the initial mass function in clusters
DESCRIPTION
The Initial Mass Function in Clusters. Bruce G. Elmegreen IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Yorktown Hts., NY [email protected] May 9, 2006. slope=-1.35. Salpeter ‘55. The IMF is not well known anywhere. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Initial Mass Function in Clusters
Bruce G. ElmegreenIBM T.J. Watson Research
CenterYorktown Hts., NY
[email protected] 9, 2006
Salpeter ‘55
slope=-1.35
![Page 2: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The IMF is not well known anywhere
• Clusters: same age & distance but mass segregation, field contamination, small number statistics are problems
• OB associations : same distance, but a range of ages, extinctions and dispersals, summed IMFs of clusters
• Field: many stars but mass function/volume depends on SF history, vertical disk heating, drift from clusters, etc.
• Whole galaxies: average IMFs from abundance ratios (Fe,O), CMD, H EW, etc., but resolution, faintness, SF history are problems.
![Page 3: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
A compilation by Scalo ‘98
n(M)dlogM~M dlogM
Scatter consistent with small number statistics
LMC & MW
(Salpeter)
Stochastic model (Elmegreen ’99)
(1-10 MO range)
Clusters
![Page 4: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
R136 in 30 Dorregion of LMC
=-1.30.1 or -1.40.1 for 2 temperaturecalibrationsMassey & Hunter ‘98
Many dense clusters haveSalpeter IMFs (~-1.35)
plus: h and Persei (Slesnick, Hillenbrand & Massey ‘02) NGC 604 in M33 (Gonzalez Delgado & Perez ‘00) NGC 1960 and NGC 2194 (Sanner et al. ‘00) NGC 6611 (Belikov et al. ‘04) ......
APOD: Walborn et al. ‘01
![Page 5: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Scalo 98: M=1-10, =-1.7 M=10-100, =-1.3
Preibisch et al. M=0.6-2, =-1.8 M=2-20, =-1.6
Kroupa 2002: M=0.08-0.5, =-0.3 M=0.5-100, =-1.3
Preibisch et al. (2002) upper Sco OB assoc.
Sco-Cen: a dispersed association, has a steep IMF.
-1.7
-1.3
-1.3-1.8
-1.6
![Page 6: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Okumura et al. 2000
W51: small number stats at high mass end a problem, unless variations real.
=-1.8
?
?
NIR: Hodapp 05
![Page 7: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Peretto, Andre & Belloche 05: Massive star formation in NGC
2264
NIR source density on 1.2 mm cont.
observe collapse onto core
core 3 ~ future 20 MO star
cores 2 & 4 may fall into it
![Page 8: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Do massive stars need the cluster environment?
• Testi, Palla & Natta ’99 suggested Herbig AeBe stars have a correlation between their mass and the surrounding cluster density– Bonnell & Clarke ’99 showed this could be sampling
statistics because cluster density proportional to cluster mass
• de wit et al 05 observe 43 local “field” O stars and look for evidence of runaways: nearby clusters, high z, high v– suggest only 4% of all O stars may form isolated– consistent with cluster mass function down to single star
with slope of =1.7 (see also Oey, King & Parker 2004)
• O stars don’t need massive and dense clusters to form
![Page 9: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Distribution of massive stars in and near R136 in 30 Dor.
Massive star formation around the periphery is common.
![Page 10: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
30 Dor in the LMC (triggering all over)
Walborn et al. 2002
![Page 11: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Hunter et al. 96: IMF independent of densityAn example of a cluster-free “SOBA” in Maíz-Apellániz ‘01
549 stars (608 with completeness corr.)
=-1.60.7
NGC 604 in M33(APOD, Yang & Hester 96)
![Page 12: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
IMF a superposition of several processes
Elmegreen 04
Some massive stars could form by thesame process as solar-mass stars, forminga log-normal IMF with a steep slope at high M (Mark Krumholz’s mechanism?)
In dense clusters, other massive stars could form by additional processes (enhanced accretion, coalescence, etc.)(Ian Bonnell’s mechanisms?)
The upper mass slope would then be flatter in ultradense or more active SFR
Mark
Ian
![Page 13: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Applications to Starbursts and Young Elliptical Galaxies?
• Some starburst regions may have clusters with top-heavy or bottom-light IMFs
• Massive elliptical galaxies have slightly flatter IMFs – Pipino & Matteucci 2004; Nagashima et al. 2005
• Clusters of galaxies suggest a history of top-heavy IMFs in elliptical galaxy bursts– Renzini et al. 1993; Loewenstein & Mushotsky 1996; Chiosi
2000; Moretti, Portinari, & Chiosi 2003; Tornatore et al. 2004; Romeo et al. 2004; Portinari et al. 2004; Nagashima et al. 2005
• Low Surface Brightness gal. may have steep IMF (Lee et al. 04)
• Perhaps dense cluster processes form a higher proportion of high-mass stars
![Page 14: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Some SSC appear "top heavy" or
"bottom light" • Sternberg (1998): high L/M : ||<1 or inner cutoff in NGC 1705-1• Smith & Gallagher (2001): M82F: inner cutoff = 2-3 MO for =-
1.3• Alonso-Herrero et al. (2001): high L/M in starburst NGC 1614• McCrady et al. (2003): M82: MGG-11 deficit in low mass stars• Mengel et al. (2003): NGC 4038/9
![Page 15: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Other Super Star Cluster have Normal IMFs
• NGC 1569-A (Ho & Filippenko 1996; Sternberg 1998)
• NGC 6946 (Larsen et al. 2001)• M82: MGG-9 (McGrady et al. 2003)
• Difficult problem: measure v, R (to get M) and measure L
• v varies inside a cluster (not isothermal) – e.g. NGC 6946 (v[r] decreases)
• which R to take is uncertain (cluster is evaporating, non-equilibrium, non-isothermal, multi-component or non-centralized, & core is poorly resolved)
• choice of aperture difficult and field star corrections are necessary
![Page 16: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Are top-heavy SSC out of equilibrium?
• Bastian et al. suggest top heavy IMFs in SSC can be the result of dis-equilibrium.– only young clusters
appear to have top-heavy IMFs
– unbound expansion adds to v and R
– and makes shoulders in (R)
– result: overestimate R, underestimate mass
![Page 17: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Other Variations from Mass Segregation
NGC 3603 has shallower IMF slope in core and steeper IMF slope at edge (Sung & Bessell 04)
Possible high mass drop-off:=-1.9 overall for M>40 MO
![Page 18: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Arches cluster in Galactic Center
Yang et al. ‘02
Stolte et al. 05
![Page 19: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Flat MFs from tidal stripping, not enhanced massive SF
• de Marchi, Pulone, & Paresce 06 show a flat mass function in the galactic cluster NGC 6218.
• At 4 radii, MF slopes are +1.4, 1.3, 0.6, & 0.1 (Salpeter = - -2.3)
• Flat MF also in NGC 6218 (de Marchi et al. ’99) and Pal 5 (Koch et al. ’04), which are expected to have undergone tidal stripping.
• suggest tidal stripping here too.– cluster mass is 1/5 original
• models by Baumgardt confirm
![Page 20: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Luhman et al. ‘00
Briceno et al. 02,Luhman et al. 03,Muench et al. 03
Orion: Lucas et al. 05
Low mass IMFs in clusters: variations too
![Page 21: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Theory of IMF
• Turbulent fragmentation in intersecting shocks
• Protostars form in collapsing cores• Protostars move around and accrete
gas• Protostars also coalesce, or get
ejected from dense clusters• the IMF follows ….
![Page 22: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Bate and Bonnell 05:
SPH, no B, resolves MJ
Two 50 MJ simulations with different MJ
Mean mass of fragments follows MJ
same MJ dependence if Mmin varies -Bate 05
low MJ
3x higher MJ
![Page 23: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Jappsen et al. 05
Variations in the eq. of state:<1 at low n and > 1 at high n
Mean mass depends on transition n
higher transition n lower MJ, more cores
Salpeter IMF results
![Page 24: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Martel et al. 05:
SPH with particle splitting
no B, isothermal
Finds that mean mass depends on resolution(number of levels in splitting hierarchy)
![Page 25: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Tilly and Pudritz 05
ZEUS-MP, 2563, different ratios of Grav/Mag energy.bound cores
preferred model
![Page 26: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Padoan et al. 05
AMR effective 10243 cellsMach = 6, MHD
Forms brown dwarfs byturbulent fragmentation
![Page 27: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Nakamura & Li 05
2D MHD-B diffusion enhanced by turbulence compression-diffusion-regulated collapse in compressed regions-low SF efficiency
(=flux/mass normalized to critical)thick lines= strong outflow
solid, dash: 0=1.2,1
![Page 28: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
What is missing from these models?
• Feedback (erosion of disks and pre-collapse objects)– Li & Nakamura 06 considers wind-driven turbulence in 3D MHD
• Long-term turbulence before SF begins & turbulent environment
• Realistic heating/cooling• Large number statistics for stars that form• SPH: Magnetic forces missing• MHD on single GRID: limited dynamic range• MHD on multi-grid: number of stars low• MHD: physics of detachment of stars from background
B field• ….
It is only a matter of time before simulations make the IMF in a realistic way
![Page 29: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
e.g., Importance of magnetism for clump confinement
• If clump field is critical (or clump formed with constant mass to flux ratio in cloud where the field was critical),
– Bclump ~ G1/2 clump
• Magnetic force/volume in clump – ~ Bclump
2/Rclump ~ Gclump2/Rclump
• Gravitational force/volume in clump – ~ Gcloud
* Mclump/Rclump3 = Gcloudclump/Rclump
• force ratio is FB/FG ~ clump/cloud >>1• clumps do not free fall in the cloud until either
– their field lines are detached or their field diffuses out
![Page 30: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
e.g., Importance of magnetism for clump accretion
• Magnetic force/volume on ambient gas:• ~ Bcloud
2/Rcloud ~ Gcloud2 / Rcloud
• Gravitational force/volume on ambient gas from clump
• ~ (GMclump/Rcloud2) * Mcloud/Rcloud
3
• force ratio FB/FG ~ Mcloud/Mclump >>1 • ambient cloud gas cannot free fall onto
single clump or any cloud core where Mcore/M<1
![Page 31: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
other Magnetic effects
• Communication with surrounding ISM– magnetic fields connect the cloud, cloud
cores, and all pre-detached clumps to the external ISM
– magnetic stresses transfer linear and angular momentum from inside cloud to outside cloud
– source of damping of clump and cloud turbulent motions
– possible source of energy to these motions too• internal feedback and external perturbations
![Page 32: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Reflections
• Simulations make the IMF, but for the right reasons?
• The universality of the real IMF suggests an insensitivity to detailed processes:– inside and outside clusters– starbursts and slow SF galaxies– independent of metallicity, galaxy mass, epoch
(with some exceptions), …
• With similar insensitivity, the simulations would also get the right result even if the physics were oversimplified
![Page 33: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
For example,• Hierarchical fragmention alone gives n(M)dM~M-
2dM– very close to Salpeter, which is ~M-2.35
• What if the modelled IMF came mostly from fragmentation? The IMF would be mostly from geometry
• And the universal processes make it slightly more likely to form intermediate mass stars (MJ)
– i.e., steepens M-2 to M-2.4 for M>0.5 MO
– and flattens M-2 to M-1.5 for M<0.5 MO
• Additional processes act in dense clusters to make an excess of massive stars, or an excess of Brown dwarfs– ablation of LM stars, heightened accretion, coalescence,
multiple star interactions…
![Page 34: The Initial Mass Function in Clusters](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062309/568158f9550346895dc633df/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Conclusions• IMF observations suggest a more or less constant
IMF in many diverse environments– possible variations at high and low mass end (tri-modal
IMF)• coalescence, accretions, ejections, etc.
– possible false variations from unknown SFH’s, M-L relations, field star contamination, small number statistics, etc.
• Theory of gravo-turbulent fragmentation typically gets observed IMF but many uncertainties remain– Magnetic fields, feedback, boundary/initial conditions,
…– yet the diverse models can all get about the right IMF– what do the simulations and reality have in common?
• fragmentation? accretion? enough tunable parameters?
THE END