meeting 2024 03 13 n315 - JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5 GitHub Wiki

Context

  • This bullet summarizes the two line tests I've done, one of which did not fix T = 0.9 (old version), and an updateed case which does.

  • The other parameters are fixed to:

    • BH = 3e9
    • ML = 2.57
    • rho0 = 4e9 [code units]
    • phi = 85, line of theta
    • theta = 85, line of phi
    • phi = 5, line of theta

  • Note that originally I had spanned the full range (0,90) in these parameters (33 models each line), but some of these were non-deprojectable.

    • The same is true for the update line of models, but I had a much higher deprojectable fraction after fixing T = 0.9 (71/99 were deprojectable).

  • The results seem to show that, after fixing the other parameters, the theta and phi profiles are extraordinarily flat. It's interesting to note, too, that the phi = 5 degree models perform way substantially worse than the phi = 85 models for varying theta.

    • This suggests to me that we're seeing the degeneracy/lack of constrain in theta that we had discussed in our last meeting, given that mdoels with substantially different theta essentially give the same chi2.
Case Lines of Theta Lines of Phi Crossed
T Free [images/240228/lines_of_theta.png]]](/JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5/wiki/[[images/240228/lines_of_phi.png) images/240228/both.png
T=0.9 [images/240313/lines_of_theta.png]]](/JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5/wiki/[[images/240313/lines_of_phi.png) images/240313/both.png
  • Note that in the second row of plots for "line of theta" case, the phi = 5 degree points get cut out. Here's a version of that plot without the cut off y-axis limits:
Line of Theta, No Zoom
images/240313/lines_of_theta_nozoom.png

Comparison Updates

  • I've corrected all the black hole measurements to use the same distances throughout:
Plot
images/240313/distance_corrected-1.png

Stellar Dynamics

Galaxy D Mbh ML i Notes Reference
NGC315 68.1 Mpc 3.0e9+/-0.2e9 Msun F110W: 2.57+/-0.05 triaxial this work!
NGC524 23.3 Mpc 8.3(+2.7)(-1.3)e8 Msun I Band: 5.8+/-0.4 20 deg (measured from assumed to be circular disk) https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/399/4/1839/1033212
NGC1332 22.3 Mpc 1.45e9+/-0.2e9 Msun R Band: 7.08+/-0.39 90 deg (assumed throughout, but they ran additional tests at the deprojection limit and find same Mbh/very slightly different M/L) https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/399/4/1839/1033212?login=true
NGC4697 12.4 Mpc 2.0e8+/-0.5e8 Msun V Band: 4.3+/-0.3 90 deg (assumed throughout) there are other models in this paper; one set of models is from Gebhardt+03, the other is from this work but does not include a DM halo. the numbers quoted here are including a halo https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/21

CO Dynamics

Galaxy D Mbh ML i Notes Reference
NGC315 70.0 Mpc 2.39+/-0.01e9 Msun F110W: 2.06+/-0.01 74.1+/-0.1 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abd24d
NGC524 23.3 Mpc+/-2.3 Mpc 4.0(+3.5)(-2.0)e8 Msun i Band: 5.7+/-0.3 20 (fixed here) note that this galaxy initially had a huge uncertainty on the M/L in my initial version of this plot; this is because they present two models in this work, one of them fixes the incliation and the other does not. when they allow the inclination to be free, they find a strong degeneracy between M/L and i which gave very large uncertainties. i am no longer quoting this model and am instead quoting their fixed i = 20 case. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/485/3/4359/5371158
NGC1332 22.3 Mpc 6.64(+0.65)(-0.63)e8 Msun R Band: 7.83 85.2 deg it doesn't seem like they quote errors on anything other than the black hole mass in this work? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L28/
NGC4697 11.4+/-1.1 Mpc 1.3(+0.18)(-0.17)e8 Msun i Band: 2.14(+0.04)(-0.05) 76.1(+0.5)(-0.4) [68% conf.] https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/468/4/4675/3574072

Additional Plots

  • I've created a few additional plots that we might want to include in the paper:
    • PA_Phot = 44.31 deg E of N
    • PA_GMOS = 218 +/- 13 deg E of N
    • PA_Mitchell = 222 +/- 7 deg E of N
    • Misalignment between GMOS + Phot = 6.3 +/- 13.3 deg
V(R, Theta)
images/240313/plot-1.png

MGE vs. Sersic Profile

  • I've also tried comparing the MGE fits to the Sersic fits that Chung-Pei had passed along. Note that these are arbitrarily scaled to match what's published in Jonelle's paper/Matthew's work:
Non-Zoomed Zoomed
[images/240313/MGE_sersic_comp.png]]](/JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5/wiki/[[images/240313/MGE_sersic_comp_zoomed.png)