Paper detail

Inverting the dynamical evolution of globular clusters: clues to their origin

Scaling relations for globular clusters (GC) differ from scaling relations for pressure supported (elliptical) galaxies. We show that two-body relaxation is the dominant mechanism in shaping the bivariate dependence of density on mass and Galactocentric distance for Milky Way GCs with masses <10^6 Msun, and it is possible, but not required, that GCs formed with similar scaling relations as ultra-compact dwarf galaxies. We use a fast cluster evolution model to fit a parameterised model for the initial properties of Milky Way GCs to the observed present-day properties. The best-fit cluster initial mass function is substantially flatter (power-law index alpha =- 0.6+/-0.2) than what is observed for young massive clusters (YMCs) forming in the nearby Universe (alpha =~-2). A slightly steeper CIMF is allowed when considering the metal-rich GCs separately (alpha =~-1.2+/-0.4$). If stellar mass loss and two-body relaxation in the Milky Way tidal field are the dominant disruption mechanisms, then GCs formed differently from YMCs.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.