4.7 Article

M31 satellite masses compared to ΛCDM subhaloes

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 440, Issue 4, Pages 3511-3519

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu474

Keywords

galaxies: dwarf; galaxies: individual: M31; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; Local Group; dark matter

Funding

  1. NASA through Hubble Fellowship [51316.01]
  2. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  3. NSF [AST-1009973]
  4. Space Telescope Science Institute
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1009973] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We compare the kinematics of M31's satellite galaxies to the mass profiles of the subhaloes they are expected to inhabit in the Lambda cold dark matter (Lambda CDM) cosmology. We consider the most massive subhaloes of an approximately M31-sized halo, following the assumption of a monotonic galaxy luminosity-to-subhalo mass mapping. While this abundance matching relation is consistent with the kinematic data for galaxies down to the luminosity of the bright satellites of the Milky Way and M31, it is not consistent with kinematic data for fainter dwarf galaxies (those with L less than or similar to 10(8) L-circle dot). Comparing the kinematics of M31's dwarf Spheroidal (dSph) satellites to the subhaloes reveals that M31's dSph satellites are too low density to be consistent with the subhaloes' mass profiles. A similar discrepancy has been reported between Milky Way dSphs and their predicted subhaloes, the 'too big to fail' problem. By contrast, total mass profiles of the dwarf Elliptical (and similarly bright) satellites are consistent with the subhaloes. However, they suffer from large systematic uncertainties in their dark matter content because of substantial (and potentially dominant) contributions from baryons within their half-light radii.

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