View
39
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TWO SAMPLES OF X-RAY GROUPS. FABIO GASTALDELLO UC IRVINE & BOLOGNA D. BUOTE P. HUMPHREY L. ZAPPACOSTA J. BULLOCK W. MATHEWS UCSC F. BRIGHENTI BOLOGNA. MASS PROFILES AND c-M PLOT FOR A SAMPLE OF X-RAY BRIGHT AND RELAXED GROUPS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
TWO SAMPLES OF X-RAY TWO SAMPLES OF X-RAY GROUPS GROUPS
FABIO GASTALDELLO
UC IRVINE & BOLOGNAD. BUOTE
P. HUMPHREY
L. ZAPPACOSTA
J. BULLOCK
W. MATHEWS UCSC
F. BRIGHENTI BOLOGNA
OUTLINE / MOTIVATIONOUTLINE / MOTIVATION
1. MASS PROFILES AND c-M PLOT FOR A SAMPLE OF X-RAY BRIGHT AND RELAXED GROUPS
2. ENTROPY PROFILES FOR THE SAME SAMPLE. RELEVANT SCALE FOR BREAKDOWN OF SELF-SIMILARITY
3. PRELIMINARY RESULTS ON A FLUX-LIMITED SAMPLE
DM DENSITY PROFILEDM DENSITY PROFILE
Navarro et al. 2004
The concentration parameter c do not depend strongly on the innermost data points, r < 0.05 rvir (Bullock et al. 2001, B01; Dolag et al. 2004, D04).rvir calculated using Bryan & Norman 98 for concordance model
c-M RELATIONc-M RELATION
Bullock et al. 2001
•c slowly declines as M increases (slope of -0.1)
•Constant scatter (σlogc ≈ 0.14)
•the normalization depends sensitively on the cosmological parameters, in particular σ8 and w (D04,Kuhlen et al. 2005).
A SPECIAL ERA IN X-RAY ASTRONOMY
Chandra XMM-Newton
•1 arcsec resolution •High sensitivity due to high effective area, i.e. more photons
• NFW a good fit to the mass profile
•c-M relation is consistent with no variation in c and with the gentle decline with increasing M expected from CDM (α = -0.040.03, P05).
Vikhlinin et al. 2006Pointecouteau et al. 2005
Clusters X-ray resultsClusters X-ray results
THE PROJECTTHE PROJECT
•Improve significantly the constraints on the c-M relation by analyzing a wider mass range with many more systems, in particular obtaining accurate mass constraints on relaxed systems with 1012 ≤ M ≤ 1014 Msun
•There are very few constraints on groups scale (1013 ≤ M ≤ 1014 Msun) , where numerical predictions are more accurate because a large number of halo can be simulated.
In Gastaldello et al. 2007 we selected a sample of 16 objects in the 1-3 keV range from the XMM and Chandra archives with the best available data with
•no obvious disturbance in surface brightness at large scale
•with a dominant elliptical galaxy at the center
•with a cool core
•with a Fe gradient
The best we can do to ensure hydrostatic equilibrium and recover mass from X-rays.
SELECTION OF THE SAMPLESELECTION OF THE SAMPLE
RESULTSRESULTS•After accounting for the mass of the hot gas, NFW + stars is the best fit model
MKW 4
NGC 533
RESULTSRESULTS•No detection of stellar mass due to poor sampling in the inner 20 kpc or localized AGN disturbance
NGC 5044
Buote et al. 2002
RESULTSRESULTS
•NFW + stars best fit model
•We failed to detect stellar mass in all objects, due to poor sampling in the inner 20 kpc or localized AGN disturbance. Stellar M/L in K band for the objects with best available data is 0.570.21, in reasonable agreement with SP synthesis models (≈ 1)
c-M relation for groupsc-M relation for groups
We obtain a slope α=-0.2260.076, c decreases with M at the 3σ level
THE X-RAY c-M RELATION THE X-RAY c-M RELATION • Buote et al. 2007 c-M relation for 39
systems ranging in mass from ellipticals to the most massive galaxy clusters (0.06-20) x 1014 Msun.
• A power law fit requires at high significance (6.6σ) that c decreases with increasing M
• Normalization and scatter consistent with relaxed objects
THE X-RAY c-M RELATION THE X-RAY c-M RELATION
WMAP 1 yr Spergel et al. 2003
THE X-RAY c-M RELATION THE X-RAY c-M RELATION
WMAP 3yr Spergel et al. 2006
ENTROPY PROFILESENTROPY PROFILES
ENTROPY PROFILESENTROPY PROFILES
ENTROPY PROFILESENTROPY PROFILES
THE BASELINE INTRACLUSTER ENTROPY THE BASELINE INTRACLUSTER ENTROPY PROFILE FROM GRAVITATIONAL STRUCTURE PROFILE FROM GRAVITATIONAL STRUCTURE
FORMATIONFORMATION
VOIT ET AL. 2005
COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND GRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONSGRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONS
PRATT ET AL. 2006
COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND GRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONSGRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONS
COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND GRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONSGRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONS
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACKAWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK“In this scenario there is a clear dichotomy between active and radio quiet clusters: one would expect the cluster population to bifurcate into systems with strong temperature gradients and feedback and those without either”
Donahue et al. 2005
Gas cools
AGN feedback
Gas heated
AGN stops being fed
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACKAWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACKAWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)
• Purely X-ray selected flux limited samples have been very effective in cluster studies (e.g.,Gioia+90,Edge+90,Rosati+95,Scharf+97,Vikhlinin+98,Romer+00,Bohringer+00) and they have follow-up studies with XMM or Chandra (REXCESS,400d2)
• Groups have been historically selected in the optical band, only one pioneering study of 8 groups from the ROSAT NEP survey (Henry+95)
• We used the NORAS catalogue:
1. 10h20m-14h region due to superior re-analysis
2. fx > 3x10-12 erg cm-2 s-1, completeness to better than 82%
3. Lx < 5x1043 erg s-1
• 15 objects, 5 in the archive, 10 observed with a Chandra LP (400ks, PI Buote)
NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)
NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)
A 1275
A 1142A 1185
A 1377
NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)
A 1314
NGC 4104
NGC 5129
RXJ 022
NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)NOGS (NORAS GROUP SAMPLE)
A 1177
RGH 80
SUMMARYSUMMARY
• DETAILED MASS PROFILES FOR A SAMPLE OF X-RAY BRIGHT GROUPS ARE WELL FITTED BY NFW+STARS. THE X-RAY c-M RELATION POINTS TO A COMPROMISE WMAP COSMOLOGY (EVRARD ET AL. 07, YEPES TALK)
•BROKEN POWER LAW BEHAVIOR OF ENTROPY PROFILES POINTS TO MORE IMPORTANT LOCAL MODIFICATIONS (AGN)
•STAY TUNED FOR RESULTS FOR A COMPLETE X-RAY SELECTED, FLUX LIMITED SAMPLE (AND MORE FUN TO COME WITH XMM-LSS AND COSMOS)
Recommended