4.6 Article

Atomic and molecular data for optical stellar spectroscopy

期刊

PHYSICA SCRIPTA
卷 90, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054010

关键词

atomic data; cool stars; surveys

资金

  1. Swedish National Space Board (Rymdstyrelsen)
  2. STFC of the UK of the laboratory astrophysics programme at Imperial College
  3. STFC [ST/I001034/1, ST/K001051/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K001051/1, ST/I001034/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-precision spectroscopy of large stellar samples plays a crucial role for several topical issues in astrophysics. Examples include studying the chemical structure and evolution of the Milky Way Galaxy, tracing the origin of chemical elements, and characterizing planetary host stars. Data are accumulating from instruments that obtain high-quality spectra of stars in the ultraviolet, optical and infrared wavelength regions on a routine basis. These instruments are located at ground-based 2-10 m class telescopes around the world, in addition to the spectrographs with unique capabilities available at the Hubble Space Telescope. The interpretation of these spectra requires high-quality transition data for numerous species, in particular neutral and singly ionized atoms, and di-or triatomic molecules. We rely heavily on the continuous efforts of laboratory astrophysics groups that produce and improve the relevant experimental and theoretical atomic and molecular data. The compilation of the best available data is facilitated by databases and electronic infrastructures such as the NIST Atomic Spectra Database, the VALD database, or the Virtual Atomic and Molecular Data Centre. We illustrate the current status of atomic data for optical stellar spectra with the example of the Gaia-ESO Public Spectroscopic Survey. Data sources for 35 chemical elements were reviewed in an effort to construct a line list for a homogeneous abundance analysis of up to 10(5) stars.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据