Period-Luminosity Relationship of Type I Cepheids - Need Better Formula

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the need for a more precise formula for the Period-Luminosity relationship of Type I Cepheids, as existing sources like Wikipedia and textbooks are found lacking. The user notes that the graphical approach in their book is insufficient and that their attempts to create a linear/log function yield inconsistent results. They highlight the distinction between Population I (classical) and Population II (W Virginis) Cepheids, noting that they follow different relationships. The user cites a specific formula for Population I Cepheids from Wikipedia but expresses confusion over the terminology used in their textbook. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexity of Cepheid classifications and the need for clearer formulas in understanding their luminosity relationships.
Desmos
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This is related to a HW post I made over in the HW forum. I am stuck trying to find a more detailed formula for the Period-luminosity relationship of Type I Cepheids.

Wikipedias description doesn't seem to match with the book (or include any mention of type I or type II), and frankly the graphical approach in my book isn't cutting it for me. Is there a better formula/relationship out there.

It seems I might be able to get a decent estimate by taking making my own linear/log function from the graph, but when I do so the answer varies quite a bit depending on which values for the points on the graph I estimate.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Read Wiki more carefully.

Cepheid variables are divided into at least two subclasses: Population I or classical Cepheids, and Population II or W Virginis Cepheids. The former are young massive stars, whereas the latter are older fainter stars.[13] Population I and II Cepheids follow different period-luminosity relationships. The luminosity of Population II Cepheids is, on average, less than classical Cepheids by about 1.5 magnitudes (but still brighter than RR Lyrae stars).

Also from the Wiki article,

Mv = -2.81 log10(P) - 1.43( +/- 1)

where:

Mv = absolute magnitude (Population 1 Cepheids)
P = period in days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
 
I went ahead and used that as well. However the book makes a distinction between type and population. O well, thanks though.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top