4.7 Article

The evolution of the cluster X-ray scaling relations in the Wide Angle ROSAT Pointed Survey sample at 0.6<z<1.0

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09717.x

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The X-ray properties of a sample of 11 high-redshift (0.6 < z < 1.0) clusters observed with Chandra and/or XMM - Newton are used to investigate the evolution of the cluster scaling relations. The observed evolution in the normalization of the L - T, M - T, M-g - T and M - L relations is consistent with simple self-similar predictions, in which the properties of clusters reflect the properties of the Universe at their redshift of observation. Under the assumption that the model of self-similar evolution is correct and that the local systems formed via a single spherical collapse, the high-redshift L - T relation is consistent with the high-z clusters having virialized at a significantly higher redshift than the local systems. The data are also consistent with the more realistic scenario of clusters forming via the continuous accretion of material. The slope of the L - T relation at high redshift ( B = 3.32 +/- 0.37) is consistent with the local relation, and significantly steeper than the self-similar prediction of B = 2. This suggests that the same non-gravitational processes are responsible for steepening the local and high-z relations, possibly occurring universally at z greater than or similar to 1 or in the early stages of the cluster formation, prior to their observation. The properties of the intracluster medium at high redshift are found to be similar to those in the local Universe. The mean surface-brightness profile slope for the sample is beta = 0.66 +/- 0.05, the mean gas mass fractions within R-2500(z) and R-200(z) are 0.069 +/- 0.012 and 0.11 +/- 0.02, respectively, and the mean metallicity of the sample is 0.28 +/- 0.11 Z(.).

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