4.6 Article

A study of polarized spectra of magnetic CP stars:: Predicted vs. observed Stokes iQUV profiles for β CrB and 53 Cam

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 369, 期 3, 页码 889-907

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010101

关键词

stars : magnetic fields; polarization; stars : chemically peculiar; stars : individual : beta CrB; stars : individual : 53 Cam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present, a comparison of observed and calculated Stokes IQUV spectra of two well-known magnetic chemically peculiar stars, beta Coronae Borealis and 53 Camelopardalis. The observed Stokes spectra were recently described by Wade et al. (2000a), and have been complemented with additional circularly polarized spectra obtained at the Special Astrophysical Observatory. The calculated spectra represent the predictions of new and previously published magnetic field models derived from the analysis of some surface averaged field estimates (e.g., longitudinal field, magnetic field modulus, etc.). We find that these magnetic models are not sufficient to account fully for the observed Stokes profiles particularly remarkable is the disagreement between the predicted and observed Stokes Q and U profiles of 53 Cam. We suggest that this should be interpreted in terms of magnetic morphologies which are significantly more complex than the second-order multipolar expansions assumed in the models. However, it is clear that some of our inability to reproduce the detailed shapes of the Stokes IQUV profiles is unrelated to the magnetic models. For many metallic ions, for both stars, we found it impossible to account for the strengths and shapes of the observed spectral line profiles when we adopted a unique value for the individual ion abundance. We suggest that this results from strongly non-uniform distributions of these ions as a function of optical depth (i.e., chemical stratification), a hypothesis that is supported by comparison with simple chemically stratified models.

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