Paper detail

Convective Penetration in Early-Type Stars

Observations indicate that the convective cores of stars must ingest a substantial amount of material from the overlying radiative zone, but the extent of this mixing and the mechanism which causes it remain uncertain. Recently, Anders et al. (2021) developed a theory of convective penetration and calibrated it with 3D numerical hydrodynamics simulations. Here we employ that theory to predict the extent of convective boundary mixing in early-type main-sequence stars. We find that convective penetration produces enough mixing to explain core masses inferred from asteroseismology and eclipsing binary studies, and matches observed trends in mass and age. While there are remaining uncertainties in the theory, this agreement suggests that most convective boundary mixing in early-type main-sequence stars arises from convective penetration. Finally, we provide a fitting formula for the extent of core convective penetration for main-sequence stars in the mass range from $1.1-60 M_\odot$.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.