1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{natbib}
3: \bibliographystyle{apj}
4:
5: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
6:
7: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8:
9: %%preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10:
11: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
12:
13: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
14:
15: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
16: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
17:
18: \newcommand{\mkrc}{\ensuremath{ {M}_{K}^{RC} }}
19: \newcommand{\krc}{\ensuremath{ {K}_{RC} }}
20: \newcommand{\ak}{\ensuremath{ {A}_{K} }}
21: \newcommand{\mmo}{\ensuremath{ {(m-M)}_{0} }}
22: \newcommand{\mmoraw}{\ensuremath{ {(m-M)}_{0,raw} }}
23: \newcommand{\mmocor}{\ensuremath{ {(m-M)}_{0,cor} }}
24: \newcommand{\mmolmc}{\ensuremath{ {(m-M)}_{0,LMC} }}
25: \newcommand{\ebv}{\ensuremath{E(B-V)}}
26: \def\lea{\mathrel{<\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
27: \def\gea{\mathrel{>\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
28:
29: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
30:
31: %\shorttitle{}
32: %\shortauthors{}
33:
34: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
35: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
40: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
41: %% you desire.
42:
43: \title{Distances to Populous Clusters in the LMC via the K-band Luminosity
44: of the Red Clump}
45:
46: \author{Aaron J. Grocholski\altaffilmark{1}, Ata Sarajedini}
47: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, P.O. Box
48: 112055, Gainesville, FL 32611; aaron@astro.ufl.edu, ata@astro.ufl.edu}
49: \altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American
50: Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by
51: the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), Inc.,
52: under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
53: \author{Knut A. G. Olsen}
54: \affil{Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy
55: Observatory, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile; kolsen@noao.edu}
56: \author{Glenn P. Tiede}
57: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Bowling Green State
58: Univeristy, Bowling Green, OH, 43403; gptiede@bgnet.bgsu.edu}
59: \author{and\\ Conor L. Mancone}
60: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, P.O. Box
61: 112055, Gainesville, FL 32611; cmancone@astro.ufl.edu}
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64:
65: We present results from a study of the distances and distribution of a
66: sample of intermediate-age clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Using
67: deep near-infrared photometry obtained with ISPI on the CTIO 4m, we have
68: measured the apparent $K$-band magnitude of the core helium burning red
69: clump stars in 17 LMC clusters. We combine cluster ages and metallicities
70: with the work of Grocholski \& Sarajedini to predict each cluster's
71: absolute $K$-band red clump magnitude, and thereby calculate absolute
72: cluster distances. An analysis of these data shows that the cluster
73: distribution is in good agreement with the thick, inclined disk geometry
74: of the LMC, as defined by its field stars. We also find that the old
75: globular clusters follow the same distribution, suggesting that the LMC's
76: disk formed at about the same time as the globular clusters, $\sim$ 13 Gyr
77: ago. Finally, we have used our cluster distances in conjunction with the
78: disk geometry to calculate the distance to the LMC center, for which we
79: find $\mmo = 18.40 \pm 0.04_{ran} \pm 0.08_{sys}$, or $D_0 = 47.9 \pm 0.9
80: \pm 1.8$ kpc.
81:
82: \end{abstract}
83:
84: \keywords{Magellanic Clouds --- galaxies:star clusters ---
85: galaxies:distances}
86:
87: \section{Introduction}
88: \label{phot:intro}
89:
90: Interactions and merger events can dominate the formation histories of
91: galaxies, both large and small, at high and low redshift
92: (\citealt{abraham1999,schweizer1999}) and the Milky Way (MW) and its
93: satellite galaxies are an excellent example of this. The Large Magellanic
94: Cloud (LMC) is a nearby satellite galaxy that is dynamically active; it
95: exhibits many epochs of star formation (including current star formation)
96: while also suffering from tidal interactions with the Small Magellanic
97: Cloud (SMC) and the MW. Given its proximity, stellar populations in the
98: LMC are easily resolved, allowing us to obtain information such as ages,
99: chemical abundances, kinematics and distances to individual stars. Thus,
100: the LMC offers us an excellent local laboratory in which to study the
101: effects of gravitational forces on the evolution of a satellite galaxy.
102:
103: Traditionally, the LMC has been treated as a planar galaxy that, despite
104: its proximity, can be assumed to lie at a single distance from us. This
105: is in spite of the fact that, using distances to field Cepheid variables,
106: \citet{caldwellcoulson1986} first showed that the disk of the LMC is
107: inclined with respect to the sky. More recent studies of field stars have
108: confirmed this finding. For example, \citet{vdmcioni2001} combined near
109: infrared photometry from the Deep Near-Infrared Southern Sky Survey
110: (DENIS) and the Two Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS) to study the
111: distribution of field stars in the LMC out to a radius of $\sim 7\degr$.
112: Using both the tip of the red giant branch (RGB) and asymptotic giant
113: branch as relative distance indicators, they found an $I$-band
114: peak-to-peak sinusoidal brightness variation of $\sim$0.25 mag that
115: changes as a function of position angle on the sky, with stars in the
116: northeast portion of the LMC brighter than stars in the southwest.
117: Attributing this variation in brightness to a difference in distance, they
118: calculated an inclination of $i = 34\fdg7 \pm 6\fdg2$ for the disk of the
119: LMC (where 0$\degr$ is face on) and the line of nodes position angle (the
120: intersection of the plane of the galaxy with the plane of the sky) of
121: $\Theta = 122\fdg5 \pm 8\fdg3$. In an approach similar to
122: \citet{vdmcioni2001}, \citet{olsensalyk2002} use the apparent $I$-band
123: magnitude of core helium burning red clump (RC) stars to explore the
124: structure of the disk. Calculating relative distances for 50 fields
125: spread across a $6\degr \times 6\degr$ area of the LMC, they find $i =
126: 35\fdg8 \pm 2\fdg4$, in agreement with the \citet{vdmcioni2001} result,
127: and $\Theta = 145\degr \pm 4\degr$. In addition to the inclination, the
128: LMC's geometry becomes even more complex when we consider that its disk
129: ($v/\sigma = 2.9 \pm 0.9$) is thicker than the MW's thick disk ($v/\sigma
130: \approx 3.9$, \citealt{vdmetal2002}) and that the disk is flared
131: (\citealt{alvesnelson2000}) and also possibly warped
132: (\citealt{olsensalyk2002,nikolaevetal2004}) as a result of interactions
133: with the SMC and MW. Even with all of the knowledge of the LMC's
134: structure from field star studies, the spatial distribution of populous
135: clusters in the LMC remains relatively unexplored. \citet[][see also
136: \citealt{grocholskietal2006}]{schommeretal1992} showed that the LMC
137: clusters have disk-like kinetmatics, however, only recently has a planar
138: geometry been illustrated for the LMC cluster system
139: (\citealt{kerberetal2006}).
140:
141: %However, even with all of the knowledge of the LMC's
142: %structure from field star studies, the spatial distribution of populous
143: %clusters in the LMC remains unknown. It has been shown that the LMC
144: %cluster system exhibits disk-like kinematics
145: %(\citealt{schommeretal1992,grocholskietal2006}); however, a planar
146: %geometry has yet to be illustrated with cluster distances.
147:
148: Distances to stellar populations in the LMC have been calculated using a
149: variety of standard candles, including the period-luminosity (P-L)
150: relation of Cepheid variables (e.g.,~\citealt{macrietal2006};
151: \citealt{gierenetal1998}), the mean absolute magnitude-metallicity
152: relationship for RR Lyraes (e.g.,~\citealt{walker1985}), and color
153: magnitude diagram (CMD) features like the tip of the RGB
154: (e.g.,~\citealt{cionietal2000}), RC stars
155: (e.g.,~\citealt{udalski2000,sarajedinietal2002}), or main sequence turn
156: off (MSTO; \citealt{kerberetal2006}). One standard candle that has yet to
157: be fully exploited, and is geared toward studying clusters, is the
158: $K$-band luminosity of the RC. In their work, \citet[hereafter
159: GS02]{gs02} use 2MASS $JK_S$ photometry of 14 Galactic open clusters that
160: possess internally consistent ages, metallicities, and MSTO fitting
161: distances to calibrate the absolute $K$-band magnitude of the RC ($\mkrc$)
162: as a function of age and metallicity. An important result from their
163: study is that, while variations in the RC brightness are smaller in the
164: $K$-band than what is seen in the $V$- or $I$-bands, $\mkrc$ varies as a
165: function of both age and metallicity and, for young ages ($\lea$ 3 Gyr),
166: $\mkrc$ can vary by up to a magnitude. Therefore, knowledge of the
167: abundances {\it and} ages of RC stars, something that can only be
168: unequivocally gleaned from clusters, is necessary to properly employ the
169: RC as a standard candle. Since this method provides an absolute distance,
170: its application allows the determination of both the spatial distribution
171: of clusters and the distance to the LMC.
172:
173: The distance to the LMC has been of considerable interest in recent years,
174: largely due to its use as the zeropoint for the extragalactic distance
175: scale. The HST Key Project to determine $H_0$ (see
176: \citealt{freedmanetal2001} for final results on the project) used a sample
177: of Cepheid variables in the LMC, along with an adopted distance of $\mmo =
178: 18.5 \pm 0.1$ (\citealt{madorefreedman1991}), to define the fiducial
179: Cepheid P-L relation. \citet{freedmanetal2001} then used this new P-L
180: relation to calculate distances to a large number of galaxies, thereby
181: allowing the calibration of secondary standard candles (Type Ia and Type
182: II supernovae, Tully-Fisher relation, surface brightness fluctuations,
183: fundamental plane) that lie further up the extragalactic distance ladder.
184: Thus, the accuracy of their value of $H_0 = 72 \pm 8$ km s$^{-1}$
185: Mpc$^{-1}$ is ultimately determined by the accuracy of the distance to the
186: LMC; it turns out that the distance error constitutes 6.5\% of their 9\%
187: error budget. Their adopted distance, however, was based on previously
188: published distances and, until recently, there have been rather large
189: discrepencies between different methods and sometimes even among distances
190: calculated using the same method (particularly with optical photometry of
191: the RC). In general, the LMC distances can be split up into a ``long"
192: distance of $\sim$18.5-18.7 mag, usually found with Population I
193: indicators, and a ``short" distance of $\sim$18.3 mag, calculated
194: primarily from RR Lyrae variables. \citet{clementinietal2003} review the
195: LMC distances and methods in detail and find that the long and short
196: distance scales can be reconciled, at least to within the errors, with
197: improved photometry and/or reddening estimates. From the distances they
198: have collected (and corrected), \citet{clementinietal2003} find a mean LMC
199: distance of $\mmo = 18.515 \pm 0.085$, in good agreement with the value
200: adopted by \citet{freedmanetal2001}.
201:
202: In an effort to determine the spatial distribution of the LMC cluster
203: system and improve the accuracy of the distance to the LMC, we apply the
204: approach of GS02 to calculating absolute distances to 17
205: populous
206: clusters in the LMC. Cluster distances, combined with the geometry of
207: the cluster system allow us to determine an accurate distance to the
208: center of the LMC. In \S \ref{phot:sec:data} we discuss the near-infrared
209: data acquisition, reduction, and photometry. The cluster ages and
210: abundances necessary for accurately determining $\mkrc$ are presented in
211: \S \ref{phot:sec:aa} and in \S \ref{phot:sec:mags} we calculate $\krc$ and
212: $\mkrc$ for our cluster sample. Finally, in \S \ref{phot:sec:moduli},
213: cluster distances and the distance to the center of the LMC are given,
214: with a comparison to selected previous works in \S \ref{phot:sec:dist}.
215: Our results are summarized in \S \ref{phot:sec:summary}.
216:
217: \section{Data}
218: \label{phot:sec:data}
219: \subsection{Observations}
220: \label{phot:sec:obs}
221:
222: We have obtained near infrared images of a sample of populous LMC clusters
223: over the course of six nights (20-22 January 2003 and 06-08 February 2004)
224: at the Cerro Tololo Inter-America Observatory Blanco 4m telescope. All
225: data were taken with the Infrared Side Port Imager (ISPI), which utilizes
226: a 2048 $\times$ 2048 HAWAII 2 HgCdTe array. In the f/8 configuration,
227: ISPI has a field of view of $\sim10\arcmin \times 10\arcmin$ with a plate
228: scale of $\sim0\farcs 33$ pixel$^{-1}$. At the time of our observations,
229: ISPI was equipped with $J$ (1.25 $\mu$m), $H$ (1.64 $\mu$m), and $K'$
230: (2.12 $\mu$m) filters on loan from Gemini and all clusters were imaged in
231: the $J$- and $K'$-bands with about half of the clusters also having
232: $H$-band data. Average seeing for all six nights was $\sim1.2\arcsec$.
233:
234: Each cluster was observed with a nine-point dither pattern, centered on
235: the cluster, with dither offsets ranging between $30\arcsec$ and
236: $120\arcsec$, depending on the size and density of the target. Total
237: exposure time in each band was as follows: $J$ - 540s; $H$ - 846s; $K'$ -
238: 846s. For the first run, $H$- and $K'$-band images were split up into
239: shorter exposures to ameliorate the effects of sky brightness in the
240: near-infrared. As we were the first science users of ISPI, a better
241: understanding of the instrument, along with changes in the electronics
242: between observing runs, resulted in our group adjusting the exposure time
243: splits for the second observing run. Specifically, due to the range over
244: which the ISPI detector is linear, we discovered the need to split up the
245: $J$-band images into shorter exposures in order to keep many of the stars
246: from falling into the non-linear regime. In addition, for all three
247: bands, short exposures (4s at each dither point) were needed to avoid
248: saturating the brightest stars in the frame. In Table
249: \ref{tab:exposure_times}, we detail the exposures times for each band and
250: observing run and in Table \ref{tab:cluster_info} we list our target
251: clusters along with their positions on the sky, the filters in which they
252: were observed, and the run during which each cluster was imaged. For all
253: but one of the clusters observed during both runs, only the short (4s)
254: exposures were taken during the second run; the exception to this is NGC
255: 2155, for which the entire set of $K'$ exposures was obtained during the
256: second run. \subsection{Reduction}
257:
258: We have processed our data using standard data reduction techniques. All
259: images have been dark subtracted, sky subtracted and then flat fielded
260: using on-off dome flats. For each target, sky frames were created by
261: median combining the dithered cluster images, thus eliminating the stars
262: and leaving only the sky in the final combined sky frame. Before shifting
263: and combining our cluster images we had to address the problem of
264: geometric distortions. ISPI's large field of view causes images to be
265: curved at the focal plane and, if not corrected, final frames created by
266: shifting and combining the dithered images will have severely degraded
267: image quality across much of the frame. This problem was exacerbated by
268: the large offsets in our dither pattern. Using Galactic bulge star data
269: kindly provided by A. Stephens (2003, private communication), we created
270: and applied a high order distortion correction to our images using the
271: IRAF tasks {\it geomap} and {\it geotran}. Corrected images were then
272: aligned, shifted, and average combined and bad pixels were masked to
273: create a final science image for each cluster and filter. The final image
274: quality was excellent and only stars near the corners of the frame
275: exhibited any signs of distortion. We note that for each cluster, we have
276: created two science images in each band; a short exposure image, created
277: by combining only the 4s exposures from each dither point, and a long
278: exposure that is a combination of all data for a given cluster. As
279: mentioned in \S \ref{phot:sec:obs}, the short exposures were necessary for
280: accurate photometry of the bright RGB stars. In Fig.~\ref{fig:kbandphot},
281: we present $K'$-band images of an $\sim 4\arcmin \times 4\arcmin$ region
282: around each of our target clusters. We have used the final combined long
283: exposure image for each cluster
284:
285: \subsection{Photometry}
286:
287: Using a combination of DAOPHOT and ALLSTAR (\citealt{stetson1987}), we
288: have photometered our images with the following method. A rough PSF was
289: created from the brightest $\sim$200 stars in each image; we have made
290: sure to only choose stars that were in the linear regime of the detector.
291: This rough PSF was then used to remove neighbors from around the full set
292: of $\sim$50-150 PSF stars (depending on cluster), which allowed us to
293: create a more robust PSF from the cleaned image. Next, ALLSTAR was used
294: to fit the improved PSF to all stars that were detected in the science
295: frames. In an effort to detect and photometer faint stars and/or
296: companions, we performed a single iteration where we subtracted all stars
297: photometered in the first ALLSTAR pass, searched for previously undetected
298: stars, and then measured all of the new detections and added them to the
299: photometry list. Aperture corrections, calculated for each science frame,
300: were then applied to the PSF photometry. Lastly, we combined the aperture
301: corrected photometry lists for each filter with the requirement that a
302: star be detected in all available bands for it to be included in the final
303: combined list of instrumental magnitudes.
304:
305: Finally, to calibrate the instrumental photometry for each cluster, we
306: began by matching stars in common between our long and short exposures,
307: then throwing out stars that are non-linear or saturated (are bright) in
308: the long exposures or have large errors (are faint) in the short
309: exposures. Typically, we are left with intermediate brightness stars
310: covering a range of $\sim$2 mag over which we calculate the offset
311: necessary to bring the long exposure photometry onto the `system' of the
312: short exposures.
313: For clusters imaged over two epochs (see Table \ref{tab:cluster_info}),
314: we find different magnitude offsets between the long and short exposures
315: as compared to clusters observed during only the second observing run.
316: This difference is likely due to different sky conditions during our two
317: observing runs.
318: After offsetting the long exposure photometry, we
319: combine the long and short photometry in three pieces; the bright star
320: photometry is taken from only the short exposures (long exposures are
321: non-linear or saturated) while the faint stars come only from the offset
322: long exposure photometry (stars have large errors or are not detected in
323: the short exposures). The intermediate brightness stars, which have good
324: photometry from both the long and short exposures, are averaged together
325: for the final catalog of each cluster. To put our photometry onto a
326: standard system, we match our stars with those in the All-Sky Data Release
327: of the Two Micron All Sky
328: Survey\footnote{http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky}
329: (2MASS). We have restricted the 2MASS selection to only those stars
330: possessing either aperture or PSF fitting photometry and having errors
331: less that 0.1 mag. Zeropoint offsets for each band are then calculated
332: and applied to our photometry. In the last step of our calibration, we
333: follow the approach of GS02 and convert our photometry (on the 2MASS
334: system) to the \citet{besselbrett1988} system using the conversions
335: presented by \citet[][their Eqs.~A1-A4]{carpenter2001}. This step is
336: necessary as it places our photometry on the same system as the
337: \citet{girardisalaris2001} models (see \S \ref{phot:sec:mags}). We note
338: that we have not fit any color terms in our calibration due to the small
339: range in color ($\sim$0.5 mag) covered by the RGB in addition to the
340: similarity of the ISPI and 2MASS filter systems.
341:
342: \section{Cluster Ages and Abundances}
343: \label{phot:sec:aa}
344:
345: As mentioned in \S \ref{phot:intro}, GS02 showed that knowledge of a
346: populous cluster's age and metallicity is imperative to accurately
347: predicting $\mkrc$, and thus determining the cluster's distance. This is
348: especially true for clusters with log(Age) $\lea$ 9.3 ($\lea$ 2 Gyr) or
349: [Fe/H] $\lea -0.4$, two regions of parameter space where $\mkrc$ can vary
350: rapidly (see Figs.~5 and 6 in GS02) and in which many LMC clusters reside.
351:
352: For the cluster metallicities, we turn primarily to the recent work of
353: \citet{grocholskietal2006}. In their paper, they present [Fe/H] for 28
354: populous LMC clusters, derived from the strong near infrared absorption
355: lines of the \ion{Ca}{2} triplet; all but four of the clusters in our
356: sample (ESO 121-03, NGC 1783, NGC 1978, and SL 896) have metallicities in
357: \citet{grocholskietal2006}. Red giants in NGC 1783 were studied by
358: A.~A.~Cole et al.~(2007, in preparation) using the \ion{Ca}{2} triplet in
359: an almost identical approach to that of \citet{grocholskietal2006}, so we
360: adopt their metallicity ($-0.47 \pm 0.14$ dex) for this cluster. For NGC
361: 1978, we use the metallicity calculated by \citet{ferraroetal2006}, which
362: is based on high resolution spectra of 11 red giant stars. We note that
363: their value of $-0.38 \pm 0.07$ dex is in good agreement with the results
364: of A.~A.~Cole et al.~(2007, in preparation), who find [Fe/H] = $-0.35 \pm
365: 0.07$. Using UVES on the VLT, \citet{hilletal2000} obtained high
366: resolution spectra for two giant stars in ESO 121-03 and found [Fe/H] =
367: $-0.91 \pm 0.16$, which we will adopt for this paper. Finally, while the
368: small cluster SL 896 has no previously published spectroscopically derived
369: [Fe/H] available, the results of \citet{grocholskietal2006} show that the
370: intermediate metallicity LMC clusters have a very tight spread in
371: metallicity ($\sigma = 0.09$), with a mean metallicity of $-0.48$ dex.
372: Thus, we adopt these values as the metallicity and error for SL 896.
373: Cluster metallicities and errors are presented in columns 2 and 3 of Table
374: \ref{tab:cluster_ages}.
375:
376: As for the ages, the most reliable way to determine cluster ages is by
377: comparing the predictions of theoretical isochrones to the luminosity of a
378: cluster's main sequence turn off. However, no large scale database of
379: main sequence fitting (MSF) ages exists for LMC clusters. To
380: address this shortcoming, we have begun to compile optical photometry that
381: reaches below the main sequence turn off (MSTO) for a large number of LMC
382: clusters. While the entire study will be presented in a future paper
383: (Grocholski et al.~2007, in preparation), we herein provide a brief
384: description of the data set and fitting method that are used to derive
385: cluster ages, as well as present ages for a sub-sample of clusters.
386: Optical photometry was taken primarily from the literature and in column 7
387: of Table \ref{tab:cluster_ages}, we list the CMD sources. In a few cases,
388: we have used unpublished optical images, obtained with either VLT FORS2
389: (NGC 1846, NGC 2203, IC 2146; see \citealt{grocholskietal2006}) or {\it
390: HST} WFPC2 (NGC 2193; program number GO-5475). For the three clusters
391: with $V$ and $I$ band VLT FORS2 images, stars were identified and
392: photometered with the aperture photometry routines in DAOPHOT
393: (\citealt{stetson1987}) and then matched to form colors. Currently, the
394: photometry for these three clusters is uncalibrated; however, the color
395: terms for the FORS2 array are small ($\sim$0.03 in $V-I$) and thus have
396: little effect on the shape of the MSTO/RC region, which spans a color
397: range of only $\sim$0.6 mag in $V-I$. Regarding NGC 2193, the one cluster
398: in our initial sample with unpublished {\it HST} WFPC2 photometry, we
399: retrieved F450W and F555W images from the HST archive. These pipeline
400: processed images were photometered via the procedure outlined by
401: \citet{sarajedini1998}, including the \citet{holtzmanetal1995}
402: transformation coefficients. Since the photometric zero points for WFPC2
403: are relatively uncertain, and the FORS2 data are uncalibrated, we proceed
404: with MSF as follows. Utilizing the Z = 0.008 ([Fe/H] $\approx -$0.4) and
405: Z = 0.004 ([Fe/H] $\approx -$0.7) theoretical models from the Padova group
406: (\citealt{girardietal2002}), which include treatment for core overshoot,
407: we first shift the isochrones vertically to match the brightness of the RC
408: and then move them horizontally to match the color of the unevolved main
409: sequence. For illustrative purposes, NGC 1651 and NGC 2173 are shown in
410: Fig.~\ref{fig:iso_fit}, with the Z = 0.008 isochrones over plotted for
411: log(Age) = 9.25 and 9.30 for NGC 1651 and 9.15, 9.20, and 9.25 for NGC
412: 2173; based on these fits, we adopt ages of log(Age) = 9.28 (1.91 Gyr)
413: and 9.20 (1.58 Gyr) for NGC 1651 and NGC 2173, respectively, and we
414: estimate the error in our fits to be $\pm$ 0.05 in terms of log(Age).
415: Table \ref{tab:cluster_ages} gives MSF ages for all clusters in our
416: preliminary sample with available optical photometry. While neither NGC
417: 1783 nor NGC 1978 has reliable photometry available in the literature,
418: both have ages determined by \citet{geisleretal1997}, who used the
419: difference in $V$-band magnitude between the cluster's RC and main
420: sequence turnoff to estimate cluster ages. For clusters in common, we
421: find an offset of 0.03 in log(Age), where our MSF ages are younger than
422: their ages. Therefore, for NGC 1783 and NGC 1978, we offset the values in
423: \citet{geisleretal1997} and adopt these as the ages for NGC 1783 and NGC
424: 1978.
425:
426: \section{Apparent and Absolute $K$-band RC Magnitudes}
427: \label{phot:sec:mags}
428:
429: To calculate the apparent and absolute RC magnitudes, we generally follow
430: the method prescribed by GS02. They determine the apparent $K$-band
431: magnitude of the RC ($\krc$) by placing a standard sized box (0.8 mag in
432: $K$ and 0.2 mag in $J-K$) around the RC; the median value of all stars
433: within this box is taken as $\krc$. A constant box size is used in
434: conjunction with the median magnitude of the RC in an effort to eliminate
435: any selection effects that may occur in choosing the location of the box,
436: as well as to limit the effects of outliers on $\krc$. In a few cases, we
437: have had to shift the box center slighty in color so as to avoid
438: contamination from RGB stars. For predicting the absolute RC magnitude
439: ($\mkrc$), GS02 combined available 2MASS photometry ($JK_S$) for 14
440: Galactic open clusters, which also have internally consistent ages,
441: abundances, and distances, with an interpolation routine based on low
442: order polynomials. The interpolation over the open clusters allows the
443: prediction of $\mkrc$ for a target cluster with a known age and [Fe/H].
444: This method was applied to NGC 2158 by GS02 and to Hodge 4 and NGC 1651 by
445: \citet{sarajedinietal2002}, all with promising results.
446:
447: Given ISPI's large field of view, before we can measure $\krc$ we must
448: separate the cluster stars from the field by performing radial cuts on our
449: data. Where available, we use the cluster radii as determined by
450: \citet{grocholski2006}, which were based on the kinematics of individual
451: stars; typically, the farthest star from the cluster center that is moving
452: at the velocity of the cluster denotes the adopted radius. For the four
453: clusters not in common with their study, radial cuts were chosen by eye,
454: using a combination of cluster images and our photometric catalogs. We
455: note that small variations in the adopted cluster radii have no
456: appreciable effect on our results; a change in radius of $\pm$ 100 pixels
457: ($\sim$ 0.5 arcmin) results in a change in $\mkrc$ of $\sim$ 0.03 mag.
458: In Fig.~\ref{fig:rc_1}, we present the resulting $K$ vs.~$J-K$ cluster
459: CMDs, which extend from the tip of the RGB to $\sim$1.5 mag below the
460: helium burning RC; the standard size box used in calculating $\krc$ is
461: shown. For each cluster, the measured value of $\krc$ is given in column
462: 2 of Table \ref{tab:rcdist}, along with the standard error of the median
463: (column 3) and number of RC stars in each box (column 4).
464:
465: Ideally, we would like to predict $\mkrc$ using the open cluster data
466: presented in GS02. In practice, however, this is difficult since our LMC
467: cluster sample falls outside of the parameter space (in metallicity)
468: covered by the open clusters; tests of an extrapolation routine applied to
469: the target cluster abundances proved to be unreliable. Instead, we turn
470: to the theoretical models of \citet[][see also
471: \citealt{girardietal2000}]{girardisalaris2001}, which provide expected
472: values of $\mkrc$ that span a large range of ages and metallicities and
473: encompass our LMC target clusters. GS02 tested their open cluster data
474: against these theoretical models and found good agreement, with all
475: clusters lying within 1.5$\sigma$ of the appropriate model and no
476: systematic offset. Since their comparison was based on data from the
477: Second Incremental Data Release of the 2MASS Point Source Catalog, we have
478: recompared the models and the data, using the updated 2MASS All Sky Data
479: Release. With the new 2MASS photometry, we still find good agreement with
480: the models, however, there is now an offset of 0.08 mag, in that the
481: observed RC values are brighter than what is predicted by the models. We
482: discuss this in more detail in \S \ref{phot:sec:errors}. Given the ages
483: and metallicities listed in Table \ref{tab:cluster_ages}, we are able to
484: determine $\mkrc$ for each LMC cluster by interpolating over the
485: \citet{girardisalaris2001} models; predicted values of $\mkrc$ are
486: presented in Table \ref{tab:rcdist}. The quoted error in $\mkrc$ is
487: calculated by adding in quadrature the effects of age and abundance errors
488: on the predicted absolute RC magnitude. We note that the five youngest
489: clusters in our sample have relatively large error bars due to the fact
490: that their ages place them in a region where the RC brightens rapidly with
491: increasing age (see Fig.~4 in GS02); thus, small errors in age result in
492: large errors in $\mkrc$.
493:
494: \section{Cluster Distances and the Distance to the LMC}
495: \label{phot:sec:moduli}
496: \subsection{Absolute Distance Moduli}
497:
498: With $\krc$ and $\mkrc$ in hand, cluster reddenings are all that is needed
499: to calculate absolute distance moduli. The extinction maps of both
500: \citet{bursteinheiles1982} and \citet*{schlegeletal1998} cover the entire
501: LMC; however, \citet{schlegeletal1998} were not able to resolve the
502: temperature structure in the inner portions of the LMC and, therefore,
503: could not estimate the reddening reliably. For most clusters, the two
504: reddeining maps give values in good agreement, although as some of our
505: clusters lie in the unresolved region, we adopt $\ebv$ values solely from
506: \citet{bursteinheiles1982} and assume an error of 20\%. Reddenings are
507: converted to $A_K$ using the extinction law of \citet*{cardellietal1989},
508: where $R_V = 3.1$ and $A_K = 0.11 A_V$. We note that, since $A_K$ is
509: approximately one third of $\ebv$, any differences between the two
510: extinction maps are ultimately negligible. We also note that the adopted
511: values of $A_K$ are typically on the order of the error in measuring
512: $\krc$. In Table \ref{tab:rcdist} we give $\ebv$ and $A_K$ for the cluster
513: sample. With absolute and apparent RC magnitudes and reddenings for each
514: cluster, absolute distance moduli, $\mmo$, are readily calculated and are
515: listed in Table \ref{tab:rcdist} along with the distance errors, which are
516: found by adding in quadrature the errors in $\krc$, $\mkrc$, and $\ebv$.
517:
518: %We have also converted these
519: %distances and errors in to kiloparsecs, as given in the last two columns
520: %of Table \ref{tab:rcdist}.
521:
522: \subsection{LMC Cluster Distribution}
523: \label{phot:sec:distrib}
524:
525: It has long been known that the disk of the LMC is inclined with respect
526: to the plane of the sky (see e.g., \citealt{caldwellcoulson1986}), and
527: this inclination is an important effect when using individual stars (or
528: clusters) to determine the distance to the LMC center. Recent work using
529: field stars as a tracer of the disk (tip of the RGB and AGB,
530: \citealt{vdmcioni2001}; field RC stars, \citealt{olsensalyk2002}; carbon
531: stars, \citealt{vdmetal2002}; Cepheid variables,
532: \citealt{nikolaevetal2004}) has shown that the LMC has an inclination of
533: $i \sim31\degr-36\degr$, with a position angle of the line of nodes,
534: $\Theta$, between 120$\degr$ and 150$\degr$; both of these quantities
535: have the standard definitions where $i = 0\degr$ for a face on disk and
536: $\Theta$ is measured counterclockwise from north. The LMC centers adopted
537: by each of these authors, in addition to their derived values for $\Theta$
538: and $i$, are given in Table \ref{tab:geom}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:schematic}
539: we plot the positions on the sky of our target clusters as well as the LMC
540: centers adopted by \citet[][ {\it filled square}]{vdmcioni2001}, \citet[][
541: {\it filled triangle}]{vdmetal2002}, and \citet[][ {\it filled
542: star}]{olsensalyk2002}. The solid lines passing through these points show
543: each author's position angle of the line of nodes. We note that, for
544: clarity, we have not plotted the center and position angle of the line of
545: nodes from \citet{nikolaevetal2004} as they are very similar to the values
546: in \citet{olsensalyk2002}. For reference, the 2$\degr$ near-infrared
547: isopleth (\citealt{vdm2001}), which roughly outlines the LMC bar, is
548: plotted as the dashed ellipse. Conversion to Cartesian coordinates from
549: right ascension and declination was performed using a zenithal
550: equidistiant projection (e.g., \citealt{vdmcioni2001}, their
551: eqs.~[1]-[4]); lines of right ascension and declination have been marked
552: with dotted lines. In general, these geometries tell us that the northeast
553: portion of the LMC is closer to us than the southwest. More specifically,
554: since points along the line of nodes are equidistant from the observer, in
555: the direction perpendicular to the line of nodes we would expect to see a
556: maximum gradient in cluster distance.
557:
558: To compare our cluster distribution with the geometry of the LMC, in
559: Fig.~\ref{fig:dist_distrib} we plot cluster distance as a function of
560: radial distance along the line of maximum gradient. While we have used the
561: geometry of \citet{vdmcioni2001} to determine the position of the line of
562: maximum gradient, the choice in LMC geometry between these three recent
563: studies has little effect on the results (see \S \ref{phot:sec:lmcdist}).
564: In the top panel, clusters are labeled for reference and in the bottom
565: panel we have included the 1$\sigma$ distance errors. In addition, the
566: dashed line represents the disk of the LMC, where the LMC center ($x = 0$)
567: has a distance of 47.9 kpc (see \S \ref{phot:sec:lmcdist}) and $i =
568: 34\fdg7$ (\citealt{vdmcioni2001}); the dotted line represents a constant
569: disk thickness of $\pm$ 1 kpc. While a flared disk model
570: (\citealt{alvesnelson2000}) is probably a more correct representation of
571: the LMC's disk, for the purposes of our comparison a constant thickness
572: disk model is adequate. Regardless, Fig.~\ref{fig:dist_distrib} shows
573: that, with the exception of the youngest clusters, which have inherently
574: uncertain distances, our results are consistent with the idea that the LMC
575: clusters lie in the same inclined, thick disk as defined by a variety of
576: field populations.
577:
578: A disk-like cluster distribution is as expected, based on the kinematics
579: of the cluster system (\citealt{schommeretal1992}), but this is the first
580: time it has been demonstrated that the clusters and field stars reside in
581: the same disk. This result is in contrast to the recent findings of
582: \citet{kerberetal2006}, who used the MSTO to calculate distances for 15
583: LMC clusters. From their data they found a disk-like distribution for
584: their clusters, along with an inclination of $39\degr \pm 7\degr$, which
585: is $\sim 8\degr$ steeper than the $30\fdg7\pm1\fdg1$ disk inclination that
586: \citet{kerberetal2006} adopted from \citet{nikolaevetal2004}.
587: \citet{kerberetal2006} interpreted this inclination difference as
588: suggesting that the LMC's intermediate-age clusters formed in a different
589: disk than the field stars. However, they discuss neither the results of
590: \citet{vdmcioni2001} nor \citet{olsensalyk2002}, who find disk
591: inclinations of $34\fdg7\pm6\fdg2$ and $35\fdg8\pm2\fdg4$, respectively,
592: both in agreement with the cluster disk inclination found by
593: \citet{kerberetal2006}.
594:
595: We note in passing that \citet{olsensalyk2002} found what appears to be a
596: warp in the southwest portion of the LMC. Their fields in this region are
597: brighter than expected, giving the impression that they have been pulled
598: toward the MW. There is, however, a possible problem with the reddening
599: corrections that \citet{olsensalyk2002} have applied to these fields, which
600: may explain the apparent warp. As only two of our target clusters, NGC
601: 1651 and SL 61, lie in the warped area, we are not in a position to
602: comment on their result.
603:
604: Since galactic disks are relatively fragile, and it is highly unlikely
605: that clusters would form in a halo and then be perturbed into a disk, the
606: disk-like distribution and kinematics of our LMC clusters suggest that
607: they formed in a disk. As ESO 121 is the oldest cluster in our IR sample,
608: its residence in the LMC's disk implies that the disk formed $\sim$9 Gyr
609: ago. However, ESO 121 is well known to be the only cluster in the LMC
610: with an age between approximately 3 Gyr and 13 Gyr. To further explore
611: the age of the disk, we turn to the LMC's {\it bona fide} old ($\sim$13
612: Gyr) globular cluster population and the optical photometry of
613: A.~R.~Walker (see \citealt{walker1985,walkermack1988,walker1989,
614: walker1990, walker1992_retic,walker1992_1466,walker1993}). Walker
615: measured the mean apparent $V$-band magnitude ($V_{RR}$) of RR Lyrae stars
616: in seven LMC globular clusters and, using their pulsational properties,
617: was able to estimate cluster metallicities. Given the metallicity of a
618: cluster, the mean absolute RR Lyrae magnitude is determined by $M_{V}^{RR}
619: = 0.23 [Fe/H] + c$ (\citealt{chaboyer1999}), and by adopting reddenings
620: from \citet{bursteinheiles1982} we can readily calculate distances for
621: these seven clusters. The zeropoint, $c$, in the above relation is chosen
622: such that NGC 1835 lies on the dashed line. Cluster information is given
623: in Table \ref{tab:old_clust}, and these new data points are plotted in
624: Fig.~\ref{fig:dist_distrib} as open circles, along with their 1$\sigma$
625: errors. The errors in [Fe/H] and $V_{RR}$ are taken from Walker and we
626: assume a 20\% error in $\ebv$ for all clusters except Reticulum, for which
627: we adopt 0.02 mag. Fig.~\ref{fig:dist_distrib} shows that, like the
628: intermediate age clusters, the old globular clusters are distributed in a
629: manner that is consistent with the thick, inclined disk geometry of the
630: LMC field stars. The agreement between the old globular clusters and the
631: disk suggest that cluster like NGC 2257 and NGC 1466 formed in, and still
632: reside in, the disk. The disk of the LMC, therefore, must be roughly the
633: same age as the globular clusters, $\sim$13 Gyr old.
634:
635:
636: %Since we have shown that our clusters lie in the disk of the LMC, it is
637: %possible to use their ages to infer the age of the disk. ESO 121, the
638: %cluster in our IR sample that is both farthest from the LMC center and
639: %the
640: %oldest, appears to reside in the disk. At its distance from the LMC
641: %center, ESO 121 is likely to have had very few, if any, close encounters
642: %with other massive objects. Had an encounter like this occurred, we
643: %would
644: %expect ESO 121 to have been kicked out of the disk and take on halo-like
645: %kinematics. Since ESO 121, like the entire LMC cluster system, exhibits
646: %disk-like kinematics (\citealt{schommeretal1992}), it can be reasonably
647: %assumed that ESO 121 remains virtually unperturbed from its original
648: %orbit. Therefore, if we can also assume that ESO 121 is the last
649: %survivor
650: %of a population of clusters with similar ages, and is representative of
651: %stars that formed around the same time, then its position implies that
652: %the disk of the LMC is at least $\sim$9 Gyr old.
653:
654: %As ESO 121 is well known to be the only cluster in the LMC with an age
655: %between approximately 3 Gyr and 13 Gyr, to further explore the age of
656: %the
657: %disk, we turn to the LMC's {\it bona fide} old ($\sim$13 Gyr) globular
658: %cluster population and the optical photometry of A.~R.~Walker (see
659: %\citealt{walker1985,walkermack1988,walker1989,walker1990,
660: %walker1992_retic,walker1992_1466,walker1993}). Walker measured the mean
661: %apparent $V$-band magnitude ($V_{RR}$) of RR Lyrae stars in seven LMC
662: %globular clusters and, using their pulsational properties, was able to
663: %estimate cluster metallicities. Given the metallicity of a cluster, the
664: %mean absolute RR Lyrae magnitude is determined by $M_{V}^{RR} = 0.23
665: %[Fe/H] + c$ (\citealt{chaboyer1999}), and by adopting reddenings from
666: %\citet{bursteinheiles1982} we can readily calculate distances for these
667: %seven clusters. The zeropoint, $c$, in the above relation is chosen such
668: %that NGC 1835 lies on the dashed line. Cluster information is given in
669: %Table \ref{tab:old_clust}, and these new data points are plotted in
670: %Fig.~\ref{fig:dist_distrib} as open circles, along with their 1$\sigma$
671: %errors. The errors in [Fe/H] and $V_{RR}$ are taken from Walker and we
672: %assume a 20\% error in $\ebv$ for all clusters except Reticulum, for
673: %which
674: %we adopt 0.02 mag. Fig.~\ref{fig:dist_distrib} shows that, like the
675: %intermediate age clusters, the old globular clusters are distributed in a
676: %manner that is consistent with the thick, inclined disk geometry of the
677: %LMC field stars. With the agreement between the old clusters and the
678: %disk, and given their distances from the center, the argument can be made
679: %that clusters like NGC 2257 and NGC 1466 must have formed in, and have
680: %remained in, the disk of the LMC. Thus, the disk is at least the same
681: %age as the globular clusters, $\sim$13 Gyr old.
682:
683: Lastly, we note the position of NGC 1841. This cluster resides $\sim$12
684: kpc from the LMC center (to the south), which places it near the tidal
685: radius ($r_t = 15.0 \pm 4.5$ kpc, \citealt{vdmetal2002}) of the LMC, and,
686: as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist_distrib}, it sits well out of the
687: plane of the disk, in the direction of the Milky Way. Thus, NGC 1841 is
688: likely to have either been pulled out of the disk, or stripped from the
689: LMC altogether, in a close encounter with the Milky Way.
690:
691:
692: \subsection{The Distance to the LMC Center}
693: \label{phot:sec:lmcdist}
694:
695: For any given point, $P$, that resides in the disk of the LMC, the
696: distance, $D$, of
697: that point is related to the distance to the center of the LMC,
698: $D_0$, by
699: \begin{equation}
700: D/D_0 = \cos i/[\cos i \cos \rho - \sin i \sin \rho \sin (\phi - \theta)],
701: \label{eq:phot:distratio}
702: \end{equation}
703: where $i$ is the inclination of the disk and $\theta = \Theta + 90$ (see
704: \citealt{vdmcioni2001} for a detailed discussion of equations
705: \ref{eq:phot:distratio}$-$\ref{eq:phot:phitwo}).
706: The angular coordinate $\rho$ is defined as the
707: angular separation on the sky between $P$ and the LMC
708: center, while
709: $\phi$ is the position angle of $P$ relative to the center.
710: Typically, $\phi$ is measured
711: counterclockwise from the axis that runs in the direction of decreasing
712: right ascension and passes through the LMC center.
713: These coordinates ($\rho$, $\phi$) can be uniquely defined by the cosine
714: and sine rule of spherical trigonometry and the analog formula, which give
715: \begin{equation}
716: \cos \rho = \cos \delta \cos \delta_0 \cos (\alpha - \alpha_0) + \sin
717: \delta \sin \delta_0,
718: \label{eq:phot:rho}
719: \end{equation}
720: \begin{equation}
721: \sin \rho \cos \phi = - \cos \delta \sin (\alpha - \alpha_0),
722: \label{eq:phot:phione}
723: \end{equation}
724: and
725: \begin{equation}
726: \sin \rho \sin \phi = \sin \delta \cos \delta_0 - \cos \delta \sin
727: \delta_0 \cos (\alpha - \alpha_0).
728: \label{eq:phot:phitwo}
729: \end{equation}
730: In equations \ref{eq:phot:rho}$-$\ref{eq:phot:phitwo}, $\alpha_0$ and
731: $\delta_0$ are the right ascension and declination of the LMC center while
732: $\alpha$ and $\delta$ mark the position on the sky of $P$. Therefore,
733: since
734: it is reasonable to assume that our target clusters lie in the disk of the
735: LMC, as defined by the field stars (\S \ref{phot:sec:distrib}), we can use
736: the distances of our clusters in conjunction with the LMC geometry to
737: calculate the distance to the center of the LMC.
738:
739: As an example, we adopt $i = 34\fdg7$ and $\Theta = 122\fdg5$
740: (\citealt{vdmcioni2001}), and calculate values for the LMC center distance
741: based on the distance and position of each of our 17 target clusters.
742: Raw cluster distances from Table \ref{tab:rcdist} and the corresponding
743: LMC distance are given in Table \ref{tab:cen_dist} with the LMC distance
744: errors calculated by propogating the errors in $i$, $\Theta$, and $D$
745: through equation \ref{eq:phot:distratio}. Finally, we calculate the
746: distance to the LMC as the mean of the individual center distances, for
747: which we find $D_0 = 47.9 \pm 0.9$ kpc, or $\mmo = 18.40 \pm 0.04$; the
748: quoted error is the standard error of the mean. We note that, while
749: calculating the straight mean does include the young clusters, which have
750: uncertain distances, we have found that the mean, median, weighted mean,
751: and 2$\sigma$ clipped mean all give distances within 0.01 mag of each
752: other, thus we have chosen to simply adopt the mean as our final distance.
753: In addition to \citet{vdmcioni2001}, we also use the geometry of
754: \citet{olsensalyk2002}, \citet{vdmetal2002}, and \citet{nikolaevetal2004}
755: to calculate the distance to the LMC, with all four mean distances given
756: in Table \ref{tab:geom}. The final distances, $D_0 =$ $47.9 \pm 0.9$ kpc,
757: $48.1 \pm 0.9$ kpc, $47.9 \pm 0.9$ kpc, and $48.1 \pm 0.9$ kpc, are all in
758: excellent agreement, which shows that the choice of geometry between these
759: four authors has little effect on the distance to the LMC center.
760:
761:
762: \subsection{Systematic Errors}
763: \label{phot:sec:errors}
764:
765: An analysis of our approach to calculating cluster distances gives two
766: possible sources of systematic errors. The first source of error in our
767: calculations arises from our interpolation method. As discussed in \S
768: \ref{phot:sec:mags}, due to the location of our target clusters in the
769: age-metallicity parameter space, we are not able to interpolate over the
770: open cluster data in GS02. Instead, we have had to use the
771: theoretical models of \citet{girardisalaris2001} for our interpolation.
772: While the models are in good agreement with the open cluster data, they
773: predict absolute magnitudes that are, on average, 0.08 mag fainter than
774: what is observed. An additional systematic error may arise from our
775: choice of reddening map. \citet{bursteinheiles1982} zeropoint their
776: reddening maps to an area near the north galactic pole which was long
777: believed to be a direction of zero reddening. \citet{schlegeletal1998},
778: however, find $\ebv = 0.02$ mag for the same location on the sky. These
779: two systematic errors work in opposite directions; if we applied a
780: correction for the interpolation error, clusters would move {\it closer},
781: while a correction for the reddening error would make them appear farther
782: away. However, since $A_K = 0.341\ebv$, the systematic reddening error is
783: small and is dominated by the systematic error due to our interpolation.
784: Therefore, we adopt 0.08 mag as our systematic error.
785:
786:
787: \section{Comparison to Previous Distances}
788: \label{phot:sec:dist}
789:
790: Since an extensive review of LMC distances determined by a variety of
791: standard candles can be found in \citet{clementinietal2003}, herein we
792: restrict our comparison to only a couple recent distance calculations.
793: The only previous LMC cluster distances based on the $K$-band luminosity
794: of the RC are presented in \citet{sarajedinietal2002} and, using the
795: approach described in GS02, they find $\mmo = 18.55 \pm 0.12$ and $18.52
796: \pm 0.17$ for NGC 1651 and Hodge 4, respectively. Both distances are
797: farther than what we find for the same clusters, due primarily to their
798: photometric calibration. For both clusters, \citet{sarajedinietal2002}
799: measure $\krc$ to be $\sim$0.1 mag fainter than our values. Given the
800: small number of standard stars used by \citet{sarajedinietal2002} along
801: with their small field of view, which provided only a handful of stars for
802: aperture correction determination, this difference in photometric
803: zeropoint is not unexpected.
804:
805: Most recently, \citet{macrietal2006} observed Cepheid variables in two
806: fields in the maser-host galaxy NGC 4258. By comparing the LMC's Cepheid
807: P-L relation to their observations of variables in NGC 4258,
808: \citet{macrietal2006} were able to calculate a {\it relative} distance
809: between these two galaxies of $\Delta \mmo = 10.88 \pm 0.04$ (random) $\pm
810: 0.05$ (systematic). Being a maser-host galaxy, NGC 4258 has an accurate
811: geometric distance ($29.29 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.12$ mag) that, combined with the
812: Cepheid-based relative distance, allowed \citet{macrietal2006} to
813: calculate the distance to the LMC. They find $\mmo = 18.41 \pm 0.10 \pm
814: 0.13$, in excellent agreement with our results. As discussed by Marci et
815: al.~(2006), this improved distance has implications for calculations of
816: $H_0$. The {\it HST} Key Project to determine the Hubble constant (see
817: \citealt{freedmanetal2001}) adopted $\mmo = 18.5 \pm 0.1$ as their
818: distance to the LMC, which acts as the zeropoint for the extragalactic
819: distance scale. Using this longer distance, \citet{freedmanetal2001} find
820: $H_0 = 72 \pm 8$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. In recalculating $H_0$,
821: \citet{macrietal2006} find that the shorter LMC distance increases the
822: Hubble constant $\sim$3\%. However, they find that their new coefficient
823: of metallicity dependence for Cepheid variables has the opposite effect,
824: changing $H_0$ by $\sim-$2\%. Thus, the cumulative effect results in only
825: a small change in the Hubble constant. With their new results, they
826: calculate $H_0 = 74 \pm 3 \pm 6$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
827:
828:
829: \section{Summary}
830: \label{phot:sec:summary}
831:
832: In this paper we have presented results of a near-infrared photometric
833: study of populous clusters in the LMC. Using ISPI on the CTIO 4m we
834: obtained $JK'$ photometry down to $\sim$1.5 mag below the core helium
835: burning red clump stars in 17 clusters, allowing us to accurately measure
836: the {\it apparent} $K$-band magnitude of the RC. In a similar approach to
837: that of GS02, we combine cluster ages and metallicities with
838: theoretical models to predict the {\it absolute} $K$-band RC magnitude for
839: each of these clusters. Thus, we are able to determine accurate cluster
840: distances and explore the 3-dimensional cluster distribution as well as
841: calculate the distance to the center of the LMC. The main results of our
842: paper are as follows:
843:
844: 1) We have compiled deep optical photometry (below the MSTO) for 15 of our
845: clusters. By combining these data with previously published
846: metallicities, we are able to break the well known age-metallicity
847: degeneracy and calculate accurate cluster ages via MSTO fitting with
848: theoretical isochrones that include treatment for core overshoot. The
849: intermediate age clusters range in age from only $\sim$1-3 Gyr; thus,
850: these MSF ages do not close the LMC's cluster age gap. We confirm that
851: ESO 121, the only LMC cluster known to have an age between $\sim$3-13 Gyr,
852: formed approximately 9 Gyr ago.
853:
854: 2) By combining $\krc$ measured from our near IR photometry with the
855: values of $\mkrc$ predicted by theoretical models, we have determined
856: accurate distances for all 17 clusters in our sample; our average standard
857: error of the mean distance is 0.08 mag, or 1.8 kpc. This work represents
858: the largest sample of LMC clusters with distances derived in an internally
859: consistent way.
860:
861: %3) For the first time, we are able to explore the 3-dimensional
862: %distribution of the LMC cluster system using cluster distances. Previous
863: %work has shown that the LMC field populations lie in a thick, inclined
864: %disk and our results illustrate that the clusters are distributed in the
865: %same manner. Until now, this distribution could only be inferred from
866: %cluster kinematics.
867:
868: 3) The cluster distances allow us to explore the spatial
869: distribution of the LMC cluster system. Previous work has shown that the
870: LMC field populations lie in a thick, inclined disk and our results
871: illustrate that the clusters are distributed in the same manner. A
872: disk-like distribution for all LMC clusters has been inferred from the
873: kinematics of the cluster system, however, our results mark the first time
874: that it has been demonstrated that the clusters and the field stars lie in
875: the same plane.
876:
877: %this has been demonstrated using cluster distances.
878:
879: 4) Previously published RR Lyrae data for seven old globular clusters have
880: allowed us to calculate distances for these clusters and compare their
881: distribution to the geometry of the LMC. Like the intermediate age
882: clusters, the globular clusters have a distribution that is consistent
883: with residence in the disk of the LMC.
884:
885: 5) Given that it is unlikely for clusters to form in a halo and then be
886: perturbed {\it into} a disk, the disk-like kinematics and distribution of
887: the LMC clusters implies that they formed in a disk. The fact that old
888: clusters (e.g.,~NGC 2257, NGC 1466, ESO 121) are seen to currently reside
889: in the disk suggests that they also formed in the LMC's disk. From this,
890: we infer that the disk of the LMC must have formed about $\sim$13 Gyr ago.
891:
892: %5) Clusters that lie well away from the center of the LMC have probably
893: %seen few, if any, encounters with other massive objects and are therefore
894: %unlikely to have been perturbed from their original orbits. Thus,
895: %clusters with large galactocentric radii that are currently located in
896: %the
897: %disk (e.g.,~NGC 2257, NGC 1466, ESO 121) likely formed in the disk. We
898: %note that the disk-like kinematics of these clusters suggest that the
899: %positions of these clusters are not just a chance alignment of halo
900: %clusters with the plane of the galaxy. From this, we infer that the disk
901: %of the LMC must have formed at about the same time as the old globular
902: %clusters, $\sim$13 Gyr ago.
903:
904: 6) The old globular cluster NGC 1841 lies near the LMC's tidal radius
905: and well out of the plane of the disk, in the direction of the Milky Way.
906: Its position suggests that it was pulled out of the disk, or possibly
907: stripped from the LMC, in a close encounter with the Milky Way.
908:
909: 7) Taking the inclined geometry of the LMC into account, we find the mean
910: distance to the center of this nearby galaxy to be $\mmo = 18.40 \pm 0.04
911: \pm 0.08$ or $D_0 = 47.9 \pm 0.9 \pm 1.8$ kpc. Our result is in excellent
912: agreement with the recent work of \citet{macrietal2006} who found $\mmo =
913: 18.41 \pm 0.1 \pm 0.13$ by comparing Cepheid variables in the maser-host
914: galaxy NGC 4258 with those in the LMC. This distance, however, is
915: $\sim$0.1 mag shorter than the commonly accepted distance of $18.5 \pm
916: 0.1$ mag, which was used in the {\it HST} Key Project to calculate $H_0$
917: (see \citealt{freedmanetal2001}). This shorter distance has the
918: effect of increasing $H_0$ by $\sim$3\% \citep{macrietal2006}.
919:
920: % use the new
921: %distance to
922: %recalculate the Hubble constant, however, they found that their improved
923: %Cepheid calibration mitigates the distance effect somewhat, resulting in
924: %a value of $H_0 = 74 \pm 3 \pm 6$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
925:
926:
927: \acknowledgments
928:
929: This research was supported by NSF CAREER grant AST-0094048 to AS. We
930: would like to thank Mike Barker for assistance with the near-IR
931: observations, Andy Stephens for providing us with a copy of his data, and
932: Steve Eikenberry for helpful discussions regarding the data processing.
933: The authors appreciate the helpful comments of an anonymous referee.
934:
935:
936: %{\it Facilities:} \facility{Blanco (ISPI)}.
937:
938: %\appendix
939:
940: %\section{Appendix material}
941:
942: %\bibliography{phot_biblio}
943:
944: \begin{thebibliography}{48}
945: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
946:
947: \bibitem[{{Abraham}(1999)}]{abraham1999}
948: {Abraham}, R.~G. 1999, in IAU Symp. 186: Galaxy Interactions at Low and High
949: Redshift, ed. J.~E. {Barnes} \& D.~B. {Sanders}, 11--
950:
951: \bibitem[{{Alves} \& {Nelson}(2000)}]{alvesnelson2000}
952: {Alves}, D.~R. \& {Nelson}, C.~A. 2000, \apj, 542, 789
953:
954: \bibitem[{{Bessell} \& {Brett}(1988)}]{besselbrett1988}
955: {Bessell}, M.~S. \& {Brett}, J.~M. 1988, \pasp, 100, 1134
956:
957: \bibitem[{{Bica} {et~al.}(1998){Bica}, {Geisler}, {Dottori}, {Clari{\'a}},
958: {Piatti}, \& {Santos}}]{bicaetal1998}
959: {Bica}, E., {Geisler}, D., {Dottori}, H., {Clari{\'a}}, J.~J., {Piatti}, A.~E.,
960: \& {Santos}, Jr., J.~F.~C. 1998, \aj, 116, 723
961:
962: \bibitem[{{Brocato} {et~al.}(2001){Brocato}, {Di Carlo}, \&
963: {Menna}}]{brocatoetal2001}
964: {Brocato}, E., {Di Carlo}, E., \& {Menna}, G. 2001, \aap, 374, 523
965:
966: \bibitem[{{Burstein} \& {Heiles}(1982)}]{bursteinheiles1982}
967: {Burstein}, D. \& {Heiles}, C. 1982, \aj, 87, 1165
968:
969: \bibitem[{{Caldwell} \& {Coulson}(1986)}]{caldwellcoulson1986}
970: {Caldwell}, J.~A.~R. \& {Coulson}, I.~M. 1986, \mnras, 218, 223
971:
972: \bibitem[{{Cardelli} {et~al.}(1989){Cardelli}, {Clayton}, \&
973: {Mathis}}]{cardellietal1989}
974: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Clayton}, G.~C., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
975:
976: \bibitem[{{Carpenter}(2001)}]{carpenter2001}
977: {Carpenter}, J.~M. 2001, \aj, 121, 2851
978:
979: \bibitem[{{Chaboyer}(1999)}]{chaboyer1999}
980: {Chaboyer}, B. 1999, in ASSL Vol. 237: Post-Hipparcos cosmic candles, ed.
981: A.~{Heck} \& F.~{Caputo}, 111--+
982:
983: \bibitem[{{Cioni} {et~al.}(2000){Cioni}, {van der Marel}, {Loup}, \&
984: {Habing}}]{cionietal2000}
985: {Cioni}, M.-R.~L., {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Loup}, C., \& {Habing}, H.~J. 2000,
986: \aap, 359, 601
987:
988: \bibitem[{{Clementini} {et~al.}(2003){Clementini}, {Gratton}, {Bragaglia},
989: {Carretta}, {Di Fabrizio}, \& {Maio}}]{clementinietal2003}
990: {Clementini}, G., {Gratton}, R., {Bragaglia}, A., {Carretta}, E., {Di
991: Fabrizio}, L., \& {Maio}, M. 2003, \aj, 125, 1309
992:
993: \bibitem[{{Ferraro} {et~al.}(2006){Ferraro}, {Mucciarelli}, {Carretta}, \&
994: {Origlia}}]{ferraroetal2006}
995: {Ferraro}, F.~R., {Mucciarelli}, A., {Carretta}, E., \& {Origlia}, L. 2006,
996: \apjl, 645, L33
997:
998: \bibitem[{{Freedman} {et~al.}(2001){Freedman}, {Madore}, {Gibson}, {Ferrarese},
999: {Kelson}, {Sakai}, {Mould}, {Kennicutt}, {Ford}, {Graham}, {Huchra},
1000: {Hughes}, {Illingworth}, {Macri}, \& {Stetson}}]{freedmanetal2001}
1001: {Freedman}, W.~L., {Madore}, B.~F., {Gibson}, B.~K., {Ferrarese}, L., {Kelson},
1002: D.~D., {Sakai}, S., {Mould}, J.~R., {Kennicutt}, R.~C., {Ford}, H.~C.,
1003: {Graham}, J.~A., {Huchra}, J.~P., {Hughes}, S.~M.~G., {Illingworth}, G.~D.,
1004: {Macri}, L.~M., \& {Stetson}, P.~B. 2001, \apj, 553, 47
1005:
1006: \bibitem[{{Geisler} {et~al.}(1997){Geisler}, {Bica}, {Dottori}, {Claria},
1007: {Piatti}, \& {Santos}}]{geisleretal1997}
1008: {Geisler}, D., {Bica}, E., {Dottori}, H., {Claria}, J.~J., {Piatti}, A.~E., \&
1009: {Santos}, J.~F.~C. 1997, \aj, 114, 1920
1010:
1011: \bibitem[{{Gieren} {et~al.}(1998){Gieren}, {Fouque}, \&
1012: {Gomez}}]{gierenetal1998}
1013: {Gieren}, W.~P., {Fouque}, P., \& {Gomez}, M. 1998, \apj, 496, 17
1014:
1015: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2002){Girardi}, {Bertelli}, {Bressan}, {Chiosi},
1016: {Groenewegen}, {Marigo}, {Salasnich}, \& {Weiss}}]{girardietal2002}
1017: {Girardi}, L., {Bertelli}, G., {Bressan}, A., {Chiosi}, C., {Groenewegen},
1018: M.~A.~T., {Marigo}, P., {Salasnich}, B., \& {Weiss}, A. 2002, \aap, 391, 195
1019:
1020: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2000){Girardi}, {Bressan}, {Bertelli}, \&
1021: {Chiosi}}]{girardietal2000}
1022: {Girardi}, L., {Bressan}, A., {Bertelli}, G., \& {Chiosi}, C. 2000, \aaps, 141,
1023: 371
1024:
1025: \bibitem[{{Girardi} \& {Salaris}(2001)}]{girardisalaris2001}
1026: {Girardi}, L. \& {Salaris}, M. 2001, \mnras, 323, 109
1027:
1028: \bibitem[{{Grocholski}(2006)}]{grocholski2006}
1029: {Grocholski}, A.~J. 2006, Ph.D.~Thesis
1030:
1031: \bibitem[{{Grocholski} {et~al.}(2006){Grocholski}, {Cole}, {Sarajedini},
1032: {Geisler}, \& {Smith}}]{grocholskietal2006}
1033: {Grocholski}, A.~J., {Cole}, A.~A., {Sarajedini}, A., {Geisler}, D., \&
1034: {Smith}, V.~V. 2006, \aj, 132, 1630
1035:
1036: \bibitem[{{Grocholski} \& {Sarajedini}(2002)}]{gs02}
1037: {Grocholski}, A.~J. \& {Sarajedini}, A. 2002, \aj, 123, 1603
1038:
1039: \bibitem[{{Hill} {et~al.}(2000){Hill}, {Fran{\c c}ois}, {Spite}, {Primas}, \&
1040: {Spite}}]{hilletal2000}
1041: {Hill}, V., {Fran{\c c}ois}, P., {Spite}, M., {Primas}, F., \& {Spite}, F.
1042: 2000, \aap, 364, L19
1043:
1044: \bibitem[{{Holtzman} {et~al.}(1995){Holtzman}, {Burrows}, {Casertano},
1045: {Hester}, {Trauger}, {Watson}, \& {Worthey}}]{holtzmanetal1995}
1046: {Holtzman}, J.~A., {Burrows}, C.~J., {Casertano}, S., {Hester}, J.~J.,
1047: {Trauger}, J.~T., {Watson}, A.~M., \& {Worthey}, G. 1995, \pasp, 107, 1065
1048:
1049: \bibitem[{{Kerber} {et~al.}(2006){Kerber}, {Santiago}, \&
1050: {Brocato}}]{kerberetal2006}
1051: {Kerber}, L.~O., {Santiago}, B.~X., \& {Brocato}, E. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics
1052: e-prints
1053:
1054: \bibitem[{{Macri} {et~al.}(2006){Macri}, {Stanek}, {Bersier}, {Greenhill}, \&
1055: {Reid}}]{macrietal2006}
1056: {Macri}, L.~M., {Stanek}, K.~Z., {Bersier}, D., {Greenhill}, L., \& {Reid}, M.
1057: 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1058:
1059: \bibitem[{{Madore} \& {Freedman}(1991)}]{madorefreedman1991}
1060: {Madore}, B.~F. \& {Freedman}, W.~L. 1991, \pasp, 103, 933
1061:
1062: \bibitem[{{Mateo} \& {Hodge}(1985)}]{mateohodge1985}
1063: {Mateo}, M. \& {Hodge}, P. 1985, \pasp, 97, 753
1064:
1065: \bibitem[{{Nikolaev} {et~al.}(2004){Nikolaev}, {Drake}, {Keller}, {Cook},
1066: {Dalal}, {Griest}, {Welch}, \& {Kanbur}}]{nikolaevetal2004}
1067: {Nikolaev}, S., {Drake}, A.~J., {Keller}, S.~C., {Cook}, K.~H., {Dalal}, N.,
1068: {Griest}, K., {Welch}, D.~L., \& {Kanbur}, S.~M. 2004, \apj, 601, 260
1069:
1070: \bibitem[{{Olsen} \& {Salyk}(2002)}]{olsensalyk2002}
1071: {Olsen}, K.~A.~G. \& {Salyk}, C. 2002, \aj, 124, 2045
1072:
1073: \bibitem[{{Piatti} {et~al.}(2002){Piatti}, {Sarajedini}, {Geisler}, {Bica}, \&
1074: {Clari{\'a}}}]{piattietal2002}
1075: {Piatti}, A.~E., {Sarajedini}, A., {Geisler}, D., {Bica}, E., \& {Clari{\'a}},
1076: J.~J. 2002, \mnras, 329, 556
1077:
1078: \bibitem[{{Sarajedini}(1998)}]{sarajedini1998}
1079: {Sarajedini}, A. 1998, \aj, 116, 738
1080:
1081: \bibitem[{{Sarajedini} {et~al.}(2002){Sarajedini}, {Grocholski}, {Levine}, \&
1082: {Lada}}]{sarajedinietal2002}
1083: {Sarajedini}, A., {Grocholski}, A.~J., {Levine}, J., \& {Lada}, E. 2002, \aj,
1084: 124, 2625
1085:
1086: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
1087: {Davis}}]{schlegeletal1998}
1088: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1089:
1090: \bibitem[{{Schommer} {et~al.}(1992){Schommer}, {Suntzeff}, {Olszewski}, \&
1091: {Harris}}]{schommeretal1992}
1092: {Schommer}, R.~A., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., {Olszewski}, E.~W., \& {Harris}, H.~C.
1093: 1992, \aj, 103, 447
1094:
1095: \bibitem[{{Schweizer}(1999)}]{schweizer1999}
1096: {Schweizer}, F. 1999, in IAU Symp. 186: Galaxy Interactions at Low and High
1097: Redshift, ed. J.~E. {Barnes} \& D.~B. {Sanders}, 1--+
1098:
1099: \bibitem[{{Stetson}(1987)}]{stetson1987}
1100: {Stetson}, P.~B. 1987, \pasp, 99, 191
1101:
1102: \bibitem[{{Udalski}(2000)}]{udalski2000}
1103: {Udalski}, A. 2000, \apjl, 531, L25
1104:
1105: \bibitem[{{van der Marel}(2001)}]{vdm2001}
1106: {van der Marel}, R.~P. 2001, \aj, 122, 1827
1107:
1108: \bibitem[{{van der Marel} {et~al.}(2002){van der Marel}, {Alves}, {Hardy}, \&
1109: {Suntzeff}}]{vdmetal2002}
1110: {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Alves}, D.~R., {Hardy}, E., \& {Suntzeff}, N.~B. 2002,
1111: \aj, 124, 2639
1112:
1113: \bibitem[{{van der Marel} \& {Cioni}(2001)}]{vdmcioni2001}
1114: {van der Marel}, R.~P. \& {Cioni}, M.-R.~L. 2001, \aj, 122, 1807
1115:
1116: \bibitem[{{Walker}(1985)}]{walker1985}
1117: {Walker}, A.~R. 1985, \mnras, 212, 343
1118:
1119: \bibitem[{{Walker}(1989)}]{walker1989}
1120: ---. 1989, \aj, 98, 2086
1121:
1122: \bibitem[{{Walker}(1990)}]{walker1990}
1123: ---. 1990, \aj, 100, 1532
1124:
1125: \bibitem[{{Walker}(1992{\natexlab{a}})}]{walker1992_retic}
1126: ---. 1992{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 103, 1166
1127:
1128: \bibitem[{{Walker}(1992{\natexlab{b}})}]{walker1992_1466}
1129: ---. 1992{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 104, 1395
1130:
1131: \bibitem[{{Walker}(1993)}]{walker1993}
1132: ---. 1993, \aj, 105, 527
1133:
1134: \bibitem[{{Walker} \& {Mack}(1988)}]{walkermack1988}
1135: {Walker}, A.~R. \& {Mack}, P. 1988, \aj, 96, 1362
1136:
1137: \end{thebibliography}
1138:
1139:
1140: %\begin{thebibliography}{}
1141: %\bibitem[]{939} Bica, E., Geisler, D., Dottori, H., Clari{\'a}, J.J.,
1142: %Piatti, A.E., \& Santos, J.F.C. Jr. 1998, \aj, 116, 723
1143: %\bibitem[]{941} Brocato, E., Di Carlo, E., \& Menna, G. 2001, \aap, 374,
1144: %523
1145: %\bibitem[]{943} Ferraro, F.R., Mucciarelli, A., Carretta, E., \& Origlia, L.
1146: %2006, \apjl, 645, 33
1147: %\bibitem[]{945} Geisler, D., Bica, E., Dottori, H., Clari{\'a}, J.J.,
1148: %Piatti, A.E., \& Santos, J.F.C., Jr. 1997, \aj, 114, 1920
1149: %\bibitem[]{947} Girardi, L., Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C.,
1150: %Groenewegen, M. A. T., Marigo, P., Salasnich, B., \& Weiss, A. 2002,
1151: %\aap, 391, 195
1152: %\bibitem[]{950} Grocholski, A.J., Cole, A.A., Sarajedini, A., Geisler, D.,
1153: %\&
1154: %Smith, V.V. 2006, \aj, NNN, NNN
1155: %
1156: %\bibitem[Grocholski \& Sarajedini(2002)]{gs02} Grocholski, A.J. \&
1157: %Sarajedini, A. 2002, \aj, 123, 1603
1158: %
1159: %\bibitem[]{957} Hill, V., François, P., Spite, M., Primas, F., \& Spite, F.
1160: %2000, \aap, 364, 19
1161: %\bibitem[]{959} Holtzman, J.A., Burrows, C.J., Casertano, S., Hester,
1162: %J.J.,
1163: %Trauger, J.T., Watson, A.M., \& Worthey, G. 1995, \pasp, 107, 1065
1164: %%\bibitem[]{962} Linde, P., Lyng\aa, G., \& Westerlund, B.E. 1995, \aaps,
1165: %%110, 533
1166: %\bibitem[]{964} Mateo, M. \& Hodge, P. 1985, \pasp, 97, 753
1167: %\bibitem[]{965} Piatti, A.E., Sarajedini, A., Geisler, D., Bica, E., \&
1168: %Clari{\'a}, J.J. 2002, \mnras, 329, 556
1169: %\bibitem[]{967} Sarajedini, A. 1998, \aj, 116, 738
1170: %\bibitem[]{968} Stetson, P.B. 1987, \pasp, 99, 191
1171: %%\bibitem[]{969} Will, J.-M., Bomans, D.~J., Tucholke, H.-J., de Boer,
1172: %K.~S.,
1173: %%Grebel, E.~K., Richtler, T., Seggewiss, W., \& Vallenari, A. 1995,
1174: %%\aaps, 112, 367
1175:
1176: %\end{thebibliography}
1177:
1178: \clearpage
1179:
1180: \begin{figure}[!t]
1181: \begin{center}
1182: %\epsscale{.80}
1183: \plotone{f1a.ps}
1184: \caption{$K'$-band images for
1185: all target clusters. We have used the
1186: final combined long exposures and selected a region $\sim 4\arcmin \times
1187: 4\arcmin$ in size around each cluster. In all frames, clusters are
1188: labeled and the orientation is such that north is up and east is to the
1189: left.
1190: }\label{fig:kbandphot}
1191: \end{center}
1192: \end{figure}
1193: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1194: \begin{figure}[!t]
1195: \begin{center}
1196: \plotone{f1b.ps}
1197: \caption{- Continued.
1198: }\label{fig:kbandphot2}
1199: \end{center}
1200: \end{figure}
1201:
1202: \clearpage
1203:
1204: \begin{figure}
1205: \begin{center}
1206: %\epsscale{.80}
1207: \plotone{f2.eps}
1208: \caption{Optical photometry for NGC 1651 (left) and NGC 2173 (right),
1209: overplotted with the Z = 0.008 theoretical isochrones from
1210: \citet{girardietal2002}; isochrone ages are listed in the figure. These
1211: plots illustrate our MSF method where we match isochrones to the
1212: brightness of
1213: the RC and color of the unevolved main sequence to determine cluster ages.
1214: }\label{fig:iso_fit}
1215: \end{center}
1216: \end{figure}
1217:
1218: \clearpage
1219:
1220: \begin{figure}
1221: \begin{center}
1222: \epsscale{.90}
1223: \plotone{f3a.eps}
1224: \caption{Near-infrared CMDs for the 17 clusters in our sample. Cluster
1225: RCs are denoted by the box and all stars within this box are used in
1226: calculating $\mkrc$.
1227: }\label{fig:rc_1}
1228: \end{center}
1229: \end{figure}
1230: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1231: \clearpage
1232:
1233: \begin{figure}
1234: \begin{center}
1235: \epsscale{.90}
1236: \plotone{f3b.eps}
1237: \caption{{\it Continued.}
1238: }\label{fig:rc_2}
1239: \end{center}
1240: \end{figure}
1241: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1242: \clearpage
1243:
1244: \begin{figure}
1245: \begin{center}
1246: \epsscale{.90}
1247: \plotone{f3c.eps}
1248: \caption{{\it Continued.}
1249: }\label{fig:rc_3}
1250: \end{center}
1251: \end{figure}
1252:
1253: \clearpage
1254:
1255: \begin{figure}
1256: \begin{center}
1257: \epsscale{1.0}
1258: \plotone{f4.eps}
1259: \caption{Schematic diagram showing the positions on the sky of our target
1260: clusters. The dashed ellipse represents the 2$\degr$ near-infrared
1261: isopleth from \citet{vdm2001}, which roughly outlines the LMC's bar.
1262: Also shown are the LMC centers used by
1263: \citet[][ {\it filled square}]{vdmcioni2001},
1264: \citet[][ {\it filled triangle}]{vdmetal2002},
1265: and \citet[][ {\it filled star}]{olsensalyk2002}.
1266: The position
1267: angle of the line of nodes derived by each of these authors is plotted as
1268: the solid line passing through the appropriate LMC center.
1269: }\label{fig:schematic}
1270: \end{center}
1271: \end{figure}
1272:
1273: \clearpage
1274:
1275: \begin{figure}
1276: \begin{center}
1277: \epsscale{.65}
1278: \plotone{f5.eps}
1279: \caption{Cluster distances as a function of their
1280: position along the line of maximum gradient (see \S
1281: \ref{phot:sec:distrib}). Open circles mark the old globular clusters from
1282: Walker while the filled circles represent the populous clusters in our
1283: study. In the bottom panel, the dashed line marks the LMC's disk with $i
1284: = 34\fdg7$ and $D_0 = 47.9$ kpc (at $x$ = 0), and the dotted lines
1285: represent a disk thickness of $\pm$ 1 kpc; the filled square denotes the
1286: center of the LMC. This plot illustrates that both the old and
1287: intermediate age clusters are distributed along the disk of the LMC.
1288: }\label{fig:dist_distrib}
1289: \end{center}
1290: \end{figure}
1291:
1292: \clearpage
1293:
1294: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1295: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1296: %\rotate
1297: \tablecaption{Exposure Times at Each Dither
1298: Point\label{tab:exposure_times}}
1299: \tablewidth{0pt}
1300: \tablehead{
1301: \colhead{Dates} & \colhead{J} &
1302: \colhead{H} &
1303: \colhead{K'}
1304: }
1305: \startdata
1306: 20-22 Jan 2003& 60s & 15s $\times$ 6 & 10s $\times$ 9 \\
1307: 06-08 Feb 2004& 4s, 20s, 36s & 4s, 15s $\times$ 6 & 4s, 10s $\times$ 9 \\
1308: \enddata
1309: \end{deluxetable}
1310:
1311: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1312: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1313: %\rotate
1314: \tablecaption{LMC Cluster Sample Information\label{tab:cluster_info}}
1315: \tablewidth{0pt}
1316: \tablehead{
1317: \colhead{Cluster} & \colhead{Alternate} &
1318: \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} & \colhead{Filters} & \colhead{Run}\\
1319: & Name & (J2000.0) & (J2000.0)& &
1320: }
1321: \startdata
1322:
1323: NGC 1651 & SL 7, LW 12 &4 37 33& $-$70 35 08& $JHK'$ & 1,2\\
1324: SL 61 & LW 79 &4 50 45& $-$75 32 00& $J...K'$ &2\\
1325: NGC 1783 & SL 148 &4 59 09& $-$65 59 14& $J...K'$ &2\\
1326: NGC 1846 & SL 243 &5 07 35& $-$67 27 31& $J...K'$ &2\\
1327: NGC 1978 & SL 501 &5 28 45& $-$66 14 09& $JHK'$ &1,2\\
1328: %NGC 2019 & SL 554 &5 31 57& $-$70 09 34& $JHK'$ &1,2\\
1329: Hodge 4 & SL 556, LW 237 &5 32 25& $-$64 44 12& $JHK'$ & 1,2\\
1330: IC 2146 & SL 632, LW 258 &5 37 46& $-$74 47 00& $J...K'$ &2\\
1331: SL 663 & LW 273 &5 42 29& $-$65 21 48& $J...K'$ &2\\
1332: NGC 2121 & SL 725, LW 303 &5 48 12& $-$71 28 52& $JHK'$ &1,2\\
1333: NGC 2173 & SL 807, LW 348 &5 57 58& $-$72 58 41& $J...K'$ &2\\
1334: NGC 2155 & SL 803, LW 347 &5 58 33& $-$65 28 35& $JHK'$ &1,2\\
1335: NGC 2162 & SL 814, LW 351 &6 00 30& $-$63 43 19& $J...K'$ &2\\
1336: ESO 121-03 & &6 02 03& $-$60 31 26& $JHK'$ & 1,2\\
1337: NGC 2203 & SL 836, LW 380 &6 04 43& $-$75 26 18& $J...K'$ &2\\
1338: NGC 2193 & SL 839, LW 387 &6 06 18& $-$65 05 57& $JHK'$ &1,2\\
1339: %Hodge 11 & SL 868, LW 437 &6 14 22& $-$69 50 54& $JHK'$ &2\\
1340: SL 869 & LW 441 &6 14 41& $-$69 48 07& $JHK'$ &2\\
1341: SL 896 & LW 480 &6 29 58& $-$69 20 00& $JHK'$ &1,2
1342: \enddata
1343: \tablecomments{Units of right ascension are in hours, minutes, and seconds
1344: and units of declination are in degrees, arcminutes, and arcseconds.
1345: }
1346:
1347: \end{deluxetable}
1348:
1349:
1350: \clearpage
1351:
1352: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1353: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1354: %\rotate
1355: \tablecaption{LMC Cluster Ages and Metallicities\label{tab:cluster_ages}}
1356: \tablewidth{0pt}
1357: \tablehead{
1358: \colhead{Cluster} &
1359: \colhead{[Fe/H]\tablenotemark{a}} &
1360: \colhead{$\sigma_{[Fe/H]}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
1361: \colhead{Log Age} & \colhead{Age (Gyr)} & \colhead{CMD Ref.}
1362: }
1363: \startdata
1364: NGC 1783 & $-0.47$\tablenotemark{b} & 0.14\tablenotemark{b} &
1365: 9.08\tablenotemark{d} & 1.20 & $-$\\
1366: NGC 1846 & $-0.49$ & 0.03 & 9.10 & 1.26 & 7\\
1367: NGC 2162 & $-0.46$ & 0.07 & 9.15 & 1.41 & 1\\
1368: NGC 2203 & $-0.41$ & 0.03 & 9.15 & 1.41 & 7\\
1369: SL 869 & $-0.40$ & 0.04 & 9.15 & 1.41 & 6\\
1370: SL 61 & $-0.35$ & 0.04 & 9.18 & 1.51 & 4\\
1371: NGC 2173 & $-0.42$ & 0.03 & 9.20 & 1.58 & 1\\
1372: IC 2146 & $-0.41$ & 0.02 & 9.25 & 1.78 & 7\\
1373: NGC 1978 & $-0.38$\tablenotemark{c} & 0.07\tablenotemark{c} &
1374: 9.27\tablenotemark{d} & 1.86 & $-$\\
1375: NGC 1651 & $-0.53$ & 0.03 & 9.28 & 1.91 & 1\\
1376: NGC 2193 & $-0.49$ & 0.05 & 9.30 & 2.00 & 3\\
1377: Hodge 4 & $-0.55$ & 0.06 & 9.33 & 2.14 & 5\\
1378: SL 896 & $-0.48$\tablenotemark{e} & 0.09\tablenotemark{e} & 9.33 &
1379: 2.14 & 6\\
1380: NGC 2155 & $-0.50$ & 0.05 & 9.45 & 2.82 & 1\\
1381: SL 663 & $-0.54$ & 0.05 & 9.45 & 2.82 & 1\\
1382: NGC 2121 & $-0.50$ & 0.03 & 9.48 & 3.02 & 5\\
1383: ESO 121-03 & $-0.91$\tablenotemark{f} & 0.16\tablenotemark{f} & 9.95 &
1384: 8.91 & 2
1385: \enddata
1386:
1387: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before
1388: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark
1389: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.
1390:
1391: \tablecomments{Optical photometry used to construct the CMDs comes from
1392: the following sources:
1393: (1) \citet{brocatoetal2001};
1394: (2) \citet{bicaetal1998};
1395: (3) HST GO-5475;
1396: (4) \citet{mateohodge1985};
1397: (5) \citet{sarajedini1998};
1398: (6) \citet{piattietal2002};
1399: (7) Grocholski et al.~(2007, in prep)
1400: }
1401:
1402: \tablenotetext{a}{From Grocholski et al.~(2006), unless noted.}
1403: \tablenotetext{b}{From Cole et al.~(in prep)}
1404: \tablenotetext{c}{From \citet{ferraroetal2006}}
1405: \tablenotetext{d}{Ages adjusted from \citet{geisleretal1997}}
1406: \tablenotetext{e}{Mean value of the intermediate metallicity clusters
1407: from Grocholski et al.~(2006)}
1408: \tablenotetext{f}{From \citet{hilletal2000}}
1409: \end{deluxetable}
1410:
1411: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1412: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1413: %\rotate
1414: \tablecaption{Calculated Red Clump Values and Cluster
1415: Distances\label{tab:rcdist}}
1416: \tablewidth{0pt}
1417: \tablehead{
1418: \colhead{Cluster} & \colhead{$\krc$} &
1419: \colhead{$\sigma_{\overline{\krc}}$} & \colhead{$n$} &
1420: \colhead{$\mkrc$} &
1421: \colhead{$\sigma_{\mkrc}$} & \colhead{$\ebv$} &
1422: \colhead{$\ak$} & \colhead{$\mmo$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\mmo}$} &
1423: \colhead{D} & \colhead{$\sigma_{D}$}
1424: \\
1425: %\colhead{Name} & (mag) & (mag) & & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag)
1426: \colhead{Name} & & & Stars & & & & & & & (kpc) & (kpc)
1427: }
1428: \startdata
1429: NGC 1651 & 16.93 & 0.02 & 93 & $-$1.56 & 0.02 & 0.10 & 0.034 & 18.46 &
1430: 0.03 & 49.1 & 0.6\\
1431: SL 61 & 17.01 & 0.03 & 22 & $-$1.52 & 0.08 & 0.11 & 0.038 & 18.49 &
1432: 0.09 & 49.9 & 2.1\\
1433: NGC 1783 & 16.93 & 0.01 & 384 & $-$1.10 & 0.18 & 0.02 & 0.007 & 18.02 &
1434: 0.18 & 40.2 & 3.4\\
1435: NGC 1846 & 16.98 & 0.01 & 301 & $-$1.17 & 0.19 & 0.06 & 0.020 & 18.13 &
1436: 0.19 & 42.3 & 3.8\\
1437: NGC 1978 & 16.86 & 0.01 & 231 & $-$1.56 & 0.02 & 0.05 & 0.017 & 18.40 &
1438: 0.02 & 47.9 & 0.5\\
1439: Hodge 4 & 16.81 & 0.02 & 48 & $-$1.57 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 0.014 & 18.37 &
1440: 0.03 & 47.1 & 0.6\\
1441: IC 2146 & 17.01 & 0.02 & 72 & $-$1.56 & 0.02 & 0.12 & 0.041 & 18.53 &
1442: 0.03 & 50.8 & 0.8\\
1443: SL 663 & 16.84 & 0.04 & 29 & $-$1.52 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 0.014 & 18.35 &
1444: 0.04 & 46.7 & 0.9\\
1445: NGC 2121 & 16.83 & 0.02 & 184 & $-$1.51 & 0.02 & 0.10 & 0.034 & 18.31 &
1446: 0.02 & 45.8 & 0.5\\
1447: NGC 2173 & 16.94 & 0.03 & 62 & $-$1.53 & 0.04 & 0.10 & 0.034 & 18.44 &
1448: 0.04 & 48.7 & 1.0\\
1449: NGC 2155 & 16.78 & 0.02 & 63 & $-$1.53 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.010 & 18.30 &
1450: 0.03 & 45.7 & 0.7\\
1451: NGC 2162 & 17.10 & 0.03 & 72 & $-$1.49 & 0.18 & 0.03 & 0.010 & 18.58 &
1452: 0.18 & 52.0 & 4.5\\
1453: ESO 121 & 16.93 & 0.03 & 20 & $-$1.20 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.010 & 18.12 &
1454: 0.06 & 42.1 & 1.3\\
1455: NGC 2203 & 16.97 & 0.02 & 128 & $-$1.48 & 0.16 & 0.11 & 0.038 & 18.41 &
1456: 0.17 & 48.1 & 3.8\\
1457: NGC 2193 & 16.88 & 0.04 & 28 & $-$1.58 & 0.01 & 0.04 & 0.014 & 18.45 &
1458: 0.04 & 48.9 & 0.9\\
1459: SL 869 & 17.12 & 0.06 & 15 & $-$1.48 & 0.16 & 0.10 & 0.034 & 18.57 &
1460: 0.17 & 51.7 & 4.3\\
1461: SL 896 & 16.89 & 0.07 & 7 & $-$1.58 & 0.01 & 0.09 & 0.031 & 18.44 &
1462: 0.07 & 48.7 & 1.6
1463: \enddata
1464: \tablecomments{All numbers are given in magnitudes unless otherwise
1465: noted. }
1466: \end{deluxetable}
1467:
1468: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1469: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1470: %\rotate
1471: \tablecaption{Effect of LMC Geometry\label{tab:geom}}
1472: \tablewidth{0pt}
1473: \tablehead{
1474: \colhead{Geometry} &
1475: \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} &
1476: \colhead{$\Theta$} & \colhead{$i$} & \colhead{$\mmo$} & \colhead{$D_0$}
1477: \\
1478: \colhead{(Reference)} & (J2000.0) & (J2000.0) & (deg) & (deg) & (mag) &
1479: (kpc)
1480: }
1481: \startdata
1482: \citet{vdmcioni2001} & 5 29 00 & $-$69 30 00 &
1483: 122.5 $\pm$ 8.3 & 34.7 $\pm$ 6.2 & 18.40 $\pm$ 0.04 & 47.9 $\pm$ 0.9 \\
1484: \citet{olsensalyk2002} & 5 19 38.0 & $-$69 27 05.2 &
1485: 145 $\pm$ 4 &35.8 $\pm$ 2.4 & 18.41 $\pm$ 0.04 & 48.1 $\pm$ 0.9 \\
1486: \citet{vdmetal2002} & 5 27 36 & $-$69 52 12 &
1487: 129.9 $\pm$ 6.0 & 34.7 $\pm$ 6.2 & 18.40 $\pm$ 0.04 & 47.9 $\pm$ 0.9 \\
1488: \citet{nikolaevetal2004} & 5 17 36 & $-$69 01 48 &
1489: 151.0 $\pm$ 2.4 & 30.7 $\pm$ 1.1 & 18.41 $\pm$ 0.04 & 48.1 $\pm$ 0.9
1490: \enddata
1491: \tablecomments{Units of right ascension are in hours, minutes, and seconds
1492: and units of declination are in degrees, arcminutes, and arcseconds.
1493: Distances given are for the LMC center, calculated by combining our
1494: cluster distances with the given LMC geometry.
1495: } \end{deluxetable}
1496:
1497:
1498: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1499: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1500: %\rotate
1501: \tablecaption{LMC Center Distances\label{tab:cen_dist}}
1502: \tablewidth{0pt}
1503: \tablehead{
1504: \colhead{Cluster} &
1505: \colhead{$D$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{D}$} &
1506: \colhead{$D_0$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{D_0}$}
1507: \\
1508: \colhead{Name} & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag)
1509: }
1510: \startdata
1511: NGC 1651 & 18.46 & 0.03 & 18.35 & 0.04 \\
1512: SL 61 & 18.49 & 0.09 & 18.30 & 0.10 \\
1513: NGC 1783 & 18.02 & 0.18 & 18.05 & 0.18 \\
1514: NGC 1846 & 18.13 & 0.19 & 18.14 & 0.19 \\
1515: NGC 1978 & 18.40 & 0.02 & 18.47 & 0.03 \\
1516: Hodge 4 & 18.37 & 0.03 & 18.47 & 0.04 \\
1517: IC 2146 & 18.53 & 0.03 & 18.41 & 0.04 \\
1518: SL 663 & 18.35 & 0.04 & 18.45 & 0.05 \\
1519: NGC 2121 & 18.31 & 0.02 & 18.28 & 0.03 \\
1520: NGC 2173 & 18.44 & 0.04 & 18.38 & 0.05 \\
1521: NGC 2155 & 18.30 & 0.03 & 18.42 & 0.04 \\
1522: NGC 2162 & 18.58 & 0.18 & 18.73 & 0.18 \\
1523: ESO 121 & 18.12 & 0.06 & 18.33 & 0.08 \\
1524: NGC 2203 & 18.41 & 0.17 & 18.29 & 0.17 \\
1525: NGC 2193 & 18.45 & 0.04 & 18.58 & 0.05 \\
1526: SL 869 & 18.57 & 0.17 & 18.60 & 0.17 \\
1527: SL 896 & 18.44 & 0.07 & 18.49 & 0.07
1528: \enddata
1529: %\tablecomments{ }
1530: \end{deluxetable}
1531:
1532: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1533: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1534: %\rotate
1535: \tablecaption{LMC Globular Cluster Information\label{tab:old_clust}}
1536: \tablewidth{0pt}
1537: \tablehead{
1538: \colhead{Cluster} &
1539: \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} &
1540: \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{$V_{RR}$} & \colhead{$\ebv$} &
1541: \colhead{$D$} \\
1542: (Name) & (J2000.0) & (J2000.0) & (dex) & (mag) & (mag) & (kpc)
1543: }
1544: \startdata
1545: NGC 1466 & 03 44 33.35& $-$71 40 17.7& $-1.9 \pm 0.1$& 19.33 $\pm$ 0.02&
1546: 0.05& 51.8 $\pm$ 1.0\\
1547: Reticulum & 04 36 11.00& $-$58 51 40.0& $-1.7 \pm 0.1$& 19.07 $\pm$ 0.01&
1548: 0.00& 47.3 $\pm$ 1.5\\
1549: NGC 1841 & 04 45 23.83& $-$83 59 49.0& $-2.2 \pm 0.2$& 19.31 $\pm$ 0.02&
1550: 0.11& 47.6 $\pm$ 1.9\\
1551: NGC 1786 & 04 59 07.82& $-$67 44 42.8& $-2.3 \pm 0.2$& 19.27 $\pm$ 0.03&
1552: 0.06& 50.8 $\pm$ 1.6\\
1553: NGC 1835 & 05 05 06.58& $-$69 24 13.9& $-1.8 \pm 0.2$& 19.38 $\pm$ 0.05&
1554: 0.09& 48.5 $\pm$ 2.0\\
1555: NGC 2210 & 06 11 31.36& $-$69 07 17.0& $-1.9 \pm 0.2$& 19.12 $\pm$ 0.02&
1556: 0.09& 43.5 $\pm$ 1.5\\
1557: NGC 2257 & 06 30 13.00& $-$64 19 29.1& $-1.8 \pm 0.1$& 19.03 $\pm$ 0.02&
1558: 0.04& 44.4 $\pm$ 0.8
1559: \enddata
1560: \tablecomments{Units of right ascension are in hours, minutes, and seconds
1561: and units of declination are in degrees, arcminutes, and arcseconds.
1562: }
1563: \end{deluxetable}
1564:
1565:
1566: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
1567: %% that appears after it.
1568:
1569: \end{document}
1570:
1571: