Paper detail

The period change of the Cepheid Polaris suggests enhanced mass loss

Polaris is one of the most observed stars in the night sky, with recorded observations spanning more than 200 years. From these observations, one can study the real-time evolution of Polaris via the secular rate of change of the pulsation period. However, the measurements of the rate of period change do not agree with predictions from state-of-the-art stellar evolution models. We show that this may imply that Polaris is currently losing mass at a rate of $\dot{M} \approx 10^{-6} M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ based on the difference between modeled and observed rates of period change, consistent with pulsation-enhanced Cepheid mass loss. A relation between the rate of period change and mass loss has important implications for understanding stellar evolution and pulsation, and provides insight into the current Cepheid mass discrepancy.

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.