4.7 Article

EVOLUTION OF BRIGHTEST CLUSTER GALAXY STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS IN THE LAST ∼6 Gyr: FEEDBACK PROCESSES VERSUS MERGER EVENTS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 726, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/69

关键词

galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: fundamental parameters

资金

  1. Spanish MICINN [AYA2010-21887-C04-04]
  2. NASA [NNG05GD32G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present results on the evolution of the structural parameters of two samples of brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) in the last 6 Gyr. The nearby sample of BCGs consists of 69 galaxies from the WINGS survey spanning a redshift range of 0.04 < z < 0.07. The intermediate-redshift (0.3 < z < 0.6) sample is formed by 20 BCGs extracted from the Hubble Space Telescope archive. Both samples have similar spatial resolution and their host clusters have similar X-ray luminosities. We report an increase in the size of the BCGs from intermediate to local redshift. However, we do not detect any variation in the Sersic shape parameter in both samples. These results prove to be robust since the observed tendencies are model independent. We also obtain significant correlations between some of the BCG parameters and the main properties of the host clusters. More luminous, larger, and centrally located BCGs are located in more massive and dominant galaxy clusters. These facts indicate that the host galaxy cluster has played an important role in the formation of their BCGs. We discuss the possible mechanisms that can explain the observed evolution of the structural parameters of the BCGs. We conclude that the main mechanisms that can explain the increase in size and the non-evolution in the Sersic shape parameter of the BCGs in the last 6 Gyr are feedback processes. This result disagrees with semi-analytical simulation results supporting the idea that merging processes are the main mechanism responsible for the evolution of the BCGs up until the present epoch.

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