4.7 Article

The clustering evolution of the galaxy distribution

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 327, Issue 4, Pages 1041-1056

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04824.x

Keywords

galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation; dark matter; large-scale structure of Universe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We follow the evolution of the galaxy population in a Lambda CDM cosmology by means of high-resolution N-body simulations in which the formation of galaxies and their observable properties are calculated using a semi-analytic model. We display images of the spatial distribution of galaxies in the simulations that illustrate its evolution and provide a qualitative understanding of the processes responsible for the various biases that develop. We consider three specific statistical measures of clustering at z=1 and z=0: the correlation length (in both real and redshift space) of galaxies of different luminosity, the morphology-density relation and the genus curve of the topology of galaxy isodensity surfaces. For galaxies with luminosity below L-*, the z=0 correlation length depends very little on the luminosity of the sample, but for brighter galaxies it increases very rapidly, reaching values in excess of 10 h(-1) Mpc. The 'accelerated' dynamical evolution experienced by galaxies in rich clusters, which is partly responsible for this effect, also results in a strong morphology-density relation. Remarkably, this relation is already well-established at z=1. The genus curves of the galaxies are significantly different from the genus curves of the dark matter, however this is not a result of genuine topological differences but rather of the sparse sampling of the density field provided by galaxies. The predictions of our model at z=0 will be tested by forthcoming data from the 2dF and Sloan galaxy surveys, and those at z=1 by the DEEP and VIRMOS surveys.

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