4.7 Article

Massive dark matter haloes around bright isolated galaxies in the 2dFGRS

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12583.x

关键词

surveys; galaxies : fundamental parameters; galaxies : haloes; galaxies : kinematics and dynamics; galaxies : spiral

资金

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F002289/1, ST/F002300/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. STFC [ST/F002289/1, ST/F002300/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We identify a large sample of isolated bright galaxies and their fainter satellites in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS). We analyse the dynamics of ensembles of these galaxies selected according to luminosity and morphological type by stacking the positions of their satellites and estimating the velocity dispersion of the combined set. We test our methodology using realistic mock catalogues constructed from cosmological simulations. The method returns an unbiased estimate of the velocity dispersion provided that the isolation criterion is strict enough to avoid contamination and that the scatter in halo mass at fixed primary luminosity is small. Using a maximum likelihood estimator that accounts for interlopers, we determine the satellite velocity dispersion within a projected radius of 175 h(-1) kpc. The dispersion increases with the luminosity of the primary and is larger for elliptical galaxies than for spiral galaxies of similar b(J) luminosity. Calibrating the mass-velocity dispersion relation using our mock catalogues, we find a dynamical mass within 175 h(-1) kpc of M-175/h(-1)M(circle dot) similar or equal to 4.0(+2.3) (-1.5) x 10(12) (L-bJ/L*) for elliptical galaxies and M-175/h(-1)M(circle dot) similar or equal to 6.3(+6.3) (-3.1) x 10(11) (L-bJ/L*)(1.6) for spiral galaxies. Finally, we compare our results with recent studies and investigate their limitations using our mock for spiral galaxies. Finally, we compare our results with recent studies and investigate their limitations using our mock catalogues.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据