Paper detail

On The Birth Masses of the Ancient Globular Clusters

All globular clusters (GCs) studied to date show evidence for internal variation in their light element abundances. These variations have been interpreted as evidence for multiple star formation episodes within GCs, with secondary episodes fueled, at least in part, by the ejecta of AGB stars from a first generation of stars. A major puzzle emerging from this otherwise plausible scenario is that the fraction of stars associated with the second episode of star formation is observed to be much larger than expected for a standard IMF. The present work investigates this tension by modeling the observed anti-correlation between [Na/Fe] and [O/Fe] for 20 Galactic GCs. If the abundance pattern of the retained AGB ejecta does not depend on GC mass at fixed [Fe/H], then a strong correlation is found between the fraction of current GC stellar mass comprised of pure AGB ejecta, f_p, and GC mass. This fraction varies from 0.20 at low masses (10^4.5 Msun) to 0.45 at high masses (10^6.5 Msun). The fraction of mass associated with pure AGB ejecta is directly related to the total mass of the cluster at birth; the ratio between the initial and present mass in stars can therefore be derived. Assuming a star formation efficiency of 50%, the observed Na-O anti-correlations imply that GCs were at least 10-20 times more massive at birth. These factors are lower limits because any mass-loss mechanism that removes first and second generation stars equally will leave f_p unchanged. The mass-dependence of f_p probably arises because lower mass GCs are unable to retain all of the AGB ejecta from the first stellar generation. Recent observations of elemental abundances in intermediate-age LMC clusters are re-interpreted and shown to be consistent with this basic scenario. A convincing explanation of these trends is currently lacking.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 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.