Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:16:57.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relation Between Field Massive Stars and Clusters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2007

M. S. Oey ,
N. L. King ,
J. Wm. Parker  and
J. B. Lamb
M. S. Oey
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Department of Astronomy, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1042, USA
N. L. King
Affiliation:
Lowell Observatory, 1400 W. Mars Hill Rd., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA
J. Wm. Parker
Affiliation:
Southwest Research Institute, Suite 426, 1050 Walnut St., Boulder, CO 80302, USA
J. B. Lamb
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Department of Astronomy, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1042, USA
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.

Massive “field” stars are those that appear in apparent isolation, in contrast to those in clusters. Whereas cluster stars are formed together in large aggregates, simultaneously, field stars have multiple origins. Some massive field stars may be the “tip of the iceberg” on small groups of physically associated stars, while others appear to be “runaway” stars that are dynamically ejected from clusters. What is the intrinsic relation between clusters and field stars, and what is the faction of runaway stars? Since massive stars are the most luminous stellar population, their demographics are accessible in the nearest external galaxies. We present our current efforts to understand these issues for the Small Magellanic Cloud.

Keywords

open clusters and associations: generalstars: early-typestars: kinematics
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 3 , Symposium S246: Dynamical Evolution of Dense Stellar Systems , September 2007 , pp. 65 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Battinelli, P. 1991, A&A 244, 69Google Scholar
de Wit, W. J., Testi, L., Palla, F., & Zinnecker, H. 2005, A&A 437, 247Google Scholar
Gies, D. R. & Bolton, C. T. 1986, ApJS 61, 419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogerwerf, R., de Bruijne, J. H. J., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2001, A&A 365, 49Google Scholar
Hunter, D. A., Elmegreen, B. G., Dupuy, T. J., & Mortonson, M. 2003, AJ 126, 1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, P. J. T. & Duncan, M. J. 1988, AJ 96, 222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, P. 2002, ApJS, 141, 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkola, S. 1983, MNRAS 203, 1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oey, M. S., King, N. L., & Parker, J. W. 2004, AJ 127, 1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, J. W., et al. 1998, AJ 116, 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2000, ApJ 544, 437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R. C. 1982, AJ 87, 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar