1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: 

3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

4: 

5: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

6: 

7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

8: 

9: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

10: 

11: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

12: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

13: %% use the longabstract style option.

14: 

15: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

16: 

17: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

18: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

19: %% the \begin{document} command.

20: %%

21: 

22: \newcommand{\hst}{{\sl HST}}

23: \newcommand{\vis}{$V_{606}$}

24: \newcommand{\nir}{$I_{814}$}

25: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

26: 

27: \shorttitle{WD Cooling Sequence in NGC 6791}

28: \shortauthors{Bedin et al.}

29: 

30: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

31: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

32: 

33: \begin{document}

34: 

35: \def\subr #1{_{{\rm #1}}}

36: 

37: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

38: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

39: %% you desire.

40: 

41: \title{Reaching the End of the White Dwarf Cooling Sequence\\

42: in NGC~6791\footnote{ Based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\it Hubble

43: Space Telescope}, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute,

44: which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.}}

45: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

46: %% author and affiliation information.

47: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

48: 

49: \author{ Luigi R.\ Bedin\altaffilmark{2},  

50:          Ivan R.\ King\altaffilmark{3},

51:          Jay Anderson\altaffilmark{2,4}, 

52:          Giampaolo Piotto\altaffilmark{5},  

53:          Maurizio Salaris\altaffilmark{6}, 

54:          Santi Cassisi\altaffilmark{7}, and

55:          Aldo Serenelli\altaffilmark{8}.  

56:          }

57: %

58: 

59: \altaffiltext{2}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3800 San Martin 

60: Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218; bedin@stsci.edu}

61: 

62: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Washington,

63: Box 351580, Seattle, WA 98195-1580; king@astro.washington.edu}

64: 

65: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, MS-108,

66: Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005;

67: jayander@stsci.edu}

68: 

69: \altaffiltext{5}{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a di Padova,

70: Vicolo dell'Osservatorio 2, I-35122 Padova, Italy;

71: giampaolo.piotto@unipd.it}

72: 

73: \altaffiltext{6}{Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores

74: University, 12 Quays House, Birkenhead, CH41 1LD, UK; ms@astro.livjm.ac.uk}

75: 

76: \altaffiltext{7}{INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Collurania,

77: via M. Maggini, 64100 Teramo, Italy;

78: cassisi@oa-teramo.inaf.it}

79: 

80: \altaffiltext{8}{Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive,

81: Princeton, NJ 08540; aldos@ias.edu}

82: 

83: 

84: \begin{abstract}

85: %

86: We present new observations of the white dwarf sequence of the old

87: open cluster NGC 6791.  The brighter peak previously observed in the

88: white dwarf luminosity function (WDLF) is now better delineated, and

89: the second, fainter peak that we suggested earlier is now confirmed.

90: A careful study suggests that we have reached the end of the white

91: dwarf sequence.

92: %

93: The WDs that create the two peaks in the WDLF show a 

94: significant turn to the blue in the color-magnitude diagram.

95: %

96: The discrepancy between the age from the WDs and that from the main

97: sequence turnoff remains, and we have an additional puzzle in the

98: second peak in the WDLF.  

99: Canonical WD models seem to fail --at least at $\sim25\%$-level-- in

100: reproducing the age of clusters of this metallicity. 

101: %

102: We discuss briefly possible ways of

103: arriving at a theoretical understanding of the WDLF.

104: %

105: \end{abstract}

106: 

107: \keywords{open clusters and associations: individual (NGC 6791) ---

108:   white dwarfs}

109: 

110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

111: %

112: \section{Introduction}

113: %

114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

115: 

116: NGC 6791 is a very unusual open cluster.  It is one of the richest (an

117: unpublished star count by one of us (I.R.K.) shows about 3000 cluster

118: stars brighter than $B\sim 21$), it is old ($\sim$ 8 Gyr) and very

119: metal-rich ([Fe/H] $\sim$ +0.4, Gratton et al.\ 2006, Carraro et al.\

120: 2006, Origlia et al.\ 2006).

121: %

122: Furthermore, it is close enough that \hst/ACS imaging can reach to

123: very faint luminosities.  The original aim of our program (GO 9815 and

124: 10471, P.I.\ King) was to study the bottom of the main sequence (MS;

125: King et al.\ 2005), and we plan to use the new observations presented

126: here to study the MS down to the hydrogen-burning limit.  However, our

127: first look at the color-magnitude diagram had made it clear that the

128: white-dwarf cooling sequence (WDCS) was even more exciting than the

129: bottom of the MS (Bedin et al.\ 2005a).  The WDCS presented in that

130: study suggested an age much smaller than the MS turn-off age.

131: 

132: The purpose of the present paper is to extend the WD sequence to fainter

133: magnitudes by adding a new set of \hst/ACS images acquired since the

134: previous result was published.  We will show that our new data set is

135: deep enough to reveal the second, fainter peak in the WD luminosity

136: function (LF) that was hinted at by Bedin et al.\ (2005a), and that the

137: WDCS is truncated just below this second peak.

138: 

139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

140: %

141: \section{Observations and Measurements}

142: %

143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

144: 

145: \subsection{Observational data}

146: 

147: The Bedin et al.\ (2005a) study was based on only one epoch of data.

148: Here we add a

149: %

150: second epoch, and also introduce improvements in the reduction

151: procedures.

152: 

153: Both epochs were taken with the Wide Field Channel (WFC) of ACS.  The

154: first-epoch images (GO 9815) were taken on 16 July 2003, and consisted

155: of the following exposures:\ F606W, 4$\times$1185 s + 2$\times$1142 s

156: + 3$\times$30 s; F814W, 4$\times$1185 s + 2$\times$1142 s +

157: 3$\times$30 s.  Our second-epoch exposures (GO 10471), which were

158: taken on 13 July 2005, had been planned before we realized how

159: interesting and accessible the WDCS would be; as a result our program

160: was aimed at reaching as faint as

161: we could on the MS.  We therefore chose to repeat our observations

162: only in the F814W filter, in order to improve our photometric precision

163: for the lower MS stars and to obtain proper motions to separate them

164: from the field stars.  The GO 10471 exposures were 4$\times$1264

165: s + 2$\times$1200 s + 3$\times$30 s.  All our exposures (in both

166: epochs) were well dithered.

167: 

168: To strengthen our measurements of the brighter stars, we also measured

169: archival images taken in GO 10265 (P.I.\ T.\ Brown); these consisted

170: of \hst/ACS exposures, in each of F606W and F814W, of 0.5, 5, and 50

171: s, without dithering.  These images overlap about half of our field.

172: Since their role is only to extend our sparse sampling of the upper

173: parts of the color-magnitude diagram (CMD), they were not used for the

174: WDs, but only to study the MS turn-off.

175: 

176: 

177: \subsection{Measurements and reduction}

178: 

179: Since our two previous papers on NGC 6791 (Bedin et al.\ 2005a for the

180: WDCS and King et al.\ 2005 for the MS), our methods of measurement and

181: reduction have evolved and improved.  The software program used to find

182: and measure stars is described in detail in Anderson et al.\ (2008).

183: Here we summarize briefly what the program does.

184: 

185: The first step of all is to construct for each filter a 9$\times$10

186: array of PSFs that correctly represent the spatial variation of the

187: ACS/WFC PSF, along with, for each individual image, what Anderson \&

188: King (2006, AK06) call a perturbation PSF for that image.  The

189: function of the latter is to account for focus changes related to the

190: particular breathing state of the telescope during that exposure.

191: 

192: The data are reduced in two separate passes.  The first-pass reduction

193: uses the code described in AK06 to find the relatively bright stars and

194: measure positions and fluxes for them.  We then use these star lists to

195: find the 6-parameter linear transformations from the coordinates in any

196: image (after correction for geometrical distortion) to those in a

197: distortion-free reference frame, and also to put the magnitudes into a

198: common zero-point system.  In doing this we use only stars with solid

199: and consistent detection in all the exposures.  Here, as in the second

200: pass, all measurements are made on the {\tt flt} images, which have been

201: flatfielded and bias-subtracted, but have not been resampled.

202: 

203: The procedures of the second pass are quite different from those of the

204: first pass.  First, we restrict the analysis to one small

205: 25$\times$25-pixel patch of the field at a time, going through

206: systematically in a mosaic fashion, so as to cover the whole field.

207: Each patch is specified by the coordinates of its center in the

208: reference frame, and we use the transformations to identify the location

209: of the center of the patch in each of the individual exposures, from

210: which we extract a 25$\times$25 raster centered on this location.  By

211: ``the individual exposures'' we mean all the exposures in either filter.

212: 

213: A sophisticated software routine then uses the rasters from all of the 

214: individual exposures to find the brightest sources and to measure a single 

215: position and an F606W and an F814W flux for each one, using all the exposures 

216: simultaneously.  It then subtracts out the new-found sources from each 

217: exposure and iterates the finding procedure until no more objects are found. 

218: To qualify as found, our automated routines required that an object be 

219: detected in at least 7 out of the 18 images, and in addition, we required 

220: these objects to be detected  in a minimum of 2 of the 6 F606W and 

221: 2 of the 12 F814W deep images.  

222: 

223: In order to avoid identifying PSF features as stars, we constructed  

224: a generous upper-limit model of the extended PSF, including the

225: diffraction spikes, in such a way as to allow everywhere for the largest

226: upward excursions that each PSF pixel might reasonably make, and we

227: insisted that any faint star in the vicinity of a bright star must be 

228: brighter than any PSF feature that could be present.  This procedure 

229: does an excellent job of keeping PSF features out of our lists, and 

230: ends up excluding very few legitimate stars.  

231: 

232: In addition to solving for positions and fluxes during the

233: simultaneous-fitting process above, we also compute a very important

234: image-shape parameter for each source:\ RADXS.  This is a measure of

235: how much flux there is in the pixels just outside of the core, in

236: excess of the prediction from the PSF.  (We measure it using the

237: pixels between $r=1.0$ and $r=2.5$, and it is reported relative to the

238: star's total flux.)  RADXS is positive if the object is broader than

239: the PSF, and negative if it is sharper.  This quantity is of great

240: importance in distinguishing between stars and galaxies whose images

241: are nearly as sharp; the latter are especially numerous in the part of

242: the CMD where the faint white dwarfs lie.  We experimented with

243: several similar diagnostic parameters and found that RADXS effected

244: the best star-galaxy separation for this data set.

245: 

246: For each patch, we compute a stacked representation of the scene in a 

247: manner similar to Drizzle (Fruchter \& Hook 1992) with {\tt pixfrac} $=$ 0. 

248: This stack is free of cosmic-rays and image artifacts.  We use this stack to 

249: compute two other important parameters for each detected object; these are 

250: the local sky background (SKY) and its r.m.s.\ deviation (rmsSKY).  These

251: parameters are computed by taking the stack pixels in the annulus between

252: 3.5 and 8.0 pixels from the central pixel of the star and calculating

253: their mean and the root-mean-square deviation from the mean.  There

254: is no sigma-clipping done, since we want to be sensitive to all the 

255: background noise that is present.  The need for the SKY value is

256: obvious; as for rmsSKY, we will explain below how it gives us a useful

257: indication of how difficult the local background may make it to measure

258: faint stars.

259: 

260: Artificial-star (AS) tests are done using a similar patch-based

261: procedure.  For each AS, a position and an F606W magnitude are chosen

262: in a random way; the F814W magnitude is then chosen so that the star's

263: color puts it on the ridge line of the WD sequence.

264: %

265: We next extract from each exposure a patch centered on the AS

266: location.  The AS is added into the raster for each exposure at the

267: appropriate location, in the form of an appropriately scaled PSF with

268: Poisson noise.  The software routine then operates blindly on the

269: patch, finding and measuring all the stars.  We examine the resulting

270: list of sources to see if the artificial star was recovered.  The

271: artificial stars are used, it should be noted, not only as a measure

272: of completeness; they also serve, at a number of stages of the

273: procedure, to help develop and calibrate our criteria for choice of

274: valid stars.

275: 

276: 

277: \subsection{Photometric zero points}

278: 

279: We calibrate the photometry to the WFC/ACS Vega-mag system following

280: the procedure given in Bedin et al.\ (2005b), and using the encircled

281: energy and the zero points given by Sirianni et al.\ (2005).  Given

282: the high background ($\sim65$ $e^{-}$/pixel) in these exposures, we

283: would not expect much of a CTE correction to be necessary.

284: Nonetheless we did compare the photometry of the two epochs; since

285: CTE increases linearly with time (Riess \& Mack 2004), any CTE losses

286: should be about twice as large in the second epoch as in the first.

287: We plotted $m_2 - m_1$ against the $y$ coordinate and saw no trends,

288: indicating that any CTE present is much smaller than the random

289: photometric errors.

290: 

291: \section{Selection of Stars}

292: 

293: By using stacked images to examine stars from our lists, we found that

294: our automated finding algorithm had successfully identified all of the

295: faint stars that we might find by eye, and it had also successfully

296: avoided identifying PSF features as stars.  But the automated

297: procedure had included in its list many barely resolved galaxies.

298: 

299: It is particularly important to identify these galaxies, because they

300: fall in the part of the CMD where the faint end of the WD sequence lies.

301: To distinguish these barely resolved objects from point sources, we use

302: the shape parameter RADXS, which measures any excess flux just outside

303: of the PSF core.  Here the artificial stars are very instructive, since

304: they show us how RADXS should behave with magnitude for true point

305: sources.  Figure \ref{radxs} shows us the trend of RADXS against

306: magnitude (for each filter) for artificial stars on the right of each

307: panel, and on the left for stars that we consider (thus far) to be real.

308: It is clear that many of the objects that we have thus far included as

309: stars are far more extended than are the artificial stars, which we know

310: have truly stellar profiles because we made them that way.  We use the

311: distributions for the artificial stars to mark out boundaries in these

312: diagrams that should retain nearly all the objects that are truly stars;

313: they are indicated by the red lines, which were drawn in each AS panel

314: in such a way as to include almost all of the recovered stars; they are

315: repeated identically in the corresponding real-star panel.  (We believe

316: that the tail-off of objects to the right in the AS panels is produced

317: by star-star blends, which certainly should be eliminated from our

318: photometry.)

319: 

320: \begin{figure}

321: \epsscale{1.00}

322: \plotone{f1.ps}

323: \caption{ The parameter RADXS as a function of magnitude for artificial

324: stars and real detections, in filter F606W (left) and in filter F814W

325: (right). Detections between the two red lines are considered real stars.

326: Note how the real stars peter out at a much brighter magnitude than the

327: artificial ones (particularly in the F814W filter).  }

328: \label{radxs}

329: \end{figure}

330: 

331: 

332: Our second image-quality parameter, rmsSKY, hardly figures in the direct

333: selection of stars, but it does tell us how suitable the surroundings of

334: each star are for good photometry.  An unusually high value of rmsSKY

335: indicates a region where the background is irregular --- often caused by

336: the mottled halo of a bright star's PSF.  We say ``unusually high''

337: rather than just ``high'' because even in the absence of interfering

338: objects, rmsSKY will increase with the brightness of the star around

339: which it is measured; because it must be measured only a few pixels from

340: the star, its value has an increase that comes from the PSF wings of the

341: star image around which it is measured.  The value of SKY in the

342: measuring annulus goes up, and its Poisson noise increases the value of

343: rmsSKY.  This effect is clearly seen in Figure \ref{rmsSKY}, which displays 

344: rmsSKY for real and artificial stars in the two filters in a way exactly

345: analogous to the way Fig.~\ref{radxs} displayed RADXS.  Again, limit lines have

346: been drawn by eye for the artificial stars, in a way that distinguishes

347: the large majority of normal cases from the small proportion of

348: disturbed ones.  The same limiting lines, when applied to the real

349: stars, served to eliminate those stars whose photometry is suspect

350: because of irregularity of their background.  We will use rmsSKY again

351: in Section \ref{compl}, where it plays an even more important role.

352: 

353: \begin{figure}

354: \epsscale{1.00}

355: \plotone{f2.ps}

356: \caption{For stars that passed the RADXS selection, we show here the

357:          log$_{10}$ of the rmsSKY parameter as a function of magnitude, 

358:          for both artificial stars and real detections, in filter F606W 

359:          (left) and in filter F814W (right). Stars with rmsSKY to the 

360:          left of the thin line are likely to be well measured.  The 

361:          others, plotted as crosses, are rejected.  }

362: \label{rmsSKY}

363: \end{figure}

364: 

365: Figure \ref{cmds} shows the WD region of the CMD of NGC 6791, with

366: various selection criteria:\ first, all objects that were measured at

367: all, then all stars that were measured in at least two deep images for

368: each filter, next the survivors when only the rmsSKY criterion is used

369: for selection, then all the objects that met the RADXS criterion, and

370: finally the stars that qualified with respect to both RADXS and rmsSKY.

371: Since the last two panels are nearly identical, it is clear that rmsSKY

372: removes very few objects that were not already removed by RADXS.

373: 

374: The WDCS that we find here for NGC 6791 is consistent with the one

375: exhibited by Bedin et al.\ (2005a), and the second peak, which was

376: hinted at in their diagram, is now quite clear.

377: 

378: 

379: \begin{figure}

380: \epsscale{1.00}

381: \plotone{f3.ps}

382: \caption{{\em(Top):} The CMD of NGC 6791 with various selection

383:          criteria applied to the individual stars. 

384:          {\em(Bottom):} The same selection applied to the recovered 

385:          artificial stars.}

386: \label{cmds}

387: \end{figure}

388: 

389: 

390: \section{Completeness}

391: \label{compl}

392: 

393: The artificial stars were carried through all the stages of the

394: measurement procedure in exactly the same way as the real stars, so as

395: a measure of completeness we simply counted the fraction of artificial

396: stars that were recovered, as a function of magnitude.  We considered

397: an AS to be recovered if its measured position was within 0.75 pixel

398: and its magnitude within 0.5 mag of the input values, for both

399: filters.

400: 

401: This is a simple and straightforward approach to completeness, and it

402: does indeed provide the correct factor, as a function of magnitude, by

403: which to divide the observed numbers in order to derive

404: completeness-corrected numbers.  

405: There is great value, however, in looking at completeness in a 

406: more detailed way.  For faint stars our numbers are less complete for two 

407: reasons.  One is simply the difficulty of detecting faint stars.  Even 

408: under the best of circumstances we will lose some fraction of the stars 

409: on account of statistical fluctuations that work against their detection.

410: But a great deal of our loss of faint stars is for a quite different 

411: reason:\ there are regions of the image in which conditions are very 

412: unsuitable for the detection of faint stars; there is a quite appreciable 

413: fraction of the image area, in fact, in which even many of the bright 

414: stars are lost, because of interference by even brighter stars.  

415: 

416: The distinction between these two possible reasons for missing stars

417: becomes important when we consider the other application of the curve of

418: completeness against magnitude:\ as a criterion of the reliability of

419: the number of stars.  It is customary to consider star numbers to be

420: unreliable when the completeness figure has dropped below 50\%.  But

421: which completeness?  Imagine a field in which 60\% of the total area is

422: unsuitable for finding faint stars at all; the conventional completeness

423: cannot be above 40\% at any faint magnitude, and judging reliability

424: from it would lead to the absurdity that there is no way to say anything

425: about the faint population.  Yet if we were to confine our measurements

426: to that 40\% of the field in which faint stars can be measured, we would

427: correctly conclude that the star counts are reliable down to a fairly

428: faint level.

429: 

430: Drawing the map of reliable areas --- probably a quite complicated map

431: --- would be a daunting task, and this is where our rmsSKY parameter

432: becomes so useful.  The conventional completeness is $c =

433: N\subr{rec}/N\subr{ins}$, where $N\subr{ins}$ and $N\subr{rec}$ are the

434: numbers of stars inserted and recovered, respectively.  But we can also

435: define a good-region

436: %

437: completeness, $c\subr{g} = N\subr{rec,g}/N\subr{ins,g}$; this is the

438: completeness evaluated only in regions of low rmsSKY, where stars of

439: that magnitude

440: could be found without interference.  The limit of reliability of our

441: numbers is at the 50\% level of $c\subr{g}$, not of $c$.

442: 

443: Figure \ref{Comp_g} shows the completeness levels for our field.  

444: %

445: The 50\% level of

446: %

447: $c$ is at F606W magnitude 28.05, while for $c\subr{g}$ it is at 28.55.

448: If we had followed the absurdity of using the 50\% level of conventional

449: completeness, instead of the informed choice of the 50\% level of

450: $c\subr{g}$, we would have lost the interval of half a magnitude that

451: makes the difference between going deeper than the lower cutoff of the

452: WD CS and failing to do so.

453: Figure \ref{Comp_g} also shows the fraction of the image area suitable

454: for detection of faint sources (open circles).

455: 

456: 

457: \begin{figure}

458: \epsscale{1.00}

459: \plotone{f4.ps}

460: \caption{The crosses show the conventional completeness $c$, while the

461:          squares are the low-rmsSKY completeness $c\subr{g}$ that is 

462:          defined in the text. The circles indicate the fraction of the 

463:          image area where the bumpiness of the of the sky offers no 

464:          impediment to finding a star, at each magnitude.  The product of 

465:          this curve

466:          and $c\subr{g}$ is of course $c$.  }

467: \label{Comp_g}

468: \end{figure}

469: 

470: 

471: 

472: \section{Proper motions}

473: 

474: Here, to compute a proper motion for each star, we first measured a mean

475: position for the star in the reference frame at each epoch, using all

476: the exposures within that epoch.  The proper motion, then, is the

477: difference between the second- and first-epoch positions, divided by

478: the baseline, and multiplied by the pixel scale (50 mas/pixel).  The

479: reference frame is aligned to have $x$ and $y$ parallel to RA and Dec,

480: respectively, so the proper motions are in a properly aligned frame as

481: well.  The zero point of the motion is the cluster's bulk motion,

482: since the reference frame was defined by member stars.

483: 

484: Although our proper motions are very helpful for cleaning field stars

485: from the upper main-sequence part of the CMD and for the brighter

486: white dwarfs, for the faint white dwarfs they turn out to be of very

487: little use.

488: %

489: This can be seen in Figure~\ref{pmerr}.  For the brighter stars (upper

490: left), the proper-motion precision easily allows us to separate the

491: two populations.  But as the stars get fainter, the proper motions

492: become less accurate, the distributions for cluster and field overlap,

493: and no accurate discrimination is possible.

494: As is clear from the figure, there is a small difference between the

495: mean proper motions of cluster and field stars, but by far the best

496: discriminant is the very small dispersion of the motions of the cluster

497: stars.  It is equally clear from the figure that a clean separation

498: would require a very much better accuracy in the motions of the faint

499: stars --- something that appears to be totally beyond our reach with

500: the data sets that are available at present. 

501: 

502: \begin{figure}

503: \epsscale{1.00}

504: \plotone{f5.ps}

505: \caption{Proper motions for increasingly faint intervals of F814W 

506:          magnitude.  Zero point is the mean cluster motion.  In the 

507:          brightest interval the concentration of motions clearly 

508:          identifies the cluster members, while field stars are more 

509:          widely spread, and largely in the lower left-hand quadrant.  

510:          At fainter magnitudes the measuring errors dominate, and no

511:          separation is possible.  }

512: \label{pmerr}

513: \end{figure}

514: 

515: 

516: \section{The White-Dwarf Luminosity Function}

517: \label{WDLF}

518: 

519: Without a proper-motion elimination of field stars, the best we can do

520: toward deriving a white dwarf luminosity function (WDLF) is to use the

521: RADXS parameter to remove as many galaxies and artifacts as we can,

522: and delimit in color the region of the CMD in which we consider stars

523: to be white dwarfs.  For both of these tasks the artificial-star

524: experiments prove extremely useful.  First, Fig.~\ref{radxs} shows our

525: treatment of the parameter RADXS.  Independently for each filter, we

526: used the AS tests to draw our discriminating lines, in such a way as

527: to include nearly all legitimate objects; we then applied those same

528: selection criteria to the real stars.  A star was accepted only if it

529: passed the RADXS test in both filters.

530: 

531: We then chose our boundaries in the CMD, as indicated in the second and

532: fourth panels of Fig.~\ref{wdlf}.  The boundaries were chosen so that

533: none of the artificial stars were lost, while the boundaries are set

534: broadly enough to include all stars that might be white dwarfs of some 

535: sort --- including WD binaries, and unusual types of WDs.

536: 

537: \begin{figure}

538: \epsscale{1.00}

539: \plotone{f6.ps}

540: \caption{The WDLF, including corrections for the completeness curve

541:          shown in the central panel.  (Successive panels are observed CMD,

542:          artificial stars, completeness, selection of stars, and LF.)

543:          The horizontal line at magnitude 28.55 is the 50\%-completeness 

544:          level of $c\subr{g}$.  }

545: \label{wdlf}

546: \end{figure}

547: 

548: In the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{wdlf} is the completeness.  According

549: to the distinction made in Section \ref{compl}, we plot here the quantity 

550: $c$, which is the factor by which observed star numbers need to

551: be divided in order to estimate the correct total.  The horizontal line

552: is the 50\% completeness level of the quantity $c\subr{g}$, which, as 

553: we explained in Section \ref{compl}, is a realistic indicator of our 

554: ability to find stars in regions where interference does not prevent 

555: them from being found.

556: 

557: The rightmost panel of Fig.~\ref{wdlf} shows the WDLF.  The observed

558: numbers are indicated by a thin-line histogram, and the

559: completeness-corrected numbers are indicated by the thick-line

560: histogram.  Error bars are shown only on the corrected values, but they

561: are derived from the Poisson uncertainties in the observed values.  The

562: corresponding numbers are in Table \ref{WDLFtab}.  The LF below $m_{\rm

563: F606W}=28.55$ is highly suspect both because of the low completeness and

564: because the stars in this region show no coherence in color and are

565: likely not to be WDs at all.  For this reason that part of the LF is

566: plotted with lines that are less heavy.

567: 

568: 

569: \begin{table}[ht!]

570: \caption{Completeness-corrected white dwarf luminosity function.}

571: \begin{tabular}[h]{ccrllcrr} 

572: & & & & & & & \\

573: $m_{\rm F606W}$ & $N_c$ & $\sigma_{N_c}$ & ~~ & ~~ & 

574:                 $m_{\rm F606W}$ & $N_c\,$ & $\sigma_{N_c}$\\  

575: & & & & & & & \\

576: \hline\hline

577: 23.05 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & 26.15 &  8.38 &  3.42 \\

578: 23.15 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & 26.25 &  9.87 &  3.73 \\ 

579: 23.25 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & 26.35 &  9.96 &  3.77 \\ 

580: 23.35 &  1.11 &  1.11 &  &  & 26.45 & 10.07 &  3.81 \\ 

581: 23.45 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & 26.55 & 14.56 &  4.61 \\ 

582: 23.55 &  1.12 &  1.12 &  &  & 26.65 & 11.80 &  4.17 \\ 

583: 23.65 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & 26.75 &  9.03 &  3.69 \\ 

584: 23.75 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & 26.85 & 15.36 &  4.86 \\ 

585: 23.85 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & 26.95 & 21.93 &  5.86 \\ 

586: 23.95 &  1.14 &  1.14 &  &  & 27.05 & 19.17 &  5.53 \\ 

587: 24.05 &  2.30 &  1.63 &  &  & 27.15 & 19.54 &  5.64 \\ 

588: 24.15 &  4.62 &  2.31 &  &  & 27.25 & 41.05 &  8.21 \\ 

589: 24.25 &  1.16 &  1.16 &  &  & 27.35 & 64.56 & 10.34 \\ 

590: 24.35 &  2.34 &  1.65 &  &  & 27.45 & 76.95 & 11.35 \\ 

591: 24.45 &  1.18 &  1.18 &  &  & 27.55 & 69.44 & 10.85 \\ 

592: 24.55 &  2.37 &  1.68 &  &  & 27.65 & 29.18 &  7.08 \\ 

593: 24.65 &  3.59 &  2.07 &  &  & 27.75 & 24.67 &  6.59 \\ 

594: 24.75 &  3.62 &  2.09 &  &  & 27.85 & 27.17 &  7.01 \\ 

595: 24.85 &  3.66 &  2.11 &  &  & 27.95 & 33.99 &  8.01 \\ 

596: 24.95 &  1.23 &  1.23 &  &  & 28.05 & 45.89 &  9.57 \\ 

597: 25.05 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & 28.15 & 71.94 & 12.34 \\ 

598: 25.15 &  5.01 &  2.50 &  &  & 28.25 & 65.72 & 12.20 \\ 

599: 25.25 &  3.79 &  2.19 &  &  & 28.35 & 34.16 &  9.13 \\ 

600: 25.35 &  1.27 &  1.27 &  &  & 28.45 & 37.28 &  9.96 \\ 

601: 25.45 &  6.43 &  2.87 &  &  & 28.55 & 32.46 &  9.79 \\ 

602: 25.55 &  1.30 &  1.30 &  &  &------ &------ &------ \\ 

603: 25.65 &  0.00 &  0.00 &  &  & {\it 28.65} & {\it 19.87} & {\it  8.11} \\ 

604: 25.75 &  6.65 &  2.97 &  &  & {\it 28.75} & {\it 15.36} & {\it  7.68} \\ 

605: 25.85 &  6.75 &  3.02 &  &  & {\it 28.85} & {\it 22.85} & {\it 10.22} \\ 

606: 25.95 &  4.10 &  2.37 &  &  & {\it 28.95} & {\it 22.44} & {\it 11.22} \\ 

607: 26.05 &  2.76 &  1.95 &  &  & {\it 29.05} & {\it  7.22} & {\it  7.22} \\

608: \hline 

609: \hline

610: \label{WDLFtab}

611: \end{tabular}

612: \end{table}

613: 

614: The WDLF obtained here very much resembles the one previously obtained

615: by Bedin et al.\ (2005a, top panel of their Fig.~3), but we now see

616: features that are somewhat better defined, as a result of deeper

617: integration in F814W and a more careful sample selection.  The WDLF

618: shows the expected mild rise down to $m_{\rm F606W}\sim 27$, but then

619: come the two unexpected peaks.  (i) We confirm the presence of the first

620: peak at a magnitude $m_{\rm F606W}=27.45\pm0.05$, better constrained

621: than in our previous paper, and with a steeper drop than its rise ---

622: such as we might expect at the end of a cooling sequence.  (ii) But then

623: there is a clear second peak, at magnitude $m_{\rm F606W}=28.15\pm0.05$.

624: 

625: We believe that the WDLF ends at a magnitude where our completeness is

626: still reliable.  This conclusion is strengthened by the CMD shown in the

627: first and fourth panels of Fig.~\ref{wdlf}, where any continuation of

628: the LF is contributed by stars whose color is off that of the ridge-line

629: of the WD sequence, so that they may well not be cluster white dwarfs at

630: all.  AS tests indicate that if the WDCS continued below $m_{\rm

631: F606W}=28.4$, we would see a well-defined sequence, as opposed to the

632: sparse and scattered cloud that we do see, which certainly cannot

633: correspond to a continuing sequence.

634: 

635: \begin{figure}

636: \epsscale{1.00}

637: \plotone{f7.ps}

638: \caption{Color-magnitude diagrams of the WDCS.}

639: \label{WDs}

640: \end{figure}

641: 

642: Finally, we note that at the magnitude levels of the two LF peaks, the

643: WDs stand on the blue side of the cooling sequence in the CMD, forming

644: a sort of blue hook.  This feature is better seen in 

645: Fig.~\ref{WDs}, where we zoom around the

646: fainter part of the WDCS, and it is expected from models (see next

647: section).  Note that the two blue hooks create the LF peaks.

648: 

649: At the time of writing Bedin et al.\ (2005a), we estimated that the

650: total number of observed WDs was consistent with the number to be

651: expected from a Salpeter IMF normalized to the present-day MF for MS

652: stars (which we took from King et al.\ 2005).  We can now re-examine

653: this question.  Down to magnitude $m_{\rm F606W}\sim28.55$ we now

654: observe 425 WDs that we assume to be NGC 6791 members; correction for

655: incompleteness brings this to $\sim850$.  (We already commented that we

656: do expect very few, if any, WDs below $m_{\rm F606W}\sim28.55$.)  By

657: contrast, the number of WDs expected from a Salpeter IMF normalized to

658: the present day MF is $\sim430$.  Using a Kroupa (2001) IMF we would

659: expect $\sim$500 WDs, still a factor of about two less than the measured

660: counts.  

661: 

662: We must treat these numbers with great reserve, however.  

663: They include no correction for background galaxies that may have been

664: included in our WD count, though we expect it to be small because of

665: the care we took in eliminating non-stellar objects (see Section 3). 

666: We will return in Sect.~\ref{hudf} to the question of contamination by

667: background objects. 

668: % 

669: As for the predicted number of WDs, it was calculated without taking

670: into account the fact that our field lies completely within the core

671: of the cluster, and it does not take mass-segregation effects into

672: account.  Also, the assumption of a single slope for the power-law

673: mass function (or of a Kroupa 2001 MF) might be an oversimplification.

674: 

675: \subsection{Spatial distribution of the WDs}

676: \label{xywd}

677: 

678: At the suggestion of the referee, we exhibit in this section the spatial

679: distribution of the WDs in the two peaks of the LF.  On the left side of

680: Fig.~\ref{xy} we plot the WD CMDs and delineate with boxes the blue-hook

681: regions that contain nearly all of the stars in the two peaks.  The

682: horizontal line marks the 50\% completeness limit for regions of low

683: rmsSKY, as discussed in \S\ \ref{compl}.  The right side of the figure

684: shows the spatial distribution of all the objects above this

685: completeness limit, with blue circles around the dots that represent

686: stars in the upper rectangle and red squares for those in the lower

687: rectangle.  No differences are evident between the distributions of the

688: red, the blue, and the plain dots.

689: 

690: 

691: \begin{figure}[ht!]

692: \epsscale{1.00}

693: \plotone{f8.ps}

694: \caption{({\it left}) CMD of the WD region, with the completeness limit

695: marked.  The error bars show the photometric errors in magnitude and

696: color, as a function of magnitude.  The two boxes delimit the areas that

697: we took as representative of the two LF peaks.  ({\it right}) Spatial

698: distributions of objects.  The black dots are all those above the

699: completeness limit.  On both sides objects belonging to the brighter

700: peak are marked in blue (circles) and those belonging to

701: the fainter peak in red (squares).}

702: \label{xy}

703: \end{figure}

704: 

705: \section{Contamination by background galaxies}

706: \label{hudf}

707: 

708: There is clearly a danger that our supposed WD sample includes a number

709: of sharp nuclei of background galaxies, as these objects have colors

710: close to those of the WDs.  Here we attempt to address this question.

711: Following a suggestion by the referee, we have chosen a subset of the

712: images in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF, Beckwith et al.\ 2006),

713: in which practically all detected objects should be galaxies.

714: The suggestion was that we choose a set of images with a total exposure

715: similar to what we had in NGC 6791, and measure them in the same way.

716: 

717: Unfortunately the HUDF observations did not include the F814W filter;

718: the closest filters to it were F775W and F850LP.  We chose to work

719: with F775W, because it is easier to transform into the F814W band.

720: The throughputs of F775W and F814W are close enough that we felt that

721: we could simply match the total exposure times.  The HUDF images used

722: here thus consist of 6$\times$1200 s exposures in F606W, and

723: 12$\times$1200s in filter F775W.

724: 

725: The reduction, selection of objects, calibration, and analysis were

726: done in exactly the ways described in the previous sections, except

727: that we used unperturbed library PSFs.  The RADXS parameter seemed to

728: do an extremely good job of rejecting the non-point-like sources.  We

729: did not make artificial-star runs on the HUDF images, however, because

730: we did not consider it to be necessary in this rough exercise.  We

731: simply assume that because the total exposure was chosen to be

732: similar, objects that are at the completeness limit in (F606W, F814W

733: will also be close to the completeness limit in (F606W, F775W).

734: 

735: In the HUDF essentially all objects are galaxies.  In the upper-part of

736: Fig.~\ref{udf} we present (on a more compressed color scale) CMDs for

737: the the objects in the HUDF across all the various selection stages,

738: exactly as in the top panels of Fig.~\ref{cmds}, but with the F775W

739: filter instead of F814W.  Note how the galaxies that have slipped

740: through our selection process are nearly all confined to a narrow

741: triangular plume extending up from our completeness limit.

742: 

743: In the lower half of the figure is shown a portion of the CMD.  On the

744: left is the HUDF CMD in its color system, on the right the NGC 6791

745: CMD in its color system.  We drew in the HUDF CMD a triangle extending

746: downward to an arbitrary but generously faint baseline; it is shown by

747: heavy lines.  The blue symbols (small-triangles) within the triangle

748: represent the HUDF objects that met all our stellar criteria.

749: Adjacent to the right edge of the triangle are theoretical WD

750: isochrones (which will be discussed in \S\ \ref{isochr}) in the color

751: system of this CMD.  Since the later discussion will show that they

752: fall in the region of the WDCS, it is clear that our triangle falls

753: close to where the WD sequence should lie.

754: 

755: We then transformed the vertices of this triangle into the magnitude

756: system of the NGC 6791 CMD.  To do this we used the transformations from

757: \hst\ filters to Johnson-Cousins ($V$, $I$) given by Sirianni et al.\

758: (2005); next we used the Sirianni relations to transform from ($V$, $I$)

759: to (F606W, F814W).  (Note: As the Sirianni procedures are set up, the

760: transformation from \hst\ filters to Johnson-Cousins requires an

761: iterative process, whereas the transformation back to a \hst\ system

762: requires only a direct evaluation.)  The triangle as transformed into

763: the NGC 6791 system also required applying the interstellar absorption,

764: for which we assumed 0.47 mag in F606W and 0.31 mag in F814W, in

765: agreement with the absorption and reddening used elsewhere in this

766: paper.  The same isochrones are repeated here, but in the color system

767: of this CMD and with the same adjustments for absorption.

768: 

769: We transformed not only the vertices of the triangle, but also the

770: HUDF objects that lay within it.  We then truncated this triangle at

771: our completeness limit, $m\subr{F606W}=28.55$.  Within the remaining

772: area, the lower right panel of the figure shows the triangle, and

773: within it the NGC 6791 stars in red and the transformed HUDF objects

774: in blue.  (The HUDF objects below the completeness limit are plotted

775: as tri-pointed asterisks; they were excluded from the discussion that

776: follows.)

777: 

778: One conspicuous difference is that the HUDF objects extend to a

779: noticeably bluer color.  In trying to understand this, we note that the

780: HUDF objects are non-stellar, whereas we have used color transformations

781: that are appropriate only for stars.  Since we do not know the spectral

782: energy distributions (SEDs) of these objects, the difference could be

783: due to having used stellar SEDs rather than the correct but unknown

784: ones.  

785: Because the NGC 6791 objects extend continuously across the right edge

786: of the triangle as it is shown, the number of them that fall within the

787: triangle is obviously quite sensitive to the color transformation, and

788: is therefore rather uncertain.

789: % 

790: What the lower right panel does make clear, though, is that it is

791: highly likely that a significant number of NGC 6791 objects on the

792: blue side of the WDCS are likely to be the nuclei of background

793: galaxies.

794: 

795: In any case, and most importantly, we note that the number of objects

796: in question is small --- at most a few dozen.  This means that this

797: source of possible contamination cannot be responsible for the second

798: peak in the WD LF, nor for the discrepancy between the predicted and

799: observed numbers of WDs that was noted in \S\ \ref{WDLF}.

800: 

801: 

802: \begin{figure}

803: \epsscale{1.00}

804: \plotone{f9.ps}

805: \caption{({\it top}) As in top panel of Fig.~\ref{cmds}, but for the

806:   HUDF.

807:   ({\it bottom left}) Faint part of WD region of CMD, in HUDF, with

808:   F775W for $I$ filter.  ({\it bottom right}) Same, but for NGC 6791, with

809:   F814W for $I$ filter.  For the meaning of the lines, triangles, and

810:   highlighted stars, see text.}

811: \label{udf}

812: \end{figure}

813: 

814: \section{Theoretical Implications}

815: 

816: Our new luminosity function of the white dwarfs in NGC 6791 confronts us

817: with two theoretical problems:

818: 

819: \begin{enumerate}

820: 

821: \item The LF has two distinct peaks, rather than a single one.

822: 

823: \item Fitting either peak with a theoretical LF calculated from

824:   conventional WD cooling theory leads to a WD age that is smaller

825:   than the age derived from the MSTO.  (We showed this for the brighter

826:   peak in Bedin et al.\ 2005a.  We will confirm this discrepancy below,

827:   and will show that it exists even if we fit the fainter peak instead.)

828: 

829: \end{enumerate}

830: 

831: In this section we will explore ways in which conventional theory might

832: be modified in order to cope with these two problems.

833: 

834: 

835: \subsection{Fitting with the conventional theory}

836: \label{isochr}

837: 

838: We have calculated WD isochrones and LFs with [Fe/H] $=$ 0.40 for the

839: WD progenitors (following the most recent spectroscopic estimates by

840: Gratton et al.\ 2006, Carraro et al.\ 2006, and Origlia et al.\ 2006).

841: All models and isochrones are from the BaSTI database (Pietrinferni et

842: al.\ 2004), and the Salaris et al.\ (2000) WD tracks have been

843: transformed into the ACS/WFC Vega-mag system as described in Bedin et

844: al.\ (2005b).

845: The adopted CO profiles of our WD models are from Salaris et al.\ (1997).

846: The initial-final mass relationship is from Ferrario et al.\ (2005),

847: extrapolated linearly for initial masses below $2.5M_{\odot}$ (i.e.,

848: below the lower $M\subr{i}$ limit of the Ferrario et al.\

849: determination).  The relationship implies that $M\subr{f}=0.53M_{\odot}$

850: at $M\subr{i}=1.0M_{\odot}$.  

851: As a test, we also examined the different $M\subr{i}$--$M\subr{f}$

852: relationship used in the Richer et al.\ (2000) WD isochrones, and in

853: Kalirai et al.\ (2007), but the results we obtain are virtually the

854: same. 

855: 

856: The [Fe/H] $=$ 0.40 isochrones have been used to fit our \hst\

857: results; we derived $E(B-V)=0.17$, $(m-M)_V =13.50$, and a turn-off

858: (TO) age of about 8~Gyr.  A fit to our \hst\ CMD employing these

859: values for reddening and distance modulus is displayed in the upper

860: panels of Fig.~\ref{fit}, for both the TO and the WDs.  For reference,

861: this distance modulus requires an age of $\sim6$~Gyr (about 2~Gyr

862: younger than the TO age) to reproduce the WDLF peak at $m_{\rm

863: F606W}\sim28.2$, or an age of $\sim4$~Gyr ($\sim4$~Gyr younger than

864: the TO age) to reproduce the peak at $m_{\rm F606W}\sim27.4$, as also

865: shown in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fit}.

866: 

867: Even though the ages associated with these fits are presumably wrong, we

868: note that each of them does reproduce the observed hook toward the blue

869: and toward brighter magnitudes.  This hook is caused by the more massive

870: objects (coming from higher-mass progenitors) that pile up at the bottom

871: of the WD isochrone, moving the track in the blue direction because

872: these higher-mass WDs have smaller radii.  It is important to notice

873: that this blue hook has nothing to do with the blueward turn of the

874: individual cooling sequences of WDs with H atmospheres, caused by strong

875: absorption from H$_2$ in the infrared (Hansen 1998, Saumon \& Jacobson

876: 1999).  

877: 

878: That H$_2$-induced turn to the blue sets in only when the $T_{\rm

879: eff}$ of the models reaches below $\sim 4000$ K, whereas the coolest

880: temperature reached by the observed WDs is $\sim5400$ K, according to

881: our 6-Gyr WD isochrone, which matches the faint end of the observed

882: sequence. 

883: %

884: We also note that some WDs belonging to the brighter peak of the LF

885: seem to extend farther to the blue than the 4-Gyr isochrone does, and

886: to even brighter magnitudes.

887: 

888: \subsection{White dwarf cooling times}

889: 

890: In any case, the discrepancies between these WD ages and the age derived

891: from MS turn-off stars constitute a serious conflict.  There must be some

892: significant error either in the models that fit the turn-off (which

893: seems unlikely) or in the models that fit the WD cooling sequence.  We

894: now look for ways to make our theoretical WDs cool more slowly.

895: 

896: One possible way of slowing the cooling of white dwarfs is to change the

897: relative abundances of C and O.  The recent Kunz et al.\ (2002) estimate

898: of the $^{12}$C$(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}$O reaction rate is only about 2/3

899: of the Caughlan \& Fowler~(1985) rate employed to compute the

900: evolutionary CO profiles of the Salaris et al.\ (2000) WD models.  This

901: lower rate would produce a C/O ratio in the core of WDs that is closer

902: to unity compared with our adopted models.  This would, in turn,

903: increase the delay introduced by the CO separation upon crystallization.

904: Taking advantage of the analyses of Montgomery et al.\ (1999) and Isern

905: et al.\ (2000), we estimate that the extra delay in the cooling process

906: would be in any case less than 1~Gyr at the luminosities corresponding

907: to the two observed peaks ($\log(L/L_{\odot})\sim -3.7$ and $\sim

908: -$4.0).

909: 

910: An additional effect that could slow down the cooling process is the

911: diffusion of $^{22}$Ne in the liquid phase.  The Ne abundance should

912: be about 4\% by mass, and its diffusion is not included in any of the

913: existing large WD model grids.  Calculations by Deloye \& Bildsten

914: (2002) show that the delays produced by this process are $\sim$ 1~Gyr

915: for the NGC 6791 WDs.  Very recent calculations by Garcia-Berro et

916: al.\ (2007) do not change this picture appreciably, if one makes the

917: most realistic assumptions about the $^{22}$Ne diffusion coefficient,

918: carbon and oxygen stratification, and crystallization process.

919:   

920: 

921: A third process that could potentially add an extra delay to the WD

922: cooling timescales is the $^{22}$Ne separation during the

923: crystallization phase (Segretain et al.\ 1994). Our adopted WD models

924: include only the effect of separation of a CO binary mixture, without

925: taking into account the presence of a small amount of $^{22}$Ne.

926: Segretain~(1996) computed the phase diagram of a ternary C/O/Ne

927: mixture, and estimated an extra delay of $\sim0.4$~Gyr due to Ne

928: separation, for a 1\% Ne mass fraction in the WD core.  This delay

929: would affect the theoretical WD isochrones and LFs only marginally;

930: however, one needs computations of this effect for a larger Ne

931: abundance typical of NGC 6791 WDs, and more realistic CO profiles

932: (Segretain~1996 consider a flat C and O profile, with 49.5\% mass

933: fraction each), before drawing definitive conclusions about the

934: relevance of this process.

935: 

936: The effect of one or more of these processes might allow isochrones of a

937: reasonable age to fit the fainter peak, but it is very difficult, if not

938: impossible, to reproduce the brighter one.  In any case, we would be

939: ignoring the glaring problem of having two distinct peaks in the WDLF.

940: 

941: \subsection{Helium white dwarfs}

942: 

943: An obvious way of dealing with the two peaks in the WD LF is to assume

944: that the

945: %

946: cluster has two different kinds of white dwarf, and a reasonable

947: hypothesis would be that in addition to the usual CO white dwarfs the

948: cluster has a population of white dwarfs whose

949: cores consist of helium.

950: 

951: In fact, Hansen (2005) has put forward the idea that the bright peak

952: at $m\subr{F606W} \sim 27.4$ is caused by massive helium WDs, produced

953: by RGB stars that just missed He ignition (because of mass loss due to

954: stellar winds).

955: %

956: This idea is supported by the fact that NGC 6791 contains a 

957: non-negligible number of blue He-burning stars that have very little

958: mass in their envelopes, having lost nearly all of the envelope during

959: their RGB lives.

960: %

961: Kalirai et al.\ (2007) have recently estimated the masses of several

962: objects along the bright part of the WD sequence and conclude that a

963: substantial fraction of the NGC 6791 WDs are actually helium WDs.

964: Given that He WDs cool down more slowly than CO WDs, an ad hoc choice

965: of the relationship between the mass (and number) of RGB stars that

966: have lost all their envelope before the He-ignition, on the one hand,

967: and the final He WD mass, on the other hand, can produce a LF that

968: reproduces the bright observed peak for an age compatible with the TO

969: age (Hansen 2005).

970: 

971: A serious problem with this scenario is that the He-core mass at the

972: He flash is 0.46$M_{\odot}$ at the super-solar metallicity of NGC 6791

973: (Pietrinferni et al.\ 2004).

974: %

975: Even at solar metallicity it is just 0.47$M_{\odot}$. We have therefore

976: computed the evolution of a 0.465$M_{\odot}$ He WD using the code by

977: Serenelli et al.\ (2002). The color transformations applied to this

978: model are the same as for the CO WD isochrones.  The top-left panel of

979: Fig.~\ref{fit} displays this sequence (as a green dotted line) together

980: with additional He WD models of lower mass, already shown in Bedin et

981: al.~(2005a).  These low-mass models overlap with objects redder than the

982: main body of the cooling sequence, which most likely correspond to the

983: fainter counterpart of the bright He WDs identified by Kalirai et

984: al.~(2007).  As for the 0.465$M_{\odot}$ track, this is too red by

985: $\sim0.08$ mag in $(m_{\rm F606W}-m_{\rm F814W})$ compared to the main

986: branch of the CO isochrone that reproduces very well the main body of

987: the observed cooling sequence.  One would need He WDs above $\sim

988: 0.5~M_{\odot}$ to eliminate this discrepancy.  Another important issue

989: is whether He-core WDs are able to reproduce the objects along the blue

990: hook corresponding to the bright peak in the LF.  We stress again that

991: the $T_{\rm eff}$ of both CO- and He-core WDs at these magnitudes are

992: both well above 4000~K; therefore one cannot invoke the turn to the blue

993: caused by H$_2$ absorption (which in any case is included in our adopted

994: color transformations) to explain the observed blue hook in terms of

995: single-mass cooling sequences.  Thus for the case of He WDs this feature

996: can be caused only by the presence of a range of masses that has to

997: extend above $0.5~M_{\odot}$.

998: 

999: As an extreme test, one could in principle disregard the fit to the main

1000: sequence, the TO and the red giant branch, and consider only the

1001: observed WD sequence. Assuming $E(B-V)=0.09$--0.10, the lowest reddening

1002: among the values quoted in the literature (see Stetson et al.\ 2003),

1003: the 0.465$M_{\odot}$ He WD track overlaps with the main body of the

1004: cooling sequence --- with this $E(B-V)$ value, main sequence and red

1005: giant branch would not be matched by theoretical models --- but

1006: obviously fails to match the blue hook.  To reproduce this feature

1007: (leaving aside the resulting values of the cooling age and the TO age)

1008: one has to unrealistically increase the cluster distance modulus by

1009: $\sim$ 1~mag --- i.e., $(m-M)_V \sim 14.5$, which corresponds to

1010: $(m-M)_0 \sim$ 14.2 for $E(B-V)=0.09$--0.10 --- so that the

1011: 0.465$M_{\odot}$ model would intersect the bluest point along the blue

1012: hook, and lower masses would progressively shift towards the red side of

1013: the hook.  Even before considering the adequacy of the resulting cooling

1014: ages, one has to note that such a large distance modulus is well outside

1015: the range of all reasonable determinations (Stetson et al.\ 2003). Again

1016: the conclusion is that He-core WDs with a spectrum of masses extending

1017: well beyond 0.5$M_{\odot}$ are necessary if one wants to explain the

1018: observed bright peak of the LF in terms of these objects.

1019:  

1020: One physical mechanism that could produce massive He WDs is rotation.

1021: Mengel \& Gross (1976) showed that rotation can increase the value of

1022: the core mass at the He flash by as much as 0.15$M_{\odot}$ of a solar mass,

1023: compared with standard non-rotating models.  

1024: %

1025: As a general rule, when the angular-momentum transport mechanism is

1026: fixed, faster-rotating stars will reach larger core masses at the time

1027: of He flash.  As a by-product, according to the Reimers (1975)

1028: mass-loss law, rotating stellar models lose more mass when approaching

1029: the He flash compared with non-rotating or slowly rotating ones. This

1030: provides a natural mechanism that favors the production of blue

1031: He-burning objects (extreme blue HB, as observed in this cluster) and

1032: massive He WDs (which might explain the brighter peak of the WDLF).

1033: Stellar rotation causes a broadening of the lower part of the RGB

1034: (Brown 2007).  Curiously enough, this broadening of the base of the

1035: RGB (broader than expected from observational errors) seems to be

1036: present in the CMDs from Stetson et al.\ (2003, see their Fig.~17),

1037: Bruntt et al.\ (2003, see their Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 10), and in our own

1038: CMD.  Note that this RGB broadening cannot be due to a spread in

1039: metallicity, as Carraro et al.\ (2006) find a negligible ($\pm0.01$

1040: dex) dispersion in [Fe/H].  In addition, extra mixing induced by

1041: rotation of the stars (Charbonnel 1995, and references therein) leads

1042: to a low value of $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C, as observed by Origlia et al.\

1043: (2006) in RGB stars of NGC 6791.

1044: 

1045: We are currently investigating (Brown et al., in preparation) 

1046: what initial rotation rates and angular-momentum transport prescriptions are 

1047: necessary to produce He-core masses $\sim0.5M_{\odot}$ and higher at 

1048: the metallicity of NGC 6791, the impact of rotation on the theoretical 

1049: CMD, and the corresponding predicted surface rotation velocities along 

1050: the CMD. This investigation, together with spectroscopic measurements 

1051: (presently lacking) of surface rotation of MS and TO stars may definitively 

1052: prove or disprove this scenario. 

1053: 

1054: %

1055: 

1056: \begin{figure}

1057: \epsscale{1.00}

1058: \plotone{f10.ps}

1059: \caption{Fit of theoretical isochrones and LFs of CO WDs for ages 4, 6,

1060:          and 8~Gyr to the observed CMD of NGC 6791 and to the WD star

1061:          counts (see text for details).  Auxiliary quantities used here

1062:          are $E(B-V)=0.17$, $(m-M)_V=13.5$, $R_V=3.2$,

1063:          $A\subr{F606W}=0.47$, $A\subr{F814W}=0.31$. Cooling sequences

1064:          of He WDs with masses equal to, respectively, 0.327, 0.406, and

1065:          0.465$M_{\odot}$ are also displayed (the bluest being the most

1066:          massive).  Note that no normalization of the theoretical LFs to

1067:          the observed numbers has been attempted, as the only purpose of

1068:          the comparison in the lower panel is to show the expected

1069:          position in magnitude of the peaks for the different assumed

1070:          ages.}

1071: %

1072: \label{fit}

1073: \end{figure}

1074: 

1075: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1076: 

1077: \acknowledgements

1078: J.A.\ and I.R.K.\ acknowledge support from STScI grants GO-9815 and 

1079: GO-10471. 

1080: %

1081: We thank Alvio Renzini for many useful discussions.

1082: We warmly thank Lars Bildsten and Christopher Deloye for valuable

1083: discussions about $^{22}$Ne.  We also thank the anonymous referee for

1084: the careful reading and for useful suggestions.

1085: 

1086: 

1087: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1088: 

1089: \bibitem[()]{} Anderson, J., \&  King, I.\ R. 2000, \pasp, 112, 1360 [AK06]

1090: 

1091: \bibitem[()]{} Anderson, J., et al.  2008, submitted to \aj

1092: 

1093: \bibitem[()]{} Beckwith et al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 1729

1094: 

1095: \bibitem[()]{} Bedin, L.\ R., Salaris, M., Piotto, G., King, I.\ R.,

1096: Anderson, J., Cassisi, S., \& Momany, Y. 2005a, \apj, 624, L45

1097: 

1098: \bibitem[()]{} Bedin, L. R., Cassisi, S., Castelli, F., Piotto, G.,

1099: Anderson, J., Salaris, M., Momany, Y., \& Pietrinferni, A. 2005b,

1100: \mnras, 357, 1038

1101: 

1102: \bibitem[()]{} Bedin, L.\ R., Piotto, G., Carraro, G., King, I.\ R.,

1103: \& Anderson, J. 2006, A\&A, 460, L27

1104: 

1105: \bibitem[()]{} Bruntt, H., Grundahl, F., Tingley, B., Frandsen, S.,

1106: Stetson, P.\ B., \& Thomsen, B.  2003 A\&A, 410, 323

1107: 

1108: \bibitem[()]{} Brown, D. 2007, Ph.D.\ thesis, John Moores Univ., Liverpool, U.K. 

1109: 

1110: \bibitem[()]{} Carraro, G., Villanova, S., Demarque, P., McSwain, M.\

1111: V., Piotto, G., \& Bedin, L.\ R.  2006, \apj, 643, 1151

1112: 

1113: \bibitem[()]{} Caughlan, G. R., Fowler, W. A., Harris, M. J., \&

1114: Zimmermann, B. A. 1985, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 32, 197

1115: 

1116: \bibitem[()]{} Charbonnel, C. 1995, \apj, 453, L41

1117: 

1118: \bibitem[()]{} Deloye, C.\ J., \& Bildsten, L. 2002, \apj, 580, 1077

1119: 

1120: \bibitem[()]{} Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D., Liebert, J., \&

1121: Williams, K.\ A. 2005, \mnras, 361, 1131

1122: 

1123: \bibitem[()]{} Fruchter, A.\ S., \& Hook, R.\ N. 2002, \pasp, 114, 792

1124: 

1125: \bibitem[()]{} Garc\'ia--Berro, E., Althaus, L.\ G., Córsico, A.\ H., \&

1126:   Isern, J. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/07121212)

1127: 

1128: \bibitem[()]{} Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., \& Tosi,

1129: M. 2006, \apj, 642, 462

1130: 

1131: \bibitem[()]{} Hansen, B.\ M.\ S. 1998, Nature, 394, 860

1132: 

1133: \bibitem[()]{} Hansen, B.\ M.\ S. 2005, \apj, 635, 522

1134: 

1135: \bibitem[()]{} Isern, J., \& Garc\'ia-Berro, E. 2000, \apj, 528, 397

1136: 

1137: \bibitem[()]{} Kalirai, J.\ K., Bergeron, P., Hansen, B.\ M.\ S.,

1138: Kelson, D.\ D., Reitzel, D.\ B., Rich, R.\ M., \& Richer, H.\ B.,

1139: 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph 0705.0977) 

1140: 

1141: \bibitem[()]{} Kalirai, J.\ K., Hansen, B.\ M.\ S., Kelson, D.\ D.,

1142: Reitzel, D.\ B., , Rich, R.\ M., \& Richer, H.\ B., 2007, 

1143: ApJ, in press, (astro-ph/07063894)

1144: 

1145: \bibitem[()]{} King, I.\ R., Bedin, L.\ R., Piotto, G., Cassisi, S.,

1146: \& Anderson, J. 2005, \aj, 130, 626

1147: 

1148: \bibitem[()]{} Kroupa, P. 2001, \mnras, 322, 231

1149: 

1150: \bibitem[()]{} Kunz, R., Fey, M., Jaeger, M., Mayer, A., Hammer, J.\

1151: W., Staudt, G., Harissopulos, S., \& Paradellis, T. 2002, \apj, 567,

1152: 643

1153: 

1154: \bibitem[()]{} Mengel, J.\ G., \& Gross, P.\ G. 1976, Ap\&SS, 41, 407

1155: 

1156: \bibitem[()]{} Montgomery, M.\ H., Klumpe, E.\ W., Winget, D.\ E., \&

1157: Wood, M.\ A. 1999, \apjl, 525, 482

1158: 

1159: \bibitem[()]{} Origlia, L., Valenti, E., Rich, R.\ M., \& Ferraro, F.\

1160: R.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 499

1161: 

1162: \bibitem[()]{} Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., \&

1163: Castelli, F.  \apj, 2004, 612, 168

1164:  

1165: \bibitem[()]{} Reimers, D. 1975, Soci\'et\'e Royale des Sciences de Li\`ege,

1166:   M\'emoires (MSRSL), vol. 8, 369  

1167: 

1168: \bibitem[()]{} Richer, H.\ B., Hansen, B., Limongi, M., Chieffi, A.,

1169: Straniero, O., \& Fahlman, G. G.  2000, \apj, 529, 318

1170: 

1171: \bibitem[()]{} Riess, A., \& Mack, J. ACS/ISR 2004-06.  

1172:     Time dependence of ACS CTE Corrections for Photometry and Future

1173:     Corrections.

1174: 

1175: \bibitem[()]{} Salaris, M., Dominguez, I., Garc\'ia-Berro, E.,

1176: Hernanz, M., Isern, J., \& Mochkovitch, R.  \apj, 1997, 486, 413

1177: 

1178: \bibitem[()]{} Salaris, M., Garc\'ia-Berro, E., Hernanz, M., Isern, J., 

1179: \& Saumon, D. \apj, 2000, 544, 1036

1180: 

1181: \bibitem[()]{} Saumon, D., \& Jacobson, S.\ B. 1999, \apj, 511, L107

1182: 

1183: \bibitem[()]{} Segretain, L., Chabrier, G., Hernanz, M.,

1184: Garc\'ia-Berro, E., Isern, J., \& Mochkovitch, R.  1994, \apjl, 434, 641

1185: 

1186: \bibitem[()]{} Segretain, L. 1996, A\&A, 310, 485

1187: 

1188: \bibitem[()]{} Serenelli, A.\ M., Althaus, L.\ G., Rohrmann, R.\ D.,

1189: \& Benvenuto, O.\ G. 2002, \mnras, 337, 1091

1190: 

1191: \bibitem[()]{} Sirianni, M., et al. 2005, \pasp, 117, 1049

1192: 

1193: \bibitem[()]{} Stetson, P.\ B., Bruntt, H., \& Grundahl, F. 2003, \pasp, 

1194: 115, 413

1195: 

1196: \end{thebibliography}

1197: 

1198: \end{document}

1199: