1: %\documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\usepackage{color}
4: %
5: \slugcomment{Submitted to \textsc{the Astrophysical Journal}}
6: \shorttitle{Effect of He Sedimentation on X-Ray Clusters}
7: \shortauthors{Peng \& Nagai}
8: %
9: %\input{units_constants}
10: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
11: % typesetting of units
12: %
13: % Note that this doesn't prevent linebreaking between symbol and unit.
14: % A more sophisticated system is available from CTAN asa units.sty
15: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
16:
17: % basic unit typesetteing
18: \newcommand{\unitspace}{\ensuremath{\,}}
19: \newcommand{\usp}{\unitspace}
20: \newcommand{\numberspace}{\ensuremath{\;}}
21: \newcommand{\nsp}{\numberspace}
22: \newcommand{\unitstyle}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{#1}}}
23: \newcommand{\power}[2]{\ensuremath{{#1}^{#2}}}
24:
25: % prefixes
26: \newcommand{\milli}{\unitstyle{m}}
27: \newcommand{\centi}{\unitstyle{c}}
28: \newcommand{\kilo}{\unitstyle{k}}
29: \newcommand{\Mega}{\unitstyle{M}}
30: \newcommand{\Giga}{\unitstyle{G}}
31:
32: % base units, cgs
33: \newcommand{\cm}{\unitstyle{cm}}
34: \newcommand{\gram}{\unitstyle{g}}
35:
36: % base units, mks
37: \newcommand{\meter}{\unitstyle{m}}
38: \newcommand{\kilogram}{\kilo\gram}
39: \newcommand{\second}{\unitstyle{s}}
40:
41: \newcommand{\Kelvin}{\unitstyle{K}}
42: \newcommand{\K}{\Kelvin} %degrees Kelvin
43:
44: % derived units
45: \newcommand{\grampercc}{\gram\usp\power{\cm}{-3}} %mass density
46: \newcommand{\grampersquarecm}{\gram\usp\power{\cm}{-2}} %column depth
47: \newcommand{\GramPerCc}{\grampercc}
48: \newcommand{\GramPerSc}{\grampersquarecm}
49: \newcommand{\dyne}{\unitstyle{dyn}} %dyne
50: \newcommand{\erg}{\unitstyle{ergs}} %ergs
51: \newcommand{\ergs}{\erg}
52: \newcommand{\gauss}{\unitstyle{G}} %gauss
53: \newcommand{\ergspersecond}{\erg\unitspace\power{\second}{-1}}
54: \newcommand{\ergspergram}{\erg\unitspace\power{\gram}{-1}}
55: \newcommand{\cgsflux}{\erg\unitspace\power{\cm}{-2}\usp\power{\second}{-1}}
56:
57: % Nuclear and atomic units
58: \newcommand{\amu}{\unitstyle{u}} %atomic mass unit
59: \newcommand{\angstrom}{\mbox{\AA}} %Angstrom
60: \newcommand{\fermi}{\unitstyle{fm}} %fermi
61: \newcommand{\eV}{\unitstyle{eV}} %eV
62: \newcommand{\keV}{\kilo\eV} %Kev
63: \newcommand{\MeV}{\Mega\eV} %MeV
64:
65: % solar and astronomical units
66: \newcommand{\Msun}{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}
67: \newcommand{\Myr}{\Mega\yr}
68: \newcommand{\Gyr}{\Giga\yr}
69: \newcommand{\parsec}{\unitstyle{pc}}
70: \newcommand{\kpc}{\kilo\parsec} %kiloparsec
71: \newcommand{\mJy}{\unitstyle{\mu Jy}} %micro Jansky
72:
73: % misc. units
74: \newcommand{\minute}{\unitstyle{min}} %minute
75: \newcommand{\hour}{\unitstyle{hr}} %hour
76: \newcommand{\yr}{\unitstyle{yr}} %year
77: \newcommand{\km}{\kilo\meter} %kilometers
78: \newcommand{\Hz}{\unitstyle{Hz}} %Hertz
79: \newcommand{\ksec}{\kilo\second} %kilosecond
80:
81: % command to include values
82: \newcommand{\unit}[2]{\ensuremath{#1\numberspace\mathrm{#2}}}
83:
84: %constants
85: \newcommand{\kB}{\ensuremath{k_\mathrm{B}}} %Boltzmann's constant
86: \newcommand{\pF}{\ensuremath{p_\mathrm{F}}} %Fermi momentum
87: \newcommand{\EF}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon_\mathrm{F}}} %Fermi energy
88: \newcommand{\NA}{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{\!A}}} %Avogadro number
89: \newcommand{\mb}{\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{p}}} %mean nucleon mass
90: \newcommand{\me}{\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{e}}} %electron mass
91: \newcommand{\mpr}{\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{p}}} %proton mass
92: \newcommand{\mn}{\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{n}}} %neutron mass
93: \newcommand{\alphaF}{\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{F}}} %Fine structure
94:
95: %differential operator, roman typeface
96: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
97: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
98: \newcommand{\vir}{_{\mathrm{vir}}}
99: \newcommand{\gas}{_{\mathrm{gas}}}
100: \newcommand{\tot}{_{\mathrm{tot}}}
101: \newcommand{\he}{_{\mathrm{He}}}
102: \newcommand{\hy}{_{\mathrm{p}}}
103: \newcommand{\dprime}{^{\prime\prime}}
104: \newcommand{\dif}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}
105: \newcommand{\lD}{\ensuremath{\lambda_\mathrm{D}}}
106: \newcommand{\iso}[2]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{^{#1}#2}}}
107: \newcommand{\Ye}{\ensuremath{Y_e}}
108: \newcommand{\Zbar}[1][]{\ensuremath{\langle Z^{#1}\rangle}}
109: \newcommand{\Abar}{\ensuremath{\langle A\rangle}}
110: \newcommand{\wpl}{\ensuremath{\omega_{\mathrm{p}}}}
111: \newcommand{\nel}{\ensuremath{n_e}}
112: \newcommand{\Leimp}{\ensuremath{\Lambda_{e,\mathrm{imp}}}}
113: \newcommand{\vsed}{\ensuremath{w_{\mathrm{sed}}}}
114: \newcommand{\CP}{\ensuremath{C_P}}
115: \newcommand{\gpscps}{\ensuremath{\gram\nsp\cm^{-2}\nsp\second^{-1}}}
116: \newcommand{\ee}[1]{\ensuremath{\times 10^{#1}}}
117: \newcommand{\FPcomment}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{FP--}#1}}
118: \newcommand{\FPtext}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
119:
120: \newcommand{\gtaprx}{\gtrsim}
121: \newcommand{\ltaprx}{\lesssim}
122:
123: \begin{document}
124:
125: \title{Effect of Helium Sedimentation on X-ray Measurements of Galaxy Clusters}
126:
127: \author{Fang Peng \altaffilmark{1}, Daisuke Nagai \altaffilmark{1,2,3}}
128: \altaffiltext{1}{Theoretical Astrophysics, California Institute of
129: Technology, Mail Code 130-33, Pasadena, CA 91125; fpeng@caltech.edu}
130: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520}
131: \altaffiltext{3}{Yale Center for Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520; daisuke.nagai@yale.edu}
132:
133:
134: \begin{abstract}
135: The uniformity of the helium-to-hydrogen abundance ratio in X-ray emitting
136: intracluster medium (ICM) is one of the commonly adopted assumptions in
137: X-ray analyses of galaxy clusters and cosmological constraints derived
138: from these measurements. In this work, we investigate the effect of He
139: sedimentation on X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters in order to assess
140: this assumption and associated systematic uncertainties.
141: By solving a set of flow equations for
142: a H-He plasma, we show that the helium-to-hydrogen mass ratio is significantly
143: enhanced in the inner regions of clusters. The effect of He sedimentation, if
144: not accounted for, introduces systematic biases in observable properties of
145: clusters derived using X-ray observations.
146: We show that these biases also introduce an apparent evolution in the observed
147: gas mass fractions of X-ray luminous, dynamically relaxed clusters and hence
148: biases in observational constraints on the dark energy equation of state
149: parameter, $w$, derived from the cluster distance-redshift relation. The Hubble
150: parameter derived from the combination of X-ray and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
151: (SZE) measurements is affected by the He sedimentation process as well.
152: Future measurements aiming to constrain $w$ or $H_0$ to better than 10\%
153: may need to take into account the effect of He sedimentation. We propose that
154: the evolution of gas mass fraction in the inner regions of clusters should provide
155: unique observational diagnostics of the He sedimentation process.
156:
157: \end{abstract}
158:
159: \keywords{diffusion --- cosmological parameters --- X-rays: clusters}
160:
161: \section{Introduction}
162:
163: Clusters of galaxies are powerful cosmological probes and have the potential to
164: constrain properties of dark energy and dark matter. Recent development in
165: X-ray observations of galaxy clusters have produced a large statistical sample
166: of clusters and start to deliver powerful cosmological constraints
167: \citep{Allen2004Constraints_on_,Allen2008Improved,Mantz2007New_constraints,
168: Vikhlinin2008} that are complimentary to and competitive with other techniques
169: (e.g., supernova, baryon acoustic oscillation, and weak lensing).
170: This has motivated construction of the next-generation of X-ray satellite missions
171: (e.g., \emph{eROSITA}) to push the precision cosmological measurements based
172: on large X-ray cluster surveys. However, in the era of precision cosmology, the
173: use of clusters as sensitive cosmological probes require solid understanding of
174: cluster gas physics, testing of simplifying assumptions, and assessing associated
175: systematic uncertainties.
176:
177: One of the commonly adopted assumptions in X-ray cluster analyses include
178: the uniformity of the helium-to-hydrogen abundance ratio with nearly primordial
179: composition in X-ray emitting intracluster medium (ICM). At present, there is
180: no observational test of this assumption, since both H and He in the ICM are fully
181: ionized, which makes it difficult to measure their abundances using traditional
182: spectroscopic techniques. Theoretically, on the other hand, it has long been
183: suggested that heavier He nuclei slowly settle in the potential well of galaxy clusters
184: and cause a concentration of He toward their center \citep{Abramopoulos1981On_the_equilibr,Gilfanov1984Intracluster,Qin2000BARYON-DISTRIBU,Chuzhoy2003Gravitational,Chuzhoy2004Element,Ettori2006Effects}.
185: In the era of precision cosmology, this could be a source of significant systematic
186: uncertainties in X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters and cosmological
187: parameter derived from these measurements \citep{markevitch2007Helium_abundance}.
188:
189: Thus, the primary goal of the present work is to assess the validity of this assumption
190: and associated systematic uncertainties in X-ray measurements of key cluster
191: properties as well as cosmological parameters derived from
192: these observations. In this work, we investigate the effects of He sedimentation
193: on X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters by solving a set of diffusion equations
194: for a H-He plasma in the ICM. By taking into account observed temperature
195: profiles obtained by recent X-ray observations
196: \citep{Vikhlinin2006Chandra_Sample,2007Pratt, 2008Leccardi,2008George},
197: we show that the observed temperature drop in the cluster outskirts lead to
198: a significant suppression of He sedimentation, compared to the results based
199: on the isothermal cluster model \citep{Chuzhoy2004Element}. Our analysis
200: indicates that the He sedimentation has negligible effect on X-ray
201: measurements in the outer regions of clusters (e.g., $r_{500}$), and it does
202: not affect cluster mass measurements obtained at the sufficiently large
203: cluster radius. The effect of He sedimentation, on the other hand,
204: introduces increasingly larger biases in X-ray measurements in the inner regions
205: and could affect cosmological constraints, including the dark energy equation of
206: state parameter $w$ derived from distance-redshift relation as well as $H_0$
207: derived from the combination of X-ray and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (SZE).
208:
209: The paper is organized as follows. In \S~\ref{sec:xray}, we describe the
210: dependence of X-ray clusters measurements on
211: He abundance
212: in the ICM. The physics of He sedimentation and cluster models are discussed in
213: \S~\ref{sec:diffusion}. In \S~\ref{sec:results}, we present results of our He
214: sedimentation calculations and investigate their effects on cluster properties and
215: cosmological constraints derived from X-ray cluster observations. Main conclusions
216: are summarized in \S~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
217:
218: \section{Effect of He Abundance on X-ray Measurements}
219: \label{sec:xray}
220:
221: The observed X-ray surface brightness of a cluster is primarily from
222: bremsstrahlung continuum emission of electrons scattering off of
223: protons and He nuclei, which is given by the integral of the emission
224: along the line of sight,
225: %
226: \begin{eqnarray}
227: \label{S_X.e}
228: S_X & \propto & \int dl \, (n_e n\hy \Lambda_{e {\rm p}} + n_e n\he \Lambda_{e\rm{He}}) \\
229: &\propto & n\hy^2 (1+2x)(1 + 4x) \Lambda_{e {\rm p}} \ ,
230: \label{sx_x.e}
231: \end{eqnarray}
232: %
233: where $x\equiv n\he/n\hy$ is the
234: He-to-H abundance ratio
235: and $\Lambda_{ei}$ is the band-limited cooling function resulted
236: from free-free emission of electrons scattering off ion species $i$,
237: which is proportional to $Z_i^2$. The derivation of the second
238: expression takes into account the charge dependence of cooling function
239: and the fact that the number density of electron is given by $n_e = n\hy + 2 n\he = n\hy
240: (1+2x)$. Since $S_X$ is observed and fixed, the proton number density
241: $n\hy$ inferred from X-ray observations depends on x, as
242: $n\hy \propto 1/\sqrt{(1+2x)(1+4x)}$. The derived gas mass density
243: therefore depends on x as,
244: %
245: \beq
246: \label{rgas.e}
247: \rho\gas \propto n\hy + 4 n\he \propto \left(\frac{1+4x}{1+2x}\right)^{1/2} \ .
248: \eeq
249: %
250: The gas mass $M\gas$ is the volume integral of equation~(\ref{rgas.e}).
251: The hydrostatic mass profile of a spherically-symmetric cluster depends
252: on the local value of He abundance through the mean molecular weight
253: of particles $\mu$,
254: \beq \label{mhse}
255: M\tot(<r) \propto \frac{r T_e}{\mu} \frac{d{\rm log} \rho_{\rm gas}}{d{\rm log} r}
256: \propto \frac{1}{\mu} = \frac{2 + 3x}{1 + 4x} \ .
257: \eeq
258: Note that the hydrostatic mass at a fixed mean overdensity, $\Delta$,
259: is given by $M_{\Delta} \propto (T_e/\mu)^{3/2}$. The gas mass fraction
260: is then defined as $f\gas \equiv M_{\rm gas}/M_{\rm tot}$.
261:
262: For the primordial abundance (X = 0.75, Y = 0.25 by mass), the He-to-H
263: abundance ratio is $x=0.083$ and the mean molecular weight is $\mu = 0.59$.
264: If, for example, the He-to-H abundance ratio is enhanced by a factor of
265: two from the
266: primordial value, the analysis based on the assumption of the
267: primordial abundance causes an underestimate of $\rho_{\rm gas}$
268: by 5\% and an overestimate of $M_{\rm tot}$ by 12\%.
269:
270: \section{Helium Sedimentation in X-ray Custers} \label{sec:diffusion}
271:
272: \subsection{Diffusion Equations}\label{sec:diffusioneqn}
273:
274: Particle diffusion in clusters is characterized by the Burgers equations
275: of a multicomponent fluid \citep{burgers69:composite_gases}.
276: Each species $s$ obeys an equation of continuity and momentum
277: conservation,
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: \frac{\partial n_s}{\partial t}+ \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial (r^2n_s u_s)}{\partial r} &=&0~
280: \label{continuity.e}\ ,\\
281: \frac{\partial P_s}{\partial r} + n_s A_s \mb g - n_s Z_s eE &=& \sum_t K_{st} (w_t - w_s) \ .
282: \label{burgers.e}
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: Here the species $s$ has mass $A_s \mb$,
285: charge $Z_s e$, density $n_s$, partial pressure $P_s$, and velocity
286: $u_s$,
287: where $\mb$ is the proton mass.
288: The center-of-mass of a fluid element moves with a velocity $u
289: = \sum_s n_s A_s u_s/\sum_s n_s A_s$. The differential, or diffusion,
290: velocity between species $s$ and the fluid element is then $w_s = u_s
291: - u$. These diffusion velocities satisfy mass and charge conservation,
292: \begin{eqnarray}
293: \label{mc.e}
294: \sum_s A_s n_s w_s &=& 0 \ , \\
295: \label{cc.e}
296: \sum_s Z_s n_s w_s &=& 0 \ .
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: Note that the summations include both ions and electrons. To satisfy
299: these conservation laws, for each sinking helium nuclei, there are roughly
300: four protons and two electrons that float up.
301:
302: Equation~(\ref{burgers.e}) describes forces acting on a species $s$, and
303: it is the balance of these forces that ultimately determines the rate of
304: sedimentation. For a sinking He nucleus, the gravitational force ($g$) is
305: counteracted by three types of forces provided by the induced electric field
306: ($E$), the pressure gradient ($dP_s/dr$) of the ICM, and the drag force due
307: to collisions with surrounding particles. Note that we neglected small terms including the
308: inertial term (${\rm d}u_s/{\rm d}t$) and the shear stresses (or viscosity)
309: due to collisions among the same species.
310: We also neglected terms related to the coupling of thermal and particle diffusions,
311: which lead to an underestimate of the He-to-H mass ratio by $\lesssim$~20\%
312: in the radial range considered in this work (see \S~\ref{sec:discussions}).
313:
314: Note that the sedimentation destroys hydrostatic equilibrium since
315: redistribution of particles introduce a temporal change in the total
316: gas pressure. However, hydrostatic equilibrium can be
317: restored quickly. This equilibrium restoring acquires a net inflow
318: with a mean velocity $u$,
319: %
320: \beq \frac{du}{dt} = - \frac{1}{\rho\gas} \frac{\partial
321: P\gas}{\partial r} - g \ ,
322: \label{du.e}
323: \eeq
324: %
325: where $P\gas = \sum_s n_s k_{\mathrm B} T$ is the total gas pressure
326: for ideal gas, and $\rho\gas = \sum_s n_s A_s m_u$ is the gas density.
327: Equations~(\ref{continuity.e})-(\ref{du.e}) describe the process of
328: particle diffusion in the ICM.
329:
330: \subsection{Resistance Coefficient} \label{sec:resistance}
331:
332: When the plasma is sufficiently rarefied, which is the case for the ICM,
333: particle pairs interact via a pure Coulomb potential. In the absence of
334: magnetic field and turbulence, the resistance coefficient is given by
335: \citet{chapman.cowling} as,
336: \begin{equation}
337: K_{st}^{B=0} \cong \frac{4 \sqrt{2 \pi}}{3}
338: \frac{e^4Z_s^2Z_t^2 \mu_{st}^{1/2}}{(\kB T)^{3/2}} n_s n_t \ln \Lambda_{st} \ ,
339: \label{resist.e}
340: \end{equation}
341: where $\mu_{st} = A_sA_t\mb/(A_s+ A_t)$ is the reduced mass of species
342: $s$ and $t$, and a typical value of the Coulomb logarithm is
343: $\ln \Lambda_{st} \simeq 40$ for the H-He plasma in the ICM. Resistance coefficient
344: describes the momentum transfer rate of species $s$ per unit volume due to
345: collisions with species $t$ (in units of $\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}\,s^{-1}}$).
346: The resistance coefficient, $K_{st}\propto T^{-3/2}$, is inversely
347: proportional to the ICM temperature. Therefore,
348: particle transport is more efficient in the ICM with higher
349: temperature.
350: Note that heat transport via the same particle collision physics gives that
351: the thermal conductivity depends on $T$ as $\kappa\propto T^{5/2}$.
352:
353: However, magnetic field and turbulence, present in real clusters, can
354: significantly modify the resistance coefficients. To date, theoretical work on
355: this subject has predicted a wide range of the magnetic suppression factor,
356: $f_B \equiv \kappa/\kappa_{\rm Sp} \sim 0.1-1$, where $\kappa_{\rm Sp}$ is
357: the Spitzer thermal conductivity \citep{Spitzer1962}, depending sensitively
358: on the strength and the geometry of magnetic field as well as the nature of
359: MHD turbulence. In the case of a tangled magnetic field, the thermal conductivity
360: may be moderately suppressed ($f_B \sim 0.1-0.2$) relative to the Spitzer value
361: \citep{Narayan2001THERMAL-CONDUCT,Chandran2004Thermal_Conduc}.
362: Magnetothermal instability tends to drive magnetic field lines to a radial
363: direction, which gives the suppression of $f_B\gtrsim 0.4$
364: \citep{Parrish2008}. It was also suggested that MHD turbulence may
365: provide the magnetic suppression factor of order unity
366: \citep{Cho2004,Lazarian2007}.
367:
368: Observationally, one can use the strength of observed temperature gradients
369: in the ICM to constrain the efficiency of thermal conductivity. Observed
370: large-scale, negative ICM temperature gradients set the upper limit on the
371: thermal conductivity, $f_B \lesssim 0.2$ for a $T_X=10$~keV cluster with
372: a typical age of 7~Gyr \citep{Loeb2002}.
373: Observations of A754 also yield
374: a suppression factor $f_B < 0.1$ for the bulk of the ICM \citep{markevitch03}.
375: The width of cold fronts observed
376: by recent X-ray observations suggests a considerably smaller suppression
377: factor ($f_B \ll 0.1$) \citep[][for a review]{Markevitch2007_ColdFront}.
378: This, however, is a local constraint which is not applicable to a cluster as
379: a whole.
380: One might also imagine that the abundance profile of heavy nuclei
381: (e.g., Fe) with X-ray emission lines may provide further insights into the
382: efficiency of particle diffusion. Though possible in principle, interpretation
383: of the abundance profile is complicated by the fact that the ICM is enriched
384: continuously by stripping of metal-enriched gas from cluster galaxies, and
385: that the process of sedimentation is generally slower for heavier nuclei.
386:
387: Given the current large uncertainties in diffusion coefficients due to the
388: lack of knowledge on magnetic field and turbulence in the ICM, we
389: parametrize the effective resistance coefficients as
390: $K_{st} = f_B^{-1} K_{st}^{B=0}$, where we take $f_B$ as a free parameter.
391: In order to illustrate how our results depend on the suppression factor, we
392: consider two cases with $f_B = 1$ (un-magnetized) and $0.2$ (tangled
393: magnetic field). The former should be taken as an extreme model, while
394: the latter is roughly corresponds to the current observational limit discussed
395: above.
396: Note, however, that all current observations are consistent with $f_B = 0$
397: (conduction fully suppressed). We, therefore, caution that $f_B$ may
398: be orders of magnitude below the unity.
399:
400: \subsection{Sedimentation Velocity} \label{sec:drift_steady}
401:
402: To develop physical insights into the process of He sedimentation, it
403: is useful to consider a drift velocity of a trace He particle in a background of hydrogen,
404: i.e, $n\hy \gg n\he$
405: and $w\hy = 0$. In this limiting case, equations~(\ref{burgers.e}) for
406: the two species are decoupled. The right-hand side of the equations
407: for H vanishes, thereby fixing an electric field,
408: $eE = 0.5\,\mb g$. Substituting $E$ into the equation
409: of motion for He, we obtain the sedimentation velocity
410: of He nuclei as $w\he = 3\,\mb g n\he /K_{\rm{pHe}}$,
411: which gives
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: w\he &\simeq & 80\usp{\rm km\,s^{-1}} f_B \nonumber \\
414: & & \times \left(\frac{T}{10\usp{\rm keV}}\right)^{3/2}
415: \left(\frac{g}{10^{-7.5}\usp{\rm cm\,s^{-2}}}\right) \left(\frac{n\hy}{10^{-3}{\rm cm^{-3}}}\right)^{-1} \ , %\nonumber
416: \label{vsed.e}
417: \end{eqnarray}
418: where the induced electric field counteracts gravity and suppresses
419: the sedimentation speed by $25\%$. At a fixed
420: density, the sedimention velocity is generally larger for higher temperature
421: ($T$) and gravity ($g$). Note that the pressure gradient ($dP/dr$) term in
422: equation~(\ref{burgers.e}) further suppresses the sedimentation process.
423: Typical sedimentation timescale in clusters is generally longer than
424: the Hubble time.
425: The equilibrium distributions to the Burgers equation
426: \citep{Abramopoulos1981On_the_equilibr,Qin2000BARYON-DISTRIBU,
427: Chuzhoy2003Gravitational} are therefore not applicable for clusters.
428: Instead, a full time-dependent calculation is required for this analysis.
429:
430:
431: \subsection{Cluster Models and Initial Conditions}\label{sec:cluster}
432:
433: We set up cluster models and initial conditions as follows. Initially,
434: we assume that the ICM consists of a primordial H and He plasma
435: uniformly throughout clusters. We ignore the contribution of heavier
436: elements of $Z >2$.
437:
438: For the total mass distribution, we adopt the Navarro-Frenk-White
439: (NFW) density profile \citep{Navarro1997A_Universal_Den},
440: %
441: \beq
442: \rho(r) = \frac{\rho_s}{x'(1+x')^2}\ ,
443: \label{rho_NFW.ee}
444: \eeq
445: %
446: where $x' \equiv r/r_s$,
447: $r_s$ is a scale radius, and $\rho_s$ is a normalization constant.
448: Mass enclosed within a radius $r$ is then given by
449: $M(x') = 4\pi\rho_sr_s^3 \left[\ln(1+x') - x'/(1+x')\right]$.
450: Throughout this work, we define the cluster mass to be $M_{\Delta} =
451: (4\pi/3)r_{\Delta}^3\Delta\, \rho_{crit}$, where $r_{\Delta}$ is a radius
452: of a spherical region within which the mean enclosed mass density is
453: $\Delta$ times the critical density of the universe $\rho_{crit}$. We
454: adopt $\Delta=500$ and the concentration
455: $c_{500} \equiv r_{500}/r_s = 4$ (V06). We also
456: consider $\Delta=2500$, where some of the X-ray measurements are also
457: made. In this cluster model, $r_{2500}/r_{500} = 0.46$.
458:
459: We consider two ICM temperature models: (1) the isothermal temperature
460: profile $T(r) = T_{X} $, and (2) the observed temperature profile obtained
461: with deep Chandra observations of nearby relaxed clusters (V06) given by
462: %
463: \beq
464: \frac{T(r)}{T_X} = 1.216~\frac{(\tilde{x}/0.045)^{1.9}+0.45}{(\tilde{x}/0.045)^{1.9}+1}\frac{1}
465: {\left[1+(\tilde{x}/0.6)^2\right]^{0.45}} \ ,
466: \label{temp.ee}
467: \eeq
468: %
469: where $\tilde{x}=r/r_{500}$, and $T_X$ is the X-ray spectral
470: temperature, which is related to $M_{500} = M_5 (T_X/5\nsp {\rm
471: keV})^\alpha$, where $M_5 = 2.89\times10^{14}\nsp h^{-1}\usp M_\odot$
472: and $\alpha = 1.58$ (V06). For an illustration, we plot these ICM
473: temperature profiles in Figure~\ref{temp.f}. The observed temperature
474: peaks around $r/ r_{500} \simeq 0.2$, and decreases at both inner
475: and outer radii. For example, the temperature drops by nearly a factor
476: of $2$ from the peak value at $r/r_{500} = 0.01$ and $1$.
477:
478: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
479: \begin{figure}[t]
480: \centering
481: \includegraphics[clip=true,trim=0.0cm 2.0cm 0.0cm 3.0cm,width=3.8in]{f1.eps}
482: \caption{Temperature profiles of X-ray clusters used in our models:
483: isothermal temperature profile (\emph{dashed line}) and observed
484: temperature profile obtained by \citet{ Vikhlinin2006Chandra_Sample}
485: (\emph{solid line}). }
486: \label{temp.f}
487: \end{figure}
488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
489:
490: We set up the initial gas distribution by assuming hydrostatic
491: equilibrium of the ICM in the potential well of clusters dominated
492: by dark matter,
493: %
494: \beq
495: \frac{k_{\mathrm B}} {\mu m_u} \frac{d (\rho\gas T)}{dr} = -\rho\gas g(r) \ ,
496: \label{static.e}
497: \eeq
498: %
499: where the gravitational acceleration at a radius $r$ is $g(r)\equiv
500: GM(r)/r^2$. For each temperature profile $T(r)$, we derive the initial
501: gas density profile as,
502: \begin{eqnarray}
503: \rho\gas (r) & = & \rho_{\mathrm{gas},0} \left(\frac{T_0}{T(r)}\right)
504: \exp \left(-\frac{\mu m\hy}{\kB}\int_0^r \frac{g(r')}{T(r')} dr' \right) \ ,
505: \label{rho_gas}
506: \end{eqnarray}
507: where the central density $\rho_{\mathrm{gas},0}$ is normalized
508: by requiring $M_{\rm gas}/M (r_{500}) \equiv f_{\rm gas,500}$ = 0.15 (V06),
509: and $T_0$ is the central temperature for each ICM temperature model.
510: For isothermal case, the density profile reproduces the analytical form
511: given by $\rho\gas (r) = \rho_{\mathrm{gas},0} \exp(-\eta \mu)
512: (1+x')^{\eta \mu/x'}$ with $\eta = 4\pi G m\hy \rho_s r_s^2/(\kB T_X)$ \citep{Makino1998X-RAY-GAS-DENSI}.
513:
514: Finally, we consider two types of mass accretion histories (MAHs) of clusters:
515: (1) a static cluster with a fixed mass, (2) the MAHs of cluster-size halos calibrated
516: with N-body simulations of cluster formation. For the latter, we adopt an analytical
517: expression of averaged MAHs of halos given by
518: \citet{2002vandenbosch_the_universal},
519: %
520: \beq \log
521: \left(\frac{M}{M_0}\right) = -0.301
522: \left[\frac{\log(1+z)}{\log(1+z_f)}\right]^\nu \ ,
523: \label{massah.e}
524: \eeq
525: %
526: where $M_0$ is the cluster mass at present time, $z_f$ is the formation
527: redshift defined as $M(z_f)/M_0=0.5$, and $\nu$ is a parameter that
528: determines the shape of MAHs of dark matter halos, and it is
529: strongly correlated with $z_f$. This functional form provides a reasonable
530: description of the MAHs of simulated clusters for a typical value of $\nu$ in the
531: range of $1.4-2.3$ \citep{2004TasitsiomiDensity} and an average formation
532: redshift of $\langle z_f \rangle \simeq 0.6$
533: \citep[][see also Berrier et al. 2008]{2005Cohn}.
534: \footnote{Note that the equation~(\ref{massah.e}) provides a reasonable
535: description of the MAHs of simulated galactic-size halos \citep{Wechsler2002}
536: by tuning a free parameter $f$ to $0.254$
537: \citep[see Appendix A in][]{2002vandenbosch_the_universal}. For the cluster-size
538: halos, we find that $f=0.656$ provides a reasonable description of their MAHs
539: and the average formation time of a large statistical samples of clusters-size halos
540: extracted from N-body simulations \citep[][see also Berrier et al. 2008]{2005Cohn}.}
541: The points that are particularly relevant for this work are that a typical
542: present-day cluster grows by a factor of two in mass in the past
543: $\approx 6$~Gyr since $z \approx 0.6$,
544: while an equal-mass cluster at higher redshift ($z=1$) forms in a considerably
545: shorter timescale ($\approx 1-2$~Gyr). This suggests that the high-z clusters
546: are generally much less affected by the process of He sedimentation than their
547: low-redshift counterparts.
548: In \S 4.1-4.3, we use the simple static cluster model to investigate the
549: dependence of the He sedimentation efficiency on some of the key
550: cluster parameters, including the temperature, the age, and the
551: magnetic suppression factor.
552: In \S~\ref{sec:fgasEvol}, we use the realistic MAHs
553: to investigate evolution in X-ray observable properties with redshift.
554: Throughout this work, we use cosmological parameters:
555: $\Omega_{\rm M} = 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$,
556: $\Omega_{\rm b} = 0.0462$, and $h = 0.7$ \citep{2008Komatsu_Five_Year}.
557:
558: \section{Results} \label{sec:results}
559:
560: \subsection{Spatial Distribution and Evolution of He Abundance}
561:
562: Starting from the initial cluster model described in \S~\ref{sec:cluster},
563: we follow the diffusion process in the H and He plasma by solving
564: equations~(\ref{continuity.e})-(\ref{du.e}) numerically. At each time step,
565: equations (\ref{burgers.e})-(\ref{cc.e}) are solved to obtain diffusion
566: velocities ($w_s$) for H, He and electrons as well as electric field ($E$). Using
567: these diffusion velocities,
568: we update the abundance of each species by solving
569: equations~(\ref{continuity.e}) and (\ref{du.e}) together.
570: We repeat this procedure through the mass accretion histories of galaxy clusters.
571: We use 600 spatial grids logarithmically spaced in a computational
572: domain of $10^{-3} \leq r/r_{500} \leq 10$ and set the diffusion velocities
573: to zero at both inner and outer boundaries. These choices ensure that
574: results are robust in regions of our interest ($0.01 < r/r_{500} \leq 1$).
575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
576: \begin{figure}[t]
577: \centering
578: \includegraphics[clip=true,trim=0.0cm 2.0cm 0.0cm 3.0cm,width=3.8in]{f2.eps}
579: \caption{The spatial distribution of helium-to-hydrogen mass
580: fraction ($Y/X$) in a $T_X=10$~keV static cluster with $f_B=1$. Lines indicate
581: two types of ICM temperature profiles shown in Fig.~\ref{temp.f}. From
582: bottom to the top, the set of curves shown are for cluster ages of 0,
583: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11~Gyr, respectively.}
584: \label{YXratio.f}
585: \end{figure}
586: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
587:
588: Figure~\ref{YXratio.f} shows evolution of a spatial distribution of the
589: He-to-H mass fraction ($Y/X$) of a $T_X=10$~keV cluster with $f_B=1$.
590: Here we compare results of the isothermal model and those of the V06
591: model.
592: This comparison shows that the observed temperature drop in the outer regions
593: significantly suppresses the process of He sedimentation in the outskirts ($r/r_{500} > 0.3$)
594: of clusters. The efficiency of He sedimentation, however, is enhanced in the inner regions
595: near the peak of the observed temperature profile, and it is suppressed again in the inner
596: most regions ($r/r_{500} < 0.02$) due to the observed temperature drop at these radii.
597: At $r=r_{500}$, the He
598: abundance in the V06 model is very close to the primordial value
599: (Y/X = 0.333). The effect of He sedimentation is negligible at this radius,
600: and these results are fairly independent of cluster age and the value of
601: $f_B$. These conclusions are in stark contrast with the result of
602: the isothermal model which gives considerably larger He abundance
603: of $Y/X=0.479$. In the V06 model, the value of $Y/X$ increases rapidly
604: toward inner regions and peaks at $r= 0.06\nsp r_{500}$. The mass
605: fraction ratio increases to $Y/X=0.405$ at $r=r_{2500}$ and $1.0$ at
606: $r=0.1\nsp r_{500}$ for the cluster age of 7~Gyr.
607:
608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
609: \begin{figure}[t]
610: \centering
611: \includegraphics[clip=true, trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 1cm,width=3.5in]{f3.eps}
612: \caption{Biases in X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters at
613: $r_{2500}$ as a function of $T_X$ for a static cluster age of $7\usp{\rm Gyr}$.
614: Lines indicate the isothermal model (\emph{dashed line}) and
615: the V06 model with $f_B=1$ (\emph{thick-solid line}) and $f_B=0.2$
616: ({thin-solid line}). }
617: \label{bias.f}
618: \end{figure}
619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
620:
621: \subsection{Effect on Gas Mass, Total Mass, and Gas Mass Fraction}
622:
623: As we discussed in \S~\ref{sec:xray}, the spatial variation in the He abundance
624: caused by the mass segregation could introduce observational biases in
625: X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters. Figure~\ref{bias.f} shows biases in
626: X-ray measurements of gas mass, total mass, and gas mass fraction at
627: $r_{2500}$ for three sedimentation models: the isothermal model with
628: $f_B=1$ ({\it dashed} line), the V06 model with $f_B=1$ ({\it thick-solid} line)
629: and $f_B=5$ ({\it thin-solid} line). Results are shown for a typical cluster
630: age of $7$~Gyr and for a range of average cluster temperatures
631: ($T_X = 1-10$~keV). Here we define these biases to be ratios between the
632: quantities derived by assuming the primordial abundance and their true values
633: in our cluster models, which corresponds to the values that would have been
634: obtained if the sedimentation effect has been taken into account in X-ray
635: data analyses.
636:
637: Comparing results of two different models, we find that biases in X-ray
638: measurements of total cluster mass at $r_{2500}$ are considerably smaller
639: in the V06 model. In the case of a hot ($T_X=10$~keV), un-magnetized
640: ($f_B=1$) cluster, for example, the total mass is overestimated by 4\% and
641: 14\% for the V06 model and isothermal model, respectively. The biases in $M\gas$,
642: on the other hand, are underestimated by 4\% for both models. Note that these
643: values are similar for two different temperature models. This is because $M\gas$
644: measurements, obtained by integrating the gas density over the cluster volume,
645: depend primarily on the average ICM temperature ($T_X$), and relatively
646: insensitive to the details of ICM temperature profiles. $f\gas$ is then biased low
647: by 8\% and 16\% for V06 model and isothermal model, respectively.
648: Note that the bias in $f_{\rm gas}$ above is obtained by integrating from
649: the cluster center to the radius $r$. This yields a large bias than the one
650: evaluated by using the local He abundance at $r$
651: \citep{markevitch2007Helium_abundance}.
652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
653: \begin{figure}[t]
654: \centering
655: \includegraphics[clip=true, trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 1cm,width=3.5in]{f4.eps}
656: \caption{Biases in X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters $r_{2500}$
657: as a function of cluster age. The curves starting from the flat line
658: corresponds to cluster ages of 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11~Gyr. Results are
659: shown for static clusters of the V06 model with $f_B=1$.}
660: \label{bias_t.f}
661: \end{figure}
662: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
663:
664: The biases in X-ray measurements are very sensitive to the average ICM
665: temperature ($T_X$) as well as the magnetic suppression factor ($f_B$).
666: The biases are considerably smaller in cluster with smaller values of $T_X$
667: or $f_B$, because the sedimentation process is slow in these clusters with
668: larger resistance coefficient. We find that the biases at $r_{2500}$ become
669: negligible ($\lesssim 2\%$) for $T_X \lesssim 3$ keV or $f_B\lesssim 0.2$.
670: These biases also depend sensitively on the age of clusters. Figure \ref{bias_t.f}
671: illustrates that these biases increase rapidly with the cluster age and cause
672: the apparent evolution of X-ray measurements of hot, dynamically relaxed
673: clusters. Our sedimentation model based on the observed V06 temperature
674: profile predicts that the biases in $f\gas$ are likely less than 10\% for a realistic
675: range of cluster parameters (including the cluster age, $T_X$, and $f_B$).
676: Note also that the biases become negligible in cluster outskirts ($r\sim r_{500}$)
677: for all systems.
678:
679: \subsection{X-ray and SZE-derived Hubble Constant} \label{sec:hubble}
680:
681: Measurements of angular diameter distance derived from the combination
682: of X-ray and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect (SZE) observations also depend
683: on the assumed He abundance, x, as,
684: %
685: \beq
686: d_{\rm A} \propto \frac{y^2}{S_X T_e^2} \frac{1+4x}{1+2x} \ ,
687: \label{da.e}
688: \eeq
689: %
690: where the expression was obtained by canceling electron densities
691: in both the X-ray surface brightness $S_X \propto n_e^2 d_A
692: (1+4x)/(1+2x)$ (see eq.~[\ref{sx_x.e}]) and the SZE comptonization
693: parameter $y \propto n_e T_e d_A$. Since $H_0 \propto d_A^{-1}$, the
694: X-ray+SZE derived $H_0$ measurements could be affected by the
695: He sedimentation process. As shown in the bottom-right panels of
696: Figures \ref{bias.f} and \ref{bias_t.f}, our model suggests that the
697: sedimentation could introduce biases in the X-ray+SZE derived $H_0$
698: measurements high by about $\lesssim 15\%$,
699: with the exact value depending on the cluster age, temperature, as well as
700: the magnetic suppression factor.
701: This effect is of the same sign and order as the 6\% offset seen between
702: the X-ray and SZE-derived Hubble constant
703: ($H_0 = 77.6^{+4.8}_{-4.3}\usp {\rm km \,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$)
704: \citep{Bonamente2006Determination} and result of the Hubble Key Project
705: ($H_0 = 73 \usp {\rm km \,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$) \citep{Freedman2001}.
706: Given the errors in the current X-ray+SZE $H_0$ measurements, our
707: models with $f_B=1$ and $0.2$ are both consistent with the observed offset.
708: As proposed by \citet{markevitch2007Helium_abundance}, the comparison
709: of the X-ray+SZE derived $H_0$ and independent $H_0$ measurements
710: could be used to constrain the He abundance in clusters.
711:
712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
713: \begin{figure}[t]
714: \centering \includegraphics[clip=true,trim=0.2cm 0.5cm 0.0cm 3.5cm,width=3.6in]{f5.eps}
715: \caption{Evolution of cluster gas mass fraction enclosed within $r_{2500}$
716: as a function of redshift. Results are for a 10~keV cluster with realistic MAHs
717: given by eq.~(\ref{massah.e}). Lines indicate the isothermal model with
718: $f_B=1$ (\emph{dashed line}), V06 model with $f_B=1$ (\emph{thick-solid line})
719: and $f_B=0.2$ (\emph{thin-solid line}). \emph{Dotted} lines indicate
720: the evolution in $f\gas$ caused by changes in the dark energy equation of
721: state $w$ by 10\% relative to the fiducial $\Lambda$CDM cosmological
722: model with no sedimentation (indicated with a straight dotted line).
723: }
724: \label{fgas_zobs.f}
725: \vspace{2mm}
726: \end{figure}
727: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
728:
729: \subsection{Evolution of Cluster Gas Mass Fraction} \label{sec:fgasEvol}
730:
731: The evolution of cluster gas mass fraction of X-ray luminous,
732: dynamically, relaxed clusters can provide powerful observational
733: constraints on the equation of state of dark energy $w$
734: \citep{1996Sasaki,1997Pen,2003Ettori,Allen2004Constraints_on_,2006LaRoque,Allen2008Improved}.
735: The sensitivity to $w$ lies in the dependence of the observed $f\gas$ to
736: the angular diameter distance, $d_{\rm A}(w,z)$,
737: %
738: \beq
739: f\gas(w,z) = 0.113
740: \left[\frac{d_{\rm A}(w,z)}{d_{\rm A}(w=-1.0,z)}\right]^{1.5} \ ,
741: \eeq
742: %
743: where the observed $f\gas$ is $0.113$ at $z=0$. Recent
744: measurements of the $f\gas$
745: evolution based on \emph{Chandra} X-ray observations of 42 bright,
746: dynamically relaxed galaxy clusters yielded $w = -1.14 \pm 0.31$, by
747: assuming a flat geometry and standard priors on $\Omega_b h^2$ and $h$.
748: The combined analysis of $f\gas$ plus CMB and SNIa measurements
749: constrains $w$ to better than $10\%$, $w = -0.98\pm 0.07$\citep{Allen2008Improved}.
750:
751: Here we point out that the effect of He sedimentation can introduce an
752: apparent evolution in X-ray measurements of cluster gas mass
753: fractions, which could lead to systematic biases in observational constraints
754: on the dark energy equation of state, $w$. This is illustrated in
755: Figure~\ref{fgas_zobs.f}, where we show evolution of the observed gas
756: mass fraction at $r_{2500}$ by using the realistic, time-dependent MAHs
757: given by equation~(\ref{massah.e}) in order to follow the He sedimentation process
758: in a growing cluster-size halo, starting from a proto-cluster at $z=5$.
759: Our sedimentation models show that the observed gas mass
760: fraction is overestimated by $12\%$, $6\%$, and $2\%$ at $z=1$, for the
761: isothermal model with $f_B =1$, V06 model with $f_B = 1$ and with $f_B = 0.2$,
762: respectively. The apparent evolution in $f\gas$ arises because clusters at
763: lower-redshifts have had more time to experience the sedimentation on average.
764:
765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
766: \begin{figure}[t]
767: \centering \includegraphics[clip=true,trim=0.2cm 0.5cm 0.0cm 3.5cm,width=3.6in]{f6.eps}
768: \caption{Evolution of cluster gas mass fraction enclosed within
769: three cluster-centric radii, $r=0.1\nsp r_{500}$ (\emph{solid lines}),
770: $r=0.3 \nsp r_{500}$ (\emph{dashed lines}), and $r=r_{2500}$
771: (\emph{dotted lines}). Results are for a 10 keV cluster with realistic MAHs
772: given by eq.~(\ref{massah.e}), for the V06 model and $f_B=1$. }
773: \label{fgas_zobs_inner.f}
774: \vspace{0.2mm}
775: \end{figure}
776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
777:
778: As shown in Figure~\ref{fgas_zobs.f}, the effect of He sedimentation is degenerate
779: with changes in the dark energy equation of state, $w$. Note that the changes
780: in $w$ by -10\% (relative to the fiducial $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $w=-1$)
781: corresponds to the changes in $f\gas$ by about $3\%$ between $z=0$ and $1$.
782: The effect of He sedimentation is to make the best-fit $w$ more negative, i.e.,
783: $w < -1$. For example, results of the V06 model with $f_B=1$ ($0.2$) are
784: degenerate with the cosmological models with $w=-1.18$ ($-1.04$) without
785: sedimentation. The isothermal model with $f_B=1$, which should be
786: taken as an extreme case, requires $w=-1.38$. Given the measurement
787: uncertainties ($\approx 30\%$ in $w$), current constraints on $w$ should not
788: be affected significantly by the effect of He sedimentation. However, future X-ray
789: measurements aiming to constraint $w$ to better than 10\% will need to take into
790: account of this effect. Note that the effect would be larger for a population of
791: dynamically relaxed clusters than the average population considered here.
792:
793: Given that the variation in the He abundance in clusters are unknown at present,
794: it would be interesting to ask whether the current X-ray data could be used to
795: constrain the abundance distribution.
796: Here we propose that the $f\gas$ evolution in the inner cluster regions, where
797: the effect of sedimentation is expected to be larger, can be used as sensitive
798: probes of the He sedimentation process. In Figure \ref{fgas_zobs_inner.f},
799: we illustrate evolution of $f\gas$ (V06 model with $f_B=1$) at three
800: different radii, including $r=0.1\,r_{500}$, $0.3\,r_{500}$, and $\,r_{2500}$.
801: This figure shows that changes in $f\gas$ between $z=0$ and 1 are
802: amplified significantly in the inner regions of clusters.
803: At $r=0.1\,r_{500}$, $f\gas$ evolves by $\sim 30\%$ from $z = 0$
804: to 1, which could be detected with current data. If the gas mass fraction
805: evolution is detected, it can provide unique constraints on the efficiency
806: of He sedimentation, which in turn provides constraints on the magnetic
807: and turbulent suppression of particle diffusion in the weakly magnetized
808: ICM. Non-detection is also interesting, as it will provide an upper limit on
809: the efficiency of particle diffusion in the ICM.
810:
811: \section{Discussions}
812: \label{sec:discussions}
813:
814: Here we comment on additional effects that may affect our sedimentation
815: calculations. First, turbulent mixing will likely play an important role in
816: determining the efficiency of sedimentation. Turbulence, on the one hand,
817: will tend to mix fluid elements from different parts of the cluster and
818: to counteract the effect of sedimentation, but it may also enhance the rate of
819: sedimentation by increasing the mobility of the ions. Detailed investigation of
820: the effect of turbulence on sedimentation process is out of the scope of the
821: present work. But, we point out that recent hydrodynamical simulations
822: of galaxy cluster formation uniformly indicate the presence of ubiquitous subsonic
823: turbulent flow in clusters \citep{norman_bryan99,nag03,rasia_etal04,kay_etal04,
824: faltenbacher_etal05,dolag_etal05,rasia_etal06,2007Nagai}.
825: These simulations indicate that the turbulence can provide about
826: $5-10$\% of the total pressure support at $r=r_{500}$ even in relaxed systems,
827: and its relative importance increases in cluster outskirts as well as unrelaxed
828: clusters with recent major mergers (Lau, Kravtsov, Nagai, in preparation).
829: It is therefore possible that turbulent mixing caused by gas accretion in
830: cluster outskirts and/or major mergers may significantly modify the efficiency
831: of the sedimentation. Hydrodynamical cluster simulations that also include
832: the sedimentation physics will likely provide realistic assessment of this effect.
833:
834: We also point out that the standard diffusion equations assume that
835: the mean-free-path of the ions is small compared to the size of the system.
836: The proton mean-free-path, however, could become a sizable fraction of
837: the cluster size in their outskirts \citep{2007Loeb}. For a $T_X = 5$~keV
838: isothermal cluster, for example, the mean-free-path of proton is comparable
839: to the cluster virial radius ($\approx 2 \times r_{500}$). The validity
840: of the fluid approximation, however, depends sensitively on the ICM
841: temperature profile. For the cluster with the same $T_X$, the mean-free-path
842: in the V06 model, for example, is considerably smaller (9\%) fraction of the
843: virial radius, which makes the fluid approximation still reasonable in the
844: radial range of our interests.
845:
846: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
847: \begin{figure}[t]
848: \centering \includegraphics[clip=true,trim=0.0cm 2.0cm 0.0cm 3.0cm,width=3.8in]{f7.eps}
849: \caption{ The ratio of two He sedimentation velocities derived with ($w_{\rm He}$) and
850: without ($w_{\rm He, 0}$) the effect of thermal diffusion, plotted as a function of the
851: cluster-centric radius. }
852: \label{whe.f}
853: \vspace{0.2mm}
854: \end{figure}
855: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
856:
857: In this work, we also neglected the effect of thermal diffusion, which can cause
858: the change in the diffusion speed. To assess the effect of thermal diffusion, we
859: follow the formalisms presented in \citet{burgers69:composite_gases} which takes
860: into account the heat flow interferences, and apply it to the H-He
861: plasma in the ICM. For isothermal case, the diffusion velocity is enhanced by
862: $\sim 23\%$, which agrees with the value reported by \citet{Chuzhoy2004Element}.
863: For non-isothermal case, we find that thermal diffusion enhances He sedimentation
864: in the outskirts where the temperature gradient is negative, but suppresses He
865: sedimentation in the inner region ($r/r_{500} < 0.1$) with positive temperature
866: gradient. Our analysis indicates that the contribution of thermal diffusion to the
867: diffusion velocity by about $<50\%$ throughout clusters. Figure~\ref{whe.f} shows
868: the change in He sedimentation speed caused by
869: the effect of thermal diffusion as a function of $r/r_{500}$. Note that the thermal
870: diffusion causes relatively small change in the $Y/X$ at cluster outskirts
871: (e.g., $r\sim r_{500}$), despite its large fractional change in diffusion velocity.
872: It is because that the diffusion speed was very small there to start with. Using the
873: scaling of $Y/X$ with time given by \citet{Chuzhoy2004Element}, we find that the effect
874: of thermal diffusion on $Y/X$ is less than 20\%.
875:
876: It has been suggested that the enhancement of He abundance in the central
877: regions might cause the decline of the observed Fe abundance
878: \citep{Ettori2006Effects}. To assess this effect, we repeat the He sedimentation
879: calculations for the three cool-core clusters (including Centaurus, A2199, A1795)
880: presented in \citet{Ettori2006Effects}, using their observed gas density and
881: temperature profiles. Our calculations indicate that the enhancement of
882: He in the core of the Centaurus cluster is less than 20\% from the primordial
883: He abundance, even in the extreme case of un-magnetized cluster with the
884: cluster age of 11 Gyr. This corresponds to a decline of the observed Fe
885: abundance by only $7\%$ \citep[see Fig.~4 of][]{Ettori2006Effects}. Similar
886: results are found for A2199 and A1795. Note that the He sedimentation is
887: significantly suppressed in the cool core regions. We thus conclude that the
888: observed $20-50\%$ reduction in the iron abundance in some of the cool-core
889: clusters cannot be explained by the He sedimentation alone.
890:
891:
892: \section{Conclusions}
893: \label{sec:conclusions}
894:
895: In this work, we investigate effects of He sedimentation on X-ray measurements
896: of galaxy clusters and their implication for cosmological constraints derived
897: from these observations. By solving a set of
898: flow equations for a H-He plasma and using observationally motivated
899: cluster models,
900: we show that the efficiency of He sedimentation is significantly suppressed in the
901: cluster outskirts due to the observed temperature drop,
902: while it is dramatically enhanced in the cluster core regions.
903: Our sedimentation
904: model based on the observed temperature profile suggest that the effect of
905: helium sedimentation is negligible at $r_{500}$, and it does not affect cluster
906: mass measurements obtained at the sufficiently large cluster radius.
907: However, the effect of sedimentation increases toward the inner regions
908: of clusters and introduces biases in X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters.
909: For example, at $r_{2500}$, biases in X-ray measurements of gas
910: mass, total mass, and gas mass fractions, are at the level of $5-10\%$.
911: The effect of He sedimentation could also introduce biases in the estimate
912: of the Hubble parameter derived from the combination of X-ray and SZE
913: measurements, which could explain the observed offset in the X-ray+SZE
914: derived $H_0$ and independent measurement from the Hubble Key project.
915: We emphasize, however, that the magnitude of these biases depends
916: sensitively on the cluster age, temperature, and magnetic and/or turbulent
917: suppression in the ICM.
918:
919: We show that the process of He sedimentation introduces the apparent
920: evolution in the observed gas mass fractions of X-ray luminous,
921: dynamically relaxed clusters. The effect of He sedimentation could
922: lead to biases in observational constraints of dark energy equation
923: of state $w$ at a level of $\lesssim$10\%.
924: These biases tend to make the value of $w$ more negative.
925: Current measurements based on $f\gas$ evolution
926: \citep{Allen2004Constraints_on_,Allen2008Improved} should not be
927: significantly affected by these biases. However, future measurements
928: aiming to constrain $w$ to better than 10\% may need to take into
929: account the effect of He sedimentation. For cosmological
930: measurements, one way to minimize these biases is to extend the X-ray
931: measurements to a radius well beyond $r_{2500}$. At the
932: same time, the evolution of cluster gas mass fraction in the inner
933: regions of clusters should provide unique observational diagnostics
934: of the He sedimentation process in clusters.
935:
936: \acknowledgements
937: We thank Marc Kamionkowski, Avi Loeb, Maxim Markevitch, and
938: Sterl Phinney for useful comments on this work. We also acknowledge
939: Avi Loeb for suggesting to consider the effect of turbulent mixing and
940: the mobility of ions in the ICM. We thank the anonymous referee for
941: helpful comments that greatly improved this work. This work is
942: supported by Sherman Fairchild Foundation.
943:
944: \bibliographystyle{apj}
945: \bibliography{ms}
946:
947: \end{document}
948:
949: