1: %% The command below calls the preprint style
2: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
3: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
4: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
5:
6: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
9:
10: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
11:
12: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
13:
14: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
15:
16: \usepackage{graphicx}
17: \usepackage{natbib}
18:
19: %
20:
21: \shorttitle{Chandra Observations of low $\sigma$ groups}
22: \shortauthors{Helsdon, Ponman \& Mulchaey}
23:
24: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
25: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: % the next command just puts the word DRAFT as a kind of watermark on all pages
31:
32: % \special{!userdict begin /bop-hook{gsave 200 30 translate 65 rotate
33: % /Times-Roman findfont 216 scalefont setfont 0 0 moveto 0.93 setgray
34: % (DRAFT) show grestore}def end}
35:
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: % bib style
38:
39: \bibliographystyle{apj}
40:
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: % title section
43:
44: \title{Chandra Observations of low velocity dispersion groups}
45:
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: % author section
48:
49: \author{Stephen F. Helsdon\altaffilmark{1}}
50: \affil{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA\\
51: and\\
52: School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK}
53:
54: \author{Trevor J. Ponman}
55: \affil{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK}
56:
57: \and
58:
59: \author{J. S. Mulchaey}
60: \affil{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA}
61:
62: \altaffiltext{1}{sfh@star.sr.bham.ac.uk}
63:
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67: Deviations of galaxy groups from cluster scaling relations can be
68: understood in terms of an excess of entropy in groups. The main effect
69: of this excess is to reduce the density and thus luminosity of the
70: intragroup gas. Given this, groups should also should show a steep
71: relationship between X-ray luminosity and velocity dispersion. However,
72: previous work suggests that this is not the case,
73: with many measuring slopes flatter than the cluster relation.\\
74: Examining the group $L_X:\sigma$ relation shows that much of the
75: flattening is caused by a small subset of groups which show
76: very high X-ray luminosities for their velocity dispersions (or vice versa).\\
77: Detailed Chandra study of two such groups shows that earlier ROSAT
78: results were subject to significant ($\sim$30-40\%) point source
79: contamination, but confirm that a significant hot IGM is present in these
80: groups, although these are two of the coolest systems in which
81: intergalactic X-ray emission has been detected.\\
82: Their X-ray properties are shown to be broadly consistent with those of
83: other galaxy groups, although the gas entropy in NGC\,1587 is unusually
84: low, and its X-ray luminosity correspondingly high for its temperature,
85: compared to most groups.\\
86: This leads us to suggest that the velocity dispersion in these systems
87: has been reduced in some way, and we consider how this might have come
88: about.
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
92:
93: \keywords{
94: X-rays: galaxies: clusters -- X-rays: galaxies -- intergalactic medium --
95: galaxies: clusters: general -- galaxies: evolution
96: }
97:
98: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
99:
100: \section{Introduction}
101: \label{sec:intro}
102:
103: Detailed X-ray studies of the hot intergalactic medium (IGM) in groups
104: became possible for the first time with ROSAT \citep{mulchaey96,ponman96},
105: allowing the basic properties of the IGM in groups to be established and
106: compared to that in rich clusters. Groups are found to depart
107: systematically from cluster trends, showing lower X-ray luminosity at a
108: given temperature than would be expected from extrapolation of the cluster
109: $L:T$ relation \citep{ponman96,helsdon00} and flatter X-ray surface
110: brightness profiles than clusters \citep{ponman99}. It has proved
111: instructive to consider these observations in terms of the {\it entropy} of
112: the gas \citep{bower97,ponman99}, which is found to be higher in low mass
113: systems than would be expected from a self-similar scaling of clusters,
114: although the idea of a simple universal ``entropy floor'' \citep{ponman99}
115: now looks to have been over-simplistic
116: \citep{pratt03,ponman03,sun03,mushotzky03,voit03}.
117:
118: A number of mechanisms have been suggested which might account for this
119: behavior of the entropy, by heating of the gas, or removing low entropy gas
120: through cooling, or some combination of the two -- a review of these models
121: can be found in \citet{ponman03}. Irrespective of the means by which the
122: entropy is raised in lower mass systems, the main effect is to reduce the
123: density of the IGM, though its temperature may also be somewhat increased
124: (e.g. \citealt{voit02}). Hence, if this picture for the similarity breaking
125: is basically correct, one would also expect the $L_X$:$\sigma$ relation
126: (between X-ray luminosity and velocity dispersion) to steepen in galaxy
127: groups, since the reduction in gas density lowers $L_X$ but not $\sigma$.
128: However, a variety of studies (e.g.
129: \citealt{mulchaey98,helsdon00b,mahdavi00}) have shown that this is not the
130: case, although more recently \citet{mahdavi01} has argued that there is a
131: continuous, and gradually steepening $L_X$:$\sigma$ relation from clusters
132: to individual galaxies. \citet{helsdon00b} assembled a sample of 42 galaxy
133: groups, and derived a slope for the $L_X$:$\sigma$ relation of between
134: 2.4$\pm$0.4 and 4.7$\pm$0.9 (depending on how the data were fit). This
135: group slope is flatter (or at least not steeper) than the cluster relation,
136: which has been variously derived as 6.38$\pm$0.46 \citep{white97},
137: 5.24$\pm$0.29 \citep{wu99} and 4.4$^{+0.7}_{-0.3}$ \citep{mahdavi01} -- all
138: these results being obtained using orthogonal regression techniques.
139:
140: A flat $L$:$\sigma$ relation in groups is also indicated by the independent
141: studies of \citet{mulchaey98} and \citet{mahdavi00}. The former authors had
142: only a small sample of groups, but derived reliable dispersions for these
143: by enlarging their group membership to $\ga$20 galaxies via multi-fiber
144: spectroscopy. Mahdavi et al, used ROSAT All Sky Survey data, allowing the
145: study of a large sample of groups, but providing poor quality data (a few
146: hundred seconds exposure) for each one. Hence they were unable to remove
147: X-ray emission arising from individual galaxies within the systems they
148: studied. They derived an $L$:$\sigma$ relation which flattens drastically
149: to $L_X \propto \sigma^{0.37}$ in the group regime. Unfortunately, it is
150: unclear to what extent this results from contamination of their diffuse
151: emission with flux from individual group galaxies.
152:
153: Thus, these group studies suggest that the $L_X:\sigma$ relation in groups
154: is actually \textit{flatter} than an extrapolation of the relation for
155: clusters. This surprising result could indicate a possible fundamental flaw
156: in the whole picture whereby the X-ray luminosity in poor systems is
157: suppressed by excess entropy. Alternatively, it might result from the
158: existence of unexpected new sources of X-ray emission in some low velocity
159: dispersion groups. Looking at the group $L_X:\sigma$ relation (e.g. Figure
160: 4 in \citealt{helsdon00b}) it is clear that the flat $L_X:\sigma$ relation
161: is driven by the properties of a set of groups with $\sigma\la$110 km
162: s$^{-1}$ which have diffuse luminosities much greater than the values which
163: would be expected on the basis of the cluster $L$:$\sigma$ relation ($L_X
164: \ll 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$).
165:
166: In order to better understand the properties of these low velocity
167: dispersion groups we have obtained Chandra data for two of these systems.
168: In section~\ref{sec:reduction} we describe the spatial and spectral
169: analysis, and present some basic properties of these systems. In
170: section~\ref{sec:roscomp} we compare the Chandra and ROSAT observations of
171: these systems, and finally we discuss the results in section~\ref{sec:dis}.
172: Throughput this paper we use H$_0 = 75$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
173:
174: \section{Data Reduction and Analysis}
175: \label{sec:reduction}
176:
177: We obtained observations of two low velocity dispersion groups, a $\sim$20
178: ksec observation of NGC\,1587 on October 3rd 2000, and a $\sim$20 ksec
179: observation of NGC\,3665 on 3rd November 2001. One point of concern with
180: these two systems is the fact that their velocity dispersions are so low
181: (106 km s$^{-1}$ for NGC\,1587 and 29 km s$^{-1}$ for NGC\,3665). In their
182: original group catalogues these systems have had their velocity dispersions
183: estimated from a small number of galaxies. A natural concern is therefore
184: that the anomalous positions of these systems in the $L_X:\sigma$ plot
185: might arise from seriously inaccurate values of $\sigma$. However,
186: searching the NED database for additional galaxies lying within 1 Mpc in
187: projection, and 400~km~s$^{-1}$ in velocity from the cataloged group
188: centroid, brings the membership to 8 for NGC\,1587 and 10 for NGC\,3665.
189: While these extra members do tend to increase the calculated dispersions of
190: the groups a little, both these systems still have low velocity dispersions
191: -- 108 km s$^{-1}$ for NGC\,1587 and 65 km s$^{-1}$ for NGC\,3665.
192:
193: The basic X-ray data reduction was based on the ``CIAO science threads''
194: given on the Chandra X-ray Center (CXC) web pages, and is briefly
195: summarised below. All analysis was carried out using CIAO version 2.3, and
196: CALDB version 2.21.
197:
198: \subsection{Initial Reduction}
199:
200: Initially the data were reprocessed to ensure the latest calibration files
201: were used (e.g. gain), and the CTI correction applied. In addition, the
202: $\sim$1.5 arc second aspect offset present in some Chandra observation
203: files was corrected. The observation of NGC\,3665 was taken in VFAINT mode
204: (NGC\,1587 was in FAINT mode), and as a result the VF option was selected
205: for the reprocessing of this dataset as this can significantly reduce the
206: background at low and high energies in VFAINT observations. Following this,
207: the wavdetect tool was used to source search a coarsely binned image and
208: identify obvious sources. These sources were removed from the data and a
209: light-curve was generated from the remaining data. This light-curve was
210: then used to identify and remove periods of high background from the data.
211:
212: The method used to identify periods of high background depends partly on
213: how subsequent reduction/analysis is to be carried out. In this case, we
214: make extensive use of the blank sky datasets available in the CALDB, and so
215: must clean the data in a manner comparable with the method used for the
216: blank sky files. In this case we actually generate light-curves in two
217: different energy bands --- for the FI chips we use a energy band of 0.3-12
218: keV and for the BI chips we use a band of 2.5-7 keV. These energy bands
219: were selected as these are the bands which best show flares on the two
220: types of chips (see discussion of the ACIS background on the CXC web
221: pages). Light-curve bin lengths of 259.28 seconds were used and a 2.5 sigma
222: clip was applied to remove bad regions of the observation. Note that this
223: is different to the fixed factor of 1.2 used in the analysis thread. The
224: 2.5 sigma clip was used as the expected quiescent scatter of the 2.5-7 keV
225: band for the whole S3 chip is greater than a factor of 1.2. Furthermore, if
226: large regions of the FI chips are excluded (due to sources for example)
227: then the expected scatter from the FI chips can also exceed the factor of
228: 1.2. In cases like this the blank sky ``cookbook'' recommends extending the
229: bin length so that the expected scatter is less than a factor of 1.2.
230: Instead we have used a cut based on the observed scatter which should have
231: a similar effect.
232:
233: After identifying times of bad data, the data were filtered on both the
234: good time intervals inferred from the BI and FI chips. This was done so as
235: to be as careful as possible to exclude possible flares from the data. For
236: NGC\,1587 the final exposure time was $\sim$19 ksec and for NGC\,3665
237: $\sim$17 ksec. Finally, the appropriate blank sky files for the
238: observations were identified. It was checked that the same calibration
239: files (e.g. gain) were used for the background files as for the data, and
240: the background datasets were then reprojected to have the same pointing as
241: the groups observations.
242:
243: In Figure~\ref{fig:images} adaptively smoothed X-ray contours (in the 0.7 -
244: 1.5 keV band) are overlaid onto a digital sky survey image for both of the
245: systems. The smoothing was carried out with a gaussian filter whose sigma
246: was adjusted to be 2/3 the radius needed to include a minimum of 25 counts
247: in a circle around each pixel. After examining these images and also 1D
248: profiles of the ratio of data to background, circular regions were selected
249: in which to carry out further data analysis (e.g. spectral and spatial
250: analysis). These regions are also marked in Figure~\ref{fig:images}. For
251: NGC\,1587 the region of interest is a circle of radius 4.5 arcmin and for
252: NGC\,3665, a circle of radius 5.8 arcmin.
253:
254: The blank sky datasets were also checked to see if they were a good
255: representation of the real background in the target observations. The X-ray
256: contour maps were used to identify several regions where there were
257: apparently no sources. In each of these regions the observed counts in
258: several different energy bands were compared with the predicted counts from
259: the blank sky datasets in the same region. These checks showed that the
260: predicted background was indeed consistent with that observed.
261:
262: \begin{figure}
263: \centering
264: \includegraphics[totalheight=6.7cm,angle=0]{n1587_ovly.eps}
265: \includegraphics[totalheight=6.7cm,angle=0]{n3665_ovly.eps}
266: \caption{\label{fig:images}Adaptively smoothed X-ray contours in the
267: 0.7 - 1.5 keV band overlaid onto DSS images, for NGC\,1587 (left) and
268: NGC\,3665 (right). The lowest contour is 5 sigma above the background and
269: the remaining contours are logarithmically spaced beginning with 10
270: sigma, 20 sigma, 40 sigma, etc. The circles show the radii used for
271: analysis of the systems.}
272: \end{figure}
273:
274: \subsection{Spectral Analysis}
275:
276: As we are primarily interested in the diffuse emission from these targets
277: it is important to remove any contaminating sources. The wavdetect tool in
278: CIAO was used to source search a full resolution image. The identified
279: sources were examined in ds9 to ensure all obvious contaminating sources
280: were identified and that a significant fraction of the diffuse emission was
281: not removed (e.g. check that a large part of the group central region was
282: not removed as a ``contaminating source''). All events associated with
283: these sources were then removed from the data along with all data outside
284: the region of interest (described in the previous section).
285:
286: Weighted spectral responses for the data were then generated. The 0.5-2keV
287: band was selected for the weight map as this produces a map that should
288: more closely follow the distribution of source counts (most source counts
289: fall in this band and a harder map would tend towards an area weighting).
290: Unfortunately, it turns out that in the detection radius for these two
291: groups, the background still dominates over the source counts. It is not
292: possible to do a simple background subtraction to recover the source counts
293: distribution, as the average background counts per pixel is low ($\sim$
294: 0.03 counts per pixel in the blank sky files), and subtracting this number
295: from the detected source counts (which have a minimum value of 1) will not
296: have much effect on the distribution (given that negative weights are
297: correctly ignored).
298:
299: In order to recover the approximate background subtracted spatial source
300: distribution, an image of the data and background (normalized to the same
301: exposure time as the data) are adaptively smoothed with a top hat filter,
302: which varies in size to include 10 counts in total. This smooth also
303: records for each pixel the area needed to include these 10 counts. For each
304: pixel, by comparing the area needed in the background image with the area
305: needed in the source image, it is possible to obtain an estimate of the
306: ratio of source flux to background flux. Given this ratio, and an estimate
307: of the background, it is possible to recover an estimate of the source
308: distribution. This estimate of the source distribution was then used to
309: generate the weighted responses. The resultant effective area file was also
310: corrected for the time dependent reduction in the ACIS low energy quantum
311: efficiency using the tool, corrarf, available on the CXC web pages.
312:
313: Source and blank sky spectra were extracted in the region of interest. The
314: source spectra were grouped to give a minimum of 20 counts in each bin (to
315: allow $\chi^2$ fitting later). The background subtracted data were then fit
316: to a MEKAL plasma model in sherpa \citep{freeman01}.
317: The fit was restricted to the range
318: 0.5-2.5keV, as there may be calibration problems below 0.5 keV and the
319: source counts had dropped to essentially zero by 2.5 keV in these systems.
320: The Hydrogen column density in these fits was fixed at a value determined
321: from radio surveys \citep{dickey90}. An example spectrum and fit, is shown
322: in Figure~\ref{fig:spec_fit_ex}. Overall, there were approximately 750 net
323: source counts for NGC 1587 and approximately 650 for NGC 3665.
324:
325: \begin{figure}
326: \centering
327: \includegraphics[totalheight=10cm,angle=0]{fit_free.eps}
328: \caption{\label{fig:spec_fit_ex}Example spectral fit for NGC1587 with
329: the Abundance free.}
330: \end{figure}
331:
332: After fitting the data, the best fit model was used to generate a
333: spectral weights file, which contains the fraction of the incident
334: flux falling in a series of energy bands. This can then be used to
335: refine the spectral fit --- the weighted spectral responses generated
336: initially are based on using the detected counts to weight the
337: responses, whereas, in reality, the incident flux should be used. A
338: spectral weights file can be used to correct the detected counts to
339: give the incident flux, which can then be used to generate the
340: weighted responses (Note that this is discussed in the CXC analysis
341: thread on weighting ARFs and RMFs). Updated spectral response files were then
342: generated and the spectral data were refit. This iterative process was
343: then repeated until the best fit spectral model stabilized (less than
344: a 1\% change in best fit temperature and also the lower bound
345: temperature error was the stable criteria). For both the groups in
346: this work a stable solution was reached after just two iterations. The
347: best fitting models for the two groups are given in
348: Table~\ref{tab:specfits} along with the inferred luminosities. The
349: luminosities quoted are to the radius of data extraction and include a
350: small ($<$2\%) correction for diffuse flux which was removed when
351: excluding other sources. This correction was calculated by comparing
352: spatial models (described below) with and without sources
353: removed. Errors on the luminosities are derived using a Monte Carlo
354: method. A series of spectral models was generated, with a range of
355: temperatures and abundances, extracted at random
356: from a gaussian distribution centered on the best fit value, and with
357: standard deviation corresponding to
358: the 1$\sigma$ errors. Each model was then refit to determine
359: the normalisation and a corresponding flux. The standard
360: deviation of the fluxes was then used to infer the error on the
361: luminosity.
362:
363: \input{table_spectral}
364:
365: We were also interested in looking for potential radial temperature
366: and/or metallicity variations in these systems. As a result, spectra
367: were extracted in a series of annuli, $\sim$1 arcmin in width, for
368: each system. We then used the procedure described above for the total
369: group emission to fit the spectral data in each annular bin. The only
370: difference from the earlier process was to use the spectral weights
371: file from the integrated group fit for each of the annular bins,
372: rather than running the full iterative process on each annular bin. A
373: test case was run on one of the annuli which confirmed that this did
374: not significantly alter the results. The projected 2D temperature
375: profiles are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:2d_tprof}. The abundance
376: profiles are not shown, as outside of the central bin the abundance was
377: poorly constrained. For the remainder of this paper, unless explicitly
378: stated otherwise, we use an abundance fixed at the global value. Fixing
379: the abundance at the global value does not have a significant impact
380: on the derived 2D temperature profiles, as can be seen in
381: Figure~\ref{fig:2d_tprof}.
382:
383: \begin{figure}
384: \centering
385: \includegraphics[totalheight=16cm,angle=270]{2d_tprof.eps}
386: \caption{\label{fig:2d_tprof} 2D temperature profiles for both a) NGC\,
387: 1587 and b) NGC3665. Barred crosses and solid line represent the profile
388: obtained with the metallicity allowed to vary for each annulus, while the
389: plain crosses and dotted line mark the profiles obtained with the
390: metallicity fixed at the global value. Note that the fixed metallicity
391: points have been offset slightly on the radius axis so as to show the
392: error bars more clearly.}
393: \end{figure}
394:
395: Finally, we also carried out a 3D deprojection of the spectral data in each
396: annulus. In reality the spectral data for each of the 2D annuli has some
397: contribution from gas which lies at a larger 3D radius, but which is
398: projected onto a smaller radius when viewed. We attempt to correct for the
399: effects of this, by deprojecting the data using an ``onion skin'' method.
400: Starting with the outer shell (which in theory should have no other
401: emission projected onto it), and assuming spherical symmetry, it is
402: possible to calculate what fraction of the volume of the 3D shell is seen,
403: and to calculate what fraction of this outer shell is projected onto all
404: inner annuli. It is then possible to construct a series of spectral models
405: which describe the contribution from this outer 3D shell to each 2D
406: annulus. In each model, all parameters apart from the normalisation are
407: fixed at the same values and the volume factors can be used to fix the
408: relative normalisations of the models. This procedure can then be repeated
409: for all inner annuli. Thus the spectral data for any particular 2D annulus
410: is comprised of contributions from the model describing the 3D shell at
411: this radius, plus contributions from all overlying shells.
412:
413: All spectra (and appropriate responses) for each annulus were then
414: simultaneously fit to the described set of spectral models. This gave a set
415: of models describing the 3D spectral properties of the gas. As well as
416: allowing the temperature and metallicity to vary separately in each shell,
417: models were fit which constrained both the temperature and metallicity to a
418: simple linear profile with radius. The advantage of using linear models for
419: the temperature and abundance is that it enables a better impression of
420: rough radial trends in low count data. This is because only 2 parameters
421: are fitted (central value and gradient) rather than N parameters, where N
422: is the number of radial annuli. The deprojected temperature profiles are
423: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:3d_tprof} and the parameters for the linear
424: temperature and abundance fits are given in Table~\ref{tab:deproj_lin}.
425: Note that these radial profiles only cover the inner regions of these
426: groups, and that it is not sensible to extrapolate them substantially
427: (for example, to the Virial radius), as the extrapolated profiles may
428: become unphysical (e.g. negative temperature). It is also worth noting
429: that by looking at Figure~\ref{fig:3d_tprof} one can see that neither
430: group is significantly non-isothermal apart from the central point in
431: NGC 1587.
432:
433: \begin{figure}
434: \centering
435: \includegraphics[totalheight=16cm,angle=270]{3d_tprof.eps}
436: \caption{\label{fig:3d_tprof} Deprojected 3D temperature profiles for
437: both a) NGC\,1587 and b) NGC3665. The dashed line represents the profile
438: obtained if the temperature is constrained to be a linear function with
439: radius during fitting.}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442: \input{table_deprojgrad}
443:
444: \subsection{Spatial Analysis}
445:
446: As for the spectral analysis, we are interested in the properties of the
447: diffuse gas, so all other contaminating sources were removed, along with
448: all data outside our main region of interest. An image was then generated
449: in the 0.7-1.5keV band. This particular band was chosen to help maximise
450: the signal to noise ratio of the data. As well as this image, two other
451: important sets of information are needed: an exposure map and a background
452: model. The exposure map takes into account potential exposure variations
453: across the region of interest. As a result an exposure map was generated,
454: using the standard CIAO tools and the spectral weights file derived from
455: the best fitting integrated group spectral model. We also removed (set to
456: zero) regions of the exposure map where sources had been removed in the
457: group image.
458:
459: Ideally, if the sky background is flat, the detector background should have
460: the same shape as the exposure map. However comparison of the blank sky
461: datasets in the 0.7-1.5 keV band with the exposure maps, shows that there
462: are gradients in the background level across a chip, which are greater than
463: would be expected from the exposure map alone (by a factor of $\sim$5 in
464: the worst case). These variations are most likely due to variations in the
465: cosmic ray component of the background (e.g. see the discussion of the ACIS
466: background on the CXC web pages). It is important to allow for these
467: variations, as the diffuse group emission may be at a level close to that
468: of the background. To do this, a carefully smoothed version of the blank
469: sky image was used to correct an exposure map image for the effects of this
470: gradient. The reason a corrected exposure map was used as the basis of the
471: background, rather than just the smoothed blank sky images, relates to the
472: procedure used to infer the shape of the background. To produce a smoothly
473: varying background from the blank sky files, they first had to be binned up
474: to a much coarser resolution, after which two different smoothing
475: algorithms were used to infer the structure of the background over a chip.
476: This smoothing has the side-effect of effectively adding in extra counts
477: outside the boundaries of the chips, which are not wanted. Using this
478: smoothed image to correct an exposure map automatically removes these extra
479: counts (because the exposure map is zero at those points).
480:
481: This gave a reasonably smooth background image, with an overall shape the
482: same as that observed in the blank sky dataset. The real blank sky dataset
483: was then used to predict the overall background for the group observation,
484: and the background model was renormalised to match this prediction. This
485: gave a background image with the correct shape and normalisation for the
486: observation. Finally, this background image was divided by the exposure map
487: to produce an exposure corrected background model, which would be used as a
488: model component in Sherpa.
489:
490: When modelling the diffuse emission, all fits are done with 2D data. Although
491: 1D profile fits would be simpler to derive, they suffer from potentially
492: serious biases relating to where the profile is centered, and the effects of
493: possible ellipticity
494: of the emission \citep{helsdon00}. To speed up the 2D fitting process,
495: images, exposure maps and background models were actually generated for three
496: different bin sizes covering
497: different regions - for data within 1 arcmin of the center a bin size of
498: $\sim$2 arcsec was used, for data between the radii of 1 and 3 arcmin a bin
499: size of $\sim$10 arcsec was used, and for radii beyond 3 arcmin a bin size
500: of $\sim$30 arcsec was used. Thus at larger radii (and lower counts) a
501: larger bin size was used. This prevented the fitting process from being too
502: slow, whilst still allowing good resolution in the central regions, which
503: was important for getting good constraints on the fitted models. The data
504: were then input to Sherpa and fit in 2D with $\beta$ models of the form:
505: \begin{equation}
506: \Sigma(r)=\Sigma_0(1+(r/r_{core})^{2})^{-3\beta_{fit}+0.5} + B
507: \end{equation}
508: where the free parameters were the central surface brightness $\Sigma_0$,
509: the core radius $r_{core}$, the index $\beta_{fit}$ and the $x$ and $y$
510: position of the center of the emission. Note that models for the different
511: resolutions were linked together as appropriate. Both spherical and
512: elliptical fits were carried out on the data, with the ellipticity and the
513: position angle being extra free parameters in the elliptical fits. The
514: background component, $B$ was also present in all fits, and it was defined
515: by a gridmodel component derived from the exposure corrected background
516: model image generated earlier. Note that this background component was
517: not free to vary. Given that the cosmic ray background can vary from
518: one observation to another, test fits in which the background amplitude
519: was allowed to vary, showed that while both the core radius and beta
520: increase (by about 10\% for beta), the new values and associated errors were
521: consistent, at approximately the one sigma level, with the original values
522: in which the background was frozen.
523:
524: Many groups are observed to have 2
525: components present in their X-ray emission (e.g.
526: \citealt{mulchaey98,helsdon00}), and we attempted to fit both one and two
527: component $\beta$ models to the data. Unfortunately, the data for these two
528: systems were not sufficient to provide robust constraints on any reasonable
529: two component fits, so it was only possible to derive reliable one
530: component fits. The results of the 2D fitting are shown in Table
531: \ref{tab:spatfits1}. These results are for spherical $\beta$ models.
532: Elliptical $\beta$ models were also fit to the data, but in both cases it
533: was found that the fit statistic did not improve significantly for the
534: extra parameters.
535:
536: \begin{figure}
537: \centering
538: \includegraphics[totalheight=8cm,angle=0]{ngc1587_beta_1_nobg_log.ps}
539: \includegraphics[totalheight=8cm,angle=0]{ngc3665_beta_1_nobg_log.ps}
540: \caption{\label{fig:spat1d}1D background subtracted surface brightness
541: profiles (projected from 2D) of NGC\,1587 (left) and NGC\,3665 (right). }
542: \end{figure}
543:
544: The Cash statistic \citep{cash79} was used when minimising the 2D fits.
545: On its own this statistic does not give any indication of the quality of
546: fit, and it was originally intended to determine the quality of fit using a
547: Monte Carlo procedure similar to that used in \citet{helsdon00}. Using this
548: method, estimates of the quality of the fit were obtained by using the best
549: fit model to generate 1000 model datasets with added poisson noise. The
550: Cash statistic of each of these noisy datasets when compared with the best
551: fit model was then calculated, giving the expected distribution of the Cash
552: statistic for the best fit model. The real Cash statistic for the data was
553: then compared with this distribution, by for example, calculating the
554: number of standard deviations the real Cash value lay from the mean of the
555: 1000 noisy models distribution. Unfortunately, it has now become apparent
556: that this procedure suffers from some serious flaws. Most notably, the
557: quality of fit obtained depends significantly on the binning of the data.
558:
559: \subsubsection{Problems with testing fit quality}
560:
561: To illustrate the problem with this method, consider the simple toy problem of
562: a 256x256 image, with
563: 20 counts in each pixel, apart from a 50 pixel wide bar running up the
564: image with 20.8 counts per pixel. This represents the correct model of the
565: data, from which can be generated 'observed' datasets by adding in poisson
566: noise. Given some 'observed' data, is it then possible to distinguish
567: between the datasets and a flat model with a value of $\sim$20.16 counts
568: per pixel (this level is equal to the average number of counts per pixel in
569: the original model)? The Monte Carlo method described above was used on the
570: 256x256 image and also repeated with the data re-binned by a factor of 2, 4
571: and 8 (i.e. 128x128, 64x64, 32x32, with the overall counts in the image the
572: same in each case). For the 256x256 case the Monte Carlo method suggests
573: that the flat model is a perfectly reasonable fit to the data generated
574: with the bar model (the 'observed' Cash value lies 0.86$\sigma$ from the
575: distribution mean). For the 128x128 case, the flat model is found to be a
576: borderline acceptable fit (1.83$\sigma$), for 64x64 the flat model is ruled
577: out (3.43$\sigma$), and for the 32x32 case it is strongly ruled out (6.65
578: sigma offset). It should also be pointed out that this effect is not limited
579: to the Cash statistic alone, as nearly identical results are obtained using
580: $\chi^2$ statistics.
581:
582: This shows that in the above case, the higher resolution data is more
583: likely to be considered an acceptable fit. The main reason for this is that
584: the width of the statistic distribution generated from the 1000 random
585: realizations increases roughly as the square root of the number of pixels,
586: while the size of the mismatch between the 'real' statistic value and the
587: distribution mean is approximately constant. This dependence on resolution
588: is clearly an undesirable property when trying to construct a reliable
589: estimate of the quality of fit.
590:
591: The origin of this effect can be quite easily understood. When using either
592: the Cash statistic or the $\chi^2$ statistic, the value of the statistic
593: is derived from the addition of scaled residuals, without any account of
594: the \textit{spatial structure} of these deviations. For example, consider the
595: implications of structure in these deviations in the case of the $\chi^2$
596: statistic, where the maths is simpler. For a good model, data residuals
597: (data, $d_i$, minus model, $m_i$) are uncorrelated from one point to the
598: next. This is clearly not the case in the above toy problem, as there is a
599: systematic offset across the image. Systematic offsets could also arise
600: very easily in surface brightness profile analyses. To see the effect of
601: systematic offsets on the $\chi^2$ statistic consider the following:
602:
603: \begin{equation}
604: \chi^2 = \sum_{i} \frac{r_i^2}{d_i},
605: \end{equation}
606: where $r_i = d_i - m_i$. Now $r_i$ can be decomposed into a statistical
607: contribution $e_i$, with an expectation value of zero, but with $<e_i^2>=m_i$, and a
608: systematic misfit contribution $s_i$, which is due to real discrepancies
609: between the data and the model.
610:
611: \begin{equation}
612: \chi^2 = \sum \frac{e_i^2 + s_i^2 + 2e_is_i}{d_i}
613: \end{equation}
614:
615: Now suppose that the number of bins is increased by a factor $f$, without
616: changing the total number of counts. Then the values of $d_i$ and $m_i$ drop
617: by the factor $f$. Taking expectation values throughout the above expression
618: for $\chi^2$, the sum runs over $fN$ values, $<e_i^2>$ and $d_i$ both scale
619: as $1/f$, $s_i^2$ scales as $1/f^2$, and $<e_is_i>$ vanishes. This shows
620: that the contribution to $\chi^2$ coming from the model misfit stays constant,
621: whilst the contribution to $\chi^2$ from statistical variations, and the
622: number of degrees of freedom, scale up as $f$. Since the width of the $\chi^2$
623: distribution scales as approximately the square root of the number of degrees
624: of freedom, this means that the significance of the misfit will drop for the
625: higher resolution data (or conversely, binning up the data is more likely
626: to show a misfit), just as seen in the above example. The same effect
627: also exists for the Cash statistic. It is also worth emphasising that this
628: resolution dependence only occurs if there is systematic structure in the
629: residuals. If the residuals do not show any systematic structure the $s_i^2$
630: term will scale as $1/f$ and the resolution dependence will disappear. e.g. if
631: in our simple toy model above we had distributed the pixels with 20.8 counts
632: randomly about the image, rather than grouped together in a bar, we would not
633: expect to see the fit quality get worse as the data are binned up (as is the
634: case when they are in a bar). Running the same test as was applied to the image
635: with a bar confirms this prediction -- in this case the fit is acceptable at all
636: resolutions (always $< 1\sigma$ from the distribution mean).
637:
638: The resolution dependence of the fit statistic above is a demonstration
639: that simple misfit tests based on the value of the Cash or $\chi^2$ statistics
640: do not take into account the effects of spatial correlations between residuals.
641: In particular, this means that in the limit of very fine binning, the misfit test
642: is a very weak measure of goodness of fit. As larger bins are used, spatially
643: correlated residuals combine to become more significant, but ultimately all
644: structure will be lost in the limit of very coarse binning -- in the limit of a
645: single bin, if the model and data have the same overall normalization, a
646: perfect fit will always be obtained, regardless of the smaller scale structure
647: of the model and data. Given this, a reasonable compromise approach is to bin
648: on progressively larger scales, and to take the case where the fit is poorest
649: as an indication of the true quality of fit of the model. However, this is still
650: not ideal, since the scale of the systematic misfits could vary around the image,
651: so that no single binning scale is entirely satisfactory. It should also be noted
652: that these results are quite general, and apply, for example, to the use of $\chi^2$
653: to evaluate the adequacy of \textit{spectral} fits.
654:
655: \input{table_spatial}
656:
657: The problems described above make it difficult to reliably estimate the
658: quality of our spatial fits. Running the 2D data for the two groups through
659: the flawed test described above suggests that the circular beta models
660: are acceptable fits. Running the quality of fit test at a variety of resolutions
661: (binning the data by factors of 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16)
662: suggests that there is systematic structure in the data minus model residuals
663: of both groups (i.e. the quality of fit gets worse as the data are binned up).
664: At the worse fit quality both groups are still acceptable fits although only
665: marginally so for NGC 1587 with a worse case offset of 1.99$\sigma$, while
666: NGC 3665 has a worse case offset of 0.5$\sigma$. However this result should
667: be treated with some care given the limits and reliability
668: of the quality of fit test. It is however, reassuring to note that the 1D
669: profiles (projected from 2D) shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spat1d} suggest that
670: the models do appear to provide a reasonable match to the data.
671:
672: \section{Comparison with previous ROSAT observations}
673: \label{sec:roscomp}
674:
675: \input{table_rcomp1}
676:
677: The spectral parameters as derived for these groups are compared with
678: previous ROSAT determinations in Table~\ref{tab:rcomp1}. The Chandra
679: derived parameters have a number of differences from the ROSAT values: The
680: temperature for NGC\,1587 is much lower than the ROSAT data had suggested,
681: while the derived bolometric luminosity is consistent with previous
682: estimates (although both are dependent on the abundance). In contrast the
683: X-ray temperature of NGC\,3665 is comparable to previous estimates and the
684: Chandra derived X-ray luminosity is a little lower. The ROSAT observations
685: were generally unable to put any strong constraints on the abundances, so
686: no meaningful comparison of the abundances is possible.
687:
688: Given that there are clearly differences seen, it is important to try to
689: understand their origin. A likely reason is that the ROSAT data have been
690: contaminated by unresolved point sources which have been identified and
691: removed in the Chandra data. To check for this we first calculated the
692: total background subtracted counts in the Chandra data after removing all
693: identified contaminating sources. These counts were calculated in the ROSAT
694: bandpass (0.3--2.3keV) and over the same area that the ROSAT data were
695: derived (a 6 arcminute radius circle in both cases, with an additional
696: region excluded in NGC1587 where the ROSAT PSPC support ring fell in the
697: area). The contaminating source list from Chandra was then compared with
698: the equivalent list for the ROSAT data (from the analysis of
699: \citealt{helsdon00}), and the Chandra sources corresponding to sources
700: found in the ROSAT data were identified. The background subtracted counts
701: in the Chandra data were then re-calculated but this time, only the ROSAT
702: identified sources were removed. The results of these calculations for the
703: two groups are shown in Table~\ref{tab:rcomp2}.
704:
705: \input{table_rcomp2}
706:
707: Table~\ref{tab:rcomp2} shows that for both groups there is clearly
708: substantial contamination of the ROSAT data due to unresolved point
709: sources. For these groups unresolved point sources have increased the real
710: (Chandra measured) flux by 30--40\% in the ROSAT data. Taking into account
711: these unresolved point sources moves the ROSAT derived luminosities for
712: NGC\,3665 into better agreement with the Chandra data, whilst for NGC\,1587
713: the ROSAT luminosities drop relative to the Chandra luminosity. However the
714: luminosities can also be significantly altered due to differences in the
715: spectral properties (in particular the temperature). These luminosities are
716: based on unabsorbed fluxes, and the correction from an absorbed flux to
717: unabsorbed flux tends to be larger for cooler systems. For NGC\,1587 this
718: effect increases the luminosity by a factor of $\sim$1.4 (for a spectral
719: model with $T=0.9$ keV changing to a model with $T=0.37$ keV), which almost
720: exactly cancels out the effect of the unresolved point sources, resulting
721: in a similar final luminosity to that derived in the ROSAT data. Note that
722: the hotter temperature obtained when fixing the abundance at 0.3 results in
723: a luminosity lower than that obtained with the ROSAT data.
724:
725: For NGC\,3665 the luminosity change due to the spectral model differences
726: is a factor of $\sim$1.2 which again acts to reduce the difference between
727: the ROSAT and Chandra data, with the end result that after allowing for
728: both this correction and the correction for unresolved point sources, that
729: the Chandra derived luminosity is a little below the ROSAT luminosity, but
730: probably just consistent within the errors. The difference in luminosity
731: between the Chandra data with free and fixed abundances, is again due to
732: the differences in the spectral models.
733:
734: One final check that can be carried out on the spectral data is to examine
735: whether the unresolved point sources in the ROSAT data can explain the
736: spectral differences seen in the different instruments. To check this, the
737: integrated group spectra for each group were refit, but this time only
738: removing those Chandra sources also identified in the ROSAT data. For both
739: groups the effect of this was to raise the fitted temperature a little, to
740: $T=$0.46$^{+0.06}_{-0.09}$ for NGC\,1587 and $T=$0.49$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ for
741: NGC\,3665 (abundance free in both cases). With these sources added back in,
742: the luminosity for NGC\,3665 moves into very good agreement with the ROSAT
743: derived values, while the luminosity of NGC\,1587 drops a little due to the
744: change in spectral parameters.
745:
746: In summary, adding back unresolved ROSAT sources into the Chandra data
747: results in good agreement between the temperature and luminosity for
748: NGC\,3665. However, for NGC\,1587, the temperatures are still lower than
749: the best fit ROSAT temperature, although this difference is reduced if a
750: fixed abundance of 0.3 is used, as with the ROSAT data.
751:
752: \input{table_rcomp3}
753:
754: Table~\ref{tab:rcomp3} compares the spatial parameters derived for the
755: Chandra data with those obtained in previous ROSAT analyses. As can be seen
756: the $\beta_{fit}$ values are roughly consistent with previous ROSAT values,
757: as are the core radii, although these are constrained much more tightly in
758: the higher resolution Chandra data. For NGC\,1587, the core radius is much
759: smaller than that obtained with ROSAT, although the ROSAT values are not
760: particularly well constrained, and the difference is not significant. The
761: slightly lower $\beta_{fit}$ value for NGC\,1587 is most likely related to
762: the smaller core radius as there is a well known correlation between core
763: radius and $\beta_{fit}$ in these models.
764:
765: \section{Discussion}
766: \label{sec:dis}
767: Our primary result is that the bulk of the ``diffuse'' emission reported
768: from the ROSAT analyses of these two very low velocity dispersion groups is
769: confirmed by Chandra to be genuine hot plasma emission from a hot IGM.
770: Nonetheless, we find some significant differences between the ROSAT and
771: Chandra results for these two groups. These discrepancies appear to be
772: primarily related to the effects of contaminating point sources which are
773: not resolved in the ROSAT data. For these two groups these unresolved point
774: sources cause the ROSAT count rates to be overestimated by a factor of
775: 1.3-1.4, and it should be reasonable to expect other low luminosity (log
776: $L_X \la$ 41.5) groups observed by ROSAT to show comparable contamination.
777: The remaining emission from these systems appears to mostly arise from a
778: hot gas component. The expected discrete source contribution from X-ray
779: binaries in the galaxies of these groups, is a factor of 7-10 times fainter
780: than the measured luminosities (assuming a discrete $L_X/L_B$ =
781: 29.5 erg~s$^{-1} L_\odot^{-1}$ --- \citealt{osullivan01}), and would in any
782: case be restricted within the optical confines of the galaxies.
783:
784: \begin{figure}[h]
785: \centering
786: \includegraphics[totalheight=10cm,angle=270]{ltplot.eps}
787: \caption{\label{fig:lt}The $L_X:T$ relation from \protect\citet{helsdon00b}
788: with arrows showing how NGC\,1587 and NGC\,3665 have moved as a result
789: of the analysis in this paper.}
790: \end{figure}
791:
792: For a fixed spectral model, the removal of these point sources in the
793: Chandra data should result in lower group X-ray luminosities. However,
794: significant differences in the fitted spectral models (e.g. a large change
795: in temperature), may act to either increase or reduce the overall effect on
796: the inferred bolometric X-ray luminosity. In general, the properties we
797: derive for these two groups fall within the spread of other groups (e.g.
798: \citealt{mulchaey96,helsdon00,mulchaey03}), although they are amongst the
799: faintest and coolest groups currently known.For example, despite the large
800: change in temperature for NGC\,1587, and the drop in luminosity for
801: NGC\,3665, the groups still appear to be consistent with previously derived
802: scaling relations such as the $L_X:T$ relation, as shown in
803: Figure~\ref{fig:lt}. This suggests that their dynamical status is not
804: likely to be grossly different from that of other groups.
805:
806: The low $\beta_{fit}$ values obtained are consistent with what has been
807: seen in other groups \citep{helsdon00,mulchaey03,osmond03}, and are broadly
808: consistent with what would be expected, given the possible trends of
809: $\beta_{fit}$ with temperature that have been reported (e.g.
810: \citealt{helsdon00,sanderson03}). As for the core radii of these two
811: systems, the Chandra data are able to put much stronger constraints on this
812: parameter than the ROSAT data. One of the problems in previous ROSAT
813: observations of groups (e.g. \citealt{helsdon00,mulchaey03}) is that often
814: the core radii have been unresolved. The Chandra data have enabled us to
815: derive tight constraints on the core radius of NGC\,3665, but, remarkably,
816: the core radius for NGC1587 is still unresolved in the Chandra data,
817: implying a power-law like surface brightness profile to within $\sim$ 0.5
818: kpc of the center of the system.
819:
820: One might expect these results for beta and core radius ought to be fairly
821: reliable, since the data for these two systems are fit over a region 60 to
822: 130 times larger than the implied core radius. However some caution is
823: needed, as it is possible that there may be a significant bias in these
824: results. In general, groups with good data quality require a 2-component
825: model to adequately describe their surface brightness profiles
826: \citep{mulchaey98,helsdon00}. Unfortunately, the Chandra data for NGC\,1587
827: and NGC\,3665 are not of sufficient quality to be able to constrain a
828: 2-component model, or rule out the need for one. Where systems really are
829: described by a 2-component model, the use of a single component model can
830: result in a significant bias in the fitted parameters, in particular
831: $\beta_{fit}$ may be either under- or over-estimated \citep{helsdon00}.
832:
833: A second potential problem with the issue of fitted surface brightness
834: profiles is the effect of aperture. Simulations of clusters generally
835: produce convex gas density profiles, and as a result the $\beta_{fit}$
836: value derived for a surface brightness profile may depend strongly on the
837: range of radii used in the fit \citep{navarro95,bartelmann96,voit02}. In
838: particular, $\beta_{fit}$ values derived on scales much less than the
839: virial radius tend to be systematically low. This could be a significant
840: problem for both our groups, as they are both detected to only
841: $\sim$0.1-0.2 of their virial radius ($R_{200}$). However, such simulations
842: are by no means guaranteed to include the correct gas physics, so one would
843: like to appeal directly to observations on the question of whether gas
844: density profiles follow a power law at large radii. Recent XMM observations
845: of two richer galaxy groups \citep{rasmussen03}, in which X-ray emission is
846: traced to $\sim$0.65$R_{200}$, are encouraging, in that a beta model is
847: found to provide a good representation of the profiles to the edge of the
848: data, with no significant convexity in the measured profiles.
849:
850: Assuming that our surface brightness profiles do provide a reasonable
851: description of the data, it is possible to derive a number of other
852: interesting properties for these systems, such as gas mass and total mass.
853: In fact, within the data extraction radius, the gas mass is relatively
854: insensitive to changes in $\beta_{fit}$ and core radius, as the
855: normalisation of the gas density profile is constrained by the
856: normalisation of the spectral fit. However, when making large
857: extrapolations of the data, the masses can be quite sensitive to changes in
858: $\beta_{fit}$ and the results from large extrapolations should be viewed
859: with some caution.
860:
861: \begin{figure}[t]
862: \centering
863: \includegraphics[totalheight=10cm,angle=270]{entropy.eps}
864: \caption{\label{fig:entropy}Scaled entropy (S/T) as a function of
865: $R_{200}$ for NGC\,1587 (dashed line) and NGC\,3665 (dotted line). The
866: bold solid line is the average scaled entropy profile for groups as
867: determined by \protect\citet{ponman03}. The fainter solid line (lower
868: one) shows the expected canonical relationship, normalized to a 0.4 keV
869: system (see text for details). The two arrows mark the extent of the data
870: for the two groups in this analysis. The faint dashed and dotted lines show
871: the approximate 1 sigma error bounds for the two profiles.}
872: \end{figure}
873:
874: Given spectral information, together with a model for the surface
875: brightness distribution, it is possible to derive the gas entropy in these
876: systems. Entropy profiles were derived by assuming an isothermal
877: temperature distribution in each, and inferring the gas density profile
878: from a combination of the spectral data and the surface brightness profile.
879: The entropy, defined here as $S=T/n_e^{2/3}$, where $n_e$ is the electron
880: density, is then readily calculated. For self-similar systems virialising
881: at the same epoch (and hence having the same mean overdensity) one expects
882: the entropy at a given overdensity radius to simply scale with mean system
883: temperature \citep{ponman99}. Hence, for comparison between different
884: systems, it is helpful to scale entropies by $1/T$. In
885: Figure~\ref{fig:entropy} we show such scaled entropy profiles for NGC\,1587
886: and NGC\,3665. Also shown for comparison is the average scaled entropy
887: profile for a number of low temperature systems, derived by
888: \citet{ponman03}, and a line representing expectations from simulations
889: involving only gravitational physics and shock heating. The latter follows
890: the trend $S\propto r^{1.1}$ expected from analytical theories of spherical
891: accretion of gas onto clusters \citep{tozzi01}, and found in cosmological
892: simulations. This profile has been normalised using the simulations of
893: \citet{voit03b}, and scaled to $T=0.4$~keV, to match the typical
894: temperatures of NGC\,1587 and NGC\,3665. This shows that both groups have
895: entropies well above the self-similar expectations, as is typically the
896: case in low mass systems \citep{ponman03,voit03}. The scaled entropy of the
897: IGM in NGC\,3665 agrees well with that seen in other poor groups, whilst
898: that in NGC\,1587 is unusually low, accounting for the location of the
899: latter to the high side of the $L_X:T$ relation (Fig.\ref{fig:lt}). It has
900: already been pointed out by \citet{mushotzky03} and \citet{sun03} that the
901: scaled entropy in groups shows considerable real scatter, which may reflect
902: differences in the star-forming and merger histories within different
903: groups.
904:
905: \input{table_mass}
906:
907: In Table~\ref{tab:mass} we show a number of inferred parameters for our two
908: groups, assuming spherical symmetry and an isothermal IGM. The errors on
909: the parameters are obtained by taking the extreme effects of the errors on
910: the spectral normalisation and temperature. For each group we show the
911: parameters calculated at 3 different radii: the data extraction radius,
912: 0.3$R_{200}$ and $R_{200}$. $R_{200}$ is calculated by deriving the
913: over-density profile, and finding the radius which corresponds to an
914: over-density of 200 (relative to the critical density of the Universe).
915: For NGC\,1587 this radius was 327 kpc (factor of 5 extrapolation in radius)
916: and for NGC\,3665, 409 kpc (factor of 9 extrapolation in radius).
917:
918: As can be seen, these systems have fairly low total masses -- the typical
919: mass of the groups given in \citet{mulchaey96} is $\sim 1\times10^{13}$
920: M$_\sun$, although those masses are derived to a variety of different
921: radii. Our masses and group temperatures are roughly consistent with the
922: isothermal mass-temperature relation for groups and clusters derived by
923: \citet{sanderson03}. The gas masses are fairly low for groups, although due
924: to the flat gas density profiles inferred, they rise strongly with radius,
925: as do the gas mass fractions. Despite the comparatively low gas mass and
926: gas fractions, these values are still substantially larger than those of
927: bright ellipticals (e.g. \citealt{bregman92,osullivan03}) at 0.3$R_{200}$,
928: and the values are rising more rapidly with radius in these groups, since
929: \citet{osullivan03} find that typically $\beta_{fit}\sim 0.5$ in the halos
930: of early-type galaxies.
931:
932: In addition to the total and gas masses we also show a number of other
933: parameters. The stellar mass is estimated by searching NED for galaxies
934: within the appropriate radius and assuming mass-to-light ratios of
935: 5~$M_{\sun}/L_B$ for early type galaxies and 1~$M_{\sun}/L_B$ for late
936: types. Both these systems are very poor, and most of the brighter member
937: galaxies are found in the central regions, leading to stellar mass fraction
938: which is high in the central region, but drops off fairly rapidly with
939: radius. The large stellar mass fraction also leads to a high mean star
940: formation efficiency (defined as $M_*/(M_*+M_{gas}$) in the central
941: regions. Clusters typically have efficiencies of $\sim$ 0.2-0.3
942: \citep{david90,arnaud92}, however once again these are generally derived at
943: a much larger fraction of R$_{200}$ than the radius to which groups are
944: detected, and the extrapolation to R$_{200}$ for the groups shows that
945: there is the potential for a substantial drop with radius.
946:
947: The baryon fractions and mass-to-light ratios are both roughly consistent
948: with the range of values seen in \citet{mulchaey96}. The baryon fraction
949: shows less radial variation than most of the other parameters, as the
950: effect of the rising gas mass fraction and dropping stellar mass fraction
951: partially cancel out to produce a flatter baryon fraction profile. The
952: baryon fraction of NGC\,1587 is roughly consistent with the typical values
953: of 0.1-0.3 seen in clusters (e.g. \citealt{david95,hradecky00}), while
954: NGC\,3665 is a little lower than this.
955:
956: Thus overall these two systems have properties which appear to be broadly
957: consistent the scaling relations observed in other galaxy systems (apart
958: from the $L:\sigma$ relation as discussed below). In the few cases where
959: there may be some significant differences (e.g. star formation efficiency)
960: these two groups tend to differ in the sense that they appear more like
961: individual galaxies, although some care is needed as some of these
962: properties have the potential for significant radial changes. For example,
963: the star formation efficiency is clearly dropping with radius, and at
964: values close to R$_{200}$ this value could be consistent with clusters
965: given the uncertainties involved in the extrapolation.
966: % Consider LX/LB too??
967:
968: We conclude that in most respects, NGC\,1587 and NGC\,3665 appear to be
969: fairly normal, low mass, groups. Given this, there is no reason to expect
970: them to have a significant offset from the group $L:\sigma$ relation.
971: However as discussed in the introduction, these two groups are
972: significantly offset from an extrapolation of the cluster $L:\sigma$
973: relation, and this offset is in a direction opposite to what would be
974: expected, given the effects of preheating. If the X-ray luminosities really
975: are comparatively normal, especially in the case of NGC\,3665, then perhaps
976: the velocity dispersions are unusual in some way.
977:
978: As mentioned earlier in \S\ref{sec:reduction}, the original velocity
979: dispersions of these systems were estimated from very few galaxies, which
980: suggests that they may be suspect. However, as shown above, the addition of
981: related galaxies from NED was able to significantly increase the group
982: membership, and confirm the low velocity dispersions. One can attempt to
983: further refine these dispersions by only including galaxies within the
984: virial radius in projection (1 Mpc was used earlier). This has the effect
985: of dropping the membership to 6 galaxies for both groups, leading to a
986: velocity dispersion of 101 $\pm$ 29 for NGC\,1587 and 61 $\pm$ 17 for
987: NGC\,3665 -- values which are actually almost identical to those obtained
988: under the less strict membership requirements used in
989: \S\ref{sec:reduction}.
990:
991: The measured velocity dispersion for NGC\,3665 is immediately suspect, as a
992: virialised system must have a minimum mean density related to the density
993: of the universe, which can be used to constrain the velocity dispersion of
994: a virialised group to be at least 100-200~km~s$^{-1}$ \citep{mamon94}. The
995: velocity dispersion of NGC\,3665 is clearly below this limit and the
996: dispersion of NGC\,1587 is also uncomfortably low. Even after correcting
997: for statistical biases in the group velocity dispersion (the standard
998: method of calculating velocity dispersions is biased low, and this bias
999: is most significant when the number of group members is low -- Helsdon
1000: \& Ponman in prep.) these velocities are only increased to 117 km s$^{-1}$ and 70 km s$^{-1}$
1001: respectively. Figure~\ref{fig:lvplot} shows how NGC\,1587 and NGC\,3665
1002: move on the group $L:\sigma$ relation if these velocity dispersions are
1003: used along with the Chandra luminosities derived earlier. The other data
1004: points in Figure~\ref{fig:lvplot} are taken from \citet{helsdon00b}.
1005:
1006: \begin{figure}[t]
1007: \centering
1008: \includegraphics[totalheight=10cm,angle=270]{lvplot.eps}
1009: \caption{\label{fig:lvplot}The $L_X:\sigma$ relation using data from
1010: \protect\citet{helsdon00b} with arrows showing how NGC\,1587 and
1011: NGC\,3665 have moved as a result of the analysis in this paper. The line
1012: marks the cluster line as derived by \protect\citet{white97}.}.
1013: \end{figure}
1014:
1015: Since we have mass profiles from our X-ray analysis, we can predict the
1016: velocity dispersion we would expect to see within the group, under given
1017: assumptions about the galaxy orbits. In the simple case of an isothermal
1018: sphere, with isotropic velocities, $\sigma^{2}(r)=G M(r)/2r$, and using the
1019: masses given in Table~\ref{tab:mass}, we obtain a predicted velocity
1020: dispersion for NGC\,1587 of $\sim$ 174 km s$^{-1}$, and for NGC\,3665 of
1021: $\sim$ 217 km s$^{-1}$ (these predictions are essentially the same for each
1022: of the three mass/radius combinations in the table) -- both much larger
1023: than the measured values. \citet{lokas01} calculated the line-of-sight
1024: velocity dispersions which would be observed for galaxies orbiting within
1025: halos with density profiles which follow the ``NFW'' profile of
1026: \citet{navarro95}, for a range of halo concentration parameters and orbital
1027: anisotropies. In general, these results show that the isothermal sphere
1028: assumption gives a reasonable approximation to the integrated value of
1029: $\sigma$ for likely halo concentrations. Purely radial orbits result in
1030: $\sigma(r)$ profiles which rise sharply in the centre, whilst circular
1031: orbits result in a central minimum in $\sigma(r)$. However, for velocity
1032: dispersions calculated (as here) for galaxies falling within $R_{200}$, all
1033: reasonable models produce mean velocity dispersions which fall within $\sim
1034: 20$\% of the isothermal value.
1035:
1036: If the velocity dispersion values predicted from the masses above are a
1037: fair estimate of the `real' velocity dispersion, then some process must
1038: have reduced the velocity dispersion of the galaxies in these systems. One
1039: possible candidate is dynamical friction. The timescale for dynamical friction
1040: in these two groups can be estimated using the equations given by
1041: \citet{binney87} which integrate the \citet{chandrasekhar43} dynamical
1042: friction force as a galaxy falls towards the group centre. We assume that
1043: the total gravitational mass is proportional to $r^{-2}$, and that a galaxy
1044: is initally on a circular orbit at a radius of 200 kpc (a little below the
1045: predicted virial radius for NGC 3665, and approximately the average radius
1046: of galaxies in NGC 1587) with a velocity of $\sqrt{2} \sigma_{p}$, where
1047: $\sigma_{p}$ is the predicted velocity dispersions for the group as described
1048: above. Under these assumptions an $L_*$ galaxy with a typical mass to light
1049: ratio of 10 $M_{\sun}/L_{\sun}$ is predicted to fall to the group center in
1050: $\sim 2.9$ Gyr for NGC 1587 and $\sim 3.9$ Gyr for NGC 3665. Thus the
1051: effects of dynamical friction acting over a substantial fraction of the
1052: Hubble time could be significant in both these groups.
1053:
1054: Dynamical friction leads to a transfer of energy from a large orbiting
1055: body, to the sea of dark matter particles through which it moves. Another
1056: possibility is that orbital energy may be converted into internal energy of
1057: galaxies, via tidal interactions. This effect is not significant in
1058: clusters, since the orbital velocities of galaxies are substantially higher
1059: than their internal velocity dispersions. In the present case, however, the
1060: reverse is true, and strong tidal encounters between the slowly moving
1061: galaxies could absorb substantial orbital energy, leading to
1062: circularisation and lowering of orbits. Both effects would reduce measured
1063: line-of-sight (los) velocity dispersions to some extent.
1064:
1065: A third possibility, is that in NGC\,1587 and NGC\,3665, much of the
1066: orbital motion happens to take place in the plane of the sky, and does not
1067: contribute to the line of sight velocity dispersion. Since groups generally
1068: form within cosmic filaments, in cosmological simulations, it would not be
1069: surprising to find significant elongation and an anisotropic velocity
1070: dispersion tensor in many systems (e.g. \citealt{tovmassian02}).
1071: Distributing such systems at a variety of angles to the los, will then
1072: result in additional scatter (over and above that expected from random
1073: sampling of an isotropic velocity distribution) in $\sigma$. Such
1074: non-statistical scatter is certainly observed in the $\sigma:T$ relation
1075: \citep{helsdon00b}. In this picture, low $\sigma$ groups have
1076: 3-dimensional velocity dispersions which are substantially more than
1077: $\sqrt{3}\sigma_{los}$, and there will be other groups for which the
1078: reverse is true.
1079:
1080:
1081: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1082: \section{Acknowledgments}
1083:
1084: The authors would like to thank Ben Maughan for helpful discussions on the
1085: Cash statistic and for assistance with the Cash statistic simulations. We
1086: would also like to thank Gary Mamon for helpful discussion of the velocity
1087: dispersion in groups. Partial support for this project was provided by SAO
1088: grants GO1-2134X and AR3-4013X.
1089:
1090: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1091: \bibliography{apj-jour,../../bibtex/reffile}
1092: \label{lastpage} \end{document}
1093: