4.7 Article

Globular clusters formed within dark haloes I: present-day abundance, distribution, and kinematics

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 482, Issue 1, Pages 219-230

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty2701

Keywords

globular clusters: general; galaxies: formation; dark matter

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [NSF PHY11-25915]
  2. Hellman Foundation
  3. Hubble Space Telescope grant [HST-AR-14583]
  4. NASAMUREP Institutional Research Opportunity (MIRO) [NNX15AP99A]
  5. NASA [NNX15AP99A, 803014] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We explore a scenario where metal-poor globular clusters (GCs) form at the centres of their own dark matter haloes in the early Universe before reionization. This hypothesis leads to predictions about the abundance, distribution, and kinematics of GCs today that we explore using cosmological N-body simulations and analytical modelling. We find that selecting the massive tail of collapsed objects at z greater than or similar to 9 as GCs formation sites leads to four main predictions: (i) a highly clustered population of GCs around galaxies today, (ii) a natural scaling between number of GCs and halo virial mass that follows roughly the observed trend, (iii) a very low number of free-floating GCs outside massive haloes, and (iv) GCs should be embedded within massive and extended dark matter (sub)haloes. We find that the strongest constraint to the model is given by the combination of (i) and (ii): a mass cut to tagged GCs haloes which accounts for the number density of metal-poor GCs today predicts a radial distribution that is too extended compared to recent observations. On the other hand, a mass cut sufficient to match the observed half-number radius could only explain 60 per cent of the metal-poor population. In all cases, observations favour early redshifts for GC formation (z >= 15).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available