Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:37:56.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Globular cluster ages from main sequence fitting and detached, eclipsing binaries: The case of 47 Tuc

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Aaron Dotter ,
Janusz Kaluzny  and
Ian B. Thompson
Aaron Dotter
Affiliation:
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria BC V8P 5C2Canada email: dotter@uvic.ca
Janusz Kaluzny
Affiliation:
Copernicus Astronomical Center, Bartycka 18, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland email: jka@camk.edu.pl
Ian B. Thompson
Affiliation:
Carnegie Observatories, 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101-1292 email: ian@ociw.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Age constraints are most often placed on globular clusters by comparing their CMDs with theoretical isochrones. The recent discoveries of detached, eclipsing binaries in such systems by the Cluster AgeS Experiment (CASE) provide new insights into their ages and, at the same time, provide much-needed tests of stellar evolution models. We describe efforts to model the properties of the detached, eclipsing binary V69 in 47 Tuc and compare age constraints derived from stellar evolution models of V69A and B with ages obtained from fitting isochrones to the cluster CMD. We determine whether or not, under reasonable assumptions of distance, reddening, and metallicity, it is possible to simultaneously constrain the age and He content of 47 Tuc.

Keywords

binaries: eclipsingglobular clusters: individual: (47 Tuc)stars: evolution
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 4 , Symposium S258: The Ages of Stars , October 2008 , pp. 171 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2009

References

Anderson, J. et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaboyer, B. et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotter, A. et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotter, A. et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89Google Scholar
Gratton, R. G. et al. 2003, A&A, 408, 529Google Scholar
Koch, A. & McWilliam, A. 2008, AJ, 136, 518Google Scholar
Liu, W. M. & Chaboyer, B. 2000, ApJ, 544, 818Google Scholar
McWilliam, A. & Bernstein, R. A. 2008, ApJ, 684, 362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, S. M. et al. 2002, ApJ, 573, 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salaris, M. et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 243Google Scholar
Salaris, M. & Weiss, A. 2002, A&A, 388, 492Google Scholar
Sarajedini, A. et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1658Google Scholar
Schlegel, D. J. et al. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525Google Scholar
Spergel, D. N. et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, I. B. et al. 2009, AJ, submittedGoogle Scholar
VandenBerg, D. A. 2000, ApJS, 129, 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar