4.8 Article

The remnants of galaxy formation from a panoramic survey of the region around M31

Journal

NATURE
Volume 461, Issue 7260, Pages 66-69

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature08327

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Commission [MCEXT-CT-2005-025869]
  2. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)
  3. National Science Foundation [AST-0709479]
  4. Space Telescope Science Institute [GO-9453, GO-10265, GO-10816]
  5. STFC [ST/H004165/1, PP/E00105X/1, ST/H004157/1, ST/F001967/1, PP/C002229/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H004165/1, PP/E00105X/1, ST/F001967/1, ST/H004157/1, PP/C002229/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In hierarchical cosmological models(1), galaxies grow in mass through the continual accretion of smaller ones. The tidal disruption of these systems is expected to result in loosely bound stars surrounding the galaxy, at distances that reach 10-100 times the radius of the central disk(2,3). The number, luminosity and morphology of the relics of this process provide significant clues to galaxy formation history(4), but obtaining a comprehensive survey of these components is difficult because of their intrinsic faintness and vast extent. Here we report a panoramic survey of the Andromeda galaxy (M31). We detect stars and coherent structures that are almost certainly remnants of dwarf galaxies destroyed by the tidal field of M31. An improved census of their surviving counterparts implies that three-quarters of M31's satellites brighter than M(v) =-6 await discovery. The brightest companion, Triangulum (M33), is surrounded by a stellar structure that provides persuasive evidence for a recent encounter with M31. This panorama of galaxy structure directly confirms the basic tenets of the hierarchical galaxy formation model and reveals the shared history of M31 and M33 in the unceasing build-up of galaxies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available