1: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{amsmath,epsf,multicol,natbib}
4:
5:
6: \def\rvir{$r_{vir}$}
7: \def\rhoc{$\rho_c$}
8: \def\deltav{$\Delta_v$}
9: \def\fgas{$f_{gas}$}
10: \def\mgas{$M_{gas}$}
11: \def\mtot{$M_{tot}$}
12: \def\nclu{38}
13:
14: %% Use this to see what it would likely look like in ApJ
15: %\documentclass{aastex}
16: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,epsf,natbib,ccaption}
17:
18: %% Definitions of useful commands
19: \newcommand{\uv}{\mbox{$u$-$v$}}
20: \newcommand{\Ho}{\mbox{$H_0$}}
21: \newcommand{\no}{\mbox{$n_{e0}$}}
22: \newcommand{\noIo}{\mbox{$n_{e 0_1}$}}
23: \newcommand{\noIt}{\mbox{$n_{e 0_2}$}}
24: \newcommand{\rcI}{\mbox{$\theta_{c_1}$}}
25: \newcommand{\rcII}{\mbox{$\theta_{c_2}$}}
26: \newcommand{\nosq}{\mbox{$n_{e 0}^2$}}
27: \newcommand{\dTo}{\mbox{$\Delta T_0$}}
28: \newcommand{\Xo}{\mbox{$S_{x 0}$}}
29: \newcommand{\Xodet}{\mbox{$S_{x 0}^{det}$}}
30: \newcommand{\yo}{\mbox{$y_0$}}
31: \newcommand{\Vp}{\mbox{$V_p$}}
32: \newcommand{\Teo}{\mbox{$T_{e 0}$}}
33: \newcommand{\Lamo}{\mbox{$\Lambda_{e \mbox{\tiny H} 0}$}}
34: \newcommand{\LameH}{\mbox{$\Lambda_{e \mbox{\tiny H}}$}}
35: \newcommand{\LameHo}{\Lamo}
36: \newcommand{\LameHodet}{\mbox{$\Lambda_{e \mbox{\tiny H} 0}^{det}$}}
37: \newcommand{\Lambol}{\mbox{$\Lambda_{\mbox{\tiny bol}}$}}
38: \newcommand{\Lamee}{\mbox{$\Lambda_{e e}$}}
39: \newcommand{\fx}{\mbox{$(x \frac{e^x+1}{e^x-1} -4)
40: (1+\delta_{\mbox{\tiny SZE}})$}}
41: \newcommand{\Om}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\mbox{\scriptsize $M$}}$}}
42: \newcommand{\Ob}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\mbox{\scriptsize $B$}}$}}
43: \newcommand{\Ol}{\mbox{$\Omega_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\Lambda$}}$}}
44: \newcommand{\Oo}{\mbox{$\Omega_0$}}
45: \newcommand{\Or}{\mbox{$\Omega_R$}}
46: \newcommand{\sigviii}{\mbox{$\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny 8}}$}}
47: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}$}}
48: \newcommand{\ksM}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}}
49: \newcommand{\cgsunits}{\mbox{$\frac{\mbox{erg s}^{-1}
50: \mbox{ cm}^{-2}}{\mbox{cnt s}^{-1}}$}}
51: \newcommand{\ecs}{\mbox{erg cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$}}
52: \newcommand{\detunits}{\mbox{cnt cm$^{5}$ s$^{-1}$}}
53: \newcommand{\Xcgs}{\mbox{erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ arcmin$^{-2}$}}
54: \newcommand{\Xdet}{\mbox{cnt s$^{-1}$ arcmin$^{-2}$}}
55: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mbox{M$_\odot$}}
56: \newcommand{\kB}{\mbox{$k_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$}}
57: \newcommand{\Tk}{\mbox{$T_{\mbox{\tiny K}}$}}
58: \newcommand{\Tsys}{\mbox{$T_{\mbox{\scriptsize sys}}$}}
59: \newcommand{\Tmw}{\mbox{$T_{\mbox{\scriptsize mw}}$}}
60: \newcommand{\sigT}{\mbox{$\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny T}}$}}
61: \newcommand{\Tcmb}{\mbox{$T_{\mbox{\tiny CMB}}$}}
62: \newcommand{\muH}{\mbox{$\mu_{\mbox{\tiny H}}$}}
63: \newcommand{\mutot}{\mbox{$\mu_{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}$}}
64: \newcommand{\nH}{\mbox{$n_{\mbox{\tiny H}}$}}
65: \newcommand{\NH}{\mbox{$N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}$}}
66: \newcommand{\Da}{\mbox{$D_{\!\mbox{\tiny A}}$}}
67: \newcommand{\rhogas}{\mbox{$\rho_{\mbox{\tiny gas}}$}}
68: \newcommand{\h}{\mbox{$^{\mbox{h}}$}}
69: \newcommand{\m}{\mbox{$^{\mbox{m}}$}}
70: \newcommand{\s}{\mbox{$^{\mbox{s}}$}}
71: \newcommand{\uJybm}{\mbox{$\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$}}
72: \newcommand{\mJybm}{\mbox{mJy beam$^{-1}$}}
73: \newcommand{\uK}{\mbox{$\mu$K}}
74: \newcommand{\Lx}{\mbox{$L_{\!\mbox{\tiny X}}$}}
75: \newcommand{\Fx}{\mbox{$F_{\!\mbox{\tiny X}}$}}
76: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}
77: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}
78:
79: \newcommand{\sze}{SZE}
80: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\it Chandra}}
81: \newcommand{\rosat}{{\it ROSAT}}
82: \newcommand{\einstein}{{\it Einstein}}
83: \newcommand{\asca}{{\it ASCA}}
84: \newcommand{\xmm}{{\it XMM}}
85: \newcommand{\wmap}{{\it WMAP}}
86: \newcommand{\bima}{{\it BIMA}}
87: \newcommand{\ovro}{{\it OVRO}}
88: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.}
89: \newcommand{\Mgas}{\mbox{$M_{\mbox{\scriptsize gas}}$}}
90: \newcommand{\Mtot}{\mbox{$M_{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}$}}
91: %\newcommand{\Mtot}{\mbox{$M$}}
92: \newcommand{\Mdm}{\mbox{$M_{\!\mbox{\tiny DM}}$}}
93: \newcommand{\Mmin}{\mbox{$M_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$}}
94: \newcommand{\tc}{\mbox{$t_{\mbox{\scriptsize cool}}$}}
95: \newcommand{\tH}{\mbox{$t_{\mbox{\tiny H}}$}}
96: \newcommand{\rII}{\mbox{$r_{\mbox{\scriptsize 200}}$}}
97: \newcommand{\rMM}{\mbox{$r_{\mbox{\scriptsize 2000}}$}}
98: \newcommand{\ro}{\mbox{$r_{\mbox{\scriptsize 0}}$}}
99: \newcommand{\likel}{\mbox{$\mathcal{L}$}}
100: \newcommand{\zg}{\mbox{$z_{\mbox{\tiny G}}$}}
101: \newcommand{\fg}{\mbox{$f_{\mbox{\scriptsize gas}}$}}
102: \newcommand{\fb}{\mbox{$f_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$}}
103: \newcommand{\rhocrit}{\mbox{$\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize crit}}$}}
104: \newcommand{\Ysz}{\mbox{$Y$}}
105: \newcommand{\rtfh}{\mbox{$r_{\mbox{\scriptsize 2500}}$}}
106: \newcommand{\rfh}{\mbox{$r_{\mbox{\scriptsize 500}}$}}
107: \newcommand{\rth}{\mbox{$r_{\mbox{\scriptsize 200}}$}}
108: %\newcommand{\deg}{\mbox{\scriptsize $\circ$}}
109: \def\sza{\it Sunyaev-Zeldovich Array\rm}
110: \begin{document}
111:
112: \title{Scaling Relations
113: from Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect and Chandra X-ray measurements
114: of high-redshift galaxy clusters}
115:
116: %%
117: %% Authors
118: %%
119: \author{
120: Massimiliano Bonamente\altaffilmark{1,2},
121: Marshall Joy\altaffilmark{2},
122: Samuel J. LaRoque\altaffilmark{3},
123: John E. Carlstrom\altaffilmark{3,4},
124: Daisuke Nagai\altaffilmark{5} and
125: Daniel P. Marrone\altaffilmark{6,3}
126: }
127:
128: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, University of Alabama,
129: Huntsville, AL 35812}
130:
131: \altaffiltext{2}{NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812}
132:
133: \altaffiltext{3}{Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, Department
134: of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637}
135:
136: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago,
137: Chicago, IL 60637}
138:
139: \altaffiltext{5}{Theoretical Astrophysics, California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 130-33, Pasadena, CA 91125}
140:
141: \altaffiltext{6}{Jansky Fellow, National Radio Astronomy Observatory}
142:
143: %%
144: %% Abstract
145: %%
146: \begin{abstract}
147:
148: We present Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect (SZE) scaling relations for
149: \nclu\ massive galaxy clusters at redshifts $0.14 \leq z \leq 0.89$,
150: observed with both the \chandra\ X-ray Observatory and the
151: centimeter-wave SZE imaging system at the BIMA and OVRO
152: interferometric arrays. An isothermal $\beta$-model with central
153: 100~kpc excluded from the X-ray data is used to model the intracluster
154: medium and to measure global cluster properties. For each cluster, we
155: measure the X-ray spectroscopic temperature, SZE gas mass, total mass
156: and integrated Compton-$y$ parameters within \rtfh. Our measurements
157: are in agreement with the expectations based on a simple self-similar
158: model of cluster formation and evolution. We compare the cluster
159: properties derived from our SZE observations with and without
160: \chandra\ spatial and spectral information and find them to be in good
161: agreement. We compare our results with cosmological numerical
162: simulations, and find that simulations that include radiative cooling,
163: star formation and feedback match well both the slope and
164: normalization of our SZE scaling relations.
165:
166: \end{abstract}
167: \keywords{galaxies: clusters}
168:
169: \section{Introduction}
170: \label{sec:intro}
171:
172: The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect (SZE) is a unique and powerful
173: observational tool for cosmology (for review see \citealt{carlstrom2002}). It
174: is a small distortion in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
175: spectrum caused by scattering of CMB photons off a distribution of
176: high energy electrons in dense structures such as clusters of galaxies
177: \citep{sunyaev1970,sunyaev1972}. This effect has a unique property
178: that the signal is independent of redshift, making it particularly
179: well suited for deep cluster surveys
180: \citep[e.g.,][]{holder2000,weller2002}. Several \sze\ survey
181: experiments are currently in progress
182: \citep{Ruhl2004,Fowler2004,Kaneko2006}, and are expected to generate a
183: large sample of SZ-selected clusters with masses greater than $\sim
184: 2\times10^{14}\,\Msun$. The resulting large samples of galaxy clusters will
185: enable direct measurements of the evolution of the number density of
186: galaxy clusters as a function of redshift and in principle can provide a
187: powerful constraint on the nature of dark energy
188: \citep{wang1998,viana1999,mohr2000b,haiman2001}.
189:
190: To utilize the upcoming SZE cluster surveys for cosmological studies,
191: it is important to understand the relation between the SZE observables
192: and the mass of a cluster. If the evolution of clusters is dominated
193: by gravitational processes, a simple model of cluster formation and
194: evolution based on the virial theorem \citep{kaiser1986} predicts
195: simple power-law relations between cluster masses and certain
196: integrated cluster properties, including the integrated SZE flux
197: (which is proportional to \Ysz, the integral of the Compton-$y$
198: parameter over the solid angle of the cluster). Numerical simulations
199: further suggest that \Ysz\ should be an excellent proxy of cluster
200: mass when measured on sufficiently large scales
201: \citep[e.g.,][]{dasilva2004,motl2005,nagai2006}. These simulations
202: also predict that the slope and redshift evolution of the SZE scaling
203: relations are relatively insensitive to the details of cluster
204: physics, although numerical simulations show that the input cluster
205: physics affects the normalization of the SZE scaling relations
206: \citep{nagai2006}. It is therefore important to investigate the
207: properties of the SZE scaling relations observationally.
208:
209: Previous studies have addressed the correlation between the SZE signal
210: and X-ray properties. For instance, \citet{cooray1999} found a
211: positive correlation between the central SZE decrement and the X-ray
212: luminosity in a sample of 14 clusters. Similarly,
213: \citet{mccarthy2003} detected correlations between the central SZE
214: decrement and X-ray determined mass, temperature, and luminosity for a
215: 22 cluster sample, and \citet{morandi2007}
216: for a sample of 24 clusters. These studies use data from multiple SZE and X-ray
217: experiments, making systematics more difficult to control, and focus
218: on the relationship between the central values of the SZE signal with
219: the X-ray properties. Recently, \citet{benson2004} showed that
220: the integrated SZE flux is a more robust observable than the central
221: values of the SZE signal, and found a strong correlation with X-ray
222: temperatures using a sample of 15 clusters obtained by the
223: Sunyaev-Zeldovich Imaging Experiment (SuZIE,
224: \citealt{holzapfel1997a,benson2003}) and X-ray temperatures from the
225: \asca\ experiment.
226:
227: This paper is the third in a series of papers combining SZE and
228: \chandra\ X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters to study cosmological
229: properties, following \citet{bonamente2006} (B2006 hereafter) and
230: \citet{laroque2006} (L2006 hereafter). Here we present observational
231: studies of SZE scaling relations for clusters of galaxies. This paper
232: advances the results of previous cluster scaling relation works in
233: several ways. First, we use the largest observational sample yet
234: constructed (\nclu\ clusters at redshift $z$=0.14---0.89). Second,
235: our analysis is based on SZE and X-ray observations obtained using the
236: same instruments: all SZE fluxes are determined using centimeter-wave
237: interferometric data from the BIMA/OVRO SZE imaging experiments
238: \citep[e.g.][]{laroque2003}, and all cluster X-ray properties are
239: derived using data from the \chandra\ {\it X-ray Observatory}.
240: Finally, our \chandra\ observations have an order of magnitude better
241: spatial resolution than the X-ray data used in previous studies, which
242: greatly improves our ability to identify and exclude compact
243: foreground sources which are superimposed on the cluster X-ray
244: emission.
245:
246: Throughout the paper, we assume a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with
247: $\Omega_{M}$=0.3, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7 and $h=0.7$, where $h$ is defined such that
248: $\Ho=100\,h$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$. All uncertainties are at the
249: 68.3\% confidence level.
250:
251: \section{Theory of cluster scaling relations}
252: \label{theory}
253: \subsection{The virial radius and \rtfh}
254: In order to establish relationships between mass, SZE flux and other
255: cluster properties, one needs to define a radius out to which all
256: quantities will be calculated. This radius should be physically
257: motivated, reachable with the current X-ray and SZE observations, and
258: equivalent for clusters of different redshift. One candidate is the
259: virial radius. In a Friedman-Robertson-Walker universe, an
260: unperturbed spherical region expands indefinitely, while a perturbed
261: overdense region (the seed of a future cluster) eventually
262: recollapses. When the overdense region collapses under the effect of
263: its own gravity, it is assumed to reach virial equilibrium when the
264: radius is half of that at maximum expansion
265: \citep{peebles1980,lacey1993}. The ratio of the mean cluster density
266: to the background density at the time of virialization is $\Delta_v=18
267: \pi^2$ for a universe with critical matter density ($\Omega_{M}=1$).
268: For a different cosmology with $\Omega_k=0$, \citet{bryan1998} showed
269: that $\Delta_v \simeq 18 \pi^2+82 x -39 x^2$, where $x=\Omega_{M0}
270: (1+z)^3/E^2(z)$ and $E^2(z)=\Omega_{M0}
271: (1+z)^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}+\Omega_{k0} (1+z)^2$, as found from a fit to
272: numerical simulations \citep{lacey1993}.
273:
274:
275: With this characterization of the mean cluster density at time of
276: virialization, the virial radius can be determined as the radius
277: within which the average density of the cluster is \deltav\ times
278: the critical density, via
279:
280: \begin{equation}
281: \frac{4}{3} \pi \rho_c(z) \Delta_v(z) r_{vir}^3 = M_{tot}(r_{\Delta_v(z)})
282: \label{rvir}
283: \end{equation}
284: in which both \rhoc($z$) and \deltav($z$) are cosmology
285: dependent, and the critical density $\rho_c(z)$ is defined as:
286: \begin{equation}
287: \rho_c(z)=\frac{3 H_0^2 E(z)^2}{8 \pi G} .
288: \label{rhocrit}
289: \end{equation}
290:
291: Unfortunately, the virial radius is usually unreachable with current
292: X-ray and SZE measurements, and one is forced to perform measurements
293: out to a smaller radius. Such a radius ($r_{\Delta}$) is
294: characterized by the density contrast parameter $\Delta$ in place of
295: $\Delta_v(z)$ in Equation \ref{rvir}, and corresponds to a higher
296: average density, ${4}/{3} \cdot \pi \rho_c(z) \Delta \cdot
297: r_{\Delta}^3 = M_{tot}(r_{\Delta})$. We choose a contrast parameter
298: $\Delta=2500$, corresponding to an average density of 2500 times the
299: critical density at the cluster's redshift. This choice is motivated
300: by the fact that this is the radius typically reachable with our \sze\
301: and X-ray data without any extrapolation of the models (B2006,
302: L2006).~\footnote{The use of a constant overdensity factor $\Delta$
303: was shown by \citet{maughan2006} to give results similar to the case
304: of a variable overdensity factor
305: $\Delta(z)=\Delta(0)[\Delta_v(z)/\Delta_v(0)]$, in which the variable
306: overdensity scales with redshift in order to keep the ratio of two
307: comoving densities constant.}
308:
309: \subsection{Scaling relations \label{scaling:theory}}
310: The hierarchical structure formation theory developed by
311: \citet{kaiser1986} predicts simple relationships between physical
312: parameters of collapsed structures, known as scaling relations. With
313: the assumptions of hydrostatic equilibrium and of an isothermal
314: distribution for both the dark matter and the cluster gas
315: \citep[e.g.,][]{bryan1998}, it can be shown that there is a simple
316: relationship between a cluster's total mass and its gas temperature
317: $T_e$:
318:
319: \begin{equation}
320: T_e \propto M_{tot}^{2/3} E(z)^{2/3}
321: \label{m-t}
322: \end{equation}
323: where the mass is calculated out to a radius of mean overdensity
324: $\Delta$, $M_{tot}=M_{tot}(r_{\Delta})$. For $f_{gas}~\equiv~M_{gas}/
325: M_{tot}$, ($M_{gas}=M_{gas}(r_{\Delta}$)), the expected relationship between the gas mass within
326: $r_\Delta$ and the gas temperature is
327:
328: \begin{equation}
329: T_e f^{2/3}_{gas} \propto M_{gas}^{2/3} E(z)^{2/3} .
330: \label{mgas-t}
331: \end{equation}
332:
333: The Compton-$y$ parameter is a measure of the pressure integrated
334: along the line of sight:
335: \begin{equation}
336: y=\int_0^{\infty} \sigma_T n_e \frac{k_B T_e}{m_e c^2} dl
337: \end{equation}
338: One can further integrate the $y$ parameter over the solid angle
339: $\Omega$ subtended by the cluster, to obtain the integrated
340: Compton-$y$ parameter:
341: \begin{equation}
342: Y\equiv\int_{\Omega} y d\Omega =
343: \frac{1}{D_A^2} \left(\frac{k_B \sigma_T}{m_e c^2}\right)
344: \int_0^{\infty} dl \int_A n_e T_e dA \\
345: \label{y-def}
346: \end{equation}
347: where $A$ is the area of the cluster in the plane of the sky.
348: In the context of an isothermal model, \Ysz\ is proportional to the
349: integral of the electron density $n_e$
350: over a cylindrical volume, thus
351: \begin{equation}
352: Y D_A^2 \propto T_e \int n_e dV = M_{gas} T_e =
353: f_{gas} M_{tot} T_e .
354: \label{y-da}
355: \end{equation}
356: In section \ref{sz-x} we consider the effect of integrating gas mass
357: within a spherical volume while determining $Y$ in a cylinder.
358: Using equation \ref{m-t} we can rewrite equation \ref{y-da} in terms
359: of either $M_{tot}$ or $T_e$, or substitute $M_{gas}/f_{gas}$ for $M_{tot}$, to obtain:
360: \begin{eqnarray}
361: Y D_A^2 \propto
362: %\left\{\begin{aligned}
363: f_{gas} T_e^{5/2} E(z)^{-1} \label{Y-T} \nonumber\\
364: Y D_A^2 \propto f_{gas} M_{tot}^{5/3} E(z)^{2/3} \label{Y-Mtot}\\
365: Y D_A^2 \propto f_{gas}^{-2/3} M_{gas}^{5/3} E(z)^{2/3} \label{Y-Mgas} \nonumber
366: %\end{aligned}
367: %\right.
368: \end{eqnarray}
369: Equations \ref{Y-T} are the scaling
370: relations that we investigate observationally in this paper.
371:
372: \section{\sze\ and \chandra\ X-ray observations of galaxy clusters}
373: \label{data}
374:
375: \subsection{Data}
376: We analyze the \sze\ and X-ray data observations of \nclu\ clusters in
377: the redshift range $z$=0.14---0.89, observed with the \bima\ and
378: \ovro\ interferometric arrays and with the \chandra\ X-ray imaging
379: spectrometers. Both data modeling with the isothermal $\beta$ model
380: and the data themselves are presented in B2006 and L2006, the previous
381: two papers in this series. We refer to L2006 for details on the
382: observations and data modeling, and to \citet{reese2002} for a
383: detailed illustration of the modeling of the OVRO/BIMA SZE data in the
384: Fourier plane. In the following, we review those aspects of the data
385: modeling and analysis that are relevant to the investigation of the
386: scaling relations.
387:
388: \subsection{Data modeling}
389: \label{model}
390: The gas density model is based on the spherical $\beta$-model
391: \citep{cavaliere1976, cavaliere1978}, which has the form
392: \begin{eqnarray}
393: n_e(r) = \no \left ( 1 + \frac{r^2}{r_c^2} \right )^{-3\beta/2} \nonumber ,
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: where $n_{e0}$ is the central electron number density, $r$ is the
396: radius from the center of the cluster, $r_c$ is a core radius, and
397: $\beta$ is a power-law index. When integrated along the line of sight
398: to determine the projected
399: SZE decrement distribution ($\propto n_e$) and X-ray surface
400: brightness ($\propto n_e^2$), this model has the simple analytic forms
401: \begin{eqnarray}
402: %\left\{
403: %\begin{aligned}
404: \Delta T & = & \dTo \left ( 1 + \frac{\theta^2}{\theta_c^2} \right)
405: ^{(1-3\beta)/2} \label{eq:easy_sz_signal}\\
406: S_x & = & \Xo \left ( 1 + \frac{\theta^2}{\theta_c^2} \right
407: )^{(1-6\beta)/2}, \label{eq:easy_x_signal}
408: %\end{aligned}
409: %\right.
410: \end{eqnarray}
411: where \dTo\ is the central thermodynamic SZE temperature
412: decrement/increment and $\theta_c$ is the angular core radius of the
413: cluster \citep[e.g.,][]{birkinshaw1991,reese2002}. This model
414: typically provides a good description of the X-ray surface brightness
415: and SZE decrement profiles out to $\sim$\rtfh\
416: \citep[e.g.,][]{jones1984,elbaz1995,grego2001,reese2002,ettori2004}.
417: This simple model, however, does not provide a good description of the
418: peaked X-ray surface brightness observed in the center of some
419: clusters. To minimize the systematic bias associated with modeling of
420: cluster cores, we therefore exclude the central 100~kpc from both the
421: spatial and spectral X-ray data, as was done in the previous two
422: papers in this series. The emission-weighted X-ray spectroscopic
423: temperature is also determined by a single-temperature fit to the
424: X-ray spectrum of photons extracted from an annulus between 100~kpc
425: and $r_{2500}$ (L2006). This 100~kpc-cut model was shown to recover
426: the gas masses of simulated clusters with a range of dynamical states
427: to better than 5\% accuracy at \rtfh\ (L2006) and, when applied to the
428: determination of the Hubble constant, yielded the same results as a
429: more complex non-isothermal model (B2006). Uncertainties associated
430: with the isothermal assumption are included via an additional
431: systematic error described in section \ref{method}.
432:
433: Following our earlier analysis methods,
434: we do not model the dark matter distribution, and calculate the
435: total mass directly from the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium (see Equation
436: \ref{eq:mtot_hse_iso} below). An upcoming paper (Mroczkowski et al. 2008, in preparation)
437: will extend the analysis to use
438: more sensitive data from the \sza\ \citep{muchovej2007} and more accurate modeling of the
439: cluster gas, based on the non-isothermal models of \citet{vikhlinin2006}
440: and \citet{nagai2007b}.
441:
442: \subsection{Analysis Methods}
443: \label{subsec:analysis}
444:
445: Best-fit model parameters and confidence intervals for all model
446: parameters are obtained using a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method
447: described in detail by \citet{bonamente2004} and B2006. L2006
448: explains the implementation of the likelihood calculation for the
449: 100~kpc-cut model. For each cluster, the Markov chain constrains the
450: parameters $S_{x0}$, $\beta$, $\theta_c$, $\Delta T_0$, $T_e$, and
451: abundance (see L2006 for best-fit values). We use the
452: cosmological parameters $h=0.7$, $\Omega_M$=0.3 and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7 to calculate each
453: cluster's angular diameter distance $D_A$
454: \citep[e.g.,][]{carroll1992}.
455:
456: From these model parameters we calculate \rtfh\ and $M_{tot}(r_{2500})$
457: through the hydrostatic equilibrium equation
458: \citep[e.g.,][]{grego2001},
459: \begin{equation}
460: M_{tot}(r)=\frac{3\beta kT_X}{G \mu m_p} \frac{r^3}{r_c^2 + r^2},
461: \label{eq:mtot_hse_iso}
462: \end{equation}
463: in which $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight calculated using the X-ray
464: metallicities and $r_c=\theta_c D_A$. One obtains \rtfh\ from the solution of the
465: following equation:
466: \begin{eqnarray}
467: \frac{3\beta kT_X}{G \mu m_p} \frac{r_{\Delta}^3}{r_c^2 +
468: r_{\Delta}^2}= \frac{4\pi}{3} r_{\Delta}^3 \Delta \rho_c(z) , \nonumber
469: \end{eqnarray}
470: in which $\rho_c(z)$ is given by Equation \ref{rhocrit},
471: $\Delta=2500$, and the right hand side is just $M_{tot}(r_{2500})$.
472: We then compute the global
473: cluster quantities needed for the analysis of SZE and X-ray scaling
474: relations.
475: The gas mass is computed by integrating the gas density model,
476: \begin{equation}
477: \Mgas(r_{2500}) = 4\pi \mu_e \no m_p\, \Da^3 \int_{0}^{r_{2500}/\Da} \left
478: (1+\frac{\theta^2}{\theta_c^2} \right)^{-3\beta/2}\: \theta^2 d\theta,
479: \label{eq:mgas_single}
480: \end{equation}
481: where $\mu_e$ is the mean molecular weight of the electrons, and \no\
482: is the central electron density, obtained from the parameters of the
483: $\beta$ model (L2006, Equation 12).
484:
485:
486: The integrated $y$ parameter (\Ysz, equation \ref{y-def})
487: is calculated using the measured SZE decrement $\Delta T$, which is directly
488: proportional to the Compton-$y$ parameter
489: \begin{eqnarray}
490: \Delta T=T_{CMB} \cdot f(x) \cdot y \nonumber .
491: \end{eqnarray}
492: The factor $f(x)$ is the frequency dependence of the SZE:
493: \begin{eqnarray}
494: f(x) = \left(x \cdot coth \left(\frac{x}{2}\right) -4 \right) \cdot (1+\delta_{rel}) \nonumber ,
495: \end{eqnarray}
496: in which $x=h \nu / k_B T_{CMB}$, and $\delta_{rel}$ is a small
497: relativistic correction factor. At our observing frequencies,
498: $f(x)\simeq -2$. Thus,
499: \begin{equation}
500: Y = \int_A \frac{\Delta T}{T_{CMB} f(x)} d\Omega=
501: \frac{\Delta T_o}{T_{CMB} f(x)} \int_0^{r_{2500}/D_A}
502: \left( 1+\frac{\theta^2}{\theta_c^2}\right)^{(1-3\beta)/2} \theta d\theta .
503: \end{equation}
504:
505: \section{Observational constraints on \sze\ scaling relations \label{scaling:obs}}
506:
507: \subsection{Regression method \label{method}}
508: Our measurements of masses and integrated $y$ parameters, using the
509: method described in Section \ref{data}, are shown in Table
510: \ref{table:results}. The errors in Table \ref{table:results}
511: represent the photon-counting statistical uncertainties of the X-ray
512: data and the statistical uncertainties of the SZE observations.
513: Additional sources of uncertainty in the measurement of cluster
514: parameters include cluster asphericity and projection effects,
515: small-scale clumping of the gas, the presence of point sources in the
516: field, CMB anisotropy, the assumption of isothermality, and
517: instrumental calibration, as discussed by \citet{reese2002}, L2006,
518: and B2006. Therefore, in fitting \Ysz\ versus $T_X$, \mgas, and
519: \mtot\ (Equations \ref{Y-T}), we include an additional statistical
520: error (combined in quadrature) of $\pm 20$\% for the masses, and $\pm
521: 10$\% for \Ysz\ and $T_X$.
522:
523:
524: We perform a linear least-squares regression in log space,
525: $log(Y)=A+B \cdot log(X)$, following the
526: method of \citet{press1992} and \citet{benson2004}. This method accounts
527: for errors in both measured parameters for each scaling relation, and
528: it minimizes the $\chi^2$ statistic defined as
529: \begin{eqnarray}
530: \chi^2 = \sum \frac{(log(Y_i) -A -B log(X_i))^2}{\sigma^2_{log(Y_i)}+
531: (B \sigma_{log(X_i)})^2} \nonumber
532: \end{eqnarray}
533: in which $\sigma_{log(Y_i)}=\sigma_{Y_i}/Y_i log(e)$,
534: $\sigma_{log(X_i)}=\sigma_{X_i}/X_i log(e)$, and the linear errors
535: $\sigma_{Y_i}$ and $\sigma_{X_i}$ are obtained from the upper and lower
536: uncertainties around the best-fit values as $\sigma=(\sigma^+ + \sigma^-)/2$.
537:
538: \subsection{The \Ysz-\mgas, \Ysz-\mtot\ and \Ysz-$kT$ scaling relations \label{sec:scaling}}
539:
540: The above derivation of the self-similar scaling relations does not
541: include any variation of the gas fraction with cluster mass. However,
542: there may be some evidence for such variation in both X-ray
543: observations (e.g., \citealt{vikhlinin2006}) and simulations
544: \citep{kravtsov2005}. We examine this in the present data
545: by performing a logarithmic fit
546: to the \fgas-\mgas\ data using a linear relationship ($log(Y)=A+B log(X)$).
547: We find no significant evidence for a variation of
548: \fgas\ with mass ($B=0.14\pm0.08$). In the following we therefore
549: assume that \fgas\ is a constant.
550: We then perform similar logarithmic fits to the \Ysz-\mgas, \Ysz-\mtot\ and \Ysz-$kT$ data.
551: The results
552: are shown in Figure \ref{fig:scaling} and in Table \ref{table:scaling}.
553: Under the assumption of a constant \fgas, all scaling relations are consistent
554: (within 2$\sigma$ statistical uncertainty)
555: with the simple self-similar model of cluster evolution.
556:
557: \subsection{Redshift evolution of the \Ysz-\mgas, \Ysz-\mtot\ and \Ysz-$kT$ scaling relations}
558:
559: The large number of clusters (38) and redshift coverage of our \chandra\ and \ovro-\bima\
560: data ($0.14\leq z \leq0.89$) enables
561: the investigation of a possible redshift evolution of the SZE scaling relations.
562: For this purpose, we divide our sample evenly into low-redshift clusters ($z \leq 0.30$, 19 clusters)
563: and high-redshift clusters ($0.30< z \leq0.89$, 19 clusters), and repeat the
564: logarithmic fits of Section \ref{sec:scaling}.
565:
566: The results of Table \ref{table:scaling} indicate no evidence for
567: redshift evolution of the SZE scaling relations, as \fgas\ is
568: consistent with a constant for both low and high-redshift clusters.
569: Furthermore, the SZE scaling relations are consistent with the
570: self-similar slopes at or below the 2.5$\sigma$ level.
571:
572: \section{Comparison of \sze\ and X-ray Measurements}
573: \label{sz-x}
574:
575: In the previous section we have examined the \sze\ scaling relations
576: based on quantities derived jointly from SZE and X-ray
577: observations. Here we compare the cluster properties derived from our
578: SZE observations without using the X-ray data in the fits, in order to
579: determine whether the relations we observe depend strongly on the
580: X-ray information.
581:
582: We analyze the SZE data using the model of Section \ref{model}, using
583: additional assumptions to provide the constraints that would otherwise
584: be provided by the X-ray data. As a first assumption we fix
585: $\beta=0.7$ and fit for $\theta_c$ and $\Delta T_0$ in Equation
586: \ref{eq:easy_sz_signal}, following L2006. The choice of fixing
587: $\beta=0.7$ is determined by the fact that this is the median value
588: for our sample; L2006 also show that using values of 0.6
589: and 0.8 results in changes to the parameters that are small relative
590: to the 68\% statistical uncertainties. The data quality allows us to
591: perform this SZE-only analysis for 25 of the clusters in the full
592: sample, as shown in Table \ref{table:sz-results}. Knowledge of the gas
593: temperature is required in order to determine \rtfh, as can be seen
594: from the combination of Equations \ref{rvir} and
595: \ref{eq:mtot_hse_iso}:
596: \begin{eqnarray}
597: r_{2500}=\sqrt{\left( \frac{3 \beta k T}{G \mu m_p}\right)
598: \frac{1}{\frac{4}{3} \pi \rho_c(z) \cdot 2500} -r_c^2}. \nonumber
599: \end{eqnarray}
600: In the absence of complementary X-ray spectroscopic data, we estimate
601: the gas temperature directly from the SZE data following the iterative
602: method described by \citet{joy2001}. We first choose an initial
603: estimate of the gas temperature, from which we obtain \rtfh\ and
604: $M_{tot}(r_{2500})$. We derive $M_{gas}(r_{2500})$ using the equations
605: described in Section \ref{subsec:analysis}, with the central gas
606: density $n_{e0}$ calculated from the parameters of the SZE decrement
607: model (L2006, Equation 13). We provide a final constraint by assuming
608: that the gas mass fraction of each cluster is equal to the average
609: value for this sample, \fgas$=0.116$ (L2006), and iteratively solve
610: the equation $M_{gas}(r_{2500})=f_{gas} \cdot M_{tot}(r_{2500})$ in
611: order to find self-consistent estimates of $T$ and \rtfh.
612:
613: Results of the SZE analysis are shown in Table
614: \ref{table:sz-results}. In Figure \ref{X-SZ-comparison} we compare the
615: SZE measurements of gas temperature, \rtfh, \Ysz, and gas mass with
616: the values from the joint analysis of Section \ref{data}. In the
617: joint analysis, the X-ray data are solely responsible for the
618: measurement of the temperature, and drive the fit of the spatial
619: parameters and gas density. They therefore drive the measurements of
620: $r_{2500}$ and $M_{gas}$ as well. The quantities inferred from the
621: SZE data are in good agreement with those from the joint analysis,
622: indicating that we have not altered the scaling relations of Section
623: \ref{sec:scaling} by incorporating the X-ray data. Although these
624: results show that it is possible to estimate \Ysz\ and the cluster gas
625: mass from the SZE data alone, the joint analysis is preferred because
626: it provides the strongest constraints on cluster properties, requires
627: fewer assumptions about the cluster structure and composition, and can
628: be applied to the full 38-cluster sample. Nevertheless, the ability to
629: derive cluster properties from SZE observations
630: will be important for the many \sze\ cluster
631: surveys currently underway \citep{Ruhl2004,Fowler2004,Kaneko2006};
632: these surveys are expected to generate large samples of SZE-selected
633: clusters but will not generally have access to deep X-ray observations
634: for cluster characterization. The gas temperature may also be
635: inferred from multi-frequency SZE observations
636: \citep{hansen2002}.
637:
638: %\subsection{X-ray mass measurements \label{Yx}}
639:
640: Recent work by \citet{kravtsov2006} indicate that the quantity $Y_X
641: \equiv M_{gas} \cdot k_B T_e$, the X-ray analogue of \Ysz, is a low-scatter proxy for the cluster total mass. For the
642: isothermal $\beta$-model used in this paper, the gas mass can be
643: estimated from X-ray data by using Equation \ref{eq:mgas_single}, and
644: thus our data also provide a measurement of $Y_X$. We can
645: therefore compare $Y$ with $Y_X$, in order to establish
646: observationally whether the two quantities are indeed equivalent. In the
647: case of the isothermal $\beta$-model, the integrated Compton-$y$ parameter is
648: an integral of the electron density over a cylinder $\mathcal{C}$ of
649: infinite length along the line of sight, and of area $A= \pi
650: r_{2500}^2$:
651: \begin{eqnarray}
652: Y D_A^2=\left(\frac{k_B \sigma_T T_e}{m_e c^2}\right)
653: \int_{\mathcal{C}} n_e(r) dV = \left(\frac{k_B \sigma_T T_e}{m_e c^2}\right)
654: \frac{1}{m_p \mu_e}\int_{\mathcal{C}} n_e m_p \mu_e dV . \nonumber
655: \end{eqnarray}
656: Since the gas mass is given by an integral over a sphere $\mathcal{S}$
657: of radius $r_{2500}$,
658: \begin{eqnarray}
659: \Mgas = \int_{\mathcal{S}} n_e m_p \mu_e dV \nonumber
660: \end{eqnarray}
661: the relationship between $Y$ and $Y_X$ is
662: \begin{equation}
663: Y D_A^2 = \left(\frac{\sigma_T}{m_e c^2}\right) \frac{1}{m_p \mu_e} C Y_X
664: \label{eq:Y-Yx}
665: \end{equation}
666: where the constant $C=\int_{\mathcal{C}} n_e dV / \int_{\mathcal{S}}
667: n_e dV$ accounts for the different domain of integration of $Y$ and
668: $Y_X$, and depends on the parameters of the $\beta$ model. We
669: calculate $C$ separately for each cluster, and typically find
670: $C\sim$2.
671:
672: In Figure \ref{Y-Yx} we plot $Y$, as derived from the joint SZE/X-ray
673: analysis, against $Y_X$.
674: A fit of the data to the relationship in Equation \ref{eq:Y-Yx} (the
675: dotted line in Figure \ref{Y-Yx}, with no degrees of freedom)
676: results in an acceptable $\chi^2$ statistic, corresponding to
677: a null hypothesis probability of 80.4\%.
678: The agreement with the relationship in
679: Equation \ref{eq:Y-Yx} shows that $Y_X$ is an unbiased
680: estimator of the integrated Compton-$y$ parameter, within the
681: uncertainties of the current measurements.
682:
683:
684: \section{Comparison with theoretical simulations}
685: We compare our results with those of recent cosmological cluster
686: simulations \citep{nagai2006,nagai2007b} that include radiative
687: cooling, UV heating, star formation, and stellar feedback processes
688: in addition to the standard gas dynamics. In Figure \ref{daisuke} we
689: compare 16 clusters simulated at $z$=0 and 0.6 using cooling and star
690: formation feedback processes (in red), the same sets of clusters
691: performed using non-radiative gas dynamics (in green), and our 38
692: clusters observed with \chandra\ and OVRO-BIMA (in black).
693:
694: The best-fit power-law models that describe the two simulations
695: are shown as dashed lines in Figure \ref{daisuke}.
696: A fit of our data to
697: the cooling and star formation model (red dashed line)
698: results in a $\chi^2$ null hypothesis probability of 99.9\%,
699: and the non-radiative model (green dashed line) has a probability of 0.5\%.
700: The
701: comparison indicates that both simulation models show a similar slope
702: to the observed clusters, with the cooling and star formation
703: feedback model providing a better match to the data.
704:
705: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
706:
707: We have investigated scaling relations between the integrated
708: Compton-$y$ parameter \Ysz\ and total mass, gas mass, and gas
709: temperature using 38 clusters observed with \chandra\ and \ovro-\bima.
710: Fits of the \Ysz-\mgas, \Ysz-\mtot\ and \Ysz-$kT$ data to a power-law
711: model agree with the slope predicted by a self-similar model in which
712: the evolution of clusters is dominated by gravitational processes.
713: The normalization of the \Ysz-\mgas\ scaling relation agrees well with
714: the numerical simulations of \citet{nagai2007b}, in which
715: collisionless dynamics of dark matter and gas dynamics are
716: complemented by cooling, star formation and feedback phenomena. The
717: agreement provides observational evidence that non-gravitational
718: phenomena may also be an important factor in the physics of clusters.
719:
720: The redshift coverage of our sample enabled an analysis of the scaling
721: relations as function of redshift, by defining a low redshift sample
722: ($0.14 \leq z \leq 0.30$, 19 clusters) and a high-redshift sample
723: ($0.30 < z \leq 0.89$, 19 clusters). Both samples follow the
724: prediction based on the self-similar model. Our data indicate no
725: significant evolution in the SZE properties of clusters at redshift $z
726: \lsim 1$.
727:
728: We also measure the cluster mass and integrated Y parameter using the
729: SZE data alone, without making use of the \chandra\ spectral and
730: spatial information. These measurements are in good agreement with
731: those based on the joint X-ray/SZE analysis, providing
732: evidence that SZE surveys can be used to determine the number density
733: of galaxy clusters as functions of mass and redshift.
734:
735: \vskip 24 pt
736:
737: \acknowledgments
738:
739: This work was made possible by the skill and dedication of Leon van Speybroeck and
740: his colleagues on the Chandra project, who constructed an exceptional
741: observatory and obtained deep X-ray observations for a large sample of
742: galaxy clusters. We thank E.\ Leitch and the anonymous referee for
743: excellent suggestions on the manuscript.
744: The support of the BIMA and OVRO staff over many
745: years is also gratefully acknowledged, including J.R.\ Forster,
746: C.\ Giovanine, R.\ Lawrence, S.\ Padin, R.\ Plambeck, S.\ Scott and
747: D.\ Woody. We thank C.\ Alexander, K.\ Coble, A.\ Cooray,
748: K.\ Dawson, L.\ Grego, G.\ Holder, W.\ Holzapfel,
749: A.\ Miller, J.\ Mohr, S.\ Patel , E.\ Reese, and P.\ Whitehouse for their outstanding
750: contributions to the SZE instrumentation, observations, and analysis.
751:
752: This work was supported in part by NSF grants AST-0096913 and
753: AST-0604982 and by the KICP NSF Physics Frontier Center grant
754: PHY-0114422.
755: Research at the Owens Valley Radio Observatory
756: and the Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland Array was supported by National
757: Science Foundation grants AST 99-81546 and 02-28963. Calculations
758: were performed at the Space Plasma Interactive Data Analysis and
759: Simulation Laboratory at the Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy
760: Research of the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
761: DN is supported by the Sherman Fairchild Postdoctoral Fellowship at
762: Caltech. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
763:
764: \footnotesize
765: %\bibliography{clusters}
766: \bibliographystyle{apj}
767: \input{ms.bbl}
768:
769: %\input{scaling_table_daisuke.tex}
770: %\input{scaling_table_daisuke_ref.tex}
771: \begin{deluxetable}{llcc|ccccccc}
772: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.85}
773: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
774: \tablecaption{Cluster Parameters from Joint Analysis of X-ray and SZE Data\label{table:results}}
775: \tablehead{Cluster &z & $D_A$ & E(z) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$r_{2500}$} & $kT$ & $M_{gas}$ & $M_{tot}$ & $Y$ & $f_{gas}$ \\
776: & & (Gpc) & & (") & (kpc) & (keV) & ($10^{13} M_{\odot}$) & ($10^{14} M_{\odot}$) & (mJy) & }
777: \startdata
778: Abell~1413\dotfill &0.14 & $ 0.52 $ & $ 1.07 $ & $ 206\pm^{ 5}_{ 5}$ & $ 519\pm^{ 14}_{ 12}$ & $ 7.5\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 2.6\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 2.2\pm^{0.2}_{0.1}$ & $ 2.99\pm^{0.44}_{0.43}$ & $ 0.120\pm^{0.004}_{0.004}$ \\
779: Abell~1689\dotfill &0.18 & $ 0.63 $ & $ 1.09 $ & $ 219\pm^{ 5}_{ 5}$ & $ 664\pm^{ 16}_{ 17}$ & $ 10.5\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 5.1\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 5.0\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 3.79\pm^{0.34}_{0.31}$ & $ 0.102\pm^{0.004}_{0.004}$ \\
780: Abell~1835\dotfill &0.25 & $ 0.81 $ & $ 1.13 $ & $ 172\pm^{ 5}_{ 4}$ & $ 672\pm^{ 20}_{ 17}$ & $ 11.4\pm^{0.7}_{0.6}$ & $ 5.8\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 5.6\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 2.09\pm^{0.17}_{0.16}$ & $ 0.104\pm^{0.005}_{0.005}$ \\
781: Abell~1914\dotfill &0.17 & $ 0.60 $ & $ 1.09 $ & $ 228\pm^{ 5}_{ 4}$ & $ 660\pm^{ 13}_{ 12}$ & $ 9.5\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 4.8\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 4.8\pm^{0.3}_{0.2}$ & $ 3.01\pm^{0.25}_{0.25}$ & $ 0.101\pm^{0.003}_{0.004}$ \\
782: Abell~1995\dotfill &0.32 & $ 0.96 $ & $ 1.18 $ & $ 133\pm^{ 5}_{ 5}$ & $ 621\pm^{ 21}_{ 22}$ & $ 8.2\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 3.5\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 4.7\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 0.75\pm^{0.05}_{0.05}$ & $ 0.074\pm^{0.005}_{0.005}$ \\
783: Abell~2111\dotfill &0.23 & $ 0.76 $ & $ 1.12 $ & $ 141\pm^{ 10}_{ 9}$ & $ 518\pm^{ 36}_{ 33}$ & $ 8.2\pm^{1.0}_{0.8}$ & $ 2.2\pm^{0.3}_{0.2}$ & $ 2.5\pm^{0.6}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.95\pm^{0.21}_{0.20}$ & $ 0.088\pm^{0.008}_{0.008}$ \\
784: Abell~2163\dotfill &0.20 & $ 0.68 $ & $ 1.10 $ & $ 206\pm^{ 3}_{ 3}$ & $ 682\pm^{ 10}_{ 10}$ & $ 14.8\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 8.1\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 5.5\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 6.89\pm^{0.66}_{0.63}$ & $ 0.147\pm^{0.003}_{0.003}$ \\
785: Abell~2204\dotfill &0.15 & $ 0.54 $ & $ 1.08 $ & $ 256\pm^{ 13}_{ 11}$ & $ 671\pm^{ 34}_{ 30}$ & $ 11.2\pm^{0.8}_{0.7}$ & $ 4.7\pm^{0.3}_{0.2}$ & $ 5.0\pm^{0.8}_{0.6}$ & $ 4.43\pm^{0.50}_{0.52}$ & $ 0.096\pm^{0.009}_{0.010}$ \\
786: Abell~2218\dotfill &0.18 & $ 0.63 $ & $ 1.09 $ & $ 191\pm^{ 6}_{ 5}$ & $ 581\pm^{ 18}_{ 16}$ & $ 7.8\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 3.0\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 3.3\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 1.94\pm^{0.19}_{0.18}$ & $ 0.090\pm^{0.004}_{0.004}$ \\
787: Abell~2259\dotfill &0.16 & $ 0.57 $ & $ 1.08 $ & $ 172\pm^{ 8}_{ 8}$ & $ 476\pm^{ 23}_{ 22}$ & $ 5.8\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 1.8\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 1.8\pm^{0.3}_{0.2}$ & $ 0.82\pm^{0.30}_{0.29}$ & $ 0.101\pm^{0.007}_{0.007}$ \\
788: Abell~2261\dotfill &0.22 & $ 0.73 $ & $ 1.12 $ & $ 148\pm^{ 7}_{ 6}$ & $ 525\pm^{ 24}_{ 22}$ & $ 7.4\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 3.0\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 2.6\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 1.34\pm^{0.16}_{0.16}$ & $ 0.119\pm^{0.008}_{0.008}$ \\
789: Abell~267\dotfill &0.23 & $ 0.76 $ & $ 1.12 $ & $ 132\pm^{ 9}_{ 7}$ & $ 484\pm^{ 31}_{ 28}$ & $ 5.9\pm^{0.7}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.2\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 2.0\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.72\pm^{0.10}_{0.09}$ & $ 0.110\pm^{0.011}_{0.011}$ \\
790: Abell~370\dotfill &0.38 & $ 1.07 $ & $ 1.22 $ & $ 97\pm^{ 4}_{ 4}$ & $ 508\pm^{ 21}_{ 21}$ & $ 8.7\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.8\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 2.8\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.71\pm^{0.09}_{0.08}$ & $ 0.100\pm^{0.005}_{0.005}$ \\
791: Abell~586\dotfill &0.17 & $ 0.60 $ & $ 1.09 $ & $ 182\pm^{ 8}_{ 7}$ & $ 529\pm^{ 23}_{ 20}$ & $ 6.4\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 2.3\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 2.5\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 1.03\pm^{0.14}_{0.14}$ & $ 0.091\pm^{0.007}_{0.007}$ \\
792: Abell~611\dotfill &0.29 & $ 0.90 $ & $ 1.16 $ & $ 111\pm^{ 4}_{ 3}$ & $ 482\pm^{ 16}_{ 15}$ & $ 6.8\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 2.4\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 2.1\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 0.54\pm^{0.06}_{0.06}$ & $ 0.111\pm^{0.006}_{0.006}$ \\
793: Abell~665\dotfill &0.18 & $ 0.63 $ & $ 1.09 $ & $ 162\pm^{ 4}_{ 3}$ & $ 490\pm^{ 11}_{ 10}$ & $ 8.4\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 2.6\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 2.0\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 2.68\pm^{0.24}_{0.25}$ & $ 0.131\pm^{0.004}_{0.004}$ \\
794: Abell~68\dotfill &0.26 & $ 0.83 $ & $ 1.14 $ & $ 153\pm^{ 10}_{ 9}$ & $ 616\pm^{ 40}_{ 37}$ & $ 9.6\pm^{1.1}_{1.0}$ & $ 3.6\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 4.3\pm^{0.9}_{0.7}$ & $ 1.01\pm^{0.16}_{0.15}$ & $ 0.084\pm^{0.009}_{0.008}$ \\
795: Abell~697\dotfill &0.28 & $ 0.88 $ & $ 1.15 $ & $ 134\pm^{ 5}_{ 5}$ & $ 568\pm^{ 21}_{ 21}$ & $ 10.2\pm^{0.7}_{0.6}$ & $ 4.4\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 3.5\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 1.67\pm^{0.19}_{0.19}$ & $ 0.126\pm^{0.007}_{0.006}$ \\
796: Abell~773\dotfill &0.22 & $ 0.73 $ & $ 1.12 $ & $ 148\pm^{ 6}_{ 5}$ & $ 527\pm^{ 20}_{ 19}$ & $ 8.2\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.7\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 2.6\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 1.68\pm^{0.19}_{0.19}$ & $ 0.106\pm^{0.006}_{0.005}$ \\
797: CL~J0016+1609\dotfill &0.54 & $ 1.31 $ & $ 1.34 $ & $ 80\pm^{ 3}_{ 3}$ & $ 507\pm^{ 19}_{ 19}$ & $ 10.5\pm^{0.6}_{0.6}$ & $ 4.4\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 3.3\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.73\pm^{0.06}_{0.06}$ & $ 0.131\pm^{0.007}_{0.006}$ \\
798: CL~J1226+3332\dotfill &0.89 & $ 1.60 $ & $ 1.65 $ & $ 66\pm^{ 7}_{ 6}$ & $ 512\pm^{ 58}_{ 50}$ & $ 13.5\pm^{2.7}_{2.2}$ & $ 3.9\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 5.2\pm^{2.0}_{1.4}$ & $ 0.35\pm^{0.05}_{0.05}$ & $ 0.075\pm^{0.015}_{0.014}$ \\
799: MACS~J0647.7+7015\dotfill &0.58 & $ 1.36 $ & $ 1.37 $ & $ 92\pm^{ 6}_{ 6}$ & $ 606\pm^{ 41}_{ 38}$ & $ 14.1\pm^{1.8}_{1.6}$ & $ 4.9\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 6.0\pm^{1.3}_{1.1}$ & $ 0.62\pm^{0.08}_{0.07}$ & $ 0.082\pm^{0.009}_{0.008}$ \\
800: MACS~J0744.8+3927\dotfill &0.69 & $ 1.47 $ & $ 1.47 $ & $ 59\pm^{ 3}_{ 3}$ & $ 420\pm^{ 25}_{ 23}$ & $ 8.1\pm^{0.8}_{0.7}$ & $ 3.1\pm^{0.3}_{0.2}$ & $ 2.3\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.34\pm^{0.04}_{0.04}$ & $ 0.136\pm^{0.012}_{0.011}$ \\
801: MACS~J1149.5+2223\dotfill &0.54 & $ 1.31 $ & $ 1.34 $ & $ 71\pm^{ 4}_{ 4}$ & $ 449\pm^{ 25}_{ 23}$ & $ 9.9\pm^{0.8}_{0.7}$ & $ 3.1\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 2.3\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.58\pm^{0.08}_{0.07}$ & $ 0.134\pm^{0.008}_{0.008}$ \\
802: MACS~J1311.0-0310\dotfill &0.49 & $ 1.25 $ & $ 1.30 $ & $ 74\pm^{ 8}_{ 7}$ & $ 448\pm^{ 46}_{ 40}$ & $ 7.2\pm^{1.5}_{1.1}$ & $ 2.1\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 2.2\pm^{0.7}_{0.5}$ & $ 0.28\pm^{0.05}_{0.05}$ & $ 0.097\pm^{0.019}_{0.017}$ \\
803: MACS~J1423.8+2404\dotfill &0.55 & $ 1.32 $ & $ 1.35 $ & $ 66\pm^{ 2}_{ 2}$ & $ 422\pm^{ 14}_{ 13}$ & $ 7.0\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 2.3\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 1.9\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 0.28\pm^{0.05}_{0.05}$ & $ 0.116\pm^{0.006}_{0.006}$ \\
804: MACS~J2129.4-0741\dotfill &0.57 & $ 1.35 $ & $ 1.36 $ & $ 73\pm^{ 5}_{ 4}$ & $ 474\pm^{ 30}_{ 27}$ & $ 8.6\pm^{1.0}_{0.8}$ & $ 3.3\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 2.8\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 0.39\pm^{0.05}_{0.05}$ & $ 0.116\pm^{0.011}_{0.011}$ \\
805: MACS~J2214.9-1359\dotfill &0.48 & $ 1.23 $ & $ 1.29 $ & $ 91\pm^{ 5}_{ 5}$ & $ 547\pm^{ 30}_{ 29}$ & $ 10.2\pm^{1.0}_{0.9}$ & $ 3.9\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 3.9\pm^{0.7}_{0.6}$ & $ 0.77\pm^{0.09}_{0.08}$ & $ 0.102\pm^{0.009}_{0.008}$ \\
806: MACS~J2228.5+2036\dotfill &0.41 & $ 1.12 $ & $ 1.24 $ & $ 81\pm^{ 4}_{ 4}$ & $ 444\pm^{ 22}_{ 20}$ & $ 8.4\pm^{0.8}_{0.7}$ & $ 2.8\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 2.0\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.94\pm^{0.11}_{0.11}$ & $ 0.138\pm^{0.009}_{0.009}$ \\
807: MS~0451.6-0305\dotfill &0.55 & $ 1.32 $ & $ 1.35 $ & $ 82\pm^{ 4}_{ 3}$ & $ 526\pm^{ 23}_{ 22}$ & $ 9.9\pm^{0.8}_{0.7}$ & $ 4.8\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 3.8\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 0.66\pm^{0.05}_{0.05}$ & $ 0.128\pm^{0.009}_{0.009}$ \\
808: %MS~1054.5-0321\dotfill &0.83 & $ 1.57 $ & $ 1.59 $ & $ 31\pm^{ 5}_{ 9}$ & $ 239\pm^{ 37}_{ 69}$ & $ 9.2\pm^{1.0}_{0.8}$ & $ 0.8\pm^{0.3}_{0.5}$ & $ 0.5\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.15\pm^{0.05}_{0.07}$ & $ 0.154\pm^{0.013}_{0.013}$ \\
809: MS~1054.5-0321\dotfill &0.83 & $ 1.57 $ & $ 1.59 $ & $ 89\pm^{ 8}_{ 7}$ & $686\pm^{106}_{198}$ & $ 9.8\pm^{1.1}_{0.9}$ & $ 7.4\pm^{1.2}_{1.0}$ & $ 4.5\pm^{1.4}_{1.0}$ & $ 0.77\pm^{0.11}_{0.10}$ & $ 0.164\pm^{0.019}_{0.019}$ \\
810: MS~1137.5+6625\dotfill &0.78 & $ 1.54 $ & $ 1.55 $ & $ 42\pm^{ 3}_{ 3}$ & $ 311\pm^{ 25}_{ 22}$ & $ 4.5\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 1.2\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 1.0\pm^{0.3}_{0.2}$ & $ 0.09\pm^{0.01}_{0.01}$ & $ 0.115\pm^{0.014}_{0.013}$ \\
811: MS~1358.4+6245\dotfill &0.33 & $ 0.98 $ & $ 1.19 $ & $ 113\pm^{ 6}_{ 5}$ & $ 539\pm^{ 28}_{ 25}$ & $ 8.9\pm^{0.9}_{0.7}$ & $ 2.5\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 3.1\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.56\pm^{0.08}_{0.08}$ & $ 0.081\pm^{0.006}_{0.006}$ \\
812: MS~2053.7-0449\dotfill &0.58 & $ 1.36 $ & $ 1.37 $ & $ 54\pm^{ 5}_{ 5}$ & $ 358\pm^{ 34}_{ 30}$ & $ 4.8\pm^{0.7}_{0.6}$ & $ 0.9\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 1.2\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.09\pm^{0.02}_{0.02}$ & $ 0.076\pm^{0.012}_{0.011}$ \\
813: RX~J1347.5-1145\dotfill &0.45 & $ 1.19 $ & $ 1.27 $ & $ 122\pm^{ 4}_{ 4}$ & $ 706\pm^{ 22}_{ 21}$ & $ 16.5\pm^{1.0}_{0.9}$ & $ 8.8\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 8.1\pm^{0.8}_{0.7}$ & $ 1.62\pm^{0.18}_{0.18}$ & $ 0.109\pm^{0.006}_{0.005}$ \\
814: RX~J1716.4+6708\dotfill &0.81 & $ 1.56 $ & $ 1.57 $ & $ 45\pm^{ 4}_{ 4}$ & $ 341\pm^{ 33}_{ 29}$ & $ 6.6\pm^{1.1}_{0.9}$ & $ 1.2\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 1.4\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.10\pm^{0.03}_{0.02}$ & $ 0.088\pm^{0.013}_{0.011}$ \\
815: RX~J2129.7+0005\dotfill &0.24 & $ 0.78 $ & $ 1.13 $ & $ 128\pm^{ 5}_{ 5}$ & $ 486\pm^{ 20}_{ 19}$ & $ 6.7\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.6\pm^{0.2}_{0.1}$ & $ 2.1\pm^{0.3}_{0.2}$ & $ 0.66\pm^{0.11}_{0.10}$ & $ 0.124\pm^{0.008}_{0.008}$ \\
816: ZW~3146\dotfill &0.29 & $ 0.90 $ & $ 1.16 $ & $ 132\pm^{ 3}_{ 3}$ & $ 574\pm^{ 11}_{ 11}$ & $ 8.3\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 4.4\pm^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $ 3.6\pm^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $ 0.88\pm^{0.11}_{0.11}$ & $ 0.122\pm^{0.004}_{0.004}$ \\
817: \enddata
818: \end{deluxetable}
819:
820:
821:
822:
823: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
824: \tabletypesize{\small}
825: \tablecaption{Scaling Relations from
826: Joint Analysis of X-ray and SZE Data\label{table:scaling}}
827: \tablehead{Scaling&\multicolumn{2}{c}{All
828: clusters}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{0.14$\leq z
829: \leq$0.30}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{0.31$< z \leq$0.89}\\
830: relation & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hrulefill} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hrulefill} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hrulefill}\\
831: & $A$ & $B$ & $A$ & $B$ & $A$ & $B$}
832: \startdata
833: \fgas,\mgas & -2.86$\pm$1.09 & 0.14$\pm$0.08 & -2.60$\pm$1.79 & 0.12$\pm$0.13 &-3.00$\pm$1.37 & 0.15$\pm$0.10 \\
834: %\Ysz,$kT$ & -6.17$\pm$0.23 & 2.30$\pm$0.25 &-6.29$\pm$0.36 & 2.42$\pm$0.37 & -6.04$\pm$0.31 & 2.18$\pm$0.32\\
835: %\Ysz,\mgas & -22.64$\pm$1.90 & 1.37$\pm$0.14 & -24.89$\pm$3.61 & 1.53$\pm$0.26 & -21.10$\pm$2.21 & 1.25$\pm$0.16\\
836: %\Ysz,\Mtot & -26.39$\pm$2.90 & 1.53$\pm$0.20&-28.95$\pm$5.14 & 1.71$\pm$0.34 & -24.10$\pm$3.38 & 1.38$\pm$0.23\\
837: \Ysz,$kT$ & -6.24$\pm$0.22 & 2.37$\pm$0.23 &-6.33$\pm$0.32 & 2.46$\pm$0.34 & -6.13$\pm$0.30 & 2.27$\pm$0.30\\
838: \Ysz,\mgas & -23.25$\pm$1.77 & 1.41$\pm$0.13 & -25.86$\pm$3.45 & 1.60$\pm$0.25 & -21.43$\pm$3.00 & 1.28$\pm$0.15\\
839: \Ysz,\Mtot & -28.23$\pm$3.00 & 1.66$\pm$0.20&-31.20$\pm$5.35 & 1.87$\pm$0.35 & -25.45$\pm$3.46 & 1.47$\pm$0.23\\
840:
841: \enddata
842: \end{deluxetable}
843:
844: %\input{scaling_table_sz.tex}
845: \begin{deluxetable}{lc|ccccc}
846: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.85}
847: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
848: \tablecaption{Cluster Parameters from Analysis of SZE Data\label{table:sz-results}}
849: \tablehead{Cluster & $z$ & $r_{2500}$ & $kT$ & $M_{gas}$ & $M_{tot}$ & $Y$ \\
850: & & (") & (keV) & ($10^{13}\; M_{\odot}$) & ($10^{14}\; M_{\odot}$) & ($10^{-10}$) }
851: \startdata
852: Abell~1689\dotfill &0.18 & $ 196\pm^{ 8}_{ 8}$ & $ 8.0\pm^{0.8}_{0.7}$ & $ 4.2\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 3.6\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 1.88\pm^{0.49}_{0.38}$ \\
853: Abell~1835\dotfill &0.25 & $ 169\pm^{ 5}_{ 5}$ & $ 11.4\pm^{1.0}_{0.9}$ & $ 6.1\pm^{0.6}_{0.6}$ & $ 5.3\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.66\pm^{0.60}_{0.48}$ \\
854: Abell~1914\dotfill &0.17 & $ 212\pm^{ 10}_{ 9}$ & $ 8.5\pm^{1.0}_{0.8}$ & $ 4.5\pm^{0.7}_{0.6}$ & $ 3.9\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.39\pm^{0.77}_{0.54}$ \\
855: Abell~1995\dotfill &0.32 & $ 117\pm^{ 3}_{ 3}$ & $ 8.4\pm^{0.6}_{0.6}$ & $ 3.7\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 3.2\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.84\pm^{0.16}_{0.14}$ \\
856: Abell~2111\dotfill &0.23 & $ 124\pm^{ 9}_{ 9}$ & $ 5.4\pm^{1.6}_{1.0}$ & $ 2.0\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 1.7\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.45\pm^{0.36}_{0.18}$ \\
857: Abell~2163\dotfill &0.20 & $ 229\pm^{ 13}_{ 12}$ & $ 15.6\pm^{2.4}_{2.0}$ & $ 8.7\pm^{1.6}_{1.3}$ & $ 7.5\pm^{1.4}_{1.2}$ & $ 8.03\pm^{3.16}_{2.26}$ \\
858: Abell~2218\dotfill &0.18 & $ 206\pm^{ 12}_{ 11}$ & $ 10.0\pm^{1.5}_{1.3}$ & $ 4.8\pm^{0.9}_{0.8}$ & $ 4.1\pm^{0.8}_{0.6}$ & $ 3.20\pm^{1.24}_{0.90}$ \\
859: Abell~2261\dotfill &0.22 & $ 146\pm^{ 10}_{ 8}$ & $ 6.4\pm^{1.0}_{0.8}$ & $ 2.9\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.5\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.76\pm^{0.34}_{0.21}$ \\
860: Abell~267\dotfill &0.23 & $ 138\pm^{ 7}_{ 7}$ & $ 6.5\pm^{1.0}_{0.8}$ & $ 2.7\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 2.3\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.75\pm^{0.30}_{0.21}$ \\
861: Abell~370\dotfill &0.38 & $ 96\pm^{ 4}_{ 3}$ & $ 7.3\pm^{0.8}_{0.7}$ & $ 3.0\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 2.6\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.45\pm^{0.13}_{0.10}$ \\
862: Abell~665\dotfill &0.18 & $ 181\pm^{ 12}_{ 11}$ & $ 7.4\pm^{1.6}_{1.1}$ & $ 3.3\pm^{0.7}_{0.6}$ & $ 2.8\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 1.55\pm^{0.89}_{0.51}$ \\
863: Abell~697\dotfill &0.28 & $ 130\pm^{ 13}_{ 10}$ & $ 8.3\pm^{2.2}_{1.5}$ & $ 3.7\pm^{1.2}_{0.8}$ & $ 3.2\pm^{1.0}_{0.7}$ & $ 0.99\pm^{0.75}_{0.38}$ \\
864: Abell~773\dotfill &0.22 & $ 150\pm^{ 9}_{ 8}$ & $ 6.9\pm^{1.0}_{0.8}$ & $ 3.1\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.7\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.93\pm^{0.38}_{0.26}$ \\
865: CL~J0016+1609\dotfill &0.54 & $ 81\pm^{ 2}_{ 3}$ & $ 12.6\pm^{0.9}_{0.9}$ & $ 4.1\pm^{0.4}_{0.5}$ & $ 3.5\pm^{0.3}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.92\pm^{0.11}_{0.11}$ \\
866: CL~J1226+3332\dotfill &0.89 & $ 53\pm^{ 1}_{ 2}$ & $ 9.2\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 3.2\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 2.7\pm^{0.2}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.27\pm^{0.04}_{0.03}$ \\
867: MACS~J0647.7+7015\dotfill &0.58 & $ 72\pm^{ 3}_{ 3}$ & $ 8.6\pm^{1.1}_{0.9}$ & $ 3.4\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 2.9\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.38\pm^{0.12}_{0.09}$ \\
868: MACS~J1311.0-0310\dotfill &0.49 & $ 73\pm^{ 4}_{ 5}$ & $ 6.8\pm^{0.8}_{0.8}$ & $ 2.4\pm^{0.4}_{0.5}$ & $ 2.1\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.26\pm^{0.08}_{0.07}$ \\
869: MACS~J2214.9-1359\dotfill &0.48 & $ 91\pm^{ 2}_{ 2}$ & $ 10.2\pm^{0.7}_{0.7}$ & $ 4.5\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 3.9\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.74\pm^{0.13}_{0.12}$ \\
870: MACS~J2228.5+2036\dotfill &0.41 & $ 100\pm^{ 3}_{ 4}$ & $ 11.0\pm^{1.9}_{1.4}$ & $ 4.3\pm^{0.5}_{0.5}$ & $ 3.7\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 1.03\pm^{0.37}_{0.27}$ \\
871: MS~0451.6-0305\dotfill &0.55 & $ 84\pm^{ 3}_{ 3}$ & $ 11.3\pm^{1.2}_{1.0}$ & $ 4.7\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 4.1\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.79\pm^{0.21}_{0.16}$ \\
872: MS~1137.5+6625\dotfill &0.78 & $ 49\pm^{ 2}_{ 3}$ & $ 6.4\pm^{0.4}_{0.4}$ & $ 1.9\pm^{0.2}_{0.3}$ & $ 1.6\pm^{0.2}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.12\pm^{0.02}_{0.02}$ \\
873: MS~1358.4+6245\dotfill &0.33 & $ 99\pm^{ 4}_{ 5}$ & $ 6.4\pm^{0.9}_{0.6}$ & $ 2.4\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 2.1\pm^{0.3}_{0.3}$ & $ 0.40\pm^{0.12}_{0.09}$ \\
874: RX~J1347.5-1145\dotfill &0.45 & $ 108\pm^{ 4}_{ 4}$ & $ 12.7\pm^{1.1}_{1.0}$ & $ 6.5\pm^{0.7}_{0.6}$ & $ 5.6\pm^{0.6}_{0.6}$ & $ 1.41\pm^{0.32}_{0.27}$ \\
875: RX~J2129.7+0005\dotfill &0.24 & $ 123\pm^{ 9}_{ 24}$ & $ 7.9\pm^{3.9}_{2.1}$ & $ 2.1\pm^{0.5}_{1.0}$ & $ 1.8\pm^{0.4}_{0.9}$ & $ 0.80\pm^{0.56}_{0.35}$ \\
876: ZW~3146\dotfill &0.29 & $ 128\pm^{ 6}_{ 6}$ & $ 8.3\pm^{1.0}_{0.9}$ & $ 3.9\pm^{0.6}_{0.5}$ & $ 3.3\pm^{0.5}_{0.4}$ & $ 0.94\pm^{0.31}_{0.24}$ \\
877: \enddata
878: \end{deluxetable}
879:
880:
881: \begin{figure}[!h]
882: \includegraphics[width=4.0in]{f1.eps}
883: \caption{Dependence of \fgas\ on \mgas; open squares (in black) are clusters at $0.14\leq z \leq 0.30$,
884: open diamonds (in red)
885: are clusters at $0.30 < z \leq 0.89$. The gas fraction at \rtfh\ shows no evidence
886: of evolution with mass for the
887: clusters in this sample.
888: \label{fig:fgas}}
889: \end{figure}
890:
891: \begin{figure}[!h]
892: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f2a.eps}
893: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f2b.eps}
894: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f2c.eps}
895: \caption{Scaling relations between the \sze\ \Ysz\
896: and \mgas, \mtot\ and $kT_e$. Open squares (in black) are clusters at $0.14\leq z \leq 0.30$,
897: open diamonds (in
898: red) are clusters at $0.30 < z \leq 0.89$. All measurements follow simple power-law models
899: with indices that are consistent with the values of the self-similar scaling theory
900: (Table \ref{table:results}).\label{fig:scaling}}
901: \end{figure}
902:
903: \begin{figure}
904: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f3a.eps}
905: \hspace{-0.0cm}
906: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f3b.eps}
907: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f3c.eps}
908: \hspace{-0.0cm}
909: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f3d.eps}
910: \caption{Comparison between cluster parameters derived from joint analysis of
911: X-ray and SZE data ($x$ axis) and those derived from SZE data ($y$ axis)
912: following the procedure of Section~\ref{sz-x}. Dashed lines correspond to
913: $y=x$.\label{X-SZ-comparison}}
914: \end{figure}
915:
916: \begin{figure}
917: \includegraphics[width=3.8in]{f4.eps}
918: \caption{Comparison between the \sze\ \Ysz\ parameter and the X-ray quantity $Y_X$
919: (see Section \ref{sz-x} for explanation of the normalization constant);
920: open squares (in black) are clusters at $0.14\leq z \leq 0.30$,
921: open diamonds (in
922: red) are clusters at $0.30 < z \leq 0.89$. The dashed black line corresponds to $y=x$.\label{Y-Yx}}
923: \end{figure}
924:
925: \begin{figure}
926: \includegraphics[width=4.4in]{f5.eps}
927: \caption{$M_{gas}$ vs. $Y$ for simulated and observed clusters. Open
928: squares (in black) are OVRO/BIMA/Chandra measurements.
929: Also shown are simulated
930: clusters from a cooling and star-formation feedback model
931: (red circles) and simulated clusters from a non-radiative model
932: (green triangles) from
933: \citet{nagai2006}. For comparison, all of the $M_{gas}$ and $Y$ quantities are integrated over a spherical volume,
934: as described in Section~\ref{sz-x}.
935: Open symbols represent simulated clusters at $z$=0 and
936: filled symbols represent simulated clusters at $z$=0.6. The
937: power-law fits to the simulated clusters (dashed lines) are
938: $A=-25.83\pm0.52$, $B=1.58\pm 0.04$ for the cooling/star-formation model and
939: $A=-25.79\pm0.80$, $B=1.56\pm 0.06$ for the non-radiative model.\label{daisuke}}
940: \end{figure}
941:
942: \end{document}
943: