1: %A1689: X & lensing; 2nd post-sub revision; Jan. 14, 2008
2: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
3: %\documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,onecolumn]{mn2e}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6:
7: \def\araa{{\it Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.} \,}
8: %\def\aa{{\it Astron. Astrophys.} \,}
9: \def\aspr{{\it Astrophys. Space Phys. Rev.} \,}
10: \def\ass{{\it Astrophys. Space Sci.} \,}
11: \def\casp{{\it Comments. Astrophys. Space Phys.} \,}
12: \def\apj{{\it ApJ \,}}
13: \def\apjs{{\it Ap. J. Supp.} \,}
14: \def\n{{\it Nature} \,}
15: \def\sp{{\it Sov. Phys. JETP.} \,}
16: \def\jca{{\it J. Cosmo. Astro. Phys.} \,}
17: \def\apjl{{\it Ap. J. Lett.} \,}
18: \def\pr{{\it Phys. Rep.} \,}
19: \def\plb{{\it Phys. Lett. B.} \,}
20: \def\prd{{\it Phys. Rev. D.} \,}
21: \def\mnras{{\it MNRAS} \,}
22: \def\aj{{\it Astron. J.} \,}
23: \def\na{{\it NewA} \,}
24: \def\msi{{\it Memo. Societa. Astron. Italian.} \,}
25: \def\nar{{NewAR} \,}
26: \def\nat{{\it Nature} \,}
27: \def\aap{{\it A\&A} \,}
28: \def\araa{{\it } \,}
29:
30: \pagenumbering{arabic}
31: \title[A1689 Mass and Gas Profiles]{\it Mass and Gas Profiles in A1689: Joint X-ray and Lensing
32: Analysis}
33: \author[Doron Lemze et al.]{Doron Lemze$^{1}$, Rennan Barkana$^{1}$, Tom J.\ Broadhurst$^{1}$
34: \& Yoel Rephaeli$^{1}$\\
35: $^{1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 69978,
36: Israel\\}
37:
38:
39: \begin{document}
40:
41: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
42:
43: \maketitle
44:
45: \label{firstpage}
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48:
49: We carry out a comprehensive joint analysis of high quality HST/ACS
50: and Chandra measurements of A1689, from which we derive mass,
51: temperature, X-ray emission and abundance profiles. The X-ray emission
52: is smooth and symmetric, and the lensing mass is centrally
53: concentrated indicating a relaxed cluster. Assuming hydrostatic
54: equilibrium we deduce a 3D mass profile that agrees simultaneously
55: with both the lensing and X-ray measurements. However, the projected
56: temperature profile predicted with this 3D mass profile exceeds the
57: observed temperature by $\sim 30\%$ at all radii, a level of
58: discrepancy comparable to the level found for other relaxed
59: clusters. This result may support recent suggestions from
60: hydrodynamical simulations that denser, more X-ray luminous
61: small-scale structure can bias observed temperature measurements
62: downward at about the same ($\sim 30\%$) level. We determine the gas
63: entropy at $0.1r_{\rm vir}$ (where $r_{\rm vir}$ is the virial radius)
64: to be $\sim 800$ keV cm$^2$, as expected for a high temperature
65: cluster, but its profile at $>0.1r_{\rm vir}$ has a power-law form
66: with index $\sim 0.8$, considerably shallower than the $\sim 1.1$
67: index advocated by theoretical studies and simulations.
68: Moreover, if a constant entropy ``floor'' exists at all, then it is
69: within a small region in the inner core, $r<0.02r_{\rm vir}$, in
70: accord with previous theoretical studies of massive clusters.
71:
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: \begin{keywords}
75: clusters: A1689 -- clusters: lensing, X-ray --
76: clusters: DM, gas, temperature, abundance, entropy
77: \end{keywords}
78:
79: \section{Introduction }
80: \label{introduction}
81:
82: As the largest gravitationally bound systems displaying a range of
83: distinct observational phenomena, clusters of galaxies provide
84: information of central importance in cosmology. Total gas and dark
85: matter masses and their profiles provide significant insight into the
86: formation and evolution of clusters and the relationship between
87: baryons and dark matter. It has become increasingly clear that much
88: more can be learned from careful comparisons of cluster observables
89: including galaxy motions, gas properties from X-ray and
90: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) measurements, and mass profiles from lensing
91: distortions and multiple images, providing new insight and tighter
92: constraints on the dynamical state of a cluster and the nature of dark
93: matter.
94:
95: Chandra and XMM observatories have provided very detailed information
96: on the physical state of the ubiquitous X-ray emitting plasma found in
97: clusters. It has become clear that, broadly speaking, there are two
98: classes of clusters, those showing some evidence of interaction,
99: evidenced by complex structures in the gas, and those for which the
100: gas emission is symmetric with a smooth radial variation in
101: temperature and abundance, indicating the gas is probably relaxed and
102: in a hydrostatic equilibrium with the overall gravitational
103: potential. For lensing work the HST/ACS allows the inner caustic
104: structure and central mass distribution to be examined in detail
105: (Gavazzi et al.\ 2002; Broadhurst et al.\ 2005a; Sharon et al.
106: 2005). The wide field imagers such as on the Subaru and CFHT
107: telescopes permit a statistically significant detection of weak
108: lensing distortion and magnification effects on the background
109: galaxies to be traced out to the outskirts of the cluster (Gavazzi et
110: al.\ 2004; Kneib et al.\ 2005; Broadhurst et al.\ 2005b).
111:
112: In the case of interacting clusters it has proved very interesting to
113: compare their lensing-based mass distribution with their disturbed gas
114: distribution. Clear evidence has emerged in the most favorable case of
115: 1E0657-56 (the "bullet cluster") that two massive clusters have
116: recently collided in the plane of the sky with a high relative
117: velocity, leaving the gas lying in-between a bimodal distribution of
118: galaxies and dark matter, traced by weak lensing (Markevitch et al.\
119: 2002; Clowe, Gonzalez \& Markevitch 2004; Bradac et al.\ 2006). This
120: particular case demonstrates that the bulk of the mass is dark and
121: relatively collisionless, as anticipated in CDM dominated cosmogonies
122: (Markevich et al.\ 2004, Clowe et al.\ 2006, Milosavljevic et al.\
123: 2007, Randall et al.\ 2007), although the estimated relative velocity
124: between the two massive components may be exceptional in the context
125: of $\Lambda$CDM simulations (Hayashi \& White 2006). Other such
126: examples are coming to light, with collisions closer to the line of
127: sight (Czoske et al.\ 2002, Jee et al.\ 2007, Dupke et al.\ 2007). A
128: detailed lensing and X-ray study of a larger sample of interacting
129: clusters by Okabe \& Umetsu (2007) spans the full range of dynamical
130: interaction, from premergers where the gas is clearly unaffected by
131: the mutual gravitational attraction, to cases where both mass
132: components are still readily distinguishable but the gas heavily
133: disrupted and shock heated, and finally the postmerger phase where the
134: gas shows only local signs of interaction, with a relatively small
135: degree of substructure visible in the dark matter as probed by
136: lensing.
137:
138: Strong lensing based masses of the central regions of massive clusters
139: have often been significantly higher than central masses deduced from
140: X-ray analysis, by factors of $\sim 2-4$ (Miralda-Escude \& Babul
141: 1995, Wu \& Fang 1997; Allen 1998, Wu et al.\ 1998, Voigt \& Fabian
142: 2006). Obvious reasons for the different masses - in addition to
143: modeling and intrinsic observational uncertainties - include possible
144: deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium, sphericity and gas
145: isothermality (see Allen 1998). Lensing estimates are naturally biased
146: upward in the case where the gravitational potential is significantly
147: elliptical with the major axis preferentially aligned towards the
148: observer. Evaluation of this effect in the context of $\Lambda$CDM
149: simulations shows that the inferred concentration of the cluster
150: profile, measured in terms of the Navarro, Frenk \& White (1996,
151: hereafter NFW) model, can be enhanced by up to 20\% by this bias in
152: the worst cases (Hannawi et al.\ 2005, Oguri et al.\ 2005), falling
153: well short of the reported discrepancies.
154:
155: Motivated by the need to improve the precision of measurements of gas
156: and DM profiles of clusters, we have begun a program of joint X-ray,
157: strong and weak lensing analyses of several clusters for which we can
158: combine high quality resolved observations. The advantages of a
159: simultaneous analysis of X-ray and lensing data are clear, given that
160: strong lensing measurements yield the total mass profile in the inner
161: cluster core while X-ray and weak lensing measurements cover a much
162: larger region of the cluster. The increasing quality and degree of
163: detail of such data allows a more model-independent determination of
164: the relevant profiles along with redundancy so that self-consistency
165: can be checked. Under the assumption of spherical symmetry and
166: hydrostatic equilibrium the projected temperature and gas density
167: profiles as well as the total surface mass density profile may now be
168: derived directly without resorting to assumed models or simple
169: parameterizations of the profiles.
170:
171: Here we apply a model independent approach to derive the density
172: profile of a relaxed cluster from a simultaneous fit to both the X-ray
173: and lensing data. We apply our technique to A1689 ($r_{vir} \sim 2$
174: h$^{-1}$ Mpc), a rich and moderately-distant ($z=0.183$) cluster that
175: has been extensively observed in the optical, near IR and X-ray
176: regions, and is the first cluster in our sample. The cluster has a cD
177: galaxy whose center is within $\sim 1.5"$ of the X-ray centroid; this
178: fact, and the low degree of X-ray ellipticity ($\epsilon\simeq 0.08$,
179: Xue \& Wu 2002, hereafter XW02) indicate that the cluster is likely to
180: be well relaxed and nearly spherical. Previous estimates of its mass
181: were obtained from the analysis of observed arcs and arclets produced
182: by strong lensing (Broadhurst et al.\ 2005a), from the distortion of
183: the background galaxy luminosity function and number density (Taylor
184: et al.\ 1998, Dye et al.\ 2001), and from weak lensing observations
185: (Broadhurst et al.\ 2005a,b, Medezinski et al.\ 2007). Here we derive
186: the X-ray surface brightness and temperature profiles from an analysis
187: of the full set of Chandra observations, which can be compared with a
188: smaller subset of Chandra observations analyzed by XW02, and an
189: independent study based on XMM (Andersson \& Madejski 2004; hereafter
190: AM04).
191:
192: The X-ray and lensing observations and data reduction are described in
193: Section~2, followed by a detailed account of the spectral and spatial
194: data analysis in Section~3. In Section~4 we describe the methodology
195: of deriving the gas and mass profiles, and in Section~5 we present the
196: results of our deduced gas, total mass, and entropy profiles. Our
197: results are discussed and assessed in Section~6.
198:
199: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
200: \subsection{X-ray measurements}
201: \label{sec:X}
202:
203: A1689 was observed by Chandra during three non-consecutive periods.
204: These observations were made mainly with the onboard Advanced
205: CCD Imaging Spectrometer in $2\times 2$ imaging array (ACIS-I)
206: mode. Table \ref{Observation time data} gives a summary of the data
207: we have analyzed including the Good Time Interval
208: (GTI, i.e., exposure time after all known corrections were applied).
209: We reduced all data using the following release of data reduction
210: software: Chandra data analysis software package CIAO 3.3, with the
211: updated complement calibration database CALDB 3.2.
212: \footnote{We followed the threads for data preparation "Analysis Guide:
213: ACIS Data Preparation"
214: http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/guides/acis\_data.html, and for extended
215: sources "Analysis Guide: Extended Sources",
216: http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/guides/esa.html. Due to the risk that some
217: cluster emission extends over the entire image we took the background
218: from the ACIS "Blank-Sky" Background files compiled by Markevitch
219: (2001), and followed the thread "Using the ACIS "Blank-Sky" Background
220: Files", http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/acisbackground/, and
221: Maxim's cookbook, http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Acis/Cal\_prods/
222: bkgrnd/acisbg/COOKBOOK.} All observations were reduced from the level
223: 1 stage in order to achieve a better modeling of instrument gain and
224: quantum efficiency. The event grades which we used are GRADE=0, 2, 3,
225: 4 and 6. Periods of background flaring were removed using the CIAO
226: task "lc\_clean". We removed bright sources using the tool "wavdetec"
227: with the default parameters: scales="2.0 4.0" and sigthresh =
228: $10^{-6}$. Results of setting scales="1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 16.0" were
229: checked for Observation ID 540; no other bright sources were
230: identified. We tailored the background files to the corresponding data
231: sets. Identical spatial filters were applied to the sources and the
232: background data sets. Spectra and responses were extracted using the
233: tool "specextract". All channel count rates were combined into one
234: spectrum (using the FTOOL task MATHPHA, and matching response matrix
235: and ancillary response files, using the tools ADDRMF and ADDARF,
236: respectively), weighting individual exposures by their respective
237: integration times. We then binned the combined counts so that there
238: were at least 25 counts per bin. The center of the cluster was found
239: by IRAF to be at $13^h11^m29.^s575-
240: 01^\circ20^\prime27.^{\prime\prime}59$, in agreement with the position
241: determined by AM04 ($13^h11^m29.^s4-
242: 01^\circ20^\prime28^{\prime\prime}$).
243:
244: \begin{table*}
245:
246:
247: \caption{{\it Chandra} Observation Log for A1689 \label{Observation time data}}
248: \begin{center}
249: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
250:
251:
252: \hline
253: Obs. ID & Start time & Mode & Duration & Good time interval (GTI) \\
254: & & & [ks] & [ks] ACIS \\
255: \hline
256: 540 & 2000-04-15 04:13:33 &FAINT& 10.45& 10.32 \\
257: 1663 & 2001-01-07 08:18:34 &FAINT& 10.87& 10.62 \\
258: 5004 & 2004-02-28 07:18:29 &VFAINT& 20.12& 18.44 \\
259: & & & 41.44 & 39.38 \\
260: \hline
261: \end{tabular}
262: \end{center}
263: \end{table*}
264:
265:
266: The spectrum of each observation was first checked in order to
267: identify possible problematic features, and to assess the consistency
268: between the model parameters obtained from the different observations.
269: We reduced the spectrum within a circular radius of $3^\prime$
270: (corresponding to a physical radius of $387 h^{-1}$ kpc), and binned
271: each spectrum to have at least 20 counts per bin. Using XSPEC we
272: fitted the $0.3-10$ keV data to an optically thin thermal plasma model
273: with Galactic photoelectric absorption, WABS(MEKAL), with $N_{H}=
274: 2\cdot10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, the mean absorption along the line of sight
275: to A1689 (Dickey \& Lockman 1990). The resulting parameter values were
276: consistent between the fits, but the fit quality varied, with
277: $\chi^{2}_{r}=$ 1.231, 1.366, and 1.478 for observation ID 540, 1663,
278: and 5004, respectively. Deviations between the data and model were
279: high in two energy bands. Indeed, in the $7-10$ keV band the count
280: rate is significantly higher than the model prediction, as noted also
281: by AM04 (and as also seen in fig.~2 of XW02). This could partly
282: be due to a background of high energy particles, but filtering the
283: background of observation ID 540 using a smaller time binning did not
284: lower the difference in the count rate. Uncorrected instrumental
285: effects can also be invoked, such as an imprecise correction for the
286: contaminating lines from the external calibration source\footnote{For
287: more on this, see http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Acis/
288: Cal\_prods/bkgrnd/current/}.
289:
290: The second problematic band was $0.3-0.5$ keV, where the data in all
291: three observations are higher than the model values (even if
292: absorption is ignored). As mentioned in AM04, there is extra
293: absorption caused by molecular contamination of the ACIS optical
294: blocking filters which causes the data to be lower than the model. A
295: correction is implemented in the analysis software (starting with
296: version CIAO 3.0), but because of the large uncertainty in the ACIS
297: gain at energies below 350 eV, the recommended procedure is to ignore
298: events in the 0.3-0.35 keV band\footnote{http://www.astro.psu.
299: edu/users/chartas/xcontdir/xcont.html}. We do not know if a
300: substantial uncertainty extends also to $0.35-0.5$ keV, so to be safe,
301: we ignored the $0.3-0.5$ keV data, and used only the $0.5-7$ keV
302: measurements.
303:
304: The change in energy interval for the ID 5004 observation resulted in
305: only $<1\%$ difference in values of the fitted parameters. This "band
306: stability" increases the confidence in the reliability of the results.
307: However, the temperature is somewhat sensitive to the specific value
308: used for the Galactic absorption. Fits with $N_{H}$ as a free
309: parameter yield a reasonable value, $1.32\cdot 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ for
310: observation 540, but a value which is close to zero for the two other
311: observations. Also, $kT$ is higher by $\sim 1$ keV than in the fit
312: with $N_{H}$ fixed at its observed value ($2\cdot 10^{20}$
313: cm$^{-2}$). This is further discussed in section~6 below. The
314: measured flux and surface brightness are insensitive to this change,
315: since the overall normalization does not change when the absorption is
316: taken to be a free parameter.
317:
318: More Chandra observations of A1689 have recently become public, namely
319: observations ID 6930 and 7289, totaling 80 ks. We have checked the
320: quality of these new data by deriving the temperature profile using
321: CIAO 3.4. The deduced value is systematically offset higher by $1.5-2$
322: keV than the value obtained from the earlier observations, and from
323: values obtained from measurements with other instruments. Also, the
324: profile from the new observations does not show a decrease at large
325: radii but rather an increase. The problem is even more severe using
326: CIAO 3.3 and is due to improper background files. These results
327: indicate that there still is a problem with the matched background
328: files. We have therefore not included these observations in our work.
329:
330:
331: \subsection{Lensing measurements}
332:
333: Analysis of strong lensing measurements of A1689 was carried out using
334: deep HST/ACS images with a total of 20 orbits shared between the GRIZ
335: passbands. Over 100 lensed background images have been identified,
336: corresponding to 30 multiply-imaged background galaxies, including
337: many radial arcs and small de-magnified images inside the radial
338: critical curve, close to the center of mass (Broadhurst et al.\
339: 2005a). For a given lens model Broadhurst et al.\ projected the lensed
340: images onto a sequence of source planes at various distances. They
341: then generated model images by lensing these source planes and
342: comparing the detailed internal structures of observed images falling
343: near the predicted model positions, where the unknown source distance
344: is a free parameter for each source. As new images were identified
345: they were incorporated into the lens model to refine it, enhancing the
346: prospects of finding additional lensed images. This relatively rich
347: lensing field allows a good mapping of the mass in the inner core.
348:
349: At larger radius the statistical effects of weak lensing have been
350: used to explore the entire mass profile of A1689 using wide-field V
351: and I-band images taken with Subaru/Suprime-cam (Broadhurst et al.\
352: 2005b). In practice this work is difficult, requiring careful analysis
353: of large sets of wide field images, with corrections for seeing,
354: tracking and instrumental distortion. Broadhurst et al.\ obtained a
355: firmer constraint on the mass profile by examining the effect of
356: lensing on the background number counts of red galaxies, as advocated
357: by Broadhurst, Taylor \& Peacock (1995). Broadhurst et al.\ found a
358: clear detection of both the weak distortions and a deficit in the
359: number counts to the limit of the Subaru images, which corresponds to
360: an outer radius of $r\sim 1.5$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc (Broadhurst et al.\ 2005b).
361:
362: Combining the inner mass profile derived from strong lensing with the
363: outer mass profile from weak lensing we see that for A1689, the
364: projected mass profile continuously flattens towards the center like
365: an NFW profile, but with a surprisingly steep outer profile
366: (Broadhurst et al.\ 2005b, Medezinski et al.\ 2007) compared with the
367: much more diffuse, low concentration halos predicted for massive CDM
368: dominated halos, (e.g., Bullock et al.\ 2002).
369:
370: \section{Spectral and Spatial Data Analysis}
371:
372: The X-ray flux was measured in two bands - $0.5-9$ keV, which was used
373: to check overall consistency with previous observations, and the
374: narrower band $0.5-7$ keV used in this work (see section~2.1). In a
375: $3^\prime$ aperture the measured flux in the latter band was
376: $F_{0.5-7keV}=(2.17\pm0.01)\cdot10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$,
377: slightly lower than in the wider band, $F_{0.5-9keV}=
378: (2.44\pm0.01)\cdot10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The
379: corresponding luminosities were $L_{0.5-7keV}=(1.002\pm0.004)\cdot
380: 10^{45}$ h$^{-2}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and
381: $L_{0.5-9keV}=(1.128\pm0.004)\cdot 10^{45}$ h$^{-2}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
382: These values are consistent with previous findings. XW02, who analyzed
383: some of the Chandra data, obtained
384: $F_{0.5-10keV}=(2.7\pm1)\cdot10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and
385: $L_{0.5-10keV}=(1.03\pm0.38)\cdot 10^{45}$ h$^{-2}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
386: Our flux is also consistent with that measured by XMM (AM04) and ROSAT
387: (Ebeling et al.\ 1996).
388:
389: The degree of ellipticity of the cluster X-ray emission is not only a
390: good indication of its 3D morphology, but also gives some indication
391: of its dynamical state. These important properties are of particular
392: relevance to our work which is based on the assumptions that the gas
393: is roughly spherically symmetric and that the cluster is in a state of
394: hydrostatic equilibrium. Using the SExtractor utility we estimated the
395: ellipticity of the X-ray emission to be $\epsilon= 0.083\pm 0.002$,
396: which is in very good agreement with the value reported by XW02.
397:
398: We measured the cluster gas temperature from the spectral measurements
399: (Figure~\ref{540and1663and5004_0.5_7kev_3arcmin fig}). To check
400: consistency of the mean temperature $T$ with previously determined
401: values, we analyzed the combined dataset in the $0.3-9$ keV band
402: (which is, as noted above, wider than the more uniform $0.5-7$ keV
403: dataset used in the rest of our work). The fit (with
404: $\chi^{2}_{r}=1.14$) yielded $kT=9.36\pm 0.18$ keV, and a metal
405: abundance $A=0.4\pm 0.04$ in solar units, consistent with
406: $kT=9.02^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ keV (Mushotzky \& Scharf 1997), and
407: $kT=8.2-10$ keV, $A=0.2-0.49$ (XW02). In the $0.5-7$ keV band, the
408: corresponding values are $kT=9.35\pm 0.18$ keV, and $A=0.41\pm 0.04$,
409: and $\chi^{2}_{r}=1.03$. If Galactic absorption is treated as a free
410: parameter, an unrealistically low value is determined, and $kT=
411: 10.66_{-0.37}^{+0.42}$ keV. In
412: table~\ref{temperature_table_and_Galactic_absorption} we list $kT$ for
413: each observation and the value from the combined dataset with Galactic
414: absorption either fixed at the observed value, or treated as a free
415: parameter.
416:
417: In the following subsections we present the X-ray derived profiles of
418: the metal abundance, surface brightness, and temperature.
419:
420: \begin{table*}
421:
422: \caption{Mean gas temperature over a $3^\prime$ region for each
423: observation, with Galactic absorption either fixed at the
424: observed value (Dickey \& Lockman 1990) or left as a free parameter.
425: \label{temperature_table_and_Galactic_absorption}}.
426: \begin{center}
427: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
428:
429:
430: \hline
431: & $N_{G}=2\cdot 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ & & $N_{G}$ is a free parameter &\\
432: Obs. ID&$\chi_{r}^{2}$& T [keV] & $\chi_{r}^{2}$ & T [keV] \\
433: \hline
434: 540 & 1.16 & 9.7$_{-0.5}^{+0.8}$ & 1.16 & 10$_{-0.4}^{+0.7}$ \\
435: 1663 & 1.1 & 9$_{-0.5}^{+0.5}$ & 1.01 & 10.2$_{-0.6}^{+0.4}$ \\
436: 5004 & 1.19 & 9.3$_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ & 1.13 & 10.5$_{-0.4}^{0.3}$ \\
437: combined& 1.03 & 9.4$_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ & 0.95 & 10.7$_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$ \\
438: \hline
439: \end{tabular}
440: \end{center}
441: \end{table*}
442:
443: \begin{figure}
444: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{540and1663and5004_0.5_7kev_3arcmin_fit_ldata_and_residuals.eps}}
445: \caption{We show (upper panel) the observed X-ray spectrum of A1689 from the
446: combined observations ID 540, 1663 and 5004 in the $0.5-7$ keV band,
447: reduced from a $3^\prime$ aperture. The fit (solid curve) is to a
448: MEKAL model with Galactic absorption fixed at the observed
449: value. We also show (lower panel) the residuals of the fit. \label{540and1663and5004_0.5_7kev_3arcmin fig}}
450: \end{figure}
451:
452:
453: \subsection {Heavy element abundances}
454: Before assessing the observed temperature profile it is important to
455: determine the gas metal abundance. In principle, these two quantities
456: may be decoupled with high quality data; however, the limited spectral
457: resolution and signal-to-noise ratio means that the abundance is
458: generally hard to constrain independently with radius, and one must
459: adopt a mean value for the cluster. Vikhlinin et al.\ (2005) took
460: advantage of the superior spatial resolution of Chandra to show that
461: for a sample of nearby relaxed clusters there is a metallicity
462: gradient such that the abundance increases toward the center. However,
463: the high roughly solar abundance level is actually in a region
464: coinciding with the central galaxy. On the theoretical side, Arieli,
465: Rephaeli \& Norman (in preparation) have performed a high resolution
466: hydrodynamical simulation which uses a new approach to incorporate
467: feedback from galaxies on the intracluster gas, and have shown that
468: including physical processes such as galactic winds and gas stripping
469: yields a flat metallicity profile out to large radii ($\sim 600$ h$_{
470: 0.7}^{-1}$ kpc). Based on XMM data, AM04 showed that there is no
471: abundance gradient in A1689. Our deduced abundance gradient is shown
472: in figure~\ref{Abundance gradient}. There is a systematic trend
473: towards a higher value of $A$ in the Chandra data (in accord with the
474: result of XW02) than the corresponding XMM value, but this difference
475: is not very significant from a statistical point of view, since most
476: of the data points agree within the $1\sigma$ range. The two sets of
477: observations have the same exposure time, so the XMM data are more
478: precise (due to the larger effective area). Our analysis indicates
479: a fairly constant abundance over the region probed. In what follows
480: we use the mean value of $0.4$ solar for the central $3^\prime$ region.
481:
482: \begin{figure}
483: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{abundance_profile.eps}}
484: \caption{The abundance profile as derived from the spectral deprojection
485: fitting. We compare our Chandra analysis (circles), which gives a mean
486: value of $0.42$ (horizontal solid line), to the XMM analysis of AM04
487: (triangles) which gave a mean value of $0.27$ (horizontal dashed line).
488: \label{Abundance gradient}}
489: \end{figure}
490:
491: \subsection{Surface brightness and temperature analysis}
492: An HST/ACS image of A1689 overlaid on the X-ray map is shown in
493: figure~\ref{xray_and_optics}; the cD galaxy lies at the X-ray
494: centroid.
495: \begin{figure}
496: \centering
497: \epsfig{file=xray_and_optics_scale1.eps, width=8.5cm}
498: \caption{HST/ACS image of A1689 overlaid on smoothed color rendering of the
499: X-ray emission (obs. ID 5004). The cD galaxy is seen to coincide with the
500: X-ray centroid. The scale in the image is $0.5^{\prime}\simeq 65$ h$^{-1}$
501: kpc.
502: \label{xray_and_optics}}
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: The symmetry of the surface brightness distribution allowed us to
506: construct an azimuthally averaged profile in radial bins. We
507: determined an azimuthally averaged flux $F$ in each radial bin by
508: fitting the model to the data in each annulus and extracting the flux,
509: from which the surface brightness $S$ was found by dividing by the
510: angular area of the bin. The error in $S$ was calculated from that in
511: the normalization parameter of the fitted model. Note that our profile
512: of the surface brightness is $\sim 4$ times higher than that obtained
513: by XW02 (see their Figure~6), but is consistent with that obtained by
514: Mohr, Mathiesen \& Evrard (1999, hereafter MME99; see their Figure~13).
515:
516: The full extraction region consists of 50 annuli, each of width
517: 4$^{\arcsec}$, plus nine annuli with varying widths (to keep adequate
518: S/N) beyond 200$^{\arcsec}$, all centered on the cluster X-ray center
519: (section~2.1). The maximum aperture of the data reduction region was
520: limited by the outer edges of CCDs in practically all three
521: observations. We removed the innermost ring because it corresponds to
522: the inner region of the cD galaxy (see also Vikhlinin et al.\ (2005);
523: e.g., the abundance in it was measured to be $0.9$, contrary to our
524: assumption of a constant abundance in each annulus.
525:
526: The reduction of the temperature profile was done in a similar way,
527: but with a smaller number of annuli due to the lower signal-to-noise
528: ratio.
529:
530:
531: \section{Derivation of the Gas and Mass Profiles}
532: \subsection{Methodology}
533:
534: In this section we present our procedure for studying the structure of
535: the cluster using all the available data sets in combination. Since we
536: have both lensing and surface brightness profiles, we do not need to
537: assume any particular parametrization or fitting formula, such as the
538: commonly adopted NFW mass profile or the $\beta$ model for the gas
539: density profile. We employ a model-independent approach that is
540: limited only by the resolution and accuracy of the data. As mentioned
541: in the introduction, the cluster has only a small ellipticity, so the
542: assumption of spherical symmetry is reasonable. This basic assumption
543: allows us to reconstruct three-dimensional profiles from the observed
544: two-dimensional ones. The lensing data yields in this way the density
545: profile of the total mass (dark matter plus gas), while the surface
546: brightness profile depends on a combination of the gas density and
547: temperature. Thus, with one additional relation, we can reconstruct
548: the full gas and dark matter density profiles. We derive this
549: additional relation by assuming hydrostatic equilibrium, consistent
550: with the indications discussed in section~1 that A1689 is well
551: relaxed. Hydrostatic equilibrium involves the gravitational force and
552: thus inserts a dependence on the total mass profile that couples the
553: constraints from lensing and from the X-ray data.
554:
555: We determined the best-fit values of our free parameters by fitting
556: the lensing and X-ray surface brightness data simultaneously. It is
557: important to note that we did not include the temperature profile data
558: for reasons that are explained later in this section. In our
559: model-independent approach, our free parameters are the values of the
560: 3D profile of the total mass density and the gas mass density at
561: several fixed radii (logarithmically spaced). The radial ranges of the
562: free parameters of the total mass density and the gas density were
563: determined by the range of the lensing data and the X-ray surface
564: brightness data, respectively. Within these ranges the density values
565: were linearly interpolated (in log-log) in-between the fixed
566: radii. Beyond the last data point, each profile (i.e., of the total
567: mass density and the gas density) was extrapolated. The total mass
568: density profile was extrapolated as $\rho(r) \propto r^{-3}$, in
569: accordance with the asymptotic behavior of the NFW profile and also
570: close to our best-fit core plus power-law model (section~5.2
571: below). The gas density was also extrapolated as $\rho(r) \propto
572: r^{-3}$, in order to have a constant $f_{\rm gas}$ at large radii;
573: this is also consistent with the previously deduced index of 2.9 (Xue
574: \& Wu 2000).
575:
576: In spherical symmetry, the hydrostatic equilibrium equation for an
577: ideal gas can be integrated from a given three-dimensional radius $r$
578: out to infinity (or some maximum, cutoff radius). This yields the
579: relation
580: \begin{equation} \left[ \rho_{\rm gas}(r)T(r)\right] \Big|^{r}_{\infty} =
581: \int^{\infty}_{r}\frac{GM_{\rm tot}(\leq r')\mu m_{p}
582: \rho_{\rm gas} (r')} {kr'^2}\,dr'\ ,
583: \label{eq: HEE}\end{equation} where $\rho_{\rm gas}$ is
584: the gas mass density, $T$ is the gas temperature, $M_{\rm tot}(\leq
585: r)$ is the total mass within $r$, $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight,
586: and $m_{\rm p}$ is the proton mass. Of course, $\mu$ depends on the
587: abundances; the typical metal abundance is $\approx\frac{1}{3}$ (which
588: is expected when ejecta are from Type Ia supernovae winds (Silk
589: 2003)). In A1689, $A=0.2-0.49$ was found by XW02.
590:
591: For given model parameters, the comparison to the lensing data was
592: performed by first projecting the 3D profile of the total mass density
593: using Abel integration
594: \begin{equation} \kappa(R) = \frac{2}{\Sigma_{crit}} \int^{\infty}_{R}
595: \frac{\rho_{\rm tot}(r) r dr}{\sqrt{r^{2}-R^{2}}}\ ,\label{eq: kappa}
596: \end{equation} where $\rho_{\rm tot}(r)$ is the three dimensional total mass
597: density and $\Sigma_{crit}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_{\rm os}}{D_{\rm
598: ol} D_{\rm ls}}$ is the critical density for lensing, written in terms
599: of angular diameter distances $D_{\rm os}$ (observer--source), $D_{\rm
600: ol}$ (observer--lens), and $D_{\rm ls}$
601: (lens--source). Simultaneously, we calculated the mass profile using
602: \begin{equation} M_{\rm tot}(\leq r) =
603: 4\pi \int^{r}_{0} \rho_{\rm tot}(r^\prime) r^{\prime 2} dr^\prime\ .
604: \label{eq: M} \end{equation}
605: We then used the mass profile and the gas density profile in the
606: hydrostatic equilibrium equation (\ref{eq: HEE}), obtaining the
607: temperature profile. The temperature and gas density profiles were
608: then used (with the assumed abundances) to determine the emissivity:
609: \begin{equation}
610: \varepsilon(r)= n_{e}(r)n_{H}(r)
611: \Lambda(T(r))\ ,
612: \end{equation}
613: where $\Lambda(T)$ is the cooling function, which was obtained by
614: considering all the relevant physical processes in the $9\cdot
615: 10^{5}-3\cdot 10^{8}$ K range. The cooling function was calculated by
616: MEKAL (consistent with our fitting of the observed spectra in
617: section~\ref{sec:X}).
618: We use the usual definitions, $n = \rho_{\rm gas}/(\mu m_{p})$,
619: $n_{e}=\rho_{\rm gas} /(\mu_{e}m_{p})$, and $n_{H}=\rho_{\rm gas}/
620: (\mu_{H}m_{p})$, which for $A=0.4$ solar yield $\mu=0.55$,
621: $\mu_{e}=1.05$, and $\mu_{H}=1.30$.
622:
623: Having thus obtained the emissivity, we re-projected it using the
624: Abel integral and obtained the X-ray surface brightness
625: \begin{equation} S(R) = 1.191\cdot 10^{-12}\frac{\pi }{(1+z)^4}
626: \int^{\infty}_{R} \frac{\varepsilon(r) r dr}{\sqrt{r^{2}-R^{2}}}\ ,
627: \label{eq: XSB} \end{equation}
628: where $\varepsilon$ is the emissivity in erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$, $S$
629: is the X-ray surface brightness in erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$
630: arcsec$^{-2}$, and we converted the units from erg s$^{-1}$
631: cm$^{-2}$ to erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ arcsec$^{-2}$ by multiplying by
632: $\frac{D_{A}^2}{4\pi D_{L}^2}$, using $D_{L}/D_{A}=(1+z)^2 $ (where
633: $D_{L}$ and $D_{A}$ are the angular diameter and luminosity distance,
634: respectively), and upon conversion of radians$^{-2}$ to arcsec$^{-2}$.
635: The mean surface brightness was calculated
636: in each annulus-shaped bin within the surface brightness data. The mean
637: surface brightness $S_{\rm bin}$ in a bin with inner and outer radii
638: $R_{\rm in}$ and $R_{\rm out}$, respectively, is
639: \begin{equation}
640: S_{\rm bin} = \frac{2}{(R_{out}^{2}-R_{in}^{2})}
641: \int^{R_{out}}_{R_{in}} R S(R)dR\ . \label{eq:XSB2}
642: \end{equation}
643: Finally, we compared this to the surface brightness data.
644:
645: Having calculated the observed quantities for each possible set of
646: model parameters, we then compared to the data using a $\chi^2$
647: measure. The total $\chi^2$ is the sum of two terms, one from the
648: lensing data and one from the X-ray surface brightness data:
649: \begin{equation}
650: \chi^{2} =
651: \chi^{2}_{\kappa}+\chi^{2}_{S}\ ,\label{eq: chi^{2}}\end{equation}
652: where
653: \begin{equation} \chi^{2}_{\kappa} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\kappa}} \left[
654: \frac{\kappa(R_{i})-\kappa_{data}(R_{i})}{\Delta
655: \kappa_{data}(R_{i})} \right]^{2}\end{equation} and
656: \begin{equation} \chi^{2}_{S} = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{S}} \left[
657: \frac{S_{\rm bin}(R_{j})-S_{data}(R_{j})}{\Delta S_{data}(R_{j})}
658: \right]^{2}\ .\end{equation} Here $\chi_{\kappa}^{2}$ is the $\chi^2$
659: of the lensing data, obtained by comparing the model $\kappa$ of
660: equation~(\ref{eq: kappa}) with the $N_{\kappa}$ data points
661: $\kappa_{data}$ and their errors $\Delta \kappa_{data}$; similarly,
662: $\chi_{S}^{2}$ is the $\chi^2$ of the X-ray surface brightness data,
663: obtained by comparing the model $S$ of equation~(\ref{eq:XSB2}) with
664: the $N_{S}$ data points $S_{data}$ and their errors $\Delta S_{data}$.
665: The best-fit values of the parameters, which are the 3D profile of the
666: total mass density and the 3D gas density profile, were obtained by
667: minimizing the total $\chi^2$. From these two profiles we then derived
668: the three dimensional temperature profile using equations~(\ref{eq:
669: HEE}) and (\ref{eq: M}). In order to perform an independent
670: consistency check with the two-dimensional temperature data (which
671: were not used in the analysis), we projected the 3D temperature,
672: weighting it by the emissivity for comparison with the observed
673: temperatures:
674: \begin{equation} T_{\rm 2D}(R) =
675: \frac{\int^{\infty}_{R} T(r)\, \varepsilon(r)\, \frac{r}
676: {\sqrt{r^{2}-R^{2}}}\, dr}{\int^{\infty}_{R} \varepsilon(r)\,
677: \frac{r}{\sqrt{r^{2}-R^{2}}}\, dr }\ .
678: \end{equation}
679: Weighting by the emission measure EM (which is proportional to
680: $\rho_{\rm gas}^2$) gave similar results.
681:
682: The EM weighted temperature ($T_{EM}$) and the emissivity weighted
683: temperature ($T_{E}$) may not precisely reflect the actual spectral
684: properties of the observed source. Vikhlinin (2005) states that the
685: "spectroscopic" temperature is generally lower than either of these
686: temperatures, although his suggested correction formula for the
687: effective spectroscopic temperature of a multi-component thermal
688: plasma yielded similar values to $T_{EM}$ and $T_{E}$. Mathiesen \&
689: Evrard (2001) claimed that the observed spectroscopic temperature may
690: be biased low due to the excess of soft X-ray emission from the small
691: clumps of cool gas that continuously merge into the intracluster
692: medium. Furthermore, Mazzotta et al.\ (2004) showed that from a purely
693: analytical point of view the spectrum of a multi-temperature thermal
694: model cannot be accurately reproduced by any single-temperature
695: thermal model. It has also been found in simulations that the spectral
696: temperature is in general smaller than $T_{E}$ by a factor of
697: $0.7-0.8$ (Rasia et al.\ 2005). We note that total mass estimates
698: obtained based solely on X-ray data together with the assumption of
699: hydrostatic equilibrium depend strongly on the temperature. In our
700: analysis, however, we do not use the temperature data for the fit but
701: only for a consistency check. Therefore, our values for the total mass
702: density are determined mainly by the lensing data.
703:
704: Our analysis focuses on the free-parameter method that does not assume
705: a particular shape for the profile. In addition, we used our analysis
706: method to test the viability of either an NFW profile or a cored
707: profile.
708:
709:
710: \subsection{The entropy profile}
711:
712: It is interesting to evaluate the entropy and the adiabatic index
713: profiles in order to probe the processes that govern the thermal state
714: of intracluster gas. For a monoatomic ideal gas $s=\frac{3}{2}k \ln K
715: +s_{0}$, where $s=\frac{S}{N}$ is the entropy per particle and
716: $K\equiv T\, n^{-2/3}$. In this case $K$ is a combination of $n$ and
717: $T$ that is invariant under adiabatic processes in the gas. More
718: generally, $T\propto n^{\Gamma-1}$ under adiabatic changes, where
719: $\Gamma$ is the adiabatic index. In this paper we refer to $K$ as the
720: ``entropy''.
721:
722: The gas at $\sim 0.1R_{\rm vir}$ lies outside of the cooling region,
723: and is still sufficiently close to the cluster center where shock
724: heating is minimized (Lloyd-Davis, Ponman, \& Cannon 2000). Thus at
725: this radius, it is less sensitive to specific models and
726: assumptions. In the outer regions, $r\gtrsim 0.1R_{\rm vir}$, the
727: entropy is entirely due to gravitational processes, and the entropy
728: profile is expected to be a featureless power law approaching $K
729: \propto r^{1.1}$ (Tozzi \& Norman 2001; Voit, Kay, \& Bryan 2005). In
730: the inner region the gas entropy profile is flattened (for ASCA and
731: ROSAT data, see Lloyd-Davis, Ponman, \& Cannon 2000; Ponman,
732: Sanderson,\& Finoguenov 2003; for various cosmological simulations see
733: Voit, Kay, \& Bryan 2005; for a theoretical analysis of joint X-ray
734: and SZ observations, see Cavaliere, Lapi, \& Rephaeli 2005) .
735:
736:
737: \subsection{The effect of the cD galaxy}
738: \label{sec: cD}
739:
740: A massive cD galaxy dominates the inner region of A1689. Thus, it is
741: important to check the effect of the cD galaxy on the cluster, and
742: especially on the 2D temperature observed in the central region. Its
743: mass profile can be analytically expressed as follows. The mass
744: profile is $M_{\rm cD}=M_{\rm stars}+M_{\rm DM}$, where the gas mass
745: is neglected since it is dominated by the stellar mass at small radii
746: and by the DM mass at large radii. We assume an NFW profile for the
747: dark matter, and express the stellar mass profile as $M_{\rm stars} =
748: M_{\rm stars,0}\cdot \frac{r^2}{(r+a)^2}$, where $M_{\rm stars,0}$ is
749: the mass of the stars in the cD galaxy and $a$ is a characteristic
750: length-scale (Hernquist 1990). Typical values for the effective
751: radius, $R_e$, with $a = R_{e}/1.82$, are $R_e \approx 3-5$ h$^{-1}$
752: kpc. E.g., Jannuzi, Yanny, \& Impey (1997) found an average $R_e=4.6$
753: h$^{-1}$ kpc for five elliptic galaxies; Brown \& Bregman (2001) found
754: an average $R_e=3.2$ h$^{-1}$ kpc for four elliptical galaxies (but
755: see Arnalte Mur, Ellis, \& Colless (2006) who found $R_e=24.7$
756: h$^{-1}$ kpc). Typical values for the characteristic radius of the NFW
757: profile of the DM (see also section~5.2 below) are $5-25$ h$^{-1}$ kpc
758: (Romanowsky et al.\ 2003).
759:
760: X-ray emission from the cD galaxy may be produced by the stars and
761: stellar remnants, or by the hot gas. For the stellar component, the
762: spectrum (dominated by X-ray binaries) is expected to be hard like
763: that of the cluster ($T_X\sim 10$ keV) and have a minor effect on the
764: measured 2D temperature, so we did not include it in our model. We
765: considered the gas emission, which should give a soft spectrum
766: ($T_X\sim 1$ keV) (Brown \& Bregman 2001). We adopted a double beta
767: model for the gas density profile, as Matsushita et al.\ (2002) fitted
768: to M87, where we redid the fit to the M87 data, allowing the
769: parameters to vary freely except that we fixed the $\beta$ of the
770: extended component to be $0.47$ (based on data from the ROSAT all sky
771: survey: Bohringer et al.\ 1994). For a given gas mass density and
772: total mass profile of the cD, we derived the temperature using
773: equation~(\ref{eq: HEE}). From the gas density and the temperature we
774: obtained the emissivity using the MEKAL code, assuming a solar metal
775: abundance.
776:
777: \section{Results}
778: \label{results}
779:
780: In this section we present the results of our model-independent
781: analysis of the lensing and X-ray data. The numbers of data points
782: used in the analysis were $N_{\kappa}=26$ and $N_{s}=58$ for lensing
783: and surface brightness, respectively. Accordingly, the ratio of the
784: number of free parameters for the total mass to that for the gas mass
785: profile was set to $i/j\approx26/58$. As our standard case, we chose 6
786: free parameters for the total mass density and 14 free parameters for
787: the gas mass density. These relatively small numbers of model points
788: ensured fairly smooth profiles that effectively average over the noise
789: in the data. The fit to the lensing and surface brightness data can be
790: seen in fig.~\ref{lensing fit} and fig.~\ref{surface brightness fit},
791: respectively. Both of the fits are very good, as expressed in the low
792: reduced $\chi^2$, i.e., $\chi^2_{\rm r} \equiv \chi^2/$dof. The
793: reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit to the data was 28.1/64. The contribution
794: of each data set within the total, simultaneous fit to both, was
795: $\chi^2_{r}({\rm lensing})=4.7/20$ and $\chi^2_{r}({\rm
796: surface\;brightness})=23.5/44$. This shows that we achieved a good fit
797: to both data sets, and thus did not need a larger number of model
798: points. The low $\chi^2_{\rm r}$, especially in the lensing case,
799: suggests errors that are either overestimated or significantly
800: correlated among the various data points, producing smoother data than
801: expected given the errors. For a consistency check, we repeated the
802: fits with different numbers of parameters, namely $i=5,j=11$ and
803: $i=4,j=9$. In
804: figures~\ref{total_mass_density_different_parameters_sets} --
805: \ref{temperature_different_parameters_sets} we show the profiles of
806: the total mass density, the gas mass density, and the temperature for
807: the three free parameters sets, ($i=5,j=11$), ($i=6,j=14$) and
808: ($i=4,j=9$). The figures clearly show that our results are insensitive
809: to the precise number of adopted free parameters.
810: To assess the degree of correlation between values of the projected
811: fit parameters we have calculated the correlation matrix for $i=4,j=9$,
812: which is specified in table~\ref{correlation matrix} in the Appendix.
813:
814:
815: \begin{figure}
816: \centering
817: \epsfig{file=total_mass_density_different_parameters_sets.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
818: \caption{Results for the total mass density profile when different
819: numbers of free parameters are used for the profiles of total mass
820: ($i$) and gas ($j$). We consider $i=6$, $j=14$ (circles), $i=5$,
821: $j=11$ (triangles), and $i=4$, $j=9$ (squares). All three cases had
822: the same, fixed values for the smallest and largest radius; these
823: sets of points have been offset for display purposes, the triangles
824: to the left and the squares to the right.
825: \label{total_mass_density_different_parameters_sets}}
826: \end{figure}
827:
828: \begin{figure}
829: \centering
830: \epsfig{file=gas_mass_density_different_parameters_sets.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
831: \caption{Results for the gas mass density profile when different
832: numbers of free parameters are used. Sets of points are as in
833: figure~\ref{total_mass_density_different_parameters_sets}. The first
834: and last points are offset as in
835: figure~\ref{total_mass_density_different_parameters_sets}.
836: \label{gas_mass_density_different_parameters_sets}}
837: \end{figure}
838:
839: \begin{figure}
840: \centering
841: \epsfig{file=temperature_different_parameters_sets.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
842: \caption{Results for the 3D temperature profile when different
843: numbers of free parameters are used. Sets of points are as in
844: figure~\ref{total_mass_density_different_parameters_sets}. The first
845: and last
846: set of
847: points are again offset as in
848: figure~\ref{total_mass_density_different_parameters_sets}.
849: \label{temperature_different_parameters_sets}}
850: \end{figure}
851:
852: % Testing the extrapolation
853: We tested the effect of the form of extrapolation to large radii on
854: the values obtained for the total mass density and the gas mass
855: density. We checked the results for large changes in the extrapolation
856: power-law index, i.e. $-2$ and $-4$ (compared to our standard
857: assumption of $\rho \propto r^{-3}$). We used our standard number of
858: free parameters, $6$ and $14$ for the total mass density and for the
859: gas mass density, respectively. In each case the same extrapolation
860: index was used for the total mass and the gas mass density in order to
861: ensure a constant gas fraction at large radii. We expected a large
862: change in the free parameter at the largest radius, which is the
863: closest to the extrapolation. Using an extrapolation index $-2$ gave a
864: value which is lower by $21\%$ and $11\%$ for the total mass density
865: and gas mass density, respectively, at this last point. For an
866: extrapolation index $-4$ there was $<1\%$ change in the total mass
867: density value and $8\%$ in the gas mass density. In the gas mass
868: density there was also a change in the innermost radius, $29\%$ and
869: $36\%$ for an extrapolation index of $-2$ and $-4$, respectively; this
870: change is not very significant due to the large errors at this
871: radius. Taking a smaller number of free parameters lowers the errors
872: of the gas mass density at the smaller radius and as a consequence
873: also weakens the dependence on the extrapolation index. Thus, our
874: results in general are not strongly dependent on the extrapolation
875: index.
876:
877: \subsection{Total mass density}
878: \label{The total mass density}
879:
880: The values of our six free parameters of the total mass density and
881: the deduced 3D mass are shown in table (\ref{total mass density
882: table}). As mentioned above the X-ray temperature data were not
883: used. The surface density data were used, but their effect on the
884: total mass profile is limited since $\rho_{\rm gas}$ appears on both
885: sides of equation~(\ref{eq: HEE}). Thus, the lensing data basically
886: determined the derived 3D total mass density and the 3D mass profiles.
887:
888: \begin{table}
889:
890: \caption{Values of 3D mass density; errors are 1-$\sigma$ confidence.
891: \label{total mass density table}}
892: \begin{center}
893: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
894:
895:
896: \hline
897: $r$ [h$^{-1}$ kpc] & $\rho_{\rm total}$ [$10^{-25}$ h$^{2}$
898: gr/cm$^3$] & $M_{\rm total}$ [$10^{12}$ h$^{-1}$ $M_{\sun}$]\\
899: \hline
900: 10.1 & $90_{-90}^{+91}$ & $0.91 \pm 0.68$ \\
901: 27.7 & $39 \pm 11$ & $7.3 \pm 2.5$ \\
902: 75.9 & $10.5 \pm 1$ & $48.3 \pm 3.9$ \\
903: 208 & $2.4 \pm 0.4$ & $252 \pm 15$ \\
904: 568 & $0.13\pm 0.07$ & $679 \pm 82$ \\
905: 1554 & $0.0022_{-0.0022}^{+0.0049}$ & $956 \pm 180$\\
906: \hline
907: \end{tabular}
908: \end{center}
909: \end{table}
910:
911: We also compared the total mass density profile obtained by the
912: model-independent method to the that obtained by fitting particular
913: models.
914: We tested the NFW profile,
915: \begin{equation}
916: \rho = \frac{\rho_0}{\left(r/r_s \right)\left(1+r/r_s \right)^2}\ ,
917: \end{equation}
918: and a core model,
919: \begin{equation}
920: \rho = \frac{\rho_0}{\left( 1+(r/r_s)^2 \right)^n}\ ,
921: \end{equation}
922: where $r_s$ is a scale radius.
923: In the NFW profile $\rho_0$ and $r_s$ were free parameters, and in
924: the core profile $\rho_0$, $r_s$, and $n$ were free parameters.
925: \begin{table}
926: \caption{The values of the parameters of the two total mass density
927: models, NFW and core. The errors are 1-$\sigma$ confidence.
928: \label{profiles fit to the lensing data}}
929: \begin{center}
930: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
931: \hline
932: Parameter & NFW & core \\
933: \hline
934: $\rho_0$ [$10^{-25}$ h$^{2}$ gr/cm$^3$] & $9.6\pm1.8$ & $24.4\pm4.5$ \\
935: $r_s$ [h$^{-1}$ kpc] & $175\pm18$ & $91\pm17$ \\
936: n & - & $1.43\pm0.12$ \\
937: $\chi^2/dof $ & $15.3/(26-2)$ & $ 13.3/(26-3)$ \\
938: \hline
939: \end{tabular}
940: \end{center}
941: \end{table}
942: We chose these two profiles since they are frequently used and are
943: significantly different both at small and at large radii. For simplicity,
944: we fitted the two profiles only to the lensing data.
945: \begin{figure}
946: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{free_param_Vs_NFW_and_core.eps}}
947: \caption{A comparison between the mass profile derived by the model-independent method
948: to that using particular models. We compare the values obtained by our
949: model-free analysis (points with error bars) to the results of
950: assuming an NFW profile (solid curve) or a core plus power-law profile
951: (dashed curve). \label{free_param_Vs_NFW_and_core}}
952: \end{figure}
953:
954: A comparison of the profiles to the six values we obtained in our main
955: analysis (figure~\ref{free_param_Vs_NFW_and_core} and
956: table~\ref{profiles fit to the lensing data}) yields a fairly close
957: agreement and implies that neither of the profiles is strongly
958: excluded. Still, the measured profile as sampled by the six points is
959: steeper at large radii than both models, in agreement with Broadhurst
960: et al.\ (2005b). The core profile is too shallow at small radii and
961: thus seems not to be a good fit to our deduced values of the mass
962: density in this region.
963:
964: The NFW fit gave a concentration parameter $C_N=12.2^{+0.9}_{-1}$,
965: where $C_N=r_{\rm vir}/r_s$ in terms of the virial radius $r_{\rm
966: vir}$ and the characteristic radius $r_s$ of the NFW profile. This is
967: close to the value obtained by Broadhurst et al.\ (2005b),
968: $C_N=13.7^{+1.4}_{-1.1}$, which was based only on a fit to the strong
969: and weak lensing information. We also obtained from the NFW fit two
970: characteristic radii for the cluster: $r_{200}$, the radius inside
971: which the average density is $200$ times the critical density, and
972: $r_{\rm vir}$, defined with a relative density of $116$, which is the
973: density expected theoretically at $z=0.183$ in the $\Lambda$CDM model.
974: The fit yielded $r_{200}=1.71$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc and $r_{vir}=2.14$
975: h$^{-1}$ Mpc.
976:
977: In figure~\ref{total mass profile} we plot our derived 3D total mass
978: profile from eq.~(\ref{eq: M}) and the one derived in AM04 from XMM
979: data. They used an NFW profile based on data out to $693$ h$^{-1}$
980: kpc. The two profiles agree at the small radii but disagree at larger
981: radii. Our highest-radius point agrees with their profile, but at this
982: radius we had to extrapolate the AM04 3D mass profile beyond their
983: data range.
984: \begin{figure}
985: \centering
986: \epsfig{file=M3D_profile_comparison_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
987: \caption{The derived 3D total mass profile. We compare our derived
988: profile (dots) to the one derived by AM04 (squares). They used an NFW
989: profile based on data out to $693$ h$^{-1}$ kpc. Both profiles are
990: shown with 1-$\sigma$ errors. The vertical dotted line is at 0.1
991: $r_{\rm vir}$.\label{total mass profile}}
992: \end{figure}
993:
994:
995: \subsection{2D mass profile}
996:
997: The deduced 2D mass profile $M_{2D}(R)=2\pi \Sigma_{crit} \int_{0}^{R}
998: \kappa(R^\prime) R^\prime dR^\prime$, is compared with previous
999: results in Figure~\ref{M2D comparison}. These include results from
1000: strong lensing (Tyson \& Fischer 1995), the lensing magnification
1001: measured by the distortion of the background galaxy luminosity
1002: function (Dye et al.\ 2001), the lensing magnification measured by the
1003: deficit of red background galaxies (Taylor et al.\ 1998), the
1004: projected best-fit NFW model from X-ray data (AM04 via XMM), and the
1005: best-fit NFW model from weak gravitational shear analysis (Clowe \&
1006: Schneider 2001; King et al.\ 2002). The latter analysis, although it
1007: is a weak lensing analysis, is the closest to the profile derived from
1008: X-ray data, but it appears to have underestimated the distortion
1009: signal derived in the other lensing analyses. This is probably caused
1010: by confusion between the cluster galaxies and the foreground or
1011: background galaxies. Thus, the X-ray analysis of AM04 (based on the
1012: X-ray temperature) gives a substantially lower 2D mass than the more
1013: reliable lensing analyses. This foreshadows the discrepancy that we
1014: find with the measured temperature (see section~5.5 below).
1015:
1016: \begin{figure}
1017: \centering
1018: \epsfig{file=M2D_profile_comparison_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1019: \caption{The derived 2D mass profile (6 diamonds) is compared to the
1020: gravitational lensing results from strong lensing (square, Tyson \&
1021: Fischer 1995), distortion of background galaxy luminosity function (3
1022: circles, Dye et al.\ 2001), deficit in number counts of red background
1023: galaxies (dashed curves, Taylor et al. 1998), projected best-fit NFW
1024: model from weak gravitational shear (triangles, King et al.\ 2002),
1025: and projected best-fit NFW model from X-ray data (solid curve, AM04) .
1026: \label{M2D comparison}}
1027: \end{figure}
1028:
1029:
1030: \subsection{Gas density profile}
1031:
1032: The values of the derived gas mass density are shown in table~\ref{gas
1033: mass density table}. We compared our gas density profile to the one
1034: obtained by MME99. They fitted a single $\beta$ model to the surface
1035: brightness profile; in clusters where they suspected the presence of
1036: cooling flows the fit was to a double $\beta$ model (though with the
1037: same $\beta$ in both elements). They used two types of clues for the
1038: presence of cooling flows. First, when fitting a single $\beta$ model
1039: the surface brightness data points must be higher than the fitted
1040: curve in the inner region. Second, the cluster must appear relaxed,
1041: i.e., lacking obvious asphericity or substructure that would indicate
1042: a recent merger. Judging by their successful fit to a single $\beta$
1043: model, they concluded that A1689 is not likely to have a cooling flow.
1044: Their fit is thus based on an assumed isothermal profile, and $0.3$
1045: solar abundance. Figure~\ref{gas density comparison to MME99} shows
1046: excellent agreement between our obtained gas density profile and the
1047: one obtained by MME99.
1048: \begin{table}
1049:
1050: \caption{Deduced values of the 3D gas mass density, and derived
1051: temperatures using the gas and total mass profiles together with the
1052: hydrostatic equilibrium equation. The errors are 1-$\sigma$
1053: confidence. \label{gas mass density table}}
1054: \begin{center}
1055: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
1056:
1057:
1058: \hline
1059: $r$ [h$^{-1}$ kpc] & $\rho_{\rm gas}$ [$10^{-26}$ h$^{0.5}$ gr/cm$^3$] & $ T_{3D}$ [keV] \\
1060: \hline
1061: 12.9 & $9.9_{-9.9}^{+30.3}$ & $10.1_{-10.1}^{+30.5}$ \\
1062: 17.6 & $7.2_{-7.2}^{+10.7}$ & $12.7_{-12.7}^{+15.5}$ \\
1063: 24.0 & $6.4\pm3.1$ & $13.0\pm4.7$ \\
1064: 32.7 & $5.06\pm0.55$ & $14.0\pm1.8 $ \\
1065: 44.5 & $4.12\pm 0.18$ & $14.1\pm1.0 $ \\
1066: 60.7 & $3.09\pm0.11$ & $14.7\pm0.75$ \\
1067: 82.7 & $1.96\pm0.055$ & $17.1\pm0.7$ \\
1068: 113 & $1.35\pm0.033$ & $17.8\pm0.7$ \\
1069: 154 & $0.97\pm0.023$ & $16.65\pm0.78$ \\
1070: 209 & $0.567\pm0.015$ & $16.94\pm0.96 $ \\
1071: 285 & $0.35\pm 0.012$ & $14.8\pm1.0$ \\
1072: 388 & $0.19\pm0.0079$ & $13.1\pm 1.3$ \\
1073: 529 & $0.0982\pm0.00067$ & $11.3\pm1.7$ \\
1074: 721 & $0.0586\pm0.00057$ & $7.29\pm0.87$ \\
1075:
1076: \hline
1077: \end{tabular}
1078: \end{center}
1079: \end{table}
1080:
1081: \begin{figure}
1082:
1083: \centering
1084: \epsfig{file=gas_mass_density_profile_comparison_with_MME99_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1085: \caption{Our derived gas mass density profile (points with error bars) compared to the
1086: profile derived by MME99 (solid curve).\label{gas density comparison to
1087: MME99}}
1088: \end{figure}
1089:
1090: \begin{table}
1091:
1092: \caption{Deduced values of the 3D gas mass at various radii.
1093: The errors are 1-$\sigma$ confidence. \label{gas mass table}}
1094: \begin{center}
1095: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
1096:
1097:
1098: \hline
1099: $r$ [h$^{-1}$ kpc] & $M_{\rm gas}$ [$10^{11}$ h$^{-5/2}$ $M_{\sun}$]\\
1100: \hline
1101: 12.9 & $0.20_{-0.20}^{+0.60}$ \\
1102: 17.6 & $0.37_{-0.37}^{+0.70}$ \\
1103: 24 & $0.71 \pm 0.57$ \\
1104: 32.7 & $1.44 \pm 0.68$ \\
1105: 44.5 & $2.93 \pm 0.64$ \\
1106: 60.7 & $5.85 \pm 0.66$ \\
1107: 82.7 & $10.93 \pm 0.65$ \\
1108: 113 & $19.46 \pm 0.66$ \\
1109: 154 & $34.63 \pm 0.67$ \\
1110: 209 & $59.3 \pm 0.74$ \\
1111: 285 & $96.83 \pm 0.88$ \\
1112: 388 & $151.5\pm 1.3$ \\
1113: 529 & $224.8\pm2.5$ \\
1114: 721 & $328.4\pm3.7$ \\
1115: \hline
1116: \end{tabular}
1117: \end{center}
1118: \end{table}
1119:
1120: \begin{figure}
1121: \centering
1122: \epsfig{file=gas_mass_profile_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1123: \caption{The gas mass profile derived from the best-fit gas density
1124: profile. All the values have error bars but some are too small to
1125: distinguish. These values are also listed in table~(\ref{gas mass
1126: table}).}
1127: \end{figure}
1128:
1129:
1130: \subsection{Gas mass fraction}
1131:
1132: Having derived the total and gas mass densities, the gas fraction,
1133: $f_{\rm gas}=M_{\rm gas}/M_{\rm total}$, can then be determined upon
1134: integration. We can compare our value, $f_{\rm
1135: gas}(r=0.25r_{200})=0.0326\pm0.0023$ h$^{-3/2}$, to Sanderson et al.\
1136: (2003). They obtained for the $8-17$ keV range (see their figure~6)
1137: $f_{\rm gas}(r\cong0.25r_{200})= 0.041$ h$^{-3/2}$. Our value of
1138: $r_{200}$ is slightly different since it was derived from the NFW fit
1139: to the lensing data, whereas their value was deduced from the X-ray
1140: data. They obtained $r_{200}=2955$ h$_{0.7}^{-1}=2068.5$ h$^{-1}$ kpc,
1141: and if we scale our result by their $r_{200}$ we get $f_{\rm
1142: gas}(r=0.25r_{200})=0.0359\pm0.0024$ h$^{-3/2}$. This value is still
1143: somewhat lower than their $8-17$ keV value, but in good agreement if
1144: we look at the scatter of the gas fraction in their figure~4. In their
1145: figure~4 they plotted the values of the gas fraction of different
1146: clusters at $r=0.3r_{200}$ as a function of the cluster
1147: temperature. The gas fraction of hot clusters ranges from $\sim 0.035$
1148: h$^{-3/2}$ to $\sim 0.06$ h$^{-3/2}$, with some $\sim40 \%$
1149: uncertainty. AM04 found for A1689 $f_{\rm
1150: gas}(r=r_{2500})=0.044\pm0.0049$ h$^{-3/2}$, which is in agreement
1151: with our value of $f_{\rm gas}(r=r_{2500})= 0.0385\pm0.0026$
1152: h$^{-3/2}$. MME99 found for an ensemble of clusters with $T>5$ keV a
1153: $f_{\rm gas}(r=r_{500})=0.075$ h$^{-3/2}$, close to and slightly lower
1154: than the value in Sanderson et al.\ (2003), just as our gas fraction
1155: at $r=0.25r_{200}$ was a little lower than the value derived by
1156: Sanderson et al.\ (2003) at that radius.
1157:
1158: Markevitch et al.\ (1999) examined two relaxed clusters, A2199 and
1159: A496, which are cooler than A1689 and have temperatures $\sim 4-5$
1160: keV. They found $f_{\rm gas}(r=0.5\;h^{-1}\;{\rm
1161: Mpc})=0.0569\pm0.0049$ h$^{-3/2}$ and $f_{\rm gas}(r=0.5\;h^{-1}\;{\rm
1162: Mpc})=0.0559\pm0.006$ h$^{-3/2}$ for A2199 and A496, respectively.
1163: These values are slightly higher than in other papers. They claimed
1164: that their values are consistent with others including MME99, who
1165: found that $\langle f_{\rm gas} \rangle =0.0566$ h$^{-3/2}$ for
1166: clusters with $T<5$ keV. However, note that the Markevitch et al.\
1167: values are at $r_{1000}$ while the MME99 values are at $r_{500}$.
1168:
1169: The gas mass fraction was also determined from SZ measurements with
1170: BIMA and OVRO (Grego et al.\ 2001). The latter authors measured
1171: $f_{\rm gas}(r=65")$ and used a scaling relation in order to obtain
1172: $f_{\rm gas}(r=r_{500})$. They found for a sample of 18 clusters
1173: (assuming $\Omega_{m}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$) $f_{\rm
1174: gas}=0.081^{+0.009}_{-0.011}$ h$^{-1}$. These values are higher than
1175: obtained by X-ray measurements. For A1689, Grego et al.\ (2001)
1176: obtained $f_{\rm gas}(r=r_{500})=0.098^{+0.029}_{-0.033}$ h$^{-1}$, or
1177: more directly $f_{\rm gas}(r=65")=0.068^{+0.02}_{-0.023}$
1178: $h^{-1}$. Our results yield $f_{\rm gas}(r=r_{500})=0.0482$ h$^{-3/2}$
1179: and $f_{\rm gas}(r=65"=140\;h^{-1}\;{\rm kpc})=0.0222\pm0.0009$
1180: h$^{-3/2}$, much lower than in their paper. Some systematic
1181: discrepancy in the gas fraction from X-ray and SZ measurements is
1182: expected (Hallman et al.\ 2007). The difference can be due to the fact
1183: that $M_{\rm gas}({\rm SZ})\propto T^{-1}$ (where $T$ is the gas
1184: temperature as deduced from spectral X-ray measurements; Grego et al.\
1185: 2001), since (the thermal component of) the SZ effect depends on the
1186: product of gas density and temperature. Thus, an underestimation of
1187: the temperature (see section~\ref{The 2D temperature profile section})
1188: results in an $M_{\rm gas}({\rm SZ})$ that is higher than $M_{\rm
1189: gas}(\mbox{X})$, making $f_{\rm gas}({\rm SZ})$ higher than $f_{\rm
1190: gas}(\mbox{X})$. Expressing the difference in terms of the gas mass,
1191: Grego et al.\ (2001) obtained $M_{\rm
1192: gas}(r=65")=4.6_{-1.1}^{+0.8}\cdot 10^{12}$ h$^{-2}$ $M_{\odot}$ and
1193: we $M_{\rm gas}(r=65")=2.9\cdot 10^{12}$ h$^{-1}$ $M_{\odot}$. The
1194: ratio between the gas fraction derived by X-rays and the one derived
1195: by SZ also depends on clumpiness, where we define the clumping
1196: parameter as $C\equiv \langle n_{e}^{2} \rangle ^{1/2}/ \langle n_{e}
1197: \rangle$. The gas mass measured via X-ray is $M_{\rm
1198: gas}(\mbox{X})\propto C^{-1}$, i.e., the actual gas mass is lower than
1199: that apparently observed if the cluster is clumpy but this is not
1200: corrected for. The gas mass measured via SZ is not proportional to the
1201: clumping. Thus, correcting for clumping would further decrease $M_{\rm
1202: gas}(\mbox{X})/M_{\rm gas}({\rm SZ})$ by a factor of $\sim C$. This
1203: may indicate that the level of clumping in this cluster is low.
1204:
1205: Finally, we also compared our results for the gas fraction to the
1206: simple theoretical models. In figure~\ref{f_gas comparison} we show
1207: the $f_{\rm gas}$ obtained by the parametrized models, NFW (solid
1208: curve) or core (dashed curve) for the total mass density and (in both
1209: cases) a double $\beta$ model for the gas mass density, compared to
1210: the profile obtained from our model-free method (points with error
1211: bars). In general the models are not far from our reconstructed
1212: values. At very large radii, extrapolated beyond the data points, the
1213: gas fraction derived by the models would diverge from the real,
1214: supposedly constant value at large radii, since $\rho_{\rm gas}\propto
1215: r^{~-2.2}$ and $\rho_{DM/total}\propto r^{-3}$. Instead, in our
1216: model-independent method the extrapolation of the gas density is
1217: $\rho_{\rm gas}\propto r^{-3}$, in order to give an asymptotic $f_{\rm
1218: gas}=$const at large radii. At radii of $\sim200 - 500$ h$^{-1}$ kpc
1219: the $f_{\rm gas}$ obtained by the model-independent method tends to be
1220: slightly lower than the one obtained by the parametrized models. At
1221: small radii the NFW model fits better than the core model, though the
1222: core gives a better overall fit to the lensing data (see
1223: table~\ref{profiles fit to the lensing data}).
1224:
1225:
1226: \begin{figure}
1227: \centering
1228: \epsfig{file=f_gas_comparison_free_param_and_models_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1229: \caption{A comparison between the $f_{\rm gas}$ profile derived by our
1230: model-independent method (points with error bars) to the profile
1231: derived using parametrized models. We consider two simple models, NFW
1232: (solid curve) and a core profile (dashed curve) for the total mass, in
1233: each case with a double beta profile for the gas mass.
1234: \label{f_gas comparison}}
1235: \end{figure}
1236:
1237:
1238: \subsection{2D temperature profile}
1239: \label{The 2D temperature profile section}
1240:
1241: In figure~\ref{T2D comparison} we compare the 2D temperature obtained
1242: by our model-free method to the measured 2D temperature. The measured
1243: 2D temperature is substantially lower. It has been found in numerical
1244: simulations that the spectroscopic temperature is typically lower than
1245: the one determined by hydrostatic equilibrium by a factor of $0.7-0.8$
1246: (Rasia et al.\ 2005). Thus we also show in the figure the measured 2D
1247: temperature divided by 0.7 (upper solid curve). This factor explains
1248: most of the discrepancy in A1689. Kawahara et al.\ (2006) used
1249: cosmological hydrodynamical simulations to explain this
1250: discrepancy. They found that local inhomogeneities in the gas are
1251: largely responsible.
1252:
1253: \begin{figure}
1254: \centering
1255: \epsfig{file=T2D_comparison_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1256: \caption{A comparison between the 2D temperature profile obtained
1257: from our model-independent method (dashed curve) to the profile
1258: measured from the X-ray spectrum (lower solid curve). Also shown are
1259: the measured temperature divided by 0.7 (upper solid curve) and the
1260: measured 2D temperature profile from AM04 (circles with error
1261: bars). \label{T2D comparison}}
1262: \end{figure}
1263:
1264: \begin{figure}
1265: \centering
1266: \epsfig{file=kappa_fit_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1267: \caption{Our fit to the lensing data. The $\kappa$ profile obtained by
1268: our model-independent method (solid curve) is compared to the measured
1269: profile (points with error bars), where $\kappa$ is the 2D surface
1270: density in units of the critical density for lensing.
1271: \label{lensing fit}}
1272: \end{figure}
1273:
1274: \begin{figure}
1275: \centering
1276: \epsfig{file=surface_brightness_fit_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1277: \caption{Our fit to the surface brightness data. The X-ray surface
1278: brightness profile obtained by the model-independent method (solid
1279: curve) is compared to the measured profile (points with error bars).
1280: \label{surface brightness fit}}
1281: \end{figure}
1282:
1283: \begin{figure}
1284: \centering
1285: \epsfig{file=temperature_profile_inkeV_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1286: \caption{The 3D temperature profile as reconstructed by our model-independent
1287: method. \label{T3D profile}}
1288: \end{figure}
1289:
1290:
1291: \subsection{The entropy and polytropic index}
1292:
1293: Previous theoretical work has shown that the entropy profiles of
1294: non-radiative clusters approximately follow a power law with $K(r)
1295: \propto r^{1.1}$ (Tozzi \& Norman 2001; Borgani et al.\ 2002; Voit et
1296: al.\ 2003). More recent detailed hydrodynamical simulations by Voit,
1297: Kay \& Bryan (2005) confirmed the power law behavior of the entropy at
1298: $r>0.1r_{\rm vir}$. They also determined the normalization $N$, where
1299: $K(r)/K_{200}=N(r/r_{200})^{1.1}$, which was found to be $1.32\pm0.03$
1300: and $1.41\pm0.03$ for SPH and AMR simulations, respectively. In the
1301: central region of the cluster, $<0.1r_{\rm vir}$, there are some
1302: claims for the existence of an entropy "floor", i.e., a limiting
1303: constant value. Voit et al.\ (2003) showed theoretically how an
1304: entropy floor can be attained; Voit, Kay \& Bryan (2005) used
1305: simulations to find the level of this entropy floor. They found an
1306: entropy floor using an AMR code, but the value obtained with an SPH
1307: code was substantially lower (if at all present).
1308:
1309: Observational comparisons of the entropy of clusters at small and at
1310: large radii show a departure from the predicted self-similarity. In
1311: the inner regions of low-mass clusters there appears to be a "floor"
1312: in entropy of $\sim 135$ keV cm$^2$, with a higher value for high-mass
1313: clusters (Lloyd-Davies, Ponman, \& Cannon 2000). This may represent a
1314: "preheated" minimum level which Kaiser (1991) speculated may be due to
1315: the effect of star formation in early galaxies which preheat the IGM
1316: through galactic winds. This idea is strengthened by the ubiquitous
1317: presence of gas outflows in observations of high-redshift galaxies
1318: (Franx et al.\ 1997, Frye \& Broadhurst 1998, Frye, Broadhurst \&
1319: Benitez 2002, Pettini et al.\ 2001). Thus it seems natural to link
1320: this entropy floor with the winds from galaxy formation.
1321:
1322: In figure~\ref{entropy profile} we plot $K/K_{200}$, where $K_{200}$
1323: is the entropy at $r=r_{200}$. We find $r_{200}= 1.7$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc and
1324: $r_{200}\cong0.8 r_{\rm vir}$. The value of our derived entropy at
1325: $0.1r_{\rm vir}$ agrees well with the one found by Lloyd-Davis,
1326: Ponman, \& Cannon (2000), who used ROSAT and ASCA data. They assumed
1327: spherical symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium, and a single beta
1328: model for the gas density along with a linear function for the
1329: temperature. For the DM density they used an NFW profile. Our derived
1330: entropy at $0.1r_{\rm vir}$, $K(r=0.1r_{\rm vir})=786\pm33$ h$^{-1/3}$
1331: keV cm$^2$, also agrees well with Ponman, Sanderson, \& Finoguenov
1332: (2003), who also used ROSAT and ASCA data, assumed spherical symmetry
1333: and hydrostatic equilibrium, a single beta model for the gas density,
1334: and a linear function or a polytrope for the temperature. We fitted a
1335: power law to our entropy profile at all radii where we obtained the
1336: gas mass density (which includes points at $r<0.1r_{\rm vir}$). This
1337: fitted power law, which is shown in figure~\ref{entropy profile}, is
1338: $K(r)/K_{200} = (0.95\pm 0.05)(r/r_{200})^{0.82\pm 0.02}$.
1339: \begin{figure}
1340: \centering
1341: \epsfig{file=K_and_r_scaled_200_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1342: \caption{Our derived entropy profile (points with error bars) compared
1343: to the best-fit power law profile (solid curve).
1344: \label{entropy profile}}
1345: \end{figure}
1346:
1347: Our X-ray data go up to $\sim0.34r_{\rm vir}$, so obtaining a fit to
1348: the $(0.1-1)r_{\rm vir}$ range is not possible. In the available range
1349: $\sim (0.006-0.34)r_{\rm vir}$ the power law is a close fit, though
1350: the index is somewhat lower than the theoretical value of $1.1$.
1351: Excluding the entropy points at small radii, $r<0.1r_{\rm vir}
1352: $, would not substantially change the value of the power index, but
1353: then there are only four data points at $r>0.1r_{\rm vir}$. In the
1354: inner part ($r<0.1r_{vir}$) if the entropy is flattened then this
1355: occurs only at $r<0.02r_{vir}$. This is consistent with Tozzi \&
1356: Norman (2001) who found that the flat entropy region in massive
1357: clusters ($M \sim 10^{15}$ $M_{\odot}$) occurs only at $r<0.01\;
1358: r_{200}$. Comparing our obtained values of the entropy at $r<0.1r_{\rm
1359: vir}$ to those in Voit, Kay \& Bryan (2005), they are closer to the
1360: values obtained in the SPH simulations than in the AMR simulations.
1361: Our derived normalization $0.95\pm 0.05$ is somewhat lower than obtained
1362: by Voit, Kay, \& Bryan (2005) in both types of simulations.
1363:
1364: The deduced power law index is slightly lower than the value obtained
1365: from simulations (Tozzi \& Norman 2001; Borgani et al.\ 2002; Voit et
1366: al.\ 2003; Voit, Kay, \& Bryan 2005). The disagreement can be
1367: explained by the fact that we did not assume an NFW profile. Assuming
1368: an NFW profile gives $K(r)/K_{200} = (1.13\pm 0.39 )(r/r_{200})^{1\pm
1369: 0.2 }$. This is in good agreement with the "expected" power law index
1370: of $1.1$. There is also a good agreement with the normalization
1371: obtained by simulations (Voit, Kay, \& Bryan 2005). It has also been
1372: shown in simulations that as the amount of preheating increases, the
1373: power law index becomes flatter at radii beyond the flat inner region
1374: (Borgani et al.\ 2005).
1375:
1376: In figure~\ref{politropic index} we plot the adiabatic index. The
1377: solid curve is taken from Tozzi \& Norman (2001). They used an NFW
1378: profile for the DM and assumed no cooling. They also assumed an external,
1379: initial adiabat for the entropy. Our derived adiabatic index profile is
1380: in reasonable agreement with the profile derived by Tozzi \& Norman (2001).
1381: \begin{figure}
1382: \centering
1383: \epsfig{file=Gamma_profile_6_14.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1384: \caption{The adiabatic index deduced in this work (points with error bars),
1385: and the profile derived by Tozzi \& Norman (2001) (solid curve).
1386: \label{politropic index}}
1387: \end{figure}
1388:
1389: \subsection{The effect of the cD galaxy}
1390:
1391: Figures~\ref{T2D comparison} and \ref{T3D profile} show that the 2D
1392: and 3D temperature profiles peak at $r\sim 0.1r_{500}$ and decline at
1393: large radii. At smaller radii the temperature profile also declines.
1394: This decline of the temperature profile at small radii occurs within
1395: the region that includes emission from the cD galaxy. Since the gas
1396: in the cD is denser and colder than the cluster gas, it might be the
1397: cause for this decline at small radii. In order to evaluate the effect
1398: of the cD on the cluster we modeled the emission of the cD. We
1399: estimated the gas mass density profile by taking the profile of M87,
1400: which is the cD in the nearest cluster of galaxies. We thus fitted a
1401: double $\beta$ model (as Matsushita et al.\ 2002 did) to the surface
1402: brightness data in M87. The values of the best-fitted parameters of
1403: the gas number density of the cD are shown in table~\ref{parameters of
1404: the cD gas number density double beta model}. Our obtained values
1405: agree well with the ones in Matsushita et al.\ (2002). For the
1406: evaluation of the cD mass profile we took $R_e=7.8$ h$^{-1}$ kpc,
1407: $r_s=10$ h$^{-1}$ kpc, $M_{\rm cD}=10^{13}$ $M_{\odot}$, and $M_{\rm
1408: stars}=5\cdot 10^{11}$ $M_{\odot}$ (for the mass profile see
1409: section~\ref{sec: cD}).
1410:
1411: \begin{table}
1412: \caption{The values of the best fitted parameters of the gas number density of
1413: the cD assuming a double beta model for the gas mass density of cD.
1414: We fitted to the values taken from Matsushita et al.\ (2002)
1415: \label{parameters of the cD gas number density double beta model}}
1416: \begin{center}
1417: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
1418: \hline
1419: Parameter & Value \\
1420: \hline
1421: $n_e(1,0)$ [$cm^{-3}$] & $0.117^{+0.016}_{-0.014}$ \\
1422: $r_{c,1}$ [arcmin] & $0.366^{+0.071}_{-0.064}$ \\
1423: $\beta_{1}$ & $0.439^{+0.033}_{-0.025}$ \\
1424: $n_{e,2}(0)$ [$cm^{-3}$] & $6.3^{+0.8}_{-0.7}\cdot 10^{-3}$ \\
1425: $r_{c,2}$ [arcmin] & $5.41^{+0.31}_{-0.33}$ \\
1426: $\beta_{2}$ & 0.47(fixed) \\
1427: \hline
1428: \end{tabular}
1429: \end{center}
1430: \end{table}
1431:
1432: We checked the innermost part of the cluster $r\lesssim 10$ h$^{-1}$
1433: kpc. This is out of the data range and requires an extrapolation, so
1434: we extrapolated using particular profiles. We used NFW for the DM
1435: profile and a double $\beta$ model for the gas profile. In
1436: figure~\ref{emissivity cD Vs cluster} we plot the emissivity of the cD
1437: galaxy and compare it to the emissivity of the cluster. The figure
1438: shows that the cD is dominant only at $r<4$ h$^{-1}$ kpc. Since the
1439: innermost surface brightness data point is at $4$ h$^{-1}$ kpc, the
1440: effect of the cD galaxy is likely minor, as expected in a rich cluster
1441: like A1689.
1442: \begin{figure}
1443: \centering
1444: \epsfig{file=emissivity_cD_Vs_cluster.eps, width=8.5cm, clip=}
1445: \caption{A comparison between the emissivity profiles of the cluster
1446: (dashed line) and of the cD galaxy (solid line). The cD emissivity
1447: profile is derived by assuming it is similar to that of M87.
1448: \label{emissivity cD Vs cluster}}
1449: \end{figure}
1450:
1451: We checked for an indication in the abundance profile that the cD
1452: contributes only at $<4$ h$^{-1}$ kpc (if at all). Note that the
1453: spatial resolution of Chandra is $\sim 0.5"$, which for the redshift
1454: of A1689 is $\sim 1.5$ h$_{0.7}^{-1}$ kpc. Also the cD galaxy
1455: coincides with the X-ray centroid within $\sim 1.5"$ uncertainties
1456: (XW02). Figure~\ref{inner profile of the abundance} indicates that the
1457: abundance may be higher, $\sim 0.9$, in the core than in the outer
1458: region. However, this is not statistically significant due to the
1459: narrow annuli used which give high errors. The errors were calculated
1460: here after freezing the temperature and the normalization. If these
1461: parameters are allowed to vary, this will of course increase the
1462: errors in the abundance.
1463: \begin{figure}
1464: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{abundance_inner_profile.eps}}
1465: \caption{A comparison of the abundance (in solar units) within 4"
1466: annuli (points with error bars) to the average abundance of the
1467: cluster in a $3^\prime$ aperture (solid line). The errors may be
1468: underestimated (see text).
1469: \label{inner profile of the abundance} }
1470: \end{figure}
1471: As expected from the low emissivity of the cD galaxy compared to that
1472: of the cluster, it is hard to see spectroscopically an indication of
1473: the cD. We fitted a double temperature model, WABS(MEKAL+MEKAL), to
1474: the $3^\prime$ aperture, where the abundance of the first component
1475: (the cD galaxy) was fixed to solar and the second (the cluster) to 0.4
1476: solar (the average value in the cluster). We also fixed the Galactic
1477: absorption to be $2\cdot 10^{-20}$ cm$^{-2}$ as appropriate for this
1478: direction (Dickey \& Lockman 1990). The resulting best fit is with
1479: two temperatures, a cold one $\sim 0.5$ keV and a hot one $\sim 10$
1480: keV. This, however, might be due to the real multi-temperature nature
1481: of the cluster gas. Extracting a smaller region, where the cD flux
1482: should be less diluted by the cluster flux, gave about the same two
1483: temperatures but with high errors. Thus, spectroscopic fitting was
1484: inconclusive.
1485:
1486:
1487: \section{Discussion}
1488:
1489: The increasing quality of X-ray and optical imaging
1490: data motivates renewed and more thorough examinations of the physical
1491: nature of galaxy clusters as revealed by the very different processes
1492: of bremsstrahlung radiation and the gravitational deflection of
1493: light. In this paper we have examined the apparently relaxed cluster
1494: A1689, where only minimal substructure is evident from the dark matter,
1495: galaxy, and X-ray distributions and where the X-ray emission is smooth
1496: and symmetric. The longstanding claims of discrepancies in the total
1497: cluster mass estimated from these different kinds of analysis can now be
1498: investigated with greater precision, fewer assumptions, and in a more
1499: model-independent way.
1500:
1501: There is a strong incentive to describe in analytical form the general
1502: nature of the total mass, gas, and temperature profiles. These
1503: quantities are inextricably bound up with the process of structure
1504: formation, including the nature of dark matter and the cooling history
1505: of the gas including interaction and merging of substructure. Thus,
1506: having an analytical form of the profiles is very useful. The most
1507: commonly examined profile for the dark matter, based on N-body
1508: simulations of collisionless dark matter, is the NFW profile. In
1509: contrast the most commonly fitted gas mass density or surface
1510: brightness profile, the $\beta$ model, is essentially empirically
1511: based. The temperature profile is often derived from the analytical
1512: expression of the gas density using the polytropic equation of state,
1513: or the gas is taken to be isothermal since the temperature gradient
1514: was undetectable with the old X-ray satellites. This way of analyzing
1515: the cluster can lead to substantial errors in the DM density, gas
1516: density, and temperature values and the derived quantities such as the
1517: overall mass.
1518:
1519: As we discussed in the Introduction, the total mass profile can
1520: be independently determined from lensing measurements, or from X-ray
1521: measurements of the gas density and temperature profiles based on
1522: the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium. (Clearly, the latter can
1523: be done also with spatially resolved S-Z measurements, when available.)
1524: The second basic assumption adopted in our analysis is spherical symmetry.
1525: Obviously, elongation along the line of sight is possible, but - as
1526: we have mentioned in the Introduction - this typically can introduce
1527: a 20\% bias in the mass estimate. For a detailed discussion of the
1528: impact of triaxial cluster morphology, see Gavazzi (2005).
1529:
1530: We have suggested here a model-independent method which uses free
1531: parameters and does not assume a specific profile for any mass
1532: component. The only hidden assumption is a linear (in log-log)
1533: interpolation between the free parameters; this just assumes a
1534: reasonable degree of smoothness in the profiles. The profiles
1535: are also extrapolated beyond the data, but we showed that the
1536: results are insensitive to the detailed extrapolation. We
1537: specifically used a simple power law extrapolation
1538: for both the total mass density and for the gas mass density, with the
1539: same power law index assumed in order to approach a constant gas
1540: fraction at large radii. Our model-independent method is the best way
1541: to obtain the values of the important parameters of clusters at radii
1542: where there are good quality data. Our model-independent method can and
1543: will be applied to joint analyses of measurements of other clusters.
1544:
1545:
1546: Within the data range, the highest value of the 3D temperature
1547: (fig.~\ref{T3D profile}) is 2--3 times higher than the lowest
1548: value. Specifically, the temperature profile peaks at $r\sim
1549: 0.1r_{500}$ and declines at both smaller and larger radii. The denser
1550: environment at the center of a cluster should naturally cause a
1551: decrease in the temperature there. We indeed find in this cluster that
1552: the 2D temperature decreases towards the center of the cluster, at $r<
1553: 50-100$ $h^{-1}$ kpc (figure~\ref{T2D comparison}). This can be due to
1554: several mechanisms. First, the high gas number density in the center
1555: of the cluster causes a rapid loss of energy and a decrease in the
1556: temperature. As pressure support decreases, the gas should gravitate
1557: towards the bottom of the cluster potential well, i.e., the center of
1558: the cluster, in a so-called "cooling flow" (Fabian 1994). A cooling
1559: flow should manifest in a detectable surface brightness enhancement in
1560: the X-ray emission from the central region of a cluster, $\sim
1561: 100-200$ kpc. Many studies have failed to find these cooling flows
1562: (MME99), at least not as expected in a simple or a standard cooling
1563: flow model (Fabian et al.\ 2001; Peterson et al.\ 2001). An
1564: explanation for this failure can be a more complicated mechanism which
1565: maybe includes reheating of the gas (e.g., by energetic particles;
1566: Rephaeli \& Silk 1995), mixing, differential absorption, efficient
1567: conversion of cooling flow gas into low-mass stars, an inhomogeneous
1568: metallicity distribution (which is not the situation in A1689, at
1569: least not in terms of a radial gradient: fig.~\ref{Abundance
1570: gradient}), or disruption of cooling flows by a recent subcluster
1571: merger (see discussion in Fabian et al.\ 2001; Peterson et al.\ 2001).
1572:
1573:
1574: There are uncertainties about the criteria for finding cooling flows,
1575: and even with fixed criteria the decision whether cooling flows exist
1576: is still data dependent. At times the "solution" has been to exclude
1577: the inner, problematic region. Finding the value of the gas mass
1578: density in the model-independent approach bypasses these two problems,
1579: the unknown physical processes and the data dependence, as it allows
1580: for an analysis with fewer prior assumptions. Another way to reduce
1581: the core temperature is through the effect of the cD galaxy that is
1582: often anchored at the cluster center. The cD galaxy has a lower
1583: temperature and is denser than the cluster so it can in principle be
1584: the main cause for the low temperature at the center. However, based
1585: on our our initial, limited study it seems unlikely that the cD has a
1586: major effect in A1689, since the emissivity of the cD dominates that
1587: of the cluster only below $r=4$ h$^{-1}$ kpc (fig.~\ref{emissivity cD
1588: Vs cluster}).
1589:
1590: We have found a good fit to the observed 2D profiles of the lensing
1591: surface density and the X-ray surface brightness. Due to the
1592: smoothness of the profiles, we were able to fit the data with a
1593: relatively small number of free parameters. We have found a good
1594: agreement with previous results for all the parameters we have checked
1595: for A1689, including gas mass density, gas fraction profiles, measured
1596: temperature, adiabatic index, and abundance (except compared to
1597: AM04). The total mass density profile we obtained was essentially
1598: determined directly by the lensing data alone, with $\lesssim 1\%$
1599: differences introduced by using the X-ray data as well. This is the
1600: case since we did not use the X-ray temperature as part of the fit.
1601:
1602: We have shown that it is possible to obtain a model independent 3D
1603: mass profile for which very good agreement is found between the
1604: lensing mass profile and the X-ray emission profile. However, there
1605: is still a discrepancy between the temperature derived directly from
1606: (X-ray) measurements, and that deduced from a solution to the HEE,
1607: with the latter $\sim30\%$ higher at all radii, as has already been
1608: determined by Mazzotta et al.(2004) and Rasia et al. (2005). Other
1609: phenomena, such as bulk motions, turbulence, and nonthermal degree
1610: of freedom may contribute to the pressure, and thus reduce the
1611: temperature with respect to the one obtained from assuming that
1612: thermal gas pressure is the only contributor. Specifically,
1613: Faltenbacher et al. (2005) claim that based on their high-resolution
1614: cosmological simulations - in which they identified and analyzed eight
1615: clusters at $z=0$ - about 10\% of the total pressure support may be
1616: contributed by random gas bulk motions, which may affect temperature
1617: by up to 20\%. It has also been suggested that X-ray luminous clumps
1618: of relatively low temperature may bias projected temperature
1619: measurements downward (Kawahara et al.\ 2006). In any case, as we have
1620: already mentioned this temperature discrepancy is much smaller than
1621: the mass discrepancy by a factor of $2-4$ encountered in previous
1622: (separate X-ray and lensing) analyses.
1623:
1624: The derived entropy profile for A1689 has a power law form with no
1625: obvious central flattening, at least at $r>0.02r_{\rm vir}$, as
1626: expected for massive clusters from theoretical work (Tozzi \& Norman
1627: 2001). The existence and the level of the entropy floor is still not
1628: completely clear in simulations, since different simulation methods
1629: give different results (Voit, Kay, \& Bryan 2005). This is probably
1630: due to the limited resolution of simulations which is especially
1631: critical in the core of the cluster. Upcoming simulations with spatial
1632: resolution of $\sim 5$ kpc should give a better understanding of the
1633: entropy floor. Our derived radial slope is around $0.8$ rather than
1634: $1.1$, flatter than the prediction. Since using simple parametrized
1635: models for the DM and the gas gave a power law index of $1.1$, we
1636: believe the value of $0.8$ might be a more accurate result, which
1637: might be a reflection of a more complex gas dynamics and preheating
1638: history. Indeed, it has been suggested from simulations that
1639: preheating decreases the power law index in the region of our data
1640: (Borgani et al.\ 2005).
1641:
1642:
1643: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
1644: We thank Shai Kaspi and Sharon Sadeh for many contributing
1645: discussions, Karl Andersson for the useful communication,
1646: and the referee, Raphael Gavazzi, for useful comments.
1647: We also thank the Chandra helpdesk team Samantha Stevenson,
1648: Elizabeth Galle, Tara Gokas, Priya Desai, and Joan Hagler.
1649: We also thank Craig Gordon, Keith Arnaud, and Matthias Ehle
1650: for useful XSPEC tips. We acknowledge support by Israel
1651: Science Foundation grants 629/05 and 1218/06.
1652:
1653:
1654: \newpage
1655:
1656: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
1657:
1658: \bibitem[Allen(1998)]{1998MNRAS.296..392A} Allen, S.~W.\ 1998, \mnras, 296, 392
1659: \bibitem[Andersson \& Madejski(2004)]{2004ApJ...607..190A} Andersson, K.~E., \& Madejski, G.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 607, 190 (AM04)
1660: \bibitem[Arieli, Rephaeli \& Norman (2008)]{} Arieli, Y., Rephaeli, Y., \& Norman, M.~L. 2008, in preparation
1661: \bibitem[Arnalte Mur et al.(2006)]{2006PASA...23...33A} Arnalte Mur, P., Ellis, S.~C., \& Colless, M.\ 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 23, 33
1662: \bibitem[Bohringer et al.(1994)]{1994Natur.368..828B} Bohringer, H., Briel,
1663: U.~G., Schwarz, R.~A., Voges, W., Hartner, G., \& Trumper, J.\ 1994, \nat, 368, 828
1664: \bibitem[Borgani et al.(2002)]{2002MNRAS.336..409B} Borgani, S., Governato,
1665: F., Wadsley, J., Menci, N., Tozzi, P., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., \& Lake, G.\ 2002, \mnras, 336, 409
1666: \bibitem[Borgani et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.361..233B} Borgani, S.,
1667: Finoguenov, A., Kay, S.~T., Ponman, T.~J., Springel, V., Tozzi, P., \& Voit, G.~M.\ 2005, \mnras, 361, 233
1668: \bibitem[Brada{\v c} et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652..937B} Brada{\v c}, M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 937
1669: \bibitem[Broadhurst et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...438...49B} Broadhurst, T.~J., Taylor, A.~N., \& Peacock, J.~A.\ 1995, \apj, 438, 49
1670: \bibitem[Broadhurst et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...621...53B} Broadhurst, T., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 53
1671: \bibitem[Broadhurst et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...619L.143B} Broadhurst, T., Takada, M., Umetsu, K., Kong, X., Arimoto, N., Chiba, M., \& Futamase, T.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L143
1672: \bibitem[Brown \& Bregman(2001)]{2001ApJ...547..154B} Brown, B.~A., \& Bregman, J.~N.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 154
1673: \bibitem[Bullock et al.(2001)]{2001MNRAS.321..559B} Bullock, J.~S., Kolatt, T.~S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R.~S., Kravtsov, A.~V., Klypin, A.~A., Primack, J.~R., \& Dekel, A.\ 2001, \mnras, 321, 559
1674: \bibitem[Cavaliere et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...634..784C} Cavaliere, A., Lapi, A., \& Rephaeli, Y.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 784
1675: \bibitem[Clowe et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...604..596C} Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A., \& Markevitch, M.\ 2004, \apj, 604, 596
1676: \bibitem[Clowe et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...648L.109C} Clowe, D., Brada{\v c}, M., Gonzalez, A.~H., Markevitch, M., Randall, S.~W., Jones, C., \& Zaritsky, D.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L109
1677: \bibitem[Clowe \& Schneider(2001)]{2001A&A...379..384C} Clowe, D., \& Schneider, P.\ 2001, \aap, 379, 384
1678: \bibitem[Czoske et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...386...31C} Czoske, O., Moore, B., Kneib, J.-P., \& Soucail, G.\ 2002, \aap, 386, 31
1679: \bibitem[Dickey \& Lockman(1990)]{1990ARA&A..28..215D} Dickey, J.~M., \& Lockman, F.~J.\ 1990, \araa, 28, 215
1680: \bibitem[Dupke et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...668..781D} Dupke, R.~A., Mirabal, N., Bregman, J.~N., \& Evrard, A.~E.\ 2007, \apj, 668, 781
1681: \bibitem[Dye et al.(2001)]{2001MNRAS.321..685D} Dye, S., Taylor, A.~N., Thommes, E.~M., Meisenheimer, K., Wolf, C., \& Peacock, J.~A.\ 2001, \mnras, 321, 685
1682: \bibitem[Fabian(1994)]{1994ARA&A..32..277F} Fabian, A.~C.\ 1994, \araa, 32, 277
1683: \bibitem[Fabian et al.(2001)]{2001MNRAS.321L..20F} Fabian, A.~C., Mushotzky, R.~F., Nulsen, P.~E.~J., \& Peterson, J.~R.\ 2001, \mnras, 321, L20
1684: \bibitem[Faltenbacher et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.358..139F} Faltenbacher, A.,
1685: Kravtsov, A.~V., Nagai, D., \& Gottl{\"o}ber, S.\ 2005, \mnras, 358, 139
1686: \bibitem[Franx et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...486L..75F} Franx, M., Illingworth, G.~D., Kelson, D.~D., van Dokkum, P.~G., \& Tran, K.-V.\ 1997, \apjl, 486, L75
1687: \bibitem[Frye \& Broadhurst(1998)]{1998ApJ...499L.115F} Frye, B., \& Broadhurst, T.\ 1998, \apjl, 499, L115
1688: \bibitem[Frye et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...568..558F} Frye, B., Broadhurst, T., \& Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 558
1689: \bibitem[Gavazzi et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...403...11G} Gavazzi, R., Fort, B., Mellier, Y., Pell{\'o}, R., \& Dantel-Fort, M.\ 2003, \aap, 403, 11
1690: \bibitem[Gavazzi et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...422..407G} Gavazzi, R., Mellier, Y., Fort, B., Cuillandre, J.-C., \& Dantel-Fort, M.\ 2004, \aap, 422, 407
1691: \bibitem[Gavazzi(2005)]{2005A&A...443..793G} Gavazzi, R.\ 2005, \aap, 443, 793
1692: \bibitem[Grego et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...552....2G} Grego, L., Carlstrom,
1693: J.~E., Reese, E.~D., Holder, G.~P., Holzapfel, W.~L., Joy, M.~K., Mohr, J.~J., \& Patel, S.\ 2001, \apj, 552, 2
1694: \bibitem[Hallman et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...665..911H} Hallman, E.~J., Burns, J.~O., Motl, P.~M., \& Norman, M.~L.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 911
1695: \bibitem[Hayashi \& White(2006)]{2006MNRAS.370L..38H} Hayashi, E., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, L38
1696: \bibitem[Hennawi et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...654..714H} Hennawi, J.~F., Dalal, N., Bode, P., \& Ostriker, J.~P.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 714
1697: \bibitem[Hernquist(1990)]{1990ApJ...356..359H} Hernquist, L.\ 1990, \apj, 356, 359
1698: \bibitem[Jannuzi et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...491..146J} Jannuzi, B.~T., Yanny, B., \& Impey, C.\ 1997, \apj, 491, 146
1699: \bibitem[Jee et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661..728J} Jee, M.~J., et al.\ 2007,
1700: \apj, 661, 728
1701: \bibitem[Jing \& Suto(2002)]{2002ApJ...574..538J} Jing, Y.~P., \& Suto, Y.\ 2002, \apj, 574, 538
1702: \bibitem[Kaiser(1991)]{1991ApJ...383..104K} Kaiser, N.\ 1991, \apj, 383,
1703: 104
1704: \bibitem[Kawahara et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659..257K} Kawahara, H., Suto,
1705: Y., Kitayama, T., Sasaki, S., Shimizu, M., Rasia, E., \& Dolag, K.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 257
1706: \bibitem[King et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...383..118K} King, L.~J., Clowe, D.~I., \& Schneider, P.\ 2002, \aap, 383, 118
1707: \bibitem[Kneib et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...598..804K} Kneib, J.-P., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 804
1708: \bibitem[Lloyd-Davies et al.(2000)]{2000MNRAS.315..689L} Lloyd-Davies,
1709: E.~J., Ponman, T.~J., \& Cannon, D.~B.\ 2000, \mnras, 315, 689
1710: \bibitem[Markevitch et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...527..545M} Markevitch, M.,
1711: Vikhlinin, A., Forman, W.~R., \& Sarazin, C.~L.\ 1999, \apj, 527, 545
1712: \bibitem[Markevitch et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...567L..27M} Markevitch, M.,
1713: Gonzalez, A.~H., David, L., Vikhlinin, A., Murray, S., Forman, W., Jones,
1714: C., \& Tucker, W.\ 2002, \apjl, 567, L27
1715: \bibitem[Markevitch et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...606..819M} Markevitch, M.,
1716: Gonzalez, A.~H., Clowe, D., Vikhlinin, A., Forman, W., Jones, C., Murray,
1717: S., \& Tucker, W.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 819
1718: \bibitem[Katgert et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...600..657K} Katgert, P., Biviano,
1719: A., \& Mazure, A.\ 2004, \apj, 600, 657
1720: \bibitem[Matsushita et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...386...77M} Matsushita, K.,
1721: Belsole, E., Finoguenov, A., Bohringer, H.\ 2002, \aap, 386, 77
1722: \bibitem[Mazzotta et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.354...10M} Mazzotta, P., Rasia,
1723: E., Moscardini, L., \& Tormen, G.\ 2004, \mnras, 354, 10
1724: \bibitem[Medezinski et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...663..717M} Medezinski, E., et
1725: al.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 717
1726: \bibitem[Milosavljevi{\'c} et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661L.131M}
1727: Milosavljevi{\'c}, M., Koda, J., Nagai, D., Nakar, E., \& Shapiro, P.~R.\
1728: 2007, \apjl, 661, L131
1729: \bibitem[Miralda-Escude \& Babul(1995)]{1995ApJ...449...18M}
1730: Miralda-Escude, J., \& Babul, A.\ 1995, \apj, 449, 18
1731: \bibitem[Mohr et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...517..627M} Mohr, J.~J., Mathiesen,
1732: B., \& Evrard, A.~E.\ 1999, \apj, 517, 627 (MME99)
1733: \bibitem[Mushotzky \& Scharf(1997)]{1997ApJ...482L..13M} Mushotzky, R.~F.,
1734: \& Scharf, C.~A.\ 1997, \apjl, 482, L13
1735: \bibitem[Oguri et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...632..841O} Oguri, M., Takada, M.,
1736: Umetsu, K., \& Broadhurst, T.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 841
1737: \bibitem[Okabe \& Umetsu(2007)]{2007astro.ph..2649O} Okabe, N., \& Umetsu,
1738: K.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0702649
1739: \bibitem[Peterson et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...365L.104P} Peterson, J.~R., et
1740: al.\ 2001, \aap, 365, L104
1741: \bibitem[Pettini et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...554..981P} Pettini, M., Shapley,
1742: A.~E., Steidel, C.~C., Cuby, J.-G., Dickinson, M., Moorwood, A.~F.~M.,
1743: Adelberger, K.~L., \& Giavalisco, M.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 981
1744: \bibitem[Ponman et al.(2003)]{2003MNRAS.343..331P} Ponman, T.~J.,
1745: Sanderson, A.~J.~R., \& Finoguenov, A.\ 2003, \mnras, 343, 331 \
1746: \bibitem[Randall et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0704.0261R} Randall, S.~W.,
1747: Markevitch, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A.~H., \& Bradac, M.\ 2007, ArXiv
1748: e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.0261
1749: \bibitem[Rasia et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...618L...1R} Rasia, E., Mazzotta, P.,
1750: Borgani, S., Moscardini, L., Dolag, K., Tormen, G., Diaferio, A., \&
1751: Murante, G.\ 2005, \apjl, 618, L1
1752: \bibitem[Rephaeli \& Silk(1995)]{1995ApJ...442...91R} Rephaeli, Y., \&
1753: Silk, J.\ 1995, \apj, 442, 91
1754: \bibitem[Romanowsky et al.(2003)]{2003Sci...301.1696R} Romanowsky, A.~J.,
1755: Douglas, N.~G., Arnaboldi, M., Kuijken, K., Merrifield, M.~R., Napolitano,
1756: N.~R., Capaccioli, M., \& Freeman, K.~C.\ 2003, Science, 301, 1696
1757: \bibitem[Sanderson et al.(2003)]{2003MNRAS.340..989S} Sanderson, A.~J.~R.,
1758: Ponman, T.~J., Finoguenov, A., Lloyd-Davies, E.~J., \& Markevitch, M.\
1759: 2003, \mnras, 340, 989
1760: \bibitem[Sharon et al.(2005)]{2005IAUS..225..167S} Sharon, K., Broadhurst,
1761: T.~J., Benitez, N., Coe, D., Ford, H., \& ACS Science Team 2005,
1762: Gravitational Lensing Impact on Cosmology, 225, 167
1763: \bibitem[Silk(2003)]{2003MNRAS.343..249S} Silk, J.\ 2003, \mnras, 343, 249
1764: \bibitem[Taylor et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...501..539T} Taylor, A.~N., Dye, S.,
1765: Broadhurst, T.~J., Benitez, N., \& van Kampen, E.\ 1998, \apj, 501, 539
1766: \bibitem[Tozzi \& Norman(2001)]{2001ApJ...546...63T} Tozzi, P., \& Norman,
1767: C.\ 2001, \apj, 546, 63
1768: \bibitem[Tyson \& Fischer(1995)]{1995ApJ...446L..55T} Tyson, J.~A., \&
1769: Fischer, P.\ 1995, \apjl, 446, L55
1770: \bibitem[Vikhlinin(2006)]{2006ApJ...640..710V} Vikhlinin, A.\ 2006, \apj,
1771: 640, 710
1772: \bibitem[Vikhlinin et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...628..655V} Vikhlinin, A.,
1773: Markevitch, M., Murray, S.~S., Jones, C., Forman, W., \& Van Speybroeck,
1774: L.\ 2005, \apj, 628, 655
1775: \bibitem[Voigt \& Fabian(2006)]{2006MNRAS.368..518V} Voigt, L.~M., \&
1776: Fabian, A.~C.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 518
1777: \bibitem[Voit et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...593..272V} Voit, G.~M., Balogh,
1778: M.~L., Bower, R.~G., Lacey, C.~G., \& Bryan, G.~L.\ 2003, \apj, 593, 272
1779: \bibitem[Voit(2005)]{2005RvMP...77..207V} Voit, G.~M.\ 2005, Reviews of
1780: Modern Physics, 77, 207
1781: \bibitem[Voit et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.364..909V} Voit, G.~M., Kay, S.~T.,
1782: \& Bryan, G.~L.\ 2005, \mnras, 364, 909
1783: \bibitem[Wu \& Fang(1997)]{1997ApJ...483...62W} Wu, X.-P., \& Fang, L.-Z.\
1784: 1997, \apj, 483, 62
1785: \bibitem[Wu et al.(1998)]{1998MNRAS.301..861W} Wu, X.-P., Chiueh, T., Fang,
1786: L.-Z., \& Xue, Y.-J.\ 1998, \mnras, 301, 861
1787: \bibitem[Xue \& Wu(2002)]{2002ApJ...576..152X} Xue, S.-J., \& Wu, X.-P.\
1788: 2002, \apj, 576, 152 (XW02)
1789:
1790: \end{thebibliography}
1791:
1792: %\newpage
1793: \appendix
1794:
1795: \section{Corrleations between parameter values}
1796:
1797: In our model-independent approach we have determined parameter values
1798: by fitting the projected mass, gas density, and temperature. Projection
1799: of the 3D quantities builds up correlations between their best-fit
1800: values in different radial bins. An illustration of the degree of such
1801: correlations is shown in table A1, which is the correlation matrix of
1802: the free parameters, taken from running four and nine free parameters
1803: for the total and gas mass density respectively. The correlation in the
1804: deduced 2D temperature is shown in table A2. The elements of the 2D
1805: temperature correlation matrix correspond to the 12 values of the 2D
1806: radii (fig.~13). In both tables the correlations are quite strong
1807: between adjacent elements. In the 2D temperature correlation
1808: matrix there are also strong correlations between elements which are not
1809: adjacent but are at small radii, i.e. the upper left part of the table.
1810:
1811:
1812:
1813: \begin{table*}
1814: \caption{The $13\times 13$ correlation matrix for $i=4$, $j= 9$ free parameters
1815: for the total mass and gas mass density, respectively.
1816: \label{correlation matrix}}
1817: \begin{center}
1818: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1819: \hline
1820: & i=1 & i=2 & i=3 & i=4 & j=1 & j=2 & j=3 & j=4 & j=5 & j=6 & j=7 & j=8 & j=9 \\
1821: \hline
1822: i=1 & 1.000 & -0.342 & 0.197 & -0.072 & -0.026 & 0.036 & 0.034 & 0.028 & 0.040 & 0.026 & 0.026 & 0.001 & -0.006 \\
1823: i=2 & -0.342 & 1.000 & -0.825 & 0.273 & 0.004 & -0.005 & -0.000 & 0.010 & -0.008 & -0.051 & -0.074 & -0.005 & 0.019 \\
1824: i=3 & 0.197 & -0.825 & 1.000 & -0.599 & -0.002 & 0.002 & -0.000 & -0.005 & 0.030 & 0.075 & 0.091 & -0.001 & 0.004 \\
1825: i=4 & -0.072 & 0.273 & -0.599 & 1.000 & 0.001 & -0.002 & -0.002 & -0.003 & -0.028 & -0.045 & -0.038 & 0.018 & -0.074 \\
1826: j=1 & -0.026 & 0.004 & -0.002 & 0.001 & 1.000 & -0.749 & 0.323 & -0.152 & 0.057 & -0.026 & 0.010 & -0.003 & 0.002 \\
1827: j=2 & 0.036 & -0.005 & 0.002 & -0.002 & -0.749 & 1.000 & -0.613 & 0.266 & -0.106 & 0.047 & -0.018 & 0.006 & -0.003 \\
1828: j=3 & 0.034 & -0.000 & -0.000 & -0.002 & 0.323 & -0.613 & 1.000 & -0.643 & 0.238 & -0.107 & 0.042 & -0.014 & 0.007 \\
1829: j=4 & 0.028 & 0.010 & -0.005 & -0.003 & -0.152 & 0.266 & -0.643 & 1.000 & -0.560 & 0.234 & -0.095 & 0.031 & -0.014 \\
1830: j=5 & 0.040 & -0.008 & 0.030 & -0.028 & 0.057 & -0.106 & 0.238 & -0.560 & 1.000 & -0.590 & 0.223 & -0.075 & 0.038 \\
1831: j=6 & 0.026 & -0.051 & 0.075 & -0.045 & -0.026 & 0.047 & -0.107 & 0.234 & -0.590 & 1.000 & -0.557 & 0.174 & -0.086 \\
1832: j=7 & 0.026 & -0.074 & 0.091 & -0.038 & 0.010 & -0.018 & 0.042 & -0.095 & 0.223 & -0.557 & 1.000 & -0.492 & 0.226 \\
1833: j=8 & 0.001 & -0.005 & -0.001 & 0.018 & -0.003 & 0.006 & -0.014 & 0.031 & -0.075 & 0.174 & -0.492 & 1.000 & -0.689 \\
1834: j=9 & -0.006 & 0.019 & 0.004 & -0.074 & 0.002 & -0.003 & 0.007 & -0.014 & 0.038 & -0.086 & 0.226 & -0.689 & 1.000 \\
1835: \hline
1836: \end{tabular}
1837: \end{center}
1838: \end{table*}
1839:
1840: \begin{table*}
1841: \caption{The $12\times 12$ correlation matrix of the deduced 2D temperature
1842: for $i=4$, $j= 9$ free parameters
1843: for the total mass and gas mass density, respectively.
1844: The raw and column numbers specify radial points (see fig. 13).
1845: \label{T2D correlation matrix}}
1846: \begin{center}
1847: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1848: \hline
1849: 1.0000 & 0.9085 & -0.6717 & 0.2874 & -0.1372 & -0.0423 & 0.0604 & -0.0008 &-0.0233 & -0.0026 & 0.0050 & -0.0005 \\
1850: 0.9085 & 1.0000 & -0.3046 & 0.1364 & -0.0854 & -0.0382 & 0.0264 & 0.0081 &-0.0008 & 0.0044 & 0.0100 & 0.0093 \\
1851: -0.6717 & -0.3046 & 1.0000 & -0.3047 & 0.1225 & 0.0123 & -0.0773 & 0.0206 &0.0515 & 0.0162 & 0.0111 & 0.0219 \\
1852: 0.2874 & 0.1364 & -0.3047 & 1.0000 & -0.3307 & -0.1412 & 0.1199 & 0.0292 &-0.0119 & 0.0156 & 0.0363 & 0.0304 \\
1853: -0.1372 & -0.0854 & 0.1225 & -0.3307 & 1.0000 & 0.2272 & -0.3406 & 0.0566 &0.1892 & 0.0501 & 0.0213 & 0.0626 \\
1854: -0.0423 & -0.0382 & 0.0123 & -0.1412 & 0.2272 & 1.0000 & 0.8048 & 0.0974 &-0.1890 & 0.0403 & 0.1515 & 0.0908 \\
1855: 0.0604 & 0.0264 & -0.0773 & 0.1199 & -0.3406 & 0.8048 & 1.0000 & 0.3025 &-0.0556 & 0.0577 & 0.1344 & 0.1047 \\
1856: -0.0008 & 0.0081 & 0.0206 & 0.0292 & 0.0566 & 0.0974 & 0.3025 & 1.0000 &0.9125 & 0.2147 & 0.0351 & 0.2234 \\
1857: -0.0233 & -0.0008 & 0.0515 & -0.0119 & 0.1892 & -0.1890 & -0.0556 & 0.9125 &1.0000 & 0.4082 & 0.1285 & 0.2108 \\
1858: -0.0026 & 0.0044 & 0.0162 & 0.0156 & 0.0501 & 0.0403 & 0.0577 & 0.2147 &0.4082 & 1.0000 & 0.6956 & 0.2024 \\
1859: 0.0050 & 0.0100 & 0.0111 & 0.0363 & 0.0213 & 0.1515 & 0.1344 & 0.0351 &0.1285 & 0.6956 & 1.0000 & 0.7934 \\
1860: -0.0005 & 0.0093 & 0.0219 & 0.0304 & 0.0626 & 0.0908 & 0.1047 & 0.2234 &0.2108 & 0.2024 & 0.7934 & 1.0000 \\
1861: \hline
1862: \end{tabular}
1863: \end{center}
1864: \end{table*}
1865:
1866:
1867:
1868: \end{document}
1869: