1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title{The Validity of the Adiabatic Contraction Approximation for Dark Matter Halos}
6: \author{Roland Jesseit, Thorsten Naab, and Andreas Burkert}
7: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie\\
8: K\"onigstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
9: \email{jesseit@mpia-hd.mpg.de, burkert@mpia-hd.mpg.de, naab@mpia-hd.mpg.de}
10: \shorttitle{Adiabatic Contraction of Dark Matter Halos}
11:
12: \begin{abstract}
13: We use high resolution numerical simulations to investigate the adiabatic contraction
14: of dark matter halos with a Hernquist density profile. We test the response of the halos to
15: the growth of additional axisymmetric disk potentials with various central concentrations
16: and the spherically symmetric potential of a softened point mass. Adding the potentials
17: on timescales that are long compared to the dynamical time scale of the halo, the contracted halos have
18: density profiles that are in excellent agreement with analytical predictions based on the conservation of
19: the adiabatic invariant $M(r)r$. This is surprising as this quantity is
20: strictly conserved only for particles on circular orbits and in spherically symmetric potentials.
21: If the same potentials are added on timescales that are short compared to the dynamical
22: timescale, the result depends strongly on the adopted potential. The adiabatic approximation
23: still works for disk potentials. It does, however, fail for the central potential.
24: \end{abstract}
25:
26: \keywords{dark matter --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies: halos}
27:
28: \section{Introduction}
29: The hierarchical clustering model is the paradigm for galaxy formation today. In this
30: cosmological scenario, structure forms around peaks of primordial dark matter density fluctuations. The
31: baryonic matter, which can dissipate energy through radiation, cools and falls into the center
32: of its surrounding dark halo.
33: The question of how a spherical mass distribution, e.g. a galactic bulge, will respond to the growth of mass in
34: its center has been adressed by \citet{bw84}, hereafter BW84. They devised a simple recipe for predicting the density
35: profile of a contracted spherical density distribution. This recipe was used by \citet{blum86} to examine
36: contracted dark halos, assuming that the baryonic disk forms in the center so slowly that the time for the
37: increase of mass inside an orbit of a dark particle is long compared to its orbital period.
38: In a slowly varying potential the action integral $j_i = \int p_i dq_i$ is a conserved property
39: of the particle orbit, called an adiabatic invariant \citep{BT87}. Here, j is the action, p and q are the
40: phase space coordinates of the dark particle.
41: As a first approximation, BW84 assumed a spherical density distribution with particles moving on
42: circular orbits. In this case, the radial action integral simplifies to the conservation of angular momentum.
43: With $L=mvr$ and the circular velocity $v^2(r)=GM(r)/r$ we get the adiabatic invariant $M(r)r$.\\
44: Given that we know the final baryonic matter distribution, e.g. an exponential disk-like profile $M_b(r)$
45: and the initial dark halo distribution $M_i(r)$, we can construct the final dark matter distribution
46: $M_f(r)$ according to
47: \begin{equation}
48: \label{invariant}
49: r_f[M_b(r_f)+M_f(r)]=r M_i(r),
50: \end{equation}
51: where $r_f$ is the final radius of a dark particle. This approximation is strictly valid only if the initial
52: mass distribution is spherically symmetric. The mapping between initial and final radius is unique, because the
53: dark particles are dissipationless and their circular orbits do not cross.
54: The adiabatic compression has been used widely in estimating rotation curves in semi-analytical galaxy models
55: \citep{rydgun87,ryd88,ryd91,flores,mo98}, in investigating the origin of the Tully-Fisher relation \citep{rix}, in
56: analysing the core structure of dark matter halos \citep{bosch,marche} and in the formation of gaseous disks in cosmological
57: N-body halos (M. Steinmetz 2001, private communication). The adiabatic contraction assumption has
58: been tested qualitatively in a low-resolution study by \citet{blum86}.
59:
60: It is surprising that equation (\ref{invariant}) should hold in realistic situations,
61: where a non-spherical galactic disk is added to a halo of particles which move on eccentric or chaotic
62: orbits \citep{valluri}.
63: In this paper we investigate the validity of equation (\ref{invariant}), using high resolution numerical simulations.
64: Adding a disk potential to an equilibrium N-body halo, we can study its reaction in the adiabatic limit, as well as for
65: an abrupt change of the potential. In \S 2 we describe the model runs for different disk parameters and contraction times.
66: In \S 3 we discuss the results and in \S 4 we draw our conclusions and present suggestions for future work.
67:
68: \section{The Simulations}
69: The N-body halo is set up according to the distribution function devised by \citet{her90,her93}. Its density
70: distribution is $\rho(r) = M_h r_h/[2 \pi r (r+r_h)^3]$, where $M_h$ is the total mass and $r_h$ is
71: the scale length. The Hernquist halo has the same $\rho \propto r^{-1}$ dependence in the center as the universal dark
72: matter profile found by \citet{NFW}, however with a finite total mass as the density in the outermost regions
73: decreases as $\rho \propto r^{-4}$. The baryonic component is represented by analytic external potentials of a disk
74: and a central point mass. We used the potential of an exponentially thin disk according to \citet{dehnen98}.
75: Its strength depends on the ratio of the disk mass $M_d$ to the disk scale length $r_d$.
76: Following \citet{NEF}, we started with a very large disk scale length and kept the disk mass constant throughout
77: the simulation. The disk scale length is contracted linearly with time, where the contraction rate is a free parameter.
78: Large contraction time scales compared to the dynamical time scales correspond to the adiabatic limit. In the limit of
79: zero contraction time the halo will go through a phase of violent relaxation.
80: The halo-disk system was allowed to relax after the contraction phase for several dynamical time scales.
81: We applied a massive and a low-mass disk model with 20 \% (MD) and 5 \% (LD) of the total dark halo mass,
82: and with a typical final scale length of 0.14 $r_h$.
83:
84: In order to test the dependence on the concentration of the potential we used a softened point mass potential following
85: \begin{equation}
86: \Phi_p(r)= \frac{G M_p \arctan(r/r_p)}{r_p}.
87: \end{equation}
88: \noindent Similar to the disk case we kept its mass $M_p$ constant and shrank the smoothing length to a final value of
89: $r_p=0.03$ (test case PC). We also tested the case where $r_p$ was kept constant and $M_p$ was allowed to grow (PG).
90: For all calculations we chose $G=M_h=r_h=1$, where G is the gravitational constant.
91: Simulations were performed with halos represented by
92: N = $1 \times 10^4$, $8 \times 10^4$, $2 \times 10^5$ and $1 \times 10^6$ particles in order
93: to test the dependence of the results on the numerical resolution. All model parameters are listed in Table \ref{tableone}.
94: The gravitational softening length $\epsilon$ was chosen according to the criterium of
95: \citet{merritt}. We used a time step at least a hundred times smaller than the dynamical time scale we would expect at
96: the half mass radius for each model. The timestep, adequate for the runs with the highest number of particles, was
97: not enlarged for lower particle number runs. We used a newly developed tree code WINE
98: (Wetzstein et al., in preparation) in combination with special purpose hardware GRAPE-5 \citep{kawai} at the MPIA,
99: Heidelberg. The refined force accuracy criterium of \citet{sw} guarantees that the absolute force error stays below
100: the precision of the GRAPE hardware.
101: \section{Results}
102: The four top panels in Fig. \ref{plotone} show the final density profiles of the contracted halos for two resolutions
103: for the massive and the light disk, respectively (models LD1, LD2 and MD1, MD2). The error bars show the Poissonian
104: error. The softening length is indicated with an arrow on each plot. In the innermost parts of the halo,
105: i.e. $r \leq 2 \epsilon$, the density is influenced by at least two effects: The softening length and fluctuations
106: in the density due to small particle numbers. To show the effect of the fluctuations we plot the density profile of
107: four consecutive dumps taken shortly after the contraction has been completed. This is important as the fluctuations
108: sometimes exceed the 1 $\sigma$ Poissonian error. At radii larger than two softening lengths the analytical approximation
109: of BW84 gives a very good account of the matter distribution of the halo for every disk model. The two panels at the bottom
110: of Fig. \ref{plotone} show the point mass case which is also in very good agreement with the theoretical profile,
111: independent of the way we grow the external potential. However, the density is somewhat lower than theoretically
112: predicted inside the scale radius $r_p$.
113:
114: Fig. \ref{plottwo} illustrates for the LD case that the agreement between numerical simulation and theoretical
115: profile improves with increasing particle number, as we are able to probe deeper into the center of the dark matter halo.
116:
117: In Fig. \ref{plotthree} we examine the response of the halo to an abrupt addition of the external potentials
118: (models MDV, LDV and PV). The profile with the light disk (top left) still matches the theoretical curve. Even in
119: the case of the massive disk (bottom left), the predicted density distribution agrees well with the numerical model
120: although we find a somewhat lower density inside a radius of one disk scale length. Adding the point mass potential
121: instantaneously (bottom right) leads to a density distribution that deviates strongly from the
122: adiabatic prediction. The top right panel in Fig. \ref{plotthree} shows the time evolution of the 1\%
123: mass shell radius in each case. For the LD models the mass shells stabilize at more or less the
124: same radius, though the detailed path of contraction is very different for LD2 and LDV.
125: For the more centrally concentrated potential (PV) this is not the case. It stabilizes at radii further outside
126: than in the adiabatic case. Consequently these density profiles are less concentrated in the center
127: than in the adiabatic case.
128: \section{Conclusions}
129: We find that the adiabatic approximation is very robust in the parameter space that is occupied by normal spiral or
130: dwarf galaxies. This remains valid even in cases where the contraction timescales are short compared with the dynamical
131: time scales. Only for a point mass potential, a significant difference occurs. We conclude that the validity of the
132: adiabatic approximation depends mainly on the concentration of the added potential. A better understanding of the
133: underlying physics will require a detailed analysis of the orbital distribution of the particles prior and after the
134: contraction phase. We will investigate this question in a subsequent paper.
135:
136: \acknowledgments
137: A program to calculate disk potentials was kindly provided by Walter Dehnen.
138: We want to thank Hans-Walter Rix, Matthias Steinmetz and Chris Gottbrath
139: for helpful comments and discussions.
140:
141: \begin{thebibliography}{}
142:
143: \bibitem[Barnes \& White(1984)]{bw84} Barnes, J.~\& White,
144: S.~D.~M.\ 1984, \mnras, 211, 753
145: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{BT87} Binney, J.~\&
146: Tremaine, S.\ 1987, Galaxy Dynamics, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
147: \bibitem[Blumenthal et al.(1986)]{blum86}
148: Blumenthal, G.~R., Faber, S.~M., Flores, R., \& Primack, J.~R.\ 1986, \apj, 301, 27
149: \bibitem[Courteau \& Rix(1999)]{rix} Courteau, S.~\&
150: Rix, H.\ 1999, \apj, 513, 561
151: \bibitem[Dehnen \& Binney(1998)]{dehnen98} Dehnen, W. and Binney, J. 1998, \mnras, 294, 429
152: \bibitem[Flores et al.(1993)]{flores} Flores, R., Primack, J.~R., Blumenthal, G.~R., \& Faber, S.~M.\ 1993,
153: \apj, 412, 443
154: \bibitem[Hernquist(1990)]{her90} Hernquist, L.\ 1990, \apj, 356, 359
155: \bibitem[Hernquist(1993)]{her93} Hernquist, L. 1993, \apjs, 86, 389
156: \bibitem[Kawai et al.(2000)]{kawai}
157: Kawai, A., Fukushige, T., Makino, J., \& Taiji, M.\ 2000, \pasj, 52, 659
158: \bibitem[Marchesini et al.(2002)]{marche} Marchesini, D., D'Onghia, E., Chincarini, G., Firmani, C., Conconi, P., Molinari, E., \& Zacchei, A. \ 2002, \apj, in press
159: \bibitem[Merritt(1996)]{merritt} Merritt, D.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 2462
160: \bibitem[Mo, Mao, \& White(1998)]{mo98} Mo, H.~J., Mao, S.,
161: \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1998, \mnras, 295, 319
162: \bibitem[Navarro, Eke, \& Frenk(1996)]{NEF} Navarro, J.~F.,
163: Eke, V.~R., \& Frenk, C.~S.\ 1996, \mnras, 283, L72
164: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk, \& White(1997)]{NFW} Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M.\ 1997, \apj, 490, 493
165: \bibitem[Ryden(1988)]{ryd88} Ryden, B.~S.\ 1988, \apj, 329, 589
166: \bibitem[Ryden(1991)]{ryd91} Ryden, B.~S.\ 1991, \apj, 370, 15
167: \bibitem[Ryden \& Gunn(1987)]{rydgun87} Ryden, B.~S.~\& Gunn, J.~E.\ 1987, \apj, 318, 15
168: \bibitem[Salmon \& Warren(1994)]{sw} Salmon, J.~K.~\&
169: Warren, M.~S.\ 1994, Journal of Computational Physics, 111, 136
170: \bibitem[Valluri \& Merritt(2000)]{valluri} Valluri, M.~\&
171: Merritt, D.\ 2000, in The Chaotic Universe, Proceedings of the Second ICRA
172: Network Workshop, Advanced Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology, vol.10,
173: ed. V.~G.~Gurzadyan and R.~Ruffini (World Scientific), 229
174: \bibitem[van den Bosch \& Swaters(2001)]{bosch} van den Bosch, F.~C.~ \& Swaters, R.~A.\ 2001, \mnras, 325, 1017
175: \end{thebibliography}
176:
177:
178: \clearpage
179:
180: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrrcc}
181: \footnotesize
182: \tablecaption{Model runs \label{tableone}}
183: \tablewidth{0pt}
184: \tablehead{
185: \colhead{Model} & \colhead{Mass/scale length} & \colhead{N} & \colhead{$\epsilon$} &
186: \colhead{dt $[10^{-3}]$} & \colhead{type} }
187: \startdata
188: LD1 &0.05/0.14 & $1 \times 10^4$ &0.03 &6.25&adiabatic\\
189: LD2 &0.05/0.14 &$2 \times 10^5$ &0.007&6.25 &adiabatic\\
190: LD3 &0.05/0.14 &$1 \times 10^6$ &0.0035&6.25&adiabatic\\
191: LDV &0.05/0.14 &$2 \times 10^5$ &0.007&6.25 &violent\\
192: MD1 &0.2/0.14 &$1 \times 10^4$ &0.03 &1.57 &adiabatic\\
193: MD2 &0.2/0.14 &$2 \times 10^5$ &0.007&1.57 &adiabatic\\
194: MDV &0.2/0.14 &$2 \times 10^5$ &0.007&1.57 &violent\\
195: PG &0.2/0.03 &$8 \times 10^4$ &0.01 &0.78 &point grow\\
196: PC &0.2/0.03 &$8 \times 10^4$ &0.01 &0.78 &point contract\\
197: PV &0.2/0.03 &$8 \times 10^4$ &0.01 &0.78 &point violent\\
198: \enddata
199:
200: \tablecomments{Abbreviations for the model runs are LD = Light Disk, MD = Massive Disk, P = Point Mass,
201: V = Violent, G = Mass Growth, C = Softening Length Contraction. Model parameters are N = number of particles
202: and dt = integration time step. Second column shows mass to scale length ratios for point mass and disk models.}
203: \end{deluxetable}
204:
205:
206:
207: \begin{figure}
208: \plotone{f1.ps}
209: \caption{Final density profiles of contracted dark halos. The upper two panels show the results for the models
210: LD1 and LD2, the following two for the models MD1 and MD2. The last two panels show the results for the point
211: mass. In the left panel the contracting scale length case and in the right panel the growing mass case is
212: shown. Arrows indicate the used softening length. \label{plotone}}
213: \end{figure}
214:
215: \begin{figure}
216: \plotone{f2.ps}
217: \caption{Final density profiles of LD1,LD2 and LD3 are shown to examine the effects of numerical resolution.
218: \label{plottwo}}
219: \end{figure}
220:
221: \begin{figure}
222: \plotone{f3.ps}
223: \caption{Final density profiles after abrupt addition of external potential.
224: LDV top left, MDV bottom left and PV bottom right. In the top right panel a comparison of the evolution of
225: the 1\% mass shell radii between the adiabatic and the violent case of the models LD and P is shown.
226: \label{plotthree}}
227: \end{figure}
228:
229: \end{document}
230: