English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We study six groups and clusters of galaxies suggested in the literature to be ‘fossil’ systems (i.e. to have luminous diffuse X‐ray emission and a magnitude gap of at least 2 mag  R  between the first and the second ranked member within half of the virial radius), each having good quality X‐ray data and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) spectroscopic or photometric coverage out to the virial radius. The poor cluster AWM 4 is clearly established as a fossil system, and we confirm the fossil nature of four other systems (RX J1331.5+1108, RX J1340.6+4018, RX J1256.0+2556 and RX J1416.4+2315), while the cluster RX J1552.2+2013 is disqualified as fossil system. For all systems, we present the luminosity functions within 0.5 and 1 virial radius that are consistent, within the uncertainties, with the universal luminosity function of clusters. For the five  bona fide  fossil systems, having a mass range  2 × 10 13 –3 × 10 14  M ⊙  , we compute accurate cumulative substructure distribution functions (CSDFs) and compare them with the CSDFs of observed and simulated groups/clusters available in the literature. We demonstrate that the CSDFs of fossil systems are consistent with those of normal observed clusters and do not lack any substructure with respect to simulated galaxy systems in the cosmological Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) framework. In particular, this holds for the archetype fossil group RX J1340.6+4018 as well, contrary to earlier claims.

Are fossil groups a challenge of the cold dark matter paradigm?