1: % mn2esample.tex
2: %
3: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
4: %
5: % The mnsample.tex file has been amended to highlight
6: % the proper use of LaTeX2e code with the class file
7: % and using natbib cross-referencing. These changes
8: % do not reflect the original paper by A. V. Raveendran.
9: %
10: % Previous versions of this sample document were
11: % compatible with the LaTeX 2.09 style file mn.sty
12: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
13: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
14: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
15: %
16:
17: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
18:
19: \usepackage{graphicx}
20:
21: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
22: % remove the useAMS option.
23: %
24: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
25: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
26: % this guide for further information.
27: %
28: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
29: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
30: % preferably \bmath).
31: %
32: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
33: % cross-referencing.
34: %
35: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
36: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
37: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
38: % \usepackage{Times}
39:
40: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
41:
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44:
45: \title[Alignment of Galaxies and Clusters]{Alignment of Galaxies and Clusters}
46: \author[Hashimoto et al.]{Yasuhiro Hashimoto$^{1,3}$\thanks{Contacting email:
47: hashimot@saao.ac.za} J. Patrick Henry$^{1,2}$
48: and Hans Boehringer$^{1}$ \\
49: $^{1}$Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik,
50: Giessenbachstrasse
51: D-85748 Garching, Germany\\
52: $^{2}$Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA\\
53: $^{3}$South African Astronomical Observatory, Observatory 7935, South Africa\\
54: }
55: \begin{document}
56:
57: \date{Accepted xx. Received xx}
58:
59: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2002}
60:
61: \maketitle
62:
63: \label{firstpage}
64:
65: \begin{abstract}
66: We investigated the
67: influence of environment on cluster galaxies
68: by examining the alignment of
69: the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG)
70: position angle with respect
71: to the host cluster X-ray position angle.
72: The cluster position angles
73: were measured using high spatial resolution X-ray data
74: taken from the Chandra ACIS archive,
75: that significantly improved the determination of
76: the cluster shape
77: compared to the conventional method of using optical
78: images.
79: Meanwhile, those of the BCGs were measured
80: using homogeneous dataset composed of
81: high spatial resolution optical images taken with
82: Suprime-Cam mounted on Subaru 8m telescope.
83:
84: We found a strong indication of an alignment
85: between
86: the cluster X-ray emission and optical light from BCGs,
87: while we see no clear direct correlation
88: between the degree of ellipticity of X-ray and
89: optical BCG morphologies, despite the apparent
90: alignment of two elliptical structures.
91: We have also investigated
92: possible dependence of
93: the position angle alignment
94: on the X-ray morphology of the clusters,
95: and no clear trends are found.
96: The fact that no trends are evident
97: regarding
98: frequency or degree of the alignment with respect to X-ray morphology
99: may be consistent with an interpretation
100: as a lack of dependence on the dynamical status
101: of clusters.
102: \end{abstract}
103:
104: \begin{keywords}
105: Galaxies: clusters: general --
106: X-rays: galaxies: clusters --
107: Galaxies: evolution
108: \end{keywords}
109:
110: \section{Introduction}
111: %\defcitealias{hashimoto2007rqm}{Hashimoto et al. 2007a}
112:
113: It is well established that
114: the major axes of galaxy clusters
115: tend to point toward their nearest neighbour
116: \citep[e.g.][Hashimoto et al. 2007a]{binggeli1982sao,flin1987agc,rhee1987sea,plionis1994paa,west1995scf,plionis2002csa,chambers2000eca,chambers2002nna}.
117:
118: \nocite{hashimoto2007icx}
119:
120: Another alignment effect is that between the
121: orientation of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG), or cD galaxy, and that of
122: their parent cluster
123: %\citep[e.g.][]{sastry1968cas,dressler1978csv,carter1980mcg,binggeli1982sao,struble1990pas,porter1991coa,plionis2003gap}.
124: \citep[e.g.][]{sastry1968cas,dressler1978csv,carter1980mcg,binggeli1982sao,struble1990pas,plionis2003gap}.
125: Similar alignment is also reported for poor groups of galaxies
126: \citep{fuller1999adg}.
127: Numerical work
128: \citep[e.g.][]{west1991fsu,vanhaarlem1993vfa,west1994amh,onuora2000acu,splinter1997eao,faltenbacher2005ima}
129: show that substructure-cluster alignments can occur naturally in
130: hierarchical clustering models of structure formation
131: such as the cold dark matter model.
132:
133: Unfortunately,
134: all of these previous galaxy-cluster alignment studies are
135: using
136: optically-determined cluster position angles,
137: most of them are based on the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS).
138: Despite the importance of these optical investigations,
139: individual galaxies may not be the best tracers of the
140: shape of a cluster. Problems can arise from foreground/background
141: contamination, as well as the fact that galaxies contribute
142: discreteness noise.
143: However, it is believed that the X-ray emitting gas within a cluster
144: traces its gravitational potential \citep{sarazin1986xec}.
145: X-ray morphology may then be one of the best observable
146: phenomenon for determining the cluster shape and orientation.
147: Indeed, there are several X-ray studies for cluster vs. neighbour-cluster
148: alignment
149: \citep*[e.g.][Hashimoto et al. 2007a]{ulmer1989mar,chambers2000eca,chambers2002nna},
150: but there are few galaxy-cluster alignment studies
151: using X-ray morphology, except for
152: \citet*{porter1991coa} and \citet*{rhee1991xro}, where they investigated the BCG-cluster alignment
153: using low spatial resolution X-ray data,
154: as well as traditional cluster shape parameter from
155: apparent galaxy distribution, and reported a significant alignment.
156: Unfortunately, previous X-ray studies
157: are mostly based on $Einstein$
158: data. These data are important, but the exposure depths are
159: small and the spatial resolution is rather low
160: compared to recently available X-ray data.
161: The low spatial resolution may not significantly affect relatively
162: robust measures such as
163: position angle
164: in a direct way,
165: but it will critically hinder the accurate
166: removal of contaminating point sources and
167: the accurate determination of cluster center, and that
168: may significantly affect the estimate of
169: cluster X-ray morphology including the position angle.
170: Hence, a new investigation using
171: deeper X-ray data with much higher spatial resolution
172: is needed.
173:
174: Here we report
175: a new investigation of galaxy alignment with respect
176: to its parent cluster, using the cluster position angle and ellipticity
177: determined by high spatial resolution X-ray data
178: taken from the Chandra ACIS archive.
179: Meanwhile, position angle and ellipticity of BCGs are determined from optical
180: images taken with Subaru 8m telescope.
181: This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we describe our main sample
182: and X-ray measures,
183: in Sec. 3, details of our optical data are described.
184: Sec. 4 summarizes our results.
185: Throughout the paper, we use $H_{o}$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,
186: $\Omega_{m}$=0.3, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7, unless otherwise stated.
187:
188:
189: \section[]{The X-ray Sample, X-ray Data Preparation, and X-ray measures}
190:
191: Here we briefly summarize our main X-ray sample, X-ray data preparation,
192: and X-ray measures.
193: \nocite{hashimoto2007rqm}
194: More detailed descriptions can be found in Hashimoto et al. (2007b).
195:
196: Almost all clusters are selected from flux-limited X-ray surveys, and X-ray
197: data are
198: taken from the Chandra ACIS archive.
199: A lower limit of z = 0.05 or 0.1 is placed on the redshift to ensure that
200: a cluster is observed with sufficient field-of-view with ACIS-I or ACIS-S, respectively.
201: The majority of our sample comes from
202: the $ROSAT$ Brightest Cluster Sample
203: \citep[BCS;][]{ebeling1998rbc} and the
204: Extended $ROSAT$ Brightest Cluster Sample \citep[EBCS;][]{ebeling2000rbc}.
205: When combined with EBCS, the BCS clusters represent one of the
206: largest and most complete X-ray selected
207: cluster samples, which is currently the most frequently
208: observed by $Chandra$.
209: To extend our sample to higher redshifts,
210: additional high-z clusters are selected from various deep surveys;
211: 10 of these clusters are selected from the
212: $ROSAT$ Deep Cluster Survey \citep[RDCS;][]{rosati1998rdc},
213: 10 from the $Einstein$ Extended Medium Sensitivity Survey \citep[EMSS;][]{gioia1990eoe,henry1992ems},
214: 14 from the 160 Square Degrees $ROSAT$ Survey \citep{vikhlinin1998cgc},
215: 2 from the Wide Angle $ROSAT$ Pointed Survey \citep[WARPS;][]{perlman2002wsv},
216: and 1 from the North Ecliptic Pole survey \citep[NEP;][]{henry2006rne},
217: RXJ1054 was discovered by \citet{hasinger1998rds},
218: RXJ1347 was discovered in the $ROSAT$ All Sky Survey \citep{schindler1995das},
219: and 3C295 has been mapped with $Einstein$ \citet{henry1986xrs}.
220:
221: The resulting sample contains 120 clusters.
222: At the final stage of our data processing, to employ our full analysis,
223: we further applied a selection based on the total counts of cluster emission,
224: eliminating clusters with very
225: low signal-to-noise ratio.
226: Clusters whose center is too close to the edge of the ACISCCD are also removed.
227: The resulting final sample contains
228: 101 clusters with redshifts between 0.05 - 1.26 (median z = 0.226),
229: and bolometric luminosity between 1.0 $\times$ 10$^{44}$ -- 1.2 $\times$ 10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$
230: (median 8.56 $\times$ 10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$).
231: We reprocessed the level=1 event file retrieved from the archive.
232: The data were filtered to include only the standard
233: event grades 0,2,3,4,6 and status 0,
234: then multiple pointings were merged, if any.
235: We eliminated time intervals of high background count rate
236: by performing a 3 $\sigma$ clipping of the
237: background level.
238: We corrected the images for exposure variations across the field of view, detector response and telescope vignetting.
239:
240: We detected point sources using the CIAO routine
241: celldetect with a signal-to-noise threshold for source detection of three.
242: We removed point sources, except for those at the center of the cluster which was
243: mostly the peak of the surface brightness distribution rather than a real point source.
244: The images were then smoothed with Gaussian $\sigma$=5".
245: We decided to use isophotal contours to characterize
246: an object region, instead of a conventional
247: circular aperture, because we did not want to introduce any
248: bias in the shape of an object.
249: To define constant metric scale to all clusters,
250: we adjusted an extracting threshold in such a way that
251: the square root of the detected object area times a constant was 0.5 Mpc,
252: i.e. const$\sqrt{area}$ = 0.5 Mpc.
253: We chose const =1.5, because
254: the isophotal limit of a detected object was best represented by
255: this value.
256:
257: The morphology of cluster X-ray emission is then characterized objectively by
258: the position angle, as well as the ellipticity and the asymmetry.
259: The position angle is defined by the orientation of the major axis
260: measured east from north.
261: Ellipticity is simply defined by the ratio of semi-major (A) and semi-minor
262: axis (B) lengths as:
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: Elli & = & 1 -B/A
265: \end{eqnarray}
266: where
267: A and B are defined by the
268: maximum and minimum spatial {\it rms} of the
269: object profile along any direction and computed from the
270: centered-second moments by the formula: \\
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: A^2 & = &\frac{\overline{x^2}+\overline{y^2}}{2}+\sqrt{\left(\frac{\overline{x^2}-\overline{y^2}}{2}\right)^2 + \overline{xy}^2} \\
273: B^2 & = &\frac{\overline{x^2}+\overline{y^2}}{2}-\sqrt{\left(\frac{\overline{x^2}-\overline{y^2}}{2}\right)^2 + \overline{xy}^2}
274: %\end{equation}
275: \end{eqnarray}
276:
277: The asymmetry
278: is measured by first rotating a cluster image by 180 degrees around the
279: object center, then subtracting the rotated image from the original unrotated
280: one. The residual signals above zero are summed and then normalized.
281: Please see Hashimoto et al. 2007b for more detailed definitions of
282: morphological measures.
283:
284:
285: \section[]{Optical data}
286:
287: To determine the position angle and the ellipticity of BCGs,
288: we used optical broad band images taken with
289: Supreme-Cam \citep{miyazaki1998cam} on the Subaru telescope.
290: The data were retrieved from Subaru-Mitaka-Okayama-Kiso Archive (SMOKA).
291: Reduction software developed by \citet{yagi2002lfn}
292: was used
293: for flat-fielding, instrumental distortion correction, differential
294: refraction,
295: sky subtraction, and stacking.
296: The camera covers a 34' $\times$ 27' field of view with a
297: pixel scale of 0\farcs202.
298: The photometry is calibrated to Vega system using Landolt standards \citep{landolt1992ups}.
299: We refine the original astrometry written as WCS keyword in the
300: distributed archival data
301: using using USNO-A2 catalog with positional uncertainties
302: less than $\sim$ 0.2 arcsec.
303: The data were taken under various seeing conditions,
304: and we used only
305: images with less than $\sim$ 1\farcs2 seeing.
306: The optical data retrieved from SMOKA contains 30 clusters
307: with redshifts between 0.08 - 0.9,
308:
309: Some clusters have observed through many
310: wavebands, and that allowed us to investigate
311: the possible variations of our measures caused by
312: waveband shifts.
313: We have decided to rely primarily on
314: the R band images for this alignment study,
315: because we found that the
316: effect of waveband shift is negligible.
317:
318:
319: The
320: position angle
321: and
322: ellipticity
323: of BCGs are measured exactly the same way as the X-ray cluster emission,
324: namely,
325: the position angle is defined by the orientation of the major axis
326: measured east from north, and
327: the ellipticity is defined by the ratio of semi-major and semi-minor
328: axis.
329: Please see Hashimoto et al. 2007b \citep[see also][]{hashimoto1998ies} for further details.
330: As a precaution,
331: we investigate the effect of superposed small galaxies
332: sometimes lying on top of the extended structure of some BCGs,
333: and we found that
334: these superposed small galaxies
335: have little effect on our robust measures such as, position angle
336: and ellipticity.
337:
338:
339: \section[]{Results}
340:
341: \subsection[]{Systematics}
342:
343: One of the haunting, yet unfortunately
344: often lightly treated, problem of any study
345: comparing complex morphological characteristics of astronomical objects
346: is the possible systematics introduced by
347: various data quality, exposure times and object redshifts.
348: Depending on the sensitivity of measures of characteristics,
349: some susceptible measures
350: may be seriously affected by these systematics, producing the misleading
351: results.
352:
353: Unfortunately, investigating the systematics on the
354: complex characteristics is not an easy task.
355: To investigate the systematic effect of, for example, various
356: exposure times,
357: one of the standard approaches is to
358: simulate an image with a given exposure time
359: by using an exposure-time-scaled and noise-added model image.
360: Unfortunately,
361: we need to approximate the various characteristics of
362: a model to the complicated characteristics
363: of a real object, (and those characteristics are often what we want to
364: investigate) and this is
365: an almost impossible task.
366:
367: Meanwhile,
368: if we use the real data, instead of the model,
369: we will not have this problem.
370: We can
371: simulate lower signal-to-noise data caused by a shorter
372: integration time
373: by scaling the real data by the exposure time, and adding Poisson noise
374: taking each pixel value as the
375: mean for a Poisson distribution.
376: However, this simple rescaling and adding-noise process will
377: produce an image containing
378: an excessive amount of
379: Poisson noise for a given exposure time,
380: thus lead us to underestimate the data quality.
381: This inaccurate estimate of noise is
382: caused by the intrinsic noise already presented in the
383: initial real data.
384: The intrinsic noise is difficult to be removed
385: without sacrificing the fine spatial details of
386: the object.
387:
388: Similarly, to investigate the effect of dimming and
389: smaller angular size caused by higher redshifts,
390: in addition to the rest waveband shift effect,
391: simple rescaling and rebinning
392: of the real data will not work,
393: because these manipulations will again produce the
394: incorrect amount of noise.
395:
396: Further difficulty associated with simulation
397: using the real data comes from the fact that
398: exposure and redshift effects
399: are often coupled,
400: because, in the real observation, low redshift objects are usually observed with
401: shorter exposures
402: than high redshift objects.
403: This coupling
404: further poses a serious problem,
405: because
406: simple standard method of simulating an observation
407: with `decreased' exposure time will force high redshift
408: data to get degraded, which greatly reduces signal-to-noise ratio
409: of already low quality high redshift data.
410:
411: To circumvent all of these challenging problems,
412: we developed a very useful simulating technique
413: employing
414: a series of `adaptive scalings' accompanied by a noise adding
415: process applied to the real images.
416: This technique allows us to simulated an image of desired fiducial
417: exposure time and redshift with correct signal-to-noise ratio
418: without using a tricky artificial model image,
419: thus we can easily investigate the effect of various image quality
420: and/or easily change the real data to common
421: fiducial exposure and redshift for easy comparison.
422: Moreover, the technique can provide us with a powerful
423: tool for conducting evolutionary studies, enabling us to compare the local
424: objects to the high redshift objects without degrading
425: photon-expensive
426: high redshift data of low signal-to-noise ratio
427: at all.
428: This method is originally developed for the comparison of
429: X-ray image data, but can be used for almost
430: all kind of imaging data, including optical and NIR images.
431:
432: Here we briefly describe the method.
433: Please see Hashimoto et al. 2007b for further details.
434: To simulate data with integration t=t1, an original unsmoothed image
435: (including the background) taken with original
436: integration time t0 was at first rescaled by a factor R$_0$/(1-R$_0$), instead of simple R$_0$, where R$_0$=t1/t0, t0$>$t1.
437: That is, an intermediate scaled image I$_1$ was created from the original
438: unsmoothed image I$_0$ by:
439: \begin{eqnarray}
440: I_1 &=& I_0\frac{R_0}{(1-R_0)}.
441: \end{eqnarray}
442:
443: Poisson noise was then added to this rescaled image by taking each pixel value as the
444: mean for a Poisson distribution and then randomly selecting a new pixel value from
445: that distribution. This image was then rescaled again by a factor (1-R$_0$)
446: to produce an image whose {\it signal} is scaled by R$_0$ relative
447: to the original image, but
448: its {\it noise} is approximately scaled by $\sqrt{R_0}$,
449: assuming that the intrinsic noise initially present in the
450: real data is Poissonian.
451:
452: Similarly, to simulate
453: the dimming effect by the redshift,
454: an intermediate scaled image I$_1$
455: is created from the background subtracted image
456: I$_0$ by a pixel-to-pixel manipulation:
457:
458: \begin{eqnarray}
459: I_{1}(x,y) &=& \frac{I_{0}(x,y)^2R_1^2}{[I_{0}(x,y)R_1+B-R_1^2(I_{0}(x,y)+B)]} \\
460: where & &\nonumber \\
461: R_1&=&[(1+z0)/(1+z1)]^4
462: \end{eqnarray}
463: where z0 and z1 are the original redshift and the new redshift of the object,
464: respectively,
465: and B is the background.
466:
467: Finally, to simulate
468: the angular-size change due to the redshift difference
469: between z0 and z1, the original image will be rebinned
470: by a factor R$_2$, then intermediate scaled image will be
471: created by rescaling the rebinned image by a factor
472: 1/(R$^2_2$-1),
473: before the addition of the Poisson noise.
474: For the simulation with `increased' exposure time,
475: this factor can be changed to
476: R$_3$/(R$_2^2$-R$_3$)
477: where R$_3$ = t2/t0, t2$>$t0, where t2 is the
478: increased exposure time, and t0 is the original integration time,
479: and (R$_2^2$ -R$_3$) $>$ 0.
480: The maximum length of integration time we can `increase' (t2$_{max}$)
481: is naturally
482: limited by the original exposure time and how much
483: we increase the redshift for the redshift-effect part,
484: and determined by the relationship,
485: \begin{eqnarray}
486: R_2^2-R_3 = 0,
487: \end{eqnarray}
488: which is equivalent to the case when no Poisson noise is added after
489: the rebinning.
490: Thus,
491: \begin{eqnarray}
492: t2_{max}=t0R_2^2.
493: \end{eqnarray}
494: This t2$_{max}$ can be also used as a rough estimate of
495: the effective image depth.
496: The t2$_{max}$ provides an estimate of the image depth
497: much more effectively than the conventional simple exposure time
498: because t2$_{max}$ is related to a quantity
499: that is affected both by exposure time and redshift,
500: and thus
501: enabling us to quantitatively compare exposure times of observations
502: involving targets at different redshifts (e.g. 100 ksec at z=0.1 and
503: 100 ksec at z=0.9).
504:
505: \begin{figure}
506: \center{
507: {\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=5cm,clip,angle=-90]{sampleimage.ps}}
508: }
509: \caption{
510: Simulating an image with desired exposure time and redshift using the real data:
511: Even simulating an image with prolonged exposure time is possible
512: with our adaptive scaling method.
513: Here,
514: optical R band images,
515: taken with Subaru Suprime-Cam,
516: of the BCG at the center
517: of an example cluster (Abell 2219) are shown.
518: Images with original and modified exposure time and redshift
519: are presented with
520: north is up and east is left.
521: (a) Original image: exptime(t)=240s, and redshift(z)=0.228,
522: (b) Simulated shorter exposure image with t=10s
523: (c) Simulated high-z image with z=0.9, t=240s
524: (d) Simulated prolonged exposure at high-z with t=1092s, z=0.9.
525: }
526: \label{FigTemp}
527: \end{figure}
528:
529: \begin{figure}
530: \center{
531: {\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=5cm,clip,angle=-90]{sampleimage_x.ps}}
532: }
533: \caption{
534: Similarly with Fig. 1,
535: X-ray images from Chandra ACIS,
536: of Abell 2219 are shown
537: with original and modified exposure time and redshift.
538: North is up and east is left.
539: (a) Original: t=41ks, z=0.228
540: (b) Simulated shorter exposure: t=10ks (z=0.228)
541: (c) Simulated High-z image: z=0.9 (t=41ks)
542: (d) Prolonged exposure at High-z: t=188ks, z=0.9.
543: }
544: \label{FigTemp}
545: \end{figure}
546:
547: Although we suspected that our ellipticity and position angle
548: were quite robust, as a precaution
549: we investigated the possible systematics
550: on these measures
551: introduced by various exposure times and redshifts, using
552: our scaling technique described above.
553:
554:
555: In Fig. 1,
556: we demonstrate
557: our technique of
558: simulating desired exposure time and redshift using the real
559: optical image of the BCG at the cluster center taken with Subaru Suprime-Cam.
560: Original and modified exposure time and redshift of an example
561: cluster (Abell 2219) are shown with north up and east left,
562: where (a) original image: exptime(t)=240s, and redshift(z)=0.228,
563: (b) simulated shorter exposure image with t=10s,
564: (c) simulated high-z image with z=0.9, t=240s, and
565: (d) simulated prolonged exposure at high-z with t=1092s, z=0.9.
566:
567: Similarly, in Fig. 2, we
568: use the real
569: X-ray images
570: of Abell 2219
571: from Chandra ACIS,
572: and simulated various exposures and redshifts, where
573: (a) original image with t=41ks, z=0.228,
574: (b) simulated shorter exposure: t=10ks (z=0.228),
575: (c) simulated High-z image: z=0.9 (t=41ks), and
576: (d) prolonged exposure at High-z: t=188ks, z=0.9.
577:
578: Using this technique,
579: we simulated datasets with various exposure times
580: and redshifts, and measured our cluster parameters.
581: We found that
582: our X-ray and optical position angles are
583: robust against various exposure times and redshifts.
584: Similarly, we found that
585: other morphological measures such as,
586: the ellipticity and asymmetry are quite robust, as well.
587:
588:
589: \subsection[]{Analyses}
590:
591: \begin{table}
592: \tiny
593: \caption{Summary of optical cluster sample}
594: \label{symbols}
595: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcccccc}
596: \hline
597: Cluster & z & PA\_X & PA\_BCG & $\Delta$PA$^a$ & Elli\_X & Elli\_BCG \\
598: & (redshift) & (degree) & (degree) & (degree) & & \\
599: \hline
600: \hline
601: \scriptsize
602: a2034 & 0.110 & 206.9 & 22.24 & 4.65 & 0.15 & 0.50 \\
603: a2069 & 0.114 & 327.7 & 331.8 & 4.18 & 0.46 & 0.66 \\
604: a750 & 0.163 & 249.0 & 249.6 & 0.66 & 0.14 & 0.31 \\
605: rxj1720 & 0.164 & 355.3 & 32.08 & 36.7 & 0.15 & 0.34 \\
606: a520 & 0.203 & 192.4 & 228.6 & 36.2 & 0.26 & 0.49 \\
607: a963 & 0.206 & 175.9 & 347.0 & 8.85 & 0.15 & 0.42 \\
608: a2261 & 0.224 & 225.8 & 14.48 & 31.3 & 0.14 & 0.13 \\
609: a2219 & 0.228 & 309.5 & -79.5 & 29.0 & 0.38 & 0.42 \\
610: a2390 & 0.233 & 298.6 & -57.6 & 3.76 & 0.30 & 0.32 \\
611: rxj2129 & 0.235 & 246.0 & 65.28 & 0.71 & 0.21 & 0.54 \\
612: a2631 & 0.278 & 258.2 & 84.27 & 6.07 & 0.29 & 0.41 \\
613: a1758 & 0.280 & 308.7 & 85.53 & 43.2 & 0.47 & 0.21 \\
614: a2552 & 0.299 & 201.7 & 216.4 & 14.7 & 0.18 & 0.45 \\
615: a1722 & 0.327 & 204.4 & 357.7 & 26.6 & 0.27 & 0.14 \\
616: zwcl3959 & 0.351 & 333.4 & 346.7 & 13.3 & 0.21 & 0.36 \\
617: a370 & 0.357 & 187.2 & 86.96 & 79.7 & 0.37 & 0.11 \\
618: rxj1532 & 0.361 & 227.7 & 78.24 & 30.5 & 0.18 & 0.37 \\
619: zwcl1953 & 0.373 & 351.2 & 306.3 & 44.8 & 0.24 & 0.51 \\
620: zwcl2661 & 0.382 & 159.5 & 206.9 & 47.3 & 0.12 & 0.43 \\
621: zwcl0024 & 0.390 & 5.200 & 246.6 & 61.4 & 0.03 & 0.48 \\
622: rxj2228 & 0.412 & 263.7 & 56.27 & 27.4 & 0.21 & 0.54 \\
623: rxj1347 & 0.451 & 359.2 & 343.8 & 15.3 & 0.20 & 0.13 \\
624: ms0451 & 0.540 & 279.9 & 344.9 & 65.0 & 0.26 & 0.04 \\
625: cl0016 & 0.541 & 228.7 & 244.6 & 15.9 & 0.19 & 0.31 \\
626: ms2053 & 0.583 & 304.8 & 336.8 & 32.0 & 0.25 & 0.16 \\
627: rxj1350 & 0.810 & 334.2 & 308.9 & 25.2 & 0.20 & 0.47 \\
628: rxj1716 & 0.813 & 236.2 & 255.1 & 18.9 & 0.17 & 0.52 \\
629: ms1054 & 0.830 & 266.1 & 35.96 & 50.1 & 0.40 & 0.51 \\
630: rxj0152 & 0.835 & 221.6 & 231.0 & 9.46 & 0.58 & 0.29 \\
631: wga1226 & 0.890 & 284.5 & 264.6 & 19.8 & 0.09 & 0.15 \\
632: \hline
633: \hline
634: \end{tabular}
635: a: $\Delta$PA is an acute angle of PA\_BCG-PA\_X
636:
637: \end{table}
638:
639:
640: \begin{figure}
641: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[height=3cm,width=2cm,clip,angle=90]{plot1g.elli_elli_gal_Sa_.degr_BCG01.ps}}
642: \caption{
643: Ellipticity of BCGs is plotted against ellipticity of the X-ray morphology
644: of the host clusters.
645: Interestingly, no clear correlation is seen.
646: }
647: \label{FigTemp}
648: \end{figure}
649:
650:
651: Table 1 shows a summary of our optical cluster sample,
652: where
653: $\Delta$PA is an acute relative angle between
654: the position angle of X-ray (PA\_X) and BCG (PA\_BCG),
655: namely, the relative position angle differences
656: greater than 90 degree are `folded'
657: and changed to be acute ranging between 0 and 90 degree.
658: Despite the robust nature of our measures,
659: we modify,
660: as a precaution,
661: all of the X-ray and optical observations
662: to be equivalent to z=0.9 and t=t2$_{max}$
663: to eliminate any possible small systematics,
664: but otherwise to maximize the image quality.
665:
666: In Fig. 3, the ellipticity of cluster X-ray morphology is plotted
667: against the ellipticity of optical morphology of BCGs.
668: Interestingly, in spite of expected alignment of
669: two elliptical structures,
670: there are a large scatter
671: and
672: we found no strong correlation in
673: the relationship between the two ellipticities.
674:
675: \begin{figure}
676: %
677: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[height=3cm,width=2cm,clip,angle=90]{plot1g.difang2_elli_gal_Sa_.degr_BCG01.ps}}
678: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[height=3cm,width=2cm,clip,angle=90]{plot1g.difang2_elli_Sa_.degr_BCG01.ps}}
679: \caption{
680: The acute position angle difference plotted
681: versus ellipticity of BCGs (top panel)
682: and ellipticity of cluster X-ray emission.
683: The position angle difference is determined
684: by the difference between the cluster X-ray position angle
685: and the position angle of BCG galaxy.
686: Figures illustrate that
687: clusters with the position angle difference
688: less than 45 degree tend to be more abundant,
689: particularly for high ellipticity BCGs or clusters,
690: implying
691: that cluster X-ray emission and optical light from BCG are
692: aligned.
693: }
694: \label{FigTemp}
695: \end{figure}
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[height=2cm,width=3cm,clip,angle=0]{plot2g.Num_difang2_Sa_degr.ps}}
699: \caption{
700: The frequency distribution of the position angle difference.
701: There is a tendency that
702: we
703: have more clusters with an angle difference less than 45 degrees,
704: consistent with the observation made in Fig. 4 implying
705: that cluster X-ray emission and optical light from BCG are
706: aligned.
707: }
708: \label{FigTemp}
709: \end{figure}
710:
711: Fig. 4 shows the acute relative position angle difference
712: between cluster X-ray morphology and BCG morphology
713: plotted
714: against the ellipticity of BCGs (top panel) and the ellipticity of
715: cluster X-ray morphology
716: (bottom panel).
717: Fig. 4 shows that the position angle difference
718: tends to be smaller than 45 degree, implying
719: that BCGs tend to elongated in the same direction of the X-ray
720: distribution of their host clusters,
721: particularly for clusters exhibiting relatively high ellipticity
722: in their optical
723: BCG morphology and/or in their cluster X-ray morphology.
724: Meanwhile,
725: for clusters with very low BCG or X-ray ellipticity (ellipticity $<$ 0.1)
726: position angle are generally poorly determined,
727: and thus position angle difference can be inaccurate.
728:
729: Fig. 5 shows the frequency distribution of the position angle difference.
730: There is a strong tendency that we
731: have more clusters with an angle difference less than 45 degrees,
732: consistent with the observation made in Fig. 4.
733:
734: To test this trend more rigorously, we first employed
735: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test.
736: The null hypothesis here is that our sample can be drawn from
737: a parent population of random position angle differences.
738: However,
739: the K-S test detects the deviation from the parent
740: population (here the population of random position angle differences),
741: thus it may loose some sensitivity for testing the cluster alignment,
742: where it is likely
743: that position angle difference is systematically lower than the
744: random sample.
745: To increase the sensitivity to an alignment signal,
746: as a second test we employed the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test.
747: The null hypothesis of this test is that the position angle difference
748: is not systematically
749: smaller or larger than the random sample. Therefore the test is insensitive
750: to an excess of angles around the mean (i.e. 45 deg).
751: When applied to our sample,
752: both K-S and rank-sum tests show, not surprisingly the strong
753: alignment signals,
754: and we find that the null hypothesis can be rejected with 99.93\% and
755: 99.99\% confidence, respectively,
756: thus confirming that BCGs are significantly aligned to the X-ray
757: emissions of the host clusters.
758: We have also investigated the alignment of other luminous non-BCG galaxies
759: to the X-ray emissions and we found no significant alignment.
760: The results are summarized in table 2, where LG2
761: is the second brightest galaxy, LG3 is the third brightest galaxy,
762: and LGn is the n-th brightest
763: galaxy within a projected distance of 1 Mpc from the X-ray center.
764:
765:
766: \begin{table}
767: \caption{Significance levels of the alignment for various luminous galaxies }
768: \label{symbols}
769: \begin{tabular}{@{}lccccc}
770: \hline
771: Statistics & BCG & LG2 & LG3 & LG4 & LG5 \\
772: \hline
773: \hline
774: K-S & 99.93 & 81.67 & 49.93 & 4.22 & 8.99 \\
775: Rank Sum & 99.99 & 83.06 & 57.09 & 54.51 & 63.33 \\
776: \hline
777: \hline
778: \end{tabular}
779: \end{table}
780:
781: \begin{figure}
782: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[height=3cm,width=2cm,clip,angle=90]{plot1g.elli_asym_Sa_.degr_BCG01.ps}}
783: \caption{
784: X-ray morphology versus BCG alignment:
785: Cluster X-ray asymmetry is plotted against cluster X-ray ellipticity.
786: Large solid circles are clusters showing strong alignment with
787: BCG-to-cluster position angle difference less than 20 degree, while
788: solid triangles are clusters showing the ``modest''alignment, but
789: with position angle difference between 20 and 45 degree.
790: Crosses represent clusters with no sign of the alignment,
791: and small dots are clusters in our main sample without optical Subaru data.
792: No clear trends are visible
793: regarding
794: frequency or degree of the alignment with respect to X-ray morphology,
795: which can be interpreted as lack of dependence on the dynamical status
796: of clusters.
797: }
798: \label{FigTemp}
799: \end{figure}
800:
801: In Fig. 6, we investigated
802: possible dependence of
803: the position angle alignment
804: on the X-ray morphology of the clusters.
805: In Fig. 6,
806: the cluster X-ray asymmetry is plotted against cluster X-ray ellipticity.
807: Large solid circles are clusters showing strong alignment
808: between the cluster and BCG
809: with
810: position angle difference less than 20 degree, while
811: solid triangles are clusters showing the alignment, but
812: with position angle difference between 20 and 45 degree.
813: Crosses represent clusters with no sign of the alignment,
814: and small dots are clusters in our main X-ray sample without optical Subaru data.
815: No clear trends are evident
816: regarding
817: frequency or degree of the alignment with respect to X-ray morphology.
818:
819: We have also attempted to investigate
820: possible dependence of the alignment
821: on cluster redshifts.
822: We found that
823: for clusters less than z=0.35,
824: both
825: K-S and rank-sum tests show
826: that the null hypothesis can be rejected with 99.92\% and
827: 99.99\% confidence, respectively,
828: while for clusters greater than or equal to z=0.35,
829: alignment signals are somewhat weaker
830: that the null hypothesis can be rejected with 93.88\% and
831: 83.69\% confidence, respectively for K-S and rank-sum tests.
832: Similarly, we have investigated the dependence
833: of the alignment on the cluster X-ray bolometric luminosity (Lbol),
834: and we did not find any significant trend:
835: for clusters with Lbol greater than or equal to 2 $\times$10$^{45}$ erg/s,
836: the null hypothesis can be rejected with 93.45\% and
837: 96.42\% confidence,
838: while for
839: clusters with Lbol smaller than 2 $\times$10$^{45}$ erg/s,
840: the null hypothesis can be rejected with 99.78\% and
841: 99.90\% confidence,
842: respectively for K-S and rank-sum tests.
843:
844:
845: \section{Summary}
846: We investigated the
847: influence of environment on cluster galaxies
848: by examining the alignment of the BCG position angle with respect
849: to the host cluster X-ray position angle.
850: The cluster position angles
851: were measured using high spatial resolution X-ray data
852: taken from the Chandra ACIS archive,
853: that significantly improved the determination of
854: the cluster shape
855: compared to the conventional method of using optical
856: images.
857: Meanwhile, those of the BCGs were measured
858: using high spatial resolution optical images taken with
859: Suprime-Cam mounted on Subaru 8m telescope.
860:
861: We found a strong indication of an alignment
862: between
863: the cluster X-ray emission and optical light from BCGs,
864: while we see no clear direct correlation
865: between the ellipticity of X-ray morphology and
866: optical BCG morphology despite of the apparent
867: alignment of two elliptical structures.
868: In the hierarchical structure formation models,
869: the alignment effect could be produced by
870: clustering models of structure formation
871: such as the cold dark matter model
872: \citep[e.g.][]{salvadorsole1993tie,west1994amh,usami1997ter,onuora2000acu,faltenbacher2002cog,faltenbacher2005ima}.
873: The existence of the alignment effects
874: is also consistent with a cosmic structure formation model such
875: as the hot dark matter model \citep[e.g.][]{zeldovich1970gia}, where
876: clusters and galaxies form by fragmentation in already flattened sheet-
877: and filament-like structures.
878:
879: We have also investigated
880: possible dependence of
881: the position angle alignment
882: on the X-ray morphology of the clusters,
883: and no clear trends are found.
884: If the X-ray morphology of clusters
885: reflects dynamical status of clusters
886: \citep[e.g.][]{hashimoto2004aca},
887: the fact that no trends are evident
888: regarding
889: frequency or degree of the alignment with respect to X-ray morphology
890: may be consistent with an interpretation
891: as a lack of dependence of alignment on the dynamical status
892: of clusters.
893: Primordial galaxy alignments in clusters can be damped by various
894: mechanisms such as the
895: exchange of angular momentum in galaxy encounters, violent relaxation,
896: and secondary infall \citep[e.g.][]{quinn1992gaa,coutts1996sad} over a Hubble time.
897: Thus, in highly relaxed clusters,
898: we might naively expect to observe weaker primordial galaxy alignment,
899: because there has been sufficient time to mix the phases.
900: The fact that we do not see any significant alignment trend
901: with respect to the X-ray morphology may provide an important
902: constrain on these damping scenarios.
903:
904:
905: \section*{Acknowledgments}
906: This work is based in part on data collected at Subaru Telescope and obtained from the SMOKA, which is operated by the Astronomy Data Center, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
907: We thank our referee, Dr. Michael West for his comments, which improved the
908: manuscript.
909: YH thanks Hiromi Hashimoto for the help retrieving the data from SMOKA.
910: % ---------------
911:
912: %\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
913: %\bibliography{reflist}
914:
915: \begin{thebibliography}{}
916:
917: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Binggeli}{Binggeli}{1982}]{binggeli1982sao}
918: Binggeli B., 1982, A\&A, 107, 338
919:
920: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Carter \& Metcalfe}{Carter \&
921: Metcalfe}{1980}]{carter1980mcg}
922: Carter D., Metcalfe N., 1980, MNRAS, 191, 325
923:
924: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chambers, Melott \& Miller}{Chambers
925: et~al.}{2000}]{chambers2000eca}
926: Chambers S., Melott A., Miller C., 2000, ApJ, 544, 104
927:
928: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chambers, Melott \& Miller}{Chambers
929: et~al.}{2002}]{chambers2002nna}
930: Chambers S., Melott A., Miller C., 2002, ApJ, 565, 849
931:
932: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Coutts}{Coutts}{1996}]{coutts1996sad}
933: Coutts A., 1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 278, 87
934:
935: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dressler}{Dressler}{1978}]{dressler1978csv}
936: Dressler A., 1978, ApJ, 226, 55
937:
938: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ebeling, Edge, Allen, Crawford, Fabian \&
939: Huchra}{Ebeling et~al.}{2000}]{ebeling2000rbc}
940: Ebeling H., Edge A., Allen S., Crawford C., Fabian A., Huchra J., 2000,
941: MNRAS, 318, 333
942:
943: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ebeling, Edge, B\"ohringer, Allen, Crawford,
944: Fabian, Voges \& Huchra}{Ebeling et~al.}{1998}]{ebeling1998rbc}
945: Ebeling H., Edge A., B\"ohringer H., Allen S., Crawford C., Fabian A.,
946: Voges W., Huchra J., 1998, MNRAS, 301, 881
947:
948: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Faltenbacher, Allgood, Gottlober, Yepes \&
949: Hoffman}{Faltenbacher et~al.}{2005}]{faltenbacher2005ima}
950: Faltenbacher A., Allgood B., Gottlober S., Yepes G., Hoffman Y., 2005,
951: MNRAS, 362, 1099
952:
953: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Faltenbacher, Gottlober, Kerscher \&
954: Muller}{Faltenbacher et~al.}{2002}]{faltenbacher2002cog}
955: Faltenbacher A., Gottlober S., Kerscher M., Muller V., 2002, A\&A, 395, 1
956:
957: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Flin}{Flin}{1987}]{flin1987agc}
958: Flin P., 1987, MNRAS, 228, 941
959:
960: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fuller, West \& Bridges}{Fuller
961: et~al.}{1999}]{fuller1999adg}
962: Fuller T., West M., Bridges T., 1999, ApJ, 519, 22
963:
964: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gioia, Maccacaro, Schild, Wolter, Stocke,
965: Morris \& Henry}{Gioia et~al.}{1990}]{gioia1990eoe}
966: Gioia I., Maccacaro T., Schild R., Wolter A., Stocke J., Morris S.,
967: Henry J., 1990, ApJS, 72, 567
968:
969: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hashimoto, Barcons, B{\"o}hringer, Fabian,
970: Hasinger, Mainieri \& Brunner}{Hashimoto et~al.}{2004}]{hashimoto2004aca}
971: Hashimoto Y., Barcons X., B{\"o}hringer H., Fabian A., Hasinger G.,
972: Mainieri V., Brunner H., 2004, A\&A, 417, 819
973:
974: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hashimoto, Boehringer, Henry, Hasinger \&
975: Szokoly}{Hashimoto et~al.}{007b}]{hashimoto2007rqm}
976: Hashimoto Y., Boehringer H., Henry J., Hasinger G., Szokoly G., 2007b,
977: A\&A, 467, 485
978:
979: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hashimoto, Henry \& Bohringer}{Hashimoto
980: et~al.}{007a}]{hashimoto2007icx}
981: Hashimoto Y., Henry J., Bohringer H., 2007a, MNRAS, 380, 835
982:
983: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hashimoto, Oemler~Jr, Lin \& Tucker}{Hashimoto
984: et~al.}{1998}]{hashimoto1998ies}
985: Hashimoto Y., Oemler~Jr A., Lin H., Tucker D., 1998, ApJ, 499, 589
986:
987: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hasinger, Giacconi, Gunn, Lehmann, Schmidt,
988: Schneider, Truemper, Wambsganss, Woods \& Zamorani}{Hasinger
989: et~al.}{1998}]{hasinger1998rds}
990: Hasinger G., Giacconi R., Gunn J., Lehmann I., Schmidt M., Schneider D.,
991: Truemper J., Wambsganss J., Woods D., Zamorani G., 1998, A\&A, 340, L27
992:
993: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Henry, Gioia, Maccacaro, Morris, Stocke \&
994: Wolter}{Henry et~al.}{1992}]{henry1992ems}
995: Henry J., Gioia I., Maccacaro T., Morris S., Stocke J., Wolter A.,
996: 1992, ApJ, 386, 408
997:
998: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Henry \& Henriksen}{Henry \&
999: Henriksen}{1986}]{henry1986xrs}
1000: Henry J., Henriksen M., 1986, ApJ, 301, 689
1001:
1002: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Henry, Mullis, Voges, Bohringer, Briel, Gioia
1003: \& Huchra}{Henry et~al.}{2006}]{henry2006rne}
1004: Henry J., Mullis C., Voges W., Bohringer H., Briel U., Gioia I., Huchra
1005: J., 2006, ApJS, 162, 304
1006:
1007: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Landolt}{Landolt}{1992}]{landolt1992ups}
1008: Landolt A., 1992, AJ, 104, 340
1009:
1010: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Miyazaki, Sekiguchi, Imi, Okada, Nakata \&
1011: Komiyama}{Miyazaki et~al.}{1998}]{miyazaki1998cam}
1012: Miyazaki S., Sekiguchi M., Imi K., Okada N., Nakata F., Komiyama Y.,
1013: 1998, Proc. SPIE, 3355, 363
1014:
1015: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Onuora \& Thomas}{Onuora \&
1016: Thomas}{2000}]{onuora2000acu}
1017: Onuora L., Thomas P., 2000, MNRAS, 319, 614
1018:
1019: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Perlman, Horner, Jones, Scharf, Ebeling,
1020: Wegner \& Malkan}{Perlman et~al.}{2002}]{perlman2002wsv}
1021: Perlman E., Horner D., Jones L., Scharf C., Ebeling H., Wegner G.,
1022: Malkan M., 2002, ApJS, 140, 265
1023:
1024: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Plionis}{Plionis}{1994}]{plionis1994paa}
1025: Plionis M., 1994, ApJS, 95, 401
1026:
1027: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Plionis \& Basilakos}{Plionis \&
1028: Basilakos}{2002}]{plionis2002csa}
1029: Plionis M., Basilakos S., 2002, MNRAS, 329, L47
1030:
1031: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Plionis, Benoist, Maurogordato, Ferrari \&
1032: Basilakos}{Plionis et~al.}{2003}]{plionis2003gap}
1033: Plionis M., Benoist C., Maurogordato S., Ferrari C., Basilakos S., 2003,
1034: ApJ, 594, 144
1035:
1036: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Porter, Schneider \& Hoessel}{Porter
1037: et~al.}{1991}]{porter1991coa}
1038: Porter A., Schneider D., Hoessel J., 1991, AJ, 101, 1561
1039:
1040: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Quinn \& Binney}{Quinn \&
1041: Binney}{1992}]{quinn1992gaa}
1042: Quinn T., Binney J., 1992, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
1043: 255, 729
1044:
1045: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rhee \& Katgert}{Rhee \&
1046: Katgert}{1987}]{rhee1987sea}
1047: Rhee G., Katgert P., 1987, A\&A, 183, 217
1048:
1049: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rhee \& Latour}{Rhee \&
1050: Latour}{1991}]{rhee1991xro}
1051: Rhee G., Latour H., 1991, A\&A, 243, 38
1052:
1053: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rosati, Della~Ceca, Norman \& Giacconi}{Rosati
1054: et~al.}{1998}]{rosati1998rdc}
1055: Rosati P., Della~Ceca R., Norman C., Giacconi R., 1998, ApJ, 492, L21
1056:
1057: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Salvador-Sole \& Solanes}{Salvador-Sole \&
1058: Solanes}{1993}]{salvadorsole1993tie}
1059: Salvador-Sole E., Solanes J., 1993, ApJ, 417, 427
1060:
1061: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sarazin}{Sarazin}{1986}]{sarazin1986xec}
1062: Sarazin C., 1986, RvMP, 58, 1
1063:
1064: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sastry}{Sastry}{1968}]{sastry1968cas}
1065: Sastry G., 1968, PASP, 80, 252
1066:
1067: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schindler, Guzzo, Ebeling, Boehringer,
1068: Chincarini, Collins, de Grandi, Neumann, Briel, Shaver et~al.,}{Schindler
1069: et~al.}{1995}]{schindler1995das}
1070: Schindler S., Guzzo L., Ebeling H., Boehringer H., Chincarini G., Collins
1071: C., de Grandi S., Neumann D., Briel U., Shaver P., et~al., 1995, A\&A,
1072: 299, L9
1073:
1074: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Splinter, Melott, Linn, Buck \&
1075: Tinker}{Splinter et~al.}{1997}]{splinter1997eao}
1076: Splinter R., Melott A., Linn A., Buck C., Tinker J., 1997, ApJ, 479, 632
1077:
1078: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Struble}{Struble}{1990}]{struble1990pas}
1079: Struble M., 1990, AJ, 99, 743
1080:
1081: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ulmer, McMillan \& Kowalski}{Ulmer
1082: et~al.}{1989}]{ulmer1989mar}
1083: Ulmer M., McMillan S., Kowalski M., 1989, ApJ, 338, 711
1084:
1085: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Usami \& Fujimoto}{Usami \&
1086: Fujimoto}{1997}]{usami1997ter}
1087: Usami M., Fujimoto M., 1997, ApJ, 487, 489
1088:
1089: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Haarlem \& van~de Weygaert}{van Haarlem \&
1090: van~de Weygaert}{1993}]{vanhaarlem1993vfa}
1091: van Haarlem M., van~de Weygaert R., 1993, ApJ, 418, 544
1092:
1093: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Vikhlinin, McNamara, Forman, Jones, Quintana
1094: \& Hornstrup}{Vikhlinin et~al.}{1998}]{vikhlinin1998cgc}
1095: Vikhlinin A., McNamara B., Forman W., Jones C., Quintana H., Hornstrup
1096: A., 1998, ApJ, 502, 558
1097:
1098: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{West}{West}{1994}]{west1994amh}
1099: West M., 1994, MNRAS, 268, 79
1100:
1101: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{West, Jones \& Forman}{West
1102: et~al.}{1995}]{west1995scf}
1103: West M., Jones C., Forman W., 1995, ApJ, 451, L5
1104:
1105: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{West, Villumsen \& Dekel}{West
1106: et~al.}{1991}]{west1991fsu}
1107: West M., Villumsen J., Dekel A., 1991, ApJ, 369, 287
1108:
1109: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Yagi, Kashikawa, Sekiguchi, Doi, Yasuda,
1110: Shimasaku \& Okamura}{Yagi et~al.}{2002}]{yagi2002lfn}
1111: Yagi M., Kashikawa N., Sekiguchi M., Doi M., Yasuda N., Shimasaku K.,
1112: Okamura S., 2002, AJ, 123, 66
1113:
1114: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zeldovich}{Zeldovich}{1970}]{zeldovich1970gia}
1115: Zeldovich Y., 1970, A\&A, 5, 168
1116:
1117: \end{thebibliography}
1118:
1119:
1120: \end{document}
1121: