1: %%
2: %%
3: %% Version 2, edited by LCH (05/19 2007)
4: %% Version 2.1, edited by DK, following Luis' comments. (05/21 2007)
5: %% Version 2.2, edited by DK, following Renyue's comments. (05/30 2007)
6: %% Version rv2-1, edited by DK, following the response (06/25 2007)
7: %
8: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
9: %\documentclass{aastex}
10: \documentclass[numberedappendix]{emulateapj}
11: \usepackage{natbib}
12: \bibliographystyle{apj}
13:
14: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
15: \newcommand{\myemail}{dkawata@ociw.edu}
16:
17: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
18:
19: %\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
20:
21: \shorttitle{Stability of Circumnuclear Disk in Ellipticals}
22: \shortauthors{Kawata, Cen, and Ho}
23:
24: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
25: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
30: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
31: %% you desire.
32:
33: \title{Gravitational Stability of Circumnuclear Disks in Elliptical Galaxies}
34:
35: \author{Daisuke Kawata\altaffilmark{1,2},
36: Renyue Cen\altaffilmark{3}, and Luis C. Ho\altaffilmark{1}
37: }
38:
39: \altaffiltext{1}{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
40: 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101
41: }
42: \altaffiltext{2}{Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia
43: }
44: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Peyton
45: Hall, Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544
46: }
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49: A significant fraction of nearby elliptical galaxies are known to have
50: high-density gas disks in their circumnuclear (CN) region (0.1 to a few kpc).
51: Yet, ellipticals, especially luminous ones, show little signs of
52: recent star formation. To investigate the possible cause of the dearth of
53: star formation in these systems, we study the gravitational stability of
54: CN gas disks embedded within the gravitational potentials of both the stellar
55: bulge component and the central massive black hole (BH) in elliptical galaxies.
56: We find that CN disks in higher mass galaxies
57: are generally more stable than those in lower mass galaxies,
58: because higher mass galaxies tend to have more massive BHs
59: and more centrally concentrated stellar density profiles.
60: We also consider the case in which
61: the central stellar density profile has a core,
62: which is often observed for ellipticals whose total stellar mass is higher
63: than about $10^{11}$ $M_{\sun}$.
64: Such a cored stellar density profile leads to
65: more unstable CN disks than the power-law stellar density
66: profile characteristic of less massive galaxies. However, the more massive
67: BHs in high-mass galaxies act to
68: stabilize the CN disk. Our results demonstrate that
69: the gravitational potentials of {\it both} the central BH and the stellar
70: component should be taken into account when studying the properties of
71: CN disks, as their stability is sensitive to both the BH mass
72: and the stellar density profile.
73: Our results could explain the observed trend
74: that less luminous elliptical galaxies have a greater tendency to exhibit
75: ongoing star formation than giant ellipticals.
76: \end{abstract}
77: \keywords{galaxies: kinematics and dynamics
78: ---galaxies: formation
79: ---galaxies: stellar content}
80:
81: \section{Introduction}
82: \label{sec-intro}
83:
84: Elliptical galaxies were believed to be completely dormant and
85: therefore to consist of old stellar populations, due to the galactic
86: wind which had blown the gas out and stopped star formation
87: \citep{ja71,mb71,fg76}. The discovery
88: of an X-ray-emitting hot interstellar medium (ISM) in these objects has
89: dramatically renewed our view of their physical properties and
90: formation history \citep[e.g.,][]{fsjlf79,fjt85}.
91: Warm gas is also detected in a significant fraction of
92: ellipticals (55\%$-$60\%), although the estimated mass
93: is small ($10^{3}-10^{4}$ $M_{\sun}$) \citep{pjdsb86,hfs97a}.
94: In addition, multiwavelength observations
95: from optical to radio reveal the existence of the fair amount of
96: H~{\sc I} gas \citep[e.g.,][]{ktc85,bhr92,wh94,gk99,mdzom06},
97: dust \citep[e.g.,][]{kgkj89,vdf95,wh95,tawti00,cmz01,ttf01,mfb04},
98: and molecular gas \citep[e.g.,][]{wch95,kr96,vcb03,ly05,ntksk06}
99: in a significant fraction of ellipticals.
100: Particularly, some of the cold gas appears as a disk at the center of
101: the galaxies.
102: High-resolution images with {\it Hubble Space
103: Telescope (HST)}\ uncovered that the majority of elliptical galaxies
104: possess such dusty cold disks, with a
105: typical mass of $10^{4}-10^6$ $M_{\sun}$ and sizes of
106: $100-500$ pc \citep[e.g.,][]{tawti00}.
107: Molecular gas disks are also observed in the central region,
108: with estimated masses of $10^{6}-10^{9}$ $M_{\sun}$ and extents up to
109: a few kpc \citep{gk99,okin05,ly05,ntksk06}.
110: In this paper we call such observed central cold structures ``circumnuclear''
111: (CN) disks. So far, there is no evidence of a correlation
112: between the mass of the CN disk and the total stellar mass of ellipticals
113: \citep[e.g.,][]{vdf95}.
114:
115: The estimated densities of the CN disks are relatively high.
116: CN disks in gas-rich disk galaxies obviously harbor
117: star formation \citep[e.g.,][]{pjdsb86,hfs97b,kon05}.
118: However, it is still a matter of debate
119: whether or not the CN disks in ellipticals have star formation.
120: \citet{hfs97a,hfs03} and \citet{lh05} suggest that
121: there is no clear evidence of star formation
122: in the central region of bright elliptical galaxies.
123: On the other hand, \citet{pjdsb86} show that
124: less luminous ellipticals tend to have star formation.
125: It also seems that the properties of the ISM of ellipticals
126: depend on galaxy mass: the detection rates of
127: H~{\sc I} and molecular gas are higher in
128: less luminous galaxies \citep{ls84,lkrp91,somk00,swy06}.
129: \citet{okin05} measured the density and rotation
130: of the CN disk in the radio galaxy 3C 31, and suggest that
131: its disk is stable against local gravitational instability, consistent with
132: the lack of evidence for star formation in this system
133: \citep{ook90}. \citet{ly05} also performed a similar analysis
134: for NGC~83 and NGC~2320. Therefore, the gravitational stability of
135: the disk may be a key factor for the star formation condition
136: in the CN disk \citep{rk89} \citep[but see also][]{kon05}.
137:
138: In the central region of elliptical galaxies,
139: there are two empirical trends as a function of their mass.
140: One is a well-established correlation
141: between the black hole (BH) mass and the stellar mass of bulge
142: \citep{mtr98,mh03,hr04}.
143: The other one is the fact that the central stellar density profile
144: loosely depends on the mass of galaxies
145: \citep{fta97,rhpfs01,smf01,fcj06,lgf07}.
146: The high-resolution images from the {\it HST}
147: enable the measurement of the stellar density profile in
148: the central region of galaxies
149: \citep{lfh91,lfl92,lfc92,lfg93,csk93,gfl94,jfo94,lab95}.
150: \citet{lab95} suggest two different categories
151: for the inner profile of elliptical galaxies:
152: luminous galaxies have a ``core'' and less luminous galaxies
153: have a ``power-law'' profile without any evidence of a core.
154: On the other hand, \citet{rhpfs01} and \citet{rvdbj01} found
155: galaxies with ``intermediate'' inner profiles that cannot be
156: categorized as either cores or power laws.
157: \citet{teag04} attempt to link the central and global profiles of
158: early-type galaxies by noting that the outer profiles of ellipticals are
159: well known to be fitted by the S\'{e}rsic law \citep[$r^{1/n}$ law][]{js68},
160: and whose index $n$ is well-correlated with the global properties
161: of galaxies, such as the effective radius and the total luminosity
162: \citep[e.g.,][]{ccd93,gg03}. They suggest that the inner
163: power-law profile can be explained as the extension of the outer S\'{e}rsic
164: profile, except for galaxies with central cores. Therefore, among
165: power-law galaxies, the brighter members have profiles with larger $n$, and
166: hence steeper power-law slope for the inner profile.
167: On the other hand, \citet{teag04} propose that luminous galaxies with cores
168: can be described with a ``core-S{\'e}rsic'' profile,
169: which is a combination of a core, approximated as an inner power-law profile
170: with a shallow slope, and an outer
171: S{\'e}rsic profile.
172:
173: Motivated by these facts, we study the gravitational
174: stability of the CN disk for elliptical galaxies with
175: different masses.
176: The stability of a rotating disk can be
177: described by the so-called Toomre's $Q$-parameter \citep{at64,gl65}.
178: This parameter also provides a criterion for star formation
179: in rotating disks \citep[e.g.,][]{rk89}.
180: \citet{tb05} study the stability of the CN disk analytically.
181: They conclude that CN disks are inevitably unstable,
182: and should have star formation activity even in giant ellipticals,
183: such as M87. However, so far, no indication of star formation has been
184: observed in M87. Although \citet{tbwb06} report the detection of the
185: molecular gas in the central region of M87, the optical spectral features of
186: M87's CN disk are not consistent with star formation. The nuclear spectrum of
187: M87 shows classical signatures of low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions
188: \citep{hfs97c}, which as a group are consistent with being active
189: galactic nuclei (AGNs) accreting at a low rate
190: \citep{hfs03,lh04}.
191:
192: The gravitational potential in the CN region
193: is governed by the central BH as well as the stars in the inner bulge.
194: The study of \citet{tb05}, however, ignores the potential of the stellar
195: bulge component. Our analysis of the stability of the CN disk
196: in ellipticals takes into
197: account both contributions to the potential and
198: their dependence on the global mass of the system.
199: Section \ref{sec-meth} summarizes our method to analyze
200: the stability and describes models of the CN disk
201: and the stellar potential in the CN region.
202: Section \ref{sec-res} shows the results, and in Section \ref{sec-disc}
203: we discuss how our results fit with the recent observed properties
204: of the central region of ellipticals.
205:
206: \section{Method}
207: \label{sec-meth}
208:
209: The stability of a self-gravitating disk can be
210: analyzed by Toomre's $Q$-parameter \citep{at64,gl65}.
211: The definition of Toomre's $Q$ parameter is
212: %
213: \begin{equation}
214: Q\equiv \frac{c_{\rm s} \kappa}{\pi G \Sigma_{\rm d}},
215: \label{qval-eq}
216: \end{equation}
217: %
218: where $c_{\rm s}$, $\kappa$, and $\Sigma_{\rm d}$
219: are the sound velocity, epicycle frequency, and surface density
220: of the gas disk. If $Q<1$, the disk is unstable.
221: The specific frequency for a disk is described as
222: %
223: \begin{equation}
224: \kappa^2 = R \frac{d \Omega^2}{d R}+4 \Omega^2,
225: \end{equation}
226: %
227: where $\Omega$ is the circular frequency.
228:
229: % We assume that the mass, size and temperature
230: %of the CN disk are ${\rm log} M_{\rm d}/{\rm M}_{\sun}=6$,
231: %R$_{\rm d}=100$ pc, and $T_{\rm d}=10$ K.
232: We assume that the disk is steady, i.e. the accretion rate
233: is the same at different radii. The accretion rate
234: can be written as
235: %
236: \begin{equation}
237: \dot{M}(R) = -2 \pi R \alpha_{\rm acc} c_{\rm s}
238: [\Omega(R) '/\Omega(R)^2] \Sigma_{\rm d}(R)
239: = {\rm const.},
240: \label{macc-eq}
241: \end{equation}
242: %
243: where $\alpha_{\rm acc}$ is the dimensionless viscosity parameter
244: \citep{ss73,jp81,fkr02}.
245: This allows us to derive the density profile of the CN disk,
246: $\Sigma_{\rm d}(R)$, once the total mass, $M_{\rm d}$,
247: and the radius, $R_{\rm d}$, of the disk are fixed.
248: The circular density profile $\Omega(R)$ is determined by
249: the gravitational potential. For simplicity, we assume that the gravitational
250: potential is dominated by the central BH and the stellar component, and that
251: the contribution from the CN disk is negligible.
252: As will be shown in Figure 1 below, this assumption is valid,
253: except for the cases of massive and compact CN disk
254: in smaller mass galaxies, which are inevitably unstable.
255: We also assume that the stellar density
256: is much higher than the dark matter density in the central region.
257:
258: We examine the stability of the CN disk within the potential
259: of the central region of spherical galaxies with different
260: total masses of the stellar bulge, $M_{\rm s}$.
261: We adopt the relation between the BH mass and the stellar mass
262: from \citet{hr04},
263: %
264: \begin{equation}
265: {\rm log} (M_{\rm BH}/M_{\sun}) = 8.20+1.12
266: {\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/10^{11} M_{\sun}).
267: \label{mbhmb-eq}
268: \end{equation}
269: %
270: Hence, once $M_{\rm s}$ is fixed, we can calculate the potential
271: from the BH with the mass of $M_{\rm BH}$.
272:
273: As mentioned in Section \ref{sec-intro},
274: the mass dependence of the inner stellar density profile is
275: discussed by a number of authors.
276: The first thorough study was carried out by the ``Nuker team,''
277: who introduced the ``Nuker law'' to describe the observed surface brightness
278: profile of the central regions of galaxies. The Nuker law \citep{lab95,fta97} is given by
279: %
280: \begin{equation}
281: I(R)=I_{\rm b} 2^{(\beta-\gamma)/\alpha}(R/R_{\rm b})^{-\gamma}
282: [1+(R/R_{\rm b})^{\alpha}]^{(\gamma-\beta)/\alpha}.
283: \label{nuk-eq}
284: \end{equation}
285: The asymptotic logarithmic slope inside $R_{\rm b}$ is $\gamma$;
286: the asymptotic logarithmic outer slope is $\beta$; and
287: $\alpha$ parametrizes the sharpness of the break. The break
288: radius, $R_{\rm b}$, is the point of maximum curvature
289: in log-log coordinates. The break surface brightness, $I_{\rm b}$,
290: is the surface brightness at $R_{\rm b}$.
291: This function is designed to fit the surface brightness profile
292: in the inner region, and not to describe the entire profile.
293: \citet{geta03} proposed a new formula that is a combination
294: of an inner power-law profile and an outer S{\'e}rsic law.
295: %which is commonly used to fit the surface brightness profile
296: %of early type galaxies \citep{js68}.
297: They call it the ``core-S{\'e}rsic law,'' which is described as
298: %
299: \begin{eqnarray}
300: I(R) & = & I' \left[ 1+ (R_{\rm b}/R)^{\alpha}\right]^{\gamma/\alpha}
301: \nonumber
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: %
304: \begin{eqnarray}
305: \exp \left\{-b\left[(R^{\alpha}+R_{\rm b}^{\alpha})/R_{\rm e}^{\alpha}
306: \right]^{1/(n_{\rm s}\alpha)}\right\},
307: \label{cserfull-eq}
308: \end{eqnarray}
309: %
310: with
311: %
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: I' & = & I_{\rm b} 2^{-\gamma/\alpha}
314: \exp\left[b 2^{1/(n_{\rm s}\alpha)}
315: (R_{\rm b}/R_{\rm e})^{1/n_{\rm s}}\right].
316: \label{cserfuli-eq}
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: %
319: The parameter $R_{\rm b}$ is the break radius
320: to separate the inner power law with a slope of $\gamma$
321: from the outer S{\'e}rsic law with effective radius $R_{\rm e}$ and
322: index $n_{\rm s}$, and
323: $I_{\rm b}$ is the surface brightness at $R_{\rm b}$.
324: The parameter $\alpha$ controls the sharpness of the transition
325: between the inner and outer profiles, where a higher value
326: leads to sharper transitions.
327: \citet{teag04} suggest that the core-S{\'e}rsic law can be simplified
328: with $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$ and still provide a good description to
329: the observed profiles \citep[see also][]{fcj06}. In this limit,
330: %
331: \begin{eqnarray}
332: I(R) & = &I_{\rm b} \left[ (R_{\rm b}/R)^{\gamma} u(R_{\rm b}-R)
333: \right. \nonumber \\
334: & & \left. +e^{b (R_{\rm b}/R_{\rm e})^{1/n_{\rm s}}}
335: e^{-b (R/R_{\rm e})^{1/n_{\rm s}}}
336: u(R-R_{\rm b}) \right],
337: \label{cser-eq}
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: %
340: where $u(x-a)$ is the Heaviside step function.
341:
342: It is still controversial which of the two formalisms better describes the
343: surface brightness profile in the central region of galaxies
344: \citep{fcj06,lgf07}.
345: In this paper, we adopt the core-S{\'e}rsic law simply for
346: computational convenience to link
347: the density profiles in the inner region to the total mass
348: of the stellar bulge.
349: Although the simplified version of the core-S{\'e}rsic law as given in
350: equation (\ref{cser-eq}) has been adopted to fit recent observations
351: \citep{teag04,fcj06},
352: we use equation (\ref{cserfull-eq}) by setting $\alpha$ to 5.0,
353: for computational convenience.
354: \citet{lgf07} demonstrate how the sharp transition generated from
355: equation (\ref{cser-eq}) leads to poor fits to the observed surface brightness
356: profiles. The adopted $\alpha$ provides a less sharp transition.
357: This assumption also guarantees that the deprojected density profile does
358: not increase with radius with our adopted parameters (see below),
359: but the profiles is still close to the simplified
360: formula of equation (\ref{cser-eq}) used in the observations.
361: %For S{\'e}rsic law profile we can still use equation (\ref{cser-eq})
362: %with $R_{\rm b}=0.0$ and $\gamma=0.0$.
363:
364: As a comparison between the Nuker law (eq.~\ref{nuk-eq})
365: and the core-S{\'e}rsic law (eq.~\ref{cserfull-eq}),
366: we briefly mention how the logarithmic gradient, $\gamma'(R')$,
367: at radius of $R'$ can be described for each fitting function
368: \citep[see also][]{teag04}.
369: \citet{rvdbj01} show that for the Nuker law
370: %
371: \begin{equation}
372: \gamma'(R')\equiv -\left[\frac{d \log I(R)}{d \log R}\right]_{R'}
373: = \frac{\gamma+\beta(R'/R_{\rm b})^{\alpha}}{1+(R'/R_{\rm b})^{\alpha}}.
374: \end{equation}
375: %
376: For the core-S{\'e}rsic law (eq.~\ref{cserfull-eq}),
377: \citet{teag04} show that the slope can be written as
378: %
379: \begin{equation}
380: \gamma'(R')= \frac{b}{n_{\rm s}} (1/R_{\rm e})^{1/n_{\rm s}} R'^{\alpha}
381: (R'^{\alpha}+R_{\rm b}^{\alpha})^{1/(n_{\rm s}\alpha)-1}
382: +\frac{\gamma (R_{\rm b}/R')^{\alpha}}{1+(R_{\rm b}/R')^{\alpha}}.
383: \end{equation}
384: %
385: %In the S{\'e}rsic law ($R_{\rm b}=0.0$ and $\gamma=0.0$),
386: %this slope is simplifised to
387: %
388: %\begin{equation}
389: % \gamma' = \frac{b}{n(R'/R_{\rm e})^{1/n}}.
390: %\end{equation}
391: %
392:
393: The core-S{\'e}rsic law (eq.~\ref{cserfull-eq}) is equivalent to
394: the S{\'e}rsic law, when $R_{\rm b}=0$ and $\gamma=0$.
395: Then, the S{\'e}rsic law is described as
396: %
397: \begin{eqnarray}
398: I(x) & = & A_{\rm s} \exp(-b_{\rm s} x^{1/n_{\rm s}}),
399: \label{ser-eq}
400: \end{eqnarray}
401: %
402: with $x=R/R_{\rm e}$. \citet{ps97} derive the numerical solutions
403: %
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: A_{\rm s} & = &
406: I_{\rm tot}
407: \frac{b_{\rm s}^{2n_{\rm s}}}{2\pi n_{\rm s} \Gamma(2n_{\rm s})},\\
408: b_{\rm s} & = & 2n_{\rm s}-\frac{1}{3}+0.009876/n_{\rm s},
409: \label{cserab-eq}
410: \end{eqnarray}
411: %
412: where $I_{\rm tot}$ is the total bulge luminosity of the
413: integration for $0\leq x \leq \infty$
414: \citep[see also][and references therein]{gd05}.
415: For simplicity, we define the total bulge mass, $M_{\rm s}$,
416: as the total mass of the integration of the S{\'e}rsic law
417: of equation (\ref{ser-eq}), regardless of
418: the existence of the core.
419: Then, assuming a constant mass-to-luminosity
420: ratio $\Upsilon$ at the different radii, we can describe
421: the surface brightness at the break radius, $I_{\rm b}$, for
422: the core-S{\'e}rsic law (eq.~\ref{cserfull-eq}) as
423: %
424: \begin{eqnarray}
425: I_{\rm b} & = &
426: \frac{M_{\rm s}}{\Upsilon}
427: \frac{b_{\rm s}^{2n_{\rm s}}}{2\pi n_{\rm s} \Gamma(2n_{\rm s})}
428: e^{-b_{\rm s} (R_{\rm b}/R_{\rm e})^{1/n_{\rm s}}}.
429: \label{cserib-eq}
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: %
432:
433: It is well known that $R_{\rm e}$ and $n_{\rm s}$
434: correlate with the total luminosity of
435: galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{jk77,ccd93,ag02}.
436: From their fits of {\it HST}\ images
437: of Virgo early-type galaxies
438: using equation (\ref{cser-eq}),
439: \citet{fcj06}
440: find that the profiles of bright galaxies ($M_B\leq-20.5$ mag)
441: require a core, while those of less luminous galaxies
442: can be described with the S{\'e}rsic law \citep[see also][]{gg03}.
443: They also derive the following relations between the $g$-band effective radius
444: and $B$-band absolute magnitude:
445: %
446: \begin{equation}
447: \log R_{\rm e}=-0.055 (M_B+18)+1.14
448: \label{reser-eq}
449: \end{equation}
450: %
451: for the S{\'e}rsic galaxies, and
452: %
453: \begin{equation}
454: \log R_{\rm e}=-0.22 (M_B+18)+1.5
455: \label{recser-eq}
456: \end{equation}
457: %
458: for the core-S{\'e}rsic galaxies \citep[for error estimates, see]{fcj06}.
459: The units of $R_{\rm e}$ is arcseconds, which for Virgo corresponds
460: to $1''=80.1$ pc.
461: In addition, they suggest that the S{\'e}rsic
462: index $n_{\rm s}$ and the $B$-band absolute magnitude are related by
463: %
464: \begin{equation}
465: \log n_{\rm s} =-0.10 (M_B+18)+0.39,
466: \end{equation}
467: %
468: valid for galaxies of both classes.
469: In this paper we adopt these relations for computational convenience.
470: Note that these relations are still not well established.
471: For example, \citet{gg03} and \citet{gmmdt06}
472: suggest a curved relation between the luminosity and
473: effective radius rather than two power laws.
474:
475: We further assume that the stellar mass-to-light ratio for early-type galaxies
476: in the $B$-band is $\Upsilon_B=M_{\rm s}/(L_B/L_{B,\sun})=7$, with
477: $M_{B,\sun}=5.48$ mag, and that $\Upsilon_B$ is independent of mass; these
478: assumptions are sufficiently accurate for
479: early-type galaxies \citep{tbb04}.
480: With some exceptions, \citet{fcj06} find that there is
481: a critical luminosity that separates the S{\'e}rsic galaxies from
482: the core-S{\'e}rsic galaxies.
483: With the assumptions made above, their critical luminosity of
484: $M_{B,\rm c}=-20.5$ mag
485: corresponds to $M_{\rm s,c}=1.73\times10^{11}$ $M_{\sun}$;
486: systems with masses lower than $M_{\rm s,c}$ are assumed to follow the
487: S{\'e}rsic law.
488: Then, we derive the half-mass radius using
489: equations (\ref{reser-eq}) and (\ref{recser-eq}), with the assumption
490: that the $g$-band half-light radius is similar to the half-mass radius.
491: Once we fix $M_{\rm s}$, all the parameters of
492: equation (\ref{cserfull-eq}) can be determined, and
493: equation (\ref{cserfull-eq})
494: provides the projected mass density profile of
495: $\Sigma_{\rm s}(R)=I_B(R) \Upsilon_B$.
496: Assuming spherical symmetry, we can derive the three-dimensional
497: stellar mass density $\rho_{\rm s}(r)$ through \citep[e.g.,][]{bt87}
498: %
499: \begin{equation}
500: \rho_{\rm s}(r) = -\frac{1}{\pi} \int^{\infty}_{r}
501: \frac{d\Sigma_{\rm s}(R)}{dR}
502: \frac{dR}{\sqrt{R^2-r^2}}.
503: \end{equation}
504: %
505: The analytical formula of three-dimensional stellar density profiles
506: is also discussed in \citet{ps97}, \citet{mc02},
507: \citet{tg05}, and references therein.
508:
509: %\input{figures}
510: %\input{tables}
511:
512: \begin{figure}
513: \plotone{f1.eps}
514: \caption{
515: Stellar density profile as a function of three-dimensional radius
516: ({\it top}) and the total mass of stars and BH within the radius ({\it bottom})
517: for four different models indicated in the upper panel.
518: \label{fig-sprof}}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521: %%%%% Table 1
522: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
523: \tablecolumns{8}
524: \tablewidth{0pc}
525: \tablecaption{Stellar Bulge Density Profiles for the
526: Host Galaxies \label{tab-sprof}}
527: \tablehead{
528: \colhead{Model} &
529: \colhead{$M_{\rm s}$} & \colhead{Profile} &
530: \colhead{$R_{\rm e}$} &
531: \colhead{$n_{\rm s}$} &
532: \colhead{$R_{\rm b}$} &
533: \colhead{$\gamma$} &
534: \colhead{$M_B$\tablenotemark{a}} \\
535: \colhead{} &
536: \colhead{($M_{\sun}$)} & \colhead{} &
537: \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{} &
538: \colhead{(pc)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(mag)}
539: }
540: \startdata
541: S10 &
542: $10^{10}$ & S{\'e}rsic & 1.03 & 2.14 & $-$ & $-$ & $-17.4$
543: \\
544: S11 &
545: $10^{11}$ & S{\'e}rsic & 1.41 & 3.81 & $-$ & $-$ & $-19.9$
546: \\
547: cS11 &
548: $10^{11}$ & core-S{\'e}rsic & 6.66 & 3.81 & 9.32 & 0.1 & $-19.9$
549: \\
550: cS12 &
551: $10^{12}$ & core-S{\'e}rsic & 23.6 & 6.77 & 331 & 0.1 & $-22.4$
552: \enddata
553: \tablenotetext{a}{$B$-band luminosity estimated
554: with a stellar mass-to-light ratio
555: of $\Upsilon_B=M_{\rm s}/(L_B/L_{B,\sun})=7$.}
556: \end{deluxetable}
557:
558:
559:
560: \section{Results}
561: \label{sec-res}
562:
563: \subsection{Stability of CN Disks with Fixed Mass and Radius}
564:
565: As mentioned in Section \ref{sec-intro}, so far
566: no correlation has been found between the mass or size of CN disks and the host galaxy mass. In this section we study how the stability of CN disks with
567: fixed mass and radius
568: depends on the total mass of the host galaxies.
569: Here, we focus on a disk with mass
570: ${\rm log} (M_{\rm d}/{\rm M}_{\sun})=8$
571: and radius $R_{\rm d}=2.5$ kpc, which is roughly the
572: same as the CN disk observed in NGC~4476 by \citet{ly02}.
573: Disks with a range of different masses
574: and radii will be discussed in the next section.
575: Note that once $M_{\rm d}$ and $R_{\rm d}$ are fixed,
576: $\Sigma_{\rm d}(R)$ does not depend on $\alpha_{\rm acc}$ or $c_{\rm s}$.
577: Hence, $Q(R)$ described by equation (\ref{qval-eq})
578: is independent of $\alpha_{\rm acc}$ and is simply proportional to
579: $c_{\rm s}=\sqrt{\gamma_{\rm d} k_{\rm B} T_{\rm d}/(\mu m_{\rm p})}$,
580: where $\gamma_{\rm d}$, $k_{\rm B}$, $T_{\rm d}$, $\mu$, and $m_{\rm p}$
581: are the specific heat, Boltzmann's constant, the gas disk temperature,
582: the mean molecular mass, and the proton mass, respectively.
583: Throughout the paper, we fixed $c_{\rm s}$ to a value corresponding
584: to $\mu=0.6$, $\gamma_{\rm d}=1$, and $T_{\rm d}=30$ K, which is
585: a typical temperature of observed CN disks
586: %\citep[e.g.,][]{wh95,wch95,ttf01,ntksk0}
587: \citep[e.g.,][]{wch95,ttf01}.
588: %and therefore we also consider the most critical condition for instability.
589: % We also fixed $\alpha_{\rm acc}=0.3$, for simplicity.
590:
591: Stability of the CN disk is examined for host galaxy models
592: with stellar bulge masses of
593: ${\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})=10$, 11, and 12.
594: We apply the S{\'e}rsic law to the model with
595: ${\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})=10$ (model S10),
596: and the core-S{\'e}rsic law to the model with
597: ${\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})=12$ (model cS12).
598: Since the adopted scaling relation used in Section \ref{sec-meth} is
599: known to have significant scatter and
600: the model of ${\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})=11$ is close to
601: the critical mass of $M_{\rm s,c}=1.73\times10^{11}$ $M_{\sun}$
602: for the two stellar density profiles, we consider two cases
603: of the S{\'e}rsic (model S11) law and the core-S{\'e}rsic (model cS11)
604: laws for host galaxies with ${\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})=11$.
605: All the parameter values for the stellar density
606: profiles and the estimated $B$-band absolute magnitude
607: are summarized in Table \ref{tab-sprof}.
608: We choose $\gamma=0.1$ for the core-S{\'e}rsic law
609: of equation (\ref{cserfull-eq}), which is a relatively low value
610: among observed cores \citep[e.g.,][]{fcj06}; this is a conservative choice
611: because it leads to a maximally unstable CN disk.
612:
613: Figure \ref{fig-sprof} shows that the stellar density
614: profile and the total mass of stars and BH as a function of radius
615: for the four models. Comparison between models S11 and S10
616: shows that the density profile is steeper for higher mass galaxies,
617: which have a larger $n_{\rm s}$.
618: The core-S{\'e}rsic models lead to a lower density in the inner region.
619: Consequently, model cS12 has even lower density than model S11
620: and a similar density to model S10 within the break radius of cS12.
621: However, higher mass galaxies have a more massive BH.
622: As a result, the total mass within a given radius
623: is generally higher for the higher mass galaxies,
624: except around the break radius for the core-S{\'e}rsic models.
625:
626: Figure \ref{fig-qvalm8r25} presents the values of Toomre's $Q$-parameter
627: at different radii of the CN disk for the four models.
628: We also examine two additional cases for each model;
629: one is the case assuming no BH (dotted line), and the other one (dashed line)
630: ignores the stellar potential (i.e., only the Keplerian potential of the BH
631: is considered). As described in Section~\ref{sec-meth}, the
632: circular velocity (Fig.~\ref{fig-vcm8r25})
633: is calculated purely by the BH and/or stellar potential, and the gas disk
634: density profile (Fig.~\ref{fig-sigdm8r25}) is derived
635: from the condition of $\dot{M}(R)={\rm constant}$
636: in equation (\ref{macc-eq}).
637:
638: The BH-only potential results (dashed lines) demonstrate that
639: since higher mass galaxies have a more massive BH,
640: CN disks are more stable in higher mass galaxies.
641: However, for the assumed CN disk, even model cS12
642: still has $Q<1$---i.e., the CN disk is unstable.
643: The stellar$+$BH potential results clearly demonstrate that
644: the stellar potential greatly helps to stabilize the CN disk.
645: Moreover, comparison between the results for the stellar$+$BH potential
646: and the results of the case of stellar-only potential
647: indicates that the BH helps to stabilize the CN disk
648: only in the inner region (a few 100 pc, depending on
649: the BH mass and the stellar density profiles).
650: Therefore, the stellar potential cannot be ignored in
651: studying the dynamics of the CN disk.
652:
653: For the S{\'e}rsic models, the stellar potential stabilizes
654: the CN disk more in the higher mass galaxies, because higher mass
655: galaxies have larger $n_{\rm s}$, i.e. higher central concentration of
656: the stellar potential (see also Fig.~\ref{fig-sprof}).
657: At a fixed stellar mass of ${\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})=11$
658: the core-S{\'e}rsic model leads to a lower $Q$-value and a more unstable disk.
659: The surface density profile of the CN disk is sensitive to this
660: change of the stellar potential profile (Fig.~\ref{fig-sigdm8r25}).
661: The stellar-only potential results
662: clearly demonstrate that the disk gas density has
663: a peak around the break radius.
664: Due to this peak density, the $Q$-value becomes
665: as low as the case of the BH-only potential. However, the BH can stabilize
666: the disk in the inner region, and the stellar$+$BH potential case
667: is much more stable. As a result, model cS11 is more stable than model S10.
668:
669: Note that, as shown in \citet{lgf07}, the S{\'e}rsic law
670: often underestimates the surface brightness in the central region
671: where a high-density stellar component is often seen.
672: \citet{fcj06} invoke an additional component, which they
673: call "nuclei," to fit this central high-density component.
674: Although we do not include the nuclei in this study for simplicity,
675: such a compact central component also stabilizes the CN disk
676: in a similar way to the BH. \citet{cpf06} find that the
677: estimated mass of the nuclei is similar to what the BH mass and
678: bulge mass relation, such as equation (\ref{mbhmb-eq}), predicts. Therefore,
679: the effect of the nuclei would be similar to assuming
680: a factor of two more massive BH.
681:
682: In general, CN disks in higher mass galaxies are more stabilized,
683: due to higher mass BH and more centrally concentrated profile of the
684: stellar component.
685: However, if the host galaxy has the core-S{\'e}rsic law profile,
686: the CN disk is more unstable, compared with the CN disk
687: in a galaxy with the same stellar mass and BH mass,
688: but having S{\'e}rsic profile.
689:
690: \begin{figure}
691: \plotone{f2.eps}
692: \caption{
693: Toomre's $Q$-value as a function of radius
694: for the CN disk with $M_{\rm d}=10^8$ $M_{\sun}$ and
695: $R_{\rm d}=2.5$ kpc in galaxy models indicated in the panels.
696: The black solid line presents the $Q$-value calculated by taking into
697: account both the BH and the stellar potential.
698: The dotted line only includes the stellar potential, while
699: the dashed line takes into account only the potential
700: of the central BH, which is correlated with
701: the mass of the stellar component as assumed in equation (4).
702: The gray solid line marks $Q=1$.
703: \label{fig-qvalm8r25}}
704: \end{figure}
705:
706: \begin{figure}
707: \plotone{f3.eps}
708: \caption{
709: The circular velocity, $v_{\rm c}$, as a function of the radius
710: of the CN disk with $M_{\rm d}=10^8$ $M_{\sun}$ and
711: $R_{\rm d}=2.5$ kpc in galaxy models indicated in the panels.
712: The solid line takes into account both the BH and the stellar potential. The
713: dotted line only includes the stellar potential, while the dashed line takes
714: into account only the potential of the central BH.
715: \label{fig-vcm8r25}}
716: \end{figure}
717:
718:
719: \begin{figure}
720: \plotone{f4.eps}
721: \caption{
722: The surface density profile, $\Sigma_{\rm d}(R)$,
723: of the CN disk with $M_{\rm d}=10^8$ $M_{\sun}$ and
724: $R_{\rm d}=2.5$ kpc in galaxy models indicated in the panels.
725: The solid line takes into account both the BH and the stellar potential. The
726: dotted line only includes the stellar potential, while the dashed line takes
727: into account only the potential of the central BH.
728: \label{fig-sigdm8r25}}
729: \end{figure}
730:
731:
732: \begin{figure}
733: \plotone{f5.eps}
734: \caption{
735: The minimum $Q$-value for the CN disk with different masses and radii. The
736: upper-left, upper-right, lower-left, and lower-right panels show the results
737: of model S10, S11, cS11, and cS12, respectively.
738: The thick solid line indicates $Q=1$.
739: The dotted lines and thin solid lines correspond
740: to contours for $Q<1$ and $Q>1$.
741: The levels are separated by $\delta{\rm log} Q=1.0$.
742: Open circles denote CN disks observed in CO emission
743: by \citet{ly02,ly05}. The rest of the symbols show
744: the mass and size of the CN disk estimated from
745: the optical color excess of dusty disks observed with
746: {\it HST}\ \citep{tawti00}.
747: Solid triangles and open squares correspond to
748: the galaxies whose profile has been fitted with a
749: S{\'e}rsic law and a core-S{\'e}rsic law, respectively
750: \citep{fcj06,lgf07}; open diamonds mark galaxies with unclassified profiles.
751: NGC~4476, which has been observed both in CO \citep{ly02} and with {\it HST}\
752: \citep{tawti00}, is connected with a dotted line.
753: \label{fig-gqmin}}
754: \end{figure}
755:
756: \subsection{Stability of CN Disks with Various Masses and Radii}
757:
758: In this section, we again consider the four models
759: shown in Table~\ref{tab-sprof}, but study the stability of
760: the CN disks with different masses and radii.
761: Figure~\ref{fig-gqmin} shows the $Q$-value for
762: the CN disks with radii in the range of $0.05-15$ kpc and
763: masses spanning ${\rm log} (M_{\rm d}/M_{\sun})=4-10$.
764: Here, the figure shows the minimum $Q$-value
765: in each model. For example,
766: $Q_{\rm min} \approx 3.15$ at $r_{\rm d}$ = 380 pc for
767: model cS12 in Figure~\ref{fig-qvalm8r25}.
768:
769:
770: As expected, CN disks with higher gas mass and smaller radii
771: are more unstable.
772: % Core-S{\'e}rsic ${\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})=12$ model
773: %shows the discontinuous change around the break radius.
774: Comparison between S10 and S11 demonstrates that for two
775: CN disks with the same mass and radius in a
776: S{\'e}rsic-law galaxy,
777: the disk in the higher mass galaxy
778: is always more stable, due to the higher mass BH and
779: the more centrally concentrated stellar density profile.
780: If the CN disk is smaller than the break radius, the highest
781: mass model (i.e. model cS12) is the most stable.
782: For a CN disk with a size comparable to the break radius, model cS12
783: leads to a less stable condition than model S11,
784: and for the larger CN disk model cS12 is as stable as model S11.
785: Therefore, for large CN disks in high mass galaxies,
786: the size of the disk with respect to
787: the break radius of the host galaxies is an important factor
788: for the stability.
789:
790: %Since the break radius for cS11 ($R_{\rm b}=9.32$ pc)
791: %is smaller than the smallest
792: %CN disk we analyzed in Figure \ref{fig-gqmin},
793: %the CN disk is always more unstable than that in S11.
794: %Therefore, the stability of the CN disk is sensitive to
795: %the central density profile of the stellar component.
796:
797: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
798: \label{sec-disc}
799:
800: Our analysis of the stability of CN disks reveals
801: the following trends.
802:
803: \begin{itemize}
804: \item[(1)]
805: The CN disk is stabilized by the presence of the central BH.
806: Since higher mass galaxies tend to have more massive BHs,
807: the CN disk is more stable in higher mass galaxies in general.
808:
809: \item[(2)]
810: The stellar potential is also important for the stability of
811: the CN disk.
812:
813: \item[(3)]
814: For S{\'e}rsic-law galaxies, the CN disk is more stable
815: in higher mass galaxies because they tend to
816: have more centrally concentrated stellar density profiles.
817:
818: \item[(4)]
819: The existence of a central stellar core in luminous ellipticals makes the CN
820: disk unstable, especially around the break radius.
821:
822: \end{itemize}
823:
824: As discussed in Section \ref{sec-meth}, the central surface brightness
825: profiles for relatively low-mass galaxies ($M_{\rm s}\leq10^{11}$ $M_{\sun}$)
826: are generally described by the S{\'e}rsic law, with the trend of higher mass
827: galaxies tending to have larger $n_{\rm s}$. Points (1)--(3) above
828: indicate that CN disks in lower mass galaxies are more unstable.
829: On the other hand, relatively high-mass galaxies
830: (${\rm log} (M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})\geq11$)
831: tend to have stellar density profiles that contain a central core,
832: which leads to a more unstable CN disk compared to the S{\'e}rsic law.
833: On the other hand, since such systems also have more massive BHs,
834: CN disks in higher mass galaxies are kept stable, especially within the break
835: radius. These trends can explain the observational trends outlined in Section
836: \ref{sec-intro}. Because CN disks are more stable in more luminous
837: ellipticals, this provides a natural explanation for central star formation to
838: be curtailed in giant ellipticals,
839: whereas less luminous ellipticals apparently
840: have host nuclear star formation with greater ease, even though cold ISM
841: in the form of dusty nuclear disks are observed to be just as prevalent in
842: both environments.
843:
844: It is also worth stressing that, as seen in Figure \ref{fig-sigdm8r25},
845: the CN disk can remain stable even if the density of the disk is
846: more than 100 $M_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$ within 100 pc.
847: This is because the BH stabilizes the CN disk in the central region,
848: as seen in Figure \ref{fig-qvalm8r25}.
849: This density is much higher than the canonical density threshold for
850: star formation suggested by both observations \citep{rk89}
851: and theory \citep[e.g.,][]{js04},
852: $\Sigma_{\rm th}\sim3-10$ $M_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$. Our stability analysis offers
853: a simple explanation for the lack of
854: star formation \citep[e.g.,][]{okin05,ly05}
855: in CN disks that otherwise have high densities.
856:
857: %%% fixed mass argument
858: At a fixed total stellar mass for the host galaxy,
859: galaxies with higher $n_{\rm s}$ S{\'e}rsic law
860: have more stable CN disks, while the core-S{\'e}rsic law
861: leads to more unstable CN disks than the S{\'e}rsic law.
862: Therefore, the frequency of central star formation
863: activity should depend on both the central stellar density profile
864: as well as the BH mass. Recent near-ultraviolet observations
865: performed with {\it Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX)}
866: indicate that some fraction of early-type galaxies
867: have a small amount of recent star formation \citep{yyk05}.
868: Based on semi-analytic model predictions \citet{skk06} demonstrate that the
869: observed near-ultraviolet color distributions of early-type galaxies can be
870: explained if there is a critical BH mass at the fixed velocity dispersion for
871: galaxies that have recent star formation.
872: They suggested that the critical BH mass likely comes from
873: strong AGN heating created by the massive BH
874: \citep[e.g.,][]{bt95,sr98,kg05,sdh05,csw06,bbm06,co07}.
875: However, our study demonstrates that
876: the existence of a critical condition for star formation
877: at the fixed velocity dispersion
878: can be due to the stability of the CN disk, which is
879: governed by both the stellar density profile {\it and}\ the BH mass.
880:
881: As mentioned in Section \ref{sec-intro},
882: the size and mass of the CN disk have been measured by
883: several observational studies.
884: Some of these measurements are plotted
885: in Figure \ref{fig-gqmin} to compare with our model predictions.
886: The circles in Figure \ref{fig-gqmin} correspond to objects whose CN disk mass
887: and radius
888: were estimated
889: from CO emission observed with interferometers
890: in \citet{ly02,ly05}.
891: Figure \ref{fig-gqmin} also contains objects whose disk properties were
892: estimated from the color excess of dust features measured in optical images of
893: the central region of early-type galaxies observed with the {\it HST}
894: \citep{tawti00}\footnote{\citet{tawti00} find
895: that some galaxies in their sample have irregular dust morphology.
896: Figure \ref{fig-gqmin} only shows data for galaxies
897: whose dust morphology is classified a disk.}.
898: The stellar density profiles of the central region for
899: the majority of the galaxies in \citet{tawti00} have been studied
900: by \citet{fcj06} and/or \citet{lgf07}. This allows us to further distinguish
901: the objects by their central profile type.
902:
903: Following Section \ref{sec-meth}, we estimated the stellar mass from the
904: $B$-band luminosity, assuming a stellar mass-to-light ratio
905: of $\Upsilon_B=M_{\rm s}/(L_B/L_{B,\sun})=7$.
906: The $B$-band luminosities come from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic
907: Database (NED). We plot the data for galaxies with masses
908: ${\rm log}(M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})<10.5$ and ${\rm log}(M_{\rm s}/M_{\sun})>11.5$
909: in the upper-left and lower-right panels of the figure, respectively;
910: the rest of galaxies are shown in both the upper-right and lower-left panels.
911:
912: Only one object---NGC~4476--- has been measured with both techniques
913: (CO from \citet{ly02} and dust from \citet{tawti00}); the two data points are
914: connected with the dotted line. \citet{ly02} obtained a much higher gas mass
915: of $1.1\times10^8$ $M_{\sun}$ within 2.4 kpc, compared with a mass of
916: $1.0\times10^7$ $M_{\sun}$ within 1.8 kpc in \citet{tawti00}. The
917: order-of-magnitude discrepancy in mass cannot be explained by the slightly
918: different distances adopted by these authors (18 Mpc by \citet{ly02} and
919: 16.8 Mpc by \citet{tawti00}). It is noteworthy that {\it all} of the
920: CO-measured CN disks have systematically larger disk masses than the
921: dust-measured systems, suggesting that at least part of the discrepancy
922: may be due to systematic errors in the estimated gas masses.
923: Both sets of observations require a conversion factor to arrive at a gas mass.
924: In the case of the CO observations, a standard Galactic CO-to-H$_2$ conversion
925: factor was adopted. The CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor, however, may be
926: systematically lower in regions of high metallicity
927: \citep{ast96}, as is the case in the central regions of massive galaxies,
928: a suggestion supported by radiative transfer calculations in numerical
929: simulations of CN disks \citep{wt05}. If this is the case, then the gas masses
930: from \citet{ly02,ly05} are overestimated.
931:
932: A similar caveat applies to the gas masses estimated from the dust extinction,
933: which assume a Galactic gas-to-dust mass ratio \citep{tawti00}. However,
934: dust mass estimated from optical extinction should be considered as lower
935: limit to the true dust masses \citep{gdj95,ttf01,mfb04}. For example,
936: \citet{gdj95} show that the dust masses derived from the far-infrared emission
937: are roughly an order of magnitude higher than those estimated from optical
938: extinction alone. They argue that the optical extinction may underestimate
939: the dust mass by about factor of 2 due to the assumption that the dust is in
940: front of the stars \citep[see also][who claim that this effect is more
941: significant]{mtsb00}. \citet{gdj95} also discuss that the discrepancy in the
942: estimated dust mass is mainly due to the presence of diffusely distributed
943: dust, which cannot be seen as optical extinction. We note, however, that such
944: a diffuse component is unlikely to be present as a rotating disk, as it is
945: more likely to be supported by velocity dispersion. In any case, it seems
946: plausible that the gas masses derived from the optical dust features may be
947: an underestimate of the true gas mass, thereby narrowing the disagreement
948: with the CO-based masses. Until more accurate gas masses are available, it is
949: difficult to draw more quantitative comparisons between our model predictions
950: and observations.
951: %However, it will become possible if the more accurate
952: %measurements and estimates have been done, for example, by
953: %{\it Atacama Large Millimeter Array}.
954: %Then, it would be interesting to compare our predictions
955: %with the observed values.
956:
957: To see if there is any sign of ongoing star formation in the sample of
958: galaxies shown in Figure 5, we have done a careful search of the literature
959: to inspect published optical spectra
960: \citep{pjdsb86,bba89,hfs97c,crdz00,dd03}.
961: Galaxies with ongoing star formation show optical emission-line ratios that
962: are readily distinguishable from other sources of ionization
963: \citep[e.g., active galactic nuclei; see][]{hfs97c}.
964: Among all the objects, only NGC 4526 has a spectral classification
965: consistent with stellar photoionization \citep{hfs97c}.
966: The rest either have no star formation (14 galaxies) or have
967: insufficient spectral information to tell (5 galaxies).
968: % Interestingly,
969: %NGC 4526, which is highlighted in Figure \ref{fig-gqmin},
970: %is only one of two {\it HST}-measured
971: %CN disks that lies above the $Q=1$ line (the other one is NGC 4476).
972: Although NGC 4526, which is highlighted in Figure \ref{fig-gqmin},
973: is in the stable ($Q>1$) region, interestingly, NGC 4526 has one of
974: the most unstable CN disks among the {\it HST}-measured sample.
975: Also, none of the CO-measured CN disks, which are located
976: in the unstable region in Figure \ref{fig-gqmin}, show a clear indication of
977: star formation. Although this contradicts with our prediction,
978: because of the above-mentioned ambiguities in the estimates of the gas masses
979: from the observations, it is difficult to conclude if these galaxies
980: require additional process to explain their suppression of star formation.
981:
982: It is clear from inspection of Figure~\ref{fig-gqmin} that once the mass
983: of the CN disk becomes high enough, the disk will inevitably become
984: unstable for star formation, one of the consequences of which may be
985: to aid gas fueling to the AGN \citep{kw04}. This type of situation is likely
986: to be realized in the aftermath of a gas-rich major merger, whereby the large
987: amount of the gas dissipated toward the center can
988: generate a high-mass CN disk. High-resolution millimeter observations of
989: luminous infrared galaxies indeed suggest that systems with
990: larger central gas surface densities tend to either form stars with greater
991: efficiency or have a higher probability of hosting an AGN \citep{bs99}.
992:
993: %%% consequence of star formation
994: Finally, we speculate that star formation induced in an unstable CN disk
995: may be directly related to the formation of kinematically decoupled cores
996: (KDCs) that are often seen in the centers of early-type galaxies
997: \citep[e.g.,][]{jk84,rb88,bs92,cmp00} as well as the central stellar
998: disk that many power-law ellipticals seem to have
999: \citep{lfg05}.
1000: One of the intriguing clues regarding the origin of KDCs
1001: is that large cores are always old \citep{mes06}.
1002: If KDCs are a by-product of
1003: unstable CN disks, then large KDCs require large, massive CN disks, which
1004: probably can only be formed through major, gas-rich mergers, which are
1005: most prevalent at earlier epochs.
1006:
1007: \acknowledgments
1008:
1009: We thank Alister Graham, Tod Lauer, and Lisa Young for helpful comments.
1010: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)
1011: which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
1012: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
1013: Administration. This work is supported in part by grants NNG05GK10G
1014: and AST-0507521.
1015: The work of L. C. H. is supported by the Carnegie
1016: Institution of Washington and by NASA grants from the Space Telescope Science
1017: Institute (operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555).
1018:
1019: %DK thanks the financial support of the JSPS, through
1020: %Postdoctoral Fellowship for research abroad.
1021: %The Australian Research Council, through
1022: %its Discovery Project scheme, is gratefully acknowledged.
1023: %We acknowledge
1024: %the Center for Computational Astrophysics of the National Astronomical
1025: %Observatory, Japan (project ID: imn33a), the
1026: %Institute of Space and Astronautical Science
1027: %of Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, and
1028: %the Australian and Victorian Partnerships for Advanced
1029: %Computing, where the numerical computations for this paper were
1030: %performed. MR is grateful to the NSF for support under grant AST-05-06845.
1031:
1032: %\bibliography{../dkref}
1033:
1034: \begin{thebibliography}{102}
1035: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1036:
1037: \bibitem[{{Arimoto} {et~al.}(1996){Arimoto}, {Sofue}, \& {Tsujimoto}}]{ast96}
1038: {Arimoto}, N., {Sofue}, Y., \& {Tsujimoto}, T. 1996, \pasj, 48, 275
1039:
1040: \bibitem[{{Bender}(1988)}]{rb88}
1041: {Bender}, R. 1988, \aap, 202, L5
1042:
1043: \bibitem[{{Bender} \& {Surma}(1992)}]{bs92}
1044: {Bender}, R., \& {Surma}, P. 1992, \aap, 258, 250
1045:
1046: \bibitem[{{Binney} \& {Tabor}(1995)}]{bt95}
1047: {Binney}, J., \& {Tabor}, G. 1995, \mnras, 276, 663
1048:
1049: \bibitem[{{Binney} \& {Tremaine}(1987)}]{bt87}
1050: {Binney}, J., \& {Tremaine}, S. 1987, {Galactic Dynamics} (Princeton, NJ:
1051: Princeton University Press), 747
1052:
1053: \bibitem[{{Bonatto} {et~al.}(1989){Bonatto}, {Bica}, \& {Alloin}}]{bba89}
1054: {Bonatto}, C., {Bica}, E., \& {Alloin}, D. 1989, \aap, 226, 23
1055:
1056: \bibitem[{{Bower} {et~al.}(2006){Bower}, {Benson}, {Malbon}, {Helly}, {Frenk},
1057: {Baugh}, {Cole}, \& {Lacey}}]{bbm06}
1058: {Bower}, R.~G., {Benson}, A.~J., {Malbon}, R., {Helly}, J.~C., {Frenk}, C.~S.,
1059: {Baugh}, C.~M., {Cole}, S., \& {Lacey}, C.~G. 2006, \mnras, 370, 645
1060:
1061: \bibitem[{{Bregman} {et~al.}(1992){Bregman}, {Hogg}, \& {Roberts}}]{bhr92}
1062: {Bregman}, J.~N., {Hogg}, D.~E., \& {Roberts}, M.~S. 1992, \apj, 387, 484
1063:
1064: \bibitem[{{Bryant} \& {Scoville}(1999)}]{bs99}
1065: {Bryant}, P.~M., \& {Scoville}, N.~Z. 1999, \aj, 117, 2632
1066:
1067: \bibitem[{{Caon} {et~al.}(1993){Caon}, {Capaccioli}, \& {D'Onofrio}}]{ccd93}
1068: {Caon}, N., {Capaccioli}, M., \& {D'Onofrio}, M. 1993, \mnras, 265, 1013
1069:
1070: \bibitem[{{Caon} {et~al.}(2000){Caon}, {Macchetto}, \& {Pastoriza}}]{cmp00}
1071: {Caon}, N., {Macchetto}, D., \& {Pastoriza}, M. 2000, \apjs, 127, 39
1072:
1073: \bibitem[{{Ciotti} \& {Ostriker}(2007)}]{co07}
1074: {Ciotti}, L., \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 2007, \apj, in press
1075:
1076: \bibitem[{{Colbert} {et~al.}(2001){Colbert}, {Mulchaey}, \&
1077: {Zabludoff}}]{cmz01}
1078: {Colbert}, J.~W., {Mulchaey}, J.~S., \& {Zabludoff}, A.~I. 2001, \aj, 121, 808
1079:
1080: \bibitem[{{C{\^o}t{\'e}} {et~al.}(2006){C{\^o}t{\'e}}, {Piatek}, {Ferrarese},
1081: {Jord{\'a}n}, {Merritt}, {Peng}, {Ha{\c s}egan}, {Blakeslee}, {Mei}, {West},
1082: {Milosavljevi{\'c}}, \& {Tonry}}]{cpf06}
1083: {C{\^o}t{\'e}}, P., et al. 2006, \apjs, 165, 57
1084:
1085: \bibitem[{{Crane} {et~al.}(1993){Crane}, {Stiavelli}, {King}, {Deharveng},
1086: {Albrecht}, {Barbieri}, {Blades}, {Boksenberg}, {Disney}, {Jakobsen},
1087: {Kamperman}, {Machetto}, {Mackay}, {Paresce}, {Weigelt}, {Baxter},
1088: {Greenfield}, {Jedrzejewski}, {Nota}, \& {Sparks}}]{csk93}
1089: {Crane}, P., et al. 1993, \aj, 106, 1371
1090:
1091: \bibitem[{{Cretton} {et~al.}(2000){Cretton}, {Rix}, \& {de Zeeuw}}]{crdz00}
1092: {Cretton}, N., {Rix}, H.-W., \& {de Zeeuw}, P.~T. 2000, \apj, 536, 319
1093:
1094: \bibitem[{{Croton} {et~al.}(2006){Croton}, {Springel}, {White}, {De Lucia},
1095: {Frenk}, {Gao}, {Jenkins}, {Kauffmann}, {Navarro}, \& {Yoshida}}]{csw06}
1096: {Croton}, D.~J., et al. 2006, \mnras, 365, 11
1097:
1098: \bibitem[{{Donzelli} \& {Davoust}(2003)}]{dd03}
1099: {Donzelli}, C.~J., \& {Davoust}, E. 2003, \aap, 409, 91
1100:
1101: \bibitem[{{Faber} {et~al.}(1997){Faber}, {Tremaine}, {Ajhar}, {Byun},
1102: {Dressler}, {Gebhardt}, {Grillmair}, {Kormendy}, {Lauer}, \&
1103: {Richstone}}]{fta97}
1104: {Faber}, S.~M., et al. 1997, \aj, 114, 1771
1105:
1106: \bibitem[{{Faber} \& {Gallagher}(1976)}]{fg76}
1107: {Faber}, S.~M., \& {Gallagher}, J.~S. 1976, \apj, 204, 365
1108:
1109: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} {et~al.}(2006){Ferrarese}, {C{\^o}t{\'e}}, {Jord{\'a}n},
1110: {Peng}, {Blakeslee}, {Piatek}, {Mei}, {Merritt}, {Milosavljevi{\'c}},
1111: {Tonry}, \& {West}}]{fcj06}
1112: {Ferrarese}, L., et al. 2006, \apjs, 164, 334
1113:
1114: \bibitem[{{Forman} {et~al.}(1985){Forman}, {Jones}, \& {Tucker}}]{fjt85}
1115: {Forman}, W., {Jones}, C., \& {Tucker}, W. 1985, \apj, 293, 102
1116:
1117: \bibitem[{{Forman} {et~al.}(1979){Forman}, {Schwarz}, {Jones}, {Liller}, \&
1118: {Fabian}}]{fsjlf79}
1119: {Forman}, W., {Schwarz}, J., {Jones}, C., {Liller}, W., \& {Fabian}, A.~C.
1120: 1979, \apjl, 234, L27
1121:
1122: \bibitem[{{Frank} {et~al.}(2002){Frank}, {King}, \& {Raine}}]{fkr02}
1123: {Frank}, J., {King}, A., \& {Raine}, D.~J. 2002, {Accretion Power in
1124: Astrophysics: Third Edition} (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
1125:
1126: \bibitem[{{Goldreich} \& {Lynden-Bell}(1965)}]{gl65}
1127: {Goldreich}, P., \& {Lynden-Bell}, D. 1965, \mnras, 130, 97
1128:
1129: \bibitem[{{Goudfrooij} \& {de Jong}(1995)}]{gdj95}
1130: {Goudfrooij}, P., \& {de Jong}, T. 1995, \aap, 298, 784
1131:
1132: \bibitem[{{Graham}(2002)}]{ag02}
1133: {Graham}, A.~W. 2002, \mnras, 334, 859
1134:
1135: \bibitem[{{Graham} \& {Driver}(2005)}]{gd05}
1136: {Graham}, A.~W., \& {Driver}, S.~P. 2005, PASA, 22, 118
1137:
1138: \bibitem[{{Graham} {et~al.}(2003){Graham}, {Erwin}, {Trujillo}, \& {Asensio
1139: Ramos}}]{geta03}
1140: {Graham}, A.~W., {Erwin}, P., {Trujillo}, I., \& {Asensio Ramos}, A. 2003, \aj,
1141: 125, 2951
1142:
1143: \bibitem[{{Graham} \& {Guzm{\'a}n}(2003)}]{gg03}
1144: {Graham}, A.~W., \& {Guzm{\'a}n}, R. 2003, \aj, 125, 2936
1145:
1146: \bibitem[{{Graham} {et~al.}(2006){Graham}, {Merritt}, {Moore}, {Diemand}, \&
1147: {Terzi{\'c}}}]{gmmdt06}
1148: {Graham}, A.~W., {Merritt}, D., {Moore}, B., {Diemand}, J., \& {Terzi{\'c}}, B.
1149: 2006, \aj, 132, 2711
1150:
1151: \bibitem[{{Grillmair} {et~al.}(1994){Grillmair}, {Faber}, {Lauer}, {Baum},
1152: {Lynds}, {O'Neil}, \& {Shaya}}]{gfl94}
1153: {Grillmair}, C.~J., {Faber}, S.~M., {Lauer}, T.~R., {Baum}, W.~A., {Lynds},
1154: R.~C., {O'Neil}, Jr., E.~J., \& {Shaya}, E.~J. 1994, \aj, 108, 102
1155:
1156: \bibitem[{{H{\"a}ring} \& {Rix}(2004)}]{hr04}
1157: {H{\"a}ring}, N., \& {Rix}, H.-W. 2004, \apjl, 604, L89
1158:
1159: \bibitem[{{Ho}(2004)}]{lh04}
1160: {Ho}, L.~C. 2004, in Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1:
1161: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge
1162: Univ. Press), 292
1163:
1164: \bibitem[{{Ho}(2005)}]{lh05}
1165: ------. 2005, \apj, 629, 680
1166:
1167: \bibitem[{{Ho} {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{a}}){Ho}, {Filippenko}, \&
1168: {Sargent}}]{hfs97a}
1169: {Ho}, L.~C., {Filippenko}, A.~V., \& {Sargent}, W.~L.~W. 1997{\natexlab{a}},
1170: \apj, 487, 568
1171:
1172: \bibitem[{{Ho} {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{b}}){Ho}, {Filippenko}, \&
1173: {Sargent}}]{hfs97b}
1174: ------. 1997{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 487, 579
1175:
1176: \bibitem[{{Ho} {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{c}}){Ho}, {Filippenko}, \&
1177: {Sargent}}]{hfs97c}
1178: ------. 1997{\natexlab{c}}, \apjs, 112, 315
1179:
1180: \bibitem[{{Ho} {et~al.}(2003){Ho}, {Filippenko}, \& {Sargent}}]{hfs03}
1181: ------. 2003, \apj, 583, 159
1182:
1183:
1184: \bibitem[{{Huchtmeier}(1994)}]{wh94}
1185: {Huchtmeier}, W.~K. 1994, \aap, 286, 389
1186:
1187: \bibitem[{{Jaffe} {et~al.}(1994){Jaffe}, {Ford}, {O'Connell}, {van den Bosch},
1188: \& {Ferrarese}}]{jfo94}
1189: {Jaffe}, W., {Ford}, H.~C., {O'Connell}, R.~W., {van den Bosch}, F.~C., \&
1190: {Ferrarese}, L. 1994, \aj, 108, 1567
1191:
1192: \bibitem[{{Johnson} \& {Axford}(1971)}]{ja71}
1193: {Johnson}, H.~E., \& {Axford}, W.~I. 1971, \apj, 165, 381
1194:
1195: \bibitem[{{Kawata} \& {Gibson}(2005)}]{kg05}
1196: {Kawata}, D., \& {Gibson}, B.~K. 2005, \mnras, 358, L16
1197:
1198: \bibitem[{{Kennicutt}(1989)}]{rk89}
1199: {Kennicutt}, R.~C. 1989, \apj, 344, 685
1200:
1201: \bibitem[{{Knapp}(1999)}]{gk99}
1202: {Knapp}, G.~R. 1999, in Star Formation in Early-Type
1203: Galaxies, ed. P.~{Carral} \& J.~{Cepa} (San Francisco: ASP), 119
1204:
1205: \bibitem[{{Knapp} {et~al.}(1989){Knapp}, {Guhathakurta}, {Kim}, \&
1206: {Jura}}]{kgkj89}
1207: {Knapp}, G.~R., {Guhathakurta}, P., {Kim}, D.-W., \& {Jura}, M.~A. 1989, \apjs,
1208: 70, 329
1209:
1210: \bibitem[{{Knapp} \& {Rupen}(1996)}]{kr96}
1211: {Knapp}, G.~R., \& {Rupen}, M.~P. 1996, \apj, 460, 271
1212:
1213: \bibitem[{{Knapp} {et~al.}(1985){Knapp}, {Turner}, \& {Cunniffe}}]{ktc85}
1214: {Knapp}, G.~R., {Turner}, E.~L., \& {Cunniffe}, P.~E. 1985, \aj, 90, 454
1215:
1216: \bibitem[{{Koda} {et~al.}(2005){Koda}, {Okuda}, {Nakanishi}, {Kohno},
1217: {Ishizuki}, {Kuno}, \& {Okumura}}]{kon05}
1218: {Koda}, J., {Okuda}, T., {Nakanishi}, K., {Kohno}, K., {Ishizuki}, S., {Kuno},
1219: N., \& {Okumura}, S.~K. 2005, \aap, 431, 887
1220:
1221: \bibitem[{{Kormendy}(1977)}]{jk77}
1222: {Kormendy}, J. 1977, \apj, 218, 333
1223:
1224: \bibitem[{{Kormendy}(1984)}]{jk84}
1225: ------. 1984, \apj, 287, 577
1226:
1227: \bibitem[{{Lake} \& {Schommer}(1984)}]{ls84}
1228: {Lake}, G., \& {Schommer}, R.~A. 1984, \apj, 280, 107
1229:
1230: \bibitem[{{Lauer} {et~al.}(1991){Lauer}, {Faber}, {Holtzman}, {Baum}, {Currie},
1231: {Ewald}, {Groth}, {Hester}, {Kelsall}, {Kristian}, {Light}, {Lynds},
1232: {O'Neil}, {Shaya}, \& {Westphal}}]{lfh91}
1233: {Lauer}, T.~R., et al. 1991, \apjl, 369, L41
1234:
1235: \bibitem[{{Lauer} {et~al.}(1992{\natexlab{a}}){Lauer}, {Faber}, {Currie},
1236: {Ewald}, {Groth}, {Hester}, {Holtzman}, {Light}, {O'Neil}, {Shaya}, \&
1237: {Westphal}}]{lfc92}
1238: ------. 1992{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 104, 552
1239:
1240: \bibitem[{{Lauer} {et~al.}(1992{\natexlab{b}}){Lauer}, {Faber}, {Lynds},
1241: {Baum}, {Ewald}, {Groth}, {Hester}, {Holtzman}, {Kristian}, {Light},
1242: {O'Neil}, {Schneider}, {Shaya}, \& {Westphal}}]{lfl92}
1243: ------. 1992{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 103, 703
1244:
1245: \bibitem[{{Lauer} {et~al.}(1993){Lauer}, {Faber}, {Groth}, {Shaya}, {Campbell},
1246: {Code}, {Currie}, {Baum}, {Ewald}, {Hester}, {Holtzman}, {Kristian}, {Light},
1247: {Ligynds}, {O'Neil}, \& {Westphal}}]{lfg93}
1248: ------. 1993, \aj, 106, 1436
1249:
1250: \bibitem[{{Lauer} {et~al.}(1995){Lauer}, {Ajhar}, {Byun}, {Dressler}, {Faber},
1251: {Grillmair}, {Kormendy}, {Richstone}, \& {Tremaine}}]{lab95}
1252: ------. 1995, \aj, 110, 2622
1253:
1254: \bibitem[{{Lauer} {et~al.}(2005){Lauer}, {Faber}, {Gebhardt}, {Richstone},
1255: {Tremaine}, {Ajhar}, {Aller}, {Bender}, {Dressler}, {Filippenko}, {Green},
1256: {Grillmair}, {Ho}, {Kormendy}, {Magorrian}, {Pinkney}, \& {Siopis}}]{lfg05}
1257: ------. 2005, \aj, 129, 2138
1258:
1259:
1260: \bibitem[{{Lauer} {et~al.}(2007){Lauer}, {Gebhardt}, {Faber}, {Richstone},
1261: {Tremaine}, {Kormendy}, {Aller}, {Bender}, {Dressler}, {Filippenko}, {Green},
1262: \& {Ho}}]{lgf07}
1263: ------. 2007, \apj, in press
1264:
1265: \bibitem[{{Lees} {et~al.}(1991){Lees}, {Knapp}, {Rupen}, \&
1266: {Phillips}}]{lkrp91}
1267: {Lees}, J.~F., {Knapp}, G.~R., {Rupen}, M.~P., \& {Phillips}, T.~G. 1991, \apj,
1268: 379, 177
1269:
1270: \bibitem[{{Magorrian} {et~al.}(1998){Magorrian}, {Tremaine}, {Richstone},
1271: {Bender}, {Bower}, {Dressler}, {Faber}, {Gebhardt}, {Green}, {Grillmair},
1272: {Kormendy}, \& {Lauer}}]{mtr98}
1273: {Magorrian}, J., et al. 1998, \aj, 115, 2285
1274:
1275: \bibitem[{{Marconi} \& {Hunt}(2003)}]{mh03}
1276: {Marconi}, A., \& {Hunt}, L.~K. 2003, \apjl, 589, L21
1277:
1278: \bibitem[{{Martel} {et~al.}(2004){Martel}, {Ford}, {Bradley}, {Tran},
1279: {Menanteau}, {Tsvetanov}, {Illingworth}, {Hartig}, \& {Clampin}}]{mfb04}
1280: {Martel}, A.~R., et al. 2004, \aj, 128, 2758
1281:
1282: \bibitem[{{Martel} {et~al.}(2000){Martel}, {Turner}, {Sparks}, \&
1283: {Baum}}]{mtsb00}
1284: {Martel}, A.~R., {Turner}, N.~J., {Sparks}, W.~B., \& {Baum}, S.~A. 2000,
1285: \apjs, 130, 267
1286:
1287: \bibitem[{{Mathews} \& {Baker}(1971)}]{mb71}
1288: {Mathews}, W.~G., \& {Baker}, J.~C. 1971, \apj, 170, 241
1289:
1290: \bibitem[{{Mazure} \& {Capelato}(2002)}]{mc02}
1291: {Mazure}, A., \& {Capelato}, H.~V. 2002, \aap, 383, 384
1292:
1293: \bibitem[{{McDermid} {et~al.}(2006){McDermid}, {Emsellem}, {Shapiro}, {Bacon},
1294: {Bureau}, {Cappellari}, {Davies}, {de Zeeuw}, {Falc{\'o}n-Barroso},
1295: {Krajnovi{\'c}}, {Kuntschner}, {Peletier}, \& {Sarzi}}]{mes06}
1296: {McDermid}, R.~M., et al. 2006, \mnras, 373, 906
1297:
1298: \bibitem[{{Morganti} {et~al.}(2006){Morganti}, {de Zeeuw}, {Oosterloo},
1299: {McDermid}, {Krajnovi{\'c}}, {Cappellari}, {Kenn}, {Weijmans}, \&
1300: {Sarzi}}]{mdzom06}
1301: {Morganti}, R., et al. 2006, \mnras, 371, 157
1302:
1303: \bibitem[{{Nakanishi} {et~al.}(2007){Nakanishi}, {Tosaki}, {Kohno}, {Sofue}, \&
1304: {Kuno}}]{ntksk06}
1305: {Nakanishi}, H., {Tosaki}, T., {Kohno}, K., {Sofue}, Y., \& {Kuno}, N. 2007,
1306: PASJ, 59, 61
1307:
1308: \bibitem[{{Okuda} {et~al.}(2005){Okuda}, {Kohno}, {Iguchi}, \&
1309: {Nakanishi}}]{okin05}
1310: {Okuda}, T., {Kohno}, K., {Iguchi}, S., \& {Nakanishi}, K. 2005, \apj, 620, 673
1311:
1312: \bibitem[{{Owen} {et~al.}(1990){Owen}, {O'Dea}, \& {Keel}}]{ook90}
1313: {Owen}, F.~N., {O'Dea}, C.~P., \& {Keel}, W.~C. 1990, \apj, 352, 44
1314:
1315: \bibitem[{{Phillips} {et~al.}(1986){Phillips}, {Jenkins}, {Dopita}, {Sadler},
1316: \& {Binette}}]{pjdsb86}
1317: {Phillips}, M.~M., {Jenkins}, C.~R., {Dopita}, M.~A., {Sadler}, E.~M., \&
1318: {Binette}, L. 1986, \aj, 91, 1062
1319:
1320: \bibitem[{{Pringle}(1981)}]{jp81}
1321: {Pringle}, J.~E. 1981, \araa, 19, 137
1322:
1323: \bibitem[{{Prugniel} \& {Simien}(1997)}]{ps97}
1324: {Prugniel}, P., \& {Simien}, F. 1997, \aap, 321, 111
1325:
1326: \bibitem[{{Ravindranath} {et~al.}(2001){Ravindranath}, {Ho}, {Peng},
1327: {Filippenko}, \& {Sargent}}]{rhpfs01}
1328: {Ravindranath}, S., {Ho}, L.~C., {Peng}, C.~Y., {Filippenko}, A.~V., \&
1329: {Sargent}, W.~L.~W. 2001, \aj, 122, 653
1330:
1331: \bibitem[{{Rest} {et~al.}(2001){Rest}, {van den Bosch}, {Jaffe}, {Tran},
1332: {Tsvetanov}, {Ford}, {Davies}, \& {Schafer}}]{rvdbj01}
1333: {Rest}, A., {van den Bosch}, F.~C., {Jaffe}, W., {Tran}, H., {Tsvetanov}, Z.,
1334: {Ford}, H.~C., {Davies}, J., \& {Schafer}, J. 2001, \aj, 121, 2431
1335:
1336: \bibitem[{{Sadler} {et~al.}(2000){Sadler}, {Oosterloo}, {Morganti}, \&
1337: {Karakas}}]{somk00}
1338: {Sadler}, E.~M., {Oosterloo}, T.~A., {Morganti}, R., \& {Karakas}, A. 2000,
1339: \aj, 119, 1180
1340:
1341: \bibitem[{{Sage} {et~al.}(2007){Sage}, {Welch}, \& {Young}}]{swy06}
1342: {Sage}, L.~J., {Welch}, G.~A., \& {Young}, L.~M. 2007, \apj, 657, 232
1343:
1344: \bibitem[{{Schawinski} {et~al.}(2006){Schawinski}, {Khochfar}, {Kaviraj}, {Yi},
1345: {Boselli}, {Barlow}, {Conrow}, {Forster}, {Friedman}, {Martin}, {Morrissey},
1346: {Neff}, {Schiminovich}, {Seibert}, {Small}, {Wyder}, {Bianchi}, {Donas},
1347: {Heckman}, {Lee}, {Madore}, {Milliard}, {Rich}, \& {Szalay}}]{skk06}
1348: {Schawinski}, K., et al. 2006, \nat, 442, 888
1349:
1350: \bibitem[{{Schaye}(2004)}]{js04}
1351: {Schaye}, J. 2004, \apj, 609, 667
1352:
1353: \bibitem[{{S{\'e}rsic}(1968)}]{js68}
1354: {S{\'e}rsic}, J.~L. 1968, {Atlas de galaxias australes} (Cordoba, Argentina:
1355: Observatorio Astronomico)
1356:
1357: \bibitem[{{Shakura} \& {Sunyaev}(1973)}]{ss73}
1358: {Shakura}, N.~I., \& {Sunyaev}, R.~A. 1973, \aap, 24, 337
1359:
1360: \bibitem[{{Silk} \& {Rees}(1998)}]{sr98}
1361: {Silk}, J., \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1998, \aap, 331, L1
1362:
1363: \bibitem[{{Springel} {et~al.}(2005){Springel}, {Di Matteo}, \&
1364: {Hernquist}}]{sdh05}
1365: {Springel}, V., {Di Matteo}, T., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2005, \apjl, 620, L79
1366:
1367: \bibitem[{{Stiavelli} {et~al.}(2001){Stiavelli}, {Miller}, {Ferguson}, {Mack},
1368: {Whitmore}, \& {Lotz}}]{smf01}
1369: {Stiavelli}, M., {Miller}, B.~W., {Ferguson}, H.~C., {Mack}, J., {Whitmore},
1370: B.~C., \& {Lotz}, J.~M. 2001, \aj, 121, 1385
1371:
1372: \bibitem[{{Tan} {et~al.}(2007){Tan}, {Beuther}, {Walter}, \&
1373: {Blackman}}]{tbwb06}
1374: {Tan}, J.~C., {Beuther}, H., {Walter}, F., \& {Blackman}, E.~G. 2007, \apj,
1375: in press
1376:
1377: \bibitem[{{Tan} \& {Blackman}(2005)}]{tb05}
1378: {Tan}, J.~C., \& {Blackman}, E.~G. 2005, \mnras, 362, 983
1379:
1380: \bibitem[{{Terzi{\'c}} \& {Graham}(2005)}]{tg05}
1381: {Terzi{\'c}}, B., \& {Graham}, A.~W. 2005, \mnras, 362, 197
1382:
1383: \bibitem[{{Tomita} {et~al.}(2000){Tomita}, {Aoki}, {Watanabe}, {Takata}, \&
1384: {Ichikawa}}]{tawti00}
1385: {Tomita}, A., {Aoki}, K., {Watanabe}, M., {Takata}, T., \& {Ichikawa}, S.-i.
1386: 2000, \aj, 120, 123
1387:
1388: \bibitem[{{Toomre}(1964)}]{at64}
1389: {Toomre}, A. 1964, \apj, 139, 1217
1390:
1391: \bibitem[{{Tran} {et~al.}(2001){Tran}, {Tsvetanov}, {Ford}, {Davies}, {Jaffe},
1392: {van den Bosch}, \& {Rest}}]{ttf01}
1393: {Tran}, H.~D., {Tsvetanov}, Z., {Ford}, H.~C., {Davies}, J., {Jaffe}, W., {van
1394: den Bosch}, F.~C., \& {Rest}, A. 2001, \aj, 121, 2928
1395:
1396: \bibitem[{{Trujillo} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}}){Trujillo}, {Burkert}, \&
1397: {Bell}}]{tbb04}
1398: {Trujillo}, I., {Burkert}, A., \& {Bell}, E.~F. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 600,
1399: L39
1400:
1401: \bibitem[{{Trujillo} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}}){Trujillo}, {Erwin}, {Asensio
1402: Ramos}, \& {Graham}}]{teag04}
1403: {Trujillo}, I., {Erwin}, P., {Asensio Ramos}, A., \& {Graham}, A.~W.
1404: 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 127, 1917
1405:
1406: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum} \& {Franx}(1995)}]{vdf95}
1407: {van Dokkum}, P.~G., \& {Franx}, M. 1995, \aj, 110, 2027
1408:
1409: \bibitem[{{Vila-Vilar{\'o}} {et~al.}(2003){Vila-Vilar{\'o}}, {Cepa}, \&
1410: {Butner}}]{vcb03}
1411: {Vila-Vilar{\'o}}, B., {Cepa}, J., \& {Butner}, H.~M. 2003, \apj, 594, 232
1412:
1413: \bibitem[{{Wada}(2004)}]{kw04}
1414: {Wada}, K. 2004, in Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 186
1415:
1416: \bibitem[{{Wada} \& {Tomisaka}(2005)}]{wt05}
1417: {Wada}, K., \& {Tomisaka}, K. 2005, \apj, 619, 93
1418:
1419: \bibitem[{{Wiklind} {et~al.}(1995){Wiklind}, {Combes}, \& {Henkel}}]{wch95}
1420: {Wiklind}, T., {Combes}, F., \& {Henkel}, C. 1995, \aap, 297, 643
1421:
1422: \bibitem[{{Wiklind} \& {Henkel}(1995)}]{wh95}
1423: {Wiklind}, T., \& {Henkel}, C. 1995, \aap, 297, L71+
1424:
1425: \bibitem[{{Yi} {et~al.}(2005){Yi}, {Yoon}, {Kaviraj}, {Deharveng}, {Rich},
1426: {Salim}, {Boselli}, {Lee}, {Ree}, {Sohn}, {Rey}, {Lee}, {Rhee}, {Bianchi},
1427: {Byun}, {Donas}, {Friedman}, {Heckman}, {Jelinsky}, {Madore}, {Malina},
1428: {Martin}, {Milliard}, {Morrissey}, {Neff}, {Schiminovich}, {Siegmund},
1429: {Small}, {Szalay}, {Jee}, {Kim}, {Barlow}, {Forster}, {Welsh}, \&
1430: {Wyder}}]{yyk05}
1431: {Yi}, S.~K., et al. 2005, \apjl, 619, L111
1432:
1433: \bibitem[{{Young}(2002)}]{ly02}
1434: {Young}, L.~M. 2002, \aj, 124, 788
1435:
1436: \bibitem[{{Young}(2005)}]{ly05}
1437: ------. 2005, \apj, 634, 258
1438:
1439: \end{thebibliography}
1440:
1441: %%
1442: %% Version 2.1, edited by DK, following Luis' comments. (05/21 2007)
1443: %% Version 2.2, edited by DK, following Renyue's comments. (05/30 2007)
1444: %%
1445:
1446:
1447:
1448:
1449: \end{document}
1450: