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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We address the problem that dynamical masses of high-redshift massivegalaxies, derived using virial scaling, often come out lower than stellarmasses inferred from population fitting to multi-band photometry. We comparedynamical and stellar masses for various samples spanning ranges of mass,compactness and redshift, including the SDSS. The discrepancy between dynamicaland stellar masses occurs both at low and high redshifts, and systematicallyincreases with galaxy compactness. Because it is unlikely that stellar massesshow systematic errors with galaxy compactness, the correlation of massdiscrepancy with compactness points to errors in the dynamical mass estimateswhich assume homology with massive, nearby ellipticals. We quantify thedeviations from homology and propose specific non-virial scaling of dynamicalmass with effective radius and velocity dispersion.

Which galaxy mass estimator can we trust?