4.7 Article

Satellite kinematics - I. A new method to constrain the halo mass-luminosity relation of central galaxies

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14114.x

关键词

methods: statistical; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: haloes; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Satellite kinematics can be used to probe the masses of dark matter haloes of central galaxies. In order to measure the kinematics with sufficient signal-to-noise ratio, one uses the satellite galaxies of a large number of central galaxies stacked according to similar properties (e.g. luminosity). However, in general, the relation between the luminosity of a central galaxy and the mass of its host halo will have non-zero scatter. Consequently, this stacking results in combining the kinematics of satellite galaxies in haloes of different masses, which complicates the interpretation of the data. In this paper, we present an analytical framework to model satellite kinematics, properly accounting for this scatter and for various selection effects. We show that in the presence of scatter in the halo mass-luminosity relation, the commonly used velocity dispersion of satellite galaxies can not be used to infer a unique halo mass-luminosity relation. In particular, we demonstrate that there is a degeneracy between the mean and the scatter of the halo mass-luminosity relation. We present a new technique that can break this degeneracy, and which involves measuring the velocity dispersions using two different weighting schemes: host weighting (each central galaxy gets the same weight) and satellite weighting (each central galaxy gets a weight proportional to its number of satellites). The ratio between the velocity dispersions obtained using these two weighting schemes is sensitive to the scatter in the halo mass-luminosity relation, and can thus be used to infer a unique relation between light and mass from the kinematics of satellite galaxies.

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