1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{iaus}
3:
4: %\usepackage{graphicx}
5:
6: %\input epsf
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Variation of Galactic Bar Length with Amplitude and Density
11: as Evidence for Bar Growth over a Hubble Time}
12:
13: \author{Bruce G. Elmegreen}\affil{IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson
14: Research Center, 1101 Kitchawan Road, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598,
15: USA; bge@watson.ibm.com}
16:
17: \author{Debra Meloy Elmegreen}\affil{Vassar College, Dept. of
18: Physics \& Astronomy, Box 745, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA;
19: elmegreen@vassar.edu}
20:
21: \author{Johan H. Knapen}\affil{Instituto de Astrof\'\i sica de
22: Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, Spain; jhk@iac.es}
23:
24: \author{Ronald J. Buta}\affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
25: University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA;
26: buta@sarah.astr.ua.edu}
27:
28: \author{David L. Block}\affil{School of Computational \& Applied Mathematics
29: University of the Witwatersrand P.O Box 60 Wits, 2050, South Africa;
30: block@wits.cam.ac.za}
31:
32: \author{Iv\^anio Puerari}\affil{Instituto Nacional de Astrof\'{\i}sica,
33: Optica y Electr\'onica, Tonantzintla, PUE 72840, Mexico;
34: puerari@inaoep.mx}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: $K_s$-band images of 20 barred galaxies show an increase in the peak
38: amplitude of the normalized $m=2$ Fourier component with the
39: $R_{25}$-normalized radius at this peak. This implies that longer
40: bars have higher $m=2$ amplitudes. The long bars also correlate with
41: an increased density in the central parts of the disks, as measured
42: by the luminosity inside $0.25R_{25}$ divided by the cube of this
43: radius in kpc. Because denser galaxies evolve faster, these
44: correlations suggest that bars grow in length and amplitude over a
45: Hubble time with the fastest evolution occurring in the densest
46: galaxies. All but three of the sample have early-type flat bars;
47: there is no clear correlation between the correlated quantities and
48: the Hubble type.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \keywords{galaxies: structure --- galaxies: spiral}
52:
53: \section{Introduction} \label{sect:intro}
54:
55: Bars should slow down and grow over time as bar angular momentum is
56: transferred to the disk (Tremaine \& Weinberg 1984) and halo
57: (Kormendy 1979; Sellwood 1980; Little \& Carlberg 1991; Hernquist \&
58: Weinberg 1992; Debattista \& Sellwood 1998, 2000; Valenzuela \&
59: Klypin 2003; Athanassoula 2002, 2003). With this growth, the bars
60: should become stronger, longer and thinner (Athanassoula 2003).
61:
62: Pattern speeds are difficult to measure (Knapen 1999) but bar
63: lengths are not (Erwin 2005). To investigate the model predictions,
64: we examined relative bar lengths and intensities in 20 galaxies with
65: conspicuous bars and a range of Hubble types. We consider how these
66: parameters correlate with each other and with the central density of
67: the galaxy. Central luminosity density is used as an indirect
68: measure of the inner angular rotation rate because few galaxies in
69: our sample have observed rotation curves. Galaxies with high central
70: densities should have high central rotation rates and evolve more
71: quickly than galaxies with low central densities. If there is a
72: secular change in bar length or amplitude with angular momentum
73: transfer, then denser galaxies should show the later evolutionary
74: stages.
75:
76: \section{Observations and Analysis}
77:
78: $K_{\rm s}$-band images of barred galaxies were obtained with the
79: Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) from 2004 June 28 to July 5. We
80: used the Infrared Imager and Spectrograph (IRIS2) with a $1024\times
81: 1024$ pixel Rockwell HAWAII-1 HgCdTe detector mounted at the AAT's
82: $f/8$ Cassegrain focus, yielding a pixel scale of
83: 0.447\,arcsec\,px$^{-1}$ and a field of view of 7.7\,arcmin squared.
84: Exposure times were around one hour in almost all cases and the
85: angular resolution was typically 1.5\,arcsec. Full details of the
86: observations will be presented in Buta et al. (2007).
87:
88: Images were pre-processed using standard IRAF\footnote{IRAF is
89: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is
90: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
91: Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National
92: Science Foundation. } routines, and each image was cleaned of
93: foreground stars and background galaxies. Deprojections were derived
94: as follows. For each galaxy, estimates of the orientation parameters
95: were obtained using an ellipse fitting routine, {\it sprite},
96: originally written by W. D. Pence.
97: % and described by Buta et al. (19xx).
98: These fits were either based on the $K_s$-band image itself, or on
99: an optical image if available. Because the bulges may not be as flat
100: as the disks, we used a two-dimensional multi-component
101: decomposition code (Laurikainen, Salo, \& Buta 2005) to derive the
102: parameters of the bulges and disks. Images were deprojected,
103: assuming the bulges are spherical, using the IRAF routine IMLINTRAN.
104: This assumption has little impact on our Fourier analyses. The
105: results of the decompositions, as well as the orientation parameters
106: used, will be presented in Buta et al. (2007).
107:
108: \section{Results}
109:
110: Bar and spiral arm amplitudes were measured from the $m=2$ Fourier
111: components of azimuthal intensity profiles taken at various radii
112: from polar plots using the deprojected, star-cleaned,
113: background-subtracted images (as in Regan \& Elmegreen 1997 and
114: Block et al. 2004). The $m$=2 Fourier intensity amplitude, $I_2$,
115: was normalized to the average intensity, $I_0$, at each radius;
116: $I_2$ is defined to be the amplitude of the sinusoidal fit to the
117: azimuthal profile. Figure \ref{fig:20gal} shows this normalized
118: amplitude, $A_2=I_2/I_0$, versus the radius normalized to the
119: standard isophotal radius $R_{25}$ for each galaxy ($R_{25}$ is half
120: the diameter $D_{25}$ of the $\mu_B=25$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ isophote
121: given by de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). The 20 profiles have been
122: divided into four panels for clarity. Figure \ref{fig:20gal} shows
123: that $A_2$ increases with radius and then decreases. The maximum,
124: $A_2^{max}$, occurs at a radius which we denote by $R_2$. This
125: radius is approximately equal to the bar length determined by eye in
126: all cases. Theory suggests the two lengths should scale together,
127: with $R_2$ slightly less than the visible bar length (Athanassoula
128: \& Misiriotis 2002). A correlation may be seen in Figure
129: \ref{fig:20gal} in the sense that galaxies with higher $A_2^{max}$
130: also have larger radii at this peak (the peaks are indicated by the
131: circles; empty circles are flat bars and circles with plus-signs are
132: exponential bars).
133:
134: This correlation is shown in Figure \ref{fig:correl} (top left),
135: which plots $A_2^{max}$ versus the normalized radius $R_2/R_{25}$.
136: The dashed line is a bi-variate least squares fit, repeated in the
137: other panels. Longer bars are higher amplitude in relative
138: intensity. This is sensible considering the general exponential
139: decline of disk intensity: longer bars extend further out in the
140: disk, placing their ends where the average background is fainter.
141: For example, each radial interval of $\sim0.25R/R_{25}$ corresponds
142: to about one exponential scale length in most galaxies, which is a
143: factor of 2.7 in disk brightness. This factor is only slightly
144: larger than the increase in Figure \ref{fig:correl}. Thus, growing
145: bars can stay somewhat flat in their intensity profile and still
146: increase their relative amplitude along with their length because
147: the surrounding disk is decreasing with radius. Bars apparently grow
148: relative to the disk size even if the disk grows too because of
149: angular momentum transfer from the bar (Valenzuela \& Klypin 2003).
150:
151: Figure \ref{fig:correl} (top right) includes three previous surveys
152: in which this correlation was present but not noticed. The crosses
153: are from $K$-band images of 8 different barred galaxies studied by
154: Regan \& Elmegreen (1997), the circles are from $K_s$-band images of
155: 24 different early type (S0-Sa) barred galaxies in Buta et al.
156: (2006), and the triangles are from 10 $I$-band images of different
157: galaxies in Elmegreen \& Elmegreen (1985). Among these three
158: samples, there are only 3 overlapping galaxies and they are only
159: between the 1985 and 1997 surveys. The Regan \& Elmegreen
160: $A_2^{max}$ values were multiplied by 2 because they used the
161: standard definition of a Fourier component, which, for example,
162: gives a relative value of 0.5 for an azimuthal profile of
163: $1+\sin(2\theta)$. We and the other references in Figure
164: \ref{fig:correl} use twice the Fourier component to reflect the
165: amplitude of the sinusoidal part of the profile.
166:
167: The lower panels of Figure \ref{fig:correl} show correlations
168: present in data from two other studies of bar Fourier amplitudes.
169: The lower left panel shows data from Laurikainen et al. (2006), who
170: determined the Fourier amplitudes and bar radii for 28 early type
171: galaxies (S0,Sa, Sab) in $K_s$ band. The lower right panel shows
172: data from Laurikainen et al. (2004), who used the Ohio State Bright
173: Galaxy Survey and 2MASS to measure the H-band properties of 113
174: galaxies of various Hubble types. Their tabulations give the bar
175: lengths, not the radii at the peak of the Fourier amplitude. Bar
176: length is slightly larger than $R_2$, so the points are shifted to
177: the right of the dashed lines in the figures. Also, $A_2$ is lower
178: for S0 galaxies than other early types, which lowers some of the
179: points in the lower left panel (Laurikainen, Salo, \& Buta 2004).
180: The present correlation was not noticed in either study but it is
181: present in the data.
182:
183: Our previous study of $K_s$-band images for 17 barred galaxies
184: (Block et al. 2004) found a length-amplitude correlation related to
185: the present one. There we plotted the bar/interbar intensity
186: contrast at 0.7 bar length versus the deprojected length of the bar
187: (determined by eye). There was no overlap in galaxies with the
188: present or the Buta et al. (2006) samples, and only one overlap each
189: with the Regan \& Elmegreen (1997) and Elmegreen \& Elmegreen (1985)
190: samples. The bar/interbar intensity contrast was shown by Block et
191: al. to correlate with the relative amplitude of the $m=2$ Fourier
192: component, and with the bar torque parameter, $Q_b$. This previous
193: study discussed the length-amplitude correlation in a different
194: context, however, noting that the long and high-amplitude bars
195: tended to be early Hubble type and flat-profile, while the short and
196: low-amplitude bars tended to be late Hubble type and exponential.
197: This is true in general, but the present result is in addition to
198: that. In the present work, the length-amplitude correlation is
199: present even for the flat bars, and there is no strong correlation
200: with Hubble type because most of our galaxies are flat-barred.
201:
202: The $R_2/R_{25}$ length is plotted versus Hubble type for our sample
203: in Figure \ref{fig:ht}. The circled plus-signs are exponential bars,
204: and the rest are flat bars. Most of the galaxies in our current
205: sample are Hubble types Sbc or earlier. The three exponential bars
206: in our sample have slightly weaker Fourier components than the
207: average for the flat bars (Fig. \ref{fig:correl}). Evidently, there
208: are two length-amplitude correlations: one discussed by Block et al.
209: differentiating early and late type bars (which is presumably
210: related to different bar resonances; Combes \& Elmegreen 1993), and
211: another found here that remains even for early-type, flat bars. The
212: lower right panel of Figure \ref{fig:correl} illustrates these two
213: correlations in another way by plotting the various Hubble types
214: with different symbols. The late types tend to be confined to the
215: lower left in the figure, while the early types display the full
216: range of bar lengths and amplitudes.
217:
218: Laurikainen, Salo, \& Buta (2004) found no correlation between the
219: peak relative torque, $Q_g$, normalized to the radial force, and the
220: relative radius at the peak of this torque. The relative torque is a
221: combination of the azimuthal bar amplitude, which determines the
222: torque, and the radial force from the bulge, which is used to
223: normalize this torque. Stronger-bulge galaxies have weaker bar
224: torques for the same relative $m=2$ component. Bulges do not affect
225: the peak $A_2$ much because the bulge intensity at the end of the
226: bar is small. On the other hand, bulges do affect $Q_g$ because the
227: radial force from the bulge is still large at the bar end.
228:
229: The central luminosity densities of the galaxies were measured from
230: the $K_s$-band luminosities inside $0.125R_{25}$, $0.25R_{25}$, and
231: $0.5R_{25}$. The $K_s$-band is dominated by old stars and traces the
232: mass fairly well if dark matter is not significant there. Most of
233: the galaxies are early type and centrally condensed so the 3
234: luminosities measured in this way were all about equal. Because the
235: $R_2/R_{25}$ lengths vary from $\sim0.1R_{25}$ to $\sim0.5R_{25}$,
236: and we want a representative density in the bar region, we use the
237: luminosity inside $0.25R_{25}$. The central density is then taken to
238: be this luminosity divided by the cube of the radius at
239: $0.25R_{25}$, measured in kpc using the distances in Table 1 (from
240: the galactocentric GSR in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database).
241: Figure \ref{fig:density} shows the central $K_s$-band density versus
242: the normalized radius at the peak $m=2$ amplitude (plus signs denote
243: exponential bars). There is a correlation in the sense that longer
244: bars occur in denser galaxies.
245:
246: These two correlations provide new information to supplement
247: properties found in other bar correlations. Athanassoula \& Martinet
248: (1980) and Martin (1995) found a correlation between the lengths of
249: bars and bulges, and Elmegreen \& Elmegreen (1985) found a
250: correlation between bar length, amplitude, and early versus late
251: Hubble types, as mentioned above (see review in Ohta 1996).
252:
253: \section{Discussion}
254:
255: We find that among fairly early type galaxies, relative bar length
256: and relative $m=2$ intensity correlate with each other but not
257: obviously with the Hubble subtype. The lengths and amplitudes also
258: correlate with the central luminosity density of the galaxy. These
259: correlations are in the sense expected by numerical simulations
260: which suggest that angular momentum gradually transfers from a bar
261: to the surrounding disk, bulge, and halo (see Athanassoula 2003 and
262: references therein). With a loss of angular momentum, bars should
263: slow down, and this means their corotation radii move outward. The
264: stellar orbits in the bar should also get more elongated as angular
265: momentum is proportional to the orbital area, and this translates to
266: ellipticity for a constant orbital energy. As the orbital
267: ellipticity increases, the stars become more concentrated in the bar
268: and the bar gets stronger. If the orbits also scatter in energy,
269: then their semi-major axes should grow too, following the moving
270: corotation resonance. In this case, bars would grow in length as
271: they get higher relative amplitudes during angular momentum loss.
272: This is apparently what we observe here.
273:
274: The correlation with central density is consistent with angular
275: momentum loss because galaxies with higher central densities evolve
276: faster. In a given galaxy lifetime, the bars which evolve faster
277: will have transferred more of their angular momentum outward and at
278: the present time will have longer and higher-amplitude bars. The
279: correlation with central density could also result from a larger
280: reservoir for bar angular momentum in the larger bulges. An inverse
281: process might be responsible too, where a strong bar forms first and
282: this causes the bulge to grow through accretion (e.g., Athanassoula
283: 1992, 2003).
284:
285: The lack of a correlation between relative bar length and peak
286: relative bar torque $Q_g$ may be understood from our correlations
287: with central density. For a given bulge, angular momentum transfer
288: should increase both the peak amplitude and the peak torque of the
289: bar over time. Galaxies with denser bulges do this faster, so at any
290: given time, the peak amplitude correlates with bulge density.
291: However, denser bulges weaken $Q_g$ because this quantity is
292: normalized to the radial force (Laurikainen, Salo, \& Buta 2004).
293: This normalization offsets the increasing bar amplitude that comes
294: from angular momentum transfer. As a result, $Q_g$ does not show the
295: same correlations as the $m=2$ Fourier amplitude.
296:
297: Galaxies with dense bulges should not have bars if bulges prevent
298: bar formation or growth (e.g., Sellwood 1980). However, our data
299: show that high central densities correlate with high-amplitude bars.
300: The observed correlation suggests that bars and bulges grow
301: together, in agreement with Sheth et al. (2007).
302:
303: \section{Conclusions}
304:
305: Bars in intermediate and early type spirals have a correlation
306: between their relative lengths and their relative $m=2$ Fourier
307: components, and both increase with the central density. These
308: correlations are consistent with models in which bars lose angular
309: momentum to the surrounding disk, bulge, and halo over long periods
310: of secular evolution. The bars contain very old stars and must have
311: been present for a high fraction of the Hubble time, like the
312: bulges.
313:
314: \acknowledgements We thank Emma Allard for help during the
315: observations and with the data reduction, and Stuart Ryder for
316: excellent support at the AAT. We thank Heikki Salo and Eija
317: Laurikainen for useful comments on the manuscript. Helpful comments
318: by the referee are appreciated. DME thanks Vassar College for
319: publication support through a Research Grant. RB acknowledges the
320: support of NSF grant AST 05-07140. I.P. acknowledges support from
321: the Mexican foundation CONACyT under project 35947.E. This
322: research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)
323: which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
324: Institute of Technology, under contract with the National
325: Aeronautics and Space Administration.
326:
327:
328: \begin{thebibliography}{}
329:
330: \bibitem[]{} Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345
331:
332: \bibitem[]{279} Athanassoula, E. 2002, ApJ, 569, L83
333:
334: \bibitem[]{281} Athanassoula, E. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179
335:
336: \bibitem[]{283} Athanassoula E., \& Martinet L., 1980, A\&A, 87, L10
337:
338: \bibitem[]{} Athanassoula, E., \& Misiriotis, A. 2002, MNRAS, 330,
339: 35
340:
341: \bibitem[]{} Buta, R., Corwin, H. G., \& Odewahn, S. C. 2007, The de
342: Vaucouleurs Atlas of Galaxies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
343:
344: \bibitem[]{285} Buta, R., Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., Block, D.L., \&
345: Knapen, J.H. 2006, AJ, 132, 1859
346:
347: \bibitem[]{288} Buta, R. et al. 2007, in preparation
348:
349: \bibitem[]{290} Block, D.L., Buta, R., Knapen, J.H., Elmegreen, D.M., Elmegreen, B.G., \& Puerari, I. 2004, AJ, 128, 183
350:
351: \bibitem[]{292} Combes, F., \& Elmegreen, B. G. 1993, A\&A, 271, 391
352:
353: \bibitem[]{294} Debattista V. P., \& Sellwood J. A., 1998, ApJ, 493, L5
354:
355: \bibitem[]{296} Debattista V. P., \& Sellwood J. A., 2000, ApJ, 543, 704
356:
357: \bibitem[]{298} de Vaucouleurs, G. et al. 1999, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies, Springer (RC3)
358:
359: \bibitem[]{300} Elmegreen B. G., \& Elmegreen D. M., 1985, ApJ, 288, 438
360:
361: \bibitem[]{302} Erwin, P. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 283
362:
363: \bibitem[]{304} Hernquist L., \& Weinberg M. D., 1992, ApJ, 400, 80
364:
365: \bibitem[]{306} Knapen , J.H. 1999, ASPC, 187, 72
366:
367: \bibitem[]{308} Kormendy J., 1979, ApJ, 227, 714
368:
369: \bibitem[]{} Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., Buta, R., \& Vasylyev, S.
370: 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1251
371:
372: \bibitem[]{} Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., \& Buta, R. 2004, ApJ, 607,
373: 103
374:
375: \bibitem[]{} Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., \& Buta, R. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 1319
376:
377: \bibitem[]{} Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., Buta, R., Knapen, J., Speltincx,
378: T., \& Block, D. 2006, ApJ, 132, 2634
379:
380: \bibitem[]{310} Little B., \& Carlberg R. G., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 161
381:
382: \bibitem[]{312} Martin P., 1995, AJ, 109, 2428
383:
384: \bibitem[]{314} Ohta K., 1996, in Buta R., Crocker D., \& Elmegreen B.,
385: eds, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 91, Barred Galaxies. (San Francisco:
386: Astron. Soc. Pac.), p. 37
387:
388: \bibitem[]{318} Regan, M.W., \& Elmegreen, D.M. 1997, AJ, 114, 965
389:
390: \bibitem[]{320} Sellwood, J.A. 1980, A\&A, 89, 296
391:
392: \bibitem[]{322} Sheth, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, in press
393:
394: \bibitem[]{324} Tremaine S., \& Weinberg M. D., 1984, MNRAS, 209, 729
395:
396: \bibitem[]{326} Valenzuela, O., \& Klypin, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 406
397:
398: \end{thebibliography}
399:
400: \clearpage
401:
402: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
403: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablewidth{0pt}
404: \tablecaption{Barred Galaxies\label{table1}}
405: \tablehead{Galaxy&typetablenotemark{a}&D (Mpc)&R$_{25}$ (arcsec)&$R_2/R_{25}$\tablenotemark{b}&$I_2/I_0$\tablenotemark{c}\\
406: &&&&&&} \startdata
407: NGC175 &SB(\b{r}s)ab&53.9&64.1&0.2&0.33\\
408: NGC521 &SB(\b{r}s)bc& 69.6 & 94.9 & 0.15 & 0.18\\
409: NGC613 &SB(rs)bc& 19.8 & 164.9 & 0.5 & 0.4\\
410: NGC986 &(R$^\prime_1$)SB(rs)b& 25.7 & 116.7 & 0.6 & 0.62 \\
411: NGC4593 &(R$^\prime_1$)SB(rs)ab& 35.6 & 116.7 & 0.5 & 0.48\\
412: NGC5101 &(R$_1$R$^\prime_2$)SB(\b{r}s)a& 23.7 & 161.1 & 0.3 & 0.36\\
413: NGC5335 &SB(r)b& 63.2 & 64.1 & 0.2 & 0.5\\
414: NGC5365 &(R)SB0$^-$& 31.6 & 88.5 & 0.3 & 0.34\\
415: NGC6221 &SB(s)bc pec& 19 & 106.4 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
416: NGC6782 &(R$_1$R$^\prime_2$)SB(r)a& 52.6 & 65.6 & 0.4 & 0.37\\
417: NGC6907 &SAB(s)bc& 44.5 & 99.3 & 0.3 & 0.42\\
418: NGC7155 &SB(r)0$^o$& 26.7 & 65.6 & 0.3 & 0.31\\
419: NGC7329 &SB(r)b& 43.1 & 116.7 & 0.2 & 0.33 &\\
420: NGC7513 &SB(s)b& 21.9 & 94.9 & 0.25 & 0.35 &\\
421: NGC7552 &(R$^\prime_1$)SB(s)ab& 21.7 & 101.7 & 0.55 & 0.6\\
422: NGC7582 &(R$^\prime_1$)SB(s)ab& 21.3 & 150.4 & 0.45 & 0.45\\
423: IC1438 &(R$_1$R$^\prime_2$)SAB(r)a& 20 & 72 & 0.3 & 0.385\\
424: IC4290 &(R$^\prime$)SB(r)a& 64.3 & 47.6 & 0.4 & 0.42\\
425: IC5092 &(R)SB(s)c& 43.3 & 86.5 & 0.2 & 0.33\\
426: UGC10862 &SB(rs)c& 24.8 & 82.6 & 0.2 & 0.31\\
427: \enddata
428: \tablenotetext{a}{Classifications are either from the de Vaucouleurs
429: Atlas of Galaxies (Buta, Corwin, \& Odewahn 2007) or estimated by RB
430: in the same system based on available image
431: material.}\tablenotetext{b}{Relative radius of peak relative $m=2$
432: Fourier amplitude.} \tablenotetext{c}{Peak relative $m=2$ Fourier
433: amplitude.}
434: \end{deluxetable}
435:
436: \clearpage
437: \begin{figure}\epsscale{1}
438: \plotone{f1.eps}\caption{Relative amplitude of the $m=2$ Fourier
439: component of the bar and spiral pattern versus radius for 20
440: galaxies. Circles show the peaks. Circles with plus signs are bars
441: with exponential intensity profiles, the others have relatively flat
442: profiles.}\label{fig:20gal}
443: \end{figure}
444:
445: \clearpage
446: \begin{figure}\epsscale{0.7}
447: \plotone{f2.eps}\caption{Peak relative amplitude of the $m=2$
448: Fourier component versus the normalized radius at the peak. Left:
449: galaxies in Fig. 1 all imaged in $K_s$ band (plus signs are
450: exponential bars). Slight displacements among a triplet at
451: $R_2/R_{25}=0.2$ are for clarity. Published measurements from other
452: surveys are shown in the top right and bottom. Top right: three
453: surveys in various passbands having little overlap with galaxies in
454: the present study (see text). Bottom left: 28 early type (S0,Sa,
455: Sab) galaxies imaged in $K_s$ band in a combined southern and
456: northern survey by Laurikainen et al. (2006). Bottom right: 104
457: galaxies imaged in H-band with the Ohio State Bright Galaxy Survey
458: and 9 galaxies imaged in H-band with 2MASS, all of various Hubble
459: types, using measurements in Laurikainen et al. (2004). All surveys
460: indicate that bars that are longer compared to their galaxy size
461: have higher peak relative $m=2$ Fourier amplitudes. This correlation
462: is present even for early type galaxies. A second, well-known
463: correlation between bar length and Hubble type is evident from the
464: lower right panel where the late Hubble types (solid symbols, plus
465: and cross) tend to have shorter and weaker bars than the early types
466: (open symbols).}\label{fig:correl}
467: \end{figure}
468:
469: \clearpage
470: \begin{figure}\epsscale{1}
471: \plotone{f3.eps}\caption{Hubble type versus the normalized radius at
472: the peak relative $m=2$ Fourier component (i.e., the relative bar
473: size) showing little correlation in our sample. The circles with
474: plus signs are galaxies with exponential bars; the rest have
475: flat-profile bars. Slight displacements are for
476: clarity.}\label{fig:ht}
477: \end{figure}
478:
479: \clearpage
480: \begin{figure}\epsscale{1}
481: \plotone{f4.eps}\caption{Luminosity density at $R_{25}/4$ versus the
482: normalized radius at the peak relative $m=2$ component. Luminosities
483: are in units of the count rate per unit solid angle integrated
484: inside $R_{25}/4$, and are calibrated to the same intensity scale
485: for all galaxies. Plus signs indicate exponential bars. There is a
486: correlation in which relatively longer bars have denser galactic
487: centers, suggesting bar growth during a Hubble
488: time.}\label{fig:density}
489: \end{figure}
490:
491:
492: \end{document}
493: