MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of non-gravitational gas heating in groups and clusters of galaxies

2002· article· en· W2143313694 on OpenAlexaff
S. Borgani, Fabio Governato, James Wadsley, N. Menci, P. Tozzi, Thomas Quinn, Joachim Stadel, George Lake

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsVirial theoremIntracluster mediumDark matterGalaxy clusterGalaxyRADIUSGravitationSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsGalaxy groups and clustersGravitational collapseGravitational potentialAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a detailed study of a set of gas-dynamical simulations of galaxy groups and clusters in a flat, Λ-cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model with Ωm= 0.3, aimed at exploring the effect of non-gravitational heating on the observable properties of the intracluster medium (ICM). We use gasoline, a version of the code pkdgrav that includes a smoothed particle hydrodynamics description of hydrodynamics to simulate the formation of four haloes with virial temperatures in the range 0.5 ≲T≲ 8 keV. These simulations resolve the structure and properties of the ICM down to a small fraction of the virial radius, Rvir. At our resolution X-ray luminosities, LX, of runs with gravitational heating only are in good agreement with analytical predictions, which assume a universal profile for CDM haloes, over almost two orders of magnitude in mass. For each simulated structure, non-gravitational heating of the ICM is implemented in two different ways: (i) by imposing a minimum-entropy floor, Sfl, at a given redshift, which we take in the range 1≤z≤ 5; (ii) by gradually heating gas within collapsed regions, proportionally to the supernova rate expected from semi-analytical modelling of galaxy formation in haloes having mass equal to that of the simulated systems. Our main results are the following. (i) An extra heating energy Eh≳ 1 keV per gas particle within Rvir at z= 0 is required to reproduce the observed LX−T relation, independent of whether it is provided in an impulsive way to create an entropy floor Sfl= 50−100 keV cm2, or is modulated in redshift according to the star formation rate; our supernova (SN) feedback recipe provides at most Eh≃ 1/3 keV particle−1 and, therefore, its effect on the LX−T relation is too small to account for the observed LX−T relation. (ii) The required heating implies, in small groups with T∼ 0.5 keV, a baryon fraction as low as ≲40 per cent of the cosmic value at Rvir/2; this fraction increases to about 80 per cent for a T≃ 3 keV cluster. (iii) Temperature profiles are almost scale-free across the whole explored mass range, with T decreasing by a factor of 3 at the virial radius. (iv) The mass–temperature relation is almost unaffected by non-gravitational heating and follows quite closely the M∝T3/2 scaling; however, when compared with data on the M500−Tew relation, it has a ∼40 per cent higher normalization. This discrepancy is independent of the heating scheme adopted. The inclusion of cooling in a run of a small group steepens the central profile of the potential well while removing gas from the diffuse phase. This has the effects of increasing Tew by ∼30 per cent, possibly reconciling the simulated and the observed M500−Tew relations, and of decreasing LX by ∼40 per cent. However, in spite of the inclusion of SN feedback energy, almost 40 per cent of the gas drops out from the hot diffuse phase, in excess of current observational estimates of the number of cold baryons in galaxy systems. It is likely that only a combination of different heating sources (SNe and active galactic nuclei) and cooling will be able to reproduce both the LX−Tew and M500−Tew relations, as observed in groups and clusters, while balancing the cooling runaway.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations138
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207