4.7 Article

Quenching massive galaxies with on-the-fly feedback in cosmological hydrodynamic simulations

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 417, Issue 4, Pages 2676-2695

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19430.x

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: luminosity function; mass function

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-0847667, AST-0907998, DMS-0619881]
  2. NASA [HF-51254.01, NAS 5-26555]
  3. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0847667] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Massive galaxies today typically are not forming stars despite being surrounded by hot gaseous haloes with short central cooling times. This likely owes to some form of quenching feedback such as merger-driven quasar activity or radio jets emerging from central black holes. Here we implement heuristic prescriptions for these phenomena on-the-fly within cosmological hydrodynamic simulations. We constrain them by comparing to observed luminosity functions and colourmagnitude diagrams from the SDSS. We find that quenching from mergers alone does not produce a realistic red sequence, because 12 Gyr after a merger the remnant accretes new fuel and star formation re-ignites. In contrast, quenching by continuously adding thermal energy to hot gaseous haloes quantitatively matches the red galaxy luminosity function and produces a reasonable red sequence. Small discrepancies remain a shallow red-sequence slope suggests that our models underestimate metal production or retention in massive red galaxies, while a deficit of massive blue galaxies may reflect the fact that observed heating is intermittent rather than continuous. Overall, injection of energy into hot halo gas appears to be a necessary and sufficient condition to broadly produce red and dead massive galaxies as observed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available