4.7 Article

Kepler observations of the variability in B-type stars

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18311.x

关键词

stars: early-type; stars: oscillations

资金

  1. NASA's Science Mission Directorate
  2. South African Astronomical Observatory
  3. MNiSzW [NN203 302635]
  4. Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (FWO), Belgium
  5. Hungarian OTKA [K83790]
  6. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  7. Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA [NAS5-26555]
  8. NASA Office of Space Science [NNX09AF08G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of the light curves of 48 B-type stars observed by Kepler is presented. Among these are 15 pulsating stars, all of which show low frequencies, characteristic of slowly pulsating B (SPB) stars. Seven of these stars also show a few weak, isolated high frequencies and they could be considered as SPB/beta Cephei (beta Cep) hybrids. In all cases, the frequency spectra are quite different from what is seen from ground-based observations. We suggest that this is because most of the low frequencies are modes of high degree which are predicted to be unstable in models of mid-B stars. We find that there are non-pulsating stars within the beta Cep and SPB instability strips. Apart from the pulsating stars, we can identify stars with frequency groupings similar to what is seen in Be stars but which are not Be stars. The origin of the groupings is not clear, but may be related to rotation. We find periodic variations in other stars which we attribute to proximity effects in binary systems or possibly rotational modulation. We find no evidence for pulsating stars between the cool edge of the SPB and the hot edge of the delta Sct instability strips. None of the stars shows the broad features which can be attributed to stochastically excited modes as recently proposed. Among our sample of B stars are two chemically peculiar stars, one of which is a HgMn star showing rotational modulation in the light curve.

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

4.7
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