4.7 Article

Formation of the Andromeda giant stream: asymmetric structure and disc progenitor

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 464, Issue 3, Pages 3509-3525

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw2563

Keywords

galaxies: individual: (M31); galaxies: interactions; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics

Funding

  1. JSPS [21244013, 25400222]
  2. Japan Science and Technology Agency's (JST) CREST programme
  3. University Research Support Grant from the NAOJ
  4. [26.348]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21244013, 14J00348] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We focus on the evidence of a past minor merger discovered in the halo of the Andromeda galaxy (M31). Previous N-body studies have enjoyed moderate success in producing the observed giant stellar stream (GSS) and stellar shells in M31's halo. The observed distribution of stars in the halo of M31 shows an asymmetric surface brightness profile across the GSS; however, the effect of the morphology of the progenitor galaxy on the internal structure of the GSS requires further investigation in theoretical studies. To investigate the physical connection between the characteristic surface brightness in the GSS and the morphology of the progenitor dwarf galaxy, we systematically vary the thickness, rotation velocity and initial inclination of the disc dwarf galaxy in N-body simulations. The formation of the observed structures appears to be dominated by the progenitor's rotation. Besides reproducing the observed GSS and two shells in detail, we predict additional structures for further observations. We predict the detectability of the progenitor's stellar core in the phase-space density distribution, azimuthal metallicity gradient of the western shell-like structure and an additional extended shell in the north-western direction that may constrain the properties of the progenitor galaxy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available