4.7 Article

The sloan lens acs survey. II. Stellar populations and internal structure of early-type lens galaxies

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 640, 期 2, 页码 662-672

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/500124

关键词

galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation; galaxies : structure; gravitational lensing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use HST images to derive effective radii and effective surface brightnesses of 15 early-type (E+S0) lens galaxies identified by the SLACS Survey. Our measurements are combined with stellar velocity dispersions from the SDSS database to investigate for the first time the distribution of lens galaxies in the fundamental plane ( FP) space. Accounting for selection effects ( top priority to the largest Einstein radii and thus approximately to the largest velocity dispersions, sigma greater than or similar to 240 km s(-1)) and for passive evolution, the distribution of the lens galaxies inside the FP is indistinguishable from that of the parent sample of SDSS galaxies. We conclude that SLACS lenses are a fair sample of high velocity dispersion E+S0s. By comparing the central stellar velocity dispersion (sigma) with the velocity dispersion that best fits the lensing models (sigma(SIE)) we find < f(SIE)> equivalent to = 1.01 +/- 0.02 with 0.065 rms scatter. We infer that within the Einstein radii (typically R-e/2) the SLACS lenses are very well approximated by isothermal ellipsoids, requiring a fine tuning of the stellar and dark matter distribution (the bulge-halo conspiracy''). Interpreting the offset from the local FP in terms of evolution of the stellar mass-to-light ratio, we find d log (M/L-B)/dz = - 0.69 +/- 0.08 (rms 0.11) consistent with the rate found for field E+S0s and with most of the stars being old (z(f) > 2) and less than similar to 10% of the stellar mass having formed below z = 1. We discuss our results in the context of formation mechanisms such as collisionless (dry'') mergers.

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