2012
DOI: 10.1002/asna.201211836
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stellar model fits and inversions

Abstract: The recent asteroseismic data from the CoRoT and Kepler missions have provided an entirely new basis for investigating stellar properties. This has led to a rapid development in techniques for analysing such data, although it is probably fair to say that we are still far from having the tools required for the full use of the potential of the observations. Here I provide a brief overview of some of the issues related to the interpretation of asteroseismic data.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 116 publications
(101 reference statements)
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Comparing the inferred stellar properties to the first case, 16 Cyg A yields slightly different uncertainties, 16 Cyg B is shifted within the uncertainties, and only the Sun shows marginally significant shifts in radius and mass. To probe the possible source of these biases, for the fifth case (labeled "surface term" in Table 1, AMP simulations 797, 798 and 799) we repeated the fourth case using the scaled solar surface correction of Christensen-Dalsgaard (2012) to replace the Kjeldsen et al (2008) prescription. The differences were insignificant for 16 Cyg A & B, but for the Sun the alternative surface correction effectively eliminated the biases.…”
Section: Results For 16 Cyg a And B And The Sunmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comparing the inferred stellar properties to the first case, 16 Cyg A yields slightly different uncertainties, 16 Cyg B is shifted within the uncertainties, and only the Sun shows marginally significant shifts in radius and mass. To probe the possible source of these biases, for the fifth case (labeled "surface term" in Table 1, AMP simulations 797, 798 and 799) we repeated the fourth case using the scaled solar surface correction of Christensen-Dalsgaard (2012) to replace the Kjeldsen et al (2008) prescription. The differences were insignificant for 16 Cyg A & B, but for the Sun the alternative surface correction effectively eliminated the biases.…”
Section: Results For 16 Cyg a And B And The Sunmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dipole modes, given their p-g mixed character, do not follow the asymptotic relations for pressure modes, a certain regularity is expected, however, in the period spacing between consecutive radial orders (Beck et al 2011;Bedding et al 2011;Mosser et al 2011), for similarity with the asymptotic behaviour of pure gravity modes (Tassoul 1980). From the detected dipole modes we got a mean value of the period spacing of mixed modes (ΔP obs ) of the order of 53 s. This quantity is smaller than the asymptotic period spacing Mosser et al 2011;Christensen-Dalsgaard 2012;Mosser et al 2012;Montalbán et al 2013) which, according to the Mosser et al (2012) estimation for a RGB star with Δν ≈ 9.5 μHz, should be slightly lower than 80 s.…”
Section: Individual Frequency Modellingmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…This aspect of mixed modes has motivated extensive theoretical work (e.g. Dziembowski 1971;Scuflaire 1974;Osaki 1975;Aizenman et al 1977;Dziembowski et al 2001;Christensen-Dalsgaard 2004;Dupret et al 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%