1. Globular Clusters and Galaxy Building Blocks Young-Wook Lee Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

2. Where are the relics of building blocks that formed stellar component of the Galaxy? Globular clusters as galaxy building blocks? Peebles & Dicke 1968: “Originated as gas clouds before the galaxies formed” Freeman 1993: Remaining nuclei of nucleated dwarf ellipticals?  Not all, but some might be…  Do we have evidence?

3. Early hint from spectroscopy (Norris+96) Not just a spread, but discrete RGBs in optical CMD!  Multiple pops having different metal (heavier elements) abundances  Direct evidence for SNe enrichment  Remaining nucleus of a disrupted dwarf galaxy! (Sollimar+2005) The 1 st Clue: Discovery of Multiple & Discrete RGBs in  Cen Discovery! (Lee+1999, Nature) 130,000 stars

4. Super-He-rich Subpopulations in  Centauri Evidence from MS & New Y 2 Isochrones Model: Lee, Joo+2005 Observation: Bedin, Piotto+2004 See also Norris 04; Piotto+05; Sollima+06 Joo & Lee 10, in prep.  PopulationZY Age [Gyr] Fraction ——0.00050.23113 +/-0.30.42 ——0.00090.232130.27 ——0.00100.38130.17 ——0.00250.39130.08 -—--0.0060.40130.05

5. Observation: Ferraro et al. 2004 Model: Joo & Lee 2010 in prep. (See also Lee+05) Super-He-rich Subpopulations in  Centauri Evidence from Extended HB (EHB)

6. PopulationZY[α/Fe]Age [Gyr] ——0.00050.2310.312.5 +/-0.3 ——0.00070.340.312.5 ——0.0010.2320.311.0 ——0.0090.2480.04.0 ——0.0140.2580.02.4 Super-He-rich Subpopulation in M54+Sgr Evidence from SGB & EHB (Joo & Lee 10, in prep.) Siegel+07  For EHB & SGB split Model

7. M22 Narrow-band Ca photometry Evidence for SNe enrichment! (J.-W. Lee, Y.-W. Lee+09, Nature) Ca-by photometry CTIO 1m Narrow-band Ca & Stromgren b, y filters hk = (Ca-b) – (b-y) “a measure of Ca abundance” (Anthony-Twarog+91)

8. M22 Models (Joo & Lee 10, in prep.) Obs data : Lee, J.-W. +09 PopulationZ[Fe/H][α/Fe]YAge [Gyr] ——0.0004-1.900.30.23112.0 +/-0.3 ——0.0008-1.630.40.31012.0 Da Costa+09 : [Fe/H] = -1.89 & -1.63 Marino+09 : [Fe/H] = -1.82 & -1.68 Both Ca (Fe) & He are enriched in 2 nd population!

9. NGC 288 Ca-by photometry Presence of double RGBs! (Roh, Lee et al., in prep.)

10. NGC 288 Models PopulationZ[Fe/H][α/Fe]YAge [Gyr] ——0.00082-1.5920.30.23112.7 +/-0.3 ——0.00120-1.4100.30.26011.5 Small  Z +  Y +  t  Only weakly extended HB

11. Metal-rich & He-rich Subpopulation in NGC 1851 Evidence from RGB & HB! (Han+09; CTIO 4m) U is more sensitive to metal lines! Confirmed by Ca-by photometry (Red: Ca-rich, Blue:Ca-poor: J.-W. Lee+09)

12. PopulationZ[α/Fe][Fe/H]Y Age [Gyr] Fraction —— 0.00120.3-1.430.23210.70.7 —— 0.00160.3-1.270.28210.60.3 Enhancements of (1) “lighter elements” (N, Al, Na; red dotted-line), (2) heavy elements (Ca, Fe…), & (3) He are required. NGC 1851 Model (Han, Joo+09)

13. Very complex! It appears that (1) SNe, (2) Fast Rotating Massive Stars, and (3) Intermediate-Mass AGB Stars are ALL involved in the chemical enrichment and pollution in GCs with multiple RGBs. GMT can contribute… Star formation & chemical enrichment history in GCs with multiple RGBs

14. How do these peculiar GCs differ from “normal” GCs? Most, if not all, EHB GCs show multiple populations (RGBs)… Therefore, we use EHB as a proxy for multiple populations (RGBs)… GCs with extended HB (EHB GCs) = GCs with multiple populations (Lee+07)

15. GCs with multiple pops (EHB GCs) are distinct from “normal” GCs! Evidence 1: Presence of SNe enrichment!  system was much more massive, was able to withstand SNe winds!  M > 10 7 - 10 8 M sun (i.e., dwarf galaxy)  Cen: Y.-W. Lee+99, Bedin+04 (early hint: Norris+96) 2.M54 (+Sgr): Sarajedini & Layden 95, Rosenberg+04 3.NGC 1851: Han+09, J.-W. Lee+09, (Carretta+10) 4.M22: J.-W. Lee+09, Marino+09, Da Costa+09 5.Terzan 5: Ferraro+09 6.NGC 2419: Cohen+10 7.And many more? (NGC 288, 362, 1261, 2808, M4, M5, 6218, 6266, 6273, 6723, 6752, 7089…): J.-W. Lee+09, Roh+10 We still need spectroscopic confirmations in many cases!

16. Evidence 2: EHB GCs are more massive! Lee+2007, ApJ, 661, L49 Early hints: Fusi Pecci+1993 Ree+2002 Recio-Blanco+2006 Database: Harris 2003

17. Evidence 3: EHB GCs are kinematically decoupled from normal GCs! Lee+2007, ApJ, 661, L49 Orbital Kinematics based on Radial Velocity Database: Harris 2003 (R gc ≤ 40 kpc)NV rot σ los V rot /σ los All OH ([Fe/H] ≤ -0.8)5949±24100±90.49±0.24 EHB184±3591±150.05±0.38 Normal4176±30100±110.76±0.31

18. EHB GCs: Memory of chaotic merging processes Normal GCs: Evidence for dissipational collapse! Occurrence of this by random selection < 1/10 5 (0.001%) ! Orbital Kinematics based on Full Spatial Motions (35 OH+D/B) (Lee+2007, ApJ, 661, L49)

19. Evidence 4: EHB GCs are more enhanced in Helium (on average)! Helium abundance from “R-method”: Data from Salaris+2004 EHB : 0.272±0.008 OH+D/B : 0.240±0.006 YH : 0.235±0.009 Difference is more than 4  !

20. Evidence 5: EHB GCs are metal-poor! MDF is peaked at [Fe/H] = -1.6 R ≤ 8 Kpc EHB Candidates+ Poor CMDs Normal OH+D/B

21. EHB GCs are distinct from normal GCs in: 1. SNe enrichment (Multiple RGBs) 2. Mass 3. Orbital kinematics 4. Helium abundance 5. Metallicity distribution function & Absence of DM is not a serious problem (Saitoh+06)  Fully consistent with a conjecture (Y.-W. Lee+07) that they are relics of primordial Galaxy building blocks!

22. GMT Sciences?

23. 8.2m VLT FLAMES Spectroscopy: “Blue MS is more metal-rich!”  Implies super Y-rich (Piotto et al. 2005) Relatively bright (20-21 mag) stars with 8.2m: ~12hrs/cluster  23-25 mag with GMT for all GCs  Better understanding of star formation history in building blocks GMT Science 1: Multi-Object Spectroscopy of MS stars in Globular Clusters with multiple populations  Cen

24. GMT Science 2: MOS of GCs in Fornax (H-beta Age Dating & Search for EHB GCs) Subaru ~10hrs Exp. (S. Kim+10, in prep.) Bright GCs (V < 22.5) in Virgo M87  GMT will provide much better data! NGC 1399 (CTIO 4m, Kim+09)

25. Effect of HB on Balmer lines of Old GCs in M31 (Chung, Lee+2010, in prep.) Without HB With HB Metal-Poor Metal-Rich

26. Schiavon et al. 2006 Model with He-enhanced pop (z form > 5) Chung, Lee, & Yoon, in prep GMT Science 3: Balmer Absorption Lines of E galaxies at high-z (1) Passive Evolution or Residual Star Formation? (2) E galaxies prevailed by He enhanced population?

28. Star formation history in GCs with multiple RGBs A possible scenario? 1. Formation of metal-poor (bluer RGB) stars  Normal He, metal- poor, no light-elements enhanced (or depleted) 2. Pollution by fast rotating massive stars  Enhance He, and enhance/deplete “lighter elements”  Formation of Na-rich O-poor stars (+Mixing )? 3. Most massive (M > 8M ⊙ ) metal-poor stars explode as SNe II  Metal enrichment + He enrichment (system was much more massive, was able to withstand SNe winds!)  Quenching of SF for a while? 4. Pollution by intermediate-mass (3-7M ⊙ ) AGB stars  Add more He, and simultaneously enhance/deplete “lighter elements” 5. Formation of metal-rich (redder RGB) stars from the gas now enriched in overall metallicity, He, and “lighter elements”

29. Nuclear star clusters in dwarf galaxies are very similar to EHB GCs! (Georgiev+09)

30. Conclusion The Three-Stage Formation of the Milky Way Lee, Y.-W. et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, L49 Present-day Galactic GCs are ensemble of heterogeneous objects originated from three distinct phases of the Milky Way formation! (1) EHB GCs: remaining cores or relics of primordial Galaxy building blocks expected in the LCDM hierarchical merging paradigm (2) Normal GCs in the Inner Halo: genuine GCs formed in the dissipational collapse of a transient gas-rich inner halo system that eventually formed the Galactic disk (ELS 1962) (3) Normal GCs in the Outer Halo: genuine GCs formed in the outskirts of outlying building blocks that later accreted to the outer halo of the Milky Way (Searle & Zinn 1978)

31. Two pops defined from Na-O anticorrelation are not identical to two pops defined from Ca-by photometry (Han & Lee, in prep.) For the spectroscopic confirmation of heavy elements difference claimed from Ca- by photometry, stars in two populations defined from photometry should be observed in spectroscopy! (cf. Carretta+10)  This critical test has not been done with enough stars (cf. J.-W. Lee+09), but T eff & g should be very well determined in spectroscopy since expected  [Fe/H] is comparable to measurement error (0.15 dex)! Two Pops defined from photometry: No clear separation in Na-O plane (Data from Marino+09, J.-W. Lee+09) Two Pops defined from Na-O plane: No clear separation in hk CMD

32. Further works What is the ratio of building block candidates to normal GCs? More spectroscopic confirmation HST WFC3 & ground-based Ca-by photometry of GCs and dwarf galaxies Population synthesis with enhanced He population for ETGs

33. GMT Science 4: NIR AO Imager? Photometry of bright RGB stars in globular clusters & halo fields in nearby galaxies If diffraction limited, reliable photometry might be possible to 1-3 mags below RGB tip at Fornax/Virgo distances (Tolstoy 2006; GMT Science Case Nov. 2006). (1) Measurement of global metallicity from NIR RGB color, such as J-K. (2) Discovery of multiple RGBs, if any (  Cen-like)? (3) distance, etc…