1 / 19

Structure and scaling of nearby clusters of galaxies – in X-rays

Structure and scaling of nearby clusters of galaxies – in X-rays Gabriel W. Pratt, MPE Garching, Germany. Introduction. Ω M =1, Ω Λ =0, σ 8 =0.6. Ω M =0.3, Ω Λ =0.7, σ 8 =0.9. [Evrard et al. 2002]. Rationale.

love
Download Presentation

Structure and scaling of nearby clusters of galaxies – in X-rays

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. Structure and scaling of nearby clusters of galaxies – in X-rays Gabriel W. Pratt, MPE Garching, Germany G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  2. Introduction ΩM=1, ΩΛ=0, σ8=0.6 ΩM=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7, σ8=0.9 [Evrard et al. 2002] G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  3. Rationale • Cluster mass is most fundamental characteristic  most useful for cosmology (whatever the cosmological test) • We will never measure the mass of every cluster  need mass-observable relations (e.g., M-T, LX-M) or proxies thereof (e.g., LX-T) • We need to establish robust scaling relations (local and distant) • Detailed structural investigation only possible at low-z •  astrophysics of the ICM & its evolution G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  4. Introduction • Simplest model of structure formation is dark matter-driven hierarchical gravitational collapse • Gas ‘follows’ DM • Expect simple self-similar scaling of haloes with mass (& redshift)  scaling laws, structural similarity z=0 z=0.5 z=1 Bryan & Norman (1998); Navarro et al. (1995,1997) M  T3/2 G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  5. LX  T2 Real clusters Real clusters are structurally similar, but the scaling laws are different ASCA/Ginga LX-T relation LX T3 (Arnaud & Evrard 1999; also Markevitch 1998) ROSAT X-ray EM profiles (Arnaud et al. 2002; also Vikhlinin et al. 1999) • Non-gravitational effects influence gas properties? G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  6. Key questions • Is our basic understanding of cluster formation correct? • Are the dark matter properties consistent with predictions? • e.g., NFW ρDM  (r/rS)-1[1+ (r/rS)]-2 with c=R200/rs weakly dependent on mass • How good is our understanding of the gas physics? • Structure and scaling of entropy G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  7. Converging observational support for dark matter predictions G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  8. Universal profile 10 clusters 2—9 keV 13 clusters 0.7—9 keV ρ/ρc M/M200 R/R500 R/R200 [Vikhlinin et al. astro-ph/0507092; Chandra] [Pointecouteau et al. 2005; XMM] ~2 keV ~8 keV • Universal mass/density profile down to low mass • NFW model good description • < 15% dispersion in mass profiles at 0.1 R200 G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  9. Concentration parameters <c500>= 3 (<c200> ~ 4.6) <c200>= 5 c200 c500 M500 M200 [Vikhlinin et al. astro-ph/0507092; Chandra] [Pointecouteau et al. 2005; XMM simulations by Dolag et al. 2004] • Concentration parameters in range expected • Dark matter properties consistent with predictions G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  10. The M—T relation: cosmological connection G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  11. Context • Value of cosmological parameters measurable with clusters using number count methods (σ8, ΩM) depends sensitively on the normalisation of the cluster M-T relation • In X-rays, we get M from ne and T • Need to know the gas physics in detail σ8 M—T normalisation [Pierpaoli, Scott & White 2001] G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  12. M500 (M) kT/10 (keV) M-T relation δ = 500 δ = 2500 Mδ (M) M  T1.7 M  T1.5 kT (keV) [Arnaud et al. 2005; XMM] [Vikhlinin et al. astro-ph/0507092; Chandra] • Slope under debate; observed normalisation no longer an issue • ~35% too low wrt pure gravitational simulations [Evrard et al. 1996] • Inclusion of non-gravitational physics[SN, radiative cooling; Borgani et al. (2004] improves situation; observational treatment [cf Rasia]??? G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  13. Non-gravitational processes and entropy G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  14. Why entropy? • Gas entropy is generated in shocks and compression as the gas accretes into the dark matter potential well • It preserves the gravitational accretion history and any subsequent modification by non-gravitational processes • Useful X-ray observable S = kT ne-2/3 • Radiative cooling reduceskT ne-2/3 • Heat input (pre-heating, AGN, SNe, mixing) raiseskT ne-2/3 G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  15. S  T S (0.1 R200) [Ponman et al, 2003] S  T Entropy scaling If clusters are self similar, ρgasρDMδc (0) = cst • S  T • Find S  T0.65 with slope stable to 0.5 R200 [see also Ponman et al. 2003] • S  T0.65  LX  T2.7 • Increased dispersion towards central regions [Pratt et al., astro-ph/0508234] G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  16. Entropy scaling: comparison with adiabatic simulations • Hotter systems in relatively good agreement (slope & normalisation) • Clear excess normalisation at all measured radii in poorer systems (x2.5 at 2 keV) • Increased dispersion in central regions • Need mechanism which increases normalisation ar large R and dispersion at small R Adiabatic prediction (Voit 2005) [Pratt et al., astro-ph/0508234; also Pratt & Arnaud 2005] G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  17. Conclusions: dark matter • Universal mass/density profile in clusters, well described by standard NFW model, c in range expected from simulations • dark matter collapse understood • Normalisation of M-T relation has converged, but is consistently lower than simulations • are simulations correctly reproducing the thermal structure in clusters? • how do the observational assumptions (particularly HE) affect final mass estimate? G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  18. Conclusions: gas physics • Slope of M—T relation is stable (universal mass profile), but steeper if lower mass objects (kT < 3 keV) are included in fit • S—T relation is shallower than self-similar at all radii probed • Entropy profiles are self-similar (~20% dispersion) outside ~0.2 R200 except for a normalisation factor •  some non-gravitational processes boost entire entropy profile, preferentially in low mass systems (filamentary preheating?) • Dispersion increases to >60% at < 0.05 R200 • Cool core systems represent lower envelope [see also Voit & Donahue 2005] • AGN heating probably has an effect G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

  19. Thanks: Monique Arnaud Hans Böhringer Judith Croston Etienne Pointecouteau For more information: Pratt, Arnaud & Pointecouteau, 2005, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0508234) Arnaud, Pointecouteau & Pratt, 2005, A&A, 441, 893 Pointecouteau, Arnaud & Pratt, 2005, A&A, 435, 1 G.W. Pratt, Ringberg, 26/10/2005

More Related