4.7 Article

OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON FIRST-STAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS. II. SPECTROSCOPY OF AN ULTRA METAL-POOR CEMP-no STAR

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 833, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/21

关键词

Galaxy: halo; stars: abundances; stars: atmospheres; stars: individual (HE 0020-1741); stars: Population II; techniques: spectroscopic

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [PHY-1430152]
  2. NSF [AST-1255160]
  3. Future Fellowship of the Australian Research Council [FT120100363]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1255160] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Physics [1430152] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report on the first high-resolution spectroscopic analysis of HE. 0020-1741, a bright (V - 12.9), ultra metal-poor ([Fe/H]= -4.1), carbon- enhanced ([C/Fe]= +1.7) star selected from the Hamburg/ESO Survey. This star exhibits low abundances of neutron-capture elements ([Ba/Fe]= -1.1) and an absolute carbon abundance A (C) = 6.1; based on either criterion, HE 0020-1741 is subclassified as a carbon-enhanced metal-poor star without enhancements in neutron-capture elements (CEMP-no). We show that the light-element abundance pattern of HE. 0020-1741 is consistent with predicted yields from a massive (M = 21.5 M circle dot), primordial-composition, supernova (SN) progenitor. We also compare the abundance patterns of other ultra metal-poor stars from the literature with available measures of C, N, Na, Mg, and Fe abundances with an extensive grid of SN models (covering the mass range 10-100 M circle dot), in order to probe the nature of their likely stellar progenitors. Our results suggest that at least two classes of progenitors are required at[Fe/H]< -4.0, as the abundance patterns for more than half of the sample studied in this work (7 out of 12 stars) cannot be easily reproduced by the predicted yields.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据