1 / 13

About some traps in fundamental parameter determination of target stars

About some traps in fundamental parameter determination of target stars. Friedrich Kupka Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics Hydrodynamics Group fk@mpa-garching.mpg.de. SOME POPULAR TRAPS. hidden use of model physics (circular argument)

brand
Download Presentation

About some traps in fundamental parameter determination of target stars

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. About some traps in fundamental parameter determination of target stars Friedrich Kupka Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics Hydrodynamics Group fk@mpa-garching.mpg.de

  2. SOME POPULAR TRAPS • hidden use of model physics (circular argument) • neglection of systematic errors: ∆scatter ∆error • hidden systematic errors • silent break down of model physics • usage of calibrations outside their validity range • and for sure many more of them...

  3. Hidden use of model physics • The determination of log(g) for Vega • Fundamental value unknown • inspite of this: primary calibration point for synthetic photometry • Moon & Dworetsky 1985:empirically corrected ATLAS6 grids for Strömgren colours • based on a mixture of true fundamental values andfurther calibrations (either log(g) or Teff unknown) • Vega's log(g): Balmer lines, Balmer jump fits from ATLAS6 models calibration point in MD ! • Castelli & Kurucz A&A 281, 817 (1994): values derived in this way depend on unknown He abundance • ATLAS9 based FeI / FeII as "supporting results”

  4. Model atmosphere grids I • Current grids: why not trust them ? • ATLAS9 (  BaSeL, etc.), New MARCS, and PHOENIX: based on Kurucz atomic data • none fits Strömgren m0 metallicity index (A-G type stars) • none correctly predicts the Balmer jump for F stars (surface gravity, luminosity, ...) • outdated grids still widely used as black boxes (ATLAS9 C93 distribution)

  5. Model atmosphere grids II • Current grids • are as poor in convection modelling as in 1970 • usually lack numerical resolution(computational costs, non-uniform over HRD) • incorrectly predict Balmer line profilesover the HRD for A-G stars (except for calibration star!) • are in disagreement with observational input from mid A stars (temperature gradients, microturbulence)

  6. Neglection of systematic errors • Accuracy of Teff of fundamental stars • for many “fundamental stars”visual fluxes have not been measured(=L, M, R known without use of stellar models) • A0 – G2 MS: ~6: < 200 K, ~15: < 400 K  Why ? poor (post-Hipparcos!) parallaxes, spectrophotometry • between8000 K and 9500 K: no pairs with known M • even with these data:  some models excluded • Balmer line profiles for the Sun & other stars • confusing results [cf. Barklem et al. A&A 385, 951 (2002)] • resolved (perhaps ?) by improving convection physics

  7. Hidden systematic errors • Spectral line ratios and absolute Teff • Line depth ratios of selected pairs correlate withphotometric temperature indicators (D. Gray) • Use colour index vs. Teff relation  line ratios f(Teff) • Problem: relative scale ! The Teff(line ratio) scaleinherits systematic errors from theTeff(colour) scale • IRFM also not free from systematics (binaries, IR fluxes) • Solar Teff: calibration errors, solar cycle, etc. ∆Teff~10 K. • A&A 411, 559 (2003): ∆Teff(sun)=0, ∆Teff(stars)~5-10 K ?!?

  8. Breakdown of model physics • Abundance determinations • oscillator strengths: a few 1000 accurately measured • Wiese's law: the lowerthe accuracy,the more optimistic the error estimate(factor >2 in dex !) • successful “fits“ can be very deceiving (example Li) • 1D LTE/NLTE 3D LTE  3D NLTE: example: the Li determination of extreme Pop. II/Pop. III starsinternal, statisticalaccuracy estimates for abundances can be completely knocked over by (unexpected) systematic errors...

  9. Calibration of parameters • Tuning convection in low mass stars • lack of alternatives  adjustments to fit the sun • but: an evolution model which fits the sundoesnot have to be good for anything else • one which does notis even more questionable ! • uncertainty of lower RGB (1Msolar):±100 K • uncertainty of PMS (D-burning phase): ±175 K • both due to convection alone... • different models/parameters in interior and atmosphere increase uncertainty

  10. Conclusions I • General comments • a good direct measurement can never be substituted byclever, arbitrarily (?) accurate calibrations • systematic errors  intrinsic ones • Fundamental parameters • ASTRA project (S.J. Adelman, A. Gulliver, B. Smalley)new spectrophotometric fluxes (near UV – near IR), recalibration of stellar flux standards(50 cm robotic telescope, first light in spring 2004) • the long wait for the GAIA mission (too long for COROT)

  11. Conclusions II • New model atmosphere grids • require adequate resolution in grid parameters • more cross-checking with fundamental stellar data • a better treatment of convection; diffusion, opacities, ... • taking black boxes from the shelf remains dangerous • Convection • “non-local models” and numerical simulations • solar calibration approach insufficientobservations (including particularly MOST & COROT...)

  12. Extra slides and literature I • Figures shown • Smalley B., Kupka F., A&A 328, 349 (1997): Fig. 6 (m0-index)inability of models to match A-stars and the sun simultaneously • same paper: Fig. 5 (c1-index): systematics, “feature” for F-stars • Smalley et al., A&A 395, 601 (2002): Fig. 2 (H-profiles)small mixing length/flux overshooting • Stein R.F., Nordlund Å., ApJ 499, 914 (1998): Fig. 14, 15inhomogeneity of solar surface convection • Nordlund Å., Stein R.F., ASP Conf. Ser. 203, 362 (2000)photospheric levitation (1D / 3D, turbulent pressure) • Tables shown • Smalley et al., A&A 395, 601 (2002): Tables 2 and 5fundamental parameters: error sources; mid A-star problem • Asplund et al., A&A 399, L31 (2003): Table 1(electronic version) the Li problem (3D NLTE – 3D LTE – 1D LTE/NLTE)

  13. Extra slides and literature II • Useful literature • Asplund M., Carlsson M., Botnen A.V., A&A 399, L31 (2003) • Barklem P.S. et al., A&A 385, 951 (2002) • Gray D.F., Johanson H.L., PASP 103, 439 (1991) • Moon T.T., Dworetsky M.M., MNRAS 217, 305 (1985) • Kurucz R.L., Astrophys. and Space Sci. Library, Vol. 274, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 1-4020-0644-6, 2002, p. 3 – 14(http://kurucz.harvard.edu/papers.html PUERTOVALLARTA:2001) • Nordlund Å., Stein R.F., ASP Conf. Ser. 203, 362 (2000) • Smalley B., MNRAS 265, 1035 (1993) • Smalley B., Kupka F., A&A 328, 349 (1997) • Smalley B., Gardiner R.B., Kupka, F., Bessell M.S., A&A 395, 601 (2002) • Stein R.F., Nordlund Å., ApJ 499, 914 (1998)

More Related