# Wide binaries in the Orion Nebula Cluster

## 1 Introduction

Amongst the stars around us in the Galactic field, single systems like our own are a minority. Most stars are found in binaries, or in systems of even higher multiplicity. Recent surveys of the nearby stellar population , extending to 20 pc or so, indicate that about 60 per cent of systems in the solar neighbourhood are binary. In younger populations, such as those in nearby star-forming regions, the degree of binarity is often even higher. Surveys of the low-mass dark cloud complexes in Taurus-Auriga, Ophiuchus, Chameleon, Lupus, and Corona Australis reveal a fraction of binary systems roughly twice as high as that of the solar neighbourhood in the range of binary separations detected (typically 10–1500 AU) . Thus single stars are rare in these clusters. An exception to this trend is the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) in the Orion A giant molecular cloud, which has a binary fraction roughly the same as the solar neighbourhood value, at least over the separation range of $``$ 25–500 AU .

The ONC differs from the other regions mentioned in that it is densely clustered, and contains a number of massive O and B type stars. In particular, the core of the ONC, known as the Trapezium cluster after the eponymous four central OB stars which dominate it , contains some 1000 stars with a peak density of 2–5$`\times 10^4`$ stars $`\mathrm{pc}^3`$ . This compares to core densities in the Taurus-Auriga complex of only around 10 stars $`\mathrm{pc}^3`$. It has been argued, based on estimates of star formation rates , that dense OB associations like the ONC are responsible for the majority of star formation in the Galaxy, and are therefore representative of the typical environment for early stellar evolution.

The results on binarity in star-forming regions would seem to support this conclusion. However, the high density of the ONC has meant that the surveys carried out there so far have only been able to detect binaries separated by less than about 500 AU. It would be very useful to examine the binary fraction at wider separations, but in doing so one is increasingly likely to observe chance projected alignments rather than actual bound pairs. Bate, Clarke & McCaughrean  analysed the mean surface density of companions in the centre of the ONC using data from Prosser et al.  and McCaughrean et al. , and found weak evidence there for a deficit of binaries with separations greater than 500 AU. But to do better, and to detect wider binaries properly, one must use the fact that they have a common proper motion across the sky. Specifically, one looks for stars whose relative velocity is less than the critical value needed to escape their mutual gravitational attraction (which can be determined by making an assumption or estimate of the stars’ masses).

In this work we attempt to detect common proper motion binaries in the ONC using the data obtained and catalogued by Jones & Walker (1988; hereafter also JW), and thence determine whether the number found is consistent with the field star binary distribution over the same separation range.

## 2 Finding common proper motion pairs

The JW study used a series of optical wavelength photographic plates taken over a baseline of about 20 years, and obtained proper motion measurements for over 1000 stars. Compared to deeper and higher spatial resolution surveys carried out using the Hubble Space Telescope at optical wavelengths  and ground-based adaptive optics techniques at infrared wavelengths , the JW data reveal only a fraction of the total stellar population. However, it remains the best proper motion survey to date, and covers a relatively large area on the sky, extending roughly 15 arcmin or 2 pc from the cluster centre, taken to be $`\theta ^1`$ Ori C, the most massive of the four Trapezium stars.

Ideally, one would have data in *three* dimensions for position and velocity, plus the mass of each star, as it would then be a simple task to identify all the bound pairs within the cluster, and give an accurate value for the binary fraction. Instead, because the data provides information only in two dimensions, one can do no more than place an upper limit on the number of possible bound stars. The approach taken here is to look for *apparent binaries* in the JW data – pairs whose 2D positions and velocities allow them to be bound if one ignores the third dimension – and then to compare the number of these with the number of similar pairs observed in a randomly generated model cluster with known parameters.

Hillenbrand  found the mean stellar mass in the Trapezium to be approximately 0.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$; here we make the assumption that all the stars are of solar mass. The distance to the ONC is taken to be 470 pc (the value used by JW), at which 1 pc corresponds to 7.3 arcmin on the sky. We test for binarity at projected separations up to 5000 AU, beyond which the critical relative velocity (the escape velocity for a pair at that separation) is lower than the mean error in the JW velocity data ($`0.8\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). A lower limit of 1000 AU is imposed by the observational resolution of $``$ 2 arcsec. Thus our study is complementary to previous work, where binaries were sought at separations roughly ten times smaller.

An analysis of the JW data gives the following initial results. Eliminating stars with less than 80 per cent membership probability leaves 894 stars in the cluster catalogue, which give a total of $`894\times (8941)/2=399171`$ pairs. Of these, 192 have apparent separations between 1000 and 5000 AU. Assuming solar masses and using the JW velocity measurements (ignoring errors for the time being), three of these 192 have relative velocities lower than the critical velocity for their separation.

It is perhaps likely that if data for the radial dimension were known, these binaries would turn out to be unbound. But it is also likely that the effect of errors has been to ‘disrupt’ other apparent binaries in the cluster. These complications – in particular the projection effect – mean that we cannot directly compare our result with a prediction from the Duquennoy & Mayor (or any other) period distribution. Instead, as mentioned above, the comparison is made by constructing an ensemble of model clusters whose observable parameters match the JW data statistically, but which contain the population of binaries we want to compare with.

## 3 Simulated clusters

The model clusters have a three-dimensional density distribution corresponding to an isothermal sphere with a flat core:

$$\rho (r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho _0\hfill & \text{if }rR_{\mathrm{core}}\hfill \\ \rho _0\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{core}}}{r}\right)^2\hfill & \text{if }rR_{\mathrm{core}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)   
where $`R_{\mathrm{core}}=0.04\mathrm{pc}`$. A similar distribution was shown by Bate, Clarke, & McCaughrean  to give a good fit to the projected density distribution of the JW data. Figure 1 shows a comparison between the simulated and observed data.

A finite radius of 5 pc is chosen, within which a sufficient number of stars are distributed according to (1) to ensure that, after the corrections discussed below, roughly 900 appear projected within the same radius as the JW survey ($`2`$ pc). Each system is then assigned a velocity chosen from a Maxwellian distribution with dispersion of 4 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, equal (in three dimensions) to that found by Jones & Walker for most of the cluster.

Two different binary populations are considered, one with a binary fraction of zero (i.e. no binaries at all), and the other with a population matching that found by Duquennoy & Mayor . In the latter, the periods have a log-normal distribution peaking at 180 years, which corresponds to a typical separation for solar mass stars of 30 AU.

Once a cluster has been generated with these parameters, we mimic the process of observing it, applying the same errors and restrictions to the data as were present in Jones & Walker’s survey. For example, the velocity errors in the JW catalogue were found to be log-normally distributed with a peak at 0.8 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and we apply noise to the velocities in the model cluster using the same distribution. Similarly, the JW survey had a resolution limit of about 2 arcsec or 1000 AU, so any model stars which appear closer in projection are merged into one.

We must also correct for the fact that some of the binaries present in Duquennoy & Mayor’s population would have appeared as single stars to Jones & Walker, because one companion would have been fainter than they could detect. In the outer part of the cluster, JW give their detection limit as $`I16`$, but in the centre, where there is bright background emmission from the Orion Nebula, this limit is reduced. Indeed, within about 2 arcmin (0.3 pc) of the centre they apparently detect no stars fainter than $`I=14`$. We take the mean reddening of $`A_V=2.4`$ magnitudes measured towards the optically-visible stars by Herbig & Terndrup , which corresponds to a mean reddening in the $`I`$ band of 1.4 magnitudes. Then, in the outer regions, the JW study is sensitive to stars with intrinsic $`I`$ magnitudes as faint as 14.6, which at the assumed distance and an age of 1 Myr (see §4) corresponds to a mass of roughly 0.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ . The brighter detection limit within 0.3 pc corresponds to a mass of 0.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The minimum companion mass in the wide binaries included in Duquennoy & Mayor’s survey was also about 0.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, this limit being determined by the magnitude range of the data they used – see Patience et al. . We therfore choose to apply a correction only to the centre of our simulated clusters, removing a certain fraction of the binary components whose projected distance from $`\theta ^1`$ Ori C is less than 0.3 pc. Denoting this fraction by $`X`$, we need to evaluate the following integral:

$$X=_{0.6}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{_{0.2}^{0.6}s(m,\mu )d\mu }{_{0.2}^ms(m,\mu )d\mu }\right)f(m)dm$$
(2)   
where $`f(m)`$ is the stellar mass function in the cluster, and $`s(m,\mu )`$ is the companion mass function – the distribution of companions of mass $`\mu `$ to primaries of mass $`m`$. For simplicity, we assume that the two mass functions match in the region where $`\mu m`$:

$$s(m,\mu )=\{\begin{array}{cc}f(\mu )\hfill & \text{if }\mu m\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }\mu >m\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)   
(The primary is defined to be the more massive star.) Hillenbrand  found the mass distribution of stars in the ONC to be reasonably fitted by a Miller-Scalo mass function – a semi log-normal, falling from a maximum at around 0.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Using this function for $`f(m)`$, we evaluate the integral numerically, and obtain a result of 0.75 for $`X`$.

With these corrections applied, each model cluster is then analysed for apparent binaries, as was done with the JW data in the previous section. The results for ensembles of 2000 clusters, plotted in Figure 2, show that the

clusters with zero binary fraction, when seen in projection, are far more likely to show three common proper motion binaries than the clusters with a Duquennoy & Mayor  binary population. Specifically, we find that in the former case, a result of three apparent binaries occurs in 427 (21 per cent) of the 2000 clusters, while for the Duquennoy & Mayor clusters which have been corrected for mass detection limits it occurs in just 13 (0.7 per cent) of them. A result of three binaries is 49 centiles away from the median of the latter distribution, which in a gaussian curve would correspond to a distance of just over 2.3 times the standard deviation.

## 4 Discussion

Over the bulk of the cluster, Jones & Walker found a roughly constant three-dimensional velocity dispersion of about 4 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, increasing only slightly towards the core. They also found some evidence for anisotropy in the velocity dispersion towards the outer regions of the cluster, increasing in the radial direction – the direction towards and away from the cluster centre – and decreasing in the tangential direction. In terms of separation, 4 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ corresponds to a hard/soft binary limit of about 30 AU, much closer than the binaries we have considered here. Our wide binaries are therefore well into the regime where one would expect disruption through encounters with other cluster members.

The typical encounter time $`\tau `$ of a binary with another star in the cluster can be crudely estimated as

$$\tau =\frac{1}{n\sigma S}$$
(4)   
where $`n`$ is the stellar density, $`\sigma `$ the velocity dispersion, and $`S`$ the binary cross section (taken simply to be $`\pi a^2`$, with $`a`$ the semi-major axis, since we ignore the effect of gravitational focusing for wide binaries). In the core, taking a stellar density of $`2\times 10^4`$ pc<sup>-3</sup>, we expect a binary with $`a=1000`$ AU to have $`\tau `$ less than $`10^5`$ years. Further out, $`\tau `$ increases as the density drops, surpassing $`10^7`$ years at about 1 pc from the cluster centre (assuming an isothermal sphere distribution).

In her study of masses and ages in the ONC, Hillenbrand  found the great majority of stars to be less than a million years old. Since this is significantly shorter than the disruption timescale for wide (1000–5000 AU) binaries in the outer regions of the cluster, their apparent absence could be taken either as evidence that none were formed in that separation range, or as an indication that all the stars in the outer cluster have at some stage passed through a denser environment, such as the core. Taking the core radius to be about 0.2 pc,<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note that this is not the same core radius as was used previously in generating the model clusters. That value (0.04 pc) simply parameterised the isothermal sphere distribution used to match Jones & Walker’s data. as found by Hillenbrand & Hartmann , a star moving at 4 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ will take some $`10^5`$ years to pass through, so that even one visit would suffice to disrupt most of these wide binaries. But the ONC is a young cluster, and it is not clear that the majority of stars will have visited the core in the time available.

Brandner & Köhler  have examined the period distribution of binaries in two subgroups of the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association, and found significantly more wide ($`a>200`$ AU) binaries in the subgroup containing fewer massive B type stars. It is plausible that the binary period distribution in star-forming regions might be determined at the time of formation, and be influenced by conditions like the temperature and density of the cloud, as has been proposed by Durisen & Sterzik . However, it is difficult to exclude the effects of subsequent dynamical evolution, which can happen on a short timescale in these dense environments, and which can account for a deficit of wide binaries independently of the initial distribution. This effect has recently been investigated in dynamical simulations of clusters in equilibrium, cold collapse, and expansion by Kroupa, Petr & McCaughrean . An overview of dynamical processes in young clusters is provided by Bonnell & Kroupa .

In conclusion, we observe that about twenty per cent of the binaries in Duquennoy & Mayor’s survey are wider than 1000 AU, so with a total binary fraction of 0.6, they comprise around fifteen per cent of G dwarf stars in the Galactic field. A similar figure can be assumed for the M dwarfs in Fischer & Marcy’s  survey. If such systems do not come from regions like Orion – whether because they are never formed or because they are dynamically disrupted – then a significant number of field stars must be formed elsewhere, possibly in cooler or less dense environments. This raises the more general question of what ‘mix’ of star forming regions is required to produce the field distribution we see today, and demonstrates the utility of binary stars as a diagnostic probe for such syntheses. Further collation of binary statistics in different star forming regions, over the widest range of separations, should continue to shed light on these questions.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We thank Ian Bonnell, Pavel Kroupa, and Melvyn Davies for valuable help and discussions. A. Scally is grateful for the support of a European Union Marie Curie Fellowship.