English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The analysis of the age distributions of star cluster samples of differentgalaxies has resulted in two very different empirical models for thedissolution of star clusters: the Baltimore model and the Utrecht model. Idescribe these two models and their differences. The Baltimore model impliesthat the dissolution of star clusters is mass independent and that about 90% ofthe clusters are destroyed each age dex, up to an age of about a Gyr, afterwhich point mass-dependent dissolution from two-body relaxation becomes thedominant mechanism. In the Utrecht model, cluster dissolution occurs in threestages: (i) mass-independent infant mortality due to the expulsion of gas up toabout 10 Myr; (ii) a phase of slow dynamical evolution with strong evolutionaryfading of the clusters lasting up to about a Gyr; and (iii) a phase dominatedby mass dependent-dissolution, as predicted by dynamical models. I describe thecluster age distributions for mass-limited and magnitude-limited clustersamples for both models. I refrain from judging the correctness of thesemodels.

The Baltimore and Utrecht models for cluster dissolution