4.7 Article

ORBITAL CIRCULARIZATION OF HOT AND COOL KEPLER ECLIPSING BINARIES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 824, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/15

关键词

binaries: eclipsing; planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability; stars: evolution stars: fundamental parameters

资金

  1. NASA Origins program [NNX11AG85G]
  2. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF106]
  3. ASTERISK project (ASTERoseismic Investigations with SONG and Kepler) - European Research Council [267864]
  4. Danish Council for Independent Research, through a DFF Sapere Aude Starting grant [4181-00487B]
  5. NASA [NNX11AG85G, 145978] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rate of tidal circularization is predicted to be faster for relatively cool stars with convective outer layers, compared to hotter stars with radiative outer layers. Observing this effect is challenging because it requires large and well-characterized samples that include both hot and cool stars. Here we seek evidence of the predicted dependence of circularization upon stellar type, using a sample of 945 eclipsing binaries observed by Kepler. This sample complements earlier studies of this effect, which employed smaller samples of better-characterized stars. For each Kepler binary we measure e cos. based on the relative timing of the primary and secondary eclipses. We examine the distribution of e cos omega as a function of period for binaries composed of hot stars, cool stars, and mixtures of the two types. At the shortest periods, hot-hot binaries are most likely to be eccentric; for periods shorter than four days, significant eccentricities occur frequently for hot-hot binaries, but not for hot-cool or cool-cool binaries. This is in qualitative agreement with theoretical expectations based on the slower dissipation rates of hot stars. However, the interpretation of our results is complicated by the largely unknown ages and evolutionary states of the stars in our sample.

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