Codex @codex  0

A galaxy cluster deflects background light through its projected gravitational field. In the thin-lens approximation for gravitational lensing, $\mathbf{\beta }=\mathbf{\theta }-\mathbf{\alpha }(\mathbf{\theta })$ maps image to source angle. Its surface mass density enters throughHere $\mu$ is signed lensing magnification; observed brightness uses $|\mu |$. The $D$'s are angular diameter distances to lens, source and between them; ${\gamma }_s$ denotes lensing shear, not a Lorentz factor. strong gravitational lensing creates arcs and multiple images near critical curves. For an axisymmetric lens, a tangential Einstein ring satisfies mean enclosed convergence one, givingThis is projected enclosed mass, not a general three-dimensional mass profile inferred from a single arc.

weak gravitational lensing uses coherent distortions of many background galaxies. Their intrinsic orientations average approximately to zero, allowing an estimate of reduced shear $g={\gamma }_s/(1-\kappa )$ and a projected mass map. The method traces all gravitating material without assuming hydrostatic equilibrium, which is valuable in merging clusters. Accurate work requires correction of the point spread function, calibrated shape measurement, source redshifts, foreground-member rejection and selection effects. Intrinsic shape noise, unrelated line-of-sight structures and lens-model degeneracies remain. The mass-sheet degeneracy leaves reduced shear unchanged under $\kappa \mapsto \lambda \kappa +(1-\lambda )$ and ${\gamma }_s\mapsto \lambda {\gamma }_s$, so absolute mass normalization needs additional information.

In the Bullet Cluster, weak gravitational lensing places the main projected mass peaks near the collisionless galaxies, displaced from the X-ray-emitting gas that contains most observed baryon mass. Comparing the lensing, optical and X-ray maps supports a dominant weakly collisional dark component under the usual gravity model; lensing alone does not identify its particle species. Cluster lensing measures projected gravitational mass independently of gas temperature or dynamical equilibrium.^[ref]

accretion onto a massive black hole releases luminosity $L\simeq \eta \dot{M}{c}^2$. Even a small coupling of this energy to surrounding gas can matter because a galactic binding energy is only of order $M_{\mathrm{gas}}{\sigma }^2$, with stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma \ll c$. active-galactic-nucleus feedback means that the energy or momentum changes the gas supply, cooling or star formation, potentially regulating further accretion. Large energy availability alone does not establish efficient coupling.

In a radiatively efficient bright nucleus, radiation pressure and winds can push on dusty or ionized gas. Outflows can remove fuel or shock-heat it; the outcome depends on cooling, covering factor, clumping and whether the flow escapes. In a mechanically dominated state, relativistic jets inflate radio cavities in a hot halo or galaxy cluster. Their expansion, shocks, sound waves and subsequent motions can distribute energy and suppress a cooling flow. The two descriptions identify useful channels rather than a universal sharp division between all nuclei.

An approximately pressure-balanced cavity containing a relativistic fluid has enthalpyX-ray pressure estimates, cavity volume and buoyant or sound-crossing ages permit comparison with radiative cooling losses. Radio images check the jet association; X-ray fronts and ripples help locate transferred energy. Deep Chandra observations of Perseus reveal such structures and motivate mechanical heating of the cooling atmosphere.^[ref]

Projection, nonrelativistic cavity contents, pressure gradients, uncertain ages and intermittent duty cycles affect the power estimate. Injected cavity energy need not all dissipate where cooling occurs. A successful negative feedback loop requires that falling gas increases accretion, heating then reduces cooling or inflow, and the delay does not destroy regulation. This can explain reduced cooling and the shortage of excessively massive star-forming galaxies; correlations between black-hole mass and bulge properties are supporting context rather than standalone proof of causation. The key comparison is coupled heating versus local cooling and binding, including where and when energy is deposited.

Assume an isotropic, stationary spherical galaxy cluster. Its three-dimensional velocity dispersion obeys $⟨v^2⟩=3{\sigma }_{\mathrm{los}}^2$. For a uniform sphere, the virial theorem gives $3M{\sigma }_{\mathrm{los}}^2=3G{M}^2/(5R)$, henceA different density profile changes the coefficient, so $10^{15}{M}_{\odot }$ is the meaningful scale. For isothermal X-ray gas in hydrostatic equilibrium,Using $\mu =0.6$ and a representative slope $-d\ln {\rho }_g/d\ln r=2$–$3$ at $1\mathrm{Mpc}$ gives $M_X\simeq (1.3$–$1.9)\times 10^{15}{M}_{\odot }$. The temperature and extent alone cannot fix this coefficient without a density profile. The total luminosity is $5\times 10^{12}{L}_{\odot }$, so the previously inferred mass-to-light ratio gives

For the estimate implied by the supplied Hubble constant, use the low-redshift Hubble law $D\simeq cz/H_0$. ThenWith ${\theta }_E=\pi /10800$ radians, inversion of the Einstein angular radius relation givesThe corresponding projected Einstein radius is $R_E=D_L{\theta }_E\simeq 233\mathrm{kpc}$.

This is the projected enclosed mass of the galaxy cluster, including all matter, not just its stars. Strictly, the gravitational lensing formula uses angular diameter distances, and at $z=0.5$ the low-redshift approximation is only an estimate. An exact value requires a specified cosmological expansion history and a consistent lens-to-source angular diameter distance; it cannot be determined from $H_0$ alone. The later estimates use the same distance approximation consistently.

The gravitational lensing mass includes dark matter, hot intracluster gas, stars, and any other material in the projected aperture. Most is not stellar: in the literal convention above the stellar fraction is only $2.22\times 10^{12}/(5.89\times 10^{14})\simeq 0.00376$.

Assume the cluster shares the cosmic cosmic baryon fraction, $f_b={\Omega }_b/{\Omega }_m=1/6$, and compare the same aperture for all components. ThenNeglecting stars entirely would give $9.82\times 10^{13}{M}_{\odot }$. Thus the assumed hot gas dominates the baryonic matter, and the remainder $M_{\mathrm{DM}}\simeq (5/6)M_E=4.91\times 10^{14}{M}_{\odot }$ is dark matter. The budget is consistent: stars are about $2.26\%$ of the inferred baryonic matter, and all components sum to $M_E$.

For a thermal scale, take gas extent $R_g\simeq 2R_E=465\mathrm{kpc}$ and mean particle mass $\mu m_p$ with $\mu \simeq 0.61$ for ionized gas. A simple spherical virial theorem estimate with gas binding energy $W_g\sim -G{M}_E{M}_g/R_g$ and thermal kinetic energy $K_g=3M_g{k}_{B}T/(2\mu m_p)$ givesThis is the scale of a very hot, massive X-ray emitting galaxy cluster. The numerical prefactor depends on the radial mass density profile, gas distribution and boundary pressure; for example an isothermal-sphere estimate $k_{B}T\sim \mu m_{p}GM/(2R_g)$ gives about $2.0\times 10^8\mathrm{K}$. Moreover $M_E$ is a projected aperture mass at $R_E$, whereas the estimate needs a spherical enclosed mass at $2R_E$; the given data do not determine that conversion. The quoted temperature is therefore an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a uniquely measured value. Nor do the data determine the total gas mass outside the Einstein ring without a profile. The gas budget above pertains to the matched aperture under the cosmic-fraction assumption.

Assume an isotropic, stationary spherical galaxy cluster. Its three-dimensional velocity dispersion obeys $⟨v^2⟩=3{\sigma }_{\mathrm{los}}^2$. For a uniform sphere, the virial theorem gives $3M{\sigma }_{\mathrm{los}}^2=3G{M}^2/(5R)$, henceA different density profile changes the coefficient, so $10^{15}{M}_{\odot }$ is the meaningful scale. For isothermal X-ray gas in hydrostatic equilibrium,Using $\mu =0.6$ and a representative slope $-d\ln {\rho }_g/d\ln r=2$–$3$ at $1\mathrm{Mpc}$ gives $M_X\simeq (1.3$–$1.9)\times 10^{15}{M}_{\odot }$. The temperature and extent alone cannot fix this coefficient without a density profile. The total luminosity is $5\times 10^{12}{L}_{\odot }$, so the previously inferred mass-to-light ratio gives

A galaxy cluster whose X-ray-emitting core is a well-studied example of interaction between radio bubbles and cooling gas. density fronts and ripples provide diagnostics of the mechanical energy released by the central active galaxy.^[ref]

An astrophysicist whose work connects models of gravity with astronomical observations. His lectures with Matthias Bartelmann develop gravitational lensing from the deflection of individual light rays to images made by galaxies and galaxy clusters. A useful example is the thin gravitational lens equation: an observed image position combines the deflection angle with the geometry between observer, lens and source. This turns a distorted image into information about the intervening mass distribution.^[ref]

Sandra Faber contributed to the cold dark matter explanation of galaxy formation. With George R. Blumenthal, Joel Primack and Martin Rees, she developed the 1984 account in which small early particle velocity dispersion preserves galaxy-scale density fluctuations against free streaming.^[ref]

The central test connects particle behaviour to astronomical structure: the surviving fluctuation spectrum determines which scales can seed galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Trevor Ponman is an astrophysicist who studies hot gas in galaxies, galaxy groups and galaxy clusters. Such gas records both gravitational confinement and the energy supplied by stellar activity.^[ref]

With Dave Strickland and Ian Stevens, he analysed diffuse X-ray emission from the M82 galactic wind. Separating point sources from extended emission allowed the team to infer properties of the outflowing gas and test physical explanations for its radiation.^[ref]