1: \documentstyle[aaspp4,11pt,tighten]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[aasms4,12pt]{article}
3: \begin{document}
4: \input psfig.sty
5:
6: \title{Resolving the Controversy Over the Core Radius of 47~Tucanae
7: (NGC~104)\footnote{Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space
8: Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is
9: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
10: under NASA contract NAS5-26555.}$^,$\footnote{Lick Observatory Bulletin
11: No.~139X.}}
12: \author{Justin H.\ Howell and Puragra Guhathakurta\footnote{Alfred P.\ Sloan
13: Research Fellow}}
14: \affil{UCO/Lick Observatory, Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics,\\
15: University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA\\
16: Email: {\tt jhhowell@ucolick.org}, {\tt raja@ucolick.org}}
17: \and
18: \author{Ronald L.\ Gilliland}
19: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive,\\
20: Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA\\
21: Email: {\tt gillil@stsci.edu}}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: This paper investigates the discrepancy between recent measurements of the
25: density profile of the globular cluster 47~Tucanae that have used {\it Hubble
26: Space Telescope\/} data sets. A large core radius would support the
27: long-held view that 47~Tuc is a relaxed cluster, while a small core radius
28: may indicate that it is in a post--core-collapse phase or possibly even on
29: the verge of core collapse, as suggested by a variety of unusual objects ---
30: millisecond pulsars, X-ray sources, high velocity stars --- observed in the
31: core of the cluster. Guhathakurta et al. (1992) used pre-refurbishment Wide
32: Field/Planetary Camera~1 (WFPC1) $V$-band images to derive $r_{\rm
33: core}=23''\pm2''$. \cite{calzetti}
34: suggested that the density profile is instead a superposition of two King
35: profiles, one with a small, $8''$ core radius and the other with a $25''$
36: core radius, based on $U$-band Faint Object Camera (FOC) images. More
37: recently, \cite{guido} have used deep WFPC1 $U$-band images to
38: derive $r_{\rm core}=12''\pm2''$. The cluster centers used in
39: these studies are in agreement with one another; differences
40: in the adopted centers are not the cause of the discrepancy. Our independent
41: analysis of the data used by De~Marchi et~al.\ reaches the following
42: conclusions:
43: \begin{itemize}
44: \item[(1)]{De~Marchi et~al.'s $r_{\rm core}\sim12''$ value is
45: spuriously low, a result of radially-varying bias in the star counts in
46: a magnitude limited sample --- photometric
47: errors and a steeply rising stellar luminosity function cause more stars to
48: scatter across the limiting magnitude into the sample than out of it,
49: especially near the cluster center where crowding effects are most severe.}
50: \item[(2)]{Changing the limiting magnitude to the main sequence turnoff,
51: away from the steep part of the luminosity function, partially alleviates the
52: problem and results in $r_{\rm core}=18''$.}
53: \item[(3)]{Combining such a limiting magnitude with accurate photometry
54: derived from point-spread-function fitting, instead of the less accurate
55: aperture photometry employed by De~Marchi et~al., results in a
56: reliable measurement of the density profile which is well fit by $r_{\rm
57: core}=22''\pm2''$.}
58: \end{itemize}
59:
60: \noindent
61: The Calzetti et~al.\ FOC-based density profile measurement is also likely to
62: have been biased by a poor choice of limiting magnitude and large radially
63: varying photometric errors associated with aperture photometry.
64: Archival Wide Field Planetary Camera~2 (WFPC2) data are used to derive a star
65: list with a higher degree of completeness, greater photometric accuracy, and
66: wider areal coverage than the WFPC1 and FOC data sets; the WFPC2-based
67: density profile supports the above conclusions, yielding $r_{\rm
68: core}=24\farcs0\pm1\farcs9$.
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71: \keywords{globular clusters: individual (47~Tucanae, NGC~104) --- globular
72: clusters: general --- methods: data analysis --- techniques: photometric}
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75:
76: Globular clusters are excellent laboratories for studying the dynamics of
77: a stellar system. The high density of stars near their centers results in
78: frequent interactions---e.g.,~single star-single star, single star-binary,
79: and binary-binary. Such interactions redistribute energy throughout the
80: cluster and drive its global evolution on the so-called ``two-body
81: relaxation'' timescale. This can sometimes be comparable to the typical
82: orbital period of stars near the cluster center, and significantly shorter
83: than the cluster age, implying that dynamical evolution is important.
84: The orbital period or crossing/dynamical time is related to the core radius
85: (the characteristic length scale associated with the inner density profile)
86: and the velocity dispersion of the cluster. It is customary to characterize
87: the radial distribution of various stellar populations in terms of the core
88: radius (cf.~\cite{rasio}).
89:
90: The inner stellar density profile of a globular cluster is suggestive
91: of its evolutionary state (\cite{hut96}).
92: Most clusters are characterized by constant
93: density cores, well fit by models based on a relaxed, Maxwellian distribution
94: function of stars out to the limiting (tidal) radius (\cite{king66a}).
95: On the other hand, about twenty percent of all globular clusters
96: appear to have undergone catastrophic gravothermal collapse
97: as a result of runaway energy loss from the core due to two-body relaxation
98: (\cite{dk86}; see the recent review in \cite{meyheg}).
99: Even these post--core-collapse (PCC) clusters, however, are {\it not\/}
100: expected to develop central singularities as heating by
101: binaries will drive a ``quasi-steady post-collapse'' stage followed by
102: gravothermal oscillations. Theoretical modeling suggests that clusters in
103: the post-collapse phase should have core radii in the range
104: $r_{\rm core}\sim0.01\>$--$\>0.04r_h$ (\cite{good87}; \cite{gao91}) or even
105: as large as $r_{\rm core}\sim0.09r_h$ (\cite{vc94}), where $r_h$ is the
106: half-mass radius. These calculations are based on a single-mass stellar
107: population; models with a realistic stellar mass function could yield a
108: larger core radius.
109:
110: The globular cluster 47~Tucanae has been studied extensively, and
111: has long been considered a prototypical relaxed globular cluster
112: (\cite{king85}) with a large core radius: $r_{\rm core}\sim25''$
113: (\cite{dk84}). Recent observations of a variety of exotic objects, such as
114: millisecond pulsars (\cite{rob95}), X-ray sources (\cite{hg83};
115: \cite{hjv94}), and nine~stars whose velocities differ from the cluster mean
116: by $\gtrsim30$~km~${\rm s}^{-1}$ (\cite{karl95}),
117: have raised the possibility that 47~Tuc may be approaching
118: core collapse. The half-light (or half-mass) radius of 47~Tuc is $r_h=174''$
119: (\cite{tdk93}), so if it has undergone core collapse it should have a core
120: radius in the range $1\farcs7$ to $16''$ (following \cite{good87};
121: \cite{gao91}; \cite{vc94}). Two recent determinations of the core radius of
122: 47~Tuc fall within the upper end of this range, as discussed in \S\,2 below.
123: Moreover, \cite{fisgeb95} have
124: constructed nonparametric dynamical models based on the surface brightness
125: and velocity dispersion profiles, and conclude that the mass profile of
126: 47~Tuc is as centrally concentrated as that of M15. The density
127: profile slope of 47~Tuc beyond $2'$ is found to be similar to that seen in
128: Fokker-Planck simulations of PCC clusters (\cite{cohn80}).
129:
130: Ground-based studies typically use integrated surface brightness
131: measurements to determine a cluster's density profile (cf.~\cite{dk84}).
132: A substantial
133: fraction of the optical light of a cluster comes from a handful of the
134: brightest red giant branch (RGB) stars
135: so that the effective Poisson error associated with
136: integrated light measurements is large. This kind of ``sampling''
137: error makes the measured density profile noisy, and any error in the center
138: determination tends to bias the measured core radius towards large values.
139: {\it Hubble Space Telescope\/} ({\it HST\/}) images, even with the aberrated
140: pre-refurbishment point spread function (PSF), offer the advantage of
141: resolving individual stars down to the main sequence turnoff even in the
142: cluster core (Guhathakurta et~al. 1992, hereafter GYSB). Star counts are
143: more representative of the stellar mass density than the integrated light,
144: and the effective Poisson errors are smaller (\cite{king66b}). It is
145: preferable to work at short wavelengths
146: (e.g.,~the $U$ band) where the brightest RGB stars are suppressed relative
147: to the more numerous, bluer faint subgiants: this reduces sampling effects in
148: integrated light measurements and increases the degree of faint star
149: completeness (most notably in the vicinity of bright giants)
150: for star count measurements (Calzetti et~al.\ 1993; De Marchi et~al.\ 1996,
151: hereafter DPSGB).
152:
153: This paper focuses on the question: What is the core radius of 47~Tuc as
154: defined by the radial distribution of evolved stars? It
155: examines recent measurements of the density profile of 47~Tuc
156: that appear to be in disagreement with one another. In particular, the {\it
157: HST\/} Wide Field/Planetary Camera~1 (WFPC1) data set analyzed by DPSGB
158: is reanalyzed here using somewhat different photometric
159: techniques; our results and those of DPSGB are compared to archival Wide
160: Field Planetary Camera~2 (WFPC2) data. The background of the core radius
161: controversy is given in \S\,2. In \S\,3, the available 47~Tuc data sets and
162: the methodologies of this paper and DPSGB are discussed. In \S\,4 the
163: photometric errors associated with each method are examined, demonstrating
164: that the aperture photometry technique of DPSGB produces a radially-varying
165: bias in the star counts used to measure $r_{\rm core}$.
166: Core radius calculations are presented in \S\,5 along with tests which show
167: that the core radius discrepancy can be explained in terms of the star count
168: bias in the DPSGB study. The conclusions of this paper are presented in \S\,6.
169:
170: \section{The Controversy to Date}
171:
172: The first {\it HST}-based core radius for 47~Tuc was derived from F555W
173: images obtained with the WFPC1 instrument operated in Planetary Camera
174: mode\footnote{All Wide Field/Planetary Camera~1 (WFPC1) data sets referred to
175: in this paper were obtained in Planetary Camera mode.}
176: (GYSB): $r_{\rm core}=23''\pm2''$, in
177: good agreement with earlier ground-based measurements (cf.~\cite{hr79}).
178: Shortly thereafter, \cite{calzetti} analyzed an independent set of
179: pre-refurbishment {\it HST\/} Faint Object Camera (FOC) ultraviolet data, and
180: obtained results that were in conflict with previous work. They pointed out
181: that the cluster center determined from the ground was significantly in
182: error, biased by a few bright giant stars. More surprisingly, they derived
183: a cluster density profile that did not resemble a King profile, but was
184: instead fit by a superposition of two King profiles with core radii of $25''$
185: and $8''$, suggesting that 47~Tuc is on the verge of core collapse.
186:
187: The cause of the discrepancy between these density profile measurements
188: remained unclear for the next few years, and so did the true nature of
189: 47~Tuc's density profile. The center derived by \cite{calzetti} is $\sim6''$
190: from the earlier ground-based estimate (\cite{auriere}), but only $1\farcs4$
191: from GYSB's estimate which is well within the formal errors.
192: When Calzetti et~al.'s FOC ultraviolet image-based
193: cluster centroid estimate is used in conjunction with the GYSB F555W data
194: set, the resulting density profile is marginally smoother than the profile
195: obtained using GYSB's center estimate, possibly indicating that the former
196: center estimate is more accurate (see \S\,1), but the best-fit core radius is
197: $\gtrsim20''$ in both cases (\cite{gysb93}). Two possible sources of
198: discrepancy in density profile measurements are ruled out:
199: \begin{itemize}
200: \item[(1)]{Detailed image simulations show that the sample of faint
201: RGB/subgiant stars used by GYSB is nearly complete and, in particular, the
202: degree of incompleteness does not vary appreciably with radius.}
203: \item[(2)]{If there were a bluer-inward radial gradient in the mean color
204: of faint RGB/subgiant stars, this would result in a difference between the
205: density profiles derived from ultraviolet versus visual-band images.
206: However, a star-by-star match between the Calzetti et~al.\ and GYSB data sets
207: reveals no such ($\rm F342W-F555W$) color gradient in 47~Tuc.}
208: \end{itemize}
209:
210: More recently, DPSGB used an F336W image from the deep WFPC1 data set of
211: \cite{ron95} to revise the cluster center derived by \cite{calzetti} and
212: measure a core radius of $r_{\rm core}=12''\pm2''$, arguing that
213: neither the \cite{calzetti} composite King profile nor the traditional large
214: core radius fit the data. This $12''$ core radius is within a factor of
215: two or three of the range of theoretical estimates for the core radius of a PCC
216: cluster with 47~Tuc's $r_h$.
217: DPSGB argued that this is suggestive that 47~Tuc may be
218: approaching core collapse as \cite{calzetti} had proposed.
219:
220: \section{Data and Photometric Techniques}
221:
222: There are two {\it HST\/} imaging data sets analyzed in this paper:
223: ({\bf 1})~pre-refurbishment WFPC1 data described by \cite{ron95},
224: consisting of a very deep F336W image ($\sim99\times1000$\,s) with excellent
225: sub-pixel dithering and shorter
226: F439W and F555W exposures (160\,s and 60\,s, respectively); and
227: ({\bf 2})~archival WFPC2 data from program GO-6095 (PI: S.~G.~Djorgovski),
228: consisting of F218W ($4\times800$\,s), F439W ($2\times50$\,s), and F555W
229: (7\,s) images. The deep WFPC1 data set combines the advantages of
230: ultraviolet imaging (as used by Calzetti et~al.\ 1993) with a wider field of
231: view (equivalent to that used by GYSB), and is significantly deeper than all
232: previous 47~Tuc
233: data sets. The great improvement in PSF quality in the WFPC2 data
234: set relative to the deep WFPC1 data set more than compensates for the shorter
235: exposure times, resulting in a higher degree of completeness and about a
236: factor of two~smaller photometric errors (Guhathakurta et~al., in preparation).
237: Moreover, the larger
238: field of view of WFPC2 ($150''\times150''$ with the PC quadrant being
239: partially filled, extending to $r\sim100''$) compared to WFPC1
240: ($68''\times68''$, extending to $r\sim55''$) makes it better for density
241: profile measurements.
242:
243: Since this work and DPSGB use the same deep WFPC1 data set, it is important
244: to examine and compare the stellar photometry techniques used in the two
245: studies.
246: This paper uses standard PSF-fitting photometry techniques based on {\sc
247: daophot~ii} (\cite{stetson92}). These techniques are described in detail in
248: GYSB and \cite{yanny94}, with minor modifications to adapt them to the
249: doubly-oversampled combined F336W WFPC1 image constructed from the sub-pixel
250: dithered exposures (Gilliland et~al.\ 1995; \cite{edmonds96}).
251: The main steps in the technique are
252: outlined here. A preliminary star list is derived by applying
253: {\sc daophot}'s {\sc find}
254: routine to the deep WFPC1 F336W image. For each of the four CCDs, a set of
255: bright, unsaturated, and relatively isolated stars are used to construct a
256: PSF template, which is allowed to vary quadratically with position. This
257: template is then fit to all stars on the image using the preliminary star
258: list. The neighbors of the PSF template stars are subtracted, and the
259: process is iterated a few times. Stars too faint to be detected in the
260: initial {\sc find} run are then added based on inspection of the
261: PSF-subtracted frames. The process of PSF template building and fitting is
262: iterated a few more times, and the final star list is fit. The magnitudes
263: returned by {\sc daophot}'s PSF-fitting routine {\sc allstar} are converted
264: to total instrumental magnitudes by using the PSF template stars to determine a
265: spatially-dependent aperture correction. The resulting photometry in the
266: F336W, F439W, and F555W bands is converted to the Johnson $UBV$ system
267: through an empirical fit to ground-based data from \cite{auriere94}.
268: A similar set of techniques is applied to the WFPC2 data set
269: (cf.~\cite{gysb96}) to derive an independent star list for
270: which the instrumental F218W, F439W, and F555W magnitudes are converted to
271: Johnson $U$, $B$, and $V$ magnitudes, respectively.
272:
273: DPSGB uses a `core aperture photometry' technique defined in \cite{demarchi93}.
274: PSF peaks are identified on the deep WFPC1 F336W image and aperture
275: photometry is carried out using a small aperture comparable to the size of
276: the PSF core (hence the term `core aperture photometry')
277: and a sky annulus of roughly twice that radius. An aperture correction factor
278: is applied to convert the resulting aperture magnitudes to total magnitudes,
279: compensating for the portion of the PSF that lies outside the aperture and
280: for the fact that the sky annulus includes light from the star in question.
281: This method is hereafter referred to as aperture photometry.
282: The sample of \cite{calzetti} is analyzed using
283: the same aperture photometry technique on the same crowded field.
284: While \S\,4 makes a specific comparison of our results to DPSGB because they
285: share a common data set, the conclusions are expected to apply to Calzetti
286: et~al.'s $r_{\rm core}$ analysis as well. Neighbor contamination affects
287: aperture photometry to a much greater degree than it affects PSF-fitting
288: photometry. Since aperture photometry is based on the total flux within
289: the aperture, the contribution of neighboring stars is a direct source of
290: photometric bias. Neighbors have
291: a somewhat smaller effect on the sky measurement since the latter is
292: estimated from the mode.
293:
294: There are three sets of stellar $U$ magnitudes discussed in this
295: study. The photometry from this work using the deep WFPC1 data set is
296: referred to as $U\equiv{U_{\rm WFPC1}}$ (this paper); the
297: photometry presented by DPSGB based on the same data set is referred to as
298: $U_{\rm D}\equiv{U_{\rm WFPC1}} ~({\rm DPSGB})-0.39$ (see \S\,\ref{sbscomp}),
299: where $U_{\rm WFPC1} ({\rm DPSGB})$ is identical to the quantity $m_{336}$ in
300: that paper.
301: Photometry from the archival WFPC2 data set is referred to as $U_{\rm WFPC2}$.
302: The WFPC2 PSF is much sharper than that of WFPC1, resulting in more accurate
303: photometry; thus the WFPC2 data set is used to define the
304: `true' stellar magnitudes of the stars identified on both the WFPC1 and
305: WFPC2 images. For each star in the WFPC1 and WFPC2 data sets, the positional
306: offset in arcseconds, $\Delta\alpha$ and $\Delta\delta$ (relative to
307: reference star `E' in the 47~Tuc core; GYSB), is determined using the IRAF
308: task {\sc metric} (\cite{gilmozzi}) which uses pointing information based on
309: the {\it HST\/} Guide Star Catalog.
310:
311: \section{Photometric Error and its Effect on Star Counts}
312: \subsection{Star-by-Star Comparison}\label{sbscomp}
313:
314: In order to compare the performance of the two photometric techniques described
315: above, the input star lists used in the two studies are examined. If,
316: for example, one list systematically misses stars in the crowded
317: central region of the cluster, then this will result in differences in
318: the measured core radii.
319: The star finding/PSF-fitting iterations described
320: above yield a set of 14801 stars identified
321: on the deep WFPC1 F336W image. A star list kindly provided by
322: Guido De Marchi gives the positions and magnitudes of 14979 stars from
323: the same image as reduced by DPSGB. The bright stars in these two star
324: lists match with an rms positional difference of one-third of one PC pixel,
325: $\sigma=0\farcs016$. The entire matched star list contains 12372~stars with
326: positions agreeing to within $3\sigma$ (1~PC pixel)
327: between the two input star lists. It should be noted that
328: 141 stars appear twice on the star list from DPSGB. The majority of the
329: $\sim2500$
330: unmatched stars fall below the main sequence turnoff and thus are not
331: used to calculate $r_{\rm core}$. An inspection
332: of the unmatched stars suggests that many such stars from
333: the DPSGB list may be spurious, as they tend to lie in the wings of bright
334: stars, while unmatched stars from this work tend to be faint stars
335: barely visible on the image. The fraction of evolved stars (defined to be
336: those with $U<18.11$) that remain unmatched in each sample is quite small: 217
337: from this paper and 246 from DPSGB out of a total of $>4000$ evolved stars.
338: Comparison of our (DPSGB's) WFPC1 photometry to WFPC2
339: photometry of these unmatched stars indicates that 10\% (40\%)
340: of the unmatched stars are main sequence stars scattered to brighter
341: magnitudes as a result of photometric error. As expected, the
342: unmatched stars are such a small fraction of the total that they have a
343: negligible effect on the $r_{\rm core}$ estimate
344: (\S\,5). We conclude that the set of stars used in the $r_{\rm core}$
345: analysis is basically the same for our study and that of DPSGB; the sample
346: differences are too small to explain the vastly different conclusions about
347: $r_{\rm core}$.
348:
349: Establishing a common photometric system is the next step in comparing the
350: photometry derived from
351: the two data reduction techniques. This paper converts instrumental magnitudes
352: to standard Johnson $UBV$ magnitudes empirically as described in \S\,3 above.
353: DPSGB uses $m_{336}\equiv{U_{\rm WFPC1}}$~(DPSGB) throughout, referring to
354: instrumental magnitudes
355: ``converted to the WF/PC ground system''. A star-by-star comparison between
356: the two data sets indicates that a constant offset of $-0.39$~mag applied to
357: $U_{\rm WFPC1}$ (DPSGB) brings the majority of stars into good agreement with
358: our measured $U$ magnitude. The quantity $U_{\rm D}$ will hereafter be used
359: in place of $U_{\rm WFPC1}~ ({\rm DPSGB})-0.39$.
360:
361: To examine the variation of photometric scatter with radius, the WFPC1
362: magnitude ($U$ or $U_{\rm D}$) of each star is compared to its `true'
363: magnitude, $U_{\rm WFPC2}$. The top and bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{deltam}
364: plot $(U_{\rm WFPC2}-U)$ and $(U_{\rm WFPC2}-U_{\rm D})$, respectively,
365: versus $U_{\rm WFPC2}$.
366: Only stars whose ($\Delta\alpha$, $\Delta\delta$) positions match to
367: within $0\farcs1$ between the WFPC1 and WFPC2 data sets are used.
368: The matched WFPC1 sample is divided at the median radius for
369: stars with $U<18.11$, $r_{\rm med}=21\farcs54$.
370: The $r<r_{\rm med}$ (inner) subsamples are plotted in
371: the left panels and the $r>r_{\rm med}$ (outer)
372: subsamples are plotted in the right panels. The small
373: number of points in the outer subsamples results from the limited overlap
374: between the WFPC1 and WFPC2 fields of view away from the core of the cluster.
375: There are systematic differences between the WFPC1 photometry and the WFPC2
376: photometry: $U$ and $U_{\rm D}$ are systematically too faint for bright red
377: giants and too bright for main sequence turnoff stars; these are caused by
378: errors in the conversion to Johnson $U$ magnitudes for the WFPC1 data
379: set (\S\,\ref{cmdsec}).
380:
381: %\placefigure{deltam}
382: \begin{figure}
383: \plotfiddle{fg1.eps}{4.0truein}{-90}{64}{64}{-243}{362}
384: \caption{Difference between WFPC1 and WFPC2 $U$-band stellar
385: photometry as a function of WFPC2 magnitude using the PSF-fitting method
386: (this work: upper panels) and the aperture photometry method (DPSGB:
387: lower panels). The left panels show the inner sample of stars with
388: $r<21\farcs54$, while the right panels show the outer sample of stars with
389: $r>21\farcs54$. The smaller number of stars in the outer samples is due to
390: the limited overlap between the WFPC1 and WFPC2 fields of view away from the
391: cluster center. The limiting magnitude used in core radius calculation is
392: indicated by the solid lines: $U^{\rm lim}=18.11$ (upper panels) and
393: $U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim}=17.71$ (lower panels). Dashed lines show $U_{\rm
394: WFPC2}=18.11$ and $U_{\rm WFPC2}=17.71$ (upper and lower, respectively). The
395: DPSGB aperture photometry displays a larger scatter than the PSF-fitting
396: photometry used in this work, and the scatter increases towards the cluster
397: center. The mismatch between WFPC1 and WFPC2 photometry, most noticeable at
398: the bright end and near the turnoff, is a result of systematic error in
399: the WFPC1 to Johnson $U$ magnitude conversion.
400: \label{deltam}}
401: \end{figure}
402:
403: The $U$ vs.\ $U_{\rm WFPC2}$ scatter is similar for inner and outer samples
404: while the scatter increases dramatically toward smaller radii for $U_{\rm D}$
405: vs.\ $U_{\rm WFPC2}$. Moreover, DPSGB's photometry of turnoff stars has a
406: larger scatter than that of this work at all radii. While the standard
407: deviation and mean value of $\Delta{U}$ $[\equiv(U_{\rm WFPC2}-U)$ or
408: $(U_{\rm WFPC2}-U_{\rm D})]$ are indicative of the overall rms photometric
409: scatter and
410: mean bias, respectively, it is instructive to examine the full distribution
411: of $\Delta{U}$ values. Stars in the interval $17.8<U_{\rm WFPC2}<19.8$ are
412: used to construct cumulative distributions of $\Delta{U}$. The cumulative
413: distributions using DPSGB's photometry
414: show a long, asymmetric tail of large $(U_{\rm WFPC2}-U_{\rm D})$,
415: while the distributions using the photometry from this study are quite
416: symmetrical and narrow, implying lower scatter and little or no bias.
417: More quantitatively, the $\Delta{U}$ values corresponding to
418: the 95th percentile of the distribution are: +0.5, +0.5 (this study: inner
419: and outer subsamples, respectively); +1.2, +0.75 (DPSGB: inner and outer
420: subsamples, respectively).
421:
422: The conclusion to be drawn from this subsection is that the star lists
423: used in the two studies are effectively identical, but
424: photometric accuracy is not. DPSGB's photometry shows a systematically
425: greater photometric error, and a bias in the sense that stars are more
426: likely to be measured as brighter than they truly are than fainter. More
427: importantly, this error and bias are greatest near the cluster center.
428:
429: \subsection{Color-Magnitude Diagrams}\label{cmdsec}
430:
431: Color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs; Fig.~\ref{cmd}) provide an alternate
432: perspective on the nature of photometric error in the WFPC1 $U$-band data
433: set, complementary to the discussion in the previous subsection. As
434: described below, the CMDs also help to highlight a discrepancy between the
435: WFPC1 and WFPC2 $U$-band photometric calibration.
436: The CMDs combine $B$ and $V$ magnitudes, obtained via PSF-fitting,
437: with each of the WFPC1 $U$ magnitudes under examination: our PSF-fitting
438: photometry and DPSGB's aperture photometry. The $B$ vs.\ $U-V$ and
439: $B$ vs.\ $U_{\rm D}-V$ CMDs (left and right, respectively) are presented
440: for stars in the inner and
441: outer halves of the matched star sample (upper and lower, respectively).
442: The $B$ vs.\ $U-V$ diagrams use $U^{\rm lim}=18.11$,
443: while the $B$ vs.\ $U_{\rm D}-V$ diagrams use
444: $U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim}=17.71$. Limiting magnitudes will be discussed in
445: detail in \S\,\ref{lfsec}.
446:
447: %\placefigure{cmd}
448: \begin{figure}
449: \plotone{fg2.eps}
450: \caption{Color-magnitude diagrams for the inner (top panels)
451: and outer (bottom panels) WFPC1 subsamples, using $U$-band photometry from
452: this work ($U$: left) and DPSGB ($U_{\rm D}$: right), combined with $B$- and
453: $V$-band photometry derived from PSF-fitting. The limiting magnitude is
454: $U^{\rm lim}=18.11$ for this work, and $U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim}=17.71$ for DPSGB.
455: Squares represent stars which are $>+3\sigma$ outliers in a $U-U_{\rm D}$
456: scatter plot (their number is indicated in parentheses in each panel). These
457: outliers tend to have bluer $U_{\rm D}-V$ colors than the main CMD features,
458: but their $U-V$ colors are not similarly biased, indicating that they are
459: outliers because of photometric scatter/bias in $U_{\rm D}$. The solid line
460: is the median color of stars derived from WFPC2 photometry. The disagreement
461: between WFPC2 photometry and both sets of WFPC1 photometry, most pronounced
462: for bright red giants and turnoff stars, is caused by systematic error in
463: the WFPC1 to Johnson $U$ calibration.
464: \label{cmd}}
465: \end{figure}
466:
467: The use of the CMD as a diagnostic tool is best
468: illustrated through stars with the most extreme photometric errors.
469: A plot of $U-U_{\rm D}$ vs.\ $U_{\rm WFPC2}$ is
470: used to identify `outliers' with
471: $U-U_{\rm D}>+3\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is calculated in running bins of width
472: 0.5~mag in $U_{\rm WFPC2}$ (open squares in Fig.~\ref{cmd}); the $U-U_{\rm
473: D}$ distribution is skewed towards positive values such that very few stars
474: have $U-U_{\rm D}<-3\sigma$.
475: The open squares in $B$ vs.\ $U_{\rm D}-V$ diagrams generally lie on or
476: beyond the blue fringe of the subgiant branch and RGB defined by the rest of
477: the points. By contrast, the vast majority of the open squares in the $B$
478: vs.\ $U-V$ diagrams are distributed evenly about the underlying subgiant and
479: red giant branches, with only a few points near the red edge. This indicates
480: that outliers in the $U-U_{\rm D}$ distribution are predominantly the result
481: of the measured $U_{\rm D}$ value being systematically too bright. As
482: expected, the greater degree of crowding causes outliers in the inner
483: subsample to display larger deviations in the CMD
484: than those in the outer subsample. Moreover, the width of
485: the RGB appears to be slightly greater in $U_{\rm D}-V$ than in $U-V$.
486:
487: The solid lines show the median color of stars from the
488: WFPC2 sample in 0.1~mag bins. The discrepancy between WFPC2 and
489: WFPC1 photometry for both this study and DPSGB is worst for the reddest stars
490: (bright RGB) and for the bluest stars (turnoff), and in opposite senses.
491: This results from error in the Johnson $U$ calibration for the WFPC1 data set,
492: which has been improved for the WFPC2 data set.
493: Both data sets have been empirically
494: transformed to the Johnson system using the ground-based data of
495: Auri\`{e}re et~al. (1994). However, the larger field of view of WFPC2 includes
496: stars farther from the cluster center and thus less affected by crowding in
497: Auri\`{e}re et al.'s data. The WFPC2 ridge line is in good agreement with
498: Auri\`{e}re et al.'s photometry, which should be accurate outside the crowded
499: cluster core.
500:
501: \subsection{Luminosity Function}\label{lfsec}
502:
503: In this subsection, we examine the stellar luminosity function of 47~Tuc.
504: This is a key element in understanding the bias in star counts in a
505: magnitude-limited sample that results from photometric error (scatter and
506: bias), and therefore in understanding the difference in core radius
507: estimates between DPSGB and GYSB.
508: The $U$-band stellar luminosity functions for the inner and outer samples
509: are shown in the left and right panels of Fig.~\ref{lf}, respectively.
510: Data points represent the full $U$-band sample from this paper, the
511: dot-dashed line
512: is the DPSGB $U_{\rm D}$ sample excluding the 141 duplicate stars, and the
513: solid line is the WFPC2 sample for $U_{\rm WFPC2}\le19$, normalized to match
514: the WFPC1 luminosity functions. The WFPC2 luminosity functions shown in the
515: two panels are identical
516: except for the normalization, and are based on the full star list derived
517: from the entire WFPC2 field of view. Since this study relies only on
518: post--main-sequence stars which are {\it not\/} expected to be affected by
519: mass segregation, we have chosen to combine the entire WFPC2 sample into a
520: single luminosity function; a full study of mass segregation will be
521: presented in Guhathakurta et~al. (in preparation).
522:
523: %\placefigure{lf}
524: \begin{figure}
525: \plotfiddle{fg3.eps}{4.0truein}{-90}{64}{64}{-243}{402}
526: \caption{Stellar $U$-band luminosity functions for the inner
527: (left) and outer (right) subsamples. Points with error bars are based on
528: PSF-fitting photometry derived from a deep WFPC1 image (this work), the
529: dot-dashed line is based on aperture photometry on the same deep WFPC1
530: data set (DPSGB), and the bold solid line is derived from archival WFPC2
531: data. The WFPC2 luminosity function is the same in both panels, with
532: different empirical normalizations to match the inner and outer WFPC1
533: luminosity functions. The solid vertical line at $U=18.11$ and the
534: dashed line at $U=17.71$ mark the limiting magnitudes used in this work
535: and by DPSGB, respectively.
536: \label{lf}}
537: \end{figure}
538:
539: In order to isolate a sample of post--main-sequence stars, the $U$ magnitude
540: of the main sequence turnoff is determined using a sample of turnoff stars
541: identified in a WFPC2 $V$ vs.\ $B-V$ CMD. The mean $U_{\rm WFPC2}$ magnitude
542: of these stars is adopted as the limiting magnitude for the deep WFPC1 data
543: set analyzed in this paper: $U^{\rm lim}=18.11$. On the other hand, DPSGB
544: used $m_{336}^{\rm lim}\equiv{U}_{\rm WFPC1}^{\rm lim}~ ({\rm DPSGB})=18.1$
545: which corresponds to $U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim}=17.71$.
546: Vertical lines are drawn at $U=18.11$ and $U=17.71$ in Fig.~\ref{lf}; these
547: correspond to the diagonal lines in Fig.~\ref{deltam}. Note that
548: the magnitude cut used by DSPGB falls on a steep part of the luminosity
549: function. The next subsection quantifies the consequences of choosing a
550: limiting magnitude on a steep part of the luminosity function.
551:
552: Of the three samples, WFPC2 photometry produces the sharpest
553: luminosity function. The luminosity function derived from this study's
554: WFPC1 photometry has a somewhat more gradual rise from the RGB to the main
555: sequence turnoff than the WFPC2 luminosity
556: function as a result of its larger photometric errors. The DPSGB luminosity
557: functions, particularly their inner sample, have the most gradual transition
558: between the RGB and turnoff, indicating the largest photometric errors.
559: There are significant differences between the
560: WFPC2 luminosity function and those derived from the deep WFPC1 data (our
561: study and DPSGB) most notably at the bright end and near the turnoff; these
562: are a result of systematic error in the conversion to Johnson $U$ for the
563: WFPC1 data set (\S\,\ref{cmdsec}).
564:
565: \subsection{Discussion of Errors and ``Limiting Magnitude Bias''}
566:
567: The above diagnostics (\S\S\,4.1--4.3) complement one another by
568: providing somewhat different perspectives on the photometric error in the
569: various data sets. The $\Delta{U}$ plots indicate the photometric scatter as
570: a function of
571: radius for each of the deep WFPC1 photometry sets, but only under the
572: {\it assumption\/} that $U_{\rm WFPC2}$ is the true magnitude of the
573: star. While it is possible in principle to
574: compare the three data sets to empirically
575: determine the photometric error in each, the strongly non-gaussian error
576: distributions make this impractical.
577: Instead, the CMD diagnostic described in \S\,4.2 clearly
578: demonstrates that there are large photometric errors associated with the
579: $U_{\rm D}$ photometry but not with $U$, and this conclusion is independent
580: of the accuracy of $U_{\rm WFPC2}$.
581:
582: A skeptic may wonder if there are systematic errors generic to the PSF-fitting
583: method that `cancel' each other in the $B$ vs.\ $U-V$ CMD or in the
584: $U$ vs.\ $U_{\rm WFPC2}$ comparison causing the PSF-fitting magnitudes to
585: appear more accurate than they actually are. A related question is: How
586: accurate is $U_{\rm WFPC2}$?~~ The luminosity function diagnostic is
587: useful in this regard, despite the mismatches caused by errors in the WFPC1
588: Johnson $U$ conversion. Figure~\ref{lf} clearly shows that the most
589: prominent features (e.g.,~the steep rise at the subgiant branch, the peak
590: at the main sequence turnoff) are sharpest for WFPC2 photometry, slightly
591: smoothed out by photometric errors for our deep WFPC1 photometry, and
592: even more smoothed out (larger photometric errors) in the case of the
593: DPSGB data.
594:
595: Photometric errors associated with the aperture photometry technique result
596: in a significant, radially-varying bias in the star counts; we hereafter
597: refer to this as ``limiting magnitude bias''. The limiting magnitude used by
598: DPSGB is on a steep part of the luminosity function where many
599: stars which are slightly fainter than the limiting magnitude scatter into the
600: sample while relatively few stars scatter out of the sample. Limiting
601: magnitude bias is exacerbated by the asymmetry in the distribution of
602: photometric errors (photometric bias; see \S\,4.1) and by the fact that the
603: errors (scatter and bias) tend to increase towards the fainter magnitudes.
604: Since aperture photometry errors increase with stellar crowding towards the
605: cluster center, so does the degree of limiting magnitude bias.
606:
607: The differential limiting magnitude bias between inner and outer
608: subsamples may be quantified as follows. Since the bounding radius of the
609: inner sample, $r_{\rm med}$, was chosen to be the median radius of stars in the
610: matched sample with $U<18.11$, the inner to outer star count ratio is
611: expected to be unity. It is not surprising that $N(r<r_{\rm med})/N(r>r_{\rm
612: med})=1.02\pm0.03$ for stars from this study with $U<18.11$. By contrast,
613: stars with $U_{\rm D}<17.71$ from the DPSGB sample have $N(r<r_{\rm
614: med})/N(r>r_{\rm med})=1.42\pm0.06$. The latter ratio is significantly
615: greater than unity, indicating radially-varying limiting magnitude bias in
616: the DPSGB sample.
617:
618: Alternatively, the limiting magnitude bias for each WFPC1 sample can be
619: quantified with respect to the `true' WFPC2 photometry. The diagonal lines
620: in Fig.~\ref{deltam} correspond to $U=U^{\rm lim}$ (upper panels) and
621: $U_{\rm D}=U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim}$ (lower panels). The vertical dashed lines
622: indicate $U_{\rm WFPC2}=U^{\rm lim}$ (upper panels) and $U_{\rm WFPC2}=U_{\rm
623: D}^{\rm lim}$ (lower panels). The ratios $N(U<U^{\rm lim})/N(U_{\rm
624: WFPC2}<U^{\rm lim})$ are $1.54\pm0.06$ and $1.34\pm0.15$ for inner and outer
625: subsamples, respectively, while $N(U_{\rm D}<U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim})/N(U_{\rm
626: WFPC2}<U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim})$ are $2.32\pm0.14$ and $1.09\pm0.22$ for inner
627: and outer subsamples, respectively. These ratios are greater than unity
628: because errors in the WFPC1 Johnson $U$ conversion cause the main sequence
629: magnitudes to be systematically too bright (\S\,\ref{cmdsec};
630: Fig.~\ref{deltam}). Each ratio indicates the number of stars selected in
631: a sample relative to the corresponding true (WFPC2-based) number of stars
632: satisfying the selection criterion. For the photometry from this work, the
633: excess relative to unity is similar in the inner and outer subsamples, so the
634: derived core radius should not be greatly affected. DPSGB's photometry
635: results in a large and significant excess of stars selected in the inner
636: subsample, but not in the outer subsample. This radial variation has a
637: substantial impact on the core radius measurement (\S\,\ref{corecalc}).
638: The large difference between the inner and outer DPSGB ratios is a direct
639: result of the increased scatter and bias in their photometry at small radii.
640:
641: \section{Core Radius Calculations}\label{corecalc}
642:
643: The effect of limiting magnitude bias on the measurement of the core radius
644: is explored in this section. A one-parameter surface density profile of the
645: form:
646: \begin{equation}
647: \sigma{(r)}={{\sigma_0}\over{[1+(r/r_{\rm core})^2]}}
648: \end{equation}
649: is used to make maximum likelihood fits to various magnitude-limited samples
650: of evolved stars to determine $r_{\rm core}$, while the normalization
651: constant $\sigma_0$ is constrained by the total number of stars in each
652: sample. Calculations are performed using both GYSB's estimate of the cluster
653: center:
654: \[
655: \alpha{_{\rm J2000}}=00^{\rm h}24^{\rm m}05^{\rm s}\!\!.87
656: \]
657: \begin{equation}
658: \delta{_{\rm J2000}}=-72^{\circ}04^{\prime}57\farcs8
659: \end{equation}
660: and DPSGB's center estimate:
661: \[
662: \alpha{_{\rm J2000}}=00^{\rm h}24^{\rm m}05^{\rm s}\!\!.29
663: \]
664: \begin{equation}
665: ~~~~~\delta{_{\rm J2000}}=-72^{\circ}04^{\prime}56\farcs3~~~~.
666: \end{equation}
667: The two center estimates agree to within the quoted uncertainty of
668: $\sim1\farcs0$--$1\farcs3$ in each estimate. Unless otherwise stated, all
669: core radius estimates in this paper are based on the GYSB center.
670:
671: Table~\ref{table1} contains a summary of the core radius measurements.
672: The three letters identifying each calculation indicate the source of:
673: (1)~the star list (D for DPSGB, H for this work, M for the matched sample);
674: (2)~the photometry (D or H); and (3)~the limiting magnitude (D or H).
675: For direct comparison with DPSGB's $r_{\rm core}$ measurement, the 141
676: duplicate stars are included in their star list. The result of the maximum
677: likelihood fit (case DDD) is $r_{\rm core}=13\farcs7\pm1\farcs8$,
678: in agreement with the DPSGB value of $r_{\rm core}=12\farcs2\pm2\farcs1$
679: derived using radial binning and a least-squares fit.
680: A maximum likelihood fit to
681: the evolved star sample from this paper (case HHH) gives
682: $r_{\rm core}=21\farcs8\pm2\farcs0$.
683: Applying a limiting magnitude of $U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim}=18.11$ instead of
684: $U_{\rm D}^{\rm lim}=17.71$ to DPSGB's star list and photometry
685: results in a core radius
686: of $17\farcs4\pm1\farcs5$ (case DDH). The change in derived core radius
687: from $13\farcs7$ to $17\farcs4$
688: is a direct result of the change in
689: limiting magnitude and is independent of whether
690: the 141 duplicate stars are included.
691: Using the star list and photometry from this study but choosing DPSGB's
692: limiting magnitude $U^{\rm lim}=17.71$
693: gives $r_{\rm core}=21\farcs0\pm3\farcs3$ (case HHD).
694: Thus, the large scatter/bias in DPSGB's photometry and their increase
695: towards the crowded cluster center, combined with a poor choice of limiting
696: magnitude, are responsible for the spuriously low core radius estimate.
697:
698: Table~\ref{table1} also shows that the measured $r_{\rm core}$ is independent
699: of whether the star list from this study, DPSGB's star list, or the matched
700: star list is used. The dependence of the derived $r_{\rm core}$ on limiting
701: magnitude and photometric technique is roughly the same for all three lists.
702: Likewise the choice of cluster center has little effect on the
703: derived $r_{\rm core}$: although core radii based on the DPSGB center tend to
704: be $\approx0\farcs5$ smaller than those based on GYSB's center, this
705: difference is less than the uncertainty in an individual measurement.
706:
707: %\placetable{table1}
708: \begin{figure}
709: \vskip -2.0truein
710: \centerline{\psfig{figure=tab1.ps}}
711: \end{figure}
712: \begin{table}\dummytable\label{table1}\end{table}
713:
714: The WFPC2 data set provides a consistency check on the core
715: radius of 47~Tuc. For all stars derived from the archival WFPC2 data set with
716: $U_{\rm WFPC2}<18.11$, the same maximum likelihood algorithm used above
717: yields $r_{\rm core}=23\farcs1\pm1\farcs7$.
718: An independent sample of 7044~turnoff stars with
719: $17\lesssim{V}<18$ drawn from the
720: WFPC2 $V$ vs.\ $B-V$ CMD (avoiding potential blend artifacts that may have
721: scattered to brighter magnitudes) results in $r_{\rm
722: core}=23\farcs3\pm1\farcs2$. While these turnoff stars are fainter on
723: average than the evolved stars used in earlier density profile studies, they
724: are expected to have roughly the same mass as red giants so that mass
725: segregation effects are unlikely to be important. A third calculation
726: truncates the $U_{\rm WFPC2}<18.11$ sample at $r\sim85''$ as a precaution
727: against inter-CCD edge effects caused by vignetting near the ridges of the
728: pyramid mirror. A core radius of $r_{\rm core}=24\farcs0\pm1\farcs9$ (case
729: WFPC2 in Table~\ref{table1}) is derived from this truncated sample.
730: It is reassuring that these WFPC2 $r_{\rm core}$ measurements are
731: consistent with GYSB, earlier ground-based measurements, and the HHH and MHH
732: calculations above. Figure~\ref{wfpc2fig} shows the radial surface
733: density profile of the WFPC2 truncated sample.
734: Also shown are an $r_{\rm core}=24\farcs0$ profile
735: (solid line) and an $r_{\rm core}=12\farcs2$ profile (dashed line); the
736: latter is clearly inconsistent with the data.
737: These profiles have been normalized to the total observed number of stars
738: in the plot. Figure~\ref{cumdist} shows the cumulative radial distributions
739: of the MHH sample (left panel) and the truncated WFPC2 sample (right panel).
740: Also shown are profiles for the best fitting core radii (dotted lines) and
741: for core radii that differ from the best fit value by $\pm1\sigma$ (dashed
742: lines).
743:
744: %\placefigure{wfpc2fig}
745: \begin{figure}
746: \plotfiddle{fg4.eps}{4.0truein}{-90}{64}{64}{-243}{402}
747: \caption{Radial surface density profile based on stars
748: derived from the archival WFPC2 data set (squares with $1\sigma$ Poisson
749: error bars). The solid and dashed curves represent profiles with core
750: radii of $24''$ and $12\farcs2$, respectively, each normalized to the
751: observed number of stars. The former profile is a good fit to the data,
752: while the latter is clearly inconsistent with the data.
753: \label{wfpc2fig}}
754: \end{figure}
755:
756: %\placefigure{cumdist}
757: \begin{figure}
758: \plotfiddle{fg5.eps}{4.0truein}{-90}{64}{64}{-243}{402}
759: \caption{Cumulative radial distribution of the matched deep
760: WFPC1 and truncated WFPC2 samples (solid lines, left and right panels,
761: respectively). Best fit model profiles with $r_{\rm core}=22''$ and
762: $r_{\rm core}=24''$ are indicated by dotted lines in the left and right
763: panels, respectively; the dashed lines indicate model profiles with $r_{\rm
764: core}$ values that are $\pm1\sigma$ removed from the best fit value. The
765: shapes of the WFPC1 and WFPC2 cumulative distributions are different because
766: of the difference in geometry between the two data sets and because of
767: the $r\sim85''$ truncation of the WFPC2 data set.
768: \label{cumdist}}
769: \end{figure}
770:
771: As an alternative to the maximum likelihood technique, we conduct
772: Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests between the star count samples and the fitting
773: function in Eq.~(1). The MHH sample of 4504~stars (Table~\ref{table1}) and
774: the truncated WFPC2 sample of 3963~stars
775: are used to construct cumulative radial distributions
776: (Fig.~\ref{cumdist}). One-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests
777: indicate that the MHH data differ from the $r_{\rm core}=22''$ fitting
778: function by an amount that would be exceeded by chance 26\% of the time.
779: Similarly, the truncated WFPC2 data differ from an $r_{\rm core}=24''$
780: profile by an amount that would be exceeded by chance 33\% of the time.
781: Thus, the functional form adopted here provides an adequate fit to the star
782: count data.
783:
784: As a final check on the $r_{\rm core}$ calculations, one can test
785: whether the degree of limiting magnitude bias (\S\,4) for a given sample is
786: sufficient to explain the core radius derived for it. Using the
787: photometry of DPSGB and their sample of stars with $U_{\rm D}<U_{\rm D}^{\rm
788: lim}$ (case DDD in Table~\ref{table1}), the inner to outer star count ratio
789: is $N(r<r_{\rm med})/N(r>r_{\rm med})=1.42\pm0.06$. Integrating a $14''$
790: profile (comparable to the maximum likelihood fit for this sample) over
791: the area of the WFPC1 field of view predicts an inner to outer ratio of~1.49
792: consistent with the directly measured star count ratio. On the other hand,
793: integration of the $22''$ profile that best fits the star list and PSF-fitting
794: photometry used in this paper (case HHH in Table~\ref{table1}) yields
795: an inner to outer ratio of~1.05; this is comparable to the directly measured
796: star count ratio of $1.02\pm0.03$.
797:
798: \section{Conclusions}
799:
800: This paper presents estimates of the density profile of the globular cluster
801: 47~Tuc based on three samples of stars (star list and photometry) derived
802: independently from {\it Hubble Space Telescope\/} WFPC1 and WFPC2 images.
803: Apparent discrepancies amongst the core radius measurements published by
804: \cite{gysb}, \cite{guido}, and \cite{calzetti} are investigated.
805: Our conclusion is that there is severe, radially-varying bias in the
806: magnitude-limited star counts used by De~Marchi et~al.\ and Calzetti et~al.,
807: and this causes their core radius estimates to be spuriously low ($r_{\rm
808: core}\sim14''$) relative to other determinations ($r_{\rm core}\sim23''$).
809: This ``limiting magnitude bias'' is a result of
810: large photometric scatter/bias associated with the application of their
811: aperture photometry method to the crowded central regions of the cluster,
812: coupled with a choice of limiting magnitude near the steep part of the
813: stellar luminosity function. In general, such a choice of limiting magnitude
814: is dangerous; even with symmetric errors the resulting sample will be
815: contaminated by large numbers of stars just fainter than the cutoff.
816: Any radial variation in the magnitude of the errors will cause the degree
817: of this contamination to vary, resulting in an incorrect determination of the
818: radial density profile.
819:
820: Combining De~Marchi et~al.'s photometry with a limiting magnitude near the
821: main sequence turnoff at the peak of the luminosity function reduces, but
822: does not eliminate, the discrepancy ($r_{\rm core}\sim18''$); the radial
823: variations in DPSGB's photometry (larger photometric scatter/bias at small
824: radii) have a significant effect on the derived core radius even with an
825: optimal choice of limiting magnitude.
826: A more accurate PSF-fitting method is used in this paper to indepedently
827: derive two sets of stellar photometry, one from the deep WFPC1 data
828: analyzed by De~Marchi et~al.\ and the other from an archival WFPC2 data set.
829: The core radii derived using these two photometry sets are independent of the
830: choice of limiting magnitude and star list, and are consistent with each
831: other and with previous ground-based and {\it HST\/} work: $r_{\rm
832: core}\sim23''$ (cf.~\cite{hr79}; \cite{dk84}; Guhathakurta et~al.\ 1992).
833:
834: The best fit core radius for the surface density distribution of
835: evolved stars in 47~Tuc is about 15\% of the cluster half-mass radius
836: ($r_{\rm h}=174''$). This is significantly larger than the range of $(r_{\rm
837: core}/r_{\rm h})$ values found in numerical simulations of
838: post--core-collapse clusters: 0.01--0.04 (\cite{cohn80}; \cite{good87};
839: \cite{gao91}). It should be noted however that the surface brightness
840: profile is not a perfect discriminant between a relaxed and
841: post--core-collapse cluster, and it is advisable to combine it with velocity
842: dispersion data (Gebhardt \& Fischer 1995).
843:
844: \bigskip
845: \bigskip
846: \acknowledgments
847:
848: We are grateful to Guido De~Marchi for making stellar photometry tables
849: available to us in electronic form, and to Randi Cohen for help in the early
850: phase of this project. We would like to thank Fernando Camilo, Paulo Freire,
851: Karl Gebhardt, and Fred Rasio for helpful discussions, and the referees,
852: especially Tad Pryor, for several useful suggestions.
853:
854: \clearpage
855:
856: \begin{thebibliography}{DUM}
857: %
858: \bibitem[Auri\`{e}re et~al.\ (1994)]{auriere94} Auri\`{e}re, M., Lauzeral,
859: C., \& Koch Miramond, L. 1994, in Frontiers of Space and Ground-Based
860: Astronomy, edited by W.~Wamsteker, M.~S. Longair, and Y.~Kondo (Kluwer
861: Academic Publishers), p.~633
862: %
863: \bibitem[Auri\`{e}re \& Ortolani 1988]{auriere} Auri\`{e}re, M., \&
864: Ortolani, S. 1988, \aap, 204, 106
865: %
866: \bibitem[Calzetti et~al.\ (1993)]{calzetti} Calzetti, D., De~Marchi, G.,
867: Paresce, F., \& Shara, M. 1993, \apjl, 402, L1
868: %
869: \bibitem[Cohn 1980]{cohn80} Cohn, H. 1980, \apj, 242, 765
870: %
871: \bibitem[De~Marchi et~al.\ (1993)]{demarchi93} De~Marchi, G., Paresce, F., \&
872: Ferraro, F.~R. 1993, \apjs, 85, 293
873: %
874: \bibitem[De~Marchi et~al.\ (1996)]{guido} De~Marchi, G., Paresce, F.,
875: Stratta, M.~G., Gilliland, R.~L., \& Bohlin, R.~C. 1996, \apjl, 468, L51
876: (DPSGB)
877: %
878: \bibitem[Djorgovski \& King 1984]{dk84} Djorgovski, S.~G., \& King, I.~R.
879: 1984, \apjl, 277, L49
880: %
881: \bibitem[Djorgovski \& King 1986]{dk86} Djorgovski, S.~G., \& King, I.~R.
882: 1986, \apjl, 305, L61
883: %
884: \bibitem[Edmonds et~al.\ 1996]{edmonds96} Edmonds, P.~D., Gilliland, R.~L.,
885: Guhathakurta, P., Petro, L., Saha, A., \& Shara, M.~M. 1996, \apj, 468, 241
886: %
887: \bibitem[Gao et~al.\ 1991]{gao91} Gao, B., Goodman, J., Cohn, H., \& Murphy,
888: B. 1991, \apj, 370, 567
889: %
890: \bibitem[Gebhardt \& Fischer (1995)]{fisgeb95} Gebhardt, K., \& Fischer, P.
891: 1995, \aj, 109, 209
892: %
893: \bibitem[Gebhardt et~al.\ 1995]{karl95} Gebhardt, K., Pryor, C., Williams,
894: T.~B., \& Hesser, J.~E. 1995, \aj, 110, 1699
895: %
896: \bibitem[Gilliland et~al.\ (1995)]{ron95} Gilliland, R.~L., Edmonds, P.~D.,
897: Petro, L., Saha, A., \& Shara, M.~M. 1995, \apj, 447, 191
898: %
899: \bibitem[Gilmozzi, Ewald, \& Kinney 1995]{gilmozzi} Gilmozzi, R., Ewald,
900: S.~P., \& Kinney, E.~K. 1995, The Geometric Distortion Correction for the
901: WFPC Cameras (WFPC2 Instrum.\ Sci.\ Rep.\ 95-02) (Baltimore: STScI)
902: %
903: \bibitem[Goodman 1987]{good87} Goodman, J. 1987, \apj, 313, 576
904: %
905: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et~al.\ (1992)]{gysb} Guhathakurta, P., Yanny, B.,
906: Schneider, D.~P., \& Bahcall, J.~N. 1992, \aj, 104, 1790 (GYSB)
907: %
908: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et~al.\ 1993]{gysb93} Guhathakurta, P., Yanny, B.,
909: Schneider, D.~P., \& Bahcall, J.~N. 1993, in Blue Stragglers, edited by
910: R.~A.~Saffer (San Francisco: ASP Conf.\ Series No.\ 53), p.~60
911: %
912: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et~al.\ 1996]{gysb96} Guhathakurta, P., Yanny, B.,
913: Schneider, D.~P., \& Bahcall, J.~N. 1996, \aj, 111, 267
914: %
915: \bibitem[Harris \& Racine 1979]{hr79} Harris, W.~E., \& Racine, R. 1979,
916: \araa, 17, 241
917: %
918: \bibitem[Hasinger, Johnston, \& Verbunt 1994]{hjv94} Hasinger, G., Johnston,
919: H., \& Verbunt, F. 1994, \aap, 288, 466
920: %
921: \bibitem[Hertz \& Grindlay 1983]{hg83} Hertz, P., \& Grindlay, J. 1983, \apj,
922: 272, 105
923: %
924: \bibitem[Hut 1996]{hut96} Hut, P. 1996, in Dynamical Evolution of Star
925: Clusters--Confrontation of Theory and Observations, edited by P.~Hut and
926: J.~Makino (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p.~121
927: %
928: \bibitem[King 1966a]{king66a} King, I.~R. 1966a, \aj, 71, 64
929: %
930: \bibitem[King 1966b]{king66b} King, I.~R. 1966b, \aj, 71, 276
931: %
932: \bibitem[King 1985]{king85} King, I.~R. 1985, Scientific American, 252, 78
933: %
934: \bibitem[Meylan \& Heggie 1997]{meyheg} Meylan, G., \& Heggie, D.~C. 1997,
935: A\&A Rev., 8, 1
936: %
937: \bibitem[Phillips et~al.\ (1994)]{drewzp} Phillips, A.~C., Forbes, D.~A.,
938: Bershady, M.~A., Illingworth, G.~D., \& Koo, D.~C. 1994, \aj, 107, 1904
939: %
940: \bibitem[Rasio 2000]{rasio} Rasio, F.~A. 2000, in Pulsar Astronomy---2000 and
941: Beyond, edited by M.~Kramer, N.~Wex, and R.~Wielebinski (San Francisco: ASP
942: Conf.\ Series No.\ 202), p.~589
943: %
944: \bibitem[Robinson et~al.\ 1995]{rob95} Robinson, C., Lyne, A.~G., Manchester,
945: R.~N., Bailes, M., D'Amico, N., \& Johnston, S. 1995, \mnras, 274, 547
946: %
947: \bibitem[Stetson 1992]{stetson92} Stetson, P.~B. 1992, in Astronomical
948: Data Analysis Software, edited by D.~M. Worrall, C.~Biemesderfer, and
949: J.~Barnes (San Francisco: ASP Conf.\ Series No.\ 25), p.~297
950: %
951: \bibitem[Trager, Djorgovski, \& King 1993]{tdk93} Trager, S.~C., Djorgovski,
952: S.~G., \& King, I.~R. 1993, in Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters,
953: edited by S.~G.~Djorgovski and G.~Meylan (San Francisco: ASP Conf.\ Series
954: No.\ 50), p.~347
955: %
956: \bibitem[Vesperini \& Chernoff 1994]{vc94} Vesperini, E., \& Chernoff, D.~F.
957: 1994, \apj, 431, 231
958: %
959: \bibitem[Yanny et~al. (1994)]{yanny94} Yanny, B., Guhathakurta, P., Bahcall,
960: J.~N., \& Scheider, D.~P. 1994, \aj, 107, 1745
961: \end{thebibliography}
962:
963: \end{document}
964: