Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 3 cited by

XRISM reveals low non-thermal pressure in the core of the hot, relaxed galaxy cluster Abell 2029

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The hot gas in Abell 2029's core is almost still, with turbulent pressure making up only 2.6% of the total.

desk verdict A solid, careful second direct measurement of ICM velocity dispersion; the low non-thermal pressure conclusion holds up and is actually conservative. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05514 v2 pith:7JJQKM22 submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.HE

XRISM Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords galaxyclustersintraclustermediumturbulencenon-thermalpressureX-rayspectroscopyvelocitydispersionAbell2029XRISM
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first direct measurement of gas motion in the core of the massive, relaxed galaxy cluster Abell 2029, using the XRISM Resolve microcalorimeter. It finds that the intracluster medium is nearly at rest relative to the central galaxy, with a line-of-sight bulk velocity consistent with zero and a field-integrated velocity dispersion of 169 ± 10 km/s. If that dispersion comes from isotropic turbulence, the non-thermal pressure support is only 2.6 ± 0.3% of the total pressure, the most stringent direct constraint yet obtained in a cluster core. The result places Abell 2029 at the low end of cosmological simulation predictions and indicates the cluster is exceptionally relaxed, with no significant recent merger or AGN energy injection.

What carries the argument

The measurement relies on the Resolve microcalorimeter's ability to resolve the Fe XXV and Fe XXVI line complexes around 6–7 keV with an instrumental line spread function narrow enough (~5 eV) that observed line widths are dominated by astrophysical broadening. The paper fits the full 2–10 keV spectrum with velocity-broadened collisional-equilibrium plasma models, using both single-temperature and two-temperature components and two independent atomic databases, and extracts the Gaussian velocity broadening. The conversion to a non-thermal pressure fraction uses the relation P_NT/P_tot = $M_3D^{2}$/($M_3D^{2}$ + 3/γ) with M_3D = √3 σ_v / c_s, where c_s is the adiabatic sound speed of the 6.8 keV plasma.

What would settle it

A spatially resolved velocity map of the same field would settle it: if a deeper XRISM observation splits the field into sub-regions and finds a systematic Doppler shift of order 150–200 km/s along the sloshing spiral, rather than patchy random motions, then most of the 169 km/s broadening is bulk flow, not turbulence, and the non-thermal pressure fraction due to turbulence would be smaller than 2.6%. Conversely, detecting the predicted resonant scattering in a deeper observation with the Fe XXV line would corroborate the low turbulence interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the intracluster medium in the core of Abell 2029 is kinematically very cold. The line-of-sight bulk velocity is consistent with zero relative to the brightest cluster galaxy, with a 3σ upper limit of |v_bulk| < 100 km/s, and the velocity dispersion is σ_v = 169 ± 10 km/s, essentially identical under both single-temperature and two-temperature plasma models. If the dispersion is attributed entirely to isotropic turbulence, the implied 3D Mach number is 0.22 and the non-thermal pressure fraction is 2.6 ± 0.3%, the tightest such limit measured directly in a cluster core. This turbulence level matches that seen in the Perseus core by Hitomi, but Abell 2029 is more massive and hotter, making the non-thermal pressure fraction even smaller, and the measurement sits at the low end of the distribution predicted by the TNG-Cluster simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The measured line broadening is attributed entirely to small-scale random turbulent motions; if a significant part comes from a coherent line-of-sight velocity gradient across the field, such as the sloshing spiral, then the inferred turbulent Mach number and non-thermal pressure fraction would be overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If non-thermal pressure support in cluster cores is only a few percent, hydrostatic mass estimates that ignore turbulence in relaxed clusters are not significantly biased at these radii.
  • The direct measurement confirms earlier indirect constraints from gas density/temperature fluctuations and gas fraction studies that placed non-thermal pressure below 10% in cluster cores.
  • The comparison with Perseus supports the idea that AGN activity is a major driver of core turbulence: the radio-quiet, cavity-free Abell 2029 shows a lower non-thermal pressure fraction than the AGN-dominated Perseus core.
  • Abell 2029 provides a benchmark for cosmological simulations of relaxed clusters; its low value suggests that such clusters can be even quieter than the median of simulated populations.
  • The planned deeper XRISM observations, including the outer pointings and an approved AO1 observation, will test whether the low velocity dispersion persists at larger radii and whether resonant scattering in the Fe XXV line can be detected.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The field-integrated line broadening could include a contribution from a coherent bulk velocity gradient across the 3×3 arcmin field, such as the sloshing spiral seen in Chandra images; if so, the true turbulent pressure fraction would be even lower than 2.6%, so this value is best regarded as an upper limit on isotropic turbulence support.
  • The unexplained excess of the Fe XXV intercombination (y) line and the Lyα2 resonance component may indicate multi-temperature structure or non-equilibrium effects that, if resolved, could refine the temperature and dispersion estimates but would likely not change the small velocity dispersion.
  • A spatially resolved velocity map from deeper XRISM data could directly separate bulk motions from turbulence: a monotonic Doppler shift pattern following the sloshing spiral would imply most of the broadening is coherent flow, whereas a patchy, random field would confirm the turbulence interpretation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first XRISM Resolve measurement of gas motions in the core of the relaxed galaxy cluster Abell 2029. Using 37.5 ks of cleaned Resolve data and fitting the full-field 2–10 keV spectrum with single- and two-temperature plasma models in two independent atomic databases (AtomDB and SPEXACT), the authors derive a line-of-sight bulk velocity consistent with the BCG and a 3σ upper limit |v_bulk| < 100 km/s, together with a field-integrated velocity dispersion σ_v = 169 ± 10 km/s (165 ± 11 km/s for the 2T model). Attributing the broadening to isotropic turbulence gives a Mach number M_3D = 0.22 and a turbulent (non-thermal) pressure fraction P_NT/P_tot = 2.6 ± 0.3%. The result is compared with the Hitomi Perseus measurement and with TNG-Cluster simulations, and is interpreted as evidence that Abell 2029 is exceptionally relaxed, with little current AGN- or merger-driven energy injection.

Significance. This measurement is significant because it provides only the second direct, high-resolution X-ray constraint on ICM velocity dispersion in a cluster core, and the first in a hotter, more massive system than Perseus; it confirms at face value the low turbulent pressure support expected in relaxed cores and tightens the comparison with cosmological simulations. The paper's strengths include the use of two independent atomic databases, explicit 1T/2T modeling, quantitative checks of resonant scattering and background contamination, and separate estimates of gain and line-spread-function systematics. The interpretation is carefully conditional on the isotropic-turbulence assumption, and the main conclusion is conservative with respect to the principal caveat.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The possible contribution of coherent line-of-sight velocity gradients across the 3x3 arcmin field (for example from the sloshing spiral traced in Chandra residuals) to the measured σ_v is not discussed explicitly. Because any such contribution would reduce the inferred turbulent velocity rather than increase it, the central conclusion is conservative; still, one sentence stating that σ_v should be regarded as an upper limit on the turbulent velocity when bulk gradients are present would remove ambiguity.
  2. [Abstract, §3.2, Eq. (1)] The term 'non-thermal pressure fraction' is used for the turbulent pressure fraction, with magnetic fields and cosmic rays explicitly neglected in Eq. (1). Consider using 'turbulent pressure fraction' at first mention or carrying the qualification into the abstract, since otherwise the title and abstract could be read as bounding all non-thermal pressure components.
  3. [§1] There is a typo in Section 1: 'velocity disperson' should be 'velocity dispersion'.
  4. [Table 1 and §3.1] Table 1 quotes only statistical errors for v_bulk and σ_v, while the systematic gain and line-spread-function uncertainties are given only in the text; adding a footnote to the table or a combined uncertainty column would make the error budget easier to use.
  5. [Figure 2] The Figure 2 caption refers to fit residuals, but the displayed panels show the data and model spectra without a residuals subpanel; either add a residuals panel or rephrase the caption to describe the deviations visible in the data/model overlay.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured velocity dispersion is a direct spectral observable and the non-thermal pressure fraction is an explicit algebraic conversion, not a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: fit the Resolve spectrum with a velocity-broadened collisional-equilibrium model, obtaining sigma_v = 169 +/- 10 km/s (Table 1); compute the sound speed c_s from the fitted plasma temperature; define M_3D = sqrt(3) sigma_v / c_s; and then convert to P_NT/P_tot via Eq. (1). This is not circular because sigma_v is a directly measured line-broadening parameter, not a quantity derived from the non-thermal pressure fraction or from the final conclusion. The conversion to a non-thermal pressure fraction is explicitly conditional on interpreting the broadening as isotropic turbulence ("if the velocity dispersion determined by Resolve is entirely ascribed to isotropic turbulence"), and Eq. (1) is a standard definitional relation between turbulent pressure and velocity dispersion, cited to Eckert et al. 2019. No parameter of the model is fit to the claimed NT pressure fraction, and no benchmark result is used as an input to the measurement. The comparison with simulations (e.g., Truong et al. 2024) is external and does not feed back into the measurement. The main caveat, that coherent sloshing velocity gradients could contribute to the line broadening, is acknowledged in the text and would only lower the inferred turbulent pressure, making the 'low non-thermal pressure' conclusion conservative rather than circular. The self-citations to Eckert et al. 2019 and Ettori & Eckert 2022 are to standard formulae and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard spectral fit with several fitted model parameters (temperature, abundance, redshift, bulk velocity, velocity dispersion, normalization) and on physical assumptions about the state of the ICM (CIE, isotropy, negligible magnetic field and cosmic ray pressure). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Velocity dispersion sigma_v = 169 +/- 10 km/s (1T AtomDB)
    Fitted from the broadening of Fe XXV and Fe XXVI lines; this is the central measured quantity of the paper.
  • Plasma temperature kT = 6.83 +0.14/-0.13 keV (1T AtomDB)
    Fitted temperature of the single-temperature plasma model; used with sigma_v to compute the sound speed and thus the turbulent Mach number and non-thermal pressure fraction.
  • Line-of-sight bulk velocity v_bulk = -10 +13/-7 km/s (1T AtomDB)
    Fitted Doppler shift relative to the BCG; used for the 3-sigma upper limit of |v|<100 km/s.
  • Abundance = 0.60 +/- 0.02 Z_sun (1T AtomDB)
    Standard metallicity parameter in the spectral fit; does not materially affect the velocity results.
  • Redshift = 0.07786 +0.00005/-0.00003 (1T AtomDB)
    Fitted line centroid redshift; used to relate line positions to the BCG frame.
  • Model normalization = 4.46 +/- 0.08 e12 cm^-5 (1T AtomDB)
    Emission measure normalization of the plasma model; not related to kinematics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The ICM plasma is in collisional ionization equilibrium and is optically thin, so the X-ray line spectrum can be modeled with bapec/SPEXACT plasma codes.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 for all spectral fits; deviations from CIE or significant optical depth would alter line ratios and potentially the inferred broadening.
  • domain assumption The measured line broadening is entirely due to Doppler motions of the gas, after accounting for the instrumental line-spread function and thermal broadening.
    Section 3.1; the fit includes velocity broadening on top of thermal broadening. Any additional broadening mechanism (e.g., opacity, unresolved spatial gradients) would bias sigma_v.
  • domain assumption The gas motions are isotropic, so the 3D velocity dispersion is sqrt(3) times the line-of-sight sigma_v, and non-thermal pressure from magnetic fields and cosmic rays is negligible.
    Section 3.2, Equation 1; this is the crucial assumption for converting sigma_v into Mach number and non-thermal pressure fraction. The paper explicitly states 'if ascribed to isotropic turbulence'.
  • domain assumption The atomic databases AtomDB v3.0.9 and SPEXACT v3.07.00 provide accurate wavelengths and emissivities for the iron lines.
    Section 3.1; both databases used, giving consistent results, but any systematic wavelength errors would propagate into the velocity scale.
  • domain assumption The BCG stellar redshift measured with MUSE (z=0.0779 +/- 0.0001) defines the rest frame of the cluster core.
    Section 2.2; the bulk velocity is measured relative to this redshift. The 30 km/s uncertainty is propagated into the upper limit.
  • domain assumption Coherent bulk motions within the 3x3 arcmin field (e.g., from the sloshing spiral) do not significantly contribute to the measured line broadening; the broadening is dominated by random, small-scale turbulence.
    Section 3.2 and Introduction; the Chandra image shows a sloshing spiral, and the measurement is field-integrated, so a spatial gradient in line-of-sight velocity would broaden the line without representing turbulent pressure. This is the paper's main interpretive risk.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XRISM reveals low non-thermal pressure in the core of the hot, relaxed galaxy cluster Abell 2029." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7JJQKM22

@misc{pith2026250105514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XRISM reveals low non-thermal pressure in the core of the hot, relaxed galaxy cluster Abell 2029},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7JJQKM22}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05514}
}
read the original abstract

We present XRISM Resolve observations of the core of the hot, relaxed galaxy cluster Abell 2029. We find that the line-of-sight bulk velocity of the intracluster medium (ICM) within the central 180 kpc is at rest with respect to the Brightest Cluster Galaxy, with a 3-sigma upper limit of |v_bulk| < 100 km/s. We robustly measure the field-integrated ICM velocity dispersion to be sigma_v = 169 +/- 10 km/s, obtaining similar results for both single-temperature and two-temperature plasma models to account for the cluster cool core. This result, if ascribed to isotropic turbulence, implies a subsonic ICM with Mach number M_3D = 0.22 and a non-thermal pressure fraction of 2.6+/-0.3%. The turbulent velocity is similar to what was measured in the core of the Perseus cluster by Hitomi, but here in a more massive cluster with an ICM temperature of 7 keV, the limit on non-thermal pressure fraction is even more stringent. Our result is consistent with expectations from simulations of relaxed clusters, but it is on the low end of the predicted distribution, indicating that Abell 2029 is an exceptionally relaxed cluster with no significant impacts from either a recent minor merger or AGN activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (left) Chandra image of Abell 2029 overlaid with the 1.4 GHz VLA radio contours and the Resolve field of view. (top right) Resolve counts image from the two obser￾vations combined. Locations of individual photons are ran￾domized within each pixel in the pipeline processing. (bot￾tom right) Residuals after subtracting a 2-D model from the Chandra image, clearly showing the sloshing spiral that ex￾tends throughout mos… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (top) Broad-band Resolve spectrum of the center of Abell 2029, with the two observations summed for clarity. The best-fit 1T AtomDB model is shown in orange. The NXB extracted from observations of the dark limb of the Earth is shown in blue, and is at least one order of magnitude below the cluster emission at all energies. Similarly, the estimated unresolved CXB shown in green is well below the cluster emission. (bo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. JWST PRIMER: Post-starburst galaxies dominate the low-mass quiescent galaxy population since z~2

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Post-starburst galaxies drive the low-mass upturn in the quiescent galaxy mass function out to z~2.25, and a simple model in which all post-starbursts become passive overpredicts low-mass passive galaxies at later times.

  2. XRISM Reveals a Kinematically Coherent Core System of the Nearby Cool-Core Cluster Abell 2199

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    XRISM observations show the core of Abell 2199 is kinematically coherent with low turbulence, where turbulent heating may offset ~20% of radiative cooling losses.

  3. Constraining gas motion and non-thermal pressure beyond the core of the Abell 2029 galaxy cluster with XRISM

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Direct XRISM line spectroscopy shows gas motions in Abell 2029 contribute no more than about 2 percent of the pressure out to R2500, implying a hydrostatic mass bias of about 2 percent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R., et al

    Andrade-Santos, F., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7461

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7461 2017

  2. [2]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa975

    Angelinelli, M., Vazza, F., Giocoli, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa975

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa975 2020

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  4. [4]

    W., Miller, E

    Bautz, M. W., Miller, E. D., Sanders, J. S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 1117, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.1117

    doi:10.1093/pasj/61.5.1117 2009

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 112, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/112

    Biffi, V., Borgani, S., Murante, G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 112, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/112

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/112 2016

  6. [6]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  7. [7]

    2010, ApJL, 721, L82, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L82

    Cassano, R., Ettori, S., Giacintucci, S., et al. 2010, ApJL, 721, L82, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L82

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/l82 2010

  8. [8]

    W., McNamara, B

    Cavagnolo, K. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1066, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1066

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1066 2010

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    E., Blanton, E

    Clarke, T. E., Blanton, E. L., & Sarazin, C. L. 2004, ApJ, 616, 178, doi: 10.1086/424911

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    T., Graham, A

    Dullo, B. T., Graham, A. W., & Knapen, J. H. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1635 Dupourqu´ e, S., Clerc, N., Pointecouteau, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245779 —. 2024, A&A, 687, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348701

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Brown, G

    Eckart, M. E., Brown, G. V., Chiao, M. P., et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 13093, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130931P, doi: 10.1117/12.3019276

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, A&A, 666, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243205

    Eckert, D., Ettori, S., Robertson, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243205

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, Nature, 528, 105, doi: 10.1038/nature16058

    Eckert, D., Jauzac, M., Shan, H., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 105, doi: 10.1038/nature16058

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, A&A, 621, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833324

    Eckert, D., Ghirardini, V., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833324

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, A&A, 657, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142638

    Ettori, S., & Eckert, D. 2022, A&A, 657, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142638

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Dennerl, K., et al

    Gatuzz, E., Sanders, J. S., Dennerl, K., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 511, 4511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2661

    doi

  10. [18]

    S., Canning, R., et al

    Gatuzz, E., Sanders, J. S., Canning, R., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 513, 1932, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac846

    1932 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Dennerl, K., et al

    Gatuzz, E., Sanders, J. S., Dennerl, K., et al. 2023, 522, 2325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1132

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 4238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3364

    Gianfagna, G., Rasia, E., Cui, W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3364

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 7274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae208 10 XRISM Collaboration HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al

    Heinrich, A., Zhuravleva, I., Zhang, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae208 10 XRISM Collaboration HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamat...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Awaki, H., et al

    Ishisaki, Y., Kelley, R. L., Awaki, H., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12181, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 121811S, doi...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H

    Kaastra, J. S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe, 411–414

    1996

  17. [25]

    V., & Borgani, S

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Borgani, S. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    T., Kravtsov, A

    Lau, E. T., Kravtsov, A. V., & Nagai, D. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1129

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Stocke, J

    Lewis, A. D., Stocke, J. T., & Buote, D. A. 2002, ApJL, 573, L13, doi: 10.1086/341990

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    Lodders, K., & Palme, H. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    2009

  21. [29]

    2024, A&A, 682, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346651

    Lovisari, L., Ettori, S., Rasia, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346651

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2007, PhR, 443, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.01.001

    Markevitch, M., & Vikhlinin, A. 2007, PhR, 443, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.01.001

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    G., McNamara, B

    Martz, C. G., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab96cd

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2016, IAU Focus Meeting, 29B, 700

    Miniati, F., & Beresnyak, A. 2016, IAU Focus Meeting, 29B, 700

    2016

  25. [33]

    2024, A&A, 686, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348608

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348608

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    T., & Nagai, D

    Nelson, K., Lau, E. T., & Nagai, D. 2014, ApJ, 792, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/25

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, PASJ, 68, S19, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv128

    Ota, N., & Yoshida, H. 2016, PASJ, 68, S19, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv128

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Clarke, T. E. 2013, ApJ, 773, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/114

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Kilbourne, C

    Porter, F. S., Kilbourne, C. A., Chiao, M., et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 13093, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130931K, doi: 10.1117/12.3018882

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    M., & O’Shea, B

    Prasad, D., Voit, G. M., & O’Shea, B. W. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1203

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    H., Veronica, A., Pacaud, F., et al

    Reiprich, T. H., Veronica, A., Pacaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039590

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 1917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx493

    Rossetti, M., Gastaldello, F., Eckert, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx493

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Dennerl, K., Russell, H

    Sanders, J. S., Dennerl, K., Russell, H. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936468

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d4 —

    Sarkar, A., Randall, S., Su, Y., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d4 —. 2023, ApJ, 944, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae9f

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1542

    Sayers, J., Sereno, M., Ettori, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1542

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Briel, U. G. 2004, A&A, 426, 387, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041039

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, SSRv, 215, 24, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0590-1

    Simionescu, A., ZuHone, J., Zhuravleva, I., et al. 2019, SSRv, 215, 24, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0590-1

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Walker, S

    Sohn, J., Geller, M. J., Walker, S. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1cc

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    2011, PASJ, 63, S1009, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S1009

    Tamura, T., Hayashida, K., Ueda, S., & Nagai, M. 2011, PASJ, 63, S1009, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.sp3.S1009

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tashiro, M., Maejima, H., Toda, K., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1144422, doi: 10...

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 686, A200, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348562

    Truong, N., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A200, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348562

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 207, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/207

    Umetsu, K., Sereno, M., Medezinski, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 207, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/207

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a9e

    Umetsu, K., Ueda, S., Hsieh, B.-C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a9e

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    W., et al

    Vazza, F., Angelinelli, M., Jones, T. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly172

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2009, A&A, 504, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912535

    Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., Kritsuk, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912535

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    S., et al

    Werner, N., Finoguenov, A., Kaastra, J. S., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, L29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809599

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, A&A, 674, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243922

    Wicker, R., Douspis, M., Salvati, L., & Aghanim, N. 2023, A&A, 674, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243922

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016 XRISM Collaboration

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016 XRISM Collaboration. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14301, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.14301

    2000 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    W., Mantz, A., & Werner, N

    Zhuravleva, I., Allen, S. W., Mantz, A., & Werner, N. 2018, ApJ, 865, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadae3

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 3111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1506 XRISM reveals low non-thermal pressure in Abell 2029 11

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1506 XRISM reveals low non-thermal pressure in Abell 2029 11

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    A., et al

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2014, Nature, 515, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature13830

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Markevitch, M., & Johnson, R

    ZuHone, J. A., Markevitch, M., & Johnson, R. E. 2010, ApJ, 717, 908, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/908

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Miller, E

    ZuHone, J. A., Miller, E. D., Bulbul, E., & Zhuravleva, I. 2018, ApJ, 853, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b3

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.