meeting 2024 03 13 n57 - JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5 GitHub Wiki
- This bullet revists where we were leaving off with N57.
- High Level Details
- D = 66.9 ± 2.9 (Jensen+2021) – this is 10 Mpc different from the previous distance measurement of 76.3 Mpc
- GMOS PA: +41.0 E of N, Mitchell PA: +41.1;
- GMOS PSF: Using Avg. weighted FWHM = 0.81"; Mitchell PSF: 0.5 (from N1453+N2693)
- 215 GMOS bins (8 moments), 41 Mitchell bins (6 moments) = 256 total bins, 1966 total kinematic constraints
- Also had done some preliminary sersic fits to determine R_core; could be interesting to revisit
- Other Useful numbers:
- 1+d_g = 2.3
- nu_10 = 4.9
- M_K = -25.75
- PA_Kin_GMOS = 100 +/- 22
- PA_Kin_mitchell = N/A
- PA_Phot = 40.2 +/- 0.5
- Psi = 59.3 +/- 22
And here is an exhaustive table of the different cubes we ran
Cube Name | Date | Summary |
---|---|---|
Cube A1 | Feb 3, 2022 | 6d hypercube, with gNFW profile. A bit undersampled, seemed to miss minimum. |
Cube A2 | Feb 10, 2022 | Submitted 1000 more models to cover higher black hole and higher halo region. Points chosen to have ~uniform density in the space. |
Cube A1A2 Scaled | Feb 22, 2022 | Scalings. Scaled the 13 models above to 13 different scales between 0.9 and 1.1, giving ~26,000 models total. |
Cube B | March 1, 2022 | Rejection sampled cube incorrectly built from 26,000 scaled models. ~1000 rejection sampled models. The error was in applying the "scale" to the models. Also scaled these models. |
Cube B Prime | March 15, 2022 | Corrected the scaling issue from Cube B and ran ~1000 more models. Also scaled these models. |
Cube C | March 21, 2022 | Rejection cube of 1000 models built from Cube A1A2 + Cube B Prime. |
Lipka Tests | March-April 2022 | 729 models at fixed masses, testing any effect of the Lipka m_eff on the shapes for N57. |
Cube D | May 17, 2022 | Built another rejection sampled cube based on the 1sigma contours (instead of 2 sigma contours) to try to solve the issue bi-modality issue in Tmaj. Didn't seem to improve things that much. |
Label | Plot |
---|---|
Moment Maps + MGE Contours | ![]() |
Radial Profiles | ![]() |
Sigma Profile | ![]() |
V(R, Theta) | ![]() |
Nonbisymmetric Component | ![]() |
Environment Comparison* | ![]() |
- Note that the nu10 environment has to be recomputed with updated distances as we have discussed. I don't think that the general trend should appreciably change, but wanted to be upfront with that plot.
Cornerplots for a variety of different scale parameters, with a truncated Gaussian prior, also plotted in upq space
scale | nu=0.5 | nu=1.5 |
---|---|---|
0.1 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.11 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.12 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.13 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.14 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.15 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.16 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.17 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.18 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.19 | ![]() |
![]() |
0.2 | ![]() |
![]() |
-
The only major open question is how thoroughly we want to test the impact on the parameters if we mask a few of the bins near the GMOS/Mitchell boundary. We noticed that there was a slight systematic shift between these data (notably in the sigma profiles), and we had suggested re-computing a subset of the models to test masking these.
-
Here are some details and diagnostics on the problematic bins:
First, here are some plots without any masks applied.
GMOS Bin Map | Kinematic Maps | One-sided radial plot | Two-sided radial plot |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
And lastly, here's what I think ends up looking the best -- this has the GMOS corners masked, as well as the two additional bins along the perimeter. I also masked the two innermost Mitchell bins, and this GREATLY improves how the radial profiles appear.
GMOS Bin Map | Kinematic Maps | One-sided radial plot | Two-sided radial plot |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
- And here, for reference, are all models within certain chi2 cutoffs for us to decide what to quickly recompute for this test (if we want):
1sigma (139 models) | 2sigma (768 models) | 3sigma (1722 models) | 4sigma (3048 models) |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
LDC: Before and After Imposing Cuts
Key | # No Cuts | # With Cuts |
---|---|---|
n57 | 4 | 3 |
n1277 | 300 | 300 |
n1407 | 59 | 22 |
n1550 | 16 | 7 |
n1600 | 37 | 35 |
n3091 | 15 | 10 |
n3842 | 59 | 59 |
n4486 | 300 | 67 |
n4649 | 300 | 61 |
n4889 | 84 | 84 |
n5328 | 83 | 71 |
n5419 | 43 | 31 |
n5516 | 6 | 5 |
n6086 | 1 | 1 |
n7619 | 16 | 12 |
HDC: Before and After Imposing Cuts
Key | # No Cuts | # With Cuts |
---|---|---|
n57 | 1 | 1 |
n1277 | 117 | 117 |
n1407 | 42 | 12 |
n1550 | 15 | 6 |
n1600 | 16 | 15 |
n3091 | 7 | 5 |
n3842 | 42 | 42 |
n4486 | 205 | 45 |
n4649 | 205 | 41 |
n4889 | 49 | 49 |
n5328 | 6 | 5 |
n5419 | 32 | 22 |
n5516 | 6 | 5 |
n6086 | 1 | 1 |
n7619 | 12 | 10 |
gal | ra | dec | d | k | av | mk | mbh (1e9 Msun) | mbh/distance ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NGC0057 | 3.8787 | 17.3284 | 66.9 | 8.68 | 0.212 | -25.47 | 5.5 | this work |
NGC1277 | 49.96454 | 41.5735 | 71.0 | 9.81 | 0.452 | -24.50 | 4.9 ± 1.6 | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817....2W/abstract |
NGC1407 | 55.04941 | -18.5801 | 28.1 | 6.70 | 0.187 | -25.56 | 5.50 ± 1.58 | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230915911M/abstract |
NGC1550 | 64.90802 | 2.40946 | 51.6 | 8.77 | 0.365 | -24.83 | 3.7(3.3, 4.1) | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...45R/abstract |
NGC1600 | 67.91642 | -5.0863 | 64.0 | 8.04 | 0.118 | -26.00 | 17± 1.5 | https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17197 |
NGC3091 | 150.0595 | -19.6369 | 51.3 | 8.09 | 0.119 | -25.47 | 3.6(3.4, 3.7) | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...45R/abstract |
NGC3842 | 176.0090 | 19.9498 | 98.0 | 9.08 | 0.059 | -25.88 | 9.7(7.2,12.7) | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.480..215M/abstract |
NGC4486 | 187.7059 | 12.3911 | 16.8 | 5.81 | 0.063 | -25.32 | 5.37(+0.37,-0.25)±0.22 | https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/acbbcf |
NGC4649 | 190.9167 | 11.5526 | 15.7 | 5.74 | 0.072 | -25.25 | 4.5 ± 1.0 | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711..484S/abstract |
NGC4889 | 195.0338 | 27.9770 | 103.0 | 8.41 | 0.026 | -26.66 | 21(6–37) | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.480..215M/abstract |
NGC5328 | 208.2221 | -28.4894 | 64.1 | 8.49 | 0.171 | -25.56 | 1.63 ± 0.89 | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230915911M/abstract: note that in Rusli+13, this had a BH ~3x as large; also the distance in the survey paper differs by a factor of 2 compared to the distance listed in the BH paper |
NGC5419 | 210.9113 | -33.9782 | 56.2 | 7.52 | 0.199 | -26.25 | 7.2(+2.7,-1.9) | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2847M/abstract |
NGC5516 | 213.9778 | -48.1148 | 58.4 | 8.31 | 0.557 | -25.58 | 2.50 ± 0.53 | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230915911M/abstract: same situation as NGC5328 |
NGC6086 | 243.1480 | 29.4847 | 138.0 | 9.97 | 0.105 | -25.74 | 3.6(+1.7,−1.1) | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728..100M/abstract |
NGC7619 | 350.0605 | 8.20625 | 51.5 | 8.03 | 0.224 | -25.55 | 3.25 ± 1.40 | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230915911M/abstract |