Paper detail

The Carnegie-Irvine Galaxy Survey. IV. A Method to Determine the Average Mass Ratio of Mergers That Built Massive Elliptical Galaxies

Many recent observations and numerical simulations suggest that nearby massive, early-type galaxies were formed through a "two-phase" process. In the proposed second phase, the extended stellar envelope was accumulated through many dry mergers. However, details of the past merger history of present-day ellipticals, such as the typical merger mass ratio, are difficult to constrain observationally. Within the context and assumptions of the two-phase formation scenario, we propose a straightforward method, using photometric data alone, to estimate the average mass ratio of mergers that contributed to the build-up of massive elliptical galaxies. We study a sample of nearby massive elliptical galaxies selected from the Carnegie-Irvine Galaxy Survey, using two-dimensional analysis to decompose their light distribution into an inner, denser component plus an extended, outer envelope, each having a different optical color. The combination of these two substructures accurately recovers the negative color gradient exhibited by the galaxy as whole. The color difference between the two components (<Δ(B-V)> ~ 0.10 mag; <Δ(B-R)> ~ 0.14 mag), based on the slope of the M_stellar-color relation for nearby early-type galaxies, can be translated into an estimate of the average mass ratio of the mergers. The rough estimate, 1:5 to 1:10, is consistent with the expectation of the two-phase formation scenario, suggesting that minor mergers were largely responsible for building up to the outer stellar envelope of present-day massive ellipticals. With the help of accurate photometry, large sample size, and more choices of colors promised by ongoing and future surveys, the approach proposed here can reveal more insights into the growth of massive galaxies during the last few Gyr.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.