4.7 Article

Making Galaxies In a Cosmological Context: the need for early stellar feedback

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sts028

关键词

hydrodynamics; galaxies: formation; galaxies: ISM

资金

  1. Max-Planck-Institut fur Astronomie through German Research Foundation (DFG) [Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 881]
  2. NSERC
  3. NSF [AST-0908499]
  4. DFG [SFB 881]
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0908499] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H008586/1, ST/K00333X/1, ST/J005673/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. STFC [ST/H008586/1, ST/J005673/1, ST/K00333X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We introduce the Making Galaxies In a Cosmological Context (MAGICC) programme of smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations. We describe a parameter study of galaxy formation simulations of an L* galaxy that uses early stellar feedback combined with supernova feedback to match the stellar mass-halo mass relationship. While supernova feedback alone can reduce star formation enough to match the stellar mass-halo mass relationship, the galaxy forms too many stars before z = 2 to match the evolution seen using abundance matching. Our early stellar feedback is purely thermal and thus operates like an ultraviolet ionization source as well as providing some additional pressure from the radiation of massive, young stars. The early feedback heats gas to >10(6) K before cooling it to 10(4) K. The pressure from this hot gas creates a more extended disc and prevents more star formation prior to z = 1 than supernova feedback alone. The resulting disc galaxy has a flat rotation curve, an exponential surface brightness profile, and matches a wide range of disc scaling relationships. The disc forms from the inside-out with an increasing exponential scale length as the galaxy evolves. Overall, early stellar feedback helps to simulate galaxies that match observational results at low and high redshifts.

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

4.7
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