4.7 Article

The fate of spiral galaxies in clusters: The star formation history of the anemic Virgo Cluster galaxy NGC 4569

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 651, 期 2, 页码 811-821

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/507766

关键词

galaxies : clusters : individual (Virgo); galaxies : individual (NGC 4569-M90); galaxies : interactions; ultraviolet : galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a new method for studying the star formation history of late-type cluster galaxies undergoing gas starvation or a ram pressure stripping event by combining bidimensional multifrequency observations with multizone models of galactic chemical and spectrophotometric evolution. This method is applied to the Virgo Cluster anemic galaxy NGC 4569. We extract radial profiles from recently obtained UV GALEX images at 1530 and 2310 8, from visible and near-IR narrow (H alpha) and broadband images at different wavelengths (u, B, g, V, r, i, z, J, H, and K), from Spitzer IRAC and MIPS images, and from atomic and molecular gas maps. The model in the absence of interaction (characterized by its rotation velocity and spin parameter) is constrained by the unperturbed H-band light profile and by the H alpha rotation curve. We can reconstruct the observed total gas radial density profile and the light surface brightness profiles at all wavelengths in a ram pressure stripping scenario by making simple assumptions about the gas removal process and the orbit of NGC 4569 inside the cluster. The observed profiles cannot be reproduced by simply stopping gas infall, thus mimicking starvation. Gas removal is required, which is more efficient in the outer disk, inducing radial quenching in the star formation activity, as observed and reproduced by the model. This observational result, consistent with theoretical predictions that a galaxy cluster-IGM interaction is able to modify structural disk parameters without gravitational perturbations, is discussed in the framework of the origin of lenticular galaxies in clusters.

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