Paper detail

On the consistent treatment of the quasi-hydrostatic layers in hot star atmospheres

CONTEXT: Spectroscopic analysis remains the most common method to derive masses of massive stars, the most fundamental stellar parameter. While binary orbits and stellar pulsations can provide much sharper constraints on the stellar mass, these methods are only rarely applicable to massive stars. Unfortunately, spectroscopic masses of massive stars heavily depend on the detailed physics of model atmospheres. AIMS: We demonstrate the impact of a consistent treatment of the radiative pressure on inferred gravities and spectroscopic masses of massive stars. Specifically, we investigate the contribution of line and continuum transitions to the photospheric radiative pressure. We further explore the effect of model parameters, e.g., abundances, on the deduced spectroscopic mass. Lastly, we compare our results with the plane-parallel TLUSTY code, commonly used for the analysis of massive stars with photospheric spectra. METHODS: We calculate a small set of O-star models with the Potsdam Wolf-Rayet (PoWR) code using different approaches for the quasi-hydrostatic part. These models allow us to quantify the effect of accounting for the radiative pressure consistently. We further use PoWR models to show how the Doppler widths of line profiles and abundances of elements such as iron affect the radiative pressure, and, as a consequence, the derived spectroscopic masses. RESULTS: Our study implies that errors on the order of a factor of two in the inferred spectroscopic mass are to be expected when neglecting the contribution of line and continuum transitions to the radiative acceleration in the photosphere. Usage of implausible microturbulent velocities, or the neglect of important opacity sources such as Fe, may result in errors of approximately 50% in the spectroscopic mass. A comparison with TLUSTY model atmospheres reveals a very good agreement with PoWR at the limit of low mass-loss rates.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 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.