Paper detail

LoCuSS: Testing hydrostatic equilibrium in galaxy clusters

We test the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium in an X-ray luminosity selected sample of 50 galaxy clusters at $0.15<z<0.3$ from the Local Cluster Substructure Survey (LoCuSS). Our weak-lensing measurements of $M_{500}$ control systematic biases to sub-4 per cent, and our hydrostatic measurements of the same achieve excellent agreement between XMM-Newton and Chandra. The mean ratio of X-ray to lensing mass for these 50 clusters is $β_{\rm X}=0.95\pm0.05$, and for the 44 clusters also detected by Planck, the mean ratio of Planck mass estimate to LoCuSS lensing mass is $β_{\rm P}=0.95\pm0.04$. Based on a careful like-for-like analysis, we find that LoCuSS, the Canadian Cluster Comparison Project (CCCP), and Weighing the Giants (WtG) agree on $β_{\rm P}\simeq0.9-0.95$ at $0.15<z<0.3$. This small level of hydrostatic bias disagrees at $\sim5σ$ with the level required to reconcile Planck cosmology results from the cosmic microwave background and galaxy cluster counts.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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.

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 graph slice

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.