4.7 Article

Carbon-enhanced hyper-metal-poor stars and the stellar IMF at low metallicity

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 665, 期 2, 页码 1361-1370

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/519917

关键词

galaxy : evolution; stars : abundances; stars : individual ( HE 0107-5240, HE 1327-2326); stars : luminosity function, mass function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The two known hyper-metal-poor (HMP) stars, HE 0107-5240 and HE 1327-2326, have extremely high enhancements of the light elements C, N, and O relative to Fe and appear to represent a statistically significant excess population relative to the halo metallicity distribution extrapolated from [Fe/H] > -3. This study weighs the available evidence for and against three hypothetical origins for these stars: (1) that they formed from gas enriched by a primordial faint supernova, (2) that they formed from gas enriched by core-collapse supernovae and C-rich gas ejected in rotation-driven winds from massive stars, and (3) that they formed as the low-mass secondaries in binary systems at Z similar to 10(-5.5) Z circle dot and acquired their light-element enhancements from an intermediate-mass companion as it passed through an asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phase. The observations interpreted here, especially the depletion of lithium seen in HE 1327-2326, favor the binary mass-transfer hypothesis. If HE 0107-5240 and HE 1327-2326 formed in binary systems, the statistically significant absence of isolated and/or C-normal stars at similar [Fe/H] implies that low-mass stars could form at this metallicity, but that masses M less than or similar to 1.4 M circle dot were disfavored in the IMF. This result is also explained if the abundance-derived top-heavy IMF for primordial stars persists to [Fe/H] similar to -5.5. This finding indicates that low-mass star formation was possible at extremely low metallicity and that the typical stellar mass may have had a complex dependence on metallicity rather than a sharp transition driven solely by gas cooling.

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