1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\documentclass{article}
4: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
5:
6:
7: \documentclass{emulateapj}
8:
9: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
10: %\input epsf.tex
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \shorttitle{The Initial-Final Mass Relation}
15: \shortauthors{Kalirai et al.}
16:
17: \title{The Initial-Final Mass Relation: Direct Constraints at the
18: Low Mass End\altaffilmark{1,2}}
19:
20: \author{
21: Jasonjot S. Kalirai\altaffilmark{3,4},
22: Brad M.~S. Hansen\altaffilmark{5},
23: Daniel D. Kelson\altaffilmark{6},
24: David B. Reitzel\altaffilmark{5}, \\
25: R. Michael Rich\altaffilmark{5}, and
26: Harvey B. Richer\altaffilmark{7}
27: }
28: \altaffiltext{1}{Data presented herein were obtained at the W.\ M.\ Keck
29: Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the
30: California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the
31: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made
32: possible by the generous financial support of the W.\ M.\ Keck Foundation.}
33: \altaffiltext{2}{Based on observations obtained at the Canada-France-Hawaii
34: Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council of Canada,
35: the Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers of the Centre National de
36: la Recherche Scientifique of France, and the University of Hawaii.}
37: \altaffiltext{3}{University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory,
38: University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA, 95060; jkalirai@ucolick.org}
39: \altaffiltext{4}{Hubble Fellow}
40: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Box 951547, Knudsen Hall,
41: University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles CA, 90095;
42: hansen/rmr/reitzel@astro.ucla.edu}
43: \altaffiltext{6}{Carnegie Observatories, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 813 Santa
44: Barbara Street, Pasadena CA, 91101; kelson@ociw.edu}
45: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia,
46: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z1; richer@astro.ubc.ca}
47:
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51:
52: The initial-final mass relation represents a mapping between the mass of a
53: white dwarf remnant and the mass that the hydrogen burning main-sequence
54: star that created it once had. The empirical relation thus far has been
55: constrained using a sample of $\sim$40 stars in young open
56: clusters, ranging in initial mass from $\sim$2.75 -- 7~$M_\odot$, and shows
57: a general trend that connects higher mass main-sequence stars with higher
58: mass white dwarfs. In this paper, we present CFHT/CFH12K photometric and
59: Keck/LRIS multiobject spectroscopic observations of a sample of 22 white
60: dwarfs in two {\it older} open clusters, NGC 7789 ($t$ = 1.4~Gyr) and NGC
61: 6819 ($t$ = 2.5~Gyr). At these ages, stars in these clusters with masses
62: as low as 1.6~$M_\odot$ have already evolved off the main sequence and formed
63: white dwarfs. We measure masses for the highest S/N spectra by
64: fitting the Balmer lines to atmosphere models and place the first direct constraints
65: on the low mass end of the initial-final mass relation. Our results indicate
66: that the observed general trend at higher masses continues down to
67: low masses, with $M_{\rm initial}$ = 1.6~$M_\odot$ main-sequence stars forming
68: $M_{\rm final}$ = 0.54~$M_\odot$ white dwarfs. When added to our new data
69: from the very old cluster NGC~6791, the relation is extended down to
70: $M_{\rm initial}$ = 1.16~$M_\odot$ (corresponding to $M_{\rm final}$ =
71: 0.53~$M_\odot$). This extension of the relation represents a four fold
72: increase in the total number of hydrogen burning stars for which the
73: integrated mass loss can now be calculated from empirical data, assuming
74: a Salpeter initial mass function. The new leverage at the low mass end is
75: used to derive a purely empirical initial-final mass relation for the entire sample
76: of stars, without the need for any indirectly measured anchor points. The sample of
77: white dwarfs in these clusters also shows several very interesting systems that
78: we discuss further: a DB (helium atmosphere) white dwarf, a magnetic white dwarf,
79: a DAB (mixed hydrogen/helium atmosphere or a double degenerate DA+DB) white
80: dwarf(s), and two possible equal mass DA double degenerate binary systems.
81:
82: %NGC 7789 - 13 DA WDs +1 DAB WD out of 15 targeted 1 slit not recovered).
83: %NGC 6819 - 7 DA WDs + 1 DB WD out of 13 targeted
84: \end{abstract}
85:
86: \keywords{open clusters and associations: individual (NGC~7789 and NGC~6819) -
87: stars: evolution - techniques: photometric, spectroscopic - white dwarfs}
88:
89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
90:
91: \section{Introduction} \label{introduction}
92:
93: The initial-final mass relation denotes a mapping from the initial
94: mass of a main-sequence star to its final white dwarf configuration and
95: hence provides the total mass loss that a star has undergone through its
96: lifetime, a fundamental property of stellar evolution \citep{reimers75,renzini88,weidemann00}.
97: At one extreme, a small extrapolation of the high mass end of the relation
98: can lead to constraints on the critical mass that separates white dwarf
99: production from type II supernova explosions. This can therefore be used
100: to estimate energetics involved in feedback processes through the prediction
101: of the birth rates of type II supernovae and neutron stars \citep{vandenbergh91}.
102: At the opposite extreme, the relation represents a rare tool to probe the
103: progenitor properties of the majority of the evolved stars in old stellar
104: populations (most of which are now low mass white dwarfs). If constrained
105: over a large mass range (i.e., 1 -- 7 $M_\odot$), the relation can be a
106: powerful input to chemical evolution models of galaxies (including enrichment
107: in the interstellar medium) and therefore enhances our understanding of
108: star formation efficiencies in these systems \citep{somerville99}.
109:
110: The importance of the initial-final mass relation has been recently
111: compounded as a result of the discovery of thousands of white dwarfs
112: in both the Galactic disk and halo. For the former, the Sloan Digital
113: Sky Survey has spectroscopically confirmed many new white dwarfs
114: bringing the total number of such objects in our Galaxy to almost 10,000
115: \citep{eisenstein06}. This has led to an improved white luminosity
116: function for the disk of our Galaxy that shows an abrupt truncation
117: at $M_{\rm bol}$ = 15.3 \citep{harris06}. In the Galactic halo, recent
118: {\it Hubble Space Telescope} observations of the globular clusters
119: M4 \citep{richer04,hansen04}, Omega~Cen \citep{monelli05}, and NGC~6397
120: \citep{richer06,hansen07} have similarly uncovered several thousand
121: cluster white dwarfs. Modeling the luminosity functions of the disk
122: white dwarfs and the cooling sequences of the halo star clusters, directly
123: yields the ages of the Galactic disk and halo components. In both cases,
124: the white dwarf samples are dominated by low mass stars and therefore
125: such modeling requires an input initial-final mass relation that is
126: well understood at the low mass end (e.g., Ferrario et~al.\ 2005 and
127: Hansen et~al.\ 2007).
128:
129: The first attempt to derive an initial-final mass relation was made by
130: \cite{weidemann77}. He compared theoretical models of mass loss
131: (e.g., Fusi-Pecci \& Renzini 1976) to the observed masses of a few
132: white dwarfs in the nearby Hyades and Pleiades clusters and
133: concluded that the observed mass loss was larger than model predictions.
134: Shortly after this pioneering work, \cite{romanishin80}
135: and \cite{anthonytwarog81,anthonytwarog82} used photographic plates to
136: search for new white dwarf candidates in several young open clusters,
137: including NGC~1039, NGC~2168, NGC~2287, NGC~2422, NGC~2632 (Praesepe),
138: NGC~6633, NGC~6405, and IC~2602. These studies modeled the expected
139: numbers of white dwarfs in each cluster and estimated limits on the
140: boundaries for the upper progenitor mass limit to white dwarf production
141: (5 -- 7~$M_\odot$). Solid constraints on the relation came from subsequent
142: spectroscopic observations of these white dwarfs as well as newly
143: discovered degenerate stars in nearby open clusters (Koester \& Reimers 1981,
144: 1985, 1993, 1996; Reimers \& Koester 1982, 1989, 1994; Weidemann \&
145: Koester 1983; Weidemann 1987, 1997; Jeffries 1997). The result of this enormous
146: two-decade long effort was an initial-final mass relation consisting of
147: $\sim$20 data points, from observations of roughly a half-dozen open
148: star clusters (see Weidemann~2000 for a review). The final relation
149: shows a clear trend with higher mass main-sequence stars producing
150: increasingly more massive white dwarfs.
151:
152: In the last few years, the amount of data constraining the initial-final
153: mass relation has more than doubled
154: \citep{claver01,dobbie04,dobbie06,williams04,kalirai05a,liebert05b,williams07}.
155: Although the general trend of the relation remains intact, the scatter
156: has increased possibly signifying a relation between the stellar mass
157: loss and the properties of the host environment (e.g., metallicity effects
158: -- Kalirai et~al.\ 2005a). As an extreme example, the recent study of
159: the white dwarf population of the super-solar metallicity star cluster
160: NGC~6791 ([Fe/H] = $+$0.4) has revealed it to be significantly undermassive
161: relative to the field distribution. This is clear evidence that the progenitor
162: stars of these remnants experienced enhanced mass loss in post main-sequence
163: evolutionary stages due to the high metallicity of the cluster \citep{kalirai07}.
164:
165: Prior to this study, the oldest open star clusters that have been successfully targeted
166: for white dwarf spectroscopy to build an initial-final mass relation are the Hyades and
167: Praesepe\footnote{Fleming et~al.\ (1997) also discuss one object along M67's
168: sightline whose membership remains uncertain.}. The ages of both of these systems are
169: 600 -- 700~Myr \citep{perryman98,claver01},
170: indicating that the present day turn-off masses are $\gtrsim$2.75~$M_\odot$. This
171: threshold therefore represents the current low mass anchor on the initial-final
172: mass relation as all of the white dwarfs in these clusters must have evolved from
173: main-sequence progenitors with a mass larger than $\sim$2.75~$M_\odot$. A very
174: small fraction of all stars in the Universe have masses this large, and therefore
175: the relation is often extrapolated to lower masses to provide useful input.
176: Spectroscopic white dwarf studies have been unable to target any old open clusters
177: ($t >$ 1~Gyr) for several reasons. Primarily, few photometric studies exist that
178: have identified populations of white dwarf candidates in these clusters. Second,
179: the known rich old open clusters are generally much further ($>$10$\times$)
180: than nearby clusters such as the Hyades and Praesepe. Finally, because of
181: their older age, most cluster white dwarfs in these systems have cooled to very
182: faint magnitudes thus making it difficult to obtain high quality spectra of the
183: stars.
184:
185: White dwarfs in the nearest globular star clusters have also recently
186: been targeted for mass measurements by several groups. The only successful
187: campaign measured a mean mass of 0.53~$M_\odot$ for white dwarfs in NGC~6752
188: \citep{moehler04}. Given the lower S/N of these data, the
189: temperature of the stars was measured from the spectra and then combined
190: with photometric information to yield a mass. This mean mass is consistent
191: with several independent arguments that all suggest the masses
192: of white dwarfs in globular clusters should be 0.51 -- 0.55 $M_\odot$
193: \citep{renzini88,renzini96}.
194:
195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
197: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
198:
199: \begin{table}
200: \begin{center}
201: \caption{}
202: %\vskip 0.3cm
203: \begin{tabular}{lccr}
204: \hline
205: \hline
206: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Filter} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Exp. Time (s)} &
207: \multicolumn{1}{c}{No. Images} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Airmass} \\
208: \hline
209:
210: {\bf NGC~7789} \\
211:
212: $V$ & 600 & 14 & 1.25 -- 1.43 \\
213: $V$ & 90 & 1 & 1.67 \\
214: $V$ & 10 & 1 & 1.25 \\
215: $V$ & 5 & 1 & 1.28 \\
216: $V$ & 1 & 1 & 1.73 \\
217: $V$ & 0.5 & 1 & 1.69 \\
218: $B$ & 800 & 12 & 1.25 -- 1.42 \\
219: $B$ & 120 & 1 & 1.35 \\
220: $B$ & 10 & 1 & 1.36 \\
221: $B$ & 1 & 1 & 1.37 \\
222: $B$ & 0.5 & 1 & 1.37 \\
223:
224: {\bf NGC~6819} \\
225:
226: $V$ & 300 & 9 & 1.16 -- 1.31 \\
227: $V$ & 50 & 1 & 1.16 \\
228: $V$ & 10 & 1 & 1.15 \\
229: $V$ & 1 & 1 & 1.27 \\
230: $B$ & 300 & 9 & 1.40 -- 1.76 \\
231: $B$ & 50 & 1 & 1.38 \\
232: $B$ & 10 & 1 & 1.37 \\
233: $B$ & 1 & 1 & 1.25 \\
234: \hline
235: \end{tabular}
236: \label{table1}
237: \end{center}
238: \end{table}
239:
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
242:
243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
244: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
246:
247: \begin{figure*}
248: \begin{center}
249: \leavevmode
250: \includegraphics[height=16.5cm,angle=270]{f1.eps}
251: \end{center}
252: \caption{The CMDs of NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 show very tight
253: main-sequences, turnoffs, and post-main sequence evolutionary
254: phases. For example, a ``hook'' is seen above the
255: turnoff designating the contraction of stars that have just
256: exhausted their hydrogen supply. These are the deepest CMDs
257: constructed for these clusters to date and the faint-blue
258: region of the CMDs reveals a large population of white dwarfs
259: in each cluster (see also Kalirai et~al.\ 2001b).
260: \label{fig:2cmdsnoiso}}
261: \end{figure*}
262:
263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
265:
266: The combination of large mosaic cameras on 4-meter telescopes (e.g.,
267: CFH12K/MegaCam on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope) and the advent of
268: blue-sensitive multiobject spectrographs on 10-meter telescopes (e.g., LRIS
269: on Keck -- Oke et~al.\ 1995) provide the resources necessary to extend
270: the study of the initial-final mass relation to a new regime.
271: In this paper we present direct spectroscopic mass determinations of white dwarfs
272: in open clusters older than 1~Gyr. The very rich clusters NGC~7789 and
273: NGC~6819 are $\sim$2$\times$ and $\sim$4$\times$ older than the
274: Hyades/Praesepe systems, respectively, and have been recently studied
275: by our team using the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope to very
276: faint magnitudes ($V \sim$ 25). The data have uncovered hundreds of
277: white dwarf candidates which have been followed up with the Keck 10-meter
278: telescope and LRIS multiobject spectrograph. In the following
279: section we present our photometric observations of NGC~7789 and
280: NGC~6819 and construct the deepest color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) for
281: each cluster to date (\S\,3). Parameters (e.g., distance, reddening, and
282: age) are derived for each cluster. In \S\,4 we discuss the construction of
283: multi-object spectroscopic masks to observe the candidate white dwarfs
284: in each cluster and describe the general spectroscopic observations. This
285: includes the selection of white dwarf candidates from the imaging catalogs.
286: The spectra for all confirmed DA (hydrogen atmosphere) white dwarfs
287: are presented in \S\,5 and fit to synthetic spectra to derive
288: $T_{\rm eff}$, log~$g$, masses, and cooling ages in \S\,6. We eliminate
289: field white dwarfs from our sample and calculate the progenitor masses
290: for each of the cluster white dwarfs in \S\,7. This is used to
291: build a new empirical initial-final mass relation extending down
292: to $M_{\rm initial}$ = 1.6~$M_\odot$. When added to our recent study of
293: the 8.5~Gyr cluster NGC~6791, the relation is now mapped down to
294: $M_{\rm initial}$ = 1.16~$M_\odot$. The results are presented and
295: analyzed in \S\,8 and the study is summarized in \S\,9.
296:
297:
298: \section{CFHT Photometry} \label{imagingobservations}
299:
300: All of the imaging observations of NGC~7789 and NGC~6819
301: were obtained with the CFH12K mosaic CCD camera on the
302: 4-meter Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT), as a part of
303: the CFHT Open Star Cluster Survey \citep{kalirai01a}. The
304: camera contains 12 CCDs, each with 2048 $\times$ 4096
305: pixels (a total of over 100 million pixels), at an individual
306: pixel scale of 0$\farcs$206. The projection on the sky is
307: 42$'$ $\times$ 28$'$ and therefore the dominant population of
308: both clusters is probed out to near the tidal radii.
309:
310: We imaged NGC~7789 from late May to mid July 2001 in the $V$ and
311: $B$ filters. Similarly, NGC~6819 data were acquired in the
312: same filters in October 1999, April 2001, and August 2001.
313: Multiple deep exposures were taken to achieve a solid detection
314: of the white dwarf cooling sequence in each cluster (no previous
315: white dwarfs had been found in either system). Shallower
316: exposures were also obtained to fill in the brighter
317: main-sequence, turnoff, and giant stars, which are saturated on the
318: longer frames. In all exposures, the clusters were placed
319: near the center of the mosaic camera to allow a suitable blank
320: field to be constructed from the outer CCDs.
321:
322: The observing conditions were very good for the majority of the
323: exposures (photometric skies, sub-arcsecond seeing
324: conditions, and low airmasses). A log of the data used
325: in the final analysis is presented in Table~1.
326:
327: The data reduction for NGC~6819 is described in detail in
328: \cite{kalirai01b}. The final photometric and astrometric
329: catalogs used in the present study are identical to that earlier set.
330: For NGC~7789, we processed the science frames according to the
331: prescription in \cite{kalirai01a}. Summarizing, we obtained several
332: flat-field, bias, and dark images and applied these to the
333: individual science frames using the FITS Large Images Processing
334: Software\footnote{\url{http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/$\sim$jcc/Flips/flips.html}}
335: (FLIPS -- see also Kalirai et~al.\ 2001a). FLIPS was
336: next used to register and coadd the multiple science exposures
337: for a given exposure time (which were each dithered slightly).
338: Photometry was performed on the resulting images using a
339: variable point-spread function in DAOPHOT \citep{stetson94},
340: and calibrated using Landolt standard star field observations \citep{landolt92}
341: as discussed in \S\S~5.1 and 5.2 of \cite{kalirai01a}. The
342: final errors in the photometry are very well behaved. We
343: find $\sigma_V$ $<$ 0.05 mag down to $V$ = 24 and
344: $\sigma_V$ $<$ 0.10 mag down to $V$ = 25.
345:
346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
347:
348:
349: \section{Color-Magnitude Diagrams} \label{CMD}
350:
351: NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 are two of the richest open star clusters
352: in the Milky Way. As we show below, the clusters are both old and
353: located at a similar distance from the Sun. The positions of these
354: systems in the Galaxy is also quite similar; they are both
355: found within 10 degrees of the plane of the Galactic disk at
356: $l$ = 115.5$^{\rm \circ}$ (NGC~7789) and $l$ = 74.0$^{\rm \circ}$ (NGC~6819).
357: Not surprisingly, the CMDs of the two clusters are strikingly similar
358: as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:2cmdsnoiso}. The contrast of the
359: cluster main sequences over the foreground and background Milky Way
360: disk and halo populations is very strong. In the observational plane, the main
361: sequence can be seen extending from the bluest point on the present day
362: turnoff ($V \sim$ 14.6 and $B-V$ $\sim$ 0.6 for NGC~7789, $V \sim$ 15.4 and
363: $B-V$ $\sim$ 0.6 for NGC~6819) down to the photometric limit. Just to the
364: red of the main sequence, an equal mass binary sequence can be seen in
365: NGC~6819 and also possibly in NGC~7789. As we showed through synthetic
366: CMD fitting in \cite{kalirai04}, the fraction of binary stars in NGC~6819
367: is $\sim$20 -- 30\%. The turnoff of both clusters is clearly defined
368: as well as an apparent ``hook'' just above the brightest point. This hook
369: is caused by a small contraction of the stellar core just above the
370: turnoff. Few, if any, stars are seen in the subgiant branch given the
371: shorter evolutionary timescale of this phase of post main-sequence
372: evolution. However, several blue-straggler candidates are found above
373: the turnoff in both clusters, especially in NGC~6819. The horizontal
374: branches are manifested as red clumps, as expected given the higher metallicity
375: of stars in these two systems. Evolution off the red giant clump is also seen
376: at the bright-red part of the CMDs.
377:
378:
379: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
381:
382: \begin{figure}
383: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f2.eps}
384: \figcaption{The distance modulus of NGC~7789 is measured to be
385: ($m-M$)$_V$ = 12.5 $\pm$ 0.1 by matching the observed cluster main
386: sequence (blue edge) to the Hyades cluster (red dots). The slope of
387: the two main-sequences are in excellent agreement over the entire
388: CMD. In this plane, all adjustments (distance, reddening, and color
389: offset due to metallicity difference) have been made to the NGC~7789
390: stars (see \S\,\ref{red.dist.age}).
391: \label{fig:hyadesfig}}
392: \end{figure}
393:
394: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
396:
397:
398: These CMDs of NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 are the deepest ever constructed for
399: the clusters (note: NGC~6819 was presented in Kalirai et~al.\ 2001b).
400: As expected, each CMD shows a large population of white dwarfs that had
401: previously not been detected. These
402: cooling sequences, in the faint-blue part of the diagrams, extend several
403: magnitudes to the limit of the data (these points have been made larger for
404: clarity). Unlike our study of the 0.5 Gyr cluster NGC~2099 \citep{kalirai01c},
405: these two clusters are old enough that the coolest white dwarfs
406: ($V$ = 26 -- 27) are beyond our detection limit. The scatter in the
407: cooling sequences results from a combination of photometric errors and
408: field contamination, which we will address later in section~\ref{membership}.
409:
410: \subsection{Distance and Age Measurements} \label{red.dist.age}
411:
412: With just two color photometry, it is very difficult to simultaneously
413: constrain the reddening and distance of a star cluster. When fitting the
414: main sequence, these parameters are degenerate. Fortunately, the
415: reddening can be measured independently from multi-filter photometry.
416: \cite{wu07} recently presented a 13 color CCD spectrophotometric study of
417: NGC~7789 and conclude with an estimate of the foreground reddening to NGC~7789 of
418: E($B-V$) = 0.28 $\pm$ 0.02. In their Table 1, they also list previous
419: measurements (dating back to the work of Burbidge \& Sandage 1958)
420: and find that their value is in fact nicely bracketed by
421: the findings in these independent studies (0.22~$<$~E($B-V$)~$<$~0.35,
422: see references within Wu et~al.\ 2007).
423:
424: The cornerstone technique of determining the distance of an open star
425: cluster involves fitting the observed main sequence to that of the
426: Hyades cluster. As the nearest star cluster to the Sun ($d$ = 46.34 $\pm$ 0.27~pc
427: -- Perryman et~al.\ 1998), the distance to each of the Hyades main-sequence
428: stars is accurately known through parallax measurements (to within
429: $\sim$2\% -- de~Bruijne, Hoogerwerf, \& de~Zeeuw 2001). Therefore, one
430: can directly overlay the Hyades main sequence stars (in an $M_V$, $(B-V){\rm o}$
431: plane) to the observed cluster main-sequence and adjust the distance
432: modulus of the latter until the two overlap. Although NGC~7789 is much
433: older than the Hyades (more than a factor of two), our deep photometry
434: presents a long, unevolved main sequence for this comparison. We do
435: however need to make a slight adjustment given the different metallicities
436: of the clusters. The Hyades is slightly more metal-rich than the Sun,
437: $Z$ = 0.024 \citep{perryman98}, whereas NGC~7789 is slightly more metal-poor,
438: $Z$ = 0.014 (average of recent literature values, see Wu et~al.\ 2007).
439: Correcting this offset amounts to a very small color shift of the
440: main-sequence. The resulting comparison yields an excellent alignment
441: of the two main sequences for an NGC~7789 distance modulus of ($m-M$)$_V$
442: = 12.5 $\pm$ 0.1, where the error bar is derived as described in section
443: 8.4 of \cite{kalirai01c}. This is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:hyadesfig}
444: where we have overlaid the Hyades stars on top of the shifted NGC~7789 main
445: sequence.
446:
447: Using a similar analysis, \cite{kalirai01b} determined the reddening and
448: distance modulus of NGC~6819 to be E($B-V$) $\sim$ 0.10 -- 0.14 (see also
449: Bragaglia et~al.\ 2001) and ($m-M$)$_V$ = 12.30 $\pm$ 0.12.
450:
451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
453:
454: %\begin{figure*}
455: %\begin{center}
456: %\leavevmode
457: %\includegraphics[height=17cm,angle=270]{f3.eps}
458: %\end{center}
459: %\caption{Stellar isochrones from \cite{vandenberg06} are found to be in
460: %excellent agreement with the main sequence and main-sequence
461: %turnoff of NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 (although there is a disagreement on the
462: %red giant branch of NGC~7789). As summarized in section \ref{red.dist.age},
463: %we measure an age of $t$ = 1.4~Gyr for NGC~7789 and $t$ = 2.5~Gyr for NGC~6819.
464: %\label{fig:2cmdsiso}}
465: %\end{figure*}
466:
467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
468: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
469:
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
472:
473: \begin{figure}
474: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f3.eps}
475: \figcaption{Stellar isochrones from \cite{vandenberg06} are found to be in
476: excellent agreement with the main sequence and main-sequence
477: turnoff of NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 (although there is a disagreement on the
478: red giant branch of NGC~7789). As summarized in section \ref{red.dist.age},
479: we measure an age of $t$ = 1.4~Gyr for NGC~7789 and $t$ = 2.5~Gyr for NGC~6819.
480: \label{fig:2cmdsiso}}
481: \end{figure}
482:
483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
485:
486: With an estimate of the fundamental parameters in place, we can measure
487: the ages of both clusters using our derived CMDs. For this, we have chosen
488: to use the stellar isochrones from \cite{vandenberg06} which include a
489: more physical treatment of convective overshooting than past generation
490: models (see below for a comparison with other models). Our results are
491: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:2cmdsiso}. Assuming
492: [$\alpha$/Fe] = 0, our CMD for NGC~7789 favors an isochrone with $t$ =
493: 1.4~Gyr. The resulting fit to the entire main-sequence and turnoff
494: is good, although the cluster red giants are bluer than the model
495: prediction. We note that \cite{vandenberg06} also found this discrepancy
496: when fitting an older photometric data set ($V$, $I$) of this cluster (observed
497: by Gim et~al.\ 1998). The cause of this mismatch may be in part related to
498: the masses of these red giant stars, which, given the age of NGC~7789, should
499: be very close to the phase transition threshold where the evolution is
500: terminated by degenerate helium ignition in the core (i.e., the flash).
501: Modeling this transition depends sensitively on the extent of core
502: overshooting. For NGC~6819, we find that an isochrone of age
503: $t$ = 2.5~Gyr reproduces all of the main CMD features very nicely. This
504: includes the main-sequence, turnoff, and red giant branch. For both
505: clusters, the ages determined from the \cite{vandenberg06} isochrones
506: are consistent at the $\sim$10\% level with those determined from either
507: the Yale-Yonsei isochrones \citep{demarque04} or the Padova group
508: isochrones \citep{girardi02}.
509:
510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
511: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
512:
513: \begin{figure}
514: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f4.eps}
515: \figcaption{The 28 white dwarf candidates that are spectroscopically targeted
516: in NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 are highlighted in the faint-blue corner of the
517: cluster CMDs. These objects are scattered around a 0.6~$M_\odot$ cooling
518: sequence \citep{wood95} and span approximately three magnitudes of the
519: white dwarf cooling sequence in each cluster.
520: \label{fig:wdzoom}}
521: \end{figure}
522:
523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
525:
526: To summarize the analysis of the cluster CMDs, our best parameters
527: are E($B-V$) = 0.28 $\pm$ 0.02, ($m-M$)$_V$ = 12.5 $\pm$ 0.1,
528: $Z$ = 0.014, and $t$ = 1.4~Gyr for NGC~7789. For NGC~6819, we
529: find E($B-V$) = 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02, ($m-M$)$_V$ = 12.30 $\pm$ 0.12, $Z$ = 0.017,
530: and $t$ = 2.5~Gyr. We point out that these age derivations are
531: sensitive to the input parameters. A reasonable fit to the observed
532: CMDs can be achieved by tweaking the age by $\sim$10\% with corresponding
533: changes to the reddening, distance moduli, and/or metallicity. Although
534: we can not be absolutely certain which combination of these parameters are
535: correct for the clusters (given the ranges reported in the literature),
536: we are reasonably sure that our estimates are accurate as they agree
537: with most recent literature values. It is also reassuring that, for
538: this set of parameters, the models reproduce the lower main sequences
539: nearly perfectly (this phase has never been tested before).
540:
541: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
543:
544: \begin{figure*}
545: \begin{center}
546: \leavevmode
547: \includegraphics[height=18.5cm,angle=90]{f5.eps}
548: \end{center}
549: \caption{The images of each of our white dwarf candidates are
550: shown from the $V$-band CFHT data. Each star is displayed in
551: a small window that extends approximately 1 arcminute in the
552: E-W direction (E is to the left) and 35 arcseconds in the
553: N-S direction (N is to the top). By design, most of the white dwarf
554: candidates are well isolated, sharp sources. Higher resolution
555: version of this figure is available at
556: http://www.ucolick.org/$\sim$jkalirai/0706.3894/. \label{fig:snapshot}}
557: \end{figure*}
558:
559: %%BoundingBox: 55 0 319 413
560:
561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
562: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
563:
564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
565:
566: \section{Keck Spectroscopy} \label{spectroscopicdata}
567:
568: Spectroscopic observations of NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 were obtained using
569: the LRIS multi-object spectrograph on the Keck~I telescope on
570: July~29 and July~30 2005. The instrument is a dual-beam, low resolution
571: spectrograph with a 5$' \times$ 7$'$ field of view \citep{oke95}. For
572: the blue side, we used the 600/4000 grism (dispersion = 0.63 ${\rm \AA}$/pixel)
573: which simultaneously covers 2580~${\rm \AA}$, from 3300 -- 5880~${\rm \AA}$. The plate
574: scale of the blue CCD is 0$\farcs$135 per pixel. For the
575: red side, we used the 600/7500 grating (dispersion = 1.28 ${\rm \AA}$/pixel),
576: centered at 6600~${\rm \AA}$, which covers a wavelength baseline of
577: 2620~${\rm \AA}$. The plate scale of the red CCD is 0$\farcs$210 per
578: pixel. The light to the blue side was intercepted from the
579: collimator mirror using the D560 dichroic. In multiobject
580: slit spectroscopy, the exact wavelength coverage for each target varies
581: somewhat depending on the location of that target on the mask.
582:
583: We do not a priori know {\it which} of the faint-blue stars identified as
584: white dwarf candidates from the imaging observations are in fact white dwarfs.
585: Unresolved background galaxies, QSOs, hot subdwarfs, and even distant early
586: type main-sequence stars can contaminate the sample. However, NGC~7789 and
587: NGC~6819 are two of
588: the richest Milky Way open star clusters and therefore the percentage of
589: contaminating field objects is suppressed. In fact, Figure~\ref{fig:2cmdsnoiso}
590: shows that both clusters exhibit obvious white dwarf cooling sequences which
591: would not be otherwise discernible if field contamination was overwhelming. We
592: also note that similar studies by our group of the rich cluster NGC~2099
593: \citep{kalirai05a} and NGC~6791 \citep{kalirai07} have confirmed that most
594: faint-blue objects in our CFHT CMDs for these rich systems are in fact
595: cluster white dwarf members.
596:
597:
598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
599: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
600:
601: \begin{table*}
602: \begin{center}
603: \caption{}
604: %\vskip 0.3cm
605: \begin{tabular}{lcccr}
606: \hline
607: \hline
608: \multicolumn{1}{c}{ID} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha_{J2000}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\delta_{J2000}$} &
609: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$V$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$B-V$} \\
610: \hline
611: NGC 7789~--~1 & 23:56:32.51 & 56:35:21.6 & 21.00 $\pm$ 0.01 & $-$0.04 \\
612: NGC 7789~--~2 & 23:56:44.25 & 56:38:09.7 & 21.28 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.29 \\
613: NGC 7789~--~3 & 23:56:36.62 & 56:40:23.5 & 22.13 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.01 \\
614: NGC 7789~--~4 & 23:56:43.03 & 56:35:56.2 & 22.37 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.16 \\
615: NGC 7789~--~5 & 23:56:49.06 & 56:40:13.2 & 22.49 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.04 \\
616: NGC 7789~--~6 & 23:56:31.94 & 56:36:59.2 & 22.66 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.17 \\
617: NGC 7789~--~7 & 23:56:51.93 & 56:38:21.3 & 22.62 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.19 \\
618: NGC 7789~--~8 & 23:56:57.22 & 56:40:01.1 & 23.15 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.15 \\
619: NGC 7789~--~9 & 23:56:42.42 & 56:32:48.4 & 23.09 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.35 \\
620: NGC 7789~--~10 & 23:56:44.91 & 56:39:58.8 & 23.23 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.24 \\
621: NGC 7789~--~11 & 23:56:30.81 & 56:37:19.3 & 23.36 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.27 \\
622: NGC 7789~--~12 & 23:56:45.84 & 56:37:55.1 & 23.26 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.35 \\
623: NGC 7789~--~13 & 23:57:05.17 & 56:38:20.1 & 23.47 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.24 \\
624: NGC 7789~--~14 & 23:56:37.78 & 56:39:08.4 & 23.55 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.21 \\
625: NGC 7789~--~15 & 23:56:34.19 & 56:40:05.0 & 24.02 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.34 \\
626: NGC 6819~--~1 & 19:41:25.70 & 40:02:53.9 & 21.73 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.05 \\
627: NGC 6819~--~2 & 19:41:26.10 & 40:03:48.0 & 21.78 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.15 \\
628: NGC 6819~--~3 & 19:41:48.06 & 40:03:17.0 & 21.90 $\pm$ 0.01 & $-$0.20 \\
629: NGC 6819~--~4 & 19:41:46.80 & 40:03:08.2 & 21.87 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.09 \\
630: NGC 6819~--~5 & 19:41:27.36 & 40:00:47.8 & 22.51 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.17 \\
631: NGC 6819~--~6 & 19:41:19.96 & 40:02:56.1 & 22.94 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.07 \\
632: NGC 6819~--~7 & 19:41:33.93 & 40:01:41.4 & 22.91 $\pm$ 0.02 & $-$0.02 \\
633: NGC 6819~--~8 & 19:41:37.21 & 40:04:45.3 & 23.03 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.19 \\
634: NGC 6819~--~9 & 19:41:25.20 & 40:01:30.2 & 23.45 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.33 \\
635: NGC 6819~--~10 & 19:41:32.13 & 40:01:07.8 & 23.86 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.39 \\
636: NGC 6819~--~11 & 19:41:53.95 & 40:04:05.7 & 24.05 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.27 \\
637: NGC 6819~--~12 & 19:41:32.76 & 40:04:39.9 & 24.10 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.33 \\
638: NGC 6819~--~13 & 19:41:32.18 & 40:05:59.7 & 24.20 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.27 \\
639: \hline
640: \end{tabular}
641: \label{table2}
642: \end{center}
643: \end{table*}
644:
645: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
646: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
647:
648:
649: We generate an input list of spectroscopic targets by assigning priorities
650: to objects in the CFHT CMD based on their magnitudes and morphology (i.e.,
651: extended sources with a poor ``stellarity'' are removed -- Bertin \& Arnouts
652: 1996). Objects that are near the bright white dwarf cooling sequence (defined
653: by eye, see Figure~\ref{fig:2cmdsnoiso}) in each cluster are given high priorities
654: and objects that are fainter are given lower priorities. Since the LRIS
655: field of view is much smaller than our wide-field CFHT image, we strategically
656: position the
657: spectroscopic mask to overlap as many of the best targets as we can. Our
658: expectation was to observe a single field in each of the clusters to maximize
659: the S/N of the resulting spectra, which is critical
660: to derive accurate masses (see \S\,\ref{WDMasses}). However, we generated
661: spectroscopic masks at two different locations in case a quick reduction of
662: the data from the first exposure taken at the telescope revealed that most
663: of the targets were not white dwarfs. In this case, we had the option to
664: abandon further exposures of that particular field and switch to the second
665: mask which targeted a different region of the cluster.
666:
667: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
669:
670: \begin{figure*}
671: \begin{center}
672: \leavevmode
673: \includegraphics[height=17.0cm,angle=270]{f6.eps}
674: \end{center}
675: \caption{{\it Top} -- Keck/LRIS spectra for ten stars with at least
676: five well characterized Balmer lines. Each of these stars can be fit
677: to models to yield accurate temperatures and gravities (see section~\ref{WDMasses}).
678: {\it Bottom} -- The spectra of three unique white dwarfs ({\it left})
679: and a closer look at their absorption lines (NGC~6819~--~4 and 8,
680: and NGC~7789~--~7 -- {\it right}). NGC~6819~--~4 shows the presence of
681: He lines at 3889, 4471, and 4713 ${\rm \AA}$ and is therefore a DB (helium
682: atmosphere) white dwarf. NGC~6819~--~8 shows obvious signatures of
683: very broad H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ Balmer lines with possible Zeeman
684: splitting, but no clear evidence of higher order Balmer lines.
685: This star looks to be a massive, magnetic white dwarf. The spectrum of
686: NGC~7789~--~7 shows both hydrogen and helium absorption lines. These
687: objects are discussed further in section~\ref{rareobjects}.
688: \label{fig:wdspectrahigh}}
689: \end{figure*}
690:
691: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
693:
694: For each mask location discussed above (and similarly two locations in
695: NGC~6819), we milled two masks with individual slit widths of
696: 0$\farcs$8 and 1$\farcs$0, and orientations close to the parallactic angle.
697: The choice between the two masks was made dependent on the seeing conditions
698: of the observations. The individual exposure times were set to 30 -- 60
699: minutes for a total integration of 6.8~hours on NGC~7789 (one exposure was
700: cut short) and 5~hours on NGC~6819. The airmass of the observations
701: ranged from 1.25 -- 1.49 for the NGC~7789 spectra and from 1.07 -- 1.22
702: for the NGC~6819 spectra. For both clusters, the second priority mask was
703: not observed as a
704: quick reduction of the data after the first exposure indicated that
705: most of the targets were in fact DA white dwarfs (e.g., broad Balmer lines
706: seen in the spectra). In total, the NGC~7789 spectroscopic field
707: contained 15 targets, 9 of which were top priority white dwarf candidates.
708: For NGC~6819, 13 objects were targeted in the one mask of which 8 were top
709: priority candidate white dwarfs. Additional box slits were used for
710: alignment. The locations of these 28 selected white dwarf
711: candidates on the faint-blue corners of the cluster CMDs are displayed
712: in Figure~\ref{fig:wdzoom}, for each of
713: NGC~7789 and NGC~6819. We have also introduced a numbering scheme to
714: identify these objects later (i.e., object ``1'' in NGC~7789 is labeled
715: as NGC~7789~--~1). The selected objects sample the observed white dwarf
716: cooling sequence over approximately three magnitudes, in each cluster.
717: The solid curve represents a 0.6~$M_\odot$ white dwarf cooling
718: sequence \citep{wood95}. Postage-stamp cutouts of each of the
719: 28 white dwarf candidates from the CFHT imaging are shown in
720: Figure~\ref{fig:snapshot} and the photometric properties of these
721: stars are summarized in Table~2.
722:
723: The spectroscopic data were analyzed as described in \cite{kalirai07}.
724: Specifically, we used Python routines that are described in \cite{kelson00}
725: and \cite{kelson03} to perform bias subtraction, vertical distortion
726: corrections, wavelength calibration (typical $rms$ scatter in the dispersion
727: solutions is $<$0.05~${\rm \AA}$), flat-field corrections, and sky subtraction.
728: Standard IRAF tasks were used to extract these to 1-d spectra, co-add
729: individual exposures, and flux calibrate using a spectrophotometric standard
730: star (HZ~44). Of the 28 objects targeted on the
731: two masks, we recovered a spectrum for all but one. This one faint object
732: (NGC~7789~--~13) has $V$ = 23.47 and $B-V$ = 0.24 and was given a very
733: short slit length as its position was between two other high priority stars.
734: The multiobject data reduction for this slit failed at several steps of
735: the pipeline (e.g., wavelength calibration and sky subtraction) in each
736: of the individual exposures despite several attempts to recover a reduced
737: spectrum.
738:
739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
740:
741:
742: \section{NGC 7789 and NGC 6819 White Dwarf Spectra} \label{WDspectra}
743:
744: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
745: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
746:
747: \begin{figure*}
748: \begin{center}
749: \leavevmode
750: \includegraphics[height=17.0cm,angle=270]{f7.eps}
751: \end{center}
752: \caption{{\it Top} -- Spectra for nine fainter white dwarfs in our
753: data set. These spectra are too noisy to accurately characterize the
754: shapes of the higher order Balmer lines and therefore can not be used
755: to yield accurate temperatures and gravities for the stars. All of the
756: stars can, however, be classified as DA white dwarfs. {\it Bottom} --
757: Spectra for five objects of likely non-white dwarf nature as discussed
758: in \S\,\ref{otherobjects}).
759: \label{fig:wdspectralow}}
760: \end{figure*}
761:
762: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
763: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
764:
765: The spectra for the 27 extracted white dwarf candidates targeted in this study
766: are shown in Figures~\ref{fig:wdspectrahigh} and \ref{fig:wdspectralow}. The
767: majority of the 27 targets show clear evidence for pressure broadened Balmer
768: lines and are therefore DA (hydrogen atmosphere) white dwarfs. The top group
769: of ten white dwarfs in Figure~\ref{fig:wdspectrahigh} represent our highest
770: quality data, and will be used in the analysis that follows. These
771: stars are clearly among the brightest in our data set and the spectra reveal well
772: defined Balmer lines from H$\beta$ down to H8 and H9. We discuss these objects
773: further in section~\ref{WDMasses}.
774:
775: \subsection{Rare White Dwarfs} \label{rareobjects}
776:
777: The second set of targets in Figure~\ref{fig:wdspectrahigh} (bottom) represent three
778: rare objects in our sample. Each of these stars is potentially very important
779: (for different reasons) and so we discuss them in turn. The first, object~4 in
780: NGC~6819, is clearly a DB (helium atmosphere) white dwarf. He absorption lines at
781: 3889, 4471, and 4713 ${\rm \AA}$ are all seen in the stellar spectrum (see three
782: panels on the right in Figure~\ref{fig:wdspectrahigh} for a closer look at these
783: features). If a member of the cluster, this star therefore represents one of only
784: four helium atmosphere white dwarfs found in all open clusters. The other such
785: stars are the DBA white dwarf LP~475-242 in the Hyades, the DQ white dwarf
786: NGC~2168:LAWDS~28 in NGC~2168 \citep{williams06}, and the newly discovered
787: DB white dwarf NGC~6633:LAWDS~16 in NGC~6633 \citep{williams07}. Unfortunately,
788: the spectral quality of NGC~6819~--~4 is too low to estimate the temperature or
789: mass of the star from the helium lines. \cite{kalirai05b} proposed that the
790: absence of {\it DBs} in open clusters may be related to the fact that this population
791: of white dwarfs is more massive than the field population (where we typically
792: find 20--25\% DBs). This results from the targeting of younger clusters
793: in previous studies (more massive progenitor stars) that have only produced
794: massive white dwarfs. Such hot, high mass white dwarfs may not develop large enough
795: helium convection zones to allow helium to be brought to the surface and turn
796: a hydrogen-rich white dwarf into a helium-rich one. Kalirai et~al.\ predicted
797: that an increasing number of DB white dwarfs should be seen as observations
798: begin to probe older clusters, such as NGC~6819 and NGC~7789.
799:
800:
801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
802: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
803:
804: \begin{figure*}
805: \begin{center}
806: \leavevmode
807: \includegraphics[height=17.0cm,angle=270]{f8.eps}
808: \end{center}
809: \caption{The best fit hydrogen atmosphere model white dwarf
810: spectrum (red curve) is shown for each of the ten stars in
811: Figure~\ref{fig:wdspectrahigh} (top). Within each of the
812: panels, the hydrogen Balmer lines for a single star are arranged
813: with H$\beta$ at the bottom and successively higher order lines
814: towards the top. The model shown represents the fit with the lowest
815: $\chi^{2}$ to {\it all} lines simultaneously. As discussed in
816: section~\ref{WDMasses}, these fits provide accurate measurements
817: of both $T_{\rm eff}$ and log~$g$ (and therefore the stellar mass)
818: for each white dwarf (see Table~3).
819: \label{fig:wdmasses}}
820: \end{figure*}
821:
822: %%BoundingBox: 22 16 520 784
823:
824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
825: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
826:
827: The second object, NGC~6819~--~8 shows very broad H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ absorption
828: lines but an absence of higher order Balmer lines. Although the spectral quality
829: is not high enough to absolutely rule out the presence of {\it weak} higher order
830: lines, this signature may suggest that the white dwarf is quite massive (see
831: section~\ref{WDMasses} for more information). Furthermore, there is evidence for
832: Zeeman splitting of the lines (see two panels on the right) and therefore this object
833: is likely a magnetic white dwarf (see e.g., Liebert, Bergeron, \& Holberg 2003).
834: Again, the quality of the spectrum is too poor to estimate the magnetic
835: field or the stellar mass and therefore it would be useful to obtain higher
836: S/N spectral observations of this star. Additionally, a reduction
837: of the red side spectrum from LRIS may shed further light on this interesting
838: object. Given the poor quality, we also speculate whether the observed {\it splitting}
839: may actually represent emission in the core of the Balmer absorption lines, in which
840: case this object may be a binary system in which the primary is accreting material
841: from the secondary star. If the primary is massive enough, such a system could
842: be a potential type Ia supernova progenitor. \cite{hurley03} speculated that this
843: cluster contains a large fraction of white dwarfs that once had binary companions,
844: in addition to double degenerates, to reproduce the scatter along the cooling
845: sequence. Note, the image of this star does not show any nearby companions
846: (see Figure~\ref{fig:snapshot}).
847:
848: Interestingly, object 7 in NGC 7789 shows {\it both} hydrogen and helium lines
849: in its spectrum. These are again highlighted in the three panels showing different
850: wavelength regions (Figure~\ref{fig:wdspectrahigh} -- bottom-right). At lower wavelengths,
851: the first panel shows hydrogen lines at 3970 and 4101 ${\rm \AA}$ (H$\epsilon$ and H$\delta$)
852: as well as helium lines at 3889 and 4026 ${\rm \AA}$. In the middle panels H$\gamma$ is
853: seen at 4340 ${\rm \AA}$ as well as two helium lines at 4388 and 4471 ${\rm \AA}$. At
854: longer wavelengths (3rd panel), H$\beta$ is visible at 4861 ${\rm \AA}$ as well as
855: three more helium lines at 4713, 4922, and 5016 ${\rm \AA}$. This object(s) is therefore
856: either a single DAB (mixed hydrogen and helium atmosphere) white dwarf or a double
857: degenerate (i.e., unresolved white dwarf - white dwarf binary) consisting of both
858: a DA and a DB (helium atmosphere) star. Distinguishing between these two cases
859: is very difficult without a much higher S/N spectrum of this target
860: (see e.g., Bergeron \& Liebert 2002). Both cases are very interesting. DAB white
861: dwarfs are rare and can shed light on diffusion
862: processes in white dwarfs and help our understanding of the chemical evolution
863: of these stars. If this object is in fact a binary, then the discovery of the
864: DB white dwarf would in fact represent the fifth helium atmosphere white dwarf
865: in an open cluster (see above for the other four such stars). The image of this
866: source in Figure~\ref{fig:snapshot} does show two nearby neighbors however both
867: of these other stars are red main sequence dwarfs and therefore can not account for
868: the contaminant.
869:
870: \subsection{Lower Quality White Dwarf Spectra \\ and Other Objects} \label{otherobjects}
871:
872: In Figure~\ref{fig:wdspectralow} (top) we present spectra of fainter DA white dwarfs in
873: our data set. These spectra are too noisy to yield accurate spectroscopic
874: masses and therefore we will ignore them in the subsequent analysis. However, it is
875: reassuring that most of the faint blue targets in our spectroscopic study are in fact
876: white dwarfs. First, this suggests that our target selection process in these rich
877: clusters is efficient. As mentioned earlier, we also found a high success rate in our
878: study of NGC~2099 \citep{kalirai05a} and NGC~6791 \citep{kalirai07}. Second, these
879: fainter white dwarfs can be followed up with future observations to improve the
880: S/N of the spectra and therefore may eventually be important in placing
881: constraints on the initial-final mass relation. The faintest white dwarfs may even
882: represent descendents from more massive main-sequence stars and therefore allow a
883: probe of the relation over a mass range, within a given cluster.
884:
885: At the bottom of Figure~\ref{fig:wdspectralow} are spectra for five other objects along
886: our line of sight. The most interesting case is NGC~6819~--~3 which exhibits the
887: hydrogen Balmer series although the lines are not pressure broadened. This object
888: is therefore either a field horizontal branch star, or a distant main-sequence
889: dwarf of spectral type late A or early F. If the latter, the observed magnitude
890: of the star ($V$ = 21.9) implies a distance of $\sim$80~kpc. Similarly,
891: NGC~6819~--~11 and 5 appear to be background dwarfs of later spectral type. The
892: other two spectra lack enough signal to accurately classify the objects. These could
893: be cool DA white dwarfs, DB or DC white dwarfs, or other objects along the line of sight
894: such as unresolved blue galaxies.
895:
896: Overall, our spectra confirm that 22 of the 27 targets for which we extracted a
897: spectrum are in fact white dwarf stars. We now proceed to analyze further the
898: six white dwarfs in NGC~7789 and four white dwarfs in NGC~6819 that show well
899: characterized Balmer lines (i.e., the top group in Figure~\ref{fig:wdspectrahigh}).
900:
901: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
902:
903: \section{The Masses of White Dwarfs in \\ NGC~7789 and NGC~6819} \label{WDMasses}
904:
905: Several techniques exist to measure the masses of white dwarfs, depending on
906: what information is available. If the star is in a binary system, a
907: dynamical mass estimate can be easily calculated from the orbit of the two
908: stars. For example, the nearest white dwarf Sirius~B was known to exist
909: as early as 1841 from its dynamical influences on the optically brighter
910: companion, Sirius A (Bessel~1844). The optical detection of the white dwarf
911: did not occur until 1862 (by Alvan Clark), shortly after which the star was
912: known to be a $\sim$1~solar mass object from the period of the binary
913: ($\sim$50~years). For a white dwarf with a known radial velocity,
914: the gravitational redshift method can also be used to measure the stellar mass
915: (e.g., Adams~1925; Wegner~1989; Reid~1996). Given the large gravity, photons from
916: the surface of the white dwarf will lose energy as they escape the potential
917: of the star and therefore be redshifted (as first suggested by Michell 1784).
918: To measure this effect, the H$\alpha$ Balmer line at 6563~${\rm \AA}$ is typically
919: observed at intermediate resolution. Other methods to measure white dwarf
920: masses are applicable to smaller subsets of stars only, e.g., pulsation
921: mode analysis of very hot white dwarfs \citep{kawaler91} and fits to the
922: mass-radius relation for stars with trigonometric parallaxes \citep{koester79}.
923:
924: The most widely adopted technique for measuring the mass of a white dwarf
925: involves fitting the Balmer lines of the spectrum to model atmospheres
926: \citep{bergeron92}. The shapes of these line profiles depends sensitively on
927: changes in the temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$) and surface gravity (log~$g$) of the
928: star. For example, as the atmospheric pressure in a white dwarf
929: increases (e.g., due to a larger surface gravity), interactions between
930: neighboring hydrogen atoms will lead to enhanced Stark broadening. For
931: the lower order Balmer lines, this means the profiles will become broader
932: (e.g., H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$). However, the bluer Balmer lines are
933: produced by electron transitions at higher energy levels and therefore
934: these lines will be the first to be destroyed by the increased perturbations
935: on the atom (e.g., H$\epsilon$, H8, H9, etc...). As an example of this,
936: see Figure~3 in \cite{bergeron92}. Therefore, using this technique to
937: accurately define the $T_{\rm eff}$ and log~$g$ of a white dwarf requires
938: the characterization of higher order Balmer lines in the stellar spectrum.
939: For faint stars, this implies the need for a blue-sensitive spectrograph as
940: the wavelength of H$\epsilon$ is in the violet region, 3970 ${\rm \AA}$.
941: With $T_{\rm eff}$ and log~$g$ constrained, the mass of the star can be
942: obtained through a mass-radius relation.
943:
944: A significant sample of white dwarfs has been observed using at least two of
945: these techniques (including the spectroscopic Balmer line fitting technique)
946: and therefore provide a means to independently check the accuracy of the
947: method. \cite{bergeron95} analyze 35 such white dwarfs and find
948: a reasonable agreement between spectroscopic mass determinations and
949: gravitational redshifts for only those stars with $T_{\rm eff} >$
950: 12,000~K. For the cooler stars, the spectroscopic mass determinations are
951: systematically larger than the gravitational redshifts by $\sim$0.1~$M_\odot$.
952: As pointed out by \cite{bergeron95}, these measurements could be
953: in error if convection has set in and polluted the atmospheres of
954: these cool stars with helium (i.e., this would mimic a larger mass). A similar
955: study by \cite{reid96} based on HIRES spectra of 53 white dwarfs also found
956: good agreement between these two methods for white dwarfs with
957: $T_{\rm eff} >$ 14,000~K (see also Claver et~al.\ 2001). Finally, a recent
958: study with {\it HST}/STIS has made it possible to calculate the mass of Sirius~B
959: using three independent techniques \citep{barstow05}. The mass of the white
960: dwarf based on its orbit, gravitational redshift, and blue Balmer lines, all
961: indicate that the star is one solar mass to within a few percent. As we show below,
962: all but one of our white dwarfs have $T_{\rm eff} >$ 13,000~K and therefore the
963: spectroscopic mass measurements are not affected by any of these possible
964: systematic errors.
965:
966: The fitting technique to derive $T_{\rm eff}$ and log~$g$ is described
967: in \cite{bergeron92}. We convolved the models with
968: a Gaussian profile with FWHM = 4~${\rm \AA}$ to match the resolution of
969: our spectra. All of the available Balmer lines of each star are fit
970: simultaneously and the best fit solution is converged upon by minimizing
971: $\chi^{2}$ using the nonlinear least-squares method of Levenberg-Marquardt
972: \citep{press86}. In this fit, the estimation of the continuum near each
973: Balmer line is performed using the upgraded method described in
974: \cite{liebert05}. The atmosphere models cover a log~$g$ range from
975: 6.5 -- 9.0 and a $T_{\rm eff}$ range from 1500 -- 100,000~K. The best
976: solutions for the ten white dwarfs in NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 are illustrated
977: in Figure~\ref{fig:wdmasses}. For each star, we present the observed Balmer lines one
978: on top of another, with H$\beta$ at the bottom and subsequent higher order
979: lines at the top (up to H9 at 3835~${\rm \AA}$). The
980: best fit model solution for each is shown as a smooth profile (red curve).
981: The fits are excellent in all cases except for NGC~6819~--~2 in which the
982: lower order Balmer lines are not reproduced as well as the higher order
983: lines. If we ignore the higher order lines of this star and refit
984: only H$\beta$, H$\gamma$, and H$\delta$, the quality of the fit does
985: not improve and the derived parameters of the star remain essentially
986: unchanged. As we below show in section~\ref{membership}, this star is
987: {\it not} a cluster member and therefore does not enter into our
988: analysis of the initial-final mass relation.
989:
990: White dwarf masses ($M_{\rm final}$) are calculated for each star by interpolating
991: the $T_{\rm eff}$ and log~$g$ within the updated evolutionary models of
992: \cite{fontaine01} for a 50/50 carbon-oxygen core mix. The models adopt thick
993: hydrogen layers ($q(\rm H)$ = $M_{\rm H}/M$ = 10$^{-4}$) and helium layers of
994: $q(\rm He)$ = 10$^{-2}$. The models also provide white dwarf cooling ages ($t_{\rm
995: cool}$) for each star (i.e., the age of the star since shell helium burning finished
996: on the asymptotic giant branch). We summarize the spectroscopic properties for
997: these twelve white dwarfs in Table~3.
998:
999: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1000:
1001: \section{Calculating Main-Sequence Progenitor Lifetimes and Masses} \label{MSlifetimes}
1002:
1003: Unlike for the field population of isolated white dwarfs, the environments of
1004: white dwarfs in star clusters can be used to shed light on the properties of
1005: their progenitors. As star clusters are co-eval, the main-sequence turnoff
1006: ages of NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 measured in section~\ref{red.dist.age} also
1007: represent the {\it total} lifetime of their inhabiting white dwarfs (i.e.,
1008: the main-sequence lifetime plus the timescales for evolutionary stages beyond
1009: core hydrogen burning). Therefore, by subtracting the white dwarf cooling age
1010: from the cluster age, we can calculate the lifetime of the progenitor star that
1011: made the white dwarf up to the tip of the asymptotic giant branch. For clusters
1012: as old as NGC~7789 and NGC~6819, this latter age ($t_{\rm ms}$) is dominated by
1013: the main-sequence lifetime of the star since the post main-sequence evolutionary
1014: phases are short lived.
1015:
1016: \subsection{Cluster Membership} \label{membership}
1017:
1018: The assumption in the above calculation is that the spectroscopically confirmed
1019: white dwarfs in this study are in fact members of NGC~7789 and NGC~6819. As the
1020: volume probed increases with photometric depth, most of the field white dwarfs
1021: along these lines of sight will be found near the faint end of the data set.
1022: Depending on the distance and age of any field white dwarf, it could mimic
1023: itself as a faint-blue cluster object.
1024:
1025: To determine which of the stars are likely cluster white dwarfs,
1026: we use the white dwarf mass-radius relation to calculate a theoretical
1027: magnitude for each star. This magnitude is next compared to the observed brightness
1028: of the respective white dwarf by adopting the distance modulus of each
1029: cluster derived in section~\ref{red.dist.age} (($m-M$)$_V$ = 12.5 $\pm$
1030: 0.1 for NGC~7789 and ($m-M$)$_V$ = 12.30 $\pm$ 0.12 for NGC~6819).
1031: Figure~\ref{fig:mags} shows the results. The solid line represents the
1032: 1:1 relation and the dashed lines are 2$\sigma$ bounds based on the
1033: distance errors above. The uncertainties on the data points are also
1034: 2$\sigma$ error bars. In NGC~7789, a group of four white dwarfs are
1035: found near the 1:1 relation, and two others are obvious outliers
1036: (objects 1 and 2). Based on this diagram, only objects 5 and 8 can be
1037: considered {\it isolated} cluster members (darker points). However, we
1038: note that both objects 4 and 6 are consistent with a 0.75 magnitude offset
1039: from the 1:1 relation (observed magnitude being too bright -- dotted
1040: line). These stars are therefore overluminous by an amount consistent
1041: with an equal mass binary nature (i.e., they could be unresolved double
1042: degenerates in the cluster), assuming they are not optical binaries. For
1043: NGC~6819, Figure~\ref{fig:mags} indicates that objects 6 and 7 are cluster
1044: members whereas objects 1 and 2 are classified as non members based
1045: on our parameter measurements.
1046:
1047: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1048: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1049:
1050: \begin{figure}
1051: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f9.eps}
1052: \figcaption{A comparison of the theoretical magnitude of the star (from fitting
1053: the Balmer lines) with the observed brightness indicates that two of the
1054: white dwarfs in both NGC~7789 and NGC~6819 are single white dwarfs (darker objects)
1055: in these clusters (2$\sigma$ error bars). An additional two objects in NGC~7789,
1056: objects 4 and 6, are consistent with being 0.75 magnitudes overluminous and
1057: therefore may represent unresolved double degenerate systems.
1058: \label{fig:mags}}
1059: \end{figure}
1060:
1061: %%BoundingBox: 90 440 520 718
1062:
1063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1064: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1065:
1066: For the four non-binary cluster member stars and the two potential double degenerate
1067: systems, we measure the main-sequence plus post main-sequence lifetimes (up to the
1068: tip of the asymptotic giant branch) by subtracting the derived white dwarf cooling
1069: ages from the cluster ages ($t$ = 1.4~Gyr for NGC~7789 and $t$ = 2.5~Gyr for NGC~6819
1070: -- see section~\ref{red.dist.age}). These results, $t_{\rm ms}$, are given in
1071: column~7 of Table 3. The main-sequence masses ($M_{\rm initial}$) follow from the
1072: models of \cite{hurley00} and are listed in column~8 of Table~3. The errors in the
1073: main-sequence lifetimes include the uncertainties in the cooling ages and an assumed
1074: 10\% uncertainty in the ages of the clusters.
1075:
1076:
1077: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1078: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1079:
1080: \begin{figure}
1081: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f10.eps}
1082: \figcaption{{\it Top} -- For a Salpeter mass function only 13\% of
1083: all stars are formed with $M >$ 2.75~$M_\odot$ whereas 55\% have
1084: $M >$ 1.16~$M_\odot$. {\it Bottom} -- All previous constraints on the
1085: initial final mass relation (crosses -- see references in \S\,\ref{lowmassend})
1086: and weighted averages for the stars in this study (filled circles)
1087: from NGC~7789 ($M_{\rm initial}$ = 2.03~$M_\odot$) and NGC~6819
1088: ($M_{\rm initial}$ = 1.61~$M_\odot$), as well as the masses of the
1089: single carbon-oxygen core white dwarf and progenitor in NGC~6791
1090: ($M_{\rm initial}$ = 1.16~$M_\odot$). The uncertainties on these three
1091: points represent 2$\sigma$ errors. The new data extend the
1092: initial-final mass relation to very low masses and show that
1093: the observed trend at higher masses continues down to stars approximately
1094: the mass of the Sun. The two curves are the core mass at the first
1095: thermal pulse (solid) and the solar metallicity theoretical initial
1096: final mass relation (dotted) from Marigo (2001).
1097: \label{fig:ifmr}}
1098: \end{figure}
1099:
1100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1102:
1103:
1104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1106:
1107: \begin{table*}
1108: \begin{center}
1109: \caption{}
1110: %\vskip 0.3cm
1111: \begin{tabular}{lcccclccc}
1112: \hline
1113: \hline
1114: \multicolumn{1}{c}{ID} &
1115: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$V_{\rm theory}$$^{a}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$T_{\rm eff}$ (K)} &
1116: \multicolumn{1}{c}{log~$g$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$M_{\rm final}$ ($M_\odot$)} &
1117: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t_{\rm cool}$ (Myr)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t_{\rm ms}$ (Myr)} &
1118: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$M_{\rm initial}$ ($M_\odot$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Member?} \\
1119: \hline
1120: NGC 7789~--~1 & 22.91 $\pm$ 0.11 & 21,900 $\pm$ 100 & 7.89 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.01 & 35 $\pm$ 1 & ------------ & ------------ & no \\
1121: NGC 7789~--~2 & 25.24 $\pm$ 0.14 & 9,700 $\pm$ 50 & 8.31 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1040 $\pm$ 64 & ------------ & ------------ & no \\
1122: NGC 7789~--~4$^{b}$ & 23.40 $\pm$ 0.13 & 16,900 $\pm$ 200 & 7.90 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.02 & 115 $\pm$ 8 & 1285 $\pm$ 140 & $2.08^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & ? \\
1123: NGC 7789~--~5 & 22.21 $\pm$ 0.18 & 31,200 $\pm$ 200 & 7.90 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.03 & 8 $\pm$ 1 & 1392 $\pm$ 140 & $2.02^{+0.07}_{-0.14}$ & yes \\
1124: NGC 7789~--~6$^{b}$ & 23.67 $\pm$ 0.18 & 17,600 $\pm$ 300 & 8.15 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.72 $\pm$ 0.03 & 160 $\pm$ 16 & 1240 $\pm$ 141 & $2.10^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & ? \\
1125: NGC 7789~--~8 & 22.87 $\pm$ 0.21 & 24,300 $\pm$ 400 & 8.00 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.64 $\pm$ 0.04 & 29 $\pm$ 5 & 1371 $\pm$ 140 & $2.02^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ & yes \\
1126: NGC 6819~--~1 & 23.44 $\pm$ 0.13 & 19,600 $\pm$ 100 & 8.25 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.01 & 130 $\pm$ 5 & ------------ & ------------ & no \\
1127: NGC 6819~--~2 & 23.55 $\pm$ 0.24 & 13,100 $\pm$ 600 & 7.82 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.04 & 261 $\pm$ 36 & ------------ & ------------ & no \\
1128: NGC 6819~--~6 & 22.70 $\pm$ 0.16 & 21,100 $\pm$ 300 & 7.83 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.53 $\pm$ 0.02 & 39 $\pm$ 3 & 2461 $\pm$ 250 & $1.60^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & yes \\
1129: NGC 6819~--~7 & 23.31 $\pm$ 0.16 & 16,000 $\pm$ 200 & 7.91 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.02 & 143 $\pm$ 11 & 2357 $\pm$ 250 & $1.62^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ & yes \\
1130: %NGC 7789~--~9 & 22.92 $\pm$ 0.33 & 20,900 $\pm$ 700 & 7.84 $\pm$ 0.12 & 0.53 $\pm$ 0.06 & 45 $\pm$ 10 & 1355 $\pm$ 140 & $2.04^{+0.08}_{-0.13}$ & yes \\
1131: %NGC 6819~--~9 & 21.35 $\pm$ 0.54 & 26,000 $\pm$ 1000 & 6.92 $\pm$ 0.15 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.12 & 14 $\pm$ 1 & ------------ & ------------ & no \\
1132: \hline
1133: \end{tabular}
1134: \tablenotetext{$^a$}{Theoretical luminosity from spectral fits (see \S\,\ref{membership}).}
1135: \tablenotetext{$^b$}{Possible cluster double degenerates.}
1136: \label{table3}
1137: \end{center}
1138: \end{table*}
1139:
1140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1142:
1143:
1144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1145:
1146: \section{The Initial-Final Mass Relation} \label{ifmr}
1147:
1148: \subsection{Constraining the Low Mass End} \label{lowmassend}
1149:
1150: We stressed earlier the importance of a well constrained initial-final
1151: mass relation {\it over a wide mass range}. Star formation in the
1152: Universe leads to an initial mass function that is generally steep
1153: (i.e., many more low mass stars are produced as compared to high mass
1154: stars -- Salpeter~1955; Miller \& Scalo 1979; Kroupa 2002).
1155: We illustrate a simple mass function with a Salpeter
1156: slope in Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr} (top), for 1000 stars over a
1157: mass range of 0.8 -- 7 $M_\odot$. These limits have been chosen as
1158: they range from the lowest mass stars that could have formed white dwarfs
1159: over the age of the Universe ($\sim$0.8~$M_\odot$) to the most massive
1160: such stars ($\sim$7~$M_\odot$). In the bottom panel, we illustrate
1161: the initial-final mass relation with all constraints over the past
1162: 30 years (crosses). This includes white dwarfs in the Hyades, Praesepe,
1163: and Pleiades clusters \citep{claver01,dobbie04,dobbie06}, NGC~3532
1164: \citep{koester93}, NGC~2516 \citep{koester96}, NGC~2168 \citep{williams04},
1165: NGC~2099 \citep{kalirai05a}, NGC~6633 \citep{williams07}, and Sirius~B
1166: \citep{liebert05b}. Initial and final masses are taken from Table~1 in
1167: Ferrario et~al.\ (2005). The only stars ignored in this analysis are
1168: four white dwarfs in young clusters with masses $<$0.55~$M_\odot$ that
1169: likely represent field contamination (e.g., see Kalirai et~al.\ 2005a
1170: for NGC~2099) and two stars with $>$90\% uncertainties in their initial
1171: masses (star 3532-10 in NGC~3532 and 2099-WD16 in NGC~2099). Over the region
1172: where information is available ($M_{\rm initial} >$
1173: 2.75 $M_\odot$ -- right dashed line), the relation shows a trend
1174: indicating that more massive main-sequence stars produce more
1175: massive white dwarfs. Integrating the Salpeter mass function above
1176: this limit, we find that {\it only} 13\% of all stars are born with
1177: masses this large over the 0.8 -- 7 $M_\odot$ mass range. Therefore,
1178: the present initial-final mass relation can not be directly used to
1179: infer progenitor properties for almost all white dwarfs in the Galactic
1180: disk and halo.
1181:
1182: The 2.75 $M_\odot$ lower initial mass limit on the relation results
1183: purely from an observational limitation. A low mass (0.6 $M_\odot$),
1184: bright white dwarf has $M_V \sim$ 11 at an age of $\sim$100 Myr. At
1185: a distance of 1.5~kpc, this translates to an observed magnitude of
1186: $V \sim$ 22. A more massive white dwarf at this age will be even
1187: fainter in the $V$ band. As discussed above, measuring a spectroscopic mass
1188: for a white dwarf requires the accurate characterization of higher order
1189: Balmer lines with $\lambda <$ 4000 ${\rm \AA}$. Achieving this for
1190: a $V$ = 22 star obviously requires both a large telescope and a blue-sensitive
1191: spectrograph. Since very few rich (e.g., $>$1000~$M_\odot$), old star
1192: clusters are located within 1.5~kpc of the Sun (M67
1193: is the only one), the targeted systems have typically been poorly
1194: populated, nearby, younger systems (such as the Hyades, Pleiades,
1195: and Praesepe clusters). These clusters have ages of a few
1196: hundred Myr and therefore are not old enough to have allowed the
1197: evolution of lower mass stars off the main sequence.
1198:
1199: The masses of white dwarfs in systems such as NGC~7789 and NGC~6819
1200: present us the opportunity to extend the mass range over which the
1201: initial-final mass relation has been studied. The younger of our
1202: two clusters, NGC~7789, has an age of 1.4~Gyr. The main-sequence
1203: turnoff of this system is therefore 2.0~$M_\odot$ \citep{vandenberg06}
1204: and most of the cluster white dwarfs will have evolved from stars just
1205: above this mass (again, due to the slope of the mass function).
1206: The age of NGC~6819 is 2.5~Gyr and therefore the present day turnoff mass
1207: is 1.6~$M_\odot$. The progenitor masses for the confirmed white dwarfs
1208: in each cluster are indeed very similar to one another, and just above
1209: the turnoff masses (see $M_{\rm initial}$ in Table~3).
1210:
1211: We can also add data from the very old cluster NGC~6791 to the initial-final
1212: mass relation. At an age of 8.5~Gyr, this system represents one of the oldest
1213: open star clusters and has a main-sequence turnoff mass of
1214: $\sim$1.1~$M_\odot$. \cite{kalirai07} present evidence that a significant population
1215: of white dwarfs in this cluster resulted from progenitors that expelled enough
1216: mass on the red giant branch to avoid the helium flash, and therefore the white
1217: dwarfs have helium cores rather than carbon-oxygen cores. This is believed to
1218: be a result of the high metallicity of the system, [Fe/H] = $+$0.4.
1219: The mean mass of the nine cluster white dwarfs targeted in that study is
1220: $\langle$$M$$\rangle$ = 0.43~$M_\odot$. The threshold at which a helium-core white
1221: dwarf is produced at NGC~6791's metallicity is 0.45 -- 0.47 $M_\odot$, and
1222: therefore to be conservative, we consider only the single confirmed cluster member
1223: with a mass $>$0.50~$M_\odot$ (definite carbon-oxygen core white dwarf). This
1224: object, NGC~6791 WD~7, has $M_{\rm initial}$ = $1.16^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ and
1225: $M_{\rm final}$ = 0.53 $\pm$ 0.02~$M_\odot$ (see Kalirai et~al.\ 2007 for the
1226: spectral fits). The initial mass for this star has been calculated using the
1227: same \cite{hurley00} models as for NGC~7789 and NGC~6819, for $Z$ = 0.035 (the
1228: highest metallicity available in these models). We note that this data point
1229: may still represent a lower limit (i.e., the final mass) since the progenitor
1230: star of the carbon-oxygen core white dwarf also likely suffered from enhanced
1231: mass loss. The weighted mean progenitor mass and white dwarf mass for the two
1232: stars in NGC~7789, the two stars in NGC~6819, and the masses of the single
1233: object in NGC~6791 are
1234:
1235: \begin{eqnarray*}
1236: M_{\rm initial} = 2.02 \pm 0.07~M_\odot, M_{\rm final} = 0.61 \pm 0.02~M_\odot \\
1237: M_{\rm initial} = 1.61 \pm 0.04~M_\odot, M_{\rm final} = 0.54 \pm 0.01~M_\odot \\
1238: M_{\rm initial} = 1.16 \pm 0.04~M_\odot, M_{\rm final} = 0.53 \pm 0.02~M_\odot.
1239: \end{eqnarray*}
1240:
1241: \noindent We illustrate these new points as filled circles on the initial-final
1242: mass relation in Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr} (bottom). The calculated initial
1243: progenitor masses (for bright white dwarfs) in these much older clusters are all
1244: essentially the same as the cooling ages are a very small fraction
1245: of the cluster ages. We have therefore plotted one data point for each
1246: cluster, which for the two clusters with multiple white dwarfs, represents the
1247: weighted mean of the system's progenitor and white dwarf masses. Also shown is
1248: the 2$\sigma$ error in each quantity for all three clusters (see
1249: section~\ref{parameterizing} for more information on this). As expected,
1250: these new data points provide constraints on the low mass end of the relation.
1251: They clearly indicate that the observed trend at higher masses (suggesting more
1252: massive main-sequence stars produce more massive white dwarfs) continues down
1253: to stars that are roughly one solar mass.
1254:
1255: \subsection{Theoretical Estimates of Stellar Mass Loss} \label{massloss}
1256:
1257: Most of the mass loss that a star suffers through its evolution occurs during
1258: very short lived post-main-sequence evolutionary phases such as the red giant
1259: branch, asymptotic giant branch, and planetary nebula phases (e.g., see Reimers~1975).
1260: In fact, it is the mass loss that is responsible for concluding fusion processes in the
1261: star and hence its rise in luminosity on the asymptotic giant branch. In principal,
1262: the masses of the stellar cores during these last phases of stellar evolution can
1263: be determined directly from modeling these evolutionary stages. An ideal model
1264: would then take an initial star of a certain mass ($M$ $\lesssim$ 8~$M_\odot$)
1265: and propagate it through all phases of stellar evolution to yield a remnant
1266: white dwarf with a particular mass. In practice, this has been very difficult because
1267: the mass loss mechanisms (e.g., helium flash and thermal pulses on the asymptotic
1268: giant branch) are not theoretically understood well enough (Weidemann~2000; also
1269: see Habing 1996 for a review). Direct observational constraints are rare given
1270: the very short lifetimes of stars on the asymptotic giant branch and planetary
1271: nebula phases ($\sim$10$^5$ years), and heavy obscuration of sources by dusty shells.
1272:
1273: Recently, a few attempts have been made to calculate the rate of mass loss in
1274: asymptotic giant branch stars after factoring in parameters such as
1275: metallicity (e.g., Marigo~2001). We first present the mass of the stellar
1276: core at the first thermal pulse from one such calculation as a solid line in the
1277: bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr} \citep{girardi00}. As expected, this curve
1278: falls below the bulk of the data points as it represents an evolutionary point
1279: before the core of the star has had a chance to grow during the thermal pulses.
1280: Note that the mass of the core is roughly constant for masses below 2~$M_\odot$.
1281: From this initial point, \cite{marigo01} performs synthetic calculations
1282: of the subsequent thermally pulsating phases of the asymptotic giant branch
1283: until the star has completely ejected its envelope (see details in her
1284: paper). This can therefore be used to predict both the total mass loss and specific
1285: chemical yields as a function of initial mass and metallicity. For solar
1286: metallicity, the theoretical initial-final mass relation from this work
1287: is shown as the dotted line in Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr} (bottom). For
1288: $M_{\rm initial} >$ 4~$M_\odot$, this curve is systematically higher
1289: than the observed data, predicting final remnant masses that are too
1290: large by up to 0.1~$M_\odot$. A test of this relation at the low mass end
1291: (i.e., the new data points with $M \lesssim$ 2~$M_\odot$) also finds
1292: final masses that are larger than our observations, however, the differences
1293: are very small. Part of this difference may even be expected in the case
1294: of NGC~6791 given the 2.5$\times$ higher metallicity of this cluster as compared
1295: to the solar metallicity theoretical relation (see earlier discussion).
1296:
1297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1298: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1299:
1300: \begin{figure}
1301: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f11.eps}
1302: \figcaption{The total integrated mass loss is found to decrease as
1303: the initial mass of the star decreases. The new data points from
1304: this study, with 2$\sigma$ error bars, are shown as filled circles.
1305: The dotted lines are theoretical calculations from \cite{marigo01}
1306: for solar metallicity (top), $Z$ = 0.008 (middle), and
1307: $Z$ = 0.004 (bottom). The solid curve is the best fit linear
1308: least squares parameterization of the initial-final mass
1309: relation from this work (see section~\ref{parameterizing}).
1310: \label{fig:massloss}}
1311: \end{figure}
1312:
1313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1314: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1315:
1316: In Figure~\ref{fig:massloss} we present a different view of the initial-final
1317: mass relation to highlight the desired output from this work. The vertical
1318: axis now shows the total integrated mass loss through stellar evolution. For
1319: the most massive main-sequence stars that will form white dwarfs, this yield
1320: is about $\sim$85\% (e.g., the progenitor of white dwarf LB1497 in the Pleiades
1321: cluster). A slightly less massive star such as the progenitor of Sirius~B
1322: (5.06~$M_\odot$ -- Liebert et~al.\ 2005) has lost 80\% of its mass. The mass
1323: loss smoothly decreases with stellar mass down to $\sim$75\% for intermediate
1324: mass stars, 3 $<$ $M_{\rm initial} <$ 4 $M_\odot$. Our new data points suggest a more
1325: rapid decline for stars with $M \lesssim$ 2~$M_\odot$. At this mass, stars
1326: will lose $\sim$70\% of their total mass however this decreases down to just
1327: $\sim$55\% for stars approximately the mass of the Sun. The theoretical
1328: calculation for solar metallicity discussed above is shown as the uppermost
1329: dotted curve \citep{marigo01}.
1330:
1331: \subsection{The Scatter in the Relation} \label{scatter}
1332:
1333: Several authors have commented on the observed scatter in the initial-final
1334: mass relation (e.g., Ferrario et~al.\ 2005). The present data set is
1335: very heterogeneous. The points on Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr} are derived from
1336: white dwarf observations in over ten star clusters. The quality of these
1337: data and procedures used to fit the spectra vary from one investigation to
1338: another and therefore small biases are likely to exist in the $M_{\rm final}$
1339: values. A small amount of field contamination may even exist in the
1340: sample. Additionally, the ages of the star clusters have been derived by
1341: different authors using different assumptions, techniques, and isochrones
1342: and therefore the calculations involved in determining $M_{\rm initial}$ will
1343: also have biases. Even within an individual study, the large error bars in
1344: $M_{\rm initial}$ for the massive stars in Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr} are a good
1345: example of the difficulty in assigning masses to main-sequence lifetimes
1346: (see Ferrario et~al.\ 2005 for a version of the relation with stars from
1347: individual clusters color coded). A small shift in the age of a cluster
1348: from 80 to 100~Myr results in a $>$0.5~$M_\odot$ systematic change in the
1349: inferred main-sequence mass at the turnoff.
1350: Measuring the ages of clusters to this precision is very difficult for
1351: such young systems where the morphology of the turnoff is essentially
1352: vertical on an optical CMD. This is of course not a large concern in the
1353: study of older clusters since the turnoff can be well defined and the turnoff
1354: mass does not sensitively depend on the age.
1355:
1356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1358:
1359: \begin{figure}
1360: \epsscale{1.1} \plotone{f12.eps}
1361: \figcaption{An initial-final mass relation is constructed by showing
1362: all of the stars from each cluster as a single data point, as labeled.
1363: The best-fit linear least squares relation (solid curve) is indicated
1364: in the panel, and is found to provide an adequate fit to the data
1365: (reduced chi-squared per degree of freedom is $\chi^2$ = 1.2). The
1366: dashed curve shows the initial-final mass relation calculated by
1367: \cite{hansen07} to fit the white dwarf cooling sequence of the globular
1368: cluster NGC~6397 (see section~\ref{conclusion}).
1369: \label{fig:ifmrcluster}}
1370: \end{figure}
1371:
1372: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1374:
1375: Although characterizing the errors resulting from these uncertainties and
1376: heterogeneities is difficult, it is important to distinguish these biases
1377: from {\it intrinsic} scatter that may result from fundamental properties of
1378: stellar evolution. One way to minimize the systematic effects is to limit
1379: the study of a particular
1380: question to just the constraints from a few star clusters with many white
1381: dwarfs. For example, the Hyades cluster \citep{perryman98} is of similar age
1382: to NGC~2099 (Kalirai et~al.\ 2001c; 2005a) yet its chemical abundance is
1383: enriched by a factor of two ($Z_{\rm Hyades}$ = 0.025 and $Z_{\rm NGC~2099}$
1384: = 0.013). Models of stellar evolution predict that stars of higher
1385: metallicity will lose mass in post main-sequence phases more efficiently
1386: than stars of lower metallicity (e.g., Marigo 2001). This is illustrated in
1387: Figure~\ref{fig:massloss}. As we said above, the dotted line at the top
1388: represents the theoretical estimates for mass loss in solar metallicity
1389: stars. The two dotted lines underneath are the same relation for more
1390: metal-poor stars, $Z$ = 0.008 and $Z$ = 0.004 \citep{marigo01}. Fortunately,
1391: both the Hyades and NGC~2099 harbor significant white dwarf populations that have been
1392: studied spectroscopically. \cite{kalirai05a} showed that the mean mass
1393: of the NGC~2099 white dwarf population appears to be more massive
1394: (by $\sim$10\%) than the Hyades stars, qualitatively consistent with the
1395: expectations from stellar evolution (this is a 2$\sigma$ effect in the
1396: mean mass of the populations). As already discussed, a convincing
1397: example of the efficiency of mass loss on metallicity is presented in
1398: \cite{kalirai07}. These cases highlight how the different properties of
1399: stars may play a role in contributing to the observed scatter on the
1400: initial-final mass relation.
1401:
1402: Other properties of stars may also be important in understanding the scatter
1403: in the relation, such as rotation, binary evolution, and magnetic fields
1404: (see Weidemann~2000). Unfortunately, the quality of the present data does
1405: not permit a study of these effects. The mass loss mechanisms may themselves
1406: be stochastic to some degree. For example, \cite{reid96} measured masses of
1407: white dwarfs in the Praesepe cluster using gravitational redshifts and
1408: found a large dispersion in the remnant mass distribution (0.6 -- 0.9~$M_\odot$).
1409: An estimate of the initial masses of these stars suggests that they were
1410: all produced from stars of about the same mass. This would then suggest
1411: that there is no singular initial-final mass relation. However, \cite{claver01}
1412: reconcile this picture by suggesting that one of the outlier stars in the
1413: $M_{\rm initial}$ vs. $M_{\rm final}$ plane of the Praesepe sample (LB~5893)
1414: may have formed from close binary evolution. A better understanding of these
1415: types of effects will require a larger data set, as we discuss below.
1416:
1417: \bigskip
1418:
1419: \subsection{Semi-Empirical Relations and Parameterization} \label{parameterizing}
1420:
1421: Deriving a functional form of the initial-final mass relation from the available
1422: data is problematic for several reasons. First, for the reasons discussed above,
1423: such a parameterization may be meaningless given the uncertain degree to which
1424: second order properties of stars may effect their mass loss. Second, the relation
1425: is only constrained over a fraction of the total mass range that is of interest.
1426: Prior to this work, the low mass end of the relation was completely devoid of any
1427: observations of individual white dwarfs with direct mass measurements. The high
1428: mass end continues to be sparsely populated, the degree to which depends on the
1429: maximum mass of a star that will form a white dwarf (the current high mass point
1430: is at $M_{\rm initial}$ = 6.5~$M_\odot$, Ferrario et~al.\ 2005).
1431:
1432: \cite{weidemann00} calculates a semi-empirical initial-final mass relation based on
1433: the available data at the time. At the low mass end, his relation is constrained
1434: by an anchor point at $M_{\rm initial}$ = 1~$M_\odot$, $M_{\rm final}$ = 0.55~$M_\odot$
1435: which is in good agreement with the mass of the core at the first thermal
1436: pulse. The general shape of the relation and possible slope changes are
1437: discussed in detail. Interestingly, at the low mass end the data indicate
1438: that the relation flattens off as the initial-mass scale continues down to
1439: 0.8~$M_\odot$, similar to the core-radius relation shown in
1440: Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr}. The NGC~6819 data point at $M_{\rm initial}$ = 1.61~$M_\odot$,
1441: $M_{\rm final}$ = 0.54~$M_\odot$ is already within a few hundredths of a solar
1442: mass of the core mass ($\sim$0.5~$M_\odot$ depending on $Z$, see core mass relation
1443: in Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr}; also Pietrinferni et~al.\ 2004). The final mass
1444: of the carbon-oxygen core white dwarf in NGC~6791 is slightly lower than this,
1445: and equal to the expected mass of white dwarfs in globular clusters
1446: ($M_{\rm final}$ = 0.53~$M_\odot$; Renzini \& Fusi~Pecci 1988; Renzini et~al.\
1447: 1996; Moehler et~al.\ 2004) with present day turnoffs of $M_{\rm initial}$ =
1448: 0.8~$M_\odot$. This flattening of the relation suggests an exponential-like behavior at
1449: low masses. Unfortunately, such a parameterization would not fit the high
1450: mass end of the relation very well since those data also appear to show a flattening
1451: off. As noted by \cite{weidemann00}, the higher mass stars may in fact form white
1452: dwarfs that are structurally different in that they have neon/oxygen cores
1453: instead of carbon-oxygen cores. Reproducing the relation for stars with
1454: masses greater than $\sim$4.5~$M_\odot$ can be accomplished with a log function,
1455: however this would grossly mismatch the masses of the white dwarfs at the low mass
1456: end.
1457:
1458: Lacking a satisfactory functional form of the type discussed above over the entire
1459: mass range in Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr}, we resort to a simple linear fit as performed in
1460: the synthesis given by \cite{ferrario05}. These authors took advantage of
1461: several recent studies (see earlier references) that have now more than doubled
1462: the amount of data as compared to the \cite{weidemann00} study (all for
1463: $M_{\rm initial} >$ 2.75~$M_\odot$). However, unlike that study, we will use no
1464: anchor point to fix the relation at the low mass end which is otherwise needed to
1465: avoid a meaningless slope given the large scatter at intermediate masses
1466: (Ferrario et~al.\ introduced a point at $M_{\rm initial}$ = 1.1~$M_\odot$,
1467: $M_{\rm final}$ = 0.55~$M_\odot$). We also follow the approach introduced by
1468: \cite{williams06b} and bin the relation so that each star cluster is represented
1469: as a single point (including Sirius~B). This has a few advantages. First, our
1470: fit will not be over-influenced by the region of the relation with the most data
1471: points. Second, the standard deviation in the distribution of masses of white
1472: dwarfs within a given cluster is a random error on the relation when comparing
1473: different clusters \citep{williams06b}. When plotting individual data points,
1474: an error in the age of a cluster will lead to a systematic offset of all points
1475: on the relation for that cluster. Third, our results will be less sensitive to
1476: any possible peculiar white dwarfs whose initial and final masses are measured
1477: accurately. The obvious disadvantage of the binned approach is that a
1478: given cluster is expected to have white dwarfs with a range of initial and final
1479: masses and therefore we are throwing away this information.
1480:
1481: The initial-final mass relation based on this binned method is shown in
1482: Figure~\ref{fig:ifmrcluster}. We note that the 2$\sigma$ outlier at
1483: $M_{\rm initial}$ = 5.06~$M_\odot$ is Sirius~B \citep{liebert05b}. The
1484: uncertainties in this plot are the standard deviations in the mean initial
1485: and final mass. The solid line represents our weighted linear least-squares
1486: best fit,
1487:
1488: \begin{eqnarray*}
1489: M_{\rm final} = (0.109 \pm 0.007)~M_{\rm initial} + 0.394 \pm 0.025~M_\odot. \\
1490: \end{eqnarray*}
1491:
1492:
1493: \noindent
1494: Although an ``S'' shaped relation with curvature would provide a better fit
1495: at both the lower and upper ends, we note that the reduced chi squared per
1496: degree of freedom is $\chi^2$ = 1.2 in the linear fit and therefore the
1497: data are well-fit by this simple relation. If we also include a data point
1498: at $M_{\rm initial}$ = 0.80 $\pm$ 0.02~$M_\odot$ and $M_{\rm final}$ =
1499: 0.53 $\pm$ 0.02~$M_\odot$ to represent the best current globular cluster
1500: constraints \citep{renzini96,moehler04}, the relation flattens slightly
1501: to $M_{\rm final}$ = (0.106 $\pm$ 0.007)~$M_{\rm initial}$ +
1502: 0.409 $\pm$ 0.022~$M_\odot$. In this case, the $\chi^2$ of the fit is
1503: 1.3.
1504:
1505:
1506: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}\label{conclusion}
1507:
1508: A mapping of the initial mass of a hydrogen burning star to its final remnant
1509: mass represents an extremely important relation in astrophysics. Over
1510: 99\% of all stars will end their lives as white dwarfs and expel most of their
1511: mass into the interstellar medium. The initial-final mass relation allows us
1512: to directly integrate this mass loss in a stellar population assuming an
1513: initial mass function. Among the many uses of parameterizing this relation is
1514: a robust estimate for the ages of the Galactic disk and halo. For example, the
1515: shape of the white dwarf mass function in the Galactic disk is sharply
1516: peaked at $\sim$0.6~$M_\odot$ \citep{liebert05b,kepler06}. The
1517: initial-final mass relation allows us to reconstruct the distribution of masses
1518: of the progenitor hydrogen burning stars that formed this peak. This therefore
1519: provides an estimate of the age of the Galactic disk, which has now been
1520: measured to be $\sim$7 -- 9~Gyrs \citep{winget87,wood92,oswalt96,leggett98,hansen02}.
1521: For a Salpeter initial mass function, and an age of 8~Gyrs for the Galactic disk,
1522: the shape of the predicted white dwarf mass distribution based on our initial-final
1523: mass relation is in excellent agreement with the observed mass distribution (i.e.,
1524: the peak location and spread, Kalirai et~al.\ 2008, in preparation). Similarly, the
1525: ages of globular clusters in the Galactic halo have been measured to be
1526: $\sim$12~Gyr by comparing the observed distribution of white dwarfs on
1527: the cluster CMDs to synthetic cooling sequences produced using an initial
1528: mass function and an initial-final mass relation \citep{hansen04,hansen07}.
1529: The relation used most recently in the study of NGC~6397 by Hansen et~al.\
1530: (2007) is shown as a dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig:ifmr} and is found to be
1531: in good agreement with our new low mass constraints (the disagreement at higher
1532: masses is not important since all of the observed white dwarfs in NGC 6397
1533: evolved from stars with $M <$ 2~$M_\odot$).
1534:
1535: The study of the white dwarf population in NGC~7789, NGC~6819, and NGC~6791
1536: represents the first time that we have been able to reconstruct this mapping
1537: for low mass stars such as the Sun, and therefore eliminate the need for an
1538: indirect anchor point at low masses. Over half of the total
1539: number of stars that are produced in a Salpeter-type initial mass function
1540: now fall within a region of the initial-final mass relation that has some
1541: constraints. At high masses, the relation indicates that stars will lose
1542: 80 -- 85\% of their mass through stellar evolution. However, for stars
1543: approximately as massive as the Sun, this number drops to $\sim$55\% of
1544: the initial stellar mass.
1545:
1546: Despite these new data, the importance of the initial-final mass relation
1547: demands further observations. To better understand the intrinsic scatter,
1548: future observations should focus on older clusters with clearly defined white
1549: dwarf cooling sequences (such as NGC~7789). By pushing the magnitude limit
1550: fainter, more massive white dwarfs will be revealed that are likely descendents
1551: of more massive progenitors. In this way, multiple initial-final mass relations
1552: can be constructed over appreciable ranges from the studies of {\it single}
1553: star clusters whose properties (age, metallicity, binary fraction, etc...) have
1554: been measured carefully. Such studies are ideally suited for multi-object
1555: spectrographs since the white dwarf luminosity function increases as a function
1556: of magnitude and therefore a large number of objects can be targeted in a single
1557: exposure. To truly push the envelope to even lower masses, globular clusters
1558: should be targeted as well. The nearest systems, such as M4 and NGC~6397, can
1559: be studied with 8--10 meter telescopes (e.g., see Moehler et~al.\ 2004).
1560: In addition to providing constraints
1561: down to $\sim$0.8~$M_\odot$, the environments of these systems are up to
1562: 100$\times$ more metal-poor than most open clusters and therefore metallicity
1563: trends can be reliably studied. At the opposite extreme, rich, young clusters
1564: can provide unique constraints and push the current high mass limit further.
1565: This will not only constrain the upper mass limit to white dwarf production,
1566: but also simultaneously discover the lower mass limit to type II supernova.
1567: An extrapolation of the present relation to the Chandrasekhar mass suggests
1568: an initial mass of $\sim$9.5~$M_\odot$, however this is very uncertain given
1569: the lack of data in this regime. Finally, there is a paucity of data between
1570: $M_{\rm initial}$ = 2 -- 2.75~$M_\odot$ which can bridge our new measurements with
1571: the previous data. The absence of data points in this region of the relation
1572: results from a lack of nearby, rich star clusters with an age of $\sim$1~Gyr.
1573: Fortunately, one such system exists, NGC~2420, and has been shown to possess
1574: a white dwarf population \citep{vonhippel00} and therefore should be targeted
1575: in the near future.
1576:
1577:
1578: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1579:
1580: \acknowledgements
1581: We gratefully acknowledge P. Bergeron for providing us with his models and
1582: spectral fitting routines to measure the masses of white dwarfs. We also
1583: thank him and James Liebert for taking the time to discuss and help interpret
1584: the spectra of certain stars. We wish to thank Robert Eakin for assistance
1585: with processing of imaging data frames and Don Vandenberg and Leo Girardi for
1586: their help with interpreting their models. Finally, we wish to extend our gratitude
1587: to an anonymous referee for taking the time to prepare a detailed report that has
1588: resulted in a much improved paper. JSK is supported by NASA through Hubble
1589: Fellowship grant HF-01185.01-A, awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute,
1590: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
1591: Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for this work was
1592: also provided by grant HST-GO-10424 from NASA/STScI. The research of
1593: HBR is supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
1594: Council of Canada. He also thanks the Canada-US Fulbright Program for the award
1595: of a Fulbright Fellowship.
1596:
1597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1598:
1599:
1600: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1601:
1602: \bibitem[Adams(1925)]{adams25} Adams, W.~S., 1925, Proc nat Acad Sci USA,
1603: 11, 382 (reprinted in 1925, Observatory, 36, 2)
1604:
1605: \bibitem[Anthony-Twarog(1981)]{anthonytwarog81} Anthony-Twarog, B.~J.\ 1981,
1606: \apj, 245, 247
1607:
1608: \bibitem[Anthony-Twarog(1982)]{anthonytwarog82} Anthony-Twarog, B.~J.\ 1982,
1609: \apj, 255, 245
1610:
1611: \bibitem[Barstow et~al.(2005)]{barstow05} Barstow, M.~A., Bond, H.~E., Holberg,
1612: J.~B., Burleigh, M.~R., Hubeny, I., \& Koester, D.\ 2005, \mnras, 362, 1134
1613:
1614: \bibitem[Bergeron, Saffer, \& Liebert(1992)]{bergeron92} Bergeron, P.,
1615: Saffer, R.~A., \& Liebert, J.\ 1992, \apj, 394, 228
1616:
1617: \bibitem[Bergeron, Liebert, \& Fulbright(1995)]{bergeron95} Bergeron, P., Liebert, J.,
1618: \& Fulbright, M.~S.\ 1995, \aj, 444, 810
1619:
1620: \bibitem[Bergeron \& Liebert(2002)]{bergeron02} Bergeron, P.,
1621: \& Liebert, P.\ 2002, \apj, 566, 1091
1622:
1623: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{bertin96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S.\ 1996,
1624: \aaps, 117, 393
1625:
1626: \bibitem[Bessel(1844)]{bessel44} Bessel, F.~W.\ 1844, \mnras, 6, 136
1627:
1628: \bibitem[Bragaglia et~al.(2001)]{bragaglia01} Bragaglia, A., et~al.\ 2001,
1629: \aj, 121, 327
1630:
1631: \bibitem[Burbidge \& Sandage(1958)]{burbidge58} Burbidge, E.~M., \& Sandage,
1632: A.\ 1958, \apj, 128, 174
1633:
1634: \bibitem[Claver et~al.(2001)]{claver01} Claver, C.~F., Liebert, J., Bergeron, P.,
1635: \& Koester, D.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 987
1636:
1637: \bibitem[de~Bruijne, Hoogerwerf,\& de~Zeeuw(2001)]{debruijne01} de~Bruijne,
1638: J.~H.~J., Hoogerwerf, R., \& de~Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2001, \aap, 367, 111
1639:
1640: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{demarque04} Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \&
1641: Yi, S.~K.\ 2004, \apjs, 155, 667
1642:
1643: \bibitem[Dobbie et~al.(2004)]{dobbie04} Dobbie, P.~D., Pinfield, D.~J.,
1644: Napiwotzki, R., Hambly, N.~C., Burleigh, M.~R., Barstow, M.~A.,
1645: Jameson, R.~F., \& Hubeny, I.\ 2004, \mnras, 355, L39
1646:
1647: \bibitem[Dobbie et~al.(2006)]{dobbie06} Dobbie, P.~D.,
1648: et~al.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 383
1649:
1650: \bibitem[Eisenstein et~al.(2006)]{eisenstein06} Eisenstein, D.~J.,
1651: et~al.\ 2006, \apjs, 167, 40
1652:
1653: \bibitem[Ferrario et~al.(2005)]{ferrario05} Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D.,
1654: Liebert, J., \& Williams, K.~A.\ 2005, \mnras, 361, 1131
1655:
1656: \bibitem[Fleming et~al.(1997)]{fleming97} Fleming, T.~A., Libert, J., Bergeron, P.,
1657: \& Beauchamp, A.\ 1997, In the Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on White
1658: Dwarfs, Edited by J.\ Isern, M.\ Hernanz, and E.\ Gracia-Berro, Astrophysics and Space
1659: Science Library, 214, 91
1660:
1661: \bibitem[Fontaine, Brassard, \& Bergeron(2001)]{fontaine01} Fontaine, G.,
1662: Brassard, P., \& Bergeron, P.\ 2001, \pasp, 113, 409
1663:
1664: \bibitem[Fusi-Pecci \& Renzini(1976)]{fusipecci76} Fusi-Pecci, F., \& Renzini,
1665: A.\ 1976, \aap, 46, 447
1666:
1667: \bibitem[Gim et~al.(1998)]{gim98} Gim, M., Vandenberg, D.~A., Stetson, P.~B.,
1668: Hesser, J.~E., \& Zurek, D.~R.\ 1998, \pasp, 110, 1318
1669:
1670: \bibitem[Girardi et~al.(2000)]{girardi00} Girardi, L., Bressan, A.,
1671: Bertelli, G., \& Chiosi, C.\ 2000, \aaps, 141, 371
1672:
1673: \bibitem[Girardi et~al.(2002)]{girardi02} Girardi, L., Bertelli, G.,
1674: Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Groenewegen, M.~A.~T., Marigo, P., Salasnich, B.,
1675: \& Weiss, A.\ 2002, \aap, 391, 195
1676:
1677: \bibitem[Habing(1996)]{habing96} Habing, H.~J.\ 1996, \araa, 7, 97
1678:
1679: \bibitem[Hansen et~al.(2002)]{hansen02} Hansen, B.~M.~S., et~al.\ 2002,
1680: \apjl, 574, L155
1681:
1682: \bibitem[Hansen et~al.(2004)]{hansen04} Hansen, B.~M.~S., et~al.\ 2004,
1683: \apjs, 155, 551
1684:
1685: \bibitem[Hansen et~al.(2007)]{hansen07} Hansen, B.~M.~S., et~al.\ 2007,
1686: \apj, in press, astro-ph/0701738
1687:
1688: \bibitem[Harris et~al.(2006)]{harris06} Harris, H.~C., et~al.\ 2006, \aj,
1689: 131, 571
1690:
1691: \bibitem[Hurley, Pols, \& Tout(2000)]{hurley00} Hurley, J.~R., Pols, O.~R.,
1692: \& Tout, C.~A.\ 2000, \mnras, 315, 543
1693:
1694: \bibitem[Hurley \& Shara(2003)]{hurley03} Hurley, J.~R., \& Shara, M.~M.\ 2003,
1695: \apj, 589, 179
1696:
1697: \bibitem[Jeffries(1997)]{jeffries97} Jeffries, R.~D.\ 1997, \mnras,
1698: 288, 585
1699:
1700: \bibitem[Kalirai et~al.(2001a)]{kalirai01a} Kalirai, J.~S., Richer, H.~B.,
1701: Fahlman, G.~G., Cuillandre, J., Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., Bertin, E.,
1702: Marconi, G. \& Durrell, P.\ 2001a, \aj, 122, 257
1703:
1704: \bibitem[Kalirai et~al.(2001b)]{kalirai01b} Kalirai, J.~S., Richer, H.~B.,
1705: Fahlman, G.~G., Cuillandre, J., Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., Bertin, E.,
1706: Marconi, G. \& Durrell, P.\ 2001b, \aj, 122, 266
1707:
1708: \bibitem[Kalirai et~al.(2001c)]{kalirai01c} Kalirai, J.~S., Ventura, P.,
1709: Richer, H.~B., Fahlman, G.~G., D'Antona, F. \& Marconi, G.\ 2001c, \aj, 122,
1710: 3239
1711:
1712: %\bibitem[Kalirai et~al.(2003)]{kalirai03} Kalirai, J.~S., Fahlman, G.~G.,
1713: %Richer, H.~B., \& Ventura, P.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 1402
1714:
1715: \bibitem[Kalirai \& Tosi(2004)]{kalirai04} Kalirai, J.~S., \& Tosi, M.\ 2004,
1716: \mnras, 351, 649
1717:
1718: \bibitem[Kalirai et~al.(2005a)]{kalirai05a} Kalirai, J.~S., Richer, H.~B., Reitzel,
1719: D., Hansen, B.~M.~S., Rich, R.~M., Fahlman, G.~G., Gibson, B.~K., \& von~Hippel,
1720: T.\ 2005a, \apjl, 618, L123
1721:
1722: \bibitem[Kalirai et~al.(2005b)]{kalirai05b} Kalirai, J.~S., Richer, H.~B., Hansen,
1723: B.~M.~S., Reitzel, D., \& Rich, R.~M.\ 2005b, \apjl, 618, L129
1724:
1725: \bibitem[Kalirai et~al.(2007)]{kalirai07} Kalirai, J.~S., Bergeron, P.,
1726: Hansen, B.~M.~S., Kelson, D.~D., Reitzel, D.~B., Rich, R.~M., \& Richer,
1727: H.~B.\ 2007, \apj, in press, astro-ph/0705.0977
1728:
1729: \bibitem[Kawaler(1991)]{kawaler91} Kawaler, S.~D.\ 1991, in Confrontation
1730: between Stellar Pulsation and Evolution, ed. C. Cacciari \& G. Clemintini
1731: (ASP Conf. Ser., 11), 494
1732:
1733: \bibitem[Kelson et~al.(2000)]{kelson00} Kelson, D.~D., Illingworth, G.~D., van Dokkum,
1734: P.~G., \& Franx, M.\ 2000, \apj, 531, 159
1735:
1736: \bibitem[Kelson(2003)]{kelson03} Kelson, D.\ 2003, \pasp, 115, 688
1737:
1738: \bibitem[Kepler et~al.(2006)]{kepler06} Kepler, S.~O., Kleinman, S.~J., Nitta, A.,
1739: Koester, D., Castanheira, B.~G., Giovannini, O., Costa, A.~F.~M., \& Althaus, L.\
1740: 2006, \mnras, in press (astro-ph/0612277)
1741:
1742: \bibitem[Koester, Schulz, \& Weidemann(1979)]{koester79} Koester, D., Schulz, H.,
1743: \& Weidemann, V.\ 1979, \aap, 76, 262
1744:
1745: \bibitem[Koester \& Reimers(1981)]{koester81} Koester, D., \& Reimers,
1746: D.\ 1981, \aap, 99, L8
1747:
1748: \bibitem[Koester \& Reimers(1985)]{koester85} Koester, D., \& Reimers, D.\
1749: 1985, \aap, 153, 260
1750:
1751: \bibitem[Koester \& Reimers(1993)]{koester93} Koester, D., \& Reimers, D.\
1752: 1993, \aap, 275, 479
1753:
1754: \bibitem[Koester \& Reimers(1996)]{koester96} Koester, D., \& Reimers, D.\
1755: 1996, \aap, 313, 810
1756:
1757: \bibitem[Kroupa(2002)]{kroupa02} Kroupa, P.\ 2002, Science, 295, 82
1758:
1759: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{landolt92} Landolt, A.~U.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 340
1760:
1761: \bibitem[Leggett, Ruiz, \& Bergeron(1998)]{leggett98} Leggett, S.~K., Ruiz,
1762: M.~T., Bergeron, P.\ 1998, \apj, 497, 294
1763:
1764: \bibitem[Liebert, Bergeron, \& Holberg(2003)]{liebert03} Liebert, J.,
1765: Bergeron, P., \& Holberg, J.~B.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 348
1766:
1767: \bibitem[Liebert et~al.(2005)]{liebert05b} Liebert, J., Young, P.~A.,
1768: Arnett, D., Holberg, J.~B., \& Williams, K.~A.\ 2005, \apjl, 630, L69
1769:
1770: \bibitem[Liebert, Bergeron, \& Holberg(2005)]{liebert05} Liebert, J., Bergeron, P.,
1771: \& Holberg, J.~B.\ 2005, \apjs, 156, 47
1772:
1773: \bibitem[Marigo(2001)]{marigo01} Marigo, P.\ 2001, \aap, 370, 194
1774:
1775: \bibitem[Michell(1784)]{michell84} Michell, J.\ 1774, Philosophical Transactions
1776: of the Royal Society of London, LXXIV, 35
1777:
1778: \bibitem[Miller \& Scalo(1979)]{miller79} Miller, G.~E., \& Scalo,
1779: J.~M.\ 1979, \apjs, 41, 513
1780:
1781: \bibitem[Moehler et~al.(2004)]{moehler04} Moehler, S., Koester, D., Zoccali, M.,
1782: Ferraro, F.~R., Heber, U., Napiwotzki, R., \% Renzini, A.\ 2004, \aap, 420, 515
1783:
1784: \bibitem[Monelli et~al.(2005)]{monelli05} Monelli, M., et~al.\ 2005,
1785: \apjl, 621, L117
1786:
1787: \bibitem[Oke et~al.(1995)]{oke95} Oke, J.~B., et~al.\ 1995, \pasp, 107, 375
1788:
1789: \bibitem[Oswalt et~al.(1996)]{oswalt96} Oswalt, T.~D., Smith, J.~A., Wood, M.~A., \&
1790: Hintzen, P.\ 1996, Nature, 382, 692
1791:
1792: \bibitem[Perryman et~al.(1998)]{perryman98} Perryman, M.~A.~C., Brown, A.~G.~A.,
1793: Lebreton, Y., Gomez, A., Turon, C., de~Strobel, G.~C., Mermilliod, J.~C.,
1794: Robichon, N., Kovalevsky, J., \& Crifo, F.\ 1998, \aap, 331, 81
1795:
1796: \bibitem[Pietrinferni et~al.(2004)]{pietrinferni04} Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S.,
1797: Salaris, M., \& Castelli, F.\ 2004, \apj, 612, 168
1798:
1799: \bibitem[Press, Flannery, \& Teukolsky(1986)]{press86} Press, W.~H., Flannery,
1800: B.~P., \& Teukolsky, S.~A.\ 1986, Numerical Recipes, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
1801: Press
1802:
1803: \bibitem[Reid(1996)]{reid96} Reid, I.~N.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 2000
1804:
1805: \bibitem[Reimers(1975)]{reimers75} Reimers, D.\ 1975, Societe Royale des Sciences
1806: de Liege, Memoires, 8, 369
1807:
1808: \bibitem[Reimers \& Koester(1982)]{reimers82} Reimers, D., \& Koester, D.\
1809: 1982, \aap, 116, 341
1810:
1811: \bibitem[Reimers \& Koester(1989)]{reimers89} Reimers, D., \& Koester, D.\
1812: 1989, \aap, 218, 118
1813:
1814: \bibitem[Reimers \& Koester(1994)]{reimers94} Reimers, D., \& Koester, D.\
1815: 1994, \aap, 285, 451
1816:
1817: \bibitem[Renzini \& Fusi~Pecci(1988)]{renzini88} Renzini, A., \& Fusi~Pecci, F.\
1818: 1988, \araa, 26, 199
1819:
1820: \bibitem[Renzini et~al.(1996)]{renzini96} Renzini, A., Bragaglia, A., Ferraro, F.~R.,
1821: Gilmozzi, R., Ortolani, S., Holberg, J.~B., Liebert, J., Wesemael, F., \&
1822: Bohlin, R.~C.\ 1996, \apjl, 465, L23
1823:
1824: \bibitem[Romanishin \& Angel(1980)]{romanishin80} Romanishin, W., \&
1825: Angel, J.~R.~P.\ 1980, \apj, 235, 992
1826:
1827: \bibitem[Richer et~al.(2004)]{richer04} Richer, H.~B. et~al.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 2771
1828:
1829: \bibitem[Richer et~al.(2006)]{richer06} Richer, H.~B. et~al.\ 2006, Science, 313, 936
1830:
1831: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{salpeter55} Salpeter, E.~E.\ 1955, \apj, 121, 161
1832:
1833: \bibitem[Somerville \& Primack(1999)]{somerville99} Somerville, R.~S., \&
1834: Primack, J.~R.\ 1999, \mnras, 310, 1087
1835:
1836: \bibitem[Stetson(1994)]{stetson94} Stetson, P.~B.\ 1994, \pasp, 106, 250
1837:
1838: \bibitem[van den Bergh \& Tammann(1991)]{vandenbergh91} van den Bergh, S.,
1839: \& Tammann, G.~A.\ 1991, \araa, 29, 363
1840:
1841: \bibitem[VandenBerg, Bergbusch, \& Dowler(2006)]{vandenberg06} VandenBerg, D.~A.,
1842: Bergbusch, P.~A., \& Dowler, P.~D.\ 2006, \apjs, 162, 375
1843:
1844: %\bibitem[Ventura et~al.(1998)]{ventura98} Ventura, P., Zeppieri, A.,
1845: %Mazzitelli, I., \& D'Antona, F.\ 1998, \aap, 334, 953
1846:
1847: \bibitem[von~Hippel \& Gilmore(2000)]{vonhippel00} von~Hippel, T., \& Gilmore, G.\ 2000,
1848: \aj, 120, 1384
1849:
1850: \bibitem[Wegner(1989)]{wegner89} Wegner, G.\ 1989, White dwarfs; Proceedings of
1851: IAU Colloquium 114th, Hanover, NH, Aug. 15-19, 1988. Berlin and New York,
1852: Springer-Verlag, 401
1853:
1854: \bibitem[Weidemann(1977)]{weidemann77} Weidemann, V.\ 1977, \aap, 59, 411
1855:
1856: \bibitem[Weidemann \& Koester(1983)]{weidemann83} Weidemann, V., \&
1857: Koester, D.\ 1983, \aap, 121, 77
1858:
1859: \bibitem[Weidemann(1987)]{weidemann87} Weidemann, V.\ 1987, \aap, 188, 74
1860:
1861: \bibitem[Weidemann(1997)]{weidemann97} Weidemann, V.\ 1997, Advances in Stellar
1862: Evolution, Proceedings of the Workshop Stellar Ecology, Cambridge Contemporary
1863: Astrophysics, 169
1864:
1865: \bibitem[Weidemann(2000)]{weidemann00} Weidemann, V.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 647
1866:
1867: \bibitem[Williams, Bolte, \& Koester(2004)]{williams04} Williams, K.~A.,
1868: Bolte, M., \& Koester, D.\ 2004, \apjl, 615, L49
1869:
1870: \bibitem[Williams(2006)]{williams06b} Williams, K.~A.\ 2006, In the Proceedings
1871: of the 15th European White Dwarf Workshop, astro-ph/0610254
1872:
1873: \bibitem[Williams et~al.(2006)]{williams06} Williams, K.~A., Liebert, J.,
1874: Bolte, M., \& Hanson, R.~B.\ 2006, \apjl, 643, L127
1875:
1876: \bibitem[Williams \& Bolte(2007)]{williams07} Williams, K.~A., \&
1877: Bolte, M.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 1490
1878:
1879: \bibitem[Winget et~al.(1987)]{winget87} Winget, D.~E., Hansen, C.~J.,
1880: Liebert, J., van~Horn, H.~M., Fontaine, G., Nather, R.~E., Kepler, S.~O., \&
1881: Lamb, D.~Q.\ 1987, \apjl, 315, L77
1882:
1883: \bibitem[Wood(1992)]{wood92} Wood, M.~A.\ 1992, \apj, 386, 539
1884:
1885: \bibitem[Wood(1995)]{wood95} Wood, M.~A.\ 1995, Proceedings of the 9th European
1886: Workshop on White Dwarfs Held at Kiel, Germany, 29 August - 1 September 1994.
1887: Lecture Notes in Physics, 443, edited by Detlev Koester and Klaus Werner.
1888: Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 41
1889:
1890: \bibitem[Wu et~al.(2007)]{wu07} Wu, Z.-Y., Zhou, X., Ma, J., Jiang, Z.-J.,
1891: Chen, J.-S., \& Wu, J.-H.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 2061
1892:
1893: \end{thebibliography}
1894:
1895: \end{document}
1896: