1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \newcommand{\kms}{\mathrm{\;km\;s$^{-1}$}}
5: \newcommand{\tsc}{\textsc}
6: \newcommand{\rhalf}{$r_{1/2}$\,}
7: \newcommand{\Rhalf}{${\mathrm{R}}_{1/2}$\,}
8: \newcommand{\rhalfstar}{$r^{*}_{1/2}$\,}
9: \newcommand{\Rc}{R\,}
10: \newcommand{\mtot}{M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$\,}
11: \newcommand{\mtotL}{M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$/L\,\,}
12: \newcommand{\rhalfRc}{($r_{1/2}, {\rm{R}}$)\,}
13: \newcommand{\RhalfRc}{(${\mathrm{R}}_{1/2}, {\rm{R}}$)\,}
14: \newcommand{\coma}{\textsc{coma}\,}
15: \newcommand{\virgo}{\textsc{virgo}\,}
16: \newcommand{\n}{\textsc{n}}
17: \newcommand{\snap}{\textsc{snap}}
18: \newcommand{\dune}{\textsc{dune}}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: \bibliographystyle{apj}
22:
23: \title{Probing the truncation of galaxy dark matter halos in high density environments
24: from hydrodynamical N-body simulations}
25:
26: \author{
27: Marceau Limousin \altaffilmark{1},
28: Jesper Sommer-Larsen \altaffilmark{1},
29: Priyamvada Natarajan \altaffilmark{2,3} \&
30: Bo Milvang-Jensen \altaffilmark{1}
31: }
32:
33: \altaffiltext{1}{Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute,
34: University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen,
35: Denmark; marceau@dark-cosmology.dk} \altaffiltext{2}{Astronomy
36: Department, Yale University, P.O. Box 208101, New Haven, CT
37: 06520-8101, USA} \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, Yale
38: University, P.O. Box 208101, New Haven, CT 06520-8101, USA}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We analyze high resolution, N-body hydrodynamical simulations of
42: fiducial galaxy clusters to probe tidal stripping of the dark matter
43: subhalos. These simulations include a prescription for star formation
44: allowing us to track the fate of the stellar component as well. We
45: investigate the effect of tidal stripping on cluster galaxies hosted
46: in these dark matter subhalos as a function of projected cluster-centric radius.
47: To quantify the extent of the dark matter halos of cluster galaxies, we introduce the
48: half mass radius \rhalf as a diagnostic, and study its evolution with
49: projected cluster-centric distance \Rc as a function of redshift. We
50: find a well defined trend for \rhalfRc : the closer the galaxies are
51: to the center of the cluster, the smaller the half mass
52: radius. Interestingly, this trend is inferred in \emph{all} redshift
53: frames examined in this work ranging from $z$\,=\,0 to $z$\,=\,0.7.
54: At $z$\,=\,0, galaxy halos in the central regions of clusters are
55: found to be highly truncated, with the most compact half mass radius
56: of 10\,kpc. We also find that \rhalf depends on luminosity and we
57: present scaling relations of \rhalf with galaxy luminosity. The
58: corresponding total mass of the cluster galaxies is also found to
59: increase with projected cluster-centric distance and luminosity, but
60: with more scatter than the \rhalfRc trend. Comparing the distribution
61: of stellar mass to total mass for cluster galaxies, we find that the
62: dark matter component is preferentially stripped, whereas the stellar
63: component is much less affected by tidal forces.
64: We compare these results with galaxy-galaxy lensing probes
65: of \rhalf and find qualitative agreement. Future surveys with space
66: based telescopes such as \textsc{dune} and \snap, that combine wide
67: field and high resolution imaging, will be able to probe the predicted
68: \rhalfRc relation observationally.
69: \end{abstract}
70: \keywords{galaxies: dark matter halos -- numerical simulations: N-body, hydrodynamical}
71:
72: \section{Introduction}
73:
74: The dependence of galaxy properties on environment is well established
75: \citep[see, \emph{e.g.}][]{adami98,lanzoni,bosellireview,delucia}.
76: One of the most extreme environments for galaxies is inside a massive
77: galaxy cluster, where active, strong tidal forces are exerted by the
78: global cluster potential. The theoretical expectation is that the global
79: tidal field of a massive, dense cluster potential is strong
80: enough to truncate the dark matter halos of galaxies that traverse the
81: cluster core. Early work
82: \citep[\emph{e.g.}][]{merritt83,richstone84,merritt84} found that
83: a large fraction of the mass initially attached to galaxies in the
84: central Mpc is stripped.
85: \citet{avila99,bullock,avila05} found that halos in dense environments
86: are more truncated and more compact than their isolated counterparts
87: of the same luminosity. On galaxy scales, using dark matter only
88: simulations, \citet{diemand07} have studied the evolution of subhalos
89: in the Via Lactea host halo, and find that tidal forces remove subhalo
90: mass from the outside in, which leads to higher concentrations for
91: subhalos located in the inner regions compared to field halos of the
92: same mass. Detailed studies of the evolution of subhalos
93: in clusters in dark matter only simulations have been performed
94: by \citet[][hereafter G98]{ghigna98} and \citet{DeLucia04}.
95: G98 find that the dominant interactions in cluster environments
96: are between the global cluster tidal field and individual galaxies after
97: $z$\,=\,2, and that the cluster tidal field significantly strips galaxy
98: halos. Moreover, both numerical simulations (G98) and
99: analytical calculations \citep{mamon00} predict that the tidal radius
100: of a given galaxy depends on its cluster-centric distance. As a
101: consequence, the closer to the center the galaxies are, the stronger
102: are the tidal forces they will experience, resulting in more compact
103: subhalos. G98 probed the characteristic extent of
104: galaxy subhalos with cluster-centric distance, at $z$\,=\,0
105: and $z$\,=\,0.5. Considering the three
106: dimensional cluster-centric distance, they find that subhalo extents
107: decreases towards the cluster center, but this trend was weak and
108: therefore hard to detect at $z$\,=\,0.5. They argue that this is due to
109: the fact that at $z$\,=\,0.5, the cluster has quite an anisotropic mass
110: distribution and tides are efficient only at its very center. When
111: considering the \emph{projected} cluster-centric distance, this trend
112: does not totally disappear but becomes marginal, suggesting that
113: subhalo extents do not strongly depend on present day projected
114: cluster-centric distances.
115:
116: From an observational point of view, gravitational lensing seems the
117: only currently viable method to probe the extent of dark matter
118: subhalos in clusters, and this statement is specially true for cluster
119: galaxies. In
120: the case of field galaxies, satellite dynamics can be used as well
121: \citep[\emph{e.g.}][]{prada} and gives results consistent with current
122: galaxy-galaxy lensing studies. The deflection caused by galaxy scale
123: mass concentrations is small (quantified by a shear $\gamma \sim
124: 0.01$) and thus is challenging to detect. However, galaxy-galaxy
125: lensing studies in clusters have been performed
126: \citep{Priya1,geigeramas,Priya2,Priya3,mypaperII} where
127: this shear signal is boosted by the smoothly distributed large scale dark
128: matter distribution.
129: These studies have successfully statistically
130: detected the weak lensing signal generated by cluster galaxies
131: \citep[see also recent work by][]{aleksi}.
132: These analyses have provided evidence for truncation of
133: galaxy dark matter halos in high density environments. The inferred
134: typical half mass radius was found to be typically more compact than 50\,kpc,
135: whereas half mass radii larger than 200\,kpc are derived for field galaxies of
136: equivalent luminosity \citep{fischer,mckay,hoekstra03,hoekstra04}.
137: Moreover, when using the \textsc{nfw} \citep{nfw} profile, concentration
138: parameters greater than 20 were inferred \citep{moriond} for some clusters.
139: These results are in qualitative agreement with the tidal striping
140: scenario. Recently, using a large \tsc{hst} mosaic covering up to
141: 5\,Mpc from the center of galaxy cluster Cl0024 at $z$\,=\,0.39, Natarajan
142: et~al. (2008) were able to probe the galaxy population in three radial
143: bins and inferred a larger extent for the halos of galaxies living in
144: the outskirts of the cluster (i.e. at a cluster-centric distance
145: between 3 and 5 Mpc) compared to the galaxies living in the core of the
146: cluster (here between 0 and 3 Mpc).
147:
148: In this paper, we want to investigate how tidal forces shape the fate
149: of galaxy dark matter halos, and in particular, we focus on the
150: \emph{extent} of cluster galaxy dark matter halos and probe its
151: evolution with cluster-centric distance and redshift. We analyze
152: N-body hydrodynamical simulations of two fiducial galaxy
153: clusters that contain not only dark matter particles but also stars
154: and gas particles that interact through many physical processes. In
155: order to make predictions for future surveys that will constrain the
156: extent of the halos as a function of cluster-centric distance, we
157: consider the \emph{projected} cluster-centric distances since this is
158: what can be probed observationally. The extent of subhalos is
159: quantified by the half mass radius \rhalf since it is directly
160: comparable to the characteristic extent probed via galaxy-galaxy
161: lensing studies.
162: %Moreover, as we show, \rhalf is a good proxy for the
163: %tidal radius $r_t$ of a galaxy.
164:
165: This paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we discuss the
166: properties of the two simulated clusters studied here. In Section 3,
167: we investigate how the half mass radius \rhalf and the total mass
168: \mtot evolve with cluster-centric distance, for different assembly
169: stages (redshift frames) in these simulations. In Section 4, we
170: investigate how \rhalf and \mtot evolve with luminosity. We fit
171: scaling relations for \rhalf, \mtot and the luminosity, and present
172: total mass to light ratios. In
173: Section 5, we investigate the ratio of the total to the stellar mass
174: and its evolution with cluster-centric distance and redshift. In
175: Section 6, we compare galaxy-galaxy lensing results to our theoretical
176: predictions, and finally we present our conclusions in Section 7. All
177: our results in this paper are scaled to the flat, low matter density
178: $\Lambda$\tsc{cdm} cosmology with $\Omega_{\mathrm{M}} = 0.3, \, \Omega_\Lambda =
179: 0.7$ and a Hubble constant ${\mathrm{H}}_0 = 70$ km\,s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
180:
181: \section{Simulations of our fiducial clusters}
182:
183: \subsection{Cluster Properties}
184: N-body hydrodynamical (\tsc{treesph}) simulations of the
185: formation and evolution of two galaxy clusters in a $\Lambda$\tsc{cdm} cosmology
186: have been performed. The simulations include metallicity-dependent
187: radiative cooling, star formation according to different initial mass
188: functions, energy feedback as strong starburst-driven galactic
189: superwinds, chemical evolution with non-instantaneous recycling of gas
190: and heavy elements, effects of a metagalactic ultraviolet field and
191: thermal conduction in the intracluster medium. For full details on
192: these simulations and for a comparison of the properties of the
193: simulated clusters to observations, we refer the reader to a series
194: of three papers: \citet{romeo1,romeo2,romeo3}, hereafter \textsc{rsl}.
195:
196: The main difference between the two simulated clusters is their
197: temperature (or equivalently their mass) and the numerical
198: resolution. The more massive cluster is a 6\,keV cluster, that we will
199: hereafter refer to as \tsc{coma}. At $z$\,=\,0, its virial radius is
200: equal to 2.9\,Mpc, and the corresponding virial mass is equal to
201: 1.3\,$\times$\,10$^{15}$\,M$_{\sun}$. The second cluster is a 3.1\,keV
202: cluster that we will refer to as \tsc{virgo}. At $z$\,=0\,, its
203: virial radius is equal to 1.8\,Mpc, and the corresponding virial mass
204: is equal to 2.8\,$\times$\,10$^{14}$\,M$_{\sun}$. The particle mass in
205: \virgo is 8 times lower than the one used to simulate \coma. Thus the
206: \virgo simulation is a higher resolution one and we are able to
207: resolve smaller galaxies. On the other hand, since \coma is a more
208: massive cluster, more massive galaxies than in \virgo will form.
209:
210: The highest redshift frame we analyze is $z$\,=\,0.7. At this
211: redshift, both clusters are virialized and there is a clear dominant
212: cluster halo. At higher redshifts, the clusters are not well defined
213: (no clear dominant halo) and are still under construction with major
214: merger events. However, for any redshift slice, \coma is less relaxed
215: than \virgo. In the case of \coma at $z$\,=\,0.7, simulations reveal
216: some infalling galaxies, whereas that is not the case in \virgo. This
217: difference in dynamical states can be quantified by the redshift of
218: the last major merger event: for \coma, the last merger event occurs
219: at around $z$\,=\,0.8, whereas it is at around $z$\,=\,1.5 for
220: \virgo. This means that \coma is dynamically younger than \virgo, and,
221: as we will see, the \virgo galaxy population is more relaxed, with
222: less scatter in the relations we study in this work. Due to the
223: difference in dynamical states between the two simulated clusters, it
224: is not easy to directly compare their respective properties, in the
225: sense that \coma is not simply a rescaling of \virgo at a higher
226: temperature.
227: Pictures and movies of the simulated clusters can be found at
228: http://www.tac.dk/~jslarsen/Clusters/
229:
230: \subsection{Extracting subhalos from the simulated clusters}
231:
232: The first step of our analysis is to extract substructures from the
233: simulated cluster in order to get a catalog of cluster galaxies. This
234: procedure is detailed in \textsc{rsl} and summarized below.
235: In order to ascertain that we identify all galaxies, and hence sub-halos,
236: in the main cluster halo the following approach was adopted. A cubic grid
237: of cube-length $\Delta l$=10 kpc is overlaid the cluster, and all cubes
238: containing at least $N_{\rm{th}}$=2 star particles are identified.
239: Subsequently, each selected cube is embedded in a larger cube of cube-length 3$\Delta l$.
240: If this larger cube contains at least $N_{\rm{min}}$=7 star particles, which are
241: gravitationally bound by its content of gas, stars and dark matter the system is
242: identified as a potential galaxy. Since the method can return several, almost identical
243: versions of the same galaxy only the one containing the largest number of star particles
244: is kept and classified as a galaxy. We tested the galaxy identification algorithm by
245: varying $\Delta l$, $N_{\rm{th}}$, $N_{\rm{min}}$, and also the numerical resolution,
246: and found it to be adequately robust for the purposes of this paper.
247: %The resulting
248: %galaxy stellar mass resolution is 2.5~10$^9$ $M_{\odot}$ for the \coma simulation
249: %and 3.1~10$^8$ $M_{\odot}$ for the \virgo simulation.
250:
251: \subsection{Subhalos Properties}
252: Once the subhalos have been
253: identified, galaxy half mass radii, \rhalf, and total masses, \mtot,
254: were determined by an iterative approach, described below. For a given
255: galaxy the density of the smooth cluster "background" of dark matter
256: and hot, intra-cluster gas at the position of the galaxy is
257: determined. This is done by calculating the average total density in 5
258: kpc thick shells of radii from $r_s$ to 1.5\,$r_s$. The "search
259: radius", $r_s$, is initially set to 4\,$r_t$, where $r_t$, is the
260: tidal radius of the galaxy at its position in the cluster defined by \citep{binney}:
261: \begin{equation}
262: r_t \,\, = r_p \,\, \left( \frac{m}{3\,M} \right)^{1/3}
263: \label{rtequ1}
264: \end{equation}
265:
266: All shells containing other substructures, i.e., galaxies and/or dark
267: matter halos, are subsequently removed using a background density
268: fluctuation criterion, and finally the background density is
269: determined from the remaining shells. Second, the cumulative mass of
270: the galaxy, including its dark matter halo (above the background
271: density) is determined in 2.5 kpc thick shells, going from inside and
272: out, until a shell is reached of density equal to or less than that of
273: the background. Using the cumulative mass distribution, the half mass
274: radius \rhalf, is subsequently determined by linear interpolation.
275: Third, the search radius is set to 4\,\rhalf, and the above procedure
276: is redone. This is done repeatedly until convergence. Tests with
277: different parameter values show the above procedure to be an efficient and
278: robust way for determining half mass radii and total masses of cluster galaxies.
279:
280: By construction, \rhalf is the radius within which the 3D mass of the
281: simulated galaxies equals half of the total mass. We will refer to
282: this quantity as being the 3D half mass radius. We also pursue a 2D
283: analysis. In particular, we
284: looked at \Rhalf, the radius within which the 2D mass equals half of
285: the total mass, as described below. Once we know the 3D region
286: (assumed spherical) where a given galaxy is confined and contained, we
287: projected the excess mass density in this region (above the cluster
288: mean density) onto the plane along the three cardinal directions, and
289: averaged over the results. This gives us a robust estimate of the 2D
290: projected mass, that we use to calculate \Rhalf. We will refer to
291: this quantity as the 2D half mass radius. We will compare these
292: quantities in Section 3. However, when looking at possible scalings of
293: the half mass radius with luminosity, we will use \rhalf only. The
294: quantity \rhalf is robust as it is easily calculated and well defined
295: for most popularly used mass models. Moreover, \rhalf is not the result
296: of an average of projected quantities, thus in principle a less noisy
297: quantity than \Rhalf.
298:
299: There is a large scatter in the properties of the galaxies that form
300: in these cluster simulations. This scatter is mainly due to the
301: diverse orbital histories of galaxies. To consolidate results, we
302: define bins, in which we compute the median of the points as well as
303: the standard deviation $\sigma$. The error is defined as
304: $\sigma/\sqrt{\textsc{n}}$, where \textsc{n} is the number of objects
305: in a given bin. In the following, when needed, we fit a linear
306: function to the points corresponding to the galaxies, and not to the
307: binned data.
308:
309: \subsection{Projected cluster-centric distance}
310: Since observational probes are sensitive to \emph{projected}
311: cluster-centric distances, we project the 3D radial distance of
312: the galaxies with respect to the center of the cluster over the three
313: cardinal axes, and our cluster galaxy catalog is made by merging the
314: three catalogs corresponding to each projection. We thus artificially
315: increase the data by a factor of three. This is not unreasonable to do
316: since we can imagine that three different observers have been looking
317: at the cluster from the three cardinal axes and have merged their
318: corresponding data sets. This procedure is equivalent to observing
319: three different clusters in a similar dynamical state.
320: It is important at this point to make sure that the relation between
321: half mass radius and projected cluster-centric distance we aim to probe
322: does not depend on the adopted viewing angle and that we do not
323: introduce any systematics by merging catalogs corresponding to each
324: projection.
325: To this purpose, we have looked at the evolution of the half mass
326: radius with respect to the three different projections of the cluster-centric
327: distance. We find no bias. To illustrate this point, we show on
328: Fig.~\ref{3projections} the evolution of the half mass radius as a function
329: of the projected cluster-centric distances, considering the binned data and the
330: \virgo cluster.
331: We see that the relation does not depend on the adopted projected cluster-centric
332: distance. The same conclusion can be drawn when considering the unbinned data points.
333: Moreover, we reach similar conclusions in the case of the \coma cluster.
334: Also shown for comparison is the relation when merging the
335: data sets as done in the rest of the paper.
336: Note that looking at possible variations with viewing angle is interesting
337: from an observational perspective and suggests that projection effects
338: are not important for observational studies.
339:
340: \begin{figure}[h!]
341: \epsscale{1.0}
342: \plotone{f0.eps}
343: \caption{
344: median half-mass radii \rhalf as a function of projected cluster-centric distance
345: in \virgo.
346: This cluster-centric distance corresponds to the projection of the 3D cluster-centric
347: distance along the three cardinal axes: along the $x$ axis (green), the $y$ axis (red) and
348: the $z$ axis (blue).
349: Also show is the relation when merging the three data sets (black) which corresponds
350: to the solid line in the upper left panel of Fig.~2. We see no bias with viewing angle.
351: }
352: \label{3projections}
353: \end{figure}
354:
355: %There is a large scatter in the properties of the galaxies that form%in these cluster simulations. This scatter is mainly due to the
356: %diverse orbital histories of galaxies. To consolidate results, we
357: %define bins, in which we compute the median of the points as well as
358: %the standard deviation $\sigma$. The error is defined as
359: %$\sigma/\sqrt{\textsc{n}}$, where \textsc{n} is the number of objects
360: %in a given bin. In the following, when needed, we fit a linear
361: %function to the points corresponding to the galaxies, and not to the
362: %binned data.
363:
364: %\subsection{Half mass radius as a proxy for the tidal radius}
365:
366: %We want to compare the half mass radius \rhalf to the tidal radius
367: %$r_t$ to see if there exists a linear relation between these two
368: %quantities. If such a relation exists then the half mass radius is
369: %likely to be a good proxy for the tidal radius. The tidal radius of a
370: %galaxy of mass $m$ orbiting in a cluster of mass $M$ is given by
371: %\citep{binney}:
372: %%\begin{equation}
373: %r_t \,\, = r_p \,\, \left( \frac{m}{3\,M} \right)^{1/3}
374: %\label{rtequ1}
375: %\end{equation}
376: %where $r_p$ is the pericenter radius, i.e. the minimal cluster-centric
377: %radius the galaxy has experienced during its orbiting history. We do not
378: %extract $r_p$ directly from the simulations, and instead use $r$, the
379: %three dimensional cluster-centric distance of the galaxy. Moreover,
380: %since $r_t$ is related to the total extent of the galaxy, we will
381: %compare the half mass radius to half of the tidal radius,
382: %$r_t/2$.
383: %For $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7, we find good linear fits to the data points.
384: %For $z$\,=\,0, we have (in kpc):
385: %$$
386: %r_t/2 = (1.00\pm0.045) r_{1/2} + (7.49\pm1.2) \,\,(\virgo)
387: %$$
388: %$$
389: %r_t/2 = (0.59\pm0.038) r_{1/2} + (12.86\pm1.7) \,\, (\coma)
390: %$$
391: %and for $z$\,=\,0.7, we have (in kpc):
392: %$$
393: %r_t/2 = (0.609\pm0.014) r_{1/2} + (9.9\pm1.8) \,\, (\virgo)
394: %$$
395: %$$
396: %r_t/2 = (0.629\pm0.019) r_{1/2} + (8.35\pm1.5) \,\, (\coma)
397: %$$
398: %
399: %The small error bars on the parameters inferred demonstrate that a
400: %linear relation between both quantities works, and thus we can use
401: %\rhalf as a proxy for the tidal radius. The scatter in the relation
402: %is partly due to the fact that we have used $r$ instead of $r_p$. For
403: %\virgo at $z$\,=\,0 (the most relaxed galaxy population we probe in
404: %this work), we see that $r_t/2$ is very close to the value of \rhalf.
405: %
406: \section{Trends with cluster-centric distance}
407:
408: The extent and efficiency of tidal stripping depends primarily on the
409: details of the orbital parameters of the subhalo. In this Section, we
410: study the evolution of the half mass radii (\rhalf, \Rhalf) and the
411: total mass \mtot as a function of the projected cluster-centric
412: distance R, for different redshift frames. In
413: Fig.~\ref{rhalf_Mtot_Rc}, we plot \rhalf and \Rhalf as a function of
414: \Rc both for \virgo and \coma, for the two redshift frames we
415: consider, i.e. $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7. We clearly see that both the
416: \rhalfRc and \RhalfRc trends are well defined, at \emph{any} redshift.
417: Closer to the center of the cluster the extent of the dark matter
418: halos of the cluster galaxies is smaller. Thus closer to the
419: center of the cluster, stronger tidal stripping is experienced by
420: galaxies.
421: The \rhalfRc and \RhalfRc trends are illustrated on Fig.~\ref{rhalf_Mtot_Rc}
422: for the two extreme redshift frames considered in the simulations,
423: $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7.
424: This choice is motivated by clarity of the figure and to enhance the evolution
425: between $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7.
426: These trends are inferred in all redshifts frames extracted from the
427: simulations ($z$\,=\,0, $z$\,=\,0.2, $z$\,=\,0.4 and $z$\,=\,0.7).
428: Note that if this trend is inferred both at $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7, then
429: it must be present for intermediate redshifts as well.
430:
431: We see that for any given \Rc, \rhalf and \Rhalf\, are
432: systematically smaller at lower redshift compared to the high redshift
433: frame: by $z$\,=\,0, the galaxies have had more passages through the
434: cluster center, have been stripped more and thus have a smaller
435: extent. As expected, we see that the 2D half mass radius \Rhalf is
436: systematically smaller than the 3D half mass radius \rhalf.
437:
438: In Fig.~\ref{rhalf_Mtot_Rc}, we plot the total mass M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$
439: as a function of \Rc both for \virgo and \coma, for the two redshift
440: frames we consider. At $z$\,=\,0, we infer a (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, R)
441: trend, but the scatter is larger than the one associated with the
442: \rhalfRc trend. This difference in trends can be understood as
443: follows: consider a galaxy of mass $m$ with a circular velocity $v_c$
444: located in the cluster whose mass is $M$, we can relate the scatter on
445: the tidal radius ($\delta r_t/r_t$) to the scatter on the galaxy mass
446: ($\delta m/m$). The tidal radius of the galaxy is proportional to:
447: \begin{equation}
448: r_t \,\,\propto \,\, \left( \frac{m}{3\,M} \right)^{1/3}
449: \label{rtequ}
450: \end{equation}
451: (Eq.~\ref{rtequ1}) and the mass of the galaxy is given by:
452: \begin{equation}
453: m \,\, \propto \,\, r_t \,\, v_{c}^{2},
454: \label{mequ}
455: \end{equation}
456: thus $r_t \propto r_{t}^{1/3} \,\,\, v_{c}^{2/3}$,
457: so $r_t \propto v_c$ and $\delta r_t \propto \delta v_c$.\\
458: Differentiating Eq.~\ref{mequ}, we can write:
459: \begin{equation}
460: \delta m \, = \, \delta r_t\,v_{c}^{2} \,+\, r_t\,\,2\,v_c\,\delta v_c \, \propto \, 3\,\delta v_c\,v_{c}^{2}
461: \label{deltam}
462: \end{equation}
463: Combining Eq.~\ref{mequ} and \ref{deltam}, we get:
464: \begin{equation}
465: \frac{\delta m}{m} \, = \, \frac{3\,\delta v_c\,v_{c}^{2}}{r_t\,v_{c}^{2}} \, = \, 3\,\frac{\delta r_t}{r_t}
466: \end{equation}
467:
468: Therefore finding a larger relative scatter in the
469: (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, R) trend than in the \rhalfRc trend is to be
470: expected. Note that at $z$\,=\,0.7, \coma is not well relaxed and
471: some galaxies have not experienced the tidal field of the cluster
472: potential yet. As a consequence, the outer radial bin contains some
473: infalling galaxies which have values of \rhalf and total masses
474: typical of field galaxy values (i.e. \rhalf $>200\,$kpc and
475: M$_{\mathrm{tot}}>$ 10$^{12}$ M$_{\sun}$ as obtained from
476: galaxy-galaxy lensing and satellite dynamics analysis, see Section 1).
477:
478: In Fig.~2, we also show the results from G98 at
479: $z$\,=\,0. G98 studied a simulated galaxy cluster with virial radius
480: 1.95\,Mpc and virial mass 2.8\,$\times$\,10$^{14}$\,M$_{\sun}$. These
481: properties makes it very similar to our \virgo cluster. Thus we
482: compare their results (data points with triangle) to ours on \virgo,
483: for the redshift frame at $z$\,=\,0 (solid line).
484: We find significant differences between our results and the one from G98.
485: Before discussing these differences, we want to caution that both
486: works are different and difficult to compare. Therefore, the disagreement
487: between these studies cannot be used to assess quantitatively the
488: impact of the baryonic component in the tidal stripping process.
489: We also note that there could be significant differences in subhalo
490: finding algorithms.
491: Kepping that in mind, three statements
492: can be made from this comparison: data points from G98 have larger
493: error bars and are systematically higher than ours. Moreover, the
494: clear trend we infer appears marginal in the work by G98. The
495: difference in the error bars comes from the statistics: within 2\,Mpc,
496: G98 identified $\sim 200$ halos whereas we have $\sim650$ halos within
497: the same radius. The difference in the value of \rhalf can be partly
498: due to the difference in resolution: G98 use particles whose mass is
499: 8.6\,$\times$\,10$^{8}$\,M$_{\sun}$ whereas we use particles whose
500: masses are 4.4\,$\times$\,10$^{7}$\,M$_{\sun}$ and
501: 3.2\,$\times$\,10$^{8}$\,M$_{\sun}$ for the stellar and dark matter
502: respectively. The mass of our individual particles is 3-20 times
503: smaller, thus we resolve smaller galaxies than G98: they adopt a
504: minimum of 32 particles to define a halo whose individual properties
505: are relevant, which translates into a minimum mass of
506: 2.7\,$\times$\,10$^{10}$\,M$_{\sun}$. In \virgo we have 477 galaxies
507: of total mass smaller than this threshold. Therefore our sample is
508: more complete in the inclusion of lower galaxy masses compared to the
509: G98 sample. Since smaller galaxies tend to have smaller extents, this
510: could explain the shift between our results.
511:
512: In order to properly investigate the role of the baryonic component in the tidal
513: stripping process,
514: we would need a devoted dark matter only simulation of \virgo and \coma.
515: Such simulations are underway, and will be presented and analysed in a
516: forthcoming publication, where we will be able to quantify the differences expected.
517:
518: \begin{figure*}[h!]
519: \epsscale{0.5}
520: \plotone{f1a.eps}
521: \plotone{f1b.eps}
522: \plotone{f1c.eps}
523: \plotone{f1d.eps}
524: \caption{Upper panels: median half-mass radius \rhalf (3D) and \Rhalf (2D)
525: as a function of
526: projected cluster-centric distance, for $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7; \virgo
527: (left) and \coma (right). For both clusters, the \rhalfRc and \RhalfRc trends are
528: clearly defined in \emph{both} redshift slices.
529: Also shown for comparison with
530: \virgo are the data point from G98 at $z$\,=\,0.
531: As we could have expected, we see that the 2D half mass radius \Rhalf is
532: systematically smaller than the 3D half mass radius \rhalf.
533: Lower panels: median total mass as a
534: function of projected cluster-centric distance, for $z$\,=\,0 and
535: $z=0.7$; \virgo (left) and \coma (right). For both clusters at $z$\,=\,0,
536: we find a well defined (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, R) trend, though the
537: scatter is larger than in the \rhalfRc or \RhalfRc trends. At high redshift, the
538: scatter is larger and the (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, R) trend becomes marginal.}
539: \label{rhalf_Mtot_Rc}
540: \end{figure*}
541:
542: \section{Scaling of \rhalf and \mtot with luminosity \& total mass to light ratio}
543:
544: Parametric strong lensing studies
545: \citep[\emph{e.g.}][]{stronglensing,tyson98,Priya1,mypaperIII}
546: do include the galaxies living in the core of the cluster in the modeling
547: since they can locally pertub strong lensing features.
548: In order to reduce the number of free parameters in lens modeling, the
549: standard approach consists of scaling the galaxy parameters with
550: luminosity as follows:
551: \begin{equation}
552: r_{1/2} \,\, \propto \,\, L^{\alpha} \,\,\,\,\,\, \& \,\,\,\,\,\, \mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{tot}} \,\, \propto \,\, L^{\delta}
553: \label{scalingrelations}
554: \end{equation}
555:
556: Galaxy-galaxy lensing studies also use similar scaling laws. The
557: scaling usually used for the half mass radius in lensing studies is:
558: $\alpha=0.5$, which assumes that the mass to light ratio is constant
559: for all galaxies. At the present time strong lensing studies are not
560: in a position to discriminate between different scaling relations
561: \citep{aleksi,mcmc}. In order to study the possible value of the
562: exponents defined by Eqn.~\ref{scalingrelations} that could be used in
563: strong lensing modeling, we want to examine the evolution of the half
564: mass radius \rhalf and the total mass \mtot with luminosity $L$, as a
565: function of redshift. We consider the galaxies located in the core of the cluster.
566: (i.e. the galaxies that satisfy \Rc $< 500$ kpc) since strong lensing
567: modeling deals with the inner part of a galaxy cluster (typically the
568: central 100$\arcsec$). In Fig.~\ref{Lum} (upper panels), we plot
569: \rhalf as a function of luminosity $L$ both for \virgo and \coma, at
570: $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7. We fit a linear relation to the unbinned
571: data points for each redshift frame (i.e. $z=0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7$) in
572: order to probe the exponent of the scaling relations defined by
573: Eqn.~\ref{scalingrelations}. The results are presented in
574: Table~\ref{lumfit}, and the best linear fit is plotted on
575: Fig.~\ref{Lum}. We also fit a linear relation to the unbinned data
576: points corresponding to the (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, $L$) trend
577: (Table~\ref{lumfit}). We find increasing (\rhalf, $L$) and
578: (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, $L$) trends at both redshifts, for the \coma and
579: \virgo central populations. Looking at the evolution of $\alpha$ and
580: $\delta$ with redshift, we do not infer any clear trend of evolution
581: of these values with redshift, thus we average the exponents from the
582: different redshift frames and we consider the averaged values in what follows.
583: Comparing \virgo and \coma, we see that the scatter is
584: smaller in the case of \virgo which is more relaxed than \coma (see
585: error bars on the linear fitting results in Table~\ref{lumfit}).
586:
587: We caution that we do not claim to have derived fundamental scaling
588: relations here, but rather have fitted to our data sets. As can be
589: seen in Fig.~\ref{Lum}, it is clear that the relations likely have a
590: more complicated form than a linear fit.
591:
592: These inferred scalings can
593: be compared to the fundamental plane derived for early-type galaxies
594: in clusters. The values of $\delta$ derived in this work are in good
595: agreement with the fundamental plane analysis at $z=0$ for early-type
596: galaxies \citep[$\delta = 1.35 \pm 0.15$;][]{JFK96}.
597:
598: On Fig.~\ref{Lum} we plot the total mass to light ratio \mtotL as a
599: function of luminosity. We find that \mtotL can reach values as high
600: as 55, with a mean value around $\sim$ 20-30. It is interesting to
601: compare these total mass to light ratios to stellar mass to light
602: ratios (M/L) inferred observationally. Recent studies
603: \citep{jorgensen06,jorgensen07} present a relation between the galaxy
604: masses and the mass to light ratios, for galaxy clusters in the local
605: Universe ($z$\,=\,0) and in the high redshift Universe ($z$\,=\,0.8 -
606: 0.9). The relations given by \citet{jorgensen06} were derived in the
607: \textsc{b} band. We converted their \textsc{b} band luminosities into
608: the \textsc{r} band luminosities using a constant
609: (\textsc{b\,-\,r}\,=\,2) and inverted the relations in order to get a
610: relation between the stellar mass to light ratio and the \textsc{r}
611: band luminosity:
612: \begin{equation}
613: \log(\frac{\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{L_R}}) = \gamma \log(\mathrm{L_R}) + \varsigma
614: \label{FPequ}
615: \end{equation}
616: for $z$\,=\,0, we find:
617: $$
618: \gamma=0.316\pm0.03 \,\,\,\,\, \& \,\,\,\,\, \varsigma=-2.7
619: $$
620: and for $z$\,=\,0.8:
621: $$
622: \gamma=1.18\pm0.08\,\,\,\,\, \& \,\,\,\,\, \varsigma=-13.1
623: $$
624:
625: We plot on Fig.~\ref{Lum} the lines corresponding to the range allowed
626: by these relations. Obviously the total mass to light ratios \mtotL
627: derived in this work are systematically higher than stellar M/L's
628: inferred observationally. This can be understood by the fact that we
629: consider the total mass, corresponding to both the baryonic and the
630: dark matter components, whereas the observational $M/L$ ratio is the
631: stellar mass to light ratio.
632:
633: We did the same exercise for the whole galaxy population (i.e. for all
634: cluster-centric radii) to compare the (\rhalf, $L$) and
635: (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, $L$) trends inferred for the whole population to
636: the one inferred for the central population (\Rc $<$ 500\,kpc).
637: When considering the
638: whole galaxy population, we find increasing (\rhalf, $L$) and
639: (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, $L$) trends at $z$\,=\,0, both for \coma and
640: \virgo. On the other hand, at $z$\,=\,0.7, these trends are hardly
641: defined and the scatter dominates, specially in the case of the
642: (M$_{\mathrm{tot}}$, $L$) trend.
643:
644: This comparison suggests that in the core of the cluster at high
645: redshift, the galaxy population is already well relaxed and
646: constitutes a homogeneous galaxy population, whereas the galaxies at
647: larger distances from the cluster center have more complicated
648: dynamics. It appears that clusters have a 'well behaved relaxed
649: nucleus' at high redshift. With time this relaxed behavior propagates
650: itself outward into the outskirts of the cluster, resulting at
651: $z$\,=\,0 in a overall 'well behaved' galaxy population.
652:
653: \begin{figure*}[h!]
654: \epsscale{0.5}
655: \plotone{f2a.eps}
656: \plotone{f2b.eps}
657: \plotone{f2c.eps}
658: \plotone{f2d.eps}
659: \caption{
660: Upper panels: median half mass radius \rhalf as a function of luminosity
661: for the central galaxies sample (\Rc $<$ 500\,kpc),
662: for $z$\,=\,0 (solid squares) and $z$\,=\,0.7 (dashed circles); \virgo (left) and
663: \coma (right). Shown is the best fitting linear relation to the unbinned data
664: points (Table~\ref{lumfit}). We find that \rhalf increases
665: with luminosity, but has a larger scatter in the higher
666: redshift slice. Lower panels: median total mass
667: to light ratio as a function of luminosity for the central galaxies sample
668: for $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7; \virgo (left) and \coma
669: (right).
670: Overplotted lines correspond to the range allowed by the fundamental plane analysis
671: by \citet{jorgensen06}.
672: Note different axis scalings in the figure panels.
673: }
674: \label{Lum}
675: \end{figure*}
676:
677: \begin{table*}
678: \caption{Deriving the scaling relations defined in Eq.~\ref{scalingrelations}}
679: \begin{center}
680: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
681: \hline
682: \noalign{\smallskip}
683: Redshift & 0 & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.7 & \textsc{mean}\\
684: \hline
685: \noalign{\smallskip}
686: \noalign{\smallskip}
687: \coma & \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.315 \pm 0.111$\\ $\delta= 1.431\pm0.119$ \end{tabular}& \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha= 0.165 \pm 0.136$\\ $\delta= 1.297 \pm 0.148$\end{tabular} &\begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.274 \pm 0.090$\\ $\delta=1.189 \pm 0.098$ \end{tabular}& \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.194 \pm 0.059$\\ $\delta=0.983 \pm 0.077$ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.237 \pm 0.045$\\ $\delta=1.22 \pm 0.055$ \end{tabular} \\
688: \noalign{\smallskip}
689: \hline
690: \noalign{\smallskip}
691: \virgo & \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.404\pm0.050 $\\ $\delta=1.303\pm0.072$ \end{tabular}& \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.213\pm0.036$\\ $\delta=0.905\pm0.068$ \end{tabular}& \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.275\pm0.036$\\ $\delta=0.963\pm0.064$ \end{tabular}& \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.382\pm0.031$\\ $\delta=1.186\pm0.053$ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} $\alpha=0.318 \pm 0.02$\\ $\delta=1.09 \pm 0.03$ \end{tabular} \\
692: \noalign{\smallskip}
693: \hline
694: \end{tabular}
695: \label{lumfit}
696: \end{center}
697: \end{table*}
698: \vspace{1cm}
699:
700: \section{Distribution of Stars and Dark Matter in Individual Galaxies}
701:
702: In order to get insight on how tidal stripping modifies the different
703: galaxy mass components, we study the ratio of the total mass to the
704: stellar mass and its evolution with redshift and cluster-centric
705: distance. First, we verify that there is no dependence of the stellar mass with
706: \Rc. We find that the scatter in the stellar mass of the galaxy
707: sample is large, and there is no discernable trend with \Rc at any redshift,
708: suggesting that the stellar component, on average, remains roughly
709: unaffected by tides.
710:
711: Then, we study the ratio of the total to the stellar mass,
712: ${\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{tot}}}/{\mathrm{M}_{*}}$ and its evolution with
713: both cluster-centric distance and redshift. Fig.~\ref{Mstar_Mtot_Rc}
714: shows the result for $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7. The ratio of the total to the stellar mass
715: clearly increases with cluster-centric
716: distance. Since tidal forces remove subhalo mass from the outside in
717: \citep{diemand07}, this result suggests that the extent of the dark
718: matter subhalo (quantified by \rhalf) is larger than the extent of the
719: stellar component (quantified by \rhalfstar, the half light radius)
720: even in the very central
721: part of the cluster. To investigate this further, we compare the
722: extent of the stellar component \rhalfstar with \rhalf. We find
723: that \rhalfstar does not depend on the cluster-centric distance \Rc
724: for any redshift, both for \coma and \virgo. In addition, for \virgo,
725: we find that \rhalfstar is compact $<$ 2\,kpc, whereas \rhalf $>$
726: 8\,kpc (Fig.~\ref{rhalf_Mtot_Rc}, upper left panel, central bin). For
727: \coma, we find that \rhalfstar $<$ 3\,kpc, whereas \rhalf $>$ 11\,kpc
728: (Fig.~\ref{rhalf_Mtot_Rc}, upper right panel, central bin). This
729: shows that for even the most stripped halos in the central bin, \rhalf
730: is still $\sim$ 4 times larger than \rhalfstar, suggesting that the dissipational
731: stellar component is more compact and not as affected by tides.
732:
733: \begin{figure*}[h!]
734: \epsscale{0.5}
735: \plotone{f3a.eps}
736: \plotone{f3b.eps}
737: \caption{Median ratio of the total mass to the stellar mass
738: of galaxies as a function of projected cluster-centric distance \Rc
739: at $z$\,=\,0 and $z$\,=\,0.7. Left: \coma; right: \virgo.}
740: \label{Mstar_Mtot_Rc}
741: \end{figure*}
742:
743: %\vspace{1cm}
744: \section{Comparison with galaxy-galaxy lensing results}
745:
746: In this Section, we compare the results from our
747: simulated galaxy population with the results derived from observational
748: galaxy-galaxy lensing studies in clusters.
749: We first need to be sure we compare things that are comparable.
750: The quantity we use from the simulation is the 3D half mass radius \rhalf.
751: Former galaxy-galaxy lensing analyses performed through clusters have used a
752: parametric model to fit the lensing data, the so-called Pseudo Isothermal
753: Elliptical Mass Distribution \citep[\textsc{piemd}, see \emph{e.g.}][]{mypaperI}.
754: This profile is parametrized using two characteristic radii, the core radius and the
755: scale radius (respectively $r_{\rm{core}}$ and $r_{\rm{cut}}$ in former articles).
756: In galaxy-galaxy lensing analyses, since we cannot constrain it,
757: we usually fix the core radius
758: to an arbitrary small value, making this \textsc{piemd} profile equivalent to
759: the \citet{bbs} profile.
760: As a result of the galaxy-galaxy lensing fit, we get some constraints on this
761: scale radius.
762: It is easy to show
763: \citep{ardis2218} that the scale radius for the \textsc{piemd}
764: profile without a core radius is equal to the radius within which the 3D mass
765: equals half of the total mass. Thus this parameter inferred from the galaxy-galaxy
766: lensing analysis can be reliably compared to \rhalf from the simulation.
767: It can also be shown \citep{ardis2218}
768: that for a \textsc{piemd}
769: profile without a core radius, the radius within which the 2D mass equals half
770: of the total mass is found to be at 3/4 of the scale radius.
771:
772: Of course, lensing is sensitive to the 2D projected surface mass density, and it
773: may be confusing to state that we infer a scale radius related to the 3D properties
774: of the halo from a lensing analysis.
775: However, the 2D projected mass density we are sensitive to with lensing is a function
776: of a scale radius that turns out to be the radius within which the 3D mass
777: equals half of the total mass.
778:
779: We perform the comparison
780: only with \coma since it is a 6 keV cluster and therefore more similar to the
781: massive, lensing clusters studied observationally than \virgo. Note that if need be, it is
782: possible to rescale the \rhalf values found for the \coma galaxies to
783: the temperature of a cluster probed observationally using the scaling
784: relation: \rhalf $\propto$ $T^{-1/2}$. The temperature of a cluster
785: characterized by a velocity dispersion $\sigma$ scales as: $T \propto
786: \sigma^2$, and its mass M at a cluster-centric distance
787: $r_{\mathrm{c}}$ scales as: M $\propto\, \sigma^2\, r_{\mathrm{c}}$.
788: From Eq.~\ref{rtequ} and \ref{mequ}, we can derive that the tidal
789: radius of a galaxy orbiting in the cluster with a circular velocity
790: $v_c$ scales as:
791: \begin{equation}
792: r_t \,\, \propto \,\, \frac{v_{c}^{2/3}\, r_{t}^{1/3}}{\sigma^{2/3} r_{\mathrm{c}}^{1/3}}\, r_{\mathrm{c}}
793: \end{equation}
794: so $r_t\, \propto v_c\,r_{\mathrm{c}}\, / \, \sigma$, and finally
795: $r_t\,\propto T^{-1/2}$. This means that the more massive a galaxy
796: cluster is (thus the more dense the environment), the more severe the
797: tidal truncation. For the purpose of the comparison with observed
798: clusters, all apparent magnitudes have been converted to the absolute
799: rest frame R band magnitude. We will apply the same
800: selection criteria (magnitude cut-offs) to the simulated galaxies in
801: order to compare the same luminosity galaxy population to the one
802: probed in galaxy-galaxy lensing studies. Finally, the galaxy-galaxy
803: lensing results have been rescaled to the median value of the
804: luminosity of the simulated galaxy population, using
805: the scaling laws defined in Eq.~\ref{scalingrelations} with $\alpha=0.5$
806: and $\delta=1.0$.
807:
808: In particular, we compare the results presented in the previous
809: sections with the work by \citet{mypaperII}, which probes the cluster
810: population down to a magnitude of -17.5 for a sample of five galaxy
811: clusters at redshift around 0.2, with a mean \tsc{x}-ray temperature
812: of 8.5 keV. As discussed in detail in \citet{mypaperII}, these
813: detections are in agreement with the similar studies performed by
814: Natarajan et~al. on observed clusters ranging from $z$\,=\,0.17 - 0.58
815: with space based \textsc{hst} data \citep{priya07}. Fig.~\ref{compartomine}
816: shows the comparison. We find qualitative agreement. However, due to
817: the weakness of the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal and the limitations
818: of ground based data, error bars on the estimated parameters are still
819: rather large. Also shown in Fig.~\ref{compartomine} is the slope
820: derived for the trend of the variation of typical subhalo mass (mass
821: of a subhalo that hosts an L$^*$ early-type galaxy) as a function of
822: cluster-centric radius for the massive lensing cluster
823: Cl\,0024+16 derived from space-based data. The data-set comprises of
824: an HST mosaic that samples out to 5 Mpc from the cluster center and
825: the constraints on the subhalo mass are derived applying galaxy-galaxy
826: lensing methods in 3 radial bins. Strong and weak lensing constraints
827: are combined to derive the average properties of a typical dark matter
828: subhalo that hosts an L$^*$ early-type galaxy in each radial bin. The
829: variation of the mass of the fiducial subhalo with cluster-centric
830: radius is well-fit by a linear relation. While the slope of this relation
831: can be directly compared to that derived from the simulated \coma cluster (as
832: shown by the dashed line in Fig.~4) the normalization cannot be compared as
833: the central density of Cl\,0024+16 is significantly higher.
834: We find that the trend derived from these space-based lensing observations
835: is in agreement with the results of the simulations.
836:
837: \begin{figure*}[h!]
838: \epsscale{0.5}
839: \plotone{f4a.eps}
840: \plotone{f4b.eps}
841: \caption{Comparison of Limousin et~al.(2007a) and Natarajan
842: et~al.(2007) galaxy-galaxy lensing results with simulated \coma
843: galaxies. Left panel: \rhalf versus cluster-centric radius; Right
844: panel: total mass versus cluster-centric radius. To enable direct
845: comparison with the lensing data, the same magnitude cut-off has been
846: adopted in the simulations. The data point with error bars shown is
847: derived from galaxy-galaxy lensing results averaged over the subhalo
848: population ranging in cluster-centric radius from 0 to 1.8 Mpc for a
849: sample of massive lensing clusters. The slope indicated with a dashed
850: line shows the trend derived for Cl\,0024+16 from galaxy-galaxy
851: lensing techniques as well by Natarajan et al. (2007) using
852: space-based data. This trend is derived from mosaiced \textsc{hst wfpc-2} data
853: for Cl\,0024+16 out to 5 Mpc from the center. The slope corresponds to
854: the change in subhalo mass with cluster-centric radius for a typical
855: subhalo that hosts an early-type L$^*$ galaxy. Note that the
856: normalization cannot be compared directly due to the fact that the
857: central density of Cl\,0024+16 is significantly larger than that of
858: the simulated \coma studied here.}
859: \label{compartomine}
860: \end{figure*}
861:
862: \section{Conclusions}
863:
864: Using high resolution, hydrodynamical N-body simulations of two
865: fiducial galaxy clusters, one with parameters typical of \coma and the
866: other \textsc{virgo}, we study the tidal stripping process in detail.
867: These are the first simulations that include the baryonic component
868: that have been used to study this process, previous studies were
869: limited to dark matter only simulations. We infer a strong trend
870: between the extent of cluster galaxy dark matter subhalos quantified
871: by the half mass radius \rhalf and the projected cluster-centric
872: distance \Rc. We show that the dark matter component is preferentially
873: stripped, whereas the stellar component is much less affected by tidal
874: forces. We infer a trend in these simulations that is much
875: stronger than the one inferred from the dark matter only cosmological
876: N-body simulations of \citet{ghigna98}. This could suggest that tidal
877: stripping is more efficient in the inner regions of clusters when the
878: effects of baryons are included.
879: However, we caution that comparing both simulations is not easy and therefore
880: we cannot assess reliably the impact of the baryonic component in the
881: tidal stripping process at this point. What is needed now is a devoted
882: dark matter only simulation of \virgo and \coma in order to compare
883: reliably the outputs of each study and investigate the expected influence
884: of the baryonic component on the tidal stripping process.
885:
886: With the next generation of space telescopes, in particular with wide
887: field space based imagers, such as \textsc{dune}\footnote{www.dune-mission.net}
888: and \tsc{snap}\footnote{www.snap.lbl.gov}, we
889: will be able to probe this trend in a sample of galaxy clusters
890: spanning different range of masses and dynamical states. The limiting
891: aspect of these kind of studies are the relatively small mass of the
892: dark matter subhalos associated with cluster galaxies (leading to a
893: small modulation in the overall tangential shear field making
894: detection challenging), and therefore the large number of background
895: sources with reliable shape measurements needed for the lensing
896: analysis. A very promising technique will be the use of future radio
897: and millimeter-wave interferometers: accurate measurements of the
898: detailed dynamical structure of the background galaxies, in particular
899: rotating disks, should make it possible to probe
900: the shear directly on each individual galaxy, thus allowing shear measurements
901: with much less galaxies than it is currently done \citep{blain02,morales}.
902:
903: From the numerical point of view, what is needed is a sample of galaxy
904: clusters that span a wide range in mass and dynamical states in a
905: large simulation box including baryonic physics, so that a robust
906: comparison between observations and theoretical expectations can then
907: be made. Such a quantitative comparison will be possible in the near
908: future and will provide further insights into the physics of cluster
909: assembly and the process of tidal stripping.
910:
911: \section*{Acknowledgments}
912:
913: The authors gratefully acknowledge the Dark Cosmology Centre at the
914: Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Dark Cosmology
915: Centre is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation. We thank
916: Roser Pell\'o for providing us her code that allows to convert
917: magnitudes in different filters to absolute rest frame magnitudes and
918: for help in using it. We thank \'Ard\'is El\'iasd\'ottir, Gary Mamon,
919: Jean-Paul Kneib, Jens Hjorth and Mark Wilkinson for useful discussions.
920:
921: \bibliography{ms}
922:
923: \end{document}
924: