4.6 Article

THE NATURE AND NURTURE OF BARS AND DISKS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 761, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/761/1/L6

关键词

galaxies: clusters: individual (Coma, Virgo); galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: structure

资金

  1. Consolider-Ingenio Program [CSD2006-00070]
  2. Collaboration ESTALLIDOS [AYA2010-21887-C04-04]
  3. Padua University [60A02-5934/09, 60A02-1283/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects that interactions produce on galaxy disks and how they modify the subsequent formation of bars need to be distinguished to fully understand the relationship between bars and environment. To this aim we derive the bar fraction in three different environments ranging from the field to Virgo and Coma Clusters, covering an unprecedentedly large range of galaxy luminosities (or, equivalently, stellar masses). We confirm that the fraction of barred galaxies strongly depends on galaxy luminosity. We also show that the difference between the bar fraction distributions as a function of galaxy luminosity (and mass) in the field and Coma Cluster is statistically significant, with Virgo being an intermediate case. The fraction of barred galaxies shows a maximum of about 50% at M-r similar or equal to -20.5 in clusters, whereas the peak is shifted to M-r similar or equal to -19 in the field. We interpret this result as a variation of the effect of environment on bar formation depending on galaxy luminosity. We speculate that brighter disk galaxies are stable enough against interactions to keep their cold structure, thus, the interactions are able to trigger bar formation. For fainter galaxies, the interactions become strong enough to heat up the disks inhibiting bar formation and even destroying the disks. Finally, we point out that the controversy regarding whether the bar fraction depends on environment could be resolved by taking into account the different luminosity ranges probed by the galaxy samples studied so far.

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