4.7 Article

The early-type galaxies NGC 1407 and NGC 1400 - I. Spatially resolved radial kinematics and surface photometry

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12891.x

关键词

galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation; galaxies : individual : NGC 1407; galaxies : individual : NGC 1400; galaxies : kinematics and dynamics; galaxies : photometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This is the first paper of a series focused on investigating the star formation and evolutionary history of the two early-type galaxies NGC 1407 and NGC 1400. They are the two brightest galaxies of the NGC 1407 (or Eridanus-A) group, one of the 60 groups studied as part of the Group Evolution Multi-wavelength Study. Here, we present new high signal-to-noise ratio long-slit spectroscopic data obtained at the ESO 3.6-m telescope and high-resolution multiband imaging data from the Hubble Space Telescope/Advanced Camera for Surveys and wide-field imaging from Subaru Suprime-Cam. We spatially resolved integrated spectra out to similar to 0.6 (NGC 1407) and similar to 1.3 (NGC 1400) effective radii. The radial profiles of the kinematic parameters v(rot), sigma, h(3) and h(4) are measured. The surface brightness profiles are fitted to different galaxy light models and the colour distributions analysed. The multiband images are modelled to derive isophotal shape parameters and residual galaxy images. The parameters from the surface brightness profile fitting are used to estimate the mass of the possible central supermassive black hole in NGC 1407. The galaxies are found to be rotationally supported and to have a flat core in the surface brightness profiles. Elliptical isophotes are observed at all radii and no fine structures are detected in the residual galaxy images. From our results, we can also discard a possible interaction between NGC 1400, NGC 1407 and the group intergalactic medium. We estimate a mass of similar to 1.03 x 10(9) M-circle dot for the supermassive black hole in NGC 1407 galaxy.

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