Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T16:16:36.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orbital period variation analysis of the HS 0705+6700 post-common envelope binary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2024

Huseyin Er Open the ORCID record for Huseyin Er [Opens in a new window] ,
Aykut Özdönmez Open the ORCID record for Aykut Özdönmez [Opens in a new window] ,
Ilham Nasiroglu Open the ORCID record for Ilham Nasiroglu [Opens in a new window]  and
Muhammet Emir Kenger Open the ORCID record for Muhammet Emir Kenger [Opens in a new window]
Huseyin Er*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Department of Astronomy and Space Science, Atatürk University, Yakutiye, Erzurum, Türkiye
Aykut Özdönmez
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Department of Astronomy and Space Science, Atatürk University, Yakutiye, Erzurum, Türkiye
Ilham Nasiroglu
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Department of Astronomy and Space Science, Atatürk University, Yakutiye, Erzurum, Türkiye
Muhammet Emir Kenger
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Atatürk University, Yakutiye, Erzurum, Türkiye
*
Corresponding author: Huseyin Er; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To detect additional bodies in binary systems, we performed a potent approach of orbital period variation analysis. In this work, we present 90 new mid-eclipse times of a short-period eclipsing binary system. Observations were made using two telescopes from 2014 to 2024, extending the time span of the $O-C$ diagram to 24 yr. The data obtained in the last seven years indicate significant deviations in the $O-C$ diagram from the models obtained in previous studies. We investigated whether this variation could be explained by mechanisms such as the LTT effect or Applegate. To investigate the cyclic behaviour observed in the system with the light travel time effect, we modelled the updated $O-C$ diagram using different models including linear/quadratic terms and additional bodies. The updated $O-C$ diagram is statistically consistent with the most plausible solutions of models that include multiple brown dwarfs close to each other. However, it has been found that the orbit of the system is unstable on short time scales. Using three different theoretical definitions, we have found that the Applegate mechanism cannot explain the variation in the orbital period except for the model containing the fifth body. Therefore, due to the complex nature of the system, further mid-eclipse time is required before any conclusions can be drawn about the existence of additional bodies.

Keywords

Binaries: closebinaries: eclipsingstars: individual (HS 0705+6700)- subdwarfsstars: planetary system
Type
Research Article
Information
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , Volume 41 , 2024 , e047
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Astronomical Society of Australia

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Almeida, L. A., Jablonski, F., & Rodrigues, C. V. 2013, ApJ, 766, 11Google Scholar
Applegate, J. H. 1992, ApJ, 385, 621Google Scholar
Astropy Collaboration, et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33Google Scholar
Baran, A. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2721Google Scholar
Baycroft, T. A., Triaud, A. H. M. J., & Kervella, P. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2241Google Scholar
Beuermann, K., Dreizler, S., Hessman, F. V., & Deller, J. 2012 a, A&A, 543, A138Google Scholar
Beuermann, K., et al. 2012 b, A&A, 540, A8Google Scholar
Bogensberger, D., Clarke, F., & Lynas-Gray, A. E. 2017, Open Astronomy, 26, 134Google Scholar
Bradley, L., et al. 2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4049061Google Scholar
Brown-Sevilla, S. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2122Google Scholar
Çamurdan, C. M., Zengin Çamurdan, D., & İbanoğlu, C. 2012, NewA, 17, 325Google Scholar
Cincotta, P. M., & Simó, C. 2000, A&AS, 147, 205Google Scholar
Craig, M., et al. 2017, Astropy/Ccdproc: V1.3.0.Post1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1069648Google Scholar
Diethelm, R. 2012, IBVS, 6029, 1Google Scholar
Diethelm, R. 2013, IBVS, 6063, 1Google Scholar
Drechsel, H., et al. 2001, in Astronomische Gesellschaft Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 18, Astronomische Gesellschaft Meeting Abstracts, MS 09 12Google Scholar
Eastman, J., Siverd, R., & Gaudi, B. S. 2010, PASP, 122, 935Google Scholar
Er, H., Özdönmez, A., & Nasiroglu, I. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 809Google Scholar
Esmer, E. M., Baştürk, Ö., Hinse, T. C., Selam, S. O., & Correia, A. C. M. 2021, A&A, 648, A85Google Scholar
Faillance, G., et al. 2020, JBAA, 130, 357Google Scholar
Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, JOSS, 1, 24Google Scholar
Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306Google Scholar
Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, CoAMCS, 5, 65Google Scholar
Goździewski, K., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 930Google Scholar
Goździewski, K., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1118Google Scholar
Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., & Marsh, T. R. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 669Google Scholar
Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., Marsh, T. R., & Ivanova, N. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 449Google Scholar
Harris, C. R., et al. 2020, Natur, 585, 357Google Scholar
Heber, U. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001Google Scholar
Horner, J., Hinse, T. C., Wittenmyer, R. A., Marshall, J. P., & Tinney, C. G. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2812Google Scholar
Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90Google Scholar
Irwin, J. B. 1952, ApJ, 116, 211Google Scholar
Kilkenny, D. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 487Google Scholar
Kruspe, R., Schuh, S., & Traulsen, I. 2007, IBVS, 5796, 1Google Scholar
Kubicki, D. 2015, IBVS, 6133, 1Google Scholar
Lanza, A. F. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1820Google Scholar
Lightkurve Collaboration, et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013, ascl:1812.013Google Scholar
Lohr, M. E., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A128Google Scholar
Mai, X., & Mutel, R. L. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2478Google Scholar
Marsh, T. R. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. Deeg, H. J., & Belmonte, J. A. (Springer Cham), 96Google Scholar
Maxted, P. F. L., Heber, U., Marsh, T. R., & North, R. C. 2001, 326, 1391Google Scholar
Morales-Rueda, L., Maxted, P. F. L., Marsh, T. R., North, R. C., & Heber, U. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 752Google Scholar
Nasiroglu, I., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 137Google Scholar
Németh, P., Kiss, L. L., & Sarneczky, K. 2005, IBVS, 5599Google Scholar
Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11813Google Scholar
Niarchos, P. G., Gazeas, K. D., & Manimanis, V. N. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 292, Interplay of Periodic, Cyclic and Stochastic Variability in Selected Areas of the H-R Diagram, ed. Sterken, C., 129Google Scholar
Özdönmez, A., Er, H., & Nasiroglu, I. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4725Google Scholar
Perets, H. B. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1331, Planetary Systems Beyond the Main Sequence, ed. Schuh, S., Drechsel, H., & Heber, U., 56Google Scholar
Petropoulou, M., Gazeas, K., Tzouganatos, L., & Karampotsiou, E. 2015, IBVS, 6153, 1Google Scholar
Pulley, D., Faillace, G., Smith, D., Watkins, A., & Owen, C. 2015, JBAA, 125, 284Google Scholar
Pulley, D., Faillace, G., Smith, D., Watkins, A., & von Harrach, S. 2018, A&A, 611, A48Google Scholar
Pulley, D., Sharp, I. D., Mallett, J., & von Harrach, S. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5725Google Scholar
Qian, S. B., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, L163Google Scholar
Qian, S. B., et al. 2010, Ap&SS, 329, 113Google Scholar
Qian, S. B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1408Google Scholar
Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128Google Scholar
Rein, H., & Tamayo, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 376Google Scholar
Sale, O., Bogensberger, D., Clarke, F., & Lynas-Gray, A. E. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3071Google Scholar
Schaffenroth, V., Barlow, B. N., Drechsel, H., & Dunlap, B. H. 2015, A&A, 576, A123Google Scholar
Schleicher, D. R. G., & Dreizler, S. 2014, A&A, 563, A61Google Scholar
Schleicher, D. R. G., Dreizler, S., Völschow, M., Banerjee, R., & Hessman, F. V. 2015, AN, 336, 458Google Scholar
Silvotti, R., Östensen, R., Telting, J., & Lovis, C. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 481, 6th Meeting on Hot Subdwarf Stars and Related Objects, ed. van Grootel, V., Green, E., Fontaine, G., & Charpinet, S., 13Google Scholar
Tian, Y. P., Xiang, F. Y., & Tao, X. 2009, AP&SS, 319, 119Google Scholar
Völschow, M., Schleicher, D. R. G., Perdelwitz, V., & Banerjee, R. 2016, A&A, 587, A34Google Scholar
Zorotovic, M., & Schreiber, M. R. 2013, A&A, 549, A95Google Scholar