4.6 Article

The Solar Neighborhood. XLVII. Comparing M-dwarf Models with Hubble Space Telescope Dynamical Masses and Spectroscopy*

Journal

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 161, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd2c2

Keywords

M dwarf stars; Astrometric binary stars; Stellar interiors; Stellar evolutionary models; Stellar atmospheres; Stellar masses

Funding

  1. NSF [AST-1400680, AST-171555]
  2. NASA from the Space Telescope Science Institute under NASA [12938, NAS5-26555]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study tested models of M-dwarf structure and evolution using optical spectroscopy, finding marginal agreement between evolutionary model predictions and observations, with some discrepancies in cases where the condition of coevality was not fully satisfied.
We use HST/STIS optical spectroscopy of 10 M dwarfs in five closely separated binary systems to test models of M-dwarf structure and evolution. Individual dynamical masses ranging from 0.083 to 0.405 M for all stars are known from previous work. We first derive temperature, radius, luminosity, surface gravity, and metallicity by fitting the BT-Settl atmospheric models. We verify that our methodology agrees with empirical results from long-baseline optical interferometry for stars of similar spectral types. We then test whether or not evolutionary models can predict those quantities given the stars' known dynamical masses and the conditions of coevality and equal metallicity within each binary system. We apply this test to five different evolutionary model sets: the Dartmouth models, the MESA/MIST models, the models of Baraffe et al., the PARSEC models, and the YaPSI models. We find marginal agreement between evolutionary model predictions and observations, with few cases where the models respect the condition of coevality in a self-consistent manner. We discuss the pros and cons of each family of models and compare their predictive power.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available