1 / 48

MASS AND ENTROPY PROFILES OF X-RAY BRIGHT RELAXED GROUPS

MASS AND ENTROPY PROFILES OF X-RAY BRIGHT RELAXED GROUPS. FABIO GASTALDELLO UC IRVINE & BOLOGNA D. BUOTE P. HUMPHREY L. ZAPPACOSTA J. BULLOCK W. MATHEWS UCSC F. BRIGHENTI BOLOGNA. MASS RESULTS AND c-M PLOT FOR X-RAY GROUPS ENTROPY PROFILES

wade-barton
Download Presentation

MASS AND ENTROPY PROFILES OF X-RAY BRIGHT RELAXED GROUPS

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. MASS AND ENTROPY PROFILES OF X-RAY BRIGHT RELAXED GROUPS FABIO GASTALDELLO UC IRVINE & BOLOGNA D. BUOTE P. HUMPHREY L. ZAPPACOSTA J. BULLOCK W. MATHEWS UCSC F. BRIGHENTI BOLOGNA

  2. MASS RESULTS AND c-M PLOT FOR X-RAY GROUPS • ENTROPY PROFILES • AGN FEEDBACK: FOCUS ON SOME PARTICULAR OBJECTS OUTLINE

  3. DM DENSITY PROFILE The concentration parameter c do not depend strongly on the innermost data points, r < 0.05 rvir (Bullock et al. 2001, B01; Dolag et al. 2004, D04). Navarro et al. 2004

  4. c slowly declines as M increases (slope of -0.1) • Constant scatter (σlogc ≈ 0.14) • the normalization depends sensitively on the cosmological parameters, in particular σ8 and w (D04,Kuhlen et al. 2005). c-M RELATION Bullock et al. 2001

  5. Selection Effects Wechsler et al. 2002 Concentrations for relaxed halos are larger by 10% compared to the whole population (Jing 2000, Wechsler 2002, Maccio’ 2006). They show also smaller scatter (σlogc ≈ 0.10)

  6. Chandra XMM-Newton A SPECIAL ERA IN X-RAY ASTRONOMY • High sensitivity due to high effective area, i.e. more photons • 1 arcsec resolution

  7. Vikhlinin et al. 2006 Pointecouteau et al. 2005 • NFW a good fit to the mass profile • c-M relation is consistent with no variation in c and with the gentle decline with increasing M expected from CDM (α = -0.040.03, P05). Clusters X-ray results

  8. Improve significantly the constraints on the c-M relation by analyzing a wider mass range with many more systems, in particular obtaining accurate mass constraints on relaxed systems with 1012 ≤ M ≤ 1014 Msun • There are very few constraints on groups scale (1013 ≤ M ≤ 1014 Msun), where numerical predictions are more accurate because a large number of halo can be simulated. THE PROJECT

  9. In Gastaldello et al. 2007 we selected a sample of 16 objects in the 1-3 keV range from the XMM and Chandra archives with the best available data with • no obvious disturbance in surface brightness at large scale • with a dominant elliptical galaxy at the center • with a cool core • with a Fe gradient • The best we can do to ensure hydrostatic equilibrium and recover mass from X-rays. SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE

  10. After accounting for the mass of the hot gas, NFW + stars is the best fit model RESULTS MKW 4 NGC 533

  11. No detection of stellar mass due to poor sampling in the inner 20 kpc or localized AGN disturbance RESULTS Buote et al. 2002 NGC 5044

  12. NFW + stars best fit model • We failed to detect stellar mass in all objects, due to poor sampling in the inner 20 kpc or localized AGN disturbance. Stellar M/L in K band for the objects with best available data is 0.570.21, in reasonable agreement with SP synthesis models (≈ 1) • Adopting more complicated models, like introducing AC or N04 did not improve the fits. AC produces too low stellar mass-to-light ratios RESULTS

  13. c-M relation for groups We obtain a slope α=-0.2260.076, c decreases with M at the 3σ level

  14. THE X-RAY c-M RELATION • Buote et al. 2007 c-M relation for 39 systems ranging in mass from ellipticals to the most massive galaxy clusters (0.06-20) x 1014 Msun. • A power law fit requires at high significance (6.6σ) that c decreases with increasing M • Normalization and scatter consistent with relaxed objects

  15. THE X-RAY c-M RELATION WMAP 1 yr Spergel et al. 2003

  16. THE X-RAY c-M RELATION WMAP 3yr Spergel et al. 2006

  17. HE (10-15% from simulations, e.g. Nagai et al. 2006, Rasia et al. 2006). No results yet on the magnitude for the bias on c (if there is one) due to radial dependence of turbulence • Selection bias • Semi-analytic model prediction of c-M • Gas physics and AC (problems also with rotation curves of spirals: Kassim et al. 2006, Gnedin et al. 2006 but also positive claims: M31 mass model of Seigar et al. 2007) • Extend the profiles at large radii (r500 is possible to reach for groups) CAVEATS/FUTURE WORK

  18. The crucial mass regime of groups has provided the crucial evidence of the decrease of c with increasing M • c-M relation offers interesting and novel approach to potentially constrain cosmological parameters MASS CONCLUSIONS

  19. THE RELEVANCE OF ENTROPY In the widely accepted hierarchical cosmic structure formation predicted by cold dark matter models and in the absence of radiative cooling and supernova/AGN heating, the thermodynamic properties of the hot gas are determined only by gravitational processes, such adiabatic compression during collapse and shock heating by supersonic gas accretion (Kaiser 1986) clusters and group of galaxies should follow similar scaling relations, for example if emission is bremsstrahlung and gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium L  T2 and if we define as “entropy” K = T/n2/3, then K  T (so S=k lnK + s0, it’s also called adiabat because P = K ργ). Entropy reflects more directly the history of heating and cooling of the ICM

  20. Mulchaey 2000 The L-T relation It has been clear for many years that the cluster L-T relation does not follow the LT2 slope expected for self-similar systems. In practice, LT3 for clusters (Edge & Stewart 1991), with possible further steepening to LT4 in group regime (Helsdon & Ponman 2000)

  21. Ponman, Cannon & Navarro 1999 X-ray surface brightness Overlay of scaled X-ray surface brightness profiles shows that emissivity (hence gas) is suppressed and flattened in cool (T<4 keV) systems, relative to hot ones.

  22. Entropy floor Self-similar scaling Entropy in the IGM Ponman et al. (1999) & Lloyd-Davies et al (2000)studied ROSAT and ASCA data for a sample of clusters  core entropy appeared to show a “floor” at ~100-150 keV cm2 at r=0.1 r200 .

  23. KT Entropy in the IGM A larger study, of 66 systems by Ponman et al. (2003), now indicates that there is not a “floor” but a “ramp”, with K(0.1r200) scaling as KT2/3, rather than the self-similar scaling of KT.

  24. PROPOSED EXPLANATIONS • EXTERNAL PREHEATING MODELS: the IGM was heated prior to the formation of groups and clusters (e.g. Tozzi & Norman 2001) results in isoentropic cores • INTERNAL HEATING MODELS: the gas is heated inside the bound system by supernovae or AGN (e.g. Loewenstein 2000) • COOLING MODELS: low entropy gas removed from the system, producing an effect similar to heating (e.g. Voit & Bryan 2001) All three models can reproduce the L-T relation and excess entropy but with some problems: 1 requires too large amount of energy at high redshift 2 requires 100% efficiency from supernovae or fine tuning for AGN 3 overpredicts the amount of stars in groups and clusters More realistic scenarios with both heating and cooling are required (e.g. Borgani et al. 2002)

  25. External preheating models with different levels of heating. Large isoentropic cores are produced Internal heating with rising entropy profiles BRIGHENTI & MATHEWS 2001

  26. THE BASELINE INTRACLUSTER ENTROPY PROFILE FROM GRAVITATIONAL STRUCTURE FORMATION VOIT ET AL. 2005

  27. COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND GRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONS PRATT ET AL. 2006

  28. ENTROPY PROFILES

  29. ENTROPY PROFILES GASTALDELLO ET AL. 2008, IN PREP.

  30. ENTROPY PROFILES GASTALDELLO ET AL. 2008, IN PREP.

  31. COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND GRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONS GASTALDELLO ET AL. 2008, IN PREP.

  32. COMPARISON WITH MASSIVE CLUSTERS AND GRAVITATIONAL SIMULATIONS GASTALDELLO ET AL. 2008, IN PREP.

  33. GAS FRACTIONS

  34. BROKEN POWER LAW ENTROPY PROFILES FOR GROUPS WITH STEEPER INNER SLOPES AND FLATTER OUTER SLOPES SEEM TO POINT TO HIGHER IMPORTANCE OF FEEDBACK PROCESSES WITH RESPECT TO MASSIVE CLUSTERS LOWER GAS FRACTIONS ARE ANOTHER EVIDENCE OF THIS FACT ENTROPY CONCLUSIONS

  35. THE “OLD” MASS SINK PROBLEM IS NOW THE “FEEDBACK PROBLEM” AGN FEEDBACK, PUT ON A FIRMER GROUND BY THE CHANDRA IMAGES, HAS BROADER ASTROPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR GALAXY FORMATION AND EVOLUTION “SOME LOOSE ENDS REMAIN” (J. BINNEY) AGN FEEDBACK

  36. NGC 5044 AND NGC 4325 NGC 4325 NGC 5044

  37. ENTROPY PROFILES FOR AGN HEATING VOIT ET AL. 2006

  38. ENTROPY PROFILES NGC 4325 AGN DISTURBANCE: RUSSELL ET AL. 2007

  39. NGC 5044 AND NGC 4325 NGC 4325 NGC 5044

  40. NGC 5044

  41. NGC 5044

  42. DUST IN NGC 5044 TEMI, BRIGHENTI & MATHEWS 2007

  43. “In this scenario there is a clear dichotomy between active and radio quiet clusters: one would expect the cluster population to bifurcate into systems with strong temperature gradients and feedback and those without either” Donahue et al. 2005 AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK

  44. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK GASTALDELLO ET AL. 2007, APJ SUBM.

  45. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK

  46. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK

  47. AGN FEEDBACK HAS ALL THE FEATURES OF THE RIGHT SOLUTION BUT WE ARE NOT CLOSE TO A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AGN FEEDBACK IN GROUPS IS STILL POORLY INVESTIGATED AND THERE ARE SOME PUZZLES, LIKE AWM 4 CONCLUSIONS ON AGN FEEDBACK

More Related