Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:47:22.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Simulations at the Dwarf Scale: From Violent Dwarfs at Cosmic Dawn and Cosmic Noon to Quiet Discs today

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2019

Daniel Ceverino*
Affiliation:
Universitat Heidelberg, Zentrum fr Astronomie, Institut fur Theoretische Astrophysik, Albert-Ueberle-Str. 2, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Dwarf galaxies with stellar masses around 109M can be explored at high and low redshifts and they give a glimpse of the different conditions of galaxy formation at different epochs. Using a large sample of about 300 zoom-in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation I will briefly describe the formation of dwarfs at this mass scale at 3 different epochs: cosmic dawn (Ceverino, Klessen, Glover 2018), cosmic noon (Ceverino, Primack, Dekel 2015), and today (Ceverino et al. 2017). I will describe the FirstLight simulations of first galaxies at redshifts 5-15. These first dwarfs have extremely high star formation efficiencies due to high gas fractions and high gas accretion rates. These simulations will make predictions that will be tested for the first time with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). At cosmic noon, z = 2, galaxy formation is still a very violent and dynamic process. The VELA simulations have generated a set of dispersion-dominated dwarfs that show an elongated morphology due to their prolate dark-matter halos. Between z = 1 and 0, the AGORA simulation shows the formation of a low-mass disc due to slow gas accretion. The disc agrees with many local scaling relations, such as the stellar-mass-halo-mass and the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2019 

References

Ceverino, D., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., Bournaud, F., Burkert, A., Genzel, R., & Primack, J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3490 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20296.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceverino, D., Primack, J., & Dekel, A. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 408 10.1093/mnras/stv1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceverino, D., Klypin, A., Klimek, E. S., Trujillo-Gomez, S., Churchill, C. W., Primack, J., & Dekel, A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1545 10.1093/mnras/stu956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceverino, D., Primack, J., Dekel, A., & Kassin, S. A. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2664 10.1093/mnras/stx289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceverino, D., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2791 10.1093/mnras/stx1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceverino, D., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4842 Google Scholar
Zolotov, A. et al . 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327 10.1093/mnras/stv740CrossRefGoogle Scholar