mgct2 boylan

Assembly of Massive Elliptical Galaxies : Assembly of Massive Elliptical Galaxies Mike Boylan-Kolchin UC Berkeley Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2005, 2006 astro-ph/0502495, 0601400 Massive Galaxies Over Cosmic Time 2


Slide2 : Eliot Quataert Chung-Pei Ma


How important are gas-poor mergers for building massive elliptical galaxies? : How important are gas-poor mergers for building massive elliptical galaxies? Expected in current galaxy formation models embedded in LCDM simulations Help explain dichotomy between bright and faint ellipticals Have been observed Tension with evolution of galaxy luminosity functions? Consistency with tight observed scaling relations?


Merger Simulations : Merger Simulations Model elliptical galaxy as Hernquist stellar bulge + NFW dark matter halo w/ and w/o adiabatic contraction) - no black holes, no gas important: E0 Simulate mass ratios of 1:1, 1:3 Use distribution of orbits seen in cosmological dark matter simulations over 106 particles per simulation; run using GADGET


Slide5 : Fundamental Plane MBK, Ma, & Quataert (MNRAS, 2006) Initial Condition Virial Theorem: R-2 Mdyn R-2 (Mdyn/L) L Virial Plane Ree2/Ie


Slide6 : K-band FP: Re1.53±0.08 Ie-0.79±0.03 (Pahre et al. 1998) Mdyn/LRe0.21 Tilt due to increasing dark matter fraction in with increasing Re Fundamental Plane MBK, Ma, & Quataert (MNRAS, 2006) K-band FP Re1.53Ie-0.79 See also Capelato et al. 1995, Nipoti et al. 2003, Robertson et al. 2006


Slide7 :   M- and Re-M relations MBK, Ma, & Quataert (MNRAS, 2006) Angular momentum Full elliptical galaxy population: L4 ReL0.6-0.7


Brightest Cluster Galaxies : Brightest Cluster Galaxies Clusters form at intersections of filaments  natural preferred direction for merging If BCGs are assembled by dissipationless mergers during cluster formation, orbits should be preferentially radial. This radial merging will preserve the fundamental plane but lead to deviations in M    and R  M:  > 4,  > 0.6


Slide9 : Normal Ellipticals Oegerle & Hoessel (1991) Very Massive Ellipticals & BCGs Fundamental Plane


Slide10 : Oegerle & Hoessel (1991) Normal Ellipticals Very Massive Ellipticals & BCGs Faber-Jackson relation -Mr log() Velocity dispersion roughly constant


Slide11 : Desroches et al. 2006 “Normal” ellipticals BCGs


Slide12 : Desroches et al. 2006 R  L0.7 Non-BCGs BCGs BCGs+cD envelope


What About Black Holes? : What About Black Holes? Dry assembly of BCGs / massive ellipticals: BH growth comes from mergers Dry merger predictions for BCGs: Black hole mass traces galaxy stellar mass: MBHM Different M- relation: M with >4  MBH- relation changes to >4


Slide14 : L- correlation Are black hole masses  constant over ~0.6 dex in luminosity? (see also Lauer et al. 2006, Bernardi et al. 2006) MBH=5x109 Msun vs. MBH=1.5x1010 Msun for most massive BCGs


Conclusions : Conclusions The fundamental plane is preserved by dry merging under a variety of orbital configurations and mass ratios The FP projections do show dependence on merger orbit, a result of dynamical friction energy loss Radial merging along filaments is a well-motivated mechanism for producing BCGs; should lead to BCGs following different FP projections from normal ellipticals (now observed) Change in L- relation for massive galaxies means using standard black hole mass predictor (MBH  4) may underestimate black hole masses: BCGs could host black holes of >1010 Msun


Slide18 :   Fundamental Plane Projections  scaling relations depend on energy and angular momentum of orbit MBK, Ma, & Quataert (MNRAS, 2006) Angular momentum observed: M4 ReL0.6-0.7


Predictions : Predictions Dry mergers will preserve the fundamental plane If the mergers are on typical orbits (significant angular momentum), they will also preserve projections of the FP More radial mergers will lead to deviations in projections of the FP Q: when (if ever) are low angular momentum mergers expected?


Slide20 : B. Moore


Slide21 : Fundamental Plane R vs. L Bernardi et al. 2006; also Lauer et al. 2006


Slide22 : Deviations also seen for other massive ellipticals (Desroches, Quataert, Ma, and West 2006)


Constraints on Galaxy Assembly : Constraints on Galaxy Assembly fundamental plane connects ellipticals’ half-light radii (Re), luminosities (L), and velocity dispersions (): (Djorgovski & Davis 1987, Dressler et al. 1987) Re1.53±0.08 Ie-0.79±0.03  Re -3 L3/2 Pahre et al. 1998 (K-band) virial theorem connects R, , and M R  -2 M  R  -2 (M/L) L  require (M/L)  L1/2  -1 or (tilt) Locations in : L   4 (Faber-Jackson), R  L0.7 contain more information than plane itself


Future Work : Future Work Reproducing scaling relations is only one piece of the puzzle: need to understand if dry merging works in other ways too Need to embed merger simulations into cosmological environment: multiple mergers, realistic merging sequence Make predictions for black hole mass function and its evolution - implications for galaxy formation at higher redshifts? Observations: measure more black hole masses in BIG galaxies (using adaptive optics) to get better statistics


Example: Virgo Cluster / M87 : Example: Virgo Cluster / M87 Virgo / M87 M6 x 1011 Msun M87  340 km s-1 MBH = 3.0 x 109 Msun Massive clusters: M, BCG1-3 x 1012 Msun (or more?) maximum   400 km s-1 gives: MBH = 5.8 x 109 Msun (using MBH-) MBH = 2 x 1010 Msun (using MBH-M)


Slide26 : SDSS: Bernardi et al. 2006 Projections: L   4 (Faber-Jackson) R  L0.7 Projections carry more information than plane itself


Slide27 : Solid Line: Virial theorem prediction Fundamental Plane MBK, Ma, & Quataert (MNRAS, 2006) Initial Condition