4.6 Article

COMPARING MID-INFRARED GLOBULAR CLUSTER COLORS WITH POPULATION SYNTHESIS MODELS

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 143, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/4/87

关键词

galaxies: individual (M31); galaxies: star clusters: general; infrared: stars; stars: Population II

资金

  1. NASA [1407]
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  5. Ontario Early Researcher Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several population synthesis models now predict integrated colors of simple stellar populations in the mid-infrared bands. To date, the models have not been extensively tested in this wavelength range. In a comparison of the predictions of several recent population synthesis models, the integrated colors are found to cover approximately the same range but to disagree in detail, for example, on the effects of metallicity. To test against observational data, globular clusters (GCs) are used as the closest objects to idealized groups of stars with a single age and single metallicity. Using recent mass estimates, we have compiled a sample of massive, old GCs in M31 which contain enough stars to guard against the stochastic effects of small-number statistics, and measured their integrated colors in the Spitzer/IRAC bands. Comparison of the cluster photometry in the IRAC bands with the model predictions shows that the models reproduce the cluster colors reasonably well, except for a small ( not statistically significant) offset in [4.5] - [5.8]. In this color, models without circumstellar dust emission predict bluer values than are observed. Model predictions of colors formed from the V band and the IRAC 3.6 and 4.5 mu m bands are redder than the observed data at high metallicities and we discuss several possible explanations. In agreement with model predictions, V -[3.6] and V - [4.5] colors are found to have metallicity sensitivity similar to or slightly better than V - K-s.

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

4.6
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