4.7 Article

GAS SLOSHING AND BUBBLES IN THE GALAXY GROUP NGC 5098

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 700, 期 2, 页码 1404-1414

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1404

关键词

galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: clusters: individual (RGH80, NSCS J132014+330824) galaxies: individual (NGC5098); X-rays: galaxies

资金

  1. Chandra X-ray Center
  2. NASA [NAS8-03060]
  3. Smithsonian Institution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present results from Chandra observations of the galaxy pair and associated galaxy group NGC 5098, and find evidence for both gas sloshing and active galactic nucleus (AGN) heating. The X-ray brightness images show diffuse emission with a spiral structure, centered on NGC 5098a, and a sharp edge in the diffuse emission surrounding much of the galaxy at about 30 kpc. The spiral structure in the X-ray surface brightness and temperature maps, the offset between the peak of the cool gas and the central AGN, and the structure of the cold front edges all suggest gas sloshing in the core. The most likely perturber is the nearby galaxy NGC 5098b, which has been stripped of its gaseous atmosphere. Detailed images of the core reveal several X-ray cavities, two of which, just north and southeast of the central AGN, correlate with radio emission and have bright X-ray rims, similar to buoyant bubbles seen in the intracluster medium of other systems. We estimate the pressures in the bubbles and rims and show that they are roughly equal, consistent with these being young features, as suggested by their close proximity to the central AGN. We assume that the other X-ray cavities in the core, which show no correlation with existing radio observations, are ghost cavities from previous AGN outbursts. An estimate of the mechanical energy required to inflate the cavities indicates that it is sufficient to offset radiative cooling of the gas for 15 Myr. Therefore, for a typical cycle time of 10(7) yr, the central AGN energy output is enough to balance cooling over long timescales.

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