher than generally used for crystalline
1236: grains \citep[e.g. 1250~K;][]{bau97} as represented by the $\delta =
1237: 2$ model. A sublimation temperature of 1250~K results in much poorer
1238: fits to the data. At these high temperatures, micron-sized grain
1239: lifetimes will be short; for example, \citet{lam74} found
1240: lifetimes of less than 10$^4$ seconds for 1 $\mu$m radius grains at
1241: 1500-1600~K. However, once the grains are very small, the grain
1242: temperature and lifetime may increase. In a study of grains with radii
1243: $< 0.01\ \mu$m heated through interactions with a single
1244: photon, \citet{guh89} found a broad distribution of temperatures with
1245: excursions as high as 2800~K for graphite grains and 2050~K for
1246: silicate grains. \citet{guh89} calculated the sublimation rates for
1247: these grains including a correction derived from fluctuation theory
1248: for finite systems which decreases the sublimation rate by $\sim 10^4$.
1249: The resulting lifetimes for grains with radii from several to
1250: tens of Angstroms are $>10^2$ yrs.
1251:
1252: The combination of sublimation, radiation pressure and collisions will
1253: result in a grain size distribution substantially more complicated
1254: than the simple power-law often used in debris disks and assumed here.
1255: The result of all these processes may be a population of small hot
1256: grains which is constantly created through collisions and depleted
1257: through sublimation and radiation pressure. Alternatively, the presence of a
1258: significant number of small grains may imply origin in a transient
1259: event, as discussed in the next section. Our formulation of the grain
1260: temperature and emissivity efficiency does not properly represent very
1261: small grains and more detailed models than those considered here are
1262: necessary to determine if the temperatures and lifetimes of sub-micron
1263: sized grains are consistent with a stable grain population which could
1264: produce near-infrared flux observed here. Emission from small, hot
1265: grains has been invoked to fit the spectral energy distributions of
1266: debris disks \citep{syl97} and the much more massive primordial disks
1267: of Herbig Ae/Be stars \citep{nat93}.
1268:
1269: In the models presented here, the mid-infrared excess for
1270: \bleo\ is produced by dust grains located $r \approx 12 \pm 5$ AU from
1271: the star. At the pixel scale of our MICHELLE/Gemini data ($0\farcs1$
1272: pixel$^{-1}$, \S \ref{michelle}) and the distance of \bleo\ ($d =
1273: 11.1$ pc), the mid-infrared dust emission is located
1274: of $\sim$8 pixels from the central core of the stellar image (FWHM
1275: $\sim 5.4$ pixels); thus, the Gemini observations of \bleo\ should
1276: easily resolve the mid-infrared emission if the surface brightness is
1277: high enough. However, the Gemini observations show no evidence of
1278: detecting the outer mid-infrared emission. For a 5 AU ring width,
1279: the dust emission is spread out among $\sim$400 pixels, for a surface
1280: brightness of $\sim$0.75 mJy pixel$^{-1}$. Given the measured
1281: dispersion of $\sim 0.55$ mJy pixel$^{-1}$, the signal-to-noise ratio
1282: is then only $\sim 1.4$ (per pixel). Thus, the non-detection of the
1283: mid-infrared excess of $\beta$~Leo is fully consistent
1284: with our dust distribution model, even though the spatial resolution
1285: was more than sufficient to resolve the emission.
1286:
1287: \begin{table*}[ht!]
1288: \begin{center}
1289: \begin{tabular}{lll}\tableline
1290: Model parameter & \bleo\ & \zlep\ \\ \tableline
1291: Inner ring \\
1292: \quad $r_{\rm in}$ (AU) & R$_{\rm sub}$ - 0.2 & R$_{\rm sub}$ - 0.2 \\
1293: \quad $\Delta r$ (AU) & $<$ 0.5 & $<$ 0.15 \\
1294: \quad $\tau(2 \mu m)$ & 2-20 $\times 10^{-3}$ & 1-5 $\times 10^{-3}$ \\
1295: \quad $\alpha$ & no constraint & $<$-1 \\
1296: \quad $\lambda_{o}$ ($\mu$m) & $<$2 & $<$2 \\
1297: Outer ring \\
1298: \quad $r_{\rm in}$ (AU) & 7 - 15 & 0.5 - 1.2\\
1299: \quad $\Delta r$ (AU) & 3 - 10 & 11 - 15 \\
1300: \quad $\tau(2 \mu m)$ & $1 - 4 \times 10^{-3}$ & 2-3 $\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1301: \quad $\alpha$ & no constraint & -0.2 - 0.1 \\
1302: \quad $\lambda_{o}$ ($\mu$m) & 35 - 70 & $>$ 30 \\
1303: $\delta$ & 2 & 2 \\ \tableline
1304: \end{tabular}
1305: \caption{The model parameters values from fitting the
1306: SED, IRS data and K-band excess. The ranges given cover
1307: a 67\% probability range.
1308: \label{tab:param}}
1309: \end{center}
1310: \end{table*}
1311:
1312:
1313: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
1314: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.55]{f2a_color.ps}\\
1315: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.55]{f2b_color.ps}
1316: \caption{The SED and flux excess for \bleo\ (top 2 panels) and \zlep\
1317: (bottom 2 panels). For each object, the top plot shows the
1318: Kurucz-Lejeune model used for the stellar photosphere as a solid line,
1319: with photometry from SIMBAD shown as points and the Spitzer IRS data
1320: as a thick line with errors. In some cases the error bars are smaller
1321: than the points. Our disk model is shown as a dashed line. The
1322: bottom plot for each object shows the disk model (solid line) with the
1323: CHARA, IRS, and MIPS excesses. For \bleo, the model shown has an
1324: inner ring with $r_{\rm in}=0.13\ {\rm AU}, \Delta r = 0.3\ {\rm AU},
1325: \tau_{\rm inner} =
1326: 3.8\times 10^{-3}$, $\alpha_{\rm inner}=-1.5, \lambda_{o\ \rm inner}=2 \mu$m
1327: and outer ring with $r_{\rm in}=13\ {\rm AU}, \Delta r = 6.2\ {\rm AU},
1328: \tau_{\rm outer} = 3.8 \times 10^{-4}$, $\alpha_{\rm outer}$ = -1.5,
1329: $\lambda_{o\ \rm outer}$= 50 $\mu$m.
1330: For \zlep, the model shown has an
1331: inner ring with $r_{\rm in}=0.16\ {\rm AU}, \Delta r = 0.05\ {\rm AU}, \tau_{\rm in} =
1332: 4.5\times 10^{-3}$, $\alpha_{\rm in}$=-2, $\lambda_{o\ \rm in}$=2 $\mu$m
1333: and outer ring with $r_{\rm in}=0.8\ {\rm AU}, \Delta r = 13\ {\rm AU},
1334: \tau_{\rm outer} = 2.6 \times 10^{-4}$, $\alpha_{\rm outer}$ = -0.1,
1335: $\lambda_{o\ \rm outer}$= 35 $\mu$m.
1336: Both fits use a grain emissivity of $\epsilon = \epsilon_o (\lambda/\lambda_o)^{-2}$.
1337: \label{fig:SED}}
1338: \end{figure*}
1339:
1340: \section{Hot dust in debris disks}
1341:
1342: Photometric and spectroscopic surveys of debris disks have revealed
1343: other sources with dust within several AU of the star and
1344: the frequency of these systems is a strong function of the age of the
1345: system. For FGK stars the frequency of debris disks emitting at
1346: wavelengths shorter than 30$\mu$m is 9-19\% at ages less than 300 Myr,
1347: but less than 2-4\% for stars older than 1 Gyr \citep{bei06,mey08}.
1348: For A stars, a similar trend is seen, although the excess rate for
1349: young A stars ($<$ 190 Myr) is even higher at 33\% \citep{su06}. The
1350: age estimates for our targets stars (\bleo: 50-380 Myr; \zlep: 180-490
1351: Myr; \citet{lac99,che06}) place them in or near the age brackets for
1352: the higher-percentage hot dust population. Some theoretical models of
1353: planet formation predict higher planet formation rates for A stars, as
1354: compared to solar mass stars \citep{ken08}. Thus, detection of hot
1355: dust in our targets systems is not necessarily unexpected.
1356:
1357: Other debris disks have near-infrared excesses detected through
1358: interferometry. Including this work, nine A and early F
1359: stars have been observed
1360: and, not including our tentative detection of \zlep, three (Vega,
1361: $\zeta$ Aql and \bleo) were detected
1362: \citep{cia01,abs06,dif07a,abs08} at the 1-2\% excess level.
1363: Based on limited radial velocity data, \citet{abs08} suggest that their detected excess toward
1364: $\zeta$ Aql may arise from a close M star companion and based on
1365: a reanalysis of the Spitzer data, they also find that there is
1366: no mid-infrared excess from this source.
1367: Only one lower mass star, $\tau$
1368: Ceti, has an observed near-infrared excess \citep{dif07a}, although the
1369: observations of FGK stars are currently limited by the
1370: sensitivity of the instruments. The near-infrared flux levels of the
1371: detected sources are all at the few percent level, although this may
1372: represent the brightest examples of a population of disks with hot
1373: grains, as the limits on the non-detected sources are not
1374: substantially lower, e.g. \citet{dif07a} set an upper limit of 0.6\%
1375: for the near-infrared emission from $\epsilon$ Eri.
1376:
1377: The dust distribution inferred for Vega by \citet{abs06} is
1378: somewhat similar to \bleo\ in that they modeled the
1379: inner dust with an inner radius of 0.17 to 0.3 AU with
1380: a very steep ($n(r) \propto r^{-4}$) radial power law, which is similar
1381: to a ring. The inner dust mass inferred was $8 \times 10^{-8}$
1382: M$_{\oplus}$ with a dust luminosity of $5 \times 10^{-4}$~L$_{\odot}$.
1383:
1384: Although the number of debris disk stars surveyed is still relatively
1385: small, there are three detections (one marginally significant)
1386: of near-infrared excess
1387: for which a population of hot dust is the most likely explanation, and
1388: here we consider if they represent a stable dust population
1389: produced by collisions of larger bodies orbiting close to the star or
1390: are the result of a transient event. The production of small, hot
1391: dust grains from the break-up of a comet or asteroid has been invoked
1392: in other cases, such as HD 69830 \citep{bei05}. Using a density of 3
1393: gm cm$^{-3}$, a mass of $ 5 \times 10^{-9}$~M$_{\oplus}$ can be generated from
1394: the break-up of a single body with a 10 km radius.
1395:
1396: To evaluate the likelihood of so many transient events in A stars, we
1397: used the model of \citet{wya07} for the steady-state evolution of
1398: collision-dominated debris disks, in which they derive a maximum
1399: possible dust luminosity as a function of age. In examining the
1400: properties of 46 known A-star debris disks, they found only 4 stars
1401: with a dust luminosity significantly higher than this maximum. A dust
1402: luminosity well above the steady-state maximum suggests either a
1403: transient origin for the dust or unusual properties for the
1404: planetesimal belt. The mid-infrared excess of \zlep\ is above this
1405: threshold, while the mid-infrared excess of \bleo\ is below. We use
1406: the same calculation to evaluate the inner dust. For simplicity, we
1407: take the maximum steady-state flux ($f_{\rm max}$) derived by
1408: \citet{wya07} for the outer planetesimal ring and scale that value to
1409: the inner ring radius using their derived relationship $f_{\rm max}
1410: \propto r^{7/3}$. This ignores any difference in grain properties
1411: between the disks but is acceptable for an order of magnitude calculation. For
1412: both \bleo\ and \zlep\, the near-infrared dust luminosity ($f$)
1413: compared to the maximum allowed is $f/f_{\rm max} \sim 10^6$,
1414: obviously above the threshold of 10 set by \citet{wya07} for anomalous
1415: systems. We also calculated this quantity for Vega, which for the
1416: inner dust also has a value of $f/f_{\rm max} \sim 10^6$. In this
1417: model of collisionally-dominated disks, all three of these objects are
1418: orders of magnitude higher than the expected steady-state flux,
1419: suggesting a transient event as the most likely origin. The finding
1420: from our simple dust model of small dust within the inner ring, but
1421: not the outer, mid-infrared producing ring, may also favor a transient origin
1422: for the near-infrared producing dust given the issues of
1423: dust lifetime to radiation pressure and sublimation. A recent planetesimal collision
1424: or comet passing would drastically change the dust radii distribution
1425: and dynamics.
1426:
1427: Although more objects should be sampled to come to a stronger
1428: conclusion, it is suggestive that the near-infrared excess in
1429: these objects arises from a recent collision or cometary passing event.
1430: The near-infrared excess is an ideal probe of hot, small grains
1431: in these systems,
1432: as dust much closer to the star will sublimate.
1433: An observational test of the hypothesis that the near-infrared
1434: flux arises from emission from grains near the sublimation radius
1435: is to make observations at other wavelengths, particularly
1436: H (1.6 $\mu$m) and L (3.5$\mu$m) bands, to probe the wavelength
1437: dependence of the excess. If the flux is dominated by emission,
1438: the peak will be near K and L, while if it is scattering, the excess at H
1439: will be much higher and the excess at L much lower.
1440:
1441: \section{Conclusions}
1442:
1443: We have presented near-infrared interferometry observations of two A
1444: stars, \bleo\ and \zlep, which were known to have mid-infrared excess
1445: emission from a debris disk. A near-infrared excess of 1-2\% was
1446: detected, although the detection for \zlep\ should be confirmed. The
1447: interferometer observations do not spatially resolve the emission
1448: distribution, but place a maximum on the radial extent through the field of
1449: view, and in conjunction with the spectral energy distribution, the
1450: spatial distribution of dust can be constrained. Both objects
1451: can be modeled as having a thin ring of dust grains at or
1452: near the sublimation radius in addition to the previously
1453: known mid-infrared emitting belt.
1454:
1455: Although the models presented here are not a unique fit to the data,
1456: particularly with respect to the grain population, we can place strong
1457: constraints on the dust composition and morphology. Both objects
1458: require small, non-silicate grains to be consistent with the
1459: near-infrared and mid-infrared excesses. The minimum grain size
1460: required ($\sim 0.1 \mu$m) is an order of magnitude smaller than the
1461: nominal radiation pressure blowout radius for spherical grains and
1462: requires a high production rate of small grains if some depletion does
1463: occur due to radiation pressure and sublimation. For \bleo, the near-infrared excess
1464: can not arise from dust generated by the planetesimal belt which
1465: produces the mid-infrared excess. For \zlep, the most likely model
1466: using simple geometric distributions is also two separate rings, but
1467: it is possible that the larger bodies producing the inner dust may
1468: form a continuous extent with the mid-infrared planetesimal belt,
1469: although not with a simple, single power-law radial distribution. The
1470: luminosity of the inner dust is exceptionally high in comparison to
1471: steady-state evolutionary models of collisionally-dominated debris
1472: disks, suggesting origin in a transient event, such as the break-up of
1473: a comet or asteroid near the star.
1474:
1475: These observations are limited by the sensitivity of the current
1476: instruments, but with improvements in near-infrared interferometry and
1477: other techniques, such as nulling interferometry and adaptive optics
1478: with coronagraphy, it should be possible to survey many more stars to
1479: determine the population with hot dust.
1480:
1481:
1482: \acknowledgments
1483:
1484: We thank the CHARA staff, particularly P.J. Goldfinger, for their
1485: excellent help in obtaining the data and the FLUOR team for support of
1486: the instrument. We thank Christine Chen for kindly providing IRS
1487: spectra, Karl Stapelfeldt for the MIPS measurement and Mark Wyatt,
1488: Scott Kenyon and Hal Levison for helpful discussions. The anonymous
1489: referee made several helpful suggestions to improve the paper. This
1490: work was performed at the Michelson Science Center, Caltech and made
1491: use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France and
1492: the NASA Star and Exoplanet Database (NStED) at the Infrared
1493: Processing and Analysis Center. NStED is jointly funded by the
1494: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) via Research
1495: Opportunities in Space Sciences grant 2003 TPF-FS, and by NASA's
1496: Michelson Science Center.
1497:
1498:
1499: {\it Facilities:} \facility{CHARA,GEMINI}.
1500:
1501:
1502: %\clearpage
1503:
1504: \begin{thebibliography}
1505:
1506: \bibitem[Absil et al.(2006)]{abs06} Absil, O., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 452, 237
1507:
1508: \bibitem[Absil et al.(2008)]{abs08} Absil, O. et al.\ 2008, \aap, 487, 1041
1509:
1510: \bibitem[Artymowicz(2000)]{art00} Artymowicz, P.\ 2000, Space Science Reviews, 92, 69
1511:
1512: \bibitem[Aufdenberg et al.(2006)]{auf06} Aufdenberg, J.~P., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 664
1513:
1514: \bibitem[Aumann \& Probst(1991)]{aum91} Aumann, H.~H., \& Probst,
1515: R.~G.\ 1991, \apj, 368, 264
1516:
1517: \bibitem[Backman \& Paresce(1993)]{bac93} Backman, D.~E., \& Paresce, F.\ 1993, Protostars and Planets III, 1253
1518:
1519: \bibitem[Backman et al.(1992)]{bac92} Backman, D.~E.,
Witteborn, F.~C., \& Gillett, F.~C.\ 1992, \apj, 385, 670
1520:
1521: \bibitem[Bauer et al.(1997)]{bau97} Bauer, I., Finocchi, F., Duschl, W.~J., Gail, H.-P., \& Schloeder, J.~P.\ 1997, \aap, 317, 273
1522:
1523: \bibitem[Beichman et al.(2006)]{bei06} Beichman, C.~A., et
1524: al.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 1166
1525:
1526: \bibitem[Beichman et al.(2005)]{bei05} Beichman, C.~A., et al.\ 2005,
1527: \apj, 626, 1061
1528:
1529: \bibitem[ten Brummelaar et al.(2005)]{ten05} ten Brummelaar, T.~A., et
1530: al.\ 2005, \apj, 628, 453
1531:
1532: \bibitem[Bryden et al.(2006)]{bry06} Bryden, G., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 1098
1533:
1534: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2006)]{che06} Chen, C.~H., et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 166, 351
1535:
1536: \bibitem[Chen \& Jura(2001)]{che01} Chen, C.~H., \& Jura, M.\
1537: 2001, \apjl, 560, L171
1538:
1539: \bibitem[Chiang \& Goldreich(1997)]{chi97} Chiang, E.~I., \& Goldreich, P.\ 1997, \apj, 490, 368
1540:
1541: \bibitem[Ciardi et al.(2001)]{cia01} Ciardi, D.~R., van Belle, G.~T.,
1542: Akeson, R.~L., Thompson, R.~R., Lada, E.~A., \& Howell, S.~B.\ 2001,
1543: \apj, 559, 1147
1544:
1545: \bibitem[Claret et al.(1995)]{cla95} Claret, A., Diaz-Cordoves, J., \& Gimenez, A.\ 1995, \aaps, 114, 247
1546: \bibitem[Coude Du Foresto et al.(1997)]{cou97} Coude Du Foresto, V., Ridgway, S., \& Mariotti, J.-M.\
1547: 1997, \aaps, 121, 379
1548:
1549: \bibitem[Coude du Foresto et al.(2003)]{cou03} Coude du Foresto, V., et al.\ 2003, \procspie, 4838, 280
1550:
1551: \bibitem[di Folco et al.(2007)]{dif07a} di Folco, E., et al.\ 2007,
1552: \aap, 475, 243
1553:
1554: \bibitem[di Folco et al.(2004)]{dif04} Di
1555: Folco, E., Th{\'e}venin, F., Kervella, P., Domiciano de Souza, A.,
1556: Coud{\'e} du Foresto, V., S{\'e}gransan, D., \& Morel, P.\ 2004,
1557: \aap, 426, 601
1558:
1559: \bibitem[Domiciano de Souza et al.(2002)]{des02} Domiciano de Souza, A., Vakili, F., Jankov, S., Janot-Pacheco, E., \& Abe, L.\ 2002, \aap, 393, 345
1560:
1561: \bibitem[Dominik \& Decin(2003)]{dom03} Dominik, C., \& Decin, G.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 626
1562:
1563: \bibitem[Draine \& Lee(1984)]{dra84} Draine, B.~T., \& Lee, H.~M.\ 1984, \apj, 285, 89
1564:
1565: \bibitem[Galland et al.(2005)]{gal05} Galland, F., Lagrange, A.-M., Udry, S.,
1566: Chelli, A., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Beuzit, J.-L., \& Mayor, M.\ 2005, \aap, 443, 337
1567:
1568: \bibitem[Glasse \& Atad-Ettedgui(1993)]{glasse93}Glasse, A.~C., et al. \
1569: 1997, \procspie, 2871, 1197
1570:
1571: \bibitem[Gontcharov et al.(2001)]{gon01} Gontcharov, G.~A., Andronova, A.~A.,
1572: Titov, O.~A., \& Kornilov, E.~V.\ 2001, \aap, 365, 222
1573:
1574: \bibitem[Grenier et al.(1999)]{gre99} Grenier, S., Burnage, R.,
1575: Faraggiana, R., Gerbaldi, M., Delmas, F., G{\'o}mez, A.~E., Sabas, V.,
1576: \& Sharif, L.\ 1999, \aaps, 135, 503
1577:
1578: \bibitem[Guhathakurta \& Draine(1989)]{guh89} Guhathakurta, P., \& Draine, B.~T.\ 1989, \apj, 345, 230
1579:
1580: \bibitem[Hanbury Brown et al.(1974)]{han74} Hanbury Brown, R., Davis,
1581: J., \& Allen, L.~R.\ 1974, \mnras, 167, 121
1582:
1583: \bibitem[Jayawardhana et al.(2001)]{jay01} Jayawardhana, R., Fisher,
1584: R.~S., Telesco, C.~M., Pi{\~n}a, R.~K., Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s, D.,
1585: Hartmann, L.~W., \& Fazio, G.~G.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2047
1586:
1587: \bibitem[Jura et al.(1995)]{jur95} Jura, M., Ghez, A.~M., White, R.~J., McCarthy, D.~W., Smith, R.~C., \& Martin, P.~G.\ 1995, \apj, 445, 451
1588:
1589: \bibitem[Kalas, Liu, \& Matthews(2004)]{kal04}Kala s, P., Liu, M.~C., \& Matthews, B.~C.\ 2004, Science, 303, 1990
1590:
1591: \bibitem[Kalas, Graham, \& Clampin(2005)]{kal05}Kalas, P., Graham, J.~R.\& Clampin, M.\ 2005, \nat, 435, 1067
1592:
1593: \bibitem[Kennedy \& Kenyon(2008)]{ken08} Kennedy, G.~M., \& Kenyon,
1594: S.~J.\ 2008, \apj, 673, 502
1595:
1596: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley(2005)]{ken05} Kenyon, S.~J., \& Bromley, B.~C.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 269
1597:
1598: \bibitem[Kervella et al.(2004a)]{ker04} Kervella, P., S{\'e}gransan, D., \& Coud{\'e} du Foresto, V.\ 2004, \aap, 425, 1161
1599:
1600: \bibitem[Kervella et al.(2004b)]{ker04b} Kervella, P., Th{\'e}venin, F., Di Folco, E., \& S{\'e}gransan, D.\ 2004, \aap, 426, 297
1601:
1602: \bibitem[Koerner et al.(1998)]{koe98} Koerner, D.~W., Ressler, M.~E., Werner, M.~W., \& Backman, D.~E.\ 1998, \apjl, 503, L83
1603:
1604: \bibitem[Krivov et al.(2000)]{kri00} Krivov, A.~V., Mann, I., \& Krivova, N.~A.\ 2000, \aap, 362, 1127
1605:
1606: \bibitem[Lachaume et al.(1999)]{lac99} Lachaume, R., Dominik, C., Lanz, T., \& Habing, H.~J.\ 1999, \aap, 348, 897
1607:
1608: \bibitem[Lamy(1974)]{lam74} Lamy, P.~L.\ 1974, \aap, 35, 197
1609:
1610: \bibitem[Laureijs et al.(2002)]{lau02} Laureijs, R.~J., Jourdain de
1611: Muizon, M., Leech, K., Siebenmorgen, R., Dominik, C., Habing, H.~J.,
1612: Trams, N., \& Kessler, M.~F.\ 2002, \aap, 387, 285
1613:
1614: \bibitem[Lejeune et al(1997)]{lej97}
1615: Lejeune, T.~et al~1997, \aaps~125, 229
1616:
1617: \bibitem[M{\'e}rand et al.(2005)]{mer05} M{\'e}rand, A., Bord{\'e}, P., \& Coud{\'e} Du Foresto, V.\ 2005, \aap, 433, 1155
1618:
1619: \bibitem[M{\'e}rand et al.(2006)]{mer06} M{\'e}rand, A., Coud{\'e} du Foresto, V., Kellerer, A.,
1620: ten Brummelaar, T., Reess, J.-M., \& Ziegler, D.\ 2006, \procspie, 6268, 46
1621:
1622: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2008)]{mey08} Meyer, M.R., et al., 2008, \apjl, in
1623: press
1624:
1625: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2007)]{mey07} Meyer, M.~R., Backman, D.~E.,
1626: Weinberger, A.~J., \& Wyatt, M.~C.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 573
1627:
1628: \bibitem[Moerchen et al.(2007)]{moe07} Moerchen, M.~M., Telesco, C.~M.,
1629: Packham, C., \& Kehoe, T.~J.~J.\ 2007, \apjl, 655, L109
1630:
1631: \bibitem[Natta et al.(1993)]{nat93} Natta, A., Prusti, T., \& Krugel, E.\ 1993, \aap, 275, 527
1632:
1633: \bibitem[Perryman \& ESA(1997)]{per97} Perryman, M.~A.~C., \&
1634: ESA 1997, ESA Special Publication, 1200,
1635:
1636: \bibitem[Rieke et al.(2005)]{rie05} Rieke, G.~H., et al.\ 2005, \apj,
1637: 620, 1010
1638:
1639: \bibitem[Royer et al.(2007)]{roy07} Royer, F., Zorec, J., \&
1640: G{\'o}mez, A.~E.\ 2007, \aap, 463, 671
1641:
1642: \bibitem[Su et al.(2006)]{su06} Su, K.~Y.~L., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 675
1643:
1644: \bibitem[Sylvester et al.(1997)]{syl97} Sylvester, R.~J.,
Skinner, C.~J., \& Barlow, M.~J.\ 1997, \mnras, 289, 831
1645:
1646: \bibitem[van Leeuwen(2008)]{van07} van Leeuwen, F.\ 2008,
1647: VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1311
1648:
1649: \bibitem[Wolf(2006)]{wol06} Wolf, S.\ 2006, Astrophysics Software Database, 5
1650:
1651: \bibitem[Worley \& Douglass(1997)]{wor97} Worley, C.~E., \& Douglass, G.~G.\ 1997, \aaps, 125, 523
1652:
1653: \bibitem[Wyatt et al.(2007)]{wya07} Wyatt, M.~C., Smith, R., Greaves, J.~S.,
1654: Beichman, C.~A., Bryden, G., \& Lisse, C.~M.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 569
1655:
1656: \bibitem[Wyatt(2005)]{wya05} Wyatt, M.~C.\ 2005, \aap, 433, 1007
1657:
1658: \end{thebibliography}
1659:
1660:
1661:
1662: \end{document}
1663:
1664: