Meredith L. Rawls edited subsubsection_Identifying_the_oscillating_star__.tex  over 8 years ago

Commit id: ada53f13c62375e9e4012e85909d91cbe70d371a

deletions | additions      

       

\subsubsection{Identifying the oscillating star}\label{identifying}  The asteroseismic mass and \revise{radius are consistent with those from the ELC model for both stars. The surface gravity of Star 2 nearly agrees with the asteroseismic value, while the gravity of Star 1 does not.} Neither star's mean density agrees with the asteroseismic value, but Star 2 is closer than Star 1. \revise{Since \newrevise{Since one of  the scaling equations can be combined to give a gives  mean density that is independent of temperature and $\nu_{\rm max}$ (Equation \ref{density}), \ref{density}),}  one might na{\"i}vely expect a better asteroseismic estimation of density compared to surface gravity. Overall, %Overall,  the evidence strongly suggests the source of the oscillations is Star 2.} 2.  However, we cannot definitely conclude this without considering the temperature dependence of the scaling relations. From \citet{gau13}, \citet{gau14}, and the present work, asteroseismic masses and radii were reported to be $(1.7 \pm 0.3 \ M_\odot, 7.7 \pm 0.4 \ R_\odot)$, $(2.06 \pm 0.13 \ M_\odot, 8.10 \pm 0.18 \ R_\odot)$, and $(2.17 \pm 0.14 \ M_\odot, 8.26 \pm 0.18 \ R_\odot)$, respectively. Among these, $\nu_{\rm{max}}$ does not vary much ($102.2, 106.4, 106.4 \ \mu\rm{Hz}$), and $\Delta \nu$ varies even less ($8.3, 8.32, 8.31 \ \mu\rm{Hz}$), while the assumed temperatures were 4699 K (from the KIC), 4857 K (from \citealt{hub14.2}), and 5000 K (this work). Even if temperature is the least influential parameter on stellar masses and radii in the asteroseismic scalings, we are at a level of precision where errors on temperature dominate the global asteroseismic results. \newrevise{Scaling relations alone cannot be used to prefer one star over the other as the main oscillating component.}