<p>You don't have a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_branch" rel="nofollow noreferrer">horizontal branch</a>, which would have an absolute magnitude of <span class="math-container">$\sim 2$</span> and you don't have a massive population of white dwarfs, which have a sequence that parallels the main sequence but about 10 magnitudes fainter at the same colour. The Trapezium and Alpha Per are too young to have a white dwarf population too. The Wishing Well (NGC 3532), Beehive (Praesepe) do have <em>a few</em> white dwarfs and The &quot;King Cobra&quot; cluster (M67) has a large number of white dwarfs, but they have an absolute magnitude <span class="math-container">$&gt;10$</span> and you would struggle to see them in Gaia data (<a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/311586/fulltext/985434.text.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Richer et al. 1998</a>)</p>
<p>What you have is a bunch of objects at the faint end of the distribution in each cluster that have very poor <span class="math-container">$B_p$</span> photometry. You should have a look at section 6 of <a href="https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/05/aa39587-20/aa39587-20.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Riello et al. (2021)</a>, where some problems are discussed in relation to the photometry of faint sources and possible filtering steps suggested.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T16:55:57.220Z
2023-07-08T17:08:04.280Z
2023-07-08T17:08:04.280Z
ProfRob
<p>I'm trying to plot H-R Diagrams of open clusters using data from Gaia DR3. My workflow is something like this:</p>
<ul>
<li>Plot apparent magnitude vs log(distance) in pc. An overdensity would indicate the presence of a cluster around that distance.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ckZoZ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ckZoZ.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></li>
<li>Filter out stars near this overdensity and generate a histogram against distance.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/2fz14.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/2fz14.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></li>
<li>Fit the histogram to the gaussian and apply a  <span class="math-container">$3\sigma$</span> cut to pick stars likely in the cluster.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/1A0mb.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1A0mb.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/1lekJ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1lekJ.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
<br>
The corresponding HR Diagram looks like this:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/53pmM.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/53pmM.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
I have plotted HR Diagrams for many other clusters too:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/uPkYC.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/uPkYC.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
The horizontal branch of stars( in the diagram, not the one that follows the red giant phase) is so pronounced, it worries me since the open clusters are not very old to contain so many white dwarfs(for example, when I plotted the HR Diagram of Omega Centauri, the stars were mostly in the red giant region, and Omega Centauri is definitely older than these). Note that the Wishing Well Cluster doesn't even have a distinctive main sequence. I have tried playing with the ADQL Queries I used, but either I don't see a distinct Gaussian, or I face the issue described above. <br>
What could have gone wrong? Is there a more efficient way to pick out the stars? Any help would be appreciated. (Let me know if representative codes are required at any point).</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T07:14:31.997Z
You need to say exactly how you produced the plot. There is clearly an error since the main sequence has an absolute magnitude of around zero at a colour of zero and there are relatively few stars more luminous. Cluster colour magnitude diagrams don't look like this
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T07:23:19.277Z
@ProfRob Can you please tell me what specifics I need to mention? Will it help if I include the code?
Ambica Govind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T12:42:24.903Z
Plot the HR diagram for THAT cluster. You have stars at 480 pc (did you use the same distance for all stars), so a distance modulus of 8.4. If you've ignored extinction, and from your first diagram the  members are between apparent magnitudes of 8 and 19, then their absolute magnitudes should be between -0.4 and 10.6. Clearly that isn't the case, so you've made an error.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T12:47:08.543Z
and why does the upper envelope of the first diagram get brighter for more distant stars? Faint magnitudes in the Gaia catalogue are dominated by more distant stars and there certainly isn't a sharply defined cut-off. I don't think you have fully explained what you;ve done to the data.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T15:34:20.807Z
@ProfRob I have added a parallax cut to the data such as parallax over the error in parallax is greater than 5. Which is why you see the sharp decline at the upper envelope.
Ambica Govind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T15:55:19.853Z
@ProfRob I fixed a bug in my code that had led to impossible values for the magnitudes(so sorry about that). I have included the CMD for the Wishing Well Cluster. However the problem of sparseness of the main sequence persists, and the number of high magnitude stars continue to be greater than the low magnitude ones. One could call it an exceptional case but the horizontal branch is still abnormally apparent.
Ambica Govind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T15:59:50.470Z
@ProfRob and No, I haven’t used the same distance for all stars in a cluster.
Ambica Govind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T16:32:22.963Z
@ProfRob I have done this for the wishing well cluster. There seem to be many more white dwarfs than expected, since the cluster is middle-aged, not that old.
Ambica Govind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T16:40:21.480Z
The same goes for trapezium cluster in Orion. It’s quite young yet has so many WDs.
Ambica Govind
<data-analysis><stellar-astrophysics><gaia><star-cluster><hr-diagram>
Unusual amount of white dwarfs in star clusters in my analysis
Ambica Govind
# Unusual amount of white dwarfs in star clusters in my analysis

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-07-08)

I'm trying to plot H-R Diagrams of open clusters using data from Gaia DR3. My workflow is something like this:

* Plot apparent magnitude vs log(distance) in pc. An overdensity would indicate the presence of a cluster around that distance.
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ckZoZ.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ckZoZ.png)
* Filter out stars near this overdensity and generate a histogram against distance.
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/2fz14.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/2fz14.png)
* Fit the histogram to the gaussian and apply a $3\sigma$ cut to pick stars likely in the cluster.
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/1A0mb.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/1A0mb.png)
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/1lekJ.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/1lekJ.png)
    
  The corresponding HR Diagram looks like this:
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/53pmM.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/53pmM.png)
  I have plotted HR Diagrams for many other clusters too:
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/uPkYC.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/uPkYC.png)
  The horizontal branch of stars( in the diagram, not the one that follows the red giant phase) is so pronounced, it worries me since the open clusters are not very old to contain so many white dwarfs(for example, when I plotted the HR Diagram of Omega Centauri, the stars were mostly in the red giant region, and Omega Centauri is definitely older than these). Note that the Wishing Well Cluster doesn't even have a distinctive main sequence. I have tried playing with the ADQL Queries I used, but either I don't see a distinct Gaussian, or I face the issue described above.   
  What could have gone wrong? Is there a more efficient way to pick out the stars? Any help would be appreciated. (Let me know if representative codes are required at any point).

**Tags:** data-analysis, stellar-astrophysics, gaia, star-cluster, hr-diagram

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You need to say exactly how you produced the plot. There is clearly an error since the main sequence has an absolute magnitude of around zero at a colour of zero and there are relatively few stars more luminous. Cluster colour magnitude diagrams don't look like this  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Can you please tell me what specifics I need to mention? Will it help if I include the code?  
> **username_1**: Plot the HR diagram for THAT cluster. You have stars at 480 pc (did you use the same distance for all stars), so a distance modulus of 8.4. If you've ignored extinction, and from your first diagram the  members are between apparent magnitudes of 8 and 19, then their absolute magnitudes should be between -0.4 and 10.6. Clearly that isn't the case, so you've made an error.  
> **username_1**: and why does the upper envelope of the first diagram get brighter for more distant stars? Faint magnitudes in the Gaia catalogue are dominated by more distant stars and there certainly isn't a sharply defined cut-off. I don't think you have fully explained what you;ve done to the data.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I have added a parallax cut to the data such as parallax over the error in parallax is greater than 5. Which is why you see the sharp decline at the upper envelope.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I fixed a bug in my code that had led to impossible values for the magnitudes(so sorry about that). I have included the CMD for the Wishing Well Cluster. However the problem of sparseness of the main sequence persists, and the number of high magnitude stars continue to be greater than the low magnitude ones. One could call it an exceptional case but the horizontal branch is still abnormally apparent.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 and No, I haven’t used the same distance for all stars in a cluster.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I have done this for the wishing well cluster. There seem to be many more white dwarfs than expected, since the cluster is middle-aged, not that old.  
> **username_0**: The same goes for trapezium cluster in Orion. It’s quite young yet has so many WDs.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-07-08. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

You don't have a [horizontal branch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_branch), which would have an absolute magnitude of $\sim 2$ and you don't have a massive population of white dwarfs, which have a sequence that parallels the main sequence but about 10 magnitudes fainter at the same colour. The Trapezium and Alpha Per are too young to have a white dwarf population too. The Wishing Well (NGC 3532), Beehive (Praesepe) do have *a few* white dwarfs and The "King Cobra" cluster (M67) has a large number of white dwarfs, but they have an absolute magnitude $>10$ and you would struggle to see them in Gaia data ([Richer et al. 1998](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/311586/fulltext/985434.text.html))

What you have is a bunch of objects at the faint end of the distribution in each cluster that have very poor $B\_p$ photometry. You should have a look at section 6 of [Riello et al. (2021)](https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/05/aa39587-20/aa39587-20.html), where some problems are discussed in relation to the photometry of faint sources and possible filtering steps suggested.


---

