Paper detail

An observer's view of simulated galaxies: disc-to-total ratios, bars, and (pseudo-)bulges

We use cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of the formation of Milky Way-mass galaxies to study the relative importance of the main stellar components, i.e., discs, bulges, and bars, at redshift zero. The main aim of this work is to understand if estimates of the structural parameters of these components determined from kinematics (as is usually done in simulations) agree well with those obtained using a photometric bulge/disc/bar decomposition (as done in observations). To perform such a comparison, we have produced synthetic observations of the simulation outputs with the Monte-Carlo radiative transfer code SUNRISE and used the BUDDA code to make 2D photometric decompositions of the resulting images (in the i and g bands). We find that the kinematic disc-to-total ratio (D/T) estimates are systematically and significantly lower than the photometric ones. While the maximum D/T ratios obtained with the former method are of the order of 0.2, they are typically >0.4, and can be as high as 0.7, according to the latter. The photometric decomposition shows that many of the simulated galaxies have bars, with Bar/T ratios in the range 0.2-0.4, and that bulges have in all cases low Sersic indices, resembling observed pseudo-bulges instead of classical ones. Simulated discs, bulges and bars generally have similar (g-i) colours, which are in the blue tail of the distribution of observed colours. This is not due to the presence of young stars, but rather to low metallicities and poor gas content in the simulated galaxies, which makes dust extinction low. Photometric decompositions thus match the component ratios usually quoted for spiral galaxies better than kinematic decompositions, but the shift is insufficient to make the simulations consistent with observed late-type systems.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.