1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
3: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
4:
5: \def\physica{Physica \,}
6: \def\spjetp{Sov.Phys.JETP \,}
7: \def\casp{Comments.Astrophys.Space Phys. \,}
8: \def\al{Astrophysical Letters \,}
9: \def\physrep{Phys.Rep. \,}
10: \def\asroparticle{Astroparticle Physics \,}
11: \def\cl{\centerline}
12: \def\ni{\noindent}
13: \def\ss{\smallskip}
14: \def\bs{\bigskip}
15: \def\ms{\medskip}
16: \def\ea{et al. \,}
17: \def\eg{{\it e.g.\,}}
18: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
19: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
20: \def\rel{relativistic \,}
21: \def\nrel{nonrelativistic \,}
22: \def\sz{Sunyaev \& Zeldovich \,}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: \bs
26: \bs
27:
28: \title{CMB Comptonization by Energetic Nonthermal Electrons \\in
29: Clusters of Galaxies}
30: \vspace{2cm}
31: \bs
32:
33: \author{\bf Meir Shimon}
34: \affil{School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel
35: Aviv, 69978, Israel}
36:
37: \email{meirs@ccsg.tau.ac.il}
38:
39: \vspace{2cm}
40:
41: \and
42:
43: \vspace{2cm}
44:
45: \author{\bf Yoel Rephaeli}
46:
47: \affil{School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel
48: Aviv, 69978, Israel, \\and\\ Center for Astrophysics and Space
49: Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla,
50: CA\,92093-0424}
51:
52: \email{yoelr@noga.tau.ac.il}
53:
54: \begin{abstract}
55:
56: Use of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect as a precise cosmological probe
57: necessitates a realistic assessment of all possible contributions to
58: Comptonization of the cosmic microwave background in clusters of
59: galaxies. We have calculated the additional intensity change due to
60: various possible populations of energetic electrons that have been
61: proposed in order to account for measurements of intracluster radio,
62: nonthermal X-ray and (possibly also) EUV emission. Our properly
63: normalized estimates of (the highly model dependent value of) the
64: predicted intensity change due to these electrons is well below
65: $\sim 6\%$ and $\sim 35\%$ of the usual Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect due
66: to electrons in the hot gas in Coma and A2199, respectively. These
67: levels constitute high upper limits since they are based on energetic
68: electron populations whose energy densities are {\it comparable} to
69: those of the thermal gas. The main impact of nonthermal
70: Comptonization is a shift of the crossover frequency (where the thermal
71: effect vanishes) to higher values. Such a shift would have important
72: consequences for our ability to measure cluster peculiar velocities
73: from the kinematic component of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77:
78: The Sunyaev-Zeldovich (S-Z) effect is a small intensity change that
79: results from Compton scattering of the cosmic microwave background
80: (CMB) radiation by electrons in the hot gas in clusters of galaxies
81: (Zeldovich \& Sunyaev 1969, \sz 1972). The effect constitutes a unique
82: cluster and cosmological probe (for reviews, see Rephaeli 1995a,
83: Birkinshaw 1999), whose great potential is beginning to be realized in
84: recent years following the major observational progress in obtaining
85: sensitive images of the effect by (mostly) interferometric arrays
86: (Jones et al. 1993, Carlstrom et al. 2000, Udomprasert, Mason, \&
87: Readhead 2000, and the review by Carlstrom \ea 2001)
88: and the increasingly more precise values of the Hubble constant
89: ($H_0$) that have been deduced from S-Z and X-ray measurements. For
90: example, a fit to data from 33 cluster distances
91: yields $H_0 = 58$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (in a flat cosmological
92: model), with direct observational errors of $\pm 5\%$ (Carlstrom \ea
93: 2001), but with a much larger level of systematic uncertainties. Among
94: others, the latter include simplified modeling of the properties of
95: the hot intracluster (IC) gas, and cluster morphology. These are the
96: main limitations to the use of the S-Z effect as a precise cosmological
97: probe, and as such give further motivation for in-depth studies of
98: the cluster environment.
99:
100: Energetic non-thermal (NT) electrons whose pressure is not negligible
101: compared to the thermal gas pressure constitute an aspect of IC
102: phenomena with possibly appreciable ramifications for precision S-Z
103: measurements. The presence of significant energetic electron
104: populations in many clusters has been known from measurements of
105: diffuse IC radio emission, and recently also from NT X-ray emission
106: in a few clusters (Rephaeli, Gruber \& Blanco 1999, hereafter RGB,
107: Fusco-Femiano \ea 1999, Kaastra et al. 1999, Gruber \& Rephaeli 2002). NT
108: electrons produce an additional degree of Comptonization which
109: amounts to a small intensity change ($\Delta I_{nt}$) that must be
110: accounted for, particularly in the measurement of $H_0$ from the thermal
111: component, and peculiar cluster velocities from the kinematic component
112: of the S-Z effect. Relativistic generalizations (Rephaeli 1995b, Challinor
113: \& Lasenby 1998, Sazonov \& Sunyaev 1998) of the original non-relativistic
114: calculations of \sz (1972, 1980) have now been performed to a sufficiently
115: high level of accuracy, including also terms of order $\tau^2$
116: (Nozawa, Itoh, \& Kohyama 1998, Itoh \ea 2000, Shimon \& Rephaeli
117: 2002), where $\tau$ is the Thomson optical depth of the cluster.
118: In calculating the effect of multiple scatterings the finite size of the
119: cluster has to be explicitly accounted for; this has been done in the
120: Monte-Carlo simulations of Molnar \& Birkinshaw (1999).
121: The \rel treatment provides the theoretical basis for calculation also
122: of $\Delta I_{nt}$.
123:
124:
125: CMB Comptonization by NT electrons was first assessed for conditions
126: in lobes (McKinnon, Owen, \& Eilek 1991) and cocoons (Yamada \& Sugiyama 1999)
127: of radio galaxies, with its possible use to measure their electron
128: pressure. The effect of such electrons in clusters was recently
129: considered in some more detail (Blasi \& Colafrancesco 1999, Ensslin
130: \& Kaiser 2000, Blasi, Olinto, \& Stebbins 2000).
131: Clearly, the higher the electron
132: pressure, the higher is the degree of Comptonization induced by the
133: electrons, and because models of NT electrons vary greatly in energy
134: density, estimates of their impact on the CMB range from a negligible
135: level, to a very substantial fraction of the thermal S-Z effect due to
136: the hot gas. It is quite essential to study NT electron
137: populations in order to {\it realistically} determine the spectral
138: and spatial profiles of $\Delta I_{nt}$ in clusters in which extended
139: radio emission has been measured. This may lead to ways by which their
140: impact on S-Z work can be minimized, and eventually the Comptonization
141: induced by NT electrons could perhaps even be used as a diagnostic tool
142: of these electrons.
143:
144: In this paper we perform an exact calculation of the degree of
145: Comptonization predicted in a range of NT electron models that have
146: been proposed to explain radio, EUV, and hard X-ray emission in
147: clusters. Our estimates of $\Delta I_{nt}$ in Coma and A2199
148: are based on recent results on the electron populations in
149: these clusters, and the main features of the resulting spectral change
150: are contrasted with those of the thermal component of the S-Z effect.
151:
152: \section{Non-thermal Electron Populations}
153:
154: The main evidence for \rel electrons and magnetic fields in clusters
155: comes from measurements of extended IC regions of radio emission (in
156: the frequency range $\sim 0.04-4$ GHz) with spectral indices and
157: luminosities in the range $\sim 1-2$, and $10^{40.5}$ -- $10^{42}$
158: erg/s ($H_0$ = 50 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$), respectively. Many of
159: the radio emitting regions detected in over 30 clusters (Giovannini,
160: Tordi, \& Feretti 1999, Giovannini \& Feretti 2000) are central, with
161: sizes in the range $\sim 1-3$ Mpc.
162: The energy range of the emitting electrons depends on the value of the
163: mean, volume-averaged magnetic field, a quantity which is not known
164: very well, but is likely to be in the range $\sim 0.1 - 1$ $\mu$G (for
165: a recent review, see Rephaeli 2001). The range of electron energies
166: implied from these measurements is roughly $1-100$ GeV, but electrons
167: with energies both below and above this range are also expected on
168: theoretical grounds.
169:
170: Relativistic electrons produce X-ray emission in a wide spectral
171: range by Compton scattering off the CMB (Rephaeli 1979) and by NT
172: bremsstrahlung. This emission has quite possibly been measured already
173: in Coma (Rephaeli, Gruber \& Blanco 1999, Fusco-Femiano \ea 1999),
174: A2199 (Kaastra \ea 1999), A2256 (Molendi, De Grandi, \& Fusco-Femiano
175: 2000), and A2319 (Gruber \& Rephaeli 2002) by the RXTE and BeppoSAX
176: satellites. These were spectral measurements;
177: the PCA, HEXTE (both aboard RXTE) and PDS (aboard BeppoSAX) experiments
178: do not have the adequate spatial resolution. Thus, we have no spatial
179: information on NT electrons from X-ray measurements, and only rudimentary
180: knowledge of the morphology of the radio emission (which, however, involves
181: also the unknown spatial distribution of the magnetic field). Therefore,
182: in order to avoid the need for introducing unknown parameters, we
183: characterize electron populations in terms of the spectral distribution
184: of their total number, ignoring their spatial profiles in the central
185: $\sim 1$ Mpc region where they mostly reside.
186:
187: Of the various proposed NT IC electron models (see, \eg, Sarazin 1999)
188: we focus here on those that have been contrasted with actual observational
189: data, with the electron distribution appropriately normalized by the
190: determination of both their total number and the power-law index, $q$.
191: Some of the proposed electron models were motivated by the presumption
192: that NT X-ray emission could also originate from NT
193: bremsstrahlung by energetic -- though not necessarily highly relativistic
194: -- electrons, and by an attempt to account also for observed EUV emission
195: from a few clusters. This emission is said to be NT (\eg, Sarazin \& Lieu
196: 1998, Bowyer \ea 1999), possibly by a population of low energy electrons.
197: The full electron distribution could be described either as a sum of two
198: separate parts (thermal plus NT), or by a `super Maxwellian', consisting
199: of a truncated Maxwellian with a power law tail (Blasi, Olinto, \&
200: Stebbins 2000) `sawn'
201: together at a given energy (\eg, $\sim 3kT_e$, where $T_e$ is the electron
202: [and gas] temperature). We consider here four specific models whose
203: parameters in Coma and A2199 have been determined from radio, EUV, and
204: NT X-ray measurements.
205:
206: The simplest model for the electron momentum distribution is a power-law
207: over a sufficiently wide range so as to explain both the observed radio
208: and possibly Compton-produced X-ray emission. We express the electron
209: spectrum in terms of the (differential) number, $N(p)$, per unit
210: dimensionless momentum, $p=\beta\gamma$, where $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are
211: the Lorentz factor and dimensionless velocity, $\beta=v/c$,
212: respectively,
213: \begin{eqnarray}
214: N(p)&=&A p^{-q}, \quad p_1 \leq p \leq p_2 \cr
215: \cr
216: A&=&{N_{12}(q-1) \over p_1 ^{-(q-1)} - p_2 ^{-(q-1)}}.
217: \end{eqnarray}
218: The limiting momenta $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the lower and higher values of
219: $p$ that correspond to the {\it observed radio frequency range}, and
220: $N_{12}$ is the total number of electrons with energies in this
221: specific interval, $[p_{1}, p_{2}]$. Details of such a model were
222: worked out long ago (Rephaeli 1977, 1979) and will not be repeated here.
223: Suffice it to say that the {\it full} momentum range is substantially
224: uncertain, especially its low end which is of particular relevance to
225: our discussion here.
226:
227: A simple way to obtain the lower energy extension of the above
228: distribution is to assume that steady state is attained, whereby
229: electrons are continually accelerated to compensate for radiative
230: energy losses -- defined here in terms of $dp/dt$ -- and a population
231: of lower energy electrons is built up. The latter can be determined by
232: taking into account the dominant rate of energy loss at energies well
233: below $\sim 150$ MeV, electronic (Coulomb) excitations, given by
234: (Rephaeli 1979)
235: \begin{eqnarray}
236: b_{ee}=1.2\times
237: 10^{-12}n_{e}\left[1.0+\frac{\ln\left(\sqrt{1+p^{2}}/n_{e}\right)}{75}
238: \right]\rm{s}^{-1},
239: \end{eqnarray}
240: where $n_{e}$ is the (thermal) electron number density. At higher
241: energies Compton-synchrotron losses dominate; these occur at a combined
242: rate (\eg, Rephaeli 1979)
243: \be
244: b_{cs}=1.37\times 10^{-20}[(1+z)^{4} + 9.5\times 10^{-2} (B/1\mu\rm{G})^{2}]
245: \, \rm{s}^{-1},
246: \ee
247: where $z$ is the cluster redshift, and $B$ is the mean, volume-averaged
248: value of the magnetic field. The steady state solution is then (Rephaeli
249: 1979)
250: \begin{eqnarray}
251: N_{I} \left(p\right)&=&\frac{Ab_{cs}}{b\left(p\right)}
252: \left(1+p^{2}\right)^{-\frac{\left(q-2\right)}{2}}\qquad\left(p_{1}\leq
253: p\leq
254: p_{2}\right)\nonumber\\&=&\frac{Ab_{cs}}{b\left(p\right)}
255: \left(1+p_{1}^{2}\right)^{-\frac{\left(q-2\right)}{2}}\qquad\left(p\leq
256: p_{1}\right),\nonumber\\
257: \end{eqnarray}
258: where
259: $b \equiv dp/dt = b_{ee}+b_{cs}\left(1+p^{2}\right)$.
260: Clearly, the observed radio frequency range implies that $p_{1}\gg 1$.
261: (Note that another possible energy loss mechanism is scattering by Alfven
262: waves, which the electrons themselves can excite if their spatial
263: distribution is somewhat anisotropic. Because of the substantial uncertainty
264: in estimating this loss mechanism [\eg, Rephaeli 1979] it will not be
265: considered here.) Parameters of this model were determined from RXTE
266: measurements of the Coma cluster, assuming the emission is from Compton
267: scattering of \rel electrons off the CMB (Rephaeli, Gruber, \& Blanco 1999),
268: and from BeppoSAX measurements of A2199 (Kaastra \ea 1999). This
269: appropriately extended electron population which has a power-law form
270: at low and high energies, but with indices whose values differ by unity,
271: is our first model. The parameters of all the models considered here are
272: given in Table 1.
273:
274: \begin{table*}[h]
275: \small
276: \begin{center}
277: \begin{tabular}{llllll}
278: \tableline
279: \tableline
280: Cluster&Model &Model
281: details&$\qquad N_{0}$&$\quad N_{nt}^{tot}$&$N_{nt}^{tot}/N_{th}^{tot}$\cr
282: \tableline
283: Coma & && &\cr
284: &I&Extended power law &$2.275\times 10^{72}$&$1.09\times
285: 10^{65}$&$4.70\times 10^{-7}$\cr
286: &II&Shock accelerated &$4.270\times
287: 10^{67}$&$2.98\times 10^{68}$&$1.28\times 10^{-3}$\cr
288: &III&Cooling electrons &$5.238\times 10^{62}$&$3.13\times
289: 10^{65}$&$1.35\times 10^{-6}$\cr
290: &IV&Simple power law q=3.68&$8.970\times 10^{68}$&$9.27\times
291: 10^{69}$&$0.04$\cr
292: &&\cr
293: A2199 & && &\cr
294: &I&Extended power law&$2.306\times 10^{68}$&$1.66\times
295: 10^{64}$&$2.10\times 10^{-7}$\cr
296: &II&Shock accelerated&$4.240\times
297: 10^{67}$&$6.22\times 10^{68}$&$7.90\times 10^{-3}$\cr
298: &III&Cooling electrons &$5.238\times 10^{62}$&$3.13\times
299: 10^{65}$&$3.95\times 10^{-6}$\cr
300: &IV&Power law q=3.33&$5.420\times 10^{68}$&$6.47\times
301: 10^{69}$&$0.082$\cr
302: \tableline
303: \end{tabular}
304: \end{center}
305: \caption{Models for NT electrons in the Coma and A2199 clusters.}
306: \end{table*}
307:
308: Two other forms for $N(p)$ are discussed by Sarazin \& Kempner (2000). In
309: the first model electrons are accelerated to relativistic energies by
310: shell-type supernova remnants (Baring \ea 1999). When the back reaction of
311: the accelerating electrons on the shock structure is taken into account,
312: then this presumably leads to a modified power-law form at small momenta,
313: resulting in the following distribution,
314: \begin{eqnarray}
315: N_{II} \left(p\right)=\frac{N_{0}p^{-2}}{1+p_{c}^{2}}\left[1+
316: \left(\frac{p_{c}}{p}\right)^{2}\right].
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: We assume $p_{c}=1$ in normalizing the model.
319: Explicit account of Coulomb losses yields the third distribution
320: \begin{eqnarray}
321: N_{III}\left(p\right)=\frac{2N_{0}p^{2}}{1+p^{2}}.
322: \end{eqnarray}
323: $N_{0}$ is derived from comparison of the models with observations
324: and assuming that the hard X-ray emission mechanism is NT bremsstrahlung.
325: The electron distribution in Equation (6) has an upper momentum cutoff
326: at $p=300$.
327:
328: Sarazin \& Kempner (2000) also propose a simple power law model which
329: extends to lower energies {\it with no change in the index}. This is the
330: fourth (IV) model explored here. The observationally deduced parameters for
331: the above four models are listed in Table 1; in these models, the lower
332: momentum cutoff is $p_{1}=\sqrt{(1+3\Theta)^{2}-1}$, where
333: $\Theta=kT_{e}/mc^{2}$.
334:
335:
336: \section{Comptonization}
337:
338: A detailed description of the Comptonized spectrum resulting from
339: scattering of the CMB by a thermal, non-\rel population of electrons
340: was given by \sz (1972, 1980). A more accurate treatment of the process
341: requires \rel generalization due to the rapid motion of electrons in
342: the hot ($kT_{e} \leq 15$ keV) IC gas, as has been shown explicitly by
343: Rephaeli (1995a).
344: A fully relativistic treatment (but still in the Thomson limit, and
345: with electron recoil and induced scattering safely ignored)
346: is obviously required in order to calculate the Comptonized spectrum
347: resulting from scattering of the radiation by a NT energetic electron
348: population. We use the approach adopted in the latter paper (see also
349: Rephaeli \& Yankovitch 1997).
350:
351: The probability of scattering of an incoming photon moving originally
352: in the direction specified by $\mu_{0}=\cos\theta_{0}$, to the
353: direction $\mu'_{0}=\cos\theta'_{0}$, is (Chandrasekhar 1950)
354: \begin{eqnarray}
355: f\left(\mu_{0},\mu'_{0}\right)=\frac{3}{8}\left[1+
356: \mu_{0}^{2}\mu'^{2}_{0}+\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\mu_{0}^{2}\right)\left(1-
357: \mu'^{2}_{0}\right)\right],
358: \end{eqnarray}
359: where the subscript $0$ denotes quantities in the electron rest
360: frame.
361: The logarithmic frequency shift in the scattering is
362: \begin{eqnarray}
363: s\equiv\ln\left(\nu'/\nu\right)=\ln\left(\frac{1+\beta\mu'_{0}}
364: {1+\beta\mu_{0}}\right) \,,
365: \end{eqnarray}
366: where $\beta$ is the dimensionless electron velocity in the CMB frame.
367: The probability for scattering is conveniently written in
368: terms of the variables $\beta$ and $t=e^{s}$ (Wright 1979),
369: \begin{eqnarray}
370: \mathcal{P} \left(s,\beta\right)=\frac{1}{2\gamma^{4}\beta}
371: \int_{\mu_{1}}^{\mu_{2}}\frac{e^{s}f\left(\mu_{0},
372: \mu'_{0}\right)}{\left(1+\beta\mu_{0}\right)^{2}}d\mu_{0},
373: \end{eqnarray}
374: where $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ are given by
375: \begin{eqnarray}
376: \mu_{1}=\left\{
377: \matrix{\frac{e^{-s}\left(1-\beta\right)-1}{\beta}&s\leq 0
378: \cr
379: -1&s\geq 0}\right.
380: \end{eqnarray}
381: \begin{eqnarray}
382: \mu_{2}=\left\{
383: \matrix{1&s\leq 0
384: \cr
385: \frac{e^{-s}\left(1+\beta\right)-1}{\beta}&s\geq 0 }\right..
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: Integration over $\mu_{0}$ in Equation (9) yields
388: \begin{eqnarray}
389: \mathcal{P} \left(t,p\right)&=&-\frac{3|1-t|}{32p^{6}t}\left[1+
390: \left(10+8p^{2}+4p^{4}\right)t+t^{2}\right]\nonumber\\
391: &+&\frac{3\left(1+t\right)}{8p^{5}}\left[\frac{3+3p^{2}+p^{4}}{\sqrt{1
392: +p^{2}}}-\frac{3+2p^{2}}{2p}\left(2 \sinh^{-1}\left(p\right)
393: -|\ln\left(t\right)|\right)\right],
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: where
396: \begin{eqnarray}
397: |\ln\left(t\right)|\leq2 \sinh^{-1}\left(p\right).
398: \end{eqnarray}
399:
400: Compton scattering results in a frequency shift, $x\rightarrow x'$, where $x$
401: is the dimensionless frequency $x=h\nu/kT$, and $T$ is the CMB
402: temperature. The corresponding change of the photon occupation number through
403: a pathlength along the cluster, $\Delta n(x)$, is obtained by integrations
404: over the scattering probability and electron momentum distributions,
405: \begin{eqnarray}
406: \Delta n\left(x\right)=\tau\int_{p_{1}}^{p_{2}}\int_{t_{min}}^{t_{max}}
407: dpdt \frac{N(p)}{N_{tot}}\mathcal{P} \left(t,p\right)\left(\frac{1}{e^{xt}-1}
408: -\frac{1}{e^{x}-1}\right),
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: where $\tau$ is the optical depth of the cluster to Compton scattering,
411: and $N_{tot}$ is the total number of electrons in the cluster.
412: The measured quantity is the change in intensity,
413: $\Delta I(x)/i_{0} = x^{3}\Delta n(x)$, where $i_{0}=2(kT)^{3}/(hc)^{2}$.
414: We use the latter equation to calculate the additional intensity change
415: induced by energetic electrons, $\Delta I_{nt}(x)$, in the electron models
416: described in the previous section, with parameter values sampling the
417: observationally deduced ranges, as specified in Table 1 for all the four
418: electron models.
419:
420: If Comptonization by NT electrons is not taken into account it could
421: affect the observationally deduced value of the crossover frequency,
422: $x_{0}$, defined as the frequency at which the {\it purely thermal}
423: effect vanishes. The exact value of $x_{0}$ has practical
424: significance, since observations near this frequency are optimal for
425: the determination of cluster peculiar velocities (Rephaeli \& Lahav 1991)
426: from measurements of the kinematic component of the S-Z effect.
427: We have calculated the modified value of the frequency where now the
428: {\it sum} of the thermal and NT intensity changes vanishes. For this we
429: used the analytic expression of Nozawa, Itoh, \& Kohyama(1998)
430: for the thermal and
431: kinematic components of the S-Z effect, and computed $x_{0}$ using the
432: measured values of the temperatures in Coma and A2199.
433:
434: \section{Results}
435:
436: The impact of each of the above four NT electron models depends very much
437: on the total number of these electrons as determined by radio, NT EUV
438: and X-ray emission. The thermal gas parameters are based on X-ray
439: measurements. For Coma, recent XMM measurements yield $kT_{e}=8.2 \pm 0.4$
440: keV for the gas temperature (Arnaud \ea 2001), and (since
441: quantitative results for the gas density profile from either XMM or
442: {\it Chandra} are not yet available) we have taken the ROSAT deduced
443: values (Mohr, Mathiesen, \& Evrard 1999), $n_{e0} \simeq (3.12. \pm 0.04)
444: \times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$, $r_{c}=0.366$ Mpc, and $\beta_{n} \simeq 0.705$,
445: for the central electron density, core radius, and index in the expression
446: for (the commonly used) density profile,
447: $n_{e}(r) = n_{e0}(1+r^{2}/r_{c}^{2})^{-3\beta_{n}/2}$, respectively.
448: The corresponding values in A2199 are $kT_{e}=4.7$ keV, central
449: electron density $n_{e0}=7.21\times 10^{-3}\rm{cm}^{-3}$,
450: $r_{c}=0.196$ Mpc, and $\beta_{n}=0.78$ (Kaastra et al. 1999). These
451: values are based on $H_0 = 50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
452:
453: Clearly, most of the intensity change $\Delta I_{nt}(x)$ is due to the
454: more numerous low energy electrons. More specifically, a typical CMB
455: photon has dimensionless frequency $\bar{x}=2.701$, and the scattered
456: photon frequency is on average
457: \begin{eqnarray}
458: \bar{\frac{x'}{x}}=1+\frac{4}{3}p^{2}.
459: \end{eqnarray}
460: The observationally relevant range of values of $x$ is at most $x \leq 20$,
461: and since the (the 68\% likelihood) interval of rms values of $x'$,
462: $\Delta x' \simeq x\sqrt{2 p^{2}/3 + 46p^{4}/45}$, is very wide for
463: $p>1$, it follows that electrons with momenta much larger than at most
464: a few tens are largely irrelevant for boosting photons to frequencies
465: such that $x \leq 20$.
466: (Obviously, {\it all} electrons contribute to the value of the Thomson
467: optical depth and the decrement on the Rayleigh-Jeans side.)
468:
469: We have calculated $\Delta I_{nt}(x)/i_{0}$ and total electron energies
470: in the extended power-law model described by equation (4), using the
471: observationally deduced model parameters in Coma and A2199. We emphasize
472: that the basic model is a power law at high energies ($\geq 1$ GeV) with
473: the index determined from radio measurements. The distribution is then
474: appropriately extended to lower energies (by taking electronic excitations
475: losses into account)
476: resulting in a change in the value of the index at
477: low energies. The power law indices and overall normalizations were taken
478: from Rephaeli, Gruber \& Blanco (1999) for Coma, and Kaastra \ea (1999)
479: for A2199. Based on these parameters, the deduced values of
480: $\Delta I_{nt}(x)/i_{0}$ are very small in comparison with the
481: magnitude of the
482: thermal S-Z effect in these clusters as predicted from the measured
483: values of the gas temperature and density. In Coma the S-Z effect was
484: actually measured by Herbig et al. (1995) using the
485: OVRO 5.5 m telescope, and more recently by De Petris \ea (2002) using
486: the MITO telescope. In the former paper the temperature change in the
487: center of Coma was reported to be $\Delta T = -505 \pm 92$ $\mu$K at
488: $32$ GHz ($x \simeq 0.56$), a value which is consistent with that
489: predicted based on the X-ray deduced parameters. A somewhat lower
490: value was deduced by De Petris \ea (2002). Our calculated values
491: of $\Delta I_{nt}(x)/i_{0}$ due to NT electrons are smaller than
492: 0.001\% of the predicted thermal effect in Coma and A2199. Clearly,
493: the implied shift in the value of the crossover frequency is also
494: negligible. The very small impact of NT electrons in this model is not
495: surprising given the relatively low energy content of these electrons,
496: $\sim 0.8\%$
497: of the thermal electron energy in Coma and A2199.
498:
499: Next we calculated the degree of Comptonization in the shock accelerated
500: and cooling electrons models (II and III) described in equations (5) and
501: (6). We have normalized these models to match the observed EUV emission,
502: at a luminosity level of roughly $5\times 10^{43}\ \rm{erg}\ \rm{s}^{-1}$ over the
503: band 0.065-0.245 keV in both Coma and A2199. In the shock accelerated
504: electron model the calculated levels of $\Delta I_{nt}(x)$ are $<0.5\%$
505: and $\leq 3\%$ of the corresponding intensity change due to thermal
506: electrons, and the shift in the value of the crossover frequency is
507: also quite small. Calculated values of the energy in NT electrons in
508: this model are $\sim$3\% and 13\%-16\% (for $p_{c}=0.3-1.0$) of the
509: energy in thermal electrons in Coma and A2199, respectively. In the
510: cooling electron model, the degree of NT Comptonization is negligible,
511: less than $0.003\%$ of the magnitude of the thermal S-Z effect in both
512: Coma and A2199. This is mainly due to the small number of NT electrons
513: in this model, $\sim$ 0.1\% of that in the shock accelerated electron
514: model. The NT electron energy constitutes 0.9\% and 4.2\% of
515: the electron thermal energy in the two clusters. Our calculated
516: quantities are listed in Table 2. The first column is the cluster name
517: (or Abell number), the second is the model number, third is the ratio
518: of (total) energy in NT to energy in thermal electrons. In the
519: fourth column we list the net energy deposition rate (in keV/Gyr) by
520: NT electrons, and in the
521: fifth the value of the crossover frequency;
522: values of the error in the peculiar velocity and the ratio
523: $\Delta I_{nt}(x)/ \Delta I$ are listed in last two columns.
524:
525: \begin{table*}[h]
526: \small
527: \begin{center}
528: \begin{tabular}{llllllllll}
529: \tableline
530: \tableline
531: Cluster & Model & $E_{nt}/E_{th}$ & $\quad\rm{dE/dt}$ & $x_{nt}$ &
532: $\quad\Delta v>$ & $\Delta I_{nt}/ \Delta I$ \cr
533: &&\%&(\rm{keV/Gyr})& &(\rm{km/sec})&\qquad\%\cr
534: \tableline
535: Coma &&&&&&\cr
536: &Thermal& & &3.9000&&&\cr
537: &I&0.79&$-0.06$&3.9000&-&$1.4\times 10^{-4}$\cr
538: &II&3.18&$10.80$&3.9020&-&0.41\cr
539: &III&0.90&$-0.04$&3.9000&-&$4.7\times 10^{-4}$\cr
540: &IV&21.59&$296.86$&3.9216&-110&6.8\cr
541: &&&&&&\cr
542: A2199& & & &&&\cr
543: &Thermal& & &3.8700&&&\cr
544: &I&0.74&$-0.15$&3.8701&-&$1.2\times 10^{-4}$\cr
545: &II&15.87&$58.87$&3.8803&-&2.97\cr
546: &III&4.23&$-0.06$&3.8702&-&$2.5\times 10^{-3}$\cr
547: &IV&64.17&$626.39$&3.9385&-210&34.5\cr
548: \tableline
549: \end{tabular}
550: \end{center}
551: \caption{The impact of the four energetic electron models (see the text for
552: definitions of the listed quantities).}
553: \end{table*}
554:
555: The much higher NT electron energy content in the single power law (model
556: IV) suggested by Sarazin \& Kempner (2000), $\sim 20\% - 22\%$ (for $q=2.92 -
557: 3.68$) in Coma, and $\sim 64\% - 184\%$ (for $q=2.2 - 3.33$) in A2199,
558: result in substantial degrees of additional Comptonization. Using values
559: of the parameters as deduced by Sarazin \& Kempner (2000), listed in
560: Table 1, we calculate the change of intensity, $\Delta I_{nt}(x)/i_{0}$,
561: shown in Figure 1, and listed in Table 2. It is clear from this figure
562: that $\Delta I_{nt}(x)$ can reach an appreciable fraction of $\Delta I(x)$.
563: For example, near the peak of the Comptonized Planckian, at $x \sim 6.5$,
564: $\Delta I_{nt} / \Delta I$ is $\leq 13\%$ and $\leq 35\%$ for Coma and A2199,
565: respectively. The implied shift in the value of the crossover frequency in
566: this model, $\sim 2$ GHz in Coma, and $\geq 4$ GHz in A2199, would also
567: be observationally relevant. Such a systematic shift would introduce an
568: error in the deduced value of the peculiar velocity. The implied
569: error (which does not depend on the velocity, if the very small quadratic
570: dependence of $\Delta I(x)$ on the velocity is ignored) amounts to
571: $\sim 110$ km/s for Coma ($q= 2.92 - 3.68$), and $\sim 210$ km/s
572: ($q=3.33$) and $320$ km/s ($q=2.2$) for A2199 (values lower than
573: 100 km/s are not shown in Table 2).
574:
575: \begin{figure}[h]
576: \plottwo{f1.eps}{f2.eps}
577: \caption{The spectrum of the additional Comptonization due to energetic
578: electrons in the models proposed by Sarazin \& Kempner (2000) for the
579: Coma (left panel) and A2199 (right panel).}
580: \end{figure}
581:
582:
583: Finally, we have calculated the heating rate of the hot gas by the NT
584: electrons through Coulomb interactions (Rephaeli 1979, Rephaeli \& Silk
585: 1995) in the four models considered in this paper. Energy deposition rates
586: into the gas were estimated by taking a mean gas density in the central
587: 1 Mpc region of Coma and A2199. Subtraction of the observed cooling rate
588: due to thermal bremsstrahlung (X-ray) emission then yields the net rate of
589: temperature change. Values of the latter quantity (in keV/Gyr) are listed
590: in Table 2.
591:
592: \section{Discussion}
593:
594: We have briefly discussed models for NT energetic electrons and
595: their predicted effect on the CMB based on parameters that were
596: deduced from radio, EUV, and X-ray measurements of Coma and A2199.
597: Our immediate objective has been the exact calculation of the additional
598: degree of Comptonization due to these electrons, and its possibly relevant
599: observational consequences. Only electron models that have direct
600: observational motivation were considered. Since all these models have
601: basically a power-law form, it is clear that their impact on the CMB is
602: largely due to the more abundant lower energy electrons (except for the
603: cooling electrons model). However, the interpretation of the EUV and X-ray
604: emissions as NT bremsstrahlung and Compton scattering are not secure, so
605: there is considerable uncertainty in quantifying electron densities.
606: Moreover, since low energy electrons lose energy mostly by non-radiative
607: coupling to the thermal gas, the uncertainty in the estimation of their
608: density is particularly substantial. Only the presence of \rel electrons is
609: well established from measurements of extended regions of radio emission
610: in many clusters (including Coma, but not A2199). Clearly, radio
611: measurements yield the electron density only if we have an independent
612: estimate of the mean, volume-averaged value of the magnetic field in the
613: emitting region. Estimates of the mean IC field are few and uncertain
614: (Newman, Newman \& Rephaeli 2002).
615:
616: Due to the lack of detailed information on IC energetic electron
617: populations, relevant theoretical considerations are of particular
618: interest. First, since it is virtually always the case that particle
619: acceleration mechanisms tap only a small fraction of the energy at the
620: source, energy density in NT electrons is likely to be only a small
621: fraction of the gas (which is a significant mass component of clusters)
622: thermal energy density. Realistically, therefore, the thermal energy
623: density in clusters is expected to set an absolute upper limit to the
624: energy density in NT electrons, a limit which is very unlikely to be
625: reached. Second, the energetic electron population is linked to the
626: gas mainly by Coulomb coupling that results in energy transfer from
627: energetic electrons (and protons) to the gas. This coupling and the
628: resulting heating set stringent constraints on the attainment of
629: steady state in general, and the density of low energy NT electron
630: models in particular.
631:
632: We have calculated the ratio of total energy in NT electrons to that
633: in thermal electrons in the four energetic electron models
634: considered in this paper; for the first three models the calculated
635: values (in Table 2) are low. For the power law model of Sarazin \& Kempner
636: (2000), the corresponding values are very high ($\sim 22\%$ in Coma, and
637: $\geq 64\%$ in A2199) and quite unrealistic. Such large energy contents
638: would also imply a high rate of energy transfer to the gas, and heating at
639: a rate higher than the rate of cooling by emission of thermal radiation.
640: This without even considering the additional heating by IC energetic
641: protons (whose energy density in the Galaxy is higher than that of \rel
642: electrons).
643:
644: In fact, the single power law model of Sarazin \& Kempner (2000) is not
645: only unappealing from an energetic point of view, but is also questionable
646: on a more basic physical ground: As we have stated in Section 2 -- based
647: on the original work of Rephaeli (1979) -- correct extrapolation of the
648: \rel electron energy spectrum to low ($<100$ MeV) energies must account
649: for electronic Coulomb excitations, the dominant energy loss mechanism
650: at such energies for typical gas densities in the central regions of
651: clusters. The very weak energy dependence of this mechanism (in contrast
652: with the quadratic dependence of the Compton-synchrotron energy loss rate)
653: flattens the spectrum at low energies, resulting in a much smaller number
654: of electrons than would have been predicted otherwise. We conclude that
655: this model is non-viable; therefore, the high degree of implied
656: Comptonization and appreciable shift in the value of $x_0$ that
657: are predicted in this model are at best very high upper limits to
658: the impact of NT electrons on measurements of the S-Z effect.
659:
660: Our basic result in this paper is that exact calculation of the impact
661: of realistically normalized models of NT electrons in Coma and A2199 yields
662: levels of the degree of Comptonization by such electrons that are only a
663: negligible fraction of the corresponding S-Z effect due to the hot IC
664: gas. It is clear from our discussion that this result is generally valid
665: since the energy density in NT electrons is not likely to be a significant
666: fraction of the thermal energy density. In clusters with a significant NT
667: electron population the added Comptonization due to these electrons
668: would clearly constitute a source of confusion in the analysis of S-Z
669: measurements. Since there are little or no differences in the spectral
670: CMB signatures of thermal and NT electrons, high spatial resolution X-ray,
671: S-Z and radio measurements of these clusters would be needed in order
672: to minimize this confusion when (as expected) the spatial profiles of the
673: two electron populations are found to be detectably different.
674:
675: \acknowledgments
676: Useful comments made by the referee on an earlier version of the paper
677: are gratefully acknowledged. This research has been supported by the
678: Israeli Science Foundation grant 729$\backslash$00-02 at Tel Aviv University.
679: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
680: \bibitem{1} Arnaud, M.~et al.\ 2001, \aap, 365, L67
681: \bibitem{2} Baring, M.~G., Ellison, D.~C., Reynolds, S.~P., Grenier,
682: I.~A., \& Goret, P.\ 1999, \apj, 513, 311
683: \bibitem{3} Birkinshaw, M.\ 1999, \physrep, 310, 97
684: \bibitem{4} Blasi, P.~\& Colafrancesco, S.\ 1999, Astroparticle Physics,
685: 12, 169
686: \bibitem{5} Blasi, P., Olinto, A.~V., \& Stebbins, A.\ 2000, \apjl, 535, L71
687: \bibitem{6} Bowyer, S., Bergh{\" o}fer, T.~W., \& Korpela, E.~J.\ 1999,
688: \apj, 526, 592
689: \bibitem{61} Carlstrom, J.~E.~\& et al.\ 2000, IAU Symposium, 201,
690: E48
691: \bibitem{7} Carlstrom, J.E. \ea 2001, astro-ph/0103480
692: \bibitem{8} Challinor, A.~\& Lasenby, A.\ 1998, \apj, 499, 1
693: \bibitem{9} Chandrasekhar, S.\ 1950, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1950
694: \bibitem{10} De Petris, M. \ea 2002, astro-ph/0203303
695: \bibitem{11} Ensslin, T.~A.~\& Kaiser, C.~R.\ 2000, \aap, 360, 417
696: \bibitem{12} Fusco-Femiano, R., dal Fiume, D., Feretti, L., Giovannini, G.,
697: Grandi, P., Matt, G., Molendi, S., \& Santangelo, A.\ 1999, \apjl, 513, L21
698: \bibitem{13} Giovannini, G., Tordi, M., \& Feretti, L.\ 1999, New
699: Astronomy, 4, 141
700: \bibitem{14} Giovannini, G.~\& Feretti, L.\ 2000, New Astronomy, 5, 335
701: \bibitem{15} Gruber D.E., \& Rephaeli Y. 2002, \apj, in press
702: (astro-ph/0110512)
703: \bibitem{16} Herbig, T., Lawrence, C.~R., Readhead, A.~C.~S., \& Gulkis,
704: S.\ 1995, \apjl, 449, L5
705: \bibitem{17} Itoh N., Kawana Y., Nozawa S., Kohyama Y.,
706: astro-ph/0005390
707: \bibitem{151} Jones, M., et al. 1993, Naure, 365, 320
708: \bibitem{18} Kaastra, J.~S., Lieu, R., Mittaz, J.~P.~D., Bleeker, J.~A.~M.,
709: Mewe, R., Colafrancesco, S., \& Lockman, F.~J.\ 1999, \apjl, 519, L119
710: \bibitem{19} McKinnon, M.~M., Owen, F.~N., \& Eilek, J.~A.\ 1991, \aj, 101,
711: 2026
712: \bibitem{20} Mohr, J.~J., Mathiesen, B., \& Evrard, A.~E.\ 1999, \apj, 517,
713: 627
714: \bibitem{21} Molendi, S., De Grandi, S., \& Fusco-Femiano, R.\ 2000, \apjl,
715: 534, L43
716: \bibitem{211} Molnar, S.~M.~\& Birkinshaw, M.\ 1999, \apj, 523, 78.
717: \bibitem{22} Newman, W.I., Newman, A.L., \& Rephaeli, Y. 2002, \apj, in press
718: \bibitem{23} Nozawa, S., Itoh, N., \& Kohyama, Y.\ 1998, \apj, 508, 17
719: \bibitem{24} Rephaeli, Y.\ 1977, \apj, 212, 608
720: \bibitem{25} Rephaeli, Y.\ 1979, \apj, 227, 364
721: \bibitem{26} Rephaeli, Y.~\& Lahav, O.\ 1991, \apj, 372, 21
722: \bibitem{27} Rephaeli, Y.\ 1995a, \araa, 33, 541
723: \bibitem{28} Rephaeli, Y.\ 1995b, \apj, 445, 33
724: \bibitem{29} Rephaeli, Y.~\& Silk, J.\ 1995, \apj, 442, 91
725: \bibitem{30} Rephaeli, Y.~\& Yankovitch, D.\ 1997, \apjl, 481, L55
726: \bibitem{31} Rephaeli, Y., Gruber, D., \& Blanco, P.\ 1999, \apjl, 511, L21
727: \bibitem{32} Rephaeli Y. 2001, {\it Astrophysical Sources of High Energy
728: Particles \& Radiation}, Kluwer, Dordrecht (astro-ph/0105265)
729: \bibitem{33} Sarazin, C.~L.~\& Lieu, R.\ 1998, \apjl, 494, L177
730: \bibitem{331} Sarazin, C.~L.\ 1999, \apj, 520, 529.
731: \bibitem{34} Sarazin, C.~L.~\& Kempner, J.~C.\ 2000, \apj, 533, 73
732: \bibitem{35} Sazonov, S.~Y.~\& Sunyaev, R.~A.\ 1998, \apj, 508, 1
733: \bibitem{36} Shimon M., Rephaeli Y.\ 2002, in preparation
734: \bibitem{37} Sunyaev, R.~A.~\& Zeldovich Y.~B.\ 1972, \casp, 4, 173
735: \bibitem{38} Sunyaev R.~A.~\& Zel'dovich Y.~B.\ 1980, \mnras, 190, 413
736: \bibitem{381} Udomprasert, P.~S., Mason, B.~S., \& Readhead, A.~C.~S.\
737: 2000, American Astronomical Society Meeting, 197, 110401
738: \bibitem{39} Wright, E.~L.\ 1979, \apj, 232, 348
739: \bibitem{40} Yamada, M., Sugiyama, N., \& Silk, J.\ 1999, \apj, 522, 66
740: \bibitem{41} Zeldovich, Y.~B.~\& Syunaev, R.~A.\ 1969, \apss, 4, 301
741: \end{thebibliography}
742:
743: \end{document}
744:
745:
746:
747:
748:
749:
750:
751:
752:
753: