4.7 Article

The SLUGGS survey: outer triaxiality of the fast rotator elliptical NGC 4473

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1550

关键词

galaxies: haloes; galaxies: individual: (NGC 4473); galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: structure

资金

  1. Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission
  2. ARC [DP130100388]
  3. National Science Foundation [AST-0909237]
  4. W.M. Keck Foundation
  5. NSF [AST-0071048]
  6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0909237] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0909237] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Systematic surveys of nearby early-type galaxies using integral field unit (IFU) spectrograph data have revealed that galaxies can hide interesting structures only visible through kinematic studies. As part of their pioneering work, the ATLAS(3D) team have shown that most morphologically elliptical galaxies are centrally kinematically disc like. Hence, while global morphology suggests that ellipticals are ellipsoidal/triaxial in shape, their central kinematics may be consistent with (inclined) oblate systems. Here, we study the fast rotator elliptical galaxy: NGC 4473. Using slitlets, we obtain galaxy light kinematics out to unprecedentedly large galactocentric radii (2.5 effective radii). While we confirm the IFU results in the central regions, we find that at large galactocentric radii NGC 4473 exhibits a kinematic transition. In the outskirts, we observe clear minor and major axis rotation, a tell-tale sign of triaxiality, which agrees well with the galaxy's Hubble type. This outer 'kinematically distinct halo' may be expected from simulations of galaxy formation, and in this system contains around one-third of the stellar light. While this galaxy may be a special case, it suggests that further investigation of the outskirts of galaxies is needed to confirm the new paradigm of galaxy classification.

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