1: % mn2esample.tex -new version of gcmix.tex
2: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
3: %
4: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
5: %\documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{natbib}
8: \usepackage{epstopdf}
9: \DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `basename #1 .tif`.png}
10: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
11: % remove the useAMS option.
12: %
13: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
14: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
15: % this guide for further information.
16: %
17: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
18: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
19: % preferably \bmath).
20: %
21: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
22: % cross-referencing.
23: %
24: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
25: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
26: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
27: % \usepackage{Times}
28: %%%%% AUT
29: \newcommand\aj{{AJ}}%
30: % Astronomical Journal
31: \newcommand\araa{{ARA\&A}}%
32: % Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys
33: \newcommand\apj{{ApJ}}%
34: % Astrophysical Journal
35: \newcommand\apjl{{ApJ}}%
36: % Astrophysical Journal, Letters
37: \newcommand\apjs{{ApJS}}%
38: % Astrophysical Journal, Supplement
39: \newcommand\apss{{Ap\&SS}}%
40: % Astrophysics and Space Science
41: \newcommand\aap{{A\&A}}%
42: % Astronomy and Astrophysics
43: \newcommand\aaps{{A\&AS}}%
44: % Astronomy and Astrophysics, Supplement
45: \newcommand\mnras{{MNRAS}}%
46: % Monthly Notices of the RAS
47: \newcommand\pasp{{PASP}}%
48: % Publications of the ASP
49: \newcommand\pasa{{PASA}}%
50: % Publications of the AS of Australia
51: \newcommand\pasj{{PASJ}}%
52: % Publications of the ASJ
53: \newcommand\nat{{Nature}}%
54: % Nature
55: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}
56: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}
57: \newcommand\BMV{B--V}
58: \newcommand\VMI{V--I}
59: \newcommand\teff{T$_{\rm eff}$}
60: \newcommand\dm{D$_{\rm mix}$}
61: \newcommand\Teff{T$_{\rm eff}$}
62: \newcommand\Mv{M$_{\rm v}$}
63: \newcommand\dlt{\Delta\log\,T}
64: \newcommand\cs{\,cm$^2$\,s$^{-1}$}
65: \newcommand\kms{\,km\,s$^{-1}$}
66: \newcommand{\msun}{\ensuremath{\, {M}_\odot}}
67: \newcommand{\Msun}{\ensuremath{\, {M}_\odot}}
68: \newcommand{\ocen}{$\omega$~Cen}
69: \newcommand{\mlate}{M$_{mixing}$}
70: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
71: \title[]{The fraction of second generation stars in Globular Clusters from the
72: analysis of the Horizontal Branch}
73: \author[F. D'Antona and V. Caloi]{F. D'Antona$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail:
74: dantona@oa-roma.inaf.it (FD); vittoria.caloi@iasf-roma.inaf.it (VC)} and V. Caloi$^2$
75: $^{1}$\footnotemark[1]\thanks{This work has been supported through PRIN INAF 2005
76: ``Experimenting stellar nucleosynthesis in clean environments" and
77: PRIN MIUR 2007 ``Multiple Stellar Populations in Globular Clusters:
78: census, characterization, and origin".
79: }\\
80: $^{1}$INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Via Frascati 33,
81: 00040 Monteporzio Catone (Roma), Italy.\\
82: $^{2}$ INAF, IASF--Roma, via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, I-00133 Roma, Italy}
83: \begin{document}
84:
85: \date{Accepted . Received ; in original form }
86:
87: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2006}
88:
89: \maketitle
90:
91: \label{firstpage}
92:
93: \begin{abstract}
94: The majority of Globular Clusters show chemical inhomogeneities in the
95: composition of their stars, apparently due to a second stellar generation in
96: which the forming gas is enriched by hot-CNO cycled material processed in
97: stars belonging to a first stellar generation. Clearly this evidence prompts questions on
98: the modalities of formation of Globular Clusters. An important preliminary
99: input to any model for the formation of multiple generations is to determine which
100: is today the
101: relative number fraction of ``normal" and anomalous stars in each cluster. As
102: it is very difficult to gather very large spectroscopic samples of Globular
103: Cluster stars to achieve this result with good statistical significance, we
104: propose to use the horizontal branch.
105: We assume that, whichever the progenitors of the second generation, the
106: anomalies also include enhanced helium abundance. In fact, helium variations
107: have been recently recognized to be able to explain several puzzling
108: peculiarities (gaps, RR Lyr periods and period distribution, ratio of blue to
109: red stars, blue tails) in horizontal branches. We summarize previous results
110: and extend the analysis in order to infer the percentage in number of the first and
111: second generation in as many clusters as possible. We show that, with few exceptions,
112: approximately 50\% or more of the stars belong to the second generation. In
113: other cases, in which at first sight one would think of a simple stellar
114: population, we give arguments and suggest that the stars might all belong to the second
115: generation.
116: We provide in Appendix a detailed discussion and new fits of the optical and UV data
117: of NGC~2808, the classic example of a multiple helium populations cluster,
118: consistently including a reproduction of the main sequence splittings
119: and an examination of the problem of ``blue hook" stars. We also show a detailed fit
120: of the totally blue HB of
121: M~13, one among the clusters that are possibly fully made up by second generation stars.
122: We conclude that the formation of the second generation is a crucial event in the life
123: of globular clusters. The problem of the initial mass function
124: required to achieve the observed high fraction of second generation stars can
125: be solved only if the initial cluster was much more massive than the present one
126: and most of the first generation low mass stars have been preferentially lost.
127: As shown by D'Ercole et al. by modelling the formation and dynamical evolution
128: of the second generation, the mass loss due to the explosions of the type II supernovae
129: of the first generation may be the process responsible for triggering the expansion of the
130: cluster, the stripping of its outer layers and the loss of most of the
131: first generation low-mass stars.
132: \end{abstract}
133:
134: \begin{keywords}
135: globular clusters; chemical abundances; self-enrichment
136: \end{keywords}
137:
138: \section{Introduction}
139: \label{sec:intro}
140:
141: The observations of Globular Cluster (GC) stars are still to be interpreted in
142: a fully consistent frame. Nevertheless, a general consensus is emerging on
143: the fact that most GCs can not be considered any longer ``simple stellar
144: populations" (SSP), and that ``self--enrichment" is a common feature among
145: GCs. This consensus follows from the well known ``chemical anomalies'',
146: already noted in the seventies (such as the variations found in C and N abundances,
147: the Na--O and Mg--Al
148: anticorrelations). Recently observed to be present at the turnoff (TO) and
149: among the subgiants \citep[e.g.][]{gratton2001,briley2002, briley2004, cohen2005}, they
150: must be attributed to some process of ``self--enrichment" occurring at the
151: first stages of the cluster life,
152: %INSERT REFEREE
153: as the same authors quoted above suggest.
154: %END INSERT
155: There was a first epoch of star
156: formation that gave origin to the ``normal" (first generation, hereinafter FG)
157: stars, with CNO and other abundances similar to Population II field stars of
158: the same metallicity. Afterwards, there must have been some other epoch of
159: star formation (second generation, hereinafter SG), including material heavily
160: processed through the CNO cycle. This material either comes entirely from the
161: stars belonging to the first stellar generation, or it is a mixture of processed
162: gas and pristine matter of the initial star forming cloud. We can derive this
163: conclusion as a consequence of the fact that there is no appreciable
164: difference in the abundance of elements such as Ca and the heavier ones
165: between ``normal" and chemically anomalous stars belonging to the same
166: GC. Needless to say, this statement {\it does not} hold for $\omega$ Cen,
167: which must indeed be considered a small galaxy and not a typical GC. In the
168: following, we will only examine ``normal clusters", those which do not show
169: signs of metal enrichment due to supernova ejecta. The homogeneity in the
170: heavy elements is an important fact that tells us, e.g., that it is highly
171: improbable that the chemical anomalies are due to mixing of stars born in two
172: different clouds, as there is no reason why the two clouds should have a
173: unique metallicity. In addition, the clusters showing chemical anomalies have
174: a large variety in metallicities, making the suggestion of mixing of two
175: different clouds even more improbable. The matter must have been processed
176: through the hot CNO cycle, and not, or only marginally, through the helium
177: burning phases, since the sum of CNO elements is the same in the ``normal" and
178: in the anomalous stars \citep[e.g.][]{smith1996,ivans1999,cohenmelendez2005}.
179: \cite{carretta2005} find that
180: actually the CNO is somewhat --but not much-- larger in the SG
181: stars of some GCs. Therefore, the progenitors
182: may be either massive asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars \citep[e.g.][]{ventura2001,
183: ventura2002}\footnote{If the \cite{carretta2005} CNO data really
184: indicate that a limited number of third dredge up \citep[e.g.][]{ibenrenzini1983}
185: episodes plays a (small) role in the nuclear processing of the matter giving origin to the SG,
186: the massive AGB progenitors are possibly
187: favoured.} or fast rotating massive stars \citep{decressin2007}. In both cases, models
188: show that the ejected material must be enriched in helium with respect to the
189: pristine one. The higher helium content has been recognized to have
190: a strong effect on horizontal branch (HB) morphology, possibly helping to
191: explain some features (gaps, hot blue tails, second parameter) which,
192: until now, have defied explanation \citep{dantona2002}. Along these lines, a
193: variety of problems has been examined: the extreme peculiarity of the HB
194: morphology in the massive cluster NGC~2808, \citep{dantonacaloi2004}; the second
195: parameter effect in M~13 and M~3 \citep{caloi-dantona2005}; the peculiar
196: features in the RR Lyr variables and HB of NGC~6441 and NGC~6388
197: \citep{caloidantona2007}. The presence of strongly enhanced helium in peculiar
198: HB stars has been confirmed, for NGC 2808 and NGC 6441, by spectroscopic observations
199: \citep{moeler2004,busso2007}.
200:
201: Beside this spectroscopic evidence, an unexpected feature has recently
202: appeared from photometric data: the splitting of the main sequence in NGC
203: 2808. After first indications from a wider than expected colour distribution
204: \citep{dantona2005}, recent HST observations by \cite{piotto2007} leave no
205: doubt that there are at least three different populations in this
206: cluster. This came after the first discovery of a peculiar blue main sequence
207: in $\omega$~Cen \citep{bedin2004}, interpreted again in terms of a very high
208: helium content \citep{norris2004, piotto2005}.
209: The above mentioned cases can be considered as ``extreme'' ones, in the sense
210: that no explanation had been attempted for them before the hypothesis of
211: helium-enriched populations. Less critical situations, such as the HB
212: bimodality in NGC 1851 and 6229, had been tentatively explained in terms of a
213: unimodal mass distribution with a large mass dispersion (0.055 -- 0.10 \msun,
214: Catelan et al. 1998). But even such a rather artificial assumption could not
215: help in the case of NGC 2808, which, as hinted before, finds a possible solution
216: only in terms of varying helium in multiple stellar generations.
217: Therefore, we consider appropriate to apply to the less peculiar cases
218: the solution found plausible for the most peculiar ones. In fact, notice that
219: split main sequences and strong bimodalities are only the tip of
220: the iceberg of the self--enrichment phenomenon. In most clusters the higher
221: helium abundances remain confined below Y$\sim 0.30$, and the presence of such
222: stars would not be put in evidence either from main sequence observations
223: \citep{dantona2002,salaris2006}, or from a naif interpretation of stellar
224: counts on the HB, as we shall discuss in Sect. \ref{ngc6441}.
225:
226: If we wish to shed light on the entire process of
227: formation of GCs we must have a rough idea of the total number of SG stars.
228: We will then analyze the HB in terms of populations differing in Y, using one or
229: more of the following peculiar features:
230: \begin{enumerate}
231: \item bimodal HBs and HB gaps;
232: \item presence of blue HB stars and very long period RR Lyr's in high Z clusters;
233: \item peaked number vs. period distribution of RR Lyr's;
234: \item blue--HB clusters.
235: %\item presence --or not-- of extreme HB (EHB) stars and ``blue hook" stars
236: %\cite{sweigart1997,brown2001,cassisi2003}
237: \end{enumerate}
238: In this paper we show the results of such an interpretation for several GCs. We start
239: from a reanalyis of the NGC~2808 data, taking into account the results by
240: \cite{piotto2007} for the main sequence, and the ultraviolet HST data by
241: \cite{castellani2006}; we summarize the results already published and discuss
242: briefly the other clusters. The table of the derived FG and SG percentages is
243: the basis to discuss the clusters' dynamical evolution required to produce the
244: high fraction of stars presently belonging to the SG.
245:
246: \section{The basic model}\label{sec:2}
247:
248: Here we summarize why and how a helium enrichment modifies the HB morphology
249: \citep{dantona2002}, and the basic inputs of the HB and main sequence (MS) simulations adopted to
250: constrain the FG and SG.
251:
252: \subsection{Red giant mass, mass loss, and helium content}
253: \label{sec:2.1}
254: The evolving mass in a GC is a function of age, metallicity and helium content.
255: From the well defined turnoff of GCs, it is evident that any age spread must be
256: much smaller than the global age (10-13 Gyr). In addition, the metallicity
257: spread among cluster members are contained within $\sim 0.04$dex \footnote{
258: According to \cite{gratton-ar}: ``Low upper limits in the spread of the
259: abundances of Fe (of the order of 0.04 dex, r.m.s.) have been found for several
260: clusters from both spectroscopy and from the widths of main sequence (MS) and
261: red giant branch (RGB) stars in the colour magnitude diagrams CMDs (for summary
262: and discussion, see Suntzeff 1993). At present the verdict on Fe
263: variations in CGs except \ocen\ must remain `not proven'."}. Thus, once fixed
264: age and metallicity, the evolving mass is a function of the helium content
265: only, and it decreases when helium is increased. The dependence $\delta
266: M_{RG}/\delta Y \sim -1.3 \msun$\ is such that, e.g. the small increase in
267: helium content from the primordial value Y=0.24 to the moderately higher Y=0.28
268: decreases the evolving mass by $\sim$0.05\msun.
269:
270: During the latest phases of red
271: giant evolution, both normal and helium enhanced stars lose mass.
272: We assume that mass loss follows Reimers' law \citep{reimers1975}
273: \begin{equation}
274: \dot M_R=4 \cdot 10^{-13} \eta_R {LR\over M}
275: \end{equation}
276: where $\eta_R$ is a free parameter directly connected with the mass loss rate
277: and L, R and M are luminosity, mass and radius expressed in solar units.
278: %INSERT REFEREE
279: This expression has no explicit dependence on helium abundance or
280: metallicity. While the independence from the metallicity may be questioned,
281: the helium content, at the level of variation we are considering,
282: should not affect the mass loss rate, as helium
283: has no strong effect on surface opacities and possible grain formation.
284: %END REFEREE
285: It turns out that also the total mass lost by giants with different helium content and
286: similar age does not depend on the helium content. In
287: fact, we computed tracks of stars with different helium content, and having
288: different mass so that they have the same evolving age, and we find that {\it
289: the total mass lost} differs only by 0.001 -- 0.002\msun when the models reach
290: the helium flash. On the other hand, the helium core mass at the helium flash
291: depends on the helium content, decreasing with increasing helium, but at a much
292: smaller rate than the decrease of the red giant mass. Therefore, the ratio of
293: core mass to the remnant mass is larger for larger Y, and these stars will
294: occupy a position on the ZAHB at a bluer colour than stars with lower Y. This
295: means that, if the cluster contains stars of FG with ``standard" Y, and stars
296: of SG with larger Y, these latter will be ``bluer" than the FG stars.
297:
298: Assuming the point of view that the HB contains stars with different helium
299: content, the estimate of age and metallicity on the one side, and the HB
300: morphology on the other, will indicate which part of the HB population belongs
301: to the FG. This component should have a uniform helium content, probably close
302: to the Big Bang abundance \citep[e.g. Y$\sim$0.24][]{coc2004}. For the FG of the most
303: metal rich clusters we will assume a larger initial, uniform helium Y=0.25. On
304: the contrary, the SG will most probably show a spread in Y, for two main
305: reasons: the self--enriched material in fact 1) may come from different
306: progenitors, having different chemical peculiarities or 2) it may be diluted in
307: different fractions with matter from the FG. In both cases the helium abundance
308: may differ among the SG stars. Notice however that {\it if we have physical
309: reasons (e.g. based on one of the peculiarities listed in Sect.
310: \ref{sec:intro}) to attribute to a star a helium content larger than the helium
311: of the FG, we know that this star belongs to a SG, even if its Y is not much
312: larger.} Of course, the total amount of SG self--enriched gas differs if the
313: derived Y does, or does not, result from dilution with pristine matter.
314:
315: \subsection{The grids of HB models}
316: \label{sec:hb}
317: The basis of the synthetic HB distributions are stellar models computed with
318: the code ATON2.0, described in \cite{ventura1998} and \cite{mazzitelli1999}.
319: The HB models have been evolved until the disappearance of helium in the
320: convective core. We have adopted metallicity Z=2 $10^{-4}$ for the metal poor
321: GCs; Z=$10^{-3}$ and Z=2$\times 10^{-3}$\ for the intermediate metallicity
322: clusters, which represent the majority of data sets, and Z=6$\times 10^{-3}$\
323: for the high metallicity clusters. The helium core mass of the models
324: is set at the helium flash core mass of the previous evolution,
325: determined by evolving models for each couple (Z, Y) for an age of
326: 11$\times 10^9$yr. The metallicities of
327: individual clusters may be slightly different from those adopted here, but the main aim
328: ---to distinguish between normal--helium and enhanced--helium stars in the
329: construction of the HB--- can be satisfactorily achieved.
330: We will see that the ratios FG/SG are well defined from gross characteristics
331: of the HB, and not by minute details. We computed grids of models for Y=0.24,
332: 0.28, 0.32 and 0.40.
333:
334: We computed HB models up to \Teff$\sim$31000K, that is the usually accepted
335: limit for standard ZAHB models resulting from a He--flash occurring at the
336: red giant branch tip.
337:
338: These models can not explain the extreme ``blue hook" stars (T$_{\rm eff}$ up to $\sim$37000K)
339: present in $\omega$Cen, M54 \citep{rosenberg2004}, NGC6388 \citep{busso2007}
340: and NGC 2808 \citep{moeler2004}, and generally explained as a result of the mixing
341: of processed matter with the very small residual hydrogen envelope,
342: consequent to a late ignition of the helium flash, along the white dwarf cooling sequence
343: \citep{sweigart1997, brown2001}. Mixing raises the helium
344: (and carbon) abundance in the envelope \citep[see also][]{cassisi2003} and the
345: star settles at larger \Teff.
346: In addition, \cite{dantona2007} have suggested that deep mixing occurs, independently from
347: a late helium flash, along the RGB evolution of giants belonging to the very high helium population
348: (Y$\sim$0.35 -- 0.40) as deep mixing in this case is not forbidden by the molecular weight
349: discontinuity barrier. So, deep mixing may involve most of the very helium rich
350: stars, and increase, even considerably, their surface helium abundance\footnote{The hypothesis
351: of deep mixing is useful to increase the probability of obtaining extreme HB and blue hook stars. If
352: we use only the very late flash hypothesis, just a few stars could happen to have the
353: appropriate envelope mass, such that they do not ignite the flash on the RGB, or do not leave a He--white
354: dwarf remnant.}.
355:
356: In order to simulate the possible late--flash induced mixing (and any other kind of deep mixing),
357: for the set of Z=0.001 adopted to simulate the HB of NGC~2808,
358: we computed tracks of very low masses for Y=0.45, 0.50, 0.60, 0.70
359: and 0.80, having core mass M=0.4676\Msun, the helium core mass at the flash for the Y=0.40 models.
360:
361: \subsection{Main sequence and turnoff models}
362: For comparison with the main sequence colour distribution in NGC~2808 by
363: \cite{piotto2007}, we use the isochrones for Z=$10^{-3}$ and Y=0.24, 0.28, 0.32
364: and 0.40 described in \cite{dantona2005}.
365:
366: %content is approximated by:
367: %\begin{eqnarray}
368: %\log M_{RG}/M_{\odot} \simeq [-0.282+0.092(Y-0.24)]\times \log t \nonumber \\
369: % -1.693(Y-0.24)+2.768+12(Z-10^{-3})
370: %\label{eq1} %\end{eqnarray}
371:
372: \subsection{Simulations}
373: \label{sec:simul}
374: We adopt an appropriate relation between the mass of the evolving giant
375: $M_{RG}$ and the age, as function of helium content and metallicity.
376: The mass on the HB is then:
377: \begin{equation}
378: M_{HB} = M_{RG}(Y,Z) - \Delta M \label{eq2}
379: \end{equation}
380: $\Delta M$\ is the mass lost during the RG phase. We assume that $\Delta M$\
381: has a gaussian dispersion $\sigma$\ around an average value $\Delta M_0$\ and
382: that both $\Delta M_0$\ and $\sigma$\ are parameters to be determined and do
383: not depend on Y.\footnote{ A complication in the interpretation of HB
384: morphologies, not included in this work, arises if not only the helium
385: content between FG and SG varies, but {\it also the total CNO content}. This
386: additional problem comes out from the observations of NGC~1851 (see Sect. 3.2)
387: whose HR diagram shows a splitting in the subgiant branch \citep{milone2008}.
388: While \cite{cassisi2008} are able to explain this feature by assuming an SG
389: with about double CNO content, and same age as the FG (thus in the classical
390: self--enrichment scenario), the subsequent interpretation of the HB morphology
391: by \cite{salaris2008} can not be simply achieved by doubling the CNO, but it
392: requires some extra mass loss for the SG stars. Here, our main aim is to find out the
393: percentages of FG and SG, and this can be obtained also within the framework of
394: our simpler assumptions.} Therefore the HB mass varies both due to the mass
395: dispersion $\sigma$\ around the average assumed mass loss, and due to the
396: dependence of the RG mass on the helium content. As the evolving mass {\it
397: decreases} with increasing helium content, the stars with higher helium will
398: populate bluer regions of the HB. In each cluster, we must identify the FG
399: section of the HB (e.g., in NGC 2808 this is easily identified with the red
400: clump). Then we assume a primordial (Y=0.24) or a minimum (Y=0.25) helium content
401: for the fraction of HB stars considered to belong to the FG. This fraction can be
402: adjusted in order to reproduce the features we attribute to the FG (e.g., the
403: peaked RR Lyr period distribution in M3, see later). We then assume that the
404: rest of HB stars has larger Y, and adopt different N(Y) distributions in order
405: to reproduce the other parts of the HB number vs. colour distributions, when
406: available.
407:
408: We fix $\Delta M_0$\ and $\sigma$, and extract random both the mass loss and
409: the HB age in the interval from 10$^6$yr to 10$^8$yr, according to the chosen Y
410: distribution. We thus locate the luminosity and \Teff\ along the evolution of
411: the HB mass obtained. We identify the variable stars as belonging to a fixed
412: \Teff\ interval and compute their period according to the pulsation equation
413: (1) by \cite{dmc2004}. The results are very similar if we adopt the classic
414: \cite{va1973} relation. The real problem is given by the choice of the exact
415: boundaries of the RR Lyr strip, that affect strongly the number and mean period
416: of the RR Lyrae variables \citep[see, e.g., the discussion
417: in][]{caloidantona2008}.
418:
419: The L and \teff\ values are transformed into the different observational bands.
420: As most observations are available in the B and V bands, and/or in the
421: Bessell's I, we derive the visual magnitude M$_{\rm v}$ and the \BMV\ or \VMI\
422: colours, using the transformations by \cite{bessell-castelli-plez1998}. Although our main aim ---to
423: understand the different fractions of FG and SG stars--- is not affected by this
424: problem, we remark that the \BMV\ and \VMI\ colours saturate at large \teff. The
425: bolometric corrections become very large, so the number vs. magnitude
426: distribution may suffer some uncertainties, which can be avoided by using
427: different magnitudes, e.g. the ultraviolet HST bands. We exemplify such
428: comparisons for the case of the clusters NGC~2808 and M~13 in the Appendix A.
429: The transformations for the ACS -- HST bands are taken from \cite{bedincastelli2005}.
430: The WFPC2--HST relations are by \cite{origlia2000}, plus additional
431: transformations kindly provided by L. Origlia.
432:
433: We associate a gaussian spread in colour and magnitude to each point, in order
434: to simulate the impact of observational errors. We do not include binaries in
435: the simulations. We mostly compare the theoretical simulations and the
436: observations by looking at the number counts vs. colour in the horizontal part
437: of the HB (e.g. for the red part and the RR Lyr) or vs. magnitude, for the
438: vertical part, if the blue HB is very extended.
439:
440: \section{Bimodality and gaps in the HB}
441: \label{sec:bimodalhb}
442: There is a huge literature which has defined and attemped to understand the gaps
443: on the blue side of the HB \citep[see, e.g. ][and references therein]{ferraro1998, piotto1999}.
444: While a gap at \teff$\sim 10^4$K should probably be attributed to the operation
445: of diffusion \citep{glaspey1989, grundahl1999,caloi1999}, other gaps may have to do
446: with discontinuities in the helium content \citep{dantona2005,lee2005}. In particular, a
447: bimodal distribution in colour characterizes the HB of some clusters, that have well populated blue
448: and red sides of the HB, with limited or null population of RR Lyr variables. NGC~2808 is a
449: prototype of this class, and \cite{catelan1998} were not able to interpret it in
450: terms of a unique mass distribution, even with a mass spread as large as 0.3\msun.
451: A multimodal mass distribution was then required to explain this HB.
452:
453: The HB bimodality in NGC~2808 was the main hint used by \cite{dantonacaloi2004}
454: to infer the presence of multiple stellar generations differing in Y in the
455: cluster, an interpretation nicely supported by the subsequent observation of
456: the main sequence splitting \citep{dantona2005, piotto2007}. In addition, in
457: this cluster are found the still misterious ``blue hook" stars. So NGC~2808
458: appears as an ideal benchmark for the application of the multiple population
459: hypothesis. We summarize in the following our present understanding
460: of its modeling, and extend it to other situations.
461:
462: \subsection{NGC 2808}
463:
464: If age, metallicity and mass loss are such that normal--helium, FG stars,
465: populate a red clump, the SG stars with helium enhancement will tend to
466: populate the bluer HB and the RR Lyr region. If there is a gap between the
467: normal--helium stars and the {\it minimum} helium content of the second
468: generation, the case of NGC~2808 may appear: a red clump (FG), almost no RR Lyr
469: (due to the helium gap) and a blue HB with larger helium content \citep[starting from
470: Y$\sim 0.28$\ according to ][]{dantonacaloi2004, dantona2005}. In those
471: papers, we had modelled the mass loss along the RG branch by assuming that the
472: larger Y would provoke a slightly larger global mass loss, as the evolving
473: giants with higher Y are less massive, and thus have smaller gravity
474: \citep[see, e.g.][]{lee1994}. We have ascertained that this is not the case
475: (Sect. \ref{sec:2.1}), so the HB has to be modeled by assuming the same average
476: mass loss for both normal Y and higher Y red giants. In addition, we try to
477: model better the EBT2 and EBT3 \citep[in the definition by][]{bedin2004} blue
478: clumps, which contain the extreme HB \citep{dcruz2000,brown2001} and the
479: ``blue hook" stars \citep{moeler2004}, respectively, and compare also
480: simulations based on HST ultraviolet and visual bands. The details can be found
481: in the Appendix. We show that the new simulations are consistent with both the
482: triple MS by \cite{piotto2007} and the HB star distribution. The main
483: difference with respect to the analysis by \cite{dantona2005} is that the
484: intermediate Y population is now clustered at Y$\sim$0.31. The cluster again
485: results divided into 50\% normal--helium stars, and 50\% helium enriched stars,
486: although the very high helium (Y$\sim$0.385) stars are only $\sim$15\%.
487:
488: \subsection{NGC 1851, NGC 6229}
489:
490: Following the guidelines mentioned in Sect. \ref{sec:intro}, we take the point
491: of view of interpreting clusters with a bimodal HB in terms of multiple
492: populations, as in the ``paradigmatic'' case of NGC~2808. \cite{catelan1998}
493: and \cite{borissova1999} describe the complex HB structure of the
494: cluster NGC~1851 and NGC~6229, respectively: bimodal, with few RR Lyr variables, a gap on the
495: blue HB and possibly some extreme blue HB members, at the luminosity of the
496: turn--off. In NGC~6229, the number ratio of the red, variable and blue HB
497: components are: B:V:R=0.59:0.08:0.33. The RR Lyr average period is of the OoI
498: type. We assume therefore that the RR variables belong to the first generation,
499: since they have the period appropriate to the metal and helium content expected
500: for these stars. So we expect that roughly 41\% of cluster members belong to
501: the first generation and 59\% to the second, helium--enriched one. The extra--
502: helium allows these latter stars to reach the bluer positions beyond the
503: variable region, to which they should have been confined by a chemical
504: composition of Y$\sim$0.24 and Z$\sim$0.001. (See later the case of M3). Of course, not
505: all the helium--enhanced stars will be found on the blue, and vice--versa, but
506: the distribution will be substantially the one mentioned above.
507:
508: Similarly, for NGC~1851 we have: B:V:R:=0.30:0.10:0.60 \citep{catelan1998}, or
509: B:V:R$\sim$0.32;0.12;0.56 \citep{walker1998}. In this case the RR~Lyr are again
510: Oosterhoff type I, but their periods are longer, so that the variables may
511: belong to the SG. Recently, this latter cluster has been discovered to harbour
512: a double subgiant branch \citep{milone2008}, that can be interpreted as the
513: presence of an FG and SG with different total CNO abundances and same age
514: \citep{cassisi2008}. The ``bright" subgiant branch contains 55$\pm$5\% of stars
515: \citep{milone2008} and may correspond to the red part of the HB. Thus the FG
516: should contain $\sim$55\% of the total cluster stars. As we already remarked,
517: \cite{salaris2008} analyze the HB stellar distribution, and are not able to fit
518: the blue and red side of the HB with different helium (and CNO-Na abundances)
519: and the same mass loss on the RGB. While modelling of this HB may require a
520: database of HB tracks computed with different Y and different compositions
521: in CNO, for our present purposes it is sufficient to see that the
522: consistent bimodality of both the SGB and HB indicate the presence of an FG and
523: SG, with the given proportions.
524:
525: \section{Clusters with high metallicity and peculiar HB}
526: \subsection{NGC 6441 and NGC 6388}
527: \label{ngc6441}
528:
529: The case of the high metallicity cluster NGC~6441 has been fully discussed by
530: \cite{caloidantona2007}, who showed that very helium rich stars {\it are also
531: present among the red clump stars}. The analysis is able to explain not only
532: the anomalous long periods of the RR Lyr \citep{pritzl2003}, but also the
533: extension in magnitude of the red clump (any attempt to attribute this
534: thickness to differential reddening has failed ---\cite{raimondo2002}), and the
535: hot blue side of the HB. Therefore, the morphology requires helium enrichment
536: not only for the bluer side of the HB, as we could naively think, but even
537: for the red clump stars. The physical reasons for this
538: interpretation is the following: helium core burning stars having high Y and Z
539: make long loops from red to blue in the HB \citep{sweigart-gross1976}. In fact,
540: both the higher mean molecular weight --leading to a high H--burning shell
541: temperature-- and the high metallicity --leading to a stronger CNO shell--
542: conspire towards the result that the H--shell energy source prevails with
543: respect to the He--core burning. The consequent growth of the helium core
544: leads the evolution towards the blue. Therefore, if we must explain the luminous
545: (long period) RR Lyr by stars having high helium, the same stars will also
546: populate the red clump: this is exactly what we observe: if the helium content
547: is not as large as Y$\sim 0.35$\ {\it in the red clump}, the HB finds no
548: satisfactory explanation. The percentage of helium enriched stars is in this
549: case $\sim$60\% for NGC 6441.
550:
551: We performed a similar analysis for NGC~6388 (see Fig.~1). The main
552: difference among the two clusters is that NGC~6388 seems to have a higher tail
553: of very high helium (Y$>$0.35) stars, reaching $\sim$20\%.
554: \begin{figure}
555: \centering \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1.eps}
556: \caption{Synthetic HB simulation for NGC~6388. A similar analysis for NGC~6441
557: is shown in Caloi \& D'Antona (2007). The HB data are taken from Piotto et al. (2002).
558: In black we have the observations, while red and blue are the simulated stars.
559: In red are the Y=0.25 stars, in blue those with Y$>$0.25 for a total of 1300 stars.
560: The observed clump distribution (full line histogram) is shown on the right,
561: superimposed to the theoretical distribution (dash--dotted
562: histogram). The bottom panel shows the number vs. helium
563: distributions assumed for the simulation. The number of stars with primordial
564: helium Y=0.25, N(0.25), is indicated in the label.}
565: \label{fig1}
566: \end{figure}
567: %
568:
569: There are other analyses for these clusters in the literature: \cite{busso2007}
570: consider as peculiar only the blue HB stars. This would limit the SG to $\sim
571: 15$\%. Also \cite{yoon2008} attribute the presence of a SG to the RR Lyr
572: and hotter stars only. They seem to be able to obtain the RR Lyr long periods with
573: only Y$\sim$0.3, but we have no details about their models to understand this
574: difference. Our models require Y up to $\sim$0.35 to fit the long periods of
575: the RR Lyr, but, as explained above, this high Y also helps to reproduce a
576: thickness $>0.7$mag of the red clump. On the other hand, \cite{yoon2008}
577: attribute the thickness of the red clump to differential reddening, a
578: hypothesis in contrast with the data analysis by \cite{raimondo2002}.
579:
580: \subsection{47 Tuc}
581: In 47~Tuc, the prototype of metallic GCs, the red clump is much less thick in
582: magnitude than in the two anomalous clusters above. In Fig.~2 we show the
583: histograms of the number of stars in the red clump of NGC~6441, NGC~6388 and
584: 47~Tuc versus magnitude. The magnitudes have been normalized so that the peak
585: in the distribution coincides for all the clusters. The ``thickness" in
586: magnitude of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 is larger than for 47 Tuc. The excess
587: of stars at smaller luminosities below the maximum is probably due to the
588: larger observational errors, but the (asymmetric) excess at higher luminosities
589: is most easily interpreted as due to stars with helium much higher than normal.
590: Based on this feature only, we infer that the 47~Tuc SG should not be larger
591: than $\sim$25\% of the stars. Observations show that CN strong and CN weak
592: stars in the cluster are about in similar percentages \citep{briley2004}, and
593: if these two groups are to be interpreted as FG and SG, we have a
594: contradiction. An escape from this problem can be found if the first stellar
595: generation in 47~Tuc has a larger initial helium content \citep{salaris1998}.
596:
597: \begin{figure}
598: \centering
599: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2.eps}
600: \caption{Plot of the observed number of stars versus magnitude for the red horizontal branch
601: of three metal rich clusters: NGC 6441 (dots), NGC 6388 (full line), and 47 Tuc
602: (dashed line). See text for the interpetation.
603: }
604: \label{fig2}
605: \end{figure}
606:
607: \begin{table*}
608: \caption{Helium history of clusters}
609: \smallskip
610: \begin{center}
611: {\small
612: \begin{tabular}{l|cc|cc|cc|cc}
613: \hline
614: \noalign{\smallskip}
615: Name & \multicolumn{2}{c}{FG}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{SG}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Extreme pop.}
616: & Data & Interpretation \\\hline
617: & Y & \% & Y & \% & Y & \% && \\
618: \noalign{\smallskip}
619: \hline
620: \noalign{\smallskip}
621: \noalign{\smallskip}
622: \multicolumn{5}{l}{Bimodal HB (and gaps). Blue MS} &&&&\\
623: \noalign{\smallskip}
624: \hline
625: $\omega$Cen & 0.24 & ? & & ? & $\sim$0.38 & $\sim$20 -- 25 & 1 & 2 \\
626: NGC 2808 & 0.24 & 50 & 0.30-0.32 & 35& $\sim$0.38 & 15 & 3, 4 & 5, 6, this paper \\
627: NGC 1851 & 0.24 & 65 & ? & 35 &&& 7, 8 & 9, this paper\\
628: NGC 6229 & 0.24 & 40 & $>$0.30 & 60 &&& 7, 10 & this paper\\
629: \hline
630: \noalign{\smallskip}
631: \noalign{\smallskip}
632: \multicolumn{5}{l}{High Z -- Anomalous HB} &&& &\\
633: \noalign{\smallskip}
634: \hline
635: NGC 6441 & 0.25 & 38 & 0.27-0.35 &48& $>$0.35 &14 & 11, 12, 14 & 13, 14 \\
636: NGC 6388 & 0.25 & 39 & 0.27-0.35& 41 & $>$0.35 & 20 & 11, 14, 15 & 14, this paper\\
637: 47 Tuc & 0.25 &75 (?) & 0.27-.32 &25 (?) && & 11 & this paper \\
638: 47 Tuc & 0.27 &50 (?) & 0.29-.32 &50 (?) && & 16 & 17, this paper \\
639: \hline
640: \noalign{\smallskip}
641: \noalign{\smallskip}
642: \multicolumn{5}{l}{Peaked distribution of RR~Lyr's periods} &&& \\
643: \noalign{\smallskip}
644: \hline
645: M3 & 0.24 & 50 & .26--.28 & 50 &&& 18, 19 & 20 \\
646: M5 & 0.24 & 30 & .26--.31 & 70 &&& 21 & this paper \\
647: NGC 3201& 0.24 & 63 & .26 - 0.28 & 37 &&& 22 & this paper\\
648: NGC 7006& 0.24 & 72 & 0.25 - 0.275 & 28 &&& 23 & this paper\\
649: M68 & 0.24 & 45 & 0.26 - 0.28 & 55 &&& 24 & this paper\\
650: M15 & 0.24 & 20 & 0.26 - 0.30 & 80 &&& 25 & this paper\\
651: \hline
652: \noalign{\smallskip}
653: \noalign{\smallskip}
654: \multicolumn{5}{l}{ Blue--HB clusters } &&& \\
655: \noalign{\smallskip}
656: \hline
657: M53 & 0.24 & 0? & 0.27--0.29? & 100 &&& 26, 27 & this paper\\
658: M13 & 0.24 & 0? & 0.27--0.35 & 70 & $\sim$0.38 & 30 & 28 & 29, this paper\\
659: NGC 6397 & 0.24 & 0? & 0.28 (?) & 100 & && 30, 31, 32 & this paper\\
660: \noalign{\smallskip}
661: \hline
662: \end{tabular}}
663: \end{center}
664: \medskip
665: (1)\cite{bedin2004}, \cite{piotto2005}; (2) \cite{norris2004}; (3) \cite{bedin2000,castellani2006};
666: (4) \cite{piotto2007}; (5) \cite{dantonacaloi2004, dantona2005}; (6) \cite{lee2005};
667: (7) \cite{catelan1998, walker1998}; (8) \cite{milone2008}; (9) \cite{cassisi2008, salaris2008};
668: (10) \cite{borissova1999}; (11) \cite{piotto2002}; (12) \cite{pritzl2003};
669: (13) \cite{caloidantona2007}; (14) \cite{busso2007}; (15) \cite{pritzl2002};
670: (16) \cite{briley2004}; (17) \cite{salaris1998};
671: (18) \cite{cc2001}; (19) \cite{ferraro1997, buonanno1994}; (20) \cite{caloidantona2008}
672: (21) \cite{sandquist2004} (22) \cite{layden2003, piersimoni2002}
673: (23) \cite{wehlau1999}; (24) \cite{walker1994}; (25) \cite{clement2001};
674: (26) \cite{rey1998}; (27) \cite{martell2008}; (28) \cite{ferraro1998};
675: (29) \cite{caloi-dantona2005}; (30) \cite{kaluzny1997}; (31) \cite{king1998,richer2006}; (32) \cite{carretta2005,
676: bonifacio2002, pasquini2008}
677: \cite{caloidantona2008}
678: \label{table1}
679: \end{table*}
680:
681: \section{The peaked period distribution of RR Lyr stars}
682:
683: The prototype of HBs has often been considered the HB of the cluster M3: it is
684: well populated both in the red part, in the RR Lyr's and in the blue side,
685: without a blue tail. The HB distribution among red, variable and blue members
686: can be reproduced by assuming an average mass loss along the RGB, with a
687: standard deviation $\sigma \sim 0.025$\Msun.
688:
689: \begin{figure*}
690: \centering
691: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3a.eps}
692: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3b.eps}
693: \caption{In the left figure we plot the number of RR Lyr vs. pulsation period for NGC~3201
694: from two different databases: dashed line, by Layden et al. 2003,
695: and dotted by Piersimoni et al. 2002. We also plot the period distribution for M~3
696: \citep[full line][]{cc2001}, but these data have been divided by a factor two, in order to
697: allow an easy comparison with NGC~3201. In spite of the different total numbers,
698: the distributions are very similar. On the right we plot the NGC~3201
699: period distribution by Piersimoni et al. (dotted) and its simulation (full line),
700: discussed in the text.
701: }
702: \label{fig3}
703: \end{figure*}
704:
705: However, there are two important facts to be mentioned: i) the detailed colour
706: distribution along the HB is by no means uniform, and ii) the RR Lyr period
707: distribution appears strongly peaked, a feature that cannot be understood in
708: terms of a more or less uniform mass distribution \citep{castorn1981, rood1989,catelan2004,
709: castellani2005}. We have examined in detail this case \citep{caloidantona2008}; since there are
710: several other clusters showing the same problem, we summarize the main points
711: of the model for M3 and extend the interpretation to other clusters.
712:
713:
714: \begin{figure*}
715: \centering
716: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f4a.eps}
717: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f4b.eps}
718: \caption{Period distribution fits for M~68 (left) and M~15 (right). Dotted histograms
719: show the observed data, full line histograms are the simulations.}
720: \label{fig4}
721: \end{figure*}
722:
723: \subsection{The period distribution of M~3}
724: As said before, the RR Lyr period distribution in M~3 is highly peaked (see
725: Figure 3, left side, full line histogram). \cite{castellani2005} realized that
726: the only way to reproduce this peak was to reduce the dispersion in the mass
727: lost in the RGB. Once obtained the correct distribution with a given recipe for the
728: mass loss, the authors had to assume a different average mass loss, with a
729: different dispersion, to account for the blue side of the HB. In the hypothesis
730: of multiple helium enhancements, the blue side is naturally populated by helium
731: rich stars, as shown by \cite{caloidantona2008}. In the simulations, we can
732: explain both the period distribution and the colour distribution along the HB
733: for the red, variable and blue regions. The analysis however poses another problem: we
734: find that the dispersion in mass loss along the RGB must be at
735: most $\sigma \sim 0.003$\Msun\ to be consistent with the period distribution.
736: The question remains whether this small dispersion is peculiar to M~3, or
737: rather we have always been misled by the overall reproduction of the HB
738: morphology, for which previous simulations (at constant Y) needed a dispersion in mass loss of
739: some hundreths of \Msun, as quoted before.
740:
741:
742: \subsection{NGC 3201, NGC~7006, M5}
743: We examined NGC~3201 according to the same scheme used for M~3, on the basis of
744: the data by \cite{layden2003} and \cite{piersimoni2002}. Unfortunately, the
745: cluster is affected by differential reddening \citep[][ and references
746: therein]{vbmateo2001}. While it is possible to perform reddening estimates for
747: the single RR Lyrae variables (Sturch 1966, Blanco 1992; see Layden \&
748: Sarajedini 2003), the same is not so easy for non variable stars. In fact, when
749: we tried to reconstruct the colour distribution on the HB, we found many non
750: variable stars in the variable region. Therefore we did not attempt to
751: reproduce the detailed colour distribution as we did for M~3, but only the RR
752: Lyr period distribution and the overall division among red, variable and blue
753: members.
754:
755: We compared the period distributions in M~3 and in
756: NGC~3201, using both the data by Piersimoni et al. and Layden \&
757: Sarajedini. Notwithstanding the large difference in the total numbers of
758: variables with an established period (more than 200 variables in M~3, slightly
759: more than 50 in NGC~3201), one finds a strong similarity in the period
760: distributions (see Fig. \ref{fig3}, left side). So we have again a peaked distribution,
761: and even a dip at the same period! Therefore the NGC~3201
762: solution is quite similar to the one for M~3. Our best simulations give 37\% of
763: HB members with helium enhanced from Y=0.26 to 0.28, that is,
764: coincident with the percentage of the blue HB stars. The mass dispersion optimum
765: is even smaller than in M3 ($\sigma \sim$ 0.0015 \msun). The period simulation
766: is shown (full line histogram) in the right side of Fig. \ref{fig3}.
767:
768: What said for NGC~3201 can be repeated for NGC~7006, whose RR Lyrs show again
769: a peaked period distribution \citep{wehlau1999}. Given the morphology of the
770: HB, composed mainly by red and variable stars, the required percent of helium
771: enhanced objects is of about 27\%, up to Y about 0.27.
772:
773: The case of M~5 (NGC~5904) appears less simple, since the RR Lyrs period
774: distribution presents two peaks. We can only approximate this distribution,
775: while we succeed in reproducing the detailed colour distribution along the HB
776: given by \cite{sandquist2004}. Within these limits, we estimate 70\% of
777: SG stars, up to a helium content of about 0.31 (we remind that M5 has more
778: blue HB members than M~3, with the peak of population in the blue).
779:
780: \subsection{Very metal poor clusters: M~15 and M~68}
781:
782: A very good fit of the RR Lyr peaked period distribution in M~15 and
783: M~68 is obtained with the
784: same method adopted for M~3, but obviously using the tracks of metallicity
785: Z=2$\times 10 ^{-4}$, adequate to describe these two clusters. The resulting
786: period distributions are in Fig. \ref{fig4}. We must say that the fit of HR
787: diagram, on the contrary, is much less successful than for the other clusters
788: we have analyzed so far. The discrepancy is the following: the blue part of the
789: HB in the simulations is achieved with Y in the range 0.26--0.28 for M~68, and
790: 0.26--0.30 for M~15, but the luminosity of the blue side is too large with respect
791: to the data. We suggest that helium is not the only parameter varying in these clusters,
792: and that also the total CNO abundance should be varied, giving origin to
793: a more complex description, still to be explored (see, e.g., the problem of NGC~1851
794: described above).
795:
796: \section{The ``Blue--HB" clusters }
797:
798: A specially intriguing case is presented by the clusters with a prevalently
799: blue HB, that is, with a HB type 1 -- 2
800: \citep{dickens1972}. Almost -- if not all -- of them fall in
801: the category of the classical ``second parameter'' problem. A fact that is
802: not always considered as it deserves is that these clusters represent {\it
803: the majority} of the population of the intermediate metallicity GCs
804: \citep[][]{alcaino1999}. So these clusters are not an exception, but rather
805: the rule, that is, the most common result of the GC formation process. We
806: shall examine some of these cases.
807:
808:
809: \subsection{M~13: multiple populations, but all belonging the SG?}
810:
811: We analysed in detail the case of M~13, finding substantial support to the
812: hypothesis that only the second star generation has survived in the cluster.
813: This conclusion was reached on the basis of the relative positions of the turn--off,
814: the red giant bump and the horizontal branch \citep{caloi-dantona2005}.
815: This result, if confirmed, would be the first direct evidence for the presence
816: of a substantial helium enhancement in GC stars. In the Appendix B we present
817: a detailed analysis of the HB of this cluster, in the HST plane F555 vs. F336-
818: F555 from \cite{ferraro1998}. The helium distribution is compared with the one
819: necessary to reproduce the blue HB of NGC~2808, with the same assumption on
820: age, metallicity and mass loss on the RGB. The comparison shows that M~13 stars have a
821: shallower distribution in helium, but may have a peak at Y$\sim$0.28, and a similar peak at Y$\sim$0.38.
822: In addition, {\it it completely lacks the red clump stars, that is the FG stars}.
823: In the \cite{ferraro1998} sample we use, there is a total of 221 HB stars,
824: populating the upper, medium and low luminosity blue HB. According to the chosen
825: simulation, a fraction 40\% of stars has Y=0.28-0.29, another 30\% has
826: Y$\sim$0.31--0.35, while the low HB is reproduced by taking $\sim$30\% of stars
827: at Y=0.38. Thus the group of stars mostly contributing to the RG bump
828: is that at Y=0.28--0.29, as suggested in \cite{caloi-dantona2005}. The conclusion is
829: that in M~13 there are multiple populations, but, according to this interpretation of the
830: data, they all belong to the SG!
831:
832: %INSERT REFEREE
833: On the other hand, several observations show the existence of chemically normal M~13 members,
834: for example in Na abundance \citep[e.g.][]{pilach1996} and in C and N abundances
835: \citep[e.g.][]{briley2004}. However, if the Y$\sim$0.28 population is the result of
836: the dilution of pristine cluster matter (Y=0.24) with highly Y enriched matter (Y$\simgt$0.34),
837: as envisaged in many formation scenarios \citep{decressin2007,ventura2008b,dercole2008},
838: not necessarily the main chemical anomaly indicators will assume values noticeably
839: different from those of the FG stars.
840: %INSERT END
841:
842: The analysis of the relative positions of the turn--off, the red giant bump and
843: the HB could not be performed on other blue--HB clusters, due to the lack of a
844: consistent photometry for these features. Clearly a possibility is that in all
845: the clusters of this group most of the first generation stars have been lost.
846: There are contradictory spectroscopic indications in favour or against this hypothesis.
847: In the cluster
848: NGC~6752, out of nine dwarfs and nine subgiants analyzed by
849: \cite{carretta2005}, only one (subgiant) has a normal nitrogen content, all the
850: others are substantially N--enriched ([N/Fe]$\sim 1 - 1.7$. The recent
851: new data by \cite{yong2008}, on the contrary, contain also nitrogen
852: normal stars. This cluster could be similar to M13, also in
853: having a very helium rich population producing the extreme HB stars.
854:
855: \subsection{NGC~6397, M53: apparently SSPs, but possibly SG--SSP?}
856:
857: Notice that NGC~6397 has [Fe/H]=--2 \citep{gratton2001} and so is not an
858: intermediate metallicity cluster.
859: It has a short blue HB, lacking
860: extreme HB and blue hook stars, and its HR diagram has always been regarded as a
861: perfect example of SSP, especially following the exceedingly refined HST proper
862: motion selected observations by \cite{king1998} and \cite{richer2006}. Nevertheless,
863: only three subgiants out of 14 stars
864: are nitrogen normal \citep{carretta2005}, leading us to suspect
865: that the material from which these stars formed is CNO processed and thus of
866: SG. This occurrence had already been
867: noticed in \cite{bonifacio2002}, with reference to the paradox that nitrogen
868: rich stars had almost--normal lithium content \citep[see also][]{pasquini2008}.
869:
870: The above considerations lead naturally to the question: the simple population
871: GC -- one chemical composition, one age, of which one used to speculate until
872: very recently -- does it exist? We are inclined to give a negative answer. Let
873: us consider the observations by \cite{liburstein2003}, who took integrated
874: spectra of eight galactic GCs, ranging in metallicity from [Fe/H]$\simlt -2$\
875: to [Fe/H]$\sim -0.8$, and showing a variety of HB morphologies (the clusters
876: are: M~15, M~92, M~53, M~2, M~3, M~13, M~5, M~71). All these cluster show a
877: substantial N--enhancement with respect to field stars of the same metallicity.
878: Since we are dealing with integrated spectra, the result can not be directly
879: interpreted in terms of percentage of second generation stars, that would be
880: composed by nitrogen rich (CN or CNO cycled) matter. Nevertheless, the N--
881: excess with respect to the field is a clear indication that {\it at least} a
882: certain amount of stellar matter is not the original one, in all the eight GCs
883: quoted above.
884:
885: The case of M~53 presents some interesting features. It is a very metal poor
886: ([Fe/H] $\sim -2$, Zinn 1985, Harris 2003), massive cluster (M$_{\rm v}= -8.70$~mag).
887: Out of a total of 307 observed HB members \citep{rey1998}, 257 are located blueward
888: of, 35 within, and 12 redward of the RR Lyr instability strip, the bluest stars
889: being located at (B-V) $\sim$ -0.08. Three stars appear separated at bluer
890: colours. So, the HB has a very short extension in colour, with most of its
891: members concentrated at (B-V) $\sim$ 0.05. This star distribution is unique
892: among very metal poor GCs -- see, f.e., Table 13 in \cite{walker1994}.
893: In fact: in M~15, a massive and high central density cluster, the 155 HB
894: members are distributed from redward of the RR Lyrs to very blue colours and
895: low visual luminosity, reaching the TO magnitude; M~68, a relatively small and
896: not very concentrated cluster, exhibits a short HB from the red region to about
897: (B-V) $\sim$ -0.1 mag, with almost equal numbers of blue on the one side, and
898: red and variable stars, on the other.
899:
900: The extraordinary star concentration in a small colour interval suggests that
901: the largest part of the HB population in M~53 can be obtained assuming a
902: dispersion in the mass loss of $\sim$ 0.01 \Msun; a more precise photometry
903: could give more stringent limits to the dispersion. On this basis, M~53 would
904: appear a good candidate for a ``normal'', first--generation--only cluster, but
905: for the N--enhancement and the the (mild) intrinsic spread in CN bandstrength
906: \citep{martell2008}. These chemical properties suggest that we are
907: likely dealing with a one-generation cluster, but one in which the star
908: generation we observe is the {\it second} one, and not the first.
909:
910: Of course a final answer to the initial question will have to wait the
911: investigation of the whole body of Galactic GCs, but since now secondary
912: episodes of star formation appear widespread and crucial for building--up the
913: clusters themselves.
914:
915: \section{Conclusions: how did the GCs form?}
916:
917: In all GCs examined in this work, a large fraction of the stellar population
918: takes origin from secondary star formation episodes. Notice that we have examined
919: only a fraction of the clusters with HB morphology or RR Lyr period distributions similar to those
920: described here, so that we can suggest that the results of this work probably hold
921: for a larger population of Galactic GCs. While the most massive
922: clusters have extreme helium enhancements, also moderately massive clusters
923: show a considerable degree of helium variation.
924:
925: We reached our goals by examining in detail GCs that have unexplained features in their HBs,
926: and extending the results to clusters with similar features.
927: The HB morphology is one of the important
928: features: clusters having a bimodal or multimodal HB are most easily interpreted by
929: the coexistence of multiple generations with different helium content.
930: Also a unique SG, whose
931: stars had different degrees of mixing with pristine matter and thus ended up with different helium
932: contents, is a possible solution. In any case, the extreme helium rich populations
933: (in \ocen\ and
934: NGC~2808 at least) are neatly separated from the other MS stars so that they should have
935: a well defined independent origin.
936:
937: Further, we used the period distribution of
938: RR Lyrs in several clusters in order to reject the hypothesis of a unique Y value
939: with a relatively large
940: spread of mass loss on the RGB, that has been the standard way of interpreting the whole HB colour
941: extension, but is inconsistent with most period distributions.
942:
943: We re--examined in detail the HB distribution in NGC~2808, and obtained a helium distribution
944: consistent with the main sequence recent data by \cite{piotto2007}. Also the UV data
945: of this cluster find a good interpretation in terms of population with varying helium content,
946: if we make the further hypothesis of deep mixing to understand the location of the blue hook
947: stars. We also show that simulation of M~13 UV data is well explained with populations having
948: different helium.
949:
950: After this analysis, then, we must face the problem that the SG formation is not a peculiarity of
951: a few very massive clusters, but must be the normal way in which a GC is formed in our Galaxy.
952: It is almost obvious, and has often been discussed in the literature, that the
953: ejecta of a unique first stellar generation with a normal initial mass function
954: (IMF) can not produce enough mass to give origin to such a large fraction of
955: second generation stars (see, e.g., the case made by Bekki and Norris (2004),
956: for the blue main sequence of $\omega$Cen).
957: The only solution to the IMF problem is that {\it the starting initial mass from which
958: the first generation is born was much larger than today first generation
959: remnant mass} (at least a factor 10 to 20 larger), so that the processed ejecta
960: of the first generation provide enough mass to build up the second one.
961: There are two possible ways of producing this result:
962: the first possibility is that all these GCs formed
963: within a dwarf galaxy environment \citep{bekki2006,bekki2007}. There, GCs may be formed
964: by mixing of pristine gas with the winds of the very numerous massive AGB stars
965: evolving in the field of the dwarf galaxy,
966: and later on the dwarf galaxy is dynamically destroyed.
967: A second possibility has been recently suggested by \cite{dercole2008}.
968: They show that the SG stars are preferentially born in the inner core
969: of a FG cluster, where a cooling flow collects the gas
970: lost by the FG stars. The massive stars that explode as SN~II were
971: preferentially concentrated in the cluster core. After the mass loss due to the
972: supernovae type II explosions, the cluster expands, and begins losing the stars ---mainly
973: of FG--- going out of the tidal radius. Thus the cluster may
974: be destroyed, unless the gas lost by the most massive AGB
975: stars begins collecting in the core and forms the SG, that initially does not take part in the
976: cluster expansion.
977: The study of the cluster dynamical evolution, followed by means of
978: N-body simulations, shows that the cluster preferentially loses FG
979: stars; these simulations show that high SG/FG number ratio can be
980: achieved and SG-dominated clusters may survive.
981:
982: \section{Acknowledgments}
983: Many colleagues contributed to this analysis in several ways: we thank G. Bono
984: for the HST UV data for NGC~2808, and F. Ferraro for the M~13 HST data.
985: S. Cassisi helped by providing the colour transformations. Conversations and a long
986: collaboration with A. D'Ercole and E. Vesperini convinced one of us (FD) that the
987: SG is a necessary ingredient for the survival of globular clusters.
988:
989: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
990: \bibitem[Alca{\'{\i}}no et al.(1999)]{alcaino1999} Alca{\'{\i}}no, G., Liller, W.,
991: Alvarado, F., Mironov, A., Ipatov, A., Piskunov, A.,
992: Samus, N., \& Smirnov, O.\ 1999, \aaps, 136, 461
993:
994: \bibitem[Bedin et al. (2000)]{bedin2000}
995: Bedin, L.~R., Piotto, G., Zoccali, M., Stetson, P.~B., Saviane, I., Cassisi,
996: S., \& Bono, G.\ 2000, A\&A, 363, 159
997:
998: \bibitem[\protect\astroncite{Bedin et al.}{2004}]{bedin2004}
999: Bedin, L.~R., Piotto, G.,
1000: Anderson, J., Cassisi, S., King, I.~R., Momany, Y., \& Carraro, G.\ 2004,
1001: ApJ Letters, 605, L125
1002:
1003: \bibitem[Bedin et al.(2005)]{bedincastelli2005} Bedin, L.~R., Cassisi,
1004: S., Castelli, F., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Salaris, M., Momany, Y.,
1005: \& Pietrinferni, A.\ 2005, \mnras, 357, 1038
1006:
1007: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bekki \& Norris}{2006}]{bekki2006}
1008: Bekki, K., \& Norris, J.~E.~2006, ApJ, 637, L109
1009:
1010: \bibitem[Bekki et al.(2007)]{bekki2007} Bekki, K., Campbell,
1011: S.~W., Lattanzio, J.~C., \& Norris, J.~E.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 335
1012:
1013: \bibitem[Bessell, Castelli, \& Plez(1998)]{bessell-castelli-plez1998}
1014: Bessell, M.~S., Castelli, F., \& Plez, B.\ 1998, \aap, 333, 231
1015:
1016: \bibitem[Blanco(1992)]{blanco1992} Blanco, V.~M.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 734
1017:
1018: \bibitem[Bonifacio et al.(2002)]{bonifacio2002} Bonifacio, P., et al.\ 2002, \aap, 390, 91
1019:
1020: \bibitem[Borissova et al.(1999)]{borissova1999} Borissova, J., Catelan, M., Ferraro, F.~R., Spassova, N., Buonanno, R., Iannicola, G., Richtler, T., \& Sweigart, A.~V.\ 1999, \aap, 343, 813
1021:
1022: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Briley et al.}{2002}]{briley2002}
1023: Briley, M., Cohen, J.~G., \& Stetson, P.~B.~2002, ApJ, 579, L17
1024:
1025: \bibitem[Briley et al.(2004)]{briley2004} Briley, M.~M., Harbeck,
1026: D., Smith, G.~H., \& Grebel, E.~K.\ 2004, AJ, 127, 1588
1027:
1028: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{brown2001} Brown, T.~M., Sweigart,
1029: A.~V., Lanz, T., Landsman, W.~B., \& Hubeny, I.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 368
1030:
1031: \bibitem[Buonanno et al.(1994)]{buonanno1994} Buonanno, R., Corsi,
1032: C.~E., Buzzoni, A., Cacciari, C., Ferraro, F.~R., \& Fusi Pecci, F.\ 1994,
1033: \aap, 290, 69
1034:
1035: \bibitem[Busso et al.(2007)]{busso2007} Busso, G., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 474, 105
1036:
1037: \bibitem[Caloi(1999)]{caloi1999} Caloi, V.\ 1999, \aap, 343, 904
1038:
1039: \bibitem[Caloi \& D'Antona(2005)]{caloi-dantona2005} Caloi, V. \& D'Antona, F.\ 2005,
1040: A\&A, 121, 95
1041:
1042: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Caloi \& D'Antona}{2007}]{caloidantona2007}
1043: Caloi, V. \& D'Antona, F.~2007, A\&A, 463, 949
1044:
1045: \bibitem[Caloi \& D'Antona(2008)]{caloidantona2008} Caloi, V. \& D'Antona, F.\ 2008,
1046: ApJ, 673, 847
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Carretta et al.(2005)]{carretta2005} Carretta, E., Gratton, R.~G.,
1049: Lucatello, S., Bragaglia, A., \& Bonifacio, P.\ 2005, \aap, 433, 597
1050:
1051: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Carretta et al.}{2006}]{carretta2006} Carretta, E.,
1052: %Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R.~G., Leone, F., Recio-Blanco, A., \& Lucatello,
1053: %S.\ 2006, A\&A, 450, 523
1054:
1055: \bibitem[Cassisi et al.(2003)]{cassisi2003} Cassisi, S., Schlattl,
1056: H., Salaris, M., \& Weiss, A.\ 2003, \apjl, 582, L43
1057:
1058: \bibitem[Cassisi et al.(2008)]{cassisi2008} Cassisi, S., Salaris,
1059: M., Pietrinferni, A., Piotto, G., Milone, A.~P., Bedin, L.~R.,
1060: \& Anderson, J.\ 2008, \apjl, 672, L115
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Castellani
1063: \& Tornambe(1981)]{castorn1981} Castellani, V., \& Tornambe, A.\ 1981, \aap, 96, 207
1064:
1065: \bibitem[Castellani et al.(2005)]{castellani2005} Castellani, M.,
1066: Castellani, V., \& Cassisi, S.\ 2005, A\&A, 437, 1017
1067:
1068: \bibitem[Castellani et al.(2006)]{castellani2006} Castellani, V., Iannicola, G.,
1069: Bono, G., Zoccali, M., Cassisi, S. \& Buonanno, R.\ 2005, A\&A, 446, 569
1070:
1071: \bibitem[Catelan et al.(1998)]{catelan1998} Catelan, M., Borissova,
1072: J., Sweigart, A.~V., \& Spassova, N.\ 1998, ApJ, 494, 265
1073:
1074: \bibitem[Catelan(2004)]{catelan2004} Catelan, M.\ 2004, \apj, 600,
1075: 409
1076:
1077: \bibitem[Clement et al.(2001)]{clement2001} Clement, C.~M., et al.\
1078: 2001, \aj, 122, 2587
1079:
1080: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Coc et al.}{2004}]{coc2004} Coc, A., Vangioni-Flam, E.,
1081: Descouvemont, P., Adahchour, A., \& Angulo, C.\ 2004, ApJ, 600, 544
1082:
1083: \bibitem[Cohen \& Mel{\'e}ndez(2005)]{cohenmelendez2005} Cohen, J.~G., \&
1084: Mel{\'e}ndez, J.\ 2005, AJ, 129, 303
1085:
1086: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2005)]{cohen2005} Cohen, J.~G., Briley,
1087: M.~M., \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 1177
1088:
1089: \bibitem[Corwin \& Carney(2001)]{cc2001} Corwin, T.~M., \&
1090: Carney, B.~W.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 3183
1091:
1092: %\bibitem[\protect\astroncite{Cottrell \& Da Costa}{ 1981}]{cottrell-dacosta}
1093: %Cottrell, P.~L.~\& Da Costa, G.~S.\ 1981, ApJ Letters, 245, L79
1094:
1095: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{D'Antona et al.}{2002}]{dantona2002}
1096: D'Antona, F., Caloi, V., Montalb\'{a}n, J., Ventura, P., \& Gratton, R.~2002,
1097: A\&A, 395, 69
1098:
1099: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{D'Antona \& Caloi}{2004}]{dantonacaloi2004}
1100: D'Antona, F. \& Caloi, V.\ 2004, ApJ, 611, 871
1101:
1102: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{D'Antona et al.}{2005}]{dantona2005}
1103: D'Antona, F., Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V., Fusi Pecci, F., Galleti, S., \& Rood, R.~T.~2005,
1104: ApJ, 631, 868
1105:
1106: %\bibitem[D'Antona et al.(2006)]{dantona2007} D'Antona, F., Ventura,
1107: %P., \& Caloi, V.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0612654
1108: \bibitem[D'Antona
1109: \& Ventura(2007)]{dantona2007} D'Antona, F., \& Ventura, P.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 1431
1110:
1111: %\bibitem[D'Cruz et al.(1996)]{dcruz1996} D'Cruz N.L., Dorman B., Rood R.T.,
1112: %\& O'Connell R.W. 1996, ApJ, 466, 359
1113:
1114: \bibitem[D'Cruz et al. (2000)]{dcruz2000} D'Cruz N.L., O'Connell R.W., Rood R.T.,
1115: Whitney, J.H. et al. 2000, Apj, 530, 352
1116:
1117: \bibitem[Decressin et al.(2007)]{decressin2007} Decressin, T.,
1118: Meynet, G., Charbonnel, C., Prantzos, N., \& Ekstr{\"o}m, S.\ 2007a, A\&A,
1119: 464, 1029
1120:
1121: \bibitem[D'Ercole et al.(2008)]{dercole2008} D'Ercole, A., Vesperini, E., D'Antona, F.,
1122: Mc Millan, S. \& Recchi, S. 2008, submitted to MNRAS
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Dickens(1972)]{dickens1972} Dickens, R.~J.\ 1972, \mnras, 157, 281
1125:
1126: \bibitem[Di Criscienzo et al.(2004)]{dmc2004} Di Criscienzo,
1127: M., Marconi, M., \& Caputo, F.\ 2004, \apj, 612, 1092
1128:
1129: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(1997)]{ferraro1997} Ferraro, F.~R.,
1130: Carretta, E., Corsi, C.~E., Fusi Pecci, F., Cacciari, C., Buonanno, R.,
1131: Paltrinieri, B., \& Hamilton, D.\ 1997, \aap, 320, 757
1132:
1133: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(1998)]{ferraro1998} Ferraro, F.~R.,
1134: Paltrinieri, B., Pecci, F.~F., Rood, R.~T., \& Dorman, B.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 311
1135:
1136: \bibitem[Glaspey et al.(1989)]{glaspey1989} Glaspey, J.~W.,
1137: Michaud, G., Moffat, A.~F.~J., \& Demers, S.\ 1989, \apj, 339, 926
1138:
1139: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gratton et al.}{2000}]{grea00}
1140: %Gratton, R.~G., Sneden, C., Carretta, E., \& Bragaglia, A.~2000, A\&A, 354, 169
1141:
1142: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gratton et al.}{2001}]{gratton2001}
1143: Gratton, R.~G., Bonifacio, P., Bragaglia, A., et al.~2001, A\&A, 369, 87
1144:
1145: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gratton et al.}{2004}]{gratton-ar}
1146: Gratton, R., Sneden, C., \& Carretta, E.~2004, ARA\&A, 42, 385
1147:
1148: \bibitem[Grundahl et al.(1998)]{grundahl1998} Grundahl, F.,
1149: Vandenberg, D.~A., \& Andersen, M.~I.\ 1998, \apjl, 500, L179
1150:
1151: \bibitem[Grundahl et al.(1999)]{grundahl1999} Grundahl, F., Catelan,
1152: M., Landsman, W.~B., Stetson, P.~B.,
1153: \& Andersen, M.~I.\ 1999, \apj, 524, 242
1154:
1155: %\bibitem[Grundahl et al.(2002)]{grundahl2002} Grundahl, F., Briley, M., Nissen, P.E.,
1156: % \& Feltzing, S. 2002, A\&A, 385, L14
1157:
1158: \bibitem[Iben
1159: \& Renzini(1983)]{ibenrenzini1983} Iben, I., Jr., \& Renzini, A.\ 1983, \araa, 21, 271
1160:
1161: \bibitem[Ivans et al.(1999)]{ivans1999} Ivans, I.I., Sneden, C.,
1162: Kraft, R.P., et al., 1999, AJ, 118, 1273
1163:
1164: \bibitem[Kaluzny(1997)]{kaluzny1997} Kaluzny, J.\ 1997, \aaps, 122, 1
1165:
1166: \bibitem[King et al.(1998)]{king1998} King, I.~R., Anderson, J.,
1167: Cool, A.~M., \& Piotto, G.\ 1998, \apjl, 492, L37
1168:
1169: %\bibitem[\protect\astroncite{Kraft et al.}{1993}]{kraft1993}
1170: %Kraft, R.~P., Sneden, C., Langer, G.~E., \& Shetrone, M.~D.\ 1993, AJ,
1171: %106, 1490
1172:
1173: \bibitem[Layden
1174: \& Sarajedini(2003)]{layden2003} Layden, A.~C., \& Sarajedini, A.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 208
1175:
1176: \bibitem[Lee, Demarque, \& Zinn(1994)]{lee1994} Lee, Y.,
1177: Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R.\ 1994, ApJ, 423, 248
1178:
1179: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2005)]{lee2005} Lee, Y.-W., et al.\ 2005,
1180: ApJ Letters, 621, L57
1181:
1182: \bibitem[Li \& Burstein(2003)]{liburstein2003} Li, Y., \& Burstein, D.\ 2003, \apjl, 598, L103
1183:
1184: \bibitem[Maeder \& Meynet(2006)]{maedermeynet2006} Maeder, A., \&
1185: Meynet, G.\ 2006, A\&A, 448, L37
1186:
1187: \bibitem[Marcolini et al.(2007)]{marcolini2007} Marcolini, A.,
1188: Sollima, A., D'Ercole, A., Gibson, B.~K., \& Ferraro, F.~R.\ 2007, \mnras,
1189: 382, 443
1190:
1191: \bibitem[Martell et al.(2008)]{martell2008} Martell, S.~L., Smith,
1192: G.~H., \& Briley, M.~M.\ 2008, \pasp, 120, 7
1193:
1194: \bibitem[Mazzitelli et al.(1999)]{mazzitelli1999} Mazzitelli, I., D'Antona, F., \& Ventura, P.\ 1999, \aap, 348, 846
1195:
1196: \bibitem[Meynet et al.(2006)]{meynet2006} Meynet, G., Ekstr{\"o}m, S., \& Maeder, A.\ 2006,
1197: A\&A, 447, 623
1198:
1199: \bibitem[Milone et al.(2008)]{milone2008} Milone, A.~P., et al.\
1200: 2008, \apj, 673, 241
1201:
1202: \bibitem[Moehler et al.(2004)]{moeler2004} Moehler S., Sweigart A.V.,
1203: Landsman W.B., Hammer N.J., \& Dreizler S. 2004, A\&A, 415, 313
1204:
1205: \bibitem[\protect\astroncite{Norris}{2004}]{norris2004}
1206: Norris, J.~E.\ 2004, ApJ Letters, 612, L25
1207:
1208: %\bibitem[\protect\astroncite{Norris \& Da Costa}{1995}]{norrisdacosta1995}
1209: %Norris, J.~E., \& Da Costa, G.~S.\ 1995, ApJ Letters, 441, L81
1210:
1211: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Palacios et al.}{2006}]{pea06}
1212: %Palacios, A., Charbonnel, C., Talon, S., \&
1213: %Siess, L.~2006, A\&A, 453, 261
1214:
1215: \bibitem[Origlia
1216: \& Leitherer(2000)]{origlia2000} Origlia, L., \& Leitherer, C.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 2018
1217:
1218: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pasquini et al.}{2005}]{pasquini2005} Pasquini, L.,
1219: Bonifacio, P., Molaro, P., Francois, P., Spite, F., Gratton, R.~G.,
1220: Carretta, E., \& Wolff, B.\ 2005, A\&A, 441, 549
1221:
1222: \bibitem[Pasquini et al.(2008)]{pasquini2008} Pasquini, L.,
1223: Ecuvillon, A., Bonifacio, P.,
1224: \& Wolff, B.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 806, arXiv:0806.3404
1225:
1226: \bibitem[Piersimoni et al.(2002)]{piersimoni2002} Piersimoni, A.~M.,
1227: Bono, G., \& Ripepi, V.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1528
1228:
1229: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pilachowski}{1988}]{p88}
1230: %Pilachowski, C.~A.~1988, ApJ, 326, L57
1231:
1232: \bibitem[Pilachowski et al.(1996)]{pilach1996} Pilachowski, C.~A.,
1233: Sneden, C., Kraft, R.~P., \& Langer, G.~E.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 545
1234:
1235: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pilachowski et al.}{1993}]{pilach1993}
1236: %Pilachowski, C.~A., Sneden, C., \& Booth, J.\ 1993, ApJ, 407, 699
1237:
1238: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(1999)]{piotto1999} Piotto, G., Zoccali, M.,
1239: King, I.~R., Djorgovski, S.~G., Sosin, C., Rich, R.~M.,
1240: \& Meylan, G.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 1727
1241:
1242: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2002)]{piotto2002} Piotto, G., et al.\
1243: 2002, \aap, 391, 945
1244:
1245: \bibitem[\protect\astroncite{Piotto et al.}{2005}]{piotto2005} Piotto, G., et al.\
1246: 2005, ApJ, 621, 777
1247:
1248: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2007)]{piotto2007} Piotto, G., et al.\
1249: 2007, \apjl, 661, L53
1250:
1251: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Prantzos \& Charbonnel}{2006}]{pch06}
1252: %Prantzos, N., \& Charbonnel, C.~2006, astro-ph/0606112
1253:
1254: %\bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2000)]{pritzl2000}
1255: %Pritzl, B., Smith, H.~A., Catelan, M., \&
1256: %Sweigart, A.~V.\ 2000, ApJL, 530, L41
1257:
1258: \bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2002)]{pritzl2002} Pritzl, B.~J., Smith,
1259: H.~A., Catelan, M., \& Sweigart, A.~V.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 949
1260:
1261: \bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2003)]{pritzl2003} Pritzl, B.~J., Smith,
1262: H.~A., Stetson, P.~B., Catelan, M., Sweigart, A.~V., Layden, A.~C., \&
1263: Rich, R.~M.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 1381
1264:
1265: \bibitem[Raimondo et al.(2002)]{raimondo2002} Raimondo, G.,
1266: Castellani, V., Cassisi, S., Brocato, E., \& Piotto, G.\ 2002, ApJ, 569, 975
1267:
1268: \bibitem[Reimers(1975)]{reimers1975} Reimers, D.\ 1975, Problems in
1269: stellar atmospheres and envelopes., 229
1270:
1271: \bibitem[Rey et al.(1998)]{rey1998} Rey, S.-C., Lee, Y.-W.,
1272: Byun, Y.-I., \& Chun, M.-S.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 1775
1273:
1274: \bibitem[Richer et al.(2006)]{richer2006} Richer, H.~B., et al.\
1275: 2006, Science, 313, 936
1276:
1277: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Riello et al.}{2003}]{rea03}
1278: %Riello, M., Cassisi, S., Piotto, G., Recio-Blanco, A., De Angeli, F., Salaris, M.,
1279: %Pietrinferni, A., Bono, G., \& Zoccali, M.~2003, A\&A, 410, 553
1280:
1281: \bibitem[Rood
1282: \& Crocker(1989)]{rood1989} Rood, R.~T., \& Crocker, D.~A.\ 1989, IAU Colloq.~111: The Use of pulsating stars in fundamental problems of astronomy, 103
1283:
1284: \bibitem[Rosenberg et al.(2004)]{rosenberg2004} Rosenberg, A.,
1285: Recio-Blanco, A., \& Garc{\'{\i}}a-Mar{\'{\i}}n, M.\ 2004, \apj, 603, 135
1286:
1287: \bibitem[Salaris et al.(2006)]{salaris2006} Salaris, M., Weiss, A.,
1288: Ferguson, J.~W., \& Fusilier, D.~J.\ 2006, ApJ, 645, 1131
1289:
1290: \bibitem[Salaris \& Weiss(1998)]{salaris1998} Salaris, M., \&
1291: Weiss, A.\ 1998, \aap, 335, 943
1292:
1293: \bibitem[Salaris et al.(2008)]{salaris2008} Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., \& Pietrinferni, A.\ 2008, \apjl, 678, L25
1294:
1295: \bibitem[Sandquist
1296: \& Bolte(2004)]{sandquist2004} Sandquist, E.~L., \& Bolte, M.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 323
1297:
1298: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shetrone}{2003}]{sh03}
1299: %Shetrone, M.~D.~2003, ApJ, 585, L45
1300:
1301: \bibitem[Smith et al.(1996)]{smith1996} Smith, G.~H., Shetrone,
1302: M.~D., Bell, R.~A., Churchill, C.~W.,
1303: \& Briley, M.~M.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 1511
1304:
1305: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith et al.}{2005}]{sea05}
1306: %Smith, V.~V., Cunha, K., Ivans, I.~I., Lattanzio, J.~C., Campbell, S., \&
1307: %Hinkle, K.~H.~2005, ApJ, 633, 392
1308:
1309: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sneden et al.}{2004}]{sneden2004} Sneden, C., Kraft,
1310: %R.~P., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R.~C., \& Fulbright, J.~P.\ 2004, AJ,
1311: %127, 2162
1312:
1313: \bibitem[Suntzeff(1993)]{1993} Suntzeff, N.\ 1993, The
1314: Globular Cluster-Galaxy Connection, 48, 167
1315:
1316: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sweigart}{1997}]{sweigart1997}
1317: Sweigart, A. V. 1997, in Proc. Third Conference on Faint Blue Stars, ed.
1318: A. G. D. Philip, J. Liebert, R. Saffer, \& D. S. Hayes (Schenectady: L. Davis
1319: Press), 3
1320:
1321: \bibitem[Sweigart \& Gross(1976)]{sweigart-gross1976} Sweigart, A.~V., \&
1322: Gross, P.~G.\ 1976, ApJ Suppl. Series, 32, 367
1323:
1324: \bibitem[van Albada \& Baker(1973)]{va1973} van Albada, T.~S.,
1325: \& Baker, N.\ 1973, \apj, 185, 477
1326:
1327: \bibitem[Ventura et al.(1998)]{ventura1998}
1328: Ventura, P., Zeppieri, A., Mazzitelli, I., \& D'Antona, F.\ 1998, A\&A, 334, 953
1329:
1330: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ventura et al.}{2001}]{ventura2001} Ventura, P., D'Antona,
1331: F., Mazzitelli, I., \& Gratton, R.\ 2001, ApJ Letters, 550, L65
1332:
1333: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ventura et al.}{2002}]{ventura2002} Ventura, P., D'Antona,
1334: F., \& Mazzitelli, I.\ 2002, A\&A, 393, 215
1335:
1336: %\bibitem[Ventura \& D'Antona(2006)]{ventura2006} Ventura, P., \&
1337: %D'Antona, F.\ 2006, A\&A, 457, 995
1338:
1339: \bibitem[Ventura \& D'Antona(2008b)]{ventura2008b} Ventura, P., \& D'Antona, F.\
1340: 2008, \mnras, 255
1341:
1342: \bibitem[von Braun
1343: \& Mateo(2001)]{vbmateo2001} von Braun, K., \& Mateo, M.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 1522
1344:
1345: \bibitem[Yong
1346: \& Grundahl(2008)]{yong2008} Yong, D., \& Grundahl, F.\ 2008, \apjl, 672, L29
1347:
1348: \bibitem[Yoon et al.(2008)]{yoon2008} Yoon, S.-J., Joo, S.-J.,
1349: Ree, C.~H., Han, S.-I., Kim, D.-G., \& Lee, Y.-W.\ 2008, \apj, 677, 1080
1350:
1351: \bibitem[Walker(1994)]{walker1994} Walker, A.~R.\ 1994, \aj, 108, 555
1352:
1353: \bibitem[Walker(1998)]{walker1998} Walker, A.~R.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 220
1354:
1355: \bibitem[Wehlau et al.(1999)]{wehlau1999} Wehlau, A., Slawson,
1356: R.~W., \& Nemec, J.~M.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 286
1357:
1358: \bibitem[Weiss et al.(2000)]{weiss2000} Weiss, A., Denissenkov,
1359: P.~A., \& Charbonnel, C.\ 2000, A\&A, 356, 181
1360:
1361: \bibitem[Welty(1985)]{welty85} Welty, D.~E.\ 1985, AJ, 90,
1362: 2555
1363:
1364: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zoccali et al.}{1999}]{zea99}
1365: %Zoccali, M., Cassisi, S., Piotto, G., Bono, G., \& Salaris, M.~1999, ApJ, 518, L49
1366:
1367: \end{thebibliography}
1368:
1369: \begin{appendix}
1370: \section{A new analysis of NGC~2808 optical and ultraviolet data}
1371:
1372: \begin{figure}
1373: \centering
1374: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fA1.eps}
1375: \caption{The HB data by Bedin et al. (2000) (open triangles) and their simulation
1376: superimposed (full triangles). The histogram of the blue HB data is shown as a full histogram
1377: on the right, and the simulated histogram is dot--dashed. The lower luminosity
1378: clumps EBT2 and EBT3 are both obtained with a unique value of Y=0.385, as explained
1379: in the text. }
1380: \label{figA1}
1381: \end{figure}
1382:
1383: \begin{figure}
1384: \centering
1385: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fA2.eps}
1386: \caption{The full histogram represents the number vs. helium content distribution of
1387: the NGC~2808 HB of Fig. A1. The dashed histogram represents the corresponding distribution
1388: for M~13. Notice that the M~13 distribution completely lacks stars with normal Y=0.24.}
1389: \label{figA2}
1390: \end{figure}
1391: %
1392: \subsection{The V vs. B--V data}
1393:
1394: \begin{figure*}
1395: \centering
1396: \includegraphics[width=5.2cm]{figA31.eps}
1397: \includegraphics[width=5.2cm]{figA32.eps}
1398: \includegraphics[width=5.2cm]{figA33.eps}
1399: \caption{The figures show simulation of the main sequence colour distribution corresponding
1400: to the N(Y) distribution of Fig. \ref{figA2} in the ACS colour F475-F814 of Piotto et al. 2007.
1401: The simulation is shown for the magnitude interval 5.0$\leq M_{814}\leq$6.0.
1402: The three panels correspond to different assumed errors
1403: on the colour (0.012, 0.015 and 0.017mag).}
1404: \label{figA3}
1405: \end{figure*}
1406:
1407: We analyzed the \cite{bedin2000} data of NGC~2808 twice
1408: \citep{dantonacaloi2004, dantona2005}, but always assuming that the mass lost
1409: on the RGB has a slight but positive dependence on the helium content of the
1410: sample. Having now shown that this is not the case (Sect. \ref{sec:2}) it is
1411: reasonable to make another analysis, and derive the N(Y) distribution that fits
1412: the HB, obtained by assuming that both $\delta M_0$\ and $\sigma$\ do not
1413: depend on Y. For the simulation, we closely follow the procedure by
1414: \cite{dantonacaloi2004} and \cite{dantona2005}, apart from the analysis of the
1415: blue hook stars \citep[the clump EBT3 in the definition by ][]{bedin2004} for
1416: which we make the further assumtions described below. The problem is that we
1417: {\it can not adopt a different helium content for each of the clumps EBT2 and
1418: EBT3}, because, using the N(Y) distribution that reproduces the HB, we have to
1419: reproduce also the colour distribution in the MS data by
1420: \cite{piotto2007}. For this aim, we convert our main sequence stellar models
1421: into the ACS bands F475 and F814 by means of the transformations provided by
1422: \cite{bedincastelli2005}, and simulate the MS colour distribution. We can not
1423: make a detailed comparison with the data, as they are not available to us, but
1424: simply show the histogram of number versus the colour difference (in F475--F814)
1425: from the reference main sequence of Y=0.24, in the magnitude interval $5 \leq
1426: M_{814}\leq 6$. Comparison with the histograms in Figure 3 in \cite{piotto2007}
1427: shows that there is a fair reproduction of the observations, if the colour error is
1428: taken to be 0.017mag (indicated by $\sigma$ in the top of Fig. \ref{figA3}).
1429: %
1430: \begin{figure*}
1431: \centering
1432: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fA41.eps}
1433: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fA42.eps}
1434: \caption{We show the ZAHBs of Z=0.001 with different helium content in the
1435: absolute UV magnitude F218 versus F218-F555 colour.
1436: The Y=0.24 ZAHB line is used to define the distance modulus and reddening
1437: of the dataset by Castellani et al. 2005. We impose that the red clump data (on the right
1438: bottom part of the left figure) lie symmetrically on this ZAHB.
1439: The rising lines on the left are ZAHBs of models with the same core
1440: mass of the Y=0.40 sequence, but having larger envelope helium abundance. From left to
1441: right, we have Y=0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5 and 0.45. On the right, we show the simulation
1442: of Fig. A1. }
1443: \label{figA4}
1444: \end{figure*}
1445:
1446: Let us discuss in detail the assumptions made to fit the EBT2 and EBT3 clumps.
1447: As the blue MS is well separated from the other stars, all the stars in this
1448: blue MS share the same helium abundance. We then take a unique high helium
1449: abundance for all the stars in the clumps EBT2 and EBT3
1450: \citep[as we assumed also in][]{dantona2005}. Attributing to the cluster an age of 11Gyr, the average
1451: mass loss rate necessary to fit the red clump is 0.18\Msun. Due to the spread
1452: in mass loss ($\sigma$=0.008\Msun) assumed in order to fit the width of the red
1453: clump, and due to the choice of a very high helium in order to reproduce the
1454: blue MS, the remnant mass is in a very strict range close to the helium flash mass
1455: (M$\sim$0.49\Msun, to be compared with M$_c$=0.4676\Msun, for Y=0.40). We will
1456: fix a value \mlate, above which we put the star on the track corresponding to
1457: its mass and helium content. Below \mlate, we assume that the star has suffered
1458: very deep mixing, and that {\it its helium surface abundance has increased}. We
1459: parametrize the resulting surface helium abundance between fixed values, and
1460: distribute random the stars along the corresponding tracks. By this hypothesis,
1461: we are able to reproduce well the gap between EBT2 and EBT3 {\it without
1462: invoking a helium discontinuity}, as shown in Fig. \ref{figA1}. We summarize the parameters
1463: chosen for this fit: age of 11Gyr, $\Delta M_0=0.18$\Msun, $\sigma=0.008$,
1464: \mlate=0.487\Msun, and the N(Y) is shown in Fig. \ref{figA2}.
1465:
1466: \subsection{The HST UV data of NGC~2808}
1467: The optical bands are certainly not the best to describe the very hot HB stars in NGC~2808. The
1468: HST data have shown that these objects are the most
1469: luminous ones in the UV bands \citep{brown2001}. \cite{lee2005} first attempted to fit the
1470: data with HB models having varying helium content. Here we use the data by \cite{castellani2006}
1471: in the plane F218 versus the colour F218-F555. Our models have been transformed into these
1472: bands by using the \cite{origlia2000} colour transformations. Fig.~\ref{figB1} shows on the left
1473: the data and the ZAHBs. The choice of the distance modulus and reddening in the colour F218-F555
1474: have been made in order to fit the red clump data on the Y=0.24 ZAHB. This choice
1475: leads to a good superposition of the highest luminosity stars \citep[corresponding
1476: to the EBT1 clump by][]{bedin2004} above the ZAHB of Y=0.32.
1477: The rising short lines on the left are ZAHBs of models with the same core
1478: mass of the Y=0.40 sequence, but having larger envelope helium abundance. From left to
1479: right, we have Y=0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5 and 0.45. The simulation shown in Fig \ref{figA1} for the B and V
1480: colours is shown in the right part of Fig. \ref{figA4} in these UV bands. The fit of red clump, EBT1 and EBT2 is
1481: very good, showing once for all that there is a helium difference between the red clump, EBT1 and EBT2.
1482: The gap between EBT2 and EBT3 results well simulated by assuming that a fraction of
1483: the stars born with Y=0.40 suffers deep mixing, increasing its Y to the range
1484: Y=0.7--0.8. Nevertheless, the simulation fails to reproduce the lowest luminosity EBT3 stars.
1485: Reasons for this result are several: first of all, these stars have atmospheres which are not only
1486: very helium rich as we assumed, but also carbon rich, and the \Teff--colour transformations
1487: can not take this into account. Second, it is well possible that these stars ignite helium with a late
1488: flash at a core mass smaller than we assumed, and thus have a smaller intrinsic luminosity.
1489:
1490: \section{A possible fit for the HB of M~13}
1491: \begin{figure}
1492: \centering
1493: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fB1.eps}
1494: \caption{ M~13 HB data by Ferraro et al.(1998) compared with our ZAHBs in the plane
1495: F555 vs. F336-F555. The distance modulus is chosen so that the Y=0.28 ZAHB (dotted line)
1496: fits the upper luminosity clump. The other lines are the
1497: ZAHBs for Y=0.24 (full line), Y=0.32 (dashed) and Y=0.40 (dash dotted).
1498: On the left we show the histogram of HB counts as a function of F555 magnitude.}
1499: \label{figB1}
1500: \end{figure}
1501: \begin{figure}
1502: \centering
1503: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fB2.eps}
1504: \caption{Superimposed to the data, we show the
1505: simulation done with the same values, $\delta$M=0.18\Msun\ and age 11~Gyr,
1506: chosen for the NGC~2808 simulation. $\sigma$ is 0.01\Msun\ and \mlate=.479\Msun
1507: }
1508: \label{figC2}
1509: \end{figure}
1510:
1511: \cite{caloi-dantona2005} provocatively proposed that the blue--HB clusters,
1512: and in particular M~13, have
1513: completely lost their FG (see Sect. 6.1). As the metallicity of M~13 and NGC~2808 are close,
1514: and the blue HB of the two clusters are morphologically similar, we try to fit the HB of
1515: this cluster by imposing a simulation in which the age and average mass loss are the same as
1516: in the NGC~2808 fit, but {\it the red clump population, at Y=0.24, is totally eliminated}.
1517: Fig.\ref{figB1} shows the HST data by \cite{ferraro1998} in the plane F555
1518: vs. F336-F555. We superimpose our ZAHBs as in Fig.~\ref{figB1}, assuming a visual distance
1519: modulus of 14.6mag and zero reddening. The modulus is chosen {\it so that the Y=0.28 ZAHB
1520: coincides with the upper clump}, in agreement with the result by \cite{caloi-dantona2005} that
1521: attributed Y=0.28 to the dominant cluster population. We see that, with this choice, the
1522: ZAHB of the middle HB is again consistent with Y$\sim$0.32. This difficulty of fitting the HB with
1523: a unique ZAHB had already been pointed out by \cite{grundahl1998} in their analysis of
1524: the HR diagram of M~13 in the Str\"omgren colours, and signalled also for the clusters
1525: NGC 288 and NGC 6752. These authors indeed attributed this unexpected feature to the presence
1526: in M~13 of two distinct HB populations, one of which had undegone deep mixing, following
1527: \cite{sweigart1997}. In our interpretation, these stars have a higher helium content already starting
1528: from their formation.
1529: %
1530:
1531: Fig. \ref{figC2} shows the HB simulation superimposed to the M~13 data.
1532: Apart from the lack of the Y=0.24 part, the distribution N(Y) is different indeed from
1533: that obtained for NGC~2808, as we show in Fig. \ref{figA2}, but the lowest part of the HB
1534: can be interpreted again as a very high helium population (Y=0.38). Notice however, that M~13
1535: does not contain the large population of blue hook stars present in NGC~2808, and this
1536: difference remains to be explained.
1537:
1538: \end{appendix}
1539:
1540:
1541: \label{lastpage}
1542:
1543: \end{document}
1544: