4.6 Article

Interstellar extinction and the distribution of stellar populations in the direction of the ultra-deep Chandra Galactic field

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 515, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913527

关键词

stars: general; Hertzsrung-Russell (HR) and C-M diagrams; stars: luminosity fonction, mass function; Galaxy: bulge; galaxies: stellar content; X-rays: galaxies

资金

  1. Russian Foundation of Basic Research [07-02-01051, 07-02-00961-a, 08-08-13734, 07-02-01004, 08-02-00974, NSh-5579.2008.2]
  2. STScI/HST [HST-GO-10353.01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the stellar population in the central 6.6' x 6.6' region of the ultra-deep (1Msec) Chandra Galactic field - the Chandra bulge field (CBF) approximately 1.5 degrees away from the Galactic Center - using the Hubble Space Telescope ACS/WFC blue (F435W) and red (F625W) images. We mainly focus on the behavior of red clump giants - a distinct stellar population, which is known to have an essentially constant intrinsic luminosity and color. By studying the variation in the position of the red clump giants on a spatially resolved color-magnitude diagram, we confirm the anomalous total-to-selective extinction ratio, as reported in previous work for other Galactic bulge fields. We show that the interstellar extinction in this area is < A(F625W)> = 4 on average, but varies significantly between similar to 3-5 on angular scales as small as 1 arcminute. Using the distribution of red clump giants in an extinction-corrected color-magnitude diagram, we constrain the shape of a stellar-mass distribution model in the direction of this ultra-deep Chandra field, which will be used in a future analysis of the population of X-ray sources. We also show that the adopted model for the stellar density distribution predicts an infrared surface brightness in the direction of the Chandra bulge field in good agreement (i.e. within similar to 15%) with the actual measurements derived from the Spitzer/IRAC observations.

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