4.6 Article

CALIBRATING CONVECTIVE PROPERTIES OF SOLAR-LIKE STARS IN THE KEPLER FIELD OF VIEW

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 755, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/1/L12

关键词

stars: fundamental parameters; stars: interiors; stars: oscillations

资金

  1. NASA's Science Mission Directorate
  2. NSF [AST-1105930]
  3. NASA [NNX09AJ53G]
  4. STFC [ST/J001163/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. NASA [115148, NNX09AJ53G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/J001163/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1105930] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stellar models generally use simple parameterizations to treat convection. The most widely used parameterization is the so-called mixing-length theory where the convective eddy sizes are described using a single number, alpha, the mixing-length parameter. This is a free parameter, and the general practice is to calibrate alpha using the known properties of the Sun and apply that to all stars. Using data from NASA's Kepler mission we show that using the solar-calibrated alpha is not always appropriate, and that in many cases it would lead to estimates of initial helium abundances that are lower than the primordial helium abundance. Kepler data allow us to calibrate alpha for many other stars and we show that for the sample of stars we have studied, the mixing-length parameter is generally lower than the solar value. We studied the correlation between alpha and stellar properties, and we find that alpha increases with metallicity. We therefore conclude that results obtained by fitting stellar models or by using population-synthesis models constructed with solar values of alpha are likely to have large systematic errors. Our results also confirm theoretical expectations that the mixing-length parameter should vary with stellar properties.

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