1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \journalinfo{The Astrophysical Journal, 684:691--706, 2008 September 1}
3: \submitted{Received 2007 December 21; accepted 2008 May 10}
4: \newcommand{\myemail}{josan@mso.anu.edu.au}
5: \newcommand{\mr}{\mathrm}
6: \usepackage{lscape}
7: \shorttitle{Comparison of the Sun to other Stars}
8: \shortauthors{Robles et al.}
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{A comprehensive comparison of the Sun to other stars: searching for self-selection effects}
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: %Authors & Institutions
13: \author{Jos\'e A. Robles\altaffilmark{1}, Charles H. Lineweaver\altaffilmark{1}, Daniel Grether\altaffilmark{2},
14: Chris Flynn\altaffilmark{3}, Chas A. Egan\altaffilmark{2,4}, Michael B. Pracy\altaffilmark{4},
15: Johan Holmberg\altaffilmark{5} and Esko Gardner\altaffilmark{3}}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Planetary Science Institute, Research School of Astronomy \& Astrophysics and Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra Australia; \myemail.}
18: \altaffiltext{2}{University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, Finland.}
20: \altaffiltext{4}{Research School of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.}
21: \altaffiltext{5}{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany.}
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: % ABSTRACT
25: \begin{abstract}
26: If the origin of life and the evolution of observers on a planet is favoured by atypical properties
27: of a planet's host star, we would expect our Sun to be atypical with respect to such properties.
28: The Sun has been described by previous studies as both typical and atypical. In an effort to reduce
29: this ambiguity and quantify how typical the Sun is, we identify 11 maximally-independent
30: properties that have plausible correlations with habitability, and that have been observed by, or
31: can be derived from, sufficiently large, currently available and representative stellar surveys.
32: By comparing solar values for the 11 properties, to the resultant stellar distributions,
33: we make the most comprehensive comparison of the Sun to other stars. The two most atypical properties
34: of the Sun are its mass and orbit. The Sun is more massive than $95 \pm 2\%$ of nearby stars and
35: its orbit around the Galaxy is less eccentric than $93 \pm 1 \%$ of FGK stars within $40$ parsecs.
36: Despite these apparently atypical properties, a $\chi^{2}$-analysis of the Sun's values for
37: 11 properties, taken together, yields a solar $\chi^2_{\odot} = 8.39 \pm 0.96$.
38: If a star is chosen at random, the probability that it will have a lower value ($\sim$ be more typical)
39: than the Sun, with respect to the 11 properties analyzed here,
40: is only $29 \pm 11 \%$.
41: These values quantify, and are consistent with, the idea that the Sun is a typical star.
42: If we have sampled all reasonable properties associated with habitability,
43: our result suggests that there are no special requirements for a star to
44: host a planet with life.
45:
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \keywords{stars: fundamental parameters --- stars: statistics --- Sun: fundamental parameters --- Sun: general}
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50: % INTRODUCTION
51: \section{INTRODUCTION}
52:
53: If the properties of the Sun are consistent with the idea that the Sun was randomly
54: selected from all stars, this would indicate that life needs nothing special from its host star
55: and would support the idea that life may be common in the universe. More particularly, if
56: there is nothing special about the Sun, we have little reason to limit our life-hunting efforts
57: to planets orbiting Sun-like stars. As an example of the type of anthropic reasoning we are using,
58: consider the following situation. Suppose uranium (a low abundance element in the Solar
59: System and in the universe) was central to the biochemistry of life on Earth.
60: Further, suppose that a comparison of our Sun to other stars showed that the
61: Sun had more uranium than any other star. How should we interpret this fact?
62: The most reasonable way to proceed would be to try to evaluate the probability
63: that such a coincidence happened by chance and to determine whether we are justified in
64: reading some importance into it. Although a correlation does not necessarily
65: imply cause, we think that a correlation between the Sun's
66: anomalous feature and life's fundamental chemistry would be giving us
67: important clues about the conditions necessary for life. Specifically, the search
68: for life around other stars as envisioned by the NASA's Terrestrial Planet
69: Finder or ESA's Darwin Project and as currently underway with SETI would
70: change the strategy to focus on the most uranium-rich stars.
71: Another example: Suppose the Sun had the highest [Fe/H] of all the stars that
72: had ever been observed. Then high [Fe/H] would be strongly implicated as a
73: precondition for our existence, possibly by playing a crucial role in terrestrial
74: planet formation. These are exaggerated examples of the more subtle
75: correlations that a detailed and comprehensive comparison of the Sun with
76: other stars could reveal.
77:
78: Whether the Sun is a typical or atypical star with respect
79: to 1 or a few properties has been addressed in previous studies. Using an approach similar
80: to ours (comparing solar to stellar properties from particular samples), some studies have
81: suggested that the Sun is a typical star \citep{Gustafsson98, Allendeprieto06}, while other studies
82: have suggested that the Sun is an atypical star \citep{Gonzalez99a,Gonzalez99b,Gonzalez01}.
83: This apparent disagreement arises from three problems:
84: \begin{description}
85: \item{1.} Language used to describe whether the Sun is, or is not typical, is often
86: confusingly qualitative. For example, reporting the Sun as ``metal-rich'', can mean that the Sun
87: is \textit{significantly} more metal-rich than other stars (e.g.\ more metal-rich than $80\%$ of
88: other stars) or it can mean that the Sun is \textit{insignificantly} metal-rich (e.g.\ more
89: metal-rich than $51\%$ of other stars).
90:
91: \item{2.} Selection effects: Stellar samples chosen for the comparison can be biased
92: with respect to the property of interest.
93:
94: \item{3.} Inclusion (or exclusion) of stellar properties for which it is
95: suspected or known that the Sun is atypical, will make the Sun appear more atypical (or typical).
96: \end{description}
97:
98:
99: In this paper we address problem 1 by using only quantitative measures when comparing
100: the Sun's properties to other stars. Our main interest is to move beyond the qualitative
101: assessment of the Sun as either typical or atypical, and obtain a more precise quantification
102: of the degree of the Sun's (a)typicality. In other words, we want to answer the question
103: `How typical is the Sun?' rather than `Is the Sun typical or not?' There are at least
104: two ways to quantify how typical the Sun is. This can be done for individual parameters
105: by determining how many stars have values below or above the solar value (Table \ref{table:sum}).
106: This can also be done by a joint analysis of multiple parameters (Table \ref{table:chiimprovedp}).
107: If there are several subtle factors that have some influence over habitability, a quantitative
108: joint analysis of the Sun's properties may allow us to identify these factors without invoking
109: largely speculative arguments linking specific properties to habitability.
110:
111: With respect to problem 2, most previous analyses have compared the Sun to subsets of
112: Sun-like stars selected to be Sun-like with respect to 1 or more parameters.
113: In such analyses, the Sun will appear typical with respect to any parameter(s) correlated with 1
114: of the pre-selected Sun-like parameters.
115: For example, elemental abundances [X/H] are correlated with
116: metallicity\footnote{Metallicity: [Fe/H] is the fractional
117: abundance of Fe relative to hydrogen, compared to the same ratio in the Sun: \mbox{[Fe/H]
118: $\equiv \log(\mr{Fe/H})_{\star} - \log(\mr{Fe/H})_{\sun}$}} [Fe/H]. The sample of \cite{Edvardsson93} was selected to have a wide range of [Fe/H].
119: This produced a metallicity distribution unrepresentative of stars in general.
120: Recognizing this, \cite{Edvardsson93} conditioned on solar metallicity,
121: [Fe/H$] \approx 0$ and then
122: compared solar abundances for 12 elements to the abundances in a group of
123: nearby stars with solar iron abundance, solar age and solar galactocentric radius.
124: They found the Sun to be ``a quite typical star for its
125: metallicity, age and galactic orbit''.
126: Similarly, \cite{Gustafsson98}, after comparing various properties
127: of the Sun to solar-type stars (stars of similar mass and age), concluded that the Sun seems
128: very normal for its mass and age; ``The Sun, to a remarkable degree, is solar type''.
129: The stellar samples we use for comparison with the Sun are, in our judgement, the
130: least-biased samples currently available for such a comparison.
131:
132: To address problem 3, in Section \ref{sec:data}
133: we compare the Sun to other stars using a large number (11) of maximally-independent
134: properties with plausible correlations with habitability. These properties can be observed or
135: derived for a sufficiently large, representative stellar sample (Table \ref{table:samples1}).
136: Any property of the Sun or its environment which must be special to allow habitability would show up in our analysis.
137: However, in contrast to previous analyses which have looked for solar anomalies with respect to
138: individual properties, we perform a joint analysis that enables us to quantify how typical
139: the solar values are, taken as a group. In Section \ref{sec:jointa}, the differences between the
140: solar values and the stellar samples' medians are used to perform first a simple and then an
141: improved version of a $\chi^{2}$-analysis to estimate whether the solar values are characteristic
142: of a star selected at random from the stellar samples. The results of our joint analysis
143: are presented in Figure \ref{fig:sum} of Section \ref{sec:results}. We find that the solar
144: values, taken as a group, are consistent with the Sun being a random star. However, there are important
145: caveats to this interpretation associated with the compromise between the number of properties
146: analyzed, and their plausibility of being correlated with habitability. In Sections \ref{sec:discuss} and
147: \ref{sec:conclusions} we discuss these caveats and summarize. We discuss the levels of correlation
148: between our 11 properties in Appendix A.
149:
150: %%%%%%%%%% table data sets properties
151: \thispagestyle{empty}
152: \setlength{\voffset}{30mm}
153: % {\rotate
154: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllcccrcrl}%[!ttt]
155: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
156: \tablewidth{0pt}
157: \tablecaption{Samples used to produce the stellar distributions plotted in Figures 1--10.}
158: \tablehead{
159: \colhead{Figure} & \colhead{Property} & \colhead{Range} & \colhead{Median} & \colhead{$\sigma_{68}$\tablenotemark{\mbox{\dag}}} & \colhead{Solar} & \colhead{\# Stars} & \colhead{Spectral} & \colhead{$d_{\mr{max}}$} & \colhead{Source} \\
160: & & & \colhead{$\mu_{1/2}$} & & \colhead{Value} & & \colhead{Type} & \colhead{[pc]} &
161: }
162: \startdata
163: \ref{fig:mass} &Mass [M$_{\odot}$] &$0.08$ -- $2$ & 0.33 &0.37 & 1 & 125 &A1--M7 & 7.1 & \citealt{Henry06} (RECONS) \\
164: \ref{fig:age} &Age [Gyr] &$0$ -- $15$ & 5.4 &3.25 & 4.9$^{+3.1}_{-2.7}$\tablenotemark{a} & 552 &F8--K2 & 200 & \citealt{Rochapinto00a} \\
165: \ref{fig:fe} &[Fe/H] &$-1.20$ -- $+0.46$ & -0.08 &0.20 & 0 & 453 &F7--K3 & 25 & \citealt{Grether07} \\
166: \ref{fig:ratios}A &[C/O] &$-0.22$ -- $+0.32$ & 0.07 &0.09 & 0 & 256 &FG & 150 & \tablenotemark{b}G99, R03, BF06 \\
167: \ref{fig:ratios}B &[Mg/Si] &$-0.18$ -- $+0.14$ & 0.01 &0.04 & 0 & 231 &FG & 150 & \tablenotemark{c}R03, B05 \\
168: \ref{fig:vsini} &$v\sin i$ [\mbox{km s$^{-1}$}] &$0$ -- $36$ & 2.51 &1.27 & $1.28$\tablenotemark{d} & 276 &F8--K2 & 80 & \tablenotemark{e}\citealt{Valenti05} \\
169: \ref{fig:e} &$e$ &$0$ -- $1$ & 0.10 &0.05 & $0.036 \pm 0.002$\tablenotemark{f} & 1,987 &A5--K2 & 40 & \tablenotemark{g}\citealt{Nordstrom04} \\
170: \ref{fig:z} &$Z_{\mr{max}}$ [kpc] &$0$ -- $9.60$ & 0.14 &0.10 & $0.104 \pm 0.006$\tablenotemark{h} & 1,987 &A5--K2 & 40 & \tablenotemark{g}\citealt{Nordstrom04} \\
171: \ref{fig:radius} &R$_{\mr{Gal}}$ [kpc] &$0$ -- $30$ & 4.9 &5.03 &$7.62 \pm 0.32$\tablenotemark{i} & --- & --- & 50,000 & \tablenotemark{j}BS80, G96, E05 \\
172: \ref{fig:galaxy} &M$_{\mr{gal}}$ [M$_{\odot}$]\tablenotemark{k} &$10^{7}$ -- $10^{12}$ &$10^{10.2}$ &0.47 &$10^{10.55 \pm 0.16 }$ & --- & --- &$10^{7}$& \tablenotemark{l}D94, CB99, L00, BJ01, J03 \\
173: \ref{fig:group} &M$_{\mr{group}}$ [M$_{\odot}$]\tablenotemark{k} &$10^{9}$ -- $10^{13}$ &$10^{11.1}$ &0.47 &$10^{10.91 \pm 0.07}$ & --- & --- &$10^{7}$& \citealt{Ekev04} \\
174: \enddata
175: \tablenotetext{$\dagger$}{}{Characteristic width of distribution in the direction of the solar value.}
176: \tablenotetext{a}{\cite{Wright04}, (see footnote in Sec.~\ref{sec:age}).}
177: \tablenotetext{b}{G99: \citealt{Gustafsson99}, R03: \citealt{Reddy03}, BF06: \citealt{Bensby06}.}
178: \tablenotetext{c}{R03: \citealt{Reddy03}, B05: \citealt{Bensby05}.}
179: \tablenotetext{d}{Solar rotational velocity corrected for random inclination (see Sec.~\ref{sec:rotvel}).}
180: \tablenotetext{e}{Sub-set of stars within the mass range: 0.9 M$_{\odot} \leq M \leq 1.1$ M$_{\odot}$.}
181: \tablenotetext{f}{Calculated using the solar galactic motion \citep{dehnen98} and the Galactic potential (see Sec.~\ref{sec:orbital}).}
182: \tablenotetext{g}{Sub-set of volume complete A5--K2 stars within 40 pc.}
183: \tablenotetext{h}{Integrated solar orbit in the Galactic potential of \cite{flynn96} (see Sec.~\ref{sec:orbital}).}
184: \tablenotetext{i}{\citealt{Eisenhauer05}.}
185: \tablenotetext{j}{BS80: \citealt{Bahcall80}, G96: \citealt{Gould96}, E05: \citealt{Eisenhauer05}.}
186: \tablenotetext{k}{Stellar mass, not total baryonic mass, nor total mass.}
187: \tablenotetext{l}{D94: \citealt{driver94}, CB99: \citealt{courteau99}, L00: \citealt{lovedayj00}, BJ01: \citealt{bell01}, J03: \citealt{jarrett03}.}
188: \label{table:samples1}
189: \end{deluxetable*}
190: % }
191: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}
192: %%%%%%%%%%%
193: \section{Stellar Samples and Solar Values} \label{sec:data}
194:
195: We are looking for a signal associated with a prerequisite for, or a property that favors,
196: the origin and evolution of life (see \citealt{Gustafsson98} for a brief discussion of this idea).
197: If we indiscriminately include many properties with little or
198: no plausible correlation with habitability, we run the risk of diluting any potential signal.
199: If we choose only a few properties based on previous knowledge that the Sun is anomalous
200: with respect to those properties, we are making a useful quantification but we are
201: unable to address problem {\it iii}.
202: We choose a middle ground and try to identify
203: as many properties as we can that have some plausible association with habitability.
204: This strategy is most sensitive if a
205: few unknown stellar properties (among the ones being tested) contribute to the
206: habitability of a terrestrial planet in orbit around a star.
207:
208: An optimal quantitative comparison of the Sun to other stars would require an unbiased, large
209: representative stellar sample from which independent distributions, for as many
210: properties as desired, could be compared. Such a distribution for each
211: property of interest would allow a straightforward
212: analysis and outcome: the Sun is within the $n\%$ of stars around the centroid of the
213: $N$-dimensional distribution. However, observational and sample selection effects prevent
214: the assembly of such an ideal stellar sample.
215:
216: In this study, we compare the Sun to other stars with respect to the following 11 basic
217: physical properties:
218: (1) mass, (2) age, (3) metallicity [Fe/H],
219: (4) carbon-to-oxygen ratio [C/O], (5) magnesium-to-silicon ratio [Mg/Si],
220: (6) rotational velocity $v\sin i$, (7) eccentricity of the star's galactic orbit $e$,
221: (8) maximum height to which the star rises above the galactic plane $Z_{\mr{max}}$,
222: (9) mean galactocentric radius R$_{\mr{Gal}}$,
223: (10) the mass of the star's host galaxy M$_{\mr{gal}}$,
224: (11) the mass of the star's host group of galaxies M$_{\mr{group}}$.
225: These 11 properties span a wide range of stellar and galactic factors that may be
226: associated with habitability. We briefly discuss how each parameter might have a plausible
227: correlation with habitability. For each property we have tried to assemble a large,
228: representative sample of stars whose selection criteria is minimally biased with respect to that property.
229: For each property the percentage of stars with values lower and higher than the solar value are computed.
230: For properties (9), (10) and (11), the uncertainties in the percentages are determined from the
231: uncertainties of the distributions. For the rest of the properties, nominal
232: uncertainties $\Delta$, on the percentages were calculated assuming a binomial distribution
233: (e.g.\ \citealt{meyer75}): $\Delta =(n_{\mr{low}} \times n_{\mr{high}} / N_{\mr{tot}})^{1/2}$
234: where $n_{\mr{low}}$ ($n_{\mr{high}}$) is the fraction of stars with a lower (higher) value
235: than the Sun and $N_{\mr{tot}}$ is the total number of stars in the sample. The solar value
236: is indicated with the symbol ``$\odot$'' in all figures.
237:
238: We compare the Sun and its environment to other stars and their environments. The analysis
239: of these larger environmental contexts provides information about properties that otherwise
240: could not be directly measured. For example, suppose the metallicity of the Sun were
241: normal with respect to stars in the solar neighborhood but that these stars as a group, had an
242: anomalously high metallicity with respect to the average metallicity of stars in the Universe.
243: This fact would strongly suggest that habitability is associated with high metallicity, but our
244: comparison with only local stars would not pick this up. In the absence of an [Fe/H] distribution
245: for all stars in the Universe, we use galactic mass as a convenient proxy for any such property that
246: correlates with galaxy mass.
247:
248: %%%%%%%%%% fig: mass-histogram
249: \begin{figure}[!hbt]
250: \begin{center}
251: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f1.ps}
252: \caption{Mass histogram of the 125 nearest stars \citep[][RECONS]{Henry06}.
253: The median ($\mu_{1/2} = 0.33$ M$_{\odot}$) of the distribution is indicated by the vertical
254: grey line. The 68\% and 95\% bands around the median are indicated respectively by the vertical
255: dark grey and light grey bands. We also use these conventions in Figs.\ 2--11. The solid
256: curve and hashed area around it represents the Initial Mass Function (IMF) and its associated uncertainty
257: \citep{Kroupa02}. The Sun, indicated by ``$\odot$'', is more massive than $95 \pm2\%$ of these stars.}
258: \label{fig:mass}
259: \end{center}
260: \end{figure}
261: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: mass histogram
262:
263:
264: \subsection{Mass} \label{sec:mass}
265: Mass is probably the single most important characteristic of a star. For a main sequence
266: star, mass determines luminosity, effective temperature, main sequence life-time and
267: the dimensions, UV insolation and temporal stability of the circumstellar habitable
268: zone \citep{kasting93}.
269:
270: Low mass stars are intrinsically dim. Thus a complete sample
271: of stars can only be obtained out to a distance of $\sim 7$ parsecs ($\approx 23$ lightyears).
272: Figure \ref{fig:mass} compares the mass of the Sun to the stellar mass
273: distribution of the 125 nearest main sequence stars within 7.1 pc, as compiled by the
274: RECONS consortium \citep{Henry06}.
275: Over-plotted is the stellar Initial Mass Function \citep[IMF; see eqs.~4 \& 5 and Table~1 of][]{Kroupa02}
276: normalised to 125 stars more massive than the brown dwarf limit of $0.08 \; \mr{M}_{\odot}.$
277: Since the IMF appears to be fairly universal \citep{Kroupa05}, these nearby comparison stars
278: are representative of a much larger sample of stars.
279: There is good agreement between the histogram and the IMF --- the Sun is more massive
280: than $95 \pm2\%$ of the nearest stars, and more massive than $94 \pm2\%$ of the stars in the
281: \citet{Kroupa02} IMF. Fourteen brown dwarfs and nine white dwarfs within 7.1 pc were not
282: included in this sample. Including them yields $94\%$ --- the same result obtained from the IMF.
283: Our $95\% \pm 2\%$ result should be compared with the $91\%$ reported by \cite{Gonzalez99b}.
284: The Sun's mass is the most anomalous of the properties studied here.
285:
286:
287:
288:
289:
290: \subsection{Age} \label{sec:age}
291: If the evolution of observers like ourselves takes on average many billions of years,
292: we might expect the Sun to be anomalously old \citep{Carter83}.
293: Accurate estimation of stellar ages is difficult. For large stellar surveys ($>$ a few hundred stars),
294: the most commonly used age indicators are based on isochrone fitting and/or chromospheric
295: activity ($R'_{\mr{HK}}$ index).
296: \cite{Rochapinto00a} have estimated a Star Formation Rate (SFR), or equivalently, an age distribution
297: for the local Galactic disk from chromospheric ages of 552 late-type (F8--K2) dwarf stars in the
298: mass range $0.8 \; \mr{M}_{\odot} \le M \le 1.4 \; \mr{M}_{\odot}$ at distances $d \le 200$ pc
299: \citep{Rochapinto00b}. They applied scale-height corrections, stellar evolution corrections
300: and volume incompleteness corrections that converted the observed age distribution into the
301: total number of stars born at any given time. \cite{hernandez00} and \cite{bertelli01} have
302: made estimates of the star formation rate in the solar neighborhood and favour a smoother
303: distribution (fewer bursts) than \cite{Rochapinto00a}.
304:
305: In Figure \ref{fig:age} we compare the chromospheric age of the Sun
306: \citep[$\tau_{\odot}=4.9 \pm 3.0$ Gyr,][]{Wright04}
307: \footnote{To ensure that the Sun's age is determined in the same way as the stellar ages to which
308: it is being compared, we adopt the chromospheric solar age $\tau_{\odot}= 4.9 \pm 3.0$ Gyr
309: over the more accurate meteoritic age $\tau_{\odot}=4.57\pm0.002$ Gyr \citep{Allegre95}.}
310: to the stellar age distribution representing the Galactic SFR \citep{Rochapinto00a}.
311: The median of this distribution is 5.4 Gyr. The Sun is younger than $53 \pm 2 \%$ of the stars
312: in the thin disk of our Galaxy. Over-plotted is the cosmic SFR derived by \cite{Hopkins06}.
313: According to this distribution with a median $\mu_{1/2} = 9.15$ Gyr, the Sun was born after
314: $86 \pm 5 \%$ of the stars that have ever been born.
315:
316: The Galactic and cosmic SFRs are different because the cosmic SFR
317: was dominated by bulges and elliptical galaxies in which the largest
318: fraction of stellar mass in the Universe resides.
319: Bulges and elliptical galaxies (early-type galaxies) formed their stars early and quickly and then ran out
320: of gas. The disks of spiral galaxies, like our Milky Way, seem to have undergone irregular bursts of star formation
321: over a longer period of time as they interacted with their satellite galaxies.
322:
323: The volume limited ($d_{\mr{max}}=$ 40 pc) sub-set from \cite{Nordstrom04} contains isochrone ages for
324: 1126 A5--K2 stars. The median of this sub-set is 5.9 Gyr and the Sun is younger than $55 \pm 2\%$
325: of the stars. The similarity of this isochrone age result to the chromospheric age result
326: is not obvious since the agreement between these two age techniques is rather poor.
327: This mismatch can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:massagev}D, \cite{reid07}, and
328: in Fig.~8 of \citet{Feltzing01}.
329:
330:
331: %%%%%%%%%% fig: age-histogram
332: \begin{figure}[!hbt]
333: \begin{center}
334: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f2.ps}
335: \caption{The Galactic stellar age distribution (median $\mu_{1/2} = 5.4$ Gyr) from
336: \cite{Rochapinto00a}. The Sun is younger than $53 \pm 2 \%$ of the stars in the disk
337: of our Galaxy. The grey curve is the cosmic Star
338: Formation Rate (SFR) with its associated uncertainty \citep{Hopkins06}, according to
339: which the Sun is younger than $86 \pm 5 \%$ of the stars in the Universe.}
340: \label{fig:age}
341: \end{center}
342: \end{figure}
343: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: age histogram
344:
345:
346: %METALLICITY
347: \subsection{Metallicity} \label{sec:metallicity}
348: Iron is the most frequently measured element in nearby stars.
349: Metallicity [Fe/H], is known to be a proxy for the
350: fraction of a star's mass that is not hydrogen or helium.
351: In the Sun and possibly in the Universe, the dominant contributors to this mass fraction in
352: order of abundance are: O(44\%), C(18\%), Fe(10\%), Ne(8\%), Si(6\%), Mg(5\%), N(5\%),
353: S(3\%) \citep{Asplund05,Truran05}. The corresponding abundances by number are: O(48\%),
354: C(26\%), Ne(7\%), N(6\%), Mg (4\%), Si(4\%), Fe(3\%), S(2\%). Importantly for this analysis,
355: this short list contains the dominant elements in the composition of terrestrial
356: planets (O, Fe, Si and Mg) and life (C, O, N and S).
357:
358: Over the last few decades, much effort has gone into determining abundances in nearby stars
359: for a wide range of elements. Stellar elemental abundances for element X are usually normalised to
360: the solar abundance of the same element using a logarithmic abundance scale:
361: \mbox{$\mr{[X/H]_{\star} \equiv \log(X/H)_{\star} - \log(X/H)_{\odot}}$}. Hence all solar elemental
362: abundances [X/H]$_{\odot}$, are defined as zero. Spectroscopic abundance analyses are usually made
363: differential relative to the Sun by analysing the solar spectrum (reflected by the Moon, asteroids
364: or the telescope dome) in the same way as the spectrum of other stars. In this approach, biases
365: introduced by the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), largely cancel out for Sun-like
366: stars \citep{Edvardsson93b}.
367:
368: A comparison between solar and stellar iron abundances is a common feature of most abundance surveys
369: and most have concluded that the Sun is metal-rich compared to other stars
370: \citep{Gustafsson98, Gonzalez99a, Gonzalez99b}. However, for our purposes, the appropriateness of
371: these comparisons depends on the selection criteria of the stellar sample to which the Sun has been compared.
372: Stellar metallicity analyses such as \cite{Edvardsson93, Reddy03, Nordstrom04, Valenti05}
373: have stellar samples selected with different purposes in mind, e.g., \cite{Edvardsson93} aimed to constrain the
374: chemical evolution of the Galaxy and their sample is biased towards low metallicity (average [Fe/H]$=-0.25$).
375: The sample of \citealt{Valenti05} (average \mbox{[Fe/H]$=-0.01$}), was selected as a planet candidate list and
376: contains some bias towards high metallicity \citep[see][]{Grether07}. To assess how typical the Sun is,
377: \cite{Gustafsson98} limited the sample of \cite{Edvardsson93} to stars with galactocentric radii within
378: 0.5 kpc of the solar galactocentric radius, and to ages between 4 and 6 Gyrs. The distribution of stars
379: given by this criteria has an average [Fe/H]$=-0.09$.
380:
381: \cite{Grether06,Grether07} compiled a sample of 453 Sun-like stars within 25 pc.
382: These stars were selected from the \textit{Hipparcos} catalogue, which is essentially complete to
383: 25 pc for stars within the spectral type range F7--K3 and
384: absolute magnitude of $M_V=8.5$ \citep{Reid02}.
385: Metallicities for this sample were assembled from a wide range of spectroscopic and photometric surveys.
386: In Figure \ref{fig:fe}, we compare the Sun to the \cite{Grether07} sample, which has a median [Fe/H]$=-0.08$.
387: To our knowledge this is the most complete and least-biased stellar spectroscopic metallicity distribution.
388: The Sun is more metal-rich than $65 \pm2\%$ of these stars.
389:
390: This result should be compared with \cite{Favata97} who constructed a volume-limited
391: ($d_{\mr{max}} =$ 25 pc) sample of 91 G and K dwarfs ranging in color index ($B-V$)
392: between $0.5-0.8$ (\citealt{Favata96}). Their distribution has a median [Fe/H]$=-0.05$
393: and compared to this sample, the Sun is more metal rich than $56 \pm 5 \%$ of the stars.
394: \cite{fuhrmann08} compared the Sun to a volume complete ($d_{\mr{max}} =$ 25 pc) sample of about
395: 185 thin-disk mid-F-type to early K-type stars down to $M_V = 6.0$. He finds a mean
396: [Fe/H] = $-0.02 \pm 0.18$. This mean [Fe/H] is lowered by 0.01 dex if the 43 double-lined
397: spectroscopic binaries in his sample are included. His results are consistent with ours.
398:
399:
400: %%%%%%%%%% fig: fe-histogram
401: \begin{figure}[!t]
402: \begin{center}
403: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f3.ps}
404: \caption{Stellar metallicity histogram of the 453 FGK \textit{Hipparcos} stars
405: within 25 pc \citep{Grether07}. The median $\mu_{1/2} = -0.08$.
406: The Sun is more metal-rich than $65 \pm 2\%$ of the stars.}
407: \label{fig:fe}
408: \end{center}
409: \end{figure}
410: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: fe histogram
411:
412:
413:
414: \subsection{Elemental Ratios $\mathrm{[C/O]}$ and $\mathrm{[Mg/Si]}$}\label{sec:ratios}
415: The elemental abundance ratios of a host star have a major impact on its proto-planetary disk chemistry and
416: the chemical compositions of its planets. Oxygen and carbon make up $\sim 62\% $ of the solar system's
417: non-hydrogen-non-helium mass content \citep[$Z=0.0122$,][]{Asplund05}.
418: Carbon and oxygen abundances are among the hardest to determine.
419: This is due to high temperature sensitivity and non-LTE effects in their permitted lines
420: (e.g.\ \ion{C}{1} $\lambda6588$, \ion{O}{1} $\lambda7773$), and to the presence of blends
421: in the forbidden lines ([\ion{C}{1}] $\lambda8727$, [\ion{O}{1}] $\lambda6300$).
422: See \cite{allendeprieto01} and \cite{Bensby06} for details on C and O abundance derivations.
423:
424: Carbon pairs up with oxygen to form carbon monoxide. In stars with a C/O ratio larger than 1,
425: most of the oxygen condenses into CO which is largely driven out of the incipient circumstellar
426: habitable zone by the stellar wind. In this oxygen-depleted scenario, planets formed within the snow line are
427: formed in reducing environments and are mostly composed of carbon compounds, for example silicon
428: carbide \citep{Kuchner05}. Thus, the C/O ratio could be strongly associated with habitability.
429:
430: As most heavy element abundances relative to hydrogen (e.g.\ [O/H], [C/H],
431: [N/H]) are correlated with [Fe/H], they were not included in our analysis.
432: After the overall level of metallicity (represented by [Fe/H]), and after the ratio of the two most abundant
433: metals, [C/O], the magnesium to silicon ratio [Mg/Si] is the most important ratio of the next most abundant
434: elements (excluding the noble gas Ne). For example [Mg/Si] sets the ratio of olivine to pyroxene which
435: determines the ability of a silicate mantle to retain water (H. O'Neill 2007, private communication).
436:
437: Stellar elemental abundance ratios are defined as $\mr{ [X_1/X_2]_{\star}=[X_1/H]_{\star} - [X_2/H]_{\star} }$.
438: Hence, systematic errors associated with the determination of absolute solar abundances cancel for
439: abundances relative-to-solar. We compile [C/O] and [Mg/Si] ratios from samples with the
440: largest number of stars and highest signal-to-noise ratio stellar spectra:
441:
442: \begin{description}
443: \item{[C/O].}---256 stars from \citealt{Gustafsson99,Reddy03,Bensby06} %(G99, R03, BF06)
444: \item{[Mg/Si].}---231 stars from \citealt{Reddy03,Bensby05} %(R03,B05)
445: \end{description}
446:
447: %%%%%%%%%% fig: co,mg-histogram
448: \begin{figure*}[!t]
449: \begin{center}
450: \begin{tabular}{rr}
451: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f4a.ps} & \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f4b.ps} \\
452: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f4c.ps} & \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f4d.ps} \\
453: \end{tabular}
454: \caption{ {\bf A}: Comparison of the Sun's carbon-to-oxygen ratio ([C/O]$_{\odot} \equiv 0$)
455: to the [C/O] ratios of 256 stars compiled from \cite{Gustafsson99,Reddy03} and \cite{Bensby06}.
456: The Sun's [C/O] ratio is lower than $81 \pm3 \%$ of the stars in this sample which has a
457: median $\mu_{1/2}=0.07$.
458: {\bf B}: Comparison of the Sun's magnesium-to-silicon ratio ([Mg/Si]$_{\odot} \equiv 0$),
459: to [Mg/Si] values from 231 stars from \citet{Reddy03} and \citet{Bensby05}.
460: The Sun's [Mg/Si] ratio is lower than $66 \pm3 \%$ of the stars in this sample
461: with median $\mu_{1/2}=0.01$. The bottom panels {\bf C} \& {\bf D} show the small
462: correlations of these distributions with [Fe/H]. These small correlations can be
463: neglected for this study.
464: }
465: \label{fig:ratios}
466: \end{center}
467: \end{figure*}
468: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: co,mg-histogram
469: Due to their selection criteria, these samples are biased towards low metallicity and therefore
470: cannot be used to create a representative [Fe/H] distribution. Because a correlation exists between
471: the [C/O] and [Mg/Si] ratios and [Fe/H] \citep[e.g.][]{Gustafsson99}, the
472: samples we use have a relatively narrow range of [Fe/H] to reduce the influence of the correlation.
473: Therefore, these small correlations can be neglected in this study --- see the bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:ratios}
474: where [Fe/H] versus [C/O] as well as [Fe/H] versus [Mg/Si] are plotted.
475: The top panels show the corresponding stellar distribution histograms. The Sun's [C/O]
476: ratio is lower than $81 \pm3 \%$ of the stars.
477: This is consistent with \cite{Gonzalez99b} who suggested --- based on data from \cite{Edvardsson93}
478: and \cite{Gustafsson99} --- that the Sun has a low [C/O] ratio
479: relative to Sun-like stars at similar galactocentric radii.
480: See however, \cite{ramirez07} who find that the Sun is oxygen poor
481: compared to solar metallicity stars.
482:
483: The Sun's [Mg/Si] ratio is lower than $66 \pm3 \%$ of the stars. The [C/O] and [Mg/Si] ratios
484: are also largely independent of each other (see Fig.~\ref{fig:comgsi} in Appendix A).
485:
486:
487:
488:
489:
490: \subsection{Rotational Velocity} \label{sec:rotvel}
491: Stellar rotational velocities are related to
492: the specific angular momentum of a protoplanetary disk and possibly to
493: the magnetic field strength of the star during planet formation, and to protoplanetary disk
494: turbulence and mixing. An unusually low stellar rotational velocity may be associated with
495: the presence of planets \citep{soderblom83}. One or several of these factors could be
496: related to habitability.
497:
498:
499: There is a known correlation between mass and $v\sin i$
500: at higher stellar masses \citep[e.g.\ see Fig.~18.21 of][p.~485]{gray05}. In order to minimise
501: the effect of this correlation (and maximize independence between parameters), we assembled
502: a sample containing 276 stars within the mass range 0.9--1.1 M$_{\odot}$ (F8--K2) from
503: \cite{Valenti05}. The selection criteria of the \cite{Valenti05} stars
504: introduces some bias against more active stars. We compared
505: the high $v\sin i$ tail of our \cite{Valenti05} sample with the high $v\sin i$ tail of a sub-sample
506: from \cite{Nordstrom04}. We estimate that for our \cite{Valenti05} sample, the bias introduced by
507: the selection criteria is lower than $\sim 5\%$. The $v\sin i$ values in \cite{Valenti05}
508: are obtained by fixing the macroturbulence for the stars of a given color, without modeling
509: the stars individually. If the macroturbulence value was underestimated for $T>5800$ K,
510: the resulting $v\sin i$ values (especially when $v\sin i$ is near zero) would be
511: overestimated \citep[Sec.~4 of][]{Valenti05}.
512:
513: The inclination of the stellar rotational axis to the line of sight is usually unknown so the
514: observable is $v\sin i$. Using the solar spectrum reflected by the asteroid Vesta, \cite{Valenti05} derived a
515: solar $v\sin i = 1.63$ \mbox{km s$^{-1}$}. For the purposes of this analysis we use the mean value that
516: would be derived for the Sun, when viewed from a random inclination:
517: $v\sin i_{\odot} = 1.63 (\pi /4)$ \mbox{km s$^{-1}$} $\approx 1.28$ \mbox{km s$^{-1}$}.
518:
519: The Sun rotates more slowly than $83 \pm 7\%$ of the stars in our \cite{Valenti05}
520: sample (Fig.~\ref{fig:vsini}). This is in agreement with \cite{soderblom83,soderblom85}
521: who reported that the Sun is within 1 standard deviation of stars of its mass and age.
522:
523:
524:
525: %%%%%%%%%% Fig: vsini histogram
526: \begin{figure}[!t]
527: \begin{center}
528: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f5.ps}
529: \caption{Rotational velocity histogram for 276 F8--K2 ($0.9 \leq M \leq 1.1$ M$_{\odot}$)
530: stars \citep{Valenti05}.
531: The Sun ($v\sin i_{\odot} = 1.28$ \mbox{km s$^{-1}$}) rotates more slowly than $83 \pm 7\%$ of the stars.
532: There is 1 star to the right of the plot with $v\sin i = 36$ \mbox{km s$^{-1}$}.
533: }
534: \label{fig:vsini}
535: \end{center}
536: \end{figure}
537: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: vsini histogram
538:
539: %%%%%%%%%% fig: e
540: \begin{figure}[!h]
541: \begin{center}
542: \begin{tabular}{c}
543: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{f6a.ps} \\
544: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{f6b.ps}
545: \end{tabular}
546: \caption{Top: eccentricity distribution for the 1,987 stars at $d\leq 40$ pc from
547: \cite{Nordstrom04}. The Sun has a more circular orbit than $93 \pm1 \%$
548: of the A5--K2 stars within 40 pc. After mass, eccentricity is the second most anomalous parameter.
549: Bottom panel: Correlation between $v _{\mr{LSR}}$ and eccentricity for the same stars presented in the
550: Bottom: since these properties are highly correlated we select only 1 for the analysis.
551: The large grey point with error bars represents the median and the $68\%$ widths of the
552: two one-dimensional distributions. As in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratios} the contours
553: correspond to 38\%, 68\%, 82\% and 95\%.
554: }
555: \label{fig:e}
556: \end{center}
557: \end{figure}
558: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: e
559:
560:
561:
562: \subsection{Galactic Orbital Parameters} \label{sec:orbital}
563: The Galactic velocity components of a star ($U$,$V$,$W$) with respect to the local standard of rest (LSR)
564: may be used to compute a star's orbit in the Galaxy.
565: How typical or atypical is the solar orbit compared to the orbits of other nearby stars in the Galaxy?
566: The orbit may be related to habitability because more eccentric orbits
567: bring a star closer to the Galactic center where there is a larger danger to life from
568: supernovae explosions, cosmic gamma and X-ray radiation and any factors associated with higher
569: stellar densities \citep{Gonzalez01,Lineweaver04}.
570:
571: For a standard model of the Galactic potential,
572: \cite{Nordstrom04} computed
573: orbital paramters for
574: the Sun, and for a large sample ($\sim 16700$) of A5--K2 stars.
575: Their adopted components of the solar velocity relative to the local
576: standard of rest were
577: $(U,V,W)=(10.0 \pm 0.4, 5.25\pm 0.62, 7.17\pm 0.38)$ \mbox{km s$^{-1}$} \citep{dehnen98}.
578:
579: For each of the 1987 stars within 40 pc in the \cite{Nordstrom04} catalog,
580: an inner and outer radii $R_{\mr{min}}$ and
581: $R_{\mr{max}}$ were computed. This yielded the orbital
582: eccentricity $e \equiv (R_{\mr{max}}-R_{\mr{min}})/(R_{\mr{min}}+R_{\mr{max}})$.
583: The solar eccentricity was computed using the components of the
584: solar motion \citep{dehnen98} relative to the local standard of rest in the
585: Galactic potential of \cite{flynn96}.
586: The bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:e} shows the correlation between Galactic
587: orbital eccentricity $e$ and the magnitude of the galactic orbital velocities
588: with respect to the local standard of rest:
589: $v_{\mr{LSR}}\equiv (U^2+V^2+W^2)^{1/2}$.
590: Eccentricity $e$ and $v_{\mr{LSR}}$ are strongly correlated. We include $e$, not $v_{\mr{LSR}}$,
591: in the analysis since $e$ is less correlated with the maximum height above the
592: Galactic plane $Z_{\mr{max}}$, than is $v_{\mr{LSR}}$. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ezmax} in
593: Appendix A.
594:
595: The Sun's eccentricity was determined with the same relation as the stellar
596: eccentricities. The uncertainty in our estimate of solar eccentricity came from
597: propagating the uncertainty in the adopted solar motion. We find
598: $e_{\odot}=0.036\pm 0.002$ \citep[consistent with the
599: $e_{\odot}=0.043\pm 0.016$ found by][]{Metzger98}.
600: The Sun has a more circular orbit than $93 \pm1 \%$ of the A5--K2 stars within
601: 40 pc (with median eccentricity $\mu_{1/2}=0.1$).
602: This is the second most anomalous of the 11 solar properties we consider here.
603:
604:
605: The frequency of the passage of a star through the thin disk could be associated with
606: Galactic gravitational tidal perturbations of Oort cloud objects that might increase
607: the impact rate on potentially habitable planets. This is correlated with the maximum
608: height, $Z_{\mr{max}}$, to which the stars rise above the Galactic plane.
609: Figure \ref{fig:z} shows the stellar distribution of $Z_{\mr{max}}$ for the stars shown
610: in Figure \ref{fig:e}. We find that $59 \pm 3\%$ of the A5--K2 stars
611: within 40 pc of the Sun reach higher above the Galactic plane than the
612: Sun does ($Z_{\mr{max},\odot}=0.104 \pm 0.006$ kpc). The solar $Z_{\mr{max},\odot}$ was
613: derived by integrating the solar orbit in the Galactic potential. The
614: uncertainty on $W$, produces the uncertainty on $Z_{\mr{max},\odot}$
615: and hence the $\pm 3\%$ uncertainty on $59\%$. Our results for eccentricity
616: and $Z_{\mr{max}}$ are consistent with those obtained using \cite{hogg05} LSR values:
617: $(U,V,W) = (10.1 \pm 0.5, 4.0 \pm 0.8, 6.7 \pm 0.2)$. Using the Hogg et al. LSR values,
618: $92 \pm 1\%$ of A5--K2 stars within 40 pc have higher eccentricities than the Sun and
619: $62 \pm 4\%$ of A5--K2 stars within 40 pc have larger $Z_{\mr{max}}$ values.
620:
621: How does the Sun's distance from the center of the Milky Way
622: compare to the distances of other stars from the center of the Milky Way?
623: In Fig.~\ref{fig:radius} we show the distribution of the mean radial distances of stars from the Galactic
624: center, based on the star count model of \cite{Bahcall80}. To represent the entire Galactic stellar
625: population we include the disk (thin + thick) and spheroidal (bulge + halo) components.
626: Using the current Solar distance from the center \citep[$R_0 = 7.62 \pm 0.32$ kpc,][]{Eisenhauer05}
627: and a disk scale length $h=3.0\pm0.4$ kpc \citep{Gould96}, we estimate that the Sun lies farther from
628: the Galactic center than $72^{+8}_{-5}\%$ of the stars in the Galaxy. The uncertainty on the
629: result comes from the 68\% bounds of the total
630: distribution, which come from the scale length uncertainty ($\pm 0.4$ kpc).
631:
632:
633:
634:
635:
636: %%%%%%%%%% fig: z
637: \begin{figure}[!ht]
638: \begin{center}
639: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f7.ps}
640: \caption{The distribution of maximum heights above the Galactic plane for the \cite{Nordstrom04} sample.
641: $59 \pm 3\%$ of nearby A5--K2
642: stars ($d_{\mr{max}}=$40 pc) reach higher above the Galactic plane than the Sun reaches.
643: There are 22 stars evenly distributed
644: over $Z_{\mathrm{max}}$ between 1.5 and 9.6 kpc. Their exclusion
645: from the comparison reduces the 59\% result by less than 1\%.
646: }
647: \label{fig:z}
648: \end{center}
649: \end{figure}
650: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: z
651:
652:
653:
654: %%%%%%%%%% fig: radius-distribution
655: \begin{figure}[!htb]
656: \begin{center}
657: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f8.ps}
658: \caption{Mean stellar galactocentric radius distribution $dN_{\star}/dR_{\mr{Gal}}$. The solid curve
659: represents the sum of the disk (dashed line) and spheroidal (dotted line) stellar components.
660: The $68\%$ uncertainty of the total distribution is shown by the cross-hatched area.
661: The Sun is farther from the Galactic center than $72^{+8}_{-5}\%$ of the stars in the Galaxy.}
662: \label{fig:radius}
663: \end{center}
664: \end{figure}
665: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: radius distribution
666:
667: \newpage
668:
669: \subsection{Host Galaxy Mass} \label{sec:galaxymass}
670: The mass of a star's host galaxy may be correlated with parameters that have an
671: influence on habitability. For example, galaxy mass affects the overall metallicity
672: distribution that a star would find around itself --- an effect that would not show up in
673: Fig.~\ref{fig:fe}, which only shows the local metallicity distribution.
674:
675: The Milky Way is more massive than $\sim 99$\% of all galaxies --- the precise fraction
676: depends on the lower mass-limit chosen for an object to be classified as a galaxy, and the
677: behaviour of the low-mass end of the galaxy mass function \citep{silk07}. We are referring
678: here to the stellar mass, not the total baryonic mass or the total mass.
679: Despite the Milky Way's large mass compared to other galaxies, if most stars in the Universe
680: resided in even more massive galaxies, the Milky Way would be a rather low mass galaxy for a
681: star to belong to. To estimate the fraction of all stars in galaxies of a given mass, we
682: first estimate the distribution of galaxy masses by taking the $K$-band luminosity function
683: of \citet{lovedayj00} ($K$-band most closely reflects stellar mass since it is less
684: sensitive than other bands to differences in stellar populations) and weighting it by luminosity.
685: We convert this to stellar mass assuming a constant stellar-mass-to-light
686: ratio of $0.5$ \citep{bell01}. This function, plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:galaxy}, shows
687: the amount of stellar mass contributed by galaxies of a given mass --- or assuming
688: identical stellar populations --- the fraction of stars
689: residing in galaxies of a given stellar mass.
690:
691: We estimate the $K$-band luminosity of the Milky Way by converting
692: the published $V$-band magnitude of \citet{courteau99} to the $K$-band
693: assuming the mean color of an Sbc spiral galaxy from the 2\,MASS Large
694: Galaxy Atlas \citep{jarrett03} and applying the color
695: conversion from \citep{driver94}. We then convert this to stellar
696: mass using the same stellar-mass-to-light ratio used above, i.e., $0.5$.
697: In this way we estimate the stellar-mass content of the Milky Way to be
698: $10^{10.55 \pm 0.16} = 3.6^{+1.5}_{-1.1} \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$
699: \citep[see also][]{flynn06}.
700: Comparing this to the stellar masses of other galaxies
701: (Fig.~\ref{fig:galaxy}), we find that $77^{+11}_{-14}\%$ of stars reside in
702: galaxies less massive than the Milky Way.
703:
704:
705: %%%%%%%%%% gal: mass-histogram
706: \begin{figure}[!t]
707: \begin{center}
708: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f9.ps}
709: \caption{
710: Fraction of all stars that live in galaxies of a given mass, $dN_{\star}/dM$ (solid curve).
711: The mass of the Sun's galaxy is indicated by the ``$\odot$''.
712: This distribution represents the amount of stellar mass contributed by galaxies of a given mass.
713: Approximately $77^{+11}_{-14} \%$ of stars live in galaxies less massive than ours.
714: The cross-hatched band shows the $1\sigma$ uncertainty associated with the uncertainty in the two
715: Schechter function parameters, $\alpha$ and $L^{*}$ \citep{lovedayj00,schechter76}.
716: The dashed line shows the unweighted luminosity function (the number of galaxies per luminosity
717: interval $dN_{gals}/dM$) according to which the Milky Way is more massive than $\sim 99\%$ of galaxies.
718: }
719: \label{fig:galaxy}
720: \end{center}
721: \end{figure}
722: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: group histogram
723:
724:
725: \subsection{Host Group Mass}
726: The mass of a star's host galactic group or galactic cluster may be correlated with parameters that
727: have an influence on habitability. For example, group mass is correlated with the density of the
728: galactic environment (number of galaxies per Mpc$^{3}$) that could, like galactocentric radius, be
729: associated with the dangers of high stellar densities: ``The presence of a giant elliptical at
730: a distance of 50 kpc would have disrupted the Milky Way Galaxy, so that human
731: beings (and hence astronomers) probably would not have come into existence.'' \citep{vandenberg00}.
732: Our Local Group of galaxies seems rather typical \citep{vandenberg00} but we would like to quantify this.
733: Proceeding similarly to our analysis of galaxy mass in Sect. \ref{sec:galaxymass}, we ask,
734: what fraction of stars live in galactic groups less massive than our Local Group?
735: Figure \ref{fig:group} shows the luminosity-weighted (i.e.\, stellar mass-weighted) number density of
736: galactic groups. The number distribution and luminosity distribution of galactic groups is taken from
737: the Two-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey Percolation-Inferred Galaxy Group (2PIGG) catalogue
738: \citep{Ekev04}. It spans the range from weak groups to rich galaxy clusters.
739:
740: We estimated the stellar masses of the 2PIGG groups and Local Group galaxies
741: \citep{courteau99} by converting from the $B$-band assuming a constant
742: stellar-mass-to-light ratio of 1.5 \citep{bell01}. This gives an estimated stellar mass
743: of the local group of $10^{10.91 \pm 0.07} = 8.1^{+1.4}_{-1.2} \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$.
744: Figure \ref{fig:group} indicates that our Local Group is a typical galactic grouping for a star
745: to be part of. Approximately $ 58 \pm 5\%$ of stars live in galactic groups more massive than
746: our Local Group. With respect to the mass of its galaxy and the mass of its galactic group, the
747: Sun is a fairly typical star in the Universe.
748:
749:
750: %%%%%%%%%% group mass: histogram
751: \begin{figure}[!htb]
752: \begin{center}
753: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f10.ps}
754: \caption{
755: The dashed histogram shows the luminosity function of galactic groups (number of groups per
756: interval of B-band luminosity). The solid histogram shows the luminosity-weighted group
757: luminosity function (approximately the fraction of stars which inhabit a group of given stellar mass).
758: The horizontal axis has been converted to stellar mass assuming a constant B-band stellar-mass-to-light ratio
759: of $1.5$ \citep{bell01}. The ``$\odot$'' shows the estimated mass of the Local Group \citep{courteau99}
760: and lies just below the median (vertical grey line).
761: }
762: \label{fig:group}
763: \end{center}
764: \end{figure}
765: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: group density
766:
767:
768: \section{Joint Analysis of 11 Solar Properties} \label{sec:jointa}
769:
770: \subsection{Solar $\chi^{2}$-Analysis}\label{sec:chidf}
771: We would like to know whether the solar properties, taken as a group, are consistent with noise,
772: i.e., are they consistent with the values of a star selected at random from our
773: stellar distributions. We take a $\chi^{2}$ approach to answering this question.
774: First we estimate the solar $\chi^{2}_{\odot}$, by adding in quadrature,
775: for all 11 properties, the differences between the solar values and the median
776: stellar values. We find:
777: \begin{equation}\label{eq:chi2}
778: \chi^{2}_{\odot} = \sum_{i=1}^{N=11} \frac{(x_{\odot,i} - \mu_{1/2,i})^2}{\sigma_{68,i}^{2}} = 7.88^{+0.08}_{-0.30} \\
779: \end{equation}
780: where $i$ is the property index, $N=11$ is the number of properties we are considering,
781: $\mu_{1/2,i}$ is the median of the $i^{th}$ stellar distribution and $\sigma_{68,i}$ is
782: the difference between the median and the upper or lower $68\%$ zone, depending
783: on whether the solar value $x_{\odot,i}$ is above or below the median. The uncertainty on
784: $\chi^{2}_{\odot}$ is obtained using the uncertainties of $x_{\odot,i}$.
785:
786:
787: Equation (\ref{eq:chi2}) can be improved on by taking into account {\it i)} the non-Gaussian
788: shapes of the stellar distributions and {\it ii)} the larger uncertainties of the medians of
789: smaller samples (our smallest sample is $\sim 100$ stars).
790:
791: We employ a bootstrap analysis \citep{Efron79} to randomly resample data (with replacement) and
792: derive a more accurate estimate of $\chi ^2_{\odot}$. Because the bootstrap is a non-parametric
793: method, the distributions need not be Gaussian.
794:
795:
796: We obtain $\chi^{2}_{\odot} = 8.39 \pm 0.96$. Figure \ref{fig:sunchi} shows the resulting
797: solar $\chi^2$ distribution. The median of this distribution is our adopted solar $\chi^2$
798: value. Dividing our adopted solar $\chi^2$ by the number of degrees of freedom gives our
799: adopted reduced solar $\chi^2$ value:
800: \begin{equation} \label{eq:redchi}
801: \chi^{2}_{\odot}/11 = 0.76 \pm 0.09
802: \end{equation}
803:
804: The standard conversion of this into a probability of finding a lower $\chi^2$ value
805: (assuming normally distributed independent variables) yields:
806: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Psimplebetterchi}
807: P( < \chi^2_{\odot}= 8.39 | N=11) = 0.32 \pm 0.09.
808: \end{equation}
809:
810:
811: %%%%%%%%%% fig solar sunchi
812: \begin{figure}[!t]
813: \begin{center}
814: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f11.ps}
815: \caption{Bootstrapped solar $\chi^2$ distribution. The median of the distribution
816: (white ``$\odot$'') is $\chi ^2_{\odot} = 8.39 \pm 0.96$. This should be compared to the solar
817: $\chi^2_{\odot}$ value from Eq. \ref{eq:chi2}: $7.88^{+0.08}_{-0.30}$ which is
818: over-plotted (grey ``$\odot$'' on dotted line).}
819: \label{fig:sunchi}
820: \end{center}
821: \end{figure}
822: %%%%%%%%%% end fig solar sunchi
823:
824:
825:
826: \subsection{Estimate of $P(<\chi^{2}_{\odot})$}\label{sec:starchi}
827:
828: To quantify how typical the Sun is with respect to our 11 properties, we compare the solar
829: $\chi^{2}_{\odot} (=8.39)$ to the distribution of $\chi^{2}$ values obtained from the
830: other stars in the samples.
831:
832: We perform a Monte Carlo simulation \citep{Metropolis49} to calculate an estimate
833: of each star's $\chi^2$ value ($\chi^2_{\star}$).
834: The histogram shown in Figure \ref{fig:chiprob} is the resulting Monte Carlo stellar $\chi^2$ distribution.
835: Three standard $\chi^2$ distributions have been over-plotted for comparison ($N=10,11,12$).
836: The probability of finding a star with $\chi^2$ lower than or equal to solar is:
837: \begin{equation} \label{eq:mcprob}
838: P_{\mr{MC}}( \leq \chi^2_{\odot}=8.39 | N=11) = 0.29 \pm 0.11
839: \end{equation}
840: The Monte Carlo $\chi^2$ distribution has a similar shape to the standard
841: $\chi^2$ distribution function for $N=11$, and thus both yield similar
842: probabilities: $P_{\mr{MC}}(\leq \chi^{2}) = 0.29 \sim P( \leq \chi^{2}) = 0.32$
843: (Eqs.~\ref{eq:Psimplebetterchi} and \ref{eq:mcprob}). The more appropriate Monte Carlo
844: distribution has a longer tail, produced by the longer super-Gaussian tails of the stellar distributions.
845:
846: Table \ref{table:chiimprovedp} summarizes our analysis for the solar $\chi^{2}_{\odot}$ values and the
847: probabilities $P(<\chi^{2}_{\odot}$).
848: Our simple $\chi^{2}_{\odot} = 7.88$ estimate increased to $8.39$
849: and the uncertainty increased by a factor of $\sim 3$
850: after non-Gaussian and sample size effects were included as additional sources of uncertainty.
851: Our improved analysis yields $P_{\mr{MC}}(\leq\chi_{\odot}^{2})$, with a longer tail and brings the probability down
852: from $0.32 \pm 0.09$ to $0.29 \pm 0.11$. If this value were close to 1, almost all other stars would have lower $\chi^2$ values and we
853: would have good reason to suspect that the Sun is not a typical star.
854: However, this preliminary low value of $0.29$ indicates that if a star is chosen at random,
855: the probability that it will be more typical ($\sim$ have a lower $\chi^{2}$ value)
856: than the Sun (with respect to the 11 properties analysed here), is only $29 \pm 11 \%$.
857: The details of our improved estimates of $\chi^{2}_{\odot}$ and $P(<\chi^{2}_{\odot})$
858: can be found in the Appendix \ref{sec:appxprob}.
859:
860:
861: %%%%%%%%%% fig stellar chi
862: \begin{figure}[!ht]
863: \begin{center}
864: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f12.ps}
865: \caption{Stellar $\chi^2$ distribution from our Monte Carlo simulation. $P_{\mr{MC}}( < \chi^2_{\odot}= 8.39) = 0.29 \pm 0.11$
866: (represented by the grey shade) is calculated integrating from $\chi^{2}=0$ to $\chi^{2} = \chi^2_{\odot}$.
867: For comparison, three $\chi^2$ distribution-curves are over-plotted with 10, 11, and 12 degrees
868: of freedom.
869: The standard probability from the $N=11$ curve yields: $P(< \chi^2_{\odot}= 8.39|N=11) = 0.32 \pm 0.09$.
870: }
871: \label{fig:chiprob}
872: \end{center}
873: \end{figure}
874: %%%%%%%%%% end fig stellar chi
875:
876:
877:
878: %%%%%%%%%%%%% table with chi and P(<chi) values for simple and improved estiamtes %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
879: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccc}
880: \tablewidth{0pt}
881: \tablecaption{Summary of $\chi^{2}$ and $P(< \chi^{2}_{\odot})$ results.}
882: \tablehead{
883: \colhead{Analysis}&\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\odot}$}&\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\odot}/11$}&\colhead{$P(<\chi^{2}_{\odot}| N=11$)}&\colhead{$P_{\mr{MC}}(<\chi^{2}_{\odot}| N=11)$}
884: }
885: \startdata
886: simple & $7.88^{+0.08}_{-0.30}$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:chi2}) & $0.72^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$ & $0.28^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:Psimple}) & ---\\
887: improved & $8.39 \pm 0.96$ & $0.76 \pm 0.09$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:redchi}) & $0.32 \pm 0.09$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:Psimplebetterchi}) & $0.29 \pm 0.11$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:mcprob}) \\
888: % \\ \tableline
889: \enddata
890: \label{table:chiimprovedp}
891: \end{deluxetable*}
892: %%%%%%%%%%%%% end table
893: %%%%%%%%%% sun2stars Result figures
894: \begin{figure*}[!b]
895: \begin{center}
896: \begin{tabular}{rr}
897: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f13a.ps} &
898: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f13b.ps} \\
899: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f13c.ps} &
900: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f13d.ps} \\
901: \end{tabular}
902: \caption{Various representations of our main results.
903: \textbf{A}: Solar values of 11 properties compared to the distribution for each property
904: Each distribution's median value is indicated by a small filled circle. The dark and light
905: grey shades represent the 68\% and 95\% zones respectively.
906: \textbf{B}: Histogram of the number of properties as a function of the number of standard
907: deviations the solar value is from the median of that property. The grey curve is a
908: Gaussian probability distribution normalised to 11 parameters.
909: \textbf{C}: Percentage $n_{i}\%$ of stars with sub-solar values as a function of property.
910: The average signal expected from a random star is shown by the solid line
911: (see Sec.~\ref{sec:results}).
912: \textbf{D}: Percentage $n_{i}\%$ of stars with sub-solar values as a function of
913: the number of standard deviations the solar value is from the median of that property.
914: The solid curve is a cumulative Gaussian distribution --- if every sample were a
915: Gaussian distribution, every solar dot would sit exactly on the line.
916: Just as in (\textbf{C}), the dashed lines encompass the 68\% and 95\% zones.
917: Similar to the results from Figure \ref{fig:chiprob}, these four panels indicate that the
918: Sun is a typical star.}
919: \label{fig:sum}
920: \end{center}
921: \end{figure*}
922: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: sunstars
923:
924:
925: \section{Results} \label{sec:results}
926:
927: Figure \ref{fig:sum} shows four different representations of our results.
928: Figure \ref{fig:sum}{\bf A} compares the solar values to each stellar distribution's median and 68\% and 95\% zones.
929: The Sun lies beyond the 68\% zone for three properties: mass ($95\%$), eccentricity ($93\%$) and
930: rotational velocity ($88\%$).
931: No solar property lies beyond the 95\% zone.
932: The histogram in Figure\ref{fig:sum}{\bf B} is the distribution of solar values in units of standard deviations:
933: \begin{equation}\label{eq:stdevs}
934: z_i = \frac{x_{\odot,i}-\mu_{1/2,i}}{\sigma_{68,i}}
935: \end{equation}
936: For each stellar property $i$, the Sun has a larger value than $n_i\%$ of the stars.
937: If the Sun were a randomly selected
938: star, we would expect the percentages $n_i\%$ to be scattered roughly evenly between 0\% and 100\%.
939: \clearpage
940: When the $n_i\%$ values are lined up in decreasing order (Fig.~\ref{fig:sum}{\bf C}), we expect them to
941: be near the line given by:
942: \begin{equation}\label{eq:noiseline}
943: n_{i,\mr{expected}}\% = \Big[1-\frac{(i-1/2)}{N}\Big] \times 100\%
944: \end{equation}
945: and plotted in Figure\ref{fig:sum}{\bf C}.
946: Any anomalies would show up as points `$\odot$' significantly distant from the line.
947:
948: Figure\ref{fig:sum}{\bf D}) compares the percentages $n_i\%$ of stars
949: having sub-solar values (shown in Figure\ref{fig:sum}{\bf C}) with the solar values expressed in units of
950: standard deviations from each
951: distribution's median (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sum}{\bf B}). If the stellar distributions were
952: perfect Gaussians, the translation from $z_i$ to
953: $n_i$ would be given by the cumulative Gaussian distribution (Fig.~\ref{fig:sum}{\bf D}, \textit{solid curve}).
954: That the points lie along this line demonstrates that the approximation of our
955: distributions as Gaussians is reasonable.
956:
957: Table \ref{table:sum} lists percentages $n_i\%$ of stars for each property
958: (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sum}). In the lower half of the table we list
959: properties not included in this analysis because of correlations with properties that are included.
960:
961: Individual stellar uncertainties make the observed characteristic widths ($\sigma_{68}$, Table \ref{table:samples1}) larger than
962: the widths of the intrinsic distributions. This broadening effect makes the Sun appear more
963: typical than it really is when $\sigma_{68}$ and the individual stellar uncertainties ($\sigma_{\star}$) are
964: of similar size and the individual stellar uncertainties are much larger than the solar
965: uncertainty ($\sigma_{\odot}$). We estimate that our results are not significantly affected
966: by this broadening effect.
967:
968:
969: Our resulting probability of finding a star with a $\chi^2$ lower or equal to the solar value of
970: $29 \pm 11\%$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:mcprob}), is consistent with the probability we would obtain if stellar
971: multiplicity were included in our study. Using the volume limited sample used for stellar mass in
972: Section~\ref{sec:mass} (125 A1--M7 stars within 7.1 pc) the probability that a randomly selected star
973: will be single is $52.8 \pm 4.5\%$, which means that $\sim$ half of stars are single while the other
974: half have one or more companions. Including this in our bootstrap analysis and Monte Carlo simulations
975: (see Appendix~\ref{sec:appmult}) marginally increases the probability in Eq.~\ref{eq:mcprob} to
976: $33 \pm 11\%$. If the multiplicity data for 246 G dwarfs from \cite{duquennoy91} is used instead --- the
977: probability that a randomly selected G dwarf will be single is $37.8 \pm 2.9 \%$ --- then the probability
978: in Eq.~\ref{eq:mcprob} would increase to $34 \pm 11\%$. The inclusion of stellar multiplicity marginally
979: increases our reported probability.
980:
981: In Figures 6 and 7 of \cite{radick98}, the Sun's short-term variability as a function
982: of average chromospheric activity, appears $\sim 1 \sigma$ low, compared to a distribution
983: of 35 F3--K7 Sun-like stars \citep{lockwood97}. \cite{lockwood07} suggest that the
984: Sun's small total irradiance variation compared to stars with similar mean chromospheric activity,
985: may be due to their limited sample and the lack of solar observations out of the Sun's equatorial plane.
986: We do not include short or long term variability (chromospheric or photometric) in Table \ref{table:sum}
987: because of the small size of the \cite{lockwood07} sample. We also do not
988: include the chromospheric index $R'_{\mr{HK}}$ (see Table \ref{table:sum}, bottom panel)
989: as one of our 11 properties because of its correlation with the chromospheric ages of our sample.
990:
991:
992:
993:
994: %%%%%%%%%%%%% table with summary vals %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
995: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcll}
996: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
997: \tablewidth{0pt}
998: \tablecaption{Summary of How the Sun Compares to Other Stars (see Fig.~\ref{fig:sum})}
999: \tablehead{
1000: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Figure} & \colhead{$n_i\%$} & \colhead{Level of Anomaly}
1001: }
1002: \startdata
1003: Mass &\ref{fig:mass} & $95 \pm 2\%$ & of nearby stars are less massive than the Sun. \\
1004: Age &\ref{fig:age} & $53 \pm 2\%$ & of stars in the thin disk of the Galaxy are older than the Sun. \\
1005: $[$Fe/H$]$ &\ref{fig:fe} & $65 \pm 2\%$ & of nearby stars are more iron-poor than the Sun. \\
1006: $[$C/O$]$ &\ref{fig:ratios}A & $81 \pm 3\%$ & of nearby stars have a higher C/O ratio than the Sun. \\
1007: $[$Mg/Si$]$ &\ref{fig:ratios}B & $66 \pm 3\%$ & of nearby stars have a higher Mg/Si ratio than the Sun. \\
1008: $v\sin i$ &\ref{fig:vsini} & $83 \pm 7\%$ & of nearby Sun-like-mass stars rotate faster than the Sun. \\
1009: $e$ &\ref{fig:e} & $93 \pm 1\%$ & of nearby stars have larger galactic orbital eccentricities than the Sun. \\
1010: $Z_{\mr{max}}$ &\ref{fig:z} & $59 \pm 3\%$ & of nearby stars reach farther from the Galactic plane than the Sun. \\
1011: R$_{\mr{Gal}}$ &\ref{fig:radius} & $72^{+8}_{-5}\%$ & of stars in the Galaxy are closer to the galactic center than the Sun. \\
1012: M$_{\mr{gal}}$ &\ref{fig:galaxy} & $77^{+11}_{-14}\%$ & of stars in the Universe are in galaxies less massive than the Milky Way. \\
1013: M$_{\mr{group}}$ &\ref{fig:group} & $58 \pm 5\%$ & of stars in the Universe are in groups more massive than the local group. \\
1014: \tableline
1015: \cutinhead{Properties Not Included in the Analysis Because They Are Correlated with the Selected 11 Parameters}
1016: Mass: IMF$_{\mr{Stellar}}$ &\ref{fig:mass} & $94 \pm 2\%$ & of nearby stars are less massive than the Sun. \\
1017: Age: SFR$_{\mr{Cosmic}}$ &\ref{fig:age} & $86 \pm 5\%$ & of stars in the Universe are older than the Sun. \\
1018: Age\tablenotemark{a} & --- & $55 \pm 2\%$ & of nearby Sun-like-mass stars are older than the Sun. \\
1019: $[$Fe/H$]$\tablenotemark{b} & --- & $56 \pm 5\%$ & of nearby stars are more iron-poor than the Sun. \\
1020: $v\sin i$\tablenotemark{c} & --- & $92 \pm 5\%$ & of nearby Sun-like-mass stars rotate faster than the Sun. \\
1021: $\log R'_{\mr{HK}}$\tablenotemark{d} & --- & $51 \pm 2\%$ & of nearby FGKM stars are more chromospherically active. \\
1022: $[$O/Fe$]$ & --- & $75\pm 3\%$ & of nearby stars have a lower O/Fe ratio than the Sun. \\
1023: $R_{\mr{min}}$ & --- & $91\pm 1\%$ & of nearby stars get closer to the Galactic center. \\
1024: $v_{\mr{LSR}}$ & --- & $93 \pm 1\%$ & of nearby stars have smaller velocity with respect to the LSR. \\
1025: $|U|$ & --- & $75 \pm 1\%$ & of nearby stars have larger absolute radial velocity. \\
1026: $|V|$ & --- & $82 \pm 1\%$ & of nearby stars have larger absolute tangential velocity. \\
1027: $|W|$ & --- & $58 \pm 1\%$ & of nearby stars have larger absolute vertical velocity. \\
1028: \enddata
1029: \tablenotetext{a}{1126 stars (A5--K2) from \cite{Nordstrom04}.}
1030: \tablenotetext{b}{91 stars (GK) from \cite{Favata97}.}
1031: \tablenotetext{c}{590 stars (F8--K2) from \cite{Nordstrom04}.}
1032: \tablenotetext{d}{866 stars (FGKM) from \cite{Wright04}.}
1033: \label{table:sum}
1034: \end{deluxetable*}
1035: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1036:
1037: \newpage
1038: \section{Discussion and Interpretation} \label{sec:discuss}
1039:
1040: The probability $P_{\mr{MC}}(\leq \chi^2_{\odot}) = 0.29 \pm 0.11$ classifies the Sun as a typical star.
1041: %
1042: How robust is this result? The probability of finding a star with a $\chi^2$ lower than or equal
1043: to $\chi^2_{\odot}$,
1044: depends on the properties selected for the analysis (see problem {\it iii} of Section I).
1045: For example, if we had chosen to consider only
1046: mass and eccentricity data, this analysis would yield
1047: $P_{\mr{MC}}(\chi^2 \le \chi^2_{\odot}) = 0.94 \pm 0.4$,
1048: i.e.,\ the Sun would appear mildly ($\sim 2 \sigma$) anomalous.
1049: If on the other hand, we had chosen to remove mass and eccentricity from the
1050: analysis, we would obtain $P_{\mr{MC}}(\chi^2 \le \chi^2_{\odot}) = 0.07 \pm 0.04$,
1051: which is anomalously low.
1052: The most common cause of such a result is the over-estimation of
1053: error bars. The next most common cause is the preselection of properties known to have
1054: $n_{i}\% \sim 50\%$.
1055:
1056:
1057: \cite{Gustafsson98} discussed the atypically large solar mass, and proposed
1058: an anthropic explanation --- the Sun's high mass
1059: is probably related to our own existence.
1060: He suggested that the solar mass could hardly have been greater than $\sim 1.3 \, \mr{M}_{\odot}$
1061: since the main sequence lifetime of a $1.3 \, \mr{M}_{\odot}$ star is $\sim 5$ billion
1062: years \citep{clayton83}. He also discussed how the dependence of the width of the
1063: circumstellar habitable zone on the host star's mass probably favours host stars
1064: within the mass range $0.8$--$1.3\, \mr{M}_{\odot}$.
1065:
1066: Our property selection criteria is to have the largest number of maximally independent properties
1067: that have a plausible correlation with habitability and, ones for which a representative stellar sample
1068: could be assembled.
1069: Our joint analysis does not weight any parameter more heavily than any other.
1070: If the only properties associated with habitability are mass and eccentricity
1071: then we have diluted a $\sim 2 \sigma$ signal that would be consistent with Gustafsson's proposed
1072: anthropic explanation.
1073:
1074: Our analysis points in another direction.
1075: If mass and eccentricity were the only properties associated with habitability, then the
1076: solar values for the remaining nine
1077: properties would be consistent with noise. However, a joint analysis
1078: of just the remaining nine properties produces a $\chi^{2}_{\odot,9} = 3.6 \pm 0.4$ and
1079: the anomalously low probability: $P(\le \chi^{2}_{\odot,9}) = 0.07 \pm 0.04$, which suggests that
1080: the nine properties are unlikely to be the properties of a star selected at random
1081: with respect to these properties.
1082:
1083: The $\chi^{2}$ fit of the 11 points in Panel {\bf C} of Fig.~13 to the diagonal
1084: line yields a fit that is
1085: substantially better then the fit of the remaining nine properties to Eq. 7 with $N=9$.
1086: In other words, the joint analyis suggests that although mass and eccentricity are
1087: the most anomalous solar properties, it is unlikely that they are associated with habitability, because
1088: without them, it is unlikely that the remaining solar properties are just noise.
1089: Thus,
1090: the Sun, despite its mildly ($\sim 2 \sigma$) anomalous mass and eccentricity, can be
1091: considered a typical, randomly selected star.
1092:
1093: There may be stellar properties crucial for life that were not tested here.
1094: If we have left out the most important properties, with respect to which the Sun is
1095: atypical, then our Sun-is-typical conclusion will not be valid.
1096: If we have sampled all properties associated with habitability,
1097: our Sun-is-typical result suggests that there are no special requirements on a star for it
1098: to be able to
1099: host a planet with life.
1100: \newpage
1101:
1102:
1103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1104: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
1105: We have compared the Sun to representative stellar samples for 11 properties.
1106: Our main results are as follows:
1107: \begin{itemize}{}
1108: \item Stellar mass and Galactic orbital eccentricity are the most anomalous properties.
1109: The Sun is more massive than $95 \pm2\%$ of nearby stars and has a
1110: Galactic orbital eccentricity lower than $93\pm1\%$ FGK stars within 40 pc.
1111: \item Our joint bootstrap analysis yields a solar $\chi^2$ $\chi^{2}_{\odot} = 8.39 \pm 0.96$ and
1112: a solar reduced $\chi^2$ $\chi^{2}_{\odot}/11= 0.76 \pm 0.09$. The probability of
1113: finding a star with a $\chi^2$ lower than or equal to solar
1114: $P_{\mr{MC}}( \leq \chi^2_{\odot}=8.39\pm 0.96) = 0.29 \pm 0.11$.
1115: \end{itemize}
1116: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive and quantitative
1117: comparison of the Sun with other stars.
1118: We find that taking all 11 properties together, the Sun is a typical star.
1119: This finding is largely in agreement with \citet{Gustafsson98}, however
1120: our results undermine the proposition that an anthropic explanation is needed
1121: for the comparatively large mass of the Sun.
1122:
1123: Further work could encompass the inclusion of other properties potentially
1124: associated with habitability. Another improvement would come when
1125: larger stellar samples become available for which
1126: all properties could be derived, instead of using different samples for different properties as
1127: was done here.
1128: In addition, research in the molecular evolution that led to the origin of life may, in the future,
1129: be able to provide more clues as to which stellar properties might be
1130: associated with our existence on Earth, orbiting the Sun.
1131:
1132:
1133: \acknowledgments
1134: Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Charles Jenkins for clarifying discussions of statistics,
1135: particularly on how to include stellar multiplicity, and Martin Asplund and Jorge Mel\'endez for discussions
1136: of elemental abundances. JAR acknowledges an RSAA PhD research scholarship. MP acknowledges the financial
1137: support of the Australian Research Council. EG acknowledges the financial support of the Finnish Cultural Foundation.
1138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1139: \section*{Appendix A}
1140: % \appendix
1141: \section*{PROPERTY CORRELATIONS}\label{sec:appendix}
1142:
1143: The $\chi^{2}$ formalism and the use of the
1144: $\chi^{2}$-distribution to obtain $P(< \chi^{2}_{\odot}|N)$, --- improved using Monte-Carlo simulations
1145: in Section \ref{sec:starchi} to obtain $P_{\mr{MC}}(\leq \chi^2_{\odot})$ --- assumes that each parameter
1146: is independent of the others. In selecting our 11 properties we have selected properties which are maximally
1147: independent based on plotting
1148: property 1 vs property 2 for the same stars.
1149: We show seven such plots in this Appendix.
1150:
1151: If there are correlations between the analysed properties, then the
1152: number of degrees of freedom $N$ could drop from 11 to $\sim 10.5$ (see Fig.~12).
1153: Some properties have been excluded from the analysis due to a correlation with
1154: another property in the analysis.
1155:
1156: \section*{A1. ELEMENTAL RATIOS}
1157:
1158: In Figure \ref{fig:comgsi} we show the distribution for carbon to oxygen ratio
1159: [C/O] versus the magnesium to silicon ratio [Mg/Si] of 176 FG stars.
1160:
1161: %%%%%%%%%% fig: co vs mg
1162: \begin{figure}[!ttt]
1163: \begin{center}
1164: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f14.ps}
1165: \caption{Carbon to oxygen ratio [C/O] versus magnesium to silicon ratio [Mg/Si]
1166: of 176 FG stars with abundances for these elements \citep{Reddy03}. In
1167: Figs.~\ref{fig:ratios}C and \ref{fig:ratios}D we showed that the [C/O] and [Mg/Si] distributions are largely independent
1168: of [Fe/H]. Here we show that these distributions are also largely independent of each other.
1169: Note that in this comparison we only use the data from \cite{Reddy03}, since it is the largest
1170: available sample with C, O, Mg and Si abundances.
1171: }
1172: \label{fig:comgsi}
1173: \end{center}
1174: \end{figure}
1175: %%%%%%%%%% end fig: co vs mg
1176:
1177:
1178: \section*{A2. MASS, AGE, AND ROTATIONAL VELOCITY}
1179: In Figure \ref{fig:massagev} we show four correlation plots for mass, chromospheric
1180: age, rotational velocity and $v \sin i$. We use the stars common to both \cite{Wright04}
1181: and \cite{Valenti05} for which these observables are available.
1182:
1183:
1184: %%%%%%%%%% fig: mass, age vs vsini
1185: \begin{figure*}[!tttt]
1186: \begin{center}
1187: \begin{tabular}{rr}
1188: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f15a.ps} & \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f15b.ps} \\
1189: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f15c.ps} & \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f15d.ps} \\
1190: \end{tabular}
1191: \caption{Correlation plots between various properties.
1192: For all four panels we use the stars common to both \cite{Wright04} and \cite{Valenti05}.
1193: Panel ({\bf A}): mass vs rotational velocity $v \sin i$ for 713 FGK stars.
1194: This panel shows the degree of correlation between mass and $v \sin i$. See \cite{gray05} for
1195: a stronger correlation between these two variables when a larger mass range and more active stars
1196: are kept in the sample.
1197: To minimize the effect of this correlation on our analysis, we restrict the range of mass in Fig.~5 to
1198: $0.9$ to $1.1 M_{\odot}$.
1199: Panel ({\bf B}): chromospheric age versus $v\sin i$ for 641 FGK stars.
1200: The lack of
1201: correlation between chromospheric determined ages and rotational velocities is shown.
1202: Panel ({\bf C}): no strong correlation between mass and chromospheric age for 639 FGK stars.
1203: Panel ({\bf D}): the ages of 637 stars determined
1204: by the chromospheric method versus their ages from the isochrone method.
1205: }
1206: \label{fig:massagev}
1207: \end{center}
1208: \end{figure*}
1209: %%%%%%%%%% end fig:mass age vs vsini
1210:
1211:
1212: \section*{A3. GALACTIC ORBITAL PARAMETERS}
1213:
1214: The Galactic orbital eccentricity ($e$) and the magnitude of the
1215: galactic orbital velocities with respect to the local standard of rest ($v_{\mr{LSR}}$) are
1216: strongly correlated (see Fig.~\ref{fig:e} in Sec.~\ref{sec:orbital}).
1217: We selected $e$ instead of $v_{\mr{LSR}}$ because of its near independence of the
1218: maximum height above the galactic plane ($Z_{\mr{max}}$); see Figure \ref{fig:ezmax}.
1219:
1220:
1221: %%%%%%%%%% fig: e vs Zm
1222: \begin{figure*}[!tttt]
1223: \begin{center}
1224: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1225: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f16a.ps} & \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f16b.ps}
1226: \end{tabular}
1227: \caption{
1228: Left panel: Galactic orbital eccentricity $e$ versus $Z_{\mr{max}}$ for 1987 FGK
1229: stars within 40 pc \citep{Nordstrom04}.
1230: The orbital eccentricity is not correlated with $Z_{\mr{max}}$.
1231: Right panel: $v_{\mr{LSR}}$ versus $Z_{\mr{max}}$ for the same stars. Because $v_{\mr{LSR}}$
1232: is more strongly correlated with $Z_{\mr{max}}$ than eccentricity, eccentricity has been
1233: selected for the joint analysis instead of $v_{\mr{LSR}}$.
1234: As in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratios}, the contours correspond to 38\%, 68\%, 82\% and 95\%.
1235: }
1236: \label{fig:ezmax}
1237: \end{center}
1238: \end{figure*}
1239: %%%%%%%% end fig: e vs Zm
1240:
1241:
1242: \section*{APPENDIX B}
1243:
1244: \section*{IMPROVED ESTIMATES OF $\chi^{2}_{\odot}$ AND $P(<\chi^{2}_{\odot})$}\label{sec:appxprob}
1245:
1246: In Section \ref{sec:starchi}, with 11 degrees of freedom, the reduced $\chi^2$ from
1247: Equation \ref{eq:mcprob} is $\chi^{2}_{\odot} \; / \; 11 = 0.72^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$.
1248: Since $\chi^{2}_{\odot} \; / \; 11 < 1$, the Sun's properties are consistent with
1249: the Sun being a randomly selected star.
1250:
1251: To improve on this preliminary analysis (but with a similar conclusion), as mentioned in Section \ref{sec:starchi},
1252: we employ a bootstrap analysis \citep{Efron79} to randomly resample data (with replacement) and
1253: derive a more accurate estimate of $\chi ^2_{\odot}$. Because the bootstrap is a non-parametric
1254: method, the distributions need not be Gaussian.
1255:
1256: For every iteration, each parameter's stellar distribution is randomly resampled and a $\chi ^2_{\odot}$ value
1257: is calculated using Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi2}). The uncertainties $\sigma_{\odot,i}$ of the solar values $x_{\odot,i}$
1258: are also included in the bootstrap method: for every iteration, the Solar value for each parameter
1259: is replaced in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi2}) by a randomly selected value from a normal distribution with median
1260: $\mu_{1/2,i}=x_{\odot,i}$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{\odot,i}$.
1261: The process was iterated 100,000 times, although the resulting distribution varies very little once
1262: the number of iterations reaches $\sim10,000$.
1263:
1264:
1265: The median of this distribution and the error on the median yields our improved value for the
1266: reduced $\chi ^2_{\odot}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:sunchi}). The uncertainty of the median of each re-sampled
1267: distribution varies inversely proportionally to the square root of the number of stars in the
1268: distribution, $\Delta \mu_{1/2,i} \propto 1/\sqrt{N_{\star,i}}.$ In other words, median values
1269: are less certain for smaller samples and this uncertainty is included in our improved estimate
1270: of $\chi^{2}_{\odot}$, and its uncertainty.
1271:
1272: We find the probability of finding a star with a $\chi^2_{\star}$ value lower than
1273: the solar $\chi^{2}_{\odot}$, for $N=11$ degrees of freedom in the standard way \citep{press92}
1274: and obtain:
1275: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Psimple}
1276: P( < \chi^2_{\odot}=7.88^{+0.08}_{-0.30}|11) = 0.28^{+0.01}_{-0.03}
1277: \end{equation}
1278: To improve our estimate of the probability of finding a star with lower $\chi^2$ value than the Sun,
1279: we perform a Monte Carlo simulation \citep{Metropolis49} to calculate an estimate
1280: of each star's $\chi^2$ value ($\chi^2_{\star}$). For every iteration, we randomly select
1281: a star from each stellar distribution. We then calculate its $\chi^2_{\star}$ value by replacing
1282: the solar value $x_{\odot,i}$ with that star's value $x_{\star,i}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi2}).
1283: This process was repeated 100,000 times to create our Monte Carloed stellar $\chi^2$ distribution.
1284: Stars were randomly selected with replacement, thus the simulated $\chi^2$ distribution accounts for
1285: small number statistics and non-Gaussian distributions. The probability of finding a star with
1286: $\chi^2$ lower than or equal to solar is $P_{\mr{MC}}=0.29 \pm 0.11$.
1287:
1288: The results of our analysis for the Solar $\chi^{2}_{\odot}$ values and the
1289: probabilities $P(<\chi^{2}_{\odot}$) are summarized in Table \ref{table:chiimprovedp}
1290:
1291: \section*{B1. ADDITION OF A DISCRETE PARAMETER} \label{sec:appmult}
1292: In Section~\ref{sec:results} we discuss the addition of stellar multiplicity to our analysis.
1293: Since stellar multiplicity cannot easily be approximated by a one-sided Gaussian (particularly because
1294: the Sun is on the edge of the distribution, i.e., it is of multiplicity one), we modified our
1295: Monte Carlo procedure to include this discrete parameter. The likelihood of observing a
1296: particular $\chi^2$ for the 11 parameters is
1297: \begin{equation}
1298: \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{11} \chi^2_i \right).
1299: \end{equation}
1300:
1301: We take the probability $p(1)$ of a star being a single star, to be $53.8 \pm 4.5 \%$, obtained
1302: from our sample of nearby stars (Sec.~\ref{sec:mass}). The likelihood $L$ of observing a particular $\chi^2$
1303: and $p(1)$ is the product
1304: \begin{equation}
1305: L = p(1) \exp \left(-\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{11} \chi^2_i \right).
1306: \end{equation}
1307: Taking logarithms we can then compute the distribution of the statistic $S$, where
1308: \begin{equation}
1309: S = \ln p(1) -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i= 1}^{11} \chi^2_i.
1310: \end{equation}
1311: The distribution of $S$ allows us to obtain the results for multiplicity reported at the end of Section~\ref{sec:results}.
1312:
1313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1314: %BIBLIOGRAPHY AND END DOCUMENT
1315: % Using bibtex
1316: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1317: % \bibliography{references}
1318: % Directly inserted in .tex document
1319: \begin{thebibliography}{68}
1320: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1321:
1322: \bibitem[{{All{\`e}gre} {et~al.}(1995){All{\`e}gre}, {Manh{\`e}s}, \&
1323: {G{\"o}pel}}]{Allegre95}
1324: {All{\`e}gre}, C.~J., {Manh{\`e}s}, G., \& {G{\"o}pel}, C. 1995, \gca, 59, 1445
1325:
1326: \bibitem[{{Allende Prieto}(2006)}]{Allendeprieto06}
1327: {Allende Prieto}, C. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1328:
1329: \bibitem[{{Allende Prieto} {et~al.}(2001){Allende Prieto}, {Lambert}, \&
1330: {Asplund}}]{allendeprieto01}
1331: {Allende Prieto}, C., {Lambert}, D.~L., \& {Asplund}, M. 2001, \apjl, 556, L63
1332:
1333: \bibitem[{{Asplund} {et~al.}(2005){Asplund}, {Grevesse}, \&
1334: {Sauval}}]{Asplund05}
1335: {Asplund}, M., {Grevesse}, N., \& {Sauval}, A.~J. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 336:
1336: Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, 25
1337:
1338: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} \& {Soneira}(1980)}]{Bahcall80}
1339: {Bahcall}, J.~N., \& {Soneira}, R.~M. 1980, \apjs, 44, 73
1340:
1341: \bibitem[{{Bell} \& {de Jong}(2001)}]{bell01}
1342: {Bell}, E.~F., \& {de Jong}, R.~S. 2001, \apj, 550, 212
1343:
1344: \bibitem[{{Bensby} \& {Feltzing}(2006)}]{Bensby06}
1345: {Bensby}, T., \& {Feltzing}, S. 2006, \mnras, 367, 1181
1346:
1347: \bibitem[{{Bensby} {et~al.}(2005){Bensby}, {Feltzing}, {Lundstr{\"o}m}, \&
1348: {Ilyin}}]{Bensby05}
1349: {Bensby}, T., {Feltzing}, S., {Lundstr{\"o}m}, I., \& {Ilyin}, I. 2005, \aap,
1350: 433, 185
1351:
1352: \bibitem[{{Bertelli} \& {Nasi}(2001)}]{bertelli01}
1353: {Bertelli}, G., \& {Nasi}, E. 2001, \aj, 121, 1013
1354:
1355: \bibitem[{{Carter}(1983)}]{Carter83}
1356: {Carter}, B. 1983, Philos. Trans.R. Soc. London, A, 310
1357:
1358: \bibitem[{{Clayton}(1983)}]{clayton83}
1359: {Clayton}, D.~D. 1983, {Principles of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis}
1360: (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983)
1361:
1362: \bibitem[{{Courteau} \& {van den Bergh}(1999)}]{courteau99}
1363: {Courteau}, S., \& {van den Bergh}, S. 1999, \aj, 118, 337
1364:
1365: \bibitem[{{Dehnen} \& {Binney}(1998)}]{dehnen98}
1366: {Dehnen}, W., \& {Binney}, J.~J. 1998, \mnras, 298, 387
1367:
1368: \bibitem[{{Driver} {et~al.}(1994){Driver}, {Phillipps}, {Davies}, {Morgan}, \&
1369: {Disney}}]{driver94}
1370: {Driver}, S.~P., {Phillipps}, S., {Davies}, J.~I., {Morgan}, I., \& {Disney},
1371: M.~J. 1994, \mnras, 268, 393
1372:
1373: \bibitem[{{Duquennoy} \& {Mayor}(1991)}]{duquennoy91}
1374: {Duquennoy}, A., \& {Mayor}, M. 1991, \aap, 248, 485
1375:
1376: \bibitem[{{Edvardsson} {et~al.}(1993{\natexlab{a}}){Edvardsson}, {Andersen},
1377: {Gustafsson}, {Lambert}, {Nissen}, \& {Tomkin}}]{Edvardsson93}
1378: {Edvardsson}, B., {Andersen}, J., {Gustafsson}, B., {Lambert}, D.~L., {Nissen},
1379: P.~E., \& {Tomkin}, J. 1993{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 275, 101
1380:
1381: \bibitem[{{Edvardsson} {et~al.}(1993{\natexlab{b}}){Edvardsson}, {Andersen},
1382: {Gustafsson}, {Lambert}, {Nissen}, \& {Tomkin}}]{Edvardsson93b}
1383: ---. 1993{\natexlab{b}}, \aaps, 102, 603
1384:
1385: \bibitem[{{Efron}(1979)}]{Efron79}
1386: {Efron}, B. 1979, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1
1387:
1388: \bibitem[{{Eisenhauer} {et~al.}(2005){Eisenhauer}, {Genzel}, {Alexander},
1389: {Abuter}, {Paumard}, {Ott}, {Gilbert}, {Gillessen}, {Horrobin}, {Trippe},
1390: {Bonnet}, {Dumas}, {Hubin}, {Kaufer}, {Kissler-Patig}, {Monnet},
1391: {Str{\"o}bele}, {Szeifert}, {Eckart}, {Sch{\"o}del}, \&
1392: {Zucker}}]{Eisenhauer05}
1393: {Eisenhauer}, F. {et~al.} 2005, \apj, 628, 246
1394:
1395: \bibitem[{{Eke} {et~al.}(2004){Eke}, {Frenk}, {Baugh}, {Cole}, {Norberg},
1396: {Peacock}, {Baldry}, {Bland-Hawthorn}, {Bridges}, {Cannon}, {Colless},
1397: {Collins}, {Couch}, {Dalton}, {de Propris}, {Driver}, {Efstathiou}, {Ellis},
1398: {Glazebrook}, {Jackson}, {Lahav}, {Lewis}, {Lumsden}, {Maddox}, {Madgwick},
1399: {Peterson}, {Sutherland}, \& {Taylor}}]{Ekev04}
1400: {Eke}, V.~R. {et~al.} 2004, \mnras, 355, 769
1401:
1402: \bibitem[{{Favata} {et~al.}(1996){Favata}, {Micela}, \& {Sciortino}}]{Favata96}
1403: {Favata}, F., {Micela}, G., \& {Sciortino}, S. 1996, \aap, 311, 951
1404:
1405: \bibitem[{{Favata} {et~al.}(1997){Favata}, {Micela}, \& {Sciortino}}]{Favata97}
1406: ---. 1997, \aap, 323, 809
1407:
1408: \bibitem[{{Feltzing} {et~al.}(2001){Feltzing}, {Holmberg}, \&
1409: {Hurley}}]{Feltzing01}
1410: {Feltzing}, S., {Holmberg}, J., \& {Hurley}, J.~R. 2001, \aap, 377, 911
1411:
1412: \bibitem[{{Flynn} {et~al.}(2006){Flynn}, {Holmberg}, {Portinari}, {Fuchs}, \&
1413: {Jahrei{\ss}}}]{flynn06}
1414: {Flynn}, C., {Holmberg}, J., {Portinari}, L., {Fuchs}, B., \& {Jahrei{\ss}}, H.
1415: 2006, \mnras, 372, 1149
1416:
1417: \bibitem[{{Flynn} {et~al.}(1996){Flynn}, {Sommer-Larsen}, \&
1418: {Christensen}}]{flynn96}
1419: {Flynn}, C., {Sommer-Larsen}, J., \& {Christensen}, P.~R. 1996, \mnras, 281,
1420: 1027
1421:
1422: \bibitem[{{Fuhrmann}(2008)}]{fuhrmann08}
1423: {Fuhrmann}, K. 2008, \mnras, 384, 173
1424:
1425: \bibitem[{{Gonzalez}(1999{\natexlab{a}})}]{Gonzalez99a}
1426: {Gonzalez}, G. 1999{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras, 308, 447
1427:
1428: \bibitem[{{Gonzalez}(1999{\natexlab{b}})}]{Gonzalez99b}
1429: ---. 1999{\natexlab{b}}, Astronomy and Geophysics, 40, 25
1430:
1431: \bibitem[{{Gonzalez} {et~al.}(2001){Gonzalez}, {Brownlee}, \&
1432: {Ward}}]{Gonzalez01}
1433: {Gonzalez}, G., {Brownlee}, D., \& {Ward}, P. 2001, Icarus, 152, 185
1434:
1435: \bibitem[{{Gould} {et~al.}(1996){Gould}, {Bahcall}, \& {Flynn}}]{Gould96}
1436: {Gould}, A., {Bahcall}, J.~N., \& {Flynn}, C. 1996, \apj, 465, 759
1437:
1438: \bibitem[{{Gray}(2005)}]{gray05}
1439: {Gray}, D.~F. 2005, {The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres} (The
1440: Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, 3rd Edition, by D.F.~Gray.~
1441: ISBN 0521851866.~http://www.cambridge.org/us/ \\
1442: /catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521851866.~Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
1443: Press, 2005.)
1444:
1445: \bibitem[{{Grether} \& {Lineweaver}(2006)}]{Grether06}
1446: {Grether}, D., \& {Lineweaver}, C.~H. 2006, \apj, 640, 1051
1447:
1448: \bibitem[{{Grether} \& {Lineweaver}(2007)}]{Grether07}
1449: ---. 2007, \apj, 669, 1220
1450:
1451: \bibitem[{{Gustafsson}(1998)}]{Gustafsson98}
1452: {Gustafsson}, B. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 419
1453:
1454: \bibitem[{{Gustafsson} {et~al.}(1999){Gustafsson}, {Karlsson}, {Olsson},
1455: {Edvardsson}, \& {Ryde}}]{Gustafsson99}
1456: {Gustafsson}, B., {Karlsson}, T., {Olsson}, E., {Edvardsson}, B., \& {Ryde}, N.
1457: 1999, \aap, 342, 426
1458:
1459: \bibitem[{{Henry}(2006)}]{Henry06}
1460: {Henry}, T.~J. 2006, RECONS database
1461:
1462: \bibitem[{{Hernandez} {et~al.}(2000){Hernandez}, {Valls-Gabaud}, \&
1463: {Gilmore}}]{hernandez00}
1464: {Hernandez}, X., {Valls-Gabaud}, D., \& {Gilmore}, G. 2000, \mnras, 316, 605
1465:
1466: \bibitem[{{Hogg} {et~al.}(2005){Hogg}, {Blanton}, {Roweis}, \&
1467: {Johnston}}]{hogg05}
1468: {Hogg}, D.~W., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Roweis}, S.~T., \& {Johnston}, K.~V. 2005,
1469: \apj, 629, 268
1470:
1471: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} \& {Beacom}(2006)}]{Hopkins06}
1472: {Hopkins}, A.~M., \& {Beacom}, J.~F. 2006, \apj, 651, 142
1473:
1474: \bibitem[{{Jarrett} {et~al.}(2003){Jarrett}, {Chester}, {Cutri}, {Schneider},
1475: \& {Huchra}}]{jarrett03}
1476: {Jarrett}, T.~H., {Chester}, T., {Cutri}, R., {Schneider}, S.~E., \& {Huchra},
1477: J.~P. 2003, \aj, 125, 525
1478:
1479: \bibitem[{{Kasting} {et~al.}(1993){Kasting}, {Whitmire}, \&
1480: {Reynolds}}]{kasting93}
1481: {Kasting}, J.~F., {Whitmire}, D.~P., \& {Reynolds}, R.~T. 1993, Icarus, 101,
1482: 108
1483:
1484: \bibitem[{{Kroupa}(2002)}]{Kroupa02}
1485: {Kroupa}, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82
1486:
1487: \bibitem[{{Kroupa} \& {Weidner}(2005)}]{Kroupa05}
1488: {Kroupa}, P., \& {Weidner}, C. 2005, in ASSL Vol. 327: The Initial Mass
1489: Function 50 Years Later, ed. E.~{Corbelli}, F.~{Palla}, \& H.~{Zinnecker},
1490: 175
1491:
1492: \bibitem[{{Kuchner} \& {Seager}(2005)}]{Kuchner05}
1493: {Kuchner}, M.~J., \& {Seager}, S. 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1494:
1495: \bibitem[{{Lineweaver} {et~al.}(2004){Lineweaver}, {Fenner}, \&
1496: {Gibson}}]{Lineweaver04}
1497: {Lineweaver}, C.~H., {Fenner}, Y., \& {Gibson}, B.~K. 2004, Science, 303, 59
1498:
1499: \bibitem[{{Lockwood} {et~al.}(2007){Lockwood}, {Skiff}, {Henry}, {Henry},
1500: {Radick}, {Baliunas}, {Donahue}, \& {Soon}}]{lockwood07}
1501: {Lockwood}, G.~W., {Skiff}, B.~A., {Henry}, G.~W., {Henry}, S., {Radick},
1502: R.~R., {Baliunas}, S.~L., {Donahue}, R.~A., \& {Soon}, W. 2007, \apjs, 171,
1503: 260
1504:
1505: \bibitem[{{Lockwood} {et~al.}(1997){Lockwood}, {Skiff}, \&
1506: {Radick}}]{lockwood97}
1507: {Lockwood}, G.~W., {Skiff}, B.~A., \& {Radick}, R.~R. 1997, \apj, 485, 789
1508:
1509: \bibitem[{{Loveday}(2000)}]{lovedayj00}
1510: {Loveday}, J. 2000, \mnras, 312, 557
1511:
1512: \bibitem[{{Metropolis} \& {Ulam}(1949)}]{Metropolis49}
1513: {Metropolis}, N., \& {Ulam}, S. 1949, Journal of the American Statistical
1514: Association, 44, 335
1515:
1516: \bibitem[{{Metzger} {et~al.}(1998){Metzger}, {Caldwell}, \&
1517: {Schechter}}]{Metzger98}
1518: {Metzger}, M.~R., {Caldwell}, J.~A.~R., \& {Schechter}, P.~L. 1998, \aj, 115,
1519: 635
1520:
1521: \bibitem[{{Meyer}(1975)}]{meyer75}
1522: {Meyer}, S.~L. 1975, {Data Analysis for Scientists and Engineers} (Data
1523: Analysis for Scientists and Engineers, by Stuart L.~Meyer p.~186.~ISBN
1524: 0471599956.~NY, USA: John Wiley \& Sons, 1975.)
1525:
1526: \bibitem[{{Nordstr{\"o}m} {et~al.}(2004){Nordstr{\"o}m}, {Mayor}, {Andersen},
1527: {Holmberg}, {Pont}, {J{\o}rgensen}, {Olsen}, {Udry}, \&
1528: {Mowlavi}}]{Nordstrom04}
1529: {Nordstr{\"o}m}, B. {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 418, 989
1530:
1531: \bibitem[{{Press} {et~al.}(1992){Press}, {Teukolsky}, {Vetterling}, \&
1532: {Flannery}}]{press92}
1533: {Press}, W.~H., {Teukolsky}, S.~A., {Vetterling}, W.~T., \& {Flannery}, B.~P.
1534: 1992, {Numerical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing}
1535: (Cambridge: University Press, |c1992, 2nd ed.)
1536:
1537: \bibitem[{{Radick} {et~al.}(1998){Radick}, {Lockwood}, {Skiff}, \&
1538: {Baliunas}}]{radick98}
1539: {Radick}, R.~R., {Lockwood}, G.~W., {Skiff}, B.~A., \& {Baliunas}, S.~L. 1998,
1540: \apjs, 118, 239
1541:
1542: \bibitem[{{Ram{\'{\i}}rez} {et~al.}(2007){Ram{\'{\i}}rez}, {Allende Prieto}, \&
1543: {Lambert}}]{ramirez07}
1544: {Ram{\'{\i}}rez}, I., {Allende Prieto}, C., \& {Lambert}, D.~L. 2007, \aap,
1545: 465, 271
1546:
1547: \bibitem[{{Reddy} {et~al.}(2003){Reddy}, {Tomkin}, {Lambert}, \& {Allende
1548: Prieto}}]{Reddy03}
1549: {Reddy}, B.~E., {Tomkin}, J., {Lambert}, D.~L., \& {Allende Prieto}, C. 2003,
1550: \mnras, 340, 304
1551:
1552: \bibitem[{{Reid}(2002)}]{Reid02}
1553: {Reid}, I.~N. 2002, \pasp, 114, 306
1554:
1555: \bibitem[{{Reid} {et~al.}(2007){Reid}, {Turner}, {Turnbull}, {Mountain}, \&
1556: {Valenti}}]{reid07}
1557: {Reid}, I.~N., {Turner}, E.~L., {Turnbull}, M.~C., {Mountain}, M., \&
1558: {Valenti}, J.~A. 2007, \apj, 665, 767
1559:
1560: \bibitem[{{Rocha-Pinto} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{a}}){Rocha-Pinto}, {Maciel},
1561: {Scalo}, \& {Flynn}}]{Rochapinto00b}
1562: {Rocha-Pinto}, H.~J., {Maciel}, W.~J., {Scalo}, J., \& {Flynn}, C.
1563: 2000{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 358, 850
1564:
1565: \bibitem[{{Rocha-Pinto} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{b}}){Rocha-Pinto}, {Scalo},
1566: {Maciel}, \& {Flynn}}]{Rochapinto00a}
1567: {Rocha-Pinto}, H.~J., {Scalo}, J., {Maciel}, W.~J., \& {Flynn}, C.
1568: 2000{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 531, L115
1569:
1570: \bibitem[{{Schechter}(1976)}]{schechter76}
1571: {Schechter}, P. 1976, \apj, 203, 297
1572:
1573: \bibitem[{{Silk}(2007)}]{silk07}
1574: {Silk}, J. 2007, Astronomy and Geophysics, 48, 30
1575:
1576: \bibitem[{{Soderblom}(1983)}]{soderblom83}
1577: {Soderblom}, D.~R. 1983, \apjs, 53, 1
1578:
1579: \bibitem[{{Soderblom}(1985)}]{soderblom85}
1580: ---. 1985, \aj, 90, 2103
1581:
1582: \bibitem[{{Truran} \& {Heger}(2005)}]{Truran05}
1583: {Truran}, Jr., J.~W., \& {Heger}, A. 2005, {Origin of the Elements}
1584: (Meteorites, Comets and Planets: Treatise on Geochemistry, Volume 1)
1585:
1586: \bibitem[{{Valenti} \& {Fischer}(2005)}]{Valenti05}
1587: {Valenti}, J.~A., \& {Fischer}, D.~A. 2005, \apjs, 159, 141
1588:
1589: \bibitem[{{van den Bergh}(2000)}]{vandenberg00}
1590: {van den Bergh}, S. 2000, {The Galaxies of the Local Group} (The galaxies of
1591: the Local Group, by Sidney Van den Bergh.~Published by Cambridge, UK:
1592: Cambridge University Press, 2000 Cambridge Astrophysics Series Series, vol
1593: no: 35, ISBN: 0521651816.)
1594:
1595: \bibitem[{{Wright} {et~al.}(2004){Wright}, {Marcy}, {Butler}, \&
1596: {Vogt}}]{Wright04}
1597: {Wright}, J.~T., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Butler}, R.~P., \& {Vogt}, S.~S. 2004, \apjs,
1598: 152, 261
1599:
1600: \end{thebibliography}
1601: \end{document}
1602: