text:
# The Cosmic Density of Massive Black Holes from Galaxy Velocity Dispersions

## 1 Introduction

It is now fairly well established that most or all bulges contain supermassive black holes (Richstone et al., 1998; Kormendy & Gebhardt, 2002; Magorrian, 1998). Within the last two years it has become clear that the mass of the black hole (BH) is related to the velocity dispersion of the bulge of the host galaxy. This relationship has less scatter than a previously noted relationship between the black hole mass and the bulge light (Gebhardt et al., 2000; Ferrarese & Merritt, 2000; Kormendy & Gebhardt, 2002). It has also been known for some time that the masses, and cosmic mass density of BHs, crudely correspond to the masses and numbers predicted by the luminous output of quasars, under the assumption that they are powered by accreting black holes with radiative efficiencies near 10%. Published estimates of the BH mass density predicted by quasars are around $`210^5M_{}Mpc^3`$ (Chokshi & Turner, 1992; Soltan, 1982; Salucci et al., 1999), while estimates from the X-ray background tend to be larger. Using the X-ray background, Salucci et al. (1999) obtain an estimate of $`3510^5M_{}Mpc^3`$, while Fabian & Iwasawa (1999) estimate the mass density to be $`6910^5M_{}Mpc^3`$.

It is useful to note that the above density estimates are independent of the Hubble constant or cosmological model (so long as it is general relativistic, isotropic and homogeneous) because they can be cast in terms of the surface brightness of quasar light on the sky, and hence determine its local energy density. Since the mass density of the radiating objects declines as the universe expands as $`(1+z)^3`$ and the photon energy of their radiation declines as $`(1+z)^4`$, the only cosmological correction connecting the observed radiation to the local BH density is $`(1+z)`$, where z is the redshift of the epoch of the emission of the radiation.

On the other hand, the local density of supermassive BHs are obtained by multiplying the density of galaxies by the typical BH mass per galaxy. Kormendy & Richstone (1995) used the BH mass-bulge luminosity relationship, together with the Loveday et al. (1992) estimate of the luminosity density in galaxies, to estimate the local density of BHs; for a Hubble constant of 80 km/s/Mpc this is $`110^6M_{}Mpc^3`$. More recently, Merritt & Ferrarese (2001a) estimated this same quantity using the newer $`M\sigma `$ relation. Their approach was to use the $`M\sigma `$ relation to calibrate a mass-luminosity relation and then multiply by the galaxy luminosity function.

In this paper we take an alternate approach. We use multiple estimates of the luminosity functions of galaxies for different Hubble types, together with estimates of bulge luminosity as a function of Hubble type, together with observed relationships between luminosity and velocity dispersions or rotation velocity, to construct a ’velocity function’ (the number of galaxies per magnitude per unit volume) for bulges as a function of Hubble type. This function can then be used together with the $`M\sigma `$ relation to estimate BH mass functions. Our basic result using this procedure is that the mean mass density of supermassive BHs is $`4.8h_{100}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}10^5M_{}Mpc^3`$.

After we completed much of the analysis in this paper, we became aware of an estimate by Yu & Tremaine (2002) based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), that gives an estimate of $`\rho _{}=(2.5\pm 0.4)h_{0.65}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}10^5M_{}Mpc^3`$. By assuming that h=0.65, as in their paper, our results are comparable with theirs. The rather surprising conclusions about the radiative efficiency of quasars derived by Yu & Tremaine (2002) from their low value of $`\rho _{}`$ illustrate the importance of an improved estimate of this parameter.

## 2 Method

The basic assumption underlying this note is that the bulge velocity dispersion of a galaxy can be used to predict the mass of its supermassive black hole. Under that assumption, the best way to proceed would be to directly observe velocity dispersions of a volume–limited sample of galaxy bulges and to integrate over the implied distribution. Such a catalogue might well exist in the future, 111After starting this project, the early release data for the SDSS became available, but we pursued this calculation from completely independent data. but at present we adopt a simpler expediency. We use a power law (Faber & Jackson, 1976) to convert various luminosity functions to a “dispersion function”, and the $`M\sigma `$ relation for black holes to convert the dispersion function to a BH mass function.

In general, if there are $`N`$ galaxies per cubic megaparsec brighter than a luminosity $`L`$, then the luminosity function is

$$\frac{dN}{dL}\mathrm{\Phi }(L).$$
(1)
This can be directly converted to the BH mass function by using the derivative of the relationship between luminosity and the velocity dispersion ($`\sigma `$) and the black hole mass ($`_{}`$) and $`\sigma `$ for bulges. Without any loss of generality, it can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(_{})\frac{dN}{d_{}}=\mathrm{\Phi }(L)\left(\frac{dL}{d\sigma }\right)\left(\frac{d_{}}{d\sigma }\right)^1$$
(2)
Since in what follows we will rely on luminosity functions due to Marzke et al. (1994), we adopt his parameterization of the luminosity function of different types of galaxies as Schechter functions and adopt power laws for the two relationships. To simplify the algebra we normalize luminosity, dispersion and black hole mass by their values at the fiducial luminosity of the Schechter function $`L_{}`$, as follows

$`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ $`=L/L_{}`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ $`=\sigma /\sigma _{}`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{_{}}`$ $`=_{}/_{}`$ (5)
We then can write the Schechter parameterization and the relationships between luminosity and dispersion and dispersion and $`_{}`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dL}}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }(L)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}}{L_{}}}\right)\stackrel{~}{L}^\alpha e^{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{~}{L}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^n`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{~}{_{}}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\lambda `$ (8)
with $`\varphi _{}`$ in $`Mpc^3`$. Substituting these equations into equation 2 gives the following dispersion function

$$\frac{dN}{d\sigma }=\left(\frac{n\varphi _{}}{\sigma _{}}\right)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{\beta 1}e^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^n}$$
(9)
with $`\beta =n(\alpha +1)`$ and the following mass function for supermassive black holes

$$\frac{dN}{d_{}}=\mathrm{\Theta }(_{})=\theta _{}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\stackrel{~}{_{}}^{\gamma 1}e^{\stackrel{~}{_{}}^ϵ}$$
(10)
with $`\theta _{}=ϵ\varphi _{}`$, $`ϵ=n/\lambda `$ and $`\gamma =\beta /\lambda =n(\alpha +1)/\lambda `$.

Unless explicitly parametrized by h = $`H_o/(100kms^1Mpc^1)`$, all calculations were done assuming $`H_o=100kms^1Mpc^1`$.

## 3 Results

In order to determine the number density as a function of dispersion, the Schechter function fits, valid for $`M_Z21.5`$ (corresponding to $`\sigma _{}=400`$ km/s and $`_{}=1.810^9M_{}`$ for an elliptical galaxy), obtained by Marzke et al. (1994), were modified using the corresponding bulge to total galaxy luminosity ratios, calculated from the data given in Simien & de Vaucouleurs (1986) for the appropriate galaxy range, as given in Table 1, to produce a fit as a function of the bulge-only luminosity for the spiral galaxies:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dL_{bulge}}}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }(L_{bulge})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{h^3\varphi _{}}{L_{bulge}}}\right)\stackrel{~}{L}_{bulge}^\alpha e^{\stackrel{~}{L}_{bulge}}`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{L}_{bulge}=L_{bulge}/L_{bulge}`$ (12)
A power-law relation of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{L}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^n$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ refers to the total luminosity ratio for the elliptical galaxies and to the bulge-only luminosity ratio for the spiral galaxies, may be used to convert the function of luminosity (6, 11) to one of dispersion such that

$$\frac{dN}{d\sigma }=h^3\left(\frac{n\varphi _{}}{\sigma _{}}\right)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{\beta 1}e^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^n}$$
(14)
with $`\beta =n(\alpha +1)`$.

To obtain a value for the parameter $`\sigma _{}`$ for each galaxy type, the parameter $`M_{}`$ from the Marzke et al. (1994) Schechter function fits are converted to the equivalent dispersion, $`\sigma _{}`$ using a relationship between the magnitude and the dispersion given by de Vaucouleurs & Olson (1982). The ”best” relationship between magnitude and dispersion, selected from several in this paper, was determined by Gonzalez et al. (2000) to be:

$$(M_{B_T}+5log(h))=a+b(log(\sigma )2.3)$$
(15)
with $`a=19.71\pm 0.08`$ and $`b=7.7\pm 0.7`$. This results in a slope for the power-law relation (13) of $`n=b/2.5=3.08\pm 0.28`$. However, this equation is in the $`M_{B_T}`$ magnitude system, and so must be converted into the Zwicky magnitude system in order to be combined with the Marzke et al. (1994) Schechter function fitting parameters. Despite concerns that there may not be a linear relationship between these two magnitude systems (Marzke, Huchra, & Geller, 1994), an approximate conversion was adopted by combining the conversion given in Shanks et al. (1984)

$$M_{b_j}=M_Z0.45$$
(16)
with that given in Gonzalez et al. (2000)

$$M_{b_j}M_{B_T}+0.06$$
(17)
to obtain

$$M_{B_T}M_Z0.51$$
(18)
which allows the magnitude-dispersion relation to be written as

$$M_Z+0.51=a+b(log(\sigma )2.3)+5log(h)$$
(19)
This relation may then be combined with the Simien & de Vaucouleurs (1986) magnitude correction for the bulge-to-total galaxy magnitude ratio, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, so that only the $`M_{bulge}`$ is used to calculate the dispersion for the spiral galaxies, such that

$$(M_Z0.51+\mathrm{\Delta }M)=a+b(log(\sigma )2.3)+5log(h)$$
(20)
Hence, the velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _{}`$, may be expressed as

$$\sigma _{}=199.510^\chi $$
(21)
with

$$\chi =(M_Z+0.51a5log(h)\mathrm{\Delta }M)b^1$$
(22)
The number density as a function of dispersion (14) may then be combined with the relation between the dispersion and the black hole mass given by Tremaine et al. (2002), corrected from h=0.8 (to h=1) for consistency,

$$_{}=h^10.810^{8.13\pm 0.06}\left(\frac{\sigma }{200}\right)^\lambda $$
(23)
(with $`\lambda =4.02\pm 0.32`$) to obtain the final equation for the number density as a function of black hole mass:

$$\frac{dN}{d_{}}=\mathrm{\Theta }(_{})=h^3\theta _{}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\stackrel{~}{_{}}^{\gamma 1}e^{\stackrel{~}{_{}}^ϵ}$$
(24)
again with $`\theta _{}=ϵ\varphi _{}`$, $`ϵ=n/\lambda =0.8\pm 0.1`$, $`\gamma =\beta /\lambda `$ and

$$_{}=h^10.810^{8.13\pm 0.06}10^{\lambda \chi }$$
(25)
This method of calculating $`_{}`$, rather than directly applying a relationship between $`_{}L_{bulge}`$, was used because Gebhardt et al. (2000) indicate that there is a tighter correlation between $`_{}\sigma `$ than between $`_{}L_{bulge}`$.

Using expression (24) for the number density, an expression for the total mass density of black holes may be obtained by integrating the function

$`\rho `$ $`={\displaystyle _{_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}}_{}\mathrm{\Theta }(_{})𝑑_{}`$ (26)
$`=h^2{\displaystyle _{_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}}\theta _{}\stackrel{~}{_{}}^\gamma e^{\stackrel{~}{_{}}^ϵ}𝑑_{}`$ (27)
from an assumed minimum black hole mass to an infinite black hole mass for each galaxy type, and then summing the results to obtain an estimate for the total mass density of black holes. The calculation was done adopting a minimum black hole mass limit of $`10^6M_{}`$, which results in a total mass density for all galaxy types of

$$\rho _{}=(4.8\pm 1.6)h^210^5M_{}Mpc^3$$
(28)
The results of this calculation are given in Table 2; along with the number density function fitting parameters for each galaxy type. The uncertainties and average values given for each of these parameters were derived using a Monte Carlo analysis, with the largest source of uncertainty stemming from the bulge-to-total galaxy luminosity ratios given in Table 1. Figures 1-4 show histograms of the resulting densities from the Monte Carlo calculation, which illustrate that the median value for the density tends to be slightly lower than the average value, but still well within the stated uncertainties of the density, with a relatively symmetric distribution of densities.

The calculation of the mass density was then redone using exactly the same method, but utilizing completely different galaxy luminosity functions obtained from Madgwick et al. (2002). In Madgwick et al. (2002) the galaxies were divided into subsets based on spectral type, $`\eta `$, rather than by Hubble T-type. The parameter $`\eta `$ is determined based on the absorption and emission line strengths in the galaxy spectrum. In order to apply the method developed in this paper, it was necessary to convert the spectral types into T-types so that the appropriate bulge-to-total luminosity conversions could be applied. This was done by utilizing the data given in Figure 4 of Madgwick et al. (2002) which showed the correlation between $`\eta `$ and morphological type, and assuming a relatively even distribution of $`\eta `$ over T-types. For the luminosity function designated as Type 1 ($`\eta <1.4`$), an assumption was made that galaxies were evenly divided between elliptical, S0, and Sa galaxies for the purposes of this calculation.

The resulting mass density obtained using the Madgwick et al. (2002) luminosity functions is

$$\rho _{}=(6.9\pm 1.4)h^210^5M_{}Mpc^3$$
(29)
with the results for the individual spectral types given in Table 3. This is slightly larger than the result obtained using the Marzke functions; however, it is strongly dependent on the assumptions made regarding the division into morphological type, particularly of the Madgwick et al. (2002) Type 1 galaxies. If is is assumed that all of the Type 1 galaxies are elliptical, the resulting mass density becomes $`(10.5\pm 2.0)h^210^5M_{}Mpc^3`$, if it is assumed that they are all S0 galaxies then the mass density becomes $`(6.0\pm 2.0)h^210^5M_{}Mpc^3`$, and if it is assumed that they are all Sa galaxies, then the mass density is calculated to be $`(4.0\pm 1.8)h^210^5M_{}Mpc^3`$. Considering the uncertainties in using the Madgwick et al. (2002) spectral type classifications for the purpose of applying a bulge-to-disk luminosity correction, these results are consistent with those obtained using Marzke et al. (1994). Also of importance is the fact that Madgwick et al. (2002) specifically take into account issues of Malmquist bias when determining their luminosity functions. Marzke et al. (1994) make no mention of this. Therefore, it appears that this possible omission will not have a significant impact on the final density of black holes.

## 4 Discussion

In Table 2, as expected, the ellipticals have the largest central black hole mass, $`_{}`$, values, while later-type galaxies have increasingly smaller $`_{}`$ values, corresponding to their smaller relative bulge sizes. Plots of the number function (Figure 5) and the mass function (Figure 6) illustrate that the contribution from the S0 galaxies dominates at low $`_{}`$, while the ellipticals dominate for high $`_{}`$ values. Overall, the strongest contribution to the total mass density is from S0 galaxies, with important contributions from the elliptical and Sa-Sb galaxies, but a small contribution from the Sc-Sd galaxies.

The total cosmic mass density of black holes of $`(4.8\pm 1.6)h^210^5M_{}Mpc^3`$ obtained from this calculation is relatively independent of several of the adopted parameters. As illustrated by Figure 7, decreasing the lower limit of integration in the calculation of the mass density does not significantly change the resulting mass density estimate. This is because the black holes located in small-bulge galaxies are, themselves, small, and there are not enough small-bulge galaxies to make up in number for this lack in mass. This is further illustrated by the flat slope in the plot of the mass function (Figure 6). Similarly, altering the value of $`\lambda `$, the power law index, in the relationship between the black hole mass, $`_{}`$, and the velocity dispersion, $`\sigma `$ (eqns 5 & 8), has a small effect on the final density. This is because most of the contribution is in the range of $`10^710^8M_{}`$ \- the same region in which the $`_{}`$ for this relation is located, and in which the relationship is determined best. A perturbation in the power law index for masses near this mass will have little effect on the final answer. Changing the zero-point, however, would have a roughly linear effect on the resulting mass density, although for the currently accepted relationships, the differences in the zero-point are small. Redoing the calculation using the best-estimate Merritt & Ferrarese (2001b) relation stating that

$$_{}=(1.48\pm 0.24)10^8\left(\frac{\sigma }{200}\right)^{(4.65\pm 0.48)}$$
(30)
instead of the Tremaine et al. (2002) relation (23), produces a result of $`(4.3\pm 1.6)h^210^5M_{}Mpc^3`$, which agrees well with our previous estimate. This estimate for the mass density also agrees, within the limits of the uncertainty, with that given in the Merritt & Ferrarese (2001b) paper of $`\rho _{}310^5M_{}Mpc^3`$.

The parameters with the most significant impact on the resulting density, other than the $`M\sigma `$ relationship from de Vaucouleurs & Olson (1982) and the Schechter functions from Marzke et al. (1994), are the assumptions about the morphological distributions of galaxies and the resulting bulge-to-disk luminosity corrections, adopted from Simien & de Vaucouleurs (1986). This is illustrated by the results obtained using the galaxy luminosity functions from Madgwick et al. (2002) instead of Marzke et al. (1994). By assigning a different morphological distribution to the Madgwick et al. (2002) Type 1 luminosity function galaxies, the resulting mass density varies by a factor of approximately 2.5. Given this uncertainty in the mass density resulting from the calculation using the Madgwick et al. (2002) data, we are more confident in our estimates derived from the Marzke et al. (1994) luminosity functions.

The Schechter function fits may be less applicable in the low-black-hole mass regime, particularly for $`_{}<10^6M_{}`$, and to a lesser degree for galaxies with $`_{}<10^7M_{}`$. While there is information on black holes down to $`10^6M_{}`$, in our own galaxy and M32, the Schechter function fits may not correctly apply to elliptical galaxies, may include two types of galaxies within one classification, or may mix exponential and de Vaucouleurs-law galaxies together. We assume that while the Schechter function fits for elliptical galaxies may be dominated by dE galaxies at low luminosities, the same $`_{}\sigma `$ relationship is still applicable; in our own galaxy and a small number of other galaxies with exponential profiles and measured black hole masses, this relationship appears to hold true.

It must be noted that the resulting mass density of black holes may be an underestimate due to a possible bias in the relationship between the black hole mass and the galaxy velocity dispersion (pointed out to us by Dr. Scott Tremaine). This bias relates to the fact that for any given velocity dispersion, there is a range of black hole masses, and this distribution may not be symmetrical about the ridgeline. We have investigated this possible bias by assuming a log-normal distribution of black hole masses, with a disperson of 0.15 in the log space, and recomputing the black hole mass density. This results in a mass density of $`\rho _{}=(5.0\pm 2.1)h^210^5M_{}Mpc^3`$, which is 4 % larger than our original estimate.

It is often useful to have a simple approximation available for crude calculations. While the number functions we have derived are not of the Schechter form, we can find approximating functions of the form

$$\frac{dN}{d_{}}=c\stackrel{~}{_{}}^\alpha e^\stackrel{~}{_{}}$$
(31)
For the number function based on the Marzke et al. (1994) data, the roll off at high mass is too gradual to be well-approximated by any function of the form (31). We illustrate a fair fit in Figure 8. This fit, which works best near $`_{}`$ $`10^8M_{}`$, where the information on the numbers of black holes is the most extensive, has the parameters (c, $`_{}`$, $`\alpha `$) $`=(1.310^{10}M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Mpc^3,7.910^7M_{},0.95)`$. We can find a better fit to the number function produced by the Madgwick et al. (2002) luminosity function. It is shown in Figure 9. The parameters for this fit are (c, $`_{}`$, $`\alpha `$) $`=(3.210^{11}M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Mpc^3,1.310^8M_{},1.25)`$.

The recent paper by Yu & Tremaine (2002) utilizes luminosity and velocity dispersion functions from early-type galaxies obtained as part of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to perform a similar calculation. They obtain a result of $`(2.5\pm 0.4)h_{0.65}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}10^5M_{}Mpc^3`$. If we take h=0.65 to compare our result to Yu & Tremaine (2002), we obtain $`\rho _{}=(2.0\pm 0.7)10^5M_{}Mpc^3`$, which is in reasonable agreement with their result, particularly when the possible 4 % bias is taken into account.

We acknowledge support for proposals 7388, 8591, 9106 and 9105, provided by NASA through grants from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-265555.


format: text

text:
# Fine ”mist” vs large droplets in phase separated manganites

## Abstract

The properties of phase-separated systems, e.g. manganites, close to a I order phase transition between charge-ordered insulator and ferromagnetic metal, are usually described by the percolation picture. We argue that the correlated occupation of metallic sites leads to the preferential formation of larger metallic clusters, which explains the often observed inverse, or “overshot” hysteresis in manganites (when the resistivity with increasing temperature is larger than with decreasing $`T`$). It also explains the recently discovered thermal cycling effect in manganites. Thus in treating this and similar systems in percolation picture, not only the total concentration of metallic phase, but also the distribution of metallic clusters by shape and size may significantly influence the properties of such systems.

PACS numbers: 71.10.w, 75.30.Kz

Phase separation seems to be the generic feature of doped strongly correlated systems such as manganites La$`{}_{1x}{}^{}M_{x}^{}`$MnO3 ($`M=\mathrm{Ca}`$, Sr). It is observed in many situations experimentally and is obtained in many theoretical models , both at low doping range ($`x<1`$) and close to a half-doped case ($`x0.5`$). Apparently one can speak of two different types of phase separation: microscopic phase separation, which is most often discussed by theoreticians and which is observed e.g. by the small-angle neutron scattering , and the large-scale, macroscopic phase separation. The later type is typically met close to a first-order phase transition and leads to a percolation-like behaviour of the system.

Two unusual effects were observed recently in studying the behaviour of certain manganites close to a I order insulator–metal transition — in (PrCa)MnO3 , Pr0.5Ca0.5(MnCr)O3  and in some others . In these systems there apparently occurs with decreasing temperature a transition from a charge-ordered (CO) insulator to a ferromagnetic metallic (FM) phase, accompanied by a sharp drop of resistivity. This drop has a large hysteresis. But with increasing temperature from the FM phase an inverse, or “overshot” hysteresis was observed in , schematically shown in fig. 1. The nature of this behaviour was not clarified; there were even suggestions  that there exist two different CO phases, one appearing with decreasing temperature, and another — when the temperature increases.

Another unusual phenomenon was found in one of these systems,Pr0.5Ca0.5(MnCr)O3 : when after the first decrease of the temperature it was increased and then the cycle was repeated, the resistivity, having the behaviour like the one shown in fig. 1, in each following cycle became higher and higher (if temperature was not increased beyond the shaded region of fig. 1). In some cases after several cycles the resistivity became insulating down to the lowest temperatures. Simultaneous magnetic measurements did not show any significant decrease of the total magnetization, i.e. the total fraction of the FM phase did not decrease strongly with such “training.”

We want to suggest here a simple explanation of these effects, introducing the notion generalizing the standard percolation picture. This idea was first put forth in 1999 ; closely related ideas were discussed recently in .

The main idea is the following. When there occurs a first order phase transition to a metallic phase with decreasing temperature, there appear FM droplets in a CO insulating matrix. With further decrease of temperature they grow and start to coalesce until a percolation limit is reached, after which the system behaves as a metallic one. During this process the metallic droplets are first formed close to some nucleation centres, so that there appear many very small droplets — like a fog on a cold evening. With further decrease of temperature these droplets grow, and, as is well known, bigger droplets grow faster, gradually “consuming” smaller ones. This is caused by the larger vapour pressure above droplets with smaller curvature , or, in other words, by the tendency to reduce total surface energy. Finally the FM phase occupies (almost) the whole sample, which occurs at low temperatures.

With the following increase of the temperature the FM phase gradually starts to “evaporate”, but this process is accompanied by hysteresis — resistivity is initially lower than at the first decrease of temperature. However after a percolation metallic cluster is broken, there may occur an inverse situation — inverse, or “overshot” hysteresis, at which the resistivity is higher than at the first downward run. This is a natural consequence of different distribution of FM clusters by size and shape during decreasing and increasing temperature: whereas in going from the CO insulator phase we create a lot of small FM clusters (fine “fog”), in the opposite process, when we increase temperature starting from the FM phase occupying large part of the sample (big FM “pools”) , these big droplets would survive even at high temperature. Thus at a given temperature (in the “shaded” region of fig. 1) the total volume of a FM phase may still be the same, but the distribution, the typical sizes of these FM clusters would be different: a lot of small droplets with decreasing $`T`$, and much smaller number of bigger droplets when we increase temperature from the FM phase. This would naturally lead to an increase of resistivity in a reverse run — an overshot hysteresis: not only would FM droplets be bigger, but also insulating regions between them would increase, which would lead to larger resistivity.

One can illustrate this conclusion on a simple picture shown in fig. 2, in which we substituted random distribution of FM and CO phases by a regular stripe-like structure. A fine “fog” (large number of small FM and CO regions), realized with the decreasing $`T`$, is modelled by the situation of fig. 2$`a`$, and a situation which should be realized with the temperature increase is illustrated in fig. 2$`b`$. One immediately sees that the resistivity in the first case is given by the expression

$$\rho _{1a}=\rho _0ne^{V/kT}$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the number of insulating barriers (white stripes in fig. 2$`a`$), and $`V`$ is the value of each of these barriers (which for simplicity we take equal).

On the other hand, in the case of fig. 2$`b`$, instead of having $`n`$ small barriers, we have smaller number — in a limiting case only one barrier, but with the width $`n`$ times bigger. As a result we would get the resistivity

$$\rho _{1b}=\rho _0e^{nV/kT}$$
(2)
— much larger than that given by Eq. (1).

Of course this model is strongly oversimplified, and in reality the difference between resistivities would be much smaller due to random distribution of different regions by size, shape and position; but the physics of “overshot hysteresis” may be explained by the picture described above. Thus when considering the percolation conductivity, we have to take into account not only the relative volume, occupied by one or another phase, but also the distribution of these phases by the size. This is usually not done in a standard treatment of percolation; but, as we argued above, this may be a very important factor .

We checked this picture by a computer simulation. We modelled the percolation in phase-separated manganites by first randomly putting the “metallic atoms” (black points) on a $`200\times 200`$ square lattice. The resulting distribution of metallic clusters for certain concentration $`n_0`$, smaller than the percolation threshold $`n_c0.59`$  (here for $`n_0=0.125`$) is shown in fig. $`3a`$. This distribution is on the average the same for increasing and for decreasing $`n`$.

To model the physical situation described above (the preferable formation of large clusters) the algorithm was modified in such a way that the probability of adding new metallic atom at a certain cite is larger when there are already occupied sites adjacent to it (i.e. the probability to occupy the site is the larger, the more neighbouring sites are occupied). The resulting structures are shown in fig. 3$`b`$, 3$`c`$. Fig. 3$`b`$ shows the distribution of occupied sites at $`n_0=0.125`$ reached by increasing occupation $`n`$ from zero with correlated occupation as explained above. Fig. 3$`c`$ shows the distribution at the same concentration $`n_0`$ as in fig. $`3b`$, but reached by first increasing $`n`$ from the situation of fig. 3$`b`$ to $`n0.75`$ (above percolation threshold) and then decreasing $`n`$ down to 0.125; in reducing $`n`$ we used the same algorithm as when increasing it, i.e. the probability to remove an atom from a given site is larger when there are fewer occupied sites nearby.

As we see by comparing fig. 3$`a`$ with 3$`b`$ and 3$`c`$, the resulting distribution of metallic sites at the same total concentration (here 0.125) depends on whether we have random or correlated percolation: the clusters are bigger for correlated occupation. But more interestingly, the resulting distribution also depends on history: in accordance with our general expectations, for correlated occupation we indeed obtain many small clusters with increasing $`n`$ (or decreasing temperature), fig. 3$`b`$, and smaller number of bigger clusters, with bigger insulating barriers between them, with decreasing $`n`$ (increasing temperature), fig. 3$`c`$.

We can also add yet another ingredient in our computer modelling, imitating annealing: after several steps of adding particles, we allowed for their redistribution, removing and adding particles in the same correlated fashion, but keeping their total number fixed. This leads to some “rounding off” of the clusters, whose boundaries become smoother, and this annealing somewhat enhances the tendency described above: that for correlated occupation we obtain, on the average, larger droplets, see fig. 3$`d`$, and they become even larger at the reverse process of decreasing $`n`$.

One also sees in these simulations that the percolation limit $`n_c`$ itself does not depend on whether we increase or decrease $`n`$, even for correlated occupation; but the value of $`n_c`$ seems to decrease somewhat, from $`0.593`$ for the usual percolation  to about $`0.576`$ for correlated occupation.

Thus our computer modelling confirms our general physical arguments and shows that in a more realistic picture of phase separation, which takes into account correlation in occupation of particles and which leads to the preferential formation of bigger clusters, the resulting picture depends on the history: we have many small clusters (fine “fog”) with increasing the fraction of metallic sites (decreasing temperature), and smaller number of bigger clusters with increasing $`T`$. As argued above, on the insulating side of the transition (below percolation threshold) this would lead to an increase of resistivity (inverse, or “overshot” hysteresis) which may explain the experimental observations of . Thus, the correlated occupation of sites makes the system “more insulating” on the insulating side of the percolation transition and “more metallic” on the metallic side (the sharpening of the transition on the metallic side was also seen in the calculations of Ref. ). The most interesting feature of this picture is the dependence of it on the thermal history, shown above.

The picture suggested above may also explain the “training” effect observed in . Indeed, one may expect that after the first cycle not all small droplets disappear. But with further cycling the larger and larger droplets will be formed, eventually with larger insulating barriers between them, which can lead to the behaviour observed in . The requirement is that the upper temperature during cycling should fall within the “shaded” region of fig. 1$`a`$ (and should not exceed it) so that the large droplets, which would serve as condensation centres during the next cycle, should not disappear.

Our computer modelling also confirms these qualitative considerations. In fig. 4$`a`$$`d`$ we show typical results of the distribution of FM (black) regions obtained after cycling. The procedure was first to increase $`n`$ from 0 to certain $`n_0<n_c`$ (here again $`n_0=0.125`$), and then cycling $`n`$ several times between $`n_0`$ and $`n0.75`$. All the time we used the same algorithm as before (probability of adding and removing particles depending on the number of occupied neighbours). We see that, indeed, with increasing number of cycles the number of FM droplets for the same $`n_0`$ decreases, and their size and distance between them increase, which, according to the arguments leading to Eqs. (1)–(2), gives an increase of resistivity with “training”, even for the same concentration of the FM phase. This can explain the experimental results of Mahendiran et al.  (similar behaviour is also seen in the data of ).

Summarizing, we proposed that the properties of inhomogeneous systems like some manganites close to an insulator–metal transition may be explained if we add to the conventional percolation picture another ingredient — that not only the net concentration of metallic phase, but also the distribution of these metallic inclusions by size and shape may be different, which may strongly influence the properties. We argue that the metallic droplets formed with decreasing temperature take the form of a fine “fog” — a lot of small droplets formed at many different nucleation centres, whereas with increasing temperature, going from the metallic state, predominantly large metallic droplets survive. The picture we propose seems to be quite natural and agrees with what we know from other fields of physics and even from our everyday experience; it is also confirmed by our computer modelling. It can explain the “inverse hysteresis” and the change of properties during thermal cycling, observed in some manganites in the inhomogeneous phase close to an insulator–metal transition.

The general conclusion is that when treating the properties of inhomogeneous systems in percolation picture, not only the total fraction of one or another phase, but also distribution of these phases by size and shape may be crucial. It would be very interesting to verify the proposed picture experimentally, e.g. by small angle neutron scattering or by light scattering in manganites during thermal cycling.

We are grateful to E. Dagotto and M. Mostovoy for useful discussions and to Th. Lorenz and R. Mahendiran for informing us of their experimental results. This work was supported by the Netherlands Foundation for the Fundamental Study of Matter (FOM).


text:
# The impact of galaxy formation on X-ray groups

## 1 Introduction

Groups 111We use the term “groups” to mean systems with X-ray temperatures of order 1 keV or lower are the most common agglomerates of galaxies in the low-redshift universe and also harbour the majority of currently detected baryons (Fukugita, Hogan & Peebles 1998), observed because of their emission of soft X-rays ($`kT`$ 0.1-1 keV). The simplest explanation for the properties of this gas is that it was shock-heated during the gravitational collapse and virialization of the system. For self-similar ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$) systems, this leads to a simple scaling between X-ray luminosity and temperature, $`L_\mathrm{x}T^{3/2}(1+z)^{3/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$ denotes the cooling rate of the gas.

In the largest clusters, the virial temperature is sufficiently high that the gas predominantly emits bremsstrahlung radiation, leading to the scaling $`L_\mathrm{x}T^2`$ (Kaiser 1986). This result was recently vindicated by Allen, Schmidt & Fabian (2002) using high-quality Chandra data. In smaller systems, the increasing importance of line emission boosts the luminosity and so should flatten the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation. Observationally the converse is true, with the slope of the relation for low-mass groups being as high as $`6`$ (e.g. see Xue & Wu 2000 for a recent compilation). This result is also reflected in the low amplitude of the soft X-ray background, around an order of magnitude lower than predicted from gravitational heating models (e.g. Pen 1999; Bryan & Voit 2001; Wu, Fabian & Nulsen 2001).

Evrard & Henry (1991; see also Kaiser 1991; Bower 1997; Voit et al. 2002) argued that the deficit in luminosity is due to additional physical processes raising the entropy of the gas. (Entropy is invariant under adiabatic processes, making it a useful variable for characterizing the effects of cooling and heating on the gas distribution.) Gravitational heating leads to the mean entropy of a self-similar system scaling as $`sT/(1+z)^2`$ 222We use the term entropy to mean $`s=T/\rho ^{\gamma 1}`$, and assume $`\gamma =5/3`$, for a monatomic ideal gas. Increasing the entropy of the gas corresponds to a hotter but less-concentrated distribution. Consequently, for a given increase in entropy, the X-ray emissivity is lowered preferentially in low-mass systems, steepening the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation. Ponman, Cannon & Navarro (1999) measured the entropy of groups and clusters at 10 per cent of their virial radii, and showed that low-mass clusters and groups deviated from the self-similar prediction, tending to a constant value of $`100h^{1/3}`$ keV cm2 (albeit with very large scatter).

The precise origin of the excess entropy is still unclear, but is most probably a direct consequence of the galaxy formation process (Evrard & Henry 1991). For example, galactic winds from supernovae explosions and/or active galactic nuclei (AGN) could heat the gas, raise its entropy, and allow it to convect out to lower density environments. Winds have already been observed in low-redshift starburst (e.g. Heckman 2000) and high-redshift Lyman Break (e.g. Pettini et al. 2001) galaxies, and the presence of metal-enriched gas in low-density regions suggests galactic material has been expelled from haloes (e.g. Schaye et al. 2000). Note that in hierarchical models, at least some heating (feedback) is required in order to regulate the star formation rate (e.g. White & Rees 1978; Balogh et al. 2001).

The amount of energy required to generate excess entropy depends on environment. If the gas was close to mean density when heated (the pre-heating scenario) only $`0.3`$keV of energy per particle is required (Lloyd-Davies, Ponman & Cannon 2000). More realistically, if the heating occurred in high-density regions, as much as 1-3 keV per particle is required (e.g. Wu, Fabian & Nulsen 2000; Kravtsov & Yepes 2000; Bower et al. 2001; Borgani et al. 2002). Note, however that the total energy production is smaller in the latter case as only gas in the cores of haloes need be heated.

Excess entropy is also generated by the process of star/black-hole formation itself, removing cold, low-entropy material and causing higher-entropy material to flow in to replace it (Knight & Ponman 1997). Models using only radiative cooling to generate the excess entropy have been implemented by a number of authors, and have proved successful in reproducing a number of X-ray scaling relations (e.g. Pearce et al. 2000; Bryan 2000; Voit & Bryan 2001; Muanwong et al. 2001,2002; Wu and Xue 2002a,2002b; Davé et al. 2002). Voit & Bryan (2001) demonstrated that the entropy–temperature locus of gas with a range of temperatures and densities set by equating their cooling times to the age of the universe, closely matches the relation observed by Ponman et al. (1999). Voit & Bryan further argued for the presence of an entropy floor by asserting that cooled gas will either form stars or be heated (by stars or AGN) and move to a higher adiabat.

The aim of this paper is to investigate how galaxies which form in a cosmological simulation impact upon the X-ray properties of groups. This treatment allows us to incorporate cooling and heating processes in a self-consistent manner. Specifically, we include the effects of both radiative cooling/star formation and feedback of energy from supernovae in our simulations, but neglect an AGN component (although in broad terms, the effects of including AGN may largely mimic the desired effects of supernovae, since both are ultimately powered by cooling gas). Motivated by the observed “break” in the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation at the interface between groups and clusters ($`kT12`$keV), our feedback model is fundamentally based on the assumption that cold gas is reheated to a fixed temperature and the mass ratio of reheated gas to stars is determined by the overall energy budget. As we shall see, our model is able to reproduce the required entropy excess, provided that the heating temperature is sufficiently high to allow the majority of reheated gas to escape from haloes, while varying the energy budget primarily controls the fraction of baryons in stars.

We organize the remainder of this paper as follows. In Section 2 we outline our method, giving details of the simulations as well as our approach to cooling, star formation and feedback. Section 3 presents the predicted X-ray group scaling relations for our fiducial simulation at $`z=0`$. In Section 4 we investigate our feedback model in more detail, concentrating on the effects of varying parameters. In Section 5, we perform a limited study of numerical resolution effects and summarize our conclusions in Section 6.

## 2 Simulation details

### 2.1 Overview

Results are presented for the currently-favoured $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, setting the density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.35`$, Hubble constant, $`h=H_0/100\text{kms}^1\text{Mpc}^1=0.71`$, cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H_0^2=0.65`$, baryon density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.038`$, and power spectrum normalisation, $`\sigma _8=0.7`$. The latter value, recently measured from both cluster abundances (e.g. Seljak 2002) and galaxy clustering (Lahav et al. 2002), is around 20 per cent lower than previous determinations which deduced $`\sigma _80.9`$ (although, weak lensing statistics still prefer the higher value; see e.g. Refregier et al. 2002). We find that increasing $`\sigma _8`$ from 0.7 to 0.9 has only a small effect on the results presented in this paper, but the lower value gives us a numerical advantage, requiring fewer timesteps to evolve to $`z=0`$.

Simulation data were generated using a parallel (OpenMP) version of the hydra code (Couchman, Thomas & Pearce 1995; Theuns et al. 1998), a combination of the AP3M algorithm (Couchman 1991) to compute gravitational forces and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH; see Monaghan 1992) to calculate gas forces. For the gas, neighbour lists were computed using the recursive binning technique described in Theuns et al. (1998), allowing the density to be estimated for gas particles in low-density regions. SPH forces were calculated using an artificial viscosity based on pairwise particle separations (Monaghan 1992) rather than the local velocity divergence. Our SPH implementation now also includes the force-correction terms suggested by Springel & Hernquist (2002), resulting in improved entropy conservation.

Initial conditions were generated using the cosmic package supplied with the publicly available version of hydra. We made a small modification to cosmic so that the large-scale structure is preserved when increasing the numerical resolution. For our main results, we adopted a comoving box-size of $`50h^1\text{Mpc}`$, populated with a perturbed grid of 2,097,152 ($`128^3`$) dark matter and gas particles each. (Note that the box-size is big enough to give statistically meaningful results; Bryan & Voit 2001.) These choices set our gas and dark matter particle masses to $`m_{\mathrm{gas}}=6.3\times 10^8h^1\text{M}_{}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{dark}}=5.2\times 10^9h^1\text{M}_{}`$ respectively. We have chosen this resolution so not to expect significant heating of the gas due to two-body encounters with the dark matter particles (Steinmetz & White 1997). Gravitational forces were softened on short scales using a spline kernel with an equivalent Plummer softening length of $`ϵ_\mathrm{p}ϵ_\mathrm{s}/2.34=10h^1\text{kpc}`$. Gas forces were also limited by fixing the minimum SPH smoothing radius to the gravitational softening $`2h_{\mathrm{min}}=ϵ_\mathrm{s}`$.

All but the smallest runs were performed on the UK Cosmology Consortium COSMOS Origin 3800 supercomputer in Cambridge, using between 10 and 20 processors. Simulations were started at $`z=49`$ and evolved to $`z=0`$, typically taking between 2000 and 4500 steps, depending on the choice of resolution and feedback model.

### 2.2 Radiative cooling and star formation

Radiative cooling was implemented following the method of Thomas & Couchman (1992), using tabulated cooling rates given by Sutherland & Dopita (1993). For the present paper, we adopt a global metallicity scaling law, $`Z=0.3(t/t_0)Z_{}`$, to approximate the gradual enrichment of the intergalactic medium. In principle, we could model metal enrichment self-consistently, since it is a by-product of the supernovae explosions. (We have already done this to study the impact of dwarf galaxies on the high-redshift intergalactic medium; Theuns et al. 2002.) In order to simplify matters however, we have decided to leave such a study to a subsequent paper.

We follow the star formation prescription used by Kay et al.(2002, hereafter K2002), converting gas with $`\delta >5000`$ and $`T<50,000`$K into stars at the end of each timestep. This density threshold is low compared to measured empirical density thresholds in galaxies (e.g. Kennicutt 1998) but is close to our resolved density maximum. Increasing the density threshold above the resolution threshold induces a delay to the star formation, increasing the gas to stars ratio within each galaxy (K2002).

Subsequent to the star formation routine, we identify groups of 10 stars within the current gravitational softening length and merge them into a single galaxy fragment. These fragments are comparable in mass to the dark matter particles and the reduction in the number of particles provides a modest decrease in the CPU time per step.

### 2.3 Feedback

The essence of any feedback model is to create a diffuse hot phase which powers a wind, providing a mechanism to transport gas away from star forming regions. However, explicitly modelling a multi-phase medium in a cosmological simulation is impossible because of its limited resolution. This problem has prompted two approaches to implementing feedback within such simulations.

One method is to assume that each resolution element (in the case of SPH, a single gas particle) is representative of a multi-phase medium (cold and hot gas and stars), and to solve explicitly for the flux of material between each phase, using a set of physical arguments as laid out by McKee & Ostriker (1977). This approach has been implemented and proved effective by various authors, using both grid-based codes (e.g. Yepes et al. 1997) and SPH (e.g. Hultman & Pharasyn 1999; Springel & Hernquist 2003). The main advantage of this method is that it does not depend explicitly on numerical resolution, and so should be less sensitive to discreteness effects. On the other hand, the phases cannot move independently (although see Springel & Hernquist 2003).

An alternative approach, which we take here, is to allow each particle to represent only one phase and use a set of simple rules to overcome any associated discreteness problems. This has the advantage of being much simpler to implement than the previous method and allows each phase to move freely. K2002 reviewed a number of feedback models within this context; in this paper, we consider an improved version of the thermal feedback approach studied by K2002 and outline details of this method below.

#### 2.3.1 Feedback energetics

The amount of energy available from each star particle at time, $`t`$, to heat the gas over a timestep, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, is

$$E_{\mathrm{SN}}=10^{51}ϵ\left(\frac{m_{}}{M_{}}\right)_{tt_0}^{t+\mathrm{\Delta }tt_0}\left[r_{\mathrm{Ia}}(\tau )/2+r_{\mathrm{II}}(\tau )\right]𝑑\tau \mathrm{erg},$$
(1)
where $`m_{}`$ is the mass of a star particle, $`t_0`$ is the star formation time and $`r_{\mathrm{Ia}}`$ & $`r_{\mathrm{II}}`$ are the rates of Type Ia and Type II supernovae (SNe) per solar mass of stars formed. (We assume each Type Ia supernova contributes half the energy of a Type II supernova.)

Lia et al. (2002) tabulated $`r(\tau )`$ for various initial mass functions (IMF), using the Padova stellar evolutionary tracks (Portinari et al. 1998). We adopt the Lia et al. rates for a Salpeter IMF (given in their Table 2) and illustrate integrated versions in Fig. 1. The contribution from Type II SNe rises dramatically after approximately 3 million years, lasting for around 70 million years. Type Ia SNe start contributing later, at around 100 million years, but are still going off after 10 billion years. The total number of Type II SNe is around an order of magnitude higher than the number of Type Ia SNe, and so provides the dominant source of feedback of energy to the interstellar medium.

The parameter $`ϵ`$ modulates the overall energy available from the SNe, which we term the feedback efficiency. Thornton et al. (1998) suggested that the maximal value ($`ϵ=1`$) may be at least a factor of 5 too high once radiative losses are accounted for. As we shall see in Section 4, our model does not necessarily require a high value of $`ϵ`$ to generate the required excess entropy; varying this parameter primarily alters the fraction of baryons in galaxies.

#### 2.3.2 Feedback implementation

The thermal feedback model studied by K2002 is effective in reducing the masses/luminosities of galaxies but fails to reproduce the X-ray scaling relations of groups. In their model, each star particle distributes the energy available at each timestep (equation 1) over the surrounding gas. For equal mass particles, the maximum amount of energy a gas particle can receive from a single star particle is enough to heat it by $`2`$keV (for $`ϵ=1`$). In practice, gas particles escape before receiving this amount of energy and the result is an average heating temperature around an order of magnitude lower. Much of this gas then fails to escape from group and cluster-sized haloes with comparable or higher virial temperatures, and instead re-cools, boosting their X-ray luminosities (we will demonstrate this effect in Section 4).

We have devised an alternative method with the clear intention of heating the gas to a higher temperature without necessarily increasing the available energy. In the context of X-ray scaling relations, our new model is motivated by the presence of a “break” in the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation at $`kT_\mathrm{x}12`$keV; such a feature may be an imprint of a temperature scale introduced by the heating mechanism. We base the model on the physical assumption that as more and more supernovae go off, it is not the temperature of the gas that is progressively increased (as in the previous method), but the mass fraction of material converted from the cold phase to the hot phase. To implement such a model, we equate the available energy from a mass of newly formed stars, $`m_{}`$ to the energy required to raise the temperature of a mass of cold gas, $`\delta m_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ by a fixed amount, $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$

$$\delta m_{\mathrm{gas}}(3kT_{\mathrm{SN}}/2\mu m_\mathrm{H})=E_{\mathrm{SN}},$$
(2)
where $`E_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is given in equation 1 and we set $`\mu m_\mathrm{H}=10^{24}`$g, the mean molecular weight of a gas with $`Y=0.24,Z=0`$. In practice, $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is much greater than the temperature of the cold gas ($`10^4`$K) so the heating introduces a temperature scale to the hot gas.

Assuming now that $`m_{}`$ is the mass of a star particle, the fractional mass of a gas particle capable of being heated to $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is

$$f_{\mathrm{heat}}=\frac{\delta m_{\mathrm{gas}}}{m_{\mathrm{gas}}}=0.209ϵ\left(\frac{R(tt_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{0.001}\right)\left(\frac{kT_{\mathrm{SN}}}{\mathrm{keV}}\right)^1,$$
(3)
using the fact that $`m_{}=m_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ in our method and $`R(tt_0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ is the integral on the right hand side of equation 1. (For a typical timestep, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t5\times 10^6`$yr, $`R0.001`$.) Note that in K2002’s model, $`f_{\mathrm{heat}}=1`$ and $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is calculated, the opposite of our model. For every star particle, we calculate the radius which encloses 32 gas particles, and (since generally $`f_{\mathrm{heat}}<1`$ 333Exceptions to this rule can occur if $`ϵ/kT_{\mathrm{SN}}>5`$; this is true for only one model considered in this paper, where $`ϵ=1`$ & $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}=0.1`$keV. As we shall see however, this particular model fails because $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is too low, not because less gas is reheated. ) apply equation 3 to the first gas particle within this radius with $`T<50,000`$K. Since each gas particle represents only one phase in our simulations, we can only heat the whole particle to a temperature $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ or not heat it at all. To mimic the effect of heating a fraction of the gas, we draw a random number for each particle, $`0r1`$, and heat it to $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ if $`f_{\mathrm{heat}}<r`$.

For our fiducial model, for which we present results in the next section, we set $`ϵ=2`$ & $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}=2`$keV, twice the maximum available energy from standard supernovae calculations, but in reasonable agreement with that suggested in previous studies (e.g. Kravtsov & Yepes 2000; Wu, Fabian & Nulsen 2001; Bower et al. 2001; Borgani et al. 2002). As we will show, this model predicts X-ray properties of groups in good agreement with the data. We will demonstrate in Section 4 however, that a good match to the scaling relations is reasonably insensitive to this choice of $`ϵ`$, but does require the heating temperature to be sufficiently high in order for gas to escape from the gravitational potential of the halo. The fiducial temperature, which is significantly larger than typically found when using K2002’s model, also alleviates the need for preventing gas from cooling radiatively over a fixed period of time (as implemented by K2002), because cooling gas only starts to become thermally unstable at lower temperatures ($`kT0.21`$keV for $`Z=00.3Z_{}`$).

## 3 X-ray properties of groups in the fiducial model

We begin by demonstrating that our fiducial feedback model provides an adequate match to current observational data at $`z=0`$, given the level of uncertainty in these measurements.

Our group catalogues are constructed using the procedure outlined by Muanwong et al. (2002, hereafter M2002), where full details may be found. To summarize, spheres of baryon and dark matter particles are located with constant mean internal overdensity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, relative to the comoving critical density. For our chosen cosmology, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=111`$ is approximately the predicted value by the spherical top-hat collapse model for a virialized sphere (Eke, Navarro & Frenk 1998). Unless specified, we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=200`$ for our main results but note that the X-ray properties are insensitive to using $`\mathrm{\Delta }=200`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }=111`$. Only objects containing at least 500 baryon plus 500 dark matter particles are retained, setting a minimum halo mass of $`2.9\times 10^{12}h^1`$M. At $`z=0`$, our fiducial catalogue contains 172 objects.

Once the catalogues were generated, it was found that a small fraction ($`5`$ per cent) of groups have X-ray temperatures very much in excess of the average for their mass (i.e. there are hot outliers on the temperature-mass relation). On inspection, these objects are infalling sub-clumps on the outskirts of larger groups, but have hot gas which has been shocked to the temperature of the more massive object. We choose to eliminate these objects by setting the requirement that each group in the catalogue has an X-ray temperature less than twice the mean value for its mass.

### 3.1 Entropy

The effect of the removal of hot gas from a halo on its X-ray properties can best be characterized by the change in entropy of the gas. As the hot gas is depleted, higher entropy material flows inwards and is adiabatically heated (i.e. it develops a hotter, less concentrated distribution) in order to maintain gravitational support. This leads to a rise in the X-ray temperature of the gas but a decrease in its X-ray luminosity (Knight & Ponman 1997; Pearce et al. 2000). Ponman et al. (1999) demonstrated that lower temperature objects have shallower surface brightness profiles and consequently larger excess entropies, relative to the expected self-similar relation for a model neglecting galaxy formation (we refer to this as a Non-radiative model).

Following Ponman et al., we measure the entropy of each object at 0.1$`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ as a function of X-ray temperature. The latter is evaluated within a soft–band of energy range 0.3-1.5 keV

$$T_\mathrm{x}=\frac{\underset{i}{}m_i\rho _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{soft}}(T_i,Z)T_i}{_im_i\rho _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{soft}}(T_i,Z)},$$
(4)
where the sum is performed over all hot gas particles ($`T>10^5`$K) within the virial radius of the group, each with mass, $`m_i`$, density, $`\rho _i`$ and temperature, $`T_i`$. The soft-band cooling function, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ is calculated using the Raymond & Smith (1977) models. We then estimate the entropy of each group

$$s_\mathrm{x}=kT_\mathrm{x}/n_\mathrm{e}^{2/3},$$
(5)
where

$$n_\mathrm{e}=\frac{\eta }{m_\mathrm{H}}\frac{3M}{4\pi r^2\delta r}$$
(6)
is the electron density, averaged over all hot gas particles (of total mass, $`M`$) within a shell of width, $`\delta r=0.1r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, centered on $`r=0.1r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. Only groups containing 10 or more particles within this region are plotted. We set the number of electrons per baryon, $`\eta =0.88`$, appropriate for a primordial gas ($`Y=0.24,Z=0`$) although insensitive to the assumed range of $`Z`$.

Fig. 2 shows the simulated entropy–temperature relation (stars), as well as groups/clusters from the Radiative simulation studied by M2002 (diamonds). Our fiducial model agrees well with M2002’s result where the two samples overlap, as well as with the general trend observed by Ponman et al. (solid curve), clearly demonstrating an entropy in excess of the self-similar prediction ($`s_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$, dashed line). The increasing impact of the galaxies with decreasing halo mass leads to an increase in the excess entropy, consistent with the expectation of an entropy floor at $`s_\mathrm{x}100h^{1/3}`$ keV cm2.

### 3.2 X-ray temperature

Increasing the entropy of the gas leads to a higher X-ray temperature at fixed mass, resulting in an increase in the normalisation of the temperature–mass relation (e.g. Muanwong et al. 2001; Thomas et al. 2002). We plot the fiducial temperature–mass relation in Fig. 3 (stars), with the solid line representing a least–squares fit to the data. The square points show the result of excluding emission from within the cooling radius444The cooling radius is defined as that which encloses hot gas with an average cooling time equal to 6 billion years of each object. This has the effect of slightly increasing the temperatures of some of the larger objects, without significantly affecting the slope or normalisation of the relation.

The result is in reasonable agreement with the Radiative model studied by M2002 (diamonds), but predicts a flatter relation ($`T_\mathrm{x}M_{200}^{0.5}`$ as opposed to $`T_\mathrm{x}M_{200}^{0.6}`$). Lower-mass groups have X-ray temperatures in excess of their virial temperatures ($`T_{\mathrm{vir}}M_{200}^{2/3}`$, dotted line), as expected from the increase in entropy of these systems. In the highest mass group, the presence of cooler reheated gas within the virial radius biases its X-ray temperature lower than the virial temperature. It is possible that a good fit to higher-mass systems will require an even higher heating temperature than employed here.

The dashed and dot–dashed lines in Fig. 3 represent power-law fits to the observed temperature–mass relation for clusters, compiled by Xu, Jin & Wu (2001), using NFW and $`\beta `$ model surface brightness profiles respectively. Both fits are offset from the simulated relation by up to 40 per cent. A likely reason for this offset is that the masses are underestimated when extrapolating X-ray surface brightness profiles to the virial radius. M2002 demonstrated that by estimating cluster masses this way (assuming a relation between the observable extent of an object and its true size) the resulting temperature–mass relation was in much closer agreement with the observations. This conclusion was strengthened when the same dataset was shown to be in good agreement with the temperature–mass relation for a sample of high-resolution clusters observed with the Chandra satellite (Allen et al. 2001), for masses measured within a density contrast of 2500 (Thomas et al. 2002).

For groups, the problem of estimating masses from the X-ray data is exacerbated by their lower surface brightness, and so galaxy velocity dispersion is commonly used as an independent measure of the dynamical size of the halo from its temperature. We plot the relation between X-ray temperature and dark matter velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{DM}}`$, for our fiducial model in Fig. 4. (Numerical resolution limits the number of galaxies per halo to a few in most cases, preventing us from reliably estimating the galaxy velocity dispersion. Previous simulations have shown that the galaxies trace the potential reasonably well, see e.g. Springel et al. 2001; Davé et al. 2002.)

The dot-dashed line shows the expected relation if the gas contained the same specific energy as the dark matter, i.e. $`T_\mathrm{x}\sigma _{\mathrm{DM}}^2`$. Again, the larger X-ray temperatures of the smaller groups flattens this relation, resulting in $`T_\mathrm{x}\sigma _{\mathrm{DM}}^{1.5}`$ (solid line). To quantify this effect, we plot the ratio of specific energies between the hot gas and the dark matter

$$\beta _{\mathrm{spec}}=\frac{\mu m_\mathrm{H}\sigma _{\mathrm{DM}}^2}{kT_\mathrm{x}},$$
(7)
in Fig. 5. The smaller objects contain, on average, X-ray luminous gas that is nearly twice as hot as the dark matter. For the higher-mass objects ($`kT_{\mathrm{vir}}>1`$keV) however, the two components are approximately at the same temperature.

Also plotted in Fig 4 are the best-fits to the group data presented in Helsdon & Ponman (2000; dotted line), and the group and cluster data compiled by Xue & Wu (2000; dashed lines). The Helsdon & Ponman relation is much flatter than the Xue & Wu line, due to their sample containing several low–temperature groups with low velocity dispersions. Removing these outliers from the sample would result in closer agreement with Xue & Wu’s relation. Our simulated relation reproduces Xue & Wu’s observational determination, $`T_\mathrm{x}\sigma _{\mathrm{gal}}^{1.56}`$, reasonably well.

### 3.3 X-ray luminosity

The increase in entropy decreases the X-ray luminosity of groups. Since this has a bigger effect on less massive objects, it leads to a steepening of the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{x}\sigma `$ relations, which we will quantify here.

As in M2002 we estimate bolometric X-ray luminosity by applying a correction to the soft–band emissivity

$$L_\mathrm{x}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{bol}}(T_\mathrm{x})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{soft}}(T_\mathrm{x})}\underset{i}{}\frac{m_i\rho _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{soft}}(T_i,Z)}{(\mu m_\mathrm{H})^2},$$
(8)
where $`T_\mathrm{x}`$ is calculated using equation 4, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ is the bolometric cooling function used in the simulations (see Section 2).

Figs. 6 & 7 illustrate the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{x}\sigma `$ relations respectively, for the fiducial simulation. Again, the model agrees reasonably well with both M2002’s result and the observed relations, given the uncertainty in the latter. Furthermore, increasing the resolution of the smaller objects (which are less well-resolved than the larger groups) increases their temperature, which will bring the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation into better agreement with the observed relation (see Section 5). Note that the “break” in the relation at around 1 keV is more prominent in the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation than in the $`L_\mathrm{x}\sigma `$ relation, due to the additional effect of entropy increase on temperature, causing the relation to steepen further.

### 3.4 Baryon fractions

Although cooling and heating (feedback) are both mechanisms for increasing the core entropy of groups, they have opposing effects on the stellar baryon fraction. Cooling acts to increase and feedback decrease galaxy masses, hence matching the observed value requires a balance between the two processes. Cooling and feedback can also have different effects on the hot gas fractions. Although cooling reduces the hot gas content, feedback can cause an increase (reheated gas that has not moved beyond the virial radius) or a decrease (transfer of energy between outflows and hot halo gas increases the fraction expelled from the halo).

In Fig. 8 we plot mass fractions of baryons, in units of the global value ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$), against the virial temperature of each halo for the fiducial model (filled symbols) and M2002’s Radiative simulation (open symbols). The total baryon fractions are plotted in panel (a). Both models appear to be converging towards a value close to unity at high virial temperatures, but the baryon fractions decrease much more rapidly at lower temperatures when feedback is included. The difference between baryon fractions reflects the total amount of gas expelled from the halo by feedback.

The baryon fractions are split into hot gas ($`T>10^5`$K, diamonds) and cold gas + star (triangles) fractions in panel (b). The same trend is present between the two models for the cooled baryon fractions (since galaxy formation efficiency is higher in smaller objects, where average cooling times are shorter), but the values at a given temperature are different. The cooled fraction is twice as high in the M2002 objects, and could be higher: the absence of feedback in this simulation means that only numerical resolution limited these values. Feedback also steepens the relation between the hot gas fraction and virial temperature. As we discuss in Section 4, objects with virial temperatures above the feedback temperature, $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, retain a fraction of reheated gas which slightly increases their hot gas fraction. In smaller systems however, feedback has a larger impact on the hot gas, expelling a significant fraction from the halo.

The shaded region in Fig. 8 represents measured global cooled gas fractions (the global value is the asymptotic limit for large halo mass), combining the stellar fractions measured by Cole et al. using data from the 2MASS and 2dF galaxy surveys, with a further 10 per cent of the mass in cold gas (Balogh et al. 2001). The upper horizontal line represents the value determined when using the Salpeter IMF (as used in our feedback model) and the lower for the Kennicutt IMF. Globally, only just over 3 per cent of the gas forms stars in the fiducial model by $`z=0`$, lower than the observed value by a factor of $`3`$. Increasing the resolution does not significantly increase the cooled fraction (Section 5) because feedback acts to stabilize this quantity and our simulation has already resolved the majority of the galaxy mass density. As we discuss in the next section however, a higher cooled fraction can be achieved by choosing a lower $`ϵ`$ which does not significantly affect the scaling relations. Additionally, increasing the metallicity of cooling gas will increase the fraction of baryons in stars. The metallicity of high-density regions has been underestimated in our simulation since stars in galaxies at the present day have been enriched to solar abundance (Edmunds & Phillips 1997), whereas ours have $`Z=0.3Z_{}`$. A higher metallicity will increase the fraction of stars in a given galaxy.

Measuring cooled fractions in groups and clusters is difficult, mainly due to the lack of sensitivity in the X-ray instruments to measure hot gas masses out to the virial radius. Current attempts, however (see for example the compilation of data by Balogh et al.), measure values between 10-20 per cent at 1 keV. These values are marginally consistent with our fiducial result but again, a lower $`ϵ`$ and/or higher metallicity would improve the match.

## 4 A closer look at the model

Given the ability of our fiducial model to adequately reproduce many of the key X-ray observations of groups, we now investigate how these results depend on the strength of the feedback. To facilitate this task we have run a set of smaller simulations (Table 1) with $`N=2\times 64^3`$ particles within a comoving box of length $`25h^1\text{Mpc}`$, thus keeping the resolution constant.

After generating group catalogues for each simulation, we also compare the properties of the haloes in two models on an object-by-object basis. To do this we first found the closest pair, then rejected those which had masses differing by more than 15 per cent or separations greater than 20 per cent of the average virial radius. These criteria find a good match for the majority of the haloes in the two catalogues.

### 4.1 Cooling versus heating

The first comparison we make is between the fiducial model (which has strong feedback) and a run with no feedback at all (radiative model). This allows us to quantify the relative effects of heating and cooling on the X-ray properties of the groups. In particular, we are interested in knowing if the model behaves like that proposed by Voit & Bryan (2001), i.e. cooling generates the entropy excess by removing hot gas, which then either forms stars or is reheated and transported to larger radii. If the fiducial model does behave in this way, we expect the feedback only to reduce the fraction of galactic material, leaving the hot gas fraction (and hence X-ray properties) intact.

Indeed, the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation for the radiative simulation is similar to the fiducial feedback relation, but the former is flatter. This effect is quantified in Fig. 9, where we plot the fractional difference in X-ray temperature (stars) and luminosity (squares) between matched haloes in the two runs against their average virial temperature. These differences are defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{x}/T_\mathrm{x}=1T_\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{feedback})/T_\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{radiative}),$$
(9)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_\mathrm{x}/L_\mathrm{x}=1L_\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{feedback})/L_\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{radiative}).$$
(10)
There is no strong variation in the difference between X-ray temperatures with system size, although there is a correlation in the X-ray luminosity difference. For $`kT_{\mathrm{vir}}0.1`$keV the objects in the radiative simulation are nearly twice as luminous as those in the feedback run, but the opposite is the case for systems which are a factor of 10 hotter. (Note that because of the small size of the simulations, there is only one halo with $`kT_{\mathrm{vir}}>1`$keV.)

On closer inspection, the trend in luminosity difference is down to two effects caused by feedback. The first, which particularly affects low-mass systems, is a reduction in the mass of hot gas in groups in the feedback simulation which was inside the virial radius in the radiative simulation. This can be attributed to the increase in pressure from the outflowing reheated material. Secondly, part of the reheated gas, which formed stars in the radiative simulation, is still within the virial radius in the feedback simulation. As the gravitational energy of the halo becomes comparable to that given to reheated gas (i.e. $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$), the second effect dominates over the first, eventually causing the feedback to increase the X-ray luminosity of a group.

To summarize, we find that our model does behave like that proposed by Voit & Bryan (2001) if $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. If $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ then feedback also removes hot halo gas (in addition to expelling reheated material) and so reduces the group’s X-ray luminosity further. Conversely, if $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, some reheated gas does not gain enough entropy to escape and so boosts the group’s X-ray luminosity.

### 4.2 Varying the model parameters

We now investigate the effects of varying the feedback model parameters, $`ϵ`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ on the X-ray properties of groups. Given the simplicity of the model, and the results from the previous comparison with a radiative simulation, we should be able to predict how varying the parameters affect the results.

First of all, we consider the effect of varying the feedback parameters on star formation efficiency. The star formation rate, which determines the amount of energy and metals supplied to the interstellar medium, varies inversely with $`f_{\mathrm{heat}}`$ (equation 3), since more reheated cold gas leaves less material available to form stars. Note $`f_{\mathrm{heat}}ϵ/kT_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, so we would expect a smaller energy budget and/or a higher heating temperature to increase the star formation rate.

Panel (a) of Fig. 10 illustrates star fractions against virial temperature for groups in the radiative model plus feedback models with varying parameter values (given in the legend). As expected, the star fraction increases when decreasing $`ϵ`$ for fixed $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, and the model with $`ϵ=0.1`$ contains approximately the correct amount of cooled material ($``$ 10 per cent, c.f. Fig. 8). The impact of varying $`ϵ`$ on the total baryon fraction is shown in panel (b). As $`ϵ`$ is increased, more gas is reheated (at the expense of forming stars) and expelled from each halo, decreasing its baryon fraction.

Contrary to expectations however, the star fraction increases when $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is decreased from 2 to 0.1 keV, with the total baryon fraction of the low temperature case being similar, on average, to the radiative model. As was found for K2002’s thermal feedback model, if $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}<T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ for the haloes being studied (as is the case for the $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}=0.1`$ keV model), a substantial fraction of reheated gas is not hot enough 555Note however that some gas will have been hot enough to escape from progenitor haloes at earlier times to escape from the gravitational potential, and will instead re-cool and boost the star formation rate.

The effect of feedback in the fiducial model was to slightly steepen the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation that was produced by radiative cooling alone. Fig. 11 illustrates the effect of varying the parameters on the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation. Although the simulations do not contain enough objects to perform a detailed study of the shape of the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation, we see from our present results that the overall normalization of the relation is fairly insensitive to $`ϵ`$ when $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}>T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, except that the relation becomes slightly steeper as $`ϵ`$ is increased from 0 (radiative) to 2. Although the heating temperature is the same in these runs, increasing $`ϵ`$ increases the amount of outflowing material, thus having a larger impact on the hot gas (as discussed in the previous section). When $`T_{\mathrm{SN}}<T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ however (as is the case with $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}=0.1`$keV) the luminosities are boosted and temperatures decreased considerably. As was observed from the previous figure, reheated material in the latter run is too cold to completely escape from a group-sized halo: the lack of buoyancy causes this gas to boost the central density, hence boosting its X-ray luminosity and lowering its X-ray temperature.

Although the fiducial run provides the best fit to the observations (at least for low-mass groups), we will show in the next section that the lack of numerical resolution in the smaller objects artificially flattens the relation.

## 5 Resolution effects

The results presented in this paper have all been for fixed resolution. In this section, we present results from a limited study of how varying the resolution affects the X-ray properties of the groups. Table 2 lists properties of the two simulations studied here, a low-resolution simulation (labelled LR) with the same resolution used for the runs studied previously, and a high-resolution simulation (HR) with 8 times as many particles. Both runs were performed for a comoving box-size of $`12.5h^1\text{Mpc}`$ and contain the same large-scale power. Although such a box is too small for quantitative predictions, it allows us to compare a small sample of the same objects at different resolution, without requiring a large investment in CPU time. The fiducial feedback parameters were adopted, namely $`ϵ=2`$ and $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}=2`$keV.

The final column in Table 2 lists the cooled baryon fraction for the 2 runs; a factor of 8 increase in resolution only increases this fraction by $`20`$ per cent. This is because the majority of the mass in galaxies is already resolved at the lowest resolution (i.e. 32 or more particles, the lowest number than can cool efficiently.). Furthermore, the feedback acts to stabilize gas cooling since the heating rate is directly proportional to the cooling (star formation) rate. As was stated previously, an overall increase in the cooled fraction must therefore come from choosing a lower value of $`ϵ`$ and/or higher metallicity of cooling gas.

All runs resolve 3 common objects; the corresponding $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ “relation” for each simulation is plotted in Fig. 12. Particles from within the cooling radius of each object are excluded from the calculation (which affects only the luminosity of the largest object). Note that the luminosities are more or less unchanged for all 3 objects when the resolution is varied, due to the stabilizing effect of feedback. For the largest object, which contains between 2800 (LR) and 18,000 (HR) hot gas particles, its X-ray temperature increases only a little, unlike the smaller 2 objects (between 100 and 1000 particles), where it increases significantly. We therefore expect the slope of the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation to steepen when the emission-weighted temperatures for all objects have converged.

## 6 Summary and conclusions

In this paper, we examined the influence of the galaxy population on the X-ray properties of groups at $`z=0`$ that form in a cosmological simulation. In particular, we were interested in determining how including feedback of energy from supernovae in the simulations (which decreases the star formation rate) affects the X-ray properties of the groups. Motivated by the “break” in the X-ray luminosity-temperature relation at the interface between group and cluster scales ($`kT_\mathrm{x}12`$keV), we devised a feedback model based on heating the gas to a fixed temperature, independent of the available energy budget. A given heating temperature, $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, and energy budget, $`ϵ`$, then determines the star formation rate and the corresponding mass of reheated gas.

For our main results, we studied a model with strong feedback ($`ϵ=2`$, twice the available energy from supernovae) and a heating temperature, $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}=2`$keV, comparable to the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ break. This model generated the required excess entropy in the cores of the groups and so was able to adequately reproduce the X-ray scaling relations over the range of temperatures appropriate to groups ($`kT<2`$keV). However, the fraction of baryons in galaxies was around a factor of 3 lower than observed (assuming a Salpeter IMF).

We then compared our fiducial feedback model to a model with no feedback, and found that the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relations were similar in normalization, but the feedback relation was slightly steeper. Radiative cooling acts to reduce the hot gas fraction (and hence X-ray luminosity) in groups, removing low-entropy material (which forms stars) and causing higher-entropy gas to flow in to replace it. In low-mass groups (where $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}<T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$), feedback reduces the luminosity further because the outflowing reheated material increases the pressure of the hot gas. However, as $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}T_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, the effect of feedback on the hot gas diminishes due to the group’s increasing ability to retain a larger fraction of material. As a result, some of the gas that was turned into stars in the radiative run is still within the virial radius in the feedback run, leading to an increase in the luminosities of high-mass groups.

The fraction of reheated material per mass of stars scales as $`ϵ/kT_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, and so the star formation rate ought to vary inversely with this parameter combination, since more reheated gas leaves less material available to form stars. This is only true if the heating temperature is comparable to or larger than the virial temperature of the systems being studied. For such a case, decreasing $`ϵ`$ allows a reasonable match to both the global fraction of baryons in stars and the X-ray properties of the groups. However, when the heating temperature is low compared to the virial temperature of groups (we studied the case when $`kT_{\mathrm{SN}}=0.1`$keV), reheated gas cannot escape from the gravitational potential and instead re-cools and forms more stars. As a result, this excess of cooling gas decreases the core entropy of the groups and consequently boosts their luminosity.

Finally, increasing the resolution of our simulations appears to have little effect on the X-ray luminosities of groups but the temperatures of the smaller, poorly-resolved objects increased. Based on these results, numerical convergence for the range of group masses will act to steepen the $`L_\mathrm{x}T_\mathrm{x}`$ relation.

## Acknowledgments

The work presented in this paper was carried out as part of the programme of the Virgo Supercomputing Consortium (http://virgo.sussex.ac.uk). The majority of data were generated using COSMOS, the UK Computational Cosmology Consortium supercomputer, an SGI Origin 3800 at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge. STK is supported by PPARC; PAT and TT thank PPARC for a Lecturer Fellowship and Advanced Fellowship respectively.


text:
# Quantum Statistics and Entanglement Problems

## I Introduction

In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the theory of measurement associated with it, one is required a priori to assume the existence of a classical measuring apparatus. To many physicists this has appeared to be a circular argument because the classical apparatus itself is composed of quantum particles, so why is not a quantum mechanical description possible “all the way down”? Recently great attention has been devoted to this problem ZehItBit ; ZehQM ; TegShap1994 ; JoosDecoh ; ZurekDecoh ; TegWheeler  through the supposition of environmental influences, such as the assumption of a global, all encompassing Schrödinger wave function. In this theory, classical mechanics is recovered from a quantum description by means of decoherence and einselection ZurekDecoh . It is generally recognized that a basic problem to be resolved in this process is the one arising from the superposition principle of quantum mechanics and its resulting entanglement complication.

The purpose of this letter is to stress the complications for the interpretations in quantum mechanics of many-particle wave functions, first studied seriously by Pauli Pauli57 , and to re-emphasize the role of quantum statistics, in distinction to dynamics, in the quantum entanglement problem.

## II Pauli Entanglement

Both in the light of Pauli’s remarks and with an eye toward recognizing the importance of the Bell Theorem Bell1964 ; Aspect1982  in showing that EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) were unjustified in claiming EPR1935  that any complete description of reality must include a locality assumption, we use a simple case of a two-particle wave function to illustrate the two points made in the previous paragraph.

First let us consider a general, two-particle wave function (non-identical particles) $`\psi (x_1,x_2)`$, isolated with coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ with time evolution implicit. In the interest of exploring EPR separability, we suppose that during some portion of the two-particle history, this wave function separates into a product of two single particle wave functions, one dependent on $`x_1`$, the other on $`x_2`$:

$$\psi (x_1,x_2)=\varphi (x_1)\chi (x_2)$$
(1)
and we enquire into the interpretation of $`\varphi (x_1)`$. We do this by multiplying both sides of Eq. (1) by $`\chi ^{}(x_2)`$ and integrating over the coordinates of $`x_2`$ (assuming normalized single particle wave functions) to obtain

$$\varphi (x_1)=\psi (x_1,x_2)\chi ^{}(x_2)𝑑x_2$$
(2)
This familiar procedure makes it clear that even in product form, the wave function for particle 1 is entangled with that of particle 2, and that the criterion for locality required by EPR is not realized since a measurement on particle 2 at any time changes $`\chi ^{}(x_2)`$ and thus the integral in Eq. (2), so that $`\varphi (x_1)`$ is not a true description of particle 1 independently of what happens to particle 2.

The entanglement situation is even more interesting, however, when one considers two identical fermions, since then one has the Pauli requirement that $`\psi (x_1,x_2)`$ in Eq. (1) be replaced by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A(x_1,x_2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\varphi (x_1)\chi (x_2)\varphi (x_2)\chi (x_1)]$$
(3)
We see that entanglement is profoundly enhanced by the Pauli principle since the simplifying procedure leading to Eq. (2 ) no longer holds. We further note that any generalization to Eq. (1) such as

$$\psi (x_1,x_2)=\underset{i.j}{}C_{ij}\varphi _i(x_1)\varphi _j(x_2)$$
(4)
where the $`C_{ij}`$ are $`C`$-numbers, will have similar properties, particularly when the requirement of antisymmetry is imposed.

In the case of two identical bosons the same argument leads to similar results except a plus sign replaces the minus sign on the right hand side of Eq. (3), with

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_S(x_1,x_2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\varphi (x_1)\chi (x_2)+\varphi (x_2)\chi (x_1)].$$
(5)
Supersymmetry has no consequence for these arguments since we live in a world where supersymmetry has already been broken.

## III Global Entanglement

Insufficient attention has been paid to entanglement due to statistics, particularly in view of the current interest expressed in a global Schrödinger wave function and pointer states JoosDecoh ; ZurekDecoh . Decoherence due to the “environment” is used to suggest that classical systems can be deduced from overarching quantum systems TegShap1994 ; TegWheeler , thus avoiding the need in the Copenhagen interpretation for a separate classical world (the apparatus and observer) in the measurement process, joined somehow by the punctate collapse of the wave packet.

It is worth emphasis that the symmetrization and antisymmetrization of wave functions for identical bosons, respectively fermions, is not inherent in the dynamics of the Schrödinger wave function theory, but must be imposed outside the dynamical theory itself. There is no dynamical procedure in this picture, for example, that tells two electrons that they must antisymmetrize at some point in their mutual histories. The Pauli principle itself has the effect of entangling the wave functions of all electrons in the universe. This entanglement can often be ignored because the electrons “outside” the system are separated well beyond their dynamical range of interaction with electrons “inside” the system. Second quantization, which is designed to deal with many particle systems, does not alleviate this situation, since the use of commutators, repseectively anticommutators, leads to results in consonance with the first quantization picture in these respects, namely that once particles come within the dynamical range of their interactions, the symmetrization/antisymmetrization behavior must be recognized and taken into account.

This aspect of quantum mechanics is well illustrated in the experiments described by Mott and Massey Mott1965  in which electrons in a monochromatic beam were scattered off hydrogen atoms in their ground state, and the angular distributions observed. The results were analyzed and explained by Trainor and Wu (TW1953 ; TW hereafter) and by Corinaldesi and Trainor (CT1952 ; CT hereafter). TW showed that to obtain the experimental results antisymmetrization of the incident and target electrons had to be taken into account. This could be done by antisymmetrization of the electron pairs in their initial states, with the antisymmetrization then maintained throughout the analysis. CT subsequently established that in the Born-Oppenhemier approximation all of the required interaction matrices could be calculated exactly. The Schrödinger dynamics only gives the correct results when antisymmetrization of the beam electrons and the target electrons is imposed on the formation of the initial states. An electron in the incoming beam could have arrived from Japan and collided with a hydrogen electron in American for all the system cares.

## IV Pauli, Bell, and MWI: No Safe Harbors

Once it became clear from Bell’s theorem Bell1964  and the experimental verification of quantum mechanics Aspect1982  that EPR’s assumption was incorrect — reality did not demand local behavior for a complete theory — there were influential attempts to minimize the impact of these results. Ballentine, for example, proposed Bal1970  that the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics brought it into closer accord with an EPR-type reality than could be realized from a single particle point of view. This is not the case, however. Kunstatter and Trainor (KT1984A ; KT hereafter) showed that in the statistical interpretation, the results of Bell Bell1964  and Aspect Aspect1982  also required EPR-like locality assumptions to be abandoned.

Another important attempt to contain the non-locality issue was made by Page Page1982  using the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI1957 ; MWI hereafter). KT KT1984B  argued, however, that the ideas used to describe observers in quantum measurement theory are largely intuitions based on what cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind now term “folk psychology” Churchland1986  and thus highly problematic in their own right: “do intelligent observers exist in quantum mechanics?” KT1984B . The nature and role of conscious observers in quantum mechanics, particularly as raised by Wigner Wigner1962 , has continued to plague and challenge interpretation theories. The challenges are even greater for theories based on the proposition that there is a global Schrödinger equation for the Universe as a whole, and that it is “quantum mechanics all the way down”, particularly since there is no accepted quantum (or any other) theory of consciousness. This point is emphasized, for example, in the recent exchange between Tegmark TegBrain  and Hagan et al. HaganQMBrain  on quantum decoherence issues relating to the role of neuronal microtubules as basic quantum computational elements in a theory of self awareness, subjectivity, and memory in the human brain.

The recent paper of Zeh ZehQMCs  proposing that, when worlds divide in the Everett’s theory MWI1957 , minds also divide is a bold and speculative attempt to deal with such questions as decoherence and MWI, but leaves untouched those raised by KT on whether intelligent behavior as such is even describable by the quantum theories we now have. Indeed, to conjecture in the affirmative is to assert a locality hypothesis of a different sort within quantum mechanics, namely that mind, self-awareness, and perception as phenomena may be inferred from the theory, i.e. traced to a finite (and thus circumscribed or epistemically “local”) set of assumptions (the only kind of axiom set we currently know how to reason with). Since local realism — EPR-like locality requirements on either the single or quantum statistical levels — has fared so poorly to date, it seems reasonble to conjecture that no safe local harbors exist at all within quantum theory, and that entanglement and decoherence point to problems about observers and the Universe whose solution will entail further significant changes in our understanding of quantum mechanics.


text:
# Wide field photometry of the M104 globular cluster system

## 1 Observations and reduction

Wide field imaging of M 104 was taken in April 2000 using the ESO/MPG 2.2m telescope at La Silla. The typical exposure time was 35 min in each of the $`B`$, $`V`$, and $`R`$ bands. Pre-reduction was performed using the IRAF package MSCRED, while distortion correction, image alignment onto a common sky reference system, co-adding and mosaicing were obtained using a dedicated IRAF package (Rizzi & Held 2002, in prep.). The combined images in each passband were then suitably processed to subtract the galaxy’s diffuse light. The ring median filtering in IRAF was used to this purpose. Finally, DAOPHOT aperture photometry was obtained on the sum images, and a catalog was built of objects detected in all passbands at the 4$`\sigma `$ level. From this master catalog, a sample of candidate globular clusters was selected based on the object color and shape. As a simple shape parameter we used the difference between two aperture magnitudes with different radii of 2 and 4 pixels (the typical size of stellar images being 4-5 pixels FWHM). This simple method proved to be quite effective in discriminating star-like images from diffuse objects (i.e. background galaxies) (Fig. 1, right panel).

The color-magnitude diagram of star-like objects around M 104 clearly shows the presence of a conspicuous globular cluster population (see Fig. 1, left panel). The color and magnitude selection outlined in Fig. 1 was used to define our final sample of high-probability globular cluster candidates. The adopted limits were modeled on the properties of globular clusters in M 31 B00 . Using this combined color and shape selection, contamination by foreground stars and background galaxies in expected to be very low.

## 2 Spatial distribution

Wide field CCD imaging provides the possibility of detecting bona-fide globular clusters out to large distances from the galaxy center. Figure 2 shows the surface density profile of candidates within 15 (nearly 40 Kpc at the distance of M 104) from the galaxy center. We have used the outer regions (beyond 16.5 arcmin from the center) to estimate and statistically subtract an approximate background level. The cluster distribution appears to be more extended than the galaxy light, confirming the result of the photographic study of W. Harris and coll. HHH84 . There is also a hint of flattening in the inner region, which is consistent with a two-slopes fit BH92 .

## 3 Colors and metallicities

The sample of bona-fide candidates was also used to derive the color distribution of globular clusters in the halo of the Sombrero galaxy. Figure 3 suggests a bimodal metallicity distribution, with peaks at $`BR=1.15`$ and 1.35, corresponding to \[Fe/H\]$`=1.4`$ and $`0.6`$ by adopting the transformation of B00 . The metallicities measured from colors and spectroscopy (L02 ; Held et al., this volume) are in good agreement. These results agree with those derived by Larsen and coll. L01  from the $`VI`$ colors of an HST inner cluster sample. These metallicities are very similar to those of globular clusters in our Galaxy and M 31, where the blue component is associated to a cluster sub-population which is old and metal-poor, while the red component is metal-rich and typical of the bulge/disc population F00 .

## 4 Radial gradients

The red clusters turn out to be more centrally concentrated than the blue ones, which confirms their association with the galaxy bulge L01 . The right panel of Fig. 3 shows the radial distribution of the two sub-populations. Moving to the outer regions the blue, presumably metal-poor, component becomes predominant, and a ratio between red and blue clusters typical of spiral galaxies is reached. Interestingly, the projected two-dimensional distributions of both the blue and red sub-populations exhibit a nearly spherical symmetry. As a results of our wide field multicolor study, we can conclude that the red clusters are associated to the galaxy bulge rather than to the disk.