4.6 Article

GALAXY DISKS ARE SUBMAXIMAL

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 739, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L47

关键词

galaxies: formation; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: halos; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: spiral; galaxies: stellar content

资金

  1. LKBF
  2. Netherlands Research School for Astronomy and University of Wisconsin Ciriacks Faculty
  3. [NSF/AST-9618849]
  4. [997078]
  5. [0307417]
  6. [0607516]
  7. [1009491]
  8. [NSF/OISE-0754437]
  9. [Spitzer GO-30894]
  10. [NWO/614.000.807]
  11. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  12. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1009471] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We measure the contribution of galaxy disks to the overall gravitational potential of 30 nearly face-on intermediate-to-late-type spirals from the DiskMass Survey. The central vertical velocity dispersion of the disk stars (sigma(disk)(z,R=0)) is related to the maximum rotation speed (V-max) as sigma(disk)(z,R=0) similar to 0.26V(max), consistent with previous measurements for edge-on disk galaxies and a mean stellar velocity ellipsoid axial ratio alpha sigma(z)/sigma(R) = 0.6. For reasonable values of disk oblateness, this relation implies these galaxy disks are submaximal. We find disks in our sample contribute only 15%-30% of the dynamical mass within 2.2 disk scale lengths (h(R)), with percentages increasing systematically with luminosity, rotation speed, and redder color. These trends indicate that the mass ratio of disk-to-total matter remains at or below 50% at 2.2 h(R) even for the most extreme, fast-rotating disks (V-max >= 300 km s(-1)) of the reddest rest frame, face-on color (B - K similar to 4 mag), and highest luminosity (M-K < -26.5 mag). Therefore, spiral disks in general should be submaximal. Our results imply that the stellar mass-to-light ratio and hence the accounting of baryons in stars should be lowered by at least a factor of three.

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