1: \documentclass[10pt,preprint2]{aastex}
2: \def\pppm{\rm P^3M}
3: \def\mpchi{\,h^{-1}{\rm {Mpc}}}
4: \def\kpchi{\,h^{-1}{\rm {kpc}}}
5: \def\kms{\,{\rm {km\, s^{-1}}}}
6: \def\msun{{\rm M_\odot}}
7: \def\msunhi{\,h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}}
8: %%\usepackage{psfig}
9: %%\usepackage{graphicx}
10: %%\setcounter{figure}{0}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{A fitting formula for the merger timescale of galaxies in
15: hierarchical clustering }
16:
17: \author{C. Y. Jiang$^{1,2}$, Y. P. Jing$^{1}$, A. Faltenbacher$^{1}$, W. P. Lin$^{1}$, Cheng Li$^{1}$}
18: \affil{$^1$Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Nandan Road 80, Shanghai, China}
19: \affil{$^2$
20: Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19A, Yuquan Road, Beijing, China}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: We study galaxy mergers using a high-resolution cosmological
24: hydro/N-body simulation with star formation, and compare the measured
25: merger timescales with theoretical predictions based on the
26: Chandrasekhar formula. In contrast to Navarro et al., our numerical
27: results indicate, that the commonly used equation for the merger
28: timescale given by Lacey and Cole, systematically underestimates the
29: merger timescales for minor mergers and overestimates those for major
30: mergers. This behavior is partly explained by the poor performance of
31: their expression for the Coulomb logarithm, $\ln (m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$.
32: The two alternative forms $\ln (1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$ and
33: $1/2\ln [1+(m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})^2]$ for the Coulomb logarithm
34: can account for the mass dependence of merger timescale successfully, but
35: both of them underestimate the merger time scale by a factor 2.
36: Since $\ln (1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$ represents the mass dependence
37: slightly better we adopt this expression for the Coulomb logarithm.
38: Furthermore, we find that the dependence of the merger timescale on
39: the circularity parameter $\epsilon$ is much weaker than the widely
40: adopted power-law $\epsilon^{0.78}$, whereas
41: $0.94{\epsilon}^{0.60}+0.60$ provides a good match to the data. Based
42: on these findings, we present an accurate and convenient fitting
43: formula for the merger timescale of galaxies in cold dark matter models.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \keywords{dark matter --- galaxies: clusters: general --- galaxies:
47: kinematics and dynamics --- methods: numerical}
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: Dynamical friction plays a crucial role in the formation and evolution
52: of galaxies. During the merger of two dark matter halos, galaxies in a
53: less massive halo will become the satellite galaxies of the more
54: massive one. These satellite galaxies gradually lose their energy and
55: angular momentum under the action of dynamical friction and are
56: predestined to sink to the center of the massive dark matter halo, if
57: they are not disrupted by the tidal force.
58:
59: Dynamical friction takes effect through interaction of galaxies with
60: background dark matter particles. \cite{chandrasekhar43} gave a
61: description for this phenomenon for an idealized case where a rigid
62: object moves through a uniform sea of collisionless matter particles. This
63: description can be applied to the case of a satellite galaxy moving in
64: a dark matter halo. The orbits of dark matter are deflected by the
65: galaxy, which produces an enhancement of dark matter density behind
66: the galaxy. Consequently, the galaxy suffers a steady deceleration by the
67: drag of the wake, and will eventually merge to the central galaxy of the dark
68: matter halo. The merger timescale, i.e. the time elapsing between
69: entering the virial radius of the dark matter halo and final
70: coalescence of satellite and central galaxy, can be derived using
71: Chandrasekhar's formula \citep[see, e.g.,][]{binney87}. Additionally,
72: taking into account the dependence on the orbital circularity
73: \cite{lacey93} derived the following expression for the merger
74: timescale of a satellite galaxy orbiting around a massive halo with
75: circular velocity $V_{\rm c}$
76: \begin{equation}
77: T_{\rm Chandra}=\frac {1} {2} \frac {f(\epsilon)V_{\rm c}r_{\rm c}^2}
78: {C G m_{\rm sat}\ln\Lambda}\ ,
79: \label{eq:dynf}
80: \end{equation}
81: where $\epsilon$ is the circularity parameter of the satellite's orbit
82: and $r_{\rm c}$ is the radius of a circular orbit with the same energy
83: as the satellite's orbit. $f(\epsilon)$ describes the dependence of
84: $T_{\rm Chandra}$ on the orbital circularity, and is approximated by
85: $f(\epsilon) \sim \epsilon^{0.78}$ for $\epsilon> 0.02$
86: \citep{lacey93}. $C$ is a constant, approximately equal to 0.43, and
87: $m_{\rm sat}$ is the satellite mass. $\ln \Lambda$ is the Coulomb
88: logarithm, which is given $\ln(d_{\rm max}/d_{\rm min})$,
89: where $d_{\rm max}$ is the maximum relevant impact parameter at which
90: background particles are scattered into the wake and $d_{\rm min}$ is
91: the minimum impact parameter \citep{chandrasekhar43,white76}. It is
92: expected to be applicable for cases where the satellite mass is much
93: smaller than that of the primary halo.
94:
95: There have been many works which used N-body simulations to check the
96: validity of Chandrasekhar's formula and its application to the merging
97: of satellite and central galaxies, but no consensus has been
98: reached on the accuracy of such applications. This is because a galaxy
99: merger is a more complicated process than a pure motion of a rigid
100: body through an uniform collisionless matter distribution as
101: considered by Chandrasekhar. The primary halo has a density increasing
102: inward to the halo center, which makes it nontrivial to choose the
103: maximum impact parameter for the Coulomb logarithm \citep{hashimoto,jb00,
104: vdbosch99}. Because the satellites lose their mass due to the
105: tidal interaction by the primary halo, one has to follow both the trajectory
106: and the mass evolution of the satellites to derive their merger
107: timescale. Unfortunately, there is still a considerable amount of
108: uncertainties in modeling these processes
109: \citep{tormen98,gao04,zentner05}. A further complication is that due to
110: the similar orbits of the tidally stripped mass and the satellite
111: itself the tidal debris will trail the satellite for a significant
112: amount of time which in turn will exert a drag force on the
113: satellite \citep{fujii,fellhauer07}. Besides, the merger can
114: alter the structure of the primary halo which is another complication for
115: accurately computing the merger timescale \citep{zaritsky88,cora97}.
116:
117: It is however very useful to give a simple prescription for the merger
118: timescale of the satellites. \cite{navarro95} used an
119: N-body/hydrodynamics simulation with gas cooling to determine the
120: merger time scales. Their simulation didn't include a recipe for
121: star formation, thus they used the cold gas at the cores of dark
122: matter halos as a proxy for galaxies. They found a good agreement with
123: the prediction of equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) if the satellite mass
124: $m_{\rm sat}$ is taken to be the sum of the cold gas core and the
125: associated dark matter halo at the moment when it crosses the virial
126: radius of the primary halo for the first time. They further pointed
127: out that the predicted merger timescale is too long if only the cold
128: gas is taken for the satellite mass.
129:
130: The N-body study of Navarro et al. provides a strong support for using
131: equation (1) to determine the merger timescale in both theoretical and
132: observational studies, if $m_{\rm sat}$ is taken to be the total mass
133: of the satellite at the virial radius of the primary halo. For
134: example, this equation is an important ingredient in modeling mergers
135: of galaxies in analytical studies of galaxy formation
136: \citep[e.g.,][for an excellent review] {kauffmann99, cole00,monaco00,
137: somerville99, menci02, nagashima2002, hatton03,K007, baugh06} and in
138: understanding the merger rates of galaxies in the cosmological context
139: \citep[e.g.][]{ot79,lin04,gill05,maller06,chw07,zheng071,zheng072}.
140: However, there are indications that the Navarro et al. prescription
141: underestimates the merger time or overestimates the merger
142: rate. \cite{springel01} and \cite{kang05} found that the luminosity of
143: central galaxies in rich clusters is reduced if the orbital evolution
144: of satellites is determined by high-resolution N-body simulations
145: compared to the luminosities based on the Navarro et al. merger
146: rates. We also note that the N-body experiment by \cite{colpi99} gave
147: a merger timescale which is longer than what Navarro et
148: al. suggests. They even found an much weaker dependence on the
149: circularity with the exponent only about 0.4 (instead of
150: 0.78). Therefore it is not yet clear what causes these discrepancies,
151: especially the one between Colpi et al. and Navarro et al.. It would
152: be helpful to point out that Navarro et al. used a cosmological
153: hydro/N-body simulation with gas cooling and included both major and
154: minor mergers in their study, while Colpi et al. used N-body
155: simulations of galaxy mergers and considered minor mergers only.
156:
157: In this paper, we will use a high-resolution hydro/N-body cosmological
158: simulation to clarify this situation. In the simulation, gas cooling
159: and star formation are included so that the galaxy mergers can be
160: identified unambiguously and the merger timescale can be well
161: measured. Our results can be directly compared with Navarro et al.,
162: therefore, they will be used to study the origin of the
163: discrepancies mentioned above. We will show that the Navarro et
164: al. prescription actually underestimates the merger time for minor
165: merges, qualitatively in good agreement with Colpi et al., but
166: overestimates it for major mergers. In light of our
167: simulation results, we will propose an accurate fitting formula for
168: the merger timescale that accounts well for the dependences on
169: mass and circularity of the individual satellites, and can therefore
170: accommodate both, minor and major merger events.
171:
172: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe our
173: simulation and our method for calculating the merger timescale in the
174: simulation. Section 3 gives a comparison between our simulation result
175: and the theoretical prediction. A new fitting formula for the merger
176: timescale is derived in Section 4. Finally, we summarize our results
177: in Section 5.
178:
179: \section{Merger timescales in simulation}
180:
181: \subsection{The simulation}
182:
183: A parallel version of the SPH code GADGET2
184: \citep{springel01,springel05} is used to simulate the structure formation
185: and evolution in the Universe. The cosmological parameters we use are
186: $\Omega _{\Lambda}=0.732$, $\Omega _{\rm m}=0.268$, $\Omega _{\rm
187: b}$=0.044, $\sigma_{\rm 8}$=0.85, and a Hubble constant $H_{\rm
188: 0}=100h \kms{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ with $h=0.71$. The box is $100\mpchi$ on
189: a side, with $512^{3}$ dark matter particles and $512^{3}$ gas
190: particles. The resulting mass resolution for dark matter and gas
191: particles is $4.6 \times 10^8 \msunhi$ and $9.2 \times 10^7 \msunhi$,
192: respectively. The simulation includes the physical processes of
193: radiative cooling and star formation. It also includes supernova
194: feedback, outflows by galactic winds, and a sub-resolution multiphase
195: model for the interstellar medium as detailed in \citet{sh03}. The
196: simulation has the same mass resolution and model parameters as the
197: star formation run of \citet{jing06}, except that the softening length
198: of the gravitational force is greatly reduced in the current
199: simulation, where we use a spline kernel \citep{springel05}, roughly
200: equivalent to a Plummer force softening of $4.5\kpchi$ (comoving).
201: There are a total of 88 snapshot outputs from $z = 2.0$ to the
202: present time, $z=0$, with an equal logarithmic scale factor interval
203: of $\Delta \ln a=0.01$ between two consecutive outputs. The large
204: number of outputs enables us to accurately sample orbits of
205: satellites within massive halos. Both, the good force resolution and
206: the dense sampling of snapshots, are crucial for the current study.
207:
208: \subsection{Construction of halo merger trees}
209:
210: Dark matter halos are identified using the friends-of-friends (FOF)
211: method, with a linking length of 0.2 times the mean inter-particle
212: separation. To obtain a sufficient number of halos with reasonable mass
213: resolution, we only focus on the halos with masses $m_{\rm vir}> 5 \times
214: 10^{12}\msunhi $ at the present epoch. The virial mass of a halo
215: $m_{\rm vir}$ is defined as the mass enclosed within the virial radius
216: $r_{\rm vir}$ within which the mean mass density is $\Delta(z)$ times
217: the critical density of the universe at redshift z. For $\Delta(z)$ we
218: adopt the fitting formula for flat universes provided by \cite{bryan98},
219: \begin{equation}
220: \Delta(z)=18\pi^{2}-82x-39x^{2}\,,
221: \end{equation}
222: where $x$ is the density parameter for the vacuum density (the
223: cosmological constant) at redshift $z$.
224:
225: Then we trace these halos back to $z=2.0$ to construct the main
226: branch of the merger tree for each halo. For halo {\it A} at some
227: snapshot, halo {\it B} at an earlier snapshot which, among all
228: its progenitors, contributes the largest number of particles to {\it
229: A} is defined as the main progenitor of {\it A}. All the other
230: progenitors of halo {\it A}, each of which is required to have more than
231: half its particles merging with {\it A}, are taken as satellite halos
232: of halo {\it B}, while {\it B} is called the primary halo. Note, we
233: use 'satellite' to represent the whole halo, including both, dark
234: and stellar matter.
235:
236: We do not use the orbital energy as the criterion to identify a
237: satellite as being bound or unbound, since an orbit that starts out
238: unbound will not necessarily remain unbound, because dynamical
239: friction may sufficiently reduce its energy, see e.g.,
240: \cite{benson05}. They find that only about 2\% of all initially
241: unbound orbits fail to become bound and so escape from their primary
242: halo. Furthermore, to reduce artificial effects caused by the finite
243: numerical resolution we keep only those satellites that have central
244: galaxies more massive than $ 2.0\times 10^{10}\msunhi$. Typically,
245: these satellite galaxies are surrounded by a dark matter halo
246: comprising more than 1000 particles before entering the primary halo.
247:
248: \subsection{Merging timescale of galaxies}
249:
250: The galaxies are also identified with the friends-of-friends method
251: applied to the star particles but with a small linking length of
252: $4.88\kpchi$. Besides the central galaxies of the primary halos we
253: only focus on those galaxies which have been the central galaxies of
254: the approaching satellite halos. Throughout, the former will be
255: referred to as {\it central} and the latter as {\it satellite}
256: galaxies. The descendant of a galaxy, {\it C}, is the galaxy in a
257: subsequent snapshot which shares the most star particles with {\it
258: C}. A galaxy merger is identified if the satellite galaxy and the
259: central galaxy begin to have the same descendant at one snapshot, and
260: continue to have the same descendant for the following four snapshots
261: ($\geq$ half of the dynamical time of a halo). We use this criterion to
262: ensure that the merger is a real merger not just a close flyby.
263:
264: The merger timescale is defined as the time elapsed between the moment
265: when the satellite galaxy first crosses the virial radius of the
266: primary halo and the final coalescence of satellite and central galaxy.
267: The computation of the merger timescale from the simulation involves
268: four distinct snapshots: snapshot {\it a}, the last snapshot
269: for which the satellite halo is identified as a single halo;
270: snapshots {\it b} and {\it b+1}, between snapshot {\it b} and
271: snapshot {\it b+1} the satellite galaxy crosses the virial radius of
272: the primary halo for the first time; and finally, snapshot {\it c},
273: beginning of the coalescence of satellite and central galaxy.
274: To accurately determine the point in time when the satellite galaxy
275: enters the primary halo, we assume that the satellite galaxy moves
276: with constant velocity from its actual location, both measured at
277: snapshot {\it b}, until it hits the virial radius, which has been
278: fixed at snapshot {\it a}. However, a substantial fraction
279: ($\sim14\%$) of the satellite galaxies do not reach the virial radius
280: within the time interval between snapshot {\it b} and {\it b+1}.
281: This happens because, in general, satellites are in accelerated
282: motion. In such cases, we choose snapshot {\it b+1} as the time at
283: which the satellite reaches the virial radius. Due to the dense time
284: sampling by the large number of snapshots this uncertainty constitutes
285: only a marginal source of error.
286:
287: Finally, the merger timescale for each completed merger event is
288: defined to be the interval between the time when the satellite first
289: enters the virial radius and the middle point between snapshots {\it
290: c} and {\it c-1}.
291:
292: Some basic statistical properties of the mergers are presented in
293: Figure \ref{fig:dis}. There is almost an equal amount of major mergers
294: and minor mergers, if we use the mass ratio $m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm
295: sat}=3$ as the dividing line. Since we examine only snapshots starting
296: from redshift $z=2$, the redshifts, at which the eventually merging
297: satellites first cross the virial radius of the primary halo, span the
298: range between $z=0.4$ and $z=2$. (Satellites which approach more
299: recently than $z=0.4$ do not have sufficient time to merge with the
300: central galaxy.) The ratio of the stellar mass of a central galaxy to
301: the dark matter mass of the primary halo varies from 0.5\% to 5\% with
302: an average of 2\%. This ratio is in reasonable agreement with the
303: observed values of galaxy groups\citep{g071,lin03}. The satellite
304: sample has a wide spectrum of orbital
305: energies, as displayed by the distribution of $r_c/r_{\rm vir}$, which
306: ranges from $0.6$ to $1.5$ with an average 0.8. Thus, we believe that
307: our sample represents a typical sample of galaxy mergers.
308:
309: \section{Comparison with theory}
310:
311: Equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) is only applicable for mergers with
312: mass ratios $m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat} \gg 1$, where $m_{\rm pri}$ and
313: $m_{\rm sat}$ stand for the mass of the primary and the satellite
314: halo, respectively \citep{binney87}. As mentioned above $\Lambda$ in
315: the Coulomb logarithm $\ln\Lambda$ is defined as the ratio between
316: maximal and the minimal impact parameters ($d_{\rm max}/d_{\rm min}$)
317: for which encounters between the satellite and the dark matter
318: particles can be considered effective . An equivalent expression for
319: $\Lambda$ is given by
320: \begin{equation}
321: \label{eq:coulomb}
322: \Lambda \equiv \frac {d_{\rm max} {V_{\rm typ}}^{2}}{G(m_{\rm sat}+m_{\rm dm})}
323: = \frac {m_{\rm pri}}{m_{\rm sat}}\ ,
324: \end{equation}
325: where $V_{\rm typ}$ and $m_{\rm dm}$ are the typical velocity and mass
326: of background dark matter particles. The transition from the middle to
327: the expression on the right hand side is obtained by setting $d_{\rm
328: max}=r_{\rm pri}$ (the radius of the primary halo), $V_{\rm typ}
329: \approx V_{\rm pri}$ (the circular velocity of the primary halo), and
330: assuming $m_{\rm dm}\ll m_{\rm sat}$.
331:
332: Therefore, according to equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) a correct estimate of
333: the satellite mass is pivotal for the determination of the dynamical
334: friction timescale. A satellite orbiting in the potential well of the
335: primary halo loses a large fraction of its initial mass due to the
336: exposure to the global tidal field \citep[e.g.,][]{tormen98,gao04,shaw07}
337: and due to high-speed encounters with other satellites
338: \citep[e.g.,][]{moore96, gnedin03}. Based on a hydro/N-body simulation
339: \cite{navarro95} investigated the dependence of the dynamical friction
340: time scale on the the Coulomb logarithm $\ln \Lambda=\ln (m_{\rm
341: pri}/m_{\rm sat})$ by considering two extreme choices for $m_{\rm
342: sat}$: (1) $m_{\rm sat}$ was considered to be the total virial mass of
343: the satellite before entering the primary halo, i.e. the sum of the
344: gas (representative for the stellar component in their simulation) and
345: the cold dark matter within the satellite's virial radius,
346: (2) $m_{\rm sat}$ only accounted for the cold gas associated with the
347: satellite galaxy at the center of the approaching dark matter halo.
348: They found when the total virial mass is chosen for $m_{\rm sat}$
349: equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) gives a good prediction for the merger time
350: scale although the scatter is very large. If only the cold gas is
351: adopted for $m_{\rm sat}$ equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) significantly
352: overestimates the merger timescale because the cold gas mass is always
353: much smaller than the virial mass. Based on this numerical
354: investigation, equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) with the initial satellite
355: virial mass for $m_{\rm sat}$ is widely used in galaxy formation
356: studies \citep[e.g.,][]{cole00,kauffmann99,kang05}. Here, we also
357: follow this convention for $m_{\rm sat}$.
358:
359: With the present analysis we aim to examine the validity of equation
360: (\ref{eq:dynf}) by means of a cosmological high resolution N-body/hydro
361: simulation. Figure ~\ref{fig:merg_all_navarro_rc_1} compares the
362: merger timescale $T_{\rm Chandra}$ computed according to equation
363: (\ref{eq:dynf}) with the merging time $T_{\rm simu}$ measured in the
364: simulation. The solid diagonal displays $T_{\rm Chandra}=T_{\rm
365: simu}$. The results indicate a qualitative agreement between the
366: prediction of equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) and the time scales measured
367: from the simulation. However, scatter between $T_{\rm Chandra}$ and
368: $T_{\rm simu}$ is extremely large. To see whether the large scatter
369: is caused by the failure of equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) for mass ratios
370: $m_{\rm sat}/m_{\rm pri}\approx 1$ we plot the median value of $T_{\rm
371: simu}/T_{\rm Chandra}$ as a function of $m_{\rm sat}/m_{\rm pri}$ in
372: Figure~\ref{fig:mass_dpd_all_2} (the solid line). The figure clearly
373: shows that the time ratio increases monotonically with decreasing mass
374: ratios. That is, the time ratio is significantly smaller than 1 (0.55
375: for the mass ratio larger than 0.65) for the major mergers and
376: approaches 4 for minor mergers (for the mass ratio smaller than
377: 0.065). This implies that equation (\ref{eq:dynf}), which is expected
378: to be valid for minor mergers, actually underestimates the merger time
379: scale for them. This result is in approximate agreement with
380: \cite{colpi99} who found that the friction timescale for $m_{\rm
381: sat}/m_{\rm pri}\approx 0.02$ is underestimated by a factor of $2$ if
382: equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) is used. On the other side, our result
383: points out that equation (1) significantly overestimates the dynamical
384: friction time scales for major mergers. Despite the fact that the
385: formula is not expected to be applicable to major mergers, it is still
386: widely used for major mergers in the literature.
387: Our findings do not agree with \cite{navarro95} who advocate a good
388: agreement between their simulation result and equation (1) for
389: minor mergers with mass ratios less than $0.5$. In the next
390: section, we will use our simulation data to improve the description
391: for the merger timescale in the hierarchical clustering scenario.
392:
393: \section{Fitting formula for the merger timescale in cosmological
394: context}
395: \label{sec:fitting}
396:
397: First, because $r_{\rm c}\approx r_{\rm vir}$ we rewrite the formula
398: of $T_{\rm Chandra}$ as
399: \begin{equation}
400: \label{eq:dfrc}
401: T_{\rm Chandra}=\frac {1}{2} \frac{f(\epsilon)}{C}\frac {m_{\rm
402: pri}}{m_{\rm sat}} \frac {1}{\ln\Lambda}\frac{r_{\rm c}}{V_{\rm c}}
403: \end{equation}
404: where ${r_{\rm c}}/{V_{\rm c}} \propto 1/\sqrt{G\rho}$ and $\rho$ is
405: the mean mass density of the halo at that redshift. Thus ${r_{\rm
406: c}}/{V_{\rm c}}$ is proportional to the age of the Universe at the
407: epoch being considered\footnote{$r_c$ is about $r_{\rm vir}$ but
408: there is scatter, so the statement is valid approximately},
409: independent of primary and/or satellite halo masses. Consequently, the
410: mass dependence of $T_{\rm Chandra}$ is solely accounted for by the
411: mass ratio between satellite and primary halo, and its circularity
412: dependence is included by the function $f(\epsilon)$. It is suggesting
413: to isolate those two dependencies to find the cause of the
414: discrepancies between the merger time scales derived from
415: equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) and the simulation. Therefore, in the
416: following section we will focus on the dependence of the merging time
417: scales on the mass ratios. Subsequently, we will examine the
418: circularity dependence in detail. Finally, these investigations will
419: lead us to a new description of merger time scales in the cosmological
420: context.
421:
422: \subsection{Dependence on the mass ratio and Coulomb logarithm}
423:
424: The strong dependence of $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm Chandra}$ on the mass ratio
425: $m_{\rm sat}/m_{\rm pri}$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mass_dpd_all_2} (the
426: black solid line) indicates that the mass dependence of $T_{\rm
427: Chandra}$ as described by equation $(1)$ is incorrect. Here, we first
428: consider to revise the Coulomb logarithm. In fact, in the original
429: derivation of the formula \citep[see,][]{binney87}, the Coulomb
430: logarithm should read as $\frac{1}{2}\ln (1+\Lambda^2)$. Only if the
431: satellite mass is much smaller than the primary mass this expression
432: can be written as $\ln \Lambda$. In the literature $\frac{1}{2}\ln
433: (1+\Lambda^2)$ is simply used to include mergers that do not satisfy
434: the condition $m_{\rm sat}\ll m_{\rm pri}$
435: \citep[e.g.][]{somerville99}. But another version, namely
436: $\ln(1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$, is even more widely used for the
437: same purpose \citep[e.g.][]{springel01b,volonteri03,kang05} despite
438: the fact that there is no clear physical motivation for adopting
439: it. Here we examine the mass dependence using these two alternative
440: forms for the Coulomb logarithm.
441:
442: The red dashed line and the green dotted line in
443: Figure~\ref{fig:mass_dpd_all_2} show the mass dependence of $T_{\rm
444: simu}/T_{\rm Chandra}$ for these two alternative forms of the Coulomb
445: logarithm. For mass ratios less than 0.1 the two curves are quite
446: similar to that of $\ln \Lambda$ (solid line). But, for mass
447: ratios $\sim 1$ they display substantial differences.
448: The mass dependence becomes significantly smaller for these two forms,
449: especially for the form $\ln(1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$, however, it
450: does not disappear completely.
451:
452: As a trial to improve the description for the mass dependence, we
453: replace $r_{\rm c}$ in equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) by $r_{\rm vir}$ for
454: the two forms of the Coulomb logarithm mentioned above.
455: Figures~\ref{fig:merg_all_ori_4} and~\ref{fig:merg_all_kang_5} show
456: $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm Chandra}$ for $\frac{1}{2}\ln (1+\Lambda^2)$ and
457: $\ln(1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$, respectively. The plot based on
458: either of the two forms does not differ much. Here, we want to emphasize
459: two points. First, the scatter in the plots is much smaller than in
460: Figure~\ref{fig:merg_all_navarro_rc_1}. Second, the value of $T_{\rm
461: Chandra}$ is systematically smaller than that of $T_{\rm simu}$.
462: Although the scatter is smaller, it nevertheless will provide
463: some deeper insight to examine if the scatter depends on the mass
464: ratio. In analogy to Figure~\ref{fig:mass_dpd_all_2}, we plot in the
465: Figures~\ref{fig:mass_dpd_ori_6} and ~\ref{fig:mass_dpd_kang_c1_7}
466: the median value of $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm Chandra}$ as a function
467: of the mass ratio, for $\frac{1}{2}\ln (1+\Lambda^2)$ and
468: $\ln(1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$, respectively. While there is a
469: moderate dependence on the mass ratio when the form $1/2\ln[1+(m_{\rm
470: pri}/m_{\rm sat})^2]$ is used, it is very interesting to recognize
471: that the dependence of $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm Chandra}$ on the mass
472: ratio for $\ln(1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$ is strongly reduced.
473: This implies that the mass dependence of the merger time scale can be
474: well represented by the form $\ln(1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$, though
475: many previous works using this form actually systematically
476: underestimate the merger time scale or overestimate the merger rate by
477: a factor 2.
478:
479: In the following discussion, we will always use the form $\ln(1+m_{\rm
480: pri}/m_{\rm sat})$ for the Coulomb logarithm. We prefer to use this
481: form with $r_{\rm c}$ replaced by $r_{\rm vir}$ as this gives a much
482: tighter correlation between $T_{\rm Chandra}$ and $T_{\rm simu}$ and
483: can effectively
484: absorb the dependence on the mass ratio. Moreover, in many practical
485: applications, it is usually easier to use $r_{\rm vir}$ than to use
486: $r_{\rm c}$.
487:
488: \subsection{Dependence on circularity and the revised form of $f(\epsilon)$}
489: \label{sec:revised_fe}
490:
491: Now we check the dependence of the merger time on the initial
492: circularity parameter $\epsilon$. This parameter is determined from
493: the velocity and position of a satellite when it first crosses the
494: virial radius of the primary halo. As in the literature, we assume
495: that the halo is an isothermal sphere when determining the
496: circularity. In Figure~\ref{fig:circu_dpd_kang_c1_8} (upper line), we
497: show the median value of $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm Chandra}$ as a function of
498: circularity, where we have used $\ln(1+m_{\rm pri}/ m_{\rm sat})$ for
499: the Coulomb logarithm and $f(\epsilon)=\epsilon^{0.78}$ when we
500: calculate $T_{\rm Chandra}$. The figure shows that the satellites on
501: very eccentric orbits tend to merge in a much longer timescale
502: compared to the theoretical prediction. If we still use an exponential
503: form to represent $f(\epsilon)= \epsilon^\alpha$, the exponent
504: $\alpha$ should be smaller than the widely used value $0.78$ advocated
505: by \cite{lacey93}.
506:
507: Here we explore the form of $f(\epsilon)$ as a function of initial
508: circularity $\epsilon$. Substituting the merging time in equation
509: (\ref{eq:dynf}) with what we measure in the simulation, $r_{\rm c}$
510: with $r_{\rm vir}$, and the Coulomb logarithm with $\ln(1+m_{\rm
511: pri}/m_{\rm sat})$, we obtain the values of $f(\epsilon)$ for each
512: merged satellite. Subsequently, we pick the median value of
513: $f(\epsilon)$ in each circularity bin in our merged satellite
514: sample. Computing the median value, however, demands some caution.
515: Because there is considerable scatter in $T_{\rm simu}$ even for the
516: same circularity and the same mass ratio (which owes to fact that
517: internal structure and merger history of the primary halo may
518: introduce some scatter into the merger time scale), there may exist a
519: selection (or incompleteness) bias against those satellites of long
520: $T_{\rm merger}$. Those mergers would happen after our fifth last
521: snapshot and thus be missed in our study. This effect gets more severe
522: at larger $\epsilon$, because the merger times become systematically
523: longer on more circular orbits. As a result, only those mergers with
524: smaller $T_{\rm merger}$ (for the same $\epsilon$) are selected into
525: the merger sample, which will artificially lower the estimate of
526: $f(\epsilon)$ for large $\epsilon$. In order to avoid such selection
527: bias for the determination of $f(\epsilon)$, we construct a complete
528: merger sample of primary halos and satellites at the first 14
529: snapshots (redshift $1.55 \sim 2.0$) with mass ratio greater than 0.1
530: (152 pairs). In this sample, all these satellites but 2 are found to
531: have merged with the central galaxies of the primary halos before
532: the fifth last snapshot. Therefore, our sample is complete for measuring
533: $f(\epsilon)$ except for the bin at $\epsilon=0.50$ where the
534: completeness is $98\%$ and the bin at $\epsilon=0.70$ with the completeness
535: of $97\%$.
536:
537: In Figure~\ref{fig:func_circu_kang_c1_9} we present our estimate of
538: $f(\epsilon)$ from this complete sample. We first fit the data with
539: $f(\epsilon) = a \epsilon^\alpha$ and find the best fitting values
540: $a=1.48$ and $\alpha=0.27$. The fitting curve is displayed by the
541: dashed line.
542: If we use all mergers identified instead of the complete sample, the
543: function $f(\epsilon)$ would be underestimated at larger $\epsilon$ as
544: shown by the triangles in the figure, which in turn would lead to an
545: even smaller $\alpha$ . However, the degree of the underestimation
546: becomes less serious, since the dependence on $\epsilon$ as shown by
547: the complete sample is much weaker than the original function
548: $f(\epsilon)=\epsilon^{0.78}$.
549: To check if the circularity dependence
550: in Figure~\ref{fig:circu_dpd_kang_c1_8} is fully accounted for by this
551: fitting formula, we plot the median value of $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm
552: fit}$ as a function of the circularity parameter (dotted line in
553: Figure~\ref{fig:circu_dpd_kang_c1_8}). Compared with the dashed line
554: ($f(\epsilon)= \epsilon^{0.78}$) the dependence on $\epsilon$ is
555: strongly reduced. However, we note that the new time ratio is still a
556: little higher for the smallest circularity bin. This can be
557: contributed to the artificial effect of the pure exponential fitting
558: form which falsely results in a vanishing merger timescale for
559: $\epsilon = 0$. If we consider two merging halos with equal masses and
560: assume they will merge within a free fall time scale $r_{\rm
561: vir}/V_{\rm c}$, equation $(4)$ gives $f(\epsilon)=0.60$. Therefore,
562: to avoid the artificial effect at $\epsilon=0$ due to the pure
563: exponential form and to reduce the somewhat too high time ratio in the
564: smallest circularity bin we fit our simulation data with $f(\epsilon)
565: = a \epsilon^\alpha+0.60$. The best fitting results are $a=0.94$ and
566: $\alpha =0.60$. The solid line in
567: Figure~\ref{fig:func_circu_kang_c1_9} shows the best fitting curve
568: which matches the data very well. The solid line in
569: Figure~\ref{fig:circu_dpd_kang_c1_8} demonstrates that the $T_ {\rm
570: simu}/T_{\rm fit}$ in the first circularity bin has moderately
571: decreased, now approaching to a value of 1.
572:
573: The exponent $\alpha$ we find here is much smaller than the
574: widely used value $\alpha=0.78$. At this point it is worth recalling
575: that $\alpha=0.78$ was obtained by \cite{lacey93} analytically for the
576: case where a rigid satellite falls into an isothermal sphere. The fact
577: that our $f(\epsilon)$ always exceeds $\epsilon^{0.78}$ can be interpreted
578: as an indication for the mass loss of satellites in the simulation
579: \cite[cf.,][]{colpi99}. Satellites on radial orbits lose their mass
580: much faster than those on circular orbits, which implies that satellites
581: on the radial orbits show relatively prolonged merging time scales compared to
582: satellites on circular orbits. Therefore, one expects higher values
583: for $f(\epsilon)$ or equivalently lower values for $\alpha$ for small
584: $\epsilon$. In a future paper\citep[][in preparation]{fal07}, we will
585: explore this qualitative explanation using an analytical model similar
586: to those of \cite{zentner03} and \cite{zentner05} \citep[see
587: also,][]{bullock00, taylor01, taylor04}.
588:
589: \subsection{Taking into account both the mass and circularity dependencies}
590: \label{sec:new}
591:
592: Combining our results on the mass and circularity dependencies, we write
593: the merger time scale as
594: \begin{equation}
595: \label{eq:new}
596: T_{\rm fit}=\frac{0.94\epsilon^{0.60}+0.60}{2C}\frac {m_{\rm pri}}{m_{\rm sat}}
597: \frac {1}{\ln [1+(\frac {m_{\rm pri}}{m_{\rm sat}})]}\frac{r_{\rm
598: vir}}{V_{\rm c}}\ .
599: \end{equation}
600: In Figure~\ref{fig:merg_all_kang_c1_10} this equation is compared with
601: the merger time scale of all mergers measured in the
602: simulation. Remarkably, the scatter in the plot is much smaller than
603: that in Figures~\ref{fig:merg_all_ori_4}
604: and~\ref{fig:merg_all_kang_5}, indicating that $T_{\rm fit}$ describes
605: the merger timescale much better than equation $(1)$.
606: To assess the scatter in more detail
607: Figure~\ref{fig:t_distri_kang_c1_11} displays the distribution of
608: $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm fit}$. The solid histogram shows the distribution
609: based on the early complete merger sample as described in \S
610: \ref{sec:revised_fe} and the dotted histogram gives the distribution
611: for all mergers identified in our simulation.
612:
613: The distribution for the sample of all mergers is shifted towards
614: the left relative to the complete sample. This is caused by the lack
615: of long time mergers among recently infalling satellites in the sample
616: of all mergers. These long time mergers would be included in the
617: sample if the simulation were evolved beyond the present time
618: $z=0$. This also leads to the trend of the data points to lie slightly
619: above the solid diagonal in Figure~\ref{fig:merg_all_kang_c1_10}.
620:
621: The distribution of $x=T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm fit}$ is well fitted
622: by the log-normal distribution
623: \begin{equation}
624: \label{eq:dis}
625: p(\ln x)d\ln x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\exp\left[-\frac{(\ln x)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right]d \ln x
626: \end{equation}
627: with $\sigma=0.4$ (the smooth solid line in Figure
628: ~\ref{fig:t_distri_kang_c1_11}). This distribution function combined
629: with the fitting function $(5)$ provides a description
630: for the merger time in a statistical sample.
631:
632: From Figure~\ref{fig:circu_dpd_kang_c1_8} we have learned
633: that the circularity dependence is accounted for by
634: equation $(5)$. Now, we examine the mass dependence when equation
635: $(5)$ is applied. Therefore, we plot the median value of $T_{\rm
636: simu}/T_{\rm fit}$ as a function of the mass ratio in
637: Figure~\ref{fig:mass_dpd_kang_c1_7} (solid line). Strikingly,
638: we find no dependence on the mass ratio which indicates that
639: the dependencies of the merger time on mass and circularity
640: are completely reproduced by equation $(5)$.
641:
642: \subsection{Distribution of circularity}
643:
644: Once the distribution of circularity is known for a population of
645: infalling satellites, one can determine how many of the satellites
646: will merge into central galaxies at a certain epoch in a statistical
647: way by using equations (\ref{eq:new}) and (\ref{eq:dis}). Various authors
648: \citep[e.g.,][]{tormen97,zentner05,khochfar06} have studied this
649: distribution, with similar conclusions that orbits with intermediate
650: $\epsilon$ are common while those at both ends ($\epsilon\approx 0$ or 1) are rare.
651: Figure~\ref{fig:circu_para_all_12} shows our result for all resolved
652: satellite halos, with an average value of $\epsilon$ about $0.51$,
653: which is consistent with $0.53\pm 0.23$ in \cite{tormen97}. The
654: distribution can be well described by
655: \begin{equation}
656: \label{eq:cdis}
657: p(\epsilon)d\epsilon=2.77{\epsilon}^{1.19}(1.55-\epsilon)^{2.99}d\epsilon
658: \end{equation}
659: which is shown as the solid line in Figure
660: \ref{fig:circu_para_all_12}. The circularity distribution is
661: independent of the mass ratio of the primary halo and the satellite,
662: as shown by Figure~\ref{fig:circu_mratio_all_13}.
663:
664: It is worth noting that in semi-analytical models, the circularity
665: parameter was often randomly drawn from a uniform distribution between
666: $0$ and $1$ \citep[e.g.,][]{kauffmann99,somerville99}. According
667: to our findings such an approach biases the estimate for the input
668: dynamical friction timescales.
669:
670: \section{Conclusions and discussion}
671:
672: In this paper, we have analysed galaxy mergers in a SPH/N-body
673: simulation and compared the merger time scale with the theoretical
674: prediction based on the Chandrasekhar formula. We have obtained the
675: following main conclusions.
676: \begin{itemize}
677: %%
678: \item In contrast with \cite{navarro95}, we find that the widely used
679: equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) with the satellite's total mass at its first
680: crossing of the host virial radius taken for $m_{\rm sat}$,
681: systematically underestimates the merger timescale for minor mergers
682: and overestimates it for major mergers;
683: %%
684: \item We show that the two alternative forms $\ln (1+m_{\rm
685: pri}/m_{\rm sat})$ and $1/2\ln [1+(m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})^2]$ for
686: the Coulomb logarithm, which also are widely used in literature,
687: account for the mass dependence of merger timescale
688: successfully. However, both of them underestimate the merger time
689: scale by a factor 2 if the satellite's total mass at its first
690: crossing of the host virial radius is used for $m_{\rm sat}$. Of these
691: two forms, the former does slightly better in accounting for the mass
692: dependence;
693: %%
694: \item With $\ln (1+m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat})$ taken for the Coulomb
695: logarithm, we find the dependence on circularity parameter $\epsilon$
696: is much weaker than $\epsilon^{0.78}$, and can be accurately
697: represented by $ 0.94{\epsilon}^{0.60}+0.60$;
698: %%
699: \item Combining our findings on the mass and circularity dependencies,
700: we present an accurate fitting formula (eq.\ref{eq:new}) for
701: the merger timescale. Together with the distribution functions
702: (eqs.\ref{eq:dis} and \ref{eq:cdis}), one can use this equation to
703: predict for mergers of galaxies in LCDM models.
704: \end{itemize}
705:
706: Our results do not necessarily mean that Chandrasekar's theory
707: is not applicable for mergers of galaxies. Instead our results do indicate
708: that many previous applications of this theory led to incorrect results
709: because some simplified assumptions were adopted. We believe
710: that the mass loss of satellites and the steep density gradient of
711: host halos are two of the key reasons that make the problem complicated.
712: In a future paper, we will investigate if our simulation results can be
713: reproduced with the Chandrasekhar theory by properly taking into
714: account of these two factors.
715:
716: In the following we will discuss how potential shortcomings in the
717: treatment of the baryonic physics at the core of the primary halo may
718: affect our results. It is well known that current hydrodynamic
719: simulations suffer from the so called 'overcooling' problem, i.e. the
720: gas at the core of massive dark matter halos cools too rapidly
721: resulting in too massive central galaxies compared to observations
722: \citep[e.g.,][]{borgani04,saro06,naab07}. In turn, adiabatic contraction
723: \citep[e.g.,][]{gnedin04} may also change the dark matter properties
724: at the central parts of the halo in an unphysical manner.
725:
726: However, we think that this process does not substantially alter our
727: results for two reasons: (1) With exception of very radial orbits,
728: which are rare, the satellite galaxies spend most of their time during
729: the merging process at the outer parts of the primary halo where
730: dynamical friction is moderate. If, however, the satellite is once
731: migrated towards the central parts of the primary halo dynamical
732: friction becomes very efficient and the remaining lifetime of the
733: satellite galaxy is short. Consequently, the merger time scale is set
734: by the conditions at the outer parts of the primary halo
735: \citep[c.f.,][]{navarro95}. (2) The findings of \cite{springel01} and
736: \cite{kang05} are in qualitative agreement with our results. Since
737: both of these studies are based on pure N-body simulations they
738: obviously do not suffer from the overcooling problem. This is an
739: further indication that our results are accurate and are not affected
740: by the potential shortcomings in the treatment of the baryonic physics
741: in the simulations. These arguments are supported by the left panel
742: of Figure \ref{fig:tratio}, which shows that there is no dependence of
743: $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm fit}$ on $m_{\rm stellar}/m_{\rm pri}$, the ratio
744: of the central galaxy's stellar mass to the dark matter mass of the
745: surrounding primary halo.
746:
747: We have also checked if our result is affected by the growth of the
748: primary halo during the merger course. The middle panel of Figure
749: \ref{fig:tratio} shows the ratio $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm fit}$ as a
750: function of the mass growth rate of the primary halo, which is defined
751: as the ratio of its dark matter mass at the time of merger to its mass
752: at the time of the first crossing. The result indicates that the
753: merger time scale is not affect by the growth of the primary halo. A
754: possible explanation is that the internal density structure does
755: not change significantly during this course. Of course, violent major
756: mergers may change the internal structures and bring about large
757: fluctuations in the merger time.
758:
759: To keep the fitting formula simple to use, we prefer not to include
760: the dependence on the energy of the satellite's orbit, that is, on
761: $r_c$. We have examined this dependence in the right panel of
762: Figure \ref{fig:tratio}, which shows there is a weak dependence on
763: $r_c/r_{\rm vir}$. We can include this dependence in our fitting
764: formula by replacing $r_{\rm vir}$ with $\sqrt{r_{\rm vir}
765: r_c}$. Thus, the fitting formula with the $r_c$-dependence included
766: reads as
767: \begin{equation}
768: \label{eq:newrc}
769: T_{\rm fit}=\frac{0.90\epsilon^{0.47}+0.60}{2C}\frac {m_{\rm
770: pri}}{m_{\rm sat}} \frac {1}{\ln [1+(\frac {m_{\rm pri}}{m_{\rm
771: sat}})]}\frac{\sqrt{r_{\rm vir}r_c}}{V_{\rm c}}\ ,
772: \end{equation}
773: and Figure\ref{fig:tratio} shows that the $r_c$ dependence is fully
774: accommodated by this simple heuristic correction. We have checked the
775: dependence on the mass ratio $m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat}$ as well as the
776: scatter in $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm fit}$, and found that they are nearly
777: the same as when equation (\ref{eq:new}) is used. The better
778: performance of equation (\ref{eq:newrc}) is achieved at the expense of
779: computing the energy of the individual satellite orbits.
780: Since the accuracy of the fitting formula is improved only
781: slightly by including the $r_c$ dependence compared with the scatter
782: in $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm fit}$, the simpler formula (\ref{eq:new}) is
783: preferred for most applications.
784:
785:
786: As concluding remark, we once again focus our attention on equation
787: (\ref{eq:new}) which can be considered as the distillate of
788: our analysis. This fitting formula allows to predict the merger timescale
789: $T_{\rm fit}$ for the two central galaxies within a satellite and a
790: primary halo. The merger timescale for the satellite galaxy is
791: defined as the time which elapses between its first crossing of the
792: primary's virial radius and its final coalescence with the central
793: galaxy. The computation of accurate merger timescales is a crucial
794: ingredient for semi-analytical modeling of galaxy formation.
795:
796: Equation (\ref{eq:new}) requires two input values: $m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm
797: sat}$, the mass ratio of primary and satellite halo (before they start
798: merging) and $\epsilon = J/J(E)$, the satellites initial circularity
799: which is defined as the ratio of the satellites actual angular
800: momentum $J$ and the angular of a circular orbit with the same energy
801: $J(E)$. $r_{\rm vir}$ is the virial radius of the primary halo just
802: before the satellite merges with it. The factors $C$ and $r_{\rm
803: vir}/V_c$ are constants and do not depend on the specific
804: constellation. If $\epsilon$ is not known it can be randomly drawn
805: from the distribution provided by equation (\ref{eq:cdis}) which we
806: have derived directly from the simulation data, see
807: Figure~\ref{fig:circu_para_all_12}. This random process can be applied
808: for arbitrary mass ratios ($m_{\rm pri}/m_{\rm sat}$) since the
809: distributions of $\epsilon$ are nearly independent of mass as shown in
810: Figure~\ref{fig:circu_mratio_all_13}.
811:
812: Finally, it remains to mention
813: that due to stochastic processes during a merger event, like
814: close encounters with other substructures or the occurrence of
815: multiple mergers at the same time, there arises substantial scatter
816: among the merger time scales with equivalent initial conditions. This
817: can be taken into account if the values for $T_{\rm fit}$ obtained from
818: equation (\ref{eq:new}) are spread according to the log-normal
819: distribution given in equation (\ref{eq:dis}) which is also
820: displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:t_distri_kang_c1_11}.
821: With the fitting formula (\ref{eq:new}) we provide a robust
822: estimate of the merger timescale pivotal for all kinds of
823: analytical modeling of galaxy evolution within dark matter
824: halos.
825:
826: After we submitted our paper both to the journal and to the astro-ph
827: electronic library, an independent work by \citet{b-k07} on the same
828: subject had appeared on the electronic library. Their paper is
829: qualitatively consistent with ours in that the time scale given by
830: equation (\ref{eq:dynf}) is underestimated. But quantitatively, their
831: results are rather different from ours. Both the dependencies on the
832: mass ratio and the circularity parameters are much stronger in their
833: paper. In particular, the strong dependence on the circularity they
834: found, which is even stronger than $\epsilon^{0.78}$ at
835: $\epsilon=0.5-1$, is not consistent with our data. The dependence on
836: the mass ratio is also stronger than ours. This discrepancy may mainly
837: come from the difference between the simulations: they present a series of
838: pure N-body simulations of two halo mergers, whereas our results are based on a
839: cosmological hydro/N-body simulation with star formation.
840: While our fitting formula is accurate for mergers in the cosmological
841: frame, future work is still needed to find out the specific causes of this
842: discrepancy.
843:
844: \acknowledgments We would like to thank Volker
845: Springel for providing the Gadget Code with star formation and Liang
846: Gao for his help with using the code. This work is supported by NSFC
847: (10533030, 0742961001, 0742951001), by Shanghai Key Projects in Basic
848: research (No. 04JC14079 and 05XD14019), and by the Knowledge
849: Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Grant
850: No. KJCX2-YW-T05. AF is supported by the CAS Research Fellowship for
851: International Young Researchers. The simulation was performed at the
852: Shanghai Supercomputer Center.
853:
854: \begin{thebibliography}{}
855:
856: \input newref.tex
857:
858: \end{thebibliography}
859: %%[NEW
860: \begin{figure}
861: \begin{center}
862: \plotone{f1.ps}
863: %%[NEW
864: \caption{\label{fig:dis} Basic characteristics of all mergers (solid
865: histograms) and the mergers in the complete sample (dashed
866: histograms). The panels from the top left to the bottom left clockwise
867: show the distributions of the mass ratio of the primary halo to the
868: satellite, the first crossing redshift, the mass ratio of the
869: stellar mass of the central galaxy to the primary, and the ratio
870: of $r_c$ to the virial radius $r_{\rm vir}$ respectively.}
871: %%NEW]
872: \end{center}
873: \end{figure}
874: %%NEW]
875: \begin{figure}
876: \begin{center}
877: \plotone{f2.ps}
878: \caption{\label{fig:merg_all_navarro_rc_1} Comparison of the merger
879: timescale $T_{\rm simu}$ in the simulation with theoretical
880: dynamical friction timescale $T_{\rm Chandra}$ from equation
881: $(1)$. The solid line is $T_{\rm Chandra}=T_{\rm simu}$. The
882: Coulomb logarithm is in the form $\ln\Lambda=\ln(m_{\rm vir}/m_{\rm
883: sat})$, and $f(\epsilon)={\epsilon}^{0.78}$.}
884: \end{center}
885: \end{figure}
886:
887:
888: \begin{figure}
889: \begin{center}
890: \plotone{f3.ps}
891: \caption{\label{fig:mass_dpd_all_2} Mass dependence of the median value of
892: $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm Chandra}$, when different forms are used for the Coulomb logarithm.}
893: \end{center}
894: \end{figure}
895:
896:
897:
898: \begin{figure}
899: \begin{center}
900: \plotone{f4.ps}
901: \caption{\label{fig:merg_all_ori_4} The same as Figure 1, but we replace
902: $\ln\Lambda$ by $\frac{1}{2}\ln(1+{\Lambda}^{2})$, while $\Lambda$ is
903: unchanged, and replace $r_{\rm c}$ by $r_{\rm vir}$.}
904: \end{center}
905: \end{figure}
906:
907:
908:
909: \begin{figure}
910: \begin{center}
911: \plotone{f5.ps}
912: \caption{\label{fig:merg_all_kang_5} The same as Figure 1, but we replace
913: $\ln\Lambda$ by $\ln(1+{\Lambda})$, and replace $r_{\rm c}$ by $r_{\rm
914: vir}$.}
915: \end{center}
916: \end{figure}
917:
918:
919:
920: \begin{figure}
921: \begin{center}
922: \plotone{f6.ps}
923: \caption{\label{fig:mass_dpd_ori_6} The ratio of $T_{\rm simu}$ to $T_{\rm
924: Chandra}$ as a function of mass ratio for the merger points in Figure 4.}
925: \end{center}
926: \end{figure}
927:
928:
929:
930: \begin{figure}
931: \begin{center}
932: \plotone{f7.ps}
933: \caption{\label{fig:mass_dpd_kang_c1_7} The ratio of $T_{\rm simu}$ to $T_{\rm
934: Chandra}$ as a function of mass ratio for merger points in Figure 5 (the upper
935: dashed line) and for those after applying equation (\ref{eq:new}) (the lower solid line).}
936: \end{center}
937: \end{figure}
938:
939:
940:
941: \begin{figure}
942: \begin{center}
943: \plotone{f8.ps}
944: \caption{\label{fig:circu_dpd_kang_c1_8} The ratio of $T_{\rm simu}$
945: to $T_{\rm Chandra}$ as a function of $\epsilon$ for merger points in
946: Figure 5 (the upper dashed line) and for those after applying equation
947: (\ref{eq:new}) (the lower solid line). The lower dotted line is for
948: $f(\epsilon)=1.48*{\epsilon}^{0.27}$ with equation (\ref{eq:new}).}
949: \end{center}
950: \end{figure}
951:
952:
953:
954:
955:
956: \begin{figure}
957: \begin{center}
958: \plotone{f9.ps}
959: \caption{\label{fig:func_circu_kang_c1_9} Fitting function of
960: $f(\epsilon)$. $f(\epsilon)=0.94*{\epsilon}^{0.60}+0.60$ is
961: represented by the solid curve, while
962: $f(\epsilon)=1.48*{\epsilon}^{0.27}$ is denoted by the dashed
963: line. The squares are from the complete sample of mergers, and the
964: triangles are from all mergers.}
965: \end{center}
966: \end{figure}
967:
968:
969:
970: \begin{figure}
971: \begin{center}
972: \plotone{f10.ps}
973: \caption{\label{fig:merg_all_kang_c1_10} Comparison of the merger time
974: scale from simulation with our fitted merger time scale (equation
975: \ref{eq:new}). The data points lie slightly above the solid line,
976: because the sample missed a mall fraction of relatively long mergers.}
977: \end{center}
978: \end{figure}
979:
980:
981:
982: \begin{figure}
983: \begin{center}
984: \plotone{f11.ps}
985: \caption{\label{fig:t_distri_kang_c1_11} Distribution of $T_{\rm
986: simu}/ T_{\rm fit}$ for the whole merger sample(the dotted line) and
987: for the complete sample(the solid line). The left shift of the whole
988: merger sample is mainly due to its lack of those relatively long
989: mergers.}
990: \end{center}
991: \end{figure}
992:
993:
994: \begin{figure}
995: \begin{center}
996: \plotone{f12.ps}
997: \caption{\label{fig:circu_para_all_12} Distribution of circularity
998: parameter $\epsilon$ for all resolved satellite halos having more
999: than half their masses entering the primary halos.}
1000: \end{center}
1001: \end{figure}
1002:
1003:
1004:
1005:
1006: \begin{figure}
1007: \begin{center}
1008: \plotone{f13.ps}
1009: \caption{\label{fig:circu_mratio_all_13} The mean circularity as a
1010: function of the mass ratio.}
1011: \end{center}
1012: \end{figure}
1013: \begin{figure}
1014:
1015: %%[NEW
1016: \begin{center}
1017: \plotone{f14.ps}
1018: \caption{\label{fig:tratio} The ratio $T_{\rm simu}/T_{\rm fit}$ as a
1019: function of the mass ratio $m_{\rm stellar}/m_{\rm pri}$ (left), the
1020: growth rate of the primary halo (middle), and $r_c/r_{\rm vir}$ (right)
1021: for the complete sample. }
1022: \end{center}
1023: \end{figure}
1024: %%NEW]
1025: \end{document}
1026:
1027: