#### Are the nearby groups of galaxies gravitationally bound objects?

Sami-Matias Niemi
0
Pasi Nurmi
0
Pekka Hein am aki
0
Mauri Valtonen
0
0
University of Turku
,
Tuorla Observatory, Va isa la ntie 20, Piikkio
,
Finland
A B S T R A C T We have compared numerical simulations to observations for the nearby (<40 Mpc) groups of galaxies. The group identification is carried out using a group-finding algorithm developed by Huchra & Geller. Using cosmological N-body simulation code with the cold dark matter (CDM) cosmology, we show that the dynamical properties of groups of galaxies identified from the simulation data are, in general, in a moderate, within 2 , agreement with the observational catalogues of groups of galaxies. As simulations offer more dynamical information than observations, we used the N-body simulation data to calculate whether the nearby groups of galaxies are gravitationally bound objects by using their virial ratio. We show that in a CDM cosmology about 20 per cent of nearby groups of galaxies, identified by the same algorithm as in the case of observations, are not bound, but merely groups in a visual sense. This is quite significant, specifically because estimations of group masses in observations are often based on an assumption that groups of galaxies found by the friends-of-friends algorithm are gravitationally bound objects. Simulations with different resolutions show the same results. We also show how the fraction of gravitationally unbound groups varies when the apparent magnitude limit of the sample and the value of the cosmological constant is changed. In general, a larger value of the generates slightly more unbound groups.
1 I N T R O D U C T I O N
Small groups of galaxies are the most common galaxy
associations and contain 50 per cent of all galaxies in the Universe (e.g.
Holmberg 1950; Humason, Mayall & Sandage 1956; Huchra &
Geller 1982; Geller & Huchra 1983; Nolthenius & White 1987).
The study of galaxy groups is a very interesting area of research
because these density fluctuations lie between galaxies and clusters
of galaxies, and may provide important clues to galaxy formation.
Small groups of galaxies are also important cosmological indicators
of the distribution, and properties, of dark matter in the universe.
The dynamics of the nearby groups of galaxies and the Local
Group has provided a unique challenge to cosmological models
in the past. The quiescence of the local peculiar velocity field
(e.g. de Vaucouleurs 1958; Sandage & Tammann 1975; Sandage
1999; Ekholm et al. 2001) was a long-standing puzzle that presented
a challenge for the models of structure formation. The velocity field
within 5 h1 Mpc of the Local Group is extremely cold, the
dispersion is only 5060 km s1 (Teerikorpi, Chernin & Baryshev 2005,
and references therein). The CDM cosmology and dark energy
have solved this problem and it has been shown by, for example,
E-mail: (SMN); (PN);
(PH); (MV)
Klypin et al. (2003), Maccio, Governato & Horellou (2005) and
Peirani & de Freitas Pacheco (2006) with constrained simulations
that the CDM cosmology can produce the small values of the
velocity dispersion. Today, the question of the virialization of groups
of galaxies and the fraction of gravitationally bound systems
provides a new challenge for the cosmological models and grouping
algorithms.
Over the last two decades, cosmological simulations have proven
to be an invaluable tool in testing theoretical models in the
nonlinear regime. The standard approach is to assume a cosmological
model and to use the appropriate power spectrum of the
primordial perturbations to construct a random realization of the density
field within a given simulation volume. The evolution of the initial
density field is then followed by using an N-body simulation code,
and the results in the simulation box (viewed from outside) are
compared with observational data. A comparison of the simulations with
observational data is typically done in a statistical manner. The
statistical approach works well if there is a statistically representative
sample of objects with well-understood selection effects for both
the observed universe and the simulations.
Given a set of observed galaxies with their positions in the sky and
their redshifts, the task of a group finder is to return sets of
galaxies that most likely represent true gravitationally bound structures.
Some contamination is always expected due to selection effects in
observations. This study uses one of the most popular group finders:
the friends-of-friends (FOF) algorithm. FOF has been used widely
for identifying groups of galaxies in the redshift surveys (Huchra &
Geller 1982; Geller & Huchra 1983; Nolthenius & White 1987;
Ramella, Geller & Huchra 1989; Moore, Frenk & White 1993;
Ramella, Pisani & Geller 1997; Giuricin et al. 2000; Tucker et al.
2000; Ramella et al. 2002) and is now a standard approach.
The identification of the group members has, in general, been
based on a subjective selection of data. In order to remove this
difficulty, Huchra & Geller (1982, hereafter HG82) developed a method
of identifying groups of galaxies from the observations. It has
been usually thought that the FOF based algorithms would produce
groupings which are mostly gravitationally bound when the
number of galaxies in a group exceeds five members (see e.g. Ramella
et al. 2002). A few studies (e.g. Carlberg et al. 2001) have been
made where the free parameters of the FOF algorithm have been
optimized to avoid spurious groups with interlopers. Studies of the
FOF algorithms have concluded that the choice of the free
parameters depends on the case that is studied, and no singular best choice
of the parameters can be made. Unfortunately, none of the
observational methods do truly answer the question whether groups of
galaxies are gravitationally bound objects. There are some estimates
for the fraction of how many groups found by the FOF algorithm
are spurious (see e.g. Ramella et al. 2002), but these estimates are
not based on the physical properties of the groups.
Cosmological N-body simulations include all the necessary
information for finding out whether a given object is gravitationally
bound or not. Aceves & Velazquez (2002) studied small galaxy
groups with N-body simulations and made conclusions about the
virialization of the groups. Diaferio, Geller & Ramella (1994)
studied compact groups of galaxies with N-body simulations and made
remarks about the fraction of bound groups and chance alignment
systems. Groups of galaxies, and their dynamical properties
generated by the FOF algorithm, have been studied earlier with N-body
simulations (see e.g. Nolthenius, Klypin & Primack 1997; Diaferio
et al. 1999; Merchan & Zandivarez 2002; Casagrande & Diaferio
2006). Most of these earlier studies have taken advantage of the
constrained simulations and have used models which are different
from the currently popular CDM cosmology. In these constrained,
or mock catalogue, simulations, the simulated space has been
compared directly with the observations of redshift space and the groups
have been categorized as spurious if the algorithm has failed to find
similar groups as in real space. Instead, we have studied the virial
ratio of the groups of galaxies produced by the FOF algorithm first
described in HG82. We will show that 20 per cent of the groups
of galaxies found by the FOF algorithm are not real gravitationally
bound groups, but spurious. Our results agree roughly with the
previous results and estimates but do not confirm the claim by Ramella
et al. (1989) that groups with more than four members are
gravitationally bound.
For an observer placed in a specific location, selecting a similar
environment between observational data and cosmological
simulations might be problematic. The simplest way is to choose an
observation point within a simulation box by certain criteria. It is
argued (e.g. Klypin et al. 2003, and references therein) that it is not
clear what similar environment actually means and that simply
placing the observer at some specific point would resolve the issue.
In this paper, we show that this is a useful approach, as we are not
comparing simulations to observations directly but with statistics.
The main purpose of this work is to study if groups of galaxies
found by the HG82 algorithm are bound, and how the fraction of
bound groups depend on the chosen magnitude limit and
cosmological model. We will show our findings with different apparent
magnitude limits and for different cosmological models. We also
show that there is no significant correlation between the crossing
time of a group and its virial ratio.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the
method used in the identification of the group members in the
observations. A brief discussion of the differences between observations
and simulations is given in Section 2. In Section 3, we discuss briefly
the virial ratio, used for determining whether a group of galaxies
is gravitationally bound. Section 4 discusses the simulations, we
use for the analysis. In Sections 5 and 6, we present our results
and discuss the findings. Discussion of the probability functions of
gravitationally unbound groups is done in Section 7. Finally, we
summarize our results in Section 8.
2 A R E V I E W O F T H E G R O U P - F I N D I N G
A L G O R I T H M
In observations, there are generally three basic pieces of
information available for the study of the galaxy distribution: the position,
the magnitude and the redshift of each galaxy. Although the
magnitude is important as a measure of the objects visibility, it is
usually a poor criterion for group membership. The method used for
creating a group catalogue in HG82 can be summed up in two
criteria: the projected separation and the velocity difference. The FOF
algorithm is described in greater detail by the original authors in
HG82.
The grouping method begins with a selection of an object, which
has not been previously assigned to any of the existing groups. After
choosing the object, the next step is to search for companions with
the projected separation D12 smaller or equal to the separation DL:
D12 = 2 sin
where the mean cosmological expansion velocity is
where V1 and V2 refer to the velocities (redshifts) of the galaxy and its
companion, m1 and m2 are their magnitudes and is their angular
separation in the sky. If no companions are found, the galaxy is
entered in a list of isolated galaxies. All companions found are added
to the list of group members. The surroundings of each companion
are then searched by using the same method used in the first place to
find companions. This process is repeated until no further members
are found.
There are a variety of prescriptions for DL and VL. We adopt the
method used in HG82, and assume that the luminosity function is
independent of distance and position and that at larger distances
only the fainter galaxies are missing. For each pair we take
M12 ( M ) dM 1/3
DL = D0 ,
Mlim ( M ) dM
where the integration limits can be calculated from equations:
Mlim = mlim 25 5 log (DF)
M12 = mlim 25 5 log (V ),
VL = V0
1/3
and where (M ) is the differential galaxy luminosity function for
the sample and D0 is the projected separation in Mpc chosen at
some fiducial distance DF. In this paper, we adopt constants D0 =
0.63 Mpc and DF = 10 Mpc to be same as in HG82. The effect of
varying D0 has been studied, for example, by Ramella et al. (1989)
where the effects are also explained.
The limiting velocity difference is scaled in the same way as the
distance DL:
where the fiducial value is V0 = 400 km s1 and the integration
limits are as above (equations 5 and 6). Ramella et al. (1989) varied
V0 and concluded that the results are not sensitive to the choice
of V0. This is probably related to the geometry of the large-scale
structure. Frederic (1995a,b) argues that the optimal choice of D0
and V0 depends on the purpose for which groups are being identified.
Similar claims has been made in papers where the FOF algorithm
has been optimized (see e.g. Eke et al. 2004; Berlind et al. 2006).
Because of this, we also show some results when D0 = 0.37 Mpc
and V0 = 200 km s1 are adopted.
Note that the scaling law in equations (4) and (7) has been
questioned by many authors. Specifically, replacing the power 1/3
by 1/2 (see the argument in e.g. Nolthenius & White 1987;
Gourgoulhon, Chamaraux & Fouque 1992) drastically reduces the
correlation between the redshift and the velocity dispersion observed
in the HG82 group catalogue. However, part of this correlation is
related to a selection effect rather than to the grouping algorithm,
because groups with low-velocity dispersion usually have few bright
galaxies and so they can be seen only at low redshift. In this
paper, we use the equations mentioned above for consistency with the
HG82 catalogue.
For simplicity, we use the Schechter (1974) luminosity function:
ln 10 102/5(MM) +1 exp102/5(MM) ,
where M is the absolute magnitude of the object. We adopt the
parameter values of = 1.02, M = 19.06 and = 0.0277
comparable to HG82. For comparison, we use the galaxy luminosity
function values of = 1.15, M = 19.84 and = 0.0172, which
were derived from the Millennium Galaxy Catalogue by Driver et al.
(2007).
Our chosen values of constants and parameters needed for the
FOF algorithm are exactly the same as in HG82 for consistency.
We do show selected results with more recent values of constants
and parameters if these results differ from the results produced with
the HG82 values. Throughout this paper, we adopt the parametrized
Hubble constant H0 = 100 h km s1 Mpc1 with h = 1.0 for
comparison with HG82 when a definite value of the Hubble constant is
needed. We do not consider dust extinction in the analysis of the
simulations in this paper.
3 A R E V I E W O F T H E V I R I A L T H E O R E M
In the simplest case, when we have a two body system with total
mass M = m1 + m2 and V is the relative speed of the components, the
kinetic energy is T of the system (in the centre-of-mass coordinate
system) and its gravitational potential energy U (taken positive) are:
Gm1m2
U = 2T .
R
where R is the size of the system and G is the gravitational constant.
These equations are related by a simple relation:
However, the above relation holds only for isolated self-gravitating
systems when the system is in equilibrium.
In general, groups of galaxies (and dark matter haloes1) contain
more than two members. Therefore, a generalized method for
calculating the kinetic and the potential energies is needed. We adopt
a method described by Chernin & Mikkola (1991). In general, the
kinetic energy may be written as
U = G
and the potential energy as
mi m j (V i V j )2,
where mi and mj are the masses of the two galaxies, Vi and V j are
their velocities and Ri,j is the distance between them.
We use these general equations to get the total kinetic energy of
a group of haloes and compare it to its total potential energy. If the
group of haloes does not fulfill the criterion:
T U < 0,
it is entered into a list of unbound groups. The above criterion is
equal to the virial ratio:
T
< 1.0, (15)
U
which we use throughout this paper as a criterion for discriminating
between bound and unbound groups.
4 D E S C R I P T I O N O F T H E C O S M O L O G I C A L S I M U L AT I O N S
4.1 Background
We present results from four simulations, performed by the
cosmological N-body simulation code Adaptive Mesh Investigations
of Galaxy Assembly (AMIGA). The former version of AMIGA was
known as MLAPM (for details see Knebe, Green & Binney 2001). For
the first two runs, we adopt the currently popular flat low-density
cosmological model CDM with h = 1.0, dm = 0.27, = 0.73
and 8 = 0.83, with two different resolutions. Both simulations
were made with 2563 dark matter particles. The high-resolution
simulation began at the initial redshift of zi = 47.96 while the
lowresolution simulation was initiated at redshift zi = 38.71. The
volume employed in the high-resolution simulation was (40 h1 Mpc)3
and (80 h1 Mpc)3 in the low-resolution simulation corresponding
to the mass resolutions of 2.86 108 and 2.29 109 h1 M ,
respectively. The force resolution for the high-resolution simulation
is 1.8 h1 kpc and for the low resolution 7.3 h1 kpc.
For the third and the fourth simulations, we adopt different
cosmological models. These simulations were also performed with 2563
1 We will use the term halo from now on to refer to virialized clumps of
dark matter in the simulation and reserve galaxy for the real observational
data.
Np
Fres
Nh
Note: specifies the value of the cosmological constant, L is the size
of the simulation box in one dimension in h1 Mpc, Np is the number of
dark matter particles, zi is the initial redshift, mres is the mass resolution in
h1 M , Fres is the force resolution in h1 kpc and Nh is the total number
of dark matter haloes identified from the simulation.
dark matter particles but with different values of the cosmological
constant . The total density of the universe was kept equal to the
critical density ( = 1.0). For the third simulation, we adopt h =
1.0, dm = 0.1, = 0.9 and 8 = 0.83. For the fourth
simulation, we adopt h = 1.0, dm = 1.0, = 0.0 and 8 = 0.84 (see
Table 1).
The high-resolution = 0.73 simulation was used to
understand the effects of limited resolution in N-body simulations.
During this work, we found some differences between results of the
high- and the low-resolution = 0.73 simulations. These
differences are clearly visible when the group abundances are studied (see
Figs 14).
4.2 Halo finder and identification of the dark matter haloes
Our simulations only follow the evolution of the dark matter
particles via gravitational interaction. It is expected that baryons
condense and form galaxies at the centres of dark matter haloes. AMIGA
N-body simulation code comes with a halo-finding algorithm called
MHF (MLAPMs Halo Finder, Gill, Knebe & Gibson 2004). For our
purpose of analysing the nearby groups of haloes we used MHF.
The general goal of a halo finder, such as MHF, is to identify
gravitationally bound objects. MHF essentially uses the adaptive
grids of the AMIGA to locate the haloes and the satellites of the host
haloes, namely subhaloes. The advantage of reconstructing the
grids to locate haloes is that they follow the density field with the
exact accuracy of the simulation code and therefore no scaling length is
log10(Group Mass / Mass of the Sun)
Figure 2. Group abundance by observable mass of the groups. Simulation
data are from the = 0.73 simulations, and it is averaged over the ensemble
of 10 mock catalogues. The error bars are 1 errors and are only shown for
the low-resolution = 0.73 simulation for clarity. The error bars for other
data have similar size.
required [for more detailed description of the MHF see Gill et al.
(2004)].
The minimum number of particles in a halo was set to 10. This
corresponds to a halo mass 3 109 and 2 1010 h1 M for the
high- and the low-resolution simulation, respectively. A low value
of the minimum number of particles in a halo ensures that even
with a limited resolution, large and massive haloes are split into
lighter subhaloes. For large and massive (1014 h1 M ) haloes,
subhaloes represent visual galaxies, masses 1012 h1 M . In a
typical case, the total mass fraction in subhaloes is 10 per cent,
and only these are visible in our mock catalogue. In our mock
catalogue, the median of individual dark matter haloes mass is
1.6 1012 h1 M when the = 0.73 model and the low
resolution is adopted. The first and the third quartiles are: 7.2 1011
and 5.0 1012 h1 M , respectively.
The AMIGA and its halo finder calculate automatically certain
properties (e.g. position, mass, velocity, etc.) of the dark matter
haloes. These properties were used when the FOF algorithm was
applied to generate the catalogues of groups of dark matter haloes.
Subhaloes were included in our data as our purpose is to study if
the groups of galaxies (dark matter haloes) are gravitationally bound
objects. The results did not change substantially when the subhaloes
of the more massive haloes were excluded from the analysis. This
result is due to the small number of subhaloes in our low-resolution
simulation. The results of the high-resolution simulation show no
significant difference if subhaloes were excluded because subhaloes
have a relatively small mass. Due to their small masses, subhaloes
are not visible at the observation point, when the apparent magnitude
limit of 13.2 is adopted.
5 S TAT I S T I C A L P R O P E R T I E S O F T H E N E A R B Y G R O U P S O F G A L A X I E S : C O M PA R I N G S I M U L AT I O N S W I T H O B S E RVAT I O N S
5.1 Selection of the nearby groups of haloes
A Total of 10 catalogues were generated, corresponding to 10
different observers, for each simulation, with different apparent
magnitude limits. 10 observers are used to produce enough groups to
give good statistics. Note, however, that since all 10 catalogues are
constructed from the same parent simulation, the scatter between
statistics estimated from them might underestimate the true
sampling variance.
All observation points were chosen with the following criteria:
We did not restrict the local <10 h1 Mpc environment of the
observation points by any criteria. Although it is not clear if choosing
an observation point simply by the two former criteria resolves the
environment issue, we believe this to be strict enough for the
statistical study of the virial ratio of groups. These criteria are justified for
the statistical study, as we did not perceive a significant difference
between the observation points in the low-resolution simulation.
Small differences between observation points were observed when
the high-resolution simulation was studied, as it only includes two
Virgo-type haloes. When the low-resolution simulation was
studied, the location of a massive (Virgo-type) halo did not have any
significant effect to our results.
The simulation data do not directly give the luminosity or the
absolute magnitude of the dark matter haloes, which are needed
when we are mimicking observational conditions. We use haloes
virial mass Mvir to obtain its luminosity. To obtain the luminosity of
an object in the blue band, we use the relation proposed by Vale &
Ostriker (2004):
L(Mvir) = 5.7 109 h2 L
where M11 is defined:
Mvir
For the free parameters of the mass-luminosity function, values of
p = 4.0, q = 0.57, r = 0.28 and s = 0.23 were adopted (Oguri 2006).
It has been shown by Cooray & Milosavljevic (2005) that the
relation between the mass of a dark matter halo and its luminosity is not
as straightforward as presented above. For our purposes, as the
luminosity of a dark matter halo is used only to determine whether a halo
is visible from the observation point, the above relation should be
satisfactory. For this work, we do not adopt more complex methods
such as actual distributions for the massluminosity relation.
After the luminosity L of the halo is known, we obtain the apparent
magnitude of the halo in the blue band from the equation:
m B = M
B 2.5 log10
1 Mpc
where d is the distance from the observation point and the magnitude
of the sun in blue band M B = 5.47 (Cox 2000). As seen from
equation (18), we do not include dust extinction in our study, as its
effect in a statistical study like ours would be negligible.
The method described above allows us to use the apparent
magnitude limit mlim = 13.2 as adopted in HG82. Group catalogues of this
study are also generated with different magnitude limits in order to
understand the effects of the magnitude limit in magnitude-limited
samples. Unless explicitly noted, all haloes and groups referred to
are from the simulations; real groups of galaxies from HG82 and
UZC-SSRS2 (Ramella et al. 2002) are denoted as such.
5.2 Comparison parameters
We begin by calculating the velocity dispersion v of a group. In
general, the velocity dispersion of a group is defined as
NH 1
i=1
(vi vR) 2,
where NH is the number of haloes (or galaxies) in a group, vi is the
radial velocity of the ith halo (or galaxy) and v R is the mean group
radial velocity.
The second comparison parameter is the mean pairwise separation
Rp which is a measure of the size of a group. It can be defined as
NH(NH 1)
j<i i=1
where v R is the mean group radial velocity, H0 is the Hubble
constant and i j is the angular separation of the ith and jth group
members. Other two comparison parameters are the total group mass
and the virial crossing time (in units of the Hubble time H01) which
can be defined as
where v is the velocity dispersion and RH is the mean harmonic
radius:
RH =
i=1 j>i
where all the variables are defined as above.
In observations, the group masses can be estimated in various
methods. In the HG82 and the UZC-SSRS2 catalogues, the total
mass of a group is estimated with a simple relation:
Mobs = 6.96 108v2 RH M
where v is the velocity dispersion and RH is the mean harmonic
radius of the group as defined above. We use this simple relation to
determine the observable mass of a group when we are comparing
the masses of the simulated groups to the real observed groups such
as HG82 and UZC-SSRS2. However, when the total mass of a group
is used to scale the properties of groups (in Section 6), we calculate
the total mass of a group of dark matter haloes as a sum of the
member halo masses, namely the true mass of the group. In case of
the subhaloes, the diffuse dark matter is included in the main halos
mass. In general, we do not include the diffuse dark matter within a
given distance from the group centre, as it would be troublesome to
choose an appropriate distance. We do not consider this error to be
meaningful, as the diffuse dark matter does not substantially give
rise to the mean density of a simulation.
5.3 Comparison with observations
Comparison between simulations and observations is done using a
KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test. The null hypothesis Hnull of the
KS test is that the two distributions are alike and are drawn from
the same population distribution function. Results of the KS tests
are presented as significance levels (value of the Q function) for the
null hypothesis. Correlation between two variables is proved or
disproved with the use of the linear correlation coefficient r. In general,
the significance level of 0.001 is adopted when the correlation
between two variables is determined. For correlations, we also present
a probability P(r) of observing a value of the correlation coefficient
greater than r for a sample of N observations with N 2 degrees of
freedom.
We begin the comparison of our simulations to observations by
using the parameters presented in the previous subsection. A direct
comparison between HG82 and simulations is possible as the
magnitude limit (13.2) and the depth of the catalogues (cz < 4000 km
s1) are comparable. Comparisons with the more recent group
catalogue UZC-SSRS2 are also done. The UZC-SSRS2 catalogue has
the magnitude limit of 15.5 and only galaxies with cz < 15 000 km
s1 has been considered. These differences make the direct
comparison of the UZC-SSRS2 with the simulations less conclusive. We
also compare our 10 observation points with each other but do not
find significant difference between them. This justifies our method
of choosing the observational points as stated before.
In Figs 15, the abundance of groups is scaled to the volume of a
sample as the distributions depend strongly on selection and volume
effects. However, as there is no total volume of a galaxy sample
in magnitude-limited group catalogues, we weight each group
according to its distance (Moore et al. 1993; Diaferio et al. 1999).
As we only consider groups with three or more members, we can
identify a group only when its third-brightest galaxy has an absolute
mlim 25 5 log
where cz is the mean velocity of the group. Mi determines the
radius czi of a sphere within which we could have identified this
group.
We calculate the comoving volume sampled by a group with the
following equation:
where is the solid angle of the catalogue, zi is the redshift of the
group, c is the speed of light and is the cosmological density
parameter, taken as 1.0. Each group of galaxies (or dark matter
haloes) contributes with a weight of i1 to the total abundance
of groups. We include all galaxies with cz > 500 km s1. This
lower cut-off avoids including faint objects that are close to the
observation point as these groups could contain galaxies fainter than
real magnitude-limited surveys. Therefore, we consider only groups
with cz larger than 500 km s1 in mock, HG82 and UZC-SSRS2
catalogues.
Figs 14 show that the CDM simulations are, in general, in a
moderate agreement with observations when the resolution effects
of the N-body simulations are taken into account. Our CDM
simulations are within 2 from the UZC-SSRS2 catalogue and within
3 from the HG82 catalogue. Figs 14 are all from the = 0.73
simulations when the apparent magnitude limit has been set to 13.2,
comparable to HG82. The error bars in Figs 14 are the standard
deviation between 10 observation points. Unless explicitly noted,
the simulations referred to are = 0.73 simulations, other models
are denoted as such.
5.3.1 Velocity dispersion
Fig. 1 shows that the cosmological = 0.73 model can produce
velocity dispersions similar to observations (see also Klypin et al.
2003; Macci o et al. 2005; Peirani & de Freitas Pacheco 2006). Fig. 1
agrees with results by Casagrande & Diaferio (2006) (their fig. 14)
even though Casagrande & Diaferio (2006) considered only groups
with >5 members. Our low-resolution simulation produces roughly
the right number density of groups when the high (>100 km s1)
velocity dispersions are considered and the comparison is carried
out against more recent observations (UZC-SSRS2). However, due
to the limited mass resolution, the low-resolution simulation lacks
a significant number of groups when the abundance of groups with
velocity dispersions <100 km s1 is studied. Because of this
discrepancy, the applied KS test fails: Q 106 (against the HG82)
and Q 106 (against the UZC-SSRS2). Even though the KS test
fails, the low-resolution simulation is within 3 from the HG82.
When the high-resolution simulation is considered, we get roughly
the same number density of groups as in observations. However, the
high-resolution simulation lacks groups with velocity dispersions
>500 km s1. This can be explained by the small volume of the
high-resolution simulation. Even with this discrepancy, the applied
KS tests are approved with the significance levels of 0.02. When
observations (HG82 and UZC-SSRS2) are compared against each
other, the applied KS test is approved at level of 0.34. For detailed
significance levels of the KS tests, see Table 3.
5.3.2 Mass
Fig. 2 shows that the cosmological CDM model can produce
observable masses (equation 23) similar to observations when the
resolution effects of the simulations are considered. The low-resolution
simulation can produce the same number density of groups as in the
UZC-SSRS2 catalogue when massive [log (Group Mass M1) >
13.5] groups are considered. Both the UZC-SSRS2 catalogue and
the low-resolution mock catalogue has an excess of massive groups
if comparison is carried out against the HG82 catalogue. When less
massive groups [log (Group Mass M1) < 13.0] are studied, the
low-resolution simulation has a number density of groups which is
over 3 lower than in the UZC-SSRS2 catalogue. The resolution
effect is clearly visible in Fig. 2 when the high-resolution
simulation is studied, as it can produce about the right number
density of groups when less massive [log (Group Mass M1) < 13.0]
groups are considered. The high-resolution simulation is less than
1 away from the HG82 and within 2 from the UZC-SSRS2 even
when groups with log (Group Mass M1) < 11.0 are considered.
The applied KS test is approved (Q 0.58) only when the
highresolution simulation is compared to the HG82 catalogue. In all other
cases, the KS test fails. For numerical details of the KS test, see
Table 3.
As the observable mass of a group depends strongly on the
groups velocity dispersion (see equation 23), we made another
comparison between group abundances by mass. If we use the true
mass of a group instead of an observable mass, other differences
arise. There is no substantial difference between the plots of
observable and true mass when comparing the abundances of lighter
[log (Group Mass M1) < 14.0] groups. However, our simulations
do not produce a single group with a true mass >5 1014 h1 M .
The low- and the high-resolution = 0.73 simulations show the
same cut-off, thus the lack of massive groups is not a resolution
effect. However, the small volume of our simulation boxes explains
the lack of massive groups in simulations and the existence of groups
with large observed mass is due to projection effects, which are
not reliably taken into account in equation (23).
5.3.3 Size
The cosmological = 0.73 model can produce groups of haloes
which are similar in size to observed groups. Note, however, that
we do not compare our simulations to the UZC-SSRS2 catalogue,
as it does not contain the information about the pairwise separation
of groups. Our high-resolution simulation produces about the right
number density of groups when small [log (Rp) < 0.4] groups
are considered and the error is well within 1 . The high-resolution
simulation seems to produce an excess of groups, when intermediate
size (log (Rp) [0.3, 0.4]) groups are considered. However, as
the only comparison observation is the HG82 catalogue this excess
might not be as large as in Fig. 3, as other comparisons (Figs 1 and
2) show that the HG82 and the UZC-SSRS2 catalogues differ quite
significantly from each other.
When the low-resolution simulation is studied, we observe this
same excess when larger [log (Rp) > 0.1] groups are considered.
Because of these discrepancies, the applied KS test fails in both
cases, with Q 103 and Q 105 for the high- and the
lowresolution simulations, respectively. Even though the KS test fails,
the simulated mock catalogues of group abundances by mean
pairwise separation are mostly within 2 .
5.3.4 Crossing time
Fig. 4 shows that the cosmological = 0.73 model can produce
groups with crossing times similar to the HG82 observations. The
low-resolution simulation produces the number density of groups
with small crossing times, which is a lot lower than observed.
However, this discrepancy is due to limited resolution, as the
highresolution simulation produces a lot more groups with small crossing
times. The high-resolution simulation produces roughly the right
number density of groups when the crossing time of the group
is studied. Some differences are observed when larger [log (tc) >
0.6] crossing times are studied. Both simulations produce a higher
number density than observed. For low-resolution simulation, this
excess is not large as the number density is within 2 . Because of
the discrepancies visible in Fig. 4, the applied KS test fails in both
cases. For numerical details, see Table 3. When more recent values
of the Schechter luminosity function are adopted, somewhat lower
crossing times are observed in general. However, more recent values
of the Schechter luminosity function do not give a better agreement,
and the KS test fails. The significance levels of the KS tests are
104 and 105, respectively.
Our simulations with the FOF algorithm do not (with a few
exceptions) contain groups with crossing time larger than one Hubble
time. For the high-resolution simulation, the median value of the
crossing time is 0.14H01. The median value of the crossing time
for the HG82 catalogue and for the low-resolution simulation is
0.19H01. Small crossing times suggest that groups of galaxies have
had time to virialize and these groups should be gravitationally
bound (see e.g. Gott & Turner 1977; Tucker et al. 2000; Aceves &
Velazquez 2002; Plionis, Basilakos & Ragone-Figueroa 2006). We
studied the correlation between crossing time and virial ratio, and
did not find any significant relation between these two variables. The
linear correlation coefficient of 0.01 suggests that there is no
correlation between crossing time and virial ratio, in the low-resolution
simulation when the apparent magnitude limit of 13.2 is adopted.
This correlation is not significant at level of 0.05 and P(r) 0.29.
There is no significant correlation between these two variables when
different values of , resolutions or the apparent magnitude limits
are adopted (see Table 2). The lack of correlation between virial ratio
and crossing time (see similar results in Diaferio et al. 1993) calls
into question the crossing time as an estimator of gravitationally
bound systems which is widely accepted in observations.
Table 3. Comparison of HG82, UZC-SSRS2 and simulations when the
apparent magnitude limit of 13.2 is adopted.
Note: specifies the value of the cosmological constant (H =
highresolution stimulation and L= low-resolution simulation), mlim is the
apparent magnitude limit of the search, r is the value of the linear correlation
coefficient, is the significance level and P(r) is the probability of observing
a value of the correlation coefficient greater than r.
5.3.5 Richness
The = 0.73 model can produce groups comparable to
observations when the number of members in a group is studied. The
abundance of rich groups is roughly the same in the low-resolution
simulation as in the observations. However, the low-resolution
simulation cannot produce as many poor groups as is observed. The lack
of poor (<4) and the excess of intermediate ( [6, 40]) groups are
the reason why the KS test fails (Q 105). The agreement is even
worse (Q 107) when more recent values of Schechter luminosity
function are adopted. These values ( = 1.15, M = 19.84, and
= 0.0172) produce a large number of poor groups and a lack of
rich groups. The difference between the low-resolution simulation
and observations is due to the limited resolution in the simulations.
When the high-resolution simulation is used, the agreement to
observations, especially to UZC-SSRS2, is better (Q 103).
5.3.6 Influence of dark energy
There are big differences between different cosmological models
when dynamical properties of groups of dark matter haloes are
studied. Fig. 5 shows the impact of dark energy on the formation of
galaxy groups. It is clear that the = 0.0 simulation over
produces groups with high-velocity dispersions. The excess is over 3
if the comparison is carried out to the HG82 catalogue. A smaller
discrepancy is observed when the comparison is carried out to the
UZC-SSRS2 catalogue. The small number density of small velocity
dispersion groups can be explained by the resolution effect which is
also visible in Fig. 1. Because of these discrepancies the KS tests
fails. When the = 0.90 simulation is studied, a qualitatively
better agreement is observed, especially when the comparison is
carried out to the HG82 catalogue. The great difference in the
number density of small velocity dispersion groups can be explained
by the resolution effect and the fact that the = 0.90 simulation
has relatively small number of groups. Because of the great
discrepancy in the number density of small velocity dispersion groups, the
applied KS test fails in both cases.
The = 0.0 cosmology produces more massive groups with
greater velocity dispersion than the CDM cosmology. Larger
number of massive groups can partially be explained by the somewhat
lower mass resolution in the = 0.0 simulation. However, the
excess of massive groups is most likely due to equation (23), which
we use to obtain the observable mass of a group, which depends
strongly on the velocity dispersion of the group. For numerical
details of KS tests, see Table 3.
HG82 versus UZC-SSRS2
Note: Significance levels of the KS test for the null hypothesis that
observations and the simulations (H = high resolution and L = low resolution)
are alike and are drawn from the same parent population (HG82 and
UZCSSRS2 columns). Significance levels of the KS test for the null hypothesis
that the HG82 and the UZC-SSRS2 group catalogue are alike and are
drawn from the same parent population (HG82 versus UZC-SSRS2 column).
5.3.7 Median values and other properties
The median values of the group properties are presented in Table 4.
In general, our simulations seem to produce groups which median
value of the velocity dispersion and the group mass is greater than
in observations. In simulations, groups have also a greater median
value for the mean pairwise separation than in the HG82 sample. The
= 0.73 simulations have the median value of velocity dispersions
which are close to observations, even though they are somewhat
higher. In general, median values of the group properties are in a
moderate agreement with the results of similar studies (e.g. Diaferio
et al. 1999; Casagrande & Diaferio 2006). Casagrande & Diaferio
(2006) found larger values for the median velocity dispersions and
group masses, but they considered only groups with >5 members,
which most likely makes the median values of groups somewhat
higher.
The fractions of isolated galaxies, binary galaxies and groups of
galaxies were also studied. If we compare our results with HG82,
a significant difference in the fraction of isolated galaxies is noted.
Comparison to the Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Database (LEDA)
(Giudice 1999) catalogue shows a better fit (for more details, see
Table 5). Tucker et al. (2000) listed a large fraction of galaxies in
groups from different group catalogues. These results and
comparisons are not shown in this paper due to the different magnitude
limits and grouping algorithms adopted in those observations. We
may state that, in general, simulations show similar results to
observations (excluding HG82), with regard to the fractions of groups,
binaries and isolated galaxies.
We also made an attempt to study discordant redshifts in compact
groups observed, for example, by Sulentic (1984) and Girardi et al.
(1992). This effect has been studied by several authors (see e.g. Byrd
& Valtonen 1985; Valtonen & Byrd 1986; Iovino & Hickson 1997)
who have come up with different explanations. According to these
authors, apparent discordant redshifts arise when groups are not
virialized and their central galaxies are incorrectly identified. Our
findings are not conclusive as we did not have any exact method to
identify which dark matter haloes might represent observable spiral
galaxies. We did not observe any significant asymmetry in the radial
velocities of the groups and neither this asymmetry was seen in the
= 0.00
178/307/403
13.6/14.0/14.4
0.85/1.38/1.57
0.09/0.14/0.25
= 0.73H
135/180/295
12.7/13.2/13.5
0.81/1.21/1.47
0.07/0.14/0.19
= 0.73L
103/160/298
12.8/13.6/14.0
0.80/0.99/1.24
0.10/0.19/0.27
= 0.90
124/209/271
12.7/13.1/13.5
0.72/1.01/1.20
0.09/0.17/0.23
60/135/155
12.0/12.4/13.2
0.44/0.54/1.00
0.10/0.19/0.27
Source mlim
Simu 13.2
Simu 20.0
HG82 13.2
LEDA 14.0
Groups (per cent) Binaries (per cent) Isolated (per cent)
Note: Source refers to the sample (Simu = the low-resolution = 0.73
simulation), mlim is the apparent magnitude limit [in mB(0) except for LEDA
in BT0 ], Groups (per cent) is the fraction of galaxies in the groups, Binaries
(per cent) is the fraction of galaxies forming double systems and Isolated
(per cent) is the fraction of galaxies which are not classified into any group
or double system. Poisson error limits have been calculated for the samples.
groups, which were misidentified (so that the brightest member is
not the dominant member). No significant difference for the radial
velocity asymmetry was discovered between bound and unbound
groups.
6 G R AV I TAT I O N A L LY B O U N D G R O U P S
Gravitationally bound groups are determined by using the criterion
(virial ratio, equation 15) presented in Section 3. This method of
computing the gravitational potential well of a group does assume
that the group is isolated. This is not strictly true as each group is
embedded in the large-scale matter distribution, which might have
an effect to the threshold 1.0 of the virial ration T/U. However, we
believe this effect to be negligible in a statistical study like ours.
Our study shows that 20 per cent of groups generated by the FOF
algorithm are not gravitationally bound when the = 0.73 model
is adopted. This result is in agreement with Diaferio et al. (1994),
who derived a similar result for the compact groups of galaxies. If
we vary the apparent magnitude limit of the search from the original
13.220.0, even more groups (37 per cent) are unbound. This is
not a negligible fraction considering that one widely accepted and
applied method of calculating a group mass, from observations, is
based on the assumption that groups found by the FOF algorithm
are, in general, gravitationally bound systems.
If we vary the value of the cosmological constant from the original
0.730.90, a slightly larger fraction of groups seems to be unbound
when the apparent magnitude limit of 13.2 is adopted. This result is
intuitively reasonable. If the negative vacuum pressure of space is
larger, gravitational force becomes weaker and a smaller number
of dark matter haloes are formed and fewer groups are
gravitationally bound objects. How does the fraction of gravitationally unbound
groups change, when the negative vacuum pressure of space is
lowered? If the value of the cosmological constant is put to 0.0, about
the same fraction of groups (with mlim = 13.2) are spurious as in
the = 0.90 cosmology. When the apparent magnitude limit is
Table 6. Fractions of gravitationally bound groups of dark matter haloes
when different cosmological models and apparent magnitude limits have
been adopted.
fbound (per cent)
Nisolated (per cent)
Note: specifies the value of the cosmological constant (H =
highresolution stimulation and L= low-resolution simulation), mlim is the
apparent magnitude limit of the search, Ngroups is the number of groups
found from 10 observation points, fbound is the fraction of gravitationally
bound groups and Nisolated is the percentage of the isolated haloes which do
not belong to any group or binary system.
changed to 20.0, 37 per cent of the groups are spurious (for details,
see Table 6).
In the low-resolution = 0.73 simulation, the fraction of
gravitationally bound groups rises from 81.1 to 81.7 per cent, when more
recent values of the Schechter luminosity function are adopted.
Meanwhile the total number of groups decreases 10.0 per cent.
The fraction of gravitationally bound groups rises from 81.1 to 82.8
per cent, when the values of the free parameters of D0 = 0.37 Mpc
and V0 = 200 km s1 are adopted. This result agrees with Frederic
(1995a,b) who obtained similar result while studying group
accuracy as a function of D0 and V0. Frederic (1995a,b) showed that
smaller values of D0 and V0 produce groups with greater accuracy
and these groups should be gravitationally bound.
Adopting the values of D0 = 0.37 Mpc and V0 = 200 km s1
have a significant effect to the total number of groups found from
the simulations. The low-resolution = 0.73 simulation produces,
in all, 1168 groups of dark matter haloes, when the original values
(D0 = 0.63 Mpc and V0 = 400 km s1) of the free parameters are
adopted. When D0 = 0.37 Mpc and V0 = 200 km s1 are adopted,
the total number of groups found from the low-resolution simulation
drops to 661 while the fraction of isolated haloes rises from 42.2
to 64.9 per cent. Also, the group abundances change significantly
as the richest group found from the low-resolution simulation with
D0 = 0.37 Mpc and V0 = 200 km s1 has only 15 members. These
results are due to the fact that the limiting density enhancement of
the search is inversely proportional to D3.
0
Our study shows that the = 0.0 model produces about the same
fraction of bound groups as the = 0.90 model, when the apparent
magnitude limit is 13.2. However, the = 0.73 model produces
more gravitationally bound systems than the two other models we
study when the original apparent magnitude limit is adopted. If the
apparent magnitude limit is changed to 20.0, the = 0.0 model
Figure 6. Virial ratio (TU1) versus the number of members in a group
(Richness). Groups with more than 10 members are more often bound
than poor groups with three to five members. The data are from the
lowresolution = 0.73 simulation when the apparent magnitude limit of 13.2
has been adopted.
Nhaloes
Ngroups
fbound (per cent)
Note: mlim is the apparent magnitude limit of a sample, Nhaloes is the
number of haloes in a group, Ngroups is the number of groups found from
10 observation points with appropriate number of haloes and fbound is the
fraction of gravitationally bound groups.
produces a slightly larger fraction of gravitationally bound groups
than the = 0.73 or the 0.90 simulations (for details, see Table 6).
The use of the apparent magnitude limit of 20.0 means simply that
every single dark matter halo in a simulation box is visible at the
observation point. This result is not without bias as the simulation
box is of finite size and the edge effects might become significant,
even using the periodic boundary conditions in the simulations.
The calculation that determines whether a group is bound is based
on three parameters: the total mass of the group, the relative velocity
of the group members and the physical size of the group. In the
following, we will study how sensitive the result is on the values
of these parameters. But first we will study the virial ratio as a
function of the number of members in the group. Fig. 6 shows the
virial ratio T/U as a function of the number of haloes in the group,
namely richness. The data come from the low-resolution = 0.73
simulation with mlim = 13.2. There are, in all, 1168 groups of haloes
seen from 10 different observation points. The fractions of bound
poor and rich groups are shown in Table 7.
From Fig. 6, we see that groups with more than 10 members
are most likely gravitationally bound and groups with three to five
members are quite often unbound. Ramella et al. (1997) argues that
among groups with three members, 5075 per cent of groups are
spurious. They also conclude that for groups with more than three
members the fraction of spurious groups is less than 30 per cent
and may be as small as 10 per cent. Our findings are similar, and
Figure 7. Virial ratio (TU1) versus the velocity dispersion (v) of a group
(in km s1). The rms straight line has been fitted to the data. The data are
from the low-resolution = 0.73 simulation when the apparent magnitude
limit of 13.2 has been adopted.
the fraction of bound groups with four or more members is about
as high as Ramella et al. (1997) suggested. Ramella et al. (2002)
find that for groups with five or more members at least 80 per cent
of the groups are probably physical systems, but that 40
80 per cent of the groups with five or more members are bound
groups. Our findings confirm the latter result. However, these
results cannot be directly compared with ours, as slightly different
values of the free parameters are adopted for the FOF algorithm.
Even though the free parameters of the FOF seem to have only a
small effect to the fraction of spurious groups in our study.
Our findings for the = 0.73 cosmology are similar to Ramella
et al. (1997) for poor (three or four members) groups, as can be seen
in Fig. 6 and Table 7. However, our findings do not confirm the claim
by Ramella et al. (1997) that among groups with three members,
5075 per cent of groups are spurious as we find only 23 per cent
of groups with three members to be gravitationally unbound with
mlim = 13.2. For the apparent magnitude-limited sample (mlim = 13.2
comparable to HG82), we found 21 per cent of the groups with
three or four haloes to be spurious. Rich groups with five or more
members are more often gravitationally bound than poor groups,
but the difference is relatively small at the apparent magnitude limit
of 13.2 as for rich groups, we found 15 per cent of the groups to be
spurious. This is close to the upper limit proposed by Ramella et al.
(1997, 2002). More details of our findings with different abundances
and apparent magnitude limits are listed in Table 7.
In Fig. 7, the virial ratio is plotted as a function of the velocity
dispersion v of the group. The plot shows a weak correlation in
the sense that groups with large velocity dispersion are more often
gravitationally unbound than groups with small velocity dispersion.
The linear correlation coefficient of 0.17 suggests that the correlation
in Fig. 7 is weak. However, the correlation is significant at level of
0.001 and P(r) 108. The rms line plotted in Figs 711 is of the
form UT vb or UT N (haloes)b. The value of the parameter b of
the rms line in Fig. 7 is b = 0.10 0.04.
The weak trends are clearer if we scale the abscissa in both Figs 6
and 7 with the total mass of the group. Note that we use here the
true mass of a group rather than the observable mass. Results
are shown in Figs 8 and 9. More significant trends are now seen
in both figures, even though the data are still scattered. The linear
correlation coefficient of 0.32 suggests that a significant correlation
exists between the number of haloes and the virial ratio when the
first is scaled with the total mass of the group. The correlation in
Fig. 8 is significant at level of 0.001 and P(r) < 1025. The slope of
the rms line in Fig. 8 is b = 0.82 0.03.
Fig. 9 shows a strong trend, even though the data are still quite
scattered. The linear correlation coefficient of 0.40 suggests that the
correlation between the velocity dispersion of a group and the virial
ratio of a group is quite strong. The correlation in Fig. 9 is significant
at level of 0.001 and P(r) < 1025. The slope with standard errors
of the rms line is now b = 0.90 0.03.
When the apparent magnitude limit is changed to 20.0, the trends
of Figs 8 and 9 become stronger and the asymptotic standard
errors for the rms lines become much smaller. The linear correlation
coefficient of 0.62 shows that the correlation between the velocity
dispersion of a group, and the virial ratio, is strong when the
apparent magnitude limit of 20.0 is adopted. This correlation is significant
at level of 0.001 and P(r) < 1025. What might be surprising is that
changing the cosmological model, i.e. the value of the cosmological
constant , does not have a substantial influence on Figs 9 and 10.
The number of groups found from different simulations varies a lot
as a function of but the fraction of gravitationally bound groups
do not (see Table 6). For comparison with Figs 8 and 9, we show
results from the = 0.0 simulation in Figs 10 and 11. In these
figures, the apparent magnitude limit of 20.0 has been adopted.
OthFigure 11. Virial ratio (TU1) versus the velocity dispersion (v) of a group
(in km s1) when the latter has been scaled with the total mass of a group
(Mgr1oup in h1 M ), and = 0.0 and mlim = 20.0 has been adopted.
Straight line is a rms fit to the data.
erwise, Figs 10 and 11 are comparable to Figs 8 and 9. The linear
correlation coefficient in Figs 10 and 11 is: 0.32 and 0.65,
respectively. Both of the correlations are significant at a level of 0.001
and P(r) < 1025 for both samples. The asymptotic standard errors
for the rms lines in Figs 10 and 11 are small: b = 0.83 0.02 and
0.91 0.01, respectively.
7 D I S C U S S I O N
7.1 Probability functions of unbound groups
In this section, we briefly discuss a method, which gives a theoretical
probability of a group being gravitationally unbound. The mass of
the groups is assumed to be known. In observations, estimations of
group masses are less than precise at best, therefore the applicability
of this method to observational data is merely hypothetical. The
observable quantities we study are the velocity dispersion divided by
the group mass vMgr1oup and the mean pairwise separation divided
by the group mass RP Mgr1oup.
To calculate the probability functions for the groups, the first
step is to choose an appropriate bin length (generally between 0.15
and 0.30) in the logarithm of the observable quantity. Then, one
calculates the number of groups and the number of gravitationally
Figure 12. Unbound probability [P(TU1 > 1.0)] versus velocity dispersion
[v] of a group when the = 0.73 model, the apparent magnitude limit
of 20.0, and a bin length of 0.2 are adopted. vMgr1oup is in units of km s1
(1012 h1 M )1.
Figure 13. Unbound probability [P(TU1 > 1.0)] versus mean pairwise
separation (Rp) when the = 0.73 model, the apparent magnitude limit
of 20.0, and a bin length of 0.25 are adopted. RpMgr1oup is in units of Mpc
(1015 h1 M )1.
bound groups in each bin and divides the number of unbound groups
with the total number of groups in the bin. The logarithmic scale is
chosen in order to lower the dispersion of the data and to assure a
large enough number of groups in every bin.
The probability functions for the velocity dispersion v and the
mean pairwise separation Rp, normalized to the group mass, are
shown in Figs 12 and 13. Fig. 12 shows that at values larger than
1.8 (the horizontal dotted line in Fig. 12) it is more probable that the
groups are gravitationally unbound when the = 0.73 model is
adopted. The same result can also be inferred from Fig. 9, but with
lower confidence.
The = 0.0 simulation gives a probability function which is
comparable to the probability function of the = 0.73 model.
It shows a similar linear growth as the probability function of the
= 0.73 model. However, the function is shifted along the
horizontal axis. This shifting originates from the variation of the group
masses and velocity dispersions (see Fig. 5). The change of the
apparent magnitude limit does not have any significant effect on
Fig. 12. When the apparent magnitude limit of 13.2 is adopted, a
smaller number of haloes and groups are observed, which enlarges
the variations between bins and gives a worse fit to a straight line.
The quantity vMgr1oup, studied in Fig. 12, has a loose connection
to the kinetic energy T. This connection explains the fact that the
lower normalized values of the quantity vMgr1oup give
gravitationally bound groups with a higher probability, and larger normalized
values, loosely meaning the larger kinetic energies, give unbound
groups with a higher probability.
The probability function of the mean pairwise separation (Fig. 13)
shows a similar linear growth as the probability function of the
velocity dispersion in Fig. 12. The variation from bin to bin is somewhat
larger in the probability function of the mean pairwise separation
due to the fact that the mean pairwise separation is not strictly the
size of the group but it includes projection effects. The quantity
Rp Mgr1oup, studied in Fig. 13, is inversely proportional to the
potential energy U if the mean pairwise separation is identified as
the real size of a group. The difference between Figs 12 and 13 is
understandable, as the velocity dispersion and the mean pairwise
separation are not strictly connected to each other, although some
loose relation exists as the equation of the mean pairwise separation
includes the mean group radial velocity.
The = 0.90 simulation shows similar probability functions as
the = 0.0 and 0.73 simulations. Figs 12 and 13 show that the
does not have any significant effect for the fraction of
gravitationally unbound groups. This result can also be inferred from Table 6.
The small effect is hardly surprising as the theoretical studies (see
e.g. Lahav et al. 1991) have predicted that the has little effect
on the dynamics at the present epoch.
8 C O N C L U S I O N S
We have shown that the CDM cosmology can produce groups of
dark matter haloes comparable to observations of groups of galaxies
when the FOF algorithm based on that of Huchra & Geller (1982)
is adopted and the dynamical properties of groups are studied. Our
groups from cosmological simulations are, in general, in a moderate
agreement with observations, although a straight KS test fails in
most cases. Our = 0.73 simulations are in satisfactory
agreement with observations as the number densities of group properties
are usually within 2 errors, or less, from the HG82 and the
UZCSSRS2 group abundances. The agreement between simulations and
observations is good when the velocity dispersion and the
observable mass of groups are considered. In these cases, the applied KS
test is approved when the high-resolution = 0.73 simulation is
considered. The moderate agreement between simulations and
observational data suggests that gravitational force alone is sufficient
in order to explain the dynamical properties of groups of galaxies.
We have also shown that, in general, about 20 per cent of the
groups of haloes generated with the algorithm presented in the HG82
are not gravitationally bound objects. The fraction of
gravitationally bound groups of dark matter haloes varies with different values
of the apparent magnitude limits. When the apparent magnitude
limit is raised from the original 13.220.0, a larger number of
spurious groups are found. The larger fraction of unbound groups with
mlim = 20.0 could be explained by the fact that more interlopers
are included into groups, when the apparent magnitude limit is
increased. However, this analysis is beyond the scope of this study.
In general, a larger number of rich groups are found when the
apparent magnitude limit is lowered. This originates from the fact that
more light haloes at close proximity to more massive haloes become
visible and those light haloes are included into the groups. When
the magnitude limit is raised from the original value of 13.212.0, a
slightly larger fraction of the groups are found to be gravitationally
bound. In general, fewer groups (in absolutely number) are found
and these groups are poorer.
Small differences are found when the fractions of
gravitationally bound poor and rich groups are studied. Rich groups with
more than four members are more often gravitationally bound than
poorer groups. This result agrees with previous ones (e.g. Ramella
et al. 2002). Our results do not confirm the claim by Ramella et al.
(1997) who argued that 5075 per cent of groups with three
members are spurious. Our results show that 77 per cent of groups
containing only three members are gravitationally bound when the
apparent magnitude limit of 13.2 is adopted.
When the value of the cosmological constant is varied, the
fractions of unbound groups change only slightly. This is somewhat
surprising as it would be intuitively expected that a larger value
of the dark energy would lead to a greater number of groups that
are not gravitationally bound. Some variation is observed when the
fraction of gravitationally bound groups is studied as a function of
the cosmological constant, but, in general, a significant number of
groups remains unbound in all cases of .
When the values of the free parameters of the FOF algorithm are
varied, the fraction of gravitationally bound groups can be raised
from 81 to 83 per cent. A greater difference is observed when
the fraction of isolated haloes is studied. Varying the values of D0 and
V0 makes a great difference, raising the fraction of isolated haloes
from 42 to 65 per cent. In general, we do not find any significant
difference in the fractions of gravitationally bound groups when
different values of D0 and V0 or parameters of the Schechter luminosity
function are adopted.
In observations, the crossing time of a group is often taken as
an indicator of the virialization. We do not find any correlation
between the virial ratio and the crossing time of a group. This result
does not depend on the chosen value of the apparent magnitude
limit of the search, or the cosmological model adopted. The lack of
the correlation between these two variables calls into question the
crossing time as an estimator of the virialization.
This work is part of the masters thesis of SMN at the University of
Turku. SMN acknowledges the funding by the Finlands Academy
of Sciences and Letters. SMN would like to thank Dr. Alexander
Knebe for his cosmological N-body simulation code AMIGA,
professor Gene Byrd for helpful suggestions and the referee, Antonaldo
Diaferio, for a number of invaluable corrections and suggestions.
The cosmological simulations were run at the CSC - Finnish IT
centre for science.