1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: %\documentstyle[12pt,preprint]{aastex} 

3: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

4: %\received{ }

5: %\accepted{ }

6: %\journalid{ }

7: %\articleid{ }{ }

8: \def\rsun{$R_{\odot}$}

9: 

10: %\slugcomment{\bf Submitted to ApJ Letters} 

11: 

12: \begin{document}

13: 

14: \title{The Age and Progenitor Mass of Sirius B}

15: 

16: \author{James Liebert\altaffilmark{1}, Patrick A. Young\altaffilmark{2},

17: David Arnett\altaffilmark{1}, J. B. Holberg\altaffilmark{3}, and Kurtis

18: A. Williams\altaffilmark{1} }

19: 

20: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory,

21: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, liebert@as.arizona.edu,

22: darnett@as.arizona.edu, kwilliams@as.arizona.edu}

23: 

24: \altaffiltext{2}{Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos NM 87545

25: payoung@lanl.gov}

26: 

27: \altaffiltext{3}{Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of 

28: Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721 holberg@argus.lpl.arizona.edu}

29: 

30: \begin{abstract}

31: 

32: The Sirius~AB binary system has masses that are well determined from

33: many decades of astrometric measurements.  Because of the well-measured

34: radius and luminosity of Sirius~A, we employed the TYCHO stellar

35: evolution code to determine the age of the Sirius~A,B binary system

36: accurately, at 225--250~Myr.  Note that this fit requires the assumption

37: of solar abundance, and the use of the new Asplund et al. primordial

38: solar metallicity.  No fit to Sirius~A's position is possible using the

39: old Grevesse \& Sauval scale.  Because the Sirius~B white dwarf

40: parameters have also been determined accurately from space observations,

41: the cooling age could be determined from recent calculations by Fontaine

42: et al. or Wood to be 124$\pm$10~Myr.  The difference of the two ages

43: yields the nuclear lifetime and mass of the original primary star,

44: 5.056$_{-0.276}^{+0.374}$~M$_{\odot}$.  This result yields in principle

45: the most accurate data point at relatively high masses for the

46: initial-final mass relation.  However, the analysis relies on the

47: assumption that the primordial abundance of the Sirius stars was solar,

48: based on membership in the Sirius supercluster.  A recent study suggests

49: that its membership in the group is by no means certain.

50: 

51: 

52: \end{abstract}

53: 

54: \keywords{white dwarfs -- stars: fundamental 

55: parameters (classification, colors, luminosities, masses, radii, 

56: temperatures, etc.) -- stars: atmospheres}

57: 

58: \section{Introduction}

59: 

60: The initial-final mass relation (IFMR) for progenitors and white dwarfs

61: is fundamental in understanding a stellar population, interpreting the

62: white dwarf mass and luminosity distributions, and determining the star

63: formation history.  Of particular interest is the upper mass limit of a

64: star forming a white dwarf.  It is well known that the mass loss in the

65: red giant phases (RGB and AGB) of stars of similar mass and chemical

66: composition shows dispersion.  The existence of ``horizontal branches''

67: in metal-poor and metal-rich clusters shows that varying amounts of the

68: hydrogen envelope are lost in the RGB or helium-ignition events.  For

69: intermediate-mass stars undergoing AGB evolution, the timing of thermal

70: pulses of the helium shell may produce a dispersion in the resulting

71: white dwarf distribution (eg. Iben \& Renzini 1983).  It may therefore

72: be anticipated that the the IFMR will show dispersion.

73: 

74: In order to determine empirically the IFMR, it is necessary to study

75: samples of white dwarfs where it is possible to estimate the initial

76: mass of the progenitor.  Since there is generally no way of establishing

77: the total lifetimes of white dwarfs in the field population, white

78: dwarfs found in well-studied star clusters have been used.  The cluster

79: age is known within some uncertainty, generally from fits to the main

80: sequence turnoff.  In a few clusters, the mass limit below which lithium

81: is not depleted in completely-convective low mass stars and/or brown

82: dwarfs may also be employed.  Several Galactic disk clusters ranging in

83: age from of the order 10$^8$ to 10$^9$ years, and with main sequence

84: turnoff masses of $\sim$2 to $>$5M$_{\odot}$, have been studied in

85: recent years.  These include the Hyades and Praesepe (Claver et al. 2001

86: is the most recent study), the Pleiades (the single white dwarf has been

87: studied by many authors), NGC~2516 (Koester \& Reimers 1996), NGC~3532

88: (Koester \& Reimers 1993), NGC~2168 (Williams, Bolte \& Koester 2004),

89: and NGC~2099 (Kalirai et al. 2005).  Since it is necessary to measure

90: the masses of the white dwarfs accurately -- by means of stellar

91: atmosphere fits to Balmer lines or by measuring the gravitational

92: redshift -- the faint white dwarf sequences recently found in the

93: nearest globular clusters (cf. M~4, Hansen et al. 2004) and in older 

94: Galactic clusters (NGC~6791, Bedin et al. 2005) are not yet as

95: useful.  

96: 

97: The upper end of the IFMR is yielding progenitors with short

98: nuclear-burning phases, and these lifetimes are very dependent on the

99: mass.  For several reasons, there must be significant uncertainty in the

100: estimations of the ages of such young clusters.  First, these clusters

101: do not necessarily have well-populated upper main sequences.  Shifts due

102: to rotation, unresolved binaries, and the possible presence of blue

103: stragglers with masses larger than the turnoff mass represent a separate

104: category of problems.  Finally, uncertainty in the main sequence

105: lifetime of stars with convective cores due to the probable overshooting

106: beyond the simple Schwarzschild boundary is a theoretical problem.  Thus

107: the uncertainty in the cluster age causes a big uncertainty in the

108: possible progenitor masses of white dwarfs, especially for the youngest

109: clusters.  These problems result in considerable uncertainty in

110: establishing the upper mass limit of a star that can form a white dwarf,

111: or even if such a uniform upper limit exists.  It is thus extremely

112: important if a method were available to reduce the spread in the

113: progenitor's mass.

114: 

115: Binaries consisting of a nuclear-burning star and a white dwarf offer

116: another potential source of candidates for the IFMR.  If the

117: parameters of the nuclear-burning star can be established with sufficient

118: accuracy that its age can be obtained by fitting its position on the HR

119: Diagram, then the total age of the white dwarf -- which is the sum of 

120: the nuclear-burning lifetime and cooling age -- can also be

121: established.  As for the clusters, the nuclear-burning lifetime is 

122: used to establish the progenitor mass of the white dwarf.  

123: 

124: The Sirius system is the fifth or sixth nearest stellar system to the

125: Sun\footnote{depending on the actual distance to the

126: recently-discovered, very high proper motion star SO025300.5+165258,

127: estimated to be within 2.4 to 3.6~pc (Teegarden et al. 2003)}, and

128: certainly is one of the best studied binary systems including a white

129: dwarf component.  One does not want to employ a white dwarf in a binary

130: close enough that interactions might have affected the mass loss phases

131: in the late stages of the progenitor's evolution.  However, the orbit is

132: eccentric with a period of about 50 years.  At periastron, the

133: components are just within 7~AU of each other (van de Kamp 1971).  This

134: is probably well enough separated so that any interaction during the

135: asymptotic giant branch phase of the original primary (now B) would have

136: been minimal.  Significant interaction would probably have circularized

137: the orbit.  We therefore assume that Sirius B evolved in a manner like

138: that of a single star.

139: 

140: An excellent trigonometric parallax, accurate to better than 1\%, is

141: available from the {\it HIPPARCOS} satellite mission as well as from

142: several good ground-based studies.  Using the bolometric energy

143: distribution and effective temperature determination, the luminosity of

144: Sirius~A is known to about 4\% accuracy.  Using the ESO {\it Very Large

145: Telescope Interferometer}, Kervella et al. (2003) have obtained a superb

146: measurement of the diameter of Sirius~A, accurate to about 0.75\%.  One

147: may then avoid very direct use of the T$_{eff}$ estimates of Sirius~A.

148: Robust parameter (T$_{eff}$, log~g) determinations for Sirius~B are also

149: available from space observations.  Finally, a recent reexamination of

150: the plethora of astrometric data on the binary orbit (Holberg 2005)

151: results in mass estimates of both and ``A'' and ``B'' components

152: accurate to 1-2\%.

153: 

154: Improvements in opacities, the equation-of-state, and other treatments

155: in modern stellar evolution codes now make possible fits to

156: nuclear-burning stars on the HR Diagram, especially those on or near the

157: main sequence (Young \& Arnett 2005).  Robust, consistent ages for

158: (nondegenerate) binary stars with well-determined luminosities, masses,

159: radii and temperature have been determined (Young et al. 2001).  

160: 

161: In Section 2 of this paper, we employ this code to fit the position of

162: Sirius~A, and estimate the age with an error estimate.  This gives the

163: systemic age from which to subtract the cooling age of ``B'' in Section

164: 3 to obtain the estimate of its progenitor mass, and its uncertainty.

165: We then summarize and discuss an important caveat in Section 4. 

166: 

167: \section {The Fitting of Sirius~A in an HR-like Diagram}

168: 

169: The mass adopted for Sirius~A is 2.02$\pm$0.03M$_{\odot}$ (Holberg 2005).

170: Note that this new astrometric study yields a mass about 5\% smaller

171: than some earlier determinations of Sirius~A.  (The smaller orbit also 

172: yields a smaller mass for Sirius~B.)  The adopted radius of Sirius~A 

173: is 1.711$\pm$0.013~R$_{\odot}$ (Kervella et al. 2003), and the 

174: resulting luminosity is L/L$_{\odot}$ = 25.4$\pm$1.3.  Since the 

175: luminosity and radius are more directly measured than the T$_{eff}$, 

176: these will be the quantities fitted in an $L$--$R$ equivalent of the 

177: HR diagram.  

178: 

179: One issue with Sirius~A is that it is a chemically-peculiar A1V dwarf,

180: so that a direct determination of the interior chemical composition is

181: not possible.  However, it has been believed for a long time that Sirius

182: is a member of a large moving group near the Sun, called the ``Sirius

183: supercluster'' (Hertzsprung 1909; Eggen 1983).  (We reassess this issue 

184: in the last section of the paper, however.)  The ``core'' of this

185: association is the Ursa Major ``dipper'' stars.  Metallicity estimates

186: for the group members (that are not chemically-peculiar) are generally

187: consistent with solar (Palous \& Hauck 1986).  Eggen (1992) compared the

188: abundances of the Sirius and Hyades superclusters and concluded that the

189: former is deficient by about -0.18 dex in [Fe/H] compared with the

190: Hyades group.  The latter is believed to exceed solar by about this

191: amount.  There is no guarantee that appreciable dispersion in

192: metallicity does not exist among the group.  We nonetheless can do no

193: better than assume solar X,Z values below.

194: 

195: However, a new solar abundance scale determined from 3D non-LTE

196: calculations of the solar atmosphere (Asplund et al. 2004, and

197: references therein) has significantly lower abundances of oxygen, carbon

198: and nitrogen.  The overall heavy elements abundance parameter for the

199: Sun decreases to a primordial value of Z=0.014.  The new scale

200: jeopardizes the excellent agreement of the ``standard solar model'' with

201: the helioseismology observations (Bahcall et al. 2005), though a new

202: study attempts to remedy this, retaining the Asplund et al. values

203: (Young \& Arnett 2005).  We have adopted the new scale for the

204: calculations described below.

205: 

206: In Figure~1 are shown the results of running the TYCHO code (Young \&

207: Arnett 2005) to fit the position of Sirius~A.  The model included

208: wave-driven mixing and diffusion. The former is a way of accounting for

209: the ``overshooting'' of the convective core based on physics, rather

210: than a prescription involving the ratio of the mixing length to scale

211: height.  The microphysics for opacities, reaction rates and the EOS

212: appear numerically similar to those of Ventura et al. (1998).  The

213: inclusion of these effects produces only a small effect at the best fit

214: age of 237.5$\pm$12.5 Myr. Radiative levitation was not included.  A perfect

215: fit would require a lower metallicity or an increase in mass of a few

216: hundredths M$_{\odot}$. The evolution was begun well up the Hayashi

217: track and followed throughout the pre-main sequence. The best-fit age

218: includes the pre-MS evolution. No pre-MS accretion was included. The

219: best-fit age is constrained primarily by the radius determination.

220: 

221: The precision with which the Sirius-A radius and luminosity are known is

222: such that the use of the new solar abundance scale matters greatly.  In

223: particular, {\it no reasonable fit can be achieved} if the old scale

224: (Grevesse \& Sauval 1998) were adopted.  When the 2.02M$_{\odot}$ track

225: for the old solar scale crosses the correct radius on its main sequence

226: track, the luminosity is log L/L$_{\odot}$ = 1.26, several sigma below

227: the observed value.  The new solar abundances result in lower interior 

228: opacities, so the star has a smaller radius at a given luminosity, and 

229: vice versa. 

230: 

231: Another estimate of the radius of Sirius~A is reported by Decin et al.

232: (2003) using the Short Wavelength Spectrometer on the Infrared Space

233: Observatory.  This measurement is far less precise, and the Kervella et

234: al. (2003) angular diameter is within its 5\% errors.  

235: 

236: 

237: \section{The cooling age and progenitor mass of Sirius~B}

238: 

239: An accurate T$_{eff}$ determination is also essential for measuring the

240: cooling age of Sirius~B.  Holberg et al. (1998) employed space

241: ultraviolet {\it Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer} and {\it International

242: Ultraviolet Explorer} spectrophotometry to estimate 24,790$\pm$100.

243: Barstow et al's (2005) estimate, using an optical spectrum of

244: extraordinarily high signal-to-noise ratio, obtained with the Space

245: Telescope Imaging Spectrograph ({\it STIS}) on the {\it Hubble Space

246: Telescope} is 25,193$\pm$37 (an internal error only).  We adopt

247: T$_{eff}$ = 25,000$\pm$200.

248: 

249: The astrometric reanalysis of Holberg (2005) results in a measurement of

250: 1.00$\pm$0.01M$_{\odot}$ for the mass of Sirius~B.  Barstow et

251: al. (2005) obtained T$_{eff}$ = 25,193~K (as stated above) and log~g =

252: 8.528$\pm$0.05 from fits to the Balmer line profiles.  In the next

253: paragraphs we shall apply cooling sequences to obtain the cooling age of

254: Sirius B.  These also yield a second relationship (besides the surface

255: gravity) between the radius and mass -- R = R(M,T$_{eff}$).  Solving for

256: the mass one obtains 0.978$\pm$0.005M$_{\odot}$, if the cooling

257: sequences of Wood (1995) are used, or 0.003M$_{\odot}$ less if the those

258: of Fontaine et al. (2001) are employed.  Using their gravitational

259: redshift measurement of 80.42$\pm$4.83 km~s$^{-1}$ -- yielding the ratio

260: M/R -- with the Wood sequences, Barstow et al. (2005) obtain

261: 1.02$\pm$0.02M$_{\odot}$. Note that these mass determinations are

262: generally below previous estimates in earlier literature.  For this

263: study, we shall adopt 1.00$\pm$0.02M$_{\odot}$ for Sirius B.

264: 

265: For the cooling ages of white dwarfs, most cluster white dwarf studies

266: in the last ten years have used the evolutionary models of Wood (1992,

267: 1995).  For reasons stated below, we will use primarily a new sequence

268: by Fontaine, Brassard, \& Bergeron (2001).  Both calculations used 50\%

269: carbon -- 50\% oxygen cores, and the relatively thick outer layers of

270: helium and hydrogen predicted by most evolutionary calculations of the

271: asymptotic giant branch phase.

272: 

273: The Fontaine et al. calculations incorporate several new treatments of

274: physics (Fontaine 2005, private communication).  First, the equation of

275: state of Saumon, Chabrier, \& Van Horn (1995) for H and He in the

276: partially-ionized envelope, and a new treatment of carbon in the same

277: regime, was employed.  Second, the conductive opacity tables of Hubbard

278: \& Lampe (1969) and Itoh \& Kohyama (1993, and references therein) were

279: ``fused together,'' rather than treated as completely separate.  Third,

280: no discontinuities in the chemical composition profile are allowed.

281: Diffusion at the interfaces is calculated.  Fourth, a full stellar

282: structure is evolved from the center to the top of the atmosphere, not a

283: simple ``Henyey'' core which excludes the envelope.  Fifth, a robust and

284: accurate finite element technique (developed by P. Brassard) is used, as

285: opposed to finite differences as in most other codes.  We thus have

286: adopted these sequences to estimate the cooling age of Sirius~B.  Having

287: said this, it is interesting and reassuring that the 1.00~M$_{\odot}$

288: C,O sequence of Wood (2005, private communication) reaches a cooling age

289: of 123.3 Myr at 25,000~K, while the Fontaine et al. (2001) sequence with

290: identical parameters reaches 123.6$\pm$10~Myr.

291: 

292: Error bars in the ``final'' mass of Sirius~B are as stated above.  The

293: uncertainty in the mass and systemic age (\S~2) leads to a nuclear 

294: lifetime for the progenitor in the range of 101--126 Myr.  

295: 

296: For determining the initial mass, we consider errors due to (1)

297: uncertainty in the final mass, and (2) uncertainty in the systemic age

298: (\S~ 2).  We shall also consider a possible additional uncertainty due

299: to the different results obtained from the TYCHO and ``Padova'' codes,

300: and an uncertainty due to the unknown carbon-oxygen abundance profiles

301: throughout the core.

302: 

303: For most recent papers on white dwarf sequences, such as Ferrario et

304: al. (2005, hereafter F05), the ``Padova'' stellar evolution models of

305: Girardi et al. (2002) were used to get the nuclear lifetime and the

306: initial progenitor mass.  For this paper, for self-consistency with

307: \S~2, we present first the calculations of these using the TYCHO code.

308:  

309: While TYCHO incorporates physical treatments available in 2005 (rather

310: than several years earlier for the ``Padova'' literature calculations),

311: the principal difference between the two results may be the treatment of

312: mixing beyond the traditional Schwarzschild core boundary.  Girardi et

313: al. (2002) use an ``overshoot'' prescription based on a single

314: parameter.  As alluded to in \S~2, TYCHO includes the effects of

315: hydrodynamics in the convective boundary and radiative regions in a

316: predictive, physically-motivated fashion.  This treatment may give more

317: accurate predictions of core sizes, and thus of luminosities, radii, and

318: nuclear lifetimes.  

319: 

320: From the TYCHO calculations, the masses that bracket the above range in

321: the progenitor's nuclear lifetime are 5.43 and 4.78~M$_{\odot}$, with a

322: mean of 5.056M$_{\odot}$.  The uncertainly in the cooling age (due to

323: that of the white dwarf mass) contributes errors of only -0.171 and

324: +0.262M$_{\odot}$.  The uncertainty in the age of the binary system

325: contributes -0.213 and +0.273M$_{\odot}$.  When added in quadrature,

326: these values yield the mass range of the previous paragraph.  If we

327: employ instead the Girardi et al. (2002) tables, again for nuclear

328: lifetimes of 101 Myr and 126 Myr, the mean value of initial mass is only

329: slightly larger at 5.132$_{-0.23}^{+0.28}$M$_{\odot}$.  Thus we may also

330: conclude that the physical treatment of the convective boundary region

331: by TYCHO, and the ``overshoot'' prescription of the Padova group, agree

332: pretty well near 5M$_{\odot}$.  In any case the uncertainties in the

333: initial mass from this analysis are smaller than for any massive cluster

334: white dwarf included in F05.

335: 

336: An additional source of uncertainty in the cooling age not considered

337: here is that due to the carbon--oxygen abundance distribution in the

338: core.  As stated previously, the white dwarf cooling calculations of

339: Fontaine et al. (2001) simply employ a 50\%--50\% mixture.  The usual

340: practice in the published analyses of the cluster white dwarfs is, as

341: stated previously, to use Wood's calculations with the same mixture.

342: Other available calculations from Wood are for pure carbon and for pure

343: oxygen compositions.

344: 

345: The 5~M$_{\odot}$ sequence calculated from TYCHO produces very nearly a

346: 1M$_{\odot}$ core at the end of the AGB evolution, which suggests that

347: the prescription for mass loss in the red giant phases is fairly

348: accurate.  The resulting white dwarf has a carbon abundance of 15\%

349: throughout the inner 0.45~$M_{\odot}$, comprised of the former

350: convective He-burning core. The carbon abundance increases from 35\% to

351: 40\% moving outward through the region processed by He shell burning,

352: with a narrow ($\sim 0.01 M_{\odot}$) spike of 60\% carbon where He

353: burning is incomplete. At low He abundances The $Y_{\rm ^4He}^3$

354: dependence of the triple $\alpha$ reaction favors the ${\rm

355: ^{12}C(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}O}$ reaction over triple $\alpha$. More

356: massive cores with higher entropy favor the production of $^{16}O$ over

357: $^{12}C$. Convective He burning cores also tend to grow at low $Y_{\rm

358: ^4He}$ due to increased opacity.  This process as well as any

359: non-convective mixing process which mixes He into the core at low

360: abundance will increase the destruction of $^{12}C$, resulting in an

361: oxygen dominated core (Arnett 1996). Pure carbon white dwarf cooling

362: models are thus excluded for this mass range, favoring a shorter cooling

363: time.  Using the simple mixture is therefore the best choice of

364: available cooling sequences, but the additional error to the cooling

365: time due to not matching the true abundance profile is not well

366: constrained.  

367: 

368: 

369: \section{Conclusions and a Caveat} 

370: 

371: The result of this analysis is a spread in the possible progenitor mass

372: of Sirius~B generally smaller than those in the young clusters cited

373: above.  In a parallel F05 paper, Sirius~B provides a valuable ``anchor

374: point'' in the high mass part of the IFMR, which is plotted therein

375: (their Fig.~1).  

376: 

377: The conclusions as to the Sirius~B progenitor mass obviously depend on

378: the fit to the Sirius~A luminosity and radius being a valid measure of

379: the systemic age.  The ``Achilles heel'' of the analysis may be the

380: assumption of solar composition for the primordial abundance of the two

381: stars.  Since there is no way to measure directly the primordial

382: abundance of either the chemically-peculiar A star or the white dwarf,

383: we have relied on the assumption that it is a member of the Sirius

384: supercluster, and that these stars have generally been shown to have

385: abundances indistinguishable from solar.  It must be acknowledged that,

386: in the recent study of King et al. (2003), it appears by no means

387: certain that Sirius -- so distant from the Ursa Major core -- is a

388: member of the Sirius supercluster.  These authors estimate an age of

389: 500$\pm$100 Myr for the supercluster from main sequence turnoff fits.

390: Using Str\"omgren photometry, Asiain et al. (1999) estimate 520$\pm$160

391: Myr.  These values are substantially larger than previous literature

392: estimates -- eg. 240 Myr (Eggen 1983).  They are appreciably larger than

393: the systemic age of 225--250~Myr determined in this paper for Sirius.

394: There is no way, if this analysis is based on sound assumptions, that

395: the Sirius age can be 400~Myr.  King et al. (2003) do emphasize that

396: they have not determined that the supercluster is coeval, nor that the

397: stellar abundances are the same.

398: 

399: If we were to consider the possibility that the interior abundances of

400: Sirius A are not determined, we consult the comprehensive study by

401: N\"ordstrom et al. (2004) of 7566 nearby, single F and G dwarfs to see

402: what the abundance distribution is.  For the subsample within 40 pc of

403: the Sun, and at estimated ages near 1 Gyr or less, the [Fe/H]

404: determinations (see their Fig.~28) range from about -0.3 to +0.2, with a

405: mean value near -0.02 to -0.06 (the former if the sample is restricted

406: to the subsample with age estimates considered to be accurate).  As

407: mentioned in \S~2, the fit would actually improve (though its already

408: within one sigma), if the assumed metallicity (Z) were decreased.  At

409: the extreme, with Z = 1/2 solar, a good fit can be achieved at an age

410: of 375$\pm$19~Myr, over 50\% larger.  (The metal-poor star begins with a

411: smaller radius and higher T$_{eff}$, and must evolve farther through its

412: main sequence phase to reach the observed radius and luminosity.)  This

413: systemic age would correspond to a much lower progenitor mass of

414: 3.61$\pm$0.125$M_{\odot}$.  This unlikely outcome would make Sirius 

415: a seriously-discrepant data point in the IFMR (F05). 

416: 

417: On the other hand, we may note that most stars in the solar

418: neighborhood have close to solar abundances.  The analysis in this

419: paper is self-consistent within the stated assumptions.  As a point in

420: the overall IFMR for disk stars, it can be seen in the F05 paper that

421: the solar abundance Sirius~B point has a somewhat higher white dwarf

422: mass or a somewhat lower initial mass than most of the similar white

423: dwarfs in NGC~2516, M35 and the Pleiades, but overlaps the error bars

424: of most of these.  Marigo (2001) gives a careful treatment of AGB mass

425: loss, and predicts that a solar metallicity 5.06$M_{\odot}$ star

426: should produce almost exactly a 1$M_{\odot}$ white dwarf.  (We

427: remarked earlier that the TYCHO code does also.)  In summary, this

428: result appears to provide a strong confirmation of stellar theory.

429: 

430: \acknowledgments

431: 

432: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant

433: AST-0307321 (JL and KAW).  We thank Gilles Fontaine, Pierre Bergeron,

434: Martin Barstow, and Matt Wood for valuable communications, Eric

435: Mamajek for a tutorial on moving groups, and the anonymous referee for 

436: several helpful suggestions. 

437: 

438: \clearpage

439: 

440: \begin{references}

441: 

442: \reference{} Asiain, R., Figueras, F., Torra, J., \& Cheu, B. 1999,

443: \aap, 341, 427 

444: 

445: \reference{} Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., Allende Prieto,

446: C., \& Kiselman, D. 2004, \aap, 417, 751 

447: 

448: \reference{} Bahcall, J.N., Basu, S., Pinsonneault, M., \& Serenelli,

449: A.M. 2005, \apj, 618, 1049

450: 

451: \reference{} Barstow, M.A., Bond, H.E., Holberg, J.B., Burleigh, M.R.,

452: Hubeny, I., \& Koester, D. 2005 \mnras, in press 

453: 

454: \reference{} Bedin, L.R., Salaris, M., Piotto, G., King, I.R., Anderson,

455: J., Cassisi, S., \& Momany, Y. 2005, \apj, 624, 45

456: 

457: \reference{} Claver, C.F., Liebert, J., Bergeron, P., \& Koester, D. 

458: 2001, \apj, 563, 987

459: 

460: \reference{} Decin, L., Vandenbussche, B., Waelkens, K., Eriksson, C., 

461: Gustafsson, B., Plez, B., \& Sauval, A.J. 2003, \aap, 400, 695 

462: 

463: \reference{} Eggen, O.J. 1983, \aj, 88, 642 

464: 

465: \reference{} Eggen, O.J. 1992, \aj, 104, 1493 

466: 

467: \reference{} Eggen, O.J. 1998, \aj, 116, 782 

468: 

469: \reference{} Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D.T., Liebert, J., \& 

470: Williams, K.A. 2005, \mnras, in press (astro-ph/0506317) (F05)  

471: 

472: \reference{} Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., \& Bergeron, P. 2001, \pasp.,

473: 113, 409 

474: 

475: \reference{} Girardi, L., Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., 

476: Groenewegen, M.A.T., Marigo, P., Salasnich, B., \& Weiss, A. 2002, \aap,

477: 391, 195

478: 

479: \reference{} Grevesse, N., \& Sauval, A.J. 1998, {\it Space Science 

480: Reviews}, v. 85, p. 161 

481: 

482: \reference{} Hansen, B.M.S. et al. 2004, \apjs, 155, 551

483: 

484: \reference{} Hertzsprung, E. 1909, \apj, 30, 135 

485: 

486: \reference{} Holberg, J.B. 2005, in preparation

487: 

488: \reference{} Holberg, J.B., Barstow, M.A., Fruhweiler, F.C., Cruise,

489: A.M., \& Penny, A.J. 1998, \apj, 497, 935

490: 

491: \reference{} Hubbard, W.B., \& Lampe, M. 1969, \apjs, 18, 297

492: 

493: \reference{} Iben, I., Jr., \& Renzini, A. 1983, \araa, 21, 271 

494: 

495: \reference{} Itoh, N. \& Kohyama, Y. 1993, \apj, 404, 268 

496: 

497: \reference{} Kalirai, J.S., Richer, H.B., Reitzel, D., Hansen, B.M.S.,

498: Rich, R.M., Fahlman, G.G., Gibson, B.K., and von Hippel, T. 2005, \apj,

499: 618, L123

500: 

501: \reference{} Kervella, P., Th\'evenin, F., Morel, P., Bord\'e, P., \& Di

502: Folco, E. 2003, \aap, 408, 681 

503: 

504: \reference{} King, J.R., Villarreal, A.R., Soderblom, D.R., Gulliver,

505: A.F., \& Adelman, S.J. 2003, \aj, 125, 1980

506: 

507: \reference{} Koester, D., \& Reimers, D. 1993, \aap, 275, 479 

508: 

509: \reference{} Koester, D., \& Reimers, D. 1996, \aap, 313, 810 

510: 

511: \reference{} Marigo, P. 2001, \aap, 370, 194

512: 

513: \reference{} Nordstr\"om, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., Holmberg, J., 

514: Pont, F., J{\o}rgensen, B.R., Olsen, E.H., Udry, S., \& Mowlavi, N. 

515: 2004, \aap, 418, 989

516: 

517: \reference{} Palous, J. \& Hauck, B. 1986, \aap, 162, 54

518: 

519: \reference{} Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., \& Van Horn, H.M. 1995, \apjs,

520: 99, 713 

521: 

522: \reference{} Teegarden, B.J., Pravdo, S.H., Hicks, M., Lawrence, K., 

523: Shaklan, S.B., Covey, K., Fraser, O., Hawley, S.L., McGlynn, T., \&

524: Reid, I.N. 2003, \apjl, 589, L51

525: 

526: \reference{} Van de Bos, W.H. 1960 {\it J. Obs.}, 43, 145

527: 

528: \reference{} Van de Kamp, P. 1971, \araa, 9, 103

529: 

530: \reference{} Ventura, P., Zeppieri, A., Mazzitelli, I., \& D'Antona, F. 

531: 1998 \aap, 334, 953

532: 

533: \reference{} Williams, K.A., Bolte, M., \& Koester, D. 2004, \apj, 615,

534: L49

535: 

536: \reference{} Wood, M.A. 1992, \apj, 386, 539 

537: 

538: \reference{} Wood, M.A. 1995, in {\it White Dwarfs}, eds. D. Koester \&

539: K. Werner (Berlin: Springer), 41  

540: 

541: \reference{} Young, P.A., \& Arnett, D. 2005, \apj, 618, 908

542: 

543: \reference{} Young, P.A., Mamajek, E., Arnett, D., \& Liebert, J. 2001,

544: \apj, 556, 230 

545: 

546: \end{references}

547: 

548: \newpage

549: 

550: \begin{figure} 

551: 

552: \caption{The log luminosity vs. log radius TYCHO evolutionary track

553: beginning with an underluminous starting pre-main sequence model.  The

554: position of Sirius~A with error bars is shown and is fit by the track

555: within one sigma at a total (pre-ms + ms) age of 237.5$\pm$12.5 Myr,

556: about 1/7 of its main sequence lifetime. }  

557: 

558: \end{figure}

559: 

560: \end{document}

561: 

562: