Paper detail

Constraints on the circumstellar dust around KIC 8462852

We present millimetre (SMA) and sub-millimetre (SCUBA-2) continuum observations of the peculiar star KIC 8462852 which displayed several deep and aperiodic dips in brightness during the Kepler mission. Our observations are approximately confusion-limited at 850 $μ$m and are the deepest millimetre and sub-millimetre photometry of the star that has yet been carried out. No significant emission is detected towards KIC 8462852. We determine upper limits for dust between a few 10$^{-6}$ M$_{\oplus}$ and 10$^{-3}$ M$_{\oplus}$ for regions identified as the most likely to host occluding dust clumps and a total overall dust budget of $<$7.7 M$_{\oplus}$ within a radius of 200 AU. Such low limits for the inner system make the catastrophic planetary disruption hypothesis unlikely. Integrating over the Kepler lightcurve we determine that at least 10$^{-9}$ M$_{\oplus}$ of dust is required to cause the observed Q16 dip. This is consistent with the currently most favoured cometary breakup hypothesis, but nevertheless implies the complete breakup of $\sim$ 30 Comet 1/P Halley type objects. Finally, in the wide SCUBA-2 field-of-view we identify another candidate debris disc system that is potentially the largest yet discovered.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access12 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.