1 / 26

The Age-Metallicity-Velocity relation in the nearby disk

The Age-Metallicity-Velocity relation in the nearby disk. Borja Anguiano Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam (AIP). K. Freeman (ANU), E. Wylie de Boer (ANU), M. Steinmetz (AIP) & RAVE collaboration. Outline. Chemical & Kinematics evolution in the MW disk:

colum
Download Presentation

The Age-Metallicity-Velocity relation in the nearby disk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Age-Metallicity-Velocity relation in the nearby disk • Borja Anguiano • Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam (AIP) K. Freeman (ANU), E. Wylie de Boer (ANU), M. Steinmetz (AIP) & RAVE collaboration

  2. Outline Chemical & Kinematics evolution in the MW disk: Is there any Age-Metallicity-Velocity relation ? Comparison between observations and models/simulations -radial mixing, disk heating...- Do we really know how old is a star ? RAVE: AMVR project.

  3. The Age-Metallicity Relation in the disk (AMR) The AMR is a fundamental tool to understand the chemical evolution and enrichment history of the disk “Cosmic scatter” or observational ? Rocha-Pinto et al. (2000) / Edvardsson et al. (1993)

  4. Geneva-Copenhagen Survey ~16000 FGK dwarfs/subgiants accurate distances/kinematics, photometry metallicities. Stars ages suffer from considerabe uncertainties. Holmberg et al. 2007 dwarf stars Different populations -- different AMRs ? subgiant stars

  5. From different selection in temperature we find different AMRs GAP ? Previous works present this kind of bias -Mayor (1974), Twarog (1980), Meusinger et al. (1991)- Holmberg et al. 2007 derived new values for GCS. Have his corrections introduced systematic effects in the stellar parameters ?

  6. Different AMRs for different Mv Garnett & Kobulnicky (2000) using Edvardsson et al. (1993)/Ng & Bertelli (1998) sample find a considerable scatter for stars with d < 30pc while stars with distance between 30 and 80 pc do not present the same amount of scatter.

  7. AMRs from the models of Galactic chemical evolution Models taking into account the chemical enrichment and the dynamical evolution of the system present a significant scatter in the AMR - Raiteri et al. (1996), Berzick et al. (1999) - Sellwood & Binney (2002) Is the “Radial mixing” the missing piece of the AMR puzzle ? The stars can migrate over large radial distances -resonant interactions with spiral density waves- Half of stars of the solar neighbourhood have come from large radial distances (>2 kpc) -Roskar et al. (2008b)- Most of the metal rich stars in the solar volume originate from the inner disk -Haywood (2008)-

  8. Age-Velocity Relation (AVR) Kinematics properties -clues about the Galaxy evolution- W-component (U,V components present similar properties) youngest stars show a low velocity dispersion ~ 10 km/s 3-10 Gyr, the dispersion is around 20 km/s For the oldest stars ~ 42 km/s Edvardsson et al. (1993)/Freeman (1993)

  9. Heating mechanisms become inefficient at ~ 30 km/s -minor merger that created the thick disk 9 Gyr ago- (Quillen & Garnet 2001) Continuous heating or with saturation at 4.5 - 6 Gyr (Seabroke & Gilmore 2007, Aumer & Binney 2009) Are the age errors smoothing the kinemtatic groups ? Nordstrom et al. 2004/Holmberg et al. 2007

  10. Gibson et al. 2008 The semi-cosmological models and simulationsfill the area between the two extreme observational results but these present a number of caveats, for example the cosmological disk were not chosen to be MW “clones”.

  11. The Age of stars The age of stars are crucial to place the observed chemical and kinematics properties of the stars in an evolutionary context Chromospheric ages - Isochrones: - chromospheric ages tends to be lower than the isochrones age for metal-poor stars (Rocha-Pinto & Maciel 1998). Is this method working for intermediate-old stars ? - different ages using different isochrones and methods !

  12. Rocha-Pinto et al. 2000 Feltzing et al. 2001

  13. different results using different isochrones Large errors in age estimations

  14. Mistake in the legend: Black line: Holmberg et al. 2007 Yellow line: Feltzing et al. 2001 Holmberg et al. (2007) find a minimun around the solar age. Feltzing et al. (2001) find more stars in this age range.

  15. AMVR project Different works with the same goal present different chemical and kinematical picture. How the nearby disk stars have evolved with time over the past 10 Gyr remains a crucial open question.

  16. New derivation of the AMR and AVR using a selected sample of cooler subgiants (G stars) –ages 2-13 Gyr- from the Geneva-Copenhagen (Nordstrom et al. 2004/Holmberg et al. 2007) and RAVE surveys (Steinmetz et al. 2003/Zwitter et al. 2008). Subgiants are suitable stars for dating the Galactic disk. Isochrones separate well for different ages, they run almost horizontally in the Mv-Teff diagram and also are 1-2 mag brighter than dwarfs which increases the volume for study. Thoren et al. 2004

  17. Sample definition From GCS (uvby-β photometry): 3.69 < log Teff < 3.76 Mv < 5.0 Mv = -31.25 * log Teff + 121.66 (avoid MS) ~ 450 stars, we know metallicity, rotation, ages, parallaxes, kinematics and Galactic orbits

  18. From RAVE (spectroscopy, R ~ 7000): 9.0 < I < 12.0 (input in RAVE survey) 3.5 < log g < 4.1 3.69 < log Teff < 3.75 ~ 2000stars with accurate RV and proper motions

  19. Contamination from dwarfs and giants, further observations are needed to improve [Fe/H], Teff and log g in order to select the cool subgiants and get accurate ages.

  20. Kinematics studies GCS –mean error in the total proper motion is ~ 1.8 mas/yr, error in the space velocity ~ 0.7 km/s. The mean error in RV is typically ~ 0.25 km/s (Nordstrom et al 2004). RAVE –the typical error in proper motion is 5 mas/yr and more than 80% of RV measurements have an internal accuracy better than 3 km/s (Steinmetz et al. 2006).

  21. Observations Data from ANU/2.3m telescope in SSO. Double Beam Spectrograph (DBS) Low resolution -R = 400 and 1.9A/px- (3100-6200 A) We have collected ~ 450 stars from GCS and ~ 700 RAVE stars with high S/N. In the end of the project we will have ~ 1000 subgiants. We expect to have ± 0.2 dex in [Fe/H], ± 100K in Teff and ± 0.2 dex in log g

  22. Preliminary results 1260 spectra taken, reduced, extracted, cleaned and calibrated. Derivation of T, [M/H] and log g via chi-squared statistic using synthetic model atmospheres (Munari et al. 2005)

  23. Exploring the Fourier Quotient...

  24. Ages We will use isochrone methods, Mv-Teff plane for GCS stars and logg-Teff plane for RAVE stars 10% error in parallax or 0.1 dex in log g correpond to about 2 Gyr in age uncertaint. The errors in age estimates may well sum up to 3-4 Gyr, at least for the older stars (Thoren et al. 2004)

  25. Conclusions New derivation of the AMR and AVR in the nearby disk: Work out in a reliable picture of the Chemical and Kinematical picture of the Galaxy. Subgiants: Good stars for dating the MW -good oportunity to test different grid of isochrones- Low resolution/medium telescopes: Deriving a method of wide applie to deriving stellar parameters.

More Related