# Size diversity of old Large Magellanic Cloud clusters as determined by internal dynamical evolution

## Abstract

The distribution of size as a function of age observed for star clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is very puzzling: young clusters are all compact, while the oldest systems show both small and large sizes. This phenomenon is commonly interpreted as being due to a population of binary black holes driving a progressive expansion of cluster cores. Here we propose, instead, that it is the natural consequence of the fact that only relatively low-mass clusters have formed in the past ~3 Gyr in the LMC and only the most compact systems survived and are observable. The spread in size displayed by the oldest (and most massive) clusters, instead, can be explained in terms of initial conditions and internal dynamical evolution. To quantitatively explore the role of the latter, we selected a sample of five coeval and old LMC clusters with different sizes, and we estimated their dynamical age from the level of central segregation of blue straggler stars (the so-called dynamical clock). Similarly to what is found in the Milky Way, we indeed measure different levels of dynamical evolution among the selected coeval clusters, with large-core systems being dynamically younger than those with small size. This behaviour is fully consistent with what is expected from internal dynamical evolution processes over timescales mainly set by the structure of each system at formation.

## Access optionsAccess options

from\$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

## Data availability

The data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

## References

1. 1.

Elson, R. A. W., Freeman, K. C. & Lauer, T. R. Core expansion in young star clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Astrophys. J. Lett. 347, L69–L73 (1989).

2. 2.

Elson, R. A. W. The structure and evolution of rich star clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 76, 185–214 (1991).

3. 3.

Elson, R. A. W. Surface brightness profiles for five rich star clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 256, 515–518 (1992).

4. 4.

Mackey, A. D. & Gilmore, G. F. Surface brightness profiles and structural parameters for 53 rich stellar clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 338, 85–119 (2003).

5. 5.

Wilkinson, M. I., Hurley, J. R., Mackey, A. D., Gilmore, G. F. & Tout, C. A. Core radius evolution of star clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 343, 1025–1037 (2003).

6. 6.

de Grijs, R. et al. Mass segregation in young compact clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud—III. Implications for the initial mass function. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 337, 597–608 (2002).

7. 7.

Mackey, A. D., Wilkinson, M. I., Davies, M. B. & Gilmore, G. F. Black holes and core expansion in massive star clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 386, 65–95 (2008).

8. 8.

Da Costa, G. S. The age–abundance relations and age distributions for the star clusters of the Magellanic Clouds. In Proc. 148th Symposium of the IAU: The Magellanic Clouds (eds Haynes, R. & Milne, D.) 183 (Kluwer, 1991).

9. 9.

Geisler, D. et al. A search for old star clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Astron. J. 114, 1920 (1997).

10. 10.

Rich, R. M., Shara, M. M. & Zurek, D. New photometry for the intermediate-age Large Magellanic Cloud globular cluster NGC 2121 and the nature of the LMC age gap. Astron. J. 122, 842–848 (2001).

11. 11.

Bekki, K. et al. Explaining the mysterious age gap of globular clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Astrophys. J. 610, L93–L96 (2004).

12. 12.

Meylan, G. & Heggie, D. C. Internal dynamics of globular clusters. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 8, 1–143 (1997).

13. 13.

Ferraro, F. R. et al. Dynamical age differences among coeval star clusters as revealed by blue stragglers. Nature 492, 393–395 (2012).

14. 14.

Lanzoni, B. et al. Refining the dynamical clock for star clusters. Astrophys. J. Lett. 833, L29–L34 (2016).

15. 15.

Ferraro, F. R. et al. The hubble space telescope UV legacy survey of galactic globular clusters. XV. The dynamical clock: reading cluster dynamical evolution from the segregation level of blue straggler stars. Astrophys. J. 860, 36–48 (2018).

16. 16.

McCrea, W. H. Extended main-sequence of some stellar clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 128, 147–155 (1964).

17. 17.

Hills, J. G. & Day, C. A. Stellar collisions in globular clusters. Astrophys. J. Lett. 17, 87–93 (1976).

18. 18.

Shara, M. M., Saffer, R. A. & Livio, M. The first direct measurement of the mass of a blue straggler in the core of a globular cluster: BSS19 in 47 tucanae. Astrophys. J. Lett. 489, L59–L63 (1997).

19. 19.

Fiorentino, G. et al. Blue straggler masses from pulsation properties. I. The case of NGC 6541. Astrophys. J. 783, 34–41 (2014).

20. 20.

Alessandrini, E. et al. Investigating the mass segregation process in globular clusters with blue straggler stars: the impact of dark remnants. Astrophys. J. 833, 252–262 (2016).

21. 21.

Sollima, A. & Ferraro, F. R. Investigating the blue straggler stars radial distribution in globular clusters with Monte Carlo simulations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 483, 1523–1536 (2019).

22. 22.

McLaughlin, D. E. & van der Marel, R. P. Resolved massive star clusters in the Milky Way and its satellites: brightness profiles and a catalog of fundamental parameters. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 161, 304–360 (2005).

23. 23.

Pietrzynski, G. et al. An eclipsing-binary distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud accurate to two per cent. Nature 495, 76–79 (2013).

24. 24.

Raso et al. The “UV-route” to search for blue straggler stars in globular clusters: first results from the HST UV legacy survey. Astrophys. J. 839, 64 (2017).

25. 25.

Carretta, E. & Gratton, R. G. Abundances for globular cluster giants. I. Homogeneous metallicities for 24 clusters. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 121, 95–112 (1997).

26. 26.

Strader, J. et al. Two stellar-mass black holes in the globular cluster M22. Nature 490, 71–73 (2012).

27. 27.

Chomiuk, L. et al. A radio-selected black hole X-ray binary candidate in the Milky Way globular cluster M62. Astrophys. J. 777, 69 (2013).

28. 28.

Li, C. et al. Blue straggler stars beyond the Milky Way. IV. Radial distributions and dynamical implications. Astrophys. J. 871, 171–183 (2019).

29. 29.

Mucciarelli, A. et al. The chemical composition of red giant stars in four intermediate-age clusters of the Large Magellanic Cloud. Astron. J. 136, 375–388 (2008).

30. 30.

Mucciarelli, A. et al. No evidence of chemical anomalies in the bimodal turnoff cluster NGC 1806 in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Astrophys. J. 793, L6–L10 (2014).

31. 31.

Martocchia, S. et al. Age as a major factor in the onset of multiple populations in stellar clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 473, 2688–2700 (2018).

32. 32.

Stetson, P. B. DAOPHOT—a computer program for crowded-field stellar photometry. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 99, 191–222 (1987).

33. 33.

Dalessandro, E. et al. The peculiar radial distribution of multiple populations in the massive globular cluster M80. Astrophys. J. 859, 15 (2018).

34. 34.

Dalessandro, E. et al. The double blue-straggler sequence in NGC 2173: an artifact of field contamination. Astron. Astrophys. 621, 45 (2019).

35. 35.

Stetson, P. B. The center of the core-cusp globular cluster M15: CFHT and HST observations, ALLFRAME reductions. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 106, 250–280 (1994).

36. 36.

Bohlin, R. C. Perfecting the photometric calibration of the ACS CCD cameras. Astron. J. 152, 60 (2016).

37. 37.

Gaia Collaboration et al. Gaia Data Release 2. The celestial reference frame (Gaia-CRF2). Astron. Astrophys. 616, 14 (2018).

38. 38.

Sarajedini, A. et al. The ACS survey of galactic globular clusters. I. Overview and clusters without previous Hubble Space Telescope photometry. Astron. J. 133, 1658–1672 (2007).

39. 39.

Ferraro, F. R. et al. Two distinct sequences of blue straggler stars in the globular cluster. Nature 462, 1028–1031 (2009).

40. 40.

Forbes, D. A. & Bridge, T. Accreted versus in situ Milky Way globular clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 404, 1203–1214 (2010).

41. 41.

Lugger, P. M. et al. CCD photometry of globular cluster core structure. 2: U-band profiles for 15 candidate collapsed-core clusters. Astrophys. J. 439, 191–201 (1995).

42. 42.

Montegriffo et al. IR-array photometry of galactic globular clusters—II. JK photometry of 47 TUC. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 276, 739–752 (1995).

43. 43.

Ferraro, F. R. et al. The puzzling dynamical status of the core of the globular cluster NGC 6752. Astrophys. J. 595, 179–186 (2003).

44. 44.

Lanzoni, B. et al. New density profile and structural parameters of the complex stellar system Terzan 5. Astrophys. J. 717, 653–657 (2010).

45. 45.

Miocchi, P. et al. Star count density profiles and structural parameters of 26 galactic globular clusters. Astrophys. J. 774, 151–165 (2013).

46. 46.

King, I. R. The structure of star clusters. III. Some simple dynamical models. Astron. J. 71, 64 (1966).

47. 47.

Djorgovski, S. G. Physical parameters of galactic globular clusters. In Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters (eds Djorgovski, S. G. & Meylan, G.) 373–382 (ASP Conference Series, Vol. 50, 1993).

48. 48.

Marigo, P. et al. A new generation of PARSEC-COLIBRI stellar isochrones including the TP-AGB phase. Astrophys. J. 835, 77 (2017).

49. 49.

Lupton, R. Statistics in Theory and Practice (Princeton Univ. Press, 1993).

## Acknowledgements

This research is part of the project COSMIC-LAB at the University of Bologna. The research is based on data acquired with the NASA/ESA HST at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.

## Author information

F.R.F. designed the study and coordinated the activity. E.D., M.C. and S.R. analysed the photometric datasets. F.R.F, B.L. and E.D. wrote the first draft of the paper. G.B., A.M. and C.P. critically contributed to the paper presentation. All the authors contributed to the discussion of the results and commented on the manuscript.

Correspondence to F. R. Ferraro.

## Ethics declarations

### Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## Supplementary information

### Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Table 1.

## Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions