NASA/IPAC EXTRAGALACTIC DATABASE
Date and Time of the Query: 2019-04-21 T17:42:40 PDT
Help | Comment | NED Home

For refcode 2008ApJ...672.1293H:
Retrieve 14 NED objects in this reference.
Please click here for ADS abstract

NED Abstract

Copyright by American Astronomical Society. Reproduced by permission
2008ApJ...672.1293H Erratum: "Multiwavelength Mass Comparisons of the z ~ 0.3 CNOC Cluster Sample" (ApJ, 652, 232 [2006]) Hicks, A. K.; Ellingson, E.; Hoekstra, H.; Yee, H. K. C. Abstract. In our original paper there was a miscalculation in the determination of central gas densities for that sample, which we correct here. We also report a processing error in the exposure map for MS 1512.4+3647 and supply a correction factor for its surface brightness normalization and background. The code which was used to determine cluster central densities contained an error such that it did not account for a (1+z)^3^ cosmological dimming factor, derived from a combination of cosmological distance and time dilation corrections. Subsequently, all central densities, gas masses, and gas mass fractions reported in the paper should be scaled up by a factor of (1+z)^3/2^. An error also occurred in the production of the exposure map for MS 1512.4+3647, which caused the best-fit surface brightness normalization and background for that cluster to be reduced by a factor of 8 (all other {beta}-model values remain unaffected). Therefore, the SB normalization and background of MS 1512.4+3647 should be multiplied by this factor, while its central gas density, gas mass, and gas mass fraction should be multiplied by sqrt(8) (in addition to the cosmological factor mentioned above). Table A1 contains updated values for central densities, gas masses, and gas mass fractions, along with 90% confidence intervals. Using these values, we obtain a weighted mean gas mass fraction for the sample, f_gas_(R_200_)=0.136+/-0.004h^-3/2^_70_, resulting in {OMEGA}_m_=0.28+/-0.01, a value consistent with WMAP 3 year results (D. N. Spergel et al., ApJ, 652, 232 [2006]). We emphasize that these corrections do not otherwise affect our results. In particular, our main conclusion remains valid, e.g., our finding that there is very good agreement between X-ray, dynamical, and weak-lensing cluster mass estimation methods.
Retrieve 14 NED objects in this reference.
Please click here for ADS abstract

Back to NED Home