Paper detail

Twins like to be seen: Observational biases affecting spectroscopically selected binary stars

Massive binary stars undergo qualitatively different evolution when the two components are similar in mass ('twins'), and the abundance of twin binaries is therefore important to understanding a wide range of astrophysical phenomena. We reconsider the results of Pinsonneault & Stanek (2006), who argue that a large proportion of binary stars have nearly equal-mass components; we find that their data imply a relatively small number of such 'twins.' We argue that samples of double-lined spectroscopic binaries are biased towards systems with nearly equal-brightness components. We present a Monte-Carlo model of this bias, which simultaneously explains the abundance of twins in the unevolved binaries of Pinsonneault & Stanek (2006), and the lack of twins in their evolved systems. After accounting for the bias, we find that their observed mass ratios may be consistent with a variety of intrinsic distributions, including either a flat distribution or a Salpeter distribution. We conclude that the observed overabundance of twins in Pinsonneault & Stanek (2006) does not reflect the true population of binaries, and we briefly discuss the astrophysical implications of the lack of twins.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.