4.1 Article

Kinematic classification of non-interacting spiral galaxies

期刊

NEW ASTRONOMY
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 40-61

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.newast.2013.04.006

关键词

Disk galaxies; Rotation curves; Classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using neutral hydrogen (HI) rotation curves of 79 galaxies, culled from the literature, as well as measured from HI data, we present a method for classifying disk galaxies by their kinematics. In order to investigate fundamental kinematic properties we concentrate on non-interacting spiral galaxies. We employ a simple parameterized form for the rotation curve in order to derive the three parameters: the maximum rotational velocity, the turnover radius and a measure of the slope of the rotation curve beyond the turnover radius. Our approach uses the statistical Hierarchical Clustering method to guide our division of the resultant 3D distribution of galaxies into five classes. Comparing the kinematic classes in this preliminary classification scheme to a number of galaxy properties, we find that our class containing galaxies with the largest rotational velocities has a mean morphological type of Sb/Sbc while the other classes tend to later types. Other trends also generally agree with those described by previous researchers. In particular we confirm correlations between increasing maximum rotational velocity and the following observed properties: increasing brightness in B-band, increasing size of the optical disk (D-25) and increasing star formation rate (as derived using radio continuum data). Our analysis also suggests that lower velocities are associated with a higher ratio of the HI mass over the dynamical mass. Additionally, three galaxies exhibit a drop in rotational velocity amplitude of greater than or similar to 20% after the turnover radius. However recent investigations suggest that they have interacted with minor companions which is a common cause for declining rotation curves. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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