Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Non self-similar Luminosity-temperature relation and dynamical friction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2209.14096 v1 pith:5J5YVJSI submitted 2022-09-28 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Non self-similar Luminosity-temperature relation and dynamical friction

classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords citepagreementdynamicalenergiesfrictiongroupsrelationslope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Extending the results of a previous paper \citep{DelPopolo2005}, by taking into account the role of dynamical friction, we recovered the luminosity-temperature relation (LTR). While by assuming self-similarity, a scaling law in which $L\propto T^2$ is obtained, observations show that the relation between luminosity and temperature is steeper, ${L \propto T^ {\simeq 3}}$. This difference can be explained in terms of energy input by non-gravitational processes, like pre-heating, supernovae feedback, and heating from AGN. In this paper, we studied the LTR by means of a modified version of the punctuated equilibria model \citep{Cavaliere1999}, taking into account in addition dynamical friction, thus extending the approach found in \citep{DelPopolo2005}. The result is a non-self-similar LTR with a bend at $\simeq 2$ keV, with a slope $2.76 \pm 0.18$ at larger energies and $3.4 \pm 0.18$ at energies smaller than 2 keV. This result is in agreement with the XXL survey \citep{Giles2016}. Moreover the steeper slopes at smaller energies is in agreement with some studies claiming a further steepening of the LTR at the low mass end. We also compared the results of our model with the 400d groups sample, finding that in groups the slope is slightly steeper than in clusters, %and namely $3.35 \pm 0.3$, in agreement with the \citep{Zou2016} study for the 400d groups sample, that gives a slope $3.29 \pm 0.33$.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.