130 likes | 301 Views
Mass Profiles of Galaxy Clusters. Drew Newman. Newman et al. 2009, “The Distribution of Dark Matter Over Three Decades in Radius in the Lensing Cluster Abell 611,” astro-ph/0909.3527 , accepted to ApJ.
E N D
Mass Profiles of Galaxy Clusters Drew Newman Newman et al. 2009, “The Distribution of Dark Matter Over Three Decades in Radius in the Lensing Cluster Abell 611,” astro-ph/0909.3527, accepted to ApJ
Purpose: Observational measures of cluster mass distribution (dark and baryonic) to make precise comparison with simulations (both N-body and those including baryons) • Need data over wide range of scales to break degeneracies inherent to individual probes • Weak lensing (~100 kpc – 3 Mpc scales) • Strong lensing (~30 kpc – 100 kpc) • Stellar dynamics (~3 – 20 kpc)
Mass Model Motivation • Focus on inner (log) density slope of dark matter • Component #1: NFW / gNFW dark halo • Component #2: Stars in the central galaxy
Weak Lensing – Abell 611 Subaru/ SuprimeCam ~10% of area shown BVRI filters for photo-z’s 1 Mpc = 3.8’
Weak Lensing – Abell 611 Radial shear profile 2D mass reconstruction
Strong Lensing – Abell 611 HST/ACS image 3 multiply images sources 2 of these with spectroscopic redshifts
From Data to Mass Distributions • Draw sample models (MCMC) consisting of • Elliptical NFW or gNFW dark halo, • Stellar mass in cD galaxy, • Galaxies that may perturb image positions • Compare to data: • Compute shear at locations of background galaxies, • Ray-tracing of multiply-imaged sources to other locations in image plane, • Compute velocity dispersion profile (including observational effects: seeing, binning) • Can we discriminate between NFW and gNFW DM halos? If so, what is the inner slope allowed to be?
Results • Definitely prefer a variable inner slope • Bayesian evidence larger by factor (2.2 ± 1.0) x 104 • Logarithmic inner slope β < 0.3 (68%), i.e. quite shallow
Results • Also, neither model reproduces the flat velocity dispersion profile • How to match flat dispersion and lensing constraints at ~30-100 kpc?
DM-only simulations • More modern cluster-scale simulations converge down to about 15 kpc/h • Hints that slope become progressively more shallow • But only on very small scales Navarro et al 2004
Attempts to Include Baryons • Adiabatic contraction • Cooling baryons contract and “pinch” DM halo, steepening the cusp • e.g. Gnedin et al. 2004, Gustafsson et al. 2007, Abadi et al. 2009, Pedrosa et al. 2009, etc. • Cosmological N-body+gas dynamical simulations, with radiative cooling and attempts to include feedback processes • Dynamical friction • Infalling baryon clumps “heat” DM cusp, flattening it • e.g. El-Zant et al. 2001, Romano-Diaz et al. 2008, Nipoti et al. 2004 • Frequent simplifications: • Infallingsubhalos as purely baryonic • Sometimes as unstrippable point masses • Need to maintain clumps over sufficient timescales without fragmenting, forming stars
Future • Find density profile that is more observationally acceptable • Not a lot of theoretical motivation because baryonic physics is not well enough understood • Extend to sample of ~10 clusters • All data collected for about half • For the rest, lack only velocity dispersions