Paper detail

Gravothermal collapse of isolated self-interacting dark matter haloes: N-body simulation versus the fluid model

Self-Interacting Dark Matter (SIDM) is a collisional form of cold dark matter (CDM), originally proposed to solve problems that arose when the collisionless CDM theory of structure formation was compared with observations of galaxies on small scales. The quantitative impact of the proposed elastic collisions on structure formation has been estimated previously by Monte Carlo N-body simulations and by a conducting fluid model, with apparently diverging results. To improve this situation, we make direct comparisons between new Monte Carlo N-body simulations and solutions of the conducting fluid model, for isolated SIDM haloes of fixed mass. This allows us to separate cleanly the effects of gravothermal relaxation from those of continuous mass accretion in an expanding background universe. When these two methods were previously applied to halo formation with cosmological boundary conditions, they disagreed by an order of magnitude about the size of the scattering cross section required to solve the so-called 'cusp-core problem.' We show here, however, that the methods agree with each other within 20 per cent for isolated haloes. This suggests that the two methods are consistent, and that their disagreement for cosmological haloes is not caused by a breakdown of their validity. The isolated haloes studied here undergo gravothermal collapse. We compare the solutions calculated by these two methods for gravothermal collapse starting from several initial conditions. This allows us to calibrate the heat conduction which accounts for the effect of elastic hard-sphere scattering in the fluid model. The amount of tuning of the thermal conductivity parameters required to bring the two methods into close agreement for isolated haloes, however, is too small to explain the discrepancy found previously in the cosmological context.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.