4.7 Article

Discovery and implications of a new large-scale stellar bar in NGC 5248

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 570, 期 2, 页码 L55-L59

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/340974

关键词

galaxies : evolution; galaxies : high-redshift; galaxies : individual (NGC 5248) galaxies : ISM; galaxies : kinematics and dynamics; galaxies : structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For decades, the grand-design SAB spiral galaxy NGC 5248 has been postulated to host a short bar of semimajor axis 22 (1.6 kpc). From dynamical and morphological arguments, however, we argue that its spiral structure is being driven by a large-scale bar whose corotation radius lies at similar to115 (8.6 kpc). Our estimate is based partially on a deep R-band image, which reveals that the feature previously thought to be an inclined disk is in fact an extended stellar bar. The bar is embedded within a fainter outer disk visible out to a radius of 230 (17.2 kpc). The bar has a deprojected ellipticity of 0.44 and a semimajor axis of 95 (7.1 kpc). The classical grand-design spirals of NGC 5248, prominent in B, R, and K light, lie on the leading edge of the large-scale stellar bar and are accompanied by concave dust lanes out to at least 70. The offset between the dust and young stars is consistent with our understanding of gas flows in barred galaxies, where shocks along the leading edges of a moderately strong bar compress the gas to form massive young stars. While in many strongly barred galaxies, optical spiral arms are prominent outside the bar but not within it, NGC 5248 illustrates how intense star formation along a moderately strong bar can lead to conspicuous open spiral arms within the bar itself. NGC 5248 also provides a clear example of how a large-scale stellar bar embedded within a faint outer optical disk can be misidentified as an inclined disk when imaging studies lack the sensitivity to detect the actual outer disk. We discuss the implications for the estimated bar fraction at higher redshifts.

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