The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Breakdown of the core mass-luminosity relation at high luminosities on the asymptotic giant branch
Abstract
Hot bottom burning in asymptotic giant branch stars causes a breakdown of the core mass-luminosity (MC-L) relation. For stellar models with up-to-date input physics, including molecular opacities and the associated higher mixing length, the breakdown takes place at core masses greater than or approximately equal to 0.85 solar luminosity, i.e., luminosities brighter than Mbol of about -6. This occurs in stars of initial mass greater than or approximately equal to 5 solar luminosities for Population I (Z = 0.02) compositions, and greater than or approximately equal to 4 solar luminosities for Population II (Z = 0.001). For these stars, the luminosity increases much more steeply than the MC-L relation would predict, and is no longer independent of the stellar mass. Large mass loss rates can turn off hot bottom burning by significantly reducing the star's mass (and thus the temperature at the base of the convective envelope), causing the star's luminosity to decline toward the standard MC-L relation; such mass-loss rates are still an order of magnitude less than that observed in some OH/IR stars. Uncertainties in molecular opacities can significantly affect the extent of hot bottom burning, and thus the luminosities attained.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some approximation to time-dependent mixing is required to produce 7Li in a HBB calculation.
“Someapproximation to time-dependent mixing is required to produce 7 Li in a HBB calculation because the nuclear timescale for the reactions involved in the Cameron-Fowler mechanism is similar to the convective turnover timescale”
From The Dawes Review 2: Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Yields of Low- and Intermediate-Mass Single Stars (2014) · cites this paper as Boothroyd & Sackmann 1992
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Dawes Review 2: Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Yields of Low- and Intermediate-Mass Single Stars
Karakas, A. I., & Lattanzio, J. C. (2014) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia · doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.21 · Cited by 735
“2 in Boothroyd & Sackmann 1992).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Boothroyd, A. I., & Sackmann, I.-J.
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 1992-07
- Volume
- 393
- Pages
- L21
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2087175167
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 1.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Keywords
- asymptotic giant branch, hot bottom burning, stellar evolution, molecular opacities, mixing length theory, mass loss, OH/IR stars, stellar luminosity, stellar mass
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review