Paper detail

Estimating turbulent velocities in the elliptical galaxies NGC 5044 and NGC 5813

The interstellar and intra-cluster medium in giant elliptical galaxies and clusters of galaxies is often assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium. Numerical simulations, however, show that about 5-30% of the pressure in a cluster is provided by turbulence induced by, for example, the central AGN and merger activity. We aim to put constraints on the turbulent velocities and turbulent pressure in the ICM of the giant elliptical galaxies NGC 5044 and NGC 5813 using XMM-Newton RGS observations. The magnitude of the turbulence is estimated using the Fe XVII lines at 15.01 A, 17.05 A, and 17.10 A in the RGS spectra. At low turbulent velocities, the gas becomes optically thick in the 15.01 A line due to resonant scattering, while the 17 A lines remain optically thin. By comparing the (I(17.05)+I(17.10))/I(15.01) line ratio from RGS with simulated line ratios for different Mach numbers, the level of turbulence is constrained. The measurement is limited by systematic uncertainties in the atomic data, which are at the 20-30% level. We find that the line ratio in NGC 5813 is significantly higher than in NGC 5044. This difference can be explained by a higher level of turbulence in NGC 5044. The high turbulent velocities and the fraction of the turbulent pressure support of >40% in NGC 5044, assuming isotropic turbulence, confirm that it is a highly disturbed system, probably due to an off-axis merger. The turbulent pressure support in NGC 5813 is more modest at 15-45%. The (I(17.05)+I(17.10))/I(15.01) line ratio in an optically thin plasma, calculated using AtomDB v2.0.1, is 2 sigma above the ratio measured in NGC 5044, which cannot be explained by resonant scattering. This shows that the discrepancies between theoretical, laboratory, and astrophysical data on Fe XVII lines need to be reduced to improve the accuracy of the determination of turbulent velocities using resonant scattering.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.