Please check it out and let me know what you think! Many thanks to my amazing co-authors: @jorgitomoreno.bsky.social, @astronomerc.bsky.social, @katycosmiq.bsky.social @jbprime.bsky.social, @mbkplus.bsky.social, @astrogandhi.bsky.social, @sloebman.bsky.social, (/end)
23.06.2025 03:58 —
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Main takeaway: mass estimates of ultra-faint galaxies used to constrain dark-matter physics or to place constraints on the low-mass threshold of galaxy formation must take into account surface brightness limits or risk significant biases. (5/6)
23.06.2025 03:58 —
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Failing to detect the stellar halo (SB cut; solid symbols) also increases the [Fe/H] of the simulated ultra-faints, but not enough to solve the discrepancy in the MZR at the lowest masses. (4/6)
23.06.2025 03:58 —
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
while biasing mass estimates too high. Left: Wolf+ 2010 mass estimates compared to NFW profiles. Right: mass estimates for the *same galaxies* if outer stars below a certain effective surface brightness are removed. The galaxies are incorrectly placed in more massive halos. (3/6)
23.06.2025 03:58 —
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 1
Since then, more and more stars at large half-light radii have been detected around observed ultra-faint galaxies.
In this latest paper, we explore how removing stars at large radii (SB Cut; solid symbols) leads to predicted UFD sizes that are closer to observations, (2/6)
23.06.2025 03:58 —
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Los Angeles Labor and Community for an Independent Party
Launching our official website! Please check us out and help build a new party that fights for working people:
Laborandcommunityla.org
13.04.2025 18:58 —
👍 5
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0