Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:21:47.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Progress report on solar age calibration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

G. Houdek
Affiliation:
Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK email: hg@ast.cam.ac.uk
D. O. Gough
Affiliation:
Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK email: hg@ast.cam.ac.uk Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK email: douglas@ast.cam.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We report on an ongoing investigation into a seismic calibration of solar models designed for estimating the main-sequence age and a measure of the chemical abundances of the Sun. Only modes of low degree are employed, so that with appropriate modification the procedure could be applied to other stars. We have found that, as has been anticipated, a separation of the contributions to the seismic frequencies arising from the relatively smooth, glitch-free, background structure of the star and from glitches produced by helium ionization and the abrupt gradient change at the base of the convection zone renders the procedure more robust than earlier calibrations that fitted only raw frequencies to glitch-free asymptotics. As in the past, we use asymptotic analysis to design seismic signatures that are, to the best of our ability, contaminated as little as possible by those uncertain properties of the star that are not directly associated with age and chemical composition. The calibration itself, however, employs only numerically computed eigenfrequencies. It is based on a linear perturbation from a reference model. Two reference models have been used, one somewhat younger, the other somewhat older than the Sun. The two calibrations, which use BiSON data, are more-or-less consistent, and yield a main-sequence age t = 4.68 ± 0.02 Gy, coupled with a formal initial heavy-element abundance Z = 0.0169 ± 0.0005. The error analysis has not yet been completed, so the estimated precision must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., Allende Prieto, C., & Kiselman, D. 2004, A&A 417, 751Google Scholar
Basu, S., Chaplin, W. J., Elsworth, Y., New, A. M., Serenelli, G., & Verner, G. A. 2007, ApJ 655, 660Google Scholar
Bonanno, A., Schlattl, H., & Paternò, L. 2002, A&A 390, 1115Google Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 1982, MNRAS 199, 735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 1984, in: Mangeney, A., Praderie, F., (eds), Space Research Prospects in Stellar Activity and Variability, Paris Observatory Press, Paris, p. 11Google Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 1988, in: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Frandsen, S., (eds), Proc. IAU Symp. 123, Advances in helio- and asteroseismology, Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 295Google Scholar
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. et al. 1996, Sci 272, 1286Google Scholar
Dziembowski, W. A., Fiorentini, G., Ricci, B., & Sienkiewicz, R. 1999, A&A 343, 990Google Scholar
Gough, D. O. 1983, in: Shaver, P. A., Kunth, D., Kjär, K., (eds), Primordial helium, Southern Observatory, p. 117Google Scholar
Gough, D. O. 1987, Nat. 326, 257Google Scholar
Gough, D. O. 2001, in: von Hippel, T., Simpson, C., Manset, N., (eds), ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 245, Astrophysical ages and timescales, Gough D. O. 1987, Nat. 326, 257Google Scholar
Gough, D. O. 2002, in: Favata, F., Roxburgh, I. W., Gadalí-Enríquez, D., (eds), Proc 1st Eddington Workshop: Stellar structure and habitable planet finding, ESA SP-485, Noordwijk, p. 65Google Scholar
Gough, D. O. 2004, in: Čelebonović, V., Däppen, W., Gough, D. O., (eds), AIP Conf. Proc. Vol. 731, Equation-of-state and phase-transition issues in models of ordinary astrophysical matter, Am. Inst. Phys., Melville, p. 119Google Scholar
Gough, D. O. & Novotny, E. 1990, Solar Phys., 128, 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guenther, D. B. 1989, ApJ 339, 1156Google Scholar
Guenther, D. B. & Demarque, P. 1997, ApJ 484, 937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houdek, G. & Gough, D. O. 2007a, MNRAS 375, 861Google Scholar
Houdek, G. & Gough, D. O. 2007b, in: Stancliffe, R. J., Dewi, J., Houdek, G., Martin, R. G., Tout, C. A., (eds), AIP Conf. Proc.: Unsolved Problems in Stellar Physics, American Institute of Physics, New York, p. 219Google Scholar
Ulrich, R. K. 1986, ApJ 306, L37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, A. & Schlattl, H. 1998, A&A 332, 215Google Scholar