Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:12:31 +0100
From: Manfred Georg Kitzbichler <mgk@mpadmx-2.mpa-garching.mpg.de>
To: Angela Iovino <angela.iovino@brera.inaf.it>
Subject: Groups
Dear Angela,
thank you for your feedback on the cones.
You wrote:
---------------------
thanks again for your info on the millennium mocks...
I have made a few plots of comparison with the DEEP2 data that you may
want to have a look at. It seems that in your simulations there are
very few groups/clusters in the high z range with respect to
the Gerke et al. 2005 paper.
I would be interested in getting your comments on this point ....
----------------------
Actually we have not made any such test yet ourselves and it
another interesting aspect of our model that indicates where
things are not yet treated in sufficient detail. There has been
some indication already for some time that for deep (faint)
samples the clustering doesn't come out right and I would assume
that the apparent underabundance of high redshift groups is
pointing in the same direction - ie that we are missing satellite
galaxies at intermediate and high redshifts. In this context I would
have a suggestion/question for you. We have some indication that
increasing the luminosity of satellites, ie Type 1 and 2 galaxies
artificially improves the correlation functions to be more in agreement
with observations. Could you thus check whether artificially
brightening Type 1 and 2 galaxies as follows would help your results:
I'_AB=I_AB-redshift/2
This means that depending on redshift we make satellites
moderately brighter, amounting to half a magnitude at z=1.
I would be interested whether that improves your findings.
All the best,
Manfred
back to deep2 vs MS comparison page