abstract: Gas-rich disks in the early universe are highly turbulent and have giant star-forming clumps. Models suggest the clumps form by gravitational instabilities, and if they resist disruption by star formation, then they interact, lose angular momentum, and migrate to the center to form a bulge. Here we study the properties of the bulges formed by this mechanism. They are all thick, slowly rotating, and have a high Sersic index, like classical bulges. Their rapid formation should also give them relatively high $\alpha-$element abundances. We consider fourteen low-resolution models and four high-resolution models, three of which have supernova feedback. All models have an active halo, stellar disk, and gaseous disk, three of the models have a pre-existing bulge and three others have a cuspy dark matter halo. All show the same basic result except the one with the highest feedback, in which the clumps are quickly destroyed and the disk thickens too much. The coalescence of massive disk clumps in the center of a galaxy is like a major merger in terms of orbital mixing. It differs by leaving a bulge with no specific dark matter component, unlike the merger of individual galaxies. Normal supernova feedback has little effect because the high turbulent speed in the gas produces tightly bound clumps. A variety of indirect observations support the model, including clumpy disks with young bulges at high redshift and bulges with relatively little dark matter.
author: Bruce G. Elmegreen; Frédéric Bournaud; Debra Meloy Elmegreen
title: Bulge Formation by the Coalescence of Giant Clumps in Primordial Disk Galaxies

# Introduction

Numerical simulations have shown that gas-rich primordial galaxy disks can fragment into massive clumps that interact gravitationally and migrate to the center where they merge and form a bulge (Noguchi 1999; Immeli et al. 2004ab; Carollo et al. 2007). In a recent model with an initially uniform disk composed of gas and stars and with an active halo (Bournaud, Elmegreen & Elmegreen 2007a, hereafter BEE07), clump formation and interactions trigger a starburst and redistribute the disk into a smooth exponential profile outside the bulge, while clump ejecta and clump tidal tails create a steeper exponential profile in the far outer regions. The earliest stages resemble high-redshift chain galaxies and clump clusters, with kpc-sized, $10^8$ M$_{\odot}$ clumps (Cowie et al. 1995; van den Bergh et al. 1996; Elmegreen et al. 2004; Conselice et al. 2004). The required high gas fractions and disturbed kinematics are observed at high redshifts (Genzel et al. 2006; Förster Schreiber et al. 2006; Weiner, et al. 2006; Daddi et al. 2008; Bournaud et al. 2008). The final stages in the model resemble modern spirals with a bulge and generally a double-exponential (type II) light profile (Freeman 1970; Pohlen et al. 2002). The bulge and thick disk can form at the same time. The bulge mass fraction is realistic for early type galaxies (BEE07), and, if the disk continues to grow, it is realistic for late types too. In the present paper, we explore the detailed properties of bulges that form this way. In a companion paper (Elmegreen, Bournaud, & Elmegreen 2008), we propose that nuclear black holes form along with the bulges by the coalescence of smaller black holes from each clump.

There are two main types of bulges (e.g., Drory & Fisher 2007; see review in Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004). Early-type galaxies tend to have "classical" bulges that are red, old, and high in $\alpha/Fe$ ratio (indicative of rapid formation), and an $n>2.5$ Sersic profile (Zoccali et al. 2006; Ballero et al. 2007; McWilliam et al. 2007; Lecureur et al. 2007). Their age, metallicity and abundance ratios (Moorthy & Holtzman 2006), luminosity function (Driver et al. 2007) and position in the fundamental plane (Falcón-Barroso et al. 2002; Thomas & Davies 2006; Jablonka et al. 2007; MacArthur et al. 2007) form a continuous sequence with elliptical galaxies. The most massive bulges and spheroids are of this type (MacArthur et al. 2007), and the Milky Way bulge may be also (Rich et al. 2007; Minniti & Zoccali 2007). Their origin could be related to galaxy-galaxy mergers (Hernquist & Barnes 1991) or cosmological gas accretion (Steinmetz & Muller 1995; Xu et al. 2007). Fu et al. (2003) and Zavala et al. (2007) suggest that classical bulges form from pre-galactic halo clusters or halo fragments, respectively, which lose their angular momentum to the halo.

In contrast, late-type galaxies (e.g., later than Sbc - Thomas & Davies 2006) tend to have "pseudo-bulges," which are somewhat blue, span a wide range of ages, and have more disk-like properties, including small-$n$ Sersic profiles (e.g., Debattista et al. 2006; Carollo et al. 2007). They presumably formed by secular evolution in disks, such as vertical instabilities in bars (Combes, & Sanders 1981; van den Bosch 1998; Avila-Reese et al. 2005; Debattista et al. 2006; Athanassoula 2007, 2008), and torque-driven accretion (Pfenniger & Norman 1990; Zhang 1999; see review in Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004). Rapid secular processes in bars might also build bulges that resemble the classical type in some respects (Athanassoula & Martinez-Valpuesta 2007).

The Noguchi model of bulge formation by disk clump coalescence does not fit either bulge type in standard models. Classical bulges supposedly formed early without significant disks and then accreted their disks later (see review in Conselice 2007). This idea is reinforced by the lack of a correlation between the luminosities of bulges and disks (Balcells et al. 2007). The Noguchi model, although fast enough to form a classical bulge in 1 Gyr, requires a disk first to get the material that coalesces. A pseudo-bulge has a disk first, but the bulge forms by a different mechanism, usually involving bars, and it forms over a much longer time than in the Noguchi model.

The Noguchi model fares better in the context of galactic structure observed at high redshift. The disk clumps that are supposed to coalesce to make a bulge are actually observed in galaxies in the Hubble Space Telescope Ultra Deep Field (HST UDF) and other deep fields out to $z\sim6$ (Elmegreen et al. 2007a). These clumps are large ($>1$ kpc), massive ($\sim10^8$ M$_{\odot}$), and young ($\sim300$ Myr, or $\sim10$ internal dynamical times), making them look like scaled-up star complexes formed by common gravitational instabilities (Elmegreen & Elmegreen 2005; Elmegreen, et al. 2007b). They also contribute strongly to the gravitational forces in the disk. If they resist disruption from supernova explosions, then they should migrate to the center and merge in only a few rotations, which is several $\times10^8$ yrs. The dynamical effect should be analogous to that in a major merger, with a thorough redistribution of orbits and a starburst in the gas (BEE07). In this sense, internal clump coalescence in the Noguchi model is like galaxy coalescence in the classical bulge formation model. Both processes also get less important over time: bulge formation by galaxy mergers becomes less important because the galaxy merger rate decreases; bulge formation by clump mergers becomes less important because the disks become less clumpy. Disk clumps presumably result from gravitational instabilities, so their mass depends on the turbulent Jeans mass. As turbulent speeds decrease relative to the rotation speed, clump masses decrease relative to the galaxy mass; then their interactions and migrations toward the bulge becomes less severe. An important difference between the two cases is that in galaxy mergers, each component has its own dark matter, whereas in clump mergers, the components are pure baryons.

A strong constraint on the origin of small bulges in massive galaxies was recently discovered by Weinzirl et al. (2008), who found too high a fraction of these bulges compared to the predictions of cosmological simulations. If a bulge is made by a major merger, as in the classical description, then the merger had to occur at a redshift $z>2$ in order for the galaxy to have had enough time to accrete its massive disk around the merger-remnant bulge. However, the fraction of galaxies with major mergers only at $z>2$ is much smaller than the fraction of galaxies with small bulges. Thus another origin for small bulges in massive galaxies is required. Weinzirl et al. suggested minor mergers or secular processes are involved. The Noguchi model discussed here is one possible secular process. Considering the prevalence of the right initial conditions for this model in deep galaxy surveys, i.e., highly turbulent and clumpy disks, it may be the primary secular process to form classical-type bulges.

Genzel et al. (2008) propose that bulges and exponential profiles form rapidly in young disks following dynamical evolution. They base this on high resolution observations of H$\alpha$ and \[NII\] in $z=2$ galaxies that show highly turbulent motions in star-forming regions and inner disk masses proportional to age. Elmegreen et al. (2008) similarly find an age and bulge-mass sequence in the clumpy galaxies of the Hubble Space Telescope Ultra Deep Field. The most clumpy types of disks have younger and smaller bulges relative to their star formation clumps than the smoother spirals. Elmegreen et al. suggested that clump cluster and chain galaxies form bulges and thick inner disks while they are still in their highly turbulent stage. When the gas settles, the clumps get smaller, the disk gets smoother, and bulge formation slows down to make a normal spiral.

In the following sections, we first review the observations of high redshift clumpy galaxies and show examples with and without bulges (Sect. ). Then we present simulations of gas-rich disks that form massive star complexes and follow the evolution of those complexes as they move inward by mutual gravitational interactions (Sect. ). The properties of the resulting bulges are discussed in Section . The effect of supernova feedback on the evolution and coalescence of giant clumps is studied in Section 5. The effect of clump migration on dark matter cusps is discussed in Section . Observations that support this model of bulge formation are reviewed in Section . Section  contains a summary.

# Observations of High-Redshift Clumpy Disks

Deep HST images with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) show two types of high redshift galaxies that are clumpy and without bulges or exponential disks: clump-clusters, which are oval collections of bright clumps, discovered by van den Bergh et al. (1996) in the Hubble Deep Field, and chains, which are linear collections of clumps, discovered by Cowie et al. (1995) in HST images of the Hawaii Survey Fields. These two types have similar luminosities and colors, similar clump luminosities and colors, and they collectively have a distribution with respect to their ratio of axes that is constant, as would be the case for circular disks viewed in random orientations (Elmegreen, et al. 2004; Elmegreen & Elmegreen 2005). Thus we suggested that most clump clusters and chains are members of the same population of highly-clumped disk galaxies, viewed at different orientations (Elmegreen, et al. 2005a; see also Reshetnikov, Dettmar, & Combes 2003). Not all clump clusters are single galaxy disks. A few are composed of features with discrepant redshifts so they are probably line-of-sight alignments, and a few others look more like separate galaxies in the process of assembly (see Fig. 5 in Elmegreen et al. 2007b, and Conselice et al. 2008). This is why we prefer to use the general morphological nomenclature of clump-clusters, rather than clumpy galaxies. van den Bergh (2002) called them protospirals, and Conselice et al. (2004) included clump clusters among his more general class of "luminous diffuse objects." For 178 clump clusters in the UDF, $27\pm14$% of the $i_{775}$ light is in clumps, compared to $\sim
8$% for spirals (Elmegreen et al. 2005b). For ten extreme cases, 40% of the $i_{775}$-band light and 19% of the mass is in clumps (Elmegreen & Elmegreen 2005).

The ACS morphology of clumpy galaxies is based on their far-uv restframe properties, which are dominated by star formation. Rest-frame images in B-band or redder are required to see bulges. In Elmegreen et al. (2007a), we compared $i_{775}$ and NICMOS J images to show weak or no bulges in three clump cluster galaxies, UDF 1666 at redshift $z=1.318$, UDF 3483 at $z = 1.80$ (photometric), and UDF 6462 at $z =
1.57$, and in one chain galaxy, UDF 7269 at $z=0.69$ (photometric). Similar comparisons were made in Elmegreen et al. (2008) where the relative bulge masses were also studied. In this latter paper, $\sim50$% of clump clusters and 30% of chain galaxies in the UDF, taken from a sample of galaxies larger than 0.3 arcsec, were observed to have bulges in the H-band NICMOS images. This leaves more than half of the clumpy, high-redshift galaxies without bulges.

Different examples of clumpy galaxies with strong and weak bulges are shown in Figure . Each row consists of two galaxies with ACS V-band images on the left and NICMOS H-band images on the right. The top left is UDF 6922 ($z_{phot}=1.35$), the top right is UDF 4253 ($z_{phot}=1.04$), the lower left is UDF 7269 ($z_{phot}=0.69$), and the lower right is UDF 6486 ($z_{phot}=2.64$). The two top galaxies have central bright concentrations in H-band that are not evident in the V-band, which shows primarily off-center clumps. These two presumably have bulges. The two in the bottom row have no dominant central concentrations in NICMOS. Other images of clumpy galaxies with and without bulges are shown in Elmegreen et al. (2008).

The identification of bulges in NICMOS images is difficult because the angular resolution is 3 times worse than in ACS images. The best we can say until higher resolution IR observations are available is that among 292 clump cluster and chain galaxies with no evident bulges in the ACS image of the UDF, about half can be examined with NICMOS (because they are large enough or in the NICMOS field of view) and among these, about half contain no obvious central bulges even in NICMOS. These galaxies span redshifts up to $\sim5$ in the UDF and are therefore plausible examples of the type of pre-bulge clumpy disks discussed in this paper.

It seems reasonable to assume that some high-redshift clumpy galaxies are fragmented, gas-rich disks. The clumps probably formed by gaseous gravitational instabilities, as in local galaxies, in which case the turbulent speed should be moderately large compared to the rotation speed, perhaps several tens of percent. This makes the clump size large compared to the galaxy radius, so there are only a few giant clumps in each galaxy. The high turbulence is in agreement with observations by Genzel et al. (2006), Förster Schreiber et al.(2006), and others referenced above. One of the clump-clusters that has a small bulge or reddish stellar region, UDF 6462, has a global rotation curve indicative of a single galaxy with highly disturbed velocities at the positions of the clumps, suggesting both high turbulence and non-circular motions (Bournaud et al. 2008). The bulge in UDF 6462 is redder than the clumps, somewhat centralized, and has a higher metallicity than the rest of the disk.

# Numerical simulations

The most relevant observations for a model of clumpy galaxies are the overall galaxy size, and the clump masses, separations and numbers. If the clumps form by gravitational instabilities in the gaseous component of an irregular disk, then their properties depend on local values of the turbulent speed $\sigma$ and column density $\Sigma$. To get a small number of massive clumps, we need a relatively high ratio of turbulent speed to rotation speed, $\sim10$% or more, and to get such a turbulent disk gravitationally unstable so that it forms clumps, we need a fairly high gas column density, which means a high gas-to-star ratio in the disk at that time. Many other details of the initial conditions are less important for this bulge formation model. The clumps should have a mass comparable to the disk Jeans mass, which is $M_{J}\sim \sigma_{gas}^4/\left(G^2\Sigma\right)$, and they should have a separation comparable to the Jeans length, $L_J\sim2\sigma_{gas}^2/\left(G\Sigma\right)$. If the dispersion for gas is large, comparable to that for the disk stars, then $\Sigma$ in this equation will have a strong contribution from disk stars, i.e., both stars and gas can contribute to the clump. When the Jeans length is a large fraction of the disk scale length, the clump masses will be a large fraction of the disk mass, and such clumps will interact strongly (BEE07). Cosmological simulations have more realism than our models on extragalactic scales, but they are not generally tuned to give clumpy disks like those we see at intermediate to high redshifts. Analytical models that approximate disk accretion with viscosity and consider thermal cooling (e.g., Lodato & Natarajan 2006) are also not as useful as direct simulations for following the complexity of turbulent disk fragmentation and evolution.

The evolution of gas-rich galaxy disks is modeled here in the same manner as in BEE07. We use a particle-mesh sticky-particle code (see Bournaud & Combes 2002, 2003). Sticky-particle parameters are $\beta_r=\beta_t=0.7$ for all but run 4, which has $\beta_r=\beta_t=0.8$. Star formation follows a local Schmidt law where the probability per timestep that each gas particle is transformed into a stellar particle is proportional to the local gas density to the power 1.4 (e.g., Kennicutt 1998). The proportionality factor gives a star formation rate of $3.5$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$ in the initially uniform disk.

In all our models, the initial disk is composed of gas and stars with a uniform surface density (i.e., chain and clump cluster galaxies do not have exponential disks; Elmegreen et al. 2005b). The initial disk radius is 6 kpc and the thickness is $h=700$ pc with a $\mathrm{sech}^2\left( z/h \right)$ vertical distribution. The disk mass (stars+gas) is $7 \times 10^{10}$ M$_{\sun}$. Stars have a Toomre parameter in the stable regime, $Q_{\mathrm{s}}=1.5$, but the mixed disk of stars and gas is unstable.

We first analyze a series of 14 low-resolution runs with a grid resolution and gravitational softening length of 110 pc. Stars, gas, and dark matter halo are modeled with one million particles each in these runs. Feedback from star formation is not included. Runs 0 to 7 are the same as in BEE07, and their initial parameters were summarized in Table 1 of BEE07. The main fixed parameters were recalled above. The gas mass fraction in the disk, $f_{\mathrm{G}}$, is 0.5 except for runs 4 and 5, where it is 0.25 and 0.75. The halo-to-disk mass ratio, $H/D$, inside the initial disk radius, is 0.5 except for runs 6 and 7, where it is 0.25 and 0.80.

Runs 0 to 7 have no initial bulge and a dark halo that is a Plummer sphere with a scale-length of 15 kpc. In addition, runs 0N, 1N, 2N have a $\Lambda$CDM cuspy halo (Navarro, Frenk & White 1997) with a cusp scale-length $r_S = 6$ kpc (concentration parameter 16.7 for a virial radius of 100 kpc). The other parameters including the gas fractions and halo-to-disk mass ratios are unchanged from runs 0, 1 and 2, respectively. Runs 0B, 1B, 2B are like runs 0, 1, and 2, but they have a small initial bulge that is a Plummer sphere with 10% of the disk mass and a radial scale-length of 600 pc.

We also performed higher-resolution models, with some including supernova feedback. The number of particles of each type was larger by a factor 3, the grid resolution and softening length were improved by a factor 2 in each direction everywhere, and they were improved by a factor 4 at radii smaller than 4 kpc. Clump coalescence occurs in this inner region, so the high resolution cases, where the spatial resolution is 28 pc, consider this process best.

With high resolution, Run HR-0 has an initial gas fraction of 60%, an initial bulge of 4% of the disk, and the other parameters as in the fiducial Run 0. Runs HR-0-F1, HR-0-F2 and HR-0-F3 have the same initial conditions and resolution as run HR-0, but with supernova feedback included. We used the feedback model proposed by Mihos & Hernquist (1994). A supernova is assumed to occur for each $50\;M_{\odot}$ of stars formed. A fraction $\epsilon$ of the $10^{51}$ erg energy of each supernova is released in the form of radial velocity kicks applied to gas particles within the closest cells. We used $\epsilon =
2\times10^{-4}$ in run HR-0-F1 (which is about the value suggested by Mihos & Hernquist 1994), $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$ in run HR-0-F2 and $\epsilon = 10^{-2}$ in run HR-0-F3.

During the course of each simulation, clumps were identified every 25 Myr as regions where the surface density is locally larger than the radial average by a factor of 3. Only clumps with masses larger than $2\times10^8$ $M_\odot$ and sizes smaller than 3 kpc were considered: this size limitation avoids spiral arms (see BEE07). Sub-structures like OB associations and small dense clusters are expected to form inside the main clumps of real galaxies, but we cannot resolve this in the simulations.

# Bulge Properties

Properties of the bulges formed in the low and high resolution runs without feedback are first considered. The influence of supernovae (SNe) in runs HR-0-F1 to HR-0-F3 will be discussed in section . The time-dependent mass column density in the fiducial run 0 was shown in Figure 4 of our previous paper, BEE07. Giant stellar clumps formed in the gas-rich initial disk and then migrated to the center where they made a bulge. About half the clump mass was left in the disk and the other half got to the center. An exponential disk formed outside.

Figures and show the new fiducial runs, 0N, with an initial NFW halo, and 0B, with an initial central bulge. The timescale for clump merging has increased slightly in both cases compared to run 0 because of the relatively smaller mutual forces between the clumps: smaller compared to the dark matter force in run 0N and smaller compared to the combined disk+bulge force in run 0B. The evolution of the high resolution run HR-0 is shown on the top in Figures  and .

## Bulge mass

The fractional clump masses, $f_C$, bulge masses, and bulge-to-total (baryonic) mass fractions after 1 Gyr are given in Table 1. Runs 0 to 7 and HR-0 have bulge fractions ranging from 0.12 to 0.36 (average 0.24). Runs with a cuspy dark matter halo have about the same final bulge mass fractions as those with a Plummer sphere halo. Runs with an initial 10% bulge have slightly larger final bulge masses than those without an initial bulge. This increase is not the full 10% because increased tidal forces near the center disrupt the clumps earlier before they coalesce. Bulge growth is somewhat regulated in this way. This keeps the final bulge-to-disk ratio compatible with that in present-day early-type spirals, even when a primordial bulge is present from an earlier clump-cluster phase or another formation process.

## Bulge Density Profile

Figure shows radial disk column density profiles, ($\Sigma(r)$, normalized to the central value) of the bulge regions up to $\sim 1.5$ kpc, where the disks become exponential. We plot $\log[-\log(\Sigma)]$ versus $\log(r)$ because that has a constant slope of $1/n$ in a Sersic profile with projected normalized column density $\Sigma=\exp[-(r/r_0)^{1/n}]$. The model bulges have steep Sersic indices, with an average of $n\simeq 4$ (between 3 and 4.5) in the 100–500 pc radial range. The Sersic index decreases at radii of 500 to 1000 pc. The bulge in the higher-resolution run HR-0 also has a Sersic index clearly larger than 2 and close to 4 for $r<500$ pc; the best fit in the 100-500 pc range is $n=3.4$. Thus the model produces central concentrations with the morphology of classical bulges.

## Bulge Kinematics

The bulges formed by clump coalescence are not fast rotators. Figure shows the line-of-sight velocity ($V$) and velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{bulge}$) for the fiducial run 0 at the final stage, considering two orthogonal edge-on projections. The bulge central velocity dispersion was measured as follows: for each model, we built 50 independent 2-D projections of the stellar content, uniformly distributed over the sine of the inclination to represent an average over all possible viewing angles. The line-of-sight velocity dispersion was computed inside a projected aperture diameter of 110 pc (the grid resolution), and for each model we kept the average value over all projections. We do not attempt to subtract the disk component from edge-on projections, nor to make a direct 3-D measurement, because this would not be done in observations. Measuring the mass-weighted line-of-sight dispersion within a larger projected aperture of 500 pc, we find values between 7% higher and 11% lower than the measurement in the central 110 pc. Thus the projected radial gradient in the dispersion is relatively small in the bulge. This result was also found observationally by Gebhardt et al. (2000), who showed that the dispersion gets high only in the very central regions close to a black hole.

Figure indicates that the bulge region has a strong increase in the velocity dispersion compared to the disk. While the $V/\sigma_{bulge}$ ratio in the exponential disk exceeds 2, the luminosity-weighted average value in the central 750 pc, which contains two-thirds of the bulge mass (green circles on Fig. 5), is much smaller, between 0.4 and 0.5 for the two projections. This is actually an upper limit to $V/\sigma_{bulge}$ in the bulge because of unavoidable disk contamination. In this respect, clump mergers that form bulges are like galaxy mergers that form elliptical galaxies. Both provoke a large kinematical heating that forms a spheroid dominated by random motions. Clump mergers are not like the in-spiral of small dense clusters from dynamical friction, which can leave a rapidly rotating core. Values of the bulge line-of-sight velocity dispersion for all simulations are in Table 1. The average is 130 km s$^{-1}$.

The bulge velocity dispersion was not affected by resolution. Even at higher resolution, the bulges are slowly rotating and have high velocity dispersions. The bulge morphology and kinematics in model HR-0 are shown in Figure . This bulge is rotating with $V
\leq$ 60 km s$^{-1}$, and it has a velocity dispersion $\sigma
\geq$ 80 km s$^{-1}$ within its half-mass radius.

All of the bulges are somewhat flattened in both the high and low resolution runs. This flattening results from a combination of slight bulge rotation, anisotropic velocity dispersion, and a flattened disk potential.

# Effects of Supernova Feedback on the Evolution of High-Redshift Clumpy Galaxies

The models described so far and in BEE07 include star formation but no SN feedback. The concern is whether energy injected by SNe can disrupt the clumps before they reach the center. Immeli et al. (2004a,b) had feedback in their models and the clumps were not disrupted, however their clump masses were larger than in the observations and in our models. Here we consider three high-resolution models, HR-0-F1, HR-0-F2, and HR-0-F3, that have different fractions $\epsilon$ of SN energy re-injected into the local gas kinetic energy ($\epsilon=2\times10^{-4}$, $10^{-3}$, and $10^{-2}$, respectively). The evolution of these models is shown in the bottom three rows of Figures  and .

According to Mihos & Hernquist (1994), realistic values for $\epsilon$ in kinetic feedback models should be around $2\times 10^{-4}$ (our run HR-0-F1) and not higher than $10^{-3}$ (our run HR-0-F2). These two runs have long-lived, massive clumps of gas and stars in their disks that survive until they coalesce into the central bulge (Figs.  and ). Only the lowest mass clumps ($10^7$ M$_{\sun}$) are significantly reduced by feedback. As measured in Table 1, the masses of the largest clumps are only slightly reduced when feedback is added, and as a result the bulge growth is reduced too, both by about 10%. This is a rather small effect, so feedback is not the main driver of clump disruption. As shown in BEE07, clumps typically release half of their mass into the disk before they reach the bulge because of tidal forces and shear. This keeps the final bulge-to-disk mass ratio rather low. In our models HR-0-F1 and HR-0-F2, SN feedback further regulates the bulge growth in a modest way, but the cores of the clumps clearly survive until they reach the central kpc and coalesce into the bulge.

The edge-on view of the gas disk in run HR-0-F2 ($\epsilon = 10^{-3}$; Fig.  ) shows that it is significantly thickened. At the mid-course of the simulation, the gas layer has an average scale-height of 1.6 kpc, larger than the initial conditions and thicker than the star-forming layers in chain galaxies (Elmegreen & Elmegreen 2006). This model should then be taken as an upper limit on the feedback efficiency, in agreement with what Mihos & Hernquist inferred at lower redshift. Even in this case, though, the cores of the massive clumps survive until they reach the central bulge. If we increase even more the feedback efficiency (run HR-0-F3), the clumps become short-lived: they form in the gas but are rapidly disrupted, with no visible counterpart remaining in the stellar mass. In this case no bulge formation by clump coalescence can occur. The gas disk is also nearly destroyed in this case: the thickening is so large that the gas disk resembles a spheroid and even the stellar disk thickens over time.

It is thus unlikely that supernova feedback can disrupt $10^8\;M_\odot$ clumps in high-redshift galaxies; otherwise the gas disk itself would get dispersed. Assuming a lower feedback efficiency but a higher star formation efficiency, or a higher supernova fraction in the IMF, would lead to the same conclusion. If the energy input from stellar feedback is low enough to preserve the gas disk, then the most massive clumps that form are likely to survive for a few disk rotations and reach the center. Supernovae feedback should be more important in lower-mass galaxies, which should have lower gas turbulent speeds and easier clump disruption. This could explain why lower mass galaxies (i.e., later Hubble types) tend to have lower bulge-to-disk mass ratios.

# Evolution of the Dark Matter Cusp

Three of the models have a cuspy initial dark matter halo, following Navarro et al. (1997). The evolution of the disk does not depend much on this cusp, as shown above, but the evolution of the cusp depends a little on the disk. Figure shows the halo density profiles before and after these three simulations. A control run with a rigid disk potential is also shown (dotted line). When the disk can evolve through the formation and interaction of clumps, the central cusp becomes considerably weaker, amounting to a factor of $\sim3$ in central halo density. The cusp scale-length increases also. This change is a result of halo heating by the moving massive clumps when they reach the center. The central cusps do not go away, but they get reduced. Their reduction should be greater in lower mass galaxies if the disk Jeans mass is about the same (i.e., if the gas velocity dispersion and column density are about the same for a smaller mass galaxy). The reduction should be greater also if several episodes of gas accretion, clump formation and bulge growth take place during the life of a galaxy. Each episode would erode the cusp a little more.

# Discussion

Numerical simulations suggest that primitive gas-rich disks should fragment into clumpy star-formation complexes with masses of $\sim10^8\;M_\odot$ or more, and that these complexes should interact gravitationally and move to the galaxy center where they combine to form a bulge. The surrounding disk becomes exponential in the process. There are many assumptions here, the simulations are highly idealized, and the initial galaxies are not fully cosmological with realistic gas accretion and hierarchical build-up. Still, the most important aspects of the model are rather fundamental: young galaxies are gas-rich, gravitational instabilities are inevitable (as in modern galaxies), and clump interactions follow from the relatively large Jeans masses. Our models also suggest that the most massive clumps can survive star-formation feedback during the time it takes them to coalesce. Thus, we are led to ask whether this bulge formation scenario is compatible with the properties of real galaxies and if there is either direct or indirect evidence for it.

First, we have illustrated the kinds of young galaxies where these processes should operate: the clump cluster and chain galaxies with weak or no bulges that are seen out to the detection limit at $z \sim
5$ in all high-resolution deep images (Sect. , ). The observed clump masses, sizes, positions, numbers, and ages in these galaxies are reproduced by the models without fine tuning. The key ingredient is a ratio of velocity dispersion to rotation speed that is several times larger than in local galaxies: this large dispersion makes the interstellar Jeans mass equal to the observed clump mass for star formation that is triggered by gravitational instabilities (e.g., Elmegreen et al. 2007b). Such large dispersions are observed in high redshift disks (Sect. 1).

Sargent et al. (2007) also note that the co-moving density of bulge-free disks among intermediate-size galaxies increases out to $z=1$, while the co-moving density of classical bulgy disks (as determined from their high-$n$ Sersic profiles) decreases, keeping the total disk comoving density about the same. They conclude that at least some high-$n$ bulges have formed by secular disk processes since $z=1$. Balcells & Domínguez-Palmero (2007) find a similar coeval evolution of classical bulges and disks: bulge colors correlate with disk colors and red bulges are rarely surrounded by purely blue disks in the redshift range from 0.1 to 1.2. Thus there is good evidence for bulge-free disks at high redshift, and for a transition from bulge-free to classical-bulge galaxies over time. This is compatible with the standard model of bulge formation in galaxy mergers, and also with our model of bulge formation by baryonic clump mergers.

The simulations show that the bulges formed this way have properties typical of classical, early-type galaxy bulges. They are slow rotators with high velocity dispersions, thick perpendicular dimensions, and high Sersic indexes. The model timescale from the formation of giant clumps to their merging in the bulge is about 1 Gyr, consistent with the evidence summarized in Section 1 for rapid formation of classical bulges, including that in the Milky Way (e.g., Lecureur et al. 2007) and $z\sim2$ galaxies (Genzel et al. 2008; Elmegreen et al. 2008). Longer bulge formation timescales are possible if the clump formation phase in the disk is prolonged, as might be the case with continued cosmological gas accretion.

The merger of disk clumps is somewhat similar to the merger of small galaxies. The initial angular momentum of the clumps is lost to the disk and halo, so all that remains after their merger is a spheroidal bulge supported mainly by velocity dispersions. An important difference between bulge formation by clump mergers and bulge formation by galaxy mergers concerns the dark matter content of the merging entities. Disk clumps, forming by disk instabilities, contain no halo dark matter from the surrounding galaxy, and so the bulges they form contain no additional dark matter either. In contrast, galaxy mergers bring in considerable amounts of dark matter with them, and much of this should end up in the bulge or spheroid (e.g. Dekel et al. 2005). The amount of bulge dark matter depends on how many bulge stars form at the time of the merger: merger-driven gas accretion followed by star formation to make a bulge brings in relatively little dark matter, whereas merging warm stellar populations should preserve their initial dark matter content. Because observations of early-type galaxy bulges show relatively little dark matter (Corradi & Capaccioli 1990, Noordermeer et al. 2007, Corsini 2007), the galaxy merger model of bulge formation could have more difficulty than the clump merger model in this respect.

Another test of our model involves dark matter cusps (Navarro et al. 1997). Dark matter in merging galaxies adds to the cusp during hierarchical buildup, while massive baryonic clumps that stir the central regions reduce these cusps by increasing the central dark matter velocity dispersion (see also El-Zant, Shlosman, & Hoffman 2001; Sect. ). Neither of these two bulge-forming mechanisms can completely remove the cusps. Either real galaxies never had cusps, or their cusps have been washed out by various dynamical mechanisms. The merging of disk clumps into a bulge eases the cusp problem, while the merging of cusp-containing galaxies makes the problem worse.

The case for classical bulge formation by galaxy coalescence has been weakened also by the observation that early-type bulges may have smaller Sersic $n$ than previously thought. Carollo, Stiavelli, & Mack (1998) found nuclear star clusters in half of the 75 galaxies they observed with HST, spanning a wide range of Hubble types, and noted that many had exponential profiles outside the clusters and few had pure $n=4$ Sersic profiles. Balcells et al. (2003) also found for early-type galaxies (S0-Sbc) that nuclear star clusters, which are usually unresolved from the ground, convert low-$n$ profiles into high-$n$ profiles artificially. High-$n$ profiles can be explained by major mergers and violent relaxation (van Albada 1982; Barnes 1988; Bournaud et al. 2005, Naab & Trujillo 2006) or by numerous minor mergers (Bournaud et al. 2007b), but if the profiles have lower $n$, then the merger scenario is less compelling. Our models form high-$n$ bulges by clump mergers and are subject to the same criticism. If all bulges have low $n$ except for unresolved nuclear clusters, then our model cannot explain them – or strong supernova feedback is required to decrease the mass concentration. More high-resolution bulge profiles are required for this important test.

In the case of late-type or low-mass bulges, which are mostly pseudo-bulges, there is considerable evidence that they come from disks, including correlations between bulge colors and scale lengths and disk colors and scale lengths (MacArthur et al. 2003; Carollo et al. 2001; 2007; see Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004). The implied processes usually involve torque-driven inflows and vertical resonances from bars and spirals. Our models differ from this in that they are fast and require a more primitive disk, one dominated by turbulent gas and little pre-existing bulge, bar, or spiral potentials. A predominantly stellar disk with a bar already, or with enough of a stellar mass to generate strong spiral torques, is not as likely as a primitive disk to fragment into giant clumps that interact gravitationally and merge in the center. We showed in Section that an initial bulge increases the tidal force on the clumps and limits the mass they can deliver to the center.

# Conclusions

Gas-rich disks with relatively high turbulent speeds should fragment into massive, star-forming clumps and quickly evolve to resemble the chain and clump-cluster galaxies observed at high redshift. Further evolution should lead to clump coalescence and the overall structure of early-type disk galaxies, with smooth (Type II) exponential profiles and Sersic $n\sim4$ bulges. The bulge and inner thick disk stars form fast enough to become enriched with $\alpha$ elements, as required, and their velocity dispersions are realistically large. Direct observations in support of this model include clumpy, highly-turbulent disks and the presence of relatively young, low-mass bulges at intermediate to high redshifts (Sects. 1, 2). Indirect observations include a gradual transition in the classical bulge fraction in disks from redshift $z\sim1$ to 0 (Sect. ), a high fraction of massive galaxies with relatively low-mass bulges (Sect. 1), and a lack of dark matter specific to the bulge component (Sect. ), all of which constrain bulge formation by major mergers of individual galaxies. We also note some tendency for clump interactions to heat a dark matter cusp if there is one, and in our simulations, this lowers the cusp density by a factor of $\sim3$. More simulations will be required to determine if multiple bulge-building episodes continue to reduce the cusp density.

The primary two motivations to consider bulge formation by this mechanism are the large turbulent speeds and the extremely clumpy structures observed in high redshift galaxies. Gravitational instabilities in highly turbulent disks will form stars in extremely massive clumps, so the two observations go together. The present simulations start at this point and show that such clumps will interact strongly with the disk stars and with each other and, as a result, lose angular momentum and migrate to the center. Bulge formation follows. Our simulations with supernova feedback indicate that the massive clumps survive long enough for this whole process to occur, even if feedback regulates bulge growth slightly. The models also indicate that clump coalescence is a lot like galaxy coalescence in that the final bulges formed by these two mechanisms have similar velocity dispersions, rotations, light profiles, and three-dimensional structures. Bulge formation by clump coalescence is expected to get less frequent over time as disk turbulence subsides, because the star-forming clumps will get less massive with the lower turbulent speeds. This decrease in bulge formation by clump coalescence parallels the decrease expected for bulge formation by galaxy coalescence.

The dynamical processes shown here are fundamental yet rapid, suggesting they may be present but unrecognized in other published simulations, including large-scale cosmological simulations that have enough resolution to see structure in disk galaxies (e.g., Rasera & Teyssier 2006; Ocvirk et al. 2008). If the clumpy-disk, bulge-formation phase lasts for only a few disk rotations, and most of the time in a simulation consists of calm secular phases alternating with minor and major mergers, then this important first step in the formation of a galaxy might be missed compared to the subsequent longer-term evolution. The contribution of such clumpy phases to the star formation history might be overlooked too. Still, the processes described here should be present in simulations with enough resolution.

Numerical simulations were carried out on the NEC-SX8R vector computer at CEA/CCRT. D.M.E. thanks Vassar College for publication support. Helpful comments by the referee are gratefully acknowledged.

<table>
<caption>Masses, Mass fractions, and Bulge Velocity Dispersions</caption>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><p>Run ID</p></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><span class="math inline"><em>f</em><sub><em>C</em></sub></span></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">Bulge Mass</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">Bulge/Total</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><span class="math inline"><em>σ</em><sub><em>b</em><em>u</em><em>l</em><em>g</em><em>e</em></sub></span></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><span class="math inline">×10<sup>9</sup> <em>M</em><sub>⊙</sub></span></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">Mass Ratio</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">km s<span class="math inline"><sup>−1</sup></span></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.38</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">21</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.30</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">121</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">1</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.32</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">14.7</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.21</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">117</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">2</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.31</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">13.3</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.19</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">108</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">3</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.39</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">23.1</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.33</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">146</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">4</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.26</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">9.8</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.14</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">87</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">5</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.34</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">22.4</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.32</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">184</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">6</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.41</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">25.2</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.36</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">178</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">7</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.23</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">8.4</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.12</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">91</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">0N</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.33</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">19.6</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.28</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">163</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">1N</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.29</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">12.6</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.18</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">118</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">2N</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.32</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">14.7</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.21</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">122</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">0B</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.31</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">24.6</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.32</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">145</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">1B</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.26</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">20.8</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.27</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">125</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">2B</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.28</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">19.3</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.25</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">109</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">HR-0</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.36</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">19</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.26</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">123</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">HR-0-F1</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.33</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">18</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.25</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">119</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">HR-0-F2</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.30</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">14</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">0.20</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">107</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


abstract: We compare recent results from X-ray, strong lensing, weak lensing, and optical observations with numerical simulations of the merging galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56. X-ray observations reveal a bullet-like subcluster with a prominent bow shock, which gives an estimate for the merger velocity of 4700 km s$^{-1}$, while lensing results show that the positions of the total mass peaks are consistent with the centroids of the collisionless galaxies (and inconsistent with the X-ray brightness peaks). Previous studies, based on older observational datasets, have placed upper limits on the self-interaction cross-section of dark matter per unit mass, $\sigma/m$, using simplified analytic techniques. In this work, we take advantage of new, higher-quality observational datasets by running full N-body simulations of 1E 0657-56 that include the effects of self-interacting dark matter, and comparing the results with observations. Furthermore, the recent data allow for a new independent method of constraining $\sigma/m$, based on the non-observation of an offset between the bullet subcluster mass peak and galaxy centroid. This new method places an upper limit (68% confidence) of $\sigma/m <
  1.25$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. If we make the assumption that the subcluster and the main cluster had equal mass-to-light ratios prior to the merger, we derive our most stringent constraint of $\sigma/m < 0.7$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, which comes from the consistency of the subcluster's observed mass-to-light ratio with the main cluster's, and with the universal cluster value, ruling out the possibility of a large fraction of dark matter particles being scattered away due to collisions. Our limit is a slight improvement over the previous result from analytic estimates, and rules out most of the $0.5 -
  5$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ range invoked to explain inconsistencies between the standard collisionless cold dark matter model and observations.
author: Scott W. Randall, Maxim Markevitch, Douglas Clowe, Anthony H. Gonzalez, and Marusa Bradač
title: Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56

# Introduction

The nature of dark matter, which accounts for the majority of the mass in the Universe, is one of the major outstanding problems of modern astrophysics. Although it is often assumed that dark matter is collisionless, there is no a priori reason to believe that this is the case, and it has been noted by other authors that a non-zero self-interaction cross-section can have important astrophysical implications (e.g., Spergel & Steinhardt 2000). In particular, self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) has been invoked to alleviate some apparent problems with the standard cold dark matter (CDM) model, such as the non-observation of cuspy mass profiles in galaxies (e.g., Moore 1994; Flores & Primack 1994; cf. Navarro et al. 1997; Moore et al. 1999b) and the overprediction of the number of small sub-halos within larger systems (e.g., Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999a). Previous simulations and theoretical studies suggest that a self-interaction cross-section per unit mass of $\sigma/m \sim
0.5 - 5$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ is needed to explain the observed mass profiles of galaxies (e.g., Davé et al. 2001; Ahn & Shapiro 2003, though see also Ahn & Shapiro 2005). Earlier studies have found stringent upper limits on $\sigma/m$, inconsistent with the above range (e.g., Yoshida et al. 2000a; Hennawi & Ostriker 2002; Miralda-Escudé 2002, though see also Sand et al. 2002). However, in general these studies require non-trivial assumptions or statistical samples of clusters and full cosmological simulations.

Furlanetto & Loeb (2002) pointed out that if one observes an offset between the gas and dark matter in a merging cluster, arising because of the ram pressure acting on the gas but not the dark matter, it can be used to constrain the collisional nature of dark matter. Markevitch et al. (2002, hereafter M02) found just such a cluster, 1E 0657-56, which in the *Chandra* image shows a bullet-like subcluster exiting the core of the main cluster, with prominent bow shock and cold front features, and a uniquely simple merger geometry (Markevitch et al. 2002, hereafter M02). This gas bullet lags behind the subcluster galaxies, which led M02 to suggest that this cluster could be used to determine whether or not dark matter is collisional. If dark matter were collisionless, one would expect the subcluster dark matter halo to be coincident with the collisionless subcluster galaxies. A map of the dark matter distribution was subsequently derived by Clowe et al. (2004) using weak lensing observations, which showed that the subcluster dark matter clump lay ahead of the gas bullet, close to the centroid of the subcluster galaxies (see also Clowe et al. 2006a, hereafter C06). The X-ray image of 1E 0657-56 is shown in Fig.  with the most recently derived weak lensing mass contours of C06 overlain. The weak lensing contours are shown instead of the strong lensing contours since they are better for showing the overall structure, as they are derived from a wider field of view. The positions of the total mass peaks from strong and weak lensing analyses are consistent with one another, and the general structures are similar. The more massive main cluster is on the left and the high-velocity merging bullet subcluster is on the right. The main and subcluster mass peaks are clearly visible in the mass map, as is the offset between the gas bullet and the corresponding dark matter (DM) peak. C06 argued that this offset is direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.

The weak lensing mass map of Clowe et al. (2004) was used by Markevitch et al. (2004, hereafter M04), in conjunction with the X-ray and optical observations available at the time, to analytically estimate upper limits on the self-interaction cross-section per unit mass of DM, $\sigma/m$, using three independent methods. These methods were based on the observed offset between the gas bullet and the DM subclump, the high merger velocity of the subcluster, and the survival of the DM subclump (more precisely, the subcluster's $M/L$ ratio being equal to that observed in other clusters and in the main cluster). M04 assume a King mass profile, based on the original weak lensing mass map, and that the subcluster has passed only once through the main cluster, close to the main cluster core, as indicated by the X-ray image. Their most stringent limit comes from the observed survival of the DM subclump, from which they infer that $\sigma/m < 1$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$.

Although the analytic estimates performed by M04 provide useful upper limits on $\sigma/m$, several conservative simplifying assumptions were necessary. For instance, the effects of dynamical friction as the subcluster disturbs the main cluster mass distribution were ignored, as was the possibility of multiple scatterings per particle. Although these effects are relatively small, their inclusion may lead to tighter constraints. Furthermore, the analytic estimates cannot address any structure that may be found in a high-resolution mass map (e.g., tails in the DM distribution, similar to the gas tails seen in the bullet, due to collisional stripping of DM, as described by M04). This argues for full N-body simulations that would include the effects of SIDM with varying cross-sections.

Additionally, new data (both X-ray and lensing) have become available for 1E 0657-56. Analysis of data from 450 ks of total exposure with *Chandra* gives a more accurate shock Mach number of $M = 3.0 \pm 0.4$ (all uncertainties 68%), which corresponds to a shock (and bullet) velocity of 4700$\pm 630$ km s$^{-1}$ (Markevitch 2005). Recent weak and strong lensing analyses of a much larger optical dataset, which includes *HST* observations, give a higher quality mass map and a more accurate determination of the subcluster dark matter and galaxy centroids (Bradač et al. 2006, hereafter B06; C06). In particular, the accuracy of the total mass and galaxy centroids is now sufficient for an additional method of constraining $\sigma/m$. In this paper, we will concentrate on the most sensitive method from M04, which is based on the observed mass-to-light ($M/L$) ratios, and on this new test. The best way to interpret the new high-quality data is through comparisons with detailed numerical simulations of the merger which allow for SIDM with varying cross-sections. We present results from such simulations and give constraints on the self-interaction cross-section of dark matter particles. We assume $\Omega_0 = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, and $H_0
= 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, for which $1\arcsec = 4.42$ kpc at the cluster redshift of $z = 0.296$.

# The Simulations

## Simulation Code and Parameters

All simulations were performed using a modified version of the publicly available TreeSPH code GADGET2 (Springel 2005). To model the self-interaction of the DM particles, we adopted a Monte Carlo method used previously by other authors (e.g., Burkert 2000; Yoshida et al. 2000b). At each simulation time step, the scattering probability for the $ith$ particle is given by $$\label{eqn:prob}
P_i = \rho_i \sigma v_{\rm rel} \Delta t,$$ where $\rho_i$ is the local density, $v_{\rm rel}$ is the relative velocity between the $ith$ particle and its nearest neighbor, and $\Delta t$ is the time step size. The local density is determined using GADGET2's smoothed particle hydrodynamic (SPH) capabilities. Collisions are assumed to be elastic and scattering isotropic in the center-of-mass frame. In order for this relation to be valid, $\Delta t$ must be chosen such that $P_i \ll 1$.

We ran a series of merger simulations with $\sigma/m$ varying between 0 and 1.25 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. Each simulation run included 10$^6$ DM particles (gas was not included in the simulations, see discussion in § ). Additionally, we performed a convergence test run with 10$^7$ DM particles and $\sigma/m\approx 1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, which agreed well with the lower resolution run for all tests we performed. We interpret this agreement as indicating that the effects of individual self-interacting DM particles are well modeled by the large computation particles used in the simulations, and that the results we present here are not seriously affected by numerical resolution effects. The ratio of DM particles in the main cluster and subcluster was set equal to the initial total mass ratio of the clusters, which is known analytically from the King models used to build the clusters.

In this work, we apply a new method for constraining $\sigma/m$ based on the absence of an offset between the subcluster total mass and galaxy centroids. For this, we added another family of particles to the simulations to represent the collisionless galaxies. We choose 10$^5$ "normal" galaxy particles for the main cluster and 2.5$\times 10^4$ for the subcluster throughout. The ratio of the number of normal galaxy particles was estimated based on galaxy counts given by Barrena et al. (2002). The galaxies were initially distributed like the DM in each run. The mass in galaxies was assumed to be roughly 5% of the total mass for each cluster, which, combined with the number of galaxy particles, gives a low mass per galaxy (2.15$\times 10^8$ M$_{\odot}$). Using a large number of light-weight galaxies was chosen over using a more realistic mass per galaxy so that accurate galaxy centroids could be determined. Test simulations run with the more realistic average mass per galaxy of $10^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$, also determined from results given by Barrena et al. (2002), showed similar results to those given below in §, though, as expected, with a larger scatter. Two cD galaxies, one at the center of each cluster, were also included in the simulations (though we note that three cD galaxies are observed, two associated with the main cluster and one with the subcluster). Their inclusion leads to conservative estimates of the effects of DM self-interaction, since a lower central DM density is required to reproduce the observed total mass profile (and the scattering probability depends on the local DM density via Eqn. ). The cD galaxies were each given a mass of 10$^{13}$M$_{\odot}$.

The gravitational softening length was chosen to be 2 kpc throughout, which is on the order of the mean inter-particle separation in the densest region in each simulation (i.e., at core passage). The softening length for the cD galaxy particles was set to 60 kpc throughout. This large softening length was chosen since on the scale of the simulations cD galaxies are significantly extended objects and treating them as concentrated point-like masses would be unrealistic. Since the lensing observations do not give an accurate mass profile for the subcluster, King models with density profiles of $\rho(r) =
\rho_0 (1 + r^{2}/r^{2}_{c})^{-3/2}$, where $\rho_0$ is the central density and $r_{c}$ is the core radius, were conservatively chosen for the mass profiles of each cluster. Such a choice gives conservative limits for the effects of self-interacting DM, since King models do not have strongly concentrated "cuspy" cores, as compared to NFW (Navarro et al. 1995) and Hernquist (1990) profiles. Thus the central density is lower and the total number of DM particle collisions is conservatively reduced. Further discussion of the impact of the bullet mass profile on our results can be found in §. As suggested by the X-ray morphology (M04), all simulated mergers were head-on collisions with zero impact parameter and an initial separation of 4 Mpc. The effects of a possible non-zero impact parameter are discussed in §.

## Initial Conditions

For each run, the initial conditions were chosen such that the projected mass profiles of the main cluster and the bullet subcluster, after core passage and at the observed separation (720 kpc), roughly matched those from the most recent combined strong and weak lensing results derived by B06, which are given in the last row of Table . A relatively small contribution from the observed distribution of gas mass was subtracted from the B06 total mass, so that the resulting values could be directly compared with the simulations. The gas masses were computed from the X-ray observations. The details of the derivation of the gas mass map will be given in a future paper. A summary of the parameters for each simulation run is given in Table , which gives the initial central density and core radius for the main cluster ($\rho_{c,1}$, $r_{c,1}$) and the bullet subcluster ($\rho_{c,2}$, $r_{c,2}$), and $\sigma/m$ for each run. The mass profiles were truncated at 20 $r_c$.

As pointed out by C06, weak lensing is expected to underestimate the mass of the lens by 10-20% in the dense central regions. Furthermore, weak lensing can underestimate masses due to mass-sheet degeneracy, where the mass map is affected by the non-detection of mass at the edges of the field of view. The effect can be seen by comparing the total (i.e., without the gas mass subtracted) weak lensing mass estimates of C06 to the mass profiles derived by B06, which combine strong and weak lensing observations. We chose to match the projected mass profiles in the simulations to those given by B06, since strong lensing is expected to give better results in the central core regions. We are most interested in these regions since most of the particle scattering depth accumulates near the center. We explore the effects of decreasing the total mass of the system on our results in § .

## Matching Simulations to Observations

Columns 4 & 5 of Table  give the total projected mass within 150 kpc of the mass peak for the main cluster ($M_1(r < 150$kpc$)$) and the subcluster ($M_2(r < 150$kpc$)$) at the observed separation for each simulation run and from the lensing observations. Some trial-and-error was necessary to determine what initial conditions gave the desired projected mass profiles at the desired separation. In general, larger $\sigma/m$ values required a more concentrated subcluster initially. This effect occurs because the self-interaction of the DM particles causes them to be scattered away, particularly in high density regions. Consequently, the subcluster mass profile is spread out during core passage. For the purposes of comparing the simulations with observations, we take the simulation snapshot where the offset between the clusters is closest to the observed separation. The time resolution of the snapshots was small enough to match this value to within a few kpc ($<$ 1), which is within the observational error. We require the simulated mass profiles at this moment to be consistent with the strong lensing mass map to within 10% in the inner regions ($r <$ 500 kpc).

## Stability of Simulated Halos

It is of interest to evaluate the stability of our simulated clusters, particularly in the presence of SIDM. In the case of non-self-interacting DM, the phase-space distribution function can be computed and used to generate a gravitationally stable King model density profile. However, in the case of SIDM, particle collisions will tend to transfer kinetic energy from one region of the cluster to another, consequently altering the density profile (see, e.g., Burkert 2000). In section § , we will draw conclusions based on the fraction of particles scattered away from the core of the subcluster due to the merger event. It is therefore necessary to determine what fraction of particles might flow from the central region of the bullet due to the instability resulting from SIDM collisions. To this end, we ran simulations of the subcluster DM halo, allowing it to evolve in isolation over the timescale of the merger simulations (about 1 Gyr). We used the same cluster parameters as the subcluster that has the highest central density of all the clusters in Table . The results are shown in Figure , which gives the initial density profile (solid line) and the density profile after 1 Gyr for $\sigma/m =
0$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ (dotted line) and $\sigma/m = 0.7$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ (dashed line). The density in the inner regions is marginally enhanced in the case of SIDM. This result is similar to the core-collapse phase seen by Burkert (2000), where weak interactions between the kinematically hot core and the cooler outer regions result in an outward transport of kinetic energy (though this effect is expected to be somewhat curtailed here due to the near isothermality of the King profile at small radii). For the purposes of the test described in § , we are only concerned with the total mass within *projected* radii. This quantity is plotted for each run in Figure . The above effect of SIDM on the projected mass profile is negligible, particularly for projected radii $x \ge 150$ kpc, which is the minimum radius considered for the test described in § . Thus, if we find that a large fraction of SIDM particles scattered outside this radius, it can be assumed to be caused by the merger event as opposed to any halo instability. Furthermore, the collisionless galaxies are expected to adjust to any change in the overall potential (which is dominated by the DM), thereby acting to further stabilize the mass-to-light ratio. Indeed, in these isolated subcluster runs, the mass-to-light ratios within a projected radius of 150 kpc from the cluster centers stay within 2% of their initial values, regardless of the DM self-interaction.

# Results

## Galaxy – Dark Matter Centroid Offset

For non-self-interacting DM, the centroids of the subclump DM and galaxy distributions are expected to be coincident throughout the simulation, since gravity is the only operating force. However, when $\sigma/m > 0$, the subcluster DM halo experiences a drag force as it passes through the main cluster, and subsequently lags the collisionless galaxies, just as the fluid-like subcluster gas core is observed to lag the DM halo (see Fig. ). We ran simulations with a range of values for $\sigma/m$ and calculated the centroids for each particle type by taking the average projected position of the particles in some large region, centering on this position with a smaller region, and repeating with smaller and smaller regions (down to a region with a radius of 200 kpc). Column 6 of Table  gives $\Delta x$, the offset between the subcluster galaxy and DM centroids, for each run, for the moment when the subcluster is close to the observed separation of 720 kpc from the main cluster. The dependence of $\Delta x$ on $\sigma/m$ is also plotted in Figure  (solid line). Results from the run with $\sigma/m = 0$ indicate that the offsets from the simulations are accurate to about $\pm 2$ kpc ($0.5\arcsec$). It is clear from Table  that the centroid offset is a strong function of $\sigma/m$.

An X-ray image close-up of the bullet region with error contours for the subcluster total mass and galaxy centroids overlain is shown in Figure . Details of the derivation of the total mass centroids are given in C06. The centroid of the galaxy distribution was calculated from the ACS photometry, using all galaxies for which the F814W-F606W color is within 0.15 mag of the red sequence. We used an Epanechnikov kernel with $h=30\arcsec$ (Merritt & Tremblay, 1994; Gonzalez et al. 2002) to determine the centroid, and a bootstrap technique to quantify the uncertainty. The centroid of the subcluster galaxies is found to be $5.7\arcsec \pm
6.6\arcsec$ ($25\pm29$ kpc) west of the corresponding weak lensing mass peak. Given the observational errors on the centroid positions (roughly 5$\arcsec$, or 22 kpc, on the subcluster mass peak and galaxy centroid), the absence of a larger offset means that $\sigma/m<$ 1.25 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. We note that, although this upper limit is greater than the best constraint of $\sigma/m<$ 1 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ found by M04, it is more robust, since it does not rely on the assumption that the subcluster and the main cluster had equal $M/L$ ratios prior to the merger, as is the case with the limit from M04 (see § ). This distinction is relevant since, although there is evidence for a universal $M/L$ ratio for clusters, the level scatter for individual clusters is not negligible (see Dahle 2000).

## Subcluster M/L Ratio

In a merger scenario, SIDM is expected to give a lower $M/L$ ratio for the subcluster that has just passed through a dense core as compared to collisionless DM. This is because during the merger, DM particles are scattered away due to collisions, while the collisionless galaxies are relatively unaffected. To estimate the change in the $M/L$ ratio in the simulations due to the merger, we simply take the ratio of the total mass to galaxy mass within 150 kpc (projected) of the bullet DM centroid and compare the values at the start of the simulations and at the observed separation. The results are tabulated in Column 7 of Table , which gives $f$, the fractional decrease in the bullet $M/L$ ratio within 150 kpc, and also plotted in Figure  (dashed line). We note that for $\sigma/m \approx 1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, the subcluster loses about 38% of its mass within 150 kpc, which is in agreement with a conservative estimate of 20 - 30% given by M04. As expected, the numerical results yield somewhat tighter constraints on $\sigma/m$ as compared to the analytic estimates when using the same method and observational constraints.

Using the latest lensing mass map from B06, we rederived $M/L$ ratios for each of the two subcluster within a projected 150 kpc of the total mass peaks (for previous results see Clowe et al., 2004). For the subcluster, the mass contribution from the outskirts of the main cluster has been approximately subtracted, whereas for the main cluster, the total mass is used, since the contribution from the subcluster is negligible. The projected mass contribution from the main cluster to the subcluster is estimated by taking the average mass in an annulus at the distance of the subcluster (excluding the region of the subcluster itself). This gives a conservative estimate for the upper limit on $\sigma/m$, since scattering due to putative DM collisions is expected to result in an anomalously low $M/L$ value for the subcluster as compared to the main cluster, and by reducing the observed mass of the subcluster we minimize the effect of the collisions that we want to constrain. We find $M/L_B = 471 \pm 28, 422 \pm 25$ and $M/L_I = 179 \pm 11, 214 \pm 13$ for the subcluster and the main cluster, respectively (for a discussion of the errors on the mass measurements, see B06). The ratios agree with one another to within about the 68% confidence intervals. From the $I$ band data, we find that the ratio of $M/L$ ratios of the subcluster and main cluster is $0.84 \pm 0.07$. We conservatively choose to use the $I$ band data only, since we want to put a firm lower limit on this ratio, and $M/L_B$ is larger for the subcluster than for the main cluster. Assuming each cluster started out with similar $M/L$ values, which appears to be a reasonable assumption for clusters in general (e.g., Mellier 1999; Dahle 2000), we conclude that the subcluster could not have lost more than $\sim23\%$ of its initial mass. A comparison with the results from simulations plotted in Figure  (dashed line) shows that this implies $\sigma/m \la 0.6$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, which is a slight improvement over the previous best limit of $\sigma/m \la 1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ from the conservative estimates of M04.

## Structure in Subcluster Dark Matter Distribution

M04 suggested that scattered DM particles, which would account for about 1/5 of the total subcluster mass, might form tail features in the DM distribution, similar to the tails seen in the X-ray image of the gas bullet (see Figure ). The simulations allow us to determine whether the non-observation of such tails in the mass map could be used to constrain $\sigma/m$. We find that, rather than forming a tail, the scattered particles are mostly deposited in the core of the main cluster, and do not form any features at a level that is interesting for constraining $\sigma/m$.

# Discussion

## Non-zero Impact Parameter

As M04 argue, the morphology of the X-ray image, in particular, the symmetry of the North-South X-ray bar (most likely an oblate spheroid viewed edge-on) between the main cluster and subcluster mass peaks around the axis of symmetry set by the shape of the X-ray bullet (which gives its present velocity direction), combined with the line-of-sight velocity and X-ray derived Mach number, indicate a merger axis that is $\sim10\arcdeg$ from the plane of the sky, and that the cluster cores must have passed close to one another, certainly within the $\sim 200$ kpc core radius of the main cluster. In all simulations previously discussed, it was assumed that the bullet subcluster passed directly through the center of the main cluster core, i.e., that the impact parameter of the merger, $b$, is zero. For $b > 0$, we expect that the effects of self-interacting DM will be reduced, since the density is at a maximum when the core centers pass directly through one another, and the scattering probability is proportional to the density (Eqn. ). To test the strength of this effect, we re-ran the simulation R4 (see Table ) with an impact parameter of $b = 200$ kpc. Aside from the impact parameter, the initial mass and velocity distributions were identical to those for run R4, so that the relative effects of $b >0$ could be investigated (specifically, no adjustments were made to the initial conditions to more closely match the current observed mass profiles). The resulting projected total mass profiles for the subcluster within 150 kpc and 250 kpc at the observed separation agreed with those from the $b = 0$ run to within 4%. For the main cluster, the match was better than 1%.

The resulting offset between the galaxy and DM centroids during the post core passage phase was systematically smaller than the offset seen in the $b = 0$ run. At the observed separation, the difference in the centroid offsets, as compared to the $b=0$ run, was about 4 kpc, which is on the order of both the observational error and the accuracy of our numerical technique. The fractional change in the $M/L$ ratio of the subcluster was similarly affected; for the $b = 0$ case, the $M/L$ ratio within 150 kpc drops by about 27%, whereas for the run with $b = 200$ kpc, it drops by 22%. Assuming, as we did in § , that the subcluster could not have lost more than $\sim23$% of its initial mass, we find the constraint that $\sigma/m <
0.7$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. We therefore conclude that, although a non-zero impact parameter reduces the effects of self-interacting DM as expected, the level of the effect is relatively small. This is likely due to the assumed King mass profile of the main cluster. The radial density gradient is relatively small within the core radius of the main cluster (which in this case is 151 kpc), so it is not surprising that the effects of self-interacting DM are not significantly reduced by increasing the impact parameter, so long as it is comparable to the core radius of the main cluster. Naturally, the effects of a non-zero $b$ would be increased if the main cluster had a strongly peaked mass profile, though the current lensing data suggest otherwise. We conclude that any value of impact parameter that is consistent with the observations will only slightly alter our results.

## Alternative Bullet Mass Profiles

As noted in §, the choice of a King mass profile for the subcluster is expected to give conservative estimates on the effects of collisional DM, based on the $M/L$ ratio, since the central density is low as compared to models with cuspy cores such as NFW and Hernquist models. However, in the case of the galaxy/DM centroid offset test, one might argue that since the subcluster galaxies are more tightly bound in the center for more highly concentrated mass profiles, it will be more difficult to displace them, which could lead to a smaller offset between the centroids despite the increased action of DM collisions. We therefore ran a test simulation, using a King model for the main cluster and a Hernquist model for the subcluster, with $\sigma/m = 0.72$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. The Hernquist profile is given by $$\label{eq:hern}
\rho(r) = \frac{M a}{2 \pi r} \frac{1}{(r + a)^3},$$ where $M$ is the total cluster mass and $a$ is the scale length (Hernquist 1990). As before, initial parameters were chosen such that the bullet mass profile roughly matches the observed profile at the current separation (we used $M = 3.13 \times 10^{14}$ M$_\odot$, $a
= 100$ kpc). This is expected to be the most conservative model combination for this test, since the main cluster King model minimizes the effects of DM self-interaction while the subcluster Hernquist model maximizes the binding energy of the subcluster galaxies. The results show that, when comparing to run R4 in Table , the galaxy/DM centroid offset was only slightly less than that found with the King model subcluster, on the order of the accuracy of the simulation offset values (less than 1 kpc). The change in the subcluster's $M/L$ was similarly only weakly affected ($f =
0.27$ for the King model bullet subcluster, whereas for the Hernquist model we find $f = 0.31$, consistent with the King profile being the conservative case). The agreement is likely due to the fact that the centroids become offset from one another after core passage, and it is during core passage that the central density peak of the bullet is mostly "smoothed away" due to DM collisions (recall that DM scattering is more frequent in high density regions, so high density structures are more efficiently destroyed by DM self-interactions). Although strongly peaked density profiles have been found to be unstable to SIDM (e.g., Burkert 2000; Yoshida et al. 2000b), in our simulation a significant change in density only occurred at small radii, such that the total projected mass of the subcluster within 50 kpc remained stable up until the merger event. Therefore the subcluster mass distribution remained significantly more peaked than a King profile cluster with the same projected mass within 150 kpc. We conclude that our results are only weakly dependent on the mass profile chosen for the bullet, so long as we require that the observed mass profile is reproduced. For the initially more centrally concentrated profiles, the effects of the increased binding energy in the core are balanced by the increased scattering frequency in this region.

## Mass Profile Dependence

As mentioned in § , weak lensing is expected to underestimate the mass of the lens by 10-20%. There are two separate effects that contribute to this underestimation. First, near the core of a cluster there is a large region without weak lensing galaxies, and this region is effectively smoothed over when computing the mass map. Additionally, galaxies near the regions where strong lensing dominates are measured in the weak lensing approximation, which also leads to an underestimate of the mass in the core. Second, the total cluster mass can be underestimated due to mass-sheet degeneracy, where the mass-map is affected by the non-detection of mass at the edge of the field of view. Although projection of foreground and/or background structures unassociated with the clusters will artificially increase the mass, it is highly unlikely that such projected structures significantly contributed to the detected lensing signal (C06). Results from strong lensing, which is not susceptible to the same systematic underestimation as weak lensing, do indeed give systematically higher projected masses for this system, by about a factor of 2 within the inner few hundred kpc, which is the region we are most interested in for this analysis (compare B06 and C06; see C06 for further discussion of this discrepancy). Though we chose to use the mass estimates from strong lensing, since it should give a more reliable estimate of the projected mass near the cluster cores, it is interesting to explore the dependence of our results on the lensing mass estimates. To this end, we conducted a simulation run similar to run R4, but with the initial cluster central densities chosen such that the projected mass profiles at the observed separation were about 2 times lower than the masses derived from strong lensing observations, roughly in agreement with the weak lensing results given by C06 (the initial core radii were the same as for run R4). Since the scattering probability depends on the density, we expect these less massive halos to be more weakly affected by SIDM.

Results obtained from the simulations with the lower mass normalization show that the effects of SIDM are diminished, as expected for a linear dependence of the scattering probabilities on the projected mass. In run R4, the $M/L$ ratio dropped by 27%, whereas for the run with 1/2 the total mass it dropped by 14% (roughly a factor of 2 less). Similarly, the galaxy/DM centroid offset was 11.1 kpc, again, about a factor of 2 down from the 24.1 kpc offset seen in run R4. If we assume that this factor of two effect can be applied to all of values given in columns 6 & 7 of Table  and consider the more sensitive $M/L$ test, we find that requiring $f \la 0.20$ would correspond to $\sigma \la
1.25$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. This is done as a test of the method only, since these low halo mass values are not realistic, as they are insufficient to produce the system of strong arcs observed in the *HST* images (C06).

## Low Merger Velocity

All of the simulations discussed so far have assumed a merger velocity that is consistent with that derived from X-ray observations (Markevitch, 2005), which give a Mach number for the shock front of $M = 3.0 \pm 0.4$, and it is assumed that the subcluster has the same velocity as the shock (though see Springel & Farrar, 2007). Since the subcluster could have slowed down, or the shock front accelerated, it is interesting to ask what effect a lower velocity would have on the inferred upper limit on $\sigma/m$, particularly since the observed velocity is larger than would be expected from free fall of the subcluster onto the main cluster (Farrar & Rosen 2007). In order to test the dependence of our upper limit on merger velocity, we ran a simulation with $\sigma/m = 0.72$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ such that the relative velocity of the cluster DM halos at observed separation was 1.5 times lower, about 3100 km s$^{-1}$ ($M \approx 2$). This is close to the expected free-fall velocity of the subcluster, and to the relative velocity of 2860 km s$^{-1}$ found by Springel & Farrar (2007) from hydrodynamical simulations of this system. The results showed little difference from the higher velocity run (compare to run R4 in Table ): $\Delta x$ was 30.2 kpc (vs. 24.1 kpc) and $f$ was 0.25 (vs. 0.27). We therefore conclude that our results are relatively insensitive to merger velocities that are not in large disagreement with the observations. A weak dependence of the $M/L$ ratio on the subcluster velocity $v$ is easy to understand: the particle scatters out of the subcluster as long as $v/2$ is much greater than the escape velocity from the subcluster, which it is by a large margin (M04).

## Effects of Diffuse Gas

As mentioned in § , the intracluster gas observed in the X-ray band was not included in the simulations (doing so would greatly increase the computing time and the complexity involved with matching the observations in detail). The only way for the gas to affect the results is via gravitational interaction (we ignore the possibility of non-gravitational baryon-DM interactions, the cross-section of which has been shown to be extremely small, e.g., Chen et al. 2002). In general, the gas is expected to contribute about 10% of the total mass of the system, a figure which appears to be consistent with the lensing and X-ray observations (B06). One might worry that, when matching the observed mass profiles, some "extra" DM is needed to account for the missing gas. As mentioned in § , gas masses have been subtracted from the lensing masses using a detailed model of the gas distribution derived from fitting the X-ray observations. In terms of the test involving the decrease in the subcluster $M/L$ ratio (see § ), we needn't worry about the subcluster gas for the simple reason that the gas bullet is far from the subcluster mass peak (roughly 23$\arcsec$, or 102 kpc). Therefore, the gas in the region of the bullet mass peak is not centrally concentrated and will not significantly add to the binding energy of potentially scattered DM particles. For the galaxy and total mass centroid offset test (see § ), the exclusion of the gas is expected to give a conservative result: the gas bullet and bar feature seen in Figure  will act to decelerate the subcluster DM halo and galaxies. However, if, as is the case with SIDM, the DM halo starts to lag behind the galaxies and gets closer to the gas cores than the main concentration of the galaxies, it will experience a larger deceleration, thereby increasing the offset between the two. Due to the relatively low mass of the gas components, and the large distance between the gas peaks and the subcluster DM halo and galaxies (as compared to the offset of the latter), the strength of this effect will be quite small. We therefore conclude that including gas in the simulations would not significantly affect our results.

# Summary

We have combined results from new X-ray, optical and lensing observations and our N-body simulations of the merging galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56 in order to derive an upper limit on the self-interaction cross-section of dark matter particles, $\sigma/m$. We give constraints on $\sigma/m$ based on two independent methods: from the lack of offset between the total mass peak and galaxy centroid of the subcluster that would arise during the merger due to drag on the subcluster halo from DM particle collisions, and from the lack of a decreased mass-to-light ratio of the subcluster due to scattering of DM particles. From the former, we find $\sigma/m < 1.25$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, and from the latter, $\sigma/m < 0.7$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, which includes the uncertainty in the impact parameter of the merger (upper limits are from 68% confidence intervals). Our best constraint is a modest improvement of the previous best constraint from conservative analytic estimates of $\sigma/m < 1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ (M04). Furthermore, our limit of $\sigma/m < 1.25$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ is more robust than the best analytic limit, since this method does not depend on the assumption that the subcluster and main cluster $M/L$ ratios were equal prior to the merger. Previous studies have found that $\sigma/m \sim 0.5 - 5$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ is needed produce the observational effects that self-interacting dark matter has been invoked to explain (e.g., non-peaked galaxy mass profiles and the underabundance of small halos within larger systems). Our results rule out almost this full range of values, at least under the assumption that $\sigma$ is velocity-independent.

We would like to thank Volker Springel, Naoki Yoshida, Yago Ascasibar, and Alexey Vikhlinin for useful discussions and for providing access to various private codes. Simulations were performed on a Beowulf cluster at the ITC in the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Support for this work was partially provided for by the NASA *Chandra* grants G04-5152X and TM6-7010X, and NASA contract NAS8-39073.

```latex
\begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
\tablewidth{5.8truein}
\tablecaption{Initial Simulation Parameters \label{tab:ics}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Run Name}&
\colhead{$N_{DM}$}&
\colhead{$\sigma/m$}&
\colhead{$\rho_{c,1}$}&
\colhead{$r_{c,1}$}&
\colhead{$\rho_{c,2}$}&
\colhead{$r_{c,2}$}\\
\colhead{}&
\colhead{}&
\colhead{(cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$)}&
\colhead{(10$^6$ M$_\odot$ kpc$^{-3}$)}&
\colhead{(kpc)}&
\colhead{(10$^6$ M$_\odot$ kpc$^{-3}$)}&
\colhead{(kpc)}
}
\startdata
R1 &10$^6$&0    &3.27 &213 &4.59  &149\\
R2 &10$^6$&0.24 &3.27 &213 &4.59  &149\\
R3 &10$^6$&0.48 &4.42 &183 &6.57  &129\\
R4 &10$^6$&0.72 &7.03 &151 &11.75 &108\\
R5 &10$^6$&0.96 &6.26 &167 &9.76  &124\\
R6 &10$^6$&1.25 &6.26 &167 &9.76  &124\\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
```
```latex
\begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
\tablewidth{6.7truein}
\tablecaption{Conditions at Observed Separation \label{tab:obscond}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Run Name}&
\colhead{$N_{DM}$}&
\colhead{$\sigma/m$}&
\colhead{$M_1(r < 150 $kpc$)$}&
\colhead{$M_2(r < 150 $kpc$)$}&
\colhead{$\Delta$ x\tablenotemark{a}}&
\colhead{$f$\tablenotemark{b}}\\
\colhead{}&
\colhead{}&
\colhead{(cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$)}&
\colhead{(10$^{13}$ M$_\odot$)}&
\colhead{(10$^{13}$ M$_\odot$)}&
\colhead{(kpc)}&
\colhead{}
}
\startdata
R1  &$10^6$&0   &12.0& 11.1& 1.8& 0.0\\
R2  &$10^6$&0.24&11.5& 10.4& 5.4&0.08\\
R3  &$10^6$&0.48&11.8& 10.4& 15.0&0.16\\
R4  &$10^6$&0.72&12.6& 11.0&24.1&0.27\\
R5  &$10^6$&0.96&12.4& 10.9&37.9&0.32\\
R6  &$10^6$&1.25&11.4& 9.8&53.9&0.38\\
Obs.&      &    &11.9$\pm$1.6& 10.6$\pm$0.4&$25 \pm 29$ &$0.16\pm0.07$\\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{$\Delta$ x is the offset between the subcluster
  total mass and galaxy centroids.}
\tablenotetext{b}{$f$ is the fractional decrease in the mass-to-light
  ratio of the subcluster within 150~kpc.}
\end{deluxetable}
```