1: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}
2:
3: \textfloatsep 2.5pt
4: \floatsep 2.5pt
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{The Destruction of Thin Stellar Disks Via Cosmologically Common Satellite Accretion Events}
9:
10: \author{
11: Chris W. Purcell\altaffilmark{1},
12: Stelios Kazantzidis\altaffilmark{2}, and
13: James S. Bullock\altaffilmark{1}
14: }
15:
16: \altaffiltext{1}{
17: Center for Cosmology, Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of California, Irvine, CA 92697 USA
18: }
19: \altaffiltext{2}{
20: Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics; and Department of Physics; and Department of Astronomy,
21: The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
22: }
23:
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: Most Galaxy-sized systems ($M_{\rm host} \simeq 10^{12} M_{\odot}$) in the
27: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology are expected to have interacted with at least one satellite with a total mass
28: $M_{\rm sat} \simeq 10^{11} M_{\odot} \simeq 3 M_{\rm disk}$ in the past $8$ Gyr.
29: Analytic and numerical investigations suggest that this is the most precarious type of
30: accretion for the survival of thin galactic disks because more massive accretion events are
31: relatively rare and less massive ones preserve thin disk components. We use high-resolution,
32: dissipationless $N$-body simulations to study the response of an initially-thin, fully-formed
33: Milky-Way type stellar disk to these cosmologically common satellite accretion events and show that the
34: thin disk does not survive. Regardless of orbital configuration, the impacts transform the disks
35: into structures that are roughly three times as thick and more than twice as kinematically
36: hot as the observed dominant thin disk component of the Milky Way. We conclude that
37: if the Galactic thin disk is a representative case, then the presence of a stabilizing gas
38: component is the only recourse for explaining the preponderance of disk galaxies in a
39: $\Lambda$CDM~ universe; otherwise, the disk of the Milky Way must be uncommonly cold and
40: thin for its luminosity, perhaps as a consequence of an unusually quiescent accretion history.
41:
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \keywords{Cosmology: theory --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies: evolution}
45:
46: \maketitle
47:
48: %----------------------------------
49: \section{Introduction}
50: %----------------------------------
51:
52: A solid majority of observed galaxies have disk-dominant morphology; despite wide variance in methods of sampling
53: and classification, roughly 70\% of Galaxy-sized dark matter halos in the universe host late-type systems
54: \citep{Weinmann_etal06,vdB_etal07,Ilbert_etal06,Choi_etal07,Park_etal07}. Moreover, \citet{Kautsch_etal06}
55: find that about one-third of all local disk galaxies have no observable pressure-supported component
56: (whether a ``classical" bulge formed by the central starburst associated with a merger event, or
57: a ``pseudobulge" having arisen from the secular transport
58: of angular momentum towards the galactic center), and another one-third host systems with only
59: pseudobulges, a conclusion supported by spheroid-disk
60: decomposition of large galaxy samples \citep{Allen_etal06,Barazza_etal08}. The vast majority
61: of disk stars in the Milky Way reside in the thin disk component, with an exponential
62: scale height of $z_d \simeq 300 \pm 60$~pc \citep[][and references therein]{Juric_etal08} and a total
63: velocity dispersion of $\sigma_{\rm tot} \simeq 35$ km s$^{-1}$ \citep{Nordstrom_etal04}.
64: Whether the scale height of the Galactic disk is typical for galaxies of its size is a topic of
65: vital interest. Unfortunately, firm measurements for a statistical sample of galaxies have
66: been limited by dust obscuration, which present a problem even in K-band imaging \citep{Kregel_etal05,Yoachim_Dalcanton06}.
67:
68: Aside from the considerable challenges associated with forming disk galaxies in $\Lambda$CDM
69: cosmologies \citep[e.g.,][]{Mayer_etal08}, hierarchical models must also self-consistently
70: maintain thin, rotationally-supported systems against the constant barrage of merging subhalos. Though the former
71: endeavor has enjoyed some recent advances \citep{Abadi_etal03,Sommer-Larsen_etal03,Brook_etal04,Robertson_etal04,
72: Governato_etal07}, the survival of disk galaxies during the often-violent mass accretion
73: history of their dark host remains a concern \citep{TothOstriker_92,Quinn_etal93,Walker_etal96,Wyse2001}
74: and has been the target of numerous studies aimed at quantifying the resilience of galactic
75: disks to satellite accretion events \citep{Quinn_Goodman86,TothOstriker_92,Quinn_etal93,Walker_etal96,
76: Huang_Carlberg97,Sellwood_etal98,Velazquez_White99,Ardi_etal03,Hayashi_Chiba06,Kazantzidis_etal08,Read_etal08,
77: Villalobos_Helmi08,Hopkins_etal08}.
78:
79: Both numerical simulations \citep{Stewart_etal08} and purely analytic calculations \citep{Purcell_etal07,Zentner07} indicate
80: that mass delivery into dark matter halos of mass $M_{\rm host}$ is dominated by the accretion of objects with mass $\sim (0.05-0.15) M_{\rm host}$.
81: \citet{Stewart_etal08} find that $\sim 70\%$ of $10^{12} M_{\odot}$ Galaxy-sized halos
82: have accreted a system of mass $M_{\rm sat} \simeq 10^{11} M_{\odot} \simeq 3 M_{\rm disk}$ into their virial radii
83: in the last 10 Gyr, with associated disk impacts within the last 8 Gyr. \citet{Stewart_etal08} also find that less massive accretions are virtually
84: ubiquitous, and that the merger fraction falls off quickly for satellites larger than $M_{\rm sat} \simeq 2 \times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$.
85: Overall, these results suggest that $\sim 1:10$ satellite accretion events represent the primary concern for disk survival in $\Lambda$CDM.
86: Along these lines, recent analytic work by \citet{Hopkins_etal08} suggests that orbital energy deposition via merger
87: is less destructive to a disk than was often previously surmised \citep{TothOstriker_92, Quinn_etal93,Walker_etal96}, claiming that the
88: Galaxy could have undergone $\sim5-10$ independent mergers of this kind since $z\sim2$ while maintaining a thin disk.
89:
90: %########################################
91:
92: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
93: \begin{center}
94: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f1a.eps}
95: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f1b.eps}
96: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f1c.eps}
97: \end{center}
98: \caption{Edge-on surface brightness maps, assuming $M_{\star}/L = 3$, for primary galaxies 1 (upper panels) and 2
99: (lower panels). Initial models ($t=0$ Gyr) are shown in the left panel, while the results
100: ($t=5$ Gyr) for satellite-infall orbital inclinations of $\theta = 30^{\circ}~\mathrm{and}~90^{\circ}$ appear
101: in the center and right panels, respectively.
102: }
103: \label{fig:maps}
104: \end{figure*}
105: %#########################################
106:
107: Recently, \citet{Kazantzidis_etal08} utilized dissipationless $N$-body simulations
108: to investigate the response of thin galactic disks subject to a $\Lambda$CDM-motivated
109: satellite accretion history. These authors showed that the thin disk component survives,
110: though it is strongly perturbed by the violent gravitational encounters with substructure.
111: However, \citet{Kazantzidis_etal08} focused on infalling systems with masses
112: in the range $0.2 M_{\rm disk} \lesssim M_{\rm sat} \lesssim M_{\rm disk}$, ignoring the most massive accretion events
113: expected over a galaxy's lifetime. In this Letter, we expand upon this initiative by investigating the morphological and
114: dynamical evolution of initially-thin Galaxy-type disks during cosmologically common $\sim 1:10$ accretion events
115: involving two-component (stars and dark matter) satellites of mass $M_{\rm sat} \simeq 10^{11} M_{\odot} \simeq 3 M_{\rm disk}$.
116:
117: Working in a similar mass regime, \citet{Villalobos_Helmi08} simulated the formation of thick disks
118: via the infall of satellite galaxies with virial masses $\sim 10-20\%$ that of the host, using both a $z=0$ Galactic
119: primary system and a scaled version at $z=1$ in order to show that realistic thick disks result from these impacts.
120: Though our preparation is similar, our goals and techniques are different. We aim to determine whether {\em any} thin,
121: dynamically cold component can survive such an event, and conservatively use a primary disk that is as massive as the Milky Way disk
122: {\em today}.
123:
124: Past investigations into the stability of galactic disks against the infall of satellites have often
125: suffered from the necessities of numerical limitations or from analytic axioms later deemed
126: incompatible with standard cosmological models; for example, the modeling of one or more structural components as
127: rigid potentials \citep{Quinn_Goodman86,Quinn_etal93,Sellwood_etal98,Ardi_etal03,Hayashi_Chiba06}, the initialization of
128: a disk much thicker than the old, thin stellar disk of the Galaxy \citep{Quinn_etal93,Walker_etal96,Huang_Carlberg97,
129: Velazquez_White99,Font_etal01,Villalobos_Helmi08}, the infall of satellites with only a concentrated baryonic component
130: \citep{Quinn_etal93,Walker_etal96,Huang_Carlberg97,Velazquez_White99}, and the imposition of subhalo infalls with
131: orbital parameters inconsistent with $\Lambda$CDM cosmological models \citep{Quinn_etal93,Walker_etal96,Huang_Carlberg97}.
132: Analytic arguments, meanwhile, have historically been forced to assume simplifications such as the local deposition
133: of a satellite's orbital energy \citep{TothOstriker_92}, or the absence of global heating modes \citep{Benson_etal04,Hopkins_etal08} which
134: are analytically shown to dominate disk heating by \citet{Sellwood_etal98}, although the latter authors employ a rigid satellite model and
135: perfectly radial polar orbits for their simulated experimental tests. Fortunately, advances both in computational power and
136: in our understanding of $\Lambda$CDM expectations allow us to address these concerns directly.
137:
138: Our contribution improves upon earlier studies in several important respects. First and foremost, we examine the
139: response of galactic disks to accretion events that represent the primary concern for disk survival in $\Lambda$CDM
140: cosmologies. Secondly, we employ galaxy and satellite models that are constructed in equilibrium from fully
141: self-consistent distribution functions and which have the resolution in force and mass to study the heating of a disk that is as
142: thin as the old thin stellar disk of the Milky Way ($z_d \simeq 300$~pc); in synergy with the high mass and force resolution we adopt, this quality
143: allows us to construct equilibrium $N$-body models of disk galaxies that are as thin as the {\it old}, thin stellar
144: disk of the Galaxy. Lastly, the masses, density structure, stellar content, and orbital configurations of our infalling satellites
145: are directly motivated by the prevailing $\Lambda$CDM paradigm of structure formation.
146:
147:
148: %----------------------------------------
149: \section{Methods}
150: \label{sec:methods}
151: %----------------------------------------
152:
153: All simulations are performed using the multi-stepping, parallel,
154: tree $N$-body code PKDGRAV \citet{Stadel2001}, in which we set the gravitational softening
155: length to $\epsilon =$ 100 pc and 50 pc for dark matter and stellar particles, respectively.
156:
157: %----------------------------------------
158: \subsection{Primary and Satellite Galaxy Models}
159: \label{subsec:models}
160: %----------------------------------------
161:
162: We construct $N$-body realizations of primary disk galaxies and satellites using the
163: method of \citet{Widrow_etal08}. This technique produces self-consistent, multi-component
164: galaxy models that are ideal for studying complex dynamical processes associated with the
165: intrinsic fragility of galactic disks such as gravitational interactions with infalling
166: subhalos. We explore two initial models for the primary galaxy in our satellite-disk encounter
167: simulations: {\em Galaxy 1} (hereafter G1), a Milky-Way-analog system drawn from the set of
168: self-consistent equilibrium models that best fit Galactic observational parameters as produced
169: by \citet{Widrow_etal08}; and {\em Galaxy 2} (hereafter G2), an identical system save for the absence of a central bulge, i.e., the two models
170: have stellar disks and dark halos with equivalent {\it initial} properties.
171: In each case the dark matter halo of the primary galaxy was populated by $4 \times 10^6$ particles following the \citet[][hereafter NFW]{Navarro_etal96}
172: density profile with scale radius $r_s = 14.4$ kpc, and the bulge in G1 (comprised of $5 \times 10^5$ particles)
173: contained a stellar mass $M_{\rm bulge} = 9.5 \times 10^9 M_{\odot}$ following a S\'ersic profile with effective radius $R_e = 0.58$ kpc and index $n = 1.118$. The stellar disks, comprised of $10^6$ particles each, contained a mass $M_{\rm disk} = 3.6 \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ following an exponential distribution in cylindrical radius
174: with scale length $R_d = 2.84$ kpc, while the vertical distribution of stars was described by a sech$^2$ function with
175: $z_d = 0.43$ kpc being the vertical scale height. We note that the choice of numerical and physical parameters
176: minimize secular evolution (e.g., strong bar formation, artificial heating through interactions with massive halo particles) on the
177: timescales of relevance to our investigation, which could interfere with the interpretation of our results. In the left panel of
178: Figure~\ref{fig:maps}, we show the edge-on surface brightness map for both primary galaxy models, having assumed
179: a stellar mass-to-light ratio $M_{\star}/L = 3$. The satellite galaxy in each case was initialized with $9 \times 10^5$ dark particles
180: representing a mass $M_{\rm sat} = 1.0 \times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$ within the virial radius of a halo which is well-fit by an
181: NFW profile with a concentration $c_{\rm vir} \simeq 14$ at $z=0.5$. We populate this satellite with a stellar mass
182: $M_{\star} = 2.2 \times 10^9 M_{\odot}$, roughly corresponding to the upper-$1\sigma$ limit derived by
183: \citet{Conroy_Wechsler08} for $M_{\star}/M_{\rm sat}(z \sim 0.5)$ at our subhalo's virial mass, and we distribute these
184: $10^5$ stellar particles in a central spheroid with S\'ersic index $n \sim 0.5$ according to the distribution of shape parameters
185: versus dwarf elliptical galaxy magnitudes found by \citet{vanZee_etal04} in their survey of Virgo cluster members.
186:
187:
188: %----------------------------------------
189: \subsection{Satellite Galaxy Orbits}
190: \label{subsec:orbits}
191: %----------------------------------------
192:
193: Our initial subhalo velocity vectors are motivated by cosmological investigations of substructure accretions, where
194: the distributions of radial and tangential velocity components ($v_r$ and $v_t$) peak
195: respectively at 90\% and 60\% of the virial velocity of the satellite's host halo \citep{Benson2005,Khochfar_Burkert06}.
196: In our case this corresponds to an initial subhalo velocity with $v_r = 116$ km/s and $v_t = 77$ km/s.
197: We initiate the infall of each simulation's subhalo at a relatively large radius of approximately $120$ kpc to
198: ensure that the disk does not suffer substantial perturbations due to the sudden presence of the satellite's potential well.
199: We simulate an array of orbital inclinations ($\theta = 0^{\circ}, 30^{\circ}, 60^{\circ}, \mathrm{and}~90^{\circ}$, defining
200: $\theta$ as the angle between the angular momentum axes of the disk and the orbit) in order to assess the consequence
201: of this parameter on the evolution of the galactic disk. In the polar infall ($\theta = 90^{\circ}$), we eliminate the tangential
202: velocity component of the subhalo, sending the satellite on a direct-impact trajectory into the center of the primary galaxy;
203: this case is somewhat unrealistic, but provides an interesting experimental benchmark.
204: All but one of the non-polar subhalo orbits are initialized as prograde with respect to the primary galaxy's rotation;
205: we also simulate a retrograde orbit for G1 with $\theta = 60^\circ$ in order to investigate whether the heating
206: effects are reduced \citep[as conjectured by][]{Velazquez_White99}. All simulations were evolved for a total of 5 Gyr,
207: after which the subhalo has fully coalesced into the center of the host halo and the stellar disk has
208: relaxed into stability; although there are certainly remnant features in the outer disk and halo that
209: will continue to phase-mix and virialize on a much longer timescale, our investigations indicate
210: that the disk-evolution process has reached a quasi-steady state by this point in the encounter's evolution.
211:
212: %%########################################
213: \begin{figure}[t]
214: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in \epsffile{f2.eps}}
215: \caption{Minor-axis surface brightness profiles for initial and final models at two Galactocentric
216: radii: $R=R_{\odot}=8~\mathrm{kpc}$ (left panel) and $R=2R_{\odot}=16~\mathrm{kpc}$ (right panel).
217: }
218: \label{fig:diskheight}
219: \end{figure}
220: %%#########################################
221:
222:
223: %%########################################
224: \begin{figure}[t]
225: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.2in \epsffile{f3.eps}}
226: \caption{The thin- and thick-disk scale heights in the final state ($t=5$ Gyr) for each of our simulated
227: galaxies, compared to the values derived by \citet{Juric_etal08} for the Milky Way. The two panels
228: show the result of a two-component sech$^2$ fit, with the upper (lower) panel describing the thin (thick)
229: disk's scale height.}
230: \label{fig:scaleheight}
231: \end{figure}
232: %%#########################################
233:
234: \begin{table*}[t]
235: \centering
236: \begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
237: \centering
238: \tabcolsep 11pt
239: \caption{Final ($t=5$ Gyr) Galaxy Properties at $R=R_{\odot}=8$ kpc}
240: \label{finalscaleheights}
241: \begin{tabular}{@{}lccccccc}
242: \hline
243: \hline
244: Orbital & $z_{\rm thin}$ & $z_{\rm thick}$ & $<|z|>$ & $z_{\rm median}$ & $R_d$ & $\sigma_{z}$ & $\sigma_{\rm tot}$ \\
245: Inclination & (G1, G2; &(G1, G2; &(G1, G2; &(G1, G2; &(G1, G2; &(G1, G2; &(G1, G2;\\
246: of Subhalo & in kpc) & in kpc) & in kpc & in kpc) & in kpc) & in km/s) & in km/s) \\
247: \hline
248: initial ($t=0$ Gyr) & $0.43, 0.43$ & N/A & $0.3, 0.3$ & $0.3, 0.3$ & $3.0, 3.0$ & $19.1, 18.7$ & $50.9, 52.1$\\
249: $\theta = 0^{\circ}$ (prograde) & $0.80, 0.97$ & $3.70, 3.65$ & $0.9, 1.0$ & $0.5, 0.6$ & $2.3, 4.5$ & $25.1, 28.0$ & $115.2, 107.1$\\
250: $\theta = 30^{\circ}$ (prograde) & $1.68, 1.75$ & $5.10, 5.30$ & $1.7, 1.8$ & $1.0, 1.1$ & $3.5, 2.9$ & $37.9, 40.6$ & $95.5, 102.6$\\
251: $\theta = 60^{\circ}$ (prograde) & $1.33, 1.30$ & $4.38, 4.35$ & $1.8, 2.0$ & $0.9, 1.1$ & $2.2, 2.6$ & $33.5, 35.1$ & $82.4, 86.1$\\
252: $\theta = 60^{\circ}$-retro (G1 only) & $1.18$ & $6.50$ & $2.1$ & $0.8$ & $2.6$ & $31.4$ & $83.3$\\
253: $\theta = 90^{\circ}$ (polar) & $1.05, 1.08$ & $9.35, 9.45$ & $2.0, 1.9$ & $0.6, 0.7$ & $4.2, 3.0$ & $26.2, 29.4$ & $70.0, 75.6$\\
254: \hline
255: Milky Way (observed)\footnote{For the Galaxy's empirical constraints, we quote the disk scale heights and lengths derived by \citet{Juric_etal08} and the velocity dispersions obtained by
256: \citet{Nordstrom_etal04} for solar-neighborhood stars of median age ($t \sim 2-3$ Gyr).} & $0.34$ & $1.01$ & $0.298$ & $0.208$ &$2.6, 3.6$ & $\sim 10-20$ & $\sim 30-40$\\
257: & & & & &(thin, thick) & & \\
258: \hline
259: \hline
260: \end{tabular}
261: \end{minipage}
262: \end{table*}
263:
264: %-------------------------------------------------
265: \section{Results and Implications}
266: \label{sec:results}
267: %-------------------------------------------------
268:
269:
270: Edge-on surface brightness profiles for remnants of the $\theta = 30^{\circ}$ and 90$^\circ$ impacts are shown in the middle and left
271: panels of Figure 1, where the upper and lower renderings correspond to primary cases G1 and G2, respectively
272: (with and without initial bulge). It is clear from these images that the resultant disks are considerably thicker than the
273: initial case. We note that while the stars in the accreted satellite end up in the final disk remnant
274: (c.f.~Villalobos \& Helmi 2008), primary disk stars dominate these images, even high above the plane.
275:
276: Figure~\ref{fig:diskheight} shows the minor-axis surface brightness profiles for the G1 simulations using $M_{\star}/L = 3$. The left
277: panel shows a vertical slice at a projected radius of $R_{\odot}=8$ kpc and the right panel shows a similar slice at
278: radius $2 \, R_{\odot}$. Black solid lines show the initial disk and different color/line types represent the remnants as indicated.
279: Clearly, the resultant disks are dramatically thicker than the initial galaxy model in each case. In order to conservatively
280: compare our disks to the Milky Way, we allow for thick {\em and} thin components by fitting
281: a double-sech$^2$ profile at $R_{\odot}$. The fitted scale heights are shown in Table~\ref{finalscaleheights}
282: and compared directly in Figure~\ref{fig:scaleheight} to the Galactic values obtained by \citet{Juric_etal08}
283: \footnote{The scale heights derived by \citet{Juric_etal08} belonged
284: to exponential profiles; we have therefore multiplied these values by a factor of 1.12
285: to obtain scale heights belonging to sech$^2$ profiles that fall by one mag/arcsec$^2$ at the same height as the
286: exponential fits. This multiplicative factor is more appropriate for thin-disk comparisons
287: near the peak of the profile than the widely-used factor
288: of 2 that matches exponential and sech$^2$ profiles at large
289: heights above the disk plane.}. Though we initially employ a disk that is thicker ($z_{\rm thin} = 0.43$ kpc) and therefore
290: conservatively more robust to accretion events (Kazantzidis et al. 2009, in preparation) than the Galactic value of
291: $z_{\rm thin} = 0.34$ kpc from \citet{Juric_etal08}, the final systems all have thin-disk components with $z_{\rm thin}$
292: larger by a factor of $\sim 3-5$ than the Milky Way. Moreover, the low-surface-brightness thick component in our remnant
293: disks is also considerably thicker than the Galactic thick disk, with scale heights so large ($z_{\rm thick}
294: \simeq 4 -10$ kpc) that this material would likely be considered a stellar halo component.
295:
296: A second relevant measure of disk survival is the stellar velocity dispersion; we therefore compare the velocity ellipsoid
297: of our final disks to that observed in the solar neighborhood by the Geneva-Copenhagen Survey
298: \citep[][see also \citealt{Seabroke_Gilmore07}]{Nordstrom_etal04}.
299: In Figure~\ref{fig:sigma}, we show these values for velocity dispersion in each coordinate, where the
300: indicated range spans the stellar population age, and the point is placed at the median age
301: $t \sim 2-3$ Gyr according to \citet{Nordstrom_etal04} for this local sample. Shown also are
302: the corresponding dispersion components for our initial and final stellar disks measured within an 0.3-kpc box centered
303: on the disk plane at $R_{\odot} = 8$kpc. As summarized in Table 2, each of our simulated merger remnants are
304: substantially enhanced in all three components of velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{R,\phi,z}$ corresponding to
305: $\sigma_{U,V,W}$). The total dispersion $\sigma_{\rm tot}=(\sigma_R^2+\sigma_{\phi}^2+\sigma_z^2)^{1/2}$
306: increases by a factor of $\sim 1.5-2$ compared to that of the initial disk.
307:
308: %%########################################
309: \begin{figure}[b]
310: \begin{center}
311: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in \epsffile{f4.eps}}
312: \end{center}
313: \caption{The radial and vertical components of velocity dispersion $\sigma_R$ and $\sigma_z$ (top and middle panels),
314: as well as the total stellar dynamical temperature $\sigma_{\rm tot}$, at the solar neighborhood ($R_{\odot}=8$ kpc)
315: of our simulated disks, compared to the local values obtained by the Geneva-Copenhagen survey results described
316: in \citet{Nordstrom_etal04}. In each coordinate, the observational spread is marked by a {\em dotted line} and
317: the dispersion of the sample's median-age stars ($t \sim 2-3$ Gyr) is denoted by a {\em diamond}. }
318: \label{fig:sigma}
319: \end{figure}
320: %%#########################################
321:
322: %-------------------------------------------------
323: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}
324: \label{sec:discuss}
325: %-------------------------------------------------
326:
327: Using fully self-consistent $N$-body simulations of satellite-disk interactions we have quantitatively demonstrated for the first time that
328: cosmologically common accretion events of
329: mass ratio $\sim 1:10$ do not preserve thin, dynamically cold stellar disks like the old, thin stellar disk of the Milky Way.
330: This has potentially serious ramifications for models of galaxy formation and evolution.
331: It is possible that our benchmark case of the Milky Way is not representative, and that the
332: Galaxy sits within a rare halo that has not experienced in the last $\sim 8$ Gyr a disk impact
333: associated with a significant accretion event, as posited in the observationally-motivated suggestion of \citet{Hammer_etal07},
334: in which the Galaxy is shown to have remarkably low angular momentum and stellar mass compared to
335: local spiral galaxies in host halos of similar mass. Future investigations may help quantify the range of thin-disk
336: scale heights in the local universe.
337:
338: Otherwise, the addition of gas physics may play a role in explaining the apparent discrepancy.
339: Gas can cool and reform a thin disk, and its presence may stabilize the stellar disk \citep[e.g.,~][]{Robertson_etal06}.
340: The regrowth of the massive thin disk {\em after} a satellite accretion may cause heated stars to contract and lose kinetic energy.
341: Accurate treatment of the various aspects of hydrodynamics will therefore play a crucial role in the capacity of simulated galaxy
342: evolution to reproduce thin disks such as those that dominate observed galaxy catalogs.
343:
344: In a recent paper \citet{Hopkins_etal08} have argued that disk heating is less effective than previously
345: thought and that the expected merger histories of $\Lambda$CDM~halos are compatible with the high thin-disk fraction
346: seen in the Universe. It is important, therefore, to investigate this point of disagreement. Their result, a reshaping of the
347: arguments presented in \citet{TothOstriker_92} (updated to reflect the more realistically radialized orbits of a $\Lambda$CDM
348: cosmology), relied primarily on an analytic formula, normalized to simulations with much lower mass and force resolution than those
349: explored here, to map the ratio ($M_{\rm sat}/M_{\rm host}$) to a disk heating parameter $\Delta{}H/R$, where $H$ is the median scale
350: height of the resultant disk and $R$ is the radius where the height is measured (and must be within a factor of two of the disk
351: half-mass radius $R_e$). For the $\sim 1:10$ mass-ratio accretion events we explore here, the \citet{Hopkins_etal08} formula predicts a
352: disk thickening of $\Delta{}H/R \simeq 0.015$. Our simulations typically exhibit significantly more heating; at $R=R_e$ we measure
353: $\Delta{}H/R \simeq (0.03 - 0.09)$ and, because of the impact-induced flaring, we measure
354: even larger values $\Delta{}H/R \simeq (0.05 - 0.11)$ at $R = 2R_e$.
355:
356: It is perhaps not surprising that our results disagree with first-order
357: analytic expectations. In addition to direct heating, the resultant disk structure is affected by global modes such as bending
358: and density waves excited in the disk as the interaction
359: occurs \citep{Sellwood_etal98}, and not included in the simple analytic scalings is a dependence on the orbital inclination of the encounter
360: that is likely associated with resonant coupling. Finally, though \citet{Hopkins_etal08} normalized their results to numerical simulations,
361: those initial disks were significantly thicker than the Galactic-type disk we have simulated, and were therefore more robust to tidal
362: perturbations. Direct
363: numerical experiments involving satellite-disk encounters indicate that mass-ratio, orbital inclination, initial disk scale height, and relative dark matter fraction
364: are all crucial in determining the degree to which galactic disks are perturbed by infalling subhalos (Figures~\ref{fig:scaleheight},~\ref{fig:sigma},
365: and Kazantzidis et al. 2009, in preparation). More detailed analysis is forthcoming of the morphological and dynamical effects experienced by
366: our disks; among other concerns, we defer for future work the issues of stellar-halo/thick-disk distinguishability and the reinforcement of central bulges by accreted stars.
367:
368: \acknowledgments
369:
370: We thank Joachim Stadel for providing the PKDGRAV code.
371: We would like to thank Charlie Conroy, Phil Hopkins, Kyle Stewart, and Andrew Zentner for useful discussions
372: as well as Larry Widrow and John Dubinski for kindly making available
373: the software used to set up the primary galaxy models.
374: CWP and JSB are supported by National Science Foundation (NSF)
375: grants AST-0607377 and AST-0507816, and the Center for
376: Cosmology at UC Irvine. SK is supported by the Center for Cosmology and
377: Astro-Particle Physics at The Ohio State University. The numerical simulations
378: were performed on the IA-64 cluster at the San Diego Supercomputing Center.
379:
380: \begin{thebibliography}{40}
381: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
382:
383: \bibitem[{{Abadi} {et~al.}(2003){Abadi}, {Navarro}, {Steinmetz}, \&
384: {Eke}}]{Abadi_etal03}
385: {Abadi}, M.~G., {Navarro}, J.~F., {Steinmetz}, M., \& {Eke}, V.~R. 2003, \apj,
386: 591, 499
387:
388: \bibitem[{{Allen} {et~al.}(2006){Allen}, {Driver}, {Graham}, {Cameron},
389: {Liske}, \& {de Propris}}]{Allen_etal06}
390: {Allen}, P.~D., {Driver}, S.~P., {Graham}, A.~W., {Cameron}, E., {Liske}, J.,
391: \& {de Propris}, R. 2006, \mnras, 371, 2
392:
393: \bibitem[Ardi et al.(2003)]{Ardi_etal03} Ardi, E., Tsuchiya, T.,
394: \& Burkert, A.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 204
395:
396: \bibitem[{{Barazza} {et~al.}(2008){Barazza}, {Jogee}, \&
397: {Marinova}}]{Barazza_etal08}
398: {Barazza}, F.~D., {Jogee}, S., \& {Marinova}, I. 2008, \apj, 675, 1194
399:
400: \bibitem[Benson et al.(2004)]{Benson_etal04} Benson, A.~J., Lacey,
401: C.~G., Frenk, C.~S., Baugh, C.~M., \& Cole, S.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 1215
402:
403: \bibitem[{{Benson}(2005)}]{Benson2005}
404: {Benson}, A.~J. 2005, \mnras, 358, 551
405:
406: \bibitem[{{Brook} {et~al.}(2004){Brook}, {Kawata}, {Gibson}, \&
407: {Freeman}}]{Brook_etal04}
408: {Brook}, C.~B., {Kawata}, D., {Gibson}, B.~K., \& {Freeman}, K.~C. 2004, \apj,
409: 612, 894
410:
411: \bibitem[{{Choi} {et~al.}(2007){Choi}, {Park}, \& {Vogeley}}]{Choi_etal07}
412: {Choi}, Y.-Y., {Park}, C., \& {Vogeley}, M.~S. 2007, \apj, 658, 884
413:
414: \bibitem[{{Conroy} \& {Wechsler}(2008)}]{Conroy_Wechsler08}
415: {Conroy}, C. \& {Wechsler}, R.~H. 2008, ArXiv:astro-ph/0805.3346
416:
417: \bibitem[{{Font} {et~al.}(2001){Font}, {Navarro}, {Stadel}, \&
418: {Quinn}}]{Font_etal01}
419: {Font}, A.~S., {Navarro}, J.~F., {Stadel}, J., \& {Quinn}, T. 2001, \apjl, 563,
420: L1
421:
422: \bibitem[{{Gauthier} {et~al.}(2006){Gauthier}, {Dubinski}, \&
423: {Widrow}}]{Gauthier_etal06}
424: {Gauthier}, J.-R., {Dubinski}, J., \& {Widrow}, L.~M. 2006, \apj, 653, 1180
425:
426: \bibitem[{{Governato} {et~al.}(2007){Governato}, {Willman}, {Mayer}, {Brooks},
427: {Stinson}, {Valenzuela}, {Wadsley}, \& {Quinn}}]{Governato_etal07}
428: {Governato}, F., {Willman}, B., {Mayer}, L., {Brooks}, A., {Stinson}, G.,
429: {Valenzuela}, O., {Wadsley}, J., \& {Quinn}, T. 2007, \mnras, 374, 1479
430:
431: \bibitem[Hammer et al.(2007)]{Hammer_etal07} Hammer, F., Puech, M.,
432: Chemin, L., Flores, H., \& Lehnert, M.~D.\ 2007, \apj, 662, 322
433:
434: \bibitem[Hayashi
435: \& Chiba(2006)]{Hayashi_Chiba06} Hayashi, H., \& Chiba, M.\ 2006, \pasj, 58, 835
436:
437: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2008)]{Hopkins_etal08} Hopkins, P.~F.,
438: Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Younger, J.~D.,
439: \& Besla, G.\ 2008, \apj, 688, 757
440:
441: \bibitem[Huang
442: \& Carlberg(1997)]{Huang_Carlberg97} Huang, S., \& Carlberg, R.~G.\ 1997, \apj, 480, 503
443:
444: \bibitem[{{Ilbert} {et~al.}(2006)}]{Ilbert_etal06}
445: {Ilbert}, . {et~al.} 2006, \aap, 453, 809
446:
447: \bibitem[{{Juri{\'c}} {et~al.}(2008)}]{Juric_etal08}
448: {Juri{\'c}}, M. {et~al.} 2008, \apj, 673, 864
449:
450: \bibitem[{{Kautsch} {et~al.}(2006){Kautsch}, {Grebel}, {Barazza}, \&
451: {Gallagher}}]{Kautsch_etal06}
452: {Kautsch}, S.~J., {Grebel}, E.~K., {Barazza}, F.~D., \& {Gallagher}, III, J.~S.
453: 2006, \aap, 445, 765
454:
455: \bibitem[Kazantzidis et al.(2008)]{Kazantzidis_etal08} Kazantzidis, S.,
456: Bullock, J.~S., Zentner, A.~R., Kravtsov, A.~V.,
457: \& Moustakas, L.~A.\ 2008, \apj, 688, 254
458:
459: \bibitem[{{Khochfar} \& {Burkert}(2006)}]{Khochfar_Burkert06}
460: {Khochfar}, S. \& {Burkert}, A. 2006, \aap, 445, 403
461:
462: \bibitem[{{Kregel} {et~al.}(2005){Kregel}, {van der Kruit}, \&
463: {Freeman}}]{Kregel_etal05}
464: {Kregel}, M., {van der Kruit}, P.~C., \& {Freeman}, K.~C. 2005, \mnras, 358,
465: 503
466:
467: \bibitem[Kuijken
468: \& Dubinski(1995)]{KD95} Kuijken, K., \& Dubinski, J.\ 1995, \mnras, 277, 1341
469:
470: \bibitem[{{Mayer} {et~al.}(2008){Mayer}, {Governato}, \&
471: {Kaufmann}}]{Mayer_etal08}
472: {Mayer}, L., {Governato}, F., \& {Kaufmann}, T. 2008, Invited Review in
473: ``Advanced Science Letters", ArXiv:astro-ph/0801.3845
474:
475: \bibitem[{{Navarro} {et~al.}(1996){Navarro}, {Frenk}, \&
476: {White}}]{Navarro_etal96}
477: {Navarro}, J.~F., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1996, \apj, 462, 563
478:
479: \bibitem[{{Nordstr{\"o}m} {et~al.}(2004)}]{Nordstrom_etal04}
480: {Nordstr{\"o}m}, B. {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 418, 989
481:
482: \bibitem[{{Park} {et~al.}(2007){Park}, {Choi}, {Vogeley}, {Gott}, \&
483: {Blanton}}]{Park_etal07}
484: {Park}, C., {Choi}, Y.-Y., {Vogeley}, M.~S., {Gott}, J.~R.~I., \& {Blanton},
485: M.~R. 2007, \apj, 658, 898
486:
487: \bibitem[{{Purcell} {et~al.}(2007){Purcell}, {Bullock}, \&
488: {Zentner}}]{Purcell_etal07}
489: {Purcell}, C.~W., {Bullock}, J.~S., \& {Zentner}, A.~R. 2007, \apj, 666, 20
490:
491: \bibitem[{{Quinn} \& {Goodman}(1986)}]{Quinn_Goodman86}
492: {Quinn}, P.~J. \& {Goodman}, J. 1986, \apj, 309, 472
493:
494: \bibitem[Quinn et al.(1993)]{Quinn_etal93} Quinn, P.~J., Hernquist,
495: L., \& Fullagar, D.~P.\ 1993, \apj, 403, 74
496:
497: \bibitem[Read et al.(2008)]{Read_etal08} Read, J.~I., Lake, G.,
498: Agertz, O., \& Debattista, V.~P.\ 2008, \mnras, 389, 1041
499:
500: \bibitem[{{Robertson} {et~al.}(2006){Robertson}, {Bullock}, {Cox}, {Di Matteo},
501: {Hernquist}, {Springel}, \& {Yoshida}}]{Robertson_etal06}
502: {Robertson}, B., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Cox}, T.~J., {Di Matteo}, T., {Hernquist},
503: L., {Springel}, V., \& {Yoshida}, N. 2006, \apj, 645, 986
504:
505: \bibitem[{{Robertson} {et~al.}(2004){Robertson}, {Yoshida}, {Springel}, \&
506: {Hernquist}}]{Robertson_etal04}
507: {Robertson}, B., {Yoshida}, N., {Springel}, V., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2004, \apj,
508: 606, 32
509:
510: \bibitem[{{Seabroke} \& {Gilmore}(2007)}]{Seabroke_Gilmore07}
511: {Seabroke}, G.~M. \& {Gilmore}, G. 2007, \mnras, 380, 1348
512:
513: \bibitem[Sellwood et al.(1998)]{Sellwood_etal98} Sellwood, J.~A.,
514: Nelson, R.~W., \& Tremaine, S.\ 1998, \apj, 506, 590
515:
516: \bibitem[{{Sommer-Larsen} {et~al.}(2003){Sommer-Larsen}, {G{\"o}tz}, \&
517: {Portinari}}]{Sommer-Larsen_etal03}
518: {Sommer-Larsen}, J., {G{\"o}tz}, M., \& {Portinari}, L. 2003, \apj, 596, 47
519:
520: \bibitem[{{Stadel}(2001)}]{Stadel2001}
521: {Stadel}, J.~G. 2001, PhD thesis, University of Washington
522:
523: \bibitem[{{Stewart} {et~al.}(2008){Stewart}, {Bullock}, {Wechsler}, {Maller},
524: \& {Zentner}}]{Stewart_etal08}
525: {Stewart}, K.~R., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Maller}, A.~H., \&
526: {Zentner}, A.~R. 2008, \apj, 683, 597
527:
528: \bibitem[{{Toth} \& {Ostriker}(1992)}]{TothOstriker_92}
529: {Toth}, G. \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 1992, \apj, 389, 5
530:
531: \bibitem[{{van den Bosch} {et~al.}(2007)}]{vdB_etal07}
532: {van den Bosch}, F.~C. {et~al.} 2007, \mnras, 376, 841
533:
534: \bibitem[{{van Zee} {et~al.}(2004){van Zee}, {Barton}, \&
535: {Skillman}}]{vanZee_etal04}
536: {van Zee}, L., {Barton}, E.~J., \& {Skillman}, E.~D. 2004, \aj, 128, 2797
537:
538: \bibitem[{{Velazquez} \& {White}(1999)}]{Velazquez_White99}
539: {Velazquez}, H. \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1999, \mnras, 304, 254
540:
541: \bibitem[{{Villalobos} \& {Helmi}(2008)}]{Villalobos_Helmi08}
542: {Villalobos}, {\'A}. \& {Helmi}, A. 2008, \mnras, ArXiv:astro-ph/0803.2323
543:
544: \bibitem[Walker et al.(1996)]{Walker_etal96} Walker, I.~R., Mihos,
545: J.~C., \& Hernquist, L.\ 1996, \apj, 460, 121
546:
547: \bibitem[{{Weinmann} {et~al.}(2006){Weinmann}, {van den Bosch}, {Yang}, \&
548: {Mo}}]{Weinmann_etal06}
549: {Weinmann}, S.~M., {van den Bosch}, F.~C., {Yang}, X., \& {Mo}, H.~J. 2006,
550: \mnras, 366, 2
551:
552: \bibitem[{{Widrow} {et~al.}(2008){Widrow}, {Pym}, \&
553: {Dubinski}}]{Widrow_etal08}
554: {Widrow}, L.~M., {Pym}, B., \& {Dubinski}, J. 2008, \apj, 679, 1239
555:
556: \bibitem[{{Wyse}(2001)}]{Wyse2001}
557: {Wyse}, R.~F.~G. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference
558: Series, Vol. 230, Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies, ed. J.~G. {Funes} \& E.~M.
559: {Corsini}, 71--80
560:
561: \bibitem[{{Yoachim} \& {Dalcanton}(2006)}]{Yoachim_Dalcanton06}
562: {Yoachim}, P. \& {Dalcanton}, J.~J. 2006, \aj, 131, 226
563:
564: \bibitem[{Zentner(2007)}]{Zentner07}
565: Zentner, A.~R. 2007, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 16, 763
566:
567: \end{thebibliography}
568:
569:
570:
571: \end{document}
572: