4.7 Article

The environmental dependence of neutral hydrogen in the gimic simulations

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt2380

关键词

methods: numerical; intergalactic medium; galaxies: structure; cosmology: miscellaneous

资金

  1. National Institute of Theoretical Physics
  2. Square Kilometre Array Project
  3. National Research Foundation
  4. UK's Science & Technology Facilities Council [ST/F002432/1, ST/H00260X/1]
  5. STFC [ST/I00162X/1, ST/F002432/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/H00260X/1, ST/I001166/1, ST/J001341/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H008519/1, ST/F002432/1, ST/J001341/1, ST/I001166/1, ST/H00260X/1, ST/I00162X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use the Galaxies-Intergalactic Medium Interaction Calculation (gimic) cosmological hydrodynamic simulation at z = 0 to study the distribution and environmental dependence of neutral hydrogen (H i) gas in the outskirts of simulated galaxies. This gas can currently be probed directly in, for example, Ly alpha absorption via the observation of background quasars. Radio facilities, such as the Square Kilometre Array, will provide a complementary probe of the diffuse H i in emission and will constrain the physics underpinning the complex interplay between accretion and feedback mechanisms which affect the intergalactic medium. We extract a sample of 488 galaxies from a resimulation of the average cosmic density gimic region. We estimate the neutral hydrogen content of these galaxies and the surrounding intergalactic medium within which they reside. We investigate the average H i radial profiles by stacking the individual profiles according to both mass and environment. We find high H i column densities at large impact parameters in group environments and markedly lower H i densities for non-group galaxies. We suggest that these results likely arise from the combined effects of ram pressure stripping and tidal interactions present in group environments.

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