4.7 Article

Bar-driven dark halo evolution: A resolution of the cusp-core controversy

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 580, 期 2, 页码 627-633

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/343847

关键词

cosmology : theory; dark matter; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : halos; galaxies : kinematics and dynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simulations predict that the dark matter halos of galaxies should have central cusps, while those inferred from observed galaxies do not have cusps. We demonstrate, using both linear perturbation theory and n-body simulations, that a disk bar, which should be ubiquitous in forming galaxies, can produce cores in cuspy cold dark matter profiles within five bar orbital times. Simulations of forming galaxies suggest that one of Milky Way size could have a 10 kpc primordial bar; this bar will remove the cusp out to similar to2.5 kpc in similar to1.5 Gyr, while the disk would lose only similar to8% of its original angular momentum. Larger bars would remove the cusp out to correspondingly larger radii. An inner Lindblad-like resonance couples the rotating bar to orbits at all radii through the cusp, transferring the bar-pattern angular momentum to the dark matter cusp, rapidly flattening it. This resonance disappears for profiles with cores and is responsible for a qualitative difference in bar-driven halo evolution with and without a cusp. This bar-induced evolution will have a profound effect on the structure and evolution of almost all galaxies. Hence, both to understand galaxy formation and evolution and to make predictions from theory, it is necessary to resolve these dynamical processes. Unfortunately, correctly resolving these important dynamical processes in ab initio calculations of galaxy formation is a daunting task, requiring at least 4,000,000 halo particles using our SCF code and probably requiring many times more particles when using noisier tree, direct summation, or grid-based techniques - the usual methods employed in such calculations.

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