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{\scaleupp}{}

10: %\newcommand{\plotter}{\includegraphics[scale=0.70]}

11: %\newcommand{\plotterr}{\includegraphics[scale=0.40]}

12: %\newcommand{\breaker}{\clearpage}

13: %\newcommand{\longtabler}{}

14: %\newcommand{\tableast}{\ast}

15: %\newcommand{\appendixcolumns}{}

16: \newcommand{\scaleup}{\epsscale{1.1}}

17: \newcommand{\scaleupp}{\epsscale{1.15}}

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{\Mdot}{\dot{M}}

26: \newcommand{\mdot}{\dot{m}}

27: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}

28: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}

29: \newcommand{\mstar}{M_{\ast}}

30: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\sun}}

31: \newcommand{\lstar}{L_{\ast}}

32: \newcommand{\phistar}{\phi_{\ast}}

33: \newcommand{\pstar}{\phistar}

34: \newcommand{\reducedchi}{\chi^{2}/\nu}

35: \newcommand{\qeos}{q_{\rm eos}}

36: \newcommand{\fgas}{f_{\rm gas}}

37: \newcommand{\mdyn}{M_{\rm dyn}}

38: \newcommand{\re}{R_{\rm e}}

39: \newcommand{\fsb}{f_{\rm sb}}

40: \newcommand{\fextra}{f_{\rm extra}}

41: \newcommand{\tilt}{\alpha}

42: \newcommand{\mtrue}{M_{\rm true}}

43: \newcommand{\paperone}{Paper \textrm{I}}

44: \newcommand{\papertwo}{Paper \textrm{II}}

45: \newcommand{\paperthree}{Paper \textrm{III}}

46: \newcommand{\mdynnorm}{3.8}

47: 

48: \shorttitle{Dissipation and the FP}

49: \shortauthors{Hopkins \etal}

50: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, June 5, 2008}

51: \begin{document}

52: 

53: \title{Dissipation and the Fundamental Plane: Observational Tests}

54: \author{Philip F. Hopkins\altaffilmark{1}, 

55: Thomas J. Cox\altaffilmark{1,2}, 

56: Lars Hernquist\altaffilmark{1}

57: }

58: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 

59: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

60: \altaffiltext{2}{W.~M.\ Keck Postdoctoral Fellow at the 

61: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics}

62: 

63: \begin{abstract}

64: 

65: We develop and implement an observational test of the theoretical

66: notion that dissipation in major mergers of gas-rich galaxies produces

67: the fundamental plane (FP) and related correlations obeyed by

68: ellipticals.  Observations have shown that the ``tilt'' of the FP

69: involves more than a simple non-homology or stellar population effect:

70: lower-mass ellipticals have a higher ratio of stellar to dark matter

71: within their stellar effective radii.  Theoretical models have

72: attempted to explain this via dissipation: if ellipticals are formed

73: in major mergers of disks, then mergers between disks having a larger

74: gas content (typically observed to be lower-mass disks) will yield

75: remnants with a larger mass fraction formed in a central, compact

76: starburst, giving a smaller stellar $R_{e}$ and lower $M_{\rm tot}/

77: \mstar$ within that $R_{e}$.  Such starbursts leave a characteristic

78: imprint in the surface brightness profiles of ellipticals, in the form

79: of a central excess above the outer profile established by the

80: dissipationless, violent relaxation of disk stars.  In previous work,

81: we implemented a purely empirical method to use such features in the

82: observed profiles of ellipticals to robustly estimate the amount of

83: dissipation involved in the original spheroid-forming merger.

84: Applying this to a large sample of ellipticals with detailed kinematic

85: and photometric observations, we demonstrate that the location of

86: ellipticals on the FP and its tilt are in fact driven by dissipation.

87: We show that at fixed mass, ellipticals formed in more dissipational

88: events, as indicated by their observed profiles, are smaller and have

89: a lower ratio $M_{\rm tot}/\mstar$. {\em At the same (fixed) degree of

90:   dissipation, there is no tilt in the FP} -- i.e.\ ellipticals formed

91: with a similar level of dissipation have the same ratio of enclosed

92: stellar to total mass within $R_{e}$.

93: 

94: We further demonstrate that observations and these models obey the

95: ``homology assumption,'' i.e.\ that the true enclosed mass

96: $\mtrue(R_{e})\propto \sigma^{2}\,R_{e}$.  Measured at the radii of

97: disks of the same mass, we show that ellipticals have the same total

98: enclosed masses as those disks -- i.e.\ that the FP tilt can be

99: effectively removed. Therefore, the fundamental plane tilt cannot

100: primarily owe to non-homology or to changes in the dark matter

101: distribution: it {\em must} arise as a result of a contraction of the

102: baryonic component relative to the dark matter in the process that

103: transforms disks to ellipticals, as predicted by dissipational

104: mergers. If we allow for the observed cosmological dependence of disk

105: gas fraction on mass, the observed FP, size-mass, and velocity

106: dispersion-mass correlations are reproduced by our models, as are the

107: observed homology constraints and profile shapes. {\em Dissipation is

108: both necessary and sufficient to explain the observed FP

109: correlations of ellipticals.}  These observations all favor theories

110: in which ellipticals are formed in major mergers of disks with gas

111: fractions, sizes, and dark matter content similar to that observed as

112: a function of mass in low-redshift disks: unusually compact disks are 

113: {\em not} required to make $\sim0.01-10\,L_{\ast}$ ellipticals.  We

114: present a number of associated predictions that can be used to further

115: test these assertions.

116: 

117: \end{abstract}

118: 

119: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD --- galaxies: evolution --- 

120: galaxies: formation --- galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: structure --- 

121: cosmology: theory}

122: 

123: 

124: 

125: \section{Introduction}

126: \label{sec:intro}

127: 

128: Understanding the scaling relations between the photometric and

129: kinematic properties of galaxy spheroids -- their masses, sizes,

130: velocity dispersions, and luminosities -- is fundamental to explaining

131: the origin of early-type galaxies.  \citet{fj76} demonstrated that

132: ellipticals obey a relatively tight correlation between optical

133: luminosity and central velocity dispersion, and

134: \citet{kormendy77:correlations} found an analogous relationship

135: between their effective surface brightness and radii. With improved

136: observations and the advent of stellar population modeling, these

137: observed trends can be translated into robust correlations between

138: physical parameters: a velocity dispersion-stellar mass

139: ($\sigma-\mstar$) and a size-stellar mass ($R_{e}-\mstar$) relation.

140: 

141: \citet{dd87:fp} and \citet{dressler87:fp} demonstrated that the

142: scatter in either the \citet{fj76} or \citet{kormendy77:correlations}

143: relation could be reduced by adopting a three parameter correlation of

144: the form $\log{(R_{e})}= a\,\log{(\sigma)} - 0.4\,b\,\mu_{e} + c$

145: (equivalently $R_{e}\propto\sigma^{a}\,I_{e}^{b}$), with best fit

146: scalings $a\sim1.3-1.4$, $b\sim-0.8$ to $-0.9$.  This defines the

147: ``fundamental plane'' (FP) of elliptical galaxies: a correlation

148: relating stellar mass or luminosity (implicit in the surface

149: brightness), effective radius, and velocity dispersion (effectively

150: the dynamical mass of the system). With a small observed scatter

151: $\sim0.1\,$dex, the FP has presented as a long-standing, and still

152: unresolved challenge to observations and theoretical models of

153: spheroid formation.

154: 

155: In developing a physical understanding of the FP and associated

156: elliptical scaling laws, \citet{djorgovski:fp.tilt,

157: jorgensen:fp.scatter} and others demonstrated

158: that the FP could be represented as a ``tilted'' virial plane. If

159: ellipticals were perfectly homologous systems with constant stellar

160: mass-to-light ratios $\mstar/L$, then a virial correlation $L \propto

161: \mstar = k\,\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}/G \equiv \mdyn$, with constant integral

162: factor $k$, would be expected.  Since $I_{e} \propto L/R_{e}^{2}$,

163: this translates to an expected ``virial FP''

164: $R_{e}\propto\sigma^{2}\,I_{e}^{-1}$.  The observed FP is similar to 

165: this, but not exactly so; it is equivalent to and can be 

166: represented as a ``tilted'' version of this correlation, namely

167: \begin{equation}

168: \mdyn \propto \mstar^{1+\tilt}

169: \label{eqn:tilt}

170: \end{equation}

171: with some small, but non-zero $\alpha$. 

172: Equivalently, the difference between the best-fit observed FP (in any

173: projection) and the virial FP can be expressed as a mass dependent

174: mass-to-light (or, for our purposes, total mass-to-stellar mass) ratio

175: \begin{equation}

176: \frac{\mdyn}{\mstar}\propto \mstar^{\tilt}

177: \end{equation}

178: where the quantity $\tilt$ quantifies the tilt, or deviation of the FP

179: from the virial relation.  Various independent measurements find

180: similar values of $\tilt\approx0.2$ \citep[e.g.][]{pahre:nir.fp,

181:   gerhard:giant.ell.dynamics, borriello03,

182:   padmanabhan:mdyn.mstar.tilt,gallazzi06:ages}.  Although this is not

183: strictly identical to the best-fit relation $R_{e}\propto

184: \sigma^{a}\,I_{e}^{b}$ if both $a$ and $b$ are fit as free parameters,

185: multiple observations have shown that it is statistically an

186: equivalent representation (i.e.\ has the same scatter in {\em

187:   physical} quantities), and that there is no additional information

188: in the best-fit FP beyond this tilt (i.e.\ once this tilt is

189: accounted for, there is no additional systematic scaling in $R_{e}$ or

190: $\sigma$ that can reduce the scatter in predicting the other

191: quantities).

192: 

193: It is now well-established that part of the observed tilt in optical

194: bands is a consequence of stellar population effects: lower-mass

195: ellipticals tend to be younger, yielding lower stellar mass-to-light

196: ratios \citep[see e.g.][]{trager:ages}.  However, various constraints

197: imply that only a small fraction %($\sim 10\%$) 

198: of the optical tilt owes to these effects \citep[see e.g.][]

199: {pahre:nir.fp,gerhard:giant.ell.dynamics,bertin:weak.homology,

200: borriello03,padmanabhan:mdyn.mstar.tilt,trujillo:non-homology,

201: gallazzi06:ages,vonderlinden:bcg.scaling.relations}.  For example,

202: in the $K$-band, the tilt is still substantial: observations indicate

203: $\mdyn\propto L_{K}^{1.25\pm0.05}$ \citep{pahre:nir.fp}, whereas the

204: systematic dependence of $\mstar/L_{K}$ is quite weak \citep[most

205:   estimates suggest $\mstar/L_{K}\propto L_{K}^{0.03}$;][]{bell:mfs}.

206: It is now possible to combine high-resolution spectra and stellar

207: population synthesis models, allowing reliable stellar mass estimates,

208: and almost all such studies yield a similar relation:

209: \begin{equation}

210: \mdyn \propto \mstar^{1.2},

211: \end{equation}

212: i.e.\ $\alpha\approx0.2$ as described above.

213: It has been demonstrated that this result is robust to the 

214: details of the stellar population model, spectral 

215: coverage, or even simplifying assumptions such as the use of 

216: a single color to derive a mean $\mstar/L$. 

217: 

218: There are only two reasonable explanations for this finding (some

219: combination of the two is also possible).  First, the true mass

220: enclosed within the stellar effective radius ($\mtrue$) could in fact

221: be proportional to the stellar mass $\mstar$, but owing to e.g.\

222: changes in the profile shape or kinematics of galaxies with mass

223: (traditional non-homology), the relation between actual mass and the

224: dynamical mass estimator $\mdyn\propto\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}/G$ is a

225: changing function of mass.  In other words, $\mdyn \propto

226: \mtrue^{1.2}$.  However, observations appear to rule out this

227: possibility, at least as the origin of most of the tilt.  Integral

228: modeling of the mass distribution from two-dimensional kinematic maps

229: \citep[which should recover any systematic difference between $\mdyn$

230: and $\mtrue$ without reference to any homology assumptions,

231: e.g.][]{cappellari:fp}, as well as mass distributions estimated from

232: gravitational lensing \citep{bolton:fp,bolton:fp.update,nipoti:homology.from.mp}, 

233: independently give $\mdyn

234: \propto \mtrue^{1.00\pm0.03}$.  That is, the allowed contribution of

235: non-homology to the FP tilt is small.

236: 

237: The only remaining explanation is that the FP tilt reflects a

238: meaningful physical change, namely that the ratio of total enclosed

239: mass within $R_{e}$ ($\mtrue$, represented reasonably well to within a

240: normalization constant by $\mdyn$) to the stellar mass is an

241: increasing function of mass ($\mtrue\propto\mstar^{1.2}$).  In other

242: words, low-mass ellipticals are more baryon-dominated within their

243: stellar $R_{e}$, and high-mass ellipticals have higher dark matter

244: fractions.  We emphasize that these constraints apply {\em within the

245:   stellar effective radii}. The change in dark matter fraction is not

246: required to be global: if one were to contract the stellar mass

247: distribution but keep the dark matter halo relatively fixed, for

248: example, it would significantly decrease the dark matter fraction (and

249: correspondingly $\mdyn/\mstar$) within $R_{e}$.

250: 

251: This trend is {\em contrary} to that followed by disks.  For disk

252: galaxies, an opposite (negative) tilt $\mdyn\propto\mstar^{0.7-0.8}$

253: ($\tilt \approx-0.2 $ to $-0.3$) is observed \citep[see

254:   e.g.][]{persic96,belldejong:tf,shen:size.mass,courteau:disk.scalings} -- low mass disks (and dwarf

255: spheroidals) are the most dark-matter dominated systems

256: \citep[][]{persic88,persic90,persic96:data,persic96,borriello01}. Such a

257: scaling is expected if the properties of disks track those of their

258: dark matter halos: lower-mass halos are more compact \citep[][and

259:   references therein]{neto:concentrations}, and it is also

260: well-established that lower-mass disks experience less efficient star

261: formation \citep{belldejong:disk.sfh,gallazzi:ssps}.  Consequently,

262: disks and ellipticals have similar ratios $\mdyn/\mstar$ at high

263: masses ($\sim$a few $L_{\ast}$), but disks are more dark-matter

264: dominated (have much higher $\mdyn(R_{e})$) at low (stellar) masses.

265: This difference in scaling laws also relates to their stellar

266: size-mass relations: disks obey a shallow relation

267: $R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.25-0.35}$, roughly consistent with the scaling

268: of halo effective radii as a function of mass, whereas spheroids obey

269: a much steeper relation $R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.6}$

270: \citep{shen:size.mass}.  Again, at $\sim$a few $L_{\ast}$, disks and

271: ellipticals have similar sizes and densities, but at low masses ($\ll

272: L_{\ast}$), ellipticals are smaller (in their stellar/baryonic mass

273: distributions) and more dense.

274: 

275: This difference has, for $\sim30$ years, represented a major challenge

276: for theory -- especially models which posit that ellipticals are

277: formed through the merger of disk galaxies \citep[the ``merger

278:   hypothesis'';][]{toomre72,toomre77}.  In particular, it has been

279: noted that purely dissipationless mergers of stellar disks cannot

280: raise the mass and phase-space densities of ellipticals, and so cannot

281: change the scaling laws of ellipticals to something different from

282: disks \citep{ostriker80,carlberg:phase.space,gunn87}.

283: 

284: However, these arguments do not pertain if ellipticals are formed from

285: mergers of {\em gas-rich} disks.  Particularly at low masses,

286: where ellipticals are more compact than spirals, disks have a large

287: fraction of their mass in gas, so {\em mergers must account for

288:   dissipation}.  In a merger of two disks containing both gas and

289: stars, the stars are dissipationless and they cannot increase their

290: phase space density and so violently relax to a distribution with an

291: $R_{e}$ similar to the progenitor disks.  Gas, on the other hand, can

292: radiate, and tidal torques excited during a merger can remove its

293: angular momentum \citep{hernquist.89,barnes.hernquist.91,barneshernquist96}. 

294: The resulting inflows

295: produce a dissipational, merger-induced starburst which is compact

296: (typical size scales $\sim0.5-1$\,kpc).  If a significant fraction of

297: the final stellar mass is formed in this manner, the scale length of

298: the stellar component will be much smaller than that of its

299: progenitor.

300: 

301: \citet{onorbe:diss.fp.model,robertson:fp} and \citet{dekelcox:fp}

302: argued that, because low mass disks are more gas rich (on average)

303: than high mass disks, dissipation will be more important in low-mass

304: systems.  That is, lower-mass ellipticals (the merger products of

305: low-mass spirals) should have smaller effective radii relative to

306: their progenitor disks, and, since the halo mass distribution is not

307: strongly affected by this process, a correspondingly smaller dark

308: matter fraction (lower $\mdyn/\mstar$) within the stellar $R_{e}$. On

309: the other hand, high-mass disks are observed to be gas-poor: at $\gg

310: L_{\ast}$ gas fractions become negligible ($\ll 10\%$) -- this is

311: precisely where ellipticals are {\em not} more compact than

312: disks.  Together, \citet{robertson:fp} and \citet{dekelcox:fp} argued

313: that the dependence of dissipational fraction on mass is sufficient,

314: in principle, to explain the tilt of the FP, the size-mass and

315: velocity-dispersion mass correlations of ellipticals.

316: 

317: The importance of gas dynamics and triggered star formation in mergers

318: is reinforced by observations of ultraluminous infrared galaxies

319: (ULIRGs) \citep[e.g.][]{soifer84a,soifer84b}, which are invariably

320: associated with mergers in the local Universe

321: \citep{joseph85,sanders96:ulirgs.mergers}.  The infrared emission from

322: ULIRGs is thought to be powered by intense starbursts in their nuclei,

323: originating in central concentrations of gas

324: \citep[e.g.][]{scoville86, sargent87,sargent89}, which will leave

325: dense stellar remnants

326: \citep{kormendysanders92,hibbard.yun:excess.light,rj:profiles}, as

327: predicted theoretically \citep{mihos:cusps}.  Moreover, observations

328: of merging systems and gas-rich merger remnants

329: \citep[e.g.,][]{LakeDressler86,Doyon94,ShierFischer98,James99}, as

330: well as post-starburst (E+A/K+A) galaxies

331: \citep{goto:e+a.merger.connection}, have shown that their kinematic

332: and photometric properties are consistent with them eventually

333: evolving into typical $\sim L_{\ast}$ elliptical galaxies. The

334: correlations obeyed by these mergers and remnants

335: \citep[e.g.,][and references above]{Genzel01,rothberg.joseph:kinematics,

336: rothberg.joseph:rotation}

337: are similar to e.g.\ the observed fundamental plane and

338: \citet{kormendy77:correlations} relations for relaxed ellipticals, and

339: consistent with evolution onto these relations as their stellar

340: populations age, as well as the clustering and mass density of

341: ellipticals \citep{hopkins:clustering}.

342: 

343: Unfortunately, the consequences of the models are less clear; as such,

344: there has been some ambiguity regarding whether or not recent

345: observations of the FP support or disagree with theory. In particular,

346: while merger remnants may fall on the FP, it is not obvious that a

347: differential role of dissipation is in fact responsible for the FP

348: tilt in the manner predicted by \citet{robertson:fp}, 

349: or that this applies to all ellipticals.  However, there is

350: hope: \citet{mihos:cusps} predicted that these dissipational

351: starbursts should leave an observable signature in the surface

352: brightness profiles of remnants, in the form of a steep departure from

353: the outer \citet{devaucouleurs} $r^{1/4}$-law distribution in the

354: inner regions: i.e. a central ``extra light'' component above the

355: inwards extrapolation of the outer profile. Observations have 

356: now uncovered distinctive evidence for this two-component structure in local 

357: ellipticals \citep{kormendy99,jk:profiles,ferrarese:profiles}, 

358: classical bulges \citep{balcells:bulge.xl}, and recent merger remnants 

359: \citep{hibbard.yun:excess.light,rj:profiles}. 

360: With the combination of 

361: HST and ground-based photometry, it now appears that such 

362: components are ubiquitous \citep{jk:profiles}, 

363: with mass ranges and spatial extents comparable to those

364: expected from observations of ongoing merger-induced 

365: starbursts and numerical simulations.

366: 

367: In a series of papers, \citet{hopkins:cusps.mergers,hopkins:cusps.ell,

368: hopkins:cores} (hereafter \paperone, \papertwo\ and \paperthree,

369: respectively), we used these simulations and data to 

370: develop and test a method to empirically

371: determine the degree of dissipation involved in the formation of a

372: particular elliptical galaxy -- i.e.\ the mass fraction in the stellar

373: remnant of a central, compact nuclear (dissipational) starburst. In

374: \paperone, we demonstrated that observed merger remnants can be

375: robustly decomposed into two components: an outer, dissipationless

376: (violently relaxed) component with a Sersic law-like profile,

377: comprising the pre-merger stars, and an inner, compact starburst

378: remnant, produced in a starburst.  Combining large ensembles of

379: observations with a library of simulations that enabled us to

380: calibrate various empirical methods, we developed a purely empirical

381: technique to separate the inner ``excess'' owing to the true physical

382: starburst component in the observed surface brightness profile from

383: the outer profile.  

384: 

385: In \papertwo, we showed that this method -- given photometry of

386: sufficient quality and covering a large dynamic range (from

387: $\lesssim100\,$pc to $\gtrsim20-50$\,kpc) -- could be extended to

388: observed ``cusp'' ellipticals (i.e.\ ellipticals with steep nuclear

389: profiles), commonly believed to be the direct remnants of gas-rich

390: mergers \citep{faber:ell.centers}.  Separating the observed surface

391: brightness profile in this manner, we demonstrated that simulations

392: and independent observations (e.g.\ distinctions in stellar

393: populations evident in kinematics, colors, stellar ages,

394: metallicities, or abundances) confirm that the component of the

395: elliptical formed via dissipation (in a nuclear starburst) could be

396: reliably (statistically) determined.

397: 

398: In \paperthree, we showed that the same methods can robustly recover

399: the dissipational starburst remnants in ``core'' ellipticals

400: (ellipticals with shallow nuclear profiles). In general, even if other

401: processes such as e.g.\ scattering of stars by a binary black hole

402: create the core, their impact on the overall starburst component is

403: negligible (by both mass and radius, the scales of the core, typically

404: $\lesssim30-50\,$pc, are much smaller than the mass and size of the

405: starburst). We also showed that even if core or other ellipticals have

406: subsequently been modified by spheroid-spheroid ``dry'' re-mergers,

407: profile shape is preserved to a sufficient degree that the original

408: nuclear excess (i.e.\ the indicator of the degree of dissipation in 

409: the original, spheroid-forming merger) remains.

410: 

411: By applying our methodology to observations of ellipticals over a wide

412: range in mass and size, we can, for the first time, empirically

413: compare the degree of dissipation (starburst or dissipational mass

414: fraction) in ellipticals to their global properties and locations on

415: the FP.  If a differential effect of dissipation as a function of mass

416: is the explanation for the FP and elliptical scaling relations, as the

417: models suggest, then we should be able to see and quantify the

418: signatures of this directly in their {\it observed}

419: profiles.  Therefore, in this

420: paper we present a critical examination of the relationship between

421: spheroid properties and FP correlations and ``extra light''

422: components, in both simulations and observed galaxies.  The

423: combination of a large number of observations, together with an

424: ensemble of hydrodynamic gas-rich merger simulations sampling the

425: entire observed range in e.g.\ mass, gas content, and other

426: properties, enables us to develop and apply new, detailed, empirical

427: tests of these models for the origin of the FP correlations.

428: 

429: In \S~\ref{sec:sims} we summarize our library of merger simulations,

430: and in \S~\ref{sec:data} we describe the compilation of observations

431: used to test the models.  In \S~\ref{sec:data:proxies} we review

432: different approaches to fit the surface density profile and recover

433: the physically distinct (dissipational versus dissipationless)

434: components in merger remnants.  We use a set of simulations to infer

435: how galaxy properties are predicted to scale with dissipation in

436: \S~\ref{sec:diss.fx}. We then compare with observed systems: examining

437: how observed sizes and masses scale with gas content in

438: \S~\ref{sec:obs}, and the scaling relations obeyed at fixed

439: dissipational content in \S~\ref{sec:obs.tests}.  We combine the

440: observed dependences on dissipation and gas content in

441: \S~\ref{sec:obs.tests.2} to determine whether this is sufficient to

442: explain the tilt and scatter of the FP and its projected correlations.

443: In \S~\ref{sec:obs.tests.mtot} we compare dynamical and total masses

444: and consider possible non-homology effects.  In \S~\ref{sec:remergers}

445: we examine the impact of subsequent re-mergers on the FP

446: correlations. Finally, in \S~\ref{sec:discuss} we discuss our results

447: and outline future explorations of these correlations.

448: 

449: Throughout, we adopt a $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$,

450: $H_{0}=70\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ cosmology, and normalize all

451: observations and models accordingly.  We note that this has little

452: affect on our conclusions, however.  We also adopt a

453: \citet{chabrier:imf} stellar initial mass function (IMF), and convert

454: all stellar masses and mass-to-light ratios to this choice. The exact

455: form of the IMF systematically shifts the normalization of stellar

456: masses herein, but does not substantially influence our

457: comparisons. All magnitudes are in the Vega system, unless otherwise

458: specified.

459: 

460: 

461: \breaker

462: \section{The Simulations}

463: \label{sec:sims}

464: 

465: The merger simulations we 

466: analyze in this paper were performed with the parallel TreeSPH code

467: {\small GADGET-2} \citep{springel:gadget}, based on a fully conservative

468: formulation \citep{springel:entropy} of smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH),

469: which conserves energy and entropy simultaneously even when smoothing

470: lengths evolve adaptively \citep[see e.g.,][]{hernquist:sph.cautions,oshea:sph.tests}. 

471: The simulations account for radiative cooling and optional heating by

472: a UV background \citep[as in][although it 

473: is not important for the masses of interest here]{katz:treesph,dave:lyalpha}, and

474: incorporate a sub-resolution model of a multiphase interstellar medium

475: (ISM) to describe star formation and supernova feedback \citep{springel:multiphase}.

476: Feedback from supernovae is captured in this sub-resolution model

477: through an effective equation of state for star-forming gas, enabling

478: us to stably evolve disks with arbitrary gas fractions \citep[see, e.g.][]{springel:models,

479: springel:spiral.in.merger,robertson:disk.formation,robertson:msigma.evolution}. 

480: This is described by the parameter $\qeos$,

481: which ranges from $\qeos=0$ for an isothermal gas with effective

482: temperature of $10^4$ K, to $\qeos=1$ for our full multiphase model

483: with an effective temperature $\sim10^5$ K. We also compare with a subset of 

484: simulations which adopt the star formation and feedback prescriptions 

485: from \citet{mihos:cusps,mihos:starbursts.94,mihos:starbursts.96}, in which the ISM is treated as a

486: single-phase isothermal medium and feedback energy is deposited in a 

487: purely kinetic radial impulse (for details, 

488: see, e.g.\ \cite{mihos:method}).

489: 

490: Although we find that they make little difference to 

491: the extra light component, most of the simulations include 

492: supermassive black holes at the centers of both progenitor galaxies.  

493: The black holes are represented by ``sink'' particles

494: that accrete gas at a rate $\Mdot$ estimated from the local gas

495: density and sound speed using an Eddington-limited prescription based

496: on Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion theory.  The bolometric luminosity

497: of the black hole is taken to be $L_{\rm bol}=\epsilon_{r}\dot{M}\,c^{2}$,

498: where $\epsilon_r=0.1$ is the radiative efficiency.  We assume that a

499: small fraction (typically $\approx 5\%$) of $L_{\rm bol}$ couples dynamically

500: to the surrounding gas, and that this feedback is injected into the

501: gas as thermal energy, weighted by the SPH smoothing kernel.  This

502: fraction is a free parameter, which we determine as in \citet{dimatteo:msigma}

503: by matching the observed $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation.  For now, we do

504: not resolve the small-scale dynamics of the gas in the immediate

505: vicinity of the black hole, but assume that the time-averaged

506: accretion rate can be estimated from the gas properties on the scale

507: of our spatial resolution (roughly $\approx 20$\,pc, in the best

508: cases). In any case, repeating our analysis for simulations with no black 

509: holes yields identical conclusions. 

510: 

511: The progenitor galaxy models are described in

512: \citet{springel:models}, and we review their properties here.  For each

513: simulation, we generate two stable, isolated disk galaxies, each with

514: an extended dark matter halo with a \citet{hernquist:profile} profile,

515: motivated by cosmological simulations \citep{nfw:profile,busha:halomass}, 

516: an exponential disk of gas and stars, and (optionally) a

517: bulge.  The galaxies have total masses $M_{\rm vir}=V_{\rm

518: vir}^{3}/(10GH[z])$ for an initial redshift $z$, with the baryonic disk having a mass

519: fraction $m_{\rm d}=0.041$, the bulge (when present) having $m_{\rm

520: b}=0.0136$, and the rest of the mass in dark matter.  The dark matter

521: halos are assigned a

522: concentration parameter scaled as in \citet{robertson:msigma.evolution} appropriately for the 

523: galaxy mass and redshift following \citet{bullock:concentrations}. We have also 

524: varied the concentration in a subset of simulations, and find it has little 

525: effect on our conclusions because the central regions of the 

526: galaxy are baryon-dominated. 

527: The disk scale-length is computed

528: based on an assumed spin parameter $\lambda=0.033$, chosen to be near

529: the mode in the $\lambda$ distribution measured in simulations \citep{vitvitska:spin},

530: and the scale-length of the bulge is set to $0.2$ times this. Modulo explicit 

531: variation in these parameters, these choices ensure that the initial disks 

532: are consistent with e.g.\ the observed baryonic 

533: Tully-Fisher relation and estimated halo-galaxy mass 

534: scaling laws \citep[][and references therein]{belldejong:tf,kormendyfreeman:scaling,

535: mandelbaum:mhalo}.

536: 

537: Typically, each galaxy initially consists of 168000 dark matter halo

538: particles, 8000 bulge particles (when present), 40000 gas and 40000

539: stellar disk particles, and one black hole

540: (BH) particle.  We vary the numerical

541: resolution, with many simulations using twice, and a subset up to 128

542: times, as many particles. We choose the initial seed

543: mass of the black hole either in accord with the observed $M_{\rm

544: BH}$-$\sigma$ relation or to be sufficiently small that its presence

545: will not have an immediate dynamical effect, but we have varied the seed

546: mass to identify any systematic dependencies.  Given the particle

547: numbers employed, the dark matter, gas, and star particles are all of

548: roughly equal mass, and central cusps in the dark matter and bulge

549: are reasonably well resolved. 

550: The typical gravitational 

551: softening in the simulations is $\sim20-50\,$pc in the 

552: $\lesssim L_{\ast}$ systems of particular interest here, 

553: with a somewhat higher $\sim50-100\,$pc in the most massive 

554: systems (yielding an effectively constant resolution $\sim 0.01\,R_{e}$

555: in terms of the effective radius). In \paperone\ and \papertwo\  

556: we demonstrate that this is sufficient to properly resolve not only the mass 

557: fractions but also the spatial extent of the extra light components of 

558: interest here (resolution may become an issue when attempting to 

559: model the very smallest galaxies, with $R_{e}\lesssim100$\,pc and 

560: $L<0.01\,L_{\ast}$, but this is well below the range of the observations of 

561: interest here). The hydrodynamic 

562: gas smoothing length in the peak starburst phases of interest is 

563: always smaller than this gravitational softening. 

564: 

565: We consider a series of several hundred simulations of colliding

566: galaxies, described in \citet{robertson:fp,robertson:msigma.evolution} and

567: \citet{cox:xray.gas,cox:kinematics}.  We vary the numerical resolution, the orbit of the

568: encounter (disk inclinations, pericenter separation), the masses and

569: structural properties of the merging galaxies, initial gas fractions,

570: halo concentrations, the parameters describing star formation and

571: feedback from supernovae and black hole growth, and initial black hole

572: masses. 

573: 

574: The progenitor galaxies have virial velocities $V_{\rm vir}=55, 80, 113, 160,

575: 226, 320,$ and $500\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, and redshifts $z=0, 2, 3, {\rm

576: and}\ 6$, and the simulations span a range in final spheroid stellar mass

577: $M_{\ast}\sim10^{8}-10^{13}\,M_{\sun}$, covering essentially the

578: entire range of the observations we consider at all redshifts, and

579: allowing us to identify any systematic dependencies in the models.  We

580: consider initial disk gas fractions by mass of $\fgas = 0.05,\ 0.1,\ 0.2,\ 0.4,\ 0.6,\ 

581: 0.8,\ {\rm and}\ 1.0$ (defined as the fraction of disk baryonic mass which is gas) 

582: for several choices of virial velocities,

583: redshifts, and ISM equations of state. The results described in this

584: paper are based primarily on simulations of equal-mass mergers;

585: however, by examining a small set of simulations of unequal mass

586: mergers, we find that the behavior does not change dramatically for

587: mass ratios to about 3:1 or 4:1. The mass ratios we study are appropriate for the

588: observations of ellipticals used in this paper, which are only formed 

589: in our simulations in major merger events. At higher mass ratios, 

590: the result is a small bulge in a still disk-dominated galaxy 

591: \citep[see e.g.][]{younger:minor.mergers,hopkins:disk.survival,

592: hopkins:disk.heating}, which we do not study here 

593: (although in general our conclusions should still apply, so long as the 

594: bulges of interest are ``classical'' bulges formed in mergers). 

595: 

596: We also briefly consider in \S~\ref{sec:remergers} a subset of

597: spheroid-spheroid ``re-mergers,'' representative of gas-poor or

598: ``dry'' spheroid-spheroid mergers of elliptical galaxies. In these

599: mergers, we collide two remnants of previous disk-disk mergers, in

600: order to explore how their properties are modified through

601: re-merging. We typically merge two identical remnants (i.e.\ two

602: identical copies of the remnant of a given disk-disk merger), but have

603: also explored re-mergers of various mass ratios (from 1:1 to

604: $\approx$ 4:1), and mixed morphology re-mergers (i.e.\ merging an 

605: elliptical remnant with an un-merged gas-rich disk).  In the former

606: case, we generally find a similar division in mass ratio at which a

607: major merger is significant. In the latter, we find that the

608: properties are more akin to those of other gas-rich (disk-disk)

609: mergers, and the remnant should for most purposes should still be

610: considered the direct product of a gas-rich merger.  In the re-merger

611: series, we vary the orbital parameters, both of the initial gas-rich

612: merger and re-merger, and consider systems with 

613: a similar range of initial gas fractions in the progenitor disks (of the 

614: original gas-rich merger), $\fgas=0.05,\ 0.2,\ 0.4,\ 0.8$. The re-mergers 

615: span a similar range in virial velocities and final stellar masses to 

616: the gas-rich mergers. 

617: 

618: Each simulation is evolved until the merger is complete and the remnants are 

619: fully relaxed, typically $\sim1-2$\,Gyr after the final merger 

620: and coalescence of the BHs. We then analyze the 

621: remnants following \citet{cox:kinematics}, in a manner designed to mirror 

622: the methods typically used by observers. For each remnant, we project the 

623: stars onto a plane as if observed from a particular direction, and consider 

624: 100 viewing angles to each remnant, which uniformly sample the unit sphere. 

625: Given the projected stellar mass distribution, we calculate the iso-density contours 

626: and fit ellipses 

627: to each (fitting major and minor 

628: axis radii and hence ellipticity at each iso-density contour), 

629: moving concentrically from $r=0$ until the entire stellar mass 

630: has been enclosed. This is designed to mimic observational isophotal fitting 

631: algorithms \citep[e.g.][]{bender:87.a4,bender:88.shapes}. The radial deviations 

632: of the iso-density contours from the fitted ellipses are 

633: expanded in a Fourier series in the standard fashion to determine 

634: the boxyness or diskyness of each contour (the $a_{4}$ parameter). 

635: Throughout, we show profiles and quote our results in 

636: terms of the major axis radius. For further details, we refer to \citet{cox:kinematics}.

637: 

638: We directly extract the effective radius $\re$ as the projected half-mass stellar 

639: effective radius, and the velocity dispersion $\sigma$ as the average 

640: one-dimensional velocity dispersion within a circular 

641: aperture of radius $\re$. This differs from what is sometimes adopted 

642: in the literature, where $\re$ is determined from the best-fitting

643: Sersic profile, but because 

644: we are fitting Sersic profiles to the observed systems we usually quote both the 

645: true effective radius of the galaxy and effective radii of the fitted Sersic components. 

646: Throughout, the stellar mass $M_{\ast}$ refers to the total stellar mass of the galaxy, and 

647: the dynamical mass $\mdyn$ refers to the 

648: traditional dynamical mass estimator 

649: \begin{equation}

650: \mdyn\equiv k\,\frac{\sigma^{2}\,\re}{G},

651: \end{equation}

652: where we adopt $k=3.8$ (roughly what is 

653: expected for a \citet{hernquist:profile} profile, and the choice that most accurately 

654: matches the true enclosed stellar plus dark matter mass within $\re$ in the 

655: simulations; 

656: although this choice is irrelevant as long as we apply it 

657: uniformly to both observations and simulations). 

658: When we plot quantities such as $\re$, $\sigma$, and $\mdyn$, we 

659: typically show just 

660: the median value for each simulation across all $\sim100$ sightlines. The sightline-to-sightline 

661: variation in these quantities is typically smaller than the 

662: simulation-to-simulation scatter, but we explicitly note where it is large. 

663: 

664: 

665: \breaker

666: \section{The Data}

667: \label{sec:data}

668: 

669: 

670: We compare the simulations to and test our predictions on an ensemble

671: of observed surface brightness profiles of ellipticals, described in

672: \papertwo\ and \paperthree. Specifically, we consider three samples of

673: ellipticals and a compilation of remnants of recent gas-rich mergers. The first

674: is the $V$-band Virgo elliptical survey of \citet{jk:profiles}, based

675: on the complete sample of Virgo galaxies down to extremely faint

676: systems in \citet{binggeli:vcc} 

677: \citep[the same sample studied in][]{cote:virgo,ferrarese:profiles}. 

678: \citet{jk:profiles} combine observations from a

679: large number of sources

680: \citep[including][]{bender:data,bender:06,caon90,caon:profiles,davis:85,kormendy:05,

681: lauer:85,lauer:95,lauer:centers,liu:05,peletier:profiles} 

682: and new photometry from McDonald Observatory, the HST archive, and 

683: the SDSS 

684: for each of their objects which (after careful conversion to a single

685: photometric standard) enables accurate surface brightness measurements

686: over a wide dynamic range (with an estimated 

687: zero-point accuracy of $\pm0.04\,V\,{\rm mag\, arcsec^{-2}}$). 

688: Typically, the galaxies in this sample have

689: profiles spanning $\sim12-15$ magnitudes in surface brightness,

690: corresponding to a range of nearly four orders of magnitude in

691: physical radii from $\sim10\,$pc to $\sim100\,$kpc, permitting the

692: best simultaneous constraints on the shapes of both the outer and

693: inner profiles of any of the objects we study.  The profiles include

694: e.g.\ ellipticity, $a_{4}/a$, and $g-z$ colors as a function of

695: radius.  

696: Unfortunately, since this is restricted to Virgo ellipticals,

697: the number of galaxies is limited, especially at the intermediate and high end of the

698: mass function.

699: 

700: We therefore add surface brightness profiles from \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}, 

701: further supplemented by \citet{bender:data}. 

702: \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} compile $V$-band measurements of a

703: large number of nearby systems for which HST imaging of the galactic

704: nuclei is available.  These include the 

705: %\citet{rest:01} and

706: \citet{lauer:centers} WFPC2 data-set, the \citet{laine:03} WFPC2 BCG

707: sample (in which the objects are specifically selected as brightest

708: cluster galaxies from \citet{postmanlauer:95}), and the \citet{lauer:95}

709: and \citet{faber:ell.centers} WFPC1 compilations.

710: %and the

711: %\citet{quillen:00} and \citet{ravindranath:01} NICMOS samples. 

712: Details

713: of the treatment of the profiles and conversion to a single standard

714: are given in \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles}. 

715: The sample includes ellipticals over

716: a wide range of luminosities, down to $M_{B}\sim-15$, but is dominated

717: by intermediate and giant ellipticals, with typical magnitudes $M_{B}

718: \lesssim -18$. This therefore greatly extends our sampling of the

719: intermediate and 

720: high-mass end of the mass function, but at the cost of some dynamic

721: range in the data. The HST images alone,

722: while providing information on the central regions, typically extend

723: to only $\sim1$\,kpc outer radii, which is insufficient to fit the

724: outer profile. \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} 

725: therefore combine these data with ground-based

726: measurements from a number of sources (see the references for the

727: \citet{jk:profiles} sample) to construct profiles that typically span

728: physical radii from $\sim10\,$pc to $\sim10-20$\,kpc. Although the 

729: composite profiles 

730: were used in \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} to estimate effective radii, they were not 

731: actually shown in that paper. 

732: It should also be noted that there is

733: no single criterion that characterizes galaxies included in this

734: sample, but they generally

735: comprise luminous nearby ellipticals and S0 galaxies for which

736: detailed imaging is available.  We emphasize that issues of completeness

737: and e.g.\ environment are not important for any of our conclusions.

738: 

739: We occasionally 

740: supplement the profiles from \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} with additional 

741: profiles used in \citet{bender:data,bender:ell.kinematics,bender:ell.kinematics.a4,

742: bender:velocity.structure}, and in some cases subsequently updated. 

743: These are more limited: typically the profiles cover $\sim7$ magnitudes in

744: surface brightness, extending from $\sim30-50\,$pc out to $\sim$ a few

745: kpc (typically $\sim3$\,kpc in low-luminosity systems, and $\sim

746: 15$\,kpc in the brightest systems, sufficient for acceptable, but not

747: strong constraints on the outer profile shapes).

748: However, the measurements are usually

749: in each of the $V$, $R$, and $I$ bands, and hence allow us to

750: construct multicolor surface brightness, ellipticity, and $a_{4}/a$

751: profiles. We use this to estimate e.g.\ the 

752: sensitivity of the fitted parameters 

753: and galaxy profiles on the observed waveband and on the 

754: quality and dynamic range of the photometry.

755: 

756: We also consider the sample of local remnants of recent gas-rich

757: mergers from \citet{rj:profiles} with which we compare our simulations

758: in \paperone. For these objects, \citet{rj:profiles} compile

759: $K$-band imaging, surface brightness, ellipticity, and $a_{4}/a$

760: profiles, where the profiles typically range from $\sim100\,$pc

761: to $\sim10-20$\,kpc. These span a moderate range in luminosity

762: (including objects from $M_{K}\sim-20$ to $M_{K}\sim-27$, but with

763: most from $M_{K}\sim-24$ to $M_{K}\sim-26$) and a wide range in merger

764: stage, from ULIRGs and (a few) unrelaxed systems to shell

765: ellipticals. As demonstrated in \citet{rj:profiles} and 

766: argued in \paperone, these systems will almost all

767: become (or already are, depending on the classification scheme used)

768: typical $\sim \lstar$ ellipticals, with appropriate phase space

769: densities, surface brightness profiles, fundamental plane relations,

770: kinematics, and other properties. For a detailed discussion of the modeling 

771: of these systems and the profiles themselves, we refer to \paperone\ 

772: (all of the results shown for these systems are derived therein). We 

773: show the results from \paperone\ here in order to test whether observed 

774: merger remnants (not just our simulations) obey the same correlations 

775: we study in ellipticals. In particular, this allows us to provide an additional 

776: empirical check of the simulations and the argued 

777: continuity of merger and elliptical populations. 

778: 

779: 

780: Because the generally accepted belief is that core ellipticals were

781: not directly formed in gas-rich major mergers but were subsequently

782: modified by dry re-mergers, we have repeated our 

783: analysis considering just those ellipticals which

784: are confirmed via HST observations as being either cusp or core

785: ellipticals, and designate the two populations as two separate

786: sub-samples throughout. However, as we discuss below, treating them as a single

787: population (or including all ellipticals, even those without HST

788: observations, in our sample) makes no difference to our conclusions.

789: We include all the confirmed gas-rich merger remnants, but note there

790: are a small number of extreme unrelaxed cases for which sharp features

791: in the surface brightness profiles prevented derivation of meaningful

792: quantities (note, however, as shown in \paperone, that almost all of

793: the objects in this sample are sufficiently well-relaxed at the radii

794: of interest for our fitting). We exclude spheroidals, as they are not

795: believed to form in major mergers as are ellipticals \citep[e.g.][]{kormendy:spheroidal1,

796: kormendy:spheroidal2,jk:profiles}, 

797: and in any case they dominate at

798: extremely low masses where our simulations do not sample the

799: population (they also predominate as satellite galaxies, whose effects

800: we do not model).

801: 

802: We also exclude S0 galaxies. This is not because of a physical

803: distinction: observations suggest that these likely form a continuous

804: family with the low-luminosity cusp ellipticals, and in fact a number

805: of our simulated gas-rich merger remnants would, from certain viewing

806: angles, be classified as S0s (although we exclude disk-dominated 

807: simulation remnants from our comparisons here). However, in order to derive e.g.\ the

808: parameters of the outer, violently relaxed profile and central extra

809: light, it would be necessary to remove the contribution of the

810: large-scale disk from the surface brightness profiles of these

811: objects.  Our two-component (outer dissipationless and inner

812: dissipational) Sersic models (described in \S~\ref{sec:data:proxies}) then

813: become three-component fits, and the degeneracies involved with three

814: independent components, even with our best data and simulations, are

815: so large as to render the results meaningless. We have, however,

816: re-visited all of the S0s in these samples in light of our results,

817: and find that they are, in all cases, consistent with our predicted

818: and observed trends.  However, it is too difficult to infer these

819: trends directly from the S0s themselves without ideal disk

820: subtraction.

821: 

822: This yields a final sample of $\approx 180$ unique elliptical

823: galaxies, and $\approx 50$ confirmed remnants of gas-rich mergers. Most of the

824: sample spans a range of three orders of magnitude in stellar mass,

825: from $\lesssim0.1\,\mstar$ to $\sim10\,\mstar$, and a wide range in

826: extra light properties.  There is, of course, some overlap in the 

827: samples that define our compilation; we have $\sim600$

828: surface brightness profiles for our collection of unique ellipticals, 

829: including (for many objects) repeated measurements in 

830: multiple bands and with various instruments. 

831: This turns out to be quite useful, as

832: it provides a means to quantify error estimates in fits to these

833: profiles. The variations between fit parameters 

834: derived from observations 

835: in different bands or made using different

836: instruments are usually much larger than the formal statistical errors in the

837: fits to a single profile. There are no obvious systematic effects

838: (i.e.\ systematic changes in profile fits from $V$ to $I$ band), but as

839: demonstrated in \paperone\ the effects of

840: using different bands or changing

841: dynamic range (from different instruments) can be complex, depending

842: on the structure and degree of relaxation of the outer regions of a

843: system. On the other hand, there are well-relaxed objects for which

844: almost no significant change in the fits occurs from band to band.  

845: It is therefore useful to have multiple observations of the same system, 

846: as it allows us to get some idea of how sensitive our fits are to 

847: differences in e.g.\ the choice of observed wavelength or dynamic 

848: range from instrument to instrument. 

849: 

850: In \papertwo\ and \paperthree, we 

851: present the results of our fits to each elliptical in our sample; we 

852: use these values throughout this paper. For sources with 

853: multiple independent observations, we define error bars for each 

854: fit parameter representing 

855: the $\sim1\,\sigma$ range in 

856: parameters derived from various observations, typically from three

857: different surface brightness profiles but in some cases from as many

858: as $\approx 5-6$ sources (where there are just $2$ sources, the ``error'' 

859: is simply the range between the two fits). 

860: In many cases the different observations are comparable; 

861: in some there are clearly measurements 

862: with larger dynamic range and better resolution: the errors derived 

863: in this manner should in such cases be thought of as the 

864: typical uncertainties introduced by lower dynamic range or less 

865: accurate photometry. 

866: 

867: In terms of direct comparison with our

868: simulations, the data often cover a dynamic range and have resolution

869: comparable to our simulations, provided we do not heavily weight the

870: very central ($\lesssim30\,$pc) regions of HST nuclear profiles. 

871: Experimenting with different smoothings and imposed dynamic range

872: limits, we find it is unlikely that resolution or seeing differences

873: will substantially bias our comparisons. They can introduce

874: larger scatter, however: the robustness of our results increases considerably 

875: as the dynamic range of the observed profiles is increased.

876: 

877: We have converted all the observations to physical 

878: units given our adopted cosmology, 

879: and compile global parameters (where not available in the original papers) 

880: including e.g.\ kinematic properties, luminosities, and black hole masses

881: from the literature. 

882: We determine stellar masses ourselves in a uniform manner for 

883: all the objects, based on their total $K$-band luminosities and 

884: $(B-V)$ color-dependent mass-to-light ratios from \citet{bell:mfs}, 

885: corrected for our adopted IMF. We have 

886: also repeated our analysis using stellar masses derived from a 

887: mean $M/L$ as a function of luminosity or from fitting 

888: the integrated $UBVRIJHK$ photometry of each object to a 

889: single stellar population with the models of \citet{BC03}, and 

890: find this makes no difference to our conclusions. 

891: 

892: Throughout, we will usually refer interchangeably to the observed surface

893: brightness profiles in the given bands and the surface stellar mass

894: density profile. Of course, stellar light is not exactly the same as

895: stellar mass, but in \paperone\ and \papertwo, 

896: we consider the differences between

897: the stellar light and the stellar mass density profiles as a function

898: of time, wavelength, and properties of the merger remnant, and show

899: that the optical ($V$) and $K$-band results introduce little bias 

900: (i.e.\ are good tracers of the stellar mass). 

901: It is important to note that while we are not concerned about the

902: absolute normalization of the profile (i.e.\ mean $M/L$), since we

903: derive total stellar masses separately from the integrated photometry,

904: we must account for systematics that might be induced by change in

905: $M/L$ as a function of radius.  The profiles in optical bands such as

906: $V$ require more care when the system is very young ($\lesssim

907: 1-2$\,Gyr after the major merger-induced peak of star formation),

908: and there can be considerable bias or uncertainty owing to stellar

909: population gradients and dust. However, once the system is relaxed,

910: the optical bands become good proxies for the stellar mass

911: distribution, with $\lesssim20\%$ variation in our $M/L$ over the entire 

912: fitted range of radii in our simulations, in good agreement with the 

913: simple expectation based on the observed weak color gradients in 

914: most of the observed systems.

915: 

916: In fact, in \paperone\ and \papertwo\ 

917: we demonstrate that once the system reaches

918: intermediate age, the bias in e.g.\ $B$ or $V$ band is often less than

919: that in $K$ band, because systems tend to be both younger and more

920: metal rich in their centers.  In $K$-band,

921: these both increase $L/M$, leading to a (small) systematic bias. 

922: Our simulation results indicate that our merger remnant 

923: sample (observed in $K$-band) are, on average, robust in 

924: this sense, but they 

925: should be treated with care, especially in the most 

926: extreme cases (namely the few LIRGs and ULIRGs in the sample). In

927: optical bands, however, age and metallicity gradients have opposite effects (younger age

928: increases $L/M$, but higher metallicity decreases $L/M$), and they

929: tend to mostly cancel.  Since essentially all of our ellipticals

930: observed in the optical bands are older than this stellar population

931: age (even in their centers), and they have been carefully vetted and

932: either corrected or (where correction was too difficult) excluded for

933: the effects of e.g.\ dust lanes in the sources

934: \citep{jk:profiles,lauer:bimodal.profiles}, we are not concerned that

935: significant bias might persist. Furthermore, comparison of systems

936: observed in different bands demonstrates that our conclusions are

937: unchanged (modulo small systematic offsets) regardless of the observed

938: bands in which we analyze these systems. 

939: 

940: 

941: \breaker

942: \section{Inferring the Degree of Dissipation from Observed Profiles}

943: \label{sec:data:proxies}

944: 

945: In order to test the theoretical models from \citet{robertson:fp} and others 

946: using observed systems, we

947: require some empirical means to estimate the amount of dissipation

948: involved in forming elliptical galaxies.  The simulations imply

949: that the light profile should be considered to be the sum of two

950: physically distinct components.  The outer, violently relaxed,

951: dissipationless component is made from stars that formed in the disks

952: prior to the final stages of a merger, and therefore evolve in a

953: collisionless manner.  The inner, ``dissipational'' component is

954: comprised of stars produced in a central starburst, from gas which

955: loses its angular momentum in the merger.  This gas is channeled into

956: the center of the remnant and is converted into stars on a short

957: timescale (effectively in an almost fixed background potential set by

958: the already nearly relaxed outer, dissipationless component). The

959: ``degree of dissipation'' is, therefore, effectively measured by the

960: mass fraction of the central, dissipational starburst component, which

961: causes $R_{e}$ to contract and gives rise to the effects described

962: above.  In \paperone, \papertwo, and \paperthree, we develop and test

963: a methodology for decomposing observed surface brightness profiles

964: into these two components.  We refer to those papers for details and

965: verification that this approach is reliable when applied to either

966: simulations or observations, but we briefly review the methodology

967: here.  We consider two different observable proxies for the amount of

968: dissipation.

969: 

970: \begin{figure}

971:     \centering

972:     \scaleup

973:     %\plotone{demo_fit_for_fp.ps}

974:     \plotone{f1.ps}

975:     \caption{{\em Left:} Surface mass density of a typical merger 

976:     remnant from our simulation library (black), 

977:     decomposed into stars formed prior to the final merger (which 

978:     are then violently relaxed; red) and stars formed in the 

979:     dissipational starburst (blue). The Sersic index fitted to the pre-starburst component 

980:     alone is shown, with the mass fraction of the 

981:     starburst component. We show two examples, one very gas-rich ({\em top}) 

982:     and one less gas-rich ({\em bottom}). 

983:     {\em Right:} Two-component (Sersic plus 

984:     cusp or extra light) fit (inner exponential 

985:     and outer Sersic) to the total light profile, with the Sersic index of the outer component 

986:     and mass fraction of the inner component, and rms scatter ($\Delta\mu$) about the 

987:     fit. Our two-component, 

988:     cusp plus Sersic function fit ({\em right}) accurately 

989:     recovers the profile of the violently relaxed component and mass fraction 

990:     of the starburst component. 

991:     \label{fig:demo.fit.methods}}

992: \end{figure}

993: 

994: 

995: First, we directly fit the surface brightness profile to determine the

996: mass fraction in a central ``extra light'' or starburst component,

997: which we denote as $\fextra$. We demonstrate in \paperone\ that this

998: quantity can be measured by fitting the total observed surface

999: brightness profile of merger remnants to the following two component 

1000: model:

1001: \begin{equation} 

1002: I_{\rm tot} =

1003: I_{\rm extra}\,\exp{{\Bigl\{}-b_{1}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{r}{r_{\rm extra}}{\Bigr)}{\Bigr\}}}+

1004: I_{\rm o}\,\exp{{\Bigl\{}-b_{n}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{r}{r_{\rm o}}{\Bigr)}^{1/n}{\Bigr\}}},

1005: \label{eqn:two.component.law}

1006: \end{equation} 

1007: with the inner part ($I_{\rm extra}$, $r_{\rm extra}$) serving as a

1008: proxy for the central dissipational component and the outer component

1009: ($I_{\rm o}$, $r_{\rm o}$) representing the dissipationless outer

1010: profile. The ``extra light,'' in other words, is the mass fraction in

1011: a high surface brightness central component that rises above the

1012: extrapolation of the outer, intermediate $n_{s}$ Sersic law-like profile (which in any

1013: reasonable model will be dominated by the violently relaxed stars).

1014: In \paperone\ and \papertwo, we show that this form provides, on average, a reliable

1015: physical decomposition of the mass distribution in remnants of

1016: simulated mergers between gas-rich galaxies, including mass fractions,

1017: effective radii, and profile shapes of the two components. Analogous decompositions 

1018: have been applied to e.g.\ observed bulges in disk galaxies \citep{balcells:bulge.xl} and 

1019: to Virgo ellipticals, motivated by purely empirical considerations including 

1020: surface brightness profile shapes, isophotal shape and kinematic profiles, and 

1021: central stellar populations \citep[see][and references therein]{kormendy99,jk:profiles}, 

1022: as well as recent merger remnants \citep{rj:profiles}; 

1023: we refer to \papertwo\ for a detailed discussion and comparison with 

1024: similar methodologies from the literature.

1025: 

1026: Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.methods} illustrates this procedure for two

1027: typical merger remnants from in our simulation library. We show the

1028: total surface brightness profile, as well as the known physical

1029: decomposition of that profile into a pre-starburst, violently relaxed

1030: component and a dissipational starburst component (here, we use a cut

1031: in time about the peak starburst to identify the ``starburst'' stars,

1032: but as shown in \paperone, our results are not sensitive to the exact

1033: choice). We compare this with the results obtained by fitting the

1034: total profile (temporarily ignoring the known physical decomposition)

1035: to a two-component model of the form given by

1036: Equation~(\ref{eqn:two.component.law}). In both cases, the inner

1037: component of our fit is a good proxy for the physical starburst light

1038: distribution, accurately capturing its mass fraction, effective

1039: radius, and shape where it is important; i.e. where it contributes

1040: significantly to the light profile.  Likewise, the shape (Sersic

1041: index), radius, and mass fraction of the dissipationless component are

1042: accurately recovered by this purely empirical method.

1043: 

1044: We apply this to observed merger remnants in \paperone\ and cusp

1045: ellipticals in \papertwo, and show that it yields good fits with

1046: reliable results. In particular, we find that where there is

1047: independent evidence for a distinct stellar population (i.e.\ a

1048: starburst superimposed on a more extended, older stellar population),

1049: this method recovers the empirically estimated starburst

1050: population.  We demonstrate that other indicators, including e.g.\

1051: stellar population 

1052: gradients, kinematics, and isophotal shapes all support the

1053: physical nature of these decompositions.

1054: 

1055: In \paperthree, we apply this methodology to remnants of gas-poor,

1056: spheroid-spheroid re-mergers, and show that, while the profiles are

1057: somewhat smoothed out, the general profile shape is preserved, and

1058: applying this procedure will still reliably recover the {\em original} 

1059: breakdown between 

1060: dissipational and dissipationless components (i.e.\ the starburst

1061: component formed in the original, spheroid-forming merger). We extend

1062: our analysis to a large sample of ``core'' ellipticals, and similarly

1063: demonstrate the accuracy of this decomposition and agreement with

1064: stellar population models (where available); even if ``scouring'' by a

1065: binary black hole has flattened the profiles on $\lesssim30-50$\,pc

1066: scales, the bulk of the ``extra light'' has not been strongly affected

1067: and can still be recovered.

1068: 

1069: This emphasizes an important caveat: 

1070: the merger history and series of induced dissipational events in a 

1071: given galaxy may be 

1072: more complex than a single or couple of idealized major mergers 

1073: \citep[see e.g.][]{kobayashi:pseudo.monolithic,naab:etg.formation}. 

1074: Moreover, 

1075: merger-induced starbursts may not be the only source of 

1076: dissipation; for example, stellar mass loss may replenish the gas supply and 

1077: lead to new dissipational bursts \citep[see e.g.][]{ciottiostriker:recycling}. 

1078: For our purposes, however, all dissipational star formation will appear similar when observed 

1079: and have the same effects -- it is convenient to simulate idealized cases, but our results 

1080: should most appropriately be considered a measurement of the integrated amount of 

1081: dissipation (regardless of other details of the merger and dissipational history). 

1082: Experiments with e.g.\ more complex merger histories, simulations of multiple 

1083: simultaneous mergers, and series of dissipational events after ``rejuvenation'' 

1084: suggest that in this sense, our results are robust and independent of the 

1085: detailed history. Furthermore, the agreement between these estimators 

1086: and independent observational constraints from stellar populations, kinematics, 

1087: and isophotal shapes suggest that the recovery is robust. 

1088: 

1089: 

1090: Second, we consider the physical starburst mass fraction $\fsb$

1091: implied by directly fitting simulated surface brightness profiles to

1092: the observations.  In detail, we demonstrate in \paperone, \papertwo,

1093: and \paperthree\ that in our large library of simulations (with

1094: varying masses, gas fractions, orbital parameters, stellar and black

1095: hole feedback prescriptions, and other properties) there are remnant

1096: surface brightness profiles which (modulo small offsets in the exact

1097: normalization) agree well with the observed profiles over the entire

1098: dynamic range of the data.  Considering the best fit simulation in

1099: each case, we find that there are almost invariably simulations with

1100: similar profiles -- variance less than $\Delta\mu=0.1\,{\rm

1101: mag\,arcsec^{-2}}$ of the simulated profile with respect to the

1102: observed profile (comparable to the inherent point-to-point scatter

1103: obtained with arbitrary spline fits to the simulated or observed

1104: profiles).  

1105: 

1106: These matches are insensitive to e.g.\ orbital parameters, disk

1107: initial conditions, or prescriptions for feedback and star formation 

1108: (as expected given the relative independence of the inferred dissipational 

1109: fractions on details of a given merger history),

1110: but good fits to a given observed profile are obtained for only a

1111: narrow range in the physical starburst mass fraction $\fsb$ (what

1112: dependence there is on other parameters tends to indirectly reflect

1113: this -- varying orbital parameters, for example, can alter the time

1114: required for a merger and therefore the mass of gas still available at

1115: the time of the final merger to participate in the central

1116: starburst). We demonstrate that we can define a robust and tightly

1117: constrained best-fit starburst mass fraction, in a $\chi^{2}$ sense,

1118: from fitting each observed profile to the entire set of simulations.

1119: These estimates agree well with the ``extra light'' mass fractions

1120: $\fextra$ directly determined by profile fitting, and with the other

1121: indicators we consider, lending further confidence to the view that

1122: $\fextra$ does indeed represent a physically meaningful indicator of

1123: dissipation.

1124: 

1125: %Third, we note in \papertwo\ that, as a crude proxy for these quantities, 

1126: %one could consider the mass fraction $f_{500}$ within the central 

1127: %$\sim500\,$pc, since this tends to be dominated by the starburst mass. 

1128: %We briefly consider this here (and note that all our conclusions hold 

1129: %if we use this proxy instead of $\fextra$ or $\fsb$), but note that the conclusions 

1130: %drawn from it are more limited. The reason is that differences in this measure do 

1131: %not necessarily imply any changes in galaxy structure -- one could of course 

1132: %change the value of this measure by rescaling otherwise 

1133: %perfectly homologous systems. 

1134: %Because of this, the usefulness of this proxy must break down at

1135: %some point, especially when the effective radii of typical ellipticals

1136: %becomes comparable to $\sim500\,$pc. Specifically, $f_{500}$ is no longer a

1137: %useful proxy when it is near or less than the mass fraction that an

1138: %elliptical of some given mass formed in a purely gas-free merger

1139: %(i.e.\ with no dissipational component) would have. For $\sim

1140: %L_{\ast}$ ellipticals or larger, this corresponds to an extremely low

1141: %mass fraction $\lesssim 1-2\%$, so even low $f_{500}\sim5\%$ values

1142: %are physically meaningful. By $\sim0.1\,L_{\ast}$, though, this

1143: %corresponds to $\sim10\%$, so only large extra light fractions

1144: %$\sim20-40\%$ are meaningful, and at lower masses the proxy has no

1145: %physical meaning. In such a case, the value of $f_{500}$ is effectively 

1146: %only an upper limit on the dissipational fraction. 

1147: %When showing estimates using this proxy, 

1148: %we therefore restrict to ellipticals with effective radii $>2\,$kpc. In 

1149: %these cases, values typical of ellipticals in our samples are much larger 

1150: %than the naive extrapolation of the outer profile -- i.e.\ this is capturing 

1151: %some meaningful ``extra light,'' albeit in a crude manner. 

1152: %Considering the value in smaller galaxies as strict upper limits (as opposed to 

1153: %measurements) is consistent with our estimates in all cases. 

1154: %Because of these caveats, we show the values from 

1155: %this estimator as a consistency check (and find our conclusions are robust), 

1156: %but consider it a weak test of the models. 

1157: 

1158: \breaker

1159: \section{The Impact of Dissipation: A Case Study}

1160: \label{sec:diss.fx}

1161: 

1162: In previous papers

1163: \citep{robertson:fp,dekelcox:fp} 

1164: argued and \citet{hopkins:cusps.mergers,hopkins:cusps.ell} 

1165: demonstrated that increasing the quantity of gas available during the

1166: final stages of a merger (i.e.\ increasing the dissipative component

1167: of the merger which can collapse to small scales and form stars in a

1168: central starburst) leads to more compact remnants.  Because of its

1169: importance for our analysis here, we use a subset of our simulations

1170: to highlight the physical significance of this result.

1171: 

1172: \begin{figure}

1173:     \centering

1174:     \scaleup

1175:     %\plotone{sb_profiles_fp.ps}

1176:     \plotter{f2.ps}

1177:     \caption{Surface density profiles of two simulated gas-rich merger remnants

1178:     (the same from Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.methods}), as a function of 

1179:     radius $r$ ({\em bottom}) or $r^{1/4}$ ({\em top}). We show both the stellar profile 

1180:     and the dark matter (halo) profile, and label the effective radii of each (vertical lines). 

1181:     Solid line shows a case with a moderate degree of dissipation -- a mass fraction in the 

1182:     final, centrally concentrated and dissipational merger-induced starburst $\fsb=0.08$. 

1183:     Dotted line shows a very gas-rich merger remnant, with $\fsb=0.31$. The profile 

1184:     shapes are similar (the non-homology effects are 

1185:     weak), and the halos are nearly identical, but the effective radii of the stellar distributions 

1186:     are quite different, owing to the dense central concentration of mass from the starburst 

1187:     in the latter case. 

1188:     \label{fig:sb.vs.gas}}

1189: \end{figure}

1190: 

1191: 

1192: Figure~\ref{fig:sb.vs.gas} shows two illustrative surface density

1193: profiles of major merger remnants -- the same cases shown in

1194: Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.methods}. The initial galaxies were otherwise

1195: identical $\sim \lstar$ (Milky Way-like) spirals placed on a random

1196: orbit, except that in the first example, the progenitor disks had

1197: initial gas fractions ($\sim1.5$\,Gyr before the final merger) of

1198: $20\%$, and in the other case, of $80\%$. In the two panels, we show

1199: the stellar mass density profile of the final (relaxed) merger

1200: remnant, and separately decompose this into two {\em physical}

1201: components following \citet{mihos:cusps}: namely an outer component

1202: comprised of those stars that formed prior to the final coalescence of

1203: the two disks, and were therefore violently relaxed in the merger, and

1204: those stars which formed in the (by then roughly static) center of the

1205: galaxy in the final, merger-induced starburst. They correspond to

1206: $\sim8\%$ and $\sim30\%$ of the final total stellar mass in the two

1207: simulations, respectively.

1208: 

1209: In both cases, the violently relaxed stars produce an extended profile

1210: that is well-described by a Sersic law with index

1211: $n_{s}\sim4$. Unsurprisingly, in the example with an initial gas

1212: fraction $\sim80\%$, the central light excess reflecting the final

1213: starburst component is much more massive -- however, the profile shape

1214: is similar, and this has relatively little effect on the outer light

1215: profile (it is slightly more compact, because the dense central mass

1216: concentration means stars scattered to an orbit of a given energy will

1217: remain at slightly smaller radii in this potential, but this effect is

1218: small enough that it is not important).  It is clear from

1219: Figure~\ref{fig:demo.fit.methods} that the differences in the two

1220: profiles primarily reflect the mass fraction of the central,

1221: dissipational component, rather than any change in the dissipationless

1222: component.  We also show the surface mass density of the final dark

1223: matter halo.  As expected, baryons dominate the density within the

1224: central $\sim1-2\,$kpc of the system, but then trail off.  Clearly,

1225: the halo mass profile is not very different in the two cases.

1226: 

1227: Despite the fact that the central mass concentration does not strongly

1228: influence the shape and size of the dissipationless remnants of the

1229: merger (both the pre-merger, violently relaxed stars which constitute

1230: the dissipationless stellar component of the merger, and the dark

1231: matter halo), it nevertheless represents a non-negligible component of

1232: the stellar mass, and therefore the effective radius is smaller in the

1233: case with $80\%$ gas ($\sim30\%$ of its mass in the final,

1234: merger-induced compact starburst component).  The resulting difference

1235: in $R_{e}$ (for such a large difference in gas fraction) is dramatic:

1236: the effective radius in the case with $\fsb=0.08$ is

1237: $\approx6.8\,$kpc, and for the case with $\fsb=0.31$ it is

1238: $\approx1.4$\,kpc.  In the latter example, nearly half the mass is

1239: actually in the dissipational component, so the effective radius

1240: becomes small.

1241: 

1242: 

1243: 

1244: \begin{figure}

1245:     \centering

1246:     %\scaleup

1247:     %\plotone{dm_fracs.ps}

1248:     \plotter{f3.ps}

1249:     \caption{{\em Top:} Ratio of dark matter mass to total mass enclosed within the 

1250:     radius of the elliptical isophotal aperture with major-axis radius $r$, for the 

1251:     two simulations shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sb.vs.gas}. Vertical lines 

1252:     denote the effective radii of each simulation. 

1253:     {\em Middle:} The corresponding ratio of dark matter mass to stellar mass enclosed. 

1254:     {\em Bottom:} The ratio of the radius-dependent dynamical mass estimator 

1255:     at $r$, $3.8\,r\,\sigma(r)^{2}/G$ (where $\sigma(r)$ is measured in a narrow 

1256:     annulus at $r$) to the stellar mass enclosed. 

1257:     There is almost no difference in the scaling of the two simulations -- i.e.\ 

1258:     the systems appear (in this sense) homologous, but the change in $R_{e}$ is such that 

1259:     evaluating these quantities at $R_{e}$ will give rather different answers for the 

1260:     two systems. 

1261:     \label{fig:dm.frac}}

1262: \end{figure}

1263: 

1264: 

1265: How does this effect relate to the ratio of dark matter to stellar

1266: mass? Figure~\ref{fig:dm.frac} plots the cumulative dark matter mass

1267: fraction as a function of radius,

1268: \begin{equation}

1269: f_{\rm DM} = \frac{M_{\rm DM}(<r)}{M_{\rm DM}(<r) + M_{\ast}(<r)} 

1270: \end{equation}

1271: (for convenience we ignore the negligible mass of gas which survives

1272: the merger). We also plot the (trivially related) ratio of total

1273: enclosed mass to total enclosed stellar mass,

1274: \begin{equation}

1275: \frac{M_{\rm tot}}{M_{\ast}} = \frac{M_{\rm DM}(<r) + M_{\ast}(<r)}{M_{\ast}(<r)}. 

1276: \end{equation}

1277: It is clear that the difference as a function of radius, at least from

1278: $\sim100\,$pc to $\gtrsim50\,$kpc, is not large between the two

1279: simulations (which should not be surprising: the difference in their

1280: stellar mass density profiles is primarily evident at small $r$, where

1281: a relatively small fraction of the total mass is enclosed).  However,

1282: if we take the value of these ratios within the effective radii

1283: $R_{e}$ of the stellar light, we obtain two quite different

1284: results. In the gas-rich case, the large central light concentration

1285: yields a small effective radius for the stellar light, within which,

1286: for {\em both} remnants, the baryons dominate the mass.  In the case

1287: with less dissipation, and therefore a weaker central component and

1288: larger effective radius, the ratio is measured further out (at the

1289: larger $R_{e}$), where in both simulations there are about equal

1290: masses enclosed of both dark matter and baryons.

1291: 

1292: 

1293: To make a better analogy with observations, we can construct a 

1294: dynamical mass estimator

1295: \begin{equation}

1296: M_{\rm dyn}(<r) \equiv k\,\sigma(r)^{2}\,r / G \, ,

1297: \label{eqn:mdyn}

1298: \end{equation}

1299: where we adopt the factor of $k=\mdynnorm$ for convenience,

1300: as noted in \S~\ref{sec:sims}

1301: (making the estimator not so far from the true mass), and $\sigma(r)$

1302: is the mean (light-weighted) projected velocity dispersion within a

1303: narrow annulus at $r$. We could also use the mean (light-weighted)

1304: dispersion within $r$, $\langle\sigma(<r)\rangle$, which gives a

1305: similar result (but traces the enclosed mass less faithfully).

1306: Figure~\ref{fig:dm.frac} compares the ratio $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$ as

1307: a function of radius, which yields a similar (albeit noisier) result

1308: as considering $M_{\rm tot}/M_{\ast}$.  Again, it is primarily the

1309: difference in the effective radii at which this quantity is evaluated,

1310: rather than the absolute value at fixed $r$, that drives the

1311: difference between the gas rich and gas poor mergers.

1312: 

1313: \begin{figure}

1314:     \centering

1315:     \scaleup

1316:     %\plotone{mdyn_profile.ps}

1317:     \plotone{f4.ps}

1318:     \caption{Ratio of the radius-dependent dynamical mass estimator 

1319:     at $r$, $3.8\,r\,\sigma(r)^{2}/G$ (where $\sigma(r)$ is measured in a narrow 

1320:     annulus at $r$) to the true total (stellar plus dark matter) mass enclosed 

1321:     ($\mtrue(r)$), 

1322:     for the simulations in Figure~\ref{fig:dm.frac} (shown in the same style; 

1323:     solid and dotted denote low and high degrees of dissipation). 

1324:     Vertical lines show the effective radii of each simulation. 

1325:     The amount of dissipation makes almost no difference in $\mdyn/\mtrue$ 

1326:     at any radius, nor is there a significant difference when evaluated 

1327:     at the effective radii of either system. The ``homology assumption'' 

1328:     that $\mdyn\propto\mtrue$ is valid in these simulations. 

1329:     \label{fig:mdyns}}

1330: \end{figure}

1331: 

1332: We obtain the same result using either the true total enclosed mass or

1333: a dynamical mass estimator.  This implies that there is not substantial

1334: kinematic or ``traditional'' structural non-homology between our two

1335: merger remnants. We can, however, check this directly.  

1336: 

1337: We compare the ratio $M_{\rm dyn}(r)/M_{\rm tot}(r)$ as a function of

1338: radius in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyns}. The quantity $M_{\rm dyn}$ provides

1339: a good tracer of $M_{\rm tot}$, their ratio changing by less than a

1340: factor of $\sim2$ over three orders of magnitude in radius, and the

1341: ratio varies only slightly between the two simulations. The overall

1342: structure of the system has not been significantly modified -- and in

1343: particular over the range of the effective radii of the two mergers,

1344: there is almost no dependence of $M_{\rm dyn}(r)/M_{\rm tot}(r)$ on

1345: either the simulation gas content or radius, consistent with 

1346: ``isothermality'' implied by observational 

1347: constraints from gravitational lensing \citep[e.g.][]{rusin03:lensing.structure,

1348: rusin05:lensing.structure,jiang:lensing.baryon.frac}.  In other words, the

1349: increase in the central density of the system owing to the different

1350: degrees of dissipation in the two mergers, while apparent in the

1351: nuclear profile in Figure~\ref{fig:sb.vs.gas}, does not represent a

1352: sufficiently dramatic change in the total mass profile shape to

1353: significantly alter the virial constant (i.e.\ to significantly change

1354: the ratio $\mtrue(r)/\mdyn(r)$).  That the estimator $\mdyn$ is

1355: similar across these extreme cases demonstrates that, despite the

1356: subtle difference in the strength of the central (dissipational or

1357: starburst) component in the stellar light profile, the homology

1358: assumption is valid in a purely empirical sense.

1359: 

1360: 

1361: The role of dissipation in driving tilt in the FP is not, then, to

1362: introduce substantial structural non-homology (in the sense of

1363: changing the profile sufficiently to alter the coefficient of the

1364: virial scalings) or to produce kinematic non-homology, but primarily

1365: to decrease the effective radius of the stellar light or mass

1366: distribution. At a smaller radius, the more stellar-dominated

1367: component of the system is sampled, and so when the traditional

1368: dynamical mass estimator is constructed, ($M_{\rm dyn} =

1369: k\,\sigma^{2}\,R_{e} / G$) and compared to the stellar mass, the ratio

1370: $\mdyn/\mstar$ is lower for systems with more dissipation, 

1371: as argued in \citet{robertson:fp} and \citet{dekelcox:fp}.  Note that

1372: here $\sigma$ is either the central velocity dispersion or the average

1373: dispersion within $R_{e}$ (it makes little difference which we

1374: consider as long as we do so uniformly, since the dispersion changes

1375: weakly with radius).

1376: 

1377: 

1378: \begin{figure}

1379:     \centering

1380:     \scaleup

1381:     %\plotone{fgas.casestudy.galchange.ps}

1382:     \plotone{f5.ps}

1383:     \caption{Final stellar mass, dynamical mass 

1384:     $\mdyn=k\,R_{e}\,\sigma^{2}/G$, effective radius, 

1385:     and central velocity dispersion as a function of the 

1386:     dissipational or starburst mass fraction, 

1387:     for three sets of otherwise 

1388:     identical $\sim\lstar$ disk-disk major mergers with 

1389:     varying initial gas content.  Different line styles denote 

1390:     varying orbital parameters. 

1391:     The stellar mass is only weakly affected, but there is a 

1392:     strong scaling of size and dynamical mass 

1393:     (towards smaller sizes and correspondingly 

1394:     lower dynamical masses) with increasing dissipation 

1395:     (in the sense seen in Figure~\ref{fig:dm.frac}). 

1396:     \label{fig:re.fgas}}

1397: \end{figure}

1398: 

1399: 

1400: Of course, $\fsb=0.31$ is a rather extreme case, but

1401: Figure~\ref{fig:re.fgas} shows how the effective radius scales with

1402: gas content in another otherwise identical set of simulations of Milky

1403: Way-like spiral mergers that span a range in dissipational

1404: fraction. The effective radii decrease systematically with

1405: dissipational/starburst fraction in a continuous manner.  The velocity

1406: dispersions do become slightly larger as larger central mass

1407: concentrations are assembled, but the effect is much weaker

1408: ($\Delta{\log{\sigma}}\sim0.15$\,dex, compared to

1409: $\Delta{\log{R_{e}}}\sim0.8$\,dex, for $\fsb=0-0.5$).  The result is

1410: that the dynamical mass estimated at $R_{e}$ decreases substantially

1411: with gas fraction -- again owing to the effective radius of the

1412: stellar light being drawn further in -- by $\Delta{\log{M_{\rm

1413: dyn}}}\sim0.4$\,dex from low to high gas fraction. Meanwhile, the

1414: stellar mass is almost completely unchanged, since in any case most of

1415: the gas is eventually turned into stars, whether in the pre-merger

1416: disks or in the final starburst. So, driven by the increasing

1417: dissipation yielding smaller effective radii, the ratio $M_{\rm

1418: dyn}/M_{\ast}$ decreases by a factor $\gtrsim2-3$ as the gas fraction

1419: increases.

1420: 

1421: \breaker

1422: \section{Assessing The Role of Dissipation in Observed Systems}

1423: \label{sec:obs}

1424: 

1425: Having illustrated how dissipation can alter the sizes of stellar

1426: spheroids and the ratio of dynamical to stellar mass in simulations,

1427: we now proceed to apply our analysis to observed ellipticals.

1428: 

1429: \subsection{How Do Observed Sizes Scale with Dissipation?}

1430: \label{sec:obs:sizes}

1431: 

1432: 

1433: \begin{figure*}

1434:     \centering

1435:     \scaleup

1436:     %\plotone{re_sigma_vs_cusp_fp.ps}

1437:     \plotone{f6.ps}

1438:     \caption{Effective radius $R_{e}$ 

1439:     relative to the 

1440:     median value for all ellipticals of the same stellar mass, 

1441:     as a function of our 

1442:     fitted extra light fractions (the empirical 

1443:     tracer of the dissipational/starburst mass fraction). 

1444:     We show simulated gas-rich 

1445:     merger remnants ({\em top}),  

1446:     observed cusp ellipticals and gas-rich merger remnants 

1447:     ({\em middle}), and observed core ellipticals ({\em bottom}); we 

1448:     use this 

1449:     point notation ({\em key}) throughout. 

1450:     We show this in three bins of stellar mass

1451:     (relative to $\mstar\approx10^{11}\,\msun$, or $M_{V}^{\ast}=-21$).

1452:     Solid (dashed) lines show the mean ($\pm1\,\sigma$) correlation, 

1453:     following the analytic solution for dissipational mergers and 

1454:     fits to our simulation in \citet{covington:diss.size.expectation}. 

1455:     We show the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and probability of the 

1456:     null hypothesis $P_{\rm null}$ (no correlation) in each panel. 

1457:     Simulations and observations exhibit the same 

1458:     behavior: systems with smaller $R_{e}$ at fixed mass have 

1459:     systematically larger extra light fractions (in the sense predicted 

1460:     by Figure~\ref{fig:re.fgas} for the starburst/dissipational mass fractions).

1461:     This implies that, at fixed mass, 

1462:     systems are driven along the fundamental plane by the relative amount of 

1463:     dissipation involved in their formation. 

1464:     This behavior is true regardless of cusp/core 

1465:     status. 

1466:     \label{fig:re.sigma.cusp}}

1467: \end{figure*}

1468: 

1469: 

1470: Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp} shows how effective radius scales with

1471: extra light mass $f_{\rm extra}$ at fixed mass. We consider three mass

1472: bins, below, at, and above $\sim\mstar$.  For each, we plot the

1473: residual $R_{e}$ relative to that expected for the given stellar mass,

1474: as a function of the fitted extra light fraction. Specifically, we

1475: determine $\langle{R_{e}(M_{\ast})}\rangle$ from the sample of

1476: \citet{shen:size.mass}, and take the ratio of the half mass radius

1477: of each system (determined directly from the light profile, or from 

1478: the fits, it does not change the comparison) to that value.  Our mass 

1479: bins are small enough, however, that this makes little difference 

1480: compared to just e.g.\ considering $R_{e}$ in a given bin.

1481: %We do the same for $\sigma$

1482: %following \citet{bernardi:correlations}. 

1483: We show results separately for central cusp and core

1484: ellipticals, as well as our simulations, although the three

1485: distributions are similar.

1486: 

1487: There is a significant trend: at a given stellar mass, systems with

1488: fractionally more extra light have systematically smaller $R_{e}$

1489: ($\sigma$ also rises slightly, but the

1490: effect is weaker and there is more scatter at a given $f_{\rm extra}$,

1491: as expected owing to the role of the extended stellar and dark matter

1492: distribution in setting the central potential and $\sigma$).  In each

1493: case, the simulations and observed systems occupy a similar locus. We

1494: can also construct this plot with the starburst mass fraction $\fsb$

1495: of the best-fitting simulation as the independent variable (instead of

1496: the fitted extra light mass fractions $\fextra$), and find a

1497: correlation of the same nature.

1498: Given two progenitors of known size and mass, it is straightforward to 

1499: predict the size of the remnant of a dissipationless merger, simply 

1500: assuming energy conservation \citep[see e.g.][]{barnes:disk.halo.mergers}; 

1501: in the case of a dissipative merger, 

1502: \citet{covington:diss.size.expectation} use the impulse approximation to 

1503: estimate the energy loss in the gaseous component, followed 

1504: by collapse in a self-gravitating starburst. 

1505: This yields a detailed approximation as a function 

1506: of e.g.\ initial structural and orbital parameters, but if we assume typical initial 

1507: disk structural scalings and parabolic orbits, it reduces to the 

1508: remarkably simple approximation

1509: \begin{equation}

1510: R_{e} \approx \frac{R_{e}({\rm dissipationless})}{1+(f_{\rm sb}/f_{0})}, 

1511: \end{equation}

1512: where $f_{0}\approx0.25-0.30$ and $R_{e}({\rm dissipationless})$ 

1513: is the radius expected for a gas-free ($f_{\rm sb}=0$) remnant. 

1514: (A similar estimate is obtained by \citet{ciotti:dry.vs.wet.mergers} 

1515: assuming, instead of the impact approximation, a constant fractional 

1516: dissipational energy loss). 

1517: We plot this in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}, with the scatter seen 

1518: in the simulations. At all masses, in both simulated and observed 

1519: cusp and core ellipticals, more dissipational ellipticals are smaller 

1520: in the manner predicted. 

1521: 

1522: 

1523: This result directly implies that a structural difference -- albeit

1524: not traditional structural non-homology -- plays a key role in

1525: establishing the fundamental plane tilt. At fixed mass, smaller

1526: systems are so because a larger fraction of their mass is formed in a

1527: central dissipational starburst (to the extent that our extra light

1528: fractions recover this dissipational component). This dissipational

1529: starburst is compact, so even though the pre-existing stars are

1530: distributed to large radii, the effective radius is smaller.  In

1531: \papertwo, we considered the light profiles of observed systems along

1532: the $R_{e}-\fextra$ correlation, at fixed stellar mass: it is clear

1533: that observed systems at fixed mass with the largest $R_{e}$ show

1534: profiles close to a pure Sersic law, with little evidence for any

1535: extra light component at $>0.01\,R_{e}$ (indeed, they have

1536: $\fsb\lesssim0.02$). Observed systems in this regime can still be

1537: classified as ``cusp'' ellipticals, but the cusps tend to be prominent

1538: at small radii and (in several cases) somewhat shallow, and contribute

1539: negligibly to the stellar mass. However, moving to smaller $R_{e}$ and

1540: higher $f_{\rm extra}$ at fixed stellar mass, deviations from a Sersic

1541: law at $r\ll\re$ become more noticeable. This is not to say that these

1542: deviations are universal (that the extra light always takes the same

1543: shape/form), but there are increasingly prominent central light

1544: concentrations. If the systems were perfectly homologous (in the

1545: strict sense of the definition), there should be no differences, and

1546: there should be no trend whatsoever in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}.

1547: 

1548: Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp} also shows that there is little

1549: difference, in this sense, between the size scalings with dissipation

1550: of cusp and core ellipticals.  We demonstrate this in \paperthree, in

1551: both simulations and observations.  In short, this is expected: even

1552: if the systems with cores have expanded via re-mergers, they should

1553: (so long as there is not a wide range in number of re-mergers or

1554: strong systematic dependence of the number of re-mergers on starburst

1555: fraction at fixed mass) grow uniformly, and preserve these trends.  We

1556: might expect some normalization offset: if the mean size-mass relation

1557: after a gas-rich merger is a power law $R_{e}\propto

1558: M_{\ast}^{\alpha}$, and two such systems with mass ratio $f$ (where

1559: $f$ is the mass ratio of the secondary to the primary) are involved in

1560: a dry merger from a parabolic orbit (and preserve profile shape), then

1561: the remnant will increase in radius by a factor

1562: $(1+f)^{2}/(1+f^{2-\alpha})$ relative to the primary. However, it has

1563: also grown in mass, so compared to ellipticals of the same (final)

1564: mass, its relative increase in size is only

1565: $(1+f)^{2-\alpha}/(1+f^{2-\alpha})$. For observationally suggested

1566: values $\alpha=0.56$ \citep{shen:size.mass}, this predicts a $\sim

1567: 30\%$ ($\sim0.1$\,dex) relative size increase for major re-mergers

1568: with mass ratios of 1:3 through 1:1. This is easily dwarfed by the

1569: effects of dissipation seen in Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp}, which

1570: can alter the sizes of systems by nearly an order of magnitude at

1571: fixed mass.  That there is not a substantial normalization offset

1572: between the trends for cusp and core ellipticals in

1573: Figure~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp} therefore implies that typical core

1574: ellipticals have been involved in only a modest number of re-mergers 

1575: \citep[see also][]{ciotti:dry.vs.wet.mergers},

1576: but it is not a strong constraint.  The important point is that

1577: observations demonstrate the dominant factor controlling the sizes of

1578: a ellipticals is the amount of dissipation, even for systems which

1579: have undergone re-mergers.

1580: 

1581: \subsection{How Does This Change Spheroid Dynamical Masses?}

1582: \label{sec:obs.mdyn}

1583: 

1584: \begin{figure}

1585:     \centering

1586:     %\scaleup

1587:     %\plotone{mdyn_r_vs_fextra.ps}

1588:     \plotter{f7.ps}

1589:     \caption{Ratio of dynamical to stellar mass within $R_{e}$, as a 

1590:     function of extra light fraction derived from surface brightness profiles. 

1591:     Results are shown for simulated gas-rich merger 

1592:     remnants ({\em top}), cusp ellipticals and gas-rich merger 

1593:     remnants ({\em middle}), and core ellipticals ({\em bottom}). 

1594:     Dotted line shows an approximation to the 

1595:     mean simulation trend.  

1596:     We show the Spearman rank correlation coefficient ($\rho$) 

1597:     for each sub-sample and the probability $P_{\rm null}$ of 

1598:     the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between 

1599:     $\mdyn/\mstar$ and $\fextra$. 

1600:     Systems with larger degrees of dissipation (larger $\fextra$) 

1601:     have larger ratios $\mdyn/\mstar$, with high 

1602:     significance, in the sense expected 

1603:     from Figure~\ref{fig:re.fgas}. 

1604:     \label{fig:mdyn.fextra}}

1605: \end{figure}

1606: 

1607: 

1608: Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra} plots the quantity $M_{\rm dyn} /

1609: M_{\ast}$ as a function of the amount of dissipation, quantified by

1610: $f_{\rm extra}$. The expected trend based on our fiducial cases in

1611: \S~\ref{sec:diss.fx} and the dissipational models 

1612: \citep{onorbe:diss.fp.model,robertson:fp,dekelcox:fp}

1613: is borne out in our library of simulations over a

1614: wide dynamic range with fairly small scatter, despite a wide range of

1615: total masses, orbital parameters, initial gas fractions, assumptions

1616: regarding the gas pressurization, and other progenitor properties. The

1617: same trend obtains for the observed systems, whether cusp or core

1618: ellipticals.  The scatter is significantly larger among the observed

1619: systems, but this is not surprising, given both the measurement errors

1620: involved and the possibility for more complex growth histories that

1621: our simulations do not completely model.  In a formal sense, the

1622: inverse correlation (i.e.\ smaller $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$ at larger

1623: dissipational fraction $f_{\rm extra}$) is highly significant: we plot

1624: the Spearman rank correlation coefficient $\rho$ of each sub-sample,

1625: together with the significance of its deviation from zero. This

1626: $P_{\rm null}$ represents the probability of the null hypothesis of no

1627: correlation between $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$ and $f_{\rm extra}$, which

1628: is what would be expected if systems were perfectly homologous or if

1629: extra light did not contract systems and yield smaller $R_{e}$.

1630: 

1631: \begin{figure*}

1632:     \centering

1633:     \scaleup

1634:     %\plotone{mdyn_r_vs_fextra_mbins.ps}

1635:     \plotone{f8.ps}

1636:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:re.fgas}, but in narrow bins of 

1637:     stellar mass (range in $\mstar$ for each bin shown in the upper 

1638:     right of each panel). Cusp ({\em bottom}) and core ({\em top}) 

1639:     ellipticals are shown. The same trend -- towards 

1640:     lower $\mdyn/\mstar$ is seen at fixed $\mstar$. 

1641:     The significance is lower in any one bin owing to the smaller 

1642:     number of points, but the cumulative significance is 

1643:     comparable to or higher than that in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra}. 

1644:     \label{fig:mdyn.fextra.mbins}}

1645: \end{figure*}

1646: 

1647: It is possible, in principle, that the observed correlation could be

1648: indirect.  For example, if lower mass systems happened to have higher

1649: $f_{\rm extra}$, but it had no causal connection to their lower

1650: $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$.  In Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra.mbins} we

1651: therefore consider this same comparison in narrow bins of stellar

1652: mass. We note that, while there is still some width to our bins, they

1653: are sufficiently narrow that we obtain the same answer if we assume

1654: that all systems in the bin have the same stellar mass. We also check

1655: a series of Monte Carlo experiments where we assume that

1656: $\mdyn/\mstar$ and $f_{\rm extra}$ are both pure functions of $\mdyn$

1657: or $\mstar$, but have no dependence on each other, and we find that

1658: the mass bins plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra.mbins} are

1659: sufficiently narrow that if this null hypothesis were true, then the

1660: maximal indirect correlation would have a significance of only

1661: $\rho\sim-0.1$ to $-0.3$ (with $P_{\rm null}\approx 0.2-0.8$); so a

1662: significance $P_{\rm null}\ll 0.1$ is indeed meaningful.  We caution

1663: that at a narrow range in stellar mass, there is naturally less

1664: observed dynamic range in dissipation fraction (as expected, since

1665: e.g.\ disks of a given mass have a reasonably narrow range of observed

1666: gas fractions), and the number of objects in each bin is smaller, so

1667: the significance of the inverse correlation in any one bin will be

1668: correspondingly reduced. However, we still see an inverse correlation

1669: in all bins, with significance stronger than expected from the null

1670: hypothesis. Near $\sim \mstar$ where the sample size is large, the

1671: inverse correlation is still highly significant.  Further, while the

1672: significance in any one of the plotted bins may be lower owing to the

1673: binning, the cumulative significance (i.e.\ likelihood of obtaining

1674: such consistent inverse correlations, considering each mass bin as an

1675: independent subsample) is actually quite high ($P_{\rm null} \ll

1676: 10^{-6}$).

1677: 

1678: \begin{figure}

1679:     \centering

1680:     %\scaleup

1681:     %\plotone{mdyn_r_vs_fsb.ps}

1682:     \plotter{f9.ps}

1683:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra}, but using the starburst mass 

1684:     fraction $\fsb$ (the physical mass fraction in our simulations, or that inferred 

1685:     from directly fitting simulations to the observed light profiles for the observations) 

1686:     instead of the purely empirical $\fextra$ as our estimator of the dissipational 

1687:     mass fraction. The results are similar. 

1688:     \label{fig:mdyn.fsb}}

1689: \end{figure}

1690: \begin{figure*}

1691:     \centering

1692:     \scaleup

1693:     %\plotone{mdyn_r_vs_fsb_mbins.ps}

1694:     \plotone{f10.ps}

1695:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra.mbins}, but again using the 

1696:     physical starburst mass fraction $\fsb$ instead of the fitted extra 

1697:     light mass fraction $\fextra$. The results are similar in either case. 

1698:     \label{fig:mdyn.fsb.mbins}}

1699: \end{figure*}

1700: %\begin{figure}

1701: %    \centering

1702: %    \plotone{mdyn_r_vs_fr500.ps}

1703: %    \caption{more

1704: %    \label{fig:mdyn.fr500}}

1705: %\end{figure}

1706: %\begin{figure}

1707: %    \centering

1708: %    \plotone{mdyn_r_vs_fr500_mbins.ps}

1709: %    \caption{more

1710: %    \label{fig:mdyn.fr500.mbins}}

1711: %\end{figure}

1712: 

1713: Figures~\ref{fig:mdyn.fsb} \&\ \ref{fig:mdyn.fsb.mbins} repeat this

1714: test, using the starburst mass fraction $\fsb$ estimated from fitting

1715: simulations to observed light profiles as the proxy for the

1716: dissipational fraction.  We obtain similar answers to our previous

1717: comparison using the fitted $\fextra$, suggesting that our comparison

1718: is not peculiar to the exact estimator used, so long as it robustly

1719: recovers the physical dissipational component of the galaxy. Again,

1720: the cumulative significance of the inverse correlation -- namely that

1721: $\mdyn/\mstar$ is smaller with increasing $\fsb$ at fixed mass -- is

1722: very high, $P_{\rm null}\sim10^{-8}$.

1723: 

1724: \breaker

1725: \section{Is Dissipation Necessary to Explain the FP?}

1726: \label{sec:obs.tests}

1727: 

1728: \begin{figure}

1729:     \centering

1730:     \scaleup

1731:     %\plotone{fp_by_fextra.ps}

1732:     \plotone{f11.ps}

1733:     \caption{The stellar-mass FP (i.e.\ $\mdyn-\mstar$ correlation), 

1734:     for simulated merger remnants (black solid) and observed ellipticals (open colored points), 

1735:     restricted to systems with a narrow range of extra light/dissipational mass 

1736:     fractions $\fextra$ (as labeled). In each bin of $\fextra$, we fit the simulations 

1737:     and observations separately to a correlation of the form $\mdyn \propto \mstar^{1+\tilt}$, 

1738:     where $\tilt$ quantifies the FP ``tilt.'' The resulting tilts are shown (red upper and black lower 

1739:     values are for observations and simulations, respectively). The tilt is consistent with 

1740:     zero in every bin, and is lower than the expected tilt of the entire population ($\tilt\sim0.2$) 

1741:     by $\sim3\sigma$ -- i.e.\ there is no ``tilt'' in 

1742:     either observed or simulated populations at the same, fixed value of $\fextra$. 

1743:     \label{fig:fp.by.fextra}}

1744: \end{figure}

1745: 

1746: 

1747: These comparisons, while demonstrating that the dissipational mass

1748: fraction does indeed correlate with the sizes and ratio $M_{\rm

1749: dyn}/M_{\ast}$ in observed ellipticals (and therefore that it {\em

1750: could} be the source of the tilt in the FP) do not necessarily

1751: indicate {\em how much} of the FP tilt derives from dissipation.  To

1752: test this, we construct the fundamental plane in

1753: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.by.fextra} -- specifically the correlation between

1754: $M_{\rm dyn}$ and $M_{\ast}$ -- in bins of similar fitted ``extra

1755: light'' mass fractions $\fextra$ (i.e.\ we consider the FP for systems

1756: only with similar amounts of dissipation).  Because we are binning by

1757: extra light mass and still attempting to fit a correlation, we include

1758: both cusp and core ellipticals in the observed sample. Separating the

1759: two gives identical results, but the significance is reduced owing to

1760: the limited dynamic range from further splitting the sample at fixed

1761: $f_{\rm extra}$. We fit a power-law to the data (and separately, to

1762: our simulations) in each bin, of the form $\mdyn\propto

1763: \mstar^{1+\alpha}$ (Equation~\ref{eqn:tilt}), where $\tilt$ is the FP

1764: ``tilt.'' Because neither $\mdyn$ nor $\mstar$ should properly be

1765: considered an independent variable, we quote the results from fitting

1766: the least-squares bisector to the correlation. However, this makes

1767: little difference (the least-squares best-fit $\mdyn(\mstar)$ and

1768: $\mstar(\mdyn)$ relations are both consistent and agree).

1769: We show this using the typical estimator $\mdyn$ here, but

1770: have also considered the true total enclosed mass $\mtrue$ within

1771: $\re$ and find identical results (as expected, since we show in

1772: \S~\ref{sec:diss.fx} and \S~\ref{sec:obs.tests.mtot} that $\mdyn$ is a

1773: good proxy for $\mtrue$).

1774: 

1775: The results are unambiguous in both our simulations and the observed systems. 

1776: The tilt in any given bin is negligible -- 

1777: within $1\,\sigma$ of $\tilt=0$ in every case. In other words, at fixed $f_{\rm extra}$, 

1778: we recover the virial correlation with 

1779: constant $\mdyn/\mstar$. 

1780: Note that in several of these bins the dynamic range in mass is 

1781: still large ($\sim2-3\,$orders of magnitude in $\mstar$), and 

1782: the number of observed systems is sufficiently large that {\em if} a 

1783: substantial tilt like that observed for the entire population 

1784: ($\tilt\sim0.2$) were present in the bin, we should see it. This 

1785: is reflected in the quoted errors, which show that the tilt in most bins 

1786: is inconsistent with that observed for the global population at 

1787: $\sim3\,\sigma$ significance 

1788: (in the sense that it is much smaller, consistent with a pure virial 

1789: correlation). 

1790: If we combine the data (i.e. normalize out 

1791: the mean $\mdyn/\mstar$ at each bin in $f_{\rm extra}$ and fit, or take the cumulative 

1792: significance of the bins shown) we obtain 

1793: $\tilt = 0.028\pm 0.040$, consistent with zero and $\sim4-5\,\sigma$ below 

1794: the observed tilt for the entire population. 

1795: 

1796: 

1797: \begin{figure}

1798:     \centering

1799:     \scaleup

1800:     %\plotone{fp_by_fsb.ps}

1801:     \plotone{f12.ps}

1802:     \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:fp.by.fextra}, but again using the 

1803:     physical starburst mass fraction $\fsb$ instead of the fitted extra 

1804:     light mass fraction $\fextra$. The results are similar in either case -- 

1805:     there is a highly significant lack of ``tilt'' at fixed dissipational fraction, despite 

1806:     the observations and simulations still spanning a large baseline ($\sim2\,$dex) 

1807:     in mass. 

1808:     \label{fig:fp.by.fsb}}

1809: \end{figure}

1810: 

1811: %\begin{figure}

1812: %    \centering

1813: %    \plotone{fp_by_fr500.ps}

1814: %    \caption{{repeat with other estimators -- parametric and non -- maybe make a second plot 

1815: %    with the other estimators}

1816: %    \label{fig:fp.by.fr500}}

1817: %\end{figure}

1818: 

1819: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.by.fsb} repeats this exercise, using the starburst

1820: mass fraction $\fsb$ (estimated from the physical starburst mass

1821: fractions in the best-fitting simulations) as the proxy for

1822: dissipational mass fraction, instead of the fitted extra light

1823: fraction $\fextra$.  In either case we reach identical conclusions for

1824: both the simulations and observations. The inferred tilt at fixed

1825: dissipational fraction is always consistent with zero, in some cases

1826: scattering to $\tilt<0$ (i.e.\ the opposite sense of what is observed;

1827: but again these are all consistent with $\tilt=0$).  In short, we have

1828: demonstrated empirically that without invoking some systematic

1829: dependence of dissipational fraction on mass, there is no FP

1830: tilt. Dissipation is observationally {\em necessary} to explain the FP

1831: tilt.

1832: 

1833: \begin{figure}

1834:     \centering

1835:     %\plotone{fp_by_fextra_reff.ps}

1836:     \plotone{f13.ps}

1837:     \caption{The FP in narrow bins of $\fsb$, for our simulations, as Figure~\ref{fig:fp.by.fsb}, 

1838:     but showing an alternative projection of the FP ($R_{e} \propto (\sigma^{2}\,I_{e}^{-1})^{1+\tilt}$). 

1839:     The result (no tilt at fixed $\fsb$) is the same; but in such a projection 

1840:     (with a small sample) small errors in 

1841:     $R_{e}$ will tend to amplify the observed tilt (and the physical meaning of the 

1842:     tilt is less clear). 

1843:     \label{fig:fp.by.fextra.reff}}

1844: \end{figure}

1845: 

1846: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.by.fextra.reff} also shows this for the effective radius projection of 

1847: the fundamental plane. We obtain identical answers in this case (for both 

1848: simulations and observations) but note that the sense of the correlation is such 

1849: that, if the baseline in $R_{e}$ is comparable to the scatter in observed points, 

1850: severe biases can be introduced. We see this reflected in the fact that, in this case, 

1851: fitting $R_{e}(R_{\rm pred})$ versus $R_{\rm pred}(R_{e})$ 

1852: (where $R_{\rm pred}\propto \sigma^{2}\,I_{e}^{-1}$ is the 

1853: virial expectation) yield rather different slopes. 

1854: Therefore, 

1855: while we show our simulations (which have small dispersion in $R_{e}$ 

1856: across sightlines), we refrain from fitting the observations in such narrow bins 

1857: in this particular projection of the FP. 

1858: 

1859: \breaker

1860: \section{Predicting the FP: Is Dissipation Sufficient?}

1861: \label{sec:obs.tests.2}

1862: 

1863: \subsection{Systematic Dependence of Dissipation on Mass: What Is 

1864: Expected and Observed}

1865: \label{sec:obs.tests.diss.frac}

1866: 

1867: 

1868: We have shown that $\mdyn/\mstar$ depends on the degree of

1869: dissipation, reflected in $\fextra$ or $\fsb$, and that at {\em fixed}

1870: $\fextra$ or $\fsb$ there is essentially no FP tilt. This already

1871: implies that dissipation {\em must} be responsible for the majority of

1872: the tilt.  But if we knew how much dissipation was expected as a

1873: function of galaxy mass (i.e.\ the mean expected mass fraction in a

1874: dissipational starburst, for mergers of systems of a given mass), we

1875: could entirely {\em predict} the FP and its tilt.

1876: 

1877: \begin{figure*}

1878:     \centering

1879:     \scaleup    

1880:     %\plotone{fgas_initial_obs_dry.ps}

1881:     \plotone{f14.ps}

1882:     \caption{Inferred gas content (dissipational/starburst fraction) of 

1883:     elliptical-producing mergers as a function of stellar mass. 

1884:     Initial gas fraction ({\em top}) and physical final starburst mass 

1885:     fraction ({\em bottom}) corresponding to the best-fit simulations to 

1886:     each observed system in the samples of 

1887:     \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} (circles) 

1888:     and \citet{jk:profiles} (stars) are shown, 

1889:     with the typical $25-75\%$ allowed range (error bar).

1890:     We show results separately for cusp ellipticals ({\em left}), core ellipticals 

1891:     ({\em center}), and both together ({\em right}). 

1892:     Dashed (solid) line shows the fit to the data (Equation~\ref{eqn:fgas.m}) 

1893:     in cusp (core) ellipticals. 

1894:     Colored points with error bars indicate the mean (and $\pm1\,\sigma$ 

1895:     range in) disk gas fractions at the same stellar mass, at 

1896:     $z=0$ \citep[][blue diamonds, squares, and circles, respectively]

1897:     {belldejong:tf,kannappan:gfs,mcgaugh:tf}, 

1898:     $z=1$ \citep[][green squares]{shapley:z1.abundances}, and 

1899:     $z=2$ \citep[][orange circles]{erb:lbg.gasmasses}. There is a clear trend of increasing 

1900:     dissipation 

1901:     required to explain elliptical profiles at lower masses 

1902:     (significant at $>8\,\sigma$ in either core or cusp subsamples 

1903:     separately), 

1904:     in good agreement with the observed trend in progenitor disk 

1905:     gas fractions over the redshift range where 

1906:     cusp ellipticals are formed, and with what is invoked to explain  

1907:     the observed densities and fundamental plane correlations of ellipticals 

1908:     \citep[e.g.][]{kormendy:dissipation,hernquist:phasespace}.

1909:     The best-fit trends in cusp and core populations are statistically 

1910:     identical: i.e.\ the dissipational/extra light component is 

1911:     preserved regardless of possible re-mergers. 

1912:     \label{fig:fsb.mstar}}

1913: \end{figure*}

1914: 

1915: Figure~\ref{fig:fsb.mstar} shows the mean dissipational mass fractions 

1916: of both cusp and core ellipticals, as a function of mass, 

1917: derived in \papertwo\ and \paperthree. There is a clear 

1918: systematic trend (discussed in those papers):

1919: lower-mass systems have systematically higher 

1920: dissipational mass fractions. 

1921: To the extent that $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$ depends on 

1922: dissipational fraction ($\fextra$ or $\fsb$), 

1923: then, the existence of a systematic dependence of $\fextra$ and $\fsb$ 

1924: on mass will yield a systematic dependence of 

1925: $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$ on mass. We can use 

1926: the observed dependence of the dissipational mass fraction 

1927: on mass to predict and empirically estimate the amount of 

1928: tilt in the FP contributed by systematic trends in dissipation as a 

1929: function of mass. 

1930: For convenience, we noted in \papertwo\ that the dependence of 

1931: dissipational fraction $\fsb$ on mass in cusp ellipticals 

1932: (or observed gas-rich merger remnants) can be well-fitted by 

1933: \begin{equation}

1934: \langle f_{\rm starburst} \rangle \approx 

1935: {\Bigl[}1+{\Bigl(}\frac{M_{\ast}}{M_{0}}{\Bigr)}^{\alpha}{\Bigr]}^{-1}, 

1936: \label{eqn:fgas.m}

1937: \end{equation}

1938: with  $(M_{0},\ \alpha)=(10^{9.2\pm0.2}\,\msun,\ 0.43\pm0.04)$ 

1939: (shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fsb.mstar}), 

1940: and a roughly constant factor $\sim1.5-2$ scatter at each $\mstar$. 

1941: In \paperthree\ we demonstrated that an essentially identical scaling 

1942: (a statistically equivalent $(M_{0},\ \alpha)=(10^{8.8\pm0.3}\,\msun,\ 0.35\pm0.05)$) applies 

1943: to core ellipticals, as expected if cusp ellipticals are indeed their 

1944: progenitors (since identical re-mergers will conserve dissipational or ``extra light'' 

1945: mass fractions). 

1946: 

1947: We also demonstrated in \papertwo\ and \paperthree\ that this

1948: empirically measured systematic dependence of dissipational mass

1949: fraction on stellar mass agrees well with the observed dependence of

1950: disk galaxy gas fractions on mass. This is exactly what is expected if

1951: ellipticals are (at least originally) formed in gas-rich, disk-disk

1952: mergers (regardless of whether or not they subsequently experience

1953: re-mergers).  We show this in Figure~\ref{fig:fsb.mstar} with the

1954: observed disk gas fractions as a function of stellar mass from

1955: \citet{belldejong:tf,kannappan:gfs,mcgaugh:tf} at $z=0$, as well as at

1956: $z=1$ \citep{shapley:z1.abundances} and $z=2$

1957: \citep{erb:lbg.gasmasses}.  At all these redshifts, the trend of gas

1958: fraction is similar, and the observed gas fractions evolve relatively

1959: weakly with redshift (by a factor $\sim1-2$), bracketing the range of

1960: dissipational mass fractions observed in ellipticals at each mass.

1961: 

1962: In other words, regardless of the exact times of formation, a

1963: systematic trend similar to that observed in the dissipational

1964: fractions of ellipticals is inevitable if disks are the progenitors of

1965: ellipticals.  Note that even if there is a systematic dependence of

1966: the time of first gas-rich merger on stellar mass in this range, the

1967: mixing of formation redshifts would be less important than the mean

1968: dependence of disk gas fraction on mass (if we assume the stellar

1969: population ages date the merger times -- which is an upper limit to

1970: the magnitude of this effect, since the stellar ages at least in part

1971: reflect the similar trend in stellar ages of disks as a function of

1972: mass -- then the systematic effects added by this age scaling are

1973: not important).  The dependence of disk gas fractions on mass is

1974: therefore the primary driver of the observed dependence of

1975: dissipational mass fraction on elliptical mass.

1976: 

1977: Among other things, this implies that we could {\em predict} the

1978: dissipational mass fractions of ellipticals as a function of their

1979: mass, based on the observed disk gas fractions at each mass.  We

1980: therefore pursue the following exercise: we consider the consequences

1981: of adopting the observed scaling of disk gas fractions with mass as

1982: our expectation for the dissipational fractions in ellipticals as a

1983: function of mass.  Since we have just shown they are equivalent, we

1984: obtain identical results if we select the empirically fitted

1985: dissipational fractions of ellipticals as a function of mass; in

1986: either case, the important thing is that there is a well-defined,

1987: physically motivated and observationally confirmed systematic scaling

1988: of dissipational fraction with mass.

1989: 

1990: \subsection{The Consequence for the FP}

1991: \label{sec:obs.tests.diss.tilt}

1992: 

1993: Given the known scaling of disk gas fractions as a function of mass,

1994: we can then focus on the subsample of simulations that obey this

1995: scaling.  That is, at a particular mass scale, we know the range of

1996: disk gas fractions seen empirically. We therefore consider only

1997: simulations within that range of gas fractions, as opposed to others

1998: in our library that are more gas rich or gas poor than typical

1999: observed disks of the same stellar mass.  We have considered the

2000: effects of redshift evolution (using the mean age of ellipticals as a

2001: function of their stellar mass as a proxy for their merger time, we

2002: adopt the gas fraction of disks of the appropriate mass {\em at that

2003: redshift}), and find it makes relatively little difference (although

2004: some secondary correlations along the FP relating to stellar

2005: populations and the age of systems will be discussed in

2006: \S~\ref{sec:discuss:pred}). 

2007: This restriction imposes a mean

2008: dependence of extra light or starburst mass fraction on stellar mass

2009: similar to that observed in ellipticals and anticipated from disk gas

2010: fractions.  Given this constraint, we can consider the FP and other

2011: correlations obeyed by just these objects: i.e.\ we can ask the

2012: question: What are the scalings obeyed by systems that have the same

2013: systematic dependence of dissipational fraction on mass as expected

2014: and observed in the real Universe?

2015: 

2016: \begin{figure*}

2017:     \centering

2018:     %\plotone{fp_pred.ps}

2019:     \plotone{f15.ps}

2020:     \caption{The FP for all observed ellipticals ({\em bottom}), 

2021:     in the style of Figure~\ref{fig:fp.by.fextra} ({\em left}) and 

2022:     Figure~\ref{fig:fp.by.fextra.reff} ({\em right}), with the measured tilt 

2023:     (black for all observed points; red and violet show the tilt fitted for the 

2024:     \citet{jk:profiles} and \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} subsamples, respectively). 

2025:     The standard tilt $\tilt\sim0.2$ is now apparent. 

2026:     We compare with the predicted correlation for our simulations ({\em top}), where we consider 

2027:     only simulations that match (within the observed factor $\sim2$ scatter) 

2028:     the observed systematic correlation between e.g.\ progenitor disk 

2029:     gas fractions and stellar mass, or (equivalently) between dissipational/starburst 

2030:     mass fraction and stellar mass (shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fsb.mstar}). 

2031:     Accounting for the systematic dependence of dissipation on mass (owing 

2032:     to the dependence of gas content on mass in the progenitor disks), we obtain a 

2033:     FP tilt in good agreement with that observed, with comparable small scatter. 

2034:     \label{fig:fp.pred}}

2035: \end{figure*}

2036: 

2037: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred} shows the results of this exercise. Now that

2038: we account for the cosmologically expected and observed dependence of

2039: dissipational content on mass, the FP is ``tilted.'' Fitting a power

2040: law, we obtain a value for this tilt of $\tilt=0.19\pm0.02$.  We

2041: compare this to the observed systems, plotting the data on the same

2042: footing, since we have constructed a cosmologically representative

2043: comparison sample in our simulations.  We obtain an observed tilt of

2044: $\tilt=0.21\pm0.05$, the canonical value in the literature. More

2045: important (since any formal fitted tilt will vary if fit over

2046: different dynamic range), we compare the predicted scaling directly to

2047: actual ellipticals, and find that the simulations and observed systems

2048: occupy a statistically identical locus in $\mdyn-\mstar$ space. As a

2049: check, we fit the \citet{jk:profiles} and

2050: \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} subsamples independently, and obtain

2051: consistent values for the tilt.

2052: 

2053: We show the tilt again in terms of $\re$, and obtain a similar result

2054: (for this projection, the formal tilt value is expected to be similar

2055: to that for $\mdyn-\mstar$).  Fitting the observed samples, we find

2056: that they trace an identical locus -- but the power-law fits in this

2057: case are more sensitive to dynamic range (apparent by the fact that

2058: the formal tilt from \citet{jk:profiles} and

2059: \citet{lauer:bimodal.profiles} are slightly discrepant, despite the

2060: points tracing each other where they overlap). As discussed above,

2061: caution should be used fitting in this FP projection (here, the

2062: dynamic range is much larger than the fit errors in $R_{e}$, so there

2063: are not large biases introduced in such observational fits, but in a

2064: more limited subsample, results fitted in this fashion are less robust

2065: than those fitted in the more physical $\mdyn-\mstar$ space, where the

2066: axes are independent).  Given the larger uncertainties in this case,

2067: the agreement is reasonable.  Note that the absolute values of

2068: $\mstar$ and $\mdyn$ and zero-points here are sensitive to our adopted

2069: virial coefficients and IMF assumptions, but the tilt and our

2070: meaningful comparisons are not.

2071: 

2072: \begin{figure}

2073:     \centering

2074:     %\plotone{fp_pred_split.ps}

2075:     \plotone{f16.ps}

2076:     \caption{The observed FP, compared with our simulation predictions 

2077:     as in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}, but divided into core ({\em top}) and 

2078:     cusp ({\em bottom}) ellipticals. The simulation predictions agree 

2079:     well with the data in both

2080:     cases, consistent with theoretical modeling that 

2081:     even a modest number of re-mergers do not move systems significantly

2082:     off the FP correlation established by the original, gas-rich mergers. 

2083:     \label{fig:fp.pred.split}}

2084: \end{figure}

2085: 

2086: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred.split} compares this result with the samples

2087: divided into cusp and core ellipticals.  For both classes of objects,

2088: the agreement with the simulations is good, and the two appear to

2089: trace a continuous FP correlation. This is not surprising: it has been

2090: shown that massive, boxy ellipticals with cores trace a continuous FP

2091: with less massive, disky, cuspy ellipticals \citep[at least at the

2092: massive end, where most of the core population resides;

2093: see][]{gerhard:giant.ell.dynamics,

2094: vonderlinden:bcg.scaling.relations}, and we have shown that the

2095: scaling of $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\ast}$ with dissipational fraction (and

2096: systematic dependence of dissipational fraction on mass) are similar

2097: in both cusp and core ellipticals (and, in simulations in \paperthree,

2098: we explicitly demonstrate that this should be true for both the

2099: original gas-rich merger remnants and dry re-merger

2100: remnants). Furthermore, a number of studies

2101: \citep{capelato:dry.mgr.fp,dantas:dry.mgr.fp,nipoti:dry.mergers,

2102: boylankolchin:mergers.fp,robertson:fp} have shown that dissipationless

2103: spheroid-spheroid re-mergers (popular as a mechanism for producing

2104: cores in ellipticals) tend to preserve the FP, provided that the

2105: number of re-mergers is modest; we discuss these issues further in

2106: \S~\ref{sec:remergers}.

2107: 

2108: 

2109: \begin{figure*}

2110:     \centering

2111:     %\plotone{new_fp_m.ps}

2112:     \plotone{f17.ps}

2113:     \caption{A ``more fundamental'' representation of the 

2114:     FP in simulations ({\em left}; points from Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}) 

2115:     and observations ({\em center, right}): $\mdyn$ 

2116:     as a bivariate function of $\mstar$ and fitted extra light fraction ($\fextra$, {\em top}) or 

2117:     inferred starburst fraction ($\fsb$, {\em bottom}). The best-fit correlation 

2118:     recovers $\mdyn\propto\mstar$ with the residual dependence -- i.e.\ the ``tilt'' -- 

2119:     owing entirely to the degree of dissipation.    

2120:     Compared to the FP in terms of just $\mdyn$ and $\mstar$, 

2121:     the scatter is slightly reduced (but not much, owing to the uncertainties introduced 

2122:     in estimating $\fextra$ or $\fsb$). 

2123:     Adopting $\mdyn\propto\mstar$ with the additional functional dependence of 

2124:     $\mdyn/\mstar$ on $\fextra$ from Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra} yields a

2125:     similar correlation ({\rm right}) with further slightly reduced scatter.     

2126:     \label{fig:fp.w.f.m}}

2127: \end{figure*}

2128: 

2129: Given that the FP tilt in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred} arises owing to 

2130: dissipation -- where we have shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.by.fextra} 

2131: that at the same degree of dissipation, 

2132: the virial correlation (no tilt) is recovered -- it should be possible 

2133: to explicitly factor out at least some of this tilt. 

2134: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.w.f.m} attempts this exercise: we 

2135: determine the best-fit bivariate function 

2136: $\mdyn(\mstar,\,\fextra)$. For simplicity and to minimize the 

2137: free parameters involved, we (for now) adopt a simple 

2138: power-law parameterization $\mdyn\propto\mstar^{a}\,\fextra^{b}$, 

2139: and determine the best-fit parameters $a$ and $b$ such that the 

2140: perpendicular scatter (i.e.\ scatter about the least-squares bisector) 

2141: is minimized; we then repeat this using the estimated starburst 

2142: mass fraction $\fsb$ instead of the fitted extra light fraction $\fextra$. 

2143: In both cases, and regardless of whether we fit to the 

2144: observations or to the simulations, the best-fit correlation 

2145: is essentially the virial correlation (i.e.\ $a\approx1$) coupled with a 

2146: dependence on $\fextra$ or $\fsb$. In other words, the 

2147: best-fit bivariate FP assigns the FP ``tilt'' entirely to the 

2148: role of dissipation -- at fixed degree of dissipation, there is 

2149: no tilt. Explicitly including the degree of dissipation in this manner 

2150: demonstrates that it is indeed ``as fundamental'' as any bivariate correlation 

2151: (it is preferred with respect to a purely mass-dependent $\mdyn/\mstar$). 

2152: These fitted FP projections are nearly identical to the simplest predicted 

2153: FP in dissipation-driven models (also shown in 

2154: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.w.f.m}): namely, that $\mdyn\propto\mstar\,F(\fextra)$, 

2155: where the function $F(\fextra)\propto\mdyn/\mstar$ has the form seen 

2156: in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra} (note that this is 

2157: more complex than a simple power-law). 

2158: 

2159: In principle, this explicit inclusion of an $\fextra$ or $\fsb$ dependence 

2160: should be able to account for some of the scatter in the FP, and 

2161: therefore might provide a plane with smaller scatter. In practice, 

2162: the scatter in e.g.\ $\mdyn(\mstar,\,\fextra)$ is only slightly reduced 

2163: relative to that in just $\mdyn(\mstar)$. The reasons for this are twofold.

2164: First, as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:obs.tests.scatter}, the majority of the 

2165: scatter in the FP owes not to different degrees of dissipation but 

2166: to the combination of 

2167: sightline-to-sightline variations, dispersion in progenitor disk properties, 

2168: and measurement errors. Second, as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:data:proxies} 

2169: and \papertwo, an estimator such as $\fsb$ or $\fextra$ is of course 

2170: not a perfect tracer of the 

2171: true starburst mass fraction; with typical factor $\sim2$ uncertainties. 

2172: In practice, then, most of the reduction in scatter from factoring out 

2173: $\fextra$ is negated by scatter introduced in the variation between 

2174: $\fextra$ and the ``true'' starburst mass fraction. 

2175: The result is that the scatter in the FP in terms of $\mstar$ and 

2176: $\fextra$ is comparable to or slightly less than that 

2177: in terms of $\mstar$ alone. Owing to the uncertainties in estimating 

2178: $\fextra$, then, this FP representation is not necessarily a 

2179: substantially improved observational predictor of $\mdyn$ or e.g.\ 

2180: $R_{e}$ at fixed $\sigma$ and $\mstar$. 

2181: However, the FP in these terms is certainly 

2182: comparable to the ``traditional'' FP in how tightly it relates 

2183: $\mdyn$ and $\mstar$, and it is ``more fundamental'' in terms of 

2184: a physical explanation for the FP tilt. 

2185: 

2186: Because our primary focus in this paper is the understanding of the 

2187: observed $z=0$ FP correlations, we reserve a more detailed modeling 

2188: of the evolution of the physical FP (in terms of e.g.\ stellar and dynamical 

2189: mass) with redshift (as e.g.\ typical merger histories and progenitor 

2190: gas content evolve) for future work \citep{hopkins:cusps.evol}. For now, 

2191: we simply note 

2192: that the evolution in physical parameters considered here is predicted to 

2193: be weak, in agreement with direct 

2194: observational constraints from high redshift weak lensing \citep{heymans:mhalo-mgal.evol} 

2195: and optical studies \citep[note that there is expected 

2196: evolution in optical bands owing to stellar population effects; these represent 

2197: complimentary constraints on elliptical formation histories; see e.g.][]{alighieri:fp.evolution,

2198: treu:fp.evolution,vanderwel:fp.evolution,vandokkum:fp.evol}. 

2199: To the extent that these constraints agree with our expectations based on 

2200: empirical estimates for the evolution of disk gas fractions, they represent 

2201: independent support for the scenario outlined here. 

2202: 

2203: 

2204: \subsection{Projections of the FP}

2205: \label{sec:obs.tests.projections}

2206: 

2207: 

2208: \begin{figure}

2209:     \centering

2210:     \scaleup

2211:     %\plotone{cusp_bulge_fp_pred3.ps}

2212:     \plotone{f18.ps}

2213:     \caption{Observed FP, in the best-fit projection from \citet{pahre:nir.fp}; i.e.\ 

2214:     freeing the exponents in $R_{e}\propto\sigma^{\beta}\, I_{e}^{\gamma}$. 

2215:     Open points are the observed systems, filled points are our simulation 

2216:     results from Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}. If the observed FP was more complex 

2217:     than a tilt (e.g.\ if $\mstar$ depended substantially on $\re$ or $\sigma$ 

2218:     separately at fixed $\mdyn$), our results would disagree here. The agreement is 

2219:     good, as expected based on observations that the FP is, essentially, a tilted 

2220:     virial plane. 

2221:     \label{fig:pred.pahre}}

2222: \end{figure}

2223: 

2224: As another check, we consider our results in the observed FP space of

2225: \citet{pahre:nir.fp}, in Figure~\ref{fig:pred.pahre}. Here, the

2226: coefficients of $\sigma$, $R_{e}$, and $I_{e}$ are independently free

2227: in determining the best-fit projection of the observations.  If, in

2228: principle, the FP were much more complex than a simple tilt (i.e.\ if

2229: $M/L$ depended substantially on $\re$ or $\sigma$ at fixed $\mdyn$),

2230: then the simulations might match the observations in

2231: Figures~\ref{fig:fp.pred}-\ref{fig:fp.pred.trueM} but not in this

2232: representation.  In fact, we find good agreement with the

2233: observations.  This is not surprising, since it has been established

2234: that the FP can be represented as a tilt under some homology

2235: assumptions \citep[e.g.][]{jorgensen:fp,padmanabhan:mdyn.mstar.tilt}.

2236: 

2237: \begin{figure}

2238:     \centering

2239:     \scaleup

2240:     %\plotone{fp_projections.ps}

2241:     \plotone{f19.ps}

2242:     \caption{Projections of the FP. We show the 

2243:     size-mass ({\em top}) and velocity dispersion-mass (Faber-Jackson; {\em bottom}) 

2244:     correlations, for the same 

2245:     subset of simulations used in 

2246:     our FP predictions in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred} ({\em left}) and observations ({\em right}). 

2247:     The observed mean relations for SDSS ellipticals (solid lines; with 

2248:     $\sim95\%$ range as dashed lines) are shown over the range of 

2249:     data used in the observed fits \citep[][for size-mass 

2250:     and velocity dispersion-mass, respectively]{shen:size.mass,gallazzi06:ages}. 

2251:     Note the curvature in both relations, owing to the dependence of 

2252:     dissipation on mass and its role in setting both $R_{e}$ and $\sigma$. 

2253:     The simulations and observations agree with each other and with the 

2254:     mean correlations observed in much larger samples; i.e.\ once 

2255:     systems with the appropriate range of dissipational fraction for their 

2256:     mass are selected, they follow the observed size-mass and other 

2257:     correlations. The relations would not agree if we used systems with 

2258:     significantly different dissipational fractions as a function of mass.  

2259:     \label{fig:fp.projections}}

2260: \end{figure}

2261: 

2262: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.projections} plots projections of the FP;

2263: specifically, the size-mass relation and the velocity dispersion-mass

2264: (Faber-Jackson) relation. We show these correlations for the same

2265: simulations used to construct the FP in

2266: Figures~\ref{fig:fp.pred}-\ref{fig:pred.pahre}; since we showed in

2267: \S~\ref{sec:obs:sizes} that e.g.\ effective radii scale systematically

2268: with dissipational fraction, a robust prediction of the size-mass

2269: relation requires that the simulations considered have appropriate

2270: dissipational fractions for systems of their stellar mass.  We show

2271: sizes and velocity dispersions as a function of stellar mass because

2272: this is how these correlations are generally presented in the

2273: literature, but differences are small and the comparison with

2274: observations is similar if we consider them as a function of dynamical

2275: mass.

2276: 

2277: We compare with the same correlations in the observed samples for

2278: which we consider the FP, and with the mean correlations measured for

2279: ellipticals in the SDSS. The simulations agree well with the

2280: observations -- both those that we consider in our FP analysis, and

2281: the trends in the general population (it is also reassuring that our

2282: observed FP samples obey the same projected scalings, with similar

2283: scatter). The scatter in these correlations is larger than

2284: that between $\mdyn$ and $\mstar$, since at fixed $\mdyn$ there is a

2285: tradeoff between $R_{e}$ and $\sigma$.  It is also interesting to note

2286: that the trends show significant curvature -- their combination

2287: ($\mdyn-\mstar$) is reasonably approximated by a power-law scaling,

2288: but either the $\re-\mstar$ or $\sigma-\mstar$ slope will vary with

2289: the fitted mass interval (for this reason, we refrain from quantifying

2290: a power-law fit to either the simulations or observations, but we note

2291: that if we do so over the same mass interval for both, we obtain the

2292: same result).

2293: 

2294: This has been discussed in the literature, for both the $\re-\mstar$

2295: and $\sigma-\mstar$ relations \citep[see e.g.][]{lauer:massive.bhs,

2296: vonderlinden:bcg.scaling.relations,desroches:scaling.law.curvature}

2297: (note that even \citet{shen:size.mass} see tentative evidence for this

2298: effect in their lowest-mass bins, but their dynamic range at the low

2299: mass end is limited). We note here that such curvature can arise even

2300: from pure gas-rich merger remnants, owing to the dependence of the

2301: amount of dissipation on mass and corresponding scalings of size and

2302: velocity dispersion. This is supported by the fact that both our cusp

2303: and core sub-samples independently exhibit similar curvature. It has

2304: also been observed that non-BCG and BCG galaxy samples show similar

2305: curvature \citep[despite the latter being much more likely to have

2306: experienced dry mergers; see e.g.][]{delucia:sam}. This is not to say

2307: that re-mergers will not introduce curvature in these relations or

2308: move systems considerably with respect to them \citep[see

2309: e.g.][]{boylankolchin:dry.mergers}, but rather to emphasize that dry

2310: re-mergers are not the {\em only} source of curvature in the

2311: relations, and curvature should not necessarily be interpreted as

2312: evidence for dry mergers (further note that systems cannot move too

2313: far off their initial correlations, as they are constrained by the

2314: observed scatter).

2315: 

2316: 

2317: \begin{figure*}

2318:     \centering

2319:     \scaleup

2320:     %\plotone{new_fp.ps}

2321:     \plotone{f20.ps}

2322:     \caption{FP predictors of $R_{e}$. {\em Left:} $R_{e}$ as a function of 

2323:     the ``traditional'' global parameters $\mstar$ (stellar mass) and $\sigma$ 

2324:     (velocity dispersion). Simulations (the same as 

2325:     used for the predicted FP in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}) and observations are shown 

2326:     (as in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra}). 

2327:     The scatter in $R_{e}$ in this projection is $\sim0.2\,$dex. 

2328:     {\em Center:} $R_{e}$ as a bivariate function of $\mstar$ and 

2329:     fitted extra light fraction ($\fextra$, {\em top}) or 

2330:     inferred starburst fraction ($\fsb$, {\em bottom}). This 

2331:     is an equivalent or better observational predictor of $R_{e}$ (scatter 

2332:     $\sim0.15\,$dex). {\em Right:} $R_{e}$ as a function of 

2333:     $\sigma$ and $\fextra$ ({\em top}) or $\fsb$ ({\em bottom}). Again, 

2334:     this is an equivalent predictor (scatter $\sim0.2$\,dex). 

2335:     Ignoring the effects of dissipation, we recover the 

2336:     $\re-\mstar$ and $\sigma-\mstar$ relations in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.projections}, 

2337:     with very different slopes from the relations for disks (comparison shown here). 

2338:     However, 

2339:     with the effects of dissipation explicitly included here, the relation between 

2340:     $R_{e}$ and $\mstar$ or $R_{e}$ and $\sigma$ is 

2341:     equivalent to that obeyed by spirals -- i.e.\ the difference between 

2342:     the ``projected'' 

2343:     elliptical and spiral scaling relations is entirely attributable to 

2344:     the degree of dissipation ($\fextra$ or $\fsb$). 

2345:     \label{fig:fp.w.f}}

2346: \end{figure*}

2347: 

2348: It is well-established that these correlations are different from those 

2349: obeyed by spiral galaxies. If we do crudely approximate the correlations 

2350: as power-laws (for illustrative purposes) 

2351: over the dynamic range shown in 

2352: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.projections}, we obtain  

2353: correlations $R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.56}$ \citep[as in][]{shen:size.mass} 

2354: and $\sigma\propto\mstar^{0.25}$ \citep[see e.g.][]{bernardi:correlations}, 

2355: also yielding $R_{e}\propto\sigma^{2.0-2.2}$. Compare 

2356: these to the observed relations in disks: 

2357: $R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.30-0.35}$, 

2358: $V_{\rm max}\propto\mstar^{0.27-0.30}$, and 

2359: $R_{e}\propto V_{\rm max}^{1.0-1.2}$ \citep[see e.g.][]{persic96,courteau:disk.scalings, avilareese:baryonic.tf}. 

2360: These differences relate to the tilt of the FP and the fundamental distinctions 

2361: at issue here: at high masses, ellipticals and disks have similar sizes, 

2362: but at low masses, ellipticals are much smaller. 

2363: The difference, in our simulations, arises because of changes in the 

2364: degree of dissipation, reflected in the extra light content. In principle then, 

2365: it should be possible to consider the resulting 

2366: correlations between $R_{e}$ and $\mstar$ or $\sigma$ 

2367: in terms of the combination of their dependence on 

2368: that variable and the additional dependence on $\fextra$ or $\fsb$. 

2369: 

2370: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.w.f} shows the results of this exercise: 

2371: we consider $R_{e}$ as a bivariate function of 

2372: combinations of $\mstar$, $\sigma$, and $\fextra$. 

2373: The correlation $R_{e}(\mstar,\,\sigma)$ represents the 

2374: ``traditional'' FP correlation -- that the correlation is 

2375: not simply $R_{e}\propto\mstar/\sigma^{2}$ reflects the ``tilt'' of the FP. 

2376: If instead we fit $R_{e}$ to a 

2377: combination of $\mstar$ and $\fextra$, we obtain a 

2378: fit of similar quality (i.e.\ this combination is an equivalent predictor of 

2379: $R_{e}$), but with the dependence $R_{e}\propto\mstar^{0.3}\,\fextra^{-0.57}$. 

2380: This is an equivalent FP in terms of its usefulness as a 

2381: predictor of $R_{e}$, with a scatter $\sim0.15-0.20\,$dex. 

2382: More interesting, the explicit dependence of $\re$ on $\mstar$ fitted in this manner 

2383: is identical to that observed in disks ($\re\propto\mstar^{0.3}$), with the 

2384: remaining dependence owing to the dependence of $\re$ on 

2385: $\fextra$. Given the cosmological scaling of 

2386: $\fextra$ with $\mstar$, we obtain the steeper 

2387: $\re\propto\mstar^{0.6}$ relation for ellipticals when $\fextra$ is ignored, but 

2388: at {\em fixed} $\fextra$ or $\fsb$ -- i.e.\ fixed degree of dissipation -- 

2389: a relation $\re\propto\mstar^{0.3}$, similar to that observed in disk 

2390: galaxies, is observed \citep[in line with the predictions from][]{robertson:fp}. 

2391: We obtain the same results for 

2392: the size-velocity dispersion relation: a best-fit 

2393: $\re\propto\sigma^{1.33}\,\fextra^{-0.39}$ (or $\re\propto\sigma^{0.94}\,\fextra^{-0.89}$); 

2394: the dependence of $\re$ on $\sigma$ at fixed $\fextra$ or $\fsb$ 

2395: is very similar to the dependence of 

2396: $\re$ on rotational velocity $V_{\rm max}$ in disks (to lowest order, 

2397: our simulations and other 

2398: numerical experiments demonstrate that $\sigma$ traces the 

2399: pre-merger $V_{\rm max}$, modulo a roughly constant normalization 

2400: offset owing to e.g.\ the profile shape and kinematics). 

2401: In other words, {\em the difference between the observed 

2402: size-mass-velocity dispersion relations in disks and ellipticals can be entirely accounted for 

2403: by dissipation}. 

2404: 

2405: 

2406: \subsection{The Small Scatter in the FP}

2407: \label{sec:obs.tests.scatter}

2408: 

2409: A final requirement for any model of the FP is that it account for the

2410: small observed scatter.  Analyzing the relations predicted by the

2411: simulations, which broadly sample orbital parameters and stellar

2412: masses, and fully cover the observed range of dissipational fractions

2413: at each mass, we can see directly in

2414: Figures~\ref{fig:fp.pred}-\ref{fig:fp.pred.trueM} that there is small

2415: scatter. Formally, we find a nearly symmetric $1\sigma$ scatter of

2416: $\sim0.07-0.08\,$dex in $\mdyn(\mstar$) or $\sim0.065-0.075$\,dex in

2417: $\mstar(\mdyn)$ ($0.055\,$dex scatter perpendicular to the best-fit

2418: correlation -- or equivalently in the $R_{e}$ projection of the FP --

2419: depending weakly on how we define our expected $\fextra(\mstar)$ and

2420: whether we use $\mtrue$ or $\mdyn$).

2421: %, or $\sim0.055-0.070$\,dex 

2422: %in the $\re$ projection (the scatter in this projection is what is often 

2423: %quoted for the FP, and will typically be $\sim1/(1+\tilt)$ the scatter in $\mdyn(\mstar)$ 

2424: %owing to the mean dependence of $\re$ on $\mstar$ or $\mdyn$). 

2425: This is the scatter obtained in these correlations using the median

2426: values of $\mstar$ and $\mdyn$ for each galaxy (across

2427: $\sim100\,$sightlines): if we include the sightline-to-sightline

2428: variance in the simulations, we obtain $\sim 0.14$\,dex total scatter

2429: in $\mdyn(\mstar)$ ($0.09$\,dex scatter perpendicular to the

2430: correlation).  This is still less than that observed in each case: for

2431: the observed samples herein, we find $\sim0.18$\,dex scatter in

2432: $\mdyn(\mstar)$ and $\sim0.15$\,dex scatter in $\mstar(\mdyn)$; i.e.\

2433: a perpendicular scatter of $0.12$\,dex, with additional observational

2434: errors in $R_{e}$ and $M_{\ast}$ (estimated from our experiments in

2435: \papertwo) likely contributing most of the difference (for typical

2436: $\sim0.1$\,dex stellar population model errors in $M_{\ast}$, this

2437: yields roughly the observed scatter).

2438: 

2439: The origin of the small intrinsic scatter in the FP is straightforward

2440: to understand in this scenario.  Some intrinsic variation will come

2441: from the scatter in the total baryon-to-dark-matter content of the

2442: progenitor galaxies. However, observations of the baryonic

2443: Tully-Fisher relation suggest that the scatter in $\mstar$ at fixed

2444: maximum circular velocity (a proxy for halo mass) is small,

2445: $\approx0.1\,$dex \citep[at least over the mass range of interest

2446: here;][]{belldejong:tf}.  Even considering the total baryon-to-halo

2447: mass ratios, which extend well beyond $R_{e}$ and are therefore of

2448: less interest, observations imply quite small scatter $\sim0.15\,$dex

2449: \citep{wang:sdss.hod, conroy:monotonic.hod,weinmann:obs.hod}.  This

2450: effectively subsumes a number of quantities, including e.g.\ scatter

2451: in the initial radii of the disks at fixed mass, in halo

2452: concentrations, and in other parameters (note that the scatter in any

2453: one of these quantities is not important, given that the final

2454: Tully-Fisher relation scatter is small). The contribution of this

2455: initial scatter will actually be reduced after a gas-rich merger,

2456: because the quantity of interest is the ratio $[\mstar/2 + M_{\rm

2457: dm}(<R_{e})]/(M_{\ast}/2)$.  Since the merger channels gas into the

2458: center and raises the central density, the final effective radius is

2459: smaller (explaining the smaller sizes of ellipticals relative to

2460: spirals at low mass).  Thus, while $\mstar$ is just the baryonic mass

2461: of the progenitor, the contraction of the remnant makes the relative

2462: value of $M_{\rm dm}(<R_{e})$ smaller, reducing the importance of

2463: initial scatter in $M_{\rm dm}/M_{\rm baryon}$ to the final FP

2464: scatter. Analysis of the simulations suggests that a realistic initial

2465: $\sim0.1\,$dex scatter in the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation

2466: contributes $\lesssim0.04-0.05$\,dex scatter directly to the final FP

2467: prediction.

2468: 

2469: However, there will be additional intrinsic scatter contributed by

2470: different degrees of dissipation in systems of the same

2471: mass. Figures~\ref{fig:re.sigma.cusp} \&\ \ref{fig:mdyn.fextra.mbins}

2472: shows that at fixed stellar mass, systems with different degrees of

2473: dissipation have correspondingly different effective radii and ratios

2474: $\mdyn/\mstar$.  However, the scatter in the expected (and

2475: observationally inferred) dissipational fraction at each mass is

2476: small, a factor $\lesssim2$, and the dependence of $\mdyn/\mstar$ (see

2477: Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.fextra}) on dissipational fraction over this

2478: relatively narrow range is not strong.  Combining this scatter with

2479: the dependence of $\mdyn/\mstar$, we expect it to contribute about

2480: $\sim0.06-0.08$\,dex of intrinsic scatter.  Together, this yields the

2481: relatively small $\sim0.08$\,dex intrinsic scatter in $\mdyn(\mstar)$

2482: (before sightline-to-sightline and measurement errors).

2483: 

2484: 

2485: \breaker

2486: \section{Total versus Dynamical Mass: Invariance of the FP}

2487: \label{sec:obs.tests.mtot}

2488: 

2489: \begin{figure}

2490:     \centering

2491:     %\plotone{fp_pred_trueM.ps}

2492:     \plotter{f21.ps}

2493:     \caption{Predicted and observed FP (as in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}), 

2494:     but using the true total enclosed mass $\mtrue$ (stellar plus dark matter) within 

2495:     $R_{e}$ instead of $\mdyn$. We compare with the observed systems from 

2496:     \citet{cappellari:fp}, who use integral Jeans/Schwarzchild modeling 

2497:     to determine a ``true'' mass 

2498:     independent of a homology or constant $M/L$ assumption. 

2499:     A nearly identical tilt is predicted and observed -- i.e.\ the predicted and observed 

2500:     FP is really a reflection of the tilt in $\mtrue/\mstar$ within $R_{e}$, 

2501:     not a tilt in $\mtrue/\mdyn$. 

2502:     \label{fig:fp.pred.trueM}}

2503: \end{figure}

2504: 

2505: In Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred.trueM} we repeat our experiment from

2506: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}; i.e.\ we construct the FP from the 

2507: simulations, given the observed and expected dependence of

2508: dissipational fraction on mass. However, instead of plotting the

2509: traditional dynamical mass estimator $\mdyn\propto\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}$,

2510: we plot the {\em true} total projected mass (stellar plus dark matter

2511: plus gas, although gas is generally negligible) within $R_{e}$, which

2512: we extract directly from the simulations and refer to as $\mtrue$. The

2513: predicted FP is nearly identical to that predicted using the $\mdyn$ estimator --

2514: i.e.\ the FP predicted does, in fact, arise from a change of the

2515: dark-to-luminous-matter ratio within $R_{e}$, owing to dissipation

2516: contracting the stellar effective radius (i.e.\ a change in

2517: $\mtrue/\mstar$ with mass), rather than to traditional structural or

2518: kinematic non-homology (which would imply a constant ratio of

2519: $\mtrue/\mstar$, with a changing apparent mass from the dynamical mass

2520: estimator; i.e.\ a varying $\mtrue/\mdyn$ with mass).

2521: 

2522: This is despite the systematic variation of extra light fraction with

2523: mass (reflecting the systematic dependence of dissipational or initial

2524: disk gas fraction). In other words, while there is technically a

2525: subtle non-homology implicit in the fact that the dissipational

2526: fraction depends on mass (and, as a result, the fitted $\fextra$ and

2527: $\fsb$ change with mass, whereas they would be constant for true

2528: perfectly self-similar systems), it does not contribute any

2529: significant or observationally meaningful structural or kinematic

2530: non-homology.  The ``homology assumption,'' namely that the ratio of

2531: the dynamical mass estimator to the true enclosed mass within the

2532: effective radius ($\mtrue/\mdyn$) is constant, is predicted to hold,

2533: while the FP is satisfied.

2534: 

2535: \begin{figure}

2536:     \centering

2537:     %\plotone{mdyn_mtot.ps}

2538:     \plotter{f22.ps}

2539:     \caption{{\em Top:} The correlation between the dynamical mass 

2540:     estimator $\mdyn = \mdynnorm\,\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}/G$ and 

2541:     the true total mass $\mtrue$ (stellar plus dark matter) enclosed 

2542:     within $R_{e}$ (as in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred.trueM}), 

2543:     for the same simulations shown in our predicted 

2544:     FP (Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}). Dashed line is a fit of the form 

2545:     $\mtrue \propto \mdyn^{1+\delta}$, with the best-fit value of 

2546:     $\delta$ shown: the best fit is indistinguishable from 

2547:     the $\mtrue = \mdyn$ line (i.e.\ has no ``tilt''). 

2548:     {\em Bottom:} Same, for the observed systems from Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred.trueM}, 

2549:     using integral modeling \citep[][magenta squares]{cappellari:fp} 

2550:     or lensing mass maps \citep[][orange triangles]{bolton:fp,bolton:fp.update} to estimate 

2551:     the true mass $\mtrue$. The best-fit coefficients $\mtrue\propto\mdyn^{1+\delta}$ 

2552:     are shown for each observed sample. The simulations we use to predict the 

2553:     FP, and the observed systems on the FP, 

2554:     trace a nearly identical 

2555:     $\mtrue\propto\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}$ relation consistent with the 

2556:     traditional observational definition of the ``homology assumption.''    

2557:     \label{fig:mdyn.mstar}}

2558: \end{figure}

2559: 

2560: Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.mstar} demonstrates this explicitly: we plot the

2561: ratio of true enclosed mass to the dynamical mass estimator,

2562: specifically for the {\em same} simulations we used to predict the FP

2563: and its tilt.  The ratio $\mtrue/\mdyn$ is constant despite changing

2564: dissipational fractions; fitting a power law $\mtrue \propto

2565: \mdyn^{1+\delta}$, we obtain $\delta= -0.01 \pm 0.01$ (both

2566: insignificant and completely negligible compared to the observed value

2567: of the FP tilt, $\tilt\approx0.2$); i.e.\ the ``homology assumption''

2568: is valid in the observational sense as applied to these simulations,

2569: and there is no significant implied systematic structural or kinematic

2570: non-homology (in the traditional sense of the term) as a function of

2571: mass.

2572: 

2573: We compare these predictions with observed ``true'' enclosed masses

2574: within the effective radii of observed systems, using two different

2575: approaches for estimating the true enclosed mass (without explicitly

2576: invoking the homology assumption). First, \citet{cappellari:fp}

2577: estimated total masses from three-dimensional Schwarzchild modeling or

2578: two-dimensional Jeans modeling of local ellipticals with

2579: two-dimensional velocity field information from SAURON maps \citep[see

2580: also][]{emsellem:sauron.rotation,

2581: mcdermid:sauron.profiles,cappellari:anisotropy}, and used stellar

2582: population models to estimate stellar masses (we correct these for the

2583: choice of IMF, but otherwise do not modify them).  We also have

2584: considered integral modeling masses from other, independent sources

2585: \citep[e.g.][]{vandermarel:ml.models, kronawitter:ml.models,haringrix}

2586: and obtain identical results in each case.

2587: 

2588: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred.trueM} plots the FP of these objects; i.e.\

2589: the true enclosed mass determined in this manner as a function of

2590: stellar mass. The tilt, in agreement with the simulations, is nearly

2591: identical to that given by the dynamical mass estimator $\mdyn$.  This

2592: is clear in Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.mstar}, where we compare the

2593: predicted correlation between $\mdyn$ and $\mtrue$ with these

2594: observations (we apply the same definition of $\mdyn$ to the observed

2595: objects as to the simulations, namely $\mdyn=

2596: \mdynnorm\,R_{e}\,\sigma^{2}/G$).  As noted by \citet{cappellari:fp},

2597: there is a tight correlation between $\mdyn$ and $\mtrue$ without any

2598: significant deviation in this space from the homology assumption

2599: ($\delta=+0.012\pm0.019$).  Not only does this tight proportionality

2600: ($\delta\approx0$) agree with our simulations, but the normalization

2601: fitted to the observed sample, i.e.\ mean ratio $\mtrue \approx

2602: \mdynnorm\,R_{e}\,\sigma^{2}/G$, agrees with that predicted by the

2603: simulations over the observed mass range to better than $0.03$\,dex,

2604: further suggesting that the structural properties and profile shapes

2605: of the simulations are in good agreement with those observed.

2606: 

2607: Second, \citet{bolton:fp,bolton:fp.update} have performed a similar exercise, but using

2608: instead the enclosed masses determined from gravitational lensing.  We

2609: compare their FP (i.e.\ $\mtrue(\mstar)$) in

2610: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred.trueM}, and again find similar tilt to that

2611: predicted by the simulations (using the true enclosed mass within

2612: $R_{e}$ as $\mtrue$) and to that obtained using $\mdyn$ instead of

2613: $\mtrue$. Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.mstar} shows that, for these objects as

2614: well, $\mtrue\propto\mdyn$ ($\delta=-0.004\pm0.034\approx0$), with

2615: again a normalization (mean $\mtrue/\mdyn$) in agreement with the

2616: simulations to within $0.02$\,dex. Note that the authors restricted

2617: themselves to true masses and dynamical masses within $R_{e}/2$; if we

2618: use their lens models to correct the true masses to $R_{e}$ and take

2619: the corresponding dynamical masses at that radius, we obtain identical

2620: results.

2621: 

2622: The simulations reproduce the observed, nearly exact proportionality

2623: between $\mtrue$ and $\mdyn$, and therefore show the same FP behavior

2624: as has been seen in the observations: namely that the FP tilt remains

2625: similar regardless of whether $\mdyn$ or $\mtrue$ is considered.  This

2626: demonstrates the point from \S~\ref{sec:diss.fx}, that non-homology

2627: (in the general, observationally motivated sense of different

2628: $\mtrue/\mdyn$ as a function of galaxy properties) is not a

2629: significant contributor to the FP tilt.

2630: 

2631: \breaker

2632: \section{Re-Mergers and FP Evolution}

2633: \label{sec:remergers}

2634: 

2635: The predictions we seek to test, 

2636: and the observed dependence of FP tilt on the degree

2637: of dissipation which we have demonstrated, hold in the same manner for

2638: both cusp and core ellipticals.  However, a number of observed

2639: properties \citep[see e.g.][]{faber:ell.centers} suggest that core

2640: ellipticals may be the products of subsequent ``dry'' or

2641: spheroid-spheroid, relatively gas-free re-mergers of (generally

2642: lower-mass) cusp ellipticals (formed directly in gas-rich mergers).

2643: If true, do we expect the level of agreement we see?

2644: 

2645: The answer is generally yes, provided that the number of re-mergers is

2646: not large. Numerical experiments

2647: \citep[e.g.][]{capelato:dry.mgr.fp,dantas:dry.mgr.fp,nipoti:dry.mergers,

2648: boylankolchin:mergers.fp,robertson:fp} indicate that remnants of

2649: dissipationless mergers of systems which begin on the FP tend to

2650: remain on the FP.  Even if the re-merger introduces no new tilt,

2651: its effects would be small.  To lowest order, since the gas is mostly

2652: exhausted, the re-merger will be dissipationless, and merging two

2653: identical systems $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ on a parabolic orbit, one

2654: expects their profiles to be roughly preserved. This leads to

2655: the energy conservation equation

2656: \begin{equation}

2657: E_{f} = k\,{(M_{1}+M_{2})}\,\sigma_{f}^{2} = E_{i} = k\,M_{1}\,\sigma_{1}^{2} + k\,M_{2}\,\sigma_{2}^{2}

2658: \end{equation}

2659: where $\sigma_{f}$ is the velocity dispersion of the final remnant,

2660: and $k$ is a constant that depends on the shape of the profile. From

2661: this, one obtains the general rule that a major 1:1 merger will

2662: approximately double $R_{e}$ while preserving $\sigma$, doubling both

2663: $\mdyn$ and $\mstar$ \citep[e.g.][]{hausman:mergers,hernquist:phasespace}.

2664: 

2665: Relative to the FP scaling, $\mdyn\propto\mstar^{1.2}$, the remnant is

2666: now $\sim0.06$\,dex below the FP expectation -- only

2667: $\sim0.3-0.5\,\sigma$ ($\sigma$ being the observed FP scatter). 

2668: So even if the system increases its mass by a

2669: total factor of $\sim4-5$ via dry re-mergers (i.e.\ has $\sim$ two

2670: equal-mass re-mergers or $\sim5-6$ more typical 1:3 mass ratio

2671: re-mergers), it will move by only $\sim1\,\sigma$ with respect to the

2672: FP.

2673: 

2674: Compare this to the impact of dissipation, which as we demonstrate in

2675: \S~\ref{sec:obs} can change the effective radius and ratio

2676: $\mdyn/\mstar$ (at fixed stellar mass) by nearly an order of

2677: magnitude. We therefore expect that, unless a system has experienced

2678: an extreme number of major dry re-mergers (expected only for the

2679: rarest, most massive central cluster galaxies), the degree of

2680: dissipation (i.e.\ properties we study herein) should be the dominant

2681: factor determining the effective radii, ratio of dynamical to stellar

2682: mass, and location with respect to the FP.

2683: 

2684: \begin{figure}

2685:     \centering

2686:     %\plotone{remerger_fp.ps}

2687:     \plotter{f23.ps}

2688:     \caption{{\em Top:} Impact of subsequent spheroid-spheroid re-mergers 

2689:     on the FP. We show the observed FP from Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred} (black line), 

2690:     with the initial and final positions of simulated systems before and after a 

2691:     major re-merger (point style as Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}; lines connect each 

2692:     re-merger to its progenitor). 

2693:     {\em Bottom:} The cumulative distribution in relative dynamical to stellar mass 

2694:     ratio before and after a major re-merger, in our entire ensemble of 

2695:     re-merger simulations. Vertical dashed (dotted) line shows 

2696:     the median ($\pm1\,\sigma$) change in $\mdyn/\mstar$. 

2697:     Re-mergers tend to slightly increase $\mdyn/\mstar$, by almost exactly the amount 

2698:     needed to move parallel to the FP ($0.06\,$dex), but with non-negligible 

2699:     scatter ($\sim0.065\,$dex). 

2700:     \label{fig:remergers}}

2701: \end{figure}

2702: 

2703: Furthermore, it has been noted \citep{boylankolchin:mergers.fp,

2704: boylankolchin:dry.mergers,ciotti:dry.vs.wet.mergers} that re-mergers can slightly increase

2705: $\mdyn/\mstar$, essentially causing systems to move nearly parallel to

2706: the FP.  We consider a sample of re-merger simulations, described in

2707: \S~\ref{sec:sims}, in order to demonstrate this in

2708: Figure~\ref{fig:remergers}. Specifically, these are identical (mass

2709: ratio 1:1) re-mergers of remnants of previous gas-rich, disk-disk

2710: mergers, merged in various orbital configurations. The details are

2711: discussed in \S~\ref{sec:sims}, but we note that although we plot only

2712: identical re-mergers here (for illustrative purposes), the results

2713: scale appropriately for different mass ratios and various mixed

2714: encounters (i.e.\ merging different spheroid remnants of similar

2715: mass).  Plotting both the pre and post-remerger systems on the FP in

2716: Figure~\ref{fig:remergers}, we see that they move nearly parallel to

2717: the fitted relation ($\tilt\approx0.2$).  Quantitatively,

2718: the median increase in dynamical to stellar mass ratio is

2719: $\sim0.06\,$dex, precisely as needed to move the system along the

2720: FP (to offset the $\sim0.06$\,dex offset from the FP estimated above,

2721: if $\mdyn/\mstar$ were exactly conserved in a re-merger).

2722: 

2723: %One possible explanation might be that the dark matter halo 

2724: %in these re-mergers is ``puffed up'' by less than the stellar 

2725: %component, lowering the relative density of stellar material in the 

2726: %center. However, we find in \paperthree\ that the expansion factor 

2727: %is $\approx2$ for both stellar material and dark matter. To the extent 

2728: %that there is a difference, we would generically expect it to 

2729: %have the {\em opposite} sense, because in mergers there is a 

2730: %general tendency for the orbital energy and angular 

2731: %momentum to be transferred to the most weakly bound material 

2732: %(i.e.\ the halo) in contrast to the tightly bound baryonic material 

2733: %\citep{barnes:?}. In fact we do see this effect, but it is 

2734: %relatively weak near the central regions of the halo 

2735: %within the galaxy effective radius. 

2736: %

2737: %The more likely explanation is that, 

2738: 

2739: This effect is subtly related to e.g.\ changes in the orbital isotropy

2740: and kinematics of the remnant in a re-merger, but primarily owes to a

2741: real (albeit small) physical increase in the ratio of enclosed dark

2742: matter mass within the stellar effective radius (the progenitors and

2743: remnants obey the ``homology assumption'' as in

2744: Figure~\ref{fig:mdyn.mstar}, and we see an almost identical effect

2745: plotting the true enclosed mass instead of $\mdyn$).  Considering

2746: the initial and final distributions of stellar and dark matter

2747: particles as a function of their initial radius, it is straightforward

2748: to understand this effect.

2749: 

2750: Despite the nearly uniform inflation of the light profile in a

2751: re-merger, there is substantial scattering of stars (and dark matter): i.e.\ although

2752: stars at some initial $r_{i}$ will be, at the end of the merger, at a

2753: median $r_{f}\approx2\,r_{i}$, the distribution of final radii will be

2754: approximately lognormal with scatter $\approx0.4\,$dex (see

2755: \paperthree). The integrated stellar mass will be constant, but such

2756: a scattering will tend to broaden the dark matter distribution 

2757: in a way that slightly increases the dark matter mass {\em within} the 

2758: stellar $R_{e}$ --

2759: i.e.\ scatter some dark matter from near the effective radius of the

2760: halo to both smaller and larger radii (total dark matter mass is

2761: conserved, but the densities are slightly lower near the halo

2762: effective radius -- which is much larger than the galaxy effective

2763: radius which concerns us here -- and slightly higher at much smaller

2764: and larger radii). This will slightly raise the central dark matter

2765: density, in a way consistent with the observed (weak) change in

2766: $\mdyn/\mstar$ in re-mergers (effectively mixing slightly more 

2767: dark matter into the stellar distribution).  The net effect of this is that

2768: re-mergers move systems even less with respect to the FP, and

2769: dissipation is still the dominant factor setting $\mdyn/\mstar$.

2770: 

2771: Figure~\ref{fig:remergers} also demonstrates that although re-mergers

2772: tend, in the mean, to increase $\mdyn/\mstar$ such that they move

2773: parallel to the FP, there is significant scatter in the change in

2774: $\mdyn/\mstar$ in re-mergers (in detail, the median increase is

2775: $0.06\,$dex, but there is a $1\,\sigma$ scatter of $\sim0.065$\,dex

2776: about this median). We therefore expect that growing a population of

2777: ellipticals by a factor $\sim2$ in re-mergers (equivalent to a single

2778: 1:1 or three 1:3 re-merger for most of the objects in the

2779: population) will contribute $\sim0.06$\,dex intrinsic scatter in

2780: $\mdyn(\mstar)$. Compared to the intrinsic scatter (in terms of

2781: sightline-averaged quantities) of $\sim0.08$\,dex, this is

2782: significant, yielding a final intrinsic scatter of $\sim0.10$\,dex.

2783: However, after accounting for the additional $\sim0.1$\,dex

2784: sightline-to-sightline scatter, and observational effects, the

2785: contributed scatter is negligible compared to the final observed

2786: $\sim0.18\,$dex scatter in $\mdyn(\mstar)$.  That the observed scatter

2787: is not much larger does suggest there has not been dramatic

2788: re-merging, but the constraint is weak -- it would take $\sim4-5$

2789: major (mass ratio 1:1) dry mergers (or $\sim10$ more likely 1:3

2790: dry mergers) to noticeably increase the observed FP scatter at the

2791: massive end.

2792: 

2793: 

2794: \breaker

2795: \section{Discussion}

2796: \label{sec:discuss}

2797: 

2798: We have developed and implemented a set of observational tests of the

2799: theoretical proposal that different degrees of dissipation are

2800: responsible for the tilt in the fundamental plane, 

2801: (suggested in e.g.\ 

2802: \citet{djorgovski:fp.tilt,kormendy:dissipation,bender:ell.kinematics,

2803: ciotti:kinematic.nonhomology} 

2804: and developed in numerical simulations in 

2805: \citet{bekki:fp.origin.tsf,onorbe:diss.fp.model,

2806: robertson:fp} and \citet{dekelcox:fp}). 

2807: With measurements

2808: of the surface brightness profiles of ellipticals of sufficient

2809: accuracy and high dynamic range, we demonstrated in

2810: \paperone-\paperthree\ that it is possible to design an empirical

2811: decomposition which reliably separates the dissipational (original

2812: merger-driven starburst) and dissipationless (scattered stars from the

2813: original stellar disks) components of galaxy light profiles. Applying

2814: this to a large sample of observed ellipticals, we study here how

2815: their FP correlations relate to the mass fractions in the

2816: dissipational (or ``extra light''/starburst) component.

2817: 

2818: We show that systems with larger dissipational fractions have smaller

2819: effective radii for their stellar masses and lower ratios of total

2820: (stellar plus dark matter) mass to stellar mass within their effective

2821: radii (equivalently, lower $\mdyn/\mstar$) -- i.e.\ that dissipation

2822: can and does move objects onto the FP, in the manner 

2823: predicted by \citet{robertson:fp}.  More important, we show that

2824: {\em without the effects of a systematic dependence of the degree of

2825: dissipation on mass, there is no significant FP ``tilt''}. In other

2826: words, systems with the same dissipational/starburst fractions, even

2827: over a wide range in mass ($\sim2-3\,$dex), exhibit a constant ratio

2828: $\mtrue\propto\mstar$.  Dissipation not only {\em can} tilt systems on

2829: the FP, it is {\em required} to explain the FP tilt.

2830: 

2831: The tilt originates because of an expected systematic dependence of

2832: dissipational content on mass, arising because lower-mass disks (the

2833: progenitors of lower-mass ellipticals in this scenario) tend to be

2834: more gas rich. Therefore, lower-mass systems will, on average, undergo

2835: more dissipational mergers. This appears to be true even out to

2836: redshifts $z\sim2-3$, so that the exact formation times of the systems

2837: are not especially important.  Quantitatively, if we convolve the

2838: expected dependence of dissipational fraction on mass (from e.g.\ the

2839: dependence of gas fraction on disk mass, or from the clear mean

2840: systematic trend we see in the fits to the observed ellipticals) with

2841: the dependence of $\mdyn/\mstar$ on dissipational fraction, we obtain

2842: a prediction for the FP which is ``tilted'' in a manner similar to

2843: that observed, $\mdyn\propto\mstar^{1.2}$.  

2844: 

2845: Of course, merger-induced starbursts may not be the only source of 

2846: dissipation; for example, stellar mass loss may replenish the gas supply and 

2847: lead to new dissipational bursts \citep[see e.g.][]{ciottiostriker:recycling}. 

2848: Moreover, the merger history and series of induced dissipational events may be 

2849: more complex than a single or couple of idealized major mergers 

2850: \citep[see e.g.][]{kobayashi:pseudo.monolithic,naab:etg.formation}. For 

2851: our purposes, however, all dissipational star formation will appear similar when observed 

2852: and have the same effects -- we are essentially measuring the integrated amount of 

2853: dissipation, and testing the idea that the presence of this dissipation can explain the 

2854: difference between spheroid and disk scaling relations. 

2855: In any case, the result is the same, and 

2856: the agreement with disk gas fractions over the redshift range of interest 

2857: suggests star-forming galaxies are viable candidates for the ultimate progenitor systems of 

2858: ellipticals (however complex 

2859: the details of the morphological transformation may be). 

2860: In short, the systematic dependence

2861: of the degree of dissipation on mass in elliptical formation is both {\em necessary}

2862: and {\em sufficient} to explain the FP tilt.

2863: 

2864: 

2865: \subsection{Possible Sources of Tilt: Why Dissipation is the Only Viable Possibility}

2866: \label{sec:discuss:alt}

2867: 

2868: This conclusion is, to our knowledge, consistent with all existing

2869: observational constraints on the FP.  We note that repeating our

2870: experiments with alternative IMFs affects only the normalizations of

2871: the quoted relations; considering alternative stellar evolution models

2872: such as those of \citet{starburst99} or \citet{maraston:ssps},

2873: compared to the default calibration from \citet{BC03} in

2874: \citet{bell:mfs} makes no difference, since ellipticals are almost

2875: all relatively old and the model differences focus on young stellar

2876: populations.  Assuming, therefore, that there is not some dramatic

2877: error in the stellar population models or the observed effective

2878: radii, then there are only a limited number of possible explanations

2879: for the FP ``tilt.'' \\

2880: 

2881: {\em Non-Homology:} Technically, this refers to systems being not

2882: perfectly self-similar. This must be broken in any model in which

2883: there is a dependence or ``tilt'' in the physical mass within some

2884: radius and the stellar mass $\mstar$. In practice, the more practical 

2885: meaning of ``homology'' is that systems have the same ratio of

2886: dynamical mass to true enclosed total mass within their effective

2887: radii; i.e.\ dynamical mass is a good proxy for true mass without a

2888: systematic dependence on other galaxy properties. In other words,

2889: $\mtrue = k\,R_{e}\,\sigma^{2}/G$ where $k\approx$\,constant ($\mtrue

2890: \propto R_{e}\,\sigma^{2}/G$ is expected on dimensional grounds; $k$

2891: is the integral argument which depends on e.g.\ the details of profile

2892: shape and kinematics).  There are two general possibilities:

2893: 

2894: {\em (a) Kinematic Non-Homology:} In this case, the meaning of

2895: $\sigma$ changes with mass, either because of different contributions

2896: of rotationally supported components, or because of varying isotropy.

2897: Essentially all studies have found that this effect does not

2898: contribute to the FP tilt \citep[see e.g.][and references

2899: therein]{gerhard:giant.ell.dynamics,riciputi:rotation.fp.tilt,cappellari:anisotropy,

2900: nipoti:homology.from.mp};

2901: specifically that there is no correlation between FP residuals and

2902: orbital anisotropy or rotation (within the elliptical population). Moreover, 

2903: \citet{ciotti:kinematic.nonhomology} demonstrated that reproducing 

2904: the observed tilt with such trends would require models with internally  

2905: inconsistent or unphysical orbit structure. 

2906: 

2907: {\em (b) Structural Non-Homology:} Alternatively, the shape of the

2908: light profile could change sufficiently, such that e.g.\ even if two

2909: systems were both spherical with isotropic velocity dispersion

2910: tensors, the integral term relating $\mtrue$ and $\mdyn$ is

2911: significantly different. (Note that this is not really independent of {\em (a)}; 

2912: the dominant effect of a change in the mass profile shape is generally to 

2913: change the central velocity dispersion, and correspondingly $\mdyn$, 

2914: rather than dramatically changing e.g.\ the physical meaning of $R_{e}$, and 

2915: differences in mass profile shape will generically require some kinematic 

2916: non-homology.)

2917: There has been debate regarding this

2918: possibility, as some observational studies

2919: \citep[e.g.][]{prugniel:fp.non-homology, trujillo:non-homology} have

2920: argued that the observed dependence of galaxy Sersic index on mass is

2921: sufficient to drive the tilt in the FP via structural non-homology.

2922: Others have noted, however, that integral models which allow for

2923: multiple components

2924: or do not explicitly assume a constant $M/L$ with

2925: radius do {\em not} find such non-homology

2926: \citep[e.g.][]{carollo95:dm,rix97:dm,

2927: gerhard:giant.ell.dynamics,gerhard03:mdyn,padmanabhan:mdyn.mstar.tilt,

2928: cappellari:fp}. Moreover, invoking structural non-homology 

2929: can generally explain only differences in {\em central} velocity dispersion (the 

2930: predicted FP tilt from such dynamical models disappears rapidly as 

2931: $\sigma$ is measured at somewhat larger fractions of $R_{e}$); the 

2932: fact that the FP tilt is not dramatically reduced using velocity dispersions 

2933: measured in larger apertures (even out to $R_{e}$) rules out most classes 

2934: of such models \citep{bender:velocity.structure,ciotti:kinematic.nonhomology,

2935: simien:kinematics.1,simien:kinematics.6,emsellem:sauron.rotation.data,

2936: cappellari:fp,nipoti:homology.from.mp}.

2937: 

2938: Our analysis is able to explain {\em both} sides of this debate.

2939: Fitting galaxy light profiles in a simplified manner, to a single

2940: Sersic index, does {\em appear} to yield a significant dependence of

2941: Sersic index on stellar mass, luminosity, or size. In \paperone, we

2942: demonstrate that this is true of our simulations -- i.e.\ when

2943: analyzed in the same manner as the observations, they appear to yield

2944: an identical dependence of Sersic index on mass to that found in

2945: \citet{prugniel:fp.non-homology} and \citet{trujillo:non-homology} 

2946: (less massive systems, chosen in the same manner as those here to 

2947: have higher typical dissipational fractions, have lower fitted Sersic 

2948: indices over the same observational dynamic range; see also 

2949: \paperthree) --

2950: even though (at fixed degree of dissipation), the systems are

2951: effectively homologous. Why, then, does this occur?

2952: 

2953: The answer owes to the fact that a single Sersic index is {\em not} a

2954: physically robust description of the light profile of an elliptical

2955: over its entire extent, and it also fails to include the dark matter

2956: distribution. Such a fit mixes the outer dissipationless component of

2957: the remnant with the inner, compact starburst remnant.  All the

2958: observed samples which appear to find a dependence of Sersic index on

2959: mass, when re-analyzed based on our physically motivated two-component

2960: decomposition, in fact reveal that the outer, dissipationless

2961: Sersic-like component is {\em self-similar} (see \papertwo\ and

2962: \paperthree); what changes with mass or radius is the mass fraction in

2963: the central dissipational component.  Furthermore, because of the true

2964: multi-component nature of galaxy light profiles, fitting a single

2965: Sersic index yields different answers as a function of the dynamic

2966: range employed: for fixed observing conditions, this yields an

2967: apparent correlation of Sersic index with galaxy mass or size

2968: \citep[see

2969: e.g.][]{padmanabhan:mdyn.mstar.tilt,boylankolchin:mergers.fp}.

2970: Because of the role of e.g.\ the mass fraction at large 

2971: radii and subtle differences in the second derivatives 

2972: of profile shape near $R_{e}$ in driving a fitted Sersic index, 

2973: the observed dependence of Sersic index on mass 

2974: reflects a complex mix of real differences in galaxy merger history 

2975: (the fact that low-mass systems have undergone more dissipational 

2976: mergers, and that high-mass systems are increasingly likely to have undergone 

2977: subsequent re-mergers, which will conserve the FP but scatter some small 

2978: stellar mass to larger radii, leading to larger fitted Sersic indices) 

2979: and observational differences in dynamic range, but little 

2980: significant non-homology.

2981: 

2982: We have demonstrated here (\S~\ref{sec:diss.fx}) and in \papertwo\

2983: that differences in the degree of dissipation (i.e.\ in the strength

2984: of the central ``extra light'' component) -- while capable of driving

2985: substantial differences in the {\em fitted} Sersic index when the

2986: galaxy is fit to a single Sersic law -- do {\em not} in fact drive

2987: traditional non-homology. They are not a large enough

2988: fraction of the total mass to dramatically alter the structural

2989: integrals. This should not be surprising: the dependence of

2990: $\mtrue/\mdyn$ on Sersic index (in models where the mass distribution

2991: follows a pure Sersic law) is primarily driven by the behavior at {\em

2992: large} radii -- large Sersic indices asymptotically approach the

2993: power-law behavior $I(r)\propto r^{-2}$, which implies a divergent

2994: mass at large $r$, and an implied effective radius

2995: $R_{e}\rightarrow\infty$ and rapidly 

2996: increasing central velocity dispersion. This is precisely where observed profiles

2997: are in fact self-similar (in a mean sense; there is considerable

2998: variation object-to-object), with at most a weak dependence on

2999: formation history (i.e.\ median difference $\Delta n_{s}\sim1$ for

3000: those which have undergone major ``dry'' mergers; much less than is

3001: needed to explain the FP tilt), as we demonstrate in both observations

3002: and simulations in \papertwo\ and \paperthree.  

3003: 

3004: Further, at these radii, the mass density is increasingly dark

3005: matter-dominated: the structure integrals only depend significantly on

3006: the Sersic index $n_{s}$ if the dark matter profile is also described

3007: by the same Sersic index -- i.e.\ if the {\em total} $M/L$ is a

3008: constant function of radius, whereas essentially all kinematic data at

3009: large radii indicates this is not the case (dark matter is required to

3010: explain the kinematics at large radii). As we have shown, and as

3011: demonstrated in observational kinematic modeling

3012: \citep[e.g.][]{padmanabhan:mdyn.mstar.tilt,cappellari:fp} and lensing

3013: studies \citep{bolton:fp,bolton:fp.update}, the dark matter distribution is relatively

3014: insensitive to the details of the stellar mass distribution shape, and

3015: therefore the {\em actual} non-homology driven by even large changes

3016: in the stellar $n_{s}$ is much less than would be calculated assuming

3017: the dark matter followed the same profile \citep[if it were not so,

3018: the observed large dispersion in $n_{s}$ values would necessarily

3019: yield much larger scatter about the FP than is observed; see

3020: e.g.][]{bertin:weak.homology}.

3021: 

3022: The implication that a change in $n_{s}$ should lead to significant

3023: structural non-homology is therefore misleading: the observed

3024: dependence of $n_{s}$ on mass owes mainly to issues of finite dynamic

3025: range and varying dissipational fractions, none of which give rise to

3026: significant structural non-homology.  However, extrapolating to large

3027: radii based on these estimated $n_{s}$ values and the {\em incorrect}

3028: assumptions (1) that a single Sersic law is a physically meaningful

3029: parameterization of the galaxy light profile, and (2) that dark matter

3030: traces the stellar matter in a strict one-to-one fashion, implies

3031: (incorrectly) some structural non-homology.

3032: 

3033: Moreover, many studies indicate that dynamical mass is proportional to

3034: true enclosed mass (without requiring any homology assumption); i.e.\

3035: that there cannot be a large contribution to tilt from {\em any} form

3036: of traditional non-homology, whether kinematic or structural.  There

3037: are now independent lines of support for this conclusion:

3038: \citet{cappellari:fp} \citep[see also][]{vandermarel:ml.models,

3039: kronawitter:ml.models,haringrix} estimate true enclosed masses within

3040: $R_{e}$ based on two and three-integral modeling, from two-dimensional

3041: velocity maps of observed ellipticals. Alternatively,

3042: \citet{bolton:fp,bolton:fp.update} measure strong lensing gravitational masses.  In

3043: both cases, the authors find $\mtrue\propto\mdyn$, without any

3044: significant dependence on mass -- in other words, the FP is unchanged

3045: regardless of whether the true total mass enclosed in $R_{e}$ is used,

3046: or whether the dynamical mass proxy $\mdyn$ is used. It appears that at most, 

3047: at the $\sim3\,\sigma$ limits on the observed $\mtrue-\mdyn$ relation 

3048: (and based on the fitted $\mtrue-\mstar$ relations in Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred.trueM}), 

3049: these traditional forms of non-homology may contribute $\sim1/4$ the observed tilt. 

3050:  \\

3051: 

3052: {\em Genuine Change in $M/L$:} 

3053: The observations therefore imply that the FP must reflect a genuine physical

3054: difference as a function of mass: namely, that low-mass ellipticals

3055: have a higher ratio of stellar or baryonic mass to total (baryonic

3056: plus dark matter) mass within the stellar $R_{e}$, relative to

3057: high-mass ellipticals.  All means of achieving this end can be

3058: classified into one of three categories:

3059: 

3060: {\em (a) Varying Global Baryon Fractions:} 

3061: One could imagine that the stellar and halo mass distributions of

3062: different ellipticals are separately self-similar, but that the {\em

3063: total} ratio of stellar to halo mass changes as a function of galaxy

3064: mass. In other words, there are no structural changes implied: one

3065: decreases the halo mass relative to galaxy mass in lower-mass systems.

3066: 

3067: While this may seem plausible at the highest galaxy masses (it is well

3068: established that in bright clusters, the total stellar to dark matter

3069: mass ratio decreases with mass), this is relevant over much larger

3070: scales than the stellar $R_{e}$ of the central galaxy.  Moreover, over

3071: most of the mass range of interest, the known trends in global stellar

3072: to dark matter fractions are {\em opposite} to that needed to

3073: explain the FP tilt.

3074: 

3075: At masses below $\sim\mstar$, where the FP is observed to be

3076: continuous (recall, the observed FP and its tilt extend to systems

3077: with masses $< 10^{-2}\,\mstar$), all $\Lambda$CDM models

3078: \citep[e.g.][]{conroy:monotonic.hod,

3079: zentner:substructure.sam.hod,zheng:hod,

3080: valeostriker:monotonic.hod,shankar06,vandenbosch:concordance.hod}

3081: and observational constraints

3082: \citep[][]{eke:groups,yang:obs.clf,mandelbaum:mhalo,

3083: weinmann:obs.hod,wang:sdss.hod} {\em require} that the ratio of {\em

3084: total} dark matter halo mass to stellar mass is {\em higher} in

3085: lower-mass systems -- i.e.\ that star formation is less efficient in

3086: low-mass systems.  This is contrary to the effect desired here, and

3087: demonstrates that the FP tilt cannot owe to a simple global change in

3088: baryon fraction.  Indirectly, however, the cosmological trend of

3089: stellar to dark matter mass is in fact important -- this lower star

3090: formation efficiency in low-mass systems means that they have larger

3091: gas fractions when they undergo mergers, which we show does give rise

3092: to the FP tilt.

3093: 

3094: If the global baryonic mass ratio is unchanging at small radii (or

3095: changes in the opposite sense needed to tilt the FP), then the only

3096: other possibility is that the size/shape of the halo and stellar

3097: distributions vary relative to one another: i.e.\ one of the two

3098: components is made more or less compact, relative to the other,

3099: altering the ratio of stellar to total mass within the stellar

3100: $R_{e}$.  Recall, the radii of interest are small relative to the halo

3101: virial radii, and contain only a small fraction of the total halo dark

3102: matter mass, so regardless of the total halo to stellar mass ratio,

3103: changing the compactness of one component relative to the other can

3104: make a significant difference.  There two possibilities for this

3105: relative contraction/expansion:

3106: 

3107: {\em (b) Baryons are Fixed, Halos Contract:} In this scenario, the

3108: galaxy stellar mass distributions are ``scale free'' (i.e.\ do not

3109: change owing to external factors), but the dark matter halos are less

3110: compact in low-mass ellipticals, so that within the stellar $R_{e}$

3111: (i.e.\ the central regions of the halo) the total dark matter mass

3112: fraction enclosed is lower. This is quickly ruled out: all

3113: cosmological models

3114: \citep[e.g.][]{nfw:profile,bullock:concentrations,wechsler:concentration,

3115: dolag:concentrations,kuhlen:concentrations,neto:concentrations} and

3116: observations from e.g.\ weak lensing and X-ray mass measurements

3117: \citep{buote:obs.concentrations,schmidt:obs.concentrations,

3118: comerford:obs.concentrations} find that halo concentration is a weak,

3119: {\em decreasing} function of galaxy mass, the opposite of the effect

3120: desired.

3121: 

3122: Furthermore, if this were the case, one would expect to see it in

3123: progenitor disks, as well (the halos are insensitive to the morphological

3124: transformation of their central galaxies) -- however, the baryonic

3125: Tully-Fisher relation and constraints on the dark matter halos of

3126: disks \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{persic90,persic96,belldejong:tf,mcgaugh:tf}

3127: reflect the expected cosmological trends (namely, baryon fractions and

3128: halo sizes scaling as predicted in $\Lambda$CDM, in a weaker and

3129: opposite sense from that necessary if the FP tilt were to be explained

3130: in this manner).  In short, effects {\em (a)} and {\em (b)} would

3131: predict that disks should follow the same FP scalings as ellipticals

3132: (modulo possible normalization offsets) -- while in fact, they obey

3133: different scalings with, in many cases, an {\em opposite} qualitative

3134: sense \citep[e.g.\ their size-mass, velocity-mass, surface

3135: brightness-mass, and FP scalings;][]{fj76,kormendy:dissipation,shen:size.mass}.

3136: 

3137: 

3138: \begin{figure}

3139:     \centering

3140:     \scaleup

3141:     %\plotone{kinematics_full_compare.ps}

3142:     \plotter{f24.ps}

3143:     \caption{{\em Top:} Mean stellar size-mass relation of ellipticals, from Figure~\ref{fig:fp.projections}, 

3144:     compared to that of disks (from \citet{shen:size.mass}). 

3145:     {\em Middle:} FP of spheroids and disks -- i.e.\ ratio of $\mdyn$ (evaluated at $R_{e}$) 

3146:     to $\mstar$. We show the observed ellipticals from Figure~\ref{fig:fp.pred}, 

3147:     and the best-fit power law $\mdyn\propto\mstar^{1+\tilt}$ 

3148:     to both relations (with corresponding uncertainties). Disk correlation is 

3149:     from the data in \citet{belldejong:tf}. 

3150:     At a given stellar mass, (low mass) spheroids have more compact stellar mass distributions, 

3151:     and less total mass ($\mdyn$) enclosed within their stellar $\re$. 

3152:     {\em Bottom:} Same, but measuring $\mdyn$ for the same observed ellipticals 

3153:     (from {\em middle})

3154:     at the mean expected radius of an equivalent (similar stellar mass) disk (from {\em top}). 

3155:     The best-fit relation to these data is shown; it is indistinguishable from the relation for 

3156:     disks. At the radii of their equivalent disks, ellipticals and disks have the {\em same} 

3157:     enclosed total (dark matter plus stellar) masses. The distribution of dark matter 

3158:     is {\em not} significantly different -- the smaller sizes and $\mdyn$ of ellipticals 

3159:     must reflect a contraction of the baryonic material relative to the 

3160:     dark matter, as predicted to occur in dissipative mergers. 

3161:     \label{fig:equiv.disks}}

3162: \end{figure}

3163: 

3164: 

3165: Figure~\ref{fig:equiv.disks} demonstrates this explicitly. We show the

3166: stellar size-mass relation of ellipticals (from

3167: Figure~\ref{fig:fp.projections}), compared to that of disks (from

3168: \citet{shen:size.mass}, but for our purposes here different sources

3169: agree well). Modulo a small normalization offset (owing to the profile

3170: shape), ellipticals would necessarily obey the same correlation if

3171: they were formed in purely dissipationless mergers 

3172: \citep[see also][]{ciotti.van.albada:msig.constraints.on.gal.form}.  Obviously,

3173: ellipticals at low mass (where we empirically estimate and

3174: theoretically expect dissipation to be important) are much more

3175: compact in their {\em stellar} distributions than disks.  We also

3176: compare the FP of both types of objects; i.e.\ dynamical mass $\mdyn$

3177: (measured within $R_{e}$ of the stellar light) versus stellar mass. We

3178: estimate the relation for disks based on the data and best-fit

3179: relations in \citet{belldejong:tf} 

3180: \citep[see also][who construct a similar correlation]{persic90,persic96}. 

3181: Note that, for our purposes here,

3182: it makes little difference whether we plot the baryonic or stellar

3183: mass (there is almost no difference for ellipticals, owing to their

3184: small gas content, and for disks, the relations fall within the quoted

3185: uncertainties in either case).  It also makes no significant

3186: difference whether we use the same virial constant $k$ to estimate

3187: $\mdyn$ for both disks and ellipticals, or attempt to make some

3188: correction for either profile shapes or the use of a velocity

3189: dispersion as opposed to a circular velocity (the difference is small,

3190: a factor $\lesssim2$, and we are ultimately interested in the

3191: qualitative scalings). 

3192: 

3193: It is clear (in agreement with previous work) 

3194: that the scaling of $\mdyn/\mstar$ in disks is opposite

3195: that of ellipticals: there is either no tilt or {\em inverse} tilt in

3196: the FP (i.e.\ $\mdyn/\mstar$ is the same or {\em higher} in low-mass

3197: disks).  For ellipticals where we have kinematic data as a function of

3198: radius, we can test whether the difference in the disk and elliptical

3199: scalings owes to effects {\em (a)} or {\em (b)}; we do so by

3200: evaluating their enclosed mass $\mdyn$ not at the observed stellar

3201: effective radius of the spheroid, but at the radius of an equivalent

3202: disk (i.e.\ at the mean $R_{e}$ of a disk of the same stellar

3203: mass). The resulting trend of $\mdyn$ versus $\mstar$ is

3204: indistinguishable from that of observed disks -- i.e.\ by considering

3205: elliptical properties at their equivalent disk radii (radii they would

3206: have in the absence of dissipation), we effectively remove the tilt of

3207: the FP, and recover the observed correlations of disks.

3208: 

3209: At the radius of a disk of similar mass (equivalently, at the radius

3210: the elliptical would have, if it were the product of a purely

3211: dissipationless merger of stellar disks), ellipticals have the same

3212: enclosed total mass as equivalent disks. In other words, at the same

3213: (equivalent dissipationless) radius, disks and ellipticals of the same

3214: mass have the same dark matter mass content and distribution. 

3215: In general, it is observationally well-established that the 

3216: FP correlations 

3217: of ellipticals become less distinct from those of disks as 

3218: their properties are measured at larger radii. These

3219: correlations clearly rule out scenarios {\em (a)} and {\em (b)} above:

3220: if case {\em (b)} were true, disks and ellipticals should obey a

3221: similar stellar size-mass relation, and at the $R_{e}$ of an

3222: equivalent disk, ellipticals should still have much lower $\mdyn$ than 

3223: spirals. If case {\em (a)} were true (i.e.\ both stellar and dark matter were more

3224: compact in ellipticals, but with lower total dark matter to stellar

3225: mass ratios), then we would again expect much lower $\mdyn$ at the

3226: equivalent disk radius in ellipticals.

3227: 

3228: 

3229: {\em (c) Halos are Fixed, Baryons Contract:} 

3230: The only remaining possibility is our conclusion in this paper:

3231: namely, that the FP tilt arises because lower-mass spheroids have more

3232: compact {\em stellar} mass distributions, relative to their halos

3233: (equivalently, relative to what their stellar mass distribution would

3234: be in the absence of dissipation).  We have demonstrated that this

3235: outcome is a natural consequence of dissipation in mergers --

3236: regardless of the initial scalings obeyed by progenitor disks, the

3237: fact that low mass disks are more gas-rich implies that, on average,

3238: there will be more dissipation in their mergers, yielding more compact

3239: baryonic remnants (while having little effect on the halo), and

3240: therefore increasing the ratio of stellar to dark matter mass inside

3241: the stellar $R_{e}$ in lower-mass systems. We further demonstrate that

3242: this reproduces precisely the observed tilt and scalings of elliptical

3243: properties with mass, while being consistent with all other

3244: observational constraints on the FP, including the ``homology

3245: constraint,'' that $\mtrue\propto\mdyn$.

3246: 

3247: We have also shown that dissipation is {\em necessary} in achieving

3248: this. It has been known for some time that dissipationless mergers

3249: cannot alter the phase-space density of ellipticals relative to their

3250: disk progenitors; consequently, ellipticals produced through

3251: dissipationless mergers obey the same scaling relations as their

3252: spiral progenitors (modulo normalization offsets), in stark contrast

3253: to the observed FP scalings. We demonstrate this explicitly: systems

3254: with the same dissipational fraction have the same ratio of total to

3255: stellar mass within $R_{e}$; i.e.\ do not internally exhibit any FP

3256: ``tilt.''  Furthermore, we show that dissipation is the dominant factor

3257: determining the effective radii of ellipticals at fixed mass, even

3258: allowing for differences in formation and merger history -- therefore

3259: if the explanation for the FP invokes any systematic change in

3260: elliptical sizes, it {\em must} involve dissipation.  Only when the

3261: observed dependence of dissipation on mass is included is the observed

3262: tilt recovered.

3263: 

3264: 

3265: 

3266: 

3267: \subsection{Additional Predictions}

3268: \label{sec:discuss:pred}

3269: 

3270: We have extensively considered the role of dissipation in setting the

3271: FP tilt, effectively changing the ratio of $\mdyn/\mstar$.  To the

3272: extent that other properties also trace the degree of dissipation, we

3273: predict that these should similarly correlate with $\mdyn/\mstar$.  In

3274: \paperone\ and \papertwo\ we develop an extensive set of predictions

3275: for elliptical properties that relate to the degree of dissipation in

3276: the spheroid-forming merger, and show how these relate to, e.g., the

3277: observed extra light (i.e.\ the tracer of the degree of dissipation in

3278: the spheroid forming merger-induced starburst).  We refer to those

3279: papers for details and a large number of observational proxies of the

3280: degree of dissipation which can be used to further test the ideas

3281: herein.

3282: 

3283: To the extent that the degree of dissipation in the original

3284: spheroid-forming merger reflects the gas fractions of the progenitor

3285: disks, it must also reflect the progenitor star formation history.

3286: Broadly speaking, disks with more extended star formation histories

3287: would be expected to have larger gas fractions at the time of their

3288: merger, with younger stellar population ages and lower

3289: $\alpha$-enhancement. If we ignore the effect of the merger on these

3290: stellar populations (a reasonable assumption if the system is observed

3291: at times significantly later than the merger, and if the mass fraction

3292: formed in the merger-induced starburst is not large, which are true

3293: for most of the observed systems of interest here), then these should

3294: be reflected in the stellar populations of the elliptical remnant. 

3295: Preliminary observational comparisons from \citet{graves:prep} 

3296: appear to support these predictions, and can provide 

3297: powerful independent tests and constraints 

3298: for models of dissipation in spheroid formation: we therefore 

3299: outline some relevant quantitative predictions.

3300: 

3301: Consider the following highly simplified toy model: identical

3302: progenitor disks with initial gas fraction $\fgas=1$ follow an

3303: exponential, closed-box star formation history with time scale $\tau$,

3304: i.e.\ $\dot{M}_{\ast}\propto\exp{(-t/\tau)}$, and merge at time

3305: $t_{m}$, when the remaining gas is rapidly consumed in a central

3306: starburst. The gas fraction at the time of the merger (and

3307: correspondingly, the dissipational fraction in the starburst) will be

3308: $\fsb=\exp{(-t_{m}/\tau)}$ (giving $\tau = t_{m}/\ln{(1/\fsb)}$), and

3309: the mass-weighted mean formation time of the stars will be $t_{\rm

3310: form} = \tau\,[1-\exp{(-t_{m}/\tau)}] = t_{m}\,

3311: (1-\fsb)/\ln{(1/\fsb)}$.  For systems with a similar redshift range of

3312: their last major merger (similar $t_{m}$, expected for systems of

3313: similar mass), their stellar formation times should therefore

3314: correlate with the starburst fraction $\fsb$ (both depending

3315: implicitly on the pre-merger star formation timescale $\tau$).

3316: 

3317: We have shown in \S~\ref{sec:obs} how $\mdyn/\mstar$ is predicted to

3318: scale with the dissipational fraction $\fsb$ (this can be roughly

3319: approximated as $\mdyn/\mstar\sim(\fsb/0.2)^{-1/2}$ over the range of

3320: interest); combining the two, this yields an expected correlation

3321: between formation time and $x\equiv\mdyn/\mstar$ of the form $t_{\rm

3322: form} = 0.5\,t_{m}\, (1-0.2\,x^{-2})/\ln{(2.24\,x)}$.  Observed at

3323: $z=0$ (i.e.\ with age $t_{\rm H}-t_{\rm form}$), ellipticals with

3324: larger $x=\mdyn/\mstar$ at fixed mass (similar $t_{m}$) should be

3325: older -- for a typical $t_{m}\sim10\,{\rm Gyr}$, systems with

3326: $\mdyn/\mstar\approx 2$ are predicted to be $\sim 2\,$Gyr older than

3327: systems with $\mdyn/\mstar\approx1$.

3328: 

3329: A shorter star formation history also implies higher

3330: $\alpha$-enrichment in the progenitors. If we adopt the correlation

3331: for simple star formation models in \citet{thomas05:ages},

3332: $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]\approx 1/5-1/6\,\log{\Delta\,t}$ (where $\Delta\,t$

3333: is the star formation timescale for a Gaussian burst, but for our

3334: purposes here can be replaced by $\tau$ modulo a conversion constant),

3335: and the scalings above, then we obtain the result (independent of the

3336: merger time $t_{m}$) that ellipticals with higher $\mdyn/\mstar$

3337: should be more $\alpha$-enriched. Specifically, objects with

3338: $\mdyn/\mstar\approx2$ are predicted to have $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$

3339: values $\approx 0.04-0.05$ higher than systems with $\mdyn/\mstar

3340: \approx 1$.

3341: 

3342: Predictions for the absolute metallicities are more ambiguous (but see \papertwo). 

3343: In general, the trend of total/mean metallicity with mass will be dominated 

3344: by the metallicity of pre-merger disks, 

3345: which observations show (excluding the most gas-rich disks, where self-enrichment 

3346: in the merger will dominate the final total metallicity) trace a similar  

3347: mass-metallicity correlation to ellipticals \citep{gallazzi:ssps}. 

3348: In the absence of outflows or recycling, the metallicity 

3349: would be the same for any systems with 

3350: the same total accreted gas content and stellar mass (with no 

3351: dependence on the ``starburst'' content at fixed mass). 

3352: However, to the extent that outflows in low-mass systems are 

3353: responsible for the mass-metallicity relation (as is generally believed), 

3354: then the detailed interplay between these outflows and merger-induced starbursts 

3355: will be important. In broad terms, if 

3356: outflow strengths and velocities are similar, then we 

3357: expect dissipational star formation at the center of 

3358: the galaxy to retain a higher metal content in comparison to the same star formation in a more

3359: extended disk (since escape velocities from the galactic center and densities 

3360: leading to radiative losses in the outflows are higher). In this case, at fixed mass, 

3361: more dissipational (lower $\mdyn/\mstar$, higher surface brightness) systems should have 

3362: slightly higher metallicities than their less dissipational counterparts (and, as 

3363: demonstrated in \paperone, this should be correlated with the effects above -- 

3364: at fixed mass, the dependence of both quantities on dissipation should give rise to 

3365: an inverse correlation between metallicity and stellar population age or $\alpha$-enrichment). 

3366: Experimenting with e.g.\ different degrees of dissipation, outflow strengths, and 

3367: initial disk metalliticies in our simulations, we estimate 

3368: this to be a relatively small ($\sim0.1$\,dex) effect -- not sufficient to dramatically effect the 

3369: global mass-metallicity relation, but potentially visible in detailed studies. 

3370: 

3371: There is one important caveat here: systems of the same mass might

3372: also have had more gas-rich progenitors because they formed from mergers

3373: at very early times (i.e.\ had a different merger time $t_{m}$, in the

3374: toy model illustrated above), making them older and more

3375: $\alpha$-enriched. However, cosmological estimates

3376: \citep[e.g.][]{hopkins:groups.ell} suggest this process is not

3377: dominant at a given stellar mass -- i.e.\ systems of comparable stellar

3378: mass (and correspondingly similar total halo masses) tend to have

3379: similar merger histories. Specifically, the relatively large scatter

3380: in star formation history and disk gas fractions at fixed mass and

3381: redshift (a factor $\sim2$ in $\fgas$) is larger than the scatter

3382: introduced by the combination of a scatter in formation times and the

3383: systematic cosmological evolution of disk gas fractions with time.

3384: Furthermore, systems with such early mergers will usually have

3385: multiple subsequent mergers at later times, so they will grow

3386: significantly in mass and have their effective radii substantially

3387: modified by these additional processes (such that they should and will

3388: be compared to different systems at $z=0$).

3389: 

3390: Considering higher order effects, we demonstrate in \papertwo\ that

3391: the strength of stellar population gradients is correlated with the

3392: degree of dissipation in the original spheroid-forming gas-rich

3393: merger, and show in \paperthree\ that this holds even for remnants of

3394: subsequent gas-poor ``dry'' re-mergers. The most useful gradients in

3395: this sense are metallicity gradients -- stellar age gradients and

3396: (especially) color gradients evolve strongly with time even in a

3397: fixed, passively evolving elliptical (owing to the change in relative

3398: $M/L$ for young and old stellar populations) and as such are more

3399: ambiguous, and gradients in $\alpha$-enhancement are more sensitive to

3400: the gradients and overall star formation histories in the pre-merger

3401: disks. Metallicity gradients are, on the other hand, generally

3402: dominated by the degree of dissipation and imprinted in the gas-rich

3403: merger, and are not sensitive to the star formation history of the

3404: pre-merger disks, making them a more robust diagnostic for our

3405: purposes. At fixed mass, stronger gradients indicate more dissipation,

3406: and so we predict that, at fixed mass, ellipticals with higher

3407: $\mdyn/\mstar$ should have weaker metallicity gradients (see

3408: \papertwo).

3409: 

3410: 

3411: \subsection{Summary}

3412: \label{sec:discuss:summary}

3413: 

3414: We have demonstrated from observations that the tilt of the FP owes to

3415: differential degrees of dissipation as a function of mass.  Lower mass

3416: disks are more gas-rich, so their mergers are more dissipational: a

3417: larger fraction of the remnant mass is formed in a dissipational,

3418: merger-induced compact central starburst in the final stages of a

3419: major merger. This yields a remnant with a more compact stellar mass

3420: distribution, i.e.\ smaller $R_{e}$ relative to their progenitor

3421: disks, in lower-mass ellipticals.  The dark matter distribution is

3422: only weakly affected -- implying that the stellar distribution in

3423: low-mass ellipticals is more compact, relative to the dark matter,

3424: than in equivalent disks or higher-mass ellipticals. Consequently,

3425: relatively less dark matter mass is enclosed within the stellar

3426: effective radius in low-mass ellipticals, so the ratio of enclosed

3427: mass $\mdyn/\mstar$ is an increasing function of mass

3428: ($\mdyn/\mstar\propto\mstar^{\tilt}$). This is the ``tilt'' in the FP.

3429: Given the observed, quantitative dependence of gas fractions on mass,

3430: the tilt is predicted to be exactly that observed, $\tilt\approx0.2$.

3431: 

3432: Using a new empirical method, we robustly estimate the amount of

3433: dissipation involved in the formation a given elliptical.

3434: Specifically, with data of sufficient quality, we separate the

3435: observed surface brightness profile into an outer, violently relaxed

3436: component, which was established in a dissipationless manner, and an

3437: inner ``starburst remnant'' or ``extra light'' component.  We

3438: demonstrate in \paperone, \papertwo\ and \paperthree\ that

3439: observations of both evolved ellipticals and recent merger remnants

3440: support the proposal that this compact nuclear mass component a good

3441: proxy for the true mass formed in a dissipational starburst. Using

3442: this proxy, we show that the observed sizes of ellipticals, at fixed

3443: mass, depend strongly on the degree of dissipation involved in

3444: their formation (more so than even

3445: e.g.\ the number of mergers in their formation history).  

3446: Correspondingly, we show that the ratio of total to

3447: stellar mass within the stellar effective radius, $\mdyn/\mstar$, is a

3448: function of dissipation, both globally and at fixed mass (in the sense

3449: that elliptical sizes and $\mdyn/\mstar$ are decreasing functions of

3450: the amount of dissipation).  These observed dependences are highly

3451: significant ($P_{\rm null}\lesssim10^{-7}$).  Motivated by this, we

3452: show that by removing the mean systematic dependence of dissipation on

3453: mass, we can empirically remove the tilt of the FP.  Considering

3454: ellipticals with the same dissipational extra light fractions, we show

3455: that they obey a relation $\mdyn\propto\mstar$ (i.e.\ ellipticals with

3456: the same extra light content have the same ratio of dynamical to

3457: stellar mass within $R_{e}$, independent of mass).

3458: 

3459: In the proposed dissipational models of the FP

3460: \citep{bekki:fp.origin.tsf,onorbe:diss.fp.model,robertson:fp,dekelcox:fp}, the tilt of the

3461: FP, and its projected correlations (e.g.\ the steepness of the stellar

3462: size-mass correlation of ellipticals relative to that of disks),

3463: arise because low-mass disks are more gas-rich, and therefore

3464: low-mass mergers and ellipticals will have (on average) systematically

3465: higher degrees of dissipation, and therefore smaller (relative)

3466: $R_{e}$ and $\mdyn/\mstar$. If we consider e.g.\ simulations that obey

3467: the observed correlation between disk gas content and mass (as opposed

3468: to being dissipationless, or having all the same gas fractions

3469: independent of mass -- neither of which is consistent with

3470: observations), then the FP predicted has exactly the observed

3471: tilt. Equivalently, the observed mean dissipational fractions of

3472: ellipticals, as a function of mass, agree well with the observed gas

3473: fractions of progenitor disks of the same masses, over the redshift

3474: range $z\sim0-2$. In other words, {\em dissipation is both necessary

3475: and sufficient to explain the FP tilt and differences between disk and

3476: elliptical scaling relations}.

3477: 

3478: To our knowledge, this is the first {\em explicit} observational test

3479: of these theoretical models.  We further demonstrate that other

3480: mechanisms cannot be responsible for the majority of the FP tilt. For

3481: example, observations have demonstrated that the ``homology

3482: assumption,'' namely that $\mtrue\propto\sigma^{2}\,R_{e}$, is valid,

3483: and we show that simulations predict this -- the homology breaking

3484: introduced by dissipation is negligible.  In other words, the FP tilt

3485: reflects the ratio of stellar to true mass enclosed within $R_{e}$:

3486: $\mtrue/\mstar\propto\mstar^{\alpha}$ (this ratio is {\em not}

3487: constant), rather than an ``apparent'' effect.  We also show that, if

3488: we measure elliptical properties at the radius of an equivalent disk,

3489: the tilt of the FP is removed: within the radii of disks of the same

3490: mass, ellipticals have {\em the same} total and dynamical masses.

3491: That is, the dependence of $\mdyn/\mstar$ cannot be driven primarily

3492: by changes in the dark matter distribution at fixed baryonic

3493: properties, nor by changes in the total dark matter to stellar mass

3494: ratio (integrated over the entire halo).  The variation in

3495: $\mdyn/\mstar$ within $R_{e}$ {\em must} predominantly reflect the

3496: change in size of the baryonic component: low-mass ellipticals have

3497: much more compact stellar distributions than similar-mass disks, and

3498: therefore have less enclosed dark matter within that stellar $R_{e}$,

3499: as predicted in dissipational theories.

3500: 

3501: %(the 

3502: %homology-breaking introduced by dissipation is negligible, in 

3503: %terms of its changing the structure integrals, because the 

3504: %mass fraction in a dissipational starburst is only a small fraction 

3505: %of the total stellar plus dark matter mass). Interestingly, these same 

3506: %simulations reproduce the observed dependence of galaxy 

3507: %Sersic index on mass (see \paperone) that has been used 

3508: %in the past to argue that non-homology is an important contributor 

3509: %to the FP tilt: we demonstrate explicitly that these observations can be 

3510: %simultaneously satisfied (and that the apparent dependence of 

3511: %Sersic index on mass does not, in practice, give rise to significant 

3512: %non-homology). We 

3513: 

3514: Together, these observational tests represent an important vindication

3515: of the ``merger hypothesis,'' that ellipticals are formed by the

3516: gas-rich mergers of disk galaxies, and models for the origin of the 

3517: FP in dissipational major mergers \citep{robertson:fp,dekelcox:fp}. 

3518: We explicitly demonstrate that,

3519: regardless of subsequent gas-poor (spheroid-spheroid or ``dry'')

3520: re-mergers, the location of systems with respect to the FP and e.g.\

3521: elliptical size-mass and velocity dispersion-mass relations is

3522: primarily determined by the amount of dissipation involved in their

3523: formation: i.e.\ the gas content involved in the original,

3524: spheroid-forming merger. Gas rich mergers cannot be ignored in the

3525: formation of ellipticals.  Not only have we demonstrated that the FP

3526: is consistent with the merger hypothesis, but that (given the

3527: systematic dependence of disk gas fractions on mass), a FP tilted in

3528: the manner observed is a necessary prediction of the theory.

3529: 

3530: We have also shown that elliptical sizes, inferred dissipational

3531: fractions, and the FP are completely consistent with the formation of

3532: ellipticals in mergers of disks with similar properties (sizes, gas

3533: fractions, dark matter halo masses and sizes) to those observed in

3534: {\em low-redshift} ($z\sim0-1$) disks. In other words, the sizes of

3535: ellipticals and their FP correlations {\em do not require elliptical

3536: progenitors to be more compact than observed, low-redshift

3537: disks}. Dissipation is sufficient to explain the differences in their

3538: densities and sizes. The fact that, within the radius of an equivalent

3539: disk, ellipticals obey the same correlation between total and stellar

3540: mass actually implies that their dark matter halos (and presumably

3541: those of their progenitors) are {\em not} significantly more compact

3542: than those of low-redshift disks.

3543: 

3544: This is important for the viability of the merger hypothesis, given

3545: the observations indicating that disk and halo sizes do not evolve

3546: strongly with redshift

3547: \citep{ravindranath:disk.size.evol,barden:disk.size.evol,

3548: trujillo:size.evolution,zirm:drg.sizes}.  This is not to say that

3549: elliptical sizes might not evolve with redshift \citep[which is easily

3550: possible if e.g.\ disk gas fractions systematically evolve;

3551: see][]{khochfar:size.evolution.model,hopkins:bhfp.theory}, nor that

3552: ellipticals all formed at low redshift (indeed, if the disk size

3553: evolution is weak, then ellipticals form could rapidly at relatively early times 

3554: and still resemble the products of low-redshift

3555: disks). However, it does imply that exotic progenitors -- progenitors

3556: not found in the local universe -- are not required to explain the

3557: observed correlations, surface brightness profiles (see \papertwo\ and

3558: \paperthree), or kinematics \citep[see][]{cox:kinematics} of typical

3559: local ellipticals.

3560: 

3561: 

3562: \acknowledgments We thank John Kormendy, Tod Lauer, and Barry 

3563: Rothberg for providing observations and suggestions for the content 

3564: herein, and thank Brant Robertson, Marijn Franx and Sandy Faber for 

3565: helpful discussions throughout the development of this 

3566: paper. We also thank our referee, Luca Ciotti, for helpful advice on the 

3567: content and discussion herein. This work

3568: was supported in part by NSF grants ACI 96-19019, AST 00-71019, AST

3569: 02-06299, and AST 03-07690, and NASA ATP grants NAG5-12140,

3570: NAG5-13292, and NAG5-13381. Support for 

3571: TJC was provided by the W.~M.\ Keck 

3572: Foundation.

3573: 

3574: \bibliography{/Users/phopkins/Documents/lars_galaxies/papers/ms}

3575: 

3576: \end{document}

3577: