1 / 16

Effects of galaxy formation on dark matter haloes

Effects of galaxy formation on dark matter haloes. Susana Pedrosa Patricia Tissera , Cecilia Scannapieco Chile 2010. Introduction.

tarak
Download Presentation

Effects of galaxy formation on dark matter haloes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Effects of galaxy formation on dark matter haloes Susana Pedrosa Patricia Tissera, Cecilia Scannapieco Chile 2010

  2. Introduction • Cuspy inner profiles obtained from simulations: not consistent with the observational results found for the rotation velocity of low surface brightness and dwarf galaxies (Flores & Primac 1994; Moore 1994; Dutton et al. 2008; Gnedin & Zao 2002)‏ • Overabundance of small DM subhaloes. • The universality of the profiles (Navarro et al. 2004; Merrit et al. 2006; Gao et al. 2008; Navarro et al. 2008 ,N08)‏ • Theoretical model for the contraction when baryons are present, Adiabatic Contraction (Blumenthal et al. 1986; Gnedin et al. 2004; Sellwood et al. 2005)‏ • Numerical results for the contraction of DM haloes when baryons are present, Tissera & Dominguez Tenreiro (1998); Gnedin et al. (2004); Romano-Díaz et al. (2008).

  3. Simulations • Set of 6 simulations from the Aquarius project (Springel et al. 2008), • Haloes extracted from a cosmological box of 100 Mpc and resimulated with very high resolution (Scannapieco et al. 2009, S09) using GADGET-3, total mass: 5-11x1011 h-1 M⊙, • Cosmological parameters: ΩΛ=0.75, Ωm=0.25, σ8=0.9 and H0= 100 h k s-1 Mpc-1, con h=0.73. •  1x106 particles within rvir with masses of: 106 h-1 M⊙ for the DM and 2x105 h-1 M⊙.for the gas; eg =0.5 - 1 h-1 kpc. • Set of 6 simulations, (Scannapieco et al. 2008, S08) • haloes of ~ 1012 h-1 M⊙, resimulated with higher resolution using GADGET-2 (Scannapieco et al. 2005 y S06)‏. • Cosmological parameters: ΩΛ=0.7, Ωm=0.3, Ωb=0.04, σ8=0.9 and H0= 100 h km s-1 Mpc-1, h=0.7. • 105 particles within rvir ; Particles masses: DM = 1.6x 107 h-1 M⊙ y gas = 2.4x106 h-1 M⊙.; eg =0.8 h-1 kpc.

  4. Simulations • Aquarius Set: • Different initial conditions, aprox same baryonic physics: variety of structures and star formation histories . • Dominated by stellar populations older than ~ 8 Gyr. Some galaxies have centrifugally supported disks (Aq-C-5, Aq-D-5, Aq-E-5), and one spheroid (Aq-F-5) • Results are compared with purely dynamical runs (DMo) of Navarro et al. 2008. • Set S08: • All experiments have the same initial conditions while the baryonic physics were varied: they all share the same underlying merger tree, differences are due to the different hydrodynamic evolution of baryons. • Varied resulting morphology: NF, C-001: espheroids; E-07, F-09: important disk component; E-03: thick disk; E3: extreme case with very high ESN , DM dominated.

  5. NF C001 E07 F09 E3 E03 Density Profiles • Spherically averaged within the virial radius. • CM: Shrinking Sphere (Power et al. 2003)‏ • Better fit by Einasto, 3 parameters n y r_2 , y ρ_2 . In S08 set ρ_2 fixed with the total mass as constrain. • Profiles always more concentrated than the DMo case. • The level of concentration can be correlated to the formation history. • Galaxies that were able to develop a disk:more concentrated profiles, although the ones hosting spheroids are more massive. • Key: feedback regulation acting on the galaxy but also on the satellites. S08

  6. NF C001 E07 F09 E3 E03 Interaction with satellites • Δv/2 Parameter • All haloes increase their concentration with time and the DMo is always less concentrated. • NF, C-001: flattened curve -> close approching of satellites • E-07, F09 y E3: feedback regulation action: less massive satellites. • Feedback regulates the SF in both, the central galaxy and the satellites: spheroids have more massive satellites and they are able to survive further in the halo. Satellites cumulative mass vs r

  7. Aquarius density profiles • Density increases in the central regions. • Baryonic runs: below DMo for large r and above for the inner regions. • Inside the peak, aproximately isothemal.

  8. NF C001 E07 F09 E3 E03 Velocity Dispersion • The DM velocity dispersion profiles are strongly affected by baryons: increase in the central regions. • Decrease monotonically with radius. • The DMo characteristic “temperature inversion” is not present. • S08: In agreement with Aq, increases in the central regions • Systems with higher stellar masses → steeper inner profiles . • ti is also lost, except for the DM dominated run, E3 • Dependence with z: the inversion is never at place. S08 Aq

  9. Velocity Anisotropy Parameter Measure of the internal velocity structure of the haloes. • The presence of baryons modify the anisotropy. • Trend: spheroids tend to have lower levels of anisotropy than their DMo, while disks higher. • Aq: baryons affect  in a complicated way: some cases similar shape to the DMo and others result less dominated by radial movements. S08 Aq

  10. Pseudo Phase Space Density Taylor & Navarro (2001): Related with the entropy. Bertschinger (1985): α ~ 1.875 • the universality is lost • all runs flatten with respect to Bertschinger solution, different levels of discrepancy. • changes: mass and velocity redistribution in the central regions. S08 Aq • DMo, follow Bertschinger. • With baryons: lower values of α. • Larger residuals: espheroids, weaker effects: disks Haloes contraction has not been adiabatic

  11. Rotation Velocity • Problem in LCDM: inability to reproduce observed rotation curves: enormous concentration of baryons in the central regions. • Important disk component at place: total velocity gets flatter within the baryonic dominated region. • S08: Vmax/Vvir between 1.15 and 1.5, in better agreement with observations.

  12. Gne04 B86 DMo SPH Adiabatic Contraction • Blumenthal et al. (1986): overstimate the level of concentration in the central regions. • Gnedin et al. (2004) and Abadi et al. (2009), better agreement but still overpredict. S08 Aq Discrepancy: haloes contraction depend on the way baryons were collectedduring galaxy assembly.

  13. Conclusions • When baryons are present DM density profile become more concentrated than their DMo counterpart. The amount of baryons collected within the inner regions does not by itself determine the response of the DM haloes. • Central regions, profiles nearly isothermal. Best fit: Einasto model. • Formation history S08: haloes hosting galaxies that were able to develop an important disk structure: profiles more concentrated. • Evolution with redshift: all haloes increase their concentration in time. Flattening in the relation: close approach of satellites. • Satellite system, spheroids have more massive satellites and survive further in the halo, stars more gravitational bounded. • Presence of baryons increase the velocity dispersion within the central regions. No “temperature inversion”. For S08, slope increase with increasing baryonic mass.

  14. Conclusions II • The phase space density in presence of baryons does not follow Bertschinger; Not consistent with a purely adiabatic contraction of the DM halo. • The rotation velocity curves flatten in systems that developed a disk structure: lower the maximum to virial velocity ratio. • Comparison with the predicted contraction for different AC models: neither of them provides a good prediction of the contraction, they don't account for the formation history of the galaxy. • All our findings indicate that the response of the DM halo to the presence of baryons is the result of the joint evolution of baryons and DM during the assembly of the galaxy.

  15. Hansen & Moore relation • General trend between  and β. • Aquarius: some haloes have linear relation in the central zones, 2eg < r < r_2. • For r > r-2 this relation is lost. • S08: also the linear relation keep only for the central zones.

  16. HR • Cosmological simulation with DM mass iresolution of 5.93x 106 h-1 M⊙ and 9.12x105 h-1 M⊙; factor 4 in particle number. • Δv/2 : get more concentrated with time; where the curve flattens → correlate with the interaction with satellites; Δv/2 for the spheroid is flatter • The general trends agree with the S08 results

More Related