THE SIZES AND LUMINOSITIES OF MASSIVE STAR CLUSTERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The masses of star clusters range over seven decades, from ten up to one hundred million solar masses. Remarkably, clusters with masses in the range 10^4 to 10^6 solar mases show no systematic variation of radius with mass. However, recent observations have shown that clusters with masses greater than 3x10^6 solar masses do show an increase in size with increasing mass. We point out that clusters with m>10^6 solar masses were optically thick to far infrared radiation when they formed, and explore the hypothesis that the size of clusters with m> 3x10^6 solar masses is set by a balance between accretion powered radiation pressure and gravity when the clusters formed, yielding a mass-radius relation r~0.3(m/10^6M_\odot)^{3/5} pc. We show that the Jeans mass in optically thick objects increases systematically with cluster mass. We argue, by assuming that the break in the stellar initial mass function is set by the Jeans mass, that optically thick clusters are born with top heavy initial mass functions; it follows that they are over-luminous compared to optically thin clusters when young, and have a higher mass to light ratio Upsilon_V=m/L_V when older than ~1 Gyr. Old, optically thick clusters have Upsilon_V~ mcl^{0.1-0.3}. It follows that L_V~\sigma^{\beta}, where \sigma is the cluster velocity dispersion, and \beta~4. It appears that Upsilon_V is an increasing function of cluster mass for compact clusters and ultra-compact dwarf galaxies. We show that this is unlikely to be due to the presence of non-baryonic dark matter, by comparing clusters to Milky Way satellite galaxies, which are dark matter dominated. The satellite galaxies appear to have a fixed mass inside a fiducial radius, M(r=r_0)=const.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".