4.7 Article

Measurements of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect scaling relations for clusters of galaxies

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 617, 期 2, 页码 829-846

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/425677

关键词

cosmic microwave background; cosmology : observations; galaxies : clusters : general; large-scale structure of universe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present new measurements of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect from clusters of galaxies using the second-generation Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Infrared Experiment (SuZIE II). We combine these new measurements with previous cluster observations with the SuZIE instrument to form a sample of 15 clusters of galaxies. For this sample we calculate the central Comptonization y(0) and the integrated SZ flux decrement S for each of our clusters. We find that the integrated SZ flux is a more robust observable derived from our measurements than the central Comptonization because of inadequacies in the spatial modeling of the intracluster gas with a standard beta-model. This is highlighted by comparing our central Comptonization results with values calculated from measurements using the BIMA and OVRO interferometers. On average, the SuZIE-calculated central Comptonizations are similar to 60% higher in the cooling flow clusters than the interferometric values, compared to only similar to 12% higher in the non - cooling flow clusters. We believe this discrepancy to be in large part due to the spatial modeling of the intracluster gas. From our cluster sample we construct y(0)- T and S-T scaling relations. The y0- T scaling relation is inconsistent with what we would expect for self-similar clusters; however, this result is questionable because of the large systematic uncertainty in y(0). The S-T scaling relation has a slope and redshift evolution consistent with what we expect for self-similar clusters, with a characteristic density that scales with the mean density of the universe. We rule out zero-redshift evolution of the S-T relation at similar to90% confidence.

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