FUSE results on deuterium abundances; What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios?
36
FUSE results on deuterium FUSE results on deuterium abundances; abundances; What can we learn from D/O and What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios? D/N ratios? Guillaume H Guillaume H ÉBRARD ÉBRARD Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris LoLa-GE meeting International Space Science Institute, Bern February 24 rd , 2004 illaume Hébrard stitut d’Astrophysique de Paris bis, boulevard Arago 75014 Paris one: (33 1) 44 32 80 78 x: (33 1) 44 32 80 01 ail: [email protected] Current address: Guillaume Hébrard The Johns Hopkins University Department of Physics & Astronomy Bloomberg, room 144B 3400 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 USA phone: 410 516 7496 fax: 410 516 5494
description
FUSE results on deuterium abundances; What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios?. Guillaume H ÉBRARD Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris LoLa-GE meeting International Space Science Institute, Bern February 24 rd , 2004. Current address: Guillaume Hébrard The Johns Hopkins University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of FUSE results on deuterium abundances; What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios?
FUSE results on deuterium abundances;FUSE results on deuterium abundances;
What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios?What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios?
Guillaume HGuillaume HÉBRARDÉBRARDInstitut d’Astrophysique de Paris
LoLa-GE meeting
International Space Science Institute, BernFebruary 24rd, 2004
Guillaume Hébrard
Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris
98bis, boulevard Arago
F-75014 Paris
phone: (33 1) 44 32 80 78
fax: (33 1) 44 32 80 01
email: [email protected]
Current address:
Guillaume Hébrard
The Johns Hopkins University
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Bloomberg, room 144B
3400 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
USA
phone: 410 516 7496
fax: 410 516 5494
email: [email protected]
Hébrard & Moos (2003): ApJ 599, 311Hébrard & Moos (2003): ApJ 599, 311This paper includes most of the references quoted in this talk
Three kinds of abundance measurements:
– Primordial (14 x 109 year)
– Proto-solar (4.5 x 109 year)
– Interstellar (present epoch)
Deuterium: tracer of chemical evolution
Rogerson & York (1973)
Copernicusβ Cen
D/H measurements (70’, 80’, 90’): spatial variations or not?
Ferlet et al. (1995)
(Linsky et al. 1995)
FUSEFUSEFFar ar UUltraviolet ltraviolet SSpectroscopic pectroscopic EExplorerxplorer
Wavelength (Å)
Nu
mb
er
of
line
s
(pe
r 1
00
Å in
terv
al)
Photons energy (eV)
Ground
June 24th, 1999
HD
H2
Atoms & Ions
FUSE in few words
Total cost: ~250 106 US$
Duration: 3 + 2 years (+ 2 years)
Cycles 1, 2 & 3 (PI + GI): 1999 → 2003
Cycle 4 (GI): April 2003 → March 2004
Cycle 5 (GI): Begins in April 2004(80 programs selected)
Cycle 6 (GI): July 2004(deadline: Sept. 17th, 2004)
FUSE Science Conference Victoria (Canada)August 2-6, 2004
Web: http://fuse.pha.jhu.eduhttp://fuse.pha.jhu.edu
About 3500 observations already performed (2700 public)
Equivalent widths measurements
→ curves of growth
Friedman et al. (2002)
Profile fitting
Wood et al. (2002)
Example of a line fit
Wavelength (Å)
Flu
x
WD 2211-495
FUSE MDRS SiC2A
D I
Hébrard et al. (2002)
Profile fitting (Voigt) with Owens.f (M. Lemoine)
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
Ly
DI
DI
DIDI
DIDI
DIDI
DIDI
DI
DI
DI
DI
DI
DIDI
DIDI
OI
OIOIOIOI
OI
OIOI
OI OI OI OI OI OI
OI
OI DIOI
OIOIOIOI
OI
OIOI
OIOIOIOIOI
O ID I
Hébrard et al. (2002)
Results toward 24 targets
Overview:
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
ApJ 599, 297-311.
Moos et al. (2002)Friedman et al. (2002)
Hébrard et al. (2002)
Kruk et al. (2002)
Lemoine et al. (2002)
Lehner et al. (2002)
Sonneborn et al. (2002)
Wood et al. (2002)
Hoopes et al. (2003)
Oliveira et al. (2003)
White dwarf
Most local ISM
Subdwarf
More distant ISM
D/O
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
D/N
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
D/O vs. D/N
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
2 = 8.4 for 13 d.o.f.
d.o.f. = degrees of freedom
2 = 117.9 for 23 d.o.f.
2 = 189.9 for 23 d.o.f.
D/OD/O
D/ND/N2 = 37.3 for 13 d.o.f.
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
Local Bubble
D/O = ( 3.84 ± 0.16 ) x 10-2 • Moos et al. (2002)
5 targets in LB →
D/O = ( 3.76 ± 0.20 ) x 10-2
• Oliveira et al. (2003)
8 targets in LB →
D/O = ( 3.87 ± 0.18 ) x 10-2
• Hébrard & Moos (2003)
14 targets in LB →
D/O = ( 3.84 ± 0.16 ) x 10-2
D/O
Hébrard & Moos (2003) log N(HI) = 19.3 – 19.4
→ Local Bubble wall (Sfeir et al. 1999)
D/O
If D/H = 1.5 0.1 x 10-5 (Linsky 1998)
or D/H = 1.52 0.08 x 10-5 (Moos et al. 2002),
with O/H = 3.43 0.15 x 10-4
D/O = 4.4 0.3 x 10-2
If D/O = 3.84 0.16 x 10-2,
with O/H = 3.43 0.15 x 10-4 (Meyer 2001)
D/H = 1.32 0.08 x 10-5
D/O = (D/H) / (O/H)
If D/O is homogeneous in the LB
D/H and O/H homogeneous in the LB
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
D/O in the Local Bubble
D/H
O/H
D/O
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
Local Bubble
Which value for D/O is representative of the present epoch?
D/O
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
Local Bubble
D/O = ( 3.96 ± 0.15 ) x 10-2
2 = 12.5 for 15 d.o.f.
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
D/O
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
D/O vs. D/N
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
Local Bubble
D/O = (1.50 ± 0.25) x10-2
→ D/H = (5.2 ± 0.9) x10-6
D/O
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
HD191877 (Hoopes et al. 2003)
HD195965 (Hoopes et al. 2003)
LSS1274 (Hébrard & Moos 2003)
Local Bubble
D/N = (1.15 ± 0.16) x10-1
D/N
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
→ D/H = (8.6 ± 1.3) x10-6
HD191877 (Hoopes et al. 2003)
HD195965 (Hoopes et al. 2003)
LSS1274 (Hébrard & Moos 2003)
2 high values (D/H > 2 x10-5):
2 Vel (Sonneborn et al. 2000): → D/H = (2.18 ± 0.20) x10-5
– Feige 110 (Friedman et al. 2002): → D/H = (2.14 ± 0.41) x10-5
5 low values (D/H < 1 x10-5):
Ori A (Laurent et al. 1979; Jenkins et al. 1999): → D/H = (0.74 ± 0.11) x10-5
Sco (York 1983): → D/H = (0.76 ± 0.25) x10-5
Car (Allen et al. 1992): → D/H = (0.50 ± 0.16) x10-5
– HD191877 (Hoopes et al. 2003): → D/H = (0.78 ± 0.20) x10-5
– HD195965 (Hoopes et al. 2003): → D/H = (0.85 ± 0.15) x10-5
2 extra low values in Orion (ISO, HD molecule):
– Orion molecular outflow (Bertoldi et al. 1999): → D/H = (0.76 ± 0.29) x10-5
– Orion Bar (Wright et al. 1999): → D/H = (1.0 ± 0.3) x10-5
Previous distant D/H measurements
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
Galactocentric gradient?
Chiappini, Renda, & Matteucci (2002)
d log (D/N) / dR
0.14 dex / kpc
d log (D/O) / dR
0.13 dex / kpc
t = 14 Gyr
t = 14 Gyr
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
5.2
2.8 2.8
2.0
1.1 1.1
O/H: depletion
André et al. (2003)Meyer et al. (1998)
Chiappini, Renda, & Matteucci (2002)
t = 14 Gyr
D/O 4.0 x 10-2
D/O 2.5 x 10-2
R (kpc)
• QSO 0105+1619 : D/O = (280 ± 30) x10-2 (O’Meara et al. 2001)• QSO 0347-3819 : D/O = (37 ± 3) x10-2 (Levshakov et al. 2002)
= (21 ± 4) x10-2 (D’Oddorico et al. 2001)• QSO 1243+3047 : D/O = (3000 ± 300) x10-2 (Kirkman et al. 2003)
• Complex C : D/O = (28 ± 12) x10-2 (Sembach et al. 2004)
QSOQSO
D/O = (1.50 ± 0.25) x 10-2
HD/H2
Dense clouds:
HD/H2 = 2 x D/H
Ferlet et al. (2000)
More than 100 HD
detections with FUSE
Future work
D H (105)
Hébrard et al. (2000)
Deuterium Balmer seriesDeuterium Balmer series
Future work
A&A 354, L79 and A&A 364, L31
– D/O and D/N are less sensitive to systematic errors than D/H;
– D/H is homogeneous within the Local Bubble (~100pc) and is 1.5 x 10-5 (direct measurement) or 1.3 x 10-5 (measurement via D/O);
– This local value IS NOT the canonical value of (D/H)ISM, characteristic of material at the present epoch;
– The (D/H)ISM ratio characteristic of the present epoch is likely to be significantly lower than the local value.
Conclusions:
FUSE
Hébrard & Moos (2003)
