4.6 Article

THE GAIA-ESO SURVEY: METAL-RICH BANANAS IN THE BULGE

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 824, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L29

关键词

galaxies: general; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; Galaxy: bulge

资金

  1. ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory [188.B-3002]
  2. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council
  3. European Union through ERC [320360]
  4. Leverhulme Trust [RPG-2012-541]
  5. INAF
  6. Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universita e della Ricerca (MIUR)
  7. European Science Foundation (ESF) through the GREAT Research Network Programme
  8. STFC [ST/L006553/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyze the kinematics of similar to 2000 giant stars in the direction of the Galactic bulge, extracted from the Gaia-ESO survey in the region -10 degrees less than or similar to l less than or similar to 10 degrees and -11 degrees less than or similar to b less than or similar to -3 degrees. We find distinct kinematic trends in the metal-rich ([M/H] > 0) and metal-poor ([M/H] < 0) stars in the data. The velocity dispersion of the metal-rich stars drops steeply with latitude, compared to a flat profile in the metal-poor stars, as has been seen previously. We argue that the metal-rich stars in this region are mostly on orbits that support the boxy-peanut shape of the bulge, which naturally explains the drop in their velocity dispersion profile with latitude. The metal-rich stars also exhibit peaky features in their line of sight velocity histograms, particularly along the minor axis of the bulge. We propose that these features are due to stars on resonant orbits supporting the boxy-peanut bulge. This conjecture is strengthened through the comparison of the minor axis data with the velocity histograms of resonant orbits generated in simulations of buckled bars. The banana or 2: 1: 2 orbits provide strongly bimodal histograms with narrow velocity peaks that resemble the Gaia-ESO metal-rich data.

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