4.7 Article

Are the Magellanic clouds on their first passage about the Milky Way?

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 668, 期 2, 页码 949-967

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1086/521385

关键词

galaxies : evolution; galaxies : interactions; galaxies : kinematics and dynamics; Galaxy : structure; Magellanic Clouds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent proper-motion measurements of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds ( LMC and SMC, respectively) by Kallivayalil and coworkers suggest that the 3D velocities of the Clouds are substantially higher (similar to 100 km s(-1)) than previously estimated and now approach the escape velocity of the Milky Way ( MW). Previous studies have also assumed that theMilkyWay can be adequately modeled as an isothermal sphere to large distances. Here we reexamine the orbital history of the Clouds using the new velocities and a Lambda CDM-motivated MW model with virial mass M-vir = 1012 M-circle dot ( e. g., Klypin and coworkers). We conclude that the LMC and SMC are either currently on their first passage about the MW or, if the MW can be accurately modeled by an isothermal sphere to distances greater than or similar to 200 kpc ( i.e., M-vir > 2 x 10(12) M-circle dot), that their orbital period and apogalacticon distance must be a factor of 2 larger than previously estimated, increasing to 3 Gyr and 200 kpc, respectively. A first passage scenario is consistent with the fact that the LMC and SMC appear to be outliers when compared to other satellite galaxies of the MW: they are irregular in appearance and are moving faster. We discuss the implications of this orbital analysis for our understanding of the star formation history, the nature of the warp in the MW disk and the origin of the Magellanic Stream ( MS), a band of H I gas trailing the LMC and SMC that extends similar to 100 degrees across the sky. Specifically, as a consequence of the new orbital history of the Clouds, the origin of the MS may not be explainable by current tidal and ram pressure stripping models.

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