4.6 Article

Measuring the hydrostatic mass bias in galaxy clusters by combining Sunyaev-Zel'dovich and CMB lensing data

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 610, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731999

Keywords

large-scale structure of Universe; cosmic background radiation; galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: clusters: intracluster medium

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Economia and Competitividad (MINECO) [AYA2015-66211-C2-2]
  2. European Research Council [ERC-StG/716151]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The cosmological parameters preferred by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) primary anisotropies predict many more galaxy clusters than those that have been detected via the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich (tSZ) effect. This discrepancy has attracted considerable attention since it might be evidence of physics beyond the simplest Lambda CDM model. However, an accurate and robust calibration of the mass-observable relation for clusters is necessary for the comparison, which has been proven difficult to obtain so far. Here, we present new constraints on the mass-pressure relation by combining tSZ and CMB lensing measurements of optically selected clusters. Consequently, our galaxy cluster sample is independent of the data employed to derive cosmological constrains. We estimate an average hydrostatic mass bias of b = 0.26 +/- 0.07, with no significant mass or redshift evolution. This value greatly reduces the discrepancy between the predictions of Lambda CDM and the observed abundance of tSZ clusters but agrees with recent estimates from tSZ clustering. On the other hand, our value for b is higher than the predictions from hydrodynamical simulations. This suggests mechanisms that drive large departures from hydrostatic equilibrium and that are not included in the latest simulations, and/or unaccounted systematic errors such as biases in the cluster catalogue that are due to the optical selection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available