4.7 Article

Intracluster light in nearby galaxy clusters: Relationship to the halos of brightest cluster galaxies

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 618, 期 1, 页码 195-213

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/425896

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a detailed analysis of the surface brightness distribution of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) in each of 24 galaxy clusters at 0.03 < z < 0.13. We use two-dimensional profile fitting to model the surface brightness out to r = 300 kpc for each BCG, comparing r(1/4), r(1/n), and double r(1/4) models. We obtain statistically superior fits using a two-component model consisting of a pair of r(1/4) profiles with independent scale lengths, ellipticities, and orientations. The two-component model can simply reproduce the observed position angle and ellipticity gradients, which cannot generally be explained purely by triaxiality. The inner component of our two-component model has properties similar to those of a typical massive elliptical galaxy and is clearly associated with the BCG. The outer component is 10-40 times larger in scale, has similar to10 times the total luminosity of the inner component, and exhibits a steeper -r(e) relation than that of the elliptical fundamental plane. We interpret this outer component as a population of intracluster stars that trace the cluster potential. The two components are strongly aligned (\Deltatheta\ < 10 degrees) in roughly 40% of the clusters. When they are not aligned, the components tend toward high degrees of misalignment, suggesting that accretion of infalling material may change the orientation of some BCGs for a time. The extent of the outer component and its similar elongation to published cluster galaxy distributions indicates that the evolution of the intracluster light is tied to the cluster as a whole rather than to the BCG.

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