4.7 Article

A 2-3 billion year old major merger paradigm for the Andromeda galaxy and its outskirts

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx3343

关键词

galaxies: formation; galaxies: haloes; galaxies: individual: M31; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; Local Group

资金

  1. Region Ile de France
  2. project Equip@Meso of the program 'Investissements d Avenir [ANR-10-EQPX-29-01]
  3. China-France International Associated Laboratory 'Origins'
  4. China Scholarship Council [201604910336]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent observations of our neighbouring galaxy M31 have revealed that its disc was shaped by widespread events. The evidence for this includes the high dispersion (V/sigma <= 3) of stars older than 2 Gyr, and a global star formation episode, 2-4 Gyr ago. Using the modern hydrodynamical code, GIZMO, we have performed 300 high-resolution simulations to explore the extent to which these observed properties can be explained by a single merger. We find that the observed M31 disc resembles models having experienced a 4:1 merger, in which the nuclei coalesced 1.8-3 Gyr ago, and where the first passage took place 7-10 Gyr ago at a large pericentre distance (32 kpc). We also show that within a family of orbital parameters, the Giant Stream (GS) can be formed with various merger mass ratios, from 2:1 to 300:1. A recent major merger may be the only way to create the very unusual age-dispersion relation in the disc. It reproduces and explains the long-lived 10 kpc ring, the widespread and recent star formation event, the absence of a remnant of the GS progenitor, the apparent complexity of the 3D spatial distribution of the GS, the NE and G Clumps and their formation process, and the observed slope of the halo profile. These modelling successes lead us to propose that the bulk of the substructure in the M31 halo, as well as the complexity of the inner galaxy, may be attributable to a single major interaction with a galaxy that has now fully coalesced with Andromeda.

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