Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T05:56:36.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Bayesian analysis of white dwarfs in open clusters observed with Gaia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2020

Elizabeth J. Jeffery ,
Ted von Hippel Open the ORCID record for Ted von Hippel [Opens in a new window] ,
Elliot Robinson ,
David van Dyk  and
David Stenning
Elizabeth J. Jeffery
Affiliation:
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Ted von Hippel
Affiliation:
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, USA
Elliot Robinson
Affiliation:
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, USA
David van Dyk
Affiliation:
Imperial College, London, UK
David Stenning
Affiliation:
Imperial College, London, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

We analyze individual white dwarfs in open clusters observed by Gaia. In particular, we determine ages when different model ingredients are used. We also explore fundamental properties of the white dwarfs, including temperature and mass, when using different filter combinations. Such tests are important to understanding any systematic effects when applying similar techniques to field stars.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 15 , Symposium S357: White Dwarfs as Probes of Fundamental Physics: Tracers of Planetary, Stellar and Galactic Evolution , October 2019 , pp. 192 - 196
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2020

References

Bergeron, P. et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeron, P. et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischoff-Kim, A. & Montgomery, M. H. 2018, AJ, 155, 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, J. et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbie, P. D. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotter, A. et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotter, A. et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaia, Collaboration, 2017, A&A, 616, 1Google Scholar
Marigo, P. et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, E. M., von Hippel, T., & van Dyk, D. A. 2013, ApJ, 775, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salaris, M. et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, F. et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenning, D. C. et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, B. J. 2006, ApJ, 132, 2453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, B. J. & Joner, M. D. 2005, ApJS, 159, 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dyk, D. A. et al. 2009, AnApS, 3, 117Google Scholar
von Hippel, T. et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Hippel, T. et al. 2014, arXiv:1411.3786Google Scholar
Williams, K. A. et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidemann, V. 2000, A&A, 363, 647Google Scholar