1: \documentclass{elsart}
2: \usepackage{natbib}
3:
4: % if you use PostScript figures in your article
5: % use the graphics package for simple commands
6: \usepackage{graphics}
7: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11: %\input colordvi
12: \usepackage{amssymb}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \begin{frontmatter}
17:
18: % use the ead command for the email address,
19: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:
20: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}
21: % \thanks[label1]{}
22: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}
23: % \ead{email address}
24: % \ead[url]{home page}
25: % \thanks[label2]{}
26: % \corauth[cor1]{}
27: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}
28: % \thanks[label3]{}
29:
30: \title{Scaling Relation between Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect and X-ray
31: Luminosity and Scale-Free Evolution of Cosmic Baryon Field}
32:
33: \author[1,2]{Qiang Yuan}\ead{yuanq@mail.ihep.ac.cn}
34: \author[1]{Hao-Yi Wan}
35: \author[1,3,4]{Tong-Jie Zhang\corauthref{cor1}}\ead{tjzhang@bnu.edu.cn}
36: \corauth[cor1]{Corresponding author.}
37: \author[4]{Ji-Ren Liu}
38: \author[5,6]{Long-Long Feng}
39: \author[4]{Li-Zhi Fang}\ead{fanglz@physics.arizona.edu}
40:
41: \address[1]{Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal
42: University, Beijing, 100875, P.R.China}
43: \address[2]{Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute
44: of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
45: Beijing 100049, P.R.China}
46: \address[3]{Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics China,
47: Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
48: (KITPC/ITP-CAS), P.O.Box 2735, Beijing 100080, P.R. China}
49: \address[4]{Department of Physics, University of Arizona,
50: Tucson, AZ 85721}
51: \address[5]{Purple Mountain Observatory, Nanjing 210008,
52: P.R. China}
53: \address[6]{National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese
54: Academy of Science, Chao-Yang District, Beijing, 100012, P.R. China}
55:
56: \begin{abstract}
57:
58: It has been revealed recently that, in the scale free range, i.e.
59: from the scale of the onset of nonlinear evolution to the scale of
60: dissipation, the velocity and mass density fields of cosmic baryon
61: fluid are extremely well described by the self-similar log-Poisson
62: hierarchy. As a consequence of this evolution, the relations among
63: various physical quantities of cosmic baryon fluid should be scale
64: invariant, if the physical quantities are measured in cells on
65: scales larger than the dissipation scale, regardless the baryon
66: fluid is in virialized dark halo, or in pre-virialized state. We
67: examine this property with the relation between the Compton
68: parameter of the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, $y(r)$, and
69: X-ray luminosity, $L_{\rm x}(r)$, where $r$ being the scale of
70: regions in which $y$ and $L_{\rm x}$ are measured. According to the
71: self-similar hierarchical scenario of nonlinear evolution, one
72: should expect that 1.) in the $y(r)$-$L_x(r)$ relation,
73: $y(r)=10^{A(r)}[L_{\rm x}(r)]^{\alpha(r)}$, the coefficients $A(r)$
74: and $\alpha(r)$ are scale-invariant; 2.) The relation
75: $y(r)=10^{A(r)}[L_{\rm x}(r)]^{\alpha(r)}$ given by cells containing
76: collapsed objects is also available for cells without collapsed
77: objects, only if $r$ is larger than the dissipation scale. These two
78: predictions are well established with a scale decomposition analysis
79: of observed data, and a comparison of observed $y(r)$-$L_x(r)$
80: relation with hydrodynamic simulation samples. The implication of
81: this result on the characteristic scales of non-gravitational
82: heating is also addressed.
83:
84: \end{abstract}
85:
86: \begin{keyword}
87: cosmology: theory \sep large-scale structure of universe \sep
88: X-rays: galaxies: clusters \sep hydrodynamics \sep methods: numerical
89:
90: \PACS 95.30.Jx \sep 07.05.Tp \sep 98.80.-k
91: \end{keyword}
92:
93: \end{frontmatter}
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97: Scaling relation of dimensional quantities is very powerful to
98: reveal the dynamical feature of various physical systems. There has
99: been a considerable effort devoting to study the correlations and
100: scaling laws of various observable quantities of galaxy clusters.
101: Since virialized self-gravitational system is characterized by one
102: parameter, mass or virial temperature, one can find a set of scaling
103: relations among mass, size, X-ray luminosity, temperature, and
104: Compton parameter of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect if the velocity
105: and mass density fields of baryon fluid in clusters are assumed to
106: be similar to the virialized dark matter halos \citep{1986MNRAS.222..323K}.
107: Observed data of galaxy clusters did yield scaling relations
108: \citep{1991MNRAS.252..428E,1993ApJ...412..479D,1999ApJ...524...22W,
109: 2000MNRAS.315..356H,2000ApJ...538...65X,2005MNRAS.357..279C}.
110: However, observed scaling relations generally do not support the
111: predictions given by the baryon-dark matter similarity of virialized
112: dark halos \citep{2000MNRAS.315..356H,2000MNRAS.315..689L}.
113:
114: Since Newtonian gravity is scale-free, the self gravitational system
115: of collisionless dark matter shows scaling behavior if the power
116: spectrum of initial density perturbations is scale-free. These
117: scaling is regardless of whether the underlying gravitational field
118: is virialized \citep{1980lssu.book.....P}. Thus, if the velocity and
119: mass density fields of cosmic baryon matter are given by a similar
120: mapping of the fields of dark matter, one may expect the scaling
121: relations of clusters. However, the similar mapping assumption is
122: correct only in linear regime \citep{1992A&A...266....1B}, but is
123: baseless in nonlinear regime \citep{1989RvMP...61..185S}. The
124: nonlinear evolution of cosmic baryon fluid leads to statistically
125: decouple of the fluid from dark matter. The statistical properties
126: of the velocity and mass density fields of baryon fluid do show
127: deviation from the underlying dark matter field
128: \citep{2004ApJS..154..475P,
129: 2005ApJ...623..601H,2005ApJ...625..599K}.
130:
131: Nevertheless, it has been pointed out by \cite{1989RvMP...61..185S}:
132: the dynamics of cosmic baryon fluid in the expanding
133: universe is scale-free, i.e. no preferred special scales can be
134: identified in the range from the onset of nonlinear evolution down
135: to the length scale of dissipation. It likes fully developed
136: turbulence in inertial range. This idea recently received
137: substantial developments. With the hydrodynamic simulation sample of
138: the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model, the velocity field of cosmic
139: baryon fluid is found to be extremely well described by
140: She-Leveque's (SL) scaling formula \citep{1994PhRvL..72..336S} in the
141: ``inertial range'' \citep{2006PhRvL..96e1302H}. The SL formula is
142: considered to be the basic statistical features of the scale-free evolution
143: of fully developed turbulence. Moreover, the SL formula comes from
144: self-similar log-Poisson hierarchy, which is related to the hidden
145: symmetry of the Navier-Stokes equations \citep{1994PhRvL..73..959D,
146: 1995PhRvL..74..262S}. Very recently, it has been shown that the clustering
147: of the mass density field of the cosmic baryon fluid can indeed be
148: well described by a log-Poisson hierarchical cascade
149: \citep{2008ApJ...672...11L}. All the scaling relations and non-Gaussian
150: features predicted from the log-Poisson hierarchy are in very good
151: agreement with the hydrodynamic simulation samples.
152:
153: These results indicate that, in the scale-free range, the nonlinear
154: evolution of cosmic baryon fluid reaches a statistically
155: quasi-steady state similar to a fully developed turbulence. For
156: turbulence of incompressible fluid, the fluid undergoes a
157: self-similar hierarchical evolution from largest to the smallest
158: eddies and finally dissipates into thermal motion. For cosmic baryon
159: fluid, the clustering on different scales can also be described by a
160: self-similar hierarchy, and the fluid finally falls and dissipates
161: into thermal motion.
162:
163: This scenario motives us to investigate the scaling relations of
164: clusters from the self-similar hierarchy of cosmic baryon fluid. If
165: the observed scaling relations come from the self-similar hierarchy,
166: one can expect that 1.) the relations of dimensional quantities
167: should be scale-free, i.e. all the scale-dependent coefficients of
168: the scaling relations are scale-invariant; 2.) the relations should
169: be held only if the scales of considered regions are larger than
170: Jeans length, regardless of whether the underlying gravitational
171: field is virialized, i.e. the relations given by cells containing
172: collapsed objects is also available for cells without collapsed
173: objects, only if the scale of cells is larger than the dissipation
174: scale.
175:
176: Other relevant motivation comes from the non-gravitational heating
177: of baryon gas of clusters. In order to solve the deviation from the
178: similarity of virialized dark halos, various models of
179: non-gravitational heating and cooling of baryonic gas have been
180: proposed
181: \citep[e.g.][]{1999A&A...347....1V,2001ApJ...546...63T,2002ApJ...576..601V,
182: 2003ApJ...588..704Z,2003ApJ...584...34X,2007ApJ...668....1N}. Since
183: these cooling and heating may introduce characteristic scales, the
184: self-similar hierarchy will no longer work on these characteristic
185: scales. Therefore, it would be worth to detect the scale on which
186: the above-mentioned two predictions to be broken.
187:
188: We study these properties with the relation between the Compton
189: parameter $y$ of SZ effect and X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm x}$. The
190: thermal SZ effect is due to the inverse Compton scattering of cosmic
191: microwave background (CMB) photons by hot electrons of baryon fluid.
192: The Compton parameter $y$ depends on the pressure of electron gas
193: \citep{1969Ap&SS...4..301Z,1980ARA&A..18..537S}. There are
194: many works on the $y$-$L_x$ relation \citep[e.g.][]{2004MNRAS.348.1401D,
195: 2007ApJ...668..772M,2007arXiv0708.0815B}. We will, however, focus on the
196: above-mentioned two points, which have not yet been addressed right
197: now.
198:
199: The outline of this paper is as follows. \S 2 presents the scaling relations
200: $y=10^{A(r)}L_x^{\alpha(r)}$ with observed samples, and shows that $A(r)$ and
201: $\alpha(r)$ are scale-invariant. \S 3 describes the hydrodynamic cosmological
202: simulation samples. The comparison of the scaling relations of simulation
203: samples with observed results is presented in \S 4. The conclusions and
204: discussion are given in \S 5.
205:
206: \section{$y$-$L_{\rm x}$ Scaling Relations from Observed Samples}
207:
208: \subsection{Data}
209:
210: To study the scale free properties, we should find the $y(r)$ -
211: $L_{\rm x}(r)$ relations, where $y(r)$ and $L_{\rm x}(r)$ are,
212: respectively, the Compton parameter of SZ effect and X-ray
213: luminosity measured from regions with spatial scale $r$. The data of
214: X-ray luminosity of these clusters are taken from \cite{2003ApJ...591..526M}
215: (Xray1) and \cite{2007MNRAS.379..518M} (Xray2). The X-ray
216: luminosity from area on comoving scale $r$ is calculated by
217: %eq1
218: \begin{equation}
219: L_{\rm x}(r)=\int_0^{\theta_{\rm r}}L_x(\theta)\theta {\rm d}\theta,
220: \end{equation}
221: where $\theta_{\rm r}=r/[(1+z)d_A(z)]$ is the angular radius
222: corresponding to the comoving scale $r$, and $d_A(z)$ is angular
223: diameter distance. $L_x(\theta)$ is proportional to the X-ray
224: surface brightness $S_x(\theta)$, which can be well fitted by
225: $\beta$-model $S_x(\theta)=S_{X0}[1+(\theta/\theta_{\rm
226: c})^2]^{(1-6\beta)/2}$ up to $\theta \sim 10$ arcmin.
227:
228: Similarly, The mean of $y$ within a region on comoving scale $r$ is
229: given by
230: %eq2
231: \begin{equation}
232: y(r)=\frac{2}{\theta_{\rm r}^2}\int_0^{\theta_{\rm r}}y(\theta)
233: \theta {\rm d}\theta.
234: \end{equation}
235: We will use the SZ effect data from \cite{2002ApJ...581...53R} (SZ1) and
236: \cite{2006ApJ...647...25B} (SZ2). The former compiled SZ effects of 18
237: clusters of galaxies spanning the redshift range of $0.14 < z <
238: 0.78$, and the later includes 38 clusters in the same redshift
239: range. These data are on angular scales up to $\sim 2$ arcmin, of
240: which the corresponded $r$ is on about the same scale as, or larger
241: than, the Jeans length on redshift $\sim 0.5$. Moreover, the
242: $\theta$-dependencies of $y(\theta)$ are well fitted by
243: $\beta$-model $y(\theta)=y_0[1+(\theta/\theta_{\rm
244: c})^2]^{(1-3\beta)/2}$. Therefore, it would be reasonable to use
245: the $\beta$ model fitted $y(r)$ to study the $y(r)$ - $L_{\rm x}(r)$
246: relation. We will check this point below.
247:
248: \subsection{Result}
249:
250: Figure 1 plots the relation of $y(r)$ vs. $L_{\rm x}(r)$ on scales
251: $r$=0.1, 0.2, 0.39, 0.78, 1.56 and 3.12$h^{-1}$ Mpc respectively. In
252: this figure the SZ and X-ray data are taken from SZ1 and Xray1,
253: respectively. The cluster A370 is excluded as it shows a 3-$\sigma$
254: discrepancy with the distance-redshift relation \citep{2002ApJ...581...53R}.
255: Three clusters, Cl0016, A611 and A697, are also excluded due to lacking
256: the data of X-ray luminosity, and after all, there are totally 14
257: clusters used in Figure 1.
258:
259: \begin{figure}
260: %\centering
261: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f1.eps}
262: \caption{$y$-$L_{\rm x}$ relation of observational samples SZ1+Xray1
263: (see Table 1). The Compton parameter $y$ are given by average over
264: areas on the comving
265: sizes 0.10, 0.20, 0.39, 0.78, 1.56, and 3.12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc,
266: respectively. The solid lines indicate the best-fitting for all
267: observational samples.}
268: \end{figure}
269:
270: \begin{center}
271: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
272: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Table 1. $r$-dependence of $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$} \\[5pt]
273: \hline\hline
274: $r$($h^{-1})$ Mpc & $\alpha$ & $A$ \\
275: \hline
276: 0.10 & 0.32$\pm$0.06 & -4.21$\pm$0.11 \\
277: 0.20 & 0.36$\pm$0.08 & -4.50$\pm$0.17 \\
278: 0.39 & 0.44$\pm$0.10 & -4.92$\pm$0.23 \\
279: 0.78 & 0.51$\pm$0.11 & -5.35$\pm$0.27 \\
280: 1.56 & 0.56$\pm$0.12 & -5.74$\pm$0.30 \\
281: 3.12 & 0.61$\pm$0.13 & -6.12$\pm$0.33 \\
282: \hline
283: \end{tabular}
284: \end{center}
285:
286: We make a best-fitting of the $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ relation with a
287: power law $y=10^{A(r)}L_{\rm x}^{\alpha(r)}$ for various scales $r$
288: as displayed in Figure 1. The coefficients $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$
289: are listed in Table 1. Both $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$ are significantly
290: dependent on the scale $r$. The exponent $\alpha(r)$ increases with
291: scale $r$, while amplitude $A(r)$ decreases with $r$. If the system
292: is given by a similar mapping of virialized halos, the scaling
293: relation should be $y\propto L_x^{3/4}$ \citep{1988MNRAS.233..637C},
294: which means that $\alpha$ is scale-independent and equal to 0.75.
295: Table 1 shows that the values of $\alpha$ on all scales are less
296: than 0.75. Accordingly, the baryon fluid on those scales should
297: dynamically deviate from a similar mapping of underlying virialized
298: gravitational field of dark matter halos. To check the effect of the
299: angular scales of $\sim 2$ arcmin (\S 2.1), we re-calculate the
300: $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ relation with clusters having $d_A>$1000 Mpc,
301: which with $r>0.5$ Mpc for angular scales 2 arcmin. We find that the
302: coefficients $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$ are consistent with Table 1 within
303: 1-$\sigma$ range.
304:
305:
306: \begin{figure}
307: \centering
308: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f2.eps}
309: \caption{The scale-dependence of the coefficients $\alpha(L)$ and
310: $A(r)$ for various observational samples: SZ1+Xray1 (solid);
311: SZ1+Xray2 (dashed); SZ2+Xray1 (dotted); and SZ2+Xray2 (dot-dashed).}
312: \end{figure}
313:
314: Figure 2 shows $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$ as functions of $r$. Note,
315: both $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$ can be well fitted, respectively by
316: $a_{\alpha}+b_{\alpha}\log r$ and $a_{A}+b_{A}\log r$, and
317: therefore, both $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$ are scale-invariant. The
318: amplitude $10^{A(r)}$ actually is a power law of $r$. This result
319: is consistent with the dynamics of self-similar hierarchy. To further
320: test this result, we used other data sets of SZ effect and X-ray
321: luminosity. The results are also shown in Figure 2. Although these
322: data sets are generally different from each other, all results of
323: $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$ can well be fitted by the straight line of
324: $\log r$. The fitting parameters are listed in Table 2. They are the
325: same within 1-$\sigma$ errors. It strongly supports the scenario of
326: scale-free dynamics.
327:
328: \begin{center}
329: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
330: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Table 2. Fitting Results of $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$.} \\[5pt]
331: \hline\hline
332: sample\footnotemark[1]
333: & $a_{\alpha}$ & $b_{\alpha}$ &$a_{A}$ & $b_{A}$ \\
334: \hline
335: SZ1+Xray1 & 0.52$\pm$0.05 & 0.20$\pm$0.07 & -5.46$\pm$0.13 &-1.27$\pm$0.17 \\
336: SZ1+Xray2 & 0.47$\pm$0.06 & 0.21$\pm$0.08 & -5.33$\pm$0.13 &-1.24$\pm$0.17 \\
337: SZ2+Xray1 & 0.49$\pm$0.05 & 0.20$\pm$0.07 & -5.33$\pm$0.11 &-1.19$\pm$0.15 \\
338: SZ2+Xray2 & 0.50$\pm$0.04 & 0.22$\pm$0.06 & -5.34$\pm$0.10 &-1.22$\pm$0.13 \\
339: \hline
340: \multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnote[1] SZ1 and SZ2 from \cite{2002ApJ...581...53R}
341: and \cite{2006ApJ...647...25B}, Xray1} \\
342: \multicolumn{5}{l}{ and Xrya2 from \cite{2003ApJ...591..526M}
343: (Xray1) and \cite{2007MNRAS.379..518M},}\\
344: \multicolumn{5}{l}{ respectively}.
345: \end{tabular}
346: \end{center}
347:
348: It should also be pointed out that the scales of $r \leq 0.39$
349: $h^{-1}$ Mpc are actually less than the Jeans length of
350: baryon fluid. However, the coefficients $\alpha(r)$ and $A(r)$ are
351: still following the self-similar straight lines. In addition,
352: $\alpha(r)$ is seen to be less than the value 0.75 from virialized
353: halos. It implies that the dynamics of baryon fluid on these scales
354: seems still to be scale free.
355:
356: \section{SZ effect samples of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations}
357:
358: \subsection{Simulation}
359:
360: Before embarking on the numerical calculations, we give a brief
361: summary on the baryon fluid when it is in the turbulence-like or
362: self-similar hierarchical clustering. The dynamics of growth modes
363: of clustering in an expanding universe is sketched by a stochastic
364: force driven Burgers equation \citep{1994PhRvL..72..458B,
365: 1999MNRAS.307..376J,2002MNRAS.329...37M}. The turbulence-like behavior
366: is due to Burgers' turbulence, which will be developed when the Burgers
367: Reynolds number is large \citep{1995PhRvE..52.6183P,2004PhRvL..93r4503B,
368: 1968PhFl...11..265K,2000PhRvL..84.2618L}. A turbulent flow in incompressible
369: fluid consists of vortexes, while the clustering of cosmic matter is
370: irrotational, because the modes with vorticity of the perturbed mass
371: density field do not grow. The Burgers' turbulence made the
372: initially random field to result in a collection of shocks and a
373: smooth variation of the field between the shocks. For cosmic baryon
374: fluid, the Burgers Reynolds number generally is larger in nonlinear
375: regime \citep{2004ApJ...612...14H}. Therefore, the baryon fluid in nonlinear
376: regime consists of a collection of shocks with various strengths in
377: both high, moderate and even low density areas. The kinetic energy of
378: fluid is dissipated due to the shocks on various scales. The kinetic
379: energy of fluid is effectively converted into thermal energy
380: \citep{2006PhRvL..96e1302H}. In this context, it is clear that the method of
381: hydrodynamical simulations should be capable of capturing
382: discontinuities, like shocks, and their effects on energy conversion
383: precisely.
384:
385: We will use the Weightly Essentially NonOscillatory (WENO) algorithm,
386: which is effective to capture shocks
387: and other discontinuities of the baryon fluid, and to give precise
388: value of the fluid field between the discontinuities
389: \citep{2004ApJ...612....1F}. This algorithm has been tested with 1.)
390: Shock tube; 2.) the Sedov-Taylor self-similar blast wave solution,
391: or the Bertschinger's similarity solution; 3.) Zeldovich pancake. It
392: is effectively to produce the baryon mass density contour, baryon
393: temperature contour around massive halos
394: \citep{2004ApJ...612....1F,2004ApJ...612...14H,2005ApJ...623..601H}.
395: Some other properties of this simulation algorithm can also be
396: found in \cite{2004ApJ...612....1F} and \cite{2004ApJ...612...14H}.
397:
398: The simulations are performed in a cubic box 100$^3$ $h^{-3}$
399: Mpc$^3$ with a 1024$^3$ grid, and the number of dark matter
400: particles is 512$^3$. The mass of the dark matter particle is
401: $\sim 10^9$M$_{\odot}$, which corresponds to a density resolution
402: about $0.01$ times of the mean density of intergalactic medium (IGM).
403: The grid size is then $100/1024\sim0.10$
404: $h^{-1}$ Mpc. This scale is smaller than the Jeans length at $z \leq
405: 1$ \citep{2003ApJ...598....1B}. Therefore, the sample is suitable to
406: describe the baryon fluid from the dissipation scale to a few ten
407: $h^{-1}$ Mpc. We use the concordance $\Lambda$CDM cosmology model
408: with parameters $\Omega_{\rm m}$=0.27, $\Omega_{\rm b}$=0.044,
409: $\Omega_\Lambda$=0.73, $h$=0.71, $\sigma_8$=0.84, and spectral index
410: $n=1$ and the ratio of specific heats is $\gamma=5/3$. The transfer
411: function is calculated using CMBFAST \citep{1996ApJ...469..437S}.
412:
413: The atomic processes including ionization, cooling and heating are
414: modeled as the method in \cite{1998MNRAS.301..478T}. We take a
415: primordial composition of H and He ($X$=0.76, $Y$=0.24) and use an
416: ionizing background model of \cite{2001cghr.confE..64H}.
417:
418: The simulations start at the redshift $z=99$, and output the
419: density, velocity and temperature fields at redshifts $z$=2, 1, 0.5,
420: and 0. It is easy for hydrodynamic simulation with Eulerian variable
421: to reach low-density regions. They are suitable for a uniform
422: analysis of weakly as well as strongly clustered fields of baryon
423: fluid. These samples have been successfully applied to reveal the
424: self-similar hierarchical behavior of cosmic baryon fluid
425: \citep{2005ApJ...625..599K,2006PhRvL..96e1302H,2008ApJ...672...11L},
426: to explain the transmitted flux of HI and HeII Ly$\alpha$ absorption of
427: quasars \citep{2006ApJ...645..861L}, and to study the relations between X-ray
428: luminosity and temperature of groups of galaxies \citep{2006ApJ...642..625Z}.
429:
430: As mentioned in \S 1, the self-similar hierarchical scenario
431: predicts that the relation $y(r)=10^{A(r)}[L_{\rm
432: x}(r)]^{\alpha(r)}$ given by areas containing collapsed objects
433: should also be available for areas without collapsed objects, only
434: if $r$ is larger than the dissipation scale. On the other hand,
435: either the effects of heating by injecting hot gas or metal cooling
436: are localized in massive halos. Their characteristic scales are less
437: than the Jeans length. Therefore, one can expect that the $y-L$
438: relations given by observed samples should be the same as that given
439: by simulation samples either with or without considering the
440: localized heating and cooling processes. To consider the effect of
441: the metal abundance, we also use a sample with metal cooling of
442: \cite{2006ApJ...642..625Z}. For this sample, The metal cooling
443: and metal line emission is calculated by the phenomenological
444: method: 1) assuming an uniform evolving metallicity $Z=0.3
445: Z_{\odot}(t/t_0)$, $t_0$ being the present universe age; 2)
446: computing the cooling function using the table of
447: \cite{1993ApJS...88..253S}.
448:
449: \subsection{Samples}
450:
451: When relativistic corrections is negligible, the Compton parameter
452: $y$ of the thermal SZ effect along a line of sight, $l$, with an
453: angular distance $\theta$ from the center of a cluster in the plane
454: of the sky is given by
455: %eq3
456: \begin{equation}
457: y(\theta)=\frac{k_{\rm B}\sigma_{\rm T}}{m_{\rm e}c^2}
458: \int n_{\rm e}(l, \theta)T_{\rm e}(l,\theta){\rm d}l,
459: \end{equation}
460: where $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is the cross section of the Thomson
461: scattering; $n_{\rm e}$ and $T_{\rm e}$ are, respectively, the
462: number density and temperature of hot electrons. Since H and He
463: atoms are almost fully ionized, we take the electron density $n_{\rm
464: e}=\rho/\mu_{\rm e}m_{\rm p}$ where $\rho$ is the density of baryon
465: gas, $\mu_{\rm e}=2/(1+X)$ with a hydrogen abundance of $X=0.76$.
466:
467: Using simulated density and temperature fields, we calculate the
468: parameter $y(\theta)$ with Eq.(3). The mean of parameter $y(r)$ on
469: various scales can be obtained using the scaling function of the
470: discrete wavelet transform (DWT)
471: %eq4
472: \begin{equation}
473: y_{\bf j,l} = \frac{1 } {\int\phi_{\bf j,l}({\bf x}){\rm d}{\bf x} }
474: \int y({\bf x})\phi_{\bf j,l}({\bf x}){\rm d}{\bf x}.
475: \end{equation}
476: where $\phi_{\bf j,l}({\bf x})$ is the scaling functions related to
477: cell $({\bf j,l})$ with comoving size $100/2^j$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc and at
478: position ${\bf l}=(l_1,l_2,l_3)$. The details of the DWT analysis
479: can be found in \cite{Fang&Thews1998}. We take the comoving size
480: $100/2^{j}$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc with $j=$10, 9, 8, 7, 6 and 5,
481: corresponding to scales 0.10, 0.20, 0.39, 0.78, 1.56 and 3.12
482: h$^{-1}$ Mpc, which are the same as that used in the analysis of the
483: observed samples in last section.
484:
485: The total X-ray luminosity of thermal bremsstrahlung emission from a cell
486: $({\bf j,l})$ is calculated by the same way as \cite{2006ApJ...642..625Z}
487: %eq4
488: \begin{equation}
489: (L_{\rm x})_{\bf j,l}= V_{j}\frac{1 } {\int\phi_{j,l}({\bf x}){\rm
490: d}{\bf x} }
491: \int \epsilon^{ff}({\bf x})\phi_{j,l}({\bf x}){\rm d}{\bf x},
492: \end{equation}
493: where $\epsilon^{ff}({\bf x})$ is the map of X-ray emissivity, and
494: $V_j$ is the volume of cell $({\bf j,l})$.
495:
496: The DWT decomposition has following advantages. First, the set of
497: scaling functions are orthogonal and complete, and therefore, the
498: decomposition of Eqs.(3) and (4) does not give rise to false
499: correlation. Second, the DWT cell $({\bf j,l})$ with high mass
500: density can directly be used to identify clumpy structures. The
501: DWT-identified cells on scale 1.5 $h^{-1}$ Mpc is statistically the
502: same as clusters identified by traditional method, such as the
503: friend-of-friend algorithm \citep{1998ApJ...508..472X}. Therefore, the DWT
504: variables $y_{\bf j,l}$ and $(L_{\rm x})_{\bf j,l}$ provides a
505: uniform description of the Compton parameter and X-ray luminosity of
506: the whole field, regardless of the dynamical details of all cells
507: $({\bf j,l})$. Third, the DWT variables can be applied directly to
508: non-Gaussian behavior \citep{2006PhRvL..96e1302H,2008ApJ...672...11L}
509: We will use the Harr wavelet (Daubechies 2) to do the calculation below.
510: We also repeat the calculations with wavelet Daubechies 4. The
511: statistical features given by Daubechies 4 are basically the same
512: as Haar wavelet.
513:
514: \section{Scaling Relations between the SZ Effect and X-ray Luminosity}
515:
516: \subsection{$y$-$\rho_{\rm igm}$ and $L_x$-$\rho_{\rm igm}$ relations}
517:
518: Figure 3 shows the relations between the mean Compton parameter
519: $y(r)$ and mean mass density $\rho_{\rm igm}(r)$ of cells on scale
520: $r$ for the simulation samples at redshift $z=0.5$. The comoving
521: scales $r$ are taken to be 0.39, 0.78, 1.56 and 3.12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc
522: respectively. Figure 3 has a dark area as a bottom envelop of the
523: $y$-$\rho_{\rm igm}$ distribution. It gives a tight correlation
524: between $y$ and $\rho_{\rm igm}$ and can be described approximately
525: by a power law of $y \propto \rho_{\rm igm}^{1.8}$ for all scales
526: $r$. This relation is basically consistent with the so-called
527: adiabatic `equation of state' $T \propto \rho^{2/3}$ if considering
528: $y\propto \rho_{\rm igm} T$.
529:
530: \begin{figure}
531: %\centering
532: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f3.eps}
533: \caption{Compton parameter $y$ vs. baryon density $\rho_{\rm igm}$
534: of simulation samples at redshift $z=0.5$, in which $y$ and
535: $\rho_{\rm igm}$ are the mean over cells with comoving scales
536: $r=0.39$, 0.78, 1.56, and 3.12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, respectively.
537: $\rho_{\rm igm}$ is in unit of mean mass density $\bar{\rho}_{\rm
538: igm}$ of the field.}
539: \end{figure}
540:
541: In Figure 4, the similar analysis has been performed for the
542: relations between the total X-ray luminosity $L_x(r)$ and mean mass
543: density $\rho_{\rm igm}(r)$. Clearly, there is also a dark area as
544: the bottom envelop of the $L_X$-$\rho_{\rm igm}$ distribution. The
545: tight correlation of the dark area yields $L_X\propto \rho_{\rm
546: igm}^{2.4}$ for all scales. This is expected if considering $L_X
547: \propto \rho^2_{\rm igm} T^{1/2}$.
548:
549: \begin{figure}
550: %\centering
551: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f4.eps}
552: \caption{X-ray luminosity $L_x$ vs. baryon density $\rho_{\rm igm}$
553: of simulation samples at redshift $z=0.5$. The $L_x$ is the total
554: X-ray luminosity from cell with comoving scale $r=0.39$, 0.78, 1.56,
555: and 3.12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. $\rho_{\rm igm}$ are the mean of density
556: within the cell. $\rho_{\rm igm}$ is in unit of mean mass density
557: $\bar{\rho}_{\rm igm}$ of the whole field.}
558: \end{figure}
559:
560: Therefore, $y$ and $L_X$ given by the tight correlations of bottom
561: envelops in Figures 3 and 4 imply $y\propto L^{0.75}$, which is the
562: same as that given by a virialized underlying gravitational field.
563: If we adopt the adiabatic `equation of state' $T\propto \rho^{2/3}$,
564: the $y$-$L_{\rm x}$ scaling relation should be $y\propto
565: L_x^{0.71}$. The observed coefficient $\alpha$ are less than 0.75 on
566: all scales. The reason for $\alpha < 0.75$ is clearly shown by
567: Figures 3 and 4. For a given $\rho_{\rm igm}$, the distribution of
568: $y$ is significantly scattered from the bottom envelop. For sample
569: at $z\simeq 0.5$, the data points of $y$ corresponding to $\rho_{\rm
570: igm} \simeq 1$ scatter in the range from $\sim 10^{-11}$ to
571: $10^{-8}$. The scattering is due to the heating of Burgers' shocks,
572: which leads to the baryon fluid to be multiphasic, i.e. the relation
573: between temperature and mass density can not be described by {\it
574: one} polytropic equation. The points of $y$ higher than the bottom
575: envelop correspond to state with temperature higher than those
576: given by the `equation of state' $T \propto \rho^{2/3}$
577: \citep{2004ApJ...612...14H,2005ApJ...625..599K}.
578:
579: The multiphases of baryon fluid are seen for all scales. The
580: scattering in the $y$-$\rho_{\rm igm}$ distribution is substantial
581: in high mass density areas ($\rho_{\rm igm}>1$) as well as low mass
582: density areas ($\rho_{\rm igm}<1$). The $L_x$-$\rho_{\rm igm}$
583: distribution (Figure 4) shows similar scattering. It can be
584: understood that the Burgers' shock heating is not only working in
585: high density regions, but also in low density areas. It leads to the
586: deviation of $\alpha$ from 0.75.
587:
588: \subsection{$y$-$L_{\rm x}$ scaling relation}
589:
590: We now study the scaling relation between $y(r)$ and $L_{\rm x}(r)$.
591: Figure 5 plots the distribution of the Compton parameter $y(r)$
592: against the X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm x}(r)$ for the simulation
593: samples at $z\leq 0.5$, in which the comoving scales of the cell are
594: taken to be 0.78, 1.56 and 3.12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc respectively. The
595: observed points of $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ are taken from the samples
596: SZ1+Xray1.
597:
598: \begin{figure}
599: %\centering
600: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f5.eps}
601: \caption {The scaling relation between the Compton parameter $y(r)$
602: and X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm X}(r)$. The scales $r$ are 0.78, 1.56,
603: and 3.12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. The observed data points (squares with
604: errorbars) are from SZ1+Xray1 and the simulation data points
605: (dotted) are taken from sample of redshift $z\leq 0.5$.}
606: \end{figure}
607:
608: On the scale of 3.12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, the simulation data can be fitted
609: by observations very well. Using the simulation data with
610: $\log[L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm erg/s]}\geq 1$, we found that the best
611: fitting scaling relation $y=10^{A}L_x^{\alpha}$ of simulation sample
612: gives $\alpha=0.65\pm0.03$ and $A=-6.31\pm 0.05$, which are the same
613: as observed samples shown in Table 1. For the scale of 1.56 $h^{-1}$
614: Mpc, Figure 5 also shows the consistency between observed and
615: simulated samples. Since $\alpha$ is less than 0.75, the scaling
616: relation shown in Figure 5 is dominated by data points located above
617: the bottom envelop of Figure 3. In other word, the $y$-$L_{\rm x}$
618: relations are mainly determined by the structures which are involved
619: in the evolution of the Burgers turbulence.
620:
621: On scale 0.78 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, the simulation sample still shows the
622: same trend as observed data, but there are fewer points with $\log[
623: L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm erg/s}]\geq 2$. This phenomenon is more serious
624: on scale 0.39 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. In this case, the best fitting scaling
625: relation yields $\alpha=0.65\pm0.01$ and $A=-5.47\pm0.01$, which
626: deviates from the observed result $\alpha=0.44\pm0.10$ and
627: $A=-4.92\pm0.23$ (Table 1). The deviation on scales
628: $\leq 0.78$h$^{-1}$Mpc is expected. Since the scale 0.78 $h^{-1}$
629: Mpc is typical of the so-called $R_{2500}$ of clusters, and it is
630: less than the virialization radius of clusters. Within this scale
631: range, dissipation and non-gravitational processes are involved. It is
632: beyond the regime of scale-free evolution.
633:
634: Because the observed data contains clusters with redshifts higher
635: than 0.5, we also made a comparison between observed data and
636: simulation samples of $z\leq 1$. The results are displayed in Figure
637: 6, which yields almost the same results as Figure 5. We also analyzed
638: the simulation samples including metal cooling of \cite{2006ApJ...642..625Z}.
639: The result is given in Figure 7. It shows the effect of metal cooling
640: does not change the feature of Figure 5. Although metal cooling may
641: have a big effect on $L_{\rm x}$ for groups. But it will have the
642: similar effect on $y$. The $y$-$L{\rm x}$ scaling relation still keeps
643: self-similar in the inertia range.
644:
645: \begin{figure}
646: %\centering
647: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f6.eps}
648: \caption {The scaling relation between the Compton parameter $y(r)$
649: and X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm X}(r)$. The scale $r$ are 0.78, 1.56,
650: and 3.12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc respectively. The observed data points (
651: squares with errorbars) are from SZ1+Xray1. The simulation data
652: points (dots) are taken from sample of redshift $z\leq 1$.}
653: \end{figure}
654:
655: \begin{figure}
656: %\centering
657: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f7.eps}
658: \caption {The same as Figure 5, but with simulation sample in which the
659: the metal cooling and metal line emission are considered.}
660: \end{figure}
661:
662: \subsection{Available range of the $y$-$L_{\rm x}$ scaling relation}
663:
664: As emphasized above, the scaling relation between physical
665: quantities of cosmic baryon fluid due to the Burgers turbulence
666: should hold for the entire field. Those relations inferred from
667: statistical analysis made in regions containing collapsed
668: structures, like clusters, should also be applicable in regions
669: without that structures. Actually, Figures 5 - 7 have already
670: shown that the $y$-$L_x$ scaling relation works well for all regions
671: containing strong X-ray emission $\log[L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm
672: erg/s}]\geq 1$.
673:
674: Figure 8 presents the $y$-$L_x$ scaling relation covering a much
675: wider range of the X-ray luminosity $-3 \leq \log[L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm
676: erg/s}]\leq 3$, from rich clusters to weakly clustered areas. It
677: shows clearly that the scaling relation of Figure 1 is available in
678: the weakly clustered areas.
679:
680: \begin{figure}
681: %\centering
682: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f8.eps}
683: \caption {The scaling relation between the Compton parameter $y$ and
684: X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm x}$ of simulation data at redshift
685: $z=0$ (top), 0.5 (middle), and 1 (bottom) respectively. The scale $r$
686: are 0.78 (left), 1.56 (middle) and 3.12 (right) $h^{-1}$ Mpc
687: respectively. The solid line is given by the fitting of simulation
688: data.}
689: \end{figure}
690:
691: \begin{center}
692: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
693: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Table 3. Fitting Coefficients
694: $\alpha$ and $A$ for Simulation Data}\\[5pt]
695: \hline\hline
696: range of$\log[L_X(r)]$ & $\alpha$ & $A$ \\
697: \hline
698: 1 $<\log[L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm erg/s}]<$ 3 & 0.65$\pm$0.03 & -6.31$\pm$0.05 \\
699: 0 $<\log[L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm erg/s}]<$ 3 & 0.63$\pm$0.01 & -6.27$\pm$0.02 \\
700: -1 $<\log[L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm erg/s}]<$ 3 & 0.65$\pm$0.01 & -6.29$\pm$0.01 \\
701: -2 $<\log[L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm erg/s}]<$ 3 & 0.65$\pm$0.01 & -6.30$\pm$0.01 \\
702: -3 $<\log[L_X(r)/10^{43}{\rm erg/s}]<$ 3 & 0.59$\pm$0.00 & -6.32$\pm$0.01 \\
703: \hline
704: \end{tabular}
705: \end{center}
706:
707: We did a fitting of $y$-$L_x$ scaling relation in the simulation
708: sample on the scale of $r=3.12$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc and $z\leq0.5$ with
709: different ranges of $\log L_X(r)$. The best-fitting values of the
710: coefficients $\alpha$ and $A$ for various ranges of $\log L_X(r)$
711: are listed in Table 3. Obviously, the coefficients $\alpha$ and $A$
712: are almost independent of the range of $\log L_X(r)$. The scaling
713: relation, $y(r)=10^{A(r)}[L_X(r)]^{\alpha(r)}$ is very stable within
714: $10^{39}<L_x<10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$. If $y$ and $L_x$ are measured
715: from regions on scales larger than dissipation scales, the $y$-$L_x$
716: scaling relation still holds regardless of the dynamical details on
717: the dissipation scales. The wide range of $L_{\rm x}$ is consistent
718: with the scenario of self-similar hierarchical evolution, which
719: gives a unified description of the dynamics of clustering on various
720: level in the scale-free range.
721:
722: Similar analysis was made in simulation samples on scale of
723: $r=1.56h^{-1}$ Mpc and 0.78 $h^{-1}$ Mpc at redshifts $z=0$, 0.5 and
724: 1 respectively. These scaling relations are also valid within the
725: entire range of $10^{39}<L_x<10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ as well.
726: Moreover, from Figure 8, we can see that the scaling relations
727: basically are redshift-independent within the range $z\leq 1$. Along
728: with the decreasing redshift, there are more data points with larger
729: $\log L_X$. The $y$-$L_x$ correlation shown in Figure 8 can be seen
730: as a tree with root at left-bottom corner, and tip at right-top
731: corner. The formation of clustered objects leads to the growth of
732: the tip of the tree along the direction given by the scaling
733: relation $y(r)=10^{A(r)}[L_x(r)]^{\alpha(r)}$.
734:
735: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
736:
737: The scaling studied in this paper comes from the scale-free dynamics of
738: cosmic baryon fluid in the expanding universe. That is, there is no
739: preferred special scales can be identified in the range from the onset
740: of nonlinear evolution down to the characteristic length of dissipation.
741: The clustering evolution is described by self-similar hierarchy of baryon
742: fluid. This self-similar hierarchy is different from the gravitational
743: self-similarity of virialzed system, which is characterized by the mass
744: of the system. On the other hand, the scaling from the scale-free dynamics
745: is characterized by the scale range, on which physical quantities of the
746: mass and velocity field of cosmic baryon fluid are measured. That is,
747: the dimensional quantities measured in cells with size larger than the
748: dissipation characteristic length should satisfy the same scaling
749: relations, regardless whether the cells contains massive collapsed
750: objects. The scaling will be broken if the scale is less than the
751: characteristic length of dissipation.
752:
753: We demonstrated this scaling with the $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ relation of
754: baryon field. The observed $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ relation can be well
755: reproduced with the hydrodynamical simulation. The important point is
756: that the fitting of $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ scaling is not based on the
757: identified clusters in simulation samples, but using all cells on a
758: given scale $r$, regardless whether the cell contains rich clusters
759: with strong X-ray emission. In other words, the scaling relations
760: $y(r) =10^{A(r)}[L_{\rm x}(r)]^{\alpha(r)}$ can be used to
761: describe cells containing strong X-ray emission, $L_{\rm x}>10^{43}$ erg
762: s$^{-1}$, as well as very weak X-ray emission regions $L_{\rm
763: x}\sim10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$. This result supports the self-similar
764: hierarchical scenario of the clustering of baryon fluid.
765:
766: The observed $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ relations starts to show a deviation
767: from simulation results on scales smaller than 0.78 h$^{-1}$ Mpc, which
768: would be the characteristic scale of the dissipation. We calculated the
769: Jeans lengths for each objects used in our statistics. All of the Jeans
770: lengths are found to be less than 0.8 h$^{-1}$ Mpc. It is very well
771: consistent with our result. Moreover, this result is also consistent
772: with previous studies on the non-gravitational heating of clusters. The
773: non-gravitational heating generally is considered to be due to the
774: injection of hot gas and energy from SN and AGN. However, the significant
775: effect of injecting hot gas and energy by SN is mostly arising from
776: dwarf galaxies, i.e. on scales much smaller than clusters. The Ly$\alpha$
777: observations of protoclusters shows that the feedback of AGN is not
778: strong enough to heat the gas of clusters within comoving size 0.5 h$^{-1}$
779: Mpc \citep{2003ApJ...584...45A}. Therefore, the effect of the SN and AGN
780: heating would be dramatic only on scales smaller than about 0.5 h$^{-1}$
781: Mpc, but probably cannot heat gas within cells on scales $\geq 1$ h$^{-1}$
782: Mpc to amount of the order of 1 keV per nucleon
783: \citep{1999ApJ...510L...1P,1999ApJ...524...22W}. Actually we find that
784: scaling relations on scales $>0.78$h$^{-1}$ Mpc are still held after
785: subtracting the contributions from the central part ($<0.2$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc)
786: of clusters to both $L_{\rm x}$ and $y$, as done in
787: \cite{1998ApJ...504...27M,2007ApJ...668..772M}.
788:
789: As an application, the scaling relations of $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ would be
790: useful for estimating the contamination of SZ effect on CMB, which
791: is important, especially, on small scales \citep{2006MNRAS.369..645C}.
792: Recent simulation has shown that the Planck project would be capable of
793: probing $y$ on the order of $y=10^{-7}-10^{-8}$ \citep{2005MNRAS.363...29D}.
794: It might give a direct test on the universal scaling relations of
795: $y(r)$-$L_{\rm x}(r)$ given by the self-similar hierarchical evolution.
796:
797: Our simulation of the baryon fluid is within the Eulerian framework.
798: One can also study the nature of intermittency of fluid with
799: Lagrangian point of view. In this approach, the hierarchical
800: clustering can be tracked with Lagrangian trajectories. It has been
801: found that the intermittent scaling is related to the long time
802: correlations in the particle acceleration, namely, the random forces
803: driving the particle motion is long range correlated
804: \citep{2002PhRvL..89y4502M}. It would be interesting to investigate the
805: scaling in the Lagrangian scheme.
806:
807: \noindent{\bf Acknowledgments.}
808:
809: T.-J.Z. is supported by the Fellowship of the World Laboratory.
810: H.-Y.W., T.-J.Z. and L.-L.F. acknowledge support from the National
811: Science Foundation of China (grants 10473002, 10573036 and
812: 10545002). T.-J.Z thanks Xiang-Ping Wu for his valuable discussion.
813: This work was also partially supported by US NSF AST 05-07340.
814:
815: \begin{thebibliography}{}
816:
817: % \bibitem[Names(Year)]{label} or \bibitem[Names(Year)Long names]{label}.
818: % (\harvarditem{Name}{Year}{label} is also supported.)
819: % Text of bibliographic item
820:
821: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} {et~al.}(2003){Adelberger}, {Steidel}, {Shapley}, \&
822: {Pettini}}]{2003ApJ...584...45A}
823: {Adelberger}, K.~L., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Shapley}, A.~E., \& {Pettini}, M. 2003,
824: ApJ, 584, 45
825:
826: \bibitem[{{Berera} \& {Fang}(1994)}]{1994PhRvL..72..458B}
827: {Berera}, A. \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 1994, Physical Review Letters, 72, 458
828:
829: \bibitem[{{Bi} {et~al.}(2003){Bi}, {Fang}, {Feng}, \&
830: {Jing}}]{2003ApJ...598....1B}
831: {Bi}, H., {Fang}, L.-Z., {Feng}, L., \& {Jing}, Y. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1
832:
833: \bibitem[{{Bi} {et~al.}(1992){Bi}, {Boerner}, \& {Chu}}]{1992A&A...266....1B}
834: {Bi}, H.~G., {Boerner}, G., \& {Chu}, Y. 1992, A\&A, 266, 1
835:
836: \bibitem[{{Boldyrev} {et~al.}(2004){Boldyrev}, {Linde}, \&
837: {Polyakov}}]{2004PhRvL..93r4503B}
838: {Boldyrev}, S., {Linde}, T., \& {Polyakov}, A. 2004, Physical Review Letters,
839: 93, 184503
840:
841: \bibitem[{{Boldyrev} {et~al.}(2002){Boldyrev}, {Nordlund}, \&
842: {Padoan}}]{2002PhRvL..89c1102B}
843: {Boldyrev}, S., {Nordlund}, {\AA}., \& {Padoan}, P. 2002, Physical Review
844: Letters, 89, 031102
845:
846: \bibitem[{{Bonamente} {et~al.}(2007){Bonamente}, {Joy}, {LaRoque}, {Carlstrom},
847: {Nagai}, \& {Marrone}}]{2007arXiv0708.0815B}
848: {Bonamente}, M., {Joy}, M., {LaRoque}, S., {Carlstrom}, J., {Nagai}, D., \&
849: {Marrone}, D. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708
850:
851: \bibitem[{{Bonamente} {et~al.}(2006){Bonamente}, {Joy}, {LaRoque}, {Carlstrom},
852: {Reese}, \& {Dawson}}]{2006ApJ...647...25B}
853: {Bonamente}, M., {Joy}, M.~K., {LaRoque}, S.~J., {Carlstrom}, J.~E., {Reese},
854: E.~D., \& {Dawson}, K.~S. 2006, ApJ, 647, 25
855:
856: \bibitem[{{Cao} {et~al.}(2006){Cao}, {Chu}, \& {Fang}}]{2006MNRAS.369..645C}
857: {Cao}, L., {Chu}, Y.-Q., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 645
858:
859: \bibitem[{{Cole} \& {Kaiser}(1988)}]{1988MNRAS.233..637C}
860: {Cole}, S. \& {Kaiser}, N. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 637
861:
862: \bibitem[{{Croston} {et~al.}(2005){Croston}, {Hardcastle}, \&
863: {Birkinshaw}}]{2005MNRAS.357..279C}
864: {Croston}, J.~H., {Hardcastle}, M.~J., \& {Birkinshaw}, M. 2005, MNRAS, 357,
865: 279
866:
867: \bibitem[{{da Silva} {et~al.}(2004){da Silva}, {Kay}, {Liddle}, \&
868: {Thomas}}]{2004MNRAS.348.1401D}
869: {da Silva}, A.~C., {Kay}, S.~T., {Liddle}, A.~R., \& {Thomas}, P.~A. 2004,
870: MNRAS, 348, 1401
871:
872: \bibitem[{{David} {et~al.}(1993){David}, {Slyz}, {Jones}, {Forman}, {Vrtilek},
873: \& {Arnaud}}]{1993ApJ...412..479D}
874: {David}, L.~P., {Slyz}, A., {Jones}, C., {Forman}, W., {Vrtilek}, S.~D., \&
875: {Arnaud}, K.~A. 1993, ApJ, 412, 479
876:
877: \bibitem[{{Dolag} {et~al.}(2005){Dolag}, {Hansen}, {Roncarelli}, \&
878: {Moscardini}}]{2005MNRAS.363...29D}
879: {Dolag}, K., {Hansen}, F.~K., {Roncarelli}, M., \& {Moscardini}, L. 2005,
880: MNRAS, 363, 29
881:
882: \bibitem[{{Dubrulle}(1994)}]{1994PhRvL..73..959D}
883: {Dubrulle}, B. 1994, Physical Review Letters, 73, 959
884:
885: \bibitem[{{Edge} \& {Stewart}(1991)}]{1991MNRAS.252..428E}
886: {Edge}, A.~C. \& {Stewart}, G.~C. 1991, MNRAS, 252, 428
887:
888: \bibitem[{{Fang} \& {Thews}(1998)}]{Fang&Thews1998}
889: {Fang}, L.~Z. \& {Thews}, R. 1998, {Wavelet in Physics} (World Scientific,
890: Singapore)
891:
892: \bibitem[{{Feng} {et~al.}(2003){Feng}, {Pando}, \&
893: {Fang}}]{2003ApJ...587..487F}
894: {Feng}, L.-L., {Pando}, J., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2003, ApJ, 587, 487
895:
896: \bibitem[{{Feng} {et~al.}(2004){Feng}, {Shu}, \& {Zhang}}]{2004ApJ...612....1F}
897: {Feng}, L.-L., {Shu}, C.-W., \& {Zhang}, M. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1
898:
899: \bibitem[{{Haardt} \& {Madau}(2001)}]{2001cghr.confE..64H}
900: {Haardt}, F. \& {Madau}, P. 2001, in Clusters of Galaxies and the High Redshift
901: Universe Observed in X-rays, ed. D.~M. {Neumann} \& J.~T.~V. {Tran}
902:
903: \bibitem[{{He} {et~al.}(2004){He}, {Feng}, \& {Fang}}]{2004ApJ...612...14H}
904: {He}, P., {Feng}, L.-L., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2004, ApJ, 612, 14
905:
906: \bibitem[{{He} {et~al.}(2005){He}, {Feng}, \& {Fang}}]{2005ApJ...623..601H}
907: ---. 2005, ApJ, 623, 601
908:
909: \bibitem[{{He} {et~al.}(2006){He}, {Liu}, {Feng}, {Shu}, \&
910: {Fang}}]{2006PhRvL..96e1302H}
911: {He}, P., {Liu}, J., {Feng}, L.-L., {Shu}, C.-W., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2006,
912: Physical Review Letters, 96, 051302
913:
914: \bibitem[{{Helsdon} \& {Ponman}(2000)}]{2000MNRAS.315..356H}
915: {Helsdon}, S.~F. \& {Ponman}, T.~J. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 356
916:
917: \bibitem[{{Jamkhedkar} {et~al.}(2005){Jamkhedkar}, {Feng}, {Zheng}, \&
918: {Fang}}]{2005ApJ...633...52J}
919: {Jamkhedkar}, P., {Feng}, L.-L., {Zheng}, W., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2005, ApJ, 633,
920: 52
921:
922: \bibitem[{{Jamkhedkar} {et~al.}(2003){Jamkhedkar}, {Feng}, {Zheng}, {Kirkman},
923: {Tytler}, \& {Fang}}]{2003MNRAS.343.1110J}
924: {Jamkhedkar}, P., {Feng}, L.-L., {Zheng}, W., {Kirkman}, D., {Tytler}, D., \&
925: {Fang}, L.-Z. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 1110
926:
927: \bibitem[{{Jamkhedkar} {et~al.}(2000){Jamkhedkar}, {Zhan}, \&
928: {Fang}}]{2000ApJ...543L...1J}
929: {Jamkhedkar}, P., {Zhan}, H., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2000, ApJ, 543, L1
930: \bibitem[{{Jones}(1999)}]{1999MNRAS.307..376J}
931: {Jones}, B.~J.~T. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 376
932:
933: \bibitem[{{Kaiser}(1986)}]{1986MNRAS.222..323K}
934: {Kaiser}, N. 1986, MNRAS, 222, 323
935:
936: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(2005){Kim}, {He}, {Pando}, {Feng}, \&
937: {Fang}}]{2005ApJ...625..599K}
938: {Kim}, B., {He}, P., {Pando}, J., {Feng}, L.-L., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2005, ApJ,
939: 625, 599
940:
941: \bibitem[{{Kraichnan}(1968)}]{1968PhFl...11..265K}
942: {Kraichnan}, R.~H. 1968, Physics of Fluids, 11, 265
943:
944: \bibitem[{{L{\"a}ssig}(2000)}]{2000PhRvL..84.2618L}
945: {L{\"a}ssig}, M. 2000, Physical Review Letters, 84, 2618
946:
947: \bibitem[{{Liu} {et~al.}(2006){Liu}, {Jamkhedkar}, {Zheng}, {Feng}, \&
948: {Fang}}]{2006ApJ...645..861L}
949: {Liu}, J., {Jamkhedkar}, P., {Zheng}, W., {Feng}, L.-L., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2006,
950: ApJ, 645, 861
951:
952: \bibitem[{{Liu} \& {Fang}(2008)}]{2008ApJ...672...11L}
953: {Liu}, J.-R. \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2008, ApJ, 672, 11
954:
955: \bibitem[{{Lloyd-Davies} {et~al.}(2000)}]{2000MNRAS.315..689L}
956: {Lloyd-Davies}, E.~J. and {Ponman}, T.~J. \& {Cannon}, D.~B. 2000,
957: MNRAS, 315, 689
958:
959: \bibitem[{{Markevitch}(1998)}]{1998ApJ...504...27M}
960: {Markevitch}, M. 1998, ApJ, 504, 27
961:
962: \bibitem[{{Matarrese} \& {Mohayaee}(2002)}]{2002MNRAS.329...37M}
963: {Matarrese}, S. \& {Mohayaee}, R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 37
964:
965: \bibitem[{{Maughan}(2007)}]{2007ApJ...668..772M}
966: {Maughan}, B.~J. 2007, ApJ, 668, 772
967:
968: \bibitem[{{McCarthy} {et~al.}(2003){McCarthy}, {Holder}, {Babul}, \&
969: {Balogh}}]{2003ApJ...591..526M}
970: {McCarthy}, I.~G., {Holder}, G.~P., {Babul}, A., \& {Balogh}, M.~L. 2003, ApJ,
971: 591, 526
972:
973: \bibitem[{{Morandi} {et~al.}(2007){Morandi}, {Ettori}, \&
974: {Moscardini}}]{2007MNRAS.379..518M}
975: {Morandi}, A., {Ettori}, S., \& {Moscardini}, L. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 518
976:
977: \bibitem[{{Mordant} {et~al.}(2002){Mordant}, {Delour}, {L{\'e}veque},
978: {Arn{\'e}odo}, \& {Pinton}}]{2002PhRvL..89y4502M}
979: {Mordant}, N., {Delour}, J., {L{\'e}veque}, E., {Arn{\'e}odo}, A., \& {Pinton},
980: J.-F. 2002, Physical Review Letters, 89, 254502
981:
982: \bibitem[{{Nagai} {et~al.}(2007){Nagai}, {Kravtsov}, \&
983: {Vikhlinin}}]{2007ApJ...668....1N}
984: {Nagai}, D., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., \& {Vikhlinin}, A. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1
985:
986: \bibitem[{{Padoan} {et~al.}(2003){Padoan}, {Boldyrev}, {Langer}, \&
987: {Nordlund}}]{2003ApJ...583..308P}
988: {Padoan}, P., {Boldyrev}, S., {Langer}, W., \& {Nordlund}, {\AA}. 2003, ApJ,
989: 583, 308
990:
991: \bibitem[{{Pando} {et~al.}(2004){Pando}, {Feng}, \&
992: {Fang}}]{2004ApJS..154..475P}
993: {Pando}, J., {Feng}, L.-L., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2004, ApJS, 154, 475
994:
995: \bibitem[{{Pando} {et~al.}(2002){Pando}, {Feng}, {Jamkhedkar}, {Zheng},
996: {Kirkman}, {Tytler}, \& {Fang}}]{2002ApJ...574..575P}
997: {Pando}, J., {Feng}, L.-L., {Jamkhedkar}, P., {Zheng}, W., {Kirkman}, D.,
998: {Tytler}, D., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2002, ApJ, 574, 575
999:
1000: \bibitem[{{Peebles}(1980)}]{1980lssu.book.....P}
1001: {Peebles}, P.~J.~E. 1980, {The large-scale structure of the universe} (Research
1002: supported by the National Science Foundation.~Princeton, N.J., Princeton
1003: University Press, 1980.~435 p.)
1004:
1005: \bibitem[{{Pen}(1999)}]{1999ApJ...510L...1P}
1006: {Pen}, U.-L. 1999, ApJ, 510, L1
1007:
1008: \bibitem[{{Polyakov}(1995)}]{1995PhRvE..52.6183P}
1009: {Polyakov}, A.~M. 1995, Physical Review E, 52, 6183
1010:
1011: \bibitem[{{Reese} {et~al.}(2002){Reese}, {Carlstrom}, {Joy}, {Mohr}, {Grego},
1012: \& {Holzapfel}}]{2002ApJ...581...53R}
1013: {Reese}, E.~D., {Carlstrom}, J.~E., {Joy}, M., {Mohr}, J.~J., {Grego}, L., \&
1014: {Holzapfel}, W.~L. 2002, ApJ, 581, 53
1015:
1016: \bibitem[{{Seljak} \& {Zaldarriaga}(1996)}]{1996ApJ...469..437S}
1017: {Seljak}, U. \& {Zaldarriaga}, M. 1996, ApJ, 469, 437
1018:
1019: \bibitem[{{Shandarin} \& {Zeldovich}(1989)}]{1989RvMP...61..185S}
1020: {Shandarin}, S.~F. \& {Zeldovich}, Y.~B. 1989, Reviews of Modern Physics, 61,
1021: 185
1022:
1023: \bibitem[{{She} \& {Leveque}(1994)}]{1994PhRvL..72..336S}
1024: {She}, Z.-S. \& {Leveque}, E. 1994, Physical Review Letters, 72, 336
1025:
1026: \bibitem[{{She} \& {Waymire}(1995)}]{1995PhRvL..74..262S}
1027: {She}, Z.-S. \& {Waymire}, E.~C. 1995, Physical Review Letters, 74, 262
1028:
1029: \bibitem[{{Sunyaev} \& {Zeldovich}(1980)}]{1980ARA&A..18..537S}
1030: {Sunyaev}, R.~A. \& {Zeldovich}, I.~B. 1980, ARA\&A, 18, 537
1031:
1032: \bibitem[{{Sutherland} \& {Dopita}(1993)}]{1993ApJS...88..253S}
1033: {Sutherland}, R.~S. \& {Dopita}, M.~A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253
1034:
1035: \bibitem[{{Theuns} {et~al.}(1998){Theuns}, {Leonard}, {Efstathiou}, {Pearce},
1036: \& {Thomas}}]{1998MNRAS.301..478T}
1037: {Theuns}, T., {Leonard}, A., {Efstathiou}, G., {Pearce}, F.~R., \& {Thomas},
1038: P.~A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 478
1039:
1040: \bibitem[{{Tozzi} \& {Norman}(2001)}]{2001ApJ...546...63T}
1041: {Tozzi}, P. \& {Norman}, C. 2001, ApJ, 546, 63
1042:
1043: \bibitem[{{Valageas} \& {Silk}(1999)}]{1999A&A...347....1V}
1044: {Valageas}, P. \& {Silk}, J. 1999, A\&A, 347, 1
1045:
1046: \bibitem[{{Voit} {et~al.}(2002){Voit}, {Bryan}, {Balogh}, \&
1047: {Bower}}]{2002ApJ...576..601V}
1048: {Voit}, G.~M., {Bryan}, G.~L., {Balogh}, M.~L., \& {Bower}, R.~G. 2002, ApJ,
1049: 576, 601
1050:
1051: \bibitem[{{Wu} {et~al.}(1999){Wu}, {Xue}, \& {Fang}}]{1999ApJ...524...22W}
1052: {Wu}, X.-P., {Xue}, Y.-J., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 1999, ApJ, 524, 22
1053:
1054: \bibitem[{{Xu} {et~al.}(1998){Xu}, {Fang}, \& {Wu}}]{1998ApJ...508..472X}
1055: {Xu}, W., {Fang}, L.-Z., \& {Wu}, X.-P. 1998, ApJ, 508, 472
1056:
1057: \bibitem[{{Xue} \& {Wu}(2000)}]{2000ApJ...538...65X}
1058: {Xue}, Y.-J. \& {Wu}, X.-P. 2000, ApJ, 538, 65
1059:
1060: \bibitem[{{Xue} \& {Wu}(2003)}]{2003ApJ...584...34X}
1061: ---. 2003, ApJ, 584, 34
1062:
1063: \bibitem[{{Zeldovich} \& {Sunyaev}(1969)}]{1969Ap&SS...4..301Z}
1064: {Zeldovich}, Y.~B. \& {Sunyaev}, R.~A. 1969, Ap\&SS, 4, 301
1065:
1066: \bibitem[{{Zhang} \& {Pen}(2003)}]{2003ApJ...588..704Z}
1067: {Zhang}, P. \& {Pen}, U.-L. 2003, ApJ, 588, 704
1068:
1069: \bibitem[{{Zhang} {et~al.}(2006){Zhang}, {Liu}, {Feng}, {He}, \&
1070: {Fang}}]{2006ApJ...642..625Z}
1071: {Zhang}, T.-J., {Liu}, J., {Feng}, L.-l., {He}, P., \& {Fang}, L.-Z. 2006,
1072: ApJ, 642, 625
1073:
1074: \end{thebibliography}
1075:
1076: \end{document}
1077:
1078:
1079: