1 / 19

Cosmological constraints from estimates of M gas -M tot -c in X-ray luminous clusters

Cosmological constraints from estimates of M gas -M tot -c in X-ray luminous clusters. S. Ettori (INAF/OA Bologna) with F. Gastaldello, M. Meneghetti, I. Balestra, S. Borgani, S. Molendi, P. Tozzi et al. Potsdam, September 23, 2009: cosmological constraints from X-ray luminous clusters.

carol
Download Presentation

Cosmological constraints from estimates of M gas -M tot -c in X-ray luminous 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. Cosmological constraints from estimates of Mgas-Mtot-c in X-ray luminous clusters S. Ettori (INAF/OA Bologna) with F. Gastaldello, M. Meneghetti, I. Balestra, S. Borgani, S. Molendi, P. Tozzi et al. Potsdam, September 23, 2009: cosmological constraints from X-ray luminous clusters

  2. Outline • How good are the estimates of Mgas , Mtot , c: results from hydrodynamical simulations • Clusters as cosmological probes: uncertainties are in the outskirts • Concentration – Mtot relation & fgas: a new approach to constrain σ8 & Ωm

  3. X-ray vs lensing mass: simulations Hydrodynamical simulations of 3 massive clusters (0.7-1.1e15 Msun). Analyzed after convolution with X-ray (XMAS) and lensing (SkyLens) exposures. Meneghetti et al. 09 subm

  4. X-ray vs lensing mass: simulations XMAS SkyLens Meneghetti et al. 09 subm

  5. X-ray total & gas mass Mgas whatever the projection/method is Mgas is recovered within few (~5) % Mtot MX vs Mtrue: -12 (rms: 5) % ML vs Mtrue: 2 (rms: 16) %

  6. X-ray vs lensing mass: simulations Concentration from fitting a NFW profile • Considering only the projection of g1 & g72: • c from X-ray analysis: biased low by 10-20 (rms 13) % • c from W only: +88 (rms 50) %, S only +12 (38) % • c from W+S lensing: good agreement (rms 14) %

  7. Gas mass fraction To constrain the cosmological model Ωm +Ω+Ωk =1 We combine a dynamical and a geometricalmethod (see also Allen et al, Blanchard et al., Ettori et al, Mohr et al) : • baryonic content of galaxy clusters is representative of the cosmic baryon fraction Ωb / Ωm(White et al. 93) • fgas is assumed constant in cosmic time in very massive systems (Sasaki 96, Pen 97)

  8. X-ray total mass Total mass from X-ray is determined by assuming 1. spherical symmetry,2. hydrostatic equilibrium n~ -2/-2.4 T~ 0/-0.8

  9. An example: RXJ1252, z=1.235

  10. An example: RXJ1252, z=1.237 We fit a single absorbed MEKAL to measure Te(Rosati et al. 04). The deprojected Sb provides nethat is then fitted with a functional form. NOTE: 850 cts <35”, 1220 cts <59” (rc~10”, 250 cts)

  11. Systematics on Ωm- Ω -w assuming T(r) as observed in local systems (e.g. Vikhlinin et al. 06) WMAP-5 For details see Ettori et al. 09, arXiv:0904.2740

  12. Bkg: dominant in GCs outskirts Gal foreground Residual CXB Source Ins. background Simulation for 3keV cluster @ R200

  13. ICM at R200:Observed clusters Study of Sb at r >0.7 R200 in a sample of high-z (z>0.3) objects with CXO (Ettori & Balestra 09) fit of the derivative of ln(Sb)/ln( r): at 0.7 R200: -3.9 ± 0.7, at R200: -4.3 ± 0.9 A1795 with Suzaku by M.Bautz et al. : T ~ r -0.9, M500 ~20-30% < expected XMM (Leccardi & Molendi 08)

  14. On the Temperature profile Chandra XMM EDGE 1Msec arXiv:0707.4103

  15. On the Temperature profile Chandra XMM WFXT 50ksec

  16. The c-Mtot relation We (Ettori et al. 09 in prep) recover Mgas & Mtot from 44 X-ray luminous galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton in the z-range 0.1-0.3 (from Leccardi & Molendi 2008) to constrain (σ8, Ωm). We use 2 independent methods & check several systematics on Mtot

  17. The c-Mtot relation: σ8-Ωm Dotted lines: Eke et al. (01) for a given ΛCDM at z=0 (from top to bottom: σ8=0.9 and 0.7). Shaded regions: Maccio’ et al. (08, see Bullock et al. 01) for WMAP-1, 5 and 3 years (from the top to the bottom, respectively). Dashed lines (thin: z=0.1, thick: z=0.3) indicate the best-fit range at 1σ in a WMAP-5 yrs cosmology from Duffy et al. (08) z<0.150.15<z<0.25z>0.25

  18. The c-Mtot relation: σ8-Ωm • We constrain (σ8, Ωm) by comparing our estimates of (c200, M200) to the predictions tuned from CDM simulations (black contours) • We consider both systematics (e.g. different T profiles; fitted ngas; no-limits on rs; two methods: ~10%) in our measurements & scatter from numerical predictions (~20%, e.g. Neto et al. 07) • We add constraints from fbar (red contours). Eke et al. 01 σ8 = 0.94±0.25 Ωm=0.25+0.2-0.1 σ8 = 0.86±0.06 Ωm=0.28±0.01

  19. CONCLUSIONS on c–Mtot-fgas • X-ray techniques provide Mgas & Mtot with a good control of both statistical & systematic uncertainties • Aselection of relaxed, massive objects over a large z-rangecan constrain some cosmological parameters (σ8, Ωm, ΩΛ) through estimates in the c-Mtot-fgas plane • CAVEAT: N-body community ’d realize an adequate sets of cosmological simulations over a large box to properly predict the expected concentration associated to the massive (>1014 Msun) DM halos as function of (σ8, Ωm; z)

More Related