Paper detail

No Energy Equipartition in Globular Clusters

It is widely believed that globular clusters evolve over many two-body relaxation times toward a state of energy equipartition, so that velocity dispersion scales with stellar mass as σ~ m^{-η} with η= 0.5. We show that this is incorrect, using direct N-body simulations with a variety of realistic IMFs and initial conditions. No simulated system ever reaches a state close to equipartition. Near the center, the luminous main-sequence stars reach a maximum η_{max} ~ 0.15 \pm 0.03. At large times, all radial bins convergence on an asymptotic value η_{\infty} ~ 0.08 \pm 0.02. The development of this "partial equipartition" is strikingly similar across our simulations, despite the range of initial conditions employed. Compact remnants tend to have higher ηthan main-sequence stars (but still η< 0.5), due to their steeper (evolved) mass function. The presence of an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) decreases η, consistent with our previous findings of a quenching of mass segregation under these conditions. All these results can be understood as a consequence of the Spitzer instability for two-component systems, extended by Vishniac to a continuous mass spectrum. Mass segregation (the tendency of heavier stars to sink toward the core) has often been studied observationally, but energy equipartition has not. Due to the advent of high-quality proper motion datasets from the Hubble Space Telescope, it is now possible to measure η. Detailed data-model comparisons open up a new observational window on globular cluster dynamics and evolution. Comparison of our simulations to Omega Cen observations yields good agreement, confirming that globular clusters are not generally in energy equipartition. Modeling techniques that assume equipartition by construction (e.g., multi-mass Michie-King models) are approximate at best.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.