In Fig. 11, we compare the Gemini with the HST luminosity function for the
vs. m205 observations.
For direct comparison of the observational efficiency, no colour
cut has been applied, but the entire physically reasonable colour range
from approximately 0 to 4 mag in
,
including reddened and foreground objects, has been included in the luminosity
function (LF). Therefore, these LFs are not the ones from which the
mass functions have
been derived. The only selection criterion that has been applied
is a restriction of the photometric uncertainty in both magnitude
(
mag)
and colour (
mag,
corresponding to
mag and
mag).
The uncertainty selection in colour allowed us to select only those
objects that have been detected with high confidence in both H and
images in the Gemini data, and in the F160W and F205W filters in the NICMOS data,
respectively. The colour-uncertainty selection on the HST data simulates the
matching of H and
detections used on the Gemini data
for the selection of real objects. Thus, only objects that are detected
in both H and
have been included in the luminosity
function. This gives us
some confidence that we are not picking up hot pixels or cosmic ray events.
The area covered with Gemini has been selected from the HST
photometry as displayed in Fig. 1.
As can be seen in Fig. 11, many objects are missed
by Gemini in the fainter regime, though the actual limiting (i.e., cut-off)
magnitudes are the same in both datasets.
This is due to the fact that 50% of the light is distributed into
a halo around each star.
These halos prevent the detection of faint objects
around bright sources, especially in the crowded regions.
This effect is most obvious when examining the star-subtracted frames resulting
from the DAOPHOT allstar task. In these frames the cluster center is
marked by a diffuse background, enhanced by
20 counts in
and
40 counts in H above the observational background of
2 and 4 counts in the cluster vicinity, respectively.
In addition to the simple crowding problem due to the stellar density
affecting both datasets,
the overlap of many stellar halos hinders the detection of faint
stars in the Gemini data.
At larger radial distances from the cluster center, more and more faint stars
are detected both in the HST as well as in the Gemini data (Fig. 12).
The fact that the incompleteness corrected Gemini LFs follow closely the shape of the HST LFs supports the results of our incompleteness calculations, which will be used to determine the incompleteness in the mass function.
Radial luminosity functions were calculated in
bins, using the same uncertainty selection as in Fig. 11 (Sect. 4.1).
The resulting radial LFs are shown in Fig. 12, along with the
incompleteness determined for each radial bin.
In the cluster center (lowest panel), the very good match of the Gemini and
HST LFs for
mag reveals the comparable spatial
resolution obtained in both data sets. Despite the strong crowding seen
already in these bright stars, the Gemini AO data resolve the sources
in the cluster center nicely. When we move on to fainter magnitudes, however,
we are limited by the halos of these bright stars, as discussed above.
The clear decrease below
mag marks
the point where stars are lost due to the enhanced background. When we move
radially outwards, the limiting magnitude above which faint stars are lost
shifts towards fainter magnitudes. The tendency to loose the faint tail
of the magnitude distribution nevertheless remains clearly seen, though
it becomes much less pronounced for
,
where the Gemini and
HST LFs resemble each other. For
(upper panel) we are limited by
small number statistics due to the small area in this radial bin.
As it is hard to observe a well-defined LF at these radii, we will add the
two upper bins when we create the radially dependent mass functions in
Sect. 5.3.
The magnitude-dependent distribution of stars within the cluster is evident in
these LFs. While bright stars are predominantly found in the cluster center,
their number density strongly decreases with increasing radius.
When we analyse the Gemini LFs more quantitatively,
we find 25 (50) stars with
mag within
,
but
only 8 (23) such stars with
,
and beyond 10
,
we observe only 7 (11) such stars. The numbers for HST are comparable in the bright
magnitude bins. On the other hand, the number of faint stars with
mag increases from 1 (0) to 14 (3) to 48 (16).
As we see significantly more faint stars in the HST data, the corresponding
numbers are higher, i.e. the number of stars with m205 > 19 mag is 0 in the
innermost bin, 24 in the intermediate bin, and 81 in the outermost bin.
Despite the fact that the area on the Gemini frame increases by about a factor
of 3 between the inner and intermediate bin, the number of bright stars is strongly
diminished beyond a few arcseconds, while the number of the faint stars increases
by much more than the change in area can account for. Although for the fainter stars
the effects of crowding and a real increase in the fainter population of the
cluster cannot be disentangled, the decrease in the number of bright stars is
a clear indication of mass segregation within the Arches cluster.
Copyright ESO 2002