1 / 36

FUSE results on deuterium abundances; What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios?

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

montana
Download Presentation

FUSE results on deuterium abundances; What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios?

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. FUSE results on deuterium abundances;What can we learn from D/O and D/N ratios? Guillaume HÉBRARD Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris LoLa-GE meeting International Space Science Institute, Bern February 24rd, 2004 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: hebrard@pha.jhu.edu 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: hebrard@iap.fr

  2. Hébrard & Moos (2003): ApJ 599, 311 This paper includes most of the references quoted in this talk

  3. Deuterium: tracer of chemical evolution Three kinds of abundance measurements: • Primordial(14 x 109 year) • Proto-solar(4.5 x 109 year) • Interstellar(present epoch)

  4. Copernicusβ Cen Rogerson & York (1973)

  5. (Linsky et al. 1995) D/H measurements (70’, 80’, 90’): spatial variations or not? Ferlet et al. (1995)

  6. FUSEFar Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer June 24th, 1999 Wavelength (Å) Ground Number of lines (per 100 Å interval) HD H2 Atoms & Ions Photons energy (eV)

  7. FUSE in few words About 3500 observations already performed (2700 public)

  8. Equivalent widths measurements→ curves of growth Friedman et al. (2002)

  9. Profile fitting Wood et al. (2002)

  10. Example of a line fit D I Flux WD 2211-495 FUSE MDRS SiC2A Wavelength (Å) Hébrard et al. (2002)

  11. D I O I OI DI OI OI OI OI OI OI DI OI OI OI OI DI OI OI DI DI OI OI DI DI Ly Ly OI DI DI OI DI Ly Ly Ly OI OI OI OI DI DI OI OI OI OI Ly OI DI DI OI OI DI DI Ly Ly Ly OI DI DI Ly Ly DI DI Ly Ly Hébrard et al. (2002) Profile fitting (Voigt) with Owens.f (M. Lemoine)

  12. Results toward 24 targets 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) Overview: Hébrard & Moos (2003) ApJ 599, 297-311.

  13. Subdwarf More distant ISM White dwarf Most local ISM

  14. D/O Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  15. D/N Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  16. D/O vs. D/N D/O 2 = 8.4 for 13 d.o.f. 2 = 117.9 for 23 d.o.f. 2 = 189.9 for 23 d.o.f. D/N 2 = 37.3 for 13 d.o.f. d.o.f. = degrees of freedom Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  17. Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  18. D/O D/O = ( 3.84 ± 0.16 ) x 10-2 Local Bubble log N(HI) = 19.3 – 19.4 → Local Bubble wall (Sfeir et al. 1999) • 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 Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  19. D/O D/O in the Local Bubble D/H O/H • D/O = (D/H) / (O/H) If D/O is homogeneous in the LB  D/H and O/H homogeneous in the LB • 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 • 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 Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  20. D/O Which value for D/O is representative of the present epoch? Local Bubble Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  21. D/O Local Bubble D/O = ( 3.96 ± 0.15 ) x 10-2 2 = 12.5 for 15 d.o.f. Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  22. Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  23. D/O Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  24. D/O vs. D/N Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  25. D/O Local Bubble HD191877 (Hoopes et al. 2003) HD195965 (Hoopes et al. 2003) LSS1274 (Hébrard & Moos 2003) D/O = (1.50 ± 0.25) x10-2 → D/H = (5.2 ± 0.9) x10-6 Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  26. D/N Local Bubble HD191877 (Hoopes et al. 2003) HD195965 (Hoopes et al. 2003) LSS1274 (Hébrard & Moos 2003) D/N = (1.15 ± 0.16) x10-1 → D/H = (8.6 ± 1.3) x10-6 Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  27. Previous distant D/H measurements • 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 Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  28. Galactocentric gradient? Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  29. t = 14 Gyr d log (D/N) / dR  0.14 dex / kpc t = 14 Gyr d log (D/O) / dR  0.13 dex / kpc Chiappini, Renda, & Matteucci (2002)

  30. 5.2 2.8 2.8 2.0 1.1 1.1 Hébrard & Moos (2003)

  31. O/H: depletion Meyer et al. (1998) André et al. (2003)

  32. QSO D/O = (1.50 ± 0.25) x 10-2 D/O  4.0 x 10-2 D/O  2.5 x 10-2 Chiappini, Renda, & Matteucci (2002) t = 14 Gyr 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)

  33. Future work HD/H2 • Dense clouds: HD/H2 = 2 x D/H • Ferlet et al. (2000)  • More than 100 HD detections with FUSE

  34. D H (105) Future work Deuterium Balmer series Hébrard et al. (2000) A&A 354, L79 and A&A 364, L31

  35. FUSE Conclusions: • 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. Hébrard & Moos (2003)

More Related