HeCS-SZ: An MMT/HectospecSurvey of SZ-selected Clusters

Ken Rines (Western Washington University), Margaret Geller (SAO), Antonaldo Diaferio (Torino),

Ho Seong Hwang (KIAS)17 March 2015

Hectospec Cluster Survey (HeCS)

Massive clusters Infall regions

(FoV is 3-6 Mpc at z=0.1-0.3) SDSS+RASS (BCS/REFLEX)

Selection sim. to LoCUSS Survey volume~108 Mpc3

(10x CIRS volume) 58 clusters Target red sequence 22,680 new redshifts 10,145 cluster members

Z

LX

CIRS: SDSS+RASS, z<0.1 (Rines & Diaferio 2006, see also Andreon 2010: mass-richness)

HeCS Science Goals Scaling relations

Mvir, σp, M, YX, YSZ, Mlens Mvir vs YSZ (Rines et al. 2010)

Mvir vs MWL (Geller et al. 2013)

Evolution of Cluster Galaxies to 5r200 Colors, D4000

BCG Dynamics (Schutte et al. in prep)

Lensing: substructure, dilution

Mass profiles to 5r200 Ultimate halo masses

(Rines et al. 2013)

Hectospec: 300 fibers, 1° diameter

MMT 6.5m

Redshift Space Distortions

Core: elongation in redshift space(orbits)

Flattening at large radii (infall)

Characteristic velocity curve: caustics → mass (Diaferio 1999; Rines et al.2003, 2006, 2013; Biviano & Girardi 2003; Biviano et al 2013; Serra et al 2011, 2013; Gifford et al 2013)

Does not assume equilibrium

Redshift Space Distortions

Core: elongation in redshift space(orbits)

Flattening at large radii (infall)

Characteristic velocity curve: caustics → mass (Diaferio & Geller 1997; Diaferio1999; Rines et al. 2000, 2001a, 2003, 2006)

Rp

z

Caustics in Simulations Easily visible Mcaus/Mtrue≈1 to 4r200 Scatter dominated by

projection effects Bias in core from not

assuming Fβ profile (orbital anisotropy and potential shape)

Serra et al. 2011

HeCS: Infall Patterns

Clean Infall Regions High contrast Median 200 members σp ~ 500-1200 km/s

Ordered by LX Scatter in LX-σp Cooling cores, AGN l.o.s. structure

∆v

Rp (Mpc/h)

HeCS: Mass Profiles

Caustic mass profiles Radii up to 6 Mpc/h σp ~ 500-1200 km/s M ~ 1015 M/h Green: Mvirial(r) for

r500-r100 Virial/caustic masses

agree (sanity check)M

(<R

)

Rp (Mpc/h)

HeCS: Caustics vs Lensing Neither requires

equilibrium Caustics should

overestimate at small radius (known systematic)

Lensing could overestimate at large radius (l.o.s. structure)

19 clusters (Okabe+10, others)

Geller et al 2013

HeCS: Caustics vs X-ray Chandra archival

observations M500 agree well Blue: ‘relaxed’ stack Red: ‘unrelaxed’ stack

Non-thermal pressure?

Maughan et al in prep

HeCS: Stacked Clusters

Projection effects dominate systematics Quartiles by M200 and

LX (no caustics) Works in simulations

(Serra et al 2011) Clean Infall Regions

Caustic mass profiles ∆v

Rp (Mpc/h)

HeCS: Stacked Clusters

Density profiles 4 orders of magnitude Singular isothermal

sphere ruled out Agrees well with NFW

(even outside r200) Incomplete at R>3 Mpc

Comparison to lensing X-ray-selected: NFW

c=2.9 (Okabe et al 2010) Lensing-selected: NFW

c=6.3 (Umetsu et al 2011)

ρ

Rp (Mpc/h)

HeCS: Stacked Clusters

Density profiles 4 orders of magnitude Singular isothermal

sphere ruled out Agrees well with NFW

(even outside r200) Incomplete at R>3 Mpc

Comparison to lensing X-ray-selected: NFW

c=2.9 (Okabe et al 2010) Lensing-selected: NFW

c=6.3 (Umetsu et al 2011)

Detection of ‘splashback radius’??(Kravtsov, Diemer)

ρ

Rp (Mpc/h)

2r200c

r200m

HeCS: Density Profiles

Density profiles NFW at R<2 Mpc Steeper at R>2-3 Mpc? Range of >103

ρ∼ρcritical at max. radius Singular isothermal

sphere ruled out Cumulative Density

profiles Similar to NFW Incomplete at R>3 Mpc Max. bound radius: r5.6

ρ(<r)

Rp (Mpc/h)

ρ

M200 LX

Ultimate Halo Mass

ΛCDM cosmology predicts halos stop growing, become increasingly isolated

Cluster mass at a=100 is about 2.2 M200(a=1)(Busha et al 2005) Limit: r5.6 (enclosed

density = 9π2/16 ρcritical Prediction seconded

(Dunner et al 2006)

a=1

a=100a=11

a=100 (comoving)

Busha et al 2003

Ultimate Halo Mass

ΛCDM cosmology predicts halos stop growing, become increasingly isolated

Cluster mass at a=100 is about 2.2 M200(a=1)(Busha et al 2005)

HeCS measurement 33 clusters have

caustics out to r5.6 M5.6/M200=1.99±0.11 Similar dispersion

M5.

6/M20

0

M200 (M/h)

HeCS Science Goals Scaling relations

Mvir, σp, M, YX, YSZ, Mlens Mvir vs YSZ (Rines et al. 2010)

Mvir vs MWL (Geller et al. 2013)

Evolution of Cluster Galaxies to 5r200 Colors, D4000

Mass function (Ωm,σ8) BCG Dynamics Lensing: substructure, dilution

(Coe+2012, Geller+13, Hwang+14)

Mass profiles to 5r200 Ultimate halo masses

(Rines et al. 2013)Hectospec: 300 fibers, 1° diameter

MMT 6.5m

Planck: SZ vs CMB Planck CMB constraints

disagree with Planck SZ results Blue: SZ mass function

with MHS=0.8Mtrue Red: Planck CMB Black: SZ mass function,

free normalization: MHS=0.59Mtrue

Alternate explanations: neutrino masses

σ8

Ωm

Planck Collaboration 2013 XX.

HeCS: SZ vs Dynamics

Scaling of Mvir-YSZ Published SZA data for 15

clusters (Bonamente+08; Marrone+09)

Strong correlation (99.8%) Significant scatter Connection to σ8 debate?

Larger samples needed

Rines et al. 2010

Mvir σp

YSZ

SZ vs Dynamics: ACT, SPT Scaling of σp-YSZ

VLT/Gemini spectroscopic followup of ACT-detected clusters (Sifon et al 2013)

z=0.3-1.1 Cluster evolution? Cluster selection?

σp

YSZ

Gemini spectroscopic followupof SPT-detected clusters (Ruel et al 2014) z=0.3-1.5 Substantial scatter Velocity bias? (σgxy~1.1σDM

or Mvir~1.3Mtrue)

σp

MSZ

HeCS-SZ: Planck-selected sample

Massive clusters Planck clusters with SDSS

DR10 imaging Many in HeCS/CIRS 123 clusters (83 in SZ-

complete subsample) 8200 new redshifts in 24

clusters (z<0.2)

Z

Rines et al. in prep

PSZ1 Clusters

HeCS-SZ: Infall Patterns

∆v

Rp (Mpc/h)

Clean Infall Regions High contrast Median 200 members σp ~ 500-1200 km/s

Ordered by MSZ Scatter in MSZ-σp l.o.s. structure

HeCS-SZ: Infall Patterns

∆v

Rp (Mpc/h)

Clean Infall Regions High contrast Median 200 members σp ~ 500-1200 km/s

Ordered by MSZ Scatter in MSZ-σp l.o.s. structure

HeCS-SZ: Infall Patterns

∆v

Rp (Mpc/h)

Clean Infall Regions High contrast Median 200 members σp ~ 500-1200 km/s

Ordered by MSZ Scatter in MSZ-σp l.o.s. structure

HeCS-SZ: Infall Patterns

∆v

Rp (Mpc/h)

Clean Infall Regions High contrast Median 200 members σp ~ 500-1200 km/s

Ordered by MSZ Scatter in MSZ-σp l.o.s. structure

HeCS-SZ: Scaling Relation Scaling of σp-MSZ

Planck data for 83 clusters (Planck 2013 XXIX)

σp within r200 Strong correlation Bayesian fit: σp at fixed MSZ Scatter of 25%

σp

MSZ

Rines et al. in prep.

HeCS-SZ: Scaling Relation Scaling of σp-MSZ

Planck data for 83 clusters (Planck 2013 XXIX)

Strong correlation Bayesian fit: σp at fixed MSZ Scatter of 25% Dashed: Evrard+08 σDM-M

(no velocity bias)(no hydrostatic mass bias)

σp

MSZ

Rines et al. in prep.

HeCS-SZ: Scaling Relation Scaling of σp-MSZ

Planck data for 83 clusters (Planck 2013 XXIX)

Strong correlation Bayesian fit: σp at fixed MSZ Scatter of 25% Upper dashed: Evrard+08

σDM-M; masses rescaled with (1-b)=0.58

Large mass bias (72%) to reconcile with CMB not favored Requires σgxy~0.78σDM

or Mvir~0.48Mtrue

σp

MSZ

Rines et al. in prep.

HeCS-SZ: Scaling Relation Scaling of σp-MSZ

Planck data for 83 clusters (Planck 2013 XXIX)

Strong correlation Bayesian fit: σp at fixed MSZ Scatter of 25% Velocity bias

Munari+13 (dash-dotted)Lau+10 (dotted)Saro+12 (solid blue)Old+13 (long dashed)Guo+15 (short dashed)

σp

MSZ

Rines et al. in prep.

HeCS-SZ: Scaling Relation Best-fit parameters vs Planck Y-M Scatter of 0.097 in σp (25%)

Slope Slope

HeCS-SZ: Scaling Relation Best-fit parameters vs Planck Y-M

Red: MHS=Mtrue

Scatter of 0.097 in σp (25%)

Slope Slope

HeCS-SZ: Scaling Relation Best-fit parameters vs Planck Y-M

Red: MHS=Mtrue; Blue: MHS=0.58Mtrue (CMB) Scatter of 0.097 in σp (25%)

Slope Slope

Future Observations HectoMap

50 deg2, r~21 z=0.1-0.5 10x denser than BOSS

HeCS-red redMapper (optically

selected) clusters BigBOSS Subaru-PFS SPIDERS, 4MOST DESpec Euclid, WFIRST

HeCS Science Goals Scaling relations

σp vs MSZ (Rines et al 2015)

Mvir vs YSZ (Rines et al. 2010)

Mvir vs MWL (Geller et al. 2013)

Evolution of Cluster Galaxies to 5r200

BCG Dynamics Lensing: substructure, dilution

Mass profiles to 5r200 Ultimate halo masses

(Rines et al. 2013) Mass accretion rates Modified gravity limits?

Hectospec: 300 fibers, 1° diameter

MMT 6.5m