4.7 Article

On the amplification of magnetic fields in cosmic filaments and galaxy clusters

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu1896

关键词

methods: numerical; intergalactic medium; large-scale structure of Universe

资金

  1. JUROPA cluster at the Juelich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) [5018, 7006]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [FOR1254]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The amplification of primordial magnetic fields via a small-scale turbulent dynamo during structure formation might be able to explain the observed magnetic fields in galaxy clusters. The magnetization of more tenuous large-scale structures such as cosmic filaments is more uncertain, as it is challenging for numerical simulations to achieve the required dynamical range. In this work, we present magnetohydrodynamical cosmological simulations on large uniform grids to study the amplification of primordial seed fields in the intracluster medium (ICM) and in the warm-hot-intergalactic medium (WHIM). In the ICM, we confirm that turbulence caused by structure formation can produce a significant dynamo amplification, even if the amplification is smaller than what is reported in other papers. In the WHIM inside filaments, we do not observe significant dynamo amplification, even though we achieve Reynolds numbers of R-e similar to 200-300. The maximal amplification for large filaments is of the order of similar to 100 for the magnetic energy, corresponding to a typical field of a few -nG starting from a primordial weak field of 10(-10) G (comoving). In order to start a small-scale dynamo, we found that a minimum of similar to 10(2) resolution elements across the virial radius of galaxy clusters was necessary. In filaments we could not find a minimum resolution to set off a dynamo. This stems from the inefficiency of supersonic motions in the WHIM in triggering solenoidal modes and small-scale twisting of magnetic field structures. Magnetic fields this small will make it hard to detect filaments in radio observations.

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