![]() | Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1979. 17:
135-87 Copyright © 1979 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved |
7.3 Uncertainties
Adopting the mass-to-light ratio of Coma as typical of great clusters,
we have M / LV 250 and M / LB
325, much larger than those of
individual
galaxies and significantly larger than those of binaries and small
groups. Without doubt, the single aspect of the data that contributes
most to the large M / L in clusters is their large velocity dispersions.
We must therefore consider the possible effects of contamination and
subclustering on this parameter.
To assess contamination, the cluster must be viewed in the context of
its environment. The N-body calculations of
Aarseth et
al. (1979) are
appropriate here since they model a representative volume of space
rather than an isolated cluster. For their model with = 0.1, the
largest cluster has M / LB = 320, much larger than the
model value of 70
(Turner et al. 1979).
This discrepancy is entirely a result of
contamination. Turner et al. point out that substantial contamination
is to be expected in rich clusters because of their large angular
extent, and on this basis question the belief that the great clusters
provide a reliable estimate of masses of galaxies. They also show that
because of the high intrinsic velocity dispersions in clusters,
noncluster members in a large volume of the Hubble flow can cause
confusion. Because of this effect, Turner et al. suggest that velocity
sampling alone cannot eliminate contamination. L. Thompson (private
communication) has likewise speculated that the traditional Coma sample
is contaminated by unbound members of the Coma supercluster.
To assess the severity of this effect, we need better dynamical models of clusters and their environs, plus a very deep and complete survey of radial velocities in several cluster complexes. Unfortunately this material is not yet available. For the present, however, we are inclined to think that contamination is not solely responsible for large cluster dispersions. Our belief rests principally on the core properties of such clusters, where the density contrast is large and the contamination therefore smaller. As we have seen, the core fitting procedures yield mass-to-light ratios just as high as those from global methods. Furthermore, in Coma the velocity dispersion declines markedly outside the core region, whereas one would in general expect the reverse if contamination were significant. Finally, virtually all the galaxies in the Coma core are of early morphological type, a much larger fraction than those either in small groups or in the extended supercluster (Gregory & Thompson 1978). These galaxies therefore appear to be a distinct population physically located in the core itself.
Holmberg (1961)
suggested that cluster velocity dispersions might be
spuriously inflated through the inclusion of binaries and subclusters.
However, since binaries and small groups generally have dispersions
300 km s-1, this effect
cannot produce the large dispersions of
several hundred km s-1 typical of great clusters.
X-ray observations of clusters may soon provide an independent check
on cluster potential and kinetic energies. With the discovery of
iron-line emission in clusters of galaxies
(Mitchell et al. 1976,
Serlemitsos et
al. 1977),
the probability that cluster X rays originate
from thermal bremsstrahlung in a hot intracluster medium (ICM) has
greatly increased. If the emission is thermal, the X-ray temperature is
determined by the cluster potential. For gas in equilibrium, the X-ray
temperature should follow T V2, (or
2)
(Mushotzky et al. 1978,
Jones & Forman 1978).
Although the current data are limited, there is a good
correlation between the observed X-ray temperatures and
2 in X-ray clusters
(Mitchell et al. 1977,
Jones & Forman 1978,
Mushotzky et al. 1978).
A strong statement would be premature, but the currently
available data are consistent with the relation V2 = 3
2, where
is
the usual line-of-sight velocity dispersion. With more observations, we
expect that modelling of the ICM will provide an accurate measurement of
cluster potentials and thus of cluster masses.
Finally, the considerable range in M / LV among large clusters themselves suggests that the amount of unseen matter might vary significantly from cluster to cluster. Rood (1974) and Rood & Dickel (1978a) have emphasized this possibility and noted that the virial mass discrepancy is strongly correlated with the velocity dispersion for both small groups and large clusters.