1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint2]{emulateapj}

2: \usepackage{pslatex}

3: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

4: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

5: \setcounter{tocdepth}{3}

6: \usepackage{subfigure}

7: \usepackage{amsmath}

8: \usepackage{graphicx,graphics}

9: \usepackage{amssymb}

10: \usepackage[english]{babel}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

14: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}

15: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}

16: \newcommand{\lap}{\lesssim}

17: \newcommand{\gap}{\gtrsim}

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

19: \newcommand{\laplace}{\bigtriangleup}

20: \newcommand{\kms}{km s$^{-1}$}

21: \newcommand{\Mp}{M_{Pl}}

22: \newcommand{\radius}{{\cal R}}

23: \newcommand{\mass}{{\cal M}}

24: \newcommand{\luminosity}{{\cal L}}

25: \newcommand{\flux}{{\cal F}}

26: \newcommand{\Lsolar}{L_\odot}

27: \newcommand{\msun}{M_\odot}

28: \newcommand{\rsun}{\radius_\odot}

29: \newcommand{\lsun}{\luminosity_\odot}

30: \newcommand{\lbrac}{\left[\vphantom]}

31: \newcommand{\rbrac}{\vphantom[\right]}

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

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

34: \newcommand{\mh}{M}

35: \newcommand{\vh}{V}

36: \def\ff{f_\star}

37: \def\vf{v}

38: \def\vp{v_{\parallel}}

39: \def\df{\langle\Delta\vp\rangle}

40: \def\dvp{\langle\Delta\vp^2\rangle}

41: \def\fs{f_\star}

42: \def\ms{m_\star}

43: \def\ss{\sigma_\star}

44: \def\ns{n_\star}

45: \def\gap{\;\rlap{\lower 2.5pt

46:  \hbox{$\sim$}}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;}

47: \def\lap{\;\rlap{\lower 2.5pt

48:    \hbox{$\sim$}}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;}

49: 

50: \shorttitle{Universal Density Profile}

51: \shortauthors{Merritt et al.}

52: \begin{document}

53: 

54: \title{A Universal Density Profile for Dark and Luminous Matter?}

55: 

56: \author{David Merritt\altaffilmark{1},

57: Julio F. Navarro\altaffilmark{2,3,$\dagger$}, Aaron Ludlow\altaffilmark{2} 

58: and Adrian Jenkins\altaffilmark{4}

59: }

60: %

61: \altaffiltext{1}

62: {Department of Physics, Rochester Institute of Technology, 

63: Rochester, NY 14623, USA}

64: %

65: \altaffiltext{2}

66: {Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, 

67: Victoria, BC, V8P 1A1, Canada}

68: %

69: \altaffiltext{3}

70: {Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Karl-Schwarzschild Strasse 1, 

71: Garching, D-85740, Germany}

72: %

73: \altaffiltext{$\dagger$}

74: {Fellow of CIAR and of the Guggenheim Foundation}

75: %

76: \altaffiltext{4}

77: {Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE,

78:   England}

79: 

80: \begin{abstract}

81: We explore similarities in the luminosity distribution of early type galaxies

82: and the mass profiles of $\Lambda$CDM halos. The spatial structure of these

83: systems may be accurately described by a simple law where the logarithmic

84: slope of the projected density is a power law of radius; the S\'ersic law. We

85: show that this law provides a significantly better fit than a three-parameter

86: generalization of the NFW profile and derive the best-fitting S\'ersic

87: parameters for a set of high-resolution $\Lambda$CDM halos spanning a wide

88: range in mass. The mean S\'ersic $n$ values are $3.0$ for dwarf- and

89: galaxy-sized halos and $2.4$ for cluster-sized halos, similar to 

90: the values that characterize luminous elliptical galaxies.  

91: We discuss possible reasons why the same

92: law should describe dark and luminous systems that span a range of over seven

93: decades in mass.

94: \end{abstract}

95: 

96: \section{Introduction}

97: 

98: The \cite{sersic68} law,

99: \begin{equation}

100: \ln (\Sigma/\Sigma_e) = - b\, (X^{1/n} - 1),

101: \label{eq:sersic}

102: \end{equation}

103: relating the 2D (projected or surface) density, $\Sigma$, and the dimensionless

104: radius, $X=R/R_e$, is often fit to the luminosity profiles of elliptical

105: galaxies and to the bulges of disk galaxies. The parameters of

106: the fit include the S\'ersic index, $n$, as well as the constant, $b$, which

107: is normally chosen so that $R_e$ is the radius containing one-half of the

108: projected light; $b=b(n)\approx 2n-0.324$ \citep{ciotti99}.

109: 

110: In a recent series of papers, A. Graham and co-workers have shown that the

111: S\'ersic law provides a remarkably good fit to the luminosity profiles of

112: stellar spheroids, from dE galaxies to the most luminous ellipticals

113: \citep{graham01,graham02,gguzman03,graham03,trujillo04}. The fits apply over

114: 2-3 decades in radius, and often extend down to the innermost resolvable

115: radius.  Deviations from the best-fitting S\'ersic law are typically of order

116: $0.05$ magnitudes rms.  The S\'ersic index $n$ is found to correlate well with

117: galaxy absolute magnitude,

118: \begin{equation}

119: \log_{10}n \approx -0.106 \, M_B - 1.52

120: \label{eq:nvsm}

121: \end{equation}

122: \citep{gguzman03}, and also with other structural parameters like $R_e$ and

123: $\Sigma_e$

124: \citep{caon93,gguzman03}. Setting $n=4$ gives the \cite{devauc48}

125: law, which is a good fit to luminous elliptical galaxies, and $n=1$ is the

126: exponential law, which reproduces well the luminosity profiles of dwarf

127: ellipticals.

128: 

129: There are some known limitations to the applicability of 

130: equation (\ref{eq:sersic}) to the very central regions of some galaxies. 

131: In particular, S\'ersic's law

132: fails to represent adequately the very central profiles of elliptical galaxies

133: with cores; the pointlike nuclei of some dE galaxies; and the steep power-law

134: density cusps observed in the inner few parsecs of nearby galaxies like M32

135: and the bulge of the Milky Way.  The origin of these features is not well

136: understood, but it is likely that they are the result of dynamical processes,

137: possibly involving single or multiple black holes, which act to modify the

138: pre-existing S\'ersic profile in the innermost regions

139: \citep{marel99,mm02,ravin02,graham04,merritt04,preto04}.

140: 

141: The density profiles of the {\it dark matter} halos formed in $N$-body

142: simulations of hierarchical clustering have traditionally been fit to a rather

143: different class of functions, essentially broken power laws

144: \citep{nfw96,nfw97,moore99}.  However, the most recent simulations

145: \citep{power03,reed04} suggest that halo density profiles are better

146: represented by a function with a continuously-varying slope.  \cite{paper3}

147: proposed the fitting function

148: \begin{equation}

149: {d\ln\rho/d\ln r}= -2\left({r/ r_{-2}}\right)^\alpha

150: \label{eq:drhodr}

151: \end{equation}

152: where $r_{-2}$ is the radius at which the logarithmic slope

153: of the {\it space} density is $-2$, 

154: and $\alpha$ is a parameter describing the degree of variation

155: of the slope.

156: The corresponding density profile is

157: \begin{equation}

158: \ln(\rho/\rho_{-2})= -{(2/\alpha)}\, (x^\alpha - 1)

159: \label{eq:alpha}

160: \end{equation}

161: with $x\equiv r/r_{-2}$.  Remarkably, this is precisely the same functional

162: form as equation (\ref{eq:sersic}) -- with the difference that Navarro et

163: al. fit equation (\ref{eq:alpha}) to the {\it space} density 

164: of dark matter halos, while

165: equation (\ref{eq:sersic}) applies to the {\it projected} densities of

166: galaxies.

167: 

168: Nevertheless the connection is intriguing and a number of questions spring to

169: mind.  Does the S\'ersic profile fit the surface density profiles of dark

170: matter halos as well as it fits galaxies?  We will show here (\S3) that the

171: answer is ``yes'': the same fitting function provides an equally good

172: description of the projected densities of both dark and luminous spheroids.

173: In \S4 we ask whether it is most appropriate to fit the S\'ersic law to the

174: space or projected densities of dark matter halos, and whether these functions

175: are better fits than other three-parameter functions.  \S5 contains some

176: speculations about why a single density law should describe dark and luminous

177: systems over such a wide range in mass.

178: 

179: \section{Method}

180: 

181: We constructed nonparametric estimates of the space and projected density

182: profiles of the 19 $\Lambda$CDM halo models in \cite{paper3}, and compared

183: them with a number of fitting functions, including the S\'ersic law, equation

184: (\ref{eq:sersic}); the deprojected S\'ersic law $\Sigma_d(r)$, defined as the

185: spherical density law whose spatial projection is $\Sigma(R)$; 

186: and a generalized,

187: three-parameter NFW (1996, 1997) profile, which may be expressed as

188: \begin{equation}

189: %\ln\rho = \ln\rho_s - \gamma\ln x - (3-\gamma)\ln (1+x)

190: d\ln{\rho}/d\ln{x} = -(\gamma+3x)/(1+x),

191: \label{eq:nfw}

192: \end{equation}

193: with $x=r/r_s$.  The NFW profile has $\gamma=1$ and $r_s=r_{-2}$; the

194: \cite{moore99} profile has a similar functional form with inner slope

195: $\gamma=1.5$.

196: 

197: Details of the numerical simulations are given in \cite{paper3}.  Four halos

198: are ``dwarf'' sized ($M\approx 10^{10}\msun$), seven are ``galaxy'' sized

199: ($M\approx 10^{12}\msun$), and eight are ``cluster'' sized ($M\approx

200: 10^{15}\msun$).  We adopt the notation of that paper ($D$= dwarf, $G$=galaxy,

201: $C$=cluster) in what follows.  

202: 

203: \begin{figure}

204: \includegraphics[angle=-90.,scale=0.6]{fig_sigma.ps}

205: \caption{(a) Nonparametric estimates of the surface density

206: profiles of the 19 halo models. 

207: Profiles of the $D$ ($C$) models have been shifted downward (upward)

208: by $0.75$ in the logarithm.

209: (b) Deviations of the best-fitting S\'ersic

210: model from $\hat\Sigma(R)$. 

211: Fitting parameters are given in Table 1.

212: }

213: \end{figure}

214: 

215: Nonparametric estimates of the space and projected density profiles,

216: $\hat\rho(r)$ and $\hat\Sigma(R)$, were constructed using the spherically

217: symmetrized kernels defined by \cite{mt94} (see e.g. \cite{reed04}, Appendix

218: A).  Each $N$-body point was replaced by a kernel of the form

219: \begin{eqnarray}

220: K_{\rho}(r,r_i,h_i)&=&{1\over 2(2\pi)^{3/2}}\left({rr_i\over h_i^2}\right)^{-1}

221: e^{-\left(r_i^2+r^2\right)/2h_i^2} \sinh\left(rr_i/h_i^2\right), \\

222: K_{\Sigma}(R,R_i,h_i)&=&{1\over 2\pi}e^{-\left(R_i^2+R^2\right)}I_0(RR_i/h_i^2)

223: \end{eqnarray}

224: with $h_i$ the width of the kernel associated with the $i$th particle and

225: $I_0$ the modified Bessel function.  The projected radii $R_i$ were obtained

226: from the $N$-body radii $r_i$ by assigning each particle a random position on

227: the sphere of radius $r_i$.  Density estimates were computed on a grid of 100

228: radial points spaced logarithmically from $r_{conv}$ to $r_{200}$

229: (these radii are defined below).  

230: We followed standard practice \citep{silverman86} and first computed a pilot

231: estimate of the density via a nearest-neighbor scheme, then allowed the $h_i$

232: to vary as a power $\delta$ of this pilot density.

233: 

234: When fitting one of the parametric functions defined above to $\hat\rho$ or

235: $\hat\Sigma$, we computed the density estimates on a grid in $(h_0,\delta)$

236: ($h_0$ is the geometric mean of the $h_i$) to see which choice of kernel

237: parameters minimized the residual of the fit; typically there was a broad

238: range of $(h_0,\delta)$ values over which the best-fit parameters and their

239: residuals were nearly constant.  The residual was defined as the rms over the

240: radial grid of $\log(\hat\rho_j/\rho(r_j))$ with $\hat\rho_j$ the density

241: estimate at grid point $r_j$ and $\rho$ the parametric fitting function; this

242: is identical to how most observers define the residual.  Below we state the

243: rms deviation between the ``measured'' profile and the best-fitting parametric

244: model in terms of magnitudes, denoted by $\Delta\mu$.

245: 

246: We followed the practice in \cite{paper3} of only constructing 

247: density estimates

248: in the radial range $r_{conv}\le r\le r_{200}$, where $r_{conv}$ is the radius

249: beyond which the halo mass distribution is considered robust to errors or

250: approximations associated with the simulations (particle softening, relaxation

251: etc.) and $r_{200}$ is the virial radius, i.e. the radius within which the

252: mean density contrast is $200$ times the critical density. Table 2 of

253: \cite{paper3} gives values of $r_{200}$ and $r_{conv}$ for all halo models.

254: 

255: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc|cccccc}

256: \tablewidth{0pt}

257: \tablecaption{Model fits to the halo density profiles.}

258: \tablehead{

259: \colhead{Halo} & \colhead{$\ \ \ \ \ \ \Sigma$}& & & & 

260: \colhead{$\ \ \ \ \rho$} 

261: & & & \\

262:  & \colhead{$n$} & \colhead{$\Delta\mu$}

263:  & \colhead{$n_d$} & \colhead{$\Delta\mu$} & \colhead{$n$}  

264:  & \colhead{$\Delta\mu$} & \colhead{$\gamma$} & \colhead{$\Delta\mu$}

265: }

266: \startdata

267: D1 & 3.04 & 0.043 & 3.47 & 0.047 & 5.58 & 0.054 & 1.34 & 0.071 \\

268: D2 & 2.63 & 0.043 & 2.89 & 0.024 & 4.47 & 0.029 & 0.89 & 0.088 \\

269: D3 & 3.91 & 0.018 & 4.19 & 0.041 & 6.94 & 0.039 & 1.51 & 0.041 \\

270: D4 & 2.84 & 0.067 & 3.33 & 0.059 & 5.26 & 0.065 & 1.23 & 0.090 \\

271: G1 & 2.94 & 0.030 & 3.17 & 0.036 & 5.38 & 0.038 & 1.23 & 0.047 \\

272: G2 & 3.21 & 0.055 & 3.47 & 0.056 & 5.63 & 0.052 & 1.25 & 0.072 \\ 

273: G3 & 2.87 & 0.050 & 3.44 & 0.042 & 5.98 & 0.049 & 1.33 & 0.047 \\

274: G4 & 3.30 & 0.040 & 3.70 & 0.022 & 6.13 & 0.015 & 1.36 & 0.027 \\

275: G5 & 2.95 & 0.047 & 3.03 & 0.077 & 4.91 & 0.064 & 1.03 & 0.054 \\

276: G6 & 2.93 & 0.063 & 3.57 & 0.059 & 6.10 & 0.069 & 1.39 & 0.064 \\ 

277: G7 & 2.82 & 0.051 & 3.09 & 0.087 & 5.04 & 0.097 & 1.22 & 0.110 \\

278: C1 & 2.49 & 0.062 & 3.36 & 0.048 & 6.36 & 0.046 & 1.26 & 0.059 \\

279: C2 & 2.41 & 0.028 & 2.68 & 0.047 & 4.65 & 0.040 & 1.06 & 0.048 \\

280: C3 & 2.50 & 0.031 & 2.92 & 0.026 & 5.02 & 0.031 & 1.18 & 0.029 \\

281: C4 & 2.19 & 0.064 & 3.11 & 0.101 & 5.72 & 0.111 & 1.29 & 0.091 \\

282: C5 & 2.53 & 0.041 & 2.61 & 0.092 & 4.33 & 0.077 & 0.91 & 0.066 \\

283: C6 & 2.16 & 0.044 & 2.62 & 0.050 & 4.49 & 0.065 & 1.10 & 0.064 \\

284: C7 & 2.79 & 0.047 & 3.99 & 0.040 & 7.44 & 0.042 & 1.41 & 0.038 \\

285: C8 & 1.99 & 0.069 & 2.62 & 0.083 & 4.67 & 0.095 & 1.13 & 0.087 \\

286: \enddata

287: \end{deluxetable}

288: 

289: \section{Dark Matter Halos as S\'ersic Models}

290: 

291: With few exceptions, modelling of the

292: luminosity profiles of galaxies is done in projected space.  We therefore

293: began by analyzing the surface density profiles of the dark halos.

294: Nonparametric estimates of $\Sigma(R)$ for the 19 halos are shown in Figure

295: 1a, and Figure 1b plots the deviations from the best-fitting S\'ersic model,

296: equation (\ref{eq:sersic}); Table 1 gives the best-fitting $n$ and

297: $\Delta\mu$.  The mean S\'ersic index is $3.11\pm 0.49$ ($D$), $3.00\pm 0.17$

298: ($G$), $2.38\pm 0.24$ ($C$), possibly indicating a (weak) trend toward

299: decreasing curvature (lower $n$) 

300: in the profiles of halos of increasing mass.  

301: 

302: The $\Delta\mu$ values average $0.043$ ($D$), $0.048$ ($G$), $0.048$ ($C$).

303: For comparison, \cite{caon93} find $\Delta\mu\approx 0.05$ in a sample of $45$

304: E and S0 galaxies, and \cite{trujillo04} find a mean $\Delta\mu$ of $0.09$ in

305: a sample of 12 elliptical galaxies without cores.  The radial range over which

306: luminous galaxies are fit varies from $\sim 1.5$ to $\sim 3.5$ decades,

307: comparable on average with the $\sim 2$ decades characterizing our dark-matter

308: halos.  While the noise properties are different for the two types of data,

309: the particle numbers in our halo models are small enough ($\sim 10^6$) to

310: contribute nonnegligibly to $\Delta\mu$.  We conclude that the S\'ersic law

311: fits dark halos as well as, and possibly even better than, it fits luminous

312: galaxies.

313: 

314: The residuals in Figure 1b appear to show some structure.

315: We will return in a future paper to the question of

316: whether a modification of the S\'ersic law might

317: reduce these residuals even further.

318: 

319: \begin{figure}

320: \includegraphics[angle=0.,scale=0.6]{fig_rho.ps}

321: \caption{(a) Nonparametric estimates of the space density

322: of the 19 dark halos. 

323: Vertical normalization is arbitrary.

324: (b-d) Deviations in magnitudes of three parametric models 

325: from $\hat\rho(r)$: (b) deprojected S\'ersic model;

326: (c) equation (\ref{eq:alpha});

327: (d) generalized NFW model, equation (\ref{eq:nfw}). 

328: Best-fit parameters are given in Table 1.

329: }

330: \end{figure}

331: 

332: \section{Which Function Fits the Space Density Best?}

333: 

334: \cite{paper3} showed that equation (\ref{eq:alpha}) provides a good fit to the

335: {\it spatial} density profiles of dark halos.  We showed above (\S3) that the

336: S\'ersic law (\ref{eq:sersic}) is a good fit to the {\it surface}

337: density profiles of dark halos.  An obvious inference is that a {\it

338: deprojected} S\'ersic law should provide a good fit to the space density.

339: Here we ask which function -- equation (\ref{eq:alpha}), 

340: or a deprojected S\'ersic law -- gives a better fit to $\rho(r)$.  

341: We also consider the quality of fit of

342: another three-parameter function, the generalized NFW profile presented in

343: equation (\ref{eq:nfw}).  

344: 

345: When fitting deprojected S\'ersic profiles to the dark halos, we define $n_d$

346: to be the S\'ersic index of the projected function; hence $n_d$ should be

347: close to the index $n$ derived when fitting a S\'ersic law to the surface

348: density (and the two would be equal if the halo's surface density were

349: precisely described by S\'ersic's law).  When reporting fits to $\rho(r)$ with

350: equation (\ref{eq:alpha}) we define $n\equiv \alpha^{-1}$, with $\alpha$ the

351: shape parameter of equation (\ref{eq:drhodr}).

352: 

353: The results are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1.  Mean values of $\Delta\mu$ for

354: the three fitting functions (deprojected S\'ersic, eq. (\ref{eq:alpha}), 

355: generalized NFW)

356: are ($0.043,0.047,0.073$) for the dwarf halos, ($0.054,0.055,0.060$) for the

357: galaxy halos, and ($0.061,0.063,0.060$) for the cluster halos.  Thus, the

358: two S\'ersic functions are almost indistinguishable in terms of their goodness

359: of fit: at least over the radial range available, a deprojected S\'ersic

360: profile with index $2.5\lap n_d\lap 3.5$ can be well approximated by a

361: S\'ersic profile with $n$ in the range $4.5\lap n \lap 7.5$.  Both functions

362: provide a significantly better fit to $\rho(r)$ than the generalized NFW

363: profile in the case of the dwarf halos, and the two S\'ersic functions perform

364: at least slightly better than NFW for the galaxy halos.  No single function is

365: preferred when fitting $\rho(r)$ for the cluster halos. 

366: \footnote[1]{Also of interest are the mean $\gamma$-values in the fits

367: to the generalized NFW profile.

368: We find $\langle\gamma\rangle=(1.24,1.26,1.17)$ for dwarf,

369: galaxy and cluster halos respectively.

370: We note that these are significantly shallower than the

371: steep inner slope ($\gamma=1.5$) proposed by Moore et al. (1999)

372: and, as discussed by Navarro et al. (2004), are best interpreted

373: as upper limits to the inner aymptotic behavior of the profile.}

374: 

375: \begin{figure}

376: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig_der.ps}

377: \caption{Nonparametric estimates of the logarithmic

378: derivative of the space density for the 19 halo models. 

379: }

380: \end{figure}

381: 

382: Another way to compare the halo density profiles with S\'ersic's law is via

383: the radial dependence of the slope.  Figure 3 shows nonparametric estimates of

384: the logarithmic slope, $d\log\rho/d\log r$, for the dark halos; slopes were

385: computed via direct differentiation of the kernel density estimates, using a

386: larger kernel width to compensate for the greater noise generated by the

387: differentiation.  Equation (\ref{eq:drhodr}) 

388: predicts a straight line on this plot.  

389: That is a reasonable description of Figure 3.  

390: The value of $d\log\rho/d\log r$ in the $G$ and $C$

391: halos reaches $\sim -1$ at the innermost radii, consistent with the asymptotic

392: power-law inner behavior of an NFW profile.  No obvious convergence to a

393: power law (constant logarithmic slope)

394: is seen in Figure 3, and it is likely that simulations of improved

395: resolultion may lead to even shallower slopes at smaller radii, as pointed out

396: by \cite{paper3}.

397: 

398: \begin{figure}

399: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig_mvsn.ps}

400: \caption{S\'ersic index (derived from fits to the surface density)

401: versus mass for galaxies (open circles) and dark halos.

402: Galaxy points are taken from \cite{bj98,stiavelli01,

403: gguzman03,caon93,dono94}.

404: Halo masses are $M_{200}$ from \cite{paper3}.

405: Galaxy masses were computed from total luminosities

406: assuming the Magorrian et al. (1998)

407: mass-to-light ratio, with $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.

408: }

409: \end{figure}

410: 

411: \section{What Does it Mean?}

412: 

413: Figure 4 shows S\'ersic's $n$ (derived from fits to the 

414: surface density) as a function of mass for our dark halos

415: and for a sample of early-type  galaxies.

416: There is overlap at $M\approx 10^{10}\msun$, 

417: the mass characteristic of ``dwarf'' halos

418: and giant ellipticals.

419: However the galaxies exihibit a much wider range

420: of $n$ values,

421: extending to $n<0.5$ in the case of dwarf ellipticals.

422: A natural interpretation is that $n$ is determined by 

423: the degree to which (dissipationless) merging has

424: dominated the evolution.

425: The nearly exponential ($n\approx 1$) profiles

426: of dE galaxies are similar to those of disk galaxies,

427: suggesting that dissipation played a critical

428: role in their formation.

429: Luminous ellipticals are the end products of

430: many mergers, the most recent of which

431: are likely to have been gas-poor,

432: and have de Vaucouleurs-like profiles ($n\approx 4$).

433: This view is supported by numerical

434: simulations (Scannapieco \& Tissera 2002;

435: Eliche-Moral et al. 2005) that show how

436: exponential profiles are converted into

437: de Vaucouleurs-like profiles via repeated

438: mergers.

439: 

440: A thornier question is: Why should a law

441: like S\'ersic's fit dark or luminous spheroids

442: in the first place?

443: S\'ersic's law with $2\lap n\lap 4$

444: has an energy distribution that

445: is roughly Boltzmann, $N(E)dE\sim e^{\beta E}dE$,

446: and it is sometimes loosely argued that this

447: ``maximum-entropy'' state is a result of the

448: mixing that accompanies violent relaxation or 

449: merging \citep{binney82,merritt89,ciotti91}.

450: With regard to dark halos, 

451: Taylor \& Navarro (2001) have shown that

452: the dependence of phase-space density on radius

453: is well approximated by a power law whose corresponding 

454: inner density profile has the shallowest slope.

455: This can again be interpreted as an indication

456: that the halos are well mixed.

457: While our study does not shed a great deal of

458: light on this question, it does suggest

459: that the scale-free property of S\'ersic's

460: law, $d\ln\rho/d\ln r \propto r^\alpha$,

461: is the feature that links dark and luminous 

462: spheroids and that this property may be a 

463: hallmark of systems that form via gravitational 

464: clustering.

465: 

466: We have shown that the fitting function that

467: best describes luminous galaxies, the S\'ersic

468: law, is an equally good fit to dark halos.

469: We have not shown that the S\'ersic law

470: is a good fit in an {\it absolute} sense to 

471: either sort of system.

472: But given that dark and luminous density profiles

473: are not pure power laws, a three-parameter law

474: like S\'ersic's is as parsimonious a description

475: as one can reasonably expect.

476: Future work should explore whether other, 

477: three-parameter fitting functions can describe

478: dark and/or luminous systems better than

479: S\'ersic's law.

480: 

481: We thank Alister Graham for making available the 

482: galaxy data in Figure 4 and for informative discussions.

483: DM was supported by grants

484: AST-0206031, AST-0420920 and AST-0437519 from the 

485: NSF and grant NNG04GJ48G from NASA.

486: JFN acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

487: 

488: \begin{thebibliography}{}

489: 

490: %\bibitem[Aguerri, Balcells \& Peletier(2001)]{abp01}

491: %  Aguerri, J. A. L., Balcells, M. \& Peletier, R. F. 2001,

492: %  A\&A, 367, 428

493: 

494: %\bibitem[Barnes(1988)]{barnes88}

495: %  Barnes, J. H. 1988,

496: %  ApJ, 331, 699

497: 

498: \bibitem[Binney(1982)]{binney82}

499:   Binney, J. J. 1982,

500:   MNRAS, 200, 951

501: 

502: \bibitem[Binggeli \& Jerjen(1998)]{bj98}

503:   Binggeli, B. \& Jerjen, H. 1998,

504:   A\&A, 333, 17

505: 

506: \bibitem[Caon, Capaccioli \& D'Onofrio(1993)]{caon93}

507:   Caon, N., Capaccioli, M. \& D'Onofrio, M. 1993,

508:   MNRAS, 265, 1013

509: 

510: \bibitem[Ciotti(1991)]{ciotti91}

511:   Ciotti, L. 1991,

512:   A\&A, 249, 99

513: 

514: \bibitem[Ciotti \& Bertin(1999)]{ciotti99}

515:   Ciotti, L. \& Bertin, G. 1999,

516:   A\&A, 352, 447

517: 

518: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs(1948)]{devauc48}

519:   de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948,

520:   Ann. Astrophys. 11, 247

521: 

522: \bibitem[D'Onofrio, Capaccioli \& Caon(1994)]{dono94}

523:   D'Onofrio, M., Capaccioli, M. \& Caon, N. 1994,

524:   MNRAS, 271, 523

525: 

526: \bibitem[Eliche-Moral et al.(2005)]{eliche05}

527:   Eliche-Moral, M. C., Balcells, M., Aguerri, J. A. L. \&

528:   Gonzalez-Garcia, A. C. 2005,

529:   astro-ph/0501376

530: 

531: %\bibitem[Faber et al.(1997)]{faber97}

532: %  Faber, S. M. et al. 1997,

533: %  AJ, 114, 1771

534: 

535: \bibitem[Graham(2001)]{graham01}

536:   Graham, A. W. 2001,

537:   AJ, 121, 820

538: 

539: \bibitem[Graham(2002)]{graham02}

540:   Graham, A. W. 2002,

541:   ApJ, 568, L13

542: 

543: \bibitem[Graham(2004)]{graham04}

544:   Graham, A. W. 2004,

545:   ApJ, 613L, 33

546: 

547: \bibitem[Graham et al.(2003)]{graham03}

548:   Graham, A. W., Erwin, P., Trujillo, I. \& Ramos, A. A. 2003,

549:   AJ, 125, 2951

550: 

551: \bibitem[Graham \& Guzman(2003)]{gguzman03}

552:   Graham, A. W. \& Guzm\'an, R. 2003,

553:   AJ, 125, 2936

554: 

555: %\bibitem[Hayashi et al.(2004)]{paper2}

556: %  Hayashi, E. et al. 2004,

557: %  MNRAS, 355, 794 (Paper II)

558: 

559: \bibitem[Magorrian et al.(1998)]{mag98}

560:   Magorrian, J. et al. 1998,

561:   AJ, 115, 2285

562: 

563: \bibitem[Merritt et al.(2004)]{merritt04}

564:   Merritt, D., Piatek, S., Portegies Zwart, S. \& Hemsendorf, M. 2004,

565:   ApJ, 608, L25

566: 

567: \bibitem[Merritt, Tremaine \& Johnstone(1989)]{merritt89}

568:   Merritt, D., Tremaine, S. \& Johnstone, D. 1989,

569:   MNRAS, 236, 829

570: 

571: \bibitem[Merritt \& Tremblay(1994)]{mt94}

572:   Merritt, D. \& Tremblay, B. 1994,

573:   AJ, 108, 514

574: 

575: \bibitem[Milosavljevic et al.(2002)]{mm02}

576:    Milosavljevic, M., Merritt, D., Rest, A. \& van den Bosch, 

577:    F. C. 2002,

578:    MNRAS, 331, L51

579: 

580: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{moore99}

581:   Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J. \& 

582:   Lake, G, 1999,

583:   MNRAS, 310, 1147

584: 

585: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White(1996)]{nfw96}

586:   Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S. \& White, S. D. M. 1996,

587:   ApJ, 462, 563

588: 

589: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White(1997)]{nfw97}

590:   Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S. \& White, S. D. M. 1997,

591:   ApJ, 490, 493

592: 

593: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(2004)]{paper3}

594:   Navarro, J. et al. 2004,

595:   MNRAS, 349, 1039.

596: 

597: \bibitem[Power et al.(2003)]{power03}

598:   Power, C. et al. 2003,

599:   MNRAS, 338, 14

600: 

601: \bibitem[Preto, Merritt \& Spurzem(2004)]{preto04}

602:   Preto, M., Merritt, D. \& Spurzem, R. 2004,

603:   ApJ, 613, L109

604: 

605: \bibitem[Ravindranath, Ho \& Filippenko(2002)]{ravin02}

606:   Ravindranath, S., Ho, L. C. \& Filippenko, A. V. 2002,

607:   ApJ, 566, 801

608: 

609: \bibitem[Reed et al.(2004)]{reed04}

610:   Reed, D. et al. 2004,

611:   MNRAS, 000, 735

612: 

613: \bibitem[Scannapieco \& Tissera(2003)]{scan03}

614:   Scannapieco, C. \& Tissera, P. B. 2003,

615:   MNRAS, 338, 880

616: 

617: \bibitem[S\'ersic(1968)]{sersic68}

618:   S\'ersic, J. L. 1968,

619:   Atlas  de Galaxies Australes 

620:   C\'ordoba: Obs. Astron., Univ. Nac. C\'ordoba)

621: 

622: \bibitem[Silverman(1986)]{silverman86}

623:   Silverman, B. W. 1986,

624:   Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis

625:   (New York: Chapman and Hall)

626: 

627: \bibitem[Stiavelli et al.(2001)]{stiavelli01}

628:   Stiavelli, M. Miller, B. W., Ferguson, H. C., Mack, J., 

629:   Whitmore, B. C. \& Lotz, J. M. 2001,

630:   AJ, 121, 1385

631: 

632: \bibitem[Taylor \& Navarro(2001)]{taylor01}

633:   Taylor, J. E. \& Navarro, J. F. 2001,

634:   ApJ, 563, 483

635: 

636: \bibitem[Trujillo et al.(2004)]{trujillo04}

637:   Trujillo, I., Erwin, P., Ramos, A. A. \& Graham, A. W. 2004,

638:   AJ 127, 1917

639: 

640: %\bibitem[van Albada(1982)]{albada82}

641: %  van Albada, T. S. 1982,

642: %  MNRAS, 201, 939

643: 

644: \bibitem[van der Marel(1999)]{marel99}

645:   van der Marel, R. 1999,

646:   AJ, 117, 744

647: 

648: \end{thebibliography}

649: 

650: \end{document}

651: