Paper detail

Is there a mass discrepancy in the Cepheid binary OGLE-LMC-CEP0227?

Context. The Cepheid mass discrepancy, the difference between masses predicted from stellar evolution and stellar pulsation calculations, is a challenge for the understanding of stellar astrophysics. Recent models of the eclipsing binary Cepheid OGLE-LMC-CEP-0227 have suggested that the discrepancy may be resolved. Aims. We explore for what physical parameters do stellar evolution models agree with the measured properties of OGLE-LMC-CEP0227 and compare to canonical stellar evolution models assuming no convective core overshooting. Methods. We construct state-of-the-art stellar evolution models for varying mass, metallicity, and convective core overshooting and compare the stellar evolution predictions with the observed properties. Results. The observed mass, effective temperature, and radius of the two stars in the binary system are well fit by numerous combinations of physical parameters, suggesting a Cepheid mass discrepancy of 10-20% relative to canonical stellar evolution models. Conclusions. The properties of the observed binary Cepheid suggest that the Cepheid mass discrepancy is still a challenge and requires more specific observations, such as the rate of period change, to better constrain and understand the necessary physics for stellar evolution models to resolve the discrepancy.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.