4.7 Article

GALACTIC GLOBULAR AND OPEN CLUSTERS IN THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY. II. TEST OF THEORETICAL STELLAR ISOCHRONES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 700, 期 1, 页码 523-544

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/523

关键词

globular clusters: individual (M3, M5, M13, M15, M71,M92); Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram; open clusters and associations: individual (M67, NGC 6791); stars: evolution; surveys

资金

  1. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  2. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0807308] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We perform an extensive test of theoretical stellar models for main-sequence ( MS) stars in ugriz, using cluster fiducial sequences obtained in the previous paper of this series. We generate a set of isochrones using the Yale Rotating Evolutionary Code with updated input physics, and derive magnitudes and colors in ugriz from MARCS model atmospheres. These models match cluster MSs over a wide range of metallicity within the errors of the adopted cluster parameters. However, we find a large discrepancy of model colors at the lower MS ( T-eff less than or similar to 4500 K) for clusters at and above solar metallicity. We also reach similar conclusions using the theoretical isochrones of Girardi et al. and Dotter et al., but our new models are generally in better agreement with the data. Using our theoretical isochrones, we also derive MS-fitting distances and turnoff ages for five key globular clusters, and demonstrate the ability to derive these quantities from photometric data in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. In particular, we exploit multiple color indices (g - r, g - i, and g - z) in the parameter estimation, which allows us to evaluate internal systematic errors. Our distance estimates, with an error of sigma((m-M)) = 0.03-0.11 mag for individual clusters, are consistent with Hipparcos-based subdwarf-fitting distances derived in the Johnson-Cousins or Stromgren photometric systems.

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