4.7 Article

Mass components in ordered and in chaotic motion in galactic N-body models

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05938.x

关键词

stellar dynamics; methods : N-body simulations; galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies : formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two self-consistent (N-body) non-rotating equilibrium models of elliptical galaxies with smooth central density profiles (called 'Q' and 'C' models) are constructed, starting from quiet and clumpy cosmological initial conditions, respectively. Both models are triaxial. The Q model has an E7 maximum ellipticity in the inner parts and tends to E6 or E5 maximum ellipticity in the outer parts. The C model has a maximum ellipticity E4 in the inner parts and tends to an E2 or E1 in the outer parts. For each model, we identify the particles moving in chaotic orbits with the Lyapunov number exceeding a particular threshold (namely, 10(-2.8), in units of the inverse radial periods of the particular orbits). At energy levels in the deepest 30 per cent of the potential well, no chaotic orbits were detected in the above limit of chaoticity. In the Q model, the detected chaotic part is 32 per cent of the total mass. This part has a nearly spherical distribution. It imposes limitations on the maximum ellipticity of the system, in spite of the fact that only a part of less than about 8 per cent of the total mass moves in chaotic orbits and is able to develop chaotic diffusion within a Hubble time. In the C model, the detected chaotic part is about 26 per cent of the total mass, but only less than 2 per cent can develop chaotic diffusion within a Hubble time. These chaotic components produce surface density profiles flatter than the profiles of the rest of the mass, particularly in the Q model. The two profiles intersect at a given distance, where the overall profile forms an observable hump, especially if the surface density profiles are taken along the shortest axis of the projection.

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