2009
DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/1/62
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Palomar/Keck Adaptive Optics Survey of Young Solar Analogs: Evidence for a Universal Companion Mass Function

Abstract: We present results from an adaptive optics survey for substellar and stellar companions to Sun-like stars. The survey targeted 266 F5-K5 stars in the 3 Myr-3 Gyr age range with distances of 10-190 pc. Results from the survey include the discovery of two brown dwarf companions (HD 49197B and HD 203030B), 24 new stellar binaries, and a triple system. We infer that the frequency of 0.012-0.072 M brown dwarfs in 28-1590 AU orbits around young solar analogs is 3.2 +3.1 −2.7 % (2σ limits). The result demonstrates th… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

26
257
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 238 publications
(284 citation statements)
references
References 160 publications
26
257
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, our binary frequencies of a few percents are in agreement with the number of wide substellar companions to young solar analogues (0.5-6.3% for separations in the 28-1590 au range; Metchev & Hillenbrand 2009), M dwarfs (0.1-2.2% for separations larger than ∼120 au ; Radigan et al 2008), the frequency of 1 ± 1% of brown dwarf companions to GKM stars in the 75-300 au range (McCarthy & Zuckerman 2004) or the lack of planetary-mass objects more massive than 5-10 M Jup around young nearby stars beyond 36-65 au (Masciadri et al 2005). Similarly, Raghavan et al (2010) derived a stellar multiplicity of 7.3% and 2.2% among solar-type stars within 25 pc for projected separations in the 1000-10 000 au and 10 000-50 000 au ranges, respectively (their Fig.…”
Section: Multiplicity Of Planet-host Starssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Overall, our binary frequencies of a few percents are in agreement with the number of wide substellar companions to young solar analogues (0.5-6.3% for separations in the 28-1590 au range; Metchev & Hillenbrand 2009), M dwarfs (0.1-2.2% for separations larger than ∼120 au ; Radigan et al 2008), the frequency of 1 ± 1% of brown dwarf companions to GKM stars in the 75-300 au range (McCarthy & Zuckerman 2004) or the lack of planetary-mass objects more massive than 5-10 M Jup around young nearby stars beyond 36-65 au (Masciadri et al 2005). Similarly, Raghavan et al (2010) derived a stellar multiplicity of 7.3% and 2.2% among solar-type stars within 25 pc for projected separations in the 1000-10 000 au and 10 000-50 000 au ranges, respectively (their Fig.…”
Section: Multiplicity Of Planet-host Starssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The BD distribution is normalized to the companion frequency, f BD , measured by Raghavan et al (2010) for stellar companions. If extrapolated to the BD mass regime (q = 0.012−0.072), it gives f BD = 1 +1 −0.6 % between 28-1590 AU, which is in agreement with the BD companion fraction presented by Metchev & Hillenbrand (2009), f BD = 3.2 +3.1 −2.7 %, over the same mass and separation ranges. Moreover, several physical mechanisms or observational constraints place upper and lower limits to the maximum and minimum mass (m max BD,pl , m min BD,pl ) and separation (a max BD,pl , a min BD,pl ) for these distributions.…”
Section: Model For the Substellar Cmfsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…In this context, we consider as BDs all objects that, having formed through a stellar-like mechanism, constitute the lower mass tail of the CMRD, assuming that it can be extrapolated into the BD regime as suggested by Metchev & Hillenbrand (2009). We define as planets, instead, all companions that formed in standard planet-formation scenarios and gave rise to the RV measured CMF but extrapolated to larger separations.…”
Section: Model For the Substellar Cmfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the follow-up observation is close in time to the first epoch and the displacement of the star on the sky due to proper motion is small, it may be challenging to determine with a high probability whether an object is bound. One example is given in Metchev & Hillenbrand (2009), where an object that was originally thought to be compatible with being bound, based on the proper motion test, was determined through spectroscopy to be a background M-star. Moreover, the case of the false positive object around IM Lupi (Mawet et al 2012) teaches that, when the distance determination is complex, it is possible to miscalculate the relative certainties of a bound versus unbound interpretation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%