4.7 Article

MAPPING THE GALACTIC HALO. VIII. QUANTIFYING SUBSTRUCTURE

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 698, Issue 1, Pages 567-579

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/567

Keywords

Galaxy: evolution; Galaxy: formation; Galaxy: halo; Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics

Funding

  1. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  2. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0808043] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have measured the amount of kinematic substructure in the Galactic halo using the final data set from the Spaghetti project, a pencil-beam high-latitude sky survey. Our sample contains 101 photometrically selected and spectroscopically confirmed giants with accurate distance, radial velocity, and metallicity information. We have developed a new clustering estimator: the 4distance measure, which when applied to our data set leads to the identification of one group and seven pairs of clumped stars. The group, with six members, can confidently be matched to tidal debris of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. Two pairs match the properties of known Virgo structures. Using models of the disruption of Sagittarius in Galactic potentials with different degrees of dark halo flattening, we show that this favors a spherical or prolate halo shape, as demonstrated by Newberg et al. using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data. One additional pair can be linked to older Sagittarius debris. We find that 20% of the stars in the Spaghetti data set are in substructures. From comparison with random data sets, we derive a very conservative lower limit of 10% to the amount of substructure in the halo. However, comparison to numerical simulations shows that our results are also consistent with a halo entirely built up from disrupted satellites, provided that the dominating features are relatively broad due to early merging or relatively heavy progenitor satellites.

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