4.6 Article

Resolved Kinematics of Runaway and Field OB Stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 867, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae892

关键词

binaries: general; galaxies: star clusters: general; Magellanic Clouds; stars: kinematics and dynamics; stars: massive; X-rays: binaries

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-1514838]
  2. University of Michigan
  3. NASA's Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship program [PF5-160139]
  4. NASA ATP [17-ATP17-0070]
  5. NSF CAREER award [AST-1455260]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use Gaia Data Release 2 proper motions of field OB stars from the Runaways and Isolated O-Type Star Spectroscopic Survey of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) to study the kinematics of runaway stars. The data reveal that the SMC Wing has a systemic peculiar motion relative to the SMC Bar of (v(alpha), v(delta)) = (62 +/- 7, -18 +/- 5) km s(-1) and relative radial velocity +4.5 +/- 5.0 km s(-1). This unambiguously demonstrates that these two regions are kinematically distinct: the Wing is moving away from the Bar, and towards the Large Magellanic Cloud with a 3D velocity of 64 +/- 10 km s(-1). This is consistent with models for a recent, direct collision between the Clouds. We present transverse velocity distributions for our field OB stars, confirming that unbound runaways comprise on the order of half our sample, possibly more. Using eclipsing binaries and double-lined spectroscopic binaries as tracers of dynamically ejected runaways, and high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) as tracers of runaways accelerated by supernova kicks, we find significant contributions from both populations. The data suggest that HMXBs have lower velocity dispersion relative to dynamically ejected binaries, consistent with the former group corresponding to less energetic supernova kicks that failed to unbind the components. Evidence suggests that our fast runaways are dominated by dynamical, rather than supernova, ejections.

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