4.6 Article

The bullet cluster is not a cosmological anomaly

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/02/038

关键词

cosmological simulations; galaxy clusters; gravitational lensing

资金

  1. [NNX08AG70G]
  2. [NSF PHY-1212538]
  3. [NSF PHY-0900631]
  4. [NSF PHY-0970075]
  5. Division Of Physics
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1212538] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Bullet Cluster (1E0657-56) merger is of exceptional interest for testing the standard cold-dark-matter plus cosmological constant cosmological model, and for investigating the possible existence of a long- or short-range fifth-force in the dark sector and possible need for modifications of general relativity or even of Newtonian gravity. The most recent previous simulations of the Bullet Cluster merger required an initial infall velocity far in excess of what would be expected within the standard cosmological model, at least in the absence of additional forces or modifications to gravity. We have recently carried out much more detailed simulations than previously had been done, making pixel-by-pixel fits to 2D data-maps of the mass distribution and X-ray emission, allowing for triaxial initial configurations and including MHD and cooling. Here, we compare the initial conditions of the Bullet Cluster merger as found in our new simulations to the initial conditions in similar-mass merging clusters in the Horizon cosmological simulation. We conclude that our initial infall velocity, 2900 km/s at a separation of 2.5 Mpc, is consistent with ACDM, given the inferred main cluster mass of 2 x 10(15) M-circle dot. The initial concentration and shape found for the smaller (Bullet) cluster are typical for clusters of this mass range, but both quantities seem somewhat low for the larger (Main) cluster. Due to the paucity of examples of clusters with such a high mass in simulations, these features of the main cluster cannot presently be used to test ACDM.

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