1: % draft of May 8
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
5: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
6:
7: %\usepackage{amssymb}
8: %\usepackage{amsmath}
9:
10: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
11: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
12: %% the \begin{document} command.
13:
14:
15: \shorttitle{IMBHs and mass segregation in star clusters}
16: \shortauthors{Gill et al.}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
21: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
22: %% you desire.
23:
24: \title{Intermediate Mass Black Hole Induced Quenching of Mass Segregation in Star Clusters}
25:
26: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
27: %% author and affiliation information.
28: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
29: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
30: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
31: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
32:
33: \author{Michael Gill\altaffilmark{1}, Michele Trenti\altaffilmark{2}, M. Coleman Miller\altaffilmark{1}, Roeland van der Marel\altaffilmark{2}, Douglas Hamilton\altaffilmark{1}, Massimo Stiavelli\altaffilmark{2}}
34:
35: \email{mikegill@astro.umd.edu}
36:
37: \altaffiltext{1}{University of Maryland, Department of Astronomy, College
38: Park, MD 20742-2421 }
39: \altaffiltext{2}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San
40: Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA }
41:
42:
43: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
44: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
45: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
46: %% affiliation.
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49: In many theoretical scenarios it is expected that intermediate-mass black
50: holes (IMBHs, with masses $M\sim 10^{2-4}~M_\odot$) reside at the centers
51: of some globular clusters. However, observational evidence for their
52: existence is limited. Several previous numerical
53: investigations have focused on the impact of an IMBH on the cluster
54: dynamics or brightness profile. Here we instead present results from
55: a large set of direct N-body simulations including single and binary
56: stars. These show that there is a potentially more detectable IMBH signature,
57: namely on
58: the variation of the average stellar mass between the center and the
59: half-light radius. We find that the existence of an IMBH quenches mass
60: segregation and causes the average mass to exhibit only modest radial
61: variation in collisionally relaxed star clusters. This differs from
62: when there is no IMBH. To measure this observationally requires
63: high resolution imaging at the level of that already available from the
64: Hubble Space Telescope (HST) for the cores of a large sample of galactic
65: globular clusters. With a modest
66: additional investment of HST time to acquire fields around the half-light
67: radius, it will be possible to identify the best candidate clusters
68: to harbor an IMBH. This test can be applied only to globulars with a half-light
69: relaxation time $\lesssim 1$~Gyr, which is required to guarantee
70: efficient energy equipartition due to two-body relaxation.
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73: \keywords{stellar dynamics --- globular clusters: general --- methods:
74: n-body simulations}
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77: Theoretical work has suggested that some globular clusters may harbor
78: intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs; $M\sim 10^{2-4}~M_\odot$) in
79: their centers (e.g., \citealt{por02}). If this is indeed the case,
80: there are significant consequences for
81: ultra-luminous X-ray sources, gravitational wave emission from dense
82: star clusters, and the dynamics of globular clusters (GCs) in general
83: (see \citealt{vdm04,mc04} for an overview). Definitive evidence for
84: IMBHs has, however, been elusive. For example, \citet{grh02,
85: grh05} argued for an IMBH in G1 based on the analysis of HST
86: line-of-sight velocity data and Keck spectra, but an alternative analysis
87: by \citet{bau03a} points out that acceptable dynamic models without a
88: large central object also fit the observations. \citet{ger03a,ger03b}
89: argued that the kinematics of M15 seem to slightly favor the presence
90: of an IMBH, but for this cluster alternative interpretations exist
91: \citep{bau03b,dul03}. More recently, the observed line-of-sight
92: kinematics of Omega Cen have also been used to argue for the presence of an IMBH
93: \citep{ngb08}.
94:
95: A more secure identification of an IMBH in a GC can, in principle, be
96: provided by also measuring the proper motion of central stars in order to
97: reconstruct their orbits and thus firmly establish if a central
98: massive point object is present.
99: % (see \citealt{ngb08} for a claim of
100: %such a detection in $\omega$~Cen).
101: Several HST-GO programs based on this
102: idea have been approved in past cycles (e.g. GO10474, PI Drukier;
103: GO10401 \& GO10841 PI Chandar; GTO/ACS10335 PI Ford), but to date they
104: have not yielded any indisputable detections. The limitation for such
105: studies is the need to carry out multi-year observations, thus progress is
106: slow. To maximize the chances of success it is thus of primary
107: importance to focus the observations on the candidates most likely to harbor
108: an IMBH.
109:
110: Candidate selection is possible if one focuses on the indirect
111: influence of the IMBH on the dynamics of its host. Direct N-body
112: simulations by \citet{bau04} and \citet{trentiea07b} found that the
113: presence of an IMBH acts as a central energy source that is able to
114: prevent gravothermal collapse and thus maintain a sizable core to
115: half-mass radius ratio throughout the entire life of the GC. The
116: existence of such a
117: large ($\gtrsim 0.1$) core to half-mass radius ratio in a collisionally
118: relaxed cluster might be due to the presence of an IMBH (see also
119: \citealt{heg07}). However, the picture becomes more complicated when
120: this signature is transferred from the ideal world of N-body
121: simulations, where a complete knowledge of the system is available, to
122: real observations, where essentially only main sequence and red giant
123: branch stars define the light profile of the system. In fact, an
124: analysis by \citet{hur07} cautioned that the difference between mass
125: and light distributions can lead to a large observed core to half-light
126: radius ratio for GCs with single stars and binaries only.
127:
128: Here, we continue the search for indirect IMBH fingerprints by
129: focusing on the consequences of the presence of an IMBH on mass
130: segregation. Through direct N-body simulations we show that the
131: presence of a large (of order 1\% of the total mass), central mass
132: significantly inhibits the process of mass segregation, even among
133: only visible main sequence stars and giants. To the best of our
134: knowledge this effect was first briefly mentioned in \citet{bau04},
135: but left without further quantitative analysis. Quenching of mass
136: segregation is present in all of our simulations with an IMBH,
137: independent of the initial conditions of the cluster, including
138: variations in initial mass function, density profile, strength of the
139: galactic tidal interaction, number of particles and initial binary
140: fraction. We find that a differential measurement of the average mass between the
141: center and the half-light radius is effective in separating star
142: clusters with and without an IMBH, provided that the stellar system is
143: at least 5 initial half-mass relaxation times old. This measure is
144: observationally feasible with current data (for example, see
145: \citealt{dem07} and references therein), and can lead to the selection
146: of a promising set of IMBH host candidates. A direct observational
147: application of this approach is left to a companion paper. Here, we focus
148: instead on building the theoretical framework for such analysis.
149: In \S~2 we describe our numerical simulations, in \S~3 we discuss our
150: results, and in \S~4 we present our conclusions.
151:
152: \section{Numerical Simulations}\label{sec:ns}
153:
154: The numerical simulations presented in this paper have been carried
155: out with a state-of-the-art direct N-body code for star cluster
156: dynamics, NBODY6 \citep{aar03}. NBODY6 has
157: been modified as discussed in \citet{trentiea07b} to improve accuracy
158: in the presence of an IMBH, and
159: uses regularization of close gravitational encounters without any
160: softening. This makes it optimal to follow interactions
161: within the sphere of influence of the IMBH.
162:
163: \subsection{Units and timescales}
164:
165: NBODY6 uses the standard system of units of
166: \citet{hm86} in which $G=M=-4E_T=1$, where G is the gravitational
167: constant, M is the total mass and $E_T$ is the total energy of the
168: system. In this system of units, the half-mass relaxation time, which
169: is the relevant timescale for mass segregation and energy
170: equipartition is defined as follows \citep{spi87}:
171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172: \begin{equation}
173: t_{rh} = \frac{0.138 N r_h^{3/2}}{\ln{(0.11 N)}},
174: \end{equation}
175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
176: where $N$ is the number of stars in the system and $r_h$ is the
177: half-mass radius. In physical units $t_{rh}$ can be expressed as
178: \citep{djo93}:
179: %%%%%%%%%%
180: \begin{equation}
181: t_{rh} = \frac{8.9 \cdot 10^5 yr}{\ln(0.11N)} \times \left (
182: \frac{1 M_{\sun}}{\langle m_*\rangle} \right )\times \left( \frac{M}{ 1 M_{\sun}} \right )^{0.5} \times
183: \left( \frac{r_h}{ 1 pc} \right )^{1.5},
184: \end{equation}
185: %%%%%%%%%%
186: where $\langle m_* \rangle $ is the average mass of a star.
187:
188: \subsection{Initial conditions}
189:
190: Galactic GCs are made of some of the oldest stars in
191: our galaxy \citep[e.g., see ][]{krau03} and are collisionally relaxed systems.
192: Their two-body half-mass relaxation times $t_{rh}$ are shorter than
193: their age \citep[e.g., see][]{heg03}, thus their initial conditions are
194: largely unknown. However, the evolution on a relaxation timescale is
195: only weakly dependent on the initial configuration as the system
196: evolves toward a self-similar configuration where the density and
197: light profiles are determined primarily by the efficiency of kinetic
198: energy production in the core due to gravitational encounters
199: \citep{ves94,trentiea07a,trentiea07b}. In this paper, we explore a
200: number of different initial configurations, varying the initial mass
201: function, the initial density profile, the strength of the galactic
202: tidal field, and the fraction of primordial binaries to verify that the
203: evolution of the system is indeed independent of the initial configuration.
204: The initial density profile is always that of a single-mass
205: \citet{kin66} model, but we use a full mass spectrum in the N-body
206: calculations. The number of particles is varied
207: from $N=8192$ to $N=32768$ to quantify the
208: evolution of mass segregation with and without an IMBH. The details of
209: our runs are reported in Table~\ref{tab:sim}.
210:
211: Initial stellar masses were drawn from either a \citet{sal55} or
212: \citet{ms79} initial mass function (IMF, hereafter), that is:
213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
214: \begin{equation}
215: \xi(m) \propto m^{\alpha},
216: \end{equation}
217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
218: with $\alpha=-2.35$ and $m \in [0.2:100] M_{\sun}$ for the Salpeter
219: IMF, while for the Miller \& Scalo IMF the power law slope is the
220: following: $\alpha = -1.25$ for $m \in [0.2:1] M_{\sun}$, $\alpha =
221: -2.0$ for $m \in [1:2] M_{\sun}$, $\alpha = -2.3$ for $m \in [2:10]
222: M_{\sun}$, $\alpha = -3.3$ for $m \in [10:100] M_{\sun}$. In addition,
223: we have also carried out control runs that extend the IMF down to $0.1
224: M_{\sun}$, as such stars exist in GCs, but are not bright enough
225: to be detected in most of the cluster.
226:
227: We handled stellar evolution by assuming a turnoff mass $M_{T.O.} =
228: 0.8 M_{\sun}$, and instantaneously reducing all stars to their final
229: state at the beginning of the simulation. Stars with masses $0.8
230: M_{\odot} \leq m < 8.0 M_{\odot}$ were assumed to become white dwarfs
231: and reduced to a final mass as prescribed in \citet{hur00}. Stars in
232: the ranges 8.0-25.0$M_{\odot}$ and 25.0-100.0$M_{\odot}$ became
233: neutron stars (unity retention fraction assumed) and black holes,
234: and were reduced linearly to 1.3-2.0$M_{\odot}$ and 5-10$M_{\odot}$,
235: respectively. Our model makes the approximation that most of the
236: relevant stellar evolution occurs on a timescale shorter than a
237: relaxation time. This choice is appropriate to model the dynamics
238: of an old GC on a relaxation timescale with only a limited number
239: of particles and is more realistic than using an unevolved mass
240: spectrum appropriate for young star clusters when $N \lesssim
241: 30000$ \citep{tre08}.
242:
243: In addition, about half of our runs included primordial binaries, an
244: important component of many GCs (e.g., see
245: \citealt{pul03}) that can influence the evolution of mass
246: segregation. In fact, binaries are on average twice as massive as
247: singles and thus tend to segregate in the core of the system
248: (e.g., see \citealt{htt06}). We define the fraction of binaries to be
249: \begin{equation}
250: f_b = n_b / (n_s + n_b)
251: \end{equation}
252: where $n_s$ and $n_b$ are the initial number of single stars and binaries,
253: respectively. Thus, a run with $N = n_s + n_b = 8192$ and $f_b
254: = 0.1$ actually has $8192 + 819 = 9011$ objects. As the dynamical
255: influence of binaries tends to saturate for $f_b \approx 0.1$
256: \citep{ves94,htt06}, all our runs with primordial binaries have
257: $f_b=0.1$, a number similar to the observed binary fraction of many
258: old GCs (e.g., \citealt{alb01}). Binaries were initialized as in \citet{htt06},
259: i.e. from a flat distribution in binding energy from
260: $\epsilon_{min}$ to $133 \epsilon_{min}$, with $\epsilon_{min} =
261: \langle m_* \rangle \sigma_c(0)$. Here, $\sigma_c(0)$ is the initial
262: central velocity dispersion of the cluster.
263:
264: To half of the simulations, we added an IMBH with mass $M_{IMBH}\approx 0.01$ ($\approx 1
265: \%$ of the entire cluster), the same ratio as a
266: $\sim10^3M_{\odot}$ black hole would have to a GC of
267: mass $10^5M_{\odot}$. In some of the simulations (see
268: Tab.~\ref{tab:sim}), we increased the mass of the IMBH to study the
269: dependence of mass segregation on this parameter.
270:
271: All objects in our runs were treated as point masses, thus neglecting
272: stellar evolution and collisions as well as any growth of the IMBH due to accretion
273: of tidally disrupted stars. These effects have only a minor influence
274: on the late-time dynamics of the cluster, since actual collisions are
275: rare after massive stars have evolved, and accretion onto the IMBH is
276: minimal (e.g. see \citealt{bau04}).
277:
278: The evolution of the clusters includes the tidal force from the parent
279: galaxy, assuming circular orbits with radii such that the tidal cut-off
280: radius is self-consistent with the value of the King parameter $W_0$
281: used. The galactic tidal field is treated as that due to a point mass,
282: and the tidal force acting on each particle is computed using a linear
283: approximation of the field. Particles that become unbound are removed
284: from the system. For full details of the tidal field treatment see
285: \citet{trentiea07a}.
286:
287: For validation purposes, we also analyzed a few snapshots from three
288: runs with $N=131072$ carried out by \citet{baumak03} and by
289: \citet{bau04} with and without a central IMBH, kindly made available
290: by the authors. These runs include full
291: stellar evolution using the \citet{hur00} tracks, but no primordial
292: binaries. In addition, accretion of tidally disrupted stars onto the IMBH
293: is included. The initial star positions and velocities from these runs
294: were also drawn from a King model with $W_0 = 7.0$, but instead
295: the mass spectrum was drawn from a \citet{krou01} IMF, with
296: $\alpha=-1.3$ for $m \in [0.1:0.5] M_{\sun}$ and $\alpha=-2.3$ for
297: $m>0.5M_{\sun}$. The upper cut-off mass was $15 M_{\odot}$ for run
298: 128kk.1, $30 M_{\odot}$ for run 128kkbh.1a, and $100 M_{\odot}$ for run
299: 128kkbh.1b. These snapshots provide us with a control group
300: against which we can test the validity of our own models, and also allow us
301: to probe the extrapolation of our results to higher N.
302:
303: \section{Results}\label{sec:results}
304:
305: \subsection{Overall evolution of the star clusters}
306:
307: A star cluster with single stars only and no central IMBH evolves
308: toward core collapse within a few relaxation times. The collapse is
309: eventually halted when the central density is high enough to
310: dynamically form binaries. At this stage gravothermal oscillations set
311: in and the density profile of the cluster remains self-similar until
312: the final stages of tidal dissolution of the system. The existence of
313: either primordial binaries or an IMBH serves as an energy source to
314: counteract the collapse, resulting in a more significant core
315: \citep{trentiea07b}. This is confirmed in all models (for example, see
316: Fig.~\ref{fig:core} for the evolution of the core and half mass radius
317: in our 32k simulations). Here, we use the \citet{ch85} definition of the core
318: radius, namely
319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
320: \begin{equation}
321: r_c = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}r_i \rho_i m_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\rho_i m_i},
322: \end{equation}
323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
324: where $m_i$ is the mass of the \emph{i}th star, $r_i$ is its from the
325: cluster center of mass, and the density $\rho_i$ around each particle
326: is calculated using the distance to the fifth closest neighbor.
327:
328: As expected from previous investigations
329: based on equal mass particles \citep{trentiea07a}, the density profile
330: of our clusters progresses to a self-similar configuration, which is
331: independent of the initial configuration of the stars and the
332: IMF. This independence justifies our treatment of stellar evolution at
333: the beginning of the simulations, and provides further evidence of the
334: erasure of initial conditions after a few relaxation times. The
335: overall evolution of star clusters with and without an IMBH and/or
336: primordial binaries has been discussed in the literature
337: \citep{baumak03,bau04,htt06,trentiea07a,trentiea07b,fre07,hur07}. Here
338: we focus instead on a novel aspect that has a promising observational
339: signature, namely the evolution of mass segregation for runs with an
340: IMBH.
341:
342: \subsection{Mass segregation}
343:
344: As our overarching goal is to propose a viable observational test to
345: identify a star cluster that is likely to harbor an IMBH, we took
346: steps throughout our analysis to replicate observational data as closely
347: as possible. We limited our analysis to data projected onto two
348: dimensions, and excluded stellar remnants from our calculations of
349: observationally accessible quantities. Most of our runs did not have stars
350: with masses below $0.2 M_{\odot}$, because these are generally too dim to
351: detect with a high completeness. However, we did perform two
352: 16k control runs with masses down to $0.1 M_{\odot}$ to ensure that the
353: presence of smaller, undetectable stars did not affect the mass segregation.
354: For a proper comparison to the other runs,
355: we did exclude the stars with masses
356: between $0.1$ and $0.2 M_{\odot}$ from the calculation of the
357: observationally accessible quantities for these runs.
358:
359: Binary systems were handled by only including the brighter member in the
360: analysis of the observationally accessible quantities.
361: This choice is motivated by the fact that for real observations,
362: masses will need to be estimated from luminosities. Since binaries in
363: GCs are typically not resolved (the separations are below a few astronomical
364: units for the range of binding energies considered),
365: we observe mainly single sources.
366: Because the luminosity of a main sequence star is highly sensitive to
367: its mass ($L \sim M^{3.5}$), the lighter star contributes very little
368: to the overall luminosity in many cases, and thus the total luminosity
369: will be very similar to that of the brighter member.
370:
371: To quantify the effects of mass segregation, we examined the radial
372: variations in average stellar mass --- or equivalently --- in the slope of
373: the mass function (if the mass function is a power law in the mass
374: range considered, then there is a one-to-one relation between the average
375: mass and the slope). As a consequence of energy equipartition, heavier
376: particles sink to the center of the cluster within a few relaxation
377: times, increasing the difference in average mass between the center
378: and the halo of the cluster. As our main diagnostic of mass
379: segregation, we define
380: \begin{equation}
381: \Delta \langle {m} \rangle = \langle m \rangle \ (r = 0) - \langle m \rangle (r = r_{hm})
382: \end{equation}
383: where $r_{hm}$ is the projected half-mass radius of the cluster
384: (computed using only visible stars), and $\langle m \rangle$ is the
385: average mass for main sequence stars with $m \in [0.2:0.8]M_{\sun}$.
386: Both of these measurements are taken from projected radial bins each
387: containing 5\% of the cluster's visible stars. Because nearly all of
388: the deviation in $\langle m \rangle(r)$ occurs within this radial range, we
389: are maximizing our baseline for measuring mass segregation while using
390: fields with a reasonable number of stars. This definition also allows
391: for a straightforward comparison to observational data as only two
392: fields per cluster are sufficient.
393:
394: Fig.~\ref{fig:16k} depicts the evolution of $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ for
395: our $N=16384$ to $N=32768$ runs without primordial binaries. For each
396: run, we analyze the configuration of the system every $15$ Nbody units
397: (which corresponds to more than 10 measurements per relaxation time).
398: Runs with an IMBH are represented as red points, while runs without
399: are blue points. Because they were drawn from single-mass King
400: models, our clusters begin out of equilibrium. On a relaxation
401: timescale, we see them evolve towards a new quasi-equilibrium state.
402: After $\sim 5 t_{rh}(0)$, most clusters have settled into this equilibrium, with
403: those harboring an IMBH showing a smaller amount of
404: mass segregation, i.e. smaller values of $\Delta\langle m \rangle $. The
405: points from the control snapshots 128kk.1, 128kkbh.1a and 128kkbh.1b, as well as the
406: two 16k control runs (16ks.1 and 16ksbh.1) are also
407: plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:16k}, and are in good agreement with those from our models.
408: The data in Fig.~\ref{fig:16k} come from a variety
409: of initial configurations, not only in terms of the particle number
410: but also in terms of initial mass function. The use of a differential
411: indicator for mass segregation allows us to cancel out the dependence
412: on the global value of $\langle m \rangle$ (or on the global mass function
413: slope).
414:
415: Simulations with a Salpeter IMF (16ks, 16ksbh) contain many more
416: massive remnants than the number allowed by a Miller \& Scalo IMF
417: (16km, 16kmbh, 32km, 32kmbh). For example, a 16k simulation with a Salpeter IMF
418: and $m \in [0.2:100]M_{\odot}$ initially contains $\sim20$ stellar mass black holes, whereas a Miller \&
419: Scalo IMF will only have $\sim1$. This difference causes us to
420: observe a slower growth of $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ in the Salpeter IMF
421: runs, as a central cluster of stellar mass black holes partially
422: quenches mass segregation of visible stars, much like an
423: IMBH. However, stellar mass black holes eject each other from the
424: system within a few relaxation times \citep[see also][]{mer04}, so
425: eventually these systems fully develop the amount of mass segregation
426: observed in runs starting from a Miller \& Scalo IMF.
427:
428: The control runs also reflect this trend. The 128k run without an IMBH (128kk.1) has a maximum
429: allowed IMF mass of $15 M_{\odot}$, meaning there are essentially no
430: massive remnants. After 5 relaxation times, it is in good agreement
431: with our simulations drawn from a Miller \& Scalo IMF, which also
432: produces very few massive remnants. The runs with an IMBH (128kkbh.1a and 128kkbh.1b), which have
433: maximum initial masses of $30 M_{\odot}$, and $100 M_{\odot}$, respectively,
434: are both consistent with our other runs with an IMBH. However,
435: 128kkbh.1a's lower maximum mass results in fewer massive remnants, and
436: thus a value for $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ closer to 16kmbh, which also
437: contains few stellar mass black holes. 128kkbh.1b has more massive
438: remnants and behaves similarly to 16ksbh, as we would expect. Finally, we see that
439: our 16k control runs with a lower IMF cut-off at $0.1 M_{\odot}$
440: fall somewhere between the Miller \& Scalo runs and the
441: Salpeter runs as far as mass segregation is concerned. Although we draw
442: from a Salpeter IMF in the control runs, the lower minimum IMF mass
443: in these simulations results in fewer massive remnants than the other Salpeter
444: runs ($\sim8$ stellar mass black holes instead of $\sim20$), but more than a Miller \& Scalo
445: IMF would produce. We also note the increased
446: scatter in these two runs as a result of excluding the large number of main sequence
447: stars with masses $0.1 M_{\odot} < m < 0.2 M_{\odot}$
448: in the calculation of the observationally accessible quantities.
449:
450: The situation is very similar when primordial binaries are included (see
451: Fig.~\ref{fig:16kbin}): runs with and without an IMBH again become well
452: separated after $\sim 5 t_{rh}(0)$. As expected, primordial binaries
453: carry lighter particles toward the center of the cluster (e.g., a
454: $0.6+0.2 M_{\odot}$ binary will sink to the center like a
455: $0.8 M_{\odot}$ single star, but will be observed as a single unresolved
456: source with the approximate luminosity of a $0.6 M_{\odot}$ star).
457: Hence, mass segregation is partially suppressed when compared to the runs
458: where $f_b = 0$. This difference in $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ is more
459: significant in the runs with a Miller \& Scalo IMF as compared to runs
460: with a Salpeter IMF. Because the runs drawn from a Miller \& Scalo IMF
461: lack massive remnants, binary stars become more gravitationally
462: dominant, and therefore have a more significant impact on the
463: dynamics. Fortunately, the binary-driven quenching of mass
464: segregation is weak when compared to IMBH-driven quenching and
465: thus it is possible to discriminate between systems with and without
466: an IMBH on the basis of $\Delta\langle m \rangle $, without the need of
467: assuming a binary fraction.
468:
469: Combining the data from all our simulations with and without binaries,
470: we can identify three regions for the value of $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ in
471: a collisionally relaxed GC, irrespective of its binary
472: fraction:
473: \begin{itemize}
474: \item $\Delta\langle m \rangle \gtrsim0.1 M_{\sun}$. The system is unlikely to contain a central IMBH.
475: \item $\Delta\langle m \rangle \lesssim0.07 M_{\sun}$. The system is a good candidate to
476: harbor an IMBH.
477: \item $0.07 M_{\sun} \lesssim \Delta\langle m \rangle \lesssim 0.1 M_{\sun}$. The system may or may
478: not contain an IMBH, depending on its binary fraction and on the
479: global IMF (and in particular on the number of massive dark remnants).
480: \end{itemize}
481:
482: In addition, an estimate of the binary fraction based on the presence
483: of a parallel main sequence in the color-magnitude diagram is possible
484: for many observed clusters \citep{mil08}. Application of the mass
485: segregation diagnostic therefore can account for the actual number of
486: binaries, resulting in a further reduction in the size of the region
487: of uncertainty.
488:
489: Including the set of runs with $N=8192$, not shown in the plots but
490: whose $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ is reported in Tab.~\ref{tab:sim}, we see
491: no trends in $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ caused by an increase in the number
492: of objects in a cluster up to $N=32768$. In
493: addition, the $N=131072$ control snapshots are consistent with
494: our results, strengthening the independence in the evolution of
495: $\Delta\langle m \rangle $. An increase in the number of
496: particles reduces the deviation from snapshot to snapshot.
497: This actually improves the application of this indicator to actual GCs,
498: where the number of stars is significantly larger than in our runs.
499: Similarly, we see no significant trends in $\Delta \langle m \rangle$
500: caused by increasing the IMBH mass up to $M_{IMBH} = 0.03$, that is 3\%
501: of the entire cluster (see Tab.~\ref{tab:sim}). This suggests that
502: reducing $M_{IMBH}$ below $0.01$ would still result in a
503: quenching of mass segregation.
504:
505:
506: \subsection{The origin of IMBH-induced quenching of mass segregation}
507:
508: The onset of mass segregation along with the initial contraction of
509: the cluster brings the most massive stars and remnants into a dense environment.
510: Even in clusters with only single stars, the dynamical formation of binaries
511: is inevitable. Because $M_{IMBH}$ is much larger than the
512: typical stellar mass, the IMBH has an
513: extremely high probability of exchanging into a binary in a close 3-body encounter.
514: It therefore
515: spends much of its lifetime in a binary or stable higher-N system (in more than 90\% of our snapshots the IMBH is a member of a multiple system).
516: As a result, when massive main sequence stars in our simulations sink to the core
517: after energy exchanges with other stars, they are efficiently ``heated
518: up'' and scattered away from the core in encounters with the IMBH and any companions it has.
519: The IMBH stochastically moves around the core as a result of
520: these encounters and this further enhances the interaction rate
521: because the scatter cone is continuously replenished. This mechanism
522: for quenching mass segregation naturally explains the lack of
523: dependence of $\Delta \langle m \rangle $ on the number of particles used
524: and the minimal dependence on $M_{IMBH}$, as well as suggesting an additional
525: explanation as to why the presence of primordial binaries further reduces
526: mass segregation.
527:
528: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
529:
530: We have carried out a large set of direct N-body
531: simulations of star clusters with and without an IMBH including a
532: realistic mass spectrum and primordial binaries. While previous
533: research has focused its attention mainly on the effects of an IMBH on
534: the surface brightness and velocity dispersion profiles of the
535: clusters --- signatures that are difficult to observe --- we searched
536: instead for a different fingerprint of the
537: presence of an IMBH. The existence of a massive, central object
538: quenches mass segregation and this effect manifests itself in
539: collisionally relaxed clusters through decreased radial variation in
540: the average mass of main sequence stars. This effect does not depend
541: on the mass of the black hole as long as it is dominant over the
542: typical mass of a star, nor on the details of the initial
543: configuration of the system such as initial mass function, density
544: profile and tidal field strength. The amount of mass segregation is
545: only weakly dependent on the binary fraction of the cluster. This
546: result allows us to use the amount of mass segregation to
547: separate collisionally relaxed clusters with and without an IMBH
548: without the need of additional modeling assumptions.
549:
550: A critical requirement for the proposed signature is that the system
551: be well-relaxed, so
552: that it has already attained equilibrium with respect to mass
553: segregation. From our simulations it turns out that this takes about
554: $5 t_{rh}(0)$. However we can only observe the current half-mass
555: relaxation time and this might be shorter than its initial value if
556: the system has lost a large fraction of its original mass. To compare
557: our simulations to observations, we must thus conservatively restrict
558: ourselves to GCs that:
559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
560: \begin{enumerate}
561:
562: \item Are not too influenced by the galactic tidal field (that is, with
563: a tidal to half-light radius $r_t/r_{hl} \gtrsim 10$, which corresponds
564: to tidal fields weaker than the weakest field in our simulations).
565:
566: \item Have half-mass (3D) relaxation times below $\approx 1.5$~Gyr,
567: i.e. an age above $8 t_{rh}$. This leaves room for a mass loss of
568: about $50\%$ of the initial mass while still giving an integrated age of
569: about $5 t_{rh}$. In terms of observable quantities this translates into
570: a half-light relaxation time below $\approx 1$~Gyr.
571:
572: \end{enumerate}
573: Based on the \citet{har96} catalog, 31 galactic GCs
574: satisfy these stringent requirements in terms of relaxation time and
575: $r_t/r_{hl}$. The proposed diagnostic could probably be applied to more
576: clusters after properly evaluating a dynamical model for their
577: configuration and eventually accepting some uncertainty in the
578: selection of likely candidates to harbor an IMBH.
579:
580: Thanks to the HST treasury survey of galactic GCs, data exist for the
581: cores of many clusters that explore deep enough to see main sequence
582: stars down to around $0.2 M_{\odot}$. Along the same lines,
583: \citet{dem07}, among others, have also acquired images of clusters
584: around the half-light radius, in order to calculate the global
585: mass function of the system. The existing data from \citet{dem07} are
586: sufficient to apply this diagnostic to a few actual clusters and the
587: results from such a comparison will be presented in a companion paper.
588:
589: In closing, we stress again that while the amount of mass segregation
590: has been proven here to be a viable indicator for the presence of an
591: IMBH in simulated star clusters, we cannot use this method alone to
592: claim the detection of an IMBH. However, by combining the measure of
593: mass segregation with all other constraints from the velocity
594: dispersion and surface brightness profiles, we can select the clusters
595: that seem most likely to harbor an IMBH, while at the same time
596: excluding some others from further scrutiny. Once we have identified
597: those clusters that are most promising, future observations, such as
598: proper motion studies, can focus their efforts to secure a robust
599: detection.
600:
601: \acknowledgements
602:
603: We thank Enrico Vesperini for useful discussions
604: and suggestions, Holger Baumgardt for sharing some of his data with
605: us and the referee for a careful reading of the manuscript and for
606: constructive suggestions. This work was partially supported by NASA
607: grant HST-AR11284.
608:
609: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
610: \begin{thebibliography}{37}
611: \bibitem[Aarseth(2003)]{aar03} Aarseth, S. 2003, Gravitational N-Body Simulations. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
612: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(2001)]{alb01} Albrow, M.~D., Gilliland,
613: R.~L., Brown, T.~M., Edmonds, P.~D., Guhathakurta,
614: P., \& Sarajedini, A. 2001, \apj, 559, 1060
615: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Wolf(1976)]{bah76} {Bahcall, J.~N., \& Wolf, R.~A.} 1976, \apj, 209, 214
616: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2003a)]{bau03a} Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., McMillan, S., \&
617: Portegies Zwart, S. 2003, \apjl, 582, L21
618: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2003b)]{bau03b} Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., Hut, P., McMillan, S., \&
619: Portegies Zwart, S. 2003, \apjl, 589, L25
620: \bibitem[Baumgardt and Makino (2003)]{baumak03} Baumgardt, H., \& Makino, J. 2003, \mnras, 340, 227
621: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2004)]{bau04} Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., \& Ebisuzaki, T. 2004, \apj, 613, 1143
622: \bibitem[Casertano \& Hut(1985)]{ch85} Castertano S., \& Hut, P. 1985, \apj, 298, 80
623: \bibitem[De Marchi et al.(2007)]{dem07} De Marchi, G., Paresce, F., \& Pulone, L. 2007, \apjl, 656, L65
624: \bibitem[Djorgovski (1993)]{djo93} Djorgovski, S. 1993, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 50, 373
625: %\bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{fer00} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
626:
627: \bibitem[Dull et al.(2003)]{dul03} {{Dull}, J.~D., {Cohn}, H.~N., {Lugger}, P.~M., {Murphy}, B.~W.,
628: {Seitzer}, P.~O., {Callanan}, P.~J., {Rutten}, R.~G.~M. \&
629: {Charles}, P.~A.} 2003, \apj, 585, 598
630:
631: \bibitem[Fregeau \& Rasio(2007)]{fre07} Fregeau, J., \& Rasio, F. 2007, \apj, 658, 1047
632: %\bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000)]{geb00} Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., Dressler, A.,
633: % Faber, S.~M., Filippenko, A.~V., Green, R., Grillmair, C., Ho, L.~C., Kormendy, J., Lauer, T.~R., Magorrian, J.,
634: % Pinkney, J., Richstone, D., \& Tremaine, S. 2000, \apjl, 539, L13
635: \bibitem[Gebhardt, Rich, \& Ho(2002)]{grh02} Gebhardt, K., Rich, R.~M., \& Ho, L.~C. 2002, \apjl, 578, L41
636: \bibitem[Gebhardt, Rich, \& Ho(2005)]{grh05} Gebhardt, K., Rich, R.~M., \& Ho, L.~C. 2005, \apj, 634, 1093
637: \bibitem[Gerssen et al.(2002)]{ger03a} {Gerssen}, J., {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Gebhardt}, K., {Guhathakurta}, P., {Peterson}, R.~C. \& {Pryor}, C. 2002, \aj, 124, 3270
638:
639: \bibitem[Gerssen et al.(2003)]{ger03b} {Gerssen}, J., {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Gebhardt}, K., {Guhathakurta}, P., {Peterson}, R.~C. \& {Pryor}, C. 2002, \aj, 125, 376
640:
641:
642: \bibitem[Harris(1996)]{har96} Harris, W.~E. 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
643: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Heggie} \& {Hut}}{{Heggie} \&
644: {Hut}}{2003}]{heg03}
645: Heggie, D., \& Hut, P. 2003, {The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A
646: Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics}.~ Cambridge University Press
647: \bibitem[Heggie et al.(2007)]{heg07} Heggie, D.~C., Hut, P., Mineshige, S., Makino, J., \&
648: Baumgardt, H. 2007, \pasj, 59, 11
649: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Heggie} \& {Mathieu}}{{Heggie} \&
650: {Mathieu}}{1986}]{hm86}
651: Heggie, D.~C., \& Mathieu, R.~D., 1986, in LNP 267: The Use of
652: Supercomputers in Stellar Dynamics {Standardised Units and Time Scales}. p 233
653: \bibitem[Heggie et al.(2006)]{htt06} Heggie, D.~C., Trenti, M., \& Hut, P., 2006, \mnras, 368, 677
654: \bibitem[Hurley(2007)]{hur07} Hurley, J.~R. 2007, \mnras, 379, 93
655: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2000)]{hur00} Hurley, J.~R., Pols, O.~R., \& Tout, C.~A. 2000, \mnras, 315, 543
656: \bibitem[King(1966)]{kin66} King, I.~R. 1966, \aj, 71, 64
657: \bibitem[Krauss \& Chaboyer(2003)]{krau03} Krauss, L.~M., \& Chaboyer, B. 2003, Science, 299, 65
658: \bibitem[Kroupa(2001)]{krou01} Kroupa P. 2001, \mnras, 322, 231
659: \bibitem[Makino et al.(2003)]{mak03} Makino, J., Fukushige, T., Koga, M., \& Namura, K. 2003, \pasj, 55, 1163
660: \bibitem[Merritt et al.(2004)]{mer04} Merritt, D., Piatek, S., Portegies Zwart, S., \&
661: Hemsendorf, M. 2004, \apjl, 608, 25
662: \bibitem[Miller \& Scalo(1979)]{ms79} Miller, G.~E., \& Scalo, J.M. 1979, \apjs, 41, 513
663: \bibitem[Miller \& Colbert(2004)]{mc04} Miller, M.~C., \& Colbert, E.~J.~M. 2004, IJMPD, 13, 1
664: \bibitem[Milone et al.(2008)]{mil08} Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L.~R., \& Sarajedini, A. 2008, arXiv:0801.3177
665: \bibitem[Noyola, Gebhardt, \& Bergman(2008)]{ngb08}
666: Noyola, E., Gebhardt, K., \& Bergman, M. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1008
667: \bibitem[Portegies-Zwart et al.(2004)]{por02} {{Portegies Zwart}, S.~F, {Baumgardt}, H., {Hut}, P.,
668: {Makino}, J. \& {McMillan}, S.~L.~W.} 2004, \nat, 428, 724
669: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pulone}, {De Marchi}, {Covino} \&
670: {Paresce}}{{Pulone} et~al.}{2003}]{pul03}
671: Pulone, L., De Marchi, G., Covino, S., \& Paresce F. 2003, \aap, 399, 121
672: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{sal55} Salpeter, E.~E. 1955, \apj, 121, 161
673: \bibitem[Spitzer(1987)]{spi87} Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical Evolution of
674: Globular Clusters, Princeton University Press, Princeton
675: \bibitem[Trenti et al.(2007b)]{trentiea07b} Trenti, M., Ardi, E., Mineshige, S., \& Hut, P. 2007, \mnras, 374, 857
676: \bibitem[Trenti et al.(2007a)]{trentiea07a} Trenti, M., Heggie, D.~C., \& Hut, P. 2007, \mnras, 374, 344
677: \bibitem[Trenti et al.(2008)]{tre08} Trenti, M., Ransom, S., Hup, P., \& Heggie, D.~C. 2007, \mnras, in press, arXiv0705.4223
678: \bibitem[van der Marel(2004)]{vdm04} van der Marel, R.~P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, from Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposia (Cambridge University Press as Part of the Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series), ed. L.~C. Ho, 37
679: \bibitem[Vesperini \& Chernoff(1994)]{ves94} Vesperini E., \& Chernoff D.~F. 1994, \apj, 431, 231
680:
681: \end{thebibliography}
682:
683: \clearpage
684:
685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
686: \begin{table}
687: \footnotesize
688: \caption{Summary of the N-body simulations.}
689:
690: \label{tab:sim}
691: \begin{center}
692: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
693: Name &N & $W_0$ & IMF & $M_{IMBH}$/$M_{tot}$ &
694: $M_{IMBH}$/$M_{\odot}$ & $f_b$ & $\langle{\Delta\langle m \rangle }\rangle$ &
695: ${\Delta\langle m \rangle }_{min}$ & ${\Delta\langle m \rangle }_{max}$ \\
696: 8ks & 8192 & 7.0 & Sal & N/A & N/A & 0 & 0.07 & 0.040 & 0.112 \\
697: 8km & 8192 & 7.0 & M\&S & N/A & N/A & 0 & 0.13 & 0.095 & 0.167 \\
698: 8kbs5 & 8192 & 5.0 & Sal & N/A & N/A &0.1 & 0.09 & 0.029 & 0.138 \\
699: 8kbs & 8192 & 7.0 & Sal & N/A & N/A &0.1 & 0.10 & 0.071 & 0.143 \\
700: 8kbs11 & 8192 &11.0 & Sal & N/A & N/A &0.1 & 0.09 & 0.037 & 0.116 \\
701: 8kbm & 8192 & 7.0 & M\&S & N/A & N/A &0.1 & 0.09 & 0.048 & 0.130 \\
702: 16ks & 16384 & 7.0 & Sal & N/A & N/A & 0 & 0.11 & 0.071 & 0.158 \\
703: 16ks.1 & 16384 & 7.0 & Sal & N/A & N/A & 0 & 0.14 & 0.112 & 0.191 \\
704: 16km & 16384 & 7.0 & M\&S & N/A & N/A & 0 & 0.14 & 0.112 & 0.174 \\
705: 16kbs & 16384 & 7.0 & Sal & N/A & N/A &0.1 & 0.09 & 0.060 & 0.140 \\
706: 16kbm & 16384 & 7.0 & M\&S & N/A & N/A &0.1 & 0.10 & 0.067 & 0.127 \\
707: 32km & 32768 & 7.0 & M\&S & N/A & N/A & 0 & 0.14 & 0.108 & 0.161 \\
708: 128kk.1 &131072 & 7.0 &Kroupa& N/A & N/A & 0 & 0.13*& N/A & N/A \\
709: \tableline
710: 8ksBH & 8193 & 7.0 & Sal & 0.03 & 104.0 & 0 & 0.05 & 0.014 & 0.091 \\
711: 8kmbh & 8193 & 7.0 & M\&S & 0.01 & 42.1 & 0 & 0.07 & 0.036 & 0.121 \\
712: 8kmBH & 8193 & 7.0 & M\&S & 0.03 & 129.3 & 0 & 0.06 & 0.011 & 0.097 \\
713: 8kbsBH & 8193 & 7.0 & Sal & 0.03 & 114.4 &0.1 & 0.04 &-0.014 & 0.080 \\
714: 8kbmbh & 8193 & 7.0 & M\&S & 0.015 & 69.5 &0.1 & 0.04 &-0.021 & 0.079 \\
715: 16ksbh & 16385 & 7.0 & Sal & 0.015 & 103.1 & 0 & 0.05 & 0.023 & 0.090 \\
716: 16ksbh.1& 16385 & 7.0 & Sal & 0.015 & 60.9 & 0 & 0.06 & 0.013 & 0.118 \\
717: 16kmbh & 16385 & 7.0 & M\&S & 0.015 & 128.2 & 0 & 0.08 & 0.027 & 0.113 \\
718: 16kbsbh & 16385 & 7.0 & Sal & 0.01 & 113.4 &0.1 & 0.04 & 0.015 & 0.078 \\
719: 16kbmbh & 16385 & 7.0 & M\&S & 0.01 & 141.0 &0.1 & 0.05 & 0.015 & 0.084 \\
720: 32kmbh & 32769 & 7.0 & M\&S & 0.01 & 240.0 & 0 & 0.07 & 0.051 & 0.101 \\
721: 128kkbh.1a&131072 & 7.0 &Kroupa& 0.013 &1000.0 & 0 & 0.09*& N/A & N/A \\
722: 128kkbh.1b&131072 & 7.0 &Kroupa& 0.009 &1000.0 & 0 & 0.06*& N/A & N/A \\
723: \tableline
724: \end{tabular}
725: \tablecomments{We calculated the
726: average, maximum and minimum values for $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ (in solar mass units)
727: between 5 and 12 relaxation times for each run. Starred
728: values are not averages, but are from a single snapshot. The name of each run indicates:
729: \begin{itemize}
730: \item The number of stars in the simulation (8k, 16k, 32k or 128k)
731: \item The presence of primordial binaries (b if $f_b > 0$)
732: \item The IMF (m for Miller \& Scalo, s for Salpeter, and k for Kroupa)
733: \item The presence of an IMBH (absent for none, bh for small BH mass, and BH for larger - see also fifth column)
734: \item The value of $W_0$ if different from $7.0$
735: \item Control run with IMF lower cut-off at $0.1 M_{\odot}$ (.1 suffix).
736: \end{itemize}
737: }
738:
739: \end{center}
740: \end{table}
741:
742: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
743:
744: \clearpage
745:
746:
747:
748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
749: \begin{figure}[ht]
750: \plotone{f1.eps}
751: %% \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{f0.eps}}
752: \caption{Evolution of the three dimensional half mass radius ($r_h$)
753: and of the core to half mass radius ratio ($r_c/r_h$) in NBODY units for our $N=32769$
754: simulations with (red curves) and without an IMBH (blue
755: curves). The presence of an IMBH prevents core collapse. We have smoothed the
756: curves by applying a triangular smoothing window of size $1.0 t_{rh}(0)$.}
757: \label{fig:core}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: \begin{figure}[ht]
761: \plotone{f2.eps}
762: %%% \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}}
763: \caption{Evolution of mass segregation (via $\Delta\langle m \rangle $, expressed in $M_{\sun}$)
764: across the span of all N-body simulations with $N \geq 16384$ and
765: $f_b = 0$. Red points are from simulations with an IMBH, while
766: blue points represent runs with no massive central object. The runs
767: have no primordial mass segregation ($\Delta\langle m \rangle = 0$), but
768: on a relaxation timescale, the systems settle to a quasi-equilibrium
769: configuration with varying degrees of mass segregation. A central
770: IMBH quenches the mass segregation and keeps $\Delta\langle m \rangle
771: \lesssim 0.09 M_{\sun}$.}
772: \label{fig:16k}
773: \end{figure}
774:
775: \begin{figure}[ht]
776: \plotone{f3.eps}
777: %%%\scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}
778: \caption{Evolution of mass segregation as in Fig. 1, but for our $N
779: \geq 16384$ simulations {\it with} primordial binaries. Qualitatively, we
780: see that the results are similar to those of the runs with single
781: stars, but the equilibrium values of $\Delta\langle m \rangle $ are
782: marginally lower at later times when compared to those where $f_b = 0$.}
783: \label{fig:16kbin}
784: \end{figure}
785: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
786:
787:
788: \end{document}
789:
790:
791: