Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:21:00.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mass Loss, Kinematics, & Evolution of Super Star Clusters in the Antennae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2016

Andrea M. Gilbert  and
James R. Graham
Andrea M. Gilbert
Affiliation:
Max-Planck Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, Postfach 1312, D-85748 Garching, Germany
James R. Graham
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3411, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The youngest super star clusters (SSCs) in the merging Antennae Galaxies (NGC 4038/39) drive supersonic mass-loaded outflows from the HII regions in which they are embedded. High-resolution K-band Keck/NIRSPEC spectroscopy reveals broad, spatially extended Brγ emission in 16 targets. Simple wind models for the line profiles provide good fits and imply cluster mass-loss rates of up to 1.5 M⊙/year and terminal velocities of up to 205 km s−1. The emission-line clusters (ELCs) that drive these outflows constitute at least 15% of the star formation rate in the Antennae, and their high star formation efficiencies imply that they will probably evolve into bound SSCs. The youngest ELC outflows, which are driven primarily by stellar winds, very efficiently entrain ambient matter. The cluster winds transfer or dissipate a large fraction of their energy and momentum in a hot or cool medium that does not emit Brγ. ELCs are the individual engines that power galactic-scale superwinds, viewed in their earliest evolutionary stage.

Type
I. Joint Discussions
Information
Highlights of Astronomy , Volume 13 , 2005 , pp. 373 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Pacific 2005

References

Fuentes-Masip, O., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, A. M. 2002, Ph.D. Thesis (University of California, Berkeley)Google Scholar
Johnson, K. E., Indebetouw, R., & Pisano, D. J. 2003, AJ, 126, 101 Google Scholar
Kudritzki, R. & Puis, J. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 613 Google Scholar
Leitherer, C., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3 Google Scholar
Martin, C. L., Kobulnicky, H. A., & Heckman, T. M. 2002, ApJ, 574, 663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. G. & Weedman, D. W. 1970, ApJ, 161, 33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. L., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmore, B. C., & Zhang, Q. 2002, AJ, 124, 1418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zezas, A., Fabbiano, G., Rots, A. H., & Murray, S. S. 2002, ApJ, 577, 710 Google Scholar