simulating the 4 universe
play

Simulating the 4% Universe Hydro-cosmology simulations and data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Simulating the 4% Universe Hydro-cosmology simulations and data analysis Michael L. Norman SDSC/UCSD Lecture Plan Lecture 1: Hydro-cosmology simulations of baryons in the Cosmic Web Lyman alpha forest (LAF) Baryon Acoustic


  1. Simulating the 4% Universe Hydro-cosmology simulations and data analysis Michael L. Norman SDSC/UCSD

  2. Lecture Plan • Lecture 1: Hydro-cosmology simulations of baryons in the Cosmic Web – Lyman alpha forest (LAF) – Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) • Lecture 2: Radiation hydro-cosmology simulations of Cosmic Renaissance – Epoch of Reionization (EOR) – First Galaxies 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 2

  3. Motivation • It’s the part of the Universe we can see • Involves real astrophysics which is complicated and interesting • Can place constraints on the dark universe • Computational discoveries Norman (1997) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 3

  4. Computational Discoveries • Physical nature of Lyman alpha forest absorption systems Cen+1994, Zhang+1995, Hernquist+1996 • Existence of the warm-hot intergalactic medium Cen & Ostriker 1999 • Mass scale of Pop III stars Abel+2001, Bromm+2002 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 4

  5. What is Hydro-cosmology? = + dark matter ideal gas dynamics hydrodynamic + + cosmology gravity “microphysics” 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 5

  6. 1990 adiabatic gas dynamics 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 6

  7. 1990 adiabatic gas dynamics 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 7

  8. 1991 gas dynamics + radiative cooling 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 8

  9. Baryons! (not the Bolshoi simulation) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 9

  10. http://enzo-project.org 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 10

  11. http://hipacc.ucsc.edu/html/2010SummerSchool_archive.html 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 11

  12. LECTURE 1 Hydro-cosmology simulations of baryons in the cosmic web *** (Lyman α forest) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 12

  13. Q: Where are the baryons? A: In the IGM mostly IGM Cen & Ostriker (1999) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 13

  14. Observing the intergalactic medium in quasar absorption line spectra Lyman α forest Source: M. Murphy 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 14

  15. High Resolution Spectrum virtually every absorption line is H Ly α Kirkman & Tytler (1997) at a different redshift along the LOS 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 15

  16. Physical Origin of the Lyman Alpha Forest Cen et al. 1994, Zhang et al. 1995, Hernquist et al. 1996 “The Cosmic Web” • intergalactic medium exhibits cosmic web structure at high z • models explain observed hydrogen absorption spectra 5 Mpc/h N=128 3 Zhang, Anninos, Norman (1995) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA

  17. Ly α absorption directly probes DM distribution Zhang et al. (1998) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 17

  18. Cosmology from the Ly α Forest • What is measured • The standard model • Observations vs. simulations I: – spectacular agreement at the ~10% level • DM power spectrum estimation • Observations vs. simulations II: – discrepancies at the 1-2% level 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 18

  19. The Standard Model • Your favorite cosmological model ( Ω dm , Ω b , Ω Λ , H 0 , σ 8 , n s ) • IGM of primordial H and He photoionized by homogeneous but evolving UVB due to GALS and QSOs (J UVB (z)) • Ly α forest due to optically thin absorption in highly ionized gas in intergalactic filaments tracing the DM distribution • LLS and DLAs due to optically thick absorption in denser ionized gas in halos 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 19

  20. What is Observed Kirkman & Tytler (1997) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 20

  21. And hundreds more… 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 21

  22. Simulated Spectra and Fitting Zhang et al. (1997) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 22

  23. Observations vs. Simulations I. Remarkable Agreement on Line Statistics Kirkman & Tytler (1997) <b> = 23 σ = 14 7/17/2012 23 Zhang, Anninos, Norman (1995)

  24. What is a Ly α Forest Absorber? LAF 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 24 Zhang, Anninos, Meiksin & Norman (1998)

  25. What is a Ly α Forest Absorber? Z=3 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 25 Zhang, Anninos, Meiksin & Norman (1998)

  26. What is a Ly α Forest Absorber? • Sheet or filament of low overdensity relative to the local mean λ Jeans • Not gravitationally bound in 3D • Unbiased WRT to dark matter • Photo-ionized gas at λ Jeans ~10 4 K • D ~ λ Jeans ~ 100 kpc 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 26 Zhang, Anninos, Meiksin & Norman (1998)

  27. Resolving the Ly α Forest Bryan, Machacek, Anninos, Norman (1999) • Observed linewidths reflect – Thermal broadening – Hubble broadening (redshift, LOS, and N HI dependent) – Possibly turbulent broadening • Simulated linewidths reflect above plus – Numerical resolution broadening 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 28

  28. Higher resolution simulations predict lines that are too narrow Bryan et al. (1999) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 29

  29. Higher resolution simulations predict lines that are too narrow • Possible reasons – Cosmological model wrong – UV background model wrong – Box too small (large scale power missing) – Missing heat sources (He II reionization, X-rays, …) – Missing turbulent broadening (galactic winds?) – Magnetic support? 13 years later, this discrepancy has not been resolved  Opportunity for a fundamental contribution 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 30

  30. Jena et al. (2005) • 40 fully hydrodynamic simulations* varying – Cosmological parameters – Box size N=1024 3 – Numerical resolution L = 80 Mpc – UV background intensity Baryon Overdensity, z=3 – Extra heating put in by hand • Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification • Observations  Concordance model @z=1.95 *Data available at http://lca.ucsd.edu/data/concordance/ 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 31

  31. Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification • Derive simple parametric fits that connect key inputs to output • Key inputs – σ 8 : amplitude of matter fluctuations – γ 912 : normalized HI photoionization rate – X 228 : normalized HeII photoheating rate – L: simulation box size – C: cell resolution • Key outputs – <F>=exp(- τ eff ): mean transmitted flux – b σ : median Doppler width – P -2 , P -1.5 , P -1 : flux power at log k =10 -2 , 10 -1.5 , 10 -1 s/km 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 32

  32. Flux Power υ − ( ) f f δ υ ≡ ( ) ; f is mean flux for spectrum f f = δ δ δ δ υ ( ) ( ) * ( ); ( ) is 1D FT of ( ) P k k k k f f f f f P -2 P -1.5 P -1 OBS SIMS Jena et al. (2005) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 33

  33. Table of Simulations 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 34

  34. Table of Simulations, cont’d 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 35

  35. Scaling Relations b σ before scaling after scaling τ eff Jena et al. (2005) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 36

  36. Findings • After scaling out boxsize and resolution effects, a wide range of σ 8 (0.8< σ 8 <1.1) fit observations (<F>, b σ , P -1 ) by adjusting γ 912 and X 228 • Using only <F>, b σ , P -1 cannot uniquely determine σ 8 , γ 912 , X 228 because b σ and P -1 are correlated • Using <F> to fix γ 912, then σ 8 and X 228 degenerate Jena et al. (2005) 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 37

  37. Findings (cont’d) • Can potentially remove degeneracy using large scale flux power P -2 • This was not explored in Jena+(2005) – box sizes too small – observational uncertainties at low k • Based on scalings, need at least 100 Mpc boxes and at least 50 kpc resolution  2000 3 but preferably 25 kpc  4000 3 • Comparable to largest N-body simulations, but without the need to resolve halo substructure – Eulerian simulations on uniform grids are adequate 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 38

  38. a 4096 3 hydro-cosmology simulation L=614 Mpc, Cell=150 kpc 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 39

  39. 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 40

  40. Estimating P(k) from SDSS Quasars McDonald et al. (2005) = 2 • Key ansatz: P ( k , z ) b ( k ) P ( k , z ) F M • Where bias b(k) is determined from hydro simulations (Croft et al. 1998, 2002) • Difficulty with SDSS spectra is that lines are not resolved, and therefore P F (k) needs to be corrected for many systematics errors – Continuum level -- Noise – Metal line contamination -- UVB fluctuations – High column density absorbers • In practice, b(k) is estimated on large scales from non- hydrodynamic simulations of the LAF that model the absorption phenomenologically • UPSHOT: lots of systematic uncertainties 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 41

  41. Observations vs. Simulations II. Tytler et al. (2009) • Revisit Jena et al. (2005) suite of simulations with more analysis on the effect of box size on LAF observables, incl. P F (k) • All parameters except L kept constant (incl. resolution) • Bigger box means: – More total power – Higher peak densities – Higher peculiar velocities – Hotter gas 7/17/2012 ISSAC 2012 SDSC, San Diego, USA 42

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend