Interaction rates of dark-matter halos and subhalos

Abstract

[Abridged] The interaction rates of dark-matter halos and subhalos, are computed using high-resolution cosmological N-body simulations of the Lambda-CDM model. Although the number fraction of subhalos of mass >2x1011 is only ~10%, we find that the interaction rate of such subhalos is relatively high because they reside in high density environments. At low redshift, the subhalo collisions dominate the total collision rate, and even at z=3 they are involved in more than 30% of all collisions. About 40% of the &#34;major&#34; mergers are between subhalos. Therefore subhalo interactions must be incorporated in models of structure formation. We find that the collision rate between halos in physical density units, is (1+z)δ, with δ= 3-4, in agreement with earlier simulations and most observational data. We test previous analytic estimates of the interaction rates of subhalos based on statistical models, which could be very inaccurate because of the small number of subhalos and the variation of conditions within small host halos. We find that, while such statistical estimates may severely overestimate the rate within hosts < 1013 , typical of high redshifts, they are valid for larger hosts regardless of the number of subhalos in them. We find the Makino & Hut (1997) estimate of the subhalo merger rate to be valid for hosts > 6x1011 at all redshifts. The collision rate between subhalos and the central object of their host halo is approximated relatively well using the timescale for dynamical friction in circular orbits. This approximation fails in ~40% of the cases, partly because of deviations from the assumption of circular orbits and partly because of the invalidity of the assumption that the subhalo mass is negligible.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…