tests:collision:gc4:method_comp
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
tests:collision:gc4:method_comp [2016/10/13 10:19] – gieles | tests:collision:gc4:method_comp [2022/10/24 12:28] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==== M4 mass modelling / method comparison results ==== | ==== M4 mass modelling / method comparison results ==== | ||
+ | |||
Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
Mass function: | Mass function: | ||
- | | Model | M_j | + | | Model | M_j | M_j/ |
- | | 1B. GG79 Model A | [5, 1, 0.1] | + | | 1B. GG79 Model A | [5.0, 1, 0.1] |[0.82, 0.16, 0.02] | | [0.50, 1, 1.5]| |
- | | 1C. Actual MF | [0.433, 0.14, 0.422] | [0.374, 0.782, 0.674] | | + | | 1C. Actual MF |
Results: | Results: | ||
Line 32: | Line 33: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Laura' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Dynamical models**: Spherical Jeans Anisotropic MGE (JAM) models. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Data-model comparison**: | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Assumptions**: | ||
+ | - Models are spherical. | ||
+ | - Anisotropy is beta=1-v_theta^2/ | ||
+ | - Models assume no rotation. | ||
+ | - Surface brightness profile is known. | ||
+ | - No background contamination, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Additional comments**: | ||
+ | - Surface brightness and surface mass density are input as Multi-Gaussian Expansions (MGEs). I fit an MGE to the SB profile on the wiki and then used this for all my models, so SB is fixed (see Assumption #4). Unless explicitly stated below, I assume that the surface mass profile is a scaled version of the SB profile. If I assume a constant M/L then all SB MGE components are multiplied by the same M/L value to get the surface mass profile. If I assume a variable M/L then each Gaussian component of the MGE is multiplied by a different value. | ||
+ | - Anisotropy is specified for each Gaussian component of the SB MGE. If I assume constant anisotropy, then all SB components have the same anisotropy. If I assume variable anisotropy, I then each component is given a different anisotropy value. | ||
+ | - I actually fit beta' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Line-of-sight velocities only ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Model 1: constant M/L === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Extra assumptions: | ||
+ | - distance is known | ||
+ | - model is isotropic | ||
+ | - M/L is constant | ||
+ | |||
+ | Fit for constant M/L only: 1 free parameter. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Model 2: constant M/L, constant anisotropy, distance === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Extra assumptions: | ||
+ | - anisotropy is constant | ||
+ | - M/L is constant | ||
+ | |||
+ | Fit for constant M/L, constant anisotropy, distance: 3 free parameters. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Model 3: variable M/L === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Extra assumptions: | ||
+ | - distance is known | ||
+ | - model is isotropic | ||
+ | |||
+ | Fit for M/L per Gaussian component of SB MGE: 8 MGE components --> 8 parameters. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Line-of-sight velocities and Proper motions ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Model 1: constant M/L, constant anisotropy, distance === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Extra assumptions: | ||
+ | - anisotropy is constant | ||
+ | - M/L is constant | ||
+ | |||
+ | Fit for constant M/L, constant anisotropy, distance: 3 free parameters. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === Model 2: M/L, anisotropy, distance === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Fit for variable M/L (8 components), | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ |
tests/collision/gc4/method_comp.1476353968.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/10/24 12:28 (external edit)