4.7 Article

First results of the XI Groups Project:: studying an unbiased sample of galaxy groups

期刊

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11023.x

关键词

galaxies : clusters : general; galaxies : distances and redshifts; X-rays : galaxies; X-rays : galaxies : clusters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

X-ray observations of hot, intergalactic gas in galaxy groups provide a useful means of characterizing the global properties of groups. However, X-ray studies of large group samples have typically involved very shallow X-ray exposures or have been based on rather heterogeneous samples. Here we present the first results of the XI (XMM/IMACS) Groups Project, a study targeting, for the first time, a redshift-selected, statistically unbiased sample of galaxy groups using deep X-ray data. Combining this with radio observations of cold gas and optical imaging and spectroscopy of the galaxy population, the project aims to advance the understanding of how the properties and dynamics of group galaxies relate to global group properties. Here, X-ray and optical data of the first four galaxy groups observed as part of the project are presented. In two of the groups we detect diffuse emission with a luminosity of L-X approximate to 10(41) erg s(-1), among the lowest found for any X-ray detected group thus far, with a comparable upper limit for the other two. Compared to typical X-ray selected groups of similar velocity dispersion, these four systems are all surprisingly X-ray faint. We discuss possible explanations for the lack of significant X-ray emission in the groups, concluding that these systems are most likely collapsing for the first time. Our results strongly suggest that, unlike our current optically selected sample, previous X-ray selected group samples represented a biased picture of the group population. This underlines the necessity of a study of this kind, if one is to reach an unbiased census of the properties of galaxy groups and the distribution of baryons in the Universe.

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