1: % mn2esample.tex
2: %
3: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
4: %
5: % The mnsample.tex file has been amended to highlight
6: % the proper use of LaTeX2e code with the class file
7: % and using natbib cross-referencing. These changes
8: % do not reflect the original paper by A. V. Raveendran.
9: %
10: % Previous versions of this sample document were
11: % compatible with the LaTeX 2.09 style file mn.sty
12: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
13: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
14: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
15:
16: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
17: \usepackage{psfig, epsf, epsfig}
18: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
19: % remove the useAMS option.
20: %
21: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
22: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
23: % this guide for further information.
24: %
25: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
26: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
27: % preferably \bmath).
28: %
29: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
30: % cross-referencing.
31: %
32: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
33: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
34: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
35: % \usepackage{Times}
36:
37: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
38:
39:
40:
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42:
43: \title[Kinematics of the LMC]{On the Origin of the Kinematical
44: Differences Between the Stellar Halo and the Old Globular Cluster
45: System in the Large Magellanic Cloud}
46: \author[K. Bekki]
47: {Kenji Bekki${}^1$\thanks{E-mail:
48: bekki@phys.unsw.edu.au} \\
49: ${}^1$School of Physics, University of New South Wales,
50: Sydney 2052, NSW, Australia}
51:
52: \begin{document}
53:
54: \date{Accepted, Received 2005 February 20; in original form }
55:
56: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2005}
57:
58: \maketitle
59:
60: \label{firstpage}
61:
62: \begin{abstract}
63:
64:
65: We discuss structural and kinematical properties of
66: the stellar halo and the old globular cluster system (GCS) in
67: the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) based on numerical simulations
68: of the LMC formation.
69: We particularly discuss
70: the observed possible GCS's rotational kinematics
71: ($V/\sigma \sim 2$) that
72: appears to be significantly different from the stellar
73: halo's one with a large velocity dispersion ($\sim 50$ km s$^{-1}$).
74: We consider that both halo field stars and old GCs
75: can originate from low-mass subhalos virialized at high redshifts ($z >6$).
76: We investigate the final dynamical properties of the
77: two old components in the LMC's halo formed from merging
78: of low-mass subhalos with field stars and GCs.
79: We find that the GCS composed of old
80: globular clusters (GCs)
81: formed at high redshifts ($z > 6$)
82: has little rotation ($V/\sigma \sim 0.4$) and structure
83: and kinematics similar to those of the stellar halo.
84: This inconsistency between
85: the simulated GCS's kinematics
86: and the observed one is found to be seen in models with
87: different parameters.
88: This inconsistency therefore
89: implies that if old, metal-poor GCs in the LMC
90: have rotational kinematics,
91: they are highly unlikely to originate from
92: the low-mass subhalos
93: that formed the stellar halo.
94: We thus discuss a scenario in which the stellar halo was formed
95: from low-mass subhalos
96: with no/few GCs whereas the GCS
97: was formed at the very early epoch of the LMC's disk formation via
98: dissipative minor and major merging of gas-rich subhalos and gas infall.
99: We also discuss whether old GCs in the LMC
100: can be slightly younger than the Galactic counterparts.
101: We suggest that there can be a threshold subhalo mass above
102: which GCs can be formed within subhalos at high redshifts
103: and thus that this threshold causes differences in physical
104: properties between stellar halos and GCSs in less luminous galaxies
105: like the LMC.
106:
107:
108: \end{abstract}
109:
110:
111: \begin{keywords}
112: galaxies: star clusters -- globular clusters: general--
113: galaxies: formation
114: \end{keywords}
115:
116: \section{Introduction}
117:
118:
119:
120: Structural, kinematical, chemical properties of the
121: Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) have been investigated
122: by many authors concerning different stellar populations
123: and gaseous components
124: and suggested to have valuable information
125: on formation and evolution history of the LMC
126: (Hartwick \& Cowley 1988; Meatheringham et al. 1988;
127: Irwin 1991; Luks \& Rohlfs 1992; Kunkel et al. 1997;
128: Graff et al. 2000; Olsen \& Salyk 2002;
129: van den Marel et al. 2002; Cioni \& Habing 2003;
130: Staveley-smith et al. 2003; Cole et al. 2005).
131: Previous numerical studies on dynamical and chemical
132: evolution of the LMC compared the results
133: with these observations and thereby tried
134: to provide reasonable physical explanations for the observations
135: (e.g., Bekki et al. 2004; Bekki \& Chiba 2005).
136: Since these studies focused mainly on the origin of disk components
137: of the LMC, the origin of the old stellar halo and the globular
138: cluster system (GCS) composed of old, metal-poor globular clusters
139: (GCs) remains unclear.
140:
141:
142: Recent observations have reported that
143: the stellar halo of the LMC has a projected radial density
144: profile similar to an exponential one (e.g., Alves 2004)
145: and a larger velocity dispersion
146: with possibly little rotation (Minniti et al. 2003; Gratton et al 2004).
147: The dynamically hot nature of the LMC's stellar halo
148: has been confirmed by
149: Borissova et al. (2006), which
150: found that the stellar halo composed
151: of RR Lyrae stars has the mean velocity dispersion
152: of $\sim 50 \pm 2$ km s$^{-1}$ and
153: a Gaussian metallicity distributions function with
154: mean [Fe/H] = $-1.53 \pm 0.02$ dex.
155: Subramaniam (2006)
156: investigated spatial distributions
157: of RR Lyrae stars from the catalogue by Soszynski et al. (2003)
158: and found that the inner stellar halo
159: can have a disky density distribution.
160:
161: \begin{table*}
162: \centering
163: \begin{minipage}{185mm}
164: \caption{Model parameters and a brief summary of the results}
165: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
166: model &
167: {$M_{\rm t}$ ($\times 10^{10} {\rm M}_{\odot}$)
168: \footnote{Initial total masses.}}
169: & {$\lambda$
170: \footnote{Initial spin parameters.}}
171: & {${\delta}_{\rm i}$
172: \footnote{Initial over densities.}}
173: & {${\rm N}_{\rm min}$
174: \footnote{Minimum mass for halo identification.}}
175: & {$z_{\rm trun}$
176: \footnote{The epoch of truncation of GC formation.}}
177: & {${(\frac{V}{\sigma})}_{\rm FS}$
178: \footnote{Final $\frac{V}{\sigma}$ for field stars (FS), where
179: $V$ and ${\sigma}$ are the maximum rotational velocity and
180: the central velocity dispersion, respectively in the simulated LMC halo.
181: The man value averaged for three projections ($x$-$y$, $x$-$z$, and $y$-$z$)
182: is shown.}}
183: & {${(\frac{V}{\sigma})}_{\rm GC}$
184: \footnote{$\frac{V}{\sigma}$ for GCs. }}
185: \\
186: Standard & 6.0 & 0.08 & 0.39 & 32 & 15 & 0.34 & 0.39 \\
187: Low density & 6.0 & 0.08 & 0.19 & 32 & 15 & 0.60 & 0.56 \\
188: High threshold & 6.0 & 0.08 & 0.39 & 1000 & 15 & 0.28 & 0.22 \\
189: Low-z truncation & 6.0 & 0.08 & 0.39 & 32 & 10 & 0.19 & 0.21 \\
190: \end{tabular}
191: \end{minipage}
192: \end{table*}
193:
194:
195: Previous observational studies on the kinematics of the GCS
196: composed of old, metal-poor GCs in the LMC
197: suggested that the GCS has a disky distribution and rotational
198: kinematics with a small velocity dispersion (e.g., Freeman et al. 1983;
199: Kinman et al. 1991; Schommer et al. 1992;
200: Grocholski et al. 2006).
201: It is suggested that
202: it could be difficult to make a robust conclusion
203: on the presence of the rotational kinematics owing to
204: the small number (13) of the GCs (van den Bergh 2004).
205: The total number of old, metal-poor GCs with [Fe/H] $<$ $-1.3$
206: and well determined radial velocities are five in
207: the sample of GCs by Grocholski et al. (2006),
208: which implies that old GCs can have different
209: kinematics from young and intermediate-age GCs with
210: rotational kinematics.
211: The observed possible rotational kinematics
212: with $V/\sigma \sim 2$ (Schommer et al. 1992)
213: however suggests that there is a significant kinematical
214: difference in the stellar halo and the GCS composed
215: of old GCs in the LMC.
216: No theoretical explanations however have been proposed for
217: the origin of this kinematical difference.
218:
219:
220: The purpose of this paper is to investigate
221: the origin of the observed kinematical difference between
222: the stellar halo and the GCS composed of old, metal-poor GCs
223: in the LMC based on numerical simulations of the LMC formation.
224: We here consider that the stellar halo and the GCS are formed
225: from hierarchical merging of subhalos
226: that are virialized before reionization and have
227: both field stars and GCs.
228: We therefore
229: perform numerical simulations for the formation of the LMC
230: based on the cold dark matter (CDM) model
231: and thereby investigate structure and kinematics of the simulated
232: stellar halo and GCS.
233: By comparing the simulated kinematical properties
234: of the stellar halo and the GCS with observations,
235: we try to discuss the relationship between the stellar halo formation
236: and GC one in the early history of the LMC.
237:
238:
239:
240:
241:
242: The plan of the paper is as follows: In the next section,
243: we describe our numerical models for the stellar halo and GC formation
244: of the LMC.
245: In \S 3, we
246: present the numerical results
247: mainly on the kinematics of the simulated halo and GCS
248: for variously different models.
249: In \S 4, we discuss a promising scenario
250: explaining the observe kinematical difference between
251: the old stellar halo and the GCS in the LMC
252: We summarize our conclusions in \S 5.
253:
254:
255:
256:
257:
258:
259:
260: \section{The model}
261:
262: \subsection{GC formation}
263:
264: This paper is the first step toward better understanding
265: structural, kinematical, and chemical properties
266: of the LMC's GCS
267: in a comprehensive way.
268: Therefore we adopt a more idealized model
269: of GC formation in the LMC that is assumed to be
270: formed from hierarchical merging of low-mass subhalos.
271: We adopt a model in which GCs (and field stars) are formed
272: within subhalos virialized at high redshifts ($z>6$).
273: Although the adopted model of GC formation within subhalos at high redshifts
274: has not been confirmed
275: observationally (Brodie \& Strader 2006 for different models of GC formation),
276: recent numerical simulations based on the model
277: have successfully explained some fundamental observations
278: such as radial density profiles of GCSs
279: (e.g., Santos 2003; Bekki 2005).
280:
281:
282: We consider that star formation and thus GC one can proceed
283: at high redshifts only in virialized dark matter halos before
284: reionization.
285: The physical reason for the suppression of star formation by
286: reionization is that ultraviolent background radiation in a reionized
287: universe can significantly reduce the total amount of cold HI gas
288: and molecular one (through photoevaporation/photoionization of the gas)
289: that are observed to be indispensable for active star formation
290: in low-mass galaxies (e.g., Young and Lo 1997). Recent high-resolution
291: simulations on this issue (Susa \& Umemura, 2004)
292: have confirmed that significant suppression of the formation of
293: cold gas can lead to the suppression of star formation in dwarf galaxies
294: embedded in dark matter halos,
295: in particular, lower-mass dwarfs.
296: We here focus exclusively on very old, metal-poor GCs
297: in the LMC, which could have formed at very high redshifts:
298: it is, however, observationally unclear whether the GCs were
299: formed before reionization.
300: Therefore, it is reasonable to adopt the above assumption that
301: GC formation can proceed in dark matter subhalos virialized before
302: reionization.
303:
304:
305:
306: Massive and dense star clusters like GCs are suggested
307: to form in GMCs surrounded by high-pressure interstellar medium (ISM)
308: in galaxies (Elmegreen \& Efremov 1997).
309: We therefore assume that GCs are formed in the very central regions
310: of subhalos, where gaseous pressure should be so high
311: owing to their deep gravitational potentials.
312: During destruction of subhalos with GCs in the hierarchical
313: growth of the LMC,
314: the GCs are stripped and
315: dispersed into the halo to become the halo GCs in the LMC.
316: This formation processes of GCs from low-mass galactic systems
317: was demonstrated by previous numerical simulations
318: (e.g., Bekki \& Freeman 2003; Mizutani et al. 2003; Bekki \& Chiba 2004),
319: which suggests that the adopted assumption is quite reasonable.
320:
321:
322:
323:
324: We perform purely dissipationless simulations on galaxy-scale halo
325: formation via hierarchical merging of subhalos with field stars and GCs.
326: In these dissipationless simulations, we first identify possible
327: formation sites of field stars and GCs in low-mass halos at high $z$
328: and then follow their evolution during hierarchical merging
329: of the halos till $z=0$.
330: The final structural and kinematical properties of the stellar
331: halo and GCS in the simulated LMC are thus determined by
332: the details of merging histories of subhalos with field stars and
333: GCs. We consider that as long as the formation sites of
334: field stars and GCs in low-mass halos are properly modeled,
335: the present dissipationless models allow us to derive
336: physical properties of the stellar halo and the GCS in the LMC
337: in a reasonable way.
338: The present simulations are different from our previous
339: chemodynamical ones (Bekki \& Chiba 2000; 2001)
340: which investigated both dynamical and chemical evolution
341: of forming galaxies in order to reproduce structures, kinematics,
342: and chemical properties {\it for the Galactic field stars}
343: in a self-consistent manner.
344: We consider that it is currently difficult
345: and numerically costly
346: to construct the fully self-consistent chemodynamical models
347: in which formation sites {\it both for field stars and GCs}
348: can be {\it directly} derived for gaseous regions of low-mass halos.
349: Accordingly, the present study is the first step for better modeling
350: star and GC formation in the LMC.
351: Fully self-consistent chemodynamical simulations with
352: reasonable and realistic
353: models for star and GC formation from GMCs will be done
354: in our future works.
355:
356:
357:
358:
359:
360:
361: \subsection{Identification of field star and GC particles
362: in hierarchical galaxy formation}
363:
364: We simulate the formation of galaxy-scale halos
365: in a $\Lambda$CDM Universe with ${\Omega} =0.3$,
366: $\Lambda=0.7$, $H_{0}=70$ km $\rm s^{-1}$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$,
367: and ${\sigma}_{8}=0.9$,
368: and thereby investigate merging/accretion
369: histories of subhalos that can contain low mass dwarfs.
370: The way to set up initial conditions for the numerical simulations
371: is essentially
372: the same as that adopted by Katz \& Gunn (1991) and Steinmetz \& M\"uller
373: (1995).
374: We consider an isolated homogeneous, rigidly rotating sphere, on which
375: small-scale fluctuations according to a CDM power spectrum are superimposed.
376: The initial total mass ($M_{\rm t}$), radius,
377: initial overdensity (${\delta}_{i}$), and spin parameter ($\lambda$)
378: are set to be free parameters.
379:
380:
381: Although we investigate variously different models with
382: $6 \times 10^9 {\rm M}_{\odot} \le M_{\rm t} \le
383: 6.0 \times 10^{11} {\rm M}_{\odot}$,
384: $\lambda = 0.08$, 0.12, and 0.16,
385: and ${\delta}_{i}=0.19$ and 0.39,
386: we mainly show the results of the ``LMC'' models with
387: $M_{\rm t}=6.0\times10^{10} {\rm M}_{\odot}$
388: and $\lambda = 0.08$.
389: The choice of $\lambda = 0.08$
390: are demonstrated to be quite reasonable
391: for late-type disk galaxies
392: in previous CDM simulations
393: (e.g., Katz \& Gunn 1991; Steinmetz \& M\"uller 1995;
394: Bekki \& Chiba 2000, 2001), and accordingly
395: we consider that models with $\lambda = 0.08$
396: are also reasonable for the present simulations
397: for less luminous disk systems like the LMC.
398: ${\delta}_{i}=0.39$
399: is chosen such that the final central velocity dispersions
400: of ``stellar'' components are similar to the observed ones.
401:
402:
403:
404:
405:
406:
407: The low-mass ($M_{\rm t}=6 \times 10^9 {\rm M}_{\odot}$)
408: models show stellar halos with velocity dispersions
409: being significantly lower than the observed one.
410: The high-mass ($M_{\rm t}=6 \times 10^{11} {\rm M}_{\odot}$)
411: models are investigated in order that we can compare the results of
412: the LMC model with those of ``the Galaxy'' one and thereby
413: discuss the differences in dynamical properties between the LMC's
414: GCS and the Galactic GCS.
415: These results will be discussed in a wider context of stellar halo
416: and GCS formation
417: in galaxies with different Hubble types (Bekki \& Chiba 2007, in preparation).
418: The details of parameter values in the simulations
419: including those related to simulation methods
420: (e.g., softening lengths) are described later.
421:
422:
423:
424: We start the collisionless simulation at $z_{\rm start}$ (=30) and follow it
425: till $z_{\rm end}$ (=1) to identify virialized subhalos
426: with the densities larger than $170 {\rho}_{\rm c}(z)$,
427: where ${\rho}_{\rm c}(z)$ is the critical density of the universe,
428: at a redshift $z$.
429: This $170 {\rho}_{\rm c}(z)$ corresponds to the mean mass density
430: of a collapsed and thus gravitationally bound
431: object at $z$ (e.g., Padmanabhan 1993).
432: The minimum number of particles within a virialized subhalo
433: ($N_{\rm min}$) is set to be 32 corresponding to the mass resolution
434: of 3.8 $\times$ $10^{6}$ $M_{\odot}$
435: for the LMC models.
436: This number of 32 is chosen
437: so that we can find a virialized object at a given $z$ in a robust manner.
438: The mass resolution of $1.2 \times 10^{5}$ $M_{\odot}$
439: is chosen such that the masses of GC particles in the simulations
440: can be consistent with the observed
441: typical GC mass ($\sim 10^{5}$ $M_{\odot}$) in the Galaxy.
442:
443:
444:
445:
446: For each individual virialized subhalo
447: with the virialized redshift of $z_{\rm vir}$,
448: we estimate a radius ($r_{\rm b}$) within which 20 \% of the total mass
449: is included, and then the particles within $r_{\rm b}$ are labeled
450: as ``baryonic'' particles. This procedure for defining baryonic particles
451: is based on the assumption that energy dissipation via radiative cooling
452: allows baryon to fall into the deepest potential well of dark-matter halos.
453: Such baryonic particles in a subhalo will be regarded as candidate
454: ``stellar'' particles to form stellar halos
455: and GCSs in the later dynamical stage,
456: if the subhalo is later destroyed and baryonic particles initially within
457: the subhalo is dispersed into the galactic halo region.
458: Thus, the present dissipationless models track the formation of stellar halos
459: and GCSs
460: via hierarchical merging of subhalos, although the models are not adequate
461: to the study of star formation histories in subhalos (as was done
462: in our previous studies, e.g., Bekki \& Chiba 2001).
463:
464:
465: Stellar particles within $r_{\rm b}$ in a subhalo are divided into
466: field star (``FS'') particles and ``GC'' ones accordingly to
467: their locations with respect to the center of the subhalo.
468: The stellar particle in the very center of a subhalo is identified as
469: GC particle whereas stellar particles other than the GC particle
470: within $r_{\rm b}$ are identified as FS ones.
471: The initial distributions of FS particles are thus more diffuse than
472: those of the GC particles in virialized subhalos.
473: Massive, compact star clusters like GCs are suggested to be formed
474: in extraordinary high-pressure regions, such as the centers of low-mass
475: galaxies (e.g., Elmegreen 2004).
476: Unbound or weakly bound star clusters, which
477: can evolve into field stars after their disintegration,
478: can be formed in outer regions of galaxies where gas density
479: and pressure are low (e.g., Elmegreen 2004).
480: We thus consider that the adopted model for the distributions
481: of the two
482: old stellar components is reasonable.
483: The differences in initial positions
484: with respect to the centers
485: of subhalos between FS and GC particles can cause
486: differences in the final distribution with respect
487: to a galaxy-scale halo formed from the subhalos
488: between these particles.
489:
490:
491: In the present model, each subhalo is assumed to have
492: only one GC particle that is located in the center
493: of the halo. One of the main reasons for this is that
494: GCs in the present simulations are considered to be
495: formed in nuclear regions of low-mass halos
496: (i.e., GCs are initially
497: either nuclear star clusters or stellar galactic nuclei)
498: : this assumption
499: is similar to the scenario proposed by Zinnecker et al. (1988).
500: Furthermore, our analytical arguments suggest
501: that low-mass dark halos with the masses
502: of $2 \times 10^8 {\rm M}_{\odot}$, the luminous masses being 10\% of
503: the halos, and specific frequencies of GCs being 5
504: can have one GC. Given that the halos identified as
505: being virialized before reionization at each time step in the simulations
506: mostly have masses less that $2 \times 10^8 {\rm M}_{\odot}$,
507: the above assumption of one GC in a halo can be reasonable.
508:
509:
510: If the initial number of GC particles
511: in each halo is increased, the initial difference
512: in spatial distributions between halo and GC particles
513: becomes less remarkable in the halo: the final
514: differences in structural and kinematical properties
515: between the stellar halo and the GCS in the LMC
516: therefore becomes less remarkable. Thus the adopted
517: models with each subhalo having only one nuclear GC
518: particle is regarded as those showing maximum possible
519: differences in final dynamical properties between
520: the stellar halo and the GCS in the present
521: LMC model.
522:
523:
524: \subsection{Truncation of GC formation}
525:
526: Previous theoretical studies have demonstrated that
527: ultraviolet background radiation in a reionized
528: universe can significantly reduce the total amount of cold HI
529: and molecular gas
530: that are observed to be indispensable for galactic active star formation
531: (e.g., Susa \& Umemura 2004).
532: In order to investigate this suppression effects of star and GC formation
533: on the final structural and kinematics
534: properties of the simulated stellar halos and GCSs,
535: we adopt the following idealized assumption:
536: {\it If a subhalo is virialized after the completion
537: of the reionization ($z_{\rm reion}$),
538: star and GC formation is totally suppressed in such a subhalo.}
539: Then, hypothetical baryonic/stellar particles in the
540: subhalos with $z_{\rm vir}$ $<$ $z_{\rm reion}$ will {\it not} be
541: identified as FS or GC particles in the later stage, but
542: those in the subhalos with $z_{\rm vir}$ $\ge$ $z_{\rm reion}$
543: will be regarded as progenitors of visible stellar halos.
544:
545:
546:
547: Recent WMAP ({\it Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe})
548: observations have shown that plausible $z_{\rm reion}$
549: ranges from 11 to 30 (Spergel et al. 2003; Kogut et al. 2003)
550: whereas quasar absorption line studies give the lower limit
551: of 6.4 for $z_{\rm reion}$ (Fan et al. 2003).
552: Guided by these observations, we investigate the models
553: with $z_{\rm reion}$ = 0 (no reionization), 6, 10, 15, and 20.
554: The adopted picture of single epoch of reionization might well be
555: somewhat oversimplified and less realistic,
556: however, this idealized model can help us to elucidate some essential
557: ingredients of the reionization effects on stellar halo and GC formation.
558: For convenience, the epoch of the truncation of GC formation
559: by reionization is denoted as $z_{\rm trun}$
560: in the following.
561:
562:
563: We show the results of the models with $z_{\rm trun}=10$ and 15,
564: firstly because these models explain
565: structural properties of the Galactic stellar halo and GCS
566: (Bekki 2005; Bekki \& Chiba 2005)
567: and secondly because models with higher $z_{\rm trun}$
568: can also better explain the observed properties of GCSs
569: in early-type galaxies (Bekki et al. 2007).
570: Furthermore, the adopted higher $z_{\rm trun}$ are
571: roughly consistent with
572: the latest observation
573: by WMAP suggesting
574: that the epoch of reionization
575: is $z={10.9}_{-2.3}^{+2.7}$ (Page et al. 2006).
576: The models with $z_{\rm trun} < 10$ are found to yield
577: too many GCs ($>1000$) in the present models so that
578: they can not be consistent with the observed number of
579: old GCs (13) in the LMC.
580: Therefore, we mainly discuss the results of the models
581: with $z_{\rm trun}=15$ in the present study.
582:
583:
584: It should be stressed here that without truncations of
585: GC formation after reionization, the present models produce
586: too many GCs owing to a large number of low-mass halos
587: virialized after reionization so that they can not be
588: consistent with observations. This however does not
589: necessarily mean that the truncation of GC formation
590: by reionization is a crucial in better understanding
591: the origin of the LMC's GCS: later, selective dynamical destruction
592: of low-density GCs originating from low-density halos
593: virialized {\it after reionization} might well
594: dramatically reduce the overproduced GCs in a model
595: with no truncation of GC formation by reionization
596: so that the simulated GC number can be consistent
597: with the observed one even in such a model.
598: Such later destruction of GCs is not modeled at all
599: in the present study.
600:
601: \begin{figure}
602: \psfig{file=f1.eps,width=8.5cm}
603: \caption{
604: Time evolution of spatial distributions
605: of ``FS'' (field star) particles (cyan)
606: and ``GC'' (globular cluster) ones (magenta)
607: projected onto the $x$-$z$ plane in
608: the standard LMC model. For clarity,
609: GC particles are plotted by bigger dots.
610: The redshift ($z$) is given in the upper left
611: corner for each panel.
612: }
613: \label{Figure. 1}
614: \end{figure}
615:
616: \subsection{Main points of analysis}
617:
618: We investigate final structural and kinematical
619: properties of stellar halos and GCs
620: at $z=1$ in models with different model parameters.
621: We note that later accretion of satellites at $z < 1.5$ is minor
622: in the final structures of the simulated halos at $z = 0$, so
623: the calculation is ended at $z_{\rm end} = 1$ to obtain the dynamically
624: relaxed halo structures.
625: We first show the ``standard'' LMC model with
626: $M_{\rm t}=6.0 \times 10^{10} {\rm M}_{\odot}$,
627: ${\delta}_{\rm i}=0.39$, $\lambda =0.08$, and $z_{\rm trun}=15$
628: then discuss parameter dependences of the results.
629:
630:
631: We adopt the initial LMC mass significantly
632: larger than that
633: of $2 \times 10^{10} {\rm M}_{\odot}$
634: used in the latest simulations for
635: the orbital evolution of {\it the present} LMC
636: interacting with the SMC (e.g., Yoshizawa \& Noguchi 2003).
637: The reason for this is that numerical simulations
638: demonstrated that
639: the mass of the LMC can become significantly
640: smaller than its initial mass
641: owing to stripping of dark matter halo and stars
642: by the Galactic tidal field (Bekki \& Chiba 2005):
643: We need to adopt the LMC's mass significantly larger
644: than the present LMC mass.
645: The standard model shows that (1) the final mass
646: within 7.5 kpc is about $2 \times 10^{10} {\rm M}_{\odot}$
647: and (2) the central velocity dispersion of the stellar halo
648: is $50-60$ km s$^{-1}$ depending on projections.
649: Models with smaller initial masses ($\sim 10^{10} {\rm M}_{\odot}$)
650: shows that final velocity dispersions of stellar halos
651: are significantly smaller than
652: the observed one.
653:
654:
655: Although the derived kinematics in the standard model is
656: roughly consistent with
657: observations (e.g., Minniti et al. 2003),
658: we investigate the following three models for comparison:
659: The ``low density'' model with ${\delta}_{\rm i}=0.19$,
660: the ``high threshold'' one with $N_{\rm min}=1000$,
661: and the ``low-z truncation'' one with $z_{\rm trun}=10$.
662: The velocity dispersion of the stellar halo
663: in the low density model ($30-40$ km s$^{-1}$)
664: is significantly smaller than the observed one,
665: because the final single halo has a lower mean density and thus
666: have a smaller mass at $z=1$ within 20 kpc that is more reasonable
667: for the tidal radius in the more massive LMC
668: at $z=1$ than the present tidal radius of
669: 15 kpc (van der Marel et al. 2002).
670: Only subhalos with masses larger than $10^8 {\rm M}_{\odot}$
671: at the epochs of virialization can have FSs and GCs
672: in the high threshold model.
673:
674:
675:
676:
677:
678: By assuming that the projected radial density profiles of GCSs
679: (${\Sigma}_{\rm GC}$) are described as the power-law form;
680: \begin{equation}
681: {\Sigma}_{\rm GC} \propto R^{\alpha},
682: \end{equation}
683: we derive the power-law slope ($\alpha$)
684: for each GCS.
685: The derived power-law slopes can be compared with
686: those of stellar halos with
687: ${\Sigma}_{\rm FS} \propto R^{\alpha}$
688: so that we can discuss the differences in structural properties
689: of these two old stellar components.
690: The maximum velocities ($V_{\rm m}$)
691: and the central velocity dispersion (${\sigma}_{0}$)
692: in the radial dependences of rotational velocities ($V_{\rm rot}$)
693: and velocity dispersions ($\sigma$) are derived to
694: discuss kinematics of the two components.
695: For convenience, $V_{\rm m}/{\sigma}_{0}$ is simply referred
696: to as $V/\sigma$ throughout this paper.
697:
698:
699: We adopt the slit size of 5 kpc (corresponding to
700: the effective radius of the simulated GCS) so that we can estimate
701: the radial profiles of $V_{\rm rot}$ and $\sigma$
702: with reasonably small error bars.
703: Errors in $V_{\rm rot}$ ($\sigma$)
704: are assumed to
705: be equal to $V_{\rm rot}/\sqrt{2(N-1)}$ ($\sigma/\sqrt{2(N-1)}$),
706: where $N$ is the total number of particles for a given radial bin.
707: Errors in $V/\sigma$ are estimated from
708: the total number of particles at the radii where
709: $V_{\rm rot}$ becomes maximum.
710:
711:
712:
713:
714: The total number of GCs are $70-450$ (at $z=1$)
715: in the models with $z_{\rm trun}=15$
716: and thus much larger than the observed number (13) of
717: old GCs in the {\rm present} LMC.
718: McLaughlin (1999) showed that total number of initial GCs
719: in a galaxy
720: can decrease by a factor of 25 within the Hubble time
721: owing to GC destruction by the combination effect of
722: galactic tidal fields and internal GC evolution
723: (e.g., mass loss from massive and evolved stars).
724: Therefore, it is reasonable
725: to say that only several percent of the simulated
726: GCs can survive to be observed as halo GCs in the LMC.
727: We thus consider that the above range of GC number
728: can be reasonable to be compared with observations.
729:
730:
731: Table 1 summarizes the parameter values:
732: Model name (column 1), $M_{\rm t}$ (2),
733: $\lambda$ (4), ${\delta}_{\rm i}$ (3),
734: $N_{\rm min}$ (5),
735: $z_{\rm trun}$ (6),
736: ${(\frac{V}{\sigma})}_{\rm FS}$ (7),
737: and ${(\frac{V}{\sigma})}_{\rm GC}$ (8).
738: Here ${(\frac{V}{\sigma})}_{\rm FS}$
739: (${(\frac{V}{\sigma})}_{\rm GC}$)
740: is the mean
741: $V/\sigma$ for the three projections
742: ($x$-$y$, $x$-$z$, and $y$-$z$) for the stellar halo
743: (GCS).
744: Our previous simulations of disk galaxy formation
745: shows that the final spin vectors
746: of the simulated disks are similar to the initial
747: spin vectors of dark matter halos
748: (Bekki \& Chiba 2001).
749: We thus consider that the $x$-$z$ plane of the simulated LMC
750: corresponds to the disk plane of the LMC
751: in order to discuss the observed kinematics of the stellar halo
752: and the GCS.
753:
754:
755:
756: All the calculations have been carried out on the GRAPE board
757: (Sugimoto et al. 1990).
758: Total number of particles used in our simulations is 508686
759: and the gravitational softening length is
760: 0.18 kpc for the LMC models.
761: The adopted softening length is roughly similar to the initial
762: mean separation of the particles in a simulation.
763: We used the COSMICS (Cosmological Initial Conditions and
764: Microwave Anisotropy Codes), which is a package
765: of fortran programs for generating Gaussian random initial
766: conditions for nonlinear structure formation simulations
767: (Bertschinger 1995).
768: %In order to derive 2D distributions of
769: %$B-$band surface brightness (${\mu}_{\rm B}$) from the simulated
770: %density distributions of stellar halos,
771: %e assume that the stellar mass-to-light-ratio
772: %of 4.0 that is a reasonable value for stars with ages of $\sim 13$ Gyr
773: %and metallicities of [Fe/H] $\sim$ $-1.6$ (Vazdekis et al. 1996).
774:
775: The present study does not intend to investigate destruction of GCs
776: and the resultant formation of field stars in the LMC's halo.
777: The halo field stars originating from low-mass GCs and initially
778: unbound or weakly bound star clusters (SCs) may well have
779: structural and kinematical properties similar to those of the GCS
780: in the LMC, if the probability of GCs (and SCs) being destroyed
781: by the combination effects of the LMC's tidal field and internal
782: GC evolution does not depend on orbits of GCs with respect to
783: the LMC's center. As described later, the simulated halo and GCS
784: in the LMC have similar dynamical properties. Thus, field halo
785: formation via GC destruction would not change the main results
786: of the present models.
787:
788:
789: As described later, the present models do not reproduce
790: self-consistently the observed kinematics of halo field stars
791: and GCs in the LMC. This is in a striking contrast with
792: previous simulations (e.g., Santos 2003; Bekki 2005) in which
793: physical properties of the Galactic GCS can be well reproduced
794: if truncation of GC formation by reionization is properly modeled.
795: This is partly because the previous simulations only tried to explain
796: the Galactic GCS, where remarkable kinematical differences in
797: halo field stars and GCs are not observed (i.e., they did not
798: discuss stellar halos and GCSs in less luminous galaxies like
799: the LMC).
800:
801:
802:
803:
804: \begin{figure}
805: \psfig{file=f2.eps,width=6.5cm}
806: \caption{
807: The final distributions of FS particles
808: (upper) and GC ones (lower)
809: projected onto the $x$-$z$ plane
810: in the standard model at $z=1$.
811: FS and GC particles form the stellar halo and the GCS,
812: respectively, in the present study.
813: The GCS appears to be slightly flattened in comparison
814: with the stellar halo owing to the smaller number of
815: GC particles with $|z|>20$ kpc.
816: The overall distributions are however quite similar with
817: each other in this model.
818: }
819: \label{Figure. 2}
820: \end{figure}
821:
822: \begin{figure}
823: \psfig{file=f3.eps,width=7.5cm}
824: \caption{
825: The final projected radial profiles of FS (thin solid)
826: and GC (thick solid) particles in the standard model.
827: For comparison, the profiles normalized to their
828: central values are shown.
829: Both profiles can be well described as power-law ones
830: with the slopes $\alpha \sim -2.0$ for $R<10$ kpc.
831: }
832: \label{Figure. 3}
833: \end{figure}
834:
835: \begin{figure}
836: \psfig{file=f4.eps,width=7.5cm}
837: \caption{
838: Radial dependences of rotational velocities $V_{\rm rot}$
839: (upper) and velocity dispersions $\sigma$ (lower)
840: for the stellar halo (thin solid) and the GCS (thick solid)
841: projected onto the $x$-$z$ plane
842: in the standard model with the slit size of 5 kpc
843: for the estimation of $V_{\rm rot}$ and $\sigma$
844: in each bin.
845: The projected distance here means the distance along
846: the $x$-axis in the simulation (See Figure 2).
847: The results are shown for $0$ kpc $\le x \le$ 25 kpc
848: in the $V_{\rm rot}$ profile
849: and for all selected particles with $|x| \le 25$ kpc
850: in the $\sigma$ one.
851: $V_{\rm rot}=0$ are plotted with no error bars
852: for bins with no GC particles (e.g., at $x \approx 25$ kpc).
853: Although the error
854: bars are not small,
855: it is clear that both
856: the stellar halo and the GCS show little rotation.
857: }
858: \label{Figure. 4}
859: \end{figure}
860:
861: \begin{figure}
862: \psfig{file=f5.eps,width=7.5cm}
863: \caption{
864: The same as Figure 4 but for
865: the halo and the GCS projected onto the $y$-$z$ plane
866: in the standard model.
867: }
868: \label{Figure. 5}
869: \end{figure}
870:
871:
872:
873: \section{Results}
874:
875: \subsection{The standard model}
876:
877: Figure 1 shows the time evolution of spatial distributions
878: of FSs and GCs from $z=30$ to $z=1$ that are formed
879: within subhalos virialized before $z=z_{\rm trun}$ (=15).
880: 434 small subhalos are virialized before $z=z_{\rm trun}$
881: and have masses less than
882: $3.0 \times 10^7 {\rm M}_{\odot}$
883: at the virialization
884: and grow via hierarchical merging
885: with other subhalos with and without FSs and GCs ($z=8.6$).
886: These smaller subhalos with FSs and GCs
887: merge with one another to form bigger subhalos ($z=5.4$),
888: and finally these bigger halos also merge with one another
889: ($z=3.2$) to form a single halo
890: till $z=1$.
891: FSs and GCs are tidally stripped from the subhalos
892: during this hierarchical merging
893: and consequently dispersed into the halo region
894: to form a stellar halo and a GCS.
895:
896: Figure 2 shows that both the stellar halo (composed of FSs) and
897: the GCS (GCs) have similar spherical distributions
898: in the $x$-$z$ projection,
899: though the GCSs has a smaller number of GCs with $|z|>20$ kpc.
900: There are no significant differences
901: in distributions projected onto the $x$-$y$, $x$-$z$, and $y$-$z$
902: planes between the two components: both components show
903: flattened distributions in the three projections
904: with the major axes aligned with each other.
905: These similarities means that the internal structures
906: between the two components
907: are almost identical.
908: The half-number radius is 5.0 kpc for the stellar halo
909: and 5.3 kpc for the GCS, which suggests that there are
910: no significant differences in dynamical properties between
911: these two components.
912:
913:
914:
915: Figure 3 shows that both the stellar halo and the GCS
916: have radial density profiles that can be approximated
917: by the power-law ones
918: with the slopes of $\alpha \sim -2$ at least for $R<20$ kpc.
919: The apparent lack of flattening in the profile
920: of the stellar halo in the
921: inner part of the simulated LMC ($R<2$ kpc) is
922: inconsistent with the best-fit exponential profile
923: by Alves (2004),
924: which shows flattening (or ``core'') of the profile
925: for $R<1$ degree from the LMC's center.
926: Although this inconsistency between the simulated
927: and the observed halos of the LMC has some profound
928: physical meanings about the formation processes of the
929: stellar halo (Bekki \& Chiba 2007, in preparation),
930: we intend to discuss this not in this paper but
931: in our future papers.
932:
933:
934: Figures 4 and 5 show that there are no remarkable differences
935: in the radial dependences of rotational velocities
936: ($V_{\rm rot}$) and velocity dispersions ($\sigma$)
937: between the stellar halo and the GCS.
938: Both components show overall small $V_{\rm rot}$
939: ($<40$ km s$^{-1}$), radially decreasing $\sigma$ profiles,
940: and small $V/\sigma$ ($<0.6$).
941: The estimated
942: $V/\sigma$ in the $x$-$y$, $x$-$z$, and $y$-$z$ projections
943: are 0.25$\pm 0.18$, 0.57$\pm0.13$, and 0.21$\pm0.01$,
944: respectively, for the stellar halo,
945: and 0.47$\pm0.33$, 0.60$\pm0.10$, and 0.31$\pm0.13$,
946: respectively, for the GCS.
947: The derived small $V/\sigma$ clearly indicates that
948: both components are dynamically supported by
949: velocity dispersion rather than by global rotation.
950: The results shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5 thus show
951: that there are no significant differences in dynamical
952: properties between the two components, though they
953: originate from different parts of subhalos
954: virialized before $z=z_{\rm trun}$.
955:
956:
957: The GCS is formed from
958: subhalos with different masses and epochs of virialization
959: so that the spatial distributions of GCs originating
960: from different subhalos are different with one another.
961: For example, GCs from subhalos with masses more than
962: $ 10^7 {\rm M}_{\odot}$ at their virialization epochs
963: have a half-number radius of 3.5 kpc and thus
964: a more compact spatial distribution in comparison
965: with the GCS composed of all GCs.
966: Such a more compact distribution can be seen
967: in the stellar halo composed only of
968: FSs originating from more massive subhalos.
969: These results imply that stellar components
970: formed in more massive subhalos
971: at high $z$ are more likely to
972: be the inner parts of galaxies at $z=0$.
973:
974:
975: \begin{figure}
976: \psfig{file=f6.eps,width=6.5cm}
977: \caption{
978: The same as Figure 2 but for the low-density LMC model.
979: Note that both the stellar halo and the GCS appear
980: to be flattened.
981: }
982: \label{Figure. 6}
983: \end{figure}
984:
985: \begin{figure}
986: \psfig{file=f7.eps,width=7.5cm}
987: \caption{
988: The same as Figure 4 but for the low-density LMC model.
989: $V_{\rm rot}=0$ ($\sigma =0$) are plotted with no error bars
990: for bins with no GC (or halo) particles (e.g., $x \approx 20$ kpc
991: and $x \approx 25$ kpc in the $V_{\rm rot}$ profile of GCs).
992: }
993: \label{Figure. 7}
994: \end{figure}
995:
996: \begin{figure}
997: \psfig{file=f8.eps,width=7.5cm}
998: \caption{
999: The dependence of the total number of subhalos ($N_{\rm h}$)
1000: with GCs,
1001: $z_{\rm vir}>z_{\rm trun}$, and $M_{\rm h} > M_{\rm th}$
1002: in the standard model with different $M_{\rm th}$
1003: for $z_{\rm trun}=15$.
1004: $M_{\rm h}$ is the mass of a halo when the halo is identified
1005: as a ``virialized system'' in the simulation.
1006: Note that $N_{\rm h}$ is very small
1007: for $M_{\rm th} > 3 \times 10^8 {\rm M}_{\odot}$.
1008: }
1009: \label{Figure. 8}
1010: \end{figure}
1011:
1012: \subsection{Parameter dependences}
1013:
1014: The dependences of
1015: structural and kinematical properties
1016: of stellar halos and GCSs on model parameters
1017: are summarized as follows.
1018:
1019:
1020: (i) low-density model: Figure 6 shows that the final
1021: projected distributions
1022: of the stellar halo and the GCS in the low-density
1023: LMC model with ${\delta}_{0}=0.19$ appears to be
1024: flattened in comparison with the standard model.
1025: We confirm that this flattening can be seen
1026: in the three projections (i.e., $x$-$y$, $x$-$z$, and $y$-$z$)
1027: and thus suggest that the derived flattening is due to the
1028: lower initial density of the LMC in this model.
1029: The power-law slope $\alpha$
1030: in the projected density distribution is $-2.5$ both for the stellar
1031: halo and for the GCS, which means that the radial density profiles
1032: are slightly steeper in this model than in the standard one.
1033:
1034:
1035: (ii) low-density model:
1036: Figure 7 shows that the two components in the low-density
1037: model have a small amount of rotation ($V_{\rm rot}<20$ km s$^{-1}$),
1038: which suggests that the two components are dynamically supported
1039: by velocity dispersion. The mean $V/\sigma$ is 0.60 for the stellar
1040: halo and 0.56 for the GCS, which are slightly higher than
1041: those in the standard model (See table 1). Flattened shapes
1042: and small $V/\sigma$ in this model suggest that the two
1043: components have anisotropic velocity dispersions.
1044:
1045:
1046: (iii) high $N_{\rm min}$ model:
1047: the high threshold model with $N_{\rm min} = 1000$
1048: has more compact distributions of the stellar halo
1049: and the GCS with the half-number radii of the two
1050: equal to 4.5 kpc and 3.4 kpc, respectively.
1051: This is due to the fact that more massive subhalos virialized
1052: before $z_{\rm trun}$ can finally settle in the inner region
1053: of the LMC in this model.
1054: The GCS appears to be more flattened than the stellar halo,
1055: though $V/\sigma$ is not different between the two components.
1056:
1057:
1058: (iv) low-z truncation model:
1059: both the stellar halo and the GCS have
1060: less compact spatial distributions and
1061: shallower radial density profiles with $\alpha \sim -1.5$ for
1062: the central 10 kpc in the low-z truncation model.
1063: Both the stellar halo and the GCS have small $V/\sigma$
1064: (0.19 and 0.21, respectively), which means that the two
1065: components are supported by velocity dispersion
1066: more strongly. A large number of GCs ($\sim 5000$)
1067: is totally inconsistent with observations, even if
1068: later GC destruction by galactic tidal fields are considered.
1069:
1070:
1071: (v) Thus the present models all show very small $V/\sigma$ ($0.2-0.6$)
1072: of GCSs,
1073: which is much smaller than the observed value of $\sim 2$.
1074: Small $V/\sigma$ can be seen in models
1075: with high spin parameters (e.g., $\lambda =0.12$)
1076: and low initial masses ($M_{\rm t}=2.0 \times 10^{10} {\rm M}_{\odot}$)
1077: and thus suggests that the present {\it dissipationless} models
1078: can not reproduce well the observed rotational kinematics
1079: of the LMC's GCS.
1080: The inner flattened halo derived only in the low-density model
1081: can be consistent with the observed one by
1082: Subramaniam (2006)
1083: and thus implies that the LMC could be formed from
1084: a low-density galaxy-scale fluctuation.
1085:
1086:
1087:
1088: \section{Discussions}
1089:
1090: We have shown that (1) there are no significant kinematical
1091: differences in the simulated stellar halos and GCSs
1092: in the LMC models
1093: and (2) $V/\sigma$ of the GCSs can not be as high
1094: as observed ($\sim 2$) in the GCS of the LMC.
1095: These failures to reproduce the observe kinematical differences
1096: between the two old stellar components (i.e., stellar halo
1097: and GCS) in the LMC imply that
1098: the adopted models for the formation of the two components
1099: at high redshifts can lack some important ingredients of GC formation.
1100: These failures can be due to the adopted assumptions
1101: that (i) all subhalos with different masses and
1102: different redshifts of virialization can
1103: have {\it both field stars and GCs}
1104: and (ii) the GCS was formed from {\it dissipationless merging}
1105: of subhalos that had been virialized before reionization
1106: (i.e., $z_{\rm vir} > z_{\rm trun}$)
1107: and thus had GCs (before their merging leading to the formation
1108: of the LMC at later redshifts).
1109:
1110:
1111: Observational studies of GCs for galaxies in the Local
1112: Group of galaxies showed that dwarf galaxies fainter
1113: than $M_{\rm V} = -13$ mag appear to have no GCs
1114: (van den Bergh 2000).
1115: This result means that (i) there could be
1116: a possible threshold galaxy
1117: mass ($10^8 - 10^{9} {\rm M}_{\odot}$)
1118: above which GC formation is possible
1119: and (ii) the present dissipationless models discussed so far
1120: did not
1121: consider this possible threshold mass ($M_{\rm th}$).
1122: We accordingly investigate how the total number of
1123: subhalos that can be virialized before $z_{\rm trun}$
1124: and thus have GCs ($N_{\rm h}$)
1125: depend on $M_{\rm th}$ for the
1126: standard model with $z_{\rm trun}=15$.
1127: Figure 8 shows that (i) $N_{\rm h}$ is smaller
1128: for the models with larger $M_{\rm th}$
1129: and (ii) if
1130: $M_{\rm th} > 3 \times 10^8 {\rm M}_{\odot}$,
1131: almost no subhalos virialized before $z_{\rm trun}=15$
1132: can have GCs. The required $M_{\rm th}$ for no halo formation
1133: with GCs before reionization is higher for lower $z_{\rm trun}$.
1134:
1135:
1136: These results in Figure 8 therefore imply that
1137: if there is a threshold halo mass ($M_{\rm th}$) for GC formation
1138: and if $M_{\rm th} > 3 \times 10^8 {\rm M}_{\odot}$,
1139: the LMC's GCS can not be formed from hierarchical merging
1140: of subhalos with $z_{\rm vir}>z_{\rm trun}$ and with GCs.
1141: As shown in the present studies,
1142: dissipationless merging of subhalos is responsible for
1143: the larger velocity dispersion of old stellar components.
1144: These results in Figure 8 accordingly imply
1145: that the observed small velocity dispersion
1146: of the LMC's GCS is due to
1147: the fact that the LMC's GCS was not formed from
1148: dissipationless merging of low-mass subhalos
1149: with $z_{\rm vir}>z_{\rm trun}$.
1150: Figure 8 thus implies that old, metal-poor GCs in the LMC
1151: were not formed in low-mass subhalos that were the building blocks
1152: of the LMC, because the masses of the subhalos were systematically lower
1153: than $M_{\rm th}$ before reionization.
1154:
1155:
1156: If the LMC's old GCs do not originate from subhalos
1157: virialized at high redshifts, how were they formed ?
1158: Previous numerical simulations showed
1159: that GCs can be formed during dissipative merging
1160: between the Galaxy and gas-rich dwarfs (Bekki \& Chiba 2002).
1161: We accordingly consider that {\it dissipative merging}
1162: of gas-rich subhalos can trigger the formation of GCs
1163: at the very early epoch of the disk formation of the LMC.
1164: Formation of GCs via dissipative merging
1165: of subgalactic clumps (e.g., gas-rich dwarfs)
1166: in the very early epoch of
1167: galactic disk formation results in disky spatial distributions
1168: and rotational kinematics of GCSs (Bekki \& Chiba 2002).
1169: If old, metal-poor GCs in the LMC
1170: are formed by the above dissipative processes,
1171: they should have slightly younger ages than the Galactic counterparts.
1172:
1173:
1174:
1175:
1176:
1177: We thus suggest the following possible scenario
1178: for the origin of the observed kinematical difference
1179: in the stellar halo and the GCS of the LMC:
1180: (1) the stellar halo was formed from merging of
1181: low-mass subhalos with field stars and with no/few GCs
1182: (i.e., GC-less galaxy building blocks)
1183: and thus shows a large velocity dispersion
1184: and a low $V/\sigma$
1185: and (2) the GCS was formed through dissipative
1186: merging of gas-rich subhalos and
1187: gas infall at the very early epoch of the disk formation
1188: and thus shows rotational kinematics.
1189: In the first part (1) of this scenario,
1190: the masses of subhalos virialized
1191: before reionization were well below the
1192: threshold mass ($M_{\rm th}$) for GC formation so that
1193: the halos could not form GCs.
1194: We thus suggest that $M_{\rm th}$ can cause
1195: differences in structural and kinematical properties
1196: between stellar halos and old GCs in less luminous galaxies
1197: like the LMC.
1198:
1199:
1200: Olsen et al. (2004) found that the kinematics of GCSs in
1201: late-type galaxies in the Sculptor group are
1202: consistent with rotational kinematics seen in HI components of these galaxies
1203: and suggested that the GCSs were formed in disks rather than in halos.
1204: Beasley et al. (2006) also found a large $V/\sigma \sim 3$ of
1205: the GCS
1206: in the low-mass dwarf galaxy (VCC 1087) in the Virgo cluster of
1207: galaxies.
1208: These observations imply that the rotational kinematics
1209: seen in the LMC's GCS is not exceptional but can be
1210: found in GCSs of many less luminous galaxies and thus
1211: that the formation processes of GCSs in these galaxies
1212: can be discussed in terms of the
1213: proposed scenario above.
1214: We also suggest that there can be two different formation processes
1215: of old, metal-poor GCs
1216: before and after reionization: one is GC formation
1217: in high-density central regions of subhalos early virialized
1218: before reionization and the other is GC formation
1219: in the very early stage of disk formation.
1220: Future observational studies on the shapes of the stellar halos
1221: in these galaxies with GCSs having rotational kinematics
1222: will enable us to discuss the origin of
1223: the possible differences in structures and kinematics
1224: between the stellar halos and the GCSs for these galaxies
1225: in the context of the proposed scenario.
1226:
1227:
1228:
1229:
1230:
1231:
1232:
1233: \section{Conclusions}
1234:
1235: We numerically investigated structural and kinematical properties of
1236: the stellar halo and the GCS in
1237: the LMC
1238: by assuming that the two old components can be formed
1239: from dissipationless merging of subhalos that
1240: were virialized before reionization and contained both
1241: field stars and GCs.
1242: We particularly discussed
1243: whether or not
1244: the observed GCS's rotational kinematics
1245: ($V/\sigma \sim 2$)
1246: can be reproduced by the present models.
1247: Our simulations
1248: with different model parameters
1249: showed that the GCS composed of metal-poor GCs
1250: formed high redshifts ($z > 6$) before reionization
1251: has little rotation ($V/\sigma \sim 0.4$) and structures
1252: and kinematics similar to those of the stellar halo.
1253: This inconsistency therefore
1254: implies that if old, metal-poor GCs in the LMC
1255: have rotational kinematics,
1256: they are highly unlikely to originate from
1257: the low-mass subhalos
1258: that formed the stellar halo:
1259: the adopted assumption that both the field stars and
1260: the GCs in the LMC were formed within {\it all low-mass subhalos}
1261: virialized before reionization
1262: is highly likely to be wrong.
1263:
1264:
1265: We accordingly considered that there could be a threshold
1266: halo mass ($M_{\rm th}$) above which GCs can be formed
1267: (i.e., below which only field stars can be formed)
1268: and investigated how the number of subhalos
1269: ($N_{\rm h}$) that can be virialized before $z_{\rm trun}$ and have
1270: GCs depends on $M_{\rm th}$ for $z_{\rm trun}=15$.
1271: We found that if $3 \times 10^8 {\rm M}_{\odot} \le M_{\rm th}$,
1272: the present LMC can not contain GCs formed within subhalos
1273: with the redshifts of their virialization ($z_{\rm vir}$)
1274: larger than that of reionization ($z_{\rm trun}$).
1275: We also suggested that
1276: if $z_{\rm trun}$ is lower, the required $M_{\rm th}$
1277: (for no GC formation) needs to be higher.
1278: We therefore concluded that if old, metal-poor GCs in the LMC
1279: have rotational kinematics,
1280: they were not formed in subhalos virialized before reionization.
1281:
1282:
1283: We suggested a possible
1284: scenario in which the stellar halo was formed
1285: from low-mass subhalos virialized before reionization
1286: and having no/few GCs whereas the GCS
1287: was formed at the very early epoch of the disk formation via
1288: dissipative merging of gas-rich subhalos and gas infall well after
1289: reionization.
1290: In this scenario, the origin of the observed possible
1291: rotational kinematics of the LMC's GCS
1292: is closely associated with dissipative gas dynamics
1293: in the disk formation of the LMC.
1294: The LMC's GCs are thus suggested to be slightly younger
1295: than the Galactic counterparts.
1296: It is however unclear how old GCs can be formed
1297: during dissipative formation of the main body of the LMC.
1298: We thus plan to investigate whether the observed
1299: possible global rotation of the GCS
1300: in the LMC can be reproduced by our more sophistical
1301: numerical models with gas dynamics and GC formation.
1302:
1303:
1304:
1305: We also suggested that
1306: the threshold halo mass ($M_{\rm th}$) for GC formation
1307: can cause
1308: significant differences in structural, kinematical,
1309: and chemical properties between stellar halos and GCSs
1310: in less-luminous galaxies like the LMC.
1311: Future observations will extensively investigate
1312: structural and kinematical differences in stellar halos
1313: and GCs
1314: for galaxies beyond the Local Group
1315: and thus confirm the presence or the absence
1316: of the differences.
1317: We plan to investigate dependences of physical properties
1318: of stellar halos and GCSs on physical conditions
1319: of their host galaxies at their formation epochs
1320: (e.g., masses and spin parameters) based on
1321: fully self-consistent chemodynamical simulations.
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325:
1326:
1327:
1328:
1329:
1330:
1331: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1332: We are grateful to the referee for valuable comments,
1333: which contribute to improve the present paper.
1334: KB acknowledges Masashi Chiba for his useful discussions
1335: on the origin of stellar halos in galaxies.
1336: KB acknowledges the financial support of the Australian Research
1337: Council throughout the course of this work.
1338: The numerical simulations reported here were carried out on GRAPE
1339: systems kindly made available by the Astronomical Data Analysis
1340: Center (ADAC) at National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ).
1341:
1342:
1343:
1344: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1345:
1346: \bibitem[]{}
1347: Alves, D. R., 2004, ApJ, 601, L151
1348:
1349:
1350: \bibitem[]{}
1351: Beasley, M. A., Strader, J., Brodie, J. P.,
1352: Cenarro, A. J., Geha, M., 2006, AJ, 131, 814
1353:
1354:
1355: \bibitem[]{}
1356: Bekki K., 2005, ApJ, 626, L93
1357:
1358: \bibitem[]{}
1359: Bekki, K., Chiba, M., 2000, ApJ, 534, L89
1360:
1361: \bibitem[]{}
1362: Bekki, K., Chiba, M., 2001, ApJ, 558, 666
1363:
1364: \bibitem[]{}
1365: Bekki, K., Chiba, M., 2002, ApJ, 566, 245
1366:
1367:
1368: \bibitem[]{}
1369: Bekki, K., Chiba, M., 2004, A\&A, 417, 437
1370:
1371: \bibitem[]{}
1372: Bekki, K., Chiba, M., 2005, MNRAS, 356, 680
1373:
1374: %\bibitem[]{}
1375: %Bekki, K., \& Chiba, M., 2007a, submitted to PASA
1376:
1377: %\bibitem[]{}
1378: %Bekki, K., \& Chiba, M., 2007b, submitted to ApJL
1379:
1380: %\bibitem[]{}
1381: %Bekki, K., \& Chiba, M., 2007c, in preparation
1382:
1383: %\bibitem[]{}
1384: %Bekki, K., Forbes, D. A., Beasley, M. A., \& Couch, W. J.,
1385: %2002, MNRAS, 335, 1176
1386:
1387: %\bibitem[]{}
1388: %Bekki, K., Beasley, M. A., Forbes, D. A. \& Couch, W. J.,
1389: %2004a, ApJ, 602, 730
1390:
1391: \bibitem[]{}
1392: Bekki, K., Couch, W. J., Beasley, M. A., Forbes, D. A.,
1393: Chiba, M., Da Costa, G.,
1394: 2004, 610, L93
1395:
1396: \bibitem[]{}
1397: Bekki, K.; Freeman, K. C., 2003, MNRAS, 346L, 11
1398:
1399: \bibitem[]{}
1400: Bekki, K., Yahagi, H., Forbes, D. A., 2007, MNRAS, 377, 215
1401:
1402: \bibitem[]{}
1403: Bertschinger,~E., 1995, astro-ph/9506070
1404:
1405: \bibitem[]{}
1406: Borissova, J., Minniti, D., Rejkuba, M., Alves, D.,
1407: 2006, A\&A, 460, 459
1408:
1409: \bibitem[]{}
1410: Brodie, J. P., Strader, J., 2006, ARA\&A in press (astro-ph/0602601)
1411:
1412: \bibitem[]{}
1413: Chiba,~M., Beers,~T.~C., 2001, ApJ, 549, 325
1414:
1415: \bibitem[]{}
1416: Cioni, M.-R. L., Habing, H. J. 2003, A\&A, 402, 133
1417:
1418: \bibitem[]{}
1419: Cole, A. A., Smecker-Hane, T. A., Gallagher, J. S., III., 2000, AJ, 120, 1808
1420:
1421:
1422: \bibitem[]{}
1423: Elmegreen, B. G., 2004,
1424: in The Formation and Evolution of Massive Young Star Clusters,
1425: eds.
1426: H.J.G.L.M. Lamers, L.J. Smith, and A. Nota.
1427: i(San Francisco: ASP),
1428: ASP Conf. Ser. 322,
1429: p.277
1430:
1431: \bibitem[]{}
1432: Elmegreen, B. G. Efremov, Y. N.,
1433: 1997, ApJ, 480, 235
1434:
1435: \bibitem[]{}
1436: Fan, X. et al., 2003, AJ, 125, 1649
1437:
1438: \bibitem[]{}
1439: Freeman, K. C., Illingworth, G., Oemler, A., Jr., 1983, ApJ, 272, 488
1440:
1441:
1442: \bibitem[]{}
1443: Graff, D. S., Gould, A. P., Suntzeff, Nicholas B.,
1444: Schommer, R. A., Hardy, E., 2000, ApJ, 540, 211
1445:
1446: \bibitem[]{}
1447: Gratton, R. G., Bragaglia, A., Clementini, G.,
1448: Carretta, E., Di Fabrizio, L., Maio, M., Taribello, E.,
1449: 2004, A\&A, 421, 937
1450:
1451: \bibitem[]{}
1452: Grocholski, A. J., Cole, A. A., Sarajedini, A.,
1453: Geisler, D., Smith, V. V.,
1454: 2006, AJ, 132, 1630
1455:
1456:
1457: \bibitem[]{}
1458: Hartwick, F. D. A., Cowley, A. P., 1988, ApJ, 334, 135
1459:
1460: \bibitem[]{}
1461: Irwin, M. J.,
1462: 1991, in The Magellanic Clouds, IAU148, ed.Raymond Haynes and Douglas
1463: Milne, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p.453
1464:
1465: \bibitem[]{}
1466: Katz,~N., Gunn,~J.~E., 1991, ApJ, 377, 365
1467:
1468: \bibitem[]{}
1469: Kennicutt, Robert C., Jr.,
1470: 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 189
1471:
1472: \bibitem[]{}
1473: Kinman, T. D., Stryker, L. L., Hesser, J. E., Graham, J. A.,
1474: Walker, A. R., Hazen, M. L., Nemec, J. M.,
1475: 1991, PASP, 103, 1279
1476:
1477:
1478: \bibitem[]{}
1479: Kunkel, W. E., Demers, S., Irwin, M. J., Albert, L.,
1480: 1997, ApJ, 488, L129
1481:
1482:
1483: \bibitem[]{}
1484: McLaughlin, D. E., 1999, AJ, 117, 2398
1485:
1486: \bibitem[]{}
1487: Meatheringham, S. J., Dopita, M. A., Ford, H. C., Webster, B. L.,
1488: 1988, ApJ, 327, 651
1489:
1490: \bibitem[]{}
1491: Minniti, D., Borissova, J., Rejkuba, M.,
1492: Alves, D. R., Cook, K. H., Freeman, K. C., 2003, Science, 301, 1508
1493:
1494:
1495: \bibitem[]{}
1496: Mizutani, A., Chiba, M., Sakamoto, T., 2003, ApJ, 589, L89
1497:
1498: \bibitem[]{}
1499: Olsen, K. A. G., 1999, AJ, 117, 2244
1500:
1501: \bibitem[]{}
1502: Olsen, K. A. G., Salyk, C., 2002, AJ, 124, 2045
1503:
1504: \bibitem[]{}
1505: Olsen, K. A. G., Miller, B. W., Suntzeff, N. B., Schommer, R. A.,
1506: Bright, J., 2004, AJ, 127, 2674
1507:
1508: \bibitem[]{}
1509: Padmanabhan T., 1993,
1510: Structure Formation in the Universe. Cambridge Univ. Press
1511:
1512:
1513: \bibitem[]{}
1514: Page, L. et al., 2006, submitted to ApJ (astro-ph/0603450)
1515:
1516: \bibitem[]{}
1517: Santos, M. R., 2003,
1518: in Extragalactic Globular Cluster Systems, Proceedings
1519: of the ESO Workshop, p. 348
1520:
1521: \bibitem[]{}
1522: Schmidt, M., 1959, ApJ, 344, 685
1523:
1524: \bibitem[]{554}
1525: Schommer, R. A., Suntzeff, N. B., Olszewski, E. W., Harris, H. C.,
1526: 1992, AJ, 103, 447
1527:
1528: \bibitem[]{}
1529: Soszynski, I., Udalski, A., Szymanski, M.,
1530: Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski, G., Wozniak, P., Zebrun, K.,
1531: Szewczyk, O., Wyrzykowski, L., 2003, AcA, 53, 93
1532:
1533: \bibitem[]{}
1534: Spergel, D. N. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
1535:
1536: \bibitem[]{}
1537: Staveley-Smith, L., Kim, S.,
1538: Calabretta, M. R., Haynes, R. F., Kesteven, M. J.,
1539: 2003, MNRAS, 339, 87
1540:
1541:
1542: \bibitem[]{}
1543: Steinmetz,~M., \& M\"uller,~E., 1995, MNRAS, 276, 549
1544:
1545: \bibitem[]{}
1546: Subramaniam, A., 2006, A\&A, 449, 101
1547:
1548: \bibitem[]{}
1549: Sugimoto, D., Chikada, Y., Makino, J., Ito, T., Ebisuzaki, T.,
1550: Umemura, M., 1990, Nat, 345, 33
1551:
1552: \bibitem[]{}
1553: Susa, H., Umemura, M., 2004, ApJ, 600, 1
1554:
1555: \bibitem[]{}
1556: van den Bergh, S. 2000,
1557: The Galaxies of the Local Group, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
1558:
1559: \bibitem[]{}
1560: van den Bergh, S., 2004, AJ, 127, 897
1561:
1562:
1563: \bibitem[]{511}
1564: van der Marel, R. P., Cioni, M-R. L., 2001, AJ, 122, 1807
1565:
1566: \bibitem[]{}
1567: van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., Suntzeff, N. B.,
1568: 2002, AJ, 124, 2639
1569:
1570: \bibitem[]{}
1571: Yoshizawa, A., Noguchi, M., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1135
1572:
1573: \bibitem[]{}
1574: Young, L. M., Lo, K. Y., 1997, ApJ, 490, 710
1575:
1576:
1577: \bibitem[]{}
1578: Zinnecker, H., Keable, C. J.,
1579: Dunlop, J. S., Cannon, R. D., Griffiths, W. K.,
1580: 1988, in Grindlay, J. E., Davis Philip A. G., eds, Globular cluster systems in Galaxies,
1581: Dordrecht, Kluwer, p603
1582:
1583:
1584:
1585:
1586: \end{thebibliography}
1587:
1588:
1589:
1590: \end{document}
1591: