“School of Astronomy”

Back to Papers Home
Back to Papers of School of Astronomy

Paper   IPM / Astronomy / 11731
School of Astronomy
  Title:   LoCuSS: connecting the dominance and shape of brightest cluster galaxies with the assembly history of massive clusters
1.  Graham Smith
2.  Habib Gharar khosroshahi
3.  Ali Akbar Dariush
4.  A. J. R.. Sanderson
5.  Trevor Ponman
6.  John Stott
7.  Chris Haines
8.  E.. Egami
9.  D.P.. Stark
  Status:   Published
  Journal: MNRAS
  Vol.:  409
  Year:  2010
  Pages:   169-183
  Publisher(s):   Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
  Supported by:            IPM IPM
We study the luminosity gap, #916;m12, between the first- and second-ranked galaxies in a sample of 59 massive ( 1015Msolar) galaxy clusters, using data from the Hale Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra and Spitzer. We find that the #916;m12 distribution, p( #916;m12), is a declining function of #916;m12 to which we fitted a straight line: p( #916;m12)   -(0.13 +/- 0.02) #916;m12. The fraction of clusters with `large' luminosity gaps is p( #916;m12 >= 1) = 0.37 +/- 0.08, which represents a 3 #963; excess over that obtained from Monte Carlo simulations of a Schechter function that matches the mean cluster galaxy luminosity function. We also identify four clusters with `extreme' luminosity gaps, #916;m12 >= 2, giving a fraction of . More generally, large luminosity gap clusters are relatively homogeneous, with elliptical/discy brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), cuspy gas density profiles (i.e. strong cool cores), high concentrations and low substructure fractions. In contrast, small luminosity gap clusters are heterogeneous, spanning the full range of boxy/elliptical/discy BCG morphologies, the full range of cool core strengths and dark matter concentrations, and have large substructure fractions. Taken together, these results imply that the amplitude of the luminosity gap is a function of both the formation epoch and the recent infall history of the cluster. `BCG dominance' is therefore a phase that a cluster may evolve through and is not an evolutionary `cul-de-sac'. We also compare our results with semi-analytic model predictions based on the Millennium Simulation. None of the models is able to reproduce all of the observational results on #916;m12, underlining the inability of the current generation of models to match the empirical properties of BCGs. We identify the strength of active galactic nucleus feedback and the efficiency with which cluster galaxies are replenished after they merge with the BCG in each model as possible causes of these discrepancies.

Download TeX format
back to top
scroll left or right