paper

The X-Ray Concentration-Virial Mass Relation

arXiv:astro-ph/0610135 · doi:10.1086/518684

Abstract

We present the concentration (c)-virial mass (M) relation of 39 galaxy systems ranging in mass from individual early-type galaxies up to the most massive galaxy clusters, (0.06-20) x 10^{14} M_sun. We selected for analysis the most relaxed systems possessing the highest quality data currently available in the Chandra and XMM public data archives. A power-law model fitted to the X-ray c-M relation requires at high significance (6.6 sigma) that c decreases with increasing M, which is a general feature of CDM models. The median and scatter of the c-M relation produced by the flat, concordance LCDM model (Omega_m=0.3, sigma_8=0.9) agrees with the X-ray data provided the sample is comprised of the most relaxed, early forming systems, which is consistent with our selection criteria. Holding the rest of the cosmological parameters fixed to those in the concordance model the c-M relation requires 0.76< sigma_8 <1.07 (99% conf.), assuming a 10% upward bias in the concentrations for early forming systems. The tilted, low-sigma_8 model suggested by a new WMAP analysis is rejected at 99.99% confidence, but a model with the same tilt and normalization can be reconciled with the X-ray data by increasing the dark energy equation of state parameter to w ~ -0.8. When imposing the additional constraint of the tight relation between sigma_8 and Omega_m from studies of cluster abundances, the X-ray c-M relation excludes (>99% conf.) both open CDM models and flat CDM models with Omega_m ~1. This result provides novel evidence for a flat, low-Omega_m universe with dark energy using observations only in the local (z << 1) universe. Possible systematic errors in the X-ray mass measurements of a magnitude ~10% suggested by CDM simulations do not change our conclusions.

Accepted for Publication in ApJ; 13 pages, 4 figures; minor clarifications and updates; correlation coefficients corrected in Table 1 (correct values were used in the analysis in previous versions); conclusions unchanged

References in corpus (59)

Cited by in corpus (116)