4.6 Article

C60+ diffuse interstellar band correlations and environmental variations

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 656, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142669

关键词

ISM: lines and bands; ISM: molecules; ISM: clouds; dust, extinction

资金

  1. NSERC
  2. Western University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the correlations between the strengths of the two strongest C-60(+) DIBs and their environmental behavior. It was found that there is a high correlation between the strengths of the C-60(+) DIBs, and the behavior of these correlated bands differs significantly from other DIBs in different environments.
Context. The diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) are absorption features seen in the spectra of astronomical objects that arise in the interstellar medium. Today, more than 500 DIBs have been observed, mostly in the optical and near-infrared wavelengths. The origin of the DIBs is unclear; only ionised buckminsterfullerene, C-60(+), has been identified as a viable candidate for two strong and three weaker DIBs. Aims. We investigate the correlations between the strengths of the two strongest C-60(+) DIBs as well as their environmental behaviour. Methods. We analysed measurements of the strengths of the two C-60(+) DIBs at 9577 and 9633 angstrom for 26 lines of sight. We used two different methods, including Monte Carlo simulations, to study their correlations and the influence of measurement errors on the correlation coefficients. We examined how the strength of the C-60(+) DIBs changes as a result of different environmental conditions, as measured by the concentration of H/H-2 and the strength of the ambient UV radiation. Results. In contrast to results recently reported by Galazutdinov et al. (2021, AJ, 161, 127), we find a high correlation between the strengths of the C-60(+) DIBs. We also discovered that the behaviour of the correlated C-60(+) bands is quite distinct from other DIBs at 5780, 5797, and 6203 angstrom in different environments.

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

4.6
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