4.6 Article

NON-RADIAL OSCILLATIONS IN M-GIANT SEMI-REGULAR VARIABLES: STELLAR MODELS AND KEPLER OBSERVATIONS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 788, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L10

关键词

stars: interiors; stars: oscillations

资金

  1. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF106]
  2. ASTERISK project (ASTERoseismic Investigations with SONG and Kepler) - European Research Council [267864]
  3. Australian Research Council
  4. MTA Lendulet-2009 Fellowship
  5. OTKA [K83790]
  6. KTIA URKUT [10-1-20110019]
  7. NASA [NNX12AE17G]
  8. European Community [269194]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The success of asteroseismology relies heavily on our ability to identify the frequency patterns of stellar oscillation modes. For stars like the Sun this is relatively easy because the mode frequencies follow a regular pattern described by a well-founded asymptotic relation. When a solar-like star evolves off the main sequence and onto the red giant branch its structure changes dramatically, resulting in changes in the frequency pattern of the modes. We follow the evolution of the adiabatic frequency pattern from the main sequence to near the tip of the red giant branch for a series of models. We find a significant departure from the asymptotic relation for the non-radial modes near the red giant branch tip, resulting in a triplet frequency pattern. To support our investigation we analyze almost four years of Kepler data of the most luminous stars in the field (late K and early M type) and find that their frequency spectra indeed show a triplet pattern dominated by dipole modes even for the most luminous stars in our sample. Our identification explains previous results from ground-based observations reporting fine structure in the Petersen diagram and sub-ridges in the period-luminosity diagram. Finally, we find new ridges of non-radial modes with frequencies below the fundamental mode in our model calculations, and we speculate they are related to f modes.

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