4.7 Article

A hierarchy of voids: much ado about nothing

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 350, Issue 2, Pages 517-538

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07661.x

Keywords

galaxies : clusters : general; cosmology : theory; dark matter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a model for the distribution of void sizes and its evolution in the context of hierarchical scenarios of gravitational structure formation. We find that at any cosmic epoch the voids have a size distribution that is well-peaked about a characteristic void size that evolves self-similarly in time. This is in distinct contrast to the distribution of virialized halo masses, which does not have a small-scale cut-off. In our model, the fate of voids is ruled by two processes. The first process affects those voids which are embedded in larger underdense regions: the evolution is effectively one in which a larger void is made up by the mergers of smaller voids, and is analogous to how massive clusters form from the mergers of less massive progenitors. The second process is unique to voids, and occurs to voids that happen to be embedded within a larger-scale overdensity: these voids get squeezed out of existence as the overdensity collapses around them. It is this second process which produces the cut-off at small scales. In the excursion set formulation of cluster abundance and evolution, the solution of the cloud-in-cloud problem, i.e. counting as clusters only those objects which are not embedded in larger clusters, requires the study of random walks crossing one barrier. We show that a similar formulation of void evolution requires the study of a two-barrier problem: one barrier is required to account for voids-in-voids, and the other for voids-in-clouds. Thus, in our model, the void size distribution is a function of two parameters, one of which reflects the dynamics of void formation, and the other the formation of collapsed objects.

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