4.7 Article

Galaxy Zoo: multimergers and the Millennium Simulation

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 416, Issue 3, Pages 1745-1755

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18964.x

Keywords

catalogues; galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: general; galaxies: interactions; galaxies: spiral

Funding

  1. Royal Commission
  2. Worcester College, Oxford
  3. STFC Science in Society
  4. Leverhulme Trust
  5. NASA [PF9-00069, NAS8-03060]
  6. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  7. National Science Foundation
  8. US Department of Energy
  9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  10. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  11. Max Planck Society
  12. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  13. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H007156/1, ST/H002456/1, ST/I001212/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  14. STFC [ST/H002456/1, ST/I001212/1, ST/H007156/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a catalogue of 39 multiple mergers, found using the mergers catalogue of the Galaxy Zoo project for z < 0.1, and compare them to corresponding semi-analytical galaxies from the Millennium Simulation. We estimate the (volume-limited) multimerger fraction of the local Universe using our sample and find it to be at least 2 orders of magnitude less than binary mergers - in good agreement with the simulations (especially the Munich group). We then investigate the properties of galaxies in binary mergers and multimergers (morphologies, colours, stellar masses and environment) and compare these results with those predicted by the semi-analytical galaxies. We find that multimergers favour galaxies with properties typical of elliptical morphologies and that this is in qualitative agreement with the models. Studies of multimergers thus provide an independent (and largely corroborating) test of the Millennium semi-analytical models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available