Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:50:50.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Evidence for Mass Loss in Classical Cepheids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

M. J. Stift
M. J. Stift*
Affiliation:
Institut für Astronomie, Türkenschanzstr. 17, A-1180 Wien, Austria

Extract

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.

The question of apparent mass anomalies in classical cepheids was first brought up by Christy (1968) and Stobie (1969), but 15 years later there is still no definite picture concerning the reality and the possible cause of these mass anomalies. The masses obtained from application of standard evolutionary theory were always sensibly larger than the masses derived from pulsation theory using both linear and nonlinear codes. Since for various reasons few people have accepted the idea that mass loss could play an important role in cepheids a number of elaborate scenarios have been proposed to account for the mass discrepancies. Among these are helium enriched outer layers and tangled magnetic fields. It is difficult, however, to see how significant mass loss can be avoided during the evolution of the more massive cepheids. In fact, practically all supergiants lose mass over the whole HR diagram, a process frequently manifesting itself in photometric microvariability. Little hope can be placed in attempts to solve the problem by means of improved determinations of the physical parameters of cepheids; intrinsic colours, luminosities, radii, effective temperatures, and the width of the instability strip have been disputed for years with no definite results yet. Only independent observational evidence will make it possible to confirm - or reject - the mass anomalies. On account of the large number observed and because of the fairly complete sample they represent, the cepheids in the LMC, SMC and in our Galaxy are best suited for this kind of investigation.

Type
Part I. Fundamental Parameters
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 82: Cepheids: Theory and Observations , 1985 , pp. 63 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

References

Becker, S. A., Iben, Icko Jr., Tuggle, R. S. 1977, Astrophys. J. 218, 633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breysacher, J. 1981, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 43, 203.Google Scholar
Christy, R. F. 1968, Quarterly J. Royal Astron. Soc. 9, 13.Google Scholar
Fernie, J. D., McGonegal, R. 1983, Astrophys. J. 275, 732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, H. C. 1983,Astron. J. 88, 507.10.1086/113336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iben, Icko Jr., Tuggle, R. S. 1975, Astrophys. J. 197, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lequeux, J. 1983, in Structure and Evolution of the Magellanic Clouds, IAU Symposium No. 108, van den Bergh, S. and de Boer, K. S., Eds., Reidel, D., p. 67.Google Scholar
Maeder, A. 1981, Astron. Astrophys. 102, 401.Google Scholar
Maeder, A. 1983, Astron. Astrophys. 120, 113.Google Scholar
Martin, W. L., Warren, P. R., Feast, M. W. 1979, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 188 ,139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matraka, B., Wassermann, C., Weigert, A. 1982, Astron. Astrophys. 107, 283.Google Scholar
Payne-Gaposchkin, C. H. 1971, Smithsonian Contr. Astrophys., no. 13.Google Scholar
Payne-Gaposchkin, C. H., Gaposchkin, S. 1966, Smithsonian Contr. Astrophys., Vol. 9.Google Scholar
Salpeter, E. E. 1955, Astrophys. J. 121, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandage, A., Tammann, G. A. 1969, Astrophys. J. 157, 683.10.1086/150106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzman, E.,Maeder, A. 1981, Astron. Astrophys. 96, 1.Google Scholar
Stift, M. J. 1982, Astron. Astrophys. 112, 149.Google Scholar
Stift, M. J. 1984, submitted to Astron. Astrophys.Google Scholar
Stobie, R. S. 1969, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 144, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayman, P. A., Stift, M. J., Butler, C. J. 1984, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 56, 169.Google Scholar