4.7 Article

The Red-giant Branch Bump Revisited: Constraints on Envelope Overshooting in a Wide Range of Masses and Metallicities

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 859, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf90

关键词

stars: evolution; stars: interiors; stars: low-mass; stars: luminosity function, mass function

资金

  1. International Space Science Institute (ISSI)
  2. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
  3. ERC Consolidator Grant funding scheme (project STARKEY) [615604]
  4. ERC Consolidator Grant funding scheme (project ASTEROCHRONOMETRY) [772293]
  5. STFC [2046401] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The red-giant branch bump provides valuable information for the investigation of the internal structure of low-mass stars. Because current models are unable to accurately predict the occurrence and efficiency of mixing processes beyond convective boundaries, one can use the luminosity of the bump a diagnostic of the maximum extension of the convective envelope during the first-dredge up as a calibrator for such processes. By combining asteroseismic and spectroscopic constraints, we expand the analysis of the bump to masses and metallicities beyond those previously accessible using globular clusters. Our data set comprises nearly 3000 red-giant stars observed by Kepler and with APOGEE spectra. Using statistical mixture models, we are able to detect the bump in the average seismic parameters nu(max) and show that its observed position reveals general trends with mass and metallicity in line with expectations from models. Moreover, our analysis indicates that standard stellar models underestimate the depth of efficiently mixed envelopes. The inclusion of significant overshooting from the base of the convective envelope, with an efficiency that increases with decreasing metallicity, allows us to reproduce the observed location of the bump. Interestingly, this trend was also reported in previous studies of globular clusters.

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