The discordant Planck cosmology

Transcription

1 Evolution and scatter [and mass] of the cluster population and cosmology with X-ray and SZ samples M. Arnaud (Service d Astrophysique - CEA Saclay) Main collaborators: H. Aussel, I. Bartalucci, J. Démoclès, A. Le Brun, G.Pratt, J.B. Melin, P. Tarrio-Alonso, R. van der Burg (Saclay); E. Pointecouteau (IRAP); R. Adam, F. Mayet and NIKA team (LPSC), L. Lovisari, B. Forman, C. Jones, F. Santos (CfA), R.Teyssier (Zurich Univ), and Planck Team The discordant Planck cosmology primary CMB dn/dz cluster counts y map Factor of ~2 deficit in number counts vs CMB prediction Planck'Coll.''2013'results'XX' see'also'pacaud'et'al,'+06'(xxl) z

2 Cosmology with cluster number counts Theorie+:+N(M,z)+ versus+ σ 8++ Ω m +[Ω Λ w+ω b +n,+h]+ Noise+map Y SZ } Obs-M relation Selection function Completness Y SZ Mass Planck'Coll.'2013'results'XX N(z) or N(Obs,z) N(S/NObs,z) Outline The Mass issue X-ray & SZ selection function: importance of scatter, morphology and cluster thermodynamical state What have we learned from SZ clusters follow-up? X-ray versus SZ selection Evolution and scatter

3 Planck Y-M scaling relation Y SZ PLANCK/XMM Calibration of Ysz - M using : Ysz Malmquist bias corrected MYX from M-YX relation calibrated using MHE on relaxed systems. Planck'Coll.'2013'results'XX M YX (1-b) total bias (HE bias, Tspec/Tmw, calibration etc..) from comparison with simulation Subsample of 71 Planck clusters in the 2013 cosmological sample with XMM- Newton data Bias required by CMB Planck CMB Planck CMB + SZ 1-b free σ8 Planck SZ (1-b)=0.8 1-b=0.59 ± 0.05 Ω m Planck'Coll.''2013'results'XX Extension of cosmological model and/or revision of cluster physics?

4 Lensing mass calibration (1Kb) Planck CMB lensing CCCP WtG 0.8 Mass Hoekstra+15,'Van'der'Linden+,'14' see'also'okabe'&'smith15;'baiaglia+15 Larger sample Better control of systematics Planck'Coll.'2015'results'XXIV;'Melin'&'BartleI,'15'' New promising technics but still MWL systematics; large statistical errors; no scatter estimate The constraints with WL masses Planck 1-b Low Y-M required by CMB; only WtG (marginally) consistent σ8 439 clusters N(z, S/N) M(Y) 1.01 Consistent results with SPT survey (Haan+16) X-ray clusters (Mantz+15,16) Ω m Planck'Coll.'2015'results'XXIV'

5 The constraints with WL masses Planck de'haan+16 also Mantz+15 Can X-ray mass be biased (so) low? Small bias from direct MHE and MWL comparison LOCUSS see'also'simet+15;'maughan+16' HE mass from XMM/Chandra Smith+15

6 Can X-ray mass be biased (so) low? bias 40% HE Bias? OWL+simulation MX/MTRUE = 0.6? large gas depletion? Le'Brun+,'14 Mass Planelles+,13 less than ~20% HE bias expected No large gas depletion expected Robust vs gas physics at odd with simulations Evolution,'scatter,'morphology'' and'' cluster'selection

7 Importance of scatter & morphology 0.03 ct/s 0.05 ct/s Allen,'Evrard'&'Mantz,'11 statistical + systematic scatter Malmquist/Eddington bias Pacaud+06 Detectability (may) depend on morphology Must measure scatter/morphology and their evolution for cosmology and scaling law studies The importance of selection bias CC NCC Giles,'Maughan+,'16'(comparison'with'Mantz+10) specially for scaling relations with quantity used for cluster detection and when close to survey limit see'also'van'der'burg+16'for'example''of'importance'of'mb'at'low'sz's/n

8 Complex behavior of X-ray signal n"profile P=nT Simulations XMM-REXCESS Cool Core Morph. disturbed XMMZREXCESS'Croston+08'Pratt+10 L X α n 2 e Λ( T ) dv Pike+14 completness core+radius+ Pacaud+06 Reflects the thermodynamical history ; strong dependence on non-grav. physics High scatter LX - M relation Cumulative effect: at fixed mass CC clusters more luminous AND easier to detect Well behaved SZ signal P=nT Simulations Planck Cool Core Morph. disturbed XMMZREXCESS'''''''''''Arnaud'+10 Y SZ α ( P = n e T ) dv Pike+14 Completness Reflect the state of the gas in the potential well ; weak dependence on non-grav. physics Low scatter YSZ - M relation Detectability indépendant on cluster state

9 The follow-up (large) programs XMM#REXCESS:)) Reference)for)sta3s3cal)proper3es)of)local)X#ray)clusters) )Bohringer+07'Croston+'08;'PraI+09,10;'Arnaud+10 Key : well controlled samples (no simply archival samples) New samples over wide z-m range X-ray versus SZ selection Evolution Cluster formation physics Morphology & thermo-dynamical state Data'from'PraI+09';'Democles,MA+,'in'prep.;' Lovisari,'Forman+,'in'prep

10 Morphology & thermo-dynamical state XMM 91 clusters with R500 < fov 26 clusters Data'from'PraI+09';'Democles,MA+,'in'prep.;' Lovisari,)Forman+,)in)prep Morphology & thermo-dynamical state 91 clusters with R500 < fov 26 clusters Data'from'PraI+09';'Democles,MA+,'in'prep.;' Lovisari,'Forman+,'in'prep

11 Morphology: X-ray/SZ & evolution X-ray versus SZ selected clusters in local Universe More relaxed clusters More concentrated (more CC) Weak morphological evolution Sample selection in evolution studies Biased (local) X-ray selection? Democles,MA+,'in'prep.;'Lovisari,'Forman+,'in'prep Effect on cosmo with X-ray clusters (and SZ/X-ray combined)? Morphology: X-ray/SZ & evolution Nurgaliev+,'16' No significant difference at z>0.4

12 Local X-ray & SZ Pressure profiles PLANCK XMM XMM X-ray and SZ view consistent P(r) of SZ selected clusters slightly less peaked than that of X-ray selected clusters PC13,'Planck'Intermediate'Results'V Profile from 0.02 to 5 R500 from X-ray+SZ Evolution : mean profiles Pressure Entropy <z>=0.46 <z>=0.82 accretion physics in outskirt Chandra stacked profiles of 83 SPT 0.4 < z < 1.2 McDonald+14,'see'also'' McDonald+13;'HlavacekZLarrondo+15 no strong departure from self-similar evolution long standing balance cooling/heating

13 Evolution : scatter <z>=0.15+ <z>=0.57 No increase of scatter MA,'Democles,'+,'in'prep. Self similar evolution to be confirmed using purely SZ selected local reference Individual profiles at z~1 XMM Chandra [Bartalucci,'MA,'PraI'et'al'2016,'in'press] spatially resolved spectroscopy up to z~1 with XMM AND Chandra

14 Individual profiles at z~1 0.9<z<1.1 [Bartalucci,'MA,'PraI'et'al'2016,'in'press]' [Simul:'OWLs',Le'Brun+,16] self-similar evolution in agreement with predictions Conclusions Cluster cosmology uncertainty dominated by systematics on mass estimate What is the true mass of clusters? Need an integrated, consistent picture of various mass estimates, departure from HE, TX/Tmw and baryon fraction. XMM-Newton/Chandra; HST/Subaru ; LOFAR/SKA; NIKA (high resolution) SZ and numerical simulations From Chandra/XMM follow-up of new SZ catalogues, probing stacked and individual profiles up to z~1: No strong departure from self-similar evolution (for relatively high mass systems), well behaved P profiles (shape and scatter) Good news for SZ cluster cosmology But different X-ray and SZ selected population (at least in local Universe) not so good news for X-ray cluster cosmology? but What is the true underlying cluster population? Compare statistical properties of clusters from SZ/X-ray/optical/WL survey SPT, e-rosita, EUCLID