Paper detail

The treatment of mixing in core helium burning models -- II. Constraints from cluster star counts

The treatment of convective boundaries during core helium burning is a fundamental problem in stellar evolution calculations. In Paper~I we showed that new asteroseismic observations of these stars imply they have either very large convective cores or semiconvection/partially mixed zones that trap g-modes. We probe this mixing by inferring the relative lifetimes of asymptotic giant branch (AGB) and horizontal branch (HB) from $R_2$, the observed ratio of these stars in recent HST photometry of 48 Galactic globular clusters. Our new determinations of $R_2$ are more self-consistent than those of previous studies and our overall calculation of $R_2 = 0.117 \pm 0.005$ is the most statistically robust now available. We also establish that the luminosity difference between the HB and the AGB clump is $Δ\log{L}_\text{HB}^\text{AGB} = 0.455 \pm 0.012$. Our results accord with earlier findings that standard models predict a lower $R_2$ than is observed. We demonstrate that the dominant sources of uncertainty in models are the prescription for mixing and the stochastic effects that can result from its numerical treatment. The luminosity probability density functions that we derive from observations feature a sharp peak near the AGB clump. This constitutes a strong new argument against core breathing pulses, which broaden the predicted width of the peak. We conclude that the two mixing schemes that can match the asteroseismology are capable of matching globular cluster observations, but only if (i) core breathing pulses are avoided in models with a semiconvection/partially mixed zone, or (ii) that models with large convective cores have a particular depth of mixing beneath the Schwarzschild boundary during subsequent early-AGB `gravonuclear' convection.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.