Figure 8.
Mass functions for massive stars in Cyg OB2 derived using the rotating stellar models of Ekström et al. (2012). Left: histograms showing the distribution of derived masses for all 167 stars in our sample (black histogram, with 1σ error bars determined from MC simulations) and for an age-unbiased sample of 82 stars aged <3.5 Myr (red histogram, with 1σ error bars). Both histograms have been fitted using an ordinary least-squares regression of Y on X (OLS (Y|X), Isobe et al. 1990) for the mass bins >20 M⊙, giving slopes of Γ = 2.06 ± 0.06 and 1.39 ± 0.19 for the complete and age-unbiased samples, respectively (note that these uncertainties do not take into account random sampling of the IMF). Right: a cumulative mass function showing N (M⋆ < M) as a function of M for all 98 stars in our sample more massive than 10 M⊙ (black line) with the 1σ uncertainty (calculated from MC simulations) shown in grey. Also shown are the results of simulated IMFs for Γ = 1.3 (red line, with 1σ random sampling uncertainty shown in pink) and Γ = 2.2 (green line) calculated using the equations of Maschberger (2013, see full explanation in the text). The blue line shows a simulated and evolved IMF for Γ = 1.3 for stars aged 3–7 Myr (i.e. a constant star formation rate from 3 to 7 Myr ago, and no star formation since then). The uncertainties for three simulated IMFs are similar and so only one is shown for clarity.

Mass functions for massive stars in Cyg OB2 derived using the rotating stellar models of Ekström et al. (2012). Left: histograms showing the distribution of derived masses for all 167 stars in our sample (black histogram, with 1σ error bars determined from MC simulations) and for an age-unbiased sample of 82 stars aged <3.5 Myr (red histogram, with 1σ error bars). Both histograms have been fitted using an ordinary least-squares regression of Y on X (OLS (Y|X), Isobe et al. 1990) for the mass bins >20 M, giving slopes of Γ = 2.06 ± 0.06 and 1.39 ± 0.19 for the complete and age-unbiased samples, respectively (note that these uncertainties do not take into account random sampling of the IMF). Right: a cumulative mass function showing N (M < M) as a function of M for all 98 stars in our sample more massive than 10 M (black line) with the 1σ uncertainty (calculated from MC simulations) shown in grey. Also shown are the results of simulated IMFs for Γ = 1.3 (red line, with 1σ random sampling uncertainty shown in pink) and Γ = 2.2 (green line) calculated using the equations of Maschberger (2013, see full explanation in the text). The blue line shows a simulated and evolved IMF for Γ = 1.3 for stars aged 3–7 Myr (i.e. a constant star formation rate from 3 to 7 Myr ago, and no star formation since then). The uncertainties for three simulated IMFs are similar and so only one is shown for clarity.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close