4.7 Article

A merger mystery: no extended radio emission in the merging cluster Abell 2146

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01098.x

关键词

general: clusters: general; galaxies: clusters: individual: A2146; radio continuum: general

资金

  1. Canadian Space Agency
  2. Royal Society
  3. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
  4. STFC
  5. STFC [ST/H004548/1, ST/F00723X/1, ST/I001573/1, ST/G002339/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I001573/1, ST/F00723X/1, ST/H00243X/1, ST/H004548/1, ST/G002339/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a new 400 ks Chandra X-ray observation and a Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) radio observation at 325 MHz of the merging galaxy cluster Abell 2146. The Chandra observation reveals detailed structure associated with the major merger event including the Mach M = 2.1 +/- 0.2 bow shock located ahead of the dense subcluster core and the first known example of an upstream shock (M = 1.6 +/- 0.1). Surprisingly, the deep GMRT observation at 325MHz does not detect any extended radio emission associated with either shock front. All other merging galaxy clusters with X-ray-detected shock fronts, including the Bullet cluster, Abell 520, Abell 754 and Abell 2744, and clusters with candidate shock fronts have detected radio relics or radio halo edges coincident with the shocks. We consider several possible factors which could affect the formation of radio relics, including the shock strength and the presence of a pre-existing electron population, but do not find a favourable explanation for this result. We calculate a 3 sigma upper limit of 13 mJy on extended radio emission, which is significantly below the radio power expected by the observed P-radio-L-X correlation for merging systems. The lack of an extended radio halo in Abell 2146 maybe due to the low cluster mass relative to the majority of merging galaxy clusters with detected radio haloes.

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