1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: 

4: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}

5: 

6: \documentclass{aastex}

7: \usepackage{apjfonts}

8: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

9: 

10: \bibliographystyle{aas}

11: 

12: \shorttitle{Early Type Galaxies}

13: \shorttitle{Loeb \& Peebles}

14: 

15: \submitted{Accepted for publication in ApJ}

16: 

17: 

18: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

20: 

21: 

22: 

23: \begin{document}

24: 

25: \title{Cosmological Origin of the Stellar Velocity Dispersions\\ 

26: in Massive Early-Type Galaxies}

27: 

28: \author{Abraham Loeb\altaffilmark{1,3} and P. J. E. 

29: Peebles\altaffilmark{2}}

30: 

31: \email{loeb@ias.edu; pjep@pupgg.princeton.edu}

32: 

33: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540}

34: 

35: \altaffiltext{2}{Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University,

36: Princeton NJ 08544}

37: 

38: \altaffiltext{3}{Guggenheim fellow; on sabbatical leave from the

39: Astronomy Department, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138}

40: 

41: \begin{abstract}

42: We show that the observed upper bound on the line-of-sight velocity

43: dispersion of the stars in an early-type galaxy, $\sigma _e\lesssim

44: 400$ km~s$^{-1}$, may have a simple dynamical origin within the

45: $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model, under two main hypotheses. The first

46: is that most of the stars now in the luminous parts of a giant

47: elliptical formed at redshift $z\gtrsim 6$.  Subsequently, the stars

48: behaved dynamically just as an additional component of the dark

49: matter. The second hypothesis is that the mass distribution

50: characteristic of a newly formed dark matter halo forgets such details

51: of the initial conditions as the stellar ``collisionless matter'' that

52: was added to the dense parts of earlier generations of halos. We also

53: assume that the stellar velocity dispersion does not evolve much at

54: $z\lesssim 6$, because a massive host halo grows mainly by the

55: addition of material at large radii well away from the stellar core of

56: the galaxy. These assumptions lead to a predicted number density of

57: ellipticals as a function of stellar velocity dispersion that is in

58: promising agreement with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data.

59: 

60: \end{abstract}

61: 

62: \keywords{galaxies: high-redshift, cosmology: theory, galaxies:

63: formation}

64: 

65: \section{Introduction}

66: The line-of-sight velocity dispersion of the stars in an elliptical

67: galaxy with luminosity $L>L_\star$ is typically

68: $\sigma_e\sim 200$~km~s$^{-1}$, while elliptical or cD galaxies with twice

69: this velocity dispersion are exceedingly rare. This is equivalent to a

70: fairly sharp bound on the mass that is gathered within the luminous

71: parts of the largest galaxies. One might expect this striking effect

72: has a simple explanation. Our proposal follows a simple path through

73: the $\Lambda$CDM model for cosmology and structure formation.

74: 

75: We begin in the next section by considering the simple case where

76: dissipative processes in the baryons are ignored: all matter is

77: treated as collisionless and initially cold. As discussed in 

78: \S 2.1, the standard picture for mass clustering in the $\Lambda$CDM

79: cosmology predicts that in this case the rare extreme mass

80: concentrations characteristic of the luminous parts of giant

81: elliptical galaxies have comoving number density as a function of

82: velocity dispersion that is strikingly similar to what is observed for

83: these galaxies today.

84: 

85: Reality has to be more complicated than this, because baryons must

86: dissipatively settle to form stars that make appreciable contributions

87: to the mass within the effective radii of ellipticals, $R_e$. As we

88: will discuss, if stellar mass were simply added to the cold dark

89: matter (CDM) present in these cores the velocity dispersion within the

90: characteristic effective radius $R_e\sim 10$~kpc would be

91: unacceptably large. Our proposed remedy invokes two postulates. The

92: first is that the density profile in a dark matter halo acts as an

93: attractor or fixed point in the sense of nonlinear dynamics (Syer

94: \&\ White 1998): the

95: formation of a new halo tends to erase memory of the conditions

96: in previous generations of halos, including the distortion caused

97: by the addition of stellar 

98: ``collisionless matter'' to the central regions. This requires our

99: second postulate, that the bulk of the stars formed when the mass

100: concentrations characteristic of the luminous parts of the giant

101: elliptical galaxies were still being assembled.

102: 

103: We have a measure of when assembly on the scale of the optical

104: parts of the largest galaxies was close to complete, from the number

105: density of mass peaks with mass greater than $M_e$ inside a

106: centered sphere with physical radius $R_e\sim 10$~kpc. At fixed

107: comoving number density $n(>M_e,t)$, the 

108: mass $M_e$ increases with increasing time at a redshift $z\sim 10$,

109: because the dense regions of the halos are still being assembled then, 

110: while near the present epoch $M_e$ is close to constant, because the

111: dense central regions of normal galaxies are not much

112: affected by the ongoing growth of the halo through the addition of

113: matter at much larger radii. We calculate that the transition is

114: about at redshift $z_f\simeq 6$. Thus, within this model we must

115: postulate that the bulk of the stars in a giant elliptical formed

116: and were assembled into a first approximation to the present-day

117: galaxy at $z_f\simeq 6$.   

118: 

119: The situation is still more complicated by the evidence that the

120: density profile within the effective radius of a present-day giant

121: elliptical differs from the standard estimates of the inner density

122: profiles of pure cold dark matter halos. This requires yet another

123: hypothesis, that star formation at low redshift has rearranged the

124: stellar mass distribution. As we discuss in \S 3 there is 

125: evidence for modest recent star formation in the central parts of

126: giant ellipticals, perhaps in part due to the recycling of mass

127: shed by evolving stars. 

128: 

129: Three points may be of particular interest. First, stars

130: that form at high redshift behave thereafter dynamically as dark

131: matter particles. The numerical experiments

132: reviewed in \S 2.3 suggest the density profiles in the subsequent

133: generations of halos are not much affected by the special initial

134: conditions of this new collisionless matter. The resulting

135: displacement of dark matter by stars could help resolve

136: observational challenges to the predicted central mass

137: distributions in large galaxies. And an attractive byproduct is

138: that the early formation of giant early-type galaxies fits a

139: considerable variety of observations (as reviewed in Peebles

140: 2002).  

141: 

142: Second, the central parts of the most massive halos might be

143: expected to stop evolving as they become very much denser than

144: the mean density of newly collapsing halos. The point is widely

145: discussed, as by Navarro, Frenk \&\ White (1997; hereafter NFW) 

146: and in more detail by Wechsler et al. (2002). Indeed, this stable

147: core concept was the basis for the estimates of the redshift of

148: galaxy formation in Partridge \&\ Peebles (1967). Within our 

149: schematic model for halo formation this concept

150: leads us to prefer a form for the characteristic inner

151: halo mass density profile in the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology that is

152: intermediate between  

153: \beq 

154: \rho (r) = {\rho_0 \over

155: (r/r_s)^{3/2}[1+(r/r_s)^{3/2}]},

156: \label{eq:m}

157: \eeq

158: (Ghigna et al. 2000; see also Moore et al. 1999; hereafter

159: called the Moore form) and the NFW form

160: \beq

161: \rho (r) = 

162: 	{\rho_0 \over (r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}.

163: \label{eq:nfw}

164: \eeq 

165: 

166: Third, the cutoff in $\sigma_e$ or $M_e$ is a

167: striking phenomenon that has received theoretical attention but, 

168: as far as we are aware, no promising interpretation. In

169: particular, the widely discussed threshold for thermal

170: bremsstrahlung cooling (Binney 1977; Rees \&\ Ostriker 1977) does 

171: not apply here, because at the central halo densities presented 

172: by the $\Lambda$CDM model the cooling time is much shorter than

173: the Hubble time (see also Thoul \& Weinberg 1995). The

174: cosmological picture we are proposing is simple and reasonably 

175: well specified, and it offers an interpretation of the abundance

176: of massive ellipticals over some four decades in comoving number

177: density. This certainly is not a compelling argument for our

178: picture, but it does recommend close attention to the postulates.

179: We return to this point, and some challenges to the picture, 

180: in \S 3. 

181: 

182: \section{Computation}

183: 

184: \subsection{Pure CDM Halos}

185: 

186: We ignore dissipative settling of the baryons for the moment. We use a

187: modified Press-Schechter (1974) model to calculate the number density of

188: collapsed halos as a function of mass and redshift, and we use the

189: halo density profiles in equations~(\ref{eq:m}) and~(\ref{eq:nfw}) to

190: find the velocity dispersion at the effective radii $R_e\sim 10$~kpc

191: characteristic of giant elliptical galaxies.

192: 

193: For definiteness we adopt fixed values for most parameters. We use the

194: $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model, with Hubble parameter $H_0 = 70

195: \hbox{ km s}^{-1}\hbox{ Mpc}^{-1}$, and density parameters

196: $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$ and $\Omega _m = 0.3$, in the cosmological

197: constant $\Lambda$ (or dark energy that acts like $\Lambda$) and in

198: the sum of dark matter plus baryons, respectively. The primeval mass

199: density fluctuation spectrum is taken to be scale-invariant ($n=1$)

200: and normalized to rms mass fluctuation $\sigma _8=0.9$ in randomly

201: placed spheres with radius $800$ km~s$^{-1}/H_0$.

202: 

203: In the now standard collapse picture, a dark matter halo of total mass

204: $M$ at redshift $z$ that has just collapsed has virial radius (Bryan

205: \& Norman 1998; Barkana \& Loeb 2001)

206: \begin{equation}

207: R_v=31 \left( {M \over 10^{12} M_\odot}\right)^{1/3}

208: \left[{\Omega_m\over \Omega_m^z}{\Delta_c\over 18\pi^2}\right]^{-1/3}

209: \left({1+z\over 7}\right)^{-1}~{\rm kpc},

210: \end{equation}

211: and circular velocity

212: \begin{equation}

213: V_v=\left({GM\over R_v}\right)^{1/2}=375 \left( {M \over 10^{12}

214: M_\odot}\right)^{1/3} \left[{\Omega_m\over \Omega_m^z}{\Delta_c\over

215: 18\pi^2}\right]^{1/6} \left({1+z\over 7}\right)^{1/2}~{\rm km~s^{-1}},

216: \end{equation}

217: where the density contrast at the virial radius is

218: $\Delta_c=18\pi^2 +82d-39d^2$, with $d\equiv \Omega_m^z-1$ and

219: $\Omega_m^z=\Omega_m(1+z)^3/[\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_\Lambda]$.

220: 

221: Our estimate of the mass function of halos is based on the

222: Press-Schechter (1974) model including the modification by Sheth

223: \& Tormen (1999; see also Sheth et al. 2001) that provides an

224: excellent fit to state-of-the-art N-body simulations (Jenkins et

225: al. 2001). 

226: 

227: 

228: 

229: %\begin{figure}[htbp]

230: %\plotone{fig1.ps}

231: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{fig1.ps}}}}

232: \figcaption

233: %\caption

234: {The development of stable cores in CDM halos.  We show the

235: evolution of the mass $M_e(t)$ within a central physical radius

236: $R_e=10$~kpc of halos defined by a fixed value of the comoving number

237: density $n(>M)$. The evolution is shown as a function of the

238: cosmological scale factor $a=(1+z)^{-1}$. As the cores approach

239: stability at radii $\sim R_e$, the curves asymptote to a nearly

240: constant value.

241: \label{fig-1}

242: }

243: \vskip 0.2in

244: %\end{figure}

245: 

246: We use the Moore and NFW density profiles in equations~(\ref{eq:m})

247: and~(\ref{eq:nfw}) to extrapolate from $V_v$ at the virial radius to

248: the circular velocity at an effective radius $R_e$ for giant

249: ellipticals, and we divide the circular velocity by the factor

250: $2^{1/2}$ to estimate the line-of-sight velocity dispersion. This

251: is a crude approximation: our halos are not isothermal and the 

252: stellar velocities need not be isotropic. However, since redistribution

253: of the stellar mass is likely to occur (see \S 3), and some ellipticals

254: are known to have anisotropic velocity distributions, for the

255: sake of simplicity we prefer not to refine the calculation. 

256: In our approximations the stellar velocity dispersion at

257: radius $R_e$ is 

258: \beq 

259: \sigma _e =V_v\left\{ \ln [1+(cx)^{3/2}]\over

260: 2x\ln [1+c^{3/2}]\right\}^{1/2},\qquad x = r/R_v, \eeq for the Moore

261: profile, and \beq \sigma_e=V_v \left\{ {\ln(1 + cx) - cx/(1 + cx)

262: \over 2x[\ln(1 + c) - c/(1 + c)]} \right\}^{1/2}, \eeq for the NFW

263: profile. In both models we choose a single value for the concentration

264: parameter: for NFW, $c=c_{\rm NFW}\equiv (R_v/r_s)= 4$, which is typical 

265: of the results from fits of the NFW profile to numerical

266: simulations of the more massive newly collapsed CDM halos (NFW;

267: Wechsler et al. 2002), and  for the corresponding Moore profile 

268: $c = c_{\rm NFW}/1.72$, 

269: which is the adjustment recommended by Klypin et al.

270: (2001).\footnote{Klypin et al. (2001) find that this is the

271: typical ratio of concentration parameters when the virial radius

272: and the radius at maximum circular velocity are constrained to be

273: the same in the two functional forms.} To avoid confusion we

274: remind the reader that we are considering the rarest most massive

275: halos that tend to have collapsed close to the redshift at which

276: they are identified. We suggest such halos tend to grow by the

277: addition of matter to the outer envelope, causing the break

278: radius $r_s$ to increase in rough proportion to the virial

279: radius, $R_v\sim cr_s$ with $c$ constant. 

280:  

281: Figure 1 shows the evolution of the mass $M_e(t)$ within a central

282: physical radius $R_e=10$~kpc of halos defined by a fixed value of the

283: comoving number density $n(>M)$.  Here and throughout the paper,

284: number densities are comoving and normalized to the present epoch. The

285: number densities belonging to the curves in the figure are in the

286: range of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) measurements for giant

287: early-type galaxies.  

288: 

289: Both models for the halo density profile, NFW in the upper panel and

290: Moore in the lower panel, predict similar behavior at 

291: $z\gtrsim 6$ because the mass distributions at radii larger than

292: the maximum circular velocity radius are quite similar. Both

293: models indicate that the mass $M_e(<10\hbox{ kpc})$ at fixed

294: comoving number density does not evolve much at

295: $z<4$. This is in line with the idea noted above that the central core

296: of a very massive halo stabilizes dynamically at late times, when the

297: core is much denser than newly collapsing halos. New mergers tend to

298: add mass to the outer halo envelope at impact parameters $\gg 10~{\rm

299: kpc}$ (due to the expansion of the universe), mostly in much smaller

300: halos. In the NFW form the mild decline of $M_e(<10~{\rm kpc})$

301: at low redshifts is a result of the smaller power law index at $x\ll

302: 1$. This requires either that late mergers, at virial radii of a few

303: hundred kpc, tend to lower the densities in the inner 10~kpc of the

304: most massive galaxies, or that late assembly happens to produce new

305: galaxies with $\sigma\gtrsim 200$ km~s$^{-1}$ at $R_e\sim

306: 10$~kpc. Since both options seem unlikely to us we conclude that

307: a form closer to Moore is more useful within our approximations.

308: We emphasize that we cannot judge which halo model would be more

309: useful under a better approximation to how halos form.

310: 

311: \vskip 0.4in

312: %\begin{figure}[htbp]

313: %\plotone{fig1.ps}

314: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{fig2.ps}}}}

315: \figcaption

316: %\caption

317: {Comoving number density of galaxies with a stellar velocity

318: dispersion above $\sigma_e$ as a function of $\sigma_e$.  The shaded

319: bands show the abundance predicted by populating CDM halos (having NFW

320: or Moore profiles) with stars at radii in the range $6~{\rm

321: kpc}<R_e<16~{\rm kpc}$ at $z=4$. (Similar results 

322: are obtained for any $z\la 4$.) The solid line shows the fitting

323: function derived by Sheth et al. (2002) to describe the SDSS data in

324: the local universe. 

325: \label{fig-2}

326: }

327: \vskip 0.4in

328: 

329: 

330: We conclude from Figure~1 that the approximate redshift at which the

331: assembly of the mass concentrations characteristic of giant elliptical

332: galaxies nears completion is 

333: \beq

334: z_f \sim 6.

335: \eeq  

336: This is close to the half-mass point in the Moore case, and just

337: before the peak in the NFW case.

338: 

339: Figure 2 shows the comoving number density of dark matter halos,

340: $n(>\sigma _e)$, at redshift $z=4$, as a function of the

341: one-dimensional velocity dispersion $\sigma _e$ computed between two

342: bracketing radii, $R_e=6$~kpc and $R_e=16$~kpc. These are one standard

343: deviation above and below the mean effective (half-light) radius

344: $R_e\sim 10$~kpc of giant ellipticals at $\sigma >300$ km~s$^{-1}$ in

345: the SDSS sample (Bernardi et al. 2001). There is a smaller spread of

346: values of $n(>\sigma _e)$ between the two radii in the Moore form,

347: because the density profile is closer to the limiting isothermal

348: case. A more complete computation would convolve the probability

349: distribution $dn/d\sigma _e$ at fixed $R_e$ with a model for the

350: distribution of $R_e$, and would take account of the distribution

351: in values of the concentration index $c$, but we leave that for

352: future work.

353: 

354: The choice of redshift in Figure 2, $z=4$, is slightly past the

355: characteristic epoch $z_f$ at which structure formation nears

356: completion in the rare massive objects we are considering, and it

357: is close to the redshifts reached in deep rest-frame optical

358: galaxy surveys (Rudnick, Rix, \&\ Franx 2001; Cimatti et al.

359: 2002). In the  Moore model the distribution $n(>\sigma _e)$ is

360: not very sensitive to 

361: time at $z<4$. The NFW model predicts a slight decrease with

362: increasing time, which we are suggesting is an artifact of the

363: slightly too shallow inner power-law slope (within our

364: approximations). 

365: 

366: The solid line in Figure 2 shows the fitting formula for 

367: the measured abundance of early-type

368: galaxies as a function of velocity dispersion in the SDSS sample

369: (Sheth et al. 2002).  The standard deviation of the measurement error,

370: $\delta\sigma_e\sim 25$ km~s$^{-1}$, is small enough not to appreciably

371: broaden the steep observed drop of the distribution function at

372: $n(>\sigma_e)\sim 10^{-7}$~Mpc$^{-3}$.

373: 

374: The comparison of the SDSS data to our model depends on the inner

375: power-law index $\alpha\equiv -(d\log \rho/d\log x)$.  Syer \&\ White

376: (1998) present an elegant argument for the value of $\alpha$: if the

377: primeval power spectrum varies as $P(k)\propto a^2k^n$, where $a(t)$

378: is the cosmological expansion factor and $k$ is the comoving

379: wavenumber, then stable clustering indicates $\alpha = (9+3n)/(5+n)$.

380: Subramanian, Cen, \& Ostriker (2000) and Ricotti (2002) have checked

381: this relation against numerical simulations.  In the $\Lambda$CDM

382: model, the value of the effective index $n\equiv d\log P(k)/d\log k$

383: increases with mass scale.  At the wavenumbers characteristic of the

384: halo masses of interest, from $10^{12}M_\odot$ to $10^{15}M_\odot$,

385: the primeval power spectrum yields values of this index between $n\sim

386: -2.1$ and $-1.4$, implying $\alpha$ between $0.93$ and 1.33. Because

387: this range is intermediate between the NFW and Moore inner slopes, our

388: model should best be considered as intermediate between these two

389: cases in Figures 1 and 2.  It is encouraging that the data support

390: this intermediate regime across several orders of magnitude in galaxy

391: number density.  Before considering the possible significance of this

392: result we must deal with the loading of the dark halos by the settling

393: of baryons.

394: 

395: \subsection{Halo Loading by Star Formation}

396: 

397: In the SDSS sample, the ellipticals with $\sigma _e> 300$ km~s$^{-1}$

398: have mass-to-light ratio $M/L_{r^\star}\simeq 6$ solar units within

399: $R_e$ (Bernardi et al. 2001).  This is about twice that of the stars

400: in the Solar neighborhood.

401: Since the nearby stars surely are on average younger than the

402: populations in a giant elliptical, it seems likely that the mass

403: fraction in stars within the effective radius of a giant elliptical is

404: larger than that of the CDM component (Gerhard  et al. 2001),

405: \beq \eta = {M_{\rm stars}\over M_{\rm CDM}}\gtrsim 1.

406: \label{eq:eta}

407: \eeq

408: 

409: In the adiabatic approximation -- where the product of length and

410: velocity scales is conserved -- the addition of the stellar mass to

411: a region that contains dark mass $M$ produces final mass and

412: scaled radii and velocities  

413: \beq

414: M_e = (1+\eta )M, \qquad R_e = R_i/(1+\eta ),\qquad

415: 	\sigma _e = (1+\eta )\sigma _i.

416: \label{eq:scaling}

417: \eeq

418: The velocity dispersion $\sigma_i$ before compression is larger

419: than in Figure~2 because it is computed at a larger radius,

420: $R_i=(1+\eta )R_e$. And the observed velocity dispersion is

421: larger than $\sigma _i$ by another factor $1+\eta$. 

422: This results in quite unacceptable velocity dispersions

423: unless $\eta$ is much less than unity, which does not seem

424: likely. 

425: 

426: We are not able to judge whether a more violent addition of stellar 

427: mass could have a less severe effect on $\sigma_e$, but the

428: indication from equations~(\ref{eq:eta}) and~(\ref{eq:scaling})

429: is that the loading of the dark halos by baryon settling could be

430: a serious problem for the $\Lambda$CDM model. We turn now to a 

431: possible remedy.

432: 

433: \subsection{The Attractor Hypothesis}

434: 

435: Numerical simulations of the growth of halos out of pure dark matter

436: suggest that the strongly nonlinear part of the density profile is not

437: very sensitive to initial conditions. A dramatic example in Navarro,

438: Frenk \&\ White (1996) shows a numerical simulation that evolves

439: through an expansion factor of just $1+z_f=5.5$. Because the initial

440: density fluctuations are not large this in effect significantly

441: truncates the small-scale initial power spectrum, yet it produces

442: close to standard halo density profiles. This is demonstrated in more

443: detail, along with the effects of other modifications of the shape of

444: the primeval power spectrum, by NFW and Eke et al.  (2001).

445: 

446: We apply this indication of a dynamical attractor effect (Syer \&\

447: White 1998) to the case where the small-scale mass clustering has been

448: increased by dissipative settling of the baryons, rather than

449: truncated.  Our working assumption is that stars that form prior to

450: the assembly of the core simply replace the dark matter that was

451: supposed to be there at late times. This is a conjecture: we are not

452: aware of any numerical checks of this case.  We note that this

453: conjecture could in principle explain the observed absence of a cusp

454: in the central dark matter distribution of nearby galaxies nad galaxy

455: clusters (the so-called `central cusp problem').

456: 

457: \section{Discussion}

458: 

459: Our analysis does not do justice to the precise SDSS measurements of

460: the abundance of early-type galaxies as a function of the stellar

461: velocity dispersion: within our approximations that would require

462: consideration of the sensitivity of the computed $n(>\sigma _e)$ to

463: the slope and normalization ($\sigma_8$) of the primeval power

464: spectrum; the distribution of values of the concentration parameter

465: $c$; functional forms intermediate between Moore and NFW (e.g., Power

466: et al.  2002); the distribution of values of galaxy effective radii

467: $R_e$; and the conversion from the circular velocity at $R_e$ to the

468: stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_e$, which depends on a model for

469: how the stars populate the halo. Within the spread of possibilities

470: offered by all these parameters, we can only conclude from the

471: exploratory analysis presented here that our model seems to be capable

472: of accounting for the observed upper bound on the mass concentrated in

473: the largest galaxies.

474: 

475: Our model depends on the hypothesis that halo formation can erase the

476: effect of dissipative settling of the baryons. We are not aware of a

477: direct test by numerical simulations; a check would be feasible and

478: useful. Also open for discussion, and much more difficult to test, is

479: our assumption that star formation in the neighborhood of a giant

480: elliptical is concentrated in the dense regions that end up in or near

481: $R_e\sim 10$~kpc. Even if star formation were confined to dense

482: regions, mergers would cause diffusion of stars away from $R_e$ 

483: (Johnston, Sackett, \&\ Bullock 2001).  Diffusion could account for

484: the extended optical halos of large ellipticals (Arp \&\ Bertola

485: 1971); numerical simulations might show whether the amount of

486: diffusion is acceptable at the high redshifts of formation in our

487: model. 

488: 

489: Our analysis assumes that star formation in giant ellipticals is close

490: to complete before their assembly at $z_f\simeq 6$. This certainly

491: seems consistent with the short cooling times in the central regions

492: of the most massive halos. And this early star formation seems to be

493: required in the $\Lambda$CDM model, because late star formation would

494: produce unacceptably large velocity dispersions in giant ellipticals,

495: as discussed in \S 2.2. Peacock et al. (1998) present another

496: consideration that leads to a similar value for $z_f$. They start from

497: the observed comoving number density of giant ellipticals and their

498: stellar velocity dispersion which they set equal to the velocity

499: dispersion at the virial radius, $V_v/\sqrt{2}$. Based on the

500: Press-Schechter mass function, they also infer a formation redshift

501: $z_f\sim 6$.  Although in general $\sigma_e$ is not equal to

502: $V_v/\sqrt{2}$, the approximation is acceptable here because $r_s \sim

503: 10~{\rm kpc}$ at $z\sim 6$ (see Fig. 1).

504: 

505: There has been considerable discussion of observational constraints on

506: the formation redshift of giant ellipticals (Kauffmann, Charlot, \&

507: White 1996). In the recent deep K-band survey of Cimatti et al. (2002)

508: the counts of galaxies at $2\la z\la 3$ are consistent with early

509: formation of very luminous galaxies. This is in line with the

510: persuasive case by Dunlop et al. (1996) and Waddington et al. (2002)

511: that some giant ellipticals formed at $z_f\gtrsim 4$, and with the

512: evidence that many giant galaxies formed not much later than that

513: (Zirm, Dickinson, \& Dey 2002; Saracco et al. 2002). Other arguments

514: for early formation of late-type galaxies are reviewed in Peebles

515: (2002).

516: 

517: Our postulate that stars replace dark matter in a near universal form

518: for the net mass distribution in a giant elliptical may have some

519: bearing on the observation that the varying mix of baryonic and cold

520: dark matter as a function of radius in some ellipticals adds up to a

521: simple form for the total mass density, $\rho\sim r^{-2}$ (Romanowsky

522: \&\ Kochanek 2001; Koopmans \&\ Treu 2002; but for an exception see

523: Sand, Treu, \&\ Ellis, 2002; and see van Albada \&\ Sancisi 1986 for

524: the analog of this curious ``conspiracy'' in spiral galaxies). The

525: interpretation must be more complicated than a universal mass density

526: run, however, because the power law is steeper than Moore. The

527: complication may result from the rearrangement of the stellar mass

528: distribution by recycling of mass shed by evolving stars and from the

529: addition of mass by low levels of merging and accretion.  The spectra

530: of large early-type galaxies show evidence of ongoing star formation

531: (J\o rgensen 1999; Trager et al. 2000; Menanteau, Abraham, \&\ Ellis

532: 2001), amounting to a few tens of percent of the total at $z<1$. If

533: this reflects the recycling of baryons in stars it might be expected

534: to move baryonic mass to smaller radii, making the density run

535: steeper, as needed. 

536: 

537: Merging at low redshift, driven by dynamical friction, is an important

538: element in semi-analytic models for galaxy formation (Cole et

539: al. 2000), and it is observed, as in the recent capture of a spiral by

540: the nearby giant elliptical Centaurus A (NGC~5128), which has

541: increased the mass in stars and gas in this elliptical by about 10\%

542: (Israel 1998). The Centaurus elliptical has many more late-type

543: satellites and group members (C\^ot\'e et al. 1997). But arguing

544: against substantial growth by accretion is the evidence that the

545: abundance of iron group elements relative to $\alpha$ elements is

546: higher in younger late-type galaxies than in ellipticals, in line with

547: the idea that the stars in ellipticals formed too rapidly for

548: appreciable enrichment of iron from type Ia supernovae (Thomas et

549: al. 1999; Pagel 2001). We will be following with interest constraints

550: from the chemistry on the amount stellar mass that merging have added

551: to the centers of giant ellipticals, and the effect on the central

552: mass density run.

553: 

554: Our model predicts that the most massive ellipticals reside in

555: very rich clusters of galaxies. It would be interesting to see

556: the results of a simple test, a comparison of the spatial

557: autocorrelation functions of massive ellipticals and of rich 

558: clusters with the same comoving number density. 

559: 

560: The proposed early formation of the giant ellipticals may help account

561: for the luminous quasars at $z\sim 6$ found by SDSS (Fan et

562: al. 2001). If these objects are radiating isotropically at the

563: Eddington limit then in the standard quasar model they are powered by

564: black holes with mass $M_{\rm BH}\ga 10^9M_\odot$, which is close to

565: the largest masses inferred for central compact objects in present-day

566: galaxies. The $\Lambda$CDM model does have initial conditions for the

567: formation of these massive black holes and their host galaxies at

568: $z\sim 6$ (Barkana \& Loeb 2002; Wyithe \& Loeb 2002). The issue for

569: our purpose is whether this early assembly is the dominant mode of

570: formation of the giant ellipticals, as we are proposing, or whether

571: these galaxies and their central black holes grew by a hierarchy of

572: mergers at redshifts well below $6$ (Haehnelt \& Kauffmann 2000). In

573: the latter case one might have expected that the SDSS black holes have

574: since grown considerably more massive than $10^9M_\odot$. That would

575: not naturally fit the correlation of $\sigma _e$ with $M_{\rm BH}$ in

576: present-day galaxies (Merritt \& Ferrarese 2001; Tremaine et al. 2002)

577: together with the sharp cutoff in $\sigma _e$.

578: 

579: Our conclusion from these considerations is that there is no serious

580: observational problem but instead some possible encouragement for

581: the idea that the giant ellipticals formed at high redshift. 

582: 

583: The reader may have noticed that we are arguing for early formation of

584: the most massive galaxies in a cosmology, $\Lambda$CDM, that usually

585: is associated with the formation of massive galaxies at low redshift

586: (see, e.g.  Figure~13 in Baugh et al. 1998). We offer two

587: considerations. First, Figure 1 indicates that, within commonly

588: accepted approximations to structure formation in this cosmology,

589: there is little late time addition to the mass concentrated within

590: 10~kpc of the centers of the most massive galaxies. Perhaps the

591: accretion at low redshifts seen in numerical simulations of this

592: cosmology requires some modification of this statement, or perhaps it

593: requires some modification of the model that would also bring it into

594: agreement with the void phenomenon (Peebles 2001). Second, our early

595: formation scenario may apply to the giant early-type galaxies and the

596: late scenario to massive late-type galaxies. But the circular

597: velocities of spiral galaxies also show a strong upper cutoff

598: (Giovanelli et al.  1986, and references therein), and one would

599: surely hope to find a common explanation for this striking effect in

600: both types of galaxies.

601: 

602: The remarkable success of the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology in fitting

603: the anisotropy of the thermal cosmic background radiation (Bond

604: et al. 2002) argues in favor of this model as a useful

605: approximation to aspects of reality. We are inclined to add to the

606: evidence the promise of an explanation of the remarkable bound 

607: on mass concentrations in the most massive galaxies.

608: 

609: \acknowledgments 

610: 

611: We are indebted to Mariangela Bernardi and Ravi Sheth for kindly

612: sharing their SDSS data analysis with us, and to them and 

613: Rennan Barkana, Jerry Ostriker, Simon White, and the referee for

614: useful discussions. 

615: AL acknowledges support from the Institute for Advanced Study,

616: the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship, and NSF grants 

617: AST-0071019, AST-0204514. PJEP acknowledges support from the NSF.

618: 

619: \begin{thebibliography}{}

620:   

621: \bibitem[]{}

622: Arp, H. C. \& Bertola, F. 1971, ApJ, 163, 195

623: 

624: \bibitem[Barkana \& Loeb(2001)]{us01} Barkana, R., \& Loeb, A. 

625: 2001, Phys. Rep., 349, 125

626: 

627: \bibitem[]{}

628: Barkana, R., \& Loeb, A. 2002, Nature, 421, 341;  astro-ph/0209515

629: 

630: \bibitem[]{}

631: Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., \&\ Lacey, C. G. 1998, ApJ,

632: 498, 504

633: 

634: \bibitem[]{}

635: Bernardi, M. et al. 2001, AJ, submitted; astro-ph/0110344

636: 

637: \bibitem[Binney(1977)]{1977ApJ...215..483B} Binney, J.\ 1977, \apj, 215, 

638: 483 

639: 

640: \bibitem[]{}

641: Bond, J. R. et al. 2002, astro-ph/0210007

642: 

643: \bibitem[Bryan \& Norman(1998)]{1998ApJ...495...80B} Bryan, G.~L.~\& 

644: Norman, M.~L.\ 1998, \apj, 495, 80 

645: 

646: \bibitem[]{}

647: Cimatti, A. et al. 2002, A \& A, 391, L1

648: 

649: \bibitem[]{}

650: Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M. \&\ Frenk, C. S., 2000, MNRAS,

651: 319, 168

652: 

653: \bibitem[]{} 

654: C\^ot\'e, S., Freeman, K. C., Carignan, C., \&\ Quinn, P. J.

655: 1997, AJ, 114, 1313

656: 

657: \bibitem[]{} 

658: de Blok, W. J. G. \&\ Bosma, A. 2002, AA, 385, 816

659: 

660: \bibitem[]{} 

661: Dunlop, J. et al. 1996, Nature, 381, 581

662: 

663: \bibitem[]{} 

664: Eke, V. R., Navarro, J. F., \&\ Steinmetz, M. 2001, ApJ, 554, 114

665: 

666: \bibitem[]{} 

667: Fan, X., et al. 2001, Astron. J. 122, 2833. 

668: 

669: \bibitem[Gerhard, Kronawitter, Saglia, \& 

670: Bender(2001)]{2001AJ....121.1936G} Gerhard, O., Kronawitter, A., Saglia, 

671: R.~P., \& Bender, R.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 1936 

672: 

673: \bibitem[Ghigna et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...544..616G} Ghigna, S.,

674: Moore, B., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., \& Stadel, J.\

675: 2000, \apj, 544, 616

676: 

677: \bibitem[Giovanelli, Haynes, Rubin, \& Ford(1986)]{1986ApJ...301L...7G} 

678: Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M.~P., Rubin, V.~C., \& Ford, W.~K.\ 1986, \apjl, 

679: 301, L7 

680: 

681: \bibitem[Haehnelt \& Kauffmann(2000)]{2000MNRAS.318L..35H} Haehnelt, 

682: M.~G.~\& Kauffmann, G.\ 2000, \mnras, 318, L35 

683: 

684: \bibitem[]{}Israel, F. P. 1998, Astron Astrophys Rev 8, 237

685: 

686: \bibitem[]{}

687: Jenkins, A. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 372

688: 

689: \bibitem[]{} Johnston, K. V., Sackett, P. D., \&\ Bullock, J. S.

690: 2001, ApJ, 557, 137

691: 

692: \bibitem[]{} J\o rgensen, I. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 607

693: 

694: \bibitem[Kauffmann, Charlot, \& White(1996)]{1996MNRAS.283L.117K} 

695: Kauffmann, G., Charlot, S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1996, \mnras, 283, L117 

696: 

697: \bibitem[]{}

698: Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Bullock, J. S., \& Primack, J. R. 2001, 

699: ApJ, 554, 903

700: 

701: \bibitem[]{}

702: Koopmans, L. V. E. \&\ Treu, T. 2002, astro-ph/0205281

703: 

704: \bibitem[]{}

705: McGaugh, S. S., Rubin, V.C., \&\ de Blok, W. J. G. 2001, AJ, 122, 

706: 2381 

707: 

708: \bibitem[]{}

709: Menanteau, F., Abraham, R. G., \&\ Ellis, R. S. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 1

710: 

711: \bibitem[Merritt \& Ferrarese(2001)]{2001ApJ...547..140M} Merritt, D.~\& 

712: Ferrarese, L.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 140 

713: 

714: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...524L..19M} Moore, B.,

715: Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., \&

716: Tozzi, P.\ 1999, \apjl, 524, L19

717: 

718: \bibitem[]{} Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., \&\ White, S. D. M.

719: 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

720: 

721: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk, \& White(1997)]{1997ApJ...490..493N} Navarro, 

722: J.~F., Frenk, C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1997, \apj, 490, 493 (NFW)

723: 

724: \bibitem[Pagel(2001)]{2001PASP..113..137P} Pagel, B.~E.~J.\ 2001, \pasp, 

725: 113, 137 

726: 

727: \bibitem[]{} Partridge, R. B. \&\ Peebles, P. J. E. 1967, ApJ, 147, 868

728: 

729: \bibitem[Peacock et al.(1998)]{1998MNRAS.296.1089P} Peacock, J.~A., 

730: Jimenez, R., Dunlop, J.~S., Waddington, I., Spinrad, H., Stern, D., Dey, 

731: A., \& Windhorst, R.~A.\ 1998, \mnras, 296, 1089 

732: 

733: \bibitem[]{} Peebles, P. J. E. 2001, ApJ, 557, 495

734: 

735: \bibitem[]{} Peebles, P. J. E. 2002, in A New Era in Cosmology,

736: eds. M. Metcalf \&\ T. Shanks, Durham, September 2001;

737: astro-ph/0201015

738: 

739: \bibitem[]{}

740: Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., 

741: Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Springel, V., Stadel, J.,

742: \& Quinn, T. 2002, MNRAS, submitted; astro-ph/0201544 

743: 

744: \bibitem[]{}

745: Press, W. H., \& Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

746: 

747: \bibitem[Rees \& Ostriker(1977)]{1977MNRAS.179..541R} Rees, M.~J.~\& 

748: Ostriker, J.~P.\ 1977, \mnras, 179, 541 

749: 

750: \bibitem[]{}

751: Ricotti, M. 2002, MNRAS, submitted; astro-ph/0212146

752: 

753: \bibitem[]{}

754: Romanowsky A. J. \&\ Kochanek, C. S. 2001, ApJ, 553, 722

755: 

756: \bibitem[]{}

757: Rudnick, G., Rix, H.-W., \&\ Franx, M. 2001, ASP Conference

758: Series 230, 615; astro-ph/0009345

759: 

760: \bibitem[Subramanian, Cen, \& Ostriker(2000)]{2000ApJ...538..528S} 

761: Subramanian, K., Cen, R., \& Ostriker, J.~P.\ 2000, \apj, 538, 528 

762: 

763: 

764: \bibitem[]{}

765: Sand, D. J., Treu, T., \&\ Ellis, R. S. 2002, astro-ph/0207048

766: 

767: \bibitem[]{}

768: Saracco, P. et al. 2002, astro-ph/0211394

769: 

770: \bibitem[Sheth, Mo, \& Tormen(2001)]{2001MNRAS.323....1S} Sheth, R.~K., Mo, 

771: H.~J., \& Tormen, G.\ 2001, \mnras, 323, 1 , 119

772: 

773: \bibitem[]{}

774: Sheth, R. K. \& Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308

775: 

776: \bibitem[]{}

777: Sheth, R. K. et al. 2003, in preparation

778: 

779: \bibitem[Syer \& White(1998)]{1998MNRAS.293..337S} Syer, D.~\& White, 

780: S.~D.~M.\ 1998, \mnras, 293, 337 

781: 

782: \bibitem[]{} Trager, S. C., Faber, S. M., Worthey, G., \&\

783: Gonz\'alez, J. J. 2000, AJ, 119, 1645

784: 

785: \bibitem[Thomas, Greggio, \& Bender(1999)]{1999MNRAS.302..537T} Thomas, D., 

786: Greggio, L., \& Bender, R.\ 1999, \mnras, 302, 537 

787: 

788: \bibitem[Thoul \& Weinberg(1995)]{1995ApJ...442..480T} Thoul, A.~A.~\& 

789: Weinberg, D.~H.\ 1995, \apj, 442, 480 

790: 

791: \bibitem[]{}Tremaine, S., et al.  2002, ApJ, 574, 740

792: 

793: \bibitem[]{} van Albada, T. S. \&\ Sancisi, R. 1986, Phil Tran.

794: R. Soc. London, A 320, 447

795: 

796: \bibitem[]{} Waddington, I. et al. 2002, \mnras, 336, 1342

797: 

798: \bibitem[]{} Wechsler, R. A., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R.,

799: Kravtsov, A. V., \& Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52

800: 

801: \bibitem[]{} Wyithe, S., \& Loeb, A. 2002, ApJ, in press;

802: astro-ph/0206154

803: 

804: \bibitem[]{} Zirm, A. W., Dickinson, M., \& Dey, A. 2002, ApJ, in

805: press; astro-ph/0211469

806: 

807: \end{thebibliography}

808: 

809: \end{document}

810: 

811: 

812: 

813: 

814: 

815: 

816: 

817: 

818: