1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % apjcenb3.tex: Alpha-Cen-B paper
4: %
5: % Revision history:
6: %
7: % 25/04/08 (WJC): Converted from apjcenb1 and modified/updated
8: % 02/07/08 (WJC): Changes, comments from YE, TRB and GH
9: % 15/07/08 (WJC): Final tweaks, comments from RN, TRB, GH
10: % 14/08/08 (WJC): Ready to go
11: %
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13:
14: %% Basic submission style:
15:
16: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
17:
18: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
19:
20: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
21:
22: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
23:
24: %\documentclass[10pt,preprint2]{aastex}
25:
26: %% This emulates the actual hard-copy style of ApJ:
27:
28: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
29:
30: \input epsf
31:
32: \shorttitle{Excitation and damping of $p$ modes of $\alpha$\,Cen~B}
33: \shortauthors{Chaplin et al.}
34:
35: \begin{document}
36:
37: \title{Excitation and damping of $p$-mode oscillations of
38: $\alpha$\,Cen~B}
39:
40: \author{W.~J.~Chaplin} \affil{School of Physics and Astronomy,
41: University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK}
42: \email{w.j.chaplin@bham.ac.uk}
43:
44: \and
45:
46: \author{G.~Houdek} \affil{Institute of Astronomy, University of
47: Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK} \email{hg@ast.cam.ac.uk}
48:
49: \and
50:
51: \author{Y.~Elsworth} \affil{School of Physics and Astronomy,
52: University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK}
53:
54: \and
55:
56: \author{R.~New} \affil{Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering and
57: Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK}
58:
59: \and
60:
61: \author{T. R. Bedding} \affil{School of Physics, University of Sydney,
62: Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia}
63:
64: \and
65:
66: \author{H. Kjeldsen} \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
67: University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark}
68:
69: \begin{abstract}
70:
71: This paper presents an analysis of observational data on the p-mode
72: spectrum of the star $\alpha$\,Cen~B, and a comparison with
73: theoretical computations of the stochastic excitation and damping of
74: the modes. We find that at frequencies $\ga 4500\,\rm \mu Hz$, the
75: model damping rates appear to be too weak to explain the observed
76: shape of the power spectral density of $\alpha$\,Cen~B. The conclusion
77: rests on the assumption that most of the disagreement is due to
78: problems modelling the damping rates, not the excitation rates, of the
79: modes. This assumption is supported by a parallel analysis of BiSON
80: Sun-as-a-star data, for which it is possible to use analysis of very
81: long timeseries to place tight constraints on the assumption. The
82: BiSON analysis shows that there is a similar high-frequency
83: disagreement between theory and observation in the Sun.
84:
85: We demonstrate that by using suitable comparisons of theory and
86: observation it is possible to make inference on the dependence of the
87: p-mode linewidths on frequency, without directly measuring those
88: linewidths, even though the $\alpha$\,Cen~B dataset is only a few
89: nights long. Use of independent measures from a previous study of the
90: $\alpha$\,Cen~B linewidths in two parts of its spectrum also allows us
91: to calibrate our linewidth estimates for the star. The resulting
92: calibrated linewidth curve looks similar to a frequency-scaled version
93: of its solar cousin, with the scaling factor equal to the ratio of the
94: respective acoustic cut-off frequencies of the two stars. The ratio of
95: the frequencies at which the onset of high-frequency problems is seen
96: in both stars is also given approximately by the same scaling factor.
97:
98: \end{abstract}
99:
100: \keywords{stars: oscillations -- stars: activity -- Sun: activity --
101: Sun: helioseismology -- data analysis}
102:
103:
104: \section{Introduction}
105: \label{sec:intro}
106:
107: Stars like the Sun, which have sub-surface convection zones, display a
108: rich spectrum of acoustic (p-mode) oscillations. The oscillations are
109: stochastically excited and damped by the convection, and this gives
110: rise to an extremely rich spectrum of modes. Measurement of the
111: amplitudes and damping rates of the p modes therefore gives important
112: information for constraining theories of convection in stellar
113: interiors.
114:
115: Chaplin et al. (2007) used model computations of the excitation and
116: damping of Sun-like oscillations to make predictions of the p-mode
117: spectra of a selection of stars on the lower main sequence. The
118: computations revealed an extremely interesting feature in the
119: predicted appearance of the spectra of those model stars that had
120: effective temperatures cooler than about 5400\,K: the modelled power
121: spectral density of the modes showed two maxima, at different
122: frequencies. Chaplin et al. found a pronounced dip in mode power
123: between the maxima when the computations were made for young stars;
124: since the maxima are well separated in frequency, the predicted
125: spectra took on a ``double humped'' appearance. In older main-sequence
126: stars the dip was found to be much less pronounced, and instead the
127: spectra showed a broad plateau of power.
128:
129: The K1~V main-sequence star $\alpha$\,Cen~B (HR\,5460) is a suitable
130: candidate to test the predictions, since its effective temperature
131: lies on the cool side of the 5400-K boundary given by the model
132: computations, and data are available on its p-mode spectrum from
133: observations made by Kjeldsen et al. (2005). As we shall demonstrate,
134: the model computations predict a broad plateau of power for
135: $\alpha$\,Cen~B; however, this broad plateau is not seen in the p-mode
136: data of Kjeldsen et al. This paper reports on attempts to try and
137: understand this disagreement between theory and observation.
138:
139: The observational data for our study are the aforementioned Doppler
140: velocity observations of $\alpha$\,Cen~B, made by Kjeldsen et al. The
141: theoretical predictions we use are pulsation computations of the
142: stochastic excitation rates and the damping rates of the radial p
143: modes of the star. By making judicious comparisons of the theoretical
144: computations and the observational data we show it is actually
145: possible to make inference on the p-mode linewidths of
146: $\alpha$\,Cen~B, without directly measuring those linewidths, even
147: though the Kjeldsen et al. observations span only a few nights. The
148: conclusions drawn do rest on one important assumption: that most of
149: the disagreement that is observed between theoretical predictions and
150: observations of the radial-mode amplitudes of $\alpha$\,Cen~B resides
151: in errors in the model damping rates, and not errors in the model
152: excitation rates. We provide evidence in support of this
153: rationalization from a similar comparison of theoretical and
154: observational data of the p-mode spectrum of the ``Sun as a
155: star''. The Sun-as-a-star data come from observations made by the
156: ground-based Birmingham Solar-Oscillations Network (BiSON) (Chaplin et
157: al. 1996) in Doppler velocity.
158:
159: The layout of our paper is as follows. We begin in
160: Section~\ref{sec:data} with a description of the excitation and
161: damping-rate computations. We then proceed in Section~\ref{sec:res} to
162: compare theoretical predictions and observations of the mode
163: amplitudes, for both $\alpha$\,Cen~B and the Sun. Then, in
164: Section~\ref{sec:wid}, we show how discrepancies between the
165: theoretical and observed amplitudes may be explained largely in terms
166: of errors in the theoretically computed damping rates. We also
167: demonstrate how inference may be made on the mode linewidths from use
168: of the observed amplitudes and the theoretical excitation and damping
169: computations. We finish in Section~\ref{sec:disc} with a brief
170: discussion of the main points of the paper.
171:
172:
173: \section{Predictions from analytical model computations}
174: \label{sec:data}
175:
176: The stellar equilibrium and pulsation computations that we performed
177: are as described by Balmforth (1992a) and Houdek et. al (1999). These
178: computations gave estimates of the powers and damping rates of the
179: radial p modes of $\alpha$\,Cen~B.
180:
181: The model computations required four general input parameters to
182: specify the stellar model: the mass, $M$; radius, $R$; effective
183: temperature, $T_{\rm eff}$; and chemical composition. We took values
184: for $\alpha$\,Cen~B of: $M=0.934 \pm 0.007\,\rm M_{\odot}$; $R=0.863
185: \pm 0.005\,\rm R_{\odot}$; and $T_{\rm eff} = 5288 \pm 38\,\rm K$ (see
186: Yildiz 2007, and references therein). The composition was fixed at
187: $X=0.7$ and $Z=0.02$, as for the model computations performed in
188: Chaplin et al. (2005, 2007). While this composition differs from
189: estimates given in the literature for the $\alpha$\,Cen~B system (of
190: $Z \approx 0.025$; again, see Yildiz 2007), changes in composition at
191: this level have only a second-order impact on the model calculated
192: p-mode excitation and damping rates, and any changes that might be
193: relevant here are smaller than the observational uncertainties (e.g.,
194: see Fig.~17 of Houdek et al. 1999).
195:
196:
197: \subsection{Pulsation computations}
198: \label{sec:comp}
199:
200: Computation of the excitation rates and damping rates of the p modes
201: demands a description of how the pulsations interact with the
202: convection. This requires computation of the turbulent fluxes
203: associated with the convective heat and momentum transport. These
204: turbulent fluxes are obtained from a nonlocal, time-dependent
205: generalization of the mixing-length formulation of Gough (1977a, b),
206: with a mixing length calibrated to the Sun. In this generalization
207: there is a parameter, $\Phi$, which specifies the shape of the
208: convective eddies. Then there are two parameters, $a$ and $b$, which
209: control respectively the spatial coherence of the ensemble of eddies
210: contributing to the turbulent fluxes of heat and momentum and the
211: degree to which the turbulent fluxes are coupled to the local
212: stratification. These two parameters control the degree of
213: `non-locality' of convection; low values imply highly nonlocal
214: solutions, and in the limit $a,b\rightarrow\infty$ the system of
215: equations formally reduces to the local formulation (except near the
216: boundaries of the convection zone, where the local equations are
217: singular). Gough (1977a) has suggested theoretical estimates for their
218: values, but it is likely that the standard mixing-length assumption of
219: assigning a unique scale to turbulent eddies at any given location
220: causes too much smoothing; accordingly, somewhat larger values
221: probably yield more realistic results. In this paper we therefore
222: adopt two sets of values for the non-local parameters which provide
223: reasonable results for the Sun, and other Sun-like stars:
224: $a^2=b^2=600$; and $a^2=b^2=300$. We comment further on the impact of
225: this choice in Section~\ref{sec:cal} below.
226:
227:
228: \subsubsection{Envelope and pulsation models}
229: \label{sec:envpuls}
230:
231: Both the envelope and pulsation computations assumed the
232: three-dimensional Eddington approximation to radiative transfer (Unno
233: \& Spiegel 1966). The integration was carried out inwards, starting
234: at an optical depth of $\tau$=$10^{-4}$ and ending at a radius
235: fraction $r/R=0.2$. The opacities were obtained from the OPAL tables
236: (Iglesias \& Rogers 1996), supplemented at low temperature by tables
237: from Kurucz (1991). The equation of state included a detailed
238: treatment of the ionization of C, N, and O, and a treatment of the
239: first ionization of the next seven most abundant elements
240: (Christensen-Dalsgaard 1982), as well as `pressure ionization' by the
241: method of Eggleton, Faulkner \& Flannery (1973); electrons were
242: treated with relativistic Fermi-Dirac statistics. Perfectly
243: reflective mechanical and thermal outer boundary conditions in the
244: pulsation computation were applied at the temperature minimum in the
245: manner of Baker \& Kippenhahn (1965). At the base of the model
246: envelope the conditions of adiabaticity and vanishing displacement
247: were imposed. Only radial p modes were considered.
248:
249:
250: \subsubsection{Stochastic excitation model}
251: \label{sec:mod}
252:
253: The amplitudes of stochastically excited oscillations are obtained in
254: the manner of Chaplin et al. (2005). The procedure is based on the
255: formulation by Balmforth (1992b) and Goldreich \& Keeley (1977) but
256: includes a consistent treatment of the anisotropy parameter $\Phi$ of
257: the turbulent velocity field (for details see the discussion in
258: Chaplin et al. 2005). For the anisotropy parameter we adopt the value
259: $\Phi=1.13$, a value that was also considered by Chaplin et al. The
260: excitation model assumes a description in which the largest,
261: energy-bearing eddies are described by the mixing-length approach. The
262: small-scale convection is modelled by a turbulence spectrum, for which
263: we adopt the Kolmogorov spectrum (Kolmogorov 1941) describing the
264: spatial properties of the small-scale turbulence. The temporal
265: behaviour of the small-scale turbulent dynamics has a frequency
266: spectrum that is approximated by a Gaussian centred at zero frequency
267: and with a width corresponding to the inverse of the correlation
268: timescale of an eddy whose spatial extent (or wavenumber) is
269: characterized by the mixing length. The correlation timescale is not a
270: well-defined quantity, and therefore we scale a (well-defined)
271: characteristic eddy turnover time with a correlation parameter
272: $\lambda$ (cf. Balmforth 1992b), which we set to $\lambda=1$.
273:
274:
275: \subsection{Mode peak parameters}
276: \label{sec:params}
277:
278: In this section we describe how the results of the stellar model
279: computations were used to make predictions of the parameters of the
280: p-mode peaks observed in the frequency power spectrum. For given
281: values of $a^2$ and $b^2$ the model computations provided predictions
282: of the linear damping rates, $\eta$, and the acoustic energy supply
283: rates, $P$, of the radial p modes. The observed parameters of the mode
284: peaks are formed from these quantities. The peak \textsc{fwhm}
285: linewidths are given by
286: \begin{equation}
287: \Delta = \eta / \pi.
288: \label{eq:wid}
289: \end{equation}
290: The mode velocity powers, $V^2$, are calculated from (e.g., Houdek et
291: al. 1999):
292: \begin{equation}
293: V^2 = \frac{P}{2\eta I} = \frac{P}{2\pi I \Delta},
294: \label{eq:V2}
295: \end{equation}
296: where $I$ is the mode inertia. The maximum power spectral density, or
297: height $H$, of a mode peak in the frequency power spectrum depends on
298: the effective length of the dataset, $T$, and the linewidth, $\Delta$,
299: via the formula (Fletcher et al. 2006):
300: \begin{equation}
301: H = \left(\frac{PT}{\eta I}\right) \frac{1}{\eta T + 2}
302: = \frac{2V^2T}{\pi T \Delta +2}.
303: \label{eq:height}
304: \end{equation}
305: When $\pi T \Delta << 2$ (i.e., when $T << 2/\eta$) the mode is not
306: resolved and power is confined largely in one bin of the frequency
307: power spectrum, so that $H \sim V^2$. When, on the other hand, $\pi T
308: \Delta >> 2$ (i.e., $T >> 2/\eta$), the mode is well resolved and the
309: Lorentzian shape of the peak may be inferred from the power in the
310: bins occupied by the peak. For cases in the intermediate regime --
311: where $\pi T \Delta$ is neither much greater, or much smaller, than
312: two -- there is a gradual transition between $H$ for the
313: unresolved and fully resolved regimes.
314:
315: In other recent papers (e.g., Chaplin et al. 2005) we have gone on to
316: use $H$ to make comparisons of theory with observation. In this paper
317: we instead use data on heavily smoothed frequency power spectra, which
318: give direct inference on $V^2$ (and therefore the amplitudes, $V$) as
319: opposed to the $H$. However, we do still make use of the heights to
320: calibrate the model computations, as we now go on to discuss.
321:
322:
323: \subsection{Notes on calibration}
324: \label{sec:cal}
325:
326: We make three important points concerning the calibration. Firstly,
327: the computations have been calibrated so that, for a model of the Sun,
328: the average maximum power spectral density, $H$, of the five most
329: prominent modes is the same as that observed in the real BiSON
330: Sun-as-a-star data. By using an average over several modes, as opposed
331: to taking the $H$ of just the strongest mode, we seek to stabilize the
332: calibration against small-scale fluctuations in the computations
333: (Chaplin et al. 2007). Furthermore, by using data on $H$, as opposed
334: to $V^2$ (or $V$), we maintain consistency with our previous work
335: (e.g., see Chaplin et al. 2008). To summarize our first point: data on
336: the Sun serve as a reference calibration for the model computations.
337:
338: Secondly, it is important to recognise that the reference calibration
339: had to be performed independently for each of the non-local parameter
340: choices $a^2=b^2=600$ and $a^2=b^2=300$, respectively. This is because
341: the changes to the values of the non-local parameters can have a
342: significant impact on the computed damping rates, which in turn
343: affects the absolute magnitudes of the predicted velocity powers,
344: $V^2$ (Equation~\ref{eq:V2}) and therefore the heights, $H$
345: (Equation~\ref{eq:height}).
346:
347: Thirdly, when it comes to comparing the results of the pulsation
348: computations with the observational data on $\alpha$\,Cen B, we must
349: remember that there will be instrument-dependent differences in the
350: observed velocity amplitudes, due to the use of different spectral
351: lines in the Doppler velocity observations. We have folded into the
352: calibration of the model data the fact that the amplitudes of the
353: solar p modes measured by the stellar techniques are a factor
354: 1.07-times smaller than the amplitudes measured by BiSON (Kjeldsen et
355: al., 2008).
356:
357:
358: \section{Results}
359: \label{sec:res}
360:
361: \subsection{Data from the observations}
362: \label{sec:obs}
363:
364: The left-hand panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:rawspecs} shows the observed
365: frequency power spectrum of $\alpha$\,Cen~B, plotted on a logarithmic
366: scale. The spectrum was computed from a few nights of Doppler velocity
367: data collected by Kjeldsen et al. (2005). The dark solid line is a
368: smoothed spectrum given by applying to the raw spectrum a Gaussian
369: filter of width $4\Delta\nu$, where $\Delta\nu$ is the large frequency
370: spacing between consecutive overtones (here $162\,\rm \mu Hz$). The
371: dashed line is a smooth estimate of the background power spectral
372: density. It was obtained by fitting, in regions outside the range
373: occupied by the p modes, a second-order polynomial to the logarithm of
374: power versus the logarithm of frequency.
375:
376: We used the Gaussian smoothed spectrum and the background fit to
377: estimate the mode amplitudes, $V$. This was done by following the
378: recipe outlined in Kjeldsen et al. (2008)\footnote{Note that we get
379: mode amplitudes for $\alpha$\,Cen~B and the Sun that are a few percent
380: lower than in Kjeldsen et al. These differences arise from differences
381: in the fitting-function that was used to estimate the background. The
382: estimation of the background is the largest source of uncertainty for
383: the method.}. In summary, we began by subtracting the background fit
384: from the Gaussian-smoothed spectrum. The residuals thereby obtained
385: were converted to units of power per Hertz, multiplied by the large
386: frequency spacing $\Delta\nu$, and finally divided by a constant
387: factor (see factors in Table~1 of Kjeldsen et al. 2008) to allow for
388: the effective number of modes in each slice $\Delta\nu$ of the
389: spectrum. This gave observational estimates of the radial mode
390: amplitudes, $\rm V_{obs}$, which are plotted as a thick grey line in
391: each panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:cenamp}. The thin grey lines are an
392: estimate of the uncertainty envelope on the observed amplitudes. These
393: uncertainties were estimated by using as a guide the results of
394: analyzing many independent, short segments of BiSON Sun-as-a-star
395: data, as will be explained below.
396:
397: We have used results on a parallel analysis of the BiSON Sun-as-a-star
398: data as a belt-and-braces check on the procedures and results. The
399: complete BiSON timeseries that we used is 4752\,days long. This was
400: split into independent segments of length 5\,days (a length similar to
401: the $\alpha$\,Cen~B timeseries), and the analysis procedures that were
402: applied to the $\alpha$\,Cen~B frequency power spectrum were applied
403: to the frequency power spectrum of each segment. The right-hand panel
404: of Fig.~\ref{fig:rawspecs} shows the frequency power spectrum of one
405: of the 5-day BiSON segments (the layout and linestyles are the same as
406: in the left-hand panel, and the spectrum was again smoothed over
407: $4\Delta\nu$, but with $\Delta\nu=135\,\rm \mu Hz$ for the Sun).
408:
409: The thick grey lines in both panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:sunamp} show the
410: \emph{mean} of the amplitudes that were obtained from the $\sim 950$
411: independent 5-day BiSON segments, using the method of Kjeldsen et
412: al. outlined above. The thin grey lines mark plus and minus the rms
413: of the amplitudes. Since the total epoch covered by the data spans
414: more than one 11-yr cycle of solar activity, these uncertainties
415: reflect variation of the estimated amplitudes from short-term
416: stochastic variability \emph{and} long-term solar cycle
417: variability. There will also be a contribution from the finite
418: signal-to-noise ratio of the observations.
419:
420: The fractional uncertainties in the estimated 5-day BiSON amplitudes
421: are about 15\,\% in the middle of the spectrum; and about 25\,\% at
422: the extreme frequencies $\sim 2000$ and $\sim 5000\,\rm \mu Hz$,
423: respectively. In the light of these values, we have assumed the
424: estimated $\alpha$\,Cen B amplitudes are all determined to a
425: fractional precision of 20\,\%. This value was used to make the
426: uncertainty envelope for the estimated $\alpha$\,Cen B amplitudes
427: plotted in both panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:cenamp}.
428:
429: With estimates of the uncertainties on $\rm V_{obs}$ now in hand, next
430: we ask the question: how robust are the $\rm V_{obs}$ likely to be for
431: $\alpha$\,Cen~B? We can obtain some insight by testing the robustness
432: of the 5-day BiSON Sun-as-a-star amplitudes. This test may be
433: accomplished by comparing the 5-day estimates with estimates from a
434: ``peak-bagging'' analysis of the entire 4752-day BiSON timeseries. The
435: BiSON mode amplitudes are usually estimated using the peak-bagging
436: fitting techniques (e.g., see Chaplin et al. 2006). Peak-bagging
437: involves maximum-likelihood fitting of mode peaks in the frequency
438: power spectrum to multi-parameter fitting models, where individual
439: mode peaks are represented by Lorentzian-like functions. The points
440: with error bars in Fig.~\ref{fig:sunamp} show estimated amplitudes
441: $\rm V_{bag}$ from a full peak-bagging analysis of the 4752-day BiSON
442: timeseries, in which the mode peaks were fitted in the high-resolution
443: frequency power spectrum of the complete timeseries. Since these
444: peak-bagging estimates are extremely precise, and are also expected to
445: be fairly accurate, they serve to provide a robust cross-check of the
446: 5-day estimates. As we can see, the 5-day BiSON estimates are in good
447: agreement with the peak-bagging BiSON estimates. This comparison
448: suggests we may also expect to have reasonable confidence in the
449: observed $\alpha$\,Cen B amplitudes.
450:
451:
452: \subsection{Comparison of theory with observation}
453: \label{sec:test}
454:
455: Predictions from the pulsation computations of the p-mode velocity
456: amplitudes, $V$, are shown as dotted lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:cenamp}
457: ($\alpha$\,Cen B) and Fig.~\ref{fig:sunamp} (Sun). The predicted
458: amplitudes plotted in the left-hand panels of the figures are for
459: $a^2=b^2=600$, while those in the right-hand panels are for
460: $a^2=b^2=300$.
461:
462: First, let us compare the modelled and observed amplitudes for
463: $\alpha$\,Cen B (Fig.~\ref{fig:cenamp}). When $a^2=b^2=600$ (left-hand
464: panel) the model amplitudes form a very broad plateau at frequencies
465: $\ga 3700\,\rm \mu Hz$, and the level of this plateau rises slowly
466: with increasing frequency. While the match between the predicted
467: amplitudes and the observed amplitudes is reasonable at frequencies
468: $\la 4500\,\rm \mu Hz$, this is demonstrably not so at higher
469: frequencies, where the predicted amplitudes are significantly higher
470: than the observed amplitudes. When $a^2=b^2=300$ the predicted
471: amplitudes give a better match, on average, to the observed
472: amplitudes, but some overestimation at higher frequencies remains.
473:
474: High-frequency disagreement between theory and observation is also
475: seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:sunamp} for the Sun. When $a^2=b^2=600$, we
476: again see a pronounced disagreement at high frequencies between the
477: predicted amplitudes and the observed amplitudes. When $a^2=b^2=300$
478: the level of disagreement is less pronounced, but is nevertheless
479: still present.
480:
481: Let us summarize the main points from Figs.~\ref{fig:cenamp}
482: and~\ref{fig:sunamp}: when $a^2=b^2=600$, theoretically computed
483: high-frequency velocity amplitudes for $\alpha$\,Cen B \emph{and} the
484: Sun significantly overestimate the observed velocity
485: amplitudes. Although not as severe, this overestimation persists at
486: $a^2=b^2=300$. What might be the cause of this disagreement between
487: theory and observation? That is the question we turn to next.
488:
489:
490: \section{Inference on the p-mode linewidths}
491: \label{sec:wid}
492:
493: Provided we trust the mode amplitudes $\rm V_{obs}$ estimated from the
494: $\alpha$\,Cen~B frequency power spectrum -- and the 5-day BiSON
495: analysis above suggests the estimates should be reasonable --
496: there are two possible ways out of the problem. Equation~\ref{eq:V2}
497: implies that:
498: \begin{equation}
499: \frac{\delta V}{V} \sim \frac{\delta P}{2P} - \frac{\delta\eta}{2\eta}.
500: \label{eq:changes}
501: \end{equation}
502: So, either the model damping rates $\eta$ -- and therefore the model
503: linewidths $\Delta$ -- are too weak at high frequencies to explain the
504: observed $\rm V_{obs}$, or the modelled acoustic supply rates, $P$, are too
505: strong (or there is a combination of the two effects).
506:
507: There is good evidence from analysis of Sun-as-a-star data (e.g.,
508: Chaplin et al. 2005; Houdek 2006) that a significant part of the
509: disagreement may come from problems computing $\eta$ (and therefore
510: $\Delta$). We can double-check the validity of this assumption here
511: for the Sun, because we have precise BiSON data on the linewidths and
512: powers of the solar p modes from the peak-bagging analysis. These
513: peak-bagging data may be used as a precise and accurate reference
514: against which to check the quality of the results obtained on the
515: short 5-day BiSON segments.
516:
517:
518: \subsection{The Sun-as-a-star linewidths}
519: \label{sec:sas}
520:
521: We base our solar check on Equation~\ref{eq:V2}. Again, it tells us
522: that $V^2 \propto P / \Delta$. If we take the ratio of the observed to
523: the model-computed velocity powers, we will therefore have:
524: \begin{equation}
525: \left(\frac{\rm V^2_{obs}}{V^2}\right) =
526: \left(\frac{\rm P_{obs}}{P}\right)
527: \left(\frac{\Delta}{\rm \Delta_{obs}}\right).
528: \label{eq:ratio}
529: \end{equation}
530: In the above, all observed quantities for the star, which we assume
531: come from analysis of the short 5-day segments, carry the suffix
532: ``obs''; and the model-predicted quantities are
533: suffix-free. Rearrangement of the above gives:
534: \begin{equation}
535: {\rm \Delta_{obs}} = \left(\frac{\rm P_{obs}}{P}\right)
536: \left(\frac{V^2}{\rm V^2_{obs}}\right)
537: \Delta.
538: \label{eq:ratio1}
539: \end{equation}
540: Let us suppose that all the problems in the modelling lie in
541: computation of the linewidths, $\Delta$. The implication is then, of
542: course, that the model-predicted values of the acoustic supply rates,
543: $P$, are accurate, i.e., $P=\rm P_{obs}$. Equation~\ref{eq:ratio1}
544: would then simplify to
545: \begin{equation}
546: {\rm \Delta_{obs}} = \left(\frac{V^2}{\rm V^2_{obs}}\right)
547: \Delta.
548: \label{eq:ratio2}
549: \end{equation}
550: How well do the solar model computations and 5-day observations match
551: Equation~\ref{eq:ratio2}, i.e., how well is the relation $P=\rm
552: P_{obs}$ satisfied? Fig.~\ref{fig:sunwid} shows plots of the inferred
553: linewidths $\rm \Delta_{obs}$ of the Sun (thick grey line). The $\rm
554: \Delta_{obs}$ were computed from the observed 5-day $\rm V_{obs}$ in
555: Section~\ref{sec:obs} above and the model predictions of $V^2$ and
556: $\Delta$. The left-hand panel shows results for when the model
557: computations use $a^2=b^2=600$; while the right-hand panel shows
558: results with $a^2=b^2=300$. The thin grey lines show the uncertainty
559: envelopes on the $\rm \Delta_{obs}$, which come from the uncertainties
560: on $\rm V_{obs}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sunamp}.
561:
562: Also plotted as points with associated best-fitting uncertainties in
563: Fig.~\ref{fig:sunwid} are the fitted linewidths $\rm \Delta_{bag}$
564: from a full 4752-day peak-bagging analysis of the BiSON Sun-as-a-star
565: data. For our purposes here, we may regard the peak-bagging linewidths
566: as being good measures of the true linewidths of the Sun. Our check on
567: whether $P=\rm P_{obs}$ therefore amounts to seeing if the 5-day $\rm
568: \Delta_{obs}$ are a good match to the $\rm \Delta_{bag}$. This does
569: assume that there are no significant biases in the estimated $\rm
570: V_{obs}$, as was suggested by the good agreement of the $\rm V_{obs}$
571: and $\rm V_{bag}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:sunamp}.
572:
573: At a first glance, the most striking aspect of the solar plots is
574: indeed the encouraging level of agreement between the $\rm
575: \Delta_{obs}$ and the $\rm \Delta_{bag}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:widrat} shows
576: the comparison in more detail. Here, we have plotted the fractional
577: differences between the 5-day linewidths and the peak-bagging
578: linewidths. When $a^2=b^2=600$, the $\rm \Delta_{obs}$ over the main
579: part of the solar p-mode spectrum are seen to be about 10\,\% higher
580: on average than the $\rm \Delta_{bag}$, while they are about 35\,\%
581: lower when $a^2=b^2=300$. The implication is that in both cases there
582: is actually an offset between $P$ and $\rm P_{obs}$. However, what we
583: can say is that changes in the differences as a function of frequency
584: are not significant over the main part of the p-mode spectrum, given
585: the observational uncertainties (we can disregard the differences at
586: the lowest frequencies, where the error bars are very large, and the
587: 5-day spectra have insufficient resolution to give robust estimates of
588: $\rm \Delta_{obs}$ in this part of the spectrum). We are therefore in
589: a position to conclude the following: the \emph{shape} in frequency of
590: the $\rm \Delta_{obs}$ is a reasonable match to the shape of the $\rm
591: \Delta_{bag}$ at the level of precision of 5-day timeseries.
592:
593: The above suggests we may use Equation~\ref{eq:ratio2} to infer the
594: variation of the linewidths as a function of frequency, without the
595: need to measure those linewidths directly. There will remain some
596: uncertainty over the absolute calibration of the linewidths. Let us
597: now apply Equation~\ref{eq:ratio2} to the data on $\alpha$\,Cen~B.
598:
599:
600: \subsection{Inference on linewidths of $\alpha$\,Cen~B}
601: \label{sec:acenb}
602:
603: We have used the observed estimates of $\rm V_{obs}$ from the
604: $\alpha$\,Cen B spectrum, together with the theoretical computations
605: of $V$ and $\Delta$ for the star, to give the inferred linewidths $\rm
606: \Delta_{obs}$ plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:cenwid}. We do not require an
607: explicit estimate of $\rm P_{obs}$, because we rely on the assumption
608: (verified above for the Sun) that the theoretical $P$ has the same
609: shape in frequency as $\rm P_{obs}$.
610:
611: There is no obvious reason why we should expect the acoustic
612: supply-rate computations, $P$, to be any less valid for $\alpha$\,Cen
613: B than they are for the Sun (this might not have been so had
614: $\alpha$\,Cen B been somewhat hotter than the Sun, or much cooler than
615: it actually is; see Houdek 2006). At the very least we may therefore
616: have reasonable confidence in the shapes of the inferred linewidth
617: curves for the star, assuming any deviations from a constant scaling
618: offset are no more severe than they are for the Sun. Both curves in
619: Fig.~\ref{fig:cenwid} appear to show a plateau in the linewidths at
620: $4000\,\rm \mu Hz$, like that seen in the solar linewidth curve. Other
621: obvious features of the curves -- a decrease of the linewidths at
622: lower frequencies, and an increase at higher frequencies -- are also
623: Sun-like in nature. It is worth stressing that the linewidth curves
624: have very similar shapes at $a^2=b^2=600$ (left-hand panel) and
625: $a^2=b^2=300$ (right-hand panel).
626:
627: We have also shown on Fig.~\ref{fig:cenwid} observational linewidth
628: estimates, which were obtained by Kjeldsen et al. (2005) in two parts
629: of the p-mode spectrum (points with associated uncertainties). These
630: estimates were obtained from the same data but in a different way,
631: namely by measuring the scatter of p-mode frequencies around smooth
632: ridges in the echelle diagram. Comparison of the inferred $\rm
633: \Delta_{obs}$ with the Kjeldsen et al. estimates allows us to place
634: constraints on the absolute values of the linewidths for
635: $\alpha$\,Cen~B. Such a comparison suggests there is actually little
636: to choose between the $\rm \Delta_{obs}$ and the Kjeldsen et
637: al. estimates when the energy supply rates are computed using
638: $a^2=b^2=600$ (giving the inferred linewidths in the left-hand panel
639: of Fig.~\ref{fig:cenwid}) or $a^2=b^2=300$ (giving the inferred
640: linewidths in the right-hand panel). However, the $a^2=b^2=300$ result
641: does give a slightly better match. Inspection of the $\rm
642: \Delta_{obs}$ linewidth curve then implies that the $\alpha$\,Cen~B
643: linewidths take values of about $0.4\,\rm \mu Hz$ at a frequency of
644: $3500\,\rm \mu Hz$, about $0.8\,\rm \mu Hz$ at a frequency of
645: $4000\,\rm \mu Hz$, and about $2.5\,\rm \mu Hz$ at a frequency of
646: $4500\,\rm \mu Hz$. These linewidths turn out to agree reasonably well
647: with the solar linewidths, if the mode frequencies are multiplied by
648: the ratio of the acoustic cut-off frequencies of the two stars (which
649: in effect scales the $\alpha$\,Cen~B frequencies down to those shown
650: by the Sun). In short, the $\alpha$\,Cen~B linewidth curve is similar
651: to a frequency-scaled version of its solar cousin.
652:
653:
654: \section{Discussion}
655: \label{sec:disc}
656:
657: In this paper we presented an analysis of the amplitudes and
658: linewidths of the low-degree, Sun-like p modes displayed by the star
659: $\alpha$\,Cen~B. These data were extracted from only a few nights of
660: Doppler velocity observations collected on the star by Kjeldsen et
661: al. (2005), and were compared with theoretical predictions of the
662: stochastic excitation and damping rates of the p modes. We also
663: performed a parallel analysis of Sun-as-a-star p-mode data collected
664: by the ground-based BiSON. The very long BiSON timeseries allowed us
665: to validate the analysis techniques.
666:
667: For the Sun, we found that model predictions of the mode amplitudes
668: were significantly larger than the observed amplitudes in the
669: high-frequency part of the p-mode spectrum. We were able to
670: confirm that most of the disagreements for the Sun, which set in at
671: frequencies $\ga 3300\,\rm \mu Hz$, are due to problems computing the
672: damping rates, not the excitation rates, of the modes. The computed
673: damping rates must be increased to explain the observed amplitudes.
674:
675: Similar disagreements are seen for $\alpha$\,Cen~B. Here, we do not
676: have the luxury of cross-checking the analysis with results from very
677: long datasets, since the latter at present do not exist [although we
678: may hope to obtain such datasets in the future from the likes of SONG
679: (Grundahl et al. 2007) and SIAMOIS (Mosser et al. 2007)]. However, by
680: assuming that the disagreements for $\alpha$\,Cen~B are also due
681: largely to problems with the model-predicted damping rates, as was
682: shown to be the case for the Sun, we were able to demonstrate that the
683: model linewidths must also be increased significantly in order to
684: explain the observed amplitudes. The problems for $\alpha$\,Cen~B set
685: in at frequencies $\ga 4500\,\rm \mu Hz$.
686:
687: The conclusions above bear on a prediction of the pulsation
688: computations mentioned in the Introduction (Section~\ref{sec:intro}):
689: that stars cooler than about 5400\,K will show a broad plateau or
690: double-hump of power in their p-mode spectra. We showed that
691: $\alpha$\,Cen~B does not have the predicted broad plateau in its
692: \emph{observed} p-mode spectrum. If the high-frequency damping rates
693: are increased -- as they must be to resolve the disagreement between
694: theory and observation -- the broad plateau or second high-frequency
695: hump disappears in the cooler models.
696:
697: Finally, we also showed how, by making suitable comparisons of theory
698: and observation, it is possible to make inference on the variation with
699: frequency of the p-mode linewidths without directly measuring those
700: linewidths, even if the observations come from only a few days of
701: data. Use of independent measures of the $\alpha$\,Cen~B linewidths,
702: made in two parts of its spectrum by Kjeldsen et al. (2005), allowed
703: us to calibrate our inferred linewidth curve for $\alpha$\,Cen~B. We
704: found that the resulting, calibrated linewidth curve is similar to a
705: frequency-scaled version of its solar cousin, with the scaling factor
706: equal to the ratio of the respective acoustic cut-off frequencies of
707: the two stars. The ratio of the frequencies at which the onset of
708: high-frequency problems is seen in both stars is also given
709: approximately by the same scaling factor.
710:
711:
712: \acknowledgments
713:
714: WJC thanks members of the School of Physics at the University of
715: Sydney for their hospitality and support during a visit when some of
716: this work was conducted. WJC also acknowledges the support of the
717: School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Birmingham. GH
718: acknowledges the support of the UK Science and Technology Facilities
719: Council, and TRB acknowledges the support of the Australian Research
720: Council.
721:
722:
723: \begin{thebibliography}{}
724:
725: \bibitem[]{baker65} Baker~N., Kippenhahn~R., 1965, ApJ, 142, 868
726:
727: \bibitem []{balm92a}Balmforth N.J., 1992a, MNRAS, 255, 603
728:
729: \bibitem []{balm92b}Balmforth N.J., 1992b, MNRAS, 255, 639
730:
731: \bibitem[]{chaplin96} Chaplin W. J., et al., 1996, Sol Phys, 168, 1
732:
733: \bibitem[]{chaplin05} Chaplin W. J., Houdek G., Elsworth Y., Gough
734: D. O., New R., 2005, MNRAS, 360, 859
735:
736: \bibitem[]{chaplin06} Chaplin W. J., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 985
737:
738: \bibitem[]{chaplin07} Chaplin~W.~J., Elsworth~Y., Houdek~G., New~R.,
739: 2007, MNRAS, 377, 17
740:
741: \bibitem[]{chaplin08} Chaplin~W.~J., Houdek~G., Appourchaux~T.,
742: Elsworth~Y., New~R., Toutain~T., 2008, A\&A, 485, 813
743:
744: \bibitem[]{christ82} Christensen-Dalsgaard~J., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 735
745:
746: \bibitem[]{eggelton73} Eggleton P., Faulkner J., Flannery B.P., 1973,
747: A\&A, 23, 325
748:
749: \bibitem[]{fletcher06} Fletcher S. T., Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y.,
750: Schou J., Buzasi D., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 935
751:
752: \bibitem[]{goldreich77} Goldreich P., Keeley D.A., 1977, ApJ 212, 243
753:
754: \bibitem[]{gough77a} Gough~D.O., 1977a, in Spiegel~E., Zahn~J.-P.,
755: eds, Problems of stellar convection. Springer-Verlag,
756: Berlin, p.\,15
757:
758: \bibitem[]{gough77b} Gough~D.~O., 1977b, ApJ, 214, 196
759:
760: \bibitem[]{grundahl07} Grundahl F., Kjeldsen H., Christensen-Dalsgaard
761: J., Arentoft A., Frandsen S., 2007, CoAst, 150, 300
762:
763: \bibitem[]{houdek99} Houdek~G., Balmforth~N.~J.,
764: Christensen-Dalsgaard~J., Gough~D.~O., 1999, A\&A, 351, 582
765:
766: \bibitem[]{houdek02} Houdek G., Gough D. O., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 65
767:
768: \bibitem[]{houdek06} Houdek~G., 2006, in: Beyond the Spherical Sun,
769: SOHO18/GONG 2006/HELAS~I, eds. D. Dansey, M. J. Thompson, ESA SP-624,
770: Sheffield, UK, p. 28.1
771:
772: \bibitem[]{iglesias96} Iglesias~C.~A., Rogers~F.~J., 1996, ApJ, 464,
773: 943
774:
775: \bibitem[]{kjeldsen04} Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., Butler R. P., et
776: al., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1281
777:
778: \bibitem[]{kjeldsen08} Kjeldsen H., et al., 2008, ApJ, in press
779:
780: \bibitem[]{kolmogorov41} Kolmogorov~A.N., 1941, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR,
781: 30, 299
782:
783: \bibitem[]{kurucz91} Kurucz~R.~L., 1991, in Crivellari~L., Hubney~I.,
784: Hummer~D.~G., eds, Stellar Atmospheres: Beyond Classical
785: Models. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p.\,441
786:
787: \bibitem[]{mosser07} Mosser B., and the SIAMOIS Team, 2007, in: 1st
788: ARENA Conference on ``Large Astronomical Infrastructures at
789: CONCORDIA, prospects and constraints for Antarctic Optical/IR
790: Astronomy'', eds. N. Epchtein, M. Candidi, EAS Publication Series
791: 25, p. 239
792:
793: \bibitem[]{unno66} Unno~W., Spiegel~E.~A., 1966, PASJ, 18, 85
794:
795: \bibitem[]{yildiz07} Yildiz M., 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1264
796:
797: \end{thebibliography}
798:
799:
800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
801:
802: \begin{figure*}
803:
804: \epsscale{1.0}
805: % \plottwo{cenbrawspec.ps}{bis7drawspec.ps}
806: \plottwo{f1a.ps}{f1b.ps}
807:
808: \caption{Left-hand panel: Observed frequency power spectrum of
809: $\alpha$\,Cen~B (Kjeldsen et al. 2005). The dark solid line is the
810: smoothed spectrum, while the dashed line is an estimate of the
811: background. Right-hand panel: Observed frequency power spectrum of a
812: 5-day segment of BiSON Sun-as-a-star data (linestyles as per
813: left-hand panel).}
814:
815: \label{fig:rawspecs}
816: \end{figure*}
817:
818: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
819:
820: \begin{figure*}
821: \epsscale{1.0}
822: % \plottwo{cenbamps.ps}{cenb300amps.ps}
823: \plottwo{f2a.ps}{f2b.ps}
824:
825: \caption{Observed mode velocity amplitudes $\rm V_{obs}$ (thick grey
826: line) and theoretically computed amplitudes $V$ (dotted line) of
827: $\alpha$\,Cen B. The thin grey lines denote the estimated uncertainty
828: envelope on the amplitudes (see text). Left-hand panel: theoretical
829: predictions for $a^2=b^2=600$. Right-hand panel: theoretical
830: predictions for $a^2=b^2=300$.}
831:
832: \label{fig:cenamp}
833: \end{figure*}
834:
835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
836:
837: \begin{figure*}
838: \epsscale{1.0}
839: % \plottwo{solcrunchamps.ps}{solcrunch300amps.ps}
840: \plottwo{f3a.ps}{f3b.ps}
841:
842: \caption{Observed mode velocity amplitudes $\rm V_{obs}$ (thick grey
843: line) and theoretically computed amplitudes $V$ (dotted line) of the
844: Sun. The plotted amplitudes are the mean amplitudes from analyzing
845: 950 independent 5-day segments of BiSON Sun-as-a-star data. The thin
846: grey lines denote the uncertainty envelope on the amplitudes, from
847: the scatter in the results from the 5-day segments. The symbols with
848: error bars are amplitudes $\rm V_{bag}$ given by a ``peak-bagging''
849: analysis of the full 4752-day BiSON timeseries. Left-hand panel:
850: theoretical predictions for $a^2=b^2=600$. Right-hand panel:
851: theoretical predictions for $a^2=b^2=300$.}
852:
853: \label{fig:sunamp}
854: \end{figure*}
855:
856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
857:
858: \begin{figure*}
859: \epsscale{1.0}
860: % \plottwo{solcrunchwids.ps}{solcrunch300wids.ps}
861: \plottwo{f4a.ps}{f4b.ps}
862:
863: \caption{Inferred linewidths $\rm \Delta_{obs}$ (thick grey line) and
864: theoretically computed linewidths $\Delta$ (dotted line) of the
865: Sun. The theoretically computed linewidths have been smoothed with a
866: median smoothing filter of three consecutive values, as in Houdek \&
867: Gough (2002). The plotted inferred linewidths are the mean inferred
868: linewidths from analyzing 950 independent 5-day segments of BiSON
869: Sun-as-a-star data. The thin grey lines denote the uncertainty
870: envelope on the inferred linewidths, from the scatter in the results
871: from the 5-day segments. The symbols with error bars are linewidths
872: $\rm \Delta_{bag}$ given by a ``peak-bagging'' analysis of the full
873: 4752-day BiSON timeseries. Left-hand panel: theoretical predictions
874: for $a^2=b^2=600$. Right-hand panel: theoretical predictions for
875: $a^2=b^2=300$.}
876:
877: \label{fig:sunwid}
878: \end{figure*}
879:
880:
881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
882:
883: \begin{figure*}
884: \epsscale{1.0}
885: % \plotone{widrat.ps}
886: \plotone{f5.ps}
887:
888: \caption{Results on the solar p-mode linewidths. Plotted are
889: differences in the natural logarithms (i.e., absolute fractional
890: differences) of the inferred linewidths, $\rm \Delta_{obs}$ (which
891: use data from the 5-day BiSON segments) and peak-bagging linewidths,
892: $\rm \Delta_{bag}$ (from the frequency power spectrum of the full
893: 4752-day BiSON timeseries).}
894:
895: \label{fig:widrat}
896: \end{figure*}
897:
898: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
899:
900: \begin{figure*}
901: \epsscale{1.0}
902: %\plottwo{cenbwids.ps}{cenb300wids.ps}
903: \plottwo{f6a.ps}{f6b.ps}
904:
905: \caption{Inferred linewidths $\rm \Delta_{obs}$ (thick grey line) and
906: theoretically computed linewidths $\Delta$ (dotted line) of
907: $\alpha$\,Cen B. The theoretically computed linewidths have been
908: smoothed with a median smoothing filter of three consecutive values,
909: as in Houdek \& Gough (2002). The thin grey lines denote the
910: estimated uncertainty envelope on the inferred linewidths (see
911: text). The symbols with error bars show observational linewidth
912: estimates from Kjeldsen et al. (2005). Left-hand panel: theoretical
913: predictions for $a^2=b^2=600$. Right-hand panel: theoretical
914: predictions for $a^2=b^2=300$.}
915:
916: \label{fig:cenwid}
917: \end{figure*}
918:
919: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
920:
921:
922: \end{document}
923: