4.7 Article

KINEMATIC SIGNATURES OF BULGES CORRELATE WITH BULGE MORPHOLOGIES AND SERSIC INDEX

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 754, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/67

关键词

galaxies: bulges; galaxies: formation; galaxies: general; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: photometry; galaxies: spiral; galaxies: structure

资金

  1. DFG [BE1091/9-1]
  2. Dark Universe by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB-Transregio 33]
  3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NAS5-26555]
  4. NASA Office of Space Science [NAG5-7584]
  5. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use the Marcario Low Resolution Spectrograph at the Hobby-Eberly Telescope to study the kinematics of pseudobulges and classical bulges in the nearby universe. We present major axis rotational velocities, velocity dispersions, and h(3) and h(4) moments derived from high-resolution (sigma(inst) approximate to 39 km s(-1)) spectra for 45 S0 to Sc galaxies; for 27 of the galaxies we also present minor axis data. We combine our kinematics with bulge-to-disk decompositions. We demonstrate for the first time that purely kinematic diagnostics of the bulge dichotomy agree systematically with those based on Sersic index. Low Sersic index bulges have both increased rotational support (higher upsilon/sigma values) and on average lower central velocity dispersions. Furthermore, we confirm that the same correlation also holds when visual morphologies are used to diagnose bulge type. The previously noted trend of photometrically flattened bulges to have shallower velocity dispersion profiles turns out to be significant and systematic if the Sersic index is used to distinguish between pseudobulges and classical bulges. The anti-correlation between h(3) and nu/sigma observed in elliptical galaxies is also observed in intermediate-type galaxies, irrespective of bulge type. Finally, we present evidence for formerly undetected counter-rotation in the two systems NGC 3945 and NGC 4736.

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