Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
License: arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license
arXiv:2308.13520v2 [astro-ph.SR] 09 Feb 2024

Tracing the Origins of Mass Segregation in M35: Evidence for Primordially Segregated Binaries

Erin Motherway Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Department of Physical Sciences, 1 Aerospace Blvd, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, USA Aaron M. Geller Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA) and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, 1800 Sherman Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201, USA Anna C. Childs Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA) and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, 1800 Sherman Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201, USA Claire Zwicker Illinois Institute of Technology, 10 West 35th Street Chicago, IL 60616, United States of America Ted von Hippel Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Department of Physical Sciences, 1 Aerospace Blvd, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, USA
Abstract

M35 is a young open cluster and home to an extensive binary population. Using Gaia DR3, Pan-STARRS, and 2MASS photometry with the Bayesian statistical software, BASE-9, we derive precise cluster parameters, identify single and binary cluster members, and extract their masses. We identify 571  binaries down to Gaia G=20.3𝐺20.3G=20.3italic_G = 20.3 and a lower-limit on the binary frequency of fb=0.41±0.02subscript𝑓𝑏plus-or-minus0.410.02f_{b}=0.41\pm 0.02italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.41 ± 0.02. We extend the binary demographics by many magnitudes faint-ward of previous (radial-velocity) studies of this cluster and further away from the cluster center (1.78superscript1.781.78^{\circ}1.78 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, roughly 10 core radii). We find the binary stars to be more centrally concentrated than the single stars in the cluster. Furthermore, we find strong evidence for mass segregation within the binary population itself, with progressively more massive binary samples becoming more and more centrally concentrated. For the single stars, we find weaker evidence for mass segregation; only the most massive single stars (>2.5Mabsent2.5subscript𝑀direct-product>2.5M_{\odot}> 2.5 italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) appear more centrally concentrated. Given the cluster age of similar-to\sim\ 200 Myr, and our derived half-mass relaxation time for the cluster of 230±84plus-or-minus23084230\pm 84230 ± 84 Myr, we estimate 47similar-toabsent47\sim 47∼ 47% of the binary stars and 12similar-toabsent12\sim 12∼ 12% of single stars in the cluster have had time to become dynamically mass segregated. Importantly, when we investigate only stars with mass segregation timescales greater than the cluster age, we still find the binaries to be more centrally concentrated than the singles, suggesting the binaries may have formed with a primordially different spatial distribution than the single stars.

Binary stars (154) — Open star clusters (1160) — Relaxation time (1394) — Star formation (1569) — Bayesian statistics (1900)

1 Introduction

Open clusters (OCs) provide an important laboratory for studying dynamical evolution and mass segregation, given their typically extensive amount of stellar multiplicity and the homogeneity of stellar properties such as age, distance, metallicity, reddening, etc. in a given cluster. Through two-body relaxation and other processes leading to energy exchange between stars and binaries, star clusters are expected to become (dynamically) mass segregated, where the more massive objects in the cluster occupy a more centrally concentrated spatial distribution than the lighter objects (King, 1962a; Giersz & Heggie, 1997). For a given mass range in (primary) stars, binaries are expected to be more massive than the single stars (since binaries contain two stars), and therefore the expectation for relaxed clusters is that binaries will be mass segregated with respect to single stars. Furthermore, binary systems offer significant insight into the dynamical evolution of OCs as most gravitational encounters in OCs are expected to be influenced by binaries, and can lead to direct collisions, mergers, mass transfer, and energy exchanges (e.g., Fregeau et al., 2004; Leigh & Sills, 2011; de Grijs et al., 2017).

The dynamical states and evolution of young clusters are of particular interest, as they are expected to retain their near-birth (primordial) conditions. Searching for mass segregation in the youngest clusters can address the question of whether mass segregation may be primordial or, largely attributed to dynamical and relaxation processes. Some of the youngest clusters that have been studied observationally for mass segregation include NGC 2264 (3 Myr; Nony et al., 2021), NGC 6231 (3-4 Myr; Raboud & Mermilliod, 1998), IC 1590 (3.5–4.4 Myr; Kim et al., 2021), NGC 2516 (100 Myr; Pera et al., 2022) and the Hyades (680 Myr; Evans & Oh, 2022),.

NGC 2264, NGC 6231, IC 1590, and NGC 2516 all show evidence of primordial mass segregation. Each of these clusters also have relaxation times that are greater-than-or-equivalent-to\gtrsim the cluster age. In particular for NGC 6231, Raboud & Mermilliod (1998) concluded that binaries (and other multiple systems) are more centrally concentrated than single stars, likely as a result of stellar formation processes and not through dynamical means. In contrast, Raboud & Mermilliod (1998) find the Hyades to contain a highly mass segregated stellar population as a result of dynamical relaxation. This may be due to the Hyades having already undergone 10similar-toabsent10\sim 10∼ 10 relaxation times. At an age of similar-to\sim\ 130-200 Myrs (Geller et al., 2010; McNamara & Sekiguchi, 1986; Leiner et al., 2015; Braden et al., 2008; McNamara et al., 2011), M35 lies in between these previously studied clusters.

Numerical simulations of similar young clusters have also been used to study the origin of mass segregation. Bonnell & Davies (1998) found within their simulations that the most massive members of a young OC most likely formed in the center of that cluster. Pavlík (2020) concluded that binaries lead to quicker dynamical evolution for an OC like the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC). Clusters with initially larger binary fractions evolve more quickly due to the influence of massive binaries (and even more so by hard binaries). The study also finds that the ONC was likely primordially mass segregated. Converse & Stahler (2010) determined through a simulation that the Pleiades was also initially mass segregated.

M35, is another young and well studied OC that is ripe for studies of mass segregation. The cluster has multiple photometric (von Hippel et al., 2002; Adkins et al., 2009; Kalirai et al., 2003) and kinematic (McNamara et al., 2011; Geller et al., 2010; Mathieu, 1983) studies that show M35 has a rich stellar population including many binary stars. Furthermore, previous studies found that though M35 is not yet completely relaxed, only the more massive members appear to show some degree of mass segregation (Barrado y Navascués et al., 2001; McNamara & Sekiguchi, 1986; Braden et al., 2008). Thus, M35 offers an interesting test case for investigating the interplay between primordial and dynamical mass segregation.

In this paper, we use high precision photometry and kinematic constraints from Gaia DR3 to extend the analysis of mass segregation fainter (9 <G<absent𝐺absent<G<< italic_G < 20) and further out in radius from the cluster center (to a 1.78superscript1.781.78^{\circ}1.78 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT radius, or roughly 10 core radii) than previous studies using a new method of identifying photometric binary stars and their masses. We focus on mass segregation of the binaries in M35, and whether we find evidence for primordial mass segregation. In Section 2, we describe our methods and our stellar sample. In Section 3, we investigate our data for mass segregation and provide relaxation timescales for M35. In Section 4, we discuss the origin of the mass segregation detected in M35, and in Section 5 we summarize our findings.

2 Defining the stellar population of M35

We use the Bayesian Analysis of Stellar Evolution with Nine Parameters (BASE-9) software suite to derive global cluster parameters and star-by-star characteristics for M35 cluster members (von Hippel et al., 2006; van Dyk et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2016). BASE-9 uses input photometry and stellar evolution models (we use PARSEC isochrone models for this study Bressan et al. 2012) with a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique to estimate the posterior probability distribution for global cluster properties including age, metallicity, distance modulus, and line-of-sight absorption as well as star-by-star properties of cluster (photometric) membership, stellar masses and mass ratios for likely binary stars. See Cohen et al. (2020) for more information.

To generate our input stellar sample for BASE-9, we consider all stars in the Gaia database within an effective radius of 60superscript6060^{\prime}60 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Childs et al. (2023) estimate this effective radius by eye by fitting a King (1962b) model to the observed radial surface density distribution and identifying where the observations depart from the model.

In order to begin separating field stars from cluster members within this sample, we fit Gaussian functions to the cluster distributions in observed radial-velocity (RV), distance and proper-motion (PM) (all from Gaia). For the RV distribution we also fit a second Gaussian simultaneously to the field distribution, and for the distance distribution we simultaneously fit a polynomial function to the field distribution. (We have found that fitting multiple functions to the PM distribution does not improve our analysis.) These fits for M35 are shown in Figure 1. We then use the cluster Gaussian fits to estimate a membership probability for each star, based on their distance from the mean of each respective Gaussian. We exclude from our sample any star that is >10σabsent10𝜎>10\sigma> 10 italic_σ from the mean of the respective cluster Gaussian, in any dimension, as a very conservative cut on membership (which will be further refined by the photometric analysis in BASE-9). All underlying data for this paper has been published to Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.10080762). Please see Childs et al. (2023) for more details.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 1: Gaussian fits for M35 for stars within a 0.5superscript0.5~{}0.5^{\circ}0.5 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT radius from the cluster center. These fits for the RV (top), distance (middle), and PM (bottom) distributions are shown in pink, where vertical dotted lines represent the mean of the Gaussian fit. Dashed purple lines indicate the Gaussian fit to the field RV data (top) and a sixth order polynomial fit to the field star distances (middle). Combined fits are represented by gray curves in the top and middle plots.

We then remove the differential component of the reddening from the Gaia G𝐺Gitalic_G, GBPsubscript𝐺𝐵𝑃G_{BP}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, GRPsubscript𝐺𝑅𝑃G_{RP}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023), Pan-STARRS g𝑔gitalic_g, r𝑟ritalic_r, i𝑖iitalic_i, z𝑧zitalic_z, y𝑦yitalic_y (Magnier et al., 2020), and 2MASS J𝐽Jitalic_J, H𝐻Hitalic_H, K𝐾Kitalic_K (Skrutskie et al., 2006) photometry, using the Bayestar19 model (Green et al., 2019) as described in Childs et al. (2023), and feed this reddening corrected photometry for these potential cluster members through BASE-9. We provide our calculated membership probabilities for each star as priors. BASE-9 then identifies likely photometric members based on each star’s distance from the isochrone model in all filters.

We then impose that the cluster membership probabilities from both Gaia and BASE-9 are each greater than zero. As a further step to limit field star contamination, we only include stars that have an uncertainty in the Gaia GBPsubscript𝐺𝐵𝑃G_{BP}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT filter less than the median uncertainty for this filter over the full sample, of 0.13 mag. We choose to use the Gaia GBPsubscript𝐺𝐵𝑃G_{BP}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT filter because it has the highest median uncertainty value over all other Gaia and Pan-STARRS filters. We also choose to limit our analysis to only include main sequence stars, and therefore we remove any giants (Gaia G<𝐺absentG<italic_G < 9) from our sample. (We do, however, include the masses of these excluded giants when determining the total mass of the cluster, which is used to estimate relaxation timescales in Section 3.) We use all stars that meet these requirements as our final sample for the subsequent analysis.

We also note that only the brighter stars in our sample have RV measurements, and therefore our membership selection differs slightly between the bright and faint samples. This also offers us an opportunity to estimate an amount of field star contamination in our sample. Of the 12844 stars in our initial sample that have Gaia RV measurements, we find 281 to be (Gaia) members of M35 when considering RV, PM and distance. If we ignore RV, we find 30 additional potential M35 members in that sample (of 12844 stars). After running these 30 stars through BASE-9 we find that 26 are considered cluster members based on their photometry. Matching to the WIYN Open Cluster Study (WOCS) RV survey for M35 (Geller et al., 2010; Leiner et al., 2015) and checking the Gaia RUWE value suggests that 18/26 of these stars are likely binaries; some of these may indeed be cluster members where the Gaia RV does not represent the system center of mass (and therefore the measured Gaia RV is outside the cluster distribution). If we consider the remaining 8/26 of these stars to in fact be field stars, this would suggest that the cluster members without RV measurements may have an additional field star contamination level of 8/(281+30)2.5similar-to8281302.58/(281+30)\sim 2.58 / ( 281 + 30 ) ∼ 2.5%.

As a further check on our cluster members, we compare to the recent membership analysis from WOCS (Geller et al., 2010; Leiner et al., 2015); we recover 413/418 (99%) of their members (including their single members, binary members, and binary likely members).

Finally, BASE-9 also provides posterior distributions of primary masses and mass ratios for each star system. For a given stellar system, we require the median value of the posterior distribution of its secondary mass to be 3σabsent3𝜎\geq 3\sigma≥ 3 italic_σ above zero to be considered a binary (following the procedure of Cohen et al. 2020). Our final sample, including our selected binaries and their corresponding mass ratios is displayed in Figure 2. Note that in this color-magnitude diagram, we utilize one combination of filters from Gaia, but BASE-9 uses all filter combinations and their uncertainties to characterize a cluster. Please see Childs et al. (2023) for a more detailed methodology.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Color-Magnitude Diagram of M35, including the entire sample we downloaded from the Gaia archive (light gray), BASE-9 identified cluster members (overplotted in black), and identified binaries (overplotted in colored symbols, indicating the mass ratio). With the red line, we show a PARSEC isochrone defined by the median cluster parameters found by BASE-9.

3 Mass Segregation in M35

3.1 Mass Segregation Signatures

We first investigate the binary fraction of the cluster. In our final sample of cluster members, we find a binary fraction of 0.41±0.02plus-or-minus0.410.020.41\pm 0.020.41 ± 0.02. This is a lower limit on the true binary fraction because our method becomes incomplete for binaries with very low mass ratios (Cohen et al., 2020). For comparison, Geller et al. (2010) found a radial-velocity binary fraction of 0.24±0.03plus-or-minus0.240.030.24\pm 0.030.24 ± 0.03 out to orbital periods of 1044{}^{4}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT days (over all mass ratios, but only for the brighter stars in our sample). The larger binary fraction in our results is likely due both to the inclusion of longer-period binaries and brighter (more massive) stars that were inaccessible to the Geller et al. (2010) radial-velocity survey.

We also investigate the binary fraction as a function of radius from the cluster center (Figure 3). The binary fraction is highest near the cluster center and drops off with increasing distance. Outside of 0.8similar-toabsentsuperscript0.8\sim 0.8^{\circ}∼ 0.8 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT from the cluster center, the binary fraction plateaus at similar-to\sim\ 25%. A two-sided Z-test between the first (where fbsubscript𝑓𝑏f_{b}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is highest) and the last three (where fbsubscript𝑓𝑏f_{b}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT plateaus) data points in Figure 3 results in a p-value of 8.71×1068.71superscript1068.71\times 10^{-6}8.71 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Therefore, we conclude that the binaries are centrally concentrated with respect to the single stars in the cluster.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Binary fraction with respect to distance from the cluster center. We plot the binary fraction for five equal-sized bins within 1.75superscript1.751.75^{\circ}1.75 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT from the cluster center. The binary fraction is calculated using all binaries and single stars in our sample, but is not corrected for incompleteness.
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Cumulative distribution functions of the (left) binary and single star population, (middle) different mass ranges of the single star sample, and (right) different mass ranges of the binary star sample. (For binaries, we use the primary mass of the system.) We also show a p-value in the left panel resulting from a K-S test between the binary and single star samples. Resulting p-values from K-S tests between the highest and lowest mass ranges for the middle and right panel are 7.79×1037.79superscript1037.79\times 10^{-3}7.79 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 3.44×1053.44superscript1053.44\times 10^{-5}3.44 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, respectively.

More evidence for the central concentration of the binary stars of M35 is evident in Figure 4. In the left panel, we plot a cumulative distribution function (CDF) of our entire single and binary star sample in M35. Visually, the figure shows that the binaries are more centrally concentrated as compared to the single stars. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test of whether these populations were drawn from the same distribution results in a p-value of 1.44×10151.44superscript10151.44\times 10^{-15}1.44 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 15 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The radial distributions of the binary and single stars are drawn from distinct parent populations at very high confidence.

The average mass of the single stars in our sample is 0.980.980.980.98 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT, while the average (total) mass of the binary stars in our sample is 1.691.691.691.69 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT. Thus we interpret this central concentration of the binaries as evidence for mass segregation in the cluster.

We also investigate single stars independently for evidence of mass segregation. As seen in the middle panel of Figure 4, dividing the single star population in bins of mass reveals a central concentration of only the most massive objects. A K-S test comparing low-mass single stars to the high-mass single stars returns a p-value of 7.79×1037.79superscript1037.79\times 10^{-3}7.79 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Similar K-S tests comparing the radial distributions of the single stars in the other mass bins does not return any significant distinction.

On the other hand, when we analyze the binary sample in different mass ranges (right panel of Figure 4), mass segregation is plainly evident. The p-value of a K-S test comparing the binaries in the highest-mass bin to those in the lowest mass bin is 3.44×1053.44superscript1053.44\times 10^{-5}3.44 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, indicating a significant difference in the respective radial distributions. Similar K-S tests comparing the radial distribution of the binary stars in the other mass bins all return p-values less than 0.03. Thus we find that the binary population displays strong evidence of mass segregation in M35.

3.2 Timescales

To help interpret these results, we calculate various timescales for the cluster. The half-mass relaxation time of the cluster is given by

trh=0.17Nln(λN)rh3GMsubscript𝑡𝑟0.17𝑁𝜆𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑟3𝐺𝑀t_{rh}=\frac{0.17N}{\ln(\lambda N)}\sqrt{\frac{r_{h}^{3}}{GM}}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 0.17 italic_N end_ARG start_ARG roman_ln ( italic_λ italic_N ) end_ARG square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_G italic_M end_ARG end_ARG (1)

where N𝑁Nitalic_N is number of cluster members, λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ is a constant for which we use a value of 0.1 (Giersz & Heggie, 1994), rhsubscript𝑟r_{h}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the half-mass radius of the cluster, and M𝑀Mitalic_M is the total mass of the cluster (Binney & Tremaine, 2008; Spitzer, 1969).

By investigating the radial mass distribution of all cluster members in our sample we estimate a half-mass radius of 5.2±0.1plus-or-minus5.20.15.2\pm 0.15.2 ± 0.1 pc (at a distance of 826 pc, and accounting for projection effects by multiplying our observed projected half-mass radius by a factor of 4/3, following Spitzer 1987)). For the total cluster mass and number of stars we find M1800𝑀1800M\approx 1800italic_M ≈ 1800 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT and N1400𝑁1400N\approx 1400italic_N ≈ 1400. Leonard & Merritt (1989) and Barrado y Navascués et al. (2001) also provide estimates for the cluster mass and number of stars, which are somewhat higher than our values. For our calculation of trhsubscript𝑡𝑟t_{rh}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we use M=2400𝑀2400M=2400italic_M = 2400 ±plus-or-minus\pm± 700700700700 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT and N=2050𝑁2050N=2050italic_N = 2050 ±plus-or-minus\pm± 650650650650, which lie roughly at the center of the available measurements (including ours and the literature values) with uncertainties that span the range in measurements. These values result in trh=230subscript𝑡𝑟230t_{rh}=230italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 230 ±plus-or-minus\pm± 84848484 Myr, in agreement with Mathieu (1983), Kalirai et al. (2003) and also with the value we calculate using our data alone of similar-to\sim200 Myr.

To calculate the minimum time for mass segregation based on the most massive member of the cluster, we follow Spitzer (1969):

tseg=<m>mtrhsubscript𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑔expectation𝑚𝑚subscript𝑡𝑟t_{seg}=\frac{<m>}{m}t_{rh}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG < italic_m > end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (2)

where mdelimited-⟨⟩𝑚\langle m\rangle⟨ italic_m ⟩ is the average mass of a star in the cluster, m𝑚mitalic_m is the mass of any chosen star, and trhsubscript𝑡𝑟t_{rh}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the half-mass relaxation time for the cluster. The most massive star we find in our sample has a mass of 5.025.025.025.02 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT. We estimate tseg(5.02t_{seg}(5.02italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 5.02 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT)=51)=51) = 51 Myr, which means that the most massive stars in M35 would have ample time to achieve mass segregation already.

Given the high quality of photometric data, we have sufficient low-mass (faint) cluster members to investigate a sample with predicted tsegsubscript𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑔t_{seg}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT greater than the cluster age, in order to probe for evidence of primordial mass segregation. tsegsubscript𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑔t_{seg}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT equals the cluster age of 200 Myr for an object of mass 1.281.281.281.28 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT, and our sample extends to a mass of 0.520.520.520.52 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT (0.390.390.390.39 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT) for binaries (singles). In Figure 5 we compare the radial distributions of the binary and single stars with tseg>200subscript𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑔200t_{seg}>200italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 200 Myr and find the binaries to be centrally concentrated as compared to the single stars, at very high statistical significance (with a p-value of 4.46×1064.46superscript1064.46\times 10^{-6}4.46 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). In this sample, the average mass of the binary (single) stars is 1.061.061.061.06 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT (0.820.820.820.82 Mdirect-product{}_{\odot}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ⊙ end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT).

We also attempted to divide our single star and binary star samples, respectively into bins of tseg<200subscript𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑔200t_{seg}<200italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < 200 Myr and tseg>200subscript𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑔200t_{seg}>200italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 200 Myr, to compare their radial distributions. We did not find any statistically significant distinction for the single or binary radial distributions in this test, though we note this may be due to small sample sizes, particularly for the binaries.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Cumulative distribution functions of the binary and single star population of M35 for stars with tseg>200subscript𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑔200t_{seg}>200italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 200 Myr. The p-value from a K-S test comparing both populations is also shown.

4 Discussion

We detect a strong signature of mass segregation for the binary stars in M35. On average, the binary stars are more massive than the singles, and therefore have a shorter timescale for mass segregation. The time for mass segregation to occur in the M35 single stars ranges from similar-to\sim80-760 Myr with an average value of similar-to\sim360 Myr, while binary stars range from similar-to\sim60-570 Myr with an average of similar-to\sim220 Myr. Given the approximate cluster age of 200 Myr, we estimate 46% of binary stars and 12% of single stars have had time to become dynamically mass segregated.

This may explain why similarly significant mass segregation is not seen for single stars (Figure 4). Much of the single star population of M35 has not had enough time to undergo dynamical mass segregation. Indeed we only find evidence of mass segregation for the most massive single stars (middle panel of Figure 4).

Previous studies of M35 by Mathieu (1983) and McNamara & Sekiguchi (1986) have shown the cluster to be mass segregated when dividing the sample in bins of magnitude, but without dividing the sample by singles and binaries. As a check, we replicate the bins from Mathieu (1983) and McNamara & Sekiguchi (1986), though using our available photometric filters. If we divide the sample in bins of G=𝐺absentG=italic_G =12, 14, 16, and 20 we do indeed find evidence for mass segregation between the brightest bin to the faintest bin (with a p-value of 3.4×1053.4superscript1053.4\times 10^{-5}3.4 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT), in agreement with Mathieu (1983) and McNamara & Sekiguchi (1986). However, if we only include the single stars in that analysis, we only see marginal indications of mass segregation (with a p-value of 2.4×1022.4superscript1022.4\times 10^{-2}2.4 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). We postulate that the mass segregation seen in these previous papers is coming (at least primarily) from the binaries.

Importantly, we find the binaries to be more centrally concentrated than the single stars even for a sample with tseg>200subscript𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑔200t_{seg}>200italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_e italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 200 Myr. These stars are not expected to have had time to mass segregate through dynamics given the current cluster structure and number of stars (which was presumably larger at birth). If the cluster formed in a roughly spherical distribution without significant substructure, this suggests that the binaries formed closer to the cluster center than single stars. Alternatively, simulations suggest that this result could also be achieved via star formation in smaller clumps, that either formed mass segregated or had short enough relaxation times to quickly achieve mass segregation, and then merged to form the cluster observed today (McMillan et al., 2007). The details of gas expulsion from the young embedded cluster may also enhance early mass segregation (Marks et al., 2008). Regardless of the specific mechanism, we interpret this as evidence for primordial, or near primordial, central concentration of the binaries during the formation process of M35.

5 Conclusions

Using Gaia DR3, Pan-STARRS, and 2MASS photometry with the Bayesian statistical software suite, BASE-9, we identify single and binary cluster members and extract their masses. We extend the binary demographics in M35 by many magnitudes faint-ward of previous (radial-velocity) studies of this cluster and further away from the cluster center (1.78superscript1.781.78^{\circ}1.78 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). We find 571 binaries down to Gaia G=20.3𝐺20.3G=20.3italic_G = 20.3 and determine a lower limit on the binary frequency of 0.41±0.02plus-or-minus0.410.020.41\pm 0.020.41 ± 0.02. The binary fraction near the tidal radius is low and increases dramatically toward the cluster center (Figure 3).

We find the binaries to be centrally concentrated as compared to the single stars, likely a result of both dynamical and primordial mass segregation (see Figures 4 and 5). Investigating the M35 single and binary samples independently, we find strong evidence for mass segregation throughout the binary star population, while only the most massive singles appear to have begun moving towards a more centrally concentrated radial distribution.

We estimate the half-mass relaxation time to be 230 ±plus-or-minus\pm± 84848484 Myr and use this to estimate mass segregation times for stars in the cluster based on their masses. Approximately 26%percent2626\%26 % of stellar systems in M35 have had time to become dynamically mass segregated. Thus, our results suggest that M35 is not yet fully relaxed. Interestingly, even for the stars that have mass segregation times greater than the cluster age, we still find the binaries to be significantly more centrally concentrated than the single stars. As we do not expect these stars to have had time to become mass segregated dynamically given the current cluster structure, we conclude that the binaries became mass segregated during the cluster formation process, either by forming closer to the cluster center than the single stars and/or forming within smaller, more rapidly evolving, clumps that merged early on to form the cluster we observe today.

This study is a precursor for future work investigating trends across many clusters, with specific emphasis on how binary characteristics evolve over time as a result of the local stellar environment.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant No. AST-2149425, a Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) grant awarded to CIERA at Northwestern University, and under the NSF AAG Grant No. AST-2107738. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. This research was supported in part through the computational resources and staff contributions provided for the Quest high performance computing facility at Northwestern University which is jointly supported by the Office of the Provost, the Office for Research, and Northwestern University Information Technology. A special thanks to Elizabeth Jefferey, Roger Cohen, Elliot Robinson, and the rest of the BASE-9 team.

References

  • Adkins et al. (2009) Adkins, J. A., Frinchaboy, P., Irwin, T., Mathieu, R., & Nielsen, D. 2009, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 213, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #213, 407.08
  • Barrado y Navascués et al. (2001) Barrado y Navascués, D., Stauffer, J. R., Bouvier, J., & Martín, E. L. 2001, ApJ, 546, 1006, doi: 10.1086/318283
  • Binney & Tremaine (2008) Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
  • Bonnell & Davies (1998) Bonnell, I. A., & Davies, M. B. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 691, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01372.x
  • Braden et al. (2008) Braden, E. K., Mathieu, R. D., & Meibom, S. 2008, in Dynamical Evolution of Dense Stellar Systems, ed. E. Vesperini, M. Giersz, & A. Sills, Vol. 246, 105–106, doi: 10.1017/S1743921308015391
  • Bressan et al. (2012) Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x
  • Childs et al. (2023) Childs, A. C., Geller, A. M., von Hippel, T., Motherway, E., & Zwicker, C. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.16282, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.16282
  • Cohen et al. (2020) Cohen, R. E., Geller, A. M., & von Hippel, T. 2020, AJ, 159, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab59d7
  • Converse & Stahler (2010) Converse, J. M., & Stahler, S. W. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 666, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16505.x
  • de Grijs et al. (2017) de Grijs, R., Li, C., & Geller, A. M. 2017, in Formation, Evolution, and Survival of Massive Star Clusters, ed. C. Charbonnel & A. Nota, Vol. 316, 222–227, doi: 10.1017/S1743921315009096
  • Evans & Oh (2022) Evans, N. W., & Oh, S. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3846, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac707
  • Fregeau et al. (2004) Fregeau, J. M., Cheung, P., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Rasio, F. A. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07914.x
  • Gaia Collaboration et al. (2023) Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940
  • Geller et al. (2010) Geller, A. M., Mathieu, R. D., Braden, E. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1383, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1383
  • Giersz & Heggie (1994) Giersz, M., & Heggie, D. C. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/268.1.257
  • Giersz & Heggie (1997) —. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/286.3.709
  • Green et al. (2019) Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362
  • Kalirai et al. (2003) Kalirai, J. S., Fahlman, G. G., Richer, H. B., & Ventura, P. 2003, AJ, 126, 1402, doi: 10.1086/377320
  • Kim et al. (2021) Kim, S., Lim, B., Bessell, M. S., Kim, J. S., & Sung, H. 2021, AJ, 162, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0fd9
  • King (1962a) King, I. 1962a, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756
  • King (1962b) —. 1962b, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756
  • Leigh & Sills (2011) Leigh, N., & Sills, A. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2370, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17609.x
  • Leiner et al. (2015) Leiner, E. M., Mathieu, R. D., Gosnell, N. M., & Geller, A. M. 2015, AJ, 150, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/10
  • Leonard & Merritt (1989) Leonard, P. J. T., & Merritt, D. 1989, ApJ, 339, 195, doi: 10.1086/167287
  • Magnier et al. (2020) Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a
  • Marks et al. (2008) Marks, M., Kroupa, P., & Baumgardt, H. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2047, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13165.x
  • Mathieu (1983) Mathieu, R. D. 1983, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley
  • McMillan et al. (2007) McMillan, S. L. W., Vesperini, E., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2007, ApJ, 655, L45, doi: 10.1086/511763
  • McNamara et al. (2011) McNamara, B. J., Harrison, T. E., McArthur, B. E., & Benedict, G. F. 2011, AJ, 142, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/53
  • McNamara & Sekiguchi (1986) McNamara, B. J., & Sekiguchi, K. 1986, ApJ, 310, 613, doi: 10.1086/164714
  • Nony et al. (2021) Nony, T., Robitaille, J. F., Motte, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039353
  • Pavlík (2020) Pavlík, V. 2020, A&A, 638, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037490
  • Pera et al. (2022) Pera, M. S., Perren, G. I., Vázquez, R. A., & Navone, H. D. 2022, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 63, 121
  • Raboud & Mermilliod (1998) Raboud, D., & Mermilliod, J. C. 1998, A&A, 333, 897, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802284
  • Robinson et al. (2016) Robinson, E., von Hippel, T., Stein, N., et al. 2016, BASE-9: Bayesian Analysis for Stellar Evolution with nine variables, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.007. http://ascl.net/1608.007
  • Skrutskie et al. (2006) Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708
  • Spitzer (1969) Spitzer, Lyman, J. 1969, ApJ, 158, L139, doi: 10.1086/180451
  • Spitzer (1987) Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters
  • van Dyk et al. (2009) van Dyk, D. A., Degennaro, S., Stein, N., Jefferys, W. H., & von Hippel, T. 2009, Annals of Applied Statistics, 3, 117, doi: 10.1214/08-AOAS219SUPP
  • von Hippel et al. (2006) von Hippel, T., Jefferys, W. H., Scott, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1436, doi: 10.1086/504369
  • von Hippel et al. (2002) von Hippel, T., Steinhauer, A., Sarajedini, A., & Deliyannis, C. P. 2002, AJ, 124, 1555, doi: 10.1086/341951