4.7 Article

Dark energy and dark matter haloes

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08663.x

关键词

methods : N-body simulations; cosmology : theory; dark matter; large-scale structure of Universe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the effect of dark energy on the density profiles of dark matter haloes with a suite of cosmological N- body simulations and use our results to test analytic models. We consider constant equation of state models, and allow both w greater than or equal to 1 and w < -1. Using five simulations with w ranging from 1.5 to 0.5, and with more than similar to 1600 well- resolved haloes each, we show that the halo concentration model of Bullock et al. accurately predicts the median concentrations of haloes over the range of w, halo masses and redshifts that we are capable of probing. We find that the Bullock et al. model works best when halo masses and concentrations are defined relative to an outer radius set by a cosmology- dependent virial overdensity. For a fixed power spectrum normalization and fixed- mass haloes, larger values of w lead to higher concentrations and higher halo central densities, both because collapse occurs earlier and because haloes have higher virial densities. While precise predictions of halo densities are quite sensitive to various uncertainties, we make broad comparisons to galaxy rotation curve data. At fixed power spectrum normalization (fixed sigma(8)), w > -1 quintessence models seem to exacerbate the central density problem relative to the standard w = 1 model. For example, models with w similar or equal to - 0.5 seem disfavoured by the data, which can be matched only by allowing extremely low normalizations, sigma(8) less than or similar to 0.6. Meanwhile w < -1 models help to reduce the apparent discrepancy. We confirm that the halo mass function of Jenkins et al. provides an excellent approximation to the abundance of haloes in our simulations and extend its region of validity to include models with w < -1.

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