Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T02:43:37.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A ‘Rosetta Stone’ for Protoplanetary Disks: The Synergy of Multi-Wavelength Observations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2016

A. Sicilia-Aguilar*
Affiliation:
SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, KY16 9SS, St Andrews, UK
A. Banzatti
Affiliation:
Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
A. Carmona
Affiliation:
Université de Toulouse, UPS-OMP, IRAP, 14 avenue E. Belin, Toulouse, F-31400, France
T. Stolker
Affiliation:
Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
M. Kama
Affiliation:
Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, PO Box 9513, 2300 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands
I. Mendigutía
Affiliation:
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
A. Garufi
Affiliation:
Universidad Autonónoma de Madrid, Dpto. Física Teórica, Módulo 15, Facultad de Ciencias, Campus de Cantoblanco, E-28049 Madrid, Spain
K. Flaherty
Affiliation:
Van Vleck Observatory, Astronomy Department, Wesleyan University, 96 Foss Hill Drive, Middletown, CT 06459
N. van der Marel
Affiliation:
Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822-1839, USA
J. Greaves
Affiliation:
School of Physics & Astronomy, Cardiff University, 4 The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent progress in telescope development has brought us different ways to observe protoplanetary disks: interferometers, space missions, adaptive optics, polarimetry, and time- and spectrally-resolved data. While the new facilities have changed the way we can tackle open problems in disk structure and evolution, there is a substantial lack of interconnection between different observing communities. Here, we explore the complementarity of some of the state-of-the-art observing techniques, and how they can be brought together to understand disk dispersal and planet formation.

This paper was born at the ‘Protoplanetary Discussions’ meeting in Edinburgh, 2016. Its goal is to clarify where multi-wavelength observations converge in unveiling disk structure and evolution, and where they challenge our current understanding. We discuss caveats that should be considered when linking results from different observations, or when drawing conclusions from limited datasets (in terms of wavelength or sample). We focus on disk properties that are currently being revolutionized, specifically: the inner disk radius, holes and gaps and their link to large-scale disk structures, the disk mass, and the accretion rate. We discuss how their connections and apparent contradictions can help us to disentangle the disk physics and to learn about disk evolution.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Australia 2016 
Figure 0

Figure 1. A cartoon of the observations and the parts of the disk that they trace, taking as example a young solar analogue. Although observations trace very different regions and processes in the disk, we need to keep in mind that they are all connected through the disk itself. Note that the complexity of the disk is highly reduced for clarity (for instance, not all the tracers become optically thick at the same location/depth). For a similar figure regarding the phyiscal processes, see Haworth et al. (2016), Figure 1. Not to scale.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Disk radii that are accessible by different techniques tracing dust (left) and gas (right), for stars with different masses. The figure shows the regions where different methods overlap and what they cannot trace. Left: Detectable dust inner disk vs. stellar mass, as it can be observed at different wavelengths for an object at 140 pc distance. Resolved and unresolved observations are included. For unresolved observations, the detectability depends on the inner rim temperature, and is subject to model fitting (e.g. SED fitting), so the diagram shows the radii at which dust emission of larger than 15% over the photospheric levels can be detected. The lower edge of the observations correspond to the dust destruction radius (T ~ 1 500 K). For comparison, a stellar magnetosphere (between 4–8 Rstar) is also displayed. Right: Detectable gaseous inner disk vs. stellar mass, as it can be probed by different techniques. Note that for gas detetion, there is a distinction between atomic gas tracers and molecular gas. Beyond an approximate temperature of ~ 2 700 K, the gas is mostly atomic, although molecular gas can be found up to temperatures ~ 5 000 K, depending on density (Ilee et al. 2014). The CO gas will produce a substantial emission at temperatures > 300 K (Carmona et al. 2016), although detection may depend on the disk’s area. Also, note that ALMA gas observations at very high resolution are strongly limited by sensitivity, so most systems are not expected to be detectable as they do not have enough cold gas so far in.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Measurements of RIR, dust from IR interferometry (orange points, from Anthonioz et al. 2015; Menu et al. 2015b) and of RIR, CO from IR spectroscopy of CO gas (red points, from Banzatti & Pontoppidan 2015). The dust/CO radii (RX) are normalised to the dust sublimation radii Rsubl, expected from models. Large crosses show median values and median absolute deviations for two stellar mass bins.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Ranges of disk masses resulting from the uncertainties in total masses derived from dust and gas and measured by various techniques. The dashed vertical line indicates our reference mass for this exercise, taken to be the mass estimate for a disk with 1.3 mm emission of 25 mJy around a 1 M star (the median value in Andrews et al. 2013). The coloured bars mark how the mass estimate may change depending on the method. Using a gas tracer, depending on: C abundance (purple; Kama et al. 2016a), CO depletion/freeze out (pink, Thi et al. 2001; Du et al. 2015), isotopologue relations (yellow; Miotello et al. 2014), and changing the gas/dust ratio between 10–200 (red; Panić et al. 2009; Riviere-Marichalar et al. 2013). Using a dust indicator: with a complete SED lacking the mm data but including mid-IR (light blue) and far-IR (dark blue; Sicilia-Aguilar et al. 2011; Sicilia-Aguilar et al. 2015a; Currie & Sicilia-Aguilar 2011), varying the assumed dust temperature (green; Andrews et al. 2013), and changing the maximum grain size between 10 μm and 1 mm (black; Miyake & Nakagawa 1993; Henning & Stognienko 1996).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Lowest detectable accretion rates for stars with different masses, using different techniques. The (Siess, Dufour, & Forestini 2000) isochrone track for 3 Myr-old stars is used to transform between mass and luminosity. A distance of 140 pc is assumed. See references in text for details on the various techniques.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Disk masses as measured by observations, and as expected from the need to support the observed accretion rates during a lifetime of 2–3 Myr. The black dotted lines represent the usual limits of disk masses between 0.1–10% of the mass of the star. The yellow area displays the disk masses measured by (Andrews et al. 2013). The blue region represents the expected disk masses for the whole range of accretion rates observed, and a disk lifetime of 2 Myr (which is typically lower than the median disk lifetime of ~ 3 Myr). The dark blue line represents the expected disk masses considering the median accretion rate at 4 Myr and an accretion lifetime of 3 Myr (Sicilia-Aguilar et al. 2010).

Figure 6

Figure 7. An example of how a very different (and non-continuous) distribution of disk models, including changes in disk mass, vertical structure, grain sizes, and settling) can provide similarly good fits to partial multi-wavelength data (based on Sicilia-Aguilar et al. 2015a). The more data we include, the more models we can rule out. For the present example, NIR data can exclude a well-mixed gas and dust disk model, while the far-IR data and mm-wavelength upper limits put a strong constraint to the dust content in the disk. The fact that the silicate feature is not well-reproduced by any radially continuous disk model further indicates the presence of unresolved holes or gaps, which were not included in the model.

Figure 7

Table 1. Key observations and the processes that they can help to distinguish. The sections where the corresponding discussion can be found are also listed.

Figure 8

Figure 8. The disk Rosetta Stone. The top row lists the available observations, the left column lists different aspects of the disk structure and evolution. Green cells mark the places where observations can provide clear information about the given aspect of the disk structure. Yellow cells mark observations that provide some information on the disk structure, but subject to different interpretations in terms of disk models and/or disk physics. The combination of multiple observations allows us to trace the various parts of the gas and dust in the disk, connecting them through the different physical processes happening in disks.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Feasible observations with current instrumentation. The table summarises the kind of objects and disk regions that can be currently probed with the available instrumentation, depending on their distances, stellar, and disk properties.