4.6 Article

The VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey VI. Evidence for rotation of the young massive cluster R136

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 545, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219472

关键词

galaxies: star clusters: individual: R136; Magellanic Clouds; stars: kinematics and dynamics; globular clusters: general

资金

  1. European Southern Observatory [182.D-0222]
  2. Scottish Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA)
  3. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  4. Royal Society
  5. DFG cluster of excellence Origin and Structure of the Universe
  6. Spanish Government Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [AYA2010-15081, AYA2010-17631]
  7. Consejeria de Educacion of the Junta de Andalucia [P08-TIC-4075]
  8. Bulgarian NSF [DO 02-85]
  9. STFC [ST/G002355/1, ST/J000035/1, ST/J001384/1, PP/D000955/1, PP/F000057/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G002355/1, ST/J000035/1, PP/D000955/1, ST/J001384/1, PP/F000057/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although it has important ramifications for both the formation of star clusters and their subsequent dynamical evolution, rotation remains a largely unexplored characteristic of young star clusters (few Myr). Using multi-epoch spectroscopic data of the inner regions of 30 Doradus in the Large Magellanic Cloud obtained as part of the VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey, we search for rotation of the young massive cluster R136. From the radial velocities of 36 apparently single O-type stars within a projected radius of 10 pc from the centre of the cluster, we find evidence, at the 95% confidence level, for rotation of the cluster as a whole. We use a maximum likelihood method to fit simple rotation curves to our data and find a typical rotational velocity of similar to 3 km s(-1). When compared to the low velocity dispersion of R136, our result suggests that star clusters may form with at least similar to 20% of the kinetic energy in rotation.

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

4.6
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