x-ray searches for distant clusters

X-ray Searches for Distant Clusters

Chris MullisUniversity of Michigan

Special Thanks To:Pat Henry, Piero Rosati, Hans Böhringer, Alexey Vikhlinin, Harald Ebeling, Isabella Gioia

OverviewOverview

MotivationsMotivationsX-ray Selection & MethodologyX-ray Selection & MethodologyBrief HistoryBrief HistoryCurrent SurveysCurrent SurveysFuture ProspectsFuture Prospects

A Few Caveats…A Few Caveats…

Just highlighting examples Just highlighting examples ((NOTNOT COMPLETE REVIEW) COMPLETE REVIEW)

Recognize important work at Recognize important work at low/intermediate redshiftslow/intermediate redshifts

Mostly focused on z>0.5 resultsMostly focused on z>0.5 results

Motivations for the Study of Motivations for the Study of High-Redshift Galaxy ClustersHigh-Redshift Galaxy Clusters

1)1) Key Tracers of Large-Scale Key Tracers of Large-Scale Structure Structure Cosmological Cosmological ProbesProbes

Borgani & Guzzo 2001, Nature, 409, 39

The evolution of cluster space density reflects underlying cosmology & physics

Requirements for Cosmology

1)1) Sensitivity over a long redshift Sensitivity over a long redshift baselinebaseline

2)2) Observational proxy for cluster Observational proxy for cluster massmass

3)3) Accurate selection functionAccurate selection function

4)4) High completeness / low High completeness / low contaminationcontamination

F(LF(Lxx):): Constraints on Constraints on σσ88--ΩΩm m

from RDCS Clustersfrom RDCS Clusters

Borgani et al. 2001, Rosati, Borgani & Norman 2002

F(TF(Txx):): Constraints from Evolution of Constraints from Evolution of

EMSS XTFEMSS XTF

Henry 1997, 2000, 2004also Donahue & Voit 1999z~0.05

z~0.42

F(MF(Mbb):): Baryon MF of 160SD Baryon MF of 160SD

Clusters at z~0.5Clusters at z~0.5

Vikhlinin et al. 2003

z~0.55

z~0.05

Ωm=0.27

Motivations for the Study of Motivations for the Study of High-Redshift Galaxy ClustersHigh-Redshift Galaxy Clusters

2)2) Laboratories for Cosmic Laboratories for Cosmic EvolutionEvolution

Formation & evolution of galaxies in Formation & evolution of galaxies in high-density environmentshigh-density environments

Feedback and Chemical Yield of SNeFeedback and Chemical Yield of SNe Thermal & chemical evolution of ICMThermal & chemical evolution of ICM

Galaxy Formation & EvolutionGalaxy Formation & Evolution

Poggianti et al. 2004Poggianti et al. 2004

Massive, High-z Clusters = TestbedsMassive, High-z Clusters = TestbedsHierarchical vs. MonolithicHierarchical vs. Monolithic

MS 1054-03 z=0.83MS 1054-03 z=0.83High-z X-ray-Selected ClusterHigh-z X-ray-Selected Cluster van Dokkum et al. 2000

ICM Metal Enrichment History ICM Metal Enrichment History Star Formation History of Cluster Galaxy Population Star Formation History of Cluster Galaxy Population

Tozzi et al. 2003

See also Ettori 2005

Non-Evolving(?) Non-Evolving(?) Gas Iron Gas Iron Abundance out Abundance out to to zz=1.2=1.2

High redshift = leverageHigh redshift = leverage

precision of cosmological parametersprecision of cosmological parameters

efficacy of evolution studiesefficacy of evolution studies

RXJ1716+6709 z=0.81

ROSAT NEP Survey

Henry et al. 1997, Gioia et al. 1999, Mullis 2001

Chandra ACIS-I, 51ks, 3-10 kev

RXJ1716+6709 z=0.81

ROSAT NEP Survey

Henry et al. 1997, Gioia et al. 1999, Mullis 2001

Advantages of X-ray Selection

Basic X-ray observable (Lx) directly related

to a fundamental physical property (M)

Reiprich & Böhringer 2002; see also Popesso et al. 2005

X-ray Luminosity versus Mass

Advantages of X-ray Selection

Essentially free of projection effects

- low X-ray background

- Lx ne2

clusters appear more sharply in X-ray than optical light

complete samples

galaxy clustergalaxy cluster

Abell 2572Abell 2572

galaxy groupgalaxy group

HCG 94HCG 94

DSSDSS

galaxy clustergalaxy clusterz=0.042z=0.042

galaxy clustergalaxy clusterz=0.155z=0.155

galaxy groupgalaxy groupz=0.039z=0.039

DSS + DSS + ROSATROSAT PSPC PSPC

Ebeling et al. 1995

Advantages of X-ray Selection

Basic X-ray observable (Lx) physically

motivated and directly related to a fundamental physical property (M)

Essentially free of projection effects complete samples

Well-defined selection function, (fx)

volume normalized diagnostics (e.g. XLF, XTF MF)

Building X-ray SamplesBuilding X-ray SamplesNumber Density - Flux RelationNumber Density - Flux Relation

Cluster logN-logS: Rosati, Borgani & Norman 2002 (ARAA)

Local Cluster XLFLocal Cluster XLF

REFLEXBöhringer et al. 2002

See aso Ebeling et al. 1997; De Grandi et al. 1999

Sky Coverage

Predicted RedshiftDistribution of Clusters

foreground

XLF no evolution

XLF AB evolution

Rosati et al. 02

Mullis et al. 04

Contiguous Regions: All-Sky or Raster

Henry et al. 2001Voges et al. 2001Gioia et al 2001Mullis 2001

ROSAT image of the NEP

QSO

Cluster

z=0.243160SD #210

Cluster

z=0.242160SD #208

Serendipitous Survey

Ground-Based Follow-upGround-Based Follow-up

Initial Goals:Initial Goals:– Confirm presence of galaxy overdensity Confirm presence of galaxy overdensity – Redshift MeasurementRedshift Measurement

Classical approachClassical approach …one cluster at a time…one cluster at a time

Wholesale multi-Wholesale multi-λλ coverage coverage…photometric redshifts…photometric redshifts

Optimizing for Very High-ZOptimizing for Very High-Z Optical Follow-up is the Optical Follow-up is the ChallengeChallenge Leverage Existing DataLeverage Existing Data Utility of color informationUtility of color information

Cluster ellipticals with old stellar pops Cluster ellipticals with old stellar pops (e.g., Dressler et al. 1997, Postman et al. 1998)(e.g., Dressler et al. 1997, Postman et al. 1998)

Red-Sequence + Bracketing the 4000A BreakRed-Sequence + Bracketing the 4000A Break (e.g. Gladders & Yee 2000, Kodama & Arimoto 1997)(e.g. Gladders & Yee 2000, Kodama & Arimoto 1997)

Spectroscopy is expensiveSpectroscopy is expensive – major problem at z>1.45 (or z>1.63 using OII)major problem at z>1.45 (or z>1.63 using OII)– B2640A, MgII2800A, MgI2852A (e.g,. Cimatti et al. 2004)B2640A, MgII2800A, MgI2852A (e.g,. Cimatti et al. 2004)

NIR photometry enables zNIR photometry enables zphotphot & science & science

Brief HistoryBrief History

EinsteinEinstein EMSS EMSS1980s1980s

ROSAT ROSAT SurveysSurveys1990s1990s

See Rosati, Borgani & Norman 2002 for thorough review

Key Characteristics of X-ray SatsKey Characteristics of X-ray Sats

MissionMission Sensitivity Sensitivity (approx)(approx)

FWHMFWHM FOVFOV

Einstein*Einstein* 1x1x 60”60” 75’75’

* First with imaging optics

First X-ray Detection of Distant First X-ray Detection of Distant ClustersClusters

EinsteinEinstein ObservatoryObservatory (Giaconi et al. 1979)(Giaconi et al. 1979)

e.g., Henry et al. 1979e.g., Henry et al. 1979 Einstein obs. of optically-selected Einstein obs. of optically-selected

clusters clusters (mostly Abell z~0.2)(mostly Abell z~0.2)

What’s What’s DistantDistant??

EMSSEMSS Gioia et al. 1990ab, Stocke et al. 1991Gioia et al. 1990ab, Stocke et al. 1991Henry et al. 1992Henry et al. 1992

93 93 X-ray-selected X-ray-selected clusters (zclusters (zmaxmax=0.58)=0.58)

Gioia et al. 1990 Henry et al. 1992

Einstein EMSSEvolution of the Cluster XLF

z = 0.17z = 0.17

z = 0.33

Low-redshift XLF

<z>=0.17

High-redshift XLF

<z>=0.33Nov 1978 - Apr 1981

MS1054-0321 z=0.83HST / van Dokkum & Franx

EMSS ClustersEMSS Clusters Cluster Evolution Cluster Evolution

-> Cosmology (-> Cosmology (ΩΩmm))– e.g., Oukbir & Blanchard 1996, e.g., Oukbir & Blanchard 1996,

Bahcall & Cen 1997, Eke et al. 1998, Bahcall & Cen 1997, Eke et al. 1998, Henry 2004Henry 2004

CNOC Cluster SurveyCNOC Cluster Surveye.g., Carlberg, Yee, Ellingson 1996, Balogh et al.e.g., Carlberg, Yee, Ellingson 1996, Balogh et al.– Cluster Masses & CosmologyCluster Masses & Cosmology– Galaxy Evolution in Clusters & FieldGalaxy Evolution in Clusters & Field

Distant ClustersDistant Clusters– MS1054-0321 z=0.83MS1054-0321 z=0.83

most distant EMSS clustermost distant EMSS cluster e.g., Luppino & Kaiser 1997 (WL)e.g., Luppino & Kaiser 1997 (WL)

Donahue et al. 1998 (X-ray)Donahue et al. 1998 (X-ray)– MS1137.5=6025 z=0.78MS1137.5=6025 z=0.78

e.g., Donahue et al. 1999e.g., Donahue et al. 1999

X-ray ClusterX-ray Cluster

Universe SurveyedUniverse Surveyed

by by EinsteinEinstein

zzmaxmax ~ 0.8 ~ 0.8

Key Characteristics of X-ray SatsKey Characteristics of X-ray Sats

MissionMission Sensitivity Sensitivity (approx)(approx)

FWHMFWHM FOVFOV

EinsteinEinstein 1x1x 60”60” 75’75’

ROSATROSAT 2x2x 25” PSPC25” PSPC1.7” HRI1.7” HRI

120’ PSPC120’ PSPC

38’ HRI38’ HRI

Ebeling, Edge & Henry 2001

ROSATROSAT Distant Cluster Surveys Distant Cluster Surveys

160SD160SD Vikhlinin et al. 1998, Mullis et al. 2003Vikhlinin et al. 1998, Mullis et al. 2003

BMW-HRIBMW-HRI Moretti, Guzzo et al. 2004Moretti, Guzzo et al. 2004

BSHARCBSHARC Romer et al. 2000Romer et al. 2000

MACSMACS Ebeling, Edge, & Henry 2001Ebeling, Edge, & Henry 2001

NEPNEP Henry et al. 2001, Mullis 2001, Gioia et al. 2003Henry et al. 2001, Mullis 2001, Gioia et al. 2003

RDCSRDCS Rosati et al. 1995, 1998Rosati et al. 1995, 1998

RIXOSRIXOS Castander et al. 1995, Mason et al. 2000Castander et al. 1995, Mason et al. 2000see also see also XDCSXDCS: Gilbank et al. 2004: Gilbank et al. 2004

ROXSROXS Donahue et al. 2001, 2002Donahue et al. 2001, 2002

SSHARCSSHARC Burke et al. 2003Burke et al. 2003

WARPSWARPS Scharf et al. 1997, Perlman et al. 2002Scharf et al. 1997, Perlman et al. 2002

Compilation of 8 High-Redshift Cluster XLFs

Mullis et al. 2004

ML Contours for the fitting parameters of an ML Contours for the fitting parameters of an Evolving Schechter FunctionEvolving Schechter Function

no evolution

A=B=0

Rosati et al. 2002

Henry 2003

Mullis et al. 2004

Cluster Co-moving Volume Density

Mullis et al. 2004

(Ebeling et al. 2004)(Ebeling et al. 2004)

Prediction based on 160SD + others at Lx < 1045

Data from the eBCS+MACS at Lx > 1045

z>1 X-ray Clustersz>1 X-ray Clusters

ClG J0848+4453 z=1.273ClG J0848+4453 z=1.273RDCS (IR-selected)RDCS (IR-selected)

RX J0848.6+4453 z=1.261RX J0848.6+4453 z=1.261RDCSRDCS

RX J1252.9+2927 z=1.237RX J1252.9+2927 z=1.237RDCSRDCS

RX J1053.7+5735 z=1.14RX J1053.7+5735 z=1.14Lockman Hole Lockman Hole Hashimoto et al. 2004Hashimoto et al. 2004

RX J0910+5422 z=1.106RX J0910+5422 z=1.106RDCSRDCS

Cl J1415.1+3612 z=1.03Cl J1415.1+3612 z=1.03WARPS WARPS Doland, Ebeling, Barrett 2006Doland, Ebeling, Barrett 2006

.

Low-z: >1000 clustersMed-z: 100s clustersVery Hi-z: only a few clusters

z=1.106

z=1.263

z=1.272

z=1.237

RDCS0849

RDCS0848

RDCS0910

RDCS1252

6 keV

5 keV3 keV

5.5 keV

1.5

’

0.7

5 M

pc

Clusters at z > 1 observed with Chandra, HST and Spitzer

courtesy Piero Rosati

RDCSz>1Clusters

•Advanced stage of formation•No signs of mergers•Present-day metalicity•Dominated by old stellar pops•Formation epoch z>1.3

Challenges to Hierarchical Structure FormationChallenges to Hierarchical Structure Formation

RDCS1252.9-2927 (z=1.237)Rosati et al.

Tight Red Sequence at Tight Red Sequence at zz=1.24=1.24

Blakeslee et al. 2003, Lidman et al. 2003, Rosati et al. 2004

Slowly Evolving K-band LFSlowly Evolving K-band LF

Toft et al. 2004; see also Strazzullo et al. 2005Toft et al. 2004; see also Strazzullo et al. 2005

Tight & Slowly Evolving FP out to Tight & Slowly Evolving FP out to zz=1.25=1.25

Holder et al. 2005Holder et al. 2005van Dokkum & Stanford 2003van Dokkum & Stanford 2003

ROSATROSAT Surveys SurveysRecently Finished / OngoingRecently Finished / Ongoing

400SD (Vikhlinin et al.)400SD (Vikhlinin et al.) – Optical follow-up is complete (paper in prep)Optical follow-up is complete (paper in prep)– ffxx > 1.4x10 > 1.4x10-13-13 (higher than 160SD) (higher than 160SD) – Includes 100 bright 160SD cluster + Includes 100 bright 160SD cluster + 200 new clusters200 new clusters– 50 clusters at z>0.4 (zmax = 0.899, previously 50 clusters at z>0.4 (zmax = 0.899, previously

discovered)discovered)– Chandra LP (43 clusters at z>0.35 Chandra LP (43 clusters at z>0.35 cosmology) cosmology)

400SD XLF400SD XLF

A. Vikhlinin

ROSATROSAT Surveys SurveysRecently Finished / OngoingRecently Finished / Ongoing

MACS (Ebeling et al.)MACS (Ebeling et al.)– Survey Overview Survey Overview

Ebeling, Edge & Henry 2001Ebeling, Edge & Henry 2001– 12 very massive clusters at z>0.5 12 very massive clusters at z>0.5

(none at z > 0.7)(none at z > 0.7)– Optical follow-up ~ completeOptical follow-up ~ complete– Major follow-up (Chandra, ACS, SZ, etc)Major follow-up (Chandra, ACS, SZ, etc)

Large-Scale Filament Connected to the Massive Galaxy

MACS J0717.53745 at z=0.55Ebeling, Barrett & Donovan 2004

ROSATROSAT Surveys SurveysRecently Finished / OngoingRecently Finished / Ongoing

BMW-HRI (Guzzo et al.)BMW-HRI (Guzzo et al.)– 83 groups/clusters confirmed 83 groups/clusters confirmed Morretti et al. 2004Morretti et al. 2004

– Expect: 20 z>0.5; 3 z>0.8; 1 z>1Expect: 20 z>0.5; 3 z>0.8; 1 z>1– Optical follow-up on-goingOptical follow-up on-going

BMW2124-3347 zVLT=0.92

Current SurveysCurrent Surveys

ChandraChandra2000s2000s

XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton2000s2000s

Key Characteristics of X-ray SatsKey Characteristics of X-ray Sats

MissionMission Sensitivity Sensitivity (approx)(approx)

FWHMFWHM FOVFOV

EinsteinEinstein 1x1x 60”60” 75’75’

ROSATROSAT 2x2x 25” PSPC25” PSPC1.7” HRI1.7” HRI

120’ PSPC120’ PSPC

38’ HRI38’ HRI

ChandraChandra 4x4x 0.5”0.5” 16’ x 16’16’ x 16’

8’ x 48’8’ x 48’

XMMXMM 20x20x 6”6” 30’30’

*ASCA & BeppoSAX not used for surveys because of large PSFs

ChandraChandra

AdvantagesAdvantages– High angular resolution so can cleanly High angular resolution so can cleanly

separate potential AGN contaminationseparate potential AGN contamination– Less background flaringLess background flaring

DisadvantagesDisadvantages– Smaller FOV Smaller FOV smaller survey area smaller survey area– Smaller collecting area compared to Smaller collecting area compared to

XMM XMM less sensitivity to high-z clusters less sensitivity to high-z clusters

ChandraChandra Cluster Surveys Cluster Surveys

W. BoschinW. Boschin ChaMPChaMP XBoötesXBoötes

W. Boschin 2002W. Boschin 2002 81 81 ChandraChandra ACIS observations ACIS observations 5.55 deg5.55 deg2 2

7x107x10-15 -15 erg/s/cmerg/s/cm2 2 (1 deg(1 deg22)) 36 candidate clusters36 candidate clusters 30-40% should be at30-40% should be at

zz>0.6-0.7>0.6-0.7 Optical follow-upOptical follow-up

pendingpending

ChaMP Serendipitous Galaxy ChaMP Serendipitous Galaxy Cluster SurveyCluster Survey

Barkhouse et al. 2005Barkhouse et al. 2005 130 130 ChandraChandra fields ( fields (AO1+AO2 / non-contiguous)AO1+AO2 / non-contiguous)

13 deg13 deg22

1.5 x 101.5 x 10-14-14 cgs (min flux) cgs (min flux) 4.8 x 104.8 x 10-14-14 cgs (sample median) cgs (sample median)

49 clusters (z49 clusters (zmedmed = 0.41) = 0.41)

ZZphotphot ≤ 0.7 ≤ 0.7 (56 of 130 fields; NOAO 4m (56 of 130 fields; NOAO 4m g’r’z’g’r’z’))

Red Cluster Sequence vs X-ray selectionRed Cluster Sequence vs X-ray selection

ChaMP PIs: P. Green & B. Wilkes

REFLEX

160SDChaMP

Barkhouse et al. 2005

XBoötes XBoötes ChandraChandra Survey Survey (NDWFS Boötes)(NDWFS Boötes)

Murray et al. 2005; Kenter et al. 2005Murray et al. 2005; Kenter et al. 2005 126 x 5ks Chandra ACIS-I mosaic126 x 5ks Chandra ACIS-I mosaic Large, contiguous area,Large, contiguous area,

arcsec resolution, arcsec resolution, uniform coverageuniform coverage

9.3 deg9.3 deg22 / 7x10 / 7x10-14-14 cgs cgs(4 deg(4 deg22 / 1x10 / 1x10-14-14 cgs) cgs)

43 extended sources 43 extended sources 36 clusters 36 clusters

Multi-wavelength Multi-wavelength follow-upfollow-up

XBoötes PIs: S. Murray & C. Jones

ChandraChandra Cluster Surveys Cluster Surveys

SurveySurvey NNclcl NNdistdist

estimatedestimated

AreaArea Flux Flux limitlimit

BoschinBoschin 3636 14 z>0.714 z>0.7 5.555.55 7x107x10-15-15

(1 deg(1 deg22))

ChaMPChaMP 4949 16 z>0.516 z>0.5 6 z>0.8 6 z>0.8 2 z>1.0 2 z>1.0

1313 1.5x101.5x10-14-14

(min)(min)

XboötesXboötes 3636 12 z>0.512 z>0.5 4 z>0.8 4 z>0.8 1 z>1.0 1 z>1.0

9.39.3 1.0x101.0x10-14-14

(4 deg(4 deg22))

XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton

AdvantagesAdvantages– Large 30’ FOV of EPIC camera Large 30’ FOV of EPIC camera large survey large survey

areaarea– Large collecting area Large collecting area unprecedented unprecedented

sensitivitysensitivity– MOS+pn detectors record data in every MOS+pn detectors record data in every

observation (observation (ChandraChandra: imaging : imaging oror grating) grating) DisadvantagesDisadvantages

– Background flaring (worse for Background flaring (worse for XMMXMM b/c of lower b/c of lower orbit and large collecting area)orbit and large collecting area)

– PSF not as good as PSF not as good as ChandraChandra

XMMXMM Cluster Surveys Cluster Surveys

COSMOSCOSMOS (PI: G. Hasinger) (PI: G. Hasinger)– 2 deg2 deg22 / ~1x10 / ~1x10-15-15 cgs cgs– See Alexis Finoguenov’s talkSee Alexis Finoguenov’s talk

XMMXMM Slew Survey Slew Survey– Lumb & Jones 2000, Saxton et al. 2005, Read et al. 2005Lumb & Jones 2000, Saxton et al. 2005, Read et al. 2005– 4000 deg4000 deg22 per year per year– 2x102x10-13-13 cgs / too shallow to reach z>1 cgs / too shallow to reach z>1

XMMXMM/2dF/2dF– Basilakos et al. 2004, Gaga et al. 2005Basilakos et al. 2004, Gaga et al. 2005– 1.6 deg1.6 deg22 (9 shallow pointings, 2-10ks) (9 shallow pointings, 2-10ks)– Optical data from SDSS & 2dFGRS Optical data from SDSS & 2dFGRS – X-ray vs optical X-ray vs optical

SEXCLASSEXCLAS– Kolotronis et al. 2005Kolotronis et al. 2005– 2.1 deg2 (15 XMM fields)2.1 deg2 (15 XMM fields)– optical images from SSC XID programoptical images from SSC XID program

XMMXMM Cluster Surveys Cluster Surveys XMMXMM Cluster Survey Cluster Survey

(PI: K. Romer)(PI: K. Romer)– See Adam Stanford’s talkSee Adam Stanford’s talk

XMMXMM Large-Scale Structure Survey Large-Scale Structure Survey (PI: M. Pierre)(PI: M. Pierre)

XMMXMM Survey Science Center Survey Science Center– G. Lamer et al. 2003G. Lamer et al. 2003– A. Schwope et al. 2004A. Schwope et al. 2004

XMMXMM Distant Cluster Project (XDCP) Distant Cluster Project (XDCP)– See René Fassbender’s & Georg Lamer’s talksSee René Fassbender’s & Georg Lamer’s talks

XMMXMM Large-Scale Structure Survey Large-Scale Structure SurveyPI: M. PierrePI: M. Pierre

Trace LSS with ~900 clusters (+AGN)Trace LSS with ~900 clusters (+AGN) Goal:Goal:

– 8x8 deg8x8 deg22 paved with 600(!) 10ks paved with 600(!) 10ks – Cluster correlation function (<15%):Cluster correlation function (<15%):

450 clusters at 0.0 < z <0.5 450 clusters at 0.0 < z <0.5 450 clusters at 0.5 < z < 1.0450 clusters at 0.5 < z < 1.0

– ~1x10~1x10-14-14 flux limit flux limit Current:Current:

– ~3 deg~3 deg2 2 (Pierre et al. 2004)(Pierre et al. 2004) Strong multi-wavelength follow-up Strong multi-wavelength follow-up

(optical, IR, UV, radio)(optical, IR, UV, radio) 1000x deeper than REFLEX, 10x than NEP1000x deeper than REFLEX, 10x than NEP

Image by A. Read

Hi-z Clusters from Hi-z Clusters from XMMXMM-LSS-LSS Willis et al. 2005Willis et al. 2005

1 cluster at z=0.56 (+11 groups at z<0.5)1 cluster at z=0.56 (+11 groups at z<0.5)

Valtchanov et al. 2004Valtchanov et al. 20043 clusters at 0.63 < z < 0.833 clusters at 0.63 < z < 0.83

Andreon et al. 2005Andreon et al. 2005z=0.81,0.84,0.92,z=0.81,0.84,0.92,1.051.05

XMM-LSS Cluster at z=1.05Andreon et al. 2005

XMMXMM Distant Cluster Project Distant Cluster Project

Hans BHans Böhringeröhringer (MPE)(MPE)

Rene FassbenderRene Fassbender (MPE)(MPE)

Georg LamerGeorg Lamer (AIP)(AIP)

Chris MullisChris Mullis (UMich)(UMich)

Piero RosatiPiero Rosati (ESO)(ESO) Joana Santos Joana Santos (MPE)(MPE)

Peter SchueckerPeter Schuecker (MPE)(MPE)

Axel SchwopeAxel Schwope (AIP)(AIP)

How to Leap-Frog to z > 1

Spectra

zest > 0.9

DSS

Rejection

Filter

~50%

R,zsnapshots

zest

~80%

(XDCP image gallery removed (XDCP image gallery removed because data are not yet public)because data are not yet public)

MPG/ESO 2.2m WFI V-band 1200s

30’ FOV

NGC 7314Seyfert 1.9

NGC 731445ks, 0.5-2.0 keV

XMM + DSS

R 1140s z 480s

DSS z 480s

BCG: z = 1.3943 ± 0.003

Mullis et al. 2005

12 redshifts at

1.38 < z < 1.40

<z> = 1.393σ = 762 ± 265 km/s

XMMU J2235.3-2557 most distant X-ray

selected cluster

VLT-FORS2 4 hours2 slit masks11 & 15 Oct 2004

Mullis et al. 2005

VLT 8m

R 1140s

Z 480s

Ks 3600s

2.5’ x 2.5’1.3 x 1.3 Mpc2

XMM 38ks

0.5-2.0 keV

VLT 8m

R 1140s

Z 480s

Ks 3600s

2.5’ x 2.5’1.3 x 1.3 Mpc2

X-ray Properties of

XMMU J2235.3-2557

extended source (rc ~ 120 h70-1 kpc)

fX = (3.6 ± 0.3) x 10-14 erg cm-2 s-1

Lx = (3.0 ± 0.2) x 1044 h70-2 erg s-1

~ 3 x 1014 solar masses

kT = 6.0 +2.5-1.8 keV

morphology

(0.5-2.0 keV)

Optical Properties of

XMMU J2235.3-2557 rich / core well defined BCG = cD Old, red ellipticals (~2-3 Gyr) Red cluster sequence at z=1.4 σ = 762 ± 265 km/s, Lx–σ

north-east filament distribution of abs. vs. emiss. gals

XMMUJ2235 z=1.4XMMUJ2235 z=1.4Instrument Passband Exposure Time

Executed Scheduled XMM-Newton X-ray 45 ks 80 ks

Chandra X-ray - 200 ks VLT/FORS2 R 1140 s -

HST/ACS I 2 orbits - HST/ACS z 3 orbits 4 orbits

VLT/FORS2 z 1080 s - VLT/ISAAC J 2700 s -

HST/NICMOS H 15 orbits - VLT/ISAAC Ks 3600 s -

Spitzer/IRAC 3.6 & 4.5 μm - 4 hours

ACS+NICMOS observations of ACS+NICMOS observations of XMMU J2235XMMU J2235

ACSACS– 2 orbits in F775W2 orbits in F775W (GTO)(GTO)– 3 orbits in F850LP 3 orbits in F850LP (1 GTO + 2 GO*)(1 GTO + 2 GO*)

**Coordination with Perlmutter SN search programCoordination with Perlmutter SN search program

NIC3NIC3– 15 orbits F160W (GO)15 orbits F160W (GO)

3x3 mosaic: 150”x150”3x3 mosaic: 150”x150”~1 hr exposure per tile~1 hr exposure per tile

(HST ACS+NICMOS imaging (HST ACS+NICMOS imaging removed because data are not removed because data are not yet public)yet public)

z>1 X-ray Clustersz>1 X-ray Clusters

XCS Cluster candidate (z=1.45)XCS Cluster candidate (z=1.45)XCS (A. Stanford et al.)XCS (A. Stanford et al.)

XMMU J2235.3-2557 z=1.393XMMU J2235.3-2557 z=1.393XDCPXDCP

ClG J0848+4453 z=1.273ClG J0848+4453 z=1.273RDCS (IR-selected)RDCS (IR-selected)

RX J0848.6+4453 z=1.261RX J0848.6+4453 z=1.261RDCSRDCS

RX J1252.9+2927 z=1.237RX J1252.9+2927 z=1.237RDCSRDCS

RX J1053.7+5735 z=1.14RX J1053.7+5735 z=1.14Lockman HoleLockman Hole

RX J0910+5422 z=1.106RX J0910+5422 z=1.106RDCSRDCS

XMM-LSS 029 z=1.05XMM-LSS 029 z=1.05XMM-LSS XMM-LSS

Cl J1415.1+3612 z=1.03Cl J1415.1+3612 z=1.03WARPSWARPS

Future ProspectsFuture Prospects – Near Term – Near Term Talks this Afternoon!Talks this Afternoon! Development of Chandra & XMM Development of Chandra & XMM

Serendipitous Cluster SurveysSerendipitous Cluster Surveys– 5 more years of new 5 more years of new ChandraChandra & & XMMXMM datadata– Follow-up effort still buildingFollow-up effort still building

New Large-Area X-ray SurveyNew Large-Area X-ray Survey– Coordinated XMM, SZE and Optical Study of the Cosmic Coordinated XMM, SZE and Optical Study of the Cosmic

AccelerationAcceleration (Mohr et al.)(Mohr et al.)– XMM: 50 degXMM: 50 deg2 2 ~ 10~ 10-14-14 erg/s/cm erg/s/cm2 2 ~ ~ δδ=-55°=-55°– ~500 clusters out to z~1~500 clusters out to z~1– 100 deg100 deg22 griz griz survey Blanco 4m + MOSIACsurvey Blanco 4m + MOSIAC– 250-4000 deg250-4000 deg22 SZE cluster survey (APEX, ACT & SPT) SZE cluster survey (APEX, ACT & SPT)– Calibrate mm-wave cluster selectionCalibrate mm-wave cluster selection

DUO

Future ProspectsFuture Prospects – Long Term – Long Term New X-ray Cluster SatelliteNew X-ray Cluster Satellite

– Strong community supportStrong community support COSMEX (PI Ricker, SMEX)COSMEX (PI Ricker, SMEX) Analani (PI Henry, SMEX)Analani (PI Henry, SMEX) Dark Universe Explorer Telescope (PI Petre, MIDEX)Dark Universe Explorer Telescope (PI Petre, MIDEX) Dark Universe Obs. (PI Griffiths, SMEX Phase A)Dark Universe Obs. (PI Griffiths, SMEX Phase A) WFXT (Italian)WFXT (Italian) PANORAM-X (ESA Flexi Mission)PANORAM-X (ESA Flexi Mission) X-ROSITAX-ROSITA

White papers to Dark Energy Task ForceWhite papers to Dark Energy Task Forcegrowth of structure & distance-redshift relation

constrain the dark energy equation of state– Haiman et al. 2005Haiman et al. 2005

20,000 deg20,000 deg22 ~ 2.3 x 10 ~ 2.3 x 10-14-14 erg/s/cm erg/s/cm22

~100,000 clusters~100,000 clusters Self-calibrationSelf-calibration

– Vikhlinin et al. 2005Vikhlinin et al. 2005 10,000 deg10,000 deg22 ~ 2 x 10 ~ 2 x 10-14-14 erg/s/cm erg/s/cm22

~50,000 clusters~50,000 clusters Follow-up ~1000 clusters for accurate massesFollow-up ~1000 clusters for accurate masses

SummarySummary

X-ray selection powerful techniqueX-ray selection powerful technique Cluster population is evolvingCluster population is evolving Unveiled z>1 Clusters Unveiled z>1 Clusters

– Only a few known but those are fully formedOnly a few known but those are fully formed

MassiveMassive z z > 1 Clusters accessible with > 1 Clusters accessible with XMMXMM + “smart” optical/NIR follow-up + “smart” optical/NIR follow-up

Great potential in existing data and future Great potential in existing data and future missionsmissions

Special thanks to my collaborators:Special thanks to my collaborators:

XDCPXDCPHans Böhringer, Piero Rosati, Rene Fassbender, Hans Böhringer, Piero Rosati, Rene Fassbender,

Georg Lamer, Axel Schwope, Peter Schuecker, Georg Lamer, Axel Schwope, Peter Schuecker, Joana SantosJoana Santos

160SD160SDAlexey Vikhlinin, Brian McNamara, Bill Forman, Alexey Vikhlinin, Brian McNamara, Bill Forman,

Christine Jones, Hernán Quintana, Christine Jones, Hernán Quintana, Allan Hornstrup, Pat Henry, Isabella GioiaAllan Hornstrup, Pat Henry, Isabella Gioia

NEPNEPPat Henry, Isabella Gioia, Hans Böhringer, Pat Henry, Isabella Gioia, Hans Böhringer,

Uli Briel, Wolfgang Voges, John Huchra Uli Briel, Wolfgang Voges, John Huchra