Arxiv:1709.08656V2 [Astro-Ph.SR] 12 Apr 2018

Rediscovering our Galaxy Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 334, 2017 C. Chiappini, I. Minchev, E. Starkenburg, c 2017 International Astronomical Union & M. Valentini, eds. DOI: 00.0000/X000000000000000X The ages of (the oldest) stars M. Catelan1;2 1Pontificia Universidad Católicade Chile, Facultad de F´ısica,Instituto de Astrof´ısica, Av. Vicu~naMackenna 4860, 782-0436 Macul, Santiago, Chile email: [email protected] 2Millennium Institute of Astrophysics, Santiago, Chile Abstract. Much progress has been achieved in the age-dating of old stellar systems, and even of individual stars in the field, in the more than sixty years since the evolution of low-mass stars was first correctly described. In this paper, I provide an overview of some of the main methods that have been used in this context, and discuss some of the issues that still affect the determination of accurate ages for the oldest stars. Keywords. stars: evolution, stars: distances, stars: fundamental parameters, stars: Population II, Galaxy: halo, globular clusters: general 1. Introduction Along with their masses, the ages of stars constitute one of their most important, if elusive, parameters. For most stars, age is a quantity that can only be measured through indirect means, using stellar evolution models to \read" the stars' internal \clocks." This is typically achieved by comparing model predictions with observations of the stars' surface properties { be it luminosity/gravity and temperature/color, in most traditional methods, or the power spectrum of oscillations, in the case of asteroseismology. The idea behind this approach is that, as a star progressively burns its nuclear fuel as it ages, its surface properties will change as well. Stellar ages thus depend crucially on the reliability of our models to properly describe the physical conditions in stellar interiors. Both A. Noels and A. Weiss, in these same proceedings, address some of the current uncertainties affecting the input physics that is used to compute such models, and their impact on the inferred ages. Accordingly, I will limit myself to providing an overview of some of the techniques that have been used to age-date stars, focusing on the oldest ones, and especially those in globular star clusters. For a broader overview of the age dating of individual stars covering a wide range in ages, the reader is referred to Soderblom (2010). Since, as pointed out by Soderblom, our only available fundamental calibrator is the Sun, let me start by reviewing the latest available information regarding its age. 2. The Sun, our sole calibrator For our own star, unlike any other, an age estimate can be obtained by borrowing the techniques of geochemistry. By dating the oldest rocks that are directly accessible to us, as in the case of meteorites { fossil remnants of the earliest stages of our Solar arXiv:1709.08656v2 [astro-ph.SR] 12 Apr 2018 System's formation { we are able to obtain a detailed chronology of the formation of the Solar System (e.g., Chaussidon 2007; Amelin & Ireland 2013; Connelly et al. 2017; and references therein). This dating process is carried out using a variety of radioactive isotopes. The long-lived ones, with half-lives of order several Gyr (e.g., 87Rb, 187Re, 235U, 238U, 232Th), are the most suitable. The relative proportions between these \parent 11 12 M. Catelan species" and their ultimate decay products (the \daughter species") can then be used as a \clock" to estimate the age (e.g., Pagel 2009, and references therein). Very recently, using the Th-U \clock," Connelly et al. (2017) found an age of 4:56730 ± 0:00016 Gyr for the Solar System; the tiny error bar is typical in such studies. However, the authors do caution that the accuracy of these results \within the stated 0.16 Myr uncertainty" depends on the calibration of the available tracers and treatment of fractionation for the several different Pb (daughter) isotopes. Note, in addition, that an age difference of a few Myr may exist between the moment the Sun's latest progenitor supernova (or other source of r-process elements) ejected its radioactive products into the interstellar medium and the incorporation of these products into the proto-Solar System nebula. Another Myr or so may also go by, between the formation of a pre-stellar dense core in the parent cloud and the arrival of a Sun-like star at the pre-main sequence (MS) \birthline" (e.g., Wuchterl & Klessen 2001; Reipurth 2005; Dauphas & Chaussidon 2011). Finally, another ∼ 50 Myr may elapse, before the star settles on the MS (e.g., Iben 1965; Sackmann et al. 1993). Thus, the exact value of the \solar age" may differ somewhat from the quoted value, depending on which point in time one chooses as reference. In addition to that, it should be noted that the isotopes that we use in these measurements do not necessarily owe their origin to a single supernova (or other source of r-process elements) event that took place immediately before/during the earliest stages of the Solar System's formation, but rather may have been more continuously supplied by the process of chemical evolution that has been enriching the gas since the earliest stages in the life of the Milky Way (e.g., Clayton 1988). The quoted error bar is thus not fully representative of the different sources of uncertainty that affect the determination of the solar age. 3. Globular cluster ages The MS turnoff (TO) point, which closely traces the point in a star's life at which hy- drogen is exhausted in the core, is the primary \clock" that is used in dating star clusters. Different methods variously use the TO luminosity or color as main indicator; one often refers to those as \vertical" or \horizontal" methods, respectively. The stellar mass at the TO point is also predicted to be a sensitive function of age, and so, when the mass can be directly measured, using detached eclipsing binaries, an estimate of the cluster's age can also be obtained, independent of the uncertainties affecting color transformations and bolometric corrections. Reviews of the subject can be found in VandenBerg et al. (1996) and Sarajedini et al. (1997), among many others. A nice account of the early history of globular cluster (GC) age dating is given in Demarque et al. (1991). The so-called \vertical methods" work by registering specific evolutionary sequences in a color-magnitude diagram (CMD) to reference, standard loci. In this way, the CMD is \anchored" into the absolute domain, the distance modulus obtained, and the absolute magnitude of the TO point { hence the age { can be directly read. Sometimes, rather than the TO proper (or solely), other nearby positions in the CMD are used (e.g., Chaboyer et al. 1996b; Buonanno et al. 1998; VandenBerg et al. 2013). If the chemical composition is also known, one is then able to obtain the cluster age. In the so-called ∆V method, the reference locus is the horizontal branch (HB; Iben 1974; Sandage et al. 1981). Numerous calibrations, both empirical and theoretical, are available for the dependence of the V -band absolute magnitude of the HB with metallicity. For RR Lyrae-rich clusters, the period-luminosity-metallicity (PLZ) relation can also be used, though only for passbands redder than R (Catelan et al. 2004; Neeley et al. 2017). Many different techniques have been proposed to obtain the absolute magnitudes of HB stars, and RR Lyrae stars in particular; a review can be found in Cacciari & Clementini Stellar ages 13 (2003). The most direct such method is, naturally, the use of trigonometric parallaxes. RR Lyrae stars are, however, typically quite distant, and this has, until recently, limited the sample with reliable parallax measurements to basically one star, namely RR Lyr itself (e.g., Catelan 2009a, and references therein). With the Gaia Data Release 1 (DR1; Brown et al. 2016), parallaxes have already become available for as many as 200 RR Lyrae stars. This allowed Clementini et al. (2017) to revisit the zero point (but not the slope) of these relations. However, the different technical procedures adopted by these authors to obtain the zero point of the relation lead to different results. For instance, for the MV (RRL) − [Fe=H] relation, the zero points range from 0:82 ± 0:04 to 1:01 ± 0:04. Unfortunately, this implies an uncertainty in TO ages of order 2 Gyr. In addition to more firmly establishing the zero point of such relations, it will be important to revisit the metallicity dependence using data from future Gaia releases, considering its direct impact upon the age-metallicity relation, as derived using the ∆V method. In this sense, the direct determination of GC distances using Gaia will also provide a \shortcut" to estimates of their TO absolute magnitudes, hence ages (Pancino et al. 2017). One note of caution, regarding the application of MV (HB) − [Fe=H] calibrations based on field stars to GC work, is in order. As well known, GCs have been found to harbor multiple populations, with so-called \second-generation stars" differing from the first- generation ones by showing evidence of additional proton-capture nucleosynthesis, in the form of Na-O and Mg-Al anticorrelations (see Gratton et al. 2012, for a review). Among field stars, on the other hand, the presence of such second-generation stars is small at best. Thus, the possibility exists that RR Lyrae stars in some GCs, but not in the field, may be enhanced in helium, and thus be overluminous in comparison with the latter. In fact, VandenBerg et al. (2016) recently favored a small amount of helium enhancement for the RR Lyrae stars in M15 (NGC 7078), but not in M3 (NGC 5272) or M92 (NGC 6341).

Load more