1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath, amsfonts, amssymb}
3: \usepackage{graphics}
4:
5: \makeatletter
6: \renewcommand{\@oddhead}{\it \footnotesize Astromony Letters,
7: Vol.31, 2005, pp.80-87 \hfil}
8: \makeatother
9: \begin{document}
10: \newpage
11: \begin{center}
12: \huge \rm Leading Wave as a Component of the Spiral Structure
13: of the Galaxy
14: \par \vspace{30pt} \small \it \copyright 2005 Pleiades Publishing
15: Inc.
16: \par \vspace{30pt} \large \rm A.M.Mel'nik
17: \par \it anna@sai.msu.ru
18: \par \small \it Sternberg Astronomical Institute,
19: Moscow, Russia
20: \end{center}
21: \renewcommand{\abstractname}{}
22: \begin {abstract}
23: The spiral pattern of the Galaxy identified by analyzing the
24: kinematics of young stars within 3~kpc of the Sun is Fourier
25: decomposed into spiral harmonics. The spiral pattern of the
26: Galaxy is shown to be representable as a superposition of
27: trailing and leading waves with interarm distances of
28: $\lambda=1.8\pm0.4$~kpc and $\lambda=4\pm2$~kpc, respectively.
29: Shock waves are probably present only in the portions of the
30: trailing spiral pattern where it crosses the crest of the leading
31: wave. The small interarm distance of the trailing spiral wave
32: ($\lambda=1.8$~kpc) can be explained by its evolution --- by the
33: decrease in the interarm distance as the wave is displaced toward
34: the inner Lindblad resonance. The Carina arm may be part of this
35: resonance ring. Key words: {\it Galaxy, spiral pattern,
36: kinematics and dynamics, Fourier analysis.}
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39:
40:
41:
42: \section*{\rm Introduction}
43:
44: An analysis of the velocity field of young stars (OB associations
45: and Cepheids) revealed periodic variations in the radial and
46: azimuthal components of the residual velocity along the Galactic
47: radius vector with an amplitude of $f_R=f_\theta=7\pm2$~km
48: s$^{-1}$ and a scale length of $\lambda=2\pm0.2$~kpc (Mel'nik et
49: al. 1999, 2001). We determined the kinematic locations of the
50: Carina, Cygnus, and Perseus arms as the locations of the minima
51: in the distribution of the radial component of the residual
52: velocity of OB associations. The identified arm fragments deviate
53: from an ideal spiral pattern (smooth trailing spiral arms). The
54: Carina arm ($R=6.5$~kpc) is displaced from the Cygnus arm
55: ($R=6.8$~kpc) so that together they fall best on the leading
56: spiral arm. The Perseus arm unexpectedly terminates, and we see
57: its extension in the III quadrant neither from the kinematics
58: of young stars nor from the increase in the density of young
59: objects. An analysis of various spur generation mechanisms showed
60: that the identified arm fragments are not spurs and are located
61: near the minimum of the potential (Mel'nik 2003). The potential
62: perturbation itself is probably not an ideal monochromatic
63: spiral wave.
64:
65: Following Kalnajs (1975), let us assume that the spiral
66: pattern of the Galaxy is a superposition of several spiral waves,
67: and let us try to identify the various components of its spiral
68: pattern. Kalnajs (1975) was the first to perform a Fourier
69: analysis of the spiral pattern of a galaxy using the distribution
70: of HII regions in the galaxy M~31. This analysis revealed
71: a dominat one-armed leading spiral in it.
72:
73:
74: The spiral pattern of the Galaxy is difficult to analyze, because
75: we do not have a complete picture of the distribution of young
76: objects in its disk. On the other hand, only our
77: Galaxy makes it possible to identify arm fragments kinematically.
78: Therefore, we have not just a sample of spiral-arm indicators,
79: but a sample of potential-minimum indicators.
80:
81:
82: \section*{\rm Fourier Analysis of the Galactic
83: Spiral Pattern in the Solar Neighborhood }
84:
85: \subsection*{\it \large The Method and Models}
86:
87: The complex spiral pattern of any galaxy can be represented as a
88: superposition of spiral components with different numbers of
89: arms $m$, and each $m-$component, in turn, can consist of several
90: spiral waves with different pitch angles.
91:
92:
93: An elementary logarithmic spiral wave is defined by the equation
94: \begin{equation}
95: R=R_1 e^{\tan i (\theta-\theta_1)},
96: \end{equation}
97: where $i$ is the pitch angle, $\theta$ and $\theta_1$ are the
98: Galactocentric angles, and $R$ and $R_1$ are the Galactocentric
99: distances.
100:
101: The amplitudes of the spiral oscillations in the distribution of $N$
102: objects in the Galactic plane can be determined from the relation
103: \begin{equation}
104: A(p,m)=\frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N e^{-i(m\theta_j+p\ln(R_j/R_0))},
105: \end{equation}
106: \begin{center}
107: where $p=-m/\tan i$
108: \end{center}
109: (Kalnajs 1975; Considere and Athanossoula 1982).
110:
111: Only the interarm distance $\lambda$ and, in certain cases, the
112: sense of arm winding can be reliably determined by
113: analyzing the spiral pattern of the Galaxy within 3~kpc of the
114: Sun. The number of spiral arms $m$ and their mean pitch angle
115: $i$ remain indeterminate, although all three parameters are
116: related by
117: \begin{equation}
118: |\tan i|=\frac{\lambda m}{2\pi R_0},
119: \end{equation}
120: where $R_0$ is the Galactocentric distance.
121:
122:
123: The number of spiral arms cannot be determined by analyzing the
124: distribution of young stars within 3~kpc of the Sun, because all
125: $m$-components are very similar to one another, and the Fourier
126: amplitude $A(p,m)$ actually depends only on the parameter $p$.
127: Therefore, only the Fourier spectrum of the $m=1$ spiral
128: component is shown on the plots.
129:
130: Let us consider two models of the Galactic spiral arms. In
131: model~1, the spiral pattern of the Galaxy is represented by 15
132: real OB associations (Blaha and Humphreys 1989) that are located
133: near the minimum in the distribution of the radial residual
134: velocity $V_R$ and have $V_R<-5$~km s$^{-1}$. Table~1 lists these
135: associations together with their heliocentric ($r$, $l$, $b$) and
136: Galactocentric ($R$, $\theta$) coordinates and the residual
137: velocities $V_R$. Figure~1a shows the locations and residual
138: velocities of these associations in the Galactic plane and the
139: circular arcs that correspond to the minima in the distribution
140: of the radial residual velocity. We excluded from our analysis
141: the OB associations Sco~OB4 ($l=353^{\circ}$, $r=1.0$~kpc,
142: $V_R=-15$~km s$^{-1}$) and HD~156154 ($l=351^{\circ}$,
143: $r=2.1$~kpc, $V_R=-16$ km s$^{-1}$), although their residual
144: velocities $V_R<-5$~km s$^{-1}$, they deviate greatly from the
145: observed periodic pattern of the velocity field of young objects.
146:
147: In model~2, the distribution of young objects is modeled in a
148: ring. The points representing the OB associations are randomly
149: scattered over the ring $R_0-2<R<R_0+2$~kpc, except for the 3~kpc
150: solar neighborhood, where they concentrate toward the three arcs
151: corresponding to three fragments of the spiral pattern (Fig.~1b).
152: Table~2 lists the Galactocentric angles of the beginning and end
153: marks of these arcs $\theta_{\textrm{min}}$ and
154: $\theta_{\textrm{max}}$ and their Galactocentric distances
155: $R_{\textrm{arm}}$. The points in the arms are distributed
156: uniformly, and their radial distribution is limited to the
157: interval $R=R_{\textrm{arm}}\pm0.$2~kpc. The total number of
158: points in the arms is equal to the number of points that would
159: fell within the selected region of the ring (within 3~kpc of
160: the Sun) if it were filled uniformly and randomly. Of the 2000
161: objects scattered over the ring, 250 objects, on average, fall
162: within the selected region, and 40, 20, and $40\%$ of them fall
163: within the Carina, Cygnus, and Perseus arms, respectively.
164:
165: The modeled ring has a width of $\Delta R=\pm2$~kpc, because
166: we can ensure the completeness of our sample, or, more specifically,
167: the identification of all arm fragments in the solar neighborhood
168: only in this interval. The tightly wound spiral pattern
169: of the Galaxy forces us to be cautious, since the density of young objects
170: changes much faster radially than azimuthally.
171:
172:
173: We assumed the distance to the Galactic center to be
174: $R_0=7.1$~kpc (Dambis et al.~1995; Glushkova et al.~1998) and
175: shorten the heliocentric distances of OB associations given by
176: Blaha and Humphreys (1989) by 20\% to reduce them to the
177: so-called short distance scale (Dambis et al.~2001; Sitnik and
178: Mel'nik~1996).
179:
180: \section*{\rm Results}
181:
182: The heavy line in Fig.~2 indicates the Fourier decomposition of
183: the distribution of 15 OB associations over the Galactic plane
184: into logarithmic spiral waves. The parameter $p$ that
185: characterizes the interarm distance $\lambda =2\pi R_0/|p|$ and
186: the sense of arm winding is along the horizontal axis; $p>0$ and
187: $p<0$ correspond to the trailing and leading arms, respectively.
188: The absolute values of the amplitudes of the one-armed spiral
189: waves $|A(p,1)|$ are along the vertical axis. Figure~2 clearly
190: shows three maxima. The left- and right-most outside maxima at
191: $p=-28$ and $p=+24$ correspond to a tightly would spiral pattern
192: with $\lambda=1.8\pm0.4$~kpc. The Fourier spectrum of the tightly
193: wound spiral arm consists of a superposition of the leading and
194: trailing components, because we consider only a small region
195: where the tightly wound spiral arms are indistinguishable from
196: circular arcs. The circular arc is decomposed into a
197: superposition of leading and trailing spiral waves with
198: approximately equal amplitudes and pitch angles $|i|$. The central
199: maximum in Figure 2 stems from the fact that we are dealing with
200: a sample with a highly asymmetric distribution about the
201: Galactic center. Indeed, all of the associations in model~1 are
202: located within 3~kpc of the Sun rather than distributed over the
203: entire Galactic disk. Such a cluster of objects corresponds to a
204: spiral wave with an infinite pitch angle ($p=0$). The width of
205: the central maximum depends on the size of the cluster: the
206: smaller the clump, the wider the central maximum.
207:
208: The dotted line in Fig.~2 indicates the Fourier decomposition
209: for 15 objects randomly distributed in the 3~kpc solar neighborhood
210: or, to be more precise, in the region where the circle
211: $r=3$~kpc and ring $R_0-2<R<R_0+2$~kpc intersect.
212: We clearly see the maximum at $p=0$ and the amplitude fluctuations on
213: both sides of it. The thin line in Fig.~2 indicates the Fourier
214: decomposition of a random distribution of 15 objects in the above solar
215: neighborhood averaged over 100 samples. The Fourier
216: spectrum of one random distribution agrees well with the
217: mean spectrum in the central region ($p=0$), where the amplitude
218: fluctuations are small. The mean spectrum of random distribution
219: is a symmetric function relative to which we clearly see
220: the central maximum of the Fourier decomposition of the real sample
221: to be displaced toward the negative $p$, i. e., toward the leadind waves.
222: No random fluctuations can explain this displacement.
223:
224:
225: Let us assume the mean amplitude of the random distribution
226: of 15 objects to be a background. We are interested in the
227: difference $\Delta A(p,1)$ between the Fourier amplitude
228: for the real sample and the background. The heavy line in Fig.~3a
229: indicates the absolute value of this difference $|\Delta A(p,1)|$.
230: We clearly see three maxima at $p=-28$, $p=+24$, and $p=-10$.
231: The maximum at $p=-10$ indicates the presence of a leading wave with
232: a large interarm distance of $\lambda=4.5\pm2.0$~kpc in the
233: morphology of the Galactic spiral pattern.
234:
235: The rms deviation of the Fourier amplitude of one random
236: sample from the background is 0.12 and does not depend on
237: $p$, except for the central region, where it is close to zero
238: (the thin line in Fig.~3a). The maxima at $p=-28$, $p=+24$, and
239: $p=-10$ are not the result of random background fluctuations at the
240: $99\%$ confidence level.
241:
242: Any Fourier decomposition contains high-order harmonics that, in
243: our case, correspond to the increasingly tightly would spiral
244: patterns at $p=2p_0$, $3p_0$, $4p_0, \ldots$, where $p_0$ is the
245: fundamental harmonic ($|p_0|=26$). Our Fourier spectra
246: also have high-order harmonics, but they are outside our figures.
247:
248: It is interesting to understand the causes of such deep and sharp
249: minima in the Fourier decomposition of the real sample (Fig.~2).
250: They correspond to a wave with an interarm distance
251: ($|p|=13$) that is twice the main tightly wound spiral pattern ($|p_0|=26$).
252: Since such a wave would inevitably arrive in opposite phases at the
253: Perseus arm and at the combined Carina--Cygnus arm fragment,
254: it is absent in the spectrum.
255:
256: The heavy line in Fig.~3b indicates the Fourier decomposition of the
257: distribution of young objects in model~2. We clearly see three
258: maxima at $p=-31$, $p=+26$, and $p=-12$ that correspond to a tightly
259: wound spiral pattern with an interarm distance of $\lambda=1.6\pm0.5$~kpc
260: and a leading wave with $\lambda=3.8\pm2.0$~kpc. No central maximum
261: emerges in model~2, because any two halves of the Galaxy contain
262: almost equal number of points. The scales of the vertical axes
263: of the models 1 and 2 differ by a factor of 10. However, we are
264: interested not in the absolute values, but in the form of Fourier
265: decomposition. The Fourier decomposition of the random distribution
266: of young objects throughout the ring consists of random amplitude
267: fluctuations that do not exceed 0.06. The mean amplitude of
268: these fluctuations is $|A(p,1)|=0.02$ (the thin line in Fig.~3b).
269: None of the three maxima at $p=-31$, $p=+26$, and $p=-12$ is the result of
270: random fluctuations in the distribution of young objects at the $99\%$
271: confidence level.
272:
273: To understand why the leading wave appears, let us consider the
274: Fourier decomposition of an ideal spiral pattern in the solar
275: neighborhood. The model of an ideal spiral pattern is a
276: modification of model~2 (Fig.~1b). The difference is that
277: objects within 3~kpc of the Sun concentrate toward two rather than
278: three arm fragments and do not terminate anywhere within this
279: region. The arms are in the shape of circular arcs and are
280: located at the Galactocentric distances of the Carnina
281: ($R=6.5$~kpc) and Perseus ($R=8.2$~kpc) arms. The model is
282: symmetric about the $X$-axis. Both arms contain equal numbers of
283: objects.
284:
285: The dotted line in Fig.~3b indicates the Fourier decomposition of
286: an ideal spiral pattern. It exhibits two large maxima at
287: $p=\pm26$ and two barely visible but unremovable maxima at
288: $p=\pm9$. The large maxima correspond to a main tightly wound
289: spiral pattern, while the small maxima correspond to spiral waves
290: with an interarm distance that is a factor of 3 larger than the
291: distance between the Perseus and Carina arms. These waves emerge,
292: because the region considered includes two arm fragments and the
293: interarm space between them. Three halves of the main wave,
294: $3\lambda_0/2$, can be covered by one half of the other wave,
295: $\lambda_1/2$. This wave describes the behavior of all objects
296: within 3~kpc of the Sun, without separating them between the
297: arms, and its maximum must be located approximately halfway
298: between the arms.
299:
300: The detected leading wave with $\lambda=4\pm2$~kpc
301: is of the same nature. It describes the behavior of all
302: objects within 3~kpc of the Sun. Figure~4 shows the most
303: probable location of the leading arm. It has a pitch angle of
304: $i=6^\circ$ and $i=12^\circ$ for the one-armed ($m_L=1$) and two-armed
305: ($m_L=2$) models of the leading wave, respectively. In both cases,
306: the leading arm intersects the $X$-axis at a Galactocentric
307: distance of $R=7.4\pm0.5$~kpc (for the assumed Galactocentric
308: distance of the Sun $R_0=7.1$~kpc), i.e., it lies exactly
309: halfway between the combined Carina--Cygnus fragment and the
310: Perseus arm.
311:
312:
313: Both defects of the spiral pattern --- the displacement of the
314: Carina and Cygnus arm fragments toward the leading spiral and the
315: absence of the Perseus arm extension in the III quadrant ---
316: give rise to a leading wave. However, the termination of the
317: Perseus arm gives a much larger contribution to the leading
318: wave.
319:
320: Both models yield similar results. However, the following
321: trend clearly shows up in model~2. The leading wave
322: tends to have an interarm distance that is twice $\lambda$ of the
323: tightly wound spiral pattern. This is because we
324: actually have two fragments of the spiral pattern: the
325: combined Carina--Cygnus fragment and the Perseus arm. In order to
326: weaken the second fragment without weakening the first fragment, the
327: additional wave must have an interarm distance that is twice that
328: of the main tightly wound spiral wave. To weaken the Perseus arm in the
329: III quadrant without weakening it significantly in the II quadrant,
330: the additional spiral wave must be a leading one.
331:
332: Thus, the distribution of OB associations within 3~kpc of the Sun
333: can be represented as a superposition of two spiral components: a
334: tightly wound spiral wave with an interarm distance of
335: $\lambda=1.8\pm0.4$~kpc and a leading arm with an interarm
336: distance of $\lambda=4\pm2$~kpc.
337:
338: How can the detection of other more distant fragments of the
339: tightly wound spiral pattern change the parameters of the leading
340: wave? The leading wave proved to be most sensitive to the
341: asymmetry of the new possible arm fragments about the $X$-axis.
342: The amplitude of the leading wave would only increase if, for
343: example, the new distant fragment detected in the outer Galaxy
344: were as asymmetric about the $X$-axis as the Perseus arm (i.e.,
345: more objects would be located in the II quadrant than in the III
346: quadrant, see Fig.~1b). But in the inner Galaxy, a distant
347: fragment must contain more objects in the IV quadrant than in
348: the I quadrant to amplify the leading wave. In general, the
349: asymmetry in the distribution of young objects required to
350: amplify the leading wave agrees with asymmetry in the HI
351: distribution in the Galaxy (Blitz and Spergel~1991).
352:
353: \section*{\rm How does each Spiral Component
354: Manifest itself in the Kinematics and Distribution of Young
355: Stars?}
356:
357: While analyzing the locations of spiral arm fragments identified
358: by the kinematics of young stars, we implicitly assumed that
359: the additional components of the spiral pattern would not disrupt the
360: periodic pattern of the velocity field of young stars. The
361: large interarm distance of the leading component agrees well with
362: this assumption. Indeed, the velocity perturbation amplitudes
363: $f_R$ and $f_\theta$ for young stars must be
364: proportional to $\lambda^{-1}$ (Lin et al.~1969).
365: Consequently, even if the other parameters of the spiral pattern
366: (the perturbations of the potential and the locations with respect
367: to the corotation radius) are equal,
368: the velocity perturbation amplitudes for the leading wave
369: must be a factor of 2 lower than those for the tightly
370: wound wave. In general, the velocity perturbations for young
371: stars can be explained without invoking the leading wave.
372:
373: The tightly wound spiral wave was first found by analyzing the
374: kinematics of young stars (Mel'nik et al.~1999, 2001). In the
375: Fourier spectrum it is represented by a superposition of leading and
376: trailing spiral waves. However, the kinematics of young objects
377: strongly suggests that the tightly wound spiral pattern is a
378: trailing wave.
379:
380: The sense of winding is determined by the following. The radial
381: components of the mean residual velocities for the young
382: stars that concentrate in the Cygnus and Perseus arms are
383: directed toward the Galactic center, while their azimuthal components
384: are opposite to the sense of Galactic rotation. Three conclusions
385: can be drawn from this fact. First, the Cygnus and Perseus arm
386: fragments represent a trailing spiral pattern. Second, the Cygnus
387: and Perseus arm fragments are located within the corotation
388: circle. Third, the coincidence of the minima in the distributions
389: of radial and azimuthal residual velocities
390: is indicative of the presence of a shock (see Mel'nik (2003) for
391: detail).
392:
393: A certain problem arises with the Carina arm. We observe an enhanced
394: concentration of young stars in all three arm fragments: the
395: Perseus, Cygnus, and Carina arms. However, in the Carina arm we
396: find no significant variations in the azimuthal
397: residual velocity across the arm, while the radial residual velocity
398: exhibits a well-defined minimum (see Fig.~5 in Mel'nik et al.~2001). The
399: absence of an azimuthal velocity gradient across the Carina arm may be
400: attributable to distance errors that can effectively blur the variations
401: exactly in the azimuthal velocity (see Mel'nik~2003 for detail).
402: However, this defect can also have a different cause, which is discussed
403: in the next section.
404:
405: The leading wave clearly shows up only in the relative location of
406: the spiral arm fragments. Indeed, all three fragments
407: of the Carina, Cygnus, and Perseus arms can be imagined as lying
408: on a broad leading spiral arm. This distribution can stem from the fact
409: that the star formation is more intense in the portions of the
410: trailing spiral arms, where they crosses the crest of the leading
411: wave. Shocks seem to be also present only in
412: these arm portions. This behavior can be explained
413: using the model of Roberts and Hausman~(1984),
414: in which the motion of particle clouds is considered
415: in a perturbed potential. The enhanced surface
416: density of the disk in these portions must cause additional
417: crowding of the cloud orbits and increase the cloud-cloud collision
418: frequency, which, in turn, can give rise to shocks.
419:
420: Thus, the presence of a leading wave in the Galactic disk allows
421: certain deviations from an ideal spiral pattern to be explained.
422: The leading wave emerges mainly because the Perseus arm weakens in
423: the III quadrant. The simplest explanation of the weakening of
424: the Perseus arm consists in a decrease of the disk surface
425: density in this region.
426:
427:
428: \section*{ \rm Evolution of the Galactic
429: Spiral Pattern }
430:
431: Another peculiarity of the Galactic spiral pattern
432: is the unusually small interarm distance of the trailing
433: spiral wave ($\lambda=1.8\pm0.4$~kpc), which is rarely
434: observed in other galaxies. The tightly wound spiral pattern
435: of our Galaxy may appear as a ring or part of it
436: from a large distance.
437:
438: The two peculiarities of the Galactic spiral pattern
439: --- the presence of a shock and a tightly wound spiral pattern
440: --- force us to abandon the theory of modes, which is attractive in that
441: it can ensure a quasi-steady state. The large
442: energy losses in the shock require an efficient
443: spiral wave amplification mechanism from the model to ensure a
444: quasi-steady state. However, this (swing amplification) mechanism
445: gives rise to only open spiral patterns
446: (Toomre~1981; Athanossoula~1984). The observed
447: tightly wound spiral pattern is probably not a mode and
448: must evolve along the Galactic radius vector.
449:
450: Toomre (1969) showed that during several galaxy rotations, the
451: short trailing spiral wave displaces from the corotation region to
452: the inner Lindblad resonance. During this displacement, the distance
453: between the turns of the spiral wave decreases, while the
454: density and velocity perturbations of the young stars remain
455: high for a long time (Toomre~1969, 1977; Lin~1970). The trailing
456: spiral wave observed in the Galaxy may be located near
457: the inner Lindblad resonance. The unusually small interarm
458: distance of the trailing wave can be explained by its evolution:
459: the decrease in the interarm distance as the wave displaces toward
460: the inner Lindblad resonance.
461:
462: The Carina arm may be part this resonance ring. First, we
463: see no tightly wound spiral arms within the region bounded by the
464: Carina arm. The kinematics of the Sagittarius arm differs
465: markedly from that of the Perseus, Cygnus, and Carina arms
466: (see Mel'nik et al.~(2001) for detail) and it cannot be considered
467: to be the fragment of the same spiral wave. Second, the
468: ring geometry of the Carina arm could in principle explain
469: the absence of cross-arm variations in the azimuthal residual velocity.
470:
471: The superposition of the trailing and leading spiral arms found
472: in our Galaxy is not unique. The galaxy M~31 exhibits a
473: similar pattern with the leading and trailing arms having
474: interarm distances of 6 and 4~kpc, respectively (Considere and
475: Athanossoula~1982). The main difference is that the interarm distance
476: of trailing wave in the Galaxy is a factor of about 2 smaller.
477: In addition, the leading wave in the Andromeda galaxy is known to be
478: one-armed. No such information is available for our Galaxy.
479:
480:
481: \section*{\rm Conclusions}
482:
483: We Fourier decomposed the spiral pattern of the Galaxy
484: identified by the kinematics of young stars within 3~kpc of the Sun
485: into spiral harmonics. We showed
486: that the spiral pattern could be represented as a superposition of
487: trailing and leading waves with the interarm distances of
488: $\lambda=1.8\pm0.4$~kpc and $\lambda=4\pm2$~kpc, respectively.
489:
490: The presence of a leading wave in the Galactic disk makes it
491: possible to explain certain deviations from an ideal spiral pattern.
492: The leading wave clearly shows up only in the large-scale
493: distribution of young objects and has virtually no effect on
494: their kinematics. Shocks seem to exist only in the portions of
495: the trailing spiral pattern where it intersects the crest of
496: the leading wave. An enhanced surface density of the disk in these
497: portions must cause additional crowding of the cloud orbits and
498: increase the cloud-cloud collision frequency, which, in turn,
499: can give rise to shocks (Roberts and Hausman~1984).
500:
501: The small interarm distance of the trailing spiral wave
502: ($\lambda=1.8$~kpc) can be explained by its evolution: the
503: decrease in the interarm distance as the wave displaces toward the
504: inner Lindblad resonance. The Carina arm may be part of this
505: resonance ring. It may well be that there is a spiral pattern
506: in the region bounded by the Carina arm,
507: but this is a different spiral pattern.
508:
509: The leading wave in our Galaxy can be the source regenerating the
510: trailing spiral pattern via the swing amplification mechanism
511: (Goldreich and Lynden-Bell~1965; Julian and Toomre~1966;
512: Toomre~1981). However, it remains unclear why it emerges.
513:
514: \section*{\rm Acknowledgments}
515:
516: I am grateful to A.V.~Zasov, I.I.~Pasha, A.S.~Rastorgouev,
517: Yu.N.~Efremov, and A.K.~Dambis for interesting discussions and
518: useful comments. This work was supported by the Russian
519: Foundation for Basic Research (projects nos.~02-02-16677 and
520: 03-02-16288), the Council for the Program of Support for Leading
521: Scientific Schools (projects no.~NSh.389.2003.2), and the
522: "Astronomy" State Science and Technology Program.
523:
524:
525: \section*{\rm References}
526: \begin{enumerate}
527:
528: \item E. Athanassoula, Physics Reports {\bf 114}, 319
529: (1984).
530:
531: \item C. Blaha and R.M. Humphreys, Astron. J. {\bf 98},
532: 1598 (1989).
533:
534: \item L. Blitz and D.N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. {\bf 370},
535: 205 (1991).
536:
537: \item S. Considere and E. Athanassoula, Astron. Astrophys.
538: {\bf 111}, 28 (1982).
539:
540: \item A.K. Dambis, A.M. Mel'nik, and A.S. Rastorguev,
541: Astron. Letters, {\bf 21}, 291 (1995).
542:
543: \item A.K. Dambis, A.M. Mel'nik, and A.S. Rastorguev,
544: Astron. Letters, {\bf 27}, 58 (2001).
545:
546: \item E.V. Glushkova, A.K. Dambis, A.M. Mel'nik, and A.S.
547: Rastorguev, Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 329}, 514 (1998).
548:
549: \item P.Goldreich and D. Lynden-Bell, MNRAS {\bf 130}, 125
550: (1965).
551:
552: \item W.H. Julian and A. Toomre, Astrophys. J. {\bf 146},
553: 810 (1966).
554:
555: \item A.J. Kalnajs, {\it La Dynamique des Galaxies Spirales,
556: Coll. Int. CNRS No 241} (Ed. L. Weliachew, Paris: Editions du
557: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1975), p. 103.
558:
559: \item C.C. Lin, {\it The Spiral Structure of Our Galaxy, IAU
560: Symp. {\bf 38}} (Ed. W. Becker and G. Contopoulos, Dordrecht:
561: Reidel, 1970), p.377.
562:
563: \item C.C. Lin, C. Yuan, and F.H. Shu, Astrophys. J. {\bf
564: 155}, 721 (1969).
565:
566: \item A.M. Melnik, Astron. Letters, {\bf 29}, 304 (2003).
567:
568: \item A.M. Mel'nik, A.K. Dambis, and A.S. Rastorguev,
569: Astron. Letters, {\bf 25}, 518 (1999).
570:
571: \item A.M. Mel'nik, A.K. Dambis, and A.S. Rastorguev,
572: Astron. Letters, {\bf 27}, 521 (2001).
573:
574: \item W.W. Roberts, and M.A. Hausman, Astrophys. J. {\bf
575: 277}, 744 (1984).
576:
577: \item T.G. Sitnik and A.M. Mel'nik , Astron. Letters, {\bf
578: 22}, 422 (1996).
579:
580: \item A. Toomre, Astrophys. J. {\bf 158}, 899 (1969).
581:
582: \item A. Toomre, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 15}, 437
583: (1977).
584:
585: \item A. Toomre, {\it The Structure and Evolution of Normal
586: Galaxies }(Ed. S.M. Fall and D. Lynden-Bell, Cambridge: Cambridge
587: University Press, 1981) p. 111.
588: \end{enumerate}
589:
590: \newpage
591:
592: \makeatletter
593: \renewcommand{\@oddhead}{}\begin{center}
594: \makeatother
595:
596: Table 1. List of OB associations used in model~1\\[10pt]
597:
598: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c}
599: \hline
600: OB association& $l$ & $b$ & $r$ & $V_R$ & $R$ & $\theta$\\
601: °. & deg.& kpc & km s$^{-1}$& kpc & deg.\\[5pt]
602: \hline
603: Cyg OB3& 72.8& 2.0& 1.8& -14.5& 6.79& 14.93\\
604: Cyg OB9& 77.8& 1.8& 1.0& -5.8& 6.96& 7.74\\
605: Cep OB1& 104.2& -1.0& 2.8& -8.7& 8.23& 19.08\\
606: Cas OB2& 112.0& 0.0& 2.1& -19.0& 8.13& 13.89\\
607: Cas OB5& 116.1& -0.5& 2.0& -12.7& 8.18& 12.73\\
608: Cas OB7& 123.0& 1.2& 2.0& -10.3& 8.36& 11.61\\
609: Cas OB1& 124.7& -1.7& 2.0& -6.8& 8.41& 11.31\\
610: Per OB1& 134.7& -3.2& 1.8& -7.8& 8.49& 8.81\\
611: Cas OB6& 135.0& 0.8& 1.8& -11.2& 8.43& 8.44\\
612: Coll 228& 287.6& -1.0& 2.0& -6.6& 6.77& -16.42\\
613: Car OB2& 290.4& 0.1& 1.8& -5.6& 6.69& -14.20\\
614: Cru OB1& 294.9& -1.1& 2.0& -13.5& 6.51& -16.23\\
615: NGC 3766& 294.1& -0.0& 1.5& -7.3& 6.62& -12.15\\
616: Cen OB1& 304.2& 1.4& 1.9& -16.8& 6.23& -14.77\\
617: Hogg 16& 307.5& 1.4& 1.5& -7.4& 6.32& -10.52\\
618: \hline
619: \end{tabular}
620:
621: \vspace{3cm} Table 2. Parameters of the spiral pattern used in
622: model~2\\[10pt]
623: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
624: \hline Arm fragments & $\theta_{min}$ & $\theta_{max}$ &
625: $R_{arm}$\\
626: & deg.& deg.& kpc \\[5pt]
627: \hline
628: The Carina arm & -25& - 5& 6.5\\
629: The Cygnus arm & + 5& +25& 6.8\\
630: The Perseus arm & + 5& +21& 8.2\\
631: \hline
632: \end{tabular}
633: \end{center}
634:
635: \newpage
636: %---Figure 1.
637: \begin{figure}[t]
638: \special{psfile=FIG1A.PS voffset=-450 hoffset=-40 vscale=80
639: hscale=80} \special{psfile=FIG1B.PS voffset=-700 hoffset=-40
640: vscale=80 hscale=80} \vspace{14.0cm} \caption{Distribution of
641: young objects in the Galaxy. (a) In model~1, the spiral pattern
642: is represented by 15 real kinematically identified
643: OB associations. The circular arcs correspond to the kinematic
644: locations of the spiral arms. (b) In model~2, the young objects are
645: randomly distributed in the ring $R_0-2<R<R_0+2$~kpc, except for
646: the 3~kpc solar neighborhood where they concentrate toward the
647: identified fragments of the spiral pattern. \hfill}
648: \end{figure}
649:
650: \newpage
651: %---Figure 2.
652: \begin{figure}[t]
653: \special{psfile=FIG2.PS voffset=-700 hoffset=-110 vscale=100
654: hscale=100} \vspace{12.0cm} \caption{Fourier decomposition of
655: the distribution of 15 real OB associations into spiral harmonics
656: (heavy line); the Fourier spectrum of one random distribution of 15
657: objects (dotted line), and the Fourier decomposition of the random
658: distribution averaged over 100 samples (thin solid line)}
659: \end{figure}
660:
661: \newpage
662: %---Figure 3.
663: \begin{figure}[t]
664: \special{psfile=FIG3A.PS voffset=-340 hoffset=0 vscale=50
665: hscale=50} \special{psfile=FIG3B.PS voffset=-550 hoffset=0
666: vscale=50 hscale=50} \vspace{14.0cm} \caption{(a) Absolute value
667: of the difference between the Fourier amplitude calculated for
668: the real distribution and the mean Fourier amplitude for a random
669: distribution of 15 objects (heavy line); the rms deviation of the
670: amplitude of a random sample from the background level (thin
671: line). (b) The Fourier decomposition of the distribution of young
672: objects in model~2 (heavy line); the Fourier decomposition for
673: the fragments of an ideal spiral pattern (dotted line); the mean
674: amplitude of the random distribution of young objects in the ring
675: (thin solid line). \hfill}
676: \end{figure}
677:
678: \newpage
679: %---Figure 4.
680: \begin{figure}[t]
681: \special{psfile=FIG4.PS voffset=-700 hoffset=-40 vscale=100
682: hscale=100} \vspace{12.0cm} \caption{Most probable locations of
683: the leading wave with $\lambda=4.5$~kpc
684: and a pitch angle of $i=6^\circ$ or $i=12^\circ$ for the one-armed
685: ($m_L=1$) and two-armed ($m_L=2$) models of the leading wave. In
686: both cases the leading wave in the solar vicinity is lying in
687: nearly between the combined Carina-Cygnus and Perseus arm
688: fragments.\hfill}
689: \end{figure}
690:
691: \end {document}
692: