1 / 23

Thomas Reiprich Danny Hudson Oxana Nenestyan Emmy Noether Research Group Institut für Astrophysik

Weak Lensing and X-Ray Observations of a Complete X-Ray Flux-Limited Sample of Distant Galaxy Clusters. Thomas Reiprich Danny Hudson Oxana Nenestyan Emmy Noether Research Group Institut für Astrophysik Universität Bonn http://www.dark-energy.net. Thomas Erben Peter Schneider

chibale
Download Presentation

Thomas Reiprich Danny Hudson Oxana Nenestyan Emmy Noether Research Group Institut für Astrophysik

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Weak Lensing and X-Ray Observations of a Complete X-Ray Flux-Limited Sample of Distant Galaxy Clusters Thomas Reiprich Danny Hudson Oxana Nenestyan Emmy Noether Research Group Institut für Astrophysik Universität Bonn http://www.dark-energy.net Thomas Erben Peter Schneider Alexey Vikhlinin Craig Sarazin

  2. Primary Goal:Study Dark Energy • Primary method: Evolution of cluster mass function.

  3. Evolution ofGalaxy Clusters Borgani & Guzzo (2001)

  4. z=0.05 z=0.61 Solid lines: w=-1, dashed lines: w=-0.5, dotted lines: w=-1.25.

  5. Cluster Evolution • Need distant AND local (complete) sample, • need “good” selection, • need “good” masses.

  6. Reiprich & Böhringer (2002) HIFLUGCS, |z| = 0.05

  7. Maughn et al. (2005) WARPS, 0.6 < z < 1.0

  8. X-ray emission “good” to select clusters!

  9. Local Sample: HIFLUGCS • ~60 X-ray brightest clusters in sky (Reiprich & Böhringer 2002), • ~completely covered with both Chandra (Hudson et al., in prep) and XMM-Newton (Nenestyan et al., in prep.).

  10. Distant Sample: 400d • 400 Square Degree Survey (Vikhlinin, Burenin, Quintana, Hornstrup, Ebeling et al., in prep.), clusters serendipitously detected in “all” useful PSPC obs, volume > V(z<0.1), continuation of 160d (Vikhlinin et al., Mullis et al.); • use complete subsample of ~40 X-ray luminous clusters with z > 0.35 (~20 with z > 0.5), completely covered with Chandra.

  11. “Good” local and distant cluster samples in place!

  12. Distant Sample • X-ray photon statistics poorer, • merger fraction higher (hydrostatic/virial equilibrium?)? M. Markevitch

  13. From S. Randall. EPS, LCDM. M=5x1014 Msun. Mergers > 1/3 mass ratio. Absolute scale arbitrary.

  14. Megacam @ MMT 6.5m Collab with UVa and CfA.

  15. 36 (2kx4k) CCDs, 2 readouts/CCD, 2x2 binning, unbinned (0.08”/pixel) ~800MB.

  16. PSF study: No obvious jumps of stellar ellipticity across chip boundaries of 36 CCDs. By T. Erben.

  17. Mosaic of 25 dithered obs. (1800 fits image extensions). Box ~30’, 11k. GaBoDS pipeline (Erben et al., AN, 326, 432) on 38-CPU.

  18. ROSAT PSPC contours from a z=0.5 cluster.

  19. Chandra data from A. Vikhlinin.

  20. S/N = 1.0, 1.5, …, 3.5.By T. Erben.

  21. Summary • Good samples, selection, masses, • will get useful constraints on (constant) DE equation of state, w, from clusters alone (<30%) - soon, • ground work for future large surveys (check self-cal, e.g., z-dependent scatter in L-M).

More Related