CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation Theories

ON DARK PEAKS AND MISSING MASS: A WEAK-LENSING MASS RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MERGING CLUSTER SYSTEM A520,

Open access
Clowe, Douglas, Markevitch, Maxim, Bradač, Maruša, Gonzalez, Anthony H., Chung, Sun Mi, Massey, Richard, Zaritsky, Dennis·2012·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/128
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Merging clusters of galaxies are unique in their power to directly probe and place limits on the self-interaction cross-section of dark matter. Detailed observations of several merging clusters have shown the intracluster gas to be displaced from the centroids of dark matter and galaxy density by ram pressure, while the latter components are spatially coincident, consistent with collisionless dark matter. This has been used to place upper limits on the dark matter particle self-interaction cross-section of order 1 cm 2 g −1 . The cluster A520 has been seen as a possible exception. We revisit A520 presenting new Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys mosaic images and a Magellan image set. We perform a detailed weak-lensing analysis and show that the weak-lensing mass measurements and morphologies of the core galaxy-filled structures are mostly in good agreement with previous works. There is, however, one significant difference: We do not detect the previously claimed "dark core" that contains excess mass with no significant galaxy overdensity at the location of the X-ray plasma. This peak has been suggested to be indicative of a large self-interaction cross-section for dark matter (at least ∼5σ larger than the upper limit of 0.7 cm 2 g −1 determined by observations of the Bullet Cluster). We find no such indication and instead find that the mass distribution of A520, after subtraction of the X-ray plasma mass, is in good agreement with the luminosity distribution of the cluster galaxies. We conclude that A520 shows no evidence to contradict the collisionless dark matter scenario.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/128

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Jee et al. (2014a) and Clowe et al. (2012) broadly agree on the main A520 peaks labeled 1 and 4, and both maps show extensions toward the H15 peak labeled 5.

    “The latter two analyses broadly agree, with clear agreement on the main peaks (labeled 1 and 4 here) and both maps showing extensions toward the H15 peak labeled 5.”

    From The Mismeasure of Mergers: Revised Limits on Self-interacting Dark Matter in Merging Galaxy Clusters (2018) · cites this paper as Clowe et al. (2012)

    Section 3.2 (Mass Reconstruction; page unavailable) identifies peaks 1, 4, and 5 in Clowe et al.’s A520 map, supporting the claim that its map contains those structures. Our copy does not establish that Clowe’s map has an extension toward peak 5 or that it agrees with Jee et al. (2014a) on that feature; the paper’s comparison is with Jee et al. (2012). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The major disagreement between the two detailed lensing analyses of A520 is that Clowe et al. (2012) find a west-central peak near H15 peak 3, while Jee et al. (2014a) do not.

    “For our purposes, the major disagreement between the two detailed lensing analyses of A520 is that Clowe et al. (2012) find a west-central peak, in the rough vicinity of H15 peak 3, while Jee et al. (2014a) do not.”

    From The Mismeasure of Mergers: Revised Limits on Self-interacting Dark Matter in Merging Galaxy Clusters (2018) · cites this paper as Clowe et al. (2012)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Abell, G. O., Corwin, H. G., & Olowin, R. P. 1989, ApJS, 70, 1 · DOI
  2. Allen, S. W., Schmidt, R. W., & Fabian, A. C. 2002, MNRAS, 334, L11 · DOI
  3. Anderson, J., & Bedin, L. R. 2011, PASP, 122, 1035 · DOI
  4. Angus, G. W., Shan, H. Y., Zhao, H. S., & Famaey, B. 2007, ApJ, 654, L13 · DOI
  5. Bartelmann, M., & Schneider, P. 2001, Phys. Rep., 340, 291 · DOI
  6. Bekenstein, J. D. 2010, in Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches, ed. G. Bertone (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 95
  7. Bradač, M., Allen, S. W., Treu, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 959 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bradač, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 937 · DOI
  9. Bradač, M., Treu, T., Applegate, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1201 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bristow, P. 2003, Instrument Science Report STIS-2003-001 (arXiv:astro-ph/ 0310714)
  11. Brownstein, J. R., & Moffat, J. W. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 29 · DOI
  12. Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., et al. 1996, ApJ, 462, 32 · DOI
  13. Clowe, D., Bradač, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 648, L109 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A., & Markevitch, M. 2004, ApJ, 604, 596 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Clowe, D., Luppino, G. A., Kaiser, N., & Gioia, I. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 540 · DOI
  16. Clowe, D., & Schneider, P. 2001, A&A, 379, 384 · DOI
  17. Clowe, D., Schneider, P., Aragn-Salamanca, A., et al. 2006b, A&A, 451, 395 · DOI
  18. Coe, D., Benitez, N., Sanchez, S. F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 132, 926 · DOI
  19. Erben, T., Miralles, J.-M., Clowe, D., et al. 2003, A&A, 410, 45 · DOI
  20. Fahlman, G., Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Woods, D. 1994, ApJ, 437, 56 · DOI
  21. Farrar, G. R., & Rosen, R. A. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 171302 · DOI
  22. Feix, M., Fedeli, C., & Bartelmann, M. 2008, A&A, 480, 313 · DOI
  23. Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128 · DOI
  24. Govoni, F., Markevitch, M., Vikhlinin, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 604, 695 · DOI
  25. Grogin, N. A., Lim, P. L., Maybhate, A., Hook, R. N., & Loose, M. 2010, in 2010 Space Telescope Science Institute Calibration Workshop: Hubble after SM4, ed. S. Deustua & C. Oliveira (Baltimore, MD: Space Telescope Science Institute), 54
  26. Hall, R. 1952, Phys. Rev., 88, 139 · DOI
  27. Ilbert, O., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1236 · DOI
  28. Jee, M. J., Mahdavi, A., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 96 · DOI
  29. Kaiser, N., & Squires, G. 1993, ApJ, 404, 441 · DOI
  30. Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Broadhurst, T. 1995, ApJ, 449, 460 · DOI
  31. Kochanek, C. S., White, M., Huchra, J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 585, 161 · DOI
  32. Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R. N., & Hack, W. 2003, in The 2002 HST Calibration Workshop: Hubble after the Installation of the ACS and the NICMOS Cooling System, ed. S. Arribas, A. Koekemoer, & B. Whitmore (Baltimore, MD: Space Telescope Science Institute), 339
  33. Kravtsov, A. V., Vikhlinin, A., & Nagai, D. 2006, ApJ, 650, 128 · DOI
  34. Mahdavi, A., Hoekstra, H., Babul, A., Balam, D. D., & Capak, P. L. 2007, ApJ, 668, 806 · DOI
  35. Mancone, C. L., & Gonzalez, A. H. 2012, PASP, 124, 606 · DOI
  36. Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Clowe, D., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 819 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., David, L., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, L27 · DOI
  38. Massey, R. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L109 · DOI
  39. Massey, R., Stoughton, C., Leauthaud, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 371 · DOI
  40. Merten, J., Coe, D., Dupke, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 333 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Miralles, J.-M., Erben, T., Hämmerle, H., et al. 2002, A&A, 388, 68 · DOI
  42. Moffat, J. W., & Toth, V. T. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1885 · DOI
  43. Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 984 · DOI
  44. Nagai, D., Vikhlinin, A., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2007, ApJ, 655, 98 · DOI
  45. Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Ragozzine, B., Clowe, D., Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., & Bradač, M. 2012, ApJ, 744, 94 · DOI
  47. Randall, S. W., Markevitch, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A. H., & Bradač, M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1173 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Rasia, E., Mazzotta, P., Evrard, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 45 · DOI
  49. Roettiger, K., Loken, C., & Burns, J. O. 1997, ApJS, 109, 307 · DOI
  50. Sales, L. V., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., & Steinmetz, M. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1475 · DOI
  51. Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 · DOI
  52. Shockley, W., & Read, W. 1952, Phys. Rev., 87, 835 · DOI
  53. Soucail, G. 2012, A&A, 540, A61 · DOI
  54. Springel, V., & Farrar, G. R. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 911 · DOI
  55. Struble, M. F., & Rood, H. J. 1999, ApJS, 125, 35 · DOI
  56. Vikhlinin, A., Burenin, R. A., Ebeling, H., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1033 · DOI
  57. Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 691 · DOI
  58. von der Linden, A., Erben, T., Schneider, P., & Castander, F. J. 2006, A&A, 454, 37 · DOI
  59. Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., & Carlberg, R. G. 1996, ApJS, 102, 269 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clowe, D., Markevitch, M., Bradač, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Chung, S. M., Massey, R., & Zaritsky, D.
Affiliations
  • Ohio University (US)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Clowe, Douglas
ORCID
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2012-10-08
Volume
758
Issue
2
Pages
128
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/128
OpenAlex
W1969998061
Cited by
79
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS 526555, 526555)
  • Space Telescope Science Institute (NAS5- 26555, 5-26555, 26555)
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/I00162X/1, ST/F002289/1, ST/I001166/1, ST/H008519/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
Keywords
cluster mergers, dark matter self-interaction, dark core, weak gravitational lensing, mass reconstruction, intracluster medium, ram pressure stripping, collisionless dark matter, Bullet Cluster, missing mass

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review