SLIDE 1
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Simulating the Universe
Christine Corbett Moran, Irshad Mohammed, Manuel Rabold, Davide Martizzi, Doug Potter, Aurel Schneider Oliver Hahn, Ben Moore, Joachim Stadel
SLIDE 2 Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Outline
- N-body codes: where do we stand ?
- accuracy
- new solvers ?
- Challenges in Modified Gravity calculations.
- f(R) and MOND
- predictions
- Simulating baryonic effects.
- feedback processes
- the physics of clusters & groups
- baryons as a nuisance
SLIDE 3
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
EUCLID requires 1% accuracy up to k=10 h/Mpc in the theory. Different codes have different systematic effects (time integration). GADGET3 – large scale force with Fourier convolution and Particle Mesh – small scale force with tree code (multipole direct space convolution) PKDGRAV3 – large and small scale force with (fast multipole) tree code – periodic BC using Ewald summation (use of GPU acceleration) RAMSES – Particle Mesh with Adaptive Mesh Refinement – Direct Poisson solver with Multigrid acceleration Ongoing Euclid CosmoSim WG project identical GADGET initial conditions and output files code comparison beyond the 1% barrier
N body simulations: the state of affairs
SLIDE 4
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Schneider et al. 2015 in prep.
Systematic effects in N body codes
linear non-linear
SLIDE 5
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Schneider et al. 2015 in prep. Heitmann et al. 2014
Comparing to the Cosmic Emulator
SLIDE 6
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Comparing to the Cosmic Emulator
Dark Sky simulation (Skillman et al. 2014)
SLIDE 7
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Beyond N body codes ? The Vlasov approach
Hahn & Angulo (2015), Hahn, Abel, Kaehler (2013)
SLIDE 8
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Cosmological simulations with modified gravity
Viable models show small deviations (1-10%) with LCDM. Motivated theoretically by dark matter (e.g MOND) or dark energy (e.g. f(R)). A fully developed theory is required with at least: – time evolution of the expansion factor (homogeneous universe) – self-consistent initial random fluctuations – viable weak-field limit for the dynamics of the matter MOND (AQUAL): a non-linear Poisson equation f(R) model: a non-linear Poisson equation and a standard linear Poisson solver MOND (QUMOND): 2 standard (linear) Poisson equations
SLIDE 9
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Cosmological simulations with modified gravity
Challenges for simulations with modified gravity models – direct or Fourier convolution approach not valid anymore – non-linear field solvers are slow and converge poorly – non-linear multigrid techniques; Raphson-Newton iterations MLAPM with f(R) solver on AMR (Zhao, Li, Koyama 2011) ECOSMOG: f(R) field solver for the AMR code RAMSES (Li et al. 2012) MG-GADGET: f(R) models for the GADGET code (Puchwein et al. 2013) Phantom of RAMSES: QuMOND for the RAMSES code (Lüghausen et al. 2014) RAyMOND: AQUAL (and QuMOND) for the RAMSES code (Candlish et al. 2015) …
SLIDE 10
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Lombriser et al. 2012
Simulations with f(R) modified gravity model
SLIDE 11
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Simulations with f(R) modified gravity model
Zhao, Li & Koyama (2011)
SLIDE 12
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Corbett strong (F4) medium (F5) weak (F6) ΛCDM z Corbett Moran et al. 2014
Zoom simulations with f(R) model
SLIDE 13
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Zoom-in simulations with f(R) models
Corbett et al. (2014)
SLIDE 14
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Very low efficiency of gas conversion into star. Small mass galaxies are dominated by stellar feedback. Large mass galaxies are governed by AGN feedback.
“Baryonic effects are too difficult to model” (18%)
Moster et al. (2010) Dekel & Silk (1986) Silk & Rees (1998) Stellar-to-halo mass ratio
SLIDE 15
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Dark matter cusp-to-core transformation
Excellent fit of the dark matter profile with a pseudo-isothermal profile
de Blok et al. (2001)
SLIDE 16
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Galaxy formation in groups and clusters
SLIDE 17
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Adiabatic hydrodynamics: 10% accuracy ?
Rabold et al. in prep.
SLIDE 18 Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Feedback models from SMBH in massive ellipticals
- Thermal feedback (Sijacki et al. 2007; Booth & Schaye 2010; Teyssier
et al. 2010): “thermal bombs”
- Radiative feedback (Choi et al, 2012, 2014; Vogelsberger et al. 2013):
dust-absorbed UV radiation from the accretion disk.
- Jet feedback (Omma et al., Cattaneo & Teyssier, Dubois et al. 2010,
Choi et al. 2014): injection of momentum in a jet-like geometry.
- Cosmic ray feedback (Pfrommer at al. 2010; Oh et al, 2013): heating
from Alfven waves excited by CR-induced instabilities.
- Bubble feedback (Sijacki et al. 2007): buoyantly rising bubble with initial
radius close to 50 kpc These models are related to the quasar mode (thermal, radiative) or to the radio mode (jet, CR, bubbles) of AGNs. Cosmological simulations with zoom-in or periodic boxes and around 1 kpc resolution.
SLIDE 19
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
The effect of baryons on the halo mass
Martizzi et al. 14 Martizzi et al. 14 RAMSES code
SLIDE 20
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Martizzi+14
Central galaxy stellar mass
SLIDE 21
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Central galaxy stellar mass distribution
Martizzi et al.14 Kravtsov et al.14
SLIDE 22
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
The effect of baryons on the halo mass
Vogelsberger et al. 14 Genel et al. 14 AREPO code
SLIDE 23 Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Analytical halo model for the matter power spectrum
For each halo, we consider analytical models for each of the 3 components: gas, dark matter and the central galaxy Using simple analytical profiles, we apply the “halo model” methodology to compute the power spectrum. Main ingredients are:
- mass of the central galaxy : abundance matching
- size of the central galaxy : 0.015 of the viral radius
- total gas mass versus total halo mass : free parameter
- adiabatic contraction for CDM
Good agreement with the zoom-in simulations of Martizzi et al. (2014) White (2004), Zhan & Knox (2004), Rudd et al. (2008), Guillet et al. (2010), Semboloni et al. (2011), van Daalen et al. (2011)…
SLIDE 24
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
A simple model for the effect of AGN feedback
Mohammed et al. (2015) Semboloni et al. (2011)
SLIDE 25
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
A simple model for the effect of AGN feedback
SLIDE 26
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Cosmological parameters estimation
Mohammed et al. (2015) Mock weak-lensing observation with 3 redshift bins (EUCLID-like) increase max. multipole
SLIDE 27
Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Beating down baryonic effects ?
Mohammed et al. (2015)
SLIDE 28 Romain Teyssier Beyond LCDM, Oslo 2015
Conclusions
- N-body codes are 1% accurate below k=1 Mpc/h; 5% accurate between
1 and 10 Mpc/h. Do we need higher-order accurate N-body solvers ? Something else ?
- Modified gravity solvers are getting more and more popular. Still slow and
fragile.
- Simulations with baryons are not even 10% accurate !
- Massive variations between codes and feedback models !
- AGN feedback models (when properly calibrated) can reproduce
reasonably well the main properties of groups and clusters.
- The effect of baryons reaches 10% (deficit) at k=20 Mpc/h. More ?
- Cosmological parameters could in principle be fitted with 1% accuracy
down to 1 arcmin if one uses an unbiased model.
