Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:15:52.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Galactic Bulge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2016

B. Barbuy*
Affiliation:
Universidade de São Paulo, IAG, Rua do Matão 1226, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo 05508-900, Brazil
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Galactic bulge is the least studied component of our Galaxy. Yet, its formation and evolution are key to understand the formation of the Galaxy itself. Studies on the Galactic bulge have increased significantly in the last years, but still there are many points of controversy. This volume contains several contributions from experts in different aspects of the bulge. Issues discussed include the following: the presence of an old spheroidal bulge, or identification of its old stellar population with the thick disk or halo; fraction of stars younger than 10 Gyr is estimated to be of < 5 to 22% depending on method and authors; multiple populations or only a metal-poor and a metal-rich ones; spheroidal or ellipsoidal distribution of RR Lyrae; formation of the bulge from early mergers or from secular evolution of the bar; different methods of mapping extinction; selection and identification of bulge globular clusters.

Keywords

Type
Galactic Bulge
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Australia 2016 

1 INTRODUCTION

The formation and evolution of the Galactic bulge has been subject to intense debate in the last 25 yrs, as can be seen for example in the proceedings of the IAU Symposium 153, entitled Galactic Bulges, edited by Dejonghe & Habing (Reference Dejonghe and Habing1993). The controversies stem from two types of evidences: (a) Stellar populations: metallicities, abundances, ages, kinematics; (b) morphology of the bulge, in particular, the presence of a bar, and consequently its boxy/peanut shape, and corresponding theoretical simulations.

The evidence from stellar populations indicate that:

1.1. Age

The Galactic bulge is old, with no evidence for a younger stellar population, as can be verified in the Colour–Magnitude Diagrams by Zoccali et al. (Reference Zoccali2003), Clarkson et al. (Reference Clarkson2008), Clarkson et al. (Reference Clarkson2011), and Gennaro et al. (Reference Gennaro2015). Whereas Bensby et al. (Reference Bensby2013) claims from his sample of microlensed dwarfs towards the bulge, that 22% of bulge stars can reach ages as young as 5 Gyr, this is not confirmed in the CMDs. A counter-argument on this is given by Haywood et al. (2016). Nataf (Reference Nataf2016a) critically reviews age determinations in bulge stellar populations. He concludes that there is a consensus that metal-poor stars are old, whereas for metal-rich stars, there are discrepancies among authors. In particular, a higher helium abundance appears to better fit the red giant branch (RGB) bump than a younger age. Note that there are young stars in the innermost parts of the bulge, such as the Nuclear Star Cluster (NSC) (Bland-Hawthorn & Gerhard Reference Bland-Hawthorn and Gerhard2016 and references therein), and the recently revealed Cepheids identified as a young inner thin disk, that are confined in vertical extent (Dékány et al., Reference Dékány2015). These young stars can be formed from mass loss from bulge stars, or else from the dynamical evolution of the bar. However, for most bulge regions, there are no significant numbers of young stars.

Evidence available from kinematics and Metallicity Distribution Function (MDF) are discussed by Babusiaux (Reference Babusiaux2016) and Ness & Freeman (Reference Ness and Freeman2016). It is clear that metal-rich stars with [Fe/H] > −0.5 form the X-shape bulge, corresponding to the bar. There remains as an open question as to whether the more metal-poor stellar population belongs to an old spheroidal bulge population, or to the thick disk and/or halo. The fraction of stars included in different stellar populations is also different among authors: Babusiaux et al. (Reference Babusiaux2010, Reference Babusiaux2014), Hill et al. (Reference Hill2011), and Gonzalez et al. (Reference Gonzalez2015) consider that there are two stellar populations in roughly equal numbers. Half of them would be the metal-rich X-shaped structure, and the other half belonging to an old spheroid. Ness & Freeman (Reference Ness and Freeman2016) and Ness et al. (Reference Ness2013) propose a 5-population distribution, with only 5% of stars to be identified with an old spheroid or inner halo or metal-weak thick disk. From kinematics of Red Clump (RC) stars and M giants, there is evidence for cylindrical rotation, which supports bulge formation from a bar (Kunder et al., Reference Kunder2012; Ness et al., Reference Ness2013). An important caveat is that a few tracers can be biased: RC stars and M giants are characteristic of metal-rich populations, and would not trace all stellar populations in the bulge. Babusiaux et al. (Reference Babusiaux2010, Reference Babusiaux2014) instead found, from RGB stars, that the metal-poor population is compatible with an spheroid. Di Matteo (Reference Di Matteo2016) suggests that a small spheroidal component, if present, would be maximal in the innermost regions of the bulge. There are also controversial conclusions on the space distribution of RR Lyrae, that are found to have a metallicity peak at [Fe/H] ~ −1.0. Pietrukowicz et al. (Reference Pietrukowicz2015) found that they have a triaxial ellipsoid shape, compatible with a bar. Gran et al. (Reference Gran2016) found instead a centrally concentrated spheroidal distribution.

1.2. Alpha-elements

McWilliam (Reference McWilliam2016) reports the available data on chemical abundances in bulge stars. In particular, the abundances of alpha-elements Mg, Si, Ca, Ti, given by Alves-Brito et al. (Reference Alves-Brito, Meléndez, Asplund, Ramírez and Yong2010), Gonzalez et al. (Reference Gonzalez2011), Gonzalez et al. (Reference Gonzalez2015), Bensby et al. (Reference Bensby2013), Johnson et al. (Reference Johnson, Rich, Kobayashi, Kunder and Koch2014), and Ryde et al. (Reference Ryde, Schultheis, Grieco, Matteucci, Rich and Uttenthaler2016), are enhanced in all fields, showing essentially no difference between different fields. The same applies to Oxygen but there is a larger spread among different authors. The enhancement in alpha-elements indicates that the stellar population was enriched early during bulge formation, due to yields from core-collapse supernovae. A fast chemical enrichment is clearly needed to reproduce these abundances in the Galactic bulge (e.g. Grieco et al. Reference Grieco, Matteucci, Ryde, Schultheis and Uttenthaler2015). Ness & Freeman (Reference Ness and Freeman2016) and Di Matteo (Reference Di Matteo2016) point out, on the other hand, that the alpha elements in the bulge are similar to those in the (thick) disk, and that all these stellar populations could be the same one.

1.3. Morphology and simulations

The Galactic bulge has a boxy/peanut shape (Zoccali et al. Reference Zoccali2014; Zoccali & Valenti Reference Zoccali and Valenti2016). Di Matteo (Reference Di Matteo2016) explains that the formation of the bulge from the bar, accounting only for the thin disk (most common procedure in published work to date), does not reproduce the chemo-kinematic and structural properties of its components. The consideration of the thin plus thick disk in the process is needed, recalling that Snaith et al. (Reference Snaith, Haywood, Di Matteo, Lehnert, Combes, Katz and Gómez2014) proposed that the thick disk stellar population would involve as much mass as the thin disc.

1.4. Globular clusters

Bica et al. (Reference Bica, Ortolani and Barbuy2016) select a sample of globular clusters, and report their properties: metallicity, reddening, space velocity, distance, and abundances. Nataf (Reference Nataf2016b) reviews bulge reddening derivation from different indicators, which have implications on distances.

Finally, it is important to note that, according to Bland-Hawthorn & Gerhard (Reference Bland-Hawthorn and Gerhard2016), the Galactic bulge has a stellar mass of 1.4–1.7 × 1010 M, and a total mass of 1.8 × 1010 M, in the region covered by the VVV bulge survey (Saito et al. Reference Saito2012). The Milky Way is accepted to be of SBbc type, but it could be identified to an earlier type, closer to SBb.

References

REFERENCES

Alves-Brito, A., Meléndez, J., Asplund, M., Ramírez, I., & Yong, D. 2010, A&A, 513, A35 2010A%26A...513A..35A 10.1051/0004-6361/200913444 Google Scholar
Babusiaux, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A77 2010A%26A...519A..77B 10.1051/0004-6361/201014353 Google Scholar
Babusiaux, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A15 2014A%26A...563A..15B 10.1051/0004-6361/201323044 Google Scholar
Babusiaux, C. 2016, PASA, 33, 26 10.1017/pasa.2016.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensby, T., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A147 2013A%26A...549A.147B 10.1051/0004-6361/201220678 Google Scholar
Bica, E., Ortolani, S., & Barbuy, B. 2016, PASA, 33, 28 10.1017/pasa.2015.47 Google Scholar
Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, preprint2016arXiv160207702B (1602.07702arXiv:1602.07702)Google Scholar
Clarkson, W., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1110 2008ApJ...684.1110C 10.1086/590378 Google Scholar
Clarkson, W. I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 37 2011ApJ...735...37C 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/37 Google Scholar
Dejonghe, H., & Habing, H. J., eds. 1993, in IAU Symp. Vol. 153, Galactic bulges (Dordrecht: Kluwer)Google Scholar
Di Matteo, P. 2016, PASA, 33, 27 10.1017/pasa.2016.11 Google Scholar
Dékány, I., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, L29 2015ApJ...812L..29D 10.1088/2041-8205/812/2/L29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennaro, M., et al. 2015, in ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 491, Fifty Years of Wide Field Studies in the Southern Hemisphere: Resolved Stellar Populations of the Galactic Bulge and Magellanic Clouds, eds. S. Points, & A. Kunder (San Francisco: Astron. Soc. Pac.), 182 Google Scholar
Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A54 2011A%26A...530A..54G 10.1051/0004-6361/201116548 Google Scholar
Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A46 2015A%26A...584A..46G 10.1051/0004-6361/201526737 Google Scholar
Gran, F., et al. 2016, preprint2016arXiv160401336G (1604.01336arXiv:1604.01336)Google Scholar
Grieco, V., Matteucci, F., Ryde, N., Schultheis, M., & Uttenthaler, S. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2094 2015MNRAS.450.2094G 10.1093/mnras/stv729 Google Scholar
Haywood, M., di Matteo, P., Snaith, O., Calamida, A. 2016, A&A, in press 1606.04092 (arXiv:1606.04092)Google Scholar
Hill, V., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A80 2011A%26A...534A..80H 10.1051/0004-6361/200913757 Google Scholar
Johnson, C. I., Rich, R. M., Kobayashi, C., Kunder, A., & Koch, A. 2014, AJ, 148, 67 2014AJ....148...67J 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/67 Google Scholar
Kunder, A., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 57 2012AJ....143...57K 10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/57 Google Scholar
McWilliam, A., 2016, PASA, accepted Google Scholar
Ness, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2092 2013MNRAS.432.2092N 10.1093/mnras/stt533 Google Scholar
Ness, M., & Freeman, K. 2016, PASA, 33, 22 10.1017/pasa.2015.51 Google Scholar
Nataf, D. 2016a, PASA, 33, 23 10.1017/pasa.2015.38 Google Scholar
Nataf, D. 2016b, PASA, 33, 24 10.1017/pasa.2016.16 Google Scholar
Pietrukowicz, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 113 2015ApJ...811..113P 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/113 Google Scholar
Ryde, N., Schultheis, M., Grieco, V., Matteucci, F., Rich, R. M., & Uttenthaler, S. 2016, AJ, 151, 1 2016AJ....151....1R 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, R. K., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A147 2012A%26A...544A.147S 10.1051/0004-6361/201219448 Google Scholar
Snaith, O. N., Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Combes, F., Katz, D., & Gómez, A. 2014, ApJ, 781, L31 2014ApJ...781L..31S 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L31 Google Scholar
Zoccali, M., et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 931 2003A%26A...399..931Z 10.1051/0004-6361:20021604 Google Scholar
Zoccali, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 2014A%26A...562A..66Z 562, A66 10.1051/0004-6361/201323120 Google Scholar
Zoccali, M., & Valenti, E. 2016, PASA, 33, 25 10.1017/pasa.2015.56 Google Scholar