Paper detail

Morphology of Galaxy Clusters: A Cosmological Model-Independent Test of the Cosmic Distance-Duality Relation

Aiming at comparing different morphological models of galaxy clusters, we use two new methods to make a cosmological model-independent test of the distance-duality (DD) relation. The luminosity distances come from Union2 compilation of Supernovae Type Ia. The angular diameter distances are given by two cluster models (De Filippis et al. and Bonamente et al.). The advantage of our methods is that it can reduce statistical errors. Concerning the morphological hypotheses for cluster models, it is mainly focused on the comparison between elliptical $β$-model and spherical $β$-model. The spherical $β$-model is divided into two groups in terms of different reduction methods of angular diameter distances, i.e. conservative spherical $β$-model and corrected spherical $β$-model. Our results show that the DD relation is consistent with the elliptical $β$-model at $1σ$ confidence level (CL) for both methods, whereas for almost all spherical $β$-model parameterizations, the DD relation can only be accommodated at $3σ$ CL, particularly for the conservative spherical $β$-model. In order to minimize systematic uncertainties, we also apply the test to the overlap sample, i.e. the same set of clusters modeled by both De Filippis et al. and Bonamente et al.. It is found that the DD relation is compatible with the elliptically modeled overlap sample at $1σ$ CL, however for most of the parameterizations, the DD relation can not be accommodated even at $3σ$ CL for any of the two spherical $β$-models. Therefore it is reasonable that the marked triaxial ellipsoidal model is a better geometrical hypothesis describing the structure of the galaxy cluster compared with the spherical $β$-model if the DD relation is valid in cosmological observations.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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.