Paper detail

The mass discrepancy in intermediate- and high-mass eclipsing binaries: the need for higher convective core masses

(Abridged) Eclipsing, spectroscopic double-lined binary star systems (SB2) are excellent laboratories for calibrating theories of stellar interior structure and evolution. We aim to investigate the mass discrepancy in binary stars. We study the effect of near-core mixing on the mass of the convective core of the stars and interpret the results in the context of the mass discrepancy. Two scenarios are considered, where individual stellar components of a binary system are treated independent of each other and where they are forced to have the same age and initial chemical composition. We find that the mass discrepancy is present in our sample and that it is anti-correlated with the surface gravity of the star. No correlations are found with other fundamental and atmospheric parameters, including the stellar mass. The mass discrepancy can be partially accounted for by increasing the amount of near-core mixing in stellar evolution models. We also find that ignoring the microturbulent velocity and turbulent pressure in stellar atmosphere models of hot evolved stars results in overestimation of their effective temperature by up to 8%. Together with enhanced near-core mixing, this can almost entirely account for the 30% mass discrepancy found for the evolved primary component of V380 Cyg. We find a strong link between the mass discrepancy and the convective core mass. The mass discrepancy can be solved by considering the combined effect of extra near-core boundary mixing and consistent treatment in the spectrum analysis of hot evolved stars. Our binary modelling results in convective core masses between 17 and 35% of the stellar mass, in excellent agreement with results from gravity-mode asteroseismology of single stars. This implies larger helium core masses near the end of the main sequence than anticipated so far.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.