View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The MUSIC of CLASH: Predictions on the cluster c-M relation
Massimo Meneghetti (INAF-OABO & JPL)Elena RasiaJesus VegaJulian Mertenand the MUSIC and CLASH teams
Are clusters over-concentrated?
Postman et al. 2012
Are clusters over-concentrated?
Postman et al. 2012
J. Merten’s talk Merten et al. 2014 Umetsu et al. 2014
Are clusters over-concentrated?
Postman et al. 2012
J. Merten’s talk Merten et al. 2014 Umetsu et al. 2014
This talk Meneghetti et al. 2014
ApJ, 797, 34
Mass distributions from lensing
See Merten, Meneghetti et al. 2014 (arXiv 1404.1367)
Mass distributions from lensing
See Merten, Meneghetti et al. 2014 (arXiv 1404.1367)
From simulated HST and Subaru observations:
~10% accuracy on 2D masses!
Meneghetti et al. 2010
Mass distributions from lensing
See Merten, Meneghetti et al. 2014 (arXiv 1404.1367)
Doroshkevich, 1970
From simulated HST and Subaru observations:
~10% accuracy on 2D masses!
Meneghetti et al. 2010
c-M and triaxiality
~2x
~1.6x
Concentration-Mass for 1000 random LOS to the same cluster
c-M and triaxiality
~2x
~1.6x
Concentration-Mass for 1000 random LOS to the same cluster
c-M and triaxiality
~2x
~1.6x
Concentration-Mass for 1000 random LOS to the same cluster
Negative bias (~-15%) for randomly oriented
clusters (Giocoli et al. 2012)
c-M and triaxiality
~2x
~1.6x
Concentration-Mass for 1000 random LOS to the same cluster
SL
Positive bias for SL selected clusters (e.g. Oguri et al. 2010)
Negative bias (~-15%) for randomly oriented
clusters (Giocoli et al. 2012)
c-M and triaxiality
~2x
~1.6x
Concentration-Mass for 1000 random LOS to the same cluster
SL
Positive bias for SL selected clusters (e.g. Oguri et al. 2010)
Negative bias (~-15%) for randomly oriented
clusters (Giocoli et al. 2012)
Positive bias for X-ray selected halos (Rasia
et al. 2013)
The MUSIC-2 simulations Sembolini et al. 2013; Biffi et al. 2014
❖ ~1420 halos distributed over 4 redshifts: z=0.25, 0.333, 0.429, 0.667
❖ Extracted from a cosmological box of 1 Gpc3; WMAP7 cosmology (DM)
❖ Re-simulated at high resolution including baryons (adiabatic)
❖ mDM=9x108 h-1 Msun mgas=1.9x108 h-1 Msun
❖ mass selected: complete at M200>4x1014 h-1 Msun
❖ Additional masses: M200>2x1014 h-1 Msun
❖ Projected along 30-100 lines of sight for the lensing analysis
The MUSIC-2 simulations Sembolini et al. 2013; Biffi et al. 2014
❖ ~1420 halos distributed over 4 redshifts: z=0.25, 0.333, 0.429, 0.667
❖ Extracted from a cosmological box of 1 Gpc3; WMAP7 cosmology (DM)
❖ Re-simulated at high resolution including baryons (adiabatic)
❖ mDM=9x108 h-1 Msun mgas=1.9x108 h-1 Msun
❖ mass selected: complete at M200>4x1014 h-1 Msun
❖ Additional masses: M200>2x1014 h-1 Msun
❖ Projected along 30-100 lines of sight for the lensing analysis
density profile surface density profile
c3D, M3D c2D, M2D
The c-M relation from density profiles
❖ c-M relation for the full sample and for halos with different degrees of “relaxation”
❖ Our simulations indicate that the concentrations on the scale of galaxy clusters are higher than previously found
c3D
M3D
The c-M relation from density profiles
❖ c-M relation for the full sample and for halos with different degrees of “relaxation”
❖ Our simulations indicate that the concentrations on the scale of galaxy clusters are higher than previously found
Relaxation criteria:1) centre of mass
displacement: s<0.072) virial ratio : 2T/U<1.353) fraction of mass in
substructures: fsub<0.1
c3D
M3D
The c-M relation from surface density profiles
❖ Qualitatively, we confirm the results of Giocoli et al. (2013) based on semi-analytic models
❖ Halos are generally prolate: when seen in projection we measure smaller masses (~5%) and concentrations (~10%)
❖ These projection effects are less pronounced for highly relaxed halos (they are more spherical)
❖ The bias varies weakly as a function of mass
The c-M relation from surface density profiles
The c-M relation from surface density profiles
The c-M relation from surface density profiles
The c-M relation from surface density profiles
The CLASH X-ray selected sample
❖ 20 clusters
❖ 0.2<z<0.9
❖ Tx > 5 keV
❖ |X-centre - BCG|< 20 kpc
❖ “Relaxed” X-ray morphology
Postman et al. 2012
X-ray analysis❖ Simulated CHANDRA X-ray observations
using X-MAS (Gardini et al. 2004, Rasia et al. 2005)
❖ Comparison CLASH-MUSIC using X-ray morphological indicators:❖ Light concentration: cx❖ X-ray centroid shift: w❖ Light ellipticity: e❖ Light asymmetry: P3, P4
(Rasia et al. 2013; Cassano et al. 2010)
A383
MACSJ1149
The CLASH c-M relation❖ CLASH-like simulated halos are quite
“regular”
❖ relaxed regular: the sample is heterogeneous
❖ High incidence of SL halos: modest orientation bias
❖ With respect to the full sample, CLASH-like halos have ~11% higher concentrations
❖ The c-M relation that we obtain using halos drawn from the CLASH-like sample is intermediate between those derived for the full and for the relaxed samples
The CLASH c-M relation❖ CLASH-like simulated halos are quite
“regular”
❖ relaxed regular: the sample is heterogeneous
❖ High incidence of SL halos: modest orientation bias
❖ With respect to the full sample, CLASH-like halos have ~11% higher concentrations
❖ The c-M relation that we obtain using halos drawn from the CLASH-like sample is intermediate between those derived for the full and for the relaxed samples
The CLASH c-M relation❖ CLASH-like simulated halos are quite
“regular”
❖ relaxed regular: the sample is heterogeneous
❖ High incidence of SL halos: modest orientation bias
❖ With respect to the full sample, CLASH-like halos have ~11% higher concentrations
❖ The c-M relation that we obtain using halos drawn from the CLASH-like sample is intermediate between those derived for the full and for the relaxed samples
The CLASH c-M relation❖ CLASH-like simulated halos are quite
“regular”
❖ relaxed regular: the sample is heterogeneous
❖ High incidence of SL halos: modest orientation bias
❖ With respect to the full sample, CLASH-like halos have ~11% higher concentrations
❖ The c-M relation that we obtain using halos drawn from the CLASH-like sample is intermediate between those derived for the full and for the relaxed samples
The CLASH c-M relation❖ CLASH-like simulated halos are quite
“regular”
❖ relaxed regular: the sample is heterogeneous
❖ High incidence of SL halos: modest orientation bias
❖ With respect to the full sample, CLASH-like halos have ~11% higher concentrations
❖ The c-M relation that we obtain using halos drawn from the CLASH-like sample is intermediate between those derived for the full and for the relaxed samples
The CLASH c-M relation❖ CLASH-like simulated halos are quite
“regular”
❖ relaxed regular: the sample is heterogeneous
❖ High incidence of SL halos: modest orientation bias
❖ With respect to the full sample, CLASH-like halos have ~11% higher concentrations
❖ The c-M relation that we obtain using halos drawn from the CLASH-like sample is intermediate between those derived for the full and for the relaxed samples
Comparison to the observations
Merten et al. 2014, Umetsu et al. 2014
Comparison to the observations
Merten et al. 2014, Umetsu et al. 2014
Conclusions❖ Using a set of high-resolution simulations
we derived concentration-mass relations both in 3D and in 2D
❖ We find 3D c-M relations characterised by a larger normalisation compared to previous studies
❖ When projecting the halos in 2D, we find c-M relations which have a lower amplitude
❖ Using X-ray image simulations, we could apply the selection function of CLASH to the data
❖ The CLASH data are compatible with c-M relations obtained from a mixed sample of relaxed and un-relaxed systems
❖ No tension with LCDM
Recommended