论文标题
用开普勒遗产明星测试超越太阳能类似物的丰富年龄关系
Testing abundance-age relations beyond solar analogues with Kepler LEGACY stars
论文作者
论文摘要
我们在从开普勒遗产样本中得出的13个明亮FG矮人的样本中介绍了21个元素,以检查丰富的年龄关系对恒星的适用性,其性质与太阳能有着强烈离开。这些恒星具有精确的强化年龄,可以将其与基于丰度的估计值进行比较。我们分析了众所周知的二进制16 CYG AB以进行验证,并确认在初级中存在轻微的金属增强(〜0.02 dex),这可能是由行星形成/摄入引起的。我们提请人们注意一些非透视参数的广泛使用的目录中,这些错误可能会显着偏见源发震荡的推论。特别是,我们发现证据表明,用于Apokasc目录的ASPCAP TEFF量表对于矮人来说太酷了,并且[Fe/H]值被〜0.1 DEX低估了。我们将地震年龄与基于parsec等级的经验丰度关系和在Harps-GTO计划框架中获得的丰度所推论的地震年龄进行了比较。这些校准考虑了与出色的有效温度,金属性和/或质量的依赖性。我们发现,基于地震和丰度的年龄平均差异为1.5-2,同时考虑到校准中一个或两个恒星参数的依赖性导致全球改善高达〜0.5 Gyr。但是,即使在那种情况下,我们也发现地震年龄在系统上大约0.7 Gyr。我们认为,这可能归因于多种原因,包括我们的丰度之间存在小的零点偏移,以及用于构建校准的零点或选择的理论等距集合。上面的结论得到了对大量开普勒目标的文献数据分析的支持。 [简略]
We present abundances of 21 elements in a sample of 13 bright FG dwarfs drawn from the Kepler LEGACY sample to examine the applicability of the abundance-age relations to stars with properties strongly departing from solar. These stars have precise asteroseismic ages that can be compared to the abundance-based estimates. We analyse the well-known binary 16 Cyg AB for validation purposes and confirm the existence of a slight metal enhancement (~0.02 dex) in the primary, which might arise from planetary formation/ingestion. We draw attention to systematic errors in some widely-used catalogues of non-seismic parameters that may significantly bias asteroseismic inferences. In particular, we find evidence that the ASPCAP Teff scale used for the APOKASC catalogue is too cool for dwarfs and that the [Fe/H] values are underestimated by ~0.1 dex. We compare seismic ages to those inferred from empirical abundance-age relations based on ages from PARSEC isochrones and abundances obtained in the framework of the HARPS-GTO program. These calibrations take into account a dependency with the stellar effective temperature, metallicity, and/or mass. We find that the seismic and abundance-based ages differ on average by 1.5-2 Gyrs, while taking into account a dependency with one or two stellar parameters in the calibrations leads to a global improvement of up to ~0.5 Gyr. However, even in that case we find that seismic ages are systematically larger by ~0.7 Gyr. We argue that it may be ascribed to a variety of causes including the presence of small zero-point offsets between our abundances and those used to construct the calibrations or to the choice of the set of theoretical isochrones. The conclusions above are supported by the analysis of literature data for a larger number of Kepler targets. [Abridged]