THE EVOLUTION OF SCALING RELATIONS IN GALAXY CLUSTERS Raúl Sevilla Grupo de Astrofísica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid E-28049 (Spain) raul.sevilla@uam.es Yago Ascasíbar Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA02138, USA Gustavo Yepes Grupo de Astrofísica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid E-28049 (Spain) Stefan Gottlöber Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, Potsdam D-14482 (Germany) Völker Müller Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, Potsdam D-14482 (Germany) Abstract We study the evolution of the scaling relations of clusters and groups of galaxies from z = 1. A set of high resolution adiabatic SPH simulations has been carried out in a ΛCDM universe and compared with the observations of local and distant (z ∼ 0.8) clusters. The numerical sample has been extracted from different simulated volumes (80-500 h−1 Mpc) in order to get objects with a wide range of X-ray emmission-weighted temperatures (0.1 – 10 keV). These objects have been resimulated with increasing resolution, ranging from 5123 to 10243 effective particles, in order to assess numerical convergence of results. We also analysed the evolution of the radial structure of the ICM and checked the validity of the classical approximations of hydrostatic equilibrium and polytropic equation of state. Keywords: galaxies: clusters: general – cosmology: theory JENAM ’04: Roads to Cosmology Evolution of scaling relations on galaxy clusters Raúl Sevilla Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Collaborators Gustavo Yepes (UAM) Yago Ascasíbar (Harvard) Stefan Gottlöber (AIP) Völker Müller (AIP) Objectives • We intend to analyse the effect of resolution and adiabatic processes in the thermodynamical behaviour of ICM during the formation and evolution of galaxy clusters. • We use high resolution SPH numerical simulations, disregarding non-adiabatic processes (radiative cooling, star-formation, etc) Self-Similar model Isothermal and spherical ICM + hydrostatic equilibrium + thermal bremmstrahlung leads to self-similar model (Kaiser 1986): Fz M ∝ T3/2 Fz Mgas ∝ T3/2 where Fz = Ez (∆z/∆0)1/2, fgas ∝ T0 ∝ M0 Ez = H(t)/H0 = (Ωm (1+z)3+1-Ωm) Fz-1 LX ∝ T2 ∆z is the overdensity (Bryan & Norman 1998) Fz-1 LX ∝ (Fz M)4/3 ∝ (Fz Mgas)4/3 Fz4/3 S ∝ T0 Evolutionary schemes For a Y-X relation : log Y = α(z) log X + β(z) α(z) = cte α, β constants ⇒ No evolution β(z) ∝ (1+z)B log Y = A log X + B log (1+z) + C (Ettori et al 04) B=0 ⇒ No evolution Simulations ΛCDM model (Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7, h=0.7, σ8=0.9) • 2 simulations using GADGET 2: – 80 Mpc/h: • Initial P(k) with 10243 Fourier modes • 1283 particles – 500 Mpc/h: • Initial P(k) with 20483 Fourier modes • 5123 particles • • 18 (10+8) high resolution resimulations. High resolution achieved with mass-refinement technique (Klypin et al. 2001) All simulations are normalized to Ωbar= 0.04 Simulations (II) • 80 Mpc/h re-simulations (Ascasibar et al. 2003): 9 MDM ~ 5.7 · 108 Msun 9 MSPH ~ 5.7 · 107 Msun 9 ~ 2.5 mill. particles in high resolution area (5123 effective) • 500 Mpc/h re-simulations: 9 MDM = 2 · 109 Msun 9 MSPH = 3.2 · 108 Msun 9 ~ 2.5 mill. particles in high resolution area (20483 effective) • 2-5 kpc/h smoothing length Cluster sample (I) • 25 galaxy clusters • 5 redshifts: z=0;0.25;0.5;0.75;1 z=0 z=0.25 z=0.5 z=0.75 • At z=0: – – – – M = 5.7·1013 – 4.3·1015 Msun Mgas = 5.7·1012 – 5.7·1014 Msun TX = 0.6 – 10.8 keV LX = 1.8·1043 – 1046 erg/s z=1 80 Mpc/h Cluster sample (II) Ascasibar et al. 2003 500 Mpc/h Resolution (I) • • To test convergence of results, we’ve resimulated one cluster Opening a new level of mass refinement → very high resolution simulation (10243 efficient particles) 9 MDM ~ 3.5 · 107 Msun 9 MSPH ~ 5 · 106 Msun 9 ~ 20 mill. particles in high resolution area 9 0.5 kpc/h smoothing length 9 CPU time ~ 60 days ⇒ The most resolutive simulation without cooling ever. Resolution (II) 10243 2 Mpc/h DARK MATTER 5123 Resolution (III) 10243 2 Mpc/h GAS 5123 At z=0: R200 = 0.9 Mpc/h Resolution (IV) 5123 10243 We have reached convergence of resolution in gravitational heating Resolution vs physics Resimulated clusters at 80 Mpc/h Observations Tx1.9 Resimulated clusters at 500 Mpc/h Original . Mvir > 1015 M . 1014 < Mvir < 1015 500 Mpc/h .2x1013 < Mvir < 1014 simulation Markevitch ’98 Lx–Tx relation Ettori et al ‘04 • Helsdon & Ponman 00 • Arnaud & Evrard 99 • Better agreement with observations than cooling simulations Cooling steepens relations and normalization decreases with redshift Major mergers do not increase scatter in the sample Relaxed & minor mergers Major mergers Ettori et al. ’04, astro-ph/0407021 Lx–Tx evolution Ettori et al. astro-ph/0407021 log LX = β(z) + α(z) log TX – α(z) and β(z) are compatible with non evolutionary scenario – Slope is higher in Ettori et al. simulations but not normalisation – Shallower relation including major merger, < 5% off self-similarity All clusters fit Relaxed & minors fit Conclusions • Radiative cooling and feedback make a steeper Lx–Tx relation. • Non-adiabatic processes do not alter slopes during evolution (at least in Lx–Tx) → Compatibility of 2 evolutionary schemes. • Non-adiabatic simulations are compatible with non-evolutive scaling relations. • Major mergers do not show greater scatter, this is not expected to happen when lower ∆z are considered.
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz