4.7 Article

MaGICC-WDM: the effects of warm dark matter in hydrodynamical simulations of disc galaxy formation

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1883

关键词

hydrodynamics; methods: numerical; galaxies: formation; galaxies: spiral; cosmology: dark matter

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through Collaborative Research Center (SFB 881) 'The Milky Way System' (subproject Z2),
  2. Julich Supercomputing Center (JSC)
  3. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  4. NSERC
  5. CIfAR
  6. [Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 881]
  7. STFC [ST/H008586/1, ST/K00333X/1, ST/J005673/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K00333X/1, ST/H008586/1, ST/J005673/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the effect of warm dark matter (WDM) on hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy formation as part of the Making Galaxies in a Cosmological Context (MaGICC) project. We simulate three different galaxies using three WDM candidates of 1, 2 and 5 keV and compare results with pure cold dark matter simulations. WDM slightly reduces star formation and produces less centrally concentrated stellar profiles. These effects are most evident for the 1 keV candidate but almost disappear for m(WDM) > 2 keV. All simulations form similar stellar discs independent of WDM particle mass. In particular, the disc scalelength does not change when WDM is considered. The reduced amount of star formation in the case of 1 keV particles is due to the effects of WDM on merging satellites which are on average less concentrated and less gas rich. The altered satellites cause a reduced starburst during mergers because they trigger weaker disc instabilities in the main galaxy. Nevertheless we show that disc galaxy evolution is much more sensitive to stellar feedback than it is to WDM candidate mass. Overall, we find that WDM, especially when restricted to current observational constraints (m(WDM) > 2 keV), has a minor impact on disc galaxy formation.

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