1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{natbib}
3:
4: \shorttitle{DARK MATTER SELF-INTERACTION CROSS-SECTION}
5: \shortauthors{RANDALL \& MARKEVITCH}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark
10: Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E~0657-56}
11:
12: \author{Scott W. Randall\altaffilmark{1},
13: Maxim Markevitch\altaffilmark{1,2},
14: Douglas Clowe\altaffilmark{3,4},
15: Anthony H. Gonzalez\altaffilmark{5},
16: and Marusa Brada\v{c}\altaffilmark{6}}
17:
18: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
19: Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
20: \altaffiltext{2}{Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Science,
21: Profsoyuznaya 84/32, Moscow 117997, Russia}
22: \altaffiltext{3}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona,
23: 933 N. Cherry Ave., Tuscon, AZ 85721, USA}
24: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University,
25: Clippinger Lab 251B, Athens, OH 45701, USA}
26: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida,
27: 211 Bryant Space Science Center, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA}
28: \altaffiltext{6}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and
29: Cosmology, P.O. Box 20450, MS-29, Stanford, CA 94309, USA}
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: We compare recent results from X-ray, strong lensing, weak lensing,
33: and optical observations with numerical simulations of the
34: merging galaxy cluster 1E~0657-56. X-ray observations reveal a
35: bullet-like subcluster with a prominent bow shock, which gives an
36: estimate for the merger velocity of 4700~km~s$^{-1}$, while lensing
37: results show that the positions of the total mass peaks are
38: consistent with the centroids of the collisionless galaxies (and
39: inconsistent with the X-ray brightness peaks).
40: Previous studies, based on older observational datasets, have placed
41: upper limits on the self-interaction cross-section of dark matter per
42: unit mass, $\sigma/m$, using simplified analytic techniques.
43: In this work, we take advantage of new,
44: higher-quality observational datasets by running full N-body simulations
45: of 1E~0657-56 that include the effects of self-interacting dark matter,
46: and comparing the results with observations.
47: Furthermore, the recent data allow for a new independent method of
48: constraining $\sigma/m$, based on the non-observation of an offset
49: between the bullet subcluster mass peak and galaxy centroid.
50: This new method places an upper limit (68\% confidence) of $\sigma/m <
51: 1.25$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$. If we make the assumption that the subcluster
52: and the main cluster had equal mass-to-light ratios prior to the
53: merger, we derive our most stringent constraint of
54: $\sigma/m < 0.7$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$, which comes from the consistency of the
55: subcluster's observed mass-to-light ratio with the main cluster's, and with the
56: universal cluster value, ruling out the possibility of a large
57: fraction of dark matter particles being scattered away due to
58: collisions. Our limit is a slight improvement over the previous
59: result from analytic estimates, and rules out most of the $0.5 -
60: 5$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ range invoked to explain inconsistencies between
61: the standard collisionless cold dark matter model and observations.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{
65: dark matter ---
66: clusters: individual (1E0657-56) ---
67: methods: numerical ---
68: large scale structure of universe
69: }
70:
71: \section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
72: The nature of dark matter, which accounts for the majority of the mass
73: in the Universe, is one of the major outstanding problems of
74: modern astrophysics. Although it is often assumed that dark matter is
75: collisionless, there is no a~priori reason to believe that this is the
76: case, and it has been noted by other authors that a non-zero
77: self-interaction cross-section can have important astrophysical
78: implications (e.g., Spergel \& Steinhardt 2000).
79: In particular, self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) has been invoked to
80: alleviate some apparent problems with the standard
81: cold dark matter (CDM) model, such as the non-observation of cuspy mass
82: profiles in galaxies (e.g., Moore 1994; Flores \& Primack 1994;
83: cf. Navarro et al.\ 1997; Moore et al.\ 1999b)
84: and the overprediction of the number of
85: small sub-halos within larger systems (e.g., Klypin et al.\ 1999; Moore
86: et al.\ 1999a). Previous simulations and theoretical studies suggest
87: that a self-interaction cross-section per unit mass of $\sigma/m \sim
88: 0.5 - 5$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ is needed to explain the
89: observed mass profiles of galaxies (e.g., Dav\'{e} et al. 2001; Ahn
90: \& Shapiro 2003, though see also Ahn \& Shapiro 2005). Earlier
91: studies have found stringent upper limits on $\sigma/m$, inconsistent
92: with the above range (e.g., Yoshida et
93: al.\ 2000a; Hennawi \& Ostriker 2002; Miralda-Escud\'{e} 2002, though
94: see also Sand et al.\ 2002). However, in general these studies require
95: non-trivial assumptions or
96: statistical samples of clusters and full cosmological simulations.
97:
98: Furlanetto \& Loeb (2002) pointed out that if one observes an
99: offset between the gas and dark matter in a merging cluster, arising
100: because of the ram pressure acting on the gas but
101: not the dark matter, it can be used to constrain the collisional nature
102: of dark matter.
103: Markevitch et al. (2002, hereafter M02) found just such a cluster,
104: 1E~0657-56, which in the {\it Chandra} image shows a
105: bullet-like subcluster exiting the core of the main cluster, with
106: prominent bow shock and cold front features, and a uniquely simple
107: merger geometry (Markevitch et al. 2002, hereafter M02). This gas
108: bullet lags behind the subcluster galaxies, which led M02 to
109: suggest that this cluster could be
110: used to determine whether or not dark matter is collisional. If dark
111: matter were collisionless, one would expect the subcluster dark matter
112: halo to be coincident with the collisionless subcluster galaxies.
113: A map of the dark matter distribution was subsequently derived by Clowe
114: et al.\ (2004) using weak lensing observations, which
115: showed that the subcluster dark matter clump lay ahead of the gas
116: bullet, close to the centroid of the subcluster galaxies (see
117: also Clowe et al.\ 2006a, hereafter C06). The X-ray image of
118: 1E~0657-56 is shown in
119: Fig.~\ref{fig:image} with the most recently derived weak lensing mass
120: contours of C06 overlain.
121: The weak lensing contours are shown instead of the strong lensing
122: contours since they are better for showing the overall structure, as
123: they are derived from a wider field of view.
124: The positions of the total mass peaks from strong and weak lensing
125: analyses are consistent with one another, and the general
126: structures are similar.
127: The more massive main cluster is on the left and the high-velocity
128: merging bullet subcluster is on the right.
129: The main and
130: subcluster mass peaks are clearly visible in the mass map, as is the
131: offset between the gas bullet and the corresponding dark matter (DM)
132: peak. C06
133: argued that this offset is direct evidence for the existence of dark
134: matter.
135:
136: The weak lensing mass map of Clowe et al.\ (2004)
137: was used by Markevitch et al. (2004, hereafter
138: M04), in
139: conjunction with the X-ray and optical observations available at the time, to
140: analytically estimate
141: upper limits on the self-interaction cross-section per unit mass of
142: DM, $\sigma/m$, using three independent methods.
143: These methods were based on the
144: observed offset between the gas bullet and the DM subclump, the high
145: merger velocity of the subcluster, and the survival of the DM
146: subclump (more precisely, the subcluster's $M/L$ ratio being equal to
147: that observed in other clusters and in the main cluster). M04
148: assume a King mass profile,
149: based on the original weak lensing mass map, and that
150: the subcluster has passed only once through the main cluster, close to
151: the main cluster core, as indicated by the X-ray image. Their most
152: stringent limit comes from the
153: observed survival of the DM subclump, from which they infer that
154: $\sigma/m < 1$~cm$^{2}$~g$^{-1}$.
155:
156: Although the analytic estimates performed by M04 provide useful
157: upper limits on $\sigma/m$, several conservative
158: simplifying assumptions were necessary. For instance, the effects of
159: dynamical friction as the subcluster disturbs the main cluster mass
160: distribution were ignored, as was the possibility of multiple scatterings per
161: particle. Although these effects are relatively small, their
162: inclusion may
163: lead to tighter constraints. Furthermore, the analytic estimates
164: cannot address any structure that may be found in a high-resolution mass
165: map (e.g., tails in the DM distribution, similar to the gas tails seen
166: in the bullet, due to collisional stripping of DM, as described by
167: M04). This argues for full N-body simulations that would include the
168: effects of SIDM with varying cross-sections.
169:
170: Additionally, new data (both X-ray and lensing) have
171: become available for 1E~0657-56. Analysis of data from 450 ks of
172: total exposure with {\it Chandra} gives a more accurate shock Mach
173: number of $M = 3.0 \pm 0.4$ (all uncertainties 68\%), which
174: corresponds to a shock
175: (and bullet) velocity of 4700$\pm 630$~km~s$^{-1}$ (Markevitch 2005).
176: Recent weak and strong lensing analyses of a much larger optical
177: dataset, which includes {\it HST} observations, give a
178: higher quality mass
179: map and a more accurate determination of the subcluster dark matter
180: and galaxy centroids
181: (Brada\v{c} et al. 2006, hereafter B06; C06).
182: In particular, the accuracy of the total mass and galaxy centroids is
183: now sufficient for an
184: additional method of constraining $\sigma/m$. In this paper, we will
185: concentrate on the most sensitive method from M04, which is based on
186: the observed mass-to-light ($M/L$) ratios, and on this new test.
187: The best way to interpret the new high-quality data is through
188: comparisons with detailed numerical simulations of the merger which
189: allow for SIDM with varying cross-sections.
190: We present results from such simulations and give
191: constraints on the self-interaction cross-section of dark matter
192: particles. We assume $\Omega_0 = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, and $H_0
193: = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, for which $1\arcsec = 4.42$ kpc at the cluster
194: redshift of $z = 0.296$.
195:
196: \section{The Simulations} \label{sec:sims}
197:
198: \subsection{Simulation Code and Parameters} \label{sec:code}
199:
200: All simulations were performed using a modified version of the
201: publicly available TreeSPH code GADGET2 (Springel 2005). To model the
202: self-interaction of the DM particles, we adopted a Monte Carlo method
203: used previously by other authors (e.g., Burkert 2000; Yoshida et al.\ 2000b).
204: At each simulation time step, the
205: scattering probability for the $ith$ particle is given by
206: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:prob}
207: P_i = \rho_i \sigma v_{\rm rel} \Delta t,
208: \end{equation}
209: where $\rho_i$ is the local density, $v_{\rm rel}$ is the relative
210: velocity between the $ith$ particle and its nearest neighbor, and
211: $\Delta t$ is the time step size. The local density is determined
212: using GADGET2's smoothed particle hydrodynamic (SPH) capabilities.
213: Collisions are assumed to be elastic and scattering isotropic in the
214: center-of-mass frame. In order for this relation to
215: be valid, $\Delta t$ must be chosen such that $P_i \ll 1$.
216:
217: We ran a series of merger simulations with $\sigma/m$ varying between 0
218: and 1.25 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$.
219: Each simulation run included 10$^6$ DM particles
220: (gas was not included in the
221: simulations, see discussion in \S~\ref{sec:gas}). Additionally, we
222: performed a convergence test run with
223: 10$^7$ DM particles and $\sigma/m\approx 1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, which agreed
224: well with the lower resolution run for all tests we performed.
225: We interpret this agreement as indicating
226: that the effects of individual self-interacting DM particles are well
227: modeled by the large computation particles used in the simulations,
228: and that the results we present here are not seriously affected by
229: numerical resolution effects.
230: The ratio
231: of DM particles in the main cluster and subcluster was set equal to the
232: initial total mass ratio of the clusters, which is known analytically
233: from the King models used to build the clusters.
234:
235: In this work, we apply a new method for constraining $\sigma/m$ based on
236: the absence of an offset between the subcluster total mass and galaxy
237: centroids. For this, we added another family of particles to the
238: simulations to represent the collisionless galaxies.
239: We choose 10$^5$ ``normal''
240: galaxy particles for the main cluster and 2.5$\times 10^4$ for the
241: subcluster throughout. The ratio of the number of normal galaxy
242: particles was estimated based on galaxy counts given by Barrena et
243: al.\ (2002). The galaxies were initially distributed like the DM in
244: each run. The mass in galaxies was assumed to be roughly 5\% of the
245: total mass for each cluster, which, combined with the number of galaxy
246: particles, gives a low mass per galaxy (2.15$\times 10^8$~M$_{\odot}$).
247: Using a large number of light-weight galaxies was chosen over using a
248: more realistic mass per galaxy so that accurate galaxy centroids could
249: be determined. Test simulations run with the more realistic average mass per
250: galaxy of $10^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$, also determined from results given by
251: Barrena et al.\ (2002), showed similar results to those given below in
252: \S\ref{sec:results}, though, as expected, with a larger scatter.
253: Two cD galaxies, one at the center of each cluster, were also included
254: in the simulations (though we note that three cD galaxies are
255: observed, two associated with the main cluster and one with the
256: subcluster). Their inclusion leads to
257: conservative estimates of the
258: effects of DM self-interaction, since a lower central DM density is
259: required to reproduce the observed total mass profile (and the
260: scattering probability depends on the local DM density via
261: Eqn.~\ref{eqn:prob}).
262: The cD galaxies
263: were each given a mass of 10$^{13}$M$_{\odot}$.
264:
265: The gravitational softening length was chosen to be 2 kpc throughout,
266: which is on the order of the mean inter-particle separation in the
267: densest region in each simulation (i.e., at core passage). The
268: softening length for the cD galaxy particles was set to 60 kpc
269: throughout. This large softening length was chosen since on the scale
270: of the simulations cD galaxies are significantly extended objects and
271: treating them as concentrated point-like masses would be unrealistic.
272: Since the lensing observations do not give an accurate mass profile
273: for the subcluster, King models with density profiles of $\rho(r) =
274: \rho_0 (1 + r^{2}/r^{2}_{c})^{-3/2}$, where
275: $\rho_0$ is the central density and $r_{c}$ is the core radius, were
276: conservatively
277: chosen for the mass profiles of each cluster. Such a choice gives
278: conservative limits for
279: the effects of self-interacting DM, since King models do not have strongly
280: concentrated ``cuspy'' cores, as compared to NFW (Navarro et al.\ 1995)
281: and Hernquist (1990)
282: profiles. Thus the central density is lower and
283: the total number of DM particle collisions is conservatively reduced. Further
284: discussion of the impact of the bullet mass profile on our results
285: can be found in \S\ref{sec:massprof}.
286: As suggested by the X-ray morphology (M04), all simulated mergers were
287: head-on collisions with zero impact
288: parameter and an initial separation of 4 Mpc.
289: The effects of a possible non-zero impact parameter are discussed
290: in \S\ref{sec:impact}.
291:
292: \subsection{Initial Conditions} \label{sec:ics}
293:
294: For each run, the initial conditions were
295: chosen such that the projected mass profiles of the main cluster and
296: the bullet subcluster, after core passage and at the
297: observed separation (720 kpc), roughly matched those
298: from the most recent combined strong and weak lensing results derived by B06,
299: which are given in the last row of Table~\ref{tab:obscond}.
300: A relatively small contribution from the observed distribution of gas
301: mass was subtracted from the B06 total mass, so
302: that the resulting values could be directly compared with the
303: simulations.
304: The gas masses were computed from the X-ray observations.
305: The details of the derivation of the gas mass map will be given in a
306: future paper.
307: A summary of the
308: parameters for each simulation run is given in Table~\ref{tab:ics},
309: which gives the initial central density and core radius for the main cluster
310: ($\rho_{c,1}$, $r_{c,1}$) and the bullet subcluster ($\rho_{c,2}$,
311: $r_{c,2}$), and $\sigma/m$ for each run. The mass
312: profiles were truncated at 20~$r_c$.
313:
314: As pointed out by C06, weak lensing is expected to underestimate the mass
315: of the lens by 10-20\% in the dense central regions. Furthermore,
316: weak lensing can underestimate masses due to mass-sheet
317: degeneracy, where the mass map is affected
318: by the non-detection of mass at the edges of the field of view.
319: The effect can be seen by
320: comparing the total (i.e., without the gas mass subtracted) weak
321: lensing mass estimates of C06 to the
322: mass profiles derived by B06, which combine strong and
323: weak lensing observations.
324: We chose to match the projected mass profiles in the simulations
325: to those given by B06, since strong lensing is expected to give better
326: results in the central core regions. We are most interested in these
327: regions since most of the particle scattering depth accumulates near
328: the center.
329: We explore the effects of decreasing the
330: total mass of the system on our results in \S~\ref{sec:lowmass}.
331:
332: \subsection{Matching Simulations to Observations} \label{sec:match}
333:
334: Columns 4~\&~5 of Table~\ref{tab:obscond} give the total projected mass
335: within 150~kpc of the mass peak for the main cluster ($M_1(r < 150 $kpc$)$) and the
336: subcluster ($M_2(r < 150 $kpc$)$) at the
337: observed separation for each simulation run and from the lensing observations.
338: Some trial-and-error
339: was necessary to determine what initial conditions gave the desired
340: projected mass profiles at the desired separation.
341: In general, larger
342: $\sigma/m$ values required a more concentrated subcluster initially.
343: This effect occurs because the
344: self-interaction of the DM particles causes them to be scattered away,
345: particularly in high density regions. Consequently, the subcluster
346: mass profile is spread out during core passage. For the purposes of
347: comparing the
348: simulations with observations, we take the simulation snapshot
349: where the offset between the clusters is closest to the observed
350: separation. The time resolution of the
351: snapshots was small enough to match this value to within a few
352: kpc ($<$ 1\arcsec), which is within the observational error.
353: We require the simulated mass profiles at this moment to be consistent
354: with the strong
355: lensing mass map to within 10\% in the inner regions ($r <$~500~kpc).
356:
357: \subsection{Stability of Simulated Halos} \label{sec:stable}
358:
359: It is of interest to evaluate the stability of our simulated clusters,
360: particularly in the presence of SIDM. In the case of
361: non-self-interacting DM, the phase-space distribution function
362: can be computed and used to generate a gravitationally stable King
363: model density profile. However, in the case of SIDM, particle
364: collisions will tend to transfer kinetic energy from one region of the
365: cluster to another, consequently altering the density profile (see, e.g.,
366: Burkert 2000). In section \S~\ref{sec:mtol}, we will draw conclusions
367: based on the fraction of particles scattered away from the core of the
368: subcluster due to the merger event. It is therefore necessary to
369: determine what fraction of particles might flow from the central
370: region of the bullet due to the instability resulting from SIDM
371: collisions. To this
372: end, we ran simulations of the subcluster DM halo, allowing it to
373: evolve in isolation over the timescale of the merger simulations
374: (about 1~Gyr). We used the same cluster parameters as the
375: subcluster that has the highest central density of all the
376: clusters in Table~\ref{tab:ics}. The results are shown in
377: Figure~\ref{fig:rhor}, which gives the initial density profile (solid
378: line) and the density profile after 1~Gyr for $\sigma/m =
379: 0$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ (dotted line) and $\sigma/m = 0.7$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$
380: (dashed line). The density in the inner regions is marginally enhanced
381: in the case of SIDM. This result is similar to the core-collapse
382: phase seen by Burkert (2000), where weak interactions between the
383: kinematically hot core and the cooler outer regions result in an
384: outward transport of kinetic energy (though this effect is expected to
385: be somewhat curtailed here due to the near isothermality of the King
386: profile at small radii). For the purposes of the test
387: described in \S~\ref{sec:mtol}, we are only concerned with the total
388: mass within {\it projected} radii. This quantity is plotted for each
389: run in Figure~\ref{fig:projr}.
390: The above effect of SIDM on the projected mass profile is negligible,
391: particularly for projected radii $x \ge 150$~kpc, which is the minimum
392: radius considered for the test described in \S~\ref{sec:mtol}.
393: Thus, if we find that a large fraction of SIDM particles scattered outside
394: this radius, it can be assumed to be caused by the merger event as opposed
395: to any halo instability. Furthermore, the collisionless galaxies are
396: expected to adjust to any change in the overall potential (which is
397: dominated by the DM), thereby acting to further stabilize the
398: mass-to-light ratio.
399: Indeed, in these isolated subcluster runs, the mass-to-light ratios
400: within a projected radius of 150~kpc from the cluster centers stay
401: within 2\% of their initial values, regardless of the DM self-interaction.
402:
403: \section{Results} \label{sec:results}
404:
405: \subsection{Galaxy -- Dark Matter Centroid Offset} \label{sec:noffset}
406:
407: For non-self-interacting DM, the centroids of the subclump DM and
408: galaxy distributions are expected to be coincident throughout the simulation,
409: since gravity is the only
410: operating force. However, when
411: $\sigma/m > 0$, the subcluster DM halo experiences a drag force as it
412: passes through the main cluster, and subsequently lags the
413: collisionless galaxies, just as the fluid-like subcluster gas core
414: is observed to lag the DM halo (see Fig.~\ref{fig:image}).
415: We ran simulations with a range of values for $\sigma/m$ and
416: calculated the centroids for each particle type by taking the
417: average projected position of the particles in some large region,
418: centering on this position with a smaller region, and repeating with
419: smaller and smaller regions (down to a region with a radius of 200
420: kpc).
421: Column~6 of Table~\ref{tab:obscond} gives $\Delta x$, the offset
422: between the subcluster galaxy and DM
423: centroids, for each run, for the moment when the subcluster is close
424: to the observed separation of 720~kpc from the main cluster.
425: The dependence of $\Delta x$ on $\sigma/m$ is also plotted in
426: Figure~\ref{fig:sigma} (solid line).
427: Results from the run with $\sigma/m = 0$ indicate that the offsets
428: from the simulations are accurate to about $\pm 2$~kpc ($0.5\arcsec$).
429: It is clear from
430: Table~\ref{tab:obscond} that the centroid offset is a strong function of
431: $\sigma/m$.
432:
433: An X-ray image close-up of the bullet region with error contours
434: for the subcluster total mass and galaxy centroids overlain is shown
435: in Figure~\ref{fig:bullet}. Details of the derivation of the total
436: mass centroids are given in C06.
437: The centroid of the galaxy distribution was calculated from the ACS
438: photometry, using all galaxies for which the F814W-F606W color is within
439: 0.15 mag of the red sequence. We used an Epanechnikov kernel with
440: $h=30\arcsec$ (Merritt \& Tremblay, 1994; Gonzalez et al.\ 2002) to
441: determine the
442: centroid, and a bootstrap technique to quantify the uncertainty.
443: The centroid of the subcluster galaxies is found to be $5.7\arcsec \pm
444: 6.6\arcsec$ ($25\pm29$ kpc) west of the corresponding weak lensing
445: mass peak. Given
446: the observational errors on the centroid positions (roughly 5$\arcsec$, or
447: 22~kpc, on the subcluster mass peak and galaxy centroid), the absence
448: of a larger offset means that $\sigma/m<$~1.25~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$. We
449: note that, although this upper limit is greater than the best
450: constraint of
451: $\sigma/m<$~1~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ found by M04, it is more robust, since it does
452: not rely on the assumption that the subcluster and the main cluster
453: had equal $M/L$ ratios prior to the merger, as is the case with the limit
454: from M04 (see \S~\ref{sec:mtol}). This distinction is relevant since,
455: although there is evidence for a universal $M/L$ ratio for clusters,
456: the level scatter for individual clusters is not negligible (see Dahle
457: 2000).
458:
459: \subsection{Subcluster M/L Ratio} \label{sec:mtol}
460:
461: In a merger scenario, SIDM is expected
462: to give a lower $M/L$ ratio for the subcluster that has just passed
463: through a dense core as compared to
464: collisionless DM. This is because during the merger, DM particles are
465: scattered away due to
466: collisions, while the collisionless galaxies are relatively unaffected.
467: To estimate the change in the $M/L$ ratio in the simulations due to
468: the merger, we
469: simply take the ratio of the total mass to galaxy mass within 150 kpc
470: (projected) of
471: the bullet DM centroid and compare the values at the start of the
472: simulations and at the observed separation. The results are tabulated
473: in Column~7 of Table~\ref{tab:obscond}, which gives $f$, the
474: fractional decrease in the bullet $M/L$ ratio within 150~kpc, and also
475: plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma} (dashed line). We note
476: that for $\sigma/m \approx 1$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$,
477: the subcluster loses about 38\% of its mass within 150~kpc,
478: which is in agreement with a conservative estimate of 20~-~30\% given
479: by M04. As
480: expected, the numerical results yield somewhat tighter constraints
481: on $\sigma/m$ as compared to the analytic estimates when using the same
482: method and observational constraints.
483:
484: Using the latest lensing mass map from B06, we rederived $M/L$
485: ratios for each of the two subcluster within a projected 150~kpc of
486: the total mass peaks
487: (for previous results see Clowe
488: et al., 2004). For the subcluster, the mass contribution from the
489: outskirts of the main cluster has been approximately subtracted,
490: whereas for the
491: main cluster, the total mass is used, since the contribution from the
492: subcluster is negligible. The projected mass contribution from the
493: main cluster to the subcluster is estimated by taking the average mass
494: in an annulus at the distance of the subcluster (excluding the
495: region of the subcluster itself).
496: This gives a conservative estimate for the upper limit on $\sigma/m$,
497: since scattering due to putative DM collisions is expected
498: to result in an anomalously low $M/L$ value for the subcluster as
499: compared to the main cluster, and by reducing the observed mass of the
500: subcluster we minimize the effect of the collisions that we want to
501: constrain.
502: We find $M/L_B = 471 \pm 28, 422 \pm 25$
503: and $M/L_I = 179 \pm 11, 214 \pm 13$ for the
504: subcluster and the main cluster, respectively (for a discussion of the
505: errors on the mass measurements, see B06). The ratios agree with
506: one another to within about the 68\% confidence intervals.
507: From the $I$ band data, we find that the ratio of $M/L$ ratios of the
508: subcluster and main cluster is $0.84 \pm 0.07$. We conservatively
509: choose to use the $I$ band data only, since we want to put a firm
510: lower limit on this ratio, and $M/L_B$ is larger for the subcluster
511: than for the main cluster.
512: Assuming
513: each cluster
514: started out with similar $M/L$ values, which appears to be a
515: reasonable assumption for
516: clusters in general (e.g., Mellier 1999; Dahle 2000), we
517: conclude that the subcluster could not have lost more than $\sim23\%$
518: of its initial mass.
519: A comparison with the results from simulations
520: plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma} (dashed line) shows that this implies
521: $\sigma/m \la 0.6$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$, which is a slight improvement over
522: the
523: previous best limit of $\sigma/m \la 1$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ from the
524: conservative estimates of M04.
525:
526: \subsection{Structure in Subcluster Dark Matter Distribution} \label{sec:substruct}
527:
528: M04 suggested that scattered DM particles, which would account for about 1/5
529: of the total subcluster mass, might form tail features in
530: the DM distribution, similar to the tails seen in the X-ray image of
531: the gas bullet (see Figure~\ref{fig:image}).
532: The simulations allow us to determine whether the non-observation of
533: such tails in the mass map could be used to constrain $\sigma/m$.
534: We find that, rather than forming a tail, the scattered
535: particles are mostly deposited in the core of the main cluster, and
536: do not form any features at a level
537: that is interesting for constraining $\sigma/m$.
538:
539: \section{Discussion} \label{sec:discuss}
540:
541: \subsection{Non-zero Impact Parameter} \label{sec:impact}
542:
543: As M04 argue,
544: the morphology of the X-ray image, in particular, the symmetry of the
545: North-South X-ray bar (most likely an oblate spheroid viewed edge-on) between
546: the main cluster and subcluster mass
547: peaks around the axis of symmetry set by the shape of the X-ray bullet
548: (which gives its present velocity direction), combined with the
549: line-of-sight velocity and X-ray derived Mach
550: number, indicate a merger axis that is $\sim10\arcdeg$ from the plane
551: of the sky, and that the cluster cores must have passed close to one
552: another, certainly within the $\sim 200$~kpc core radius of the main cluster.
553: In all simulations previously discussed, it was assumed that the bullet
554: subcluster passed directly through the center of the main cluster
555: core, i.e., that the impact parameter of the merger, $b$, is zero.
556: For $b > 0$, we expect that the effects of self-interacting DM will be
557: reduced, since the density is at a maximum when the core centers pass
558: directly through one another, and the scattering probability is
559: proportional to the density (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:prob}).
560: To test the strength of this effect, we
561: re-ran the simulation R4 (see Table~\ref{tab:ics}) with an
562: impact parameter of $b = 200$~kpc. Aside from the impact parameter,
563: the initial mass and velocity distributions were identical to those
564: for run R4, so that the relative
565: effects of $b >0$ could be investigated (specifically, no adjustments
566: were made to the initial conditions to more closely match the current
567: observed mass profiles). The resulting projected total mass
568: profiles for the subcluster within 150~kpc and 250~kpc at the observed
569: separation agreed with those from the $b = 0$ run to within 4\%. For the main
570: cluster, the match was better than 1\%.
571:
572: The resulting offset between the galaxy and DM centroids during the
573: post core passage phase was
574: systematically smaller than the offset seen in the $b = 0$ run.
575: At the observed separation, the difference in the centroid offsets, as
576: compared to the $b=0$ run, was
577: about 4~kpc, which
578: is on the order of both the observational error and the accuracy of our
579: numerical technique. The fractional change in the $M/L$ ratio of the
580: subcluster was similarly affected; for the $b = 0$ case, the $M/L$ ratio
581: within 150~kpc drops by about 27\%, whereas for
582: the run with $b = 200$~kpc, it drops by 22\%. Assuming, as we did in
583: \S~\ref{sec:mtol}, that the subcluster could not have lost more than
584: $\sim23$\% of its initial mass, we find the constraint that $\sigma/m <
585: 0.7$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$. We therefore conclude
586: that, although a non-zero impact parameter reduces the effects of
587: self-interacting DM as expected, the level of the effect is
588: relatively small. This is likely due to the assumed King mass profile of the
589: main cluster. The radial density gradient is relatively small within
590: the core radius of the main cluster (which in this case is 151~kpc),
591: so it is not surprising that the effects of self-interacting DM are
592: not significantly reduced by increasing the impact parameter, so long
593: as it is comparable to the core radius of the main cluster. Naturally,
594: the effects of a non-zero $b$ would be increased if the main cluster
595: had a strongly peaked mass profile, though the current lensing data
596: suggest otherwise.
597: We conclude that any value of impact parameter that is consistent with
598: the observations will only slightly alter our results.
599:
600: \subsection{Alternative Bullet Mass Profiles} \label{sec:massprof}
601:
602: As noted in \S\ref{sec:sims}, the choice of a King mass profile
603: for the subcluster is expected to give conservative estimates on the
604: effects of collisional DM, based on the $M/L$ ratio, since the central
605: density is low as compared
606: to models with cuspy cores such as NFW and Hernquist models. However,
607: in the case of the galaxy/DM centroid offset test, one might argue that
608: since the subcluster galaxies are more tightly bound in the center for
609: more highly concentrated mass profiles, it
610: will be more difficult to displace them, which could lead to a smaller
611: offset between the centroids despite the increased action of DM
612: collisions. We therefore ran a test
613: simulation, using a King model for the main cluster and a Hernquist
614: model for the subcluster, with $\sigma/m = 0.72$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$.
615: The Hernquist profile is given by
616: \begin{equation} \label{eq:hern}
617: \rho(r) = \frac{M a}{2 \pi r} \frac{1}{(r + a)^3},
618: \end{equation}
619: where $M$ is the total cluster mass and $a$ is the scale length
620: (Hernquist 1990). As before, initial parameters were chosen such
621: that the bullet mass profile roughly matches the observed profile at
622: the current separation (we used $M = 3.13 \times 10^{14}$ M$_\odot$, $a
623: = 100$ kpc). This is expected to be the most conservative model
624: combination for this test, since the main cluster King model minimizes
625: the effects of DM self-interaction while the subcluster Hernquist
626: model maximizes the binding energy of the subcluster galaxies.
627: The results show that, when comparing to run R4 in
628: Table~\ref{tab:obscond}, the galaxy/DM centroid offset was
629: only slightly less than that found with the King model subcluster, on
630: the order of the accuracy of the simulation offset values (less than 1~kpc).
631: The change in
632: the subcluster's $M/L$ was similarly only weakly affected ($f =
633: 0.27$ for the King model bullet subcluster, whereas for the Hernquist
634: model we find $f = 0.31$, consistent with the King profile being the
635: conservative case). The agreement
636: is likely due to the fact that the centroids become offset from one
637: another after core passage, and it is during core passage that the
638: central density peak of the bullet is mostly ``smoothed away'' due to
639: DM collisions (recall that DM scattering is more frequent in high
640: density regions, so high density structures are more efficiently
641: destroyed by DM self-interactions).
642: Although strongly peaked density profiles have been found to be
643: unstable to SIDM (e.g., Burkert 2000; Yoshida et al.\ 2000b),
644: in our simulation a significant change in density only occurred at
645: small radii, such that the total projected mass of the subcluster within
646: 50~kpc remained stable up until the merger event. Therefore the
647: subcluster mass distribution remained significantly more peaked
648: than a King profile cluster with the same projected mass within
649: 150~kpc.
650: We conclude that our results are
651: only weakly dependent on the mass profile chosen for the bullet, so
652: long as we require that the observed mass profile is reproduced. For
653: the initially more centrally concentrated profiles, the effects of the
654: increased
655: binding energy in the core are balanced by the increased scattering
656: frequency in this region.
657:
658: \subsection{Mass Profile Dependence} \label{sec:lowmass}
659:
660: As mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:sims}, weak lensing is expected to
661: underestimate the mass of the lens by 10-20\%.
662: There are two separate effects that contribute to this underestimation.
663: First, near the core of a cluster there is a large region without weak
664: lensing galaxies, and this region is effectively smoothed over when
665: computing the mass map. Additionally, galaxies near the regions where
666: strong lensing dominates are measured in the weak lensing
667: approximation, which also leads to an underestimate of the mass in the
668: core. Second, the total cluster mass can be underestimated due to
669: mass-sheet degeneracy, where the mass-map is affected by the
670: non-detection of mass at the edge of the field of view.
671: Although projection
672: of foreground and/or background structures unassociated with the
673: clusters will artificially increase the mass, it is highly unlikely
674: that such projected structures significantly contributed to the
675: detected lensing signal (C06). Results from strong lensing, which is
676: not susceptible to the same systematic underestimation as weak
677: lensing, do indeed give systematically higher projected masses for
678: this system, by about a factor of 2 within the inner few hundred kpc,
679: which is the region we are most interested in for this analysis
680: (compare B06 and C06; see C06 for further discussion of this
681: discrepancy). Though we
682: chose to use the mass estimates from strong lensing, since it should give a
683: more reliable estimate of the projected mass near the
684: cluster cores, it is interesting to explore the
685: dependence of our results on the lensing mass estimates. To this
686: end, we conducted a simulation run similar to run R4, but with the
687: initial cluster central densities chosen such that the projected mass
688: profiles at the observed separation were about 2 times lower than the
689: masses derived from strong lensing observations, roughly in agreement
690: with the weak lensing results given by C06 (the initial
691: core radii were the same as for run R4). Since the scattering
692: probability depends on the density, we expect these less
693: massive halos to be more weakly affected by SIDM.
694:
695: Results obtained
696: from the simulations
697: with the lower mass normalization show that
698: the effects of SIDM are diminished, as expected for a linear
699: dependence of the scattering probabilities on the projected mass.
700: In run~R4, the $M/L$ ratio
701: dropped by 27\%, whereas for the run with 1/2 the total mass it
702: dropped by 14\% (roughly a factor of 2 less). Similarly, the galaxy/DM
703: centroid offset was 11.1~kpc, again, about a factor of 2 down from the
704: 24.1~kpc offset seen in run~R4. If we assume that this factor of two
705: effect can be applied to all of values given in columns~6 \& 7 of
706: Table~\ref{tab:obscond} and consider the more sensitive $M/L$ test, we
707: find that requiring $f \la 0.20$ would correspond to $\sigma \la
708: 1.25$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$.
709: This is done as a test of the method only, since these low halo mass
710: values are not realistic, as they are insufficient to produce the system
711: of strong arcs observed in the {\it HST} images (C06).
712:
713: \subsection{Low Merger Velocity}\label{sec:lowvel}
714:
715: All of the simulations discussed so far have assumed a merger velocity
716: that is consistent with that derived from X-ray observations
717: (Markevitch, 2005),
718: which give a Mach number for the shock front of $M = 3.0 \pm 0.4$,
719: and it is assumed that the subcluster has the same velocity as the
720: shock (though see Springel \& Farrar, 2007).
721: Since the subcluster could have slowed down, or the shock
722: front accelerated, it is interesting to
723: ask what effect a lower velocity would have on the inferred upper limit on
724: $\sigma/m$, particularly since the observed velocity is larger than
725: would be expected from free fall of the subcluster onto the main
726: cluster (Farrar \& Rosen 2007).
727: In order to test the
728: dependence of our upper limit on merger velocity, we ran a simulation
729: with $\sigma/m = 0.72$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ such that the relative velocity
730: of the cluster DM halos at observed separation was 1.5 times lower,
731: about 3100~km~s$^{-1}$ ($M \approx 2$). This is close to the
732: expected free-fall velocity of the subcluster, and to the relative
733: velocity of 2860~km~s$^{-1}$ found by Springel \& Farrar (2007) from
734: hydrodynamical simulations of this system. The results showed
735: little difference
736: from the higher velocity run (compare to run R4 in
737: Table~\ref{tab:obscond}): $\Delta x$ was 30.2~kpc (vs. 24.1~kpc) and
738: $f$ was 0.25 (vs. 0.27). We therefore conclude that our results are
739: relatively insensitive
740: to merger velocities that are not in large disagreement with the
741: observations.
742: A weak dependence of the $M/L$
743: ratio on the subcluster velocity $v$ is easy to understand: the
744: particle scatters out of the subcluster as long as $v/2$ is much
745: greater than the escape velocity from the subcluster, which it is by
746: a large margin (M04).
747:
748:
749: \subsection{Effects of Diffuse Gas}\label{sec:gas}
750:
751: As mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:sims}, the intracluster gas observed in
752: the X-ray band was not included in the simulations (doing so would
753: greatly increase the computing time and the complexity involved with
754: matching the observations in detail). The only way
755: for the gas to affect the results is via gravitational interaction (we
756: ignore the possibility of non-gravitational baryon-DM interactions,
757: the cross-section of which has been shown to be extremely small, e.g.,
758: Chen et al. 2002). In general, the gas is expected to contribute
759: about 10\% of the total mass of the system, a figure which appears to
760: be consistent with the lensing and X-ray observations (B06).
761: One might worry that, when matching the observed
762: mass profiles, some ``extra'' DM is needed to account for the missing
763: gas. As mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:sims}, gas masses have been
764: subtracted from the lensing masses using a detailed model of the gas
765: distribution derived from fitting the X-ray observations.
766: In terms of the test involving the decrease in
767: the subcluster $M/L$ ratio (see
768: \S~\ref{sec:mtol}), we needn't worry about the subcluster gas for
769: the simple reason that the gas bullet is far from the subcluster mass
770: peak (roughly 23$\arcsec$, or 102~kpc). Therefore,
771: the gas in the region of the bullet mass peak is not centrally
772: concentrated and will
773: not significantly add to the binding energy of potentially scattered
774: DM particles. For the galaxy and total mass centroid offset test (see
775: \S~\ref{sec:noffset}), the exclusion of the gas is expected to give a
776: conservative result: the gas bullet and bar feature seen in
777: Figure~\ref{fig:image} will act to decelerate the subcluster DM halo
778: and galaxies. However, if, as is the case with SIDM, the DM halo
779: starts to lag behind the galaxies and gets
780: closer to the gas cores than the main concentration of the galaxies, it
781: will experience a larger deceleration, thereby increasing the offset
782: between the two. Due to the relatively low mass of the gas
783: components, and the large distance between the gas peaks and the subcluster
784: DM halo and galaxies (as compared to the offset of the latter), the
785: strength of this effect will be quite small. We therefore conclude
786: that including gas in the simulations would not significantly affect
787: our results.
788:
789: \section{Summary} \label{sec:summ}
790:
791: We have combined results from new X-ray, optical and lensing
792: observations and our N-body simulations of the merging galaxy cluster
793: 1E~0657-56 in order to derive an upper limit on the self-interaction
794: cross-section of dark matter particles, $\sigma/m$. We give constraints on
795: $\sigma/m$ based on two independent methods: from the lack of offset between the
796: total mass peak and galaxy centroid of the subcluster that would arise during
797: the merger due to drag on the subcluster halo from DM particle
798: collisions, and from the lack of a decreased mass-to-light ratio of the
799: subcluster due to scattering of DM particles. From
800: the former, we find $\sigma/m < 1.25$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$, and from the latter,
801: $\sigma/m < 0.7$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$, which includes the
802: uncertainty in the impact parameter of the merger (upper limits are
803: from 68\% confidence intervals).
804: Our best constraint is a
805: modest improvement of the previous best constraint from conservative
806: analytic estimates
807: of $\sigma/m < 1$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ (M04).
808: Furthermore, our limit of $\sigma/m < 1.25$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ is more
809: robust than the best analytic limit, since this method does not depend
810: on the assumption that the subcluster and main cluster $M/L$ ratios
811: were equal prior to the merger.
812: Previous studies have found that
813: $\sigma/m \sim 0.5 - 5$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ is needed produce the
814: observational effects that self-interacting dark matter has been
815: invoked to explain (e.g., non-peaked galaxy mass profiles and the
816: underabundance of small halos within larger systems). Our results rule
817: out almost this full range of values, at least under the assumption
818: that $\sigma$ is velocity-independent.
819:
820: We would like to
821: thank Volker Springel, Naoki Yoshida, Yago Ascasibar, and Alexey
822: Vikhlinin for useful
823: discussions and for providing access to various private codes.
824: Simulations were performed on a Beowulf cluster at the ITC in the
825: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Support for this work
826: was partially provided for by the NASA {\it Chandra} grants G04-5152X and
827: TM6-7010X, and NASA contract NAS8-39073.
828:
829: \begin{references}
830:
831: \reference{}
832: Ahn, K., \& Shapiro, P.R. 2003, J. Korean Astronomical Soc., 36, 89
833:
834: \reference{}
835: Ahn, K., \& Shapiro, P.R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 1092
836:
837: \reference{}
838: Barrena, R., Biviano, A., Ramella, M., Falco, E. E., \& Seitz,
839: S. 2002, A\&A, 386, 816
840:
841: \reference{}
842: Brada\v{c}, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A. H., Marshall, P., Forman, W.,
843: Jones, C., Markevitch, M., Randall, S., Schrabback, T., \& Zaritsky,
844: D. 2006, ApJ, 652, 937 (B06)
845:
846: \reference{}
847: Burkert, A. 2000, ApJ, 534, L143
848:
849: \reference{}
850: Chen, X., Hannestad, S., \& Scherrer, R. J. 2002, Phys. Rev. D65, 123515
851:
852: \reference{}
853: Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A. H., \& Markevitch M. 2004, ApJ, 604, 596
854:
855: \reference{}
856: Clowe, D., Brada\v{c}, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Markevitch, M., Randall, S. W.,
857: Jones, C., \& Zaritsky, D. 2006a, ApJ, 648, L109 (C06)
858:
859: \reference{}
860: Clowe, D., Randall, S. W., Markevitch, M. 2006, Proceedings of the
861: 2006b UCLA Dark Matter Symposium (astro-ph/0611496)
862:
863: \reference{}
864: Dahle, H. 2000, Proceedings of The NOT in the 2000's,
865: Eds. N. Bergvall, L. O. Takalo, \& V. Piirola (Univ. or Turku), 45
866:
867: \reference{}
868: Dav\'{e}, R., Spergel, D. N., Steinhardt, P. J., \& Wandelt,
869: B. D. 2001, ApJ, 547, 574
870:
871: \reference{}
872: Farrar, G. R., Rosen, R. A. 2007, in 2007 AAS/AAPT Joint Meeting,
873: American Astronomical Society Meeting 209, \#37.04.AAS, 370
874:
875: \reference{}
876: Flores, R. A., \& Primack, J. R. 1994, ApJ, 427, L1
877:
878: \reference{}
879: Furlanetto, S. R., \& Loeb, A. 2002, ApJ, 565, 854
880:
881: \reference{}
882: Gonzalez, A. H., Zaritsky, D., Simard, L., Clowe, D., White,
883: S. D. M. 2002, ApJ, 579, 577
884:
885: \reference{}
886: Hennawi, J. F., \& Ostriker, J. P. 2002, ApJ, 572, 41
887:
888: \reference{}
889: Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359
890:
891: \reference{}
892: Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., \& Prada, F. 1999, ApJ,
893: 522, 82
894:
895: \reference{}
896: Merritt, D., Tremblay, B. 1994, AJ, 108, 514
897:
898: \reference{}
899: Miralda-Escud\'{e}, J. 2002, ApJ, 564, 60
900:
901: \reference{}
902: Navarro, J. S., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 720
903:
904: \reference{}
905: Navarro, J. S., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
906:
907: \reference{}
908: Markevitch, M., Gonzales, A. H., David, L., Vikhlinin, A., Murray, S.,
909: Forman, W., Jones, C., \& Tucker, W. 2002, ApJ, 567, L27 (M02)
910:
911: \reference{}
912: Markevitch, M., Gonzales, A. H., Clowe, D., Vikhlinin, A., Forman, W.,
913: Jones, C., Murray, S., Tucker, W. ApJ, 606, 819 (M04)
914:
915: \reference{}
916: Markevitch, M. 2005, in Proceedings of The X-ray Universe 2005, San
917: Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain (in press, astro-ph/0511345)
918:
919: \reference{}
920: Mellier, Y. 1999, ARA\&A, 37, 127
921:
922: \reference{}
923: Moore, B. 1994, Nature, 370, 629
924:
925: \reference{}
926: Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J.,
927: \& Tozzi, P. 1999a, ApJ, 524, L19
928:
929: \reference{}
930: Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., \& Lake, G. 1999b,
931: MNRAS, 310, 1147
932:
933: \reference{}
934: Sand, D. J., Treu, T., \& Ellis, R. S. 2002, ApJ, 574, L129
935:
936: \reference{}
937: Spergel, D. N., \& Steinhardt, P. J. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 3760
938:
939: \reference{}
940: Springel, V., \& Farrar, G. 2007 (in press, astro-ph/0703232)
941:
942: \reference{}
943: Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105
944:
945: \reference{}
946: Yoshida, N., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G. 2000a, 535, L103
947:
948: \reference{}
949: Yoshida, N., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G. 2000b, 544, L87
950:
951: \end{references}
952:
953: \clearpage
954:
955: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
956: \tablewidth{5.8truein}
957: \tablecaption{Initial Simulation Parameters \label{tab:ics}}
958: \tablehead{
959: \colhead{Run Name}&
960: \colhead{$N_{DM}$}&
961: \colhead{$\sigma/m$}&
962: \colhead{$\rho_{c,1}$}&
963: \colhead{$r_{c,1}$}&
964: \colhead{$\rho_{c,2}$}&
965: \colhead{$r_{c,2}$}\\
966: \colhead{}&
967: \colhead{}&
968: \colhead{(cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$)}&
969: \colhead{(10$^6$ M$_\odot$ kpc$^{-3}$)}&
970: \colhead{(kpc)}&
971: \colhead{(10$^6$ M$_\odot$ kpc$^{-3}$)}&
972: \colhead{(kpc)}
973: }
974: \startdata
975: R1 &10$^6$&0 &3.27 &213 &4.59 &149\\
976: R2 &10$^6$&0.24 &3.27 &213 &4.59 &149\\
977: R3 &10$^6$&0.48 &4.42 &183 &6.57 &129\\
978: R4 &10$^6$&0.72 &7.03 &151 &11.75 &108\\
979: R5 &10$^6$&0.96 &6.26 &167 &9.76 &124\\
980: R6 &10$^6$&1.25 &6.26 &167 &9.76 &124\\
981: \enddata
982: \end{deluxetable}
983:
984:
985: \clearpage
986:
987: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
988: \tablewidth{6.7truein}
989: \tablecaption{Conditions at Observed Separation \label{tab:obscond}}
990: \tablehead{
991: \colhead{Run Name}&
992: \colhead{$N_{DM}$}&
993: \colhead{$\sigma/m$}&
994: \colhead{$M_1(r < 150 $kpc$)$}&
995: \colhead{$M_2(r < 150 $kpc$)$}&
996: \colhead{$\Delta$ x\tablenotemark{a}}&
997: \colhead{$f$\tablenotemark{b}}\\
998: \colhead{}&
999: \colhead{}&
1000: \colhead{(cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$)}&
1001: \colhead{(10$^{13}$ M$_\odot$)}&
1002: \colhead{(10$^{13}$ M$_\odot$)}&
1003: \colhead{(kpc)}&
1004: \colhead{}
1005: }
1006: \startdata
1007: R1 &$10^6$&0 &12.0& 11.1& 1.8& 0.0\\
1008: R2 &$10^6$&0.24&11.5& 10.4& 5.4&0.08\\
1009: R3 &$10^6$&0.48&11.8& 10.4& 15.0&0.16\\
1010: R4 &$10^6$&0.72&12.6& 11.0&24.1&0.27\\
1011: R5 &$10^6$&0.96&12.4& 10.9&37.9&0.32\\
1012: R6 &$10^6$&1.25&11.4& 9.8&53.9&0.38\\
1013: Obs.& & &11.9$\pm$1.6& 10.6$\pm$0.4&$25 \pm 29$ &$0.16\pm0.07$\\
1014: \enddata
1015: \tablenotetext{a}{$\Delta$ x is the offset between the subcluster
1016: total mass and galaxy centroids.}
1017: \tablenotetext{b}{$f$ is the fractional decrease in the mass-to-light
1018: ratio of the subcluster within 150~kpc.}
1019: \end{deluxetable}
1020:
1021:
1022: \clearpage
1023: \begin{figure}
1024: \plotone{f1.eps}
1025: \caption{X-ray image with weak lensing mass contours overlain. The
1026: gas bullet lags the subcluster DM halo.
1027: The current separation of the subcluster and main cluster mass peaks
1028: is 720~kpc.
1029: \label{fig:image}}
1030: \end{figure}
1031:
1032: \clearpage
1033: \begin{figure}
1034: \plotone{f2.eps}
1035: \caption{Close up of the subcluster bullet region, with the DM (blue)
1036: and galaxy (red) centroid error contours overlain.
1037: The contours show the 68.3\% and 99.7\% error regions. The
1038: left panel shows the X-ray {\it Chandra} image, while the right
1039: shows the optical {\it HST} image.\label{fig:bullet}}
1040: \end{figure}
1041:
1042: \clearpage
1043: \begin{figure}
1044: \plotone{f3.eps}
1045: \caption{Density profile of an isolated King model cluster at $t=0$
1046: (solid line), and after evolving for 1~Gyr with $\sigma/m =0$
1047: (dotted line) and $\sigma/m = 0.7$~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$ (dashed line).\label{fig:rhor}}
1048: \end{figure}
1049:
1050: \clearpage
1051: \begin{figure}
1052: \plotone{f4.eps}
1053: \caption{Total mass within projected radius $x$ for the cluster
1054: plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:rhor}. Line-type indications are the
1055: same as in Figure~\ref{fig:rhor}.\label{fig:projr}}
1056: \end{figure}
1057:
1058: \clearpage
1059: \begin{figure}
1060: \plotone{f5.eps}
1061: \caption{
1062: The dependence of the subcluster galaxy and total mass centroid offset
1063: ($\Delta$ x, solid line) and the fractional change in the subcluster
1064: $M/L$ ratio ($f$, dashed line) on $\sigma/m$. Based on the values
1065: given in Table~\ref{tab:obscond}.\label{fig:sigma}}
1066: \end{figure}
1067:
1068: \end{document}
1069: