1: %latex u5.tex
2: %\title{RR Lyrae -- Theory vs Observation}
3: % revised version
4:
5: \documentstyle[emulateapj,flushrt,epsf,rotate]{article}
6:
7: \long\def\jumpover#1{{}}
8:
9: \def\approxgt{\,\raise2pt \hbox{$>$}\kern-8pt\lower2.pt\hbox{$\sim$}\,}
10: \def\approxlt{\,\raise2pt \hbox{$<$}\kern-8pt\lower2.pt\hbox{$\sim$}\,}
11: \def \th{\thinspace}
12: \def \ngth{\negthinspace}
13: \def \ni{\noindent}
14: %\def \ub#1{{\underbar {#1}}}
15: %\def \ul#1{{\underbar {#1}}}
16: \def \Teff{{$T_{\rm {ef\!f}} $}}
17: \def \Mo{{$M_\odot $}}
18: \def \Lo{{$L_\odot $}}
19: \def \at{{\rm\char'100}}
20: %\def \ahalf {{\frac 12}}
21: %\def \athird {{\frac 13}}
22: %\def \quarter{{\frac 14}}
23: %\def \aquarter{{\frac 14}}
24: %\def \nth{{$^{th}$}}
25: %\def \first{{1$^{st}$}}
26: \def \apriori{{\it a priori\ }}
27: \def \eg{{{\it e.g.},\ }}
28: \def \etal{{\it et al.\ }}
29: \def \etc{{\it etc.\ }}
30: \def \cf{{\it cf.\ }}
31: \def \ia{{{\it inter alia},\ }}
32: \def \ie{{{\it i.e.},\ }}
33: \def \iff{{{\it iff},\ }}
34: \def \via{{\it via\ }}
35: \def \viz{{\it viz.\ }}
36: \def \vs{{\it vs.\ }}
37: % . with d above for day
38: \def \dotd{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm d}$}}
39: \def \dotm{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm m}$}}
40: \def \dd{{$^d$}}
41: %\def \ML{{{\it M \ngth -- \ngth L}}}
42: \def\Log{{\mathrm Log}}
43: \def\LogL{{Log$\th L$}}
44: \def \LTeff{{Log$\th T_{{\rm ef\!f}} $}}
45: \def\LogP{{Log$\th P$}}
46:
47:
48: \def\rn{\noindent\parshape 2 0truecm 8.8truecm 0.3truecm 8.5truecm}
49:
50: \begin{document}
51:
52: \submitted{ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, revised version, in press}
53:
54: \title{RR Lyrae -- Theory \lowercase{vs} Observation}
55: \author{Zolt\'an Koll\'ath$^{1}$,
56: J. Robert Buchler$^{2}$
57: \& Michael Feuchtinger$^{2}$
58: }
59: \begin{abstract}
60:
61: The luminosities, effective temperatures and metallicities that are derived
62: empirically by Kov\'acs and Jurcsik from the light curves of a large number of
63: globular cluster and field RRab and RRc stars are compared to theoretical RR Lyrae
64: models. The strong luminosity dependence of the empirical blue and red edges
65: (\LogL\ \vs \LTeff\ diagram) is in disagreement with that of both radiative and
66: convective models. A reexamination of the theoretical uncertainties in the
67: modelling leads us to conclude that the disagreement appears irreconcilable.
68:
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71: \keywords{
72: stars: variable,
73: stars: oscillations,
74: stars: RR Lyrae,
75: stars: horizontal-branch,
76: stars; abundances,
77: stars: distances,
78: stars: atmospheres,
79: stars: fundamental parameters,
80: globular cluster}
81:
82:
83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
84: {\bigskip
85: {\footnotesize
86: \noindent $^1$Konkoly Observatory, Budapest, HUNGARY; kollath\at
87: konkoly.hu \\
88: \noindent $^2$Physics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA;
89: buchler\at phys.ufl.edu, fm\at phys.ufl.edu
90: }}
91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
92:
93:
94: \section{Introduction}
95:
96: The recent work of Kov\'acs \& Jurcsik (Kov\'acs \& Jurcsik 1996 [KJ96], 1997
97: [KJ97], Jurcsik 1998 [J98]) proposes an almost purely empirical method of
98: extracting the absolute magnitudes, colors and effective temperatures (\Teff)
99: and metallicities directly from the observed periods and light curves of RR
100: Lyrae stars. The only theoretical input appears in the transformation from
101: M$_V$ and V -- K to L and \Teff\ via Kurucz's static model atmospheres. The
102: very empirical nature and potential usefulness of the approach has attracted a
103: great deal of attention from observers.
104:
105: The most recent work (J98) compiles and analyzes a sizeable set of
106: observational data of RR Lyrae cluster variables and RR Lyrae field stars.
107: This study thus includes RR Lyrae stars with metallicities ranging from
108: Z=0.00001 to almost solar Z=0.020. The end products of her analysis that we
109: are most concerned about here are \LogL-\LTeff\ and \LogL-\LogP\ plots, and the
110: byproducts which are relations between luminosity L, mass M and metallicity Z.
111:
112: The J98 \LogL-\LTeff\ and \LogL-\LogP\ data are shown in Figure~1 as small dots,
113: circles for RRab and triangles for RRc stars. The figures indicate well
114: defined slopes for the fundamental and overtone blue edges and red edges, all
115: four of which have approximately the same values, although there may be a
116: slight broadening of the instability strip with luminosity. Hereafter we call
117: this slope $\Xi$ ($=\Delta$~\LogL / $\Delta$~\LTeff).
118:
119: J98 pointed out that no model calculations can explain the strong dependence of
120: the temperature on the luminosity. In \S2 we first confirm that indeed the
121: slope $\Xi$ of this empirical \LogL\ \vs \LTeff\ diagram is in irreconcilable
122: disagreement with that of radiative models. Next, in \S3 we show that the
123: inclusion of turbulent convection in the models only shifts the \LogL\ \vs
124: \LTeff\ line, but does not change the slope. The discrepancy is therefore very
125: basic because it is already inherent in models that are as fundamental as
126: purely radiative ones. In \S4 we reexamine the uncertainties of both radiative
127: and turbulent model calculations and conclude that the theoretical $\Xi$ is
128: very robust and cannot be changed very much without introducing new physics.
129: In \S5 we discuss the theory that goes into the empirical relations of Jurcsik,
130: in particular the influence of the use of the static Kurucz color --
131: temperature transformation. We conclude in \S6.
132:
133:
134: \section{Radiative Models of RR Lyrae Stars}
135:
136: In the following we examine how well RR Lyrae models agree with the J98 data.
137: We first examine radiative models, and thus limit ourselves to the vicinity of
138: the blue edges.
139:
140:
141: \begin{figure*}
142: \vspace{0cm}
143: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig1a.ps}}}
144: {\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig1b.ps}}}}
145: \vspace{0.2cm}
146: \noindent{\small
147: Fig.~1 :
148: Left: \LogL-\LTeff\ plot:
149: RRab (filled circles) and RRc (triangles) stars from Jurcsik
150: ([J98] and priv. comm.);
151: Theoretical fundamental and first overtone blue edges for radiative models:
152: {\it solid lines}: fixed mass and Z;
153: {\it dotted lines} have M and Z from Jurcsik's relation;
154: {\it dashed lines} have M from Jurcsik with fixed Z=0.001;
155: Tuggle \& Iben's overtone and fundamental blue edges are reported as open
156: circles and squares, respectively.
157: Right: Same data in a \LogL-\LogP\ plot.
158: }
159: \label{fig1}
160: \end{figure*}
161:
162:
163:
164: Figure~1 shows a \LogL-\LTeff\ plot on the left. On these we superpose the
165: linear fundamental and first overtone blue edges of radiative RR Lyrae models.
166: We recall here that among the linear edges of the instability strip only the
167: overtone linear blue edge and the fundamental linear red edge coincide with the
168: observable edges of the instability strip. Nonlinear dynamical effects shift
169: the observable fundamental blue edge and the overtone red edge to the red and
170: to the blue, respectively, compared to their corresponding linear edges, by up
171: to several 100\th K (\eg \cf Buchler 2000). Strictly speaking, for radiative
172: models, it is only the linear overtone blue edge that is relevant, but the
173: linear fundamental blue edge can give a rough indication of the slope $\Xi$.
174: Furthermore, the red edges are determined by convection, and radiative red
175: edges are not relevant and are therefore not shown in Fig.~1.
176:
177: The solid lines have been computed for models with M=0.65, X=0.75 and Z=0.001.
178: The dotted lines represent models with M and Z from Jurcsik's \{L, M, Z\}
179: relations, the dashed lines those with M from Jurcsik, but with Z=0.001.
180: Finally, the large open circles are models from Tuggle and Iben (1972) for
181: M=0.6 and Z=0.001 (with the old Los Alamos opacities). They have essentially
182: the same $\Xi$ as ours which are computed with the OPAL opacities (Iglesias \&
183: Rogers 1996) merged with the low temperature Alexander-Ferguson (1994) opacities.
184:
185: Again, because we are computing radiative models we do not expect the location
186: of the blue edge to be in perfect agreement with the edge of the instability
187: strip, but we note a very large discrepancy in the slope $\Xi$.
188:
189: Figure~1 also displays a \LogL\ -- \LogP\ plot on the right. Only the slope of
190: the constant mass models is in almost acceptable agreement with the J98 data,
191: but those calculated with the J98 $\{M, L, Z\}$ are in strong disagreement.
192:
193: In Figures~2 we display again a \LogL\ -- \LTeff\ plot which shows the effect of
194: composition on the location of the linear blue edges. The (radiative) models
195: were computed with M=0.65. Here the solid lines have X=0.75, Z=0.001, the dotted
196: lines have X=0.75, Z=0.004 and the dashed lines have X=0.70, Z=0.001.
197:
198: The location of the blue edge displays very little sensitivity to either
199: metallicity Z or helium content Y, within a reasonable range of values.
200: Adjusting the helium content or metallicity does not provide a resolution of
201: the slope discrepancy. We describe further tests in \S4.
202:
203: We conclude this section by noting that purely radiative RR Lyrae models are in
204: severe disagreement with Jurcsik's \th \LogL-\LTeff\ data.
205:
206:
207: \section{Convective Models of RR Lyrae Stars}
208:
209: The addition of time-dependent turbulent convection in the models has led to
210: some spectacular successes compared to radiative models, in particular, in
211: finally predicting double mode behavior both in RR Lyrae (Feuchtinger 1998)
212: and in Cepheids (Koll\'ath, Beaulieu, Buchler \& Yecko 1998). One would hope
213: therefore that the inclusion of turbulent convection might also remove the
214: discrepancy between observations and theory described in the previous section.
215:
216: Yet, in that respect all of our modelling efforts with turbulent convection
217: have proved in vain, despite the flexibility afforded by the 8 free order unity
218: ($\alpha$) parameters that the turbulent convective equations contain (\eg
219: Yecko, Koll\'ath \& Buchler 1997, Buchler\& Koll\'ath 2000). We find that
220: turbulent convection can shift the blue edges, but cannot produce the
221: differential effect with respect to luminosity that is required to give the
222: right slope $\Xi$ in the \LogL\ \vs \LTeff\ plots. In Figure~3 we show the
223: results for three different combinations of these parameters.
224:
225: We note that different codes and slightly different recipes for convection
226: give essentially the same theoretical slopes. For example, even though no
227: linear models are computed, the nonlinear hydrodynamical models of Bono \etal
228: (1997) indicate a similarly steeper slope than that of J98.
229:
230:
231: \section{Discussion of the Modeling Assumptions}
232:
233: In this section we discuss the effects of several of the approximations that
234: are inherent in the numerical modeling to see how robust the theoretical
235: \LogL-\LTeff\ slope is.
236:
237:
238: \subsection{Equation of State}
239:
240: Our code uses as equation of state a simple iteration of the Saha equations
241: (e.g. Stellingwerf 1982). This equation of state is very similar to the OPAL
242: (Rogers \etal 1996) and the MHD (D\"appen \etal 1988) equations of state and we
243: do not believe that the tiny differences can be responsible for the discrepancy
244: between the models and the J98 data.
245:
246: \vfill\eject
247:
248: \subsection{Radiative Transport}
249:
250: Our radiative code uses a standard equilibrium diffusion approximation for
251: the radiative transport, \ie
252:
253: \begin{equation}
254: L = (4\pi R^2)^2 {c\over 3\kappa} {\partial\over \partial m} aT^4
255: \label{L_eq}
256: \end{equation}
257:
258: \ni in which one uses for the opacity $\kappa$ the Rosseland mean (\eg Mihalas
259: \& Mihalas 1984). Eq.~\ref{L_eq} has several shortcomings in the region above
260: the photosphere. First, it implies an Eddington factor of $f_E=1/3$, which is
261: not correct in the optically thin outer region where $f_E$ approaches 0.4--0.5
262: (Feuchtinger \& Dorfi 1994, Fig.~3). Second, in this regime, the opacities
263: should be higher than those given by the Rosseland mean (Alexander \& Ferguson
264: 1994). Finally, for the computation of the periods and growth rates it would
265: be more appropriate to linearize the radiation hydrodynamics equations rather
266: than the equilibrium diffusion equation. The magnitude of the errors
267: introduced by the first effect can easily be estimated.
268:
269:
270:
271:
272:
273: One can approximate the effect of the Eddington factor in Eq.~\ref{L_eq}. by
274: replacing $3\kappa$ by $\kappa/f_E$. The Eddington factor also appears in the
275: radiation pressure which becomes $p_{\rm rad}\rightarrow 3f_E \th p_{\rm rad}$.
276: We can disregard sphericity effects in the momentum equation contained in the
277: term $(p_{\rm rad}-f_E\th e_{\rm rad})/r$.
278:
279: To simulate the effect of an increasing $f_E$ we assume that for $T <$ \Teff,
280: $f_E$ increases smoothly from 1/3 to 1/2 with decreasing temperature. The
281: results confirm our hunch that an increase of $f_E$ in the very outer region
282: has very little influence on the growth rates and almost none on the
283: periods. More importantly it has no differential sensitivity to luminosity.
284:
285:
286:
287:
288: %\begin{figure}
289: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig2.ps}}}
290: \noindent{\small
291: Fig.~2 :
292: \LogL-\LTeff\ plot:
293: RRab (filled circles) and RRc (triangles) stars of Jurcsik;
294: Radiative blue edges for M=0.65;
295: solid line: X=0.75 Z=0.001,
296: dotted line: X=0.75 Z=0.004,
297: dashed line: X=0.70 Z=0.001.
298: }
299: \label{fig2}
300: %\end{figure}
301:
302:
303:
304: % \begin{figure}
305: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig3.ps}}}
306: \noindent{\small
307: Fig.~3 :
308: \LogL-\LTeff\ plot:
309: RRab (filled circles) and RRc (triangles) stars:
310: Convective models: Solid, dotted and dashed lines are for three different
311: combinations of the $\alpha$ parameters in the convective model equations,
312: chosen to give a reasonable width for the instability strip.
313: }
314: \label{fig3}
315: \vspace{5mm}
316: % \end{figure}
317:
318:
319:
320: \begin{figure*}
321: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig4a.ps}}}
322: {\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig4b.ps}}}}
323: \vspace{0.2cm} \noindent{\small
324: Fig.~4 :
325: Left: \Teff-(V-I) plot and right: (V-I)-M$_V$ plot:
326: Theoretical color variations for two nonlinear full amplitude RRab models with
327: different luminosities of L = 40 \Lo (dashed line) and L = 52 \Lo (full
328: line). Crosses indicate the time steps of the nonlinear
329: calculations. See text for details.}
330: \label{fig4}
331: \vskip 0.5cm
332: \end{figure*}
333:
334:
335: We have artificially, and somewhat arbitrarily, increased the opacity from the
336: vicinity of \Teff\ outward. We have not found an appreciable differential
337: effect with \Teff, and have therefore not pursued this avenue with more
338: detailed modelling.
339:
340: Finally, the insensitivity of the slope to $f_E$ makes us believe that the
341: linearization of the radiation hydrodynamics equations instead of the common
342: equilibrium diffusion equation (requiring a serious coding effort) would also
343: make little difference.
344:
345: We conclude that the discrepancy between the models and the observations
346: is not due to an inadequate treatment of the radiation transport.
347:
348:
349: \subsection{Composition}
350:
351: Could compositional make-up be more important than expected? We have computed
352: a number of RR Lyrae models with various combinations of Y and Z, but find that
353: the effect on $\Xi$ is negligible. Next we have artificially increased the
354: abundances of the easily ionizable light elements such as Mg and Na in the OPAL
355: opacities. Again this has such a negligible effect on $\Xi$ that the inclusion
356: of this data would unnecessarily clutter Figure~2.
357:
358: An inhomogeneous composition is unlikely to exist in RR Lyrae envelopes because
359: of convection, but even if existed our tests with various changes in
360: composition make us doubt that it would resolve the discrepancy.
361:
362: \subsection{Rotation}
363:
364: Could rotation be responsible for the discrepancy? In order to estimate the
365: magnitude of the effect of rotation we have included a spherical
366: pseudo-centrifugal acceleration $\omega^2\th r$ in the equilibrium model and in
367: the computation of the periods and growth rates. We find that a rather short
368: rotation period, of order of a few days, would be necessary to have an impact.
369: Furthermore the disagreement is worsened by rotation because the slope
370: steepens.
371:
372: We conclude that moderate rotation rates cannot be the cause of the
373: discrepancy.
374:
375: \subsection{Evolutionary Effects}
376:
377: The blueward moving evolutionary paths turn around at some \Teff\ and then
378: move upward (\eg Dorman 1992, Lee, Demarque \& Zinn 1990). If this happened
379: inside the linear instability strip, then the leftmost blue edge, that of the
380: overtone mode, would be defined by the topology of these paths, rather than by
381: the pulsational stability of the models. However, the fact that the Jurcsik
382: blue and red edges of the fundamental and the overtone are all essentially
383: parallel eliminates this possibility as an explanation for the shallow observed
384: slope. Moreover, for some of the clusters, full photometry of the horizontal
385: branch exists, and there is no indication of any gap next to the RR Lyrae
386: region. Clearly there are stars next to the empirical red edge for which the
387: amplitude (if not zero) is less than the observational limit.
388:
389: \subsection{Conclusion}
390:
391: The theoretical $\Xi$ slope is very robust with respect to the uncertainties or
392: approximations inherent in our code, but is in disagreement with the
393: Jurcsik empirical relations. We have therefore been led to reexamine
394: the latter for their robustness, especially since they also make use of some
395: theory, \viz color to temperature transformation.
396:
397:
398: \vskip 20pt
399:
400: \section{Discussion of the Empirical Relations}
401:
402: Because of the strong disagreement between Jurcsik's processed observational
403: data and the predictions from something as basic as radiative models, it is
404: worth while to reexamine some of the most uncertain points in the reduction of
405: the observational data.
406:
407: The observational material consists of RRab periods and lightcurves. KJ96,
408: JK97 and J98 deduce the color, the visual magnitude M$_v$ and the metallicity
409: Z ([Fe/H] in the form of linear fully empirical relations
410:
411:
412: %\begin{eqnarray}
413: % \pmatrix{M_v -1.221 \cr
414: % B-V -0.308 \cr
415: % [Fe/H] +5.038 \cr}
416: % &=& \pmatrix{-1.39 & -0.477 & 0.103 \cr
417: % 0.163 & -0.187 & 0 \cr
418: % -5.394 & 0 & 1.345 \cr}
419: % \cdot \pmatrix{P \cr
420: % A_1 \cr
421: % \phi_{31}\cr} \cr
422: % &\equiv& A \cdot \pmatrix{P \cr
423: % A_1 \cr
424: % \phi_{31}\cr}
425: %\label{eq_empir}
426: %\end{eqnarray}
427:
428: \begin{eqnarray}
429: \pmatrix{M_v \cr
430: V-K \cr
431: [Fe/H] \cr}
432: &\equiv& c_0 + A \cdot \pmatrix{P \cr
433: A_1 \cr
434: \phi_{31}\cr
435: \phi_{41}\cr}
436: \label{eq_empir}
437: \end{eqnarray}
438:
439:
440: The connection with \LTeff\ and with \LogL\ was then made through static
441: envelope models of Kurucz (1993, \cf J98 for details). This is the only
442: theoretical input into the otherwise empirical relations.
443:
444: \begin{equation}
445: \pmatrix{\Log L \cr
446: \L T_{ef\!f} \cr}
447: % [Fe/H] \cr}
448: % &=& \pmatrix{ a & b & c \cr
449: % d & e & f \cr
450: % g & h & i \cr}
451: % &\cdot& \pmatrix{M_v\cr
452: % B-V \cr
453: = c_1 + C
454: \cdot \pmatrix{M_v\cr
455: V-K \cr
456: [Fe/H] \cr}
457: = c_2 + C\cdot A
458: \cdot \pmatrix{P \cr
459: A_1 \cr
460: \phi_{31}\cr
461: \phi_{41}\cr}
462: \label{eq_kur}
463: \end{equation}
464:
465:
466:
467:
468: \begin{figure*}
469: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig5a.ps}}}
470: {\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig5b.ps}}}}
471: \vspace{0.2cm}
472: \noindent{\small
473: Fig.~5 : Left: RRab Period -- Radius plot;
474: {\it open circles}: Baade-Wesselink radii, and
475: {\it crosses}: same stars from J98;
476: The solid and dashed lines are linear regressions through the Baade-Wesselink
477: and the Jurcsik data, respectively.
478: Right:
479: {\it thick lines}: radiative models with Jurcsik L, M, Z relation;
480: {\it thin lines}: radiative models with constant mass and luminosity;
481: {\it filled squares}: same stars from J98;
482: }
483: \label{fig5}
484: \vskip 1cm
485: \end{figure*}
486:
487: \vspace{0.5cm}
488:
489: \subsection{Color -- \Teff\ Transformation}
490:
491: J98 uses the {\it static} envelope calculations of Kurucz's ATLAS code (for
492: details cf. J98), to make the transformation from average color to average
493: \Teff. The \Teff\ however varies considerably during one pulsation cycle,
494: compared to the width of the instability strip, and the question arises whether
495: the correct mean color and mean temperature are still related through the
496: static Kurucz relations. To check the validity of this assumption we have
497: computed the spectra of two full amplitude RR Lyrae models.
498:
499: We investigate the theoretical color variation for two RR Lyrae models with
500: different luminosities (L = 40 \Lo\ and L = 52 \Lo, both for M = 0.65 \Mo,
501: \Teff = 6500 K, X = 0.76 and Z=0.001). Nonlinear full amplitude models are
502: taken from Feuchtinger (1999) and the color variations in V and I are computed
503: as outlined in Dorfi \& Feuchtinger (1999). The results can be inferred from
504: Fig.~\ref{fig4} which displays the color difference V -- I as a function of the
505: effective temperature (left panel) and the corresponding color-magnitude
506: diagram (right panel), both over one oscillation cycle. Full and dotted lines
507: refer to the L = 40 \Lo~and L = 52 \Lo\ models, respectively. The differential
508: effect with L is seen to be small. Dynamical atmospheric effects thus cannot
509: account for the discrepancy.
510:
511: There remains the question of the consistency of the static Kurucz atmospheres
512: with our frequency dependent calculation. For that purpose we have checked the
513: color -- temperature transformation against the Kurucz tables at selected
514: points on the pulsation cycle. The agreement is quite satisfactory, and any
515: discrepancies are irrelevant for our purpose here.
516:
517:
518: \vspace{0.9cm}
519:
520: \subsection{RR Lyrae Period - Radius Relation}
521:
522: The radii of RR Lyrae stars can be obtained independently either from a
523: Baade-Wesselink approach or from the J98 empirical L and \Teff. In
524: Fig.~\ref{fig5}, on the left, we have plotted as open circles the
525: Baade-Wesselink radii of the 15 RRab stars of Jones \etal (1992) (we have
526: omitted RR~Leo). Superposed as crosses are the radii for the same stars
527: derived from the J98 \th L and \Teff. The agreement is remarkably good, but
528: worsens for the longer periods. The solid and dashed lines represent linear
529: regression lines for the BW and for the J98 period -- radius relations.
530:
531: We have also derived the radii of the additional J98 stars that were not in the
532: Jones sample and show them as small dots in the righthand figure. The thin
533: lines represent constant mass and constant luminosity radiative models, and the
534: thick lines radiative models that obey the J98 \th L, M, Z relations
535: Since the radiative models do not provide a red edge, the upward extent of the
536: thin or thick lines is not significant. The latter models are seen to give
537: better agreement with the swarm of the J98 empirical radii.
538:
539: We conclude that the agreement between the empirical J98 and Jones'
540: Baade-Wesselink radii is remarkably good, and so is the agreement that can be
541: achieved with theoretical models. A consideration of the period -- luminosity
542: relations therefore does not give us any clues as to the origin of the slope
543: discrepancy.
544:
545:
546: \vfill\eject
547:
548:
549: \section{Conclusions}
550:
551: We have shown that the Jurcsik relations lead to RR Lyrae radii that are in
552: good agreement with both Baade-Wesselink radii and with theoretical radii. On
553: the other hand, there exists a strong discrepancy between the slope of the
554: theoretical \LogL -- \LTeff\ relation and the slope of the empirical Jurcsik
555: relation.
556:
557: We have reviewed the physical and numerical uncertainties that enter the
558: theoretical calculations. The discrepancy exists already at the level of
559: purely radiative modelling. We have further shown that our model equations for
560: turbulent convection do not alter the slope of the \LogL--\LTeff\ relation
561: despite the large number (8) of adjustable parameters ($\alpha$'s) that we have
562: at our disposal. Consequently, apart from the uncertainties inherent in a 1D
563: recipe for turbulent convection, it appears that the discrepancy is not caused
564: by a deficiency of the theoretical models. We note that the same slope
565: discrepancy is implicit in older and more recent independent calculations
566: (Tuggle \& Iben 1972, Bono \etal 1997).
567:
568: The derivation of the empirical relations makes use of a {\it static} Kurucz
569: color - \Teff\ transformation. By computing the behavior of color versus
570: temperature over the pulsation cycle we have shown that the use of static
571: envelopes is in fact a very good approximation, and therefore cannot be the
572: culprit.
573:
574: Finally, the shape of the evolutionary tracks, through their potential
575: avoidance of certain regions of the instability strip cannot be responsible
576: either.
577:
578: At this time the origin of this disturbing discrepancy constitutes an unsolved
579: puzzle. It remains to be seen whether an improved treatment of turbulent
580: convection or more complete observations will resolve the difficulty.
581:
582:
583: \section{Acknowledgements} The authors would like to thank Johanna Jurcsik for
584: kindly providing us with copies of her data sets. They also acknowledge
585: fruitful discussions with Johanna Jurcsik and G\'eza Kov\'acs. This work has
586: been supported by NSF (AST 95-28338 and AST 98-19608) and the Hungarian OTKA
587: (T-026031).
588:
589:
590: \vskip 10pt
591:
592: \begin{references}
593:
594: \rn
595: Alexander, D. R.\& Ferguson, J. W. 1994, ApJ 437, 879
596:
597: \rn
598: Bono, G., Caputo, F., Castellani, V. \& Marconi, M. 1997,
599: A\&ASuppl 121, 327
600: % -341
601: %Nonlinear investigation of the pulsational properties of rr lyrae variables
602:
603: \rn
604: Buchler, J. R. 2000, in {\sl The Impact of Large-Scale Surveys on Stellar
605: Pulsations}, Eds. L. Szabados \& D. Kurtz, ASP Conf. Ser. (in press)
606:
607: \rn
608: Buchler, J. R. \& Koll\'ath, Z., 2000, {\sl Turbulent Convection in the
609: Classical Variable Stars}, in {\sl Astrophysical Turbulence and
610: Convection}, Eds. J.R. Buchler \& H. Kandrup, Annals of the New York
611: Academy of Sciences, 898, 39.
612:
613: \rn
614: Cohen, J. G. 1992, ApJ 400, 528
615:
616: \rn
617: D\"appen, W., Mihalas, D., Hummer, D. G., Mihalas, B. W., 1988, ApJ 332, 261
618: % MHD EOS
619:
620: \rn
621: Dorman, B. 1992, AJ Suppl Ser. 81, 221
622:
623: \rn
624: Dorfi, E. A. \& Feuchtinger, M. U. 1999, AA 348, 815
625: % spectra
626:
627: \rn
628: Feuchtinger, M. U. 1998, AA 337, L29
629: % double mode RR Lyrae
630:
631: \rn
632: Feuchtinger, M. U. 1999, AA 351, 103
633: % -- 118
634: % conv rr lyrae
635:
636: \rn
637: Feuchtinger, M. U. \& Dorfi, E. A. 1994, AA 291, 209
638: % variable eddington factor
639:
640: \rn
641: Iglesias, C.A. \& Rogers, F. J., 1996, {\sl ApJ}, 464, 943
642:
643: \rn
644: Jones, R. V., Carney, B. W., Storm, J. \& Latham, D.W. 1992, ApJ 386, 646
645:
646: \rn
647: Jurcsik, J., 1998, AA 333, 571
648: %fundamental physical parameters of rrab stars
649:
650: % \rn
651: % Jurcsik, J. \& Kov\'acs, G. 1996, AA 312, 111
652: % %determination of fe/h from lightcurves of rr lyr stars
653:
654: \rn
655: Kov\'acs, G. \& Jurcsik, J. 1996, ApJLett 466, L17
656: % on the lightcurve - luminos relation of rr lyr stars
657:
658: \rn
659: Kov\'acs, G. \& Jurcsik, J. 1997, AA 322, 218
660: % comput of the dist modul of rr lyr stars from their light and color curves
661:
662: \rn
663: Koll\'ath, Z., Beaulieu, J.P., Buchler, J. R. \& Yecko, P., 1998,
664: ApJ Lett 502, L55
665: %DM
666:
667: % \rn
668: % Kurucz, R. 1993, ATLAS9 code (\cf Jurcsik 1999)
669:
670: \rn
671: Lee, Y. W., Demarque, P. \& Zinn, R. 1990, ApJ 350, 155
672:
673: \rn
674: Liu, T. \& Janes, U. A. 1990, ApJ 354, 273
675:
676: \rn
677: Mihalas, D. \& Mihalas, B. 1984, {\it Foundations of Radiation Hydrodynamics},
678: (Oxford: University Press)
679:
680: Rogers, F.J., Swenson, F.J. and Iglesias, C. A., 1996, {\sl ApJ} 456,902
681: % OPAL EOS
682:
683: \rn
684: Stellingwerf, R.F., 1982, ApJ 262, 330
685: % - 338, EOS
686: % Convection in pulsating stars I: Nonlinear Hydrodynamics
687:
688: \rn
689: Tuggle, R. S. \& Iben, I. 1972, ApJ 178, 455
690: % -466
691: %On the Location of Pulsational Blue Edges and Estimates of the Luminosity and
692: %Helium Content of RR Lyrae Stars
693:
694: \rn
695: Yecko, P., Koll\'ath, Z. \& Buchler, J. R. 1998, {\sl Turbulent Convective
696: Cepheid Models: Linear Properties}, Astronomy \& Astrophysics 336,
697: 553--564
698:
699: \end{references}
700:
701:
702:
703: \end{document}
704: \end\bye
705:
706: