4.7 Article

A top-heavy stellar initial mass function in starbursts as an explanation for the high mass-to-light ratios of ultra-compact dwarf galaxies

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14425.x

关键词

stars: luminosity function, mass function; galaxies: dwarf; galaxies: star clusters; galaxies: stellar content

资金

  1. DFG [KR1635/13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been recently shown that the dynamical V-band mass-to-light ratios of compact stellar systems with masses from 10(6) to 10(8) M-circle dot are not consistent with the predictions from simple stellar population models. Top-heavy stellar initial mass functions (IMFs) in these so-called ultra-compact dwarf galaxies (UCDs) offer an attractive explanation for this finding, the stellar remnants and retained stellar envelopes providing the unseen mass. We therefore construct a model which quantifies by how much the IMFs of UCDs would have to deviate in the intermediate- and high-mass range from the canonical IMF in order to account for the enhanced M/L-V ratio of the UCDs. The deduced high-mass IMF in the UCDs depends on the age of the UCDs and the number of faint products of stellar evolution retained by them. Assuming that the IMF in the UCDs is a three-part power law equal to the canonical IMF in the low-mass range and taking 20 per cent as a plausible choice for the fraction of the remnants of high-mass stars retained by UCDs, the model suggests the exponent of the high-mass IMF to be approximate to 1.6 if the UCDs are 13 Gyr old (i.e. almost as old as the Universe) or approximate to 1.0 if the UCDs are 7 Gyr old, in contrast to 2.3 for the Salpeter-Massey IMF. If the IMF was as top heavy as suggested here, the stability of the UCDs might have been threatened by heavy mass loss induced by the radiation and evolution of massive stars. The central densities of UCDs must have been in the range 10(6) to 10(7) M-circle dot pc(-3) when they formed with star formation rates of 10 to 100 M-circle dot yr(-1).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据