Paper detail

The influence of the C+N+O abundances on the determination of the relative ages of Globular Clusters: the case of NGC 1851 and NGC 6121 (M4)

The color magnitude diagram (CMD) of NGC 1851 presents two subgiant branches (SGB), probably due the presence of two populations differing in total CNO content. We test the idea that a difference in total CNO may simulate an age difference when comparing the CMD of clusters to derive relative ages. We compare NGC 1851 with NGC 6121 (M4), a cluster of very similar [Fe/H]. We find that, with a suitable shift of the CMDs that brings the two red horizontal branches at the same magnitude level, the unevolved main sequence and red giant branch match, but the SGB of NGC 6121 and its red giant branch "bump" are fainter than in NGC 1851. In particular, the SGB of NGC 6121 is even slightly fainter than the the faint SGB in NGC 1851. Both these features can be explained if the total CNO in NGC 6121 is larger than that in NGC 1851, even if the two clusters are coeval. We conclude by warning that different initial C+N+O abundances between two clusters, otherwise similar in metallicity and age, may lead to differences in the turnoff morphology that can be easily attributed to an age difference.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

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.

Institutions

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 map preview

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.