1 / 60

Radio observations have played important roles in lensing studies

The effects of the complex mass distribution of clusters on weak lensing cluster surveys Zuhui Fan Dept. of Astronomy, Peking University. Radio observations have played important roles in lensing studies About 40% of the multiple-imaged quasars have been observed in radio band

haven
Download Presentation

Radio observations have played important roles in lensing studies

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. The effects of the complex massdistribution of clusters on weak lensing cluster surveysZuhui Fan Dept. of Astronomy, Peking University

  2. Radio observations have played important roles in lensing studies About 40% of the multiple-imaged quasars have been observed in radio band The first lens system QSO0957+561A,B VLBI observations show detailed correspondence between various knots of emission in the two radio images

  3. Outline: • Introduction: Clusters as cosmological probes • Gravitational lensing effects • Weak lensing selected clusters

  4. Introduction Clusters of galaxies total mass M ~ 1014 –15 Msun hot gas T ~ a few keV Largest varialized objects in the universe Gravity plays dominant roles in the formation and evolution of clusters of galaxies Sensitive to cosmological models Strong sources for x-ray, SZ effects, lensing……

  5. As a zoom lens for faint objects Abell 2218 galaxy z ~7 z ~ 10

  6. Statistically, the cluster number distribution versus redshift z contains much information on cosmological parameters, such as Fan & Chiueh 2001

  7. Problems in cosmological applications * theoretically: the abundance of clusters in terms of their mass * observations: the mass of a cluster is usually derived from observable quantities  large uncertainties are introduced

  8. For example X-ray emission or SZ effects are directly associated with intracluster gas Besides gravity, gas physics affects the properties of intracluster gas considerably.

  9. Gravitational lensing effects are directly related to the mass distribution, regardless luminous or dark components  It is expected that lensing cluster surveys can obtain mass-selected cluster samples

  10. Gravitational lensing effects

  11. Strong lensing effects multiple images giant arcs central part of galaxies or clusters

  12. weak lensing effects Lensing effects are weak, and statistical studies are necessary. shape distortion of background galaxies magnitude magnification of background sources

  13. weak lensing effects http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~hoekstra/lensing.html

  14. Lensing effects are related to the mass distribution along line of sights between the observer and the sources If there exists a large cluster in a particular direction, lensing signals are expected to be peaked around the cluster

  15. D. Wittman et al. astro-ph/0507606 First Results On Shear-Selected Clusters From the Deep Lens Survey: Optical Imaging, Spectroscopy, and X-ray Followup 8.60 of 200 Deep Lens Survey (DLS)

  16. convergence map (Tang and Fan 2005, ApJ) qualitatively, good correlations are seen between massive clusters and peaks in the convergence map

  17. important questions to ask the efficiency and completeness of lensing cluster surveys lensing signal mass of clusters lensing-selected cluster sample  truly mass-selected??

  18. Weak lensing selected clusters We particularly concern the quantitative correspondence between the κ value of a peak in the κ map and the mass of its associated halo concentrate on double primary matches peak < -- > halo angular smoothing scale θG=1 arcmin (2 arcmin) (Gaussian smoothing window function)

  19. Simulations ( Jing 1998, 2000) 100h-1Mpc, 2563 particles force resolution: 39h-1kpc convergence map: the Born approximation stacking mass slices

  20. Spherical NFW model rs : characteristic scale ρs : characteristic density given the mass of the halo M < -- > rs (through concentration parameter c=rvir/rs) ρs one to one correspondence between M and κ at a given redshift

  21. scatter plot of νpeak and νnfw (ν=κ/σnoise) correlations are seen but with large scatters

  22. statistical distribution of c (dash-dotted line) triaxial shape of halos (dashed line)

  23. * The uncertainty of c contributes a small portion of the dispersion * The triaxiality contributes additional dispersions, especially at high ν for massive halos * Still a large part of the dispersion cannot be explained by the triaxiality of halos * Even more complex mass distribution of halos ? projection effects along the line of sights ?

  24. Isolate the complexity of the mass distribution from the projection effects generate κ map including only those matched halos with other particles removed -- > κsingle or νsingle

  25. comparison

  26. Comparison  dominant part of the dispersion is associated with the complex mass distribution of halos themselves

  27. substructures

  28. triangles: substructures substructures contribute to the lower-end dispersion

  29. hidden substructures along line of sights contribute to high-end dispersion as well

  30. results (θG=1 arcmin) * lensing signals from clusters are far more complex than the spherical NFW model can describe * triaxial mass distribution must be taken into account * large substructures have important effects * projection effects play minor roles

  31. θG=2 arcmin

  32. comparison * Projection effects are much more significant than that of θG=1 arcmin

  33. An example

  34. conclusions * θG=1 arcmin : the lensing signals are dominantly determined by the properties of clusters themselves no simple κ – M correspondence κ-selected  not M-selected triaxiality, substructures … * θG=2 arcmin: projection effects are stronger not preferred in lensing surveys

  35. * the box size of the simulations are relatively small * full ray tracing: evaluate the line-of-sight projection effects more accurately * the effects of noise: intrinsic non-spherical shape of galaxies

  36. Discussion • redshift information: precise values are not needed applicable to large surveys, such as Planck • multi-frequency observations depending on the cluster-finding algorithm, the final SZE signals are constructed through the weighted average of signals from different frequency channels relativistic effects can be weaker than that for the v=353 GHz

  37. the flux limit for completeness can be as high as 200 mJy • Multi-parameter determination e.g., Ωm, σ8, w

  38. Searching for clusters with weak lensing surveys Inhomogeneous matter distribution distorts background source galaxies, and generates correlated distortion signals

  39. Gravitational lensing effect is directly associated with weighted surface mass distribution κ

  40. δ:density fluctuation field a: cosmological scale factor ω: comoving radial distance fk: comoving angular diameter distance p(ω): distribution function of source galaxies H0: Hubble constant Ω0: cosmological mass density parameter

  41. Clusters of galaxies are expected to be associated with peaks in κ-map. This is the basic idea of lensing cluster surveys * Is there a one-to-one correspondence between a peak and a halo? * selection function: mass selected? * completeness and efficiency

  42. Visually: good correlation theoretically expected κ value from a cluster “observed” κ value ? mis-matches physical reasons? projection effects

  43. Theoretical modeling: spherical mass distribution NFW profile  one to one correspondence between κ and M  mass selected

  44. With simulation data from Dr. Jing et al. analyze the dispersion between the theoretical expected lensing signals with “observed” ones

  45. possible reasons for the dispersion: projection effect nonspherical mass distribution of dark halos high resolution numerical studies of Jing et al. triaxial dark matter halos orientation

More Related