1 / 22

Estimate * the Total Mechanical Feedback Energy in Massive Clusters

Estimate * the Total Mechanical Feedback Energy in Massive Clusters. Bill Mathews & Fulai Guo. University of California, Santa Cruz. *~ ±15-20%. version 2. estimate feedback energy from potential energy of gas after each feedback heating event cluster gas expands and

kiara
Download Presentation

Estimate * the Total Mechanical Feedback Energy in Massive Clusters

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Estimate* the Total Mechanical Feedback Energyin Massive Clusters Bill Mathews & Fulai Guo University of California, Santa Cruz *~ ±15-20% version 2

  2. estimate feedback energy from potential energy of gas after each feedback heating event cluster gas expands and feedback energy becomes PE compare PE of gas between: (1) observed gas profiles in clusters (2) idealized gas profiles in adiabatic clusters evolved to zero redshift without: radiative cooling non-gravitational feedback energy star formation compare PE of (1) and (2) at same Mgas ( r) this determines feedback energy< r independent of the time when feedback occurred

  3. why this works: (1) NFW dark halo and adiabatic gas grow from inside out constant-mass radii during halo formation cluster potential ( r) remains constant within rv(t) Diemand+07 (2) PE is integrated from inside out cluster gas density totalclusterpotential

  4. observed gas profiles in relaxed clusters tot observed gas fraction fg = g/tot g consider pairs of similar galaxies: Vikhlinin+06

  5. compare NFW and adiabatic cluster gas profiles entropy  dispersion  density  dm Sdm ~ r1.2 dm dm gas Sg ~ r1.2 gas gas dmfb/(1-fb) NFW g Faltenbacher+07 using GADGET2 beyond small core, gas density is NFW: g = fbt gas entropy: Sg = gg g = [3kT/mp]1/2 (thermal dispersion) dark matter entropy: Sdm = dmdm dm = 3D velocity dispersion Sg = (0.70 +/- 0.25) Sdm (Faltenbacher+07) Sg ≈ Sdm => gas and dm experience identical gravitational dissipation

  6. adiabatic cluster gas profiles grid-based adiabatic cosmogical simulations mix more and have larger density cores in cluster gas dm adopt two limiting assumptions for adiabatic g( r): universal baryon (1) no core: fraction g( r) = fbt,nfw( r) fb = 0.17 (2) with core: g( r) = c( r)fbt,nfw( r) g NFW Vazza 11 total cluster density

  7. adiabatic cluster atmosphere (without density core) total NFW cluster profile t( r) for observed Mv and c(Mv)

  8. adiabatic cluster atmosphere ignoring density core, adiabatic gas profile is scaled NFW ( r) = fbt( r) = 0.17t( r) ( r) contains all information about dissipative entropy-increasing events in filaments, accretion shock, and mergers

  9. adiabatic cluster atmosphere using ( r) = fbt( r), integrate hydrostatic equation for temperature  and entropy S: (a point-slope boundary value problem) entropy Sad( r) ~ r1.2 a uniform slope near rvir is the boundary condition, but its value is not imposed in advance.

  10. observed cluster atmosphere gas fraction for composite cluster 2 (A478 & A1413) obs( r) = fg(r )t,nsf( r) (Vikhlinin+06)

  11. observed cluster atmosphere fit to observed gas density profile:

  12. observed cluster atmosphere using obs( r) integrate again for observed gas temperature ( r) and entropy Sobs( r) which resembles observations: Sad( r) Pratt+10

  13. how to recover universal adiabatic Sad( r) ~ r1.2 from Sobs( r) (assume no significant heating by recent feedback) Pratt+10 Sobs( r) is more sensitive to low  (from old feedback) than high T (from recent feedback heating)

  14. small effect of core in adiabatic density ad( r) total feedback energy is similar, with or without core

  15. total feedback energy |PE| ≈ 1-3 x 1063 ergs obs or ad Mv = 4x1014 rv = 1.9 Mpc Mv = 1x1015 rv = 2.7 Mpc gas outflow due to feedback (spreads metals) 1063 ergs = 5 x 108 Msun c2 is huge! Lmech ≈ 1046 erg/s over tcl = 7 Gyrs from central black hole? is spin energy needed? (McNamara+09)

  16. review some assumptions for clusters (1,2): 1. ignore stellar baryon fraction f*: for massive clusters (1,2) f* = 0.01 is small (Andreon10) total stellar mass r < r500 = (0.25, 0.65)x1013 total gas mass flowing out beyond r500 = (1.9, 3.8)x1013 2. feedback energy ~1063 ergs is from central black hole (a) total supernova energy is small: ESNII = (0.03, 0.1)x1063 ergs in r < rv ESNIa = (0.03, 0.1)x1063 ergs in r < rv (b) energy lost by radiation Erad is small: at cooling radius rcool = (98, 120) kpc cooling time equals age of cluster tcl ~ 7 Gyrs Erad = LX(rcool)tcl = (0.03, 0.1)x1063 ergs (c ) most energetic known single AGN event is < 1063 ergs E ~ 1062 ergs (McNamara+05)

  17. estimated feedback stops cooling flows! rate that unheated gas cools and flows in at rcool: (unrelated to feedback estimate) cluster (1,2) 2 1

  18. estimated feedback stops cooling flows! rate that unheated gas cools and flows in at rcool: rate that gas flows out at r due to feedback: tcl = 7 Gyrs 2 cluster (1,2) 1 2 an excellent independent check of feedback estimate 1 M( r) tcl < 1% of feedback energy is deposited inside rcool

  19. other recent Guo-Mathews feedback results: theory for expanding radio lobes in Virgo -- explains bright radio rims dynamical jet models of -ray emitting Fermi bubbles in Milky Way b (degrees) 10 kpc l (degrees) Galactic coords. VLA 90 cm projected image of (electron) cosmic ray energy density -- with viscosity in co-mixed plasma and CR diffusion

  20. other recent Guo-Mathews feedback results: Six images of (unprojected) CR energy density with increasing viscosity in co-mixed plasma: viscosity suppresses instabilities and makes IC image uniform

  21. other recent Guo-Mathews feedback results: Smooting effect of CR diffusion, increasing from left to right top 3 images: unprojected CR energy density in kpc kpc b (degrees) bottom 3 images: projected CR energy density in Galactic coords. (viscosity held constant)

More Related