4.6 Article

High redshift X-ray galaxy clusters -: II.: The LX-T relationship revisited

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 472, 期 3, 页码 739-748

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077467

关键词

galaxies : clusters : general; galaxies : high-redshift; cosmology : observations; galaxies : intergalactic medium X-rays; galaxies : clusters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. In this paper we re-visit the observational relation between X-ray luminosity and temperature for high-z galaxy clusters and compare it with the local L-X-T and with theoretical models. Methods. To these ends we use a sample of 17 clusters extracted from the Chandra archive supplemented with additional clusters from the literature, either observed by Chandra or XMM-Newton, to form a final sample of 39 high redshift (0.25 < z < 1.3) objects. Different statistical approaches are adopted to analyze the L-X-T relation. Results. The slope of the L-X-T relation of high redshift clusters is steeper than expected from the self-similar model predictions and steeper, even though still compatible within the errors, than the local L-X-T slope. The distant cluster L-X-T relation shows a significant evolution with respect to the local Universe: high-z clusters are more luminous than the local ones by a factor approximate to 2 at any given temperature. The evolution with redshift of the L-X-T relation cannot be described by a single power law nor by the evolution predicted by the self-similar model. Conclusions. We find a strong evolution, similar or stronger than the self-similar model, from z = 0 to z <= 0.3 followed by a much weaker, if any, evolution at higher redshifts. The weaker evolution is compatible with non-gravitational models of structure formation. According to us a statistically significant sample of nearby clusters ( z < 0.25) should be observed with the current available X-ray telescopes to completely exclude observational effects due to different generation detectors and to understand this novel result.

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

4.6
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