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

2: \documentclass[numberedappendix]{emulateapj}

3: \usepackage{apjfonts}

4: \bibliographystyle{apj}

5: 

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: 

8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

11: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

12: 

13: % Units

14: \newcommand{\hpc}{h^{-1}\mathrm{pc}}

15: \newcommand{\hMsun}{\ h^{-1}\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}

16: \newcommand{\hMpc}{\ h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}}

17: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}

18: \newcommand{\kms}{{\,{\mathrm{km}}\,{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}}}

19: \newcommand{\kpc}{{\,{\mathrm{kpc}}}}

20: \newcommand{\Gyr}{{\,{\mathrm{Gyr}}}}

21: 

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: 

24: \shortauthors{CONROY AND OSTRIKER}

25: \shorttitle{Thermal Balance in the ICM}

26: 

27: \begin{document}

28: 

29: %----------------------------------------------------------------

30: \title{Thermal Balance in the Intracluster Medium: Is AGN Feedback

31:   Necessary?}

32: %----------------------------------------------------------------

33: 

34: \author{Charlie Conroy \& Jeremiah P. Ostriker} 

35: \affil{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University,

36:   Princeton, NJ 08544}

37: 

38: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, 6 Dec 2007}

39: 

40: \begin{abstract}

41: 

42:   A variety of physical heating mechanisms are combined with radiative

43:   cooling to explore, via one dimensional hydrodynamic simulations,

44:   the expected thermal properties of the intracluster medium (ICM) in

45:   the context of the cooling flow problem.  Energy injection from type

46:   Ia supernovae, thermal conduction, and dynamical friction (DF) from

47:   orbiting satellite galaxies are considered as potential heating

48:   mechanisms of the central regions of the ICM, both separately and in

49:   conjunction.  The novel feature of this work is the exploration of a

50:   wide range of efficiencies of each heating process.  While DF and

51:   conduction can provide a substantial amount of energy, neither

52:   mechanism operating alone can produce nor maintain an ICM in thermal

53:   balance over cosmological timescales, in stark contrast with

54:   observations.  For simulated clusters with initially isothermal

55:   temperature profiles, both mechanisms acting \emph{in combination}

56:   result in long-term thermal balance for a range of ICM temperatures

57:   and for central electron densities less than $n_e\sim 0.02$

58:   cm$^{-3}$; at greater densities catastrophic cooling invariably

59:   occurs.  Furthermore, these heating mechanisms can neither produce

60:   nor maintain clusters with a declining temperature profile in the

61:   central regions, implying that the observed ``cooling-core''

62:   clusters, which have such declining temperature profiles, cannot be

63:   maintained with these mechanisms alone.  Supernovae heating also

64:   fails to maintain clusters in thermal balance for cosmological

65:   timescales since such heating is largely unresponsive to the

66:   properties of the ICM.  Thus, while there appears to be an abundant

67:   supply of energy capable of heating the ICM in clusters, it is

68:   extremely difficult for the energy deposition to occur in such a way

69:   that the ICM remains in thermal {\it balance} over cosmological

70:   time-scales.  For intracluster media that are not in thermal

71:   balance, the addition of a small amount of relativistic pressure

72:   (provided by e.g. cosmic rays) forestalls neither catastrophic

73:   heating nor cooling.  These conclusions are driven largely by the

74:   fact that 1) DF heating scales approximately as the gas density,

75:   while cooling scales as gas density squared, and thus DF heating

76:   cannot generically balance cooling without fine-tuning; 2)

77:   conduction acts to erase temperature gradients, while most observed

78:   clusters in fact show strong gradients in the inner regions.  These

79:   results strongly suggest that a more dynamic heating process such as

80:   feedback from a central black hole is required to generate the

81:   properties of observed intracluster media.

82: 

83: 

84: \end{abstract}

85: 

86: \keywords{cooling flows --- galaxies: clusters --- hydrodynamics ---

87:   conduction}

88: 

89: %---------------------------------------------------

90: \section{Introduction}

91: \label{section:intro}

92: 

93: Groups and clusters of galaxies are filled with hot plasma in at least

94: approximate pressure equilibrium with the gravitational potential of

95: their dark matter halo.  Observations have demonstrated for decades

96: that the cooling time of central regions of this intracluster medium

97: (ICM) in most ($>70$\%) clusters is shorter than a Hubble time

98: \citep[e.g.][]{Edge92, Peres98, Sanderson06, Vikhlinin06a}; indeed, it

99: is often as short as $\sim 0.1-1$ Gyr.  In the absence of heating, the

100: ICM will thus cool and flow into the central galaxy at the prodigious

101: rate of hundreds of solar masses per year \citep{Cowie77, Fabian77a,

102:   Mathews78}; see \citet{Fabian94} for a review.

103: 

104: Since this (catastrophically) cooling gas has never been observed

105: \citep{Peterson01, Peterson03, Tamura01}, it is now generally supposed

106: that there exists one or more heating mechanisms that maintains the

107: ICM in overall thermal balance.  The tension created by the fact that

108: the ICM is not observed to be significantly cooling, despite the short

109: cooling times near the cluster center, has become known as the cooling

110: flow problem.

111: 

112: Many possible heating mechanisms have been investigated, including

113: thermal conduction \citep[e.g.][]{Binney81, Tucker83, Voigt02,

114:   Fabian02, Zakamska03, Kim03a, Voigt04, Dolag04, Pope06} which

115: carries heat from the abundant thermal reservoir of the cluster gas to

116: the cooling inner parts, gravitational heating, including the heating

117: due to the orbital motions of galaxies, i.e. dynamical friction

118: \citep[DF; e.g.][]{Miller86, Just90, Fabian03, ElZant04b, Kim05,

119:   Dekel07}, turbulent mixing \citep[e.g.][]{Deiss96, Kim03b, Voigt04,

120:   Dennis05}, energy injection from active galactic nuclei (AGN) via

121: bubbles, sound waves, etc. \citep{Binney95, Nusser06, Binney07,

122:   Ruszkowski04a, Ruszkowski04b, Fujita05, Mathews06, Ciotti01, Voit05,

123:   Ciotti07}, and combinations of conduction and AGN

124: \citep{Ruszkowski02, Brighenti03, Fujita05} or conduction and

125: cosmic-rays \citep[CRs;][]{Guo07}, or AGN and preheating

126: \citep{McCarthy07c}.  One of the most comprehensive studies to date

127: was undertaken by \citet{Brighenti02} who included many of the heating

128: mechanisms mentioned above and found that no combination generically

129: reproduced observations.  A stringent constraint on the potential

130: heating mechanism is that it must not only supply of order the

131: necessary energy but must also supply it in a way that approximately

132: balances cooling (locally) so that the ICM does not either heat up or

133: cool on cosmological time-scales.

134: 

135: Many of these mechanisms have been idealized, and it is unclear how

136: effective they would be in observed clusters.  For example, though

137: difficult to constrain observationally, it has been suggested that the

138: conductivity in clusters may be much smaller than is required to stem

139: the cooling flows \citep{Markevitch03, Xiang07}.  In addition, while

140: DF heating may be attractive, since there are a plethora of satellite

141: galaxies in clusters, it has yet to be identified as important in

142: hydrodynamical simulations \citep{Faltenbacher05}, although this may

143: be due to insufficient resolution \citep{Naab07}.  Finally, bubbles

144: from activity in central galaxies may be important

145: \citep[e.g.][]{Churazov01, Ruszkowski02, Bruggen02}, but the mechanism

146: by which they transfer their energy to the cluster gas remains

147: obscure.

148: 

149: Even if one or more of these mechanisms could supply the requisite

150: energy (i.e. result in thermal balance), the mechanism must, in

151: addition, not allow the gas to be thermally unstable \citep{Field65,

152:   Balbus86}.  In what follows we make extensive use of this

153: distinction between thermal {\it balance}, where the net cooling of a

154: given parcel of gas is zero, and thermal {\it stability}, which

155: pertains to the ability of a gas to remain in thermal balance in the

156: presence of isobaric perturbations.  While attention in the literature

157: has focused on investigating the stability of an ICM in thermal

158: balance \citep[e.g.][]{Kim03b}, herein we address the more fundamental

159: challenge of maintaining a cluster in thermal balance with one or more

160: of the heating mechanisms described above.

161: 

162: The physical mechanism causing thermal instability is easy to

163: understand.  Small regions which are slightly over-dense will radiate

164: more than their surroundings (since cooling per unit volume scales as

165: $\rho^2$) and, isobarically contracting, find a new equilibrium, which

166: is at a higher density and lower temperature.  For the temperature

167: domain in question, this leads to further cooling and a thermal

168: runaway results.  If a heating process such as conduction or DF

169: heating exists, there will be a stabilizing influence.  But if the

170: process scales as $\rho$ (per unit volume) then the equilibrium will

171: not be stable, so high temperature under-dense regions will heat

172: exponentially and lower temperature over-dense regions will still cool

173: exponentially.  However, a non-thermal component (such as cosmic rays

174: or tangled magnetic fields) can in principle suppress this instability

175: \citep[][see also the appendix herein]{Cen05, Guo07} because the

176: non-thermal pressure partially decouples the hydrodynamic balance from

177: the thermodynamics of the cluster gas.  In other words, an ICM with a

178: non-thermal component that radiatively cools will lose less total

179: pressure support than an ICM with no non-thermal component.  An ICM

180: with a non-thermal component will thus have to contract less to

181: compensate for the lost thermal pressure support.

182: 

183: Observed clusters can be rather cleanly divided into two categories

184: based on the properties of their ICM.  ``Cooling core'' (CC) clusters

185: are those which have steep temperature drops in their central regions

186: \citep{Sanderson06} and metallicity gradients \citep{DeGrandi01}; many

187: CC clusters have identified radio emission at their centers

188: \citep{Best05} and show signs of AGN activity, including observed

189: sound waves \citep[e.g.][]{Fabian06} apparently emanating from their

190: center, and bubbles at an average distance of $\sim20$ kpc from the

191: cluster center \citep{Birzan04}.  In contrast, non-cooling core (NCC)

192: clusters are approximately isothermal \citep{Sanderson06} within

193: $\sim100$ kpc and show little metallicity gradient \citep{DeGrandi01}.

194: CC clusters generally have central cooling times of $0.1-1.0$ Gyr

195: while the cooling times in NCC clusters are generally somewhat higher

196: at $\sim1$ Gyr \citep{Sanderson06}.  The present work investigates the

197: expected thermal properties of both CC and NCC clusters.

198: 

199: The aim of the present study is not to find one or more heating

200: mechanisms that can offset radiative cooling but rather to understand

201: the general conditions that lead to thermal balance in the ICM for a

202: variety of possible mechanisms.  This requires both a heating

203: mechanism (or mechanisms) that can energetically offset radiation, and

204: also maintain long term thermal balance.  

205: 

206: The rest of this paper proceeds as follows.  In $\S$\ref{sec:methods}

207: the methods are discussed, including the implementation of cooling,

208: supernovae heating, conduction, DF heating, and relativistic pressure,

209: the initial equilibria, and the numerical setup.  $\S$\ref{sec:nexp}

210: contains the results of a series of numerical experiments where the

211: thermal balance of the ICM is investigated.  A discussion and summary

212: of these results can be found in $\S\S$\ref{sec:disc} and

213: \ref{sec:sum}, respectively.  Throughout we assume $h=0.7$ where $h$

214: is the Hubble parameter in units of $100$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.

215: 

216: 

217: \section{Methods \& Physical Processes}

218: \label{sec:methods}

219: 

220: This section reviews the relevant fluid equations, cooling function,

221: and heating mechanisms that will be explored in depth in the following

222: sections.  This section also discusses our implementation of a

223: relativistic fluid component, initial equilibria, and the numerical

224: setup.

225: 

226: \subsection{General Equations}

227: \label{sec:gen}

228: 

229: The hydrodynamical equations are:

230: \be

231: \frac{d \rho_g}{d t} = - \rho_g {\bf \nabla \cdot \bf v},

232: \label{e:hydro1}

233: \ee

234: \be

235: \frac{d{\bf v}}{d t} = -\frac{1}{\rho_g}{\bf \nabla}P_{tot} + \, {\bf g},

236: \label{e:hydro2}

237: \ee

238: \be

239: \frac{de_g}{d t} = - (e_g+P_g) {\bf \nabla \cdot v} + \Gamma - \Lambda,

240: \label{e:hydro3}

241: \ee

242: \noindent

243: where $\rho_g$, $e_g$, $P_g$, $P_{\rm tot}$ and ${\bf v}$ are the gas

244: density, internal energy density, gas pressure, total pressure, and

245: velocity, ${\bf g}$ is the total gravitational acceleration, and

246: $\Gamma$ and $\Lambda$ are the heating and cooling functions per unit

247: volume.  We have explicitly distinguished between the total and gas

248: pressures because below we will allow for the addition of a

249: relativistic fluid that can provide additional pressure support. The

250: equation of state for the gas is:

251: \noindent

252: \be

253: e_g = \frac{1}{\gamma_g-1} P_g,

254: \ee

255: where $\gamma_g=5/3$ is the ratio of specific heats.

256: 

257: The gravitational acceleration is the combination of a (passive) dark

258: matter halo, a central cD galaxy, and the self-gravity of the gas:

259: \be

260: g(r) = g(r)_{\rm{DM}} + g(r)_{\rm{cD}} - \frac{G\,M_{\rm{gas}}(<r)}{r^2},

261: \ee

262: where $g_{\rm{DM}}$ is

263: \be

264: g(r)_{\rm{DM}} = -\frac{2GM_0}{r_s^2}\bigg[\frac{\rm{ln}(1+x)}{x^2} - \frac{1}{x(1+x)}\bigg],

265: \ee

266: and is derived from the NFW \citep{NFW97} density profile:

267: \be

268: \rho_{\rm{DM}} = \frac{M_0/2\pi}{r(r+r_s)^2},

269: \ee

270: \noindent

271: where $G$ is Newton's constant, $x\equiv r/r_s$, $M_0$ is the

272: normalization and $r_s$ is the scale radius, i.e. the radius at which

273: the density profile scales as $r^{-2}$.  For reference, the mass

274: within $2r_s$ is equal to $0.86 M_0$ for the above density profile.

275: We fix $r_s=460$ kpc for comparison to \citet{Kim05}.  This value for

276: $r_s$ is bracketed by the observational range \citep{Vikhlinin06a}.

277: $M_0$ is allowed to vary as discussed in $\S$\ref{s:ie}.

278: 

279: The central cD galaxy mass density profile is taken to be a King

280: profile:

281: \noindent

282: \be

283: \rho_{\rm{cD}}(r) = \frac{\rho_{\rm{cD},0}}{[1+(r/r_{\rm{cD}})^2]^{3/2}},

284: \label{e:cd}

285: \ee

286: where

287: \be

288: \rho_{\rm{cD},0} = \frac{9 \sigma_{\rm{cD}}^2}{4\pi G r_{\rm{cD}}^2}.

289: \ee

290: \noindent

291: In the above equations, $\sigma_{\rm{cD}}$ is the central 1D velocity

292: dispersion of the central galaxy and $r_{\rm{cD}}$ is the core radius

293: for the King profile; these parameters are taken to be 200 $\kms$ and

294: 2.83 kpc, respectively, from a fit to the cD galaxy NGC 6166

295: \citep{Kelson02} which is representative of cD stellar density profiles.

296: Note that the King profile is for all practical purposes quite similar

297: to the more conventional de Vaucouleurs profile, but is more

298: analytically tractable.  The gravitational acceleration associated with

299: this density distribution is

300: \noindent

301: \be

302: g_{\rm{cD}}(r) = -\frac{9\sigma_{\rm{cD}}^2}{r_{\rm{cD}}} \bigg(\frac{1+r'(1+r'^2)^{-0.5}}{r'(r'+\sqrt{1+r'^2})} - \frac{{\rm ln}(r'+\sqrt{1+r'^2})}{r'^2} \bigg),

303: \ee

304: where $r'\equiv r/r_{\rm{cD}}$.

305: 

306: Mass that flows through the inner boundary (1 kpc; see below), and is

307: hence no longer followed directly in the simulation, is added to the

308: cD galaxy.  Our results are unchanged if the mass is added to a

309: central black hole instead.

310: 

311: The gas is assumed to be ideal:

312: \be

313: P = \frac{\rho_g k_B T}{\mu m_\mu} = \frac{\mu_e}{\mu}n_e k_B T,

314: \ee

315: \noindent

316: where $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight, $m_\mu$ is the atomic mass

317: unit, $k_B$ is Boltzmann's constant, $n_e$ is the electron number

318: density and $T$ is the gas temperature.  Throughout, the gas

319: metallicity is taken to be $(1/3) \,Z_\Sun$ (except in $\S$\ref{s:ie}

320: where we discuss the sensitivity of our results to different

321: metallicities).

322: 

323: \subsection{Heating \& Cooling}

324: \label{sec:phy}

325: 

326: This section describes the various heating and cooling mechanisms that

327: are potentially relevant for the thermodynamics of the ICM.  Each

328: mechanism includes an adjustable free parameter that is meant to

329: encapsulate both our ignorance regarding the applicability of the

330: mechanism to real clusters and the uncertain values of the particular

331: parameters relevant for each mechanism; a summary of these parameters

332: is provided in Table \ref{t:models}.

333: 

334: \subsubsection{Radiation}

335: 

336: \begin{figure}[t]

337: \plotone{f1.eps}

338: \vspace{0.5cm}

339: \caption{Cooling function used in the simulations (\emph{solid lines})

340:   compared to the more accurate cooling functions of

341:   \citet{Sutherland93}.  The solid lines are, from bottom to top, for

342:   primordial metallicity, $[Fe/H]=-1.5$ and $[Fe/H]=0.0$.  Note that

343:   even for low metallicity the cooling function deviates from pure

344:   free-free cooling (where $\Lambda \propto T^{1/2}$) at

345:   $T\gtrsim10^7$ K due to recombination cooling.}

346: \vspace{0.5cm}

347: \label{fig:coolfn}

348: \end{figure}

349: 

350: 

351: A simplified cooling function is adopted that broadly captures the

352: metallicity dependent features in the detailed cooling function of

353: \citet{Sutherland93} via the following function:

354: \noindent

355: \be

356: \label{eqn:rad}

357: \Lambda = 2.1 \times 10^{-27} \,n_e^2\, T^{1/2}\bigg[1+\bigg(\frac{1.3\times 10^7\, \zeta(Z)}{T}\bigg)^{1.5}\bigg],

358: \ee

359: \noindent

360: in units of $\rm{erg} \,\rm{s}^{-1} \rm{cm}^{-3}$.  The variable

361: $\zeta$ is a simple function of the gas metallicity, $Z$.  This

362: metallicity-dependent cooling function is shown in Figure

363: \ref{fig:coolfn} (solid lines) along with the detailed cooling

364: functions from \citet{Sutherland93}.  The cooling function is

365: truncated at $T=0.01$ keV because our analytic approximation becomes

366: inaccurate at lower temperature, and because more complex physical

367: phenomena not included herein (such as star formation) become relevant

368: at such temperatures.  Most of our results focus on a single

369: metallicity of $Z=\frac{1}{3} \,Z_\Sun$; in $\S$\ref{s:ie} we briefly

370: discuss how the results change when different metallicities are adopted.

371: 

372: 

373: \subsubsection{Supernovae}

374: 

375: The stellar populations of central galaxies are extremely old, with

376: typical formation epochs at $z>3$ \citep{Thomas05}; there are thus no

377: type II supernovae events in these old systems.  However, type Ia

378: supernovae events are common, even for the old stellar populations

379: comprising cD galaxies.  At low redshift, roughly one type Ia

380: supernovae event occurs every 100 years per $10^{12} M_\Sun$ of old

381: stars \citep{Mannucci05}.  Since each supernova releases $\sim10^{51}$

382: ergs, which we assume is transfered entirely to the ICM, this

383: corresponds to a time-averaged energy injection rate of $10^{49}$ erg

384: yr$^{-1}$ per galaxy of mass $10^{12} M_\Sun$.  The type Ia rate for a

385: co-evolving stellar population may be a decreasing function of time,

386: indicating that the rate at earlier epochs would be higher than the

387: value we adopt here \citep{Greggio05, Mannucci06}.  For our purposes

388: we are primarily interested in type Ia rates at $>1$ Gyr after the

389: formation epoch of the stars, precisely where the time-dependence of

390: the rates are least certain \citep{Mannucci06}.  However, even a

391: modest increase of the rate with redshift would not qualitatively

392: change our conclusions.  We therefore do not include any

393: time-dependence in the type Ia rate in what follows.

394: 

395: Since there are hundreds of galaxies within clusters,

396: supernovae-related energy injection should be treated throughout the

397: cluster.  However, since radiation is capable of substantially cooling

398: only the inner cluster region (because cooling scales as $\rho^2$ at

399: fixed temperature), and since the thermal reservoir in the outer

400: regions is large, we only distribute supernovae within the central

401: galaxy for simplicity.  The supernovae energy injection rate is

402: distributed with the same space density as the cD galaxy (cf. Equation

403: \ref{e:cd}).

404: 

405: Supernovae energy injection is non-negligible in the central regions

406: at the beginning of our simulations.  For a initially isothermal

407: cluster with central electron density $0.020$ cm$^{-3}$ and $T_i=6$

408: keV, the volume-averaged supernovae heating initially dominates

409: cooling within only 2 kpc, while for a central density of $0.005$

410: cm$^{-3}$ supernovae heating dominates within $\sim10$ kpc.  However,

411: since the injection rate is independent of the properties of the ICM,

412: it has little impact on the long-term thermal balance of the ICM.  In

413: particular, while for very low density intracluster media supernovae

414: heating is comparable to radiative cooling on small scales, it is

415: completely ineffective at larger scales (i.e. several tens of kpc)

416: because there are so few stars, and hence so few supernovae, at these

417: larger scales.

418: 

419: We have run many simulations for a variety of initial conditions and

420: additional heating sources (discussed below) with supernovae feedback

421: and indeed find that while at the central regions ($\sim1-10$ kpc) it

422: can be important, it has little effect on the long-term thermal

423: balance of the ICM.  These conclusions are qualitatively similar to

424: those of \citet{Kravtsov00} who used the observed metallicity of the

425: ICM to demonstrate that supernovae heating is insufficient to offset

426: radiative losses.  In order to simplify the discussion in the

427: following sections, we neglect this energy injection process for the

428: remainder of this work.

429: 

430: \subsubsection{Conduction}

431: 

432: The heat flux due to electron conduction may be described by:

433: \be

434: \Gamma_{\rm cond} = {\bf \nabla \cdot}(\kappa {\bf \nabla}T),

435: \ee

436: \noindent

437: where $\kappa$ is the conductivity.  For a fully ionized plasma, the

438: conductivity is:

439: \noindent

440: \be

441: \label{eqn:cond}

442: \kappa = f\,\kappa_{Sp} = f\, \frac{1.84\times 10^{-5}\, T^{5/2}}{\rm{ln}\Lambda_C} \,\,\,\, \rm{erg}\,\rm{s}^{-1}\, \rm{K}^{-1} \, \rm{cm}^{-1},

443: \ee

444: \noindent

445: where $\kappa_{Sp}$ is the classical \citet{Spitzer62} conductivity,

446: $\rm{ln}\Lambda_C\sim37$ is the Coulomb logarithm, and $f$ is a free

447: parameter describing the suppression of conductivity relative to the

448: full Spitzer value.  While it is difficult to constrain the globally

449: averaged value of $f$ in observed clusters, the strength of observed

450: temperature gradients in several clusters suggests that $f\ll 1$

451: \citep{Markevitch03, Xiang07}.

452: 

453: There are many theoretical reasons to expect that $f<1$.  The primary

454: uncertainty on the importance of conduction is the strength and order

455: of magnetic fields in the ICM.  Magnetic fields act to suppress

456: conduction across magnetic field lines (due to the small gyro-radius

457: of electrons) while permitting conduction along the field lines.

458: Observations suggest that the magnetic fields in clusters are tangled

459: with length scales $\sim1-10$ kpc \citep[e.g.][]{Taylor02}.  Tangled

460: magnetic fields or other magnetic phenomena tend to suppress the

461: thermal conductivity to a value roughly $10-30$\% of the fully Spitzer

462: value \citep[e.g.][]{Malyshkin01, Narayan01, Chandran04}, although

463: turbulence may boost the effective conductivity \citep{Cho04}.  The

464: amount of suppression depends in detail on the poorly constrained

465: properties of the cluster magnetic field, and should thus be

466: considered rather uncertain.  Finally, it should be kept in mind that

467: three-dimensional simulations of conduction in the presence of

468: magnetic fields display new instabilities \citep[e.g.][]{Parrish07a}

469: that cannot be captured in our one-dimensional treatment where the

470: conduction is by necessity isotropic.  These considerations lead us to

471: adopt $0.0<f<0.5$ as a plausible range for suppression of

472: isotropic conduction (see Table \ref{t:models}).

473: 

474: 

475: \subsubsection{DF Heating}\label{s:df}

476: 

477: A wealth of energy is stored in the orbital motions of galaxies within

478: clusters.  DF provides a way to transfer that energy to the background

479: matter, including both the dark matter and the ICM, and can be a

480: potential mechanism that balances the cooling flow, as first pointed

481: out by \citet{Miller86}.  Recently, DF heating has experienced a

482: resurgence in popularity \citep{ElZant04b, Kim05, Kim07} thanks in

483: part to detailed calculations of the efficiency of DF in a collisional

484: medium \citep{Ostriker99}, which have been verified by controlled

485: numerical experiments \citep{Sanchez01, Kim07a}. These calculations

486: showed that DF heating is stronger in collisional media (such as the

487: ICM) when galaxies are moving slightly supersonically, as appears to

488: be the case in clusters \citep{Faltenbacher05}, where the average Mach

489: number of galaxies is $\sim 1.3$.  DF will also heat the background

490: dark matter halo, thereby producing a core-like inner density profile,

491: as opposed to the cusp implied by the NFW distribution

492: \citep{ElZant04a}, although this appears to depend on the detailed

493: properties of the accreted objects \citep{Boylan-Kolchin07}.

494: 

495: A simple calculation suggesting that DF heating may be important in

496: real clusters will be presented first, followed by a more detailed

497: discussion of our implementation of DF heating.

498: 

499: \bigskip

500: 

501: $X$-ray luminosities of clusters vary from $\sim10^{43}$ to

502: $\sim10^{45}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, with of order $10$\% emitted within the

503: rapidly cooling inner region \citep{Fabian94}.  Assuming an average

504: $X$-ray luminosity of $10^{44}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, this implies a loss of

505: energy from $X$-ray radiation over a Hubble time of

506: $\sim5\times10^{60}$ ergs within the cooling inner region

507: \citep[e.g.][]{Fabian94}.  The energy liberated during the build-up of

508: the massive central cD galaxy is a plausible source of energy that may

509: balance these radiative losses.  The following is a simple calculation

510: demonstrating that the binding energy of the cD absorbed by the ICM is

511: of the same order as the energy radiated away within the cooling

512: region.

513: 

514: The energy liberated during the build-up of the cD galaxy is

515: \be

516: \Delta E = \int \phi \,{\rm d}m_\ast = 4\pi \, \int \phi \rho_\ast\,r^2 {\rm d}r,

517: \ee

518: \noindent

519: where $\Delta E$ is the binding energy, $\phi$ is the total

520: gravitational potential felt by the cD, $m_\ast$ is a unit of stellar

521: mass, and $\rho_\ast$ is the stellar density profile.  We assume that

522: $\phi$ is static for simplicity, though of course the dark matter halo

523: is being built-up at the same time as the cD.

524: 

525: The cD galaxy projected density profile is approximated as a Sersic

526: profile \citep{Sersic68}, in agreement with a variety of observations.

527: The projected Sersic profile is not analytically invertible, but

528: sufficiently accurate fitting functions exist in the literature.  The

529: de-projected stellar mass density can be approximated by

530: \citep{LimaNeto99}:

531: \noindent

532: \be 

533: \rho_\ast(r) = A \, s^{-\alpha}\,{\rm exp}\big(-b_ns^{1/n}\big),

534: \ee

535: \noindent

536: where $s \equiv r/R_e$, $b_n \approx 2n-0.327$, and $\alpha\approx

537: 1-1.188/(2n) + 0.22/(4n^2)$.  $A$ is an integration constant chosen

538: such that the integral over $\rho_\ast$ equals the total stellar mass

539: $M_\ast$.

540: 

541: For simplicity the total gravitational potential within the inner

542: regions is assumed to be isothermal:

543: \noindent

544: \be

545: \phi(r) = {\rm V}_c^2 \, {\rm ln}(r/r_{\rm cool}),

546: \ee

547: where ${\rm V}_c$ is the circular velocity.  We are only interested in

548: energy liberated within the cooling region ($r<r_{\rm cool}$), and so

549: set the potential to be zero at $r=r_{\rm cool}$.  Define

550: $\gamma\equiv r_{\rm{cool}} / R_e$.

551: 

552: Combining these results yields:

553: \be

554: \Delta E =  V_c^2\, M_\ast \, \, \frac{\int_s^0 {\rm ln}\big(\frac{s'}{\gamma}\big) \,s'^{2-\alpha} \,{\rm exp}\big[-b_n s'^{1/n}\big]{\rm d}s'}{\int_0^s \,s'^{2-\alpha} \,{\rm exp}\big[-b_n s'^{1/n}\big]{\rm d}s'}.

555: \ee

556: \noindent

557: The two integrals represent an average of the logarithmic run of the

558: potential over the stellar density profile.  The integrals are

559: functions only of the Sersic index $n$, the ratio between the cooling

560: radius and the effective radius $\gamma$, and the upper limit of

561: integration $s$ (taken to be the same in both integrals, which is

562: reasonable but not necessary).  For $1<s<3$ and $4<n<10$ the ratio of

563: these two integrals varies from $0.4$ to $1.8$, for $\gamma=1$.  The

564: integral scales roughly as $\sqrt{\gamma}$.

565: 

566: For a typical cD galaxy $M_\ast\sim 10^{12} \,M_\sun$ and for a typical

567: cluster ${\rm V}_c\sim 700\kms$ \citep{Gonzalez07} implying that $\Delta

568: E\sim 10^{61}$ ergs.  This energy can be transferred into both the

569: background ICM and dark matter halo.  If the gas were collisionless,

570: then the fraction of energy shared between the gas and the dark matter

571: would be simply proportional to their relative mass fractions

572: ($\sim1/6$ and $\sim5/6$ for the gas and dark matter respectively).

573: However, the collisional nature of the gas makes DF more efficient at

574: transonic speeds \citep{Ostriker99}; at Mach numbers near unity the

575: efficiency of DF heating on the gas is roughly twice that of the

576: collisionless dark matter.  This implies that $\sim30$\% of the energy

577: released in transferred to the ICM and the rest to the dark matter.

578: The cD binding energy thus absorbed by the ICM is comparable to the

579: energy radiated away within the cooling inner region over a Hubble

580: time.

581: 

582: There were many simplifications made in this calculation.  One

583: complication is that observations indicate that a large fraction of

584: massive ($M_\ast>10^{11.5} M_\Sun$) galaxies were already in place by

585: $z\sim1$ \citep[e.g.][]{Bundy05, Borch06, Fontana06, Brown07}, and

586: hence the energy liberated from the build-up of cDs may not provide

587: much energy to the ICM at $z<1$.  However, the outer envelope of the

588: cD may be growing substantially at $z<1$ from the shredding of

589: satellite galaxies \citep[see e.g.][for a discussion]{Ostriker77,

590:   Conroy07b, Purcell07}, suggesting that energy released from the

591: build-up of the cD is available at late times.  Moreover, the strong

592: small-scale clustering of luminous red galaxies indicates that there

593: are many massive galaxies orbiting near the cluster center, plausibly

594: transferring their orbital energy to the ICM and background halo via

595: DF \citep{Masjedi06}.

596: 

597: These calculations suggest that DF heating may be an important heating

598: mechanism.  While the simulations below address DF heating in more

599: detail, detailed high-resolution three-dimensional simulations are

600: required to fully address the importance of DF heating in the ICM of

601: clusters \citep[see e.g.][]{Kim07}.  Moreover, detailed resolution

602: studies are required to address whether or not current cosmological

603: hydrodynamic simulations are adequately resolving DF \citep[see

604: discussion in][]{Faltenbacher05, Naab07}.

605: 

606: \bigskip

607: 

608: Our implementation of DF heating closely follows that of

609: \citet{Kim05}; the reader is referred to that work for more details.

610: Note that we do not track orbits explicitly nor do we attempt to

611: resolve the actual DF wake.  We take a more approximate,

612: parameterized approach to the spherically-averaged heating rate due

613: to DF.

614: 

615: The heat flux due to DF can be described as:

616: \noindent

617: \be

618: \label{eqn:df}

619: \Gamma_{DF} = n_{\rm{gal}} \langle -{\bf F_{\rm{DF}} \cdot v} \rangle =

620: d \frac{4\pi \rho_g G^2  \overline{M_{\rm{gal}}^2} \langle I/\mathcal{M} \rangle}{c_s} \, n_{\rm{gal}}(r),

621: \ee

622: \noindent

623: where $\mathcal{M}\equiv {\bf v}/c_s$ is the Mach number,

624: $n_{\rm{gal}}$ is the number density of galaxies,

625: $\overline{M_{\rm{gal}}^2}$ is the average squared total mass of the

626: galaxies, and $c_s$ is the isothermal sound speed.  In what follows we

627: will argue for reasonable values for each of the parameters in

628: Equation \ref{eqn:df}, and will then incorporate the uncertainties and

629: possible ranges in all of these parameters into the single free

630: parameter $d$.  The angular brackets indicate an average over the

631: velocity distribution function.

632: 

633: Note that $M_{\rm gal}$ includes both the stellar and dark matter of

634: the satellite galaxies, and that since DF is proportional to the

635: average of the galaxy mass {\it squared}, more massive galaxies are

636: given greater weight.  The quantity $\overline{M_{\rm{gal}}^2}$ is

637: estimated as follows.  We assume that the dark matter-to-stellar mass

638: ratio is constant for satellites, and estimate it by taking the total

639: stellar mass of satellites in clusters to be 1\% of the total cluster

640: mass \citep{Gonzalez07} and the total amount of dark matter mass in

641: substructures to be 10\% \citep{Gao04b}, where the substructures are

642: assumed to be the likely locations of satellite galaxies

643: \citep{Conroy06a}.  These numbers imply an average dark

644: matter-to-stellar mass ratio of 10 for satellite galaxies.  If the

645: total mass is $M_{\rm gal}$, then $\overline{M_{\rm{gal}}^2} =

646: \overline{M_{\rm{star}}^2} + \overline{M_{\rm{dm}}^2} =

647: 101\,\overline{M_{\rm{star}}^2}$.  The stellar mass function provides

648: an estimate of $\overline{M_{\rm{star}}^2}$ and thus of

649: $\overline{M_{\rm{gal}}^2}$.  We adopt the global mass function of

650: \citet{Bell03} where $\alpha=1.1$ and ${\rm log}(M^\ast)=10.9\,M_\Sun$

651: are the best-fit Schechter parameters.  The Schechter parameters for

652: the luminosity function within clusters does not differ strongly from

653: the global value \citep{Hansen07}, and so we adopt the global values

654: for this calculation.  Integrating the stellar mass function to

655: $M_{\rm star}=10^8\,M_\Sun$ leads us to adopt

656: $\overline{M_{\rm{gal}}^2} = (10^{11}\,M_\Sun)^2$ as the fiducial

657: value.  The uncertainty on this quantity is explored via the tunable

658: parameter $d$ discussed above.

659: 

660: 

661: By definition we have:

662: \noindent

663: \be

664: \langle I/\mathcal{M} \rangle = \frac{\int I/\mathcal{M} f({\bf v}) d{\bf v}}{\int f({\bf v}) d{\bf v}},

665: \ee

666: where $f$ is assumed to be Maxwellian \citep{Faltenbacher05}:

667: \be

668: f({\bf v}) = \frac{4\pi N_{\rm{gal}}}{(2\pi\sigma_r^2)^{3/2}}\,{\bf v}^2\, e^{-{\bf v}^2/(2\sigma_r^2)},

669: \ee

670: \noindent

671: where $\sigma_r$ is the radial velocity dispersion of galaxies

672: (assumed for simplicity to be independent of radius), and

673: $N_{\rm{gal}}$ is the total number of galaxies within the cluster.  In

674: the following we take $\sigma_r =1000$ km s$^{-1}$ and

675: $N_{\rm{gal}}=500$.  These parameters are fixed throughout; any

676: variation of these physical quantities is incorporated into the $d$

677: parameter.  Note that DF heating depends on the state variables only

678: through $c_s$, $I/\mathcal{M}$, and $\rho_g$, and that

679: $\Gamma_{DF}\propto \rho_g$ at fixed temperature.  $I$ is the

680: efficiency factor for DF in the collisional case \citep{Ostriker99}:

681: \noindent

682: \begin{displaymath}

683: I \equiv \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

684:  \frac{1}{2}\,\rm{ln}(1-\mathcal{M}^{-2}) + \rm{ln}(vt/r_{\rm{min}}) & \mathcal{M} >1 \\

685: \frac{1}{2}\,\rm{ln}\bigg(\frac{1+\mathcal{M}}{1-\mathcal{M}}\bigg) -\mathcal{M} & \mathcal{M} <1

686: \end{array} \right.

687: \end{displaymath}

688: \noindent

689: As is common practice, we set $vt=r_{\rm{max}}$, where $r_{\rm max}$

690: and $r_{\rm min}$ are in this problem taken to denote the size of the

691: cluster and the satellite galaxies, respectively.  The factor ${\rm

692:   ln}(vt/r_{\rm{min}})$ thus plausibly varies from $\sim4-10$.  In

693: what follows we set this factor to 6 and note that our results are

694: insensitive to this particular value.  Note that DF heating is more

695: efficient at subsonic speeds than one might naively expect because the

696: relevant efficiency is $\langle I/\mathcal{M} \rangle$, which, though

697: maximal at $\mathcal{M}=1$, decreases by only $50$\% at

698: $\mathcal{M}\approx0.5$ and decreases only weakly at $\mathcal{M}> 1$.

699: This implies that the feedback provided by the Mach number (in the

700: sense that colder/hotter systems will have more/less efficient DF

701: heating) is weaker than one might have expected.

702: 

703: The number density of galaxies, $n_{\rm{gal}}(r)$, is taken to

704: be a modified King profile with the parameters adopted from \citet{Girardi98}:

705: \noindent

706: \be

707: n_{\rm{gal}}(r) = n_{\rm{gal}}(0)[1+(r/r_c)^2]^{-1.2},

708: \ee

709: \noindent

710: where the core radius $r_c=50$ kpc.  The central density is set by

711: requiring that $n_{\rm{gal}}(r)$ integrate to the total number of

712: galaxies, $N_{\rm{gal}}$.  Note that $n_{\rm{gal}}(r)$ does not

713: include the central cD galaxy.  While most cD galaxies are near the

714: center of the halo as defined by $X$-ray imaging \citep{Lin04b}, the

715: cD may be oscillating about the gravitational center with an amplitude

716: of several kpc \citep{VDB05b}.  Such oscillations may provide

717: additional heating in the central regions, but we do not include them

718: herein.

719: 

720: 

721: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}

722: \tablecaption{Summary of Free Parameters}

723: \tablehead{ \colhead{} & \colhead{} &\colhead{Plausible} \\ 

724:  \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Comment} &\colhead{Range}}

725: \startdata\\

726: $Z/Z_\Sun$ & Metallicity of the gas (Eqn. \ref{eqn:rad}) & $0.1-0.6$\\

727: $f$ & Fraction of Spitzer conductivity  (Eqn. \ref{eqn:cond}) & $0.0-0.5$ \\

728: $d$ & Normalization of DF heating  (Eqn. \ref{eqn:df}) & $0.1-10.0$\\

729: $\alpha$ & Initial fraction of relativistic pressure  (Eqn. \ref{eqn:nth}) & $0.0-0.3$\\

730: \enddata

731: \label{t:models}

732: \end{deluxetable}

733: \vspace{0.5cm}

734: 

735: \subsection{Relativistic Pressure}

736: \label{s:prel}

737: 

738: Relativistic pressure in the form of cosmic rays could be an important

739: dynamical component of the ICM.  It has long been known that

740: astrophysical shocks efficiently accelerate cosmic rays

741: \citep{Blandford78}.  Numerical simulations suggest that cosmic rays

742: accelerated in shocks could account for $\sim10$\% of the total

743: cluster pressure \citep{Miniati01, Ryu03}.  Cosmic rays may also be

744: generated in buoyantly rising bubbles generated by AGN activity

745: \citep[e.g.][]{Ensslin03}.  Observations suggest that a relativistic

746: component may constitute several tens of percent of the total energy

747: density of clusters \citep{Pfrommer04, Sanders05, Dunn06, Sanders07,

748:   Werner07, Nakar07}.  In addition, it has been shown that a

749: relativistic pressure component can suppress thermal instabilities

750: \citep[][see also the appendix herein]{Cen05}.

751: 

752: There have been several recent attempts to study the effects of

753: cosmic-rays in the ICM numerically \citep{Pfrommer07a, Pfrommer07b,

754:   Pfrommer07c, Guo07}.  The model of \citet{Guo07}, which includes

755: both conduction and cosmic rays injected into the ICM from AGN-induced

756: bubbles, is able to reproduce the temperature and density profiles of

757: observed clusters.  Perhaps the most attractive feature of their model

758: is that their results do not require fine tuning of the various

759: adjustable parameters, including the amount of thermal conductivity.

760: It would be interesting to know whether and to what extent their

761: results rely on the relativistic pressure provided by the CRs, or

762: whether it is due primarily to the energetics associated with the

763: bubbles.  In the present work we test the former hypothesis.

764: 

765: In the following we take a simplified approach when exploring the

766: effects of a relativistic component.  The relativistic pressure

767: ($P_r$) is assumed to be a fixed fraction of the total pressure

768: initially:

769: \noindent

770: \be

771: \label{eqn:nth}

772: P_r = \alpha P_{tot},

773: \ee

774: \noindent

775: and we further assume that the relativistic component is perfectly

776: dynamically coupled to the gas (i.e. there is no motion or diffusion

777: of one component relative to another), and evolves adiabatically

778: (i.e. $P_r\propto \rho_g^{\gamma_r}$).  These requirements lead to a

779: fourth fluid equation:

780: \noindent

781: \be

782: \frac{\partial P_r}{\partial t} = - {\bf \nabla \cdot}({\bf v}P_r) + (1-\gamma_r)\,P_r{\bf \nabla \cdot} {\bf v},

783: \ee

784: \noindent

785: which is simply a statement of energy conservation. In the above

786: equation $\gamma_r=4/3$ and we have made use of the following equation of state:

787: \be

788: e_r = \frac{1}{\gamma_r-1} P_r,

789: \ee

790: \noindent

791: where $e_r$ is the energy density associated with the relativistic

792: fluid.  Note that relativistic pressure also enters into the

793: hydrodynamical equations (Equations \ref{e:hydro1}---\ref{e:hydro3})

794: by contributing to the total pressure.

795: 

796: These simple assumptions are motivated by CR creation and evolution in

797: real clusters.  It may be the case that CRs are created predominately

798: in the cluster center via AGN activity, or it may be that the

799: accretion shock at the cluster outskirts are the predominate source of

800: CRs.  CRs are capable of diffusing out of the cluster, but CR loss via

801: diffusion may be approximately balanced by the creation of new CRs

802: throughout the cluster.  Our simplified treatment is meant to

803: demonstrate the potential importance of CRs generally (insofar as they

804: provide relativistic pressure support); it will be the task of more

805: sophisticated modeling efforts \citep[see e.g.][]{Pfrommer07a,

806:   Pfrommer07b, Pfrommer07c, Guo07} and, ultimately, observations to

807: refine our knowledge of CR production and evolution.  Note that the

808: energetics associated with CR production (whether in e.g. shocks or

809: AGN-related bubbles) is not explored herein.

810: 

811: 

812: \subsection{Initial Equilibria}

813: \label{s:ie}

814: 

815: Every simulated cluster is set up initially in hydrostatic

816: equilibrium.  However, in general the clusters are {\it not} set up in

817: thermal balance.

818: 

819: Observations indicate that there are two classes of intracluster

820: media, the cooling-core (CC) and non-cooling-core (NCC) clusters

821: \citep{Sanderson06}.  Clusters in the former class show a rapidly

822: declining temperature profile with decreasing radius at radii less

823: than $\sim 100$ kpc, while the latter are approximately isothermal

824: within the same physical region.  Furthermore, CC clusters have factors

825: of $\sim2-3$ metallicity gradients within $\sim 100$ kpc while NCC

826: clusters do not \citep{DeGrandi01}.  For our analysis we assume that

827: neither NCC nor CC clusters have an appreciable metallicity gradient,

828: and that the metallicity is $(1/3)Z_\Sun$.  We have selected several

829: cluster runs at random and re-simulated them with metallicity varying

830: from primordial to solar composition and find no qualitative change in

831: our results.

832: 

833: Both of these classes are discussed in the sections that follow.  NCC

834: clusters as approximated as initially isothermal while the CC clusters

835: are assumed to have an initial temperature profile that is described

836: by \citep{Vikhlinin06a}:

837: \noindent

838: \be T(r)/T_{\rm CC} =  \frac{1.15\,(x/0.045)^2 + 0.5}{(x/0.045)^2+1}  \frac{1}{1+(x/0.75)^2},

839: \ee

840: \noindent

841: where $x\equiv r/r_{500}$.  This temperature profile peaks at $T_{\rm

842:   CC}$ where $r\sim0.1 r_{500}$ and drops by a factor of $\sim2-3$

843: toward the center.  Figure \ref{fig:rad_run} (\emph{bottom panel})

844: provides an example of a CC cluster temperature profile.

845: 

846: In each run the cumulative gas fraction at $500$ kpc is fixed at

847: $f_g=0.1$, in agreement with recent observations \citep{Sanderson03,

848:   Vikhlinin06a}.  The gas fraction is less than the universal baryon

849: fraction of $f_b=0.16$ for several reasons \citep[see e.g.][for a

850: discussion]{Kravtsov05}.  The conversion of gas into stars results in

851: a lower gas fraction by several tens of percent \citep{Fukugita98,

852:   Lin03}.  Both adiabatic effects and heating processes further

853: decrease the gas fraction within $\sim500$ kpc \citep{Bode07}.  Fixing

854: the gas fraction implies that simulated clusters with larger central

855: electron densities are embedded in larger dark matter halos, as

856: observed \citep{Vikhlinin06a}.  

857: 

858: With the above simplifications, each simulation is fully specified by

859: the initial central electron density and the temperature profile.

860: These two parameters, along with the assumption of hydrostatic

861: equilibrium, then determines the full density, temperature, and

862: pressure profiles, and the adopted gas mass fraction then determines

863: the mass of the static dark matter halo.  The contribution of the cD

864: galaxy to the gravitational potential is fixed initially and increases

865: in proportion to the amount of mass that flows through the inner

866: boundary condition (see $\S$\ref{sec:gen}).  In practice we

867: iteratively solve for $M_0$ such that hydrostatic balance is achieved.

868: For the central densities explored below, the NFW normalization $M_0$

869: ranges from $\sim(2-7)\times10^{14} M_\Sun$.  Allowing $M_0$ to vary

870: by fixing $f_g$ as opposed to allowing $f_g$ to vary by fixing $M_0$

871: has a negligible effect on our conclusions.

872: 

873: Observationally the temperature of clusters varies from $\sim1-10$

874: keV, and is strongly correlated with the total cluster mass

875: \citep[e.g.][]{Vikhlinin06a}.  The data also cover a wide range in

876: central electron densities, roughly $10^{-2.5}<n_{e,0}<10^{-0.5}$

877: cm$^{-3}$.  We pay more attention to how cooling and heating depends

878: on density because the cooling and heating functions are more

879: sensitive to density than temperature.  Below we include ``observed''

880: central electron densities for comparison with our initial conditions,

881: which are estimated from two sources.  \citet{Zakamska03} provide

882: central densities from hydrostatic fits to observed temperature and

883: density profiles of 10 clusters.  \citet{Vikhlinin06a} provide

884: detailed parametric fits to the electron density profiles of 13

885: clusters (two clusters are in both samples and are only counted once

886: herein).  For the latter sample we quote as the central density the

887: density at 10 kpc because in many cases the density profile at smaller

888: scales is enhanced due to cooling.  Since we are interested in

889: ``initial'' central electron densities, we essentially mask out this

890: inner cooling region when comparing to the initial electron densities

891: in our simulations.  In the simulations the initial central electron

892: densities are approximately constant within the inner 10 kpc; we thus

893: consider this simplification appropriate.

894: 

895: 

896: \begin{figure}[t]

897: \plotone{f2.eps}

898: %\vspace{0.5cm}

899: \caption{Evolution of the temperature profile of clusters with

900:   radiative cooling and no heating for $n_{e,0}=0.02$ cm$^{-3}$.  As

901:   expected, a runaway cooling flow develops and the core collapses

902:   within a cooling time.  \emph{Top Panel:} An initially NCC cluster.

903:   \emph{Bottom Panel:} An initially CC cluster.  The lines are spaced

904:   equally in time.}

905: \vspace{0.5cm}

906: \label{fig:rad_run}

907: \end{figure}

908: 

909: \subsection{Numerical Setup}

910: 

911: We utilize the Lax-Wendroff method \citep{Press92} to integrate the

912: fluid equations in their one-dimensional form.  The spatial grid is

913: logarithmic and has $N=400$ elements with range $1<r<500$ kpc.  We

914: have doubled the number of grid elements for several simulations and

915: extended the spatial grid to 1000 kpc and find no change in the

916: results.  The time-step is determined by the Courant condition:

917: \noindent

918: \be

919: \Delta t_{CFL} = 0.5\, min\bigg( \frac{\Delta r_i}{|{\bf v}_i+c_{s,i}|} \bigg),

920: \ee

921: where $i=[0,N]$ and $c_{s,i}$ is the local isothermal sound speed.

922: 

923: Conduction is implemented with a fully implicit algorithm

924: \citep{Press92}.  The pressure, density, and temperature in the ghost

925: cells are linearly extrapolated from the active zones, both at the

926: inner and outer boundaries.  At the inner boundary, the velocity is

927: also a linear extrapolation from the active zones unless the velocity

928: in the ghost cell is positive (indicating outflow) in which case the

929: velocity is set to zero.  The velocity in the ghost cell at the outer

930: boundary is always zero.

931: 

932: 

933: \section{Numerical Experiments}

934: \label{sec:nexp}

935: 

936: This section presents the results of a series of numerical

937: experiments.  The various physical processes discussed in

938: $\S$\ref{sec:phy} are discussed in a variety of combinations in order

939: to elucidate their various effects.  For each process we discuss the

940: sensitivity of the final state to the free parameters summarized in

941: Table \ref{t:models}.

942: 

943: \subsection{Radiation Only}

944: 

945: \begin{figure}[!t]

946: \plotone{f3.eps}

947: \vspace{0.5cm}

948: \caption{Evolution of the central temperature for simulations that

949:   include both radiation and DF heating.  Each panel shows the

950:   evolution of clusters with a variety of initial central densities

951:   (labeled in the figure in units of cm$^{-3}$).  The normalization of

952:   DF heating here is fixed at $d=1.0$ (cf. Equation \ref{eqn:df}).

953:   \emph{Top Panel:} Initially NCC clusters.  \emph{Bottom Panel:}

954:   Initially CC clusters.  The evolution of CC clusters is

955:   qualitatively similar to NCC clusters in the sense that thermal

956:   balance can only be maintained for a narrow range of central

957:   electron densities.}

958: \vspace{0.5cm}

959: \label{fig:rad_df}

960: \end{figure}

961: 

962: 

963: \begin{figure*}

964: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}

965: \vspace{0.5cm}

966: \caption{Long-term thermal evolution of intracluster media subjected

967:   to both DF heating and radiative cooling, as a function of initial

968:   central density, $n_{e,0}$ and normalization of DF heating, $d$

969:   (cf. Equation \ref{eqn:df}).  Both NCC clusters with $T_{i,NCC}=6$

970:   keV (\emph{left panel}) and CC clusters with $T_{i,CC}=6$ keV

971:   (\emph{right panel}) are shown.  The color indicates the slope of

972:   central temperature vs. time.  Red indicates the region of parameter

973:   space where the cluster gas catastrophically heats and blue where

974:   the gas catastrophically cools (i.e. where the slope is positive or

975:   negative).  The solid black lines indicate the region of parameter

976:   space where the slope is equal to $\pm0.1$.  Note that while there

977:   is a domain where heating stably balances cooling, sensitive

978:   fine-tuning is required for a real cluster to remain in this domain.

979:   For comparison, the distribution of observed central electron

980:   densities is included at the top (see $\S$\ref{s:ie}) and the

981:   estimated location of several Abell clusters are included in the

982:   $d-n_{e,0}$ plane (\emph{circles}).}

983: \vspace{0.5cm}

984: \label{fig:stabdf}

985: \end{figure*}

986: 

987: As discussed in the Introduction, in the absence of any heating

988: mechanisms the ICM will cool catastrophically. The time required to

989: radiate away all of the internal energy of the gas is defined as the

990: cooling time\footnote{Note that this cooling time differs from the

991:   conventional cooling time by a factor of

992:   $\frac{\gamma_g}{\gamma_g-1}$ because the conventional cooling time

993:   is defined as the time required to cool \emph{isobarically} whereas

994:   the cooling time in Equation \ref{eqn:tcool} is simply the time

995:   required to radiate away all of the thermal energy.}:

996: \noindent

997: \be

998: \label{eqn:tcool}

999: t_{\rm{cool}} \equiv \frac{\rho_g e}{\Lambda} = 5.0\, \bigg(\frac{0.01\, {\rm cm}^{-3}}{n_e}\bigg)  \bigg(\frac{T}{6\, {\rm keV}}\bigg)^{0.5} {\rm Gyr}.

1000: \ee

1001: \noindent

1002: As can be seen from Equation \ref{eqn:tcool}, the central cooling time

1003: for typical clusters is less than a Hubble time.

1004: 

1005: Figure \ref{fig:rad_run} shows the evolution of the ICM for two

1006: clusters with radiative cooling and no heating.  It is clear that the

1007: clusters cool catastrophically in the absence of any heating.  The top

1008: panel shows the evolution of an initially isothermal cluster with

1009: $T=6$ keV and an initial central electron density $n_{e,0}=0.02$

1010: cm$^{-3}$; the bottom panel shows the evolution of an initially CC

1011: cluster with the same central electron density.  The cooling times for

1012: the NCC and CC clusters shown in the figure are $2.4$ and $1.7$ Gyr,

1013: respectively, based on Equation \ref{eqn:tcool}, and adequately

1014: captures the actual time for catastrophic collapse.

1015: 

1016: While there are clusters with temperature profiles similar to that

1017: shown in the top panel of Figure \ref{fig:rad_run}, it is important to

1018: note that not only are these temperature profiles transient (in the

1019: sense that the cluster continues to cool on rapid timescales), but the

1020: density profile of this radiation-only cluster (not shown) is nowhere

1021: observed in nature.  Hence the $X$-ray luminosities, which scale as

1022: the gas density squared, would be out of the range of those observed

1023: in nature.  The conclusion that observed clusters must be periodically

1024: heated is in accord with a large body of previous work.  In

1025: particular, $X$-ray spectroscopy has firmly established that the ICM

1026: is not cooling much below $\sim1/3$ of the ambient temperature

1027: \citep{Peterson01, Peterson03, Tamura01}.

1028: 

1029: The following sections discuss possible heating mechanisms that can

1030: forestall the cooling catastrophe visible in Figure \ref{fig:rad_run}.

1031: 

1032: \subsection{Radiation \& DF Heating}

1033: 

1034: \begin{figure}[!t]

1035: \plotone{f5.eps}

1036: \vspace{0.5cm}

1037: \caption{Evolution of the central temperature for simulations that

1038:   include both radiation and conduction.  The conduction

1039:   normalization is $f=0.1$ (cf. Equation \ref{eqn:cond}).  \emph{Top

1040:     Panel:} Initially NCC clusters with $T_{i,NCC}=6$ keV.

1041:   \emph{Bottom Panel:} CC clusters with $T_{i,CC}=6$ keV.}

1042: \vspace{0.5cm}

1043: \label{fig:rad_cond}

1044: \end{figure}

1045: 

1046: \begin{figure}

1047: \plotone{f6a.eps}

1048: \plotone{f6b.eps}

1049: \vspace{0.5cm}

1050: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:stabdf} except now only thermal

1051:   conduction and radiative cooling are considered, and the clusters

1052:   are initially all NCC.  The normalization of the conductivity, $f$

1053:   (cf. Equation \ref{eqn:cond}), is varied as a function of the

1054:   initial central electron density $n_{e,0}$.  The initial gas

1055:   temperatures are 5 keV (\emph{top panel}) and 8 keV (\emph{bottom

1056:     panel}).}

1057: \vspace{0.5cm}

1058: \label{fig:stabcond}

1059: \end{figure}

1060: 

1061: As discussed in $\S$\ref{s:df}, there is an enormous source of energy

1062: in the orbital motions of satellite galaxies.  While satellite

1063: galaxies can transfer their orbital energy to the ICM through a

1064: variety of mechanisms, we will focus only on DF heating for

1065: simplicity.  Note however, that other mechanisms capable of

1066: transferring the orbital energy of satellites to the background gas

1067: are expected to scale in a similar way as DF heating (i.e. as $\rho_g$

1068: at fixed temperature).  The discussion that follows thus roughly

1069: encompasses a variety of heating mechanisms related to the motions of

1070: satellite galaxies.

1071: 

1072: Figure \ref{fig:rad_df} shows the evolution of the ICM central

1073: temperature, $T_c$, as a function of time for initially NCC

1074: (i.e. isothermal; \emph{top panel}) and CC clusters (\emph{bottom

1075:   panel}).  Each panel shows the central temperature evolution for a

1076: range of initial central gas densities.  The normalization of DF

1077: heating shown in the figure is set to $d=1.0$.

1078: 

1079: Several trends are apparent.  First, it is clear that one can find a

1080: particular set of parameters that leads to approximate thermal balance

1081: (neither a heating nor cooling catastrophe) over a Hubble time.  While

1082: not shown, we note that in the runs where the central temperature does

1083: not change appreciably, neither do the density nor temperature

1084: profiles.  This was first demonstrated by \citet{Kim05}.  In fact, our

1085: fiducial values for DF heating are the same as those in \citet{Kim05}.

1086: The equilibrium NCC model has $T_{i,NCC}=6$ keV and $n_{e,0}=6\times

1087: 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$ which is exactly the set of equilibrium parameters

1088: found in \citet{Kim05}, thereby confirming the results of that work.

1089: 

1090: It is also apparent that DF heating as the sole heating mechanism

1091: leads to serious thermal imbalance for all but a very narrow range of

1092: electron densities, as was also demonstrated by \citet{Kim05}.  This

1093: imbalance arises because at fixed temperature the cooling scales as

1094: $\rho_g^2$ while DF heating scales as $\rho_g$.  Thus at fixed

1095: temperature there can be only one initial density that is in thermal

1096: balance, and that solution will be unstable.

1097: 

1098: In order to more fully elucidate the thermal properties of the ICM,

1099: Figure \ref{fig:stabdf} shows the long-term thermal evolution of the

1100: ICM as a function of initial central density, $n_{e,0}$ and

1101: normalization of DF heating, $d$, for NCC (\emph{left panel}) and CC

1102: (\emph{right panel}) clusters for a fixed initial temperature profile.

1103: In this figure the slope of the central temperature as a function of

1104: time is color-coded according to the sign and steepness of the slope.

1105: From Figure \ref{fig:rad_df} it is clear that $T_c$ for most clusters

1106: evolves at least quasi-linearly, and hence the slope is a reasonable

1107: metric for the evolution of the ICM.

1108: 

1109: Figure \ref{fig:stabdf} demonstrates that there is only a narrow range

1110: of thermal balance in the parameter space of $d$ and $n_{e,0}$.  This

1111: highlights the inability of DF heating operating alone to balance

1112: radiative losses in the ICM.  The normalization of DF heating that is

1113: required to balance radiative losses increases in proportion to the

1114: central electron density ($d\propto n_{e,0}$), which makes the DF

1115: heating term (Equation \ref{eqn:df}) effectively scale as $\rho_g^2$.

1116: This is not surprising because the cooling function scales as

1117: $\rho_g^2$, and so thermal balance can be achieved for a range of

1118: densities if the effective DF heating scales in the same way as

1119: cooling.

1120: 

1121: Nature may in fact provide this required scaling ($d\propto n_{e,0}$).

1122: For example, the number of galaxies per cluster is correlated with the

1123: cluster mass as $N_{\rm gal}\propto M^{0.8}$ \citep{Lin04a}, with

1124: apparently little change at higher redshift \citep{Lin06}, and the

1125: central electron density scales roughly as the cluster mass:

1126: $n_{e,0}\propto M$ \citep[though with large scatter;][]{Vikhlinin06a,

1127:   Zakamska03}.  Since we have incorporated the variation of all free

1128: parameters in Equation \ref{eqn:df} into the single parameter $d$, it

1129: follows that $d\propto N_{\rm gal}$. These additional scalings may

1130: thus in fact produce $d\propto n_{e,0}^\beta$ with $\beta\sim 1$.

1131: 

1132: In order to investigate this explicitly, we have plotted the

1133: approximate locations of several Abell clusters in the $d-n_{e,0}$

1134: plane in Figure \ref{fig:stabdf}, where the central electron density

1135: is estimated from \citet{Vikhlinin06a} and the number of galaxies,

1136: $N_{\rm gal}$, is provided by the luminosity functions of

1137: \citet{Lin04a}.  We have only included the dependence of $d$ on

1138: $N_{\rm gal}$ when estimating the different DF efficiencies for these

1139: clusters since this scaling is the dominant one.  In other words, for

1140: these clusters we adopt our fiducial values relevant for DF heating

1141: except for $N_{\rm gal}$, which we take from the literature.

1142: Moreover, the intracluster media of these clusters span a range in

1143: temperature \citep[from $\sim2-9$ keV;][]{Lin04b}.  Since the region

1144: of thermal balance in Figure \ref{fig:stabdf} is only a weak function

1145: of temperature, we include all the clusters on the same plot for

1146: simplicity.  A trend of increasing $d$ with increasing $n_{e,0}$ is

1147: evident, but the normalization is a factor of $\sim3$ lower than the

1148: region where DF heating balances cooling.  While a factor of three is

1149: probably within the uncertainty of our estimates of $d$ for these

1150: clusters, what is more important is the narrowness of the region.  Our

1151: estimates of $d$ would not only have to be systematically off by a

1152: factor of $\sim3$, but there would have to be rather extreme

1153: fine-tuning, especially at high $n_{e,0}$, for DF heating to be

1154: generically be able to balance radiative losses.  Moreover, even if

1155: clusters initially fell in this narrow range, DF heating would still

1156: respond to perturbations in $n_{e,0}$ only linearly, while cooling

1157: would respond quadratically, and thus it is unlikely that clusters

1158: would remain in that narrow region for long.

1159: 

1160: The conclusion drawn from this section is straightforward and echoes

1161: the conclusion in \citet{Kim05}: DF heating, though an important

1162: reservoir of energy, cannot be the sole heating mechanism operating to

1163: offset radiative losses in the ICM.  This is not because the energy

1164: available is insufficient but rather because there is only a narrow

1165: range of parameter space where DF heating can stably balance radiative

1166: cooling.

1167: 

1168: \subsection{Radiation \& Conduction}\label{s:cond}

1169: 

1170: Thermal conduction can in principle transport heat from the abundant

1171: thermal reservoir of the outer cluster gas to the inner cooling parts.

1172: Invoking conduction as a means to balance radiative losses in the ICM

1173: appears however to require a fair degree of fine tuning of the

1174: conductivity \citep{Zakamska03, Kim03a, Pope06, Guo07}.  As

1175: demonstrated below, this problem is particularly acute in CC clusters

1176: where the {\it observed} temperature profile drops precipitously in

1177: the inner parts --- too little conduction leads to a cooling

1178: catastrophe, while too much conduction tends to produce an isothermal

1179: core.

1180: 

1181: These issues are demonstrated graphically in Figure \ref{fig:rad_cond}

1182: where the evolution of the central temperature is plotted for both NCC

1183: (\emph{top panel}) and CC (\emph{bottom panel}) clusters, for a

1184: conductivity normalization $f=0.1$.  Notice that the evolution is

1185: qualitatively different for NCC and CC clusters.

1186: 

1187: For NCC clusters, which are initially isothermal, only clusters with

1188: very low gas densities are marginally stable, while progressively more

1189: dense clusters quickly runaway.  These trends can be understood with

1190: the aid of the conduction time:

1191: \noindent

1192: \be

1193: t_{\rm cond} \equiv \frac{0.4}{f}\, \bigg(\frac{n_e}{0.01\, {\rm cm}^{-3}}\bigg) \bigg(\frac{\lambda}{100\,{\rm kpc}}\bigg)^2 \bigg(\frac{6\, {\rm keV}}{T}\bigg)^{2.5} {\rm Gyr},

1194: \label{eqn:tcond}

1195: \ee

1196: \noindent

1197: where $f$ is the conductivity normalization and $\lambda$ is the

1198: length scale over which temperature gradients are washed out within a

1199: conduction time \citep[the inner region where the cooling time is

1200: shorter than a Hubble time is generally of order 100

1201: kpc;][]{Sanderson06}.  It is clear that larger densities lead to

1202: longer conduction times\footnote{The conduction time depends on

1203:   density because, while conduction transports energy at fixed

1204:   density, energy scales as $n_e T$, so that the conduction time

1205:   scales as $n_e$.}, and that for $f=0.1$, densities much greater than

1206: $n_{e,0}\sim 10^{-2} $ cm$^{-3}$ result in conduction times

1207: approaching the Hubble time, and much longer than the cooling time.

1208: For these high densities, conduction cannot forestall runaway cooling,

1209: as seen in Figure \ref{fig:rad_cond}.  Thermal conduction alone cannot

1210: therefore stably offset radiative losses in the intracluster media of

1211: NCC clusters.

1212: 

1213: The situation is somewhat more complex in CC clusters because there

1214: the initial temperature profile drops by a factor of $\sim2-3$ within

1215: the inner $\sim 100$ kpc.  The bottom panel of Figure

1216: \ref{fig:rad_cond} shows the central temperature evolution for these

1217: clusters.  For clusters with short conduction times, the inner

1218: (cooler) region isothermalizes to the temperature of the outer cluster

1219: region ($\sim6$ keV for these runs) before radiative effects become

1220: important.  Once isothermal, the clusters then evolve more like the

1221: NCC clusters (\emph{top panel}, Figure \ref{fig:rad_cond}).  CC

1222: clusters that are too dense have conduction times that are longer than

1223: the cooling times, and they thus cool catastrophically.  These trends

1224: persist for the full range of conductivities explored herein

1225: ($0<f<1$).

1226: 

1227: The trends evident for NCC clusters in the top panel of Figure

1228: \ref{fig:rad_cond} are shown for a wide range in conductivity

1229: normalizations and central electron densities in Figure

1230: \ref{fig:stabcond}.  We have simulated NCC clusters with an initial

1231: temperature of 5 keV ({\it top panel}) and 8 keV ({\it bottom panel})

1232: in order to demonstrate explicitly that our results are relatively

1233: insensitive to the ICM temperature.  Unlike Figure \ref{fig:stabdf},

1234: NCC clusters can only cool or remain in thermal balance, since

1235: conduction acting on an isothermal gas cannot produce a steadily

1236: increasing central temperature with time.  It is clear that increasing

1237: the conductivity results in stable intracluster media over a wider

1238: range of initial central electron densities, but the range where

1239: cooling balances heating increases only mildly as the conduction

1240: normalization increases from $f\sim0.2$ to $f\sim1.0$.

1241: 

1242: The DF heating and conduction fine tuning problems are thus somewhat

1243: different. In the former case, too much DF heating will result in

1244: runaway heating, while in the latter, too much conduction simply

1245: isothermalizes the core.  This is not acceptable because the majority

1246: of clusters show a factor of $\sim2-3$ temperature drop within their

1247: cores \citep[e.g.][]{Sanderson06, Vikhlinin06a}.  The implications are

1248: however the same: neither mechanism is generically able to reproduce

1249: observed temperature profiles.

1250: 

1251: It thus appears that previously proposed models for the ICM that

1252: construct clusters initially in thermal balance with conduction as the

1253: only heating source \citep{Zakamska03, Kim03a, Guo07} constitute a

1254: very narrow regime of parameter space and should thus not be

1255: considered realistic solutions to the cooling flow problem, unless a

1256: physical explanation for the fine-tuning is provided \citep[see also

1257: the discussion in][]{Guo07}.

1258: 

1259: 

1260: \subsection{Radiation, DF Heating, \& Conduction}

1261: 

1262: In this section the thermal balance of the ICM is explored when both

1263: DF heating and conduction are operating as heating mechanisms.

1264: 

1265: \begin{figure}[!t]

1266: \plotone{f7.eps}

1267: \vspace{0.5cm}

1268: \caption{Evolution of the central temperature for simulations that

1269:   include radiation, DF heating, and conduction.  The DF heating and

1270:   conductivity normalizations are $d=1.0$ and $f=0.1$, respectively.

1271:   \emph{Top Panel:} Initially NCC clusters.  \emph{Bottom Panel:}

1272:   Initially CC clusters.}

1273: \vspace{0.5cm}

1274: \label{fig:rcd}

1275: \end{figure}

1276: 

1277: Figure \ref{fig:rcd} plots the evolution of the central temperature

1278: for NCC and CC clusters with normalization of DF and conduction set to

1279: $d=1.0$ and $f=0.1$.  Comparing this figure to Figures

1280: \ref{fig:rad_cond} and \ref{fig:rad_df} highlights the stabilizing

1281: effects of the combination of DF heating and conduction.  Note however

1282: that the evolved CC clusters are plagued by the same issues discussed

1283: in $\S$\ref{s:cond}, namely that while the combination of DF and

1284: conduction can maintain CC clusters in thermal balance, the evolved

1285: clusters do not preserve the factor of $\sim2-3$ drop in the

1286: temperature profile characteristic of observed CC clusters.  In other

1287: words, these CC clusters that do not catastrophically cool instead

1288: turn into NCC clusters, and thus these runs cannot explain the

1289: existence of observed CC clusters.

1290: 

1291: \begin{figure}[t]

1292: \plotone{f8a.eps}

1293: \plotone{f8b.eps}

1294: \vspace{0.5cm}

1295: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:stabdf}, now with DF heating, thermal

1296:   conduction, and radiative cooling, for NCC clusters with

1297:   $T_{i,NCC}=6$ keV.  \emph{Top Panel:} NCC clusters with the

1298:   conduction normalization set to $f=0.1$.  \emph{Bottom Panel:} NCC

1299:   clusters with $f=0.5$.  Note that even a small amount of conduction

1300:   makes the clusters much more thermally stable than DF heating alone

1301:   over a much wider range of central gas densities.  As in Figure

1302:   \ref{fig:stabdf} the approximate locations of several Abell clusters

1303:   are included (\emph{circles}).}

1304: \vspace{0.5cm}

1305: \label{fig:rad_cond_df}

1306: \end{figure}

1307: 

1308: 

1309: The increased thermal balance when combining DF heating with

1310: conduction is manifest in Figure \ref{fig:rad_cond_df}, which shows

1311: the evolution of the central temperature of the ICM for initially NCC

1312: clusters with $T_{i,NCC}=6$ keV in the parameter space of initial

1313: central electron density and normalization of DF heating.  This figure

1314: shows the effect of including conduction with normalization $f=0.1$

1315: (\emph{top panel}) and $f=0.5$ (\emph{bottom panel}).

1316: 

1317: Upon comparing this figure to Figures \ref{fig:stabdf} and

1318: \ref{fig:stabcond}, it is clear that the combination of DF heating and

1319: conduction makes the ICM of NCC clusters considerably more thermally

1320: balanced than either mechanism acting alone.  Indeed, for initial

1321: central electron densities $n_{e,0}\lesssim 0.02 $ cm$^{-3}$ the

1322: ICM is thermally balanced for any plausible value of the DF heating

1323: normalization, and for reasonable, not fine-tuned, choices of

1324: conductivity.

1325: 

1326: However, it is still the case that for $n_{e,0}\gtrsim 0.02 $

1327: cm$^{-3}$, no plausible amount of DF heating can offset the cooling

1328: catastrophe.  Increasing the amount of conduction to $f=1.0$ expands

1329: the zone of thermal balance to the right in Figure

1330: \ref{fig:rad_cond_df} only marginally.  While some observed NCC

1331: clusters have a central density lying within the region of thermal

1332: balance in Figure \ref{fig:rad_cond_df}, it is clear that for many

1333: observed clusters processes in addition to DF heating and conduction

1334: are at work in order to effectively balance radiative cooling.

1335: 

1336: These conclusions are rather insensitive to the initial temperature of

1337: the NCC and CC clusters.  This might be expected because the cooling

1338: function scales as $T^{1/2}$ while DF heating scales at $T^{-1/2+p}$

1339: with $p\sim0$ \citep{Kim05}.  For example, decreasing the initial

1340: temperature in Figure \ref{fig:rad_cond_df} by a factor of two results

1341: in somewhat more thermally balanced clusters in the high density

1342: regime.  However, the increased zone of thermal balance is narrow at

1343: high density and hence rather fine tuning would be required for an

1344: observed cluster to remain there.  Moreover, observed clusters with

1345: larger central densities have higher rather than lower temperatures,

1346: and so the problem of generating equilibrium clusters is only

1347: exacerbated if the observed temperature-density relation is

1348: considered.

1349: 

1350: In sum, while it appears that the combination of DF and conduction can

1351: produce intracluster media in thermal balance for a modest range of

1352: central electron densities for NCC clusters, neither NCC clusters with

1353: moderately high central electron densities nor CC clusters of any

1354: density can be kept in thermal balance for cosmological timescales

1355: with these mechanisms alone.

1356: 

1357: \subsection{The Impact of a Relativistic Fluid}

1358: 

1359: A relativistic fluid may be present in observed clusters, perhaps in

1360: the form of cosmic rays \citep{Pfrommer04, Sanders05, Dunn06,

1361:   Sanders07, Werner07, Nakar07}.  We show in the appendix that the

1362: addition of a small amount of relativistic pressure increases the

1363: thermal stability of a gas already in thermal balance (i.e. the growth

1364: of thermal perturbations is damped for intracluster media where the

1365: net heating of a parcel of gas is zero).  In this section we explore

1366: the impact of a relativistic fluid on the thermal {\it balance} of the

1367: ICM.

1368: 

1369: As discussed in $\S$\ref{s:prel}, a relativistic fluid is included in

1370: our simulations by requiring that its pressure be a fixed fraction of

1371: the thermal pressure initially.  The relativistic fluid is assumed to

1372: be massless and perfectly dynamically coupled to the gas.  Its

1373: subsequent adiabatic evolution is then governed by energy

1374: conservation.  Recall that in our treatment the relativistic fluid

1375: provides no additional thermal energy to the system.  The purpose of

1376: this experiment is thus to ascertain the potential importance of a

1377: relativistic fluid on the hydrodynamics of the ICM, not the

1378: thermodynamics.

1379: 

1380: We have run a series of simulations that span the range of parameter

1381: space shown in Figure \ref{fig:stabdf}, i.e. for a range in initial

1382: central electron densities and DF heating normalizations.  In addition

1383: to varying these two variables, we have also varied the initial

1384: fraction of relativistic pressure, $\alpha$, from 10\% to 40\% of the

1385: total pressure, which is a fraction consistent with observations

1386: \citep{Pfrommer04, Sanders05, Dunn06, Sanders07, Werner07, Nakar07}.

1387: We find that the addition of relativistic pressure has a completely

1388: negligible effect on the thermal balance of the gas for the entire

1389: range of parameter space we have explored.

1390: 

1391: At first glance this is somewhat surprising since a thermal stability

1392: analysis indicates that a small amount of relativistic pressure should

1393: increase markedly the stability of a gas already in thermal balance

1394: \citep[][see also $\S$\ref{s:append}]{Cen05}.  The key difference is

1395: that stability analyses assume the gas to be in thermal balance, while

1396: the simulations we have run are almost never set initially in thermal

1397: balance.  In the former case the classic \citet{Field65} instability

1398: (described in the Introduction) is suppressed because slightly

1399: over-dense fluid elements, which thus cool rapidly and hence lose

1400: thermal pressure support, contract less than they would otherwise

1401: thanks to the additional pressure support provided by the relativistic

1402: fluid.  However, in the latter case, where the gas in not in thermal

1403: balance, the additional pressure support provided by the relativistic

1404: fluid is immaterial because the thermal runaway is caused by a more

1405: serious imbalance between heating and cooling, which the relativistic

1406: fluid, providing only pressure support and not energy, cannot remedy.

1407: 

1408: \section{Discussion}

1409: \label{sec:disc}

1410: 

1411: The results of the preceding section imply that both thermal

1412: conduction and DF heating are potentially significant heating

1413: processes in the ICM.  In fact, for large regions of parameter space,

1414: these processes provide more than enough energy to offset radiative

1415: losses.  However, we have found that they can neither produce nor

1416: maintain intracluster media in thermal balance over cosmological

1417: time-scales.  In particular, these processes tend to generate either

1418: runaway cooling or runaway heating, in both cases producing

1419: temperature and density profiles of the ICM nowhere near those

1420: observed in nature \citep{Sanderson06, Vikhlinin06a}.  These

1421: conclusions expand upon those of \citet{Brighenti02} who found that

1422: none of a large range of possible steady-state heating mechanisms

1423: could generically reproduce the observed properties of the ICM.  For

1424: the case of DF heating, these results are driven largely by the fact

1425: that radiation losses scale as the gas density squared, while DF

1426: heating scales linearly with the density.  Since observed intracluster

1427: media exhibit a wide range of densities, fine-tuning is required to

1428: prevent thermal runaways when DF is the dominant heating mechanism.

1429: 

1430: These conclusions have several implications, two of which we now

1431: discuss in detail.  First, in light of our results from one

1432: dimensional simulations, we discuss the continued necessity of

1433: high-resolution, fully three-dimensional, cosmologically embedded

1434: hydrodynamic simulations for understanding the thermodynamics of the

1435: ICM.  Second, we discuss a heating mechanism that may plausibly

1436: generate and maintain the properties of observed intracluster media,

1437: since none of the mechanisms explored herein appear capable of doing

1438: so.

1439: 

1440: \subsection{The Cosmological Context}

1441: 

1442: Our approach has been to simulate in one dimension the evolution of

1443: the ICM when subjected to various heating mechanisms and radiative

1444: cooling in static, isolated clusters, where only the ICM was evolved.

1445: In the real Universe, however, clusters do not appear to evolve in

1446: isolation.  Indeed, cosmological cold dark matter $N$-body simulations

1447: demonstrate that cluster-sized dark matter halos ($M\gtrsim10^{14}\,

1448: M_\Sun$) continually accrete additional halos with a range of masses,

1449: many of which likely host galaxies.  The mass growth rate is

1450: time-dependent, slowing at late times \citep[e.g.][]{Wechsler02}.  The

1451: cosmological context within which clusters evolve may in fact play a

1452: significant role in their thermal history, as suggested by recent

1453: hydrodynamic simulations \citep[e.g.][]{Motl04, Burns07, Nagai07,

1454:   McCarthy07a}.

1455: 

1456: There are a variety of ways in which the cosmological setting can

1457: provide additional heating mechanisms.  A generic class of such

1458: mechanisms may be called ``gravitational'' in the sense that the

1459: energy available for heating ultimately comes from the gravitational

1460: potential energy of infalling material.  DF heating is one example of

1461: this class, but there are others.  In particular, if small gaseous

1462: clumps are accreted, they may transfer their gravitational energy to

1463: the ICM via ram pressure drag and local shocks

1464: \citep[e.g.][]{Murray04, McCarthy07a, Khochfar07, Dekel07}.  Major

1465: mergers can significantly mix the ICM, effectively transporting the

1466: abundant reservoir of energy in the cluster outskirts to the cooler

1467: inner regions \citep[e.g.][]{Burns07}.

1468: 

1469: Recent observations have suggested that the fraction of CC clusters is

1470: increasing with time since at least $z\sim1$ \citep{Vikhlinin06b,

1471:   Ohara07}.  If gravitational heating plays a significant role in the

1472: thermal history of the ICM, then one may expect that as the accretion

1473: rate slows at late times \citep{Wechsler02}, radiative losses would

1474: become increasingly dominant, in at least qualitative agreement with

1475: these recent observations.  More generally, it is clear that the

1476: time-evolution of the abundance of observed CC clusters will provide

1477: strong, unique constraints on the importance of various heating

1478: mechanisms of the ICM.

1479: 

1480: While it may be appealing to invoke major mergers or other strong

1481: mixing processes as a means to transfer energy into the inner cooling

1482: regions of clusters, such processes have potential draw-backs.  The

1483: most serious is that observed CC clusters have strong metallicity

1484: gradients within the cooling region \citep{DeGrandi01}.  If the metals

1485: are produced by type Ia SNe within the central galaxy then the

1486: timescale for generating the observed gradient is $\sim5$ Gyr

1487: \citep{Bohringer04}, which is much longer than the cooling time of the

1488: ICM in most observed clusters \citep{Sanderson06}.  Sedimentation may

1489: also contribute to the metallicity gradient on relevant timescales,

1490: but its relevance is much more uncertain because it can be highly

1491: suppressed in the presence of even modest magnetic fields

1492: \citep[e.g.][]{Fabian77b}.  If mergers are capable of mixing the ICM

1493: such that the inner cooling region is effectively heated, it seems

1494: plausible that they may also destroy the metallicity gradient.

1495: Detailed numerical simulations are required to address these issues.

1496: 

1497: It is clear that 3D cosmologically embedded simulations are preferable

1498: to 1D simulations of the type presented herein because there are

1499: potentially relevant physical processes that cannot be adequately

1500: captured in the latter approach.  While we have highlighted the

1501: potential importance of the cosmological context, it is also true that

1502: certain physical processes cannot be captured simply because our

1503: simulations are in 1D.  For example, processes such as convection and

1504: the Rayleigh-Taylor instability cannot be captured in a 1D simulation.

1505: Additional insight into the cooling flow problem can thus be gained by

1506: simply extending the types of simulations we have run into 3D.

1507: 

1508: In spite of these fact, the motivations for focusing on 1D simulations

1509: are several-fold.  First, cosmologically embedded simulations are very

1510: time-consuming --- a parameter space study similar to what we have

1511: presented in this work is not currently possible with such

1512: simulations.  Second, DF is a resonant process \citep{Tremaine84}, and

1513: so the particle requirement to adequately resolve this phenomenon may

1514: be considerably higher than what is achievable in the current

1515: generation of cosmologically embedded hydrodynamic simulations.  It is

1516: not sufficient to resolve well the dark matter halo and subhalos.

1517: Since much of the DF heating is caused by the inspiralling of the much

1518: smaller stellar systems, a resolution small compared to the $\sim10$

1519: kpc half-light radii of giant ellipticals is required.  Thus, while

1520: our approach to DF heating has been idealized, it was necessary to

1521: explore its possible effects in this parameterized manner because it

1522: is not clear that current 3D simulations are adequately resolving this

1523: phenomenon \citep[see discussion in][]{Faltenbacher05, Naab07}.

1524: Finally, even with sufficient resolution, there are a number of

1525: physical effects that we have demonstrated are potentially relevant

1526: for the thermodynamics of the ICM that are not included in the

1527: majority of cosmologically embedded hydrodynamic simulations.  Such

1528: phenomena include thermal conduction, which ultimately requires the

1529: inclusion of magnetic fields, type Ia supernovae energy injection,

1530: which is included in some but not all current simulations, and energy

1531: injection from accretion onto a central black-hole, which we now

1532: discuss in detail.

1533: 

1534: \subsection{A Self-Regulating Heating Mechanism}

1535: 

1536: In the present work we have focused on heating processes that are not

1537: generally thought of as ``feedback'' mechanisms.  While DF heating is

1538: in principal a feedback mechanism since the heating becomes

1539: inefficient at very and low high Mach numbers, in practice this

1540: feedback is too weak to prevent runaway heating or cooling.  The

1541: preceding discussion of the importance of the cosmological context

1542: suggests that additional gravitational energy is available that can

1543: contribute to the heating of the ICM.  However, the incredibly short

1544: cooling times of many CC clusters ($\ll 1$ Gyr) indicates that heating

1545: from without, via gravitational processes, must still be fine-tuned in

1546: order to prevent runaway cooling.  Heating from within, via the

1547: release of energy from accretion onto a black hole, is in many ways

1548: more appealing because such a process is explicitly self-regulating.

1549: 

1550: Black hole accretion-mediated feedback mechanisms

1551: \citep[e.g][]{Ciotti01, Ruszkowski02, Kaiser03, Guo07, Ciotti07} are

1552: qualitatively different from the mechanisms we have explored.  These

1553: self-regulating feedback processes are thought to work schematically

1554: as follows.  As the gas begins to cool in the inner regions, its

1555: thermal pressure no longer provides sufficient support to the

1556: overlying material, and thus matter flows inward and eventually

1557: accretes onto the central black hole.  The mechanical energy provided

1558: by AGN activity, which is proportional to the rate of mass infall,

1559: then heats up the surrounding gas until the thermal pressure, which is

1560: now increasing due to the energy injection, halts the inward flow of

1561: matter, thereby diminishing the accretion-driven energy injection.

1562: The cycle then begins again in a regulatory fashion, and the ICM thus

1563: neither heats nor cools catastrophically.  It is this regulatory

1564: feedback processes which seems most promising in explaining the

1565: properties of observed intracluster media because the relevant

1566: physical parameters need not be tuned to any particular values for

1567: heating to balance cooling generically \citep[see e.g.][]{Guo07}.

1568: 

1569: A serious constraint on AGN-related feedback is that it may destroy

1570: the observed metallicity gradient in CC clusters if the energy

1571: deposition at the cluster center is sufficient to drive convection.

1572: Recently, \citet{Voit05} have shown that AGN feedback can be effective

1573: at balancing radiative cooling \emph{and} maintaining the observed

1574: metallicity gradient if the AGN outbursts are rather gentle, occur

1575: every $\sim10^8$ years and last in duration for $\sim10^7$ years.  It

1576: remains to be seen if this proposal can be confirmed with both

1577: numerical simulations and, ultimately, observations.

1578: 

1579: While AGN heating may be a promising candidate at generating and

1580: maintaining intracluster media in thermal balance over cosmological

1581: time-scales, simulations of the ICM which include it do so only in a

1582: rather simplistic fashion, in part because a detailed understanding of

1583: the physical processes involved in black hole accretion currently

1584: eludes us.  The way in which energy is transfered from the black hole

1585: to the surrounding ICM is also obscure.  Until these and related

1586: issues are better understood, we should continue to seek out other

1587: potential self-regulating heating processes that could potentially be

1588: relevant for the thermodynamics of the ICM.  Nonetheless, varied

1589: observations of sound waves, bubbles, and strong radio emission

1590: \citep{Birzan04, Best05, Fabian06}, predominantly in CC clusters, in

1591: addition to their very short cooling times \citep{Sanderson06},

1592: strongly suggests that AGN-related activity plays an important role in

1593: the thermodynamics of the ICM.

1594: 

1595: 

1596: 

1597: \section{Summary}

1598: \label{sec:sum}

1599: 

1600: We have presented the results from a series of 1D simulations aimed at

1601: understanding the importance of type Ia supernovae heating, thermal

1602: conduction and DF heating (due to the orbital motions of satellite

1603: galaxies) on the thermal properties of the intracluster media of

1604: clusters.  Both initially non-cooling core (NCC; i.e. isothermal) and

1605: cooling core (CC) clusters were simulated, for a wide range of initial

1606: central electron densities and gas temperatures.

1607: 

1608: Marginalizing over the uncertain efficiencies of DF heating and

1609: thermal conduction, it is clear that only NCC clusters with central

1610: electron densities $n_{e,0}\lesssim 0.02$ cm$^{-3}$ can be maintained

1611: in thermal balance over a Hubble time if both DF and conduction

1612: operate; neither mechanism alone can generate generically stable ICM

1613: at these densities.  At higher densities no reasonable amount of

1614: conduction or DF heating can prevent runaway cooling in NCC clusters.

1615: 

1616: The failure of the combination of conduction and DF heating at either

1617: generating or maintaining observed intracluster media is more

1618: pronounced for CC clusters, which have observed temperature profiles

1619: that decline by a factor of $\sim2-3$ from the outer to inner regions.

1620: This temperature drop is extremely difficult to maintain in the face

1621: of thermal conduction in our simulations, because thermal conduction

1622: acts to erase temperature gradients.  In fact, of the

1623: $\mathcal{O}(10^3)$ simulations run with a wide range of DF heating

1624: and conduction efficiencies and initial gas densities, none generated

1625: stable CC cluster profiles.  Since CC clusters constitute $\sim70$\%

1626: of observed clusters \citep[e.g.][]{Peres98}, we regard this failure

1627: as strong evidence that other heating processes in the ICM must be at

1628: work besides conduction and DF heating.

1629: 

1630: Our results demonstrate that there are numerous energy reservoirs

1631: capable of supplying enough energy to offset radiative losses.  The

1632: crux of the cooling flow problem therefore lies not in finding one or

1633: more mechanisms capable of providing enough energy to the ICM, but

1634: rather in finding one or more mechanisms that can supply the energy in

1635: a way that maintains thermal equilibrium in the ICM over cosmological

1636: time-scales.  Only low-density NCC clusters can be maintained with DF

1637: heating and conduction.  The processes explored herein are not

1638: manifestly self-regulating, and they thus require fine-tuning in order

1639: to generate the observed properties of CC and high-density NCC

1640: intracluster media generically. For these types of observed

1641: intracluster media, it seems likely that an explicitly self-regulatory

1642: feedback process such as black hole accretion-powered energy injection

1643: (i.e. AGN feedback) is required.

1644: 

1645: \acknowledgments 

1646: 

1647: CC gratefully acknowledges Jim Stone, Anatoly Spitkovsky, and Ian

1648: Parrish for extensive help and support with extensive numerical

1649: issues, and Andrey Kravtsov for many fruitful discussions.  We thank

1650: Paul Bode, Woong-Tae Kim, Andrey Kravtsov, and Jim Stone for helpful

1651: comments on an earlier draft.

1652: 

1653: %\bibliography{../master_refs.bib}

1654: \input{ms.bbl}

1655: 

1656: %\begin{thebibliography}{128}

1657: %\expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1658: %\end{thebibliography}

1659: 

1660: 

1661: 

1662: \begin{appendix}

1663: 

1664: \section{Thermal Stability for Generic Heating Mechanisms In the Presence of a Relativistic Fluid}

1665: \label{s:append}

1666: 

1667: The generalized Field criterion \citep{Field65, Balbus86} states that

1668: a gas is thermally unstable to isobaric perturbations if:

1669: \noindent

1670: \be

1671: \frac{\partial( \mathcal{L}/T)}{\partial T}\bigg|_P < 0,

1672: \ee

1673: \noindent

1674: where $\mathcal{L}$ is the net loss function per unit mass defined

1675: such that $\rho_g \mathcal{L} = \Lambda-\Gamma$ where $\Lambda$ and

1676: $\Gamma$ are the cooling and heating rates per unit volume.  In what

1677: follows the subscript ``$g$'', denoting gaseous quantities, will be

1678: omitted for brevity.

1679: 

1680: The following identity holds for a general gas in thermal equilibrium ($\rho \mathcal{L}=0$):

1681: \be

1682: \frac{\partial( \mathcal{L}/T)}{\partial T}\bigg|_P = \frac{1}{\rho T}\bigg[ \frac{\partial(\rho \mathcal{L})}{\partial T}\bigg|_\rho + \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial T}\bigg|_P \frac{\partial(\rho \mathcal{L})}{\partial \rho}\bigg|_T\bigg].

1683: \label{eqn:field}

1684: \ee

1685: The first and third derivatives on the right-hand side are determined by the relevant heating and cooling mechanisms while the second is set by the various sources of pressure support.  The following identity will be useful:

1686: \be

1687: \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial T}\bigg|_P = -\frac{\partial P}{\partial T}\bigg|_\rho \,\bigg/\, \frac{\partial P}{\partial \rho}\bigg|_T.

1688: \ee

1689: \noindent

1690: Assume that the pressure support is provided by both the thermal

1691: pressure of the gas and a relativistic fluid:

1692: \be

1693: P = P_{\rm th} + P_{\rm rel} = K_1 \rho T + P_{\rm rel}(\rho),

1694: \ee

1695: where $K_1$ is a constant and $P_{\rm rel}$ is a function only of density.  It then follows that

1696: \be

1697: \frac{\partial P}{\partial T}\bigg|_\rho = K_1\rho,

1698: \ee

1699: and

1700: \be

1701: \frac{\partial P}{\partial \rho}\bigg|_T = K_1 T + \frac{\partial P_{\rm rel}}{\partial \rho}\bigg|_T,

1702: \ee

1703: and hence:

1704: \be

1705: \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial T}\bigg|_P =\frac{ K_1\rho}{K_1 T + \frac{\partial P_{\rm rel}}{\partial \rho}\big|_T} = \frac{\rho}{T}\frac{P_{\rm th}}{P_{\rm th}+\rho \frac{\partial P_{\rm rel}}{\partial \rho}\big|_T } =  \frac{\rho}{T}\frac{\alpha'}{\alpha' + \frac{\partial{\rm ln}P_{\rm rel}}{\partial {\rm ln} \rho}\big|_T},

1706: \label{eqn:ptot}

1707: \ee

1708: \noindent

1709: where in the last equality we have defined $\alpha'\equiv P_{\rm th} / P_{\rm

1710:   rel}$.

1711: 

1712: Now assume that cooling is dominated by thermal Bremsstrahlung radiation and that the heating has a simply power-law dependence on $\rho$ and $T$.  Then:

1713: \be

1714: \rho \mathcal{L} = \Lambda_0 \rho^2 T^{1/2} - \Gamma_0 \rho^\beta T^{-1/2+\delta},

1715: \ee

1716: \noindent

1717: where $\Lambda_0$ and $\Gamma_0$ are constants and $\beta$ and

1718: $\delta$ are the power-law indices for heating, defined in a way that

1719: will prove useful below.  After some algebra, and using the fact that

1720: $\rho \mathcal{L}=0$, we have

1721: \noindent

1722: \be

1723: \frac{\partial(\rho \mathcal{L})}{\partial T}\bigg|_\rho = (1-\delta)\Lambda_0\rho^2 T^{-1/2},

1724: \ee

1725: and

1726: \be

1727: \frac{\partial(\rho \mathcal{L})}{\partial \rho}\bigg|_T = (2-\beta) \Lambda_0 \rho T^{1/2}.

1728: \ee

1729: Combining these with Equations \ref{eqn:field} and \ref{eqn:ptot} we have, after more algebra:

1730: \be

1731: \frac{\partial( \mathcal{L}/T)}{\partial T}\bigg|_P = \Lambda_0 \rho T^{-3/2}\bigg[ (1-\delta) - (2-\beta)\frac{\alpha'}{\alpha' + \frac{\partial{\rm ln}P_{\rm rel}}{\partial {\rm ln} \rho}\big|_T}\bigg].

1732: \ee

1733: \noindent

1734: The gas is thus thermally unstable if:

1735: \be

1736: \delta > \frac{(\beta-1)\alpha'+\frac{\partial{\rm ln}P_{\rm rel}}{\partial {\rm ln} \rho}\big|_T}{\alpha'+\frac{\partial{\rm ln}P_{\rm rel}}{\partial {\rm ln} \rho}\big|_T} = \frac{(\beta-1)\alpha'+\gamma}{\alpha'+\gamma} = \frac{(\beta-1)+ \frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\gamma}{1+\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\gamma},

1737: \ee

1738: \noindent

1739: where we have assumed that $P_{\rm rel}\propto \rho^\gamma$ and

1740: defined $\alpha\equiv P_{\rm rel} / P_{\rm tot}$.

1741: 

1742: This equation recovers the result found in \citet{Kim05}.  There they

1743: explored the stability of DF heating, where $\beta=1$, in the absence

1744: of relativistic pressure ($\alpha=0$).  The instability criterion in

1745: this case is $\delta>0$.  As shown in \citet{Kim05}, DF heating

1746: generally yields a temperature dependence such that $\delta>0$, and

1747: thus DF heating alone is thermally unstable.

1748: 

1749: This equation also implies that heating sources which scale as

1750: $\rho^2$ are thermally stable if the temperature dependence scales as

1751: a power less than $1/2$, which is physically intuitive since $\rho^2

1752: T^{1/2}$ is the scaling of the cooling function.  Moreover, if the

1753: heating source scales as $\rho^2$ then the relativistic fluid has no

1754: influence on the thermal stability.

1755: 

1756: \end{appendix}

1757: 

1758: 

1759: \end{document}