4.6 Article

The radial dependence of temperature and iron abundance Galaxy clusters from z=0.14 to z=0.89

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 503, 期 1, 页码 35-46

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200809809

关键词

X-rays: galaxies: clusters

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  2. NASA Illinois Space [NGT5-40073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. The origin and evolution of the intracluster medium (ICM) are still not fully understood. A better understanding is not only interesting in its own right, but it is also important for modeling hierarchical structure growth and for using cluster surveys to determine cosmological parameters. Aims. To determine if there exists any evidence for evolution in the temperature or iron abundance gradients between z similar or equal to 0.14 and z similar or equal to 0.89, therefore elucidating the origin of energy and metal input to the ICM. Methods. By using a sample of 35 observations of 31 clusters of galaxies found in the archival data of Chandra and XMM-Newton with redshifts between 0.14 and 0.89, we derived the temperature and iron abundance radial profiles. To compare clusters with similar properties, the data were divided into comparable subsets. Results. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that the iron abundance radial profiles in galaxy clusters evolve with redshift in any of the chosen subsets. Temperature radial profiles also do not appear to be changing with redshift once selection effects are taken into account. Conclusions. The lack of evolution in the iron profiles is consistent with scenarios where the galaxies in clusters are stripped of their gas at higher redshifts. The temperature and iron abundance profiles also suggest that the primary source of heating in high redshift clusters is the gravitational infall of mass. These findings further emphasize the importance of modeling the local environment of clusters in cosmological studies and have important implications for studies that go to larger redshifts.

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