arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.co] 23 Nov 2018

Transcription

1 Bound on the graviton mass from Chandra X-ray cluster sample Sajal Gupta 1 and Shantanu Desai 2 1 Department of Physical Sciences, IISER-Kolkata, Mohanpur, West Bengal , India and 2 Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, Telangana , India arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.co] 23 Nov 2018 We present new limits on the graviton mass using a sample of 12 relaxed galaxy clusters, for which temperature and gas density profiles were estimated by Vikhlinin et al [1] using Chandra X- ray observations. For this purpose, we first calculate the total mass from the hydrostatic equilibrium equation in a Yukawa potential and then determine the acceleration in such a potential. We then compare this with the corresponding acceleration computed using Newtonian gravity. These differences are quantified by a constructing χ 2 residuals between the two profiles, which is used to bound the graviton mass. We calculate a 90 % c.l. upper limit on the graviton mass for each of the 12 clusters in the sample. The best limit is obtained for Abell 2390, corresponding to m g < ev or λ g > km. PACS numbers: Jd, Cc, Sf I. INTRODUCTION During the past decade there has been a resurgence of interest in massive gravity theories following breakthroughs with some of the long-standing vexing issues in these theories such as vdvz discontinuity and Bouleware-Deser ghosts [2 4]. On the observational/experimental side, there has been a renewed interest in obtaining improved limits on graviton mass from both astrophysical, laboratory and gravitational wave observations [5, 6]. Most recently, multiple groups have obtained such bounds on graviton mass from galaxy clusters [7 9], more than 40 years after the first such limit with clusters [10]. Galaxy clusters are the most massive gravitationally collapsed objects in the universe. Exploiting the power of galaxy clusters for a wide variety of astrophysical (galaxy evolution), cosmological (dark energy, non-gaussianity), and fundamental physics (neutrino mass and modified gravity) studies is a key science goal for on-going and future dark energy surveys. The first ever limit on graviton mass from galaxy clusters (m g < ev) was obtained, from the fact that orbits of the largest known galaxy clusters at that time extended upto 0.58 Mpc [10]. However, some concerns about the assumptions made to get this result have been pointed out [7]. This result has been superseded by a more robust limit from Abell 1689, corresponding to m g < ev [7]. Subsequently, Rana et al [8] obtained an updated limit of ev using the mass measurements from Weak lensing and SZ -based galaxy cluster catalogs. This technique was then extended to other catalogs and the best limit was obtained using the SDSS Redmapper catalog, given by m g < ev [9]. Here, we shall use the measured temperature and den- sg15ms084@iiserkol.ac.in shntn05@gmail.com sity profiles of 12 galaxy clusters [1], obtained using X- ray measurements with the Chandra X-ray satellite, to get revised graviton mass bounds. The key idea in this work, similar to Refs. [7, 8] is to look for signatures of Yukawa gravity (characteristic of a massive graviton [11]) in these clusters. As discussed in Ref. [5], most of the massive gravity models give rise to a Yukawa potential in the non-relativistic decoupling limit of the theory. The outline of this paper is as follows. We do a brief recap of the Chandra X-ray data for the 12 clusters used in our analysis in Sect. II. We describe the formalism used for bounding the graviton mass in Sect. III. We present our results in Sect. IV and conclude in Sect. V. II. CHANDRA X-RAY CLUSTER SAMPLE Vikhlinin et al [1] (V06, hereafter) presented density and temperature profiles for a total of 13 nearby relaxed galaxy clusters (A133, A262, A383, A478, A907, A1413, A1795, A1991, A2029, A2390, MKW4, RXJ , USGC 2152) using measurements from the archival or pointed observations with the Chandra X-ray satellite. These measurements extended up to 1 Mpc for some of the clusters. The typical exposure times ranged from ksecs. The temperatures span a range between 1 and 10 kev and masses from (0.5 10) 4 M. In some cases, the Chandra data was supplemented with data from the ROSAT satellite to model the gas density. More details on these observations and their results can be found in V06 (see also Ref. [12]). The main goal of this work was to reconstruct gas and total mass estimates, as well as the gas mass fraction for these galaxy clusters. This same data has previously been used to test multiple alternate gravity theories and non-standard dark matter scenarios [13 18]. We used 12 out of these 13 clusters (excluding USGC 2152, as some of the pertinent data was not available to us) in order to obtain a limit on the graviton mass.

2 2 III. ANALYSIS To compute the acceleration profile for Yukawa gravity and compare it to the corresponding value for a Newtonian potential, one needs the total mass in both the models. For this purpose, we first consider the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium used for the mass determination in both Newtonian and Yukawa gravity. For a spherically symmetric relaxed cluster, which is in hydrostatic equilibrium and assuming an ideal gas equation of state, the total mass upto a distance r is given by [19]: M tot (r) = k bt Gµm p ( d ln ρgas d ln r + d ln T d ln r ), (1) where ρ gas denotes the gas mass density, T is the cluster temperature and µ is the mean molecular weight of the cluster in a.m.u. and is approximately equal to 0.6 [12, 13]. The first step in calculating the mass profiles for both Yukawa and Newtonian gravity involves positing a model for the gas and temperature profile as a function of distance from the cluster center. For this purpose, we used the models from V06, which were fit to the observed data. Let us first consider the gas profile. The hot plasma in galaxy clusters emits X-rays via thermal bremsstrahlung and from the intensity of X-ray emission, the estimated gas density is given by, ρ g 1.24m p n p (r)n e (r), (2) for a plasma with primordial helium abundance and with metallicity equal to 0.2Z. In Eq. 2, n e and n p denote the number densities of electrons and protons respectively. The parametric form assumed for the product in V06 (which is a variant of the β-profile [20]) is, n e (r)n p (r) = (r/r c ) α n 2 0 (1 + r 2 /rc) 2 3β α /2 (1 + r γ /rs γ ) + n 2 o ɛ/γ (1 + r 2 /rc 2. (3) )3β The physical interpretations of the empirical constants r c,α, β, r s, γ, n 0, β for the twelve galaxy clusters are discussed in V06 and can be found in Table 2 therein, as well as in Table III of Ref. [13]. The observed temperature profile in these galaxy clusters peaks at r 200 and falls off thereafter. It also shows a decline near the center of the cluster. To describe these gross observational features, the following 3D temperature profile (T (r)) was constructed for each of these clusters [12, 19], (x 0 + T min /T 0 ) (r/r t ) a T (r) = T 0 x [1 + (r/r t ) b ], (4) c /b ( ) acool r where x 0 = r cool. The physical meanings of the eight free parameters a, b, c, T min, r t, T 0, r cool, and a cool and their corresponding values for the 12 clusters can be found in V06 or Ref. [13]. The observed values of T (r) as well as ρ(r), along with their error bars at various points from the cluster center were provided for 12 out of the 13 clusters by A. Vikhlinin (private communication). Since we have the directly measured values, we use these to calculate the total mass instead of Eqns 2 and Eqns. 4. However, these parametric forms for the temperature and pressure are necessary to calculate the errors in acceleration, as will be described later. For Newtonian gravity, once the mass M is determined from Eq. 1, the acceleration profile is given by, a N = GM/r 2 (5) For a non-zero graviton mass (m g ), the corresponding equation of hydrostatic equilibrium (viz. Eq. 1) can be generalized to [21]: M tot(r) exp ( r/λ G ) = k ( bt d ln ρgas + d ln T ), Gµm p d ln r d ln r (6) where M tot(r) is the total mass upto a given distance r under the premise of Newtonian gravity; λ G is the Compton wavelength of the graviton and is given by λ G = h m gc for a graviton of mass m g. We note that in a Yukawa potential, there is a degeneracy between the total cluster mass and the graviton mass. For Yukawa gravity, the acceleration is given by [11], a yuk = GM (r) r We note that M (r) exp ( r exp ( r λ g ) λ g ) ( ). (7) λ g r can be determined directly from Eq. 6. To get the corresponding limit on the graviton mass, we assume that the observational data are consistent with Newtonian gravity and then determine the maximum allowed value of the graviton mass compatible with the data. For this purpose, we calculate the χ 2 differences between Newtonian and Yukawa acceleration [7, 8], χ 2 = N ( ) 2 an a yuk, (8) i=1 σ a

3 where a N and a yuk are given by Eqs. 1 and 7 respectively and σ a is the error in the estimated Newtonian acceleration for a given mass profile [8]. It follows from Eqs. 1 and 7 that a N is a function of both the galaxy cluster mass M and radius r. Therefore, σ an = [ ( an ) 2 M + ( ) 2 1/2 an r r] (9) In order to calculate the error in the Newtonian acceleration, we need to determine the partial derivatives in Eq. 9 and the error in the mass of galaxy cluster, as well as the distance at which the temperature and densities are determined. The errors in distance can be easily determined from the observational data, and these data from V05 were kindly provided to us by A. Vikhlinin. To evaluate the error in the mass, we need to add in quadrature, the errors in temperature, distance, and density estimate viz. σ M = [ ( T ) 2 T + ( ) 2 ( ) ] 2 1/2 σr 2 + σρ 2 r ρ gas gas (10) Once σ M is calculated in this way, it can be directly plugged in Eq. 9. Since, we need to evaluate χ 2 for only a discrete number of points and do not its functional form, we use the measured values of ρ(r) and T (r) instead of Eqns 2 and Eqns. 4 in the numerator of Eq. 8. IV. RESULTS To determine the upper limit on the graviton mass, we evaluated Eq. 8 separately for each of the twelve clusters, by finding the mass corresponding to χ 2 = 2.71 [22, 23], to get a 90% c.l. upper limit on the graviton mass or a lower limit on the graviton Compton wavelength. The χ 2 differences as a function of graviton mass can be found in Fig. 1. The corresponding 90% c.l. upper limits be found in Table I. All mass limits are O(10 29 ) ev or O(9 ) km in terms of λ g. The best limit we obtained is for Abell 2390 (A 2390), corresponding to m g < ev. The reason these limits are of the same order of magnitude is because the cluster sample is very homogeneous. The temperature and density profiles show the same qualitative trends and the measurements are of the same order of magnitude. In fact as discussed in V06, for r r 500, the scaled three-dimensional temperatures for all the clusters is within ±15% from the average profile. The main sensitivity to graviton mass comes from the maximum distance up to which we calculate the accelerations. For all the clusters, this distance is about 1 Mpc (cf. Figs 3-15 of V06). Therefore, the graviton mass limits are of the same order of magnitude for all the clusters. The best limit comes from A 2390, which is the only cluster for which we use one observation beyond 1 Mpc. Cluster Name m g < (ev) λ g > (km) A A A A A A A A A A MKW RX J TABLE I: 90% confidence level upper (lower) limit on graviton mass (Compton wavelength) for each of the 12 galaxy clusters used in our analysis. The letter A in the prefix of some of the clusters is an acronym for Abell. The best limit is for Abell 2390 or A2390 (m g < ev or λ g > km). Although these limits are not as stringent as those obtained by stacking the cluster catalogs [8, 9], our limits are obtained using an independent analysis method and using single-cluster data. This is also the first result obtained using only X-ray measurements, whereas the previous results [7 9] used optical and SZ data. Furthermore, limits herein are more model-independent than the previous bounds from clusters. In Refs. [7 9], NFW profile has been used to model the dark matter density distribution, and this profile is valid only for Newtonian gravity [24]. Here, we have not used any dark matter profile to obtain our bounds. The temperature and gas density profiles (which have been estimated from X-ray surface brightness measurements, caused mainly by thermal Bremsstrahlung emission) are inferred directly from the observational data without positing any theory of gravity. Therefore, these same measurements have also been used to test multiple alternate gravity theories [13, 14, 18]. The main ansatz used here is that all the clusters are relaxed and one can apply the corresponding equation of hydrostatic equilibrium. The erosita X-ray satellite [25] is expected to be launched in 2019 and the same analysis can be applied to erosita measurements of galaxy clusters to get more stringent bounds. V. CONCLUSIONS We obtained limits on the graviton mass, from the temperature and density profiles, obtained by Vikhlinin et al [1, 12], for 12 relaxed galaxy clusters using Chandra X-ray data. From the equation for hydrostatic equilibrium for a massive graviton, we obtained the total mass for each of these 12 clusters. Then, using these masses 3

4 4 χ A133 A MKW4 A2390 RXJ m g ( ev) A383 A478 A907 A1413 A1795 A1991 A2029 FIG. 1: χ 2 as a function of graviton mass for each of the 12 clusters used for the analysis in each of the sub-panels. The magenta line in each sub-panel corresponds to the ordinate of 2.71, from which the corresponding 90% c.l. on graviton mass can be determined. Summary of these limits for each cluster can be found in Tab. I. we calculated the Yukawa acceleration as a function of radius and calculated the χ 2 deviations with respect to the Newtonian acceleration profile, obtained from the standard hydrostatic equilibrium equation. These differences can be found in Figure 1. The limit on the graviton mass for each of these clusters was obtained, from χ 2 = Our results can be found in Table I. The best limit was obtained for Abell 2390 (A2390), corresponding to m g < ev, or λ g > km. Although, this limit is of the same order of magnitude as some of the previous existing limits on graviton mass using clusters [7, 10] and is about an order of magnitude less stringent than the current best bounds using clusters [8, 9], it is complementary to the techniques and datasets used in the above works and invokes less number of assumptions. Upcoming X-ray missions such as e-rosita [25] (to be launched next year in 2019) and Athena [26] should be able to improve upon the limits set in this paper. However, detailed forecasts will be considered in future works. Acknowledgments Sajal Gupta is supported by a DST-INSPIRE fellowship. We are grateful to Alexey Vikhlinin for providing us with the data from V06 and useful correspondence. [1] A. Vikhlinin, A. Kravtsov, W. Forman, C. Jones, M. Markevitch, S. S. Murray, and L. Van Speybroeck, Astrophys. J. 640, 691 (2006), astro-ph/ [2] A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, Reviews of Modern

5 5 Physics 82, 939 (2010), [3] C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Physical Review Letters 106, (2011), [4] C. de Rham, Living Reviews in Relativity 17, 7 (2014), [5] C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, (2017), [6] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, (2016), [7] S. Desai, Physics Letters B 778, 325 (2018), [8] A. Rana, D. Jain, S. Mahajan, and A. Mukherjee, Physics Letters B 781, 220 (2018), [9] S. Gupta and S. Desai, Annals of Physics 399, 85 (2018), [10] A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1119 (1974). [11] C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 57, 2061 (1998), grqc/ [12] A. Vikhlinin, M. Markevitch, S. S. Murray, C. Jones, W. Forman, and L. Van Speybroeck, Astrophys. J. 628, 655 (2005), astro-ph/ [13] S. Rahvar and B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D 89, (2014), [14] A. O. Hodson, H. Zhao, J. Khoury, and B. Famaey, Astron. & Astrophys. 607, A108 (2017), [15] T. Bernal, V. H. Robles, and T. Matos, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 468, 3135 (2017), [16] D. Edmonds, D. Farrah, D. Minic, Y. J. Ng, and T. Takeuchi, International Journal of Modern Physics D 27, (2018), [17] D. Edmonds, D. Farrah, C. M. Ho, D. Minic, Y. J. Ng, and T. Takeuchi, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, (2017), [18] A. O. Hodson and H. Zhao, Astron. & Astrophys. 598, A127 (2017), [19] S. W. Allen, R. W. Schmidt, and A. C. Fabian, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 328, L37 (2001), astro-ph/ [20] A. Cavaliere and R. Fusco-Femiano, Astron. & Astrophys. 70, 677 (1978). [21] O. Bertolami and J. Páramos, Phys. Rev. D 71, (2005), astro-ph/ [22] W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing (1992). [23] M. D. Messier, Ph.D. thesis, Boston University (1999). [24] J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997), astro-ph/ [25] A. Merloni, P. Predehl, W. Becker, H. Böhringer, T. Boller, H. Brunner, M. Brusa, K. Dennerl, M. Freyberg, P. Friedrich, et al., arxiv preprint arxiv: (2012). [26] A. Rau et al., Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 9905, 99052B (2016),