High-redshift clumpy discs and bulges in cosmological simulations

By D. Ceverino, A. Dekel, Frédéric Bournaud. 2009

411 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We analyse the first cosmological simulations that recover the fragmentation of high-redshift galactic discs driven by cold streams. The fragmentation is recovered owing to an AMR resolution better than 70 pc with cooling below 104 K. We study three typical star-forming galaxies in haloes of ∼5 × 1011 M⊙ at z≃ 2.3 when they were not undergoing a major merger. The steady gas supply by cold streams leads to gravitationally unstable, turbulent discs, which fragment into giant clumps and transient features on a dynamical time-scale. The disc clumps are not associated with dark-matter haloes. The clumpy discs are self-regulated by gravity in a marginally unstable state. Clump migration and angular-momentum transfer on an orbital time-scale help the growth of a central bulge with a mass comparable to the disc. The continuous gas input keeps the system of clumpy disc and bulge in a near steady state for several Gyr. The average star formation rate, much of which occurs in the clumps, follows the gas accretion rate of ∼45 M⊙ yr−1. The simulated galaxies resemble in many ways the observed star-forming galaxies at high redshift. Their properties are consistent with the simple theoretical framework presented in Dekel, Sari & Ceverino. In particular, a two-component analysis reveals that the simulated discs are indeed marginally unstable, and the time evolution confirms the robustness of the clumpy configuration in a cosmological steady state. By z∼ 1, the simulated systems are stabilized by a dominant stellar spheroid, demonstrating the process of ‘morphological quenching’ of star formation. We demonstrate that the disc fragmentation is not a numerical artefact once the Jeans length is kept larger than nearly seven resolution elements, i.e. beyond the standard Truelove criterion.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/307ed0ed1e683023647fd676fb4bc0437d99ec35

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. L. Hernquist
  3. R. Dav'e
  4. R. Somerville
  5. A. Dekel
  6. Volker Springel
  7. T. Naab
  8. C. Conroy

In Instrumentation

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. L. Hernquist
  3. A. Dekel
  4. R. Dav'e
  5. R. Somerville
  6. P. V. van Dokkum
  7. Christopher J. Conselice
  8. C. Conroy

Citations in the corpus