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
ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste
A comparison is presented of Sunyaev–Zeldovich measurements for 11 galaxy clusters as obtained by Planck and by the ground-based interferom- eter, the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager. Assuming a universal spherically-symmetric Generalised Navarro, Frenk & 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
Planck;AMI Collaborations: N. Aghanim55;M. Arnaud70;M. Ashdown67;5;J. Aumont55;C. Baccigalupi79;A. Balbi35;A. J. Banday88;8;R. B. Barreiro63;E. Battaner90;R. Battye66;K. Benabed56;87;A. Benoˆıt54;J. P. Bernard8;M. Bersanelli32;48;R. Bhatia6;I. Bikmaev20;3;H. Bo ̈hringer75;A. Bonaldi66;J. R. Bond7;J. Borrill13;83;F. R. Bouchet56;87;H. Bourdin35;M. L. Brown66⋆;M. Bucher1;R. Burenin81;C. Burigana47;34;R. C. Butler47;P. Cabella36;P. Carvalho5;A. Catalano71;69;L. Cayo ́n26;A. Chamballu52;R. R. Chary53;L. Y. Chiang59;G. Chon75;D. L. Clements52;S. Colafrancesco44;S. Colombi56;B. P. Crill65;77;F. Cuttaia47;A. Da Silva11;H. Dahle61;10;R. D. Davies66;R. J. Davis66;P. de Bernardis31;G. de Gasperis35;A. de Rosa47;G. de Zotti43;79;J. Delabrouille1;J. De ́mocle`s70;C. Dickinson66;J. M. Diego63;K. Dolag89;74;H. Dole55;S. Donzelli48;O. Dore ́65;9;M. Douspis55;X. Dupac40;T. A. Enßlin74;H. K. Eriksen61;F. Feroz5;F. Finelli47;I. Flores Cacho8;88;O. Forni88;8;P. Fosalba57;M. Frailis45;E. Franceschi47;S. Fromenteau1;55;S. Galeotta45;K. Ganga1;R. T. Ge ́nova Santos62;M. Giard88;8;Y. Giraud He ́raud1;J. Gonza ́lez Nuevo63;79;K. M. Go ́rski65;92;K. J. B. Grainge5;67;GREGORIO, ANNA;A. Gruppuso47;F. K. Hansen61;D. Harrison60;67;S. Henrot Versille ́68;C. Herna ́ndez Monteagudo12;74;D. Herranz63;S. R. Hildebrandt9;E. Hivon56;87;M. Hobson5;W. A. Holmes65;K. M. Huffenberger91;G. Hurier71;N. Hurley Walker5;T. Jagemann40;M. Juvela25;E. Keiha ̈nen25;I. Khamitov86;R. Kneissl39;6;J. Knoche74;M. Kunz17;55;H. Kurki Suonio25;42;G. Lagache55;J. M. Lamarre69;A. Lasenby5;67;C. R. Lawrence65;M. Le Jeune1;S. Leach79;R. Leonardi40;A. Liddle24;P. B. Lilje61;10;M. Linden Vørnle16;M. Lo ́pez Caniego63;G. Luzzi68;J. F. Mac ́ıas Pe ́rez71;C. J. MacTavish67;D. Maino32;48;N. Mandolesi47;M. Maris45;F. Marleau19;D. J. Marshall88;8;E. Mart ́ınez Gonza ́lez63;S. Masi31;M. Massardi46;S. Matarrese30;F. Matthai74;P. Mazzotta35;A. Melchiorri31;49;J. B. Melin15;L. Mendes40;A. Mennella32;48;S. Mitra51;65;M. A. Miville Descheˆnes55;7;L. Montier88;8;G. Morgante47;D. Munshi80;P. Naselsky76;37;P. Natoli34;4, 47;F. Noviello66;M. Olamaie5;S. Osborne85;F. Pajot55;D. Paoletti47;F. Pasian45;G. Patanchon1;T. J. Pearson9;53;O. Perdereau68;Y. C. Perrott5;F. Perrotta79;F. Piacentini31;E. Pierpaoli23;P. Platania64;E. Pointecouteau88;8;G. Polenta4;44;L. Popa58;T. Poutanen42;25, 2;G. W. Pratt70;J. L. Puget55;J. P. Rachen21;74;R. Rebolo62;14, 38;M. Reinecke74;M. Remazeilles55;1;C. Renault71;S. Ricciardi47;I. Ristorcelli88;8;G. Rocha65;9;C. Rodr ́ıguez Gonza ́lvez5;C. Rosset1;M. Rossetti32;48;J. A. Rubin ̃o Mart ́ın62;38;B. Rusholme53;R. D. E. Saunders5;67;G. Savini78;M. P. Schammel5;D. Scott22;T. W. Shimwell5;G. F. Smoot27;73, 1;J. L. Starck70;F. Stivoli50;V. Stolyarov5;67, 84;R. Sunyaev74;82;D. Sutton60;67;A. S. Suur Uski25;42;J. F. Sygnet56;J. A. Tauber41;L. Terenzi47;L. Toffolatti18;63;M. Tomasi48;M. Tristram68;L. Valenziano47;B. Van Tent72;P. Vielva63;F. Villa47;N. Vittorio35;L. A. Wade65;B. D. Wandelt56;87, 29;D. Yvon15;A. Zacchei45;A. Zonca28
2012-01-01
Abstract
A comparison is presented of Sunyaev–Zeldovich measurements for 11 galaxy clusters as obtained by Planck and by the ground-based interferom- eter, the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager. Assuming a universal spherically-symmetric Generalised Navarro, Frenk & 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.
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/11368/2562288
Avviso
Registrazione in corso di verifica.
La registrazione di questo prodotto non è ancora stata validata in ArTS.
Citazioni
ND
3
16
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.