Paper detail

Core collapse and horizontal-branch morphology in galactic globular clusters

Context. Stellar collision rates in globular clusters (GCs) do not appear to correlate with horizontal branch (HB) morphology, sug- gesting that dynamics does not play a role in the second-parameter problem. However, core densities and collision rates derived from surface-brightness may be significantly underestimated as the surface-brightness profile of GCs is not necessarily a good indicator of the dynamical state of GC cores. Core-collapse may go unnoticed if high central densities of dark remnants are present. Aims. We test whether GC HB morphology data supports a dynamical contribution to the so-called second-parameter effect. Methods. To remove first-parameter dependence we fitted the maximum effective temperature along the HB as a function of metal- licity in a sample of 54 Milky Way GCs. We plotted the residuals to the fit as a function of second-parameter candidates, namely dynamical age and total luminosity. We considered dynamical age (i.e. the ratio between age and half-light relaxation time) among possible second-parameters. We used a set of direct N-body simulations, including ones with dark remnants to illustrate how core density peaks, due to core collapse, in a dynamical-age range similar to that in which blue HBs are overabundant with respect to the metallicity expectation, especially for low-concentration initial conditions. Results. GC total luminosity shows nonlinear behavior compatible with the self-enrichment picture. However, the data are amenable to a different interpretation based on a dynamical origin of the second-parameter effect. Enhanced mass-stripping in the late red-giant- branch phase due to stellar interactions in collapsing cores is a viable candidate mechanism. In this picture, GCs with HBs bluer than expected based on metallicity are those undergoing core-collapse.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.