4.7 Article

THE MASS-RADIUS RELATION OF YOUNG STARS. I. USCO 5, AN M4.5 ECLIPSING BINARY IN UPPER SCORPIUS OBSERVED BY K2

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 807, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/3

关键词

binaries: eclipsing; stars: evolution; stars: fundamental parameters; stars: individual (UScoCTIO 5); stars: low-mass; stars: pre-main sequence

资金

  1. NASA Science Mission directorate
  2. W. M. Keck Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the discovery that UScoCTIO 5, a known spectroscopic binary in the Upper Scorpius star-forming region (P = 34 days, M-tot sin(i) = 0.64M(circle dot)), is an eclipsing system with both primary and secondary eclipses apparent in K2 light curves obtained during Campaign 2. We have simultaneously fit the eclipse profiles from the K2 light curves and the existing RV data to demonstrate that UScoCTIO 5 consists of a pair of nearly identical M4.5 stars with M-A = 0.329 +/- 0.002 M-circle dot, R-A = 0.834 +/- 0.006 R-circle dot, M-B = 0.317 +/- 0.002 M-circle dot, and R-B = 0.810 +/- 0.006 R-circle dot. The radii are broadly consistent with pre-main-sequence ages predicted by stellar evolutionary models, but none agree to within the uncertainties. All models predict systematically incorrect masses at the 25%-50% level for the HR diagram position of these mid-M dwarfs, suggesting significant modifications to mass-dependent outcomes of star and planet formation. The form of the discrepancy for most model sets is not that they predict luminosities that are too low, but rather that they predict temperatures that are too high, suggesting that the models do not fully encompass the physics of energy transport (via convection and/or missing opacities) and/or a miscalibration of the SpT-T-eff scale. The simplest modification to the models (changing T-eff to match observations) would yield an older age for this system, in line with the recently proposed older age of Upper Scorpius (tau similar to 11 Myr).

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