arXiv:astro-ph/0101517v1 29 Jan 2001 nrmn eepeeti h o a nmsieclusters, massive in gas hot the in present were increment eta 92.Fnly h nrp factor Blu- entropy & David the 1990; Finally, al. et group 1992). David of menthal fraction (e.g. larger stellar a are and baryons 1997) Renzini 1997; (David etto,idctn htgop aercie naddi- an received have entropy groups tional that indicating pectation, ioiiso aaygop n lseswudsaei a in scale temperature, would gas clusters with and fashion groups self-similar White lu- galaxy & bremsstrahlung of X-ray Frenk, minosities bolometric (Navarro, the NFW halos, dark and 1996) gas adiabatic with ..Anu vad19)adbcmsvr te (at steep very becomes and 1999) Evrard least & Arnaud e.g. vlae t0 at evaluated 96 91 vad&Hny19) oee,i u par- ( our steeper in somewhat However, is relation 1991). this Henry universe & ticular Evrard 1991; 1986; ie rmtoeo asv lsesi eea te re- other fraction several baryon lower in a clusters have massive Groups of spects. groups those galaxy from of properties differ observed The 2000a). Ponman rpittpstuigL using typeset Preprint 2018 29, October version Draft napret tresΛD irrhcluies filled universe hierarchical ΛCDM starless perfect, a In L ∝ yeI uenv nrywudb eurdt ettegsi h in the if ratios. light gas to the mass heat stellar headings: to by Alternat Subject suggested required function. as be mass Salpeter, would than initial energy slope Salpeter supernova superno a II II on Howev Type Type based redshift w is process. high that by supernovae heating heating produced of supernova supernova energy the the of agreement of of levels fraction better distribution the much h s to spatial the give internally that insensitive and flows are efficiency are heated that the and internally and flows groups IMF These with the solutions on gas. depends these hot heating w compare of agreement We into type luminosities this h X-ray high. externally the that too bring find to is we enough general high In emission-w is entropy. and heating central consid luminosity its We X-ray as the calculations. well on as dynamical dropout gas mass of conseque distributed Ty suite the by and a here internally yet investigate with produced as We heating be some formed. may redshift or systems groups the stars, these in entered III in gas had stars hot population gas the AGN, the of to heating of due the most be whic before propos could universe gas early been occurred cosmic the has it in It that process and reside. heating halos still dense, some may the from halo results to the excess reg refer entered generally denser first shoc observations that accretion from These the gas in radiation halos. achieved by dark be can the lost than entropy entropies higher the indicate for except events, h nrp nht -a mtiggsi aaygop n clusters and groups galaxy in gas emitting X-ray hot, in entropy The T 4 NRP VLTO NGLX RUSADCUTR:ACOMPARIS A CLUSTERS: AND GROUPS GALAXY IN EVOLUTION ENTROPY o rushaving groups for ) . 1 1 S nvriyo aionaOsraoisLc Observatory Observatories/Lick California of University r vir ∼ A 0 e cm keV 100 1. T o rusecestesl-iia ex- self-similar the exceeds groups for E tl mltajv 14/09/00 v. emulateapj style X 2 introduction iatmnod srnma nvri` iBlga i Ra via Bologna, Universit`a di Astronomia, di Dipartimento aais neselrmdu -as aais–Xry:glx clus galaxy X-rays: – galaxies X-rays: – medium interstellar galaxies: aais litcladlniua aais vlto aais cooling galaxies: – evolution galaxies: – lenticular and elliptical galaxies: 2 facmaal entropy comparable a If . T arzoBrighenti Fabrizio ∼ < XENLADITRA HEATING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL kV(eso & (Helsdon 1keV nvriyo aiona at rz A95064 CA Cruz, Santa California, of University L ∝ S f B T rf eso coe 9 2018 29, October version Draft ≡ 2 Ω = L (Kaiser [email protected] T/n [email protected] ∝ b / ABSTRACT T 1 2 e Ω , / 2 3 o 3 ; n ila .Mathews G. William and 1 or fSuisi srnm n Astrophysics, and Astronomy in Studies of Board , xli h bratbhvo fgop nbt the both group in groups the could of keV/particle into behavior 0.5-1.5 flowed aberrant by the it explain “pre-heating” additional when) Early some (or halos. experienced before groups heating in early gas that pothesis al. et 2000). (Ponman floor” al. “entropy et the This Lloyd-Davies as 1999; clusters. to massive referred more been larger ac- has much surround stronger the that through of shocks passing cretion acquires because gas detect the to that entropy difficult be would it evdi aaygop oa osnti tefindicate and shocks itself in in increases not Entropy history. does heating today unique groups a halos. galaxy dark in the served into entry its to some prior stars, experienced etc.) III much AGN, Pop clusters, formation, a and (star heating potentials groups adopted “non-gravitational” both shallower have in the authors currently that in most assumption: noticed groups, stronger be galaxy only of would ing and hs eitosfo efsmlrt a e otehy- the to led has self-similarity from deviations These sarsl fisdsiaientr,tegsetoyob- entropy gas the nature, dissipative its of result a As S − cso aiu mut fetra,high external, of amounts various of nces T ae osaeustsatr;we the when unsatisfactory; are flows eated a utha h o a ftenumber the if gas hot the heat must vae otlmnu ne ein hr the where regions inner luminous most zn ,Blga417 Italy 40127, Bologna 1, nzani dta hsnngaiainlentropy non-gravitational this that ed os bevtoso aaygroups galaxy of Observations ions. setra otegopadcluster and group the to external is h akhls hsuieslhaigof heating universal This halos. dark lt.Frhroe ic hslvlo heat- of level this since Furthermore, plots. xeine ygswe tfl into fell it when gas by experienced k r ofi -a bevtosalarge a observations X-ray fit to er, vl,ol bu 0preto the of percent 20 about only ively, proaeeg scnee othe to conveyed is energy upernova osdra ela oteepoch the to as well as consider e ihXryosrain fgalaxy of observations X-ray with eI uenvewe h galactic the when supernovae II pe ihe eprtr ftehtgas hot the of temperature eighted ndnie ore Alternatively, source. unidentified rteiflec frdainlosses radiation of influence the er ta asfnto a flatter a has function mass itial entropy gas the observations, ith ae yTp Isupernova; II Type by eated heating past of measure a is 1 all ayncgs nldn gas including gas, baryonic ters NOF ON os– flows L − T 2 is lost with radiative cooling. Nevertheless, the level of Tozzi-Norman models are quite negative throughout, e.g. heating required to heat all the gas at the same (high) red- d log T/d log r ≈ −0.4 at r ≈ 0.1rvir, unlike the nearly shift in “pre-heating” scenarios generally exceeds that pro- constant temperature profiles observed. Both of these key duced by Type II supernovae following normal star forma- results of adiabatic inflow are in conflict with observed tion: ∼ 0.2 keV/particle. In this estimate we assume ten groups, at least within the small region that can be ob- percent of the baryons form into stars (Fukugita, Hogan served, r ∼< (0.1 − 0.4)rvir. By contrast, an internal heat- & Peebles 1998) with a typical Salpeter IMF, producing ing scenario is proposed by Loewenstein (2000) who esti- Type II supernovae that heat the remaining gas with 100 mates the amount of heating required after the hot gas has percent efficiency. reached hydrostatic equilibrium in group and cluster dark Nevertheless, many theoretical papers have appeared re- halos. From a series of approximate static hot gas models, cently with estimates of the assumed universal pre-heating Loewenstein argues that most of the heating occurred dur- necessary to produce the “entropy floor” in groups and the ing or after the assembly of the group or cluster gas, not related departure from L − T self-similarity (e.g. Knight throughout the intergalactic gas at an earlier time. We are & Ponman 1997; Cavaliere, Menci, & Tozzi 1997; Balogh, in agreement with his interpretation, although it may be Babul & Patton 1999; Cavaliere, Giacconi & Menci 2000; a minority opinion at the present time. Loewenstein 2000; Tozzi & Norman 2000; Valageas & Silk Perhaps the most convincing evidence that the origin 1999; Kravtsov & Yepes 2000). For a given energy release, and evolution of hot gas in galaxy groups can be under- the final entropy is larger if the energy is applied when the stood with normal star formation and other standard as- gas density is low. Therefore, most of these authors have trophysical assumptions is the success of our own detailed assumed that the gas was heated (by some unspecified calculations for the giant elliptical NGC 4472 (Brighenti agency) while in a low density intergalactic environment & Mathews 1999a), the dominant galaxy in a small Virgo (at redshift z ∼< 7) before it flowed into the galaxy group subcluster. This is a complete gas dynamical calculation potentials. beginning with a tophat perturbation in a flat cosmology. Independent support for strong universal heating has The gas evolves in a growing NFW dark halo, produces come from estimates of the collective emission from gas- stars and SNII heating, forms a central galaxy and the filled group halos at large redshifts which appear to exceed stars lose mass and produce Type Ia supernova. After 13 the observed soft X-ray background radiation (Pen 1999; Gyrs we were able to match the radial variation of den- Wu, Fabian & Nulsen 1999b or WFN). These authors sug- sity, temperature and iron abundance observed in NGC gest that the intergalactic gas was heated to T ∼> Tvir 4472 (Brighenti & Mathews 1999b). The agreement is ex- so that little of it flowed into group halos at early times. cellent everywhere except within ∼ 1 kpc from the center However, SNII-driven galactic winds are expected to de- where the gas density is too high; we now think this is velop immediately in these small halos, perhaps reducing due to additional support by magnetic stresses there. Our the contribution of groups to the unresolved X-ray back- models also agree with the present day entropy variation ground. In addition, warm-hot diffuse intergalactic gas at and luminosity in NGC 4472. In particular, our models 5 7 temperatures 10 ∼< T ∼< 10 K can result from (gravita- for NGC 4472 produce the “entropy floor” in the S − T tionally produced) shocks in large-scale filaments (Cen & plot and the observed deviation from the L−T self-similar Ostriker 1999; Dav´eet al. 2000). Moreover, in the cosmo- relation without universal pre-heating. In addition, they logical simulations of Dav´eet al. most of the warm-hot gas go much further in fitting the radial profiles of density, that contributes to the unresolved soft X-ray background temperature and iron abundance (Buote 2000b) observed is at low densities and diffusely distributed, not concen- in NGC 4472. trated in (group) halos as assumed by Pen and WFN. The pre-heating controversy devolves on a choice be- Consequently, Dav´eet al. predict a soft X-ray flux ∼ 100 tween internal supernova heating during galaxy group for- times less than that of Pen and WFN, sufficiently low to be mation and external (universal) heating by AGN or some consistent with the observed (unresolved) background. Al- other agency at an early time. Given the apparent success though the non-gravitational heating of intergalactic gas of our calculations for NGC 4472, it seems possible that the postulated by Pen and WFN may occur, it is not sup- “entropy floor” and L−T similarity breaking in groups can ported by more detailed cosmological simulations. be explained with normal star formation. But the widely Tozzi & Norman (2000) study the consequences of uni- discussed pre-heating hypothesis can under some condi- versal intergalactic heating prior to collapse into dark halos tions also provide the necessary similarity-breaking. Our in a flat ΛCDM cosmology. In their approximate hydrody- objective in this paper is to perform a series of gas dynam- namic models with radiative cooling, all cooled baryonic ical calculations that explore the consequences of various gas is assumed to collect at the very center. The uni- levels of external pre-heating that span the full range from versal energy input (at z > 1) they require to match the galaxy groups to rich clusters. Several sets of progressively observed “entropy floor” is in excess of normal SNII ex- more sophisticated calculations are considered, beginning pectations. In their preferred models, Tozzi & Norman with purely adiabatic flow. These externally heated cool- assume that the intergalactic gas (heated to ∼ Tvir for ing flows are compared with flows that only experience groups) enters the group halos adiabatically, i.e. without internal supernova-based heating. We shall find that the shocking. As a consequence, the radial entropy profile for latter mode of heating is generally quite satisfactory in fit- the Tozzi-Norman externally pre-heated galaxy groups is ting the X-ray data, but the IMF may need to be flatter almost constant out to the virial radius rvir, unlike those than Salpeter. observed by Lloyd-Davies, Ponman & Cannon (1999) for which S ∝ r, and the gas temperature gradients of these 3
2. overview of gas dynamics of galaxy clusters this series of models, which resembles our earlier calcu- and groups lation for NGC 4472, the SNII heating at early times is internal, a natural consequence of star formation. These In order to compare our gas dynamical calculations with internal supernova heating with discussions of external models also include stellar mass loss and heating by Type pre-heating in the current literature, we consider gas flow- Ia supernovae. ing into dark halos of three masses representing galaxy groups, poor clusters and rich clusters. The dark halo 2.1. Observational Data 4 evolution is similar in all models. These structures all The X-ray luminosity varies over a factor ∼> 10 from begin with a tophat perturbation in a ΛCDM universe galaxy groups to the richest clusters and the gas temper- (Ωo = 0.3, Λ=0.7, h = Ho/(100 km/sMpc) = 0.725) ature spans a range of ∼ 30. Because of the inhomoge- which converts to a dark matter NFW profile (Navarro, neous observational data available over this vast range of Frenk & White 1996) at very high redshifts. The dark ha- parameters and the various bandpasses that have been los are assumed to grow masswise from the inside out as used in these observations, we shall consider only those described by Bertschinger (1985). The dark matter flow observations for which the bolometric X-ray luminosities pattern consists of an outer, converging smooth collision- are determined. All data is corrected to our assumed −1 −1 less flow which attaches to a stationary NFW core having Ho = 100h = 72.5 km s Mpc . a concentration appropriate to its current virial mass. The For galaxy group luminosities and temperatures we time-dependent intersection radius of the stationary halo choose the recent observations of Helsdon & Ponman with the converging flow is chosen to conserve dark matter (2000a) for loose groups. More recently, these authors mass. have shown that there is no distinction in the X-ray prop- −2 Baryonic gas with mean density Ωb = 0.039(h/0.7) erties of loose and compact groups (Helsdon & Ponman (Burles & Tytler 1998a,b) flows into the evolving dark 2000b). Helsdon & Ponman list ROSAT PSPC bolometric matter potential. However, in order to explore the cos- luminosities for 24 groups. Unfortunately, these groups are mic pre-heating hypothesis using the same approach as observed out to a radius which is typically only ∼ 0.1−0.2 often employed in the current literature, we may choose of the virial radius, so Helsdon & Ponman provide for each to “reset” the density and temperature (and therefore the group an approximate correction factor to estimate the to- entropy) of the baryonic gas to be spatially uniform at a tal bolometric luminosity within the virial radius; we have very early time th = 0.5 Gyr (redshift zh = 9) when the employed this correction in their group data plotted with stationary dark halo mass is only 0.1 - 0.2 of its current open squares in Figure 1. The L − T variation is quite virial mass. At the reset, the gas velocity is assumed to steep (and uncertain) for these groups, L ∝ T 4.9±0.8. For retain its velocity in the cosmic flow outside the NFW halo the entropy in galaxy groups and clusters we use the data at time th, but within the halo the gas velocity is set to of Lloyd-Davies, Ponman & Cannon (2000) who estimate zero. This artificial reset of the gas parameters at this −2/3 the entropy factor S = Tne at 0.1rvir. high redshift often has no long-lasting influence on the gas For a sample of poor and rich clusters we use data for dynamics, however, if the gas temperature is less than the 24 clusters collected by Arnaud & Evrard (1999) from virial temperature of the dark matter structures at time many disparate authors using different X-ray satellites. In th, shocks may develop resulting in entropy fluctuations selecting this sample Arnaud & Evrard avoided clusters that persist until the present time tn = 13 Gyrs. with strong cooling flows. The Arnaud-Evrard bolomet- In the following discussion we consider a suite of in- ric luminosities have not been corrected to the virial ra- creasingly more realistic physical models for the baryonic dius, but this correction may not be large. For example, component. For dark halos of each mass, the baryonic the mean correction found by Helsdon & Ponman for the gas is assumed to be pre-heated at time th = 0.5 Gyr by groups is only a factor of ∼ 1.5 ∼ 100.2. The Arnaud- varying amounts. For the first set of models, we assume Evrard data, shown with crosses in Figure 1, can be fit that the gas flow is perfectly adiabatic but with adiabatic with L ∝ T 2.88±0.15, which is also steeper than adiabatic (non-radiating) shocks, so most of the entropy increase oc- similarity L ∝ T 2. curs in the accretion shock transition. In the next series of Allen & Fabian (1998) emphasize the important effect models we include radiative cooling and allow the cooled that a strong cooling flow has on the L−T relation. About gas to accumulate at the origin as in the models of Tozzi 70 - 90 percent of rich clusters have cooling flow cores. & Norman (2000). Next we repeat some of these models Since the gas temperature has a steeper radial gradient with a cooling recipe similar to that used by Nulsen & (and is generally lower) in clusters with strong cooling Fabian (1997) in which the cooled gas accumulates not at cores, it is unclear which temperature is appropriate to the origin, but in spatially extended structures, as if it had enter in the L − T diagram. If the ASCA X-ray spectra formed into a collisionless stellar system. This type of flow of Allen & Fabian are fit with isothermal models, (their is similar to the mass dropout flows discussed by Knight Model A) the cooling flow clusters lie at lower tempera- & Ponman (1997) (but who assumed Bertschinger (1985) tures (and higher luminosities) than non-cooling flow clus- dark halos in a Ωo = 1 cosmology with a large baryon ters as shown in Figure 1. The non-cooling flow clusters fraction and no heating). For each series of calculations have slope L ∝ T 2.90±0.29, very similar to the Arnaud- we consider a range of virial masses and assumed entropies Evrard slope, and in fact appear to be fully consistent corresponding to different levels of external pre-heating at with the overlapping Arnaud-Evrard data. Alternatively, the reset time. Finally, we repeat the same calculations if the X-ray spectra of cooling flow clusters are fit with a again allowing for star formation with various amounts of combination of single temperature thermal emission and energy released in Type II supernova (SNII) feedback. In XSPEC cooling flow models (in which the emitted spec- 4
1/2 trum is an integrated sum over many gas temperatures) models and ΛCDM variables give rvir ≈ 2.3(T/5.1keV) as in Model C of Allen & Fabian (1998), then the back- Mpc which is only about 10 percent smaller than that used ground (uncooled) gas temperatures of cooling flow clus- by Helsdon & Ponman, probably within the observational ters increase and become very similar to those of the non- and computational uncertainties. cooling flow clusters in the Allen-Fabian sample. This is a clear example of the substantial scatter that can occur 2.2. Growth of NFW Profiles in the L − T diagram arising from the data reduction pro- 13 cedure when a wide range of temperatures contribute to We consider three virial masses, Mvir = 4.7 × 10 , 14 15 the observed spectrum. In a related approach, Markevitch 2.2 × 10 and 1.2 × 10 M⊙ which span a range from (1998) showed that the L−T correlation tightened consid- galaxy groups to moderately rich clusters. These dark erably when the cooling flow cores are removed from both halos form as a result of a tophat perturbation in a flat the luminosity and temperature data. ΛCDM cosmology, Ωo = 0.3Λ=0.7 and Ho = 72.5 km −1 −1 When data for all groups and clusters are compared in s Mpc , chosen so that the current time is exactly tn = −2 Figure 1, it can be seen that the Arnaud-Evrard data have 13 Gyrs. The baryonic component Ωb =0.039(h/0.7) is the same slope and ordinate as the non-cooling flow Allen- such that Ωb/Ωo =0.123. When a tophat perturbation is Fabian clusters. This is expected since the Arnaud-Evrard imposed, the dark matter flows toward the perturbation clusters were also chosen to have weak cooling flow cores. as a pressure-free gas and accumulates in an extended, If Arnaud & Evrard had instead chosen clusters at ran- static, spherically symmetric structure. This structure dom, they would have found a much larger number of nor- is assumed to have the standard NFW (Navarro, Frenk mal cooling flow clusters scattered above their correlation & White 1996) halo profile for which the virial mass is 3 0.45 in Figure 1, similar to the cooling flow clusters in the Allen Mvir = (4π/3)rvir∆cρc. Here ∆c = 178Ωo ≈ 100 (Eke, 2 −29 & Fabian sample. The identification of the Arnaud-Evrard Navarro & Frenk 1998) and ρc =3Ho /8πG =1.07×10 clusters with the lower envelope of the correlation in the gm cm−3 is the critical density. The shape of the dark L − T plot also explains why the Helsdon-Ponman poor halo at any time is M(r) = Mvirf(y)/f(c) where f(y) = groups with the greatest temperatures may seem slightly ln(1 + y) − y/(1 + y), y = r/rs = cr/rvir and c = rvir/rs overluminous relative to adjacent members of the Arnaud- is the concentration. Cosmological simulations show that Evrard sample having the lowest temperatures. This lack the concentration decreases slowly with Mvir and redshift of consistency and apparent continuity between the var- (Bullock et al. 2000). We ignore the redshift variation, −1 14 −0.0911 ious data sets demonstrates how systematic shifts in the i.e., c = 8.35(Mvirh /10 M⊙) . The virial radii L − T plot may arise from different methods of sample for the three dark halos are rvir = 895, 1500, 2640 kpc or selection and data reduction for the majority of cooling log rvir =2.95, 3.17 and 3.42 respectively. flows in which the intrinsic temperature necessarily varies The complete solution for the dynamical growth of a over a wide range. locally overdense region of collisionless dark matter in a Since the L − T data for groups are so important in flat Einstein-de Sitter universe was solved by Bertschinger setting limits on the amount of cosmic pre-heating, some (1985). He showed that the converging pressure-free flow possible systematic trends should be recognized. Just as accumulates in an essentially stationary core which grows with rich clusters, groups with strong cooling flows tend to masswise from the inside outward, as if newly arriving occupy the upper envelope of the group data in Figure 1. matter were added at the outer boundary of the core. To demonstrate this we use the sample of 12 galaxy groups Since Bertschinger made no allowance for the hierarchi- studied by Buote (2000a) in which the data was reduced cal, three dimensional nature of mass accumulation, the with an XSPEC cooling flow model with a determination mass profile in his stationary core differs from the more of the cooling rate M˙ . If the Buote data is bisected with a appropriate NFW shape. We adapt the basic physics of line of slope L ∝ T 3 or T 4, the mean cooling flow rates of Bertschinger’s collisionless solution for the evolution of a −1 groups that lie above the line, hM˙ i = 21 M⊙ yr , is much dark matter overdensity to our flat ΛCDM cosmology by computing the pressure-free collapse of the dark matter greater than the mean of the six groups below, hM˙ i =6.2 −1 until it accumulates at the outer boundary of a stationary M⊙ yr . X-ray emission from the more luminous sample halo that is required to have the more correct NFW profile have spuriously lower temperatures due to strong cool- (Brighenti & Mathews 1999b). The halo grows with time ing flows associated with the central galaxy. This is an (from the inside out) at a cosmologically appropriate rate, important distinction for our models since we are inter- conserving dark mass. However, at very high redshifts ested in groups in which a strong cooling flow develops (z>z ∼ 15) this simple recipe breaks down for large around a dominant, luminous elliptical galaxy located at tr M because the internal mass distribution of the NFW the group center. For this reason we expect our success- vir halo can be less than that of the converging ΛCDM flow at ful models with concentrated cooling flows to lie near the every radius. When this mismatch occurs at high redshift, upper envelope of the Helsdon-Ponman group data. Ad- we assume that the dark matter collects into an extended, ditional scatter in the L − T data for groups is introduced mass-conserving power law halo M(r) ∝ r2 within 40 kpc, by the variable physical extents of the X-ray observations which resembles the inner profile of a NFW halo. This relative to the virial radius for each group. transition in the dark matter halo is particularly neces- Finally, the choice of cosmology has some influence on sary for the most massive halo we consider, NFW halos of the observational group data. In extrapolating L to the smaller mass intersect the ΛCDM flow at very high red- virial radius, Helsdon & Ponman (2000a) used the SCDM shifts (z ≫ 15). We find that the exact shape of the adiabatic results of Navarro, Frenk, & White (1995) to de- tr temporary, non-NFW dark halo for z>z has a only a rive r from the observed gas temperature. Our adiabatic tr vir small influence on the integrated properties of the gas at 5 time tn = 13 Gyrs. While none of our conclusions are temperature to Th everywhere in the ΛCDM flow at time affected by assumed dark halo structure at z>ztr, it is th = 0.5 Gyrs (redshift z = 9) when the cosmic bary- −28 −3 good to keep in mind that some of our computed results onic density is ρh = 3.61 × 10 gm cm . For com- (e.g. final L, T , etc.) are uncertain at the ∼ 20 percent parison with other recent discussions of the pre-heating level. Finally, we note that the baryonic gas does not ex- hypothesis, we also reset the temperature and density to actly follow the dark matter in the external ΛCDM flow be everywhere constant at time th. By this time the NFW since in general the gas velocity is slowed by radial pressure dark matter halos have masses about 6 × 1012, 4 × 1013 14 gradients. and 10 M⊙ for groups, poor clusters and clusters respec- tively. Gas that had already entered the dark halos at time 2.3. Gas Dynamics th is spread uniformly with the rest of the gas at the reset. The equations for one dimensional Eulerian gas dynam- The heat supplied to the gas at these early times places ics that we use here are described in detail in Brighenti the universal gas on an adiabat which can be represented & Mathews (1999a). They are solved with an extensively with an entropy factor modified 1D spherical version of the Eulerian code ZEUS −34 kTh −8 K34 ≡ 10 =2.3 × 10 Th =0.31 Th,keV (Stone & Norman 1992). The pressure-free dark matter µm ρ2/3 and the baryonic gas are computed as two separate fluids p h which interact gravitationally. The size of spatial zones in- as defined by Tozzi & Norman (2000) which is evaluated creases logarithmically. We use “outflow” boundary con- at time th. The corresponding entropy factor defined by ditions at the outermost spherical zone where the Hubble Ponman, Cannon & Navarro (1999) is flow receeds supersonically out of the grid, and the flow T 2 velocity vanishes at the origin. Sink terms for radiative S ≡ 2/3 = 985K34 keV cm . cooling and distributed mass dropout are included in the ne 4 6 appropriate models. For those models involving gas flow The four levels of heating we consider – Th = 10 ,5 × 10 , within optical galaxies, the gas dynamic equations equa- 107 and 3 × 107 K corresponding to 0.0013, 0.65, 1.3, and tions have additional source terms for stellar mass loss and 3.9 keV/particle – are numerically characterized by 1-4 heating by stars and Type Ia supernovae. The full set of in our model nomenclature and correspond to entropies −4 equations are described in Brighenti & Mathews (1999a). K34 = 2.55 × 10 , 0.127, 0.255, and 0.764 respectively. The three virial masses are referred to as “g”, “pc” and 2.4. External Pre-heating “c” for group, poor cluster and cluster respectively. For The characteristic virial temperature of an NFW halo example, model ADg1 refers to an adiabatic model for gas flow in a galaxy group potential in which the temperature can be found directly from the condition for hydrostatic 4 2 is set to Th = 10 K at th. In all model calculations, as the equilibrium, T ∼ (µmp/k)GMvir/rvir ∝ rvir since by def- inition the mean density within the virial radius is always gas evolves we never allow its temperature to drop below 104 K, as would be expected in a photoionized intergalactic ∆cρc. The X-ray luminosity for pure bremsstrahlung emis- 1/2 2 3 medium (IGM). sion, with emission coefficient Λ ∝ T , is L ∝ ρ Λrvir ∝ ρ2T 2 ∝ T 2 where the characteristic gas density ρ is as- Previous discussions of pre-heating have not emphasized sumed to scale with the dark halo density (e.g. Kaiser the possibly important role of Compton cooling against 1986; 1991). Therefore we expect L ∝ T 2 provided the the cosmic background radiation. After pre-heating, the following assumptions hold: (1) the gas is in hydrostatic electron gas is Compton cooled but the proton temper- equilibrium bound to homologously identical halos, (2) the ature Tp remains unchanged until equipartition is estab- lished by Coloumb interactions. To explore this we as- gas density profiles are homologous in the variable r/rvir 7 for all clusters, (3) the ratio of gas to dark mass is identi- sumed Th = 10 K for both electrons and protons at (th, zh) = (0.5 Gyrs, 9) and integrated equations for Te(t) and cal within all rvir, and (4) X-ray line emission is ignored. Although reasonable, these assumptions are not perfectly Tp(t) in our assumed ΛCDM universe, allowing for Comp- satisfied. For example, the gas variables within the ac- ton cooling, equipartition and normal expansion cooling dTexp/dz = 2Texp/(1 + z). While the electrons rapidly cretion shock rs, which typically occurs very close to the virial radius, are not expected to be strictly homologous lose half of their thermal energy relative to Texp by (t, z) = (0.64 Gyrs, 7.7), Tp = 0.5Texp occurs at a much later in r/rvir and, furthermore, the halo concentration varies time, (t, z) = (3.1 Gyrs, 2.0). By this latter time the pro- somewhat with Mvir. Non-gravitational heating of the gas 5 in excess of that received in the accretion shock can cause ton temperature Tp = 4.5 × 10 K is much less than halo the mass fraction in gas to vary with virial mass. Line virial temperatures of interest, and has negligible thermal 7 energy as it enters the accretion shock. Although our com- emission becomes important at T ∼< 10 K, relevant for galaxy groups. At these low temperatures the radiative puted accretion flows are not greatly influenced by Comp- cooling coefficient Λ(T,Z =0.4) ∝ T p where p < 0, which ton cooling, it should be noted that the epoch of (uni- ∼ versal) pre-heating cannot be much earlier than t ≈ 0.5 flattens the L − T slope to at least L ∝ T 3/2. Finally, the h Gyrs or the gas would rapidly cool and may also leave an NFW halo for a given virial mass and cosmology represents observable perturbation on the cosmic microwave back- a computational mean configuration about which there is ground. With this potential difficulty in mind, we shall considerable scatter; for dark halos of the same M , Bul- vir assume t =0.5 Gyrs in most of our calculations and con- lock et al. (2000) find a 1σ scatter of ∼ 50 percent in the h sider a single temperature gas. concentration parameter. We consider four levels of pre-heating for each of the 3. gas dynamic models for groups and clusters three virial masses. This is done by arbitrarily raising the 6
3.1. Adiabatic Models th = 2 Gyrs instead of 0.5 Gyrs, the temperatures of the In our “adiabatic” AD models the entropy only increases final ADg models are relatively unchanged, but the lu- minosities are very much lower than those in Figure 1a: when the gas is shocked. By far most of the entropy in- 45 crease occurs when the gas passes through the accretion log(L/10 )= −2.48 for ADg1 and -5.17 for ADg4. When shock as it enters the NFW halo, r ≈ r , and en- the reset occurs at lower redshifts, more gas must be re- sh vir moved from the halos and the subsequent accretion in the counters nearly stationary gas that arrived earlier. The post-shock temperature is comparable to the halo virial ΛCDM universe is insufficient to re-establish the present- day X-ray luminosity. Therefore explanations for both the temperature amount of universal pre-heating and the epoch at which it 2/3 µmpGMvir 6 Mvir is applied are required in external heating scenarios. If the Tvir ≈ γ ≈ 2.97 × 10 13 K krvir 10 M⊙ reset is completely ignored, values of L are increased enor- mously. For example, L > 1046 erg s−1 for model ADg1nr where µ =0.61 is the mean molecular weight and γ ≈ 0.5 ∼ (“nr” signifies no reset), as shown in Table 1. These no from Eke, Navarro & Frenk (1998). The current virial tem- reset groups have X-ray luminosities comparable with the perature for the three dark halos we consider are T ≈ vir richest clusters observed. The reason for this is that dense, 8.1 × 106,2.3 × 107, and 7.2 × 107 K. If the temperature of low entropy gas flowed into the group potential before time gas entering the dark halo T is comparable to (or sig- pre t and, if not removed, must remain there in the absence nificantly exceeds) T , then the accretion shock weakens h vir of reset. The very dense central gas n ∼ 100 cm−3 that and gas flows nearly adiabatically into the halo, preserving e entered the halo at very high redshifts accounts for the its entropy. The temperature of gas entering the accretion enormous L of AD groups without reset. In more realistic shock at the present time (tn = 13 Gyrs) has cooled by 2/3 models this gas would have radiated its energy away and adiabatic expansion to Tpre(tn)= Th(ρn/ρh) = 0.01Th formed into stars. or 104 K, whichever is larger. In any case, a shock must always propagate away from the origin (where the flow velocity vanishes), even if the converging flow there is sub- 3.1.2. Adiabatic Models in the S − T Diagram sonic. Finally, for models with the least amount of IGM Ponman, Cannon & Navarro (1999) and Lloyd-Davies, pre-heating (AD1), spurious shocks may develop just after Ponman & Cannon (2000) have emphasized a related non- time th as gas with sub-virial temperatures flows into the selfsimilar deviation of galaxy group observations in the dark halo. entropy-temperature plane. They compare the emission- weighted mean temperature T to the entropy factor S0.1 = 3.1.1. Adiabatic Models in the L − T Diagram 2/3 T/ne evaluated at 0.1rvir, approximately the outer ex- Bolometric X-ray luminosities and emission-weighted tent of current observations. The same idealized, self- 2 mean temperatures for 12 adiabatic models (3 Mvir and similar group-cluster models that correspond to L ∝ T 4 Th) at time tn = 13 Gyrs are shown with the observa- would appear as S0.1 ∝ T in Figure 2a. However, it is seen tional data in Figure 1a. The gas has been heated to Th that the entropy observed in groups generally exceeds the and reset to spatial uniformity at th = 0.5 Gyrs. As the S ∝ T variation when extrapolated from observations of virial mass increases from groups to clusters (filled circles rich clusters. Nevertheless, the deviation from similarity → squares → triangles), the computed results follow the is less robust in the S −T plane than in the L−T diagram general trend of the observations, even for these simple since S0.1 ≡ S(r = 0.1rvir) refers to a single point in the adiabatic models. For each virial mass the final luminos- observed or computed entropy distribution and, for the ity is progressively lower as the amount of assumed pre- observations, also requires an estimate of the virial radius. heating increases, AD1 → AD4. This is expected since The observational errors are substantial and can be found with increased pre-heating the entropy of the gas that en- in the papers cited above. ters the halo at early times may exceed the entropy that Values for S0.1 from the computed adiabatic models are would have been achieved in the accretion shock. As the plotted as open circles in Figure 2a. Entropies S0.1 for entropy at the center of the flow increases, the gas density models AD4 with the highest level of pre-heating, shown and X-ray emissivity are reduced, corresponding to lower with the largest circles, depend weakly on Mvir since the L in Figure 1a. With increasing virial mass, each cluster entropy acquired from pre-heating dominates that from of four models (1 → 4) becomes more compact in Figure shocks. As the pre-heating at time th is reduced, S0.1 de- 1a since Tpre ≪ Tvir is satisfied for the largest Mvir, even creases with Mvir, approaching the expected S ∝ T . How- with the maximum amount of pre-heating. Further details ever, S0.1 for the least-heated models, ADpc1 and ADc1, of the AD models are listed in Table 1. exceeds the entropy for ADpc and ADc models that re- Although the adiabatic series of models does not lose ceived more pre-heating. The source of this discrepancy energy by radiation, to compute the luminosities plotted can be traced to post-shock irregularities in the entropy in Figure 1a, it is necessary to assume that they do in profile S(r) created by weak shocks produced during the 2 fact radiate with emissivity ∝ ρ Λ(T ). The cooling coeffi- transient adjustment following the reset time th. Immedi- cient Λ(T,Z) that we use (taken from Sutherland & Dopita ately after reset, cosmically inflowing gas outside the virial 1993) corresponds to abundance Z =0.4 (solar meteoritic) radius encounters stationary gas within. This gives rise to for which Λ(T ) reaches a minimum at T ≈ 1 keV because both outward and inward propagating shocks. The lat- of increasing line emission at lower temperatures. ter shock confronts a third outward moving shock pro- Finally, the results shown in Figure 1a are sensitive to duced as gas of uniform (post-reset) density falls toward the time th at which the reset is made and are very dif- the origin, reflecting as a shock. The local increase in en- ferent if the reset is ignored altogether. For example if tropy depends on the local strength of each shock that 7 passes through. These artifacts of the reset assumption the unheated AD1 models lie exactly along the similarity imprint long-lived entropy irregularities in the gas. The variation S ∝ T . Small deviations from this relation occur effect of these transient shocks is much reduced in models with increased pre-heating and smaller virial masses, just with more pre-heating since the sound speed is larger and as one would expect. shocks are greatly reduced in strength. When the reset assumption is not made, as in the “nr” The resulting fluctuations in S(r) are evident in Figure solutions listed in Table 1 and ADg1nr and ADc1nr plot- 3 where we plot entropy profiles for groups and clusters ted in Figure 3, the entropy in the inner post-shock flow (ADg & ADc) at the present time. For each S(r) pro- is very much lower. In these flows gas at 104 K that en- file there are several regions of interest: the relatively flat tered the halo at high redshifts, when the cosmic flow was cosmic inflow region at the far right, the sudden vertical dense, had very low entropy. The high density of this gas is entropy increase at the accretion shock, a region of de- maintained during its evolution. In addition the emission- clining post-shock entropy, and an inner region where the averaged temperatures of the “nr” solutions are much too entropy may decline further or be approximately constant. low, biased by the central regions. This is still true even Note also the decrease in the pre-shock entropy as gas ap- if all the gas is heated (without reset) to 3 × 107 K at proaches the shock when there is no pre-heating, AD1. time th =0.5 Gyr, as shown in the ADg4nr, ADpc4nr and This is due to our lower limit on the inflowing gas temper- ADc4nr results in Table 1. Some irregularities in the en- ature, T = 104 K. Since a low-temperature, adiabatically tropy profile in Figure 3 for the ADc1nr flow arise from expanding universe would cool below this value, our lower weak shocks produced at very early times ttr when the limit on the temperature results in isothermal intergalac- dark halo mass distribution changed to an NFW profile. tic flow in which the entropy factor increases as ρ−2/3. For Clearly, adiabatic models without reset are unaccept- this isothermal pre-shock flow, the entropy decreases with able since their X-ray luminosities are excessive and they rising gas density as the flow converges toward the shock have not cooled or formed into stars and galaxies. The in the AD1 flows. For a given dark halo, when the ac- high luminosities of no reset flows are related to the strong cretion shock is strong, the entropy just behind the shock high redshift emission from groups that would violate the is the same for all levels of pre-heating. The post-shock soft X-ray background, as discussed by Pen (1999) and flow behaves approximately as S ∝ r, indicating that the Wu, Fabian & Nulsen (1999b). But adiabatic solutions accretion shock was weaker in the past when the dark halo with the reset condition are also problematic because the was less massive. In model ADg1 with no pre-heating this time th of universal heating must be carefully orchestrated decline in the entropy continues to small radii; the post- for agreement with observed X-ray luminosities of galaxy shock entropy was very low in the early universe. groups. Nevertheless, AD flows provide a useful reference When the pre-heating is large, for some time after th gas for more detailed externally heated flows. Moreover, the enters the dark halos without shocking, conserving S; this entropy profiles S(r) for the AD solutions in Figure 3 share constant entropy gas is currently found closer to the center many of the same features with more realistic externally in the ADg2 - ADg4 solutions in Figure 3. The entire en- pre-heated models discussed below. tropy profile for model ADg4 is almost constant. However, converging subsonic flow must always produce an outward propagating shock since the flow velocity is assumed to vanish at the origin. The strength of this shock, which in- 3.2. Models with Radiative Cooling creases with virial mass Mvir, can produce central regions with dS/dr < 0, as in the ADc1 - ACc4 models in Figure 3. This series of gas dynamic models, described with the Since these small inner regions are convectively unstable, prefix CO, is similar to the adiabatic models except we now the entropy would also become uniform in a more realistic include radiative emission according to the Sutherland- three dimensional calculation. Dopita cooling coefficient Λ(T,Z = 0.4). When the gas The choice of S0.1 and emission averaged temperature cools at the center of the flow, we allow it to accumu- T in the S − T diagram are determined by the realities of late there, producing a point mass gravitational potential observational limitations, but they are probably not the similar to a giant black hole. At time th = 0.5 Gyr we best coordinates to test deviations from similarity. These reset the gas temperature and density to be spatially uni- inner flow regions near 0.1rvir are also subject to compu- form and apply the pre-heating. These assumptions are tational difficulties from ancient shocks as apparent in the essentially identical to those made by Tozzi & Norman AD1 and AD1nr entropy profiles in Figure 3. Even if the (2000). The entropy decrease due to radiative losses has cosmic gas were perfectly adiabatic between shocks, we little effect on the temperature profile since for hydrostatic expect that the violent events that accompany the earliest support the gas temperature must always be close to Tvir, mergers would disturb the entropy of the central regions i.e., T ∝ M(r)/r and M(r) is approximately proportional near 0.1rvir which in our models passed through the ac- to r. However, close to the central concentration of cooled cretion shock at ∼ 1 Gyr (redshift z ∼ 5). The emission- gas, M(r) is nearly constant and the temperature increases weighted temperatures also heavily favor the same dense toward the origin as T ∝ 1/r. The locally higher temper- inner region sensitive to these early perturbations. Aside atures in this dense central gas can influence the global from the entropy fluctuations apparent in the inner flow emission-weighted temperature of the group or cluster. r ∼< 0.1rvir in Figure 3, our calculations are quite accu- In some models with radiative cooling hot gas contain- rate elsewhere. This is evident in Figure 4 where we plot ing an appreciable amount of specific enthalpy and kinetic entropies and temperatures that are mass-averaged values energy flows into the central numerical zone. Since this gas within the accretion shock. In these S − T coordinates must ultimately radiate this energy producing X-rays, the central region contributes an additional X-ray luminosity 8 given by at r ∼< 0.3rvir, and move inward; they have little influence 2 on the outer ∼ 70 percent of the cooling flows. 2 u1 5kT1 −1 Lcore =4πr1ρ1u1 + erg s 2 2µmp 3.2.2. Entropy of Cooling Models & No Reset Models where the subscript 1 refers to quantities evaluated at the 2/3 radius r1 = 150 parsecs of the innermost numerical grid. Entropy factors S = T/ne (evaluated at r = rvir/10) This estimated correction to the total luminosity can be for the CO models are plotted against emission-averaged quite large, often exceeding L from the rest of the cooling temperatures for groups and clusters in Figure 2b. As the flow. Since X-ray observations of cores of cooling flows do amount of pre-heating is reduced, the results approach the not reveal strong, high-temperature thermal point sources, expected S ∝ T variation, but the entropy in these weakly the assumption that the gas cools only at the center of the pre-heated flows is increased by the passage of drip waves flow is unrealistic. and shocks produced by transient flows following reset. Because of these complications, the entropy S0.1 computed 3.2.1. Cooling Models in the L − T Diagram at small radii is uncertain and the agreement with obser- L and the emission-weighted T for the CO (radiative vations in Figure 2b is poor. The globally mass-averaged cooling) models are illustrated in Figure 1b. The result entropy and temperature satisfy the similarity condition for cluster mass halos (COc = filled triangles) are similar S ∝ T very well (Figure 4b), but cannot be easily com- to the adiabatic models with reset, as a result of the ineffi- pared with currently available observations. ciency of radiative cooling in these hot, low-density halos. In Figure 3 we show the computed entropy profiles S(r) In gas flows with the largest pre-heating – COg3, COg4, at tn = 13 Gyrs for group and cluster CO models. In gen- COpc3, COpc4 and COc4 – none of the baryonic gas cools eral these entropy profiles are in good agreement with the in th
In this GA series of gas-dynamical models we aban- in the GAg2 model and to 0.15 in models GApc2 and don the hypothesis of universal pre-heating and assume GAc2. The final ratio of stellar to gas mass inside rvir is that all heating results from normal star formation inside M∗/Mgas =0.60 for GAg2 and 0.23 for GApc2 and GAc2. the group or cluster. This is similar to the approach we In Figure 6 we show the spatial variation of the relative have used to reproduce the X-ray emission profile observed mass in baryons and gas for models GAg1 an GAg4. The in the giant elliptical NGC 4472 (Brighenti & Mathews relative mass of baryons fb = Mb/Mtot also includes the 1999a). The dark halos evolve just as in the previous mod- dropout mass of cooled gas. Note that the gas fraction els, but the intergalactic baryonic gas is assumed to remain fg = Mgas/Mtot is lower than the cosmic value even at at T = 104 K until it arrives at the accretion shock. We the virial radius and that its value is sensitive to the total assume that stars form at some early time, t∗ ∼ 2 Gyrs amount of SNII energy released. (redshift z∗ = 3), after enough baryons have entered the Except for the ΛCDM cosmology assumed here, the gas dark potential. Before time t∗ we use the dropout model to dynamical calculations, stellar mass loss rates and Type approximate the distribution of cooled baryonic mass. At Ia supernova rates that we use are identical to those de- time t∗, however, the baryons are rearranged into a den- scribed in Brighenti & Mathews (1999a). We assume dis- sity profile similar to that of a luminous elliptical galaxy. tributed mass dropout with parameter q = 1. The energy We use this same galaxy core at the centers of poor clus- provided by Type II supernovae is estimated by assuming 51 ter and cluster calculations with an additional extended ESN = 10 ergs is released from stars with initial masses stellar component approximated with a King distribution; > 8M⊙ and that ηII Type II supernovae are produced the gravity produced by these extended cluster stars has per solar mass of stars formed. For a typical Salpeter almost no influence on the gas dynamics. Also at time t∗ IMF (slope x = 1.35, mlow = 0.08, mhigh = 100) we find −3 we release the appropriate SNII energy within the shock ηII = ηstd ≡ 6.81×10 . The SNII energy delivered to the radius rsh in proportion to the local gas density. Shortly hot gas in a galaxy group or cluster of total stellar mass thereafter, a SNII-driven starburst wind occurs in galaxy M∗t is M∗tηII ǫSN ESN where ǫSN is the efficiency that the group halos, rapidly expelling most of the hot gas from supernova energy is delivered to the thermal energy of the the vicinity of the central group. A strong shock moves hot gas. In cosmological simulations the efficiency of Type upstream against the converging cosmic gas. The gas that II supernova feedback is often chosen to be ǫSN ∼ 0.1−0.2, participated in the starburst wind reverses velocity and to allow for radiative losses. Our calculation is somewhat later shocks back onto the group for the second time, with different since we explicitly allow for radiative losses in the a further entropy increase. For the deeper dark matter thermal energy equation, although we also assume that the halos in poor clusters and clusters, the starburst cannot supernova blast waves interact directly with the hot gas, expel much gas beyond the current virial radius. Within not with cold, dense clouds as might be expected in star- the half-light radius of the central galaxy most of the hot forming regions. We therefore consider several values of gas is provided by stellar mass loss. For the GA series the composite parameter of models we include additional terms in the gas dynami- η E cal equations to allow for stellar mass loss and heating by ∗ II SN η ≡ 51 ǫSN stars and Type Ia supernovae; these modified equations ηstd 10 are described in detail in Brighenti & Mathews (1999a). which is expected to be of order unity. For the GA models Our GA models are based on the mass distribution in we consider four values: η∗ = 0.5, 1, 2 and 4, respec- galaxy group NGC 2563. The central elliptical galaxy has tively designated as GA1, GA2, GA3 and GA4. Since 10 luminosity LB = 7.44 × 10 LB,⊙ (distance = 78 Mpc) Ω∗/Ω is the same in all GA models, The gas tempera- 11 b and total stellar mass M∗t = 7.57 × 10 M⊙. In addi- ture following the deposition of SNII energy is increased tion, Zabludoff & Mulchaey (1998) have identified about by ∆T = η∗1.91 × 107 K. 45 galaxies in the group surrounding NGC 2563. Using the approximate morphological types of Zabludoff & Mulchaey 3.4.1. Galaxy Formation Models in the L − T Diagram and M/LB ratios from Fukugita, Hogan & Peebles (1998), we estimate that the total stellar mass in the NGC 2563 The GAg models for galaxy groups are most satisfactory group is at least 1.5 times that of the central elliptical since the stellar mass distribution and formation epoch galaxy. In the models discussed here we assume that the t∗ are designed with groups in mind. It is particularly stellar mass of the entire group is twice that of the cen- gratifying that all GAg models fall very close to the ob- tral galaxy NGC 2563. The contribution of outlying group served position of NGC 2563 in the L − T plot, shown members to the total stellar mass of groups is highly vari- with a large open square in Figure 1d. Since we used able in galaxy groups and is often considerably larger than NGC 2563 to estimate the stellar mass distribution for that for NGC 2563. our group models, the agreement in Figure 1d may con- Immediately after the time of star formation t∗ the ra- firm the approximations we have made in the early evo- tio of stellar to total baryons within the accretion shock is lution of groups. The GAg2 and GAg4 luminosities and M∗/Mb =0.52. This ratio is based on the estimated stellar temperatures are within about 10 and 25 percent of the mass of the NGC 2563 group, but we use this same ratio in values observed in NGC 2563 (see Table 4 for further de- poor clusters and cluster flows. We note that the fraction tails). All GAg models also lie near the upper envelope of stellar baryons exceeds the cosmic average Ω∗/Ωb =0.09 of the Helsdon-Ponman group data, where strong cool- at zero redshift (Fukugita, Hogan & Peebles 1998). How- ing flows are dominated by a massive central elliptical ever, additional gas accretes into the virial radius after galaxy as we have assumed. Generally, as η∗ increases time t∗ and by the present time M∗/Mb decreases to 0.27 along the sequence GAg1 → GAg4 the X-ray luminosities decrease. However, the non-monotonic behavior of model 12
GAg3, L(GAg1) > L(GAg3) > L(GAg2), can be under- Final entropy profiles S(r) are shown for GAg and GAc stood by competing influences on L: larger heating (η∗) models in Figure 3. The observed entropy profile for NGC decreases the hot gas density, which lowers L, but as η∗ 2563 is shown with the GAg models. The agreement is increases less gas cools and the larger surviving hot gas quite good although our models are somewhat denser over- mass increases L. all with slightly lower S(r). As η∗ increases, the GAg mod- Values of η∗ as large as 4 used in model GAg4 may not els have progressively more extended regions of high en- be unreasonable. Mathews (1989) estimated the stellar tropy that project beyond the current virial radius. These mass to light ratio M∗/LV of luminous elliptical galaxies entropy features are unlike any of the other models and, if using single burst stellar populations with power law IMFs they could be observed, would be a clear signature of the having many slopes and mass limits. He showed that the internal heating scenario. The outer GAg flows contain Salpeter slope x = 1.35 is inconsistent with M∗/LV ∼ 9 two outward-facing shocks. The outer shock is the star- which is typically observed in luminous elliptical galaxies, burst blast wave that began at time t∗; the inner shock while shallower IMF slopes, x ≈ 0.7±0.3, give satisfactory which occurs close to rvir is the accretion shock. Varia- M∗/LV for all reasonable upper and lower mass limits. A tions in SNII heating have little effect on the entropy pro- power law IMF characterized with slope x =0.7, and mass file or accretion shock radius in the GAc solutions because limits mlow = 0.08 and mhigh = 100, delivers much more of their much greater mass. A positive entropy gradient SNII energy than the Salpeter IMF, ηII /ηstd =3.5, which dS/dr > 0 extends to very small radii in both GAg and may justify our largest values of η∗. GAc solutions in Figure 3d. This is due to mass ejection of For the GAg models we have also explored varying the low entropy gas from galactic stars and radiative cooling in time t∗ when the SNII energy is released and the radial high density gas within the deep central stellar potential. distribution where the SNII energy is deposited. For the standard model, GAg2, we varied t∗ from2 to 1.5 or 1 Gyr 4. discussion and summary and found that the computed points in the L − T plane at In the foregoing we have described the heating and dy- time t = 13 Gyrs were nearly unchanged. In addition, we n namical evolution of hot gas in galaxy groups and clusters repeated the GAg2 calculation but applied all of the SNII in a flat ΛCDM universe with a special emphasis on the gas energy only to (denser) gas within half the accretion shock entropy. The motivation for our interest in this problem radius at time t∗ = 2 Gyrs. The final luminosity increased can be traced to Kaiser (1986; 1991) who first noted that slightly since the more central heated gas was denser and the X-ray luminosities of groups and clusters vary with lost a larger fraction of its energy (and entropy) to radi- gas temperature more steeply than that expected from ation. We conclude that the positions of the group GAg bremsstrahlung emission in purely adiabatic flow with adi- models in the L − T plot (Figure 1d) are not sensitive to abatic shocks, L ∝ T 2. The observed steeper variation the time or spatial dependence of the SNII energy release. L ∝ T 3 or T 4 can be understood if cosmic gas is heated For completeness we have also computed GApc and GAc by some non-gravitational process. The density and X-ray models for poor clusters and clusters. These results shown luminosity of hydrostatically supported gas in dark halos in Figure 1d and Table 4 appear to have temperatures are both lower when the gas is heated. If hot gas in both about 50 percent lower than those of the pre-heated mod- groups and clusters experienced the same level of heating, els or the corresponding observations. While our GA as- the luminosity of groups should be disproportionally lower sumptions are reasonable for group evolution, they are less since the heating in the adiabatic accretion shock is much appropriate for clusters. For example, we assume that greater in clusters, typically masking the amount of non- clusters grow from a single seed galaxy group in the core, adiabatic heating required to account for the steep L − T ignoring the complex merging events by which groups com- variation. bine to form large clusters. If gas and dark matter scale homologously within the virial radius and if all the gas that passes through the ac- plot and Entropy Distribution for GA 3.4.2. S − T cretion shock remains within rvir, the gas density should Models be the same at any fraction of rvir regardless of the mass 2/3 The group models GAg fall nicely among the obser- of the cluster. In this case the entropy factor S = T/ne vations in the S − T plane shown in Figure 2d regard- is proportional to T . Lloyd-Davies et al. (2000) have ∗ less of the heating parameter η . This insensitivity of used the X-ray data to estimate the entropy factor S0.1 = ∗ 2/3 S(r = 0.1rvir) to the initial SNII energy η is a result T/ne at 0.1rvir in group and cluster gas. They find that of radiative losses in this inner region. Strong radiative when the S0.1 ∝ T relation is normalized to massive clus- cooling at the galactic center regulates the central density ters, the values of S0.1 for groups are too large to fit the −3 there to ne ∼ 0.1 cm and the temperature profile adjusts same relation. Either some gas in groups flowed out be- to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium in the common poten- cause it was internally heated or an insufficient amount of 2/3 tial of all GA models. Therefore S = T/ne evolves to a gas entered the group at early times because the gas was similar value for all η∗. The results for poor clusters and pre-heated before the accretion occurred. clusters are less satisfactory. Some of the small perturba- This leads directly to the question we have addressed tions of the entropy at r =0.1rvir discussed earlier are also here: Was the diffuse gas in galaxy groups and clusters present in the GA models, but tend to be smoothed due pre-heated by some external process at high redshifts or to radiative losses and mass dropout. As before, when the was the heating internal, due to supernovae that accom- entropy and temperature are mass-averaged within rvir panied normal star formation? Some recent studies of this the behavior is much more reasonable, as shown in Figure question have invoked a universal cosmic pre-heating from 4d. sources unrelated to star formation. In view of its impor- 13 tance for galaxy formation, we have developed an ensemble uncooled gas flowing into the center of the cluster. Be- of gas dynamical models with and without pre-heating. cause of their luminous cores, these models have absurdly high X-ray luminosities and do not correspond to any ob- 4.1. External Pre-heating ject observed. Another somewhat technical, but physically real, aspect of CO flows is their tendency to produce non- To investigate the consequences of universal pre-heating linear thermally unstable drip waves that propagate into we study the accumulation of gas in group and cluster dark the core of the flow sometimes at high velocity. The drip halos with three progressively more realistic assumptions: waves are Rayleigh-Taylor unstable so they cannot remain adiabatic AD flows with adiabatic shocks, CO flows with perfectly coherent, unlike their representations in our one- radiative cooling (Tozzi & Norman 2000), and finally DO dimensional models, and they will tend to be limited by flows with mass dropout and radiative cooling (Knight & mass dropout, not included in the CO models. Finally, Ponman 1997; Nulsen & Fabian 1995, 1997). In order to our results differ from those of Tozzi & Norman (2000) in compare our results with those of previous studies, we also that the accretion shock is very close to the virial radius assume that the gas temperature and density are reset to for all levels of pre-heating considered. uniform values at the moment when the pre-heating oc- To avoid these difficulties encountered in the CO mod- curred, i.e. excess gas inside the dark halo is removed. els, we performed a final DO series of pre-heated models For most of our models the reset is assumed to occur at in which gas is allowed to cool to very low temperatures time th = 0.5 Gyr or redshift zh = 9. In spite of its pop- everywhere within the virial radius. This is a standard ularity in the current literature, there is some uncertainty assumption used in models of cooling flows. As before, about the reset and pre-heating procedure. While very strongly pre-heated DO models that fit the L − T data few stars have formed at these high redshifts and the only have entropies S0.1 that exceed observed values. While the collapsed objects correspond to very small stellar systems, ultra-luminous X-ray cores of the CO flows are no longer the tophat perturbations that we use to generate present present in the DO models, the accumulated mass of cooled day group and cluster halos have collected baryonic gas (dropout) mass can be large, particularly in massive clus- which is removed at time th by the reset assumption. We ters where it exceeds the central mass densities of luminous have also done many calculations with no reset. The dark elliptical galaxies by 10 - 100. halos evolve in a normal way, initiated by a tophat pertur- We have also performed calculations of all types of ex- bation and cooling toward an NFW profile in a flat ΛCDM ternally pre-heated flows with no uniform reset of the gas universe. The final halo is insensitive to the tophat per- density and temperature at time th. In these models turbation, i.e. the same halo can be produced by a variety the cosmic gas temperature is heated by various amounts of different tophat density amplitudes with appropriately throughout the flow at th, but the density profile is not chosen tophat radii. altered. To reduce the final luminosity L by the same In general we find that data in the L−T plot (Figure 1) amount as in the reset models, the no reset models require can be fit with AD, CO or DO flows with reset provided the much higher levels of pre-heating to compensate for the pre-heating is sufficiently intense, 1.3 to 3.9 keV/particle energy radiated away from denser cores. The COnr mod- (K34 = 0.25 − 0.76). However, these strongly pre-heated els are totally unacceptable because of the intense concen- flows typically have entropies S0.1 for groups and poor tration of X-ray emission from the core where all the gas clusters that exceed observed values (Figure 2). Values has cooled. DOnr models are more similar to their DO of the entropy and temperature that are mass-weighted counterparts since most of the heating is radiated away by within the virial radius obey the S ∝ T similarity relation dense gas in the core. Although DOgnr flows are somewhat except for the most strongly pre-heated group gas (Figure hotter than the corresponding DOg flows, they neverthe- 4), but these cannot be compared with current observa- less have lower central entropies S0.1. tions. However, a variety of computational and physical For a variety of reasons, none of our pre-heated models problems have appeared in our models with cosmic pre- are particularly attractive, with or without reset. In ad- heating. For example, weakly heated AD models are not dition to gas dynamical concerns, the agency that heats only less successful in the L − T plot, but also show irreg- the gas is unclear. Since the cosmic gas density is higher ularities due to transient shocks following the reset that in the early universe, more energy is required to reach the persist as irregularities in the entropy profiles S(r) in the same adiabat than at lower redshifts. In the flat ΛCDM final AD1 models (Figure 3). S0.1 may be increased by universe global pre-heating by Type II supernovae during these spurious shocks. With more computational effort star formation is unable to heat all the gas sufficiently at these irregularities could probably be removed. But it is redshifts z ∼> 1 to achieve agreement with galaxy group clear that adiabatic (AD) models cannot be correct in spite observations in the L − T plane. There may be enough of their considerable success in fitting the L−T data (with energy in AGN to heat the gas at high redshifts, but it large pre-heating) and the entropy profiles (with little pre- is unclear if this energy can be widely distributed in the heating): adiabatic flows cannot form stars nor can they intergalactic gas and not just concentrated near the AGN. radiate X-rays. In comparing pre-heated models with observations, we When radiative losses are included, as in the CO flows, place more emphasis on the L − T plane than the S0.1 − T we find that some pre-heated models agree with data the plane. The S0.1 data are of lower quality because they typi- L − T plot and have entropy profiles very similar to those cally refer to the outermost detectable X-ray emission from of Tozzi & Norman (2000) who make similar assumptions. groups where the background corrections may be trouble- However, group models with less pre-heating and all clus- some. In addition the virial radius must be estimated to ter models except COc4 have enormously massive and derive S0.1 from the observations. Some of our models are luminous X-ray singularities produced by emission from 14 also less certain in the inner parts of the flow r ∼< 0.1rvir energy released per unit stellar mass, corresponding to dif- where the entropy can be increased by early shock waves ferent IMFs. However, for the best results we require that or rapidly moving drip waves. at least ∼ 0.2 of the energy released by SNII from early star formation directly heats the hot gas. The local en- 4.2. Internal Heating by Supernovae vironment of the early SNII explosions may differ from In our final series of GA models the external pre-heating star-forming regions in our Galaxy in that the supernova assumption is replaced with internal heating by Type II blast waves propagate into the hot gas, not into cold, dense supernovae associated with star formation at time t∗ =2 clouds which can radiate away much of the supernova en- Gyrs and redshift z∗ = 3 (see also Loewenstein 2000; ergy. Of course the hot gas heating efficiency could be Bryan 2000). This internal heating is distributed within < 0.2 if the IMF were more top-heavy than expected. We the accretion shock (∼ rvir) in proportion to the local also present GA models for clusters, although our physical gas density. Immediately following t∗ a strong starburst model of monolithic growth (without detailed hierarchical wind occurs in the GA group solutions. High entropy gas merging) is less appropriate for cluster masses. produced by the starburst shock currently extends beyond Mushotzky and Scharf (1997) have shown that the evo- the virial radius. Accompanying the SNII energy release is lution of data in the L − T plane is very weak out to the formation of a luminous elliptical galaxy at the center redshifts z ∼ 0.4. Our GA group models also exhibit this of the group or cluster flow. As a guide, we have cho- same slow evolution. For example, the mean bolometric sen the stellar mass of the NGC 2563 group to calibrate X-ray luminosity and gas temperature for the four GA the amount of SNII energy delivered to the hot gas in models we consider differ at z = 1 by only 45 and -7 per- groups. This same SNII heating per unit baryonic mass is cent respectively from the same averages at zero redshift, applied to GA models for clusters. We have explored the indicating that the temperature is stable and that the lu- effect of varying the time t∗ of star formation and altering minosity may be declining slightly. the distribution of the SNII energy within rvir, but the fi- In view of the generally good agreement with observa- nal results are surprisingly insensitive to these parameters. tions, we conclude that galaxy group models with internal The GA models resemble DO models without reset since SNII heating fit the data better and more plausibly than both include cooling mass dropout and have dense bary- any of the externally pre-heated models we have consid- onic cores; the main difference is that the GA models are ered. The production of SNII energy and the transfer of heated internally and DO models are heated universally. this energy to the hot gas may be a concern for the inter- While we have not attempted to produce a detailed nal heating models we prefer, but there has been no sat- model for the NGC 2563 group, we find that the X-ray isfactory explanation of the sources of the much greater luminosity and temperature observed in NGC 2563 are al- energy associated with universal, external pre-heating at most exactly matched by our GA group model at time high redshifts. tn = 13 Gyrs when heated with SNII energy expected from a Salpeter IMF. The data in the S0.1 − T plane is also nicely fit by the group GA models. Finally, we find We wish to thank referee Paolo Tozzi for helpful criti- that our standard GA group models agree well with the cism and advice. Studies of the evolution of hot gas in el- entropy distribution S(r) observed in NGC 2563. Excel- liptical galaxies at UC Santa Cruz are supported by NASA lent agreement with observations in both the L − T and grant NAG 5-3060 and NSF grant AST-9802994 for which S − T plots can be achieved with a range of 8 in the SNII we are very grateful.
REFERENCES
Allen, S. W. & Fabian, A. C. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 57 Helsdon, S. F. & Ponman, T. J. 2000b, MNRAS, accepted (astro- Arnaud, M. & Evrard, A. E. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 631 ph/0008194) Balogh, M. L., Babul, A. & Patton, D. R. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 463 Kaiser, N. 1991, ApJ, 383, 104 Bertschinger, E. 1985, ApJS, 58, 39 Kaiser, N. 1986, MNRAS 222, 323 Brighenti, F. & Mathews, W.G. 2000a, ApJ, 539, 675 Knight, P. A. & Ponman, T. J. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 955 Brighenti, F. & Mathews, W.G. 2000b, ApJ, 535, 650 Kravtsov, A. V. & Yepes, G. 2000, MNRAS, submitted (astro- Brighenti, F. & Mathews, W.G. 1999a, ApJ, 512, 65 ph/0004333) Brighenti, F. & Mathews, W.G. 1999b, ApJ, 515, 542 Lloyd-Davies, E. J., Ponman, T. J. & Cannon, D. B. 2000, MNRAS, Brighenti, F. & Mathews, W.G. 1998, ApJ, 495, 239 315, 689 Bryan, G.L. 2000, ApJL, accepted (astro-ph/0009286) Loewenstein, M. 2000, ApJ, 532, 17 Bullock, J. S. et al. 2000, MNRAS, accepted (astro-ph/9908159) Markevitch, M. 1998, ApJ, 504, 27 Buote, D. A. 2000a, MNRAS 311, 176 Mathews, W. G. 1997, AJ, 113, 755 Buote, D. A. 2000b, ApJ, accepted (astro-ph/0001329) Mathews, W. G. 1989, AJ, 97, 42 Burles, S. & Tytler, D. 1998a, ApJ 507, 732 Mushotzky, R. F. & Scharf, C. A. 1997, ApJ 482, 13 Burles, S. & Tytler, D. 1998b, ApJ 499, 699 Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S. & White, S. D. M. 1995, MNRAS, 275, Cavaliere, A., Giacconi, R. & Menci, N. 2000, ApJL, accepted (astro- 720 ph/9912374) Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S. & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 Cavaliere, A., Menci, N. & Tozzi, P. 1997 ApJ, 484, L21 Nulsen, P. E. J. & Fabian, A. C. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 561 Cen, R. & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 1 Nulsen, P. E. J. & Fabian, A. C. 1997, MNRAS 291, 425 Dav´e, R. et al. 2000, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0007217) Pen, U-L. 1999, ApJ, 510, L1 David, L. P. 1997, ApJ 484, L11 Ponman, T. J., Cannon, D. B. & Navarro, J. F. 1999, Nature, 397, David, L. P., Arnaud, K. A., Forman, W., & Jones, C. 1990, ApJ 135 356, 32 David, L. P. & Blumenthal, G. R. 1992, ApJ 389, 510 Renzini, A. 1997, ApJ, 488, 35 Eke, P. A., Navarro, J. F. & Frenk, C. S. 1998, ApJ, 503, 569 Sarazin, C.L., Ashe, G.A. 1989, ApJ, 345, 22 Evrard, A. E. & Henry, J. P. 1991, ApJ, 383, 95 Stone, J. M. & Norman, M. L. 1992, ApJS, 80, 573 Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 518 Sutherland, R.S., Dopita, M.A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253 Helsdon, S. F. & Ponman, T. J. 2000a, MNRAS, accepted (astro- Tozzi, P. & Norman, C. 2000, ApJ, accepted (astro-ph/0003289) ph/0002051) Tozzi, P., Scharf, C. & Norman, C. 2000, ApJ, 542, 106 15
Trinchieri, G., Fabbiano, G. & Kim, D.-W. 1997, A&A 318, 361 Wu, K. K. S., Fabian, A. C. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 1999a, (astro- Valageas, P. & Silk, J. 1999, A&A 350, 725 ph/9907112) Wu, K. K. S., Fabian, A. C. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 1998, MNRAS, 301, Wu, K. K. S., Fabian, A. C. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 1999b, (astro- L20 ph/9910122) Zabludoff, A. I. & Mulchaey, J. S. 1998, ApJ 496, 39
Fig. 1.— Variation of X-ray bolometric luminosity with emission weighted temperature. Each panel shows the data: open squares: groups from Helsdon & Ponman (2000); crosses: clusters from Arnaud & Evrard (1999); open circles and triangles: clusters from Allen & Fabian (1998), the open triangles refer to non-cooling flow clusters. The dashed line shows the (un-normalized) L ∝ T 2 relation expected if the hot gas were adiabatic and emitted bremsstrahlung radiation. The four panels a → d show results of calculations for adiabatic (AD), radiative cooling (CO), mass dropout (DO), and galaxy formation (GA) models. The filled circles, squares and triangles are results of gas dynamical calculations at time 13 Gyrs for groups, poor clusters and clusters respectively. Note that the computed luminosities and temperatures for the two DO models for groups DOg1 and DOg2 are almost identical.
−2/3 Fig. 2.— Plot of the entropy factor S = Tne evaluated at radius 0.1rvir against emission-weighted temperature. Each panel shows the entropy data (filled squares) from Lloyd-Davies, Ponman, & Cannon (2000) with a dashed line S ∝ T passing through the rich clusters. Open circles in each of the four panels a → d show results of calculations for adiabatic (AD), radiative cooling (CO), mass dropout (DO), and galaxy formation (GA) models. The radius of the open circle increases with the amount of heating as characterized by the nomenclature 1 → 4 as described in the text.
−2/3 Fig. 3.— Profiles of the entropy factor S(r) = Tne for adiabatic (AD), radiative cooling (CO), mass dropout (DO), and galaxy formation (GA) models. The “g” or “c” refer to models of groups and clusters respectively. The amount of heating described in the text with the nomenclature 1 → 4 is represented for each model with solid, dotted, short-dashed and long-dashed lines respectively. The heavy dotted lines for ADg and ADc models refer to calculated profiles without reset. The dot-dashed line in the GAg panel shows the observed entropy profile for group NGC 2563 from Trinchieri, Fabbiano, & Kim (1997).
−2/3 Fig. 4.— Plot of mass-weighted values of the entropy factor S(r)= Tne and temperature both averaged within the virial radius. The four panels a → d show results of calculations for adiabatic (AD), radiative cooling (CO), mass dropout (DO), and galaxy formation (GA) models. Results in each panel are shown with clusters of open circles for groups, poor clusters and clusters, respectively from left to right. The radius of the open circle increases with the amount of heating as characterized by the nomenclature 1 → 4 as described in the text. The dashed line shows the slope S ∝ T expected for adiabatic hot gas configurations.
Fig. 5.— Density profiles of cooled (dropout) gas at 13 Gyrs for groups (upper panel) and clusters (lower panel). Heavy solid lines: groups and clusters with no pre-heating, DOg1 and DOc1; Heavy dashed lines: groups and clusters with maximum pre-heating, DOg4 and DOc4; Light solid lines: groups and clusters with no pre-heating and no reset, DOg1nr and DOc1nr; Light dashed lines: groups and clusters with maximum pre-heating and no reset, DOg4nr and DOc4nr; Light dot-dashed lines: groups and clusters at time 0.5 Gyr, just before reset; Dotted lines: de Vaucouleurs mass profile for elliptical galaxy NGC 2563.
Fig. 6.— Baryon fraction fb (dashed lines) and gas fraction fg (solid lines) at 13 Gyrs for GAg1 models (light lines) and GAg4 models (heavy lines). The cosmic baryon fraction is shown with a horizontal dashed line. The virial radius rvir is shown with a vertical dashed line. 16
Table 1 ADIABATIC MODELSa
b c d e Model hT i log L log S(0.1rvir) fB (rvir) (keV) (ergs/s) (keV cm2)
ADg1 0 .814 43.55 2.02 0.0918 ADg2 0 .906 43.12 2.15 0.0900 ADg3 0 .853 42.86 2.43 0.0856 ADg4 0 .843 41.94 2.91 0.0420
ADpc1 1.89 44.19 2.55 0.0931 ADpc2 2.44 43.95 2.42 0.0916 ADpc3 2.46 43.83 2.51 0.0899 ADpc4 2.36 43.41 2.91 0.0811
ADc1 6.13 44.99 2.87 0.0907 ADc2 6.72 44.91 2.68 0.0902 ADc3 6.96 44.85 2.82 0.0897 ADc4 7.20 44.68 2.97 0.0877
ADg1nr 0 .392 46.14 1.83 0.121 ADg4nr 0 .425 44.76 1.85 0.068 ADpc1nr 0.760 46.41 1.63 0.121 ADpc4nr 0.908 45.47 2.22 0.100 ADc1nr 1.714 46.78 2.44 0.117 ADc4nr 2.399 46.14 2.81 0.114
aNomenclature: g, pc, and c represent group, poor cluster and cluster potentials; 1 indicates no pre-heating and 3 → 4 represent increasing levels of pre-heating; nr indicates no reset. b Emission weighted temperature within rvir = 0.88, 1.47, and 2.63 Mpc for group, poor cluster and cluster c Bolometric X-ray luminosity within rvir d Entropy factor at 0.1rvir e Baryon fraction in hot gas within rvir; the total baryon fraction including dropout mass is shown in parenthesis 17
Table 2 COOLING MODELSa
b c d e f Model hT i log L log S(0.1rvir) fB (rvir) log Mcold 2 (keV) (ergs/s) (keV cm ) (M⊙)
COg1 1.10 43.67(44.55) 1.76 0.083(0.095) 11.77 COg2 1.32 43.82(44.62) 1.81 0.080(0.096) 11.59 COg3 0.886 43.11 2.21 0.092(0.092) ··· COg4 0.831 42.00 2.87 0.045(0.045) ···
COpc1 2.45 44.21(44.80) 2.15 0.09(0.094) 11.94 COpc2 2.39 44.24(44.90) 2.28 0.091(0.094) 11.80 COpc3 2.32 44.10 2.34 0.092(0.092) ··· COpc4 2.38 43.47 2.85 0.082(0.082) ···
COc1 7.12 44.87(45.40) 2.78 0.088(0.091) 12.55 COc2 7.14 44.92(46.04) 2.89 0.088(0.091) 12.53 COc3 6.15 45.11(45.90) 2.91 0.089(0.090) 12.16 COc4 7.12 44.77 2.90 0.088(0.088) ···
COg1nr 2.58 43.00(45.35) 2.40 0.065(0.126) 12.48 COg4nr 1.28 42.28(44.10) 2.53 0.047(0.079) 12.16 COc1nr 14.93 44.91(47.69) 2.94 0.085(0.118) 13.60 COc4nr 8.54 44.87(46.93) 2.97 0.092(0.114) 13.41
aNomenclature: g, pc, and c represent group, poor cluster and cluster potentials; 1 indi- cates no pre-heating and 3 → 4 represent increasing levels of pre-heating; nr indicates no reset. b Emission weighted temperature within rvir = 0.88, 1.47, and 2.63 Mpc for group, poor cluster and cluster c Bolometric X-ray luminosity within rvir; values of log(L+Lcore) are shown in parenthesis when gas cools in the central zone. d Entropy factor at 0.1rvir e Baryon fraction in hot gas within rvir; the total baryon fraction including dropout mass is shown in parenthesis f Mass cooled at r = 0 18
Table 3 MASS DROPOUT MODELSa
b c d e f Model hT i log L log S(0.1rvir) fB(rvir) log Mcold 2 (keV) (ergs/s) (keV cm ) (M⊙)
DOg1 0.933 43.61 1.99 0.072(0.114) 12.31 DOg2 0.941 43.61 2.05 0.072(0.115) 12.35 DOg3 0.795 43.27 2.32 0.081(0.111) 12.17 DOg4 0.743 42.34 2.89 0.045(0.067) 11.98
DOpc1 2.27 44.35 2.25 0.084(0.106) 12.68 DOpc2 2.55 44.36 2.43 0.077(0.107) 12.81 DOpc3 2.02 44.21 2.47 0.084(0.105) 12.64 DOpc4 1.89 43.76 2.87 0.080(0.095) 12.48
DOc1 6.17 45.20 2.85 0.084(0.100) 13.27 DOc2 9.05 45.36 2.96 0.076(0.102) 13.47 DOc3 6.59 45.31 2.96 0.084(0.100) 13.29 DOc4 5.13 45.03 2.97 0.085(0.098) 13.17
DOg1nr 1.24 43.59 1.98 0.066(0.123) 12.45 DOg2nr 1.54 43.89 1.95 0.069(0.129) 12.48 DOg3nr 1.29 43.49 2.24 0.083(0.125) 12.33 DOg4nr 1.43 43.31 2.25 0.050(0.079) 12.12
DOc1nr 6.74 45.47 2.86 0.088(0.117) 13.55 DOc2nr 6.39 45.45 2.84 0.080(0.119) 13.67 DOc3nr 4.77 45.70 2.79 0.088(0.118) 13.55 DOc4nr 5.57 45.57 2.76 0.095(0.115) 13.37
aNomenclature: g, pc, and c represent group, poor cluster and cluster potentials; 1 indi- cates no pre-heating and 3 → 4 represent increasing levels of pre-heating; nr indicates no reset. b Emission weighted temperature within rvir = 0.88, 1.47, and 2.63 Mpc for group, poor cluster and cluster c Bolometric X-ray luminosity within rvir d Entropy factor at 0.1rvir e Baryon fraction in hot gas within rvir; the total baryon fraction including dropout mass is shown in parenthesis f Total cooled dropout mass 19
Table 4 GALAXY FORMATION MODELSa
b c d e f Model hT i log L log S(0.1rvir) fB(rvir) log Mcold 2 (keV) (ergs/s) (keV cm ) (M⊙)
GAg1 0.871 43.23 2.24 0.066(0.102) 11.97 GAg2 0.894 42.88 2.26 0.040(0.071) 11.81 GAg3 0.804 43.13 2.04 0.027(0.052) 11.58 GAg4 0.807 42.62 2.23 0.017(0.039) 11.22
GApc1 1.866 44.26 2.34 0.087(0.123) 12.86 GApc2 1.835 44.15 2.48 0.088(0.123) 12.84 GApc3 1.774 43.91 2.62 0.083(0.116) 12.81 GApc4 1.435 43.89 2.67 0.054(0.083) 12.74
GAc1 3.644 45.31 2.98 0.086(0.118) 13.57 GAc2 3.812 45.30 2.98 0.087(0.118) 13.56 GAc3 4.091 45.25 2.99 0.089(0.118) 13.54 GAc4 4.281 45.08 2.52 0.085(0.113) 13.51
aNomenclature: g, pc, and c represent group, poor cluster and cluster potentials; 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent increasing supernova heating, η∗ = 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 respectively b Emission weighted temperature within rvir = 0.88, 1.47, and 2.63 Mpc for group, poor cluster and cluster c Bolometric X-ray luminosity within rvir d Entropy factor at 0.1rvir e Baryon fraction in hot gas within rvir; the total baryon fraction including dropout mass is shown in parenthesis f Total cooled dropout mass within rvir a
AD models
b
CO models
c
DO models
d
GA models a
b
c
d a
b
c
d