4.7 Article

Improved optical mass tracer for galaxy clusters calibrated using weak lensing measurements

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 390, Issue 3, Pages 1157-1169

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13818.x

Keywords

gravitational lensing; galaxies: clusters: general; cosmology: large scale structure of the Universe

Funding

  1. NASA [HST-HF01199.02-A, NAS 5-26555]
  2. Space Telescope Science Institute
  3. US Department of Energy [DE-FG03-02-ER40701]
  4. NSF [CAREER-0132953]
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0810820] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We develop an improved mass tracer for clusters of galaxies from optically observed parameters, and calibrate the mass relation using weak gravitational lensing measurements. We employ a sample of similar to 13 000 optically selected clusters from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) maxBCG catalogue, with photometric redshifts in the range 0.1-0.3. The optical tracers we consider are cluster richness, cluster luminosity, luminosity of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) and combinations of these parameters. We measure the weak lensing signal around stacked clusters as a function of the various tracers, and use it to determine the tracer with the least amount of scatter. We further use the weak lensing data to calibrate the mass normalization. We find that the best mass estimator for massive clusters is a combination of cluster richness, N-200, and the luminosity of the BCG, L-BCG: M-200 (rho) over bar = (1.27 +/- 0.08)(N-200/20)(1.20+/-0.09) [L-BCG/(L) over bar (BCG)(N-200)](0.71+/-0.14) x 10(14) h(-1) M-circle dot, where (L) over bar (BCG)(N-200) is the observed mean BCG luminosity at a given richness. This improved mass tracer will enable the use of galaxy clusters as a more powerful tool for constraining cosmological parameters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available