4.7 Article

The fundamental plane of early-type galaxies in nearby clusters from the WINGS database

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 685, Issue 2, Pages 875-896

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/591143

Keywords

galaxies : clusters : general; galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies : fundamental parameters; galaxies : structure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By exploting the data of three large surveys (WINGS, NFPS, and SDSS), we analyze the fundamental plane (FP) of early-type galaxies (ETGs) in 59 nearby clusters (0.04 < z < 0.07). We show that the variances of the FP coefficients for our clusters are just marginally consistent with the hypothesis of universality of the FP. We found they are influenced by the distribution of photometric/kinematic properties of galaxies in the particular sample under analysis, suggesting that the FP is actually a bent surface. We also find a strong correlation between the local density and the FP coefficients, while they appear to be poorly correlated with the global properties of clusters. The relation between luminosity and mass of our galaxies, computed by assuming Sersic luminosity profiles, indicates that, for a given mass, the greater the light concentration, the higher the luminosity, while, for a given luminosity, the lower the light concentration, the greater the mass. Moreover, the M/L versus mass relation (again with Sersic profile fitting) turns out to be steeper and broader than that obtained for the Coma Cluster sample with de Vaucouleurs profile fitting. This broadness, together with the FP bending, might reconcile the FP phenomenology with the expectations from the Lambda CDM cosmology. We conclude that the claimed universality of the FP of ETGs is still far from being proved and that systematic biases might affect the studies of luminosity evolution of ETGs, since data sets at different redshifts and with different distributions of the photometric/kinematic galaxy properties are compared each other.

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