2007), and one of the strongest gravitational lenses known (Diego et al.
2003 Ebeling, Barrett & Donovan 2004 Ebeling et al. This is the most massive galaxy cluster known at |$z$| > 0.5 (Edge et al. To obtain another example of the assembly of substructures here, we study an even more massive HFF galaxy cluster, MACS J0717.5+3745 (MACS J0717), at higher redshift, |$z$| = 0.54. 2018), or by simultaneously fitting all the components of a parametric mass model. The discrepancy might therefore be reduced by simulating observable quantities (Schwinn et al. ( 2017) argued that as lensing measurements integrate mass along a line of sight, they include mass from additional structures, and quantified this effect using the Phoenix cluster simulations (Gao et al. 2009) at lower density contrasts in the core of the main halo, comparison between 3D subfind masses from simulations and 2D projected masses from lensing data, and the contamination of lensing masses by line-of-sight substructures. However, they suggested numerical and observational caveats to explain this apparent inconsistency: reduced resolution of the subfind subhalo finder algorithm (Springel et al. ( 2017) were unable to find any systems as rich in substructures in the entire Millenium-XXL (MXXL) simulation (Angulo et al. We present a gravitational lensing and X-ray analysis of a massive galaxy cluster and its surroundings.
0 kommentar(er)
