CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

A tale twice told: the luminosity profiles of the Sagittarius tails

Open access
Niederste-Ostholt, M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W.·2012·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20602.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Sagittarius (Sgr) dwarf galaxy is the archetype of a tidally disrupting system. Both leading and trailing tails can be observed across at least 180° of the sky and measurements of their luminosity density profiles have recently become available. Using numerical simulations, we explore the factors that control the appearance of such profiles. We use two possible models for the Sgr progenitor. The first is a one-component Plummer model, which may represent either a dark matter free progenitor, or one in which pre-existing dark matter has already been largely stripped. The second is a two-component model in which the stars are represented by a Hernquist sphere embedded in a cosmologically modish Navarro–Frenk–White dark halo. Disruption of the models in the Milky Way galaxy provides us with two tellings of the tale of the formation of the Sgr stream. The initial disintegration of the baryons proceeds more slowly for the two-component models because of the protective cocoon of dark matter. Once this has been stripped, though, matters proceed apace. In both cases, the profiles after ∼6 pericentric passages provide good matches to the observational data, but the tails are more extended for the two-component models. The leading and trailing tails are symmetric at apocentre or pericentre. At other orbital phases, asymmetries are present, as tails are compressed as they approach apocentre and stretched out as they approach pericentre. There may exist density enhancements corresponding to such pile-ups which may be observable in current survey data. We re-visit the calculation of Niederste-Ostholt et al. and slightly revise upwards the luminosity of the Sgr progenitor to 9.9–14.4 × 107 L⊙ based on insights from the simulations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20602.x

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Simulations of Law & Majewski (2010) and Niederste-Ostholt et al. (2012) suggest Sagittarius has been undergoing intense tidal disruption for the past 4-7 Gyr.

    “the simulations of Law & Majewski (2010) and Niederste-Ostholt et al. (2012) suggest that it has been undergoing intense tidal disruption for the past 4 7 Gyr.”

    From Kraken reveals itself – the merger history of the Milky Way reconstructed with the E-MOSAICS simulations (2020) · cites this paper as Niederste-Ostholt et al. (2012)

    Section 3.1 reports that the stream took approximately 4 Gyr to populate, supporting a prolonged history of tidal disruption. It does not establish the 7 Gyr end of the claimed range. The Abstract also says disruption of the baryons was initially slower in the dark-matter model and accelerated after the dark matter was stripped, so it does not support intense disruption throughout that period. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Koposov S. E. et al., 2011, preprint (arXiv:1111.7042) · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Niederste-Ostholt, M., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W.
ORCID
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-03-02
Volume
422
Issue
1
Pages
207-214
ISSN
0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20602.x
OpenAlex
W2142273959
Cited by
41
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/H00243X/1, ST/J001538/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, tidal tails, tidal disruption, dark matter halos, Plummer model, Navarro-Frenk-White halo, pericentric passage

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review