4.7 Article

Highly ionized plasma in the Large Magellanic Cloud: evidence for outflows and a possible galactic wind

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11631.x

关键词

ISM : clouds; ISM : kinematics and dynamics; ISM : structure; galaxies : individual : Large Magellanic Cloud; galaxies : ISM; ultraviolet : ISM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on an analysis of the interstellar highly ionized species C IV, Si IV, N V and O VI observed in the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) and Hubble Space Telescope/Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (HST/STIS) E140M spectra of four hot stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), we find evidence for a hot LMC halo fed by energetic outflows from the LMC disc and even possibly an LMC galactic wind. Signatures for such outflows are the intermediate- and high-velocity components (v(LSR) greater than or similar to 100 km s(-1)) relative to the LMC disc observed in the high- and low-ion absorption profiles. The stellar environments produce strong, narrow (T less than or similar to 2 x 10(4) K) components of C IV and Si IV associated with the LMC disc; in particular they are likely signatures of H II regions and expanding shells. Broad components are observed in the profiles of C IV, Si IV and O VI with their widths implying hot, collisionally ionized gas at temperatures of a few times 10(5) K. There is a striking similarity in the O VI/C IV ratios for the broad LMC and high-velocity components, suggesting much of the material at v(LSR) greater than or similar to 100 km s(-1) is associated with the LMC. The velocity of the high-velocity component is large enough to escape altogether the LMC, polluting the intergalactic space between the LMC and the Milky Way. The observed high-ion ratios of the broad LMC and high-velocity components are consistent with those produced in conductive interfaces; such models are also favoured by the apparent kinematically coupling between the high and the weakly ionized species.

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