OC vs. Nuclear Star Clusters

Nuclear star clusters are the surviving nuclei of tidally stripped dwarf galaxies — exactly the origin channel proposed for Omega Centauri. Compare OC's structural parameters against well-characterized NSCs to ask: is OC a typical stripped nucleus, or something special?

🔬 Structural parameters
Parameter Table

Omega Centauri is highlighted in teal. NSCs (nuclear star clusters confirmed as stripped nuclei) in amber. Regular globular clusters in grey for comparison. Key discriminators: OC's multi-population metallicity spread and retrograde orbit are distinctive NSC signatures. The BH mass fraction (M_BH/M_cluster) is the key quantity for IMBH formation probability.

Object Type Mass (M☉) Reff (pc) Σ0 (M☉/pc²) Age (Gyr) [Fe/H] spread MBH (M☉) BH fraction IMBH status
Mass–Size Relation

NSCs and GCs follow different mass–size scaling relations. OC's position on this diagram reveals whether it aligns with the NSC branch or the GC branch — a key diagnostic for its formation channel.

log(Mass) vs. log(R_eff) — NSC branch vs. GC branch

NSC vs. GC distinction

Nuclear star clusters (NSCs) in dwarf galaxies have: (1) multiple stellar populations spanning wide metallicity ranges (ΔFe/H > 0.5 dex), (2) central surface densities Σ₀ > 10⁴ M☉/pc², (3) a host galaxy origin that gives them retrograde or eccentric orbits in the Milky Way if accreted. Omega Centauri satisfies all three: it shows ΔFe/H > 1.5 dex, Σ₀ ~ 10⁵ M☉/pc², and a retrograde Galactic orbit — strongly suggesting a stripped nucleated dwarf origin (Bekki & Tsujimoto 2003; Hilker & Richtler 2000).

The IMBH-NSC connection

NSCs preferentially harbor massive black holes (Neumayer et al. 2020). The BH mass fraction in the table shows the ratio of IMBH/SMBH mass to cluster mass — for OC, even at the lower Bañares-Hernández (2025) limit of 6,000 M☉, the ratio is ~0.15%, consistent with the high end of the NSC–BH mass relation. This is significantly above typical GC BH fractions.

References

Neumayer, Seth & Böker 2020 (A&ARv 28:4) · Seth et al. 2006 (AJ 132:2539) · Bekki & Tsujimoto 2003 (MNRAS 340:L29) · Baumgardt & Hilker 2018 (MNRAS 478:1520) · Ibata et al. 2009 (ApJ 699:L169)