Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
A comparison is presented of Sunyaev-Zeldovich measurements for 11 galaxy clusters as obtained by Planck and by the ground-based interferometer, the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager. Assuming a universal spherically-symmetric Generalised Navarro, Frenk and White (GNFW) model for the cluster gas pressure profile, we jointly constrain the integrated Compton-Y parameter (Y500) and the scale radius (θ500) of each cluster. Our resulting constraints in the Y500 - θ500 2D parameter space derived from the two instruments overlap significantly for eight of the clusters, although, overall, there is a tendency for AMI to find the Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal to be smaller in angular size and fainter than Planck. Significant discrepancies exist for the three remaining clusters in the sample, namely A1413, A1914, and the newly-discovered Planck cluster PLCKESZ G139.59+24.18. The robustness of the analysis of both the Planck and AMI data is demonstrated through the use of detailed simulations, which also discount confusion from residual point (radio) sources and from diffuse astrophysical foregrounds as possible explanations for the discrepancies found. For a subset of our cluster sample, we have investigated the dependence of our results on the assumed pressure profile by repeating the analysis adopting the best-fitting GNFW profile shape which best matches X-ray observations. Adopting the best-fitting profile shape from the X-ray data does not, in general, resolve the discrepancies found in this subset of five clusters. Though based on a small sample, our results suggest that the adopted GNFW model may not be sufficiently flexible to describe clusters universally.
Planck intermediate results. II. Comparison of Sunyaev-Zeldovich measurements from Planck and from the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager for 11 galaxy clusters
P. A. R. Ade;N. Aghanim;M. Arnaud;M. Ashdown;J. Aumont;C. Baccigalupi;A. Balbi;A. J. Banday;R. B. Barreiro;E. Battaner;R. Battye;K. Benabed;A. Benoît;J. P. Bernard;M. Bersanelli;R. Bhatia;I. Bikmaev;H. Böhringer;A. Bonaldi;J. R. Bond;J. Borrill;F. R. Bouchet;H. Bourdin;M. L. Brown;M. Bucher;R. Burenin;C. Burigana;R. C. Butler;P. Cabella;P. Carvalho;A. Catalano;L. Cayón;A. Chamballu;R. R. Chary;L. Y. Chiang;G. Chon;D. L. Clements;S. Colafrancesco;S. Colombi;A. Coulais;B. P. Crill;F. Cuttaia;A. Da Silva;H. Dahle;R. D. Davies;R. J. Davis;P. de Bernardis;G. de Gasperis;A. de Rosa;G. de Zotti;J. Delabrouille;J. Démoclès;C. Dickinson;J. M. Diego;K. Dolag;H. Dole;S. Donzelli;O. Doré;M. Douspis;X. Dupac;G. Efstathiou;T. A. Enßlin;H. K. Eriksen;F. Feroz;F. Finelli;I. Flores Cacho;O. Forni;P. Fosalba;M. Frailis;E. Franceschi;S. Fromenteau;S. Galeotta;K. Ganga;R. T. Génova Santos;M. Giard;Y. Giraud Héraud;J. González Nuevo;K. M. Górski;K. J. B. Grainge;A. Gregorio;A. Gruppuso;F. K. Hansen;D. Harrison;S. Henrot Versillé;C. Hernández Monteagudo;D. Herranz;S. R. Hildebrandt;E. Hivon;M. Hobson;W. A. Holmes;K. M. Huffenberger;G. Hurier;N. Hurley Walker;T. Jagemann;M. Juvela;E. Keihänen;I. Khamitov;R. Kneissl;J. Knoche;M. Kunz;H. Kurki Suonio;G. Lagache;J. M. Lamarre;A. Lasenby;C. R. Lawrence;M. Le Jeune;S. Leach;R. Leonardi;A. Liddle;P. B. Lilje;M. Linden Vørnle;M. López Caniego;G. Luzzi;J. F. Macías Pérez;C. J. MacTavish;D. Maino;N. Mandolesi;M. Maris;F. Marleau;D. J. Marshall;E. Martínez González;S. Masi;M. Massardi;MATARRESE, SABINO;F. Matthai;P. Mazzotta;P. R. Meinhold;A. Melchiorri;J. B. Melin;L. Mendes;A. Mennella;S. Mitra;M. A. Miville Deschênes;L. Montier;G. Morgante;D. Munshi;P. Naselsky;P. Natoli;H. U. Nørgaard Nielsen;F. Noviello;D. Novikov;I. Novikov;M. Olamaie;S. Osborne;F. Pajot;D. Paoletti;F. Pasian;G. Patanchon;T. J. Pearson;O. Perdereau;Y. C. Perrott;F. Perrotta;F. Piacentini;E. Pierpaoli;P. Platania;E. Pointecouteau;G. Polenta;L. Popa;T. Poutanen;G. W. Pratt;J. L. Puget;J. P. Rachen;R. Rebolo;M. Reinecke;M. Remazeilles;C. Renault;S. Ricciardi;I. Ristorcelli;G. Rocha;C. Rodríguez Gonzálvez;C. Rosset;M. Rossetti;J. A. Rubiño Martín;C. Rumsey;B. Rusholme;M. Sandri;R. D. E. Saunders;G. Savini;M. P. Schammel;D. Scott;T. W. Shimwell;G. F. Smoot;J. L. Starck;F. Stivoli;V. Stolyarov;R. Sudiwala;R. Sunyaev;D. Sutton;A. S. Suur Uski;J. F. Sygnet;J. A. Tauber;L. Terenzi;L. Toffolatti;M. Tomasi;M. Tristram;L. Valenziano;B. Van Tent;P. Vielva;F. Villa;N. Vittorio;L. A. Wade;B. D. Wandelt;D. Yvon;A. Zacchei;A. Zonca
2013
Abstract
A comparison is presented of Sunyaev-Zeldovich measurements for 11 galaxy clusters as obtained by Planck and by the ground-based interferometer, the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager. Assuming a universal spherically-symmetric Generalised Navarro, Frenk and White (GNFW) model for the cluster gas pressure profile, we jointly constrain the integrated Compton-Y parameter (Y500) and the scale radius (θ500) of each cluster. Our resulting constraints in the Y500 - θ500 2D parameter space derived from the two instruments overlap significantly for eight of the clusters, although, overall, there is a tendency for AMI to find the Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal to be smaller in angular size and fainter than Planck. Significant discrepancies exist for the three remaining clusters in the sample, namely A1413, A1914, and the newly-discovered Planck cluster PLCKESZ G139.59+24.18. The robustness of the analysis of both the Planck and AMI data is demonstrated through the use of detailed simulations, which also discount confusion from residual point (radio) sources and from diffuse astrophysical foregrounds as possible explanations for the discrepancies found. For a subset of our cluster sample, we have investigated the dependence of our results on the assumed pressure profile by repeating the analysis adopting the best-fitting GNFW profile shape which best matches X-ray observations. Adopting the best-fitting profile shape from the X-ray data does not, in general, resolve the discrepancies found in this subset of five clusters. Though based on a small sample, our results suggest that the adopted GNFW model may not be sufficiently flexible to describe clusters universally.
The Physics category includes resources of a broad, general nature that contain materials from all areas of physics, The category also includes resources specifically concerned with the following physics sub-fields: mathematical physics, particle and nuclear physics, physics of fluids and plasmas, quantum physics, and theoretical physics.
none
P. A. R., Ade; N., Aghanim; M., Arnaud; M., Ashdown; J., Aumont; C., Baccigalupi; A., Balbi; A. J., Banday; R. B., Barreiro; E., Battaner; R., Battye;...espandi
01 CONTRIBUTO IN RIVISTA::01.01 - Articolo in rivista
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/2574907
Citazioni
ND
3
16
26
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.