4.7 Article

A new HI 21 centimeter absorber associated with the HI deficient interacting galaxies G0248+430

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 600, 期 1, 页码 52-58

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/379786

关键词

galaxies : interactions; galaxies : starburst; quasars : absorption lines; quasars : individual (Q0248+430); radio lines : galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present high-resolution (similar to2) H I 21 cm and CO(1 - 0) observations of the quasar (QSO) galaxy pair 0248+430. The QSO Q0248+430 (z(em) = 1.313) has been found to show two metal absorption-line systems at redshifts z(a) similar to 0.052, which are consistent with the redshift of a foreground luminous infrared galaxy 15 (similar to11 h(-1) kpc) away. In our observations, the CO emission of this foreground galaxy, G0248+430, shows broad velocity distribution (similar to173 km s(-1)) but is spatially confined to a small unresolved region less than 1.5 x 1.5 h(-1) kpc; the H-2 mass based on the traditional conversion factor is approximate to10(10) M-., which is approximately 30 times the H-2 mass within a similar region of the Milky Way. On the other hand, no significant H I 21 cm emission is found in the foreground galaxy; the mass of the neutral atomic hydrogen is less than 6 x 10(8) M-.. Toward the QSO we discover a new H I 21 cm absorber with integral tau dv similar to 0.26 km s(-1) at the redshift of one of the metal absorption components; however, we did not detect significant CO( 1 - 0) absorption toward the QSO. The H I column density is large enough for the absorber to be classified as a damped Lyalpha system. We also derive the H I mass and spin temperature for this metal-line absorption system. We discuss the relation of this H I absorber and the depletion of the H I in the foreground galaxy. We find that this H I absorber has very high metal abundance and is intrinsically different from the normal damped Lyalpha absorption systems, although both have similar spin temperatures and hydrogen column densities.

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