4.6 Article

AN OPTICAL AND X-RAY STUDY OF THE FOSSIL GROUP RX J1340.6+4018

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 138, 期 2, 页码 502-509

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/502

关键词

cooling flows; cosmology: observations; galaxies: clusters: individual (RXJ1340.6+4018, RXJ1552.2+2013, RXJ1416.4+2315); galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: luminosity function, mass function; intergalactic medium

资金

  1. Brazilian agencies FAPESP [06/56213-9]
  2. CNPq
  3. CAPES
  4. NASA [NNX07AH55G, NAG 5-3247, GO4-5145X, GO5-6139X, NNX06AG23G, NNX07AQ76G, NNX08AB70G]
  5. FAPESP [06/05787-5]
  6. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [06/05787-5, 06/56213-9] Funding Source: FAPESP
  7. NASA [103471, NNX08AB70G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fossil groups are systems with one single central elliptical galaxy and an unusual lack of luminous galaxies in the inner regions. The standard explanation for the formation of these systems suggests that the lack of bright galaxies is due to galactic cannibalism. In this study, we show the results of an optical and X-ray analysis of RX J1340.6+4018, the prototype fossil group. The data indicate that RX J1340.6+4018 is similar to clusters in almost every sense (dynamical mass, X-ray luminosity, M/L, and luminosity function) except for the lack of L* galaxies. There are claims in the literature that fossil systems have a lack of small mass halos, compared to predictions based on the lambda cold dark matter scenario. The observational data gathered on this and other fossil groups so far offer no support for this idea. Analysis of the SN Ia/SN II ejecta ratio in the inner and outer regions shows a marginally significant central dominance of SN Ia material. This suggests that either the merger which originated in the central galaxy was dry or the group has been formed at early epochs, although better data are needed to confirm this result.

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