Paper detail

An Assessment of Dynamical Mass Constraints on Pre-Main Sequence Evolutionary Tracks

[abridged] We have assembled a database of stars having both masses determined from measured orbital dynamics and sufficient spectral and photometric information for their placement on a theoretical HR diagram. Our sample consists of 115 low mass (M < 2.0 Msun) stars, 27 pre-main sequence and 88 main sequence. We use a variety of available pre-main sequence evolutionary calculations to test the consistency of predicted stellar masses with dynamically determined masses. Despite substantial improvements in model physics over the past decade, large systematic discrepancies still exist between empirical and theoretically derived masses. For main-sequence stars, all models considered predict masses consistent with dynamical values above 1.2 Msun, some models predict consistent masses at solar or slightly lower masses, and no models predict consistent masses below 0.5 Msun but rather all models systematically under-predict such low masses by 5-20%. The failure at low masses stems from the poor match of most models to the empirical main-sequence below temperatures of 3800 K where molecules become the dominant source of opacity and convection is the dominant mode of energy transport. For the pre-main sequence sample we find similar trends. There is generally good agreement between predicted and dynamical masses above 1.2 Msun for all models. Below 1.2 Msun and down to 0.3 Msun (the lowest mass testable) most evolutionary models systematically under-predict the dynamically determined masses by 10-30% on average with the Lyon group models (e.g. Baraffe et al. 1998) predicting marginally consistent masses *in the mean* though with large scatter.

preprint2003arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.