1: % !iTeXMac(typeset): altpdflatex --keep-psfile ${iTMInput}
2: % !iTeXMac(compile): "./local Command"
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \documentclass{emulateapj}
5: \usepackage{apjfonts}
6: \bibliographystyle{apj}
7:
8: %\newcommand{\scaleup}{}
9: %\newcommand{\scaledown}{}
10: %\newcommand{\plotter}{\includegraphics[scale=0.70]}
11: %\newcommand{\plotterr}{\includegraphics[scale=0.50]}
12: %\newcommand{\breaker}{\clearpage}
13: %\newcommand{\longtabler}{}
14: %\newcommand{\tableast}{\ast}
15: %\newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{}
16: \newcommand{\scaleup}{\epsscale{1.1}}
17: \newcommand{\scaledown}{\epsscale{0.9}}
18: \newcommand{\plotter}{\plotone}
19: \newcommand{\plotterr}{\plotone}
20: \newcommand{\breaker}{}
21: \newcommand{\tableast}{$\ast$}
22: \newcommand{\longtabler}{\LongTables}
23: \newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{\twocolumngrid}
24:
25: \newcommand{\tableset}{deluxetable}
26: \newcommand{\tableclear}{\clearpage}
27: \newcommand{\Mdot}{\dot{M}}
28: \newcommand{\mdot}{\dot{m}}
29: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
30: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}
31: \newcommand{\mstar}{M_{\ast}}
32: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\sun}}
33: \newcommand{\lstar}{L_{\ast}}
34: \newcommand{\phistar}{\phi_{\ast}}
35: \newcommand{\pstar}{\phistar}
36: \newcommand{\reducedchi}{\chi^{2}/\nu}
37: \newcommand{\qeos}{q_{\rm eos}}
38: \newcommand{\fgas}{f_{\rm gas}}
39: \newcommand{\mdyn}{M_{\rm dyn}}
40: \newcommand{\re}{R_{\rm e}}
41: \newcommand{\fsb}{f_{\rm sb}}
42: \newcommand{\mdisk}{M_{\rm disk}}
43: \newcommand{\scalelen}{R_{\rm d}}
44: \newcommand{\barangle}{\phi_{b}}
45: \newcommand{\orbitfreq}{\Omega_{\rm o}}
46: \newcommand{\diskfreq}{\Omega_{\rm d}}
47: \newcommand{\degree}{^{\circ}}
48:
49:
50: \shorttitle{How Do Disks Survive Mergers?}
51: \shortauthors{Hopkins \etal}
52: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, June 5, 2008}
53: \begin{document}
54:
55: \title{How Do Disks Survive Mergers?}
56: \author{Philip F. Hopkins\altaffilmark{1},
57: Thomas J. Cox\altaffilmark{1,2},
58: Joshua D. Younger\altaffilmark{1},
59: \&\ Lars Hernquist\altaffilmark{1}
60: }
61: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
62: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
63: \altaffiltext{2}{W.~M.\ Keck Postdoctoral Fellow at the
64: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics}
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67:
68: We develop a general physical model for how
69: galactic disks survive and/or are destroyed in mergers and interactions.
70: Based on simple dynamical arguments, we show that gas primarily loses
71: angular momentum to internal torques in a merger, induced by
72: the gravity of the secondary. Gas within
73: some characteristic radius, determined by the efficiency of
74: this angular momentum loss (itself a function of the orbital parameters,
75: mass ratio, and gas fraction of the merging galaxies), will
76: quickly lose angular momentum to the stars sharing the perturbed host disk, fall to the
77: center and be consumed in a starburst. We
78: use a similar analysis to determine where violent relaxation of the pre-merger
79: stellar disks is efficient on final coalescence.
80: Our model describes both the dissipational and dissipationless
81: components of the merger, and allows us to predict, for a
82: given arbitrary encounter, the stellar and gas content of the material
83: that will survive (without significant angular momentum loss or violent relaxation)
84: to re-form a disk in the merger remnant, versus being dissipationlessly
85: violently relaxed or dissipationally losing angular momentum and
86: forming a compact central starburst.
87: We test these predictions with a large library of hydrodynamic merger
88: simulations, and show that they agree well (with small scatter)
89: with the properties of simulated merger remnants as a function of
90: merger mass ratio, orbital parameters, and gas distributions,
91: in simulations which span a wide range of parameter space
92: in these properties as well as prescriptions for gas physics,
93: stellar and AGN feedback, halo and initial disk structural
94: properties, redshift, and galaxy masses.
95: We show that, in an immediate (short-term) sense, the amount of stellar
96: or gaseous disk that survives or re-forms
97: following a given interaction can be understood purely
98: in terms of simple, well-understood gravitational physics,
99: independent of the details of the ISM gas physics or
100: stellar and AGN feedback.
101: This allows us to demonstrate and quantify how these physics are
102: in fact important, in an indirect sense, to enable disks to survive
103: mergers, by lowering star formation efficiencies in low mass systems
104: (allowing them to retain large gas fractions) and distributing the
105: gas to large radii. The efficiency of disk destruction in mergers is a
106: strong function of gas content -- our model allows us to explicitly
107: predict and demonstrate how, in sufficiently gas rich mergers (with quite
108: general orbital parameters), even 1:1 mass-ratio mergers can yield
109: disk-dominated remnants, and more realistic 1:3-1:4 mass-ratio
110: major mergers can yield systems with $<20\%$ of their mass in bulges.
111: We discuss a number of implications of this modeling for
112: the abundance and morphology of bulges as a function of mass and
113: redshift, and provide simple prescriptions for the implementation of our
114: results in analytic or semi-analytic models of galaxy formation.
115:
116: \end{abstract}
117:
118: \keywords{galaxies: formation --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: active ---
119: galaxies: spiral --- cosmology: theory}
120:
121: \section{Introduction}
122: \label{sec:intro}
123:
124: In the now established ``concordance'' $\Lambda$CDM cosmology,
125: structure grows hierarchically \citep[e.g.][]{whiterees78}, making mergers and interactions
126: between galaxies an essential and inescapable process in
127: galaxy formation. Indeed, mergers are widely believed to be
128: responsible for the morphologies of spheroids \citep[bulges in disks
129: and elliptical galaxies;][]{toomre77}, and
130: observations find recent merger remnants in
131: considerable abundance in the local universe
132: \citep{schweizer82,LakeDressler86,Doyon94,ShierFischer98,James99,
133: Genzel01,tacconi:ulirgs.sb.profiles,dasyra:mass.ratio.conditions,dasyra:pg.qso.dynamics,
134: rj:profiles,rothberg.joseph:kinematics} as well as e.g.\ faint
135: shells and tidal features common around apparently ``normal''
136: galaxies \citep{malin80,malin83,schweizer80,
137: schweizerseitzer92,schweizer96}, which are thought to be
138: signatures of galaxy collisions \citep[e.g.][]{hernquistquinn88,hernquist.spergel.92}.
139:
140: From both theoretical grounds
141: \citep[][and references therein]{ostrikertremaine75,maller:sph.merger.rates,
142: fakhouri:halo.merger.rates,stewart:mw.minor.accretion} and
143: observations \citep[e.g.][]{lin:merger.fraction,barton:triggered.sf,
144: woods:tidal.triggering,
145: woods:minor.mergers} it appears that ``minor'' mergers
146: of mass ratios $\lesssim 1:10$ are ubiquitous (there are
147: almost no galaxies without mergers of at least this mass ratio in the
148: last few Gyr), and moreover a large fraction ($\sim1/2$) of the $\sim L_{\ast}$
149: galaxy population is observed and expected
150: to have experienced a ``major'' merger
151: (mass ratio $\lesssim1:3$) since $z\sim2-3$
152: \citep{lotz:merger.fraction,bell:merger.fraction,
153: bridge:merger.fractions,lin:mergers.by.type,kartaltepe:pair.fractions}.
154: With increasing redshift, kinematic and morphological
155: indications of recent, violent disturbance in disk-dominated galaxies
156: appear more frequent \citep{hammer:obs.disks.w.mergers,
157: flores:tf.evolution,puech:highz.vsigma.disks,puech:tf.evol}.
158:
159:
160: Far from there not being enough mergers to explain the abundance
161: of bulges and ellipticals, this has led to the
162: concern that there may be far too {\em many} mergers to
163: explain the survival and abundance of galactic disks in the context
164: of our present understanding of galaxy formation.
165: \citet{toomre72} were among the first to point out that mergers
166: are capable of dramatically altering the morphologies of disks,
167: transforming them into elliptical galaxies.
168: Although their neglect of the importance of dissipational star formation
169: and gas dynamics in the mergers led to some
170: controversy \citep[e.g.][]{ostriker80,carlberg:phase.space,gunn87,kormendy:dissipation},
171: it is now increasingly well-established that
172: major mergers between spiral galaxies (similar to those observed
173: locally and at $z\lesssim2-3$) with gas fractions comparable to those
174: observed yields remnants in good agreement with
175: essentially all observed properties of low and intermediate-mass
176: local elliptical galaxies \citep[e.g.\ morphologies, shapes, sizes, kinematics, densities, colors,
177: black hole properties, fundamental scaling relations,
178: stellar populations, and halo gas;][]{hernquist.89,
179: barnes.hernquist.91,barneshernquist96,
180: hernquist:phasespace,mihos:gradients,mihos:starbursts.96,
181: dimatteo:msigma,naab:gas,jesseit:kinematics,
182: cox:xray.gas,cox:kinematics,robertson:fp,springel:red.galaxies,burkert:anisotropy,
183: hopkins:clustering,
184: hopkins:cusps.ell,hopkins:cores,hopkins:cusps.fp,hopkins:groups.ell,hopkins:cusps.mergers}.
185:
186: Many
187: intermediate and low-luminosity ``cusp''
188: ellipticals (encompassing $\sim80-90\%$ of the
189: mass density in ellipticals) contain significant embedded disks
190: \citep[perhaps all such ellipticals, given projection effects; see][]{ferrarese:type12,lauer:centers},
191: and they form a continuous sequence with most S0 galaxies, known to
192: have prominent stellar (and even gaseous) disks \citep{kormendy:spheroidal1,
193: bender:ell.kinematics,ferrarese:type12,kormendy94:review,lauer:95,
194: faber:ell.centers,kormendy99,ferrarese:profiles,emsellem:sauron.rotation}.
195: Indeed, the existence of embedded disks in simulated merger remnants is critical
196: to matching the properties described above.
197:
198: A wide variety of observations including stellar populations and star formation histories
199: \citep[e.g.][]{bender89,trager:ages,
200: mcdermid:sauron.profiles} and kinematic and structural analysis of recent
201: merger remnants \citep{schweizer83,schweizer83:review,schweizerseitzer92,
202: schweizer:ngc34.disk,hibbard.yun:excess.light,rj:profiles} demonstrate that
203: most of these disks are not accreted in the standard cosmological
204: fashion after the spheroid
205: forms -- they must somehow survive the merger or form very quickly thereafter from
206: gas already in and around the galaxies. Therefore, despite the destruction of a
207: large portion of a stellar disk in major mergers, {\em some} disk must survive mergers,
208: and the amount that does so is a critical component determining
209: many of the photometric and kinematic properties of even bulge-dominated
210: and elliptical galaxies.
211:
212: Moreover, ``minor'' mergers -- at least those with mass ratios $\lesssim10:1$ (below
213: which the difference between ``merger'' and accretion becomes increasingly blurred) --
214: are not generally believed to entirely destroy disks, but they
215: are almost an order of magnitude more frequent than major
216: mergers and as such may pose a
217: more severe a problem for disk survival.
218: In the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology,
219: and from observed satellite fractions,
220: it is unlikely than any disk (let alone a large fraction of disk galaxies)
221: with a significant stellar age
222: has survived $\sim5-10$\,Gyr without
223: experiencing a merger of mass ratio $10:1$ or larger.
224: Simulations \citep{quinn.84,quinn86:dynfric.on.sats,quinn93.minor.mergers,
225: hernquist.mihos:minor.mergers,
226: walker:disk.fragility.minor.merger,velazquezwhite:disk.heating,
227: naab:minor.mergers,
228: bournaud:minor.mergers,younger:antitruncated.disks,younger:minor.mergers}
229: and analytic
230: arguments \citep{ostrikertremaine75,tothostriker:disk.heating,
231: sellwood:resonant.disk.thickening}
232: suggest that gas-poor minor mergers can convert a considerable
233: fraction of a stellar disk into bulge and cause significant
234: perturbation (``puffing up'' via dynamical heating) to the disk.
235: The observed coldness of galactic disks suggests that
236: this may be a severe problem:
237: \citet{tothostriker:disk.heating} argued that large disks such as
238: that in the Milky Way could not have undergone a merger of
239: mass ratio $\lesssim10:1$ in the last $\sim10\,$Gyr. More
240: recently e.g.\ \citet{stewart:mw.minor.accretion} and
241: \citet{hammer:mw.no.mergers} emphasized that the tension
242: between these constraints and the expectation in CDM models that a
243: number of such mergers should occur implies either a deficit in our
244: understanding of hierarchical disk formation or a challenge to the
245: concordance cosmological model.
246:
247: Given the successes of the $\Lambda$CDM model on large scales,
248: and the increasing observational confirmation that disks do undergo
249: (and therefore must somehow survive)
250: a large number of mergers, it is likely that the problem lies in
251: our (still relatively poor) understanding of disk galaxy formation.
252: This has led to a great deal of focus on the problem of forming realistic
253: disks in a cosmological context, with many different attempts and
254: debate on the missing elements necessary to produce disks in
255: simulations. Various groups have argued
256: that self-consistent treatment of gas physics and star formation
257: along with implementation of
258: feedback of different kinds is necessary, along with greatly improved
259: numerical resolution \citep{weil98:cooling.suppression.key.to.disks,
260: sommerlarsen99:disk.sne.fb,sommerlarsen03:disk.sne.fb,
261: thackercouchman00,thackercouchman01,abadi03:disk.structure,
262: governato04:resolution.fx,governato:disk.formation,
263: robertson:cosmological.disk.formation,
264: okamoto:feedback.vs.disk.morphology,scannapieco:fb.disk.sims},
265: in order to enable disks to survive
266: their expected violent merger histories without completely
267: losing angular momentum and transforming into systems that
268: are too compact and have too much bulge mass (relative
269: to real observed disks) by $z=0$.
270:
271: It has been known for some time \citep[see e.g.][]{hernquist:kinematic.subsystems,
272: barneshernquist96} that (even
273: without any feedback) some
274: fraction of the gas in even a major merger of two disks
275: can survive and form new, embedded disks in the remnant --
276: i.e.\ despite the problems outlined above, disks are not necessarily
277: completely destroyed in mergers. However,
278: early studies of this were restricted to cases with low gas
279: content ($f_{\rm gas}\lesssim10\%$ in the progenitor disks), most of which was
280: rapidly consumed in star formation, yielding small remnant disks in
281: strongly bulge-dominated remnants.
282: In seminal work, \citet{springel:spiral.in.merger} and
283: \citet{robertson:disk.formation} showed that, in idealized merger simulations
284: with significant stellar feedback to allow
285: the stable evolution of extremely gas rich disks ($f_{\rm gas}\sim1$),
286: even a major merger can produce a
287: disk-dominated remnant.
288: This has since been confirmed in fully cosmological simulations
289: \citep{governato:disk.formation}.
290: Together with other recent investigations (see references above), these works have
291: led to the growing consensus that a combination of strong stellar feedback and
292: large gas content is essential to the survival of disk galaxies.
293:
294: A large number of open questions remain,
295: however. How, exactly, does feedback
296: allow disks to survive mergers? What are the most important physics?
297: Does it require fine-tuning of feedback prescriptions? How might
298: things vary as a function of galaxy mass, redshift, gas content,
299: merger orbits, and environment? Fundamentally, should this be expected
300: for typical cosmological circumstances, or are these cases
301: pathological?
302:
303: The ambiguity largely owes to the fact that there is no deep physical
304: understanding of how disks survive or re-form after mergers and
305: interactions. It has only just become possible to conduct simulations
306: with the requisite large gas fractions, and thus far theoretical explanations
307: have largely been restricted to phenomenological analysis, with continued
308: efforts to improve resolution and sub-resolution prescriptions.
309: Moreover, without a
310: full model for how disks behave in interactions, these simulations
311: cannot be placed into the broader context of the emergence
312: of the entire Hubble sequence (for example asking the question, are
313: the disks in lenticulars and embedded disks in ellipticals
314: survivors of their pre-merger disks? Are they re-accreted? What determines
315: how large they are? What is the key physics that gives rise to
316: realistic embedded disks, leading to bulge-dominated galaxies
317: with kinematic and photometric properties similar to those in the
318: real universe?)
319: or within a fully cosmological context.
320:
321: The resolution requirements
322: for full models of disk formation are severe -- limiting any
323: attempt to properly simulate a cosmological box and still achieve
324: the resolution necessary to reliably model a disk population --
325: and so models of the population of disks, largely semi-analytic,
326: are forced to adopt simplified and un-tested prescriptions
327: for the behavior of disks in mergers. This, in turn, has led to
328: other well-known problems in modeling disk populations
329: (even where prescriptions can ensure no artificial angular
330: momentum losses); even when the
331: cumulative (morphology-independent) galaxy mass function is
332: correctly predicted at the low-mass end, semi-analytic models widely overproduce
333: the relative abundance of low-mass spheroids and underproduce
334: disks \citep[even when satellites, which have other associated
335: model uncertainties, are removed from consideration; see e.g.][]{somerville:sam,
336: somerville:new.sam,croton:sam,
337: bower:sam,delucia:sam}. Lacking a proper, physically motivated understanding of
338: how low-mass or gas-rich disks may or may not survive mergers,
339: attempts to address this problem in the models have been
340: purely phenomenological and involve arbitrary prescriptions
341: \citep[see e.g.][]{koda:disk.survival.prescriptions}.
342:
343: Motivated by these concerns, in this paper
344: we develop a physical, dynamical model for how
345: disks survive and are destroyed in mergers and interactions.
346: We show that, in an immediate (short-term) sense, the amount of stellar
347: or gaseous disk that survives or re-forms
348: following a given interaction can be understood purely
349: in terms of simple, well-understood gravitational physics.
350: Knowing these physics, we develop an analytic model that allows
351: us to accurately predict how much of a given pre-merger
352: stellar and cold gas disk will survive a merger, as a function of
353: the merger mass ratio, orbital parameters, pre-merger cold gas
354: fraction, and mass distribution of the gas and stars.
355: We compare these predictions to the
356: results of a large library of hundreds of hydrodynamic simulations of
357: galaxy mergers and interactions, spanning a wide parameter space
358: in these properties as well as prescriptions for gas physics,
359: stellar and AGN feedback, halo and initial disk structural
360: properties, redshift, and absolute galaxy masses. Our numerical experiments
361: confirm that the analytic scalings accurately describe
362: the behavior and bulge formation/disk destruction in mergers
363: over the entire dynamic range surveyed, and
364: confirm that the parameters not explicitly included in our
365: model do not systematically affect either the mean predictions or
366: the scatter of simulations about those predictions. This allows us to
367: understand the mean behavior of systems with different orbits and
368: mass ratios, as well as why systems with large gas fractions can
369: form little bulge in even major mergers.
370:
371: This is
372: possible because gas, in mergers, primarily loses angular momentum to
373: internal gravitational torques (from the stars in the same disk)
374: owing to asymmetries in
375: the galaxy induced by the merger. Hydrodynamic torques and
376: the direct torquing of the secondary are second-order effects,
377: and very inefficient. Once gas is drained of angular momentum,
378: there is little alternative but for it to fall to the center of the galaxy and
379: form stars, regardless of the details of the prescriptions for star
380: formation and feedback (these may change things at the
381: $\sim10-20\%$ level by blowing out some of the gas,
382: but they cannot fundamentally alter the
383: fact that cold gas with no angular momentum will be largely
384: unable to form any sort of disk, or the fact that a galaxy's worth of
385: gas compressed to high densities and small radii
386: will inevitably form a large mass in stars).
387: But if the systems are sufficiently gas-rich, then there is little
388: stellar material sharing the disk to torque on the gas in the interaction, and
389: little or no angular momentum is lost.
390:
391: Feedback can dramatically alter the ability of a disk to survive in a
392: cosmological sense: by allowing galaxies to retain large
393: gas fractions (as opposed to no-feedback scenarios, in which cold gas
394: in a disk is usually quickly converted into stars), they are
395: more gas-rich when they undergo interactions, allowing them
396: to avoid angular momentum loss for the reason above. Moreover,
397: we show that in detail (owing to the resonant structure of
398: interactions), it is really gas within a certain radius of the stellar disk
399: that is drained of angular momentum. The commonly-invoked stellar wind
400: feedback then enables cosmological disk survival in a second fashion:
401: by redistributing gas out to large radii, it prevents angular momentum loss
402: and allows rapid re-formation of disks after a merger.
403: Independent of any tuning, our model allows us to quantify the
404: disks expected as a function of interactions of arbitrary properties,
405: and to physically, explicitly quantify what the requirements are for feedback,
406: in a cosmological scenario, to enable disk survival.
407:
408: In \S~\ref{sec:sims} we describe our library of gas-rich merger simulations,
409: which we use to test our physical model for disk destruction and
410: survival. In \S~\ref{sec:id} we demonstrate the existence of genuine disks
411: in remnants of even major mergers and
412: briefly consider their properties, and compare methods to
413: separate the disks and bulges in merger remnants.
414: In \S~\ref{sec:form.major} we consider the question of how these disks
415: form in and survive mergers: we identify the key components of any
416: merger remnant in \S~\ref{sec:form.major:components}, highlighting
417: that these disks originate from a combination of undestroyed pre-merger
418: stellar disks and gas which avoids angular momentum loss
419: in the merger. In \S~\ref{sec:form.major:angloss} we discuss how, in detail,
420: that angular momentum loss proceeds. We use this,
421: in \S~\ref{sec:model.overview}, to build a physical model for how
422: angular momentum loss proceeds in mergers and predict the
423: surviving disk content of merger remnants: we model and test how this
424: depends on the gas content of the pre-merger disks (\S~\ref{sec:model.gas}),
425: and the orbital parameters (\S~\ref{sec:model.orbit}) and
426: mass ratio (\S~\ref{sec:model.massratio}) of the encounter. We generalize to
427: first passage and fly-by encounters (\S~\ref{sec:model.flyby})
428: and demonstrate that (for otherwise fixed conditions at the time of an encounter)
429: our conclusions are purely dynamical, independent of
430: feedback physics or details in our
431: treatment of e.g.\ star formation and the ISM gas physics (\S~\ref{sec:model.feedback}),
432: although we use our model to determine exactly how these choices
433: can have dramatic {\em indirect} consequences for disk survival (by
434: altering the state of systems leading into a merger).
435: We discuss some exceptions and pathological cases in \S~\ref{sec:model.exceptions},
436: and relate our results to the long-term secular evolution of
437: barred systems in \S~\ref{sec:model.secular}.
438: In \S~\ref{sec:prescriptions}, we outline how these results can and should
439: be applied in analytic and semi-analytic models of galaxy formation, and
440: give appropriate prescriptions derived from our numerical experiments.
441: Finally, we summarize our results and discuss some of their cosmological implications
442: and applications to other models and observations in \S~\ref{sec:discussion}.
443:
444: Throughout, we assume a $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$,
445: $H_{0}=70\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ cosmology, but this has
446: little effect on our conclusions.
447:
448: \breaker
449: \section{The Simulations}
450: \label{sec:sims}
451:
452:
453: Our simulations were performed with the parallel TreeSPH code {\small
454: GADGET-2} \citep{springel:gadget}, employing the fully conservative
455: formulation \citep{springel:entropy} of smoothed particle
456: hydrodynamics (SPH), which conserves energy and entropy simultaneously
457: even when smoothing lengths evolve adaptively \citep[see
458: e.g.,][]{hernquist:sph.cautions,oshea:sph.tests}. Our simulations
459: account for radiative cooling and incorporate a sub-resolution
460: model of a multiphase interstellar medium (ISM) to describe star
461: formation and supernova feedback \citep{springel:multiphase}.
462: Feedback from supernovae is captured in this sub-resolution model
463: through an effective equation of state for star-forming gas, enabling
464: us to stably evolve disks with arbitrary gas fractions \citep[see,
465: e.g.][]{springel:models,
466: springel:spiral.in.merger,robertson:disk.formation,robertson:msigma.evolution}.
467: This is described by the parameter $\qeos$, which ranges from
468: $\qeos=0$ for an isothermal gas with effective temperature of $10^4$
469: K, to $\qeos=1$ for our full multiphase model with an effective
470: temperature $\sim10^5$ K. We have also compared with a subset of simulations
471: which adopt the star formation feedback prescription from
472: \citet{mihos:cusps,mihos:gradients,
473: mihos:starbursts.94,mihos:starbursts.96}, in which
474: the ISM is treated as a single-phase isothermal medium and feedback
475: energy is deposited as a kinetic impulse. We examine the
476: effects of these choices in \S~\ref{sec:model.feedback}, and find they are minimal.
477:
478: Likewise, although they make little difference to the analysis here,
479: supermassive black holes are usually included at the centers of both
480: progenitor galaxies. These black holes are represented by ``sink''
481: particles that accrete gas at a rate $\Mdot$ estimated from the local
482: gas density and sound speed using an Eddington-limited prescription
483: based on Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion theory. The bolometric
484: luminosity of the black hole is taken to be $L_{\rm
485: bol}=\epsilon_{r}\dot{M}\,c^{2}$, where $\epsilon_r=0.1$ is the
486: radiative efficiency. We assume that a small fraction (typically
487: $\approx 5\%$) of $L_{\rm bol}$ couples dynamically to the surrounding
488: gas, and that this feedback is injected into the gas as thermal
489: energy, weighted by the SPH smoothing kernel. This fraction is a free
490: parameter, which we determine as in \citet{dimatteo:msigma} by
491: matching the observed $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation. For now, we do
492: not resolve the small-scale dynamics of the gas in the immediate
493: vicinity of the black hole, but assume that the time-averaged
494: accretion rate can be estimated from the gas properties on the scale
495: of our spatial resolution (roughly $\approx 20$\,pc, in the best
496: cases). While the black holes can be indirectly important, owing to
497: their feedback ejecting gas into the halo and thus preserving it from
498: star formation until the final merger, we find that, for a given gas content
499: at the time of the actual merger, our results are unchanged
500: in a parallel suite of simulations without black holes.
501:
502: The progenitor galaxy models are described in
503: \citet{springel:models}, and we review their properties here. For each
504: simulation, we generate two stable, isolated disk galaxies, each with
505: an extended dark matter halo with a \citet{hernquist:profile} profile,
506: motivated by cosmological simulations \citep{nfw:profile,busha:halomass},
507: an exponential disk of gas and stars, and (optionally) a
508: bulge. The galaxies have total masses $M_{\rm vir}=V_{\rm
509: vir}^{3}/(10GH[z])$, with the baryonic disk having a mass
510: fraction $m_{\rm d}=0.041$, the bulge (when present) having $m_{\rm
511: b}=0.0136$, and the rest of the mass in dark matter. The dark matter
512: halos are assigned a
513: concentration parameter scaled as in \citet{robertson:msigma.evolution} appropriately for the
514: galaxy mass and redshift following \citet{bullock:concentrations}. We have also
515: varied the concentration in a subset of simulations, and find it has little
516: effect on our conclusions (because the central regions of the
517: galaxy are, in any case, baryon-dominated), insofar as they pertain to
518: disk survival in mergers (it has been demonstrated that halo concentrations
519: are important for e.g.\ the exact sizes and velocity scalings of disks, and our
520: predicted disk sizes scale accordingly).
521: The initial disk scale-length is computed
522: based on an assumed spin parameter $\lambda=0.033$, chosen to be near
523: the mode in the $\lambda$ distribution measured in simulations \citep{vitvitska:spin},
524: and the scale-length of an initial bulge (when present) is set to $0.2$ times this.
525:
526: Typically, each galaxy initially consists of 168000 dark matter halo
527: particles, 8000 bulge particles (when present), 40000 gas and 40000
528: stellar disk particles, and one BH particle. We vary the numerical
529: resolution, with many simulations using twice, and a subset up to 128
530: times, as many particles. We choose the initial seed
531: mass of the black hole either in accord with the observed $M_{\rm
532: BH}$-$\sigma$ relation or to be sufficiently small that its presence
533: will not have an immediate dynamical effect, but we have varied the seed
534: mass to identify any systematic dependences. Given the particle
535: numbers employed, the dark matter, gas, and star particles are all of
536: roughly equal mass, and central cusps in the dark matter and bulge
537: are reasonably well resolved.
538:
539: We consider a series of several hundred simulations of colliding
540: galaxies, described in detail in
541: \citet{robertson:fp,robertson:msigma.evolution} and
542: \citet{cox:xray.gas,cox:kinematics}. We vary the numerical resolution, the orbit of the
543: encounter (disk inclinations, pericenter separation), the masses and
544: structural properties of the merging galaxies, presence or absence
545: of bulges in the progenitor galaxies, initial gas fractions,
546: halo concentrations, the parameters describing star formation and
547: feedback from supernovae and black hole growth, and initial black hole
548: masses.
549:
550: The progenitor galaxies have virial velocities $V_{\rm vir}=55, 80, 113, 160,
551: 226, 320,$ and $500\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, and redshifts $z=0, 2, 3, {\rm
552: and}\ 6$, and the simulations span a range in final spheroid mass
553: $\mbh\sim10^{8}-10^{13}\,M_{\sun}$, covering essentially the
554: entire range of the observations we consider at all redshifts, and
555: allowing us to identify any systematic dependences in our models. We
556: consider initial disk gas fractions (by mass) of $\fgas = 0.05,\ 0.1,\ 0.2,\ 0.4,\ 0.6,\
557: 0.8,\ {\rm and}\ 1.0$ for several choices of virial velocities,
558: redshifts, and ISM equations of state.
559: The results described in this
560: paper are based primarily on simulations of equal-mass mergers;
561: however, we examine in \S~\ref{sec:model.massratio} how our results scale with
562: mass ratio in mixed encounters, down to mass ratios $\sim1:10$ or so,
563: below which (as we show) the encounters have little noticeable
564: effect. In detail, the simulations studied there are
565: described in \citet{younger:minor.mergers} and constitute a complete
566: subset of permutations of our standard galaxy models with mass ratios
567: uniformly sampling the range $1:1$ to $1:8$. As in
568: our larger set of $1:1$ mergers, at each mass ratio we
569: systematically survey the effects of different absolute galaxy mass,
570: orbital parameters, and disk gas fraction (resulting
571: in a typical $\sim30-40$ simulations spanning the full range of
572: orbital parameters and gas fractions of interest, around
573: each mass ratio $\sim 1:1,\ 1:2,\ 1:4,$ and $1:8$).
574: We have considered
575: more limited studies of minor mergers where we vary
576: e.g.\ the ISM equation of state, redshift, initial disk
577: structural properties; as we find in our studies of these
578: parameters in the larger suite of equal-mass mergers,
579: they make no significant difference to our conclusions here.
580:
581:
582: \begin{\tableset}{lccccl}
583: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
584: \tablecaption{Disk Orientations\label{tbl:orbits}}
585: \tablewidth{0pt}
586: \tablehead{
587: \colhead{Name} &
588: \colhead{$\theta_{1}$} &
589: \colhead{$\phi_{1}$} &
590: \colhead{$\theta_{2}$} &
591: \colhead{$\phi_{2}$} &
592: \colhead{Comments}
593: }
594: \startdata
595: {\bf b} & 180 & 0 & 0 & 0 & prograde-retrograde \\
596: {\bf c} & 180 & 0 & 180 & 0 & both retrograde \\
597: {\bf d} & 90 & 0 & 0 & 0 & polar-prograde \\
598: {\bf e} & 30 & 60 & -30 & 45 & ``random'' (prograde) \\
599: {\bf f} & 60 & 60 & 150 & 0 & tilted polar-retrograde \\
600: {\bf g} & 150 & 0 & -30 & 45 & retrograde-``random'' \\
601: {\bf h} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & both prograde \\
602: \\
603: \hline \\
604: {\bf i} & 0 & 0 & 71 & 30 & Barnes orientations \\
605: {\bf j} & -109 & 90 & 71 & 90 & \\
606: {\bf k} & -109 & -30 & 71 & -30 & \\
607: {\bf l} & -109 & 30 & 180 & 0 & \\
608: {\bf m} & 0 & 0 & 71 & 90 & \\
609: {\bf n} & -109 & -30 & 71 & 30 & \\
610: {\bf o} & -109 & 30 & 71 & -30 & \\
611: {\bf p} & -109 & 90 & 180 & 0 & \\
612: \\
613: \hline \\
614: {\bf m000} & 0 & 0 & -30 & 45 & Minor merger orientations \\
615: {\bf m030} & 30 & 0 & -30 & 45 & \\
616: {\bf m090} & 90 & 0 & -30 & 45 & \\
617: {\bf m150} & 150 & 0 & -30 & 45 & \\
618: {\bf m180} & 180 & 0 & -30 & 45 & \\
619: \enddata
620: \tablenotetext{\,}{List of disk galaxy orientations for major merger
621: simulations. Columns show: (1) the orbit identification (used to
622: refer to each orbit throughout); (2-3) the initial orientation
623: of disk 1 (in standard spherical coordinates); (4-5) the initial
624: orientation of disk 2; and (6) a brief description of some of the
625: orientations.}
626: \end{\tableset}
627:
628:
629:
630: Once built, pairs of galaxies are placed on parabolic orbits
631: \citep[motivated by cosmological simulations; see e.g.][]{benson:cosmo.orbits,
632: khochfar:cosmo.orbits} with
633: the spin axis of each disk specified by the angles $\theta$ and $\phi$
634: in standard spherical coordinates. Table~\ref{tbl:orbits} lists the
635: orientations in different representative orbits we have sampled.
636: The particular choice of orbits follows \citet{cox:kinematics};
637: there are seven idealized mergers (cases {\bf b}-{\bf h})
638: that represent orientations often seen in the literature
639: (for example, case {\bf h}, where all the angular momentum
640: vectors of the disks and orbit are initially aligned), the
641: rest ({\bf i}-{\bf p}) follow \citet{barnes:disk.halo.mergers}
642: by selecting unbiased initial disk orientations according
643: to the coordinates of two oppositely directed tetrahedrons.
644: These orbits are identical to those considered in various other studies,
645: such as \citet{naab:minor.mergers}.
646: For our series of orbits of various mass ratios from \citet{younger:minor.mergers}
647: (where, in minor
648: mergers, the inclination of the secondary is less important than
649: that of the primary) we survey the inclination of the primary
650: in a systematic sense, considering all our mergers
651: with $\theta_{1}=0,\,30,\,90,\,150,\,180\,\degree$ (cases {\bf m000-m180}).
652: We examine the effect of
653: orbits in detail in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit}, and find that for random orbits,
654: the differences are quantifiable but not strong -- pathological orbits
655: (such as the aligned case {\bf h} above) are discussed in
656: \S~\ref{sec:model.exceptions} (these pathological
657: cases often, in fact, are the most efficient at destroying disks).
658: We have also tested our predicted scalings with limited subsets of
659: simulations that vary the pericentric passage distance and the
660: energy of the orbit, described in \citet{robertson:disk.formation}
661: and \citet{cox:kinematics}, and find that our estimates are
662: robust to these variations.
663:
664: Each simulation is evolved until the merger is complete and the remnants are
665: fully relaxed, typically $\sim1-2$\,Gyr after the final merger
666: and coalescence of the BHs. We then analyze the
667: remnants following \citet{cox:kinematics}, in a manner designed to mirror
668: the methods typically used by observers. For each remnant we project the
669: stars onto a plane as if observed from a particular direction (we consider
670: 100 viewing angles to each remnant, which uniformly sample the unit sphere).
671: When we plot projected quantities such as $\re$, $\sigma$, and $V_{c}$, we
672: typically show just
673: the median value for each simulation across all $\sim100$ viewing directions.
674: The sightline-to-sightline
675: variation in these quantities is typically smaller than the
676: simulation-to-simulation scatter, but we explicitly note where it is large.
677:
678:
679:
680: \breaker
681: \section{The Existence of Disks in Major Merger Remnants}
682: \label{sec:id}
683:
684: \citet{robertson:disk.formation} and \citet{springel:spiral.in.merger}, and
685: subsequently \citet{governato:disk.formation} and \citet{naab:gas}
686: have demonstrated that even major mergers can leave remnants with
687: non-negligible disk components. Nevertheless, we wish to highlight
688: several properties of these disks first, to establish their existence and
689: nature. Moreover,
690: we wish to ensure that we can
691: robustly identify disks in our merger remnants,
692: before going on to analyze the conditions for their survival.
693: In order to do this, we have considered several methods,
694: include e.g.\ fitting the surface brightness profiles to
695: traditional bulge-disk decompositions,
696: \citep[see e.g.][]{robertson:disk.formation,hopkins:cusps.mergers},
697: kinematic decompositions based on
698: one and two-dimensional velocity maps
699: \citep{cox:kinematics,hoffman:prep}, and
700: three dimensional component fitting.
701: These ultimately give similar results, although
702: e.g.\ surface brightness profile fits and velocity decompositions
703: can be considerably dependent on the viewing angle
704: and are not especially robust at separating a small
705: disk (in a bulge-dominated system)
706: from e.g.\ other kinematic subcomponents
707: or rotating bulges \citep[a well-known observational difficulty,
708: see e.g.][and references therein]{balcells:bulge.xl,jk:profiles,
709: marinova:bar.frac.vs.freq,barazza:bar.colors}.
710:
711: We therefore choose to take advantage of our full three-dimensional
712: information in the simulations to easily decompose bulges and
713: disks in a simple, automated fashion.
714: For convenience, let us consider the remnant in
715: cylindrical coordinates ${\bf x}=(R,\,\phi)$ where the
716: axis of symmetry ($\hat{z}$) is defined by the net angular momentum
717: vector of the baryonic mass in the relaxed remnant.
718: The effective rotational support of
719: any given stellar or gas particle in the simulation is then
720: \begin{equation}
721: \tilde{v}_{\rm rot} = \frac{v_{\phi}}{v_{c}(r)}
722: \end{equation}
723: where $v_{c}$ is the circular velocity
724: \begin{equation}
725: v_{c} = \sqrt{\frac{G\,M_{\rm enc}(r)}{r}}
726: \end{equation}
727: (here $r$ is the {\em three dimensional} radius from the galaxy center).
728: If we consider the distribution of
729: baryonic mass in $\tilde{v}_{\rm rot}$, we find a clear
730: segregation between bulge and disk components.
731:
732: \begin{figure*}
733: \centering
734: \scaleup
735: %\plotone{plot_all_disk.ps}
736: \plotone{f1.ps}
737: \caption{Examples of merger remnants with large disks.
738: {\em Top:} Edge-on projected stellar surface brightness
739: of the galaxy. {\em Middle:} the distribution of all stars in
740: their rotational support, $v_{\rm rot}/v_{c}(r)$, where
741: $v_{c}(r)$ is the circular velocity at $r$ and $v_{\rm rot}=v_{\phi}$
742: in cylindrical coordinates is the rotational velocity about the
743: net stellar angular momentum axis. We decompose the clearly
744: bimodal distributions
745: into bulge (orange, peak near $v_{\rm rot}/v_{c}(r)\sim0$)
746: and disk (blue, peak near $v_{\rm rot}/v_{c}(r)\sim1$) components,
747: with stellar mass fraction in the disk component ($f_{\rm disk}$)
748: labeled. {\em Bottom:} Azimuthally averaged face-on surface brightness
749: profile. We show the total profile (black) and profile of each of the
750: components separated by their rotational support (orange and blue respectively).
751: We fit the total profile to a standard bulge+disk decomposition,
752: and show the resulting fitted bulge (red dotted) and disk (blue dotted)
753: components and disk mass fraction.
754: The two methods recover similar decompositions in almost all cases: the ``disks''
755: are rotationally supported with extended exponential profiles,
756: the ``bulges'' are dispersion supported with compact Sersic-law profiles.
757: We show three example remnants typical of our simulations:
758: {\em Left:} Equal mass (mass ratio $1:1$) merger remnant
759: with $\sim40\%$ gas at the time of merger. The remnant is
760: a bulge dominated elliptical/lenticular, but has a prominent
761: smooth stellar disk with $\sim30-40\%$ of the mass.
762: {\em Center:} Major (mass ratio $1:2$) merger remnant with
763: $\sim20\%$ gas at the time of merger. The remnant is a
764: marginally disk-dominated S0a-type galaxy, with some spiral structure in the disk.
765: {\em Right:} Minor (mass ratio $1:8$) merger remnant with
766: $\sim15\%$ gas at the time of merger. The remnant is a
767: Sb/Sc disk with a flattened, compact bulge.
768: \label{fig:jz.distrib}}
769: \end{figure*}
770:
771: Figure~\ref{fig:jz.distrib} shows this for three simulations with
772: large disks in the remnant. There is clearly a bimodal
773: distribution in $\tilde{v}_{\rm rot}$, with one component having
774: relatively little rotation (the bulge, with a peak near
775: $\tilde{v}_{\rm rot}\approx0$), and
776: one component being largely rotationally
777: supported (the disk, with a peak near $\tilde{v}_{\rm rot}\sim1$).
778: There are two stellar populations in these remnants, with a
779: clean division in their rotational support.
780:
781: We can, from this plot alone, estimate a robust disk-bulge
782: mass ratio, from fitting e.g.\ the sum of two Gaussian components
783: (disk and bulge)
784: to this distribution (or in a non-parametric sense, by
785: assuming the bulge component has a symmetric
786: rotation distribution about its peak, and mirroring
787: the distribution about that, taking what remains to be disk).
788: Our results are not sensitive to the exact details of our decomposition,
789: but we experiment with a few different methods
790: in order to estimate uncertainties on the bulge-disk decomposition
791: which we refer to below. Again, we have repeated our entire
792: analysis using alternative estimators of the disk-to-bulge mass
793: (direct profile fits and velocity profile decompositions), and
794: find that the same scalings apply in all cases (the uncertainties in
795: the decomposition of a given simulation do, however, increase).
796:
797: \begin{figure*}
798: \centering
799: %\scaleup
800: %\plotone{check_SbSc.ps}
801: \plotone{f2.ps}
802: \caption{Bulge ({\em left}), stellar disk ({\em middle}), and
803: gas ({\em right}), in the remnant of a $1:2$ mass-ratio major merger
804: with $\sim20\%$ gas at the time of the merger, on a
805: typical random orbit (center panel in Figure~\ref{fig:jz.distrib}).
806: From top to bottom, panels show:
807: (a) Projected surface density (edge-on view).
808: (b) Face-on view. (c) Mean edge-on scale height
809: $H/R$ of the component as a function of circular radius $R=|x|$ (for
810: this projection).
811: (d) Edge-on velocity profile: mean velocity $v(r)$ (blue) and velocity
812: dispersion $\sigma(r)$ (red). (e) Rotational
813: support measure $v/\sigma$.
814: \label{fig:view.SbSc}}
815: \end{figure*}
816:
817: Figure~\ref{fig:view.SbSc} shows one simulation from
818: Figure~\ref{fig:jz.distrib} (S0 major-merger remnant), using this method to
819: decompose the remnant into a stellar bulge and stellar disk.
820: We also show the gas separately, which can cool and therefore forms an
821: extremely thin disk.
822: The properties are exactly what would be expected for a typical
823: bulge-disk system: the ``bulge'' is a somewhat flattened
824: ellipse with ellipticity $\epsilon\approx0.3-0.4$ ($H/R\approx0.6-0.7$),
825: and is a pressure-supported system, with one-dimensional
826: velocity dispersion $\sigma\sim120-150\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ (depending
827: on the sightline and slit width) and a
828: rotation velocity $\sim30-50\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$. The resulting rotation parameter
829: of the bulge itself
830: ($(V/\sigma)^{\ast}\sim0.4$) is typical of reasonably rapidly rotating
831: bulges. It is also compact (as expected), with projected $R_{e}\sim 1-2$\,kpc.
832: The stellar disk is like that of a combined thin-thick disk
833: system, with $H/R\sim0.15-0.2$, and exhibits a flat rotation
834: curve with $V_{\rm max}\sim200\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$.
835: The disk is rotationally supported with typical values for a
836: disk of similar mass and overall morphology, $V/\sigma\sim2-3$,
837: and it is far more extended than the bulge ($R_{e}\sim10\,$kpc,
838: putting it on the observed disk size-mass relation shown below).
839: The properties of the gas disk are similar, with the obvious exception
840: that, since the gas can cool, it forms a very thin disk
841: ($H/R\lesssim0.05$).
842:
843:
844: \begin{figure}
845: \centering
846: %\scaleup
847: %\plotone{check_SbIm.ps}
848: \plotone{f3.ps}
849: \caption{Bulge, disk, and gas, shown as in Figure~\ref{fig:view.SbSc},
850: for the remnant of a $1:8$ mass-ratio minor merger with
851: $\sim15\%$ gas, on a polar orbit.
852: \label{fig:view.SbIm}}
853: \end{figure}
854:
855: Figure~\ref{fig:view.SbIm} shows the components of
856: another galaxy (Sbc minor-merger
857: remnant) from Figure~\ref{fig:jz.distrib},
858: in the manner of Figure~\ref{fig:view.SbSc}. As expected given
859: the smaller bulge-to-disk ratio in this case, the
860: system is more flattened, with even larger rotational support
861: ($V/\sigma\sim5-10$ and $H/R\lesssim0.1$ even
862: in the stellar disk). The bulge is clearly a distinct dispersion-supported
863: component, despite being relatively flattened.
864:
865: \begin{figure}
866: \centering
867: %\scaleup
868: %\plotone{check_b3f.ps}
869: \plotone{f4.ps}
870: \caption{Bulge, disk, and gas, shown as in Figure~\ref{fig:view.SbSc},
871: for the remnant of a $1:1$ mass-ratio major merger with
872: $\sim40\%$ gas, on an inclined polar orbit.
873: \label{fig:view.b3f}}
874: \end{figure}
875:
876: Figure~\ref{fig:view.b3f} shows the components of
877: the third galaxy (elliptical major-merger
878: remnant) from Figure~\ref{fig:jz.distrib},
879: in the manner of Figure~\ref{fig:view.SbSc}.
880: We show this case to demonstrate that embedded disks can be recovered
881: reliably, and are indeed real, rotation supported ($V/\sigma\sim3-5$),
882: and relatively thin ($H/R\lesssim0.2$ in the stellar disk, $\lesssim0.1$ in the gaseous disk)
883: kinematic objects even in simulations where they are not
884: a majority of the mass (here, we find $B/T\sim0.7$).
885:
886:
887: \begin{figure}
888: \centering
889: \scaleup
890: %\plotone{disk_tf.ps}
891: \plotone{f5.ps}
892: \caption{Simulated disk-dominated merger remnants on the observed baryonic
893: Tully-Fisher relation ({\em top}) and size-stellar mass relation ({\em bottom}).
894: We take $V_{\rm rot}$ from the rotation curves as in Figure~\ref{fig:view.SbSc}
895: and $R_{e}$ is the median projected half-mass radius.
896: We compare with the observed relations as a function of morphology
897: from \citet{courteau:disk.scalings} (solid lines in each panel; dotted lines
898: show the observed $\pm1\,\sigma$ scatter), for
899: S0-Sa ({\em left}; red), Sab-Sbc ({\em center}; green), and Sc-Sd ({\em right};
900: blue and black, respectively) galaxies. For convenience, we assign our
901: simulations a ``morphology'' based on the bulge-to-disk ratio as labeled.
902: Most of our simulations are major (mass ratio $1:1$) mergers that yield significant,
903: but not dominant disks (and are therefore not shown here). Very late types
904: are only produced in our limited subset of small mass ratio ($\gtrsim1:8$)
905: mergers. In any case, the remnant disks all lie on the observed
906: Tully-Fisher and size-mass relations appropriate for their morphology --
907: coupled with their rotation and scale heights, we can say they are real disks
908: in the observable sense.
909: \label{fig:TF}}
910: \end{figure}
911:
912: As a further check that these are indeed real disks,
913: Figure~\ref{fig:TF} plots the disks in disk-dominated simulation remnants on the
914: baryonic Tully-Fisher and stellar size-mass relations observed
915: for disks of similar morphology
916: \citep[see e.g.][]{belldejong:tf,mcgaugh:tf,shen:size.mass,courteau:disk.scalings}.
917: For convenience, we will use the
918: estimated bulge-to-disk ratio as a proxy for morphology throughout,
919: with the values as labeled in Figure~\ref{fig:TF}. We take their
920: velocities here from the projected disk rotation curves where they are flat, and
921: take $R_{e}$ as the projected half-mass radius (note that this is different from the
922: exponential disk scale length $h$; for a pure exponential disk
923: $R_{e}=1.678\,h$, and we convert the observations where necessary accordingly).
924:
925: For each morphological class, our simulations agree well with the observed
926: Tully-Fisher and size-mass relations. Given our limited sampling of very minor
927: mergers with mass ratios $\gtrsim1:8$, we have only a few simulations with
928: final $B/T<0.2$, but those nevertheless agree (as expected, since they have only been
929: slightly modified from the original disk). We stress that we are {\em not}
930: claiming to reproduce the Tully-Fisher or stellar size-mass relation of disks
931: in an {\em a priori} manner: our (pre-merger) disks are constructed, by design, to
932: more or less lie on the observed correlations. What we are saying is that,
933: given progenitor disks that are similar to those observed, disks
934: that form after or survive mergers (even
935: major mergers) will remain on the appropriate correlations for their
936: stellar mass and morphology. In short, when disks do survive mergers,
937: they are ``real'' disks in the observable sense, not highly flattened bulges
938: or unusual kinematic subcomponents.
939:
940:
941: \breaker
942: \section{Disk Formation in Major Mergers}
943: \label{sec:form.major}
944:
945: Clearly, even major mergers can and do produce remnants with significant disks.
946: We therefore ask how these disks form, and whether we can derive some
947: analytic expectation for their masses as a function of progenitor and
948: merger properties.
949:
950:
951: \subsection{Components of the Remnant: Surviving Gas Disks}
952: \label{sec:form.major:components}
953:
954:
955: For simplicity, let us begin with the case of an identical $1:1$ mass ratio
956: merger (we will generalize to arbitrary mass ratios in \S~\ref{sec:model.massratio} below).
957: Early in the merger, the galaxies experience a first passage and begin to
958: lose angular momentum to the halos, rapidly coalescing on a timescale of
959: order a couple orbital periods. In the final merger and coalescence of the
960: galaxies, the stars which are initially ``cold'' (i.e.\ pre-merger disks) will
961: scatter and violently relax \citep{lynden-bell67},
962: forming a \citet{devaucouleurs}-like quasi-spherical,
963: dispersion supported profile. Of the gas available at the time of the final
964: merger, some will lose its angular momentum, fall into the galaxy center,
965: and (given the sudden rapid increase in density) rapidly transform into
966: stars in a central starburst, forming a compact, central dissipational component of the
967: remnant bulge \citep[for a detailed study of this
968: component, see][]{hopkins:cusps.ell,hopkins:cusps.mergers}.
969: Gas that is at sufficiently large radii that it cannot efficiently
970: fall in, or gas that for whatever reason cannot efficiently dissipate or lose
971: angular momentum, will rapidly see the central potential relax (the equilibration
972: timescale of the central bulge is only $\sim10^{8}\,$yr) and,
973: having conserved its angular momentum, will rapidly cool and re-form
974: a thin, rotationally supported disk. \citet{barneshernquist96} outline this process and show, in detail,
975: how the cooling gas that survives the merger rapidly settles into a
976: typical, rotationally supported exponential disk. This will then form stars, which
977: constitute a new stellar disk.
978:
979: We emphasize these three components:
980:
981: {\bf Pre-Merger Stars:} These (along with the dark matter) constitute the
982: collisionless (dissipationless) component of the merger. Because they are
983: collisionless, the stars and dark matter distributions mix in the merger. A
984: given star, as it moves through the merging galaxies on a random orbit,
985: feels a rapidly fluctuating potential, which deflects its orbit and allows
986: for the phase space distribution of the particles to uniformly mix. This violent
987: relaxation process gives rise to a pressure supported system
988: dominated by random velocities \citep{lynden-bell67} and transforms initially
989: exponential disk into quasi-spherical \citet{devaucouleurs}-like
990: Sersic-law profiles. In the limit of a $1:1$ mass ratio merger, it is a
991: good approximation to assume that all of the stars are violently relaxed -- the
992: merger is sufficiently ``violent'' that no significant component of the
993: pre-merger stellar disks will survive the merger. This is {\em not}
994: necessarily true at lower mass ratios (see \S~\ref{sec:model.massratio}), but it simplifies our
995: analysis to begin, while we consider such mergers.
996:
997: The remaining two components of the remnant can be identified
998: with the gas supply available at the time of the final merger.
999:
1000: {\bf Starburst Stars:} This is the remnant of a dissipational starburst, triggered in the
1001: merger. Some fraction of the gas will efficiently lose its angular momentum in the merger.
1002: Because gas can dissipate energy, it will then necessarily rapidly fall into the center
1003: of the merging system \citep[essentially free-falling to the center until the collapsing
1004: gas becomes self-gravitating; see][]{hopkins:cusps.mergers}.
1005: Collecting a large gas supply in the center, the result is a rapid, highly concentrated
1006: starburst -- in gas rich cases, this is analogous to that observed in
1007: e.g.\ nearby merging ULIRGs \citep{soifer84a,soifer84b,scoville86,sargent87,sargent89}
1008: and recent merger remnants \citep{kormendysanders92,hibbard.yun:excess.light,rj:profiles}.
1009: This builds up a dense, compact central stellar distribution, that raises the
1010: central phase space density and yields an effectively smaller, more baryon-dominated
1011: remnant. The starburst stars, being so concentrated (and typically
1012: having a more mixed orbital distribution owing to the random velocities of infalling gas
1013: in the starburst), are clearly part of the bulge (although they may have slightly
1014: different Sersic profiles and kinematics from the more extended bulge formed from
1015: violent relaxation of the pre-merger stars). This component is important for
1016: the structure and scalings of the bulge/spheroid component, and we study it in detail in
1017: \citet{hopkins:cusps.ell,hopkins:cores,hopkins:cusps.mergers}. It is essentially
1018: the dissipational component of the merger. For our purposes here, however,
1019: this is the gas ``lost,'' which becomes part of the bulge and no longer
1020: contributes to the remnant disk.
1021:
1022: {\bf Surviving Gas/``Post-Merger'' Stars:} The gas that does {\em not} lose its angular
1023: momentum will, as described above, form a new disk as the remnant relaxes.
1024: For a $1:1$ merger, since (as noted above) the entire stellar distribution is violently
1025: relaxed, the post-merger disks can be entirely identified with gas that survives the merger.
1026: It is not, in this case, so much that the initial disks survive the merger intact, as it is that
1027: some of the gas remains at large radii/with significant angular momentum, which can
1028: rapidly re-form the disk after the merger.
1029: Essentially then (for major mergers),
1030: the question of how much of a disk will remain post-merger
1031: is a question of how much of the gas (at the time of the merger)
1032: will or will not lose its angular momentum.
1033:
1034:
1035: \subsection{How Does the Gas Lose Its Angular Momentum?}
1036: \label{sec:form.major:angloss}
1037:
1038: How, then, does the gas lose angular momentum in a merger?
1039: The basic process has been understood since early simulations
1040: involving highly simplified models for gas dissipation in
1041: \citet{noguchi:merger.induced.bars.dissipationless,noguchi:merger.induced.bars.gas.forcing},
1042: \citet{hernquist.89},
1043: and \citet{barnes.hernquist.91}. With improved numerical models,
1044: \citet{barneshernquist96} followed this process in detail,
1045: and showed that what happens
1046: in a typical major merger is as follows:
1047: the non-axisymmetric perturbation (owing to the companion) in the system
1048: induces (largely after first passage and on the final coalescence, since this is
1049: where the interaction is significant) a
1050: non-axisymmetric response in
1051: the disk.\footnote{In what follows, we will refer to this
1052: non-axisymmetric response as a ``bar,'' for simplicity and
1053: because morphologically the induced feature, at least for
1054: some time during the merger resembles bars in isolated
1055: barred spirals. However, we caution that the formation
1056: mechanism which excites this response may be different
1057: from that causing bars in isolated galaxies. Furthermore,
1058: while the non-axisymmetry is present throughout the merger,
1059: it at times would not be classified as a bar morphologically,
1060: particularly during the final coalescence of the galaxy
1061: nuclei, when the resulting gas inflows are strong.}
1062: A stellar bar and gas bar form, but because the gas is
1063: collisional and the stars are collisionless,
1064: the stellar bar will trail or lag behind the gas bar by a small offset
1065: (typically $\sim$a few degrees). The stellar bar therefore torques the gas bar,
1066: draining its angular momentum, and causing the gas to collapse to
1067: the center.
1068:
1069:
1070:
1071:
1072: \begin{figure*}
1073: \centering
1074: \scaleup
1075: %\plotone{disk_survival_illustration.ps}
1076: %\plotone{disk_survival_illustration_mod.ps}
1077: \plotterr{f6.ps}
1078: \caption{Illustration of the key processes that drive starbursts in a merger.
1079: {\em Top:} Projected gas density (as in Figure~\ref{fig:view.SbSc}) in
1080: the plane of the disk at representative times in a retrograde 1:3 merger
1081: (left to right: before interaction, just after first passage, just after second passage/coalescence,
1082: after relaxation). For clarity, just the gas from the primary is shown.
1083: {\em Middle:} Same, for a prograde encounter.
1084: The passage of the secondary induces a bar-like non-axisymmetric disturbance in the primary,
1085: which survives after the short-lived passage and removes angular momentum from the
1086: gas, leading to a starburst. The same process occurs on both passages, with a larger
1087: (albeit less ``bar-like'') asymmetry on coalescence. The prograde encounters, being in
1088: resonance, induce a stronger response that extends to larger radii.
1089: {\em Bottom:} Quantities of interest in the merger.
1090: {\em Left:} Star formation rate as a function of time in the prograde encounter (solid line; retrograde
1091: is similar, but with a weaker enhancement in bursts). Red dotted line shows the specific
1092: angular momentum of the gas that will participate in either
1093: burst, in arbitrary units); as the gas rapidly loses angular momentum after the passages,
1094: it drives a central starburst.
1095: {\em Center Left:} Net specific torque on the primary gas that will participate in the final,
1096: central starburst, as a function of time in the merger (in units of the initial
1097: total angular momentum per Gyr). We compare the roughly numerically estimated net
1098: torque (diamonds; from differentiating the specific angular momentum of the gas)
1099: and the torque from two sources: stars in the same disk as the gas
1100: (internal torques; black thick line), and the secondary galaxy and extended halos
1101: (external torques; red dot-dashed line). The loss of angular momentum that
1102: drives the secondary burst at $t\sim2.2-2.5$ is driven by internal torques from
1103: the disturbed stellar disk; {\em not} the torque from the secondary galaxy itself.
1104: {\em Center Right:} Final specific angular momentum content of
1105: material (gas plus stars) that was originally gas at $R<R_{\rm crit}$ (our
1106: predicted radius where merger-induced internal torques should be efficient
1107: at removing angular momentum) or at $R>R_{\rm crit}$.
1108: There is a strong division: gas inside a characteristic radius (corresponding
1109: to where the internal asymmetry is strong; akin to the co-rotation resonance)
1110: is mostly stripped of angular momentum. Gas at larger radii conserves
1111: sufficient angular momentum to maintain a disk at similar $R_{e}$ and $V_{c}$.
1112: {\em Right:} Original (cumulative) radial distribution of gas that participates
1113: in the final starburst, relative to the initial disk effective radius (same in all cases)
1114: for the prograde and retrograde cases shown and a
1115: more minor retrograde merger. More resonant (prograde) and
1116: more major encounters induce a
1117: stronger response, with a larger co-rotation radius, and so torque gas out to larger
1118: radii and efficiently strip more gas of angular momentum as predicted.
1119: \label{fig:merger.demo}}
1120: \end{figure*}
1121:
1122:
1123: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.demo} illustrates this in a couple of
1124: representative 1:3 mass ratio major merger simulations. For a more
1125: detailed description and illustration of the relevant physics, we
1126: refer to \citet{barneshernquist96} (particularly their Figures~3-8);
1127: but we briefly outline the scenario here. We show the morphology of
1128: the gas before the merger, when the disk is undisturbed, and shortly
1129: after both first and second passages (the second passage leading, in
1130: these cases, to a rapid coalescence), as well as in the relaxed
1131: remnant.
1132:
1133: The bar-like non-axisymmetric perturbation induced by the close
1134: passages is clearly evident; the stars show a similar morphology at
1135: each time, with a small phase offset in the bar pattern and (in the
1136: remnant) a stellar bulge. As we discuss in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit}, a
1137: prograde encounter, being in resonance, produces a noticeably more
1138: pronounced bar distortion (both in amplitude -- effectively ``bar
1139: mass'' -- and spatial extent). Shortly after each passage, this
1140: double bar system efficiently removes angular momentum from the gas,
1141: allowing it to fall into the center of the galaxy and participate in a
1142: centrally concentrated starburst.
1143:
1144: Following \citet{barneshernquist96}, we track the gas in the primary
1145: disk that will turn into stars in the final starburst, calculating the
1146: net instantaneous gravitational torque decelerating the disk
1147: rotation. We can coarsely infer what the total effective torque must
1148: be by simply differentiating the specific angular momentum of this gas
1149: at a given time, and compare this to the net torque from different
1150: sources. Specifically, we separate the instantaneous gravitational
1151: torques into the internal torques -- those from the stellar disk {\em
1152: in the same galaxy} as the gas, chiefly from the bar (since the
1153: axisymmetric disk, by definition, exerts no net torque) -- and the
1154: external torques -- those from the gravity of the secondary galaxy
1155: itself and the extended halos and their substructure.
1156:
1157: It is clear that, especially for the phases of interest shortly after
1158: second passage and leading into the final starburst, when this gas
1159: loses its angular momentum, the total torques are dominated by
1160: internal torques from the stellar disk/bar system. The agreement
1161: between these torques and the rate of change in the specific angular
1162: momentum further argues that there are no other major sources of
1163: angular momentum loss (specifically, both this comparison and direct
1164: calculation demonstrate that the ``hydrodynamic torques'' defined by
1165: pressure forces are not dominant).
1166:
1167: As a result of these torques, gas within some critical radius where
1168: the internal torques are strong (roughly inside the ``bar radius'' in
1169: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.demo}) rapidly loses angular momentum. We
1170: define this radius more precisely in \S~\ref{sec:model.overview}
1171: below, but it is clear in the figure that at sufficiently large radius
1172: the bar perturbation is weaker (and moreover, at larger radius the
1173: potential of the disk, whether barred or unbarred, appears
1174: increasingly axisymmetric); gas outside of these radii is relatively
1175: unaffected. In general, then, the means for a more efficient encounter
1176: to consume a larger fraction of the gas in the disk is to induce a
1177: stronger bar disturbance, which is able to effectively exert internal
1178: torques out to larger radii, stripping more gas of angular momentum
1179: and bringing it into the central starburst (as evident in the stronger
1180: prograde encounter in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.demo}). Finally, the
1181: system relaxes -- the gas that has not been subjected to strong
1182: internal torques, having retained its angular momentum (at least in
1183: large part), can rapidly re-form a disk. This may entail some
1184: redistribution of that angular momentum (``filling in'' where the bar
1185: depleted the gas of the disk), but does not lead to further
1186: significant angular momentum loss.
1187:
1188: \citet{barneshernquist96} and
1189: \citet{barnes:review} illustrate that this internal torquing
1190: is by far the dominant source of
1191: angular momentum loss, for typical orbits. This is
1192: because the stellar bar is: (a) more or less
1193: aligned in the plane with the gas bar, (b) trailing it
1194: by a small amount, and (c) relatively long-lived (it lives the rest of the duration of the
1195: merger, as opposed to the short time that is e.g.\ pericentric passage).
1196: The companion itself (either its baryonic mass or its halo),
1197: in most orbits, is not perfectly aligned with the
1198: gas disk, and the torque directly from it is much weaker (the tidal
1199: torquing drops by a factor $\sim(R_{\rm disk}/R_{\rm peri})^{3})$),
1200: and it can act only for a short duration on pericentric passage.
1201: There are some pathological orbits (e.g.\ perfectly coplanar prograde orbits)
1202: where this is not true, but these are exceptional cases, and we
1203: discuss them in \S~\ref{sec:model.exceptions}.
1204:
1205: At the final merger, one might image that mixing of random gas orbits or
1206: collisions and shocks
1207: would rapidly drain angular momentum, similar to what happens to
1208: the stars in violent relaxation. However, this is not possible, precisely because
1209: the gas is collisional: a Lagrangian gas element cannot go back and
1210: forth through the galaxy, but sticks to the other gas which has
1211: some net angular momentum.
1212: There could in principle be some net angular momentum cancellation, but this
1213: is inefficient -- the net angular momentum will almost always be
1214: comparable to the initial total. Even assuming random cancellation between
1215: two disks with comparable absolute angular momentum, the average
1216: change in net specific angular momentum is a factor $\sim2/3$; when
1217: one accounts for the angular momentum of the orbit -- typically comparable
1218: or even larger than that in the disks -- there is often no change or
1219: even a net {\em gain} in the gas specific angular momentum in a merger.
1220:
1221: A proper calculation
1222: shows that over the range in mass ratios $\mu\sim 0.1-1$, for a range of typical
1223: impact parameters $b\sim0.5-5\,\scalelen$, the expected final specific angular momentum
1224: after cancellation is approximately equal to the initial specific angular
1225: momentum of the primary (with $\sim20\%$ scatter). Cancellation is therefore
1226: inefficient. Even these cancellations, we find in detail, do not
1227: generally lead to a starburst in the same manner as a merger-induced bar,
1228: but simply lead to moderate disk contraction (and an equal number of mergers
1229: will scatter towards the opposite sense leading to disk expansion, keeping a mean
1230: specific angular momentum that is constant). They do not cause a starburst because,
1231: if two random parcels or streams of gas shock and lose angular momentum,
1232: the alignment and relative momenta would have to be near-perfect for them
1233: to lose, say $95\%$ of their angular momentum and fall all the way to the
1234: central $\sim 100$pc where a nuclear starburst would occur. Rather, they will lose
1235: some fraction of order unity of their angular momentum, fall in to a slightly smaller
1236: radius, and continue to orbit.
1237:
1238: Without the
1239: bar that can continuously drain angular momentum, the true burst is indeed
1240: inefficient.
1241: This initial bar-induced angular momentum loss scenario has been
1242: well-established in subsequent numerical studies
1243: \citep[see e.g.][]{noguchi:merger.induced.bars.dissipationless,
1244: noguchi:merger.induced.bars.gas.forcing,
1245: hernquist.89,hernquist:kinematic.subsystems,borderies:planetary.rings,
1246: barnes.hernquist.91,barneshernquist96,barnes:review,
1247: mihos:starbursts.96,springel:spiral.in.merger,robertson:disk.formation,
1248: cox:kinematics,cox:massratio.starbursts,berentzen:gas.bar.interaction,
1249: naab:gas}.
1250: We therefore can simplify our question to ask: how efficient will a given
1251: lagging stellar bar be at removing angular momentum from a
1252: leading gas bar?
1253:
1254:
1255:
1256: \subsection{A Simple Model: Overview}
1257: \label{sec:model.overview}
1258:
1259:
1260: Consider a disk that contains a total gravitational mass $M$ (which
1261: can include a bulge and dark matter as well; the disk mass
1262: fraction we will denote $f_{\rm disk}$) within a
1263: characteristic scale length $\scalelen$. Some convenient dimensional variables are:
1264: \begin{eqnarray}
1265: \nonumber & & \mdisk = f_{\rm disk}\,M\ ({\rm disk\ mass}) \\
1266: \nonumber & & M_{\rm bar} = f_{\rm bar}\,M\ ({\rm stellar\ bar\ mass}) \\
1267: \nonumber & & v_{c} = \sqrt{\frac{G\,M}{\scalelen}}\ ({\rm characteristic\ circular\ velocity}) \\
1268: \nonumber & & \diskfreq = \frac{v_{c}}{\scalelen}\ ({\rm characteristic\ frequency}) \\
1269: & & P = \frac{2\pi}{\diskfreq}\ ({\rm rotation\ period}) \, .
1270: \end{eqnarray}
1271: We also define
1272: the disk thickness according to a characteristic (assumed constant)
1273: relative scale height (height $H$ versus radius $R$; $H/R=$constant)
1274: \begin{equation}
1275: \tilde{H}\equiv H/R\ ({\rm disk\ scale\ height}).
1276: \label{eqn:scale.height}
1277: \end{equation}
1278: In these units, the circular velocity at a given
1279: cylindrical radius $R$ is given by
1280: \begin{equation}
1281: v_{\rm circ}(r) = v_{c}\,{\tilde{v}(r)} \equiv v_{c}\,\sqrt{\frac{M_{\rm enc}(r)}{M}\,\frac{\scalelen}{R}}
1282: \end{equation}
1283: and dimensionless lengths are defined by
1284: \begin{eqnarray}
1285: \nonumber & & \tilde{x} = x/\scalelen \\
1286: \nonumber & & \tilde{y} = y/\scalelen \\
1287: & & \tilde{R} \equiv \sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}/\scalelen.
1288: \end{eqnarray}
1289: Throughout, we will use this notation: e.g.\ the dimensional variable $u$
1290: is equal to the dimensionless variable $\tilde{u}$ times the appropriate combination
1291: of dimensional constants above.
1292:
1293: We will show that, in such a disk, a gas bar with a lagging stellar bar will
1294: efficiently cause gas to
1295: lose its angular momentum and dissipate into a
1296: central starburst.
1297: This will be the case for gas interior to a radius
1298: \begin{equation}
1299: \frac{R_{\rm gas}}{\scalelen} \le \alpha\,(1-f_{\rm gas})\, f_{\rm disk} \, F(\theta,b)\, G(\mu) \, ,
1300: \label{eqn:full.equation}
1301: \end{equation}
1302: where $\alpha\sim1$ is an appropriate
1303: integral constant (depending weakly on details of the stellar profile shape and
1304: bar dynamics), $f_{\rm gas}$ is the gas fraction in the disk and
1305: $f_{\rm disk}$ is the disk mass fraction.
1306: The factor
1307: \begin{equation}
1308: G(\mu) \equiv \frac{2\mu}{(1+\mu)}
1309: \end{equation}
1310: contains the dependence on the merger mass ratio
1311: (where $\mu\le1\equiv M_{2}/M_{1}$).
1312: The term
1313: \begin{equation}
1314: F(\theta,b) \equiv {\Bigl(}\frac{1}{1+[b/\scalelen]^{2}}{\Bigr)}^{3/2}\,\frac{1}{1-\orbitfreq/\diskfreq}
1315: \label{eqn:full.eqn.orbit.1}
1316: \end{equation}
1317: accounts for the orbital parameters: $b$ is distance of
1318: pericentric passage on the relevant final passage before coalescence
1319: ($\sim1-$a couple $\scalelen$, for typical cosmological mergers) and
1320: $\orbitfreq$ is the orbital frequency at pericentric passage,
1321: \begin{eqnarray}
1322: \nonumber \frac{\orbitfreq}{\diskfreq} &=& \frac{v_{\rm peri}}{v_{c}}\,
1323: \frac{\scalelen}{b}\,\cos{(\theta)} \\
1324: \nonumber &=& \sqrt{2\,(1+\mu)}\,[1+(b/\scalelen)^{2}]^{-3/4}\,\cos{(\theta)}\\
1325: &\approx& 0.6\,\cos{(\theta)} \, ,
1326: \label{eqn:full.eqn.orbit.2}
1327: \end{eqnarray}
1328: where $\theta$ is the inclination of the orbit relative to the disk,
1329: and the last equality comes from
1330: adopting typical cosmological orbits and mass ratios (but in any case,
1331: this is quite weakly dependent on the mass ratio).
1332:
1333: In the following sections, we derive this scaling piece by piece, and
1334: compare each aspect to the results from our library of hydrodynamic
1335: simulations. We show that it is robust and accurate as an approximation
1336: to the behavior in full numerical hydrodynamic experiments over a
1337: wide dynamic range of several orders of magnitude in surviving disk
1338: fraction (from systems with $\sim80-100\%$ of their disks surviving a
1339: merger to systems with $<1\%$ disk after a merger), as well
1340: as the entire dynamic range in mass, gas content, orbital properties,
1341: and different feedback prescriptions with which we experiment.
1342:
1343:
1344: \subsubsection{Dependence on Disk Gas Content}
1345: \label{sec:model.gas}
1346:
1347:
1348: Let us consider an infinitely thin gas bar (a good approximation, owing to the
1349: efficiency of gas cooling) in a potential that is otherwise cylindrically symmetric
1350: except for the presence of a stellar bar.
1351: For simplicity, assume that the gas bar follows a fixed pattern speed
1352: $\Omega_{\rm b}$ ($\sim \orbitfreq$; we will derive the pattern speed later)
1353: in the disk (while there is not exactly a constant pattern speed in the outer regions of the disk,
1354: the torques are weak there in either case, and this approximation is globally quite good).
1355: We take $z=0$ to be the plane of the
1356: disk, and, without loss of generality, consider a
1357: frame rotating with the pattern speed of the gas bar, so that the
1358: bar lies along the $x$ axis. The material in the bar is rotationally supported,
1359: so it has instantaneous velocity ${\bf v}_{\rm \phi} =-v_{c}\,\tilde{v}(R)\,\hat{y}$, where
1360: $v_{c}\,\tilde{v}(R)$ (defined above) is the circular velocity at each point $x$.
1361:
1362: Now, consider a stellar bar of total mass $M_{\rm bar}$ also at fixed pattern speed,
1363: but offset by some instantaneous angle $\barangle$
1364: from the gas bar (i.e.\ along the axis $y=\tan{(\barangle)}\,x$).
1365: The mass per unit length in the bar at a distance $R$ along the bar
1366: is ${\rm d}M_{\rm bar}/{\rm d}R = (M_{\rm bar}/\scalelen)\,\tilde{\Sigma}(R/\scalelen)$,
1367: where $\tilde{\Sigma}$ is the appropriate dimensionless mass profile
1368: and $\scalelen$ is some characteristic scale length (usually corresponding closely
1369: to the scale length of the unperturbed disk). If the initial disk is in equilibrium,
1370: (i.e.\ if the bar is some reasonable perturbation to the initial system), then
1371: the unperturbed net acceleration in the $x$ direction at some point $x$ in the gas bar
1372: will just be cancelled by the rotation of the system. Of interest here is the
1373: torque; if the stellar bar is also thin, then
1374: at a point $x=\tilde{x}\,\scalelen$ in the gas bar, the net torque per unit mass from the
1375: stellar bar will be
1376: \begin{equation}
1377: \frac{{\rm d}j}{{\rm d}t}=\tilde{x}\,\scalelen\,\frac{{\rm d}v_{y}}{{\rm d}t}=
1378: - \frac{G\,M_{\rm bar}}{\scalelen}\,
1379: I_{0}(\barangle,\,\tilde{x}),
1380: \label{eqn:bar1}
1381: \end{equation}
1382: where $I_{0}\sim1$ is a dimensionless integral which depends
1383: weakly on $\barangle$ and $\tilde{x}$
1384: (at large $\barangle$, $I_{0}\rightarrow0$,
1385: reflecting the fact that the torque is dominated by times when the
1386: bars are close; since $\barangle\ll 1$ is expected, it is a good
1387: approximation to ignore the $\barangle$ dependence of $I_{0}$).
1388:
1389: If we assume the stellar bar is infinitely thin, there is
1390: a weak divergence in $I_{0}$ as $\barangle \rightarrow0$
1391: (the accelerations become large when the bars nearly overlap).
1392: More accurately, we can allow for some finite height in the
1393: stellar disk/bar (it will always be thicker than the gas disk/bar).
1394: Let the stellar bar have a constant relative scale height $H/R$ given
1395: by Equation~(\ref{eqn:scale.height}),
1396: and for simplicity take its vertical profile to be constant
1397: density out to a height $\pm H$ (although assuming a
1398: more realistic vertical profile $\propto \exp{(-|z|/H)}$ or
1399: $\propto{\rm sech}^{2}{(z/H)}$ makes almost no difference to our calculation).
1400: The specific torque at $x$ in the gas bar now becomes
1401: \begin{equation}
1402: \frac{{\rm d}j}{{\rm d}t}=
1403: - \frac{G\,M_{\rm bar}}{\scalelen}\,
1404: \frac{1}{\sqrt{\sin^{2}{\barangle}+\tilde{H}^{2}}}\
1405: I_{1}(\barangle,\,\tilde{x},\tilde{H}),
1406: \label{eqn:bar2}
1407: \end{equation}
1408: where $I_{1}$
1409: is an even weaker function of $\barangle$ and $\tilde{x}$ than $I_{0}$.
1410: The important behavior is entirely captured ignoring $I_{1}$,
1411: namely that the finite width of the stellar bar suppresses the
1412: numerical divergence seen earlier.
1413:
1414: The bar mass $M_{\rm bar}$ represents the stellar mass in the disk
1415: that is effectively part of the bar at the appropriate instant. We can therefore
1416: parameterize $f_{\rm bar} = M_{\rm bar}/M$ as
1417: \begin{equation}
1418: f_{\rm bar} = (1-f_{\rm gas})\,f_{\rm disk}\,\Psi^{\prime}_{\rm bar}.
1419: \end{equation}
1420: Here, $f_{\rm disk}$ is the disk mass fraction, and
1421: $f_{\rm gas}$ is the gas fraction in the disk (since we are interested
1422: in the cold gas, we explicitly ignore gas in e.g.\ a bulge or
1423: hot halo component). Therefore, the stellar mass of the
1424: disk is $(1-f_{\rm gas})\,f_{\rm disk}$ -- this defines the maximum
1425: mass that could be in the stellar bar. The parameter
1426: $\Psi^{\prime}_{\rm bar}$ thus defines the bar ``efficiency'' -- in
1427: an instantaneous sense as we have defined it here,
1428: $\Psi^{\prime}_{\rm bar}=0$ means there is no stellar bar,
1429: $\Psi^{\prime}_{\rm bar}=1$ implies the maximal stellar bar.
1430:
1431: Already, we have one significant scaling -- the bar strength,
1432: and correspondingly the strength of the torques on the
1433: gas, scale with $(1-f_{\rm gas})$. In very gas rich
1434: systems where $f_{\rm gas}\rightarrow1$, there is no
1435: stellar mass to form a lagging bar and remove angular momentum
1436: from the gas. The gas itself may form a bar, but without a
1437: stellar bar to drag it, the angular momentum loss
1438: (over the timescales of relevance for a merger\footnote{At least,
1439: in this case, a major merger. The situation becomes more complicated
1440: in the limit of minor mergers with mass ratios $\sim$1:10; see
1441: \S~\ref{sec:model.secular}}) is
1442: inefficient. This is well known in e.g.\ dynamical studies of
1443: pure gas and stellar bars \citep[e.g.][]{schwarz:disk-bar,
1444: athanassoula:bar.orbits,pfenniger:bar.dynamics,
1445: combes:pseudobulges,friedli:gas.stellar.bar.evol,oniell:bar.obs}. There might be
1446: some angular momentum loss in such a case, between e.g.\ bar
1447: and halo \citep[e.g.][]{hernquistweinberg92},
1448: but it will be small -- certainly nowhere near the
1449: efficient stripping of angular momentum needed to
1450: induce a significant starburst.
1451:
1452: If we consider a Lagrangian gas element at some initial
1453: radius $x_{0}$, then its orbit will decay as it loses angular
1454: momentum. The instantaneous rate of change in
1455: the radius $R=|x|$ will be given by
1456: ${\rm d}R/{\rm d}t = (R/v_{\phi})\,{\rm d}v_{\phi}/{\rm d}t$.
1457: The characteristic timescale for the system to evolve is
1458: given by $2\pi/\diskfreq$, where
1459: $\diskfreq\sim v_{c}/h$ is the characteristic
1460: frequency of the disk. Define
1461: the timescale
1462: \begin{equation}
1463: \tau \equiv \frac{\diskfreq}{2\pi}\,t = \frac{v_{c}}{\scalelen}\,t = \sqrt{\frac{G\,M}{\scalelen^{3}}}\,t,
1464: \end{equation}
1465: where $M$ is the total effective gravitational mass of the
1466: disk and $\scalelen$ is again a characteristic scale length.
1467: We now have:
1468: \begin{equation}
1469: \frac{{\rm d}\tilde{x}}{{\rm d}\tau} =
1470: \frac{2\pi}{\diskfreq}\,\frac{1}{v_{\phi}}\,\frac{G\,M_{\rm bar}}{\scalelen^{2}}\,I_{1}
1471: \equiv 2\pi\,f_{\rm bar}\, I_{2}(\barangle,\ \tilde{x}) \, .
1472: \end{equation}
1473:
1474: Because the merger occurs on a couple of dynamical timescales,
1475: i.e.\ a time $\Delta\tau\sim1$,
1476: to lowest order (ignoring e.g.\ the complications of different orbital
1477: parameters) we expect that gas
1478: within a radius
1479: \begin{equation}
1480: \tilde{x}\ll \Delta\tau\,\frac{{\rm d}\tilde{x}}{{\rm d}\tau}
1481: \end{equation}
1482: will efficiently lose angular momentum and fall to the center, becoming
1483: part of the central starburst, while gas at
1484: $\tilde{x}\gg \Delta\tau\,\frac{{\rm d}\tilde{x}}{{\rm d}\tau}$ will avoid
1485: the starburst.
1486: This defines a
1487: scale
1488: \begin{equation}
1489: \frac{R_{\rm gas}}{\scalelen} \lesssim (1-f_{\rm gas})\, f_{\rm disk} \,
1490: \Psi_{\rm bar}(\barangle,\tilde{H},...)
1491: \label{eqn:rtemp1}
1492: \end{equation}
1493: within which the gas will lose angular momentum.
1494: For convenience, we have collected all of the dimensionless
1495: integral factors, including $\Psi^{\prime}_{\rm bar}$ (the efficiency of forming
1496: the stellar bar) and the dynamical integral factors (e.g.\ $I_{1}$, $I_{2}$) from above,
1497: into the term $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ that represents the full solution.
1498: We write $\Psi_{\rm bar}(\barangle,\tilde{H}...)$ because, as we will show,
1499: this quantity (at present) encapsulates our ignorance of e.g.\ the orbital
1500: parameters and merger mass ratio; for a $1:1$ merger on a typical orbit,
1501: however, $\Psi_{\rm bar}\sim1$.
1502:
1503: The total gas mass
1504: which will lose angular momentum and
1505: fall into the center of the galaxy will be
1506: $f_{\rm gas}\times f(<R_{\rm gas})$, where $f(<R_{\rm gas})$ is the
1507: mass fraction within the characteristic radius above, according to the
1508: details of the mass profiles and dimensionless integral above.
1509: We consider solutions for a variety of
1510: profiles, including e.g.\ an exponential, isothermal sphere, and a
1511: \citet{mestel:disk.profile} $1/R$ disk profile. In general, we find that there is little difference
1512: between the predictions for these various profiles -- the differences in the
1513: mass profile shapes tend to cancel out and leave only weak corrections to the
1514: simple dimensional scaling.
1515: An exponential disk
1516: with $\Sigma\propto \exp(-R/\scalelen)$ contains a
1517: mass fraction
1518: \begin{equation}
1519: 1-(1+R/\scalelen)\,\exp{(-R/\scalelen)},
1520: \label{eqn:fburst.1}
1521: \end{equation}
1522: within a radius R; here $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ must be solved numerically.
1523: We obtain nearly identical predictions, however,
1524: assuming a $1/R$ disk or an isothermal sphere profile for the gas,
1525: which allows us to analytically solve the relevant equations and
1526: write the predicted gas fraction consumed in the form:
1527: \begin{equation}
1528: f_{\rm burst} = f_{\rm gas}\,(1-f_{\rm gas})\, f_{\rm disk}\, \Psi_{\rm bar}(\barangle,\tilde{H},...) \, ,
1529: \label{eqn:fburst.2}
1530: \end{equation}
1531: where $\Psi_{\rm bar}\sim 1$ can be analytically calculated for
1532: these profiles (with the equations above) under certain conditions:
1533: if the dependence on the orbital parameters is separable
1534: and we define $\Psi_{\rm bar}$
1535: by the requirement that the radius in Equation~(\ref{eqn:rtemp1}) satisfy
1536: $\tilde{x}=\Delta\tau\,\frac{{\rm d}\tilde{x}}{{\rm d}\tau}$, then for
1537: instantaneous bar lag of $\barangle\sim$a few degrees in a thick disk of
1538: height $\tilde{H}\sim0.2$, $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ is given by
1539: \begin{equation}
1540: \Psi_{\rm bar} \approx F(...)\,{\Bigl\{}1 -
1541: \exp{{\Bigl[}-\frac{\sin(2\,\barangle)}
1542: {\sin^{2}(\barangle)+\tilde{H}^{2}}{\Bigr]}}{\Bigr\}} \sim 1 \, ,
1543: \label{eqn:fburst.3}
1544: \end{equation}
1545: where we explicitly show $F(...)$
1546: as we have suppressed our ignorance of the orbital parameters.
1547: Nevertheless, this simple scaling alone provides a remarkably successful
1548: description of many of our simulations.
1549:
1550:
1551:
1552: \begin{figure}
1553: \centering
1554: \scaleup
1555: %\plotone{fgas_fsb.ps}
1556: \plotter{f7.ps}
1557: \caption{Mass fraction formed in the central, dissipational starburst
1558: as a function of gas mass fraction at the time just before the starburst,
1559: in a suite of major $1:1$ mass-ratio mergers.
1560: Solid lines are our theoretical predictions ($f_{\rm burst}=f_{\rm gas}(1-f_{\rm gas})\,\Psi$,
1561: see Equation~\ref{eqn:fburst.2}),
1562: dotted line corresponds to bursting all the available gas
1563: ($f_{\rm burst}=f_{\rm gas}$).
1564: We show results here for several orbits from Table~\ref{tbl:orbits}: a typical random orbit
1565: with both disks inclined ({\bf e:} {\em top}), an inclined polar-prograde orbit ({\bf k:} {\em middle}),
1566: and a polar-polar orbit ({\bf f:} {\em bottom}).
1567: The simulations agree well with our analytic predictions: more gas-rich mergers
1568: are less efficient at torquing angular momentum away from the gas
1569: and funneling it into the starburst (efficiency $\sim(1-f_{\rm gas})$).
1570: \label{fig:fgas.fsb}}
1571: \end{figure}
1572:
1573: Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fsb} tests this simple prediction. For a suite of merger simulations,
1574: we compare the mass fraction in the central starburst, $f_{\rm burst}$,
1575: to the gas content of the
1576: (immediately pre-merger) disks, $f_{\rm gas}$.
1577: We can either determine the starburst mass fraction
1578: by directly measuring the gas mass that loses its angular momentum and participates
1579: in the brief nuclear starburst, or by measuring the gas content that survives and
1580: forms a disk (described in \S~\ref{sec:form.major}) and assuming the gas that did not survive
1581: (relative to that available just before the final merger) was part of the burst.
1582: In either case, we obtain a nearly identical answer for each simulation. For now,
1583: we consider only simulations with a $1:1$ mass ratio -- we will generalize to arbitrary
1584: mass ratios below. In all these simulations, the
1585: pre-merger $f_{\rm disk}\approx1$, and measuring
1586: $\barangle$ and $\tilde{H}$ just before the merger we
1587: expect $\Psi_{\rm bar}\approx1$. We consider one set of orbits at a time -- i.e.\ compare
1588: only systems with the same orbital parameters, so that we can temporarily suppress
1589: the dependence on them (this yields a systematic offset between each set of
1590: orbital parameters -- the solutions plotted account for that following our solution in the
1591: next section). At a fixed orbit, for these mergers, then, the only parameter
1592: that matters should be $f_{\rm gas}$. The simulations at each orbit span a wide
1593: range in $f_{\rm gas}$, from $\sim0.01-1$.
1594:
1595: We compare the relation between $f_{\rm burst}$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ resulting
1596: from the full numerical experiments to the simple scalings predicted by
1597: Equations~(\ref{eqn:rtemp1})-(\ref{eqn:fburst.2}). In detail, we show two solutions --
1598: first, the scaling given by Equation~(\ref{eqn:fburst.2}),
1599: $f_{\rm burst}\propto f_{\rm gas}(1-f_{\rm gas})$, appropriate for an isothermal
1600: sphere or \citet{mestel:disk.profile} disk profile with
1601: $\Phi_{\rm bar}\approx1$; and second, the appropriate numerical solution
1602: (following Equations~\ref{eqn:rtemp1}-\ref{eqn:fburst.1}) for an
1603: exponential disk. In either case the analytic solutions are similar, and agree
1604: well with the trend seen in the simulations.
1605: It is clear that the efficiency of the burst in simulations is -- as we predict --
1606: {\em not} constant. It is not the case that the entire gas supply is always stripped
1607: of angular momentum and consumed in the final merger (which would yield
1608: $f_{\rm bust}=f_{\rm gas}$). Rather, when $f_{\rm gas}$ is sufficiently high,
1609: only a fraction $\sim(1-f_{\rm gas})$ of the available gas is able to efficiently lose
1610: its angular momentum and participate in the starburst.
1611:
1612:
1613: \begin{figure}
1614: \centering
1615: \scaleup
1616: %\plotone{fgas_fdisk.ps}
1617: \plotone{f8.ps}
1618: \caption{Relaxed post-merger remnant disk mass fraction versus gas fraction
1619: just before the merger, for $1:1$ major mass-ratio mergers. In this case essentially
1620: all the pre-merger stellar mass is transformed (violently relaxed) into bulge -- the
1621: disk is formed from the gas that survives the merger. Panels consider different orbits,
1622: with points as Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fsb}. Solid lines are our theoretical predictions
1623: ($f_{\rm disk}=f_{\rm gas}[1-(1-f_{\rm gas})\,\Psi]$, see Equation~\ref{eqn:fburst.2}),
1624: dotted lines correspond to all the gas surviving and forming a disk
1625: ($f_{\rm disk}=f_{\rm gas}$). Again, the simulations agree well with our
1626: analytic predictions; gas-rich mergers are inefficient at stripping angular momentum
1627: from the gas, leaving significant gas content that rapidly re-forms a post-merger disk.
1628: \label{fig:fgas.fdisk}}
1629: \end{figure}
1630:
1631: Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk} repeats this comparison in terms of the surviving disk mass.
1632: We argued that the gas that does not lose angular momentum in the merger will
1633: survive to re-form a disk. Because these are $1:1$ mergers where we can safely assume
1634: the entire stellar disks are destroyed, we expect then that
1635: the disk mass fraction will be $f_{\rm disk} = f_{\rm gas} - f_{\rm burst}$.
1636: Using the method described in \S~\ref{sec:form.major} to estimate the
1637: remnant disk mass fractions, we plot $f_{\rm disk}$ versus $f_{\rm gas}$ for
1638: each of several orbital parameter sets. Again, the exact details of the predictions
1639: depend on orbital parameters in a manner we derive below, but for
1640: now we are interested in whether or not they obey
1641: the predicted scaling with $f_{\rm gas}$.
1642: Indeed, they do. Over $2-3$ orders of magnitude in fractional disk mass
1643: (and $\sim5-6$ in absolute disk mass), the simple scaling here agrees well with
1644: full numerical experiments. It is clear that some of $f_{\rm gas}$ is consumed, as
1645: expected (if all the gas survived, we would obtain $f_{\rm disk} = f_{\rm gas}$; but
1646: in fact, especially at low $f_{\rm gas}$, the efficiency of angular momentum loss
1647: is high as predicted and the gas participates in the starburst).
1648:
1649:
1650: \begin{figure}
1651: \centering
1652: %\scaleup
1653: %\plotone{fgas_fdisk_exp.ps}
1654: \plotone{f9.ps}
1655: \caption{Relaxed post-merger remnant disk mass fraction versus our
1656: analytic predictions as a function of gas fraction and orbital parameters,
1657: for $1:1$ mass-ratio mergers. Error bars correspond to variation using
1658: different methods to estimate the disk-bulge decomposition.
1659: \label{fig:fgas.fdisk.exp}}
1660: \end{figure}
1661:
1662: Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk.exp} simplifies this -- we again
1663: compare $f_{\rm disk}$ and $f_{\rm gas}$, but effectively
1664: put all the orbits on the same footing
1665: by plotting $f_{\rm disk}$ versus the predicted $f_{\rm disk}(f_{\rm gas},...)$ (i.e.\ including
1666: the orbital parameters according to the predictions in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit} below).
1667: Essentially this
1668: amounts to implicitly including $F(...)$ in Equation~(\ref{eqn:fburst.2}) above. The
1669: remaining scaling should just represent the predicted
1670: $f_{\rm burst}\propto f_{\rm gas}(1-f_{\rm gas})$. For each simulation, we show
1671: an error bar corresponding to the range of $f_{\rm disk}$ estimated using
1672: different methods (e.g.\ a full three-dimensional kinematic decomposition,
1673: one and two-dimensional kinematic modeling, and surface brightness profile
1674: fits, as described in \S~\ref{sec:form.major}). The agreement is surprisingly good,
1675: given the simplicity of our derivation. Moreover, the scatter is quite small -- a
1676: factor $\sim2-3$ at very low $f_{\rm gas}$ and considerably smaller ($\lesssim50\%$)
1677: at high $f_{\rm gas}$. It seems that our simple scaling indeed
1678: captures the most important physics of angular momentum loss -- namely that
1679: with less fractional stellar material in the disk, there is less mass
1680: available to torque on the
1681: gas bar in a merger, therefore less angular momentum loss in the gas.
1682:
1683:
1684:
1685: \subsubsection{Dependence on Orbital Parameters}
1686: \label{sec:model.orbit}
1687:
1688: We now turn to how the details of the orbit affect the loss of
1689: angular momentum. Before, we made the simplifying assumptions
1690: that the stellar bar lagged by some constant angle $\barangle$
1691: and that the characteristic time for the perturbation to act
1692: was of order the disk rotational period/dynamical time. While
1693: these turn out to give reasonable scalings, we can improve upon
1694: them.
1695:
1696: The secondary (``perturber'') galaxy will have some characteristic
1697: orbital frequency $\orbitfreq$,
1698: approximately given by
1699: \begin{equation}
1700: \orbitfreq \sim \frac{v_{\rm peri}}{b} \, ,
1701: \end{equation}
1702: where $v_{\rm peri}$ is the velocity at pericentric passage and
1703: $b$ is the impact parameter or pericentric passage distance.
1704: Because the behavior we are interested in is relatively short-lived, this
1705: is reasonable even for first passages or ``flyby'' encounters --
1706: we are interested in the orbital frequency at pericentric passage because this
1707: is when the forcing is strongest and the bar is driven.
1708:
1709: Now, consider the frame rotating with the
1710: disk/bar at a frequency $\sim\diskfreq$. In this frame,
1711: the secondary galaxy will have an
1712: apparent frequency for an orbit projected into the disk plane of
1713: \begin{equation}
1714: \Omega_{\rm eff} = \orbitfreq\,\cos{\theta}-\diskfreq,
1715: \end{equation}
1716: where $\theta$ is the inclination of the orbit relative to the plane of the
1717: disk (in standard parlance for orbital parameters as described in \S~\ref{sec:sims}).
1718: Note that we are interested in the
1719: component of the orbital motion in the plane of the disk: in terms of the
1720: standard orbital parameters $\theta$ and $\phi$ of the primary
1721: galaxy (angle of the angular momentum vector of the disk relative to the
1722: plane of the orbit), this is $\orbitfreq\,\cos{\theta}$.
1723: For a case with e.g.\ $\theta=0$ (prograde) and
1724: a parabolic orbit with small impact parameter ($\orbitfreq\sim\diskfreq$),
1725: the system is maximally prograde -- in the frame of the rotating disk
1726: there is almost no net circular motion of the secondary.
1727: For the same orbit but $\theta=180\degree$ (retrograde),
1728: the secondary completes a circular orbit around the disk
1729: in just half a disk dynamical time ($\Omega_{\rm eff}\sim -2\,\diskfreq$).
1730: The time required for the secondary to complete a revolution in
1731: this frame is therefore (in our dimensionless units $\tau = t / (2\pi/\diskfreq)$)
1732: \begin{equation}
1733: \tau_{\rm circ} = \frac{1} {1-\frac{\orbitfreq}{\diskfreq}\,\cos{\theta}}.
1734: \end{equation}
1735:
1736: The timescale for a gas element to lose its angular momentum and
1737: fall to the center of the galaxy is given by our earlier
1738: estimate of the torque, as $\tau_{\rm loss}\sim \tilde{x} / ({\rm d}\tilde{x}/{\rm d}\tau)$.
1739: If $\tau_{\rm loss}\ll \tau_{\rm circ}$ at a given radius, then
1740: the derivation we have obtained is essentially valid: the system
1741: sees a quasi-static perturbation to the potential, loses its angular
1742: momentum, and collapses before the perturbation can damp out
1743: or circularize. However, if $\tau_{\rm loss}\gg \tau_{\rm circ}$,
1744: then the system has not lost much angular momentum by the time
1745: the secondary completes a revolution, and will gain
1746: some of those losses back as the system comes around the other
1747: side. In the limit where
1748: $\tau_{\rm circ}$ is short (much shorter than the local
1749: dynamical time), for example, then the potential is effectively circularized --
1750: the gas at these radii may undergo oscillatory motion and even have e.g.\
1751: spiral waves driven by this external forcing, but there is no means by
1752: which the system can introduce a strong net asymmetry to drive inflows.
1753:
1754: We can therefore improve our previous estimate: instead of taking
1755: $\Delta\tau\sim1$ (i.e.\ a disk rotation period) as
1756: the only characteristic timescale, we
1757: argue that gas with
1758: \begin{equation}
1759: \frac{\tilde{x}}{{\rm d}\tilde{x}/{\rm d}\tau} \lesssim
1760: \tau_{\rm circ} = \frac{1}{1-\frac{\orbitfreq}{\diskfreq}\,\cos{\theta}}
1761: \label{eqn:circ.x}
1762: \end{equation}
1763: will lose its angular momentum, while gas at larger radii will not.
1764:
1765: In detail, we can integrate the equations from
1766: \ref{sec:model.gas} for a parcel of gas at some initial radius
1767: $x_{0}$, in a time-dependent potential of this nature. For simplicity, we assume that
1768: the secondary drives a circular perturbation in the potential with frequency
1769: $\omega=\orbitfreq$ and calculate the bar response using the
1770: gaseous disk (assuming, again, that it
1771: is infinitely cold) and stellar disk (assuming that the scale height $\tilde{H}$
1772: translates into a corresponding velocity dispersion $\sigma/v_{c}$)
1773: wave dispersion relations from
1774: \citet{binneytremaine}. In practice, we find this is not much different
1775: from assuming that the lag in the stellar bar grows with
1776: time $\propto \tau_{\rm circ}$ (i.e.\ that the stellar bar can keep up or reverse
1777: sense tracking the perturbation without significant energy loss;
1778: or, more or less equivalently, that the two bars
1779: are only in phase when the perturbation is strong, and then rapidly fall out of
1780: phase -- at the $\gtrsim5-10\degree$ level, once the perturbation is weak or
1781: reverses its sense as the phase of the secondary reaches $\gtrsim \pi/2$).
1782: In principle, we now have a physically motived and fully time-dependent
1783: model for $\barangle(t)$ and the response of the gas bar. This allows us
1784: to properly integrate out the dependence of $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ on $\barangle$ and
1785: instantaneous conditions and replace it with the appropriate integral dependence
1786: on orbital parameters and disk gas content and structure.
1787:
1788: We find that there is a strong division in expected behavior, at more or less
1789: exactly the characteristic radius implied by Equation~(\ref{eqn:circ.x}). Within
1790: this radius, gas (in our simple numerical calculations) is effectively torqued
1791: efficiently as it enters the gas bar near resonance (but slightly leading
1792: the stellar bar), and plunges to the center. Gas outside this radius begins to
1793: feel a perturbation, but then the phase of the secondary cycles around and the sense of the
1794: torques begin to weaken or reverse (depending on the details of the orbit),
1795: and generate wave motion in the gas but no significant angular momentum loss
1796: or infall. Not only is the transition between these two regimes predicted by the simple
1797: scalings above, but we find in more detailed numerical calculations that the
1798: width of the transition region (where behavior is more sensitive to the details of
1799: e.g.\ the profile shapes and assumptions about the bars) is quite narrow,
1800: $\sim20\%$ of that radius.
1801:
1802: This should not be surprising. Essentially, what we have derived is a rough
1803: equivalent of the co-rotation condition, but for forced bars as opposed to
1804: isolated self-generating (swing-amplified) bar instabilities. It is well-known
1805: from studies of idealized bars \citep[see e.g.][]{schwarz:disk-bar,
1806: pfenniger:bar.dynamics,noguchi:merger.induced.bars.gas.forcing,binneytremaine,
1807: berentzen:gas.bar.interaction}
1808: that gas can be efficiently torqued inwards
1809: inside of the co-rotation resonance (in the language above, given the forcing
1810: with pattern speed $\orbitfreq$, this is interior to the radius where the relative motion of
1811: the secondary is slow relative to the dynamical time, and so the perturbation
1812: does not circularize). Moreover, the resonant structure around these radii
1813: is known to be sharp; if we
1814: follow a derivation similar to \citet{borderies:planetary.rings}
1815: (their derivation is intended to apply to planetary disks with satellites, but the
1816: relevant physics is similar) it is straightforward to show that the
1817: detailed numerical prefactors will be swamped for all but a narrow range of
1818: radii around this resonance by the strong dependence of the resonant forcing
1819: on radius (roughly going as some large power
1820: of $(r/r_{\rm crit})$ -- such that the forcing is strong inside the resonance
1821: and rapidly weakens outside).
1822:
1823: This gives us confidence that we can adopt the scalings above and
1824: robustly assume that there is indeed a characteristic radius (depending
1825: in detail upon orbital parameters) interior to which the gas will lose its angular
1826: momentum.
1827: This resonant structure of the angular momentum loss is actually
1828: quite convenient from an analytical perspective, as it means that more subtle
1829: issues of e.g.\ the thermal pressure and state of the ISM, stellar and AGN
1830: feedback, and the exact mix of e.g.\ gas and stars or density structure of the
1831: gas will not contribute significantly to determining which gas can or cannot
1832: lose angular momentum. Unlike e.g.\ a self-generating bar in an unstable disk,
1833: there is no issue of stability analysis -- the torques inside this critical radius (and
1834: the inducing perturbation) are sufficiently strong such that all the material
1835: therein loses angular momentum in a very short time (much less than a single
1836: orbital time, in practice).
1837:
1838: For example, it is well known that in isolated cases, a
1839: pure gas disk is more unstable to gravitational perturbation than a stellar disk
1840: \citep[see e.g.][]{christodoulou:bar.crit.1,christodoulou:bar.crit.2,
1841: mayer:lsb.disk.bars}, however in the driven case this is not applicable: the
1842: distortion in the local stellar/gas distribution is caused by the secondary, not by
1843: e.g.\ orbital ``pileup'' or instability in the primary. The location of the resonant
1844: radius is not determined by the internal structure of the primary (unlike in an
1845: isolated case, where it is determined by how e.g.\ those orbits can overlap and
1846: where various stability criteria are satisfied), but rather by the orbital motion
1847: of the secondary (relative to the internal motion of the primary), and therefore knows
1848: nothing about e.g.\ the gas to stars ratio, phase structure, and feedback
1849: situation in the primary. Inside this radius, the distortion is sufficiently strong that it
1850: does not matter whether one configuration or another is more or less prone to
1851: gravitational instability -- the driving force (and therefore angular momentum loss)
1852: is large in any case.
1853:
1854: Exactly what the pressure support of the gas inside
1855: this radius is may effect e.g.\ how far it free-falls after losing angular momentum
1856: before shocking and forming a central starburst, but it will not change the fact
1857: that the angular momentum loss is efficient. Quantitatively, the torque is
1858: $\gg j_{\rm disk}\,\Omega_{d}$ (as it must be in order for the gas to lose its
1859: angular momentum in much less than an orbital period); but e.g.\ the pressure
1860: gradients resisting gas collapse cannot be larger than (in energetic terms)
1861: $\tilde{H}\,M_{d}\,V_{d}^{2}\sim\tilde{H}\,j_{\rm disk}\,\Omega_{d}\ll j_{\rm disk}\,\Omega_{d}$
1862: (or else the disk could not be thin) -- therefore whether or not there is even considerable
1863: pressure support or e.g.\ thermal feedback or a modified ISM equation of state makes a
1864: negligible correction to the behavior seen in the simulations.
1865:
1866: Before moving on, we would like to translate the general
1867: scaling above in terms of $\orbitfreq$ and $\diskfreq$ into
1868: more convenient parameters. As noted above, $\orbitfreq\sim v_{\rm peri}/b$.
1869: We expect $b\sim1-3\,\scalelen$ for common parabolic cosmological orbits --
1870: as we discuss below, for orbits with larger $b$ that will eventually merge, all
1871: that matters in terms of the end product is the impact parameter of
1872: the final passage or two when the most dramatic forcing occurs, so even for
1873: initially larger passages, angular momentum transfer to the halo will ensure
1874: a value in this range towards the final stages of the merger.
1875:
1876: Assuming a parabolic orbit, $v_{\rm peri}$ will be given by
1877: the infall velocity from infinity, $\sqrt{(G\,M\,(1+\mu)/b)}$ (where
1878: $\mu$ is the merger mass ratio, discussed below).
1879: Because the merging systems are extended, as $b\rightarrow0$
1880: these expressions should be replaced by a more complicated
1881: function of $b/\scalelen$ (for the case $b=0$, the infall velocity asymptotes
1882: to the escape velocity from the center of the primary $\sim\sqrt{G\,M/\scalelen}$),
1883: which requires a numerical solution for an arbitrary density profile.
1884: In practice we find that we can interpolate between the limits $b=0$ and
1885: $b\gg \scalelen$ quite accurately by replacing $b$
1886: with $\sqrt{b^{2}+\scalelen^{2}}$ (which also happens to be an exact solution
1887: for e.g.\ a Plummer sphere density profile).
1888: Combining these
1889: factors, we find that (for the regime of typical interest)
1890: \begin{eqnarray}
1891: \nonumber \frac{\orbitfreq}{\diskfreq} &\sim& \frac{v_{\rm peri}}{v_{c}}\,
1892: \frac{\scalelen}{b}\,\cos{(\theta)} \\
1893: \nonumber &=& \sqrt{2\,(1+\mu)}\,[1+(b/\scalelen)^{2}]^{-3/4}\,\cos{(\theta)}\\
1894: &\approx& 0.6\,\cos{(\theta)} \, ,
1895: \end{eqnarray}
1896: where the last term comes from inserting a typical major merger
1897: mass ratio and $b\sim2\,\scalelen$.
1898: The orbital dependence is then -- as we would expect -- largely a function of
1899: the inclination angle $\theta$. Prograde orbits induce a strong bar
1900: response -- despite the fact that in these mergers the
1901: orbital angular momenta are all aligned, we actually expect the most
1902: angular momentum loss and least efficient disk formation. Retrograde
1903: and polar mergers, on the other hand, despite having completely
1904: un-aligned or cancelling total angular momentum, should most efficiently
1905: form disks.
1906:
1907: Inserting this dependence on orbital parameters into our previous
1908: derivation in Equation~(\ref{eqn:rtemp1}) allows us to effectively
1909: replace the part of $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ which parameterized our ignorance of
1910: orbital parameters ($F(...)$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:fburst.2}), giving
1911: \begin{equation}
1912: \Psi_{\rm bar}(\theta,\tilde{H},...) \propto \frac{1}{1-\frac{\orbitfreq}{\diskfreq}\,\cos{\theta}}.
1913: \label{eqn:orbit.dept.1}
1914: \end{equation}
1915: In short, our previous derivation applies, but the orbital dependence is now
1916: explicit in $\Psi_{\rm bar}$.
1917:
1918: Revisiting Figures~\ref{fig:fgas.fsb} \&\ \ref{fig:fgas.fdisk}, recall that we included
1919: this orbital dependence in the predicted curves therein. For each orbit, the
1920: predicted curve is given by the solution for the gas mass within the critical
1921: $R_{\rm gas}/\scalelen$ (Equation~\ref{eqn:rtemp1}) with
1922: the dependence on orbital parameters as in Equation~\ref{eqn:orbit.dept.1} --
1923: we insert the appropriate orbital inclination $\theta$ and impact parameter
1924: $b$ for the two disks in the orbit and sum their expected $f_{\rm burst}$ or $f_{\rm disk}$
1925: to derive the model prediction.
1926: The difference between the different orbits does not appear dramatic
1927: in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fsb} -- but this is because the burst fraction $f_{\rm burst}$ is plotted
1928: on a linear scale, suppressing the dependence on $\theta$ at small $f_{\rm gas}$
1929: (most of the visible dynamic range in the plot is at large $f_{\rm gas}$ -- in this regime, however,
1930: the stellar bar is weak in any case because there is not much stellar mass in the disk -- so
1931: the result is that much of the gas survives and becomes part of the disk, regardless of orbital
1932: parameters).
1933:
1934: However, the difference between different orbits is
1935: much more clear in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk}, displayed on a logarithmic scale. At
1936: low $f_{\rm gas}$, there is much more stellar mass in the disk than gas mass, so in principle
1937: the stellar bar could (if maximal) easily torque away all the angular momentum of the
1938: gas. Here, however, the orbital parameters become important in determining
1939: just how efficient this process should actually be. For the orbits close to retrograde
1940: ($\cos{\theta}\approx-1$),
1941: the scaling we have just derived suggests that $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ should be
1942: suppressed by a factor $\sim2$.
1943: But for orbits close to coplanar prograde ($\cos{\theta}\approx1$),
1944: $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ is enhanced by a factor $\sim2-3$ -- in other words, because the orbit
1945: is nearly resonant, the effective co-rotation resonance (the orbit interior to which the gas
1946: can efficiently lose angular momentum to the induced stellar bar) is moved out
1947: by a substantial factor, including a larger fraction of the disk gas (in those extremes,
1948: only the gas at very large radii survives the merger).
1949:
1950: Again, Figures~\ref{fig:fgas.fsb}-\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk} demonstrate that
1951: the simple scalings based on our model provide an accurate description of the
1952: behavior in the full numerical experiments. Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk.exp}
1953: combines these into a single plot -- we compare the disk fractions in our
1954: simulations to the full expectation based on our derivation thus far as a function of
1955: both gas fraction and orbital parameters. As noted above, the agreement is
1956: good, with a reasonably small scatter.
1957:
1958: \begin{figure}
1959: \centering
1960: \scaleup
1961: %\plotone{psi_theta.ps}
1962: \plotterr{f10.ps}
1963: \caption{Effective efficiency of bars (the parameter $\Psi$,
1964: efficiency at torquing gas into a starburst, removing
1965: its angular momentum and destroying the disk), as a function of
1966: the effective orbital parameter. Each point represents the effective constraint on
1967: $\Psi$ from fitting a correlation of the form in Equation~(\ref{eqn:fburst.2})
1968: to a suite of simulations over a range of gas fractions, masses, and
1969: mass ratios (since we are interested in a comparison of orbital parameters
1970: here and not e.g.\ gas fractions, we choose to normalize so that $0<\Psi<1$).
1971: Black points are the most well-sampled orbits (e, h, k, f),
1972: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk}, purple points are
1973: more limited studies of orbits (c, i, m, d), red points are
1974: a study of major and minor mergers with $\phi=0$,
1975: $\theta=0,\ 30,\ 90,\ 150,\ 180\degree$.
1976: {\em Top:} $\Psi_{\rm eff}$ versus mean orbital inclination
1977: $\langle\cos{(\theta)}\rangle$ (for 1:1 mergers, we average the two
1978: inclinations). Black solid line is the simple linear scaling
1979: $\Psi_{\rm eff}\propto1/(1 - 0.6\,\langle\cos{\theta}\rangle)$
1980: from Equation~(\ref{eqn:orbit.dept.1});
1981: red dot-dashed lines are the numerical solutions for the appropriate
1982: $\langle\cos{\theta}\rangle$, as in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk}.
1983: {\em Middle:} $\Psi_{\rm eff}$ versus the full numerical
1984: expectation (properly solving for the effective bar strength in each disk
1985: and then adding the burst fractions, rather than just taking $\Psi(\langle\cos{\theta}\rangle)$.
1986: The efficiency of disk destruction
1987: and angular momentum loss scales with orbital parameters in the
1988: simple manner predicted in Equation~(\ref{eqn:orbit.dept.1}).
1989: Over a typical random
1990: cosmological ensemble of orbits, we expect values similar to those
1991: between our typical {\bf e} and {\bf f} orbits.
1992: {\em Bottom:} $\Psi_{\rm eff}$ versus net specific angular momentum
1993: of the system (adding/cancelling the initial disk plus
1994: orbital angular momenta and dividing by the final baryonic mass).
1995: The two are actually {\em anti}-correlated, demonstrating that disks do
1996: not arise after or survive mergers owing to co-addition of angular
1997: momentum (and cancellation is inefficient at destroying disks) -- rather,
1998: systems with aligned angular momentum vectors are in greater resonance,
1999: triggering stronger internal asymmetries in the primary that drain more
2000: angular momentum from the gas.
2001: \label{fig:psi.theta}}
2002: \end{figure}
2003:
2004: These results are for four representative orbits spanning a reasonable range in
2005: orbital parameters -- those for which we
2006: have a large number of simulations covering a wide range in the
2007: space of other parameters. We consider them first because this allows us
2008: to robustly determine that the predicted orbital scalings do not depend on e.g.\ stellar
2009: mass, halo properties, feedback prescriptions, or other varied physics in the
2010: simulations. Having done so, we consider a more limited sampling of a much
2011: broader range in orbits given by Table~\ref{tbl:orbits} in order to survey the
2012: full dynamic range of orbital parameters.
2013:
2014: Figure~\ref{fig:psi.theta} shows the results of this. For a given suite of simulations
2015: with some particular orbital parameters, we first construct the correlation
2016: $f_{\rm disk}(f_{\rm gas})$ as in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk}. Rather than adopt some
2017: {\em a priori} model for the orbital dependence, we then fit the points in that
2018: correlation to a function of the form in Equation~(\ref{eqn:fburst.2}) -- i.e.\
2019: effectively fit for the normalization or ``efficiency'' of angular momentum
2020: removal, which we define as $\langle\Psi_{\rm eff}({\rm orbit})\rangle$.
2021: We compare this, for our ensemble of orbits, to our analytic expectation
2022: from the simple scaling in Equation~(\ref{eqn:orbit.dept.1}) and to
2023: a full numerical solution (technically, for 1:1 mergers, we want to solve this separately
2024: for each disk and add the two, although just considering the primary is a
2025: good approximation for less major mergers).
2026: The agreement with our analytic model is quite good across the entire range
2027: of orbital parameters, implying that we have captured the most important
2028: physics of resonant interactions in this simple scaling.
2029:
2030: We also compare this effective efficiency of disk destruction with the
2031: net specific angular momentum of the merger remnant (assuming
2032: pure addition/cancellation of the initial baryonic angular momenta of the disks
2033: and the orbital angular momentum). The result is actually an anti-correlation:
2034: systems with aligned angular momentum vectors, e.g.\ coplanar prograde mergers
2035: being the extreme case, induce the most efficient bars and remove angular
2036: momentum most efficiently from the gas. Systems where the angular momentum
2037: vectors are misaligned (e.g.\ polar orbits) or anti-aligned (retrograde)
2038: actually leave the largest disks in place. This clearly emphasizes that it
2039: is not, in fact, any direct addition/cancellation of angular momentum that
2040: determines or enables disks to form in and survive mergers. Rather, the cases with the
2041: largest net angular momentum are most resonant, inducing the strongest resonant
2042: asymmetries in the merging pair, which most effectively drains angular momentum
2043: from the gas and leaves a compact, bulge-dominated remnant.
2044:
2045:
2046: \subsubsection{Dependence on Mass Ratio}
2047: \label{sec:model.massratio}
2048:
2049: The major remaining parameter to study is the merger mass ratio.
2050: Thus far, we have restricted our attention to equal mass
2051: $1:1$ mergers, which allowed us to make several convenient simplifying assumptions.
2052: Nevertheless, most of our previous derivation applies. None of the
2053: scalings that we have explicitly derived up to now are dependent upon
2054: mass ratio. However, we have quantified the strength of the induced stellar and
2055: gas bars with the parameter $\Psi_{\rm bar}$, which we expect should
2056: scale with mass ratio. Moreover, we have made the assumption that the
2057: pre-merger disk stars are entirely violently relaxed by the merger. While this
2058: is a good assumption for $1:1$ mergers, it is not true for minor mergers
2059: (a $1:10$ mass ratio merger, even with no gas, will clearly not transform the entire
2060: primary stellar disk into bulge).
2061:
2062: First, consider this stellar component: there are a number of ways to derive
2063: the disturbance of the stellar component in the merger. The simple expectation
2064: is that the mass in galaxy $M_{1}$ which can be violently relaxed by
2065: collision with galaxy $M_{2}$ is proportional to $M_{2}/M_{1}$ -- the net energy deposit,
2066: tidal forces, and the mass fraction brought in from a potentially disrupted satellite
2067: all scale in this manner. For simplicity, consider the case where the secondary
2068: $M_{2}$ is much smaller and more dense than the primary, and falls in on a nearly radial orbit
2069: in the final encounter (which is a good approximation, given the efficiency of
2070: angular momentum transfer from the orbit to the halo). Since we are assuming
2071: $M_{2}\ll M_{1}$, treat $M_{2}$ as a point mass, and consider its final orbital
2072: decay, where it oscillates with rapidly decaying amplitude through the center of the primary
2073: with initial impact velocity $v_{\rm i}\approx v_{c}$ and damping spatial amplitude
2074: $\ell_{\rm max}\lesssim R_{d}$.
2075: At some instant, then, the secondary is at
2076: location $(R^{\prime},\phi^{\prime},\,z^{\prime})=\ell\,(\cos{\theta},\,0,\,\sin{\theta})$
2077: (we rotate such that the secondary orbit defines $\phi=0$ without loss of generality).
2078: A star in the primary disk at $(R,\phi,z=0)$ then feels some potential from the
2079: secondary ($\equiv \Phi_{2}$) and experiences
2080: a vertical deflection out of the
2081: disk $\partial\Phi_{2}/\partial z = (G\,M_{2}/R^{3})\,\ell\,\sin{\theta}\,f(\ell/R)$,
2082: where $f(u)=[1+u^{2}-2\,u\cos{\theta}\,\cos{\phi}]^{3/2}\sim1$. We are only interested
2083: in the time the secondary spends at $\ell \sim R$ (when its much closer to the
2084: disk or further away, the vertical perturbation is weak), so it effectively
2085: acts for a time $\delta t \sim R/v_{\rm i}$ as it passes through $\ell \sim R$
2086: in its ringing about the center. If we know the full potential, we can
2087: solve for the deflection as a function of time and calculate the full acceleration of
2088: the disk stars at $(R,\phi)$, which yields an effective
2089: net velocity deflection while the secondary is on one side of the galaxy
2090: of $\delta{v} = (G\,M_{2}/R\,v_{\rm i})\,(\ell_{\rm max}\sin{\theta}/R)\,f(\ell_{\rm max}/R)$.
2091: Deflection occurs when $\delta{v} \sim v$ or larger, so if
2092: $v=\tilde{v}(r)\,v_{c}$ (where $\tilde{v}$ depends weakly on $r$)
2093: and we substitute for $v_{c}\equiv\sqrt{G\,M_{1}/R_{d}}$ here and in $v_{\rm i}$ we obtain
2094: the criterion $G\,M_{2}/R \gtrsim v_{c}\,v_{i} \sim v_{c}^{2} \sim G\,M_{1}/R_{d}$,
2095: i.e.\ (rearranging) $R/R_{d} \lesssim M_{2}/M_{1}\,\sin{\theta} = \mu\,\sin{\theta}$.
2096: The $\sin{\theta}$ dependence comes because we considered only vertical
2097: deflection of stars (i.e.\ some heating to $v_{z}^{2}$)--
2098: a coplanar orbit (in this limit) will obviously induce no such
2099: heating, but will introduce deflections in the radial direction (heating
2100: $v_{R}^{2}$). We can repeat
2101: our derivation considering where these deflections are significant, and find
2102: (as one would expect) $R/R_{d} \lesssim \mu\,\cos{\theta}$. So, the absolute
2103: mass fraction scattered should be more or less angle-dependent, although
2104: the orbital anisotropy $\beta_{z}\equiv 1 - \bar{v_{z}^{2}}/\bar{v_{R}^{2}}$
2105: will depend significantly on the orbital inclination $\theta$.
2106:
2107: For the case of a thin
2108: \citet{mestel:disk.profile} disk with no bulge, we can solve these equations exactly and obtain
2109: the simple solution that
2110: a merger with a secondary $M_{2}$ scatters exactly $M_{2}$ worth of stars in the primary,
2111: completely independent of the inclination $\theta$, (but with an
2112: anisotropy
2113: $\beta_{z}(\theta) \sim 1 - \frac{2\,\sin^{2}{\theta}}{(1+2\,\cos^{2}{\theta})}$ --
2114: although this ignores a proper treatment of further mixing as the perturbed stars
2115: interact with each other, and thus does not reproduce orbits quite as radial as seen
2116: in simulations).
2117: The full numerical solutions for arbitrary cases yield the general result that,
2118: when inside a radius that encloses a mass $\sim M_{2}$ in the primary,
2119: then the presence of the mass $M_{2}$ is a significant perturbation, which
2120: scatters those stars in the primary -- i.e.\ deflections occur rapidly, so the stars
2121: violently relax. At larger radii, where $M_{\rm enc} \rightarrow M_{1}>M_{2}$,
2122: the motion of the $M_{2}$ secondary at the center is a small perturbation. The
2123: disk at these radii is perturbed adiabatically by the motion of the secondary, which
2124: can induce some warps and/or disk heating, but will not violently relax the stars.
2125: Reversing this derivation for the secondary, it is trivial that essentially all
2126: the mass in the secondary (we ignore stripping of the tightly bound stellar mass)
2127: will be violently relaxed. So the total mass violently relaxed will
2128: be $\sim M_{2}$ (in the primary) plus $M_{2}$ (the secondary), out of a total
2129: mass $M_{1}+M_{2}$ -- i.e.\ in terms of the mass ratio $\mu\equiv M_{2}/M_{1}$, the
2130: fraction of the pre-merger {\em stellar disk} mass which is destroyed and turned into
2131: bulge is
2132: \begin{equation}
2133: f_{\ast,\rm disk}(\rm destroyed) = \frac{2\,\mu}{1+\mu}.
2134: \label{eqn:minor.scaling}
2135: \end{equation}
2136: Technically this assumes the systems are initially pure disk, but the corrections
2137: if they have pre-existing bulges are not large (generally smaller than the
2138: simulation-to-simulation variation; although we discuss them in
2139: more detail in \S~\ref{sec:prescriptions}), so this is a reasonable approximation
2140: for general cases.
2141:
2142: Now, consider the gas. It turns out that a similar
2143: linear scaling in Equation~(\ref{eqn:minor.scaling})
2144: is found for how the gas mass in the starburst (i.e.\ the fraction
2145: that loses its angular momentum) scales with mass ratio, as one might expect.
2146: In detail, though, the derivation must be revisited (and will include additional terms
2147: depending on orbital parameters): because the gas is collisional,
2148: even a large vertical deflection of
2149: gas at some $R$ does not translate to a loss of that gas disk, since the gas can
2150: dissipate the vertical energy and no loss of rotational angular momentum
2151: has occurred. Deflections in the $R$ direction will be resisted by hydrodynamic forces.
2152: So, for a proper derivation, we return to our model of the stellar bar torquing
2153: the gas bar. The essential question is how the amplitude of the induced stellar bar
2154: (our term $\Psi_{\rm bar}$) should scale with mass ratio.
2155:
2156: Take the thin disk limit (this is just for convenience, the final scaling is unchanged if we
2157: allow for a finite stellar disk thickness); the
2158: disk surface density is linear in the potential according to Poisson's equation,
2159: \begin{equation}
2160: \nabla^{2}\Phi = 4\pi\,\Sigma(R,\phi)\,\delta{(z)}.
2161: \end{equation}
2162: So, since the non-axisymmetric
2163: potential of the secondary, at some distance $b$ (the impact parameter),
2164: must scale as roughly $\Phi \sim G\,M_{2} / b^{3}$,
2165: we expect the amplitude of the induced bar (perturbation in $\Sigma$)
2166: should also scale as $M_{2}/b^{3}$. Fractionally, this yields
2167: $\Psi_{\rm bar}\propto M_{\rm bar}/M_{1} \sim \mu\,(h/b)^{3}$.
2168:
2169: We can show this more formally:
2170: if $\Phi_{0}$ is the (azimuthally symmetric) potential of the primary and
2171: $\Phi_{1}$ is the perturbative potential of the secondary, which induces the
2172: surface density perturbation $\Sigma_{1}\propto f_{\rm bar}\propto \Psi_{\rm bar}$
2173: that defines the bar, we
2174: have $\nabla^{2}\Phi_{1} = 4\pi\,\Sigma_{1}(R,\phi)\,\delta{(z)}$.
2175: We can expand any potential $\Phi_{1}$
2176: as $\Phi_{a}(k\,R)\,\exp{[\imath\,(m\,\phi-\omega\,t)-k\,|z|]}$, which gives the
2177: trivial solution
2178: $\Sigma_{1} = \Sigma_{a}(k\,R)\,\exp{[\imath\,(m\,\phi-\omega\,t)-k\,|z|]}$
2179: where $\Sigma_{a} = -|k|/(2\pi\,G)\,\partial^{2}\Phi_{a}/\partial r^{2}$.
2180: We expect $\Phi_{a}\sim -G\,M_{2}/r$, so
2181: we obtain $\partial^{2}\Phi_{a}/\partial r^{2} \sim -2\,G\,M_{2}/r^{3}$ (note
2182: that we can generalize this to extended distributions for the secondary,
2183: relevant for e.g.\ more major mergers, and the change is, for reasonable
2184: profiles, equivalent to replacing $r$ with $\sqrt{r^{2}+a^{2}}$).
2185: The details of the mode structure turn out not to be important, since
2186: the behavior we are interested in is dominated by modes with $|k|\sim 1/\scalelen$;
2187: but we can, for example, treat $\Phi_{a}(k\,R)$ as the potential
2188: generated by a point source (appropriate for e.g.\ the small mass-ratio limit)
2189: at the impact parameter $b$
2190: and expand the wave modes appropriately, then integrate over the modes
2191: in the disk to determine the bar strength (i.e.\ the total
2192: mass effectively contributing to the bar). In any case, up to a numerical
2193: constant that is weakly sensitive to the mode structure,
2194: we obtain
2195: $M_{\rm bar} \propto \frac{\scalelen^{3}}{(b^{2}+\scalelen^{2})^{3/2}}\,M_{2}$.
2196: In terms of $\Psi_{\rm bar} = M_{\rm bar}/M_{1}$, this gives
2197: \begin{equation}
2198: \Psi_{\rm bar}\propto \mu\, (1+[b/\scalelen]^{2})^{-3/2} \, ,
2199: \label{eqn:massratio.b.forcing}
2200: \end{equation}
2201: where again $b$ is the impact parameter and the
2202: $1+[b/\scalelen]^{2}$ term effectively allows for the interpolation between
2203: the case of an orbiting point mass and a penetrating encounter
2204: \citep[see e.g.][]{binneytremaine}.
2205:
2206: As noted in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit},
2207: if we are just interested in the end product of a merger -- i.e.\ we do not
2208: care what happens on each passage separately as the companions lose
2209: angular momentum, but only in the surviving disk fraction and total
2210: burst fraction -- then we are not interested in some initial impact parameter
2211: $b$ but only in the impact parameter on the final passages close to
2212: coalescence, when angular momentum loss has made the orbits
2213: nearly radial and the forcing is strong. We can see directly from
2214: Equation~(\ref{eqn:massratio.b.forcing})
2215: that the forcing is dramatically suppressed by a factor $\sim(b/\scalelen)^{3}$
2216: on earlier, large-impact parameter passages, so these can be effectively
2217: ignored in calculating the remnant properties (we confirm this is
2218: true in a sample of simulations with much larger $R_{\rm peri}$).
2219: Eventually, for any systems which are destined to merge,
2220: angular momentum transfer yields a nearly radial orbit with $b\sim\scalelen$,
2221: and this is where most of the forcing occurs, so the remnant solution is
2222: effectively given by ignoring the $b$ dependence above (technically
2223: summing over each passage with the appropriate $b$ is possible,
2224: but in practice we obtain the same result to within the
2225: simulation-to-simulation scatter by assuming $b\rightarrow0$ in
2226: Equation~\ref{eqn:massratio.b.forcing}). The final dependence on any
2227: initial impact parameter $b$ is therefore weak, so long as the
2228: systems are bound to merge. The dependence on mass ratio $\mu$, however,
2229: is fixed.
2230:
2231: If the mass enclosed is linear in $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ (the case
2232: for e.g.\ the \citet{mestel:disk.profile} disk and an isothermal sphere, and not a
2233: bad approximation for the regime of interest for an exponential
2234: disk), we then have a similar result for the gas as the stellar distribution:
2235: the secondary
2236: induces a burst of mass $\propto M_{2}$ in the primary $M_{1}$.
2237: Reversing the derivation, the primary (since it is larger, so
2238: $M_{1}/M_{2}>1$ induces a burst (assuming the two have similar initial
2239: gas fractions) $\propto M_{2}$ in the secondary (i.e.\ bursting all its gas).
2240: The net burst mass $\propto 2\,M_{2}$ relative to the remnant
2241: mass $M_{1}+M_{2}$ is then
2242: \begin{equation}
2243: f_{\rm bust}\propto \frac{2\,\mu}{1+\mu}.
2244: \end{equation}
2245: This is generally applicable for mergers; however we will note below
2246: that, because they do not coalesce (and therefore do not
2247: eventually come in with $b\rightarrow0$ or brake their orbital energy
2248: interior to the stellar distribution of the primary), this is not exactly
2249: applicable to e.g.\ fly-by or first passage scenarios.
2250:
2251: \begin{figure*}
2252: \centering
2253: \scaleup
2254: %\plotone{massratio_fdisk.ps}
2255: \plotone{f11.ps}
2256: \caption{{\em Top:} Surviving disk mass fraction $f_{\rm disk}$ as a function of
2257: pre-merger gas fraction $f_{\rm gas}$, for a series of
2258: mergers of varying mass ratios (symbols). Each panel shows a series of mergers with
2259: different orbital parameters (orbits {\bf m000-m180}). Color encodes
2260: mass ratio of the merger: 1:1 (red), 1:2 (green/cyan), 1:4 (blue), 1:8 (purple).
2261: Dotted lines (of corresponding color) show our prediction (Equation~\ref{eqn:full.equation})
2262: for the given orbital parameters and mass ratio. Note that for minor
2263: mergers, $f_{\rm disk}>f_{\rm gas}$ is allowed, because some of the original
2264: stellar disks are predicted to survive the merger as well as some of the gas
2265: which does not lose angular momentum.
2266: {\em Bottom:} Starburst mass fraction in mergers of a given mass ratio $\mu$,
2267: relative to our model prediction for 1:1 mass ratio mergers with
2268: the same orbit and pre-merger gas content (symbols, as
2269: top panels). Lines show our simple linear model (solid black; this does
2270: well for typical orbits but the bursts in nearly prograde orbits -- m000 --
2271: are somewhat more efficient than predicted owing to the effects described in
2272: \S~\ref{sec:model.exceptions}) and full numerical calculation (dot-dashed red;
2273: two lines correspond to different mass profiles), as in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk}.
2274: Minor mergers induce less efficient bursts, and do not completely destroy the
2275: primary disk: the scaling of these efficiencies with mass ratio agrees well
2276: with our dynamical model predictions.
2277: \label{fig:massratio.fdisk}}
2278: \end{figure*}
2279:
2280: Figure~\ref{fig:massratio.pred} tests this prediction in an ensemble of
2281: simulations spanning a range in mass ratio from
2282: $\mu=0.1-1$. For a given set of orbital parameters (fixed), we plot
2283: the disk and burst fractions ($f_{\rm disk}$ and $f_{\rm burst}$) of the
2284: remnant, as a function of the immediate pre-merger
2285: gas fraction $f_{\rm gas}$, as in Figures~\ref{fig:fgas.fsb}-\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk}.
2286: For the $1:1$ mergers, we plot our expectation based on the
2287: simple scaling in Equations~(\ref{eqn:rtemp1})-(\ref{eqn:orbit.dept.1}),
2288: including the dependence on $f_{\rm gas}$ and orbital parameters ($\theta$)
2289: following \S~\ref{sec:model.gas}-\ref{sec:model.orbit}.
2290: We then show the prediction for mass ratios $1:2$, $1:4$, and $1:8$, according
2291: to our derivations here.
2292:
2293: This includes two important corrections:
2294: instead of assuming the entire stellar disk is turned into bulge (which
2295: was a good approximation for the $1:1$ mergers), we allow the fraction
2296: of the stellar disk that is destroyed (turned into bulge) to
2297: depend on mass ratio following Equation~(\ref{eqn:minor.scaling}) -- so
2298: some (considerable) fraction of the disk is assumed to survive in
2299: higher mass-ratio mergers. We also include the scaling with mass ratio
2300: in $\Psi_{\rm bar}$, used as before to calculate how much of the
2301: gas participates in the starburst. So, in the high mass-ratio cases,
2302: both the fraction of the gas that loses its angular momentum
2303: (fraction of $f_{\rm gas}$) and fraction of the pre-merger primary stellar
2304: disk turned into bulge (fraction of $(1-f_{\rm gas})$) are suppressed
2305: by a factor $\sim\mu$.
2306:
2307: For each of the orbits surveyed (and the range in e.g.\ absolute masses,
2308: gas fractions, and feedback prescriptions in our minor merger
2309: simulations), this simple rescaling according to the merger mass
2310: ratio provides a good approximation to the behavior in the
2311: full hydrodynamic experiments. Both the total surviving disk fraction
2312: (which reflects both the ability of the pre-merger stellar disks
2313: and the pre-merger gas to survive the merger) and the burst
2314: fractions (which reflect only how much of the gas survives/loses angular
2315: momentum) are accurately predicted, suggesting that our derivations
2316: are reasonable for both the dissipational and dissipationless components
2317: of the galaxy.
2318:
2319:
2320: \begin{figure}
2321: \centering
2322: %\scaleup
2323: %\plotone{massratio_corr.ps}
2324: \plotter{f12.ps}
2325: \caption{Predicted (as a function of
2326: orbital parameters, pre-merger gas content, and
2327: mass ratio) and actual post-merger surviving disk fraction for the
2328: simulations in Figure~\ref{fig:massratio.fdisk} (symbol type
2329: and color denote orbit and mass ratio in the same style).
2330: {\em Top:} Comparison assuming there is no dependence on
2331: mass ratio (i.e.\ treating all cases as $\mu=1$). Clearly, this
2332: is inappropriate for minor mergers, but it is also inappropriate
2333: for even intermediate major mergers (mass ratios $\mu=0.3-0.5$).
2334: {\em Bottom:} Comparison including the predicted
2335: dependence on mass ratio
2336: of both destruction of the stellar disk and
2337: angular momentum loss in the gas.
2338: Our predictions as a function of mass ratio, orbital parameters,
2339: and gas fraction are accurate in the simulations to $\sim0.1$ in $f_{\rm disk}$.
2340: \label{fig:massratio.pred}}
2341: \end{figure}
2342:
2343: Figure~\ref{fig:massratio.pred} summarizes these results. We first compare
2344: the final disk fraction in the simulations to our prediction including e.g.\
2345: the dependence on gas content and orbital parameters but {\em without}
2346: any accounting for mass ratio (assuming all mergers are just as efficient
2347: as a $1:1$ merger). Unsurprisingly, this works for the $1:1$ mergers,
2348: but is a terrible approximation to mergers of very different mass ratios.
2349: We then compare allowing for the same scalings but including the
2350: predicted mass ratio dependence. The agreement between full simulation
2351: and our simple analytic expectations is good -- with a scatter for
2352: the high disk fractions typical of intermediate and minor merger remnants
2353: as low as $\sim20\%$.
2354:
2355: One important caveat here is that, for mergers of increasingly
2356: small mass ratio $\mu$,
2357: the merger timescales become long. At the smallest mass ratios we
2358: consider, $\sim$1:10, this timescale may become sufficiently long that
2359: the secular (i.e.\ self-amplifying) instability/response of the disk
2360: may become important over the duration of the merger. It is not entirely
2361: clear what the response of such an (initially driven) system will be; whether or
2362: not, for example, the driven non-axisymmetric modes will remain locked to
2363: their driver (the secondary orbit) or de-couple and move at the
2364: pattern speed dictated by the internal stability properties of the disk.
2365: This competition between secular processes (more sensitive to e.g.\ the
2366: detailed structure, rotation, and pressure support of the disk) and
2367: merger-driving in this regime probably contributes to
2368: some of the increased scatter in burst fractions seen in Figure~\ref{fig:massratio.fdisk}
2369: at the lowest $\mu$. For this reason, it is reasonable to restrict a
2370: definition of ``mergers'' to this mass ratio and more major interactions: at smaller mass ratios,
2371: secular/internal processes (even if initially driven by interactions) may
2372: be more important than the direct driving from the interactions themselves
2373: (or at least operate on comparable timescales).
2374:
2375:
2376: \subsubsection{First Passage and Fly-By Encounters}
2377: \label{sec:model.flyby}
2378:
2379: We have derived a general equation for the disk mass that should be lost in
2380: mergers, and demonstrated that it is robust to variations in a wide range of
2381: galaxy properties. Most of our derivation is completely generalizable as
2382: well to encounters where the systems will not merge (or at least are not
2383: immediately merging). Two cases of interest (which are, in the short term, essentially
2384: equivalent) arise: first passages and ``fly-by'' encounters (in which
2385: there is a close encounter but the velocities are sufficiently large to
2386: delay or prevent a merger).
2387:
2388: In such a passage, there is of course no violent relaxation and mixing of stars,
2389: so we assume the stellar disk is left intact (excepting the bar response).
2390: The same physics will govern bar formation and
2391: loss of gas angular momentum. The primary difference is the suppression
2392: by the appropriate impact parameter $b$ in
2393: Equation~(\ref{eqn:massratio.b.forcing}).
2394: We argued before that the term
2395: $\propto [1+(b/\scalelen)^{2}]^{3/2}$ should ultimately be neglected for
2396: mergers because in the final passage(s) that dominate, the condition of merging
2397: more or less guarantees $b\rightarrow0$. However, clearly this is not the case
2398: on a non-merging passage.
2399:
2400: This introduces a non-trivial uncertainty --
2401: we quote $[1+(b/\scalelen)^{2}]^{3/2}$ where $b$ is the impact parameter
2402: and $\scalelen$ is some characteristic scale length of the system. But in detail,
2403: the appropriate ``impact parameter'' is really the {\em actual} distance of closest
2404: approach, which is usually somewhat smaller than the distance of approach
2405: estimated from infinity (the formal impact parameter definition), as some angular
2406: momentum is already lost. Moreover, in detail, is
2407: the appropriate $\scalelen$ the exponential scale length? The half-mass radius?
2408: Any such radii are of course closely related, and all of these uncertainties in the
2409: exact definition change the term $b/\scalelen$ only at the factor $\sim2$ level,
2410: but since the dependence $\sim(b/\scalelen)^{3}$ is fairly strong, this is important
2411: on a quantitative level for these fly-by situations.
2412:
2413: \begin{figure*}
2414: \centering
2415: %\scaleup
2416: \scaledown
2417: %\plotone{firstpassage_model.ps}
2418: \plotterr{f13.ps}
2419: \caption{Comparison of the burst fractions in single fly-by (or equivalently, first-passage)
2420: scenarios and the general application of our model scalings. In these cases, there is
2421: no significant violent relaxation (no stars merge), so the stellar disk is left completely
2422: intact. Some pseudobulge may result from the induced bar and disk heating, but
2423: we are not modeling that here. Some burst still results from the same induced
2424: non-axisymmetry in the primary, which should be described by
2425: our same scaling (Equation~\ref{eqn:full.equation}). The important differences from
2426: a case that will merge are: {\bf (1)} the suppression of the induced burst
2427: by a factor $\sim [1+(b/\scalelen)^{2}]^{3/2}$ (where $b$ is the impact parameter and
2428: we find decent agreement with our simulations when $\scalelen$ is the half-mass
2429: disk radius), whereas in cases that will merge $b\rightarrow0$ is appropriate,
2430: {\bf (2)} the lack of violent relaxation of the stellar disk, and {\bf (3)} an expected
2431: increased scatter, as the details of the approach are more important (and there is no
2432: merger/in-spiral, which tends to average out the exact details of the approach).
2433: {\em Top:} Burst fraction (relative to gas supply at the time of the passage) versus
2434: gas fraction. Our simple linear model prediction (black solid) and
2435: numerical predictions (red dot-dashed) are shown, with the results from
2436: the first passages and fly-by encounters of the simulations in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk},
2437: appropriate for each set of orbital parameters shown. These cases had
2438: $b/\scalelen\approx1$ (and that was used in the predictions -- the
2439: curves assuming $b=0$, as we used for the post-merger systems, would be a
2440: factor $\sim3$ higher, in conflict with the simulations).
2441: {\em Middle:} Same, but as a function of mass ratio for systems in
2442: Figure~\ref{fig:massratio.fdisk} with otherwise equal orbital parameters and
2443: gas fractions at the time of passage.
2444: {\em Bottom:} Same, but as a function of impact parameter for 1:1 mergers
2445: with $\fgas\approx0.2$ (black) and $0.4$ (blue). Note that ``burst'' fractions
2446: $\lesssim1\%$ of $\fgas$ are essentially equivalent to zero (equivalent to
2447: random fluctuations in isolated disks).
2448: Our predictions describe first passages and
2449: fly-by encounters reasonably well, although there is larger scatter about them
2450: owing to differences in the details of how the passage proceeds.
2451: \label{fig:firstpass}}
2452: \end{figure*}
2453:
2454: In practice, we find that using the impact parameter $b$ defined as the halos approach
2455: (i.e.\ neglecting detailed resonant loss of angular momentum) and
2456: taking $\scalelen$ to be the half-mass radius of the system works well in a mean
2457: sense. The results of this exercise are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:firstpass}.
2458: We plot the fraction of the gas available at the time of a first passage or fly-by
2459: encounter which is consumed in the induced burst \citep[we define the strength of the
2460: induced burst by integrating the star formation excess over the interpolation between
2461: the pre- and post-flyby star formation rates; see e.g.][for details]{cox:massratio.starbursts},
2462: as a function of the gas content, for different orbits as in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fdisk}.
2463: We predict that the efficiency of channeling gas into the burst should
2464: scale as $\sim (1-\fgas)$, as before, and that the scaling with orbital parameters
2465: should be similar.
2466: We also show, for cases with otherwise identical gas fraction at the time of
2467: first passage and the same orbits as Figure~\ref{fig:massratio.fdisk},
2468: how this scales with merger mass ratio (again, expected to be the same as
2469: that we derived above). Altogether, adopting our previous estimates, but
2470: re-normalizing appropriately for the impact parameter of the passage
2471: (here $b/\scalelen\approx1$, as we defined it above) yields a good approximation
2472: to the typical behavior in our simulations.
2473: We also test the behavior as a function of impact parameter, and find
2474: that our simple scaling is a reasonable approximation, yielding rapidly
2475: diminishing bursts as the impact parameter is increased to
2476: $b\gg\scalelen$ (at some point here, our estimates from the simulations become
2477: ambiguous, as a $\sim1\%$ enhancement in star formation is
2478: below the level of random fluctuations in isolated disks).
2479: We have also checked whether or not the pre-flyby stellar disks
2480: are destroyed -- as expected, they are left more or less intact by
2481: fly-by encounters. The disks may be heated, and in fact some ``pseudobulge''
2482: can form from the buckling of the bar induced in the stars, but we are
2483: not attempting to predict or study pseudobulge formation here (rather
2484: considering it, as is often the case in observations, to be fundamentally
2485: still part of the stellar disk rather than part of a violently relaxed ``classical''
2486: bulge). In an average sense, then, our derived scaling is generally
2487: applicable.
2488:
2489: However, the details of exactly how the approach proceeds will
2490: introduce considerable scatter in the amount of burst triggered on
2491: first passages and in fly-by encounters. This is plain in the large (factor $\sim$ a few)
2492: scatter in Figure~\ref{fig:firstpass}. Further, details such as the
2493: structure of the bulge are increasingly important in the limit of weak interactions,
2494: where distortions in the potential of the primary that would trigger gas inflows
2495: can be suppressed by the presence of a larger bulge (and note the
2496: caveat from \S~\ref{sec:model.massratio}, that the secular/internal response
2497: of the disk will become relatively more important in weaker interactions
2498: with smaller mass ratios and larger impact parameters).
2499: We therefore expect in general that our predictions can be quite broadly
2500: applied, but are less robust for any specific case if it is a single fly-by
2501: as opposed to an integration over a full merger.
2502: Fortunately, in the case of systems that will actually merge, these details
2503: tend to average out or be unimportant, yielding the relatively
2504: small scatter we have seen in our previous predictions. In those cases, we do not need to
2505: be too concerned with the exact details of the impact approach,
2506: nor the structural details of the galaxy (in particular because our predictions
2507: are for integral quantities at the end of a merger, various effects will
2508: tend to cancel out -- for example retaining more gas on first passage will
2509: yield a larger supply for the second burst, etc.).
2510:
2511:
2512:
2513: \subsubsection{Independence from ``Feedback'' Physics}
2514: \label{sec:model.feedback}
2515:
2516: Our derivation of the torques causing gas to lose angular
2517: momentum in mergers is purely dynamical. All else being
2518: equal (i.e.\ for systems with the same gas content and dynamical structure
2519: at the time of the final merger), we therefore expect that the detailed
2520: physics of e.g.\ ``feedback'' from supernovae, stellar winds, and AGN activity
2521: should make little difference.
2522:
2523: \begin{figure}
2524: \centering
2525: \scaleup
2526: %\plotone{qeos_fdisk.ps}
2527: \plotone{f14.ps}
2528: \caption{The effects of feedback on disk survival in mergers.
2529: We show the distribution in $f_{\rm burst}/f_{\rm burst,\ pred}$,
2530: i.e.\ the burst mass fraction, relative to that predicted (or equivalently, the
2531: mean in our simulations) for the given pre-merger gas fraction and
2532: orbital parameters, for simulations with two different ISM gas
2533: feedback prescriptions (different effective equations of state $q_{\rm eos}$).
2534: We also show the corresponding (but measured differently)
2535: disk mass fractions $f_{\rm disk}/f_{\rm disk,\ pred}$.
2536: There is perhaps a small offset in the sense expected (a stiffer, higher-feedback
2537: equation of state for the ISM suppresses bursts by an average factor $\sim1.1-1.2$),
2538: but this is much smaller than the simulation-to-simulation scatter. For a given
2539: gas content at the time of the merger, then, feedback makes almost no
2540: difference (true for AGN feedback and starburst winds as well).
2541: \label{fig:qeos}}
2542: \end{figure}
2543:
2544: Figure~\ref{fig:qeos} demonstrates that this is indeed the case. We compare
2545: the starburst and surviving disk gas fractions
2546: of merger remnants, relative to those predicted by our simple dynamical model
2547: as a function of the merger mass ratio, orbital parameters, and
2548: gas content at the time of the merger, for suites of simulations with two different
2549: prescriptions for supernovae feedback and the effective equation of state of
2550: the ISM. In terms of our $\qeos$ parameter (see \S~\ref{sec:sims}),
2551: we compare $\qeos=0.25$ simulations (a nearly isothermal equation of state
2552: with effective temperature $\sim10^{4}\,$K) to $\qeos=1$ simulations
2553: (the ``full'' stiff \citet{springel:multiphase} equation of state, with effective temperature
2554: $\gtrsim10^{5}\,$K at the densities of interest here).
2555: There is no significant systematic offset between either the median
2556: result or the scatter about our simple analytic expectation.
2557: At most, there may be a $\sim20\%$ systematic offset, in the sense that
2558: more highly pressurized systems ($\qeos=1$) have slightly more
2559: gas survive -- a small offset like this is expected
2560: because the bars in these
2561: cases are slightly more ``puffy'' (essentially the same as a slightly
2562: thicker disk -- for which we derive an analytic expectation in Equation~\ref{eqn:fburst.3}
2563: that yields an expected $\sim10-20\%$ difference at most based on
2564: the full possible range of $\qeos$). In any case, such an offset is small
2565: relative to other systematic uncertainties in disk structure and the scatter
2566: about the median predictions.
2567:
2568: \begin{figure}
2569: \centering
2570: \scaleup
2571: %\plotone{sbw_fdisk.ps}
2572: \plotone{f15.ps}
2573: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:qeos}, but comparing the distribution of
2574: disk fractions in merger remnants relative to our simple predictions as a
2575: function of stellar wind and quasar feedback prescriptions. We plot
2576: the distribution of disk fraction $f_{\rm disk}$ in simulations
2577: relative to our predicted $f_{\rm disk}(f_{\rm gas},\mu,\theta)$
2578: (i.e.\ our calculation as a function of immediate pre-merger
2579: gas fraction, orbital parameters, and merger mass ratio).
2580: {\em Left:} Varying starburst-driven wind prescriptions. We compare
2581: our usual weak stellar wind scenario (winds self-consistently can
2582: generate from the hot gas, but additional mass loading is only
2583: $\sim1\%$ of the star formation rate) to a fast winds scenario
2584: (with additional mass loading $\sim0.5\,\dot{M}_{\ast}$ and
2585: wind launch velocity $\sim800\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$) and a slow
2586: winds scenario (additional mass loading $\sim2\,\dot{M}_{\ast}$
2587: and launch velocity $\sim200\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$).
2588: {\em Right:} Simulations with and without feedback from
2589: accreting black holes.
2590: For otherwise fixed merger parameters (orbit, mass ratio)
2591: and disk properties (cold gas content, mass profiles),
2592: these feedback prescriptions make no different to the starburst or
2593: surviving disk gas fractions. They will, however, change the
2594: the gas content, consumption, and distribution leading into the merger.
2595: \label{fig:sbw}}
2596: \end{figure}
2597:
2598: In Figure~\ref{fig:sbw}, we perform
2599: a similar exercise for cases with and without
2600: central supermassive black holes (we have also
2601: examined initial BHs with varying
2602: initial masses from $\lesssim 10^{5}\,\msun$ to $\sim10^{7}\,\msun$),
2603: and cases with or without a simple
2604: implementation of starburst-driven winds where winds are launched
2605: (in addition
2606: to the stellar feedback implicit in our multi-phase ISM model)
2607: with a mass-loading efficiency $\dot{M}_{\rm wind} = \eta_{w}\,\dot{M}_{\ast}$
2608: relative to the star formation rate $\dot{M}_{\ast}$ and energy loading
2609: efficiency $\epsilon_{w}$ relative to the total energy (for a \citet{salpeter:imf}
2610: IMF) available for supernovae \citep[sampling the range $\eta_{w}\sim 0.01-10$
2611: and $\epsilon_{w}\sim 0.1-1$; see][]{cox:winds}. Shown in
2612: Figure~\ref{fig:sbw} are our fiducial weak winds ($\eta_{w}\sim0.01$,
2613: $\epsilon_{w}\sim0.0025$), cases with moderate mass loading
2614: into very fast winds ($\eta_{w}=0.5$, $\epsilon_{w}=0.25$, yielding a wind
2615: launch speed $\sim800\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$), and cases
2616: with high mass loading but correspondingly slower wind velocities
2617: ($\eta_{w}=2.0$, $\epsilon_{w}=0.0625$, yielding a wind
2618: launch speed $\sim200\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$). In all these cases we find
2619: a similar result: at otherwise fixed properties at the time of merger,
2620: feedback makes no difference to our conclusions.
2621:
2622: The reasons for this are described in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit} and
2623: in more detail below (\S~\ref{sec:model.secular}). Recall, the
2624: distortion in the primary is driven by the secondary and as such depends only
2625: on the gravitational physics of the merger. Given this distortion, the
2626: gravitational torques within some characteristic radius are sufficiently strong to remove
2627: the angular momentum from the gas in much less than an orbital time.
2628: Feedback, then, insofar as it changes the effective pressurization or equation of
2629: state of the gas or drives a wind, is largely irrelevant: because the angular momentum is removed
2630: in a timescale much shorter than the orbital time, the gas (regardless of the
2631: strength of feedback) cannot dynamically respond with these hydrodynamic forces, but
2632: must essentially free-fall into the center of the galaxy where the starburst is triggered.
2633: The radius interior to which the torques are strong is not a function of e.g.\ the stability of the
2634: galaxy to perturbation, because it is not an instability in the first place, but a driven
2635: distortion in the system. Moreover, the entire system is strongly in the non-linear regime
2636: for the time of interest (when we consider interactions
2637: of the magnitude simulated: mass ratios $\sim$1:8 and more major
2638: mergers) -- no amount of
2639: making the system more robust against linear instability would be sufficient to avoid
2640: a strong gravitational distortion in the violent coalescence surrounding
2641: the actual merger (this must be so, because the distortion occurs where the disturbances in
2642: the potential are greater than order unity -- for hydrodynamic forces to resist distortion,
2643: they would have to be stronger than large-scale gravitational forces in the equilibrium system,
2644: negating the concept of a rotationally supported thin disk).
2645: So what matters is instead where that coalescence occurs and how long
2646: it introduces such a strong distortion, relative to e.g.\ the local dynamical or orbital time
2647: of some disk element, giving rise to the simple dynamical criteria for angular
2648: momentum loss developed here.
2649:
2650:
2651: That is {\em not} to say that for fixed {\em initial} conditions (significantly pre-merger
2652: or e.g.\ at first passage), feedback will not change the result.
2653: There are two primary means by which feedback can indirectly have a strong
2654: influence on disk survival:
2655:
2656: {\bf (1) Retaining Gas (Lowering the Stellar Mass Fraction):}
2657: As has been demonstrated
2658: in a number of works \citep{weil98:cooling.suppression.key.to.disks,
2659: sommerlarsen99:disk.sne.fb,sommerlarsen03:disk.sne.fb,
2660: thackercouchman00,thackercouchman01,governato:disk.formation,
2661: robertson:disk.formation,springel:models,springel:spiral.in.merger,
2662: okamoto:feedback.vs.disk.morphology,scannapieco:fb.disk.sims}, these forms of feedback can have
2663: dramatic implications, in even a short time period, for the rates at which cooling of
2664: new cold gas from the halo and consumption of existing gas by star formation proceed.
2665: In cases with no feedback, star formation may exhaust gas efficiently, leading to
2666: predicted systems that are much more gas-poor at the interesting time
2667: of the final merger -- according to our model, then, these will
2668: not be able to form disks as efficiently as more gas-rich systems.
2669: In cases with strong feedback from e.g.\ star formation to lower
2670: the effective star formation efficiency and recycle gas, the predicted gas fractions
2671: at the time of merger (from some gas-rich initial conditions) could be much higher.
2672: Inclusion of stellar and supernovae feedback responsible for injecting
2673: energy and turbulent pressure into the ISM may also be necessary to
2674: prevent the onset of clumping and disk fragmentation in
2675: isolated gas-rich cases, enabling the stable existence and evolution of
2676: quiescent gas-rich disks \citep[see e.g.][]{springel:multiphase,
2677: robertson:cosmological.disk.formation}.
2678: In short, feedback may be critical to give rise to high gas fractions in the first place,
2679: which we have shown have dramatic implications for the survival of disks -- but for a
2680: given gas fraction (however that comes about in the first place), the results of the
2681: merger will be (in the short term) independent of feedback.
2682:
2683: {\bf (2) Changing the Spatial Distribution of Gas (``Kicking Gas Out'' of $R_{\rm max}$):}
2684: Recall, our derivations demonstrate that it is not necessarily a fixed fraction of
2685: gas that loses its angular momentum: rather (see Equation~\ref{eqn:rtemp1}
2686: and \S~\ref{sec:model.gas}-\ref{sec:model.orbit})
2687: it is the mass inside some radius $R_{\rm max}/\scalelen$ relative to that of the
2688: stellar disk (characteristic radius $\scalelen$) which will lose its angular momentum.
2689: If some form of feedback can change the spatial gas distribution, then, it could have
2690: dramatic implications for disk survival. We have used the radius $R_{\rm max}$ to
2691: estimate the mass fraction that will burst by assuming the gas density profile
2692: is broadly similar to that of the stars (which is
2693: true in our simulations, given their feedback
2694: prescriptions). But one could easily imagine the extreme limit, where some
2695: strong feedback keeps all the gas at large radii $r\gg R_{\rm max} \sim \scalelen$ (i.e.\
2696: a case in which there is a large hole in the gas distribution,
2697: or in which the gas is at least much more extended
2698: than the stellar distribution) --
2699: the stellar disk torques only act effectively within $R_{\rm max}$, so only a tiny
2700: fraction of
2701: the gas in such a case would
2702: lose its angular momentum. Especially at high redshift,
2703: this may be important in avoiding overcooling and the
2704: formation of too much bulge mass in many systems
2705: \citep[see e.g.][]{robertson:cosmological.disk.formation,
2706: governato:disk.formation, donghia:disk.ang.mom.loss,
2707: ceverino:cosmo.sne.fb,zavala:cosmo.disk.vs.fb}. Again, we stress that for a
2708: given gas density profile at the time of merger, our calculations are independent of
2709: feedback; but if feedback alters the gas profile -- keeping the
2710: gas at radii $\gg R_{\rm max}$, then it will largely survive the merger.
2711:
2712:
2713:
2714: \subsubsection{Exceptions and Pathological Cases}
2715: \label{sec:model.exceptions}
2716:
2717: We have derived a general model for how disks are destroyed in mergers
2718: and shown that it applies to a wide range of gas fractions, orbital parameters,
2719: galaxy mass ratios, and prescriptions for feedback and gas physics.
2720: However, there are some pathological cases of more than academic interest,
2721: as these can explain some small differences with previous results
2722: as well as illustrate the important physics in our model.
2723:
2724: For example, consider the starburst mass fraction and surviving disks in
2725: our ``{\bf h}'' orbits: i.e.\ a prograde-prograde, coplanar merger of two
2726: disks. In this case, the angular momentum vectors of both disks
2727: and the orbital angular momentum are all perfectly aligned. Naively,
2728: one might then expect that these unique cases would create the largest disks.
2729: In fact, the {\em opposite} is true. This is largely for the reasons we
2730: outline in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit} -- the alignment of angular momentum vectors
2731: means that the system is in near-perfect resonance, so it excites the largest
2732: tidal and bar asymmetries that rapidly drain the gas of all angular momentum.
2733: As we have shown, the much larger space of less-aligned orbits is in
2734: fact more favorable to disk survival.
2735:
2736: However, while the perfect resonance means that the bar
2737: efficiency $\Psi_{\rm bar}$ is large, the amount of mass in the stellar bar still
2738: scales as $1-\fgas$, so the burst fraction should vary as
2739: $\fgas\,(1-\fgas)$ in our simple model (i.e.\ we would still expect
2740: that a $100\%$ gas disk would have
2741: no stellar bar, hence no burst, as we have seen for more representative orbits
2742: in Figure~\ref{fig:fgas.fsb}). In fact, though, we typically find
2743: in these cases that the
2744: burst fraction seems to scale as $f_{\rm burst}=\fgas$ all the way to high values of $\fgas$ --
2745: in short, almost all the gas always bursts --
2746: there is no suppression by a $1-\fgas$ factor as would be expected
2747: if the stellar bar were doing the torquing.
2748:
2749: The reason for this is simple -- again, the orbits here are perfectly coplanar
2750: and in resonance; so this is the one case where the secondary
2751: galaxy as a whole can directly act as an efficient torque on the gas. In short,
2752: because the systems are perfectly coplanar and in a resonant orbit, the
2753: entire secondary galaxy (all baryons and dark matter within the
2754: stellar $R_{e}$) acts directly to introduce a non-axisymmetric potential
2755: perturbation (the secondary itself plays the role of the bar).
2756: So because of this, to an even greater extreme than our scalings for
2757: more general orbits would predict, this narrow range of orbits is pathological and biased
2758: {\em against} disk formation. However, understanding why this is the
2759: case, we can check and explicitly show that it is not so for
2760: more general orbits, even nearly prograde-prograde orbits (such as case {\bf e}) --
2761: in all those cases, even those just slightly out of coplanar resonance, the
2762: stellar bar is indeed the primary source of torque, and our assumptions
2763: are justified. This example therefore nicely illustrates what the consequences would
2764: be if our fundamental assumptions were not true, as well as showing why
2765: they are in fact true for non-pathological cases.
2766:
2767: Another pathological case of interest is one in which the disks are $100\%$
2768: gas at the time of merger. Here, as we have said, our simple model
2769: predicts no starburst or angular momentum loss. In practice, there will still
2770: be some loss of angular momentum owing to direct cancellation in e.g.\ shocks
2771: between the disks; but as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:form.major:angloss}, there will also be
2772: the possibility of some gain owing to the angular momentum of the merger.
2773: In fact, over the range in mass ratios $\mu\sim 0.1-1$, for a range of typical
2774: impact parameters $b\sim0.5-5$, the expected final specific angular momentum
2775: from after cancellation is approximately equal to the initial specific angular
2776: momentum of the primary (with $\sim20\%$ scatter). Cancellation is therefore
2777: inefficient. A random distribution of orbits might negate $\sim20\%$ of
2778: the angular momentum in $\sim$ half the systems merging, but will leave
2779: $\sim 80-100\%$ of the disk intact. Even these cancellations, we find in detail, do not
2780: generally yield a starburst in the same manner as a merger-induced bar,
2781: but lead to moderate disk contraction (and an equal number of mergers
2782: will scatter towards the opposite sense leading to disk expansion, keeping a mean
2783: specific angular momentum that is constant). They do not cause a starburst because,
2784: if two random parcels or streams of gas shock and lose angular momentum,
2785: the alignment and relative momenta would have to be near-perfect for them
2786: to lose, say $95\%$ of the angular momentum and fall all the way to the
2787: central $\sim 100$pc where a nuclear starburst would occur. Rather, they will lose
2788: some fraction of order unity of their angular momentum, fall in to a radius smaller
2789: by a factor $\sim2-3$ (but not to very small radii), and continue to orbit. Without the
2790: bar that can continuously drain angular momentum, the true burst is indeed
2791: inefficient.
2792:
2793: Although we show in \S~\ref{sec:model.feedback} that the physics of interest
2794: are generally independent of feedback prescriptions,
2795: there are some pathological feedback regimes. These are discussed in
2796: detail in \citet{cox:winds}; here, we outline the pathological behavior.
2797: If e.g.\ starburst-driven winds are implemented with extreme efficiencies
2798: $\dot{M}_{\rm wind}\gg \dot{M}_{\ast}$ and with
2799: moderate to large velocities $\gtrsim200\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, then there is no definable
2800: ``starburst'' in the simulations any more, even when the
2801: gas loses angular momentum -- indeed, it becomes almost impossible
2802: to trigger starbursts by {\em any} mechanism. This is because the feedback
2803: is so extreme that any parcel of gas that begins forming stars above some
2804: threshold rate is immediately blown apart and drives away all the surrounding
2805: gas. However, observations suggest that these cases are almost certainly not relevant --
2806: observationally inferred mass-loading factors of winds are well below
2807: the predicted threshold where we see this behavior \citep[see e.g.][]{veilleux:winds,
2808: martin99:outflow.vs.m,martin06:outflow.extend.origin,
2809: erb:lbg.metallicity-winds,sato:outflow.hosts},
2810: and moreover the ubiquity of starbursts and recent starburst remnants in
2811: observed gas-rich major mergers
2812: \citep[e.g.][]{soifer84a,soifer84b,scoville86,sargent87,sargent89}
2813: implies that feedback,
2814: while still potentially efficient, is not able to ``self-terminate'' a starburst
2815: before it even begins \citep[this is in fact directly confirmed in
2816: observations of outflows in ongoing massive, merger-induced
2817: starbursts; see e.g.][]{martin05:outflows.in.ulirgs}.
2818: A similar pathology can appear if we include extreme
2819: coupling of black hole feedback to the galaxy gas (e.g.\ allowing
2820: $100\%$ of the BH accretion energy to couple efficiently), but this is also
2821: ruled out observationally, both for the arguments above \citep[starbursts
2822: exist, and the winds seen are not so enormous;
2823: see the discussion in][]{cox:winds,
2824: hopkins:lifetimes.methods,
2825: hopkins:lifetimes.interp,hopkins:lifetimes.obscuration,
2826: hopkins:lifetimes.letter,hopkins:qso.all},
2827: and because such a prescription
2828: yields black hole masses orders-of-magnitude discrepant from the
2829: observed \citep{FM00,Gebhardt00} $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation
2830: \citep[see e.g.][]{hopkins:bhfp.theory,hopkins:bhfp.obs}
2831:
2832:
2833:
2834:
2835:
2836: \subsubsection{Longer-Lived Perturbations: Relation to Secular Evolution}
2837: \label{sec:model.secular}
2838:
2839: Thus far, we have focused on activity during the merger, roughly defined
2840: as the short timescale $\sim10^{8}$\,yr following first passage and
2841: coalescence. In this regime, we have shown that (for typical conditions),
2842: the dominant source of angular momentum loss is the torque on
2843: gas from stars in the same disk. However, it is well known from
2844: studies of isolated barred galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{weinberg:bar.dynfric,
2845: hernquist:bar.spheroid.interaction,
2846: friedli:gas.stellar.bar.evol,
2847: friedli:gas.bar.ssp.gradients,
2848: athanassoula:bar.halo.growth,
2849: athanassoula:bar.vs.concentration,weinberg:bar.res.requirements,
2850: kaufmann:gas.bar.evol,foyle:two.component.disk.evol.from.bars} that
2851: a long-lived bar (regardless of whether the bar is purely
2852: stellar or purely gaseous) will exchange angular momentum with
2853: itself (or e.g.\ gas/stars further out in the disk) and the
2854: dark matter halo, allowing for further angular momentum loss
2855: and building a central bulge or ``pseudo''-bulge \citep{patsis:gas.flow.in.bars,
2856: athanassoula:bar.evol.in.int,
2857: mayer:lsb.disk.bars,berentzen:gas.bar.interaction}.
2858: Here, we discuss
2859: the relation of this process to what we have described in
2860: our merger simulations: in general, we find that it (while potentially
2861: very important for the long-term evolution of the disk and bulge
2862: masses and structure) is a second-order effect within the merger
2863: itself, and on longer timescales is more appropriately considered
2864: an independent, secular evolution process (despite being initially
2865: triggered by a merger), whose study is better described in
2866: simulations of idealized and long-lived bars.
2867:
2868: As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit}, there is a limit to how far the analogy to
2869: barred galaxies can be drawn. Recall, we use the term ``bar'' more generally to
2870: represent a quadrupole moment or non-axisymmetric distortion
2871: in the stellar disk: it does not necessarily (and, especially after second passage,
2872: usually does not) morphologically resemble isolated barred spirals
2873: and may not even have an $m=2$ mode structure. Critically, the distortion is
2874: driven externally by the gravitational perturbation of the secondary orbit -- it is
2875: not the result of an instability within the primary. As we note in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit},
2876: this already gives rise to a couple of important distinctions: because the distortion is
2877: driven by the orbital motion of the secondary, it has a characteristic frequency
2878: (and corresponding radius) internal to which angular momentum loss is very
2879: efficient (determined entirely by the gravitational properties and relative
2880: motions of the systems, not
2881: the subtleties of their internal orbital structure),
2882: {\em regardless} of properties of the primary (e.g.\ gas phase structure,
2883: feedback, etc.) that might otherwise make the system more or less stable to
2884: the development of internal instabilities.
2885:
2886: It is straightforward to estimate the relative importance (over a
2887: short timescale after the merger) of angular momentum loss from
2888: the gas to the shared stellar bar/distortion induced by the merger, versus
2889: that to itself and the dark matter halo (the standard secular scenario, which
2890: other than the initial driving in the merger, will {\em not} be driven by the
2891: relative gravitational motions but by the more standard bar stability and
2892: spin-down criteria).
2893: Approximating the gas as a rigid, thin bar of mass
2894: $M_{\rm bar,\, gas}\approx f_{\rm gas}\,M_{\rm bar}$ and
2895: radius $R_{\rm bar}\sim R_{d}$, we can estimate
2896: the specific torque from the remaining gas disk
2897: and halo in the dynamical friction limit, following
2898: \citet{weinberg:bar.dynfric} \citep[for more detailed solutions, which ultimately
2899: give similar results, see][]{hernquist:bar.spheroid.interaction,
2900: athanassoula:bar.slowdown,weinberg:bar.res.requirements}:
2901: ${\rm d}j/{\rm d}t = -4\,\pi\,\alpha\,G^{2}\,M_{\rm bar,\, gas}\,\rho(R_{d})\,
2902: v_{\rm bar}^{-2}$, where $\rho(R_{d})$ is the background density and
2903: $\alpha\sim1$ is a numerical constant (depending on the exact shape of the bar, potential,
2904: and phase-space distribution of the background). If the ``background'' is
2905: a \citet{mestel:disk.profile} disk or isothermal sphere, this becomes
2906: $-2\,\alpha\,G\,M_{\rm bar,\, gas}/R_{d}$. Compare this to our
2907: Equation~(\ref{eqn:bar2}) for the instantaneous
2908: torque on the gas bar from the stellar bar:
2909: $-G\,M_{\rm bar,\, \ast}/(R_{d}\,\sqrt{\sin^{2}{\barangle}+\tilde{H}^{2}})$.
2910: Removing the common factors, the gas/halo torque
2911: goes as $\sim f_{\rm gas}$, whereas that from the
2912: stellar bar goes as $\sim (1-\fgas)/\sqrt{\sin^{2}{\barangle}+\tilde{H}^{2}}
2913: \sim (1-\fgas)/\barangle$ (because $\barangle\sim\tilde{H}\ll 1$). In short,
2914: the torque from the gas disk and halo goes as $f_{\rm gas}$ because it is a
2915: second-order resonance effect (amplified
2916: and trading off with the gas bar), whereas the stellar bar strength goes
2917: as the stellar mass fraction $(1-\fgas)$, but boosted by a factor
2918: $\sim1/\barangle$ representing the small angle of offset between the two
2919: bars -- i.e.\ the stellar bar is in much closer spatial proximity (in particular
2920: in spatial alignment in the disk plane) to the gas bar.
2921:
2922: This simple comparison gives a reasonable quantitative prediction of
2923: the relative torques exerted by the halo and stellar disk in our
2924: simulations.
2925: Essentially, we have just re-derived the
2926: well-known fact that the timescale for a bar to damp its own angular momentum
2927: via resonant interactions with itself and/or the halo is some number ($\sim$ a few) bar
2928: rotational periods \citep{athanassoula:bar.vs.concentration,
2929: athanassoula:bar.slowdown,
2930: weinberg:bar.res.requirements,
2931: kaufmann:gas.bar.evol}
2932: (each bar rotational period being $\sim1-2$ times
2933: the disk rotational period), whereas in the typical mergers the gas is drained of
2934: angular momentum by the much stronger local torques on a timescale much
2935: shorter than an orbital time, allowing it to more or less free-fall into the
2936: galactic center. Comparing these timescales gives a similar ratio of
2937: torque strengths.
2938: Obviously,
2939: as $\fgas\rightarrow1$, the torque from the halo must eventually
2940: dominate, but this will not happen until
2941: $f_{\ast}=(1-\fgas)\lesssim \barangle\sim 0.1$ (given typical bar lags of
2942: $\sim$ a few degrees or the ratio of the timescales above).
2943:
2944: In practice, such a situation is somewhat contrived (it is very difficult to
2945: maintain a disk with a true $\gtrsim90\%$ gas fraction), and unlikely to
2946: be of broad cosmological relevance (we have no simulations in this regime
2947: with which to compare, in fact, because even initially $100\%$ gas disks with
2948: low star formation efficiencies will be $\lesssim 80\%$ gas by the time of
2949: the actual merger). However, our Equation~(\ref{eqn:full.equation}) can be trivially
2950: modified to include these effects: the $(1-\fgas)$ term should be replaced
2951: with a more appropriate $(1-\fgas+\epsilon_{h})$, where
2952: $\epsilon_{h}\sim \barangle \sim0.1$ represents the contribution of
2953: angular momentum
2954: loss to the halo and outer gas disk during the merger. This exchange of angular momentum,
2955: therefore, sets some minimum
2956: bulge mass (with mass fraction $\sim10\%$) that would form even in a
2957: pure-gaseous disk merger.
2958:
2959: By comparing the relative {\em instantaneous} amplitude of the torques from
2960: the halo/gas and stellar disk, we are comparing how important they each are
2961: in the loss of angular momentum from the gas over the same (relatively
2962: short) merger timescale. More important is the fact that, in a gas-rich case
2963: where the distortion to the stellar distribution may be an inefficient torque,
2964: the gas bar could be long-lived and continue to lose angular momentum
2965: over longer timescales. It is not necessarily clear that this would
2966: happen, however -- a number of studies suggest that
2967: gas and stellar bars become self-damping once a central mass concentration
2968: (i.e.\ a nuclear starburst triggered by gas inflows, in this case)
2969: is in place with a mass fraction larger than a few percent
2970: \citep{bournaud:gas.bar.renewal.destruction,
2971: berentzen:bar.destruction.in.int,
2972: berentzen:self.damping.tidal.bar.generation,
2973: berentzen:gas.bar.interaction,
2974: athanassoula:bar.vs.cmc}
2975: \citep[but see also][]{kaufmann:gas.bar.evol}. In such a case, we again arrive at the conclusion
2976: that these processes set a minimum bulge mass from a large
2977: bar-inducing perturbation, but do not dominate the
2978: creation of much larger bulges in mergers.
2979:
2980: Regardless of this effect, it is
2981: not clear that a bar can survive a substantial merger:
2982: recall, the distortion following second passage
2983: and coalescence resembles a bar only in that it introduces a rotating
2984: quadrupole distortion in the disk potential (allowing us to describe it as a
2985: ``bar'' for analytic convenience), not necessarily in its structure or longevity (it
2986: does not necessarily share the orbital ``pileup'' that allows a bar to survive),
2987: and moreover the actual coalescence of the galactic nuclei will disturb any
2988: bar structure that may be present. Quantitatively, we find our remnants
2989: rarely have significant long-lived
2990: $m=2$ modes in the stars or gas -- the mode amplitude tends to damp
2991: after merger on a timescale $\lesssim10^{8}$\,yr (i.e.\ the free-fall or dynamical
2992: time, much slower than the typical significant number of orbital times
2993: for standard bar self-braking). This is similar to the conclusions in the bar
2994: studies of e.g.\ \citet{bournaud:gas.bar.renewal.destruction} and
2995: \citet{berentzen:gas.bar.interaction}, who find that the combination of the
2996: formation of a bulge/small central mass concentration from gas inflows
2997: and the disturbance/heating to the bar itself in interactions prevents even
2998: gas-rich systems from maintaining or very rapidly re-forming a bar
2999: after a significant merger \citep[as opposed to a fly-by passage, which
3000: may more efficiently induce long-lived bars; see e.g.][]{berentzen:self.damping.tidal.bar.generation}.
3001: That is not to say a bar
3002: may not form in the re-formed remnant disk, but such a bar would arise in a
3003: standard secular fashion, and should be considered in the context of
3004: the long-term secular evolution of the merger remnant.
3005:
3006: If, however, the potential distortion survives the merger to form a
3007: stable bar, it can certainly be important to the long-term evolution of the system
3008: and buildup of the bulge. However, this case is outside the scope of this paper,
3009: and should be more appropriately considered as subsequent evolution of
3010: the remnant (albeit with an initially merger-induced bar). This is because the
3011: timescale for the bar to lose angular momentum and contract is some number
3012: of rotational periods -- so the gas losing angular momentum will slowly
3013: spiral inwards in some number of orbital periods (turning into stars and
3014: possibly being ejected by feedback as it does so), rather than free-falling
3015: into a central burst in a time much less than an orbital period.
3016: The end result of such angular momentum loss can resemble a bulge
3017: \citep{mayer:lsb.disk.bars,debattista:pseudobulges.a},
3018: although the expectation of rotational support and ``disky-ness''
3019: in the material lead to it more likely being a ``pseudo-bulge'' typical
3020: of secular processes \citep{combes:pseudobulges,kuijken:pseudobulges.obs,oniell:bar.obs,
3021: kormendy.kennicutt:pseudobulge.review,athanassoula:peanuts}.
3022: Depending on e.g.\ details of the equation of
3023: state, feedback, and rotational support of the gas disk, it may also amount to
3024: steady disk contraction \citep{debattista:pseudobulges.b} or emergence of a two-component disk
3025: \citep{kaufmann:gas.bar.evol,
3026: foyle:two.component.disk.evol.from.bars}. A number of effects will be important
3027: in this regime, including the effects of feedback in pressurizing the disk and
3028: smoothing out substructure, and the role of accretion and mergers
3029: in rebuilding the disk as such evolution continues (since it is occurring on
3030: timescales $\sim$ several Gyr, comparable to the characteristic timescales
3031: for new accretion and mergers).
3032:
3033: These effects make it difficult to predict the net effect of
3034: such evolution. For example, if in a pure gas merger
3035: of mass ratio $\mu$ the specific angular momentum (on average) is
3036: increased (by addition of specific angular momenta plus orbital angular momentum)
3037: by an amount $\sim \epsilon_{m}\,\mu\,j_{\rm disk}$, but then the induced
3038: bar (of amplitude $\sim \mu$) loses its angular momentum
3039: ($\sim \mu j_{\rm disk}$) on a timescale $\sim N\,t_{\rm rot}$,
3040: the sequence of mergers and induced bars compete (given the
3041: cosmologically expected timescale $\approx \mu\,t_{H}$ between
3042: mergers of mass ratio $\mu$ in \citet{fakhouri:halo.merger.rates}, and
3043: that for a disk of mass fraction $m_{d}$ relative to the halo,
3044: $t_{\rm rot}\sim m_{d}\,t_{H}$, one obtains
3045: ${\rm d}j/{\rm d}t\sim j_{\rm disk}/t_{H}\,[\epsilon_{m} - \mu/N\,m_{d}]$ -- i.e.\
3046: more major events will tend to lead to angular momentum loss
3047: in gas, whereas the net effect of very minor mergers and smooth
3048: gas accretion, even where it induces instabilities, may be to
3049: ``spin up'' the disks).
3050:
3051: As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:model.massratio}, there is also an interesting
3052: regime of parameter space, namely minor mergers with
3053: mass ratios $\sim$1:20-1:10 or so, in which the characteristic merger
3054: timescales and secular/internal evolution timescales are
3055: comparable. The secondary may be large enough to induce a significant
3056: bar/non-axisymmetric response, but the merger/dynamical friction time
3057: may be sufficiently long that the primary could respond almost as if in isolation for
3058: several orbital periods.
3059: In such a case it becomes less clear whether the
3060: merger or the secular response of the disk is ultimately the dominant
3061: driver of evolution (and the answer probably depends on e.g.\ the exact orbital
3062: parameters and stability properties of the disk, and may be
3063: sensitive to feedback,
3064: the gas phase structure and pressure support, and detailed halo structure).
3065: In any event, it is clear that these processes
3066: require study in a more complete cosmological context, and
3067: can contribute significantly to the bulge population (especially
3068: in less bulge-dominated galaxies, below the typical thresholds
3069: we simulate) over a Hubble time of evolution. However,
3070: although the bar itself may be triggered in the merger, the nature of the
3071: relative strength of the interaction and characteristic timescale for angular momentum
3072: loss make it not a violent process associated with the merger itself, but rather a
3073: secular process that should be considered more analogous to bars in non-merging
3074: systems.
3075:
3076:
3077:
3078:
3079: \breaker
3080: \section{Application to Semi-Analytic Models}
3081: \label{sec:prescriptions}
3082:
3083: Our results clearly have potential uses as prescriptions for
3084: analytic and semi-analytic models of galaxy formation.
3085: Here, we summarize and give some simple
3086: recommendations for these applications.
3087:
3088: When a merger is identified in a semi-analytic model, the two key quantities
3089: we can predict here are the mass fraction of the disk that is destroyed
3090: (violently relaxed into a bulge) and the
3091: fraction of the cold gas in the disk that will lose angular momentum
3092: and contribute to the bulge by forming a compact starburst.
3093:
3094: First, the stellar disks: in a merger of secondary mass $M_{2}$ with
3095: primary mass $M_{1}$, the secondary is destroyed (adding $M_{2}$
3096: to the bulge) and the mass within a radius enclosing $\approx M_{2}$
3097: in the primary is violently relaxed. If the primary were pure
3098: disk, this would add $2\,M_{2}$ to the bulge. However, one can imagine
3099: the limit where the primary is entirely bulge-dominated inside that
3100: radius (with the stellar disk dominant only at much larger radii)
3101: -- then the violent relaxation of the merger will act primarily to
3102: heat existing bulge stars, and only a mass $1\,M_{2}$ will be added to the bulge.
3103: Obviously, its also true that if the total disk mass of $M_{1}$ is less than
3104: $M_{2}$, then that is a maximum to how much can be added to the bulge
3105: (i.e.\ really ${\rm MIN}(M_{2},\,f_{\rm disk}\,M_{1})$ is added).
3106: For most purposes, this factor $2$ possible range is not critical
3107: in the semi-analytic models, and picking a constant (effective mean)
3108: fraction $(0-1) \times M_{2}$ to violently relax in the primary in all mergers
3109: is acceptable. However, if more detail is desired, an estimate of the
3110: mass profiles of bulge plus disk components in the primary can be used to
3111: determine the total primary
3112: disk mass within a radius enclosing a mass $\approx M_{2}$, and
3113: then that will be the fraction violently relaxed. For a \citet{hernquist:profile}
3114: bulge and exponential disk obeying roughly the observed size-mass
3115: relations from \citet{shen:size.mass}, the primary disk mass that should be
3116: violently relaxed in a merger with mass $M_{2}$ can be
3117: approximated as $f_{\rm disk,\,\ast}\,M_{2}/(1+[M_{1}/M_{2}]^{\alpha})$,
3118: where $f_{\rm disk,\,\ast} \equiv (1-f_{\rm gas})\,(1 - f_{\rm bulge})$ is the
3119: mass fraction of the stellar disk (relative to the baryonic galaxy) and
3120: the term $(1+[M_{1}/M_{2}]^{\alpha})$ is a correction for e.g.\ the
3121: relative sizes of the two components as a function of mass ratio and
3122: other properties (for the assumptions above,
3123: $\alpha\approx 0.3-0.6$, depending on the details of the disk
3124: mass profile).
3125:
3126: Two clarifications should be emphasized. First, these derivations only
3127: apply to cases where the secondary is sufficiently massive that it survives
3128: to merge with the center of the primary. If the secondary is destroyed or
3129: shredded by tidal forces before merger, then it will not add either its own
3130: mass or any violently relaxed mass to the bulge. This generally occurs in
3131: the limits of smaller mass ratios ($\lesssim1:10$, which we have
3132: considered), but is included in some models. Second, for most applications,
3133: the masses $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ should be taken to be the
3134: {\em baryonic} masses {\em within} the galaxies (stars in the galaxy and cold gas -- not
3135: diffuse stellar halo or pressure-supported hot gas in the extended halo).
3136: This is how we have defined our models and fits to our simulations (although those
3137: simulations do include dark matter and extended halo gas and stars) throughout.
3138: The halos are much more extended, and much lower density, so they merge and mix
3139: more efficiently, and do not strongly participate in the central
3140: violent relaxation process that defines the bulge.
3141: Moreover, there can be a wide range in halo masses for galaxies of similar mass --
3142: but most of these halos are large and often independent substructures that should
3143: not be used to define e.g.\ the mass ratios of merging encounters.
3144: What dark matter is
3145: carried in with the galaxies is that enclosed in their stellar
3146: effective radii $R_{e}$, which tends to track the baryonic mass much more closely
3147: than, say, the total halo mass, so it is not a bad proxy to still define mass ratios,
3148: etc.\ in terms of the baryonic masses.
3149:
3150: Next, in such an encounter, our analysis provides a means to estimate
3151: the fraction of the cold gas mass in the pre-merger stellar disks that should
3152: lose angular momentum and be funneled into a nuclear starburst.
3153: The cold gas inside some radius $R_{\rm gas}/\scalelen$ will participate in this starburst,
3154: where $R_{\rm gas}$ is given by Equation~(\ref{eqn:full.equation}).
3155: There are five variables that go into this equation: (1)
3156: $f_{\rm gas}$, which we define as the mass fraction {\em of the disk}
3157: that is in cold (rotationally supported) gas (i.e.\ if the disk is $50\%$ cold gas, then regardless of the
3158: bulge fraction of the galaxy, $f_{\rm gas}=0.5$. Note that we only care about
3159: cold, rotationally supported gas. Hot gas in the galactic halos can cool, of course,
3160: and form new stars, but that process is relatively independent of the merger,
3161: and is not related to angular momentum loss (also because the hot gas is
3162: pressure-supported, it is fairly resistance to significant redistribution in the merger,
3163: and if anything will tend to be shocked to even higher temperatures rather than
3164: forming stars in the short-lived merger).
3165: (2) $f_{\rm disk}=(1-f_{\rm bulge})$, the total (gas plus stellar) baryonic mass
3166: fraction of the disk. (3) $\mu\equiv M_{2}/M_{1}$, the mass ratio of the
3167: merger (defined as above). (4) $\theta$ and $b$, equivalently the
3168: orbital parameters of the merger. As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit},
3169: for cases that will merge the appropriate limit is $b\rightarrow0$, since
3170: most of the action will occur on the final merging passages after the
3171: angular momentum is removed. We discuss what should be adopted
3172: for the orbital inclination $\theta$ below.
3173: (5) $\scalelen$, the scale length of the disk stars.
3174:
3175: In any semi-analytic or analytic model, variables (1)-(3) should be well-known
3176: beforehand. Given some choice of orbital parameters and an assumed
3177: mass distribution of the disk, it is trivial then to translate
3178: Equation~(\ref{eqn:full.equation}) into a fraction of the gas that will
3179: burst. Because orbital parameters are generally undetermined in these
3180: models, there are two choices for the assumed orbital inclination $\theta$.
3181: First, one could draw a random value of $\theta$ for each merger
3182: (uniformly sampling in $\cos(\theta)$ as appropriate for an isotropic
3183: orbit distribution), and use
3184: Equations~(\ref{eqn:full.eqn.orbit.1})-(\ref{eqn:full.eqn.orbit.2})
3185: for each merger. Alternatively, we can average over
3186: a random distribution of orbits and quote an ``effective''
3187: orbital dependence $F(\theta,b)$ for Equation~(\ref{eqn:full.eqn.orbit.1}).
3188: Note that this is only strictly appropriate if all disks have the same mass
3189: profiles and those are such that the enclosed mass is linear in $R/\scalelen$
3190: (otherwise the appropriate average would have to be weighted by
3191: other terms such as $(1-\fgas)$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:full.equation}). In
3192: any case doing so yields an effective mean orbital dependence
3193: $F(\theta,b)\approx1.2$.
3194:
3195: The only remaining issue is the assumed mass profile of the disk. Here, models
3196: have some freedom. As we have emphasized, the exact profile (e.g.\ choice
3197: of exponential disk or some other profile) does not have a dramatic effect.
3198: What is important, however, is the assumption of how the gas is distributed
3199: relative to the stars. Recall, Equation~(\ref{eqn:full.equation}), with the variables
3200: above inserted, gives that the gas inside some radius
3201: $R_{\rm gas} = x\,\scalelen$ (where $x$ is a constant depending on those
3202: variables, and $\scalelen$ is a characteristic scale length of the {\em stellar} disk)
3203: should lose angular momentum and participate in the burst.
3204: Given a gas mass profile $M_{\rm gas}(R/R_{e,\, {\rm gas}})$, in terms of a
3205: characteristic gas disk scale length $R_{e,\, {\rm gas}}$, this gives
3206: the gas mass that bursts, $M_{\rm gas}(x\,\scalelen/R_{e,\, {\rm gas}})$.
3207: For our simulations, we have generally assumed
3208: (and can see that it is a good approximation) that the gas and stellar disks
3209: initially trace one another ($\scalelen\approx R_{e,\, {\rm gas}}$).
3210: However, since our derivation and Equation~(\ref{eqn:full.equation})
3211: show that it is the gas inside some fraction of the {\em stellar} disk half-mass
3212: radius $\scalelen$ that loses angular momentum, then if the gas is e.g.\ much
3213: more extended than the stars, a lower gas fraction will end up in the burst.
3214: We discuss this in \S~\ref{sec:model.feedback}, and consider how such situations may
3215: in fact arise owing to e.g.\ supernova feedback blowing gas out to large radii.
3216: Semi-analytic models therefore have some freedom in adopting these prescriptions
3217: based on their implicit assumptions about feedback and disk formation, encapsulated
3218: effectively in our prescriptions as the ratio of the
3219: stellar to gas disk scale lengths $\scalelen/R_{e,\, {\rm gas}}$. Lacking
3220: some detailed model for both values in the semi-analytic models,
3221: a constant value $\sim1$ is probably a good choice (with the exact choice
3222: reflecting implicit assumptions about feedback and outer disk formation).
3223:
3224: Those prescriptions define both the violently relaxed and starburst components
3225: induced in mergers of arbitrary mass ratios, gas content, and orbital parameters.
3226: If desired, appropriate scatter (a factor $\sim2$) can be added to both
3227: quantities, reflecting the scatter we see between various numerical
3228: realizations (although it should still be ensured that, with scatter, the implied
3229: violently relaxed and burst fractions are within the sensible physical limits).
3230:
3231: Although not discussed here, in \citet{hopkins:cusps.ell,
3232: hopkins:cores,hopkins:cusps.fp,hopkins:cusps.evol,
3233: hopkins:cusps.mergers} we consider
3234: how the sizes and velocity dispersions of these components should scale,
3235: and we refer to those papers for detailed analysis of those results. Briefly,
3236: we note that in the absence of dissipation, it is straightforward to calculate the
3237: size of the dissipationless component (the violently relaxed stars from the
3238: pre-merger stellar disk), given phase space and energy conservation.
3239: Roughly, this implies that the component will have the same (modulo
3240: projection effects since it transforms from a disk to a sphere)
3241: scale radius as the disk (or radius within the disk) from which it forms.
3242: Again, conservation of energy in subsequent dissipationless re-mergers,
3243: along with the assumption of preserved profile shape
3244: \citep[which we demonstrate is reasonable in][]{hopkins:cores} yields
3245: the evolution in subsequent events of these radii (in a
3246: re-merger of masses $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$, the dissipationless
3247: bulge component will have final size
3248: $R_{f}/R_{1} \approx (1+\mu)^{2}/(1+\mu^{2}\,R_{1}/R_{2})$).
3249: Dissipation complicates this -- it is possible to solve separately for the
3250: size of the dissipational component by allowing for energy loss
3251: in the collision followed by (after angular momentum loss) collapse
3252: to a self-gravitating limit, and then subsequently evolve the
3253: component as a dissipationless body, added with the violently relaxed
3254: components to give a total bulge effective radius. Fortunately,
3255: \citet{covington:diss.size.expectation}
3256: perform such an exercise and we show in \citet{hopkins:cusps.ell}
3257: that their results can be conveniently
3258: approximated (in both an analytic manner and as a fit to the results of
3259: numerical simulations) by the scaling:
3260: $R_{e}({\rm bulge}) = R_{e}(f_{\rm sb}=0)/(1+f_{\rm sb}/f_{0})$,
3261: where $f_{\rm sb}$ is the total mass fraction of the bulge/spheroid which
3262: originally formed dissipationally (as opposed to being violently relaxed),
3263: $R_{e}(f_{\rm sb}=0)$ is the radius the system would have if purely
3264: dissipationless (calculated as described above), and $f_{0}\approx 0.25-0.35$
3265: is a constant.
3266:
3267: Our modeling could also be applied in the manner described in \S~\ref{sec:model.flyby}
3268: to fly-by (non-merging) encounters, but we caution that these
3269: are usually ill-defined in semi-analytic models (and if adopted, the
3270: cautions in \S~\ref{sec:model.flyby} about the appropriate meaning of the impact
3271: parameter adopted should be borne in mind). In any case, the rapid suppression
3272: of bursts with increasing impact parameter means that such cases should
3273: be relatively unimportant in a representative cosmological ensemble.
3274:
3275:
3276: \breaker
3277: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
3278: \label{sec:discussion}
3279:
3280: We have derived a general physical model for how
3281: disks survive and/or are destroyed in mergers and interactions.
3282: Our model describes both the dissipational and dissipationless
3283: components of the merger, and allows us to predict, for a
3284: given arbitrary encounter, the stellar and gas content of the
3285: system
3286: that will be dissipationlessly violently relaxed, dissipationally lose
3287: angular momentum and form a compact central starburst, or
3288: survive (without significant angular momentum loss or violent relaxation)
3289: to re-form a disk.
3290: We show that, in an immediate (short-term) sense, the amount of stellar
3291: or gaseous disk that survives or re-forms
3292: following a given interaction can be understood purely
3293: in terms of simple, well-understood gravitational physics.
3294: Knowing these physics, our model allows us to accurately predict the
3295: behavior in full hydrodynamic numerical simulations across as a function of
3296: the merger mass ratio, orbital parameters, pre-merger cold gas
3297: fraction, and mass distribution of the gas and stars,
3298: in simulations which span a wide range of parameter space
3299: in these properties as well as prescriptions for gas physics,
3300: stellar and AGN feedback, halo and initial disk structural
3301: properties, redshift, and absolute galaxy masses.
3302:
3303: The fact that we can understand the complex, nonlinear behavior
3304: in mergers with this analytic model, and moreover that (for given conditions
3305: at the time of merger) our results are independent of the details of
3306: prescriptions for gas physics, star formation, and feedback, owes
3307: to the fact that the processes that strip angular momentum
3308: from gas disks and violently relax stellar disks are fundamentally
3309: {\em dynamical}.
3310:
3311: Gas, in mergers, primarily loses angular momentum to
3312: internal gravitational torques (from the stars in the same disk)
3313: owing to asymmetries in
3314: the galaxy induced by the merger (on the close passages
3315: and final coalescence of the secondary, during which phase
3316: the potential also rapidly changes, scattering and violently relaxing the
3317: central stellar populations of the stellar disk).\footnote{We note again
3318: that although we have described these asymmetries as ``bars'' or
3319: ``bar-like'' at certain points in this paper, there are a number of properties
3320: of the non-axisymmetric distortions induced in mergers
3321: (discussed in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit} and \S~\ref{sec:model.secular}) that make them --
3322: at least over the short relaxation timescale of the merger -- dynamically
3323: distinct from traditional bar instabilities in isolated systems.}
3324: Hydrodynamic torques and
3325: the direct torquing of the secondary are second-order effects,
3326: and inefficient for all but pathological orbits.
3327:
3328: Once gas is efficiently drained of angular momentum,
3329: there is little alternative but for it to fall to the center of the galaxy and
3330: form stars, regardless of the details of the prescriptions for star
3331: formation and feedback -- we show that even strong supernova-driven
3332: winds (with mass loading efficiencies several times the star formation rate
3333: and wind mass-loading velocities well above the halo escape velocity)
3334: do not significantly effect our conclusions. Such processes, after all,
3335: can blow out some of the gas, but they cannot fundamentally alter the
3336: fact that cold gas with no angular momentum will be largely
3337: unable to form any sort of disk, or the fact that a galaxy's worth of
3338: gas compressed to high densities and small radii
3339: will inevitably form a large mass in stars.
3340:
3341: For these reasons, many processes and details that are important
3342: cosmologically (systematically changing e.g.\ the pre-merger
3343: disk gas fractions) -- in some sense setting the initial conditions for
3344: our idealized study of what happens in mergers --
3345: do not alter the basic dynamical behavior within the mergers themselves,
3346: and therefore do not change our conclusions.
3347:
3348: \begin{figure*}
3349: \centering
3350: \scaleup
3351: %\plotone{summary_plot.ps}
3352: \plotone{f16.ps}
3353: \caption{Summary of our comparison between simulations and
3354: analytic model for the mass of disks in merger remnants as a function of
3355: appropriate orbital parameters, merger mass ratio, and pre-merger
3356: cold gas content. We plot our model prediction versus the simulation remnant
3357: disk fraction for all $\sim400$ full hydrodynamic merger simulations considered
3358: in this paper (shown in both a linear and logarithmic scale).
3359: Symbols encode some of the parameter studies we consider:
3360: orbital parameters, galaxy masses, initial merger redshift,
3361: choice of feedback prescription, merger mass ratio, and presence or
3362: absence of black holes, as labeled. For each subset of simulations,
3363: we sample a wide range in initial and pre-merger gas fractions $\fgas=0-1$.
3364: Solid line is a one-to-one relation.
3365: In all cases, our predictions agree well with the simulations, with no systematic
3366: offsets owing to any of the parameters we have varied.
3367: At high $f_{\rm disk}$, our predictions are accurate to an absolute uncertainty
3368: $\sim0.05-0.10$ in $f_{\rm disk}$. At low $f_{\rm disk}\lesssim0.1$, our predictions
3369: are accurate to a factor $\sim2-3$ (down to $f_{\rm disk}\lesssim1\%$, where
3370: it is difficult to reliably identify disks in the remnant).
3371: \label{fig:summary}}
3372: \end{figure*}
3373:
3374: Figure~\ref{fig:summary} summarizes our results for the ensemble of our
3375: simulations. We compare the fraction of the baryonic galaxy mass in the
3376: merger remnant
3377: that is in a surviving post-merger disk to that predicted by our simple model scalings,
3378: and find good agreement over the entire range in disk and bulge mass
3379: fractions sampled, with surprisingly small scatter given the complexity of
3380: behavior in mergers.
3381: We highlight several of the parameter studies,
3382: showing that -- for fixed mass ratio, orbital parameters, and gas content
3383: {\em at the time of the final merger}, none of these choices systematically
3384: affect our predictions (note that these are not the only parameters varied -- the
3385: complete list is discussed in \S~\ref{sec:sims}, but it is representative).
3386: That is not to say they cannot affect them indirectly,
3387: by e.g.\ altering how much gas is available at the time of merger -- but it
3388: emphasizes that the processes we model and use to form our
3389: predictions, the processes that dominate violent relaxation and the loss
3390: of angular momentum in gas in mergers, are fundamentally dynamical.
3391:
3392: This allows us to make robust, accurate physical predictions independent of
3393: the (considerable) uncertainty in feedback physics and sub-resolution
3394: physics of the ISM. Regardless of how those physics alter the ``initial''
3395: conditions, they do not change basic dynamical processes,
3396: and so do not introduce significant uncertainties in our model.
3397:
3398: In turn, this means that we can use our model to understand just why and how
3399: feedback is important for the cosmological survival of disks. Why, in short,
3400: have various works \citep[see e.g.][]{springel:spiral.in.merger,robertson:disk.formation,
3401: governato:disk.formation} concluded that strong feedback is essential for
3402: enabling disk survival in mergers?
3403: Our results show that it is not that feedback somehow makes the disk
3404: more robust to the dynamical torques within the merger, in any
3405: instantaneous sense.
3406: These torques, at least within the critical radii where
3407: the gravitational perturbation from the merger is large and
3408: in resonance, are sufficiently strong that any reasonable feedback
3409: prescription is a dynamically negligible restoring force.
3410: Rather, feedback has two important effects that
3411: fundamentally alter the conditions in the merger: first,
3412: it allows the galaxy to retain much higher gas content going into the
3413: merger. Without feedback from e.g.\ star formation and supernovae
3414: contributing to heating and pressurizing the ISM and
3415: redistributing gas spatially, isolated gas-rich disks may be unstable to
3416: fragmentation. Even if fragmentation is avoided,
3417: it is well-known that star formation
3418: in simulations proceeds efficiently under these conditions. This would leave the
3419: disks essentially pure stars \citep[even for idealized simulations
3420: beginning with $\sim100\%$ gas disks; see e.g.][]{springel:models}
3421: by the time of the merger, which guarantees that a major merger
3422: will inevitably violently relax the stars (this is a simple collisionless
3423: mixing process, and under such circumstances is
3424: inescapable). With large gas fractions, however,
3425: the system relies on stripping angular momentum from the gas to
3426: form new bulge stars, which in turn relies on internal torques from
3427: induced asymmetries in the stellar disk. If the gas fractions are sufficiently
3428: large, there is little stellar disk to do any such torquing, and the
3429: gas survives largely intact.
3430:
3431: Second, feedback from supernovae and stellar winds moves the
3432: gas to large radii, where it does not feel significant torques from the
3433: merger. Again, recall that the most efficient torquing is driven
3434: by the internal stellar disk of the galaxy, and as such is most efficient
3435: at torquing gas within small radii (this can be thought of as
3436: analogous to the well-known co-rotation condition for isolated
3437: disk bars). If star formation-driven feedback has blown much of the
3438: gas to large radii, then there is little gas inside the radius
3439: where torques can efficiently strip angular momentum, yielding little
3440: induced starburst and largely preserving the gas disk at large radii.
3441:
3442: Not only can we qualitatively identify these requirements for feedback
3443: processes, but we can more precisely use our model to set quantitative
3444: limits on how much gas must be retained and/or the radii it must be
3445: redistributed to in order to enable disk survival under various
3446: conditions. This also clearly implies that disks must be able to avoid
3447: fragmentation and strong local gravitational instabilities when they
3448: achieve these gas fractions.
3449: This provides a valuable constraint for feedback models --
3450: how those models affect star formation efficiencies, the ``blowout'' of
3451: gas, and the local hydrodynamic state (effective equations of
3452: state and phase structure) of ISM gas --
3453: and should be useful for calibrating their (still largely
3454: phenomenological) implementations in both numerical
3455: and semi-analytic models of galaxy formation.
3456:
3457: Our predictions are also of interest in any cosmological model for the
3458: emergence of the Hubble sequence, since they apply not just to
3459: disk-dominated galaxies but to small disks in bulge-dominated
3460: systems.
3461: We give a number of simple prescriptions for
3462: application of our conclusions to analytic and semi-analytic models
3463: of galaxy formation, which can be used to predict
3464: the distribution of bulge to disk ratios in cosmological ensembles.
3465: But even without reference to a full such model, a number of
3466: interesting consequences are immediately apparent.
3467:
3468: First, it is a well-known problem that theoretical models systematically
3469: overpredict the abundance and mass fractions of bulges in
3470: (especially) low-mass galaxies. This is true even in e.g.\ semi-analytic
3471: models, which are not bound by resolution requirements and can adopt a
3472: variety of prescriptions for behavior in mergers.
3473: However, it is also well-established observationally that disk gas fractions tend
3474: to be very high in this regime, with large populations of gas-dominated
3475: disks at $M_{\ast}\ll 10^{10}\,M_{\sun}$ \citep{belldejong:tf,kannappan:gfs,mcgaugh:tf}.
3476: Our models predict that bulge formation
3477: should, therefore, be strongly suppressed in precisely the regime
3478: required by observations. For e.g.\ disks with $M_{\ast}<10^{9}\,M_{\sun}$ where
3479: observations suggest typical gas fractions $\sim60-80\%$, our results
3480: show that even a 1:1 major merger would typically yield a remnant with
3481: only $\sim30\%$ bulge by mass -- let alone a more typical
3482: 1:3-1:4 mass-ratio merger, which should yield a remnant with $<20\%$ bulge.
3483: That is not to say that it is impossible to form a bulge-dominated system
3484: at these masses, but it should be much more difficult than at high masses,
3485: requiring either unusually gas-poor systems, violent merger histories, or
3486: rarer merging orbits that are more efficient at destroying disks.
3487: Our conclusions therefore have dramatic implications for the abundance of
3488: bulges and typical morphologies and bulge-to-disk ratios
3489: at low galaxy masses and in gas-rich systems. Low-mass systems,
3490: when a proper dynamical model of bulge formation in mergers is considered,
3491: should have lower bulge-to-disk ratios -- by factors of several, at least --
3492: than have been assumed and modeled in previous
3493: theoretical models.
3494: Whether this alone is sufficient to resolve the discrepancies with the observations
3495: remains to be seen, but it is clearly of fundamental importance that future
3496: generations of models incorporate this scaling.
3497:
3498: Second, the importance of this suppression owing to gas content in disks
3499: will be even more significant at high redshifts.
3500: Observations suggest \citep[see e.g.][]{erb:lbg.gasmasses}
3501: that by $z\sim2$, even systems with masses near $\sim L_{\ast}$
3502: ($M_{\ast}\sim 10^{10}-10^{11}\,M_{\sun}$) may have gas fractions as
3503: high as $\fgas\sim0.6$. In this regime, the same argument as above should apply,
3504: dramatically suppressing the ability of mergers to destroy disks.
3505: Moreover,
3506: since most of the mass density is near $L_{\ast}$, this can change not just
3507: the behavior in a specific mass regime but significantly suppress the global
3508: mass density of spheroids, modifying the predicted redshift history of bulge formation.
3509: (Note that this will not change when {\em stars} form by very much, so it has little or
3510: no effect on e.g.\ the ages of $z=0$ spheroids).
3511:
3512: This redshift evolution may also explain the
3513: solution to a fundamental problem in reconciling observed disk populations
3514: with CDM cosmologies. Integrated far enough back in time, every galaxy
3515: is expected to have experienced a significant amount of major merging.
3516: In extreme cases, the mass of the system when it had its last such merger
3517: may be so small that it would not be noticed today, but in general,
3518: it does not require going far back in redshift (to perhaps
3519: $z\sim2-4$ before almost every $z=0$ galaxy should have had such a
3520: merger). How, then, can the abundance of systems with relatively
3521: small (or even no) visible bulges be explained? Our conclusions here
3522: highlight at least part of the answer: as you go back in time,
3523: the gas fractions of systems are also higher, nearing unity. So even though, integrating
3524: sufficiently far in time, every system has experienced major mergers,
3525: it is also true that the systems were increasingly gas-rich, and therefore that
3526: the impact of those mergers was more and more suppressed. Only mergers
3527: at later times, below certain gas fraction thresholds, will typically destroy disks.
3528:
3529: Third, to the extent that bulge formation is suppressed at
3530: increasing redshifts, the existence of
3531: an $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm bulge}$ relation \citep[e.g.][]{magorrian} implies
3532: that black hole growth should also be suppressed. Indeed,
3533: bulge formation is suppressed specifically because gas cannot efficiently
3534: lose angular momentum in mergers if the systems are gas-dominated --
3535: if the gas cannot lose angular momentum efficiently, then it certainly
3536: cannot efficiently be accreted by the nuclear black hole.
3537: Since this pertains to gas on the scales of galactic disks,
3538: it is probably not relevant for the formation of ``seed'' black holes at
3539: very high redshift, but it will in general inhibit the growth of black holes
3540: owing to early merging activity. At the same time, of course,
3541: higher gas fractions in general imply increasing fuel supplies for black
3542: hole growth, so the effects are not entirely clear, and more detailed
3543: models are needed to see how this impacts the history of black hole
3544: growth and quasar luminosity functions. Nevertheless, this may in part
3545: explain why, above $z\sim2$ (where, for the argument above, these
3546: effects become important for the global mass density of spheroids),
3547: the global rate of black hole growth (i.e.\ total quasar luminosity
3548: density) appears to decline much more rapidly with increasing
3549: redshift than the star formation rate density \citep[compare e.g.][]{hopkinsbeacom:sfh,
3550: hopkins:groups.qso,hopkins:bol.qlf}.
3551:
3552: Fourth, our models imply that a large fraction of bulges and disks
3553: survive mergers together, rather than being formed entirely separately.
3554: It is often assumed that classical bulges -- being similar to
3555: small ellipticals in most of their properties -- were formed initially in
3556: major mergers, as entirely bulge-dominated systems, and then accreted
3557: new gaseous and stellar disks at later times. Although nothing in our modeling
3558: would prevent this from happening, our analytic and simulation results
3559: generically lead to the expectation that a large (perhaps even dominant) fraction
3560: of the bulge population did {\em not} form in this manner, but rather
3561: formed {\em in situ} from minor mergers or less efficient major mergers (in e.g.\
3562: very gas-rich systems).
3563: Observations tracing the evolution of disk components,
3564: kinematics, and morphology in the last $\sim10\,$Gyr
3565: increasingly suggest that such co-formation or disk regeneration scenario
3566: is common \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{hammer:obs.disks.w.mergers,
3567: conselice:tf.evolution,flores:tf.evolution,puech:tf.evol}.
3568: In short, a system with a mass fraction $\sim0.1-0.2$ in a
3569: bulge could be the remnant of an early, violent major merger (when the system
3570: was $\sim0.1$ times its present mass) with a re-accreted disk, or could be
3571: the remnant of a typical (low to intermediate gas fraction) 1:10-1:5 mass ratio
3572: minor merger, or could even be the remnant of a gas-rich major merger
3573: (mass ratio $\lesssim1:3$, if $f_{\rm gas}$ is sufficiently large).
3574:
3575: Based on
3576: a simple comparison of typical merger histories, we would actually expect that
3577: the minor merger mechanism should be most common, but all may be
3578: non-negligible. Fundamentally, the physics forming the bulge (torquing the gas within
3579: some radius owing to internal asymmetries and violently relaxing stars within
3580: a corresponding radius) are the same in all three cases, and moreover other indicators
3581: such as their stellar populations will be quite similar \citep[in all cases, the bulge will
3582: appear old: this is both because the central stars in even present-day disks
3583: are much older than those at more typical radii, and because in any case star formation
3584: will cease within the bulge itself, as opposed to the ongoing star formation in the disk,
3585: and stellar population age estimates are primarily sensitive to the amount of
3586: recent or ongoing star formation; see e.g.][]{trager:ages}.
3587: This is also not to say that mergers are the only means of producing
3588: bulges. Secular evolution of e.g.\ barred disks probably represents
3589: an increasingly important channel for bulge evolution in later-type
3590: and more gas-rich systems \citep[see e.g.][]{christodoulou:bar.crit.1,sheth:bar.frac.evol,
3591: mayer:lsb.disk.bars,debattista:pseudobulges.a,jogee:bar.frac.evol,
3592: kormendy.kennicutt:pseudobulge.review,marinova:bar.frac.vs.freq}, and
3593: may even be related (albeit through longer timescales of ``isolated,''
3594: post-merger evolution and different physics) to initial bar formation
3595: or ``triggering'' in mergers.
3596: More detailed theoretical
3597: work and analysis of cosmological simulations is needed to develop observational
3598: probes that can distinguish between these histories.
3599:
3600: Further work is specifically needed to investigate the processes at work in
3601: minor mergers with mass ratios $\sim$1:10 ($\mu\sim0.05-0.1$),
3602: which cosmological simulations suggest
3603: are an important contributor to the growth of disks, especially
3604: in later-type systems
3605: \citep{maller:sph.merger.rates,
3606: fakhouri:halo.merger.rates,stewart:mw.minor.accretion}.
3607: In more minor mergers $\mu \ll 0.1$, the secondaries are sufficiently small and dynamical
3608: friction times sufficiently
3609: long that the disk is unlikely to feel significant external perturbations.
3610: More major mergers $\mu \gtrsim 0.1$, the cases of interest here,
3611: induce sufficiently large responses in the disk and evolve sufficiently rapidly
3612: that they can be considered ``merger-dominated''
3613: for the reasons in \S~\ref{sec:model.orbit} \&\ \ref{sec:model.secular}.
3614: But in the intermediate regime, internal amplification of instabilities in a
3615: traditional secular fashion may occur on a timescale comparable to
3616: or shorter than the evolution of the secondary orbit, potentially
3617: leading to a more complex interplay between the two. It is not entirely
3618: clear whether such a system would remain ``locked'' to the driven
3619: perturbation, or function as a purely secular system (merely initially
3620: driven by the presence of the secondary), or some nonlinear combination
3621: of both. A more detailed comparison of the relevant timescales
3622: for these processes and their relation to e.g.\ cosmological triggering of
3623: bars and large-scale non-axisymmetric modes in disks will be the
3624: subject of future study (in preparation).
3625:
3626:
3627: Our results are also of direct interest to models of spheroid formation in
3628: ellipticals and S0 galaxies. As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, it is increasingly
3629: clear that embedded sub-components -- constituting surviving gaseous
3630: and stellar disks -- are both ubiquitously observed and critical
3631: for theoretical models to match the detailed kinematics and isophotal
3632: shapes of observed systems \citep{naab:gas,
3633: cox:xray.gas,cox:kinematics,robertson:fp,jesseit:kinematics,
3634: hopkins:cusps.ell,hopkins:cusps.fp}. We have developed a model
3635: that allows us to make specific predictions for how disks survive mergers,
3636: including both the survival of some amount of the pre-merger stellar disks
3637: and the post-merger re-formation of disks and rotationally supported
3638: components from gas that survives the merger without losing most of its
3639: angular momentum.
3640:
3641: Figure~\ref{fig:summary} shows that we can extend
3642: these predictions with reasonable accuracy to surviving rotational systems
3643: containing as little as $\sim 1\%$ of the remnant stellar mass, comparable to
3644: small central subcomponents and subtle features giving rise to e.g.\
3645: slightly disky isophotal shapes \citep[see e.g.][]{ferrarese:type12,lauer:centers,
3646: mcdermid:sauron.profiles}. Owing to
3647: the combination of resolution requirements and desire to understand the
3648: fundamental physics involved, most theoretical studies of these detailed
3649: properties of ellipticals have been limited to idealized studies of individual
3650: mergers. Our results allow these to be placed in a more global context
3651: of cosmological models and merger histories. Moreover, our
3652: models allow the existence of such features (or lack thereof) to be translated
3653: into robust constraints on the possible merger histories and gas-richness
3654: of spheroid-forming mergers. Further, \citet{hopkins:cusps.ell,hopkins:cusps.fp},
3655: studied how the dissipational starburst components arising in gas-rich
3656: mergers are critical to explaining the observed properties and scaling relations
3657: of ellipticals, and how these components can both be extracted from
3658: and related to observed elliptical surface brightness profiles. Because both
3659: the starburst and surviving disks arise from gas in mergers, the combination of
3660: constraints from the central stellar populations, studied therein, with
3661: constraints on the survival and/or loss of gas angular momentum in mergers
3662: studied here, should be able to break some of the degeneracies in e.g.\
3663: pre-merger gas fractions and merger histories in order to enable new
3664: constraints and understanding of spheroid merger histories, and
3665: new tests of models for spheroid formation in gas-rich mergers.
3666:
3667: These points relate to a number of potentially testable predictions of
3668: our models. These include the in situ formation of bulges from various types of
3669: mergers, and possible associated stellar population signatures, the
3670: presence of embedded disks in ellipticals, and how their sizes and mass
3671: fractions scale with e.g.\ the masses and formation times of ellipticals
3672: (and how this relates to gas fractions and stellar
3673: populations in observed disks). In general,
3674: for similar merger histories, the increasing prevalence of later type
3675: galaxies (S0's and S0a's) at lower masses where disks are characteristically
3676: more gas rich is a natural consequence of our predictions here, and
3677: it is straightforward to convert our predicted scalings into detailed predictions
3678: for the abundance and mass fractions of disks given some simplified merger histories.
3679: To the extent that these processes also give rise to disk heating
3680: and/or increasing velocity dispersions in disks, or changing kinematics in
3681: both disks and bulges, then there should be corresponding relationships
3682: between galaxy shapes, kinematics, and bulge-to-disk ratios along the Hubble
3683: sequence. We investigate these possible correlations and tests in
3684: subsequent papers (in preparation).
3685:
3686: Altogether, our results here elucidate
3687: the relevant physics important for both dissipational and dissipationless
3688: bulge formation in mergers. They
3689: support a new paradigm in
3690: which to view bulge and disk formation: gas-richness is not simply
3691: a ``tweak'' to existing models of bulge formation and disk
3692: destruction in mergers. Rather, if disks are sufficiently gas rich,
3693: the qualitative character of mergers is different, with inefficient
3694: angular momentum loss giving rise to disk-dominated
3695: remnants. This process is not inherently governed by poorly-understood
3696: feedback physics (although such feedback may be critical for
3697: establishing the conditions necessary in the first place),
3698: but rather by well-understood gravitational physics, and as such is
3699: robust and fundamentally inescapable. Aspects of
3700: galaxy populations such as the continuum of relative bulge
3701: and disk mass ratios are not simply consequences of e.g.\ different
3702: amounts of accretion, but can arise owing to the continuum in
3703: efficiencies of disk destruction as a function of merger
3704: mass ratios, orbital parameters, and gas content.
3705: The relative (lack of) abundance of bulges at low galaxy masses and high
3706: redshift is a basic consequence of the dynamics of
3707: how gas loses angular momentum in mergers, even for similar
3708: merger histories. In short, the baryonic physics of mergers
3709: ensures that, despite the near self-similarity of the physics and merger histories
3710: of their host halos, disk and bulge formation are not a self-similar
3711: process, influenced dramatically (well out of proportion to the absolute
3712: cold gas mass fractions) by the gas-richness of the baryonic systems.
3713:
3714:
3715:
3716: \acknowledgments
3717: We thank Shardha Jogee and Rachel Somerville
3718: for helpful discussions, and thank the anonymous referee for helpful
3719: suggestions and clarification. This work
3720: was supported in part by NSF grants ACI 96-19019, AST 00-71019, AST
3721: 02-06299, and AST 03-07690, and NASA ATP grants NAG5-12140,
3722: NAG5-13292, and NAG5-13381. Support for
3723: TJC was provided by the W.~M.\ Keck
3724: Foundation.
3725:
3726: \bibliography{/Users/phopkins/Documents/lars_galaxies/papers/ms}
3727:
3728: \end{document}
3729: