1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{epsfig, natbib}
3: \newcommand{\tdn}{\tau_{\rm{dyn}}}
4: \newcommand{\tdf}{\tau_{\rm merge}}
5: \newcommand{\df}{dynamical friction}
6: \newcommand{\vcirc}{v_{\rm{circ}}}
7: \newcommand{\vorb}{v_{\rm{orb}}}
8: \newcommand{\vsat}{v_{\rm{sat}}}
9: \newcommand{\vmax}{v_{\rm{max}}}
10: \newcommand{\vtot}{v_{\rm{tot}}}
11: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm{BH}}}
12: \newcommand{\msat}{M_{\rm{sat}}}
13: \newcommand{\mhost}{M_{\rm{host}}}
14: \newcommand{\mstar}{M_{\star}}
15: \newcommand{\rbh}{r_{\rm{BH}}}
16: \newcommand{\mvir}{M_{\rm{vir}}}
17: \newcommand{\rvir}{r_{\rm{vir}}}
18: \newcommand{\vvir}{v_{\rm{vir}}}
19: \newcommand{\re}{R_e}
20: \newcommand{\sige}{\sigma_e}
21: \newcommand{\logl}{\ln \Lambda}
22: \newcommand{\fpp}{fundamental plane}
23: \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}}
24:
25: \shorttitle{Dynamical Friction}
26: \shortauthors{Boylan-Kolchin, Ma, \& Quataert}
27: \slugcomment{Draft version -- \today}
28: \begin{document}
29:
30: \title{Dynamical friction and galaxy merging timescales}
31:
32: \author{Michael Boylan-Kolchin\altaffilmark{1}, Chung-Pei
33: Ma\altaffilmark{2}, and Eliot Quataert\altaffilmark{3}}
34: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
35: Berkeley, CA 94720}
36: \altaffiltext{1}{mrbk@berkeley.edu}
37: \altaffiltext{2}{cpma@berkeley.edu}
38: \altaffiltext{3}{eliot@astro.berkeley.edu}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: The timescale for galaxies within merging dark matter halos to merge with each
42: other is an important ingredient in galaxy formation models. Accurate
43: estimates of merging timescales are required for predictions of astrophysical
44: quantities such as black hole binary merger rates, the build-up of stellar
45: mass in central galaxies, and the statistical properties of satellite galaxies
46: within dark matter halos. In this paper, we study the merging timescales of
47: extended dark matter halos using $N$-body simulations. We compare these
48: results to standard estimates based on the Chandrasekhar theory of dynamical
49: friction. We find that these standard predictions for merging timescales,
50: which are often used in semi-analytic galaxy formation models, are
51: systematically shorter than those found in simulations. The discrepancy is
52: approximately a factor of 1.7 for $\msat/\mhost \approx 0.1$ and becomes
53: larger for more disparate satellite-to-host mass ratios, reaching a factor of
54: $\sim 3.3$ for $\msat/\mhost\approx 0.01$. Based on our simulations, we
55: propose a new, easily implementable fitting formula that accurately predicts
56: the timescale for an extended satellite to sink from the virial radius of a
57: host halo down to the halo's center for a wide range of $\msat/\mhost$ and
58: orbits. Including a central bulge in each galaxy changes the merging
59: timescale by $\la 10\%$. To highlight one concrete application of our
60: results, we show that merging timescales often used in the literature
61: overestimate the growth of stellar mass by satellite accretion by $\approx 40
62: \%$, with the extra mass gained in low mass ratio mergers.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: formation}
66:
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: As originally formulated by \citet{chandrasekhar1943}, the deceleration of
71: an orbiting point mass ```satellite,'' due to dynamical friction on a
72: uniform background mass distribution, is given by
73: \begin{equation}
74: \label{eq:df}
75: \frac{d}{dt}\vec{v}_{\rm{orb}} = -4 \pi G^2 \ln (\Lambda) \, \msat
76: \, \rho_{\rm host}(<\vorb) \, \frac{\vec{v}_{\rm{orb}}}{\vorb^3} \,,
77: \end{equation}
78: where $\rho_{\rm host}(<\vorb)$ is the density of background particles with
79: velocities less than the orbital velocity $v_{\rm orb}$ of the satellite,
80: $\msat$ is the mass of the satellite, and $\Lambda$ is the usual Coulomb
81: logarithm (e.g, \citealt{chandrasekhar1943, white1976}).
82:
83: Accurate estimates of the effects of dynamical friction and the timescale
84: for an orbiting satellite to lose its energy and angular momentum to merge
85: with a host are essential for many astrophysical problems. A thorough
86: understanding of dynamical friction is particularly critical for
87: semi-analytic models (SAMs) of galaxy formation. The growth of dark matter
88: halos via mergers can be computed either analytically or via
89: dissipationless cosmological simulations, but the growth of galaxies
90: depends on their dynamical evolution within larger dark matter halos. As a
91: result, dynamical friction (and tidal stripping, which determines $\msat$)
92: provides a critical link between dark matter halo mergers and the galaxy
93: mergers that determine, e.g., stellar masses, supermassive black hole
94: masses, galaxy colors, and galaxy morphologies. Since it is
95: computationally infeasible to simulate both dark matter on cosmological
96: scales and baryonic physics relevant to galaxies, SAMs will remain an
97: important tool for interpreting observations of galaxy formation and
98: evolution for the foreseeable future.
99:
100: There are, however, often significant uncertainties in directly applying
101: equation (\ref{eq:df}) due to the approximate nature of the Chandrasekhar
102: formula, and ambiguities in the appropriate value of the Coulomb logarithm
103: and the definition of the satellite mass $\msat$ for extended objects
104: (e.g., galaxies or dark matter halos). SAMs, for instance, typically use
105: mild variations on the same basic formula for modeling the merger timescale
106: $\tdf$ induced by dynamical friction:
107: \begin{equation}
108: \label{eq:dfSAM}
109: \frac{\tdf}{\tau_{\rm dyn}} =1.17 \, \frac{f_{\rm df}\, \Theta_{\rm orb}}
110: {\logl} \frac{\mhost}{\msat} \,
111: \end{equation}
112: (e.g., eq.~7.26 of \citealt{binney1987}), where
113: $\Theta_{\rm orb}$ contains information about the orbital energy and
114: angular momentum, $f_{\rm df}$ is an adjustable parameter, and $\tau_{\rm
115: dyn}$ is the dynamical timescale at the virial radius $\rvir$ of the host
116: halo, related to the circular velocity at $\rvir$, $V_c(\rvir)$, by
117: \begin{equation}
118: \label{eq:taudyn}
119: \tau_{\rm dyn}\equiv \frac{\rvir}{V_c(\rvir)}
120: =\left( \frac{\rvir^3}{G\mhost} \right)^{1/2} \,.
121: \end{equation}
122: Differences among different SAMs enter mainly in how each model treats $\logl$,
123: $\Theta_{\rm orb}$, and $f_{\rm df}$, as well as how $\msat$ is determined and
124: when $\tdf$ is determined (e.g., \citealt{kauffmann1993, somerville1999,
125: cole2000, croton2006}). Uncertainties in these parameters are reflected in
126: equally large uncertainties in $\tdf$.
127:
128: The Coulomb logarithm, for example, should technically be expressed as ${1\over
129: 2} \, \ln(1+\Lambda^2)$; using $\ln \Lambda$ is appropriate in the limit of
130: large $\Lambda$ \citep{binney1987}. The Coulomb logarithm represents the ratio
131: of the largest and smallest impact parameters of field stars that contribute to
132: small-angle scatterings of the satellite: $\Lambda=b_{\rm max}/b_{\rm min}$.
133: This motivates a conventional choice for the Coulomb logarithm:
134: $\Lambda=1+\mhost/\msat$,
135: % (\citealt{somerville1999} use
136: % $\Lambda=1+\mhost^2/\msat^2$)
137: where $\msat$ is often taken to be the mass of
138: the satellite when it enters the virial radius of the host halo of mass $\mhost$.
139: % (in this case, $\log \Lambda$ is assumed to be constant over the satellite's
140: % orbit).
141: Alternatively, the Coulomb logarithm can be taken to be a
142: mass-independent constant (e.g., \citealt{cooray2005}). When using equation
143: (\ref{eq:df}) to model the full orbits of satellites, another approach is to
144: assume that the Coulomb logarithm varies over the course of the orbit (e.g.,
145: \citealt{hashimoto2003,zentner2005a,fellhauer2007}). These various prescriptions
146: for the Coulomb logarithm can differ by a factor of 2-3.
147:
148: In addition, it is known that $\msat$ cannot refer to just the bound mass for
149: extended objects because tidally stripped material still in the vicinity of the
150: satellite also contributes to dynamical friction
151: \citep{fujii2006,fellhauer2007}. The
152: uncertainties in $\tdf$ introduced by different prescriptions for $\logl$ and
153: $\msat$ are important for galaxy formation models because $50\%$ changes in the
154: timescale for galaxies to merge within dark matter halos could significantly
155: change the predictions for galaxy growth via merging or cannibalism, black hole
156: merger rates, and the evolution of satellite galaxies in groups and clusters.
157:
158: Full dynamical models of the evolution of merging halos -- complete with the
159: physics of dynamical friction, tidal stripping, and gravitational shocking --
160: have been created by a number of groups (e.g., \citealt{taylor2001, taffoni2003,
161: zentner2005a, gnedin2003}). These models, however, are based on approximate
162: treatments of the underlying physical processes, and obtaining merging
163: timescales would often require numerically integrating individual satellite
164: orbits \citep{velazquez1999}. In this paper we take a different approach and
165: instead compute merger timescales directly using numerical simulations. We
166: focus on the range of satellite masses and orbital parameters that are relevant
167: for dark matter halo mergers in hierarchical galaxy formation models. Our goal
168: is to provide a fitting formula that is as simple as possible but that still
169: accurately reflects the physics of dynamical friction and tidal stripping.
170:
171: The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the
172: numerical simulations we have performed. In Section 3, we investigate the
173: merging timescales $\tdf$ computed from our numerical simulations, propose a new
174: fitting formula for $\tdf$, and compare to previous results. Section 4 contains
175: two sample applications of our proposed fitting formula: an estimate of the mass
176: spectrum and orbital distribution of merging galaxies. Our results and
177: conclusions, and their implications, are reviewed in Section~5. Throughout this
178: paper, we use ``virial'' quantities that are defined relative to $200 \rho_c$,
179: where $\rho_c$ is the critical density. When necessary, we assume a cosmology
180: of $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=1-\Omega_m=0.7$, and $H_0=70 \,{\rm km \,
181: s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}}$.
182:
183:
184: \section{Satellite decay from numerical simulations}
185: \label{sec:sims}
186: \subsection{Description of simulations and initial conditions}
187: We have performed a number of numerical simulations to test the agreement
188: between merger timescales predicted by equation~(\ref{eq:dfSAM}) and those
189: derived directly from $N$-body simulations. Each of our simulations consists of
190: a host \citet{hernquist1990} halo and a satellite Hernquist halo; the ratio of
191: satellite to host mass and the initial orbital parameters of the satellite are
192: varied from run to run. The host and satellite halos were constructed using
193: $N_{\rm host}=2\times 10^5$ particles for the host and equal particle masses for
194: the host and satellite particles, i.e., $N_{\rm sat}=(\msat/\mhost) \, 2 \times
195: 10^5$. Each halo was constructed by sampling the full phase-space distribution
196: function (under the assumptions of spherical symmetry and velocity isotropy) and
197: was tested to be stable when evolved in isolation. In addition, two simulations included a (self-consistently constructed) Hernquist bulge in both the host and satellite to test the effects of baryonic components on merging timescales.
198:
199: The numerical simulations were run using {\sc gadget-2} \citep{springel2005}.
200: Outputs were saved every 0.1 Gyr, or equivalently, $\approx 0.06 \, \tdn$. To
201: ensure that our simulations are not affected by numerical artifacts, we have
202: performed several convergence runs with respect to both the particle number (up
203: to $10^6$ particles in the host halo) and the force softening $\epsilon$ (which
204: is reduced by up to a factor of 5 from our fiducial value of $\epsilon=10^{-3}\,
205: r_{\rm vir}$). Because our simulations involve only gravity, the length, mass,
206: and time scales can be rescaled for any host halo mass; for definiteness,
207: however, we quote our results for host halos of total mass $\mhost =10^{12}\,
208: M_{\odot}$ and Hernquist scale length $a=40$ kpc. Matching to a
209: \citet[hereafter NFW]{navarro1997} profile with a virial
210: mass equal to the Hernquist halo's total mass and an identical
211: density at $r \ll a$, our standard host halo corresponds to an NFW halo with a
212: concentration $\approx 8.5$ (see, e.g., \citealt{springel2005a} for more details
213: on how to relate Hernquist and NFW halos). A comparison run using an NFW halo
214: had a merging timescale within 5\% of that from the corresponding run with a
215: Hernquist halo.
216:
217: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
218: \tablecaption{List of Simulations
219: \label{table:ICs}}
220: \tablehead{
221: \colhead{{\bf Run}}
222: & \colhead{${\bf \msat/\mhost}$}
223: & \colhead{{\bf circularity} \boldmath{$\eta$}}
224: & \colhead{\boldmath{$r_c(E)/\rvir$}}
225: & \colhead{\boldmath{$\tdf$}}\\
226: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5)
227: }
228: \startdata
229: 3b & 0.3 & 0.78 & 1.0 & 4.4 \\
230: 3d & 0.3 & 1.00 & 1.0 & 6.9 \\
231: 5b & 0.2 & 0.46 & 1.0 & 3.5 \\
232: 5c & 0.2 & 0.65 & 1.0 & 4.5 \\
233: 5d & 0.2 & 0.78 & 1.0 & 6.0 \\
234: 5e & 0.2 & 1.00 & 1.0 & 9.5 \\
235: 10a & 0.1 & 0.33 & 1.0 & 4.85 \\
236: 10a$\star$ & 0.1 & 0.33 & 1.0 & 4.3 \\
237: 10b & 0.1 & 0.46 & 1.0 & 6.0 \\
238: 10c & 0.1 & 0.65 & 1.0 & 8.25 \\
239: 10c$\star$ & 0.1 & 0.65 & 1.0 & 7.8 \\
240: 10d & 0.1 & 0.78 & 1.0 & 10.75 \\
241: 14b & 0.0707 & 0.46 & 1.0 & 9.0 \\
242: 14c & 0.0707 & 0.65 & 1.0 & 12.5 \\
243: 20a & 0.05 & 0.33 & 1.0 & 10.0 \\
244: 20b & 0.05 & 0.46 & 1.0 & 11.0 \\
245: 20c & 0.05 & 0.65 & 1.0 & 17.0 \\
246: 40b & 0.025 & 0.46 & 1.0 & 22.0 \\
247: 40c & 0.025 & 0.65 & 1.0 & 38.0 \\
248: 10a1 & 0.1 & 0.33 & 0.65 & 3.5 \\
249: 10a4 & 0.1 & 0.33 & 0.80 & 4.3\\
250: 10b1 & 0.1 & 0.46 & 0.65 & 4.3 \\
251: 10b4 & 0.1 & 0.46 & 0.80 & 5.0 \\
252: 10c1 & 0.1 & 0.65 & 0.65 & 5.6 \\
253: 10c2 & 0.1 & 0.65 & 0.70 & 5.5 \\
254: 10c3 & 0.1 & 0.65 & 0.75 & 6.2 \\
255: 10c4 & 0.1 & 0.65 & 0.80 & 6.35 \\
256: 10c5 & 0.1 & 0.65 & 0.90 & 7.5 \\
257: \enddata
258: \tablecomments{
259: Description of columns:\\
260: (1) Name of simulation\\
261: (2) Ratio of initial satellite mass to initial host halo mass\\
262: (3) Initial orbital angular momentum, parametrized by circularity $\eta$\\
263: (4) Initial orbital energy, parametrized by $r_c(E)/\rvir$ \\
264: (5) Dynamical friction merging time $\tdf$, in Gyr, for a host with virial
265: mass $\mhost=10^{12} \,M_{\odot}$, measured from the simulation as
266: described in Sec.~\ref{sec:sims}\\
267: ($\star$ indicates run with baryonic component; see \S\ref{subsec:baryons} for
268: details)}
269: \end{deluxetable}
270:
271: In the absence of dynamical friction, the orbit of a test particle in a
272: static spherical potential is entirely specified by its energy $E$ and
273: angular momentum $J$. An equivalent parametrization for bound orbits is to
274: use the orbital circularity
275: \begin{equation}
276: \eta \equiv \frac{j}{j_c(E)} \,,
277: \end{equation}
278: which is the specific angular momentum relative to the specific angular
279: momentum of a circular orbit with the same energy [$\eta$ is related to
280: eccentricity $e$ by $\eta=(1-e^2)^{1/2}$], and $r_c(E)$, which is the radius of
281: a circular orbit with the same energy as the particle in question. Since
282: dynamical friction dissipates energy, the orbit of a satellite galaxy in a host
283: galaxy generally depends on its initial position $r(t=0)$ in addition to
284: $E(t=0)$ and $J(t=0)$.
285:
286: We explore a range of orbital circularity $\eta$, energy $r_c(E)$, and
287: satellite-to-host mass ratios $\msat/\mhost$ in our simulations. A summary
288: of the production runs and the resulting $\tdf$ is presented in
289: Table~\ref{table:ICs}. The ranges of the parameters are chosen so that the
290: satellites can plausibly undergo significant orbital evolution within a
291: Hubble time (see Sec. \ref{sec:range} for more details). Systems with mass
292: ratios $\msat/\mhost$ much smaller than 1:40 are therefore dynamically
293: uninteresting and excluded.
294:
295: \subsection{Defining timescales: angular momentum loss}
296: The timescale for a satellite to merge with its host halo can be defined in
297: a number of different ways. One common definition is to take a fiducial
298: radius of the baryonic component assumed to reside at the center of the
299: halo and assume that the satellite has merged when its separation from the
300: host's center equals this radius. In this work, we instead consider a
301: satellite merged when it has lost all of its specific angular momentum $j
302: \equiv r\, v_t$ (relative to the host). In practice, this definition
303: agrees with the more commonly-used one in most cases but also works well
304: for situations in which the definition based on orbital separation can give
305: undesired results. Consider highly eccentric orbits, in which the
306: satellite can come very close to the center of the host while retaining
307: significant orbital energy; satellites on these orbits often do not merge
308: for multiple dynamical times following the first close encounter. The
309: specific angular momentum of the satellite should, however, be a
310: non-increasing function of time, so using $j(t)/j_0$ [where $j_0=j(t=0)$]
311: is therefore our preferred definition for merging.
312:
313: \begin{figure}
314: \centering
315: \includegraphics[scale=0.55, bb=70 156 516 612]{fig1a.eps}
316: \includegraphics[scale=0.55, bb=70 175 516 595]{fig1b.eps}
317: \caption{Top: Trajectories of satellites (i.e., separation between
318: satellite and host centers) from six simulations with two different
319: orbits -- $\eta=0.46$ (solid) and 0.65 (dashed) -- and three different
320: mass ratios: 1:10 (black), 1:20 (blue), and 1:40 (green). For all
321: cases, satellites on more eccentric orbits (lower $\eta$) or with
322: higher mass ratios merge more quickly. Bottom: angular momentum decay
323: for the same satellites. The loss of angular momentum initially
324: correlates well with pericentric passages but at later times $dj/dt
325: \sim \, {\rm constant}$.\label{fig:ang_all}}
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: Fig.~\ref{fig:ang_all} shows the trajectories (top) and angular momentum
329: decay (bottom) for three sets of live-satellite simulations starting from
330: $\rvir$, with $\msat/\mhost=0.025,\, 0.05, \, {\rm and} \; 0.10$, for two
331: different orbital circularities, $\eta=0.46$ (solid curves) and $\eta=0.65$
332: (dashed curves). For a given circularity, systems with more disparate
333: masses merge much more slowly, as is expected from basic dynamical friction
334: considerations. For a given mass ratio, the satellite on the more
335: eccentric orbit (i.e. smaller $\eta$) loses angular momentum faster,
336: resulting in a more rapid merger. The
337: difference is non-negligible even for mass ratios as similar as 1:3. In this
338: case, a satellite with $\eta=0.78$ merges in approximately 4.4 Gyr while a
339: satellite on a circular orbit takes over 50\% longer -- 6.9 Gyr --
340: to merge (see last column of Table~1).
341:
342: Fig.~\ref{fig:ang_all} highlights the angular momentum loss process.
343: A comparison between the top and bottom panels shows that the bulk of the
344: angular momentum loss initially coincides with pericentric passages (e.g.,
345: at 1 and 4.5 Gyr for the 1:20 blue curves) and the accompanying tidal
346: stripping and shocking (see also \citealt{boylan-kolchin2007}). It is also
347: interesting to note that while the angular momentum loss is initially
348: somewhat impulsive, it later ($t \ga 5$ Gyr) becomes nearly constant in
349: time.
350: Physically, the approximate constancy of $dj/dt \sim j/\tdf(r)$ follows
351: from the fact that the merger timescale at any radius is roughly linearly
352: proportional to radius (see eq. [\ref{eq:tdf_fit}] discussed below), as is
353: $j$ itself. It is also interesting to note that a satellite can continue
354: to orbit for several giga-years even after its initial orbit has
355: dipped within 5\% of $\rvir$ of the host (e.g., the 1:20 merger in
356: Fig.~\ref{fig:ang_all}). In fact, at the first pericentric pass within
357: $\sim 5\%$ of $\rvir$ (which occurs at $t \approx 6.5$ Gyr for $\eta =
358: 0.46$), the satellite has only lost 60\% of its initial angular momentum.
359: Such satellites should \emph{not} be considered merged even though they may
360: pass very close to the center of the halo (within the radius at which a
361: central galaxy might lie); our calculations show that these satellites will
362: orbit for a significantly longer time before actually merging.
363:
364: When the mass of the satellite is much less than the mass of the host, $\tdf$
365: becomes prohibitively long to study with simulations, as numerical relaxation
366: becomes an important effect. For these cases (only three runs: 20c, 40b, and
367: 40c), we determine $\tdf$ by linearly extrapolating $j(t)/j_0$. This tends to
368: be a reasonable measure of the merging time as long as we extrapolate
369: \emph{after} the first two pericentric passages, where gravitational shocks and
370: tidal stripping cause substantial changes in the angular momentum. After the
371: first two pericentric passages, the angular momentum loss occurs at a roughly
372: uniform rate.
373:
374: \subsection{Effects of baryons}
375: \label{subsec:baryons}
376: \begin{figure}
377: \centering
378: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig2.eps}
379: \caption{Effects of including baryonic components. The solid curves show the
380: angular momentum loss for runs 10a (left; $\eta=0.33$) and 10c (right;
381: $\eta=0.65$). The dashed curves show $j(t)/j_0$ for runs that have a
382: stellar bulge (with $M_{\rm vir}/M_{\rm bulge}=20$) in both the host and
383: satellite but are otherwise identical. Including baryons leads to merger
384: timescales that are $\la 10\%$ shorter than those of the corresponding dark
385: matter-only simulations.}
386: \label{fig:stars}
387: \end{figure}
388: Although the ratio of a galaxy's stellar mass to the virial mass of its dark
389: matter halo does not exceed $\approx 0.1$, it is conceivable that neglecting
390: baryons could lead to significant errors in the predicted merging timescales.
391: % leads to significant differences in merging timescales.
392: In particular,
393: bulges in elliptical galaxies are significantly more dense than dark matter
394: halos at the same physical scale, meaning that bulges are more resistant to
395: disruption via tidal shocking. Thus, the expectation is that merger
396: timescales would be shorter for full galaxy models than for dark matter halos
397: alone.
398:
399: In order to test the effects of the baryonic components of galaxies on merging
400: timescales, we ran two additional simulations. Both simulations used
401: $\msat/\mhost=0.1$, but we included stellar bulges with $M_{\star}/M_{\rm
402: dm}=0.05$ in both the host and satellite for each simulation.\footnote{The
403: bulge + dark matter halo systems for the initial conditions are set up
404: self-consistently and are very stable over many dynamical times when evolved
405: in isolation; see \citet{boylan-kolchin2007} for details.} The effective
406: radii of the bulges were chosen to be representative of those measured by
407: \citet{shen2003} from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep{york2000}, $\re
408: \propto \mstar^{0.56}$, and the orbits of the two runs are identical to runs 10a
409: and 10c.
410:
411: In Fig.~\ref{fig:stars}, we compare the angular momentum loss as a function of
412: time for the runs without stars (solid curves) and with stars (dashed
413: curves). Including stars does lead to faster mergers, as expected, but the
414: difference in merging timescales is less than 10\%, which is quite modest. When
415: the satellite first enters the host's virial radius, the bulges contribute
416: negligibly to dynamical friction drag because the baryons contribute $< 10\%$ to
417: the system's total mass. At late stages in the merger, the bulges may be more
418: important, as the dark matter halo is more efficiently stripped than the
419: bulge. The satellites spend the vast majority of their time at large radii,
420: however, so that the error introduced by ignoring baryons is small when
421: considering the total time required to merge from the virial radius (see
422: Fig.~\ref{fig:stars}).
423:
424:
425: % In Fig.~\ref{fig:stars}, we compare the angular momentum loss as a function of
426: % time for the runs without stars (solid curves) and with stars (dashed curves).
427: % Including stars does lead to faster mergers, as expected, but the difference in
428: % merging timescales is less than 10\%, which is quite modest. When the satellite
429: % first enters the host virial radius, the bulges should contribute negligibly to
430: % dynamical friction drag because the baryons generically contribute $<10\%$ to
431: % the system's total mass. At late stages in the merger, the bulges may
432: % contribute more strongly, as the dark matter halo is more efficiently stripped
433: % than the bulge. The satellites spend the vast majority of its time at large
434: % radii, however, meaning the error introduced when ignoring baryons will be
435: % small. It is our expectation that the effect of including the baryons is
436: % essentially zero for circular orbits (because the bulges remain widely separated
437: % until just before the merger) and will be strongest for radial orbits, when
438: % gravitational shocking is strongest. For the vast majority of orbits, however,
439: % Fig.~\ref{fig:stars} suggests the error is relatively small when neglecting
440: % baryons.
441:
442:
443: \section{Computing merger timescales}
444:
445: In this section we provide a simple parameterization of the merging
446: timescales determined from the numerical simulations discussed above.
447: Comparisons between this new fitting formula and some commonly used ones in
448: the literature are also presented (Sec~3.3).
449:
450: \subsection{A fitting formula}
451:
452: We fit the merger timescales from the simulations in Table~1 to a simple
453: formula,
454: \begin{equation}
455: \frac{\tdf}{\tau_{\rm dyn}} = A \, {(\mhost/\msat)^b \over \ln(1+\mhost/\msat)}
456: \exp\left[c \, {j \over j_c(E)} \right] \, \left[{r_c(E) \over \rvir} \right]^d
457: \label{eq:tdf_fit} \;,
458: \end{equation}
459: where the constants $b, \, c$, and $d$ parameterize the dependence of the
460: merger timescales on the host-to-satellite mass ratio $\mhost/\msat$,
461: orbital circularity $\eta = j/j_c(E)$, and orbital energy $r_c(E)$,
462: respectively. Both $\eta$ and $r_c(E)$ are computed self-consistently
463: using the Hernquist potential, {\it not} using the two-body
464: approximation. To avoid ambiguities in the definition of satellite and host
465: mass as a function of the location of the satellite (or time), we define
466: the masses $\mhost$ and $\msat$ here as the {\it virial} masses of the host
467: and the satellite when entering the host's virial radius. For the same
468: reason, we use the specific angular momentum $j$ rather than the full
469: angular momentum $J$ in computing the orbital properties of the satellites;
470: since the circularity depends only on a ratio of angular momenta, this
471: choice does not affect calculations of $\eta$. The dynamical time $\tdn$
472: is the dynamical time at the host's virial radius $\rvir$ given by
473: equation~(\ref{eq:taudyn}). Note that $\tdn=0.1 \, H^{-1}$ (where $H$ is
474: the Hubble constant) independent of the host halo mass; at $z=0$, $\tdn=1.4$
475: Gyr for $H=70 \,{\rm km \, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}}$.
476:
477: With the definitions above, we find that
478: \begin{equation}
479: \label{eq:abcd}
480: A=0.216\,, \quad b=1.3\,, \quad c=1.9\,,\quad d=1.0
481: \end{equation}
482: provide fits to the simulation results with a standard deviation of $< 7\%$
483: and a maximum deviation of 12.5\%, a significant improvement over
484: equation~(\ref{eq:dfSAM}). To obtain the values in
485: equation~(\ref{eq:abcd}), we have chosen to fit to the parameter $d$
486: separately from $A, \, b,$ and $c$. For $A$, $b$, and $c$, we have fitted
487: to $\tdf$ from the subset of simulations in which the satellites begin at
488: the virial radius of their host with an orbital energy $E=E_c(\rvir)$,
489: i.e., with $r_c(E)=\rvir$, and the fit is independent of $d$. To determine
490: the value of $d$ in equation~(\ref{eq:abcd}), we use the series of
491: simulations with $M_{\rm sat}/M_{\rm host}=0.1$ and
492: $r_c(E)/\rvir=[0.65,\,0.7,\,0.75,\, 0.8, \, 0.9, \, 1.0]$ (all starting at
493: $\rvir$). Holding $A$, $b$, and $c$ fixed, we investigate whether any
494: single choice of $d$ results in a consistently accurate prediction of the
495: merging timescale.
496:
497: The close agreement between the numerical simulations and the fits in
498: equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) is illustrated by the circles in
499: Fig.~\ref{fig:dftimes_pred} and squares in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit}. The two
500: figures show the ratio of the timescale measured from each simulation, $\tdf
501: ({\rm sim})$, to the timescale predicted by equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}), $\tdf
502: ({\rm fit})$, for a wide range of orbital energy ($0.65\le r_c(E)/\rvir \le
503: 1.0$), orbital circularity ($0.33 \le \eta \le 1$), and satellite-to-host halo
504: mass ($0.025 \le \msat/\mhost \le 0.3$). In addition,
505: Fig.~\ref{fig:dftimes_pred} shows that using $d=1.0$ (circle symbols) in
506: equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) results in good agreement between predicted and
507: measured $\tdf$, while the often used $d=2.0$ (diamond symbols) results in a
508: poor match, systematically underestimating $\tdf$ (see \S
509: \ref{subsubsec:c_and_d} for more discussion). In Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit}, we
510: also compare $\tdf ({\rm fit})$ to that predicted by a fiducial SAM, $\tdf ({\rm
511: SAM})$; this is discussed in \S \ref{sec:compare} below.
512:
513: A further point of interest is that using $d \approx 1$ in
514: Equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) also provides a significantly better fit than $d=2$
515: when considering the merging timescale as a function of position along a given
516: orbit. This suggests that equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) can be used for starting
517: radii other than $\rvir$, though its accuracy will certainly decline for $r \ll
518: \rvir$. This possibility is not explored in any more detail in this paper,
519: however, and we restrict ourselves to starting radii of $\rvir$.
520:
521: \begin{figure}
522: \centering
523: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig3.eps}
524: \caption{Comparison of merger time measured in our $N$-body simulations, $\tdf
525: ({\rm sim})$, with the predicted $\tdf ({\rm fit})$ based on
526: eq.~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}), as a function of orbital energy $r_c(E)/\rvir$. The
527: orbital circularity is color-coded: $\eta=0.33$ (red), 0.46 (green), and
528: 0.65 (black). % For $d=2.0$, all other fit parameters are the same as in
529: % eq.~(\ref{eq:abcd}).
530: The circles use the best-fit parameters in
531: eq.~(\ref{eq:abcd}) and show the close agreement in $\tdf$ between the
532: simulations and the fits. The diamonds, on the other hand, illustrate the
533: poor match when the energy dependence in eq.~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) is taken to
534: be the conventional $d=2.0$ instead of $d= 1.0$. All points are for
535: $\msat/\mhost=0.1$.}
536: \label{fig:dftimes_pred}
537: \end{figure}
538:
539:
540: \begin{figure}
541: \centering
542: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig4.eps}
543: \caption{Comparison of merger times computed from $N$-body simulations, fitting
544: formula eq.~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}), and a fiducial SAM using eq.~(\ref{eq:dfSAM})
545: and two choices of Coulomb logarithm (black and blue curves), for a variety
546: of satellite-to-host mass ratios $\msat/\mhost$ and orbital circularities
547: $\eta$, with $r_c(E)/\rvir=1$. The square symbols show the ratio $\tdf ({\rm
548: sim})/\tdf ({\rm fit})$ and illustrate that the simulations and fit agree
549: well, with an error of $\la 10\%$. The orbital circularities are color-coded:
550: $\eta=0.33$ (red), 0.46 (green), 0.65 (black), 0.78 (magenta), and 1.0
551: (yellow). The fiducial SAM, on the other hand, generally underestimates the
552: merging time, particularly at small $\msat/\mhost$, as shown by the three
553: curves for different circularities: $\eta=0.25$ (solid), 0.5 (dashed), and
554: 0.75 (dot-dashed). The SAM here assumes $f_{df}=1$, $\Theta_{\rm
555: orb}=\eta^{0.78}$, and $r_c(E)/\rvir=1$. The different color curves
556: correspond to different choices of Coulomb logarithms for the SAM: $\ln
557: (1+\mhost/\msat)$ [black curves] and ${1 \over 2} \ln (1+\mhost^2/\msat^2)$
558: [blue curves]}
559: % , and $\logl=\ln
560: % (1+\mhost/\msat)$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:dfSAM}).}
561: \label{fig:sim_sam_fit}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564:
565: \subsection{Range of validity}
566:
567: \label{sec:range}
568:
569: We have chosen to simulate parameters that correspond to probable satellite
570: orbits in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. The mass ratios we have considered --
571: $0.025 \le \msat/\mhost \le 0.3$ -- cover a reasonable range, as lower mass
572: ratios are unlikely to merge within even multiple Hubble times, while mass
573: ratios near unity merge on nearly a dynamical time. We note that
574: Eqn.~\ref{eq:tdf_fit} does indeed tend toward $\tdf \approx \tdn$ for
575: $\msat=\mhost$ and $\eta \approx 0.5$; it therefore should give a reasonable
576: approximation even for our untested regime of $\msat/\mhost>0.3$.
577:
578: We have
579: covered a range of circularities -- $0.3 \le \eta \le 1.0$ -- that includes the
580: most likely values based on analyses of orbits in dark matter simulations ($\eta
581: \approx 0.5$; e.g., \citealt{benson2005, zentner2005a, khochfar2006}).
582: Equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) should not be used for $\eta \lesssim 0.2$ because
583: such orbits pass sufficiently close to the center of the host halo on their
584: first pericentric passage that interaction with the central galaxy is important
585: and will decrease the merging timescale.
586:
587: The range of orbital energies considered here -- $0.65 \le r_c(E)/ \rvir \le
588: 1.0$ -- also covers the peak values of distributions seen in cosmological
589: simulations. We have limited ourselves to one specific scaling of dark matter
590: halo scale radii -- $a \propto M^{0.5}$ -- that is motivated by analyses of
591: cosmological $N$-body simulations (e.g., \citealt{bullock2001}), which show that
592: concentrations scale as $c \propto M^{-0.13}$. \citet{taffoni2003} found that
593: the dependence of $\tdf$ on the satellite concentration is relatively weak:
594: using their eq.~27, varying $c_{\rm sat}/c_{\rm host}$ between 1 and 2 results
595: in a change in $\tdf$ of only $\approx 20\%$.
596:
597:
598: \subsection{Comparison to Previous Work}
599:
600: \label{sec:compare}
601:
602: \subsubsection{Exponent b: dependence on mass ratio}
603:
604: One important difference between equations~(\ref{eq:dfSAM}) and
605: (\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) is the non-linear dependence on the mass ratio in
606: equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}). Our fitted value of $b=1.3$ reflects an
607: important difference between point masses and realistic dark matter
608: satellites sinking in a larger host potential, as the dark matter
609: halos continually lose mass via tidal stripping and gravitational
610: shocking against the host potential. The effective mass of the
611: satellite over its lifetime is therefore smaller (sometimes
612: substantially smaller) than its mass when entering the host halo. It
613: is therefore not surprising that extended satellites sink more slowly
614: than the standard formula predicts, leading to $b > 1$.
615:
616: The exact exponent $b$ turns out to be difficult to model from first
617: principles as it depends on a number of factors. As an example,
618: \citet{fujii2006} and \citet{fellhauer2007} have shown that the
619: effective mass (with regards to dynamical friction) of a sinking
620: satellite is actually larger than the instantaneous bound mass because
621: the mass that has been recently stripped also contributes to the drag
622: force on the satellite. We see the same effect in our simulations,
623: significantly complicating any effort to assume that either the bound
624: mass or the instantaneous tidal mass is the relevant mass at every
625: time.
626:
627:
628: \subsubsection{Parameters c and d: dependence on satellite orbits}
629: \label{subsubsec:c_and_d}
630:
631: A common choice for the angular momentum dependence in
632: equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) is $\tdf \propto \eta^{0.78}$
633: \citep{somerville1999, cole2000}, which \citet{lacey1993} found to be a
634: good match to their integration of the orbit-averaged equations for energy
635: and angular momentum loss for a point mass subhalo due to dynamical
636: friction in an isothermal potential. \citet{van-den-bosch1999} found a
637: somewhat weaker angular momentum dependence in their numerical simulations
638: (using point-mass satellites and an isothermal potential), $\tdf \propto
639: \eta^{0.53}$, while \citet{taffoni2003} provide a more complex fitting
640: formula for both point-mass and live satellites with realistic internal
641: structure in an NFW potential.
642:
643: We find that an exponential dependence -- $\tdf \propto \exp(c \, \eta)$ with
644: $c=1.9$ -- provides a better fit to our simulations than a pure power law: a fit
645: in which we force $\tdf \propto \eta^{0.78}$ has a standard deviation of 14 \%
646: and a maximum deviation of 42\% when compared to the simulations (compared to
647: 6.7 \% and 12 \%, respectively, when using our fit). It is important to note,
648: however, that it is the long $\tdf$ for the $\eta=0.78$ and $\eta=1.0$
649: simulations that result in better agreement using the exponential fit rather
650: than the power-law fit. If we restrict our attention to runs with $0.33 \le
651: \eta \le 0.65$, we find that $\tdf \propto \eta^{0.78}$ does indeed provide a
652: good fit to our simulation results.
653:
654: Our revised fitting formula has a somewhat weaker dependence on $\eta$
655: for $\eta \la 0.5$ and a stronger dependence for $\eta \ga 0.5$
656: relative to that found by previous work with point-mass satellites.
657: Both of these limits are plausible: for small $\eta$ (nearly radial
658: orbits), a slight change in $\eta$ should have a negligible effect on
659: $\tdf$ since the orbits will have small pericentric distances. For
660: large $\eta$ (nearly circular orbits), live satellites still lose mass
661: at large radii, reducing their mass and lengthening their $\tdf$
662: relative to an equivalent point-mass satellite. The same is true for
663: live satellites on more radial orbits but to a lesser degree, as
664: angular momentum losses correlate well with pericentric passages (see
665: Fig.~\ref{fig:ang_all}); the net effect creates a stronger dependence
666: on $\eta$ for $\eta \ga 0.6$ for live satellites than for point-mass
667: satellites.
668:
669:
670: For the orbital energy dependence of the merger timescale, we find
671: that $d=1.0$ is the best fit to our simulations. This is to be
672: contrasted with the canonical value of $d \approx 2.0$ in prior work.
673: The latter is appropriate for an isothermal host (e.g., eq.~7.26 of
674: \citealt{binney1987}), or for {\it point mass} satellites sinking on
675: circular orbits in a static potential, as can be determined by
676: integrating equation~(\ref{eq:df}). This yields $\tdf \propto
677: (r_c(E)/\rvir)^{1.97}$ for an NFW potential \citep{taffoni2003}. We
678: find that for point-mass satellites on circular orbits in a host halo
679: with a Hernquist density profile and scale radius $a$, the energy
680: dependence of $\tdf$ has an analytic expression,
681: \begin{equation}
682: \label{eq:1}
683: \tdf \propto \sqrt{x}\, \left({1 \over 10}\, x^2+{1 \over 3}\,
684: x-1+{\tan^{-1} \sqrt{x} \over \sqrt{x}}\right),
685: \end{equation}
686: where $x \equiv r_c(E)/a$. Equation~(\ref{eq:1}) can be well-approximated by
687: $\tdf \propto r_c(E)^{2.3}$ for $0.2 \le x \le 30$, comparable to $d=2$. The
688: difference between these results for point masses and our best-fit value of
689: $d=1$ lies in our study of live satellites and in our definition of $\msat$.
690: Because of ambiguities in defining $\msat$ at small radii when significant tidal
691: stripping has occurred, we have chosen to use virial quantities exclusively in
692: equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}), including for the satellite mass $\msat$. Were we
693: to use {\it locally}-defined quantities such as $\msat (t)$, we would expect
694: that $\msat (t) \propto r(t)$ for an isothermal sphere, so that the merger time
695: evaluated as a function of radius is given by $\tdf \propto r^2(t)/\msat (t)
696: \propto r(t)$. It is therefore not surprising that we find $d \sim 1$ to be a
697: better match than $d \approx 2$ to our numerical results.
698:
699:
700: \subsubsection{Numerical comparison}
701:
702: \begin{figure}
703: \centering
704: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig5.eps}
705: \caption{Contours of equal $\tdf$ in the space of satellite-to-host mass ratio
706: $\msat/\mhost$ and orbital circularity $\eta$, assuming $r_c(E)=\rvir$. The
707: black solid curves represent our fitting formula eqs.~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) and
708: (\ref{eq:abcd}); the blue dashed curves correspond to the same SAM shown in
709: Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit}. The labelled times are for a host halo with
710: $\mhost=10^{12}\, M_\odot$ and $a=40$ kpc. The SAM generally under-predicts
711: $\tdf$, with the largest discrepancy at large $\eta$ and small
712: $\msat/\mhost$.}
713: \label{fig:tcontour}
714: \end{figure}
715:
716: In Figs.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit} and \ref{fig:tcontour} we quantify the
717: differences between equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) and prior work discussed in the
718: previous two subsections. Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit} compares $\tdf$(SAM) from
719: a fiducial SAM using equation~(\ref{eq:dfSAM}) and $\tdf$(fit) from our fits to
720: equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) for a range of satellite-to-host mass ratio
721: $\msat/\mhost$ and orbital circularity ($\eta=0.25$, 0.5, and 0.75 for the
722: solid, dashed and dot-dashed curves, respectively). The SAM here assumes
723: $f_{df}=1$, $\Theta_{\rm orb}=\eta^{0.78}$, and $\logl=\ln(1+\mhost/\msat)$.
724: The curves illustrate that the fiducial SAM {\it underestimates} the merger
725: timescale at all masses we have considered regardless of the orbital
726: circularity. Moreover, the disagreement grows as the satellite mass decreases
727: relative to the host: at $\msat/\mhost=0.2$ the SAM timescale is too small by
728: approximately 50\%, while the discrepancy increases to a factor of 3 at
729: $\msat/\mhost=0.025$. If a Coulomb logarithm of $\Lambda=1+(\mhost/\msat)^2$ is
730: used \citep{somerville1999}, the discrepancy increases further by approximately
731: a factor of 2 for $\msat \ll \mhost$. In order to provide a better match to
732: simulations or observations, some groups adjust the normalization of $\tdf$ by
733: setting $f_{df} \not= 1$ (e.g., \citealt[$f_{df}=2$]{de-lucia2007};
734: \citealt[$f_{df}=1.5$]{bower2006}; and \citealt[$f_{df}=0.8$]{nagashima2005}).
735: Although $f_{df} > 1$ goes in the right direction, Figure \ref{fig:sim_sam_fit}
736: shows that a constant $f_{df}$ does a poor job of matching the numerical
737: results.
738:
739: Fig.~\ref{fig:tcontour} compares the contours of constant $\tdf$ in the
740: space of mass ratio $\msat/\mhost$ and orbital circularity $\eta$, as
741: predicted from our fits in equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) (solid curves) and
742: the same SAM from Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit} (dashed curves). The two sets
743: of curves are for the same five merger times: 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 Gyr.
744: All orbits that lie to the right of and below a given contour will merge
745: within the time corresponding to that contour, while those to the left of
746: and above a contour will not. Fig.~\ref{fig:tcontour} shows that even the
747: predictions for orbits with the fastest merging times -- those with low
748: circularities and large mass ratios (the lower-right portion of the figure)
749: -- differ between the SAM and our fit. At larger circularities or smaller
750: mass ratios, the two predictions deviate significantly. As an example, the
751: prediction from our revised formula for 20 Gyr merging times is similar to
752: the curve for 10 Gyr merging times in the SAM.
753:
754: Our results can be compared to the fitting formulae provided by
755: \citet{taffoni2003} [and updated by \citealt{monaco2007}], which are valid
756: for $0.3 \le r_c(E)/ \rvir \le 0.9$. The overall trend we find is
757: qualitatively similar to the results of Taffoni et al. (e.g., their
758: Fig.~7), but the quantitative details are somewhat different. We find that
759: massive satellites ($\msat/\mhost \ga 0.05$) sink more slowly than
760: predicted by Taffoni et al. while light satellites sink more quickly. For
761: example, we predict a timescale that is 25\% shorter than Taffoni et
762: al. for $\msat/\mhost=0.025$, $r_c(E)/\rvir=0.75$, and $\eta=0.65$ but find
763: a timescale that is 40\% longer for a satellite with $\msat/\mhost=0.1$ and
764: identical orbital parameters. Fig.~7 of Taffoni et al. also shows that the
765: deviation of live satellite merger times from a fiducial SAM prediction is
766: not monotonic with $\msat/\mhost$ as is suggested by our
767: Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit} and equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}). In particular,
768: for $\msat/\mhost \la 0.001$ and $\msat/\mhost \ga 0.2$, $\tdf$ is
769: approximately the same in the extended and point mass cases. We have not
770: explored mass ratios lower than 1:100, however, because the sinking times
771: exceed many Hubble times.
772:
773: After this paper was submitted, \citet[hereafter J07]{jiang2007} independently
774: investigated the merging timescales of satellites using $N$-body simulations and
775: came to a similar overall conclusion as that in this paper, namely, that
776: Eqn.~\ref{eq:dfSAM} generally underpredicts merging timescales. J07 used a
777: different $N$-body approach -- cosmological simulations including hydrodynamics
778: -- and obtained a fitting formula that differs in its details from ours.
779: Specifically, J07 found $b=1$ (rather than 1.3) and a significantly weaker
780: dependence on circularity. The aforementioned differences between the methods
781: used in this study and J07, as well as differences in definitions (e.g., we
782: define halo radii relative to $200\,\rho_c$ while J07 use $\Delta_v(z) \,
783: \rho_c$) make a direct comparison non-trivial. However, even for our most major
784: mergers ($\msat/\mhost \ge 0.1$, runs 3x, 5x, and 10x), we still find a
785: significantly stronger dependence on $\eta$ than J07: whereas the fitting
786: formula in J07 predicts a difference in $\tdf$ of only 30\% between $\eta=0.46$
787: and $\eta=1$ orbits, we find a difference of 160\% (runs 5b and 5e). In
788: addition, we find that at fixed orbital parameters, the difference in merger
789: times between our most major merger simulations (the 0.3:1 and 1:5 runs) is
790: somewhat better fit by $b = 1$ than $b = 1.3$. Most of the non-linear
791: dependence on mass-ratio that we find in equation 6 is thus due to the larger
792: mass ratio (more minor) mergers. This suggests that the difference between our
793: preferred value of $b = 1.3$ and J07's value of $b = 1$ may be due to the range
794: of mass ratios considered.
795:
796: \section{A Sample Application}
797:
798: The merger timescale given by equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) can be applied to
799: a wide variety of astrophysical problems. We defer most of these to future
800: papers. To give one concrete example, however, we briefly consider the
801: dissipationless growth of stellar mass for galaxies at the centers of dark
802: matter halos.
803:
804: \begin{figure}
805: \centering
806: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig6.eps}
807: \caption{Fraction of stellar mass gained through mergers (i.e.,
808: satellite accretion) at the host's virial radius $r_{\rm vir}$
809: that makes it down to the central galaxy in time $t$, as a
810: function of the satellite-to-host stellar mass ratio
811: $\xi_{\star}$. The thick solid line is the number of halo-halo
812: mergers at $r_{\rm vir}$ as a function of mass ratio $\xi_{\star}$
813: (normalized to integrate to unity). We consider the predictions
814: of both the fiducial SAM from Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit} and our
815: eqn.~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}). The fiducial SAM predicts that
816: approximately 40\% more mass is accreted in one Hubble time, all
817: of which is in low-$\xi_{\star}$ mergers.}
818: \label{fig:dmdlogxi}
819: \end{figure}
820:
821: In a finite time period, whether or not galaxies can merge following the
822: merger of their much more extended host halos depends on $\tdf$ due to
823: dynamical friction. Given the dark matter halo-halo merger rate $\dd^2
824: N_m/\dd\xi\dd z$ at some redshift $z$, defined as the average number of
825: mergers with mass ratio $\xi=M_2/M_1 \le 1$ leading to halos of mass
826: $M=M_1+M_2$ per halo per redshift per $\xi$, the corresponding growth of
827: stellar mass over a time interval $t$ can be computed using
828: \begin{equation}
829: \label{eq:convol}
830: {\dd^4 M_{\star} \over \dd \xi \, \dd \eta \, \dd E \, \dd z}=
831: M_{\star}(M_2) \frac{\dd ^2 N_m}{\dd\xi\, \dd z}
832: {\dd ^2 P \over \dd \eta \, \dd E} \, \Theta(t-\tdf)
833: \end{equation}
834: where $\dd^2 P/ \dd \eta \, \dd E$ is the probability of two dark matter halos
835: merging with orbital circularity $\eta$ and energy $E$ (typically measured when
836: the two halos' virial radii touch), $\Theta$ is the unit step function, and
837: $M_{\star}(M_2)$ is the stellar mass as a function of dark matter mass. The
838: step function in equation~(\ref{eq:convol}) enforces the fact that only galaxies
839: in halos with $\tdf \le t$ can merge with the central host galaxy in time $t$. A
840: full calculation of $\dd M_{\star}/ \dd t$ would require an appropriate integral
841: of equation~(\ref{eq:convol}) over time $t$, so that all halo-halo mergers are
842: accounted for. Results of the full calculation will be presented in
843: Boylan-Kolchin et al. (in preparation); here we consider instead the simpler
844: problem of using equation~(\ref{eq:convol}) to calculate the fraction of the
845: stellar mass accreted at redshift $z$ at $r_{\rm vir}$ that makes it down to the
846: center within time $t$. In particular, by integrating
847: equation~(\ref{eq:convol}), the stellar mass accreted in satellites of different
848: mass, circularity, or energy can be computed.
849:
850: We first consider the mass spectrum of merging objects that determines
851: whether most of the stellar mass added to the galaxy comes from a small
852: number of massive progenitors or a large number of low-mass progenitors.
853: This is obtained from equation (\ref{eq:convol}) by integrating over $\eta$
854: and $E$, taking into account the dependence of $\tdf$ on each of these
855: orbital parameters. \citet{zentner2005a} found that $\dd P/\dd \eta
856: \propto \eta^{1.2} \, (1-\eta)^{1.2}$, which we use in
857: equation~(\ref{eq:convol}). For simplicity, we assume that all orbits have
858: an energy equal to the energy of a circular orbit at the host's virial
859: radius ($r_c(E)=\rvir$), i.e., $\dd P/ \dd E \, = \,
860: \delta[E-E_{c}(\rvir)]$. The halo merger rate is taken from the analysis
861: of Fakhouri \& Ma (2007, in preparation), who have analyzed merger rates in
862: the Millennium simulation \citep{springel2005b} and find that
863: \begin{equation}
864: \frac{\dd^2 N_m}{\dd\xi\, \dd z} \propto \xi^{-1.92}\, \exp \left[ \left({\xi
865: \over 0.125}\right)^{0.4} \right] \,.
866: \label{eq:rmxi}
867: \end{equation}
868: Finally, we assume that dark matter halo mass and the stellar mass of its
869: central galaxy scale as $M_{dm} \propto M_{\star}^{1.5}$, which is appropriate
870: for massive galaxies in groups and clusters \citep{guzik2002, hoekstra2005,
871: mandelbaum2006a}.
872:
873: Fig.~\ref{fig:dmdlogxi} shows how different dynamical friction
874: prescriptions lead to different cutoffs at the low mass end for the
875: fraction of mass assembled via mergers of a given (stellar) mass ratio
876: $\xi_{\star}$. We plot both the predictions of our numerical fit in
877: equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) and the fiducial SAM from
878: Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_sam_fit}. Techincally, we should consider orbits
879: with $\eta \la 0.2$ separately from those with $\eta \ga 0.2$, as the
880: dynamics of very radial mergers can be strongly affected by the
881: stellar components of the merging galaxies at first pericentric
882: passage, introducing complications that we have not considered in our
883: current analysis. For illustrative purposes, however, these orbits,
884: which account for $\approx 9\%$ of the accreted mass at $\rvir$, are
885: included in Fig.~\ref{fig:dmdlogxi}.
886:
887: In all of the calculations in Fig.~\ref{fig:dmdlogxi}, a wide range of
888: $\xi_{\star} \sim 0.1-1$ contribute to the mass growth of the central
889: galaxy. For a canonical SAM dynamical friction formula, however, a
890: non-negligible amount of extra mass is added in low mass ratio mergers,
891: relative to the predictions of our formula for $\tdf$. In fact, $\dd
892: M_{\star}/ \dd t$ is approximately 40\% larger for $t=t_H$ for the
893: canonical SAM formula for $\tdf$, and all of the extra mass is accreted in
894: low-$\xi$ mergers.
895:
896: Dynamical friction also distorts the orbital distribution of satellites at
897: $\rvir$ of the host, preferentially selecting low angular momentum orbits
898: for accretion onto the central galaxy. This effect is shown in
899: Fig.~\ref{fig:dmdeta}, which shows the initial distribution of orbital
900: circularities (dashed curve; taken from Zentner et al. and assumed to be
901: independent of $\xi$) along with the distribution of circularities for
902: satellites merging within a given fraction of a Hubble time ($\tdf/t_H=0.1,
903: \, 0.316,\, 1.0, \, {\rm and} \, 3.16$). For $\tdf/t_H \gg 1$, the stellar
904: mass accreted as a function of circularity should approach the circularity
905: distribution at $\rvir$, as all satellites will eventually merge. As
906: $\tdf/t_H$ decreases, however, the peak of the distribution shifts to
907: smaller and smaller circularities because low angular momentum satellites
908: merge more rapidly. Fig.~\ref{fig:dmdeta} shows that the peak of the input
909: distribution of circularities ($\dd P/\dd \eta$) is at $\eta=0.5$ but that
910: most of the mass comes in via satellites on orbits with $\eta=0.42$ at
911: $\tdf/t_H=1$ and with $\eta=0.30$ for $\tdf/t_H=0.1$. Shifting the peak of
912: the circularity distribution from 0.5 to 0.42 corresponds to a $30 \%$
913: reduction in the pericentric distance of the orbit, which can have a
914: significant effect on the properties of the merger remnant (see, e.g.,
915: \citealt{boylan-kolchin2006}).
916:
917: \begin{figure}
918: \centering
919: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig7.eps}
920: \caption{Impact of dynamical friction on the orbital properties of
921: satellites that merge with a central galaxy. The input
922: distribution of circularities $\eta$ for halo-halo mergers at
923: $r_{\rm vir}$ with $\xi > 10^{-3}$ is shown with the dashed curve
924: ($dP/d\eta$, taken from \citealt{zentner2005a}). The solid curves
925: show the predicted distribution of $\eta$ for satellite galaxies
926: that merge onto the central galaxy within a specific fraction of a
927: Hubble time using equation~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}). Higher mass ratio
928: and lower angular momentum orbits preferentially accrete, leading
929: to a shift in the $dP/d\eta$ distribution to lower circularities.}
930: \label{fig:dmdeta}
931: \end{figure}
932:
933:
934: \section{Conclusions}
935:
936: Applications of dynamical friction to problems in galaxy formation are often
937: based on classic results derived for point masses sinking in a galaxy with an
938: isothermal density profile (e.g., eq.~[\ref{eq:dfSAM}]). Using direct numerical
939: simulations, we have shown that live dark matter satellites with realistic
940: internal structure and mass ratios in the range relevant for galaxy formation
941: ($0.02 \la \msat/\mhost \la 0.3$) take much longer to merge than the
942: corresponding point-mass satellite results, which are typically used in
943: semi-analytic galaxy formation models (e.g.,
944: Figs.~\ref{fig:dftimes_pred}-\ref{fig:tcontour}). This difference is primarily
945: because the satellites undergo significant mass loss as they sink deeper in the
946: potential well of the host halo. Including a stellar bulge in both the
947: satellite and host changes the merger time by $\la$ 10\% for typical orbital
948: circularities (see Fig.~\ref{fig:stars}). We find that the surprisingly simple
949: fitting formula given in equations~(\ref{eq:tdf_fit}) and (\ref{eq:abcd})
950: provides an accurate ($\la 10 \%$ error) fit to the numerically determined
951: galaxy merging times over the range of mass ratios, orbital circularities, and
952: orbital energies we have considered. The dependence of $\tdf$ on mass ratio,
953: energy, and angular momentum implied by this fit is all somewhat different from
954: standard assumptions in the literature (see \S \ref{sec:compare}). We have
955: chosen to test our results for a range of parameters that are cosmologically
956: interesting, e.g. for satellite-to-host mass ratios for which the satellite
957: undergoes significant orbital evolution within a Hubble time, and for orbital
958: parameters that are relvant according to cosmological dark matter simulations.
959:
960: The results of this paper should be relevant to a wide range of problems in
961: galaxy formation and evolution. For example, halo-halo merger rates as a
962: function of mass ratio $\msat/\mhost$ from extended Press-Schechter theory or
963: cosmological simulations show that a significant amount of dark matter mass is
964: accumulated via accretion of lower-mass halos with $0.02 \la \msat/\mhost \la
965: 0.3$ (e.g., eq.~[\ref{eq:rmxi}] \& Fig.~\ref{fig:dmdlogxi}; \citealt{lacey1993};
966: \citealt{zentner2007}; Fakhouri \& Ma 2007, in prep). Understanding the
967: evolution of the galaxy population in such halos thus requires an accurate
968: understanding of the effects of dynamical friction in precisely the mass range
969: where the point mass approximation is inadequate. To give a few concrete
970: examples, we have shown that standard merging timescales in the literature
971: overestimate the growth of stellar mass by satellite accretion by $\approx 40
972: \%$, with the extra mass gained in low mass ratio mergers
973: (Fig.~\ref{fig:dmdlogxi}). In addition, we have quantified the tendency for
974: satellites that accrete onto a central galaxy to have lower angular momentum
975: than average: the peak in the circularity distribution shifts from $\approx 0.5$
976: to $\approx 0.42$ when one considers only satellites that merge onto a central
977: galaxy within a Hubble time (Fig.~\ref{fig:dmdeta}).
978:
979: Several limitations of our calculations should be noted. For orbits with very
980: low circularity ($\eta \la 0.2$), our results are not applicable because such
981: orbits pass sufficiently close to the center of the host halo on their first
982: pericentric passage that interaction with the central galaxy is important and
983: will decrease the merging timescale. All but two of our 28 simulations neglect
984: the effect of the central galaxy in a given dark matter halo on the merging
985: timescale. As Fig.~\ref{fig:stars} shows, this is a reasonable approximation
986: when considering merging from the virial radius (as we have done), but would be
987: less applicable for studying the detailed evolution of satellites at small radii
988: in a dark matter halo (e.g. \citealt{ostriker1977}). Finally, our results do
989: not take into account drag on ambient gas, which may be important in cluster and
990: group environments (e.g., \citealt{ostriker1999}).
991:
992: \vspace{2cm}
993:
994: We thank the referee for useful suggestions and Volker Springel for making {\sc
995: gadget-2} publicly available. This work used resources from NERSC, which is
996: supported by the US Department of Energy. C-PM is supported in part by NSF
997: grant AST 0407351. EQ is supported in part by NASA grant NNG05GO22H and the
998: David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
999:
1000: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1001: \bibliography{df}
1002: \end{document}
1003: