4.7 Article

NGC 3125-1: The most extreme Wolf-Rayet star cluster known in the local universe

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 604, 期 1, 页码 153-166

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/381723

关键词

galaxies : individual (NGC 3125); galaxies : starburst; galaxies : star clusters; galaxies : stellar content

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph long-slit ultraviolet spectroscopy of local starburst galaxies to study the massive star content of a representative sample of super-star clusters, with a primary focus on their Wolf-Rayet (W-R) content as measured from the He II lambda1640 emission feature. The goals of this work are threefold. First, we quantify the W-R and O-star content for selected massive young star clusters. These results are compared with similar estimates made from optical spectroscopy available in the literature. We conclude that the He II lambda4686 equivalent width is a poor diagnostic measure of the true W-R content. Second, we present the strongest known He II lambda1640 emission feature in a local starburst galaxy. This feature is clearly of stellar origin in the massive cluster NGC 3125-1, as it is broadened (similar to1000 km s(-1)). Strong N IV lambda1488 and N V lambda1720 emission lines commonly found in the spectra of individual W-R stars of WN subtype are also observed in the spectrum of NGC 3125-1. Finally, we create empirical spectral templates to gain a basic understanding of the recently observed strong He II lambda1640 feature seen in Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) at redshifts z similar to 3. The UV field observed in local starbursts provides a good overall match to the continuum and weak photospheric features in LBGs in the spectral range lambdalambda1300-1700 but cannot reproduce the He II lambda1640 emission seen in the composite LBG sample of Shapley et al. An additional (ad hoc) 10%-15% contribution from extreme W-R clusters similar to NGC 3125-1 on top of the field provides a good match to the strength of this feature.

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