Mass and Light distributions in Clusters of Galaxies - Henry A ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

WL Determination of the Distance-Redshift Relation spectroscopic work in this rising plume of “dropout” galaxies (Steidel et al. 1999), we may conclude the low redshifts assigned to some of these galaxies may be misclassified as low redshift early type/dusty galaxies in the photo-z catalog of the COSMOS field. This is not surprising, since at faint magnitudes the COSMOS photo-z have a relative high catastrophic failure rate (Ilbert et al. 2009). We further examine this issue using the somewhat deeper GOODS-MUSIC catalog (Grazian et al. 2006; Santini et al. 2009), which has 15 bands, including high quality ACS photometry (GOODS-S) and deep IRAC imaging which is very helpful in reducing the outlier rate a high-z. Using the z ′ -band selected GOODS-MUSIC photo-z, we derive a spectral classification for each galaxy using a library of ∼ 200 PEGASE (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange 1997) templates very similar to that described in Grazian et al. (2006), as included in the EAZY software (Brammer et al. 2009), and then calculate Subaru magnitudes for all the galaxies using the BPZ (Benítez 2000) code. By making the same CC selection, we plot the redshift distribution of the same dropout sample (Fig. 4.7, blue), but here no low-z peak is observed, and all galaxies in this region are estimated to have high redshifts, z 2.5. This comparison between COSMOS and GOODS-MUSIC redshifts allows us to securely set a conservative lower B − R limit to avoid inclusion of real low-z objects. We can thus safely assume all objects identified as low-z in the COSMOS catalog are largely mistakenly classified, a point also made in relation to this by Schrabback et al. (2010). Estimating the median redshift of the dropout sample gives z ≃ 3.8, a value very close to the mean redshift of all galaxies lying above z > 1.5 galaxies. This further demonstrates the low-z peak is a low-significance contamination. A further examination of the photometric redshift estimation for such objects in the COSMOS field seems worthwhile in view of these results. 4.5.3 Lensing strength dependence on magnitude As another check, we plot Γ, the g T -amplitude ratio, vs. z ′ -band magnitude for A370 selected samples, to see if there is any trend of the lensing amplitude 132
4.5 Results Γ (g T amplitude ratio) 2 1 0 −1 2 1 0 2 0 2 03 2 1 0 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 z’ [mag] Figure 4.8 – Γ, the g T amplitude ratio, vs. magnitude (z ′ band) for A370 orange, green, red, blue and dropout galaxy samples (top to bottom). Overlaid is the lensing depth, D ds /D s , vs. magnitude calculated from COSMOS photo-z’s for each of the samples (dashed black line) with 1 − σ confidence levels (shaded region). with magnitude. We also plot the mean D ds /D s as a function of magnitude (all values normalized to the reference background values) calculated in independent magnitude bins for each sample using the COSMOS photo-z catalog. This serves as a further consistency check. Interestingly, for the blue galaxies (and the dropout galaxies to some extent), the mean signal seems to drop slightly with fainter magnitudes. This trend is somewhat counter-intuitive, since we expect that fainter galaxies will be at higher redshifts, and therefore have on average a higher signal. The diminished WL signal could possibly hint at a problem with estimating the WL signal from faint blue galaxies, which are in general quite irregular in morphology, and empirical simulations with higher space based resolution can be made to examine this better. The declining trend of the predicted D ds /D s in the case of blue galaxies, based on the COSMOS photo-z estimation, shown in Fig. 4.8 (dashed curves), could possibly point to a missclassification of blue galaxies with photo-z methods, a well known problem 133
Page 1:
TELAVIVUNIVERSITY SCHOOLOFPHYSICS&A
Page 5:
To my parents
Page 8 and 9:
1.2.3 Weak Gravitational Lensing .
Page 10 and 11:
5 Discussion 139 5.1 Summary . . .
Page 12 and 13:
negligibly contaminated by the clus
Page 15 and 16:
Acknowledgments I would like to tha
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1 Introduction Clusters of
Page 19 and 20:
1.1 Clusters of Galaxies The space
Page 21 and 22:
1.1 Clusters of Galaxies and a grav
Page 23 and 24:
1.1 Clusters of Galaxies to the sph
Page 25 and 26:
1.1 Clusters of Galaxies 1.1.5 X-ra
Page 27 and 28:
1.2 Gravitational Lensing increase
Page 29 and 30:
1.2 Gravitational Lensing Broadhurs
Page 31 and 32:
1.2 Gravitational Lensing If we ins
Page 33 and 34:
1.2 Gravitational Lensing Figure 1.
Page 35 and 36:
1.2 Gravitational Lensing 1.2.3.1 M
Page 37 and 38:
1.2 Gravitational Lensing a transfo
Page 39 and 40:
1.2 Gravitational Lensing effects c
Page 41:
1.3 The Structure of the Thesis 1.3
Page 44 and 45:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 clus
Page 46 and 47:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 beha
Page 48 and 49:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 Figu
Page 50 and 51:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 blue
Page 52 and 53:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 gala
Page 54 and 55:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 0.5
Page 56 and 57:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 not
Page 58 and 59:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 lens
Page 60 and 61:
2.5 Photometric redshifts Weak Lens
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 the
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 expe
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 et a
Page 74 and 75:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 g +
Page 76 and 77:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 Note
Page 78 and 79:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 Usin
Page 80 and 81:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 We a
Page 82 and 83:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 limi
Page 84 and 85:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 rela
Page 86 and 87:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 To s
Page 88 and 89:
Weak Lensing Dilution in A1689 30 2
Page 91 and 92:
Chapter 3 Detailed Cluster Mass and
Page 93 and 94:
3.1 Introduction Stars are not expe
Page 95 and 96:
3.2 Subaru data reduction § 3.3 we
Page 97 and 98: 3.3 Sample selection from the color
Page 103 and 104: 3.4 Evolutionary color tracks 0.25
Page 105 and 106: 3.5 Depth estimation from SDF/COSMO
Page 107 and 108: 3.5 Depth estimation from SDF/COSMO
Page 109 and 110: 3.6 Weak lensing analysis 3.6 Weak
Page 111 and 112: 3.6 Weak lensing analysis where θ
Page 113 and 114: 3.8 Cluster light profiles 600 A168
Page 115 and 116: 3.9 M/L profiles Broadhurst et al.
Page 117 and 118: 3.9 M/L profiles 10 5 r [Mpc/h] bri
Page 119 and 120: 3.9 M/L profiles very moderate decl
Page 121 and 122: 3.9 M/L profiles 0.6 0.4 0.2 log 10
Page 123 and 124: 3.10 Cluster luminosity functions b
Page 125 and 126: 3.11 Discussion and conclusions Tab
Page 127 and 128: 3.11 Discussion and conclusions law
Page 129 and 130: Chapter 4 A Weak Lensing Determinat
Page 131 and 132: 4.1 Introduction Zitrin et al. 2009
Page 139 and 140: 4.4 Weak lensing measurements objec
Page 141 and 142: 4.5 Results tion N i (z s ) of i-th
Page 143 and 144: 4.5 Results n [arcmin −2 ] 10 1 1
Page 145 and 146: 4.5 Results 3.5 3 2.5 4 3.5 3 B −
Page 147: 4.5 Results 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 foreg
Page 151 and 152: 4.5 Results 1.6 1.4 1.2 Γ (g T amp
Page 153 and 154: 4.7 Discussion and conclusions is t
Page 155 and 156: Chapter 5 Discussion 5.1 Summary In
Page 157 and 158: 5.1 Summary excluding the foregroun
Page 159 and 160: 5.3 Future work observations we obt
Page 161 and 162: References Abadi, M. G., Moore, B.,
Page 163 and 164: REFERENCES Broadhurst, T., Umetsu,
Page 165 and 166: REFERENCES Gaidos, E. J. 1997, AJ,
Page 167 and 168: REFERENCES Kaiser, N. 1995, ApJ, 43
Page 169 and 170: REFERENCES Natarajan, P., Loeb, A.,
Page 171 and 172: REFERENCES Schrabback, T. et al. 20
Page 173 and 174: כפי שמתואר בפרק השל
Page 175 and 176: עבודה זו נעשתה בהנח
show all

Mass and Light distributions in Clusters of Galaxies - Henry A ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?