CALCULATING ASTEROSEISMIC DIAGRAMS FOR SOLAR-LIKE OSCILLATIONS

By T. White, T. Bedding, D. Stello, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, D. Huber, H. Kjeldsen. 2011

177 citations recorded by the source corpus.

With the success of the Kepler and CoRoT missions, the number of stars with detected solar-like oscillations has increased by several orders of magnitude; for the first time we are able to perform large-scale ensemble asteroseismology of these stars. In preparation for this golden age of asteroseismology we have computed expected values of various asteroseismic observables from models of varying mass and metallicity. The relationships between these asteroseismic observables, such as the separations between mode frequencies, are able to significantly constrain estimates of the ages and masses of these stars. We investigate the scaling relation between the large frequency separation, Δν, and mean stellar density. Furthermore we present model evolutionary tracks for several asteroseismic diagrams. We have extended the so-called C-D diagram beyond the main sequence to the subgiants and the red giant branch. We also consider another asteroseismic diagram, the ϵ diagram, which is more sensitive to variations in stellar properties at the subgiant stages and can aid in determining the correct mode identification. The recent discovery of gravity-mode period spacings in red giants forms the basis for a third asteroseismic diagram. We compare the evolutionary model tracks in these asteroseismic diagrams with results from pre-Kepler studies of solar-like oscillations and early results from Kepler.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Education, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c63007d90a9b9be8a2d6b86e24c003563611da39

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. D. Huber
2. Jo Bovy
3. Hans-Walter Rix
4. D. Stello
5. W. Chaplin
6. I. Minchev
7. T. Bedding
8. B. Mosser

In Education

1. Jo Bovy
2. M. Martig
3. Hans-Walter Rix
4. A. Serenelli
5. C. Allende Prieto
6. J. Holtzman
7. M. Shetrone
8. D. Nidever

In Instrumentation

1. D. Huber
2. D. Stello
3. Hans-Walter Rix
4. W. Chaplin
5. Jo Bovy
6. I. Minchev
7. B. Mosser
8. T. Bedding

Citations in the corpus

• Probing the core structure and evolution of red giants using gravity-dominated mixed modes observed with Kepler (2012, methodology): “From the analysis of the red giant radii (Verner et al. 2011) and of the near-surface offsets (White et al. 2011a), 135 we verified that the limit value at 40µHz is adequate for our work.”
• Standing on the Shoulders of Dwarfs: the Kepler Asteroseismic LEGACY Sample. I. Oscillation Mode Parameters (2016, methodology): “Astron., 26, 171 Scherrer, P. H., Wilcox, J. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Gough, D. O. 1983, Sol.”
• Asteroseismology of Solar-Type and Red-Giant Stars (2013, background): “Comparisons of this type (e.g., Ulrich 1986, White et al. 2011) suggest that for the solar-type stars and RGB stars the relation is accurate to 2 to 3%.”
• FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF STARS USING ASTEROSEISMOLOGY FROM KEPLER AND CoRoT AND INTERFEROMETRY FROM THE CHARA ARRAY (2012, background): “It is well known that the scaling relation for ∆ν is on more solid ground than the scaling relation for νmax, which only recently has been studied in more detail observationally (see, e.g., Stello et al. 2009a; Mosser et al. 2010; White et al. 2011) and theoretically (Belkacem et al. 2011).”
• THE APOKASC CATALOG: AN ASTEROSEISMIC AND SPECTROSCOPIC JOINT SURVEY OF TARGETS IN THE KEPLER FIELDS (2014, methodology): “We also allowed for known systematic errors in Equation 1 (e.g., see White et al. 2011 and Miglio et al. 2012), by including an additional systematic contribution of 1.5 % (also added in quadrature).”
• Asteroseismology and Gaia: Testing Scaling Relations Using 2200 Kepler Stars with TGAS Parallaxes (2017, methodology): “…to scaling relations, for example, by comparing the large frequency separation ( nD ) calculated from individual frequencies with model densities (Stello et al. 2009; White et al. 2011; Guggenberger et al. 2016; Sharma et al. 2016) or an extension of the asymptotic relation (Mosser et al. 2013).”
• Standing on the Shoulders of Dwarfs: the Kepler Asteroseismic LEGACY Sample. II. Radii, Masses, and Ages (2016, methodology): “Simple estimates of 〈∆ν〉 were obtained using the method of White et al. (2011), that is, from a weighted fit of the asymptotic function (ν0(n) ' (n+ 1/2 + )∆ν) to the radial mode frequencies from the peak-bagging as a function of radial order n.”
• Age determination for 269 Gaia DR2 open clusters (2019, background): “However, it was demonstrate that scaling relations tend to overestimate the value of the mass of RGB stars (White et al. 2011, Brogaard et al. 2018 and reference therein), therefore an additional calibration is required (Rodrigues et al. 2017).”
• The Updated BaSTI Stellar Evolution Models and Isochrones. I. Solar-scaled Calculations (2018, methodology): “We extracted ∆ν0 following White et al. (2011), i.e., performing a weighted linear least squares fit to the radial mode frequencies as a function of the radial order, with a Gaussian weighting function centered around νmax, with 0.25 νmax full width at half maximum.”
• ASTEROSEISMIC CLASSIFICATION OF STELLAR POPULATIONS AMONG 13,000 RED GIANTS OBSERVED BY KEPLER (2013, background): “…and the fact that all tracks of representative masses fall almost on top of each other in this region (Section 3; see also Bedding et al. 2011; White et al. 2011; Mosser et al. 2012a), is strong evidence that many of the detected dipole modes are essentially separated by the true g-mode…”
• A UNIFORM ASTEROSEISMIC ANALYSIS OF 22 SOLAR-TYPE STARS OBSERVED BY KEPLER (2012, background): “For main sequence stars, the small separation provides the strongest constraint on the age in the absence of fitting the individual frequencies (White et al. 2011a).”
• FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF KEPLER PLANET-CANDIDATE HOST STARS USING ASTEROSEISMOLOGY (2013, unknown): “Equation (5) can be used to infer host-star properties in systems with transiting exoplanets, for example, to reduce degeneracies between spectroscopic parameters (see, e.g., Sozzetti et al. 2007; Torres et al. 2012).”
• Asteroseismology of 16,000 Kepler Red Giants: Global Oscillation Parameters, Masses, and Radii (2018, background): “White et al. (2011); Guggenberger et al. (2016), and Guggenberger et al. (2017) proposed corrections to the ∆ν scaling relations based on stellar models, including a dependence on temperature, metallicity, and mass.”
• Confirming chemical clocks: asteroseismic age dissection of the Milky Way disc(s) (2017, background): “…relations is currently a very active field of research, and there is strong evidence of a metallicity, effective temperature, and evolutionary phase-dependent offset in the large-frequency separation relation (cf. equation (1), see White et al. 2011; Sharma et al. 2016; Guggenberger et al. 2016).”
• Ages and fundamental properties of Kepler exoplanet host stars from asteroseismology (2015, methodology): “…6521045 1.121± 0.012 1.517± 0.006 0.452± 0.001 4.125± 0.002 2.509± 0.088 6.83± 0.28 42 8866102 1.218± 0.036 1.354± 0.013 0.691± 0.004 4.260± 0.005 2.654± 0.111 2.78± 0.47 Since the scaling relationship is not exact, we used the empirical correction of White et al. (2011) to get a better estimate.”
• Red giant masses and ages derived from carbon and nitrogen abundances (2015, unknown): “White et al. (2011) use stellar models to show that the relation between (cid:4)ν and stellar density matches the standard relation for solar type stars on the main sequence, but that deviations of the order of 2per cent in the relation between (cid:4)ν and √ ρ exist for stars on the giant branch.”