REVIEW 1 cited by
Grand Design vs. Multi-Armed Spiral Galaxies: Dependence on Galaxy Structure
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We developed an algorithm to use Galaxy Zoo 3D spiral arm masks produced by citizen scientist volunteers to semi-automatically classify spiral galaxies as either multi-armed or grand design spirals. Our final sample consists of 299 multi-armed and 245 grand design galaxies. On average, the grand design galaxies have smaller stellar masses than the multi-armed galaxies. For a given stellar mass, the grand design galaxies have larger concentrations, earlier Hubble types, smaller half-light radii, and larger central surface mass densities than the multi-armed galaxies. Lower mass galaxies of both arm classes have later Hubble types and lower concentrations than higher mass galaxies. In our sample, a higher fraction of grand design galaxies have classical bulges rather than pseudo-bulges, compared to multi-armed galaxies. These results are consistent with theoretical models and simulations which suggest that dense classical bulges support the development and/or longevity of 2-armed spiral patterns. Similar specific star formation rates are found in multi-armed and grand design galaxies with similar stellar masses and concentrations. This implies that the specific star formation rates in spiral galaxies is a function of concentration and stellar mass, but independent of the number of spiral arms. Our classifications are consistent with arm counts from the Galaxy Zoo 2 project and published m=3 Fourier amplitudes.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Morphological Classification of Galaxies
This is a review of galaxy morphology classification, providing an updated crosswalk of terminologies, not a new scientific result.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.