Arxiv:2003.11106V2 [Astro-Ph.SR] 9 Apr 2020 Can Also Be Probed Using the Other Orbital Elements– Eccen- Shu Et Al
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DRAFT VERSION APRIL 10, 2020 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX62 Orbital Parameter Determination for Wide Stellar Binary Systems in the Age of Gaia LOGAN A. PEARCE,1, 2, 3 ADAM L. KRAUS,2 TRENT J. DUPUY,4 ANDREW W. MANN,5 ELISABETH R. NEWTON,6 BENJAMIN M. TOFFLEMIRE,2 AND ANDREW VANDERBURG2, 7 1Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA 2Department of Astronomy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA 3NSF Graduate Research Fellow 4Gemini Observatory, Northern Operations Center, 670 N. A’ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720, USA 5Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 6Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA 7NASA Sagan Fellow (Received January 4, 2020; Revised March 20, 2020; Accepted March 24, 2020) Submitted to ApJ ABSTRACT The orbits of binary stars and planets, particularly eccentricities and inclinations, encode the angular mo- mentum within these systems. Within stellar multiple systems, the magnitude and (mis)alignment of angular momentum vectors among stars, disks, and planets probes the complex dynamical processes guiding their for- mation and evolution. The accuracy of the Gaia catalog can be exploited to enable comparison of binary orbits with known planet or disk inclinations without costly long-term astrometric campaigns. We show that Gaia as- trometry can place meaningful limits on orbital elements in cases with reliable astrometry, and discuss metrics for assessing the reliability of Gaia DR2 solutions for orbit fitting. We demonstrate our method by determining orbital elements for three systems (DS Tuc AB, GK/GI Tau, and Kepler-25/KOI-1803) using Gaia astrometry alone. We show that DS Tuc AB’s orbit is nearly aligned with the orbit of DS Tuc Ab, GK/GI Tau’s orbit might be misaligned with their respective protoplanetary disks, and the Kepler-25/KOI-1803 orbit is not aligned with either component’s transiting planetary system. We also demonstrate cases where Gaia astrometry alone fails to provide useful constraints on orbital elements. To enable broader application of this technique, we introduce the python tool lofti gaiaDR2 to allow users to easily determine orbital element posteriors. 1. INTRODUCTION On the scale of stellar systems (single or multiple) and The monitoring of orbits is one of the oldest tools used their attendant planetary systems, angular momentum vectors to measure the properties and evolution of astrophysical sys- trace their condensation out of interstellar clouds, and their tems. Orbital periods and semi-major axes convey the masses subsequent orbital evolution through N-body interactions. In of systems, and have been used to weigh the universe in the the classical picture of star formation, the collapse of a spher- context of planets (Christy & Harrington 1978), stars (Aitken ical protostellar core forms a central star whose rotation, cir- 1918), and galaxies and their dark matter halos (Rubin & cumstellar disk, and natal planetary system are aligned with Ford 1970). However, a broad range of astrophysical effects the initial angular momentum of the primordial core (e.g., arXiv:2003.11106v2 [astro-ph.SR] 9 Apr 2020 can also be probed using the other orbital elements– eccen- Shu et al. 1987). However, asymmetry in the mass distribu- tricities and orientations–that encode information about the tion and gas motions of protostellar cores can be driven by magnitude and direction of the angular momentum vector(s) phenomena like turbulence and magnetic fields, which com- in a system. Even in its simplest form, much can be inferred plicate this simple picture of angular momentum evolution. about a system’s formation and past history by the relative (e.g., Boss & Bodenheimer 1979; Lee et al. 2019). (mis)alignment of angular momentum vectors for different These same effects are thought to be the main drivers of objects and on different scales. wide (a & 50 AU; Ducheneˆ & Kraus 2013; Moe & Di Ste- fano 2017) binary star formation in the core fragmentation scenario (Burkert & Bodenheimer 1993; Bate 2000; Offner Corresponding author: Logan A. Pearce et al. 2010, 2016), which must operate broadly to account for [email protected] the observed ubiquity of binary and higher order systems at 2 PEARCE ET AL. these separations (e.g., Duquennoy & Mayor 1991; Ragha- tems with separations less than ∼50 AU (Kraus et al. 2012, van et al. 2010; Kraus et al. 2008; Kraus et al. 2011). The 2016). Given the results above, this absence might suggest subsequent evolution of protoplanetary disks in the binary that mutual alignment is a condition for the systems (disk or environment can be perturbed from their initial configura- planetary) that do survive. Testing this hypothesis, as well tion by torques from the companion (Papaloizou & Terquem as determining the relevant scales where alignment becomes 1995; Batygin 2012; Lai 2014), while also dampening mis- common/necessary (which appears to differ depending on the alignment of orbiting bodies (Goldreich & Tremaine 1980; subsystem; binary-triple orbits, stellar rotation axes, binary- Artymowicz 1992). These complex dynamical interactions planetary orbits, etc) requires a large population of systems can destroy or re-introduce alignment between planetary sys- with well-characterized orbital parameters at a various evo- tems, binary orbits, and stellar rotation. Additionally, bina- lutionary stages. While the sample is growing, constraining ries on scales with a . 100 AU can also be formed via disk wide orbit systems is the bottleneck through which all future fragmentation, which would be expected to form well aligned progress must pass. systems (Tobin et al. 2016; Tokovinin & Moe 2019). Fi- For decades there has been extensive effort to accurately nally, discrete objects within the system can interact through determine probable orbits for visual stellar and substellar long-term secular effects (e.g., Kozai 1962; Lidov 1962; Fab- companion systems using time-series astrometric monitor- rycky & Tremaine 2007) or strong scattering via three-body ing (e.g. Heintz 1978; Kiselev & Kiyaeva 1980;S egransan´ interactions (Rasio & Ford 1996; Weidenschilling & Marzari et al. 2000; Benedict et al. 2016; Kiyaeva et al. 2017). These 1996; Bate et al. 2002; Chatterjee et al. 2008) to exchange measurements have enabled comparisons with the known in- orbital energy and angular momentum, driving the evolution clinations of planets or disks around individual components and randomization of angular momentum vectors. (e.g. Dupuy et al. 2016; Bryan et al. 2020). The Gaia astro- There is extensive observational evidence for both align- metric revolution presents an opportunity to obtain similarly ment and misalignment among the stars, disks, and planets meaningful constraints on wide stellar binary orbital param- in binary systems. In the case of stellar properties, measure- eters quickly in comparison. Gaia DR2 (Gaia Collaboration ments for close systems (a . 50 AU) suggest broad align- et al. 2016; Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018) already reports ment of stellar spin (Hale 1994) and binary orbits (Tokovinin precise positions and proper motions for many wide stellar & Latham 2017), as well as for inner and outer orbits of hi- binaries, and future data releases will increase the number erarchical, high-order multiple systems (Tokovinin 2018a). of systems (resolving tighter pairs and presenting astrome- In contrast, very wide systems do not show any correlation, try for fainter companions) and further improve the measure- though the ability to conduct this measurement is still quite ment uncertainties. The wealth of new systems resolved by new (e.g., Tokovinin 2018b). Protoplanetary disks within Gaia is a boon to statistical studies of binary-disk and binary- young binary systems are seen in both states (mis-/aligned) planet alignment and permits new analyses of systems for with respect to each other (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998; Jensen which time series astrometry is not yet available. et al. 2004) and the binary orbit (Winn et al. 2004; Plavchan As has long been noted for orbit fits, several families of et al. 2013; Schaefer et al. 2014). In systems which host orbit solutions match observations when a small fraction of circumbinary disks, binaries with a . 1 AU exhibit tight an orbit is observed (Aitken 1918). In most cases, Gaia mea- alignment between the binary orbit and the disk plane, while surements of relative positions and velocities do not provide systems with wider separations appear to have a random dis- enough observations to fully determine unique orbit solu- tribution of mutual inclinations (Czekala et al. 2019). The tions, however in this work we show that they can constrain first orbital motion measurements for planet-hosting wide bi- the orbital elements to a scientifically useful degree. We find naries rule out a random distribution of planet-binary mutual that for a range of binary configurations, Gaia DR2 astrome- inclinations, showing that while the alignment might not be try alone can provide orbital parameter posterior distributions ◦ as strongly correlated as for multi-planet systems (. 5 ; Lis- that are consistent with, and in some cases superior to, long sauer et al. 2011), they tend towards alignment rather than time series astrometric observations. We caution that not all random orientations with respect to the planets (e.g., Dupuy binary systems are amenable to this approach, as we discuss et al. 2016; Dupuy et al., in prep). in Section 4. The emerging trend from these studies is that the align- In Section 2, we describe our orbit fitting technique com- ment between system components appears to increase with bining Gaia DR2 relative positions and proper motions with decreasing separation. This may be the effect of dynamical the Orbits for the Impatient (OFTI, Blunt et al. 2017) re- processes that align systems more efficiently at small separa- jection sampling orbit fitting method. We also recommend tions, or a signpost for their formation process. In the case metrics for assessing the quality of the Gaia solution and ac- of planets, for instance, occurrence rates of protoplanetary curacy of the technique.