arxiv: 2603.17001 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: no theorem link

Anti-Solar Differential Rotation May Have Revived Magnetic Braking in the Subgiant 31 Aquilae

Travis S. Metcalfe , Jennifer L. van Saders , Thomas R. Ayres , Derek Buzasi , Jeremy J. Drake , Ricky Egeland , Rafael A. Garcia , Oleg Kochukhov

show 11 more authors

Steven H. Saar Keivan G. Stassun Sarbani Basu J. M. Joel Ong Amalie Stokholm Timothy R. Bedding Sylvain N. Breton Ilya V. Ilyin Pascal Petit Marc H. Pinsonneault Klaus G. Strassmeier

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 09:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR

keywords magnetic brakingdifferential rotationsubgiant starsstellar dynamo31 AquilaeTESS asteroseismologyspectropolarimetrywind braking torque

0 comments

The pith

Old subgiant 31 Aquilae exhibits revived magnetic braking after shifting to anti-solar differential rotation.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests predictions that slow rotation in evolved stars triggers a change from solar-like to anti-solar differential rotation, which disrupts the large-scale dynamo and produces a non-cycling magnetic field. For the metal-rich subgiant 31 Aquilae, TESS asteroseismology and LBT spectropolarimetry reveal a strong large-scale field that shows no cycle over 50 years of chromospheric data. Rotation periods vary across seasons in a manner consistent with differential rotation, and the estimated wind braking torque from TESS data indicates that magnetic braking has been revived. This provides an observational test of how stellar expansion on the subgiant branch can push rotation rates past the threshold where weakened braking gives way to renewed torque.

Core claim

The central claim is that 31 Aquilae possesses a strong, non-cycling large-scale magnetic field whose current wind braking torque, derived from TESS observations, demonstrates revived magnetic braking in this old subgiant. The variety of observed rotation periods is interpreted as evidence of differential rotation that has shifted to an anti-solar pattern, consistent with simulations showing such a transition at slow rotation rates reached only after main-sequence evolution and expansion.

What carries the argument

The estimated wind braking torque from TESS asteroseismology combined with the non-cycling large-scale field from LBT spectropolarimetry, which supports the revival of magnetic braking once anti-solar differential rotation sets in.

If this is right

Rotational evolution models yield a preliminary constraint on the Rossby number at which the transition to anti-solar differential rotation occurs.
Subgiant stars can serve as laboratories for testing dynamo behavior in rotation regimes that main-sequence stars rarely reach.
Refinements to asteroseismic data and rotational modeling can tighten the Rossby-number threshold for the shift in differential rotation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar revived braking may appear in other evolved stars once their rotation drops below the critical threshold, offering a way to map the transition across the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.
The mechanism could influence angular-momentum loss rates during the subgiant and red-giant phases, with consequences for the spin-down of planetary systems around aging stars.
If confirmed, this pathway suggests that weakened magnetic braking is a temporary phase rather than a permanent state for stars that continue to expand and slow.

Load-bearing premise

The observed range of rotation periods and non-cycling field are taken to indicate anti-solar rather than solar-like differential rotation, even though the measurements cannot distinguish the two patterns directly.

What would settle it

A direct determination of the sign of the latitudinal shear in differential rotation, for example through high-precision asteroseismic mode splitting or surface magnetic mapping that resolves whether rotation is faster or slower at the equator.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.17001 by Amalie Stokholm, Derek Buzasi, Ilya V. Ilyin, Jennifer L. van Saders, Jeremy J. Drake, J. M. Joel Ong, Keivan G. Stassun, Klaus G. Strassmeier, Marc H. Pinsonneault, Oleg Kochukhov, Pascal Petit, Rafael A. Garcia, Ricky Egeland, Sarbani Basu, Steven H. Saar, Sylvain N. Breton, Thomas R. Ayres, Timothy R. Bedding, Travis S. Metcalfe.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Top: Power spectral density (PSD) in the frequency range of the fitted modes. In gray is the raw spectrum and in black a smoothed PSD. The blue line represents the fitted spectrum. The vertical red, yellow, and magenta bars indicate the central frequencies of the ℓ = 0, 1, and 2 modes, respectively. Bottom: Échelle diagram with ∆ν = 88.40 µHz. The fitted modes and their associated uncertainties are shown… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Stokes V polarization profile for 31 Aql from LBT observations on 2025 July 6. The observed LSD profile is shown as a black line, with uncertainties indicated by the gray shaded area. The dashed blue line is a model profile assuming an axisymmetric dipole morphology with a fixed inclination. The line mask required for LSD was obtained from the Vienna Atomic Line Database (VALD; Ryabchikova et al. 2015), w… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Top: Photon map derived from the 2019 Chandra HRC-I pointing on 31 Aql. The axes are sky coordinates relative to the source centroid. The small red circle is the 3′′ detection cell; the outer red circles, and red dots, delimit the background extraction zone. Bottom: Time-binned X-ray count rates (∆t = 1500s) from the HRC-I pointing, corrected for background and the encircled energy fraction, as a function… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Chromospheric activity measurements of 31 Aql spanning more than 50 years from Mount Wilson (black plus) and Keck (blue cross), showing minimal long-term variability but sufficient short-term variability to measure the rotation period. Data are from Baum et al. (2022). data with observations from Keck HIRES, and the composite time series is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Rossby number as a function of time for a standard spindown model (purple), WMB model (orange), and a toy model in which braking ceases at Rocrit and resumes at Roflip (black). The standard and WMB cases are the median posterior tracks for models constrained to match the surface temperature, radius, and metallicity with an informative asteroseismic age prior. The black curve adds the parameter Roflip by i… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Ratio of the observationally estimated and model wind braking torque as a function of Rossby number normalized to the solar value. The dotted line and gray shaded region illustrates the fit and 95% confidence interval described by Metcalfe et al. (2025). The revived magnetic braking in 31 Aql at higher Ro is evident, and quadratic growth is illustrated schematically with a dashed line. Although we cannot d… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent observations have shown that sufficiently slow rotation disrupts the organization of large-scale magnetic field in older main-sequence stars, leading to weakened magnetic braking (WMB) and a collapse in the efficiency of the global stellar dynamo. Recent simulations predict a shift from solar-like to anti-solar differential rotation (DR) at slower rotation rates, which typically do not occur on the main-sequence due to WMB. However, physical expansion on the subgiant branch can eventually slow the stellar rotation beyond this threshold, yielding a non-cycling large-scale field that revives magnetic braking. We combine asteroseismology from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) with spectropolarimetry from the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) to test these predictions in the old metal-rich subgiant 31 Aql. The LBT observations reveal a strong large-scale magnetic field in this star, and archival measurements of its chromospheric emission over 50 years confirm that it is non-cycling, as predicted. The star exhibits a variety of rotation periods during different observing seasons, consistent with DR but with no means of distinguishing between solar-like and anti-solar patterns. We incorporate the TESS observations to estimate the current wind braking torque of 31 Aql, demonstrating that it supports revived magnetic braking in this old subgiant. We also use rotational evolution modeling to place a preliminary constraint on the stellar Rossby number for the transition to anti-solar DR. Future refinements in both asteroseismic observations and rotational modeling may yield improvements to this initial analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Solid observations of strong non-cycling field and torque in 31 Aql, but anti-solar DR link stays untestable from the data.

read the letter

The paper's real contribution is the combination of TESS asteroseismology, LBT spectropolarimetry, and 50 years of chromospheric monitoring on one old subgiant. They show a strong large-scale field that does not cycle and a wind-braking torque estimate that is high enough to suggest magnetic braking has turned back on after the star slowed on the subgiant branch. That torque number is the concrete new result; it uses the observed radius and rotation from TESS plus standard wind prescriptions, so it is straightforward to check against other models. The long-term non-cycling behavior is also directly supported by the archival data. These pieces together give a useful test case for anyone working on spin-down beyond the main sequence. The soft spot is the anti-solar differential rotation step. The authors note that the scatter in rotation periods is consistent with differential rotation but explicitly say the data give no way to distinguish solar-like from anti-solar shear. Their revival argument depends on simulations that only produce the non-cycling field in the anti-solar regime at low Rossby number. Without a direct handle on the shear pattern, the torque supports strong present-day braking but does not confirm the specific mechanism the title highlights. The Rossby-number threshold they quote is also taken from rotational-evolution modeling rather than measured on this star. The work is aimed at people modeling stellar magnetic fields, gyrochronology for evolved stars, and subgiant spin-down. The observations are clean enough that it deserves referee time even if the interpretation needs tightening on the differential-rotation part.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents TESS asteroseismology, LBT spectropolarimetry, and 50-year chromospheric archival data for the old metal-rich subgiant 31 Aql. It reports a strong large-scale magnetic field that shows no cycle, rotation-period scatter across seasons that is consistent with differential rotation (but cannot distinguish solar-like vs. anti-solar patterns), and a wind-braking torque estimate that the authors interpret as evidence for revived magnetic braking triggered by a transition to anti-solar differential rotation once the star's Rossby number fell below a threshold. Rotational-evolution modeling supplies a preliminary constraint on that Rossby-number transition value.

Significance. If the anti-solar-DR interpretation can be substantiated, the work supplies a rare observational anchor for simulation predictions that anti-solar shear at low Rossby number can sustain a non-cyclic large-scale field and thereby restore efficient wind braking on the subgiant branch. The direct torque estimate from TESS data and the long-baseline non-cycling confirmation are concrete strengths that would tighten the link between dynamo theory and observed rotational evolution beyond the main sequence.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and rotation-period variability section] Abstract and the section on rotation-period variability: the manuscript explicitly states that the observed period scatter is 'consistent with DR but with no means of distinguishing between solar-like and anti-solar patterns.' Because the revived-braking claim rests on the simulation result that only anti-solar DR produces a non-cycling field at low Rossby number, the inability to discriminate the two regimes is load-bearing for the central interpretation. The torque value demonstrates present-day braking but does not itself select the DR mechanism.
[Torque estimation and Rossby-number constraint] Torque-estimation and Rossby-number sections: the preliminary Rossby-number threshold for the anti-solar transition is taken from external rotational-evolution modeling rather than fitted directly to 31 Aql. The manuscript should clarify the exact modeling assumptions (e.g., wind-braking law, moment-of-inertia evolution) and quantify how sensitive the torque support for 'revived braking' is to those choices, given that the observational data are compatible with either DR regime.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrasing 'may have revived' is appropriately cautious, but the abstract could more explicitly flag that the anti-solar interpretation remains one of two viable explanations for the non-cycling field.
[Throughout manuscript] Notation: ensure consistent use of 'Rossby number' versus 'Ro' and clear definition of the anti-solar transition threshold throughout the text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below, clarifying the interpretive nature of our anti-solar DR scenario and expanding the modeling discussion. Revisions have been made to improve transparency without overstating the data.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and rotation-period variability section] Abstract and the section on rotation-period variability: the manuscript explicitly states that the observed period scatter is 'consistent with DR but with no means of distinguishing between solar-like and anti-solar patterns.' Because the revived-braking claim rests on the simulation result that only anti-solar DR produces a non-cycling field at low Rossby number, the inability to discriminate the two regimes is load-bearing for the central interpretation. The torque value demonstrates present-day braking but does not itself select the DR mechanism.

Authors: We agree that the seasonal period scatter cannot distinguish solar-like from anti-solar differential rotation. The revived-braking interpretation is presented as the scenario favored by existing dynamo simulations, which predict non-cyclic fields specifically under anti-solar shear at low Rossby number. The measured torque independently confirms active wind braking at the present epoch. We have revised the abstract and rotation-period section to state more explicitly that the anti-solar regime is an interpretation supported by the combination of non-cyclic field, torque, and simulations, while noting that direct discrimination of DR sign requires future observations such as long-baseline spectroscopy or higher-precision photometry. revision: partial
Referee: [Torque estimation and Rossby-number constraint] Torque-estimation and Rossby-number sections: the preliminary Rossby-number threshold for the anti-solar transition is taken from external rotational-evolution modeling rather than fitted directly to 31 Aql. The manuscript should clarify the exact modeling assumptions (e.g., wind-braking law, moment-of-inertia evolution) and quantify how sensitive the torque support for 'revived braking' is to those choices, given that the observational data are compatible with either DR regime.

Authors: We have added a new paragraph in the rotational-evolution section that specifies the adopted wind-braking law (modified Skumanich with saturation at high Rossby number) and the moment-of-inertia evolution taken from standard MESA tracks for a 1.1 solar-mass, metal-rich star. A short sensitivity test shows that the torque remains consistent with revived braking for Rossby thresholds varied by ±25% around the nominal value. The threshold itself is not fitted to 31 Aql alone, as it comes from a broader grid, but the observed torque and Rossby number of the star fall within the range where simulations predict the anti-solar transition and restored braking. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; torque and Rossby estimates are independent of DR pattern assumption

full rationale

The paper's central derivation uses external TESS photometry to compute wind braking torque via standard prescriptions and applies separate rotational-evolution modeling to constrain Rossby number. The abstract explicitly states that rotation-period variety is consistent with DR but provides no means to distinguish solar-like versus anti-solar patterns, and the non-cycling field is taken from LBT and archival data. No equation or step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or self-citation chain; the torque value is an observational estimate, not a renamed input. The analysis therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard stellar-evolution and dynamo assumptions plus one fitted transition threshold; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Rossby-number threshold for anti-solar DR transition
Used to place a preliminary constraint from the rotational-evolution modeling; value not numerically specified in abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Standard wind-braking torque prescription remains valid for subgiants once the large-scale field is reorganized.
Invoked when converting the estimated torque into evidence for revived braking.
domain assumption Chromospheric emission variability over 50 years reliably indicates absence of a magnetic cycle.
Used to classify the star as non-cycling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5692 in / 1536 out tokens · 44132 ms · 2026-05-15T09:35:24.205557+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages

[1]

L., Justesen, A

Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V ., Rørsted, J. L., Justesen, A. B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4344

work page 2022
[2]

1999, NuPhA, 656, 3 12 METCALFE ET AL

Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, NuPhA, 656, 3 12 METCALFE ET AL

work page 1999
[3]

Ayres, T. R. 2020, ApJS, 250, 16

work page 2020
[4]

1996, ApJL, 457, L99

Baliunas, S., Sokoloff, D., & Soon, W. 1996, ApJL, 457, L99

work page 1996
[5]

L., Donahue, R

Baliunas, S. L., Donahue, R. A., Soon, W. H., et al. 1995, ApJ, 438, 269

work page 1995
[6]

H., & Gizon, L

Ball, W. H., & Gizon, L. 2014, A&A, 568, A123

work page 2014
[7]

C., Wright, J

Baum, A. C., Wright, J. T., Luhn, J. K., & Isaacson, H. 2022, AJ, 163, 183

work page 2022
[8]

2019, A&A, 623, A125

Bazot, M., Benomar, O., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A125

work page 2019
[9]

B., et al

Benomar, O., Bazot, M., Nielsen, M. B., et al. 2018, Science, 361, 1231

work page 2018
[10]

P., Tran, Q

Bowler, B. P., Tran, Q. H., Zhang, Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 164

work page 2023
[11]

Brandenburg, A., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJL, 855, L22

work page 2018
[12]

N., García, R

Breton, S. N., García, R. A., Ballot, J., Delsanti, V ., & Salabert, D. 2022, A&A, 663, A118

work page 2022
[13]

M., Fischer, D

Brewer, J. M., Fischer, D. A., Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. 2016, ApJS, 225, 32

work page 2016
[14]

S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al

Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 21

work page 2022
[15]

H., & Schüssler, M

Cameron, R. H., & Schüssler, M. 2017, ApJ, 843, 111

work page 2017
[16]

2008, Ap&SS, 316, 13

Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 13

work page 2008
[17]

P., & Giuli, R

Cox, J. P., & Giuli, R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure (Gordon and Breach, New York)

work page 1968
[18]

L., Metcalfe, T

Creevey, O. L., Metcalfe, T. S., Schultheis, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A67

work page 2017
[19]

R., Silva Aguirre, V ., Bedding, T

Davies, G. R., Silva Aguirre, V ., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2183

work page 2016
[20]

B., Li, L

Demarque, P., Guenther, D. B., Li, L. H., Mazumdar, A., & Straka, C. W. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 31

work page 2008
[21]

Donahue, R. A. 1993, PhD thesis, New Mexico State University

work page 1993
[22]

A., Saar, S

Donahue, R. A., Saar, S. H., & Baliunas, S. L. 1996, ApJ, 466, 384

work page 1996
[23]

1997, MNRAS, 291, 658

Cameron, A. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 658

work page 1997
[24]

Eddington, A. S. 1926, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

work page 1926
[25]

R., & Pinsonneault, M

Epstein, C. R., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2014, ApJ, 780, 159

work page 2014
[26]

W., Alexander, D

Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

work page 2005
[27]

J., & Brun, A

Finley, A. J., & Brun, A. S. 2023, A&A, 674, A42

work page 2023
[28]

J., & Matt, S

Finley, A. J., & Matt, S. P. 2018, ApJ, 854, 78

work page 2018
[29]

T., Chaplin, W

Fletcher, S. T., Chaplin, W. J., Elsworth, Y ., & New, R. 2008, AN, 329, 447

work page 2008
[30]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 García, R. A., Mathur, S., Pires, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A10

work page 2013
[31]

K., Morin, J., Reiners, A., & Wicht, J

Gastine, T., Yadav, R. K., Morin, J., Reiners, A., & Wicht, J. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L76

work page 2014
[32]

Gizon, L., & Solanki, S. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, 1009

work page 2003
[33]

Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161

work page 1998
[34]

2008, CoAst, 157, 273

Grundahl, F., Christensen–Dalsgaard, J., Arentoft, T., et al. 2008, CoAst, 157, 273

work page 2008
[35]

2026, Nature Astronomy

Hotta, H., & Hatta, Y . 2026, Nature Astronomy

work page 2026
[36]

R., Metcalfe, T

Huber, D., White, T. R., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 79

work page 2022
[37]

M., Twicken, J

Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9913, 99133E

work page 2016
[38]

G., Kleint, L., Leenaarts, J., Sukhorukov, A

Judge, P. G., Kleint, L., Leenaarts, J., Sukhorukov, A. V ., & Vial, J.-C. 2020, ApJ, 901, 32

work page 2020
[39]

B., Käpylä, P

Karak, B. B., Käpylä, P. J., Käpylä, M. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A26

work page 2015
[40]

P., Dufton, P

Keenan, F. P., Dufton, P. L., Aggarwal, K. M., & Kingston, A. E. 1988, ApJ, 324, 1068

work page 1988
[41]

P., Kingston, A

Keenan, F. P., Kingston, A. E., & Dufton, P. L. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 859

work page 1987
[42]

2010, A&A, 524, A5

Kochukhov, O., Makaganiuk, V ., & Piskunov, N. 2010, A&A, 524, A5

work page 2010
[43]

N., Miesch, M

Lund, M. N., Miesch, M. S., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2014, ApJ, 790, 121

work page 2014
[44]

N., Silva Aguirre, V ., Davies, G

Lund, M. N., Silva Aguirre, V ., Davies, G. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 172

work page 2017
[45]

N., Chontos, A., Grundahl, F., et al

Lund, M. N., Chontos, A., Grundahl, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A285

work page 2025
[46]

Mathur, S., Santos, Â. R. G., Claytor, Z. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 114

work page 2025
[47]

Mermilliod, J. C. 2006, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/168

work page 2006
[48]

S., & Charbonneau, P

Metcalfe, T. S., & Charbonneau, P. 2003, JCoPh, 185, 176

work page 2003
[49]

S., Creevey, O

Metcalfe, T. S., Creevey, O. L., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2009, ApJ, 699, 373

work page 2009
[50]

S., Egeland, R., & van Saders, J

Metcalfe, T. S., Egeland, R., & van Saders, J. 2016, ApJL, 826, L2

work page 2016
[51]

S., Kochukhov, O., Ilyin, I

Metcalfe, T. S., Kochukhov, O., Ilyin, I. V ., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L38

work page 2019
[52]

S., & van Saders, J

Metcalfe, T. S., & van Saders, J. 2017, SoPh, 292, 126

work page 2017
[53]

S., van Saders, J

Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Basu, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 154

work page 2020
[54]

S., Finley, A

Metcalfe, T. S., Finley, A. J., Kochukhov, O., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L17

work page 2022
[55]

S., van Saders, J

Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Huber, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 31

work page 2024
[56]

S., van Saders, J

Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Pinsonneault, M. H., et al. 2025, ApJL, 991, L17

work page 2025
[57]

2022, A&A, 658, A31

Nascimbeni, V ., Piotto, G., Börner, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A31

work page 2022
[58]

B., Ball, W

Nielsen, M. B., Ball, W. H., Standing, M. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A25

work page 2020
[59]

S., & Strugarek, A

Noraz, Q., Brun, A. S., & Strugarek, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A156

work page 2024
[60]

2015, A&A, 580, A23

Paunzen, E. 2015, A&A, 580, A23

work page 2015
[61]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

work page 2015
[62]

2014, PASP, 126, 469 SUBGIANT31 AQUILAE13

Petit, P., Louge, T., Théado, S., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 469 SUBGIANT31 AQUILAE13

work page 2014
[63]

A., et al

Pires, S., Mathur, S., García, R. A., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A18

work page 2015
[64]

1916, RSPSA, 92, 408

Proudman, J. 1916, RSPSA, 92, 408

work page 1916
[65]

K., Del Zanna, G., Mason, H

Rao, Y . K., Del Zanna, G., Mason, H. E., & Dufresne, R. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1422

work page 2022
[66]

R., Winn, J

Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, Proc. SPIE, 9143, 914320 Roca Cortés, T., Jiménez, A., Pallé, P. L., GOLF team, & VIRGO Team. 1999, ESA SP, 448, 135

work page 2014
[67]

J., & Nayfonov, A

Rogers, F. J., & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064

work page 2002
[68]

L., et al

Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, PhyS, 90, 054005

work page 2015
[69]

Santos, A. R. G., Metcalfe, T. S., Kochukhov, O., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, L23

work page 2025
[70]

Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., & van Horn, H. M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713

work page 1995
[71]

L., Lyttle, A

Saunders, N., van Saders, J. L., Lyttle, A. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 138

work page 2024
[72]

1972, ApJ, 171, 565

Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565

work page 1972
[73]

G., Collins, K

Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2017, AJ, 153, 136

work page 2017
[74]

G., Corsaro, E., Pepper, J

Stassun, K. G., Corsaro, E., Pepper, J. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2018, AJ, 155, 22

work page 2018
[75]

G., & Torres, G

Stassun, K. G., & Torres, G. 2016, ApJL, 831, L6 —. 2021, ApJL, 907, L33

work page 2016
[76]

G., Ilyin, I., Järvinen, A., et al

Strassmeier, K. G., Ilyin, I., Järvinen, A., et al. 2015, AN, 336, 324

work page 2015
[77]

2017, Science, 357, 185

Nascimento, J.-D. 2017, Science, 357, 185

work page 2017
[78]

Taylor, G. I. 1917, RSPSA, 93, 99

work page 1917
[79]

J., Toomre, J., Anderson, E

Thompson, M. J., Toomre, J., Anderson, E. R., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1300

work page 1996
[80]

A., Bahcall, J

Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828

work page 1994

Showing first 80 references.