Paper detail

Abundances, masses, and weak-lensing mass profiles of galaxy clusters as a function of richness and luminosity in LambdaCDM cosmologies

We test the concordance LCDM cosmology by comparing predictions for the mean properties of galaxy clusters to observations. We use high-resolution N-body simulations of cosmic structure formation and semi-analytic models of galaxy formation to compute the abundance, mean density profile, and mass of galaxy clusters as a function of richness and luminosity, and we compare these predictions to observations of clusters in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) maxBCG catalogue. We discuss the scatter in the mass-richness relation, the reconstruction of the cluster mass function from the mass-richness relation, and fits to the weak-lensing cluster mass profiles. The impact of cosmological parameters on the predictions is investigated by comparing results from galaxy models based on the Millennium Simulation (MS) and another WMAP1 simulation to those from a WMAP3 simulation. We find that the simulated weak-lensing mass profiles and the observed profiles of the SDSS maxBCG clusters agree well in shape and amplitude. The mass-richness relations in the simulations are close to the observed relation, with differences lesssim 30%. The MS and WMAP1 simulations yield cluster abundances similar to those observed, whereas abundances in the WMAP3 simulation are 2-3 times lower. The differences in cluster abundance, mass, and density amplitude between the simulations and the observations can be attributed to differences in the underlying cosmological parameters, in particular the power spectrum normalisation sigma_8. Better agreement between predictions and observations should be reached with a normalisation $0.722<sigma_8<0.9$ (probably closer to the upper value), i.e. between the values underlying the two simulation sets.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.