Paper detail

Globular Cluster Mass Loss in the Context of Multiple Populations

Many scenarios for the origin of the chemical anomalies observed in globular clusters (GCs; i.e., multiple populations) require that GCs were much more massive at birth, up to $10-100\times$, than they are presently. This is invoked in order to have enough material processed through first generation stars in order to form the observed numbers of enriched stars (inferred to be second generation stars in these models). If such mass loss was due to tidal stripping, gas expulsion, or tidal interaction with the birth environment, there should be clear correlations between the fraction of enriched stars and other cluster properties, whereas the observations show a remarkably uniform enriched fraction of $0.68\pm0.07$ (from 33 observed GCs). If interpreted in the heavy mass loss paradigm, this means that all GCs lost the same fraction of their initial mass (between $95-98$\%), regardless of their mass, metallicity, location at birth or subsequent migration, or epoch of formation. This is incompatible with predictions, hence we suggest that GCs were not significantly more massive at birth, and that the fraction of enriched to primordial stars observed in clusters today likely reflects their initial value. If true, this would rule out self-enrichment through nucleosynthesis as a viable solution to the multiple population phenomenon.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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.