The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2011
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1109.1281
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Moving mesh cosmology: numerical techniques and global statistics

Mark Vogelsberger,
Debora Sijacki,
Dusan Keres
et al.
Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar conclusions were reached in a set of companion papers (Sijacki et al 2011;Vogelsberger et al 2011), in which the new code was used in galaxy formation studies to demonstrate its superiority over standard SPH. However, the code is characterized by considerable complexity which makes the use the SPH scheme still appealing and, more generally, it is desirable that simulation results produced with a specific code should be reproduced with a completely independent numerical scheme when complex non-linear phenomena are involved.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Similar conclusions were reached in a set of companion papers (Sijacki et al 2011;Vogelsberger et al 2011), in which the new code was used in galaxy formation studies to demonstrate its superiority over standard SPH. However, the code is characterized by considerable complexity which makes the use the SPH scheme still appealing and, more generally, it is desirable that simulation results produced with a specific code should be reproduced with a completely independent numerical scheme when complex non-linear phenomena are involved.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…We note that some recent studies of low-resolution cosmological simulations comparing GADGET and the moving mesh code AREPO (Springel 2010) have highlighted some differences between smoothed particle hydrodynamics and grid methods for some cosmological inflow problems (Vogelsberger et al 2011;Kereš et al 2012;Torrey et al 2011). However, we have also performed idealized simulation comparisons between the individual, high-resolution galaxy models here (as well as galaxy mergers) and found excellent agreement for e.g.…”
Section: The Simulationssupporting
confidence: 62%
“…While not quite as highresolution as our "intermediate-scale" re-simulation runs, these provide an important check on the results of the latter and are run self-consistently for 4 × 10 9 yr. We have followed the same procedure on small scales: running 5 "intermediate-scale" simulations (with a range of gas fraction and bulge-to-disk ratio) with > 10 7 gas particles and softening of ∼ 0.3 pc; these extend from scales ∼ 0.3 − 1000 pc and are run for 2 × 10 8 yr. In Hopkins & Quataert (2010a) and Hopkins & Quataert (2011a) we explicitly compare the results of these simulations with those of our "re-simulations" at the dynamic range where they overlap, and find they are very similar (see e. We note that recent studies comparing cosmological simulations done with GADGET and the new moving mesh code AREPO (Springel 2010) have called into question the reliability of smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) for some problems related to galaxy formation in a cosmological context (Vogelsberger et al 2011;Sijacki et al 2011;Keres et al 2011;Bauer & Springel 2011). However, we have also performed idealized simulations of mergers between individual galaxies and found excellent agreement between GADGET and AREPO for e.g.…”
Section: Gasmentioning
confidence: 61%