Accepted to The Astrophysical Journal
Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
Leon K. Harding1, 2, 6 , Gregg Hallinan2 , Richard P. Boyle3 , Aaron Golden1,5 , Navtej Singh1 , Brendan
Sheehan1 , Robert T. Zavala4 and Ray F. Butler1
arXiv:1310.1367v1 [astro-ph.SR] 2 Oct 2013
2 Cahill
1 Centre for Astronomy, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland
Center for Astrophysics, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd., MC 249-17, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
3 Vatican Observatory Research Group, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
4 United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station, Flagstaff, AZ, USA and
5 Department of Genetics (Computational Genetics), Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx NY 10461, USA
Accepted to The Astrophysical Journal
ABSTRACT
A fraction of very low mass stars and brown dwarfs are known to be radio active, in some cases
producing periodic pulses. Extensive studies of two such objects have also revealed optical periodic
variability and the nature of this variability remains unclear. Here we report on multi-epoch optical
photometric monitoring of six radio detected dwarfs, spanning the ∼M8 - L3.5 spectral range, conducted to investigate the ubiquity of periodic optical variability in radio detected ultracool dwarfs.
This survey is the most sensitive ground-based study carried out to date in search of periodic optical
variability from late-type dwarfs, where we obtained 250 hours of monitoring, delivering photometric
precision as low as ∼0.15%. Five of the six targets exhibit clear periodicity, in all cases likely associated with the rotation period of the dwarf, with a marginal detection found for the sixth. Our data
points to a likely association between radio and optical periodic variability in late-M/early-L dwarfs,
although the underlying physical cause of this correlation remains unclear. In one case, we have multiple epochs of monitoring of the archetype of pulsing radio dwarfs, the M9 TVLM 513-46546, spanning
a period of 5 years, which is sufficiently stable in phase to allow us to establish a period of 1.95958 ±
0.00005 hours. This phase stability may be associated with a large-scale stable magnetic field, further
strengthening the correlation between radio activity and periodic optical variability. Finally, we find
a tentative spin-orbit alignment of one component of the very low mass binary LP 349-25.
Subject headings: instrumentation: photometers — binaries: general — brown dwarfs — stars: lowmass — stars: magnetic field — stars: rotation
1. INTRODUCTION
Beyond spectral type &M7 (ultracool dwarfs), Hα and
X-ray luminosities drop sharply, signaling that chromospheric and coronal heating becomes less efficient, even in
the presence of rapid rotation (Mohanty & Basri 2003;
West et al. 2004; Reiners & Basri 2008; West & Basri
2009). Despite this reduction in quiescent emission, a
number of Hα and X-ray flares have been detected, indicating that chromospheric and coronal activity is indeed
present (Reid et al. 1999; Gizis et al. 2000; Rutledge et al.
2000; Liebert et al. 2003; Fuhrmeister & Schmitt 2004;
Rockenfeller et al. 2006a). Surprisingly, given the absence of quiescent emission at higher energies, Berger
et al. (2001) reported persistent radio emission from LP
944-20 (M9) - the first detection of radio emission from
a brown dwarf, orders of magnitude higher than the expected flux (Güdel & Benz 1993).
To date, quiescent radio emission has been detected
from ten ultracool dwarfs (Berger et al. 2001; Berger
2002; Berger et al. 2005; Burgasser & Putman 2005;
Osten et al. 2006; Berger 2006; Phan-Bao et al. 2007;
Hallinan et al. 2006, 2007; Antonova et al. 2007; Berger
et al. 2009; Route & Wolszczan 2012). Probably the
most surprising aspect of this radio activity, has been
the detection of periodic 100% circularly polarized pulses
(Hallinan et al. 2007, 2008; Berger et al. 2009). Observations by Hallinan et al. (2007) of TVLM 513-46546
6
Now at Caltech: lkh@astro.caltech.edu
(henceforth TVLM 513), reveal electron cyclotron maser
(ECM) emission as the mechanism responsible for these
100% circularly polarized periodic pulses, implying kilogauss (kG) magnetic field strengths in a large-scale stable
magnetic field configuration. This is consistent with the
confirmation of kG magnetic field strengths for ultracool
dwarfs via Zeeman broadening observations (Reiners &
Basri 2007). Although these observations confirmed the
ECM process to be the cause of the polarized periodic
emission, it is still unclear as to which mechanism (incoherent or coherent) is driving the quiescent component of
the radio emission, and incoherent gyrosynchrotron emission has alternatively been invoked (Berger 2006; Osten
et al. 2006).
Ultracool dwarfs have also exhibited periodic variability in the optical regime. These investigations have
yielded both optical and infrared (IR) variability, where
modulation at the expected rotation period has been
found in various studies (Clarke 2002a; Koen 2006; Rockenfeller et al. 2006a; Lane et al. 2007; Littlefair et al.
2008). Aperiodic variability, as well as periodic modulations on time-scales not associated with rotation, have
been inferred (Gelino et al. 2002; Lane et al. 2007; Maiti
2007). Typically, this variability has been attributed to
magnetic spots on the surface of the dwarf, or the presence of atmospheric dust, or indeed both. For higher
temperature ultracool dwarfs (specifically late-M and
early-L dwarfs), the presence of magnetic spots and other
magnetic related activity, as seen for earlier M-dwarfs,
2
HARDING ET AL.
TABLE 1
Summary of Campaign Sample Properties
Source
SpT
Distance
I (mag)
log
(Lbol /L )
(pc)
v sin i
Lithium?
Est. Mass
Mtot
(M )
References
Radio
Disc.
Ref.
(km s−1 )
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
LP 349-25AB
2M J0746AB
LSR J1835
TVLM 513
BRI 0021
2M J0036
∼M8+M9†
13.10 ± 0.28
12.20 ± 0.05
∼6.0
∼10.5
∼11.5
∼8.8
12.40
15.03
12.90
15.10
15.02
16.05
-3.19; -3.34
-3.64; -3.77
-3.51
-3.65
-3.40
-3.98
55 ± 2; 83 ± 3
19 ± 2; 33 ± 2
50 ± 5
∼60
∼34
∼37
No
No
?
No
No
No
0.121 ± 0.009
0.151 ± 0.003
<0.083?
>0.06
<0.06
0.06 - 0.074
1-3
2, 4-6
7-9
4, 10-13
11, 14-17
4, 5, 18-20
21
22
23
24
24
25
L0+L1.5
M8.5
M9
M9.5
L3.5
Note. — Column (1) Campaign source. (2) Spectral type. (3) Distance (in parsecs). (4) Magnitude as measured in the Johnson
I-band. (5) Bolometric luminosity. (6) Rotation velocity (in kilometers second−1 ). (7) Lithium present in previous spectroscopic
studies? (8) Estimated total system mass (in solar mass). (9) Observational study references (corresponding to list below). (10)
Radio emission discovery references. The campaign targets are abbreviated as follows: 2MASSW J0746425+200032 (henceforth 2M
J0746); LSR J1835+3259 (henceforth LSR J1835); TVLM 513-46546 (TVLM 513); BRI 0021-0214 (henceforth BRI 0021) and 2MASS
J00361617+1821104 (henceforth 2M J0036). † LP 349-25 may be either M7.5+M8.5 or M8+M9 as outlined by Forveille et al. (2005).
References. — (1) Gatewood & Coban (2009). (2) Forveille et al. (2005) & Konopacky et al. (2010, 2012). (3) Basri & Marcy
(1995); Reiners & Basri (2009). (4) Dahn et al. (2002). (5) Vrba et al. (2004). (6) Bouy et al. (2004). (7) Reid et al. (2003). (8) Berger
et al. (2008a). (9) Hallinan et al. (2008). 10) Tinney (1993); Tinney et al. (1995). (11) Leggett et al. (2001). (12) Basri (2001). (13)
Reid et al. (2002). (14) Reid et al. (1999). (15) Mohanty & Basri (2003). (16) Reiners & Basri (2009). (17) Chabrier et al. (2000). (18)
Average of Jones et al. (2005) & Zapatero Osorio et al. (2006). (19) Reid et al. (2000). (20) Hallinan et al. (2008) based on work of
Reid et al. (2000); Vrba et al. (2004). (21) Phan-Bao et al. (2007). (22) Antonova et al. (2008). (23) Berger (2006). (24) Berger (2002).
(25) Berger et al. (2005).
may be present (Rockenfeller et al. 2006a; Lane et al.
2007). Littlefair et al. (2008) reported sinusoidal variability of the M9 dwarf TVLM 513, with a period of ∼2 hours
- a period consistent with the radio pulsing and optical
periodicity previously obtained by Hallinan et al. (2006)
and Lane et al. (2007), respectively. However, their light
curves (Sloan g 0 and Sloan i0 ) were anticorrelated, which
seemed to refute the proposed model of starspots at that
time as the cause for the optical variability. Instead they
argued that this anticorrelated signal was likely due to
photospheric dust coupled with stellar rotation. Indeed,
magnetic activity, as signaled by Hα, decreases further
after the M/L transition (West et al. 2004), therefore
in most cases optical variability has been attributed to
the expected presence of dust in the dwarf’s atmosphere
(Bailer-Jones & Mundt 2001; Martı́n et al. 2001; Gelino
et al. 2002; Enoch et al. 2003; Maiti 2007; Littlefair et
al. 2008; Goldman et al. 2008; Clarke et al. 2008).
It is notable that two of the ultracool dwarfs found
to be periodically variable in the optical (Lane et al.
2007), are also known to be members of the small sample
known to be pulsing radio sources (Hallinan et al. 2007,
2008). Motivated by this, we have commenced a campaign to investigate whether optical periodic variability
is a signature property of radio detected ultracool dwarfs.
To this end, we employed the custom developed GUFI
mk.II photometer, as well as the VATT 4K CCD Imager on the 1.83 m Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT)7 , to photometrically monitor all of the radio emitting ultracool dwarfs observable from the VATT
site. Throughout the campaign, data were also obtained
from the 1.0 m and 1.55 m telescopes at the USNO8 , as
7 The Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) telescope facility is operated by the Vatican Observatory, and is part
of the Mount Graham International Observatory.
8
Information
regarding
the
United
States
Naval
Observatory
(USNO)
telescopes
can
be
found
here:
http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO.
well as the 1.52 m telescope at the Loiano Observatory
in Bologna, Italy.
2. SAMPLE
In the following sections we discuss each target with respect to any previous radio and optical emission. A list of
the campaign sample, as well as a summary of individual
target information, is shown in Table 1. These are categorized in order of ascending spectral type; we also outline details of the respective observation campaigns. Our
target sample consists of those dwarfs which have been
previously detected as radio sources and are visible from
the VATT observatory site. The general capabilities of
each detector used for the campaign are outlined in § 3.
Dwarfs which have been detected as optically variable
sources in other work were also included for verification,
and to assess the stability of these optical signals over
time scales of years.
2.1. Binary Systems
We selected two very low mass binary stars at the M/L
transition for our campaign - LP 349-25 and 2M J0746.
These objects were of particular interest, since they are
the only binary dwarfs reported thus far to exhibit radio emission in the very low mass (VLM) binary regime
(Phan-Bao et al. 2007; Antonova et al. 2008; Osten et
al. 2009; Berger et al. 2009), defined to be Mtot ≤0.185
M (Close et al. 2003). Furthermore, both objects were
subject to high-precision dynamical mass measurements
(Dupuy et al. 2010; Konopacky et al. 2010), and more
recently a large campaign was carried out to establish
the individual rotational velocities of each binary component (Konopacky et al. 2012) - the first resolved AO
measurements of this kind. Based on these dynamical
mass and rotational velocity measurements, an accurate
period of rotation provides the means of assessing the
system’s orbital coplanarity. Moreover, a range of radii
can also be estimated. Importantly, Harding et al. (2013)
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
have recently reported alignment of the spin-orbital axes
of 2M J0746AB. Thus, the discovery of a rotation period
from the binary LP 349-25 has allowed us to investigate
this possible alignment for another VLM system.
2.1.1. LP 349-25AB (M8V+M9V)
The M tight binary dwarf LP 349-25 was reported as
a quiescent radio source by Phan-Bao et al. (2007) and
Osten et al. (2009); however no radio pulsing has been
found thus far. More recently, a rotational velocity study
carried out by Konopacky et al. (2012) of individual components of very low mass binaries, including LP 349-25,
yielded a v sin i of 55 ± 2 km s−1 and 83 ± 3 km s−1 for
LP 349-25A and LP 349-25B, respectively. Under the assumption of a rotational axis which is orthogonal to the
orbital plane (Hale 1994), the inferred equatorial velocities are ∼62 km s−1 and ∼95 km s−1 , respectively. This
would make LP 349-25B the fastest rotating low mass
object yet discovered.
Thus far, no optical variability has been detected for
LP 349-25. We therefore chose to monitor the binary to
investigate the presence of optical variability. We used
VATT R-band and I-band broadband filters for observations with GUFI mk.II over the course of three separate
epochs, for a total of ∼64 hours, spanning ∼1.2 years.
2.1.2. 2MASSW J0746425+200032AB (L0+L1.5)
2M J0746 is an L dwarf binary with a separation of
∼2.7 AU (Reid et al. 2001). The first detection of confirmed radio emission was reported by Antonova et al.
(2008) during a 2 hour observation, and following this
observation, Berger et al. (2009) reported periodic radio
emission of 2.07 ± 0.002 hours, as well as quasi-sinusoidal
periodic Hα emission with the same period. Berger et
al. (2009) proposed that the source of the periodicity in
both cases was coming from the same component of the
binary, that of 2M J0746A, and calculated a magnetic
field strength of ∼1.7 kG, which was in agreement with
Antonova et al. (2008).
Recently, Konopacky et al. (2012) reported the first
resolved v sin i measurements of the system. They measure a v sin i of 19 ± 2 km s−1 , and 33 ± 2 km s−1 , for
2M J0746A and 2M J0746B, respectively. Previously,
in terms of rotation period measurement in optical photometry, there were only rough estimates based on unresolved v sin i data (with reported periods of 1.84 - 5.28
hours, see Bailer-Jones (2004)), as well as some photometric variability which was detected by Clarke et al.
(2002b), showing weak evidence of periodicity of a few
hours. Harding et al. (2013) reported a period of 3.32
± 0.15 hours for 2M J0746A, inferring that Berger et
al. (2009) in fact detected the secondary in the radio.
This refuted the claimed radius of 0.78 ± 0.1 RJ for 2M
J0746A, which Harding et al. (2013) demonstrate to be
0.99 ± 0.03 RJ .
A total of ∼62 hours of multiple epoch I-band observations were obtained over ∼2 years to investigate the longterm behavior of the optical variability on time scales of
years. These observations were taken with the VATT 4K
system as well as the GUFI mk.II photometer.
3
2.2. Single Systems
2.2.1. LSR J1835+3259 (M8.5)
The ultracool dwarf LSR J1835 is a rapid rotator with
a v sin i of 50 ± 5 (Berger et al. 2008a). Berger
(2006) detected radio emission from LSR J1835 during a ∼2 hour observation, and proposed incoherent gyrosynchrotron radiation was responsible with an associated field strength of <30 G. Hallinan et al. (2008)
later observed the dwarf for 11 hours using the VLA,
and reported persistent 100% circularly polarized coherent pulses of radio emission with a period of 2.84 ± 0.01
hours, which they attributed to the dwarf’s rotation period. They argue in favor of electron cyclotron maser
(ECM) emission as the dominant source of the pulsed
radio emission, requiring magnetic fields of ∼3 kG.
Based on the above radio activity of LSR J1835, we decided to further investigate the presence of such variability at optical wavelengths, and whether it was periodic
in nature like the optical periodic variability presented
by Lane et al. (2007) for the M9 dwarf TVLM 513. We
conducted observations over a period of ∼3 years, encompassing three separate epochs. Initial epochs were
taken as test data only for the GUFI mk.I system in
July 2006 in the Johnson I-band, using the 1.52 m telescope in Loiano, Bologna, Italy. We also include Johnson
I-band and R-band data from the USNO 1.55 m telescope in Flagstaff, Arizona, obtained by group members
in September 2006. Finally, we observed the dwarf in the
VATT I-band with the GUFI mk.II system on the 1.83
m VATT telescope, Mt. Graham, Arizona, to confirm its
periodic nature in June 2009. The three epochs contain
∼33 hours of observations on source.
2.2.2. TVLM 513-46546 (M9)
TVLM 513 is one of the most rapidly rotating ultracool
dwarfs discovered thus far with a rotation rate of ∼60
km s−1 (Basri 2001). All the same, only weak levels of
Hα have been found in its spectrum (Martı́n et al. 1994;
Reid et al. 2001; Mohanty & Basri 2003), with no X-ray
detections reported so far.
Berger (2002) and Osten et al. (2006) detected transient radio emission from TVLM 513, however no obvious flaring was found. Hallinan et al. (2006) then reported persistent periodic radio emission with a period
of ∼2 hours. Following this, Hallinan et al. (2007) revealed periodic bursts of radio emission with a period of
∼1.96 hours - confirming the presence of kG magnetic
field strengths based on broadband, ECM coherent radio
emission. These observations were conducted simultaneously to a photometric monitoring campaign by Lane et
al. (2007), who also detected a periodic signal of ∼1.96
hours in photometric I-band data (attributed to magnetic spots), establishing that the periodicity was due to
the rotational modulation of the star, as put forward by
Hallinan et al. (2006). However, Littlefair et al. (2008)
instead propose that atmospheric dust was responsible,
after reporting anti-correlated Sloan g0 and i0 periodic
variability of the M9 dwarf. Periodic Hα and Hβ variability has also be reported (Berger et al. 2008a), perhaps
indicating the presence of localized heating in the dwarf’s
chromospheric regions.
We observed TVLM 513 in optical photometric VATT
I-band observations with GUFI mk.II on VATT in June
4
HARDING ET AL.
2009, in addition to three additional I-band epochs in
February and April 2011, and in May 2011 using the
the VATT 4K CCD and a Sloan i0 filter. Data taken by
members of the group using the USNO 1.0 m telescope is
also included, from an epoch in 2008, and earlier VATT
data obtained in 2006. This baseline therefore extends
for ∼5 years encompassing ∼53 hours of data.
2.2.3. BRI 0021-0214 (M9.5)
In a campaign investigating magnetic activity in ultracool dwarfs, Berger et al. (2010) found steady and variable Hα emission from BRI 0021 on a ∼0.5 - 2 hour timescale, albeit no detected radio emission, despite previous low-level detections of radio emission (Berger 2002).
Reid et al. (1999) also reported a weak Hα flare. Other
optical variability has been reported by Martı́n et al.
(2001), who find I-band variability during multi-epoch
photometric observations with some evidence of periodicity (∼20 hours and ∼4.8 hours) in their analysis. They
argue that since the dwarf appeared to have low levels of
magnetic activity, the variability was probably not due
to surface spots, but rather due to dust clouds in the
dwarf’s atmosphere - since the presence of silicate and
iron clouds are expected based on the dwarf’s spectrum
(Chabrier et al. 2000). It is a rapidly rotating dwarf with
a v sin i ≈ 34 km s−1 (Reid et al. 1999; Mohanty & Basri
2003).
Based on the above radio and optical studies, we observed the dwarf in broadband optical photometry with
GUFI mk.II, and obtained ∼28 hours of I-band data over
three epochs of ∼1.2 years of separation.
2.2.4. 2MASS J00361617+1821104 (L3.5)
2M J0036 is a radio active ultracool dwarf with rotation velocity estimates of ∼15 km s−1 , 38 km s−1 and
36 km s−1 , respectively, based on a number of studies
(Schweitzer et al. 2001; Jones et al. 2005; Zapatero Osorio et al. 2006).
Berger et al. (2005) confirmed the presence of highly
variable, periodic radio emission, with a period of ∼3
hours. This level of radio emission violated the GüdelBenz relationship by many orders of magnitude (see
Güdel & Benz (1993)). They interpret the emission as
incoherent gyrosynchrotron radiation, with a corresponding magnetic field strength of 175 G. However, Hallinan
et al. (2008) reported 2M J0036 to be once again a persistent source of radio emission, and based on the periodic
presence of 100% circularly polarized emission, ruled out
gyrosynchrotron radiation and confirmed ECM emission
as the mechanism responsible for the pulsed radio emission. This required a magnetic field strength of at least
1.7 kG, which was the first confirmation of kG magnetic
field strengths for an L dwarf.
Prior to these observations, Lane et al. (2007) conducted photometric I-band observations of 2M J0036,
and found the dwarf to be photometrically variable, with
a periodicity of ∼3 hours, arguing that magnetic spots
on the surface of the dwarf, coupled with the rotation
of the star, were a likely source of the periodicity. Some
evidence of aperiodic variability was also present, which
they attribute to dust clouds in the cooler L dwarf atmosphere.
We chose to observe 2M J0036 in optical photometry in
the same optical band as Lane et al. (2007) to determine
whether the optical periodicity was present over timescales of years. We used GUFI mk.II on VATT at I-band
wavelengths, for two nights in December 2010, for a total
of ∼10 hours.
3. OPTICAL OBSERVATIONS
3.1. GUFI mk.II - the Galway Ultra Fast Imager
Photometer
The GUFI instrument was originally commissioned by
astronomers in NUI Galway as an optical photometer capable of high-time resolution imaging (Sheehan & Butler
2008). We modified the GUFI mk.II system (hereafter
GUFI) to be compatible with the 1.83 m VATT on Mt.
Graham, Arizona, where it is currently stationed as a visitor instrument. The system uses the Andor iXon DV887
EM-CCD camera, which has a CCD97 thinned backilluminated sensor from e2v technologies, hosting >90%
quantum efficiency (QE) with a native 512 × 512 frame
transfer sensor. It offers variable readout rates up to 10
MHz and can operate full-frame at 34 frames per second (fps) and up to 526 fps in a windowed configuration.
The native field of view (FOV) of GUFI at the VATT
Cassegrain focus is ∼ 1.70 × 1.70 with a corresponding
plate scale of 0.200 pixel−1 . Focal reducer options for
wider fields are limited by the short VATT back focal
distance of 50.8 mm, but GUFI provides near-infrared
(NIR) and visible-optimized focal reducers, offering a
FOV of ∼ 30 × 30 and a larger plate scale of 0.3500 pixel−1 .
The VATT telescope offers the full range of Johnson and
Sloan filter sets, as well as Vilnius interference filters,
thus GUFI had an effective spectral sensitivity during
this campaign of ∼3000 - 10000 Å (based on the QE).
The great advantages of GUFI for this study is its 100%
observing duty cycle (with a ∼2 ms readout rate), very
low readout noise and high quantum efficiency.
3.2. The VATT 4K Imager
The VATT 4K CCD camera is the primary inhouse photometer stationed at VATT. It houses a backilluminated STA0500A CCD with a transfer sensor of
4064 × 4064 pixels, a native FOV of ∼ 12.50 × 12.50 and
a plate scale of 0.18800 pixel−1 . The standard readout
rate for the camera is 50 seconds, however faster readout
rates can be achieved based on the level of windowing
applied to the frame.
3.3. The USNO Detectors
Some observations as outlined in the relevant target
details in § 2, were obtained with the USNO 1.0 m and
USNO 1.55 m telescopes. The new2k camera on the 1.0
m telescope has a FOV of 23.20 × 23.20 and a pixel scale
of 0.6800 pixel−1 . We used the Tek2k camera on the 1.55
m, which has a corresponding FOV of 11.30 × 11.30 with
a pixel scale of 0.3300 pixel−1 .
3.4. Observations and Data Reduction
The observation campaigns were carried out between
May 2006 - May 2011. We used the VATT R-Harris
(∼5600-8800 Å) filter, the Sloan i0 (∼6500 - 9500 Å)
filter, the Johnson I-band filter (∼7000 - 11000 Å), and
the VATT I-Arizona (∼7200 - 9100 Å) filter - for selected
targets (Table 2). Transmission curves for each filter are
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
5
TABLE 2
Observation Details
Source
Epochs
Date
of Obs.
(UT)
Length
of Obs.
(∼hrs)
Exp.
Time
(s × coadd)
Band
(#)
Total Time
/Baseline
(∼hrs; yrs)
Readout
Rate
(MHz)
Amp
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
LP 349-25AB
3
64; 1.2
2009 Sept 22
2009 Sept 26
2010 Oct 9
2010 Oct 10
2010 Oct 11
2010 Oct 12
2010 Oct 13
2010 Oct 14
2010 Oct 15
2010 Nov 16
2010 Nov 27
7.2
4.0
4.0
6.4
5.2
5.5
6.5
7.0
6.0
7.3
5.0
2M J0746AB
4
62; 2
2009 Jan 25
2009 Jan 26
2009 Jan 28
2010 Feb 19
2010 Feb 20
2010 Nov 13
2010 Nov 14
2010 Dec 2
2010 Dec 12
2010 Dec 13
2010 Dec 14
LSR J1835
3
33; 3
TVLM 513
6
BRI 0021
2M J0036
Refs
Telescope
/ Inst.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
5 × 24
5 × 24
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5× 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
6.0
6.8
7.4
4.5
4.0
4.6
5.5
6.0
3.0
6.8
7.0
25 × 1
25 × 1
25 × 1
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
...
...
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
20
15
19
5
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
VATT/4K
VATT/4K
VATT/4K
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
2006 Jul 17
2006 Jul 20
2006 Sept 22
2006 Sept 24
2009 Jun 11
2009 Jun 13
2009 Jun 16
2009 Jun 30
7.0
6.5
3.6
3.0
2.2
4.0
4.0
3.0
5 × 12
5 × 12
30 × 2
30 × 2
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
I
I
I
R
I
I
I
I
1
1
...
...
1
1
1
1
Conv.
Conv.
...
...
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
5
5
10
10
5
5
4
5
Loiano/GUFI
Loiano/GUFI
USNO/Tek2k
USNO/Tek2k
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
53; 5
2006 May 21
2008 Jun 17
2009 Jun 12
2009 Jun 13
2009 Jun 16
2011 Feb 18
2011 Feb 25
2011 Apr 12
2011 May 7
2011 May 8
4.8
6.0
3.6
4.1
4.0
3.5
4.3
7.0
8.0
8.0
30 × 3
60 × 2.5
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
5 × 12
25 × 1
25 × 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i0
i0
...
...
1
1
1
1
1
1
...
...
...
...
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
...
...
6
10
5
5
6
6
5
6
12
12
VATT/2K
USNO/new2k
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/4K
VATT/4K
3
28; 1.2
2009 Sept 14
2009 Sept 16
2010 Nov 13
2010 Nov 14
2010 Dec 2
2010 Dec 3
4.0
5.1
4.0
5.5
5.1
4.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
×
×
×
×
×
×
12
12
12
12
12
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
Conv.
1
1
1
1
1
1
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
2
10; 0.03
2010 Dec 1
2010 Dec 13
5.5
5.0
5 × 24
5 × 24
I
I
1
1
Conv.
Conv.
6
6
VATT/GUFI
VATT/GUFI
(#)
Note. — Column (1) Campaign source. (2) The number of epochs over the course of the campaign. All epochs may contain
multiple nights of observations, where these are not always sequential. (3) The total amount of hours on target in hours, and the
total temporal baseline in years. (4) Observation dates for each target. (5) The length of each observation, as shown in the relevant
figures in § 5. (6) The exposure time of each observation, as well as the binning factor used for final data points as shown in this
paper. (7) The wave band used for a particular observation. (8) The readout rate used, in MHz. This column only applies to the
GUFI mk.II system. (9) The amplifier used. Again, only applicable to GUFI mk.II. (10) The number of reference stars used for
a given observation. We highlight that since the VATT 4K Imager provided a FOV of ∼ 12.50 × 12.50 , many more reference stars
were available when compared to the smaller ∼ 30 × 30 FOV of GUFI mk.II. Furthermore, there was one available star suitable for
effective differential photometry in the case of BRI 0021. Although we could not confirm its stability against another non-varying
star in the same field, we chose to use this based on the observations of Martı́n et al. (2001), who confirmed it as a stable source
during their photometric observations (indicated as reference star 1, in Figure 1 of their work). (11) Telescope and detector used.
6
HARDING ET AL.
5500
Normalized Flux
6500
7000
7500
8000
VATT
SDSS i’
TiO
VATT
R−band
80
NaI
VO
1
A
B
OIII
Mg
Na
5500
6000
Hα
50
40
20
C
6500
60
30
TiO
Hβ
7000
7500
Wavelength (Å)
8000
ence stars. Although changing seeing conditions can ultimately introduce photometric errors, for all observations
we ensured that the photometric parameters remained
constant for all stars - this allowed the same fraction of
total flux to be observed in the aperture of each source.
70
FeH
1.5
0
9000 100
VATT
I−band 90
2
0.5
8500
GUFI
QE
3
2.5
6000
Transmission (%)
5000
8500
9000
10
4. ASSESSING PERIODIC VARIABILITY
In order to detect periodic variability and assess its significance, we used a variety of statistical tests as a means
of assessing the validity of any detected periodic signals,
and to calculate the associated errors. This assessment
was carried out in order of the procedures below. These
are well established techniques and so we only briefly explain each in the relevant sections - we refer the reader
to the references therein for more in-depth discussions.
0
Fig. 1.— Filter transmission curves with over-plotted spectra of
an M8 dwarf (A), an L0.5 dwarf (B) and an L3.5 dwarf (C) - the
spectral range which encompasses our study. The spectra have
been normalized (y-axis, left) by the peak flux of the M8 dwarf
spectra at 9200 Å. The optical filters used in this study are shown
by the dashed lines of wavelength (x-axes) vs. % transmission (yaxis, right): VATT R-band (∼5600 - 8800 Å; red), Sloan i0 (∼6500
- 9500 Å; green) and VATT I-band (∼7200 - 9100 Å; black). We
also include the GUFI photometer’s QE curve (solid grey line) to
highlight transmission for the different wavebands.
shown in Figure 1. The campaign encompassed observations to search for periodic variability of all radio detected dwarfs listed in Table 2, that were visible from the
VATT observatory site (32◦ 420 4.7800 109◦ 530 32.500 W). We
also obtained data from the 1.52 m telescope, in Loiano,
Bologna, Italy, as well as the 1.0 m and 1.55 m USNO
telescopes, in Flagstaff, Arizona, as shown in Table 2.
Figure 1 includes spectra of an M8.5, an L0.5 and an L3.5
dwarf, which covers the range of ultracool dwarf spectral
types that our observations covered. Typical acquisition
parameters are also summarized in Table 2.
Data reduction was carried out using the in-house
GUFI L3 Pipeline (Sheehan & Butler 2008). Standard
data reduction techniques were employed where the data
were bias subtracted using zero-integration frames and
flat-fielded using twilight flat-fields. Twilight flat-fields
for any given observation consisted of >100 mediancombined dithered frames taken from a blank part of
the sky. Frames were registered and summed in image
space to increase the S/N, and differential photometry
was carried out on all science data in order to achieve
milli-magnitude photometric precision.
The FOVs of the GUFI, the VATT 4K and the USNO
photometers, provide between 1-20 reference stars for a
given field. Photometry for all reference stars was also
obtained as a measure of their stability in order to ensure
that variability was intrinsic to the target star. These
stars were chosen on the basis of their stability, position,
isolation, the properties of their seeing profiles, and comparable magnitudes and color to that of the target. Photometric apertures (in pixels) which provided the highest
S/N for the target star were selected for aperture photometry; however aperture and sky annulus diameters
varied from night to night depending on the average seeing conditions, which typically ranged from 0.7 to 1.6
arcseconds. Differential photometry was obtained by dividing the target flux by the mean flux of selected refer-
4.1. Lomb-Scargle Periodogram
The first method used for the detection of periodic signals was the calculation of the LS periodogram (Lomb
1976; Scargle 1982), a technique which is effective for
unevenly spaced data. The LS periodogram uses the
discrete Fourier transform (DFT), which provides power
spectra that are analyzed for significant peaks - corresponding to possible periodic variability. In the case
of an arbitrary (unevenly) sampled dataset, the LS periodogram is calculated by the following (where the
power spectrum P , is a function of angular frequency
ω = 2πf > 0):
P (ω) =
1 [
2
2σvar
h̄) · cos · ω(ti − τ )]2
+
2
i cos · ω(ti − τ )
P
i−
i (hP
h̄) · sin · ω(ti − τ )]2
(1)
2
i sin · ω(ti − τ )
P
P
where τ = tan(2·ω ·t) = ( i sin·2·ωti / i cos·2·ωti ),
each consecutive data point is hi , the mean of the data
2
.
is h̄ and the variance is σvar
In this work, we selected a range of peaks corresponding to possible periodic solutions as provided by the technique above. We inspected these solutions by phase connecting raw light curves to a given solution, and assessed
their level of agreement in phase. We rule out solutions
>0.25 out of phase. In addition, we over-plotted LS
power spectra for different epochs, investigated which
peaks were in greatest agreement, and then compared
these to the strongest phase folded solutions.
[
P
i−
i (hP
4.2. Phase Dispersion Minimization
We also investigated the PDM technique as outlined by
Stellingwerf (1978), as a second statistical tool. Stellingwerf (1978) describes the PDM method as a least squares
fit (LSF) approach where a fit is calculated by using the
mean curve of the data, controlled by the mean of each
bin (which can be specified in the algorithm), and the period that produces the least datapoint scatter, or ‘PDM
theta statistic’ (Θ), about this computed mean, is the
most likely solution.
The PDM technique phase folds selected light curves
to a range of periods, and their significance is calculated.
It is useful for data sets with large gaps, and furthermore,
it is insensitive to the light curve’s shape and therefore
makes no assumptions with regard to the morphology.
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
TABLE 3
Peak to Peak Amplitude Variability and Photometric Error Analysis of Sample
Source
Date of Obs.
(UT)
Band
PtPtar
(%)
Phot. Error
(%)
PtPtar Range
(%)
Mean σref
(%)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
LP 349-25AB
2009 Sept 22
2009 Sept 26
2010 Oct 9
2010 Oct 10
2010 Oct 11
2010 Oct 12
2010 Oct 13
2010 Oct 14
2010 Oct 15
2010 Nov 16
2010 Nov 27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
I
I
0.48
1.42
1.04
0.90
0.44
0.94
0.90
0.58
1.96
1.12
0.92
0.15
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.15
0.53
0.23
0.15
0.44 - 1.42 (I); 1.96 (R)
0.30 (I); 0.68 (R)
2M J0746AB
2009 Jan 25
2009 Jan 26
2009 Jan 28
2010 Feb 19
2010 Feb 20
2010 Nov 13
2010 Nov 14
2010 Dec 2
2010 Dec 12
2010 Dec 13
2010 Dec 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.40
0.98
0.78
1.26
1.32
1.18
1.04
0.68
1.38
1.52
0.96
0.21
0.28
0.24
0.27
0.30
0.31
0.33
0.25
0.29
0.32
0.34
0.40 - 1.52 (I)
0.36 (I)
LSR J1835
2006 Jul 17
2006 Jul 20
2006 Sept 22
2006 Sept 24
2009 Jun 11
2009 Jun 13
2009 Jun 16
2009 Jun 30
I
I
I
R
I
I
I
I
1.08
1.02
1.46
1.62
1.24
1.34
1.32
1.36
0.12
0.13
0.43
1.20
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.18
1.02 - 1.46 (I); 1.62 (R)
0.33 (I); 0.68 (R)
TVLM 513
2006 May 21
2008 Jun 17
2009 Jun 12
2009 Jun 13
2009 Jun 16
2011 Feb 18
2011 Feb 25
2011 Apr 12
2011 May 7
2011 May 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i0
i0
0.82
0.66
0.56
0.72
1.14
1.20
0.70
0.76
0.96
0.92
0.42
0.53
0.30
0.23
0.25
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.27
0.26
0.56 - 1.20 (I); 0.92 - 0.96 (i0 )
0.34 (I); 0.36 (i0 )
BRI 0021
2009 Sept 14
2009 Sept 16
2010 Nov 13
2010 Nov 14
2010 Dec 2
2010 Dec 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.10
0.90
0.72
1.58
0.68
0.52
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.35
0.52 - 1.58 (I)
0.37 (I)
2M J0036
2010 Dec 1
2010 Dec 13
I
I
2.20
1.98
0.82
1.11
1.98 - 2.20 (I)
1.0 (I)
Note. — Column (1) Campaign source. (2) Date of observation in UT. (3) Waveband used. (4) Peak to peak
(PtP) amplitude variability as measured by the χ2 test. (5) Mean photometric error per data point for a given night
as calculated by the iraf.phot routines. This is outlined in § 4.4. (6) Peak to peak amplitude variability range of
target light curves, shown in I-band or Sloan i0 , and in R-band, for selected targets. Both R-band results are from
single observations. (7) Standard deviation of non-variable reference star light curve in R-band, Sloan i0 and I-band
(mean standard deviation of all reference stars used in each case).
7
8
HARDING ET AL.
The routine also includes a Monte-Carlo test, used for
assessing the statistical significance of the detected Θ
minima. It computes this by randomizing the data point
order, which removes the signal component. We repeated
this for 105 trials in order to cover a significant distribution of Θ values due to noise9 . Similar to the LS technique above, it is possible for many periodic solutions
to present themselves due to aliasing - a consequence of
gaps in the data. We take the minimum Θ from the PDM
analysis, and compare it to the highest peak in the power
spectra of the LS.
4.3. Amplitude Variability Analysis
We established the peak to peak amplitude variability
of the target light curves by means of sinusoid fitting
and the χ2 technique, where the phase and amplitude
of a sinusoidal function were varied, and then the χ2
minimization was performed. We took this amplitude
(which is a peak to peak (PtP) measure of the change of
relative flux) as PtPtar . This is a weighted assessment
and so does not treat each data point equally; the error
in each point is utilized in the calculation of the best fit
amplitude and the error in the amplitude.
The corresponding reference star variability was found
via the standard deviation of its light curve (σref ). We
plotted each reference star flux against all others to ensure that each chosen selected reference star was nonvariable. Although variability can statistically be detected if the standard deviation is only fractionally larger
than the error in the light curve’s relative magnitude, the
periodic variability detected in our target data is categorically present in each epoch, where the variability is
clearly above the standard deviation of the reference star
relative flux. Furthermore, different sets/combinations of
reference stars were used as a ‘sanity check’ to confirm
that the signal was indeed intrinsic to the target star.
4.4. Photometric Error Estimation
The photometric error analysis was calculated via the
iraf.phot 10 routines in all target and reference star light
curves. An estimation of the error in the relative magnitude (δm? ) of the target star was found as follows:
2
2
(δm? ) = (δtarget ) +
1
M Fi
2 X
M
Fn2 (δmn )2
(2)
n
where M is the number of reference stars, Fi is the
mean flux of the reference stars, Fn is the flux of the
nth reference star and δmn is the magnitude error in the
nth reference star. This error in magnitude was then
converted to an error in flux. We show these error bars
on each data point in each light curve. This method takes
both formal and informal errors such as flat-fielding and
residual fringing (§ 4.5) into account - which are difficult
to assess in separate cases.
In addition to the formal and informal errors, we also
identify detector response at non-linear regimes as a
9 We cite Stellingwerf (1978) for the PDM routines, but refer to
his latest work at http://www.stellingwerf.com/.
10
Image
Reduction
and
Analysis
Facility
http://iraf.noao.edu/.
source of potential error. We avoid such non-linear effects by keeping exposure times low enough to maintain
levels to no greater than 75% of pixel saturation. After
taking these effects into account, we move to calculating
the period uncertainty.
4.5. Fringing
Fringing is an optical effect or disturbance in the
thinned-substrate of back-illuminated CCDs and is
present as a result of OH spectral emission in the atmosphere. Fringing interferes at red/NIR wavelengths and
since the CCD’s substrate becomes transparent at these
wavelengths, any waveband that approaches the NIR is
more susceptible to these fringing effects. It varies as a
function of amplitude, but not position. Since the amplitude variations expected in these ultracool dwarf targets are of the order of milli-magnitudes, it is important
to remove these additive effects if the amplitude variations due to fringing are potentially greater than the
target star differential light curves. The standard procedure for this correction includes the creation of a fringing
template from well sampled median-combined deep sky
frames containing only the fringing pattern, normalizing
this template to each individual frame’s sky background
level and then subtracting it. We obtained dithered sky
frames for all Sloan i0 and I-band observations to allow
for fringe removal if necessary. We also took dome flatfields which contain none of these atmospheric effects,
in addition to twilight flat-fields. We conducted tests to
investigate the effect of this artifact on each consecutive
data set, and if the amplitude of the fringing pattern
was varying at a greater level than that of the mean sky
background, it was removed.
4.6. Phase Connecting & Period Uncertainty
Estimation
We achieve an accurate enough period of rotation for
the M9 dwarf TVLM 513 to phase connect its ∼5 year
baseline. We could not phase connect any other target, and thus the procedure outlined here applies to
TVLM 513 only. Standard phase connection techniques
were employed whereby the period accuracy increased as
epochs were successfully phase connected, enabling an
assessment of the correlation of the peak of each phase
solution. This allowed us to combine data from two different epochs, if the period from a single epoch could be
calculated with sufficient accuracy, such that the rotational phase of the second epoch was unambiguous - in
this work we define this threshold to be δφ < 0.25.
In order to assess the period error for all other targets,
we overplotted the LS power spectra period range with
a Gaussian profile, and calculated the FWHM. In this
way, we estimate 1σ errors on the period uncertainty
√
(δP ) for these targets. Since the F W HM = 2 2ln2 σ =
2.35482σ, δP is therefore defined as:
F W HM
(3)
2.35482
We find that the uncertainty range calculated for each
target for the best-fit period of rotation, allowed other
possible solutions within this range to be phased together
within epochs. The χ2 test outlined in the previous section also provided a measure of the period error per
δP =
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
9
TABLE 4
Confirmed Optical Periodic Variability in Radio Detected Ultracool Dwarf Sample
Parameter
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Period (hrs) ....................
LS Period (hrs) ...............
PDM Period (hrs) ...........
References .......................
LP 349-25B
2M J0746A
LSR J1835
TVLM 513
BRI 0021
2M J0036
1.86 ± 0.02
1.86
1.86
1
3.32 ± 0.15
3.32
3.32
1, 2
2.845 ± 0.003
2.845
2.844
1
1.95958 ± 0.00005
1.95958
1.95959
1, 3
? (∼5)
...
...
1
∼3.0 ± 0.7
2.5
2.5
1, 3
Note. — Row (1) Period of rotation and associated error as calculated in § 4. (2) Lomb-Scargle Periodogram periods: the
quoted periods are those which were determined to be the most likely solution based on the correlation of the highest peaks in all
periodograms (all data combined and individual epochs). (3) Phase Dispersion Minimization periods: the PDM periods shown
here represent the lowest Θ statistic calculated by the PDM routines, as is shown in § 5.
References. — (1) This work. (2) Harding et al. (2013).
hours, 2M J0036 published as ∼3 hours.
given fit. Other authors have also established various
means of assessing the error in the frequency of a signal,
e.g. Schwarzenberg-Czerny (1991); Akerlof et al. (1994).
These techniques can largely rely on data uniformly sampled in time. Thus, similar to the χ2 fitting, they were
effective in calculating an error for a single observation,
but not for unevenly spaced baselines.
5. RESULTS
5.1. General Results
We report periodic variability for five of the six radio
detected dwarfs in the sample, shown in Table 4. The
properties of this periodicity is generally consistent for
all dwarf spectral types, where we detect periodic sinusoidal variability over time scales of years. Our assessment of the peak to peak amplitude variations for each
target are shown in Table 3. All dwarfs exhibit changes
in amplitude throughout the campaign, which we discuss
in § 6.
In the following subsections, we outline general results
and variability analysis of each target, as well as light
curve and photometric properties. All confirmed periods
in these data were detected to significance values exceeding 5σ. The target results are shown through Figures 2
- 7, and the variability analysis for each is shown in Figure 8. We discuss the possibilities for the cause of this
periodic variability in § 6.
5.2. Binary Dwarfs
5.2.1. LP 349-25
We detect the binary as a periodically varying source
in VATT R-band and I-band, which we report as the first
detected optical variability of this system. The primary
period of 1.86 ± 0.02 hours is present in each band and
varying with a PtPtar range of 0.44 - 1.42% in I-band,
and 1.96% in R-band (single observation), as shown in
Table 3 and Figure 2. The LS periodogram and PDM
statistical analysis is shown at the end of the section
in Figure 8. Mean σref were calculated to be ∼0.30%
and ∼0.68% in I-band and R-band, respectively. We see
larger σref in R-band due to intermittently poor seeing.
It is difficult to assess the amplitude ratios between each
band, since the amplitude level in the I-band is varying
at different levels during observations (Table 3). Furthermore, we did not obtain simultaneous R-band and
I-band data.
Despite the consistency of the primary periodic component throughout the observations, we observe some aperiodic variations in addition to significant variations in
(3) Lane et al. (2007): TVLM 513 originally published as ∼1.96
amplitude during some I-band observations (e.g. Figure 2: Oct 10, 11 & 13 2010). We do not image each
component of the binary as a single point source in these
observations, therefore the detected sinusoidal periodicity in our data is due to the combined flux of both binary
members. We observe unusual behavior for some of the
October 2010 epoch, where the periodic signal appears
to move in and out of phase during single observations
of ∼8 hours; we give examples of this in § 6.4.
Finally, the radii estimates of Dupuy et al. (2010) and
individual rotation velocity measurements of Konopacky
et al. (2012) infer maximum rotation periods of ∼2.65
hours and ∼1.67 hours for each component, respectively.
Therefore, we have a tentative case to argue in favor
of LP 349-25B as the periodically varying source in Rand I-band wavelengths. However, the radii estimates of
Konopacky et al. (2010) are at odds with those derived
in this work as well as the estimates of Dupuy et al.
(2010). This modeling, and the association of the 1.86
hour period with LP 349-25B, are discussed later in § 6.5.
5.2.2. 2MASSW J0746425+200032
The periodic variability of 2M J0746AB has recently
been discussed by Harding et al. (2013), who use this rotation period to infer the coplanarity of the spin axis and
orbital plane. We include a discussion of the variability
here again for completeness. Although we do not resolve
each component of the binary as a point source, we report
optical periodic modulation of 3.32 ± 0.15 hours from
2M J0746A, with peak to peak amplitude variability of
PtPtar ∼ 0.40 - 1.52% in VATT I-band (Figure 3), and a
mean reference star standard deviation of σref ∼0.36%.
It appears that this optical periodic variability originates from the other component to that producing the
radio emission - reported by Berger et al. (2009) where
the binary exhibited periodic bursts of radio emission
of 2.07 ± 0.002 hours. The estimated radii of ∼0.99 ±
0.03 RJ and ∼0.96 ± 0.02 RJ (Harding et al. 2013),
in addition to the well established v sin i measurements
(Konopacky et al. 2012), infer maximum rotation periods
for 2M J0746A and 2M J0746B of ∼4.22 hours and ∼2.38
hours, respectively. Therefore, the period of 3.32 ± 0.15
hours likely emanates from 2M J0746A, whereas Berger
et al. (2009) found emission from the secondary - 2M
J0746B. This optical periodicity is categorically present
in all epochs as shown in Figure 3, and thus is that of
the slower rotating binary dwarf.
10
HARDING ET AL.
HJD: 2455096.655925080
1
0.99
HJD: 2455479.654271423
0.99
6
8
October 13 2010 UT (hrs)
Relative Flux
1
0.99
0.98
2
4
6
November 16 2010 UT (hrs)
8
0.99
4
6
8
October 14 2010 UT (hrs)
1
0.99
5
6
7
November 27 2010 UT (hrs)
1.01
1
0.99
4
5
6
7
8
October 12 2010 UT (hrs)
8
9
HJD: 2455484.592876633
1.02
1
0.98
R−band
4
6
8
October 15 2010 UT (hrs)
Reference Star Lightcurve
1.02
1.01
8
9
October 9 2010 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2455481.653985986
0.96
10
HJD: 2455527.641215063
4
7
1.04
1
0.98
0.99
0.98
9
1.01
1.02
1.01
6
7
8
October 11 2010 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2455483.610572272
0.98
10
HJD: 2455516.577994406
1.02
0.99
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
0.99
1
1.02
1
1.02
1
4
HJD: 2455480.679691389
5
1.01
0.98
6
7
8
September 26 2009 UT (hrs)
1.01
0.98
10
1.01
0.98
Relative Flux
6
8
October 10 2010 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2455482.646912029
1.02
5
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1
4
0.99
1.02
1.01
0.98
1
0.98
6
8
10
September 22 2009 UT (hrs)
1.02
1.01
Relative Flux
4
HJD: 2455478.727394944
1.02
Relative Flux
1.01
0.98
HJD: 2455100.697807534
1.02
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1.02
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
4
5
6
UT (hrs)
7
8
Fig. 2.— LP 349-25: Photometric light curves showing Relative Flux (y-axis) vs. UT dates and times (x-axis). The HJD time above
each figure denotes the start-point of each observation. It is important to note that the x-axis range is not the same for each plot, since
observations were of different lengths. All data in this figure was taken in VATT I-band (∼7200 - 9100 Å), with the exception of October
15 2010 UT which was taken in VATT R-band (∼5600-8800 Å) - this is marked on the relevant light curve. Note the difference in scale on
the y-axis for the R-band labeled plot. We detect periodic variability that shows a persistent period of 1.86 ± 0.02 hours over ∼1.2 years of
observations. These data exhibit changes in amplitude in I-band during consecutive nights (e.g. Oct 10, 11, 13: ∼0.44 - 1.42%), as well as
some aperiodic variations observed during some observations (e.g. Oct 9). The R-band light curve exhibits larger peak to peak amplitude
variations of 1.96%; The second R-band peak in the signal was an interval of poor weather conditions (thin cloud) shown clearly by an
increase in the photometric error measurements. The September 2009 epoch was also subject to poor weather conditions (intermittent
cloud & thin cloud throughout), and was therefore binned by a factor of 2 compared to the other data. Photometric error bars are applied
as outlined in § 4.4. [bottom right] - we selected a reference star at random, and plotted its raw flux against the mean raw flux of all other
reference stars used in the field. This is used as an example of reference star stability compared to target variability. We note that this
light curve is an example of one night only, however we used the same reference stars for all epochs in a given band. The mean reference
star variability for all reference stars used in this campaign is shown in Table 3.
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
HJD: 2454856.710011647
1
0.99
0.99
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1
0.99
8
Relative Flux
1
0.99
8
9
10
11
12
December 13 2010 UT (hrs)
0.99
1.02
1.01
0.98
1
13
8
0.99
0.98
8
10
12
December 14 2010 UT (hrs)
6
8
10
January 28 2009 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2455513.820684682
1.01
1
0.99
8
9
10
11
12
November 13 2010 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2455542.919808880
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
HJD: 2455544.785973326
1
4
1.02
10
12
December 2 2010 UT (hrs)
1.01
0.99
0.98
8
HJD: 2455532.794271032
1.01
0.98
13
HJD: 2455543.815873595
1.02
Relative Flux
9
10
11
12
November 14 2010 UT (hrs)
0.99
6
7
February 20 2010 UT (hrs)
1
1.02
1
1.02
1.01
0.98
HJD: 2455247.685167070
5
1.01
0.98
10
1.01
0.98
9
HJD: 2455514.814986587
1.02
6
8
January 26 2009 UT (hrs)
Relative Flux
6
7
8
February 19 2010 UT (hrs)
4
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1
5
0.99
1.02
1.01
0.98
1
0.98
8
10
January 25 2009 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2455246.705281595
1.02
1.01
10
11
12
December 12 2010 UT (hrs)
13
Reference Star Lightcurve
1.02
Relative Flux
6
HJD: 2454859.653165393
1.02
Relative Flux
1.01
0.98
HJD: 2454857.631957755
1.02
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1.02
11
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
8
9
10
11
UT (hrs)
12
Fig. 3.— 2MASS J0746+2000: Photometric light curves first reported by Harding et al. (2013), and included here for completeness to
investigate emission morphology and behavior. Again, UT dates and times are marked on each light curve’s x-axis along with HJD time
above each figure (start-point of each observation). These data were taken in VATT I-band (∼7200 - 9100 Å) over an ∼2 year baseline.
We report periodic variability for one component of the binary, with a period of 3.32 ± 0.15 hours. The peak to peak amplitude variations
throughout the observations varies from ∼0.40 - 1.52%. We note that January 25 & 26 2009 were taken during deteriorating weather
conditions (thin cloud and high winds) and were therefore binned by a factor of 2 compared to other data. The arrow marked on the
November 14 2010 light curve points to an interval of complete cloud cover, therefore these data were removed. Photometric error bars are
applied to each data point as before. [bottom right] - as before, an example reference star light curve to illustrate the stability of the chosen
reference stars as compared to the target star variability. The mean reference star variability for all reference stars used in this campaign
for 2M J0746 is shown in Table 3.
5.3. Single Dwarf Systems
5.3.1. LSR J1835+3259
We determined a photometric period of 2.845 ± 0.003
hours in VATT I-band, consistent with the VLA radio
observations of Hallinan et al. (2008), who report periodic pulses of 2.84 ± 0.01 hours. This optical period is
newly reported in this work, which was conducted between July 2006 and June 2009 with the GUFI mk.I and
mk.II systems (Figure 4). We also obtained R-band data
from the 1.55 m USNO telescope, and detected periodicity of ∼2.84 hours. The weather for this observation was
very poor; however it appears that LSR J1835 has larger
R-band peak to peak amplitude variability than I-band
- similar to LP 349-25. These data exhibit long-term
stable periodic sinusoidal variability with a PtPtar range
of 1.02 - 1.46% in I-band and 1.62% in R-band. The
standard deviation of the selected reference stars in each
band were σref ∼ 0.33% and ∼0.68%, respectively. Furthermore, the calculated period supports the rotational
velocity estimate of v sin i ∼50 ± 5 km s−1 (Berger et al.
2008a), and radius estimate of ≥0.117 ± 0.012 R (Hallinan et al. 2008), which implies a high inclination angle
of ∼90◦ for the system. These data also appear to be in
phase based on this period of 2.845 ± 0.003 hours during
constituent epochs. However we do not achieve a high
enough period accuracy in order to phase connect the ∼3
year temporal baseline. We show the statistical analysis
for this target in Figure 8. An example of reference star
stability is also shown in red in Figure 4, bottom right.
12
HARDING ET AL.
HJD: 2453933.835429562
1.02
0.99
8
9
10
11
12
13
July 17 2006 UT (hrs)
0.98
14
HJD: 2454993.895089046
10
11
12
13
July 20 2006 UT (hrs)
14
0.98
15
HJD: 2454995.813300944
10
10.5
11
June 11 2009 UT (hrs)
1
HJD: 2455012.851533422
1.02
8
9
10
June 13 2009 UT (hrs)
1
0.98
9
9.5
10
10.5
June 30 2009 UT (hrs)
11
0.94
9
10
June 16 2009 UT (hrs)
11
Reference Star Lightcurve
1
0.99
0.96
8.5
8
1.01
1.02
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
0.99
1
1.02
1.04
1
HJD: 2454998.814305655
0.98
11
HJD: 2454002.6595213125
1.06
1.01
7
0.99
0.98
11.5
5
6
September 22 2006 UT (hrs)
1.01
0.99
9.5
4
1.02
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
0.99
Relative Flux
9
1.01
1
1
0.99
1.02
1.01
0.98
1
0.99
1.02
0.98
1.01
Relative Flux
1
HJD: 2454000.641229804
1.02
1.01
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1.01
0.98
HJD: 2453936.859988098
1.02
R−band
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
September 24 2006 UT (hrs)
6.5
0.98
8.5
9
9.5
10
UT (hrs)
10.5
11
Fig. 4.— LSR J1835+3259: We report a photometric period of rotation of 2.845 ± 0.003 hours at I-band wavelengths (∼7000 - 11000
Å) using the GUFI photometer. These data were taken over a ∼3 year baseline, where the 2006 July epoch was taken as test data for the
GUFI mk.I system. We also observed the dwarf in R-band (∼5600-8800 Å) using the USNO on September 24 & 25 2006 UT. The seeing
on both nights was very poor however. Here we show a binned data set, marked with an R-band label, from September 24 2006 UT. We
overplot a model sinusoidal fit (red) to a period of 2.845 hours. The period of rotation of 2.845 ± 0.003 hours matches the periodic pulses
reported by Hallinan et al. (2008), who also attributed this periodicity to the dwarf’s rotation. The arrows shown in June 13 & June 16
mark data gaps due to this object’s passing too close to the zenith for the telescope’s Alt-Az tracking. Once again we show a reference
star light curve (bottom right) to illustrate the variability of the target with respect to a non-variable source. Although we have a ∼3 year
baseline, we do not achieve an accurate enough period to phase connect the 2006 and 2009 epochs.
5.3.2. TVLM 513-46546
We confirm periodic variability of 1.95958 ± 0.00005
hours, with a peak to peak amplitude variability range of
PtPtar ∼0.56 - 1.20% in VATT I-band and PtPtar ∼0.92
- 0.96% in Sloan i0 . The morphology of the light curves
are generally consistent for both wavebands throughout the campaign, with a mean σref of I: ∼0.34% and
i0 :∼0.36%. The larger peak to peak amplitude variations
for some observations are shown in Table 3. This period
once again supports previous studies from Hallinan et
al. (2006, 2007), Lane et al. (2007), Berger et al. (2008a)
and Littlefair et al. (2008), and a clear indication that
the photometric I-band periodic variability appears to be
stable over time-scales of up to 5 years in this case. It
is also consistent with the radius, v sin i and inclination
angle estimates outlined in Hallinan et al. (2008). The
calculated PtPtar in I-band is lower than the reported
peak to peak amplitude variability of Lane et al. (2007).
However, the i0 variability is much higher than that observed by Littlefair et al. (2008), who detect PtPtar of
only ∼0.15% in their data. Light curves from each of
the six epochs are shown in Figure 5 and the LS periodogram and PDM analysis is shown in Figure 8. In
§ 6.2, we show phase connected light curves over the 5
year baseline in order to investigate the target’s phase
stability - this study directly investigates the positional
stability of the stellar feature responsible for the periodicity. By phase connecting the total baseline of TVLM
513, we were able to establish a period to a much greater
accuracy than other targets where phase connection was
not possible, due to limited phase coverage.
5.3.3. BRI 0021-0214
We report possible photometric VATT I-band periodic
variability with PtPtar of ∼0.52 - 1.58%, and σref of
∼0.37%, which is shown in Figure 6. We note that due
to ∼ 30 × 30 FOV of GUFI, there was only one suitable
reference star used for differential photometry. This star
was selected as a suitable candidate on the basis of its
observed stability compared to the target star, during
the I-band observations of BRI 0021 by Martı́n et al.
(2001). They identify possible periodicity of ∼4.8 hours
and ∼20 hours, respectively. We do not have sufficient
temporal coverage to effectively assess the presence of a
∼20 hour period. Although there is evidence in our statistical analysis of periods between 4 - 7 hours, we do not
sample the rotational phase of the object enough to confirm a solution. Since we only have one reference star as a
comparison source (00h 24m 23s .735,-01◦ 590 06.2700 ), its
stability cannot be independently assessed in this case.
Interestingly, the possible solutions of ∼4 - 7 hours are
in violation with the current v sin i estimates of ∼34
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
HJD: 2453876.767385032
1
0.99
0.99
5
6
June 13 2009 UT (hrs)
Relative Flux
1
0.99
9
10
11
12
February 25 2011 UT (hrs)
5
6
June 16 2009 UT (hrs)
1
0.99
7
8
9
10
April 12 2011 UT (hrs)
1
0.99
0.98
Sloan i’
4
6
8
10
May 8 2011 UT (hrs)
5
6
June 12 2009 UT (hrs)
7
HJD: 2455610.895231782
1.01
1
0.99
10
11
12
February 18 2011 UT (hrs)
13
HJD: 2455688.663447782
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
11
Sloan i’
4
6
8
10
May 7 2011 UT (hrs)
Reference Star Lightcurve
1.02
Relative Flux
1.01
4
1.02
1.01
6
0.99
0.98
7
HJD: 2455663.721053804
0.98
1
1.02
0.99
4
1.01
0.98
9
1
HJD: 2455689.639437052
1.02
Relative Flux
13
6
7
8
June 17 2008 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2454998.652003265
1.02
1.01
0.98
5
1.01
0.98
7
HJD: 2455617.869586481
1.02
4
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1
4
0.99
1.02
1.01
0.98
1
0.98
11
HJD: 2454995.649075126
1.02
Relative Flux
8
9
10
May 21 2006 UT (hrs)
1.01
Relative Flux
7
HJD: 2454994.654061520
1.02
Relative Flux
1.01
0.98
HJD: 2454634.663999367
1.02
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1.02
13
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
4
6
8
UT (hrs)
10
Fig. 5.— TVLM 513-46546: We obtained ∼53 hours of data, over a ∼5 year baseline for TVLM 513. Our data shows an extremely
stable period of 1.95958 ± 0.00005 hours, which we phase connect over this baseline. The data shown here was taken in I-band (∼7000 11000 Å) and Sloan i0 (∼6500-9500 Å), which is marked on the relevant light curves (May 7 & May 8 2011). This confirmed period further
constrains the work of Lane et al. (2007) who found a photometric period of ∼1.96 hours, also in I-band. As in the case of LSR J1835, this
periodicity is consistent with the observations of Hallinan et al. (2006, 2007), who report periodic radio pulses of ∼1.96 hours for TVLM
513. In this work, we investigate the stability of the light curve phase and amplitude, and find the phase to be stable throughout each data
set, where changes in amplitude are present (0.56 - 1.20% in I-band and 0.92 - 0.96% in Sloan i0 ). We discuss this further in the following
section. As always, a randomly selected reference star light curve is included (bottom right).
km s−1 found by Mohanty & Basri (2003) - which indicate a maximum period for this system of ∼3.59 hours.
This indicates that the radius of the dwarf could be underestimated if a periodic signal >3.59 hours is present.
Further (larger FOV) observations, with greater temporal coverage on a given night are needed to constrain and
qualitatively confirm this result.
5.3.4. 2MASS J00361617+1821104
We confirm sinusoidal periodic variability of 3.0 ± 0.7
hours with PtPtar of 1.98 - 2.20% in the optical VATT
I-band. Although these data were obtained under extremely poor seeing conditions on both nights of observation, the range of periods within the calculated error
matches the ∼3 hour periodicity found by the photometric measurements of Lane et al. (2007) and the radio
measurements of Berger et al. (2005) and Hallinan et al.
(2008). We note that the observed PtPtar is larger than
that of other I-band data in this work. We show the
differential light curves in Figure 7, and the analysis of
these in Figure 8.
14
HARDING ET AL.
HJD: 2455088.855975870
1
0.99
HJD: 2455514.573402000
1
0.99
2
3
4
5
6
November 14 2010 UT (hrs)
0.99
7
1
0.99
2
3
4
5
6
December 2 2010 UT (hrs)
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
12
HJD: 2455532.578506300
1.01
0.98
7
8
9
10
11
September 16 2009 UT (hrs)
4
5
6
7
November 13 2010 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2455533.598159690
1.02
Relative Flux
1.01
0.98
1
1.02
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1.02
1.01
0.98
9
10
11
12
September 14 2009 UT (hrs)
HJD: 2455513.648864830
1.02
Relative Flux
1.01
0.98
HJD: 2455090.794569690
1.02
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1.02
1.01
1
0.99
0.98
3
4
5
6
December 3 2010 UT (hrs)
7
Fig. 6.— BRI 0021-0214: We observed BRI 0021 for a total of 6 nights, over 3 epochs. Previous studies by Martı́n et al. (2001) found
evidence for variability, with possible periods of ∼4.8 hours and ∼20 hours. The 30 × 30 FOV of GUFI only allowed for one suitable reference
star however (00h 24m 23s .735,-01◦ 590 06.2700 ). We selected this on the basis of its stability which was assessed by Martı́n et al. (2001).
We report possible periodic variability with peak to peak amplitude variations of 0.52 - 1.58%. Although the periodograms show favorable
evidence for a period of ∼5 hours, we take this only as a tentative estimate due to the behavior observed in the light curves above; i.e.
we could not constrain one likely solution for all epochs without imposing large errors. However, it is worth noting that a period of ∼5
hours is in conflict with current v sin i estimates for the system, and would infer that the stellar radius has been underestimated. Further
observations, with more field stars, and larger temporal coverage are needed to effectively assess the photometric behavior of this object.
HJD: 2455531.573301710
1.06
6. DISCUSSION
Relative Flux
1.04
6.1. Source of the Periodicity: the Optical-Radio
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
2
3
4
5
6
December 1 2010 UT (hrs)
7
HJD: 2455543.600266460
1.06
Relative Flux
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
3
4
5
December 13 2010 UT (hrs)
6
Reference Star Lightcurve
1.06
Relative Flux
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
2
3
4
5
UT (hrs)
6
7
Fig. 7.— 2MASS J0036+18: We confirm a period of 3.0 ± 0.7
hours for 2M J0036. Unfortunately, both nights of observation were
subject to poor weather conditions (heavy cloud). Nevertheless,
our range of periods are in agreement with the observations of
Lane et al. (2007), who detect a ∼3 hour period for this source in
the Johnson I-band. Berger et al. (2005); Hallinan et al. (2008)
showed this dwarf to be radio pulsing with a period of 3.08 ± 0.05
hours. We note that the light curves above were binned to 2 minute
frames in order to increase the S/N.
Correlation?
A large number of surveys have been carried out to
search for evidence of optical variability in ultracool
dwarfs. In this work, we consider only late M to earlyto-mid L dwarfs. Beyond this point, it is clear that the
variability has predominantly been associated with dustrelated effects (Artigau et al. 2009; Radigan et al. 2012).
To date, 182 ultracool dwarfs in this spectral range (≥M6
- L5) have been studied for optical variability, where
there has only been ∼30 - 40% of confirmed variability (Tinney & Tolley 1999; Bailer-Jones & Mundt 1999,
2001; Gelino et al. 2002; Clarke et al. 2002b; Koen 2003;
Koen et al. 2004; Koen 2005; Rockenfeller et al. 2006a;
Maiti 2007; Koen 2012, and references therein). In many
cases, these studies have yielded low variability detection rates, or tentative detections with low significance
(Koen 2003; Enoch et al. 2003; Koen et al. 2004; Maiti
2007; Goldman et al. 2008). Others have found more
promising statistically significant detection rates where
the variability was clearly detected above the noise-floor
(Bailer-Jones & Mundt 2001; Gelino et al. 2002; Rockenfeller et al. 2006a). Considering the spectral range in our
survey (≥M7.5 - L3.5) compared to this same range in
the above studies of late-M and early-to-mid L dwarfs,
less than 5% of objects studied have confirmed periodic
variability consistent with the rotation period (Clarke
2002a; Koen 2003, 2006; Rockenfeller et al. 2006a; Lane
et al. 2007; Koen 2011).
Our study has confirmed periodic optical variability for
five out of six radio active dwarfs, with a tentative detection of similar behavior in the sixth; the latter case lim-
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
LP 349−25: Power Spectrum All Data
500
5σ
5
10
−1
Days
15
2M J0746: Power Spectrum All Data
150
Power
200
300
200
5σ
0
10
Days−1
15
0
6.9
20
LSR J1835: Power Spectrum All Data
1
7.1
7.2
Days−1
7.3
5
10
−1
Days
15
0
8.42
Power
200
100
5
10
−1
Days
15
8.45
8.46
0
12.1
20
12.15
12.2
12.25
−1
Days
12.3
5σ
0
5
10
−1
Days
15
20
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
−1
Days
15
20
2.75
2.8
2.85
2.9
Period (hrs)
2.95
3
TVLM 513: Phase Dispersion Minimization
0.95
0.9
0.85
1.92
1.94
1.96
Period (hrs)
1.98
2
2M J0036: Phase Dispersion Minimization
0.9
Theta (θ)
Power
20
0.6
0.8
1.9
12.35
40
40
0.7
2.7
2M J0036: Power Spectra All Epochs
50
60
4
0.8
1
100
2M J0036: Power Spectrum All Data
80
8.44
−1
Days
200
5σ
0
3.8
0.5
8.43
TVLM 513: Power Spectra All Epochs
300
300
3.4
3.6
Period (hrs)
0.9
50
TVLM 513: Power Spectrum All Data
3.2
LSR J1835: Phase Dispersion Minimization
1
100
20
2
0.8
3
Theta (θ)
0
1.8
0.9
7.4
150
5σ
1.4
1.6
Period (hrs)
0.7
7
Theta (θ)
100
1.2
2M J0746: Phase Dispersion Minimization
1
200
400
Power
13.1
LSR J1835: Power Spectra All Epochs
250
Power
Power
5
200
Power
13
50
300
0
12.9
−1
Days
100
100
0
12.8
2M J0746: Power Spectra All Epochs
250
400
0
0.8
0
12.7
20
0.9
0.85
Theta (θ)
0
500
Power
200
100
100
0
0.95
Theta (θ)
Power
Power
200
LP 349−25: Phase Dispersion Minimization
1
300
300
0
LP 349−25: Power Spectra All Epochs
400
400
15
0.85
0.8
0.75
2
2.5
Period (hrs)
3
3.5
Fig. 8.— [Column LEFT & column MIDDLE ] Lomb-Scargle Periodograms for all periodically detected sources. The left column shows
periodograms (power spectra) for each target for all epochs of observations. We include a red dashed-doted horizontal line on each plot
which represents a 5σ false-alarm probability of the peaks as determined by the Lomb-Scargle algorithm in each case. We also we point
out multiple power spectra peaks centered around the highest peaks that correspond to the reported rotation periods (left column). These
peaks are present as a result of spectral leakage, which is due to large gaps in the data between consecutive epochs. Each figure in the
middle column once again shows a periodogram plot for individual epochs (over-plotted) to illustrate period correlation between each. [LP
349-25 ] Black - Sept 2009; Blue - Oct 2010; Red - November 2010. [2M J0746 ] Black - Jan 2009; Blue - Feb 2010; Red - November 2010;
Green - Dec 2010. [LSR J1835 ] Red - 2006 data; Blue - 2009 data. [TVLM 513 ] Black - May 2006; Blue - June 2008; Red - June 2009;
Green - 2011 data. [2M J0036 ] Black - Dec 1 2010; Red - Dec 13 2010. We note for TVLM 513 in particular, the amplitude of the May
2006 (black) and June 2008 (blue) power spectra is much lower than the other epochs, and thus appears flat on this plot. The x-axis
(Days−1 ) of each figure is scaled to the approx. period range as calculated by our uncertainty technique, with the exception of 2M J0036
where we show the full range of assessed values due to poorer temporal coverage. We also include a red vertical dashed line corresponding
to the established period of rotation in this work. [Column RIGHT ] - Phase Dispersion Minimization plots for each target, showing a plot
of period against the ‘Theta’ (θ) statistic. This statistic was determined based on 105 Monte-Carlo simulations which randomize the data
points and test whether the result at any given Θ level could be as a result of noise. The most significant periods are marked with a red
dashed line on each figure. In the case of 2M J0036, we mark the period of ∼3 hours as detected by Lane et al. (2007) and confirmed in
this work. The variability analysis was more difficult for this target due to poor photometric conditions.
16
HARDING ET AL.
ited by poor sampling of the rotational phase of the object. However, a direct comparison to a large fraction of
the above work will show that our sensitivities are much
higher for detecting periodic variability in these objects
(see § 3 for GUFI specs). Throughout this campaign,
we have consistently achieved photometric precisions of
<0.5% (and as low as 0.15% for some observations) as
shown in Table 3, as well as sampling many rotation periods per object, per night. By contrast, the above studies
have typically achieved photometric precisions of ≥1.0%
(with some as low as ∼0.5%), and in many cases the
rotational phase has been poorly covered. Furthermore,
large-survey data sets only produced a few data points
per hour in order to contemporaneously monitor a large
number of objects. Thus, a combination of high photometric precision, well sampled rotational phase coverage
and high cadence data sets, are perhaps crucial in effectively detecting periodic variability from ultracool dwarfs
on these time scales. In particular, we highlight that two
of our sample, 2M J0746AB and 2M J0036, were included
in surveys mentioned above (Clarke et al. 2002b; Maiti
2007). In both cases, variability was detected, albeit with
insufficient phase coverage to recover the periodic signal
detected in our work.
However, we cite Bailer-Jones & Mundt (2001) and
Rockenfeller et al. (2006a) as reliable comparison studies (with similar sensitivities to the periodic variability
reported in this work) that searched for variability (including periodic variability) in a sample of dwarfs that
were not pre-selected as radio detected. We select objects
in these papers between ≥M7.5 - L3.5 only, in order to
satisfy a direct comparison to the objects in this work. In
the case of Bailer-Jones & Mundt (2001), they observed
21 M and L type dwarfs, where 15 of these occupy the
spectral range we define above. Similarly, Rockenfeller
et al. (2006a) cover a sample of 19 M dwarfs, where 6
of these are M7.5 - M9. Crucially, their work provided
detection limits of ∼0.5 - 5% in the peak to peak amplitude variations of variable targets. In addition to this,
the methods of Bailer-Jones & Mundt (2001) were sensitive to periods >1 hour, and Rockenfeller et al. (2006a)
for ∼0.5 - 12 hours. Therefore, based on the peak to peak
amplitudes detected in our work, their studies both had
the capability of detecting the presence of periodic variability in their sample. However, although Bailer-Jones
& Mundt (2001) report evidence of some periodic signals,
they only report tentative detections from some targets.
Similarly, Rockenfeller et al. (2006a) detect periodic optical variability from only 1 source out of 6 - the M9 dwarf
2MASSW J1707183+643933. During these observations,
they also report a large flare event (Rockenfeller et al.
2006b), and as a result argue that the presence of magnetic activity is expected. Gizis et al. (2000) reported
Hα emission for the same M9 dwarf with an equivalent
width of 9.8 Å, further supporting the possible presence
of magnetic activity.
The presence of consistent periodic variability in five
of six radio detected ultracool dwarfs demonstrates that
the correlation between optical and radio periodic variability is significant and thus the presence of magnetic
activity is also significant when compared to the above
studies. We therefore have a case to highlight an expected presence of consistent periodic optical variability
in radio detected sources, due to the presence of strong
magnetic fields (kG) with radio activity. We note further
that all of our target sample are rapid rotators, with high
v sin i values (>15 km s−1 ). This is perhaps an additional bias in our data, whereby rapid rotators could be
easier detected than slowly rotating sources. However,
an expanded sample of non radio-active dwarfs that are
also rapid rotators, is required to quantify this further.
Previous studies have argued that magnetic spots, (e.g.
Rockenfeller et al. (2006a); Lane et al. (2007)) or dust
(e.g. Bailer-Jones & Mundt (2001); Littlefair et al.
(2008)) were responsible for similar detected periodicities
in ultracool dwarfs. One possible means of distinguishing
between various mechanisms is to compare simultaneous
multi-band photometry to synthetic atmospheric models
(Allard et al. 2001). Importantly, in order to carry out
such analyses, simultaneous observations are needed due
to the inherent variability in the amplitude of the optical variability. The studies of Rockenfeller et al. (2006a)
and Littlefair et al. (2008), for example, yielded cases in
favor of both cool magnetic spots and the presence of
atmospheric dust, respectively. These results were based
on the ratios of the peak to peak amplitude variations
at different photometric wavebands. Despite detecting
larger peak to peak amplitude variations in R-band vs.
I-band for two of our target sample (see Table 3), we
did not obtain simultaneous photometry and therefore
cannot apply these models at this point. However, such
a high detection rate of significant periodic variability
in our sample of radio active dwarfs, implies a correlation with radio activity and thus some kind of magnetic
phenomenon. The nature of this optical variability will
be addressed in an upcoming paper focused on spectrophotometric observations of such targets (Hallinan et al.,
in prep).
6.2. The Phase Stability of TVLM 513-46546
A number of ultracool dwarfs have shown periodic behavior over a number of observations (e.g. Berger et al.
(2005); Hallinan et al. (2006, 2007); Lane et al. (2007);
Littlefair et al. (2008); Hallinan et al. (2008)); here we use
multi-epoch observations of one dwarf, TVLM 513, to investigate whether this periodicity is long term and stable
in phase, and whether this modulation evolves morphologically over these time scales. We achieve an accurate
enough period of rotation of 1.95958 hours for the dwarf
via phase connection of the 2006 - 2011 epochs, with an
associated error in the period of 0.00005 hours, thereby
allowing us to assess its modulated behavior over the ∼5
year campaign. We find long-term, periodic variability
that is stable in phase as shown in Figure 9, where we
overplot a model sinusoidal signal (red) over the entire
baseline. Phase folded light curves of individual observations are shown in PLOT 1 of Figure 9, once again
highlighting this agreement, and similarly in PLOTS 6
& 7 we show phase folded light curves of all datasets.
Such a high degree of correlation suggests a spatiallystable surface feature that does not appear to move by
a significant amount over this baseline. Donati et al.
(2006) & Morin et al. (2010) have shown that large-scale
magnetic fields for fully convective objects are stable on
year-long time scales. Hallinan et al. (2006, 2007, 2008)
have confirmed the presence of stable kG magnetic fields
for TVLM 513, consistent with a common magnetic field-
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
PLOT 1
1.02
PLOT 2: May 21 2006
Relative Flux
D
1
0.99
1.02
C
1.06
7
8
9
UT (hrs)
0.98
10
PLOT 4: Feb 18 2011
0.98
Relative Flux
A
1
Relative Flux
10
11
UT (hrs)
12
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Phase
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
7
PLOT 5: May 7 2011
D
1
0.98
13
4
6
8
UT (hrs)
10
PLOT 6: Phase Fold of All Data [P=1.95958 hours]
Unbinned
1.02
PLOT 7: Phase Fold of All Data [P=1.95958 hours]
Binned
1.02
1.01
1.01
1
0.99
0
6
0.99
Relative Flux
1.02
5
UT (hrs)
1.01
1
0.99
B
4
1.02
C
1.01
1.04
1
0.99
0.98
Relative Flux
Relative Flux + Arbitrary Offset
1.08
B
1.01
Relative Flux
1.01
1.1
PLOT 3: June 13 2009
1.02
A
17
0.98
1
0.99
0
0.5
1
Phase
1.5
2
0.98
0
0.5
1
Phase
1.5
2
Fig. 9.— [PLOT 1]: This figure illustrates the phase stability of the periodic variability of TVLM 513 over a ∼5 year baseline. These
raw light curves, labeled with red letters A - D (bottom - top), were selected at random from four of the observation epochs (May 2006 May 2011). This level of agreement is consistent for all light curves in the sample. In each case, the time stamps were phase folded to the
period of 1.95958 hours. [PLOTS 2 - 5] : To show this agreement further, the light curves A, B, C & D in PLOT 1 correspond to PLOTS
2, 3, 4 & 5, respectively. Each light curve contains an overplotted model sinusoidal signal (red), with a period of 1.95958 hours, which
was applied to the full 2006 - 2011 dataset, where we set values between individual observations and epochs to zero. It is clear that this
dwarf exhibits highly correlated behavior in terms of phase over this baseline, and furthermore that the stellar feature responsible must be
equally as stable (spatially) during these observations. [PLOT 6 & PLOT 7] : We phase fold the entire data set (2006 - 2011, containing
∼3,500 data points) to the detected period of 1.95958 hours. The black phase folded light curve in PLOT 6 is raw and has no binning or
scaling. The red phase folded light curve in PLOT 7, once again of all data, has been binned by a factor of 10.
related origin for the periodic radio and optical variability for ultracool dwarfs, as discussed in the previous section.
While stable in phase, the peak to peak amplitude is
variable during this campaign from ∼0.56 - 1.20% in
VATT I-band (see Table 3). Since the phase is stable,
a change in amplitude suggests that the intensity of the
feature responsible is changing on these levels, or that it
may be changing in size. Littlefair et al. (2008) observed
peak to peak variations in Sloan i0 of 0.15%. Here we report much larger Sloan i0 peak to peak variability of 0.92
- 0.96% - further evidence of variable peak to peak amplitudes when compared to other studies. This is intriguing
when compared to the previous radio activity discussed
by Hallinan et al. (2006, 2007), who reported highly variable signals from TVLM 513. Specifically, they detected
bursts of periodic radio emission that varied greatly between epochs, also indicating changes in emission intensities. Whether the optical emission here is directly related
to radio variability will be conclusively determined when
multiple epochs of radio data are obtained, and phase
connected, over the same time scales as this work.
6.3. The Radio & Optical Emission at Odds from
2MASS J0746425+200032AB?
In this work, we have demonstrated evidence of a correlation between the optical and radio variabilities in ultracool dwarfs. We therefore briefly consider why we detect
optical periodic variability from the non-radio detected
binary component of the 2M J0746AB system.
According to model-derived temperature estimates of
Konopacky et al. (2010), the effective temperature of 2M
J0746A (Tef f ∼ 2205 ± 50 K) is higher than its counterpart (Tef f ∼ 2060 ± 70 K). As previously discussed,
our photometry contains the combined flux of both stars
- perhaps the contrast ratios of stellar photosphere vs.
feature are much greater for 2M J0746A as a result. If
the optical and radio emission are linked as we put forward as a possibility, why did Berger et al. (2009) not
also observe some evidence of radio emission from 2M
J0746A?
The primary could be pulsing at radio frequencies, but
undetectable due to the inclination angle of the system.
However, Harding et al. (2013) find that the 2M J0746AB
rotation axes are orthogonally aligned to the system orbital plane. This established alignment geometry could
support detectable beaming from both stars. However,
this is contingent upon the magnetic field alignment of
each star being equal with respect to their rotation axes.
Misaligned magnetic field axes could mean that the radio emission from 2M J0746A is being beamed away from
observer. Alternatively, unlike 2M J0746B, it is also possible that 2M J0746A does not exhibit beamed ECM
emission at all, but perhaps only small levels of quiescent
radio emission that has not yet been detected by previous studies of the system. Speculating further about the
intricacies of the system’s radio emission and the associated beaming geometry is outside the scope of this work.
Some aperiodic variability is also present for some observations which could be due to the contribution from
a weaker secondary signal. The Lomb-Scargle periodogram analysis in this work should extract both photometric signals if they are both present and strong enough,
18
HARDING ET AL.
HJD: 2455479.654271423
1.01
1.01
1.005
1.005
1.005
1
1.015
Relative Flux
1.015
1.01
0.995
1
0.995
1
0.995
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.985
0.985
0.985
0.98
0.98
4
5
6
7
8
October 10 2010 UT (hrs)
9
10
HJD: 2455482.646912029
1.02
29
30
31
32
October 11 2010 UT + 24 (hrs)
0.98
33
HJD: 2455483.610572272
1.02
1.005
1.005
1.01
Relative Flux
1.03
1.01
Relative Flux
1.015
1.01
0.995
1
0.995
0.99
0.98
0.985
0.97
0.98
0.98
82
100
102
104
October 14 2010 UT + 96 (hrs)
106
57
HJD: 2455484.592876633
1
0.99
77
78
79
80
81
October 13 2010 UT + 72 (hrs)
53
54
55
56
October 12 2010 UT +48 (hrs)
0.99
0.985
76
52
1.04
1.015
1
HJD: 2455481.653985986
1.02
1.015
1.02
Relative Flux
HJD: 2455480.679691389
1.02
Relative Flux
Relative Flux
1.02
0.96
147
148 149 150 151 152
October 15 2010 UT + 120 (hrs)
153
Fig. 10.— LP 349-25: We show the behavior of LP 349-25 periodic variability from the October 2010 epoch (October 10 - October
15 UT). We have also overplotted a model sinusoidal fit (red) of P = 1.86 hours, the primary periodic component detected in our data.
Amplitude values were taken from Table 3 for each night, but most importantly, we use a fixed phase for the sinusoidal model for all
observations here. The model appears to move in and out of phase during observations. For example, the fit is clearly in phase at the
beginning of October 10, but as the amplitude in the light curve gets larger, the phase begins to move out (∼7 UT). This same effect is
seen for October 13 and 14. By contrast, the signal is in phase for October 11 but out of phase for October 12. This behavior is possible
evidence of a dynamical environment in the source region of the optical variability. Alternatively, the superposition of two variable sources
could cause changing amplitudes and phase. We cite TVLM 513 (Figure 9) as an example of a source exhibiting consistent phase stability
for an established period.
and our data shows strong evidence of variability of the
non-radio emitting component. Resolved photometry
would be an interesting confirmation if the radio-active
source is also optically variable.
6.4. The Unusual Behavior of LP 349-25
In this section we discuss the behavior of the light
curves of the binary LP 349-25AB. As outlined in § 5.2,
we observe significant changes in amplitude in I-band (refer to Table 3), as well as changes in phase during single
observations. Due to the close separation of the binary
members, the photometric aperture used enclosed the
combined flux of both components. Therefore the presence of two periodically varying sources in these data
and thus the superposition of these waves is one possible
explanation for the varying amplitude we observe here.
However, aperiodic variability of a single periodic source
could also cause this behavior. This is an obvious distinction and one that we discuss below.
We first consider the possibility of the presence of two
periodically varying sources by subtracting the main 1.86
hour period out of the raw data. We did this by generating a sinusoidal model wave function with a period of 1.86
hours. We then iterated through a range of amplitude
and phase values, and performed a LSF fit to the raw
data from the October 2010 epoch. We chose this set of
data because we had contiguous observation nights from
October 9 - October 15 2010 UT, as shown in Figure 10.
The best solution which fitted the raw data parameters
was subtracted out. Lomb-Scargle periodogram analysis
was run on the remaining data points, which searched
for residual periodic signatures. We observed no obvious
evidence in the periodogram of any second significant
source. As a follow-up, we modeled the superposition of
two sinusoidal sources by setting a period of 1.86 hours
for one source, varying the other period, as well as the
amplitude and the phase of both waves, and performed
a LSF to our data - as outlined in § 4.3. These fits did
not yield strong evidence of another source based on the
best LSF solutions. The lack of evidence in the periodograms, as well as the inability to clearly detect an
underlying source in the residual data after subtracting
the main 1.86 hour period out, does not support the obvious presence of another period.
Nevertheless, the varying component of amplitude and
phase remains in these data, as shown in Figure 10. In
this plot, we show raw light curves from the October
2010 epoch (Oct 10 - Oct 15 UT) with a model sinusoidal
wave overplotted (in red). The established period of 1.86
hours was used, and corresponding amplitudes from Table 3 were adopted for each light curve. We use a fixed
phase for all nights. As we observe the model wave for
each observation, we can see that the wave is in phase
for some nights (e.g. Oct 11, Oct 13 and Oct 15). By
contrast, the signal appears to have moved out of phase
for Oct 12. We can also see, for Oct 10 and Oct 14 for
example, that the model is largely in phase for the first
half of each observation (although upon closer inspection
there is some evidence of trailing and leading peaks and
troughs), but then moves partially out of phase as the
amplitude of the signal increases - we also note changes
in light curve morphology for these sections.
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
6.5. Spin-Orbit Alignment of LP 349-25AB
The detected rotation period from LP 349-25B in this
work provides an important parameter in assessing the
orbital coplanarity of the system, as well as the associated implications for binary formation theory in the
VLM binary regime. Recent work by Harding et al.
(2013) has demonstrated spin-orbit alignment for the
VLM binary 2M J0746AB - the first such observational
result in this mass range. Their work showed that the
spin axes inclinations of both components of the system
were aligned to within 10 degrees of the orbital plane.
Such an alignment signals that solar-type binary formation mechanisms, such as core fragmentation, disk fragmentation or competitive accretion, may extend into the
realm of brown dwarfs. Although the alignment of one
system could not be used to distinguish between the various formation theories, investigating such alignments in
other VLM systems provides an insight into where the
above formation pathways may dominate. Here we applied the same approach as outlined in Harding et al.
(2013) to assess the orbital properties LP 349-25AB.
Angle between system orbital plane and rotation axis, Θ (degrees)
30
40
50
70
80
90
100
110
RADII ESTIMATES:
Konopacky et al. (2010):
250
4
LP 349−25A:~1.70 R
J
LP 349−25B:~1.68 R
J
200
150
3
Dupuy et al. (2010):
LP 349−25B
LP 349−25A: ~1.37 R
J
LP 349−25B: ~1.30 R
J
LP 349−25A
2
Jupiter Radii (RJ)
−1
60
Breakup Velocity ~ 300 km s−1
300
Equatorial Rotational Velocity (km s )
This behavior could be characteristic of a highdynamic environment in these regions, where the source
of the variability is evolving on these time scales. Perhaps a magnetic feature is not stationary on the stellar
photosphere, or alternatively a combination of features
could be effecting light curve morphology. Moreover, if
these features were undergoing changes in size or temperature, this could also have an effect on the sinusoidal
shape. We can not rule out the possibility of another
source - perhaps a more robust modeling technique than
those used here is required to identify the presence of
another period. Obtaining a contiguous time series of
LP 349-25 over many periods of rotation, would allow us
to more effectively investigate whether these morphological changes are evolving in a systematic and repeatable
manner.
19
100
95
1.45
62.9
0.96
50
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
61.3
Inclination Angle, i (degrees)
70
80
0
90
Fig. 11.— Here we plot the v sin i of LP 349-25A (red) and
LP 349-25B (blue) of Konopacky et al. (2012). The dashed red
and blue lines correspond to the error in this measurement. This
figure investigates the radii estimates of Konopacky et al. (2010)
& Dupuy et al. (2010), and whether the binary member’s equatorial axes are coplanar with the system’s orbital plane (Hale 1994).
We place one explicit constraint here: the presence of a rotation
period of 1.86 ± 0.02 hours for one or other of the components.
We illustrate this by aligning the measured system inclination angle of 61.3 ± 1.5 degrees, i, x-axis bottom) at 90 degrees to the
equatorial axes (x-axis, Θ, top); as shown by the green vertical
line and the associated dashed error lines. Konopacky et al. (2012)
report equatorial velocities of ∼62 km s−1 and ∼95 km s−1 for LP
349-25A and B, respectively. It is clear that the radii estimates
of Konopacky et al. (2010) are overestimated, based on an orthogonally aligned system. Assuming such an alignment, a period of
1.86 ± 0.02 hours is inconsistent with that of LP 349-25A, which
requires a much smaller radius of ∼0.96 RJ . However, a radius of
∼1.45 RJ is derived here for LP 349-25B, which is in loose agreement with the estimates of Dupuy et al. (2010), by taking errors
in the period and v sin i into account. We therefore have a case to
tentatively assign the period of a 1.86 ± 0.02 hours to LP 349-25B,
as well as possible spin-orbit alignment for this component of the
system.
6.5.1. Estimating age and mass
We used the evolutionary models of Chabrier et al.
(2000) to estimate the age and mass (and later the radius) of each binary component. These parameters were
constrained by adopting the established total system
mass of 0.121 ± 0.009 M , as well as the photometric J
H K measurements and bolometric luminosity measurements of Konopacky et al. (2010). In addition, previous spectroscopic investigations yielded no lithium in the
dwarf’s spectrum, e.g. Bouy et al. (2004). We used these
parameters to identify a range of ages where lithium was
absent, and next interpolated over a range of masses by
comparing the correlation between the J H K colors and
bolometric luminosities of Konopacky et al. (2010), and
those of the Chabrier et al. (2000) models. Furthermore,
by assuming each component was coeval, the sum of the
component masses could not exceed the measured total
system mass of 0.121 ± 0.009 M .
We find an age consistent with Dupuy et al. (2010)
of ∼140 Myr, with masses of ∼0.06 M and ∼0.05 M
for LP 349-25A and LP 349-25B, respectively. However,
lithium is present in this range. Dupuy et al. (2010) suggested that perhaps the absence of lithium in the binary
spectrum was due to flux domination from the primary
member, and given the predicted mass of LP 349-25B in
their work, the LiI doublet is expected since LP 349-25B
potentially lies below the theoretically predicted lithium
depletion point at ≈0.055 - 0.065 M . The only ages
(where Li=0) that are in mild agreement suggest that
the system has a total mass that far exceeds 0.121 ±
0.009 M . Lithium however may not be a robust indicator of age. For example, Baraffe & Chabrier (2010)
point out that episodic accretion can cause lithium to
be depleted at younger ages, despite its expected presence based on evolutionary models. Another possibility
might also be that the total system mass has been underestimated, which would place LP 349-25AB at an older
age in the models of Chabrier et al. (2000), consequently
supporting the observed absence of lithium.
6.5.2. Radius & inferred spin-orbit alignment
Dupuy et al. (2010) obtained dynamical mass measurements of a sample of late-M dwarfs, including LP 34925AB. Their modeling subsequently yield radii estimates
of ∼1.30 - 1.44 RJ for LP 349-25A and ∼1.24 - 1.37
RJ for LP 349-25B. However, Konopacky et al. (2010)
find much larger radii estimates of 1.7+0.08
−0.09 RJ (A) and
20
HARDING ET AL.
Orbital Coplanarity of LP349-25AB?
ΘB
LP 349-25B
Spin axis
y
z
x
Orientation of
spin axis w.r.t.
orbital plane, ΘB
System orientation
axis indicator
LP 349-25A (?)
ΘA
N.B. - centre of mass is not
in the middle of the ellipse;
orientation reference only
Orbital plane, i
i
i = 61.3°
ΘA ~ ?°
ΘB ~ 90°
Fig. 12.— A sketch of the configuration of LP 349-25AB, which
loosely illustrates the possible system orientation. Based on a radius estimate for LP 349-25B of ∼1.37 RJ (Dupuy et al. 2010), in
addition to the v sin i of 83 ± 3 km s−1 (Konopacky et al. 2012),
and the period of 1.86 ± 0.2 hours in this work, there is tentative
evidence that the orientation of the equatorial axis of LP 349-25B,
ΘB , is perpendicularly aligned with the binary orbital plane.
1.68+0.09
−0.08 RJ (B). These studies based their radii on evolutionary model-derived parameters (Burrows et al. 1997;
Chabrier et al. 2000; Allard et al. 2001). Under the assumption of a perfectly coplanar spin-orbit alignment, by
adopting the individual rotational velocity measurements
of Konopacky et al. (2012) and by assigning the detected
period in this work of 1.86 ± 0.02 hours to each component, we derive radii of ∼0.96 RJ for LP 349-25A, and
∼1.45 RJ for LP 349-25B. We show these in Figure 11
by the dash-dotted horizontal lines, where we have plotted the system’s equatorial velocity vs. inclination angle
(refer to caption).
Considering the radii estimates of Konopacky et al.
(2010), as well as an orbital inclination angle of 61.3 ±
1.5 degrees from their work, we derive a maximum period
of rotation of ∼3.77 hours and ∼2.47 hours for LP 34925A and LP 349-25B, respectively. Indeed, these radii
estimates appear to be very large when considering the
evolutionary models of Chabrier et al. (2000) for a given
range of ages, Lbol , and total system mass presented in
their work, in addition to a lack of detected lithium in the
binary spectra (Reiners & Basri 2009). Therefore, it is
difficult to infer which component matches our detected
period.
As previously noted, the Dupuy et al. (2010) binary
radii instead infer maximum periods of ∼2.65 hours and
∼1.67 hours respectively. This discrepancy could be due
to the fact that Konopacky et al. (2010) use only broadband photometry, and furthermore use the effective temperature as one of the inputs for model-predicted mass,
whereas Dupuy et al. (2010) obtain their temperature estimates via NIR fitting, which is ∼650 K higher. Notably,
determining an accurate estimate of the radius of young,
magnetically active stars can be very difficult based on
the effect of a reduction in convective efficiency of such
objects (<0.35 M ), see Chabrier et al. (2007). Since the
adiabatic properties of a star increase with mass, such an
environment reduces convection in the outer areas. The
end result is a reduction in stellar luminosity and core
temperature, causing the radius to expand.
Nevertheless, a radius estimate of ∼1.45 RJ for LP
349-25B (derived above) is in lose agreement with the
estimates of Dupuy et al. (2010), and therefore we highlight a tentative spin-orbit alignment for the secondary
star - as shown by the sketch in Figure 12. Establishing the period of rotation of the other binary component will enable a more effective constraint of the orbital
properties. Finally, as in the case of 2M J0746AB, the
inclinations of the spin axes with respect to our line of
sight may be equal, but this does not always imply that
the orbital planes are perpendicularly aligned. Even if
edge-on systems are orthogonal to the sky, they could be
coincidentally equal. We refer the reader to Harding et
al. (2013) for a discussion of the various formation mechanisms, and the implications for formation theory in the
VLM binary regime.
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We have reported on optical photometric observations
of six ultracool dwarfs spanning the ∼M8 - L3.5 spectral
range. Our work has confirmed periodic optical variability for five out of six of the radio active dwarf sample,
where periodicity for two of these was discovered for the
first time. We report a tentative detection of periodic
variability for another dwarf - sampling the rotational
phase of this object will establish whether periodic variability is also present. Based on previous surveys that
have yielded a low fraction of periodic variability for lateM and L dwarfs, our results indicate a likely correlation
between the optical and radio periodic variability. This
correlation implies that the optical and radio periodic
emissions may be related by some kind of magnetic phenomena; however at this point it is not clear whether
such a possible connection is causal in nature.
For one of our targets in particular, the pulsing M9
ultracool dwarf TVLM 513, we find periodic variability
that is extremely stable in phase over baselines of ∼5
years. We achieved an accurate enough rotation period
of 1.95958 ± 0.00005 hours that allowed us to phase connect the ∼5 year baseline. The high level of phase stability indicates that the stellar feature responsible for the
periodic variability is not moving over these time scales.
We do however observe large changes in the peak to peak
amplitude variability, pointing toward changes in the size
or intensity of the source regions, responsible for the periodicity.
Similarly, for the M tight binary dwarf LP 349-25, the
peak to peak amplitude variations change significantly
during observations. The phase also changes on these
time scales, where we observe it to move in and out of
phase during single nights. A number of scenarios are
considered for this behavior - e.g. the presence of two
periodically varying sources. These changes in morphology could also be a consequence of a high-dynamic environment in these regions, where features are changing
in size, temperature and shape, and/or are moving with
respect to the stellar photosphere.
Finally, we assess the spin-orbit alignment of LP 34925, based on the discovery of the rotation period for one
component in this work. By adopting the radii estimates
of Dupuy et al. (2010), and assigning the period of rotation of 1.86 hours discovered here for LP 349-25B, we
find evidence for a tentative alignment of the spin-orbital
PERIODIC OPTICAL VARIABILITY OF RADIO DETECTED ULTRACOOL DWARFS
axes. Such an alignment has been observed for another
VLM binary dwarf - 2M J0746AB (Harding et al. 2013).
Establishing the second period of rotation for the system
would further constrain its orbital properties, and further provide insight into the possible formation mechanisms responsible for such alignments in the VLM binary
regime.
This work was largely carried out under the National
University of Ireland Traveling Studentship in the Sciences (Physics). LKH gratefully acknowledges the support of the Science Foundation Ireland (Grant Num-
21
ber 07/RFP/PHYF553). We thank the VATT team for
their help and guidance, especially Dave Harvey, Michael
Franz and Ken Duffek. LKH would also like to personally
thank Dr. Mark Lang for his constant assistance, in addition to the staff of the NRAO who provided significant
support when LKH was conducting some of his work during his appointment as an NRAO graduate intern. We
extend our thanks to Dr. Stuart Littlefair for his many
helpful comments on this work. Finally we would like to
thank the editor, Dr. Steven Kawaler, in addition to the
referee for their careful reading of our work, and for their
helpful input on how to improve this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Akerlof, C. & Alcock, C. & Allsman, R. et al. 1994, ApJ, 436, 787
Allard, F. & Hauschildt, P. H. & Alexander, D. R. & Tamanai, A.
& Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 357
Antonova, A. & Doyle, J. G. & Hallinan, G. & Golden, A. &
Koen, C. 2007, A&A, 472, 257
Antonova, A. & Doyle, J. G. & Hallinan, G. & Bourke, S. &
Golden, A. 2008, ApJ, 487, 317
Artigau, É. & Bouchard, S. & Doyon, R. & Lafrenière, D. 2009,
ApJ, 701, 1534
Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. & Mundt, R. 1999, A&A, 348, 800
Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. & Mundt, R. 2001, ApJ, 367, 218
Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2004, A&A, 419, 703
Ballerini, P. & Micela, G. & Lanza, A. F. & Pagano, I. 2012,
A&A, 539, A140
Baraffe, I. & Chabrier, G. 2010, A&A, 521, 44
Basri, G. & Marcy, W. M. 2005, AJ, 109, 762B
Basri, G. 2001, Proceedings of the 11th Cambridge Workshop on
Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun, 223, 261
Benz, A. O. & Güdel, M. 1994, A&A, 285, 621
Berdyugina, S. V, in Living Reviews in Solar Physics, Volume 2,
pp. 8 (2005)
Berger, E. & Ball, S. & Becker, K. M., et al. 2001, Nature, 410,
338
Berger, E. 2002, ApJ, 572, 503
Berger, E. & Rutledge, R. E. & Reid, I. N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 627,
960
Berger, E. 2006, ApJ, 648, 629
Berger, E. & Gizis, J. E. & Giampapa, M. S., et al. 2008, ApJ,
673, 1080
Berger, E. & Basri, G. & Gizis, J. E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1307
Berger, E. & Rutledge, R. E. & Phan-Bao, N., et al. 2009, ApJ,
695, 310
Berger, E. & Basri, G. & Fleming, T. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709,
332
Bouy, H. & Duchêne, G. & Köhler, R., et al. 2004, A&A, 423, 341
Burgasser, A. J. & Putman, M. E. 2005, ApJ, 626, 486
Burrows, A. & Marley, M. & Hubbard, W. B., et al. 1997, ApJ,
491, 856
Chabrier, G. & Baraffe, I. & Allard, F. & Hauschildt, P. 2000,
ApJ, 542, 464
Chabrier, G. & Gallardo, J. & Baraffe, I. 2007, A&A, 472, L17
Chapman, G. A. & McGuire, T. E. 1977, ApJ, 217, 657
Clarke, F. J. & Tinney, C. G. & Covey, K. R. 2002, MNRAS, 332,
361
Clarke, F. J. & Oppenheimer, B. R. & Tinney, C. G. 2002,
MNRAS, 335, 1158
Clarke, F. J. & Hodgkin, S.T. & Oppenheimer, B. R. &
Robertson, J. & Haubois, X. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2009
Close, L. M. & Siegler, N. & Freed, M. & Biller, B. 2003, ApJ,
587, 407
Cushing, M. C. & J. D. Kirkpatrick & Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011,
ApJ, 743, 50C
Dahn, C. C. & Harris, H. C. & Vrba, F. J., et al. 2002, AJ, 124,
1170
Donati, J.-F. & Forveille, T. & Cameron, A. C., et al. 2006,
Science, 311, 633
Donati, J.-F. & Morin, J. & Petit, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390,
545D
Dulk, G. A. & Marsh, K. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 350
Dupuy, T. J. & Liu, M. C. & Bowler, B. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721,
1725
Edelson, R. A. & Krolik, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 333, 646
Enoch, M. L. & Brown, M. E. & Burgasser, A. J. 2003, AJ, 126,
1006
Forveille, T. & Beuzit, J. -L. & Delorme, P., et al. 2005, A&A,
435, L5
Fröhlich, C. & Lean, J. 2004, A&A Rev., 12, 273
Fuhrmeister, B. & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2004, A&A, 420, 1079
Gatewood, G. & Coban, L. 2009, AJ, 137, 402
Gelino, C. R. & Marley, M. S. & Holtzman, J. A. & Ackerman,
A. S. & Lodders, K. 2002, ApJ, 557, 433
Gizis, J. E. & Monet, D. G. & Reid, N. I., et al. 2000, AJ, 120,
1085
Gizis, J. E. & Reid, N. I. 2006, AJ, 131, 638
Goldman, B. & Cushing, M. C. & Marley, M. S., et al. 2008,
A&A, 487, 277
Golimowski, D. A. & Leggett, S. K. & Marley, M. S., et al. 2004
AJ, 127, 3516
Güdel, M. & Benz, A. O. 1993, ApJ, 405, L63
Hale, A. 1994, AJ, 107, 1
Hallinan, G. & Antonova, A. & Doyle, J. G., et al. 2006, ApJ,
653, 690
Hallinan, G. & Bourke, S. & Lane, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, L25
Hallinan, G. & Antonova, A. & Doyle, J. G., et al. 2008, ApJ,
684, 644
Harding, L. K. & Hallinan, G. & Konopacky, Q. M., et al. 2013,
A&A, 554, A113
Hawley, S. L. & Pettersen, B. R. 1991, ApJ, 378, 725
Hilton, E. J. & West, A. A. & Hawley, S. L. & Kowalski, A. F.
2010, ApJ, 140, 1402
Johns-Krull, C. M. & Valenti, A. 1996, ApJ, 459, L95
Jones, H. R. A. & Pavlenko, Y. & Viti, S., et al. 2005, MNRAS,
358, 105
Kellermann, K. I. & Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. 1969, ApJ, 155, L71
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Henry, T. J. & Irwin, M. J. 1997, AJ, 113,
1421
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Reid, I. N. & Liebert, J., et al. 1999, ApJ,
519, 802
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Reid, I. N. & Liebert, J., et al. 2000, AJ,
120, 447
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Cushing, M. C. & Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011,
ApJS, 197, 19
Koen, C. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 473
Koen, C. & Matsunaga, N. & Menzies, J. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 466
Koen, C. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1151
Koen, C. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1735
Koen, C. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1197
Koen, C. 2012, MNRAS, 428, 2824
Konopacky, Q. M. & Ghez, A. M. & Barman, T. S., et al. 2010,
ApJ, 711, 1087
Konopacky, Q. M. & Ghez, A. M. & Fabrycky, D. C. &
Macintosh, B. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 79
Kowalski, A. F. & Hawley, S. L. & Holtzman, J. A. &
Wisniewski, J. P. & Hilton, E. J. 2010, ApJ, 714, L98
Kurtz, D. W. & Cunha, M. S. & Saio, H. et al. 2011, MNRAS,
414, 2550
Lane, C. & Hallinan, G. & Zavala, R. T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668,
L163
22
HARDING ET AL.
Leggett, S. K. & Allard, F. & Geballe, T. R. & Hauschildt, P. H.
& Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 908
Liebert, J. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Cruz, K. L., et al. 2003, AJ,
125, 343
Littlefair, S. P. & Dhillon, V. S. & Marsh, T. R., et al. 2008,
MNRAS, 391, L88
Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447
Maiti, M. & Sengupta, S. & Parihar, P. S. & Anupama, G. C.
2005, ApJ, 619, L183
Maiti, M. 2007, AJ, 133, 1633
Martı́n, E. L. & Rebolo, R. & Magazzu, A. 1994, ApJ, 436, 262
Martı́n, E. L. & Delfosse, X. & Basri, G., et al. 1999, AJ, 118,
2466
Martı́n, E. L. & Zapatero Osorio, M. R. & Lehto, H. J. 2001,
ApJ, 557, 822
McLean, M. & Berger, E. & Reiners, A. 2012, ApJ, 746, 23
Mohanty, S. & Basri, G. 2003, ApJ, 583, 451
Morin, J. & Donati, J. F. & Petit, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390,
567
Morin, J. & Donati, J. F. & Petit, P., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407,
2269
Neuhäuser, R. & Briceño, C. & Comerón, F., et al. 1999, A&A,
343, 883
Osten, R. A. & Hawley, S. L. & Bastian, T. S. & Reid, I. N. 2006,
ApJ, 637, 518
Osten, R. A. & Phan-Bao, N. & Hawley, S. L., et al. 2009 ApJ,
700, 1750
Parker, E. N. 1975, ApJ, 198, 205
Phan-Bao, N. & Osten, R. A. & Lim, J. & Martı́n, E. L. & Ho, P.
T. P. 2007, ApJ, 658, 553
Phan-Bao, N. & Lim, J. & Donati, J. F. & Johns-Krull, C. M. &
Martı́n, E. L. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1721
Radigan, J. & Jayawardhana, R. & Lafrenière, D. & Artigau, E.
& Marley, M. & Saumon, D. 2012, ApJ, 750, 105
Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJ, 426, 51
Reid, I. N. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Gizis, J. E. & Liebert, J. 1999,
ApJ, 527, L105
Reid, I. N. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Gizis, J. E., et al. 2000, AJ,
119, 369
Reid, I. N. & Burgasser, A. J. & Cruz, K. L., et al. 2001, AJ, 121,
1710
Reid, I. N. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Liebert, J., et al. 2002, AJ,
124, 519
View publication stats
Reid, I. N & Cruz, K. L. & Laurie, S. P., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 354
Reiners, A. & Basri, G. 2007, ApJ, 656, 1121
Reiners, A. & Basri, G. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1390
Reiners, A. & Basri, G. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1416
Rockenfeller, B. & Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. & Mundt, R. 2006a,
A&A, 448, 1111
Rockenfeller, B. & Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. & Mundt, R. &
Ibrahimov, M. A. 2006b, MNRAS, 367, 407
Route, M. & Wolszczan, A. 2012, ApJ, 747, L22
Rutledge, R. E. & Basri, G. & Martı́n, E. L. & Bildsten, L. 2000,
ApJ, 538, L141
Saar, S. H. & Linsky, J. L. 1982, ApJ, 299, L47
Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835
Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1991, MNRAS, 253, 198
Schweitzer, A. & Gizis, J. E. & Hauschildt, P. H. & Allard, F. &
Reid, I. N. 2001, ApJ, 555, 368
Sheehan, B. & Butler, R. F. in AIP Conference Proceedings,
Volume 984, pp. 162-167 (2008)
Solanki, S. K. & Unruh, Y. C. 1998, A&A, 329, 747
Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953
Stelzer, B. 2004, ApJ, 615, L153
Stepanov, A. V. & Kliem, B. & Zaitsev, V. V., et al. 2001, A&A,
374, 1072
Stephens, D. C. & Leggett, S. K. & Cushing, M. C., et al. 2009,
ApJ, 702, 154
Tinney, C. G. 1993, AJ, 105, 1045
Tinney, C. G. & Reid, I. N. & Gizis, J. & Mould, J. R. 1995, AJ,
110, 3014
Tinney, C. G. & Reid, I. N. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 1031
Tinney, C. G. & Tolley, A. J. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 119
Vasavada, A. R. & Showman, A. P., in Reports on Progress in
Physics, Volume 68, pp. 1935-1996 (2005)
Vrba, F. J. & Henden, A. A. & Luginbuhl, C. B., et al. 2004, AJ,
127, 2948
West, A. A. & Hawley, S. L. & Walkowicz, L. M., et al. 2004, AJ,
128, 426
West, A. A. & Basri, G. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1289
Wolszczan, A. & Frail, D. A. 1992, Nature, 355, 145
Zapatero Osorio, M. R. & Martı́n, E. L. & Bouy, H., et al. 2006,
ApJ, 647, 1405
Zarka, P. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 20159