1: \documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}

2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: 

4: \newcommand{\xray}{\mbox{X-ray}}

5: \newcommand{\fig}{Fig.\,}

6: \newcommand{\tabl}{Table\,}

7: \newcommand{\eq}{eq.\,}

8: \newcommand{\mbi}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}

9: \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\alph{enumi})}

10: 

11: %\slugcomment{To appear in \apjl, ???}

12: \shorttitle{Coma Cluster Galaxy Alignment} \shortauthors{Kitzbichler et al.}

13: 

14: %\received{2002 December 4}

15: \begin{document}

16: 

17: \title{Detection of Non-Random Galaxy Orientations in X-ray Subclusters of the Coma Cluster}

18: \author{M. G. Kitzbichler and W. Saurer}

19: \affil{Institute of Astrophysics, University of Innsbruck}

20: \email{manfred.kitzbichler@uibk.ac.at}

21: \email{walter.saurer@uibk.ac.at}

22: \begin{abstract}

23: This study on the Coma cluster suggests that there are deviations

24: from a completely random galaxy orientation on small scales. Since

25: we found a significant coincidence of hot-gas features identified

26: in the latest \xray\ observations of Coma with these local

27: anisotropies, they may indicate regions of recent mutual

28: interaction of member galaxies within subclusters which are

29: currently falling in on the main cluster.

30: \end{abstract}

31: 

32: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: individual (A1656) --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: interactions --- galaxies: statistics --- X-rays: galaxies: clusters}

33: 

34: 

35: %\keywords{galaxies: clusters: individual (A1656) --- galaxies:

36: %evolution --- galaxies: interactions --- galaxies: statistics ---

37: %X-rays: galaxies: clusters}

38: 

39: \section{INTRODUCTION}

40: Galaxy orientation studies in the past \citep[see][and references

41: therein]{1975AJ.....80..477H} were chiefly carried out in order to

42: verify miscellaneous galaxy cluster formation scenarios. Early

43: theories of cluster formation were the primordial-vorticity,

44: pancake-shock, and tidal-torque theories \citep[for a brief

45: overview see][]{1995MNRAS.276..327S} which had predicted different

46: alignment configurations of cluster members for different birth

47: models respectively. Unfortunately these models were at least

48: incomplete due to the missing knowledge of the presence of dark

49: matter in clusters and the assumption that clusters formed through

50: fragmentation. Putting the focus on finding an orientation pattern

51: for the whole cluster may be the main reason why many

52: investigations in this field did not yield sufficiently

53: unambiguous results

54: \citep{1986MNRAS.222..525F,1995MNRAS.276..327S,2001MNRAS.325...49F}.

55: 

56: More recent studies concentrated on the orientation of a number of

57: brighter galaxies whose major axis shows a tendency to be aligned

58: along the elongation of the parent cluster

59: \citep{1990AJ.....99..743S}. For instance the Virgo

60: \citep{2000ApJ...543L..27W} and also the Coma cluster

61: \citep{1997astro.ph..9289W} were found to exhibit this phenomenon

62: which is further discussed in section \ref{cdalign}.

63: 

64: Only recently \cite{2002MNRAS.333..501B} published their work that

65: tries to give an estimate on the reliability of gravitational

66: lensing studies which assume that anisotropies in the ellipticity

67: distribution are due to a gravitationally induced shear field

68: distorting galaxy images \citep[cf.][]{1990ApJ...349L...1T}, an

69: important aspect briefly picked up in section \ref{weaklensing} as

70: well.

71: 

72: In the present work, using extensive data on galaxy position

73: angles and inclinations of a large number of galaxies in Coma

74: (A1656), we are investigating the alignment of the majority of

75: faint cluster members on small scales, even though only in a

76: statistical way. Our method is to perform an individual

77: statistical test for the surroundings of each galaxy in the

78: sample. We show that the found anisotropies are statistically

79: significant to a high extent and superpose an image of average

80: orientations of non-random regions on recent \xray\ observations.

81: Since an interesting coincidence emerges this approach seems to be

82: profitable. We also try a tentative interpretation based on

83: current models of galaxy cluster evolution.

84: 

85: \section{THE DATA}

86: A huge sample of 6724 galaxies within a region of about

87: $2.6\degr\times 2.6\degr$ centered on Coma was compiled in

88: \citeyear{1983MNRAS.202..113G} by

89: \citeauthor*{1983MNRAS.202..113G} (GMP hereafter). This is still

90: the most comprehensive catalogue of galaxies in the Coma cluster,

91: comprising galaxies up to a brightness within the $26\fm 5$

92: contour limit of $b_{26.5}=21\fm 0$. The catalogue is considered

93: complete up to $b_{26.5}=20\fm 0$. Position angle and ellipticity

94: for 4344 entries are included, however no morphological

95: classification is given.

96: 

97: %\clearpage

98: \begin{figure}[htb]

99: \plotone{f1.eps}

100: \caption{Distribution histogram of the 4344

101: position angles in the GMP sample.\label{pahists}}

102: \end{figure}

103: %\clearpage

104: 

105: \label{90deghump}The sample as a whole shows a slight

106: overabundance of galaxies with position angles around $90\degr$

107: (see \fig\ref{pahists}) with a roughly harmonic shape of period

108: $180\degr$. Also a periodicity of $45\degr$ may be inferred which

109: was presumably caused by the plate scanning process but can be

110: neglected for our purposes since it is smoothed out by the binning

111: process. These global properties have yet been known for quite

112: some time \citep{1983ApJ...274L...7D}. However, a closer look at

113: the respective orientations of the individual galaxies is

114: worthwhile and provides new insights.

115: 

116: \section{THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS}

117: Instead of separating the cluster into certain sub-samples which

118: requires us to make assumptions on where we expect to be alignment

119: in the first place, we decided to use the environs of each galaxy

120: as a sub-sample which eliminates such a selection bias.

121: 

122: For each galaxy the angle of intersection between its major axis

123: and the major axes of the 15 closest neighbor galaxies is

124: calculated, whereby 15 was chosen as a reasonable trade-off

125: between small-number statistics and unwanted smoothing of the

126: results. From these differential angles a distribution histogram

127: is created. If the distribution is not in agreement with a random

128: distribution, i.e. it is not isotropic according to a

129: $\chi^2$-test, a best fit for the average orientation of this

130: ensemble of adjacent galaxies is derived as described below.

131: 

132: First, the \lq projected spin vector\rq~$\mbi{P}_i$ of a galaxy

133: with PA $\beta_i$ and ellipticities $\epsilon_i$ is defined as the

134: vector in the observational plane that is orthogonal to the major

135: axis of the galaxy image and has length $P_i=\sin(\eta)$. Here

136: $\eta$ denotes inclination, thus $cos(\eta)=\frac{b}{a}$,

137: $\epsilon=1-\frac{b}{a}$ with axial ratios $\frac{b}{a}$.

138: \begin{equation}

139: \mbi{P}_i = P_i\left(\cos\beta_i\atop\sin\beta_i\right)

140: \end{equation}

141: \begin{equation}

142: P_i^2=1-\frac{b^2}{a^2}=1-(1-\epsilon_i)^2

143: \end{equation}

144: 

145: For the ensemble we define the \lq average projected spin

146: vector\rq~$\mbi{S}$ with PA $\alpha$

147: \begin{equation}

148: \mbi{S}=S\left(\cos\alpha\atop\sin\alpha\right)

149: \end{equation}

150: as the vector which satisfies the condition

151: \begin{equation}\label{maxeq}

152: \left\{\sum_i(\mbi{S \cdot P}_i)^2\right\}\longrightarrow\max

153: \end{equation}

154: The scalar product can be expanded to

155: \begin{equation}\label{coseq}

156: (\mbi{S \cdot P}_i)^2=S^2P_i^2\cos^2(\alpha-\beta_i)

157: \end{equation}

158: Thus $P_i^2$ can be viewed as the weighting factor of the sum

159: which means that edge-on galaxies have a much stronger weight than

160: (nearly) face-on galaxies for which the PA is more or less

161: arbitrary.

162: 

163: It follows that \eq\ref{maxeq} has the solution:

164: \begin{equation}\label{alphatan}

165: \tan(2\alpha)=\frac{\sum\limits_iP_i^2\sin(2\beta_i)}{\sum\limits_iP_i^2\cos(2\beta_i)}=:\frac{S_y}{S_x}

166: \end{equation}

167: If we identify x and y in \eq\ref{alphatan} we get the length of

168: vector $\mbi{S}$ by computing $S^2=S_x^2+S_y^2$

169: \begin{equation}

170: S^2=\left(\sum_iP_i^2\cos(2\beta_i)\right)^2+\left(\sum_iP_i^2\sin(2\beta_i)\right)^2

171: \end{equation}

172: 

173: \section{RESULTS}

174: The map seen in \fig\ref{meanspinxoverlay} shows the vector

175: $\mbi{S}$ plotted as black line at the position of each galaxy

176: which is found to possess an anisotropic neighborhood with a level

177: of confidence $\gamma_{\chi^2}=0.99$. It is interesting to note

178: that no significant anisotropies are found around the central cD

179: galaxies even though the galaxy density in this region is much

180: higher than anywhere else on the map. Moreover, clearly isolated

181: groups of galaxies with anisotropic orientation can be found.

182: 

183: Even though the algorithm favors such occurrence, the strength of

184: these features is greater than could be expected for a random

185: sample. In order to give an estimate of the statistical

186: significance of our results we performed a series of 1000 runs

187: with artificially generated isotropic data. Apart from being

188: impracticable due to the huge number of runs, a visual assessment

189: of these artificial plots would also be subjective therefore we

190: decided to apply a clustering algorithm to the distribution of

191: $\mbi{S}$. We chose a modified version of K-means clustering which

192: is simple to implement and fast enough for our purpose. The data

193: were clustered in a three-dimensional space spanned by the x and y

194: coordinates of $\mbi{S}$ and as a third coordinate by its PA

195: $\alpha$. The original algorithm had to be modified to be cyclic

196: in $\alpha$. Also we used as a distance measure:

197: \begin{equation}\label{clustdist}

198: r^2:=\Delta x^2+\Delta y^2+C\tan^2(\Delta\alpha)

199: \end{equation}

200: This definition makes sure that two $\mbi{S}$ vectors which have a

201: mutual PA difference of $90\degr$ are infinitely far apart as seen

202: by the clustering algorithm. The scaling factor $C$ can be viewed

203: as weight of $\alpha$. That is to say if $C$ is large the

204: clustering will be very sensitive to small differences in $\alpha$

205: and vice versa.

206: 

207: The artificial galaxy samples were generated by assigning random

208: PAs to each of the galaxies in the original sample. Moreover the

209: inclinations were shuffled among the sample members which has the

210: advantage of preserving the inclination distribution.

211: 

212: We performed two series of runs with 1000 artificial samples each.

213: The first one included the whole set of 4344 galaxies and a level

214: of confidence for the $\chi^2$-test of $\gamma_{\chi^2}=0.99$ was

215: chosen while for the second run only those 2354 galaxies brighter

216: than $b_{26.5}\le 20\fm 0$ were used which made it necessary to

217: decrease $\gamma_{\chi^2}$ to a value of 0.97 in order to get

218: enough $\mbi{S}$ vectors to work with (cf. Table~\ref{samptab}).

219: 

220: %\clearpage

221: 

222: \input{tab1.tex}

223: 

224: %\clearpage

225: 

226: The clusters produced by the K-means clustering had to be assessed

227: in an objective way thus we introduced a quality value $q$ for the

228: features found in the artificial samples as well as in the

229: original data:

230: \begin{enumerate}

231: \item Each feature that contains less than five members (i.e.

232: $\mbi{S}$ vectors) has $q=0$.

233: 

234: \item For each remaining cluster $q$ is defined as the norm of the

235: sum over its constituent $\mbi{S}$ vectors divided by its volume

236: in the three-dimensional cluster space.

237: \end{enumerate}

238: Table \ref{sigtab1} shows the results obtained for samples 1 and

239: 2. It allows to compare the number $n$ and the quality $q$ of the

240: features in the data to the averaged values for these quantities

241: calculated from the set of artificial samples. Here $q_A$ denotes

242: the highest value for $q$ found in the data whereas $\bar q_A$ is

243: the average of the highest $q$ values calculated from each

244: individual artificial sample.

245: \begin{equation}

246: \bar q_A:=\sum(q_A^i)/1000

247: \end{equation}

248: 

249: %\clearpage

250: 

251: \input{tab2.tex}

252: 

253: %\clearpage

254: 

255: The rightmost two columns in \tabl\ref{sigtab1} give the

256: percentage of artificial samples that showed smaller values for

257: $n$ and $q_A$ than the data.

258: \begin{equation}\label{sigdef}

259: \sigma_x:=\frac{N(x_i<x)}{1000} \mbox{~~~with~} x \in\{n,q_A\}

260: \mbox{,~} i \in [1,1000]

261: \end{equation}

262: 

263: It becomes clear that only very few artificially generated samples

264: showed more or better clustered anisotropies than the original

265: data.

266: 

267: %\clearpage

268: 

269: \input{tab3.tex}

270: 

271: %\clearpage

272: 

273: In order to get a more sophisticated means of assessment we used

274: the three best clusters in a sample denoted $A$, $B$, and $C$ in

275: descending order of quality $q$. For the original data these would

276: be the very strong cluster around NGC4911 ($A$) and the slightly

277: less pronounced ones around NGC4839 ($B,C$). A detailed analysis

278: reveals that clusters $A$ and $B$ comprise 29 distinct galaxies

279: each whereas 39 distinct galaxies cause the anisotropic region

280: around cluster $C$. This can be seen in \fig\ref{clusterdetail}

281: which also shows the spatial distribution of those galaxies.

282: 

283: \tabl\ref{sigtab2} gives the results from comparing the cluster

284: qualities $q_A, q_B, q_C$ of the three top rated clusters in a

285: sample. Here

286: \begin{equation}\label{sigdef2}

287: \sigma_q:=\frac{N\left((q_A^i<q_A) \wedge (q_B^i<q_B) \wedge

288: (q_C^i<q_C)\right)}{1000}

289: \end{equation}

290: and $i$ is the index of the artificial sample as above. None of

291: the artificial samples could produce as many high quality clusters

292: of anisotropically distributed galaxies as the actual data.

293: 

294: %\clearpage

295: \begin{figure}[htb]

296: \plotone{f2.eps}

297: \caption{Map of vectors $\mbi{S}$ for anisotropic

298: galaxy subsamples (\mbox{$\gamma_{\chi^2}$=0.99}). Dashed circles

299: denote clusters identified by K-means algorithm, numbers mean

300: quality $q$. The underlying image (extension marked by light grey

301: region) shows \xray\ residuals generated by subtracting a

302: $\beta$-model from the Coma cluster \xray\ image. White + symbols

303: denote massive galaxies. Origin at \mbox{$\alpha$=$12^h57\fm3$;}

304: \mbox{$\delta$=$+28\degr14\farcm4$} (1950.0), north is up, east is

305: left.\label{meanspinxoverlay}}

306: \end{figure}

307: %\clearpage

308: 

309: In order to understand their physical meaning it is desirable to

310: verify the visually striking deviations from isotropy in

311: \fig\ref{meanspinxoverlay} by comparing them with other

312: measurements of anisotropy in the Coma cluster. An appropriate

313: means to this end can be the underlying image in

314: \fig\ref{meanspinxoverlay}. It shows the difference between the

315: original \xray\ intensity image of Coma and the expected intensity

316: for a so called $\beta$-model, which describes the distribution of

317: hot intra-cluster gas in a completely relaxed cluster. This

318: residual image was recently computed from a mosaic of XMM

319: observations of Coma composed by \citet{2003A&A...400..811N} who

320: kindly put their data at our disposal prior to publication.

321: According to them the pronounced feature in the SW around NGC4839

322: (white + symbol) is a subcluster currently falling on the main

323: cluster. Due to ram pressure inflicted by the intra-cluster gas

324: upon the subcluster, its gas is stripped off and leaves behind a

325: track of hot gas. The same mechanism seems to have produced the

326: slightly less strong residual around galaxies NGC4911 and NGC4921

327: located SE of the dominating cD galaxy pair in the center.

328: 

329: %\clearpage

330: \begin{figure*}[htb]

331: \epsscale{.8} \plotone{f3.eps}

332: \caption{Enlargements from

333: \fig\ref{meanspinxoverlay} showing the best three clusters $A, B,

334: C$ and their surroundings. Black dots denote those galaxies which

335: comprise the neighborhood of the $\mbi{S}$ vectors in the

336: cluster.\label{clusterdetail}}

337: \end{figure*}

338: %\clearpage

339: 

340: In \fig\ref{clusterdetail} indeed a striking coincidence is

341: observed between the regions of statistically significant galaxy

342: alignment and the features emerging in the residual image.

343: Moreover it may also be worth noting that the $\mbi{S}$ vectors

344: around NGC4839 seem to point in a direction tangential to its

345: perimeter while in the case of the NGC4911/NGC4921 pair the

346: anisotropies seem to coincide with the connecting line between the

347: two galaxies.

348: 

349: %\clearpage

350: \begin{figure}[htb]

351: \plotone{f4.eps}

352: \caption{The Laminar Flow Model: (a)~Stream of

353: infalling galaxies -- (b)~Orbiting galaxies -- (c)~Merger

354: product\label{LFM}}

355: \end{figure}

356: %\clearpage

357: 

358: \section{INTERPRETATION}

359: A possible explanation for the intriguing match found in

360: \fig\ref{meanspinxoverlay} and \fig\ref{clusterdetail} might be

361: given by a simple model of the dynamical evolution of interacting

362: galaxies falling on Coma along a filament, a process seemingly

363: very common for galaxy clusters

364: \citep{2002MNRAS.329L..47P,2002tceg.conf..395K,1999MNRAS.304L...5N}.

365: What we called the Laminar Flow Model (LFM) is outlined in

366: \fig\ref{LFM}.

367: \begin{enumerate}

368: \item Galaxies are streaming into the main cluster from outside.

369: The velocity vectors of two neighboring galaxies can be decomposed

370: into components parallel ($\mbi{v}_\parallel$) and perpendicular

371: ($\mbi{v}_\perp$) to the velocity vector $\mbi{v}$ of the center

372: of mass (CoM).

373: 

374: \item If viewed in a co-moving reference frame with origin in the

375: CoM, the two galaxies orbit each other prior to merging. Their

376: angular momentum vector $\label{Ldef}\mbi{L}\sim\mbi{r \times

377: v}_\perp$ lies in a plane orthogonal to $\mbi{v}_\perp$ by

378: definition. Thus the projection of $\mbi{L}$ upon the

379: observational plane is statistically more likely to be aligned

380: parallel to the infall direction $\mbi{v}$.

381: 

382: \item Finally, after the merging has taken place, the resulting

383: galaxy tends to possess a spin vector parallel to the previous

384: angular momentum $\mbi{L}$.

385: \end{enumerate}

386: Basically the process can be viewed as funneling of galaxies along

387: the filaments. Perpendicular to the infall direction matter is

388: coalescing and getting denser whereas parallel to its motion

389: vector $\mbi{v}$ it is stretched due to tidal forces. Thus the

390: probability for a merger is higher if the component of the radius

391: vector $\mbi{r}$ parallel to $\mbi{v}$ is small. From the

392: definition of $\mbi{L}$ and \fig\ref{LFM}(b) it follows that the

393: observed spin alignment can be explained by the LFM. Moreover it

394: is in accordance with the view favored by

395: \citet{2002MNRAS.335..487M} which holds that the spin vector of

396: galaxies is chiefly determined by the last few merging events.

397: 

398: \label{cdalign}The ostensible contradiction with the findings of,

399: for instance, \cite{2000ApJ...543L..27W} that the major axes of

400: the brightest cluster galaxies are aligned with the filaments, can

401: be resolved by considering the different mechanism that produces

402: the bright central cD galaxies. They are the final destination of

403: the infalling matter whose linear momentum is thus converted into

404: angular momentum by the ultimate merger with one of those cosmic

405: cannibals.

406: 

407: \label{weaklensing}Finally the issue of weak lensing should not

408: remain unmentioned. On one hand a detected orientation anisotropy

409: in a sample of galaxies may be caused by gravitational lensing, on

410: the other hand if the anisotropies are real they may give wrong

411: lensing indications if not allowed for. These considerations are

412: beyond the scope of this paper but further investigation may be

413: worthwhile.

414: 

415: \section{CONCLUSION}

416: In this work we find that the overall isotropic appearance of

417: galaxy orientations in Coma can not be maintained when looking at

418: galaxy ensembles on the smaller scales of subclusters. These

419: fluctuations are not caused by statistical variations but there

420: exists strong evidence that they are the result of anisotropic

421: merging of subcluster members which fall on the main cluster

422: presumably along filaments extending between large clusters.

423: Therefore the identification of regions in which galaxies show

424: statistically significant deviations of their spin vectors from

425: isotropy may help to trace such filaments as well as provide a new

426: and useful tool to investigate the evolution of galaxy clusters.\\[2ex]

427: Acknowledgments: The mosaic of \xray\ observations of the Coma

428: cluster was provided by courtesy of D.~Neumann

429: \citep[cf.][]{2003A&A...400..811N}.

430: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

431: %\bibliography{../Diplomarbeit/references_new}

432: \input{ms.bbl}

433: \end{document}

434: