2014/06/30 by N. G. Czakon, Nicole G. Czakon, J. Sayers +21 · 59 citations
Physics and Astronomy · #Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations #Astrophysics #Astrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena #Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena #Galaxy #Galaxy cluster #Geometry #Physics #Power law #Scaling #Statistics #Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect #astro-ph.CO
paper · pdf · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/18
published in The Astrophysical Journal 806(1), 18 (IOP Publishing) · 31 pages, 15 figures, accepted by ApJ 04/11/2015. This version is appreciably different from the original submission: it includes an entirely new appendix, extended discussion, and much of the material has been reorganized
arxiv created 2015/04/27 · openalex publication_date 2015/06/03 · arxiv updated 2015/06/11 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
We present scaling relations between the integrated Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect (SZE) signal, , its X-ray analogue, ≡ , and total mass, , for the 45 galaxy clusters in the Bolocam X-ray SZ (BOXSZ) sample. All parameters are integrated within . values are measured using SZE data collected with Bolocam, operating at 140 GHz at the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory. The temperature, , and mass, , of the intracluster medium are determined using X-ray data collected with Chandra , and is derived from assuming a constant gas mass fraction. Our analysis accounts for several potential sources of bias, including selection effects, contamination from radio point sources, and the loss of SZE signal due to noise filtering and beam-smoothing effects. We measure the – scaling to have a power-law index of 0.84 ± 0.07, and a fractional intrinsic scatter in of at fixed , both of which are consistent with previous analyses. We also measure the scaling between and , finding a power-law index of 1.06 ± 0.12 and a fractional intrinsic scatter in at fixed mass of . While recent SZE scaling relations using X-ray mass proxies have found power-law indices consistent with the self-similar prediction of 5/3, our measurement stands apart by differing from the self-similar prediction by approximately 5 σ . Given the good agreement between the measured – scalings, much of this discrepancy appears to be caused by differences in the calibration of the X-ray mass proxies adopted for each particular analysis.