Paper detail

Dissipational versus Dissipationless Galaxy Formation and the Dark Matter Content of Galaxies

We examine two extreme models for the build-up of the stellar component of luminous elliptical galaxies. In one case, we assume the build-up of stars is dissipational, with centrally accreted gas radiating away its orbital and thermal energy; the dark matter halo will undergo adiabatic contraction and the central dark matter density profile will steepen. For the second model, we assume the central galaxy is assembled by a series of dissipationless mergers of stellar clumps that have formed far from the nascent galaxy. In order to be accreted, these clumps lose their orbital energy to the dark matter halo via dynamical friction, thereby heating the central dark matter and smoothing the dark matter density cusp. The central dark matter density profiles differ drastically between these models. For the isolated elliptical galaxy, NGC 4494, the central dark matter densities follow the power-laws r^(-0.2) and r^(-1.7) for the dissipational and dissipationless models, respectively. By matching the dissipational and dissipationless models to observations of the stellar component of elliptical galaxies, we examine the relative contributions of dissipational and dissipationless mergers to the formation of elliptical galaxies and look for observational tests that will distinguish between these models. Comparisons to strong lensing brightest cluster galaxies yield median M*/L_B ratios of 2.1+/-0.8 and 5.2+/-1.7 at z=0.39 for the dissipational and dissipationless models, respectively. For NGC 4494, the best-fit dissipational and dissipationless models have M*/L_B=2.97 and 3.96. Comparisons to expected stellar mass-to-light ratios from passive evolution and population syntheses appear to rule out a purely dissipational formation mechanism for the central stellar regions of giant elliptical galaxies.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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.