text:
# The Ellipticity of the Disks of Spiral Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The disks of spiral galaxies are not axisymmetric structures. Spiral arms are an obvious deviation from axisymmetry, as are bars within barred spiral galaxies. In addition, the overall shape of the disk may be elliptical rather than circular. The shape of a stellar disk can be roughly approximated as a triaxial spheroid with principal axes of length $`abc`$. A typical stellar disk is relatively thin, with $`\gamma c/a1`$, and mildly elliptical, with $`\epsilon 1b/a1`$. The exact distribution of ellipticities for the disks of spiral galaxies has long been a subject of debate.

Statistical statements about the distribution of $`\epsilon `$ can be made by looking at the distribution of apparent axis ratio $`q`$ for a large population of spiral galaxies. Sandage, Freeman, & Stokes (1970) investigated a sample of 254 spiral galaxies from the Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (de Vaucouleurs & de Vaucouleurs, 1964). They concluded that the observed axis ratios of the spiral galaxies were consistent with their being a population of circular disks, with typical thickness $`\gamma 0.25`$. Binney & de Vaucouleurs (1981), using data from the Second Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (de Vaucouleurs, de Vaucouleurs, & Corwin, 1976), concluded that late-type spirals were better fitted by mildly elliptical disks ($`\epsilon =0.1`$) than by perfectly circular disks. Using a sample of 13,482 spiral galaxies, Lambas, Maddox, & Loveday (1992) found that the ellipticity was reasonably well fitted by a Gaussian peaking at $`\epsilon =0`$:

$$f(\epsilon )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\epsilon ^2}{2\sigma _\epsilon ^2}\right),$$
(1)
subject to the constraint $`0\epsilon 1`$. The best fit was given by $`\sigma _\epsilon =0.13`$, yielding an average ellipticity of $`\epsilon 0.1`$. The nonaxisymmetry of disks, which is signaled by a scarcity of apparently circular galaxies, has been confirmed by other photometric studies (Grosbøl, 1985; Fasano et al., 1993; Alam & Ryden, 2002).

Analyses which rely on the measured axis ratios of a large sample of galaxies have certain intrinsic shortcomings. First, they provide only a statistical statement about the distribution of disk ellipticities in the sample examined; they don’t determine the axis ratio of any individual galaxy. Moreover, since these studies rely purely on photometry, they provide information about the ellipticity of the starlight emitted by the galaxy. The ellipticity measured in this way is affected by bars, eccentric rings and pseudorings, loosely wound spiral arms, and patchy star formation, and does not necessarily reflect the overall ellipticity of the potential within which the stars are orbiting. These intrinsic shortcomings are avoided by methods using both photometric and kinematic information.

Consider a disk of test particles orbiting in a potential which is elliptical in the disk plane. The closed particle orbits, when the potential ellipticity is small, will be elliptical themselves (Binney, 1978). If the potential is logarithmic, producing a flat rotation curve, the ellipticity of the orbits will equal the ellipticity of the potential. If the resulting elliptical disk is seen in projection, the isophotal principal axes will be misaligned with the kinematic principal axes. (The kinematic principal axes can be defined as the axis along which the line-of-sight component of the rotation velocity is a maximum and the axis along which is is zero.) Because of the misalignment, there is generally a non-zero velocity gradient along the isophotal minor axis, proportional to $`\epsilon \mathrm{sin}2\varphi `$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the ellipticity of the potential, and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal viewing angle measured relative to the long axis of the potential (Franx & de Zeeuw, 1992). Studying the velocity field of gas at large radii, where the dark matter should dominate the potential, typically yields $`\epsilon \mathrm{sin}2\varphi 0.07`$ (Schoenmakers, Franx, & de Zeeuw, 1997).

By combining integral-field spectroscopy with imaging data, Andersen et al. (2001) were able to determine the intrinsic ellipticity for a number of disk galaxies at low inclination. Since the misalignment between the isophotal principal axes and the kinematic principal axes decreases as the inclination increases, the technique of Andersen et al. (2001) can only be usefully applied to galaxies with inclination $`i<30^{}`$. For a sample of 28 spiral galaxies, Andersen & Bershady (2003) found that the intrinsic ellipticities were well fitted by a log-normal distribution. The mean ellipticity of the galaxies in their sample was $`\overline{\epsilon }=0.076`$. The method of Andersen and collaborators has its own shortcomings. The sample of galaxies is relatively small. Systematic uncertainties in determining the isophotal and kinematic major axes can mask the signal produced by an elliptical disk (Barnes & Sellwood, 2003). In addition, to ensure that their sample contained only galaxies with small inclination, Andersen et al. (2001) and Andersen & Bershady (2003) included only galaxies that appeared nearly circular, with $`q0.866`$. This selection bias discriminates against intrinsically highly elliptical disks, which have a relatively small probability of appearing nearly circular in projection. Thus, the true distribution of ellipticities will have a higher mean ellipticity and a larger standard deviation than the Andersen-Bershady sample.

In this paper, I combine information from the two types of analysis; the photometry-only method, which has the advantage of large sample size, and the Andersen et al. (2001) method, which has the advantage of including kinematic information which probes the potential more directly. In section 2, I use the measured apparent axis ratios of $`12,800`$ galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 1 to make an estimate of their intrinsic disk ellipticities. In section 3, I reanalyze the disk ellipticities found by Andersen & Bershady (2003), taking into account the selection bias, to find the underlying distribution of disk ellipticities. I show that the two methods give results which are not mutually inconsistent. In section 4, I discuss the implications of the disk ellipticity; in particular, its relation to the scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation.

## 2 The SDSS Sample

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is a digital photometric and spectroscopic survey which will cover, when completed, roughly one-quarter of the celestial sphere. Data Release 1 (DR1), issued to the astronomical community in 2003 April, consists of 2099 square degrees of imaging data in five photometric bands: $`u`$, $`g`$, $`r`$, $`i`$, and $`z`$ (Fukugita et al., 1996; Stoughton et al., 2002). The data processing pipelines for DR1 (described in Stoughton et al. (2002) and Abazajian et al. (2003)) fit two models to the two-dimensional image of each galaxy. The first model has a de Vaucouleurs profile (de Vaucouleurs, 1948),

$$I(r)=I_0\mathrm{exp}[7.67(r/r_e)^{1/4}],$$
(2)
which is truncated beyond $`7r_e`$, going smoothly to zero at $`8r_e`$; the model has some softening within $`r_e/50`$. The second model has an exponential profile,

$$I(r)=I_0\mathrm{exp}[1.68(r/r_e)],$$
(3)
which is truncated beyond $`3r_e`$, going smoothly to zero at $`4r_e`$. Both models are assumed to have concentric elliptical isophotes with constant position angle $`\phi _m`$ and axis ratio $`q_m`$. Before each model is fitted to the data, the model is convolved with a double Gaussian fitted to the point-spread function (psf). Assessing each model with a $`\chi ^2`$ fit gives $`r_e`$, $`q_m`$, and $`\phi _m`$ for the best-fitting model, as well as $`P(\mathrm{deV})`$ and $`P(\mathrm{exp})`$, the likelihood associated with the best de Vaucouleurs model and the best exponential model, respectively. In addition, each candidate galaxy is fitted directly with the point-spread function, yielding $`P(\mathrm{psf})`$, the likelihood associated with the psf fit.

To build a sample of disk galaxies from the SDSS DR1, I selected objects flagged as galaxies whose model fits in the $`r`$ band satisfied the criteria $`P(\mathrm{exp})>2P(\mathrm{deV})`$ and $`P(\mathrm{exp})>2P(\mathrm{psf})`$. In addition, each galaxy was required to have a spectroscopic redshift $`z<0.1`$, to reduce the possibility of weak lensing distorting the observed shape, and $`z>0.002`$, to eliminate a few contaminating foreground objects. The spectroscopic sample of the SDSS DR1 contained 30,184 galaxies satisfying these criteria. Note that I have selected galaxies on the basis of their surface brightness profile (exponential rather than de Vaucouleurs), and not on other criteria such as color or isophote shape. It is generally true, though, that bright early-type galaxies (elliptical and S0) are better fitted by de Vaucouleurs profiles than by exponential profiles, and that spiral galaxies are better fitted by exponential profiles (Strateva et al., 2001). Moreover, the spectroscopic sample of the DR1 contains galaxies which are too high in surface brightness to be dwarf ellipticals, which can also have exponential surface brightness profiles (Binggeli & Cameron, 1991). Thus, I will assume that the galaxies which I have chosen on the basis of their exponential profiles are disk-dominated spiral galaxies.

The model fits to the exponential galaxies provide one measure of the axis ratio $`q`$. However, a model with constant position angle $`\phi `$ and axis ratio $`q`$ is not a good approximation to a real spiral galaxy. Fortunately, the SDSS DR1 photometric analysis also provides more robust, model-free measures of the axis ratio. One useful shape measure is $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$, the axis ratio determined by the use of adaptive moments. In general, the technique of adaptive moments determines the $`n`$th order moments of an image using an elliptical weight function whose shape matches that of the object (Bernstein & Jarvis, 2002; Hirata & Seljak, 2003). In practice, the SDSS adaptive moments use a Gaussian weight function $`w(x,y)`$ which is matched to the size and ellipticity of the galaxy image $`I(x,y)`$. With the weight function $`w(x,y)`$ known, the moments can be calculated:

$$\stackrel{}{x_0}=\frac{\stackrel{}{x}w(x,y)I(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y}{w(x,y)I(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y},$$
(4)
$$M_{xx}=\frac{(xx_0)^2w(x,y)I(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y}{w(x,y)I(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y},$$
(5)
and so forth. The SDSS DR1 provides for each image the adaptive second moments

$$T=M_{xx}+M_{yy},$$
(6)
$$e_+=(M_{xx}M_{yy})/T,$$
(7)
and

$$e_\times =2M_{xy}/T.$$
(8)
The adaptive second moments can be converted into an axis ratio using the relation

$$q_{\mathrm{am}}=\left(\frac{1e}{1+e}\right)^{1/2},$$
(9)
where $`e(e_+^2+e_\times ^2)^{1/2}`$. The adaptive moments axis ratio computed in this way are not corrected for the effects of seeing. However, the SDSS DR1 also provides the adaptive second moments, $`T_{\mathrm{psf}}`$, $`e_{+,\mathrm{psf}}`$, and $`e_{\times ,\mathrm{psf}}`$, for the point spread function at the location of the image. These moments can be used to correct for the smearing and shearing due to seeing; such corrections are vital in studying the small shape changes resulting from weak lensing (Bernstein & Jarvis, 2002; Hirata & Seljak, 2003). However, to eliminate the need for corrections, I will only retain galaxies which are well resolved, with $`r_e>5\sqrt{T_{\mathrm{psf}}}`$. Of the five bands used by SDSS, the $`g`$, $`r`$, and $`i`$ bands provide useful morphological information; the low detector sensitivity at $`u`$ and $`z`$ and the high background at $`z`$ make them less useful for study. At $`g`$, $`N_{\mathrm{gal}}=12,826`$ galaxies satisfy my criteria, at $`r`$, the number is $`N_{\mathrm{gal}}=12,751`$, and at $`i`$, it’s $`N_{\mathrm{gal}}=12,764`$.

Because the weight function $`w(x,y)`$ is scaled to the size of the galaxy image, the adaptive moments axis ratio $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ can be thought of as an average axis ratio to which the outer regions of the galaxy, beyond the effective radius, do not contribute significantly. The shape in the outer region can be found from the shape of the 25 magnitude per square arcsecond isophote. The SDSS DR1 provides, for each galaxy in each band, the values of $`a_{25}`$ and $`b_{25}`$, the long and short semimajor axis length for the isophote at the surface brightness 25 mag/arcsec2. The isophotal axis ratio $`q_{25}b_{25}/a_{25}`$ then provides a measure of the galaxy shape in its outer regions. The mean and standard deviation of $`a_{25}/r_e`$ for the galaxies in examined in this paper is $`2.12\pm 0.56`$ in the $`g`$ band, $`2.56\pm 0.72`$ in the $`r`$ band, and $`2.82\pm 0.84`$ in the $`i`$ band. Having two different measures of the axis ratio, $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ and $`q_{25}`$, thus allows comparison of the central shape ($`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$) and the outer shape ($`q_{25}`$). Having measures in three different bands, $`g`$, $`r`$, and $`i`$, gives some information about the wavelength dependence of the disks’ apparent ellipticity. The $`i`$ band, having the longest wavelength of those studied, will be least affected by dust and by patches of star formation.

The distribution of $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$, in the $`i`$ band, is shown as the histogram in Figure 1. The relative scarcity of nearly circular galaxies is the characteristic signature of nonaxisymmetry. To fit the observed distribution of apparent axis ratios, I adopted a model in which the disk thickness $`\gamma `$ has a Gaussian distribution,

$$f(\gamma )\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\gamma \mu _\gamma )^2}{2\sigma _\gamma ^2}\right]$$
(10)
subject to the constraint $`0\gamma 1`$, and the disk ellipticity $`\epsilon `$ has a log-normal distribution,

$$f(\epsilon )\frac{1}{\epsilon }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{ln}\epsilon \mu )^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right],$$
(11)
subject to the constraint $`\mathrm{ln}\epsilon 0`$. After assuming values for the four parameters $`\mu _\gamma `$, $`\sigma _\gamma `$, $`\mu `$, and $`\sigma `$, a chi-square fit to the data in Figure 1 can be made. I randomly selected a thickness $`\gamma `$ and ellipticity $`\epsilon `$ from the distributions in equations 10 and 11. I then randomly selected a viewing angle $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ and computed the resulting apparent axis ratio (Binney, 1985)

$$q=\left[\frac{A+C\sqrt{(AC)^2+B}}{A+C+\sqrt{(AC)^2+B}}\right]^{1/2},$$
(12)
where

$`A=[1\epsilon (2\epsilon )\mathrm{sin}^2\phi ]\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\gamma ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ (13)
$`B=4\epsilon ^2(2\epsilon )^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\phi \mathrm{cos}^2\phi ,`$ (14)
$`C=1\epsilon (2\epsilon )\mathrm{cos}^2\phi .`$ (15)
By repeating this procedure $`N_{\mathrm{gal}}=12,764`$ times, I created one realization of the $`\mu _\gamma `$, $`\sigma _\gamma `$, $`\mu `$, $`\sigma `$ parameter set. After creating 16,000 realizations, I computed the mean and standard deviation of the expected number of galaxies in each of the 40 bins in Figure 1, and computed a $`\chi ^2`$ probability for that particular set of parameters. A search through four-dimensional parameter space revealed that the best fit for $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ in the $`i`$ band was provided by the set of parameters $`\mu _\gamma =0.222`$, $`\sigma _\gamma =0.057`$, $`\mu =1.85`$, and $`\sigma =0.89`$. The resulting $`\chi ^2`$ probability was $`P=3\times 10^4`$. Formally, this is not a good fit to the data, but more than half the contribution to $`\chi ^2`$ comes from the bins on the far left, with $`q_{\mathrm{am}}<0.3`$. As emphasized by Fasano et al. (1993), the distributions of $`\gamma `$ and $`\epsilon `$ for spiral galaxies are almost completely decoupled, in that the distribution of $`\gamma `$ determines the left hand side of $`f(q)`$ while the distribution of $`\epsilon `$ determines the right hand side. The model’s relatively poor fit at $`q_{\mathrm{am}}<0.3`$ indicates that the galaxies in the sample have a distribution of thicknesses which is not well fit by a Gaussian. In any case, the distribution of disk thicknesses in my sample is not the same as the true distribution of disk thicknesses. As shown by Huizinga & van Albada (1992), a magnitude-limited sample of galaxies such as the SDSS DR1 spectroscopic galaxy sample, which has a limiting (Petrosian) magnitude $`r<17.77`$, will show a deficit of high-inclination, low-$`q`$ spiral galaxies. This deficit is due to extinction by dust. In the $`B`$ band, for instance, an Sc galaxy is 1 to 1.5 magnitudes fainter when seen edge-on than when seen face-on (Huizinga & van Albada, 1992). Although the inclination-dependent dimming is smaller at longer wavelengths and for earlier type spirals, the fitted disk thickness should be regarded with skepticism. Fortunately for the purposes of this paper, spiral galaxies that appear nearly circular ($`q0.8`$) are nearly face-on, and hence their thickness is almost totally irrelevant; it’s the distribution of disk ellipticity $`\epsilon `$ that determines the shape of $`f(q)`$ at large $`q`$.

Table 1 shows the best fitting model parameters, $`\mu _\gamma `$, $`\sigma _\gamma `$, $`\mu `$, and $`\gamma `$, for the two different shape measures, $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ and $`q_{25}`$, and for the three different bands, $`g`$, $`r`$, and $`i`$. In addition, the best values of $`\mu `$ and $`\gamma `$ are plotted as points in Figure 2. Note that going from $`g`$ band (triangles) to $`r`$ band (squares) to $`i`$ band (circles) results in a smaller spread of disk ellipticities (that is, smaller values of $`\sigma `$). Going from $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ (filled symbols) to $`q_{25}`$ (open symbols) results in a smaller disk ellipticity (that is, smaller values of $`\mu `$). In the $`i`$ band, for instance, using $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ for the shape measure results in a best fit log-normal distribution with $`\mu =1.85`$ and $`\sigma =0.89`$; the modal ellipticity for this distribution is 0.071, the median is $`e^\mu 0.16`$, and the mean is 0.21. Using $`q_{25}`$ for the shape measure results in $`\mu =2.06`$ and $`\sigma =0.83`$; the modal ellipticity is 0.064, the median is $`e^\mu 0.13`$, and the mean is 0.17. Although the disks are rounder, on average, in the outer regions, they still have a significant ellipticity. Note also the color dependence of the mean thickness $`\mu _\gamma `$; galactic disks are thicker, on average, at longer wavelengths. This dependence reflects the fact that older stellar populations, which have redder colors, have a greater vertical velocity dispersion and hence a greater disk scale height (Wielen, 1977; Dehnen & Binney, 1998).

The large SDSS DR1 sample of galaxies places strong constraints on the best fitting values of $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$. To demonstrate how the goodness of fit varies in $`(\mu ,\sigma )`$ parameter space, Figure 2 shows the isoprobability contours for the $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ data in the $`i`$ band. Note that the contours are drawn at an interval of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}_{10}P=2`$; the $`\chi ^2`$ probability drops rapidly as you move away from the best fit, indicated by the filled circle at the center of the innermost contour. At other wavelengths, and using the other shape measure $`q_{25}`$, the probability falls off with comparable steepness in $`(\mu ,\sigma )`$ parameter space.

The log-normal distribution of equation (11) is not the only functional form to yield an adequate fit to the data. A Gaussian peaking at $`\epsilon =0`$, as shown in equation (1), provides a comparably good fit to the SDSS DR1 data. In the $`i`$ band, the best-fitting Gaussian to the $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ data has $`\sigma _\epsilon =0.26`$. The best-fitting Gaussian to the $`q_{25}`$ data has $`\sigma _\epsilon =0.21`$. The photometry provided by the SDSS DR1 is insufficient to distinguish between a Gaussian distribution of ellipticities, peaking at $`\epsilon =0`$, and a log-normal distribution, peaking at $`\epsilon >0`$. Purely photometric studies, it seems, are ill-suited to addressing the question of whether exactly circular disks, with $`\epsilon =0`$, exist.

## 3 The Andersen-Bershady Sample

Andersen & Bershady (2003), using the method outlined in Andersen et al. (2001), combined kinematic and $`I`$-band photometric data to find the disk ellipticity for a sample of 28 nearly face-on disk galaxies; the mean inclination of the galaxies is $`i=26^{}`$. The distribution of $`\mathrm{ln}\epsilon `$ determined by Andersen & Bershady (2003) is shown as the histogram in Figure 3. This distribution is well fitted by a log-normal distribution; the best fit, as found by a $`\chi ^2`$ test, has parameters $`\mu =2.80`$ and $`\sigma =0.81`$. However, the best fit to the data in Figure 3 is not the best fit to the underlying distribution of disk ellipticities, thanks to the selection criteria used in building the sample. To ensure that only galaxies with small inclination were included, Andersen & Bershady (2003) selected galaxies with $`q0.866`$, corresponding to an inclination $`i30^{}`$ for perfectly circular, infinitesimally thin disks.

To fit the distribution of intrinsic ellipticities in the Andersen-Bershady sample, subject to their selection criterion $`q0.866`$, I started by assuming that the disk ellipticity has the log-normal form given in equation (11). I further assumed, for simplicity, that the disks are all infinitesimally thin; since the disks in the Andersen-Bershady sample are close to face-on, their exact thickness doesn’t affect the observed axis ratio. After assuming values for the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$, I randomly selected a disk ellipticity $`\epsilon `$ as well as a viewing angle $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$. If the resulting apparent axis ratio, as given by equation (12), was $`q0.866`$, I retained it in my sample. If it was flatter than this limit, I discarded it. By repeating this procedure until I had $`N_{\mathrm{gal}}=28`$ axis ratios, I created one possible realization. After creating 16,000 realizations, I computed the mean and standard deviation in each of the bins in Figure 3. A search through parameter space revealed that the best fit, as measured by a $`\chi ^2`$ test, was given by $`\mu =2.29`$, $`\sigma =1.04`$. The probability of the fit, illustrated by the points and error bars in Figure 3, was $`P=0.98`$.

The 28 galaxies of Andersen & Bershady (2003) do not, by themselves, provide a strong constraint on the distribution of intrinsic ellipticities. Figure 4 shows the goodness of fit, as measured by the $`\chi ^2`$ probability $`P_{\mathrm{AB}}(\mu ,\sigma )`$. The cross indicates the best fit, and the dotted and solid lines show the isoprobability contours. Note that the $`P=0.1`$ contour – the innermost dotted line – encloses a large area stretching off to the upper right of the plot. That is, a distribution with a large value of $`\mu `$, corresponding to a very flattened average shape, is acceptable as long as it is paired with a large value of $`\sigma `$, signifying a wide spread in shapes. Because the Andersen-Bershady contains only galaxies which are nearly circular in projection, it is strongly weighted toward galaxies which are nearly circular in their intrinsic shape, and thus cannot effectively constrain the high-ellipticity end of $`f(\epsilon )`$.

A Gaussian peaking at $`\epsilon =0`$ (see equation (1)) doesn’t provide a good fit to the Andersen-Bershady sample. The best-fitting Gaussian, with $`\sigma _\epsilon =0.143`$, had a $`\chi ^2`$ probability of only $`P=0.009`$. Thus, although the data of Andersen & Bershady (2003) doesn’t constrain the high-ellipticity end of $`f(\epsilon )`$, its discriminatory power at low values of $`\epsilon `$ weighs strongly against a distribution peaking at $`\epsilon =0`$.

The kinematic and photometric information exploited by Andersen & Bershady (2003) is in some ways complementary to the purely photometric information included in the SDSS DR1 axis ratios. The nearly face-on galaxies of the Andersen-Bershady sample constrain the low-ellipticity end of $`f(\epsilon )`$; the scarcity of nearly circular galaxies in the SDSS DR1 exponential sample (see Figure 1) constrains the high-ellipticity end of $`f(\epsilon )`$. The kinematic measurements of Andersen et al. (2001) typically go out to $`23`$ scale lengths ($`1.21.8r_e`$). The ellipticities determined by Andersen et al. (2001) and Andersen & Bershady (2003) can be thought of as average ellipticities over the inner region of the galaxy. Thus, the Andersen-Bershady ellipticities are more directly comparable to the ellipticities found from $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ than from the outer axis ratios $`q_{25}`$. As shown in Figure 4, the best fit using $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ in the $`i`$ band, indicated by the filled circle, is marginally consistent with the Andersen-Bershady results. Multiplying together the probability fields in Figure 2 and Figure 4 yields a best joint fit of $`\mu =1.89`$, $`\sigma =0.96`$. For this set of parameters, the $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the Andersen-Bershady data has $`P=0.44`$, and the fit to the $`q_{am}`$ data in the $`i`$ band has $`P=9.5\times 10^5`$.

## 4 Discussion

In this paper, I’ve considered two quite different ways of determining disk ellipticities. The SDSS DR1 axis ratios are a measure of where the starlight is in a galaxy, and hence contain information about bulges, bars, spiral arms, and other nonaxisymmetric structure in the galaxies. By its nature, the analysis of photometric axis ratios finds difficulty in distinguishing between a Gaussian distribution of ellipticities peaking at $`\epsilon =0`$ and a log-normal distribution peaking at $`\epsilon >0`$. If you want to determine whether truly circular disks actually exist, examining the apparent axis ratios of disks (even of a large number of disks) is not an effective method to use. By contrast, the approach of Andersen et al. (2001) and Andersen & Bershady (2003) uses both photometric and kinematic information to find the ellipticity of individual disks. Since Andersen & Bershady (2003) looked at disks which are nearly circular in projection, their data are ineffective at determining the high-ellipticity end of $`f(\epsilon )`$.

Although both data sets are reasonably well fitted by a log-normal distribution with $`\mathrm{ln}\epsilon =1.89\pm 0.96`$, this distribution should not be engraved on stone as the distribution of disk ellipticities in spiral galaxies. Describing a complex structure such as a spiral galaxy with a single number $`\epsilon `$ (or even two numbers, $`\epsilon `$ and $`\gamma `$) requires averaging over a great deal of substructure. How one takes the average will affect the value of $`\epsilon `$ found. For instance, using the adaptive moments shape $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ yields larger values for the ellipticity than using the isophotal shape $`q_{25}`$. Moreover, observations at different wavelengths result in different values of $`\epsilon `$.

If a disk of gas and stars is orbiting in a logarithmic potential which is mildly elliptical in the disk plane, with $`\epsilon _\varphi 1`$, then the integrated line profile from the disk will have a width $`W=2v_c(1\epsilon _\varphi \mathrm{cos}2\phi )\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ when viewed from a position angle $`\phi ,\theta `$ (Franx & de Zeeuw, 1992). The alteration in the line width, due to noncircular motions in the elliptical potential, will produce a scatter in the observed Tully-Fisher relation between line width and absolute magnitude (Tully & Fisher, 1977). For an ellipticity $`\epsilon _\varphi =0.1`$, the expected scatter is 0.3 magnitudes (Franx & de Zeeuw, 1992). (This assumes that the inclination has been determined accurately using kinematic information; if the inclination is determined photometrically, assuming the disk is circular, there will be an additional source of scatter.)

If the potential ellipticity $`\epsilon _\varphi `$ is assumed to be drawn from a log-normal distribution, and the embedded disk is viewed from a random angle, the resulting scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation is shown in Figure 5. The best fits for the SDSS DR1 data are superimposed as triangles ($`g`$ band), squares ($`r`$ band) and circles ($`i`$ band). Even in the $`i`$ band, the best fit to the ellipticity of the disks would produce far more scatter than is seen in the Tully-Fisher relation. Using $`q_{\mathrm{am}}`$ as the shape measure (as shown by the filled circle in Figure 5), 1.0 magnitude of scatter is predicted. Using $`q_{25}`$ as the measure (as shown by the open circle in Figure 5), 0.8 magnitudes of scatter is predicted. The best fit to the Andersen-Bershady data, shown as the cross in Figure 5, would also produce 0.8 magnitudes of scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation.

In contrast, the actual scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation is smaller than 0.8 magnitudes. Courteau (1997) found 0.46 magnitudes of scatter in the optical Tully-Fisher relation when he used, as his velocity measure, the rotation speed at 2.2 scale lengths ($`1.3r_e`$), about the extent of the kinematic data of Andersen et al. (2001). Verheijen (2001), in his study of spiral galaxies in the Ursa Major cluster, found still smaller scatters. Combining near-infrared $`K^{}`$ magnitudes with $`V_{\mathrm{flat}}`$, the rotation speed in the outer, flat part of the rotation curve, Verheijen (2001) found a best fit with zero intrinsic scatter, with an upper limit, at the 95% confidence level, of 0.21 magnitudes.

The SDSS DR1 data are clearly inconsistent with such small scatters in the Tully-Fisher relation. The light distribution in the $`i`$ band cannot reflect the ellipticity of the underlying potential, but must be due primarily to nonaxisymmetric structures such as bars, spiral arms, non-circular rings, and so forth. It should be noted that lopsidedness ($`m=1`$ distortions) is not uncommon in disk galaxies; Rix & Zaritsky (1995) found that a third of the galaxies in their sample of nearly face-on spirals had significant lopsidedness at 2.5 scale lengths ($`1.5r_e`$). Unfortunately, the SDSS DR1 does not provide, among its tabulated parameters, the odd moments that would permit a quantitative estimate of disk lopsidedness.

Although barred galaxies were excluded from the Andersen-Bershady sample, I made no effort to sift out barred galaxies from my SDSS DR1 sample. The Andersen-Bershady results are not inconsistent with a small scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation. The dashed line in Figure 5 is the $`P=0.5`$ contour for the Andersen-Bershady sample; that is, every $`(\mu ,\sigma )`$ pair within the dashed line gives a “too-good-to-be-true” fit to the sample of Andersen & Bershady (2003). This contour encloses $`(\mu ,\sigma )`$ pairs which produce as little as 0.32 magnitudes of scatter. At lower probability levels, the $`P=0.1`$ contour yields as little as 0.28 magnitudes and the $`P=0.01`$ contour yields as little as 0.25 magnitudes of scatter. In summary, the Andersen-Bershady data are consistent with as little as a quarter-magnitude of scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation. The Andersen-Bershady data are also consistent with the adaptive moments axis ratios from the SDSS DR1. However, the three sets of information – the Andersen-Bershady data, the Tully-Fisher scatter (or lack thereof), and the SDSS DR1 axis ratios – are not mutually consistent. The SDSS DR1 axis ratios, if they accurately traced the potential ellipticity, would produce too much scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation.

I thank Matt Bershady, Dave Andersen, Richard Pogge, and Albert Bosma for their helpful and courteous comments. Ani Thakar was an invaluable guide to the sdssQA query tool. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is a joint project of The University of Chicago, the Institute of Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Princeton Observatory, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington. Apache Point Observatory, site of the SDSS telescopes, is operated by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC). Funding for the project has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the SDSS member institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS website is http://www.sdss.org/.


format: text

text:
# WIYN Open Cluster Study. XIX. Main Sequence Fitting Distances to Open Clusters Using V–K Color-Magnitude Diagrams1footnote 11footnote 1This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.

## 1 Introduction

The cosmological distance ladder is clearly one of the most important constructs of modern astronomy. Each rung in the ladder builds on the one below it to provide the scale of the universe, which in turn leads to a number of important cosmological implications. The lowest rung of the ladder (i.e. the most fundamental distance indicator) is trigonometric parallax (Rowan-Robinson 1985). Located on the next rung is the technique of fitting the main sequences of open and globular clusters to that of nearby stars with well-measured parallaxes. The main sequence (MS) fitting rung is therefore fundamental to all rungs above it (see Fig. 1 of Jacoby et al. 1992). This suggests that refining the technique of MS fitting and placing it on a firmer foundation is vitally important to cosmology and astronomy, in general.

There are a number of ways we can work to refine MS fitting. One of these is to extend the fitting to as many filter passbands as possible, including the near-infrared region. Combining optical (UBVRI) with near-IR (JHK) photometry broadens the color baseline minimizing the influence of photometric errors on the derived distance and allows better discrimination between cluster stars and contaminating foreground and background populations.

As an added benefit, combining optical and near-IR data provides an opportunity to test the theoretical models of main sequence stars over a broad wavelength range. In fact, recent years have seen a great many photometric studies of this kind (e.g. Vallenari et al. 2000; Carraro & Vallenari 2000; Carraro et al. 2001). For example, Grocholski & Sarajedini (2003, hereafter GS03) combine existing optical photometry with near-infrared magnitudes from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS)222See http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/.; they present (B–V), (V–I), and (V–K) color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) for 6 open clusters with a range of ages and metallicities. Their primary aim was to test the shapes of theoretical main sequences generated by various groups. GS03 conclude that none of the models are able to reproduce the entire unevolved main sequence adequately in any of the colors, with the most unsatisfactory agreement occurring for the V–K color. Table 2 of GS03 shows the effect of this disagreement on MS fitting distances derived from isochrones. For a given cluster, the distance moduli display a range of $``$0.5 mag depending on which theoretical models are used.

In the meantime, Percival, Salaris, & Kilkenny (2003) have published new BVRI photoelectric photometry for 54 nearby stars with known metallicities and Hipparcos (ESA 1997) parallaxes with errors less than 12%. They used these data to obtain (B–V) and (V–I) MS fitting distances to the Hyades, Praesepe, the Pleiades, and NGC 2516. Percival & Salaris (2003) utilized these same stars to measure MS fitting distances for the open clusters M67 and NGC 188, among others.

In the present work, we add JHK photometry to the field star sample of Percival et al. (2003) in order to facilitate MS fitting using the (V–K) color (Sec. 2). Fits to the (V–K) main sequences of NGC 2516, M35 M34, NGC 3532, M37, and M67 are performed in order to demonstrate the power of MS fitting in the combined optical/near-IR regime (Sec. 3). It is hoped that this will spur an expansion of the current (limited) database of open and globular clusters with high quality (V–K) photometry well down the unevolved main sequence.

## 2 Observational Data

### 2.1 Open Clusters

GS03 present combined optical and 2MASS near-IR photometry for 6 open clusters. Of these, three clusters - M35, M37, and M67 - possess V–K data deep enough to make main sequence fitting feasible over the magnitude range of the Percival et al. (2003) field stars. The M35 photometry has been obtained by the WIYN Open Cluster Study (WOCS, Sarrazine et al. 2000), the data for M37 are taken from Kalirai et al. (2003), and the M67 data are those of Montgometry, Marschall, & Janes(1993). To this, we add additional data made possible by the release of the all-sky point source catalog by the 2MASS team. In particular, we include optical photometry of M34 (Raffauf et al. 2001), NGC 2516 (Sung et al. 2002), NGC 3532 (Barnes 1997), and NGC 188 (Sarajedini et al. 1999), each of which has been matched with 2MASS. In the case of the latter cluster, the main sequence does not extend deep enough with adequate precision to yield a useful result from MS fitting. However, we can still use the cluster V–K CMD to check the consistency of published distances. Figure 1 shows the V–K CMDs for our program clusters. The solid lines are the cluster fiducial sequences constructed by-eye through the highest density of points in the CMDs. Note that the sequences for M35 and M67 are tabulated in GS03.

We take the cluster metallicities and reddenings from GS03 who have in-turn used the database of Twarog, Ashman, & Anthony-Twarog (1997). The only exception to this is M34 which is not included in the Twarog et al. (1997) work. As a result, the metal abundance of M34 is taken from the spectroscopic work of Schuler et al. (2003). Their value of \[Fe/H\] $`=+0.07\pm 0.04`$ is in good accord with another spectroscopic determination - that of Steinhauer (2003) who finds \[Fe/H\] $`=+0.08\pm 0.03`$. We have assumed an error of $``$10% on E(B–V) with a minimum value of 0.01 mag (Sarajedini 1999). Table 1 lists the basic parameters for the open clusters in this study. To correct for interstellar extinction, we adopt the reddening law derived by Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis (1989), from which, using their value of $`R_V`$ = 3.1 and taking into account the central wavelength of each filter, we find $`A_K=0.116A_V`$.

### 2.2 Field Stars

To determine MS fitting distances to our program clusters, we require optical and near-IR photometry for field stars with high quality Hipparcos parallaxes and known metallicities. For the former, we rely on the dataset of field-star optical photometry from Percival et al. (2003) mentioned in Sec. 1. Their Table 1 provides the BVRI photometry, metallicities, and Hipparcos parallaxes. We have extracted $`JHK_S`$ photometry for these stars from 2MASS. This combined dataset is given in Table 2 with positions taken from the Hipparcos catalog. For the sake of completeness, J and H magnitudes are also given and two photometric errors are listed for the 2MASS data. The one denoted by $`\sigma _{JHK}`$ is the ‘cmsig’ error from 2MASS which represents only the measurement error of the magnitude. The error designated $`\sigma _{JHK}^{tot}`$ is the ‘msigcom’ error which also includes the photometric zeropoint uncertainty and flat-fielding errors. In the following analysis, we primarily make use of the ‘cmsig’ error. To remain consistent with Percival et al. (2003), we will use only stars with abundances in the range –0.45$``$\[Fe/H\]$``$+0.35 for the MS fitting. Furthermore, we exclude HIP 84164 since it is clearly an outlier in the CMDs of Percival et al. (2003). This leaves us with 46 field stars to be used in the MS fitting.

The 2MASS program uses a K-short ($`K_S`$) filter. However, since GS03 used the Bessell & Brett (1998, hereafter BB) K-band, we have converted the 2MASS $`K_S`$ photometry to the K-band of BB using the transformation equations derived by Carpenter (2001) as follows:

$$(JK_{BB})=[(JK_S)(0.011\pm 0.005)]/(0.972\pm 0.006)$$
(1)
and

$$K_{BB}=[K_S(0.044\pm 0.003)](0.000\pm 0.005)(JK_{BB}).$$
(2)
To follow convention, we will use $`K`$ in place of $`K_{BB}`$, but all K-band magnitudes are on the BB system unless otherwise noted.

Once we have assembled the field star data, the next step is to utilize the parallax (and its error) to calculate the absolute V magnitude for each star. In this process, we follow the example of Percival et al. (2003) and apply the Lutz-Kelker (LK) correction using their relation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{LK}=7.60(\sigma _\pi /\pi )^247.20(\sigma _\pi /\pi )^4.$$
(3)
This adjustment corrects for the LK bias which systematically underestimates the distance of each star as measured by its trignometric parallax (Lutz & Kelker 1973). As noted by Percival et al. (2003), the individual LK corrections are very small with the average correction being less than 0.02 mag.

The field stars are generally near enough to the Sun ($`<`$75 pc) that it is safe to assume that the line-of-sight extinction for each star is zero. However, the metallicity of each star does have an effect on its color, and this has to be accounted for before using these stars for MS fitting to open clusters with a single abundance. Again, we follow the procedure described by Percival et al. (2003) in this regard. First, using the fiducials of our program clusters, we estimate the slope of the MS between $`5<`$$`M_V`$$`<`$7, the range of magnitudes for the field stars. Using this slope and limiting the sample to stars with –0.45$``$\[Fe/H\]$``$+0.35 (Percival & Salaris 2003), we shift the color of each star along this vector to an absolute magnitude of $`M_V`$=+6.0. Having taken the luminosity dependence of the MS out of the V–K color, we now plot these values as a function of \[Fe/H\] in Fig. 2. The application of an iterative-rejection least-squares procedure to these data yields the solid line, which reveals a metallicity dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(V–K) = 0.185$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\[Fe/H\]. As a comparison, Percival et al. (2003) find $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(B–V) = 0.154$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\[Fe/H\] and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(V–I) = 0.103$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\[Fe/H\].

## 3 Results and Discussion

Now that we have established the ingredients of MS fitting, we can proceed to apply the technique to our six program clusters. First, we deredden the cluster fiducial using the adopted reddening. Then, we fit a quadratic polynomial to the fiducial sequence in the range 5$`<`$$`M_V`$$`<`$7. After adjusting the colors of the field stars for the metallicity difference between each star and the cluster’s using $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(V–K) = 0.185$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\[Fe/H\], we refit this polynomial to the field stars allowing only the zeropoint to vary. This fit is performed via a weighted least squares regression using the errors in the absolute magnitudes as weights. The resultant zeropoint is then subtracted from the zeropoint of the fiducial to yield the apparent V-band distance modulus. The error on this value includes the fitting error ($``$0.006 mag) along with the errors due to uncertainties in the reddening ($`\sigma [E(BV)]`$$``$0.01 translates to $`\sigma [(mM)_V]`$$``$0.05) and metallicity ($`\sigma ([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}])`$$``$0.1 dex translates to $`\sigma [(mM)_V]`$$``$0.035). The latter is based on a combined error of 0.1 dex in the metallicity shift needed to place the field stars onto the abundance of each cluster (Percival et al 2003; Percival & Salaris 2003). The results of this procedure are given in Table 1. As an example, the left panel of Fig. 3 shows the fiducial sequence of M67 shifted by the derived distance and the adopted reddening and superimposed on the field stars whose colors have been adjusted to the metal abundance of M67.

As a consistency check on our method, we consider the empirically calibrated isochrone for the Hyades given in Table 2 of Pinsonneault et al. (2003). This “isochrone” is effectively a fiducial sequence for the Hyades that has been corrected using empirical adjustments to the theoretical colors. As such, it represents the observed $`M_V,VK`$ location of the Hyades main sequence. The right panel of Fig. 3 shows a comparison of this Hyades locus with the field stars presented in the left panel adopting a metal abundance of \[Fe/H\]=+0.13 for the Hyades. Since Pinsonneault et al. (2003) tabulate $`VK_S`$, the sole adjustment we have made to their sequence is to convert $`K_S`$ to $`K`$ using Equation (2) above. The coincidence of the Hyades main sequence with the field stars is remarkably good. If we apply our MS fitting technique to the Hyades sequence, we find $`(mM)_0`$ = $`3.35\pm 0.04`$ in good agreement with the Perryman et al (1998) value of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`3.33\pm 0.01`$ thus giving us increased confidence in the validity of our procedure. In addition, Fig. 4 shows the fiducials of five of the six program clusters plotted in the $`[M_V,(VK)_0]`$ CMD. NGC 3532 has been omitted from this diagram, for the sake of clarity, because its relatively short sequence would coincide with that of the other clusters and only serve to crowd the diagram. The thick solid line is the Hyades sequence of Pinsonneault et al. (2003). It is reassuring to find that the unevolved main sequences are well-matched for all of the clusters, even the Hyades which is not included in our MS fitting analysis. The right panel of Fig. 4 is an enlargement of the unevolved main sequence region illustrating the overall good coincidence of the cluster fiducials. It is important to note that given the range of 0.25 dex in the metallicities of the clusters plotted in Fig. 4, we expect a V–K color range of $``$0.05 mag which is negligible compared to the range of colors plotted.

The six program cluster fiducials (NGC 2516, M35, M34, NGC 3532, M37, M67) all span the magnitude range 4.5$``$$`M_V`$$``$8.5. We have used this fact to produce a mean solar abundance fiducial sequence which we tabulate in Table 3. To construct this sequence, we first interpolate each fiducial to equal intervals in $`M_V`$ using a cubic spline. Then, we average the colors of each sequence at a given magnitude and compute the standard deviation of the colors ($`\sigma _{VK}`$). The mean metal abundance of the six clusters used in this fiducial is $``$\[Fe/H\]$``$ = +0.01. As far as we are aware, this is the first purely empirical solar abundance V–K main sequence in the literature.

Table 4 lists distance moduli for our program clusters taken from the literature. The technique used in all cases is MS fitting - to isochrones in some cases and field stars in others. The column labeled ‘$``$GS03$``$’ represents the mean of the values derived by GS03 in their comparison of MS fitting results using theoretical main sequence loci from 5 different groups. We note, in particular, that since we have utilized the Percival et al. (2003) database of field star photometry, the distances they derive for NGC 2516 and M67 (Percival & Salaris 2003) using their BVI MS fitting technique should be consistent with our values which come from VK CMDs. In fact, we see that the distance moduli for these two clusters listed in Table 4 compare well. Furthermore, even though the V–K CMD of NGC 188 does not extend deep enough to be used for MS fitting (Sec. 2.1), we can still use it to check the Percival et al. (2003) distance. Figure 5 shows the combined WOCS/2MASS V–K CMD of NGC 188 adjusted using the distance and reddening from Percival & Salaris (2003) as noted in the figure. The solid lines are the fiducial sequences of M35 and M67 adjusted using the distances and reddenings in Table 1. Again, we find good agreement between the main sequence locations of these three open clusters. The NGC 188 fiducial is also plotted in Fig. 4 to illustrate the location of one of the oldest open clusters in the V–K CMD.

There are other recently published distances for our program clusters that are noteworthy. In the subsequent paragraphs, we discuss these in turn.

NGC 2516: Dachs & Kabus (1989) compare their BV photometry to the standard main sequence of Schmidt-Kaler (1982) and find $`(mM)_0`$ = $`8.18\pm 0.38`$. Jeffries, Thurston, & Hambly (2001) use BV and VI CMDs fitted to isochrones (Siess et al. 2000 and D’Antona & Mazzitelli 1997) to derive distance moduli of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`7.85\pm 0.05`$ and $`7.90\pm 0.05`$, respectively. For comparison, our value is $`(mM)_0`$ = $`8.13\pm 0.07`$. The mean trigonometric parallax distance for the 14 cluster stars with Hipparcos measurements is $`(mM)_0=7.70_{0.15}^{+0.16}`$ (Robichon et al. 1999). The difference between the Hipparcos distance and the MS fitting distances is thought to be due to a metal abundance for NGC 2516 that is too high. Percival et al. (2003) discuss the full implications of this assertion.

M35: Sung & Bessell (1999) find $`(mM)_0`$ = $`9.60\pm 0.10`$ using MS fitting to a ZAMS constructed using data for the open clusters NGC 6231 and NGC 6611. This compares favorably with our value of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`9.62\pm 0.14`$. von Hippel et al. (2002) adopt a modulus of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`9.53`$ and use this to compare their M35 fiducial with the Pinsonneault et al. (1998) Hipparcos cluster fiducial main sequence. They find reasonable agreement with marginal evidence that the actual cluster modulus is slightly larger than their adopted value. Sarrazine et al. (2000), from whom our optical data are taken, find a distance modulus of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`9.54\pm 0.10`$ based on comparisons with the Girardi et al. (2000) models.

M34: Ianna & Schlemmer (1993) combined photoelectric and photographic photometry along with proper motion membership probabilities to investigate the distance of M34. From a comparison with the VandenBerg & Bridges (1984) isochrones, they find $`(mM)_0`$ = 8.28, which is significantly lower than our value of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`8.67\pm 0.07`$. In a similar study, Jones & Prosser (1996) compared their photometry of proper motion members to the isochrones of Meynet et al. (1993) and obtained $`(mM)_0`$ = 8.38. We note however that Raffauf et al. (2001), from whom our optical photometry is taken, obtained $`(mM)_0`$ = $`8.60\pm 0.08`$ from a comparison with the theoretical isochrones of Girardi et al. (2000) and Yi et al. (2001). Part of the difference between our result (see also Raffauf et al. 2001) as compared with those of Ianna & Schlemmer (1993) and Jones & Prosser (1996) could be due to the adopted reddenings. The latter two studies used $`E(BV)=0.07`$ in contrast to our value of $`E(BV)=0.10`$.

M37: Kiss et al. (2001) present a CMD based on an extensive variable star survey. From fitting the CMD to theoretical isochrones, they derive a distance modulus of $`(mM)_V`$ = $`11.48\pm 0.13`$ and a reddening of $`E(BV)=0.29\pm 0.03`$. This yields an absolute distance modulus of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`10.58\pm 0.17`$, which is in accord with our value of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`10.73\pm 0.19`$ to within the errors. Nilakshi & Sagar (2002) show CMDs for M37 based on BVI photometry and derive $`(mM)_0`$ = $`10.67\pm 0.19`$ using a fit to isochrones. For an assumed reddening of $`E(BV)=0.23\pm 0.01`$, Deliyannis et al. (2002) find $`(mM)_0=10.51\pm 0.12`$ via the application of the Yi et al. (2001) isochrones.

NGC 3532: Fernandez & Salgado (1980) present a BV CMD that extends to $`M_V`$$``$3.5. Meynet, Mermilliod, & Maeder (1993) fit this CMD to theoretical isochrones to arrive at a distance of $`(mM)_0`$ = 8.35. This is somewhat smaller than our value of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`8.47\pm 0.07`$. Note that the Fernandez & Salgado (1980) photometry was used by Twarog et al. (1997) to perform their MS fitting from which a distance of $`(mM)_0`$ = 8.38 was derived (Table 3).

M67: Montgomery et al. (1993) compared their photometry to the isochrones of VandenBerg (1985) and Castellani et al. (1992) and derived a distance modulus of $`(mM)_V`$ = 9.6 and reddening of $`E(BV)=0.05`$, which assuming $`A_V=3.1E(BV)`$, yields an absolute modulus of $`(mM)_0`$ = 9.45. Carraro et al. (1996) consider the Montgomery et al. (1993) data and compare it with their own theoretical models and arrive at a distance modulus of $`(mM)_0`$ = 9.57. Kim et al. (1996) have performed a time-series photometric study of M67 in which their CMD is compared with the isochrones of Schaller et al. (1992). They estimate a value of $`(mM)_0`$ = 9.6. Fan et al. (1996) present nine band spectrophotometry for over 6500 stars in M67. From a fit of these data to isochrones transformed to their filter passbands, they find a distance modulus of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`9.47\pm 0.05`$. Recently, Sandquist (2003) presents a new VI CMD for M67 from which he derives $`(mM)_0`$ = $`9.60\pm 0.03`$ by fitting to the Percival et al. (2003) field stars. All of the above determinations are in good accord with our value of $`(mM)_0`$ = $`9.62\pm 0.07`$ for M67.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

We have combined existing optical magnitudes for stars in seven open clusters and 54 field stars with the corresponding $`JHK_S`$ photometry from 2MASS. The field stars possess Hipparcos parallaxes and metal abundance measurements and are used to construct an unevolved main sequence in the magnitude range 5$`<`$$`M_V`$$`<`$7. The $`[V,VK]`$ main sequences of the clusters are fit to the field star main sequence in order to determine distances for the 6 open clusters in our sample. We find that these distances are in reasonable agreement with previously published values for these clusters. We hope that this will spur an expansion of the current (limited) database of star clusters with high quality (V–K) photometry down to the unevolved main sequence.

We have constructed a mean solar abundance main sequence fiducial in the $`[M_V,(VK)_0]`$ plane using the 6 clusters in our sample spanning the magnitude range 4.5$``$$`M_V`$$``$8.5. This purely empirical main sequence fiducial is to be preferred over theoretically constructed ones because of the current limitations inherent in the latter (e.g. GS03).

We are grateful to Aaron Steinhauer and Constantine Deliyannis for a careful reading of the manuscript. Much of this research was carried out by K. B., a local high school teacher during the summer of 2003. K. B. was supported by NSF CAREER grant AST 00-94048 and grant AST 01-96212.


text:
# 1 a: MDSC scan of 𝐴𝑠₂₀𝑆𝑒₈₀ bulk glass; 𝑇_𝐺 is defined as inflexion point of 𝐻̇_{𝑟𝑒𝑣} while 𝑇_𝐴 is the end point of the 𝐻̇_{𝑛𝑟} endotherm. b: 𝑇_𝐴/𝑇_𝐺 (∘) and 𝑇_𝐾/𝑇_𝐺 (△) for Ge-Se glasses. Lines without symbols are HW predictions [1]

Comment on “Microscopic theory of network glasses”

In a recent Letter Hall and Wolyneswolynes  (HW) ask whether a microscopic theory of network glasses can be developed starting from a model of dense spherical fluids. To do so they constrain the number of nearest neighbors and count their central force interactions separately. They obtain the dynamical transition temperature $`T_A`$ (below which the system is nonergodic and the motion is landscape-determined), and the entropy crisis (Kauzman) temperature $`T_K`$ as functions of $`n_b`$, the average number of nearest neighbor bonds/atom. A Lindemann melting criterion on the amplitude of nearest neighbor vibrations defines the glass transition temperature $`T_G`$. The model shows that $`T_A/T_G`$ and $`T_K/T_G`$ monotonically increase and decrease, respectively, as functions of $`n_b`$. For $`n_b=2.4`$, $`T_A/T_G=100`$, an unreasonable result. Mode coupling theory (MCT) defines a critical nonergodicity temperature $`T_c`$ beyond which a radical change in the long time limit of e.g. the density-density correlation function occurs. $`T_c`$ has been plausibly estimated for vitreous silica in molecular dynamics simulationsKob1  as $`T_c/T_G=2`$. Even this temperature is presently outside the reach of experimental investigationsKob1 .

How do these results compare with experiments ? There are standard procedures for extrapolating specific heats to obtain $`T_K`$, but identifying the onset of nonergodicity at $`T_A`$ (or $`T_c`$) is much more difficult. Chalcogenide glasses are ideal test systems because one can synthesize them over a wide range of $`n_b`$ by chemical alloying group IV additives in Se base glass. Fortunately, glass transitions of these systems have been recently reinvestigated r2  using modulated DSC (MDSC), a new method which permits separating the usual DSC heat flow endotherm $`\dot{H}_T`$ into a reversing part $`\dot{H}_{rev}`$ which is ergodic (and which follows the modulated T-profile) from the non-reversing part $`\dot{H}_{nr}`$ which is non-ergodic (arising from underlying temperature dependent activated processes) as illustrated in Fig.1a. MDSC permits to establish this temperature $`T_A`$ at which dynamics become landscape dominated (i.e. in MDSC language dominated by a T-dependent $`\dot{H}_{nr}`$) in contrast to the linear response regime (i.e. at high temperatures when the heat flow is $`\dot{H}_{rev}`$ dominated with a constant activation energy).

In binary $`Ge_xSe_{1x}`$ glasses, observed variations in $`T_A/T_G`$ and $`T_K/T_G`$ as a function of $`n_b=2+2x`$ are compared to HW predictions in Fig.1b. The $`T_K/T_G(n_b)`$ results were obtained from a Vogel-Fulcher analysis of viscosity measurementsr4 . And one finds the observed and predicted variations in $`T_K/T_G(n_b)`$ ratio to be in reasonable accord with each other showing a general reduction starting from a value of about $`0.9`$ at $`n_b=2`$ to a value of $`0.8`$ near $`n_b=2.7`$. Note, however, that the broad global minimum in the observed $`T_K/T_G`$ ratio near $`n_b=2.4`$ in not reproduced by the HW approach. More serious is the fact that observed $`T_A/T_G`$ values are (i) two orders of magnitude lower than the HW predictions and (ii) show a global minimum near $`n_b=2.4`$ that is in sharp contrast to the almost linear increase (Fig. 1b) predicted by HW. The global minimum in $`T_K/T_G`$ and $`T_A/T_G`$ ratios are features related to self-organization of glasses that are missing in the HW approach. Clearly features such as inclusion of local structuresr2 ; r5 , structural self-organizationr5 ; r7  and non-central foerces (bond-bending) are missing in the theory.

Non-bending forces constitute $`(4n_b6)/(5n_b6)`$ of the global number of network constraints (e.g. $`0.6`$ at the ideal $`n_b=2.4`$) indicating that the directional non central angular forces have to be included in a successful theory of network glasses.

M. Micoulaut1 and P. Boolchand2

1 LPTL, Université Paris VI, 4, place Jussieu 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France

2 Department of ECECS, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0030

PACS numbers: 61.43.Fs,64.70.Pf