4.7 Article

Streams in the Aquarius stellar haloes

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1838

关键词

methods: analytical; methods: numerical; solar neighbourhood; galaxies: formation; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics

资金

  1. NSF Office of Cyberinfrastructure [PHY-0941373]
  2. Michigan State University Institute for Cyber-Enabled Research (iCER)
  3. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) through a VIDI grant
  4. European Research Council [GALACTICA-240271]
  5. Natural Science Foundation of China [11250110509]
  6. STFC [ST/H008519/1, ST/I001166/1, ST/I00162X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I001166/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/I00162X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Division Of Physics
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0941373] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use the very high resolution, fully cosmological simulations from the Aquarius Project, coupled to a semi-analytical model of galaxy formation, to study the phase-space distribution of halo stars in 'solar neighbourhood' like volumes. We find that this distribution is very rich in substructure in the form of stellar streams for all five stellar haloes we have analysed. These streams can be easily identified in velocity space, as well as in spaces of pseudo-conserved quantities such as E versus L-z. In our best resolved local volumes, the number of identified streams ranges from approximate to 300 to 600, in very good agreement with previous analytical predictions, even in the presence of chaotic mixing. The fraction of particles linked to (massive) stellar streams in these volumes can be as large as 84 per cent. The number of identified streams is found to decrease as a power law with galactocentric radius. We show that the strongest limitation to the quantification of substructure in our poorest resolved local volumes is particle resolution rather than strong diffusion due to chaotic mixing.

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