CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

WEIGHING “EL GORDO” WITH A PRECISION SCALE: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE WEAK-LENSING ANALYSIS OF THE MERGING GALAXY CLUSTER ACT-CL J0102–4915 AT z = 0.87

Open access
Jee, M. James, Hughes, John P., Menanteau, Felipe, Sifón, Cristóbal, Mandelbaum, Rachel, Barrientos, L. Felipe, Infante, Leopoldo, Ng, Karen Y.·2014·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/20
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present a Hubble Space Telescope weak-lensing study of the merging galaxy cluster "El Gordo" (ACT-CL J0102−4915) at z = 0.87 discovered by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) collaboration as the strongest Sunyaev–Zel'dovich decrement in its ∼1000 deg 2 survey. Our weak-lensing analysis confirms that ACT-CL J0102−4915 is indeed an extreme system consisting of two massive (≳ 10 15 M ☉ each) subclusters with a projected separation of Mpc. This binary mass structure revealed by our lensing study is consistent with the cluster galaxy distribution and the dynamical study carried out with 89 spectroscopic members. We estimate the mass of ACT-CL J0102−4915 by simultaneously fitting two axisymmetric Navarro–Frenk–White (NFW) profiles allowing their centers to vary. We use only a single parameter for the NFW mass profile by enforcing the mass–concentration relation from numerical simulations. Our Markov-Chain-Monte-Carlo analysis shows that the masses of the northwestern (NW) and the southeastern (SE) components are and , respectively, where the quoted errors include only 1σ statistical uncertainties determined by the finite number of source galaxies. These mass estimates are subject to additional uncertainties (20%–30%) due to the possible presence of triaxiality, correlated/uncorrelated large scale structure, and departure of the cluster profile from the NFW model. The lensing-based velocity dispersions are and for the NW and SE components, respectively, which are consistent with their spectroscopic measurements (1290 ± 134 km s −1 and 1089 ± 200 km s −1 , respectively). The centroids of both components are tightly constrained (∼4'') and close to the optical luminosity centers. The X-ray and mass peaks are spatially offset by ∼8'' ( kpc), which is significant at the ∼2σ confidence level. The mass peak, however, does not lead the gas peak in the direction expected if we are viewing the cluster soon after first core passage during a high speed merger. Under the assumption that the merger is happening in the plane of the sky, extrapolation of the two NFW halos to a radius Mpc yields a combined mass of . This extrapolated total mass is consistent with our two-component-based dynamical analysis and previous X-ray measurements, projecting ACT-CL J0102−4915 to be the most massive cluster at z > 0.6 known to date.

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/785/1/20

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. (2014b) found two mass concentrations roughly coincident with the northwest and southeast galaxy concentrations and found no other mass concentrations in the area.

    “Jee et al. (2014b) found two mass concentrations roughly coincident with the northwest and southeast galaxy concentrations and found no other mass concentrations in the area.”

    From The Mismeasure of Mergers: Revised Limits on Self-interacting Dark Matter in Merging Galaxy Clusters (2018) · cites this paper as Jee et al. (2014b)

    Section 4.1 identifies two main mass peaks in the northwest and southeast that closely resemble the galaxy light distribution. But Section 4.3 also describes an extra substructure in the southeast region, so the claim that the authors found no other mass concentration in the area is not supported. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The strong-lensing analysis of Zitrin et al. (2013) has critical curves consistent with the mass distribution of Jee et al. (2014b) but not that of H15.

    “We find further support for this suggestion in the strong-lensing analysis of Zitrin et al. (2013), whose critical curves are consistent with the mass distribution of Jee et al. (2014b) but not that of H15.”

    From The Mismeasure of Mergers: Revised Limits on Self-interacting Dark Matter in Merging Galaxy Clusters (2018) · cites this paper as Jee et al. (2014b)

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: 60

  1. Anderson, J., & Bedin, L. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 1035 · DOI
  2. Becker, M. R., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2011, ApJ, 740, 25 · DOI
  3. Beckwith, S. V. W., Stiavelli, M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1729 · DOI
  4. Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 20 · DOI
  5. Bernstein, G. M., & Jarvis, M. 2002, AJ, 123, 583 · DOI
  6. Bridle, S. L., Hobson, M. P., Lasenby, A. N., & Saunders, R. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 895 · DOI
  7. Brodwin, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Stanford, S. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 162 · DOI
  8. Cayón, L., Gordon, C., & Silk, J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 849 · DOI
  9. Clowe, D., Bradač, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2006, ApJL, 648, L109 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Coe, D., Benítez, N., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 926 · DOI
  11. Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Dickinson, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 425 · DOI
  12. Dawson, W. A., Wittman, D., Jee, M. J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L42 · DOI
  13. Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, MNRAS, 390, L64 · DOI
  14. Fahlman, G., Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Woods, D. 1994, ApJ, 437, 56 · DOI
  15. Fischer, P., & Tyson, J. A. 1997, AJ, 114, 14 · DOI
  16. Foley, R. J., Andersson, K., Bazin, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 86 · DOI
  17. Giavalisco, M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93 · DOI
  18. Gonzalez, A. H., Stanford, S. A., Brodwin, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 163 · DOI
  19. Hao, J., Kubo, J. M., Feldmann, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 39 · DOI
  20. Harrison, I., & Coles, P. 2012, MNRAS, 421, L19 · DOI
  21. Harrison, I., & Hotchkiss, S. 2013, JCAP, 07, 022 · DOI
  22. Hasselfield, M., Hilton, M., Marriage, T. A., et al. 2013, JCAP, 7, 8 · DOI
  23. Hoekstra, H. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 317 · DOI
  24. Hotchkiss, S. 2011, JCAP, 07, 004 · DOI
  25. Jee, M. J., Blakeslee, J. P., Sirianni, M., et al. 2007a, PASP, 119, 1403 · DOI
  26. Jee, M. J., Dawson, K. S., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 59 · DOI
  27. Jee, M. J., Ford, H. C., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2007b, ApJ, 661, 728 · DOI
  28. Jee, M. J., Rosati, P., Ford, H. C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 672 · DOI
  29. Jee, M. J., Tyson, J. A., Schneider, M. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 74 · DOI
  30. Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Benítez, N., et al. 2005a, ApJ, 618, 46 · DOI
  31. Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Ford, H. C., et al. 2005b, ApJ, 634, 813 · DOI
  32. Kaiser, N., & Squires, G. 1993, ApJ, 404, 441 · DOI
  33. Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Broadhurst, T. 1995, ApJ, 449, 460 · DOI
  34. Kinney, A. L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 1996, ApJ, 467, 38 · DOI
  35. Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196 · DOI
  36. Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R. N., & Hack, W. 2002, in The 2002 HST Calibration Workshop, ed. S. Arribas, A. Koekemoer, & B. Whitmore (Baltimore, MD: STScI), 337
  37. Lindner, R. R., Baker, A. J., Hughes, J. P., et al. 2013, arXiv:1310.6786 · arXiv
  38. Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., David, L., et al. 2002, ApJL, 567, L27 · DOI
  39. Markevitch, M., Govoni, F., Brunetti, G., & Jerius, D. 2005, ApJ, 627, 733 · DOI
  40. Marriage, T. A., Acquaviva, V., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 61 · DOI
  41. Melchior, P., & Viola, M. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2757 · DOI
  42. Menanteau, F., Hughes, J. P., Sifón, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 7 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Meneghetti, M., Fedeli, C., Zitrin, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A17 · DOI
  44. Meneghetti, M., Rasia, E., Merten, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A93 · DOI
  45. Merten, J., Coe, D., Dupke, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 333 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Oguri, M., & Hamana, T. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1851 · DOI
  48. Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2013a, arXiv:1303.5089 · arXiv
  49. Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2013b, arXiv:1303.5076 · arXiv
  50. Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A26 · DOI
  51. Randall, S. W., Markevitch, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A. H., & Bradač, M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1173 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Refregier, A., Kacprzak, T., Amara, A., Bridle, S., & Rowe, B. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1951 · DOI
  53. Rocha, M., Peter, A. H. G., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 81 · DOI
  54. Schneider, M. D., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2727 · DOI
  55. Sifón, C., Menanteau, F., Hasselfield, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 25 · DOI
  56. Stanford, S. A., Brodwin, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 164 · DOI
  57. Tinker, J., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 709 · DOI
  58. Waizmann, J.-C., Redlich, M., & Bartelmann, M. 2012, A&A, 547, A67 · DOI
  59. Williamson, R., Benson, B. A., High, F. W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 139 · DOI
  60. Zitrin, A., Menanteau, F., Hughes, J. P., et al. 2013, ApJL, 770, L15 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jee, M. J., Hughes, J. P., Menanteau, F., Sifón, C., Mandelbaum, R., Barrientos, L. F., Infante, L., & Ng, K. Y.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
ORCID
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2014-03-21
Volume
785
Issue
1
Pages
20
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/20
OpenAlex
W2158198302
Cited by
101
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #223
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
El Gordo, cluster mergers, weak gravitational lensing, cluster mass estimation, Navarro-Frenk-White profile, velocity dispersion, high-redshift clusters, concentration-mass relation

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