1: \documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}
2:
3: %%% PREAMBLE MATTER
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{asp2006}
7: \usepackage{epsf}
8: \usepackage{psfig}
9: \usepackage{lscape}
10:
11: \markboth{Sukyoung K. Yi}{The UV Upturn Phenomenon}
12:
13: \pagestyle{myheadings}
14: \setcounter{equation}{0}
15: \setcounter{figure}{0}
16: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
17: \setcounter{section}{0}
18: \setcounter{table}{0}
19:
20: %%% MAIN PART OF DOCUMENT
21:
22: \begin{document}
23: \title{The Current Understanding on the UV Upturn}
24: \author{Sukyoung K. Yi}
25: \affil{Yonsei University, Department of Astronomy, Seoul 120-749, Korea}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: The unexpected high bump in the UV part of the spectrum found in nearby giant
29: elliptical galaxies, a.k.a. the UV upturn, has been a subject of debate.
30: A remarkable progress has been made lately from the observational side, mainly
31: involving space telescopes. The GALEX UV telescope has been obtaining
32: thousands of giant ellipticals in the nearby universe, while HST is resolving
33: local galaxies into stars and star clusters. An important clue has
34: also been found regarding the origin of hot HB stars, and perhaps of
35: sdB stars. That is, extreme amounts of helium are suspected to be the origin of the extended HB and even to the UV upturn phenomenon.
36: A flurry of studies are pursuing the physics behind it.
37: All this makes me optimistic that the origin of the UV upturn will
38: be revealed in the next few years.
39: I review some of the most notable progress and remaining issues.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44:
45: A review on the UV upturn phenomenon may usually start with a following or similar definition:
46: ``a bump in the UV spectrum between the Lyman limit and 2500\AA\, is found
47: {\em virtually in all bright spheroidal galaxies}'' (e.g., Yi \& Yoon 2004).
48: This seems no longer true!
49: While earlier studies based on a small sample of nearby galaxies
50: led us to think so, a much greater sample from the recent GALEX database
51: appears to disprove it. Only a small fraction of elliptical galaxies
52: show a strong UV upturn and it is generally limited to the brightest
53: cluster galaxies (Yi et al. 2005).
54: This review is about the recent development on this seemingly-old topic.
55: I recycle some of the contents in my earlier review given in the first Hot
56: Subdwarf and Related Objects workshop held in Keele, UK (Yi \& Yoon 2004).
57: For a more traditional review, readers are referred to the articles of
58: Greggio \& Renzini (1999) and O'Connell (1999).
59:
60: \section{Previous observations}
61:
62: The UV upturn has been a mystery ever since it was first found by
63: the OAO-2 space telescope (Code \& Welch 1979). According to the
64: opacity effect more metal-rich populations show redder colours,
65: and hence giant elliptical galaxies were not expected to
66: contain any substantial number of hot stars to show a UV upturn.
67: Yet, it was confirmed by subsequent space missions, ANS (de Boer 1982),
68: IUE (Bertola et al. 1982) and HUT (Brown et al. 1997).
69: Figure 1 shows an example spectrum of the giant elliptical galaxy NGC\,4552
70: mosaicked from multi-band measurements.
71:
72: Some of the observational findings based on the nearby bright
73: elliptical galaxies are particularly noteworthy.
74: The positive correlation between the UV-to-optical colour
75: (i.e., the strength of the UV upturn) and the Mg2 line strength
76: found by Burstein et al. (1987) through IUE observations has urged
77: theorists to construct novel scenarios in which old ($\ga$ a few Gyr) metal-rich ($\ga Z_{\odot}$) populations become UV bright
78: (Greggio \& Renzini 1990; Horch et al. 1992; Dorman et al. 1995).
79: Also interesting was to find using HUT that,
80: regardless of the UV strength, the UV spectral slopes at
81: 1000--2000\AA\, in the six UV bright galaxies were similar
82: suggesting a very small range of temperatures of the UV
83: sources in these galaxies (Brown et al. 1997), which corresponds
84: to $T_{\rm eff} \approx 20,000 \pm 3,000$\,K.
85: In fact, the characteristic temperature of the UV sources seems
86: strangely somewhat $lower$ in a $stronger$ UV-upturn galaxy (Yi et al. 1998).
87:
88: \begin{figure}
89: \begin{center}
90: \includegraphics[scale=0.4,angle=-0]{yi_f1}
91: \end{center}
92: \caption{The composite spectrum of the giant elliptical galaxy NGC 4552
93: shows a classic example of the UV upturn. The mosaic spectrum is
94: originated from HUT (FUV), IUE (NUV), and ground-based telescope (optical).
95: Excerpted from Yi, Demarque, \& Oemler (1998).
96: }
97: \label{fig1}
98: \end{figure}
99:
100:
101:
102: \section{Theory}
103:
104: Theorists aim to present a model that explains three basic observational facts:
105: \begin{enumerate}
106: \item UV upturn being present in bright elliptical galaxies
107: \item the positive correlation between the strength of the UV upturn and the
108: $optical$ metal line (Mg2) strength, and
109: \item a narrow range of temperature of UV sources.
110: \end{enumerate}
111:
112: Young stars are difficult to satisfy these facts and thus thought unlikely
113: to be the main driver of the UV upturn.
114: The focus has been on how an old population can develop hot stars.
115: Post-AGB stars (central stars of planetary nebulae) are too short-lived
116: and more fatally too hot most of their lifetime, hence violating $item$ 3.
117: There is a good consensus that hot (low-mass) horizontal-branch (HB)
118: stars are the more natural candidates. Here I introduce two classical
119: solutions based on the HB hypothesis.
120:
121: \subsection{Metal-poor HB hypothesis}
122:
123: It is widely known that metal-poor HB stars can be hot and make
124: good UV sources when they are old (e.g., Lee et al. 1994).
125: Thus, the first scenario was naturally that an order of 20\% of
126: the stellar mass of bright elliptical galaxies are extremely old and metal-poor
127: populations (Park \& Lee 1997). The strength of this scenario is
128: that the oldest stars in a galaxy are likely the most metal-poor
129: and to be in the core, where the UV upturn is found to be strong.
130: In this scenario, the UV vs Mg2 relation does not present any causality
131: connection but simply a result of tracing different populations in
132: terms of metallicity. Mg2 is exhibited by the majority metal-rich stars
133: while the UV flux is dominated by the old metal-poor stars.
134: The narrow range of temperature is easily explained as well.
135: On the other hand, the mass fraction of order $\sim 20$\% is too high
136: by the standard galactic chemical evolution theory.
137: Canonical models suggest the metal-poor fraction of $\la 10$\%.
138: If metal-poor stars are present at such a high level,
139: there must also be a large number of intermediate-metallicity
140: (20--50\% solar) stars, which will make galaxy's integrated
141: metallicity too low and integrated colours too blue, compared
142: to the observed values.
143: Moreover, the age of the oldest stars, i.e.
144: the main UV sources, is required in this scenario to be 20--30\%
145: older than the average Milky Way globular clusters (Yi et al. 1999).
146: This would pose a big challenge but there may be a rescue (see \S 4).
147:
148: \subsection{Metal-rich HB hypothesis}
149:
150: Through a gedanken experiment Greggio \& Renzini (1990) noted a
151: possibility that extremely low-mass HB stars may completely skip the
152: AGB phase and dubbed it ``AGB Manq\'{u}e stage''. Through this stage
153: metal-rich populations could become UV bright.
154: This is particularly effective for a high value of helium abundance
155: (Dorman et al. 1995). If galactic helium is enriched
156: with respect to heavy elements at a rate of $\Delta Y$/$\Delta Z
157: \ga 2.5$ this means that the stage would be very effective in galaxy
158: scales as well (Horch et al. 1992). It could be similarly effective
159: if the mass loss rate in metal-rich stars is 30--40\% higher than that of
160: metal-poor stars (Yi et al. 1997a). Either of the two conditions
161: would be sufficient while they can also complement each other.
162: Both of these conditions are difficult to validate empirically
163: but plausible (Yi et al. 1998).
164: In this scenario, metal-rich stars may become UV bright in two
165: steps: (1) they lose more mass on the red giant phase due to the
166: opacity effect and become low-mass HB stars, and (2) extremely
167: low-mass HB stars stay in the hot phase for a long time and
168: directly become white dwarfs, effectively skipping the red,
169: asymptotic giant phase (Yi et al. 1997a, 1997b). This scenario
170: reproduces most of the features of the UV upturn (Bressan et al.
171: 1994; Yi et al. 1998). The UV vs Mg2 relation is naturally explained
172: as a UV vs metallicity relation.
173: However, its validity heavily hinges upon the purely-theoretical
174: (and hence vulnerable to criticisms) late-stage stellar evolution
175: models of metal-rich stars.
176:
177:
178: \subsection{Metal-poor or metal-rich HB?}
179:
180: Both of these scenarios are equally appealing but their
181: implications on the age of bright elliptical galaxies are
182: substantially different.
183: The metal-poor hypothesis suggest UV-upturn galaxies are 30\%
184: older than Milky Way and requires the universe to be
185: older than currently believed, suggesting a large cosmological
186: constant. The metal-rich hypothesis on the other hand suggests
187: that elliptical galaxies are not necessarily older than the Milky Way halo.
188:
189: \begin{figure}[!t]
190: \begin{center}
191: \includegraphics[scale=0.4,angle=-0]{yi_f2}
192: \end{center}
193: \caption{
194: The two classic models (Model A: metal-poor HB, Model C: metal-rich HB)
195: predict different evolution history. While precise calibrations are difficult,
196: the UV developing pace is in general predicted to be faster for more metal-rich
197: populations. Excerpted from Yi et al. (1999).
198: }
199: \label{fig2}
200: \end{figure}
201:
202:
203: \section{Issues}
204:
205: Readers may get an impression by reading the previous sections
206: that we have solid and successful theories. Quite contrarily,
207: there are several critical issues to be understood before we can
208: ever claim so.
209:
210: \subsection{$\alpha$-enhancement}
211:
212: Theorists (including myself) often interpret the UV vs Mg2
213: relation as a metallicity effect on the UV flux. However, it
214: should be noted that Mg2 strength may not be representative of the
215: overall metallicity. In fact, it has been known that elliptical
216: galaxies are enhanced in $\alpha$-elements with respect to iron.
217: We then naturally wonder if it is not the overall metallicity but
218: $\alpha$-enhancement that generates the UV upturn. To perform this
219: test, we need $\alpha$-enhanced stellar models. The $Y^2$
220: Isochrones group have released their $\alpha$-enhanced
221: stellar models for the main sequence (MS) through red giant branch (RGB)
222: (Kim et al. 2002). But, no $\alpha$-enhanced HB
223: models are publicly available yet. $\alpha$-enhancement can have several
224: impacts on the galaxy spectral evolution. First, it changes the
225: stellar evolutionary time scale, as CNO abundance affects the
226: nuclear generation rates. Second, it changes opacities and thus
227: the surface temperatures of stars. These two effects will make a
228: change in the mass loss computed using a parameterised formula,
229: such as the Reimers (1975) formula. For a fixed mass loss efficiency, we
230: find the $\alpha$-enhanced ([$\alpha$/Fe]=0.3--0.6) tracks yield
231: $\approx 0.03 M_{\odot}$ smaller mass loss at ages 5--8Gyr but
232: $\approx 0.03 M_{\odot}$ greater mass loss at ages
233: $\ga 8$\,Gyr, compared to the standard ([$\alpha$/Fe]=0)
234: tracks. $\alpha$-enhancement must have similar opacity effects on
235: the HB evolution, while its effect on the mass loss on the HB should be negligible.
236: Thus its effects are expected to be greater to the MS to RGB than
237: to the HB phase. Considering this, I have decided to inspect the
238: overall effects of $\alpha$-enhancement by just adopting new
239: $\alpha$-enhanced MS through RGB tracks, ignoring the change in
240: the HB models. My earlier review (Yi \& Yoon 2004) shows the
241: results for two metallicities and three values of $\alpha$-enhancement.
242: It can be summarised as follows.
243: In old metal-poor models $\alpha$-enhancement causes a positive effect to the
244: $relative$ UV strength because (1) it causes a slight increase in
245: mass loss on the RGB and (2) it causes MS stars and red giants to
246: be redder and fainter in $V$ band. The [$\alpha$/Fe]=0.3 model
247: roughly reproduces the SED of a typical UV-strong metal-poor
248: globular cluster, which is satisfying. The metal-rich models
249: on the other hand do not show any appreciable change in response to
250: $\alpha$-enhancement. Because giant elliptical galaxies are largely
251: metal-rich (roughly solar) and the light contribution from
252: metal-poor stars is not substantial, it is unlikely for
253: $\alpha$-enhancement to play a major role to the UV upturn.
254:
255:
256: \subsection{EHB stars in star clusters}
257:
258: With the HST spatial resolution, a number of studies have found
259: hot, extended horizontal branch (EHB) stars in globular clusters
260: (e.g., Piotto et al. 1999). They are efficient UV sources and
261: important candidates for the main UV sources in elliptical
262: galaxies; but canonical population synthesis models have difficulty
263: reproducing them as they are observed (number density,
264: colours and brightness).
265:
266: NGC 6791 is a particularly interesting case.
267: This old (8-9Gyr) metal-rich (twice solar) open cluster is unique
268: resembling the stellar populations of the giant elliptical galaxies.
269: Strikingly, 9 out of its 32 seemingly-HB stars have the properties
270: of typical EHB stars (Kaluzny \& Udalski 1992; Liebert et al.
271: 1994), while canonical models do not predict any (Yong et al. 2000).
272: It is critical to understand the origin of these
273: {\em old hot metal-rich stars}.
274: Landsman et al. (1998), based on UIT data, concluded that NGC 6791, if observed
275: from afar without fore/background stellar contamination, would
276: exhibit a UV upturn just like the ones seen in elliptical galaxies.
277:
278: Through detailed synthetic HB modelling we found that it is
279: impossible to generate an HB with such a severely-bimodal colour
280: distribution as shown in this cluster, unless an extremely (and
281: unrealistically) large mass dispersion is adopted. In the hope of
282: finding a mechanism that produces such an HB Yong et al. (2000)
283: explored the effect of mass loss $on$ the HB. Yong et al. found
284: that with some mass loss taking place on the HB ($\approx
285: 10^{-9}-10^{-10}\,M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}$) HB stars born cool quickly
286: become hot, suggesting that mass loss on the HB might be an
287: effective mechanism of producing such stars.
288: Vink \& Cassisi (2002) however pointed out that the level of the
289: mass loss assumed by Yong et al. is too high to justify in their
290: radiation pressure calculations in the context of single-star evolution. Green et al. (2000)
291: reported that most of these hot stars in NGC 6791 are in binary
292: systems. If they are close binaries and experience mass transfer
293: it would be an effective mechanism for mass loss.
294: But at the moment it is difficult to conclude whether
295: binarity had causality on their EHB nature or not.
296:
297:
298:
299: \subsection{Binaries}
300:
301: SdB/O stars, the central objects of this conference, may be the
302: field counterparts of the EHB stars in clusters.
303: They have the properties similar to those of the UV sources in the
304: UV-upturn galaxies. Surprisingly, more than 70\% of sdB
305: stars are found to be in binary systems (Saffer et al. 2000;
306: Maxted et al. 2001).
307:
308: Han et al. (2003) used a binary population synthesis technique to
309: study the effects of binary evolution and found that 75--90\% of
310: sdB stars should be in binaries. SdBs are detected to be in a
311: small mass range centred at 0.5\,$M_{\odot}$, but Han et al.
312: found that the range should be in truth as wide as 0.3 through 0.8
313: $M_{\odot}$. They predict a birthrate of 0.05~$yr^{-1}$ for
314: Population I stars and 6 million sdB stars in the disc. Assuming
315: the Galactic Disc mass of 5x$10^{10}$\,$M_{\odot}$, this means
316: roughly 100 sdB stars per $10^6 M_{\odot}$. In a
317: back-of-the-envelope calculation, there are roughly a few thousand
318: HB stars per million solar mass in globular cluster populations.
319: A comparison between the sdB rate (100 per $10^6 M_{\odot}$) and
320: that of the HB (say, 5000 per $10^6 M_{\odot}$) suggests that an old
321: disc population may develop 1 sdB star for 50 HB stars (2\%). This
322: sounds by and large reasonable from the EHB-to-HB number ratio
323: found in globular clusters.
324: But it is hardly impressive from the perspective of searching
325: for copious UV sources in galaxies.
326: For comparison, NGC 6791 has roughly 30\% (8 EHB-like stars
327: out of 32 HB-like stars) and the UV-brightest Galactic globular cluster
328: $\omega$\,Cen has 20\%. These two examples show an order of magnitude
329: higher values of EHB-to-HB ratio than deduced from a simple estimation
330: based on the binary population synthesis models.
331: Yet, even $\omega$\,Cen does not exhibit a UV upturn as observed
332: in giant elliptical galaxies: $FUV$$-$$V$ is comparable but $FUV$$-$$NUV$
333: is 1--2 magnitudes redder than found in ellipticals.
334: If this calculation is
335: realistic at least within an order, binary mass transfer may not be
336: sufficient to provide the origin of the majority of the UV sources in
337: UV-upturn galaxies. On the other hand, a larger sdB production rate might be
338: plausible in elliptical galaxy environment due to large age and/or
339: large metallicity.
340:
341: A considerably more detailed investigation was presented by Han et al. (2007).
342: They constructed the population synthesis models including binaries
343: of varied properties (in mass ratio and separation).
344: The conclusions from their prediction can be summarised as
345: (1) most of the UV light of ellipticals comes from binary sdB stars
346: (2) a UV upturn starts to appear as early as when the galaxy is 1.5Gyr old
347: (3) and the $FUV$$-$$V$ colour stays virtually constant since then.
348: This is an important prediction because this is the first study that
349: realistically consider binary products in population models.
350: One immediately notices that the item (3) contradicts the single-star
351: population models of Yi et al. (1999) discussed in \S 3.3 and Figure 2.
352:
353:
354: \subsection{Other issues}
355:
356: There are other important issues as well. For example, the
357: late-stage flash mixing scenarios and the like (D'Cruz et al.
358: 1996; Brown et al. 2001) may also be effective ways of producing
359: hot stars (such as sdB stars) in old populations. Their typical
360: temperature range ($T_{\rm eff} \gg 20,000$\,K)
361: and the predicted birthrate may not be entirely
362: consistent with the UV upturn shown in elliptical galaxies, however.
363:
364: Another important observational constraint comes from the HST UV
365: images of M32. First, Brown et al. (2000) found that PAGB stars
366: are two orders of magnitudes fewer than predicted by simple
367: stellar evolution theory. This is significant as PAGB stars are
368: thought to account for 10--30\% of the UV flux in the UV-upturn galaxies
369: (Ferguson \& Davidsen 1993). More
370: importantly, they find too many $faint$ hot HB stars to reproduce with
371: standard population models that are based on the mass loss rate
372: calibrated to the globular cluster HB morphology.
373: It is possible to reproduce the observed number of hot
374: stars in M32-type populations if a greater mass loss rate is used,
375: which would be consistent with the variable mass loss hypothesis
376: (Willson et al. 1996; Yi et al. 1997b, 1998).
377: But theoretical justification is a problem again.
378:
379: \section{GALEX observations}
380:
381: The single star population synthesis models (\S 3.3) predict
382: a rapid decline in $FUV$$-$$V$ with increasing redshift (lookback time),
383: while the binary models suggest no significant change.
384: This stark contrast provides an important test.
385:
386: GALEX is NASA's UV space telescope mission that can do just this.
387: It has sensitive FUV and NUV detectors and reaches passive (no star formation)
388: old populations (such as many elliptical galaxies) out to $z \sim 0.2$
389: (Martin et al. 2005).
390: Its Deep Imaging Survey (DIS) is obtaining the UV images of tens of
391: galaxy clusters using $\ga 20,000$ seconds of exposure.
392: The UV upturn is found to be the strongest in the
393: brightest cluster elliptical galaxies (BCGs) and hence we have tried to obtain
394: accurate photometric data on the BCGs in our galaxy cluster sample.
395: Besides, a number of lower-redshift ($z \sim 0.1$) BCGs have been sampled
396: from the shallower Medium-deep Imaging Survey (MIS) as described in
397: Schawinski et al. (2007).
398: The UV photometry turned out to be very tricky because there are many
399: background UV sources that are not easily identifiable in shallow images.
400: The background confusion would easily cause underestimation on
401: the UV brightness. Occasionally, small foreground objects that are
402: invisible in the optical images contaminate the UV flux of our target
403: galaxy as well.
404:
405: From the up-to-date GALEX database, Ree et al. (2007) obtained the data
406: for seven BCGs from DIS and five from MIS.
407: A small fraction of the BCGs had star formation signatures (Yi et al. 2005)
408: and hence had to be removed from our sample.
409: Figure 3 shows the look-back time evolution of the apparent (not $K-$corrected) $FUV - V$ colour for the BCGs at $z <$ 0.2.
410: The FUV flux fades rapidly with redshift. The colours are derived from total
411: magnitudes to minimize aperture effect. Model lines are calibrated to
412: the colour range ($FUV - V = 5.4 - 6.4$) of the giant elliptical galaxies
413: in nearby clusters ($open~circles$), and passively evolved and redshifted
414: with look-back time so that they can be directly compared with the
415: observed data of the BCGs ($filled~circles$)
416: in GALEX DIS (black) and MIS (grey) mode. The size of circle symbols
417: represents the absolute total luminosity in $r$-band. The solid and
418: dashed lines are from the passively evolving UV-to-optical spectra
419: of the ``metal-poor'' and ``metal-rich'' HB models (\S 3).
420: The regions filled with oblique lines denote the predicted colour
421: range from these two extreme models. The dotted line indicates
422: the apparent colour expected when the local UV upturn galaxy NGC~1399
423: model spectrum is redshifted without the effect of stellar evolution.
424: The binary population models would be similar to the non-evolving model.
425: The higher redshift data points at 0.33 and 0.6 are the HST data
426: from Brown et al. (2000, 2003)
427: The model fits by Ree et al. (2007) and Lee et al. (2005a) suggest
428: that {\em the GALEX data show a UV flux decline with
429: lookback time at the rate $\Delta (FUV-V)/\Delta t = 0.54$ mag/Gyr.}
430: Although a definite answer requires more data, the current sample
431: seems more consistent with the prediction from the single-star population
432: models.
433: Any population model aiming to explain the UV upturn phenomenon would be
434: obliged to reproduce this unique data.
435:
436:
437: \begin{figure}[t]
438: \begin{center}
439: %\includegraphics{demo}
440: \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=0]{yi_f3}
441: \end{center}
442: \caption{
443: Look-back time evolution of the apparent (not $K-$corrected) $FUV - V$
444: colour for the brightest cluster elliptical galaxies (BCGs) at $z \la$ 0.2.
445: FUV flux fades rapidly with redshift which is consistent with the
446: prediction from the single-star population models (\S 3.3).
447: See text for details. Excerpted from Ree et al. (2007).
448: }
449: \label{fig3}
450: \end{figure}
451:
452:
453:
454: \section{New issue: enhanced-helium population}
455:
456:
457:
458: \begin{figure}[t]
459: \begin{center}
460: \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=-90]{yi_f4}
461: \end{center}
462: \caption{The observed and modeled colour-magnitude diagrams of
463: the globular cluster NGC\,2808. $left$: The cluster shows an exceptionally
464: wide distribution of horizontal branch stars. $right$: It can be
465: precisely reproduced by theory for example by assuming a large range of helium
466: abundance. Excerpted from Lee et al. (2005b)
467: }
468: \label{fig4}
469: \end{figure}
470:
471: A remarkable new information has recently emerged.
472: Observations for the colour-magnitude diagrams on globular clusters
473: $\omega$ Cen and NGC\,2808 revealed the multiple nature of their stellar
474: populations. The most massive globular cluster $\omega$ Cen for example
475: is now known to have up to four different metallicities both for the
476: main sequence and the red giant branch (Anderson 2002; Bedin et al. 2004).
477: Most shockingly, the bluest main sequence is found spectroscopically
478: to be more metal-rich (Ferraro et al. 2004) which implies an extremely
479: high helium abundance of $Y \approx 0.4$.
480: Interestingly, Lee et al. (2005b)
481: noted that such a helium-rich stellar population
482: would evolve into extremely hot HB explaining the hitherto mysterious
483: origin for the EHB stars of $\omega$ Cen.
484: Lee et al. claims that the same phenomenon is seen in NGC\,2808 as well.
485: Such a high helium abundance could in fact be more mysterious than
486: the origin of the EHB stars itself, hence became a hot topic.
487: The high value of helium abundance ($Y \approx 0.4$) seems particularly
488: impossible when it is combined with its low metallicity empirically constrained
489: ($Z \approx 0.002$--0.003).
490: This leads to $\Delta$$Y$/$\Delta$$Z \approx 70$ which is extremely
491: unlikely from the galactic chemical enrichment point of view
492: unless some exotic situation is at work, such as the chemical inhomogeneity
493: in the proto-galactic cloud enriched by first stars (Choi \& Yi 2007).
494:
495: No matter what the physical process may be, the CMD fits unanimously
496: suggest that the high value of helium is the easiest solution.
497: Figure 4 shows Lee et al. (2005b)'s
498: comparison between the observed and model CMDs
499: assuming that the hot end of the HB morphology is primarily governed
500: by the variation in the helium abundance. The reproduction is impressive.
501: If the EHB is indeed produced by helium variation, then, it almost seems
502: that we are going back to two decades ago in terms of the debate on the
503: second parameter for the HB morphology (see Lee et al. 1994).
504: According to Lee et al. (2007), a pronounced EHB is more easily found among
505: more massive globular clusters, which forces us to think deeply about the nature of globular clusters in general.
506:
507: It is not yet clear whether the enhanced helium interpretation is
508: physically plausible and whether it can be similarly significant to the galaxy
509: scale where for example the primordial chemical fluctuation proposed
510: should be hidden in the mean properties of the stellar populations of a
511: galaxy (see Choi \& Yi 2007).
512:
513: \section {New issue: UV-bright globular clusters in M87}
514:
515:
516: \begin{figure}[t]
517: \begin{center}
518: %\includegraphics{demo}
519: \includegraphics[scale=0.6,angle=0]{yi_f5}
520: \end{center}
521: \caption{
522: Model (FUV − V) versus (V−I) grid for a range of metallicities and ages,
523: generated from stellar models with the fiducial value of He enrichment
524: (ΔY/ΔZ = 2). The lowest age plotted is 1 Gyr and the largest age
525: plotted is 15 Gyr. Ages 1, 5, 10 and 15 Gyr are shown using filled circles
526: of increasing sizes. The globular cluster data of M87 (filled circles)
527: and Milky Way (open triangles) with errors are overplotted.
528: It is apparent that the M87 photometry lies outside the age range
529: 1–-14 Gyr for all metallicities. Excerpted from Kaviraj et al. (2007).}
530: \label{fig5}
531: \end{figure}
532:
533: The discovery of numerous UV-bright globular clusters in the giant
534: elliptical galaxy M87 is also remarkable (Sohn et al. 2006).
535: Using HST/STIS UV filters Sohn et al. found 66
536: globular clusters from small fields of view
537: most of which are bluer and hotter than the Milky
538: Way counterparts. Kaviraj et al. (2007) found that the canonical
539: population synthesis models with normal values of helium cannot
540: reproduce their UV properties at all, as shown in Figure 5.
541: Kaviraj et al. found that their UV brightness can be reproduced
542: if a similar amount of EHB stars found in the $\omega$ Cen study
543: by Lee et al. (2005b) are artificially
544: added to the canonical population models as well.
545: This is very interesting.
546: The more massive M87 is believed to contain 2 orders of magnitude
547: more star clusters than the Milky Way does and thus it is very natural
548: for us to find many more UV-bright globular clusters from M87 than from Milky
549: Way.
550: This can be compatible with the enhanced helium hypothesis.
551: If the enhanced helium is present, say in 10\% of the star clusters,
552: roughly 10 clusters in the Milky Way and up to 1000 clusters in M87
553: might be helium-enhanced and thus UV-bright. A part of them may have been found by Sohn et al. (2006).
554:
555:
556: \section{Conclusions}
557:
558: The UV satellite GALEX is obtaining a valuable UV spectral evolution
559: data for numerous bright cluster galaxies. The apparent trend in redshift
560: vs $FUV-V$ colour seems consistent with the prediction from the single
561: stellar population models.
562: This is comforting while observers feel obliged to build up their
563: database much more substantially in order to make it statistically robust.
564:
565: Two new issues are notable.
566: Firstly, binary population synthesis community feels odd to find that the
567: simplistic single-star population models are found to be good enough.
568: The in-principle more advanced binary population models are obliged to reproduce the observed CMDs of simple populations (globular clusters) before
569: attempting to model galaxies. For example, I am very eager to see
570: their models reproduce the ordinary HB first, before explaining the EHB.
571:
572: Secondly, the
573: enhanced helium hypothesis based on the globular clusters in Milky
574: Way and M87 is a very exciting possibility.
575: The deduced value of the helium abundance seems unphysical to be
576: a global property for the galaxy but may be possible for small systems
577: that are vulnerable to a chemical fluctuation in the proto-galaxy cloud.
578: While a more detailed investigation is called for it may be difficult
579: to be influential to the entire stellar population of a galaxy.
580: For instance, adding all spectral energy distributions of the Milky
581: Way globular clusters would not yield anything close to the spectrum
582: of a UV upturn galaxy. Of course, a metallicity difference may act as
583: an added complication.
584:
585: The secret will be revealed through time and hard work, perhaps very soon.
586:
587: \acknowledgements
588: I thank Uli Heber the Bamberg meeting organiser for the great workshop.
589: Special thanks go to Chang H. Ree for providing slides for my
590: review presentation at the meeting. I thank Chul Chung for generating
591: Figure 3 specifically for this article. This article is based on
592: many insightful discussions with Chang H. Ree, Young-Wook Lee, Mike Rich,
593: Jean-Michel Deharveng, Suk-Jin Yoon, Tony Sohn, Sugata Kaviraj,
594: Andres Jordan, Kevin Schawinski, and David Brown.
595: I acknowledge many helps from the GALEX science operation and data analysis
596: team. This trip and review was possible with the support from the KOSEF fund.
597:
598:
599:
600: \begin{thebibliography}{}
601: \bibitem[Anderson 2002]{and02}
602: Anderson, J. 2002, in ASP Conf. Ser. 265, $\omega$ Centauri, a Unique
603: Window into Astrophysics, eds. F. van Leeuwen, J.D. Hughes, \& G. Piotto
604: (San Francisco: ASP), 87
605: \bibitem[Bedin et al. 2004]{bed04}
606: Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Cassisi, S., King, I.R., Momanny, Y., \& Carraro, G. 2004, ApJ, 605, L125
607: \bibitem[Bressan et al. 1994]{bcf94}
608: Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., \& Fagotto, F. 1994, ApJS, 94, 63
609: \bibitem[Brown et al. 1997]{bro97}
610: Brown, T. M., Ferguson, H. C., Davidsen, A. F., \& Dorman, B. 1997,
611: ApJ, 482, 685
612: \bibitem[Brown et al. 2000]{bro00}
613: Brown, T. M., Bowers, C. W., Kimble, R, A., \& Ferguson, H. C. 2000,
614: ApJ, 529, L89
615: \bibitem[Brown et al. 2001]{bro01}
616: Brown, T. M., Sweigart, A. V., Lanz, T., Landsman, W. B. \& Hubeny, I. 2001,
617: ApJ, 562, 368
618: \bibitem[Brown et al. 2003]{bro03}
619: Brown, T. M., Ferguson, H. C., Smith, E., Bowers, C. W., Kimble, R, A.,
620: Renzini, A., \& Rich, R. M. 2003, ApJ, 584, L69
621: \bibitem[Burstein et al. 1988]{b88}
622: Burstein, D., Bertola, F., Buson, L. M., Faber, S. M., \& Lauer, T. R.
623: 1988, ApJ, 328, 440
624: \bibitem[Choi \& Yi 2007]{choi07} Choi, E. \& Yi, S. K. 2007, MNRAS, 375, L1
625: \bibitem[Code \& Welch 1979]{code79}
626: Code, A. D. \& Welch, G. A. 1979, ApJ, 229, 95
627: \bibitem[D'Cruz et al. 1996]{dcr96}
628: D'Cruz, N. L., Dorman, B., Rood, R. T. \& O'Connell, R. 1996, ApJ, 466, 359
629: \bibitem[Dorman et al. 1995]{dor95}
630: Dorman, B., O'Connell, R., \& Rood, R. T. 1995, ApJ, 442, 105
631: \bibitem[de Boer 1982]{deb82} de Boer, K. 1982, A\&AS, 50, 247
632: \bibitem[Ferraro et al. 2004]{fer04} Ferraro, F. R., Sollima, A., Pancino, E.,
633: Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O., Origlia, L., \& Cool, A. M. 2004, ApJ, 603, L81
634: \bibitem[Ferguson \& Davidsen 1993]{fer93} Ferguson, F.C. \& Davidsen, A.F. ApJ, 408, 92
635: \bibitem[Green et al. 2000]{gre00} Green, E. M. et al. 2000, in
636: the Third Faint Blue Star Conference, ed. D. Davis Philip, 333
637: \bibitem[Greggio \& Renzini 1999]{gr99} Greggio, L. \& Renzini, A. 1999,
638: Mem. S.A.It., 70, 691
639: \bibitem[Greggio \& Renzini 1990]{gr90}
640: Greggio, L., \& Renzini, A. 1990, ApJ, 364, 35
641: \bibitem[Han et al. 2003]{han03} Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, Ph., Maxted, P. F. L.
642: \& March, T. R. 2003, 341, 669
643: \bibitem[Han et al. 2007]{han07} Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, Ph., \& Lynas-Gray, A. E. 2007, 380, 1098
644: \bibitem[Horch et al. 1992]{hdp92}
645: Horch, E., Demarque, P., \& Pinsonneault, M. 1992, ApJ, 388, L53
646: \bibitem[Kaluzny \& Udalski 1992]{ku92} Kaluzny, J. \& Udalski, A.
647: \bibitem[Kaviraj et al. 2007]{kav07} Kaviraj, S., Sohn, S. T., O'Connell, R.W., Yoon, S.-J., Lee, Y.-W., \& Yi, S.K. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 987
648: \bibitem[Kim et al. 2002]{kim02} Kim, Y.-C., Demarque, P., Yi, S.K., \& Alexander, D. 2002, ApJS, 413, 499
649: \bibitem[Landsman et al. 1998]{lan98} Landsman, W., Bohlin, R. C., Neff, S. G.,
650: O'Connell, R. W., Roberts, M. S., Smith, A. M., \& Stecher, T. P. 1998,
651: 116, 789
652: \bibitem[Lee et al. 1994]{lee94} Lee, Y.-W., Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R.
653: 1994, ApJ, 423, 248
654: \bibitem[Lee et al. 2005a]{lee05a} Lee, Y.-W. et al. 2005a, ApJ, 619, L103
655: \bibitem[Lee et al. 2005b]{lee05b} Lee, Y.-W. et al. 2005b, ApJ, 621, L57
656: \bibitem[Lee et al. 2007]{lee07} Lee, Y.-W., Gim, H.B., Casetti-Dinescu, D. I. 2007, ApJ, 661, L49
657: \bibitem[Liebert et al. 1994]{lie94} Liebert, J., Saffer, R. A.,
658: \& Green, E. M. 1994, AJ, 107, 1408
659: \bibitem[Martin et al. 2005]{mar05} Martin, C. et al. 2005, 619, L1
660: \bibitem[Maxted et al. 2001]{max01} Maxted, P. F. L., Heber, U.,
661: Marsh, T. R., \& North, R. C. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1391
662: \bibitem[O'Connell 1999]{o99} O'Connell, R. W. 1999, ARAA, 37, 603
663: \bibitem[Park \& Lee 1997]{pl97} Park, J.-H., \& Lee, Y.-W. 1997, 476, 28
664: \bibitem[Piotto et al. 1999]{p99}
665: Piotto, G., Zoccali, M., King, I. R., Djorgovski, S. G., Sosin, C., Rich, R. M., \&
666: Meylan, G. 1999, AJ, 118, 1727
667: \bibitem[Ree et al. 2007]{ree07} Ree, C. H. et al. 2007, ApJS, Dec. issue
668: \bibitem[Reimers 1975]{r75}
669: Reimers, D. 1975, M\'{e}m. Soc. Roy. Sci. Li\`{e}ge, 6th Ser., 8, 369
670: \bibitem[Saffer et al. 2000]{saf00} Saffer, R. A. et al. 2000, in
671: the Third Faint Blue Star Conference, ed. D. Davis Philip, 444
672: \bibitem[Schawinski et al. 2007]{sch07} Schawinski. K. et al. 2007, ApJS, Dec. issue
673: \bibitem[Sohn et al. 2006]{sohn06} Sohn, S. T., O'Connell, R.W., Kundu, A., Landsman, W.B., Burstein, D., Bohlin, R.C., Frogel, J.A., \& Rose, J.A. 2006, AJ, 131, 866
674: \bibitem[Willson et al. 1996]{wbs96}
675: Willson, L. A., Bowen, G. H., \& Struck, C. 1996,
676: in ASP Series 98, From Stars to Galaxies, eds. C. Leitherer,
677: U. Fritze-v. Alvensleben, \& J. Huchra (ASP), 197
678: \bibitem[Yi et al. 1997a]{ydk97}
679: Yi, S., Demarque, P., \& Kim, Y.-C. 1997a, ApJ, 482, 677
680: \bibitem[Yi et al. 1997b]{ydo97}
681: Yi, S., Demarque, P., \& Oemler, A. Jr. 1997b, ApJ, 486, 201
682: \bibitem[Yi et al. 1998]{ydo98}
683: Yi, S., Demarque, P., \& Oemler, A. Jr. 1998, ApJ, 492, 480
684: \bibitem[Yi et al. 1999]{yi99}
685: Yi, S., Lee, Y.-W., Woo, J.-H., Park, J.-H., Demarque, P., \&
686: Oemler, Jr. A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 128
687: \bibitem[Yi et al. 2005]{yi05} Yi, S. et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L111
688: \bibitem[Yi \& Yoon 2004]{yiyoon04}
689: Yi, S. K. \& Yoon, S.-J. 2004, Ap\&SS, 291, 205
690: \bibitem[Yong et al. 2000]{yong00}
691: Yong, H.-J., Demarque, P., \& Yi, S. 2000, ApJ, 539, 928
692:
693:
694: \end{thebibliography}
695:
696: \end{document}
697: