1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{psfig}
3:
4: %\documentstyle[psfig,natbib,emulateapj]{article}
5:
6:
7: \newcommand{\etal}{\emph{et al.\ }}
8: \newcommand{\qmin}{$Q_{\rm min}\ $}
9: \newcommand{\mrat}{$M_D/M_*$}
10: \newcommand{\td}{$T_{D}$}
11: \newcommand{\tbin}{$T_{\rm Bin}$}
12: \newcommand{\irsfive}{L1551~IRS~5}
13: \newcommand{\lsun}{$L_\odot$}
14: \newcommand{\msun}{$M_\odot$}
15: \newcommand{\rsun}{$R_\odot$}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \title{Planet formation is unlikely in equal mass binary
20: systems with $a\sim50$~AU}
21:
22: \author{Andrew F. Nelson}
23: \affil{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K\"onigstuhl 17,
24: D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27:
28: We show that planet formation via both gravitational collapse and core
29: accretion is unlikely to occur in equal mass binary systems with
30: moderate ($\sim 50$~AU) semi-major axes. Internal thermal energy
31: generation in the disks is sufficient to heat the gas everywhere so
32: that spiral structures quickly decay rather than grow or fragment.
33: This same heating will inhibit dust coagulation because the
34: temperatures rise above the vaporization temperatures of many volatile
35: materials. We consider other processes not included in the model and
36: conclude that our temperatures are conservatively estimated (low), i.e.
37: planet formation is less likely in real systems than in the model.
38:
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{stars:formation, stars:planetary systems}
42:
43: \section{Introduction and the Model Specification}
44:
45: Both indirect evidence \citep{ALS88,BSCG} and later direct imaging
46: \citep{Close97,MO96}, have shown that disks are quite
47: common in young stellar systems. These disks are commonly thought
48: \citep{BS96} to be sites for planet or brown dwarf formation. A large
49: fraction of stars are formed in binary systems \citep{MGJS_PP4} and in
50: the same star formation regions as single stars. Theory suggests that
51: the most likely mechanisms responsible for forming Jovian mass planets
52: or low mass brown dwarfs are either gravitational collapse of large
53: scale spiral structure or coagulation of small solid grains followed
54: by later accretion of additional gas (`core accretion') in the disks
55: of forming stellar systems. Evaluating the effectiveness of these
56: mechanisms is important for understanding the origin of our own
57: solar system as well as planetary systems in other mature single or
58: multiple systems.
59:
60: The \irsfive\ system serves as a useful observational testbed for
61: comparison to theoretical modeling because of its relative youth
62: \citep[$\sim10^5$~yr,][]{BTC94} and many previous detailed
63: observations \citep[see e.g.][]{Men-Hen-97}. This system consists of
64: an extended nebulosity some 2400$\times$1100~AU in size with an inner
65: core of 220$\times$76~AU \citep{Mom98}. Two bipolar jets flow outward
66: in each direction from the core in the plane perpendicular to its long
67: axis. The core has been resolved into two sources with projected
68: separation of about 50~AU and inferred disk masses of $\sim.05$\msun,
69: each $\sim$20-25~AU in diameter \citep{Rodriguez98}. The total mass in
70: the core has been estimated to contain 0.5--1.0\msun\ of material
71: \citep{ALS88,Mom98}, which produces $\sim$30\lsun\ in luminous output
72: \citep{KeeMas90}.
73:
74: We present a numerical simulation of a binary star/disk$+$star/disk
75: system using a two dimensional ($x,y$) Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic
76: (SPH) code. The dimensions of the disks and semi-major axis of the
77: binary are chosen to be similar to the inner core region of \irsfive.
78: In the absence of strong constraints on the constituents of the binary
79: (e.g. the masses of the two stars), we choose to set up a binary system
80: consisting of identical components, obtained by setting up a single
81: system in isolation, then duplicating it exactly. We assume each star
82: and disk have mass $M_*=0.5$\msun\ and $M_D=0.05$\msun, respectively.
83: The disk radius is set to $R_D=15$~AU which, for a semi-major axis of
84: $a=50$~AU, is comparable to the largest stable streamline
85: \citep{Pac77}.
86:
87: The mass and temperature of the disk are distributed according to
88: $r^{-3/2}$ and $r^{-1/2}$ power laws respectively. The absolute scale
89: of each power law is determined from the disk mass, the radial
90: dimensions of the disk and the condition that the Toomre stability
91: parameter, $Q$, is no smaller than \qmin=1.5 over the entire disk.
92: This value ensures that the simulation begins in a state marginally
93: stable against the growth of spiral structure, so that we do not
94: accidently `discover' a collapsed object early in the evolution which
95: in reality is an artifact of our initial condition. Both density and
96: temperature are free to vary in time and space, so the initial
97: condition will not prevent spiral structure growth or fragmentation,
98: if the evolution leads to such. The gas is set up on circular orbits
99: around the star so that pressure and gravitational forces exactly
100: balance centrifugal forces. Radial motion is zero. The magnitudes of
101: the pressure and self-gravitational forces are small compared to the
102: stellar gravity, so the disk is nearly Keplerian in character.
103:
104: Approximately 60000 equal mass particles are set on a series of
105: concentric rings around the star in a single, star/disk system, then
106: duplicated, bringing the total number of particles to $\sim$120000.
107: The two stars and disks are offset equal distances in the $+x$ and
108: $-x$ directions. We define the binary semi-major axis to be $a=50$~AU,
109: similar to \irsfive. Only weak constraints on eccentricity exist in
110: \irsfive, primarily consisting of the sizes of the observed disks:
111: eccentricities larger than $e=0.3$ would lead to rapid Roche lobe
112: overflow. We set $e=0.3$ to be the initial value in this simulation.
113: The system is at apoapse at time $t=0$ with the orbital velocities
114: defined by approximating each star$+$disk system as a point mass, so
115: that the orbit determination reduces to the solution of the two body
116: problem.
117:
118: The disks are self gravitating and each star is modeled as a point
119: mass free to move in response to gravitational forces from the rest of
120: the system. The stellar gravitational forces are calculated using a
121: Plummer potential with a softening radius of 0.2~AU, which also serves
122: as an accretion radius, $r_{acc}$. SPH particles with trajectories
123: that pass closer than $r_{acc}$ to a star are absorbed, and the star's
124: mass and momentum increase accordingly.
125:
126: The thermodynamic evolution is identical to that described in
127: \citet{DynamII}. Thermal energy is added to the gas due to active
128: hydrodynamic processes using an artificial viscosity scheme, which
129: approximately models shocks and turbulence. This heating is roughly
130: equivalent in magnitude to an alpha model with $\alpha\sim 2-5
131: \times10^{-3}$. Thermal energy is removed from the disk gas by
132: radiative cooling due to passive blackbody emission from the disk's
133: photosphere surfaces. The blackbody temperature is calculated at each
134: time step and for each SPH particle. This treatment remedies a major
135: shortcoming of previous models \citep{DynamI,Pick98,Boss97} which used
136: a `locally isothermal' or `locally adiabatic' approximation to show
137: that relatively low mass disks can undergo fragmentation and/or
138: collapse, despite earlier claims \citep{PodPP3} that a very massive
139: disk is required.
140:
141: \section{Results}
142:
143: The system is evolved for eight binary orbits, or 2700~yr
144: (\tbin=350~yr). Figure \ref{fig:disk-pair} shows the system shortly
145: before and after the fourth periapse passage of the two components
146: (measured from the beginning of the simulation). Before each periapse,
147: the two disks are smooth and exhibit no visible spiral structure,
148: although they are no longer perfectly `round'. During and after
149: periapse, each disk develops strong, two armed spiral structures due
150: to the mutual tidal interactions of the binary. The structures decay
151: to a smooth condition like that in the top panel over the next
152: $0.5$\tbin. The cycle repeats with little variation as the system
153: again approaches periapse, and we expect that further evolution will
154: be similar.
155:
156: The spiral structures decay because internal heating in the disk
157: increases the stability of the disks against spiral arm growth, as
158: measured by the Toomre stability (fig. \ref{fig:temp-prof} top) of
159: each disk. The minimum value of $Q$ increases from its initial
160: \qmin=1.5 to \qmin$\sim4$ before periapse and \qmin$\sim5$ afterwards.
161: These values are the same before and after each successive periapse
162: passage and both are well above the $Q\lesssim3$ values for which
163: spiral structures are expected to grow. Therefore, if we suppose that
164: Jovian planets form via gravitational collapse or fragmentation of
165: spiral structure in disks, their formation will be unlikely in this
166: system.
167:
168: The high stability is due to an increase in the disk temperature. In
169: fact, the temperatures are high enough to cause some grain species to
170: be vaporized. This is important because the core accretion model for
171: planet formation requires that solid grains can coagulate and are not
172: instead repeatedly returned to vapor state. Water ice may be
173: particularly important because it composes 40\% by mass of the solid
174: material in the disk and is among the most volatile grain species
175: \citep{Pol94}, vaporizing at $\sim150$~K.
176:
177: The bottom panel of figure \ref{fig:temp-prof} shows the disk midplane
178: temperatures obtained in this simulation. Only in a region with
179: $r\gtrsim 10$~AU does the temperature reach low enough values that
180: water ice can form, even temporarily. However in this region, the
181: matter is most subject to shocks generated by the spiral structure
182: produced by the binary interaction, which raise its temperature by as
183: much as a factor three over the azimuth average. The spiral patterns
184: co-rotate with the orbit of the binary and the orbital period at 15~AU
185: is $\sim$82~yr, so material everywhere in the disk will have time to
186: travel through the spiral arms several times before they decay.
187: A simulation run with zero eccentricity also produces spiral structure.
188: In this run the azimuth averaged temperatures were similar to fig.
189: \ref{fig:temp-prof}, but the temperature in the shocked regions are
190: not as extreme. Water ice would still be vaporized everywhere but more
191: refractory species may not be.
192:
193: In the outer disk, grains less than $\sim 1$~mm in size which pass
194: through such a shock and which contain water ice will be vaporized on
195: a timescale of $\lesssim10^4-10^5$~s depending on the temperature
196: \citep{ELL90,LGH95} and the remaining more inert species may
197: dissagregate. In this region, passage through the warmest part of
198: a spiral arm requires $\sim 1-2$~yr, so sufficient time exists to
199: return grains of this size to the gas phase. Grain growth may still
200: occur between the spiral arms and when the spiral arms have decayed,
201: but must begin with gaseous material each time, so growth of solid
202: material into larger entities will be suppressed. Temperatures at high
203: altitudes are lower, but grains which form there will tend to sink to
204: the midplane as they grow larger and also be destroyed. Therefore
205: Jovian planet formation by the core accretion mechanism will occur
206: much more slowly, if at all in this system.
207:
208: The weak link remaining in the argument against the core accretion
209: mechanism is the lack of knowledge of the microphysics important for
210: dust coagulation. For example, one could imagine that growth of
211: silicate and iron grains is catalyzed by temporarily enhanced cross
212: sections as mantles of more volatile material form on their surfaces
213: and the gravitational torques produced by the binary interaction
214: enhance mixing throughout the disks. Even if this type of interaction
215: takes place, the eventual formation of planet sized objects remains in
216: doubt. As the rocky aggregates grow, conditions appropriate for dust
217: coagulation (e.g. `perfect sticking') break down and collisions
218: between particles become increasingly disruptive due to the finite
219: strength of the aggregates.
220:
221: The disruption of solid bodies depends strongly on the relative
222: velocity of the impactor and target particles, with disruption
223: occurring for velocities $\gtrsim$1-3~km/s for planetesimal sized
224: targets ($\lesssim 1$~km) \citep{BA99}. On average in an accretion
225: disk, the relative velocity of planetesimals will be proportional to
226: their eccentricities, $v_{\rm rel}\approx ev_{\rm orb}$. For our
227: model, a relative velocity of 1~km/s corresponds to an eccentricity of
228: $e\sim 0.05$ at 1~AU, or $e\sim 0.15$ at 10~AU.
229:
230: We have seen that gravitational torques are strong enough to generate
231: large amplitude spiral structure as they drive the gas onto eccentric
232: orbits. Gas eccentricities are quickly damped due to shock
233: dissipation, but planetesimals are only weakly coupled to the gas and
234: will have time to encounter other objects and collide or to increase
235: their eccentricities still further as the evolution proceeds. If
236: particle eccentricities can grow to $e\sim0.1$, we expect that the
237: growth of kilometer sized bodies will be suppressed in binary systems
238: such as the one modeled here. However, a more detailed analysis must
239: be done in order to constrain this possibility.
240:
241: \subsection{Checks on the validity of the conclusions}
242:
243: The conclusions regarding planet formation will remain valid as long
244: as the temperatures determined from the model are lower limits on the
245: temperatures present in real systems. If the model produces
246: temperatures which are too low, then real systems will be even more
247: stable against spiral structure growth and fragmentation and less
248: likely to produce large, coagulated grains. If they are too high, the
249: model could inaccurately portray the disk as too stable. Are the
250: temperatures produced in the model too low? We can constrain the
251: temperatures in the model by comparing the radiated energy from
252: observed systems (here specifically to \irsfive), to that produced by
253: the simulation in various wavelength bands. This comparison requires
254: that we relate the luminous output to the temperature.
255:
256: In regions where the optical depth is high, as it is in the accretion
257: disks, the radiated emission can be approximated as a blackbody with a
258: temperature of the disk photosphere. The disk's midplane and
259: photosphere temperatures are then related to each other by a given
260: Rosseland opacity and the local vertical density/temperature profile.
261: We determine such a profile as by-product of the cooling model in this
262: work, under the assumption that the vertical structure is
263: instantaneously adiabatic. Other work \citep{BCKH,dall98} has shown
264: that the structure may instead be super adiabatic. If this is the case
265: then the midplane temperatures will be higher, and our conclusion is
266: stronger.
267:
268: The opposite case may be true instead: large relative heating can
269: occur at high altitudes, even though the high altitude heating is
270: small in an absolute sense \citep{Pick00}. This means that vertical
271: temperature structure may become distorted and an incorrect midplane
272: temperature could be inferred. High altitude dynamical heating will
273: play a role similar to high altitude passive heating from stellar
274: photons. \citet{dall98} show that this process produces a temperature
275: inversion high above the photosphere, but this region contributes
276: negligibly to the radiated flux. Therefore, we can rely on the modeled
277: radiated output of the simulation to represent accurately the
278: temperatures at the disk midplane, given the physical processes
279: included in the calculation. Our conclusions about the formation of
280: planets will be confirmed if we find that the energy output from the
281: disks is equal to or less than that observed.
282:
283: To obtain a valid comparison between the observed and modeled fluxes,
284: we must be certain that the flux from other parts of the system (e.g.
285: the circumbinary disk and envelope) is not a significant contributor
286: to the observed flux used in the comparison. We must also be certain
287: that extinction between the source and the observer has not altered
288: the emitted flux. We therefore require very high spatial resolution
289: photometry at long wavelengths, not affected by extinction.
290:
291: In figure \ref{fig:freq-cmp}, the highest available resolution, long
292: wavelength observations of \irsfive\ are plotted and compared to the
293: flux densities produced from the simulation. For all wavelengths
294: between 1.3~cm and 870~$\mu$m, the observed fluxes exceed those
295: obtained from the simulation by a factor of $\sim 5$. The differences
296: at 1.4~mm and 870~$\mu$m are larger, a factor $\sim10$, however they
297: do not resolve the binary and may contain some contaminating flux
298: from the circumbinary environment. Given these comparisons, we can
299: conclude that the temperatures in the disk are conservatively
300: estimated by the simulation (too low) and that the disks in \irsfive\
301: are more stable against spiral arm growth and fragmentation and less
302: likely to allow dust coagulation than in the simulation. Our
303: conclusion that planet formation is unlikely in the \irsfive\ system
304: is secure.
305:
306: \section{Remarks and remaining questions}
307:
308: The inventory of physical processes considered in this calculation is
309: not complete. The total luminosity will include direct contributions
310: at the short wavelength end of the spectrum from not only the two
311: circumstellar disks, but also the two stars. Accretion of material
312: from the inner disk edge (0.2~AU for this simulation) onto the stellar
313: surface will also add to the total. At longer wavelengths, the
314: circumbinary disk, the infalling envelope and radio emission from
315: bipolar polar outflows will add to the total. Of these processes, only
316: outflows remove thermal energy from the disks, but such outflows are
317: thought to originate very close to the star. They will not remove
318: energy from the part of the disk important for planet formation. The
319: rest will either add directly to the short wavelength spectrum or heat
320: the cooler parts of the disk by absorption of short wavelength
321: radiation, which subsequently reradiates at longer wavelengths
322: \citep[see e.g.][]{Bell99}. Including them in the calculation can only
323: raise disk temperatures and strengthen our conclusions. Estimates of
324: the total luminosity (not shown) from all these sources are within a
325: factor of two of the observed 30\lsun\ luminosity of \irsfive. We are
326: encouraged by this agreement, and expect that the overall agreement
327: between model and observations would become closer if radiative
328: reprocessing were included.
329:
330: A number of questions remain. What is the distribution of planetesimal
331: random velocities? Will lower mass disks be more susceptible to planet
332: formation because of increased efficiency of radiative energy losses?
333: What happens for binary systems with different separations or with
334: unequal stellar mass ratios? How distant is distant enough, so that
335: one component of the binary does not strongly influence the other?
336: These questions will be addressed more completely in a followup paper.
337:
338: \acknowledgements
339:
340: I gratefully acknowledge David Koerner for the generous release of the
341: 1.3~cm fluxes before their publication. I thank Brian Pickett and
342: Willy Kley for helpful conversations during the development of this
343: paper and for Brian's later comments as referee.
344:
345: \begin{thebibliography}{1000}
346:
347: \bibitem[Adams \etal(1988)]{ALS88} Adams, F. C., Lada, C., Shu, F.
348: H., 1988, \apj, 326, 865
349:
350: \bibitem[Bachiller \etal(1994)]{BTC94} Bachiller, R., Tafalla, M.,
351: Cernicharo, J., 1994, \apjl, 425, L93
352:
353: \bibitem[Beckwith \etal(1990)]{BSCG} Beckwith, S. V. W., Sargent, A.
354: I., Chini, R. S. \& G\"usten, R., 1990, \aj, 99, 924-945
355:
356: \bibitem[Beckwith \& Sargent(1996)]{BS96} Beckwith, S. V. W., \&
357: Sargent, A. I., 1996, Nature, 383, 139-144
358:
359: \bibitem[Bell \etal(1997)]{BCKH} Bell, K. R., Cassen, P. M., Klahr, H.
360: H., Henning, Th., 1997, \apj, 486, 372
361:
362: \bibitem[Bell(1999)]{Bell99} Bell, K. R., 1999, \apj, 526, 411
363:
364: \bibitem[Benz \& Asphaug(1999)]{BA99} Benz, W., Asphaug, E. 1999,
365: Icarus, 142, 5
366:
367: \bibitem[Boss(1997)]{Boss97} Boss, A. P., 1997, Science, 276,
368: 1836-1839
369:
370: \bibitem[Close \etal(1997)]{Close97} Close, L. M., Roddier, F.,
371: Northcott, M. J. Roddier, C., Graves, J. E., 1997, \apj, 478, 766-777
372:
373: \bibitem[D'Alessio \etal(1998)]{dall98} D'Alessio, P., Canto, J.,
374: Calvet, N., Lizano, S., 1998, \apj, 500, 411
375:
376: \bibitem[Engel, Lunine \& Lewis(1990)]{ELL90} Engel, S., Lunine, J.
377: I. \& Lewis, J. S., Icarus, 85, 380
378:
379: \bibitem[Keene \& Masson(1990)]{KeeMas90} Keene, J. \& Masson, C. R.,
380: 1990, \apj, 355, 635
381:
382: \bibitem[Lay \etal(1994)]{LCHP94} Lay, O. P., Carlstrom, J. E., Hills,
383: R. E. \& Phillips, T. G., 1994, \apjl 434, L75
384:
385: \bibitem[Lenzuni, Gail \& Henning(1995)]{LGH95} Lenzuni, P., Gail,
386: H.-P. \& Henning, Th., 1995, \apj, 447, 848
387:
388: \bibitem[Looney \etal(1997)]{LMW97} Looney, L. W., Mundy, L. G. \&
389: Welch, W. J., 1997, \apjl 484, L157
390:
391: \bibitem[Mathieu \etal(2000)]{MGJS_PP4} Mathieu, R. D., Ghez, A. M.,
392: Jensen, E. L. N., Simon, M., 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed.
393: V. Mannings, A. P. Boss \& S. S. Russell (Tucson: University of
394: Arizona Press), in press
395:
396: \bibitem[McCaughrean \& O'Dell(1996)]{MO96} McCaughrean, M. J.,
397: O'Dell, C. R., 1996, \aj, 111, 1977
398:
399: \bibitem[Men'shchikov \& Henning(1997)]{Men-Hen-97} Men'shchikov, A.
400: B., Henning, Th., 1997, \aap, 318, 879
401:
402: \bibitem[Moriarty-Schieven \& Snell(1988)]{M-SS88} Moriarty-Schieven,
403: G. H., Snell, R. L., 1988, \apj, 332, 364
404:
405: \bibitem[Momose \etal(1998)]{Mom98} Momose, M., Ohashi, N., Kawabe,
406: R., Nakano, T., Hayashi, M., 1998, \apj, 504, 314
407:
408: \bibitem[Nelson \etal(1998)]{DynamI} Nelson, A. F., Benz, W., Adams,
409: F. C., Arnett, W. D., 1998, \apj, 502, 342
410:
411: \bibitem[Nelson \etal(2000)]{DynamII} Nelson, A. F., Benz, W.,
412: Ruzmaikina, T. V., 2000, \apj, 529, 357
413:
414: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1977)]{Pac77} Paczy\'nski, B., 1977, \apj, 216,
415: 822
416:
417: \bibitem[Pickett \etal(1998)]{Pick98} Pickett, B. K., Cassen, P.,
418: Durisen, R. H., Link, R., 1998, \apj, 504, 468
419:
420: \bibitem[Pickett \etal(2000)]{Pick00} Pickett, B. K., Cassen, P.,
421: Durisen, R. H., Link, R., 2000, \apj, 529, 1034
422:
423: \bibitem[Podolak \etal(1993)]{PodPP3} Podolak, M., Hubbard, W. B.,
424: Pollack, J. B., 1996, In Protostar and Planets III, p. 1109 (ed.
425: Lunine, J. I., Levy, E. H.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson
426:
427: \bibitem[Pollack \etal(1994)]{Pol94} Pollack, J. B., Hollenbach, D.,
428: Beckwith, S., Simonelli, D. P., Roush, T., Fong, W., 1994, \apj, 413,
429: 615
430:
431: \bibitem[Rodriguez \etal(1998)]{Rodriguez98} Rodriguez, L. F.,
432: D'Alessio, P., Willner, D. J., Ho, P. T. P., Torrelles, J. M., Curiel,
433: S., G\'omez, Y., Lizano, S., Pedlar, A., Cant\'o J., Raga, A. C.,
434: 1998, Nature, 395, 355
435:
436: \bibitem[Woody \etal(1989)]{woody} Woody, D. P., Scott, S. L., Mundy,
437: L., G., Sargent, A. I., Padin, S., Tinney, C. G., Wilson, C. D., 1989,
438: \apjl, 337, L41
439:
440:
441: \end{thebibliography}
442:
443: \singlespace
444:
445: \begin{figure} \begin{center}
446: \psfig{file=f1top_bw.eps,angle=-90,height=100mm}
447: \psfig{file=f1bot_bw.eps,angle=0,height=100mm,rheight=90mm}
448: \end{center}
449: \caption
450: {\label{fig:disk-pair}
451: The particle distribution of the binary system before (top) and after
452: (bottom) periapse passage. Mass surface density units are in
453: $\log_{10}({\rm gm/cm}^2)$. The trajectory of each component is
454: counterclockwise and periapse occurs when the stars (at each disk
455: center) reach the $y=0$ axis and are 35~AU apart. No structure is
456: visible in either disk, except that they are no longer exactly round.
457: In the bottom panel, the two components have reversed positions from
458: that shown in the top panel. Tidal torques have caused two armed
459: spiral structures to develop in the disks. In both images, these
460: torques have also caused mass to be redistributed. The disk edge is no
461: longer sharp and is found near an average radius of $\sim$12-13~AU
462: rather than the initial 15~AU.}
463:
464: \end{figure}
465:
466: \clearpage
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \begin{center}
470: \psfig{file=f2_bw.eps,height=160mm}
471: \end{center}
472: \caption{\label{fig:temp-prof}
473: The azimuth averaged Toomre $Q$ (top) and temperature (bottom)
474: profiles of the disks shown for the same times before (solid) and
475: after (dashed) periapse as in figure \ref{fig:disk-pair}. The initial
476: profiles are shown with dashed dotted lines. Both show large increases
477: over their initial values at all radii. The large increase in $Q$
478: outside 12~AU is due to the truncation of the disk and relative
479: scarcity of matter remaining there. The dotted curve shows the maximum
480: temperature reached inside the spiral arms at that radius. At the
481: right are vaporization temperatures of the major grain species in the
482: solar nebula and their fraction of the total grain mass, as discussed
483: in \citet{Pol94}. }
484:
485: \end{figure}
486:
487: \clearpage
488:
489: \begin{figure}
490: \begin{center}
491: \psfig{file=f3.eps,angle=-90,height=100mm}
492: \end{center}
493: \caption{\label{fig:freq-cmp}
494: Long wavelength flux densities from \irsfive, the total from both
495: components of the binary are shown with solid symbols, and the
496: individual components are shown with open symbols. The model is
497: displayed with a solid line for the total from both components,
498: while the value for one component is shown with a dotted line. Each
499: assume a distance of 140~pc to the source. At each wavelength, the
500: model underestimates the flux, indicating that the model temperatures
501: are lower limits. The data are taken from the following literature at
502: an angular resolution given in parentheses: D. Koerner, (personal
503: communication, $\sim0.21$\arcsec at 1.3~cm), \citet{Rodriguez98}
504: ($\sim0.06$\arcsec at 7~mm), \citet{LMW97} ($\sim0.3$\arcsec at
505: 2.7~mm), \citet{woody} ($\sim3$\arcsec, at 1.4~mm) and \citet{LCHP94}
506: ($\sim .8$\arcsec using single baseline interferometry at 870$\mu$m).
507: For comparison, the binary separation of the \irsfive\ system quoted
508: by \citet{Rodriguez98} is $\sim0.3$\arcsec. }
509:
510: \end{figure}
511:
512:
513: \end{document}
514: