4.6 Article

High-precision Dark Halo Virial Masses from Globular Cluster Numbers: Implications for Globular Cluster Formation and Galaxy Assembly

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 159, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b0e

关键词

Galaxy stellar halos; Globular star clusters; Galaxy dark matter halos

资金

  1. Excellence Cluster ORIGINS - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy [EXC-2094-290783311]
  2. ARC [DP160101608]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We confirm that the number of globular clusters (GCs), N-GC, is an excellent tracer of their host galaxy's halo virial mass, M-vir. The simple linear relation M-vir = 5 x 10(9) MNGC fits the data perfectly from M-vir = 10(10) M to M-vir = 2 x 10(15) M. This result is independent of galaxy morphology and extends statistically into the dwarf galaxy regime with M-vir = 10(8)-10(10) M, including the extreme ultra diffuse galaxy DF44. As this correlation does not depend on GC mass, it is ideally suited for high-precision determinations of M-vir. The linearity is most simply explained by cosmological merging of a high-redshift halo seed population that hosted on average one GC per 5 x 10(8) M of dark matter. We show that hierarchical merging is also extremely powerful in restoring a linear correlation and erasing signatures of even a strong secular evolution of GC systems. The cosmological merging scenario also implies a strong decline of the scatter in N-GC with increasing virial mass in contrast with the observations that show a roughly constant scatter, independent of virial mass. This discrepancy can be explained if errors in determining virial masses from kinematical tracers and gravitational lensing are on the order of a factor of 2. GCs in dwarf satellite galaxies pose a serious problem for high-redshift GC formation scenarios; the dark halo masses of dwarf galaxies hosting GCs therefore might need to be an order of magnitude larger than currently estimated.

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

4.6
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