Paper detail

Galaxy formation in WMAP1 and WMAP7 cosmologies

Using the technique of Angulo & White (2010) we scale the Millennium and Millennium-II simulations of structure growth in a LCDM universe from the cosmological parameters with which they were carried out (based on first-year results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, WMAP1) to parameters consistent with the seven-year WMAP data (WMAP7). We implement semi-analytic galaxy formation modelling on both simulations in both cosmologies to investigate how the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies are predicted to vary with cosmological parameters. The increased matter density Omega_m and decreased linear fluctuation amplitude sigma8 in WMAP7 have compensating effects, so that the abundance and clustering of dark halos are predicted to be very similar to those in WMAP1 for z <= 3. As a result, local galaxy properties can be reproduced equally well in the two cosmologies by slightly altering galaxy formation parameters. The evolution of the galaxy populations is then also similar. In WMAP7, structure forms slightly later. This shifts the peak in cosmic star formation rate to lower redshift, resulting in slightly bluer galaxies at z=0. Nevertheless, the model still predicts more passive low-mass galaxies than are observed. For rp< 1Mpc, the z=0 clustering of low-mass galaxies is weaker for WMAP7 than for WMAP1 and closer to that observed, but the two cosmologies give very similar results for more massive galaxies and on large scales. At z>1 galaxies are predicted to be more strongly clustered for WMAP7. Differences in galaxy properties, including, clustering, in these two cosmologies are rather small up to redshift 3. Given that there are still considerable residual uncertainties in galaxy formation models, it is very difficult to distinguish WMAP1 from WMAP7 through observations of galaxy properties or their evolution.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.