A Bayesian estimation of the helioseismic solar age
Astronomy and Astrophysics, ISSN: 1432-0746, Vol: 580
2015
- 14Citations
- 6Captures
- 20Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Most Recent News
How do astronomers know the age of the planets and stars?
The following article, written by Adam Burgasser, University of California, San Diego originally appeared on The Conversation and is published here with permission: Curious Kids is a
Article Description
Context. The helioseismic determination of the solar age has been a subject of several studies because it provides us with an independent estimation of the age of the solar system. Aims. We present the Bayesian estimates of the helioseismic age of the Sun, which are determined by means of calibrated solar models that employ different equations of state and nuclear reaction rates. Methods. We use 17 frequency separation ratios r02(n) = (νn,l = 0-νn-1,l = 2)/(νn,l = 1-νn-1,l = 1) from 8640 days of low-ℓ BiSON frequencies and consider three likelihood functions that depend on the handling of the errors of these r02(n) ratios. Moreover, we employ the 2010 CODATA recommended values for Newton's constant, solar mass, and radius to calibrate a large grid of solar models spanning a conceivable range of solar ages. Results. It is shown that the most constrained posterior distribution of the solar age for models employing Irwin EOS with NACRE reaction rates leads to t⊙ = 4.587 ± 0.007 Gyr, while models employing the Irwin EOS and Adelberger, et al. (2011, Rev. Mod. Phys., 83, 195) reaction rate have t⊙ = 4.569 ± 0.006 Gyr. Implementing OPAL EOS in the solar models results in reduced evidence ratios (Bayes factors) and leads to an age that is not consistent with the meteoritic dating of the solar system. Conclusions. An estimate of the solar age that relies on an helioseismic age indicator such as r02(n) turns out to be essentially independent of the type of likelihood function. However, with respect to model selection, abandoning any information concerning the errors of the r02(n) ratios leads to inconclusive results, and this stresses the importance of evaluating the trustworthiness of error estimates.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84939790534&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526419; http://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526419; http://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526419/pdf; https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526419; https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/08/aa26419-15/aa26419-15.html
EDP Sciences
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know