4.7 Article

Morphological properties of superclusters of galaxies

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 411, Issue 3, Pages 1716-1726

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17803.x

Keywords

cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe; galaxies: clusters: general; methods: data analysis

Funding

  1. CAPES
  2. FAPESP
  3. CNPq
  4. Brazilian-French collaboration CAPES/Cofecub [444/04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We studied superclusters of galaxies in a volume-limited sample extracted from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 and from mock catalogues based on a semi-analytical model of galaxy evolution in the Millennium Simulation. A density field method was applied to a sample of galaxies brighter than M-r = -21+5 log h(100) to identify superclusters, taking into account selection and boundary effects. In order to evaluate the influence of the threshold density, we have chosen two thresholds: the first maximizes the number of objects (D1) and the second constrains the maximum supercluster size to similar to 120 h(-1) Mpc (D2). We have performed a morphological analysis, using Minkowski Functionals, based on a parameter, which increases monotonically from filaments to pancakes. An anticorrelation was found between supercluster richness (and total luminosity or size) and the morphological parameter, indicating that filamentary structures tend to be richer, larger and more luminous than pancakes in both observed and mock catalogues. We have also used the mock samples to compare supercluster morphologies identified in position and velocity spaces, concluding that our morphological classification is not biased by the peculiar velocities. Monte Carlo simulations designed to investigate the reliability of our results with respect to random fluctuations show that these results are robust. Our analysis indicates that filaments and pancakes present different luminosity and size distributions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available