3.9 Review

High-precision distance measurements with classical pulsating stars

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASTROPHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

INDIAN ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1007/s12036-020-09640-z

Keywords

Stars; variables; Cepheids; RR Lyrae; Type II Cepheids-stars; evolution-stars; oscillations-cosmology; distance scale

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11850410434]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China through China Post-doctoral General Grant
  3. Gruber Fellowship 2020 grant - Gruber Foundation
  4. International Astronomical Union
  5. Munich Institute for Astro-and Particle Physics (MIAPP) of the DFG cluster of excellence Origin and Structure of the Universe''

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Classical Cepheid and RR Lyrae variables are radially pulsating stars that trace young and old-age stellar populations, respectively. These classical pulsating stars are the most sensitive probes for the precision stellar astrophysics and the extragalactic distance measurements. Despite their extensive use as standard candles thanks to their well-defined Period-Luminosity relations, distance measurements based on these objects suffer from their absolute primary calibrations, metallicity effects, and other systematic uncertainties. Here, I present a review of classical Cepheid, RR Lyrae and type II Cepheid variables starting with a historical introduction and describing their basic evolutionary and pulsational properties. I will focus on recent theoretical and observational efforts to establish absolute scale for these standard candles at multiple wavelengths. The application of these classical pulsating stars to high-precision cosmic distance scale will be discussed along with observational systematics. I will summarize with an outlook for futher improvements in our understanding of these classical pulsators in the upcoming era of extremely large telescopes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available