meeting 2024 05 02 n315 - JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5 GitHub Wiki

Switching to M15

Old	New
[images/240422/test_angles_shapes-1.png]]](/JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5/wiki/[[images/240430/test_angles_shapes_M15-1.png)

As we did for N57, I wanted inset the GMOS data map onto Mitchell just for a better sense of the large-scale kinematics:

no zoom	slight zoom	full zoom
[images/240430/no_zoom.png]]](/JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5/wiki/[[images/240430/slight_zoom.png)	images/240430/full_zoom.png

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)

Plot
images/240430/Spectra-1.png

NOTE: There seems to be a discrepency with the 4751 in the comparison plot of: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11260
- Rusli+2013 says that the BH mass is 1.4e9, but they have this at ~2e9 for the stellar based comparsion.
- Note they also assume the same distance in both measurements, so that can't be the issue.
Here's the most up-to-date comparison plot. Note that the M/L values are in different bands and all over the place, so I've only focused on the BH masses for now.

Plot
images/240430/distance_corrected_both_BH_and_ML_and_4751-1.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
NGC4751	26.9 Mpc	1.4e9(-0.1e9)(+0.1e9)	R Band: 12.2(11.5, 12.8)	90 deg (assumed throughout		https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...45R/abstract
NGC6861	27.3 Mpc	2.0e9(-0.2e9)(+0.2e9)	I Band: 6.1(6.0, 6.3)	90 deg (assumed throughout		https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...45R/abstract

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
NGC4751	26.9 Mpc	3.43e9(-0.44e9)(+0.45e9)	F160W: (2.68±0.11)	78.7+/-0.1		https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11260v1
NGC6861	27.3 Mpc	2e9(-1e9)(+1e9)	2.14-2.52	72.7-73.6		https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.09043