1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4: %\usepackage{graphicx}
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %\usepackage{txfonts}
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: %
9: \begin{document}
10: %
11: \title{Toward better simulations of planetary nebulae luminosity functions
12: }
13: \author{R. H. M\'endez\altaffilmark{1}, A. M. Teodorescu\altaffilmark{1},
14: D. Sch\"onberner\altaffilmark{2}, R. Jacob\altaffilmark{2},
15: M. Steffen\altaffilmark{2}
16: }
17: % \offprints{R.H. M\'endez}
18: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Astronomy,
19: University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822}
20: \email{mendez@ifa.hawaii.edu, ana@ifa.hawaii.edu}
21: \altaffiltext{2}{Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam,
22: An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany}
23: % \date{Received ... ; accepted ...}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26:
27: We describe a procedure for the numerical simulation of the planetary
28: nebulae luminosity function (PNLF), improving on previous work
29: (M\'endez \& Soffner 1997). Earlier
30: PNLF simulations were based on an imitation of the observed distribution
31: of the intensities of [O III] $\lambda$5007 relative to H$\beta$, generated
32: predominantly using random numbers. We are now able to replace this by a
33: distribution derived from the predictions of hydrodynamical PN models
34: (Sch\"onberner et al. 2007),
35: which are made to evolve as the central star moves across the HR diagram,
36: using proper initial and boundary conditions. In this way we move
37: one step closer to a physically consistent procedure for the generation
38: of a PNLF. As an example of these new simulations, we have been able to
39: reproduce the observed PNLF in the Small Magellanic Cloud.
40:
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \keywords{galaxies: distances and redshifts ---
44: galaxies: individual (SMC) --- methods: numerical ---
45: planetary nebulae: general --- stars: AGB and post-AGB}
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48:
49: We are quickly approaching the 20th anniversary of the introduction of
50: the planetary nebulae luminosity function (PNLF) as a tool for extragalactic
51: distance determinations (Jacoby 1989; Ciardullo et al. 1989). PNLF
52: distances are among the most reliable from an empirical point of view,
53: having been extensively tested (Ciardullo 2003). The only disadvantage
54: of this method is our own inability to understand how the bright end
55: of the PNLF can be so bright in stellar populations like those of
56: elliptical galaxies, where there is no clear evidence of recent star
57: formation. Theoretical attempts to model the PNLF of an old stellar
58: population, corresponding to what we expect to find in elliptical galaxies,
59: assuming single-star post-AGB evolution, have not been successful
60: (Marigo et al. 2004; Ciardullo 2006). A possible explanation could involve
61: massive central stars in old populations produced through binary evolution;
62: e.g. Ciardullo et al. (2005). Although there is no consensus about the
63: solution to this problem, its existence underlines the importance of the
64: PNLF as a probe of late stages of stellar evolution in different stellar
65: populations.
66:
67: In view of this potential, it is important to develop a satisfactory
68: procedure for the numerical simulation of the PNLF. It could seem that,
69: since we lack a thorough theoretical understanding of the generation of a
70: PNLF, modeling it is impossible. However, we expect to show that it
71: can be done, at least well enough to help in the interpretation
72: of the observed PNLFs in many galaxies.
73:
74: The analytical approximation to the PNLF, as defined by Ciardullo
75: et al.\ (1989), although adequate for distance determinations,
76: cannot be used for our purposes, because it is defined
77: to be fixed and universal; its shape is not affected by
78: any dependence on stellar population properties. What we want
79: is a PNLF based as much as possible on a physically realistic, although
80: necessarily simplified, representation of post-AGB evolution.
81:
82: In the present work we would like to report recent progress in such a
83: modeling. Section 2 briefly reviews earlier efforts (M\'endez et al. 1993;
84: M\'endez and Soffner 1997). Sections 3 and 4 describe new nebular models
85: (Sch\"onberner et al. 2007) and how they can be used for PNLF simulations.
86: The results are shown and discussed in Section 5, and Section 6 gives a
87: summary and some perspectives for future work.
88:
89: \section{Early modeling of the PNLF by Monte Carlo methods}
90:
91: We will present a summary of the procedure used by M\'endez et al. (1993)
92: and M\'endez \& Soffner (1997) for the numerical simulation of a PNLF.
93: Please refer to those papers for more details.
94:
95: \subsection{Post-AGB ages and masses}
96:
97: The first step is to generate a set of central stars with random post-AGB
98: ages and masses. The post-AGB ages are given by a uniform random distribution
99: from 0 to 30000 years. These ages are counted from the moment when the
100: post-AGB star reaches a surface temperature of 25000 K. The central star
101: mass distribution starts near 0.55 $M_{\odot}$ because less massive stars
102: are expected to evolve too slowly away from the AGB; the nebula is
103: dissipated before the remnant star becomes hot enough to ionize it.
104: The mass distribution has a maximum around 0.57 $M_{\odot}$ and it
105: decreases exponentially for higher masses, to fit the observed white
106: dwarf mass distribution in our Galaxy. This random central star mass
107: distribution can then be truncated at a certain
108: ``maximum final mass'' to simulate populations without recent massive star
109: formation: all stars more massive than the maximum final mass have already
110: evolved into white dwarfs.
111:
112: Here we have a problem. Where should we truncate? We find empirically
113: that, to produce a sufficiently bright PNLF, we must truncate
114: at the relatively high mass of 0.63 $M_{\odot}$. But this
115: mass would seem to be excessively high for old populations like those
116: in elliptical galaxies. The problem has been described by Ciardullo et al.
117: (2005). Briefly, if we adopt the initial-final mass relation as empirically
118: determined by Weidemann (2000), then a final mass of 0.63 $M_{\odot}$
119: leads inescapably to an initial mass of about 2 $M_{\odot}$. Such stars
120: do not have pre-white-dwarf lifetimes long enough for us to expect them to
121: be still producing PNs in old populations like those of elliptical galaxies.
122: Therefore, if we want to explain the bright end of the PNLF in old
123: populations, we need to explain the origin of the most massive central
124: stars. This problem does not have a definitive solution yet, although
125: mergers of binary systems (blue stragglers, Ciardullo et al. 2005) could
126: be a possible alternative. Another possible alternative could perhaps be
127: a sufficiently wide initial-to-final mass relation, allowing lower
128: initial masses to sometimes contribute high enough final masses. This
129: idea is somewhat unpopular but has not been empirically rejected yet
130: (Weidemann 2000; Alves et al. 2000; Ferrario et al. 2005). Metallicity
131: could certainly play a role in widening the initial-to-final mass
132: relation (Meng et al. 2007).
133:
134: Our position concerning this problem is very simple: we are only
135: trying to model the PNLF, not to explain it. We have quite clear evidence
136: that massive central stars in old populations exist. The bright end
137: of the PNLF requires the existence of very luminous central stars, at
138: least 7000 $L_{\odot}$. Spectral analyses of the bright PNs confirm this;
139: see e.g.\ Jacoby and Ciardullo (1999) on the M 31 bulge PNs, and
140: M\'endez et al.\ (2005) on the PNs in the elliptical galaxy NGC 4697.
141: Unless there is something terribly wrong with the luminosity--core mass
142: relation, such luminous central stars have to be more massive than 0.6
143: $M_{\odot}$.
144:
145: In addition to those, we can mention a case much closer to us, namely
146: the central star of K 648 in the globular cluster M 15. This central star
147: is bright enough to permit a good non-LTE model atmosphere analysis of its
148: absorption-line spectrum, which gives information about its effective
149: temperature and surface gravity (e.g. McCarthy et al.\ 1997). Together with
150: the known distance to the cluster, this permits to obtain the luminosity
151: and (again using the luminosity--core mass relation) the mass of the
152: central star, which turns out to be 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ (Alves et al.\ 2000).
153:
154: In view of the evidence, we adopt the truncation at 0.63 $M_{\odot}$ as
155: empirically given, and proceed with our numerical simulation.
156: %
157: %
158: %
159:
160: In the present work we will only refer in passing to the problem of
161: the more massive
162: central stars expected in populations with abundant recent star formation
163: (typical examples are the Magellanic Clouds). There are several possible
164: mechanisms that can limit the [O III]$\lambda$5007 flux of PNs with
165: more massive central stars, for example circumstellar extinction. This
166: has been very well explained in Section 2.1 of Ciardullo et al. (2005),
167: so we do not need to repeat it here. The available evidence indicates
168: that the truncation near 0.63 $M_{\odot}$ works well enough for all
169: population ages.
170:
171: \subsection{Central star luminosities and surface temperatures}
172:
173: Having generated random numbers that give post-AGB ages and central star
174: masses, we derive for each central star the corresponding luminosity and
175: effective temperature, using H-burning post-AGB evolutionary tracks by
176: Sch\"onberner (1989) and Bl\"ocker (1995) to build a look-up table and
177: an associated bilinear interpolation procedure. For example,
178: Figure 2 in M\'endez \& Soffner (1997) shows the resulting values of
179: luminosity and temperature for the central stars of randomly generated
180: PNs.
181:
182: %
183: %
184: %
185:
186: \subsection{Nebular H$\beta$ luminosities and UV photon leaking}
187:
188: Knowing $L$ and $T_{\rm eff}$, we calculate, using recombination theory,
189: the H$\beta$ luminosity that the nebula would emit if it were completely
190: optically thick in the H Lyman continuum. Then we generate a random number,
191: subject to several conditions (derived from observations of Galactic PNs
192: and their central stars; see next subsection and M\'endez et al. 1992),
193: for the absorbing
194: factor $\mu$, which gives the fraction of stellar ionizing luminosity
195: absorbed by the nebula. We use the absorbing factor to correct the nebular
196: H$\beta$ luminosity for the effect of UV photon leaking. We consider
197: the factor $\mu$ to be essential for a successful PNLF simulation, for two
198: reasons. First, after the Hubble Space Telescope images, we know that most
199: PNs show equatorial density enhancements, suggesting that even if they are
200: optically thick in the direction of the equator, they are likely to
201: start leaking UV ionizing radiation through the poles very soon. Second,
202: we can show (M\'endez \& Soffner 1997) that a PNLF generated under the
203: assumption that all PNs are completely optically thick in all directions
204: turns out to be too bright. Can we reduce the maximum final mass, instead
205: of allowing for UV photon leaking? No, because such massive central stars
206: are known to exist; their suppression is not an option. Can we attribute
207: the weakening to circumstellar dust extinction? The answer to this question
208: is more complicated. Circumstellar dust extinction is probably a dominant
209: factor for the most massive central stars in regions with recent star
210: formation; as we mentioned at the end of subsection 2.1, this probably
211: helps to understand why the bright end of the PNLF is not substantially
212: brighter than in galaxies without recent star formation. However, we should
213: expect circumstellar dust extinction to become less important as we consider
214: less massive central stars. These less massive central stars are expected to
215: evolve more slowly, giving time for the ejected material to dissipate.
216:
217: At this point we need to introduce the observed behavior of the
218: recombination line H$\beta$. Consider the PNs with the brightest
219: H$\beta$ fluxes in the Magellanic Clouds, as shown in Figure 4a of
220: Dopita et al. (1992). Some of them are of low excitation class, which
221: indicates central star surface temperatures around 30,000 K. We know that,
222: for constant luminosity, the number of H-ionizing photons from the central
223: star increases roughly by a factor 2.5 as we go from
224: $T_{\rm eff}$ = 30,000 K to 70,000 K. The nebular H$\beta$ luminosity is
225: nearly proportional to the number of H-ionizing photons. For that reason
226: we expect a completely optically thick nebula to show an increasing
227: H$\beta$ luminosity as its central star heats up. If we want to keep the
228: low-excitation PNs among the brightest in H$\beta$, we need
229: increasing UV photon leaking at higher $T_{\rm eff}$.
230: Note that here circumstellar dust extinction does not help,
231: because we expect more extinction at lower $T_{\rm eff}$ and less
232: extinction as the central star heats up and the nebula expands. We conclude
233: that, in the case of the Magellanic Clouds PNs, it is the absorbing factor,
234: not circumstellar dust extinction, that plays a predominant role. We assume
235: that this conclusion applies in general. Of course the only way to test
236: this assumption is to obtain deep spectrophotometry of many PNs in
237: different galaxies, which we hope can be done in the not too distant
238: future. Note that for this purpose the search technique must be oriented
239: to detecting PNs in a recombination line like H$\alpha$ or H$\beta$, not
240: just those with strong [O III] emission, which of course will never
241: belong to low excitation classes.
242: For a more detailed discussion on the interpretation of H$\beta$
243: luminosities, please refer to section 6 ``Consistency checks'' in
244: M\'endez \& Soffner (1997).
245:
246: \subsection{More about the absorbing factor}
247:
248: For easier reference, we repeat here some information given in previous
249: papers. The empirical basis for the assignment of absorbing factors is a
250: study of optical thickness in Galactic PNs (M\'endez et al. 1992). We
251: generate absorbing factors $\mu$ using random numbers.
252: For $T_{\rm eff}$s between
253: 25,000 and 40,000 K, $\mu$ follows a random uniform distribution between
254: 0.4 and 1.4, with all values higher than 1 replaced by 1. This produces
255: a certain predominance of completely optically thick objects, as observed
256: in Table 4 of M\'endez et al. (1992), but allows for the observed fraction
257: of optically thin PNs with low-$T_{\rm eff}$ central stars.
258: For $T_{\rm eff}$s between 40,000 K and the beginning of the white dwarf
259: cooling track, $\mu$ follows a random uniform distribution between 0.05
260: and the parameter $\mu_{\rm max}$. We adopt $\mu_{\rm max} = 1$; in this
261: way some percentage of the bright PNs with very hot central stars can have
262: $\mu$ close to 1.
263: For central stars on the white dwarf cooling tracks, $\mu$ is set equal
264: to a random number uniformly distributed between 0.1 and 1, and this number
265: is multiplied by a factor (1$-$(age(years)/30,000)). In this way we ensure
266: that $\mu$ tends to 0 as the nebula dissipates.
267:
268: We have kept the random generation of $\mu$ as simple as possible,
269: because the amount of empirical information is quite limited.
270: There is no explicit influence of the central star mass, for example,
271: basically because we lack credible empirical information that could
272: guide our modeling. It will always be possible to complicate the
273: computer codes once more information becomes available. For the moment
274: our simple procedure appears to work well. Although our physical
275: interpretation of the absorbing factor is open to future refinements,
276: we would like to emphasize that once we introduce the
277: absorbing factor, as constrained by the information we have about
278: optical thickness of PNs in our Galaxy, the PNLF we generate agrees
279: with the observed ones, without any further adjustment.
280:
281: \subsection{The intensity ratios [O III]$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$}
282:
283: Since we have generated the H$\beta$ luminosities, now we only need to
284: generate the ratios $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$ to obtain the $\lambda$5007
285: luminosities and compute the PNLF. At this point we depart from M\'endez
286: \& Soffner (1997). They used mostly random numbers to generate the
287: intensity ratios, in such a way that the observed histograms of
288: $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$ ratios in our Galaxy and the LMC could be
289: approximately reproduced. Instead, we want to calculate our
290: $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$ ratios from hydrodynamical PN models
291: (Sch\"onberner et al. 2007). Several evolutionary sequences
292: of model PNs have been constructed, one sequence for each of a
293: limited number of central star masses. In the following sections
294: we briefly review the basic characteristics of these models, and
295: we explain the interpolation procedure we have implemented to obtain
296: $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$ ratios for any combination of post-AGB age and
297: central star mass. In this way we move one step closer to a physically
298: consistent procedure for the generation of a PNLF.
299:
300: \section{Modeling the PN evolution}
301:
302: The PN model sequences produced by Sch\"onberner et al. (2007,
303: in what follows SJSS07)
304: are based on coupling a spherical circumstellar envelope, assumed
305: to be the relic of a strong AGB wind, to a H-burning post-AGB model,
306: and following the evolution of the whole system across the H-R
307: diagram toward the white-dwarf cooling track. The goal is to produce
308: radiation-hydrodynamics simulations with the proper initial and
309: boundary conditions. A one-dimensional
310: radiation-hydrodynamics code is employed (Perinotto et al. 1998).
311: This code is designed to compute ionization, recombination, heating,
312: and cooling, fully time-dependently. The chemical composition is
313: typical for Galactic disk PNs (slightly below solar; see Table 1 in
314: SJSS07). Nebular evolutionary sequences have been
315: computed for central stars with masses 0.565, 0.585 (unpublished),
316: 0.595, 0.605, 0.625 and 0.696 $M_{\odot}$. Their corresponding
317: post-AGB evolutionary tracks in the HR diagram are shown in Figure 1.
318:
319: Although the models are spherically symmetric, they represent the
320: observed nebular structures, as indicated by the H$\alpha$ brightness
321: distributions, extremely well. These nebular models show in many cases
322: a transition between optically thick and thin in the Lyman continuum.
323: Note, however, that it is not clear if the models can accurately predict
324: what fraction of the H-ionizing radiation is being lost through the
325: nebular poles, due to departures from spherical symmetry in the real
326: nebulae. At this point it looks better to use the absorbing factors
327: $\mu$ as defined by M\'endez et al.\ (1992, 1993), and combine them
328: with {\it intensity ratios} $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$, which are not
329: too much affected by the onset of UV photon leaking; see Figure 2.
330: We believe that
331: a combination of spherically symmetric nebula plus $\mu$ absorbing
332: factor may be a good compromise to describe the evolution of PNs
333: in a more realistic way than previously attempted, without having to
334: introduce the enormous complexities of two-dimensional hydrodynamics.
335:
336: In summary, here we use the SJSS07 model sequences
337: for one purpose only: to obtain the intensity ratio
338: $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$ as a function of nebular post-AGB age.
339: The resulting run of this ratio for the six central star masses is
340: shown in Figure 3. Next step is to implement an interpolation procedure
341: that will provide similar information for any central star mass.
342:
343: \section{Interpolation method for the generation of $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$}
344:
345: To begin with, we have a table giving central star surface temperature
346: $T$, central star luminosity $L$, and nebular ratio $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$,
347: which we will call $R$, as a function of post-AGB age $t$, for each of the
348: six central star masses listed above. The interpolation between these
349: tracks is done following a technique described by van der Sluys et al.
350: (2005). We first divide each of the nebular evolutionary tracks shown in
351: Figure 3 into three sections: (a) where $R$ increases until it
352: reaches a maximum; (b) where $R$ decreases; (c) where $R$ stabilizes.
353: There is one exception: since the transition between 0.595 and 0.585
354: $M_{\odot}$ is somewhat different, in that case we have modified (b) and
355: (c) in the following way: (b) where $R$ is between the two peaks;
356: (c) where $R$ decreases.
357:
358: For each of these 3 sections we define a path length $l$ by the following
359: expression:
360:
361: \begin{equation}
362: l=\sum_{i} \sqrt{\Big(\frac{t(i)-t(i-1)}{\Delta t} \Big)^{2}
363: + \Big(\frac{R(i)-R(i-1)}{\Delta R} \Big)^{2} }
364: \end{equation}
365:
366: In this equation, $i$ is the index corresponding to the successive data
367: rows in each table, and the quantities $\Delta t$ and $\Delta R$ are the
368: total increments in $t$ and $R$ between the beginning and end of each
369: section.
370:
371: Each of these 3 sections is redistributed into a fixed number of data
372: points, equally spaced in the path length. The values for these equally
373: spaced points are calculated by polynomial interpolation along each track.
374: Having done this, each section of each nebular evolutionary track has the
375: same number of data points, and one point in any section, like (a) to
376: fix ideas, marks an evolutionary state similar to that of the same point
377: along the (a) section in any other nebular evolutionary track.
378:
379: Now we are able to interpolate between adjacent nebular evolutionary
380: tracks, building point by point a new track for each randomly generated
381: central star mass. Figure 3 shows two simulated tracks, in the $R$-$t$
382: plane, produced with this interpolation technique. Their corresponding
383: central star
384: post-AGB evolution in the HR diagram is also plotted in Figure 1. Once
385: in posession of the time evolution of $R$ for any randomly generated
386: central star mass, we can obtain $R$ for the randomly generated
387: post-AGB age, and we can proceed to build the PNLF.
388:
389: \section{Results and discussion}
390:
391: Our ultimate purpose is to generate a physically consistent PNLF,
392: eliminating as much as possible the random numbers used in previous
393: modeling, which were reflecting our lack of information about the
394: evolution and properties of the PNs at each specific moment.
395: At the present time we cannot produce a fully satisfactory simulation,
396: because we would need first to explore variations in many input
397: parameters and their effect on the PN evolution. For example, we cannot
398: discuss metallicity effects until we have nebular evolutionary tracks
399: for a broad range of metallicities. But we would like to show the very
400: promising results of a simulation based on the limited number of
401: nebular evolutionary tracks presented by SJSS07.
402:
403: First of all we consider the histogram of the intensity of
404: [O III]$\lambda$5007, on the scale $I({\rm H}\beta)=100$. On
405: this scale, $I$(5007) is equivalent to 100 $R$. In previous work, we
406: simulated the observed histograms of $I$(5007) in our Galaxy and the
407: LMC using predominantly random numbers. Can we obtain a satisfactory
408: fit to the observations using instead the ratios $R$ generated by our
409: PN evolution programs? Before attempting that, we need to consider
410: selection effects: which of our generated PNs would actually be
411: observable? We seek guidance in Figure 4, which is a modified version
412: of Figure 13 in SJSS07 (we could have used their Figure 14 instead),
413: showing the excitation class (defined in Eq. (2) of SJSS07)
414: as a function of the nebular absolute magnitude %$M$(H$\beta$)
415: $M$(5007). Note that the observed PNs are enclosed by the
416: nebular evolutionary tracks corresponding to central star masses of
417: 0.696 and 0.585 $M_{\odot}$. Nebulae that belong to less massive
418: central stars fail to become bright, because the central stars evolve
419: very slowly away from the AGB, and the nebulae dissipate, becoming very
420: optically thin, and displaying a very low surface brightness. This
421: indicates that they are probably missing in the observed samples.
422:
423: Thus, in building the theoretical distribution of $I$(5007),
424: in order to be consistent with the nebular properties that
425: result from the initial and boundary conditions assumed in
426: SJSS07, we have decided to eliminate the contribution
427: from all central stars less massive than 0.585 $M_{\odot}$.
428: The central star mass distribution we adopted will be shown
429: later (see the upper mass distribution in Figure 8).
430: We have also eliminated all PNs with central stars fainter
431: than log $L/L_{\odot}$ = 2.4. This was done, in the same way as in
432: M\'endez \& Soffner (1997), in order to compensate for an
433: obvious selection effect: the observed distributions in our Galaxy
434: and in the LMC are not likely to include PNs with very low-L central
435: stars, all of which have high surface temperatures.
436:
437: Figure 5 shows, then, our corrected theoretical distribution, compared
438: with two observed distributions: one for 118 PNs in the LMC (data taken
439: from Wood et al. 1987; Meatheringham et al. 1998; Jacoby et al. 1990;
440: Meatheringham \& Dopita 1991a, 1991b; Vassiliadis et al. 1992) and
441: another one for 983 PNs in our Galaxy, taken from the Strasbourg-ESO
442: Catalogue of Galactic PNs (Acker et al. 1992). These are the same two
443: distributions used in Figure 3 of M\'endez \& Soffner (1997). Our
444: new distribution provides a quite satisfactory fit. We do not
445: expect a perfect fit, of course, because there are even differences
446: between the two observed distributions, the reasons for which are not
447: clear at the present time.
448: Prompted by the anonymous referee, we also show in Figure 6 that
449: the nebular model sequences in SJSS07 can predict the observed
450: distribution of PNs in a diagram of the [O III] $\lambda$5007 to
451: H$\alpha$ + [N II] line ratio as a function of $M$(5007), like the
452: one shown in Fig. 2 of Ciardullo et al. (2002).
453:
454: Since we have been able to produce a value of $I$(5007) for every
455: pair of values of post-AGB age and central star mass in our
456: simulations, we can proceed to build the new $\lambda$5007
457: PNLF. Figure 7 shows a
458: comparison between the old PNLF (M\'endez \& Soffner 1997) and the
459: new one. The agreement between the two simulations at the bright
460: end is excellent. There is a difference at fainter magnitudes, which
461: does not affect the use of the PNLF for distance determinations.
462:
463: What is the nature of the ``camel shape'' apparent in the new
464: simulation? It can be described as a relative lack of PNs
465: for $M$(5007) between $-3$ and 0. In fact, it was already present
466: in the M\'endez \& Soffner (1997) simulations, but it is more
467: pronounced here. We believe that the most natural explanation of
468: this deficit of PNs at intermediate luminosities is related to the
469: fact that the central stars in our simulation are shell H-burners.
470: See Section 9 in M\'endez (1999).
471: Post-AGB evolutionary tracks show a quick drop in luminosity
472: as the H-burning shell is extinguished and the star goes into the
473: white dwarf cooling track. For that reason there is a lack of
474: central stars at log $L/L_{\odot}$ below 3.5. This lack of central
475: stars at intermediate luminosities can explain the lack
476: of intermediate-brightness PNs in the PNLF.
477:
478: If this explanation is correct, then it should also explain the
479: different shapes in Figure 7. The most important difference between
480: the new and the old simulation is that the old one uses a central
481: star mass distribution extending down to masses as low as 0.55
482: $M_{\odot}$. The luminosity drop suffered by H-burning central
483: stars is in fact much less dramatic for lower-mass central stars,
484: and therefore we expect such low-mass central stars to help reduce
485: the deficit, as observed in Figure 7.
486:
487: Let us show this effect in more detail. In Figure 8 we show three
488: simulations. The first one uses a central star mass distribution
489: with a sharp low-mass cut
490: at 0.585 $M_{\odot}$. In the 2nd and 3rd cases we allow the mass
491: distribution to be extended toward less massive central stars. Since
492: SJSS07 cannot be used at these low masses, because the nebulae are
493: predicted to be too faint, for these low-mass central stars we
494: used the procedure of M\'endez and Soffner (1997) to generate the
495: values of the ratios $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$. Indeed it appears that
496: the addition of more and more lower-mass central stars increasingly
497: reduces the deficit, as expected. Of course we would need to
498: investigate if it is possible to impose reasonable initial
499: conditions that will result in visible PNs around the lower-mass
500: central stars. We assume that this is possible, but such an
501: investigation is extremely time-consuming and lies outside the
502: scope of the present work.
503:
504: We should mention in passing that another way of decreasing the
505: deficit is to allow for a certain percentage of He-burning central
506: stars, which do not show a quick luminosity drop. We cannot include
507: such evolutionary tracks in our procedure; see M\'endez \& Soffner
508: (1997) and the discussion (section 7) in SJSS07.
509:
510: The new PNLF shape we have obtained reminds us immediately of the
511: observed PNLF in the SMC as described by Jacoby \& De Marco (2002).
512: Therefore in Figure 9 we fit the Jacoby \& De Marco data with our new
513: PNLF. The agreement is very encouraging. The fit to the bright end
514: gives a distance modulus of 19.3 mag, which agrees, within the rather
515: large uncertainties, with the 19.1 obtained by Jacoby et al. (1990,
516: see in particular their Figure 5). Whenever we fit the PNLF we are
517: making a simultaneous fit to both
518: the distance modulus and to the total number of PNs in the galaxy
519: in question; thus our new simulation also implies a total number
520: of approximately 120 PNs in the surveyed area of the SMC,
521: in rough agreement with estimates by Jacoby and De Marco (2002).
522: Note that the PN numbers observed at faint magnitudes are probably
523: affected by some incompleteness; we are fitting only the bright
524: end of the SMC PNLF, which appears to be complete, as discussed
525: by Jacoby and De Marco.
526:
527: In Figure 9 we find that the mass distribution with a sharp cut at
528: 0.585 $M_{\odot}$ gives a better fit than other distributions that
529: include a contribution from lower central star masses. A lack of
530: low-mass central stars in the SMC may have different possible
531: interpretations. It might reflect lack of star formation at earlier
532: times, producing a lack of the corresponding low initial masses
533: (Ciardullo et al. 2004);
534: it might also mean that, in the SMC, low-mass central stars find it
535: more difficult to produce visible PNs, perhaps as a consequence of
536: the low metallicity. These ideas will have to be tested
537: when nebular evolution models like those of SJSS07, but for lower
538: metallicities, become available. The PNLF shape may provide useful
539: diagnostics for studies of star formation history and post-AGB
540: evolution in different populations.
541:
542: \section{Recapitulation and perspectives}
543:
544: We have shown that using models like those of SJSS07 it is
545: possible to generate a numerical simulation of a PNLF, if we are
546: willing to assume an empirically given central star mass distribution,
547: which however still needs to be justified from stellar evolution and
548: population evolution theories. Leaving that problem aside, the new
549: procedure is able to reproduce observed histograms of $I$(5007), and
550: the new generated PNLF agrees with the old one at the bright end,
551: which means that it gives the same PNLF distances as before. In
552: addition, we have found that the shape of this new simulated
553: PNLF explains the observed PNLF shape in the SMC quite well.
554:
555: What remains to be done is to systematically explore the initial
556: parameters controlling the PN model evolution, to see what effects
557: they have on the PNLF. In particular, initial conditions may
558: influence the low-mass cut we need to apply in the central star
559: mass distribution, probably in part as a function of metallicity.
560:
561: The results we have presented offer some promise for future
562: PNLF research. Most important, if it is possible to produce new
563: PN evolution models for a variety of metallicities (a difficult
564: task, because it requires at the very least to have a good
565: theoretical treatment of AGB and post-AGB mass loss, in order
566: to deal with both central star and nebular evolution), then
567: it will become comparatively easy, using the methods described
568: here, to investigate metallicity effects on the PNLF. If it is
569: possible to build observed PNLFs for several galaxies down
570: to fainter magnitudes,
571: then the different PNLF shapes, if confirmed, would provide a
572: very useful diagnostic for population characteristics like star
573: formation history, central star mass distribution of observable
574: PNs, or perhaps even the relative frequency of He-burners among
575: PN central stars.
576:
577: \acknowledgements
578: This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation,
579: under grant 0307489. We thank the anonymous referee for some useful
580: comments.
581:
582:
583: \begin{thebibliography}{}
584: \bibitem[]{583}
585: Acker, A., Ochsenbein, F., Stenholm, B., et al. 1992, The Strasbourg-ESO
586: Catalogue of Galactic PNs
587: \bibitem[]{586}
588: Alves, D.R., Bond, H.E., \& Livio, M. 2000, AJ, 120, 2044
589: \bibitem[]{588}
590: Bl\"ocker, T. 1995, A\&A, 299, 755
591: \bibitem[]{590}
592: Ciardullo, R. 2003, in IAU Symposium 209, Planetary Nebulae: their
593: evolution and role in the universe, ed. S. Kwok, M. Dopita \& R.
594: Sutherland (San Francisco: ASP), 617
595: \bibitem[]{594}
596: Ciardullo, R. 2006, in IAU Symposium 234, Planetary Nebulae in our
597: Galaxy and beyond, ed. M.J. Barlow \& R.H. M\'endez (Cambridge
598: University Press), 325
599: \bibitem[]{598}
600: Ciardullo, R., Durrell, P.R., Laychak, M.B., et al. 2004, ApJ, 614, 167
601: \bibitem[]{600}
602: Ciardullo, R., Feldmeier, J.J, Jacoby, G.H., et al. 2002, ApJ, 577, 31
603: \bibitem[]{602}
604: Ciardullo, R., Jacoby, G.H., Ford, H.C., \& Neill, J.D. 1989, ApJ, 339, 53
605: \bibitem[]{604}
606: Ciardullo, R., Sigurdsson, S., Feldmeier, J.J, \& Jacoby, G.H. 2005, ApJ,
607: 629, 499
608: \bibitem[]{607}
609: Dopita, M.A., Jacoby, G.H., \& Vassiliadis, E. 1992, ApJ, 389, 27
610: \bibitem[]{609}
611: Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D., Liebert, J., \& Williams, K.A. 2005,
612: MNRAS, 361, 1131
613: \bibitem[]{612}
614: Jacoby, G.H. 1989, ApJ, 339, 39
615: \bibitem[]{614}
616: Jacoby, G.H. \& Ciardullo, R. 1999, ApJ, 515, 169
617: \bibitem[]{616}
618: Jacoby, G.H. \& De Marco, O. 2002, AJ, 123, 269
619: \bibitem[]{618}
620: Jacoby, G.H., Walker, A.R., \& Ciardullo, R. 1990, ApJ, 365, 471
621: \bibitem[]{620}
622: Magrini, L., Corradi, R.L.M., Mampaso, A., \& Perinotto, M. 2000, A\&A,
623: 355, 713
624: \bibitem[]{623}
625: Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Weiss, A., et al. 2004, A\&A, 423, 995
626: \bibitem[]{625}
627: McCarthy, J.K., M\'endez, R.H., Becker, S., et al. 1997, in IAU
628: Symposium 180, Planetary Nebulae, ed. H.J. Habing \& H.J.G.L.M.
629: Lamers (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 122
630: \bibitem[]{629}
631: Meatheringham, S.J., \& Dopita, M.A. 1991a, ApJS, 75, 407
632: \bibitem[]{631}
633: Meatheringham, S.J., \& Dopita, M.A. 1991b, ApJS, 76, 1085
634: \bibitem[]{633}
635: Meatheringham, S.J., Dopita, M.A., \& Morgan, D.H. 1988, ApJ, 329, 166
636: \bibitem[]{635}
637: M\'endez, R.H. 1999, in Post-Hipparcos Cosmic Candles,, ed. A. Heck \&
638: F. Caputo (Dordrecht:Kluwer), 161
639: \bibitem[]{638}
640: M\'endez, R.H., Kudritzki, R.P., Ciardullo, R., \& Jacoby, G.H. 1993,
641: A\&A, 275, 534
642: \bibitem[]{641}
643: M\'endez, R.H., Kudritzki, R.P., \& Herrero, A. 1992, A\&A, 260, 329
644: %M\'endez, R.H., Riffeser, A., Kudritzki, R.P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 563, 135
645: \bibitem[]{644}
646: M\'endez, R.H., \& Soffner, T. 1997, A\&A, 321, 898
647: \bibitem[]{646}
648: M\'endez, R.H., Thomas, D., Saglia, R.P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 627, 767
649: \bibitem[]{648}
650: Meng, X., Chen, X., \& Han, Z. 2007, astro-ph 0710.2397
651: \bibitem[]{650}
652: Perinotto, M., Kifonidis, K., Sch\"onberner, D., \& Marten, H. 1998,
653: A\&A, 332, 1044
654: \bibitem[]{653}
655: Sch\"onberner, D. 1989, in IAU Symposium 131, Planetary Nebulae, ed.
656: S. Torres-Peimbert (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 463
657: \bibitem[]{656}
658: Sch\"onberner, D., Jacob, R., Steffen, M., \& Sandin, C. 2007, A\&A, 473, 467
659: \bibitem[]{658}
660: van der Sluys, M.V., Verbunt, F., \& Pols, O.R. 2005, A\&A, 431, 647
661: \bibitem[]{660}
662: Vassiliadis, E., Dopita, M.A., Morgan, D.H., \& Bell, J.F. 1992, ApJS, 83, 87
663: \bibitem[]{662}
664: Weidemann, V. 2000, A\&A, 363, 647
665: \bibitem[]{664}
666: Wood, P.R., Meatheringham, S.J., Dopita, M.A., \& Morgan, D.H. 1987,
667: ApJ, 320, 178
668: \end{thebibliography}
669:
670: \clearpage
671:
672: \begin{figure}
673: \epsscale{1.0}
674: \plotone{f1.ps}
675: \caption{
676: Solid lines are post-AGB evolutionary tracks for six central star masses
677: in the log $T_{eff}$--log $L$ plane. Dashed lines (unlabeled) are two
678: interpolated tracks generated as in M\'endez \& Soffner (1997).
679: }
680: \end{figure}
681:
682: \begin{figure}
683: \epsscale{1.0}
684: \plotone{f2.eps}
685: \caption{
686: I(5007)/I(H$\beta$) line ratio vs central star effective temperature for
687: two hydrodynamical sequences calculated in SJSS07. $Z_{\rm GD}$ means
688: the metallicity of our Galactic disk. The nebula following
689: Track 4 (solid line) remains always optically thick, while along Track 6
690: (dotted line) the nebula becomes optically thin to H-ionizing photons
691: as the central star evolves. The ratio is always larger in the optically
692: thin phase, but the difference is seldom larger than about 10\% in the
693: relevant bright phases.
694: }
695: \end{figure}
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: \epsscale{1.0}
699: \plotone{f3.ps}
700: \caption{
701: Solid lines are PN evolutionary tracks for the six
702: central star masses, taken from SJSS07, in the
703: $t$--$I$(5007) plane; $I$(5007) is on the scale $I(H\beta)$=100.
704: The dashed lines (unlabeled) are two interpolated tracks, each
705: corresponding to one of the interpolated stellar evolutionary tracks
706: shown in Fig. 1. The interpolated PN evolutionary track generation
707: is explained in Section 4.
708: }
709: \end{figure}
710:
711: \begin{figure}
712: \epsscale{1.0}
713: %\plotone{f4.ps}
714: %\includegraphics[bb= 1.5cm 1cm 15.5cm 10cm,
715: %angle= 360, width=0.5\textwidth]{f4.ps}
716: \includegraphics[bb= -7.cm 10cm 20cm 17cm, width=1.6\textwidth]{f4.ps}
717: \caption{
718: Nebular excitation parameter vs. absolute $\lambda$5007 magnitude,
719: for five hydrodynamical sequences labeled according to their mass.
720: Open circles along the tracks indicate the moment when
721: the nebular models become optically thin for Lyman continuum photons.
722: The gaps seen for some tracks are artifacts caused by the definition of
723: the excitation parameter (see also SJSS07, Figs.\ 13 and 14 therein).
724: Data of Galactic PNs
725: with spectroscopically determined distances are shown as dots for
726: comparison. This figure is a modified version of Fig. 13 in SJSS07.
727: The 'circled' dot belongs to
728: NGC 7293, the two 'squared' dots to the high-excitation PNs
729: NGC 1360 and NGC 4361. The filled triangle marks the position
730: of NGC 7027.
731: }
732: \end{figure}
733:
734: \begin{figure}
735: \epsscale{1.0}
736: \plotone{f5.ps}
737: \caption{
738: Histograms of the intensity of $\lambda$5007,
739: on the scale $I(H\beta)$=100. The dashed line indicates the histogram
740: for 983 objects in our Galaxy. The other two histograms have been
741: normalized to this number. The dotted line is the histogram for 118
742: LMC objects. The full line is our new distribution, generated
743: as described in the text.
744: }
745: \end{figure}
746:
747: \begin{figure}
748: \epsscale{1.0}
749: \plotone{f6.eps}
750: \caption{
751: [O III] $\lambda$5007 to H$\alpha$ + [N II] line ratios for
752: PNs in the M 31 bulge and M 33. The data, taken from Ciardullo et al.
753: (2002) and Magrini et al. (2000), are compared with PN evolutionary
754: tracks from SJSS07. $Z_{\rm GD}$ means the metallicity of our
755: Galactic disk. Evolution is from lower right to upper left and
756: back. The models cover the observed range very well; no internal
757: reddening corrections are needed. The reason for the small number
758: of PNs near the upward-moving tracks is that the probability of
759: finding them there is low. Please refer to SJSS07 (section 5 and
760: figure 15). The PN brightens quickly, and then it fades more slowly,
761: so that we find most of the observed PNs in the fading region.
762: }
763: \end{figure}
764:
765: \begin{figure}
766: \epsscale{1.0}
767: \plotone{f7.ps}
768: \caption{
769: PNLF (full line) generated using the hydrodynamical models
770: by SJSS07, compared with the old PNLF (dashed
771: line) generated as described in M\'endez \& Soffner (1997).
772: }
773: \end{figure}
774:
775: \clearpage
776: \thispagestyle{empty}
777: \setlength{\voffset}{-12mm}
778: \begin{figure}
779: \epsscale{1.0}
780: \plottwo{f8a.ps}{f8b.ps}
781: \plottwo{f8c.ps}{f8d.ps}
782: \plottwo{f8e.ps}{f8f.ps}
783: \caption{
784: PNLFs generated using different central star mass distributions.
785: The mass distributions are on the left, and the corresponding PNLFs
786: (full lines) are on the right. The first (upper) mass distribution
787: is the one used to produce Fig. 7, with a sharp low-mass cut at 0.585
788: $M_{\odot}$. The 2nd and 3rd include progressively
789: more low-mass central stars. The three PNLFs are compared with
790: the old PNLF generated as in M\'endez and Soffner (1997), indicated
791: with a dash-dotted line. As we increase the number of low-mass stars,
792: the PNLF becomes more similar to the old one.
793: }
794: \end{figure}
795: \clearpage
796: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}
797:
798: \begin{figure}
799: \epsscale{1.0}
800: \plottwo{f9a.ps}{f9b.ps}
801: \caption{
802: Fits to the 59 PNs found in the SMC by Jacoby and De Marco (2002)
803: with the new PNLF simulations. The PNLF binning is broad (1 mag)
804: due to the small number of PNs. The fainter bins are probably
805: affected by incompleteness in the SMC surveys. The left figure,
806: which provides a better fit, corresponds to the upper central star
807: mass distribution in Fig. 8, with the sharp low-mass cut at 0.585
808: $M_{\odot}$. The fit was obtained adopting a distance modulus
809: $m - M$ = 19.34. The three lines are PNLF simulations for
810: three different sample sizes: 70, 120, 190.
811: The right figure corresponds to the 3rd central star mass
812: distribution in Fig. 8. The fit was obtained adopting a distance
813: modulus $m - M$ = 19.25, and the sample sizes are 30, 75 and 150.
814: In both figures we fit only the bright end of the PNLF, as
815: discussed in the text.
816: }
817: \end{figure}
818:
819: %status Apr 3, 2008; 820 lines
820: \end{document}
821:
822:
823:
824:
825:
826:
827:
828:
829:
830:
831:
832:
833:
834:
835:
836:
837:
838:
839:
840:
841:
842:
843:
844:
845:
846:
847:
848:
849:
850:
851:
852:
853:
854:
855:
856:
857:
858:
859:
860:
861:
862:
863:
864:
865: