Issue |
A&A
Volume 520, September-October 2010
|
|
---|---|---|
Article Number | L2 | |
Number of page(s) | 4 | |
Section | Letters | |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201015156 | |
Published online | 23 September 2010 |
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Deep near-infrared interferometric search for low-mass companions around
Pictoris![[*]](/icons/foot_motif.png)
O. Absil1,
- J.-B. Le Bouquin2 - J. Lebreton2 - J.-C. Augereau2 - M. Benisty3 - G. Chauvin2 - C. Hanot1 - A. Mérand4 - G. Montagnier4
1 - Institut d'Astrophysique et de Géophysique, Université de Liège, 17 Allée du Six Août, 4000 Liège, Belgium
2 -
LAOG-UMR 5571, CNRS and Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble, France
3 -
INAF - Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo E. Fermi 5, 50125 Firenze, Italy
4 -
European Southern Observatory, Casilla 19001, Santiago 19, Chile
Received 4 June 2010 / Accepted 3 September 2010
Abstract
Aims. We search for low-mass companions in the innermost region (<300 mas, i.e., 6 AU) of the Pic planetary system.
Methods. We obtained interferometric closure phase measurements in the K-band
with the VLTI/AMBER instrument used in its medium spectral resolution
mode. Fringe stabilization was provided by the FINITO fringe tracker.
Results. In a search region of between 2 and 60 mas in radius, our observations exclude at
significance the presence of companions with K-band contrasts greater than
for 90% of the possible positions in the search zone (i.e., 90% completeness). The median
error bar in the contrast of potential companions within our search region is
.
The best fit to our data set using a binary model is found for a faint companion located at about 14.4 mas from
Pic, which has a contrast of
(a result consistent with the absence of companions). For angular
separations larger than 60 mas, both time smearing and
field-of-view limitations reduce the sensitivity.
Conclusions. We can exclude the presence of brown dwarfs with masses higher than
(resp.
)
at a 50% (resp. 90%) completeness level within the first few AUs around
Pic.
Interferometric closure phases offer a promising way to directly image
low-mass companions in the close environment of nearby young stars.
Key words: stars: individual:
Pic - planets and satellites: detection - techniques: interferometric - planetary systems
1 Introduction
The young (12 Myr, Zuckerman et al. 2001), nearby (19.3 pc), and bright (K=3.5) A5V-type star
Pictoris
(HD 39060) is surrounded by one of the most famous extrasolar
planetary systems, consisting of a recently detected planetary
companion (Lagrange et al. 2009a,2010) inside an optically thin debris disk seen edge-on (Smith & Terrile 1984),
which has been resolved at various wavelengths. Several asymmetries
have been identified in the debris disk, including a warp at
50 AU (Heap et al. 2000)
that is now understood to be the result of the dynamical influence of a
massive body (a few Jupiter masses) on an eccentric orbit around the
central star (Freistetter et al. 2007). The 9-
companion discovered by Lagrange et al. (2009a) may be the cause of this warp. We note that the planetary nature of this companion was not easy to ascertain (Lagrange et al. 2009b), because the companion was located at a projected distance smaller than the inner working angle of VLT/NACO (335 mas for
)
between the discovery observations in 2003 and the confirmation observations in late 2009.
Long-baseline optical interferometry is a promising technique to search for faint companions at angular separations smaller than the diffraction limit of a single aperture. In particular, closure phase measurements on a closed triangle of baselines are very sensitive to asymmetries in the brightness distribution of the source, and can be used to detect faint companions. Closure phases have the added advantage of being insensitive to telescope-specific phase errors (unlike visibilities and phases), including atmospheric turbulence effects (for a review of closure phases, see Monnier 2003).
The interferometric detection of extrasolar planets (hot Jupiters in
particular) has already been attempted by a few groups, using in
particular precision closure phase measurements. Despite the exquisite
accuracy that has already been reached (e.g.,
stability in the CHARA/MIRC closure phases, Zhao et al. 2008),
no extrasolar planet has yet been detected. Differential phase
techniques have not been more successful because of atmospheric and
instrumental limitations (e.g., Millour et al. 2008; Matter et al. 2010).
Higher sensitivities to faint companions can be reached when closure
phases are obtained on fully resolved stellar photospheres (e.g., Duvert et al. 2010; Lacour et al. 2008),
but this is unfortunately not the case for most main-sequence stars
with currently available interferometric baselines. In this Letter, we
perform a deep interferometric search for faint companions at short
angular distances from the unresolved young main sequence star
Pic (
mas, Di Folco et al. 2004), based on closure phase measurements with VLTI/AMBER.
2 Observations and data reduction
Observations of Pic
were performed on four different nights from 2010 January 24
to 28 with the AMBER instrument, used in its medium resolution
mode (
from 1.93 to 2.27
m)
with three 1.8-m Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLTI arranged on the
A0-G1-K0 triangle (ground baselines from 90 m to 128 m).
Fringe tracking was provided by the FINITO facility during all our
observations. A total of 12 Observing Blocks (OBs) were completed
for
Pic,
with Detector Integration Times (DIT) ranging from 0.5 to 1 s
depending on the atmospheric conditions. To reduce time smearing in our
data set, long OBs were divided into shorter sequence of 15 min or
less, giving a total of 26 OBs. Our observations of
Pic were interleaved with observations of HD 39640, a G8III calibration star of magnitude K=3.0 and angular diameter
mas (Mérand et al. 2005), located only
from
Pic on the sky.
Raw data were reduced using the amdlib v3.0 package (Chelli et al. 2009; Tatulli et al. 2007), using all recorded detector frames (no fringe selection). The Pic
closure phases were calibrated by a simple subtraction of the average
closure phase of all calibrator measurements obtained during the same
night with the same instrumental set-up. This procedure implicitly
assumes that the closure phase transfer function does not vary
significantly during several hours of observations, a hypothesis that
we verified during our four observing nights. The error bar related to
the calibration process is generally estimated by measuring the
standard deviation in the calibrator closure phases during the night.
In our case, too few calibrator measurements are available to provide a
reliable error bar, so we decided to use the standard deviation in all
measurements (science and calibrator) instead. It must be noted that,
if the scientific target were to have a companion producing a
significant closure phase signal, this would lead to an overestimated
calibration error bar and could possibly hide the companion (we address
this in the last paragraph of Sect. 3.1). The evaluation of the calibration error bar is illustrated in Fig. 1
for the night of January 24, which is actually the poorest night
in our data set in terms of transfer function stability. In this plot,
the data were binned into 6 spectral channels to reduce their
statistical errors and isolate the effect of transfer function
instabilities. The short end of the K band (top panel of Fig. 1)
displays significant instabilities in its closure phases, most probably
caused by strong and variable spectral lines in the Earth atmosphere.
These instabilities disappear beyond about
m, so we restrict our spectral range to the 2.00-2.26
m region. In this spectral range, we find that the rms calibration errors range between
and
depending on the night. These error bars will be added quadratically
for our whole data set, night by night (after binning individual
spectral channels, where required).
![]() |
Figure 1:
Fluctuation of the closure phase as a function of time for |
Open with DEXTER |
3 Searching for faint off-axis companions
3.1 Data analysis
The field-of-view (FOV) of the AMBER instrument is limited by the use of single-mode fibers. We estimated the off-axis transmission of a point-like object in the presence of atmospheric turbulence corrected for tip-tilt fluctuations by the STRAP system on the ATs. Our simulations produced a Gaussian transmission with a full width at half maximum of 420 mas for the median seeing of our observations (




The first step in our data analysis is to adapt the spectral
resolution to the explored FOV, by ensuring that the variations in the
closure phase as a function of wavelength, created by a potential
companion, are sampled with at least four data points per period. The
periodicity in the closure phase signal as a function of wavelength is
given roughly by
,
where B is the mean interferometric baseline length. For
m in our case, and a maximum angular separation of 50 mas, this implies that
m. The appropriate spectral bin size to cover a 50 mas FOV is thus
nm, so that a total of 5 spectral channels are needed across the
m
spectral range. We used a 5-sigma clipping method to remove outliers
when binning our data into the synthetic spectral channels, and
statistical error bars are estimated to be the standard deviation in
the individual data points of each bin.
![]() |
Figure 2: Probability of a binary
model to reproduce our data set, for various positions of the secondary
companion across a FOV 50 mas in radius. At all places in the FOV,
the flux of the companion has been tuned to minimize the
|
Open with DEXTER |
The next step is to search the entire FOV for possible companions. To do this, we used the photospheric model of Pic proposed by Di Folco et al. (2004), to which we added a secondary point-like companion at various locations within the FOV. The
distance between the data and all our binary models was then computed,
and for each position we selected the companion contrast that produces
the lowest
.
The resulting
map was then converted into a probability map (Fig. 2) using the
probability distribution function, taking into account the number of degrees of freedom in our
distribution. In the present case, there are
independent data points and 1 parameter to fit (the companion contrast
for each binary position), hence 129 degrees of freedom. In the absence
of a companion, the reduced chi square (
)
amounts to 1.01, which corresponds to a probability of 45% for our photospheric model alone to reproduce the data set.
Our probability map shows a local maximum of 86% (i.e.,
)
at a position
mas, with a best-fit contrast of
.
The quality of our best-fit model, illustrated in Fig. 3,
confirms that this model closely reproduces our data set. Several other
companion positions within our FOV would provide (almost) equally good
fits. We note however that the pure photospheric model also reproduces
the data quite well, so that there is no real evidence of a companion.
We now verify whether this could be caused by an overestimation of the
calibration error bars, as discussed in Sect. 2. We artificially decrease our estimated calibration error bars until we achieve
for our best-fit model (which is reached when calibration error bars
are multiplied by 0.92). The significance of this possible detection
can then be estimated by converting the probability of the null
hypothesis (i.e., no companion), which is now only 9%, into an
equivalent number of standard deviations for the possible detection of
a companion, using standard relationships for normal distributions. We
infer a
significance for our detection, giving a companion contrast of
.
This low significance confirms that it cannot be considered as a real detection.
![]() |
Figure 3:
Representation of the whole data set (diamonds with error bars, binned
into 5 spectral channels) and of the best-fit model (red curves)
found on the 50 mas radius FOV. This model corresponds to a
companion with a contrast of
|
Open with DEXTER |
3.2 Sensitivity limits
Sensitivity limits can be derived from our
map (or equivalently, probability map), by searching at each point of the FOV for the companion contrast that would produce a
larger than a pre-defined threshold. We choose a
criterion to define our sensitivity limit (i.e., probability of less
than 0.27% for the model to reproduce the data). With 129 degrees of
freedom, this corresponds to a threshold
.
Once the
upper limit to the detectable companion contrast is computed at each
point of the FOV, one can define global sensitivity limits by building
and inspecting the histogram of the
detection levels across the considered FOV. For instance, for the 50 mas FOV used in Fig. 2, the contrast upper limit is <
for 50% of all positions in the FOV (50% completeness) and <
for 90% completeness. This confirms that the typical
error bar in the contrast of a detected companion would be about
,
as estimated in the previous paragraph.
These sensitivity limits were confirmed by a double-blind test, where
synthetic companions of various contrasts were introduced into our raw
data set. In these blind tests, we were able to retrieve the companions
with a contrast of
in about 50% of the cases (although with a formal significance generally between 2 and
), and the companions with a contrast of
in all cases. These tests confirm the validity of our contrast upper limits based on the
analysis.
Sensitivity limits can also be computed as a function of angular separation, by building
maps on annular fields-of-view of increasing size. This is illustrated in Fig. 4,
where annuli 10% in relative width have been used. This figure shows
that VLTI/AMBER reaches its optimum sensitivity in the 2-60 mas
region, where a median contrast of
(
)
can be reached at a 50% (90%) completeness level using the ATs. Beyond
60 mas, the effect of time smearing on the closure phase signal of
potential companions becomes significant, reducing the sensitivity. For
larger separations (>200 mas), the sensitivity degrades more
rapidly because of the decreasing off-axis transmission of the
single-mode fibers. The inner working angle of our interferometric
study is about 1 mas, where the sensitivity drops to a few percent
in contrast (e.g.,
at 90% completeness) because of the limited angular resolution provided by our baselines.
![]() |
Figure 4:
Sensitivity curves showing the |
Open with DEXTER |
4 Discussion
To compare our sensitivity limits with other studies, it is useful to
express them in terms of companion masses. The first step is to convert
contrasts into absolute magnitudes, taking into account the K magnitude and distance of Pic. Absolute magnitudes are then converted into masses using the COND evolutionary models of Baraffe et al. (2003), assuming an age of 12 Myr. The result is illustrated in Fig. 4,
where mass upper limits are represented by dotted lines. In the
2-60 mas region, the median upper limit to companion masses is
(
)
for 50% (90%) completeness.
These upper limits should be compared with the main planet search
methods around nearby main-sequence stars: radial velocity (RV)
monitoring and direct (single-pupil) imaging. State-of-the-art RV
measurements obtained with HARPS on Pic (Galland et al. 2006) have reached an accuracy of 180 m s-1 (after correction for its pulsations), which provides a typical sensitivity of
for a semi-major axis a=1 AU. The sensitivity then scales as a-2.
The largest semi-major axis that can be reached depends on the
timescale of the RV monitoring: to cover most of our interferometric
search region (up to 6 AU in semi-major axis),
Pic
should be surveyed for about 5 years. For this time coverage, the
only companions that could be detected by our interferometric search
and not by the RV monitoring would be those located at orbital
distances larger than 6 AU, which would by chance be at projected
angular separations smaller than 300 mas at the time of our
observations. K-band direct imaging observations using a Four
Quadrant Phase Mask (FQPM) coronagraph on VLT/NACO have yielded an
upper limit of
to the contrast of off-axis companions at projected distances >335 mas (Lagrange et al. 2009b), and can reach a contrast of
at the FQPM inner working angle of 70 mas (Boccaletti et al. 2009). In practice, the NACO-FQPM sensitivity becomes superior to that of AMBER for angular distances larger than
100 mas, so the two techniques can be considered complementary.
Although our detection limits are promising and would allow brown dwarfs to be detected around bright young stars such as Pic, they are insufficient to detect the planetary companion discovered by Lagrange et al. (2009a), which has an estimated K-band contrast of
.
The accuracy of our measurements needs to be improved by at least a
factor of 10 to reach this level of performance. The same improvement
in measurement accuracy would be required to bring our sensitivity down
to the realm of hot-Jupiter type planets. It is expected that the next
generation of interferometric instruments at the VLTI (PIONIER,
GRAVITY, and eventually VSI) could provide the necessary improvements
in instrumental stability and sensitivity to achieve this performance.
The authors thank the anonymous referee for a thoughtful report that improved the data analysis. O.A. and C.H. acknowledge support from the ``Communauté Française de Belgique - Actions de Recherche Concertées - Académie universitaire Wallonie-Europe''. This research has made use of the AMBER data reduction package of the Jean-Marie Mariotti Center (amdlib v3.0, available at http://www.jmmc.fr/amberdrs).
References
- Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Boccaletti, A., Augereau, J.-C., Baudoz, P., Pantin, E., & Lagrange, A.-M. 2009, A&A, 495, 523 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Chelli, A., Utrera, O. H., & Duvert, G. 2009, A&A, 502, 705 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Di Folco, E., Thévenin, F., Kervella, P., et al. 2004, A&A, 426, 601 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Duvert, G., Chelli, A., Malbet, F., & Kern, P. 2010, A&A, 509, A66 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Freistetter, F., Krivov, A. V., & Löhne, T. 2007, A&A, 466, 389 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Galland, F., Lagrange, A., Udry, S., et al. 2006, A&A, 447, 355 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Heap, S. R., Lindler, D. J., Lanz, T. M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, 435 [Google Scholar]
- Lacour, S., Meimon, S., Thiébaut, E., et al. 2008, A&A, 485, 561 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Lagrange, A.-M., Gratadour, D., Chauvin, G., et al. 2009a, A&A, 493, L21 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Lagrange, A.-M., Kasper, M., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2009b, A&A, 506, 927 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Lagrange, A., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Matter, A., Vannier, M., Morel, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A69 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Mérand, A., Bordé, P., & Coudé du Foresto, V. 2005, A&A, 433, 1155 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Millour, F., Petrov, R. G., Vannier, M., & Kraus, S. 2008, in Optical and Infrared Interferometry, Proc. SPIE, 7013 [Google Scholar]
- Monnier, J. D. 2003, Rep. Progr. Phys., 66, 789 [Google Scholar]
- Smith, B. A., & Terrile, R. J. 1984, Science, 226, 1421 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tatulli, E., Millour, F., Chelli, A., et al. 2007, A&A, 464, 29 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, M., Monnier, J. D., ten Brummelaar, T., Pedretti, E., & Thureau, N. D. 2008, in Optical and Infrared Interferometry, Proc. SPIE, 7013 [Google Scholar]
- Zuckerman, B., Song, I., Bessell, M. S., & Webb, R. A. 2001, ApJ, 562, L87 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Footnotes
- ...
Pictoris
- Based on observations collected at the ESO La Silla Paranal Observatory under program IDs 084.C-0566 and 384.C-0806.
- ...
- FNRS Postdoctoral Researcher.
All Figures
![]() |
Figure 1:
Fluctuation of the closure phase as a function of time for |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 2: Probability of a binary
model to reproduce our data set, for various positions of the secondary
companion across a FOV 50 mas in radius. At all places in the FOV,
the flux of the companion has been tuned to minimize the
|
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 3:
Representation of the whole data set (diamonds with error bars, binned
into 5 spectral channels) and of the best-fit model (red curves)
found on the 50 mas radius FOV. This model corresponds to a
companion with a contrast of
|
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 4:
Sensitivity curves showing the |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
Copyright ESO 2010
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.