4.6 Article

Gravitational potential and X-ray luminosities of early-type galaxies observed with XMM-Newton and Chandra

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 501, 期 1, 页码 157-+

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810978

关键词

galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies: ISM; X-rays: galaxies; X-rays: ISM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. We study the dark matter content in early-type galaxies and investigate whether X-ray luminosities of early-type galaxies are determined by the surrounding gravitational potential. Methods. We derived gravitational mass profiles of 22 early-type galaxies observed with XMM-Newton and Chandra. Results. Sixteen galaxies show constant or decreasing radial temperature profiles, and their X-ray luminosities are consistent with kinematical energy input from stellar mass loss. The temperature profiles of the other 6 galaxies increase with radius, and their X-ray luminosities are significantly higher. The integrated mass-to-light ratio of each galaxy is constant at that of stars within 0.5- 1 r(e), and increases with radius, where re is the effective radius of a galaxy. The scatter of the central mass-to-light ratio of galaxies was less in K-band light. At 3 r(e), the integrated mass-to-light ratios of galaxies with flat or decreasing temperature profiles are twice the value at 0.5 r(e), where the stellar mass dominates, and at 6 r(e), these increase to three times the value at 0.5 r(e). Conclusions. This feature should reflect common dark and stellar mass distributions in early-type galaxies: within 3 r(e), the mass of dark matter is similar to the stellar mass, while within 6 r(e), the former is larger than the latter by a factor of two. In contrast, X-ray luminous galaxies have higher gravitational mass in the outer regions than X-ray faint galaxies. We describe these X-ray luminous galaxies as the central objects of large potential structures; the presence or absence of this potential is the main source of the large scatter in the X-ray luminosity.

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