I have a quick clarifying question regarding the various mass fields present in the subhalo catalogs: the SubhaloMass field is defined as "the total mass of all member particle/cells which are bound to this Subhalo," while other fields (e.g., SubhaloMassInHalfRad, SubhaloMassInMaxRad, SubhaloMassInRad) are instead defined as "sum of masses of all particles/cells within" various radii.
It seems that the radius-based mass fields don't require that the particles involved in the sum are bound to the subhalos, and that the mass is the total (bound + unbound) mass within these radii. Is this the correct interpretation of these fields, or is the sum only over bound particles?
Dylan Nelson
7 Apr
All Subhalo* fields, including all the masses you mention, are exclusively based on the particles/cells which belong (i.e. are gravitationally bound) to that subhalo.
Hello!
I have a quick clarifying question regarding the various mass fields present in the subhalo catalogs: the
SubhaloMassfield is defined as "the total mass of all member particle/cells which are bound to this Subhalo," while other fields (e.g.,SubhaloMassInHalfRad,SubhaloMassInMaxRad,SubhaloMassInRad) are instead defined as "sum of masses of all particles/cells within" various radii.It seems that the radius-based mass fields don't require that the particles involved in the sum are bound to the subhalos, and that the mass is the total (bound + unbound) mass within these radii. Is this the correct interpretation of these fields, or is the sum only over bound particles?
All
Subhalo*fields, including all the masses you mention, are exclusively based on the particles/cells which belong (i.e. are gravitationally bound) to that subhalo.