A How to convert between different mass measurements for CDM H

AI Thread Summary
To convert cluster mass from M_500c to M_200c, understanding the relationship between these measurements is crucial, as M_500c represents mass within R_500 and M_200c within R_200, with R_500 being approximately 0.7 R_200. The NFW profile can assist in this conversion, but it may be simpler to adjust the mass-velocity dispersion relationship to M_500c instead. However, some users prefer to adhere to specific methodologies from existing papers for consistency in their results. Resources that explain these mass definitions can provide additional clarity. Ultimately, the conversion process is essential for accurately relating cluster mass to velocity dispersion.
floyd0117
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
If I have a cluster with a mass measured in M_500c, then how do I go about converting that mass to M_200c given some concentration and an NFW profile?
 
Space news on Phys.org
What do you mean converting the mass? What are you converting? Why?
 
Chalnoth said:
What do you mean converting the mass? What are you converting? Why?

I have a dataset of cluster masses, expressed in units of M_500c, which I need to relate to a velocity dispersion. But the relation between cluster mass and velocity dispersion is in terms of M_200c, so I need to convert the masses in the dataset before I can find the equivalent dispersions.
 
floyd0117 said:
I have a dataset of cluster masses, expressed in units of M_500c, which I need to relate to a velocity dispersion. But the relation between cluster mass and velocity dispersion is in terms of M_200c, so I need to convert the masses in the dataset before I can find the equivalent dispersions.
Ahh, okay. I'm honestly not sure. I did find this resource, which describes these measures a bit:
https://www.princeton.edu/astro/undergraduate/astro-jps-senior-theses-a/bilhudathesis-2.pdf

It looks like M_{500} is the mass within R_{500}, while M_{200} is the mass within R_{200}, where R_{500} \approx 0.7 R_{200}. If you've got a good understanding of the NFW profile, you might be able to use that to do the conversion.

That said, my guess is it'd be even better to convert the relation between mass and dispersion to be in terms of M_{500} instead of M_{200}, as that's most likely a far simpler operation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chalnoth said:
Ahh, okay. I'm honestly not sure. I did find this resource, which describes these measures a bit:
https://www.princeton.edu/astro/undergraduate/astro-jps-senior-theses-a/bilhudathesis-2.pdf

It looks like M_{500} is the mass within R_{500}, while M_{200} is the mass within R_{200}, where R_{500} \approx 0.7 R_{200}. If you've got a good understanding of the NFW profile, you might be able to use that to do the conversion.

That said, my guess is it'd be even better to convert the relation between mass and dispersion to be in terms of M_{500} instead of M_{200}, as that's most likely a far simpler operation.

Perhaps, but I'm trying to follow the methodology presented in a specific paper and replicate their results. Thanks anyway
 
Last edited by a moderator:
floyd0117 said:
Perhaps, but I'm trying to follow the methodology presented in a specific paper and replicate their results. Thanks anyway
Makes sense. Sorry I can't be of more help.
 
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
908
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top