4.7 Article

Alignment of brightest cluster galaxies with their host clusters

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16597.x

关键词

galaxies: clusters: general; cosmology: observations

资金

  1. Gates Cambridge Trust
  2. Isaac Newton Studentship
  3. Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
  4. NSF [AST-0707266]
  5. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  6. National Science Foundation
  7. US Department of Energy
  8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  9. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  10. Max Planck Society
  11. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  12. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H001913/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  13. STFC [ST/H001913/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the alignment between brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) and their host clusters in a sample of 7031 clusters with 0.08 < z < 0.44 found using a matched-filter algorithm and an independent sample of 5744 clusters with 0.1 < z < 0.3 selected with the maxBCG algorithm, both extracted from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 6 imaging data. We confirm that BCGs are preferentially aligned with the cluster's major axis; clusters with dominant BCGs (> 0.65 mag brighter than the mean of the second- and third-ranked galaxies) show stronger alignment than do clusters with less dominant BCGs at the 4.4 sigma level. Rich clusters show a stronger alignment than do poor clusters at the 2.3 sigma level. Low-redshift clusters (z < 0.26) show more alignment than do high-redshift (z > 0.26) clusters, with a difference significant at the 3.0 sigma level. Our results do not depend on the algorithm used to select the cluster sample, suggesting that they are not biased by systematics of either algorithm. The correlation between BCG dominance and cluster alignment may be a consequence of the hierarchical merging process which forms the cluster. The observed redshift evolution may follow from secondary infall at late redshifts.

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