1 / 45

Self-Consistent Theory of Halo Mergers

Self-Consistent Theory of Halo Mergers. Andrew Benson (Caltech/Oxford) Marc Kamionkowski (Caltech) Steven Hassani (Caltech/Princeton) astro-ph/0407136 (MNRAS, in press) and Steven Furlanetto (in progress). Hierarchical clustering. early. late. Halo Theory: Press-Schechter abundance.

anaya
Télécharger la présentation

Self-Consistent Theory of Halo Mergers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Self-Consistent Theory of Halo Mergers Andrew Benson (Caltech/Oxford) Marc Kamionkowski (Caltech) Steven Hassani (Caltech/Princeton) astro-ph/0407136 (MNRAS, in press) and Steven Furlanetto (in progress)

  2. Hierarchical clustering early late

  3. Halo Theory: Press-Schechter abundance Normalization: log n log M

  4. Extended Press-Schechter (Lacey-Cole ‘93): Rate for halo of mass M1 to run into halo of mass M2 Rate/volume for halo 1 to merge with halo 2: !!!!!

  5. Rate/volume must be n(M1)n(M2)Q(M1,M2) rate coefficient (units of cross section x velocity) Must satisfy Smoluchowski coagulation eqn:

  6. Problem 1: Correct merger kernel Q(M1,M2) must satisfy coagulation equation. ePS does not. Can we find correct Q(M1,M2) ?? Problem 2: Inversion of coagulation eqn not unique; several Q(M1,M2) give same n(M1).

  7. Benson, MK, Hassani (2004): For given n(M1), find Q(M1,M2) that provides closest fit (in least-squares sense) to coagulation equation, subject to constraint that demands Q(M1,M2) varies smoothly with M1 and M2

  8. For n=0 (white noise) power spectrum(only!),  analytic solution for n(M1): i.e., Q(M1,M2) M1+M2

  9. Evolution of mass function evolved over small time step

  10. n=-1 power-law power spectrum

  11. n=-2 power-law power spectrum

  12. n=-2 n=-1

  13. n=2 power-law power spectrum

  14. n=3 power-law power spectrum

  15. n=1 power-law power spectrum

  16. n=3 n=2

  17. Preliminary results for CDM power spectrum!! (Press-Schechter mass function at z=0) Benson, Furlanetto, MK, in preparation

  18. Same, but for Sheth-Tormen mass function

  19. PS mass function at z=3

  20. ST mass function at z=3

  21. Effective spectral index

  22. Still left to do: • Check dependence of result on alternativesmoothing constraints • Implement improved discretization • Compare formation-z distribution and distribution of most massive progenitors with simulations • Understand better mathematics of coagulation equation • Produce CDM results and provide in easily accessible form

More Related