4.7 Article

Balance among gravitational instability, star formation and accretion determines the structure and evolution of disc galaxies

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt2294

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: ISM; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: structure

资金

  1. National Science FoundationAlfred P. Sloan Foundation [DGE0809125, DGE1339067]
  2. NSF [AST-0955300, AST-1010033]
  3. NASA
  4. ATFP [NNX13AB84G]
  5. GIF [G-1052-104.7/2009]
  6. ISF [24/12]
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0955300] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0955300] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past 10 Gyr, star-forming galaxies have changed dramatically, from clumpy and gas rich, to rather quiescent stellar-dominated discs with specific star formation rates lower by factors of a few tens. We present a general theoretical model for how this transition occurs, and what physical processes drive it, making use of 1D axisymmetric thin disc simulations with an improved version of the Gravitational Instability-Dominated Galaxy Evolution Tool (GIDGET) code. We show that at every radius galaxies tend to be in a slowly evolving equilibrium state wherein new accretion is balanced by star formation, galactic winds and radial transport of gas through the disc by gravitational instability-driven torques. The gas surface density profile is determined by which of these terms are in balance at a given radius - direct accretion is balanced by star formation and galactic winds near galactic centres, and by transport at larger radii. We predict that galaxies undergo a smooth transition from a violent disc instability phase to secular evolution. This model provides a natural explanation for the high velocity dispersions and large clumps in z similar to 2 galaxies, the growth and subsequent quenching of bulges, and features of the neutral gas profiles of local spiral galaxies.

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