4.7 Article

Simulation tests of galaxy cluster constraints on chameleon gravity

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw1617

关键词

gravitational lensing: weak; galaxies: clusters: general; X-rays: galaxies: clusters

资金

  1. SEPNet
  2. ICG Portsmouth
  3. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K00090X/1, ST/L000652/1]
  4. European Research Council [646702]
  5. STFC [ST/I000976/1, ST/K00090X/1, ST/N000668/1, ST/N001087/1, ST/L006529/1, ST/L000652/1, ST/M003574/1, ST/H001581/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/N000668/1, ST/K00090X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use two new hydrodynamical simulations of A cold dark matter (ACDM) and f(R) gravity to test the methodology used by Wilcox et al. (W15) in constraining the effects of a fifth force on the profiles of clusters of galaxies. We construct realistic simulated stacked weak lensing and X-ray surface brightness cluster profiles from these cosmological simulations, and then use these data projected along various lines of sight to test the spherical symmetry of our stacking procedure. We also test the applicability of the NFW profile to model weak lensing profiles of clusters in f(R) gravity. Finally, we test the validity of the analytical model developed in W15 against the simulated profiles. Overall, we find our methodology is robust and broadly agrees with these simulated data. We also apply our full Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis from W15 to our simulated X-ray and lensing profiles, providing consistent constraints on the modified gravity parameters as obtained from the real cluster data, e.g. for our ACDM simulation we obtain vertical bar f(R0)vertical bar < 8.3 x 10(-5) (95 per cent CL), which is in good agreement with the W15 measurement of vertical bar f(R0)vertical bar < 6 x 10(-5). Overall, these tests confirm the power of our methodology which can now be applied to larger cluster samples available with the next generation surveys.

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