paper

Galaxies in the central regions of simulated galaxy clusters

arXiv:2204.09067 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243651

Abstract

In this paper, we assess the impact of numerical resolution and of the implementation of energy input from AGN feedback models on the inner structure of cluster sub-haloes in hydrodynamic simulations. We compare several zoom-in re-simulations of a sub-sample of the cluster-sized haloes studied in Meneghetti et al. (2020), obtained by varying mass resolution, softening length and AGN energy feedback scheme. We study the impact of these different setups on the subhalo abundances, their radial distribution, their density and mass profiles and the relation between the maximum circular velocity, which is a proxy for subhalo compactness. Regardless of the adopted numerical resolution and feedback model, subhaloes with masses Msub < 1e11Msun/h, the most relevant mass-range for galaxy-galaxy strong lensing, have maximum circular velocities ~30% smaller than those measured from strong lensing observations of Bergamini et al. (2019). We also find that simulations with less effective AGN energy feedback produce massive subhaloes (Msub> 1e11 Msun/h ) with higher maximum circular velocity and that their Vmax - Msub relation approaches the observed one. However the stellar-mass number count of these objects exceeds the one found in observations and we find that the compactness of these simulated subhaloes is the result of an extremely over-efficient star formation in their cores, also leading to larger-than-observed subhalo stellar mass. We conclude that simulations are unable to simultaneously reproduce the observed stellar masses and compactness (or maximum circular velocities) of cluster galaxies. Thus, the discrepancy between theory and observations that emerged from the analysis of Meneghetti et al. (2020) persists. It remains an open question as to whether such a discrepancy reflects limitations of the current implementation of galaxy formation models or the LCDM paradigm.

11 pages, 10 figures, abstract is redacted to fit arXiv character count limit

References in corpus (25)