A hydrodynamic approach to cosmology: The mixed dark matter cosmological scenario
We compute the evolution of spatially flat, mixed cold and hot dark matter models containing both baryonic matter and two kinds of dark matter. Hydrodynamics is treated with a highly developed Eulerian hydrodynamic code (see Cen 1992). A standard particle-mesh (PM) code is also used in parallel to calculate the motion of the dark matter components. We adopt the following parameters: h equivalent to (sub 0)/100 km/s Mpc(exp -1) = 0.5, OMEGA(sub C) = 0.3, and OMEGA(sub B) = 0.06, with amplitude of the perturbation spectrum fixed by the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE) Dark Matter Radiation (DMR) measurements (Smoot et al. 1992) being sigma (sub 8) = 0.67. Four different boxes are simulated with box sizes of L = (64, 16, 4, 1) h(exp -1) Mpc, respectively, the two small boxes providing good resolution but little valid information due to absence of large-scale power. We use 128(exp 3) approximate 10(exp 6.3) baryonic cells, 128(exp .3) cold dark matter particles, and 2 x 128(exp 3) hot dark matter particles. In addition to the dark matter we follow separately six baryonic species (H, H(+), He, He(+), He(++), e(-)) with allowance for both (nonequilibrium) collisional and radiative ionization in every cell. The background radiation field is also followed in detail with allowance made for both continuum and line processes, to allow nonequilibrium heating and cooling processes to be followed in detail. The mean final Zeldovich-Sunyaev y parameter is estimated to be y Bar = (5.4 + or - 2.7) x 10(exp -7) below currently attainable observations, with a rms fluctuation of approximately delta bar y = (0.6 + or - 3.0) x 10(exp -7) on arcminute scales. The rate of galaxy formation peaks at an even later epoch (z approximate 0.3) than in the standard (OMEGA = 1, sigma sub 8 = 0.67) cold dark matter (CDM) model (z approximate 0.5) and, at a redshift of z = 4, is nearly a factor of 100 lower than for the CDM model with the same value of sigma sub 8. With regard to mass function, the smallest objects are stabilized against collapse by thermal energy: the mass-weighted mass spectrum has a broad peak in the vicinity of M(sub B) = 10(exp 9.5) solar mass with a reasonable fit to the Schechter luminosity function if the ratio of baryon mass to blue light is approximately 4. In addition, one very large PM simulation was made in a box with size (320 h(exp - 1) Mpc) containing 3 x 200(exp 3) = 10(exp 7.4) particles. Utilizing this simulation we find that the model yields a cluster mass function which is about a factor of 4 higher than observed, but a cluster-cluster correlation length marginally lower than observed, but that both are closer to observations than in the (COBE) normalized CDM model. The one-dimensional pairwise velocity dispersion is 605 + or - 8 km/s at 1/h separation, lower than that of the DCM model normalized to COBE, but still significant higher than observations (Davis & Peebles 1983). A plausible velocity bias b(sub v) = 0.8 + or - 0.1 on this scale will reduce but not remove the discrepancy. The velocity auto-correlat ion function has a coherence length of 40/h Mpc, which is somewhat lower than the observed counterpart. In all these respects the model would be improved by decreasing the cold fraction of the dark OMEGA(sub CDM)/ (OMEGA(sub CDM) + OMEGA(sub HDB). But formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies is much later in this model than in COBE-normalized CDM, perhaps too late. To improve on these constraints a larger ratio of OMEGA(sub CDM)/ (OMEGA(sub CDM) + OMEGA(sub HDM)) is required than the value of 0.67 adopted here. It does not seem possible to find a value for this ratio which would satisfy all tests. Overall, the model is similar both on large and intermediate scales to the standard CDM model normalized to the same value of sigma(sub B), but the problem with regard to late formation of galaxies is more severe in this model than in that CDM model. Adding hot dark matter, significantly improves the ability of the COBE-normalized CDM scenario to fit existing observations, but the model is in fact not as good as the CDM model with the same sigma(sub 8) and is still probably unsatisfactory with regard to several critical tests.