1: \documentclass[traditabstract]{aa}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: %\usepackage[square,authoryear]{natbib}
5: \usepackage{txfonts}
6: \usepackage{deluxetable}
7: \def\Mj{\,$\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}$}
8: \def\mc2{\multicolumn{2}{c}}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{The Minimum Jeans Mass, Brown Dwarf Companion IMF, and
13: Predictions for Detection of Y-type Dwarfs}
14:
15: \author{B.~Zuckerman\inst{1} \and
16: Inseok Song\inst{2}}
17:
18: \institute{Dept. of Physics \& Astronomy and Center for Astrobiology,
19: University of California, Los Angeles,
20: 475 Portola Plaza,
21: Los Angeles, CA 90095--1547, USA\\
22: \email{ben@astro.ucla.edu}
23: \and Department of Physics \& Astronomy,
24: The University of Georgia,
25: Athens, GA 30605, USA\\
26: \email{song@physast.uga.edu}
27: }
28:
29: \date{Received; accepted}
30: \authorrunning{Zuckerman \& Song}
31: \titlerunning{BD companion IMF \& Y-dwarfs}
32:
33: \abstract {
34: Cool L- and T-type objects were discovered first as companions to stars in 1988
35: and 1995, respectively. A certain example of the yet cooler Y-type spectral
36: class ($T_{eff}$$\lesssim$500\,K?) has not been seen. Recent infrared imaging
37: observations of stars and brown dwarfs indicate that substellar companions with
38: large semi-major axes and with masses less than the brown dwarf/giant planet
39: dividing line ($\sim$13.5\,\Mj) are rare. Theoretical considerations of Jeans
40: mass fragmentation of molecular clouds are consistent with this minimum mass
41: cutoff and also with the semi-major axis (hundreds of AU) characteristic of the
42: lowest mass imaged companions. As a consequence, Y-class companions with large
43: semi-major axes should be scarce around stars $<2$\,Gyr old, and also around
44: substellar primaries of all ages. By focusing on brown dwarf companions to
45: young stellar primaries, it is possible to derive a first estimate of the brown
46: dwarf IMF over the entire range of brown dwarf masses (13\,\Mj\ to 79\,\Mj) --
47: the number of companion brown dwarfs is proportional to mass to the
48: $-1.2\pm0.2$ power. }
49:
50: \keywords{(stars:)\,planetary systems --- stars:\,low-mass, brown dwarfs}
51:
52: \maketitle
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55: The temperature of the coolest measured substellar dwarf objects has diminished
56: from 1900\,K in 1988 (GD\,165B, Becklin \& Zuckerman 1988; Kirkpatrick et al.
57: 1999), to 960\,K in 1995 (Gl\,229B, Nakajima et al. 1995; Geballe et al. 2002),
58: to 800\,K in 2000 (Gl\,570D, Burgasser et al. 2000; Geballe et al. 2001), to
59: 650\,K in 2007 (ULAS\,J0034-00, Warren et al 2007). Recently, Delorme et al.
60: (2008) identified a 620\,K field brown dwarf that, along with ULAS\,J0034-00,
61: show a suggestion of an ammonia absorption feature in the H-band. They note
62: that if the apparent ammonia feature deepens at lower effective temperatures,
63: then $\sim$600\,K will be a natural break point between the T and Y spectral
64: types. In parallel, imaging searches for objects of planetary mass have
65: revealed 2M1207b with a mass $\sim$5 times that of Jupiter (Chauvin et al.
66: 2004, 2005a; Song et al. 2006) or perhaps $\sim$8\,\Mj\ (Mohanty et al. 2007),
67: along with a handful of substellar companions (Table~1) at or just above the
68: planet/brown dwarf boundary (13.5\Mj) as defined by the IAU. Published
69: (Masciadri et al. 2005; Luhman et al. 2007a; Kasper et al. 2007a; Lafrenie\'re
70: et al. 2007) and as yet unpublished (G. Chauvin et al., in preparation; J.
71: Farihi et al., in preparation; C. Marois et al, in preparation) imaging
72: searches with adaptive optics (AO) systems on the VLT and on Keck, with the
73: NICMOS camera on HST, and with IRAC on Spitzer, are sensitive to objects with
74: temperatures $<800$\,K as well as companion masses as small as a few Jupiters
75: in the case of many target stars.
76:
77: To set limits on the masses of planets that can be detected at a given
78: separation from a given target star, the standard procedure in most
79: planet-imaging survey papers is to employ a series of Monte Carlo simulations
80: of an ensemble of extrasolar planets around each star. The luminosity of a
81: planet, based on theoretical mass-luminosity-age calculations, at each
82: semimajor axis is compared with the measured minimum detectable brightness in
83: each annulus around a target star. In this way it is possible to determine
84: just how close to any given star a planet of any given mass might be
85: observable. For example, in a sample of 85 nearby young
86: stars, \cite{Lafreniere} were sensitive to planets more massive than 2
87: \Mj\ with a projected separation in the range 40$-$200 AU around a typical
88: target. They found none, and at a 95\% confidence level concluded that at
89: most
90: 12\% of stars harbor a planet more massive than 2 \Mj\ between 50 and 295
91: AU.
92: \cite{Nielsen} found no planets orbiting 60 stars and concluded with 95\%
93: confidence that the fraction of stars with planets with semimajor axis between
94: 20 and 100 AU and mass above 4 \Mj\ is $<$20\%. \cite{Kasper07a} derived a
95: frequency of giant planets with masses above 2$-$3 \Mj\ at separations larger
96: than 30 AU around nearby G, K, and M-type stars to be $\leq$5\%.
97:
98: Notwithstanding the above published and unpublished survey
99: sensitivities down
100: to planets of a few Jupiter masses,
101: Table~1 includes all companions reported to date with masses probably less than
102: 20 times that of Jupiter. In the present paper we gather together results from
103: the many papers listed above and from some additional papers to: (1)
104: Demonstrate that substellar companions at large semi-major axes (beyond those
105: accessible to the techniques of precision radial velocities and microlensing)
106: can be accounted for in a Jeans-mass fragmentation model. (2) Derive a
107: first
108: estimate of the brown dwarf companion initial mass function (IMF) over the
109: entire range of brown dwarf masses. (3) Infer that Y dwarfs may be detected
110: occasionally as companions to old stars, but will be particularly rare as
111: companions to stars with ages $<$2 Gyr.
112:
113: We first consider the significance of Table~1 in the
114: context of formation scenarios for brown dwarfs and massive
115: planets with semi-major axes sufficiently large for imaging
116: detection with existing instruments. Then we discuss implications
117: of Table~1 for imaging discovery of Y-type substellar companions
118: (Kirkpatrick 2000). This new spectral class, cooler than T-type,
119: may begin to appear at effective temperatures around 500\,K (e.g.,
120: Burrows et al. 2003).
121:
122: \begin{table*}
123: \begin{minipage}[t]{\textwidth}
124: \begin{center}
125: \caption{Lowest mass companions (M $\leq$20 \Mj) imaged to date.}
126: \begin{tabular}{cccccccl}
127: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
128: \hline \hline
129: Object & \mc2{Sp. Type} & Age & $M_{pri}$ & $M_{sec}$ & Sep. & Ref. \\
130: \cline{2-3}
131: & Primary & Secondary & (Myr) & (M$_{\odot}$) & (\Mj) & (AU) & \\
132: \hline
133: 2M1207 & M8 & L5 &$ 8 $& 0.025 & 5$^a$ & 46 & Chauvin et al (2004) \\
134: AB Pic & K2V & L1 &$ 30 $& 0.84 & 14 & 248 & Chauvin et al (2005c) \\
135: Oph 11 & M9 & M9.5 &$ 5 $& 0.0175& 15 & 237 & Close et al (2007), Luhman et al (2007b) \\
136: GQ Lup & K7V & L1.5 &$ 3? $& 0.7 & 17 & 100 & Neuhauser et al. (2005) \\
137: HN Peg & G0V & T2.5 &$ 200^b $& 1.0 & 18 & 795 & Luhman et al. (2007a) \\
138: TWA 5 & M1.5 & M8/8.5&$ 8 $& 0.40 & 20 & 98 & Lowrance et al. (1999) \\
139: LP 261-75 & dM4.5e& L6 &$ 100-200 $& 0.12 & 20 & 506 & Kirkpatrick et al. (2000) \\
140: \hline
141: \end{tabular}
142: \end{center}
143: {\footnotesize
144: The mass listed for GQ Lup B is the average of the
145: geometric means of the range of likely masses given in McElwain et
146: al (2007) and Marois et al (2007). \\
147: $^a$ Mohanty et al (2007)
148: argue that the mass of 2M1207b is 8$\pm$2 M$_J$ \\
149: $^b$ We list the age of the HN Peg system as 200\,Myr while
150: \cite{HNPeg} estimated an age of 300\,Myr. We prefer the younger age
151: for the following reasons. The lithium 6708\,\AA\ equivalent width
152: is $\sim$105\,m\AA\ based on an average of independent measurements of
153: 101 and 110\,m\AA\ by \cite{Gaidos} and \cite{Chen}. With a
154: Johnson $B-V$ = 0.59\,mag, from Hipparcos, or derived from Tycho-2
155: data (Bessell 2000), Figure~3 in \cite{ARAA} and Figure~1 in
156: \cite{HR3070} indicate a lithium age for HN~Peg slightly older than
157: that of the Pleiades. The Galactic space motion $UVW$ ($-15, -22,
158: -11$; Nordstro\"m et al. 2004) is also consistent with those of many young
159: (Pleiades age or younger) stars in the solar vicinity. The
160: logarithmic ratio of X-ray luminosity (as measured in the ROSAT All
161: Sky Survey) to bolometric luminosity is $-4.43$. This is similar to
162: the Pleiades or the slightly older Carina-Near moving group (see Fig.
163: 2 in Zuckerman et al. 2006). \cite{HNPeg} mention chromospheric activity
164: suggestive of an age of 0.35\,Gyr. But for a rotation period of 4.91
165: days (for HN~Peg, Gaidos et al. 2000), \cite{CaAge} show that, for
166: youthful stars, CaII emission consistently overestimates stellar ages
167: by a factor of at least a few relative to Li/X-ray/UVW ages. This
168: rotation period and B-V can be used to derive a gyrochronology age of
169: 247$\pm$42~Myr (Barnes 2007). Combination of this age with the
170: somewhat younger ages indicated by lithium, UVW, and X-ray flux,
171: suggests 200\,Myr as the most probable age of HN Peg.
172: }
173: \end{minipage}
174: \end{table*}
175:
176: \section{Discussion}
177:
178: \subsection{Fragmentation by gravitational instability}
179:
180: Thirty years ago, \cite{LL} published a paper ``The minimum Jeans mass,
181: or when fragmentation must stop'' in which they derived the minimum
182: fragment mass in a typical dark molecular cloud. This mass, about 7
183: times that of Jupiter, was found to be insensitive to properties of the
184: interstellar dust and cosmic ray heating flux, while various processes
185: (e.g., rotation, magnetic fields, late accretion) would normally be
186: expected to increase this minimum mass. Furthermore, as Low \&
187: Lynden-Bell pointed out, (a) for a fragment to split it must have at
188: least twice the minimum mass and (b) since a Jeans mass perturbation
189: has a zero growth rate, one would expect a real growing perturbation to
190: be somewhat more massive than a Jeans mass. Subsequently, Bate and
191: collaborators (see Bate 2005 and references therein),
192: \cite{BW05}, \cite{PN04}, \cite{Padoan05}, \cite{Whitworth}, and
193: Padoan et al (2007) considered additional processes such as turbulence,
194: shock compression and the role of magnetic fields and derived fragment
195: masses that could be as low as three times Jupiter's mass.
196:
197: As indicated in Table~1 and discussed below, at present, no
198: imaged companion is known with a mass clearly below 7 Jupiter masses
199: despite the fact that the imaging searches listed in Section~1 should
200: have been sensitive enough to detect some at wide separation if they
201: are copious. Indeed the apparent pile-up of minimum substellar masses
202: at about twice this value (Table~1) is qualitatively consistent with
203: the considerations of Low \& Lynden-Bell outlined in the previous
204: paragraph.
205:
206: Notwithstanding that AO and HST imaging programs focus on
207: detection of massive planets at the smallest measurable
208: separations, typically $1''-2''$ or $<50$\,AU, the characteristic
209: separation in the Table~1 binaries is hundreds of AU. Depending
210: on projection effects, even the semi-major axis of 2M1207b might be
211: much larger than 46\,AU. Low \& Lynden-Bell derive an average
212: distance between fragments at last fragmentation of a few 100
213: AU, consistent with the typical separation of pairs listed in Table~1.
214: \cite{Rafikov} considered the possibility of giant planet
215: production by gravitational instability in protoplanetary disks.
216: His model can produce massive planets at $\sim$100\,AU with masses
217: similar to those listed in Table 1, if the initial disk
218: mass is at least a few tenths of a solar mass.\footnote {\cite{Rafikov}
219: presents arguments against gravitational instability
220: occurring at 1 and at 10\,AU, semi-major axes appropriate to the
221: planets discovered by the precision radial velocity (PRV)
222: technique. However, as noted by \cite{ABPic} and by \cite{Rice}
223: inspection of the PRV database indicates that the well-known
224: correlation between high stellar metallicity and the existence of
225: planets may not obtain for stars with the highest mass planets
226: ($>7$\Mj). That is, the relatively few highest mass PRV planets
227: may have formed by gravitational collapse, which, compared to core
228: accretion, is relatively insensitive to metallicity.} Further
229: consideration of gravitational fragmentation in massive young
230: proto-planetary disks can be found in Stamatellos \& Whitworth (2008).
231:
232: Objects of planetary mass might exist at large semi-major axes as
233: a consequence of physical mechanisms other than fragmentation.
234: For example, it has been suggested that three body interactions
235: involving a star and either two nearby orbiting planets or a
236: second star with a planet might gravitationally eject a planet to a
237: large semi-major axis. However, between the mass of Jupiter and
238: 14 times this mass, the number of planets discovered by the
239: precision radial velocity technique rises steeply with decreasing
240: mass (Marcy et al. 2005; Lovis et al. 2006). Thus, given that the AO and HST
241: programs listed in Section 1 are often sensitive at large
242: separations to planets down to a few Jupiter masses, and that in
243: 3-body interactions one expects the lowest mass object to be
244: ejected, the distribution of masses given in Table 1 is
245: inconsistent with the ejection model.
246:
247: \subsection{Y type companions}
248:
249: The upper temperature limit for a Y-type object is not known; in the
250: following we assume it to be 500\,K. Based on Table 1 and on the above
251: considerations, the percentage of stars with companions with large
252: semi-major axes and mass $\lesssim15$ Jupiter masses appears to be very
253: small indeed. According to \cite{Baraffe} and \cite{Burrows03} the
254: time needed for a 15 Jupiter mass object to cool to 500\,K is
255: $\sim$2\,Gyr. Given the many hundreds of young stars with ages
256: $\lesssim100$\,Myr that have been searched with HST and ground-based AO
257: down to this mass, that only three such systems are now known (AB~Pic,
258: HN~Peg and GQ~Lup) indicates that even at 2\,Gyr, Y-dwarfs should be
259: rare as companions to stars in wide orbits. In other words, for
260: Y-type companions
261: to be abundant at $\sim$2\,Gyr, many early to mid-L companions
262: ($\lesssim15$\Mj) to young ($\lesssim100$\,Myr) stars should have been
263: detected in imaging searches of the sort listed in Section 1. But such
264: L-type companions are very rare.
265:
266: The situation regarding Y-type secondaries of $\sim$15 Jupiter
267: mass where the primary is a brown dwarf is probably even more
268: unfavorable. Although two substellar binaries belonging to very young
269: associations (2M1207 and Oph 11) appear in
270: Table 1, no comparable systems are known to exist among the field
271: brown dwarfs, not even those as young as AB~Pic and HN~Peg. Indeed, a
272: recent search for wide companions to 132 M7--L8 primaries in
273: the field came up completely empty handed (Allen et al. 2007). The low
274: binding energies as displayed in Figure 1 may be a clue as to why
275: older analogs to 2M1207 and Oph 11 are so rare. However, this
276: connection need not necessarily be straightforward because
277: \cite{Burgasser03} argue that the deficiency of field brown dwarf
278: binaries with semimajor axes $>10$\,AU cannot be explained as due
279: to disruption over Gyrs by encounters with stars and giant
280: molecular clouds. Additional discussion of this point and others
281: may be found in \cite{Burgasser03, Burgasser06} and in
282: \cite{Allen} and \cite{Close}. If the separation of a minimum mass
283: fragment ($\lesssim15$\,\Mj) is as large as a few 100\,AU as described
284: above, then such fragments will not be found among the population
285: of 10\,AU brown dwarf binaries previously discovered with HST and with
286: ground-based AO.
287:
288: \begin{figure}
289: \begin{center}
290: \includegraphics[clip,width=0.95\columnwidth]{f1.eps}
291: \end{center}
292: \caption{Binding energies of lowest mass companions known to date.
293: For 2M1207 and Oph 11 (only) both the primary and secondary are
294: substellar. Binaries with stellar primaries are from
295: \cite{Fisher} and \cite{Tokovinin}. Very low mass (VLM) binary
296: data are from N. Siegler's VLM archive
297: http://paperclip.as.arizona.edu/\~nsiegler/VLM\_binaries/ }
298: \end{figure}
299:
300: \subsection{IMF for brown dwarf secondaries to stellar primaries}
301:
302: In Tables 1 and 2 we have gathered from the literature as many brown
303: dwarf secondaries to stellar primaries as we could find, and then
304: plotted their number distribution with mass (M) in Figure 2. Table 1
305: contains two systems with brown dwarf primaries, these do not appear in
306: Figure 2. In comparison with the steep Salpeter
307: distribution for intermediate mass stars -- number, N, proportional to
308: (M$^{-2.35}$) -- the Fig. 2 distribution appears much flatter. This
309: figure displays a striking separation in companion mass between
310: youthful and oldish systems. It seems clear that the systems used to
311: detect brown dwarfs around oldish stars have generally been
312: insufficiently sensitive to reveal cool, low mass, brown dwarfs.
313: Therefore, we use only the dozen systems with ages $\lesssim300$ Myr to
314: derive the brown dwarf companion IMF; that is, N is proportional to
315: mass as M$^{-1.2\pm0.2}$ between 13 and 79\,\Mj.
316:
317: For free-floating low mass objects, Allen et al (2005) derived N
318: proportional to (M$^{-0.3\pm0.6}$), which covered masses only down to
319: about 40\,\Mj. Allen's sample is the nearby stars. A recent paper by
320: Anderson et al (2008) focuses instead on the IMF of free-floating low mass
321: stars and brown dwarfs in six very young clusters (1$-$2 Myr old) and in
322: the Pleiades at distances between 125 and 830 pc from Earth. They probe
323: masses down to about 30 M$_J$ and deduce that the mass function is falling
324: as one passes from the stellar to the brown dwarf regime (i.e., in the
325: expression for (dN/dM), the exponent on M is positive, rather than
326: negative as found by Allen et al and in the present paper).
327: With their large error bar ($\pm$ 0.6), the Allen et al (2005) result is
328: not incompatible with the falling IMF deduced by Anderson et al. (2008).
329:
330: However, we are troubled by a number of aspects of the Anderson et al
331: (2008) conclusion. Based on results for the Taurus star-forming region
332: reported by Konopacky et al (2007), the number of unresolved binaries is
333: apt to be substantially larger than assumed by Anderson et al (see their
334: Section 4). The Konopacky paper is not cited by Anderson et al. In
335: addition, the Anderson et al analysis implicitly assumes that low mass
336: objects (i.e., brown dwarfs) are fully formed and would be noted at their
337: final masses by a cluster age of 1 or 2 Myr. This assumption may not be
338: valid.
339:
340: Both Allen et al (2005) and Anderson et al (2008) are analyzing the IMF
341: for low mass, free-floating, objects whereas our concern is the IMF for
342: brown dwarf companions to stars. Burgasser et al. (2007) consider the
343: mass and mass distribution of companions to late-F to K-type dwarfs within
344: 25 pc of Earth. Their Fig. 1 suggests that, the wider the binary, the
345: closer the companion mass function approaches the canonical field
346: distribution. Thus, the companion IMF depicted in our Fig. 2, being based
347: on wide separation binaries, might mimic the field IMF. Because almost
348: all of the secondaries in young binaries upon which Fig. 2 is based have
349: masses below the low mass cutoff of the Allen et al. and Anderson et al.
350: studies, a direct comparison of our IMF with theirs' is not possible.
351:
352: Concerning only companions (rather than field objects), it is of interest to
353: know how the brown dwarf companion mass function matches onto the very low mass
354: stellar companion mass function. The latter is a complicated issue (Burgasser
355: et al 2007; I. N. Reid 2008, personal communication), and, to the best of our
356: knowledge, there is no published companion mass function that encompasses
357: secondary masses that straddle the stellar/substellar boundary. For example,
358: notwithstanding their interest in low mass companions, in the second edition of
359: their book, Reid \& Hawley (2005) declined to address the shape of the
360: companion mass function near the stellar/substellar boundary.
361:
362: In a paper that slightly postdated the Reid/Hawley book, Farihi et al (2005)
363: derived the companion mass function across the stellar/substellar boundary for
364: white dwarf primaries, i.e. stars that, when on the main sequence, were on
365: average more massive than the Sun. Farihi et al found that late M-type (i.e.,
366: minimum mass stellar companion) are uncommon compared to mid M-type companions
367: (see their Fig. 6). Their survey of 261 white dwarfs capable of detecting
368: companions at orbital separations between $\sim$100 and 5000\,AU with masses as
369: low as 50\Mj\ (corresponding to the rightmost mass bin of our Figure 2) found
370: no brown dwarf companion. Therefore, with the caveats that conclusions based
371: on young companions plotted in Fig. 2 suffer from small number statistics, and
372: the Farihi et al sample is limited to medium mass primaries, it appears that
373: companions with masses just above or below the brown dwarf/stellar dividing
374: line are rare indeed. Recent model simulations of the formation of brown
375: dwarfs and very low mass stars are consistent with this conclusion (Stamatellos
376: \& Whitworth 2008). Figures 5 and 13 of Stamatellos \& Whiteworth (2008)
377: illustrate that both very low mass stars and brown dwarfs, at the few hundred
378: AU semimajor axes of interest in the present paper, are expected to be uncommon
379: as secondaries to solar mass stars.
380:
381: \begin{figure}
382: \begin{center}
383: \includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{f2.eps}
384: \end{center}
385: \caption{Histogram of masses of secondaries with stellar primaries.
386: Data are from Tables~1 \& 2 of this paper. For stellar primaries with
387: brown dwarf secondaries that are themselves compact binaries (e.g.,
388: GL\,337B, G\,124-62B, etc.), we treat these compact binaries as singles
389: by plotting total masses. The brown dwarf mass distribution is
390: certainly flatter than that of Salpeter ($N\propto M^{-2.35}$).
391: Considering only systems with ages $\leq$300 Myr (see Section 2.3),
392: the number of secondaries is proportional to about M$^{-1.2}$.
393: As described in the text and displayed in Table 1, there is a sharp
394: secondary mass cutoff near 15 Jupiter masses -- that is, for stellar
395: primaries, no imaged secondaries with masses below 13 Jupiter masses
396: are known. The dot-dashed line indicates the brown dwarf mass distribution
397: expected if the result for free-floating objects (N proportional
398: to M$^{-0.3\pm0.6}$) derived by Allen et al (2005) for masses
399: $>$40\,\Mj\ obtains all the way down to 13\,\Mj .}
400: \end{figure}
401:
402:
403: \section{Conclusions}
404:
405: We have gathered from the literature those binary systems with imaged
406: companions of the least mass (Table~1 and Figure~2). Given the very
407: large number of target stars and brown dwarfs observed in imaging
408: ground- and space-based searches for low mass brown dwarfs and high mass
409: planets, these Table~1 objects represent pretty slim pickings. We show
410: that minimum Jeans mass fragmentation of an interstellar molecular
411: cloud, as described a long time ago (Low \& Lynden-Bell 1976), can
412: account for these data at least as well as any more recent model for the
413: production of brown dwarfs. Similarly, gravitational instability in
414: massive protoplanetary disks (Rafikov 2005 and Stamatellos \& Whitworth
415: 2008) might account for some/many of the observed systems.
416:
417: To derive the IMF for brown dwarf secondaries to stellar primaries it
418: is essential to consider only youngish systems because data presented
419: in this paper show that telescope/detector sensitivities are
420: often insufficient to detect old, low mass, brown dwarfs. We find that
421: the number of brown dwarf companions is proportional to mass as
422: M$^{-1.2\pm0.2}$ down to the bottom of the brown dwarf mass range,
423: $\sim$13 Jupiter masses. While this power law
424: index might not apply to free-floating field brown dwarfs, the
425: precipice in the companion mass function for masses below 13\,\Mj,
426: suggests that free floating objects with masses in the planetary range
427: will be rare.
428:
429: The extreme rarity of imaged companions below $\sim$15 Jupiter masses
430: suggests that Y-type objects ($T_{eff}$$\lesssim$500\,K) will be imaged as
431: companions to very few, if any, stars with ages $<2$\,Gyr. Even for a star
432: system as old as 7\,Gyr, according to the models of \cite{Baraffe}, a
433: brown dwarf would have to be less massive than $\sim$25 Jupiter masses to
434: cool to 500\,K. Imaging discovery of a Y-type companion to a substellar
435: primary is even less likely, at any age, given the absence of wide
436: companions to field brown dwarfs (e.g., Allen et al. 2007). Thus, all in
437: all, Y-type secondaries should appear in imaging programs only
438: infrequently. Given the hundreds of young stars surveyed in the planet
439: hunting programs listed in the Introduction and the number of low mass
440: brown dwarfs indicated in Fig. 2, for a well choosen set of old stars,
441: perhaps one in 100 might be orbited at large separations by a Y dwarf.
442:
443: \begin{acknowledgements}
444: We thank B. Hansen, M. Jura, and Neill Reid for helpful suggestions and
445: the referee for constructive comments.
446: This research was supported in part by a NASA grant to UCLA.
447: \end{acknowledgements}
448:
449: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
450:
451: \bibitem[Allen et al. (2007)]{Allen} Allen, P.~R., Koerner,
452: D.~W., McElwain, M.~W., Cruz, K.~L. \& Reid, I.~N.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 971
453:
454: \bibitem[Allen et al. (2005)] {Allen05} Allen, P.~R., Koerner, D.~W., Reid, I..~N. \&
455: Trilling D.~E.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 385
456:
457: \bibitem[Anderson et al. (2008)] {Anderson} Anderson, M., Meyer, M.~R.,
458: Greissl, J. \& Aversa, A. \ 2008, astroph 0807.1354v1
459:
460: \bibitem[Baraffe et al. (2003)]{Baraffe} Baraffe, I., Chabrier,
461: G., Barman, T.~S., Allard, F. \& Hauschildt, P.~H.\ 2003, \aap, 402, 701
462:
463: \bibitem[Barnes (2007)]{Barnes} Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ 669, 1167
464:
465: \bibitem[Bate (2005)]{Bate05} Bate, M.~R.\ 2005, \mnras, 363, 363
466:
467: \bibitem[Becklin \& Zuckerman (1988)]{BZ88} Becklin, E.~E.
468: \& Zuckerman, B.\ 1988, \nat, 336, 656
469:
470: \bibitem[Bessell (2000)]{Bessell} Bessell, M.S., PASP 112, 961
471:
472: \bibitem[Boyd \& Whitworth (2005)]{BW05} Boyd, D.~F.~A. \&
473: Whitworth, A.~P.\ 2005, \aap, 430, 1059
474:
475: \bibitem[Burgasser et al. (2000)]{Burgasser00} Burgasser, A.~J. et
476: al.\ 2000, \apjl, 531, L57
477:
478: \bibitem[Burgasser et al. (2003)]{Burgasser03} Burgasser, A.~J.,
479: Kirkpatrick, J.~D., Reid, I.~N., Brown, M.~E., Miskey, C.~L. \& Gizis,
480: J.~E.\ 2003, \apj, 586, 512
481:
482: \bibitem[Burgasser et al. (2006)]{Burgasser06} Burgasser, A.~J.,
483: Kirkpatrick, J.~D., Cruz, K.~L., Reid, I.~N., Leggett, S.~K., Liebert,
484: J.,
485: Burrows, A. \& Brown, M.~E.\ 2006, \apjs, 166, 585
486:
487: \bibitem[Burgasser et al. (2007)]{Burgasser07} Burgasser, A.~J. et al. \
488: 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil
489: (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 427
490:
491: \bibitem[Burrows et al. (2003)]{Burrows03} Burrows, A., Sudarsky,
492: D. \& Lunine, J.~I.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 587
493:
494: \bibitem[Chauvin et al. (2004)]{Chauvin04} Chauvin, G., Lagrange,
495: A.-M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.-L.
496: \& Lowrance, P.\ 2004, \aap, 425, L29
497:
498: \bibitem[Chauvin et al. (2005a)]{Chauvin05a} Chauvin, G., Lagrange,
499: A.-M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.-L.
500: \& Lowrance, P.\ 2005a, \aap, 438, L25
501:
502: \bibitem[Chauvin et al. (2005b)]{2005A&A...430.1027C} Chauvin, G. et al.\
503: 2005b, \aap, 430, 1027
504:
505: \bibitem[Chauvin et al. (2005c)]{ABPic} Chauvin, G. et al.\
506: 2005c, \aap, 438, L29
507:
508: \bibitem[Chen et al. (2001)]{Chen} Chen, Y.~Q., Nissen,
509: P.~E., Benoni, T. \& Zhao, G.\ 2001, \aap, 371, 943
510:
511: \bibitem[Close et al. (2007)]{Close} Close, L.~M. et al.\
512: 2007, \apj, 660, 1492
513:
514: \bibitem[Delorme et al. (2008)]{Delorme} Delorme, P. et al.\
515: 2008, \aap, 482, 961
516:
517: \bibitem[Els et al. (2001)]{Els2001} Els, S.~G., Sterzik, M.~F.,
518: Marchis, F., Pantin, E., Endl, M. \& K\"{u}rster, M.\ 2001, \aap, 370, L1
519:
520: \bibitem[Farihi et al. (2005)]{Farihi} Farihi, J., Becklin, E.~E., \&
521: Zuckerman, B. 2005, ApJS, 161, 394
522:
523: \bibitem[Fischer \& Marcy (1992)]{Fisher} Fischer, D.~A. \&
524: Marcy, G.~W.\ 1992, \apj, 396, 178
525:
526: \bibitem[Gaidos et al. (2000)]{Gaidos} Gaidos, E.~J., Henry,
527: G.~W. \& Henry, S.~M.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1006
528:
529: \bibitem[Geballe et al. (2002)]{Geballe02} Geballe, T.~R. et al.\
530: 2002, \apj, 564, 466
531:
532: \bibitem[Geballe et al. (2001)]{Geballe01} Geballe, T.~R., Saumon,
533: D., Leggett, S.~K., Knapp, G.~R., Marley, M.~S. \& Lodders, K.\ 2001,
534: \apj, 556, 373
535:
536: \bibitem[Gizis et al. (2001)]{2001AJ....121.2185G} Gizis, J.~E.,
537: Kirkpatrick, J.~D. \& Wilson, J.~C.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 2185
538:
539: \bibitem[Goldman et al. (1999)]{1999A&A...351L...5E} EROS
540: Collaboration, et al.\ 1999, \aap, 351, L5
541:
542: \bibitem[Golimowski et al. (2004)]{Goliwmowski2004} Golimowski, D.~A.
543: et al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 1733
544:
545: \bibitem[Ireland et al. (2008)]{Ireland} Ireland, M.~J., Kraus, A., Martinache, F.,
546: Lloyd, J~P. \& Tuthill, P.~G. 2008, ApJ, in press, (Astro-ph, 0801.1525)
547:
548: \bibitem[Itoh et al. (2005)]{2005ApJ...620..984I} Itoh, Y., et al.\ 2005,
549: \apj, 620, 984
550:
551: \bibitem[Kasper et al. (2007a)]{Kasper07a} Kasper, M., Apai, D.,
552: Janson, M. \& Brandner, W.\ 2007a, \aap, 472, 321
553:
554: \bibitem[Kasper et al. (2007b)]{Kasper07b} Kasper, M., Biller,
555: B.~A., Burrows, A., Brandner, W., Budaj, J. \& Close, L.~M.\ 2007b,
556: \aap, 471, 655
557:
558: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick et al. (1999)]{Davy99} Kirkpatrick, J.~D.,
559: Allard, F., Bida, T., Zuckerman, B., Becklin, E.~E., Chabrier, G. \&
560: Baraffe, I.\ 1999, \apj, 519, 834
561:
562: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick(2000)]{Davy00} Kirkpatrick, J.~D.\ 2000,
563: ASP Conf.~Ser.~212: From Giant Planets to Cool Stars, 212, 20
564:
565: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick et al. (2000)]{2000AJ....120..447K} Kirkpatrick, J.~D.
566: et al.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 447
567:
568: \bibitem[Konopacky et al. (2007)]{Konopacky} Konopacky, Q.~M., Ghez, A.~M.,
569: Rice, E.~L. \& Duchene, G. \ 2007,
570: \apj, 663, 394
571:
572: \bibitem[Lafreni{\`e}re et al. (2007)]{Lafreniere}
573: Lafreni{\`e}re, D., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 670, 1367
574:
575: \bibitem[Lane et al. (2001)]{2001ApJ...560..390L} Lane, B.~F., Zapatero
576: Osorio, M.~R., Britton, M.~C., Mart{\'{\i}}n, E.~L. \& Kulkarni, S.~R.\
577: 2001, \apj, 560, 390
578:
579: \bibitem[Liu et al. (2002)]{Liu2002} Liu, M.~C., Fischer, D.~A.,
580: Graham, J.~R., Lloyd, J.~P., Marcy, G.~W. \& Butler, R.~P.\ 2002, \apj,
581: 571, 519
582:
583: \bibitem[Lovis et al. (2006)]{Lovis} Lovis, C. et al.\ 2006,
584: \procspie, 6269
585:
586: \bibitem[Low \& Lynden-Bell (1976)]{LL} Low, C. \&
587: Lynden-Bell, D.\ 1976, \mnras, 176, 367
588:
589: \bibitem[Lowrance et al. (1999)]{Lowrance99} Lowrance, P.~J. et
590: al.\ 1999, \apjl, 512, L69
591:
592: \bibitem[Lowrance et al. (2000)]{Lowrance00} Lowrance, P.~J. et
593: al.\ 2000, \apj, 541, 390
594:
595: \bibitem[Luhman et al. (2007a)]{HNPeg} Luhman, K.~L. et al.\
596: 2007a, \apj, 654, 570
597:
598: \bibitem[Luhman et al. (2007b)]{Luhman} Luhman, K.~L. et al.\ 2007b, \apj, 659, 1629
599:
600: \bibitem[Marcy et al. (2005)]{Marcy} Marcy, G., Butler, R.~P.,
601: Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Wright, J.~T., Tinney, C.~G. \& Jones, H.~R.~A.\
602: 2005, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 158, 24
603:
604: \bibitem[Marois et al. (2007)]{Marois} Marois, C., Macintosh,
605: B. \& Barman, T.\ 2007, \apj, 654, L151
606:
607: \bibitem[Masciadri et al. (2005)]{Masciadri} Masciadri, E., Mundt,
608: R., Henning, T., Alvarez, C. \& Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s, D.\ 2005, \apj,
609: 625, 1004
610:
611: \bibitem[McElwain \& Burgasser (2006)]{McElwain06} McElwain, M.~W.
612: \& Burgasser, A.~J.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 2074
613:
614: \bibitem[McElwain et al. (2007)]{McElwain} McElwain, M.~W., et
615: al.\ 2007, \apj, 656, 505
616:
617: \bibitem[Metchev \& Hillenbrand (2004)]{2004ApJ...617.1330M} Metchev, S.~A.
618: \& Hillenbrand, L.~A.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 1330
619:
620: \bibitem[Metchev \& Hillenbrand (2006)]{2006ApJ...651.1166M} Metchev, S.~A.
621: \& Hillenbrand, L.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 1166
622:
623: \bibitem[Metchev (2006)]{2006PhDT.........1M} Metchev, S.~A.\ 2006,
624: Ph.D.~Thesis, California Institute of Technology
625:
626: \bibitem[Mohanty et al. (2007)] {M} Mohanty, S., Jayawardhana, R., Huelamo, N.
627: \& Mamajek, E. 2007, \apj, 657, 1064
628:
629: \bibitem[Mugrauer et al. (2006)]{2006MNRAS.373L..31M} Mugrauer, M.,
630: Seifahrt, A., Neuh{\"a}user, R. \& Mazeh, T.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, L31
631:
632: \bibitem[Nakajima et al. (1995)]{229B} Nakajima, T.,
633: Oppenheimer, B.~R., Kulkarni, S.~R., Golimowski, D.~A., Matthews, K. \&
634: Durrance, S.~T.\ 1995, \nat, 378, 463
635:
636: \bibitem[Neuhauser et al. (2005)] {N} Neuhauser, R. et al. 2005, \aap, 435, L13
637:
638: \bibitem[Nielsen et al. (2008)]{Nielsen}Nielsen, E.~L., Close, L.~M., Biller,
639: B.~A., Masciadri, E. \& Lenzen, R. 2008, \apj, 674, 466
640:
641: \bibitem[Nordstr{\"o}m et al. (2004)]{Nordstrom} Nordstr{\"o}m,
642: B., et al.\ 2004, \aap, 418, 989
643:
644: \bibitem[Padoan et al. (2005)]{Padoan05} Padoan, P., Kritsuk, A.,
645: Norman, M.~L. \& Nordlund, {\AA}.\ 2005, \apjl, 622, L61
646:
647: \bibitem[Padoan \& Nordlund (2004)]{PN04} Padoan, P. \&
648: Nordlund, {\AA}.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 559
649:
650: \bibitem[Padoan et al. (2007)]{P} Padoan, P., Nordlund, {\AA}, Kritsuk
651: A., Norman, M. \& Li, P. S., \ 2007, \apj, 661, 972
652:
653: \bibitem[Potter et al. (2002)]{2002ApJ...567L.133P} Potter, D.,
654: Mart{\'{\i}}n, E.~L., Cushing, M.~C., Baudoz, P., Brandner, W., Guyon, O.,
655: \& Neuh{\"a}user, R.\ 2002, \apjl, 567, L133
656:
657: \bibitem[Rafikov (2005)]{Rafikov} Rafikov, R.~R.\ 2005, \apjl, 621, L69
658:
659: \bibitem[Rebolo et al. (1998)]{1998Sci...282.1309R} Rebolo, R., Zapatero
660: Osorio, M.~R., Madruga, S., Bejar, V.~J.~S., Arribas, S. \& Licandro, J.\
661: 1998, Science, 282, 1309
662:
663: \bibitem[Reid \& Hawley (2005)]{Reid} Reid, I.~N. \& Hawley, S.
664: \ 2005 "New Light on Dark Stars", second edition, Springer, Chichester, UK
665:
666: \bibitem[Rice et al. (2003)]{Rice} Rice, W.~K.~M., Armitage,
667: P.~J., Bonnell, I.~A., Bate, M.~R., Jeffers, S.~V. \& Vine, S.~G.\ 2003,
668: \mnras, 346, L36
669:
670: \bibitem[Scholz et al. (2003)]{2003A&A...398L..29S} Scholz, R.-D.,
671: McCaughrean, M.~J., Lodieu, N. \& Kuhlbrodt, B.\ 2003, \aap, 398, L29
672:
673: \bibitem[Seifahrt et al. (2005)]{2005AN....326..974S} Seifahrt, A.,
674: Mugrauer, M., Wiese, M., Neuh{\"a}user, R., \& Guenther, E.~W.\ 2005,
675: Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 974
676:
677: \bibitem[Song et al. (2004)]{CaAge} Song, I., Zuckerman, B.,
678: \& Bessell, M.~S.\ 2004, \apjl, 614, L125
679:
680: \bibitem[Song et al. (2006)]{Song06} Song, I., Schneider, G.,
681: Zuckerman, B., Farihi, J., Becklin, E.~E., Bessell, M.~S., Lowrance, P.,
682: \& Macintosh, B.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 724
683:
684: \bibitem[Stamatellos et al. (2008)]{Stamatellos} Stamatellos, D. \&
685: Whitworth, A.~P. 2008, MNRAS in press (astroph 0810.1687)
686:
687: \bibitem[Tokovinin (1997)]{Tokovinin} Tokovinin, A.~A.\ 1997,
688: \aaps, 124, 75
689:
690: \bibitem[Warren (2007)] {W} Warren, S. et. al. \ 2007, \mnras, 381, 1400
691:
692: \bibitem[Wilson et al. (2001)]{Wilson2001} Wilson, J.~C.,
693: Kirkpatrick, J.~D., Gizis, J.~E., Skrutskie, M.~F., Monet, D.~G. \& Houck,
694: J.~R.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 1989
695:
696: \bibitem[White et al. (1999)]{1999ApJ...520..811W} White, R.~J., Ghez,
697: A.~M., Reid, I.~N. \& Schultz, G.\ 1999, \apj, 520, 811
698:
699: \bibitem[Whitworth \& Stamatellos (2006)]{Whitworth} Whitworth,
700: A.~P. \& Stamatellos, D.\ 2006, \aap, 458, 817
701:
702: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Song (2004)]{ARAA} Zuckerman, B. \&
703: Song, I.\ 2004, \araa, 42, 685
704:
705: \bibitem[Zuckerman et al. (2006)]{HR3070} Zuckerman, B.,
706: Bessell, M.~S., Song, I. \& Kim, S.\ 2006, \apjl, 649, L115
707: \end{thebibliography}
708:
709: \begin{table*}
710: \begin{minipage}[t]{\textwidth}
711: \begin{center}
712: \caption{Brown dwarf secondaries (M $\geq$25 \Mj) to stellar primaries.}
713: \begin{tabular}{cccccccl}
714: \hline \hline
715: Object & \mc2{Sp. Type} & Age & $M_{pri}$ & $M_{sec}$ & Sep. & Ref. \\
716: \cline{2-3}
717: & Primary & Secondary & (Myr) & (M$_{\odot}$) & (\Mj) & (AU) & \\
718: \hline
719: GJ 802 & M5+M5 & L6 &$\sim2000$ & 0.28* & 66 & 1.46 & Ireland et al. (2008) \\
720: SCR1845-6357 & M8.5 & T6 &$ 1800-3100 $& 0.1 & 45 & 4 & Kasper et al. (2007b) \\
721: Gl 337 & G8+K1 & L8 &$ 600-3400 $& 1.74 &110* & 11 & Wilson et al. 2001 \\
722: G 124-62 & dM4.5e& L0.5 &$ 500-800 $& 0.24 & 72* & 13 & Martin et al. (1999) \\
723: Gl 779B & G1V & L4.5 &$ 1000-3000 $& 1.02 & 66 & 13 & Liu et al. (2002) \\
724: 2MASS J1707-05 & M9 & L3 &$ 500-5000 $& 0.077 & 70 & 15 & McElwain \& Burgasser (2006) \\
725: Gl 86 & K1V & L/T &$ 1000-9999 $& 0.77 & 50 & 19 & Els et al. (2001) \\
726: G 239-25 & M1.5 & L0 &$ $& 0.32 & 75? & 30 & Golimowski et al. (2004) \\
727: HD 49197 & F5 & L4 &$ 260-790 $& 1.4 & 54 & 42 & Metchev \& Hillenbrand (2004) \\
728: Gl 229 & M1/2V & T7 &$ 3000 $& 0.56 & 35 & 45 & Nakajima et al. (1995) \\
729: HD 130948 & G2V & L4+L4 &$ <800 $& 1.00 &140* & 47 & Potter et al. (2002) \\
730: GL 569 B & M2.5V & &$ 250-500 $& 0.50 &123* & 49 & Lane et al. (2001) \\
731: GJ 1001 & M3.5 & L5 &$ >1000 $& 0.4 &100* & 178 & Goldman et al. (1999) \\
732: HR 7329 & A0Vn & M7/8 &$ 12 $& 2.90 & 30 & 198 & Lowrance et al. (2000) \\
733: GG Tau B & M5 & M7 &$ 1-2 $& 0.12 & 44 & 207 & White et al. (1999) \\
734: LHS 5166 & dMe4.5& L4 &$ <2600 $& 0.24 & 70 & 228 & Seifahrt et al. (2005) \\
735: GJ 1048 & K3V & L1 &$ 1000 $& 0.72 & 65 & 250 & Gizis et al. (2001) \\
736: GSC 8047-232 & K3V & L0 &$ 10-50 $& 0.80 & 25 & 279 & Chauvin et al. (2005b) \\
737: G 196-3 & dM3Ve & L2 &$ 100 $& 0.25 & 25 & 300 & Rebolo et al. (1998) \\
738: DH Tau & M0.5V & L2 &$ 0.1-4 $& 0.33 & ? & 330 & Itoh et al. (2005) \\
739: ScoPMS214 & K1IV & M6 &$ 5 $& 1.02 & 25 & 450 & Metchev (2006) \\
740: HD 3651 & K0V & T7.5 &$ 1000-9999 $& 0.79 & 40 & 480 & Mugrauer et al. (2006) \\
741: HD 203030 & G8V & L7.5 &$ 130-400 $& 1.60 & 23 & 487 & Metchev \& Hillenbrand (2006) \\
742: GJ 618.1 & M0V & L2.5 &$ 500-12000 $& 0.51 & 70 & 1089 & Wilson et al. (2001) \\
743: $\epsilon$ Indi Ba+b & K4.5Ve& T1+T6 &$ 800-2000 $& 0.77 & 75* & 1459 & Scholz et al. (2003) \\
744: Gliese 570 & K5+M1+ & T7 &$ 2000-9999 $& 1.7* & 50 & 1526 & Burgasser et al. (2000) \\
745: Gl 417 & G0V & L4.5 &$ 80-300 $& 1.0 & 35 & 1955 & Kirkpatrick et al. (2000) \\
746: HD 89744 & F7V & L0 &$ 1500-3000 $& 1.48 & 78 & 2460 & Wilson et al. (2001) \\
747: Gl 584 & G2+G2 & L8 &$ 1000-2500 $& 2.0* & 60 & 3612 & Kirkpatrick et al. (2000) \\
748: \hline
749: \end{tabular}
750: \end{center}
751: For multiple systems consisting of a close brown
752: dwarf binary to a stellar primary, total mass of the brown dwarf
753: binary is listed in the table as $M_{sec}$ with `*' mark.
754: Likewise, when the primary is a multiple system, the total mass of
755: stars is listed as $M_{pri}$.
756: \end{minipage}
757: \end{table*}
758: \end{document}
759: