1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \shorttitle{On the Age of the Widest VLM Binary}
4: \shortauthors{Artigau et al.}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{On the Age of the Widest Very Low Mass Binary}
9:
10: \author{\'Etienne Artigau\altaffilmark{1}, David Lafreni\`ere\altaffilmark{2}, Lo\"{\i}c Albert\altaffilmark{3} and Ren\'e Doyon\altaffilmark{4}}
11:
12: \altaffiltext{1}{Gemini Observatory, Southern Operations Center, Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile}
13: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H4, Canada}
14: \altaffiltext{3}{Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Corporation, 65-1238 Mamalahoa Highway, Kamuela, HI 96743}
15: \altaffiltext{4}{D\'epartement de Physique and Observatoire du Mont M\'egantic, Universit\'e de Montr\'eal, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montr\'eal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada}
16:
17: \email{eartigau@gemini.edu, lafreniere@astro.utoronto.ca, albert@cfht.hawaii.edu, doyon@astro.umontreal.ca}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: We have recently identified the widest very low-mass binary
21: (2M0126AB), consisting of an M6.5V and an M8V dwarf with a
22: separation of $\sim$5100~AU, which is twice as large as that of the
23: second widest known system and an order of magnitude larger than those
24: of all other previously known wide very low-mass binaries. If this
25: binary belongs to the field population, its constituents would have
26: masses of $\sim$0.09 M$_{\odot}$, at the lower end of the stellar
27: regime. However, in the discovery paper we pointed out that its proper
28: motion and position in the sky are both consistent with being a member
29: of the young (30~Myr) Tucana/Horologium association, raising the
30: possibility that the binary is a pair of $\sim$0.02~M$_{\odot}$ brown
31: dwarfs. We obtained optical spectroscopy at the Gemini South Observatory in
32: order to constrain the age of the pair and clarify its nature. The
33: absence of lithium absorption at 671~nm, modest H$\alpha$ emission, and the
34: strength of the gravity-sensitive Na doublet at 818~nm all point
35: toward an age of at least 200~Myr, ruling out the possibility that the binary is a member of Tucana/Horologium. We further estimate that the binary
36: is younger than 2~Gyr based on its expected lifetime in the galactic
37: disk.
38:
39:
40: \end{abstract}
41: \keywords{Stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs --- stars: individual (2MASS J012655.49-502238.8, 2MASS012702.83-502321.1)}
42: \noindent{\em Suggested running page header:}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45: Binarity is ubiquitous in stellar systems, from the most massive stars
46: to the substellar regime. The statistical properties of binaries
47: and higher multiple systems retain information on the physical
48: processes that led to their formation long after they have
49: dispersed beyond their star-forming regions. While nearly all early-B
50: stars reside in binary systems, with a binarity fraction as high as
51: $\sim$$80\%$ \citep{Kouwenhoven2005}, this fraction falls to as low as
52: $\sim$$20\%$ \citep{Burgasser2007} for brown dwarfs. Also, while stellar binaries are found with separations reaching 35~000~AU for
53: early-B primaries and 20~000~AU for A primaries \citep{Abt1988}, only a handful of substellar systems have
54: separations beyond 200~AU. Most of these have been found in
55: star-forming regions and open clusters, such as Oph 1623-2402 (212~AU)
56: and Oph 1622-2405 (243~AU) in the star-forming clouds of Ophiuchus
57: \citep{Close2007}, 2M1101-7732 (241.9~AU) in the Chamaeleon I star-forming
58: region \citep{Luhman2004} and the system SE70/S Ori68, a likely
59: $1700\pm300$~AU-wide system in the $\sigma$~Orionis cluster
60: \citep{Caballero2006}. Only three wide very low mass (VLM) binaries
61: are known in the field, DENIS055-44 \citep{Billeres2005}
62: ($\sim$$220$~AU), K\"onigstuhl 1 AB ($1800\pm170$~AU)
63: \citep{Caballero2007a} and 2M0126AB ($5100\pm400$~AU)
64: \citep{Artigau2007}. \citet{Caballero2007b} established that wide
65: late-type binaries with a mass ratio \textgreater$0.5$ are rare objects
66: in the field, with only $1.2\pm0.9\%$ of VLM stars and BDs residing in
67: such systems.
68:
69: The 2M0126AB system represents the most extreme case of VLM binary
70: known. It was discovered as a common proper motion pair by \citet{Artigau2007},
71: and later verified by \citet{Caballero2007b}. The derived probability of having,
72: over the whole sky, a single pair of unrelated late-Ms with matching proper motion and distances within
73: our uncertainties is $\sim$$0.002$ \citep{Artigau2007}; hence the two
74: components are almost certainly gravitationally bound. Its components have spectral types of M6.5
75: and M8 as confirmed by GNIRS \citep{Elias2006} spectroscopy. While
76: near-infrared spectroscopy shows that K\textsc{I} equivalent widths
77: are compatible with those of field objects, the pair falls near the
78: core of the Tucana/Horologium (Tuc/Hor) \citep{Zuckerman2004} association and
79: shares its bulk motion, suggesting that 2M0126AB may be a member of
80: this $30$~Myr old moving group. If indeed it is a member of this
81: group, the low temperatures of its components combined with a very
82: young age would imply masses at the lower limit of the brown dwarf
83: realm. Otherwise, if this pair is a field object (i.e. an age greater
84: than 1~Gyr) the models of \citet{Chabrier2000} indicate masses of
85: 0.095~M$_{\odot}$ and 0.092~M$_{\odot}$, close to the lower limit of
86: the stellar regime.
87:
88: Here we present new optical spectroscopy of both components of
89: 2M0126AB to constrain the properties of this odd pair, either as a
90: member of a young association or as a much older field object. The
91: wavelength interval selected contains important age or gravity
92: indicators: the lithium feature at 670.9~nm, H$\alpha$ and the 820~nm
93: Na doublet. Observations and data reduction are described in
94: \S~\ref{Observations}. Results and a discussion on the physical
95: properties constrained by these observations are given in
96: \S~\ref{discussion}.
97:
98: \section{Observations and data reduction} \label{Observations}
99:
100: The dataset described here was obtained with the GMOS-S spectrograph
101: at the Gemini South telescope on 2007 October 3. A $0.5\arcsec$-wide
102: slit was used with the R400 grating and OG515 filter; the resulting
103: resolving power was R$\sim$1900 for a $600 - 950$~nm wavelength
104: coverage. The slit was aligned as to obtain a spectrum of both objects
105: simultaneously and the observations were made using the
106: nod-and-shuffle mode for improved sky-line subtraction. Two
107: 44.7-minute and one 12.2-minute exposures were obtained for a total
108: integration time of 101 minutes. The observations were obtained at
109: a mean airmass of 1.5 under photometric conditions. The exposures were taken at
110: slightly different grating angles providing a spectral dithering in
111: order to fill the $3$~nm wavelength-coverage gaps caused by the spacing
112: between the three GMOS detectors. The
113: 790~nm, 800~nm and 810~nm central wavelengths for each exposure
114: displaced these gap in the $716-740$~nm and $870-882$~nm intervals,
115: i.e. in regions devoided of diagnostic spectral features. A white
116: dwarf (EG131) was observed on 2007 September 11 with the same setup
117: for instrumental and telluric corrections.
118:
119: The individual nod-and-shuffle frames were first dark and bias
120: subtracted. Each nod-and-shuffle frame was then calibrated using flats taken immediately before (790~nm setup) or after
121: (800~nm and 810~nm setup) the science observation. The two
122: nod-and-shuffle frames were then pair-subtracted, and corrected for
123: trace distortion. Wavelength calibration was performed using
124: copper-argon lamp spectra taken as part of the night-time
125: calibrations. Spectra were extracted from both the positive and
126: negative nod-and-shuffle traces for each component, resulting in a
127: total of 6 spectra that were interpolated on a finer common-wavelength
128: grid and median combined. The final signal-to-noise ratio per resolution
129: element ranges from about 15 around 650~nm to 70 around 800~nm for 2M0126A.
130: The signal-to-noise obtained for 2M0126B is $\sim$20$\%$ lower.
131:
132: An image of the 2M0126AB field was taken prior to the spectroscopic
133: observation. This 30.5-s $i$-band image used the GMOS-S central CCD
134: without pixel binning, providing a $2.5\arcmin\times5.6\arcmin$
135: FOV with a $0.073\arcsec$ pixel sampling. The image was bias
136: subtracted, fringe corrected and flat-fielded. This image was used to
137: search for additional comoving objects and test the possibility that one or both
138: components of the system is a tight binary itself.
139:
140: \section{Results \& Discussion} \label{discussion}
141: Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the spectra of 2M0126A and 2M0126B. Both
142: spectra show the hallmark absorption features of late-M dwarfs such as
143: TiO, K\textsc{I} and Na\textsc{I}. A comparison with template M6.5 and
144: M7.5 spectra from \citet{Kirkpatrick1999} shows little difference with typical field objects, the
145: differences around 760~nm and between 930~nm and 950~nm being due to
146: telluric absorption (corrected in our spectra, unaccounted for in the
147: reference spectra).
148:
149: We derive an optical spectral type using the \citet{Martin1999}
150: polynomial relations for the PC3 index for both components. These
151: spectral types agree within 0.2 subclass to those measured in \citet{Artigau2007}
152: and therefore we keep spectral types of \hbox{M$6.5\pm0.5$} and \hbox{M$8.0\pm0.5$}
153: for our analysis. Both 2M0126A and 2M0126B show moderate H$\alpha$ emission (see inset
154: in Figure~\ref{fig1}) with pseudo-equivalent widths (pEW) of
155: $-3.44$~\AA~and $-7.32$~\AA, respectively. This measurement was
156: converted into $\log \left( L_{\rm{H}\alpha}/L_{\rm{bol}} \right)$ using the
157: procedure described by \citet{Walkowicz2004}; we obtained
158: $\log \left( L_{\rm{H}\alpha}/L_{\rm{bol}} \right) = -4.5$ and $-4.4$ for components
159: A and B, respectively. The measured H$\alpha$ pEW for both components
160: are typical for objects of these spectral types \citep{West2004}. From
161: these values alone we cannot rule out the possibility that the pair is
162: a member of the Tuc/Hor association as young late-Ms have widely
163: varying levels of activity; the level observed for 2M0126A is
164: comparable to the least active members of the $50$~Myr old open
165: cluster IC~2391 while 2M0126B has H$\alpha$ strength similar to that of
166: other late-Ms in the sample of \citet{Barrado2004}. Measurements of
167: the H$\alpha$ pEW therefore provides little help in establishing the
168: true nature of 2M0126AB, excluding neither of the hypotheses.
169:
170: The absence of lithium absorption gives the best clue that 2M0126AB is
171: not a member of the Tuc/Hor association (see inset in
172: Figure~\ref{fig1}). At a bolometric luminosity of
173: $\log \left( \textrm{L}/\textrm{L}_\odot \right) \sim -3.1$, both
174: objects should take
175: 200~Myr \citep{Dantona1997,Chabrier2000} to destroy lithium,
176: implying a minimum age
177: that is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the 30~Myr of Tuc/Hor.
178: \citet{Kirkpatrick2006, Kirkpatrick2008} mention that in some young
179: objects, the lithium signature can be absent due to very low gravity
180: and the intrinsically weaker alkali lines seen in these objects. This
181: would explain the seemingly contradictory spectroscopic features of
182: 2MASS J01415823-4633574: no detectable lithium at 671~nm despite
183: numerous low gravity indicators pointing toward an age of
184: 5-10~Myr and an estimate gravity of $\log \left( g \right) \sim
185: 4.0\pm0.5$. \citet{Chabrier2000} models predict, for objects at the luminosities of
186: 2M0126A and 2M0126B, $\log \left( g \right) =4.2$ at an age of
187: 30~Myr (Tuc/Hor scenario), $\log g = 5.0$ at 200~Myr (minimum age with
188: lithium depletion) and $\log \left( g \right) =5.3$ at 1~Gyr
189: (half-life of the binary due to tidal disruption in the galactic disk). While
190: the $\log \left( g \right)$ predicted for 2M0126A and B in the
191: Tuc/Hor scenario is close to that of 2MASS J01415823-4633574, which may cast a doubt on the
192: validity of the lithium test in this case, we note that objects later
193: than M5 in the $50$~Myr-old open cluster IC2391 do show significant
194: lithium absorption \citep{Barrado2004} and that, at the same
195: temperature as 2M0126A and B, IC~2391 late-Ms have surface gravities
196: within about 0.4~dex of that predicted for 2M0126A and 2M0126B at
197: 30~Myr.
198:
199: The Na \textsc{I} doublet at 818~nm is a good gravity indicator
200: \citep{Kirkpatrick1991, Kirkpatrick2006}. The NaI doublet equivalent
201: widths of \hbox{$7.04\pm0.12$~\AA} and \hbox{$6.69\pm0.20$~\AA} for 2M0126A and B
202: respectively, are consistent with those of field objects but about
203: 2~\AA~larger than the values found for late-M Pleiades members
204: \citep{Martin1996}. This indicates that both objects are significantly
205: older than the Pleiades (130 Myr; \citet{Barrado2004}), which in turn implies
206: surface gravities of $\log \left( g \right) > 5.0$. Such a high surface gravity further
207: implies that the binary system would clearly show Li absorption should it be
208: present. This confirms the lower limit on the age set by the lithium
209: test at 200~Myr. We therefore establish that 2M0126AB cannot be a
210: member of the Tuc/Hor association and is more likely a field
211: pair.
212:
213: Interestingly, this pair has an expected survival time in the
214: galactic disk significantly shorter than the age of the disk
215: itself. This timescale has been estimated by scaling to 2M0126AB the
216: \citet{Weinberg1987} results for binaries in the solar
217: neighborhood. With an half-life of $\sim$1~Gyr, we can estimate at
218: the 68\% confidence level (equivalent to 1$\sigma$) that the pair has
219: an age between 0.2 and 1.8 Gyr. Masses have been determined from the \citet{Chabrier2000} models for ages of 0.2~Gyr
220: and $>$1~Gyr and are given in Table~\ref{tbl-1}.
221:
222:
223: We measured a list of 12 spectroscopic indices (see table~\ref{tbl-1})
224: compiled by \citet{Cruz2002} in order to verify whether 2M0126AB shows
225: any peculiarity compared to field M dwarfs. All indicators fall within
226: the trends observed for field objects; three are shown in
227: Figure~\ref{fig2}. None of the indicators deviate from the overall
228: trends for field M dwarfs. In particular, the TiO5, being much
229: stronger in sub-dwarfs and extreme sub-dwarfs, is a useful probe of
230: metallicity. Our CaH1, CaH2 and CaH3 versus TiO5 measurements clearly
231: put 2M0126A in the non-subdwarf part of Figure~1 in \citet{Gizis1997},
232: which extends only up to a spectral type of M7. This is in agreement
233: with the $\lesssim$$2$~Gyr age expected from dynamical
234: considerations. Using the relations between the TiO5 and CaH2 indices
235: versus the $J$-band absolute magnitude given by \citet{Cruz2002}, we
236: derive a photometric distance of \hbox{$82\pm5$~pc} for 2M0126A. The
237: photometric distance for 2M0126B cannot be easily determined through
238: this method as the trends break for objects later than M7. This revised distance is
239: somewhat larger than the distance estimated in \citet{Artigau2007} and
240: would revise upward the physical separation of the pair to about
241: 6700~AU. Using the \citet{Reid1995} relation the TiO5 index alone points
242: toward a slightly earlier spectral type (M$6.0\pm0.5$) for 2M0126A.
243: This mild inconsistency in the distance to
244: 2M0126AB illustrates the need for a more reliable distance measurement
245: based on parallax.
246:
247: Using the GMOS $i$-band image of 2M0126AB, we rule out, using the
248: subtraction of a field stars' PSF, that either of its components is
249: itself an equal-luminosity binary with a separation
250: $>$0.2$\arcsec$. An object $\sim$4$\arcsec$ North-West of
251: 2M0126A was examined as a plausible close-in companion, $2.0$~mag
252: fainter than 2M0126A. This object is undetected in $J$-band images
253: taken in 2006 June, implying a flux ratio greater than
254: $\sim$$3.0$~mag. This object is thus at least 1.0~mag bluer in
255: $i_{\rm{AB}}-J$ than 2M0126A and therefore cannot realistically be a
256: later-type companion. No other object, down to a $\Delta i_{\rm{AB}}
257: \sim$$4.5$~mag, is seen within $5\arcsec$ of either
258: component. The flux ratio between 2M0126A and 2M0126B is measured to
259: be $\Delta~i=0.518\pm0.015$~mag, consistent with, but much more
260: accurate, than the SuperCosmos Sky Survey \citep{Hambly2001} $I$-band photometry. A separation of
261: $81.89\pm0.2\arcsec$ is measured between the two components,
262: consistent with previous measurements.
263:
264: Overall, aside from the fact that they compose the widest VLM
265: binary, 2M0126A and 2M0126B are basically indistinguishable from the
266: bulk of field M dwarfs, in age, surface gravity, activity level or
267: metallicity. The fact that 2M0126AB is a relatively old system makes
268: it all the more remarkable as compared to the bulk of wide VLM
269: binaries found in star-forming regions. This object demonstrates that
270: at least a handful of dynamically very fragile systems do survive to
271: become field objects; a result that future work on the dynamics of
272: star-forming regions will have to take into account.
273:
274: The properties of 2M0126AB are interresting to compare to those of
275: their more massive counterparts. The correlation between the upper limit on
276: separation versus the mass of the primary (2500 $M_{\rm primary}^{1.54}$) noted by \citet{Abt1988} in
277: the B5-K0 interval clearly doesn't hold for the system described here, where we would expect a maximum
278: separation of about 60~AU. Interrestingly, the order of magnitude of this limit is
279: consistent with the sharp cutoff at $\sim50$~AU in the discribution of VLM binaries. While the
280: discovery of 2M0126AB shows that much wider VLM binaries exist, the next step in the study
281: of such systems would be a census of similar systems through a dedicated survey, in which high care is taken
282: in assessing the sensitivity and completeness limits such that clear and robust conclusions can be drawn. As these systems are likely to be
283: very rare, a large sample of mid-to-late-Ms would be needed. It is also noteworthy that among the 500 or
284: so L and T dwarfs in the 2MASS catalog, no binary wider than $2^{\prime\prime}$ has been identified. How rare are pairs with total masses
285: much below that of 2M0126AB at similar separations, if they exist at all, remains to be seen.
286:
287: An interesting avenue of investigation will also be to determine whether forming pairs
288: like 2M0126AB is fundamentally different from forming VLM binaries
289: separated by tens of AUs. One striking property of VLM binaries, as compared to stellar binaries,
290: is the strongly peaked mass ratio distribution toward unity \citep{Burgasser2007}, with 77\% of the systems
291: having M$_2$/M$_1 \geq 0.8$, while late-F to K dwarfs binaries show a much flatter distribution.
292: Interestingly, 2M0126AB has M$_2$/M$_1 \sim 0.95$, more in line with the VLM binary distribution. While
293: obviously no broad-ranging conclusions can be drawn from the discovery of a single object, the discovery
294: of only a handful of systems similar to 2M0126AB should clarify if they share the formation mechanisms of
295: their siblings and represent the tail of the distribution, possibly dynamically excited during
296: their formation, or if the formation scenarios themselves differ.
297:
298:
299: \acknowledgments
300: Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory (program ID :
301: GS-2007B-Q-18), which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement
302: with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United
303: States), the Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom), the
304: National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council
305: (Australia), Minist\'erio da Ci\^encia e Tecnologia (Brazil) and SECYT (Argentina).
306: DL is supported via a postdoctoral fellowship from the Fonds qu\'eb\'ecois de la recherche sur la nature
307: et les technologies. RD is financially supported via a grant from the
308: National Research and Engenerring Council of Canada. This publication has made use of the VLM Binaries Archive maintained
309: by Nick Siegler at \hbox{http://www.vlmbinaries.org}.
310:
311: \newpage
312:
313: \begin{thebibliography}{28}
314: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
315:
316: \bibitem[{{Abt}(1988)}]{Abt1988}
317: {Abt}, H.~A. 1988, \apj, 331, 922
318:
319: \bibitem[{{Artigau} {et~al.}(2007){Artigau}, {Lafreni{\`e}re}, {Doyon},
320: {Albert}, {Nadeau}, \& {Robert}}]{Artigau2007}
321: {Artigau}, {\'E}., {Lafreni{\`e}re}, D., {Doyon}, R., {Albert}, L., {Nadeau},
322: D., \& {Robert}, J. 2007, \apjl, 659, L49
323:
324: \bibitem[{{Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s} {et~al.}(2004){Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s},
325: {Stauffer}, \& {Jayawardhana}}]{Barrado2004}
326: {Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s}, D., {Stauffer}, J.~R., \& {Jayawardhana}, R. 2004,
327: \apj, 614, 386
328:
329: \bibitem[{{Bill{\`e}res} {et~al.}(2005){Bill{\`e}res}, {Delfosse}, {Beuzit},
330: {Forveille}, {Marchal}, \& {Mart{\'{\i}}n}}]{Billeres2005}
331: {Bill{\`e}res}, M., {Delfosse}, X., {Beuzit}, J.-L., {Forveille}, T.,
332: {Marchal}, L., \& {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, E.~L. 2005, \aap, 440, L55
333:
334: \bibitem[{{Burgasser} {et~al.}(2007){Burgasser}, {Reid}, {Siegler}, {Close},
335: {Allen}, {Lowrance}, \& {Gizis}}]{Burgasser2007}
336: {Burgasser}, A.~J., {Reid}, I.~N., {Siegler}, N., {Close}, L., {Allen}, P.,
337: {Lowrance}, P., \& {Gizis}, J. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed.
338: B.~{Reipurth}, D.~{Jewitt}, \& K.~{Keil}, 427--441
339:
340: \bibitem[{{Caballero}(2007{\natexlab{a}})}]{Caballero2007b}
341: {Caballero}, J.~A. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 667, 520
342:
343: \bibitem[{{Caballero}(2007{\natexlab{b}})}]{Caballero2007a}
344: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \aap, 462, L61
345:
346: \bibitem[{{Caballero} {et~al.}(2006){Caballero}, {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, {Dobbie}, \&
347: {Barrado Y Navascu{\'e}s}}]{Caballero2006}
348: {Caballero}, J.~A., {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, E.~L., {Dobbie}, P.~D., \& {Barrado Y
349: Navascu{\'e}s}, D. 2006, \aap, 460, 635
350:
351: \bibitem[{{Chabrier} {et~al.}(2000){Chabrier}, {Baraffe}, {Allard}, \&
352: {Hauschildt}}]{Chabrier2000}
353: {Chabrier}, G., {Baraffe}, I., {Allard}, F., \& {Hauschildt}, P. 2000, \apj,
354: 542, 464
355:
356: \bibitem[{{Close} {et~al.}(2007){Close}, {Zuckerman}, {Song}, {Barman},
357: {Marois}, {Rice}, {Siegler}, {Macintosh}, {Becklin}, {Campbell}, {Lyke},
358: {Conrad}, \& {Le Mignant}}]{Close2007}
359: {Close}, L.~M., {Zuckerman}, B., {Song}, I., {Barman}, T., {Marois}, C.,
360: {Rice}, E.~L., {Siegler}, N., {Macintosh}, B., {Becklin}, E.~E., {Campbell},
361: R., {Lyke}, J.~E., {Conrad}, A., \& {Le Mignant}, D. 2007, \apj, 660, 1492
362:
363: \bibitem[{{Cruz} \& {Reid}(2002)}]{Cruz2002}
364: {Cruz}, K.~L. \& {Reid}, I.~N. 2002, \aj, 123, 2828
365:
366: \bibitem[{{D'Antona} \& {Mazzitelli}(1997)}]{Dantona1997}
367: {D'Antona}, F. \& {Mazzitelli}, I. 1997, Memorie della Societa Astronomica
368: Italiana, 68, 807
369:
370: \bibitem[{{Elias} {et~al.}(2006){Elias}, {Rodgers}, {Joyce}, {Lazo},
371: {Doppmann}, {Winge}, \& {Rodr{\'{\i}}guez-Ardila}}]{Elias2006}
372: {Elias}, J.~H., {Rodgers}, B., {Joyce}, R.~R., {Lazo}, M., {Doppmann}, G.,
373: {Winge}, C., \& {Rodr{\'{\i}}guez-Ardila}, A. 2006, in Presented at the
374: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference, Vol.
375: 6269, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy. Edited by
376: McLean, Ian S.; Iye, Masanori. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 6269, pp.
377: 626914 (2006).
378:
379: \bibitem[{{Gizis}(1997)}]{Gizis1997}
380: {Gizis}, J.~E. 1997, \aj, 113, 806
381:
382: \bibitem[{{Hambly} {et~al.}(2001){Hambly}, {Davenhall}, {Irwin}, \&
383: {MacGillivray}}]{Hambly2001}
384: {Hambly}, N.~C., {Davenhall}, A.~C., {Irwin}, M.~J., \& {MacGillivray}, H.~T.
385: 2001, \mnras, 326, 1315
386:
387: \bibitem[{{Kirkpatrick} {et~al.}(2006){Kirkpatrick}, {Barman}, {Burgasser},
388: {McGovern}, {McLean}, {Tinney}, \& {Lowrance}}]{Kirkpatrick2006}
389: {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., {Barman}, T.~S., {Burgasser}, A.~J., {McGovern}, M.~R.,
390: {McLean}, I.~S., {Tinney}, C.~G., \& {Lowrance}, P.~J. 2006, \apj, 639, 1120
391:
392: \bibitem[{{Kirkpatrick} {et~al.}(2008){Kirkpatrick}, {Cruz}, {Barman},
393: {Burgasser}, {Looper}, {Tinney}, {Gelino}, {Lowrance}, {Liebert},
394: {Carpenter}, {Hillenbrand}, \& {Stauffer}}]{Kirkpatrick2008}
395: {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., {Cruz}, K.~L., {Barman}, T.~S., {Burgasser}, A.~J.,
396: {Looper}, D.~L., {Tinney}, C.~G., {Gelino}, C.~R., {Lowrance}, P.~J.,
397: {Liebert}, J., {Carpenter}, J.~M., {Hillenbrand}, L.~A., \& {Stauffer}, J.~R.
398: 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 808
399:
400: \bibitem[{{Kirkpatrick} {et~al.}(1991){Kirkpatrick}, {Henry}, \&
401: {McCarthy}}]{Kirkpatrick1991}
402: {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., {Henry}, T.~J., \& {McCarthy}, Jr., D.~W. 1991, \apjs,
403: 77, 417
404:
405: \bibitem[{{Kirkpatrick} {et~al.}(1999){Kirkpatrick}, {Reid}, {Liebert},
406: {Cutri}, {Nelson}, {Beichman}, {Dahn}, {Monet}, {Gizis}, \&
407: {Skrutskie}}]{Kirkpatrick1999}
408: {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., {Reid}, I.~N., {Liebert}, J., {Cutri}, R.~M., {Nelson},
409: B., {Beichman}, C.~A., {Dahn}, C.~C., {Monet}, D.~G., {Gizis}, J.~E., \&
410: {Skrutskie}, M.~F. 1999, \apj, 519, 802
411:
412: \bibitem[{{Kouwenhoven} {et~al.}(2005){Kouwenhoven}, {Brown}, {Zinnecker},
413: {Kaper}, \& {Portegies Zwart}}]{Kouwenhoven2005}
414: {Kouwenhoven}, M.~B.~N., {Brown}, A.~G.~A., {Zinnecker}, H., {Kaper}, L., \&
415: {Portegies Zwart}, S.~F. 2005, \aap, 430, 137
416:
417: \bibitem[{{Luhman}(2004)}]{Luhman2004}
418: {Luhman}, K.~L. 2004, \apj, 614, 398
419:
420: \bibitem[{{Mart{\'{\i}}n} {et~al.}(1999){Mart{\'{\i}}n}, {Delfosse}, {Basri},
421: {Goldman}, {Forveille}, \& {Zapatero Osorio}}]{Martin1999}
422: {Mart{\'{\i}}n}, E.~L., {Delfosse}, X., {Basri}, G., {Goldman}, B.,
423: {Forveille}, T., \& {Zapatero Osorio}, M.~R. 1999, \aj, 118, 2466
424:
425: \bibitem[{{Mart\'in} {et~al.}(1996){Mart\'in}, {Rebolo}, \&
426: {Zapatero-Osorio}}]{Martin1996}
427: {Mart\'in}, E.~L., {Rebolo}, R., \& {Zapatero-Osorio}, M.~R. 1996, \apj, 469,
428: 706
429:
430: \bibitem[{{Reid} {et~al.}(1995){Reid}, {Hawley}, \& {Gizis}}]{Reid1995}
431: {Reid}, I.~N., {Hawley}, S.~L., \& {Gizis}, J.~E. 1995, \aj, 110, 1838
432:
433: \bibitem[{{Walkowicz} {et~al.}(2004){Walkowicz}, {Hawley}, \&
434: {West}}]{Walkowicz2004}
435: {Walkowicz}, L.~M., {Hawley}, S.~L., \& {West}, A.~A. 2004, \pasp, 116, 1105
436:
437: \bibitem[{{Weinberg} {et~al.}(1987){Weinberg}, {Shapiro}, \&
438: {Wasserman}}]{Weinberg1987}
439: {Weinberg}, M.~D., {Shapiro}, S.~L., \& {Wasserman}, I. 1987, \apj, 312, 367
440:
441: \bibitem[{{West} {et~al.}(2004){West}, {Hawley}, {Walkowicz}, {Covey},
442: {Silvestri}, {Raymond}, {Harris}, {Munn}, {McGehee}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, \&
443: {Brinkmann}}]{West2004}
444: {West}, A.~A., {Hawley}, S.~L., {Walkowicz}, L.~M., {Covey}, K.~R.,
445: {Silvestri}, N.~M., {Raymond}, S.~N., {Harris}, H.~C., {Munn}, J.~A.,
446: {McGehee}, P.~M., {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}., \& {Brinkmann}, J. 2004, \aj, 128,
447: 426
448:
449: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} \& {Song}(2004)}]{Zuckerman2004}
450: {Zuckerman}, B. \& {Song}, I. 2004, \araa, 42, 685
451:
452: \end{thebibliography}
453:
454: \clearpage
455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
456: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
457: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
458: \plotone{f1.eps}
459: \epsscale{.7}
460: \caption{\label{fig1} Spectra of 2M0126A (bottom) and 2M0126B (top,
461: offset by +1) as well as two template objects, a M6.5 (2MASS
462: J02422+1343, dotted line, overplotted on 2M0126A) and an M7.5 (2MASS
463: J2585+1520, dotted line, offset by +1, overplotted on 2M0126B). All
464: spectra have been normalized to their median flux over the
465: 810-840~nm spectral interval. The inset shows the 650-675~nm
466: interval that contains two important age diagnostic features, the
467: undetected lithium line at 670.8~nm and H$\alpha$ at
468: $656.3$~nm. The inset normalization is the same as that of the main
469: figure but the spectra have been offset by 0.2 for clarity.}
470: \end{figure}
471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
473: \begin{figure}[!ht]
474: \plotone{f2.eps}
475: \epsscale{.7}
476: \caption{\label{fig2} VO-a, TiO5 and H$\alpha$ indices as a function
477: of spectral type for the \cite{Cruz2002} sample compared to the
478: values measured for 2M0126A and 2M0126B (data points with error
479: bars). The values measured for our binary are consistent with the
480: overall trends of the field M dwarf sample, indicating neither
481: particularly large chromospheric activity nor signs of peculiar
482: metallicity.}
483: \end{figure}
484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
486: \clearpage
487:
488: \begin{center}
489:
490: \begin{deluxetable}{lr@{$\pm$}lr@{$\pm$}l}
491: \tablewidth{0pt}
492: \tablecaption{Parameters of 2MASS J0126AB\label{tbl-1}}
493: \tablehead{
494: Parameter &\multicolumn{2}{c}{2M0126A}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{2M0126B}}
495: \startdata
496:
497: 2MASS designation&\multicolumn{2}{c}{J012655.49-502238.8}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{J012702.83-502321.1}\\
498: Angular separation$\,^{\rm a}$ [$\arcsec$]&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$81.86\pm0.10$}\\
499: $\mu_\alpha \cos\delta\,^{\rm a}$ [mas/yr]&$131$&$9$&$135$&$9$\\
500: $\mu_\delta\,^{\rm a}$ [mas/yr]&$-53$&$15$&$-47$&$15$\\
501: $V\,^{\rm a}$&\multicolumn{2}{c}{21.8}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{22.2}\\
502: $I\,^{\rm b}$&$17.2$&$0.3$&$17.6$&$0.3$\\
503: $\Delta i_{\rm{AB}}$&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$0.518\pm0.015$}\\
504: $J\,^{\rm c}$&$14.61$&$0.04$&$14.81$&$0.05$\\
505: $H\,^{\rm c}$&$14.05$&$0.05$&$14.16$&$0.04$\\
506: $K_s\,^{\rm c}$&$13.68$&$0.05$&$13.62$&$0.05$\\
507: FeH 1.20~$\mu$m$\,^{\rm a}$ [\AA]&$6.0$&$1.8$& $14.5$&$1.9$\\
508: K\textsc{I}~1.25$\mu$m$\,^{\rm a}$ [\AA]&$9.8$&$1.1$&$10.3$&$1.0$\\
509: H$\alpha$ pEW [\AA]&$-3.44$&$0.40$&$-7.32$&$0.50$\\
510: $\log(L_{\rm{H}\alpha}/L_{\rm{bol}})$&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$-4.5$}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$-4.4$}\\
511: Li 671 nm [\AA]&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textless$0.27$}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textless$0.52$}\\
512: Na I EW [\AA]&$7.04$&$0.12$&$6.69$&$0.20$\\
513: CaOH$\,^{\rm d}$&$0.32$&$0.05$&$ 0.46$&$0.11$\\
514: H$\alpha$$\,^{\rm d}$&$1.48$&$0.03$&$ 2.16$&$0.13$\\
515: CaH1$\,^{\rm d,g}$&$0.87$&$0.07$&$ 0.94$&$0.11$\\
516: CaH2$\,^{\rm d,g}$&$0.277$&$0.007$&$ 0.270$&$0.012$\\
517: CaH3$\,^{\rm d,g}$&$0.581$&$0.009$&$ 0.563$&$0.017$\\
518: TiO-a$\,^{\rm d,e}$&$2.71$&$0.09$&$ 2.81$&$0.16$\\
519: TiO2$\,^{\rm d}$&$0.32$&$0.02$&$ 0.33$&$0.03$\\
520: TiO3$\,^{\rm d}$&$0.55$&$0.03$&$ 0.54$&$0.04$\\
521: TiO4$\,^{\rm d}$&$0.53$&$0.03$&$ 0.71$&$0.06$\\
522: TiO5$\,^{\rm d,g}$&$0.219$&$0.008$&$ 0.284$&$0.016$\\
523: VO-a$\,^{\rm d,e}$&$1.073$&$0.006$&$ 1.104$&$0.011$\\
524: VO-b$\,^{\rm e}$&$1.256$&$0.009$&$ 1.361$&$0.013$\\
525: PC3$\,^{\rm d}$&$1.569$&$0.008$&$ 1.850$&$0.014$\\
526: Near-IR$\,^{\rm a}$ \& optical SpT&M$6.5$V&$0.5$&M$8$V&$0.5$\\
527: Photometric distance$\,^{\rm a}$ [pc]&63&$5$ pc&61&$6$\\
528: Physical separation$\,^{\rm a}$ [AU]&\multicolumn{4}{c}{5100$\pm$400}\\
529: $T_{eff}\,^{\rm a}$ [K]&$2670$&$180$&$2490$&$180$\\
530: Mass ($200$~Myr)$\,^{\rm h}$ [M$_{\odot}$]&$0.068$&$0.005$&$0.065$&$0.005$\\
531: Mass ($>1$~Gyr)$\,^{\rm h}$ [M$_{\odot}$]&$0.095$&$0.005$&$0.092$&$0.005$\\
532: Age [Myr]&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\textgreater$200}\\
533: M$_{\textrm{bol}}\,^{\rm a}$&$12.76$&$0.14$&$12.75$&$0.14$\\
534: Luminosity$\,^{\rm a}$ [$\log \left( \textrm{L}/\textrm{L}_\odot \right)$]&$-3.21$&$0.05$&$-3.20$&$0.05$\\
535: \enddata
536: \tablenotetext{a}{From \citet{Artigau2007}, see this reference for more details.}
537: \tablenotetext{b}{From the SuperCosmos Sky Survey catalogue.}
538: \tablenotetext{c}{From the 2MASS point source catalogue.}
539: \tablenotetext{d}{\citet{Cruz2002} index}
540: \tablenotetext{e}{\citet{Kirkpatrick1999} index}
541: \tablenotetext{f}{\citet{Martin1999} index}
542: \tablenotetext{g}{\citet{Gizis1997} index}
543: \tablenotetext{h}{Determined using the \citet{Chabrier2000} evolution models and the estimated $J$, $H$ and $K_s$ absolute magnitudes.}
544: \end{deluxetable}
545:
546:
547:
548: \end{center}
549:
550:
551: \end{document}
552: