Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- tests:collision:gc3:method_comp [2015/09/04 08:05] – watkins
+++ tests:collision:gc3:method_comp [2022/10/24 12:28] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
-== Laura's Discrete JAM ==
+=== Laura's Discrete JAM ===
 Axisymmetric Jeans models + discrete model-data comparison.
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 MGE fit to surface brightness profile:
-{{tests:collision:gc3:sb_mge_fit.png}}
+{{tests:collision:gc3:fit_sb.png}} {{tests:collision:gc3:fit_sb.pdf|PDF version}}
-[[tests:collision:gc3:sb_mge_fit.pdf|PDF version]]
+{{tests:collision:gc3:sb_mge.png}} {{tests:collision:gc3:sb_mge.pdf|PDF version}}
+The fitted MGE profile has 8 Gaussian components. I assumed that I knew the distance (1.862 kpc) and fitted only the mass profile. I used the same set of Gaussians as for the surface brightness profile, but allowed their relative contributions to vary to best fit the underlying mass distribution of the cluster.
+Fitted mass and M/L profiles:
+{{tests:collision:gc3:fit_mass.png}} {{tests:collision:gc3:fit_mass.pdf|PDF version}}
+{{tests:collision:gc3:fit_ml.png}} {{tests:collision:gc3:fit_ml.pdf|PDF version}}
+Velocity dispersion profiles:
+{{tests:collision:gc3:fit_rv_disp.png}} {{tests:collision:gc3:fit_rv_disp.pdf|RV PDF version}}
+{{tests:collision:gc3:fit_pmx_disp.png}} {{tests:collision:gc3:fit_pmx_disp.pdf|PMx PDF version}}
+{{tests:collision:gc3:fit_pmy_disp.png}} {{tests:collision:gc3:fit_pmy_disp.pdf|PMy PDF version}}
+=== Alice's single-mass DF model fit ===
+LIMEPY models (spherical, non-rotating) have been compared with surface brightness profile, line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile, and proper motions radial and tangential profiles.
+We considered 4 different cases, each time fitting on different parameters:
+(1) Isotropic case, assuming d = 1.862 kpc.
+Fitting parameters: $W_0$, $g$, $M$, $r_h$, $M/L$.
+(2) Allowing for the presence of anisotropy, and assuming d = 1.862 kpc.
+Fitting parameters: $W_0$, $g$, $M$, $r_h$, $M/L$, $r_a$. The best fit model has a very large anisotropy radius, and is actually isotropic.
+(3) Isotropic case, fitting also on the distance.
+Fitting parameters: $W_0$, $g$, $M$, $r_h$, $M/L$, $d$.
+(4) Allowing for the presence of anisotropy, and fitting also on the distance.
+Fitting parameters: $W_0$, $g$, $M$, $r_h$, $M/L$, $r_a$, $d$. The best fit model has a very large anisotropy radius, and is actually isotropic. [The contours below refer to this fit]
+[$W_0 =$ concentration of the models, $g =$ truncation parameter, $M =$ total mass of the cluster, $r_h =$ half-mass radius, $M/L =$ mass-to-light ratio, $r_a =$ anisotropy radius, $d$ = distance of the cluster]
+{{tests:collision:gc3:fit_sm_az.png}}
+{{tests:collision:gc3:fit_sm_triangle_az.png}}
+=== Mark's multi-mass DF model fit ===
+parameter multi-mass fit to M4 data:
+{{tests:collision:gc3:m4_mm_lt.png}}
+Results:
+{{tests:collision:gc3:m4_mm_sb.png}}
+{{tests:collision:gc3:m4_mm_kin.png}}
+{{tests:collision:gc3:m4_mm_ml.png}}