1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

3: %\pagestyle{empty}              % No page numbers, headers, footers, etc.

4: %\usepackage{lscape}

5: %\usepackage{graphpap}

6: %\usepackage{color}

7: %\usepackage{wrapfig}

8: %\usepackage{graphicx}

9: %\usepackage{color}

10: %\usepackage{latexsym}

11: %\usepackage{fancybox}

12: %\usepackage{epsfig}

13: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

14: \usepackage{ae,aecompl}

15: 

16: %===============================================================================

17: % Bibliography packages

18: %===============================================================================

19: %\usepackage{natbib}

20: \bibliographystyle{apj}

21: %===============================================================================

22: % LaTeX macros - personalize as desired.

23: %===============================================================================

24: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.,~}}

25: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.,~}}

26: \newcommand{\cf}{cf.,~}

27: \newcommand\etal{et~al.~}

28: \newcommand{\lam}{$\lambda$}

29: \renewcommand{\deg}{\hbox{$^\circ$}}

30: %===============================================================================

31: % Beginning of document

32: %===============================================================================

33: \begin{document}

34: %===============================================================================

35: \title {Why Do Only Some Galaxy Clusters Have Cool Cores?}

36: %===============================================================================

37: \author{Jack~O.~Burns\altaffilmark{1}, Eric~J.~Hallman\altaffilmark{1,2}, Brennan Gantner\altaffilmark{1},Patrick~M.~Motl\altaffilmark{3},Michael~L.~Norman\altaffilmark{4}}

38: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, Department of Astrophysical \& Planetary Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309}

39: \altaffiltext{2}{National Science Foundation Astronomy and

40:   Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow}

41: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

42: Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803} 

43: \altaffiltext{4}{Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California-San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093}

44: \email{jack.burns@cu.edu}

45: 

46: \begin{abstract}

47: Flux-limited X-ray samples indicate that about half of rich galaxy

48: clusters have cool cores.  Why do only some clusters have cool cores

49: while others do not?  In this paper, cosmological N-body + Eulerian

50: hydrodynamic simulations, including radiative cooling and heating, are

51: used to address this question as we examine the formation and

52: evolution of cool core (CC) and non-cool core (NCC) clusters.  These

53: adaptive mesh refinement simulations produce both CC and NCC clusters

54: in the same volume.  They have a peak resolution of 15.6 $h^{-1}$ kpc

55: within a $(256~ h^{-1} Mpc)^3$ box.  Our simulations suggest that

56: there are important evolutionary differences between CC clusters and

57: their NCC counterparts.  Many of the numerical CC clusters accreted

58: mass more slowly over time and grew enhanced cool cores via

59: hierarchical mergers; when late major mergers occurred, the CC's

60: survived the collisions.  By contrast, NCC clusters experienced major

61: mergers early in their evolution that destroyed embryonic cool cores

62: and produced conditions that prevented CC re-formation.  As a result,

63: our simulations predict observationally testable distinctions in the

64: properties of CC and NCC beyond the core regions in clusters. In

65: particular, we find differences between CC versus NCC clusters in the

66: shapes of X-ray surface brightness profiles, between the temperatures

67: and  hardness ratios beyond the cores, between the distribution of

68: masses, and between their supercluster environs.  It also appears that

69: CC clusters are no closer to hydrostatic equilibrium than NCC

70: clusters, an issue important for precision cosmology measurements. 

71: 

72: \end{abstract}

73: \keywords{cool cores --- galaxies: clusters: general --- cosmology: theory --- hydrodynamics --- methods: numerical --- intergalactic medium }

74: %===============================================================================

75: %===============================================================================

76: \section{Introduction}

77: Clusters of galaxies with ``cool cores'' have peaked X-ray emission

78: (\ie excess above that extrapolated inward from a $\beta$-model fit of

79: the X-ray profile beyond the core) coincident with supergiant

80: elliptical galaxies.  They have central cooling times typically ${<0.1

81: {H_o}^{-1}}$ and central gas temperatures $\approx$30-40\% of the

82: virial temperatures \cite[\eg][]{Ikebe97,lsb02,pete03}.  Cores of

83: cool gas are found to be common in flux-limited samples, although a

84: selection bias is likely present because of the strongly peaked X-ray

85: emission in these clusters.  From a sample composed of clusters detected with {\it Einstein}, \citet{white97} found cool cores (CC) in $\approx$60\% of

86: their 207 cluster sample.  From a sample of 55 flux-limited {\it

87: ROSAT}-observed clusters, \citet{peres} found CC’s in over

88: 70\% of their galaxy clusters.  More recently, \citet{chen07}

89: identified 49\% of their 106 clusters as having cool cores in a

90: flux-limited sample, HIFLUGCS, based upon both {\it ROSAT} and {\it ASCA}

91: observations. 

92: 

93: Why do some, but not all, galaxy clusters contain cool cores?  To answer this question, we must explore the origin and evolution of cool cores galaxy clusters.  The earliest and simplest model assumed clusters to be spherical, isolated systems where ``cooling flows'' formed; as radiating gas loses

94: pressure support, cooling gas flows inwards to higher density values

95: which further accelerates the cooling rate \cite[\eg][]{fabian02}.  But,

96: the predicted end-products of this mass infall (\eg star formation,

97: HI, CO) have not been observed and the central temperatures indicate

98: that the gas at the cores has only moderately cooled \cite[see review by][]

99: {dv04}.  The current paradigm calls for heating to offset cooling,

100: possibly by AGNs via strong shocks \cite[\eg][]{heinz98} or weak

101: shocks \cite[\eg][]{fabian03}, or by AGNs $+$ thermal conduction

102: \cite[\eg][]{rusz04}, or by AGNs $+$ preheating

103: \cite[\eg][]{mccarthyheat}, or by Alfv{$\acute{e}$}n waves induced by

104: AGNs in the inner core and cluster mergers in the outer cores

105: \cite[\eg][]{fujita07}. 

106:   

107: The simple cooling flow model did not incorporate the important

108: effects of mergers and on-going mass accretion from the supercluster

109: environment in which these clusters reside

110: \cite[\eg][]{motl04,poole06}.  \citet{burns97} and \citet{gomez02}

111: first examined the result of cluster collisions in 2-D numerical

112: simulations that involved two idealized spherical clusters with

113: $\beta$-model density profiles and central cool cores that collided

114: together head-on.  They found that the ram pressure from major mergers

115: (\ie subcluster to cluster mass ratios of $\approx$15\% to 100\%) tends to disrupt the cool cores.

116: Similarly, \citet{rt02} and \citet{rick01} found

117: disruptions of cool cores by major mergers between spherical clusters

118: using 3-D simulations.  These numerical models may suggest that the

119: numbers of cool cores diminish as clusters grow via mergers (\ie

120: fewer cool cores in richer clusters at smaller $z$). 

121: 

122: More recently, we performed numerical simulations of the formation and

123: evolution of clusters in a cosmological context using the adaptive

124: mesh refinement N-body/hydro code {\it Enzo}, aimed at further

125: understanding cool cores \citep{burns04,motl04}.  The gas

126: in these clusters was evolved with radiative cooling but no heating.

127: We found that cooling modifies not only the cores but also

128: significantly alters the cluster appearance out to the virial radius

129: \cite[see also][]{akah}.  As new subcluster halos fall into a

130: cluster, they gradually donate cool gas so that the cool cores grow

131: over time.  Most mergers are oblique with halos spiraling into the

132: cluster centers and gently bequeathing cool gas to enhance the cores.

133: Thus, in this model, cool cores themselves grow hierarchically via the

134: merger/accretion process.  This model predicts that even cool core

135: clusters should possess a variety of substructures such as bullet subclusters and cold fronts, similar to those

136: observed in Abell clusters \cite[\eg][] {hallmark,bullet, shocks}.  It

137: also suggests cool cores may grow stronger (\ie cooler and denser) as

138: rich clusters increase in mass at recent epochs. 

139: 

140: The \citet{motl04} simulations were limited by the baryonic physics

141: that included only radiative cooling.  This model suffers from the

142: well-known cooling catastrophe \cite[\eg][]{whiterees} that results

143: in an overproduction of cool cores and an increase in the baryon

144: fraction \cite[\eg][]{knv05}.  Nearly every dark

145: matter potential well in this simulation was occupied by a halo of gas

146: that had cooled significantly.  Furthermore, these cool cores are

147: ``hard'', generally denser, colder, and with more distinct boundaries than are observed.  The steep density contrast shelters the cores from ram pressure stripping, thus allowing them to survive and grow robustly during mergers with other halos.  Clearly, a more realistic model of cool cores must involve

148: added physical processes that ``soften'' the cores, thus making some

149: susceptible to disruption during mergers.  Heating by star formation \cite[\eg][]{valdarnini} or by AGNs would potentially soften the cores.  Additional softening effects may include thermal conduction \cite[\eg][]{zaknar,rusz02} along with mixing/heating from radio jet/lobe entrainment, and weak shocks and turbulent heating arising from halo mergers

150: \cite[\eg][]{burns98,bk02,fujita,vd05,math06}.  

151: 

152: In this paper, we present {\it Enzo} cosmology simulations that include radiative cooling, star formation (\ie a mass

153: sink for cold gas), and heating \cite[see also][]{motl05,hall06}.

154: Unlike  previous simulations, our cooling $+$ heating prescription has

155: succeeded in producing both cool core and non-cool core clusters

156: within the same computational volume.  In addition to the somewhat

157: more realistic baryonic physics, these simulations have the advantage

158: of bigger volumes and larger samples of clusters than in previous

159: computational simulations \citep{motl04, knv05}.  Thus, we have the

160: dataset to examine evolutionary effects in these numerical clusters

161: and can address the question in the title of this paper with good

162: statistics.  In Section 2, we describe the new simulations and the

163: analysis of the numerical clusters.  In Section 3, we compare the

164: statistical properties of our numerical clusters with recent observed

165: samples and show that the agreement is good.  In Section 4, we

166: describe new insights into the formation of cool core (CC) and

167: non-cool core (NCC) clusters from our simulations.  In Section 5, we

168: describe the observational consequences of evolutionary differences in

169: CC and NCC clusters.  Conclusions and a summary are presented in

170: Section 6.  

171: 

172: \section{Numerical Simulations}

173: 

174: The simulations described in this paper were performed with the {\it Enzo}  \footnote{http://lca.ucsd.edu/portal/software/enzo} code \citep{oshea04}

175: that couples an N-body algorithm for evolving the collisionless dark

176: matter particles with an Eulerian hydrodynamics scheme (PPM) that

177: utilizes adaptive mesh refinement.  We adopt a ${\Lambda}$CDM

178: cosmology with ${\Omega}_b$ = 0.026, ${\Omega}_m$ = 0.3,

179: ${\Omega}_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7, h = 0.7, $n_s$=1, and ${\sigma}_8$ =

180: 0.9. The simulation was initialized at z=30 using the CDM transfer

181: function from \cite{powerspectrum}. A low-resolution simulation was

182: first used to identify clusters in a volume of 256 $h^{-1}$ Mpc on a

183: side using 128$^{3}$ dark matter particles and grid zones.

184: High-resolution simulations were then performed that evolved the

185: entire volume but adaptively refined 50 smaller regions (as separate

186: simulations) around the largest clusters identified on the low

187: resolution grid. Each of these 50 regions first is refined with two

188: levels of static nested grids, each having a cell size half that of

189: its parent grid (thus each region has spatial resolution 4 times

190: better than the parent grid).  Within the nested grids, the dark

191: matter particles have a mass resolution of $9 \times 10^9 h^{-1}

192: M_{\odot}$. Then, within the nested static grids, we evolve the

193: simulation with 5 additional levels of adaptive refinement, again with

194: a factor of two increase in spatial resolution at each level. Cells

195: are flagged for refinement based on the local baryonic and dark matter

196: overdensities, refining on thresholds of 8.0 times the minimum value

197: at that level.  The spatial resolution on the finest grid is $15.6

198: h^{-1}$ kpc, adequate to resolve the cool core ($r_{CC} \approx 100

199: h^{-1}$ kpc), but not to probe the details of its structure \cite[see

200:   also][]{motl04}.  

201: 

202: Radiative cooling is calculated from a tabulated cooling curve derived

203: from a Raymond-Smith plasma emission model \citep{brickhouse95}

204: assuming a constant metallicity of 0.3 relative to solar.  The cooling

205: curve is truncated below a temperature of $10^4$ K.  Every timestep,

206: we calculate the energy radiated from each cell and remove that amount

207: of energy from the cluster gas \citep{motl04}. 

208: 

209: As mentioned above, star formation provides one mechanism to soften

210: cool cores by both transforming rapidly cooling gas into star

211: particles (and, therefore, removing the cold gas) and by heating the

212: surrounding gas with energy injected from supernovae.  The star

213: formation and heating that we used follows the prescription outlined

214: by \citet{cen92} and described in \citet{burns04}.  In brief, the code

215: examines all grid cells at the finest refinement level above a

216: specified overdensity.  The gas is converted to collisionless ``star''

217: particles when it is undergoing compression, rapid cooling, and the

218: mass in the cell exceeds the Jean’s mass.  The star formation rate

219: is coupled to the local dynamical time and to a user-specified star

220: formation efficiency.  Once formed, the new star particle deposits

221: energy in the gas to simulate the instantaneous feedback from Type II

222: supernovae.  The strength of the supernova feedback is controlled by

223: another efficiency parameter, $\epsilon$, which gives the thermal

224: energy injected in proportion to the estimated rate of star formation

225: for that particle ($\dot{M}_{star} = M_{star} / t_{dyn}$, and $\dot{e}

226: = \epsilon \dot{M}_{star} c^2$).  The most important parameter in the

227: star formation recipe was found to be the strength of thermal feedback

228: from prompt supernovae.   Through trial and error, we found that the

229: value of $\epsilon = 4.11 \times 10^{-6}$ yields a reasonable fraction

230: of baryons locked in star particles at the current epoch \cite[see

231:   also][]{burns04}.  This value for the feedback parameter corresponds

232: to (for a star formation rate of one solar mass per year) a supernovae

233: rate of one per century with an average energy generation of $7 \times

234: 10^{50}$ ergs per supernova. The chosen star formation parameters also

235: produce both CC and NCC clusters in the same volume. 

236: 

237: In Figure \ref{CC_3panel}, we show a representative example of a cool

238: core cluster at $z=0$ including images of the bolometric X-ray surface

239: brightness, emission-weighted temperature, and the distribution of

240: star particles (see \cite{hall06} for details on construction of

241: synthetic X-ray and temperature images).  These images illustrate the

242: dynamic range in X-ray structures and temperatures typical in

243: simulations of CC clusters, including the off-center infall of lower

244: mass cool halos with leading bow shocks.  The star particle image

245: shows the distribution of sinks of cold gas and extended heating as

246: new halos are accreted. 

247: 

248: The average total energy injection rate for the 10 most massive CC and

249: 10 NCC clusters with a comparable mass distribution (at $z=0$) within

250: our computational volume is $\approx 5 \times 10^{43}$ ergs/sec. This

251: is comparable to the X-ray luminosity for these clusters, thus our

252: prescription produces an approximate balance between heating and

253: cooling.  This energy injection rate is also similar to the typical

254: kinetic luminosities thought to power radio jets/lobes in central

255: cluster radio sources \cite[\eg][]{burns90, eilek06, gentile07,

256:   wise07}.  Thus, we view this energy injection scheme as a

257: generalization of pre-heating of the core from a variety of sources,

258: including AGN.  The average energy injection rate is approximately the

259: same over all epochs between $z \approx 1$ and $z=0$. This feedback is

260: also comparable for CC and NCC clusters of the same mass suggesting,

261: as we show in Section 4, that something other than feedback, namely

262: mergers, drive the evolution of these two cluster types. 

263: 

264: We constructed a catalog of all numerical clusters with $M_{200} >

265: 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ from z=0 to z=2.  ($M_{200}$ is measured out to the

266: radius, $r_{200}$, where the density is 200 times the critical density

267: and is $\approx M_{virial}$ which we will use interchangeably

268: throughout this paper.)  At $z=0$, we have 94 clusters in the sample,

269: but the entire catalog out to $z=2$ contains 1522 clusters (many are

270: the same cluster but at different epochs) giving us one of the largest

271: samples of numerical rich clusters to date from a cosmological

272: simulation.  These cluster simulations are publicly archived

273: \footnote{http://lca.ucsd.edu/data/sca}.  We have constructed a master

274: table of the basic properties of these clusters including the average

275: emission-weighted temperatures, virial and gas masses, $r_{200}$

276: ($\approx$ the virial radius), baryon fractions, $\beta$-model fit

277: parameters, CC or NCC designation, and other properties.  The archive

278: and this table will be presented in \citet{hall07}.  These archived

279: clusters form the basis of the analysis of numerical clusters

280: presented in this paper. 

281: 

282: After visually inspecting all the temperature profiles for the $z=0$

283: clusters, we defined a cool core cluster to be one that has a

284: $\ge$20\% reduction in the central temperature compared to the

285: surrounding region (where the slope of the temperature profile becomes

286: negative; see Figure \ref{transition}) and this candidate baryonic

287: cool core is within one zone ($\approx$16 $h^{-1}$ kpc) of the dark

288: matter density peak.  This is a conservative definition that will

289: yield the smallest number of cool cores, but we estimate that more

290: liberal definitions will not increase the number by more than $\approx

291: 10$\%.  With this strict classification, we find that 16\% of all the

292: numerical clusters with $M_{200} > 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ have cool cores.

293: This is low relative to the most recently observed fraction of 49\%

294: \citep{chen07} that comes from a flux-limited sample (which may be

295: biased somewhat high by flux boosting from the cool cores).  Several

296: possible effects may be operating to reduce the fraction of numerical

297: CC clusters.  First, our baryon fraction (2.6\%) for this simulation

298: is now recognized as low relative to the recent value from WMAP III

299: (4.2\%, \cite{spergel07}).  A higher gas fraction could result in more

300: robust cool cores.  Second, the power spectrum normalization

301: ($\sigma_8$) may play a role in determining the number of CC clusters

302: (our current value of $\sigma_8$ is larger than that inferred from

303: WMAP III).  Third, the numbers of cool cores and their survival during

304: mergers appear to be a sensitive function of the heating/cooling

305: prescription.  Fourth, numerical resolution is likely a factor in the

306: production of cool cores.   

307: 

308: \begin{figure}

309: \begin{center}

310: %\epsscale{0.5}

311: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{f1.eps}

312: 

313: \caption{Representative example of a cool core cluster with $M_{200} = 5 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and $T_{virial} =$ 4.2 keV at $z=0$ from the AMR simulation volume.  The top image is projected synthetic X-ray surface brightness.  The middle image is emission-weighted temperature (blue is $T < 4$ keV and yellow is $T > 5$ keV).  The bottom image is a projection of the star particle density. The field of view is 3.5 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.}

314: \label{CC_3panel}

315: \vspace{-10mm}

316: \end{center}  

317: \end{figure}

318: 

319: \section{Statistics of the X-ray Properties of CC and NCC Numerical Clusters}

320: How well do the general characteristics of our numerical clusters

321: match real galaxy clusters?  This is an important question to address

322: before we propose a new formation scenario for cool core and non-cool

323: core clusters based upon our numerical simulations. 

324: 

325: In the analysis that follows, we calculated the projected average temperatures for our simulated clusters as ``spectroscopic-like" temperatures as in \citet{rasia}. The weighting of temperature is different from the standard

326: emission-weighted temperature, and has been shown to be more consistent with the value of the temperature which would be deduced from an X-ray spectral fit. The calculation performs 

327: \begin{equation}

328: T_{500 SL} = \frac{\int n^2 T^a/T^{1/2} dV}{\int n^2 T^a/T^{3/2} dV}, 

329: \end{equation}

330: where a=0.75 is the value fitted from \citet{mazz04} which best

331: approximates the value of the spectroscopic temperature from X-ray

332: fitting. In our case we have integrated this weighting in a cylinder

333: with a radius of $r_{500}$ around the cluster center.  

334: 

335: In Figure \ref{masstemp}, the distributions of $M_{200}$  and $T_{500 SL}$ (spectroscopic-like temperature inside $r_{500}$) for the

336: overall catalog of clusters, as well as for CC and NCC clusters within

337: the catalog, are shown.  We eliminated the cool core regions in

338: calculating $T_{500 SL}$ so as not to bias these temperature measurements and to use a technique similar to that applied to observations.  As will be discussed further in Section 5, there are fewer high mass, high temperature CC clusters in comparison to NCC clusters in the catalog. At $z=0$, the average mass of the CC clusters is $2.4 \pm 1.4 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and that of the NCC clusters

339: is $4.7 \pm 3.4 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$. 

340: 

341: In Figure \ref{statistics}, we show examples of the most reliable

342: statistics and basic relationships between variables that are

343: typically calculated from X-ray observations.  We compare these

344: numerical data for $z<1$ clusters (to approximately match the range of

345: redshifts for current observations) in our catalog with those obtained

346: from the recent statistically complete sample of clusters observed

347: with {\it ROSAT} and {\it ASCA} as reported by \citet{chen07}.  The

348: numerical clusters were separated into CC and NCC using the criteria

349: noted in Section 2.  In the top panel of Figure \ref{statistics}, we

350: plot the core radius versus the slope ($\beta$) for a $\beta$-model

351: fit to the synthetic X-ray surface brightness profile ($S_X \propto

352: [1+(r/r_c)^2]^{1/2 -3\beta}$). For the CC clusters, the cool cores

353: were excluded from the fit (see Section 5.2 for details).  This plot

354: shows a separation between CC and NCC clusters such that cool core

355: clusters have smaller cores, $r_c$, for a given $\beta$.  This

356: separation and the overall results from these $\beta$-model fits match

357: up very well with Figure 3 in \citet{chen07}. 

358: 

359: The second panel shows the mean gas fraction measured out to $r_{500}$

360: ($f_{gas}(r_{500}) = \langle \rho_{gas}/\rho_{total} \rangle_{500}$)

361: as a function of $T_{500 SL}$.  We attempted to correct our gas fractions by multiplying $f_{gas}$ by the ratio of $\Omega_b$ measured by WMAP III to that which we used in these simulations (Section 2). This brings our gas fractions into somewhat better agreement but we emphasize that they are still low relative to recent observations \cite[\eg][]{mccarthy07, relaxed06, sadat05}.  We do find good qualitative agreement in the shape and distribution of points in this figure relative to Figure 13 in \citet{chen07}.  There may be a slight tendency for reduced gas fractions at lower temperatures, as in observations

362: \cite[\eg][]{lin03, mccarthy07}, but $f_{gas}$ is otherwise constant

363: for $T > 3$ keV.  There is a hint of a weak separation between CC and

364: NCC clusters with cool cores having somewhat higher gas fractions for

365: a given temperature as we will discuss in Section 4. 

366: 

367: The third panel presents a plot of gas mass out to $r_{500}$ against

368: $T_{500 SL}$.  There is a strong scaling relation with comparable

369: power-law slopes for each type of cluster (measured slope index of

370: $1.61 \pm 0.04$ for CC clusters and $1.69 \pm 0.01$ for NCC clusters).

371: This scaling relation is qualitatively similar to that in Figure 11

372: from \citet{chen07}, although the slope is a bit steeper than that

373: observed and expected for self-similar behavior \citep{kaiser86} (\ie

374: $M \propto T^{1.5}$).  \citet{relaxed06} find a flatter slope for the

375: $M$\textendash $T$ relation for their sample of 13 cool core clusters

376: in comparison to other authors who analyzed mixed samples with CC and

377: NCC clusters (and different techniques for measuring mass and

378: temperature).  

379: 

380: In a separate paper \citep{jeltema07}, we also show that the

381: distribution of X-ray substructure within these clusters, as measured

382: using power ratios, agrees with that observed from X-ray observations

383: of nearby rich galaxy clusters.  

384: 

385: Overall, within the noted limitations of these simulations, the

386: average properties and the relationships between basic variables for

387: the numerical clusters agree fairly well with X-ray observations.   

388: 

389:  

390: \begin{figure}

391: \begin{center}

392: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2a.eps}

393: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2b.eps}

394: 

395: \caption{Distribution of the cumulative fractions of total cluster masses and $T_{500 SL}$ (spectroscopic-like temperatures within $r_{500}$) for all clusters (solid) and for each cluster type in the catalog with $M_{200} > 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and $z < 1$ (to approximately match present range of X-ray cluster   observations).} 

396: 

397: \label{masstemp}

398: \vspace{-8mm}

399: \end{center}  

400: \end{figure}

401:  

402: 

403: 

404:  

405: \begin{figure}

406: \begin{center}

407: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f3a.eps}

408: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f3b.eps}

409: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f3c.eps}

410: 

411: \caption{Statistical properties of numerical galaxy clusters with $M_{200} > 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and $z < 1$. Blue are CC and red are NCC clusters.  Top: $\beta$-model fits to $S_X$ profiles of individual clusters provide a measure of the core radius ($r_{core}$) and slope ($\beta$).  Middle: Gas fraction versus   $T_{500 SL}$ (spectroscopic-like temperatures within $r_{500}$).  Bottom: Gas mass out to $r_{500}$ is plotted against $T_{500 SL}$.  Power-law fits, performed separately for CC and NCC clusters, are shown.} 

412: 

413: \label{statistics}

414: \vspace{-8mm}

415: \end{center}  

416: \end{figure}

417:  

418: 

419: 

420: \section{The Formation of CC and NCC Clusters}

421: 

422: With a relatively large sample of numerical clusters, we are able to

423: explore the question of why some clusters have cool cores but others

424: do not.  These simulations indicate that the evolution of CC clusters

425: has followed a different history in terms of accretion of mass from

426: the cosmic web in comparison to NCC clusters.  Although each cluster

427: has its own unique rich and complex evolutionary path that depends

428: upon its initial mass and the density of surrounding halos, there are

429: some clear general trends within this larger dispersion that we see which appear to separate CC from NCC clusters. 

430: 

431: In Figure \ref{evol}, we track the evolution of the median changes in

432: cluster mass ($\dot{M}_{200}$) and the median central temperatures for the 10

433: most massive CC and NCC clusters from $z=0$ back to between $z=1$ and

434: $z=2$ (each cluster is tracked back only to a time determined by our

435: mass cutoff of $M_{200} > 10^{14} M_{\odot}$).  Although we use the ten highest masses in each sample for better statistics, we note that the same

436: qualitative trends as shown in Figure \ref{evol}, but with larger dispersion, are present for samples of CC and NCC clusters selected to have comparable mass

437: distributions.  We illustrate this evolution back to just $z \approx 1.5$ because there are only a few CC clusters at $z>1.5$ above our $10^{14} M_{\odot}$ mass limit (more clusters grow above this mass over time).

438: 

439: The two cluster types show different histories in their median mass accretion rates at early times. At $z=1.5$, NCC clusters experience a median $\approx$75\% change in mass per Gyr, albeit with a not unexpected large dispersion due to the wide range of merger states.  The CC clusters have a median change of $\approx$30\% in mass per Gyr with a smaller dispersion but also for fewer clusters with $M_{200} > 10^{14} M_{\odot}$. Using a K-S test, we find that for $1<z<1.5$, the distributions of mass change for NCC and CC clusters differ at the 95\% level.

440: 

441: {\it The NCC clusters demonstrate a trend of experiencing major mergers early   in their histories up to $z \approx 0.5$, which destroy any initial cool cores, then they settle down to a more quiescent state thereafter}.  Here we define a ``major'' merger as one that has the potential for disrupting a nascent cool core, usually accreting $\ge$50\% of the cluster's previous mass over a timescale of $\approx$1 Gyr.  {\it CC clusters, on the other hand, avoid mergers   with high fractional mass changes early in their histories and instead grow slowly such that the cool cores increase in mass and stability.}  As shown in Figure \ref{evol}, CC clusters after $z \approx 0.5$ have a relatively constant rate of accretion continuing to the present, similar to NCC clusters.

442: 

443: The central temperature plot

444: in Figure \ref{evol} demonstrates that similar starting conditions can

445: result in either CC or NCC clusters.  At early epochs, the dispersion in central temperatures is large and the distributions are statistically indistinguishable between what will become CC and NCC clusters at $z=0$.  This contrasts to the significant difference in central temperatures between CC and NCC clusters for $z < 0.5$.  Thus, the early merger history

446: primarily determines the eventual cluster configuration at the present

447: epoch. 

448: 

449: In Figures \ref{NCCevol} and \ref{CCevol}, we show examples of the evolution of NCC and CC clusters, respectively, which well represent the general scenarios for how these clusters form.  Our simulations indicate that

450: lower mass clusters with $T<2$ keV form cool cores early in their

451: history when initial conditions produce central densities and

452: temperatures that allow the gas to radiatively cool.  This suggests

453: that many (most) lower mass clusters should have cool cores which is

454: consistent with the data in Figure \ref{fcc} in the next section and the

455: observations of poor clusters composed of early-type galaxies \cite[see

456: e.g., review by][]{Mul04,zabmul,ponman03,chen07}.  According to our

457: simulations, early mergers cause the fates of NCC and CC clusters to

458: diverge.  

459: 

460:  

461: \begin{figure}

462: \begin{center}

463: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f4a.eps}

464: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f4b.eps}

465: 

466: \caption{The median time evolution of the 10 most massive NCC

467:   clusters and the 10 most massive CC clusters. Dispersions in the distributions are also shown.  Top: The median fractional

468:   mass change per Gyr as a function of lookback time and redshift.

469:   Bottom: Evolution of the median core temperatures (normalized by the virial

470:   temperature).  The NCC clusters accrete significantly more mass than

471:   the CC clusters until $z \approx 0.5$, signifying more early major

472:   mergers than for the CC clusters.  By $z=0.25$, the core

473:   temperatures for the NCC clusters are about 3 times hotter than the

474:   CC clusters; the cool cores are well established and becoming more

475:   robust (slightly cooler and denser) throughout subsequent minor

476:   mergers.} 

477: \label{evol}

478: \vspace{-10mm}

479: \end{center}  

480: \end{figure}

481:  

482: 

483: 

484:  

485: \begin{figure*}

486: \begin{center}

487: %\epsscale{0.5}

488: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f5a.eps}

489: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f5b.eps}

490: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f5c.eps}

491: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f5d.eps}

492: \includegraphics[width=5.0in]{f5sm.eps}

493: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5e.eps}

494: 

495: \caption{Four snapshots of the history of an NCC cluster with final

496:   ($z=0$) values of $M_{200} = 8 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and

497:   $T_{virial} =$ 5.5 keV.  Dashed vertical lines in the bottom panel

498:   correspond to different epochs of the temperature images.} 

499: \label{NCCevol}

500: \vspace{-8mm}

501: \end{center}  

502: \end{figure*}

503:  

504: 

505: 

506: \begin{figure*}

507: 

508: \begin{center}

509: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f6a.eps}

510: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f6b.eps}

511: \includegraphics[width=5.0in]{f6sm.ps}

512: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f6c.eps}

513: 

514: \caption{Two snapshots of the history of a CC cluster with $M_{200} = 4.4 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and $T_{virial} =$ 3.7 keV at $z=0$.}

515: \label{CCevol}

516: \vspace{-8mm}

517: \end{center}  

518: \end{figure*}

519:  

520: 

521: 

522: As shown by the representative example in Figure \ref{NCCevol}, NCC

523: clusters often undergo major mergers early in their history.  This

524: cluster had begun to develop a cool core at $z=1.25$ (see panel A).

525: However, the cluster experienced a major merger (mass increased by

526: $\approx$100\%) at $z \approx 1$ and the cool core was greatly

527: diminished (panel B).  Smaller mass halos with cool cores continue to

528: be accreted by this cluster but these CC's are ram pressure

529: stripped/disrupted usually within a single core passage (see panels C

530: and D).  By $z \approx 0.65$, there is no evidence of a CC associated

531: with the cluster dark matter density peak at this or later times.

532: Early mergers destroy the cool cores in NCC clusters, leaving behind

533: hotter, thermalized, moderately dense cores where the cooling time is

534: everywhere above the Hubble time. As shown in the next Section and in

535: the Appendix, the NCC cluster gas has become mostly relaxed within the

536: gravitational potential well (with minor perturbations from small

537: infalling halos) with a surface brightness profile well represented by

538: a $\beta$-model. Subsequently, cool halos infalling into these NCC

539: clusters do not survive passage through the central parts of the

540: clusters nor do the central conditions allow cool cores to

541: re-establish.  NCC clusters continue to experience minor mergers as

542: they now slowly evolve (typically, mass increases only $\approx$10\%

543: over Gyr time frames after $z \ge 0.5$ from multiple mergers for the

544: NCC as shown in Figure \ref{evol}). We suggest that such an early

545: major merger produced the characteristics observed today for the NCC

546: Coma cluster whose complex properties may be the result of previous

547: mergers \citep{burnscoma}.  

548: 

549: On the other hand, Figure \ref{CCevol} suggests that CC clusters evolve

550: differently.  This CC cluster had no significant change in mass until

551: $z=0.75$ and its only major merger did not occur until $z=0.3$.

552: Figure \ref{CCevol} shows the temperature and central cool core as the

553: merger is progressing (at $z=0.3$) (panel A).  The next snapshot at

554: $z=0.2$ shows the CC somewhat diminished but still present.  The

555: central temperature moved slightly upward but quickly readjusted

556: downward as the CC easily survives the shock heating and ram pressure

557: from the merger.  In contrast to the simple cooling flow model, CC

558: clusters may be no closer to hydrostatic equilibrium than NCC clusters

559: with the equivalent mass (see also Section 5.5).  This hierarchical

560: formation model for CC clusters makes clear predictions of

561: substructure and average cluster characteristics beyond the core that

562: are testable with X-ray data.  

563: 

564: Figure \ref{transition} shows the radial profiles of the baryon

565: fraction and the temperature for representative examples of numerical

566: CC and NCC clusters in our sample.  Even outside of the cool core

567: ($\approx 0.05 r_{200} \approx 100 h^{-1}$ kpc, the first vertical

568: dotted line), there is an excess of baryons relative to NCC clusters

569: out to $\approx 0.3 r_{200}$ (second vertical dotted line).  (We note

570: that the dark matter density profiles are comparable for the CC and

571: NCC clusters.)  Such an extended ``transition region'' could be

572: created, in part, by gas ``sloshing" in the cluster potential well

573: following repeated mergers as proposed by \cite{shocks}. 

574: 

575: Figure \ref{transition} also shows the temperature differences between

576: each cluster type.  The NCC cluster demonstrates the universal

577: temperature profile that we described in \cite{loken02}.  The

578: temperature profile of the CC cluster rises steeply to $\approx 0.05

579: r_{200}$ and then it has a prolonged stretch of near-constant

580: temperature, again within the region $\approx 0.05 r_{200}$ to

581: $\approx 0.3 r_{200}$.  This CC cluster profile is less compact than that found for recent SPH simulations \citep{valdarnini} and agrees well with

582: observations \cite[see \eg][]{relaxed06, baldi}. 

583: 

584: Using these two trends, we define three components to a cool core

585: cluster: cool core, ``transition region'', and outer region.  The

586: transition region is differentiated by the excess of baryons outside

587: the core and relatively flat temperature profile (and low entropy)

588: compared to NCC clusters.  We have (subjectively) chosen the limits

589: $\approx 0.05 r_{200}$ to $\approx 0.3 r_{200}$ for this transition

590: region; $\approx 0.05 r_{200}$ is the traditional edge of the cool

591: core where the slope of temperature changes dramatically, and $\approx

592: 0.3 r_{200}$ is an average location where the baryon fraction of each

593: type of cluster converges and the temperature begins to decrease.

594: Most current cluster X-ray observations also measure $S_X$ accurately

595: out to only $\approx 0.3 r_{200}$, meaning that most observations

596: measure predominantly the transition region in CC clusters (as will be

597: discussed further in \cite{gantner07}). 

598: 

599: These simulations predict a very different set of cluster

600: characteristics from those expected in the simple, non-evolving

601: cooling flow model or from cooling-only simulations.  Since CC and NCC

602: clusters have experienced different magnitudes and epochs of mergers,

603: there should be observational signatures remaining from the mergers.

604: In particular, we will show in the next section that the fraction of

605: clusters with cool cores is expected to be strong function of the

606: virial mass, in good agreement with recent observations.  We then will

607: show that single $\beta$-models systematically overestimate (or bias)

608: the densities and masses beyond the cores in CC clusters. Furthermore, our

609: simulations predict that more cool gas should be found beyond the

610: cores in CC clusters in comparison to NCC clusters.  Finally, this

611: scenario forecasts that CC rich clusters should be found in denser

612: supercluster environments at the present epoch.    

613: 

614:  

615: \begin{figure}

616: \begin{center}

617: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f7a.eps}

618: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f7b.eps}

619: \caption{Plots of the gas fraction and temperature profiles for

620:   representative CC and NCC numerical clusters.  The vertical lines

621:   designate the location of the newly defined CC cluster transition

622:   region ($0.05 r_{200}$ to $0.3 r_{200}$).  This transition region

623:   contains an excess of baryons compared to a typical NCC cluster and

624:   a relatively flat temperature profile, indicating different gas

625:   properties than either the core or the outer region.} 

626: \label{transition}

627: \vspace{-8mm}

628: \end{center}  

629: \end{figure}

630:  

631: 

632: 

633: \section{Consequences of Evolutionary Differences in CC and NCC

634:   Clusters} 

635: 

636: In this Section, we explore the differences in the

637: properties of CC and NCC clusters based upon the results of our

638: numerical simulations.  The simulations predict substantial

639: differences in the characteristics of these clusters beyond the cores.

640: These predictions can be tested with data from current and planned

641: X-ray telescopes. 

642: 

643: \subsection{Masses and Fractions of CC Clusters}

644: 

645: An intriguing new result is that the fraction of clusters with cool

646: cores is a strong function of cluster gas mass as shown in Figure

647: \ref{fcc}.  We display gas masses here instead of total cluster masses

648: to allow a direct comparison with the observation-derived data

649: presented by \citet{ohara} and \citet{chen07}. About a quarter of

650: simulated clusters with $M_{gas} \approx 5 \times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$

651: have cool cores whereas no high mass numerical clusters ($M_{gas} > 4

652: \times 10^{13} M_{\odot}$) have cool cores.  As a corollary to this

653: result, we find that the mean total mass for the 10 most massive CC

654: clusters at $z=0$ is $2.4 \pm 1.4 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ whereas

655: the mean total mass for the 10 most massive NCC clusters is $11.3 \pm

656: 4.0 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$.  These results support the idea that

657: cool cores are destroyed via multiple major mergers and the

658: probability of cool core disruption increases as clusters grow to the

659: size of the Coma cluster.  

660: 

661: A similar result can be seen from observational samples of clusters

662: using {\it ROSAT} data compiled by \citet{ohara} and by

663: \citet{chen07}. Both samples have a somewhat common ancestry from the

664: work of \citet{edge} with the samples consisting of nearby

665: ($0.01<z<0.1$), moderate X-ray luminosity clusters.  In Figure

666: \ref{fcc}, we have plotted data from \citet{ohara} and \citet{chen07}

667: overlaid onto those for our sample of numerical clusters.  Although

668: the absolute values of the fractions differ between the observed and

669: numerical samples as discussed in Section 2, the general trend of

670: decreasing fraction of CC clusters with mass is present for both

671: observations and simulations. 

672: 

673: This finding is contrary to the expectations of the simple

674: non-evolving cooling flow model where the number of cool cores should

675: increase with cluster mass (as the central gas density

676: increases). Although observational selection effects are a possible

677: concern in the \citet{ohara} and \citet{chen07} catalogs, we believe

678: that this newly discovered trend contains important insights into the

679: formation of CC versus NCC clusters.   

680: 

681: \subsection{Evolution in the Fraction of Cool Cores?}

682: 

683: Recently, \citet{vikh06} reported that the number of observed CC

684: clusters declines dramatically to 15\% with redshift beyond $z \approx 0.5$ (versus 65\% for their nearby cluster comparison sample).  Because of the limited spatial resolution with {\it Chandra} at these distances, they use the central slope or ``cuspiness of the surface brightness'' to distinguish between CC and NCC clusters.

685: 

686: In Figure \ref{CCvsz}, we show the fraction within the co-moving volume of our numerical cool core clusters as a function of redshift for all clusters with $M > 10^{14} \mathrm{M_\odot}$ out to $z \approx 1$.  The error bars in each bin reflect the $\sqrt N$ uncertainties due to the number counts.  Within these errors, the fraction of CC clusters is not a strong function of redshift out to

687: $z \approx 1$ (15-20\%).  For $z > 1$, the fraction drops to $\approx$10\% but the dispersion is large because there are only a few CC clusters with $M > 10^{14} \mathrm{M_\odot}$ at these early epochs.

688: 

689: The flat distribution of CC fraction within the range $0 < z < 1$ is not inconsistent with the evolutionary formation scenario described in Section 4 and shown in Figure \ref{evol} for several reasons.  First, Figure \ref{evol} reveals that the greatest disparity in mass change between CC and NCC clusters occurs for $z>0.75$.  That is, most of the growth in NCC clusters via mergers occurs at the expense of CC clusters at earlier epochs.  For $z<0.75$, CC and NCC clusters grow at comparable rates.  Second, although CC clusters continue to be lost via mergers for $z < 0.75$, this is counterbalanced by the fact that the numbers of CC clusters above the mass cutoff of $10^{14} \mathrm{M_\odot}$ continue to increase because CC clusters also grow via accretion.  Thus, the rate at which CC clusters are destroyed is approximately equal to the rate at which new clusters are added above our $10^{14} \mathrm{M_\odot}$ mass limit.  This produces the effect of no apparent evolution in the fraction of CC clusters for $z<1$ in a mass-limited sample.

690: 

691: In order to explain the \citet{vikh06} result within

692: the context of our simulations, their sample would have to have

693: substantial selection effects possibly driven by the unique choice of

694: cool cores based upon the slope of the X-ray surface brightness

695: profile and resolution effects.  Alternatively, some form of

696: time-dependent baryon physics (\eg higher feedback rates at earlier

697: epochs as recently described by \cite{eastman07} for AGNs) not

698: incorporated into the present simulations could potentially boost the

699: fraction of CC clusters seen in the local Universe compared to earlier

700: epochs. 

701: 

702:  

703: \begin{figure}

704: %\vspace{-10mm}

705: \begin{center}

706: %\epsscale{0.5}

707: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f8.eps}

708: %\vspace{-8mm}

709: 

710: \caption{Fraction of all galaxy clusters with cool cores as a function

711:   of mass.  The simulated data is from 1522 numerical clusters.

712:   \cite{chen07} is based upon their table of 106 observed clusters.

713:   \cite{ohara} is from their table of 45 observed clusters.  $M_{gas,

714:     500}$ was chosen as the measurement common across all three data

715:   sets. The differences in absolute fraction of CC clusters between

716:   the samples may have a variety of causes (\eg luminosity boosting by

717:   cool cores in flux-limited observational samples; numerical clusters

718:   may be affected by resolution effects, selection of cosmological

719:   parameters, or feedback prescription).} 

720: \label{fcc}

721: \end{center}  

722: 

723: \end{figure}

724:  

725: 

726: 

727:  

728: \begin{figure}

729: %\vspace{-10mm}

730: \begin{center}

731: %\epsscale{0.5}

732: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f9.eps}

733: 

734: \caption{Fraction of cool cores as a function of redshift for

735:   numerical clusters.  In contrast to \citet{vikh06}, we find no

736:   change in the fraction of cool cores with redshift.} 

737: 

738: \label{CCvsz}

739: \vspace{-8mm}

740: \end{center}  

741: 

742: \end{figure}

743:  

744: 

745: 

746: \subsection{Surface Brightness Profiles}

747: 

748: Turning next to the large-scale X-ray surface brightness profiles

749: ($S_X$), we fit $\beta$-models in two different ways for two different

750: subsamples of the numerical clusters to examine potential differences

751: in the shapes and core radii of CC versus NCC clusters.  

752: 

753: We began by producing average $S_X$ profiles from projected X-ray

754: images along a single axis for all the clusters at $z=0$ and with $M >

755: 10^{14} \mathrm{M_\odot}$, separated into CC (10 clusters) and NCC (78

756: clusters) categories (several $z=0$ clusters were not used because of

757: contamination by multiple clusters).  The flux for individual profiles

758: was first normalized by ${M_{200}}^{3/2}$ (from the Mass-Temperature

759: scaling relationship as in \cite{ finoguenov01}) before averaging them

760: together.  We then fit a $\beta$-model to each of these average

761: profiles as would be done for observations.  That is, we fit the

762: profiles out to $0.3 r_{200}$ (roughly corresponding to $0.5 r_{500}

763: \approx 0.5$ Mpc) which is the typical limit to the observed surface

764: brightness in most X-ray exposures with current instruments (as we

765: discuss further in \cite{gantner07}).  For the average CC profile, we

766: excluded the cool core in making the $\beta$-model fit. The result is

767: shown in Figure \ref{SX_profile}.   

768: 

769: This figure indicates that the profiles (beyond the cool core) for CC

770: clusters are distinguished from NCC clusters in several important

771: ways.  First, the parameters for the $\beta$-models are different.

772: For the average CC profile, $r_c = 0.05 \pm 0.09$ $r_{200}$ and

773: $\beta=0.66 \pm 0.12$, whereas for the NCC average $S_X$ profile, $r_c

774: = 0.12 \pm 0.02$ $r_{200}$ and $\beta=0.66 \pm 0.07$.  That is, the

775: cluster core radii are much smaller for CC clusters, as also shown in

776: Figure \ref{statistics}.  There is also considerably more scatter in

777: the fit for the CC average profile (consistent with more variation

778: between individual profiles) than for the NCC $S_X$ profile.  Second,

779: the shape of the two $S_X$ profiles are different within the

780: transition region where the slope of the NCC is generally flatter than

781: the CC cluster, as would be expected from Figure \ref{transition}.  There are similar slope differences in the $S_X$ profiles between the NCC (Abell 401) and CC (Abell 85) clusters computed from deep Chandra observations reported by \cite{relaxed06}.  Third, the $\beta$-model is a better fit to the average NCC cluster profile than to the CC profile.  In particular, the $\beta$-model fit

782: to the regions that would be typically observed by current satellites

783: (\ie the transition region) for CC clusters significantly overshoots

784: the actual flux in the outer parts of clusters.  At $r_{200}$, the

785: $\beta$-model overestimates the flux of the average CC profile by a

786: factor of 3.8.  This will result in a serious bias of cluster gas

787: masses as we discussed in \cite{hall06}. 

788: 

789: We also fit $\beta$-models to individual profiles for all numerical CC

790: and NCC clusters (from a single projection) in our master database

791: with $M > 5 \times 10^{14} \mathrm{M_\odot}$ and $z < 2$.  In this

792: case, we fit models out to $r = r_{500}$.  We did not use the inner

793: portion of the profiles dominated by the cool core (determined by the

794: point where the slope of the temperature profile becomes negative) in

795: making fits to CC clusters.   We then calculated the reduced $\chi^2$

796: goodness-of-fit values (including extrapolations of the fits out to

797: $r_{200}$) as compared with the numerical X-ray profiles.  A histogram

798: of those reduced $\chi^2$ values for CC and NCC clusters is shown in

799: Figure \ref{chisq_hist}.  As also indicated in Figure

800: \ref{SX_profile}, the $\beta$-models fit the NCC clusters much better

801: than the CC clusters.  About 88\% of the NCC clusters have $\chi^2

802: <1$, whereas about one-third of the CC clusters have $\chi^2 >1$.

803: Once again, this is caused by the slope changes from the transition

804: region to the outer core in the CC clusters which is not fit well by a

805: single $\beta$-model. 

806: 

807: As we show in the Appendix, good $\beta$-model fits to $S_X$ suggest

808: that a  nonisothermal gas in the intracluster medium (ICM) is in

809: approximate (but not necessarily perfect, see Section 5.5) equilibrium

810: with the gravitational potential well of the cluster (under the assumption that the ICM gas is polytropic).  So, the above

811: results suggest that the ICM in NCC clusters is approximated by a gas

812: with a balance between heating and cooling that is quasi-relaxed in an

813: NFW-like dark matter potential.  This is consistent with Figure

814: \ref{evol} which shows that NCC clusters underwent major mergers early

815: in their history but have subsequently settled into a

816: quasi-equilibrium state with only minor on-going mergers.  This

817: contrasts with CC clusters that have temperature and density profiles

818: inconsistent with a simple adiabatic gas well beyond the cool core. 

819: 

820: \citet{relaxed06} recently analyzed the gas and total mass profiles

821: for 13 nearby, ``relaxed'' clusters with temperatures between 0.7 and

822: 9 keV using data from {\it Chandra}.  All of the clusters in this

823: sample have cool cores.  They examined the surface brightness profiles

824: out to at least $r_{500}$ and concluded that the profiles are ``not

825: described well by a beta model''.  When single 

826: ${\beta -}$models are fit to the inner portions of the clusters (but

827: excluding the cool cores), they poorly extrapolate the gas density and

828: mass profiles in the outer parts of the CC clusters as we found for

829: the numerical clusters.  In addition, \citet{relaxed06} observed that

830: the cooler regions in low temperature clusters are confined to a

831: smaller fraction of the virial radius than in the hotter CC clusters.

832: This is consistent with trends found in our numerical simulations as

833: described by \citet{hall06} and by \citet{akah}. Finally, Vikhlinin et

834: al. note that low temperature (mass) clusters ($T <$ 2.5 keV) with

835: cool cores have a bigger ratio of central to virial temperature than

836: do the clusters with larger $T_{virial}$.  We plan to explore the

837: origin of this effect with new higher resolution simulations with more

838: sophisticated heating prescriptions.   

839: 

840:  

841: \begin{figure}

842: \begin{center}

843: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f10.eps}

844: 

845: \caption{Average synthetic X-ray surface brightness profiles for CC

846:   and NCC clusters with $z=0$ and $M > 10^{14} \mathrm{M_\odot}$ (10

847:   CC averaged together and 78 NCC averaged together).  Error bars are

848:   errors on the mean determined from variations within each bin.

849:   Dashed curves are the best fit $\beta$-models within the

850:   ``transition region'' (\ie between the vertical lines from $0.05

851:   r_{200}$ to $0.3 r_{200}$) for the CC average cluster profile and

852:   the best fit including all the points out to the right-most vertical

853:   line for the NCC cluster profile.  The NCC profile was arbitrarily

854:   shifted downward by a factor of 10 to better distinguish it from the

855:   CC profile.} 

856:  

857: \label{SX_profile}

858: \vspace{-6mm}

859: \end{center}  

860: 

861: \end{figure}

862: 

863: 

864: \begin{figure}

865: \begin{center}

866: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f11.eps}

867: 

868: \caption{Histograms of the reduced $\chi^2$ values for $\beta$-model

869:   fits for CC (solid) and NCC (dashed) clusters.  Each numerical

870:   cluster ($M_{200} > 5 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$, $z < 2$) is fit to

871:   $r_{500}$ and extrapolated out to $r_{200}$, and a $\chi^2$

872:   goodness-of-fit is calculated for the entire profile. } 

873: 

874: \label{chisq_hist}

875: \vspace{-8mm}

876: \end{center}  

877: 

878: \end{figure}

879:  

880: 

881: \subsection{Temperatures and Hardness Ratios Beyond the Cluster Cores}

882: 

883: The temperature profiles for the two clusters shown in Figure

884: \ref{transition} indicate that the temperature distributions for CC

885: and NCC clusters are substantially different out to $\approx 0.3

886: r_{200}$.  In particular, the broad ``transition region'' has both a

887: cooler and flatter distribution of temperature outside the cool core

888: for the CC cluster in comparison to the NCC cluster.  How general is

889: this result for the total sample of numerical clusters?  To address

890: this question, we made emission-weighted temperature images of the

891: clusters in our numerical cluster catalog with $M_{200} > 5 \times

892: 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and $0<z<0.5$.  From these images, we produced the

893: histogram of temperatures (normalized by $T_{virial}$), excluding cool

894: cores, shown in Figure \ref{T_hist}.  The distribution of temperatures

895: beyond the cool cores for CC clusters is significantly different from

896: NCC clusters with a broad tail toward lower temperatures.  CC clusters

897: have $\sim$40\% more gas with $T_{ew} < 0.3 T_{virial}$ beyond the

898: cores than NCC clusters. 

899: 

900: We predict that this signature will be apparent in hardness ratio maps

901: that are commonly made from X-ray observations.  As shown in Figure

902: \ref{HRmaps} for four typical cases drawn randomly from our

903: simulations, the hard-to-soft band ratios (2-8 keV/0.5-2 keV) do a

904: good job of illustrating the abundance of cooler gas beyond the cores

905: in CC clusters.  Figure \ref{HRplots} shows the cumulative fraction of

906: pixels below a given hardness ratio for all four clusters in Figure

907: \ref{HRmaps}.  For the two CC clusters, we have excised the cool cores

908: ($<0.05 r_{200}$) so as not to bias the results with gas already known

909: to be cooler than its NCC counterpart.  As expected, the two CC

910: clusters have a majority of pixels  with values $<1$ and therefore are

911: cooler in the transition region than the NCC clusters.  The NCC

912: clusters are both centered approximately at hardness ratio $\approx

913: 1$, hence the gas in these clusters is roughly at the virial

914: temperature of the clusters. 

915: 

916: We shall show in \cite{gantner07} that there is very good agreement in

917: the predicted hardness ratios from our simulations with X-ray

918: observations of clusters from the {\it Chandra} and {\it ROSAT}

919: archives. 

920: 

921:  

922: \begin{figure}

923: \begin{center}

924: \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{f12.eps}

925: 

926: \caption{Histograms of the ratio of emission-weighted temperatures

927:   ($T_{ew}$) from $r = 180 h^{-1}$ kpc to $r_{200}$ divided by

928:   $T_{virial}$ from temperature images for CC and NCC clusters.

929:   Clusters from the numerical catalog are included with $M_{200} > 5

930:   \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$.  Red are NCC and blue are CC clusters.} 

931: 

932: \label{T_hist}

933: \vspace{-3mm}  

934: \end{center}  

935: 

936: \end{figure}

937:  

938: 

939: 

940: 

941:  

942: \begin{figure*}

943: \begin{center}

944: \includegraphics[width=5.0in]{f13.eps}

945: 

946: \caption{A sample of X-ray hardness ratio (HR) maps from 4 different

947:   simulated clusters (2 CC on top and 2 NCC on bottom) with  fields of

948:   view of $0.33 r_{200}$.  The two circles in the upper left image

949:   delineate the ``transition region'' between $0.05 r_{200}$ to $0.3

950:   r_{200}$ as described in Figure \ref{transition}.  Each HR map was

951:   made by dividing an image of the X-ray surface brightness from 2 to

952:   8 keV by an image from 0.5 to 2.0 keV (i.e., typical {\it Chandra}

953:   hard and soft bands).  Each is then normalized by the hardness ratio

954:   corresponding to the cluster virial temperature so that values $<1$

955:   represent gas with $T < T_{virial}$. Note that non-central cool

956:   ``blobs'' are generally infalling halos. } 

957: 

958: \label{HRmaps}

959: \end{center}  

960: \vspace{-8mm}  

961: 

962: \end{figure*}

963:  

964: 

965:  

966: \begin{figure}

967: \begin{center}

968: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f14.eps}

969: 

970: \caption{The cumulative fraction of pixels below each hardness ratio

971:   value for the sample of simulated clusters in Figure

972:   \ref{HRmaps}. The plot was assembled for regions between $0.05-0.3

973:   r_{200}$ (excludes cool core in CC clusters).  The NCC clusters are

974:   centered roughly at 1, meaning that most of their gas is

975:   approximately equal to $T_{virial}$.  The CC clusters are noticeably

976:   cooler in this transition region.} 

977: 

978: \label{HRplots}

979: \end{center}  

980: 

981: \end{figure}

982:  

983: 

984: 

985: \subsection{The Supercluster Environments of CC and NCC Clusters}

986: 

987: The mass and temperature evolution plots in Figure \ref{evol} indicate

988: that NCC clusters underwent major mergers early in their history in

989: contrast to the milder accretion over time for CC clusters.  This may

990: also suggest that the larger scale environments in which these two

991: types of clusters live are different since accretion of halos and

992: diffuse material must come from the cosmic web.  It is possible that

993: NCC clusters began their lives in higher overdensity regions which

994: then accelerated the growth of these clusters via mergers \cite[see

995: \eg][]{mowhite96, gao05}. 

996: 

997: In an effort to explore the possible influence of the differences in

998: the supercluster environments for CC and NCC clusters, we calculated

999: the real space densities (which are expected to correlate with

1000: accretion rates) of all halos with $M_{200} > 10^{13} M_{\odot}$

1001: ($\approx$ mass resolution of simulations) within a radius of $5

1002: r_{200}$ of numerical rich clusters with virial masses $1-6 \times

1003: 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ (approximate mass range of the CC clusters as shown

1004: in Figure \ref{masstemp}).  We calculated these densities for a series

1005: of redshifts between 0 and 1.5, and separated clusters by CC and NCC

1006: according to our definitions in Section 2. 

1007: 

1008: The ratio of supercluster densities for CC to NCC clusters as a

1009: function of redshift is shown in Figure \ref{super_ratio}.  At early

1010: epochs ($z>1$), the average supercluster density is somewhat higher

1011: around NCC clusters than CC clusters.  One might expect clusters that

1012: are experiencing major bouts of accretion of subclusters that result

1013: in the destruction of embryonic cool cores to be surrounded by a

1014: higher density of halos.  At times corresponding to $0.7 < z < 1$,

1015: there may a slight underdensity of halos around NCC clusters in

1016: comparison to CC clusters as one might expect if the NCC clusters

1017: suffered a large amount of mass accretion effectively ``clearing out''

1018: its nearby neighborhood.   Interestingly, at late times ($z < 0.3$),

1019: the density of halos around CC clusters is $\approx$30\% greater than

1020: for NCC clusters.  However, unlike earlier epochs where the mass ratio

1021: of the main cluster to the average neighboring cluster is often

1022: $\approx$ a few, this average mass ratio of the rich cluster to the

1023: halos at $z < 0.3$ is much larger as the main cluster has grown

1024: considerably over the past 10 Gyr.  This means that there are many

1025: small subclusters falling into the CC clusters but their relative

1026: impact is small compared to that for NCC clusters at earlier epochs

1027: (see Figure \ref{transition}).  However, the above trends are weak at

1028: best and there is a large dispersion in supercluster densities between

1029: individual clusters. 

1030: 

1031: It is interesting to note that this possible trend of overabundance of

1032: halos around numerical CC clusters at the present epoch is also found

1033: in Abell clusters.  \citet{loken99} constructed a volume-limited

1034: sample of $z < 0.1$ Abell clusters that was estimated to be 98\%

1035: complete in an effort to investigate their supercluster environs.

1036: They separated clusters into CC and NCC.  They found that CC Abell

1037: clusters have twice the density of neighboring clusters as do NCC

1038: clusters out to a radius of 43 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.  We attempted to mimic

1039: the \citet{loken99} analysis by recomputing halo densities out to

1040: radii of 43 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and included neighbor halos in the

1041: calculation only if they had masses $> 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ (\ie

1042: Abell-like clusters).  We found that the density of neighboring halos

1043: is $\approx$40\% greater for CC than NCC clusters, slightly larger

1044: than in Figure \ref{super_ratio}, but still considerably less than

1045: what \citet{loken99} propose for Abell clusters. 

1046: 

1047: % 

1048: \begin{figure}

1049: \begin{center}

1050: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f15.eps}

1051: 

1052: \caption{Histograms of the ratio of the real space densities of halos

1053:   surrounding numerical clusters with $M_{200} = 1-6 \times 10^{14}

1054:   M_{\odot}$ for CC versus NCC clusters.} 

1055: 

1056: \label{super_ratio}

1057: \vspace{-8mm}

1058: \end{center}  

1059: 

1060: \end{figure}

1061:  

1062: 

1063: 

1064: \subsection{Deviations from Hydrostatic Equilibrium}

1065: 

1066: Galaxy clusters are potentially powerful tools for precision

1067: cosmology.  Accurate cluster mass determinations and gas fractions,

1068: along with cluster abundance counts, can provide key constraints on

1069: the dark energy parameter, $w$, as well as $\Omega_b$, $\Omega_m$, and

1070: $\sigma_8$ \cite[\eg][]{wangstein, haiman01}.  In recent efforts,

1071: samples of CC clusters are being used exclusively  because they are

1072: believed to be dynamically relaxed.  For example, \cite{allen07}

1073: selected a sample of 42 hot, X-ray luminous clusters with $0.05 < z

1074: <1.1$, all of which have short central cooling times ($<$ a few $10^9$

1075: yrs), to constrain cosmological parameters from $f_{gas}$.  Previous simulations \cite[\eg][and references therein]{rasia06, nagai06} have called into question hydrostatic equilibrium for clusters.  But, are CC clusters really more dynamically relaxed than NCC clusters?  Figures \ref{evol} and \ref{super_ratio} seem to call this assumption

1076: into question. 

1077: 

1078: To explore this further, we calculated the deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium for all the clusters in our numerical archive with $M_{200} > 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ \cite[see also][]{jeltema07}.  We did this by calculating the estimated mass of clusters from the gradients in the temperatures and gas densities in the usual way assuming hydrostatic equilibrium.  In this case, we have used the spherically averaged profiles of temperature and density from the three-dimensional simulated cluster data. We have therefore eliminated any systematic effect resulting from conversion of observed quantities. So we expect that the

1079: resulting ``hydrostatic masses'' should be closer to the true values

1080: than ones which would be observationally derived. We then compared

1081: these hydrostatic masses to the true mass for each cluster.  We did

1082: this for a series of redshift intervals between 0.0 and 1.5, and

1083: separated clusters between CC and NCC.  The result is shown in Figure

1084: \ref{hse_z}. 

1085: 

1086: The average estimated cluster masses assuming hydrostatic equilibrium

1087: are biased low for all the clusters by $\approx$15\%.  This bias is

1088: constant for CC clusters at different redshifts but appears to be

1089: slightly worse for NCC clusters at earlier epochs ($\approx$19\%).  In

1090: addition to the bias, the scatter in these mass estimates is high.

1091: 20\% to 30\% underestimates are possible at the 1$\sigma$ level.

1092: Importantly, and what is new here, CC clusters are no better than NCC clusters as biased mass indicators.  Both are equally low, although the scatter in CC

1093: clusters is about half that of the NCC clusters. 

1094: 

1095: \cite{shocks} similarly cast doubt on hydrostatic equilibrium in CC

1096: clusters due to the common presence of observed cold fronts and the

1097: inferred ``gas sloshing''.  For the clusters in our simulations, we

1098: find that the kinetic energy of bulk gas motions contributes at the

1099: $\approx$10\% level compared to the total energy \cite[see

1100: also][]{rasia06}. 

1101: 

1102: If our numerical clusters are representative of real clusters, the

1103: apparent significant deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium for both

1104: CC and NCC clusters must be considered in choosing to use them for

1105: precision cosmology estimators. 

1106: 

1107: 

1108: % 

1109: \begin{figure}

1110: \begin{center}

1111: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f16.eps}

1112: 

1113: \caption{The fractional deviation of cluster masses estimated assuming

1114:   hydrostatic equilibrium versus the true virial masses as a function

1115:   of redshift.  The standard deviations in the distributions are also shown.} 

1116: 

1117: \label{hse_z}

1118: \vspace{-8mm}

1119: \end{center}  

1120: 

1121: \end{figure}

1122:  

1123: 

1124: 

1125: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

1126: 

1127: Galaxy clusters are complicated, generally non-equilibrium systems

1128: where nongravitational physics is important in the cores.  To the best

1129: of our knowledge, no previous numerical simulations have been able to

1130: produce both cool core (CC) and non-cool core (CC) clusters in the

1131: same numerical volume.  Our heating and cooling prescription (with an

1132: approximate balance between heating and cooling), however, has

1133: resulted in a simulation with both CC and NCC clusters.  The

1134: temperature profiles of our numerical CC clusters qualitatively match

1135: observations, although the central gas densities are higher than

1136: observed.  Our fraction of cool cores is low compared to that of

1137: recent observed samples.  On the other hand, the distinction in

1138: $\beta$-model parameters ($r_c$ and $\beta$) between CC and NCC

1139: clusters observed in samples of real clusters is reflected in our

1140: numerical clusters.  Similarly, the distributions of gas fraction and

1141: gas mass with emission-weighted projected temperatures agree fairly

1142: well with observations.  Overall, our numerical clusters have general

1143: characteristics that concur with X-ray data of observed clusters. 

1144: 

1145: We propose an answer to the question posed in the title of this paper,

1146: \ie only some clusters have cool cores because of evolutionary

1147: differences driven by early major mergers.  Our numerical simulations

1148: suggest that the histories of cool core and non-cool core clusters are

1149: significantly different.  Our NCC numerical clusters suffer early

1150: major mergers when nascent cool cores are destroyed.  CC clusters, on

1151: the other hand, grow more slowly without early major mergers.  CC

1152: clusters have a broad ``transition region'' in their gas distribution

1153: extending between the cool core and a radius of $\approx 0.3 r_{200}$

1154: where the gas fraction is higher than for NCC clusters and the

1155: temperature profile is nearly isothermal.  This transition region and

1156: difference in evolution lead to a number of testable predictions for

1157: X-ray observations of real clusters. 

1158: 

1159: We find that the fraction of cool core clusters is a strong function

1160: of mass with fewer CC clusters at higher gas masses.  This general

1161: trend qualitatively agrees with the analysis of recent nearby X-ray

1162: cluster samples by \cite{ohara} and \cite{chen07}.  On the other hand,

1163: we do not find any significant variation in the fraction of numerical

1164: cool cores with redshift in contrast to the recent claim by

1165: \cite{vikh06}. 

1166: 

1167: The X-ray surface brightness profiles for NCC clusters are well fit by

1168: single $\beta$-models whereas the outer emission for CC clusters is

1169: biased low compared to $\beta$-models.  The resulting gas densities

1170: and gas masses of CC clusters estimated from single $\beta$-model

1171: extrapolations are biased high by factors of 3-4. 

1172: 

1173: CC clusters have $\approx$40\% more cool gas beyond the cores within

1174: the transition region than do NCC clusters.  This results in a very

1175: different distribution of X-ray hardness ratios beyond the cool core

1176: for CC versus NCC clusters.  We predict that such differences will be

1177: observable with current X-ray imagers. 

1178: 

1179: There are some indications that the supercluster environs for CC and

1180: NCC clusters are different from each other today and in past epochs.

1181: At $z>1$, NCC clusters appear to have more halos in their

1182: neighborhoods than CC clusters.  At $z < 0.3$, this trend is reversed

1183: with more halos around CC clusters.  This separation between CC and

1184: NCC clusters for low z clusters qualitatively agrees with supercluster

1185: density calculations for nearby Abell clusters. 

1186: 

1187: Finally, we find that both CC and NCC clusters are biased low in their

1188: mass estimation by $\approx$15\% assuming hydrostatic equilibrium.  In

1189: this sense, it appears that CC clusters are no better than NCC

1190: clusters as mass estimators, unlike what is generally assumed.  This

1191: is important to consider in using CC clusters for precision

1192: estimations of cosmological parameters. 

1193: 

1194: In an upcoming paper \citep{gantner07}, we will compare the above

1195: predictions with X-ray observations of rich clusters from both the

1196: {\it Chandra} and {\it ROSAT} archives.  The initial agreement is

1197: quite good. 

1198:  

1199: There are some important remaining issues with the current

1200: simulations.  We  plan to address these with a series of new numerical

1201: simulations at higher resolution to overcome the limitations of the

1202: current computational set of clusters.  We will explore the impact of

1203: $\Omega_b$ and $\sigma_8$ on the fraction of cool cores that are

1204: produced in the computational volume.  We will also refine our

1205: heating/cooling prescription to better match current observational

1206: constraints.  Once the influence of these factors is understood on the

1207: creation of CC and NCC clusters, the fraction of cool core clusters

1208: could serve as an important new constraint on cluster baryonic physics

1209: and/or dark energy models. 

1210: 

1211: \vspace{5mm}

1212: This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science

1213: Foundation (AST-0407368) and the NASA ADP (NNX07AH53G) program.  We

1214: thank Brian O'Shea, T. Reiprich, M. Voit, and M. Markevitch for

1215: stimulating discussions.  We acknowledge the referee for providing useful comments and suggestions.  We also appreciate the Aspen Center for

1216: Physics for hosting several of the authors (JOB, EJH) where some of the final

1217: work on this project was completed. 

1218: 

1219: 

1220: % 

1221: \appendix

1222: \section{Appendix: X-ray Profile for an Adiabatic ICM in an NFW Cluster Potential}

1223: 

1224: What does a good fit to the X-ray surface brightness profile by a

1225: $\beta$-model imply about the dynamical state of the cluster gas when

1226: it is nonisothermal? When the intracluster gas is relaxed in a

1227: \cite{NFW97} (NFW) dark matter potential (derived from N-body

1228: simulations) and in hydrostatic equilibrium, we can solve a simple

1229: equation for its radial distribution  \cite[see

1230: also][]{NFW97,makino99}. The equation for hydrostatic equilibrium is a

1231: simplification of the Euler equations for an ideal fluid, setting

1232: fluid velocity to zero gives 

1233: \begin{equation}

1234: \nabla P_{gas} = -\rho_{gas} g, 

1235: \end{equation}

1236: where $P_{gas}$ is the pressure of the ICM gas, $\rho_{gas}$ indicates

1237: the gas density, and $g$ is the local gravitational

1238: acceleration. Under the assumption of spherical symmetry, we can

1239: simplify this to

1240: \begin{equation}

1241: \frac{dP_{gas}}{dr} = -\rho_{gas}(r) g(r). 

1242: \end{equation}

1243: We assume here that the dark matter potential dominates

1244: the gravitation, and do not include the contribution of the gas to the

1245: potential, which should result in only minor error.  In that case, we

1246: can write $g(r)$ from an NFW dark matter profile as

1247: \begin{equation}

1248: g(r) = \frac{G M_{<R}}{r^{2}},

1249: \end{equation}

1250: where $G$ represents the universal gravitational constant, and

1251: $M_{<R}$ indicates the dark matter mass inside the radius of

1252: interest. That mass can be calculated by integrating the NFW profile

1253: \begin{equation}

1254: \rho_{dm}(x) = \rho_{0,dm} \frac{1}{x(1+x)^2}

1255: \end{equation}

1256: where

1257: \begin{equation}

1258: x = \frac{r}{r_c}

1259: \end{equation}

1260: and $r_c$ is the core radius and $\rho_{0,dm}$ is the central

1261: normalization of the profile. Integrating the profile to get the total

1262: enclosed mass 

1263: \begin{equation}

1264: M_{<R} = 4\pi {r_c}^3 \rho_{0,dm} \int \frac{1}{x(1+x)^2} x^2 dx

1265: \end{equation} 

1266: We assume that the gas follows a nonisothermal, adiabatic equation of state such that

1267: \begin{equation}

1268: P = k \rho^{\gamma}.

1269: \end{equation}

1270: where k is a constant.

1271: Then, the hydrostatic equilibrium equation to be solved can be written as

1272: \begin{equation}

1273: \frac{dP_{gas}}{dr} = -P^{1/\gamma}  \frac{4\pi G {r_c}^3

1274:   \rho_{0,dm}}{r^2}  \left[\int \frac{1}{x(1+x)^2} x^2 dx \right].

1275: \end{equation}  

1276: 

1277:  

1278: \begin{figure}

1279: \begin{center}

1280: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{f17.eps}

1281: \caption{Density profiles described in the text. Dashed is the

1282:   standard NFW dark matter density profile in arbitrary units, solid

1283:   line is the resulting gas density profile from integrating the

1284:   equation of hydrostatic equilibrium in the NFW potential. The dotted

1285:   line is a standard $\beta$-model fit to the gas density profile.}

1286: \label{nfw}

1287: \vspace{-8mm}

1288: \end{center}

1289: \end{figure}

1290:  

1291: 

1292: Numerical integration of Eq. 8 results in the profiles shown in Figure \ref{nfw}. The

1293: solid line is the solution to Eq. 8, the dashed is the NFW dark matter

1294: density profile, and the dotted is a standard $\beta$-model fit to the

1295: gas density.  Note that the $\beta$-model fits Eq. 8 very well for $r

1296: > 0.2 r_c$ but the $\beta$-profile is somewhat flatter in slope within

1297: the core in comparison to Eq. 8.  This suggests that good

1298: $\beta$-model fits to X-ray profiles imply gas that is relatively

1299: relaxed within the dark matter potential. 

1300: 

1301: 

1302: 

1303: 

1304: 

1305: 

1306: %===============================================================================

1307: % References

1308: %===============================================================================

1309: %\input{cc.bbl}

1310: 

1311: \begin{thebibliography}{71}

1312: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[{{Akahori} \& {Masai}(2006)}]{akah}

1315: {Akahori}, T. \& {Masai}, K. 2006, \pasj, 58, 521

1316: 

1317: \bibitem[{{Allen} {et~al.}(2007){Allen}, {Rapetti}, {Schmidt}, {Ebeling},

1318:   {Morris}, \& {Fabian}}]{allen07}

1319: {Allen}, S.~W., {Rapetti}, D.~A., {Schmidt}, R.~W., {Ebeling}, H., {Morris},

1320:   G., \& {Fabian}, A.~C. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 0706.0033

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[{{Baldi} {et~al.}(2007){Baldi}, {Ettori}, {Mazzotta}, {Tozzi}, \&

1323:   {Borgani}}]{baldi}

1324: {Baldi}, A., {Ettori}, S., {Mazzotta}, P., {Tozzi}, P. \&

1325:   {Borgani}, S. 2007, \apj, 666, 835

1326: 

1327: \bibitem[{{Brickhouse} {et~al.}(1995){Brickhouse}, {Raymond}, \&

1328:   {Smith}}]{brickhouse95}

1329: {Brickhouse}, N.~S., {Raymond}, J.~C., \& {Smith}, B.~W. 1995, \apjs, 97, 551

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[{{Br{\"u}ggen} \& {Kaiser}(2002)}]{bk02}

1332: {Br{\"u}ggen}, M. \& {Kaiser}, C.~R. 2002, \nat, 418, 301

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[{{Burns}(1990)}]{burns90}

1335: {Burns}, J.~O. 1990, \aj, 99, 14

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[{{Burns}(1998)}]{burns98}

1338: ---. 1998, Science, 280, 400

1339: 

1340: \bibitem[{{Burns} {et~al.}(1997){Burns}, {Loken}, {Gomez}, {Rizza}, {Bliton},

1341:   \& {Ledlow}}]{burns97}

1342: {Burns}, J.~O., {Loken}, C., {Gomez}, P., {Rizza}, E., {Bliton}, M., \&

1343:   {Ledlow}, M. 1997, in ASP Conf. Ser. 115: Galactic Cluster Cooling Flows, ed.

1344:   N.~{Soker}, 21

1345: 

1346: \bibitem[{{Burns} {et~al.}(2004){Burns}, {Motl}, {Norman}, \&

1347:   {Bryan}}]{burns04}

1348: {Burns}, J.~O., {Motl}, P.~M., {Norman}, M.~L., \& {Bryan}, G.~L. 2004, in The

1349:   Riddle of Cooling Flows in Galaxies and Clusters of galaxies, ed.

1350:   T.~{Reiprich}, J.~{Kempner}, \& N.~{Soker}, 291

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[{{Burns} {et~al.}(1994){Burns}, {Roettiger}, {Ledlow}, \&

1353:   {Klypin}}]{burnscoma}

1354: {Burns}, J.~O., {Roettiger}, K., {Ledlow}, M., \& {Klypin}, A. 1994, \apjl,

1355:   427, L87

1356: 

1357: \bibitem[{{Cen} \& {Ostriker}(1992)}]{cen92}

1358: {Cen}, R. \& {Ostriker}, J. 1992, \apj, 393, 22

1359: 

1360: \bibitem[{{Chen} {et~al.}(2007){Chen}, {Reiprich}, {B{\"o}hringer}, {Ikebe}, \&

1361:   {Zhang}}]{chen07}

1362: {Chen}, Y., {Reiprich}, T.~H., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Ikebe}, Y., \& {Zhang},

1363:   Y.-Y. 2007, \aap, 466, 805

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[{{Donahue} \& {Voit}(2004)}]{dv04}

1366: {Donahue}, M. \& {Voit}, G.~M. 2004, in Clusters of Galaxies: Probes of

1367:   Cosmological Structure and Galaxy Evolution, ed. J.~S. {Mulchaey},

1368:   A.~{Dressler}, \& A.~{Oemler}, 143

1369: 

1370: \bibitem[{{Eastman} {et~al.}(2007){Eastman}, {Martini}, {Sivakoff}, {Kelson},

1371:   {Mulchaey}, \& {Tran}}]{eastman07}

1372: {Eastman}, J., {Martini}, P., {Sivakoff}, G., {Kelson}, D.~D., {Mulchaey},

1373:   J.~S., \& {Tran}, K.-V. 2007, \apjl, 664, L9

1374: 

1375: \bibitem[{{Edge} {et~al.}(1990){Edge}, {Stewart}, {Fabian}, \& {Arnaud}}]{edge}

1376: {Edge}, A.~C., {Stewart}, G.~C., {Fabian}, A.~C., \& {Arnaud}, K.~A. 1990,

1377:   \mnras, 245, 559

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[{{Eilek} \& {Owen}(2006)}]{eilek06}

1380: {Eilek}, J.~A. \& {Owen}, F.~N. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,

1381:   astro-ph/0612111

1382: 

1383: \bibitem[{{Eisenstein} \& {Hu}(1999)}]{powerspectrum}

1384: {Eisenstein}, D.~J. \& {Hu}, W. 1999, \apj, 511, 5

1385: 

1386: \bibitem[{{Fabian}(2002)}]{fabian02}

1387: {Fabian}, A.~C. 2002, in Lighthouses of the Universe: The Most Luminous

1388:   Celestial Objects and Their Use for Cosmology: Proceedings of the

1389:   MPA/ESO/MPE/USM Joint Astronomy Conference Held in Garching, Germany, 6-10

1390:   August 2001, ESO ASTROPHYSICS SYMPOSIA. ISBN 3-540-43769-X. Edited by M.

1391:   Gilfanov, R. Sunyaev, and E. Churazov. Springer-Verlag, 2002, p. 24, ed.

1392:   M.~{Gilfanov}, R.~{Sunyeav}, \& E.~{Churazov}, 24

1393: 

1394: \bibitem[{{Fabian} {et~al.}(2003){Fabian}, {Sanders}, {Allen}, {Crawford},

1395:   {Iwasawa}, {Johnstone}, {Schmidt}, \& {Taylor}}]{fabian03}

1396: {Fabian}, A.~C., {Sanders}, J.~S., {Allen}, S.~W., {Crawford}, C.~S.,

1397:   {Iwasawa}, K., {Johnstone}, R.~M., {Schmidt}, R.~W., \& {Taylor}, G.~B. 2003,

1398:   \mnras, 344, L43

1399: 

1400: \bibitem[{{Finoguenov} {et~al.}(2001){Finoguenov}, {Reiprich}, \&

1401:   {B{\"o}hringer}}]{finoguenov01}

1402: {Finoguenov}, A., {Reiprich}, T.~H., \& {B{\"o}hringer}, H. 2001, \aap, 368,

1403:   749

1404: 

1405: \bibitem[{{Fujita} {et~al.}(2004){Fujita}, {Matsumoto}, \& {Wada}}]{fujita}

1406: {Fujita}, Y., {Matsumoto}, T., \& {Wada}, K. 2004, Journal of Korean

1407:   Astronomical Society, 37, 571

1408: 

1409: \bibitem[{{Fujita} {et~al.}(2007){Fujita}, {Suzuki}, {Kudoh}, \&

1410:   {Yokoyama}}]{fujita07}

1411: {Fujita}, Y., {Suzuki}, T.~K., {Kudoh}, T., \& {Yokoyama}, T. 2007, \apjl, 659,

1412:   L1

1413: 

1414: \bibitem[{{Gantner} {et~al.}(2007){Gantner}, {Burns}, \& {Hallman}}]{gantner07}

1415: {Gantner}, B., {Burns}, J.~O., \& {Hallman}, E.~J. 2007, in preparation

1416: 

1417: \bibitem[{{Gao} {et~al.}(2005){Gao}, {White}, {Jenkins}, {Frenk}, \&

1418:   {Springel}}]{gao05}

1419: {Gao}, L., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Jenkins}, A., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {Springel}, V.

1420:   2005, \mnras, 363, 379

1421: 

1422: \bibitem[{{Gentile} {et~al.}(2007){Gentile}, {Rodr{\'{\i}}guez}, {Taylor},

1423:   {Giovannini}, {Allen}, {Lane}, \& {Kassim}}]{gentile07}

1424: {Gentile}, G., {Rodr{\'{\i}}guez}, C., {Taylor}, G.~B., {Giovannini}, G.,

1425:   {Allen}, S.~W., {Lane}, W.~M., \& {Kassim}, N.~E. 2007, \apj, 659, 225

1426: 

1427: \bibitem[{{G{\'o}mez} {et~al.}(2002){G{\'o}mez}, {Loken}, {Roettiger}, \&

1428:   {Burns}}]{gomez02}

1429: {G{\'o}mez}, P.~L., {Loken}, C., {Roettiger}, K., \& {Burns}, J.~O. 2002, \apj,

1430:   569, 122

1431: 

1432: \bibitem[{{Haiman} {et~al.}(2001){Haiman}, {Mohr}, \& {Holder}}]{haiman01}

1433: {Haiman}, Z., {Mohr}, J.~J., \& {Holder}, G.~P. 2001, \apj, 553, 545

1434: 

1435: \bibitem[{{Hallman} \& {Markevitch}(2004)}]{hallmark}

1436: {Hallman}, E.~J. \& {Markevitch}, M. 2004, \apjl, 610, L81

1437: 

1438: \bibitem[{{Hallman} {et~al.}(2006){Hallman}, {Motl}, {Burns}, \&

1439:   {Norman}}]{hall06}

1440: {Hallman}, E.~J., {Motl}, P.~M., {Burns}, J.~O., \& {Norman}, M.~L. 2006, \apj,

1441:   648, 852

1442: 

1443: \bibitem[{{Hallman} {et~al.}(2007){Hallman}, {Wagner}, {Motl}, {Burns}, \&

1444:   {Norman}}]{hall07}

1445: {Hallman}, E.~J., {Wagner}, R., {Motl}, P.~M., {Burns}, J.~O., \& {Norman},

1446:   M.~L. 2007, in preparation

1447: 

1448: \bibitem[{{Heinz} {et~al.}(1998){Heinz}, {Reynolds}, \& {Begelman}}]{heinz98}

1449: {Heinz}, S., {Reynolds}, C.~S., \& {Begelman}, M.~C. 1998, \apj, 501, 126

1450: 

1451: \bibitem[{{Ikebe} {et~al.}(1997){Ikebe}, {Makishima}, {Ezawa}, {Fukazawa},

1452:   {Hirayama}, {Honda}, {Ishisaki}, {Kikuchi}, {Kubo}, {Murakami}, {Ohashi},

1453:   {Takahashi}, \& {Yamashita}}]{Ikebe97}

1454: {Ikebe}, Y., {Makishima}, K., {Ezawa}, H., {Fukazawa}, Y., {Hirayama}, M.,

1455:   {Honda}, H., {Ishisaki}, Y., {Kikuchi}, K., {Kubo}, H., {Murakami}, T.,

1456:   {Ohashi}, T., {Takahashi}, T., \& {Yamashita}, K. 1997, \apj, 481, 660

1457: 

1458: \bibitem[{{Jeltema} {et~al.}(2007){Jeltema}, {Hallman}, {Burns}, \&

1459:   {Motl}}]{jeltema07}

1460: {Jeltema}, T.~E., {Hallman}, E.~J., {Burns}, J.~O., \& {Motl}, P.~M. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 0708.1518J

1461: 

1462: \bibitem[{{Kaiser}(1986)}]{kaiser86}

1463: {Kaiser}, N. 1986, \mnras, 222, 323

1464: 

1465: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} {et~al.}(2005){Kravtsov}, {Nagai}, \& {Vikhlinin}}]{knv05}

1466: {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Nagai}, D., \& {Vikhlinin}, A.~A. 2005, \apj, 625, 588

1467: 

1468: \bibitem[{{Lewis} {et~al.}(2002){Lewis}, {Stocke}, \& {Buote}}]{lsb02}

1469: {Lewis}, A.~D., {Stocke}, J.~T., \& {Buote}, D.~A. 2002, \apjl, 573, L13

1470: 

1471: \bibitem[{{Lin} {et~al.}(2003){Lin}, {Mohr}, \& {Stanford}}]{lin03}

1472: {Lin}, Y.-T., {Mohr}, J.~J., \& {Stanford}, S.~A. 2003, \apj, 591, 749

1473: 

1474: \bibitem[{{Loken} {et~al.}(1999){Loken}, {Melott}, \& {Miller}}]{loken99}

1475: {Loken}, C., {Melott}, A.~L., \& {Miller}, C.~J. 1999, \apjl, 520, L5

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[{{Loken} {et~al.}(2002){Loken}, {Norman}, {Nelson}, {Burns}, {Bryan},

1478:   \& {Motl}}]{loken02}

1479: {Loken}, C., {Norman}, M.~L., {Nelson}, E., {Burns}, J., {Bryan}, G.~L., \&

1480:   {Motl}, P. 2002, \apj, 579, 571

1481: 

1482: \bibitem[{{Makino} \& {Asano}(1999)}]{makino99}

1483: {Makino}, N. \& {Asano}, K. 1999, \apj, 512, 9

1484: 

1485: \bibitem[{{Markevitch} {et~al.}(2002){Markevitch}, {Gonzalez}, {David},

1486:   {Vikhlinin}, {Murray}, {Forman}, {Jones}, \& {Tucker}}]{bullet}

1487: {Markevitch}, M., {Gonzalez}, A.~H., {David}, L., {Vikhlinin}, A., {Murray},

1488:   S., {Forman}, W., {Jones}, C., \& {Tucker}, W. 2002, \apjl, 567, L27

1489: 

1490: \bibitem[{{Markevitch} \& {Vikhlinin}(2007)}]{shocks}

1491: {Markevitch}, M. \& {Vikhlinin}, A. 2007, \physrep, 443, 1

1492: 

1493: \bibitem[{{Mathews} {et~al.}(2006){Mathews}, {Faltenbacher}, \&

1494:   {Brighenti}}]{math06}

1495: {Mathews}, W.~G., {Faltenbacher}, A., \& {Brighenti}, F. 2006, \apj, 638, 659

1496: 

1497: \bibitem[{{Mazzotta} {et~al.}(2004){Mazzotta}, {Rasia}, {Moscardini} \&

1498:   {Tormen}}]{mazz04}

1499: {Mazzotta}, P., {Rasia}, E., {Moscardini}, L., \& {Tormen}, G. 2004, \mnras, 354, 10

1500: 

1501: \bibitem[{{McCarthy} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){McCarthy}, {Babul}, {Bower},

1502:   \& {Balogh}}]{mccarthyheat}

1503: {McCarthy}, I.~G., {Babul}, A., {Bower}, R.~G., \& {Balogh}, M.~L.

1504:   2007{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv e-prints, 0706.2768

1505: 

1506: \bibitem[{{McCarthy} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){McCarthy}, {Bower}, \&

1507:   {Balogh}}]{mccarthy07}

1508: {McCarthy}, I.~G., {Bower}, R.~G., \& {Balogh}, M.~L. 2007{\natexlab{b}},

1509:   \mnras, 377, 1457

1510: 

1511: \bibitem[{{Mo} \& {White}(1996)}]{mowhite96}

1512: {Mo}, H.~J. \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1996, \mnras, 282, 347

1513: 

1514: \bibitem[{{Motl} {et~al.}(2004){Motl}, {Burns}, {Loken}, {Norman}, \&

1515:   {Bryan}}]{motl04}

1516: {Motl}, P.~M., {Burns}, J.~O., {Loken}, C., {Norman}, M.~L., \& {Bryan}, G.

1517:   2004, \apj, 606, 635

1518: 

1519: \bibitem[{{Motl} {et~al.}(2005){Motl}, {Hallman}, {Burns}, \&

1520:   {Norman}}]{motl05}

1521: {Motl}, P.~M., {Hallman}, E.~J., {Burns}, J.~O., \& {Norman}, M.~L. 2005,

1522:   \apjl, 623, L63

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[{{Mulchaey}(2004)}]{Mul04}

1525: {Mulchaey}, J.~S. 2004, in Clusters of Galaxies: Probes of Cosmological

1526:   Structure and Galaxy Evolution, ed. J.~S. {Mulchaey}, A.~{Dressler}, \&

1527:   A.~{Oemler}, 353

1528: 

1529: \bibitem[{{Nagai} {et~al.}(2007){Nagai}, {Vikhlinin}, \& {Kravtsov}}]{nagai06}

1530: {Nagai}, D., {Vikhlinin}, A., \& {Kravtsov}, A.~V. 2007, \apj, 655, 98

1531: 

1532: \bibitem[{{Navarro} {et~al.}(1997){Navarro}, {Frenk}, \& {White}}]{NFW97}

1533: {Navarro}, J.~F., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1997, \apj, 490, 493

1534: 

1535: \bibitem[{{O'Hara} {et~al.}(2006){O'Hara}, {Mohr}, {Bialek}, \&

1536:   {Evrard}}]{ohara}

1537: {O'Hara}, T.~B., {Mohr}, J.~J., {Bialek}, J.~J., \& {Evrard}, A.~E. 2006, \apj,

1538:   639, 64

1539: 

1540: \bibitem[{{O'Shea} {et~al.}(2004){O'Shea}, {Bryan}, {Bordner}, {Norman},

1541:   {Abel}, {Harkness}, \& {Kritsuk}}]{oshea04}

1542: {O'Shea}, B.~W., {Bryan}, G., {Bordner}, J., {Norman}, M.~L., {Abel}, T.,

1543:   {Harkness}, R., \& {Kritsuk}, A. 2004, Adaptive Mesh Refinement – Theory and

1544:   Applications, ed. T. Plewa, T. Linde, \& G. Weirs (Springer-Verlag)

1545: 

1546: \bibitem[{{Peres} {et~al.}(1998){Peres}, {Fabian}, {Edge}, {Allen},

1547:   {Johnstone}, \& {White}}]{peres}

1548: {Peres}, C.~B., {Fabian}, A.~C., {Edge}, A.~C., {Allen}, S.~W., {Johnstone},

1549:   R.~M., \& {White}, D.~A. 1998, \mnras, 298, 416

1550: 

1551: \bibitem[{{Peterson} {et~al.}(2003){Peterson}, {Kahn}, {Paerels}, {Kaastra},

1552:   {Tamura}, {Bleeker}, {Ferrigno}, \& {Jernigan}}]{pete03}

1553: {Peterson}, J.~R., {Kahn}, S.~M., {Paerels}, F.~B.~S., {Kaastra}, J.~S.,

1554:   {Tamura}, T., {Bleeker}, J.~A.~M., {Ferrigno}, C., \& {Jernigan}, J.~G. 2003,

1555:   \apj, 590, 207

1556: 

1557: \bibitem[{{Ponman} {et~al.}(2003){Ponman}, {Sanderson}, \&

1558:   {Finoguenov}}]{ponman03}

1559: {Ponman}, T.~J., {Sanderson}, A.~J.~R., \& {Finoguenov}, A. 2003, \mnras, 343,

1560:   331

1561: 

1562: \bibitem[{{Poole} {et~al.}(2006){Poole}, {Fardal}, {Babul}, {McCarthy},

1563:   {Quinn}, \& {Wadsley}}]{poole06}

1564: {Poole}, G.~B., {Fardal}, M.~A., {Babul}, A., {McCarthy}, I.~G., {Quinn}, T.,

1565:   \& {Wadsley}, J. 2006, \mnras, 373, 881

1566: 

1567: \bibitem[{{Rasia} {et~al.}(2005){Rasia}, {Mazzotta}, {Borgani}, {Moscardini}, {Dolag}, {Tormen}, {Diaferio} \& {Murante}}]{rasia}

1568: {Rasia}, E., {Mazzotta}, P., {Borgani}, S., {Moscardini}, L., 

1569:   {Dolag}, K., {Tormen}, G., {Diaferio}, A., \& Murante, G. 2005, \apjl,

1570:   618, L1

1571: 

1572: 

1573: \bibitem[{{Rasia} {et~al.}(2006){Rasia}, {Ettori}, {Moscardini}, {Mazzotta},

1574:   {Borgani}, {Dolag}, {Tormen}, {Cheng}, \& {Diaferio}}]{rasia06}

1575: {Rasia}, E., {Ettori}, S., {Moscardini}, L., {Mazzotta}, P., {Borgani}, S.,

1576:   {Dolag}, K., {Tormen}, G., {Cheng}, L.~M., \& {Diaferio}, A. 2006, \mnras,

1577:   369, 2013

1578: 

1579: \bibitem[{{Ricker} \& {Sarazin}(2001)}]{rick01}

1580: {Ricker}, P.~M. \& {Sarazin}, C.~L. 2001, \apj, 561, 621

1581: 

1582: \bibitem[{{Ritchie} \& {Thomas}(2002)}]{rt02}

1583: {Ritchie}, B.~W. \& {Thomas}, P.~A. 2002, \mnras, 329, 675

1584: 

1585: \bibitem[{{Ruszkowski} \& {Begelman}(2002)}]{rusz02}

1586: {Ruszkowski}, M. \& {Begelman}, M.~C. 2002, \apj, 581, 223

1587: 

1588: \bibitem[{{Ruszkowski} {et~al.}(2004){Ruszkowski}, {Br{\"u}ggen}, \&

1589:   {Begelman}}]{rusz04}

1590: {Ruszkowski}, M., {Br{\"u}ggen}, M., \& {Begelman}, M.~C. 2004, \apj, 611, 158

1591: 

1592: \bibitem[{{Sadat} {et~al.}(2005){Sadat}, {Blanchard}, {Vauclair}, {Lumb},

1593:   {Bartlett}, {Romer}, {Bernard}, {Boer}, {Marty}, {Nevalainen}, {Burke},

1594:   {Collins}, \& {Nichol}}]{sadat05}

1595: {Sadat}, R., {Blanchard}, A., {Vauclair}, S.~C., {Lumb}, D.~H., {Bartlett}, J.,

1596:   {Romer}, A.~K., {Bernard}, J.-P., {Boer}, M., {Marty}, P., {Nevalainen}, J.,

1597:   {Burke}, D.~J., {Collins}, C.~A., \& {Nichol}, R.~C. 2005, \aap, 437, 31

1598: 

1599: \bibitem[{{Spergel} {et~al.}(2007){Spergel}, {Bean}, {Dor{\'e}}, {Nolta},

1600:   {Bennett}, {Dunkley}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Komatsu}, {Page}, {Peiris},

1601:   {Verde}, {Halpern}, {Hill}, {Kogut}, {Limon}, {Meyer}, {Odegard}, {Tucker},

1602:   {Weiland}, {Wollack}, \& {Wright}}]{spergel07}

1603: {Spergel}, D.~N., {Bean}, R., {Dor{\'e}}, O., {Nolta}, M.~R., {Bennett}, C.~L.,

1604:   {Dunkley}, J., {Hinshaw}, G., {Jarosik}, N., {Komatsu}, E., {Page}, L.,

1605:   {Peiris}, H.~V., {Verde}, L., {Halpern}, M., {Hill}, R.~S., {Kogut}, A.,

1606:   {Limon}, M., {Meyer}, S.~S., {Odegard}, N., {Tucker}, G.~S., {Weiland},

1607:   J.~L., {Wollack}, E., \& {Wright}, E.~L. 2007, \apjs, 170, 377

1608: 

1609: \bibitem[{{Valdarnini}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Valdarnini}}]{valdarnini}

1610: {Valdarnini}, R. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, New Astronomy, 12, 71

1611: 

1612: \bibitem[{{Vikhlinin} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Vikhlinin}, {Burenin},

1613:   {Forman}, {Jones}, {Hornstrup}, {Murray}, \& {Quintana}}]{vikh06}

1614: {Vikhlinin}, A., {Burenin}, R., {Forman}, W.~R., {Jones}, C., {Hornstrup}, A.,

1615:   {Murray}, S.~S., \& {Quintana}, H. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv Astrophysics

1616:   e-prints, astro-ph/0611438

1617: 

1618: \bibitem[{{Vikhlinin} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Vikhlinin}, {Kravtsov},

1619:   {Forman}, {Jones}, {Markevitch}, {Murray}, \& {Van Speybroeck}}]{relaxed06}

1620: {Vikhlinin}, A., {Kravtsov}, A., {Forman}, W., {Jones}, C., {Markevitch}, M.,

1621:   {Murray}, S.~S., \& {Van Speybroeck}, L. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 640, 691

1622: 

1623: \bibitem[{{Voit} \& {Donahue}(2005)}]{vd05}

1624: {Voit}, G.~M. \& {Donahue}, M. 2005, \apj, 634, 955

1625: 

1626: \bibitem[{{Wang} \& {Steinhardt}(1998)}]{wangstein}

1627: {Wang}, L. \& {Steinhardt}, P.~J. 1998, \apj, 508, 483

1628: 

1629: \bibitem[{{White} {et~al.}(1997){White}, {Jones}, \& {Forman}}]{white97}

1630: {White}, D.~A., {Jones}, C., \& {Forman}, W. 1997, \mnras, 292, 419

1631: 

1632: \bibitem[{{White} \& {Rees}(1978)}]{whiterees}

1633: {White}, S.~D.~M. \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1978, \mnras, 183, 341

1634: 

1635: \bibitem[{{Wise} {et~al.}(2007){Wise}, {McNamara}, {Nulsen}, {Houck}, \&

1636:   {David}}]{wise07}

1637: {Wise}, M.~W., {McNamara}, B.~R., {Nulsen}, P.~E.~J., {Houck}, J.~C., \&

1638:   {David}, L.~P. 2007, \apj, 659, 1153

1639: 

1640: \bibitem[{{Zabludoff} \& {Mulchaey}(1998)}]{zabmul}

1641: {Zabludoff}, A.~I. \& {Mulchaey}, J.~S. 1998, \apj, 496, 39

1642: 

1643: \bibitem[{{Zakamska} \& {Narayan}(2003)}]{zaknar}

1644: {Zakamska}, N.~L. \& {Narayan}, R. 2003, \apj, 582, 162

1645: 

1646: \end{thebibliography}

1647: 

1648: 

1649: %===============================================================================

1650: 

1651: 

1652: \end{document}

1653: 

1654: 

1655: