1: %\documentclass[prd,showkeys,superscriptaddress,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[usenatbib,twocolumn,useAMS]{mn2e}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{latexsym}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
7: \input{epsf}
8: \def\araa{Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.}
9: \def\prd{Phys. Rev. D}
10: \def\apj{Astrophys. J.}
11: \def\mnras{Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.}
12: \def\aap{Astron. \& Astrophys.}
13: \newcommand{\bfig}{\noindent\begin{minipage}{3.48in}}
14: \newcommand{\efig}{\bigskip\end{minipage}}
15: \title{The effect of cluster magnetic field on the Sunyaev Zeldovich
16: power spectrum}
17: \author[Pengjie Zhang]
18: {Pengjie Zhang\thanks{E-mail:zhangpj@fnal.gov}\\
19: NASA/Fermilab Astrophysics Group,
20: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Box 500,
21: Batavia, IL 60510-050}
22: \begin{document}
23: \maketitle
24: \begin{abstract}
25: Precision measurements of the Sunyaev Zeldovich (SZ) effect in
26: upcoming blank sky surveys
27: require theoretical understanding of all physical processes with $\ga
28: 10\%$ effects on the SZ power spectrum. We show that, observed cluster magnetic field could
29: reduce the SZ power spectrum by $\sim 20\%$ at $l\sim 4000$, where the
30: SZ power spectrum will be precisely measured
31: by the Sunyaev Zeldovich array (SZA) and the Atacama cosmology
32: telescope (ACT). At
33: smaller scale, this effect is larger and could reach a factor of
34: several. Such effect must be considered for an unbiased interpretation
35: of the SZ data. Though the magnetic effect on the SZ power spectrum is
36: very similar to that of radiative cooling, it is measurable by
37: multi-band CMB polarization measurement.
38:
39: \end{abstract}
40: \begin{keywords}
41: cosmology-large scale structure-theory:magnetic
42: field-clusters:cosmic microwave background
43: \end{keywords}
44: \section{Introduction}
45: Our universe is almost completely ionized at $z\la 6$. Ionized
46: electron scatters off CMB photons by its thermal motion and so
47: generates secondary CMB temperature fluctuations. This effect is known
48: as the thermal Sunyaev Zeldovich (SZ) effect. Since all free
49: electrons participate in the inverse Compton scattering and contribute
50: to the SZ effect, the SZ effect is an unbiased probe of the thermal
51: energy of the universe. Its precision measurement and interpretation
52: are of great importance to understand the thermal history of the universe.
53:
54: Several detections of the CMB excess power over the primary CMB at
55: $\sim 10^{'}$ scale (CBI at $l\la 3500$ \citep{Bond02,Mason03}, BIMA
56: at $l\sim 6800$ \citep{Dawson02} and a marginal detection by ACBAR at
57: $l\sim 3000$ \citep{Kuo02}) may signal the first detections of the SZ effect in a
58: blank sky survey. Several upcoming CMB experiments such as ACT, Planck
59: and SZA
60: are likely able to measure the SZ power spectrum with $\sim 1\%$
61: accuracy\footnote{\citet{Zhangpj03} estimate the accuracy of the kinetic
62: SZ effect measurement by ACT, which could reach $1\%$. Since the
63: thermal SZ effect is about $30$ times stronger than the kinetic SZ
64: effect, a $1\%$ accuracy measurement of the thermal SZ effect by ACT
65: is highly likely.}.
66:
67: Such precision measurement of the SZ effect requires an accurate
68: understanding of it. Since upcoming SZ experiments are mainly
69: interferometers, most works have focused on the prediction of the SZ
70: power spectrum. Lots effort has been made to predict
71: the SZ effect in an adiabatically evolving universe, both analytically
72: \citep{Cole88,Makino93,Atrio-Barandela99,Komatsu99,Cooray00,Molnar00,
73: Majumdar01,Zhang01,Komatsu02} and simulationally
74: \citep{daSilva00,Refregier00,Seljak01,Springel01,Zhang02}. But various
75: processes could introduce $\ga 10\%$ uncertainties to the predicted power
76: spectrum. The most significant ones may be feedback, preheating and
77: radiative cooling, as favored by observations of clusters
78: (\citet{Xue03} and reference therein) and the soft X-ray background
79: \citep{Pen99}. The
80: injection of non-gravitational energy heats up gas, makes it less clumpy and decreases
81: the SZ power spectrum \citep{daSilva01,Lin02,White02}. An energy injection of
82: $\sim 1 $KeV per nucleon could decrease the SZ power spectrum by a
83: factor of $2$. Radiative cooling efficiently removes hot gas in the
84: core of clusters and groups
85: and reduces the SZ power significantly,
86: especially at small scales \citep{daSilva01,Zhang03}.
87: Supernova remnants generated by first stars cool mainly
88: through Compton scattering over CMB photons. The high efficiency of
89: such energy injection into CMB could introduce a SZ effect
90: comparable to that
91: of low redshift gas \citep{Oh03}.
92:
93: In this paper, we discuss the influence of cluster magnetic field on
94: the SZ effect. As we will find, cluster magnetic field can suppress
95: the SZ power spectrum by $\sim 20\%$ at $l\sim 4000$ and a factor of
96: $2$ at $1^{'}$.
97:
98:
99: Micro-gauss magnetic field universally exists in intracluster medium
100: (ICM) (refer to \citet{Carilli02} for a recent review). The strength
101: of magnetic field in the core of non-cooling flow clusters is
102: generally several $\mu$G, as inferred from Faraday rotation measure
103: (\citet{Carilli02,Eilek02,Taylor02}, but see
104: \citet{Newman02,Rudnick03} for the discussion of smaller values). The magnetic
105: pressure in the center of cluster could reach $\sim 1$-$10\%$ of the
106: gas thermal pressure. This extra pressure offsets part of the gravity
107: and prohibits ICM to further fall in and so results in a less clumpy gas
108: core. The cluster SZ temperature decrement could be then reduced by a
109: factor $10\%$ \citep{Dolag00,Koch03}. However, this effect is
110: only non-trivial for low mass clusters and groups in which gravity is
111: weaker. Since such clusters are difficult to detect, the detection
112: of the magnetic field effect on individual clusters is highly challenging.
113:
114: The SZ power
115: spectrum, on the other hand, avoids this problem. Three
116: characteristics of the SZ power spectrum amplify the effect of
117: magnetic field comparing to that of individual clusters. (1) Less massive
118: clusters and groups are more populous, which amplifies their
119: contribution to the
120: SZ effect. (2) The contribution of less massive clusters and groups to
121: the SZ power spectrum concentrates on smaller angular scales,
122: comparing to more massive clusters. (3) At $l\ga
123: 4000$, the contribution to the SZ effect is mainly from $z\ga 0.5$
124: \citep{Zhang01}, where less massive clusters are more dominant
125: comparing to nearby universe.
126: Combining these three points, the small scale SZ power is dominated by
127: low mass clusters and groups. Since
128: the influence of magnetic field on those clusters and groups is
129: larger, one expects, if there is no strong decrease in the
130: strength of magnetic field at $z\sim 1$, as suggested by high
131: redshift source rotation measures (\citet{Carilli02} and reference
132: therein), magnetic field could change the SZ power spectrum at small
133: scale by a significant fraction. Such effect is likely observable
134: in future SZ surveys, thus
135: the study of the effect of magnetic field on the SZ power spectrum
136: serves for both the precision modeling of the SZ effect and a better
137: understanding of cluster magnetic field and so deserves a detailed
138: analysis.
139:
140:
141: \citet{Koch03} build an analytical model to estimate the
142: effect of magnetic field on individual clusters adopting an
143: isothermal $\beta$
144: model for the ICM state and solve the magneto-hydrostatic
145: equilibrium equation perturbatively. Our goal is to investigate its
146: collective effect on the SZ power spectrum. For this purpose, we build a more
147: detailed and more consistent model, based on the model of {\it universal
148: gas density profile} \citep{Komatsu01}. Since for
149: low mass clusters and groups, magnetic
150: pressure is comparable to gas thermal pressure, the perturbative
151: method breaks down. So we solve the magneto-hydrostatic equilibrium equation
152: non-perturbatively. We develop our model
153: in \S \ref{sec:model} and apply it to the SZ effect in \S
154: \ref{sec:SZ}. We discuss and conclude in \S
155: \ref{sec:discussion}. Throughout this paper, we
156: adopt a WMAP-alone cosmology: $\Omega_m=0.268$,
157: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.732$, $\Omega_b=0.044$, $\sigma_8=0.84$ and
158: $h=0.71$ \citep{Spergel03}.
159:
160: \section{The effect of magnetic field on clusters}
161: \label{sec:model}
162: In this section, we will solve the hydrostatic equilibrium equation
163: of individual clusters for the gas density and temperature
164: profile, when magnetic field is present or not. First we need to know the
165: gravitational potential well, which is mainly determined by dominant
166: dark matter. The dark matter density
167: profile can be well approximated by the NFW profile \citep{Navarro96,Navarro97}
168: \begin{equation}
169: \rho_{\rm dm}=\rho_s y_{\rm dm}(x)=\rho_s \frac{1}{x(1+x)^2}.
170: \end{equation}
171: Here, $x\equiv r/r_s$ is the radius in unit of core radius $r_s$. The
172: core radius is related to the virial radius by the compact factor
173: $c\equiv r_{\rm vir}/r_s$. According to the definition of virial
174: radius, $r_{\rm vir}\equiv [M/(4\pi \Delta_c(z)
175: \rho_c(z)/3)]^{1/3}$ where $\Delta_c\sim 100$ is the mean density of a
176: halo with mass $M$ inside of its virial radius in unit of the critical density
177: $\rho_c(z)$ at redshift $z$. We adopt the predicted $\Delta_c$
178: from \citet{Eke96}. The compact factor we adopt is \citep{Seljak00}:
179: \begin{equation}
180: c=6\left(\frac{M}{10^{14}M_{\sun}/h}\right)^{-0.2}.
181: \end{equation}
182:
183: \begin{figure}
184: \epsfxsize=9cm
185: \epsffile{B.eps}
186: \caption{The effect of magnetic field on intracluster gas state. We assume
187: $B(r)=B_*[\rho_g/10^4\bar{\rho}_g]^{0.9}$. The central gas density (in
188: unit of mean gas density),
189: strength of central magnetic field and the ratio between the magnetic
190: pressure and the thermal pressure are shown in top, middle and bottom
191: panel, respectively. For solid,
192: dot, short dash and long dash lines, $B_*=0,1,2,3\ \mu G$,
193: respectively. More massive clusters have stronger
194: gravity and larger gas pressure, so the effect of magnetic field is
195: weaker. For less massive clusters, magnetic gas pressure is comparable
196: with the thermal pressure and $\rho_g(r=0)$ can be greatly suppressed
197: by a factor of unity. This density suppression in turn suppresses the
198: strength of the magnetic field by the $B$-$\rho_g$ correlation. So the
199: resulting strength of central magnetic field has only a weak dependence on halo
200: mass and falls in the observed range of $1$-$10 \mu G$ over a broad
201: range of halo mass, from galaxy-size halos to most massive
202: clusters. On the other
203: hand, magnetic field only weakly changes the gas temperature.\label{fig:B}}
204: \end{figure}
205:
206: The gas density $\rho_g$ and
207: temperature $T_g$ can then be solved by the hydrostatic
208: equilibrium condition and one extra assumption on the gas state. In
209: the literature, one either
210: assumes (a) that gas follows dark matter ($\rho_g\propto\rho_{\rm
211: dm}$. e.g. \citet{Wu02,Xue03}), or (b) isothermality ($T_g=$ cons.),
212: or (c) a polytropic gas
213: ($T_g\propto \rho_g^{\gamma-1}$. e.g. \citet{Komatsu01}). We will
214: follow the procedure of
215: \citet{Komatsu01} and adopt the assumption (c). We will outline its
216: basic idea in \S\ref{subsec:B=0} and extend it to
217: the case when magnetic field exists (\S\ref{subsec:B}).
218:
219: \subsection{$B=0$}
220: \label{subsec:B=0}
221: The three key ingredients of \citet{Komatsu01} are
222: \begin{itemize}
223: \item The hydrostatic equilibrium condition:
224: \begin{equation}
225: \label{eqn:hydroB=0}
226: \frac{dp_g}{dr}=-\frac{GM(\leq r)}{r^2}\rho_g.
227: \end{equation}
228:
229: Here, $M(\leq r)$ is the total mass contained in the sphere with
230: radius $r$. It can be approximated as
231: \begin{equation}
232: M(\leq r)\equiv4\pi \rho_s (1+\frac{\Omega_b}{\Omega_{\rm dm}}) r_s^3 m(x).
233: \end{equation}
234: Here, $m(x)\equiv\int_0^x u^2 y_{\rm dm}(u)du$.
235: \item A polytropic form of the gas equation of state:
236: \begin{equation}
237: p_g\propto \rho_g^{\gamma}.
238: \end{equation}
239: Then Eq. (\ref{eqn:hydroB=0}) becomes
240: \begin{equation}
241: \label{eqn:ygB=0}
242: y_g^{\gamma-1}=1-3\frac{T_{\rm vir}}{T_g(r=0)} \frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}
243: \frac{c}{m(c)} \int_0^x du \frac{m(u)}{u^2}.
244: \end{equation}
245: Here, $y_g(x)\equiv \rho_g(r)/\rho_g(r=0)$ is the relative gas density
246: profile. $T_{\rm vir}$ is the virial temperature
247: defined as
248: \begin{equation}
249: T_{\rm vir}\equiv \frac{GM\mu m_H}{3k_Br_{\rm vir}}=5.23\Omega_m
250: \frac{M/M_8}{r_{\rm vir}/(\rm Mpc/h)} {\rm KeV}.
251: \end{equation}
252: Here $M_8=5.96\Omega_m M_{\sun}/h$ is the average mass contained
253: within a $8$ Mpc/h comoving radius. Thus the gas state is solved up to
254: three constants
255: $\rho_g(r=0)$, $T_g(r=0)$ and $\gamma$.
256:
257: \item Gas density distribution follows dark matter density
258: distribution in the outer region of each cluster. So, $y_g(x)$ and
259: $y_{\rm dm}(x)$ must have the same slope at $x\ga c/2$. This
260: requirement simultaneously fixes $T_g(r=0)$ and $\gamma$:
261: \begin{eqnarray}
262: \label{eqn:T0B=0}
263: \frac{T_g(r=0)}{T_{\rm
264: vir}}&=&\frac{3}{\gamma}\frac{c}{m(c)}|S_*|^{-1}\\ \nonumber
265: &\times&\left(\frac{m(c)}{c}+(\gamma-1) |S_*|
266: \int_0^c du \frac{m(u)}{u^2}\right),
267: \end{eqnarray}
268: \begin{equation}
269: \label{eqn:gamma}
270: \gamma=1.15+0.01(c-6.5).
271: \end{equation}
272:
273: Here, $S_*\equiv d\ln y_{\rm dm}(x)/\ln(x)|_{c}$ is the slope of the dark
274: matter density profile at $x=c$. $\rho_g(r=0)$ is
275: fixed by requiring that
276: the baryon-dark
277: matter density ratio in the outer region follows its universal ratio:
278: \begin{equation}
279: \rho_g(r=0)=\rho_s \frac{\Omega_b}{\Omega_{\rm dm}}\frac{y_g(c)}{y_{\rm dm}(c)}.
280: \end{equation}
281:
282:
283: \end{itemize}
284:
285: \begin{figure}
286: \epsfxsize=9cm
287: \epsffile{y.eps}
288: \caption{The effect of magnetic file on the gas density profile. We assume
289: $B(r)=B_*[\rho_g)/10^4\bar{\rho}_g]^{0.9}$. For solid,
290: dot, short dash and long dash lines, $B_*=0,1,2,3\ \mu G$
291: respectively. Since the magnetic field is
292: strongest in the core, its effect is most significant in the core and
293: decreases dramatically outward. \label{fig:y}}
294: \end{figure}
295:
296: \subsection{$B\neq 0$}
297: \label{subsec:B}
298:
299: Magnetic pressure ($p_B=B^2/8\pi$) provides extra force to offset gravity and
300: suppresses the falling of gas into the gravitational potential
301: well. One then expects a less clumpy gas core. Clusters generally have
302: a magnetic field of the order $\mu G$, whose pressure is $\sim 10\%$ of
303: the thermal pressure:
304: \begin{equation}
305: \frac{p_B}{p_g}=0.0252(\frac{1000}{1+\delta_g})(\frac{5 {\rm KeV}}{k_B
306: T_g}) (\frac{B}{1\mu
307: G})^2 (\frac{0.02}{\Omega_b h^2}).
308: \end{equation}
309:
310: With the existence of magnetic field, Eq. \ref{eqn:hydroB=0}
311: changes to
312: \begin{equation}
313: \label{eqn:hydroB}
314: \frac{dp_g}{dr}+\frac{dp_B}{dr}=-\frac{GM(\leq r)}{r^2}\rho_g.
315: \end{equation}
316: If we assume that $B\propto \rho^\alpha$, we obtain
317: \begin{eqnarray}
318: y_g^{\gamma-1}+\eta y_g^{2\alpha-1}=(1+\eta)y_g^{\gamma-1}(B=0),
319: \end{eqnarray}
320: where
321: \begin{equation}
322: \label{eqn:eta}
323: \eta=\frac{p_B(B,r=0)}{p_g(B,r=0)} \frac{2\alpha}{2\alpha-1}
324: \frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}
325: \end{equation}
326: is determined by the central density and temperature.
327:
328:
329: There is no definite prediction of $\alpha$, but one can infer its lower
330: limit.
331: Since most, if not all, magnetic field generation mechanisms, such as
332: galactic winds and hierarchical mergers of cluster formation, produce
333: magnetic field positively correlated with gas density
334: (\citet{Carilli02} and reference therein), the further amplification of
335: adiabatic compression will produce $\alpha\geq 2/3$. For example,
336: the hierarchical merger produces $\alpha\simeq 0.9$
337: \citep{Dolag01}. In this paper, we consider two cases of $\alpha$,
338: $\alpha=0.9$ and $\alpha=2/3$.
339:
340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
341: \begin{figure}
342: \epsfxsize=9cm
343: \epsffile{dify.eps}
344: \caption{The dependence of magnetic effect on individual clusters on the
345: $B$-$\rho_g$ correlation ($B\propto \rho_g^{\alpha}$). We choose suitable
346: coefficient in this
347: scaling relation such that the strength of central magnetic field
348: ($7\mu G$ in this figure) is identical for various
349: $\alpha$. Since the magnetic pressure of $\alpha$
350: drops more slowly than that of $\alpha=0.9$, its effect is observable
351: from the core to cluster outer region. So the overall effect of
352: magnetic field of $\alpha=2/3$ is larger than that of $\alpha=0.9$. \label{fig:dify}}
353: \end{figure}
354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
355:
356: Given $\alpha\geq 2/3$, the magnetic pressure drops
357: faster than the thermal pressure, so in the outer regions near virial
358: radius, magnetic field
359: can be neglected. One can then easily show that $\gamma$ does not
360: change due to the presence of magnetic field. The two constant
361: $T_g(r=0)$ and $\rho_g(r=0)$ are related to their corresponding values
362: when $B=0$ by:
363: \begin{equation}
364: \frac{T_g(r=0,B)}{T_g(r=0,B=0)}=(1+\eta)^{-1},
365: \end{equation}
366: and
367: \begin{equation}
368: \frac{\rho_g(r=0,B)}{\rho_g(r=0,B=0)}=(1+\eta)^{\frac{-1}{\gamma-1}}.
369: \end{equation}
370:
371: $\eta$ is fixed by
372: \begin{equation}
373: \eta (1+\eta)^{(2\alpha-\gamma)/(\gamma-1)}=\eta_0,
374: \end{equation}
375: where $\eta_0$ is the value of $\eta$ by substituting $\rho_g(r=0,B)$
376: and $T_g(r=0,B)$ in Eq. \ref{eqn:eta} with $\rho_g(r=0,B=0)$ and
377: $T_g(r=0,B=0)$.
378:
379: We adopt a parametric form of $B(r)$
380: \begin{equation}
381: \label{eqn:B}
382: B(r)=B_*\left(\frac{\rho_g(r)}{10^4\bar{\rho}_g(z=0)}\right)^{\alpha}.
383: \end{equation}
384: The results for various $B_*$ and $\alpha$ are shown in
385: Fig. \ref{fig:B}, \ref{fig:y} and \ref{fig:dify}. As
386: expected, magnetic field has weaker effect on more massive clusters
387: since their gravity is stronger. For $M_8$ clusters, the magnetic
388: pressure can reach $10\%$ of the thermal pressure and can suppress
389: the central gas density by $\sim 10\%$.
390:
391: Strong magnetic
392: field suppresses the gas infall (top panel, Fig. \ref{fig:B}) and
393: therefore the strength of magnetic
394: field in turn by the $B$-$\rho_g$ correlation. Such back-reaction is dominant in low mass clusters and
395: groups and so causes the strength of magnetic field to cease to
396: increase toward low mass end (middle panel, Fig. \ref{fig:B}). Our parametric
397: model predicts a several $\mu G$ magnetic field over a wide range of
398: halo mass, from galaxy-size halo mass
399: ($\la 0.01 M_8$) to massive cluster mass. We do not find any strong
400: dependence of magnetic field on halo mass, which is consistent with
401: observations of galaxy (\citet{Beck96} and references therein) and
402: cluster magnetic field. The agreement between our
403: predicted galaxy magnetic field strength with observations
404: suggests that our parametric treatment of magnetic field may extend to
405: galaxy scale. If so, magnetic field may suppress gas infall to low
406: mass halos by a factor of several. Such suppression may have
407: a significant effect on star formation in such halos and may be
408: partly responsible for the formation of dark satellite halos due
409: to inefficient gas accretion. This issue may deserve further
410: investigation.
411:
412:
413: We focus on a $M_8$ cluster to investigate the dependence of magnetic
414: effect on $B$-$\rho_g$ correlation. To
415: single out its effect, we choose corresponding $B_*$ for $\alpha=0.9$
416: and $\alpha=2/3$ such that the magnetic field in the core of a $M_8$
417: cluster is the same for two cases. In order to satisfy this
418: requirement, $B_*$ for $\alpha=2/3$ must be larger than that of
419: $\alpha=0.9$. So magnetic field of $\alpha=2/3$ has a larger pressure gradient
420: and thus a larger effect on clusters (Fig. \ref{fig:dify}). We have
421: adopted $B_*(\alpha=2/3)=2.94\ \mu G$ while $B_*(\alpha=0.9)=2.0\ \mu
422: G$ in Fig. \ref{fig:dify}. Since for $\alpha=2/3$, magnetic pressure drops
423: more slowly toward outer region than $\alpha=0.9$ case, its effect
424: extends to a larger radius
425: (Fig. \ref{fig:dify}). So, its overall effect is significantly larger
426: than $\beta=0.9$ case. Since $\alpha$ is likely bigger than $2/3$,
427: this case should be treated as the upper limit of the magnetic effect.
428:
429:
430:
431: \section{The Sunyaev Zeldovich effect}
432: \label{sec:SZ}
433:
434: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
435: \begin{figure}
436: \epsfxsize=9cm
437: \epsffile{p.eps}
438: \caption{The effect of magnetic field on the gas thermal pressure power
439: spectrum $\Delta^2_p$. $p\equiv (1+\delta_g) T_g/$KeV is the
440: dimensionless thermal pressure. This definition differs from the usual
441: definition of the pressure power
442: spectrum by a factor $\bar{T}_g^2$. We assume
443: $B(r)=B_*[(\rho_g/10^4\bar{\rho}_g(z=0)]^{0.9}$. For solid,
444: dot, short dash and long dash lines, $B_*=0,1,2,3\ \mu G$,
445: respectively. The smaller scale power is mainly contributed
446: by less massive clusters since they have smaller core radius. So, the
447: effect of magnetic field increases toward smaller scale. \label{fig:p}}
448: \end{figure}
449: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
450:
451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
452: \begin{figure}
453: \epsfxsize=9cm
454: \epsffile{cl.eps}
455: \caption{The effect of magnetic field on the SZ effect power spectrum
456: $C_l$. We assume
457: $B(r)=B_*[(\rho_g/10^4\bar{\rho}_g(z=0)]^{0.9}$.
458: For solid, dot, short dash and long dash lines, $B_*=0,1,2,3\ \mu G$,
459: respectively. Similar to the case of gas
460: pressure power spectrum, the effect of B increases toward small
461: scales where most contribution comes from less massive
462: clusters. \label{fig:cl}}
463: \end{figure}
464: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
465:
466: In the Rayleigh-Jeans regime, the SZ temperature decrement is given by
467: \citep{Zeldovich69}
468: \begin{eqnarray}
469: \frac{\Delta T}{T_{\rm CMB}}&=&-2\int\sigma_T \frac{n_e k_BT_g}{m_ec^2} ad\chi\\ \nonumber
470: &=&-2.37\times 10^{-4} \Omega_bh \int \frac{(1+\delta_g)k_BT}{\rm
471: keV}a^{-2} d\tilde{\chi}.
472: \end{eqnarray}
473: Here, $\chi$ and $a$ are the comoving distance and scale factor,
474: respectively. $\tilde{\chi}\equiv \chi/(c/H_0)$ is the dimensionless
475: comoving distance while $H_0$ is the present Hubble constant. We
476: define a dimensionless gas pressure $p\equiv
477: (1+\delta_g)k_BT_g/$KeV. Then the mean SZ decrement is determined by
478: the gas density weighted temperature $\bar{T}_g\equiv\langle
479: p\rangle$. In the halo model, each halo has a pressure distribution
480: $p(r,M)$, whose integral over the halo volume gives the contribution
481: of each halo to the mean SZ temperature decrement. Once one knows the
482: halo mass function $n(M,z)$, one can calculate
483: $\bar{T}_g$ by
484: \begin{equation}
485: \label{eqn:meanT}
486: \bar{T}_g=\int \frac{dn}{dM} dM\left[\int_0^{r_{\rm vir}} p(r,M)a^{-3}
487: 4\pi r^2dr\right].
488: \end{equation}
489: The halo mass function $n$ is well described by the Press-Schechter
490: formalism \citep{Press74}:
491: \begin{equation}
492: \frac{dn}{dM}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{\rho_0}{M^2}\frac{\delta_c}{\sigma(M)}
493: \vert\frac{d\ln \sigma(M)}{d\ln M}\vert \exp [-\frac{\delta^2_c}{2\sigma^2(M)}].
494: \end{equation}
495: Here, $\rho_0$ is the present mean matter density of the
496: universe. $\sigma(M,z)$ is the linear theory rms density fluctuation
497: in a sphere containing mass $M$ at redshift $z$. $\delta_c$ is the
498: linearly extrapolated over-density at which an object virializes. For a
499: $\Omega_m=1$ universe, $\delta_c=1.686$. Since its dependence on
500: cosmology is quite weak \citep{Eke96}, we fix $\delta_c=1.686$. This
501: simplification introduces at most $1\%$ error.
502:
503:
504:
505: The contribution of each halo to the SZ power spectrum is determined
506: by the Fourier component of its pressure profile:
507: \begin{equation}
508: \label{eqn:fourier}
509: p(k,M)=\int_0^{r_{\rm vir}} p(r,M) \frac{\sin(kr/a)}{kr/a} a^{-3}4\pi r^2dr.
510: \end{equation}
511: The collective contribution of all halos at a certain redshift is the pressure
512: power spectrum
513: \begin{eqnarray}
514: p^2(k)&=&\int p^2(k,M)\frac{dn}{dM} dM \\ \nonumber
515: &+&P_{\rm dm}(k)\left( \int p(k,M)b(M)\frac{dn}{dM}dM\right)^2.
516: \end{eqnarray}
517: Here, $b(M)$ is the linear bias of the halo number
518: overdensity with respect to dark matter overdensity
519: such that the halo-halo power spectrum $P(k,M_1,M_2)=P_{\rm
520: dm}(k)b(M_1)b(M_2)$. The linear dark matter power spectrum $P_{\rm
521: dm}(k)$ is calculated by the BBKS transfer function fitting formula
522: \citep{BBKS}. We adopt the \citet{Mo96} formula to calculate
523: $b(M)$.
524:
525: Throughout this paper, we alternatively refer the pressure variance
526: $\Delta^2_p\equiv p^2(k)k^3/2\pi$ as the pressure power
527: spectrum. $\Delta^2_p(k,z=0)$ for $\alpha=0.9$ is shown in
528: Fig. \ref{fig:p}. As expected, the effect of magnetic field
529: concentrates on small scales. At $k\sim 6 h/$Mpc, the peak of
530: $\Delta^2_p(k)$, it reduces $\Delta^2_p$ by $\sim 10\%$. At smaller
531: scales dominated by less massive halos, magnetic field can suppress
532: $\Delta^2_p$ by as large as a factor of $2$.
533:
534:
535: The Limber's integral of $\Delta^2_p$ over comoving distance is the
536: 2D SZ power spectrum:
537: \begin{equation}
538: \frac{l^2C_l}{2\pi}=\pi\left(2.37\times 10^{-4} \Omega_bh\right)^2
539: \int \Delta^2_p(\frac{l}{\chi},z)a^{-4}
540: \frac{\tilde{\chi}}{l}d\tilde{\chi}.
541: \end{equation}
542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
543: \begin{figure}
544: \epsfxsize=9cm
545: \epsffile{difcl.eps}
546: \caption{The effect of $B$-$\rho_g$ correlation on the SZ power
547: spectrum. We have
548: chosen $B_*=2.94\ \mu G$ for $\alpha=2/3$ such that the central
549: magnetic field of a $M_8$ cluster at $z=0$ is the same as that of the
550: case with $\alpha=0.9$ and $B_*=2.0\ \mu G$. Since magnetic pressure
551: drops more slowly toward cluster outer region in the $\alpha=2/3$
552: case, its effect extends in a wider spacial range and so becomes
553: observable even at angular scales as large as $l\sim 100$. Since
554: $\alpha$ is likely
555: bigger than $2/3$, $\alpha=2/3$ case may show the upper limit of the
556: magnetic effect. \label{fig:difcl}}
557: \end{figure}
558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
560: \begin{figure}
561: \epsfxsize=9cm
562: \epsffile{difcl2.eps}
563: \caption{The effect of the $B_*$ dependence on cluster mass and
564: redshift. We parameterize this dependence as a power law $B_*\propto
565: M^{a}(1+z)^b$. $C_l$ at larger
566: scales is determined by more massive clusters. For $a>0$, more massive
567: clusters have stronger magnetic field, which suppresses $C_l$ at larger
568: scales. At smaller scales $C_l$ is determined by less massive
569: clusters and groups. For $a>0$, less massive clusters have weaker
570: magnetic field
571: and the magnetic field effect on $C_l$ at small scales is suppressed.
572: For $a<0$, the suppression on $C_l$ at small scales is much more
573: significant. If $B_*$ evolves faster than $(1+z)^{\sim -2}$, the
574: magnetic effect on $C_l$ is effectively negligible. \label{fig:difcl2}}
575: \end{figure}
576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
577:
578: To do this integral, one needs to know the evolution of cluster
579: magnetic field. The origin of cluster magnetic field
580: ( \citet{Carilli02} and reference therein) is quite unclear, so in the
581: literature, there is no consensus reached on the evolution of
582: magnetic field. For example, the scenario of hierarchical merger of cluster
583: formation predicts
584: a very strong evolution $B(z)\propto10^{-2.5
585: z}$ \citep{Dolag02}, while magnetization mechanism associated with magnetized
586: galactic winds generated by starbursts predicts a much slower
587: evolution \citep{Volk00}. Given such divergent predictions, the most
588: reliable way to infer cluster magnetic field evolution may be
589: observations. The measured large Faraday rotation measures of
590: high $z$ sources suggest that $\mu G$ magnetic field may have
591: existed in (proto-)cluster atmospheres (\citet{Carilli02} and
592: reference therein) at $z\ga 2$. Such magnetic field strength is
593: comparable to that of the present clusters. So, we assume
594: no evolution in the magnetic field and apply Eq.(\ref{eqn:B}) to all
595: $z$.
596:
597: We show the SZ power spectrum of $\alpha=0.9$ under such assumption in
598: Fig. \ref{fig:cl}. Since at higher redshifts, there are fewer massive
599: clusters, the effect of magnetic field is stronger on $C_l$ than on
600: $\Delta^2_p(z=0)$. At $l\sim 4000$,
601: the peak of the SZ power spectrum, magnetic field can suppress the SZ power
602: spectrum by $\sim 20\%$. At large angular scale $l\la 1000$, where
603: nearby massive clusters dominate, the effect of magnetic field is
604: negligible. At $l\ga 4000$, the magnetic
605: suppression is significant
606: and can reach a factor of several. Such effect must be taken into
607: account for a precision understanding of the SZ effect.
608:
609: For the choice\footnote{As a reminder, such choice of $B_*$ produces the same
610: central magnetic field for $M_8$ clusters at $z=0$} of $(\alpha,B_*)=(0.9,2.0\mu {\rm G})$ and $(2/3,2.94 \mu {\rm
611: G})$, we
612: compare the resulted SZ power spectra. Since $\alpha=2/3$ suppresses
613: more on cluster gas density in a wider range (Fig. \ref{fig:dify}),
614: its effect on the
615: SZ power spectrum is larger and extends to larger angular scales
616: (Fig. \ref{fig:difcl}). For the same reason, we find a $30\%$
617: decrease in the mean temperature decrement comparing to $B=0$ case
618: and a $20\%$ decrease comparing to $\alpha=0.9$ case. Since $\alpha$ is
619: likely bigger than
620: $2/3$, $\alpha=2/3$ case should be treated as an upper limit of the
621: magnetic effect.
622:
623:
624: The above discussion has omitted any dependence of $B_*$ on
625: cluster mass and redshift. Though this special choice is consistent with
626: observations, since there is no solid predictions or measurements
627: on $B_*$, one has to be aware of other possibilities. In order to discuss the effect of possible dependence of $B_*$ on $M$ and
628: $z$, we parameterize
629: this dependence as $B_*\propto M^a (1+z)^b$ and try several choices of
630: $a$ and $b$. $a\ga 1$
631: produces too weak $B$ for small groups while $a\la -1$
632: produces too weak $B$ for massive clusters. So, we only discuss the cases of
633: $a=-1$ and $1$. For $b\la -3$, cluster magnetic field at
634: $z>1$ is too weak and contradicts with observations, so, we only
635: discuss the cases of $b=-3,-2,-1$. The result is shown in
636: fig. \ref{fig:difcl2}. If the main growth
637: mechanism of cluster magnetic field is hierarchical merger, one then
638: expects $a>0$ since more massive clusters emerge from more
639: mergers. Such
640: correlation increases the magnetic field of more massive
641: clusters and thus decreases $C_l$ at larger scales comparing to the $a=0$
642: case. Cluster $B$ generation mechanism associated with star formation
643: tends to have $a<0$ since star forming galaxies mainly reside in field
644: (or equivalently, small halos) instead of massive clusters. For
645: this case, we expect a larger suppression at small scales due to
646: stronger magnetic field in less massive clusters and groups. For the
647: redshift dependence, we find that if $B_*$ evolves faster than
648: $(1+z)^{\sim -2}$, the effect of magnetic field on $C_l$ is
649: negligible. Due to large uncertainties in both $a$ and $b$, we
650: postpone further discussion in this paper.
651:
652: \section{Discussion}
653: \label{sec:discussion}
654: Cluster magnetic field affects not only the SZ effect. Here we address
655: its influence on cluster entropy, X-ray luminosity and the soft X-ray
656: background (XRB).
657:
658: Magnetic field may be partly responsible for entropy floors observed in
659: clusters (e.g. \citet{Xue03} and reference therein). A
660: conventional definition of cluster entropy is
661: $K=T_g\rho_g^{-2/3}$. Magnetic field does not change entropies of
662: very massive clusters, but it increases entropies of less massive
663: clusters by decreasing their gas densities. But for a reasonable magnetic
664: field, such effect is not sufficient to explain the entire entropy floors
665: observed and could only be a minor cause comparing to preheating,
666: feedback and radiative cooling \citep{Xue03}.
667:
668: The X-ray luminosity of clusters have a strong dependence on gas
669: density ($\propto \rho_g^2$) and mainly comes from central regions of
670: clusters. So one expects a larger suppression to cluster
671: X-ray luminosity than to cluster SZ effect. Since less massive halos
672: are more clumpy, their contribution to the soft XRB is larger. So the
673: suppression of magnetic field to individual cluster X-ray luminosity
674: is further amplified in the soft XRB. One then expects a order of
675: unity suppression to the mean flux and power spectrum of the soft XRB
676: contributed by clusters and groups. This effect can be quantitatively
677: investigated following a
678: similar procedure, as applied to the XRB in the literature
679: \citep{Wu03,Zhangpj03a}.
680:
681:
682: Besides its dynamic effect, magnetic field can further change the ICM
683: state by the suppression of the thermal conduction (\citet{Malyshkin01} and
684: reference therein). This could produce
685: non-negligible effect on the Sunyaev Zeldovich effect, especially when
686: preheating, feedback or radiative cooling are present. This effect
687: does not change the mean SZ temperature decrement, but would likely
688: increase the small scale SZ power by hot and cool patches caused by
689: inefficient heat conduction. Since this issue
690: requires a detailed understanding of the distribution of entangled magnetic
691: field in a cluster, which is not available at present, we postpone such
692: estimation.
693:
694: Here we address several subtleties in our SZ calculation. One is how to deal
695: with the gas loss caused by magnetic field. Since magnetic field
696: suppresses the gas infall and we only integrate over the virialized
697: volume (see Eq. \ref{eqn:meanT} and \ref{eqn:fourier}), the gas mass
698: in such integration of each cluster is less than that of $B=0$
699: case. One can always increase the integral upper limit in
700: Eq. \ref{eqn:meanT} and
701: \ref{eqn:fourier} to compensate the gas mass loss. Unfortunately, the fate
702: of such gas is unclear. But because gas outside
703: of virial radius
704: is several times cooler than gas in the core, such effect is minor, so
705: we neglect such calculation in this paper. Another issue is
706: $\gamma$. We have assumed a constant $\gamma$ across
707: each clusters, but the effect of magnetic field on the gas polytropic
708: state is unclear. Though these issues have to be scrutinized in
709: magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD)
710: simulations, the consistency between our analytical predictions and
711: MHD simulations \citep{Dolag00} suggests that our model should be
712: appropriate at the first order approximation.
713:
714: We then conclude that, cluster magnetic field suppresses the SZ power
715: spectrum around its peak
716: by $\sim 20\%$ and by a factor of $\sim 2$ at $\sim 1^{'}$. Such
717: effect must be considered for an accurate theoretical understanding
718: of the SZ effect and an unbiased interpretation of the SZ measurement in future
719: blank sky surveys. The effect of
720: magnetic field to the SZ power spectrum is similar to that of
721: radiatively cooling \citep{Zhang03}, which also decreases the SZ
722: power spectrum at small scales significantly while leaves the large
723: scale power spectrum barely touched. Such similarity brings extra
724: difficulty to
725: extract the magnetic effect from the SZ observation and therefore the
726: interpretation of the SZ data. The CMB
727: polarization measurement can be applied to recover cluster magnetic fields
728: \citep{Ohno03} and helps for a robust prediction of the SZ effect
729: under the presence of magnetic field.
730:
731:
732: {{\bf \it Acknowledgments}}: I thank Scott Dodelson, Lam Hui and Bing
733: Zhang for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the DOE and the
734: NASA grant NAG 5-10842 at Fermilab.
735:
736: \begin{thebibliography}{}
737: \bibitem[Atrio-Barandela \& Mucket(1999)]{Atrio-Barandela99}
738: Atrio-Barandela, F.; Mücket, J. P., 1999, \apj, 515, 465
739: \bibitem[Bardeen et al.(1986)]{BBKS} Bardeen, J. M.; Bond, J. R.;
740: Kaiser, N.; Szalay, A. S., 1986, \apj, 304, 15
741: \bibitem[Beck et al.(1996)]{Beck96} Beck, Rainer; Brandenburg, Alex;
742: Moss, David; Shukurov, Anvar; Sokoloff, Dmitry; 1996, \araa, 1996, 34, 155
743: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2002)]{Bond02} Bond, J.R.; Contaldi, C.R.;
744: Pen, U.L.; Pogosyan, D.; Prunet, S.; Ruetalo, M.I.; Wadsley, J.W.;
745: Zhang, P.J.; Mason, B.S.; et al., 2002, submitted
746: to \apj, astro-ph/0205386
747: \bibitem[Carilli \& Taylor(2002)]{Carilli02} Carilli, C.L.; Taylor,
748: G.B., 2002, \araa, 40, 319
749: \bibitem[Cole \& Kaiser(1988)]{Cole88} Cole, Shaun; Kaiser, Nick,
750: 1988, \mnras, 233, 637
751: \bibitem[Cooray, Hu \& Tegmark(2000)]{Cooray00} Cooray, Asantha; Hu,
752: Wayne; Tegmark, Max; 2000, \apj, 540, 1
753: \bibitem[da Silva et al.(2000)]{daSilva00} da Silva, Antonio C.;
754: Barbosa, Domingos; Liddle, Andrew R.; Thomas, Peter A., 2000, \mnras,
755: 317, 37
756: \bibitem[da Silva et al.(2001)]{daSilva01} da Silva, Antonio C.; Kay,
757: Scott T.; Liddle, Andrew R.; Thomas, Peter A.; Pearce, Frazer R.;
758: Barbosa, Domingos; 2001, \apj, 561, 15L
759: \bibitem[Dawson et al.(2002)]{Dawson02} Dawson, K. S.; Holzapfel,
760: W. L.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Joy, M.; LaRoque, S. J.; Miller, A. D.;
761: Nagai, D; 2002, \apj, 581, 86
762: \bibitem[Dolag \& Schindler(2000)]{Dolag00} Dolag, K.; Schindler, S.,
763: 2000, \aap, 364, 491
764: \bibitem[Dolag et al.(2001)]{Dolag01} Dolag, K.; Schindler, S.;
765: Govoni, F.; Feretti, L., 2001, \aap, 378, 777
766: \bibitem[Dolag, Bartelmann \& Lesch(2002)]{Dolag02} Dolag, K.;
767: Bartelmann, M.; Lesch, H., 2002, \aap, 387, 395
768: \bibitem[Eilek \& Owen(2002)]{Eilek02} Eilek, J.; Owen, F.N., 2002,
769: \apj, 567, 202
770: \bibitem[Eke, Cole \& Frenk(1996)]{Eke96} Eke, Vincent R.; Cole,
771: Shaun; Frenk, Carlos S., 1996, \mnras, 282, 263
772: \bibitem[Koch, Jetzer \& Puy(2003)]{Koch03} Koch, P.M.; Jetzer, Ph.;
773: Puy, D., 2003, New Astronomy, 8, 1
774: \bibitem[Komatsu \& Kitayama(1999)]{Komatsu99} Komatsu, Eiichiro;
775: Kitayama, Tetsu, 1999, \apj, 526, L1
776: \bibitem[Komatsu \& Seljak(2001)]{Komatsu01} Komatsu, E. \&
777: Seljak, U., 2001, \mnras, 327, 1353
778: \bibitem[Komatsu \& Seljak(2002)]{Komatsu02} Komatsu, E.; Seljak, U., 2002,
779: \mnras, 336, 1256
780: \bibitem[Kuo et al. (2002)]{Kuo02} Kuo, C.L.; Ade, P.A.R.;
781: Bock, J.J.; Cantalupo, C.; Daub, M.D.; Goldstein, J.;
782: Holzapfel, W.L.; Lange,A.E.; Lueker,M.; et al., 2002,
783: submitted to \apj, astro-ph/0212289
784: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2002)]{Lin02} Lin,Kai-Yang; Lin, Lihwai;
785: Woo, Tak-Pong; Tseng, Yao-Hua; Chiueh, Tzihong; 2002, submitted to ApJL,
786: astro-ph/0210323
787: \bibitem[Majumdar(2001)]{Majumdar01} Majumdar, Subhabrata, 2001, \apj,
788: 555, L7
789: \bibitem[Makino \& Suto(1993)]{Makino93} Makino, N.; Suto,
790: Y., 1993, \apj, 405, 1
791: \bibitem[Malyshkin(2001)]{Malyshkin01} Malyshkin, L., 2001, \apj, 554,
792: 561
793: \bibitem[Mason et al.(2003)]{Mason03} Mason, B. S.; Pearson, T. J.;
794: Readhead, A. C. S.; Shepherd, M. C.; Sievers, J.; Udomprasert, P. S.;
795: Cartwright, J. K.; Farmer, A. J.; Padin, S.; Myers, S. T.; et al.,
796: 2003, \apj, 591, 540
797: \bibitem[Mo \& White(1996)]{Mo96} Mo, H. J.; White, S. D. M., 1996,
798: \mnras, 282, 347
799: \bibitem[Molnar \& Birkinshaw(2000)]{Molnar00} Molnar, S. M.;
800: Birkinshaw, M., 2000, \apj, 537, 542
801: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White(1996)]{Navarro96} Navarro, Julio F.;
802: Frenk, Carlos S.; White, Simon D. M., 1996, \apj, 462, 563
803: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White(1997)]{Navarro97} Navarro, Julio F.;
804: Frenk, Carlos S.; White, Simon D. M., 1997, \apj, 490, 493
805: \bibitem[Newman, Newman \& Rephaeli(2002)]{Newman02} Newman, W.; Newman, A.;
806: Rephaeli, Y., 2002, \apj, 575, 755
807: \bibitem[Oh, Cooray \& Kamionkowski(2003)]{Oh03} Oh, S.Peng; Cooray,
808: A. \& Kamionkowski, M., 2003, submitted to \mnras, astro-ph/0303007
809: \bibitem[Ohno et al.(2003)]{Ohno03} Ohno, Hiroshi; Takada, Masahiro;
810: Dolag, Klaus; Bartelmann, Matthias; Sugiyama, Naoshi; 2003, \apj, 584,
811: 599
812: \bibitem[Pen(1999)]{Pen99} Pen, Ue-Li, 1999, \apj, 510, L1
813: \bibitem[Press \& Schechter(1974)]{Press74} Press, William H.;
814: Schechter, Paul, 1974, \apj, 187, 425
815: \bibitem[Refregier et al.(2000)]{Refregier00} Refregier, Alexandre;
816: Komatsu, Eiichiro; Spergel, David N.; Pen, Ue-Li, 2000, \prd, 6113001
817: \bibitem[Rudnick \& Blundell(2003)]{Rudnick03} Rudnick, Lawrence;
818: Blundell, Katherine M., 2003, \apj, 588,143
819: \bibitem[Seljak(2000)]{Seljak00} Seljak,U., 2000, \mnras, 318, 203
820: \bibitem[Seljak, Burwell \& Pen(2001)]{Seljak01} Seljak, Uros;
821: Burwell, Juan; Pen, Ue-Li, 2001, \prd, 63, 063001
822: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{Spergel03} Spergel, D.N.; Verge, L.;
823: Peiris, H.V.; Komatsu, E.; Nolta, M.R.; Bennett, C.L.; Halpern, M.;
824: Hinshaw, G.; Jarosik, N.l; et al. 2003,
825: astro-ph/0302209
826: \bibitem[Springel, White \& Hernquist(2001)]{Springel01} Springel,
827: Volker; White, Martin; Hernquist, Lars, 2001, \apj, 549, 681
828: \bibitem[Taylor, Fabian \& Allen(2002)]{Taylor02} Taylor, G.B.;
829: Fabian, A.C.; Allen, S.W., 2002, \mnras, 334, 769
830: \bibitem[Volk \& Atoyan(2000)]{Volk00} Volk, H.J.; Atoyan, A.M., 2000,
831: \apj, 541, 88
832: \bibitem[White, Hernquist \& Spingel(2002)]{White02} White, Martin;
833: Hernquist, Lars; Springel, Volker, 2002, \apj, 577, 569L
834: \bibitem[Wu \& Xue (2002)]{Wu02} Wu, Xiang-Ping; Xue, Yan-Jie; 2002,
835: \apj, 572, 19
836: \bibitem[Wu \& Xue(2003)]{Wu03} Wu, Xiang-Ping; Xue, Yan-Jie, 2003,
837: \apj, 590, 8
838: \bibitem[Xue \& Wu(2003)]{Xue03} Xue, Yan-Jie; Wu, Xiang-Ping, 2003,
839: \apj, 584, 34
840: \bibitem[Zeldovich \& Sunyaev(1969)]{Zeldovich69} Zeldovich, Y.B.;
841: Sunyaev, R., 1969, Ap\&SS, 4, 301
842: \bibitem[Zhang \& Pen(2001)]{Zhang01} Zhang, Pengjie; Pen, Ue-Li, 2001,
843: \apj, 549, 18
844: \bibitem[Zhang, Pen \& Wang(2002)]{Zhang02} Zhang, Pengjie; Pen,Ue-Li;
845: Wang, Benjamin, 2002, \apj, 577, 555
846: \bibitem[Zhang \& Pen(2003)]{Zhangpj03a} Zhang, Pengjie \& Pen, Ue-Li,
847: 2003, \apj, 588, 704
848: \bibitem[Zhang, Pen \& Trac(2003)]{Zhangpj03} Zhang, Pengjie; Pen,
849: Ue-Li; Trac, Hy; 2003, astro-ph/0304534, accepted by \mnras.
850: \bibitem[Zhang \& Wu(2003)]{Zhang03} Zhang, Yu-Ying; Wu, Xiang-Ping,
851: 2003, \apj, 583, 529
852:
853: \end{thebibliography}
854:
855: \end{document}