Star cluster formation and disruption time-scales — I. An empirical determination of the disruption time of star clusters in four galaxies

By S. Boutloukos, H. Lamers. 2002

148 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We have derived the disruption times of star clusters from cluster samples of four galaxies, M51, M33, the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) and the solar neighbourhood. If the disruption time of clusters in a galaxy depends only on their initial mass as t d i s (yr) = t d i s 4 (M c l /10 4 M O .) γ , and if the cluster formation rate is constant, then the mass and age distributions of the observed clusters will each be given by double power-law relations. For clusters of low mass or young age the power law depends on the fading of the clusters below the detection limit due to the evolution of the stars. For clusters of high mass and old age the power law depends on the disruption time of the clusters. The samples of clusters in M51 and M33, observed with HST-WFPC2, indeed show the predicted double power-law relations in both their mass and age distributions. The values of t d i s 4 and y can be derived from these relations. For the cluster samples of the SMC and the solar neighbourhood, taken from the literature, only the age distribution is known. This also shows the characteristic double power-law behaviour, which allows the determination of t d i s 4 and y in these galaxies. The values of y are the same in the four galaxies within the uncertainty, and the mean value is y = 0.62 ′ 0.06. However, the disruption time t d i s 4 of a cluster of 10 4 M O . is very different in the different galaxies. The clusters in the SMC have the longest disruption time, t d i s 4 ≃ 8 x 10 9 yr, and the clusters at 1-3 kpc from the nucleus of M51 have the shortest disruption time of t d i s 4 ≃ 4 x 10 7 yr. The disruption time of clusters 1-5 kpc from the nucleus of M33 is t d i s 4 ≃ 1.3 x 10 8 yr and for clusters within 1 kpc from the Sun we find t d i s 4 ≃ 1.0 × 10 9 yr.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1130c1e42dc1081517114b3a92f718bd262f0ded

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Cluster Mass Functions in the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds: Fading and Size-of-Sample Effects (2003, background): “If there were a mass range where the destruction time was less than the fading time (as might be the case in other galaxies – see Boutloukos & Lamers 2003), then we would have to take an upper limit to the integral in Equation 9 that is the minimum value of the fading time and the destruction time.”
Local kinematics of K and M giants from CORAVEL/Hipparcos/Tycho-2 data: Revisiting the concept of superclusters (2004, background): “This long survival time is made unlikely by the argument of Boutloukos & Lamers (2003) who found that clusters within 1 kpc from the Sun having a mass ofm× 104 M⊙ can survive up tom Gyr in the Galaxy: indeed heavy clusters of more than 2× 104 M⊙ are probably very rare in thedisk.”
The big problems in star formation: The star formation rate, stellar clustering, and the initial mass function (2014, background): “…2009; Chandar et al. 2010a,b, 2011) while others argue for little or no cluster disruption, but that only a small number of stars are formed in clusters in the first place (Boutloukos & Lamers 2003; de Grijs et al. 2003b; Gieles et al. 2007; Bastian et al. 2011, 2012b,a; Silva-Villa et al. 2013).”
The formation of very wide binaries during the star cluster dissolution phase (2010, background): “…the simulations until the clusters are completely dissolved, which is typically of the order of 20− 50 Myr, the timescale at which the majority of low-mass star clusters are destroyed (see, e.g., Tutukov1978; Boutloukos & Lamers 2003; Bastian et al. 2005; Fall et al. 2005, and numerous others).”
Star cluster disruption by giant molecular clouds (2006, methodology): “The same mass dependence was also found from the age and mass distribution of cluster samples in different galaxies by Boutloukos & Lamers (2003) and from the age distribution of clusters in the solar neighbourhood by Lamers et al. (2005).”
THE ANTENNAE GALAXIES (NGC 4038/4039) REVISITED: ADVANCED CAMERA FOR SURVEYS AND NICMOS OBSERVATIONS OF A PROTOTYPICAL MERGER (2010, background): “…for several galaxies, including the Antennae, that there is a cutoff to the upper mass with which clusters can form (e.g., Gieles et al. 2006; Bastian 2008; Larsen 2009), and that there are bends in the age distributions of some galaxies (e.g., Boutloukos & Lamers 2003, and Lamers et al. 2005).”
Young Massive Star Clusters (2010, unknown): “In the environment dependent disruption model, the dissolution time follows a simple scaling relation with cluster mass and environment, following the age and mass distributions of luminosity-limited cluster samples in different galaxies (Boutloukos & Lamers 2003).”