Paper detail

Star Counts in the Globular Cluster Omega Centauri. I. Bright Stellar Components

We present an extensive photometry on HB, RGB, and MSTO stars in Omega Cen. The central regions of the cluster were covered with a mosaic of F435W, F625W, and F658N-band data collected with ACS/HST. The outer reaches were covered with a large set of U,B,V,I-band data collected with the WFI@2.2m ESO/MPI telescope. The final catalogue includes ~1.7 million stars. We identified ~3,200 likely HB stars and ~12,500 stars brighter than the subgiant branch and fainter than the RGB bumps. The HB morphology changes with the radial distance. The relative number of extreme HB stars decreases from ~30% to ~21% when moving from the center toward the outer regions of the cluster, while the fraction of less hot HB stars increases from ~62% to ~72%. We performed a detailed comparison between observed ratios of different stellar tracers and predictions based on canonical evolutionary models with a primordial helium (Y=0.23) content and metal abundances (Z=0.0002,0.001) that bracket the observed spread in metallicity of Omega Cen stars. We found that the empirical star counts of HB stars are on average larger (30%-40%) than predicted. Moreover, the rate of HB stars is 43% larger than the MSTO rate. The discrepancy between the rate of HB compared with the rate of RG and MSTO stars supports the evidence that we are facing a true excess of HB stars. The same comparison was performed by assuming a mix of stellar populations made with 70% of canonical stars and 30% of He-enhanced stars. The discrepancy between theory and observations decreases by a factor of two when compared with rates predicted by canonical He content models, but still 15%-25% (Y=0.42) and 15%-20% (Y=0.33) higher than observed. Furthermore, the ratio between HB and MSTO star counts are ~24% (Y=0.42) and 30% (Y=0.33) larger than predicted lifetime ratios.

preprint2007arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.