4.7 Article

The origin of Segue 1

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15287.x

关键词

globular clusters: individual: Segue 1; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics

资金

  1. Gates Cambridge Trust
  2. the Isaac Newton Studentship
  3. Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
  4. Royal Society
  5. SDSS
  6. SDSS-II
  7. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  8. the Participating Institutions
  9. the National Science Foundation
  10. the U.S. Department of Energy
  11. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  12. the Japanese Monbukagakusho
  13. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  14. STFC [PP/E001068/1, ST/H001913/1, PP/E00105X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  15. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H001913/1, PP/E001068/1, PP/E00105X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We apply the optimal filter technique to Sloan Digital Sky Survey photometry around Segue 1 and find that the outer parts of the cluster are distorted. There is strong evidence for similar to 1 degrees elongations of extra-tidal stars, extending both eastwards and southwestwards of the cluster. The extensions have similar differential Hess diagrams to Segue 1. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test suggests a high probability that both come from the same parent distribution. The location of Segue 1 is close to crossings of the tidal wraps of the Sagittarius stream. By extracting blue horizontal branch stars from Sloan's spectral data base, two kinematic features are isolated and identified with different wraps of the Sagittarius stream. We show that Segue 1 is moving with a velocity that is close to one of the wraps. At this location, we estimate that there are enough Sagittarius stars, indistinguishable from Segue 1 stars, to inflate the velocity dispersion and hence the mass-to-light ratio. All the available evidence is consistent with the interpretation that Segue 1 is a star cluster, originally from the Sagittarius galaxy, and now dissolving in the Milky Way.

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