4.7 Article

DISSIPATION AND THE FUNDAMENTAL PLANE: OBSERVATIONAL TESTS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 689, 期 1, 页码 17-48

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/592105

关键词

cosmology: theory; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: nuclei; quasars: general

资金

  1. NSF [ACI 96-19019, AST 00-71019, AST 02-06299, AST 03-07690]
  2. NASA ATP [NAG5-12140, NAG513292, NAG5-13381]
  3. W. M. Keck Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We develop observational tests of the idea that dissipation in gas-rich mergers produces the fundamental plane (FP) and related correlations obeyed by ellipticals. The FP tilt implies that lower mass ellipticals have a higher ratio of stellar to dark matter within their stellar effective radii. Models argue that mergers between more gas-rich ( typically lower mass) disks yield larger mass fractions formed in compact starbursts, giving a smaller stellar Re and higher M-*/M-tot within that R-e. Such starbursts leave a characteristic imprint in the surface brightness profile: a central excess above an outer profile established by the dissipationless violent relaxation of disk stars. In previous work, we developed empirical methods to decompose the observed profiles of ellipticals and robustly estimate the amount of dissipation in the original spheroid-forming merger(s). Applying this to a large sample of observed ellipticals, we test whether or not their location on the FP and its tilt are driven by dissipation. At fixed mass, ellipticals formed in more dissipational events are smaller and have higher M-*/Mtot. At fixed degree of dissipation, there is no tilt in the FP. We show that the dynamical mass estimator R-e sigma(2)/G is a good estimator of the true mass: the observed FP tilt cannot primarily owe to other forms of nonhomology. Removing the effects of dissipation, observed ellipticals obey the same FP correlations as disks: unusual progenitors are not required to make typical ellipticals. Dissipation appears to be both necessary and sufficient to explain the FP tilt.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据