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

2: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

3: 

4: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

5: \usepackage{apjfonts}

6: %\usepackage[,longnamesfirst]{natbib}

7: 

8: \newcommand{\Teff}{\mbox{$T_{\rm eff}$}}

9: \newcommand{\Dnu}{\mbox{$\Delta \nu$}}

10: \newcommand{\acena}{\mbox{$\alpha$~Cen~A}}

11: \newcommand{\acenb}{\mbox{$\alpha$~Cen~B}}

12: \newcommand{\acen}{\mbox{$\alpha$~Cen}}

13: \newcommand{\bhyi}{\mbox{$\beta$~Hyi}}

14: \newcommand{\dpav}{\mbox{$\delta$~Pav}}

15: \newcommand{\bvir}{\mbox{$\beta$~Vir}}

16: \newcommand{\nuind}{\mbox{$\nu$~Ind}}

17: \newcommand{\muara}{\mbox{$\mu$~Ara}}

18: \newcommand{\cms}{\mbox{cm\,s$^{-1}$}}

19: \newcommand{\eboo}{\mbox{$\eta$~Boo}}

20: \newcommand{\ms}{\mbox{m\,s$^{-1}$}}

21: \newcommand{\muHz}{\mbox{$\mu$Hz}}

22: %\newcommand{\mynote}[1]{{\bf [#1]}}

23: \newcommand{\new}[1]{{\bf #1}}

24: \renewcommand{\new}[1]{{\relax #1}}

25: %\let\epsilon\varepsilon

26: \newcommand{\half}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}

27: \newcommand{\sixth}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}}}

28: \newcommand{\tenth}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{10}}}

29: 

30: \slugcomment{To appear in ApJ}

31: 

32: \shorttitle{Oscillations in $\nu$ Indi}

33: \shortauthors{Bedding et al.}

34: 

35: 

36: \begin{document}

37: 

38: \title{Solar-like oscillations in the metal-poor subgiant $\nu$~Indi:

39:   constraining the mass and age using asteroseismology}

40: 

41: \author{

42: Timothy R. Bedding,\altaffilmark{1}

43: R.~Paul~Butler,\altaffilmark{2}

44: Fabien~Carrier,\altaffilmark{3}

45: Francois~Bouchy,\altaffilmark{3,4}

46: Brendon~J.~Brewer,\altaffilmark{1}

47: Patrick~Eggenberger,\altaffilmark{3}

48: Frank~Grundahl,\altaffilmark{5}

49: Hans~Kjeldsen,\altaffilmark{5}

50: Chris~McCarthy,\altaffilmark{2}

51: Tine~Bj{\o}rn~Nielsen,\altaffilmark{5}

52: Alon~Retter,\altaffilmark{1,6}

53: Christopher~G.~Tinney\altaffilmark{7}

54: }

55: 

56: \altaffiltext{1}{School of Physics A28, University of Sydney, NSW 2006,

57: Australia; bedding@physics.usyd.edu.au; brewer@physics.usyd.edu.au}

58: 

59: \altaffiltext{2}{Carnegie Institution of Washington,

60: Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, 5241 Broad Branch Road NW, Washington,

61: DC 20015-1305; paul@dtm.ciw.edu, chris@dtm.ciw.edu}

62: 

63: \altaffiltext{3}{Observatoire de Gen\`eve, Ch.~des Maillettes 51, CH-1290

64: Sauverny, Switzerland; fabien.carrier@obs.unige.ch;

65: francois.bouchy@obs.unige.ch; patrick.eggenberger@obs.unige.ch}

66: 

67: \altaffiltext{4}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, Traverse du

68: Siphon, BP 8, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}

69: 

70: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus,

71: DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; hans@phys.au.dk, fgj@phys.au.dk, tbn@phys.au.dk}

72: 

73: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania

74: State University, 525 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802-6305;

75: retter@astro.psu.edu}

76: 

77: \altaffiltext{7}{Anglo-Australian Observatory, P.O.\,Box 296, Epping, NSW

78: 1710, Australia; cgt@aaoepp.aao.gov.au}

79: 

80: 

81: \begin{abstract} 

82: Asteroseismology is a powerful method for determining fundamental

83: properties of stars.  We report the first application to a metal-poor

84: object, namely the subgiant star \nuind.  We measured precise velocities

85: from two sites, allowing us to detect oscillations and infer a large

86: frequency separation of $\Delta \nu = 24.25 \pm 0.25 \mu$Hz.  Combining

87: this value with the location of the star in the H-R diagram and comparing

88: with standard evolutionary models, we were able to place constraints on the

89: stellar parameters.  In particular, our results indicate that \nuind{} has

90: a low mass ($0.85\pm0.04\,M_\sun$) and is at least 9\,Gyr old.

91: \end{abstract}

92: 

93: %% Asteroseismology is a powerful method for determining fundamental

94: %% properties of stars.  We report the first application to a metal-poor

95: %% object, namely the subgiant star nu Ind.  We measured precise velocities

96: %% from two sites, allowing us to detect oscillations and infer a large

97: %% frequency separation of 24.25 +/- 0.25 microHz.  Combining this value with

98: %% the location of the star in the H-R diagram and comparing with standard

99: %% evolutionary models, we were able to place constraints on the stellar

100: %% parameters.  In particular, our results indicate that nu Ind has a low mass

101: %% (0.85 +/- 0.04 M_sun) and is at least 9 Gyr old.

102: 

103: \keywords{stars: individual (\nuind) ---

104: stars:~oscillations --- Sun:~helioseismology}

105: 

106: \section{Introduction}

107: 

108: Asteroseismology is a powerful method for determining fundamental

109: properties of stars.  This is because oscillation frequencies give strong

110: constraints on the internal structure that are independent of classical

111: observations.  Observations of solar-like oscillations are accumulating

112: rapidly, and measurement have recently be reported for several

113: main-sequence and subgiant stars, including

114: %

115: \acena{} \citep{B+C2002,BKB2004}, 

116: \acenb{} \citep{C+B2003,KBB2005},

117: \bvir{} \citep{MLA2004b,CEDAl2005},

118: \muara{} \citep{BBS2005}, 

119: HD~49933 \citep{MBC2005} and

120: \eboo{}  \citep{KBB2003,CEB2005,GKR2005}.

121: %

122: All of these stars have solar metallicity or greater.  Asteroseismology is

123: particularly useful for constraining the evolutionary status of stars with

124: low metallicity \citep[e.g.][]{DACDiM2005}.  Here, we report the first

125: oscillation measurements of a metal-poor star.

126: 

127: We have observed the subgiant \nuind{} (HR~8515; HD 211998; HIP 110618),

128: whose iron abundance is only 3\% of solar.  We adopt the following stellar

129: parameters: $V=5.28$, $\Teff = 5300 \pm 100$\,K, $L=6.2\,L_\sun$ and

130: $\mbox{[Fe/H]}=-1.4\pm0.1$ \citep{NHS97,GSC2000}.  Note that the Bright

131: Star Catalogue \citep{Hoffleit} incorrectly lists this star as a binary

132: with spectral types A3V:+F9V.  In fact, \nuind{} is a single star with

133: spectral type~G0 \citep{L+McW86}.

134: 

135: \section{Velocity observations and power spectra}

136: 

137: We observed \nuind{} in August 2002 from two sites.  

138: %

139: At Siding Spring Observatory in Australia we used UCLES (University College

140: London Echelle Spectrograph) with the 3.9-m Anglo-Australian Telescope

141: (AAT).  An iodine absorption cell was used to provide a stable wavelength

142: reference, with the same setup that we have previously used with this

143: spectrograph \citep{BBK2004}.

144: %

145: At the European Southern Observatory on La Silla in Chile we used the

146: CORALIE spectrograph with the 1.2-m Swiss telescope.  A thorium emission

147: lamp was used to provide a stable wavelength reference, and the velocities

148: were processed using the method described by \citet{BPQ2001}.

149: 

150: With UCLES we obtained 680 spectra of \nuind, with typical exposure times

151: of 300\,s (but sometimes as short as 200\,s in the best conditions) and a

152: dead time between exposures of 61\,s.  With CORALIE we obtained 521

153: spectra, with typical exposure times of 360\,s and a dead time between

154: exposures of 128\,s.

155: 

156: The resulting velocities, with nightly means subtracted, are shown in

157: Fig.~\ref{fig.series}.  As can be seen, the weather was good in Australia

158: but poor in Chile (we were allocated seven nights with UCLES and 14 with

159: CORALIE).

160: 

161: Most of the scatter in the velocities, especially for UCLES, is due to

162: oscillations.  Figure~\ref{fig.best} shows a close-up of the first night.

163: Oscillations with a period of about 50\,min and variable amplitude (due to

164: beating between modes) are visible here and throughout the time series.  We

165: also see good agreement between the two instruments, within measurement

166: uncertainties, during the overlap (although we should note that the

167: difference in absolute velocities is not known and has been adjusted to

168: give the best fit).

169: 

170: Our analysis of these velocities follows the method that we developed for

171: \acena{} \citep{BBK2004} and \acenb{} \citep{KBB2005}.  We have used the

172: measurement uncertainties, $\sigma_i$, as weights in calculating the power

173: spectrum (according to $w_i = 1/\sigma_i^2$), but modified some of the

174: weights to account for a small fraction of bad data points.  In this case,

175: 4 data points from UCLES and 24 from CORALIE needed to be down-weighted.

176: The power spectra of the individual time series and of the combination are

177: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.power}.  The differences between the three panels

178: can be attributed to the effects of beating between modes.

179: 

180: The low metallicity of \nuind{} means that the lines in its spectrum are

181: fewer and weaker than for stars of solar metallicity.  This, together with

182: its relative faintness ($V=5.3$), means that the Doppler precision for

183: \nuind{} is poorer than for other stars observed with the same instruments,

184: such as \acena{} and~B.  We measured the average noise in the amplitude

185: spectrum of \nuind{} at frequencies above the stellar signal (0.6--1\,mHz)

186: to be 17.3\,\cms{} for UCLES, 27.2\,\cms{} for CORALIE and 14.9\,\cms{} for

187: the combined data.  Using these values, we calculated the noise per minute

188: of observing time to be 5.9\,\ms{} for UCLES and 9.5\,\ms{} for CORALIE,

189: where the difference is due to a combination of factors, primarily the

190: telescope aperture but also including spectrograph design, sky conditions

191: and observing duty cycle.

192: 

193: The inset in each panel of Fig.~\ref{fig.power} shows the spectral window

194: (the response to a single pure sinusoid).  For the single-site data we see

195: sidelobes at $\pm 11.6$\,\muHz{} that are very strong (51\% in power for

196: UCLES and 57\% for CORALIE).  These are due to daytime gaps in the

197: observing window.  When the data are combined, the sidelobes are

198: drastically reduced (to 16\% in power) and are also slightly shifted,

199: occurring at $\pm 10.8$\,\muHz.  In the cases of \acena{} and B, we

200: generated power spectra in which the weights were adjusted on a

201: night-by-night basis in order to minimize the sidelobes.  We have not done

202: that for \nuind{} because the sidelobes for the two-site data are already

203: quite low.

204: 

205: \section{Large frequency separation}    \label{sec.Dnu}

206: 

207: Mode frequencies for low-degree p-mode oscillations are approximated

208: reasonably well by a regular series of peaks:

209: \begin{equation}

210:   \nu_{n,l} = \Dnu{} (n + \half l + \epsilon) - l(l+1) D_0.

211:         \label{eq.asymptotic}

212: \end{equation}

213: Here $n$ (the radial order) and $l$ (the angular degree) are integers,

214: $\Dnu{}$ (the large separation) depends on the sound travel time across the

215: whole star, $D_0$ is sensitive to the sound speed near the core and

216: $\epsilon$ is sensitive to the surface layers.  See \citet{ChD2004} for a

217: recent review of the theory of solar-like oscillations.

218: 

219: The large separation, $\Dnu{}$, is proportional to the square root of the

220: mean density of the star.  Scaling from the Sun, for which $\Dnu{} =

221: 135\,\muHz$, we expect \nuind{} to have a large separation of about

222: 25\,\muHz.  In order to search for a regular series of peaks from which to

223: measure the large separation, we calculated the autocorrelation function of

224: the power spectrum.  The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.acorr} and the

225: peak at 10.8\,\muHz{} (dashed line) is the main sidelobe caused by the

226: daily gaps (see above).  We interpret the peak at 24.5\,\muHz{} as due to

227: the large separation, with smaller peaks at $\pm 10.8\,\muHz$ from this

228: being due to daily aliases \new{(the peak at 13\,\muHz{} also coincides

229: with half the large separation).  The peak at 5\,\muHz{} is not easily

230: explained by the regular p-mode structure and may reflect departures of a

231: few modes from the asymptotic relation in equation~\ref{eq.asymptotic}.}

232: 

233: As a check of this result, we also measured the large separation directly

234: from the light curve data using Bayesian methods (see \citealt{Gre2005} for

235: a good introduction to Bayesian analysis).  We modelled the light curve as

236: a sum of sinusoids, where the number of sinusoids, together with their

237: amplitudes, phases and frequencies, were treated as unknowns.  An advantage

238: of this approach is that the amplitudes and phases can be integrated out of

239: the problem at the beginning \citep{Bre88}, so that we only need to fit the

240: frequencies and their number.  To determine the large separation, we chose

241: the prior distribution for the frequencies to be periodic, with period

242: $\frac{1}{2} \Delta \nu$ (considered unknown).  We fixed the central

243: frequency of this periodic comb to be the highest peak in the power

244: spectrum (313.14\,\muHz).  We then calculated the posterior distribution

245: for $\Delta \nu$, which is shown in the lower panel of

246: Fig.~\ref{fig.bayes}.  There is a single strong peak with a value of

247: $\Delta \nu = 24.25 \pm 0.25 \mu$Hz, in agreement with the peak of the

248: autocorrelation.  More details of this method, which is similar to the

249: approach used by \citet{Bre2003} and appears to be very promising for this

250: type of analysis, will be presented separately (B. Brewer et al., in

251: prep.).  

252: 

253: \section{Constraints on the stellar parameters}

254: 

255: What can we learn about \nuind{} from our measurement of \Dnu?

256: Figure~\ref{fig.hr} shows the location of the star in the H-R diagram,

257: together with some theoretical evolutionary tracks.  The box, which is the

258: same in each panel, shows the observed position of \nuind{} from classical

259: measurements.  The value for \Teff{} ($5300 \pm 100$\,K) is the mean of

260: published photometric estimates \citep{NHS97,GSC2000}, where we note the

261: large uncertainty in the effective temperature scale for metal-poor stars.

262: The luminosity is based on the Hipparcos parallax ($34.6 \pm 0.6$\,mas),

263: with bolometric corrections from \citet{AAMR99}.  Note that the bolometric

264: correction is a function of effective temperature, hence the slope of the

265: box.  The diagonal dashed lines, which are also the same in each panel, are

266: loci of constant radius, calculated from $L\propto R^2\Teff^4$.  We can

267: immediately see that a measurement of the radius from interferometry would

268: be valuable in constraining the location of the star in the H-R diagram, as

269: has already been shown for other stars

270: \citep{KTS2003,PTG2003,KTM2004,TKP2005}.

271: 

272: The curved lines in Fig.~\ref{fig.hr} are evolutionary tracks for a range

273: of masses, using model calculations similar to those by \citet{ChD82}.  We

274: used a metallicity of $Z=0.001$ (with hydrogen and helium mass fractions of

275: $X=0.75$ and $Y=0.249$, respectively) and the three panels differ in the

276: adopted value of the mixing-length parameter ($\alpha = 1.7,$ 1.8 and~1.9),

277: where the solar value is $\alpha_\sun=1.83$.  The relatively rapid

278: evolution in this subgiant phase means each track can be described by a

279: single age, as shown in the figure.  Finally, the diagonal lines are

280: contours of constant $\Dnu{}$.  We calculated these from the evolutionary

281: models by scaling from the Sun (since $\Dnu{}$ is proportional to the

282: square root of the mean density).

283: 

284: We see that our measurement of $\Dnu{}$ significantly constrains the

285: parameters of \nuind.  This is quantified in Fig.~\ref{fig.params}, in

286: which the thin error bars show the range of each parameter based on

287: classical measurements alone ($L$ and $\Teff$), while the thick bars show

288: the situation after we have added the constraint provided by our

289: measurement of $\Dnu$.  Including this constraint reduces the uncertainty

290: in both effective temperature and radius, for a given value of $\alpha$, by

291: a factor of four.

292: 

293: What can we say about the mass of \nuind?  Even with no constraints from

294: seismology, the requirement that \nuind{} be younger than the universe

295: (13.7\,Gyr; \citealt{SVP2003}) sets a lower limit of $0.81\,M_\sun$.  A

296: star of lower mass would not have had time to evolve this far.  Note that

297: this limit, which we derived from the tracks in Fig.~\ref{fig.params}, is

298: essentially independent of the mixing length.  This is because the value of

299: $\alpha$ has little effect on the fusion rate in the core, and hence on the

300: time for a star of given mass to leave the main sequence and enter the

301: subgiant phase.  Meanwhile, an upper limit on the mass is obtained from our

302: measurement of $\Dnu$, provided we also set a lower limit on $\alpha$

303: (third panel of Fig.~\ref{fig.params}).  Adopting a plausible lower limit

304: of $\alpha\ge1.7$ gives an upper limit for the mass of $0.89\,M_\sun$.

305: 

306: We can also set interesting limits on the age of \nuind.  From the bottom

307: panel of Fig.~\ref{fig.params}, and again setting $\alpha>1.7$ as a

308: plausible limit, we see that the age must be at least 9\,Gyr.  This

309: confirms that \nuind{} is, indeed, very old and must have been formed very

310: early in the history of the Galaxy.  The final results of our analysis are

311: summarized in Table~\ref{tab.params}, where we list our best estimates for

312: the parameters of \nuind, assuming that $Z=0.001$ and $\alpha =

313: 1.8\pm0.1$.  

314: 

315: With the data currently available, what constraints can we set on the

316: mixing length?  The dashed line at an age of 13.7\,Gyr in

317: Fig.~\ref{fig.params} indicates the upper limit set by age of the universe.

318: This indicates that the mixing length cannot be greater than 2.1.  We

319: expect much stronger constraints on $\alpha$, and also on the other stellar

320: parameters, to come from the individual oscillation frequencies.  The

321: extraction of these frequencies and a comparison with theoretical models is

322: deferred to a future paper (F. Carrier et al., in prep.).  An accurate

323: measurement of the radius using interferometry would also be extremely

324: valuable.

325: 

326: 

327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

328: 

329: \section{Oscillation amplitude}  \label{sec.amp}

330: 

331: The amplitudes of individual modes are affected by the stochastic nature of

332: the excitation and by the (unknown) value of the mode lifetime.  To measure

333: the oscillation amplitude of \nuind{} in a way that is independent of these

334: effects, we have followed the method introduced by \citet{KBB2005}.  In

335: brief, this involves the following steps: (i)~smoothing the power spectrum

336: heavily to produce a single hump of excess power that is insensitive to the

337: fact that the oscillation spectrum has discrete peaks; (ii)~converting to

338: power density by multiplying by the effective length of the observing run

339: (4.42\,d, which we calculated from the area under the spectral window in

340: power); (iii)~fitting and subtracting the background noise; and

341: (vi)~multiplying by $\Delta\nu/3.0$ and taking the square root, in order to

342: convert to amplitude per oscillation mode.  For more details, see

343: \citet{KBB2005}.

344: 

345: The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.ampsmooth}.  The peak amplitude per

346: mode is 0.95\,\ms, which occurs at a frequency of $\nu_{\rm

347: max}=320$\,\muHz{} (period 52\,min).  This value of $\nu_{\rm max}$ is

348: consistent with that expected from scaling the acoustic cutoff frequency of

349: the Sun \citep{BGN91,K+B95}.  The observed peak amplitude is 4.6 times the

350: solar value, when the latter is measured using stellar techniques

351: \citep{KBB2005}, which is substantially less than the value of 7.3 expected

352: from the $L/M$ scaling proposed by \citet{K+B95} \new{but is in good

353: agreement with the $(L/M)^{0.7}$ scaling suggested for main-sequence stars

354: by \citet{SGA2005}.  A measurement of the mode lifetimes in \nuind{} would

355: be particularly useful.}

356: 

357: 

358: 

359: \section{Conclusions}

360: 

361: We have observed solar-like oscillations in the metal-poor subgiant star

362: \nuind{} and measured the large frequency separation.  We used this,

363: together with the location of the star in the H-R diagram and standard

364: evolutionary models, to place constraints on the stellar parameters.  Our

365: results, summarized in Table~\ref{tab.params}, confirm that \nuind{} has a

366: low mass and a large age and represent the first application of

367: asteroseismology to a metal-poor star.  Further constraints on the

368: parameters, particularly the mixing length, should come from comparing

369: individual oscillation frequencies with theoretical models.

370: 

371: \acknowledgments

372: 

373: We are extremely grateful to Conny Aerts for agreeing a time swap on

374: CORALIE that allowed us to observe at the optimum time of year.  We also

375: thank Geoff Marcy for useful advice and enthusiastic support.  This work

376: was supported financially by the Australian Research Council, the Swiss

377: National Science Foundation, the Danish Natural Science Research Council,

378: the Danish National Research Foundation through its establishment of the

379: Theoretical Astrophysics Center, and by a research associate fellowship

380: from Penn State University.  We further acknowledge support by NSF grant

381: AST-9988087 (RPB) and by SUN Microsystems.

382: 

383: \begin{thebibliography}{32}

384: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

385: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

386:   \def\url#1{{\tt #1}}\fi

387: 

388: \bibitem[{Alonso} et~al.(1999){Alonso}, {Arribas}, \&

389:   {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Roger}]{AAMR99}

390: {Alonso}, A., {Arribas}, S., \& {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Roger}, C., 1999, A\&AS, 140,

391:   261.

392: 

393: \bibitem[Bedding et~al.(2004)Bedding, Kjeldsen, Butler, McCarthy, Marcy,

394:   O'Toole, Tinney, \& Wright]{BKB2004}

395: Bedding, T.~R., Kjeldsen, H., Butler, R.~P., McCarthy, C., Marcy, G.~W.,

396:   O'Toole, S.~J., Tinney, C.~G., \& Wright, J.~T., 2004, ApJ, 614, 380.

397: 

398: \bibitem[{Bouchy} et~al.(2005){Bouchy}, {Bazot}, {Santos}, {Vauclair}, \&

399:   {Sosnowska}]{BBS2005}

400: {Bouchy}, F., {Bazot}, M., {Santos}, N.~C., {Vauclair}, S., \& {Sosnowska}, D.,

401:   2005, A\&A, 440, 609.

402: 

403: \bibitem[Bouchy \& {Carrier}(2002)Bouchy, \& {Carrier}]{B+C2002}

404: Bouchy, F., \& {Carrier}, F., 2002, A\&A, 390, 205.

405: 

406: \bibitem[{Bouchy} et~al.(2001){Bouchy}, {Pepe}, \& {Queloz}]{BPQ2001}

407: {Bouchy}, F., {Pepe}, F., \& {Queloz}, D., 2001, A\&A, 374, 733.

408: 

409: \bibitem[Bretthorst(1988)]{Bre88}

410: Bretthorst, G.~L.

411: \newblock {\em Bayesian Spectrum Analysis and Parameter Estimation}, volume~48

412:   of {\em Lecture Notes in Statistics}.

413: \newblock Springer-Verlag: New York, 1988.

414: 

415: \bibitem[{Bretthorst}(2003)]{Bre2003}

416: {Bretthorst}, G.~L., 2003, In Willimas, C.~J., editor, {\em AIP Conf. Proc.

417:   659: Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and

418:   Engineering}, page~3.

419: \newblock available from {\tt http://bayes.wustl.edu/}.

420: 

421: \bibitem[Brown et~al.(1991)Brown, Gilliland, Noyes, \& Ramsey]{BGN91}

422: Brown, T.~M., Gilliland, R.~L., Noyes, R.~W., \& Ramsey, L.~W., 1991, ApJ, 368,

423:   599.

424: 

425: \bibitem[Butler et~al.(2004)Butler, Bedding, Kjeldsen, McCarthy, O'Toole,

426:   Tinney, Marcy, \& Wright]{BBK2004}

427: Butler, R.~P., Bedding, T.~R., Kjeldsen, H., McCarthy, C., O'Toole, S.~J.,

428:   Tinney, C.~G., Marcy, G.~W., \& Wright, J.~T., 2004, ApJ, 600, L75.

429: 

430: \bibitem[Carrier \& {Bourban}(2003)Carrier, \& {Bourban}]{C+B2003}

431: Carrier, F., \& {Bourban}, G., 2003, A\&A, 406, L23.

432: 

433: \bibitem[{Carrier} et~al.(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Carrier}, {Eggenberger}, \&

434:   {Bouchy}]{CEB2005}

435: {Carrier}, F., {Eggenberger}, P., \& {Bouchy}, F., 2005{\natexlab{a}}, A\&A,

436:   434, 1085.

437: 

438: \bibitem[{Carrier} et~al.(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Carrier}, {Eggenberger},

439:   {D'Alessandro}, \& {Weber}]{CEDAl2005}

440: {Carrier}, F., {Eggenberger}, P., {D'Alessandro}, A., \& {Weber}, L.,

441:   2005{\natexlab{b}}, NewA, 10, 315.

442: 

443: \bibitem[Christensen-Dalsgaard(1982)]{ChD82}

444: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 735.

445: 

446: \bibitem[Christensen-Dalsgaard(2004)]{ChD2004}

447: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 2004, Sol. Phys., 220, 137.

448: 

449: \bibitem[D'Antona et~al.(2005)D'Antona, {Cardini}, {Di Mauro}, {Maceroni},

450:   {Mazzitelli}, \& {Montalb{\'a}n}]{DACDiM2005}

451: D'Antona, F., {Cardini}, D., {Di Mauro}, M.~P., {Maceroni}, C., {Mazzitelli},

452:   I., \& {Montalb{\'a}n}, J., 2005, MNRAS, 363, 847.

453: 

454: \bibitem[{Gratton} et~al.(2000){Gratton}, {Sneden}, {Carretta}, \&

455:   {Bragaglia}]{GSC2000}

456: {Gratton}, R.~G., {Sneden}, C., {Carretta}, E., \& {Bragaglia}, A., 2000, A\&A,

457:   354, 169.

458: 

459: \bibitem[Gregory(2005)]{Gre2005}

460: Gregory, P.~C.

461: \newblock {\em Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences}.

462: \newblock Cambridge University Press, 2005.

463: 

464: \bibitem[{Guenther} et~al.(2005){Guenther}, {Kallinger}, {Reegen}, {Weiss},

465:   {Matthews}, {Kuschnig}, {Marchenko}, {Moffat}, {Rucinski}, {Sasselov}, \&

466:   {Walker}]{GKR2005}

467: {Guenther}, D.~B., {Kallinger}, T., {Reegen}, P., {Weiss}, W.~W., {Matthews},

468:   J.~M., {Kuschnig}, R., {Marchenko}, S., {Moffat}, A.~F.~J., {Rucinski},

469:   S.~M., {Sasselov}, D., \& {Walker}, G.~A.~H., 2005, ApJ.

470: \newblock in press (arXiv:astro-ph/0503695).

471: 

472: \bibitem[Hoffleit(1982)]{Hoffleit}

473: Hoffleit, D.

474: \newblock {\em The Bright Star Catalogue}.

475: \newblock Yale University Observatory, New Haven, 1982.

476: 

477: \bibitem[Kervella et~al.(2004)Kervella, {Th{\' e}venin}, {Morel}, {Berthomieu},

478:   {Bord{\' e}}, \& {Provost}]{KTM2004}

479: Kervella, P., {Th{\' e}venin}, F., {Morel}, P., {Berthomieu}, G., {Bord{\' e}},

480:   P., \& {Provost}, J., 2004, A\&A, 413, 251.

481: 

482: \bibitem[Kervella et~al.(2003)Kervella, {Th{\'e}venin}, {S{\'e}gransan},

483:   {Berthomieu}, {Lopez}, {Morel}, \& {Provost}]{KTS2003}

484: Kervella, P., {Th{\'e}venin}, F., {S{\'e}gransan}, D., {Berthomieu}, G.,

485:   {Lopez}, B., {Morel}, P., \& {Provost}, J., 2003, A\&A, 404, 1087.

486: 

487: \bibitem[Kjeldsen \& Bedding(1995)Kjeldsen, \& Bedding]{K+B95}

488: Kjeldsen, H., \& Bedding, T.~R., 1995, A\&A, 293, 87.

489: 

490: \bibitem[Kjeldsen et~al.(2003)Kjeldsen, Bedding, Baldry, Bruntt, Butler,

491:   Fischer, Frandsen, Gates, Grundahl, Lang, Marcy, Misch, \& Vogt]{KBB2003}

492: Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T.~R., Baldry, I.~K., Bruntt, H., Butler, R.~P.,

493:   Fischer, D.~A., Frandsen, S., Gates, E.~L., Grundahl, F., Lang, K., Marcy,

494:   G.~W., Misch, A., \& Vogt, S.~S., 2003, AJ, 126, 1483.

495: 

496: \bibitem[Kjeldsen et~al.(2005)Kjeldsen, Bedding, Butler, Christensen-Dalsgaard,

497:   Kiss, McCarthy, Marcy, Tinney, \& Wright]{KBB2005}

498: Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T.~R., Butler, R.~P., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Kiss,

499:   L., McCarthy, C., Marcy, G.~W., Tinney, C.~G., \& Wright, J.~T., 2005, ApJ,

500:   635, 1281.

501: 

502: \bibitem[{Lambert} \& {McWilliam}(1986){Lambert}, \& {McWilliam}]{L+McW86}

503: {Lambert}, D.~L., \& {McWilliam}, A., 1986, ApJ, 304, 436.

504: 

505: \bibitem[{Martic} et~al.(2004){Martic}, {Lebrun}, {Appourchaux}, \&

506:   {Schmitt}]{MLA2004b}

507: {Martic}, M., {Lebrun}, J.~C., {Appourchaux}, T., \& {Schmitt}, J., 2004, In

508:   {\em SOHO 14/GONG 2004 Workshop, Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a

509:   Golden Future}, ESA SP-559, page 563.

510: \newblock arXiv:astro-ph/0409126.

511: 

512: \bibitem[{Mosser} et~al.(2005){Mosser}, {Bouchy}, {Catala}, {Michel}, {Samadi},

513:   {Th{\' e}venin}, {Eggenberger}, {Sosnowska}, {Moutou}, \& {Baglin}]{MBC2005}

514: {Mosser}, B., {Bouchy}, F., {Catala}, C., {Michel}, E., {Samadi}, R., {Th{\'

515:   e}venin}, F., {Eggenberger}, P., {Sosnowska}, D., {Moutou}, C., \& {Baglin},

516:   A., 2005, A\&A, 431, L13.

517: 

518: \bibitem[{Nissen} et~al.(1997){Nissen}, {Hoeg}, \& {Schuster}]{NHS97}

519: {Nissen}, P.~E., {Hoeg}, E., \& {Schuster}, W.~J., 1997, In Battrick, B.,

520:   editor, {\em Hipparcos Venice '97 Symposium}, page 225. ESA SP-402.

521: \newblock {\tt\small

522:   http://\linebreak[0]astro.estec.esa.nl/\linebreak[0]SA-general/\linebreak[0]%

523: Projects/\linebreak[0]Hipparcos/\linebreak[0]venice.html}.

524: 

525: \bibitem[Pijpers et~al.(2003)Pijpers, {Teixeira}, {Garcia}, {Cunha},

526:   {Monteiro}, \& {Christensen-Dalsgaard}]{PTG2003}

527: Pijpers, F.~P., {Teixeira}, T.~C., {Garcia}, P.~J., {Cunha}, M.~S., {Monteiro},

528:   M.~J.~P.~F.~G., \& {Christensen-Dalsgaard}, J., 2003, A\&A, 406, L15.

529: 

530: \bibitem[{Samadi} et~al.(2005){Samadi}, {Goupil}, {Alecian}, {Baudin},

531:   {Georgobiani}, {Trampedach}, {Stein}, \& {Nordlund}]{SGA2005}

532: {Samadi}, R., {Goupil}, M.-J., {Alecian}, E., {Baudin}, F., {Georgobiani}, D.,

533:   {Trampedach}, R., {Stein}, R., \& {Nordlund}, {\AA}., 2005, JA\&A, 26, 171.

534: 

535: \bibitem[{Spergel} et~al.(2003){Spergel}, {Verde}, {Peiris}, {Komatsu},

536:   {Nolta}, {Bennett}, {Halpern}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Kogut}, {Limon},

537:   {Meyer}, {Page}, {Tucker}, {Weiland}, {Wollack}, \& {Wright}]{SVP2003}

538: {Spergel}, D.~N., {Verde}, L., {Peiris}, H.~V., {Komatsu}, E., {Nolta}, M.~R.,

539:   {Bennett}, C.~L., {Halpern}, M., {Hinshaw}, G., {Jarosik}, N., {Kogut}, A.,

540:   {Limon}, M., {Meyer}, S.~S., {Page}, L., {Tucker}, G.~S., {Weiland}, J.~L.,

541:   {Wollack}, E., \& {Wright}, E.~L., 2003, ApJS, 148, 175.

542: 

543: \bibitem[{Th{\'e}venin} et~al.(2005){Th{\'e}venin}, {Kervella}, {Pichon},

544:   {Morel}, {di Folco}, \& {Lebreton}]{TKP2005}

545: {Th{\'e}venin}, F., {Kervella}, P., {Pichon}, B., {Morel}, P., {di Folco}, E.,

546:   \& {Lebreton}, Y., 2005, A\&A, 436, 253.

547: 

548: \end{thebibliography}

549: 

550: \clearpage

551: 

552: \begin{table*}

553: \small

554: \caption{\label{tab.params} Parameters for \nuind{} (assuming $Z=0.001$

555: and $\alpha = 1.8\pm0.1$)}

556: \begin{center}

557: \begin{tabular}{lrclr}

558: \tableline

559: \tableline

560: \noalign{\smallskip}

561: $\Delta\nu~(\muHz)$          & 24.25 & $\pm$ & $0.25$     &  (1.0\%)\\

562: \Teff{} (K)                  & 5291  & $\pm$ & $34$       &   (0.64\%) \\

563: $M~(M_\sun)$                 & 0.847 & $\pm$ & $0.043$    &   (5.1\%) \\

564: Age (Gyr)                    & 11.4  & $\pm$ & $2.4$      &  (21\%) \\

565: $L~(L_\sun)$                 & 6.21  & $\pm$ & $0.23$     &   (3.7\%) \\

566: $R~(R_\sun)$                 & 2.97  & $\pm$ & $0.05$     &   (1.7\%) \\

567: $\log (g/\mbox{cm\,s}^{-2})$ & 3.421 & $\pm$ & $0.016$    &   (3.8\% in $g$) \\

568: angular diameter (mas)       & 0.956 & $\pm$ & $0.023$    &   (2.4\%) \\

569: \noalign{\smallskip}

570: \tableline

571: \end{tabular}

572: \end{center}

573: \end{table*}

574: 

575: \clearpage

576: 

577: \begin{figure*}

578: \epsscale{0.9}

579: \plotone{f1.eps}

580: \caption[]{\label{fig.series} Time series of velocity measurements of

581: \nuind{} from the UCLES and CORALIE spectrographs.  The mean of each night

582: has been subtracted. }

583: \end{figure*}

584: 

585: \begin{figure*}

586: \epsscale{0.9}

587: \plotone{f2.eps}

588: \caption[]{\label{fig.best} Velocities with 1-$\sigma$ error bars for the

589:   first night at each site.  The 50-minute oscillations are clearly seen.

590:   }

591: \end{figure*}

592: 

593: \begin{figure*}

594: \epsscale{0.9}

595: \plotone{f3.eps}

596: \caption[]{\label{fig.power} Power spectra of velocity measurements of

597: \nuind{} from the two time series and from the combined data.  \new{The

598: horizontal lines show $(3\sigma)^2$, where $\sigma$ is the noise at high

599: frequencies in each amplitude spectrum.}  The inset in each panel shows the

600: spectral window. }

601: \end{figure*}

602: 

603: \begin{figure*}

604: \epsscale{0.5}

605: \plotone{f4a.eps}\\

606: \bigskip

607: \plotone{f4b.eps}

608: \caption[]{\label{fig.acorr} Measurements of the large separation of

609: \nuind.  Upper panel: the autocorrelation of the power spectrum, with peaks

610: at 24.5\,\muHz{} (dotted line) from the large separation and at

611: 10.8\,\muHz{} (dashed line) from the daily sidelobes.

612: \label{fig.bayes} Lower panel: probability distribution for the large

613: separation calculated using Bayesian methods (see text).  }

614: 

615: \end{figure*}

616: 

617: \begin{figure*}

618: \epsscale{0.4} 

619: \plotone{f5a.eps}\\ \plotone{f5b.eps}\\ \plotone{f5c.eps}

620: \caption[]{\label{fig.hr} H-R diagrams in which the box shows the position

621: of \nuind{} from classical observations and the diagonal dashed lines are

622: loci of constant radius.  The curved lines are evolutionary tracks for

623: models with $Z=0.001$ and a range of masses, with the three panels

624: differing in the value of the mixing-length parameter,~$\alpha$.  The

625: diagonal lines are loci of constant $\Dnu{}$, calculated from the mean

626: densities of the models by scaling from the Sun.

627: }

628: \end{figure*}

629: 

630: \begin{figure*}

631: \epsscale{0.5}

632: \plotone{f6.eps}

633: \caption[]{\label{fig.params} Parameters of \nuind{} based on observations

634: and models, as a function of the mixing-length parameter.  The thin error

635: bars show the range of each parameter based on classical measurements alone

636: ($L$ and $\Teff$), while the thick bars include the constraint provided by

637: our measurement of $\Dnu$.  The dashed line at an age of 13.7\,Gyr

638: indicates the upper limit set by age of the universe \citep{SVP2003}.  }

639: \end{figure*}

640: 

641: \begin{figure*}

642: \epsscale{0.5}

643: \plotone{f7.eps}

644: \caption[]{\label{fig.ampsmooth} Smoothed oscillation spectrum of \nuind,

645: showing the amplitude per oscillation mode.  }

646: \end{figure*}

647: 

648: 

649: \end{document}

650: