Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:51:45.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnetic Fields in Low-Mass Stars: An Overview of Observational Biases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Ansgar Reiners
Ansgar Reiners*
Affiliation:
Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August Universität Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany email: Ansgar.Reiners@phys.uni-goettingen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Stellar magnetic dynamos are driven by rotation, rapidly rotating stars produce stronger magnetic fields than slowly rotating stars do. The Zeeman effect is the most important indicator of magnetic fields, but Zeeman broadening must be disentangled from other broadening mechanisms, mainly rotation. The relations between rotation and magnetic field generation, between Doppler and Zeeman line broadening, and between rotation, stellar radius, and angular momentum evolution introduce several observational biases that affect our picture of stellar magnetism. In this overview, a few of these relations are explicitly shown, and the currently known distribution of field measurements is presented.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 9 , Symposium S302: Magnetic Fields throughout Stellar Evolution , August 2013 , pp. 156 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2014 

References

Basri, G., Walkowicz, L. M., & Reiners, A. 2013, ApJ, 769, 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabrier, G. & Küker, M. 2006, A&A, 446, 1027Google Scholar
Charbonneau, P. 2010, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durney, B. R. & Latour, J. 1978, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 9, 241Google Scholar
Gray, D. F. 2008, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Kiraga, M. & Stepien, K. 2007, Acta Astron., 57, 149Google Scholar
Kochukhov, O., Makaganiuk, V., Piskunov, N., Snik, F., Jeffers, S. V., Johns-Krull, C. M., Keller, C. U., Rodenhuis, M., & Valenti, J. A., ApJ, 732, 19Google Scholar
Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ossendrijver, M. A. J. H. 2003, AAR, 11, 287Google Scholar
Pizzolato, N., Maggio, A., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., & Ventura, P. 2003, A&A, 397, 147Google Scholar
Reiners, A., Basri, G., & Browning, M. 2009, ApJ, 692, 538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiners, A. 2012, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 8, 1Google Scholar
Tinbergen, J. 1996, Astronomical Polarimetry, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ 743 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar