1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3: \documentclass{emulateapj}
4: \usepackage{epsf}
5: %\usepackage{psfig}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{A Robust Test of Evolution near the Tip of the Red Giant Branch and
10: Missing Giants in NGC 2808\footnote{Based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\it Hubble Space Telescope},
11: obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated
12: by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
13: under NASA Contract NAS 5-26555.}}
14:
15: \author{Eric L. Sandquist}
16:
17: \affil{Department of Astronomy, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile
18: Drive, San Diego, CA 92182}
19:
20: \email{erics@sciences.sdsu.edu}
21:
22: \author{Andr\'{e} R. Martel}
23:
24: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, 3400
25: North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218}
26:
27: \email{martel@pha.jhu.edu}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: We describe a new method for robustly testing theoretical predictions of red
31: giant evolution near the tip of the giant branch. When theoretical
32: cumulative luminosity functions are shifted to align the tip in $I$-band and
33: normalized at a luminosity level slightly brighter than the red giant bump,
34: virtually all dependence on age and composition (heavy elements and helium
35: abundance) is eliminated. While significant comparisons with observations
36: require large samples of giant stars, such samples are available for some of
37: the most massive Milky Way globular clusters. We present comparisons with
38: the clusters NGC 2808 and M5, and find that NGC 2808 has a deficiency of
39: bright giants (with a probability of less than about 3\% that a more extreme
40: distribution of giant stars would have happened by chance). We discuss the
41: possibilities that underestimated neutrino losses or strong mass loss could
42: be responsible for the deficit of giants. While we cannot rule out the
43: neutrino hypothesis, it cannot explain the apparent agreement between the M5
44: observations and models. On the other hand, strong mass loss provides a
45: potential link between the giant star observations and NGC 2808's unusually
46: blue horizontal branch. If the mass loss hypothesis is true, there is likely
47: a significant population of He white dwarfs that could be uncovered
48: with slightly deeper UV observations of the cluster.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \keywords{neutrinos --- stars: evolution --- stars: luminosity function
52: --- stars: mass loss --- globular clusters: individual (NGC 2808, M5)}
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: At one level, our understanding of the late stages of the evolution of a
57: low-mass giant are solid: increasing electron degeneracy in the core coupled
58: with increasing temperature results in the ``flash'' ignition of helium,
59: terminating the red giant branch (RGB). However, some of the physics inputs to
60: the models retain some significant uncertainties \citep{bjork,review}. These
61: uncertainties (such as electron conduction, neutrino emission, and mass loss)
62: have significant effects on the observable characteristics of the
63: brightest stars in old stellar populations, with corresponding influences on
64: population synthesis models. Testing stellar models for
65: the late RGB is difficult though because the stars evolve on short timescales
66: make up a small fraction of all of the stars in a population.
67:
68: Because NGC 2808 is a very massive globular cluster ($M_V = -9.39$;
69: \citealt{harris}) and because the stars within it appear to have nearly
70: uniform metal content, it provides us with one of the largest ``clean''
71: samples of stars for examining the late phases in stellar evolution.
72: %In such
73: %an environment, short-lived and rare populations of stars are produced in
74: %numbers large enough for statistical studies.
75: At the same time, NGC 2808 has
76: an extremely peculiar bimodal distribution of horizontal branch (HB) stars
77: that has been known since the first moderately-deep photometry was taken
78: \citep{har74}. The first deep color-magnitude diagram \citep{sosin} was an
79: even greater shock, revealing a blue HB tail extending 3.5 mag fainter in $V$
80: and containing two additional gaps in the distribution of stars. As such, NGC
81: 2808 is one of the more obnoxious examples of the ``second parameter''
82: problem, in which HB star distributions cannot be explained based on
83: metallicity alone. While some aspects of the HB distribution have been
84: explained since the original observations, the overall bimodality and extended
85: blue HB tail have not.
86: The most recent photometric study of the cluster by
87: \citet{castell} used archival {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} images
88: along with wide-field ground-based observations.
89: %to identify extremely large
90: %samples of evolved stars, and to
91: %test theoretical evolution timescales by
92: %comparing the numbers of stars in different evolutionary phases.
93: Their
94: sample can be improved upon, however, because they only used a fraction of the
95: HST observations available.
96: %In the discussion below, we detail the images
97: %used, how the photometric data from the different sources was merged together,
98: %and how it was used to probe the evolution of stars near the tip of the red
99: %giant branch (TRGB).
100:
101: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
102:
103: %\subsection{New HRC Images}
104:
105: Three {\it HST} datasets were used in this work. The only dataset that had not
106: been previously published was obtained with the HRC detector of the Advanced
107: Camera for Surveys (ACS) using $F435W$ and $F555W$ filters as part of proposal
108: ID 10335 (P.I. H. Ford). We also reduced archival WFPC2 images from proposals
109: 6095 and 6804 (PIs Djorgovski and Fusi Pecci). The HRC images mostly overlap
110: the fields of the PC chips, but allowed us to resolve
111: a number of stars that were blended in the WFPC2 images.
112: %These images were a useful component of the total
113: %dataset thanks to the small pixel size ($0\farcs025$) compared to other {\it
114: % HST} cameras.
115: %This produces a more optimally-sampled point spread function,
116: %and allows us to resolve stars that would have been blended together in other
117: %observations (WFPC2 observations, for example).
118:
119: The HRC frames were processed using the DOLPHOT photometry package
120: \footnote{http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/$\sim$andy/dolphot/} with its module
121: tuned for ACS data.
122: %DOLPHOT tasks mask bad pixels, corrects for effective pixel
123: %area, and does point-spread function photometry.
124: Individual frames (prior
125: to drizzling in the ACS pipeline) were obtained from the ACS team in order to
126: get photometry on the giant stars.
127: %covering the widest possible dynamical range
128: %(including stars that were saturated on long exposures) and to avoid
129: %the pixel resampling that goes along with the drizzling process.
130: %Because the HRC sits far from the optical axis of {\it HST}, there is
131: %significant geometric distortion of these images.
132: For the
133: photometry, differences in effective pixel area were corrected within
134: DOLPHOT through the use of a pixel area map provided on the ACS website
135: \footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/analysis/PAMS}.
136: %DOLPHOT, however, does
137: %not currently correct pixel positions to sky coordinates.
138: For
139: {\it relative} astrometry, we used the fourth-order polynomial corrections
140: provided in the most recent IDCTAB file for the dataset (q692007bj\_idc.fits)
141: to facilitate the creation of a common coordinate system with the WFPC2 images.
142: %These corrections reduce distortions to about 0.1 pixels, which is more than
143: %adequate for our purposes.
144: %\subsection{Archival WFPC2 Images}
145: The WFPC2 images were analyzed using the HSTPhot photometry package
146: \footnote{http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/$\sim$andy/hstphot/}.
147: %The stars
148: %from different fields were matched according to position in order to allow
149: %greater rejection of poorly-measured stars.
150: Images from proposal 6095 were taken in the $F218W$, $F439W$, and $F555W$
151: filters, while those from the proposal 6804 were taken in the $F160BW$,
152: $F336W$, $F555W$, and $F814W$ filters. $F439W$ and $F336W$ observations were
153: particularly useful for separating AGB stars from the RGB.
154: %As a result, we have UV observations of nearly all stars in the
155: %fields observed in the cluster core.
156: Known geometric distortions in WFPC2 images were
157: corrected using the METRIC task in the STSDAS package within IRAF.
158: %In
159: %principle, this task can put WFPC2 positions on an absolute RA and DEC scale
160: %using information from the image headers. In practice, however, there are
161: %systematic errors of around $0\farcs5$ present from images taken at different
162: %times. We therefore determined additional pixel offsets between the two WFPC2
163: %datasets, and between the WFPC2 datasets and the ACS dataset.
164: %The observed
165: %fields are shown in Fig. \ref{fields}, where the ACS field overlaps the fields
166: %observed with the PC in both WFPC2 datasets.
167:
168: %\subsection{Photometric Transformation}
169:
170: %Because of the difficulties in accurately transforming {\it HST} photometry
171: %measurements (especially the relatively new ACS measurements) to
172: %Johnson-Cousins filters, we opted to remain in flight system magnitudes on the
173: %VEGAMAG system. For the WFPC2 fields and the ACS HRC field, the only common
174: %filter used was F555W.
175: Of the filters available, $F814W$ is most appropriate for
176: giant branch study since near-infrared filters are most directly correlated
177: with luminosity.
178: % avoiding the problem of minimum RGB magnitude falling below
179: %the TRGB as a result of large bolometric corrections at low effective
180: %temperature.
181: To maximize the size of our sample we used common stars
182: from the two WFPC2 fields to derive a transformation from the
183: $(m_{439} - m_{555},m_{555})$ color-magnitude diagram to $m_{814}$ using a
184: second-order polynomial containing magnitude and color terms.
185: %As can be seen in Fig. \ref{res}, t
186: The residuals show no systematic trends with magnitude or
187: color over the range considered. The median residual was $-0.001$ mag for the
188: 814 stars in common, with a semi-interquartile range (half of the difference
189: between the 25th and 75th percentile in the ordered list of residuals) of
190: 0.030 mag.
191:
192: %\begin{figure}
193: %\plotone{res.wfpc.ps}
194: %\caption{Residuals (in the sense of observed minus
195: %fitted magnitude) for the transformation from $(m_{439}-m_{555},m_{555})$ to
196: %$m_{814}$ for giant branch stars.
197: %\label{res}}
198: %\end{figure}
199:
200: %We also have observations in the similar filters F439W in the WFPC2 6095
201: %field, and the F435W filter in the ACS HRC field. In this case there is
202: %clearly a color-dependence to the residuals, but that is to be expected due to
203: %the slightly different bandpasses.
204:
205: \section{Analysis}
206:
207: %Because of the short evolutionary timescales for stars near the TRGB, little
208: %has been done to compare observations with theoretical predictions.
209: The very
210: tip in $I$ has been used as a distance indicator for large, old stellar
211: populations largely thanks to its very weak dependence on age and chemical
212: composition (see \citealt{dca} for an early reference). This can be seen
213: empirically in CMDs of composite stellar populations in nearby galaxies (for
214: recent examples, see \citealt {rizzi,mouh,bella}). Theoretical
215: predictions confirm that the composition dependence is very weak for [Fe/H]
216: $\la -1$ \citep{vr}.
217:
218: %With the large sample of stars at our disposal for NGC 2808, we are in the
219: %position of testing the evolution near the tip for a uniform stellar
220: %population. There are several reasons for doing this, including uncertainties
221: %in physics governing the degenerate core (for example, plasma neutrino
222: %emission, conductive opacities, and the possibility of detecting more exotic
223: %particles). However, if the blue population of HB stars in NGC 2808 has a
224: %systematically lower mean mass than the red HB stars, then there must be a
225: %distinct difference in the total mass loss by the two groups of stars.
226: %Infrared observations indicate that mass loss appears to occur episodically
227: %only very near the end of the RGB phase \citep{orig}. One might also expect a
228: %greater likelihood of binary-induced mass transfer or mass loss because the
229: %giants near the TRGB reach their largest radial extent.
230:
231: Even with the large number of RGB stars in NGC 2808, it is
232: worthwhile to find the most robust comparison with
233: models possible. The tests below involve cumulative luminosity functions
234: (LFs), counting stars starting at the observed TRGB. A comparison with models
235: requires a magnitude shift (akin to the distance modulus) and a
236: vertical normalization. For the horizontal (magnitude) shift, we have opted to
237: shift the models to the observed magnitude of the brightest cluster giant. As
238: noted above, this has the advantage that it is largely independent of chemical
239: composition and age (although its absolute position is affected by
240: uncertainties in physics that affect the timing of the helium flash). For the
241: vertical normalization, we have forced the models to have a number of stars
242: equal to the number of observed stars just brighter than the RGB bump at
243: $m_{814} = 14.8$.
244: %In this way we avoid (as much as possible) making any direct
245: %assumptions about how the stars should be evolving between the bump and the
246: %TRGB in setting up the comparison with theory.
247: As seen in Fig. \ref{theory},
248: by normalizing in this way, the models for a wide range of compositions
249: (heavy elements and helium) and ages overlie each other to a high degree.
250: %In other words, for a given set of physics inputs, the predictions for the
251: %cumulative LF allow for virtually no maneuvering with different ages or
252: %compositions.
253: To state this another way, the late evolution of RGB stars is
254: virtually independent of input parameters, and results from the strong
255: correlation between luminosity and mass of the helium core.
256: %Our comparisons
257: %will also be most sensitive to evolution near the TRGB because of the
258: %normalization.
259:
260: While there is little dependence on age or composition, there are differences
261: in physics from model set to model set that affect the cumulative LF. In the
262: bottom right panel of Fig. \ref{theory}, we compare the predictions from
263: models by the Yale-Yonsei \citep{yy}, Teramo \citep{ter}, and Victoria-Regina
264: \citep{vr} models. The Teramo and Victoria-Regina predictions overlie each
265: other almost perfectly, while the Yale-Yonsei models predict considerably more
266: giants (and therefore slower evolution) near the TRGB. The two Yale-Yonsei
267: models use different bolometric corrections. While this does affect the
268: cumulative LF, it does not account for the entire difference with the
269: Victoria-Regina and Teramo models. The implementation of neutrino energy loss
270: rates is probably responsible for the difference: the Yale-Yonsei models
271: employ \citet{i89} rates, while the Teramo models use \citep{hfw} rates and
272: the Victoria-Regina models use \citet{i96} rates. The dominant plasma
273: neutrino emission rates have been updated several times since the \citet{i89}
274: paper, and the values used in the Yale-Yonsei isochrones are probably too low,
275: which allows giants to evolve more slowly because nuclear reactions don't need
276: to provide for larger neutrino energy losses. As corroboration, we note that
277: the Yale-Yonsei models have lower luminosities at the TRGB ($\log (L/L_{\sun})
278: \approx 3.33$) than the Teramo and Victoria-Regina models ($\log (L/L_{\sun})
279: \approx 3.37$), consistent with lower cooling rates and an earlier flash.
280: This is an important issue because systematic uncertainties in the
281: characteristics of the helium flash translate to corresponding uncertainties
282: in the properties of HB stars, including their luminosities.
283:
284: In Fig. \ref{obs}, we compare the observations for NGC 2808 and for M5
285: \citep{sb} to the Victoria-Regina models (though the results are nearly the
286: same for the Teramo models). To judge the significance of the differences, we
287: used two methods to estimate the probability of detecting a {\it smaller}
288: sample of bright giants if they were drawn from a cumulative distribution
289: given by the Victoria-Regina models --- these are essentially estimates of the
290: probability of a ``false alarm''. First, we did one-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov
291: (K-S) tests at various brightness levels. This was necessary because
292: adjustment of the faint limit for the giant sample affects the size of an
293: absolute deviation in the cumulative distributions (the statistical quantity
294: used in the test) as well as the total sample size, both of which affect the
295: computed significance of a deviation. When the faint limit is set 1.8
296: magnitudes below the TRGB, the RGB sample is 142 stars for NGC 2808, the
297: maximum absolute deviation is 0.11, and the probability that a sample of the
298: same size with a more extreme deviation would be drawn from the theoretical
299: distribution is 4.3\%. By comparison, for M5 the sample was 91 stars, the
300: maximum absolute deviation was 0.06, and the probability was 89\% that a
301: sample with a more extreme deviation would be drawn from the theoretical
302: distribution. By comparison, there is a 0.9\% chance that a distribution drawn
303: from the Yale-Yonsei model would deviate to a larger degree than the observed
304: NGC 2808 distribution, and a 28\% chance that one would deviate more than the
305: M5 distribution.
306:
307: Our second method used predictions from a binomial distribution function.
308: \citet{sal} used a similar formulation to determine the likelihood of finding
309: stars within a certain magnitude range near the TRGB. If we have a total
310: sample of RGB stars $N_{RGB}$ brighter than a certain level, then the
311: theoretical cumulative luminosity function can be used to predict the
312: probability $P_i$ that any one star in that sample will be found in the
313: brighter portion of the sample (brighter than a second faint limit that is
314: closer to the TRGB). If the theoretical cumulative luminosity function
315: provides an accurate model of the relative
316: evolutionary timescales for the giants, then the probability of measuring a
317: number of stars $n \leq N$ in the brighter portion of the sample is
318: \[ P_{\leq N} = \sum_{n=1}^{N} \frac{N_{RGB}!}{n! (N_{RGB} - n)!} P_i^n
319: (1-P_i)^{(N_{RGB} - n)}. \] For NGC 2808, we used the RGB sample between the
320: TRGB and $m_{814} = 14.8$ just brighter than the RGB bump ($N_{RGB} = 441$).
321: We find that the probability reaches a minimum of about 1.3\% for a faint
322: limit of $m_{814} = 12.4$ ($N = 36$ and $P_i = 0.115$), but is less than about
323: 5\% for $m_{814} \leq 12.5$ ($N = 46$). Both of our methods agree that the
324: probability of a false alarm for NGC 2808 is (conservatively) less than 5\%.
325:
326: The horizontal (magnitude) shift used to align the model and observed TRGB has
327: a small effect on the calculated probabilities. Because we use the brightest
328: {\it observed} giant, we underestimate the luminosity of the TRGB by some
329: amount. However, because the models appear to be overestimating the number of
330: bright giants, this only ends up making our test probabilities conservative
331: overestimates. The probability of finding at least one star within a certain
332: magnitude of the TRGB can be determined from the binomial distribution and an
333: assumed cumulative luminosity function \citep{sal}. Using the Victoria-Regina
334: models, we find there would be a 50\% probability of having at least one star
335: within 0.02 mag of the TRGB for a sample of the same size as the one in NGC
336: 2808. If the brightest NGC 2808 giant is as much as 0.05 mag fainter than the
337: TRGB (the binomial distribution predicts less than a 5\% chance of this), the
338: K-S probability would be reduced to 2.6\%. The probabilities derived from the
339: binomial distribution increase slightly if the TRGB brightness is
340: underestimated: a 0.05 mag underestimate increases the minimum probability
341: from 1.3\% to 2.1\%. Thus, the deficit of bright RGB stars in NGC 2808 seems
342: secure.
343:
344: % HB-TRGB magnitude difference helps verify that tip is where it appears to
345: % be: I_RHB = 15.3 I_TRGB = 11.4, so DI = 3.9 mag
346: % can it be verified that I= 12 is not the tip (with the brighter ones being
347: % AGB or something?
348: % maximum deviation occurs at about I = 12.3
349: %The $I$ magnitude difference between the TRGB and the red end of the HB as
350: %observed in NGC 2808 is in agreement with values derived from theoretical
351: %models. This is sufficient to rule out the possibility that we have
352: %misidentified bright AGB stars as TRGB stars.
353:
354: %checked radial distribution - essentially identical to the other pops (BSS
355: %excluded) - brightest giants also show no obvious deviation either
356:
357: %*** implications for He core mass if it is neutrinos - are Y^2 cores
358: % the ones with the lowest mass?
359:
360: We have two possible explanations for the observations. First, larger neutrino
361: emission rates would accelerate evolution near the TRGB, as mentioned above
362: with regard to the Yale-Yonsei models. The NGC 2808 observations may be
363: showing this clearly, while statistical fluctuations may be concealing it in
364: M5. We have no reason to believe that RGB neutrino emissions should differ
365: systematically from cluster to cluster, so this explanation would disconnect
366: the deficit of RGB stars from discussions of HB morphology. The $I$-band
367: location of the discrepancy in the NGC 2808 CLF (starting $\sim 1.6$ mag below
368: the TRGB) holds some physical information if it results from
369: greater-than-predicted cooling of giant cores. As long as the temperature and
370: density sensitivities of the plasma neutrino emission rates agree with those
371: of \citet{hfw}, modifications of the emission rate are unlikely to explain the
372: NGC 2808 observations because they would primarily affect RGB stars within
373: about 1 mag of the TRGB. For typical RGB core conditions, the energy loss
374: rate has fairly large temperature and density dependences ($q \propto
375: \rho^{2.5}T^{9}$, evaluated from the \citealt{hfw} formulae) that are
376: responsible for a rapid increase in energy loss. Of course, if there is an
377: energy loss mechanism having different density and temperature dependences,
378: then the shape of the LF would be changed. While we cannot rule out the
379: possibility of systematic errors in the theoretical neutrino loss rates used
380: in the stellar models, new physics would probably be required to match the
381: observations.
382:
383: A second explanation involves enhanced mass loss near the TRGB for a {\it
384: fraction} of the stars. Models
385: predict that stars can leave the RGB before He flash if the mass of the star's
386: envelope decreases below a critical value. These stars can have a ``hot
387: flash'' He ignition after leaving the RGB, before finally appearing on the
388: blue end of the HB for a time approximately as long as that of a typical HB
389: star. With even more mass loss on the RGB, a star will leave the RGB earlier,
390: a hot He flash will be prevented, and a He white dwarf would result.
391: According to models \citep{dcruz}, stars leaving the RGB before they get
392: within 0.4 mag of the TRGB will produce He white dwarfs.
393: %In the mass-loss scenario, the populations of cluster HB and white dwarf stars
394: %might be affected.
395: In NGC 2808, the vast majority of the stars seen on the HB in NGC 2808 should
396: have gone through the entire RGB phase (complete with He flash) because their
397: positions on the HB imply substantial envelope mass. However, the deficit of
398: stars more than 0.4 mag fainter than the TRGB would imply we should expect to
399: have a significant population of He core white dwarfs if the mass loss
400: hypothesis is true. Based on the lack of a blue HB tail in M5, we would not
401: expect an RGB deficit there.
402:
403: The population ratio $R = N_{HB} / N_{RGB} = 1.62\pm0.07$ \citep{castell} is
404: near the average for Galactic globular clusters \citep{saly}. However, this
405: ratio could retain a ``normal'' value if giants are removed exclusively from
406: the upper RGB (which is the most sparsely populated), or if the stars avoiding
407: the HB phase (by never igniting He) are small in number. If there is a large
408: population of He white dwarfs, they may be detectable at the bright end of the
409: white dwarf cooling sequence because they cool more slowly than the CO white
410: dwarfs produced by traditional evolutionary paths \citep{castell2}.
411: \citet{dieball} identified about 40 white dwarf candidates using STIS UV
412: imagery, and found the numbers to be in rough agreement with theoretical
413: predictions. Unfortunately, the \citeauthor{dieball} survey does not reach far
414: down the WD sequence, and models \citep{seren} predict that the cooling age of
415: a He WD is only about twice the cooling age of a CO WD near their completeness
416: limit. (The ratio becomes much more extreme the fainter one goes.) Thus, if
417: the He WD population is less than the size of the observed population, the
418: production rate for He WD must be less than about half the CO WD production
419: rate.
420:
421: If the true luminosity function of RGB stars is given by the Victoria-Regina
422: or Teramo models, then NGC 2808 shows a deficit in $\log N$ of at most about
423: 0.1 (20\% in $N$) in the magnitude range where He WDs are probably produced
424: ($I - I_{TRGB} \ga 0.4$). If these ``missing'' giants produce He WDs directly,
425: then this would enhance the observable population of WDs in the
426: \citeauthor{dieball} sample by about 40\%. The uncertainties in the
427: theoretical predictions and in the WD numbers are not yet able to
428: rule this possibility out. A slightly deeper survey of the cluster's WD
429: population would help definitively settle whether there is a significant
430: population of He WDs. Such a survey has been done for $\omega$ Cen
431: \citep{monelli}, another cluster with a extensive blue HB tail, and again the
432: results are in rough agreement with evolutionary timescales. However,
433: \citeauthor{monelli} also note that the observed WDs appear to be redder than
434: expected, and one of the possible explanations of this is a large
435: population of He core WDs.
436:
437: %In addition, the HB star distribution is heavily weighted away from the blue
438: %end of the HB tail, with about 11\% and 12\% of the HB stars \citep{catell}
439: %falling in the last two faintest groups (called EBT2 and EBT3; \citealt{bed}).
440: %Thus the majority of current HB stars are likely to have undergone a typical
441: %He flash.
442:
443: %While mass loss from single RGB stars is still poorly understood, we can
444: %comment on the possibility of enhanced mass loss in binary star systems. In
445: %the last 1.8 magnitudes in the F814W filter before He flash, the giant star
446: %expands by less than a factor of 3 (from about $50 \rsun$ to about 120
447: %$\rsun$). This means that there is relatively small range of orbital periods
448: %for which the expansion of the giant envelope should induce binary mass
449: %transfer or result in a common envelope event in which the secondary spirals
450: %into the giant envelope. Such binaries are likely to have survived the
451: %dynamical environment of the cluster because they would are ``hard'', strongly
452: %bound systems compared to typical stellar kinetic energies in the cluster.
453:
454:
455: % to leave RGB star would have to lose entire envelope
456: % core mass would be slightly smaller than for ``normal'' giants
457:
458: % remember also that Bedin et al found a ``heap'' at V ~ 14.8 (m_814 ~ 13.4)
459: % my ``cutoff'' is at m_814 ~ 12.2, m_555 ~ 13.8 which is BRIGHTER than
460: % the CLF discrepancy starts
461:
462:
463: \section{Discussion}
464:
465: %We believe that the results above should be pursued because they touch on
466: %several areas of astronomy. The mass of the He core of a star at the TRGB
467: %influences its properties on the HB, and because both the TRGB and the
468: %horizontal branch are heavily used as distance indicators, improvements in
469: %stellar modeling of these evolutionary phases would reduce possible systematic
470: %errors.
471:
472: Because our analysis implies that the RGB evolution is virtually independent
473: of chemical composition and age inputs, it should be possible to merge
474: photometric data for stars from clusters with relatively heterogeneous
475: characteristics. Multiple cluster samples could place {\it very} tight
476: constraints on physics inputs like neutrino losses (and non-standard neutrino
477: emission mechanisms as well).
478: Indeed, our comparisons indicate that the neutrino losses used by the
479: Yale-Yonsei models can already be ruled out based on the comparisons with the
480: massive globular clusters M5 and NGC 2808.
481:
482: %Our results for NGC 2808 can be tested somewhat more stringently by
483: %incorporating stars outside the core fields used in this study, but
484: %Additional studies of other clusters are needed to test the small possibility
485: %of a conspiracy of chance.
486: Although our method can only be applied in a
487: practical way to the most massive globular clusters, it does provide a new way
488: of probing the ``second parameter'' problem in horizontal branch stars. If
489: there is a dynamical influence on cluster giants causing them to leave the RGB
490: early in NGC 2808, then we would expect similar features to be present in
491: other clusters with extreme blue HB tails. Alternately, for a cluster like 47
492: Tuc with no obvious blue HB extension, the upper RGB should match models.
493: %This
494: %may provide a needed new perspective on the very long-standing problem of the
495: %horizontal branch.
496:
497: %In using the TRGB as a distance indicator, important
498: %sources of error involve the identification of TRGB magnitude and accounting
499: %for biases resulting from The cumulative luminosity function could be used to reduce
500: %the random errors associated with finding the TRGB by using evolutionary
501: %information for stars covering a wider range in magnitudes (see
502: %\citealt{fray} for a similar method), although it would not reduce the
503: %persistent systematic errors associated with the determination of the
504: %luminosity of the TRGB.
505: %For example, it should be possible to combine star samples from separate
506: %globular clusters {\it or galaxies} to produce giant samples that are larger
507: %by more than an order of magnitude. This would allow extremely stringent tests
508: %of the physics inputs to the stellar models, particularly the neutrino
509: %emission rates. Non-standard neutrino physics \citep{raff} could be more
510: %tightly constrained in such comparisons with corresponding implications for
511: %particle physics.
512:
513:
514: \acknowledgments We would like to thank H. Ford for sharing the ACS images
515: from his HST program 10335, A. Dolphin for clarifications of aspects of the
516: DOLPHOT software, and C.-D. Lin for statistical advice on this paper. This
517: work has been funded through grant 05-07785 from the National Science
518: Foundation to E.L.S. and M. Bolte.
519:
520: \begin{thebibliography}{}
521: %\bibitem[Bedin et al.(2000)]{bed} Bedin, L.~R., Piotto, G.,
522: %Zoccali, M., Stetson, P.~B., Saviane, I., Cassisi, S., \& Bono, G.\ 2000,
523: %\aap, 363, 159
524: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2005)]{bella} Bellazzini, M.,
525: Gennari, N., \& Ferraro, F.~R.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 185
526: %\bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{brown} Brown, T.~M., Sweigart,
527: %A.~V., Lanz, T., Landsman, W.~B., \& Hubeny, I.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 368
528: \bibitem[Cassisi et al.(2004)]{ter} Cassisi, S., Salaris,
529: M., Castelli, F., \& Pietrinferni, A.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 498
530: \bibitem[Castellani et al.(2006)]{castell2} Castellani, M.,
531: Castellani, V., \& Prada Moroni, P.G.\ 2006, \aap, 457, 569
532: \bibitem[Castellani et al.(2006)]{castell} Castellani, V.,
533: Iannicola, G., Bono, G., Zoccali, M., Cassisi, S., \& Buonanno, R.\ 2006,
534: \aap, 446, 569
535: \bibitem[Bjork \& Chaboyer(2006)]{bjork} Bjork, S.~R., \&
536: Chaboyer, B.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 1102
537: %\bibitem[Corwin et al.(2004)]{rrlyr} Corwin, T.~M., Catelan,
538: %M., Borissova, J., \& Smith, H.~A.\ 2004, \aap, 421, 667
539: \bibitem[Da Costa \& Armandroff(1990)]{dca} Da Costa,
540: G.~S., \& Armandroff, T.~E.\ 1990, \aj, 100, 162
541: \bibitem[D'Antona et al.(2005)]{dant} D'Antona, F.,
542: Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V., Pecci, F.~F., Galleti, S., \& Rood, R.~T.\ 2005,
543: \apj, 631, 868
544: \bibitem[D'Cruz et al.(1996)]{dcruz}D'Cruz, N.~L., Dorman,
545: B., Rood, R.~T., \& O'Connell, R.~W.\ 1996, \apj, 466, 359
546: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{yy} Demarque, P., Woo,
547: J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.~K.\ 2004, \apjs, 155, 667
548: \bibitem[Dieball et al.(2005)]{dieball} Dieball, A., Knigge,
549: C., Zurek, D.~R., Shara, M.~M., \& Long, K.~S.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 156
550: %\bibitem[Frayn \& Gilmore(2003)]{fray} Frayn, C.~M., \&
551: %Gilmore, G.~F.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 887
552: \bibitem[Green et al.(1987)]{ryi} Green, E.~M., Demarque,
553: P., \& King, C.~R.\ 1987, The revised Yale isochrones and luminosity
554: functions (New Haven: Yale Observatory)
555: \bibitem[Haft et al.(1994)]{hfw} Haft, M., Raffelt, G., \&
556: Weiss, A.\ 1994, \apj, 425, 222
557: \bibitem[Harris(1974)]{har74} Harris, W.~E.\ 1974, \apjl,
558: 192, L161
559: \bibitem[Harris(1996)]{harris} Harris, W.~E.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
560: \bibitem[Itoh et al.(1989)]{i89} Itoh, N., Adachi, T.,
561: Nakagawa, M., Kohyama, Y., \& Munakata, H.\ 1989, \apj, 339, 354
562: \bibitem[Itoh et al.(1996)]{i96} Itoh, N., Hayashi, H.,
563: Nishikawa, A., \& Kohyama, Y.\ 1996, \apjs, 102, 411
564: \bibitem[Lejeune et al.(1998)]{lej} Lejeune, T., Cuisinier,
565: F., \& Buser, R.\ 1998, \aaps, 130, 65
566: \bibitem[Monelli et al.(2005)]{monelli} Monelli, M., et al.\
567: 2005, \apjl, 621, L117
568: \bibitem[Mouhcine et al.(2005)]{mouh} Mouhcine, M.,
569: Ferguson, H.~C., Rich, R.~M., Brown, T.~M., \& Smith, T.~E.\ 2005, \apj,
570: 633, 810
571: %\bibitem[Origlia et al.(2002)]{orig} Origlia, L., Ferraro,
572: %F.~R., Fusi Pecci, F., \& Rood, R.~T.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 458
573: %\bibitem[Piotto et al.(2002)]{pio} Piotto, G., et al.\
574: %2002, \aap, 391, 945
575: %\bibitem[Raffelt(2000)]{raff} Raffelt, G.~G.\ 2000, \physrep, 333, 593
576: \bibitem[Rizzi et al.(2006)]{rizzi} Rizzi, L., Bresolin, F.,
577: Kudritzki, R.-P., Gieren, W., \& Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 766
578: \bibitem[Salaris \& Cassisi(1997)]{sal} Salaris, M., \&
579: Cassisi, S.\ 1997, \mnras, 289, 406
580: \bibitem[Salaris et al.(2002)]{review} Salaris, M., Cassisi,
581: S., \& Weiss, A.\ 2002, \pasp, 114, 375
582: \bibitem[Salaris et al.(2004)]{saly} Salaris, M., Riello,
583: M., Cassisi, S., \& Piotto, G.\ 2004, \aap, 420, 911
584: \bibitem[Sandquist \& Bolte(2004)]{sb} Sandquist, E.~L.,
585: \& Bolte, M.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 323
586: \bibitem[Serenelli et al.(2002)]{seren} Serenelli, A.~M.,
587: Althaus, L.~G., Rohrmann, R.~D., \& Benvenuto, O.~G.\ 2002, \mnras, 337,
588: 1091
589: %\bibitem[Sirianni et al.(2005)]{sir} Sirianni, M., et al.\
590: %2005, \pasp, 117, 1049
591: \bibitem[Sosin et al.(1997)]{sosin} Sosin, C., et al.\ 1997,
592: \apjl, 480, L35
593: \bibitem[VandenBerg et al.(2006)]{vr} VandenBerg, D.~A.,
594: Bergbusch, P.~A., \& Dowler, P.~D.\ 2006, \apjs, 162, 375
595: \end{thebibliography}
596:
597: %\clearpage
598: %\begin{figure}
599: %\plotone{fields.ps}
600: %\caption{Fields in NGC 2808 observed by HST, including the WFPC2 fields from
601: % proposals 6804 and 6095 (left and right, respectively), the ACS HRC field
602: % ({\it dotted line}), and the STIS fields (dots; \citealt{dieball}).
603: %\label{fields}}
604: %\end{figure}
605:
606: \clearpage
607: \begin{figure}
608: \plotone{f1.eps}
609: \caption{Comparisons of theoretical cumulative luminosity functions after
610: shifting in magnitude to match the tip of the RGB in $I$ band, and
611: normalizing just above the RGB bump. The models are Victoria-Regina
612: \citep{vr}, Teramo \citep{ter}, Yale-Yonsei \citep{yy}, and Revised Yale
613: \citep{ryi} isochrones. In the lower right panel, the Victoria-Regina and
614: Teramo models overlap. The two Yale-Yonsei models with $T_{eff}$-color
615: transformations from \citealt{ryi} ({\it short dashed line}) and
616: \citealt{lej} ({\it long dashed line}) fall higher.
617: \label{theory}}
618: \end{figure}
619:
620: \clearpage
621: \begin{figure}
622: \plotone{f2.eps}
623: \caption{The cumulative luminosity function for bright RGB stars for NGC 2808
624: (this work) and M5 \citep{sb}, along with a Victoria-Regina model \citep{vr}
625: for [Fe/H] = -1.14 and age 12 Gyr.
626: \label{obs}}
627: \end{figure}
628:
629: \end{document}
630: