galaxy cluster gas motions and astro-h: predictions and challenges from simulations
TRANSCRIPT
GALAXY CLUSTER GAS MOTIONS AND ASTRO-H: PREDICTIONS AND CHALLENGES FROM SIMULATIONS
John ZuHone, MIT Kavli Institute
withAurora Simionescu (ISAS/JAXA), Eric Miller (MIT), Mark Bautz (MIT), Maxim Markevitch (NASA/GSFC), and Irina Zhuravleva (Stanford)
ASTRO-H MISSION
• To be launched early next year
• Soft X-ray Spectrometer (SXS):
• 3’x3’ FOV
• ~5 eV spectral resolution
• ~1’ spatial PSF
VELOCITY BROADENING
6.4 6.5 6.6
0.1
110
norm
aliz
ed c
ount
s s−
1 keV
−1
Energy (keV)
data and folded model
sekiya 6−Jun−2011 12:36
vturb = 0 km/svturb = 100 km/svturb = 300 km/svturb = 1000 km/s
6.7
w
xyz
jk
e
po
Perseus simulated spectrum (wabs*bapec)
Astro-H cluster white paper, arXiv:1412.1176
He-like Fe line at E0 ≈ 6.7 keV
Coma
200 kpc
TurbulenceA2319
200 kpc
Sloshing
Astro-H cluster white paper, arXiv:1412.1176
Inertial Range
Dissipation Scale
Injection Scale
P(k) ~ k-α
k
P(k)
Homogeneous, isotropic turbulence
(Zhuravleva et al 2012)
second-order structure function
velocity autocorrelation ⇔ power spectrum
proportionality of 2D and 3D power spectra
VARYING DISSIPATION SCALES
VARYING INJECTION SCALES
MODEL FOR COMATHERMAL PROPERTIESIsothermal β-model: •β = 2/3•nc = 3×10-3 cm-3
•rc = 300 kpc•T = 8 keV
1. Generate density, velocity fields2. Project along z-axis for SB, line shift, width3. Reblock images to 1.5’ resolution (SXS is 3’x3’)
KINEMATIC PROPERTIES •Gaussian random field:•homogeneous, isotropic•power-law spectrum with upper and lower cutoffs
ERRORS• “cosmic variance errors”
• Natural variations in the velocity field
• 100 realizations of the velocity field taken from the power spectrum
• Decrease with more baselines (more pointings spaced out at distance scales we want to resolve)
“strip” “big cross” “small cross”
“fill” “checkerboard”
COSMIC VARIANCE
ERRORS• “measurement errors”
• Statistical errors on line shift and width from Poisson statistics (increase with increasing line width, decrease with increasing exposure)
• Systematic errors on the line shift from gain uncertainty
• For most configurations, we assume ~100 ks per pointing, except “checkerboard”, for which we assume ~55 ks per pointing
• Assume errors are normally distributed and add them to the map
⇒BIAS CORRECTION
VARYING DISSIPATION
SCALES
Curves are essentially indistinguishable
VARYING INJECTION
SCALES
VARYING SPECTRAL
INDEX
Curves are essentially indistinguishable
Kraichnan (MHD)
KolmogorovBurgers (shocks)
VARYING MACH NUMBERS
1-σ confidence limits onpower
spectrumnormalization and injection
scale
fits to structure function and average line
width
WHAT SHOULD WE DO?“big cross” “checkerboard”
~500 ks total exposure (~100 ks per pointing)
~500 ks total exposure (~55 ks per pointing)
SLOSHING CORES
FLASH simulations from ZuHone, Markevitch, & Johnson 2010
Gas motions of M ~ 0.3-0.5, several hundred km/s
• Can we detect these sloshing motions with Astro-H?
• If so, what effect will these motions have on the shift and shape of spectral lines?
• Can we use this spectral analysis to tell us something about microphysics?
Z-PROJECTION
Inviscid Viscous
SB T
σμ
SB T
σμ
X-PROJECTION
Inviscid Viscous
SB T
σμ
SB T
σμ
Y-PROJECTION
Inviscid Viscous
SB T
σμ
SB T
σμ
ASTRO-H POINTINGS AND REGIONS
INVISCID: X-PROJECTION
INVISCID: Y-PROJECTION
INVISCID: Z-PROJECTION
INVISCID: Z-PROJECTION
VISCOUS: X-PROJECTION
VISCOUS: Y-PROJECTION
VISCOUS: Z-PROJECTION
VISCOUS: Z-PROJECTION
DIFFERENT VISCOSITY, SAME SHAPE
DIFFERENT MOTIONS, SAME SHAPE (SOMETIMES)
SYNTHETIC OBSERVATIONS
ZuHone et al 2014, arXiv:1407.1783
SIMX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMq6rmNshc
http://yt-project.org
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/simx/
+ PHOX
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~kdolag/Phox/(Biffi et al 2012, 2013, MNRAS)
event lists: RA, Dec, E Astro-H event files
0.01
0.1
1
coun
ts su−1
d
2 4 6 8
−0.2
0
0.2
resid
uals
Energy (keV)
0 2 8 17 30 48 68 93 122 154 190
SXI SXS
FITTING SPECTRA: Y-AXIS
Model 1:Single-T APEC
model, w/ thermal broadening
only
exposure time = 200 ks
0.01
0.1
0.02
0.05
0.2co
unts
s!1
6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7
!0.1
0
0.1
resid
uals
Energy (keV)
Model 1μ = 291 +9 -12 km/skeV-1
FITTING SPECTRA: Y-AXIS
Model 2:Single-T APEC
model, w/ thermal and velocity broadening
exposure time = 200 ks
0.01
0.1
0.02
0.05
0.2
coun
ts s!
1
6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7
!0.1
0
0.1
resid
uals
Energy (keV)
Model 2μ = 224 +15 -18 km/sσ = 276 +14 -15 km/s
keV-1
FITTING SPECTRA: Y-AXIS
Two single-TAPEC
models, w/ thermal broadening
only
exposure time = 200 ks
0.01
0.1
0.02
0.05
0.2
coun
ts s!
1
6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7
!0.1
0
0.1
resid
uals
Energy (keV)
Model 3μ1 = 377 +13 -10 km/sμ2 = -51 +16 -20 km/s
keV-1
✓ ✓✖ (ish)
What’s wrong with the line shifts?
REASON 1: NEED A BETTER MODEL
REASON 2: PSF SCATTERING
✓ ✓
Correct for PSF Scattering
A2319
200 kpc
A3667
200 kpc
SUMMARY• What motions will Astro-H measure in galaxy clusters?
• Turbulence in Coma:
• Can’t distinguish between dissipation scales, spectral indices (for sane turbulence models)
• Can distinguish between injection scales, but only for certain spatial configurations of pointings(“big cross” or “checkerboard”)
• Gas sloshing:
• Will be able to measure line shifts and widths from sloshing motions
• It will be difficult to distinguished line broadening from sloshing motions vs. turbulent motions—constraints on viscosity are probably limited
• Need to worry about contamination of photons from cluster center—can bias line shifts significantly
• What do we need? Better spatial resolution! (Athena, SMART-X, etc.)