4.7 Article

Chandra X-ray observations of the 0.6 < z < 1.1 red-sequence cluster survey sample

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 680, 期 2, 页码 1022-1041

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/587682

关键词

cosmology : observations; galaxies : clusters : general; X-rays : galaxies : clusters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the results of Chandra observations of 13 optically selected clusters with 0.6 < z < 1.1, discovered via the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS). All but one are detected at S/N > 3, although three were not observed long enough to support detailed analysis. Surface brightness profiles are fitted to beta models. Integrated spectra are extracted within R-2500, and T-X and L-X information is obtained. We derive gas masses and total masses within R-2500 and R-500. Cosmologically corrected scaling relations are investigated, and we find the RCS clusters to be consistent with self-similar scaling expectations. However, discrepancies exist between the RCS sample and lower z X-ray-selected samples for relationships involving L-X, with the higher z RCS clusters having lower L-X for a given T-X. In addition, we find that gas mass fractions within R-2500 for the high-z RCS sample are lower than expected by a factor of similar to 2. This suggests that the central entropy of these high-z objects has been elevated by processes such as preheating, mergers, and/or AGN outbursts, that their gas is still infalling, or that they contain comparatively more baryonic matter in the form of stars. Finally, relationships between red-sequence optical richness (B-gc,B-red) and X-ray properties are fitted to the data. For systems with measured T-X, we find that optical richness correlates with both T-X and mass, having a scatter of similar to 30% with mass for both X-ray- selected and optically selected clusters. However, we also find that X-ray luminosity is not well correlated with richness and that several of our sample members appear to be significantly X-ray faint.

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