4.7 Article

Chandra X-ray observations of the 0.6 < z < 1.1 red-sequence cluster survey sample

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 680, Issue 2, Pages 1022-1041

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/587682

Keywords

cosmology : observations; galaxies : clusters : general; X-rays : galaxies : clusters

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present the results of Chandra observations of 13 optically selected clusters with 0.6 < z < 1.1, discovered via the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS). All but one are detected at S/N > 3, although three were not observed long enough to support detailed analysis. Surface brightness profiles are fitted to beta models. Integrated spectra are extracted within R-2500, and T-X and L-X information is obtained. We derive gas masses and total masses within R-2500 and R-500. Cosmologically corrected scaling relations are investigated, and we find the RCS clusters to be consistent with self-similar scaling expectations. However, discrepancies exist between the RCS sample and lower z X-ray-selected samples for relationships involving L-X, with the higher z RCS clusters having lower L-X for a given T-X. In addition, we find that gas mass fractions within R-2500 for the high-z RCS sample are lower than expected by a factor of similar to 2. This suggests that the central entropy of these high-z objects has been elevated by processes such as preheating, mergers, and/or AGN outbursts, that their gas is still infalling, or that they contain comparatively more baryonic matter in the form of stars. Finally, relationships between red-sequence optical richness (B-gc,B-red) and X-ray properties are fitted to the data. For systems with measured T-X, we find that optical richness correlates with both T-X and mass, having a scatter of similar to 30% with mass for both X-ray- selected and optically selected clusters. However, we also find that X-ray luminosity is not well correlated with richness and that several of our sample members appear to be significantly X-ray faint.

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