Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:47:55.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparisons between observational color-magnitude diagrams and synthetic cluster diagrams for young star clusters in the Magellanic Clouds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

Stephen A. Becker ,
Grant J. Mathews  and
Wendee M. Brunish
Stephen A. Becker
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Grant J. Mathews
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Wendee M. Brunish
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory

Extract

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.

Young star clusters (<3 × 108 yr) in the Maqellanic Clouds (MC) can be used to test the current status of the theory of stellar evolution as applied to intermediate and massive stars. The color-magnitude diagram of many young clusters in the MC shows, unlike the case of clusters in our Galaxy, large numbers of stars in both the main sequence and post main sequence evolutionary phases. Usina a arid of stellar evolution models, synthetic cluster H-R diagrams are constructed and compared to observed color-magnitude diagrams to determine the age, age spread, and composition for any given cluster. In addition, for those cases where the data is of high quality, detailed comparisons between theory and observation can provide a diagnostic of the accuracy of the stellar evolution models. Initial indications of these comparisons suggest that the theoretical models should be altered to include: a larger value for the mixing length parameter (α), a larger rate of mass loss during the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phase, and possibly convective overshoot during the core burning phases.

Type
I. EVOLUTION OF LOW AND INTERMEDIATE MASS STARS OBSERVATIONS AND MODELS
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 105: Observational Tests of the Stellar Evolution Theory , 1984 , pp. 83 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1984 

References

Arp, H.C., and Thackery, A 1967, Astrophys J. 149, pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
Recker, S.A. 1981, Astophys. J. Suppl. 45, pp. 475–505.Google Scholar
Becker, S.A., and Brunish, W. M. 1983, Astrophys. J. to be submitted.Google Scholar
Becker, S.A., and Iben, I. Jr. 1979, Astrophys. J. 232, pp. 831–853.Google Scholar
Becker, S.A., and Iben, I. Jr. 1980, Astrophys. J. 237, pp. 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, S.A., and Mathews, G.J. 1983, Astrophys. J. 270, pp. 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunish, W.M., and Truran, J. W. 1982a, Astrophys. J. 256, pp. 247–258.Google Scholar
Brunish, W.M., and Truran, J. W. 1982h, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 49, pp. 447–468.Google Scholar
Flower, P.J. 1977, Astron. Astrophys. 54, pp. 31–39.Google Scholar
Flower, P.J. 1981, Astrophys. J. (Letters) 249, pp. L11–L14.Google Scholar
Kurucz, R.L. 1979, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 40, pp. 1–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lequeux, S., Pembert, M., Rayo, J. Serrano, A. and Torres-Pembert, S., 1979, Astron. Astrophys. 80, pp. 155–166.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. W. 1974, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 15, pp. 261–309.Google Scholar
Walker, M.F. 1974, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 169, pp. 199–209.Google Scholar