A belief not everyone is prepared to share
An expected surprise
Snowdon and Everest and what this has to do with HD3980
"Published analyses of real stars"
Identical tests applied to 2 different codes
A belief not everyone is prepared to
share
Kochukhov & Piskunov, A&A 388, 868 (2002)
In their Fig. 3 the authors show the recovery of a single
"monolithic" (i.e. structure-less) spot of 1.5 dex contrast, using
the iron doublet at 6147.74 A and 6149.26 A, with 10 equidistant
rotational phases, and a S/N ratio of 300. The stellar parameters
were assumed to be all known. Be sure to watch this:
"We have chosen the rotational velocity v sin i =
30 km/s and inclination angle i = 60 deg, which are optimal for
DI."
The authors claim : "The average error of
the abundance recovery was 0.04 dex" which reveals an
unusual approach to an error estimate. With the spot taking up an
estimated 10% of the stellar surface, and with the initial "guess"
of the abundance being exactly the value for the spotless 90% of the
stellar surface, there is little relevance to the globally
determined 0.04 dex, with actual local discrepancies original vs.
recovered attaining some estimated 0.4 dex.
Figs. 5 and 9 display the results for the reconstruction of 3 --
instead of just 1 -- monolithic, high-contrast spots. Note the
washed-out spots that appear up to twice the size of the originals,
with regions of under-abundances, wisps and extension towards
far-lying latitudes.
Based on tests with 1 and 3 monolithic spots only -- no stunning
complexity of the horizontal abundance pattern (as claimed for
HR3831)
has been tried -- with smooth dipole-quadrupole magnetic field
geometries -- not a fragmented field as in 53 Cam, see N. Piskunov,
Phys. Scr. T133 (2008) 014017 -- and with angles and rotational
velocities optimal for DI, the authors confidently state:
"We believe that
the code can be successfully applied to the imaging of global
stellar magnetic fields and abundance distributions of an
arbitrary complexity."
Page 6 delivers a certain blow to the belief professed above:
1 spot out of 4 spots is not recovered at all, despite favourable
values of v sin i, inclination and S/N ratios. Everyone would agree
that the degree of complexity of the spot configuration is still
rather low.
An expected surprise
Kochukhov & al. (2004), A&A, 424, 935
The authors establish "numerous examples of surface patterns
which do not follow the symmetry of the dipolar magnetic topology" in their
abundance maps of HR3831.
On the other hand they had openly stated earlier in their paper that
they were only "interested in estimating
the parameters of the simplest dipolar magnetic geometry and
will not consider combinations of dipole and quadrupole
components, since these complex topologies are poorly
constrained by the available magnetic observables."
What a surprise then to find patterns that do not follow the
symmetry of an assumed, not a simultaneously or independently
derived, centred dipole geometry !!
One of the most striking characteristics of these maps are the huge
abundance contrasts shown for a number of chemical elements, viz. 7
dex for Ba, 6.3 dex for Na, 6.2 dex for Pr, 6.1 dex for Mn and Y,
and between 4 and 5.5 dex for other metals. The maps for the 5
elements with the largest contrasts are exclusively based on
single-line or dual-line inversions. No star with magnetic field and
abundances determined simultaneously has ever been found to exhibit
such extravagant behaviour, which could mean that the neglected
magnetic field is at least partly responsible for the strikingly
high-contrast abundance structures of HR 3831. Differences between
observed and predicted profiles can reach and even exceed 5% of the
continuum intensity in several lines of the elements C, Mg, Si and
Na; note the particularly poor quality of the fit to the λ 5895.92
line of Na.
Snowdon and Everest and what this
has to do with HD3980
Just imagine a PhD student in meteorology or geophysics working on aerial
photographs of a mountainous region, taken at different times and at
different angles. By some more or less sophisticated method this student
finds that the pressure on top of a mountain the height of
Chomolungma
(Mt. Everest) is just sufficient for a human being to survive. By the
same method the student realises that around a mountain the height of
Snowdon, the
atmosphere consists of pure Xenon, leading to a pressure at the top
of this mountain about equal to that on top of Chomolungma.
Strangely enough, despite the moderate distance between these two
fascinating mountains, the horizontal differences in pressure
miraculously continue to persist, there is no air flow at all
between the two regions, no mixing of the gases.
The PhD student and her supervisor from a far-away university,
thrilled by their discovery, decide to submit the results to a
peer-reviewed journal, offering no explanations for these strange
atmospheric physics. The fact that the huge horizontal differences
in pressure seem to remain stable (at least over the epoch of the
observations) is imputed to some unknown effect that meteorological
and geophysical theory has yet failed to detect. The empirical
results -- claimed to "provide important observational constraints
for modelling" but never put to scrutiny in the submitted paper --
are at the basis of the statement "This all suggests that important
details are missing from the theory relating to the formation of
horizontal structures".
Guess what would happen in real life if scientists tried to publish
a paper of this kind. Would the paper be accepted, would these
people get funding for further work in this field, would theory
remain discredited forever? I am speaking of the field of
meteorology and geophysics where it is impossible that such a paper
would ever be accepted by any journal.
What however about astrophysics where editors and referees do not
show any concern when it comes to stellar abundance spots where Si
is alleged to be as abundant as hydrogen whereas at some distance
away it becomes under-abundant? Would you agree that the acceptance
of such a paper by a peer-reviewed journal constitutes the triumph
of an insane method of empirical analysis over well-founded
theoretical knowledge built up over decades and centuries by great
theoreticians, including a Nobel price laureate?
"Published analyses of real stars"
"Identical tests applied to 2 different codes"
There is considerably more to be said on this topic. Be patient.