1. THE POPULATIONS & CHEMICAL ENRICHMENT OF  CENTAURI JOHN E. NORRIS RESEARCH SCHOOOL OF ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS MOUNT STROMLO & SIDING SPRING OBSERVATORIES AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

2. PLAN OF ATTACK Historical review (pre ~1995) Chemical abundances on the Red Giant Branch –Metallicity Distribution Function & relative abundances –constraints on enriching stars and age spread Kinematics vs. abundance –Constraints on formation mechanisms Populations Main sequence studies –Constraints on the population parameters Collaborators: M.S.Bessell, K.Bekki, R.D.Cannon, G.S.Da Costa, K.C.Freeman, M.Mayor, K.Mighell, G.Paltoglou, P.Seitzer, L.Stanford

3. Abundance inhomogeneity of  Cen (1960-1995) Discovery of CH star –Harding (1962) Wide giant branch –Woolley et al (1966, photographic), Cannon & Stobie (1972, photoelectric)  Cen 47 Tuc Cannon & Stobie 1972, MNRAS, 162, 207 Lee 1977, A&AS, 27, 381

4. Abundance inhomogeneity of  Cen (1960-1995) Discovery of CH star –Harding (1962) Wide giant branch –Woolley et al (1966, photographic), Cannon & Stobie (1972, photoelectric) [Ca/H] spread among RR Lyrae stars –Freeman & Rodgers (1975, low res) Large CN variations among red giants –Norris & Bessell (1975, low res), Dickens & Bell (1976, low res) Large CO spread among red giants –Persson et al (1980, IR photometry) [Ca/H] = log(N(Ca)/N(H)) * -log(N(Ca)/N(H)) o

5. Persson et al 1980, ApJ, 235, 452 C and/or O enhance- ment unique to  Cen

6. Abundance inhomogeneity of  Cen (1960-1995) Discovery of CH star –Harding (1962) Wide giant branch –Woolley et al (1966, photographic), Cannon & Stobie (1972, photoelectric) [Ca/H] spread among RR Lyrae stars –Freeman & Rodgers (1975, low res) Large CN variations among red giants –Norris & Bessell (1975, low res), Dickens & Bell (1976, low res) Large CO spread among red giants –Persson et al (1980, IR photometry) Heavy element abundance spreads –High resolution spectroscopy –Cohen (1981; 5 stars), Gratton (1982; 8), Francois et al (1988; 6), Paltoglou & Norrris (1989; 15), Brown & Wallerstein (1993; 6), Norris & Da Costa (1995; 35), Smith et al (1995; 7)

7. Norris, Freeman & Mighell 1996, ApJ, 462, 241 Ca II H&K AAT Ca II triplet 74-inch Ca II triplet 74-inch [Ca/H] abundance histograms METALLICITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION [Ca/H] = log(N(Ca)/N(H)) * -log(N(Ca)/N(H)) o NB: Complete sample of red giants having V < 13 (R ~ 4000)

8. Norris, Freeman & Mighell 1996, ApJ, 462, 241 Two populations First population: [Ca/H] 0 = -1.59 = -1.29 Second population: [Ca/H] 0 = -1.09 = -0.83 Simple model, closed box approximation: metal-rich/metal-poor ~ 0.20

9. Norris & Da Costa 1995, ApJ, 447, 680 [alpha/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] (NB: heavily biased sample) Enrichment by SNe II  Cen Other clusters (AAT UCLES R ~ 35000)

10. Norris & Da Costa 1995, ApJ, 447, 680 [neutron capture/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] Enrichment by (intermediate- mass) AGB stars  Cen Other clusters

11. Norris, Freeman & Mighell, 1996 ApJ, 462, 241 Heavily biased sample (AAT UCLES high-res) Unbiased sample (AAT, 74-inch low-res) Normal globular clusters No counterpart elsewhere in Galaxy. Suggests causal link between populations

12. [ Fe /H] -1.5-2.0 0.0 1.0 Smith et al 2000, AJ, 119, 1239 5Mo 3Mo 1.5Mo 5Mo 3Mo 1.5Mo 5Mo 3Mo 1.5Mo [Rb/Zr] Star formation occurred over 2-3 Gyr

13. Norris, Freeman & Mighell 1996, ApJ, 462, 241 [Ca/Fe] vs. radius Abundance decreases with radial distance

14. Norris, Freeman, Mayor & Seitzer 1997, ApJ, 487, L187 Rotation vs. abundance Metal-poor sample:  V = 10.7 +/- 1.8 km/s Metal-rich sample:  V = 3.0 +/- 2.4 km/s Metal-poor population rotating more rapidly

15. Metal-poor sample kinematically hotter and rotating more rapidly. Kinematics vs. abundance Norris, Freeman, Mayor & Seitzer 1997, ApJ, 487, L187 O Not ELS type collapse O Kinematically consistent with binary cluster evolution (e.g. Makino et al 1991 Ap&SS, 185, 63); but not clear this works chemically

16. Ferraro et al 2004, ApJ, 603, L81 Pancino et al 2000, ApJ, 584, L83 ‘Third’ population (see also Lee et al 1999, Nature, 402, 55)

17. Pancino et al 2002, ApJ, 568, L101 Enrichment by SNe Ia [Ca/Fe] [Fe/H]

18. Sollima et al. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 265

19. To  Cen’s main sequence with AAT Two Degree Field Spectrographs

20. … working with Laura Stanford, Gary Da Costa & Russell Cannon (Stanford et al 2006, ApJ, 647,1075) 1998/99 2002

21. Stanford et al. (2006, ApJ, 647, 1075) From - Ages of individual star in the CMD determined from YY isochrones, taking into account correlated age-metallicity errors Comparisons of Monte-Carlo CMD simulations with that of the cluster There exists an age-metallicity relation, with the more metal-rich populations being younger by 2-4 Gyr than the metal poor one

22. Stanford et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1075 Age ranges from the literature

23. Stanford et al. 2006, ApJ, submitted [Sr/Fe] = +1.6 [Ba/Fe] < +0.8:

24. Bedin et al. 2004, ApJ, 605, L125 (also Anderson 1997, 2000, 2003 Thesis U Berkeley & ASP Proceedings) Anderson’s double main sequence HST data

25. Norris, Freeman & Mighell 1996, ApJ, 462, 241 Two populations First population: [Ca/H] 0 = -1.59 = -1.29 Second population: [Ca/H] 0 = -1.09 = -0.83 Simple model, closed box approximation: metal-rich/metal-poor ~ 0.20

26. Bedin et al. suggest: Observations and/or modelling wrong Bluer main sequence has [Fe/H] < -2.0 Bluer main sequence has higher helium (Y > 0.3) Two clusters superimposed, separated by 1-2 kpc along line of sight Majority, metal-poor population should be bluest! Note: X = hydrogen mass fraction Y = helium mass fraction Z = heavy element mass fraction

27. Pop 1st 2nd 3rd [Fe/H] -1.7 -1.2-0.6 Y 0.23 0.23 0.23 Age(Gyr) 16 16 16 Fraction 0.80 0.150.05 Revised Yale Isochrones Norris 2004, ApJ 612, L25

28. Pop 1st 2nd 3rd [Fe/H] -1.7 -1.2-0.6 Y 0.23 0.23 0.23 Age(Gyr) 16 14 12 Fraction 0.80 0.150.05 Revised Yale Isochrones Norris 2004, ApJ, 612, L25

29. Pop 1st 2nd 3rd [Fe/H] -1.7 -1.2-0.6 Y 0.23 0.35 0.38 Age(Gyr) 16 15 14 Fraction 0.80 0.150.05 Revised Yale Isochrones Norris 2004 ApJ, 612, L25

30. Bedin et al. 2004, ApJ, 605, L125 (astro-ph/0403112) (also Anderson 1997, 2000, 2003 Thesis U Berkeley & ASP Proceedings) Anderson’s double main sequence HST data

31. Piotto et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 777 The blue main sequence is more metal-rich by 0.3 dex!  [C/Fe] = 0.0; [N/Fe] bMS = 1.0-1.5, [N/Fe] rMS < 1.0 VLT Giraffe

32. Sollima et al 2006, astro-ph/0609650

33. N bMS /N rMS = 0.16 N bMS /N rMS = 0.17 N bMS /N rMS = 0.24 The ratio of bMS to rMS is a function of cluster radial distance r >15’ r < 10’ 10’<r<15’

34. Norris, Freeman & Mighell 1996, ApJ, 462, 241 [Ca/Fe] vs. radius Abundance decreases with radial distance

35. BUT … Canonically,  Y/  Z ~3-4, and with an increase from [Fe/H] = -1.7 to -1.2 one expects only  Y = 0.003! Suggests non-canonical evolution. OBSERVATIONALLY … Determine Y from hot blue HB stars? Use sensitivity of HB luminosity &T eff to Y? ( Y up => T eff up, L up) Zero-Age HB RR Lyraes of 2nd pop should be brighter by 0.2-0.3mag. In contrast, the observed metal-richer RR Lyraes are fainter by 0.2-0.3mag! (see also Sollima et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, L43) But … are the variables representative of the populations?

36. Ferraro et al 2004 ApJ, 603, L81 Pop 1st2nd Alt.2nd [Fe/H] -1.7-1.2-1.2 Y 0.230.35 0.23 Age(Gyr) 14 12 12 Fraction0.800.150.15 Turnoff mass (M sun )0.820.710.85 Rey et al 2004 D’Cruz et al 2000 ApJ, 530, 352 - HST UV observations “… over 30% of the HB objects are “extreme” HB or post-HB stars” see also: Lee et al., 2005, ApJ, 621, L57 RR Lyrae

37. Lee at al. 2005 ApJ, 621, L57 Y Z [Fe/H]Age 0.231 0.0006 -1.4513 0.232 0.001 -1.2313 0.38 0.0015 -1.0512 0.40 0.0028 -0.7811.5 0.42 0.006 -0.4511.5 Helium constant Helium varies

38. CANDIDATES FOR PRODUCERS OF HELIUM Massive stars (~60 M o ) with rotationally driven mass loss (Maeder & Meynet 2006, A&A, 448, L37) - also produce copius N, but not large overabundances of C and O 10-14 M o SNe (Piotto et al 2005, ApJ, 621, 777) More massive (~6-7 M o ) AGB stars Helium diffusion in protocluster phase (Chuzhoy 2006, MNRAS, 369, L52) “Element diffusion can produce large fluctuations in the initial helium abundance of the star-forming clouds. Diffusion time-scale … can fall below10 8 years in the neutral gas clouds dominated by collisionless dark matter or with dynamically important radiation or magnetic pressure. ” Problems with self enrichment by above (stellar) candidates within a closed system producing so much helium. Bekki & Norris (2006, ApJ, 637, L109) suggested second population formed from gas “ejected from field stellar populations that surrounded  Cen when it was the nucleus of an ancient dwarf galaxy”

39. Bekki & Norris 2006, ApJ, 637, L109 Helium production in stars Y Log (Stellar mass) Constraints on two populations, in which the AGB ejecta of the first (IMF slope s 1 ) forms the second (s 2 ). Massive star ejecta lost from the system, but all AGB ejecta for 6<M/M o < 7 are retained and form second population. f 2nd /(f 1st +f 2nd ) f rem (remnant mass fraction of GC) (f is fraction of stars with M< 0.88Mo) s 1 =2.35 (D’Antona et al (2005) suggest AGB stars with 6<M/M o <7 can produce Y = 0.40)

40. Bekki, Campbell, Lattanzio & Norris 2006, MNRAS, submitted Globular cluster formation in the central regions of low-mass protogalaxies embedded in dark matter halos. First population forms at the center of the potential well. All AGB ejecta from first generation is retained in the potential well. Infalling protogalactic gas combines with the retained AGB material to form the second generation. Free parameters: s (=M IN /M AGB ); timescale for (exponential) infall of protogalactic gas (~10 6 yr) with star formation ceasing after 10 7 yr; initial gas mass (M g (0)) when infall begins. omega Cen model with very small s (i.e. higher degree of AGB material), smaller infall time (i.e. rapid infall) and smaller initial gas mass (i.e. more rapid chemical enrichment)

41. SUMMARY  Cen possesses at least three distinct populations, described to first approximation by: Population First Second Third Fraction 0.80 0.150.05 [Fe/H] -1.7 -1.2-0.6 Y 0.230.35 0.38: YY Age (Gyr) 14 12 12:  (Vr) (km/s) 13 8 13 Rotation (km/s) 11 3 unknown The origin of the helium in the second population is currently not well understood. System not formed in an ELS scenario, but more likely as a dwarf galaxy having multiple star-formation episodes well away from the forming Galaxy, and later being captured by it.

43. THE CHEMICAL ENRICHMENT OF  CENTAURI JOHN E. NORRIS RESEARCH SCHOOOL OF ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS MOUNT STROMLO & SIDING SPRING OBSERVATORIES AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

44. Norris, Freeman & Mighell 1996, ApJ, 462, 241 Ca II H&K Ca II infrared triplet ROA 253 Low resolution (R~4000) [Ca/H] from Ca II H&K and Ca II infrared triplet ROA 253

45. High resolution spectrum obtained with AAT UCL Echelle Spectrograph (UCLES)

46. High resolution spectra of 35 red giants (AAT UCLES, R~35,000; 

47.  Cen Lee et al 1999, Nature, 402, 55

48. Stars observed in 2002 box  Cen radial-velocity members in 2002 box Stanford thesis

50. Metallicity Distribution Function Stanford et al (2006, ApJ, 647, 1075)

51. Stanford et al. (2006, ApJ, 647, 1075)

52. Stanford et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1075 Age ranges from the literature

53. 98/99 2002 Stanford thesis ( 2006, ApJ, 647, 1075)

54. Age-Metallicity Relation Stanford et al (2006, ApJ, 647, 1075)

55. Sollima et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 332

56. Smith, Cunha & Lambert 1995 AJ, 110, 2827 Mixing line [Fe/H] [Ba/Fe]

57. Metallicity Range Stanford thesis work

58. Age-Metallicity Relation Stanford et al (2006, ApJ, 647, 1075)

60. Norris & Da Costa 1995 ApJ, 447, 680 [iron peak/Fe] vs. [Fe/H]  Cen Other clusters

61. Stanford thesis work Observations Simulations of populations: [Fe/H] Fraction First -1.7 0.80 Second-1.2 0.15 Third-0.6 0.05 0 Gyr 6 Gyr 4 Gyr 2 Gyr Age spread

62. Stanford thesis work [Fe/H] Age(Gyr) 15 10 5 -2 Turnoff stars

63. THE CHEMICAL ENRICHMENT OF  CENTAURI JOHN E. NORRIS RESEARCH SCHOOOL OF ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS MOUNT STROMLO & SIDING SPRING OBSERVATORIES AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

64. AAT Two Degree Field - Plate with fibres

65. D’Cruz et al 2000 ApJ, 530, 352 - HST UV observations ‘Normal’ Horizontal Branch EHB “… over 30% of the HB objects are “extreme” HB or post-HB stars” V ~ 16