Paper detail

X-ray scaling relations for a representative sample of Planck selected clusters observed with XMM-Newton

We report the scaling relations derived by fitting the X-ray parameters determined from analyzing the XMM-Newton observations of 120 galaxy clusters in the Planck Early Sunyaev-Zel&#39;dovich sample spanning the redshift range of 0.059$<$$z$$<$0.546. We find that the slopes of all the investigated scaling relations significantly deviate from the self-similar predictions, if self-similar redshift evolution is assumed. When the redshift evolution is left free to vary, the derived slopes are more in agreement with the self-similar predictions. Relaxed clusters have on average $\sim$30$\%$ higher X-ray luminosity than disturbed clusters at a given mass, a difference that, depending on the relative fraction of relaxed and disturbed clusters in the samples (e.g. SZ vs X-ray selected), have a strong impact in the normalization obtained in different studies. Using the core-excised cluster luminosities reduces the scatter and brings into better agreement the $L$-$M_{tot}$ and $L$-$T$ relations determined for different samples. $M_{tot}$-$T$, $M_{tot}$-$Y_X$, and $M_{tot}$-$M_{gas}$ relations show little dependence on the dynamical state of the clusters, but the normalizations of these relations may depend on the mass range investigated. Although most of the clusters investigated in this work reside at relatively low redshift, the fits prefer values of $γ$, the parameter accounting for the redshift evolution, different from the self-similar predictions. This suggests an evolution ($<$2$σ$ level, with the exception of the $M_{tot}$-$T$ relation) of the scaling relations. For the first time, we find significant evolution ($>$3$σ$) of the $M_{tot}$-$T$ relation, pointing to an increase of the kinetic-to-thermal energy ratio with redshift. This is consistent with a scenario in which higher redshift clusters are on average more disturbed than their lower redshift counterparts.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.