text:
# Solar-like Oscillations (Invited Review to appear in PASA)

## 1 Introduction

Measuring stellar oscillations is a beautiful physics experiment. A star is a gaseous sphere and will oscillate in many different modes when suitably excited. The frequencies of these oscillations depend on the density, temperature, gas motion and other properties of the stellar interior. The amplitudes of the oscillations are determined by the excitation and damping processes, which may involve turbulence from convection, opacity variations and magnetic fields. Studying the frequencies and amplitudes of oscillations in different types of stars promises to lead to significant advances in our understanding of stellar structure and evolution.

The best targets are stars which oscillate in several modes simultaneously. The frequency of each mode depends on the mode structure (e.g., the number of nodes) and on spatial variations of the sound speed and buoyancy frequency within the star. The frequency spectrum therefore places strong constraints on the internal structure. This analysis, called asteroseismology, yields information about composition, age, mixing and internal rotation that cannot be obtained in any other way and is completely analogous to the seismological study of the interior of the Earth. For reviews, see Brown & Gilliland (1994) and Gautschy & Saio (1995, 1996), and the proceedings of recent conferences (Aerts et al., 2002; Thompson et al., 2003).

The best-studied example of an oscillating star is the Sun. It oscillates in many modes simultaneously, with periods in the range 3–15 minutes. The frequencies of the modes contain information about the sound speed and rotation deep within the Sun, with each mode sensing these quantities in subtly different ways (e.g., Gough & Toomre, 1991; Christensen-Dalsgaard, 2002; ESA, 2002). Very accurate measurements of the frequencies have allowed inversion to determine the internal structure and rotation of the Sun. Helioseismology has provided tests of theoretical models of solar evolution and led to fascinating new insights into the complex dynamics of solar internal rotation. Observations that do not resolve the solar disk restrict us to observing modes of the lowest degree, but these still contain a great deal of information. The frequency spectrum of the Sun observed in integrated light is shown in Fig. 1.

The solar oscillations are excited by convection near the surface, and it is therefore to be expected that all stars having such a convection zone will show similar oscillations. We use the term solar-like oscillations to refer to oscillations excited stochastically by convection. This presumably includes all stars cool enough to have an outer convection zone, from roughly the cool edge of the classical instability strip out to the red giants. However, at least in stars of roughly solar type, the expected amplitudes are tiny, which places extreme demands on instrumental stability. In recent years, however, success has finally come. In this review we will describe the main results that have been achieved so far and make some comments about future prospects.

## 2 Properties of oscillations

Solar-like oscillations are standing sound waves, known as p modes (since pressure is the restoring force). Each mode is characterised by three integers: the radial order $`n`$, the angular degree $`l`$ and the azimuthal degree $`m`$. Mode frequencies for low-degree p-mode oscillations are approximated reasonably well by the asymptotic relation:

$$\nu _{n,l}=\mathrm{\Delta }\nu (n+\frac{1}{2}l+ϵ)l(l+1)D_0.$$
(1)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ (the so-called large separation) reflects the average stellar density, $`D_0`$ is sensitive to the sound speed near the core and $`ϵ`$ is sensitive to the surface layers. It is conventional to define $`\delta \nu _{02}`$, the so-called small separation, as the frequency spacing between adjacent modes with $`l=0`$ and $`l=2`$. These separations are shown in Fig. 2, together with the similar quantity $`\delta \nu _{13}`$. We can further define $`\delta \nu _{01}`$ to be the amount by which $`l=1`$ modes are offset from the midpoint between the $`l=0`$ modes on either side (not shown in Fig. 2). If the asymptotic relation holds exactly, then it follows that $`D_0=\frac{1}{6}\delta \nu _{02}=\frac{1}{2}\delta \nu _{01}=\frac{1}{10}\delta \nu _{13}`$.

In practice, the asymptotic relation does not hold exactly, even for the Sun. For example, the large separation depends on $`l`$ (hence the separate definitions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _1`$ in Fig. 2). The large and small separations also depend on frequency. Therefore, a first asteroseismic analysis might involve comparing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ and $`\delta \nu _{02}`$ with models (e.g., Brown et al., 1994; Gough, 2003), but a full analysis will include a detailed comparison of individual frequencies.

Significant departures from the asymptotic relation are expected for evolved stars. As discussed by Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. (1995), the steep maximum in the local buoyancy frequency at the edge of the inert helium core gives rise to modes behaving like trapped internal gravity waves (so-called g modes; e.g., Dziembowski & Pamyatnykh 1991; Audard et al. 1995). The core contracts as the star evolves, leading to an increase in the buoyancy frequency and hence in the frequencies of the g modes. Meanwhile, the p-mode frequencies decrease with time as the mean density decreases. When the frequency of a g mode approaches that of a p mode, the two modes undergo an avoided crossing (also called mode bumping) where they exchange physical nature. This is illustrated in Figure 3, which shows frequency as a function of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for an evolving $`1.6M_{}`$ star. Radial modes ($`l=0`$), shown by dashed lines, closely follow equation (1); the decrease in frequency with age reflects the increasing stellar radius. The same trend is seen for modes with $`l=1`$ (solid lines), but here we also see the effect of the additional set of g modes, whose frequencies increase with age. At the avoided crossings the modes take on mixed characters between pure p and pure g modes. The frequencies of these mixed modes are extremely sensitive to the evolutionary state and are therefore very interesting, provided they are excited to observable amplitudes. Observational evidence for mixed modes, in the form of frequencies departing from the asymptotic relation, has been seen in subgiants such as $`\eta `$ Boo and $`\beta `$ Hyi.

We also note that stellar rotation causes modes with $`l1`$ to split into multiplets with different values of $`m`$, with a separation that directly measures the rotation rate averaged over the region of the star that is sampled by the mode. For the Sun, these types of measurements have given important information about the internal rotation (e.g., Chaplin et al., 2001) and it is hoped that similar results will soon be achieved on other stars (see Gizon & Solanki, 2003). The measurements are particularly difficult because they require long time series, in order to resolve the rotational splittings.

Oscillations in the Sun are long-lived compared to their periods, which allows their frequencies to be measured very precisely. However, the lifetime is finite and this results in the peaks in the power spectrum having a Lorentzian profile with a linewidth that indicates the mode lifetime (Toutain & Fröhlich, 1992). Mode lifetimes have not yet been directly measured for other solar-type stars, and a concern remains that some stars may have mode lifetimes so short that rotational splittings – and perhaps even the small and large separations – will not be observable. In the case of red giants, on the other hand, it appears that mode lifetimes have been measured (see Sec. 4.11).

## 3 Observational techniques

Stellar oscillations have been observed by their effect on the stellar atmosphere in three ways (see e.g., Kjeldsen, 2003): (i) velocity shifts of spectral lines, (ii) variations in total intensity (photometry) and (iii) variations in equivalent widths of temperature-sensitive lines. In all cases, coverage of the target needs to be as continuous as possible to reduce confusion from aliases in the spectral window.111The times at which observations are made define the window function, and the transform of this in the frequency domain is the spectral window.

### 3.1 Velocity measurements

Most of the new results are based on velocity measurements obtained using high-dispersion spectrographs with stable reference sources. The dramatic improvement in Doppler precision over recent years is a direct result of programs to detect planets around other stars. Asteroseismology has benefited tremendously from these advances. Indeed, in one sense it is easier to measure oscillations because the timescales of interest are much shorter than for exoplanets. On the other hand, the amplitudes of oscillations in solar-type stars are extremely small, which is the reason that positive detections have been so difficult.

### 3.2 Intensity measurements

Intensity measurements have three tremendous advantages: they can be made with extremely simple instrumentation; they use photons across a wide range of wavelengths; and they can be made simultaneously on many stars (although to some extent, multi-object spectroscopy also offers this possibility). Unfortunately, scintillation from the Earth’s atmosphere severely limits the precision of ground-based photometry. The best results to date were obtained by Gilliland et al. (1993) in a multi-site campaign using differential photometry of the open cluster M67, but these fell short of providing definite detections. Atmospheric scintillation on the Antarctic plateau may be small enough to make high-precision photometry feasible (Marks, 2002), and there are plans to establish an observatory at Dome C (Schmider et al., 2002). The chance for many weeks – or even months – of continuous observations represent an additional bonus.

Space is the ideal place to make intensity measurements, given the absence of atmospheric scintillation and the possibility for long periods of uninterrupted observations. The Fine Guidance Sensors on the Hubble Space Telescope were exploited by Zwintz et al. (1999) to perform high-precision photometry, as was the 52-mm star camera on the failed WIRE satellite (Buzasi, 2002). The space missions designed specifically for asteroseismology are MOST (Matthews et al., 2000, launch date June 2003), COROT (Baglin et al., 1998) and Eddington (Roxburgh & Favata, 2003). It is unfortunate that MONS (Kjeldsen et al., 2000) appears unlikely to proceed, due to lack of funding.

### 3.3 Equivalent-widths

This method for detecting oscillations was suggested by Kjeldsen et al. (1995, see also ). It involves monitoring changes in spectral lines whose equivalent widths (EWs) are temperature-sensitive, most notably the hydrogen Balmer lines. Observations of $`\eta `$ Boo showed good evidence for oscillations (see Sec. 4.2), while those of $`\alpha `$ Cen A only produced a tentative detection (Kjeldsen et al., 1999).

Meanwhile, the usefulness of the Balmer lines for measuring oscillations was questioned by Heasley et al. (1996). They cited the study by Ronan et al. (1991) of the wavelength variation of oscillations in the Sun, which showed that the Balmer lines remain stable while the surrounding continuum fluctuates. Indeed, this is precisely the effect that makes Balmer-line EWs so useful (see also Tycner & Lester, 2002).

### 3.4 Comparison of the methods

Velocity and EW measurements have an important advantage: they are both more sensitive to modes with $`l2`$ than are intensity measurements. In both cases, the reason is that the observations have some spatial resolution of the stellar disk, and so the tendency for high-degree modes to cancel is reduced. For velocity measurements, we measure velocities projected onto the line of sight, which gives more sensitivity to the centre of the disk relative to the limb (Christensen-Dalsgaard & Gough, 1982). For EW measurements, at least for the Balmer lines, the centre-to-limb variation of line strengths gives a similar effect (Bedding et al., 1996). As pointed out by these last authors, the different sensitivities to $`l`$ of the various methods provides a useful tool for mode identification, and this has been applied to $`\delta `$ Scuti stars (Viskum et al., 1998; Dall et al., 2002; Dall & Frandsen, 2002).

Intensity and EW measurements both detect temperature changes, and so are much more sensitive to the stellar background that arises from granulation. This is seen in intensity observations of the Sun (Fig. 1) as background power rising towards low frequencies, and has been detected in EW observations of $`\alpha `$ Cen A (Kjeldsen et al., 1999). Although this power contains information about stellar convection that might usefully be compared with models (e.g., Trampedach et al., 1998), for asteroseismology it represents an unwanted and fundamental noise source. Velocity observations are far less sensitive to the stellar background, which is a very important advantage.

Finally, we note one disadvantage of velocity measurements over the other methods: the precision is degraded by stellar rotation, due to line broadening. Of the stars discussed here, only $`\eta `$ Boo is rotating rapidly enough for this effect to be significant.

At this stage, it seems clear that measuring velocities is the method of choice for ground-based observations. However, the observations require high-resolution spectroscopy with extremely high precision, which is only achievable on a handful of instruments. EW measurements may have a place in observing rapid rotators, for which velocity measurements become less precise. Intensity measurements are planned for space missions, and also for observations from Antarctica. Of course, photometry will also continue to be the main method of observing high-amplitude oscillators such as semiregulars (Sec. 4.11).

## 4 Results for individual stars

Early attempts to measure solar-like oscillations, including some claims for detections, have been reviewed by Brown & Gilliland (1994) and Kjeldsen & Bedding (1995). More recent reviews appear in conference proceedings and these can be used to follow the development of the field (Frandsen, 1997; Kjeldsen & Bedding, 1997; Brown, 1998; Bedding & Kjeldsen, 1998; Brown, 2000; Kjeldsen & Bedding, 2000; Bouchy & Carrier, 2003). Here we discuss results on some individual stars, with emphasis on the most recent results. The positions in the H-R diagram of most of these stars are shown in Fig. 4. Most of the observations discussed here were made in velocity. The exceptions are the EW observations of $`\eta `$ Boo and the photometric observations of $`\alpha `$ Cen A and of the red giants ($`\alpha `$ Boo, $`\alpha `$ UMa and the semiregulars).

This review deals mostly with observational aspects, although papers describing theoretical models of individual stars are noted in the relevant sections. There are several reviews in conference proceedings of the theoretical aspects of asteroseismology of solar-like stars (e.g., Christensen-Dalsgaard, 1998; Thompson, 2000; Roxburgh, 2002). In addition, we refer the reader to the comprehensive modelling of oscillation frequencies for intermediate-mass stars by Guenther (2002).

### 4.1 Procyon ($`\alpha `$ CMi)

Procyon is an F5 subgiant and the second brightest star of near-solar type (the brightest is $`\alpha `$ Cen). Evidence for oscillations in Procyon was presented by Brown et al. (1991), in the form of a broad envelope of excess power in the Fourier spectrum. We have previously argued (Kjeldsen & Bedding, 1995) that this power excess could be due to noise, either from instrumental drift or from stellar background. Since then, additional measurements with the FOE and AFOE spectrographs have continued to show the power excess (Brown, 2000), although without revealing the characteristic regular series of peaks. Meanwhile, measurements with the ELODIE spectrograph by Martic et al. (1999, see also , ), gave clear confirmation of the power excess and also provided evidence for a regular spacing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =55`$$`\mu `$Hz. The power excess has also been seen using the EMILIE and CORALIE spectrographs (Bouchy et al., 2002; Carrier et al., 2002) and it now seems clear that it has a stellar origin, although the signature of p-mode oscillations has not been confirmed. It remains to be seen whether the difficulty in obtaining a power spectrum of Procyon that shows a clear p-mode structure is due to insufficient high-quality data (i.e., confusion from aliases in the spectral window) or to intrinsic properties of the star (i.e., short mode lifetimes). Finally, we note that several recent papers present theoretical models for Procyon which are consistent with the above-mentioned value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ (Chaboyer et al., 1999; Di Mauro & Christensen-Dalsgaard, 2001; Provost et al., 2002).

### 4.2 $`\eta `$ Boo

Kjeldsen et al. (1995) reported evidence for oscillations in the G0 sub-giant $`\eta `$ Boo, based on measurements of Balmer-line EWs. The observed frequencies, taken with available estimates of the stellar parameters, were in good agreement with theoretical models (Christensen-Dalsgaard et al., 1995; Guenther & Demarque, 1996). Particularly interesting was the occurrence in theoretical models – and apparently in the observations – of avoided crossings, in which mode frequencies were shifted from their usual regular spacing by effects of gravity modes in the stellar core (see Sec. 2). Meanwhile, a search for velocity oscillations in $`\eta `$ Boo with the AFOE spectrograph by Brown et al. (1997) failed to detect a signal, setting limits at a level below the value expected on the basis of the EW results.

Kjeldsen et al. (2003) presented further observations of $`\eta `$ Boo, obtained in 1998 in both EW and velocity. They recorded spectra with the Nordic Optical Telescope, which they used to measure equivalent widths of strong temperature-sensitive lines. They also measured velocities using an iodine reference cell at Lick Observatory. Their analysis also included velocity measurements published by Brown et al. (1997) and the original equivalent-width measurements by Kjeldsen et al. (1995). All four data sets showed power excesses consistent with oscillations, although with a range of amplitudes that presumably reflects the stochastic nature of the excitation. The highest peaks showed regularity with a large separation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =40.4`$$`\mu `$Hz and they identified 21 oscillation frequencies from the combined data (see Fig. 5). The observations indicate that peak oscillation amplitudes in $`\eta `$ Boo are typically 3–5 times solar. This conclusion is consistent with the upper limits reported by Brown et al. (1997).

Finally, we note that Carrier et al. (2003a, and paper in preparation) reported velocity measurements using the CORALIE and ELODIE spectrographs that showed a clear excess of power and a frequency spacing of $`39.6`$$`\mu `$Hz. We can conclude that oscillations in $`\eta `$ Boo have been clearly detected and that individual mode frequencies have been identified. The frequencies have been compared with theory by Di Mauro et al. (2003a), who were able to reproduce them using models both with and without convective-core overshooting. Future observations of $`\eta `$ Boo, particularly with the MOST spacecraft, should measure more oscillation modes with greater frequency precision and permit discrimination between these alternatives.

### 4.3 $`\beta `$ Hyi

A clear power excess in this southern G2 subgiant was detected using velocity measurements with UCLES at the Anglo-Australian Telescope by Bedding et al. (2001) and confirmed with CORALIE by Carrier et al. (2001). Although the amplitudes of the highest peaks were in agreement with theoretical expectations, Gough (2001) has since pointed out that the total observed power was a factor of about 1.9 below expectations. In another development, Bedding et al. (2002) found evidence in the UCLES data for a short-lived, high-amplitude oscillation event. Such events have not been seen in the Sun and, if confirmed as a feature of subgiants, these ‘starquakes’ would make it harder to measure accurate mode frequencies and perform asteroseismology.

The UCLES and CORALIE datasets are now being combined to produce a set of oscillation frequencies (Kjeldsen et al., in preparation). Meanwhile, theoretical calculations of frequencies for $`\beta `$ Hyi have been carried out by Fernandes & Monteiro (2003) and by Di Mauro et al. (2003b), both of which indicate the occurrence of avoided crossings for modes with $`l=1`$.

Finally, we note that a long-term trend in radial velocity, possibly indicating a low-mass companion, has been reported by Endl et al. (2002) but not yet confirmed by other observers (e.g., Jones et al., 2002).

### 4.4 $`\zeta `$ Her A

This G0 subgiant was observed in velocity with the ELODIE and CORALIE spectrographs (Morel et al., 2001; Bertaux et al., 2003). Excess power was seen with a possible large separation, but more observations are needed to establish the mode frequencies.

### 4.5 $`\delta `$ Eri

This K0 subgiant was observed in velocity with the CORALIE spectrograph by (Carrier et al., 2003b). Again, excess power was seen with a possible large separation, but more observations are needed to establish the mode frequencies.

### 4.6 $`\alpha `$ Cen A

As a nearby star with the same spectral type as the Sun, $`\alpha `$ Cen A is an obvious target for asteroseismology. The clear detection of p-mode oscillations by Bouchy & Carrier (2001, 2002) using velocity measurements with the CORALIE spectrograph was an important breakthrough (see Fig. 6). These results confirmed the earlier but less secure detection by Schou & Buzasi (2000), who used photometry from the WIRE satellite. The CORALIE data have produced frequencies for 28 modes with $`l=0`$$`2`$ and $`n=15`$$`25`$ (Bouchy & Carrier, 2002) which have been compared with theoretical models by Thévenin et al. (2002) and Thoul et al. (2003). Our own group is analysing additional data on this star taken with the UCLES and UVES spectrographs, and we expect to increase the number of detected frequencies. It is safe to say that seismology of $`\alpha `$ Cen A will be an important area of research for many years.

### 4.7 $`\nu `$ Ind

This metal-poor G subgiant ($`\text{[Fe/H]}=1.4`$) was suggested as a target for asteroseismology by Nissen (1998). Oscillations were detected in velocity using the UCLES and CORALIE spectrographs, and the results are being analysed (Bedding et al., in prep.; Carrier et al., in prep.).

### 4.8 $`\xi `$ Hya

This G7 III giant was observed in velocity with the CORALIE spectrograph (Frandsen et al., 2002; Stello, 2002). The observations showed multi-periodic oscillations consistent with radial ($`l=0`$) oscillations (see also Teixeira et al., 2003). Using a stochastic excitation model, Houdek & Gough (2002) found fair agreement between estimated velocity amplitudes and the observations. More work is still to be done, but it seems clear that p-mode oscillations have been detected in this star.

### 4.9 Arcturus ($`\alpha `$ Boo)

This bright K1 III giant is known to be variable in radial velocity on timescales of a few days (Belmonte et al., 1990; Hatzes & Cochran, 1994; Merline, 1995), but without good evidence for a regular p-mode structure in the power spectrum. Observations with the star camera on the WIRE satellite show photometric variability that is consistent with solar-like oscillations (Retter et al., 2003), and the power spectrum appears to have a regular series of peaks with a spacing of 0.83 $`\mu `$Hz (Fig. 7). However, as pointed out by Retter et al., simulations with pure noise show that the frequencies extracted from a hump of excess power will tend to be regularly spaced, with a separation slightly greater than the formal frequency resolution of the data set (which was 0.64 $`\mu `$Hz in this case). Thus, one must be careful in interpreting such a signature, since the envelope of power in Arcturus could also arise from a single mode with a short lifetime. A longer time series is needed to decide this issue.

### 4.10 $`\alpha `$ UMa

This K0 III giant was observed in photometry with the star camera on the WIRE spacecraft by Buzasi et al. (2000), who interpreted the variability as being due to p-mode oscillations. They reported the apparent detection of ten oscillation modes with a mean separation of 2.94 $`\mu `$Hz. However, as pointed out in the previous section, care must be taken in interpreting such a signature.

Little work has been done on theoretical models for red giants. In response to the WIRE results, models for $`\alpha `$ UMa were calculated by two groups, but with inconsistent results. Guenther et al. (2000) were able to match most of the observed frequencies with radial modes, while Dziembowski et al. (2001) were unable to explain the observed oscillation properties.

### 4.11 Semiregular variables

Oscillating red giants with high luminosity – the long period variables – are conventionally divided into Miras and semiregulars. Mira variables have large amplitudes and are very regular, reflecting the nature of the driving process, which is self-excitation via opacity variations. Semiregulars, on the other hand, have lower amplitudes, less regularity and often show two or three periods. In these stars, it seems plausible that there is a substantial contribution from convection to the excitation and damping. Indeed, Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. (2001) have suggested that the amplitude variability seen in semiregulars is consistent with the pulsations being solar-like, i.e., stochastically excited by convection. The subject of Mira-like versus solar-like excitation has also been discussed in the context of K giants by Dziembowski et al. (2001).

Power spectra of the light curves of semiregular variables, based on visual magnitude estimates spanning many decades, show clear evidence for stochastic excitation with mode lifetimes ranging from years to decades (Bedding, 2003). An example is shown in Fig. 8. We expect more results on semiregulars to be found from mining of databases of visual and CCD photometry.

## 5 Conclusions

Now that solar-like oscillations have been detected in several stars, we are in a position to make some definitive statements. The first and most obvious is that solar-like stars really do oscillate, with properties approximately as expected.

Concerning the oscillation amplitudes, recent theoretical calculations have been made by Houdek et al. (1999); Houdek (2002); Houdek & Gough (2002) and Samadi et al. (2003a, b). The agreement with observations is fairly good, although it still appears that F-type stars (Procyon and stars in M67) oscillate with lower amplitudes than predicted (Kjeldsen & Bedding, 1995; Samadi & Houdek, 2000). Also, oscillations have yet to be measured in main-sequence stars cooler than the Sun, such as $`\alpha `$ Cen B.

The observed frequency of maximum power, on the other hand, is in good agreement with theory. The power spectrum of oscillations in the Sun is modulated by a broad envelope whose maximum is at a frequency of $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}3`$ mHz. The shape of the envelope and the value of $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ are determined by the excitation and damping. Brown et al. (1991) suggested that $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ in other stars should scale with the acoustic cutoff frequency, $`\nu _{\mathrm{ac}}`$. That is, we expect $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}gT_{\mathrm{eff}}^{0.5}`$ (see also Kjeldsen & Bedding, 1995). As shown in Fig. 9, the observed oscillations agree well with this scaling relation. Figure 10 shows the observed oscillation spectra of the Sun and four other stars.

Another result from observations is that avoided crossings in evolved stars seem to occur and offer excellent prospects for detailed analysis. However, they complicate the interpretation of the power spectra and demand observations with few or no gaps, to avoid confusion by aliases in the spectral window.

Further progress from ground-based observations will come from coordinated multi-site campaigns on carefully chosen targets (see Pijpers, 2003). We also look forward with great excitement to the dedicated space missions. Many years of effort are now paying off, and we foresee a great future for the study of solar-like oscillations.

This work was supported financially by the Australian Research Council, the Danish Natural Science Research Council and the Danish National Research Foundation through its establishment of the Theoretical Astrophysics Center. We thank Dennis Stello for helpful comments on the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Isotope shift calculations for atoms with one valence electron

## I  Introduction

Recent studies of quasar absorption spectra reveal a possible change in $`\alpha `$ since the early universe murphy1 . One of the possible major sources of systematic effects in these studies is that the isotopic abundance ratios in gas clouds in the early universe could be different to those on Earth. This may provide an alternative explanation for the observed variation in spectra murphy2 . In order to test this possibility it is necessary to have accurate values for the isotope shift (IS) for the relevant atomic transitions. Experimental data is available for only a very few of them. Therefore, accurate calculations are needed to make the most comprehensive analysis possible.

Another motivation for accurate isotope shift calculations comes from the possibility to use isotope shift to study atomic nuclei. Comparing calculated and measured IS allows one to find the change in nuclear charge distribution from one isotope to another. Studying IS for these purposes has long history, for a good review and tables see e.g. heilig  or for more recent values in many atoms and ions aufmuth . However any progress in the accuracy of calculations is of significant importance.

Isotope shift is also important in searching for small, charged black holes. The mass deficit of the observable universe (dark matter) may be explained by supposing the existence of non-vanishing “elementary” black holes of the Planck mass. Such black holes may have an electric charge, giving rise to the possibility of an atom made from electrons orbiting a positively charged black hole instead of a nucleus. Such black hole atoms would have spectra shifted with respect to usual nuclear atoms due to the effectively infinite mass and zero volume of the nucleus berengut . This shift is simply an extreme example of the regular isotope shift, and can be calculated using the method described in this paper. A search for these spectra would verify the existence of elementary black holes, or any other stable, very heavy particles, e.g. “strange matter”.

In this paper, we develop a method for calculating the isotopic shift of atoms and ions that can be treated as a single electron above a closed shell core. These include the alkali metals, as well as other atoms and ions such as ZnII that are fairly well approximated by a single electron above a closed subshell core.

We test our technique by calculating IS for light alkaline atoms as well as for a relatively heavy ion, BaII. Since different contributions dominate in light and heavy atoms and good agreement with experiment has been obtained in both cases, one can confidently say that the technique has been reliably tested. We then apply the technique to calculate isotope shift for astronomically relevant transitions in MgII, ZnII, GeII, SiII and SiIV.

## II  Method

The isotope shifts of atomic transition frequencies come from two sources: the finite size of the nuclear charge distribution (the “volume” or “field” shift), and the finite mass of the nucleus (see, e.g. sobelman ). The energy shift due to recoil of the nucleus is $`(1/2M)\text{p}_N^2=(1/2M)(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐩_i)^2`$. Furthermore this “mass shift” is traditionally divided into the normal mass shift and the specific mass shift (SMS). The normal mass shift is given by the operator $`(1/2M)\mathrm{\Sigma }\text{p}_i^2`$, which is easily calculated from the transition frequency. The SMS operator is $`(1/M)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i<j}𝐩_i𝐩_j`$ which is difficult to evaluate accurately.

The shift in energy of any transition in an isotope with mass number $`A^{}`$ with respect to an isotope with mass number $`A`$ can be expressed as

$$\delta \nu ^{A^{},A}=\left(k_{NMS}+k_{SMS}\right)\left(\frac{1}{A^{}}\frac{1}{A}\right)+F\delta r^2^{A^{},A},$$
(1)
where the normal mass shift constant is

$$k_{NMS}=\frac{\nu }{1822.888}$$
(2)
and $`r^2`$ is the mean square nuclear radius. In this paper we develop a method for calculating the specific mass shift and field shift constants, $`k_{SMS}`$ and $`F`$ respectively. It is worth noting that in this paper we use the convention $`\delta \nu ^{A^{},A}=\nu ^A^{}\nu ^A`$.

To determine spectral shifts in black hole atoms relative to normal atoms, one must take $`A^{}\mathrm{}`$, and because the black hole has effectively zero volume $`\delta r^2=r^2=\frac{3}{5}R_{\text{nuc}}^2`$.

### II.1  Specific mass shift

It is well known that calculations using many-body perturbation theory (MBPT) in the residual Coulomb interaction give very poor convergence for atoms with many electrons. Therefore all order techniques were developed in earlier works to calculate energy levels, transition amplitudes, etc. (see, e.g. dzuba87 ; dzuba89a ; dzuba89b ; johnson91 ). It is natural to expect that an all order technique is needed for the isotope shift as well. In the recent work by Safronova and Johnson (Ref. johnson ) the SMS was calculated to third order of MBPT. Their results verify that there is very poor convergence for this operator. A first or second order calculation cannot even guarantee that the sign of the final result will be correct. A third order calculation gives the correct sign, however it is unknown how much fourth and higher order diagrams contribute.

Our method is to include the specific mass shift directly into an energy calculation from the very beginning. The SMS is a two-body operator $`𝐩_1𝐩_2`$ and can be added to the Coulomb potential, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=\frac{1}{|𝐫_1𝐫_2|}+\lambda 𝐩_1𝐩_2`$ (see Appendix A). The operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ replaces the Coulomb operator everywhere that it appears in an “all order” energy calculation that includes certain chains of diagrams to all orders. We vary the isotope shift scaling factor $`\lambda `$ and calculate the level energies $`E`$. The gradient of an $`E`$ vs. $`\lambda `$ graph then gives us the SMS matrix element, usually denoted $`k_{SMS}`$.

As a zero approximation we use relativistic Hartree-Fock (Hartree-Fock-Dirac) method. At the Hartree-Fock stage we include the isotope shift with the exchange potential and iterate to obtain self-consistent “dressed” wavefunctions. The SMS matrix element at this stage is roughly equivalent to the first-order and second-order contributions of the one-particle operator, plus higher-order corrections from the random-phase approximation in Ref. johnson  ($`P^{(1)}+S^{(2)}`$ in their notation). It is interesting to note that $`k_{SMS}`$ at this stage does not give meaningful results, and can even be of the wrong sign (it is labelled as “HF” in Table 1). We need to include correlation corrections in order to obtain any reasonable accuracy.

We include correlation effects to second order of MBPT; this approach gives good accuracy for energies. The perturbation is the difference between the exact and Hartree-Fock Hamiltonians $`V=HH_{\text{HF}}`$. The many-body corrections start in second order; all first order diagrams have been included in the self-consistent Hartree-Fock procedure. There are just four second order diagrams, illustrated for example in Ref. dzuba87 . However now we replace the Coulomb operator in these diagrams with our two body operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, and use dressed Hartree-Fock wavefunctions as described above. This gives our final value of $`k_{SMS}`$ as listed in Table 1.

An estimate of the size of neglected higher order diagrams can be obtained by calculating a new value of $`k_{SMS}`$ that includes some higher order chains of diagrams. We create an operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for the second order correlation effects in each partial wave, defined by

$$\delta E_n^{(2)}=n|\mathrm{\Sigma }|n.$$
(3)
This “sigma” operator is then added to the exchange potential in the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian for the valence electron, $`\stackrel{~}{H}=H_{\text{HF}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus we calculate the single electron Brueckner orbital. We also include a scaling factor, $`f`$, with this sigma operator ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }f\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) in order to fit the experimental energy. The rescaling of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ simulates some higher order correlation corrections that were omitted in our calculation. Including $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in our Hartree-Fock calculation allows us to obtain another value for $`k_{SMS}`$, and the difference between this new value and the old second-order value gives us an estimate of the error.

In Table 1 we compare our results to those obtained by Safronova and Johnson (Ref. johnson ) who calculated the isotope shift to third order in standard MBPT. Our values are significantly different, in particular the MgII 3s level shift is more than twice that given in Ref. johnson  and also veseth , which are broadly in agreement with each other. However we find that this difference is not so large in the $`3\text{p}3\text{s}`$ transition due to cancellations of higher order terms between the two levels. We compare our final results and those of Ref. johnson  with experiment in Table 2. Agreement is at the level of 1%, which is much smaller than our error estimates.

Our method includes many-body diagrams that are different to Ref. johnson , including some chains of diagrams in all orders. It is also arguably simpler to implement since it doesn’t require term-by-term calculation of a large number of matrix elements.

### II.2  Field shift

Our method for calculating the field shift (also called the volume shift) is similar to that used for the SMS calculation. We add a perturbation due to the field shift to the nuclear potential, and then calculate the energy directly. The field shift potential is

$$\delta U(r)=\lambda \left(U(R+\delta R,r)U(R,r)\right)$$
(4)
where $`R`$ is the nuclear radius and $`U(R,r)`$ is the nuclear potential. To obtain the change in energy of a state due to the field shift, we add this potential to the nuclear potential in our Hartree-Fock calculations. By introducing a scaling factor $`\lambda `$ we can check linearity and increase the size of the effect. To calculate the field shift constant, we take the gradient of a level energy $`E`$ vs. $`\lambda `$ graph and extract $`F`$ as

$$F=\frac{\delta E_V}{\delta r^2}=\frac{5}{3}\frac{1}{2R\delta R}\frac{dE}{d\lambda }.$$
(5)
Note that the field shift constant, $`F`$, is defined here as having opposite sign to the definition in some previous papers, e.g. Ref. johnson  and MP92 . This equation assumes that the nuclear charge distribution can be approximated as a uniformly charged sphere of radius $`R`$.

Higher order correlation effects are smaller in the field shift than in the specific mass shift, and are localised at the nucleus. We can include them easily by creating Brueckner orbitals (solutions of the modified Hamiltonian, $`H=H_{\text{HF}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) using a second order sigma operator, defined in Equation 3. The field shift is proportional in first order to the square of the wavefunction at the nucleus. Hence we can include higher order effects quite simply by multiplying the matrix element by the square of the ratio of the Brueckner wavefunction to the Hartree-Fock wavefunction at the nucleus,

$$\frac{F_{\text{HF}+\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{F_{\text{HF}}}=\left|\frac{\psi _{\text{HF}+\mathrm{\Sigma }}(0)}{\psi _{\text{HF}}(0)}\right|^2.$$
(6)
We tested this in BaII, as well as in lighter atoms, because in barium the field shift dominates over the mass shift, and there is a lot of experimental data to compare with. Our results for field shift constants in BaII were found to be consistent within a few percent of the previous theoretical work by Mårtensson-Pendrill (Table 3). In the same paper, Ref. MP92 , they say that they have underestimated the $`6\text{p}_{1/2}`$ field shift constant by around 7%, based on the difference between experimental and theoretical calculations of the hyperfine $`A`$ constant. Also, their $`6\text{s}`$ constant is said to be overestimated, leading to a corrected value of $`F_{6\text{p}_{3/2}6\text{s}}=4.20(13)`$ GHz/fm2. These corrected values are in better agreement with the ab initio values obtained in this work ($`F_{6\text{p}_{3/2}6\text{s}}=4.076`$ GHz/fm2).

Using King plots king  we can extract the ratios of field shift constants for different transitions, provided we have experimental data for a number of different isotopes. In Table 5 we compare our calculated values of these ratios with those obtained by combining the data in several different experiments and transitions. Our values were found to be consistent with this experiment to within 5%. We have used a simple weighted least squares fit to obtain an experimental value for the ratio $`F_{455}/F_{614}`$. A two point formula was used for ratios involving the 1762 nm transition as experimental data exists only for the $`\delta \nu ^{134,138}`$ and $`\delta \nu ^{136,138}`$ isotope shifts zhao . Other ratios were extracted by the groups that performed the experiments, with much higher accuracy.

### II.3  Alkaline ions

We compare our results with experimental data for alkaline ions in Table 6. In alkaline ions it is more valuable to compare only the specific mass shift with those extracted from experiment, than to compare the entire isotope shift. This is because the mass shift dominates strongly in these ions, and also because the SMS is generally considered more difficult to calculate. We have removed the field shift and the normal mass shift from the experimental values of the isotopic shift in order to obtain an experimental value for the specific mass shift. The field shift values used in Table 6 were calculated using the above method. While our calculation of $`F`$ has been shown to be good, the field shift also depends on having knowledge of $`\delta r^2`$ for the relevant isotopes.

For Na we use the value quoted in Ref. johnson  of $`\delta r^2^{23,22}=0.205(3)\text{fm}^2`$. This value is only from an empirical fit, and shouldn’t be trusted too far. The field shift is very small in this atom, so the errors don’t matter too much. For MgII we have the used value $`\delta r^2^{26,24}=0.55\text{fm}^2`$ from another empirical fit, the equation $`R_{\text{nuc}}=1.1A^{1/3}\text{fm}`$. This is very poor, but in this case the field shift is small even in relation to the error in the experimental isotope shift. In Table 6 we have not included an error contribution for the field shift in either of these atoms, since we really don’t know how accurate these approximations are.

The values of $`\delta r^2`$ are known for K and CaII from muonic x-ray experiments, allowing us to calculate the field shift much more accurately. This is fortunate because the SMS is relatively small for the $`\text{p}\text{s}`$ transitions in these atoms, and hence the field shift plays a much larger role. We use the values $`\delta r^2^{41,39}=0.117(40)\text{fm}^2`$ for K from Ref. wohlfahrt , and $`\delta r^2^{43,40}=0.1254(32)\text{fm}^2`$ for CaII from Ref. palmer . In CaII the change in mean square nuclear radius is given to high precision, so we have included an additional error of 5% in the field shift that comes from the constant $`F`$. This is a pessimistic estimate of error based on the accuracy we achieved calculating $`F`$ for transitions in BaII.

Table 6 shows that our method can reliably calculate the isotope shift in alkaline atoms, including those transitions with a large specific mass shift.

## III  Results

We have shown that our method works in atoms for which we have available experimental data (Section II). In Table 7 we tabulate values for the mass and field shift constants for some astronomically useful transitions. We have not given errors for $`F`$, however we can say that they are less than 5% based on comparison of calculation with experiment in BaII.

In Table 8 we present the results of isotope shift calculations between common isotopes of astronomically important ions. We have used the IS constants presented in Table 7 with Equation 1 in order to calculate the isotope shift between particular isotopes. Just before submission of this paper, results of measurements for ZnII were brought to our attention matsubara . These results matched our prediction extremely well.

In GeII and SiII, the specific mass shift cancels the normal mass shift entirely, making the field shift, and hence $`\delta r^2`$, important. We have just used the empirical formula $`R_{\text{nuc}}=1.1A^{1/3}\text{fm}^2`$ to obtain values of $`\delta r^2`$ in these ions. This is extremely rough, and although it seems to work in ZnII to within a 20% accuracy based on the experimental data given, we really don’t know if this holds for Si and Ge at all. In the SiIV transitions presented, it is less important to have good values for the field shift because there is no cancellation between the NMS and SMS.

## IV  Conclusion

We have presented a method for the calculation of the isotope shift in atoms and ions that can be approximated as having one valence electron above a closed shell. Our results are shown to be in good agreement with isotope shift experiments in both light and heavy atoms, which are good tests for the mass shift and field shift respectively.

We have used the method to predict values of the isotope shift in astronomically relevant transitions in SiII and SiIV, MgII, ZnII and GeII. Recent experiments measured the isotope shift of a $`\text{p}\text{s}`$ transition in ZnII, and the results were in excellent agreement with our prediction. These values are needed in order to examine systematic effects in observations of spectral line shifts in quasar absorption spectra that suggest a variation in $`\alpha `$ murphy2 . Our calculations could help provide another explanation for the observed shifts, depending on whether isotopic abundances were different in gas clouds in the early universe. Alternatively, our calculations may strengthen the arguments in support of a varying $`\alpha `$.

Further work needs to be done in order to obtain the isotope shift for more complex atoms with more than one electron in their outer shell. The general method of including the isotope shift operator with the two-body Coulomb operator may be used in such cases, although the energy calculation itself is more complicated.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Jacinda Ginges for useful discussions. We would also like to thank Bruce Warrington for bringing Reference matsubara  to our attention. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.

*

## Appendix A  Matrix element of the two-body operator

The two-body operator used is this work is the sum of the Coulomb interaction operator and the “rescaled” SMS operator (atomic units):

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}=\frac{1}{|𝐫_1𝐫_2|}+\lambda 𝐩_1𝐩_2\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_k,$$
(7)
where $`\lambda `$ is the scaling factor, $`𝐩=i`$ is electron momentum, and

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_k=\frac{4\pi }{2k+1}\frac{r_<^k}{r_>^{k+1}}Y_k(𝐧_1)Y_k(𝐧_2)+\lambda 𝐩_1𝐩_2\delta _{k1}.$$
(8)
We use the following form for the single-electron wave function

$`\psi (𝐫)_{jlm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(\begin{array}{c}f(r)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐧)_{jlm}\\ i\alpha g(r)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐧)_{jlm}\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
Here $`\alpha =1/137.036`$ is the fine structure constant, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐧)_{jlm}=(\stackrel{}{\sigma }𝐧)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐧)_{jlm}`$.

The matrix element of operator (8) with wave functions (11) has the form

$$\psi _1(𝐫_1)\psi _2(𝐫_2)|\stackrel{~}{Q}_k|\psi _3(𝐫_1)\psi _4(𝐫_2)=C_k(R_k\lambda P_1\delta _{k1}),$$
(12)
where the angular factor $`C_k`$ is the same for both operators

$`C_k=(1)^{q+m_1+m_2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& k& j_3\\ m_1& q& m_3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_2& k& j_4\\ m_2& q& m_4\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
$`\times (1)^{j_1+j_2+j_3+j_4+1}\sqrt{(2j_1+1)(2j_2+1)(2j_3+1)(2j_4+1)}`$ (18)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_3& k\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_2& j_4& k\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 0\end{array}\right)\xi (l_1+l_3+k)\xi (l_2+l_4+k),`$ (23)
$`\xi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if}x\text{is even},\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}x\text{is odd}\hfill \end{array},`$ (26)
$`R_k`$ is radial Coulomb integral

$$R_k=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{r_<^k}{r_>^{k+1}}(f_1(r_1)f_3(r_1)+\alpha ^2g_1(r_1)g_3(r_1))(f_2(r_2)f_4(r_2)+\alpha ^2g_2(r_2)g_4(r_2))𝑑r_1𝑑r_2,$$
(27)
while $`P_1`$ is radial matrix element of the SMS operator

$`P_1=p_{13}p_{24},`$
$`p_{ab}=A_{ab}\delta _{l_al_b+1}+B_{ab}\delta _{l_al_b1},`$ (28)
$`A_{ab}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}f_a({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_a}{r}})f_b𝑑r,`$
$`B_{ab}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}f_a({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l_b}{r}})f_b𝑑r.`$


text:
# Consistent distances from Baade-Wesselink analyses of Cepheids and RR Lyraes

## 1 Introduction

A large number of papers have been published lately on the determination of the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). This increased interest is attributed to the extreme values published after the analyses of the hipparcos data on Cepheids (Feast & Catchpole 1997) and to the application of the red clump stars of the LMC through the same type of Galactic stars calibrated by hipparcos (Stanek et al. 2000). Along this line, there seems to exist a general belief that Cepheids yield usually longer distances (distance moduli of about $`18.5`$ mag and above), whereas RR Lyrae stars give shorter ones ($`18.3`$ mag). This latter belief is based on statistical parallaxes (Popowski & Gould 1998), Baade-Wesselink (BW) analyses (see Clementini et al. 1995, and references therein, hereafter C95) and the application of the hipparcos data (Fernley et al. 1998; see however Groenewegen & Salaris 1999). It is important to note that distances derived from the statistical parallax method employ rather small sample of stars ($`200`$ objects), whereas the hipparcos parallaxes for RR Lyrae stars are very inaccurate. Actually, more precise HST parallaxes yield distances in good agreement with the ”canonical” LMC value of $`18.5`$ mag derived from both prototype variables RR Lyr and $`\delta `$ Cep (Benedict et al. 2002a,b). It is also important to mention that all results based on the pulsation analyses of double-mode variables (RR Lyrae, Cepheids, both fundamental & first overtone and first overtone & second overtone ones) give basically the canonical value for the LMC distance (see Kovács 2002 and references therein).

In the light of the above, it is important to address the question of consistency between the BW analyses of Cepheids and RR Lyrae stars. Previous works have been performed by different groups of researchers, often using different BW parameters (e.g., $`p`$ factors, the ratio of the observed and surface radial velocities) and effective temperature relations (surface brightness for Cepheids – e.g., Laney & Stobie 1994, stellar atmosphere models for RR Lyrae stars – e.g., Liu & Janes 1990). In addition, there is a role of the somewhat delicate nature of the numerical method employed in the actual implementation of the BW analysis (e.g., computation of the surface acceleration). Therefore, we decided to visit the problem by using the same BW algorithm for both groups of stars. In order to compute the LMC distance modulus, the derived absolute magnitudes will be used in conjunction with currently published Period-Luminosity-Color (PLC) relations (Udalski et al. 1999; Kovács & Walker 2001, hereafter U99 and KW01, respectively).

## 2 Implementation of the BW method

Here we basically follow the standard methodology of the BW analysis as usually implemented in RR Lyrae studies (e.g., Liu & Janes 1990). In brief, we use the observed $`V`$ light, $`VK`$ color and $`V_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ radial velocity curves to compute the luminosity ($`L`$), effective temperature ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) and radius ($`R`$) variations. For any assumed value of the equilibrium test radius $`R_0`$ we compute the following quantities:

* Temporal radius:

+ $`R(t)=R_0+\mathrm{\Delta }R(t)`$,
    + $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(t)=p_0^t[V_{\mathrm{rad}}(\tau )V_{\mathrm{rad}}]𝑑\tau `$,
    + $`V_{\mathrm{rad}}=P_0^1_0^{P_0}V_{\mathrm{rad}}(\tau )𝑑\tau `$,

where $`P_0`$ denotes the period, $`p`$ is the velocity projection factor, that we assume to be constant and set equal to $`1.35`$. (We note that Gieren, Fouqué & Gómez 1997 used a period-dependent $`p`$ factor. Their values span the range of 1.35–1.37 in the period regime of our sample. The effect of using lower $`p`$ is minute, because an increase of $`0.02`$ in $`p`$ yields an absolute magnitude that is brighter only by $`0.02`$ mag.)
* Temporal $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$:

+ $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}=f[(VK)_0,[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}],\mathrm{log}g]`$,

where $`f[\mathrm{}]`$ denotes the interpolation polynomial of the stellar atmosphere models of Castelli, Gratton & Kurucz (1997) with the zero point determined by the scale of Blackwell & Lynas-Gray, (1994) (hereafter BLG94). The models have been computed without convective overshooting. The microturbulent velocity has been fixed at 2 km s-1. The distribution of heavy elements follows that of the Sun. In order to find the temperature zero point offset between the model values of Castelli et al. (1997) and the ones given by the infrared flux method of BLG94, the compilation of the observational data on non-variable stars by C95 is used. We get $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$(model)$`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$(BLG94)$`=0.0036`$.

It is interesting to compare this temperature scale with the one implied by the surface brightness (SB) method of Fouqué & Gieren (1997). Rewriting their formula given for the apparent angular diameter, we get $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.131(VK)_00.1BC+3.9474`$. By using the above mentioned compilation of C95, we get an average difference of $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$(SB)$`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$(model& BLG94)$`=0.0035`$. By performing the same test on the BW samples (see Table 1), the differences are positive, but less than $`0.002`$ for Cepheids. For RR Lyrae stars, the differences are even smaller, with changing signs. The larger negative difference on the sample of C95 is due in part to the larger weight of the higher temperature stars. In conclusion, we may state that the present temperature scale in the temperature range of interest is very similar to the ones used in earlier BW studies of Cepheids.

For RR Lyrae stars, the iron abundance \[Fe/H\] is computed from the Fourier decompositions of the $`V`$ light curves as given by Jurcsik & Kovács (1996). For Cepheids, we set \[Fe/H\]$`=`$0, which seems to be a reasonable first approximation (see Luck et al. 2003 for the metallicity distribution of Cepheids). The temporal gravity $`g`$ is computed by $`g=GM/R^2pdV_{\mathrm{rad}}/dt`$, where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`M`$ is the stellar mass, which is fixed at $`0.7M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`5.0M_{\mathrm{}}`$ for RR Lyrae stars and Cepheids, respectively. Since the contribution of $`\mathrm{log}g`$ to $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is relatively small when the $`VK`$ color index is used, the exact value of $`M`$ is not crucial. In principle, we can compute a consistent value for $`M`$ by using the pulsation equation (e.g., van Albada & Baker 1973). However, both the weak dependence of $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ on $`\mathrm{log}g`$, and the difference between the equilibrium and static stellar parameters (see Bono, Caputo & Stellingwerf 1995) make this procedure less straightforward and therefore, is left for the task of future studies. The dereddened color index $`(VK)_0`$ is computed from the observed one by using $`E_{BV}`$ reddening values either as given in the Galactic Cepheid Database of the David Dunlap Observatory111http://ddo.astro.utoronto.ca/cepheids.html or by the corresponding formula of KW01 for RR Lyrae stars. Because of the large reddenings of the Galactic Cepheids, we use the formulae for selective absorption ratios as given by the BW studies of Cepheids (see, e.g., Gieren, Fouqué & Gómez 1998):

+ $`R_V=3.07+0.28(BV)_0+0.04E_{BV}`$,
    + $`R_I=1.82+0.205(BV)_0+0.022E_{BV}`$,
    + $`R_K=0.279`$,
    + $`A_V=R_VE_{BV}`$, $`A_I=R_IE_{BV}`$, $`A_K=R_KE_{BV}`$,

where the $`I`$ and $`K`$ colors are in the Kron-Cousins and standard Johnson systems, respectively. For compatibility, these reddening relations are used also for RR Lyrae stars.
* Temporal absolute $`V`$ magnitude:

+ $`M_V=2.5\mathrm{log}L+M_{\mathrm{bol}}^{\mathrm{}}BC(\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}},[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}],\mathrm{log}g)`$,
    + $`\mathrm{log}L=4\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}/T_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}+2\mathrm{log}R/R_{\mathrm{}}`$,

where $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are the solar values. The latter one and the solar bolometric magnitude $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are set equal to $`5778`$ K and $`4.75`$ mag, respectively. The temporal bolometric correction $`BC`$ is computed from stellar atmosphere models in the same way as $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ above. The zero point of $`BC`$ is set to a value which yields $`BC_{\mathrm{}}=0.07`$.
* Point-by-point and average distance moduli:

+ $`DM(i)=V(i)R_VE_{BV}(i)M_V(i)`$,
    + $`DM=N^1_{i=1}^NDM(i)`$,
    + $`\sigma _{DM}^2=(N1)^1_{i=1}^N[DM(i)DM]^2`$,

where $`N`$ is the number of data points on the light curve.

The best fit is obtained at the test radius $`R_0`$ which yields the smallest $`\sigma _{DM}`$. Usually the fits are fairly accurate, with $`\sigma _{DM}=0.02`$$`0.01`$. It is also worth mentioning the following technical details:

* When straightforward Fourier fitting does not work, smooth light and velocity curves are obtained through Fourier decompositions of the high order polynomials fitted by least squares to the observed data points of the folded light curves.
* Tables of stellar atmosphere models are employed through quadratic interpolation.
* All pulsation phases are used, including also the possibly shock-disturbed quick expansion phase.
* In spite of the careful treatment of the numerical derivation of the radial velocity curve, the total gravitational acceleration occasionally reaches values which lie outside the tabulated values. In these brief moments of pulsation the closest extreme values as given in the tables are used. The same method is employed for filtering out the non-tabulated values of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. We note that these out-of-range errors occur almost always out of the minimum of $`\sigma _{DM}`$, where the assumed unphysical stellar radius further enhances the numerical problems related to $`\mathrm{log}g`$.

## 3 PLC relations

Once the optimum equilibrium stellar parameters are computed by the above BW technique, we can evaluate the zero points of the corresponding PLC relations. Both for Cepheids and for RR Lyrae stars the PLC relations have been derived from stellar populations different from the Galactic BW samples. In the case of RR Lyrae stars there is a reasonable large overlap between the metallicities of the present BW sample and the cluster variables used by KW01 to derive the empirical formula. Therefore, we may assume that the formula may also be valid for most of the field variables used in the BW analysis. There is also a dispute on the possible metal dependence of the zero point of the Cepheid PLC relation. However, we think that there are more theoretical and empirical results which indicate the non-existence of such a dependence (Alibert et al. 1999; Bono et al. 2002; Turner & Burke 2002).

In the case of Cepheids we need to evaluate $`C_{VI}`$ in the following equation

$`I_c1.55(VI_c)=3.300\mathrm{log}P_0+C_{VI},`$ (1)
where $`I_c`$ denotes the Kron-Cousins colors, $`\mathrm{}`$ means intensity-averaged magnitudes. The above formula has been derived by U99 for LMC with $`C_{VI}=15.868`$. Since the left-hand-side of Eq. (1) is reddening-free, the difference of $`C_{VI}`$(LMC) and the average of this constant for the BW stars will yield the true distance modulus for the LMC.

The PLC relation for the fundamental mode RR Lyrae stars is given by KW01

$`\overline{V}3.1(\overline{B}\overline{V})=2.467\mathrm{log}P_0+C_{BV},`$ (2)
where the bars denote simple magnitude averages. The constant for LMC could be evaluated from the current $`V`$, $`B`$ observations of fundamental mode RR Lyrae stars in the LMC by Clementini et al. (2003, hereafter C03). Because they give intensity-averaged magnitudes, to retain compatibility with Eq. (2), we transform these values to simple magnitude averages with the aid of the formulae of Kovács (2002). The average of the $`A_1`$ Fourier amplitude is set equal to $`0.30`$, in accordance with the value obtained from the analysis of the RRab stars in the corresponding macho fields (Alcock et al. 2003). In this way we get $`\overline{V}=0.032+V`$ and $`\overline{B}=0.058+B`$. With the observed average $`P_0`$, $`V`$ and $`B`$ of $`0\stackrel{d}{.}58`$, $`19.366`$ and $`19.744`$, respectively, we get $`C_{BV}=17.56`$. However, the average magnitudes computed by C03 for their two fields $`A`$ & $`B`$ differ by as much as $`0.08`$ mag in $`V`$, and $`0.13`$ mag in $`B`$. They attribute this difference to the effect of differential extinction. We checked this difference by computing the averages in macho fields #6 & #13, overlapping with fields $`A`$ & $`B`$ of C03. With a $`4\sigma `$ clipping we got $`V=19.311\pm 0.012`$ (field #6, 317 stars) and $`V=19.313\pm 0.010`$ (field #13, 262 stars). With these small standard deviations of the means, we can state that a difference in the order of $`0.1`$ mag is not probable between the two fields.

In order to get another estimate on $`C_{BV}`$ for the LMC, we use the data of Soszyński et al. (2002), which cover a large sample of RR Lyrae stars of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) from the ogle database. By proceeding as above, from their average magnitudes and period of $`V=19.74`$, $`B=20.10`$, $`V_0=19.45`$, $`B_0=19.73`$ and $`P_0=0.59`$, we get $`C_{BV}(SMC)=18.01`$ and $`17.97`$, depending on whether reddened or dereddened magnitudes are used. Although Eqs. (1) and (2) should, in principle be reddening-free, the above difference shows that the field-by-field reddening corrections applied by Soszyński et al. (2002) may not be completely consistent with our standard extinction ratio. Since the method of their differential reddening correction has already proved to be successful (at least in statistical sense, see U99), we adopt the value obtained by the use of their dereddened magnitudes. In computing the value of $`C_{BV}`$ for the LMC, we have to subtract the relative distance modulus between the LMC and SMC. From the PLC relations derived for Cepheids in the two clouds, U99 got a difference of $`0.51`$ mag, which, with the above preliminaries, yields our finally adopted value of $`C_{BV}=17.46`$ for the LMC.

## 4 LMC distances from BW absolute magnitudes and PLC relations

The necessary data on RR Lyrae stars have been gathered from the literature during our earlier investigations (see KW01 and also C95, for a full list of variables subjected to BW analyses in earlier studies). For Cepheids we turned to the database of the McMaster University222http://dogwood.physics.mcmaster.ca/Cepheid//HomePage.html and also to the radial velocity database of the Moscow University (see Gorynya et al. 1998). We utilized only the best data available on fundamental mode variables. When it was necessary, the Cepheid $`I`$ light curves published in the Johnson system were transformed to the Kron-Cousins system with the aid of the formula given by Caldwell & Coulson (1987). Occasionally, periods have been improved by using the program package mufran (see Kolláth 1990). The variables used in the present study together with their derived physical parameters are given in Table 1. (Effective temperatures have been computed from the cycle-averaged $`VK`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ values.) Three RR Lyrae stars (W Crt, SS Leo and AV Peg) have been excluded from the above sample in the subsequent analysis, because of their discrepant positions in the PLC relation. For similar reasons, we also excluded X Lac from the Cepheid sample.

The corresponding PLC relations are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The constants in Eqs. (1) and (2) have been derived from the BW absolute magnitudes and reddening-free colors. The straight lines represent these calibrated relations. It is seen that the empirical slopes of the PLC relations fit perfectly the BW data (please note the highly different scales of the two figures). This strong correlation is very comforting, since two, completely separate methods and datasets are compared (BW results, based on Galactic variables on one hand, and empirical results, based on LMC and globular cluster variables on the other). The standard deviations of the BW points around the straight lines are $`0.104`$ and $`0.157`$ for RR Lyraes and Cepheids, respectively. We recall that the corresponding empirical values are $`0.041`$ and $`0.058`$ (see KW01 and U99). The much smaller values of these empirical standard deviations show that the BW luminosities still suffer from large random errors as it follows from the delicate nature of the BW method.

Computation of the LMC distance modulus is straightforward from the above results. It is obtained simply by the subtraction of the corresponding constants in the BW and empirical relations. By using the results of Sect. 3, from the RR Lyrae sample we get $`mM=17.46+1.09=18.55`$, whereas from the Cepheid sample we obtain $`mM=15.87+2.69=18.56`$. Although these true distance moduli are magically close to each other, we have to keep in mind that they both have a statistical errors of $`0.03`$ mag. Nevertheless, it is clear that the often cited $`0.2`$$`0.3`$ mag difference between the BW distances derived from the two groups of variables no longer exists. They both yield the same distance within a relatively small statistical uncertainty.

It is interesting to compare the absolute magnitudes obtained in the present study with those derived earlier in other BW works. With the 18 Cepheids common with the sample of Gieren at al. (1998), we get and average difference (ours-theirs) of $`0.003`$ mag, with a standard deviation $`\sigma `$ of $`0.160`$ mag. A similar comparison with the absolute magnitudes given for $`p=1.35`$ in Table 21 of C95, yields $`0.162`$ with $`\sigma =0.094`$. This considerable difference results in a proper shift in the RR Lyrae distance modulus and leads to a result which is consistent with the one derived from Cepheids. The fact that Gieren et al. (1998) derives a $`0.09`$ mag lower distance for the LMC, in spite of the same average luminosity, is suspected to be caused by the difference between the PLC we use and the PL they employ to compute the LMC distance.

We find also a good agreement if we compare our radii with those of Gieren et al. (1998). For the 18 common variables we get an average difference (ours-theirs) of $`0.4`$ $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\sigma =6.3`$ $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$. In terms of the relative radii these figures become $`0.04`$% and $`6.9`$%, respectively.

We can also make a comparison with the results of long-baseline interferometric measurements for Cepheids. For the two variables $`\delta `$ Cep and $`\eta `$ Aql common with the samples of Nordgren et al. (2002) and Lane, Greech-Eakman & Nordgren (2002), we find a rather close agreement between the radii. By applying the necessary corrections due to the different $`p`$ factors, from the interferometric/radial velocity results we obtain the radii of $`42\times 1.35/1.31=43R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`62\times 1.35/1.43=58R_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\delta `$ Cep and $`\eta `$ Aql, respectively. These values are very close to our corresponding figures (see Table 1).

It is important to note that although all direct estimates based on double-mode variables yield LMC distance modulus in agreement with the present result (Kovács 2002), the indirect distances derived from globular cluster double-mode RR Lyrae (RRd) stars become higher by $`0.1`$ mag, if we use the same PLC for the LMC as in the present paper. Nevertheless, these revised distance moduli computed from the RRd populations of M15, M68 and IC4499 are still in the range of $`18.54`$$`18.61`$, which range is consistent with the value based on the present BW analysis.

We mention the recent effort of Cacciari et al. (2000) in revisiting the BW analysis of RR Lyrae stars with updated physics. From their analysis of two stars they concluded that the derived luminosities were in agreement with the earlier results (meaning the continuance of the old discrepancy, however, see C03 for a different conclusion from the same work).

## 5 Conclusions

We have shown that by using exactly the same method and Baade-Wesselink parameters (e.g., velocity projection factor), fundamental mode RR Lyrae and Cepheid variables yield the same distance modulus for the Large Magellanic Cloud. This is in variance with the earlier common belief that the two groups of stars lead to significantly different distance estimates for the LMC. The higher luminosity obtained for the RR Lyrae stars in the present study is attributed to: (a) the more accurate consideration of phase-dependent bolometric correction, (b) the more precise computation of the temporal gravity, (c) the better numerical treatment of both the grids of stellar atmosphere models and the observed light and velocity curves. The good agreement between the Cepheid luminosities obtained in this and in the earlier works suggests that the above conditions have already been met in those studies.

Although clarification of important theoretical problems (such as the accurate conversion of the projected velocity to the photospheric value, or the application of dynamical atmosphere models rather than static ones) are still needed, and better agreement between various photometric data on LMC is still demanded, we think that the present result is encouraging and indicates the possibility of making progress either by increasing the sample size by more precise data, or by building dynamical atmosphere models.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Fiorella Castelli for consulting on the stellar atmosphere models and to Andrzej Udalski for clarifying notation in the PLC relation. Thanks are also due to László Szabados for useful discussions on Cepheids, to Szabolcs Barcza for careful reading of the manuscript and to the anonymous referee for the constructive comments. The support of otka grant t$``$038437 is acknowledged.