4.7 Article

LENTICULAR GALAXIES AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 702, 期 2, 页码 1502-1506

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1502

关键词

galaxies: clusters: general

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is widely believed that lenticular (S0) galaxies were initially spirals from which the gas has been removed by interactions with hot cluster gas, or by ram pressure stripping of cool gas from spirals that are orbiting within rich clusters of galaxies. However, problems with this interpretation are that (1) some lenticulars, such as NGC 3115, are isolated field galaxies rather than cluster members. (2) The distribution of flattening values of S0 galaxies in clusters, in groups, and in the field are statistically indistinguishable. This is surprising because one might have expected most of the progenitors of field S0 galaxies to have been flattened late-type galaxies, whereas lenticulars in clusters are thought to have mostly been derived from bulge-dominated early-type galaxies. (3) It should be hardest for ram pressure to strip massive luminous galaxies with deep potential wells. However, no statistically significant differences are seen between the luminosity distributions of early-type Shapley-Ames galaxies in clusters, groups, and in the field. (4) Finally both ram pressure stripping and evaporation by hot intracluster gas would be most efficient in rich clusters. However, the small number of available data in the Shapley-Ames sample appears to show no statistically significant differences between the relative frequencies of dust-poor S0(1) and dust-rich S0(3) galaxies in clusters, groups, and in the field. It is tentatively concluded that ram pressure stripping and heating by intracluster gas, may not be the only evolutionary channels that lead to the formation of lenticular galaxies. It is speculated that gas starvation, or gas ejection by active nuclei, may have played a major role in the formation of a significant fraction of all S0 galaxies.

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