The Multiplicity of the Subgiant Branch of ω Centauri: Evidence for Prolonged Star Formation

By S. Villanova, G. Piotto, Ivan R. King, Joseph M. Anderson, L. Bedin, R. Gratton, Santi Cassisi, Y. Momany, Andrea Bellini, A. Cool and 2 more. 2007

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We combine spectroscopic and photometric data for subgiant stars of ω Cen to extract results that neither data set could have provided on its own. GIRAFFE@VLT spectra of 80 stars at R = 6400 give metallicities for all of them and abundances of C, N, Ca, Ti, and Ba for a subset of them. The photometric data, which have unusually high accuracy, come from a ~10 × 10 arcmin2 mosaic of HST ACS images centered on the cluster center and on multicolor images of a ~34 × 33 arcmin2 field, taken with the WFI@ESO2.2m camera. Stars with [Fe/H] < -1.25 have a large magnitude spread on the flat part of the SGB. We interpret this as empirical evidence for an age spread, and from theoretical isochrones we derive a relative age for each star. Within the SGB region we identify four distinct stellar groups: (1) an old, metal-poor group ([Fe/H] ~ -1.7); (2) an old, metal-rich group ([Fe/H] ~ -1.1); (3) a young (up to 4-5 Gyr younger than the old component) metal-poor group ([Fe/H] ~ -1.7); (4) a young, intermediate-metallicity ([Fe/H] ~ -1.4) group, on average 1-2 Gyr younger than the old metal-poor population, and with an age spread that we cannot properly quantify with the present sample. In addition, many SGB stars are spread between the intermediate-metallicity and metal-rich branches. We tentatively propose connections between the SGB stars and both the multiple main-sequence and the red giant branches. Finally, we discuss the implications of the multiple stellar populations on the formation and evolution of ω Cen. The spread in age within each population establishes that the original system must have had a composite nature.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d6b6b4a9cd2836503e352e0249172b35bb40ef59

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

  1. Jay Anderson
  2. A. Milone
  3. G. Piotto
  4. C. Conroy
  5. L. Bedin
  6. Aaron Dotter
  7. A. Renzini
  8. H. Baumgardt

In Instrumentation

  1. Jay Anderson
  2. G. Piotto
  3. A. Milone
  4. L. Bedin
  5. F. D’Antona
  6. Aaron Dotter
  7. A. Renzini
  8. A. Aparicio

Citations in the corpus