Paper detail

On the reliability of proxies for globular cluster collision rates

(Abridged) Proxies for the stellar collision rates in globular clusters are often used. We present comparisons between these proxies and the full integrated collision rate for King models. Gamma, defined to be rho_0^3/2 r_c^2$, where $ρ_0$ is the central cluster density, and r_c is the core radius, is an accurate representation of the collision rate from the King model to within about 25% for all but the least concentrated clusters. Gamma_h, defined to be rho_h^3/2 r_h^2, where rho_h is the average density within the half-light radius, and $r_h$ is the half-light radius, is only marginally better correlated with the full King model collision rate than is the cluster luminosity. The two galaxies where results of King model fitting have been reported in detail show a dearth of core-collapsed clusters relative to that seen in the Milky Way, indicating that the core radii of the most concentrated clusters are probably slightly overestimated. Recent work has suggested that shallower than linear relations exist between proxies for Gamma and the probability that a cluster will contain an X-ray source; we show that there is a similarly shallow relationship between Gamma and Gamma_h; we also show that measurement errors are likely to produce a shallower than linear relationship even when Gamma itself is used. The evidence is thus consistent with the idea that X-ray binary formation rates are linearly proportional to cluster collision rates. We also find, through comparison with multimass models, suggestive evidence that the retention fractions of neutron stars in globular clusters may be related to the present day concentration parameters, which would imply that the most concentrated clusters today were the most concentrated clusters at the time of their supernovae.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.