4.0 Article

THE NEW HORIZON RUN COSMOLOGICAL N-BODY SIMULATIONS

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 217-234

出版社

KOREAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
DOI: 10.5303/JKAS.2011.44.6.217

关键词

cosmological parameters; cosmology : theory; large-scale structure of the Universe; galaxies : formation; methods : N-body simulations

资金

  1. Supercomputing Center/Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information with supercomputing resources [KSC-2011-G2-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present two large cosmological N-body simulations, called Horizon Run 2 (HR2) and Horizon Run 3 (HR3), made using 6000(3) = 216 billions and 7210(3) = 374 billion particles, spanning a volume of (7.200 h(-1)Gpc)(3) and (10.815 h(-1)Gpc)(3), respectively. These simulations improve on our previous Horizon Run 1 (HR1) up to a factor of 4.4 in volume, and range from 2600 to over 8800 times the volume of the Millennium Run. In addition, they achieve a considerably finer mass resolution, down to 1.25 x 10(11)h(-1)M(circle dot), allowing to resolve galaxy-size halos with mean particle separations of 1.2h(-1)Mpc and 1.5h(-1)Mpc, respectively. We have measured the power spectrum, correlation function, mass function and basic halo properties with percent level accuracy, and verified that they correctly reproduce the ACDM theoretical expectations, in excellent agreement with linear perturbation theory. Our unprecedentedly large-volume N-body simulations can be used for a variety of studies in cosmology and astrophysics, ranging from large-scale structure topology, baryon acoustic oscillations, dark energy and the characterization of the expansion history of the Universe, till galaxy formation science - in connection with the new SDSS-III. To this end, we made a total of 35 all-sky mock surveys along the past light cone out to z = 0.7 (8 from the HR2 and 27 from the HR3), to simulate the BOSS geometry. The simulations and mock surveys are already publicly available at http://astro.kias.re.kr/Horizon-Run23/.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据