1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
4: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.}
5: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.}
6:
7:
8: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}
9: %\ltsim and \gtsim produce > and < signs with twiddle underneath
10: \def\ltsim{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
11: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
12: \def\gtsim{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
13: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
14:
15:
16:
17: \shortauthors{Norton, Gebhardt, Zabludoff, Zaritsky}
18:
19:
20: \shorttitle{Internal Kinematics of E+A Galaxies}
21:
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25:
26: \title{The Spatial Distribution and Kinematics of \\
27: Stellar Populations in E+A Galaxies}
28:
29:
30: \author{Stuart A. Norton\altaffilmark{1}, Karl Gebhardt\altaffilmark{1,2}, Ann I. Zabludoff\altaffilmark{3} and Dennis Zaritsky\altaffilmark{3}}
31:
32:
33: \altaffiltext{1}{University of California Observatories/Lick
34: Observatory, Board of Studies in Astronomy and Astrophysics,
35: University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064; stuart@ucolick.org}
36:
37:
38: \altaffiltext{2}{Astronomy Department, University of Texas at Austin,
39: Mail Code C1400, Austin, TX 78712; gebhardt@astro.as.utexas.edu}
40:
41:
42: \altaffiltext{3}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N. Cherry
43: Street, Tucson, AZ 85721; azabludoff@as.arizona.edu, dzaritsky@as.arizona.edu}
44:
45:
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48:
49:
50: We use long-slit spectroscopic observations of the sample of E+A
51: galaxies described by Zabludoff~\etal\ to constrain the nature of the
52: progenitors and remnants of the E+A phase of galaxy evolution. We
53: measure spatially-resolved kinematic properties of the young ($\ltsim
54: 1$ Gyr) and old ($\gtsim$ few Gyr) stellar populations. The young
55: stellar populations are more centrally concentrated than the older
56: populations, but they are not confined to the galaxy core (radius
57: $\ltsim$ 1 kpc). The kinematics of the old stellar population place
58: 16 of 20 of our E+As on a trend parallel to the Faber-Jackson relation
59: that is offset by $\sim$ 0.6 mag in R. Eighteen of 20 E+As have
60: ${\rm v}/\sigma < 1$. As the young stars in these systems evolve, the
61: luminosity offset will disappear and the remnants will be
62: pressure-supported systems that lie on the Faber-Jackson relation.
63: Although Zabludoff~\etal\ spectroscopically selected the most extreme
64: E+A galaxies in the local volume, the sample is kinematically diverse:
65: velocity dispersions range from $\lesssim$ 30 km s$^{-1}$ to $\sim$
66: 200 km s$^{-1}$ over a luminosity range of M$_{\rm R}$ = $-19$ to $-22
67: + 5$ log $h$. Combining these results with an estimate of the number
68: of galaxies that experience an E+A phase, we conclude that the E+A
69: phase of galaxy evolution is important in the development of a large
70: fraction of spheroid-dominated galaxies over a wide range of
71: luminosities and masses. Our kinematic observations, together with
72: evidence that E+As have recently evolved from a vigorous star forming
73: phase to a quiescent phase (\eg,\ Couch and Sharples, Caldwell~\etal)
74: and that many have tidal features consistent with disk-like
75: progenitors (Zabludoff~\etal), indicate that these galaxies are
76: undergoing a transformation from gas-rich, star-forming,
77: rotationally-supported, disk-dominated galaxies into gas-poor,
78: quiescent, pressure-supported, spheroid-dominated galaxies.
79:
80:
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83:
84: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: interactions --- galaxies:
85: kinematics and dynamics --- galaxies: stellar content}
86:
87:
88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
89:
90:
91: \section{Introduction}
92:
93:
94: % intro: why are E+As important?
95: One of the oldest questions in galaxy evolution is the evolutionary
96: connection, if any, between spiral and elliptical galaxies. More
97: specifically, is it possible to identify unambiguously a population of
98: gas-poor, quiescent, pressure-supported, spheroid-dominated galaxies
99: that were formerly gas-rich, star forming, rotation-supported, disky
100: galaxies? The spectra of ``E+A'' galaxies\footnote{The term ``E+A''
101: comes from their spectra, which contain absorption lines from an old
102: stellar population similar to that of elliptical galaxies (E-type) in
103: addition to a relatively young (A-type) stellar population. We use
104: the E+A designation for historical reasons only and note that the
105: purely spectroscopic designation K+A (\eg,\ Franx 1993) is more
106: appropriate.} \citep{dg83}, which have a relatively young (A-type)
107: stellar population but lack significant [OII] emission, indicate that
108: these galaxies had high levels of star formation $\sim 1 - 2$ Gyr ago
109: \citep{cs87,nbk90,schweizer96} and that star formation has effectively
110: stopped within that time. Thus, E+As may be a crucial link between
111: gas-rich, star forming galaxies and quiescent galaxies. Some E+As
112: have tidal features (Zabludoff~\etal\ 1996; hereafter Z96) roughly
113: consistent with simulations of the merger of two spiral galaxies
114: \citep{t2}, suggesting that E+As lie morphologically between the end of
115: the Toomre merger sequence \citep{toomre77} and a relaxed spheroidal
116: end-product.
117:
118:
119: While E+A galaxies possess some spectroscopic and morphological
120: signatures of an evolutionary transition, their internal kinematics
121: are poorly understood --- most known E+As lie at intermediate and high
122: redshifts. As a result, it has been impossible to answer the most
123: important questions concerning this seemingly major transition phase
124: in galaxy evolution: Do the kinematics of E+As support the picture in
125: which star formation is abruptly extinguished in otherwise normal disk
126: galaxies or are they consistent with the galaxy merger models that
127: form spheroids? If E+As are pressure-supported, then are their
128: properties consistent with those of normal spheroidal galaxies? What
129: is the luminosity range of galaxies that could have evolved through an
130: E+A phase? With long-slit spectroscopy of a substantial
131: sample of nearby E+As, we can address these issues for the first time.
132:
133:
134: % LCRS E+A sample
135: The 21 E+As drawn from 11,113 galaxies in the Las Campanas Redshift
136: Survey (LCRS; Shectman~\etal\ 1992, 1996) by Z96 is
137: the largest uniformly-selected sample of E+As within $z \sim 0.2$.
138: These galaxies have strong Balmer absorption features (average
139: equivalent width of H$\beta$, H$\gamma$, and H$\delta > 5.5$ \AA) and
140: little if any [OII] emission (flux detections are at a level $\leq
141: 2\sigma$). The majority ($\sim 75\%$) of these E+As lie in the field,
142: well outside rich cluster environments. In this paper, we determine
143: how the fraction of A stars, the stellar velocity, and the stellar
144: velocity dispersion vary along the major axis for these galaxies.
145:
146:
147: % how can the kinematics discriminate among formation models?
148: What triggers the starburst and subsequent cessation of star
149: formation in E+A galaxies are puzzles. Possible explanations include
150: galaxy-galaxy mergers or interactions
151: \citep{schweizer82,lh88,lk95,schweizer96}, interactions of galaxies
152: with the intracluster medium \citep{dg83,bd86}, and galaxy harassment
153: \citep{moore98}. Detections of tidal features (Schweizer 1996, Z96)
154: and the discovery of E+As outside the cluster environment
155: (\cite{ohh91}, Z96) suggest that mergers or interactions are indeed at
156: least one way to produce E+As. To understand whether this mechanism
157: is responsible for all E+A's, we must examine their stellar kinematics
158: and their spatial distribution of young stars. If major mergers are
159: the dominant mechanism responsible for E+A formation, and merger
160: remnants settle quickly to the virial plane (Mihos 1999), we should
161: find that a large fraction of E+As are dynamically pressure-supported
162: and lie within the region of parameter space --- the Faber-Jackson
163: relation \citep{fj76} --- defined by normal spheroidal galaxies. In
164: contrast, disk-like kinematics in E+As would support a model in which
165: star formation is abruptly extinguished in otherwise normal disk
166: galaxies. Franx (1993) finds strong rotation in one distant, cluster
167: E+A, and Caldwell~\etal\ (1996) report rotation in three E+As in the
168: Coma cluster. Unfortunately, these studies were limited to cluster
169: environments, the samples are small, and the criteria for selecting
170: E+As differ among authors (cf. \S~\ref{sec:discussion}). We present
171: kinematic results for a sample of uniformly and conservatively defined
172: E+As that span a range of environments.
173:
174:
175: % how can the A star distribution discriminate among formation model?
176: Complementing the kinematics, the spatial distributions of the young
177: and old stellar populations further discriminate among formation
178: models. For example, if E+As are otherwise normal late-type galaxies
179: in which star formation is quickly extinguished, one expects little or
180: no difference between the distributions of old and young stars. On the
181: other hand, if mergers are occurring, simulations predict a high
182: concentration of young stars toward the center because gas is driven
183: inward after dissipating its orbital energy
184: \citep{noguchi88,bh91,mrb92,mh96}. Star formation in mergers and
185: their remnants is not limited to the nucleus
186: \citep{rieke85,wright88,schweizer96,mb98} as suggested by some
187: numerical simulations, but it is centrally concentrated. Observations
188: of several E+A galaxies in clusters suggest that young stars are
189: present throughout the galaxy \citep{franx93,crfl96}. It is not
190: known, however, if these trends are characteristic of all E+As,
191: including those outside of rich clusters. With spatially-resolved
192: spectroscopy spanning a wide range in wavelength, we can now
193: separate the distributions and kinematics of the young and old stellar
194: populations in the Las Campanas E+A sample.
195:
196:
197:
198: % what fraction of galaxies might have passed through the E+A phase?
199: If the E+A phase does mark a transition from disk to spheroid, what
200: range of spheroids can be produced? The velocity dispersions of
201: normal ellipticals range from $\sim 50$ to $\sim 300$ km s$^{-1}$
202: \citep{defis,bn90}, but the distribution for E+As is unknown. In
203: lower luminosity ellipticals rotational support is increasingly
204: important \citep{bn90}, but no test for this trend has been made with
205: E+A galaxy samples. If E+As occupy only a limited part of the
206: Faber-Jackson relation then they mark an interesting, but not
207: necessarily significant, phase in the evolution of some galaxies.
208: However, if we observe E+As over the range of luminosities and
209: velocity dispersions occupied by normal ellipticals, then this brief
210: phase may be part of the evolution of many galaxies. Examining the
211: kinematic properties of this large, unbiased sample of E+As will help
212: us determine not only whether the E+A phase represents a transition
213: between galaxy types, but also what fraction of galaxies are likely to
214: have evolved through it.
215:
216:
217: % is there dust-obscured star formation or aperture bias?
218: A concern in the interpretation of E+A spectra is the degree to which
219: bursts of star formation may be cloaked by dust or missed by the often
220: small physical radius probed by the spectroscopic fiber or slit.
221: \citet{smail99} conclude, based upon observations at near infrared and
222: radio wavelengths, that some distant ``post-starburst'' galaxies are
223: actually dust-obscured starbursts. To determine whether significant star
224: formation is enshrouded by dust in our E+A sample, two studies (Chang
225: et al. 2001, Miller et al. in preparation) search for radio continuum
226: emission, which can be interpreted as evidence for on-going star
227: formation and is impervious to dust. Of the E+As in the Z96 sample,
228: only two of the 17 observed to date are detected in radio continuum.
229: Their detection limits of a few times $10^{21}$ $h^{-2}$ W Hz$^{-1}$
230: correspond to upper limits of 0.5 -- 1 $h^{-2}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$.
231: Thus, we conclude that E+As are not disguised starbursts.
232:
233: %With our spatially-resolved spectroscopy of the entire Z96 sample, we
234: %revisit the two positive radio continuum detections and look for
235: %evidence of on-going star formation in the other E+As beyond the
236: %region already probed by the original fiber observations from which
237: %the sample was selected.
238:
239:
240: % our data & outline
241: To better understand the properties and origins of E+As along the
242: lines just described, we obtain and analyze long-slit spectra for the
243: 21 E+A galaxies in the Z96 sample. In
244: Section~\ref{sec:data} we describe the data, our reduction procedure,
245: and our methods for separating the kinematics and spatial
246: distributions of young and old stellar populations. In
247: Section~\ref{sec:results} we present the results of our kinematic
248: analysis. In Section~\ref{sec:discussion}, we discuss the
249: implications of our results, and in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions} we
250: present our conclusions. Throughout this analysis we assume a flat,
251: $\Omega_0$ = 1 cosmology and H$_0$ = 100 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,
252: which results in an image scale of $\sim$ 1 kpc per arcsec for the
253: typical galaxy in our sample.
254:
255:
256:
257:
258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
261:
262:
263: \section{Data and Analysis}
264:
265:
266: \label{sec:data}
267:
268:
269: \subsection{Observations and Reduction}
270:
271:
272: We obtained long-slit spectra of our sample of E+As using the du Pont
273: 2.5-meter telescope at Las Campanas\footnote{Las Campanas observatory
274: is operated by the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of
275: Washington.} during November 1995, February 1996, and April 1996. We
276: used the B\&C Spectrograph with the TEK-1 (1024 pixels $\times$ 1024
277: pixels) CCD. Table~\ref{tab:observations} summarizes our
278: observations: galaxy name and position (Columns 1--3), the total
279: exposure time (Column 4), and the spectral range (Column 5). Galaxy
280: names, EA~1 through EA~21, denote increasing strength of the 4000\AA\
281: break spectral feature (cf. Z96). Galaxies with lowest numbers have
282: the weakest break and thus have had the most recent and/or intense
283: burst of star formation. For the remainder of this paper, we refer to
284: each galaxy by its assigned number.
285:
286:
287: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
288: \tablewidth{413.265pt}
289: \tablecaption{Observations \label{tab:observations}}
290: \tablehead{
291: \colhead{Galaxy\tablenotemark{a}} &
292: \colhead{RA} &
293: \colhead{Dec} &
294: \colhead{Total t$_{exp}$ (s)} &
295: \colhead{Observed $\lambda$ range (\AA)}
296: }
297: \startdata
298: 1 & 10$^{\rm h}$58$^{\rm m}$48\fs 97 & $-$11\degr 54\arcmin 9\farcs 80 & 7200 & 4320 -- 5630 \\
299: 2 & 2$^{\rm h}$15$^{\rm m}$43\fs 24 & $-$44\degr 46\arcmin 36\farcs 70 & 8100 & 4450 -- 5760 \\
300: 3 & 12$^{\rm h}$6$^{\rm m}$31\fs 34 & $-$12\degr 5\arcmin 55\farcs 40 & 5400 & 4320 -- 5630 \\
301: 4 & 3$^{\rm h}$58$^{\rm m}$23\fs 42 & $-$44\degr 43\arcmin 40\farcs 29 & 4400 & 4490 -- 5810 \\
302: 5 & 1$^{\rm h}$56$^{\rm m}$0\fs 12 & $-$44\degr 51\arcmin 49\farcs 0 & 9000 & 4540 -- 5850 \\
303: 6 & 11$^{\rm h}$51$^{\rm m}$21\fs 96 & $-$2\degr 53\arcmin 55\farcs 9 & 7200 & 4380 -- 5680 \\
304: 7 & 22$^{\rm h}$38$^{\rm m}$17\fs 77 & $-$38\degr 50\arcmin 17\farcs 0 & 5400 & 4490 -- 5810 \\
305: 8 & 14$^{\rm h}$29$^{\rm m}$20\fs 26 & $-$12\degr 44\arcmin 18\farcs 20 & 7200 & 4500 -- 5810 \\
306: 9 & 1$^{\rm h}$15$^{\rm m}$24\fs 20 & $-$41\degr 50\arcmin 10\farcs 69 & 5400 & 4310 -- 5620 \\
307: 10 & 2$^{\rm h}$9$^{\rm m}$44\fs 50 & $-$44\degr 21\arcmin 43\farcs 20 & 7200 & 4490 -- 5810 \\
308: 11 & 1$^{\rm h}$12$^{\rm m}$34\fs 56 & $-$41\degr 38\arcmin 21\farcs 79 & 7200 & 4540 -- 5850 \\
309: 12 & 12$^{\rm h}$3$^{\rm m}$25\fs 97 & $-$2\degr 37\arcmin 50\farcs 59 & 6000 & 4450 -- 5760 \\
310: 13 & 11$^{\rm h}$17$^{\rm m}$21\fs 50 & $-$12\degr 36\arcmin 13\farcs 30 & 5400 & 4450 -- 5760 \\
311: 14 & 13$^{\rm h}$54$^{\rm m}$20\fs 95 & $-$12\degr 12\arcmin 10\farcs 60 & 3600 & 4380 -- 5680 \\
312: 15 & 14$^{\rm h}$38$^{\rm m}$5\fs 59 & $-$6\degr 27\arcmin 4\farcs 90 & 7200 & 4540 -- 5850 \\
313: 16 & 12$^{\rm h}$17$^{\rm m}$21\fs 44 & $-$5\degr 57\arcmin 22\farcs 70 & 5400 & 4380 -- 5680 \\
314: 17 & 10$^{\rm h}$11$^{\rm m}$20\fs 17 & $-$2\degr 40\arcmin 53\farcs 0 & 7200 & 4320 -- 5630 \\
315: 18 & 0$^{\rm h}$20$^{\rm m}$18\fs 81 & $-$41\degr 50\arcmin 15\farcs 60 & 5400 & 4310 -- 5620 \\
316: 19 & 2$^{\rm h}$5$^{\rm m}$51\fs 66 & $-$45\degr 35\arcmin 2\farcs 79 & 5700 & 4320 -- 5630 \\
317: 20 & 0$^{\rm h}$36$^{\rm m}$20\fs 9 & $-$39\degr 13\arcmin 41\farcs 50 & 3600 & 4310 -- 5620 \\
318: 20\tablenotemark{b} & 0$^{\rm h}$36$^{\rm m}$20\fs 9 & $-$39\degr 13\arcmin 41\farcs 50 & 3600 & 4310 -- 5620 \\
319: 21 & 11$^{\rm h}$12$^{\rm m}$52\fs 65 & $-$6\degr 28\arcmin 51\farcs 59 & 7200 & 4450 -- 5760 \\
320:
321:
322: \enddata
323:
324: \tablenotetext{a}{Numbers identifying E+A galaxies are from
325: Z96.}
326:
327: \tablenotetext{b}{This spectrum was taken with the slit
328: along the galaxy minor axis.}
329:
330: \end{deluxetable}
331:
332:
333: The data for this study consist of three to four coadded 1800 second
334: exposures of each E+A galaxy using a 1.5-arcsecond slit. The pixel
335: scale is 0.59 $\arcsec$/pixel in the spatial direction and 1.3
336: \AA/pixel in spectral direction. The spatial resolution, measured from
337: stellar spectra, is $\sim 1.6\arcsec$, and typically varies by $\sim
338: \pm 0.3\arcsec$ during each night. The spectral resolution, measured
339: from the night sky lines, is 1.95 pixels full-width at half maximum
340: (or 2.5 \AA) and typically varies by $\sim$ 5 \% between observations.
341: Because one of our principal goals is to examine both the older and
342: younger stellar populations, the spectral range is selected to include
343: both Mg I 5175\AA, which mostly originates from the older populations,
344: and H$\delta$, which mostly originates from the younger populations.
345: The total spectral coverage is $\sim 1300$ \AA. The resulting spectra
346: have a signal-to-noise (S/N) of $\sim$ 40 per pixel for an aperture
347: along the slit that includes the entire galaxy. In all cases, we
348: aligned the slit with the major axis of the galaxy; for EA 20, we also
349: obtained a minor-axis profile.
350:
351:
352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
353:
354:
355: %\subsection{Data Reduction}
356:
357:
358: We apply standard IRAF\footnote{IRAF, the Image Reduction and
359: Analysis Facility, is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
360: Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities
361: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the
362: National Science Foundation.} routines and reduction techniques to the
363: raw images. First, we subtract both an
364: overscan region and an average bias frame from each image.
365: Next, we divide the image
366: by an image of a uniformly illuminated region of the
367: dome interior. We obtain separate flat-field images for
368: each grating angle that we use.
369: We remove small-scale variations in
370: sensitivity, and preserve the large-scale illumination function and
371: slit function, by fitting and dividing the flats by a 2-dimensional
372: function (25th order in the wavelength direction and 8th order in the
373: spatial direction). We obtain spectra of twilight skies to
374: correct for the slit illumination function in the object spectra. We
375: derive the illumination pattern by fitting the sky spectra with a 7th
376: order function in the spatial direction at five different points
377: along the wavelength axis. We do not correct the CCD response
378: function in the wavelength direction. After removing the sensitivity
379: and illumination variations, a number of pixels remain that
380: are consistently discrepant from the surrounding pixels in all images. We
381: identify these CCD defects interactively and interpolate over each group of
382: bad pixels in the narrowest direction spanned by the pixels.
383:
384:
385: Defects are introduced into individual images by cosmic rays. We
386: apply an algorithm similar to that described by \citet{windetal94} to
387: remove these. For each galaxy, the stack of 2D spectra (typically,
388: three) are compared by examining the pixel values within a moving
389: boxcar. We calculate the median in the boxcar and use the CCD noise
390: characteristics to determine the expected standard deviation within
391: the boxcar. We then compare the value of the pixel at the center of
392: the boxcar among the images in the stack. All pixels greater than a
393: threshold deviation (typically 12 to 15 $\sigma$) from the boxcar
394: median are replaced by the median. We visually examine the resulting
395: images and tune the threshold deviation to ensure that no emission
396: lines are removed. Finally, we average the image stack to produce the
397: final image.
398:
399:
400: After removing cosmic rays, we complete the reduction process by
401: establishing the wavelength scale, rectifying the images, and
402: subtracting the sky flux. The reference spectra for wavelength
403: calibration are helium-argon lamp images taken before and after each
404: galaxy image. We use a two-dimensional fit (7th order spatially and
405: spectrally) from the calibration spectra to wavelength calibrate and
406: rectify each galaxy spectrum. Finally, we fit a line in the spatial
407: direction to the sky on either side of the slit and subtract the sky
408: spectrum. Due to the angular length of the long slit (3.5 arcmin) and
409: the small angular extent of the galaxies (several arcseconds), the
410: edges of the frames provide uncontaminated sky spectra.
411:
412:
413:
414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
415:
416:
417: \subsection{Measuring Line-of-Sight Velocity Distributions and Stellar Populations}
418: \label{sec:fits}
419: The observed spectral range, which includes H$\beta$, H$\gamma$,
420: H$\delta$, Mg I, and the G-band, enables us to extract the velocity
421: distributions of young and old stars. Although the different spectral
422: features are {\it primarily} associated with either young or old
423: populations, they do not arise exclusively in one or the other. It
424: would be incorrect, for example, to measure the velocity distribution
425: of the young stellar population using the Balmer lines, while ignoring
426: the contribution of the older population to those lines. To
427: disentangle the kinematics of the two stellar populations, we {\em
428: simultaneously} fit the velocity profile and the relative contribution
429: of different stellar components. Our two major concerns in the
430: extraction of the line-of-sight velocity distribution (LOSVD) are
431: including the appropriate stellar templates and optimizing the
432: combined stellar templates in fitting the observed spectra. We
433: discuss these in turn.
434:
435:
436: The library of template spectra must contain the range of stellar spectral types
437: found in the galaxy and match the spectral resolution and wavelength range of the
438: galaxy spectrum.
439: Ideally, one would construct a large template library with the
440: same instrumental configuration as used for the galaxy observation. However, because of the
441: redshift difference between galaxies and template stars, we could not
442: match the spectral coverage of local standard stars to that of the E+A
443: galaxies (which lie at $0.06 \ltsim z \ltsim 0.12$) without incurring
444: problematic overhead. Instead, we use publicly available
445: spectra of template stars
446: from the Coud\'e Feed Spectral
447: Library at KPNO \citep{leith96} and convolve those spectra to match
448: the characteristics of our
449: observational configuration. The KPNO library contains 684 stars with a
450: broad range of spectral types at 1.8~\AA\ FWHM resolution. We select a
451: subsample of 22 stars representing A dwarfs and G and K dwarfs and
452: giants. We experimented with a variety of different stars, and our
453: final template subsample provides good overall type coverage without
454: involving an exorbitant number of stars. Note that A giants are not
455: included among the templates because their lifetimes ( $<$ 1 Myr) are
456: extremely short relative to main-sequence A star lifetimes
457: ($\sim$ 1 Gyr; \citet{bressan93}).
458:
459:
460: In Figure~\ref{fig:templatespec}, we plot representative template
461: spectra. It is apparent from the figure that the most significant
462: spectral differences are between the A-type stars and the other
463: templates. We correspondingly separate the templates into two groups:
464: a ``young'' population represented by the A dwarfs, and an ``old''
465: population represented by the G- and K-type templates. The presence of main
466: sequence A stars, whose lifetimes are $\sim$ 1 Gyr, and the lack of
467: bluer stars in the E+A spectra indicate
468: that the most recent star formation event occurred $\sim$ 1 Gyr ago.
469: The main sequence stars comprising the
470: older population have lifetimes from 4 to 10 Gyr. We refer
471: to the two stellar populations as the young and old populations.
472:
473: \begin{figure}
474: \epsscale{0.9}
475: \plotone{f1.eps}
476: \caption{Representative template star spectra from
477: \citet{leith96}. Each spectrum is labeled with its spectral
478: type.\label{fig:templatespec}}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481:
482: To prepare the template stars for their application,
483: we transform each spectrum to the resolution and
484: redshift of each galaxy spectrum. We convolve the spectra using a
485: Gaussian (\eg,\ \citet{vdmf93}) with $\sigma^2 =
486: \sigma^2_{\rm g} - \sigma^2_{\rm t}$. The
487: resolution of the galaxy spectrum is $\sigma_{\rm g}$ (1.1~\AA) and
488: that of the templates is $\sigma_{\rm t}$ (0.9~\AA\ for the KPNO
489: library).
490:
491:
492: We measure the LOSVD from a series
493: of five apertures along the slit and from an aperture that
494: contains all of the galaxy light. The five apertures include
495: a central aperture that is 1 pixel wide, two apertures at intermediate
496: radii that are adjacent to the central aperture and are 2
497: pixels wide, and two more distant apertures that are
498: adjacent to the intermediate apertures and are 3 pixels wide (\ie,
499: the most distant aperture on each side of the slit spans the region
500: from 2.5 to 5.5 pixels [or $\sim$ 1.5 to 3.3 kpc] from the center).
501: Next, we fit and divide by the continuum in all template and galaxy
502: spectra, alleviating the need for accurate flux calibration of our
503: spectra.
504:
505:
506: We use a maximum likelihood procedure to estimate the best-fitting
507: Gaussian LOSVD and template weights. We begin by choosing an initial
508: velocity profile for each template type (young or old), which is
509: characterized
510: by the fractional contribution from each template star to the total
511: light and by the Gaussian parameters (mean velocity and velocity
512: dispersion) for that population. We convolve this line profile with a
513: weighted-averaged template (the average of the template spectra where
514: each star has its particular weight), subtract this spectrum
515: from the galaxy spectrum, and calculate the residuals. We vary the
516: template weights and velocity profile parameters (Gaussian
517: coefficients) and identify the best match to the galaxy spectrum.
518: Each template type is forced to have uniform kinematics,
519: \ie, all of the young, A-type stars have the same LOSVD, but the
520: contribution of each A star template to the total spectrum is allowed
521: to vary. Rather than allowing the relative contributions of the populations
522: to vary freely, we could have used evolutionary spectral synthesis codes
523: (\eg,\ \citet{bc93}) to model the contributions.
524: However, because the integrated model spectra for populations of age $\ltsim$
525: 1 Gyr are rather uncertain and because such a procedure introduces other
526: unknowns such as the initial mass function, we prefer to fit the relative
527: contributions of young and old stars to the spectrum.
528:
529:
530: We vary portions of this analysis to test our assumptions. For
531: example, we add skew and kurtosis terms by replacing the Gaussian
532: profile LOSVD profile with a Gauss-Hermite profile. We find no
533: significant differences between the Gaussian and Gauss-Hermite fits,
534: and thus we do not report the results for the Gauss-Hermite fits. We
535: also compare the results from our standard method to those from a
536: non-parametric fit \citep{getal01} and find that the two methods yield
537: similar results. We conclude that deviations from a Gaussian are
538: sufficiently insignificant that they do not adversely affect the
539: results of the parametric fits.
540:
541:
542: We perform a Monte-Carlo analysis to measure the uncertainties in the
543: recovered parameters. We generate 100 Monte Carlo realizations of the
544: data in each aperture by adding random noise with the appropriate RMS
545: to the best-fit spectrum (which is constructed from the best-fitting
546: combination of templates and the LOSVD). Each realization is then
547: analyzed as described above. From the distribution of 100 model
548: parameters, the 16th and 84th percentile values determine the 68\%
549: confidence band. The average squared difference between the
550: best-fitting model and the data provides the RMS. This approach does
551: not account for systematic differences between the models and
552: observations, such as template mismatches. For this same reason, we
553: are unable to accurately determine uncertainties in the young star
554: light fraction when the best-fitting value is zero, in which case we
555: adopt a minimum error of 0.1.
556:
557:
558:
559: \subsection{Spectral Fitting}
560:
561:
562: We present examples of the fitted spectra in
563: Figures~\ref{fig:firstfits} through~\ref{fig:lastfits}. The observed
564: spectrum of each galaxy, for the full ($\sim 6.6 \arcsec$) aperture,
565: is plotted along with the best-fit model. The RMS difference between
566: the fit and the data is labeled, along with the fraction of light from
567: A-type (young) stars, above each spectrum.
568:
569: \begin{figure}
570: %\epsscale{1.0}
571: \plotone{f2a.eps}
572: \caption{Observed spectra (solid lines) and our
573: best fit (points). The RMS (per pixel) for each spectrum is
574: calculated using the deviation between the continuum-normalized fit
575: and data. \label{fig:firstfits}}
576: \end{figure}
577:
578: \begin{figure}
579: %\epsscale{1.0}
580: \plotone{f2b.eps}
581: \caption{Observed spectra (solid lines) and our
582: best fit (points). The RMS (per pixel) for each spectrum is
583: calculated using the deviation between the continuum-normalized fit
584: and data.}
585: \end{figure}
586:
587: \begin{figure}
588: %\epsscale{1.0}
589: \plotone{f2c.eps}
590: \caption{Observed spectra (solid lines) and our
591: best fit (points). The RMS (per pixel) for each spectrum is
592: calculated using the deviation between the continuum-normalized fit
593: and data.\label{fig:lastfits}}
594: \end{figure}
595:
596: An examination of the full set of spectra reveals a minor, but
597: systematic trend: in
598: the majority of cases, the best-fitting model has a deficit of
599: H$\delta$ absorption, the correct amount of H$\gamma$, and an excess
600: of H$\beta$ absorption. The most likely cause
601: of this discrepancy is the lack of an accurate flux calibration.
602: Because we have divided the spectra of both galaxies
603: and templates by their continua, and because the relative contributions
604: of continuum and lines vary differentially for young and old templates
605: across our wavelength range, we are diluting the absorption features
606: differently in the templates than in the galaxies. For example,
607: because the younger
608: stars have more blue continuum
609: than the older stars, we are artificially diluting
610: the bluer Balmer lines and enhancing the redder lines when we divide the
611: young star spectra by their continua. We could
612: rectify this situation by having our algorithm fit the continuum
613: as well as the line strengths (which would
614: require flux calibration of both template and galaxy spectra),
615: but given the small differences seen in the equivalent widths of
616: the Balmer lines (cf. Figures~\ref{fig:firstfits}--\ref{fig:lastfits}) we
617: conclude that the potential biases from the uncertainties in
618: the flux calibration are at least as large as those from the
619: Balmer discrepancies. Other potential sources for the
620: discrepancy include an incomplete template library and/or emission-line
621: filling of the Balmer absorption lines. We have checked both of these
622: possibilities and neither provides a satisfactory explanation.
623: These small discrepancies between the fitted and observed spectra
624: have an insignificant effect on the
625: kinematics, which is the primary focus here.
626:
627:
628: As mentioned previously, to investigate the properties of each
629: galaxy as a function of radius, we have also extracted spectra within
630: several radial bins. In Figure~\ref{fig:fitexamples}, we show six
631: examples of the fits in these radial bins, spanning a representative
632: S/N range, for the central aperture and the two radial
633: apertures. The spectrum in the final panel, which comes from the
634: outermost aperture in EA~19, is obviously too
635: poor for a kinematic analysis.
636: We make no attempt to derive kinematics for this
637: spectrum or for any aperture with a lower S/N; this limit corresponds
638: to S/N $\sim$ 10 or RMS $\sim$ 0.1 (10\% of the continuum flux).
639: However, our Monte-Carlo simulations demonstrate that the
640: young star fraction is a significantly more robust measurement than
641: the kinematics, and we retain these measurements for all five
642: apertures of each galaxy.
643:
644: \begin{figure}
645: \epsscale{0.8}
646: \plotone{f3.eps}
647: \caption{Representative spectral fits at various radii. From upper to
648: lower panels these plots show: EA~3 at a radial distance of
649: 0.9$\arcsec$ ($\sim$ 0.9 kpc), the central aperture for EA~21, EA~7 at
650: a radial distance of 2.4$\arcsec$ (3.4 kpc), EA~9 at 0.9$\arcsec$ (0.8
651: kpc), EA~13 at 2.4$\arcsec$ (2.9 kpc), and EA~19 at 2.4$\arcsec$ (2.0
652: kpc). Note that the last spectrum is below our signal-to-noise cutoff
653: (RMS $>$ 10\%) and is not used in the analysis. The RMS is calculated
654: as in Figure~\ref{fig:firstfits}. \label{fig:fitexamples}}
655: \epsscale{0.9}
656: \end{figure}
657:
658:
659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
660: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
661: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
662:
663:
664: \section{Results}
665:
666:
667: \label{sec:results}
668:
669:
670: For each aperture along the spectrum of each E+A, we measure the
671: fraction of light contributed by the young, A-type stars (denoted by
672: f$_A$), the mean projected velocity relative to the galaxy center
673: ($\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle$), and the velocity dispersion
674: ($\sigma$) (see Figures~\ref{fig:firstall}--\ref{fig:lastall}).
675: Before examining the properties of the entire sample, we note three
676: special cases. First, EA~20 shows no evidence for a young population
677: in either a major or minor axis spectrum. We conclude that it was
678: misclassified as an E+A due to noise in the optical LCRS fiber
679: spectrum. We will exclude this galaxy from the rest of the
680: discussion. Second, EA~12 has detectable emission in both [OIII] and
681: Balmer lines.\footnote{This galaxy is also one of two E+As in this
682: sample detected in radio continuum by Miller et al. (2001, in prep.).}
683: We exclude the central $\sim$ 9 \AA\ from each Balmer line in fitting
684: the LOSVD for this galaxy. Despite the detected emission, the total
685: [OIII] emission line equivalent width is $< 1$ \AA\ and the average
686: absorption line equivalent width of H$\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\delta$
687: is $\sim$ 5.5 \AA. These parameters indicate that EA~12 does meet the
688: selection criteria (cf. Z96), and we thus retain this galaxy in our
689: analysis. Finally, HST imaging of EA~1 shows two distinct components
690: that are separated spatially by $\sim$ 2.3 kpc (Zabludoff~\etal\ in
691: preparation). We find that the differences between the kinematics of
692: the two subcomponents are insignificant. In
693: Figures~\ref{fig:firstall}--\ref{fig:lastall} and in all future
694: discussion we refer to the average of the two components as EA~1. In
695: Table~\ref{tab:params} we list the value of f$_A$ for the aperture
696: that includes the entire spectrum, the rotation velocity (see \S
697: 3.2.1), and velocity dispersion for each galaxy.
698:
699: \begin{figure}
700: %\epsscale{2.}
701: \plotone{f4a.eps}
702: \caption{Fitted quantities for EA~1 to 4. Three measurements are
703: plotted vs. radius. From upper to lower panels these quantities are
704: (a) f$_A$, the A-type stellar fraction, (b) the mean velocity, and (c)
705: the velocity dispersion. Open symbols represent the old stellar
706: population, and filled symbols are the young population. The velocity
707: and velocity dispersion are calculated only for the three central
708: apertures unless the signal-to-noise in the outer apertures exceeds
709: 10; however, we retain the measurements of A star fraction in the
710: outer apertures (see text).\label{fig:firstall}}
711: \end{figure}
712:
713: \begin{figure}
714: \plotone{f4b.eps}
715: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:firstall}, but for EA~5 to 8.}
716: \end{figure}
717:
718: \begin{figure}
719: \plotone{f4c.eps}
720: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:firstall}, but for EA~9 to 12}
721: \end{figure}
722:
723: \begin{figure}
724: \plotone{f4d.eps}
725: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:firstall}, but for EA~13 to 16.}
726: \end{figure}
727:
728: \begin{figure}
729: \plotone{f4e.eps}
730: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:firstall}, but for EA~17 to 20.}
731: \end{figure}
732:
733: \begin{figure}
734: \plotone{f4f.eps}
735: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:firstall}, but for the minor axis of EA~20
736: and for EA~21.\label{fig:lastall}}
737: \end{figure}
738:
739:
740: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
741:
742: \tablecaption{Galaxy Properties\label{tab:params}}
743:
744: \tablewidth{393.143pt}
745: \tablehead{
746: \colhead {Name} &
747: \colhead {M$_{\rm R}\tablenotemark{a}$} &
748: \colhead {z} &
749: \colhead {f$_A$} &
750: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle$ (km/s$^{-1}$)} &
751: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\sigma$ (km s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{b}} \\
752: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} &
753: \colhead{Old} & \colhead{Young} &
754: \colhead{Old} & \colhead{Young} }
755:
756:
757: \startdata
758: %%% Fri Jan 19 15:03:12 2001
759: EA 1 & $-$19.45 & 0.08 & 0.80 $^{+ 0.03}_{- 0.03}$ &
760: 24 $^{+ 57}_{- 54}$ & 19 $^{+ 17}_{- 17}$ &
761: 35 $^{+ 39}_{- 35}$ & 23 $^{+ 53}_{- 23}$ \\
762: EA 2 & $-$20.72 & 0.10 & 0.42 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.03}$ &
763: 23 $^{+ 16}_{- 20}$ & 22 $^{+ 24}_{- 25}$ &
764: 202 $^{+ 17}_{- 16}$ & 193 $^{+ 32}_{- 46}$ \\
765: EA 3 & $-$21.73 & 0.08 & 0.59 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.03}$ &
766: 23 $^{+ 17}_{- 23}$ & 25 $^{+ 18}_{- 17}$ &
767: 120 $^{+ 22}_{- 20}$ & 56 $^{+ 35}_{- 32}$ \\
768: EA 4 & $-$21.45 & 0.11 & 0.56 $^{+ 0.01}_{- 0.01}$ &
769: 1 $^{+ 8}_{- 9}$ & 35 $^{+ 15}_{- 16}$ &
770: 131 $^{+ 9}_{- 9}$ & 246 $^{+ 24}_{- 25}$ \\
771: EA 5 & $-$20.73 & 0.13 & 0.42 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.01}$ &
772: 33 $^{+ 24}_{- 25}$ & 52 $^{+ 34}_{- 18}$ &
773: 120 $^{+ 7}_{- 8}$ & 94 $^{+ 34}_{- 41}$ \\
774: EA 6 & $-$20.06 & 0.09 & 0.61 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.03}$ &
775: 18 $^{+ 10}_{- 13}$ & 20 $^{+ 20}_{- 22}$ &
776: 23 $^{+ 1}_{- 23}$ & 158 $^{+ 14}_{- 18}$ \\
777: EA 7 & $-$22.40 & 0.12 & 0.46 $^{+ 0.01}_{- 0.01}$ &
778: 141 $^{+ 20}_{- 22}$ & 83 $^{+ 22}_{- 18}$ &
779: 241 $^{+ 11}_{- 12}$ & 208 $^{+ 30}_{- 31}$ \\
780: EA 8 & $-$20.45 & 0.12 & 0.36 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.01}$ &
781: 3 $^{+ 7}_{- 7}$ & 24 $^{+ 34}_{- 36}$ &
782: 99 $^{+ 8}_{- 11}$ & 141 $^{+ 55}_{- 55}$ \\
783: EA 9 & $-$18.74 & 0.07 & 0.27 $^{+ 0.05}_{- 0.26}$ &
784: 51 $^{+ 19}_{- 6}$ & 79 $^{+ 46}_{- 17}$ &
785: 74 $^{+ 134}_{- 5}$ & 172 $^{+ 4}_{- 60}$ \\
786: EA 10 & $-$20.53 & 0.11 & 0.46 $^{+ 0.01}_{- 0.02}$ &
787: 4 $^{+ 21}_{- 19}$ & 34 $^{+ 25}_{- 17}$ &
788: 121 $^{+ 7}_{- 8}$ & 183 $^{+ 34}_{- 41}$ \\
789: EA 11 & $-$20.64 & 0.13 & 0.33 $^{+ 0.01}_{- 0.03}$ &
790: 13 $^{+ 10}_{- 8}$ & 38 $^{+ 32}_{- 29}$ &
791: 174 $^{+ 12}_{- 11}$ & 95 $^{+ 52}_{- 46}$ \\
792: EA 12 & $-$20.30 & 0.10 & 0.50 $^{+ 0.03}_{- 0.03}$ &
793: 49 $^{+ 12}_{- 11}$ & 1 $^{+ 45}_{- 42}$ &
794: 111 $^{+ 17}_{- 18}$ & 470 $^{+ 69}_{- 78}$ \\
795: EA 13 & $-$21.20 & 0.10 & 0.40 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.01}$ &
796: 116 $^{+ 20}_{- 20}$ & 22 $^{+ 42}_{- 38}$ &
797: 165 $^{+ 10}_{- 9}$ & 392 $^{+ 66}_{- 59}$ \\
798: EA 14 & $-$20.40 & 0.07 & 0.35 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.02}$ &
799: 73 $^{+ 9}_{- 9}$ & 72 $^{+ 39}_{- 36}$ &
800: 135 $^{+ 10}_{- 10}$ & 73 $^{+ 50}_{- 73}$ \\
801: EA 15 & $-$20.30 & 0.12 & 0.33 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.02}$ &
802: 12 $^{+ 8}_{- 8}$ & 32 $^{+ 31}_{- 37}$ &
803: 125 $^{+ 9}_{- 10}$ & 187 $^{+ 56}_{- 57}$ \\
804: EA 16 & $-$19.87 & 0.08 & 0.51 $^{+ 0.01}_{- 0.01}$ &
805: 16 $^{+ 8}_{- 7}$ & 15 $^{+ 15}_{- 15}$ &
806: 93 $^{+ 7}_{- 8}$ & 95 $^{+ 36}_{- 29}$ \\
807: EA 17 & $-$19.05 & 0.06 & 0.51 $^{+ 0.05}_{- 0.04}$ &
808: 26 $^{+ 9}_{- 7}$ & 38 $^{+ 18}_{- 21}$ &
809: 23 $^{+ 1}_{- 23}$ & 189 $^{+ 9}_{- 8}$ \\
810: EA 18 & $-$19.90 & 0.06 & 0.61 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.02}$ &
811: 33 $^{+ 14}_{- 9}$ & 31 $^{+ 8}_{- 8}$ &
812: 23 $^{+ 4}_{- 23}$ & 168 $^{+ 16}_{- 20}$ \\
813: EA 19 & $-$19.70 & 0.07 & 0.39 $^{+ 0.04}_{- 0.03}$ &
814: 46 $^{+ 17}_{- 16}$ & 8 $^{+ 56}_{- 50}$ &
815: 84 $^{+ 18}_{- 34}$ & 208 $^{+ 25}_{- 35}$ \\
816: EA 20 & $-$20.15 & 0.07 & 0.00 $^{+ 0.10}_{- 0.00}$ &
817: 2 $^{+ 2}_{- 2}$ &
818: \nodata & 204 $^{+ 2}_{- 2}$ & \nodata \\
819: EA 20\tablenotemark{c} & $-$20.15 & 0.07 & 0.00 $^{+ 0.10}_{- 0.00}$ &
820: 2 $^{+ 2}_{- 2}$ &
821: \nodata & 200 $^{+ 2}_{- 2}$ & \nodata \\
822: EA 21 & $-$20.22 & 0.10 & 0.35 $^{+ 0.02}_{- 0.02}$ &
823: 39 $^{+ 7}_{- 7}$ & 52 $^{+ 30}_{- 27}$ &
824: 134 $^{+ 7}_{- 9}$ & 237 $^{+ 48}_{- 45}$ \\
825: \enddata
826:
827: \tablenotetext{a}{Magnitudes are from the LCRS survey \citep{linetal96}; errors are $\sim$ 0.1 magnitude.}
828: \tablenotetext{b}{$\sigma$ = 23 km s$^{-1}$ is the limit of our resolution; all entries with $\sigma$ = 23 km s$^{-1}$ are upper limits.}
829: \tablenotetext{c}{Slit aligned with minor axis.}
830: \end{deluxetable}
831:
832:
833:
834:
835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
836:
837:
838: \subsection{Stellar population gradients}
839: \label{sec:populations}
840:
841:
842: The variation of f$_A$ across the slit measures the distribution of
843: the recent star formation episode, which in turn constrains star
844: formation and merger models (cf. \citet{js92}; \citet{mh96}). A trend
845: is apparent in the behavior of f$_A$ along the slit
846: (Figures~\ref{fig:firstall}--\ref{fig:lastall}, top panels): the young
847: star fraction typically peaks toward the center of the galaxy. Of the
848: exceptions to this trend, EA~5, EA~7, EA~13, and EA~19 have a nearly
849: constant f$_A$, and EA~12 and EA~15 have a slight decline in f$_A$ at
850: the nucleus. For EA~12 at least, the nuclear minimum in f$_A$ may be
851: due to contamination by Balmer line emission, which is particularly
852: prominent near the galaxy center. We have attempted to exclude this
853: emission from our fits as described above, but some effects could
854: remain.
855:
856:
857: The second moment of the luminosity distributions measures the
858: relative extent of the populations. Because our
859: observations span angular distances of only $\sim$ 2$\arcsec$ to
860: 7$\arcsec$ (or $\sim$
861: 2 to 7 kpc) across the galaxy, a range which is roughly comparable to the
862: seeing (typically 1.5$\arcsec$), a serious concern
863: is that the light of the young stars that we observe outside the nuclear
864: region is simply scattered nuclear light. To address this concern,
865: we compare the distribution
866: of light from the stellar populations of each galaxy with the seeing
867: profile in Figure~\ref{fig:akflux}.
868: The seeing profile is obtained from stellar spectra that were taken
869: within a couple of hours before and after each galaxy spectrum. We
870: overplot a Gaussian profile of the corresponding width (which ranges
871: from 1.2$\arcsec$ to 1.7$\arcsec$ FWHM) for each galaxy in
872: Figure~\ref{fig:akflux}.
873:
874: \begin{figure}
875: \epsscale{.85}
876: \plotone{f5.eps}
877: \caption{Flux contributed by each population as a
878: function of radius, normalized at the central pixel. The filled circles
879: represent the young stellar population, and the open circles are
880: the older population. The dotted line represents a Gaussian seeing
881: profile measured from a corresponding stellar image (see text).
882: \label{fig:akflux}}
883: \end{figure}
884:
885: We find that 6 of the 20 E+A galaxies have flux from young stars that
886: is more than 2$\sigma$ above the Gaussian profile at {\it both} of the
887: outermost measured points (EA~1, 3, 7, 12, 13, and 19).
888: For comparison, the identical analysis for
889: the old stellar population flux shows that 15 of the galaxies display
890: a 2$\sigma$ flux excess relative to a nuclear source at the outermost radii.
891: The remaining galaxies, EA~5, 6, 10, 15, and 21, also show old stellar
892: populations that are more extended than the Gaussian, but not at the
893: 2$\sigma$ level.
894:
895:
896: To quantify these results further, in Figure~\ref{fig:afrachist} we
897: plot the second moment, $\zeta$, of each galaxy's luminosity
898: distribution. For a normal distribution, $\zeta$ is the FWHM of the
899: luminosity distribution divided by 2.35. Two vertical lines mark the
900: range of $\zeta$ determined from the seeing profiles over the course
901: of our observations. About one half of the young stellar populations
902: are marginally resolved while the old populations are well resolved.
903: Seven E+As (EA~1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 19) have resolved, extended
904: young populations, with $\zeta$ exceeding the seeing by more than
905: 40\%. Only one of the 20 E+A galaxies, EA~12, has a detectable young
906: stellar population that is (marginally) more extended then its older
907: population, but its central emission may have some effect on this result.
908:
909: \begin{figure}
910: %\epsscale{1.0}
911: \plotone{f6.eps}
912: \caption{Histogram of the second moment of the luminosity
913: distribution ($\zeta$) for the young and old stellar populations. The
914: dotted lines mark $\zeta$ for a Gaussian point spread function with
915: the maximum and minimum seeing widths observed during the run.
916: \label{fig:afrachist}}
917: \end{figure}
918:
919: From our study of the stellar population distributions, we conclude
920: that
921: (1) the older stellar populations in these galaxies are
922: more radially extended than the young stellar populations
923: and (2) the recent star formation in E+A galaxies, though it is
924: relatively centrally concentrated, is not always confined to the
925: galaxy's central kiloparsec.
926:
927:
928:
929: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
930:
931:
932:
933: \subsection{Velocity Distributions}
934:
935:
936: Stellar velocity distributions are one of the fundamental differences
937: between different galaxy types. In this Section we present and
938: discuss our measurements of the first and second moments of the
939: velocity distributions of E+A galaxies.
940:
941:
942:
943: \subsubsection{Mean Velocities}
944:
945:
946: We begin by examining the first velocity moment (mean velocity) as a
947: function of position along the slit. Monotonic variations along the
948: slit would indicate rotation. It must be noted that these data are
949: only able to probe rotation at distances of $\sim$ 1 -- 3 kpc, near
950: the galaxy centers.
951:
952:
953: From Figures~\ref{fig:firstall}--\ref{fig:lastall} it is evident that
954: there is generally no {\em strong} rotation, in either the old or
955: young populations of these galaxies. The most notable exception is
956: EA~7, in which both stellar populations rotate at $\sim$ 200 km
957: s$^{-1}$ at a radius of $\sim$ 4 kpc. There is a suggestion of
958: rotation in a few others, such as the old stellar populations of EA~13
959: and 14 and the young populations of EA~9 and 14. However, aside from
960: these few exceptions, we find little evidence for significant rotation
961: in the E+As.
962:
963:
964:
965: %To quantify this impression, we present a histogram of the rotation
966: %velocities for each stellar population in Figure~\ref{fig:velhist}.
967: We define the characteristic rotation velocity $\langle {\rm v}_{rot}
968: \rangle$ of a galaxy to be equal to one half the velocity difference
969: across the slit. We average the velocities in the two radial bins on
970: each side of the slit for higher signal-to-noise. The resulting
971: rotation velocity is not directly comparable to the full rotation at
972: the rotation curve turnover radius. For a solid-body rotation curve
973: over the radial range probed, $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle$ would be the
974: velocity at the average distance of our intermediate radial bins,
975: $\sim$ 1.9 kpc. For reference, typical spiral galaxies have $\langle
976: {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle \sim (70 {\rm\ to\ } 140 {\rm \ km\ s^{-1}})/\sin{i}$
977: (when measured at the same radius; see \eg,\ \citet{hsmp}), where $i$
978: is the unknown inclination angle.
979:
980:
981: Only six of the twenty E+As in our sample have $\langle {\rm v}_{rot}
982: \rangle > 50$\ km s$^{-1}$ for either the old or the young stellar
983: populations (Table 2). Using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test, we find
984: that the distributions of $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle$ of the young and
985: old stellar populations are not significantly different. Not only are
986: the distributions similar, but, for most of the E+As, rotation is
987: observed either in both populations or not at all. For example, only
988: four E+As have old stellar populations with $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle >
989: 50$ km s$^{-1}$: EA~7, EA~9, EA~13, and EA~14. Of these four
990: galaxies, three (EA~7, 9, and 14) also show evidence for rotation in
991: the young stellar component. Only two galaxies (EA~7 and 13) have
992: differences larger than 50 km s$^{-1}$ in $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle$
993: between the young and old populations. However, interpreting the
994: results from such comparisons, whether they are similarities or
995: differences, is complicated by the different spatial distribution of
996: the two populations.
997:
998:
999: An alternative explanation for the monotonic change in velocity across
1000: the slit is bulk relative motion of two merging galaxies. However,
1001: none of the rotating E+As show separated optical components on the
1002: Digitized Sky Survey images (see Z96), and only one of the five E+As
1003: for which we have HST imaging (EA~1; Zabludoff~\etal\ in preparation)
1004: has two components (and EA~1 shows no apparent rotation).
1005:
1006:
1007: The majority of our sample does not appear to be rapidly rotating.
1008: Two factors may lead us to underestimate the degree of rotation in our
1009: sample. First, our rotation velocities must be corrected by sin $i$
1010: to account for inclination effects. However, it is unlikely that many
1011: of the galaxies would be fortuitously aligned close to face-on.
1012: Assuming a random distribution of inclinations, such that the
1013: probability of observing a galaxy with inclination $i < \theta$ is
1014: $1-{\rm cos}(\theta)$, a random distribution of galaxy velocities
1015: between 40 and 100 km s$^{-1}$ --- a very conservative estimate ---
1016: would result in a $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle$ distribution that has
1017: $\sim$ 25\% of the measurements below 40 km s$^{-1}$. In our sample,
1018: 75\% of the galaxies have velocities below this threshold, suggesting
1019: that the rotation velocities of the E+As are smaller than the 40 to
1020: 100 km s$^{-1}$ range. Second, poor spatial resolution may be a
1021: concern. If E+A galaxies were rotationally supported only outside the
1022: central $\sim$ 2 kpc, we would not be able to observe that here. It
1023: may be significant that we do detect rotation in some of the galaxies
1024: for which our radial coverage is greatest (EA~3, EA~7). Although we
1025: cannot rule out rotation at larger radii than we are currently able to
1026: probe, $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle \sin i$, even at the small radii we
1027: observe, is 70 to 140 km s$^{-1}$ for a typical disk galaxy
1028: \citep{hsmp} --- much larger than what we observe in the E+A sample.
1029:
1030:
1031: From the rotation analysis, we conclude that (1) both rapidly rotating
1032: systems (cf. \citet{franx93} and discussion above) and slowly or
1033: non-rotating systems can be found in the E+A phase, (2) most E+A
1034: galaxies in our sample (14/20) show no evidence for rotation and that
1035: for two other galaxies the evidence for rotation is marginal, and (3)
1036: the rotation (or lack thereof) is generally present in both the
1037: old and young stellar populations of an E+A galaxy.
1038:
1039:
1040: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1041:
1042:
1043:
1044: \subsubsection{Velocity Dispersions}
1045:
1046:
1047: The lack of rotation in most of the E+As in our sample indirectly
1048: suggests that most are pressure-supported. To assess this
1049: possibility, we measure the velocity dispersion, $\sigma$, and compare the
1050: dispersions of the young and old stellar populations. Differences
1051: between the two populations may arise if they have different spatial
1052: distributions, if one or both stellar populations are not yet in
1053: equilibrium after the hypothesized merger event, or if they have
1054: reached different dynamical equilibria.
1055:
1056:
1057: In Figure~\ref{fig:sighist}, we present a histogram of $\sigma$
1058: calculated from the ``total galaxy'' apertures of $\sim$ 7 kpc in full
1059: width. Because this measure includes line-broadening due to rotation,
1060: the use of a ``total'' aperture is justified only for the low
1061: rotational velocities measured in the majority of these systems
1062: ($\sigma$ will be somewhat inflated in systems with significant
1063: rotation, $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle >$ 50 km s$^{-1}$). A K-S test
1064: indicates that the $\sigma$'s for the young and old populations are
1065: unlikely ($<$ 1\% chance) to come from the same parent
1066: distribution. To conservatively quantify the difference between the
1067: two populations, we first exclude the four lowest-luminosity E+As, for
1068: which the old populations' velocity dispersions are extremely low. We
1069: then calculate that the mean values of $\sigma$, and the errors in the
1070: means, are 190 $\pm 12$ km s$^{-1}$ for the young population, and 130
1071: $\pm 5$ km s$^{-1}$ for the old population. Although the difference
1072: between $\sigma$ in the two populations is significant and argues that
1073: the younger component is more pressure-supported, it may be due to the
1074: aforementioned spatial differences between the populations. Because
1075: the young stars are more centrally concentrated, and $\sigma$ for a
1076: typical elliptical is larger toward the center (\eg,\
1077: \citet{davies81}), the larger velocity dispersions for the young stars
1078: may be a result of their position within the galaxies. In normal
1079: ellipticals, varying the aperture from the central kiloparsec outward
1080: can decrease the observed velocity dispersion up to 25\%, although the
1081: typical decline is 5 to 10\% \citep{davies81,getal00}. From these
1082: data, we are unable to determine whether the observed velocity
1083: dispersion differences are caused by spatial or dynamical differences.
1084:
1085: \begin{figure}
1086: %\epsscale{1.0}
1087: \plotone{f7.eps}
1088: \caption{Histogram of velocity dispersion in the ``total galaxy''
1089: aperture for each stellar population. On average, the younger
1090: population has a larger dispersion (see text for details and
1091: caveats). \label{fig:sighist}}
1092: \end{figure}
1093:
1094: To compare the properties of the E+As to those of ``normal''
1095: ellipticals, we draw a comparison sample from the studies of
1096: \citet{fetal89} and \citet{jf94}. The Faber~\etal\ data are published
1097: in the B-band, which we transform to R using a typical B-R color for
1098: this sample of 1.25 (determined from a comparison of galaxies that are
1099: in both the Faber~\etal\ and the R-band J\o rgensen \& Franx data).
1100: In Figure~\ref{fig:fj}, we plot the Faber-Jackson (FJ) relation
1101: \citep{fj76} for these normal ellipticals and compare it to the FJ relations
1102: produced using either the kinematics of the young or old stellar
1103: populations of E+As. The R magnitudes are for the entire E+A galaxy
1104: and are on a Gunn/Kron-Cousins hybrid system used by the LCRS group
1105: \citep{linetal96}, who report that the differences between the
1106: standard and hybrid Kron-Cousins systems are small ($\lesssim$ 0.1
1107: magnitude). For comparison with the literature data, we have adjusted
1108: the isophotal magnitudes of the E+A galaxies to approximate
1109: total magnitudes by using the systematic trends between the
1110: LCRS isophotal magnitudes and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
1111: Petrosian magnitudes, the latter of which
1112: are approximately total magnitudes \citep{bl01}.
1113:
1114: \begin{figure}
1115: \epsscale{0.8}
1116: \plotone{f8.eps}
1117: \caption{The luminosity-velocity dispersion relation for the E+A
1118: galaxies (open and filled large circles). The solid line represents a
1119: least-squares fit, weighting all points equally, to the filled points
1120: in the bottom panel; four outliers (open circles) are excluded from
1121: the fit. The large open square denotes EA~20, which has no young
1122: component and is not truly an E+A galaxy
1123: (\S~\ref{sec:results}). Also plotted are normal elliptical galaxies
1124: from two studies (small circles and triangles; \citet{fetal89},
1125: \citet{jf94}, respectively). \label{fig:fj}} \epsscale{0.9}
1126: \end{figure}
1127:
1128: There is no significant correlation between galaxy luminosity and
1129: the velocity dispersion of the younger populations in E+As.
1130: Nevertheless, with the exception of a few outliers (EA~12 and 13,
1131: which have extremely high velocity dispersions, and EA~1 and EA~3,
1132: with anomalously low velocity dispersions), the distribution of points
1133: is consistent with the Faber-Jackson relationship. All other galaxies
1134: are within the envelope formed by the ``normal'' ellipticals, although
1135: the scatter is visibly much larger than that for the ``normal"
1136: ellipticals.
1137:
1138:
1139: On the other hand, the old stellar populations have a significant
1140: correlation between galaxy luminosity and velocity dispersion
1141: (Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient of 0.6, with a
1142: significance of 99.8\%). We plot the best-fitting linear relation for the E+As
1143: for comparison, weighting all points equally, but excluding the four
1144: galaxies with only upper limits on $\sigma$. The scatter about this
1145: line, 0.6 mag, is the same as that around the
1146: relation for normal ellipticals (we measure a dispersion of 0.64 mag
1147: about the mean relation for the combined comparison sample).
1148: The faintest galaxies (M$_{\rm R} \gtrsim -20$), at least
1149: those with only upper limits on $\sigma$, are
1150: the outliers from this relation.
1151: The four outliers are drawn from the seven E+As with the largest
1152: values of f$_A$ (including EA~1 and the two other galaxies with the
1153: largest values of f$_A$), suggesting that these galaxies
1154: may harbor more recent, unrelaxed mergers (like EA~1).
1155: On average, excluding these outliers, the E+As lie slightly
1156: to the low-dispersion (or high-luminosity) side of the elliptical galaxy
1157: relation, presumably at least in part because the young stellar populations
1158: elevate the
1159: luminosities. The offset in magnitude from Figure~\ref{fig:fj} is such
1160: that the E+A galaxies are, on average, $\sim$ 0.6 magnitudes brighter
1161: than their elliptical counterparts. Models \citep{poggianti99,
1162: kelson00} show that over the next few Gyr the young stars in the E+A
1163: galaxies should experience dimming of approximately 0.5 to 1 mag,
1164: after which these galaxies would lie directly on the locus of
1165: elliptical galaxies.
1166:
1167:
1168: To examine the outliers in relation to the rest of the E+A sample, we
1169: plot the ratio of rotational velocity to velocity dispersion
1170: (v/$\sigma$) versus magnitude (Figure~\ref{fig:magvovers}), adopting
1171: $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle$ of the old population for v. As described
1172: in \S3.2.1, the rotation velocities are uncorrected for inclination,
1173: so all v/$\sigma$ points in Figure~\ref{fig:magvovers} are lower
1174: limits. Because we are concerned that spatial resolution may affect
1175: this measurement, we have divided the sample: the eight least-resolved
1176: galaxies (EA~1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, and 21, as discussed in
1177: Section~\ref{sec:populations}) are denoted by open circles, and the
1178: remaining galaxies are represented by filled circles. The
1179: poorly-resolved galaxies span a large range in v/$\sigma$, so we
1180: conclude that low spatial resolution, which might cause us to
1181: underestimate the rotational velocities and overestimate velocity
1182: dispersions, is not grossly biasing our results toward low
1183: v$/\sigma$. E+As fainter than M$_{\rm R} \sim -20$ are limited to high
1184: v/$\sigma$, and are thus rotationally supported. Previous work
1185: \citep{defis, bn90} has similarly found that for M$_{\rm B} \gtsim
1186: -20$, normal ellipticals are flattened by rotation rather than by
1187: anisotropic velocity dispersions. The remainder of the sample (with
1188: M$_{\rm R} < -20$) have an average v$/\sigma$ of 0.32.
1189:
1190: \begin{figure}
1191: \plotone{f9.eps}
1192: \caption{v$/\sigma$ plotted against R-band absolute
1193: magnitude. Large circles (both open and filled) represent our E+A
1194: sample. Small squares represent elliptical galaxies from \cite{defis}
1195: and \cite{bn90} for which R-band magnitudes are available from the
1196: NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). Rotational velocities in our
1197: sample are not corrected for inclination, so our points are marked as
1198: lower limits. Unfilled circles are galaxies that are only marginally
1199: resolved (see Section~\ref{sec:populations}), but we find no
1200: systematic differences in v$/\sigma$ between these and the other
1201: galaxies in our sample. \label{fig:magvovers}}
1202: \end{figure}
1203:
1204: From the analysis of velocity dispersions we reach three conclusions.
1205: First, the young populations have on average a higher velocity
1206: dispersion than the old populations. Three factors which may
1207: contribute to this result are: (a) the spatial segregation of the two
1208: populations (the young stars are more centrally concentrated and
1209: therefore lie deeper in the potential and have a higher velocity
1210: dispersion), (b) a transient, non-relaxed young component (the large
1211: observed $\sigma$ does not yet reflect an equilibrium value), and
1212: (c) a relaxed young component with kinematics distinct from those of
1213: the older component (as would arise if the A stars trace the formation
1214: of a hotter stellar component, such as a bulge). We cannot yet
1215: differentiate among these alternatives.
1216:
1217:
1218: Second, the old component of the E+A galaxies conforms to the
1219: Faber-Jackson relation, although the E+As are somewhat brighter ($\sim
1220: 0.6$ mag) than typical ellipticals. This result, combined with our
1221: finding that there is little evidence for rotation in most of the
1222: sample, indicates that the galaxies are in general, but not
1223: exclusively, supported by pressure rather than rotation.
1224:
1225:
1226: Third, we find that the E+A phase is experienced by a wide variety of
1227: galaxies. The velocity dispersions of E+As in our sample range from
1228: $\lesssim$ 30 km s$^{-1}$ to over 200 km s$^{-1}$. Some E+As show
1229: significant rotation, but most lie on the Faber-Jackson relation, and
1230: rotational support becomes increasingly important for fainter E+As ---
1231: just as it does for ellipticals.
1232:
1233:
1234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1237:
1238:
1239: \section{Discussion}
1240: \label{sec:discussion}
1241:
1242:
1243: E+A galaxies may represent a short lived phase in the evolution of
1244: many galaxies. Z96 estimated that $\sim$ 0.2\% of all nearby galaxies
1245: are currently observed in an extreme E+A phase. For an estimated
1246: lifetime of the E+A phase of $\sim$ 1 Gyr, their result suggests that
1247: $\gtrsim$ 3\% of galaxies may have experienced such a phase in a
1248: Hubble time. This is a relatively small fraction of all galaxies, but
1249: if E+As are associated primarily with elliptical galaxies and the
1250: field elliptical fraction is 10\% today, the fraction of ellipticals
1251: that passed through an E+A phase at some point could be as high as
1252: 30\%.\footnote{This result is not in conflict with the observational
1253: constraints on the lack of young populations in early type galaxies
1254: \citep{sb98}. Even if our estimate of 30\% is correct, we would
1255: predict only one galaxy in the Silva \& Bothun sample to have a
1256: significant 1 to 3 Gyr old population, and they observe no galaxies
1257: with such populations contributing at greater than the 10 to 15\%
1258: level.} This estimate is subject to many uncertainties, but it
1259: demonstrates the potential importance of the E+A phase in galaxy
1260: evolution. In addition, the number of E+A-like systems over a Hubble
1261: time may actually be underestimated here, because of (1) the extremely
1262: conservative E+A criteria used by Z96, (2) the short lifetime of the
1263: extreme E+A phase (less than 1 Gyr), and (3) the larger fraction of
1264: E+As in the past \citep {dg83, be95}. As observers probe the
1265: properties of galaxies at earlier and earlier times, it becomes
1266: increasingly important that we understand local counterparts to the
1267: distant post-starburst galaxy population. E+As provide us with a rare
1268: opportunity to study galaxies in transition.
1269:
1270:
1271:
1272: Our measurements of $\sigma$, v$/\sigma$, and the distributions of
1273: young and old stars indicate that E+As are not, as a class, disk
1274: galaxies that have had their star formation quenched \citep{nbk90} or
1275: that have experienced a burst followed by a cessation of star formation as a result
1276: of interaction with the intracluster medium \citep{dg83}. However,
1277: one model does not fit all of our E+As. In particular, a few of our
1278: systems have significant ($> 50$ km s$^{-1}$) rotation velocities. Yet
1279: only two of these systems have v$/\sigma ({\rm sin\ } i) > 1$, and so
1280: only a small fraction of the sample is predominantly rotationally
1281: supported. This low fraction seems to be at odds with the high
1282: fraction of such systems among the published kinematic studies of E+As
1283: \citep{franx93,crfl96}. However, one of the three fast-rotating E+As
1284: in the Coma sample, NGC~4853, has detectable [OII] emission and
1285: similar galaxies have been excluded from the Z96 sample. The other
1286: two Coma cluster fast-rotators have M$_{\rm R} > -20$, and so are
1287: comparable to the four low-luminosity, rotationally-supported E+As in
1288: our sample. Because of these circumstances, we conclude that our
1289: results are not in disagreement with previously published studies.
1290:
1291:
1292: Increasingly, it is generally accepted that at least some fraction of
1293: E+A galaxies are the result of a galaxy merger (\eg,\ \citet{lh88,schweizer96}, Z96). There is an abundance of
1294: circumstantial evidence supporting this scenario, from the
1295: observations of tidal tails in several galaxies in this sample (Z96)
1296: to the kinematic observations we present that suggest that E+As are a
1297: link between star forming galaxies (which are likely gas-rich disks)
1298: and quiescent, spheroidal galaxies that lie on the Faber-Jackson
1299: relation and have low v$/\sigma$. In a merger model for the formation
1300: of E+As, our observation that the young stars are more concentrated
1301: toward the galaxy center than are the older stars indicates that the
1302: gas that formed the younger stars dissipated energy before the
1303: starburst. Such dissipation is required for the formation of
1304: elliptical galaxies from merging spirals, in order to explain how the cores of
1305: elliptical galaxies increased their phase space density beyond than of their
1306: spiral progenitors \citep{ks92}. However, that dissipation does not
1307: drive all of the gas to the galaxy nucleus as seen in some simulations
1308: (cf. \cite{mh96}), because the burst of star formation extends beyond
1309: the nucleus in at least seven of our E+As. The disagreement between
1310: observations and simulations hints at a problem with angular momentum
1311: transport or feedback in the simulations \citep{mh94}. Alternatives
1312: have been suggested (\eg,\ \citet{mbr93}) in which the star formation
1313: is due to molecular cloud collisions \citep{noguchi88, noguchi91}.
1314: Unfortunately, the results of such models are not yet directly
1315: comparable to our observations.
1316:
1317:
1318: A complete model for the phenomena associated with this phase of
1319: galaxy evolution would relate the evolution of the morphological and
1320: dynamical properties of the galaxy to the evolution of its stellar
1321: populations. As such, it may at first appear difficult to effect the
1322: hypothesized dramatic structural changes on the short timescales
1323: implied by the stellar populations ($\ltsim 1$ Gyr). However, violent
1324: relaxation \citep{lyndenbell67} in mergers may reduce the timescale
1325: over which one expects global morphological changes to the order of 10
1326: crossing times ($\sim 10^8-10^9$ yr; \citet{borne84,mihos95}).
1327: Gaseous dissipation can also significantly shorten this timescale
1328: \citep{mrb92}. Furthermore, the age constraint from stellar
1329: populations reflects the time since the last burst of star formation,
1330: which may come well after any initial interaction between progenitors
1331: (see \citet{mbr93} and \citet{bekki01} for examples of simulations
1332: that predict multiple starbursts in merging systems). Recent models
1333: that take these effects into account (e.g., \citet{mihos99}) predict
1334: merger dynamical timescales of $\sim$ 1-2 Gyr. Therefore, although
1335: the synchronization of the dynamical and stellar timescales will
1336: continue to be a challenge for detailed modeling, we conclude that the
1337: two are fully reconcilable.
1338:
1339:
1340: %N-body models of galaxy mergers \citep{hhs96} have determined
1341: %that the remnants should be primarily pressure supported in the core,
1342: %but that streaming and circular motions should become important at
1343: %radii of a few kpc, as the velocity dispersion drops and the
1344: %rotational and/or streaming motions rise. These results match our
1345: %observations, predicting rotation velocities of only
1346: %$\sim$ 20 km s$^{-1}$ in the central 1-3 kpc.
1347:
1348:
1349: %A recent study of distant cluster E+As \citep{smail99} has suggested
1350: %that significant star formation in E+As may be ongoing, but obscured
1351: %by dust in the galaxy cores. However, observations of the Z96 local
1352: %E+A sample in the radio (Chang et al. 2001, Miller et al. in
1353: %preparation) have detected radio continuum emission in only two of the
1354: %17 galaxies studied (EA~12 and EA~19). From this we conclude that
1355: %there is no strong evidence for obscured ongoing star-formation in our
1356: %sample. The optical spectrum of EA~12 has some centrally concentrated
1357: %[OIII] 5007\AA\ emission (equivalent width $<$ 1\AA), mild but far
1358: %stronger than in any other spectrum in our sample, and so may exhibit
1359: %a signature of star formation also in the optical. EA~19, on the
1360: %other hand, shows less evidence of emission, but the data for EA~19
1361: %are much noisier and the emission may be lost in the noise. Although
1362: %we do not dispute the ubiquity of dust-enshrouded starbursts at high
1363: %redshift, the comparison of radio and optical star formation rates for
1364: %the local sample does suggest that dust is not obscuring significant
1365: %star formation in these E+As \citep{chang}. We conclude that these
1366: %E+As are truly systems with very low rates of current star formation.
1367:
1368: \section{Conclusions}
1369: \label{sec:conclusions}
1370:
1371:
1372: We obtain and analyze long-slit spectra to study the spatial
1373: distribution and kinematic properties of the old and young stellar
1374: populations of a local sample of E+A galaxies
1375: (Z96). We summarize our results from the study of these
1376: 20 E+A galaxies.\footnote{One of the original 21 galaxies, EA~20,
1377: was apparently misclassified due to low S/N in the original LCRS
1378: spectrum.} We have four principal findings:
1379:
1380:
1381: \begin{enumerate}
1382:
1383:
1384: \item{The star formation responsible for the young stellar populations
1385: in E+A galaxies is more centrally
1386: concentrated than the older stellar populations in most E+A galaxies in
1387: our sample, but is {\em resolved} beyond the nuclear region in
1388: seven cases.}
1389:
1390:
1391: \item{The E+A galaxies in our sample are principally
1392: pressure-supported. We find that only six of our 20 E+As are rotating
1393: with $\langle {\rm v}_{rot} \rangle \sin i\gtrsim$ 50 km s$^{-1}$ in either the young or
1394: old populations. Though we are only able to measure the velocities at
1395: radii of 1 -- 3 kpc, this is significantly less rotation than is
1396: typically observed at the same radius in normal spiral galaxies. We
1397: also find that the old stellar populations of E+A galaxies conform
1398: well to the Faber-Jackson relation. This result argues against the
1399: model in which E+As, as a class, are normal spiral galaxies in which
1400: star formation has recently been extinguished. On average, the E+As
1401: are slightly ($\sim$ 0.6 mag) brighter than a sample of typical
1402: elliptical galaxies for the same velocity dispersions. As the young
1403: populations in the E+As age and fade, this luminosity difference will
1404: disappear. The degree to which the E+As are {\em already} consistent
1405: with the Faber-Jackson relation demonstrates that E+A galaxies relax
1406: quickly ($\ltsim$ 1 Gyr) to the locus of points occupied by typical
1407: ellipticals, which is consistent with the predictions of merger
1408: models.}
1409:
1410:
1411: \item{We find that the E+A phase of galaxy evolution does not only
1412: produce bright spheroids, but galaxies that span the full range of the
1413: Faber-Jackson relation. Our sample includes a population of E+As that
1414: resembles the low-luminosity class of ellipticals that are flattened
1415: by rotation \citep{defis, bn90} and produced in high mass-ratio merger
1416: simulations \citep{cr01}. Given the number of E+As and the duration
1417: of the E+A phase, a simple estimate shows that one-third of field
1418: ellipticals could have passed through this phase at some point. This
1419: estimate, though it is not expected to predict the actual number of
1420: ellipticals that were once E+As, demonstrates the potential
1421: importance of this phase. Because E+As populate the entire
1422: Faber-Jackson relation, we conclude that the E+A phase may be one
1423: through which many spheroid-dominated galaxies pass.}
1424:
1425:
1426: \item{Our kinematic observations are strong evidence that luminous
1427: (M$_{\rm R} < -20$) E+A galaxies are an evolutionary link between
1428: gas-rich, star-forming galaxies and gas-poor, quiescent,
1429: pressure-supported galaxies. Other authors have highlighted the
1430: spectral evidence for significant recent star formation in E+As (which
1431: demonstrates that these galaxies recently had substantial gas
1432: reservoirs) and against ongoing star formation
1433: \citep{cs87,nbk90,schweizer96,chang}. This study demonstrates that
1434: faded E+A galaxies will resemble early-type galaxies kinematically, as
1435: well as spectroscopically. The presence of tidal features in many
1436: (Z96) suggests disk-dominated progenitors. We conclude that at least
1437: most E+A galaxies in our sample are in the midst of a morphological
1438: transition from late-type (star-forming, gas-rich,
1439: rotationally-supported, and disk-dominated) to early-type (quiescent,
1440: gas poor, pressure-supported, spheroid-dominated).}
1441:
1442:
1443: \end{enumerate}
1444:
1445:
1446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1448:
1449:
1450: \acknowledgments
1451:
1452:
1453: The authors thank Chris Mihos for his comments on interaction
1454: scenarios, John Mulchaey for his observing expertise, and Greg Bothun
1455: for his helpful comments on the manuscript. We also thank Luc Simard
1456: for introducing us to the NUKECR algorithm which we used to
1457: effectively remove cosmic rays. This research has made use of the
1458: NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet
1459: Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under
1460: contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The
1461: data described herein were taken at Las Campanas observatory, a
1462: facility of Carnegie Observatories. AIZ acknowledges financial support
1463: from NASA grant HF-01087.01-96A. DZ acknowledges financial support
1464: from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan
1465: Foundation, a NASA LTSA grant (NAG 5-3501), and an NSF CAREER grant
1466: (AST-9733111).
1467:
1468:
1469: \clearpage
1470:
1471:
1472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1473:
1474:
1475: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1476:
1477:
1478: % do we put a comma between \apj and vol? between yr. and \apj?
1479: % do we put a comma before \&?
1480:
1481:
1482: \bibitem[Barnes \& Hernquist (1991)]{bh91} Barnes, J. E. \& Hernquist,
1483: L. E. 1991, \apj, 370, L65
1484:
1485:
1486: \bibitem[Bekki (2001)]{bekki01} Bekki, K. 2001, \apj, 546, 189
1487:
1488:
1489: \bibitem[Belloni~\etal\ (1995)]{be95} Belloni, P., Bruzual, A. G., Thimm, G. J.,\& Roser, H.-J., \aa, 297, 61
1490:
1491:
1492: \bibitem[Bender \& Nieto (1990)]{bn90} Bender, R., \& Nieto, J.-L.
1493: 1990, \aap, 239, 97
1494:
1495:
1496: \bibitem[Blanton, M. R.~\etal\ (2001)]{bl01} Blanton, \etal,
1497: 2001, \aj, submitted
1498:
1499:
1500: \bibitem[Borne (1984)]{borne84} Borne, K. D. 1984, \apj, 287, 503
1501:
1502:
1503: \bibitem[Bothun \& Dressler (1986)]{bd86} Bothun, G. \& Dressler, A.
1504: 1986, \aj, 301, 57
1505:
1506:
1507: \bibitem[Bressan~\etal\ (1993)]{bressan93} Bressan, A., Fagotto, F.,
1508: Bertelli, G., \& Chiosi, C. 1993, \aaps, 100, 647
1509:
1510:
1511: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot\ (1993)]{bc93} Bruzual, A. G., \& Charlot, S.
1512: 1993, \apj, 405, 538
1513:
1514:
1515: %\bibitem[Butcher \& Oemler (1978)]{bo78} Butcher, H., \& Oemler, A.
1516: %1978, \apj, 219, 18
1517:
1518:
1519: %\bibitem[Caldwell~\etal\ (1993)]{crseb93} Caldwell, N., Rose, J. A.,
1520: %Sharples, R. M., Ellis, R. S., \& Bower, R. G. 1993, \aj, 106, 473
1521:
1522:
1523: \bibitem[Caldwell~\etal\ (1996)]{crfl96} Caldwell, N., Rose, J. A.,
1524: Franx, M., \& Leonardi, A. J. 1996, \apj, 111, 78
1525:
1526:
1527: \bibitem[Chang~\etal\ (2001)]{chang} Chang, T.-C., van Gorkom, J. H.,
1528: Zabludoff, A. I., Zaritsky, D., \& Mihos, J. C., 2001, AJ submitted
1529:
1530:
1531: \bibitem[Couch \& Sharples (1987)]{cs87} Couch, W. J. \& Sharples,
1532: R. M. 1987, \mnras 229, 423
1533:
1534:
1535: \bibitem[Cretton~\etal\ (2001)]{cr01}Cretton, N., Naab, T., Rix, H.-W., \& Brukert, A, 2001, \apj, submitted
1536:
1537:
1538: \bibitem[Davies (1981)]{davies81} Davies, R. L. 1981, \mnras 194, 879
1539:
1540:
1541: \bibitem[Davies~\etal\ (1983)]{defis} Davies, R. L., Efstathiou, G.,
1542: Fall, S. M., Illingworth, G., \& Schechter, P. L. 1983, \apj, 266, 41
1543:
1544:
1545: %\bibitem[Delgado~\etal\ (1999)]{delgado99} Delgado, R. M. G.,
1546: %Leitherer, C., \& Heckman, T. M. 1999, \apjs, 125, 489
1547:
1548:
1549: %\bibitem[Dressler (1980)]{dressler80} Dressler, A. 1980, \apj, 236,
1550: %351
1551:
1552:
1553: \bibitem[Dressler \& Gunn (1983)]{dg83} Dressler, A., Gunn, J. E. 1983,
1554: \apj, 270, 7
1555:
1556:
1557: %\bibitem [Dressler~\etal\ (1987)] {detal87} Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell,
1558: %D., Burstein, D., Davies, R. L., Faber, S. M., Terlevich, R. J. \&
1559: %Wegner, G. 1987, \apj, 313, 42
1560: % was for measurement of B-band sigma in FJ relation
1561:
1562:
1563: %\bibitem [Elmegreen~\etal\ (2000)] {elmegreen00} Elmegreen, B. G.,
1564: % Kaufman, M., Struck, C., Elmegreen, D. M., Brinks, E., Thomasson,
1565: %M., Klari, M., Levay, Z., English, J., Frattare, L. M., Bond, H. E.,
1566: %Christian, C. A., Hamilton, F., \& Noll, K. 2000, \apj, 120, 630
1567:
1568:
1569: \bibitem[Faber \& Jackson (1976)]{fj76} Faber, S. M., \& Jackson, R. E.
1570: 1976, \apj, 204, 668
1571:
1572:
1573: \bibitem[Faber~\etal\ (1989)]{fetal89} Faber, S., Wegner, G., Burstein,
1574: D., Davies, R., Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., \& Terlevich, R. 1989,
1575: \apjs, 69, 763
1576:
1577:
1578: \bibitem[Franx (1993)]{franx93} Franx, M. 1993, \apj, 407, L5
1579:
1580:
1581: \bibitem[Gebhardt~\etal\ (2000)]{getal00} Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., et
1582: al. 2000, \apj, 539, L13
1583:
1584:
1585: \bibitem[Gebhardt~\etal\ (2001)]{getal01} Gebhardt, K., Faber, S., et
1586: al. 2001, \apj, submitted.
1587:
1588:
1589: \bibitem[H\'{e}raudeau~\etal\ (1999)]{hsmp} H\'{e}raudeau, Ph., Simien,
1590: F., Maubon, G., \& Prugniel, Ph. 1999, \aaps, 136, 509
1591:
1592:
1593: %\bibitem[Heyl, Hernquist, \& Spergel (1996)]{hhs96} Heyl, J. S.,
1594: %Hernquist, L., \& Spergel, D. N. 1996, \apj, 463, 69
1595:
1596:
1597: \bibitem[Jog \& Solomon (1992)]{js92} Jog, C. J., \& Solomon, P. M.
1598: 1992, \apj, 387, 152
1599:
1600:
1601: %\bibitem[Jones \& Worthey (1995)]{jones95} Jones, L. A. \& Worthey,
1602: %G. 1995, \apj, 446, 31
1603:
1604:
1605: \bibitem[J\o rgensen \& Franx (1994)]{jf94} J\o rgensen, I., \& Franx,
1606: M. 1994, \apj, 433, 553
1607:
1608:
1609: \bibitem [Kelson~\etal\ (2000)] {kelson00} Kelson, D. D., Illingworth,
1610: G. D., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M. 2000, \apj, 531, 184
1611:
1612:
1613: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Sanders (1992)]{ks92} Kormendy, j. \& Sanders,
1614: D. B. 1992, \apj, 390, L53
1615:
1616:
1617: \bibitem[Lavery \& Henry (1988)]{lh88} Lavery, R., \& Henry, P. 1988,
1618: \apj, 330, 596
1619:
1620:
1621: \bibitem[Leitherer~\etal\ (1996)]{leith96} Leitherer, C., \etal\
1622: . 1996, \pasp, 108, 996
1623:
1624:
1625: \bibitem[Lin~\etal\ (1996)]{linetal96} Lin, H., Kirshner, R. P.,
1626: Shectman, S. A., Landy, S. D., Oemler, A., Tucker, D. L., Schechter,
1627: P.L. 1996, \apj, 464, 60
1628:
1629:
1630: \bibitem[Liu \& Kennicutt (1995)]{lk95} Liu, C. T. \& Kennicutt, R. C.
1631: 1995, \apj, 450, 547
1632:
1633:
1634: \bibitem [Lynden-Bell (1967)] {lyndenbell67} Lynden-Bell, D. 1967,
1635: \mnras, 136, 101
1636:
1637:
1638: %\bibitem [Madau~\etal\ (1998)] {madau98} Madau, P., Pozzetti, L., \&
1639: %Dickinson, M. 1998, \apj, 498, 106
1640:
1641:
1642: \bibitem[Mihos (1995)]{mihos95} Mihos, J. C. 1995, \apj, 438, L75
1643:
1644:
1645: \bibitem[Mihos (1999)]{mihos99} Mihos, J. C. 1999, in ASP
1646: Conf. Ser. 197, Galaxy Dynamics: from the Early Universe to the
1647: Present, eds. F. Combes, G. A. Mamon, \& V. Charmandaris (San
1648: Francisco: ASP), 275
1649:
1650:
1651: \bibitem[Mihos \& Bothun (1988)]{mb98} Mihos, J. S. \& Bothun,
1652: G. D. 1998, \apj, 500, 619
1653:
1654:
1655: \bibitem[Mihos, Bothun \& Richstone (1993)]{mbr93} Mihos, J. C., Bothun,
1656: G. D., Richstone, D. O. 1993, \apj, 418, 82
1657:
1658:
1659: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist (1994)]{mh94} Mihos, J. C., \& Hernquist,
1660: L. 1994, \apj, 437, L47
1661:
1662:
1663: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist (1996)]{mh96} Mihos, J. C., \& Hernquist,
1664: L. 1996, \apj, 464, 641
1665:
1666:
1667: \bibitem[Mihos, Richstone \& Bothun (1992)]{mrb92} Mihos, J. C.,
1668: Richstone, D. O., \& Bothun, G. D. 1992, \apj, 400, 153
1669:
1670:
1671: %\bibitem[Miller~\etal\ (in prep.)]{miller} Miller et al.{\bf Unknown
1672: %authors}, in preparation
1673:
1674:
1675: \bibitem[Moore~\etal\ (1998)]{moore98} Moore, B., Lake, G., \& Katz,
1676: N. 1998, \apj, 495, 139
1677:
1678:
1679: \bibitem[Newberry, Boroson \& Kirshner (1990)]{nbk90} Newberry, M.V.,
1680: Boroson, T.A., Kirshner, R.P. 1990, \apj, 350, 585
1681:
1682:
1683: \bibitem[Noguchi (1988)]{noguchi88} Noguchi, M. 1988, \aap, 203, 259
1684:
1685:
1686: \bibitem[Noguchi (1991)]{noguchi91} Noguchi, M. 1991, \mnras, 251,
1687: 360
1688:
1689:
1690: \bibitem[Oegerle, Hill \& Hoessel (1991)]{ohh91} Oegerle, W. R., Hill,
1691: J. M., \& Hoessel, J. G. 1991, \apj, 381, L9
1692:
1693:
1694: %\bibitem[Osterbrock (1989)]{osterbrock} Osterbrock, D. E. 1989,
1695: %Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei (Sausalito,
1696: %CA: University Science Books)
1697:
1698:
1699: \bibitem[Poggianti~\etal\ (1999)]{poggianti99} Poggianti, B. M.,
1700: Smail, I., Dressler, A., Couch, W. J., Barger, A. J., Butcher, H.,
1701: Ellis, R. S., \& Oemler, A. 1999, \apj, 518, 576
1702:
1703:
1704: \bibitem [Rieke~\etal\ (1985)]{rieke85} Rieke, G.H., Cutri, R.M.,
1705: Black, J.H., Kailey, W.F., McAlary, C.W., Lebofsky, M.J., \& Elston,
1706: R. 1985, \apj, 290, 116
1707:
1708:
1709: %\bibitem[Saha \& Williams (1994)]{sw94} Saha, P., \& Williams, T.B.
1710: %1994, \aj, 107, 1295
1711:
1712:
1713: \bibitem[Schweizer (1982)]{schweizer82} Schweizer, F. 1982, \apj 252,
1714: 455
1715:
1716:
1717: \bibitem[Schweizer (1996)]{schweizer96} Schweizer, F. 1996, \aj, 111,
1718: 109
1719:
1720:
1721: \bibitem[Shectman~\etal\ (1996)]{schectetal96} Shectman, S. A., Landy,
1722: S. D., Oemler, A. A., Tucker, D., Lin, H., Kirshner, R. P., \& Schechter,
1723: P. L. 1996, \apj, 470, 172
1724:
1725:
1726: \bibitem[Shectman~\etal\ (1992)]{schectetal92} Shectman, S. A., Schechter,
1727: P. L., Oemler, A. A., Tucker, D., Kirshner, R. P., \& Lin, H. 1992,
1728: in Clusters and Superclusters of Galaxies, ed. A. C. Fabian
1729: (Dordrecht:Kluwer), 351
1730:
1731:
1732: \bibitem[Silva \& Bothun (1998)]{sb98} Silva, D.R., \& Bothun,
1733: G.D. 1998, \aj, 116, 85
1734:
1735:
1736: \bibitem[Smail et al. (1999)]{smail99} Smail, I., Morrison, G., Gray,
1737: M. E., Owen, F. N., Ivison, R. J., Kneib, J.-P., \& Ellis, R. S.
1738: 1999,
1739: \apj, 525, 609
1740:
1741:
1742: \bibitem[Toomre (1977)]{toomre77} Toomre, A., in The Evolution of
1743: Galaxies and Stellar Populations, edited by B.M. Tinsley and
1744: R.B. Larson (New Haven: Yale Univ.), p. 401
1745:
1746:
1747: \bibitem[Toomre \& Toomre (1972)]{t2} Toomre, A., \& Toomre, J. 1972,
1748: \apj, 178, 623
1749:
1750:
1751: \bibitem[van der Marel \& Franx (1993)]{vdmf93} van der Marel, R., \&
1752: Franx, M. 1993, \apj, 407, 525
1753:
1754:
1755: \bibitem[Windhorst~\etal\ (1994)]{windetal94} Windhorst, R. A.,
1756: Franklin, B. E., \& Neuschaefer, L. W. 1994, \pasp, 106, 798
1757:
1758:
1759: \bibitem [Wright~\etal\ (1988)] {wright88} Wright, G. S., Joseph,
1760: R. D., Robertson, N. A., James, P. A., \& Meikle, W. P. S. 1988,
1761: \mnras, 233, 1
1762:
1763:
1764: \bibitem[Zabludoff~\etal\ (1996)]{zetal96} Zabludoff, A. I., Zaritsky,
1765: D., Lin, H., Tucker, D., Hashimoto, Y., Shectman, S.A., Oemler, A. A.,
1766: \& Kirshner, R. P. 1996, \apj, 466, 104
1767:
1768:
1769: %\bibitem[Zabludoff~\etal\ (2001 in prep.)]{zetal00inprep}
1770: %Zabludoff, A. I., Lauer, T., Zaritsky, D., Mihos, C. 2001, in prep.
1771:
1772:
1773: \end{thebibliography}
1774:
1775: \end{document}
1776: