# The Cluster 𝐿_𝑋-𝜎 Relation Has Implications for Scale-Free Cosmologies

## 1. Introduction

The dynamical state of a system of galaxies may be characterized by three intimately related physical quantities: the bolometric x-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$, the average emission-weighted plasma temperature $`T`$, and the average dark matter velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{d}m}`$ (as traced by the projected velocity dispersion of the galaxies, $`\sigma _p`$). There is an observed correlation among these parameters, crudely given by $`T\sigma _p^{\alpha _1}`$, $`L_\mathrm{X}T^{\alpha _2}`$, and $`L_\mathrm{X}\sigma _p^{\alpha _3}`$, and roughly in agreement with the predictions of physical models. My goal in this letter is to show that the value of the slope $`\alpha _3`$ at $`z=0`$ can constrain the spectrum of the primordial density fluctuations, $`P(k)k^n`$.

One powerful tool for linking the x-ray properties of galaxy systems with the cosmological parameters already exists. The cluster temperature function, which is directly related to the cluster mass distribution, can be used at zero redshift to measure $`n`$. Henry & Arnaud (1991) analyze data from the Einstein satellite to obtain $`n1.7\pm 0.55`$; data from the ROSAT and ASCA missions (Markevitch 1998), corrected for the presence of cooling flows, implies a somewhat steeper $`n2\pm 0.3`$. The redshift evolution of the cluster temperature function can break the degeneracy between the density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the normalization of the primordial spectrum (Henry 1997).

Here I introduce a new zero-redshift method. I suggest that $`\alpha _3`$, the slope of the $`L_X\sigma _p`$ relation, is related to $`n`$ in a way that is complementary to the dependence of the temperature function on $`n`$. While it is important to have a flux-limited sample for the temperature function method, using $`\alpha _3`$ to compute $`n`$ requires only a large number of pointed observations of systems of galaxies. In §2 I derive the relationship between $`\alpha _3`$ and $`n`$. In §3 I compare the results with available observations, and discuss possible systematic biases. In §4 I summarize.

## 2. Derivation

Here I use some of the definitions in the paper by Navarro, Frenk, & White (1997; NFW). My results, however, are largely independent of their N-body simulations of dark matter halos, and apply to density profiles different from the one they introduce. Eke, Navarro, & Frenk (1998) provide a derivation of the $`L_XT`$ relation which is analogous to part of what follows, but does not focus on any cosmological use of $`\alpha _2`$.

### 2.1. Halo Parameters and Definitions

A spherically symmetric dark matter halo may be characterized by $`r_{200}`$, the radius which encloses 200 times the critical density of the universe, $`\rho _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$. The characteristic mass, $`M_{200}`$, is then

$`M_{200}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{800\pi }{3}}r_{200}^3\rho _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$ (1)   
$`\rho _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G}}Z(z),`$ (2)   
$`Z(z,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`(1+z)^3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{\mathrm{\Omega }(z)}}.`$ (3)   
Here $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the density parameter, and $`z`$ is the redshift. The halo’s characteristic circular velocity is $`V_{200}=\sqrt{GM_{200}/r_{200}}`$, or, with the substitution of equation (1),

$$V_{200}=10H_0r_{200}Z^{1/2}.$$
(4)   
Now consider a halo density profile of the form,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{d}m}(r)=\rho _{\mathrm{c}rit}\delta _c\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\frac{cr}{r_{200}}),$$
(5)   
where $`c`$ is the halo concentration, $`\delta _c`$ is the characteristic density, and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)`$ is a nonnegative, declining function of $`y`$. Then equation (1) requires the following relation between $`\delta _c`$ and $`c`$,

$`\delta _c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{200c^3}{3C(c)}},`$ (6)   
$`C(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^y}t^2\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)𝑑t.`$ (7)   
In scale-free cosmologies, the characteristic density also depends on $`n`$, the slope of the initial fluctuation spectrum, because $`c`$ should trace the mean density of the universe at the time of the halo’s formation. NFW use Press-Schechter theory to examine the exact relationship among $`\delta _c`$, $`M_{200}`$, and $`n`$. They find that the characteristic density should be proportional to the mean density of the universe at the epoch when the nonlinear mass $`M_{}`$ is (1) a fixed and (2) a very small fraction of the current halo mass. This implies that $`\delta _c`$ should scale with $`M`$ and $`n`$ the same way as the average background density scales with $`M_{}`$ and $`n`$:

$$\delta _cM_{200}^{(n+3)/2}.$$
(8)   
The slope of this scaling relation is better than 5% accurate for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ cosmologies with either $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant in units of $`3H^2`$. With the substitution $`\gamma =(n+3)/2`$ and use of equations (1), (4), and (6),

$$\frac{c^3}{C(c)}V_{200}^{3\gamma }Z^{\gamma /2}.$$
(9)   
Next, I compute the circular velocity profile of the halo, $`V_{\mathrm{c}irc}=\sqrt{GM(r)/r}`$. Under the transformation $`ryr_{200}/c`$,

$$V_{\mathrm{c}irc}(y)^2=V_{200}^2\frac{cC(y)}{yC(c)}$$
(10)   
Note that the dark matter velocity dispersion profile, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{d}m}(y)`$, will not in general have the same shape as $`V_{\mathrm{c}irc}(y)`$, contrary to the the assumption in similar derivations (e.g. Eke et al. 1998). Rather, the velocity dispersion of the halo is given by the Jeans equation for a spherical, nonrotating system of collisionless particles (Binney & Tremaine 1987):

$$\frac{d\left(\sigma _r^2\rho \right)}{dr}+2\beta _\mathrm{J}\rho \sigma _r^2=\frac{GM\rho }{r^2}.$$
(11)   
Here $`\sigma _r`$ is the radial velocity dispersion, $`\beta _\mathrm{J}`$ is the velocity anisotropy parameter, and $`M`$ is the mass inside the radius $`r`$. For systems with isotropic velocity dispersion tensors, $`\beta _\mathrm{J}=0`$, and locally $`\sigma _{\mathrm{d}m}^2=3\sigma _r^2`$. In terms of the previously defined quantities, equation (11) has the solution

$`\sigma _r^2(y)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{200}^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{C(c)}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^2(y),`$ (12)   
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^2(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)}}{\displaystyle _y^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)C(t)}{t^2}}𝑑t,`$ (13)   
Finally, consider the average dark matter velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{d}m}^2`$, within the virial radius $`r_{200}`$:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{d}m}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_0^c3\sigma _r^2(y)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)y^2𝑑y}{_0^c\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)y^2𝑑y}}`$ (14)   
$`=`$ $`V_{200}^2{\displaystyle \frac{cD(c)}{C(c)^2}},`$ (15)   
$`D(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^y}3\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^2(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)t^2𝑑t.`$ (16)   
### 2.2. X-Ray Luminosity

The x-ray luminosity of a ball of plasma is

$$L_\mathrm{X}=\lambda (T)n_en_i𝑑V.$$
(17)   
Here $`\lambda (T)`$ is the bolometric emissivity as a function of the local temperature $`T`$, $`n_e`$ is the electron number density, $`n_i`$ is the ion number density, and the integral is over the entire volume of the system. Now if (1) $`n_i=n_e`$, (2) the system is spherically symmetric, and (3) the gas density is related to the dark matter distribution by $`\rho _{\mathrm{g}as}(r)=f\rho _{\mathrm{d}m}(r)`$, where $`f`$ is the gas mass fraction, then

$$L_\mathrm{X}=4\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}\lambda (T)\left(\frac{f\rho _{\mathrm{d}m}}{\mu m_p}\right)^2r^2𝑑r,$$
(18)   
where $`\mu \rho _{\mathrm{g}as}/(n_im_p)`$ is the mean molecular weight. Substitution of equation (5) yields,

$$L_\mathrm{X}=4\pi \left(\frac{f\rho _{\mathrm{c}rit}}{\mu m_p}\right)^2\frac{\delta _c^2}{c^3}r_{200}^3_0^{\mathrm{}}\lambda (T)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)^2y^2𝑑y.$$
(19)   
Now eliminate $`r_{200}`$, $`\delta _c`$, and $`\rho _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$ using equations (2), (4) and (6):

$`L_X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5H_0Z^{1/2}}{2\pi G^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{\mu m_p}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{C(c)^2}}V_{200}^3`$   
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\lambda (T)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)^2y^2𝑑y.`$   
Next, note that thermal bremsstrahlung is the dominant cooling process for rich clusters of galaxies; hence $`\lambda (T)T^{1/2}`$. Then, if the gas is in local hydrostatic equilibrium with the dark matter, $`T(r)\sigma _{\mathrm{d}m}(r)^2`$, and hence $`\lambda (T,r)\sigma _{\mathrm{d}m}(r)`$. Leaving out the constants and substituting equation (12) yields,

$$L_\mathrm{X}f^2Z^{1/2}\frac{c^{7/2}}{C(c)^{5/2}}V_{200}^4_0^{\mathrm{}}3\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(y)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)^2y^2𝑑y$$
(21)   
The integral on the right-hand side is just a number, and may be dropped.

Now one must replace $`V_{200}`$, which is not observable, with the projected galaxy velocity dispersion $`\sigma _p`$, which can be determined from optical surveys. In the cores of relaxed clusters $`\sigma _p^2`$ is proportional to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{d}m}^2`$, the average dark matter velocity dispersion (equation 14). Then

$$L_Xf^2Z^{1/2}\frac{c^{3/2}C(c)^{3/2}}{D(c)^2}\sigma _p^4.$$
(22)   
If $`f`$ and $`c`$ remain constant, the above expression reduces to the traditional $`L_\mathrm{X}\sigma ^4`$ scaling law from simpler, dimensional arguments (e.g., Quintana & Melnick 1982). However, equation (9) tells us that $`c`$ is a function of the velocity dispersion and the slope of the primordial spectrum. In fact, once $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)`$ is specified, equations (7), (9), (15), and (16) may be used to eliminate $`V_{200}`$, $`c`$, $`C(c)`$, and $`D(c)`$, and one may thus obtain the dependence of $`L_X`$ on $`\sigma _p`$ and $`n`$. Specifically, suppose that within the range of interest for $`c`$, $`C(c)`$ and $`D(c)`$ exhibit a power law behavior of the form $`C(c)c^p`$ and $`D(c)c^q`$. Then

$$L_Xf^2Z^{1/2+\xi /6}\sigma _p^{4\xi },$$
(23)   
where

$$\xi =\frac{3(3+n)(3+3p4q)}{3+14p9q+n(6p33q)}$$
(24)   
### 2.3. Model Dependency

I consider dark matter density profiles of the form $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(y)=y^a(1+y^b)^d`$. Thus each profile’s shape may be specified by a set of three numbers, $`(a,b,d)`$. Some common profiles and their properties are listed in Table 1.

Once the set $`(a,b,d)`$ is specified, $`C(c)`$ and $`D(c)`$ are readily computable. The relevant range of $`c`$ for systems of galaxies comes from measurements of surface number density profiles and of $`r_{200}`$ in clusters and groups of galaxies (Carlberg et al. 1997; Mahdavi et al. 1999). In these works, halos with masses in the range $`10^{14}10^{16}M_{}`$ have concentrations $`c`$ 2.5–9.5, in good agreement with N-body simulations (e.g., NFW). For all sets $`(a,b,d)`$ in Table 1, the power law approximations $`C(c)c^p`$ and $`D(c)c^q`$ are better than 8% accurate everywhere within $`c=`$2.5–9.5.

Figure 3 shows $`\xi (n)`$ from equation (24) for various profiles. In all cases, $`\xi (n)`$ is positive, and approaches zero as $`n3`$. As $`n0`$, the models all predict a significant flattening of the $`L_\mathrm{X}\sigma _p`$ relation. This is understandable through equation (8): the characteristic density $`\delta _c`$ is highly anticorrelated with halo mass in the $`n0`$ universes, and hence the emission measure increases quite slowly or not at all with mass. As $`n3`$, $`\delta _c`$ becomes nearly independent of the halo mass, and therefore $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ increases rapidly with the velocity dispersion.

## 3. Application

For low-redshift clusters of galaxies, $`Z(z,\mathrm{\Omega })1`$ with high accuracy. The dependence of the gas mass fraction $`f`$ on $`T`$ and hence $`\sigma _p`$ is poorly determined. Some, using standard analysis, claim it should increase slightly with $`T`$ (e.g., David, Jones, & Forman 1995); others say that accounting for cooling flows should cause it to decrease slightly with $`T`$ (e.g. Allen & Fabian 1998). Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard (1999), in their detailed study of clusters with ROSAT pointings, find that within 1 Mpc $`f`$ is nearly independent of $`T`$. Because of the range of contrasting findings, I adopt $`fT^{0.0\pm 0.2}\sigma _p^{0.0\pm 0.4}`$ at the 68% confidence level.

There is more agreement among observers regarding the empirical value of $`\alpha _3`$: Quintana & Melnick (1982) have $`\alpha _3=4.0\pm 0.7`$ for data from the Einstein satellite; theirs are 2-10 keV luminosities, which scale similarly to bolometric luminosities for rich clusters. More recently, Mulchaey & Zabludoff (1998; MZ98) combined ROSAT observations of groups and clusters with deep optical spectroscopy to obtain $`\alpha _3=4.29\pm 0.37`$ for bolometric luminosities. I adopt the average value, $`\alpha _3=4.15\pm 0.4`$.

Assuming normally distributed errors, the adopted values of $`f`$ and $`\alpha _3`$ constrain $`\xi `$ to be $`<1.0`$ at the one-sided 90% confidence level, or $`<1.93`$ at the one-sided 99% confidence level. Figure (3) shows the $`\xi =1.0,1.93`$ boundaries. To accommodate all the models I consider in this scenario, $`n`$ must be $`<2.0`$ at 90% confidence level, and $`<1.1`$ at the 99% confidence level.

At least two systematic effects could bias these results. Preheating of the plasma in $`kT<4`$ keV clusters (Ponman, Cannon, & Navarro 1999) might suppress their luminosities, while leaving those of $`kT>4`$ keV clusters unchanged. One can avoid this bias by ignoring all clusters with $`kT<4`$ keV. I find that removing these clusters, which make up $`25\%`$ of the MZ98 sample, does not significantly affect the slope of the observed $`L_X\sigma `$ relation.

Also, cooling flows might affect the luminosities. While Markevitch (1998) finds that the slope of the $`L_XT`$ relation does not change as a result of removing cooling flows, Allen & Fabian (1998) find that $`\alpha _2=3.1\pm 0.6`$ changes to $`\alpha _2=2.3\pm 0.4`$ after including cooling flows. The Markevitch (1998) method, which removes the cooling flow altogether, is more appropriate for probing the gravitational potential than the Allen & Fabian (1998) method, which includes the luminosity of the cooling component.

To constrain the effect of cooling flows on $`\alpha _3`$, I conduct the following test. Of the MZ98 clusters, 34% are are also contained in Markevitch (1998). I fit $`\alpha _3`$ for just these clusters, using the $`L_X`$ which excludes the cooling component. I find that the slope changes to $`\alpha _3=3.85\pm 0.3`$; with this, the upper limits on $`n`$ become $`n<1.7`$ and $`n<0.9`$ at the one-sided 90% and 99% confidence levels. The chief result of this paper—that if $`n`$ were much greater than $`1`$, $`\alpha _3`$ should be $`2`$ instead of the observed value, $`4`$—is therefore not affected by the 10% correction due to cooling flows.

## 4. Conclusion

If the characteristic densities of clusters of galaxies trace the background density of the universe at the time of each cluster’s formation, there should be a relatively simple relationship between the x-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$, the observed velocity dispersion $`\sigma _p`$, and the slope of the primordial power spectrum, $`n`$. This relationship, given by equations (23) and (24), depends slightly on the density profile of the clustered dark matter, but should not significantly depend on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ when applied to low-redshift clusters of galaxies. For a wide range of assumed density profiles, the observations imply $`n<2.0`$ and $`n<1.1`$ at the one-sided 90% and 99% confidence levels, respectively. This is consistent with the bounds from the cluster temperature function, which give $`n`$ between $`2.3`$ and $`1.15`$. Improving this constraint depends largely on a better understanding of preheating, cooling flows, and the variation of the gas mass fraction with $`\sigma _p`$.

I thank the referee, Vincent Eke, for comments which improved the paper. I am grateful to Margaret Geller for our many discussions. Conversations with Saurabh Jha were also useful. This work was supported by the Smithsonian Institution and by the National Science Foundation.

## References

Allen, S. W., & Fabian, A. C. 1998, MNRAS, 297, L57

Binney, J., and Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

Carlberg, R. G., et al. 1997, ApJ, 495, L13

David, L. P., Jones, C., & Forman, W. 1995, ApJ, 445, 578

Eke, V., Navarro, J. F., & Frenk, C. S. 1998, ApJ, 503, 569

Henry, J. P. & Arnaud, K. A. 1991, ApJ, 372, 410

Henry, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 489, L1

Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359

Jaffe, W. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 995

King, I. R. 1962, AJ, 67, 471

Mahdavi, A., Geller, M. J., Böhringer, H., Kurtz, M. J., & Ramella, M. 1997, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/9901095)

Markevitch, M. 1998, ApJ, 504, 27

Mohr, J. J., Mathiesen, N., & Evrard, A. E. 1999, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/9901281)

Mulchaey, J. S., & Zabludoff, A. I. 1998, ApJ, 496, 73

Navarro, J. F., Frenk. C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

Ponman, T. J., Cannon, D. B., & Navarro, J. F. 1999, Nature, 397, 135

Quintana, H., and Melnick, J., 1982, AJ, 87, 972