Paper detail

Comparison of Hipparcos Trigonometric and Mount Wilson Spectroscopic Parallaxes for 90 Subgiants that Defined the Class in 1935

A history is given of the discovery between 1914 and 1935 of stars of intermediate luminosity between giants and dwarfs with spectral types between G0 to K3. The Mt Wilson spectroscopists identified about 90 such stars in their 1935 summary paper of spectroscopic absolute magnitudes for 4179 stars. Called "subgiants" by Strömberg, these 90 stars defined the group at the time. The position of the Mt Wilson subgiants in the HR diagram caused difficulties in comparisons of high weight trigonometric parallaxes being measured and with Russell's prevailing evolution proposal, and critics questioned the reality of the Mt Wilson subgiants. We compare, star-by-star, the Mt Wilson spectroscopic absolute magnitudes of the 90 stars defining their sample against those absolute magnitudes derived from Hipparcos (HIP) trigonometric parallaxes. We address concerns over biases in the Mt Wilson calibration sample and biases created by the adopted methodology for calibration. Historically, these concerns were sufficient to discredit the discovery of subgiants in the Mt Wilson sample. However, as shown here, the majority of the Mount Wilson stars identified as subgiants that also have reliable HIP trigonometric parallaxes do lie among the subgiant sequence in the HIP HR diagram. Moreover, no significant offset is seen between the M(V) brightnesses derived from the Mt Wilson spectroscopic parallaxes and the M(V) values derived from Hipparcos trigonometric parallaxes with a fractional error of 10%, which confirms in an impressive manner the efficacy of the original Mt Wilson assessments. The existence of subgiants proved that Russell's contraction proposal for stellar evolution from giants to the main sequence was incorrect. Instead, Gamow's 1944 unpublished conjecture that subgiants are post main-sequence stars just having left the main sequence was very nearly correct but was a decade before its time.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.