1: \documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[10pt,emulateapj]{article}
3: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
4: %\input espf
5: %\received{00 00 1999}
6: %\accepted{00 00 1999}
7: %\journalid{337}{00 October 1996}
8: %\articleid{11}{14}
9:
10: %
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Time-Delay Effect on the Cosmic Background Radiation by
15: Static Gravitational Potential of Clusters}
16:
17: \author{Da-Ming Chen\altaffilmark{1,2}, Xiang-Ping Wu\altaffilmark{2,3}
18: and Dong-Rong Jiang\altaffilmark{1,2}}
19:
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy
21: of Sciences, Shanghai 200030, China}
22: \altaffiltext{2}{National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy
23: of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China}
24: \altaffiltext{3}{Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy
25: of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We present a quantitative analysis of the time-delay effect
29: on the cosmic background radiation (CBR) by
30: static gravitational potential of galaxy clusters.
31: This is primarily motivated by growing observational evidence that
32: clusters have essentially experienced no-evolution
33: since redshift $z\approx1$, indicating that the contribution of
34: a time-dependent potential to CBR anisotropy discussed in literature
35: could be rather small for the dynamically-relaxed clusters.
36: Using the softened isothermal sphere model and
37: the universal density profile for the mass distribution of rich clusters,
38: we calculate the CBR anisotropy by the time-delay effect and compare it
39: with those generated by the thermal and kinematic S-Z effects
40: as well as by the transverse motion of clusters.
41: While it is unlikely that the time-delay effect is detectable in
42: the current S-Z measurement because of its small amplitude of
43: $10^{-6}$-$10^{-7}$ and its achromaticity, it nevertheless
44: leads to an uncertainty of $\sim10\%$ in the measurement of
45: the kinematic S-Z effect of clusters. Future cosmological application
46: of the peculiar velocity of clusters to be measured through
47: the S-Z effect should therefore take this uncertainty into account.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50:
51: \keywords{cosmic microwave background --- cosmology: theory ---
52: galaxies: clusters --- gravitation}
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: The microwave sky behind a cluster of galaxies would be primarily distorted
57: through the so-called Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (Z-S) effect --
58: the inverse Compton scattering
59: of the radiation by electrons in hot intracluster gas, which leads to
60: a temperature decrement of typically $\Delta T/T\sim10^{-4}$ in the
61: Rayleigh-Jeans part of the spectrum for a cluster as rich as Coma.
62: The original goal of conducting the S-Z measurement is to estimate
63: the Hubble constant $H_0$, while the recent attempt has also been made
64: to determine the cluster baryonic (gas) mass in combination with
65: X-ray observation (Myers et al. 1997; Mason \& Myers 2000). Yet,
66: the S-Z effect can only probe the distributions of intracluster gas,
67: and provides no direct information about the underlying gravitational
68: potential of the clusters, whereas the latter plays a much more important
69: role in cosmological study. This motivates us to address
70: the following question: Can we simultaneously detect the gravitational
71: imprint on the microwave sky by cluster potential during
72: the measurement of the S-Z effect ?
73:
74:
75: Essentially, the gravitational potential of a cluster exercises an influence
76: on the cosmic background radiation (CBR) through the gravitational
77: lensing effect and the Rees-Sciama effect (Rees \& Sciama 1968),
78: which consist primarily of three components:
79: The first one arises from gravitational lensing, which
80: alters the trajectories of the CBR photons, resulting
81: in a reduction of the small-scale intrinsic fluctuations in CBR
82: (e.g. Kashlinsky 1988; Fukushige et al. 1996 and references therein).
83: However, this component does not cause additional temperature variations
84: in CBR because of the conservation of the CBR surface brightness;
85: The second one comes from the Rees-Sciama effect, which accounts for
86: the changing gravitational potential during the radiation
87: cross time, giving rise to a decrement of CBR temperature;
88: And the third component corresponds to the purely relativistic time-delay
89: due to the deep gravitational potential, which enables us to receive
90: the CBR photons emitted at an earlier time and thus makes a positive
91: contribution to $\Delta T/T$.
92: This last component is predicted by both gravitational
93: lensing and the Rees-Sciama effect.
94:
95:
96: In their pioneering work,
97: Rees \& Sciama (1968) concluded that more significant contribution to
98: the CBR anisotropies could be due to the
99: time-dependent potential other than the time-delay effect.
100: This has led many authors to devote their interest to
101: the CBR anisotropies by the evolving gravitational
102: potential of various nonlinear perturbations
103: (e.g. Seljak 1996 and reference therein).
104: Unfortunately, these results can hardly be applicable to galaxy clusters
105: because of the unrealistic models for cluster matter distributions such
106: as the the Swiss cheese model (Dyer 1976) and
107: the ``two step Vacuole" model (Rees \& Sciama 1968; Nottale 1984),
108: while numerical simulations are limited by the dynamical resolutions
109: on cluster scales especially inside core radii
110: (Tuluie \& Laguna 1995; Seljak 1996). So far,
111: the only `plausible' constraint on the CBR temperature fluctuations
112: by the time-dependent potential of a rich cluster
113: may be the work by Chodorowski (1991). He studied the effect
114: using a linear potential approximation and a pure spherical
115: infall model for cluster, and reached that
116: $\Delta T/T\leq6.5\times10^{-7}$. In some sense,
117: such an estimate can be regarded as an upper limit on the CBR
118: temperature fluctuations caused by the time-dependent
119: potential of a cluster.
120:
121:
122: On the other hand, numerous observations have claimed for
123: a ``settled'' configuration of cluster matter evolution since $z\sim1$.
124: It was shown more than a decade ago that optical counts of clusters
125: are consistent with no-evolution scenario for redshift out to at least
126: $z\approx0.5$ (Gunn, Hoessel \& Oke 1986). The same conclusion
127: holds true for the X-ray selected clusters since $z\sim0.8$
128: (e.g. Fan, Bahcall \& Cen 1997; Rosati et al. 1998).
129: Moreover, no significant differences in the
130: dynamical properties have been detected between high-redshift
131: and low-redshift clusters, which include the X-ray luminosity,
132: the X-ray temperature, the velocity dispersion of cluster galaxies,
133: the mass-to-light ratio, the baryon fraction, etc.
134: (Carlberg et al. 1996; Mushotzky \& Scharf 1997;
135: Wu, Xue \& Fang 1999 and references therein). In particular,
136: the distribution of core radii of the intracluster gas in nearby
137: clusters is identical to that of distant ones ($z>0.4$)
138: (Vikhlinin et al 1998). Taking these observational facts as a whole,
139: we feel that, in addition to the claim for a low-mass density
140: universe, the gravitational potential of clusters
141: is unlikely to have experienced a violent change since $z\approx1$.
142: Therefore, the CBR fluctuation due to the changing
143: or time-dependent gravitational potential of clusters at $z<1$
144: could be rather small. Therefore, we need probably concentrate on the
145: `third component' and explore how large the time-delay effect on
146: the CBR fluctuations by the static gravitational well of a rich cluster
147: would be.
148:
149:
150: The gravitational time-delay can be roughly estimated by
151: $\Delta t_0=(2GM/c^3)\ln(4D_{cs}D_c/r_0^2)$
152: for a pointlike mass $M$, where $D_c$ is the distance to $M$,
153: $D_{cs}$ is the separation between $M$ and the background source,
154: and $r_0$ is the impact parameter.
155: For a rich cluster with mass of $10^{15}M_{\odot}$ at cosmological distance
156: and CBR as the background source, $\Delta t_0\sim10^3$ - $10^{4}$ years.
157: Recall that the time-delay between the images of the gravitationally
158: doubled quasar by a galactic lens of $10^{12}M\odot$
159: is $\sim1$ yr. A time delay of $\Delta t_0=10^3$ - 10$^{4}$ yrs in the
160: observer's frame corresponds to a CBR temperature increment of
161: $\Delta T_d/T\sim\Delta t_0/t_0\sim10^{-7}$ -- $10^{-6}$.
162: Indeed, such an amount
163: of temperature variation is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the
164: thermal S-Z effect. However, this value should be detectable with
165: the future CBR detectors like MAP and Planck.
166: Unlike the thermal S-Z effect and the kinematic S-Z effect due to
167: the peculiar motion of galaxy clusters,
168: $\Delta T_d/T$ arising from the time-delay effect is insensitive to
169: the impact distance, and thereby may be the dominant contribution to
170: the CBR temperature fluctuations at large radii from
171: the cluster centers. Alternatively, the presence of the time-delay
172: component may complicate the measurement of the kinematic S-Z effect.
173: It has been suggested that the thermal and kinematic S-Z effects can be
174: separated using their different spectra especially at the frequency near
175: 218 GHz where the thermal effect is zero (see Birkinshaw 1999).
176: Now, one may also need to subtract properly the contribution of the
177: time-delay effect in order to extract the kinematic effect although
178: the latter is still the dominant component.
179: In particular, the time-delay effect by clusters may be comparable to the
180: CBR perturbation caused by the transverse motion of the clusters as
181: lenses (Birkinshaw \& Gull 1983; Gurvits \& Mitrofanov 1986).
182: This will add further difficulty to the distinction between the two effects
183: even if the CBR measurements can reach a sensitivity of
184: $\sim10^{-6}$--$10^{-7}$. On the other hand, a quantitative analysis of
185: the time-delay effect by clusters will be helpful for our estimate
186: of various uncertainties in the CBR measurements around clusters.
187:
188:
189:
190:
191: \section{Time-delay effect by clusters of galaxies}
192:
193: CBR anisotropy by the Rees-Sciama effect is mainly associated with
194: nonlinear and strongly evolving potentials, which can be well described
195: by the following formalism (Martinez-Gonzalez, Sanz \& Silk 1990):
196: %1
197: \begin{equation}
198: \frac{\Delta T}{T}=\frac{5}{3c^2}(\phi_o-\phi_e)-
199: \frac{2}{c^2}\int_e^o d\vec{x}\cdot \nabla\phi+
200: \vec{n} \cdot (\frac{\vec{v}_o}{c}-
201: \frac{\vec{v}_e}{c}),
202: \end{equation}
203: or equivalently,
204: %2
205: \begin{equation}
206: \frac{\Delta T}{T}=\frac{1}{3c^2}(\phi_e-\phi_o)+
207: \frac{2}{c^2}\int_e^o dt \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}+
208: \vec{n} \cdot (\frac{\vec{v}_o}{c}-
209: \frac{\vec{v_e}}{c}),
210: \end{equation}
211: where the first term is the Sachs-Wolfe effects, the second term
212: denotes the Rees-Sciama effect by a time-dependent potential well of
213: nonstatic structure, and the third term simply represents the Doppler shift.
214: We are interested in the second term generated by an isolated
215: structure like a galaxy cluster.
216: For a static potential $\phi(\vec{r})$ embedded in the expanding universe,
217: we have
218: %3
219: \begin{equation}
220: \phi(\vec{r})=-\int_V \frac{4\pi G \rho(\vec{r}^{\prime})
221: d^3\vec{r}^{\prime}}
222: {\left|\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\prime}\right|},
223: \end{equation}
224: in which $\vec{r}$ and $\vec{r}^{\prime}$ are connected to
225: the comoving coordinates through $\vec{r}=a(t)\vec{x}$ and
226: $\vec{r}^{\prime}=a(t)\vec{x}^{\prime}$, respectively.
227: Because of the mass conservation of
228: $4\pi\rho(\vec{r}^{\prime}) d^3\vec{r}^{\prime}$,
229: the partial derivative of $\phi$ with respective to $t$ reads
230: %4
231: \begin{equation}
232: \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=-\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\phi
233: \end{equation}
234: As a result, the CBR temperature anisotropy by the Rees-Sciama effect
235: of a static potential $\phi$ is
236: %5
237: \begin{equation}
238: \frac{\Delta T}{T}=-\frac{2}{c^3}\int\;\frac{\dot{a}}{a} \phi\; ds.
239: \end{equation}
240: where the integration is performed along the light path $s$.
241: If we assume that the cosmological term $\dot{a}/a$ remains roughly
242: unchanged during the CBR photon cross time, i.e.,
243: the size of the nonlinear structure represented by
244: the static potential $\phi$ is relatively small, the above expression
245: can be written as
246: %6,7
247: \begin{eqnarray}
248: \frac{\Delta T}{T}=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\Delta t;\\
249: \Delta t=-\frac{2}{c^3}\int\;\phi ds,
250: \end{eqnarray}
251: where $\Delta t$ is the relativistic time dilation due to the
252: presence of $\phi$ in the framework of the linearized Einstein theory
253: (e.g. Cooke \& Kantowski 1975).
254: We can also view the problem from a different
255: angle: The CBR photons can be trapped in the
256: gravitational well $\phi$ and separated from the expansion of the
257: Universe for a period of $\Delta t$. Namely,
258: the CBR photons traveling through a gravitational well
259: can conserve their energy with respect to the background photons.
260: Defining the Hubble constant as $H(t)=\dot{a}/a$, we have from eq.(6)
261: %8
262: \begin{equation}
263: \frac{\Delta T_d}{T}=H(t)\Delta t=\sqrt{1+z_c}H_0\Delta t_0
264: \end{equation}
265: where the subscript $d$ denotes the time-delay component, and
266: the time-delay in the observer's frame is
267: $\Delta t_0=(1+z_c)\Delta t$ with $z_c$ being
268: the redshift of the nonlinear structure, Here and also hereafter
269: we assume a flat cosmological model with $\Omega_M=1$ and
270: $H_0=50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
271:
272:
273: We now focus on the numerical computation of the
274: time-delay effect by clusters of galaxies.
275: We approximate the mass distribution of clusters by two well-known models:
276: the softened isothermal sphere model (hereafter SIS)
277: and the cusped universal density profile
278: (Navarro, Frenk \& White 1995; hereafter NFW):
279: %9,10
280: \begin{eqnarray}
281: \rho_{SIS}=\frac{\sigma^2}{2\pi G}\frac{1}{r^2+r_c^2};\\
282: \rho_{NFW}=\frac{\delta_c \rho_{crit}}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}.
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: In SIS model, $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion of dark matter particles
285: and $r_c$ is the core radius, while in NFW profile,
286: $\rho_{crit}\equiv 3H^2/8\pi G$ is the critical mass density for closure,
287: $\delta_c$ is the dimensionless characteristic density contrast,
288: and $r_s$ is the scale length.
289: To ensure the convergence of gravitational potential and the validity of
290: our assumption about the limited effective size of nonlinear structure,
291: we truncate the cluster at its virial radius defined by
292: %11
293: \begin{equation}
294: M(r_{vir})=\frac{4\pi}{3}r_{vir}^3\Delta_c \rho_{crit},
295: \end{equation}
296: in which $\Delta_c\approx200$ is the overdensity of dark matter
297: halo with respect to $\rho_{crit}$.
298: The gravitational potentials for these two models inside $r_{vir}$
299: are as follows: For SIS model
300: %12
301: \begin{equation}
302: \phi_{SIS}=
303: 2\sigma^2\left[\frac{\arctan x}{x}+\frac{1}{2}\ln(1+x^2)-1-\frac{1}{2}
304: \ln(1+x_{vir}^2)\right],
305: \end{equation}
306: where $x=r/r_c$ and $x_{vir}=r_{vir}/r_c$. For NFW
307: %13
308: \begin{equation}
309: \phi_{NFW}=-4\pi Gr_s^2\rho_s\frac{\ln(1+x)}{x},
310: \end{equation}
311: where $\rho_s=\delta_c \rho_{crit}$ and $x=r/r_s$. Inserting these
312: derived potentials into eq.(7) and performing the integration along
313: the light path across the cluster, we can obtain the CBR temperature
314: fluctuations due to the static gravitational potential of clusters
315: approximated by SIS model and NFW profile, respectively.
316:
317:
318: \section{Comparison}
319:
320: \subsection{S-Z effect}
321:
322: For an isothermal $\beta$ model as the distribution of the hot plasma
323: inside a cluster, the thermal S-Z effect is (see Rephaeli 1995;
324: Birkinshaw 1999)
325: %14,15
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: \frac{\Delta T_{{\rm TSZ}}(\theta)}{T_{\rm CBR}}=
328: g(x_{\nu})y_0 \left[1+\left(\frac{\theta}{\theta_{x,c}}
329: \right)^2\right]^{(1-3\beta)/2};\\
330: g(x_{\nu})=\frac{x_{\nu}^2e^{x_{\nu}}}
331: {(e^{x_{\nu}}-1)^2}\left(x_{\nu}\coth\frac{x_{\nu}}{2}-4\right),
332: \end{eqnarray}
333: where $x_{\nu}=h\nu/kT_{\rm CBR}$ is the dimensionless frequency,
334: $T_{\rm CBR}=2.726$K is the present CBR temperature, and
335: %16
336: \begin{equation}
337: y_0=7.12\times 10^{-5}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{3\beta-1}{2})}
338: {\Gamma(\frac{3\beta}{2})}
339: \left(\frac{n_{e0}}{10^{-3}{\rm cm}^{-3}}\right)
340: \left(\frac{T_e}{10{\rm keV}}\right)
341: \left(\frac{r_{x,c}}{\rm Mpc}\right),
342: \end{equation}
343: in which $n_{e0}$ and $T_e$ are the central electron number density
344: and temperature, respectively, and $r_{x,c}$ (or $\theta_{x,c}$) is
345: the core radius for the $\beta$ model. The kinematic S-Z effect due to
346: the peculiar motion $v$ of cluster along the line of sight is
347: %17
348: \begin{equation}
349: \frac{\Delta T_{\rm KSZ}(\theta)}{T_{\rm CBR}}=
350: -\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)
351: n_{e0}\sigma_{T}r_{x,c}\sqrt{\pi}
352: \frac{\Gamma(\frac{3\beta-1}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{3\beta}{2})}
353: \left[1+\left(\frac{\theta}
354: {\theta_{x,c}}\right)^2\right]^{(1-3\beta)/2}.
355: \end{equation}
356:
357:
358: There are two remarkable
359: distinctions between the S-Z and time-delay effects:
360: (1)Unlike the S-Z effect
361: which is independent of cluster redshift, the time-delay effect varies as
362: $(1+z_c)^{3/2}$;
363: (2)Both $\Delta T_{\rm TSZ}$ and $\Delta T_{\rm KSZ}$ drop
364: sharply with the outward radius from cluster center, while
365: $\Delta T_{d}$ is rather insensitive to cluster radius.
366: In order to quantitatively compare the CBR temperature fluctuations
367: arising from the thermal and kinematic S-Z effects and the time-delay effect,
368: we take a typical rich cluster at $z=0.1$, whose parameters are
369: listed in Table 1, to proceed our numerical computations.
370: For the NFW profile, we adopt the typical
371: values of $\alpha$($\equiv 4\pi G \mu m_p \rho_s r_s^2/kT_e$) and $r_s$
372: found from the fitting of the NFW expected X-ray surface brightness profiles
373: of clusters to the
374: observed ones (e.g. Ettori \& Fabian 1999; Wu \& Xue 2000).
375: The resultant CBR temperature variations $\Delta T(\theta)/T_{\rm CBR}$
376: are shown in Fig.1 for two different choices of the truncated cluster
377: radii: $r=r_{vir}$ and $r=10r_{vir}$.
378:
379:
380: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
381: \tablecaption{Cluster parameters \label{table-1}}
382: \tablehead{
383: \colhead{ $\sigma$ (km/s)} &
384: \colhead{$\beta$} & \colhead{$r_c$ (Mpc)} &
385: \colhead{$n_{e0}$ (cm$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{$T_e$ (keV)} &
386: \colhead{$v$ (km/s)} &\colhead{$\alpha$} &
387: \colhead{$r_s$ (Mpc)}
388: }
389: \startdata
390: 1100 & 2/3 & 0.25 & $3\times 10^{-3}$ & 7 & 500 &
391: 10 & 0.8 \nl
392: \enddata
393: \end{deluxetable}
394:
395:
396: \placefigure{fig1}
397:
398: It appears that
399: for a typical cluster and an observing frequency $\nu=32$ GHz,
400: the orders of magnitude of the maximum CBR temperature
401: fluctuations by the thermal and kinematic S-Z effects and the time-delay
402: effect are, respectively, $10^{-4}$, $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-6}$. Although
403: a temperature fluctuation of as low as $10^{-6}$ will be detectable
404: with the future space experiments like MAP and PLANCK,
405: the fact that $\Delta T_{d}/T_{\rm CBR}$ is
406: a slowly varying function of radius
407: puts the actual measurement of the time-delay effect into a
408: difficult position. One possible way is to measure the temperature
409: difference between two points separated by an angle $\Delta\theta$.
410: The signature of
411: $|\Delta T_d(\theta-\Delta\theta/2)-\Delta T_d(\theta+\Delta\theta/2)|$
412: could be identified if the S-Z effects can be removed.
413: Yet, the kinematic S-Z and time-delay effects
414: may become to be indistinguishable as a result of
415: the frequency-independent property, unless the CBR temperature profiles
416: with a sensitivity of at least $10^{-7}$ can be obtained.
417: In other words, the presence of the time-delay effect may yield
418: an uncertainty of $\sim10\%$ in the measurement
419: of the central kinematic S-Z effect of clusters.
420:
421:
422: \subsection{Transverse motion of clusters}
423:
424: In the Rayleigh-Jeans limit, the magnitude of the temperature fluctuation
425: $\Delta T_{v}/T_{\rm CBR}$ due to the transverse motion of a cluster with
426: velocity $v$ can be estimated through (Birkinshaw \& Gull 1983;
427: Gurvits \& Mitrofanov 1986)
428: %18
429: \begin{equation}
430: \frac{\Delta T_{v}(\theta)}{T_{\rm CBR}}\approx2
431: \left(\frac{v}{c}\right)\delta(\theta),
432: \end{equation}
433: where $\delta(\theta)$ is the deflection angle produced by
434: the projected cluster mass within $\theta$ along the line of sight.
435: For the SIS and NFW models, we have
436: %19
437: \begin{equation}
438: \delta_{SIS}(\theta)=4\pi\left(\frac{\sigma^2}{c^2}\right)
439: \frac{\sqrt{\theta^2+\theta_c^2}-\theta_c}{\theta},
440: \end{equation}
441: and
442: %20
443: \begin{equation}
444: \delta_{NFW}(\theta)=\frac{16\pi G\rho_s r_s^2}{c^2}
445: \left(\frac{\theta_s}{\theta}\right) \times
446: \left\{
447: \begin{array}{ll}
448: \ln \frac{\theta}{2\theta_s}+\frac{\theta_s}{\sqrt{\theta_s^2-\theta^2}}
449: \ln \frac{\theta_s+\sqrt{\theta_s^2-\theta^2}}{\theta}, &
450: \theta < \theta_s;\\
451: \ln \frac{\theta}{2\theta_s}+\frac{\theta_s}{\sqrt{\theta^2-\theta_s^2}}
452: \arctan \frac{\sqrt{\theta^2-\theta_s^2}}{\theta_s}, &
453: \theta > \theta_s,
454: \end{array} \right.
455: \end{equation}
456: respectively, where $\theta_s$ is the angle distance of $r_s$.
457: $\Delta T_{v}(\theta)/T_{\rm CBR}$ produces a two-sided pattern around
458: the moving cluster. Unlike the time-delay and S-Z effects, CBR will
459: be unaffected by the transverse motion of the cluster if we look through
460: its central region because of $\delta(0)=0$.
461: The maximum amplitude of $\Delta T_{v}/T_{\rm CBR}$ relative to
462: $\Delta T_{v}(0)/T_{\rm CBR}$ for a typical rich cluster is
463: %21,22
464: \begin{eqnarray}
465: \frac{\Delta T_{v}}{T_{\rm CBR}}\approx 0.9\times10^{-6}
466: \left(\frac{v}{10^3 {\rm km\;s^{-1}}}\right)
467: \left(\frac{\sigma}{10^3 {\rm km\;s^{-1}}}\right)^2, &
468: {\rm SIS};\\
469: \frac{\Delta T_{v}}{T_{\rm CBR}}\approx 1.1\times10^{-6}
470: \left(\frac{v}{10^3 {\rm km\;s^{-1}}}\right)
471: \left(\frac{\alpha}{10}\right)
472: \left(\frac{T}{7 {\rm keV}}\right), &
473: {\rm NFW}.
474: \end{eqnarray}
475: Apart from their very different CBR patterns,
476: $\Delta T_{\rm KSZ}/T_{\rm CBR}$,
477: $\Delta T_{v}/T_{\rm CBR}$ and $\Delta T_{d}/T_{\rm CBR}$ are all
478: achromatic, and the latter two effects also have the same order
479: of magnitude. Consequently, the uncertainty in the measurement of
480: $\Delta T_{\rm KSZ}$ due to the combined effect of the time-delay
481: and the transverse motion of clusters can become even larger than $\sim10\%$.
482: It was suggested (Birkinshaw \& Gull 1983; Gurvits \& Mitrofanov 1986)
483: that the detection of $\Delta T_{v}/T_{\rm CBR}$ can be used as a method for
484: measuring the peculiar velocities of clusters. Such a motivation can now be
485: complicated by the time-delay effect unless the detailed
486: patterns of the CBR anisotropies around clusters can be well mapped.
487:
488:
489:
490: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
491:
492:
493: Indeed, the CBR temperature fluctuation caused by static gravitational
494: potential of a rich cluster is very small,
495: $\Delta T_{d}(\theta)/T_{\rm CBR}\sim10^{-6}$--$10^{-7}$,
496: which is of 2--3 (1--2)
497: orders of magnitude lower than the thermal (kinematic) S-Z effect,
498: but is nevertheless comparable to the effect produced by a transversely
499: moving cluster as the gravitational lens. The signals of the time-delay
500: effect and the transverse motion of clusters
501: may remain to be indistinguishable from the kinematic S-Z effect
502: in current S-Z measurement, unless one can acquire the detailed
503: CBR temperature profile across clusters with
504: a sufficiently high sensitivity of $\sim10^{-7}$.
505: The presence of the time-delay effect and
506: the transverse motion of clusters may lead to an uncertainty of $\sim10\%$
507: in the measurement of the kinematic S-Z effect
508: due to the peculiar motion of clusters along the line of sight,
509: which gives a sense of how accurate and robust
510: one can use the kinematic S-Z measurement of clusters for
511: cosmological purpose.
512:
513: So far,
514: we have not included the contribution from the time-dependent potential of
515: clusters. This is mainly based on the recent observations that
516: the significant evolution of dynamical properties of clusters has not been
517: found since $z\approx1$. Therefore, our conclusion may not hold exactly true
518: if clusters are still in the process of formation where the free infall
519: plays a dominant role. Our derived CBR temperature fluctuation due to
520: the time-delay effect can be comparable to that produced by
521: the time-dependent potential of clusters
522: (e.g. Chodorowski 1991; Tuluie \& Laguna 1995; Tuluie, Laguna
523: \& Anninos 1996).
524: Nevertheless, in a similar way to the S-Z effect,
525: the $\Delta T/T_{\rm CBR}$ caused by the changing gravitational potential of
526: a cluster shows a sharp drop along outward radius. So, it
527: would be possible to isolate the time-delay effect from the measured
528: CBR fluctuations behind a cluster if one can have the high-sensitivity
529: CBR temperature profile.
530:
531:
532: Because of the unique property of the `long-distance' effect, i.e.,
533: $\Delta T_d/T_{\rm CBR}$ depends approximately on $\ln (1/\theta)$,
534: one may worry about the issue of whether
535: the time-delay effect by clusters can contaminate the global
536: CBR power spectrum measured at small angles ($\sim10$--$100$ arcminutes)
537: because clusters are a rare population in the Universe. Without a
538: sophisticated statistical study of the effect on the CBR spectrum,
539: our computation in the present paper suggests that
540: the time-delay effect by clusters is unlikely to
541: produce a noticeable contribution of
542: as high as few times $10^{-6}$ to the CBR anisotropies,
543: which is compatible with the Rees-Sciama effect generated
544: by large-scale matter inhomogeneities according to numerical simulations
545: (Tuluie \& Laguna 1995; Tuluie et al. 1996; Seljak 1996).
546: Nevertheless, future precise CBR temperature measurements on smaller
547: angular scales should allow the time-delay effect of clusters
548: to be included.
549:
550:
551:
552:
553: \acknowledgments
554: We gratefully acknowledge Tzihong Chiueh for useful discussion, and
555: the science editor of the journal, Prof. R. T. Vishniac, and
556: an anonymous referee for valuable
557: comments and suggestions. This work was supported by
558: the National Science Foundation of China, under Grant No. 19725311.
559:
560:
561:
562:
563:
564: \clearpage
565:
566:
567: \begin{references}
568: \reference{}Birkinshaw, M. 1999, Physics Report, 310, 97
569: \reference{}Birkinshaw, M., \& Gull, S. F., 1983, \nat, 302, 315
570: \reference{}Carlberg, R. G., et al. 1996, \apj, 462, 32
571: \reference{}Chodorowski, M. 1991, \mnras, 251, 248
572: \reference{}Cooke, J. H., \& Kantowski, R. 1975, \apj, 195, L11
573: \reference{}Dyer, C. C. 1976, \mnras, 175, 429
574: \reference{}Ettori, S., \& Fabian, A. C. 1999, \mnras, 305, 834
575: \reference{}Fan, X., Bahcall, N. A., \& Cen, R. 1997, \apj, 485, L53
576: \reference{}Gunn, J. E., Hoessel, J. G., \& Oke, J. B. 1986, ApJ, 306, 30
577: \reference{}Gurvits, L. I., \& Mitrofanov, I. G., 1986, \nat, 324, 27
578: \reference{}Mart\'inez-Gonz\'alez, E., Sanz, J. L., \& Silk, J., 1990,
579: \apj, 355, L5
580: \reference{}Mason, B. S., \& Myers, S. T., 2000, ApJ, in press
581: \reference{}Mushotzky, R. F., \& Scharf, C. A. 1997, \apj, 482, L13
582: \reference{}Myers, S. T., Baker, J. E., Readhead, A. C. S., Leitch, E. M., \&
583: Herbig, T. 1997, \apj, 485, 1
584: \reference{}Navarro, J. E., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1995, \mnras,
585: 275, 720
586: \reference{}Nottale, L. 1984, \mnras, 206, 713
587: \reference{}Rees, M. J., \& Sciama, D. W. 1968, \nat, 217, 611
588: \reference{}Rephaeli, Y. 1995, \araa, 33, 541
589: \reference{}Rosati, P., Ceca, R. D., Norman, C., \& Giacconi, R. 1998,
590: \apj, 492, L21
591: \reference{}Seljak, U. 1996, \apj, 460, 549
592: \reference{}Tuluie, R., \& Laguna, P. 1995, \apj, 445, L73
593: \reference{}Tuluie, R., Laguna, P., \& Anninos, P. 1996, \apj, 463, 15
594: \reference{}Vikhlinin, A., McNamara, B. R., Forman, W., Jones, C.,
595: Quintana, H., \& Hornstrup, A. 1998, \apj, 498, L21
596: \reference{}Wu, X.-P., \& Xue, Y.-J., 2000, \apj, 529, L5
597: \reference{}Wu, X.-P., Xue, Y.-J., \& Fang, L.-Z. 1999, \apj, 524, 22
598: \end{references}
599:
600:
601: \clearpage
602:
603:
604:
605: \figcaption{Radial CBR temperature variations generated
606: by the thermal (dotted lines) and kinematic (dashed lines) S-Z effects
607: and the time-delay (solid line) effect for a cluster at $z=0.1$.
608: For the thermal S-Z effect an observing frequency of $\nu=32$ GHz
609: is assumed. Cluster properties are summarized in Table 1.
610: Dependence of the effects on the truncated radii is shown for
611: $r_{cut}=r_{vir}$ (upper panels) and $r_{cut}=10r_{vir}$ (lower panels),
612: respectively.
613: \label{fig1}}
614:
615: %\epsfbox{fig1.ps}
616:
617:
618: \end{document}
619:
620:
621:
622:
623:
624:
625:
626:
627:
628: