1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{graphics}
3:
4: \def\gtorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu
5: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
6: \def\ltorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu
7: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
8:
9: \def\Msun{\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}
10:
11:
12: \shorttitle{Limits on Substellar Objects Around G29-38}
13: \shortauthors{Debes et al.}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \title{Cool Customers in the Stellar Graveyard I: Limits to Extrasolar Planets around the White Dwarf G29-38}
17: \author{John H. Debes\altaffilmark{1}, Steinn Sigurdsson\altaffilmark{1},
18: Bruce E. Woodgate\altaffilmark{2}}
19:
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State
21: University, University Park, PA 16802}
22: \altaffiltext{2}{NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 27710}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: We present high contrast images of the hydrogen white dwarf
26: G 29-38 taken in the
27: near infrared with the Hubble Space Telescope
28: and the Gemini North Telescope as part of a high contrast imaging search for
29: substellar objects in orbit around nearby white dwarfs.
30: We review the current limits on planetary companions
31: for G29-38, the only nearby white dwarf with
32: an infrared excess due to a dust disk. We add our recent observations
33: to these
34: limits to produce extremely tight constraints
35: on the types of possible companions
36: that could be present. No objects $>$ 6 M$_{Jup}$ are
37: detected in our data
38: at projected
39: separations $>$ 12 AU, and no objects $>$ 16 M$_{Jup}$ are detected for separations from
40: 3 to 12 AU, assuming a total system age of 1 Gyr. Limits for companions
41: at separations $<$ 3 AU come from a combination of 2MASS photometry and
42: previous studies of G29-38's pulsations. Our imaging with Gemini
43: cannot confirm a
44: tentative claim for the presence of a low mass brown dwarf. These observations demonstrate
45: that a careful combination of several techniques can probe
46: nearby white dwarfs for large planets and low mass brown dwarfs.
47:
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \keywords{circumstellar matter --- planetary systems --- white dwarfs --- stars: individual (G29-38)}
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53: \label{s1}
54: G29-38 (ZZ Psc, WD 2326+049, GJ 895.2) is a nearby ($d$=13.6 pc) non-radially pulsating hydrogen
55: white dwarf (WD) with photospheric absorption lines due to metals such as Mg and
56: Ca \citep{vanaltena95,koester97}. Hydrogen WDs with metal absorption
57: lines are known as DAZs.
58: G29-38 has a measured gravity $\log{g}$= 8.15 and a T$_{eff}$=11820 K,
59: placing its cooling age at 0.6 Gyr \citep{liebert04}.
60:
61: G29-38 possesses an infrared excess, originally
62: attributed to a companion substellar object \citep{zuckerman87}.
63: Further infrared studies,
64: including pulsational studies in the near-IR, showed that the excess
65: was more consistent with a
66: circumstellar disk at 1 R$_\odot$ with a blackbody temperature of $\sim$1000~K
67: \citep{tokunaga88,tokunaga90,telesco90,graham90}. The origin of the disk is unclear, though it could be caused by a tidally
68: disrupted asteroid or comet, potentially sent to the inner system
69: by a
70: planetary system that suffered chaotic evolution after post main sequence evolution \citep{debes02,jura03}.
71:
72: Long-term pulsational studies of G29-38 have allowed
73: several of the more stable pulsation modes to be monitored for timing delays due to
74: an unseen companion \citep{kleinman94,kleinman98}. No conclusive
75: detection of a companion has been
76: reported. Speckle imaging of
77: G29-38 furthermore could not detect any unresolved companions, although IR
78: slit scans of G29-38 appeared to show an extension in the N-S direction on
79: scales of 0.4\arcsec\ \citep{kuchner98,haas90}.
80:
81: The biggest question that remains is the origin of the dust disk, which
82: pollutes the white dwarf's atmosphere with metals. Any origin for the dust
83: requires a substellar companion \citep{debes02,zuckerman03}.
84: Planets
85: in inner regions most likely are engulfed by the AGB phase of the
86: star, with larger planets possibly ``recycled'' into brown dwarf companions
87: \citep{seiss99a,seiss99b}. Remnant
88: asteroids and comets potentially could survive at
89: distances where they would not be ablated during the AGB phase \citep{stern90}.
90: However,
91: if the primary star has asymmetric mass loss, objects such as comets
92: can easily be
93: lost from the system if the orbital timescale equals the
94: timescale for mass loss \citep{parriott98}.
95: Planets or brown dwarfs in orbits $\gtorder$5~AU will avoid engulfment
96: and survive post
97: main sequence evolution \citep{rasio96,duncan98}.
98: Massive white dwarfs that are the result of WD-WD mergers
99: may also form terrestrial mass
100: planets in the debris of the merger, allowing unseen companions in close
101: orbits \citep{livio92}.
102:
103: WDs also make excellent targets for extrasolar planet searches with
104: current ground and space based techniques \citep{burleigh02,debes04}.
105: WDs are orders of magnitude dimmer than their main sequence progenitors,
106: allowing fainter companions to be detected. In the near-IR substellar
107: companions
108: emit thermal radiation, which for objects warmer than $\sim$300 K
109: dominates the reflected
110: light from their hosts.
111: Companions that form at a particular semi-major axis conserve angular momentum
112: during post main sequence mass loss and widen their orbits by a factor
113: $\propto m_i/m_f$, where $m_i$ and $m_f$ are the initial and final masses of the
114: central star \citep{jeans24}. Any observations of a WD then probe to
115: orbits that were a factor of at least 2 times smaller when the star was on the
116: main sequence.
117: Current imaging searches in the near infrared
118: are most effective for WDs that have a combined cooling time and main sequence
119: age of
120: $\sim$1-5 Gyr. At these ages WDs have become dimmer than their main sequence
121: progenitor. Concurrently, massive planets and brown dwarfs are
122: observable in the near-IR since they haven't cooled below 300 K.
123: WDs with metal lines can be markers for planetary systems and the
124: presence of a dust disk and a high abundance of accreted metals
125: makes G29-38 a primary candidate for the presence
126: of a substellar or
127: planetary companion \citep{debes02}.
128:
129: These motivations are the basis for a survey of nearby young DAZs that
130: we have conducted using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). We have primarily
131: used the coronagraph on the NIC2 detector which is part of NICMOS.
132: With the high contrast, resolution, and sensitivity of
133: NICMOS, we can probe to within 3 AU of G29-38 looking for substellar
134: companions that could help to explain the presence of this peculiar
135: DAZ's dust disk. Section \ref{s2} describes the observations.
136: Section \ref{s3} presents sensitivity limits as well as second
137: epoch data for a candidate companion.
138: These results are then combined
139: with pulsational timing studies and 2MASS photometry
140: to perform the most comprehensive search for
141: substellar companions around a WD to date, providing
142: a roadmap for the direct detection of planetary companions to WDs
143: in the future.
144: In Section \ref{s4} we present the conclusions from our work.
145:
146: \section{Observations}
147: \label{s2}
148:
149: We imaged G29-38 using the NIC-2 camera on NICMOS both with and
150: without a coronagraph.
151: We used both the F110W ($\sim$J) and F160W ($\sim$H) filters
152: for our observations.
153: The highest degree of contrast at separations $>$ 1\arcsec\
154: is gained by performing a combination
155: of coronagraphy and point spread function (PSF) subtraction \citep{fraquelli04}. Pipeline reduced coronagraphic data were obtained from STScI, and the basic
156: procedure outlined
157: by \citet{fraquelli04} was used to optimize the results for coronagraphic
158: self-subtraction.
159:
160: Due to the detection of a candidate planetary companion, follow-up observations
161: were taken approximately a year later with Gemini North telescope Director's
162: Discretionary time. We used the Altair adaptive optics (AO) system in conjunction
163: with NIRI to take H band images of G 29-38 and the candidate to determine if
164: they shared common proper motion.
165:
166: The Gemini observations were taken on August 5, 2004.
167: A total of 4 $\times$ 15s frames were co-added at 10 dither points to
168: subtract the background and to remove pixel-to-pixel defects, for an effective
169: integration on source of forty minutes. Our total integration returned an
170: average AO corrected FWHM of 75 mas, significantly smaller than the diffraction limit of
171: our F110W images with HST. Because of Gemini's higher spatial resolution,
172: we used this second epoch data to search for companions at separations
173: $<$1\arcsec. Table \ref{tab:obs} shows the date and time of the observations
174: taken of
175: G29-38, along with the filters.
176:
177: The second epoch Gemini data were processed using several IRAF tasks designed by
178: the Gemini Observatory and based upon the samples given to observers. Each
179: frame was flatfielded and sky subtracted. In addition, due to the on-sky
180: rotation from a fixed Cassegrain
181: Rotator, each frame was rotationally registered
182: and combined. More details of the general strategy and reduction are in
183: \citet{debes04}.
184:
185: \section{Results}
186: \label{s3}
187:
188: No substellar objects were detected in an annulus betweee 1\arcsec\ and
189: 5\arcsec\ from G 29-38 with our coronagraphic observations.
190: One candidate object was detected at a S/N$\sim$6 with m$_{F110W}$-m$_{F160W}$=1.1$\pm$0.3 and apparent m$_{F110W}$=23.7$\pm$0.2. The discovery image and its follow up Gemini image is
191: shown in Figure \ref{fig:gemfig}. The magnitudes and colors were consistent with an object $<$ 10 M$_{Jup}$ at
192: 13.6~pc \citep{bsl03}.
193: Its initial position relative to G 29-38 was $\Delta\alpha$=4.91\arcsec$\pm0.01$
194: $\Delta\delta$=2.03\arcsec$\pm0.01$ in our HST images.
195: Since the measured proper motion of G29-38 is -411$\pm$0.01 mas/yr in $\alpha$ and -263$\pm$.01
196: mas/yr in $\delta$ \citep{pauli03}, we predict an increase of 330 mas and 250 mas in R.A. and dclination, respectively, between our two epoch observations due to parallactic motion and proper motion, leading to $\Delta\alpha$=5.24\arcsec$\pm$0.02 and $\Delta\delta$=2.28$\pm$0.02
197: for the non
198: co-moving case. The position of the candidate in the second epoch Gemini data
199: is $\Delta\alpha$=5.25\arcsec$\pm$0.01 and $\Delta\delta$=2.30\arcsec$\pm$0.01.
200:
201: The candidate is a background object
202: that does not share G29-38's proper motion. The errors in the calculation come
203: primarily from the uncertainty in G29-38's proper motion and uncertainties
204: in the measured centroids. However, the position of the background object is
205: well within the errors and shows no hint of its own proper motion.
206:
207: Our Gemini
208: data were of high enough spatial resolution that we should have easily detected
209: extended structure similar to what was reported in \citet{haas90}. We see no such
210: structure in any of our HST or Gemini observations. Any dust disk present
211: around G29-38 must be confined to smaller than 75 mas or 1 AU projected
212: separation.
213:
214: \subsection{Limits from Imaging}
215:
216: \citet{schneider03} showed
217: a reliable way to determine sensitivity of an observation with
218: NICMOS, given the stability of the instrument. Artificial ``companions'' are
219: generated with the HST PSF simulation software TINYTIM \footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/software/tinytim/tinytim.html} and scaled to higher fluxes
220: until they are recovered.
221: These companions are
222: inserted into the observations and used to gauge sensitivity. We adopted
223: this strategy for our data as well. An implant was placed in the images.
224: Two difference
225: images were created following our procedure of PSF subtraction
226: and then rotated and combined for maximum signal to noise.
227: Sample images were examined
228: by eye as a second check that the dimmest implants could be recovered.
229: The implants were normalized so that their total flux was equal to
230: 1 DN/s. The normalized value was converted to a flux in Jy or a Vega magnitude by
231: multiplying by the correct photometry constants given by the NICMOS Data Handbook.
232: We considered an implant recovered if its scaled
233: flux in a given aperture had a S/N of 5.
234:
235: For our Gemini data we
236: used the PSF of G29-38 as a reference for the implant. The implant was normalized to a peak pixel value of one. Implants were scaled with increasing flux
237: until recovered to determine the final image's
238: sensitivity to objects at a S/N of 10, since siginificant
239: flux from the PSF remained at separations $<$ 1\arcsec. The relative flux of the implant with respect
240: to the host star was measured and a corresponding MKO
241: H magnitude was derived from the 2MASS H magnitude to give a final apparent
242: magnitude sensitivity. For our Gemini images we checked sensitivity starting
243: at a distance of $\sim$3 times the FWHM of G29-38, or 0.22\arcsec,
244: out to 7\arcsec, the extent of our field of view. Gemini's sensitivity beyond $\sim$1.5\arcsec\ was
245: comparable to that of our NICMOS data, with a median sensitivity of H$\sim$22.9.
246:
247: Our resulting sensitivity plot in Figure \ref{fig:sens}, incorporating both our Gemini and HST data,
248: shows the apparent limiting magnitudes in our search from 0.22\arcsec\ to 5\arcsec.
249: These results represent the deepest and highest contrast images taken
250: around a white dwarf to date. In the NICMOS images beyond 1\arcsec\, our
251: sensitivity was limited not by scattered light from G 29-38, but by the
252: limited exposure time.
253:
254: It is useful to convert the sensitivity in the observed magnitudes or fluxes
255: into a corresponding companion mass. Since most
256: substellar companions do not have long term energy sources, the luminosity
257: of a brown dwarf or planet that is not significantly insolated is dependent
258: both on mass and age. In the present situation we can estimate the age of the
259: system based on the properties of the host star. For our current sensitivity
260: calculation
261: we chose the most recent models published by \citet{bsl03} and \citet{baraffe03}. These models
262: are
263: difficult to compare to each other and to observations in the near-IR due
264: to the presence of H$_2$O molecular
265: absorption that can cause variations in predicted magnitudes in different
266: photometric systems \citep{stephens04}. The \citet{baraffe03} magnitudes are
267: in the CIT system,
268: while \citet{bsl03} make their synthetic spectra directly available and thus can be convolved with any filter set. Both
269: sets converge to within a magnitude of each other for ages $>$ 1 Gyr
270: in the J, H, and K filters
271: but in general, for a given age and mass, the \citet{bsl03} predicted
272: magnitudes are fainter. In Figure \ref{fig:cmd} and our calculations in this
273: Section,
274: we use the \citet{bsl03} models.
275: If the \citet{baraffe03} models are correct, our limits are at most $\sim$1-2
276: M$_{Jup}$ lower than reported.
277: In Section \ref{sx.x} we instead use the \citet{baraffe03} models since they
278: extend to higher mass.
279:
280: Most models are for ground based J, H, and K filters. These filters were
281: originally designed to avoid atmospheric windows of high near-IR absorption
282: which is irrelevant for HST filter design. The wideband NICMOS filters
283: vaguely resemble their ground-based counterparts, but possess significant
284: differences in the case of objects that have deep molecular absorption.
285: To adequately understand what type of companions one can detect, it is
286: necessary to take flux calculations from the models and convolve them with
287: the waveband of interest to get a predicted absolute magnitude for the HST
288: filters:
289: \begin{equation}
290: M_x=-2.5 \log\left(\int \lambda A_\lambda F_\lambda d\lambda\right)+2.5 \log\left(\int \lambda A_\lambda F_{\lambda,Vega} d\lambda\right)
291: \end{equation}
292: where $A_\lambda$ is the transmission function of the filter, $F_\lambda$
293: is the flux of the putative companion, and $F_{\lambda,Vega}$ is the Vega
294: flux as calculated by \citet{kurucz}. This method is preferred for
295: detector arrays when calculating synthetic photometry \citep{girardi02}.
296:
297: Figure \ref{fig:cmd} shows a sample $M_{F110W}$ vs. M$_{F110W}$-M$_{F160W}$ color magnitude plot for
298: substellar objects as a function of their mass
299: that have ages of 1 Gyr and 3 Gyr \citep{bsl03}. A
300: comparison with \citet{bsl03}'s plots show that the predicted J magnitudes in
301: their paper and the F110W magnitudes we've calculated
302: differ by slight amounts due to the different transmission function of the two
303: filters. It should also be noted that these predicted
304: fluxes are based upon a completely isolated object that is not experiencing
305: any insolation from its host star. Companions around WDs would have
306: been insolated by their parent star for the main sequence lifetime. However,
307: insolation calculations show that this would be insignificant for well
308: separated companions \citep{burrows04}. The largest insolation would occur during the
309: red giant branch (RGB) and asymptotic giant branch phases (AGB) of post main
310: sequence evolution. Calculating the equilibrium temperature
311: shows that the temperature at 5 AU during these phases would be less than
312: the temperature experienced by HD 209458B, the Jovian planet in a 0.03 AU
313: orbit around a main sequence star. Insolation of a planet
314: during the post main sequence stages of evolution should not be sufficient to
315: alter a substellar companion's predicted magnitude from the isolated case.
316:
317: To get a final prediction of the types of companions to which we are sensitive
318: requires a fairly accurate estimate of the WDs total age. The total age
319: can be determined from the sum
320: of a WDs cooling age and its main sequence lifetime. Estimates of the main
321: sequence lifetime can be taken from the initial to final mass ratio
322: relationship between WDs and their progenitor stars \citep{weidemann00}.
323: Cooling times can be
324: derived by modeling. \citet{liebert04}
325: gives G29-38's mass and cooling age as 0.7 $\Msun$
326: and 0.6 Gyr. Using a theoretical version of the initial-to-final mass
327: function, M$_i=10.4 \ln \left[(M_{WD}/\Msun)/0.49\right] \Msun $, one derives an initial mass of 3.7 $\Msun$ \citep{wood92}. The main sequence
328: (MS)
329: lifetime can be estimated by $10 (M/\Msun)^{-2.5}$ Gyr, which gives an MS lifetime of 0.4 Gyr and
330: thus a total age of 1 Gyr \citep{wood92}.
331: However, from pulsational studies, the precise mass of G 29-38 is
332: 0.6 $\Msun$ which, if the
333: cooling time remains the same or is a bit longer, leads to an age of 2-3 Gyr
334: \citep{kleinman98}. Thus, the age of G 29-38 likely lies between 1 and 3 Gyr.
335:
336:
337: \subsection{Limits from 2MASS Photometry}
338: \label{sx.x}
339:
340: While direct imaging is most sensitive to companions $>$0.2\arcsec\,
341: unresolved companions could still be present for G29-38. In
342: order to rule out companions at separations where imaging or PSF subtraction
343: could not resolve them, we looked at the near-IR flux of G29-38.
344: Low mass companions to WDs have often been discovered
345: through near-IR excesses \citep{probst82,zuckerman92,green00}. G29-38 presents a problem due to its
346: already well known dust disk, which causes a measurable excess starting at about 1.6\micron. However, no large excess is predicted for the J band, which we
347: will use to limit the presence of unresolved substellar companions.
348: For our search we use the near-IR photometry of the 2MASS catalogue which has been used in the past to search for
349: flux excesses in combination with comparison to model WD atmospheres
350: \citep{wachter03}. Using the measured effective
351: temperatures, gravities, and distances
352: of a WD, we can model the expected
353: J magnitude (J$_{th}$) using the model atmospheres of \citet{bergeron95}.
354: These models cover a wide range of WD effective temperature, gravity, and
355: atmospheric composition. When combined with accurate photometry in the
356: visible, these models
357: can reproduce the flux in the J band
358: of a WD to within a few percent \citep{bergeron01}. The model values of J, H,
359: and K are based on the CIT filter system, which we converted to 2MASS magnitudes using the color transformations provided by the 2MASS documentation\footnote{
360: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/sec6\_4b.html}.
361: Then,
362: the excess of the expected minus observed J magnitude,
363: $\Delta$J=J$_{th}$-J$_{\mbox{2MASS}}$, can be determined.
364: An excess of flux in the J band under this notation gives a positive $\Delta$J. At the
365: accuracy of 2MASS, limits can be placed on the type of companions present in
366: close orbit around G29-38.
367:
368: In order to place robust limits to a J excess for G29-38, we must determine
369: the scatter of $\Delta$J from a sample of WDs with
370: known physical parameters and see what an accurate estimate of a 3$\sigma$
371: excess would be. We would expect the sample to have a median $\Delta$J$\sim$
372: 0 and that the standard deviation of $\Delta$J gives a good estimate of the
373: 1$\sigma$ error in our analysis. As a demonstration we
374: take the sample
375: of \citet{liebert04}
376: which includes G29-38 in a study of DA WDs from the PG survey
377: of UV excess sources. Of the 374
378: white dwarfs we chose the brightest 72 of the sample that had
379: a J $<$ 15, had unambiguous sources in 2MASS, and had reliable
380: photometry, i.e those objects that had quality flags of A or B in the 2MASS
381: point source catalogue for their J magnitudes.
382:
383: If there were a significant number of excesses in the sample then the standard
384: deviation of the observed minus expected magnitudes
385: will be overestimated. Since we cannot {\em a priori} know whether there will
386: be a large number of excesses or not, we've assumed that there are
387: not a significant fraction of WDs with excesses in our samples.
388: While calculating the standard deviation for each filter, we removed any object
389: with an excess $>$ 3 $\sigma$ from the sample
390: and recalculated the scatter in observed minus
391: expected magnitudes. We iterated this process three times. We found that of
392: the 72 sources, only eight objects showed an excess in at least one filter.
393: These objects are in Table \ref{tab:excesses}.
394:
395: After determining the standard deviation of the sample, we found that
396: 1$\sigma$\
397: errors for the sample in the J, H, and K bands were 0.07 mag, 0.1 mag, and
398: 0.15 mag, respectively. We treated any excesses
399: greater than 3$\sigma$ as significant, though if an excess was only present in
400: one band we marked this as a tentative detection. One exception is G29-38
401: itself, which showed only
402: a 3.5$\sigma$ excess in the Ks band due to its dust disk,
403: which has been amply confirmed in the past.
404:
405: Seven objects in our sample showed significant excesses in at least two
406: filters and one object showed a significant excess only in the Ks band. These
407: results are
408: shown in Table \ref{tab:excesses}. Of the eight objects, 5 were previously
409: known (See references in Table \ref{tab:excesses}). PG~1234+482, PG~1335+369, and PG~1658+441 are new.
410: Care was taken to ensure
411: that the coordinates of new excess candidates
412: in the 2MASS fields were correct and that their
413: optical photometry was consistent both with that
414: reported in \citet{liebert04} and with the distance assumed in the modeling.
415: The absolute magnitudes of candidate excess
416: companions were calculated by taking the excess flux and using the
417: distance derived from models of the WDs.
418: A spectral type for each excess object was either taken from
419: the literature or compared to nearby M and L dwarfs with known distances
420: \citep{henry94,leggett01}. The results are presented in Table \ref{tab:excess2}. The spectral types we've determined are rough and need to be
421: confirmed through spectroscopic follow-up or high spatial resolution imaging.
422:
423: PG~1234+482 and PG~1658+441 both were previously studied in the J and K
424: bands by \citet{green00}
425: for excesses. None were reported for either of these objects.
426: Based on our analysis, PG 1234+482 has significant excesses in the H and Ks filters. \citet{green00}
427: reported a similar K magnitude as that reported in 2MASS but due to larger
428: errors in their photometry,
429: measured it as a marginal excess of $\sim$1.3$\sigma$. PG~1658+441
430: shows only an excess in the Ks 2MASS filter, which is contradicted by
431: the infrared photometry taken in \citet{green00}. Their measured magnitude
432: in K differs by $\sim$0.6 mag from 2MASS, with
433: the 2MASS measurements having a higher reported error.
434: Based on this uncertain photometry, the excess could be due to a
435: mid L dwarf--the J-K color of such an object would result in a negligible
436: excess in J and an observable excess in K$_{s}$ \citep{leggett01}. This
437: would be an exciting discovery, if confirmed, as only two substellar objects
438: are known to orbit nearby white dwarfs \citep{zuckerman88,farihi04}
439: PG~1658+441 has been selected and observed
440: for Program 10255, an HST snapshot program to resolve close
441: WD+M dwarf binaries. If an L dwarf is present in an orbit greater than a few
442: AU, it should be resolved with those observations.
443:
444: Our resulting 3$\sigma$ limit for G29-38 is then $\Delta$J=0.21, which
445: corresponds to an unresolved source with M$_J$=14.8.
446: Interpolating from the models of \citep{baraffe03}, the corresponding unresolved companion mass at
447: 1 and 3 Gyr is 40 $M_{Jup}$ and 58 $M_{Jup}$
448: respectively.
449:
450: \subsection{Limits from Pulsational Studies}
451:
452: Claims for the presence of companions around G29-38 have often occurred.
453: Its infrared excess was originally attributed to a
454: brown dwarf companion, while radial velocity and pulsational timing hinted
455: at the presence of either a low mass stellar companion or a massive black
456: hole, all of which were shown to be spurious by more careful, long-term
457: pulsational timing \citep{kleinman94}.
458:
459: Pulsational timing is done in a similar fashion to pulsar timing, in that
460: phase changes of the observed minus calculated (O-C) pulse arrival times
461: can be used to calculate the projected semi-major axis of the reflex motion
462: for the white dwarf, $a \sin{i}$. For
463: pulsating white dwarfs, the technique requires identifying a
464: stable pulsational mode and measuring its arrival time very precisely.
465: Measuring higher derivatives of the period change can also help to further
466: constrain the Keplerian parameters of a companion orbit before it has
467: completed a full revolution. This
468: technique for pulsars
469: has been remarkably effective at finding ``oddball''
470: planets, such as the first terrestrial
471: extrasolar planets ever discovered and a Jovian mass
472: planet in the metal poor M4 cluster \citep{wolszczan92,sigurdsson03}.
473:
474: Long baseline timing studies of pulsating white dwarfs can produce very stringent
475: limits to the types of companions orbiting them, down to tens of Earth masses.
476: They are limited by the timescale of observations and knowledge of the inclination of the system while probing the inner-most
477: orbital separations. In this sense pulsational timing is generally complementary
478: to direct imaging searches, the combination of the two providing a comprehensive and sensitive method for searching for extra-solar planets.
479:
480: \citet{kleinman94} demonstrated that for G29-38, perturbations on the order of
481: 10~s or greater could have been detected around the white dwarf. In fact, a
482: trend was discovered in their data
483: that had an amplitude of 56~s and a possible period of
484: 8 years. This was a tentative detection given the possibility of the
485: mode that they used being unstable or slowly varying. However, based on G29-38's parameters, one can estimate
486: how massive such a companion would be and what
487: its semi-major axis would be assuming $i\sim$90$^\circ$.
488: Assuming G29-38 has a mass of 0.6 $\Msun$, the derived
489: minimum
490: mass was 21 M$_{Jup}$
491: with a semi-major axis of 3.4 AU.
492: A mass of 0.7 $\Msun$\ does not significantly change these values.
493:
494: As mentioned above, the noise limit to the \citet{kleinman94} pulsational
495: timing allows limits to be placed on the types of companions present with
496: orbital timescales of $<$ 8 years.
497: Figure \ref{fig:finalsens} shows the combination of the
498: pulsational timing limits based on the 10~s noise limit and our observational
499: data. Our 2MASS photometry limits extend to where the predicted mass
500: equals that derived from the limits of the pulsational studies, 0.4~AU for
501: an age of 1 Gyr and 0.2 AU for an age of 3 Gyr. Between those separations and 3~AU, the limits are determined by
502: the pulsational studies. Beyond 3~AU the limits are determined by our imaging.
503: Overplotted is the separation and mass of the possible companion
504: detected in the pulsational timing. Our observations weigh against
505: the possibility
506: of the tentative companion, if the total age of G29-38 is closer to 1 Gyr. If
507: the age of G29-38 is closer to 3~Gyr, we can constrain the inclination of the
508: possible companion's orbit
509: to be $>$ 44$^\circ$ from face on based on our detection limit of
510: 30 $M_{Jup}$. Inspection of the limits shows that any companion $>$ 12 M$_{Jup}$ is ruled out for separations between $\sim$1 AU and 3 AU and $>$ 5 AU if
511: the age of G 29-38 is close to 1 Gyr. All but planetary mass objects are ruled out for
512: a good portion of the discovery space around this white dwarf. Further
513: observations, such as sensitive radial velocity variations, would provide a
514: stronger limit to close in companions than what is possible with 2MASS.
515:
516: \section{Conclusions}
517: \label{s4}
518: We have shown that a combination of high contrast imaging
519: and photometry of individual relatively young and nearby white dwarfs such as
520: G 29-38
521: can effectively probe for high mass planets.
522: Information gleaned through this technique we can detect planets
523: not accessible by other methods. Any planet discovered could become an
524: important spectroscopic target for follow-up. The information gleaned from a large scale version
525: of this study may provide key information on planet formation and
526: evolution in intermediate mass stars as well
527: as providing a possible explanation for the origin of
528: white dwarfs with metal absorption \citep{debes02}.
529:
530: If a close companion is involved in the origin of G29-38's dusty disk,
531: it must be substellar and if
532: a well-separated companion is involved it is of planetary mass. These mass
533: limits apply if the
534: scenario for the formation of DAZs follows \citet{debes02}, where an
535: unstable planetary system sends volatile-depleted asteroidal or
536: cometary material into the inner system.
537: The possibility remains that a smaller planet could be
538: present. Indeed, planets of $\sim$1 M$_{Jup}$ or less may be favored
539: for the DAZ phenomenon \citep[][private communication]{hansen04}. Planets near
540: our mass limits may be too efficient at ejecting surviving planetesimals
541: rather than sending them into the inner system.
542:
543: Finally, due to the sensitivity of our Gemini observations we can place some
544: strong conclusions on previous claims for the presence of close companions due
545: to pulsational timing by \citet{kleinman94}. If the age of G29-38 is 1 Gyr,
546: we can refute the presence of
547: a companion at $\sim$3.4 AU. We can place limits on its mass its
548: if the age of G29-38 is closer to 3 Gyr.
549: The possibility exists that the companion could be closer to G 29-38 than its
550: maximum extent, since the pulsation timing observations were of not sufficient
551: quality to determine the phase of the initial observations.
552: We see no evidence for a companion beyond some
553: structure in the AO PSF at a projected separation that does not match
554: the predicted orbital separation \citep[][personal communication]{trujillo04}.
555:
556: \acknowledgements
557: We would like to gratefully acknowledge Al Shultz and Glenn Schneider for
558: helpful conversations about coronagraphy with NICMOS, and Chad Trujillo and Joe
559: Jensen for critical help with the inner workings of Altair and the reduction
560: of Altair imaging data.
561:
562: Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained
563: at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the
564: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA
565: contract NASĘ5-26555. These observations are associated with program \#9834.
566: Also based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory,
567: which is operated by the
568: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
569: under a cooperative agreement
570: with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National
571: Science Foundation (United
572: States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council
573: (United Kingdom), the
574: National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian
575: Research Council
576: (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina). Near-IR Photometry obtained as part of the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), a joint project of the University
577: of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California
578: Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space
579: Administration and the National Science Foundation. S.S. also acknowledges
580: funding under the Pennsylvania State University Astrobiology Research Consortium (PSARC).
581:
582:
583: \bibliography{g29bib}
584: \bibliographystyle{apj}
585:
586: \clearpage
587:
588: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
589: \tablecolumns{4}
590: \tablewidth{0pc}
591: \tablecaption{\label{tab:obs} Table of the observations taken of G29-38}
592: \tablehead{
593: \colhead{Observation name} & \colhead{Date \& Time(UT)} & \colhead{Filter}
594: & \colhead{Exposure Time(s)}}
595: \startdata
596: N8Q301010 & 2003-10-20 10:07:00 & F205W & 17.942 \\
597: N8Q301011 & 2003-10-20 10:08:00 & F205W & 17.942 \\
598: N8Q301020 & 2003-10-20 10:15:20 & F160W & 11.960 \\
599: N8Q301030 & 2003-10-20 10:20:00 & F110W & 11.960 \\
600: N8Q304010 & 2003-09-14 19:31:00 & F110W & 575.877 \\
601: N8Q305010 & 2003-09-14 19:59:00 & F110W & 575.877 \\
602: N8Q306010 & 2003-09-14 21:07:00 & F160W & 575.877 \\
603: N8Q307010 & 2003-09-13 21:35:00 & F160W & 575.877 \\
604: GN-2004A-DD-9 & 2004-08-05 14:81:08 & MKO H & 2220.00 \\
605: \enddata
606: \end{deluxetable}
607:
608: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
609: \tablecolumns{7}
610: \tablewidth{0pc}
611: \tablecaption{\label{tab:excesses} 2MASS Photometry of PG WDs}
612: \tablehead{\colhead{PG} & \colhead{J$_{th}$} & \colhead{H$_{th}$} &
613: \colhead{K$_{s(th)}$} & \colhead{J} & \colhead{H} & \colhead{K$_s$}
614: }
615: \startdata
616: 0017+061 & 15.33 & 15.49 & 15.56 & 13.74 & 13.19 & 12.98 \\
617: 0205+134 & 15.45 & 15.63 & 15.72 & 12.80 & 12.20 & 11.96 \\
618: 0824+289 & 14.95 & 15.13 & 15.22 & 12.42 & 11.80 & 11.65 \\
619: 1026+002 & 14.29 & 14.41 & 14.46 & 11.75 & 11.22 & 10.94 \\
620: 1033+464 & 14.93 & 15.08 & 15.17 & 12.56 & 12.03 & 11.75 \\
621: 1234+482 & 15.14 & 15.32 & 15.40 & 14.98 & 14.96 & 14.94 \\
622: 1335+369 & 15.03 & 15.15 & 15.20 & 13.29 & 12.92 & 12.85 \\
623: 1658+441 & 15.26 & 15.40 & 15.50 & 15.44 & 15.53 & 15.05 \\
624: \enddata
625: \end{deluxetable}
626:
627: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
628: \tablecolumns{5}
629: \tablewidth{0pc}
630: \tablecaption{\label{tab:excess2} Magnitudes and Spectral Types of
631: Excess Candidates}
632: \tablehead{\colhead{PG} & \colhead{M$_J$} & \colhead{M$_H$} & \colhead{M$_{K_s}$} &
633: \colhead{Sp Type} & \colhead{Reference}}
634: \startdata
635: 0017+061 & 8.98 & 8.29 & 8.05 & M5V & 1\tablenotemark{a} \\
636: 0205+134 & 6.46 & 5.81 & 5.56 & M3.5V & 2 \\
637: 0824+289 & 6.90 & 6.24 & 6.09 & dC+M3V & 3 \\
638: 1026+002 & 8.96 & 8.38 & 8.09 & M5V & 1 \\
639: 1033+464 & 8.15 & 7.56 & 7.26 & M4V & 1 \\
640: 1234+482 & 11.31 & 10.3 & 10.3 & M8V & - \tablenotemark{b} \\
641: 1335+369 & 9.30 & 8.84 & 8.77 & M5.5V & -\tablenotemark{b} \\
642: 1658+441 & - & - & 14.1 & L5 & -\tablenotemark{b} \\
643: \enddata
644: \tablerefs{
645: (1) \citet{zuckerman92}
646: (2) \citet{allard94}
647: (3) \citet{green00}}
648: \tablenotetext{a}{ \citet{zuckerman92} did not estimate spectral type,
649: estimates taken from 2MASS magnitudes of nearby M dwarfs listed in
650: \citet{henry94}}
651: \tablenotetext{b}{This work used 2MASS magnitudes of nearby M dwarfs from
652: \citet{henry94} and nearby L, T dwarfs from \citet{leggett01} to determine rough spectral types}
653:
654: \end{deluxetable}
655:
656: \clearpage
657:
658: \begin{figure}
659: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
660: \caption{\label{fig:gemfig} (left) Discovery image of a candidate planetary
661: companion in the HST F160W filter. The image was smoothed with a
662: Gaussian filter, C1 marks the candidate, and G29-38 is masked out.
663: Other features are either subtraction artifacts or detector artifacts.
664: (right) Second epoch image with Gemini,
665: along with the predicted positions of co-moving (square) and non co-moving
666: (circle) objects. The object is non co-moving and therefore in the background. In both images North is rotated 36$^\circ$ clockwise.}
667: \end{figure}
668:
669: \clearpage
670:
671: \begin{figure}
672: \plotone{f2.eps}
673: \caption{\label{fig:sens} The final azimuthally averaged
674: limiting magnitude curve of our HST and Gemini images. Our HST observations
675: were sensitive to objects that had a S/N of $>$ 5 at separations $>$
676: 1\arcsec. At separations
677: $<$ 1\arcsec, The Gemini PSF still had significant flux. To ensure that our sensitivity reflected actual detectability, we used a S/N limit of 10
678: $<$ 1\arcsec.}
679: \end{figure}
680:
681: \clearpage
682:
683: \begin{figure}
684: \plotone{f3.eps}
685: \caption{\label{fig:cmd} Color-magnitude diagram with isochrones
686: of substellar objects with a total age
687: of between 1 and 3 Gyr in NICMOS filters. We used the spectral models of
688: \citet{bsl03} and convolved them with the NICMOS filters. Numbers on the isochrones refer to the mass in Jupiter masses.
689: Numbers 10-25 follow the observed
690: properties of T dwarfs and have bluer colors. At effective temperatures of
691: $<$ 400 K, water absorption suppresses flux in the F110W filter and again makes
692: these objects redder. Colors are sensitive to this absorption and
693: are uncertain.}
694: \end{figure}
695:
696: \clearpage
697:
698: \begin{figure}
699: \plotone{f4.eps}
700: \caption{\label{fig:finalsens} Combined limits to substellar objects around
701: G29-38 from a combination of 2MASS photometry, pulsation studies, and our
702: high contrast imaging. The solid and dashed
703: lines show the limits for assumed total ages of 1 and 3 Gyr, respectively,
704: and the triangle shows the expected minimum mass of a companion tentatively
705: discovered by pulsational studies.}
706: \end{figure}
707:
708: \end{document}
709:
710:
711:
712:
713: