Paper detail

Nuclear Star Clusters and the Stellar Spheroids of their Host Galaxies

(Abridged) We combine published photometry for the nuclear star clusters (NSCs) and stellar spheroids of 51 low-mass, early-type galaxies in the Virgo cluster with empirical mass-to-light ratios, in order to complement previous studies that explore the dependence of NSC masses (M_{NSC}) on various properties of their host galaxies. We confirm a roughly linear relationship between M_{NSC} and luminous host spheroid mass (M_{Sph}), albeit with considerable scatter (0.57 dex). We estimate velocity dispersions from the virial theorem, assuming all galaxies in our sample share a common DM fraction and are dynamically relaxed. We then find that M_{NSC} \sim σ^{2.73\pm 0.29}, with a slightly reduced scatter of 0.54 dex. This confirms recent results that the shape of the M_{CMO} - σrelation is different for NSCs and super-massive black holes (SMBHs). We discuss this result in the context of the generalized idea of "central massive objects" (CMOs). In order to assess which physical parameters drive the observed NSC masses, we also carry out a joint multi-variate power-law fit to the data. In this, we allow M_{NSC} to depend on M_{Sph} and R_{Sph} (and hence implicitly on σ), as well as on the size of the globular cluster reservoir. When considered together, the dependences on M_{Sph} and R_{Sph} are roughly consistent with the virial theorem, and hence M_{NSC} \propto σ^2. However, the only statistically significant correlation is a linear scaling between M_{NSC} and M_{Sph}. We compare M_{NSC} with predictions for two popular models for NSC formation, namely i) globular cluster infall due to dynamical friction, and ii) in-situ formation during the early phases of galaxy formation that is regulated via momentum feedback from stellar winds and/or supernovae. Neither model can directly predict the observations, and we discuss possible interpretations of our findings.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.