1: \documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}
2:
3: %%% PREAMBLE MATTER
4:
5: \usepackage{asp2004}
6: \usepackage{epsf}
7: \usepackage{psfig}
8: \usepackage{lscape}
9: \usepackage{graphicx}
10: \usepackage{subfigure}
11:
12: \markboth{Tremblay and Bergeron}{Near-Infrared Photometric Analyses of White Dwarf Stars} %%% Fill in authors' names and short running title
13:
14: \pagestyle{myheadings}
15: \setcounter{equation}{0}
16: \setcounter{figure}{0}
17: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
18: \setcounter{section}{0}
19: \setcounter{table}{0}
20:
21: %%% MAIN PART OF DOCUMENT
22:
23: \begin{document}
24: \title{Near-Infrared Photometric Analyses of White Dwarf Stars} %%% Fill in title
25: \author{P.-E. Tremblay, and P. Bergeron} %%% Fill in author names
26: \affil{D\'epartement de Physique, Universit\'e de Montr\'eal, C.P. 6128, Succ.
27: Centre-Ville, Montr\'eal, Qu\'ebec, Canada, H3C 3J7} %%% Fill in author affiliations
28:
29: \begin{abstract} %%% Abstract to run on from here.
30: We review the available near- and mid- infrared photometry data sets
31: for white dwarfs from the Two Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS) Point
32: Source Catalog and the Spitzer Space Telescope. These data sets have
33: been widely used to search for white dwarfs with an infrared excess as
34: well as to characterize the atmosphere of cool white dwarfs. We
35: evaluate the reliability of the 2MASS photometry by performing a
36: statistical comparison with published JHK CIT magnitudes, and by
37: carrying out a detailed model atmosphere analysis of the available
38: photometry. We then present a critical examination of various results
39: published in the literature including data from the Spitzer Space
40: Telescope.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: %%% MAIN BODY OF TEXT GOES HERE. CONSULT "INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS USING
44: %%% LATEX2E MARKUP", SECTIONS 2.3-2.6 FOR HELP WITH EQUATIONS, FIGURES,
45: %%% AND TABLES.
46:
47: %\section{} %%% Top level section head (remove "%" symbol)
48: %\subsection{} %%% Second level section head (remove "%" symbol)
49: %\subsubsection{} %%% Lowest level section head (remove "%" symbol)
50: %\section*{} %%% Unnumbered top level section head (remove "%" symbol)
51: %\subsection*{} %%% Unnumbered second level section head (remove "%" symbol)
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54:
55: With the recent All-Sky Data Release of the Two Micron All-Sky
56: Survey\footnote{See
57: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/} (2MASS), we are
58: now able to retrieve near-infrared (NIR) $J$, $H$, and $K_S$
59: magnitudes for more than a thousand white dwarfs that fall within the
60: 2MASS detection limit. This database was used in several studies aimed
61: at identifying new cool white dwarfs or circumstellar disks
62: \citep{kilic06} and seeking binary candidates
63: \citep{wachter03}. In addition to the 2MASS NIR photometry, there is a developing
64: interest to observe white dwarfs at longer wavelengths in the mid-infrared (MIR). The
65: {\it Spitzer Space Telescope} IRAC\footnote{See
66: http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/} photometry has been used in
67: recent surveys of relatively bright, nearby white dwarfs to better
68: constrain the atmospheric parameters of cool white dwarfs
69: \citep{kilic06b} and to seek MIR excesses from disks
70: \citep{hansen06}. Before undertaking a more systematic search of white dwarf stars in
71: binaries or of circumstellar disk systems using 2MASS or {\it Spitzer}
72: data, it seems appropriate as a first step to evaluate properly the
73: reliability of the infrared photometric data sets.
74:
75: \section{Comparison of CIT and 2MASS Photometry}
76:
77: Our photometric sample used to compare against the 2MASS data is drawn
78: from the detailed photometric and spectroscopic analyses of
79: \citet[][hereafter BRL97]{bergeron97} and \citet[][hereafter BLR01]{bergeron01} who obtained improved
80: atmospheric parameters of cool white dwarfs from a comparison of
81: optical $BVRI$ and infrared $JHK$ photometry with the predictions of
82: model atmospheres appropriate for these stars. We selected from these
83: studies 183 cool white dwarfs with infrared $JHK$ magnitudes measured
84: on the CIT photometric system. We searched the 2MASS PSC for all white
85: dwarfs and we recovered the 2MASS $J$, $H$, and $K_S$ magnitudes for
86: 160 stars from our initial CIT photometric sample of 183 objects.
87:
88: Figure 1 shows the differences in magnitudes between the infrared CIT
89: and 2MASS photometric systems for the $J$, $H$, and $K/K_S$ filters
90: for the white dwarfs in our sample. Note that the number of stars in
91: each panel is different since some stars have not been formally
92: detected in one or more bands in 2MASS. The size of the error bars in
93: Figure 1 correspond to the combined quadratic uncertainties of both
94: data sets, $\sigma=(\sigma_{\rm 2MASS}^2+\sigma_{\rm
95: CIT}^2)^{1/2}$. For both measurements to be compatible, the error bar
96: must touch the horizontal dashed line in each panel of Figure 1, which
97: represents the mean magnitude difference between both data sets, as
98: determined below.
99:
100: \setcounter{figure}{0} \begin{figure}[!h] \centering
101: \includegraphics[trim=0 100 0 100, height=11.5cm,angle=0]{f1.eps}
102: \caption{Differences in magnitudes between the infrared CIT and 2MASS
103: photometric systems for each individual filter as a function of the
104: 2MASS magnitude for our common sample of 160 cool white
105: dwarfs. Objects located on the left side of the vertical dotted lines
106: meet the PSC level~1 requirements (S/N$\,>10$), which correspond to
107: $J < 15.8$, $H < 15.1$, and $K_S < 14.3$.} \end{figure}
108:
109: We present in Table 1 a statistical comparison of both data sets for
110: all three bands. The first three lines correspond to the full data set
111: while the last three lines are restricted to 2MASS magnitudes that
112: satisfy the level~1 requirements. The second column indicates the
113: number of stars used for the comparison. The third and fourth columns
114: represent respectively the mean and the standard deviation of the
115: magnitude differences for each band. These mean values thus correspond
116: to the zero point offsets between both photometric systems. We note
117: that the offsets are typically five times smaller than the average
118: 2MASS uncertainties (fifth column of Table 1) and these could as well
119: be considered as zero for most practical purposes.
120:
121: If the uncertainties of both data sets have been properly evaluated,
122: the average combined quadratic uncertainties, $\langle\sigma\rangle$
123: (last column of Table 1), should be at least as large as the standard
124: deviations of the magnitude differences. This is certainly the case
125: for the level~1 subsample, a result that confirms the reliability of
126: the 2MASS level~1 photometry. For the complete sample, however, the
127: $\langle\sigma\rangle$ values are slightly below the standard
128: deviations. If we assume that the CIT photometric uncertainties have
129: been properly estimated, which is supported in BRL97 and BLR01 by the
130: successful fits with white dwarf models, the 2MASS uncertainties might
131: be slightly underestimated in the case of faint cool white dwarfs near
132: the survey limit.
133:
134: \begin{table}[!h]
135: \caption{Statistical Comparison of CIT and 2MASS Magnitudes}
136: \begin{center}
137: \centering
138: \begin{tabular}{clcccc}
139: \hline
140: \hline
141: Bandpass&No. of&Mean&Standard &$\langle\sigma_{\rm 2MASS}\rangle$ &
142: $\langle\sigma\rangle$ \\ $(m _{\rm CIT}$ - $m_{\rm 2MASS})$&Stars
143: & &Deviation\\
144: \hline
145: $J$&159&$-$0.0046&0.0805&0.0502&0.0745\\
146: $H$&157&$+$0.0180&0.1126&0.0807&0.0997\\
147: $K/K_S$&143&$+$0.0247&0.1561&0.1096&0.1253\\ $J$ (S/N $>$
148: 10)&130&$-$0.0083&0.0679&0.0409&0.0662\\ $H$ (S/N $>$
149: 10)&97&$+$0.0094&0.0675&0.0502&0.0726\\ $K/K_S$ (S/N $>$ 10) &49
150: &$+$0.0133&0.0692&0.0466&0.0697\\
151: \hline
152: \end{tabular}
153: \end{center}
154: \end{table}
155:
156: \section{White Dwarfs and Low Mass Main Sequence Binaries from 2MASS}
157:
158: One of the most immediate applications to a large data set of white
159: dwarf NIR photometry such as 2MASS is to seek infrared excesses due to
160: cooler companions that are otherwise invisible in the
161: optical. \citet{wachter03} used a sample of 759 white dwarfs from the
162: catalog of \citet{ms99} and identified as many as 95 binary candidates
163: and 15 tentative binary candidates based on the analysis of a
164: $(J-H,H-K_S)$ two-color diagram built from 2MASS photometry.
165:
166: In Figure 2, we compare 2MASS and CIT two-color diagrams for the 143
167: stars in our presumably single white dwarf sample of \S~2 that have
168: been detected by 2MASS in all three bandpasses. Using the color
169: criteria of Wachter et al., illustrated in the left panel of Figure 2,
170: we find that several binary and tentative binary candidates in both
171: regions defined by Wachter et al. A comparison with the CIT
172: photometry, however, reveals that this result can be readily explained
173: in terms of the larger uncertainties of the 2MASS photometry since
174: both regions are located $1-2\sigma$ away from the region occupied by
175: single white dwarfs near the center of the figure. The large amount
176: of contamination of the binary candidate regions suggests that their
177: criteria are not stringent enough.
178:
179: \begin{figure}[!h] \centering \includegraphics[trim=10 220 30
180: 200,height=8.0cm,angle=0]{f2.eps} \caption{{\it Left:} $(J-H)$
181: vs.~$(H-K/K_S)$ two-color diagrams for 143 cool white dwarfs taken
182: from our sample and detected by 2MASS in all three bands. The filled
183: and open points correspond to the CIT and 2MASS data, respectively.
184: The region above the dashed line and that defined by the dotted
185: rectangle correspond to the color criteria defined by
186: \citet{wachter03} for selecting binary candidates and tentative
187: binary candidates, respectively. {\it Right:} Same as the right panel
188: but with the four regions defined by \citet[][see
189: text]{wellhouse05}}\end{figure}
190:
191: \citet{wellhouse05} used a similar two-color diagram approach with a
192: sample of 51 magnetic white dwarfs as candidates for potential
193: pre-cataclysmic variables. They proposed to split the $(J-H,H-K_S)$
194: two-color diagram into four regions, all illustrated on the right
195: panel of Figure 2. While they did not find any binary candidates (II),
196: they identified 10 objects with peculiar colors associated with very
197: low mass companions or debris (regions III and IV). This represents a
198: total of 28.6\% of their sample with formal uncertainties with a
199: possible companion or a disk. From our Figure 2, we find that 21\% of
200: the white dwarfs from our 2MASS sample of \S~2 would be considered possible
201: candidates for a companion or a disk, while the CIT data show little
202: evidence for such infrared excesses. This strongly suggests that the
203: sample of magnetic white dwarfs studied by Wellhouse et al.~could be
204: entirely consistent with single stars.
205:
206: \section{Spitzer Photometry}
207:
208: To evaluate the reliability of the Spitzer photometry, we use the
209: observations of \citet{kilic06} who have compared the {\it Spitzer}
210: 4.5 and $8~\mu$m photometric data of 18 cool and bright white dwarfs
211: with the predictions of model atmospheres. They found that the four
212: hydrogen atmosphere white dwarfs with $T_{\rm eff}$ lower than 6000~K
213: show a slight flux depression at $8~\mu$m, while one peculiar object,
214: the so-called C$_2$H star LHS~1126, suffers from a significant flux
215: deficit at both 4.5 and $8~\mu$m.
216:
217: We selected 12 white dwarfs with {\it Spitzer} MIR flux from
218: \citet{kilic06} which are also in our cool white dwarf sample\footnote{We left out LHS~1126 which indeed exhibits a Spitzer dificit. This peculiar so-called C$_2$H star also show NIR absorption explained by collision-induced opacity. This discrepency may indicate that the collision-induced opacity calculations need to be improved at the high densities encountered in cool white dwarf atmospheres.} of
219: \S~2. We determine the atmospheric parameters for each star by fitting simultaneously the
220: average fluxes for the nine photometric bands ($BVRI$, $JHK$/CIT, and
221: {\it Spitzer} 4.5 and $8~\mu$m). In contrast with the technique used
222: by Kilic et al., we do not normalize the fluxes at any particular
223: band, but consider instead the solid angle $\pi (R/D)^2$ a free
224: parameter. Furthermore, instead of assuming $\log g$$=8.0$ for all
225: objects, we constrain the $\log g$ value from the trigonometric
226: parallax measurements. The synthetic fluxes in the MIR are obtained by
227: integrating our model grid over the {\it Spitzer} IRAC spectral
228: response curves while the observed fluxes are taken directly from
229: Table 1 of \citet{kilic06b}. The hydrogen- and helium-rich model
230: atmospheres used in our analysis are similar to those described in
231: BLR01 and references therein, except that for the hydrogen-rich models
232: we are now making use of the more recent collision-induced opacity
233: calculations and the Hummer-Mihalas occupation probability formalism
234: for all species in the plasma.
235:
236: We plot in Figure 3 the ratio of the observed to model fluxes at 4.5
237: and $8~\mu$m as a function of the derived effective temperature for
238: the 12 objects. The the agreement between the observed {\it Spitzer}
239: and model fluxes is very good at all temperatures. In particular,
240: we do not observe any significant flux deficit at low effective
241: temperatures as suggested by \citet{kilic06b}. Therefore, we
242: argue that the results presented in this section demonstrate the
243: reliability of both the {\it Spitzer} IRAC photometry and our model
244: atmosphere grid up to $8~\mu$m for studying cool white dwarfs.
245:
246: \section{Conclusions}
247:
248: In order to estimate the reliability of the 2MASS photometry for white
249: dwarf stars, we defined a sample of 160 cool degenerates with $JHK$
250: magnitudes on the CIT photometric system taken from BRL97 and BLR01,
251: and compared these values with those obtained from the 2MASS PSC. Our
252: statistical analysis indicates that, on average, 2MASS uncertainties
253: are reliable but significant discrepancies are to be expected,
254: especially for stars near the lower detection threshold. We also
255: concluded that the search for white dwarf and main-sequence star
256: binaries based on 2MASS two-color diagrams is greatly limited by the
257: 2MASS uncertainties. We have also shown that the observed MIR
258: photometry from the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope} agree very well with
259: our model fluxes.
260:
261: \begin{figure}[!h]
262: \centering
263: \includegraphics[height=13cm,angle=270]{f3.eps}
264: \caption{The ratio of observed to predicted {\it Spitzer} fluxes for
265: 12 objects from the sample of \citet{kilic06b} as a function of
266: effective temperature. For Ross 627 (1121$+$216), only the {\it
267: Spitzer} $4.5~\mu$m flux is used since the $8~\mu$m flux is affected
268: by a nearby star.} \end{figure}
269:
270: \acknowledgements %%%
271: The authors acknowledge the support of the NSERC Canada and the Royal
272: Astronomical Society. P. Bergeron is a Cottrell Scholar of Research
273: Corporation. This publication makes use of data products from the Two
274: Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of
275: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis
276: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
277: Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
278: Foundation. This work is based in part on observations made with the
279: Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
280: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with
281: NASA.
282:
283:
284: %%% THE BIBLIOGRAPHY
285: %%%
286: %%% CONSULT SECTION 3 OF "INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS" FOR HOW TO USE NATBIB.
287: %%% AUTHORS ARE ENCOURAGED TO USE EITHER THE "THEBIBLIOGRAPY" ENVIRONMENT
288: %%% BY UNCOMMENTING (DELETING THE "%" SYMBOL) THE COMMANDS BELOW, OR BY
289: %%% USING THE BIBTEX ENVIRONMENT. TO FIND OUT WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR
290: %%% CONTRIBUTION, CONSULT THE VOLUME EDITORS FOR YOUR PROCEEDINGS.
291: %%%
292:
293: \begin{thebibliography}{}
294: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1997)]{bergeron97} Bergeron, P., Ruiz, M. T. \& Leggett S. K. 1997, \apjs, 108, 339 (BRL97)
295: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(2001)]{bergeron01} Bergeron, P., Leggett S. K. \& Ruiz, M. T. 2001, \apjs, 133, 413 (BLR01)
296: \bibitem[Hansen et al.(2006)]{hansen06} Hansen, B. M. S., Kulkarni, S. \& Wiktorowicz S. 2006, AJ, 131, 1106
297: \bibitem[Kilic et al.(2006a)]{kilic06} Kilic, M., von Hippel, T., Mullally, F., Reach, W. T., Kuchner, M. J., Winget, D. E. \& Burrows, A. 2006a, \apj, 642, 1051
298: \bibitem[Kilic et al.(2006b)]{kilic06b} Kilic, M., von Hippel, T., Leggett, S. K. \& Winget, D. E. 2006b, \apj, 646, 474
299: \bibitem[McCook \& Sion(1999)]{ms99} McCook G. P. \& Sion E. M. 1999, \apjs, 121, 1
300: \bibitem[Wachter et al.(2003)]{wachter03} Wachter, S., Hoard, D. W., Hansen, K. H.,
301: Wilcox, R. E., Taylor, H. M. \& Finkelstein, S. L. 2003, \apj, 586, 1356
302: \bibitem[Wellhouse et al.(2005)]{wellhouse05} Wellhouse, J. W., Hoard, D. W., Howell,
303: S., B., Wachter, S. \& Esin, A. A. 2005, PASP, 117, 1378
304: %\bibitem[]{}
305: %\bibitem[]{}
306: %\bibitem[]{}
307: %\bibitem[]{}
308: %\bibitem[]{}
309: %\bibitem[]{}
310: %\bibitem[]{}
311: %\bibitem[]{}
312: %\bibitem[]{}
313: \end{thebibliography}
314:
315: \end{document}
316: