4.7 Article

Weighing the Giants - I. Weak-lensing masses for 51 massive galaxy clusters: project overview, data analysis methods and cluster images

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1945

关键词

gravitational lensing: weak; methods: data analysis; galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; cosmology: observations

资金

  1. US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-76SF00515]
  2. National Science Foundation [AST-0807458]
  3. NSF [PHY-0969487, AST-0838187, AST-1140019]
  4. NASA through Space Telescope Science Institute [HST-AR-12654.01-A, HST-GO-12009.02-A, HST-GO-11100.02-A]
  5. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Chandra Award by Chandra X-ray Observatory Center [TM1-12010X, GO0-11149X, GO9-0141X, GO8-9119X]
  7. National Aeronautics Space Administration [NAS8-03060]
  8. Danish National Research Foundation
  9. Hewlett Foundation Stanford Graduate Fellowship
  10. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  11. National Science Foundation
  12. US Department of Energy Office of Science
  13. Canadian Space Agency
  14. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  15. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0807458] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  16. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  17. Division Of Physics [0969487, 1404070] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This is the first in a series of papers in which we measure accurate weak-lensing masses for 51 of the most X-ray luminous galaxy clusters known at redshifts 0.15 less than or similar to z(Cl) less than or similar to 0.7, in order to calibrate X-ray and other mass proxies for cosmological cluster experiments. The primary aim is to improve the absolute mass calibration of cluster observables, currently the dominant systematic uncertainty for cluster count experiments. Key elements of this work are the rigorous quantification of systematic uncertainties, high-quality data reduction and photometric calibration, and the 'blind' nature of the analysis to avoid confirmation bias. Our target clusters are drawn from X-ray catalogues based on the ROSAT All-Sky Survey, and provide a versatile calibration sample for many aspects of cluster cosmology. We have acquired wide-field, high-quality imaging using the Subaru Telescope and Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope for all 51 clusters, in at least three bands per cluster. For a subset of 27 clusters, we have data in at least five bands, allowing accurate photometric redshift estimates of lensed galaxies. In this paper, we describe the cluster sample and observations, and detail the processing of the SuprimeCam data to yield high-quality images suitable for robust weak-lensing shape measurements and precision photometry. For each cluster, we present wide-field three-colour optical images and maps of the weak-lensing mass distribution, the optical light distribution and the X-ray emission. These provide insights into the large-scale structure in which the clusters are embedded. We measure the offsets between X-ray flux centroids and the brightest cluster galaxies in the clusters, finding these to be small in general, with a median of 20 kpc. For offsets less than or similar to 100 kpc, weak-lensing mass measurements centred on the brightest cluster galaxies agree well with values determined relative to the X-ray centroids; miscentring is therefore not a significant source of systematic uncertainty for our weak-lensing mass measurements. In accompanying papers, we discuss the key aspects of our photometric calibration and photometric redshift measurements (Kelly et al.), and measure cluster masses using two methods, including a novel Bayesian weak-lensing approach that makes full use of the photometric redshift probability distributions for individual background galaxies (Applegate et al.). In subsequent papers, we will incorporate these weak-lensing mass measurements into a self-consistent framework to simultaneously determine cluster scaling relations and cosmological parameters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据