Draft version July 24, 2013 A Preprint typeset using LTEX style emulateapj v. 12/16/11 STAR COUNT DENSITY PROFILES AND STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS OF 26 GALACTIC GLOBULAR CLUSTERS P. Miocchi1, B. Lanzoni1, F.R. Ferraro1, E. Dalessandro1, E. Vesperini2, M. Pasquato3 , G. Beccari4, C. Pallanca1, and N. Sanna1 1Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Universit`adi Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 6/2, 40127 Bologna, Italy 2Department of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA 3Department of Astronomy & Center for Galaxy Evolution Research, Yonsei University, and Yonsei University Observatory, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea 4European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere, K. Schwarzschild-Str. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany Draft version July 24, 2013 ABSTRACT We used a proper combination of high-resolution HST observations and wide-field ground based data to derive the radial star density profile of 26 Galactic globular clusters from resolved star counts (which can be all freely downloaded on-line). With respect to surface brightness (SB) profiles (which can be biased by the presence of sparse, bright stars), star counts are considered to be the most robust and reliable tool to derive cluster structural parameters. For each system a detailed comparison with both King and Wilson models has been performed and the most relevant best-fit parameters have been obtained. This is the largest homogeneous catalog collected so far of star count profiles and structural parameters derived therefrom. The analysis of the data of our catalog has shown that: (1) the presence of the central cusps previously detected in the SB profiles of NGC 1851, M13 and M62 is not confirmed; (2) the majority of clusters in our sample are fitted equally well by the King and the Wilson models; (3) we confirm the known relationship between cluster size (as measured by the effective radius) and galactocentric distances; (4) the ratio between the core and the effective radii shows a bimodal distribution, with a peak at 0.3 for about 80% of the clusters, and a secondary peak at 0.6 for the remaining 20%. Interestingly,∼ the main peak turns out to be in agreement with what expected∼ from simulations of cluster dynamical evolution and the ratio between these two radii well correlates with an empirical dynamical age indicator recently defined from the observed shape of blue straggler star radial distribution, thus suggesting that no exotic mechanisms of energy generation are needed in the cores of the analyzed clusters. Subject headings: catalogs – galaxies: star clusters: general – globular clusters: general 1. INTRODUCTION tic GC structural and morphological parameters are still Globular clusters (GCs) represent one of the most in- derived from surface brightness (SB) profiles extracted tensively investigated astrophysical systems in the Uni- from mid-80’s CCD images and, in a minority of cases, verse. Indeed, the comprehension of their origin and na- from star counts on photographic plates mostly dating ture has implications for numerous, important fields of back to late 60’s–70’s (Trager et al. 1995). Even the Astrophysics and Cosmology, from the formation of the most recent parameter compilations (McLaughlin & van first self-gravitating objects in the ΛCDM cosmological der Marel 2005, hereafter MvM05; Wang & Ma 2013 for scenario (Kravtsov & Gnedin 2005, see also references M31 clusters) are based on SB measurements. Indeed, therein), to the theory of stellar evolution and the forma- SB profiles are known to suffer from possible bias due to the presence of very bright stars (see, e.g., Noyola & arXiv:1307.6035v1 [astro-ph.GA] 23 Jul 2013 tion of stellar exotica (like blue stragglers and millisecond pulsars), which is made possible by the peculiarly dense Gebhardt 2006, for the discussion of methods trying to and dynamically active environmental conditions of these correct for this problem). Instead, every star has the systems (e.g., Bailyn 1993; Bellazzini et al. 1995; Ferraro same “weight” in the construction of the number density et al. 1995; Rasio et al. 2007; Ferraro et al. 2009a). Their profile and no bias is therefore introduced by the pres- properties also provide crucial information on the forma- ence of sparse, bright stars. For this reason, resolved tion and evolutionary mechanisms of the Galaxy (e.g., star counts represent the most robust way for determin- Tremaine et al. 1975; Quinlan & Shapiro 1990; Ashman ing the cluster density profiles and structural parameters & Zepf 1998; Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Miocchi 2008; Ferraro (see, e.g., Lugger et al. 1995; Ferraro et al. 1999b, 2003). et al. 2009b; Forbes & Bridges 2010), as well as on the In spite of these advantages, however, only a few studies processes characterizing the dynamical evolution of col- regarding individual or very small sets of clusters (e.g. lisional systems (e.g., Meylan & Heggie 1997; Ferraro et Salinas et al. 2012) have been performed to date, while, al. 2012). to our knowledge, no catalogs of star count profiles sam- Despite the undoubted importance of precisely and ac- pling the entire cluster radial extension can be found in curately determining their properties, most of the Galac- the literature. This is essentially due to the fact that the construction of complete samples of stars both in the highly crowded central region and in the outermost part [email protected] of clusters is not an easy task. It requires the proper 2 P. Miocchi et al. combination of high-resolution photometry sampling the cluster centers and high-precision wide-field imaging of TABLE 1 Centers of gravity the external parts. In particular, an appropriate coverage of even the regions beyond the tidal radius is necessary to NGC name α δ σα,δ Ref. get a direct estimate of the level of contamination from (h:m:s) (deg : ′ : ′′) (′′) background and foreground Galactic field stars. 104 (47Tuc) 00 : 24 : 05.71 −72 : 04 : 52.20 0.5 1 It is worth noting that both the inner and the outer 288 00 : 52 : 45.24 −26 : 34 : 57.40 1.8 1, 2 portions of the profile provide crucial information on the 1851 05 : 14 : 06.755 −40 : 02 : 47.47 0.1 1 structure of the cluster. In fact, the central part con- 1904 (M79) 05 : 24 : 11.09 −24 : 31 : 29.00 0.5 3 strains the core radius, the central density, and also the 2419 07 : 38 : 8.47 +38 : 52 : 55.0 0.5 4 5024 (M53) 13 : 12 : 55.18 +18 : 10 : 06.1 0.5 1 possible existence of a power-law cusp (Noyola & Geb- 5272 (M3) 13 : 42 : 11.38 +28 : 22 : 39.1 1 1 hardt 2006, 2007) due to the post-core collapse state of 5466 14 : 05 : 27.25 +28 : 32 : 01.8 2 1 the system (Djorgovski & King 1986; Trenti et al. 2010), 5824 15 : 03 : 58.637 −33 : 04 : 05.90 0.2 1 or to the presence of an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole 5904 (M5) 15 : 18 : 33.214 +02 : 04 : 51.80 0.2 1 6121 (M4) 16 : 23 : 35.03 −26 : 31 : 33.89 1 1 (IMBH; Bahcall & Wolf 1976; Baumgardt et al. 2005; 6205 (M13) 16 : 41 : 41.21 +36 : 27 : 35.61 0.4 1 Miocchi 2007, but see also Vesperini & Trenti 2010). 6229 16 : 46 : 58.74 +47 : 31 : 39.53 0.1 5 The external portion provides information on the possi- 6254 (M10) 16 : 57 : 8.92 −04 : 05 : 58.07 1 6 ble presence of tidal tails and structures well outside the 6266 (M62) 17 : 01 : 12.98 −30 : 06 : 49.00 0.2 1 6341 (M92) 17 : 17 : 07.43 +43 : 08 : 09.26 0.1 1 cluster Roche lobe, that are indeed observed in a grow- 6626 (M28) 18 : 24 : 32.73 −24 : 52 : 13.07 0.7 1 ing number of GCs (see, e.g., Leon et al. 2000; Testa et 6809 (M55) 19 : 39 : 59.84 −30 : 57 : 50.81 1 1 al. 2000; Odenkirchen et al. 2003; Belokurov et al. 2006; 6864 (M75) 20 : 06 : 4.85 −21 : 55 : 17.85 0.5 7 Koch et al. 2009; Jordi & Grebel 2010; Sollima et al. 7089 (M2) 21 : 33 : 26.96 −00 : 49 : 22.97 1 8 AM 1 03 : 55 : 02.5 −49 : 36 : 53.2 1 9 2011). The influence of escaped stars (either originated Eridanus 04 : 24 : 44.7 −21 : 11 : 13.9 1 9 by two-body internal relaxation or by tidal stripping due Palomar 3 10 : 05 : 31.56 +00 : 04 : 21.74 2 9 to the external field) on the outer density profile makes Palomar 4 11 : 29 : 16.47 +28 : 58 : 22.38 > 2 9 more and more questionable the use of the widely em- Palomar 14 16 : 11 : 00.8 +14 : 57 : 27.8 1 10 Terzan 5 17 : 48 : 04.85 −24 : 46 : 44.6 1 11 ployed King (1966) model (see, e.g., the catalogs of Djor- govski 1993; Pryor & Meylan 1993; Trager et al. 1995; References. — (1) this work; (2) Goldsbury et al. (2010); Harris 1996, 2010 version, hereafter H10, and MvM05). (3) Lanzoni et al. (2007b); (4) Dalessandro et al. (2008); (5) In this model, the tidal effect is imposed by construction Sanna et al. (2012): (6) Dalessandro et al. (2011); (7) Contreras with a sharp cutoff of the Maxwellian distribution at the et al. (2012); (8) Dalessandro et al. (2009); (9) Beccari et al. “limiting radius”, while many clusters seem to show a (2012); (10) Beccari et al. (2011); (11) Lanzoni et al. (2010). radial density that drops towards the background level Note. — Centers of gravity and references for the star count much more smoothly than the King model predicts, even surface density profiles of all the GCs in our sample.