1: \def\etal{{et~al.}}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{subfigure}
4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
5: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6: \begin{document}
7: \setcounter{figure}{0}
8: \title{Proper Motions of the LMC and SMC: Reanalysis of \textit{Hubble
9: Space Telescope} Data\footnote{Based on observations with NASA/ESA
10: \textit{Hubble Space Telescope}, obtained at the Space Telescope
11: Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of
12: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS
13: 5-26555.}}
14:
15: \author{Slawomir Piatek} \affil{Dept. of Physics, New Jersey Institute
16: of Technology,
17: Newark, NJ 07102 \\ E-mail address: piatek@physics.rutgers.edu}
18:
19: \author{Carlton Pryor}
20: \affil{Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers, the State University
21: of New Jersey, 136~Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854--8019 \\
22: E-mail address: pryor@physics.rutgers.edu}
23:
24: \author{Edward W.\ Olszewski}
25: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona,
26: Tucson, AZ 85721 \\ E-mail address: eolszewski@as.arizona.edu}
27:
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30:
31: Kallivayalil et al.\ have used the \textit{Hubble Space Telescope} to
32: measure proper motions of the LMC and SMC using images in 21 and five
33: fields, respectively, all centered on known QSOs. These results are
34: more precise than previous measurements, but have surprising and
35: important physical implications: for example, the LMC and SMC may be
36: approaching the Milky Way for the first time; they might not have been
37: in a binary system; and the origin of the Magellanic Stream needs to
38: be re-examined. Motivated by these implications, we have reanalyzed
39: the original data in order to check the validity of these
40: measurements. Our work has produced a proper motion for the LMC that
41: is in excellent agreement with that of Kallivayalil et al., and for
42: the SMC that is in acceptable agreement.
43:
44: We have detected a dependence between the brightness of stars and their
45: mean measured motion in a majority of the fields in both our reduction
46: and that of Kallivayalil et al. Correcting for this systematic error
47: and for the errors caused by the decreasing charge transfer efficiency
48: of the detector produces better agreement between the measurements from
49: different fields. With our improved reduction, we do not need to
50: exclude any fields from the final averages and, for the first time
51: using proper motions, we are able to detect the rotation of the LMC.
52: The best-fit amplitude of the rotation curve at a radius of 275~arcmin
53: in the disk plane is $120 \pm 15$~km~s$^{-1}$. This value is larger
54: than the 60--70~km~s$^{-1}$ derived from the radial velocities of HI
55: and carbon stars, but in agreement with the value of 107~km~s$^{-1}$
56: derived from the radial velocities of red supergiants.
57:
58: Our measured proper motion for the center of mass of the LMC is
59: $(\mu_{\alpha}, \mu_{\delta}) = (195.6\pm 3.6, 43.5 \pm 3.6)$~mas
60: century$^{-1}$; that for the SMC is $(\mu_{\alpha}, \mu_{\delta}) =
61: (75.4\pm 6.1, -125.2 \pm 5.8)$~mas century$^{-1}$. The uncertainties
62: for the latter proper motion are 3 times smaller than those of
63: Kallivayalil et al.
64:
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: \keywords{galaxies: dwarf --- Magellanic Clouds ---
68: astrometry: proper motion}
69:
70: \section{Introduction}
71: \label{intro}
72:
73: The Magellanic Clouds span many degrees on the sky owing to their
74: relatively large size and proximity to the Milky Way (heliocentric
75: distances are 50~kpc for the LMC and 62~kpc for the SMC). The LMC is
76: the most luminous among the satellite dwarf galaxies of the Milky Way.
77: With nascent spiral arms and a bar, the LMC is a late-type spiral rich
78: in gas and with active star formation. Spectroscopic studies of the
79: galaxy show a sizeable rotation \citep[\textit{e.g.},][]{om07}. In
80: contrast, the SMC is a dwarf irregular with less active star formation
81: and a smaller and still poorly-measured rotation. The LMC and SMC are
82: close together on the sky and are connected in projection by a bridge
83: of HI. The Magellanic Stream, an approximately $100^\circ$-long
84: distribution of HI, extends from the HI around the Clouds. A second
85: stream containing less HI emanates in the opposite direction
86: \citep[][]{p98,b05}. The apparent gaseous bridge between the LMC and
87: SMC could have arisen from an interaction between these two galaxies,
88: and modeling has suggested that they may have been or may be a bound
89: pair \citep[\textit{e.g.},] []{gn96}. There is a long-standing
90: interest in understanding the relations between the LMC, SMC, and
91: Stream \citep[\textit{e.g.},][]{m74, p03, b07, ni07}.
92:
93: Because of the proximity of the two galaxies to the Milky Way, it is
94: intriguing to speculate that the tidal field of the Milky Way has had
95: a significant impact on the evolution of the Magellanic Clouds. For
96: example, the Stream is widely considered to consist of gas removed
97: from the LMC or SMC by a combination of ram pressure and tidal
98: interaction with the Milky Way. Such an origin of the Stream implies
99: that it shares the orbital plane of the LMC or SMC. Among the several
100: quantities needed to answer the above questions, the proper motions
101: are crucial since, together with the radial velocities and distances,
102: they give the current space velocities of the galaxies. These
103: velocities are necessary initial conditions in determining the past or
104: the future orbits for a given Galactic potential. Alternatively,
105: modeling the Magellanic Stream may constrain the potential of the
106: Galaxy if the proper motions of the LMC and SMC are known with
107: sufficient precision \citep[\textit{e.g.},][] {hr94,l95}.
108:
109: Recognizing the importance of the proper motions of the Magellanic
110: Clouds, several groups have attempted to measure them. In
111: chronological order, the measurements for the LMC are: \citet{j94},
112: \citet{k94}, \citet{kb97}, \citet{d01}, \citet{pe02}, \citet{pe06},
113: and \citet[][K06a]{k06a}. For the SMC, the measurements are: \citet{kb97},
114: \citet{i99}, and \citet[][K06b]{k06b}.
115:
116: The measurements by K06a and K06b used images taken with the
117: \textit{Hubble Space Telescope} (HST) and they have uncertainties that
118: are only one-third as large as those of the best previous
119: measurements. Each of the 21 fields in the LMC and five in the SMC
120: has a confirmed QSO which serves as a standard of rest. The analysis
121: is based on the methodology developed by \citet{ak04}. Similar data
122: and analyses have measured proper motions for dwarf spheroidal
123: companions of the Milky Way with comparable uncertainties to those in
124: K06a and K06b
125: \citep[\textit{e.g.},][]{p07}. The proper motion for the LMC reported
126: by K06a is $(\mu_{\alpha}, \mu_{\delta})= (203 \pm 8, 44 \pm
127: 5)$~mas~century$^{-1}$ and by K06b for the SMC is $(\mu_{\alpha},
128: \mu_{\delta})= (116 \pm 18, -117 \pm 18)$~mas~century$^{-1}$. These
129: values yield large space motions which then imply that, for example,
130: the LMC and SMC may be on their first approach to the Milky Way, that
131: the LMC and SMC may not initially have been bound to each other, and
132: that models for the formation of the Magellanic Stream via an
133: interaction with the Milky Way need to be re-examined \citep[see]
134: []{b07, ni07}. Thus, an independent check of the results in K06a and
135: K06b is worth having and this article reports on a reanalysis of their
136: data. Section~\ref{sec:data} describes the data;
137: section~\ref{sec:mpm} explains the process of deriving the proper
138: motion using our method; section~\ref{sec:res} presents our results
139: and compares them to those in K06a and K06b; section~\ref{sec:disc}
140: discusses the implications of the measured proper motions; and
141: section~\ref{sec:summary} is a summary of the main results.
142:
143: \section{Observations and Data}
144: \label{sec:data}
145:
146: The data consist of images in the F606W and F814W bands obtained with
147: the High Resolution Camera (HRC) of the Advanced Camera for Surveys
148: (ACS). The images were produced by the ACS data-reduction pipeline
149: and provided by the Space Telescope Science Institute archive; these
150: are the same data as those used by K06a and K06b. The images were
151: taken in a snapshot mode at two epochs. In the case of the LMC, 21
152: fields are common to both epochs and, in the case of the SMC, five are
153: common to both. The time between epochs ranges from 1.1 to 2.8 years.
154: Each field is centered on a confirmed QSO. Almost all of the pairs of
155: images have orientations (i.e., the HST ORIENTAT angle) differing by
156: tens of degrees between the epochs. For comprehensive information
157: about the observations and data, see Table~1 and Figure~1 in K06a for
158: the LMC and in K06b for the SMC.
159:
160: \section{Measuring Proper Motion}
161: \label{sec:mpm}
162:
163: A series of articles beginning with \citet{p02} describe our basic
164: technique for deriving proper motions. Central to our method is the
165: presence of a QSO in each observed field which serves as an
166: extragalactic ``reference point.'' The crucial steps of the method
167: are: 1. Derive an effective point-spread function
168: \citep[ePSF;][]{ak00} at each epoch using stars and the QSO in
169: dithered images. Our experience shows that the PSF for a QSO is
170: similar to that for a star, making the bright, compact QSO an ideal
171: reference point. 2. Determine accurate centroids for the stars and
172: the QSO by fitting the ePSF. 3. Correct the centroids for the known
173: geometrical distortions in the camera and CCD. 4. Transform the
174: centroids of stars and the QSO measured at different epochs to a
175: common coordinate system which moves together with the stars of the
176: galaxy. For the QSO and those stars that are not members of the
177: galaxy, a fitted linear motion is included in the coordinate
178: transformation. The proper motion of the galaxy derives from the
179: motion of the QSO.
180:
181: When deriving the transformation to a common coordinate system, a
182: linear motion is always fitted for the QSO. A motion is also fitted
183: for objects whose contribution to the total $\chi^2$ of the scatter
184: around the transformation is above 9.21, the value which should be
185: exceeded by chance only 1\% of the time. Except for the QSO, the
186: objects with fitted motion are likely to be foreground stars of the
187: Milky Way. Once the parameters of the transformation are determined,
188: the motion of each remaining object without a fitted motion is
189: calculated from the transformed coordinates at each epoch; this motion
190: should be zero within its uncertainty.
191:
192: Our method uses the most general linear transformation, which contains
193: six fitted parameters, between the coordinate systems at different
194: epochs. Plots of position residuals
195: \textit{versus} location on the CCD showed that more parameters were
196: unnecessary. The transformation also corrects for the effects caused
197: by the degrading charge transfer efficiency (CTE) of the CCD in the
198: HRC \citep[see][]{br05}. The method used is similar to that in
199: \citet{p05} and \citet{p07}: the $Y$ coordinate of an object is
200: corrected by an amount that depends on the brightness of the object
201: and is linearly proportional to $Y$ and to the time since ACS was
202: installed. This last dependence is supported by the evidence provided
203: in the ACS Handbook \citep{pav06}. We adopted a correction that
204: varies with the $S/N$ of the object as $(S/N)^{-0.42}$ between a $S/N$
205: of 10 and 100 and is constant at the boundary values outside of that
206: range. The exponent also comes from data in the ACS Handbook. The
207: final proper motions do not depend sensitively on the details of how
208: the CTE corrections are made. The above method depends on a single
209: parameter, which is the rate of change with time of the correction
210: applied to the $Y$ coordinate of an object with a $S/N$ of 15 at a $Y$
211: location of 1024~pixels. Fitting for this parameter using some of the
212: data least affected by the systematic errors discussed below indicated
213: a value of $0.030$~pixel~yr$^{-1}$. All results reported in this
214: article used corrections calculated with this value.
215:
216: K06a and K06b did not make corrections as a function of stellar flux
217: for the shifts in centroids due to degrading CTE. With many
218: independent fields in the LMC, K06a argue that the effect of these shifts
219: on the average proper motion approaches zero as
220: $N^{-1/2}$, provided that the $N$ fields have
221: an isotropic distribution of position angles. However, the effect on
222: the proper motion of the SMC may be greater because there are only five
223: fields and the distribution of image orientations is not isotropic (four
224: of these fields have similar HST ORIENTAT angles at the first epoch).
225:
226: \clearpage
227:
228: \begin{figure}[h]
229: \centering
230: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35,clip=true]{f1a.eps}
231: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35,clip=true]{f1b.eps}
232: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.35,clip=true]{f1c.eps}
233: \caption{Motion in the
234: common coordinate system, $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ in pix~yr$^{-1}$,
235: \textit{versus} $S/N$ for the 21 fields in the LMC and five in the
236: SMC. The points are color-coded depending on the location of objects
237: in their respective CMDs, which are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cmd}.
238: Star symbols represent the QSOs and squares represent the stars.
239: Filled squares correspond to those stars that have fitted motion.
240: Note the trends between $p_{x}$ or $p_{y}$ with $S/N$ for a majority
241: of fields, e.g. L13. To reduce the impact of these trends on the
242: proper motion, only objects with $S/N$ greater than the value
243: indicated by a vertical dashed line were used in fitting for a
244: transformation. Column 2 of Tables~1 and 3 gives these values of
245: $S/N$ for the fields in the LMC and SMC, respectively.}
246: \label{fig:pmsn}
247: \end{figure}
248:
249: \begin{figure}[t]
250: \centering
251: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.75,clip=true]{f2.eps}
252: \caption{Color-magnitude diagrams for the LMC \textit{left panel} and
253: the SMC \textit{right panel}. The diagrams show only those objects
254: that were matched at the two epochs and, thus, whose motion in the
255: common coordinate system can be determined. The QSOs are marked with
256: a star symbol. The points are color-coded depending on their location
257: in the diagram. No corrections for reddening or extinction were
258: applied.}
259: \label{fig:cmd}
260: \end{figure}
261:
262: \clearpage
263:
264: To examine the effect of degrading CTE on our data, we plotted the
265: motions in the common coordinate system, $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ in
266: pix~yr$^{-1}$, of all objects \textit{versus} their $S/N$.
267: Figure~\ref{fig:pmsn} shows these plots for all of the fields in the
268: LMC and SMC. A majority of the fields show trends in these plots,
269: particularly for $S/N$ less than about 20. However, these trends were
270: sometimes along the direction orthogonal to that expected from a degrading
271: CTE and sometimes in the expected direction, but with the opposite of
272: the expected sign. None of the large trends were well removed by fitting
273: our model for the CTE correction. We
274: conclude that these trends arise from some effect other than the
275: degrading CTE. A possible explanation could be an error in the ePSF,
276: but varying the parameters used in the construction of the ePSF had no
277: effect on the trends. As we discuss below, these trends are likely to
278: be present in the results of K06a and K06b too. To minimize the
279: effect of the dependence of mean motion on $S/N$, we limit the sample
280: of stars used to determine the transformation between epochs to stars
281: with $S/N$ above a limit that is usually 25 but can be as large as 50.
282: These limits are indicated in Figure~\ref{fig:pmsn} by vertical dashed
283: lines and they are also listed in column (2) of Tables 1 (for the LMC)
284: and 3 (for the SMC). The limit is chosen empirically so that the mean
285: motion of stars with a $S/N$ similar to that of the QSO is zero. A
286: concern is that a change in the PSF with color, which has not been
287: modeled in either analysis, is causing the observed trends. The
288: points in the plots depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:pmsn} are color-coded
289: depending on the location of objects in their respective
290: color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs), which are shown in
291: Figure~\ref{fig:cmd}. The photometry for each CMD was derived using
292: HSTPhot \citep{do00} from the first-epoch images taken in the F606W
293: and F814W filters and has not been corrected for reddening and
294: extinction. Visual inspection of Figure~\ref{fig:pmsn} does not
295: provide evidence for a systematic difference between the mean motions
296: of red and blue stars at high $S/N$. While fields such as L13 hint at
297: such a difference, the majority of the fields do not. To
298: quantitatively estimate the size of any possible color effect, we
299: calculated separately the weighted mean motion for the red and blue
300: stars with $S/N > 100$ and located in all of the fields in the LMC.
301: The resulting differences in the $X$ and $Y$ directions between the
302: weighted mean motions for the red and blue stars are $-1.2\times
303: 10^{-4} \pm 6.6\times 10^{-4}$~pix~yr$^{-1}$ and $3.4\times 10^{-4}
304: \pm 6.2\times 10^{-4}$~pix~yr$^{-1}$, respectively. Both differences
305: are consistent with zero within their uncertainties and, thus, the
306: measured motion of the QSO in our derived common coordinate system is
307: an accurate reflection of the motion of the LMC or the SMC.
308:
309: \clearpage
310:
311: \begin{figure}[h]
312: \centering
313: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f3.eps}
314: \caption{Comparison of measured proper motions for the LMC. Squares
315: represent the values reported by this article, whereas triangles
316: represent those in K06a. Both sets of values are from Table~1. Solid
317: triangles correspond to those fields that were excluded in
318: the calculation of the mean proper motion in K06a. \textit{Top
319: panel}: $\mu_{\alpha}$ \textit{versus} field number. \textit{Bottom
320: panel}: $\mu_{\delta}$ \textit{versus} field number. Both panels have
321: the same vertical scale.}
322: \label{fig:LMCpmr}
323: \end{figure}
324:
325: \clearpage
326:
327: \section{Results}
328: \label{sec:res}
329:
330: We have derived proper motions for all 21 fields in the LMC (L1 ---
331: L21) and all five fields in the SMC (S1 --- S5). Table~1 provides a
332: side-by-side comparison of our results for the LMC with those of K06a.
333: Column~(1) gives the name of a field, column~(2) gives the $S/N$
334: limit, and column~(3) gives the resulting number of stars used in
335: fitting the transformation between epochs. Columns (4) and (5) give
336: the components of the measured proper motion derived by us in the
337: equatorial coordinate system, whereas columns (6) and (7) do the same
338: for the proper motions in K06a. Columns (8) and (9) are the
339: difference between our results and those in K06a. The listed
340: uncertainty for a difference is the sum in quadrature of the
341: uncertainties in the two values, even though this uncertainty
342: indicates the difference expected between two independent measurements
343: rather than the difference arising from different methods of analyzing
344: the same data. Figure~\ref{fig:LMCpmr} plots the components of the
345: proper motions in columns (4) --- (7) \textit{versus} field number.
346: The $\mu_{\alpha}$ values are in the top panel and the $\mu_{\delta}$
347: values are in the bottom. Squares are our values and triangles are
348: those in K06a. Filled triangles are those measurements in K06a that
349: were not used in their calculation of the average proper motion. In
350: the LMC, the difference between the observed proper motion for a field
351: and the proper motion of the center of mass is significant because of
352: the changing perspective of the space velocity and the internal
353: rotation. Thus, Table~2 lists and Figure~\ref{fig:LMCpmc} plots the
354: values from Table~1 corrected for these effects. The corrections are
355: from K06a. For the SMC, these corrections are negligible. Table~3
356: and Figure~\ref{fig:SMCpmr} compare our results for the SMC with those
357: of K06b.
358:
359: \clearpage
360:
361: \begin{figure}[h!]
362: \centering
363: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f4.eps}
364: \caption{Comparison of center-of-mass proper motions for the LMC.
365: Filled squares represent the values reported by this article, whereas
366: triangles represent those in K06a. Both sets of values are from
367: Table~2. The corrections for rotation and changing perspective are
368: from K06a. \textit{Top panel}: $\mu_{\alpha}$ \textit{versus} field
369: number. \textit{Bottom panel}: $\mu_{\delta}$ \textit{versus} field
370: number. The dashed horizontal lines are mean proper motions for each
371: component from K06a. Both panels have the same vertical scale, which
372: is also the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:LMCpmr}.}
373: \label{fig:LMCpmc}
374: \end{figure}
375:
376: \clearpage
377:
378: The agreement between our results and those in K06a and K06b is good
379: in most cases. Because the data in the two studies are the same, any
380: differences are due to the methods of analysis. The bottom two lines
381: of both Table~1 and Table~3 give the mean difference and \textit{rms}
382: scatter between our results and those of K06a and K06b. We give the
383: mean instead of the weighted mean because, as noted above, the listed
384: uncertainties are not directly related to the size of the differences.
385: The means of the differences are, for the LMC, comparable to the
386: uncertainty in the galaxy proper motion given by K06a and, for the
387: SMC, are smaller. Tables~1 and 3 show that ten fields in the LMC (L1,
388: L3, L4, L7, L11, L12, L13, L15, L16, and L21) and two fields in the
389: SMC (S4 and S5) have differences in at least one component that are
390: larger than the listed uncertainty. Most of these twelve fields show
391: trends of the mean measured motion with $S/N$ and the field with the
392: largest difference, L13, has one of the largest trends (see
393: Figure~\ref{fig:pmsn}). For these twelve fields, reducing the $S/N$
394: limit from our adopted values, \textit{i.e.},
395: including more of the stars in the transformation, makes our measured
396: proper motions closer to the values found by K06a. Thus, we conclude
397: that the K06a and K06b results for these twelve fields are affected by
398: the same systematic errors that depend on $S/N$. K06a and K06b rejected
399: from their samples individual stars with discrepant or uncertain proper
400: motions, but this will not necesarily eliminate a systematic error that
401: affects all of the stars with the same brightness similarly. The systematic
402: error does not appear in their plot of the amplitude of the stellar proper
403: motions \textit{versus} magnitude because the data from all of the fields
404: are shown together and the different fields have different trends.
405: K06a note that their fitted
406: transformation between epochs for field L13 had an unusually large
407: $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom, leading them to reject this field from
408: their average despite it containing one of the largest samples of
409: stars. Also rejected were fields with 16 or fewer stars in the final
410: sample and this tends to elminate fields whose mean proper motion could
411: be strongly affected by the systematic error. Thus, the procedures
412: adopted by K06a and K06b tended to limit the effect of the systematic
413: error on their final result. However,
414: figures~\ref{fig:LMCpmc} and \ref{fig:SMCpmr} show that our
415: values derived with a $S/N$ limit of 25 or higher make the proper
416: motions of the twelve fields more consistent with those of the other
417: fields.
418:
419: \clearpage
420:
421: \begin{figure}[t]
422: \centering
423: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f5.eps}
424: \caption{Comparison of measured proper motions for the SMC. Squares
425: represent the values reported by this article, whereas triangles
426: represent those in K06b. Both sets of values are from Table~3. The
427: solid triangle corresponds to the field that was excluded in the
428: calculation of the mean proper motion in K06b. The dashed horizontal
429: lines are mean proper motions for each component from K06b.
430: \textit{Top panel}: $\mu_{\alpha}$ \textit{versus} field number.
431: \textit{Bottom panel}: $\mu_{\delta}$ \textit{versus} field number.
432: Both panels have the same vertical scale.}
433: \label{fig:SMCpmr}
434: \end{figure}
435:
436: \clearpage
437:
438: K06a and K06b identified several ``low-quality'' fields, marked with
439: solid triangles in Figures~\ref{fig:LMCpmr} and \ref{fig:SMCpmr}, on
440: the basis of small sample size or a large $\chi^2$ per degree of
441: freedom and excluded them from the calculation of the mean proper
442: motion. Most, though not all, of these fields had poor agreement with
443: the mean proper motion (see Figures~\ref{fig:LMCpmc} and
444: \ref{fig:SMCpmr}). After removing the effects of trends with $S/N$, we
445: find no indication of serious problems at any stage of the analysis for
446: all 26 fields. Thus, we conclude that all of the fields contain useful
447: information about the motions of the LMC and SMC. Some fields do
448: deviate from the mean proper motion by more than is expected on the
449: basis of their uncertainties, most notably L1, L11, L16, L17, and S4.
450: These fields are likely providing information about internal motions in
451: the LMC and SMC, and we test for such motions in Sections~\ref{sec:LMC}
452: and \ref{sec:SMC}.
453:
454: \section{Discussion}
455: \label{sec:disc}
456:
457: Numerous factors can influence the internal motions of a galaxy. The
458: distribution of mass with radius determines the shape and amplitude of
459: the rotation curve in a disk system or the dependence of velocity
460: dispersion on radius in a pressure-supported system. The presence of a
461: bar or a strong tidal disturbance can induce their own streaming
462: motions. Old and young stellar populations can have distinct
463: kinematics, as is well known in the case of the Milky Way. Below we
464: discuss what information the measurements of the proper motions in the
465: LMC and SMC contain about internal motions.
466:
467: \subsection{The LMC}
468: \label{sec:LMC}
469:
470: Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_YS} shows the location of the LMC fields along with
471: the distribution of young stars as mapped by \citet{z04}.
472: The figure also shows the CMD for each field. Most fields contain
473: both a young and an old stellar population. Exceptions are
474: the fields in the northern spiral arm, which contain mostly a young
475: population, and field L2, which contains only an old population.
476:
477: \clearpage
478:
479: \begin{figure}[t!]
480: \centering
481: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.9]{f6.eps}
482: \caption{Locations on the sky in a tangent plane projection and CMDs of
483: the 21 fields in the LMC superimposed on a map showing the distribution
484: of young stars from \citet{z04}. North is up, east is to the left, and
485: the figure is centered at $(\alpha, \delta) = (5^h 18\fm 8, -68\degr
486: 34\arcmin)$. Each field location is marked with a filled circle. All
487: of the CMDs have the same color and magnitude range, $-1 <
488: m_{606W}-m_{814W} < 2$ and $26 > m_{606W} > 14$, respectively.}
489: \label{fig:LMC_YS}
490: \end{figure}
491:
492: \begin{figure}[t!]
493: \centering
494: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f7.eps}
495: \caption{Magnitude and direction of proper motions remaining after
496: subtracting the contributions due to the changing perspective of the
497: center-of-mass space velocity. These proper motions contain
498: information about internal motions. Each filled circle is at the
499: location on the sky of one of the 21 fields in the LMC in a tangent
500: plane projection. North is up and east is to the left. The line
501: emanating from each field location is the proper motion for that field
502: and the uncertainty is indicated by the error bars at its tip. The
503: asterisk symbol marks the kinematical center of the LMC at $(\alpha,
504: \delta) = (5^h27\fm 6,-69\arcdeg 52.2\arcmin)$ and the line
505: originating from it has a length and direction proportional to the
506: adopted proper motion of the center of mass: $\mu_{\alpha,cm} =
507: 195.6$~mas~century$^{-1}$ and $\mu_{\delta,cm} =
508: 43.5$~mas~century$^{-1}$. The line segment in the lower-left corner
509: shows a proper motion corresponding to a tangential velocity of
510: 100~km~s$^{-1}$. A visual inspection of the figure shows a clear
511: signature of a clockwise rotation.}
512: \label{fig:LMC_rot}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515: \clearpage
516:
517: The LMC is known to exhibit rotation on the basis of the radial
518: velocities of HI and stars \citep[\textit{e.g.},][]{kim98,vdm02,om07}
519: and Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_YS} shows that the fields are distributed
520: widely in azimuth around the galaxy center. Thus, the measured proper
521: motions listed in Table~1 must contain contributions from both the
522: center-of-mass space motion, including the effect of changing
523: perspective, and disk rotation. They may also contain contributions
524: from the precession and nutation of the disk \citep{vdm02}, and from
525: streaming due to the bar or a tidal interaction. To search for
526: internal motions we must remove the effect of the changing
527: perspective, which is calculable given a line-of-sight velocity and
528: proper motion of the galaxy center of mass and the galaxy distance
529: \citep[see][]{vdm02}. Adopting values for these three quantities of
530: 262.2~km~s$^{-1}$ \citep{vdm02}, our best estimate obtained as
531: described below (it depends slightly on the adopted rotation), and
532: 50.1~kpc \citep{vdm02} yields the results in Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rot}.
533: It plots at the location of each field the direction and magnitude of
534: the proper motion that arises only because of the internal motions of
535: the LMC. Visual inspection shows a clear signature of a clockwise
536: rotation, albeit with superimposed noise. The amplitude of the proper
537: motions for the fields farthest from the kinematical center implies
538: tangential velocities larger than 100~km~s$^{-1}$. K06a noted a hint
539: of this rotational pattern in their equivalent Figure~12, but it was
540: not as clear as in Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rot}.
541:
542: Each proper motion in Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rot} can be resolved into a
543: component along and perpendicular to the direction expected for
544: circular rotation in an inclined disk. The first of these components
545: implies an amplitude for the rotation curve at a radius in the disk
546: plane. The formulae for translating positions and proper motions in
547: the sky to radii and rotation velocities in the disk are given by
548: \citet{vdm02}. Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rc} plots the amplitude of the
549: rotation curve, $V_{rot}$, \textit{versus} radius in the plane of the
550: disk, $R_{plane}$, for each field. The uncertainties are determined
551: from the uncertainties in the measured proper motions using
552: propagation of errors. The calculations assume that the kinematical
553: center of the disk is at $(\alpha, \delta) = (5^h27\fm 6,-69\arcdeg
554: 52.2\arcmin)$ and that the disk inclination and position angle of the
555: line of nodes are $34\fdg 7$ and $129\fdg 9$, respectively
556: \citep{vdm02}. All of the fields except one have positive $V_{rot}$,
557: so the proper motions imply the presence of rotation.
558: Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rc} shows that $V_{rot}$ increases with increasing
559: $R_{plane}$. Some of the largest values of $V_{rot}$ are for L1, L11,
560: and L16, which are in the northern spiral arm. This suggests that the
561: spiral arm has a motion different than that of the rest of the disk,
562: possibly because of a warp in the disk plane or because it is a tidal
563: tail. However, other fields in the northern spiral arm, such as L4, L6,
564: and L18, have values of $V_{rot}$ similar to those of the rest of
565: the disk.
566:
567: \clearpage
568:
569: \begin{figure}[t!]
570: \centering
571: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f8.eps}
572: \caption{Rotational velocity, $V_{rot}$, implied by a proper motion
573: that was corrected for changing perspective plotted as a function of
574: radius in the plane of the disk, $R_{plane}$. This is a velocity in
575: the plane of the disk and perpendicular to the line of sight of a
576: stationary observer at the center of the LMC. For easy reference,
577: each point is labeled with a field number. The dashed curve is the
578: best-fitting model rotation curve assumed to be linearly increasing to
579: a radius of 275~arcmin and flat beyond; it has
580: $V_{275}=120$~km~s$^{-1}$.}
581: \label{fig:LMC_rc}
582: \end{figure}
583:
584: \clearpage
585:
586: Estimates of the rotation of the LMC using radial velocities of carbon
587: stars \citep[K06a;][]{vdm02} and HI \citep{kim98,om07} find $V_{rot}$
588: increasing approximately linearly with $R_{plane}$ to a value of 60 --
589: 80~km~s$^{-1}$ at a radius of about 275~arcmin (4.0~kpc) and roughly
590: constant beyond. Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rc} shows a larger amplitude for
591: the rotation. We adopt a simple rotation curve that rises linearly to
592: a radius of 275~arcmin and is constant beyond.
593: Correcting the observed proper motions of each field for perspective
594: and rotation produces an estimate of the proper motion of the center
595: of mass. The best estimates of the rotation curve and the center-of-mass
596: proper motion minimize the scatter of these estimates around their
597: weighted mean. We add an additional uncertainty of
598: 12.4~mas~century$^{-1}$ in quadrature to both components of the
599: measured proper motion of each field in order to produce a $\chi^2$
600: per degree of freedom of 1.0 for the best fit. The result for the
601: center-of-mass proper motion and amplitude of the rotation curve at a
602: radius of 275~arcmin are
603: \begin{eqnarray}
604: \mu_{\alpha,cm} &=& 195.6\pm 3.6\ \textrm{mas century}^{-1} \label{eq:macm}\\
605: \mu_{\delta,cm} &=& 43.5 \pm 3.6\ \textrm{mas century}^{-1} \label{eq:mdcm}\\
606: V_{275} &=& 120 \pm 15\ \textrm{km s}^{-1}. \label{eq:vf}
607: \end{eqnarray}
608: These are our best estimates for these quantities. The uncertainties
609: are derived by increasing $\chi^2$ by 1.0 above the minimum
610: \citep[\textit{e.g.},][]{p92} and so include the adopted additional
611: uncertainty. Estimating the uncertainties in the right ascension and
612: declination components of the mean proper motion from the scatter of
613: the estimates around their weighted mean, as done by K06a, yields
614: 4.1~mas~century$^{-1}$ and 4.5~mas~century$^{-1}$, respectively. The
615: rotation curve implied by Equation~\ref{eq:vf} is shown as the dashed
616: curve in Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rc}.
617:
618: \clearpage
619:
620: \begin{figure}[t!]
621: \centering
622: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f9.eps}
623: \caption{Center-of-mass proper motion for the LMC determined by each of
624: 21 fields as found in this article using $V_{275} = 120$~km~s$^{-1}$.
625: The error bars do not include the additional uncertainty discussed in
626: the text. \textit{Top panel}: $\mu_{\alpha}$ \textit{versus} field
627: number. \textit{Bottom panel}: $\mu_{\delta}$ \textit{versus} field
628: number. The dashed horizontal lines are our weighted mean proper
629: motions for each component. For easy comparison, both panels have the
630: same vertical scale, which is also the same as in
631: Figures~\ref{fig:LMCpmr} and \ref{fig:LMCpmc}.}
632: \label{fig:LMC_cpm}
633: \end{figure}
634:
635: \clearpage
636:
637: The difference between the rotation curves determined from the radial
638: velocities \citep[K06a;][]{kim98} and ours could be reduced by
639: decreasing the inclination of the disk. A complete reanalysis would
640: simultaneously fit the radial velocity and proper motion data to
641: determine the rotation curve and orientation of the disk. However,
642: such a fit is beyond the scope of this article. Recently,
643: \citet{om07} used the K06a proper motion to study the internal motions
644: of the LMC implied by the radial velocities of the HI, carbon stars
645: (an intermediate age stellar population), and red supergiants (a young
646: stellar population). They confirm the HI rotation curve and the other
647: spatially and kinematically distinct features first seen in the HI by
648: \citet{kim98} and \citet{ss03}. The carbon stars share the kinematics
649: of the HI, but the rotation curve of the red supergiants rises to a
650: value of 107~km~s$^{-1}$, which is similar to what we find from the
651: proper motions and, in particular what we find for those fields in the
652: northern spiral
653: arm that are dominated by a young stellar population. Some of the red
654: supergiants implying the largest rotation velocity are also in the
655: northern spiral arm: the magenta dots in Figure~2 of \citet{om07}.
656: Future proper motions with a longer time baseline may be able to
657: distinguish between the kinematics of different stellar populations.
658: Radial velocities for stars in the 21 fields would also help to compare
659: the rotation measured using radial velocities and proper motions.
660:
661: Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_cpm} plots the center-of-mass proper motions for
662: each field derived with $V_{275} = 120$~km~s$^{-1}$ \textit{versus}
663: field number. The dashed horizontal lines are the weighted means for
664: each component listed in Equations~\ref{eq:macm} and \ref{eq:mdcm}.
665: The scatter of the points around the weighted mean for each component
666: is smaller than the scatter in Figure~\ref{fig:LMCpmc}, which uses the
667: smaller rotation amplitude of K06a. The significant reduction in the
668: scatter supports the larger amplitude for the rotation found in this
669: article.
670:
671: The additional 12.4~mas~century$^{-1}$ of scatter in each component of
672: the measured proper motions found above implies the presence of some
673: combination of internal motions that depart from our adopted rotation
674: curve and errors larger than our measurement uncertainties. Our
675: measurement uncertainties are derived from the scatter around the
676: best-fit coordinate transformation between epochs and should be
677: realistic in most cases. An undetected systematic error might be
678: present if there is a gap between the high $S/N$ of the QSO and the
679: lower $S/N$ values of the stars. Only fields L1, L3, and L11 have
680: such gaps. L1 has a significant departure from the mean in
681: Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_cpm}, but L3 and L11 do not. L17 has the largest
682: departure in Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_cpm} and shows strong trends with
683: $S/N$ and contains few stars, making correcting for those trends
684: difficult. A proper motion of 12.4~mas~century$^{-1}$ corresponds to
685: a tangential velocity of 30~km~s$^{-1}$ and internal motions of this
686: size would indicate significant departures from circular motion.
687: Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_res} plots the proper motions remaining after
688: subtracting the contributions due to the rotation curve shown in
689: Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rc} from the proper motions in
690: Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rot}. The figure does not show a clear pattern of
691: streaming motions. The most significant residuals are found among the
692: fields in the northern spiral arm, but it is unclear what physical
693: mechanism could produce larger incoherent departures from the adopted
694: rotation curve there. Again, it would be useful to obtain radial
695: velocities for stars in the proper motion fields.
696:
697: \clearpage
698:
699: \begin{figure}[t!]
700: \centering
701: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f10.eps}
702: \caption{Magnitude and direction of the proper motions remaining after
703: subtracting the contributions due to our best-fit rotation from the
704: proper motions in Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rot}. The resulting residual
705: vectors have directions and magnitudes determined by measurement
706: errors and by departures from the circular motions of the fitted
707: rotation curve. The figure shows no clear pattern of streaming
708: motions. The most significant residuals are found among the fields in
709: the northern spiral arm.}
710: \label{fig:LMC_res}
711: \end{figure}
712:
713: \clearpage
714:
715: Our proper motion for the center of mass of the LMC differs from that
716: of K06a by 7.4~mas~century$^{-1}$ in the right ascension component and
717: 0.5~mas~century$^{-1}$ in the declination component. The difference
718: in the right ascension components is as large as the uncertainty
719: quoted by K06a. However, our proper motion confirms the surprising
720: result of K06a that led us to begin this investigation: the large
721: space velocity for the LMC. The proper motion for the LMC found in
722: this article implies a galactocentric radial and tangential velocity
723: of $93.2\pm 3.7$~km~s$^{-1}$ and $346 \pm 8.5$~km~s$^{-1}$,
724: respectively.
725:
726: \clearpage
727:
728: \begin{figure}[h!]
729: \centering
730: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.9]{f11.eps}
731: \caption{Locations on the sky in a tangent plane projection and CMDs of
732: the five fields in the SMC superimposed on a map showing a
733: distribution of young stars from \citet{z00}. North is up, east is to
734: the left and the figure is centered at $(\alpha, \delta) = (0^h 51\fm
735: 6, -72\degr 52\arcmin)$. Each field location is marked with a filled
736: circle. All of the CMDs have the same color and magnitude range, $-1
737: < m_{606W}-m_{814W} < 2$ and $26 > m_{606W} > 14$, respectively.}
738: \label{fig:SMC_YS}
739: \end{figure}
740:
741: \clearpage
742:
743: \subsection{The SMC}
744: \label{sec:SMC}
745:
746: Figure~\ref{fig:SMC_YS} shows the location of the SMC fields, their
747: CMDs, and the distribution of young stars as mapped by
748: \citet{z00}. The figure shows that the surface density of young stars
749: at the location of S4 is lower than that for the other fields. The
750: CMD for S4 contains mostly old stars, whereas the CMDs for the other
751: fields contain both old and young stars.
752:
753: Figure~\ref{fig:SMC_rot}, which is analogous to
754: Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rot}, shows proper motions that were corrected for
755: the changing perspective of the center-of-mass space velocity of the
756: SMC. We adopt a distance of 61.7~kpc \citep{c00}, our best estimate
757: of the proper motion of the galaxy, and a line-of-sight velocity of
758: 146.0~km~s$^{-1}$ \citep{hz06}. Visual inspection shows no clear
759: signature of rotation. There is a suggestion of radial streaming
760: motions along a north-west --- south-east line. However, measurements
761: of the proper motions in more fields are necessary to confirm the
762: presence of this streaming.
763:
764: \clearpage
765:
766: \begin{figure}[t!]
767: \centering
768: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f12.eps}
769: \caption{Magnitude and direction of proper motions remaining after
770: subtracting the contributions due to the changing perspective of the
771: center-of-mass space velocity. These proper motions contain
772: information about internal motions. Each filled circle is at the
773: location on the sky of one of the five fields in the SMC in a tangent
774: plane projection. North is up and east is to the left. The line
775: emanating from each field location is the proper motion for that field
776: and the uncertainty is indicated by the error bars at its tip. The
777: asterisk symbol marks the kinematical center of the SMC at
778: $(\alpha, \delta) = (0^h52\fm 8,-72\arcdeg 30\arcmin)$ and the line
779: originating from it has a length and direction proportional to the
780: adopted proper motion of the center of mass: $\mu_{\alpha,cm} =
781: 80.8$~mas~century$^{-1}$ and $\mu_{\delta,cm} =
782: -125.6$~mas~century$^{-1}$. The line segment in the lower-left corner
783: shows a proper motion corresponding to a tangential velocity of
784: 100~km~s$^{-1}$. A visual inspection of the figure shows no evidence
785: of rotation, but suggests the presence of radial streaming away from
786: the center.}
787: \label{fig:SMC_rot}
788: \end{figure}
789:
790: \clearpage
791:
792: Figure~\ref{fig:SMC_rc}, which is analogous to Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_rc},
793: confirms that the circular velocities derived from the five fields are
794: consistent with no rotation. The calculations assume that the
795: kinematical center of the disk is at $(\alpha, \delta) = (0^h52\fm
796: 8,-72\arcdeg 30\arcmin)$ and that the disk inclination and position
797: angle of the line of nodes are $40\degr$ and $220\degr$, respectively
798: \citep{st04}. The velocity gradient seen in the HI \citep{st04} and
799: red giants \citep{hz06}, if interpreted as rotation, would imply a
800: rotation curve in Figure~\ref{fig:SMC_rc} linearly rising to an
801: amplitude of $\pm$50~km~s$^{-1}$ at $R_{plane} = 120$~arcmin. The
802: data in Figure~\ref{fig:SMC_rc} cannot rule out such a curve.
803:
804: \clearpage
805:
806: \begin{figure}[h]
807: \centering
808: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f13.eps}
809: \caption{Rotational velocity, $V_{rot}$, implied by a proper motion
810: that was corrected for changing perspective plotted as a function of
811: radius in the plane of the disk, $R_{plane}$. This is a velocity in
812: the plane of the disk and perpendicular to the line of sight of a
813: stationary observer at the center of the SMC. For easy reference, each
814: point is labeled with a field number. There is no indication of rotation.}
815: \label{fig:SMC_rc}
816: \end{figure}
817:
818: \clearpage
819:
820: As for the LMC, each field yields a measurement of the center-of-mass
821: proper motion and these are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:SMC_cpm}. The
822: calculations assume no rotation. The dashed lines are the weighted
823: means for each component and their values are
824: {\samepage
825: \begin{eqnarray}
826: \mu_{\alpha,cm} &=& 75.4\pm 6.1\ \textrm{mas century}^{-1}
827: \label{eq:smc-macm}\\
828: \mu_{\delta,cm} &=& -125.2 \pm 5.8\ \textrm{mas century}^{-1}.
829: \label{eq:smc-mdcm}
830: \end{eqnarray}}
831: These are our best estimates for these quantities. We add an
832: additional uncertainty of 7.2~mas~century$^{-1}$ in quadrature to both
833: components of the measured proper motion of each field in order to
834: produce a $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom of 1.0 for the scatter around
835: the means. Estimating the uncertainties in the right ascension and
836: declination components of the mean proper motion from the scatter of
837: the estimates around their weighted mean yields 7.0~mas~century$^{-1}$
838: and 3.9~mas~century$^{-1}$, respectively. Our uncertainties for
839: $\mu_{\alpha,cm}$ and $\mu_{\delta,cm}$ are a factor of 3 smaller
840: than those of K06b. The principal reason for our smaller uncertainties
841: is that we treat all five fields as independent measurements, whereas
842: K06b treated fields S1, S2, and S3 as a single measurement, S5 as
843: another, and excluded S4. Our reanalysis, which corrects for the
844: effects caused by degrading CTE and for the trends of mean proper
845: motion with $S/N$, has reduced the systematic errors and, thus,
846: justifies treating these fields as independent. The additional
847: uncertainty, added in quadrature to the measurement uncertainties
848: of the SMC, is similar to that for the LMC, which further supports our
849: quoted uncertainties.
850:
851: \clearpage
852:
853: \begin{figure}[h]
854: \centering
855: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f14.eps}
856: \caption{Center-of-mass proper motion for the SMC determined by each of
857: five fields as found in this article assuming no rotation. The error
858: bars do not include the additional uncertainty discussed in the text.
859: \textit{Top panel}: $\mu_{\alpha}$ \textit{versus} field number.
860: \textit{Bottom panel}: $\mu_{\delta}$ \textit{versus} field number.
861: The dashed horizontal lines are our weighted mean proper motions for
862: each component. For easy comparison, both panels have the same
863: vertical scale, which is also the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:SMCpmr}.}
864: \label{fig:SMC_cpm}
865: \end{figure}
866:
867: \clearpage
868:
869: Our proper motion for the center of mass of the SMC differs from that
870: of K06b by 40.6~mas~century$^{-1}$ in the right ascension component
871: and 8.2~mas~century$^{-1}$ in the declination component. The
872: difference in the declination components is smaller than the
873: uncertainty quoted by K06b, whereas the difference in the right
874: ascension components is 2.3 times larger than the K06b uncertainty and
875: 6.7 times larger than our uncertainty. The difference in the right
876: ascension component arises because we include field S4 in the average,
877: have a lower value from field S5 because of the correction of trends
878: with $S/N$, and, as discussed above, treat all five measurements as
879: independent.
880:
881: The proper motion for the SMC found in this article implies a
882: galactocentric radial and tangential velocity of $6.8\pm
883: 2.4$~km~s$^{-1}$ and $259\pm 17$~km~s$^{-1}$, respectively. The
884: relative velocity between the LMC and SMC is $142\pm 19$~km~s$^{-1}$,
885: which is 37~km~s$^{-1}$ higher than that found by K06b.
886:
887: \section{Summary}
888: \label{sec:summary}
889:
890: This article reports a reanalysis of images taken with the HRC of the
891: ACS on HST first analyzed by K06a and K06b to measure the proper
892: motions of the LMC and SMC. Central to the method is the presence of a
893: QSO in a field; the proper motion derives from the reflex motion of a
894: QSO with respect to the stars of the galaxy. There are 21 fields in
895: the LMC and five in the SMC. The key findings and conclusions from our
896: analysis are:
897:
898: \begin{enumerate}
899: \item We have detected a trend between the mean measured motion
900: and the brightness of objects that is present to a varying degree in a
901: majority of the fields. We are unable to identify the source of these
902: trends. If not accounted for, the trend can significantly affect the
903: measured proper motion. Because the QSO is one of the brightest
904: objects in the field, we minimize the influence of the trends by
905: restricting the sample of stars contributing to the measurement of the
906: proper motion in a field to those whose $S/N$ is above some limit.
907: Proper motions derived with a wider range for the $S/N$ of the sample
908: agree better with those of K06a and K06b, thus arguing that the trends are
909: present in their analyses too.
910:
911: \item Our analysis also approximately corrects the effects caused by the
912: decreasing charge transfer efficiency with time in the CCD of the HRC.
913: These corrections are smaller than those for the trends with $S/N$.
914:
915: \item For most of the fields in the LMC and SMC, our measured proper
916: motion agrees within the quoted uncertainties with that of K06a or
917: K06b. In those cases where the measurements differ (notably fields L13,
918: L15, L21, and S5), the difference is due to our measurements being
919: corrected for the trends with $S/N$. Our measured proper motions for
920: the 21 fields in the LMC and the five fields in the SMC show less
921: scatter around the two mean center-of-mass proper motions. With our
922: improved analysis, it is no longer necessary to exclude any of the
923: fields from the calculations of the means.
924:
925: \item Removing a contribution to the measured proper motions from the
926: changing perspective of the space velocity gives proper motion vectors
927: that contain information about the internal motions of the LMC.
928: Plotting these vectors on the sky shows a pattern of clockwise
929: rotation. Converting each vector into an estimate of the rotation
930: velocity at a radius in the disk plane shows that the rotation of the
931: LMC has been clearly detected from the proper motions for the first
932: time. Assuming a model rotation curve that rises linearly to a radius
933: of 275~arcmin and that is flat beyond yields a best-fit amplitude at
934: this radius of $120\pm 15$~km~s$^{-1}$.
935:
936: \item Our best estimate of the mean center-of-mass proper motion of
937: the LMC is $(\mu_{\alpha}, \mu_{\delta}) =
938: (195.6\pm 3.6, 43.5 \pm 3.6)$~mas century$^{-1}$.
939:
940: \item We do not detect rotation in the SMC. The proper motions
941: suggest the presence of radial expansion, however more fields and
942: more precise measurements are needed to confirm the reality of
943: these streaming motions.
944:
945: \item Our best estimate of the mean center-of-mass proper motion of the SMC
946: is $(\mu_{\alpha}, \mu_{\delta}) = (75.4\pm 6.1, -125.2 \pm 5.8)$~mas
947: century$^{-1}$. The uncertainties are 2.5 times smaller than those of
948: K06b because the improved internal consistency of our proper motions
949: permits treating all five fields as independent measurements.
950: \end{enumerate}
951:
952: \acknowledgments
953:
954: We thank the referee, Steven Majewski, and also Jay Anderson, Nitya
955: Kallivayalil, Roeland van der Marel, and Gurtina Besla for helpful
956: suggestions and discussions which made this article better. We further
957: thank Jay Anderson for sending us his program to correct for the
958: geometric distortion in the HRC. CP and SP acknowledge the financial
959: support of the Space Telescope Science Institute through the grants
960: HST-AR-10971 and HST-GO-10229 and of the National Science Foundation
961: through grant AST-0098650. EWO acknowledges support from the Space
962: Telescope Science Institute through the grants HST-GO-07341.01-A and
963: HST-GO-08286.01-A and from the National Science Foundation through the
964: grants AST-0205790 and AST-0507511.
965:
966: \clearpage
967:
968: \begin{thebibliography}{}
969:
970: \bibitem[Anderson \& King(2000)]{ak00} Anderson, J., \& King, I. R. 2000,
971: PASP, 112, 1360
972:
973: \bibitem[Anderson \& King(2003)]{ak04} Anderson, J., \& King,
974: I. R. 2003, AJ, 126, 772
975:
976: \bibitem[Besla et al.(2007)]{b07} Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N.,
977: Hernquist, L., Robertson, B., Cox, T. J., van der
978: Marel, R. P., \& Alcock, C. 2007, submitted (astro-ph/0703196)
979:
980: \bibitem[Bristow et al.(2005)]{br05} Bristow, P., Piatek, S., \&
981: Pryor, C. 2005, ST-ECF Newsletter, 38, 12
982:
983: \bibitem[Bruns et al.(2005)]{b05} Bruns, C., et al. 2005, A\&A, 432,
984: 45
985:
986: \bibitem[Cioni et al.(2000)]{c00} Cioni, M.-R. L., van der Marel, R. P.,
987: Loup, C., \& Habing, H. J. 2000, A\& A, 359, 601
988:
989: \bibitem[Dolphin(2000)]{do00} Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383
990:
991: \bibitem[Drake et al.(2001)]{d01} Drake, A. J. et al. 2001, BAAS, 33,
992: 1379
993:
994: \bibitem[Gardiner \& Noguchi(1996)]{gn96} Gardiner, L. T., \& Noguchi,
995: M. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 191
996:
997: \bibitem[Harris \& Zaritsky(2006)]{hz06} Harris, J. \& Zaritsky, D. 2006,
998: AJ, 131, 2514
999:
1000: \bibitem[Heller \& Rohlfs(1994)]{hr94} Heller, P. \& Rohlfs, K. 1994, A\&A,
1001: 291, 743
1002:
1003: \bibitem[Irwin(1999)]{i99} Irwin, M. 1999, in IAU Symp. 192, The
1004: Stellar Content of Local Group Galaxies, ed. P. Whitelock \& R. Cannon
1005: (San Francisco: ASP), 409
1006:
1007: \bibitem[Jones et al.(1994)]{j94} Jones, B. F., Klemola, A. R., \& Lin,
1008: D. N. C. 1994, AJ, 107, 1333
1009:
1010: \bibitem[Kallivayalil et al.(2006a)]{k06a} Kallivayalil, N., van der
1011: Marel, R. P., Alcock, C., Axelrod, T., Cook, K. H., Drake, A. J., \&
1012: Geha, M. 2006, ApJ, 638, 772 (K06a)
1013:
1014: \bibitem[Kallivayalil et al.(2006b)]{k06b} Kallivayalil, N., van der
1015: Marel, R. P., Alcock, C. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1213 (K06b)
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Kim et al.(1998)]{kim98} Kim, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dopita, M. A.,
1018: Freeman, K. C., Sault, R. J., Kesteven, M. J., \& McConnell, D. 1998,
1019: ApJ, 503, 674
1020:
1021: \bibitem[Kroupa \& Bastian(1997)]{kb97} Kroupa, P., \& Bastian,
1022: U. 1997, NewA, 2, 77
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Kroupa et al.(1994)]{k94} Kroupa, P., Roser, S., \& Bastian,
1025: U. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 412
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Lin et al.(1995)]{l95} Lin, D. N. C., Jones, B. F., \&
1028: Klemola, A. R., 1995, ApJ, 439, 652
1029:
1030: \bibitem[Mathewson et al.(1974)]{m74} Mathewson, D. S., Cleary, M. N.,
1031: \& Murray, J. D. 1974, ApJ, 190, 291
1032:
1033: \bibitem[Nidever et al.(2007)]{ni07} Nidever, D. L, Majewski, S. R.,
1034: \& Burton, W. B., 2007, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0706.1578)
1035:
1036: \bibitem[Olsen \& Massey(2007)]{om07} Olsen, K. A. G., \& Massey, P.
1037: 2007, ApJ, 656, L61
1038:
1039: \bibitem[Pavlovsky et al.(2006)]{pav06} Pavlovsky, C., et al. 2006,
1040: ``Advanced Camera for Surveys Instrument Handbook for Cycle 16'',
1041: Version 7.1, (Baltimore: STScI)
1042:
1043: \bibitem[Pedreros et al.(2002)]{pe02} Pedreros, M. H., Anguita, C., \&
1044: Maza, J. 2002, AJ, 123, 1971
1045:
1046: \bibitem[Pedreros et al.(2006)]{pe06} Pedreros, M., Costa, E., Mendez,
1047: R. A. 2006, AJ, 131, 146
1048:
1049: \bibitem[Piatek et al.(2002)]{p02} Piatek, S., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 3198
1050:
1051: \bibitem[Piatek et al.(2005)]{p05} Piatek, S., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 95
1052:
1053: \bibitem[Piatek et al.(2007)]{p07} Piatek, S., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 818
1054:
1055: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{p92} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A.,
1056: Vetterling, W. T., \& Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes, The Art
1057: of Scientific Computing, 2nd ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Putman et al.(1998)]{p98} Putman, M. E. et al. 1998, Nature,
1060: 394, 752
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Putman et al.(2003)]{p03} Putman, M. E., Staveley-Smith, L.,
1063: Freeman, K. C., Gibson, B. K., \& Barnes, D. G. 2003, ApJ, 586, 170
1064:
1065: \bibitem[Stanimirovi\'{c} et al.(2004)]{st04} Stanimirovi\'{c}, S.,
1066: Staveley-Smith, L., Jones, P. A. 2004, ApJ, 604, 176
1067:
1068: \bibitem[Staveley-Smith et al.(2003)]{ss03} Staveley-Smith, L., Kim,
1069: S., Calabretta, M. R., Haynes, R. F., \& Kesteven, M. J. 2003, MNRAS,
1070: 339, 87
1071:
1072: \bibitem[van der Marel et al.(2002)]{vdm02} van der Marel, R. P., Alves,
1073: D. R., Hardy, E., \& Suntzeff, N. B. 2002, AJ, 124, 2639
1074:
1075: \bibitem[Zaritsky et al.(2000)]{z00} Zaritsky, D., Harris, J., Grebel,
1076: E. K., \& Thompson, I. B. 2000, ApJ, 534, 53
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Zaritsky et al.(2004)]{z04} Zaritsky, D., Harris, J.,
1079: Thompson, I. B., \& Grebel, E. K. 2004, AJ, 128, 1606
1080:
1081: \end{thebibliography}
1082:
1083: \clearpage
1084:
1085: %\setcounter{table}{0}
1086: %\newdimen\digitwidth\setbox0=\hbox{\rm 0}\digitwidth=\wd0
1087: %\catcode`@=\active\def@{\kern\digitwidth}
1088:
1089: %\addtolength{\textwidth}{1.0truein}
1090: %\hoffset=-0.75truein
1091: %\voffset=-1.00truein
1092: %\small
1093:
1094: %Table 1
1095: \begin{deluxetable}{lcrrrrrrr}
1096: \tablecolumns{9}
1097: \tabletypesize{\small}
1098: \tablewidth{0pc}
1099: \tablecaption{Comparison of Measured Proper Motions for the LMC}
1100: \tablehead{&&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{This Article} &
1101: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Kallivayalil et al.}&& \\
1102: \colhead{Field}&$S/N$&N&\colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$}&
1103: \colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$}&
1104: \colhead{$\Delta\mu_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{$\Delta\mu_{\delta}$}\\
1105: \colhead{(1)}&
1106: \colhead{(2)}&
1107: \colhead{(3)}&
1108: \colhead{(4)}&
1109: \colhead{(5)}&
1110: \colhead{(6)}&
1111: \colhead{(7)}&
1112: \colhead{(8)}&
1113: \colhead{(9)}}
1114: \startdata
1115: L1 &25& 25&$139.6\pm 7.4$&$ 65.9\pm 8.3$&$116.2\pm12.1$&$ 80.0\pm 8.9$&$ 23.4\pm14.2$&$-14.1\pm12.2$\\
1116: L2 &25& 19&$223.3\pm14.6$&$-35.8\pm14.8$&$222.0\pm 7.0$&$-27.4\pm 6.7$&$ 1.3\pm16.2$&$ -8.4\pm16.3$\\
1117: L3 &25& 86&$179.0\pm 6.1$&$ 33.8\pm 7.0$&$197.6\pm 8.2$&$ 41.3\pm 6.1$&$-18.6\pm10.2$&$ -7.5\pm 9.3$\\
1118: L4 &25& 22&$180.5\pm 8.8$&$ 17.8\pm 8.4$&$212.1\pm15.0$&$ 52.1\pm11.8$&$-31.6\pm17.4$&$-34.3\pm14.5$\\
1119: L5 &25& 43&$204.1\pm11.6$&$ 3.2\pm 9.0$&$205.4\pm 8.6$&$ 10.2\pm 9.7$&$ -1.3\pm14.4$&$ -7.0\pm13.3$\\
1120: L6 &25& 14&$153.2\pm14.7$&$ 91.9\pm14.4$&$165.8\pm19.1$&$ 98.3\pm29.8$&$-12.6\pm24.1$&$ -6.4\pm33.1$\\
1121: L7 &30& 93&$198.0\pm 7.7$&$ 25.5\pm 7.7$&$206.8\pm 7.3$&$ 42.6\pm 6.4$&$ -8.8\pm10.6$&$-17.1\pm10.0$\\
1122: L8 &50& 16&$191.4\pm 5.2$&$ -7.0\pm 6.7$&$196.1\pm 8.1$&$ -5.0\pm 5.8$&$ -4.7\pm 9.6$&$ -2.0\pm 8.8$\\
1123: L9 &25& 58&$199.2\pm10.9$&$ -6.3\pm 8.5$&$202.3\pm 7.7$&$ -4.7\pm 8.4$&$ -3.1\pm13.4$&$ -1.6\pm11.9$\\
1124: L10&25& 60&$180.9\pm10.4$&$ 64.8\pm 9.2$&$193.4\pm 9.9$&$ 60.0\pm 8.7$&$-12.5\pm14.4$&$ 4.8\pm12.7$\\
1125: L11&25& 15&$141.6\pm 8.0$&$ 96.4\pm 7.4$&$108.9\pm35.2$&$118.6\pm18.7$&$ 32.7\pm36.1$&$-22.2\pm20.1$\\
1126: L12&50& 14&$200.9\pm13.4$&$-23.2\pm11.6$&$244.7\pm16.9$&$ -2.4\pm18.3$&$-43.8\pm21.5$&$-20.8\pm21.7$\\
1127: L13&50& 25&$221.1\pm15.9$&$ 48.7\pm16.6$&$245.5\pm13.4$&$116.8\pm 7.8$&$-24.4\pm20.8$&$-68.1\pm18.4$\\
1128: L14&25& 37&$177.8\pm18.7$&$ -6.2\pm16.5$&$183.7\pm17.4$&$ 13.6\pm22.5$&$ -5.9\pm25.5$&$-19.8\pm27.9$\\
1129: L15&50& 19&$229.9\pm14.4$&$ 38.1\pm15.6$&$273.8\pm17.3$&$ 57.3\pm21.7$&$-43.9\pm22.5$&$-19.2\pm26.7$\\
1130: L16&25& 33&$151.8\pm 5.3$&$ 9.7\pm 8.0$&$152.5\pm14.1$&$ 27.7\pm11.7$&$ -0.7\pm15.1$&$-18.0\pm14.2$\\
1131: L17&25& 16&$224.8\pm24.8$&$108.9\pm22.5$&$231.3\pm28.9$&$100.4\pm18.5$&$ -6.5\pm38.1$&$ 8.5\pm29.1$\\
1132: L18&25& 24&$165.1\pm14.0$&$ 76.3\pm14.2$&$177.9\pm13.3$&$ 91.4\pm12.8$&$-12.8\pm19.3$&$-15.1\pm19.1$\\
1133: L19&25&104&$171.4\pm21.3$&$ 77.6\pm17.7$&$173.5\pm16.3$&$ 84.4\pm20.8$&$ -2.1\pm26.8$&$ -6.8\pm27.3$\\
1134: L20&25& 51&$181.3\pm 7.9$&$-12.9\pm 7.0$&$181.3\pm 7.1$&$ 0.5\pm11.6$&$ 0.0\pm10.7$&$-13.4\pm13.6$\\
1135: L21&25&115&$202.2\pm13.0$&$-14.6\pm11.7$&$246.4\pm11.5$&$ 5.4\pm12.2$&$-44.2\pm17.3$&$-20.0\pm16.9$\\
1136: &&&&&& Average: & $-10.48$&$-14.69$\\
1137: &&&&&& \textit{rms}: & $19.65$& $15.73$\\
1138: \enddata
1139: \tablecomments{Proper motions are all in milli-arcseconds century$^{-1}$.}
1140: \end{deluxetable}
1141:
1142: %Table 2
1143: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrr}
1144: \tablecolumns{5}
1145: \tablewidth{0pc}
1146: \tablecaption{Comparison of Center-of-Mass Proper Motions for the LMC}
1147: \tablehead{&\multicolumn{2}{c}{This Article} &
1148: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Kallivayalil et al.} \\
1149: \colhead{Field}&\colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$}&
1150: \colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$} \\
1151: \colhead{(1)}&
1152: \colhead{(2)}&
1153: \colhead{(3)}&
1154: \colhead{(4)}&
1155: \colhead{(5)}}
1156: \startdata
1157: L1 &$156.8\pm 7.4$&$ 40.9\pm 8.3$&$133.4\pm12.1$&$ 55.0\pm 8.9$\\
1158: L2 &$211.1\pm14.6$&$ 15.4\pm14.8$&$209.8\pm 7.0$&$ 23.8\pm 6.7$\\
1159: L3 &$178.3\pm 6.1$&$ 47.8\pm 7.0$&$196.9\pm 8.2$&$ 55.3\pm 6.1$\\
1160: L4 &$190.2\pm 8.8$&$ 34.9\pm 8.4$&$221.8\pm15.0$&$ 69.2\pm11.8$\\
1161: L5 &$199.4\pm11.6$&$ 16.4\pm 9.0$&$200.7\pm 8.6$&$ 23.4\pm 9.7$\\
1162: L6 &$173.2\pm14.7$&$ 47.9\pm14.4$&$185.8\pm19.1$&$ 54.3\pm29.8$\\
1163: L7 &$195.7\pm 7.7$&$ 37.2\pm 7.7$&$204.5\pm 7.3$&$ 54.3\pm 6.4$\\
1164: L8 &$197.1\pm 5.2$&$ 30.9\pm 6.7$&$201.8\pm 8.1$&$ 32.9\pm 5.8$\\
1165: L9 &$193.6\pm10.9$&$ 39.0\pm 8.5$&$196.7\pm 7.7$&$ 40.6\pm 8.4$\\
1166: L10&$188.9\pm10.4$&$ 38.5\pm 9.2$&$201.4\pm 9.9$&$ 33.7\pm 8.7$\\
1167: L11&$163.2\pm 8.0$&$ 60.5\pm 7.4$&$130.5\pm35.2$&$ 82.7\pm18.7$\\
1168: L12&$204.0\pm13.4$&$ 13.0\pm11.6$&$247.8\pm16.9$&$ 33.8\pm18.3$\\
1169: L13&$219.7\pm15.9$&$ 54.9\pm16.6$&$244.1\pm13.4$&$123.0\pm 7.8$\\
1170: L14&$181.5\pm18.7$&$ 28.6\pm16.5$&$187.4\pm17.4$&$ 48.4\pm22.5$\\
1171: L15&$226.5\pm14.4$&$ 52.7\pm15.6$&$270.4\pm17.3$&$ 71.9\pm21.7$\\
1172: L16&$159.0\pm 5.3$&$ 42.9\pm 8.0$&$159.7\pm14.1$&$ 60.9\pm11.7$\\
1173: L17&$238.4\pm24.8$&$115.2\pm22.5$&$244.9\pm28.9$&$106.7\pm18.5$\\
1174: L18&$178.0\pm14.0$&$ 74.6\pm14.2$&$190.8\pm13.3$&$ 89.7\pm12.8$\\
1175: L19&$172.3\pm21.3$&$ 74.0\pm17.7$&$174.4\pm16.3$&$ 80.8\pm20.8$\\
1176: L20&$183.3\pm 7.9$&$ 30.7\pm 7.0$&$183.3\pm 7.1$&$ 44.1\pm11.6$\\
1177: L21&$199.2\pm13.0$&$ 5.4\pm11.7$&$243.4\pm11.5$&$ 25.4\pm12.2$\\
1178: \enddata
1179: \tablecomments{Proper motions are all in milli-arcseconds century$^{-1}$.}
1180: \end{deluxetable}
1181:
1182: %Table 3
1183: \begin{deluxetable}{lccrrrrrr}
1184: \tabletypesize{\small}
1185: \tablecolumns{9}
1186: \tablewidth{0pc}
1187: \tablecaption{Comparison of Measured Proper Motions for the SMC}
1188: \tablehead{&&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{This Article} &
1189: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Kallivayalil et al.}&& \\
1190: \colhead{Field}&$S/N$&N&\colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$}&
1191: \colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$}&
1192: \colhead{$\Delta\mu_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{$\Delta\mu_{\delta}$}\\
1193: \colhead{(1)}&
1194: \colhead{(2)}&
1195: \colhead{(3)}&
1196: \colhead{(4)}&
1197: \colhead{(5)}&
1198: \colhead{(6)}&
1199: \colhead{(7)}&
1200: \colhead{(8)}&
1201: \colhead{(9)}}
1202: \startdata
1203: S1 &25& 36&$ 72.5\pm 13.5$&$-125.6\pm 12.5$&$ 86.0\pm 11.3$&$-113.6\pm 9.5$&$ -13.5\pm 17.6$&$ -12.0\pm 15.7$\\
1204: S2 &25& 90&$ 78.3\pm 8.1$&$-130.3\pm 8.3$&$ 82.5\pm 7.3$&$-120.8\pm 7.6$&$ -4.2\pm 10.9$&$ -9.5\pm 11.3$\\
1205: S3 &25& 61&$ 91.1\pm 11.5$&$-132.2\pm 10.9$&$ 102.2\pm 9.1$&$-120.1\pm 10.9$&$ -11.1\pm 14.7$&$ -12.1\pm 15.4$\\
1206: S4 &25& 11&$ 43.8\pm 11.5$&$-111.0\pm 9.0$&$ 30.3\pm 7.3$&$ -86.6\pm 17.7$&$ 13.5\pm 13.6$&$ -24.4\pm 19.9$\\
1207: S5 &50& 17&$ 103.9\pm 16.5$&$-125.5\pm 15.9$&$ 147.1\pm 10.8$&$-114.3\pm 13.0$&$ -43.2\pm 19.7$&$ -11.2\pm 20.5$\\
1208: &&&&&& Average: & $-11.69$&$-13.84$\\
1209: &&&&&& \textit{rms:} & 20.57& 5.99\\
1210: \enddata
1211: \tablecomments{Proper motions are all in milli-arcseconds century$^{-1}$.}
1212: \end{deluxetable}
1213:
1214: \end{document}
1215:
1216:
1217:
1218:
1219:
1220:
1221:
1222:
1223: