4.7 Article

Morphology, photometry and kinematics of N-body bars -: I.: Three models with different halo central concentrations

期刊

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05028.x

关键词

methods : numerical; galaxies : kinematics and dynamics; galaxies : photometry; galaxies : structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We discuss the morphology. photometry and kinematics of the bars which have formed in three N-body simulations. These have initially the same disc and the same halo-to-disc mass ratio, but their haloes have very different central concentrations. The third model includes a bulge. The bar in the model with the centrally concentrated halo (model MH) is much stronger, longer and thinner than the bar in the model with the less centrally concentrated halo (model MD), Its shape. when viewed side-on. evolves from boxy to peanut and then to 'X'-shaped, as opposed to that of model MD. which stays boxy. The projected density profiles obtained from cuts along the bar major axis, for both the face-on and the edge-on views, show a flat part, as opposed to those of model MD which are falling rapidly. A Fourier analysis of the face-on density distribution of model MH shows very large m = 2. 4, 6 and 8 components. Contrary to this, for model MD the components in = 6 and 8 are negligible. The velocity field of model MH shows strong deviations from axial symmetry, and in particular has wavy isovelocities near the end of the bar when viewed along the bar minor axis. When viewed edge-on, it shows cylindrical rotation, which the MD model does not. The properties of the bar of the model with a bulge and a non-centrally concentrated halo (MDB) are intermediate between those of the bars of the other two models. All three models exhibit a lot of inflow, of the disc material during their evolution. so that by the end of the simulations the disc dominates over the halo in the inner parts. even for model MH. for which the halo and disc contributions were initially comparable in that region.

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