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.
 

Thread 'Matter density right after the decoupling'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
View full post »

Thread 'Rutgers finds a transparent Einstein Cross - apparently a dark matter "halo".'

The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
View full post »

Thread 'Big Bang and Infinite Universe'

Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
View full post »

Similar threads

I New Hubble Paper On Lensing In Galactic Clusters
Replies
2
Views
2K
Convert to Center of Mass Reference Frame
Replies
9
Views
1K
Convert from Magnitude Density to Mass
Replies
1
Views
999
A How do you convert the Pound–Rebka redshift into time variation?
Replies
6
Views
242
I How is the mass of the Earth or the Sun measured?
Replies
7
Views
1K
I The Latest Higgs Boson Mass Measurement
Replies
13
Views
4K
Gas Mass Calcuation in Galaxy Cluster
Replies
3
Views
2K
Measurements Calculation Problem
Replies
3
Views
884
I How Can Measured Satellite Magnitudes Be Converted to Radiant Intensity?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Stargazing What is an arcsec and how do I convert it into AU or m?
Replies
8
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top