Paper detail

Resolving the discrepancy between lensing and X-ray mass estimates of the complex galaxy cluster Abell 1689

There is a long-standing discrepancy between galaxy cluster masses determined from X-ray and gravitational lensing observations of which Abell 1689 is a well-studied example. In this work we take advantage of 180 ks of Chandra X-ray observations and a new weak gravitational study based on a Hubble Space Telescope mosaic covering the central 1.8 Mpc x 1.4 Mpc to eliminate the mass discrepancy. In contrast to earlier X-ray analyses where the very circular surface brightness has been inferred as Abell 1689 being spherically symmetric and in hydrostatic equilibrium, a hardness ratio map analysis reveals a regular and symmetric appearing main clump with a cool core plus some substructure in the North Eastern part of the cluster. The gravitational lensing mass model supports the interpretation of Abell 1689 being composed of a main clump, which is possibly a virialized cluster, plus some substructure. In order to avoid complications and mis-interpretations due to X-ray emission from the substructure, we exclude it from the mass reconstruction. Comparing X-ray and lensing mass profiles of the regular main part only, shows no significant discrepancy between the two methods and the obtained mass profiles are consistent over the full range where the mass can be reconstructed from X-rays (out to approx. 1 Mpc). The obtained cluster mass within approx. 875 kpc derived from X-rays alone is 6.4 plus/minus 2.1 x 10^14 solar masses compared to a weak lensing mass of 8.6 plus/minus 3.0 x 10^14 solar masses within the same radius.

preprint2008arXivOpen 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.

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 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.