Paper detail

High Resolution Spectroscopy during Eclipse of the Young Substellar Eclipsing Binary 2MASS 0535-0546. I. Primary Spectrum: Cool Spots versus Opacity Uncertainties

We present high-resolution Keck optical spectra of the very young substellar eclipsing binary 2MASS J05352184-0546085, obtained during eclipse of the lower-mass (secondary) brown dwarf. The observations yield the spectrum of the higher-mass (primary) brown dwarf alone, with negligible (~1.6%) contamination by the secondary. We perform a simultaneous fine-analysis of the TiO-epsilon band and the red lobe of the KI doublet, using state-of-the-art PHOENIX Dusty and Cond synthetic spectra. Comparing the effective temperature and surface gravity derived from these fits to the {\it empirically} determined surface gravity of the primary (logg=3.5) then allows us to test the model spectra as well as probe the prevailing photospheric conditions. We find that: (1) fits to TiO-epsilon alone imply Teff=2500 \pm 50K; (2) at this Teff, fits to KI imply logg=3.0, 0.5 dex lower than the true value; and (3) at the true logg, KI fits yield Teff=2650 \pm 50K, ~150K higher than from TiO-epsilon alone. On the one hand, these are the trends expected in the presence of cool spots covering a large fraction of the primary's surface (as theorized previously to explain the observed Teff reversal between the primary and secondary). Specifically, our results can be reproduced by an unspotted stellar photosphere with Teff=2700K and (empirical) logg=3.5, coupled with axisymmetric cool spots that are 15% cooler (2300K), have an effective logg=3.0 (0.5 dex lower than photospheric), and cover 70% of the surface. On the other hand, the trends in our analysis can also be reproduced by model opacity errors: there are lacks in the synthetic TiO-epsilon opacities, at least for higher-gravity field dwarfs. Stringently discriminating between the two possibilities requires combining the present results with an equivalent analysis of the secondary (predicted to be relatively unspotted compared to the primary).

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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.

Institutions

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 graph slice

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.