Paper detail

New Tests for Disruption Mechanisms of Star Clusters: The Large and Small Magellanic Clouds

We compare the observed bivariate distribution of masses(M) and ages(t) of star clusters in the LMC with the predicted distributions g(M,t) from 3 idealized models for the disruption of star clusters: (1)sudden mass-dependent disruption;(2)gradual mass-dependent disruption; and (3)gradual mass-independent disruption. The model with mass-{\em in}dependent disruption provides a good, first-order description of these cluster populations, with g(M,t) propto M^{beta} t^{gamma}, beta=-1.8+/-0.2 and gamma=-0.8+/-0.2, at least for clusters with ages t<10^9 yr and masses M<10^3 M_sol (more specifically, t<10^7(M/10^2 M_sol)^{1.3} yr). This model predicts that the clusters should have a power-law luminosity function, dN/dL propto L^-1.8, in agreement with observations. The first two models, on the other hand, fare poorly when describing the observations, refuting previous claims that mass-dependent disruption of star clusters is observed in the LMC over the studied M-t domain. Clusters in the SMC can be described by the same g(M,t) distribution as for the LMC, but with smaller samples and hence larger uncertainties. The successful g(M,t) model for clusters in the Magellanic Clouds is virtually the same as the one for clusters in the merging Antennae galaxies, but extends the domain of validity to lower masses and to older ages. This indicates that the dominant disruption processes are similar in these very different galaxies over at least t<10^8 yr and possibly t<10^9 yr. The mass functions for young clusters in the LMC are power-laws, while that for ancient globular clusters is peaked. We show that the observed shapes of these mass functions are consistent with expectations from the simple evaporation model presented by McLaughlin & Fall.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.