Radial Distribution of The Multiple Stellar Populations in Centauri

Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no.
ms c ESO 2018
November 13, 2018
Radial distribution of the multiple stellar populations

in ω Centauri ⋆
Bellini, A.1,2 , Piotto, G.1 , Bedin, L. R.2 , King, I. R.3 , Anderson, J.2 , Milone, A. P.1 , and Momany, Y.4
arXiv:0909.4785v1 [astro-ph.SR] 25 Sep 2009
1
Dipartimento di Astronomia, Università di Padova, Vicolo dell’Osservatorio 3, I-35122 Padua, Italy
e-mail: [andrea.bellini;giampaolo.piotto;antonino.milone]@unipd.it
2
Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
e-mail: [bellini;bedin;jayander]@stsci.edu
3
Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1580, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
4
INAF: Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, 35122 Padova, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
Received 24 June 2009 / Accepted 23 September 2009
ABSTRACT
Aims. We present a detailed study of the radial distribution of the multiple populations identified in the Galactic globular cluster ω
Cen.
Methods. We used both space-based images (ACS/WFC and WFPC2) and ground-based images (FORS1@VLT and [email protected]
ESO telescopes) to map the cluster from the inner core to the outskirts (∼20 arcmin). These data sets have been used to extract high-
accuracy photometry for the construction of color-magnitude diagrams and astrometric positions of ∼ 900 000 stars.
Results. We find that in the inner ∼2 core radii the blue main sequence (bMS) stars slightly dominate the red main sequence (rMS)
in number. At greater distances from the cluster center, the relative numbers of bMS stars with respect to rMS drop steeply, out to ∼8
arcmin, and then remain constant out to the limit of our observations. We also find that the dispersion of the Gaussian that best fits the
color distribution within the bMS is significantly greater than the dispersion of the Gaussian that best fits the color distribution within
the rMS. In addition, the relative number of intermediate-metallicity red-giant-branch stars which includes the progeny of the bMS)
with respect to the metal-poor component (the progeny of the rMS) follows a trend similar to that of the main-sequence star-count
ratio NbMS /NrMS . The most metal-rich component of the red-giant branch follows the same distribution as the intermediate-metallicity
component.
Conclusions. We briefly discuss the possible implications of the observed radial distribution of the different stellar components in
ω Cen.
Key words. Globular clusters: general – Globular clusters: individual (ω Cen [NGC 5139]) – Stars: evolution – Stars: Population II
– Techniques: photometric
1. Introduction ω Cen hosts different stellar populations, most of them clearly

visible in most of their evolutionary phases.
The globular cluster (GC) ω Centauri is the most-studied stellar These populations have been linked to the aforementioned
system of our Galaxy, but nevertheless one of the most puzzling. metallicity peaks, in photometric studies of the red-giant branch
Its stars cover a wide range in metallicity (Cannon & Stobie (RGB) (Pancino et al. 2000; Hilker & Richtler 2000; Sollima
1973; Norris & Bessell 1975, 1977; Freeman & Rodgers 1975; et al. 2005a), the subgiant branch (SGB) (Hilker et al. 2004;
Bessell & Norris 1976; Butler et al. 1978; Norris & Da Costa Sollima et al. 2005b; Stanford et al. 2006; Villanova et al.
1995; Suntzeff & Kraft 1996; Norris et al. 1996), with a primary 2007), and the main sequence (MS) (Piotto et al. 2005). The
component at [Fe/H] ∼ −1.7 to −1.8, and a long tail extending most puzzling feature in ω Cen was discovered by Piotto et
up to [Fe/H] ∼ −0.6, containing three or four secondary peaks al. (2005), who showed that, contrary to any expectation from
(see Johnson et al. 2009 for a recent update). It has been shown, stellar-structure theory, the bluer of the two principal main se-
both with ground-based photometry (Lee et al. 1999; Pancino quences (bMS) is more metal-rich than the redder one (rMS).
et al. 2000; Rey et al. 2004; Sollima et al. 2005a; Villanova The only possible way of reconciling the spectroscopic observa-
et al. 2007) and Hubble Space Telescope (HST) photometry tions with the photometric ones is to assume a high overabun-
(Anderson 1997; Bedin et al. 2004; Ferraro et al. 2004), that dance of He for the bluer MS (Bedin et al. 2004; Norris 2004;
Piotto et al. 2005). How such a high He content could have been
formed is still a subject of debate (see Renzini 2008 for a re-
Send offprint requests to: Bellini, A. view).
⋆
Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space
Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which One of the scenarios proposed to account for all the ob-
is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555, and served features of ω Cen is a tidal stripping of an object that was
on observations made with ESO telescopes at La Silla and Paranal originally much more massive (Zinnecker et al. 1988; Freeman
Observatories. 1993; Dinescu et al. 1999; Ideta & Makino 2004; Tsuchiya et
2 Bellini, A. et al.: Radial distribution of the multiple stellar populations in ω Centauri
al. (2004); Bekki & Norris 2006; Villanova et al. 2007). In this populations we can find in nature, as opposed to field popula-
scenario, the cluster was born as a dwarf elliptical galaxy, which tions, which result from an admixture of ages and compositions”.
was subsequently tidally disrupted by the Milky Way. Since all If we allow for the fact that all the GCs for which Na and O
the populations of such a galaxy pass through the center, the nu- abundances have been measured show a well defined Na/O anti-
cleus would have been left with a mixture of all of them. correlation (Carretta et al. 2006, 2008), suggesting an extended
It has also been suggested (Searle 1977; Makino et al. 1991; star-formation process, and that 11 of the 16 intermediate-age
Ferraro et al. 2002) that ω Cen could have been formed by Large Magellanic Cloud GCs have been found to host multi-
mergers of smaller stellar systems. In apparent support of this ple populations (Milone et al. 2009), multi-populations in GCs
scenario, Ferraro et al. (2002) claimed that the most metal-rich could be more the rule than the exception. De facto, a new era
RGB component of ω Cen (RGB-a, following the nomenclature in globular-cluster research has started, and understanding how
of Pancino et al. 2000) has a significantly different mean proper a multiple stellar system like ω Cen was born and has evolved is
motion from that of the other RGB stars, and they concluded no longer the curious study of an anomaly, but rather may be a
that RGB-a stars must have had an independent origin. However, key to understanding basic star-formation processes.
Platais et al. (2003) showed that the proper-motion displacement One way to understand how the multiple populations may
seen could instead be an uncalibratable artifact of the plate solu- have originated is to study the spatial distributions of the dif-
tion. More recently Bellini et al. (2009), with a new CCD-based ferent populations, which might retain information about where
proper-motion analysis, were able to demonstrate that all ω Cen they formed. In particular, theoreticians have been finding that
RGB stars share the same mean motion to within a few km/sec. if the second generation of stars is formed from an interstellar
Anderson & van der Marel (2009) also find that the lower-turnoff medium polluted and shocked by the winds of the first genera-
population (the analog of the RGB-a) shows the same bulk motion, then we would expect that the second generation would be
tion as the rest of the cluster. Thus there is no longer a reason to more concentrated towards the center of the cluster than the first
think this population is kinematically distinct and an indication one (see D’Ercole et al. 2008; Bekki & Mackey 2009; Decressin
of a recent merger. Another indication that the cluster likely did et al. 2008). In the last of these references it is shown that in
not form by mergers can be found in the observation in Pancino such a scenario the two generations of stars would interact dy-
et al. (2007) that all three RGB components share the cluster ro- namically and would homogenize their radial distributions over
tation, which would not be the case if different populations had time. As such, spatial gradients represent a fading fossil record
different dynamical origins, or at least would require an unlikely of the cluster’s dynamical history.
degree of fine tuning. Since ω Cen has such a long relaxation time (1.1 Gyr in the
While ω Cen was long thought to be the only cluster to ex- core and 10 Gyr at the half-mass radius, Harris 1996), it is one of
hibit a spread in abundances, we now know that it is not alone. the few clusters where we might hope to infer the star-formation
M54 also clearly exhibits multiple RGBs (Sarajedini & Layden history by studying the internal kinematics and spatial distribu-
(1995); Siegel et al. 2007), SGBs (Piotto 2009), and has hints tions of the constituent populations. These measurements will
of multiple MSs. The complexity of M54 makes good sense, provide precious hints and constraints to allow theoreticians to
because it coincides with the nucleus of the tidally disrupting develop more reliable GC dynamical models.
Sagittarius dwarf-spheroidal galaxy. M54 might be the actual In a recent paper, Sollima et al. (2007) showed that the star-
nucleus or, more likely, it may represent a cluster that migrated count ratio NbMS /NrMS is flat beyond ∼ 12′ , but that inward to
to the nucleus as a result of dynamical friction (Bellazzini et ∼ 8′ it increases to twice the envelope value. Thus the bMS stars
al. 2008). ω Cen and M54 are the two most massive GCs in (i.e., the supposed “He-enriched” population) are more concen-
our Galaxy, and it is quite possible that they are the result of trated towards the center than the rMS, which is presumed to be
similar—and peculiar—evolutionary paths (Piotto 2009). In any the first generation. Unfortunately, Sollima et al. (2007) could
case, even ω Cen and M54 are not the only clusters to exhibit not provide information about the trend of NbMS /NrMS within
non-singular populations. Exciting new discoveries, made in the ∼ 8′ , which corresponds roughly to 2 half-mass radii (rh ).
last few years, clearly show that the GC multi-population zoo is On the other hand, the radial distribution of RGB subpopu-
quite populated, inhomogeneous, and complex. lations has been analyzed by many authors (Norris et al. 1997;
Piotto et al. (2007) published a color-magnitude diagram Hilker & Richtler 2000; Pancino et al. 2000, 2003; Rey et al.
(CMD) of the globular cluster NGC 2808, in which they iden- 2004; Sollima et al. 2005a; Castellani et al. 2007; Johnson et al.
tified a well-defined triple MS (D’Antona et al. [2005] had al- 2009). All these works agree that the intermediate-metallicity
ready suspected an anomalous broadening of the MS and had population (RGB-MInt) is more centrally concentrated than the
associated it with the three populations proposed by D’Antona more metal-poor one (RGB-MP). However, there is a disagree-
& Caloi [2004] to explain the complex horizontal branch (HB) ment about the most metal-rich population (RGB-a): Pancino et
of this cluster). Another globular cluster, NGC 1851, must have al. (2000), Norris et al. (1997), and Johnson et al. (2009) found
at least two distinct stellar populations. In this case, the obser- that the most metal-rich stars (RGB-a) are as concentrated as the
vational evidence comes from the split of the SGB (Milone et intermediate-metallicity ones, and consequently more concen-
al. 2008). There are other GCs which undoubtedly show a split trated than the most metal-poor stars, whereas Hilker & Richtler
in the SGB, like NGC 6388 (Moretti et al. 2009), M22 (Piotto (2000) and Castellani et al. (2007) considered the RGB-a com-
2009; Marino et al. (2009), 47 Tuc (Anderson et al. 2009), which ponent to be the least-concentrated population. (Since our work
also shows a MS broadening, or in the RGB, like M4 (Marino in progress was already favoring the former view over the latter,
et al. 2008). Recent investigations (Rich et al. 2004; Faria et al. we were concerned to reach the definitive truth of this matter).
2007) suggest that also other galaxies might host GCs with more In the present paper, we trace the radial distribution of the
than one population of stars. stars of ω Cen , both on the MS and in the RGB region. Our ra-
Multiple-population GCs offer observational evidence that dial density analysis covers both the center and the outskirts of
challenges the traditional view. For half a century, a GC has the cluster, taking advantage of the combination of four instru-
been considered to be an assembly of stars that (quoting Renzini ments on three different telescopes, and of our proper-motion
& Fusi Pecci 1988): “represent the purest and simplest stellar measurements on ground-based multi-epoch wide-field images
Bellini, A. et al.: Radial distribution of the multiple stellar populations in ω Centauri 3
(Bellini et al. 2009). In Section 2 we describe in detail the photo-

metric data and the reduction procedures. Section 3 presents our
analysis of the radial distribution of the stars on the two MSs. In
Section 4 we perform an analogous study for the RGB stars. A
brief discussion follows in Section 5.
2. Observations and data reductions

To trace the radial distribution of the different stellar populations
in ω Cen, we analyzed several data sets, from four different cam-
eras. To probe the dense inner regions of the cluster we took ad-
vantage of the space-based high resolving power of HST, using
both the Wide Field Channel (WFC) of the Advanced Camera
for Surveys (ACS), and the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2
(WFPC2). For the relatively sparse outskirts of the cluster, we in-
stead made use of deep archival ground-based observations col-
lected with the FORS1 camera of the ESO Very Large Telescope
(VLT). In addition, to link all the different data sets into a com-
mon astrometric and photometric reference system, we used the
Wide Field Imager (WFI) at the focus of the ESO 2.2m telescope
(hereafter [email protected]). This shallower data set was also used to
study the red-giant branch in the outskirts of the cluster.
Figure 1 shows the footprints of the data sets, centered
on the recently determined accurate center of ω Cen: RA =
13:26:47.24, Dec = −47:28:46.45 (J2000.0, Anderson & van Fig. 1. The footprints of the ω Cen data sets used in this work.
der Marel 2009). The red footprints are those of HST obser- North is up, east to the left. The “∗” marks the cluster center. The
vations. The larger ones are the ACS/WFC data sets, a 3 × 3 3 × 3 ACS/WFC mosaic (in red) is that of GO-9442, while the 8
mosaic centered on the cluster center and a single field ∼17′ FORS1 fields are marked in blue. The largest field (in magenta)
SW of the center. The smaller red field, ∼7′ S of the center, comes from the WFI proper-motion catalog (Bellini et al. 2009).
was observed with WFPC2. Blue rectangles show the partially This wide-field catalog has been used to register the FORS1 and
overlapping FORS1@VLT fields, extending from ∼6′ to ∼25′ . the ACS/WFC inner-mosaic data into a common astrometric and
The large field in magenta is the ∼33′ × 33′ field-of-view of our photometric reference system (see text). The smaller WFPC2
[email protected] proper-motion catalog (Bellini et al. 2009). The fig- field at ∼7′ south and the outer ACS/WFC field at ∼17′ from
ure also shows the major and minor axes (solid lines), taken from the cluster center are also shown (in red). Concentric ellipses,
van de Ven et al. (2006). We divided the field into four quadrants, centered on the center of ω Cen and aligned with the major and
centered on the major and minor axes. The quadrants are labeled minor axes, show the radial bins that we created. Ellipses are
with Roman numerals and separated by dashed lines. We will use split into quadrants (dashed lines), labeled with Roman numer-
them to derive internal estimates of the errors of the star-count als. Each quadrant is bisected by the major or minor axis. Thick
distribution. Concentric ellipses, aligned with the major/minor black circles mark the core radius (rc = 1.′ 4) and the half-mass
axes, have ellipticity of 0.17, coincident with the average ellip- radius (rh = 4.′ 18) (from Harris 1996).
ticity of ω Cen Geyer et al. 1983). These ellipses will be used to
define radial annuli, in Section 2.8. Thick black circles mark the
core radius (rc = 1.′ 4) and the half-mass radius (rh = 4.′ 18) (from al. (2007), were reduced using img2xym WFC.09x10, which is
Harris 1996). If we assuming a cluster distance of 4.7 kpc (van a publicly available FORTRAN program, described in Anderson
de Ven et al. 2006; van der Marel & Anderson 2009), the two & King (2006). The program finds and measures each star
radii correspond to 1.9 pc and 5.7 pc, respectively. in each exposure by fitting a spatially-variable effective point-
The details of the data sets are summarized in Table 1. In the spread function. The independent measurements of the stars
following subsections we give brief descriptions of the reduction were collated into a master star list that covers the entire 3 × 3
procedures, which have been presented in more detail in various mosaic field. For each star we constructed an average magnitude
other papers. The FORS1 data, however, were taken by Sollima in each band, and computed the rms deviation of the multiple
et al. (2007), for a purpose similar to ours; we will give a full measurements about this average. Instrumental magnitudes were
description of our reduction in subsection 2.4. transformed into the ACS Vega-mag flight system following the
procedure given in Bedin et al. (2005), using the zero points of
2.1. HST: ACS/WFC inner 3×3 mosaic Sirianni et al. (2005). Since the zero points are valid only for
fluxes in the drz exposures, we computed calibrated photome-
This data set (inner nine red rectangles in Fig. 1, GO-9442, PI try for a few isolated stars in the drz exposures and used this
A. Cool) consists of a mosaic of 3 × 3 fields obtained with the to set the zero points for the photometry that was based on the
ACS/WFC through the F435W and F625W filters. This camera individual flt images. Saturated stars in short exposures were
has a pixel size of ∼50 mas and a field of view of 3.′ 3 × 3.′3. Each treated as described in Section 8.1 in Anderson et al. (2008).
of these nine fields has one short and three long exposures in Collecting photoelectrons along the bleeding columns allowed
both F435W and F625W. The mosaic covers the inner ∼10′ ×10′ , us to measure magnitudes of saturated stars up to 3.5 magni-
the most crowded region of ω Cen. These images, which were tudes above saturation (i.e., up to mF435W ≃12 mag), with errors
used by Ferraro et al. (2004) and by Freyhammer et al. (2005), of only a few percent (Gilliland 2004). We used the final cata-
and which we used in both Bedin et al. (2004), and Villanova et log, which contains more than 760 000 stars, to trace the radial
Table 1. Data sets used in this work.
Data set Filter # images × Exp. time (s)
3 × 3 ACS/WFC F435W 27 × 340, 9 × 12

inner mosaic
F625W 27 × 340, 9 × 8
ACS/WFC F606W 2 × 1285, 2 × 1300,

∼17′ 2 × 1331, 2 × 1375
F814W 4 × 1331, 2 × 1340, 2 × 1375
WFPC2@HST F606W 2 × 300, 1 × 600

∼7′ F814W 2 × 400, 1 × 1000
FORS1@VLT B 20 × 1100
R 20 × 395
[email protected] B 1 × 10, 1 × 15, 11 × 30, 1 × 40,

1 × 60, 1 × 120,2 × 240, 2 × 300
RC 1 × 5, 1 × 10, 1 × 15, 1 × 30, 5 × 60
V 6 × 5, 9 × 10, 1 × 15, 3 × 20,
2 × 30, 10 × 40, 4 × 45, 3 × 60,
10 × 90, 7 × 120, 1 × 150, 3 × 240
distribution of RGB and MS stars in this most crowded region

of the cluster.
Fig. 2. Selection criteria used to isolate FORS1@VLT stars for
2.2. HST: ACS/WFC outer field our MS subpopulation analysis. Panel (a) shows sharp values
versus B magnitude, and panel (b) χ versus B. Panels (c) and (d)
The outer ACS field (∼17′ SW of the cluster center, see Fig. 1) show the photometric errors as a function of the B and Cousins-
comes from proposals GO-9444 and GO-10101 (both with PI I. RC magnitudes respectively. Only stars that passed the sharp
R. King), using the F606W and F814W filters. The photometry selection criterion (black in the first panel), are plotted in the
from the first-epoch observations was published in Bedin et al. subsequent panels; similarly, only stars that also survived the χ
(2004). The photometry presented in the present paper comes selection are shown in the remaining two panels.
from the full two-epoch data set for this field; the two epochs
also allow us to derive proper motions and perform a critical
cluster/field separation. A detailed description of the data reduc- 6.′ 8 × 6.′ 8. These fields (the blue rectangles in Fig. 1) probe the
tion, the proper-motion measurement, and the resulting CMDs regions between 6′ and 25′ from the center of ω Cen . The set of
will be presented in a forthcoming paper. The reduction and cal- images consists of 20 × 1100s exposures in B, and 20 × 395s in
ibration of these data sets use procedures similar to those used R, and are the same images used by Sollima et al. (2007). There
for the central mosaic, and provided photometry for ∼3500 stars. are four images in each field (two per filter), except that the third
and fourth fields have four images per filter (see Fig. 1 for field
numbers). This is the only data set that we reduced specifically
2.3. HST: WFPC2 field
for the present work. For this reason we give a more detailed
We also make use of one WFPC2 field, ∼7′ south of the cluster description of our reduction procedure.
center (see Fig. 1). This data set consists of 2 × 300 + 600s expo- We retrieved the data sets from the ESO archive; master-
sures in F606W, and 2 × 400 + 1000s in F814W (GO-5370, PI R. bias and flat-field frames were constructed using standard IRAF
Griffiths), and contains 9214 stars. These images have been re- routines. Photometric reduction of the images was performed
duced with the algorithms described in Anderson & King (2000). using P. Stetson’s DAOPHOT-ALLSTAR-ALLFRAME pack-
The field was calibrated to the photometric Vega-mag flight sys- ages (Stetson 1987, 1994). For each exposure we constructed a
tem of WFPC2 according to the prescriptions of Holtzman et quadratic spatially variable point-spread function (PSF) by using
al. (1995). This WFPC2 field is particularly important in tracing a Penny function1, and for each individual exposure we chose—
the distribution of stars in the MS of ω Cen, because it is at a by visual inspection—the best 100 (at least) isolated, bright, un-
radial distance from the center of the cluster where there are no
1
suitable ACS/WFC observations and where ground-based obser- A Penny function is the sum of a Gaussian and a Lorentz function.
vations are almost useless because of crowding. In this case we used five free parameters: half-width at half-maximum
of the Penny function, in the x and in the y coordinate; the fractional
amplitude of the Gaussian function at the peak of the stellar profile; the
2.4. VLT: eight FORS1 fields position angle of the tilted elliptical Gaussian; and a tilt of the Lorentz
function in a different direction from the Gaussian. The Lorentz func-
The VLT data set consists of eight partially overlapping FORS1 tion may be elongated too, but its long axis is parallel to the x or y
fields, each with a pixel size of 200 mas and a field of view of direction.
saturated stars that were suitable for mapping the PSF variations
all over the image. We used ALLFRAME on each individual
field, keeping only stars measured in at least four images. The
photometric zero points of each field were registered to the in-
strumental magnitudes of the fourth field (the less crowded of
the two that have more exposures). Finally, photometric and
astrometric calibration was performed using the [email protected]
astrometric-photometric catalog by Bellini et al. (2009) as a ref-
erence. As a result, we brought the FORS1 R magnitudes to the
Cousins-RC photometric system used by [email protected]. Our final
FORS1 catalog contains ∼133 000 objects.
Since the innermost FORS1 field is seriously affected by
crowding, we did not use it in the present analysis. Fig. 2 plots
the sharp, χ, and σB and σRC calculated by ALLFRAME, as
functions of stellar magnitude, for the stars in the FORS1 cat-
alog. To choose the well-measured stars, we drew by eye the
cut-off boundaries in the quality parameters that retained objects
that were most likely to be well-measured stars. Panel (a) shows
sharp values versus B magnitude. Stars that passed the selection
criterion are shown in black. Panel (b), which includes only stars
that passed the sharp cut, shows χ values versus B. Stars that
also passed the χ criterion are in black. In panel (c) we plot the
σB values versus B, for the stars that survived these two selec-
tions. Again, the stars with good photometry are shown in black.
Finally, in the last panel we plot σRC values versus RC , for all the
survivors, and we highlight in black those that survived this se-
lection too. At the end of these selection procedures, we are left
with a catalog of ∼66 500 stars. We note that while these selec-
tion criteria affect stars at different magnitudes differently, they
should not affect the ratio of stars on the bMS and rMS, since at
a given magnitude the two populations should both have about
the same photometric error, and the same probability of making Fig. 3. (Top left:) Selected stars in common between the
it into our catalog. ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic and the [email protected] data sets. (Top
right:) Horizontal lines mark the magnitude interval used to de-
rive calibration equations. (Bottom panels:) Calibration fits used
2.5. [email protected] to transform Vega-mag ACS/WFC mF435W and mF625W magni-
tudes into the [email protected] photometric system. See text for de-
This data set was collected at the 2.2m ESO Telescope, with tails.
the WFI camera, between 1999 and 2003. The [email protected] cam-
era is made up of a mosaic of 4 × 2 chips, 2048 × 4096 pixels
each, with a pixel scale of 238 mas/pixel). Thus, each WFI expo-
sure covers ∼34′ × 33′ . The ω Cen astrometric, photometric, and proper motions more precise than ∼ 4 mas yr−1 down to B ∼20
proper-motion catalog based on this data set and presented in mag, for ∼54 000 stars.
Bellini et al. (2009) is public, and contains several wide-band
(U, B, V, RC , IC ) filters plus a narrow-band filter (658nm), and 2.6. The astrometric and photometric reference frame
covers an area of ∼33′ × 33′ centered on the cluster center. We
refer the reader to Bellini et al. (2009) for a detailed discussion The large field of view of the [email protected] camera makes our
of the data-reduction and calibration procedures. WFI catalog an ideal photometric and astrometric reference
Briefly, photometry and astrometry were extracted with the frame to which to refer all the other observations, from different
procedures and codes described in Anderson et al. (2006). telescope-camera-filter combinations. For each catalog we made
Photometric measurements were corrected for “sky concentra- the tie-in by means of stars that were in common with the refer-
tion” effects2 and for differential reddening, as described in ence catalog. For positions we derived a general six-parameter
Manfroid & Selman (2001) and Bellini et al. (2009). Global star linear transformation to the astrometric system of the WFI cat-
positions are measured to better than ∼45 mas in each coordi- alog. For photometry we used as a reference standard the B and
nate. Photometric calibration in the B, V, RC , IC bands is based Cousins-RC magnitudes of the [email protected] catalog, and trans-
on a set of ∼3000 secondary standard stars in ω Cen , avail- formed the magnitudes of each other catalog to this standard. For
able on-line (Stetson 2000, 2005). Color equations were derived the mF435W and mF625W magnitudes of the central mosaic of 3×3
to transform our instrumental photometry into the photometri- ACS/WFC fields, we used ∼3300 stars that had been observed
cally calibrated system using an iterative least-squares linear fit. in common, located outside 4′ from the cluster center to avoid
Thanks to the four-year time-baseline, we were able to success- the most crowded regions in the WFI data set (top-left panel of
fully separate cluster members from field stars by means of the Fig. 3). We excluded from this sample saturated stars in the WFI
local-transformation approach (Anderson et al. 2006), giving us data set, keeping only the brighter (14.9 < B < 16.5) and well
measured (σB,RC < 0.02 mag) ones (top-right panel in Fig. 3).
2
Light contamination caused by internal reflections of light in the The adopted calibration fits are shown in the bottom panels of
optics, causing a redistribution of light in the focal plane. Fig. 3. We did similarly for the FORS1 B and R magnitudes.
ACS/WFC mosaic. It is clear that the MS population can be stud-

ied in all but the WFI CMD, and the RGB population can be
studied in the WFI and inner ACS data sets.
Now that we have a comprehensive sample of ω Cen stars,
both for the bright stars and for the faint ones, covering the cen-
tral region all the way out to ∼25′ , we can define robust selection
criteria for the subpopulations to track how the population frac-
tions vary with radius.
2.8. The angular radial distance: r∗

Since ω Cen is elongated in the plane of the sky, it does not
make sense to analyze its radial profile via circular annuli. We
therefore decided to extract radial bins in the following way.
We adopted the position angle (P.A.) of 100◦ for the major-
axis (van de Ven et al. 2006), and an average ellipticity of 0.17
Geyer et al. 1983). To define the bins of the radial distribution
we adopted elliptical annuli, whose major axes are aligned with
the ω Cen major axis, and stars were extracted accordingly (see
Fig. 1). To indicate the angular radial distance from the cluster
center, we used the equivalent radius r∗ , defined as the radius of
the circle with the same area as the corresponding ellipse (i.e.,
the geometrical mean of the semi-major and semi-minor axes).
Each of the small fields (the outer ACS field and the WFPC2
Fig. 4. B vs. B − RC CMD of [email protected] stars, after calibration
field), we considered as a single radial bin.
and proper-motion selection (see Bellini et al. 2009).
3. MS subpopulations
Calamida et al. (2005) measured a differential reddening of
up to E(B−V) ∼0.14 in a region of ∼14′ × 14′ centered on ω Cen. Our goal in putting together these varied catalogs is to quantify
This result has been questioned by Villanova et al. (2007); in the differences in the radial profiles of the various subpopula-
their Figs. 1–6, the sharpness of the SGB sequences suggests tions of ω Cen. One way to do this would be to measure the sur-
that the existence of any serious differential reddening is very face density profile for each group and compare them directly,
unlikely. But in any case, a proper radial-distribution analysis but this would require accurate completeness corrections and
needs correction even for a differential reddening that is of the careful attention to magnitude bins. Since our interest, however,
order of few hundredths of a magnitude. Our corrections for dif- is simply to determine how the populations vary with respect to
ferential reddening followed the method outlined by Sarajedini each other, we need only measure the ratio of the populations as
et al. (2007), which uses the displacements of individual stars a function of radius. This ratio should be independent of com-
from a fiducial sequence to derive a reddening map. pleteness corrections and the details of the magnitude bins used,
The outer ACS/WFC field at ∼17′ from the cluster center since the bMS and rMS differ only slightly in color and are ob-
and the WFPC2 field at ∼7′ provide stellar photometry in the served over the same magnitude range.
F606W and F814W bands. For the ACS field we have overlap Our analysis of the NbMS /NrMS ratio is based mostly on
with the WFI catalog, which allows us to calibrate the photom- the data sets from the inner ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic and
etry, but the stars available are all on the main sequence above FORS1@VLT, which allow us to map the ratio of bMS/rMS
mF606W = 21, so they have a very narrow range in color, and we from the cluster center out to ∼25′ , once the photometry and
cannot empirically determine the color term in the calibration. astrometry have been brought into the same reference system.
For the WFPC2 field, in addition to the problem of the limited The other two fields, each of which covers only a small region,
color baseline, the WFI photometry in this inner field is of low provide only one point each in our analysis of NbMS /NrMS versus
quality on account of ground-based crowding. For these reasons, radius. Moreover, since we were not able to bring mF606W and
we decided to not transform the photometry of these two fields mF814W photometry of the outer ACS and the WFPC2 field into
into the photometric reference system of [email protected], but dealt the WFI B and RC photometric system, we kept the WFPC2 and
with them in the HST Vega-mag flight system. the outer ACS/WFC data sets in their native photometric sys-
tem, and used them only for a further (though important) con-
firmation of the radial gradient found with the FORS1 and inner
2.7. The deep color-magnitude diagrams ACS/WFC data sets.
Our proper-motion-selected [email protected] B vs. B − RC CMD is
shown in Fig. 4. All the main features of the cluster are clearly 3.1. Straightened main sequences
visible, except for the split MS, since the WFI data go down only
a magnitude or so below the turnoff. The CMDs of the other In order to analyze the color distribution of the stars along the
data sets that we analyzed are presented in Fig. 5, where the top- MS in a more convenient coordinate system, we adopted a tech-
left panel refers to the eight FORS1@VLT fields, the middle- nique previously used with success in ω Cen (Anderson 1997,
left panel to the proper-motion-selected CMD of the external 2002), and in other works (Sollima et al. 2007; Villanova et al.
ACS/WFC, the bottom-left panel the CMD from the WFPC2 2007; Piotto et al. 2007; Milone et al. 2008, Anderson et al.
field, and the right panel of Fig. 5 the CMD of the inner 3 × 3 2009).
Fig. 5. (Top left): CMD from the eight FORS1@VLT fields. We can measure stars from the bottom of the RGB down to B ∼27.5
mag. (Middle left): proper-motion-selected CMD from the outer ACS/WFC field. (Bottom left): CMD from the WFPC2 images
located ∼7′ south of the cluster center. (Right panel): CMD of the inner 3 × 3 ACS/WFC fields. In the top left and the right-hand
CMDs, the bMS and rMS fail to show separately only because the profusion of points blackens their whole region.
We defined fiducial lines in the CMDs (drawn by hand), such the sequences are as parallel and as rectified as possible. We
as to be equidistant from the ridge lines of the bMS and rMS used different fiducial lines for the B, B − RC CMDs of the in-
stars. We avoided choosing the ridge line of either sequence as ner ACS/WFC and the FORS1 data sets and for the (mF606W ,
our fiducial line, because we wanted a system in which both mF606W − mF814W ) CMDs of the WFPC2 and outer ACS/WFC
Fig. 6. The left panel shows a randomly selected 8% of the stars Fig. 7. Same as Fig. 6, but after subtraction, from the color of
in the CMD of the inner ∼10′ × 10′ ACS/WFC images, in the each star, of the color of the fiducial line at the same luminosity.
region of the MS where the two branches are most separated in In the left panel we show a randomly selected 20% of the stars
color. The middle panel shows the CMD of the FORS1@VLT from the ACS/WFC central-mosaic data (rather than the previ-
fields. The right panels show the outer ACS/WFC field (bottom) ous 8%, since the color-scale is now less compressed).
and WFPC2 field (top). The MS duality is clearly detected in
all diagrams (see also Fig. 7). The dashed horizontal lines mark
the selected magnitude range for the definition of the bMS and
rMS samples used in the derivation of their radial profiles. The
fiducial lines (drawn by hand) that were used to straighten and
Finally, note that we call the color deviation of a star from
separate the sequences are also plotted (in red in the color ver-
the fiducial line ∆(B − RC ). We shall use this notation frequently
sion).
in what follows.
Our aim in selecting the best-measured stars in the previ-
ous sections was so that we would be able to assign the stars to
data sets. In this way, we were sure to straighten the MSs in the the different populations as accurately as possible. Similarly, as
same consistent way for the two different sets of filters. Then we much as possible we transformed our photometry into the same
subtracted from the color of each star the color of the fiducial system, so that our population selections throughout the cluster
line at the same luminosity as the star. would be as consistent as possible.
In Fig. 6 we show the CMDs in the ω Cen MS region for the Even with these careful steps, however, it is still difficult to
central mosaic of ACS/WFC data (left panel), the FORS1@VLT ensure that we are selecting stars of the same population in the
(middle panel), and the WFPC2 ∼7′ field and the ACS/WFC inner parts of the cluster as in the outer parts. Even if we had ob-
field at ∼17′ (right panels). In the case of the central ACS/WFC servations with the same detector at all radii, the greater crowd-
data, we plotted only a randomly chosen 8% of the stars, in ing at the center would increase the errors there. On the other
order to show the two sequences clearly. In all the CMDs the hand, our use of ground-based images for the outer fields actu-
MS splitting is clearly visible. For the inner ACS/WFC and ally makes those fields even more vulnerable to crowding effects.
FORS1 data sets we restricted our MS analysis to the magnitude
range 20.9 ≤ B ≤ 22.1 (dashed lines in Fig. 6), the interval in Another complication comes from main-sequence binaries,
which the two MSs are most separated in color and are parallel. which at the distance of a globular cluster are unresolved.
For the same reasons we analyzed stars in the magnitude range Relaxation, causing mass segregation, will concentrate them to
20.6 ≤ mF606W ≤ 21.9 for the WFPC2 and the outer ACS/WFC the cluster center and cause a redward distortion of the main se-
data sets. The bright limit also avoids the saturated stars in the quence there.
deep WFC exposures. The adopted fiducial lines are again plot- Moreover, in the lower-density outer regions of the cluster
ted (in red in the color version of the paper). we can get the same statistical significance only by using larger
In Fig. 7 we show straightened CMDs for the same data sets areas, with an increased vulnerability to inclusion of field stars.
shown in Fig. 6, with the only difference being that we now plot a Finally, the red side of the main sequence is contaminated by
20% randomly generated sample of stars for the inner ACS/WFC the anomalous metal-rich population (hereafter MS-a), which is
data set, since the expanded color baseline allows more points to clearly connected with RGB-a. Even if these stars include only
be seen. It is worth noting that even a simple inspection shows ∼5% of the total cluster members (Lee et al. 1999; Pancino et
the NbMS /NrMS ratio clearly decreasing as we go from the central al. 2000; Sollima et al. 2005a; Villanova et al. 2007), they are an
cluster regions to the outer ones. It is also clear that the spread additional source of pollution for rMS stars—against which we
in the bMS is somewhat greater than that of the rMS. now take specific precautions.
We divided these stars into five magnitude intervals, because the

observational errors, which increase the spread of the sequences,
depend on magnitude. Next, we plotted histograms of the ∆(B −
RC ) distribution within each magnitude interval, using a bin size
of 0.006 mag. This size is ∼1/4 of the typical photometric error
in color; it makes a good compromise between a fine enough
color resolution, on the one hand, and adequate statistics, on the
other hand.
The actual choice of the red cutoff is a two-tiered proce-
dure. We must first develop a procedure for the fitting of dual
Gaussians to a set of bins that has a red cutoff; then we must
decide on a value of Nred , the number of bins that we include on
the redder side of the red Gaussian.
Although from a mere inspection of the histograms it is clear
where, approximately, the peak of the red Gaussian should lie,
the narrowness of the bins leaves it uncertain in which particular
bin the peak of the red Gaussian will actually fall. Since the red
cutoff, Nred , is defined as being counted from that bin, we had
to resort to an iterative procedure to locate the cutoff for a given
value of Nred . We began by choosing a cutoff safely to the red
of where we guessed that the cutoff would actually fall, and then
using that cutoff in a first try at fitting the dual Gaussians. The
iteration then consisted of placing the cutoff just beyond Nred
Fig. 8. (Left panel): B versus ∆(B−RC ) diagram for selected stars
bins on the red side of the peak of the red Gaussian and fitting
in our data set from the ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic, divided into five
again; this new fit might cause the red peak to move to a different
magnitude intervals. We now plot all the stars in this sample,
bin. When the red peak stays in the same bin, the iteration has
not just a randomly selected subset. (Right panels): ∆(B − RC )
converged; this happened after very few iterations.
histograms with the Gaussian best fits. See text for details.
We assumed trial values of Nred from 2 to 5, and for each of
those values we iteratively computed the Gaussian parameters
for each of the five magnitude intervals. We chose as the best
3.2. Dual-Gaussian fitting
value for Nred the one for which the five values of NbMS /NrMS
There is no way of dealing with the above issues perfectly, but were the most consistent. This value turned out to be Nred = 3.
we did our best to make our measurements as insensitive to With this choice made, we then moved on to fit dual Gaussians
them as possible. To this end, we measured the bMS and rMS to each of our detailed data sets.
fractions by simultaneously fitting the straightened color dis- Fig. 8 shows the results of this procedure. In the left panel we
tributions with two Gaussians, and taking the area under each show our selected stars in the B versus ∆(B − RC ) diagram—all
Gaussian as our estimate of the number of stars in each pop- of the stars this time, rather than a random selection of a frac-
ulation. By keeping the width of each Gaussian an adjustable tion of them. The horizontal lines delineate our five magnitude
parameter, we allowed in a natural way for the fact that the pho- intervals. On the right we show the final ∆(B − RC ) histogram for
tometric scatter differs from one radius and data set to another. each magnitude interval, and the dual-Gaussian fit to it. The in-
While the dual Gaussians provide a natural way of measuring dividual Gaussians are shown in blue and red, respectively, and
the two populations in data sets that have different color base- the black curve is their sum. The vertical blue and red lines are
lines and different photometric errors, there is one serious com- the centers of the respective Gaussians, and the vertical black
plication. As we have indicated, there is an unresolved, broad line shows the red cutoff. Note that we do not show the verti-
population of stars redward of the rMS that consists of blends, cal boundaries between the bins of a histogram, because on this
binaries, and members of the MS-a branch. Since it is unclear scale they would be too close to each other. Nor do we show
what relation this mixed population has with the two populations the Poisson errors of the counts in the bins, because they are
that we are studying, we wanted to exclude it from the analysis small and would obscure the bin values themselves; the size of
as much as possible. We did so by cutting off the reddest part of the errors is amply clear from the smoothness of the values in
the color range, and confining our fitting to the color range that neighboring bins. The counts in the histograms are normalized
is least disturbed by the contaminated red tail. so as to make the height of the red Gaussian equal to unity.
In order to choose the red cutoff as well as possible, we gath-
ered together all of the stars in each data set. Below we will de- 3.3. The Radial Gradient of NbMS /NrMS
scribe for simplicity only the case of the central 3×3 mosaic of
ACS images in B and RC . The procedure followed is, however, Having chosen the position of the red cutoff, we were able to
the same for the other data sets. perform dual-Gaussian fitting on each of our data sets. Figure 9
Within this data set we chose the MS stars that were in the shows our fits. We divided the inner ACS/WFC mosaic and the
magnitude range 20.9 ≤ B ≤ 22.1 (within which the two MSs outer FORS1@VLT data sets into five radial intervals for each.
are almost parallel and are maximally separated in color) and in The intervals were chosen in such a way as to have the same
the color range −0.25 ≤ ∆(B − RC ) ≤ 0.25 mag. We emphasize number of selected stars in each of them, so that the statistical
that this ensemble of the data set, within which we will later see sampling errors will be uniform. (The reader should note that
a considerable gradient in the relative numbers of bMS and rMS Fig. 9 shows all of our fields, in radial order, so that the WFPC2
stars, will not be used to derive population results in the case of field follows the inner ACS fields, and the outermost ACS field
the inner ACS/WFC data set, but only to choose the red cutoff. falls between two of the FORS1 fields.)
Fig. 9. Dual-Gaussians fits. As in Fig. 8, the Gaussian fits to the bMS and rMS are in blue and red respectively, and their sum in
black. The vertical dashed lines mark the centers of the individual Gaussians. The individual panels are arranged in order of effective
radius. (Note that all our fields are shown here, in radial order, so that the WFPC2 field follows the inner ACS fields, and the outer
ACS field falls between two of the FORS1 fields.)
Fig. 10. NbMS /NrMS ratio versus equivalent radius r∗ . Different colors and symbols refer to different data sets. Dashed vertical lines
mark the core radius and the half-mass radius. Error bars were calculated from the residuals of values in individual subdivisions
(quadrants for the inner ACS/WFC mosaic, magnitude intervals in each outer field). To improve the radial resolution for the out-
ermost annulus of the inner ACS/WFC mosaic, we also divided it into four sub-annuli (crossed open circles). See text for a fuller
explanation.
Figure 10 shows our results for the radial variation of the field, and the outer ACS field. Symbols of a different shape dis-
bMS to rMS ratio, for the five radial parts of the inner ACS mo- tinguish the various types of field. The outermost radial interval
saic, the five radial intervals of our FORS1 fields, the WFPC2 of the ACS/WFC mosaic is a special case, however, since it con-
Table 2. Dual-Gaussian fitting results. For each data set (first column) we give in Cols. 2–4 the radial extent (minimum, median,
and maximum r∗ ). In Cols. 5–8 are the sigmas of the Gaussians that best fit the bMS and rMS color distributions, with errors. In the
next two columns are the NbMS /NrMS ratio and its error. The next-to-last column gives the color difference between the two Gaussian
peaks, and the final column identifies the color baseline of the data set.
data set r ∗ min r ∗ median r ∗ max σbMS rms(σbMS ) σrMS rms(σrMS ) NbMS /NrMS σ(NbMS /NrMS ) (rMScen − bMScen ) color
(′ ) (′ ) (′ ) ∆color ∆color ∆color ∆color ∆color
ACS/WFC 0.00 1.21 1.76 0.027 0.0020 0.023 0.0014 1.07 0.09 0.056 B − RC
(3×3) 1.76 2.24 2.66 0.023 0.0018 0.018 0.0011 1.05 0.06 0.055 B − RC
2.66 3.09 3.51 0.020 0.0012 0.017 0.0008 0.92 0.03 0.053 B − RC
3.51 3.95 4.42 0.018 0.0010 0.016 0.0007 0.86 0.02 0.054 B − RC
4.42 4.98 7.93 0.018 0.0011 0.015 0.0007 0.82 0.03 0.054 B − RC
subdivision 4.42 4.54 4.67 0.019 0.0012 0.015 0.0011 0.86 0.03
of last bin 4.67 4.82 4.98 0.018 0.0013 0.016 0.0011 0.79 0.04
4.98 5.18 5.44 0.018 0.0013 0.015 0.0010 0.83 0.06
5.44 5.84 7.93 0.018 0.0013 0.015 0.0010 0.70 0.05
WFPC2 6.04 7.57 9.10 0.017 0.0010 0.020 0.0020 0.42 0.07 0.061 mF606W −mF814W
FORS1 7.18 9.38 10.60 0.017 0.0023 0.020 0.0021 0.41 0.06 0.062 B − RC
10.60 11.58 12.51 0.017 0.0019 0.017 0.0013 0.37 0.03 0.058 B − RC
12.51 13.34 14.16 0.019 0.0018 0.014 0.0009 0.41 0.04 0.054 B − RC
14.16 15.29 16.75 0.016 0.0022 0.014 0.0009 0.36 0.04 0.059 B − RC
16.75 19.25 26.19 0.016 0.0020 0.014 0.0010 0.36 0.05 0.058 B − RC
ACS/WFC 14.68 17.21 19.69 0.014 0.0020 0.009 0.0020 0.34 0.05 0.057 mF606W −mF814W
sists largely of the four corners of the mosaic, and it spans a sample, from the residuals of the individual NbMS /NrMS values
larger radial extension. To better map the bMS/rMS distribution from their mean, using the same weights as we had used for
in this radial interval, we decided to further split it into four sub- the mean. These are the error bars that are shown in Figure 10.
annuli. In this way we increase the radial resolution, but pay the These errors are indeed larger than the Poisson errors, but only
price of larger sampling errors. We have therefore plotted the by about 10%. We must note, however, that in addition to the
outermost radial interval of the inner ACS/WFC mosaic twice, random error represented by the error bars, it is likely that there
once as a whole annulus, and once as four sub-annuli (marked is still some systematic error in our values of NbMS /NrMS , due
as crossed open circles in Fig. 10). to the effects of blends and binaries. On the one hand, blends
Our choice of using ellipses with fixed ellipticity and posi- have the same photometric effect as true binaries; they tend to
tion angle to extract radial bins could have introduced some sys- move bMS stars into the rMS region, while many of the rMS
tematics in our derived NbMS /NrMS ratios. To address this issue, stars that are similarly affected are eliminated by our red cut-off.
we recalculated the NbMS /NrMS ratios by extracting radial bins This effect tends to reduce our observed value of NbMS /NrMS . It
using simple circles, and we found no significant differences be- is less easy to predict, however, how such effects increase toward
tween the two radial binning methods. the cluster center. Blends, on the one hand, increase because of
the greater crowding. Binaries, on the other hand, increase be-
Estimating the errors of our points required special attention. cause their greater mass gives them a greater central concentra-
First we took the Poisson errors of the numbers of stars, and used tion. To repeat, the result has been that our values of NbMS /NrMS
them to generate Poisson errors for the values of NbMS /NrMS . are somewhat depressed toward the cluster center, so that the
These, however, are only a lower bound for the true error, which gradient of NbMS /NrMS that we report is probably a little lower
has additional contributions that are impossible to estimate di- than the real one.
rectly; they come from blends, binaries, etc. To estimate the true
errors empirically, for each value of NbMS /NrMS we subdivided Fig. 10 clearly shows a strong radial trend in the ratio of
the sample of stars that had been used. In the inner ACS/WFC bMS to rMS stars, with the bMS stars more centrally concen-
mosaic the subsamples were the quadrants shown in Fig. 1, while trated than the rMS stars. The most metal-rich population, MS-
for each of the outer fields, where we do not have symmetric a, is too sparse, and also too hopelessly mixed with the red edge
azimuthal coverage, we divided the sample into magnitude in- of the rMS, to allow any reliable measurement of its radial dis-
tervals, four for each FORS1@VLT field and three each for the tribution, but in the next section we will examine the distribu-
WFPC2 field and the outer ACS/WFC field. tion of its progeny, RGB-a. Table 2 summarizes our results. The
We treated each set of subsamples as follows: Within each first column identifies the data set. Columns 2–4 give, for the
subsample we performed a dual-Gaussian fit, and derived from inner ACS/WFC 3x3 mosaic, the minimum, median, and max-
it the value of NbMS /NrMS . We weighted each subsample accord- imum radius of the central circle or the annulus, while for the
ing to the number of stars in it, and took a weighted mean of other fields these columns give the inner, median, and maxi-
the four (or three) values of NbMS /NrMS , to verify that this mean mum radius that the field covers. The sigmas of the Gaussians
was equal, within acceptable round-off errors, to the value that that best fit the bMS and rMS color distributions, with their
we had found for the whole sample. (It was, within a per cent uncertainties, are in Columns 5–8. Columns 9 and 10 give the
or two in nearly every case.) Finally we derived an error for the NbMS /NrMS ratio and its error. Column 11 gives the difference
(in straightened color) between the peaks of the Gaussians that to the red of any MS, there is a concern that some bMS stars
best fit the bMS and rMS. The last column gives the color base- would be shifted into the rMS region (and some rMS stars lost
line of each data set. By ∆color we mean a color difference or on the red side of the MS), and that these shifts would distort
width, in the straightened CMD [either (B, B − RC ) or (mF606W , the NbMS /NrMS ratio. As a check against this possibility we have
mF606W − mF814W ), whichever applies]. made two tests using artificial stars (AS). In each test we intro-
Our results are qualitatively consistent with those of Sollima duced the same AS into both the F435W and the F625W images,
et al. (2007), within the common region of radial coverage. We as follows.
confirm the flat radial distribution of NbMS /NrMS outside ∼8–10 For each test, we first created 45 000 artificial stars, with ran-
arcmin, and a clear increase of NbMS /NrMS toward the cluster dom F435W instrumental magnitudes between −11.1 and −9.9
center. For the first time, and as a complement to the Sollima (corresponding to 20.9 < B < 21.1), and random positions. We
et al. (2007) investigation, our ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic data set then took each of these 45 000 AS, assigned it a color that placed
has enabled us to study the distribution of ω Cen MS stars in the it on the bMS, and inserted it in the F625W images, at the same
innermost region of the cluster. Inside of ∼1.5 rc (i.e., inward position but with the F625W magnitude that corresponds to this
of ∼2′ ), the NbMS /NrMS ratio is almost flat and close to unity, color. We then repeated this procedure for 45 000 new AS, but
with a slight overabundance of bMS stars. At larger distances this time we gave them colors that put them on the rMS. (What
from the cluster center, the NbMS /NrMS ratio starts decreasing. we mean by “on” [bMS or rMS] differs between the two tests;
Between ∼3′ and ∼8′ (the latter corresponding to ∼2 half-mass see below for an explanation of the difference.) Each artificial
radii) the ratio rapidly decreases to ∼0.4, and remains constant star in turn was added, measured, and then removed, so as not
in the cluster envelope. Better azimuthal and radial coverage of to interfere with the other AS that were to be added after it; this
the region where the maximum gradient is observed would be procedure is that of Anderson et al. (2008), where it is explained
of great value. In the radial interval between 1 and 2 half-mass in detail.
radii, we can use only the corners of the ACS/WFC 3×3 mo- In order to test the effects of crowding, each of the two
saic, and the FORS1 photometry, which inside of 10′ is seri- tests used two fields from the central 3×3 mosaic: the central
ously affected by crowding and saturated stars. In any case, the field where crowding effects are maximal, and one of the corner
star counts and even visual inspection of the histograms in Fig. 9 fields, about 5 arcmin (3.6rc ) southeast of the center (see Fig. 1
leave no doubt about the overall gradient. for a map of the 3×3 mosaic of fields).
Note that in the two innermost bins there are more bMS than The first of the tests (TEST1) was aimed at checking the pho-
rMS stars, even though the heights of the two peaks would sug- tometric errors in the colors. To do this, we chose the color of
gest the opposite. The apparent contradiction disappears, how- each AS so as to put it exactly on the ridge line of the bMS or
ever, when we note the much greater width of the bMS Gaussian, rMS; the color spread of the recovered AS would then serve as a
which more than makes up for the difference in heights. This lower-limit estimate of our photometric error.
seems to be consistent with a greater spread in chemical com- The aim of TEST2 is to verify our ability to insert AS with
position for metal-intermediate than for metal-poor stars, as NbMS /NrMS =1 and then recover that value, when the two MSs
first seen by Norris et al. (1997). Our approach, using a dual- have intrinsic dispersions in color. To do this, we first derived
Gaussian fit, has been optimized to estimate the value of the the intrinsic spreads of the two sequences by taking from the fifth
number ratio of bMS to rMS stars, avoiding as much as possible and seventh columns of Table 2 the simple unweighted mean of
any contamination by blends, binaries, and MS-a stars. the entries in lines 1 and 2 for the central field, and in lines 4 and
We must also address the fact that the NbMS /NrMS values 5 for the corner one. (The more fastidious procedure, weighting
found by Sollima et al. (2007) are consistently lower than our the entry in each of the two lines according to the number of stars
values. The difference is largely due to their use, on the red side, contributed by that annulus, would have been quite laborious and
of a wide color range (see their Fig. 5) that includes nearly all would have made no significant change in the results.) These are
of the contamination by blends, binaries, and MS-a stars that the observed total color spreads (intrinsic spread plus measur-
our method has so studiously avoided. This makes their num- ing error) of the bMS and rMS, respectively, in the two fields
bers of rMS stars much too high—easily enough to account for that we are using here. From these total spreads we quadrati-
their finding a value of ∼0.16 in the cluster envelope, rather than cally subtracted the corresponding measuring-error spreads that
our ∼0.4, which is certainly much closer to the truth. Note also we had found in TEST1, so as to get estimates of the intrinsic
that we have concentrated exclusively on the ratio of numbers of color spreads of the two sequences. We created AS in the same
bMS and rMS stars, making no attempt to derive absolute num- manner as in TEST1, but this time instead of placing the AS on
bers for each component. We felt that absolute numbers would the center lines of bMS and rMS, we adjusted the F625W mag-
be subject to different incompleteness corrections in our differ- nitudes so as to give the AS a Gaussian spread in color around
ent data sets, whereas the incompleteness in each data set should each sequence, using the intrinsic sigmas that we had just found.
be the same for each component and should therefore not affect After the measuring process, these AS should duplicate the ob-
their ratio. served total spreads, and can be used to estimate the amount of
Finally, the robustness of our method is shown by the close contamination between the two main sequences. To repeat, each
agreement of our — proper-motion selected — outer ACS field test was performed both on both the central and the corner field.
(magenta open circle in Fig. 10), which has almost no crowding The results of these AS tests are summarized in brief numeri-
problems, with the outer ground-based FORS1 fields (last two cal form in Table 3 and in graphical form in Figures 11 and 12. In
red squares in Fig. 10), which are certainly affected somewhat each figure the left and right halves refer to the central and corner
by crowding. fields, respectively, while each half figure is divided into three
panels that show, from left to right, the CMD, the straightened
3.4. Artificial star tests CMD, and the decomposition of the number densities of the lat-
ter into best-fitting Gaussians. Each panel showing the Gaussian
Even with the technique that we have used to exclude the ef- fits is subdivided into five magnitude intervals, (very similarly
fects of photometric blends and binaries, which lie above and to what is done in Fig. 8). Cols. 2–4 of Table 3 give, for each
Table 3. Results of the two artificial-star tests. For each of the two fields (first column), we give in Cols. 2–4 the values of NbMS /NrMS
for the AS that were inserted, and the color dispersions that were given to the AS that were put on the bMS and rMS, respectively. In
Cols. 5–8 are, respectively, the NbMS /NrMS of the AS that were recovered, with error, followed by the sigmas of the two Gaussians
that were fitted to them. See text for details.
Field (NbMS /NrMS )ins. (σbMS )ins. (σrMS )ins. (NbMS /NrMS )rec. σ(NbMS /NrMS )rec. (σbMS )rec. (σrMS )rec.
TEST1
central 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.946 0.013 0.013 0.013

corner 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.992 0.013 0.009 0.009
TEST2
central 1.000 0.021 0.016 1.008 0.079 0.026 0.021

corner 1.000 0.016 0.013 0.996 0.027 0.019 0.016
Fig. 11. TEST1 artificial star analysis for the central ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic field (left panels), and for the corner field (right panels).
For each panel, we show the CMD with the recovered stars (in blue for the bMS stars and in red for the rMS stars), for five magnitude
intervals. The straightened MSs are plotted in the middle, while on the right we show the color histograms, with the dual-Gaussian
fits. The vertical lines in blue, red, and black mark, respectively, the centers of the two Gaussians and the red cut-off. See text for
details.
Fig. 12. Same as Fig. 11, but now for TEST2. See text for details.
field and AS test, the NbMS /NrMS ratio of the inserted AS and the of the five magnitude bins and its error, as explained in detail for
dispersions of the MSs. The recovered values (weighted mean real stars in Sect. 3.3) are shown in Cols. 5–8.
From the results of TEST1 we conclude that in each field stars. The Poisson error from the smaller number of RGB stars
the color spread introduced by measuring error is the same for makes the more precise procedure less critical.
bMS stars as for the rMS, and that it is about 40% higher in the For the ACS data, we defined bounding boxes for the RGB
central field than in the less-crowded corner field. TEST1 has subpopulations of ω Cen in the CMD obtained from the data
served two purposes: (1) It gave us a clear, effective measure set of the ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic, for which the large-number
of the effect of crowding on the color spread. (2) It evaluated statistics make the separation among the different RGBs easier
the color spreads due to measuring error alone, which we used to see. We extracted three RGB subpopulations, in a way very
in setting up TEST2. (Its results for NbMS /NrMS are given, pro similar to that used by Ferraro et al. (2002). [Note that other
forma, but they have no real significance, since the color spreads authors (e.g. Rey et al. 2004; Sollima et al. 2005a, Johnson et
used in TEST1 are so narrow that our color bin-width does not al. 2009) have defined four or even five RGB subpopulations].
sample them adequately.) It is TEST2 which directly tests our The left panel of Fig. 13 shows the three RGB bounding-box
previous conclusions about the size of NbMS /NrMS . We conclude regions drawn in the CMD from the ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic, to
from it that the AS tests recover our input values of NbMS /NrMS , identify the three subgroups RGB-MP, RGB-MInt, and RGB-
within the uncertainties of the measurement. a. Our RGB selections are limited to magnitudes brighter than
In this section we have demonstrated, on two extreme fields B = 17.9, and contain 5184 RGB-MP stars, 4379 RGB-MInt
of the ACS inner mosaic, that our dual-Gaussian fitting method stars, and 383 RGB-a stars.
is fully effective in overcoming the effects of crowding on the
In extracting the RGB subpopulations from our [email protected]
distribution of colors, and that it reliably estimates the relative
data set we chose to define the subpopulations in the B, B − V
star numbers in the two sequences. (Note that we use this same
CMD. Even though we cannot adopt exactly the same selection
method for all of our other data sets too). As we noted at the end
boxes in the B, B − RC CMD as for the ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic.
of Sect. 3.3, the excellent agreement between the results from
This choice might appear awkward, not only because the color
our completely uncrowded outer ACS field and those from our
baseline B − V is shorter than the B − RC baseline, but also be-
outer FORS1 fields establishes the validity of the latter, without
cause the WFI RC filter is very similar to the ACS/WFC F625W
recourse to any additional AS texts for them.
filter. There are other good reasons for adopting the B − V color
baseline, however. The most important one is that the WFI pho-
4. Radial gradients in the RGB subpopulations tometry obtained with the V filter has ten times as much integra-
tion time, and more dithered images than those available for the
It has been known since the end of the 60s that the RGB of RC filter. Therefore our V photometry is considerably more pre-
ω Cen is broader than would be expected from photometric er- cise, and more accurate, than our RC magnitudes. Moreover, our
rors (Woolley & Dickens 1967), but it was only in 1999 that Lee empirical sky-concentration correction (very important for such
et al. (1999) clearly detected at least two distinct RGBs. Later on, studies) is better defined in V than in RC (see Bellini et al. 2009).
Pancino et al. (2000) demonstrated that there is a correlation be-
tween the photometric peaks across the RGB and three peaks in In this [email protected] B vs. B − V CMD, we tried to define the
the metallicity distribution. On this basis, they defined the three bounding boxes in a way that was as consistent as possible with
RGB groups: RGB-MP, RGB-MInt, and RGB-a, characterized what we did for the data set from ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic. We
by an increasing metallicity. In this section we will present a de- cross-identified the stars that are in common between the sample
tailed study of the radial distributions of these components. that we had selected from the RGB CMD of the ACS/WFC 3×3
mosaic, on the one hand, and the [email protected] B − V data set on
the other hand, and we carefully drew by hand, in the (B, B − V)
4.1. Defining the RGB-MP, RGB-MInt, and RGB-a CMD, bounding boxes that would include the same stars as in
subsamples the sample from the ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic.
Unfortunately the WFPC2, FORS1, and outer ACS/WFC data In addition, we selected from the [email protected] data set the
sets we used to analyze the main-sequence population in the pre- stars that were measured best (both photometrically and astro-
vious section are saturated even at the MS turn-off level, and are metrically), and were most likely to be members of ω Cen. To
therefore unusable for the study of the RGB radial distributions. make the selection we used the error quantities in columns 7, 9,
Our [email protected] photometric and proper-motion catalog 13, and 15 of Table 6 of Bellini et al. (2009). These are the er-
(Bellini et al. 2009), however, is an excellent data base for this rors of the two components of proper motion and of the B and
study, particularly in view of the fact that we can safely remove V magnitudes. Our selection consisted of choosing, at the bright
field objects in the foreground and background, thanks to our end of the RGB, stars whose proper-motion error has a magni-
accurate proper motions. This proper-motion cleaning is of fun- tude less than 1.8 mas yr−1 , and whose photometric error is less
damental importance in the outer envelope of the cluster, where than 0.02 mag in each band,; we also required that the proper
there can be more field stars than cluster giants. In the cen- motion of a star differs from the mean motion of cluster stars
tral regions of the cluster, the [email protected] data are less accu- by no more than 2.1 mas yr−1 . At the faint end of the RGB we
rate due to the poorer photometry caused by the crowded con- allowed these three tolerances to rise to: 2.1 mas yr−1 , 0.03 mag
ditions, so there we take advantage of our high-resolution inner and 3.8 mas yr−1 , respectively. This high-quality data set com-
ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic, which included short exposures to mea- prised 4993 RGB-MP stars, 3057 RGB-MInt, and 292 RGB-a
sure the bright stars. Below we describe how we extracted the stars.
ω Cen RGB subsamples from these two data sets. The right-hand panel of Fig. 13 shows the [email protected] RGB
Because of the complex distribution of the stars along the subpopulations that were selected in this way. We note that
RGB we were forced to use bounding boxes to select the differ- whereas the RGB-a sample is well separated from the other two
ent RGBs. This selection procedure is less accurate than what we RGB components, the RGB-MP and RGB-MInt components are
were able to do for the bMS and the rMS; nevertheless it is still separated only by an arbitrary dividing line, so that small dif-
accurate enough to study the general trend of the radial distribu- ferences in defining the bounding boxes might result in some
tion of the relative numbers of RGB-MP, RGB-Mint, and RGB-a cross-contamination in those two samples.
4.2. Relative radial distributions of RGB stars

We divided our [email protected] data set into ten radial bins, each
containing approximately the same number of RGB-MInt stars,
and the ACS/WFC 3×3 data set into five radial bins, again with
the same equal-number criterion. For each of these bins we
counted the number of RGB stars in each subpopulation.
In Fig. 14 we show the derived radial gradients. As it has not
been possible to perform the same error analysis as was done for
the MS stars (because of the much smaller number of stars), the
error bars in Fig. 14 represent only Poisson errors, and should be
considered a lower limit to the real errors. In panel (a) we show
the radial distribution of the ratio RGB-a/RGB-MInt. Blue full
circles refer to the ACS/WFC 3×3 data set, and red triangles to
the [email protected] data. Vertical dashed lines mark the core radius
rc and the half-mass radius rh . We found that, within the errors,
the RGB-a and the RGB-MInt stars share the same radial dis-
tribution, since their ratio is constant over the entire radial range
covered by our two data sets. In panel (b), we plot the ratio RGB-
MInt/RGB-MP for the two data sets. The RGB-MInt stars are
more centrally concentrated than the RGB-MP stars, with a flat-
ter trend within ∼1 rh , a rapid decline out to ∼8′ −10′ , and again
a flat relative distribution outside. There is a hint, also, that the
RGB-MInt/RGB-MP ratio could be nearly constant within the
Fig. 13. CMDs of the ω Cen RGB from ACS/WFC 3×3 mosaic half-mass radius. We find that the general radial trend of the
(B vs. B − RC , left panel) and from [email protected] data (B vs. B − V, RGB-MInt/RGB-MP star-count ratio is consistent with that of
right panel). The RGB subpopulations selected are also plotted NbMS /NrMS . This result provides additional evidence (in agree-
with different colors. See text for details. ment with the metallicity measurements by Piotto et al. 2005)
that the bMS and the RGB-MInt population must be part of the
same group of stars, with the same metal content and the same
radial distribution within the cluster. Panel (c) shows that the
ratio RGB-a/RGB-MP resembles, within the errors, the RGB-
MInt/RGB-MP trend. We were unable to examine this trend for
the MS part of the RGB-a population, since the MS-a sequence
cannot be followed below B ∼20.
Our analysis confirms the results by Norris et al. (1997),
Hilker & Richtler (2000), Pancino et al. (2000), and Rey et
al. (2004), and Johnson et al. (2009), who found that the most
metal-poor RGB stars are less concentrated than the RGB-MInt
ones. Moreover, we can also confirm that the RGB-a and the
RGB-MInt share the same radial distribution within ω Cen, as
found by Norris et al. (1997), Pancino et al. (2000), and Pancino
et al. (2003) for RGB-a only.
It is important to note that because we were able to use
proper motions to construct a pure cluster sample, our results
are not affected by field-star contamination, which would tend
to enhance the RGB-a star counts in the cluster outskirts with
respect to the more populous RGB-MP sample (which also cov-
ers a smaller region in the CMD). Field-star contamination is
likely the reason that Hilker & Richtler (2000) and Castellani et
al. (2007) found the RGB-a/RGB-MP ratio to increase with dis-
tance from the cluster center — the opposite trend from what
is seen here. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the dif-
ferent RGB-Mint subgroups (as highlighted, e.g., by Sollima
et al. 2005a) might well have a different radial behavior, but
Fig. 14. (a): Radial distribution of the ratio RGB-a/RGB-MInt
necessarily—since we cannot distinguish them in the CMD—we
for the [email protected] data set (red triangles) and for the ACS/WFC
have to treat them together and study only their average gradient.
3×3 data set (blue circles). Vertical dashed lines mark the core
radius and the half-mass radius, respectively. (b): Radial distri-
bution of the ratio RGB-MInt/RGB-MP. (c): Radial distribution 5. Discussion
of the ratio RGB-a/RGB-MP. See text for details.
In this paper we have analyzed the radial distribution of the
different MS and RGB components in the globular cluster ω
Centauri. We used high-resolution ACS/WFC images to study
the inner regions of the cluster, and ACS/WFC, WFPC2 and
FORS1@VLT images, as well as [email protected] images, for the Bellazzini, M., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1147
cluster envelope. We found that there are slightly more bMS Bellini, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, 959
stars than rMS stars in the inner 2 core radii. At larger distances Bekki, K., & Norris, J. E. 2006, ApJ, 637, L109
Bekki, K., & Mackey, A. D. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 124
from the cluster center, out to ∼8 arcmin, the relative number Bessell, M. S., & Norris, J. 1976, ApJ, 208, 369
of NbMS /NrMS stars drops sharply, and then remains constant at Butler, D., Dickens, R. J., & Epps, E. 1978, ApJ, 225, 148
NbMS /NrMS ∼0.4, out to half the tidal radius of the cluster. Calamida, A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, L69
Our most precise photometry comes from the outer ACS Cannon, R. D., & Stobie, R. S. 1973, MNRAS, 162, 207
Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., Leone, F., Recio-Blanco, A., &
field at 17′ (12 rc ), where we find that the color dispersion (σ) Lucatello, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 523
of the bMS is about 50% larger than that of the rMS. The other Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., Lucatello, S. 2008,
observations are consistent with this, though they are unable to arXiv:0811.3591v1
measure σ so precisely, on account of crowding (in the inner Castellani, V., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1021
ACS field) and other errors (in the ground-based fields). D’Antona, F., & Caloi, V. 2004, ApJ, 611, 871
D’Antona, F., Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V., Fusi Pecci, F., Galleti, S., & Rood, R. T.
The RGB-MInt population (associated with the bMS by 2005, ApJ, 631, 868
Piotto et al. 2005) and the RGB-MP sample (which includes the D’Ercole, A., Vesperini, E., D’Antona, F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Recchi, S.
progeny of the rMS) follow a trend similar to that of NbMS /NrMS . 2008, MNRAS, 391, 825
The most metal-rich component of the RGB, RGB-a, also fol- Decressin, T., Baumgardt, H., & Kroupa, P. 2008, A&A, 492, 101
Dinescu, D. I., Girard, T. M., & van Altena, W. F. 1999, AJ, 117, 1792
lows the same distribution as the RGB-MInt component. Faria, D., Johnson, R. A., Ferguson, A. M. N., Irwin, M. J., Ibata, R. A., Johnston,
On the hypothesis that the bMS, the presumably helium-rich K. V., Lewis, G. F., & Tanvir, N. R. 2007, AJ, 133, 1275
population, is a second generation of stars formed by the low- Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., & Pancino, E. 2002, ApJ, 573, L95
velocity material ejected by a primordial population (which we Ferraro, F. R., Sollima, A., Pancino, E., Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O., Origlia, L.,
& Cool, A. M. 2004, ApJ, 603, L81
assume to be the more metal-poor rMS population), the bMS Freeman, K. C., & Rodgers, A. W. 1975, ApJ, 201, L71
must have formed from matter that collected in the cluster cen- Freeman, K. C. 1993, in The Globular Cluster–Galaxy Connection, ed. G. H.
ter via some kind of cooling flow. This is in qualitative agree- Smith & J. P. Brodie ASP Conf. Ser., 48 (San Francisco: ASP), p, 608
ment with the recent models by Bekki & Norris (2006) and Freyhammer, L. M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 860
D’Ercole et al. (2008). The very long relaxation time (half- Geyer, E. H., Nelles, B., & Hopp, U. 1983, A&A, 125, 359
Gilliland, R. 2004, ACS/ISR 2004-01 (Baltimore: STScI)
mass relaxation time longer than 10 Gyr, according to the Harris Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, as updated in February, 2003.
1996 compilation) has preserved some information about the Hilker, M., & Richtler, T. 2000, A&A, 362, 895
original kinematic and spatial distribution of the material from Hilker, M., Kayser, A., Richtler, T., & Willemsen, P. 2004, A&A, 422, L9
which the younger component took form. Interestingly enough, Holtzman, J. A., Burrows, C. J., Casertano, S., Hester, J. J., Trauger, J. T.,
Watson, A. M., & Worthey, G. 1995, PASP, 107, 1065
the third, most-metal-rich population is also more concentrated Ideta, M., & Makino, J. 2004, ApJ, 616, L107
than the most metal-poor component, and has a radial distribu- Johnson, C. I., Pilachowski, C. A., Rich, R. M., & Fulbright, C. P. 2009, ApJ,
tion that is rather similar to that of the intermediate-metallicity 698, 2048
sample. It is also noteworthy that the bMS component has a Lee, Y.-W., Joo, J.-M., Sohn, Y.-J., Rey, S.-C., Lee, H.-C., & Walker, A. R. 1999,
broader color distribution than the rMS one. This fact may re- Nature, 402, 55
Makino, J., Akiyama, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1991, Ap&SS, 185, 63
flect, at least in part, the large dispersion in iron abundance of Manfroid, J., & Selman, F. 2001, The Messenger, 104, 16
the intermediate-metallicity component (e.g. Norris & Da Costa Marino, A. F., Villanova, S., Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., Momany, Y., Bedin, L. R.,
1995). Alternatively, this bMS spread could be an indication of & Medling, A. M. 2008, A&A, 490, 625
the dispersion of other chemical elements, including He. Only a Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Villanova, S., Bedin, L. R., Bellini, A.,
& Renzini, A. 2009, A&Ain press, arXiv:0905.4058
detailed analysis of the metal content of the two MSs can solve Milone, A. P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 241
this issue, but for this we might need to wait for the next gen- Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., & Anderson, J. 2009, A&A, 497, 755
eration of 30+ meter telescopes, on account of the faintness of Moretti, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, 539
these stars. Norris, J., & Bessell, M. S. 1975, ApJ, 201, L75
Norris, J., & Bessell, M. S. 1977, ApJ, 211, L91
Acknowledgements. A.B. acknowledges support by the CA.RI.PA.RO. founda- Norris, J. E., & Da Costa, G. S. 1995, ApJ, 441, L81
tion, and by STScI under the 2008 graduate research assistantship program. Norris, J. E., Freeman, K. C., & Mighell, K. J. 1996, ApJ, 462, 241
I.R.K. and J.A. acknowledge support by STScI under grants GO-9442, GO- Norris, J. E., Freeman, K. C., Mayor, M., & Seitzer, P. 1997, ApJ, 487, L187
9444, and GO-10101. G.P. and A.P.M. acknowledge partial support by MIUR Norris, J. E. 2004, ApJ, 612, L25
under the program PRIN2007 (prot. 20075TP5K9) and by ASI under the pro- Pancino, E., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., Piotto, G., & Zoccali, M. 2000, ApJ,
gram ASI-INAF I/016/07/0. 534, L83
Pancino, E., Seleznev, A., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., & Piotto, G. 2003,
MNRAS, 345, 683
Pancino, E., Galfo, A., Ferraro, F. R., & Bellazzini, M. 2007, ApJ, 661, L155
References Piotto, G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 777
Anderson, J., Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1997 Piotto, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, L53
Anderson, J., & King, I. R. 2000, PASP, 112, 1360 Piotto, G. 2009, in The Ages of Stars, ed. E. E. Mamajek, D. R. Soderblom,
Anderson, J. 2002, in Omega Centauri, A Unique Window into Astrophysics, & R. F. G. Wyse, IAU Symposium No. 258 (Cambridge: Cambridge
ed. F. van Leeuwen, J. D. Hughes, & G. Piotto, ASP Conf. Ser., 265 (San University Press), p. 233
Francisco: ASP), p. 87 Platais, I., Wyse, R. F. G., Hebb, L., Lee, Y.-W., & Rey, S.-C. 2003, ApJ, 591,
Anderson, J., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., Yadav, R. S., & Bellini, A. 2006, A&A, L127
454, 1029 Renzini, A., & Fusi Pecci, F. 1988, ARA&A, 26, 199
Anderson, J., & King, I. R. 2006, ACS/ISR 2006-01 (Baltimore: STSci) Renzini, A. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 354
Anderson, J., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 2055 Rey, S.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C. H., Joo, J.-M., Sohn, Y.-J., & Walker, A. R. 2004,
Anderson, J., Piotto, G., King, I. R., Bedin, L. R., & Guhathakurta, P. 2009, ApJ, AJ, 127, 958
697, L58 Rich, R. M., Reitzel, D. B., Guhathakurta, P., Gebhardt, K., & Ho, L. C. 2004,
Anderson, J., & van der Marel, R. P. 2009, arXiv:0905.0627 AJ, 127, 2139
Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Cassisi, S., King, I. R., Momany, Y., & Sarajedini, A., & Layden, A. C. 1995, AJ, 109, 1086
Carraro, G. 2004, ApJ, 605, L125 Sarajedini, A., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1658
Bedin, L. R., Cassisi, S., Castelli, F., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Salaris, M., Searle, L. 1977, in Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed. B. M.
Momany, Y., & Pietrinferni, A. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1038 Tinsley, & R. B. Larson (New Haven: Yale Univ. Obs.), p. 219
Siegel, M. H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, L57

Sirianni, M., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1049
Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191
Stetson, P. B. 1994, PASP, 106, 250
Stetson, P. B. 2000, PASP, 112, 925
Stetson, P. B. 2005, PASP, 117, 563
Sollima, A., Ferraro, F. R., Pancino, E., & Bellazzini, M. 2005, MNRAS, 357,
265 (2005a)
Sollima, A., Pancino, E., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O., & Pasquini,
L. 2005, ApJ, 634, 332 (2005b)
Sollima, A., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., Origlia, L., Straniero, O., & Pancino,
E. 2007, ApJ, 654, 915
Stanford, L. M., Da Costa, G. S., Norris, J. E., & Cannon, R. D. 2006, ApJ, 653,
L117
Suntzeff, N. B., & Kraft, R. P. 1996, AJ, 111, 1913
Tsuchiya, T., Korchagin, V. I., & Dinescu, D. I. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1141
van de Ven, G., van den Bosch, R. C. E., Verolme, E. K., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2006,
A&A, 445, 513
van der Marel, R. P., & Anderson, J. 2009, arXiv:0905.0638
Villanova, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 296
Woolley, R. V. d. R., & Dickens, R. J. 1967, Roy. Obs. Bull., No. 128
Zinnecker, H., Keable, C. J., Dunlop, J. S., Cannon, R. D., & Griffiths, W. K.
1988, in The Harlow-Shapley Symposium on Globular Cluster Systems in
Galaxies, ed. J. E. Grindlay & A. G. D. Philip, IAU Symposium No. 126
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 603

Radial Distribution of The Multiple Stellar Populations in Centauri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radial Distribution of The Multiple Stellar Populations in Centauri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radial Distribution of The Multiple Stellar Populations in Centauri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no.

Radial distribution of the multiple stellar populations

Received 24 June 2009 / Accepted 23 September 2009

1. Introduction ω Cen hosts different stellar populations, most of them clearly

(Bellini et al. 2009). In Section 2 we describe in detail the photo-

2. Observations and data reductions

Table 1. Data sets used in this work.

Data set Filter # images × Exp. time (s)

3 × 3 ACS/WFC F435W 27 × 340, 9 × 12

ACS/WFC F606W 2 × 1285, 2 × 1300,

WFPC2@HST F606W 2 × 300, 1 × 600

[email protected] B 1 × 10, 1 × 15, 11 × 30, 1 × 40,

distribution of RGB and MS stars in this most crowded region

ACS/WFC mosaic. It is clear that the MS population can be stud-

2.8. The angular radial distance: r∗

We divided these stars into five magnitude intervals, because the

central 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.946 0.013 0.013 0.013

central 1.000 0.021 0.016 1.008 0.079 0.026 0.021

4.2. Relative radial distributions of RGB stars

Siegel, M. H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, L57

You might also like