Observability of Debris Discs around M-stars

Authors: Patricia Luppe, Alexander V. Krivov, Mark Booth, Jean-François Lestrade

arXiv: 1910.13142v2 - DOI (astro-ph.EP)
11 pages, 7 figures, accepted by MNRAS
AI-generated keywords: Debris discs M-stars Herschel/DEBRIS survey IRAM NIKA-2 ALMA

AI-generated Key Points

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Debris discs are second-generation dusty discs formed by collisions of planetesimals
  • They have been extensively studied around hot and solar-type stars
  • The paucity of debris discs discovered around M-stars remains unclear
  • Authors investigate whether the sensitivity and wavelength coverage of present-day telescopes are simply unfavorable for detecting these discs or if they are truly rare
  • Using their procedure, authors can reproduce the $2.1^{+4.5}_{-1.7}$% detection rate of M-star debris discs of the DEBRIS survey which implies that these discs can indeed be similar to those around hotter stars but just avoid detection
  • Authors apply this procedure to IRAM NIKA-2 and ALMA bands 3, 6 and 7 to predict possible detection rates and give recommendations for future observations
  • More sensitive far infrared and single dish sub millimeter telescopes are necessary to discover the missing population of M star debris discs
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: Debris discs are second generation dusty discs formed by collisions of planetesimals. Many debris discs have been found and resolved around hot and solar-type stars. However, only a handful have been discovered around M-stars, and the reasons for their paucity remain unclear. Here we check whether the sensitivity and wavelength coverage of present-day telescopes are simply unfavourable for detection of these discs or if they are truly rare. We approach this question by looking at the Herschel/DEBRIS survey that has searched for debris discs including M-type stars. Assuming that these cool-star discs are "similar" to those of the hotter stars in some sense (i.e., in terms of dust location, temperature, fractional luminosity, or mass), we check whether this survey should have found them. With our procedure we can reproduce the $2.1^{+4.5}_{-1.7}$% detection rate of M-star debris discs of the DEBRIS survey, which implies that these discs can indeed be similar to discs around hotter stars and just avoid detection. We then apply this procedure to IRAM NIKA-2 and ALMA bands 3, 6 and 7 to predict possible detection rates and give recommendations for future observations. We do not favour observing with IRAM, since it leads to detection rates lower than for the DEBRIS survey, with 0.6%-4.5% for a 15 min observation. ALMA observations, with detection rates 0.9%-7.2%, do not offer a significant improvement either, and so we conclude that more sensitive far-infrared and single dish sub-millimetre telescopes are necessary to discover the missing population of M-star debris discs.

Submitted to arXiv on 29 Oct. 2019

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1910.13142v2

⚠This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
Debris discs, which are second-generation dusty discs formed by collisions of planetesimals, have been extensively studied around hot and solar-type stars. However, the paucity of debris discs discovered around M-stars remains unclear. In this study, authors Patricia Luppe, Alexander V. Krivov, Mark Booth, and Jean-François Lestrade investigate whether the sensitivity and wavelength coverage of present-day telescopes are simply unfavorable for detecting these discs or if they are truly rare. The authors approach this question by examining the Herschel/DEBRIS survey that has searched for debris discs including M-type stars. Assuming that these cool-star discs are "similar" to those of hotter stars in some sense (i.e., in terms of dust location, temperature, fractional luminosity, or mass), they check whether this survey should have found them. Using their procedure, they can reproduce the $2.1^{+4.5}_{-1.7}$% detection rate of M-star debris discs of the DEBRIS survey which implies that these discs can indeed be similar to those around hotter stars but just avoid detection. The authors then apply this procedure to IRAM NIKA-2 and ALMA bands 3, 6 and 7 to predict possible detection rates and give recommendations for future observations. They do not favor observing with IRAM since it leads to lower detection rates than for the DEBRIS survey with only 0.6%-4.5% for a 15 min observation; ALMA observations also do not offer significant improvement with detection rates ranging from 0.9%-7.2%. Therefore more sensitive far infrared and single dish sub millimeter telescopes are necessary to discover the missing population of M star debris discs. Overall this study highlights the need for further investigation into why there is a lack of debris disc discoveries around M stars and suggests that current telescopes may not be sensitive enough to detect them. The authors' findings provide valuable insights for future observations and could potentially lead to the discovery of a new population of debris discs around M stars.

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.