James Bullock UC Irvine Garrison-Kimmel, Oorbe et al. J. Bullock, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
james bullock uc irvine
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

James Bullock UC Irvine Garrison-Kimmel, Oorbe et al. J. Bullock, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 30, 2022 134 likes •401 views

Can Feedback Solve Too Big to Fail Problem? James Bullock UC Irvine Garrison-Kimmel, Oorbe et al. J. Bullock, UC Irvine Collaborators Shea Garrison-Kimmel Mike Boylan-Kolchin Jose Oorbe Jaspreet Lally Manoj Kaplinghat J. Bullock, UC Irvine

slide-1
SLIDE 1
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

James Bullock

Can Feedback Solve Too Big to Fail Problem?

Garrison-Kimmel, Oñorbe et al.

UC Irvine

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Mike Boylan-Kolchin

Collaborators

Shea Garrison-Kimmel Manoj Kaplinghat Jose Oñorbe Jaspreet Lally

slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Galaxy Clusters

dEs/ Ellipticals GCs “Bright” dSphs “Faint” dSphs

Fornax, Leo I L~107Lsun Mdyn/L ~9

Wolf+10; Tollerud+11

Draco, Ursa Minor L~105Lsun Mdyn/L ~200

dSphs are DM dominated => easy to interpret

slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2012

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Fornax: Mdyn/M* ~ 3.5 Leo I: Mdyn/M* ~ 4

Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2012

DM DM

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Fornax: Mdyn/M* ~ 3.5 Leo I: Mdyn/M* ~ 4

Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2012

DM DM

Why nothing here? Vmax >~30 km/s?

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Six Aquarius Halos: ~10-20 massive failures each

Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2011a,b

slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

M31 dSph population looks the same

Tollerud, Boylan- Kolchin, JSB, in prep

Erik Tollerud

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Reduce Milky Way Halo Mass?

Option 1

Milky Way significantly less massive than 1.1012 Msun (<~7.1011 Msun)

Nextra ' 5 ✓ Mv 1012M ◆

Would require:

  • 1. LMC and LeoI both unbound (vanishingly rare in cosmological simulations)
  • 2. SMC and LMC extreme outliers in subhalo mass function
  • 3. M31 ~3 times more massive than MW (timing argument)
  • 4. Majority of recent dynamical mass estimates of MW halo biased high

Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2012

slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Tides from disk?

Option 2

Would need to bring massive subhalos preferentially close to disk. Leo I, for example, has likely never been close to the disk, r_peri ~ 70 kpc (Besla et al., in prep.). How about field dwarfs?

slide-11
SLIDE 11
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Ferrero, Abadi, Navarro, Sales & Gurovich 2011

Similar problem with field dwarfs Expected from Abundance Matching Observed rotation curve Mvir ~ 1010 Msun Mvir ~ 109 Msun

slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Feedback?

Option 3

Feedback: need to remove/redistribute ~5.e7Msun of DM within ~500pc.

Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2012

Mass loading is a problem:

mass-loading factor, typically ~1-5 ~1.e6 Msun Gas mass removed ~5.e6Msun

Maybe if the blow-out is cyclic this helps? Mashchenko et al.; Pontzen & Governato

slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Numerical Experiment Live DM Halo

Fixed potential w/ variable mass dial

Feedback?

r1/2 = 500pc

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Numerics/Set up

Remove baryon fraction of mass from DM only runs: => ~3 km/s lower

MW sats +

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Numerics/Set up

MW sats + mdm = 8.103Msun

ퟄ = 10pc

mdm = 3.104Msun

ퟄ = 70pc

mdm = 1.105Msun

ퟄ = 120pc

MW sats Run in isolation for 5 Gyr

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Numerics/Set up

MW sats + mdm = 8.103Msun

ퟄ = 10pc

mdm = 3.104Msun

ퟄ = 70pc

mdm = 1.105Msun

ퟄ = 120pc

MW sats Run in isolation for 5 Gyr

~best current z=0 hydro runs of MW systems

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Numerics/Set up

MW sats + mdm = 8.103Msun

ퟄ = 10pc

mdm = 3.104Msun

ퟄ = 70pc

mdm = 1.105Msun

ퟄ = 120pc

MW sats Run in isolation for 5 Gyr

~best current z=0 hydro runs of MW systems

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-18
SLIDE 18
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Time

(Msun)

108

Galaxy Mass With Time

107

(Msun)

107

Time

1 blow-out of 108 Msun

Galaxy Mass With Time

10 blow-outs of 107 Msun

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

1 blow-out of 108 Msun 10 blow-outs of 107 Msun

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

1 blow-out of 108 Msun 3 blow-outs of 108 Msun 10 blow-outs of 108 Msun 1 blow-out of 109 Msun

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-22
SLIDE 22
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Mwind/Mgas = 1-10 Ursa Minor Fornax Mwind/Mgas = 1-10

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Garrison-Kimmel et al.

slide-24
SLIDE 24
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine

Towards more realistic feedback

Oñorbe et al.

  • Self-consistent (resolved) ISM. Hydro never turned off.
  • SNe (II & Ia), Radiation pressure from stellar winds, Photoionization (HII Regions)
  • Energetics/timing from stellar evolution models, fine-structure cooling to ~100K

Use Hopkins, Quartaert, and Murray 2012 scheme / Gadget3

mdm = 1.3 × 103M mgas = 1.7 × 102M ✏res = 14pc

Dwarf Zoom

z=0

DM-only run (fb subtracted) Full model hydro

M⇤ = 2 × 106M Mgas = 9 × 106M

~2.5% of baryons remain

slide-25
SLIDE 25
  • J. Bullock, UC Irvine
  • Feedback not a compelling solution to Too Big to Fail dwarfs problem
  • Need very high resolution (~10 pc) to really address the problem
  • Cyclic bursts don’t seem to help:
  • DM removal per baryon blown out is similar (a little less) than single bursts
  • What can we do to fix the problem in context of WIMPy CDM?
  • Smallest possible Milky Way mass AND
  • Wind-loading factors >~ 10 AND
  • Tides matter a lot more than expected
  • See Miguel Rocha’s talk on CDM with self-interaction similar to nucleon-nucleon

scattering (~ 0.1 cm2/g) => constant-density cores.

Conclusions