Paper detail

Confronting uncertainties in stellar physics II. exploring differences in main-sequence stellar evolution tracks

We assess the systematic uncertainties in stellar evolutionary calculations for low- to intermediate-mass, main-sequence stars. We compare published stellar tracks from several different evolution codes with our own tracks computed using the stellar codes STARS and MESA. In particular, we focus on tracks of 1 and 3 solar masses at solar metallicity. We find that the spread in the available 1 solar mass tracks (computed before the recent solar composition revision by Asplund et al.) can be covered by tracks between 0.97-1.01 solar masses computed with the STARS code. We assess some possible causes of the origin of this uncertainty, including how the choice of input physics and the solar constraints used to perform the solar calibration affect the tracks. We find that for a 1 solar mass track, uncertainties of around 10% in the initial hydrogen abundance and initial metallicity produce around a 2% error in mass. For the 3 solar mass tracks, there is very little difference between the tracks from the various different stellar codes. The main difference comes in the extent of the main sequence, which we believe results from the different choices of the implementation of convective overshooting in the core. Uncertainties in the initial abundances lead to a 1-2% error in the mass determination. These uncertainties cover only part of the total error budget, which should also include uncertainties in the input physics (e.g., reaction rates, opacities, convective models) and any missing physics (e.g., radiative levitation, rotation, magnetic fields). Uncertainties in stellar surface properties such as luminosity and effective temperature will further reduce the accuracy of any potential mass determinations.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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.