4.6 Article

A self-gravitating accretion disk in Sgr A* a few million years ago: Is Sgr A* a failed quasar?

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 437, Issue 2, Pages 437-445

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042052

Keywords

accretion; accretion disks; black hole physics; Galaxy : center; stars : formation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sgr A* is extra- ordinarily dim in all wavelengths requiring a very low accretion rate at the present time. However, at a radial distance of a fraction of a parsec from Sgr A*, two rings populated by young massive stars suggest a recent burst of star formation in a rather hostile environment. Here we explore two ways of creating such young stellar rings with a gaseous accretion disk: by self- gravity in a massive disk, and by capturing old low mass stars and growing them via gas accretion in a disk. The minimum disk mass is above 10(4) M-circle dot for the first mechanism and is few tens of times larger for the second one. The observed relatively small velocity dispersion of the stars rules out disks more massive than around 10(5) M-circle dot: heavier stellar or gas disks would warp each other too strongly by orbital precession in an axisymmetric potential. The capture of old stars by a disk is thus unlikely as the origin of the young stellar disks. The absence of a massive nuclear gas disk in Sgr A* now implies that the disk was either accreted by the SMBH, which would then imply almost a quasar- like luminosity for Sgr A*, or was consumed in the star formation episode. The latter possibility appears to be more likely on theoretical grounds. We also consider whether accretion disk plane changes, expected to occur due to fluctuations in the angular momentum of gas infalling into the central parsec of a galaxy, would dislodge the embedded stars from the disk midplane. We find that the stars leave the disk midplane only if the disk orientation changes on time scales much shorter than the disk viscous time.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available