4.7 Article

Satellites of LMC-mass dwarfs: close friendships ruined by Milky Way mass haloes

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv1939

关键词

Galaxy: formation; Galaxy: halo; galaxies: dwarf; Magellanic Clouds

资金

  1. NASA through Hubble Fellowship - Space Telescope Science Institute [HST-HF-51302.01]
  2. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  3. Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and Physics at Caltech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivated by the recent discovery of several dwarfs near the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), we study the accretion of massive satellites onto Milky Way (MW)/M31-like haloes using the ELVIS suite of N-body simulations. We identify 25 surviving LMC-mass subhaloes, and investigate the lower-mass satellites that were associated with these subhaloes before they fell into the MW/M31 haloes. Typically, 7 per cent of the overall z = 0 satellite population of MW/M31 haloes were in a surviving LMC-group before falling into the MW/M31 halo. This fraction can vary between 1 and 25 per cent, being higher for groups with higher mass and/or more recent infall times. Groups of satellites disperse rapidly in phase space after infall, and their distances and velocities relative to the group centre become statistically similar to the overall satellite population after 4-8 Gyr. We quantify the likelihood that satellites were associated with an LMC-mass group as a function of both distance and velocity relative to the LMC at z=0. The close proximity in distance of the nine Dark Energy Survey candidate dwarf galaxies to the LMC suggest that similar to 2-4 are likely associated with the LMC. Furthermore, if several of these dwarfs are genuine members, then the LMC-group probably fell into the MW very recently, less than or similar to 2 Gyr ago. If the connection with the LMC is established with follow-up velocity measurements, these 'satellites of satellites' represent prime candidates to study the effects of group pre-processing on lower mass dwarfs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据