1: % revised and shortened version
2: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
3:
4: \shorttitle{Kinematics of Tidal Debris}
5: \shortauthors{Mizutani et~al.}
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Kinematics of Tidal Debris from Omega Centauri's
11: Progenitor Galaxy}
12:
13: \author{Arihiro Mizutani\altaffilmark{1},
14: Masashi Chiba\altaffilmark{2},
15: and Tsuyoshi Sakamoto\altaffilmark{1}}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomical Science, The Graduate University
18: for Advanced Studies, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan;
19: mizutnar@cc.nao.ac.jp}
20: \altaffiltext{2}{National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588,
21: Japan}
22:
23: %%%%%% Abstract %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: \begin{abstract}
25: We present the kinematic properties of a tidally disrupted dwarf galaxy in the
26: Milky Way, based on the hypothesis that its central part once contained the
27: most massive Galactic globular cluster, $\omega$ Cen. Dynamical evolution of
28: a self-gravitating progenitor galaxy that follows the present-day and likely
29: past orbits of $\omega$ Cen is calculated numerically and the kinematic nature
30: of their tidal debris is analyzed, combined with randomly generated stars
31: comprising spheroidal halo and flat disk components. We show that the retrograde
32: rotation of the debris stars at $\sim -100$ km~s$^{-1}$ accords with a recently
33: discovered, large radial velocity stream at $\sim 300$ km~s$^{-1}$ towards the
34: Galactic longitude of $\sim 270^\circ$. These stars also contribute, only in
35: part, to a reported retrograde motion of the outer halo at the North Galactic
36: Pole. The prospects for future debris searches and the implications for the
37: early evolution of the Galaxy are briefly presented.
38: \end{abstract}
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40:
41: \keywords{Galaxy: formation --- globular clusters: individual
42: ($\omega$ Centauri) --- stars: kinematics}
43:
44: %%% Sec.1 %%%
45: \section{INTRODUCTION}
46:
47: Omega Centauri, the most massive globular cluster in the Milky Way,
48: is unique in terms of its metallicity content, internal kinematics, and
49: structure. Unlike other Galactic globular clusters, $\omega$ Cen shows
50: a wide spread in metallicity (e.g. Norris, Freeman,
51: \& Mighell 1996), with a main metal-poor component at [Fe/H]$\simeq -1.6$,
52: a second smaller peak at [Fe/H]$\simeq -1.2$, and a long tail extending
53: up to [Fe/H]$\simeq -0.5$. The metal-rich population holds
54: a low velocity dispersion and no sign of rotation, in contrast to the rotating
55: metal-poor population.
56: Furthermore, the metal-rich stars in $\omega$ Cen are largely enhanced
57: in $s$-process elements relative to those in globular clusters and
58: field stars with similar metallicities (e.g. Norris \& Da~Costa 1995),
59: thereby suggesting that the ejecta from low-mass,
60: asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars had to be retained and incorporated
61: into the next-generation stars.
62:
63: In spite of its large mass ($5\times 10^6$ M$_\odot$), it has been
64: demonstrated by Gnedin et al. (2002) that $\omega$ Cen is not unique in
65: its ability to retain the AGB ejecta as found for other
66: clusters. An isolated formation of $\omega$ Cen is thus unlikely, because the
67: enriched gas would easily be lost by encountering the Galactic disk. The most
68: viable explanation for the uniqueness of $\omega$ Cen is that it was once
69: the dense nucleus of a dwarf galaxy (Freeman 1993). A gravitational
70: potential provided by progenitor's stellar system and dark matter
71: (as suggested from dwarf spheroidal galaxies in the Local Group, Mateo 1998)
72: would help retaining the enriched gas and let the cluster being self-enriched
73: at least over a few Gigayears.
74:
75: If this hypothesis is the case for the origin of $\omega$ Cen, the question
76: arises: {\it where and in what form does the stellar system of its progenitor
77: galaxy remain?} Dinescu (2002) first investigated this issue,
78: by examining the possible signature of the progenitor's tidal debris among
79: nearby metal-poor stars in the catalog of Beers et al. (2000, B00).
80: She identified a group of stars with $-2.0<$[Fe/H]$\le-1.5$, which
81: departs from the characteristics of the inner Galactic halo but has
82: retrograde orbits similar to $\omega$ Cen. Her simplified disruption model of
83: the progenitor galaxy demonstrated that trailing tidal debris, having
84: orbital characteristics similar to the cluster, can be found in the solar
85: neighborhood, although the concrete spatial distribution and kinematics
86: of the debris stars remain yet unclear.
87:
88: This work motivates us to conduct an N-body simulation for the tidal
89: disruption of $\omega$ Cen's progenitor galaxy, to obtain the
90: characteristic structure and kinematics of its debris stars and compare
91: with various observations showing signatures of recent merging events
92: in the Milky Way (Gilmore, Wyse, \& Norris 2002, GWN; Kinman et al. 2002,
93: K02; Chiba \& Beers 2000, CB).
94: In particular, we show that a recently identified stream of stars at
95: heliocentric radial velocity of $\sim 300$ km~s$^{-1}$ (GWN) is a natural
96: outcome of the current disruption model, without affecting
97: local halo kinematics near the Sun and microlensing optical depth towards
98: the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC).
99:
100:
101: %%% Sec.2 %%%
102: \section{SIMPLE DYNAMICAL MODEL OF A PROGENITOR GALAXY}
103:
104: We calculate the dynamical evolution of an orbiting dwarf galaxy in a fixed
105: external gravitational potential representing the Milky Way. The potential
106: consists of three parts: a spherical Hernquist bulge
107: $\Phi_b(r)$, a Miyamoto-Nagai disk $\Phi_d (R,z)$, and a logarithmic
108: dark halo $\Phi_h(r)$, where $r$ is the Galactocentric distance and
109: $(R,z)$ denote cylindrical coordinates. Each is given as,
110: $\Phi_b (r) = - GM_b/(r+a)$, $\Phi_d(R,z) =
111: - GM_d/\sqrt{R^2+(b+\sqrt{z^2+c^2})^2}$,
112: and $\Phi_h(r) = v_h^2 /2 \ln(r^2+d^2)$,
113: where $M_b=3.4\times 10^{10}$ M$_\odot$, $a=0.7$ kpc,
114: $M_d=10^{11}$ M$_\odot$, $b=6.5$ kpc, $c=0.26$ kpc, $v_h=186$ km~s$^{-1}$,
115: and $d=12$ kpc. This choice yields a circular velocity
116: of 228 km~s$^{-1}$ at the solar circle of $R_\odot=8$ kpc and a flat
117: rotation curve outside $R_\odot$.
118:
119: We set self-gravitating particles in the dwarf galaxy following a King
120: model, where the central density, central velocity dispersion, and core radius
121: are given as 0.3 M$_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$, 18.1 km~s$^{-1}$, and 0.56 kpc,
122: respectively. In addition, a particle with the mass of $5 \times 10^6$
123: M$_\odot$ representing $\omega$ Cen is placed at the center of the
124: galaxy to trace its orbit. This setting yields the total mass of the galaxy as
125: $M_{tot}=5.79 \times 10^8$ M$_\odot$. A part of the mass is provided by
126: stars, which is roughly estimated from the mean metallicity of
127: stars in $\omega$ Cen ($\langle$[Fe/H]$\rangle\sim-1.6$), combined
128: with the metallicity-luminosity relation for the Local Group dwarfs
129: (C\^{o}t\'{e} et al. 2000) and the mass-to-light ratio (assuming $M/L \sim 4$
130: obtained for $\omega$ Cen, Meylan et al. 1995),
131: yielding $M_{stars}\sim 10^7$ M$_\odot$. Thus, our model galaxy
132: is largely dominated by a dark component, in agreement with the observed
133: large $M/L$ in dwarfs (Mateo 1998). The galaxy is
134: represented by a collection of $10^4$ particles and the self-gravity is
135: calculated in terms of a multiple expansion of the internal potential to
136: fourth order (Zaritsky \& White 1988).
137:
138: In the course of its orbital motion, a dwarf galaxy is disrupted by
139: Galactic tides, whereas its dense core is expected to survive and follow
140: $\omega$ Cen's orbit. While our calculation in a fixed Galactic
141: potential neglects dynamical friction against progenitor's orbit, the effect
142: is only modest for the system of $\la 10^8$~M$_\odot$ (Zhao 2002), especially
143: during a few orbital periods required for tidal disruption.
144: We thus examine two representative orbits for the progenitor, model 1
145: and 2: model 1 follows the current orbit of $\omega$ Cen, whereas for model 2,
146: we calculate an orbit back to the past over $\sim 2$ Gyr from its current
147: position and velocity by fully taking into account dynamical friction
148: and then set a progenitor galaxy on its non-decaying orbit. These two models
149: provide us with satisfactory information on the generic properties of a tidally
150: disrupted progenitor and we postulate that the realistic nature of their debris
151: is midway between these model predictions.
152: We calculate $\omega$ Cen's orbit, based on the distance\footnote{We estimate
153: this distance, based on the Harris (1996) data and the relation between
154: absolute magnitude of cluster horizontal branch and metallicity derived by
155: Carretta, Gratton, \& Clemintini (2000).} from the Sun $D=5.3 \pm 0.5$ kpc,
156: position $(l,b)=(309^\circ,15^\circ)$, proper motion
157: $(\mu_\alpha \cos\delta,\mu_\delta) =(-5.08\pm0.35, -3.57\pm0.34)$
158: mas~yr$^{-1}$, and heliocentric radial velocity $v_{los} = 232.5 \pm 0.7$
159: km~s$^{-1}$ (Dinescu, Girard, \& van Altena 1999).
160: This orbit for model 1 is characterized by frequent disk crossings with a period
161: of $\tau_{orb} = 0.8 \times 10^8$ yr, retrograde motion, and apo and pericentric
162: distances $(r_{apo},r_{peri}) = (6.4, 1.1)$ kpc. For model 2,
163: we obtain $\tau_{orb} = 1.5 \times 10^8$ yr and
164: $(r_{apo},r_{peri}) = (11.3, 3.0)$ kpc.
165: In both experiments, we adopt the same progenitor mass $M_{tot}$ and place it
166: at apocenter to maximize its survival chances\footnote{For model 1, this initial
167: mass may be too large as an as-yet-undisrupted galaxy (Zhao 2002), so the debris
168: density in model 1 can be overly represented.}.
169:
170: Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution of the tidally disrupted debris.
171: Upper (middle) panel shows model 1 (model 2) after the 1.37 (1.86) Gyr orbital
172: excursion of the progenitor galaxy. Lower panel shows the orbit of the galaxy
173: center. In the course of the orbital motion of the
174: galaxy, its structure is made elongated along the orbit induced by Galactic
175: tides, in particular at its pericenter passages, and then the particles are
176: spread out to form the tidal streams along the orbit.
177: A rosette-like feature of the debris becomes steady after about eight orbital
178: periods. Model 1 results in more compact distribution than model 2, which
179: reflects the difference in orbital radii.
180:
181: Figure 2 shows the velocity distributions of the debris particles in
182: cylindrical coordinates $(v_R,v_\phi,v_z)$.
183: As is evident, model 1 and 2 provide essentially the same debris kinematics:
184: most remarkable is a sharply peaked $v_\phi$ distribution at
185: $\sim -100$ km~s$^{-1}$, arising from a retrograde orbit of a progenitor.
186: These kinematics suggest that the difference in model 1 and 2 resides only
187: in the spatial extent of the debris.
188:
189:
190: %%% Sec.3 %%%
191: \section{EFFECTS OF DEBRIS ON GALACTIC KINEMATICS}
192:
193: \subsection{Method for kinematic analysis}
194:
195: In order to assess the reality of the debris stars in light of observed
196: stellar kinematics in the Milky Way, we analyze the kinematics of
197: both the simulated debris and other Galactic stars
198: generated randomly by a Monte Carlo method. The metal-poor halo
199: is modeled as a flattened spheroid $\rho \propto
200: (R^2 + z^2/q^2)^{-3.5/2}$, where $q$ is an axis ratio ranging 0.55-0.7,
201: anisotropic velocity ellipsoid $(\sigma_R,\sigma_\phi,\sigma_z)=(154,121,96)$
202: km~s$^{-1}$, and small mean rotation $\langle v_\phi \rangle= 24$ km~s$^{-1}$,
203: as found for halo stars with [Fe/H]$<-2$ near the Sun (CB).
204: Thin and thick disks are modeled as $\rho \propto
205: \exp(-R/R_d) \sec^2 (z/z_d)$, where $R_d=3.5$ kpc and $z_d=0.3$ (1)
206: kpc for thin (thick) disk. Both disks
207: rotate at 200 km~s$^{-1}$, having velocity ellipsoids of
208: $(34,25,20)$ km~s$^{-1}$ and $(46,50,35)$ km~s$^{-1}$ for thin and thick
209: disks, respectively (CB). The relative fraction of each
210: component is fixed using observed local densities near the Sun,
211: in such a manner that the halo and thick-disk densities at
212: $D<1$ kpc are 0.2~\% and 2~\% of the thin-disk density,
213: respectively (e.g. Yamagata \& Yoshii 1992).
214:
215: In our model of $\omega$ Cen's progenitor galaxy, the self-gravitating
216: particles represent both stars and dark matter. We note that a correct estimate
217: for the fraction of stars is uncertain, because their $M/L$ ratio as well as
218: the amount of dark matter in the progenitor is unavailable. As a useful method
219: to incorporate this ambiguity for the current kinematic analysis, we set a
220: parameter $f$ as the fraction of the debris particles relative to halo stars
221: near the Sun, {\it when all of the particles are regarded as stellar ones}.
222: By this, the normalization of the halo density is obtained for the given debris
223: particles.
224:
225: A typical value of $f$ for the conversion of the simulated particles to
226: the stars is estimated in the following manner. Model 1 (model 2) yields
227: 21 (74) particles at $D < 2$ kpc, giving the mass density of
228: $\rho_g = 0.4 (1.3) \times 10^{-4}$ M$_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$ near
229: the Sun, whereas the total mass density and
230: metal-poor halo density have been derived as
231: $8 \times 10^{-3}$ M$_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$ (Gates, Gyuk, \& Turner 1995) and
232: $6.4 \times 10^{-5}$ M$_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$ (Gould, Flynn, \& Bahcall 1998),
233: respectively.
234: Then, if the debris stars (with $M_{stars} \sim 10^7$ M$_\odot$)
235: are distributed in the same manner as the simulated particles (with
236: $M_{tot} =5.74 \times 10^8$ M$_\odot$), which would be a reasonable
237: approximation in view of the dissipationless nature of stars,
238: the mass density of the debris stars in the solar neighborhood can be
239: estimated as $(M_{stars}/M_{tot}) \rho_g = O(10^{-6})$
240: M$_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$, which is about 1~\% of the halo density.
241: Thus, $f$, defined here as debris fraction at $D<2$ kpc,
242: is expected to be of order of a few percents.
243:
244:
245: \subsection{GWN's radial velocity survey}
246:
247: Recently, GWN reported a spectroscopic survey of
248: $\sim 2000$ F/G stars down to $V = 19.5$ mag, in the direction
249: against Galactic rotation $(l,b)=(270^\circ,-45^\circ)$ and $(270^\circ,
250: +33^\circ)$, where radial velocities, $v_{los}$, in combination with distances
251: largely reflect orbital angular momentum. The $v_{los}$ distribution of the
252: stars a few kpc from the Sun shows two stellar streams
253: at $v_{los}\sim 100$ km~s$^{-1}$ and $\sim 300$ km~s$^{-1}$, which are not
254: explained by known Galactic components.
255: While the stream at $v_{los} \sim 100$ km~s$^{-1}$ was reproduced by
256: their model of a merging satellite in prograde rotation,
257: the stream at $v_{los}\sim 300$ km~s$^{-1}$ remains yet unexplained.
258:
259: Figure 3a shows the $v_{los}$ distribution for the
260: debris stars of model 2 and halo stars of $q=0.7$ (i.e. without disks)
261: at $1<D<5$ kpc, $260^\circ<l<280^\circ$, and two fields for $b$.
262: Figure 3b shows when disk stars are incorporated. As is evident,
263: the debris stars from $\omega$ Cen's progenitor form a local peak
264: at $v_{los}\sim 300$ km~s$^{-1}$, which is provided by many stars having
265: $v_\phi \sim -100$ km~s$^{-1}$. This is in good
266: agreement with the $v_{los}\sim 300$ km~s$^{-1}$ stream discovered by GWN.
267: A more flattened halo than the case $q=0.7$ yields a higher peak,
268: since the density contrast of
269: the debris relative to halo is made higher in this survey region.
270: It is worth noting that model 1 yields essentially the same $v_{los}$
271: distribution as model 2, reflecting the same velocity distribution,
272: although to attain the same peak height at $\sim 300$ km~s$^{-1}$,
273: $f$ be a few factor larger and the selected range of $l$ be a few degree
274: higher than the respective values in model 2, because of less number of
275: debris stars near the Sun. This rule applies to other considerations
276: below as well.
277:
278:
279: \subsection{Kinematics at the North Galactic Pole}
280:
281: Majewski (1992) suggested that the outer halo at the North Galactic Pole (NGP)
282: shows a retrograde rotation $\langle v_\phi \rangle \simeq -55$ km~s$^{-1}$
283: at $z>4$ kpc. Also, K02 reported that their sample of
284: horizontal branch stars at $2<z<12$ kpc shows a retrograde
285: rotation at $\langle v_\phi \rangle \simeq -65$ km~s$^{-1}$.
286: On the other hand, halo stars near the Sun
287: show no retrograde rotation (CB).
288:
289: To investigate the role of the debris stars in this issue, we select
290: those of model 2 and randomly generated stars at $b>70^\circ$ and
291: $2<D<5$ kpc (resembling K02's selection). Since the observational determination
292: of full space velocities involves rather
293: inaccurate information of proper motions compared to radial velocities,
294: we convolve the velocity distribution of stars with a Gaussian
295: distribution for velocity errors, having 1~$\sigma$ of a typical
296: 30 km~s$^{-1}$ error.
297: The resulting velocity distribution shows a non-Gaussian feature owing to
298: the presence of the debris stars: the $v_\phi$ distribution holds an extra
299: peak at $\sim -100$ km~s$^{-1}$ in addition to the
300: $v_\phi \sim 20$ km~s$^{-1}$ peak, where the former amplitude becomes
301: comparable to the latter one at $f$ of a few percents,
302: whereas for $v_R$ and $v_z$, the velocity distributions are made slightly
303: asymmetric. However, the change of $\langle v_\phi \rangle$ by the inclusion
304: of the debris stars with $f=5$~\% amounts to only $-19$ ($-14$) km~s$^{-1}$
305: for $q=0.55$ ($0.7$), which are still insufficient for explaining
306: the reported $\langle v_\phi \rangle = -35 \sim -65$ km~s$^{-1}$.
307: Also, if we extend the selection of the stars at higher $z$ or instead consider
308: model 1, the changes of $\langle v_\phi \rangle$ become smaller than the above
309: mentioned values, because there are no debris stars in our current model.
310: Thus, it is safe to conclude that the debris stars
311: contribute only in part to a reported retrograde motion at the NGP.
312:
313:
314: \subsection{Local halo kinematics and microlensing towards LMC}
315:
316: We select the nearby debris and halo stars at $6.5<R<9.5$ kpc, $z<4$~kpc,
317: and $D<4$ kpc (as was drawn by CB), convolve the velocities
318: with a Gaussian error distribution of $1~\sigma = 30$ km~s$^{-1}$, and
319: compare with the corresponding stars with [Fe/H]$\le-2$ in B00.
320: It follows that the non-Gaussian feature in velocities
321: is much weaker than that at the
322: NGP: the change of $\langle v_\phi \rangle$ for $f=5$~\% is only
323: $-9$ ($-10$) km~s$^{-1}$ in model 1 (model 2). This is due to
324: the smaller debris fraction near $z=0$ than at high $|z|$.
325:
326: The effects of the debris stars on the microlensing optical depth towards LMC,
327: $\tau$, are modest as well. Following the Gould (1999) prescription for $\tau$
328: and investigating the debris within $10^\circ \times 10^\circ$
329: centered at LMC, we arrive at $\tau \la 10^{-7}f$, thereby indicating
330: that $\tau$ provided by the debris stars is much smaller than the observed
331: $\tau$ of $O(10^{-7})$.
332:
333:
334: %%% Sec.4 %%%
335: \section{DISCUSSION}
336:
337: We have demonstrated that our fiducial models of an orbiting dwarf galaxy
338: that once contained $\omega$ Cen predict a sequence of tidal streams
339: in retrograde rotation and their existence is imprinted in kinematics of
340: nearby stars, especially in the direction against Galactic rotation (GWN) and
341: at the NGP (K02), while local halo kinematics and microlensing towards LMC
342: remain unchanged. The streams are mostly distributed
343: inside the solar circle, as suggested from the current orbit of
344: $\omega$ Cen (Dinescu 2002).
345: In contrast to the Sgr dwarf galaxy having polar orbit,
346: the orbit of $\omega$ Cen's progenitor galaxy is
347: largely affected by a non-spherical disk potential, where the orbital plane
348: exhibits precession with respect to the Galactic Pole, causing self-crossing
349: of tidal streams in the disk. The projection of the orbit
350: perpendicular to the disk shows an 'X'-like feature, thereby leaving
351: denser streams at high $|z|$ than at low $|z|$ for a given radius.
352: This explains the significance of the debris at the NGP
353: compared to the solar neighborhood.
354:
355: Existing kinematic studies of Galactic stars to search for a signature
356: of $\omega$ Cen's progenitor galaxy are yet confined to nearby stars,
357: where the significance of the debris streams is modest, as shown here.
358: Searches of stars inside the solar circle are more encouraging (Fig. 1),
359: in particular in the directions of $l \sim 320^\circ$ and $l \sim 50^\circ$,
360: where we expect the presence of high-velocity streams at
361: $v_{los} = 200 \sim 300$ km~s$^{-1}$ and $-400 \sim -300$ km~s$^{-1}$,
362: respectively. Future radial velocity surveys of these fields including the
363: sample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey or planned RAdial Velocity
364: Experiment are worth exploring in this context. Also, detailed
365: abundance studies of candidate stream stars will be intriguing, because such
366: stars may exhibit different abundance patterns from field halo stars,
367: as found in dwarf galaxies (Shetrone, C\^{o}t\'{e}, \& Sargent 2001).
368:
369: A yet unsettled issue is the origin of a progenitor satellite
370: orbiting inside the solar circle, because dynamical friction alone from the
371: present-day {\it smooth} Galactic components is insufficient for shrinking the
372: orbit if it was born at a large distance (say, $\sim 50$ kpc) from Galactic
373: center (Zhao 2002). One of the possibilities to preclude it
374: may be that the merging of a satellite occurred while
375: the Milky Way was still in the process of halo formation via
376: hierarchical merging of several subgalactic clumps; successive gravitational
377: interaction among clumps may help reducing the orbital angular momentum of
378: a progenitor efficiently. Also, a progenitor may have formed
379: in the vicinity of the proto-Galaxy, where the environment of a strong tidal
380: field promotes the formation of a compact M32-like galaxy (Burkert 1994)
381: and its high density affords the survival chances until
382: the epoch of the Galactic disk formation. Then, if a progenitor retained
383: gas, growing Galactic tides induce the infall of gas into the
384: progenitor center and trigger the formation of a globular cluster
385: there (Bekki \& Chiba 2002) similar to $\omega$ Cen. The story is yet
386: speculative but worth pursuing based on sophisticated numerical codes for
387: Galaxy formation.
388:
389:
390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
391: \acknowledgments
392: We are grateful to the anonymous referee for helpful comments.
393: M.C. thanks Kenji Bekki and Tim Beers for useful discussions.
394:
395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
396:
397: \clearpage
398: %%uncomment for ms.tex
399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
400: \begin{thebibliography}{}
401:
402: \bibitem[]{416} Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., Yoshii, Y., Platais, I.,
403: Hanson, R. B., Fuchs, B., \& Rossi, S. 2000, \aj, 119, 2866 (B00)
404:
405: \bibitem[]{419} Bekki, K., \& Chiba, M. 2002, \apj, 566, 245
406:
407: %%\bibitem[]{421} Brook, C. B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B., \& Flynn, C. 2003,
408: %%\apj, 585, L125
409:
410: \bibitem[]{424} Burkert, A. 1994, \mnras, 266, 877
411:
412: %%\bibitem[]{426} Carney, B. W. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 165, 3rd Stromlo Symposium
413: %%on The Galactic Halo, ed. B. K. Gibson, T. Axelrod, \& M. Putnam
414: %%(San Francisco: ASP), 230
415:
416: \bibitem[]{430} Carretta, E., Gratton, R.G., \& Clemintini, G. 2000,
417: \mnras, 316, 721
418:
419: \bibitem[]{433} Chiba, M., \& Beers, T. C. 2000, \aj, 119, 2843 (CB)
420:
421: \bibitem[]{435} C\^{o}t\'{e}, P., Marzke, R. O., West, M. J., \& Minniti, D.
422: 2000, \apj, 533, 869
423:
424: \bibitem[]{438} Dinescu, D. I. 2002, in ASP Conf. Ser. 265, Omega Centauri: A
425: Unique Window into Astrophysics, ed. F. van Leeuwen, J. D. Hughes, \&
426: G. Piotto (San Francisco: ASP), 365
427:
428: \bibitem[]{442} Dinescu, D. I., Girard T. M., \& van Altena, W. F. 1999, \aj,
429: 117, 1792
430:
431: %%\bibitem[]{445} Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., \& Pancino, E. 2002,
432: %%\apj, 573, L95
433:
434: \bibitem[]{448} Freeman, K. C. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 48, The Globular
435: Cluster-Galaxy Connection, ed. G. H. Smith \& J. P. Brodie
436: (San Francisco: ASP), 608
437:
438: %%\bibitem[]{452} Freeman, K. C., \& Rodgers, A. W. 1975, \apj, 201, L71
439:
440: \bibitem[]{454} Gates, E. I., Gyuk, G., \& Turner, E. 1995, \apj, 449, L123
441:
442: \bibitem[]{456} Gilmore, G., Wyse, R. F. G., \& Norris, J. E. 2002,
443: \apj, 574, L39 (GWN)
444:
445: \bibitem[]{459} Gnedin, O. Y., Zhao, H.-S., Pringle, J. E., Fall, S. M.,
446: Livio, M., \& Meylan, G. 2002, \apj, 568, L23
447:
448: \bibitem[]{462} Gould, A. 1999, \apj, 525, 734
449:
450: \bibitem[]{464} Gould, A., Flynn, C., \& Bahcall, J. N. 1998, \apj, 503, 798
451:
452: \bibitem[]{466} Harris, W. E. 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
453:
454: %%\bibitem[]{468} Helmi, A. \& White, S. D. M. 2001, \mnras, 323, 529
455:
456: %%\bibitem[]{470} Ibata, R. A., Wyse, R. F. G., Gilmore, G., Irwin, M. J.,
457: %%\& Suntzeff, N. B. 1997, \aj, 113, 634
458:
459: \bibitem[]{473} Kinman, T. D., Cacciari, C., Bragaglia, A., Buzzoni, A.,
460: \& Spagna, A. 2002, in Galactic Dynamics Workshop, in press
461: (astro-ph/0211243) (K02)
462:
463: %%\bibitem[]{477} Lee, Y.-W., Joo, J.-M., Sohn, Y.-J., Rey, S.-C., Lee, H.-c.,
464: %%\& Walker, A. R. 1999, \nat, 402, 55
465:
466: \bibitem[]{480} Majewski, S. R. 1992, \apjs, 78, 87
467:
468: %%\bibitem[]{482} Majewski, S. R., Munn, J. A., \& Hawley, S. L. 1996, \apj,
469: %%459, L73
470:
471: \bibitem[]{485} Mateo, M. 1998, \araa, 36, 435
472:
473: \bibitem[]{487} Meylan, G., Mayor, M., Duquennoy, A., \& Dubath, P. 1995,
474: \aap, 303, 761
475:
476: \bibitem[]{490} Norris, J. E., \& Da Costa, G. S. 1995, \apj, 447, 680
477:
478: %%\bibitem[]{492} Norris, J. E., Freeman, K. C., Mayor, M., \& Seitzer, P.
479: %%1997, \apj, 487, L187
480:
481: \bibitem[]{495} Norris, J. E., Freeman, K. C., \& Mighell, K. L.1996,
482: \apj, 462, 241
483:
484: \bibitem[]{498} Shetrone, M. D., C\^{o}t\'{e}, P., \& Sargent, W. L. W. 2001,
485: \apj, 548, 592
486:
487: %%\bibitem[]{501} Smith, V. V., Suntzeff, N. B., Cunha, K., Gallino, R., Busso, M.,
488: %%Lambert, D. L., \& Straniero, O. 2000, \aj, 119, 1239
489:
490: %%\bibitem[]{504} Taylor, J. E., \& Babul, A. 2001, \apj, 559, 716
491:
492: %%\bibitem[]{506} van Leeuwen, F., Le Poole, R. S., Reijns, R. A., Freeman, K. C.,
493: %% \& de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, \aap, 360, 472
494:
495: %%\bibitem[]{509} White, S. D. M. 1983, \apj, 274, 53
496:
497: \bibitem[]{511} Yamagata, T., \& Yoshii, Y. 1992, \aj, 103, 117
498:
499: \bibitem[]{513} Zaritsky, D., \& White, S. D. M. 1988, \mnras, 235, 289
500:
501: \bibitem[]{515} Zhao, H.-S. 2002, in ASP Conf. Ser. 265, Omega Centauri: A
502: Unique Window into Astrophysics, ed. F. van Leeuwen, J. D. Hughes, \&
503: G. Piotto (San Francisco: ASP), 391
504:
505: \end{thebibliography}
506:
507: %%\end{document}
508: %%comment out for ms.tex
509:
510: \clearpage
511: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
513: \begin{figure}
514: %\plotone{f1.eps}
515: %\figcaption[f1.eps]{
516: \caption{
517: Upper (middle) panel shows the spatial distribution of the tidally disrupted
518: debris for model 1 (model 2) after the 1.37 (1.86) Gyr orbital excursion of
519: $\omega$ Cen's progenitor galaxy. Lower panel shows the orbit of the galaxy
520: center for model 1 (dotted line) and 2 (solid line). The plots are projected
521: onto three orthogonal planes, where the Sun is located at $x=-8$ kpc and $xy$
522: corresponds to the disk plane. A frame measures 15 kpc on a side of each panel.
523: The current position of $\omega$ Cen is at $(x,y,z)= (-4.8,-4.0,1.4)$ kpc.
524: }
525: \end{figure}
526:
527: %\clearpage
528: \begin{figure}
529: %\plotone{f2.eps}
530: %\figcaption[f2.eps]{
531: \caption{
532: Velocity distribution of the debris particles in cylindrical coordinates,
533: $v_R$ (dotted), $v_\phi$ (solid), $v_z$ (dashed), for
534: model 1 (a) and 2 (b).
535: }
536: \end{figure}
537:
538: %\clearpage
539: \begin{figure}
540: %\plotone{f3.eps}
541: %\figcaption[f3.eps]{
542: \caption{
543: (a) Distribution of the heliocentric radial velocities in the direction of
544: the GWN survey, for the debris stars of model 2
545: and randomly generated halo stars with $q=0.7$.
546: We select the stars at $1<D<5$ kpc and $260^\circ<l<280^\circ$
547: in the fields of $30^\circ<|b|<50^\circ$ (with $f=1$~\% and 3~\% for
548: dotted and solid histograms, respectively) and $20^\circ<|b|<40^\circ$
549: (with $f=5$~\%: dashed histogram).
550: (b) The same as (a) but incorporating the randomly generated disk
551: stars as well for $30^\circ<|b|<50^\circ$ with $f=5$~\% (solid histogram).
552: Dotted histogram denotes the contribution from the metal-poor halo alone.
553: }
554: \end{figure}
555:
556:
557: \end{document}
558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
560:
561:
562: