The mass profile of A1413 observed with XMM-Newton: Implications for the M-T relation

By G. Pratt, M. Arnaud. 2002

147 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present an XMM-Newton observation of A1413, a hot (kT= 6:5 keV) galaxy cluster at z= 0:143. We construct gas and temperature profiles over the radial range up to1700 kpc. This radius corresponds to a density contrast 500 with respect to the critical density at the redshift of the cluster, or equivalently0:7r200. The gas distribution is well described by a model in the outer regions, but is more concentrated in the inner250 kpc. We introduce a new parameterisation for the inner regions, which allows a steeper gas density distribution. The radial temperature profile does not exhibit a sharp drop, but rather declines gradually towards the outer regions, by20% between 0:1r200 and 0:5r200. The projected temperature profile is well described by a polytropic model with= 1:07 0:01. We find that neither projection nor PSF eects change substantially the form of the temperature profile. Assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and spherical symmetry, we use the observed temperature profile and the new parametric form for the gas density profile to produce the total mass distribution of the cluster. The mass profile is remarkably well fitted with the Moore et al. (1999) parameterisation, implying a very centrally peaked matter dis- tribution. The concentration parameter is in the range expected from numerical simulations. There are several indications that beyond a density contrast 600, the gas may no longer be in hydrostatic equilibrium. There is an oset with respect to adia- batic numerical simulations in the virialised part of the cluster, in the sense that the predicted mass for the cluster temperature is40% too high. The gas distribution is peaked in the centre primarily as a result of the cusp in the dark matter profile. The X-ray gas to total mass ratio rises with increasing radius to fgas 0:2. These data strongly support the validity of the current approach for the modeling of the dark matter collapse, but confirm that understanding the gas specific physics is essential.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4fe47d16475bf23cd2134466538ed12a3cbc400f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

ERRATUM: “CHANDRA SAMPLE OF NEARBY RELAXED GALAXY CLUSTERS: MASS, GAS FRACTION, AND MASS–TEMPERATURE RELATION” (2006, ApJ, 640, 691) (2005, methodology): “In almost all clusters there is a significant increase of fgas with radius, in qualitative agreementwith a number of previousmeasurements that used spatially resolved temperatures (e.g., Markevitch & Vikhlinin 1997; Markevitch et al. 1999; Pratt & Arnaud 2002; Allen et al. 2004).”
The structural and scaling properties of nearby galaxy clusters. II. The M-T relation (2005, unknown): “13 of Pratt & Arnaud 2002).”
The Dark Matter Distribution in the Central Regions of Galaxy Clusters: Implications for Cold Dark Matter (2003, background): “…context of the hydrostatic equilibrium assumption, many studies have considered only a limited range of DM profiles, comparing, for example, NFW (or Moore) fits with those of a non-singular isothermal sphere (e.g. Schmidt, Allen, & Fabian 2001; Allen, Schmidt, & Fabian 2002; Pratt & Arnaud 2002).”
Tracing cosmic evolution with clusters of galaxies (2004, background): “…working toward a consensus on the temperature gradients of clusters sMarkevitch et al., 1998; Irwin and Bregman, 2000; De Grandi and Molendi, 2002; Pratt and Arnaud, 2002; Mushotzky, 2004d, but measured values of geff often range as high as 1.2 sFinoguenov, Reiprich, et al., 2001d. Cluster…”
Calibration of the galaxy cluster M-500-Υ-x relation with XMM-Newton (2007, methodology): “This derivation is free of any assumption on profile shape, such as power 1 The difference is 3% for A1413 (Arnaud et al. 2005), a cluster for which the temperature profiles measured up toR500 both with XMM-Newton and Chandra are in excellent agreement (Pratt & Arnaud 2002; Vikhlinin et al. 2005).”
Searching for cool core clusters at high redshift (2008, background): “2005, Bauer et al. 2005, Reese et al. 2002, De Filippis et al. 2005, Arabadjis et al. 2002, Pratt & Arnaud 2002.”
Chandra Temperature Profiles for a Sample of Nearby Relaxed Galaxy Clusters (2004, background): “A1413 is one of the clusters with the most accurately measured XMM-Newton temperature profiles (Pratt & Arnaud 2002).”
X‐ray properties of galaxy clusters and groups from a cosmological hydrodynamical simulation (2003, background): “…data from spatially resolved spectroscopy with the ASCA (e.g., Markevitch et al. 1998), Beppo–SAX (De Grandi & Molendi 2002) and XMM–Newton (e.g., Pratt & Arnaud 2002) satellites show that temperature profiles decline at cluster–centric distances larger than about one quarter of the virial…”
Improved constraints on dark energy from Chandra X-ray observations of the largest relaxed galaxy clusters (2007, result): “These authors also report a value of 0.11 for Abell 1413, based on the data of Pratt & Arnaud (2002), which is consistent with the results reported here.”
Scaling Properties of a Complete X-ray Selected Galaxy Group Sample (2014, methodology): “As in Pratt & Arnaud (2002), a Poisson distribution was fitted to a histogram of this light curve, and a ±3σ thresholds calculated.”
Chandra Observations of A2029: The Dark Matter Profile Down to below 0.01rvir in an Unusually Relaxed Cluster (2002, methodology): “…find that CDM halos (e.g., NFW97 or M99 profiles) are also consistent with their X-ray cluster observations at re0:1rvir (e.g., Ettori et al. 2002b; Pratt & Arnaud 2002; Schmidt et al. 2001; Allen et al. 2001; Arabadjis et al. 2002), while gravitational lensing studies report conflicting results…”
STELLAR AND TOTAL BARYON MASS FRACTIONS IN GROUPS AND CLUSTERS SINCE REDSHIFT 1 (2009, background): “As discussed in Frenk et al. (1999), simulations without feedback suggest that the ICM has a slightly more inflated distribution than the dark matter (see also observations by Pratt & Arnaud 2002), resulting in a decrease in the gas fraction of 10% at R500.”
The MCXC: a meta-catalogue of x-ray detected clusters of galaxies (2010, unknown): “2 in Pratt & Arnaud (2002): ρgas ∝ ( x xc )−α ×”
The structural and scaling properties of nearby galaxy clusters. I. The universal mass profile (2005, methodology): “In all cases barring A1413 (Pratt & Arnaud 2002) and A2597, the NFW profile proved to be a better fit than the MQGSL model, andde facto to be the best representation of our current data.”
K-Band Properties of Galaxy Clusters and Groups: Luminosity Function, Radial Distribution, and Halo Occupation Number (2004, background): “…of galaxy dynamics (e.g., van der Marel et al. 2000; Biviano & Girardi 2003; Katgert et al. 2004; cdm 4 5), X-ray emission from the ICM (e.g., Pratt & Arnaud 2002; Lewis et al. 2003; cdm 4 5), weak/strong lensing (e.g., Clowe & Schneider 2002; Arabadjis et al. 2002; cdm 3 8), or the caustic…”
Cosmological Parameters from Observations of Galaxy Clusters (2011, methodology): “…fits to the observed, projected surface brightness and temperature profiles; these are then used to calculate the appropriate partial derivatives at each radius to determine the mass profile (e.g. Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976; Jones & Forman 1984; Pratt & Arnaud 2002; Vikhlinin et al. 2006).”
Images, Structural Properties, and Metal Abundances of Galaxy Clusters Observed with Chandra ACIS-I at 0.1 < z < 1.3 (2007, methodology): “The resulting profiles were fit with a modified version of the standard 1D β-model as proposed by Vikhlinin et al. (2006, herafter V06) (see Pratt & Arnaud 2002, for other variations on the β-model); npne= n20(r/rc) −α (1 + r2/r2c ) 3β−α/2 × (1 + rγ/rγs )−ǫ/γ .”
X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters: studying astrophysical processes in the largest celestial laboratories (2009, unknown): “11 (Pratt (2006), Vikhlinin et al. (2005), see also Pratt & Arnaud (2002), Pointecouteau et al. (2005),Buote et al. (2007), Voigt & Fabian (2006)).”