4.6 Article

DYNAMICAL VERSUS STELLAR MASSES IN COMPACT EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES: FURTHER EVIDENCE FOR SYSTEMATIC VARIATION IN THE STELLAR INITIAL MASS FUNCTION

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 776, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L26

关键词

galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies: formation; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: stellar content

资金

  1. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several independent lines of evidence suggest that the stellar initial mass function (IMF) in early-type galaxies becomes increasingly bottom-heavy with increasing galaxy mass and/or velocity dispersion, sigma. Here we consider evidence for IMF variation in a sample of relatively compact early-type galaxies drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. These galaxies are of sufficiently high stellar density that a dark halo likely makes a minor contribution to the total dynamical mass, M-dyn, within one effective radius. We fit our detailed stellar population synthesis models to the stacked absorption line spectra of these galaxies in bins of sigma and find evidence from IMF-sensitive spectral features for a bottom-heavy IMF at high sigma. We also apply simple mass-follows-light dynamical models to the same data and find that M-dyn is significantly higher than what would be expected if these galaxies were stellar dominated and had a universal Milky Way IMF. Adopting M-dyn approximate to M-* therefore implies that the IMF is heavier at high sigma. Most importantly, the quantitative amount of inferred IMF variation is very similar between the two techniques, agreeing to within less than or similar to 0.1 dex in mass. The agreement between two independent techniques, when applied to the same data, provides compelling evidence for systematic variation in the IMF as a function of early-type galaxy velocity dispersion. Any alternative explanations must reproduce both the results from dynamical and stellar population-based techniques.

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