1 / 28

Gravitational Lensing Analysis of CLASH clusters

Gravitational Lensing Analysis of CLASH clusters. Adi Zitrin @ HD 10/2011. Outline of talk. What have we done so far: clusters analyzed, methods, strong vs weak, recent developments What do we need to do by the next CLASH meeting How do we plan to do that. Bank of tools:.

bree
Download Presentation

Gravitational Lensing Analysis of CLASH clusters

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gravitational Lensing Analysis of CLASH clusters Adi Zitrin @ HD 10/2011

  2. Outline of talk • What have we done so far: clusters analyzed, methods, strong vs weak, recent developments • What do we need to do by the next CLASH meeting • How do we plan to do that

  3. Bank of tools: Strong lensing: • Adi@Tom’s parametric method – ideal for finding multiple-images and to obtain a quick solution due to the small number of parameters. • Dan’s non-parametric method – very flexible and fast once multiple-images are known. • Stella’s etal parametric method. • Other public methods such as Lenstool etc for comparison if needed. Else?

  4. Bank of tools: Weak lensing: • Keiichi’s WL method (KSB based, Elinor’s color selection,Mario&Alberto). Both 1D, 2D analyses, recently including, importantly, a magnification bias constraint. • Keiichi’s multi-body method – same as above but by simulating several bodies – often seen also in background etc. • Claudio’s HST WL? • Stella’s etal, others?

  5. Bank of tools: Joint analysis: • One could combine independent SL and WL measurements, and say, fit an overall NFW profile etc. • Julian@Matthias’ SL+WL joint analysis method. Effect of LSS: • Ole, Ofer etal. Triaxiality fit: - Lensing+X-ray, SZ(?) – Dan, Megan etal

  6. What have we done so far?

  7. Abell 383 • SL+WL analysis, Paper accepted:

  8. MACS 1206 • SL analysis; Paper submitted ApJL

  9. A2261 • Paper ~ready, Coe etal, SL+WL, elongation, CM

  10. A2261

  11. Some preliminary modelsfor cycle 18 clusters: M11495 M0744 M2129 M0647

  12. Macs 0717 largest lens known

  13. Status and To-Do: In our lensing session tmrw we also need to decide on who does what

  14. What do we wish to study: • 1. Mass profiles (jointly)

  15. What do we wish to study: • 1a. Mass Profiles: establish an observational C-M relation, and the effect of triaxiality:

  16. What do we wish to study: • 1b. Magnification for High-z galaxies

  17. What do we wish to study: • 2a. Mass distribution: Strong regime: ellipticity, subtructure, effect on SL properties

  18. What do we wish to study: • 2b. Mass distribution: weak regime: multi-halo analysis and background structures BTW - More CCLs?

  19. What do we wish to study: • 2c: Mass distribution: constrain and calibrate the universal Einstein radius distribution: • 2d: Mass distribution: both regimes: how does DM condensate and concentrate? Could be put constraints on this? Tom? Leonidas?

  20. What do we wish to study: • 3. Constraints on the (higher end of) mass function • 4. Comparison to simulations, maybe look into over-cooling, feedback influence, adiabatic contraction

  21. What do we wish to study: • 5. Constraining the cosmological parameters: Dependence of the lensing distance (AD_dist) on the cosmological parameters. By Assuming different cosmologies one can probe the best fit (In prep., e.g.): Jullo + 2010 Zitrin + in prep. Jullo + 2010

  22. What do we wish to study: • 6. Very inner slopes, especially of/inside BCG regime. Need SL constraints from radial images, light SF, velocity dispersion etc. • Newman et al:

  23. Recent Development • MIF: fully automated Multiple-Image Finder • Goal: one button press to get a list of all multiple-images, with their redshift, and a refined lens or mass model. Possible? • Tryout: Gregor’s ArcFinder, BPZ (Txitxo, Alberto, Dan), Adi’s mass model: combined. • Let’s see a first result compared to a real analysis:

  24. Multiple-Image Finder: • Runtime of 1-2 days to finalized mass model!! (relative to ~1 month’s work before)

  25. Recent 2 • M1206 ref report + model-independent mass slope from multiple images (also for photo-z paper estimate on how errors propagate into the mass profile).

  26. Summary: • Many more CLASH clusters to analyze in SL, WL, derive mass distributions, profiles and Einstein radii, compare explicitly with X-ray, SZE, simulations. • C-M relation • CCL? • cD galaxies: M and M/L ratio and profile where multiple images are near. Inner profile • High-z galaxies • Constraints on cosmological models (later today) • Development of a tool for multiple-image finding • Details to be discussed in sessions

More Related